Quality Assurance 

Handbook for Air 

Pollution Measurement 

Systems 

Volume II 

Ambient Air Quality 

Monitoring Program 

 
 Page Intentionally Left Blank 
EPA-454/B-13-003 

May, 2013 

QA Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems 

Volume II 

Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Air Quality Assessment Division 

RTP, NC 27711
QA Handbook Volume II May, 2013 

iv 

Contents

Section Page Revision Date

Contents iv 0 05/13

Figures vi 0 05/13

Tables vii 0 

Acknowledgments viii 0 05/13

Acronyms and Abbreviations ix 0 05/13

0. Introduction 

 0.1 Intent of the Handbook 

 0.2 Use of Terms Shall, Must, Should, May 

 0.3 Use of Footnotes 

 0.4 Handbook Review and Distribution 

1/3 

2/3 

2/3 

2/3 

0 05/13

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

1. Program Background 

1.1 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network 

1.2 The EPA Quality System Requirements 

1.3 The Ambient Air Monitoring Program Quality System 

1/11 

6/11 

8/11 

0 05/13

2. Program Organization 

 2.1 Organization Responsibilities 

 2.2 Lines of Communication 

 2.3 Quality Assurance Workgroups 

1/8 

6/8 

7/8 

0 05/13

3. Data Quality Objectives 

 3.1 The DQO Process 

 3.2 Ambient Air Quality DQOs 

 3.2 Measurement Quality Objectives 

3/6 

4/6 

5/6 

0 05/13

4. Personnel Qualification and Training 

 4.1 Personnel Qualifications 

 4.2 Training 

1/3 

2/3 

0 05/13

5. Documentation and Records 

 5.1 Management and Organization 

 5.2 Site Information 

 5.3 Environmental Data Operations 

 5.4 Raw Data 

 5.5 Data Reporting 

 5.6 Data Management 

 5.7 Quality Assurance 

2/8 

2/8 

3/8 

7/8 

7/8 

8/8 

8/8 

0 05/13

MEASUREMENT ACQUISITION

6. Monitoring Network Design 

 6.1 Monitoring Objectives and Spatial Scales 

 6.2 Monitoring Site Location 

 6.3 Minimum Network Requirements 

 6.5 Operating Schedules 

5/16 

7/16 

13/16 

16/16 

0 05/13

7. Sampling Methods 

 7.1 Monitor Placement 

 7.2 Environmental Control 

 7.3 Sampling Probes and Manifolds 

1/16 

2/16 

5/16 

0 05/13

 7.4 Reference/Equivalent and Approved Regional Methods 12/16 

8. Sample Handling and Custody 

 8.1 Sample Handling 

 8.2 Chain of Custody 

2/7 

5/7 

0 05/13

9. Analytical Methods 

 9.1 Good Laboratory Practices 

 9.2 Laboratory Activities 

2/3 

3/3 

05/13
QA Handbook Volume II May, 2013 

v 

Section Page Revision Date

10. Quality Control 

 10.1 The Quality Control Process 

 10.2 QC Activity Areas 

 10.3 Internal vs. External Quality Control 

 10.4 CFR Related Quality Control Samples 

 10.5 Use of Computers for Quality Control 

1/12 

 3/12 

4/12 

7/12 

11/12 

0 05/13

11. Instrument/Equipment Testing, Inspection, and Maintenance 

 11.1 Instrumentation 

 11.2 Preventative Maintenance 

1/7 

4/7 

0 05/13

12. Calibration 

 12.1 Calibration Standards and Reagents 

 12.2 Multi-point Verifications/Calibrations 

 12.3 Frequency of Calibration and Analyzer Adjustment 

 12.4 Adjustment to Analyzers 

 12.5 Data Reduction using Calibration Information 

 12.6 Validation of Ambient Data 

3/10 

6/10 

8/10 

8/10 

10/10 

10/10 

0 05/13

13 Inspection/Acceptance for Supplies and Consumables 

 13.1 Supplies Management 

 13.2 Standards and Reagents 

 13.3 Volumetric Glassware 

 13.4 Sample Containers 

 13.5 Particulate Sampling Filters 

 13.6 Field Supplies 

1/4 

2/4 

2/4 

3/4 

3/4 

4/4 

0 05/13

14. Data Acquisition and Management 

 14.1 Data Acquisition 

 14.2 Data Transfer-Public Reporting 

 14.3 Data Transfer-Reporting to External Data Bases 

 14.4 Data Management 

3/15 

8/15 

10/15 

15/15 

0 05/13

ASSESSMENT/OVERSIGHT

15. Assessment and Corrective Action 

 15.1 Network Reviews 

 15.2 Performance Evaluations 

 15.3 Technical Systems Audits 

 15.4 Data Quality Assessments 

1/14 

4/14 

9/14 

14/14 

0 05/13

16. Reports to Management 

16.1 Guidelines for Preparation of Reports to Management 2/4 

0 05/13

DATA VALIDATION AND USABILITY

17. Data Review, Verification, Validation

 17.1 Data Review Methods 

 17.2 Data Verification Methods 

 17.3 Data Validation Methods 

3/10 

5/10 

5/10 

0 05/13

18. Reconciliation with Data Quality Objectives 

 18.1 Five Steps of the DQA Process 2/11 

0 05/13

APPENDICES 

A. National Monitoring Program Fact Sheets 

B: Ambient Air Monitoring QA Information and Web Addresses 

C: Using the Graded Approach for the Development of QMPs and 

QAPPs 

D: Measurement Quality Objectives and Validation Templates 

E: Characteristics of Spatial Scales Related to Each Pollutant 

F: Sample Manifold Design for Precursor Gas Monitoring 

G: Example Procedure for Calibrating Data Acquisition System 

H: Audit Information 

I: Example of Reports to Management 

11 

4 

7 

48 

9 

13 

3 

48 

25 

0 05/13

 
QA Handbook Volume II May, 2013 

vi 

Figures

Number Title Section/Page

1.1 Ambient air quality monitoring process 1/1 

1.2 Hierarchy of quality system development 1/6 

1.3 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring QA Program 1/8 

2.1 Program organization and lines of communication 2/1 

2.2 Relationship of monitored pollutants to site, monitoring organizations and 

primary quality assurance organizations 

2/4 

3.1 Effect of positive bias on the annual average estimate resulting in a false 

rejection error 

3/1 

3.2 Effect of negative bias on the annual average estimate resulting in a false 

acceptance error 

3/1 

6.1 Wind rose pattern 6/9 

6.2 Sampling schedule based on ratio to the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS 6/14 

7.1 Example design for shelter 7/3 

7.2 Individual ample line design for air monitoring 7/5 

7.3 Views of sampling inlets 7/6 

7.4 Position of calibration line in sampling manifold 7/7 

7.5 Acceptable areas for PM10 and PM2.5 micro, middle, neighborhood, and 

urban samplers except for microscale canyon sites 

7/9 

7.6 Optical mounting platform 7/10 

7.7 Examples of contaminated tubing and manifolds needing more frequent 

maintenance 

7/11 

8.1 Example sample label 8/3 

8.2 Example field COC form 8/6 

8.3 Example laboratory COC form 8/7 

10.1 QC samples for PM2.5 placed at various stages of measurement process 10/2 

10.2 Historical example of calibration, span and 1 point QC 10/9 

10.3 An example approach for selecting QC check ranges 10/10 

10.4 Control chart example 10/11 

12.1 DASC Calibration Tool 12/7 

14.1 DAS data flow 14/3 

14.2 Flow of data from gas analyzers to final reporting 14/4 

15.1 Definition of independent assessment 15/7 

15.2 Pre-Audit activities 15/9 

15.3 On-Site audit activities 15/11 

15.4 Audit finding form 15/12 

15.5 Post-audit activities 15/12 

15.6 Audit response form 15/13 

18.1 DQA in the context of data life cycle 18/2 

18.2 Example DASC Tool 18/10 

18.3 Example Box and Whisker Plot 18/11 
QA Handbook Volume II May, 2013 

vii 

Tables

Number Title Section/Page

4-1 Monitoring Functions the Need Some Level of Staffing or Expertise 4/1 

4-2 Suggested Sequence of Core QA Related Ambient Air Training Courses ... 4/3 

5-1 Types of Information the Should be Retained Through Document Control 5/1 

6-1 Relationship Among Monitoring Objectives and Scale of Representativeness 6/6 

6-2 Summary of Spatial Scales for SLAMS, NCore, PAMS, and Open Path Sites 6/6 

6-3 Relationships of Topography, Air Flow, and Monitoring Site Selection 6/10 

6-4 Site Descriptions of PAMS Monitoring Sites 6/11 

6-5 Completeness Goals for Ambient Monitoring Data 6/15 

7-1 Monitoring Station Categories Relating to Sample Site Placement 7/2 

7-2 Environment Control Parameters 7/4 

7-3 Summary of Probe and Monitoring Path Siting Criteria 7/8 

7-4 Minimum Separation Distance between Road and Sampling Probes... 7/9 

7-5 Performance Specifications for Automated Methods 7/14 

9-1 Acceptable Analytical Methods 9/1 

10-1 QC Samples Used in Various Ambient Air Monitoring Programs 10/5 

10-2 PM2.5 Field and Lab QC Checks 10/6 

10-3 Ambient Air Monitoring Measurement Quality Samples 10/7 

11-1 Routine Operation Checks 11/6 

12-1 Instrumentation and Devices Requiring Calibration and Certifications 12/6 

14-1 AQS Data Reporting Requirements 14/11 

14-2 AQS Agency Roles 14/12 

14-3 NCore Information Technology Performance Needs 14/14 

15-1 National Performance Evaluation Activities Performed by EPA 15/5 

15-2 Suggested Elements of an Audit Plan 15/10 

16-1 Types of QA Reports to Management 16/2 

16-2 Sources of Information for Preparing Reports to Management 16/2 

16-3 Presentation Methods for Use in Reports to Management 16/3 

18-1 Summary of Violations of DQO Assumptions 18/6 

18-2 Weights for Estimating Three-Year Bias and Precision 18/6 

18-3 Summary of Bias and Precision 18/9 

 
QA Handbook Volume II May, 2013 

viii 

Acknowledgments

This QA Hand Book is the product of the combined efforts of the EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, the EPA Regional Offices, and the State, Tribal and Local monitoring organizations. The 

development and review of the material found in this document was accomplished through the activities 

of the QA Strategy Workgroup. The following individuals are acknowledged for their contributions. 

State, Tribal and Local Organizations

Amanda Hughes, Andy Clifton, Andy Johnson, Anna Kelley, Arun Roychowdhury, Barb Regynski, Ben 

Davis, Bradley Webber, Brian Lee, Bryan Paris, Charles Pearson, Ceresa Stewart, Cindy Wike, Clyde 

Sharp, David Johnson, Dennis Fenlon, Don Gourley, Donovan Rafferty, Edwin Gluth, Erik Saganic, 

Glenn Gehring, Hien Tran, Hugh Tom, Jim Conner, Joseph Ugorowski , James Jordan, Jeff Wasson 

,Jeremy Hardin, Jason Low, John Haus, Joette Steger, Kirit Dalal, Ken Cowen, Kent Curtis, Kevin 

Watts, Leonard Marine, Larry Taylor, Leroy Williams, Merrin Wright, Mary Kay M. Clark, Melinda 

Ronca-Battista, Melvin Schuchardt, Mickey Palmer, Mike Draper, Mike Hamdan, Nathan Stroup, Nydia 

Burdick, Patti DeLaCruz, Paul Lang, Paul Sanborn, Rayna Broadway, Richard Heffern, Ritchie Scott , 

Robert Franicevich, Robert Olson, Ryan Callison, Scott Reynolds, Stephanie McCarthy, Stephen Hall, 

Steve Miller, Susan Kilmer, Susan Selby, Tammy Eagan, Tom Koehler, Thomas McGrath, Tyler 

Muxworthy, Sandra Wardwell, Will Wetherell, Yousaf Hameed 

EPA Regions

 

 Region 

 1 Chris St.Germain, Mary Jane Cuzzupe, Peter Kahn, Robert Judge 

 2 Avraham Teitz, Mark Winter, Mustafa Mustafa, 

 3 Kia Hence, Loretta Hyden 

 4 Danny France, Doug Jager, Richard Guillot 

 5 Anthony Ross, Bilal Qazzaz, Basim Dihu, Scott Hamilton, 

 6 Trisha Curran, Kara Allen, John Lay 

 7 James Regehr, Leland Grooms, Michael Davis, Thien Bui 

 8 Joe Delwiche, Michael Copeland, Richard Payton 

 9 Elfego Felix, Katherine Hoag, Gwen Yoshimura, Mathew Plate, Michael Flagg, Meredith 

Kurpius, Roseanne Sakamoto, 

 10 Chris Hall 

Office of Radiation and Indoor Air 

Montgomery, AL - Eric Boswell, Jewell Smiley, Steve Taylor 

Las Vegas, NV - Emilio Braganza, Jeff Lantz 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Dennis Mikel, Dennis Crumpler, Greg Noah, Joann Rice, Jonathan Miller, Lewis Weinstock, Mark 

Shanis, Solomon Ricks, Tim Hanley, Joseph Elkins 
QA Handbook Volume II May, 2013 

ix 

Acronyms and Abbreviations 

AAMG Ambient Air Monitoring Group 

APTI Air Pollution Training Institute 

ADQ audit of data quality 

AMTIC Ambient Monitoring Technical Information Center 

ANSI American National Standards Institute 

AQAD Air Quality Assessment Division 

AQI Air Quality Index 

AQS Air Quality System 

ARM approved regional method 

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials 

ASQ American Society for Quality 

AWMA Air and Waste Management Association 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CL confidence limit 

CBSA core-based statistical area 

CMSA combined metropolitan statistical area 

CMZ community monitoring zone 

COC chain of custody 

CPU central processing unit 

CSA combined statistical area 

CSN PM2.5 Chemical Speciation Network 

CRM certified reference material 

CV coefficient of variation 

DAS data acquisition system 

DASC Data Assessment Statistical Calculator 

DC direct current 

DQA data quality assessment 

DOP digital aerosol photometer 

DQI data quality indicators 

DQOs data quality objectives 

EDO environmental data operation 

EDERF energy dispersive x-ray flouresence 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

FEM federal equivalent method 

FR flow rate 

FRM federal reference method 

FTIR fourier transform infrared (spectroscopy) 

GC/MS gas chromatography mass spectrometry 

GIS geographical information systems 

GLP good laboratory practice 

GMIS gas manufactures internal standards 

HAP hazardous air pollutants 

HC hydrocarbon 

HPLC high performance liquid chromatography 

HVAC heating, ventilating and air conditioning 

ICP inductively coupled plasma 

IMPROVE Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments 

IT information technology 

LDL lower detectable limit 

LIMS` laboratory information management systems 

MDL method detection limit 

MFC mass flow control 
QA Handbook Volume II May, 2013 

x 

Acronyms and Abbreviations (Continued) 

MPA monitoring planning area 

MQAG Monitoring and Quality Assurance Group 

MQOs measurement quality objectives 

MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NACAA National Association of Clean Air Agencies 

NATTS National Air Toxics Trends Sites 

NECTA New England city and town area 

NEIC National Enforcement Investigations Center 

NTAA National Tribal Air Association 

NTEC National Tribal Environmental Council 

NCore National Core Network 

NERL National Environmental Research Laboratory 

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology 

NF National Formulary 

NPS National Park Service 

NPAP National Performance Audit Program 

NPEP National Performance Evaluation Program 

NOAA National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration 

NTRM NIST traceable reference material 

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

ORD Office of Research and Development 

ORIA Office of Radiation and Indoor Air 

P&A precision and accuracy 

PAMS Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations 

PDFID Cryogenic Preconcentration and Direct Flame Ionization Detection 

PC personal computer 

PE performance evaluation 

PEP PM2.5 Performance Evaluation Program 

PBMS performance based measurement system 

ppb part per billion 

ppm part per million 

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

PQAO primary quality assurance organization 

PT proficiency test 

PWD primary wind direction 

QA quality assurance 

QA/QC quality assurance/quality control 

QAARWP quality assurance annual report and work plan 

QAD EPA Quality Assurance Division 

QAM quality assurance manager 

QAO quality assurance officer 

QAPP quality assurance project plan 

QMP quality management plan 

RPO regional planning organization 

RSD relative standard deviation 

SD standard deviation 

SIPS State Implementation Plans 

SLAMS state and local monitoring stations 

SOP standard operating procedure 

SPMS special purpose monitoring stations 

SRM standard reference material 

SRP standard reference photometer 
QA Handbook Volume II May, 2013 

xi 

Acronyms and Abbreviations (Continued) 

TAD technical assistance document 

TEOM tapered element oscillating microbalance 

TIP tribal implementation plan 

TSA technical system audit 

TSP total suspended particulate 

TTL transistor-transistor logic 

USB universal serial bus 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

UTM universal transverse Mercator 

USP US Pharmacopeial 

VAC volts of alternating current 

VOC volatile organic carbon 
QA Handbook Vol II, Introduction 

Revision 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 1 of 3 

0. Introduction

0.1 Intent of the Handbook

This document is Volume II of a five-volume quality assurance (QA) handbook series dedicated to air 

pollution measurement systems. Volume II is dedicated to the Ambient Air Quality Surveillance 

Program and the data collection activities inherent to that program. This guidance is part of a quality 

management system designed to ensure that the Ambient Air Quality Surveillance Program: (1) provides 

data of sufficient quality to meet the program’s objectives, and (2) is implemented consistently across 

the Nation. 

The purpose of the Handbook is twofold. First, it provides additional information and guidance on the 

material covered in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) pertaining to the Ambient Air Quality 

Surveillance Program. Second, the document is intended to assist technical personnel at tribal, state and 

local monitoring organizations1

 develop and implement a quality system for the Ambient Air Quality 

Surveillance Program. A quality system, as defined by The American National Standard-Specifications 

and Guidelines for Quality Systems for Environmental Data Collection and Environmental Technology 

Programs(ANSI/ASQ E4), 2 is: 

 “a structured and documented management system describing the policies, objectives, 

principles, organizational authority, responsibilities, accountability, and implementation plan 

of an organization for ensuring the quality in its work processes, products, and services. 

The quality system provides the framework for planning, implementing, and assessing the 

work performed by the organization and for carrying out required quality assurance (QA) 

and quality control (QC) activities”. 

A monitoring organization’s quality system for the Ambient Air Quality Surveillance Program is 

described in its quality assurance project plan (QAPP). Therefore, the Handbook has been written in a 

style similar to a QA project plan as specified in the document EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance 

Project Plans for Environmental Data Operations (EPA QA/R5) 3

. Environmental data operations 

(EDO) refer to the work performed to obtain, use, or report information pertaining to natural 

surroundings and conditions. The information in this Handbook can be used as guidance in the 

development of detailed monitoring organization QAPPs. 

NOTE: In 2013, while this document was being published, EPA was promulgating a new Data 

Quality Standard. The new Quality Standard replaces QA/R-5 in its entirety with newer 

guidance. OAQPS will develop any additional guidance necessary to ensure ambient air 

monitoring quality systems conform to the new guidance when it is published. 

Earlier versions of the Handbook focused on the six criteria pollutants monitored at the State and Local 

Ambient Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) and National Ambient Monitoring Stations (NAMS). In 2006, 

the term “NAMS” was discontinued and a new national monitoring concept-the National Ambient Air 

 

1

 Monitoring organization will be used throughout the handbook to identify any tribal, state or local organization 

that is implementing an ambient air monitoring program, especially if they are using the data for comparison to the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). 2 http://webstore.ansi.org/RecordDetail.aspx?sku=ANSI%2fASQ+E4-2004 3 http://www.epa.gov/quality1/qa_docs.html 
QA Handbook Vol II, Introduction 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 2 of 3 

Monitoring Strategy- was adopted. Although the focus will remain on the criteria pollutants, this edition 

is expanded to cover quality assurance guidance for: 

 Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS); 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/pamsmain.html; 

 Open path monitoring ( http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/longpath.html ); 

 PM2.5 Chemical Speciation Network (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/speciepg.html); 

 National Air Toxics Trends Network (NATTS) http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/airtoxpg.html; and 

 NCore Network (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/ncore/index.html) 

Due to the dynamic nature of the monitoring networks this Handbook does not supplant the detailed 

guidance provided by the programs listed above but provides general information and pointers, in the 

form of hyperlinks, where one can go for more detailed information. 

0.2 Use of the Terms Shall, Must, Should and May 

The intent of this handbook is to provide additional guidance on the ambient air monitoring requirements 

found in the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR Parts 50, 53 and 58. In order to distinguish requirements from 

guidance, the following terms will be used with consistency. 

 shall, must- when the element is a requirement in 40 CFR and the Clean Air Act

 should- when the element is recommended. This term is used when extensive experience in 

monitoring provides a recommended procedure that would help establish or improve 

the quality of data or a procedure. The process that includes the term is not required. 

 may- when the element is optional or discretionary. The term also indicates that what is 

suggested may improve data quality, that it is important to consider, but it is not as 

important as those that have been suggested using the term “should”.

NOTE: The material in the Handbook can only reflect the regulation and guidance up to 

the date the Handbook was published. Regulations that change after Handbook publication 

cannot be reflected in this document. Therefore the reader is cautioned to review current 

regulations when using any guidance in this document. 

0.3 Use of Footnotes 

This document will make extensive use of internet links that will provide the user with access to more 

detailed information on a particular subject. Due to the limitations of Adobe, full URL addresses must be 

provided in order for the links to work. Rather than clutter the body of the document with long URL 

addresses, footnotes will be used to direct the interested reader to the correct link. 

0.4 Handbook Review and Distribution

The information in this Handbook was revised and/or developed by many of the organizations 

responsible for implementing the Ambient Air Quality Surveillance Program (see Acknowledgments). It 

has been peer-reviewed and accepted by these organizations and serves to promote consistency among 
Part I, Introduction 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 3 of 3 

the organizations collecting and reporting ambient air data. This Handbook is accessible as a PDF file 

on the Internet under the AMTIC Homepage: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/qalist.html 

Recommendations for modifications or revisions are always welcome. Comments should be sent to the 

appropriate Regional Office Ambient Air Monitoring QA Contact. The QA Handbook Revision 

Workgroup will meet twice a year to discuss any pertinent issues and proposed changes.
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 1.0 

Revision 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 1 of 11 

1.0 Program Background

1.1 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network 

The purpose of this section is to 

describe the general concepts for 

establishing the Ambient Air 

Quality Monitoring Network. The 

majority of this material, as well as 

additional details, can be found in 

the Clean Air Act (CAA)1

, 40 CFR 

Parts 50, 53 and 582

, and their 

references.

Between the years 1900 and 1970, 

the emission of six principal 

pollutants increased significantly. 

The principal pollutants, also called 

criteria pollutants are: particulate 

matter (PM10 and PM2.5), sulfur 

dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen 

dioxide, ozone, and lead. In 1970 

the CAA was signed into law. The 

CAA and its amendments provide 

the framework for all pertinent 

organizations to protect air quality. 

40 CFR Part 58, Appendix D 

requires that monitoring networks 

be designed for three basic 

monitoring objectives: 

 to provide air pollution data to the general public in a timely manner 

 to support compliance with ambient air quality standards (primary and secondary) and emission 

strategy development 

 to support air pollution research studies 

In addition, these monitoring networks can also be developed: 

 to activate emergency control procedures that prevent or alleviate air pollution episodes 

 to observe pollution trends throughout the region, including non-urban areas 

To meet these basic needs, the monitoring network may require monitoring sites be located to: 

 Determine the highest concentration expected to occur in the area covered by the network. 

 Measure typical concentrations in areas of high population density. 

 

1 http://epa.gov/air/caa/ 2 http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 1.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 2 of 11 

 Determine the impact of significant sources or source categories on air quality. 

 Determine background concentration levels. 

 Determine the extent of regional pollutant transport among populated areas; and in support of 

secondary standards. 

 Measure air pollution impacts on visibility, vegetation damage, or welfare-based impacts. 

These “site types” will be used during the development of data quality objectives (Section 3). As one 

reviews the site types, it becomes apparent that it will be rare that individual sites can be located to meet 

more than two or three types of measurements. Therefore, monitoring organizations need to choose the 

sites that are most representative of its priority objective(s). 

Through the process of implementing the CAA, seven major categories of monitoring stations or 

networks that measure the air pollutants have been developed. These networks are described below. In 

addition, a fact sheet on each network (with the exception of SPMs) can be found in Appendix A.

State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) including Tribal Monitoring Stations

The SLAMS consist of a network of monitoring stations whose size and distribution is largely determined 

by the monitoring requirements for NAAQS comparison and the needs of monitoring organizations to 

meet their respective tribal/state implementation plan (TIP/SIP) requirements. The TIP/SIPs provide for 

the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS) in each air quality control region within a tribe/state. The Handbook is largely devoted to 

guidance related to the SLAMS network. SLAMS exclude special purpose monitor (SPM) stations and 

include NCore, PAMS, and all other State or locally operated stations that have not been designated as 

SPM stations. 

Special Purpose Monitoring Stations (SPMs)3

An SPM station means a monitor included in a monitoring organization’s network has been designated as 

a special purpose monitor station in its monitoring network plan and in the Air Quality System (AQS) 

which the agency does not count when showing compliance with the minimum SLAMS monitoring 

requirements. SPMs: 

 provide for special studies needed by the monitoring organizations to support TIPs/SIPs and other 

air program activities 

 are not permanently established and can be adjusted to accommodate changing needs and 

priorities 

 are used to supplement the fixed monitoring network as circumstances require and resources 

permit 

 data must meet all QA, siting and methodology requirements for SLAMS monitoring, if the data 

from SPMs is to be used for SIP purposes. 

Any SPM data collected by an air monitoring agency using a Federal reference method (FRM), Federal 

equivalent method (FEM), or approved regional method (ARM) must meet these requirements: 

 40 CFR Part 58.11, 58.12, and 

 

3 40 CFR Part 58.20
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 1.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 3 of 11 

 the QA requirements in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix A or an approved alternative to Appendix A to 

this part, 

 requirements of 40 CFR Part 58.16; for submitting the data collected to AQS, and 

 submission of an indication to AQS by the monitoring agency that the SPM reporting data to 

AQS meets the requirements of Appendices A and E. 

40 CFR Part 58.20 provides additional details on the requirements of the SPM and it’s the use of SPM 

data. 

All data from an SPM using an FRM, FEM, or ARM which has operated for more than 24 months is 

eligible for comparison to the relevant NAAQS, subject to the conditions of § 58.30, unless the air 

monitoring agency demonstrates that the data came from a particular period during which the 

requirements of appendix A, appendix C, or appendix E to this part were not met in practice. 

If an SPM using an FRM, FEM, or ARM is discontinued within 24 months of start-up, the Administrator 

will not base a NAAQS violation determination for the PM2.5 or ozone NAAQS solely on data from the 

SPM. 

If an SPM using an FRM, FEM, or ARM is discontinued within 24 months of start-up, the Administrator 

will not designate an area as nonattainment for the CO, SO2 , NO2 , or 24-hour PM10 NAAQS solely on 

the basis of data from the SPM. Such data are eligible for use in determinations of whether a 

nonattainment area has attained one of these NAAQS. 

Prior approval from EPA is not required for discontinuance of an SPM. 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Monitoring4 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) applies to new major sources or major modifications at 

existing sources for pollutants where the area the source is located is in attainment or unclassifiable with 

the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). It requires the following: 

1. installation of the "Best Available Control Technology (BACT)"; 

2. an air quality analysis; 

3. an additional impacts analysis; and 

4. public involvement. 

Class I areas are areas of special national or regional natural, scenic, recreational, or historic value for 

which the PSD regulations provide special protection. 

The main purpose of the air quality analysis is to demonstrate that new emissions emitted from a 

proposed major stationary source or major modification, in conjunction with other applicable emissions 

increases and decreases from existing sources, will not cause or contribute to a violation of any applicable 

NAAQS or PSD increment. 

Generally, the analysis will involve (1) an assessment of existing air quality, which may include ambient 

monitoring data and air quality dispersion modeling results, and (2) predictions, using dispersion 

modeling, of ambient concentrations that will result from the applicant's proposed project and future 

growth associated with the project. In some cases it may also require ambient air monitoring. 

 

4 http://www.epa.gov/NSR/psd.html 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 1.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 4 of 11 

The QA requirements for monitoring criteria pollutants at PSD sites are very similar to the QA 

requirements for monitoring sites used for NAAQS compliance. In 2006 EPA combined the Ambient Air 

QA Requirements in Appendix A with the PSD QA requirements in Appendix B into Appendix A. 

This Handbook is not intended to provide any overall guidance on the PSD program. However, as 

information is relayed on the ambient air CFR QA requirements, the Handbook will distinguish any 

differences in the QA requirements between the PSD and ambient air programs. In addition, in 2013 EPA 

develop some additional guidance related to the PSD quality system5

PM2.5 Chemical Speciation Network (CSN)6

As part of the effort to monitor particulate matter, EPA monitors and gathers data on the chemical 

makeup of these particles. EPA established a chemical speciation network consisting of approximately 

300 monitoring sites. These sites are placed at various SLAMS across the Nation. A portion of these 

CSN sites will be used to determine, over a period of several years, trends in concentration levels of 

selected ions, metals, carbon species, and organic compounds in PM2.5. Further breakdown on the 

location or placement of the trends sites requires that approximately 20 of the monitoring sites be placed 

at existing Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS). The placement of the remaining 

trends sites will be coordinated by EPA, the regional offices, and the monitoring organizations. Locations 

will be primarily in or near larger Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs). The remaining chemical 

speciation sites will be used to enhance the required trends network and to provide information for 

developing effective TIPs/SIPs. 

Although the CSN is intended to complement the SLAMS activities, CSN data will not be used to make 

decisions about the attainment or nonattainment of the NAAQS and so PM2.5 mass derived from CSN 

monitors do not count towards meeting minimum PM2.5 monitoring network requirements. The 

programmatic objectives of the CSN network are: 

 annual and seasonal spatial characterization of aerosols; 

 air quality trends analysis and tracking the progress of control programs; 

 comparing, aggregating and evaluating the chemical speciation data set to the data collected from 

the IMPROVE network; and 

 development of emission control strategies. 

Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS)7

Section 182(c)(1) of the 1990 CAA required the Administrator to promulgate rules for the enhanced 

monitoring of ozone, oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and volatile organic compounds (VOC) to obtain more 

comprehensive and representative data on ozone air pollution. Immediately following the promulgation of 

such rules, the affected states/tribes were to commence such actions as were necessary to adopt and 

implement a program to improve ambient monitoring activities and the monitoring of emissions of NOx 

and VOC. Each TIP/SIP for the affected areas must contain measures to implement the ambient 

monitoring of such air pollutants. The subsequent revisions to 40 CFR 58 required states to establish 

Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS) as part of their SIP monitoring networks in 

ozone nonattainment areas classified as serious, severe, or extreme. 

 

5 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/PSDAppAQATechNote14dec12.pdf 6 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/speciepg.html 7 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/pamsmain.html 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 1.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 5 of 11 

PAMS will provide an air quality database that will assist air pollution control agencies in evaluating, 

tracking the progress of, and, if necessary, refining control strategies for attaining the ozone NAAQS. 

Ambient concentrations of ozone and ozone precursors will be used to: 

 make attainment/nonattainment decisions 

 aid in tracking VOC and NOx emission inventory reductions 

 better characterize the nature and extent of the ozone problem

 evaluate air quality trends 

 provide an improved database for evaluating photochemical model performance, especially for 

future control strategy mid-course corrections as part of the continuing air quality management 

process. 

 to ensure the implementation of the most cost-effective regulatory controls. 

NOTE: As of the publication date of this Handbook, the PAMS Program was undergoing a 

review with possible revisions to the implementation of the program. Those interested in 

more current guidance on the PAMS program should visit the AMTIC website for more upto-date information. 

National Air Toxic Trends Stations (NATTS)8

There are currently 188 hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) or Air Toxics (AT) regulated under the 

CAA. These pollutants have been associated with a wide variety of adverse health and ecosystem effects. 

In 1999, EPA finalized the Urban Air Toxics Strategy (UATS)9

. The UATS states that emissions data are 

needed to quantify the sources of air toxics and their impacts and aid in the development of control 

strategies, while ambient monitoring data are needed to understand the behavior of air toxics in the 

atmosphere after they are emitted. Part of this strategy included the need for toxics monitoring. This 

monitoring includes: 

The Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Program10 (UATMP) - a program designed to characterize the 

magnitude and composition of potentially toxic air pollution in, or near, urban locations. The 

UATMP was initiated by EPA in 1988 as an extension of the existing Nonmethane Organic 

Compounds Program (NMOC) to meet the increasing need for information on air toxics. Over the 

years, the program has grown in both participation levels and pollutants targeted (EPA, 2009a). The 

program has allowed for the identification of compounds that are prevalent in ambient air and for 

participating agencies to screen air samples for concentrations of air toxics that could potentially 

result in adverse human health effects. 

The National Air Toxics Trends Stations (NATTS) - a program designed to generate long-term 

ambient air toxics concentration data in order to evaluate trends. The NATTS network was created 

to generate long-term ambient air toxics concentration data at specific fixed sites across the country. 

The NATTS Pilot program was developed and implemented during 2001 and 2002, leading to the 

development and initial implementation of the NATTS network during 2003 and 2004. The goal of 

the program is to estimate the concentrations of air toxics on a national level at fixed sites that remain 

 

8 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/airtoxpg.html 9 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/area/arearules.html 10 http://www.epa.gov/ttnamti1/uatm.html 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 1.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 6 of 11 

active over an extended period of time. Specifically, it is anticipated that the NATTS data will be used 

for: 

 tracking trends in ambient levels to evaluate progress toward emission and risk reduction goals; 

 directly evaluating public exposure & environmental impacts in the vicinity of monitors; 

 providing quality assured data for risk characterization; 

 assessing the effectiveness of specific emission reduction activities; and 

 evaluating and subsequently improving air toxics emission inventories and model performance. 

National Core Monitoring Network (NCore)11

The NCore multi-pollutant stations are part of an overall strategy to integrate multiple monitoring 

networks and measurements. Each state (i.e., the fifty states, District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the 

Virgin Islands) is required to operate at least one NCore site. Monitors at NCore multi-pollutant sites will 

measure a number of pollutants. Due to the continued development of NCore, consult the NCore website 

for a complete listing of the pollutants to be measured at the NCore sites. 

The objective is to locate sites in 

broadly representative urban and rural 

locations throughout the country to 

help characterize regional and urban 

patterns of air pollution. In many 

cases, monitoring organizations will 

collocate these new stations with 

existing CSN sites measuring speciated 

PM2.5 components, PAMS sites already 

measuring O3 precursors, and/or 

NATTS sites measuring air toxics. By 

combining these monitoring programs 

at a single location, EPA and its 

partners will maximize the multipollutant information available. This 

greatly enhances the foundation for 

future health studies, NAAQS 

revisions, validation of air quality 

models, assessment of emission 

reduction programs, and studies of 

ecosystem impacts of air pollution. 

1.2 The EPA Quality System 

Requirements

A quality system is the “blueprint” or 

framework by which an organization 

applies sufficient quality control (QC) 

and quality assurance (QA) practices 

 

11 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/ncore/index.html 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 1.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 7 of 11 

to ensure that the results of its environmental programs meet or exceed expectations. It is based upon the 

model of planning the work, implementing what is planned, assessing the results against the performance 

criteria, reporting on data quality and making improvements if necessary. Figure 1.2 provides an 

illustration of the pertinent regulations and policy that drive the development of a quality system. Some 

important aspects of this figure are explained below. 

1.2.1 Policy and Regulations 

At the highest level, standards and regulations determine what QA is required for the monitoring program 

and, therefore, set the stage for program and project specific guidance. The standards and regulations 

pertinent to the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program include: 

 Consensus Standards ANSI/ASQ E4 – EPA’s quality system is based on the document: 

American National Standard- Quality Systems for Environmental Data and Technology 

Programs-Requirements with Guidance for Use (ANSI/ASQ E4-2004)12. This document 

describes a basic set of mandatory specifications and non-mandatory guidelines by which a 

quality system for programs involving environmental data collection can be planned, 

implemented, and assessed. EPA has adopted the ANSI/ASQ E4 as its quality system consensus 

standard. 

 Internal Policies- are those policies developed specifically by EPA. The EPA QA Policy CIO 

2106.013 expresses the EPA policy in regards to the quality system development for all EPA 

organizations and non-EPA organizations performing work on behalf of EPA through extramural 

agreements. The EPA QA Policy adheres to E4 under the authority of the Office of Management 

and Budget. Section 1.2.5 below provides more specifics on this Order. In addition, QA policies 

fall under Volume 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR). Those most important to the 

monitoring community are 40 CFR Parts 30, 31 and 35 but are not specific to ambient air 

monitoring. 

 External Policies - Refers to the Code of Federal Regulation that may have QA requirements that 

are related to policies other than EPA. For example, 48 CFR refers to federal acquisition 

requirements (contracting etc.) which have some specific QA requirements. The references to the 

external regulations are those that apply to the quality system requirements for external funding. 

 Ambient Air -The consensus standards (E4) and internal and external requirements then funnel 

to the Headquarters and Regional programs (yellow circle) where additional QA requirements, 

specific to a particular monitoring program, are included. Ambient air requirements include 

documents like the Clean Air Act (CAA) and 40 CFR Parts 50, 53 and 58 which are specific to 

ambient air monitoring. 

1.2.2 Organization/Program 

This area in Figure 1.2 refers to the monitoring organization and is used to describe its overall quality 

system, usually in the form of a quality management plan (QMP)14. Many monitoring organizations 

 

12 http://webstore.ansi.org/default.aspx 13 http://www.epa.gov/quality1/. 14 http://www.epa.gov/quality1/qs-docs/r2-final.pdf 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 1.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 8 of 11 

perform a multitude of data collection activities for different media (e.g., air, water, solid waste) where 

ambient air monitoring might be only one branch in a large organization. The QMP explains the 

organizations approach to a quality system across all media. It is the responsibility of each organization 

to have a QMP that demonstrates an acceptable quality system. QMPs are approved by the EPA Regions 

and reported and tracked in AQS. 

1.2.3 Project 

The term “project” in Figure 1.2 refers to the specific environmental data operation (EDO) that occurs at 

the monitoring organization. An EDO refers to the work performed to obtain, use, or report information 

pertaining to environmental processes and conditions. The ambient air program would be considered a 

specific project; in fact monitoring for a specific pollutant could also be considered a project. This 

Handbook provides the majority of the guidance necessary for the monitoring organizations to develop 

QA project plans (QAPPs) specific to its data collection needs. Other guidance has been developed 

specific to a part of the measurement system (i.e., calibration techniques) or to specific methods. A 

listing of this guidance is included in Appendix B. It is anticipated that the majority of these documents 

will be available on the AMTIC bulletin board. 

1.2.4 Quality System Requirements for EPA Funded Programs 

EPA’s national quality system requirements can be found in EPA QA Policy CIO 2106.0 15. Any 

organization using EPA funds for the collection of environmental data are covered under CIO 2106.0 and 

must develop, implement, and maintain a quality system that demonstrates conformance to the minimum 

specifications of ANSI/ASQC E4 

1.3 The Ambient Air Monitoring Program Quality System 

Figure 1.3 represents the stages of the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring QA Program. OAQPS modified 

EPA CIO 2106.0 as appropriate in order to provide data of the quality needed to meet the Ambient Air 

Monitoring Program objectives. The planning, implementation, assessment and reporting tools will be 

briefly discussed below. 

1.3.1 Planning 

Planning activities include: 

Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) - DQOs are 

qualitative and quantitative statements derived 

from the outputs of the DQO Process that: (1) 

clarify the study objective; (2) define the most 

appropriate type of data to collect; (3) determine 

the most appropriate conditions from which to 

collect the data; and (4) specify tolerable limits 

on decision errors which will be used as the basis 

for establishing the quantity and quality of data 

 

15 http://www.epa.gov/irmpoli8/policies/21060.pdf 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 1.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 9 of 11 

needed to support the decision. Section 3 will provide more information on the DQO Process. 

Methods- Reference methods and measurement principles have been written for each criteria pollutant. 

A method can refer to an instrument, a laboratory analytical method or a combination of both. For 

monitoring for comparison to the NAAQS, monitoring organizations must use methods that are 

designated as Federal Reference (FRM) Federal Equivalent (FEM)16 or approved regional monitor 

(ARM)17 for PM2.5. ORD NERL implements the FRM/FEM designation program and provides technical 

assistance in the PM2.5 ARM process. Approved FRM/FEM methods refer to individual monitoring 

instruments that either provide a pollutant concentration or provide a sample for further laboratory 

analysis and must be operated as required in 40 CFR Part 50. Since these methods do not address all the 

specifications of a monitoring, sampling or analytical operation, they are used to provide the necessary 

requirements for the development of detailed standard operating procedures that would be developed by 

monitoring organizations as part of an acceptable QAPP. 

Training - Training is an essential part of any good monitoring program. Training activities are 

discussed in Section 4. 

Guidance - This QA Handbook as well as many other guidance documents have been developed for the 

Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program. Many of the monitoring networks listed above have 

developed technical assistance documents and generic QAPPs to help guide personnel in the important 

aspects of these programs. A list of these documents is included in Appendix B. 

QMP/QAPP Development - Each state, local, and tribal organization must develop a QMP and QAPP. 

 QMP - describes the quality system in terms of the organizational structure, functional 

responsibilities of management and staff, lines of authority, and required interfaces for those 

planning, implementing, and assessing activities involving environmental data collection. The 

QMP is not specific to any particular project, but related to how the monitoring organization 

implements its quality system. 

 QAPP- is a formal document describing, in comprehensive detail, the necessary QA/QC and 

other technical activities that must be implemented to ensure that the results of work performed 

will satisfy the stated performance criteria, which may be in the form of a data quality objective 

(DQO). The QAPP is specific to a particular monitoring project. Standard operating procedures 

(SOPs) are part of the QAPP development process and are vital to the quality of any monitoring 

program. The QAPP must be detailed enough to provide a clear description of every aspect of the 

project and include information for every member of the project staff, including samplers, lab 

staff, and data reviewers. The QAPP facilitates communication among clients, data users, project 

staff, management, and external reviewers. 

Guidance for the development of both QMPs and QAPPs can be found on the EPA Quality Staff’s 

website18. In addition, EPA has provided flexibility on how EPA organizations implement this policy, 

allowing for use of a graded approach. Since EPA funds the collection and use of data for a number of 

monitoring objectives and for organizations with a broad range of capabilities, flexibility in the QMP and 

QAPP requirements is necessary. For example, data collection for the purpose of comparison to the 

 

16 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/criteria.html 17 40 CFR Part 58 Appendix C Section 2.4 

18 http://www.epa.gov/quality1/
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 1.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 10 of 11 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) will require more stringent requirements, while 

monitoring programs for special purposes may not require the same level of quality assurance. The level 

of detail of QMPs and QAPPs, as explained by the EPA Quality Staff in the EPA Quality Manual, 

“should be based on a common sense, graded approach that establishes the QA and QC requirements 

commensurate with the importance of the work, available resources, and the unique needs of the 

organization.” The ambient air program has developed a graded approach that will help tribes and 

smaller monitoring organizations develop both a QMP and QAPPs. Appendix C provides information on 

this approach. 

1.3.2 Implementation 

Implementation activities include: 

QAPP Implementation- Once the QAPP is written and approved, it is expected to be implemented. This 

is the major implementation activity in the quality system. 

Internal QC Activities - The quality control (QC) system is used to fulfill requirements for quality. It is 

the overall system of technical activities that measure the attributes and performance of a process, item, or 

service against defined standards to verify that they meet the stated requirements established by the 

customer. In the case of the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network, QC activities are used to ensure 

that measurement uncertainty is maintained within established acceptance criteria for the attainment of 

the DQOs. Section 10 provides discussions of the ambient air monitoring quality control activities. 

QC Reporting-40 CFR Part 58 Appendix A identifies the quality control samples that must be reported 

to AQS. This data can be used to judge achievement of data quality objectives and measurement quality 

objectives described in Section 3. 

1.3.3 Assessments

Assessments, as defined in ANSI/ASQC-E4 and EPA’s document, Guidance on Technical Audits and 

Related Assessments for Environmental Data Operations (QA/G-7)19, are evaluation processes used to 

measure the performance or effectiveness of a system and its elements. Assessment is an all inclusive 

term used to denote any of the following: audit, performance evaluation, management systems review, 

peer review, inspection, or surveillance. Assessments for the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program, 

as discussed in Section 15, include: 

Technical Systems Audits (TSA) -A TSA is an on-site review and inspection of a State or local agency's 

ambient air monitoring program to assess its compliance with established regulations governing the 

collection, analysis, validation, and reporting of ambient air quality data. Both EPA and State 

organizations perform TSAs. Procedures for this audit are discussed in general terms in Section 15. 

Network Reviews - The network review is used to determine how well a particular air monitoring 

network is achieving its required air monitoring objective(s) and how it should be modified to continue to 

meet its objective(s). Network reviews are discussed in Section 15. 

Performance Evaluations- Performance evaluations are a type of audit in which the quantitative data 

generated in a measurement system are obtained independently and compared with routinely obtained 

 

19 http://www.epa.gov/quality1/qs-docs/g7-final.pdf 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 1.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 11 of 11 

data to evaluate the proficiency of an analyst, laboratory, or measurement system. The following 

performance evaluations, discussed in further detail in Section 15, are included in the Ambient Air 

Quality Monitoring Program: 

 Monitoring Organization Performance Evaluations (Audits) - These performance evaluation 

audits are used to provide an independent assessment of the measurement operations of each 

instrument being audited. This is accomplished by comparing performance samples or devices 

of “known” concentrations or values to the values measured by the instruments being audited. 

 National Performance Evaluation Program (NPEP) – These performance evaluation audits 

are implemented at the federal level although some programs may be implemented by the 

monitoring organizations if certain requirements are met. 

1.3.4 Reports 

All concentration data should be assessed in order to evaluate the attainment of the DQOs or the 

monitoring objectives. These assessments can be documented using the following types of reports: 

 Data quality assessment (DQA) is the scientific and statistical evaluation to determine if data 

are of the right type, quality, and quantity to support their intended use (DQOs). QA/QC data can 

be statistically assessed at various levels of aggregation to determine whether the DQOs have 

been attained. Data quality assessments of precision, bias, and accuracy can be aggregated at the 

following three levels. 

o Monitor- monitor/method designation

o PQAO - monitors in a method designation, all monitors

o National - monitors in a method designation, all monitors

 Data Quality Indicator Reports A number of reports that have been programmed in AQS can 

be used to assess data quality. In particular, the AMP255 report can be used to assess the criteria 

pollutants for conformance to 40 CFR part 58 Appendix A criteria for completeness, precision 

and bias. EPA also developed a annual box and whisker report of the gaseous criteria pollutants 

that is posted on AMTIC20 . It provide assessment similar to the AMP255 but it also provides a 

visual display of data quality that can help identify sites that may be in need of corrective active 

 QA Reports provide an evaluation of QA/QC data for a given time period to determine whether 

the data quality objectives were met. Discussions of QA reports can be found in Sections 16 and 

18. 

 Audit Reports provide the formal documentation of internal and external audits 

including any findings that require corrective action. Details of the reports are described 

in Section 15. 

 

20 Criteria Pollutant Quality Indicator Summary Report at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/qareport.html 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 2.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 1 of 8 

2.0 Program Organization 

Federal, state, tribal, and local 

agencies all have important roles in 

developing and implementing air 

monitoring programs. Figure 2.1 

identifies the major entities involved in 

the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring 

Program, the organizational structure, 

and the lines of communication. The 

responsibilities of each organization 

follow. In general, most formal QA 

communication occurs in the pathway 

illustrated in the Figure 2.1. Primary 

quality assurance organizations 

(PQAOs) are identified because each 

EPA Region consists of many PQAO’s 

and each PQAO may consist of one 

state, tribal or local monitoring 

organization or be a consolidation of a number of monitoring organizations. See Section 2.1.4 for 

additional information on PQAOs. In addition, the QA Handbook Revision Workgroup is highlighted 

because this entity is informal but provides a venue to communicate at all levels in order to discuss 

technical issues and improve the Handbook at appropriate time frames. 

2.1 Organization Responsibilities 

2.1.1 EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS)

EPA’s responsibility, under the Clean Air Act (CAA) as amended in 1990, includes: setting National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for pollutants considered harmful to the public health and 

environment; ensuring that these air quality standards are met or attained through national standards and 

strategies to control air emissions from sources; and ensuring that sources of toxic air pollutants are well 

controlled. 

OAQPS1

 is the organization charged under the authority of the CAA to protect and enhance the quality of 

the nation’s air resources. OAQPS evaluates the need to regulate potential air pollutants and develops 

national standards; works with monitoring organizations to develop plans for meeting these standards; 

monitors national air quality trends and maintains a database of information on air pollution and controls; 

provides technical guidance and training on air pollution control strategies; and monitors compliance with 

air pollution standards. 

Within the OAQPS Air Quality Assessment Division, the Ambient Air Monitoring Group (AAMG)2

 is 

responsible for the oversight of the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network and its quality assurance 

program. AAMG, relative to quality assurance, has the responsibility to: 

 

1 http://www.epa.gov/air/oarofcs.html 2 http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/organization/aqad/aamg.html 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 2.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 2 of 8 

 develop a satisfactory quality system for the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network; 

 ensure that the methods and procedures used in making air pollution measurements are adequate 

to meet the programs objectives and that the resulting data are of appropriate quality; 

 manage the National Performance Evaluation Program (NPEP); 

 perform data quality assessments of organizations making air pollution measurements of 

importance to the regulatory process; 

 ensure that guidance pertaining to the quality assurance aspects of the Ambient Air Program are 

written and revised as necessary; and 

 render technical assistance to the EPA Regional Offices and the air pollution monitoring 

community. 

In particular, referring to this Handbook, OAQPS will be responsible for: 

 coordinating the Handbook Revision Workgroup responsible for continued improvement of the 

Handbook; 

 seeking resolution on Handbook issues; 

 incorporating agreed upon revisions into the Handbook; and 

 reviewing and revising the Handbook (Vol II) as necessary. 

2.1.2 EPA Regional Offices

EPA Regional Offices3

 play a critical role in addressing environmental issues related to the monitoring 

organizations within their jurisdiction and administering and overseeing regulatory and congressionally 

mandated programs. In addition, one Region serves a rotating two-year term as Lead Region for 

monitoring and serves to coordinate and communicate monitoring issues to and from Headquarters and 

the other Regions. 

The major quality assurance responsibilities of EPA’s Regional Offices in regards to the Ambient Air 

Quality Program are the coordination of quality assurance matters between the various EPA offices and 

the monitoring organizations. This role requires that the Regional Offices: 

 distribute and explain technical and quality assurance information to the monitoring 

organizations; 

 identify quality assurance needs of the monitoring organization to EPA Headquarters that are 

“national” in scope; 

 provide personnel and the infrastructure to implement NPEP programs; 

 provide the personnel with knowledge of QA regulations and with adequate technical expertise to 

address ambient air monitoring and QA issues; 

 ensure monitoring organization have approved quality management plans (QMPs) and quality 

assurance project plans (QAPPs) prior to routine monitoring; 

 evaluate the capabilities of monitoring organizations to measure the criteria air pollutants by 

implementing network reviews and technical systems audits of primary quality assurance 

organizations (PQAOs); 

 assess data quality of monitoring organizations within its Regions; and 

 assist monitoring organizations in defining primary quality assurance organizations within their 

jurisdiction and in assigning sites to a primary quality assurance organization. 

 

3

http://www.epa.gov/ 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 2.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 3 of 8 

Specific responsibilities as they relate to the Handbook include: 

 serving as a liaison to the monitoring organizations for their particular Region; 

 serving on the Handbook Revision Workgroup; 

 fielding questions related to the Handbook and ambient air monitoring programs; 

 reporting issues that would require Handbook Revision Workgroup attention; and 

 serving as a reviewer of the Handbook and participating in its revision. 

2.1.3 Monitoring Organizations

40 CFR Part 584

 defines a monitoring organization as a “state, local or other monitoring organization 

(such as tribes) responsible for operating a monitoring site for which quality assurance regulations apply.” 

Federally recognized Indian Tribes are Sovereign Nations. However, Section 301(d) of the CAA gives the 

Administrator the authority to treat an Indian Tribe in the same manner as a State Agency with some 

additional flexibility. Additionally, Section 302 of the CAA states an air pollution control agency can be 

an agency of an Indian Tribe. 

The major responsibility of the monitoring organization5

 is the implementation of a satisfactory 

monitoring program, which would naturally include the implementation of an appropriate quality 

assurance program. Implementation of an appropriate quality assurance program includes the 

development and implementation of a QMP and QAPPs for the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring 

Program. It is the responsibility of monitoring organizations to implement quality assurance programs in 

all phases of the data collection process, including the field, its own laboratories, and in any consulting 

and contractor laboratories which it may use to obtain data. 

Monitoring organizations may be identified for reasons such as: 

 distinguishing geographic regions (e.g. CA Districts) 

 distinguishing different entities or sources of funds (e.g., tribal funds versus state/local funds) 

 identifying organizations receiving funds directly from EPA 

 identifying organizations that have different methods or objectives for monitoring 

Therefore, if the monitoring organization accepts federal funds for monitoring, it will be identified as a 

monitoring organization that will be required to submit a requisite QMP and QAPPs to cover its 

monitoring activities. This does not eliminate it from consolidating to a PQAO with other organizations 

that it shares common factors, as described in the next section. 

Specific responsibilities of monitoring organizations as they relate to the Handbook include: 

 serving as a representative for the monitoring organization on the Handbook Revision 

Workgroup; 

 assisting in the development of QA guidance for various sections; and 

 reporting issues and comments to Regional Contacts. 

 

4 http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html 5 http://www.4cleanair.org/contactUsaLevel.asp 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 2.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 4 of 8 

2.1.4 Primary Quality Assurance Organizations (PQAOs) 

A PQAO is a monitoring organization or a group of monitoring organizations that share a number of 

common “QA Factors”. Below is an excerpt on PQAOs from 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix A: 

3.1.1 Each primary quality assurance organization shall be defined such that measurement uncertainty 

among all stations in the organization can be expected to be reasonably homogeneous, as a result of 

common factors. Common factors that should be considered by monitoring organizations in defining 

primary quality assurance organizations include: 

 

 (a) Operation by a common team of field operators according to a common set of procedures; 

 (b) Use of a common QAPP or standard operating procedures; 

 (c) Common calibration facilities and standards; 

 (d) Oversight by a common quality assurance organization; and 

(e) Support by a common management, laboratory or headquarters. 

The number and type monitors and sites in a PQAO has very important implications to quality assurance 

activities. For some pollutants, the number of monitoring sites in a PQAO may be used to determine the 

number and frequency of quality control checks, including the number of collocated monitors and the 

audit frequencies for the National Performance Audit Program (NPAP) and the PM2.5 and Pb Performance 

Evaluation Program (PEP). Data assessments for completeness, precision and bias are aggregated at the 

PQAO level. The 5 common factors previously listed (a through e) are the key criteria to be used when 

an agency decides the sites to be considered for aggregation to a PQAO. There are cases where state, 

local and tribal monitoring organizations have consolidated to one PQAO. The requirement does not 

intend that all 5 factors have to be fulfilled but that these factors are considered. However, common 

procedures and a common QAPP should be considered key to making decisions to consolidate sites into a 

PQAO. However, the QAPP(s) of the monitoring organizations must refer to the PQAO that the 

monitoring organization is affiliated with. EPA Regions will need to be aware of monitoring 

organizations consolidating to a PQAO and have documentation on file to this effect. It is strongly 

suggested that when an opportunity for QAPP revisions arise that monitoring organizations that have 

consolidated develop one overarching QAPP that cover both organizations. Figure 2.2 shows the 

relationship of pollutants monitored at unique sites and how these unique sites are then related to 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 2.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 5 of 8 

monitoring organizations and primary quality assurance organizations. In the case of PQAO #1, a tribal 

monitoring organization and local monitoring organization have common factors that allow for 

consolidation. 

Since a PQAO is identified at the pollutant (monitor) level, two monitoring organizations may consolidate 

to a single PQAO for one pollutant due to similar methods and QA procedures, but not consolidate for 

another pollutant where they may have different quality requirements. Each PQAO should have some 

coordination entity to schedule/coordinate audits, TSAs, etc. In many cases this will be the state 

agency with local districts within the PQAO. In other cases, it could be a board that coordinates 

activities within a PQAO comprised of small agencies (e.g., tribes). This coordination entity 

needs to be documented in a manner (i.e., QAPP) that informs all monitoring organizations 

under the PQAO and the appropriate EPA Region. 

2.1.5 EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) National Exposure Research 

Laboratory (NERL)6

NERL conducts research and development that leads to improved methods, measurements and models to 

assess and predict exposures of humans and ecosystems to harmful pollutants and other conditions in air, 

water, soil, and food. The NERL provides the following activities relative to the Ambient Air Quality 

Monitoring networks: 

 develops, improves, and validates methods and instruments for measuring gaseous, semi-volatile, 

and non-volatile pollutants in source emissions and in ambient air; 

 supports multi-media approaches to assessing human exposure to toxic contaminated media 

through development and evaluation of analytical methods and reference materials, and provides 

analytical and method support for special monitoring projects for trace elements and other 

inorganic and organic constituents and pollutants; 

 develops standards and systems needed for assuring and controlling data quality; 

 assesses whether candidate sampling methods conform to accepted reference method 

specifications and are capable of providing data of acceptable quality and completeness for 

determining compliance with applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standards; 

 assesses whether emerging methods for monitoring criteria pollutants are “equivalent” to 

accepted Federal Reference Methods and are capable of addressing the Agency’s research and 

regulatory objectives; and 

 provides an independent audit and review function on data collected by other appropriate clients. 

NERL will continue to assist in the Handbook by: 

 providing overall guidance; 

 participating in the Handbook review process; 

 developing new methods including the appropriate QA/QC; and 

 conducting laboratory and field evaluations of sampling and analysis methods to resolve ad hoc 

technical issues. 

 

6 http://www.epa.gov/nerl/ 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 2.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 6 of 8 

2.2 Lines of Communication

In order to maintain a successful Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program, effective communication is 

essential. Lines of communication will ensure that decisions can be made at the most appropriate levels 

in a more time-efficient manner. It also means that each organization in this structure must be aware of 

the regulations governing the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program. In most circumstances, the 

monitoring organizations first line of contact is the EPA Region. Any issues that require a decision, 

especially in relation to the quality of data, or the quality system, should be addressed to the EPA Region. 

A monitoring organization should, in only rare circumstances, contact OAQPS with an issue if it has not 

initially contacted the EPA Region. If this does occur, OAQPS normally tries to include the pertinent 

EPA Region in the conversation, or at a minimum, briefs the EPA Region about the issue(s) discussed. 

This is appropriate as long as decisions are not made during these information-seeking communications. 

If important decisions are made at various locations along the line, it is important that the information is 

disseminated in all directions in order that improvements to the quality system can reach all organizations 

in the Program. Nationwide communication will be accomplished through AMTIC and the subsequent 

revisions to this Handbook. 

There are many other routes of communication available in the monitoring community. Three that occur 

with some frequency and should be used to identify important monitoring and QA issues are: 

National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA)7

- represents air pollution control agencies in 53 

states and territories and over 165 major metropolitan areas across the United States. It formed in the 

1970’s to improve their effectiveness as managers of air quality programs. The association serves to 

encourage the exchange of information among air pollution control officials, to enhance communication 

and cooperation among federal, state, and local regulatory agencies, and to promote good management of 

our air resources. Specifically for the Ambient Air Monitoring Program, it facilitates a monthly 

conference call and has organized a Steering Committee, made up of monitoring organization 

representatives and EPA, that meet twice a year to discuss issues related to ambient air monitoring. 

Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies (AAPCA) has recently been created as a new 

association of state and local clean air agencies. The goal of AAPCA is to provide a technical forum and 

"promote efficient and effective programs to implement the Clean Air Act. At the time of this printing 

EPA did not locate a website for AAPCA. 

National Tribal Air Association (NTAA)8

- is an autonomous organization affiliated with the National 

Tribal Environmental Council (NTEC). The NTAA’s mission is to advance air quality management 

policies and programs, consistent with the needs, interests, and unique legal status of American Indian 

Tribes, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians. This organization has many similarities to NACCA. It 

also facilitates a monthly conference call with EPA and holds a national annual meeting. 

EPA Headquarters and Regional Monitoring and QA Calls- These calls occur monthly and are 

devoted to relevant monitoring and QA topics where EPA tries to develop consistent approaches to 

relevant monitoring issues. 

 

7 http://www.4cleanair.org/about.asp 8 http://www.ntaatribalair.org/ 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 2.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 7 of 8 

Besides the three communication mechanisms described above, there are many others, such as the 

Regional Planning Organization (RPOs)9 conference calls/meetings, EPA Regional conference 

calls/meetings that also serve to communicate the needs and issues of the ambient air monitoring 

community. 

2.3 Quality Assurance (QA) Workgroups 

Two workgroups have been formed to provide information for improving the Ambient Air Monitoring 

Program Quality System 

 QA Strategy Workgroup 

 Handbook Revision Workgroup 

2.3.1 QA Strategy Workgroup

Organized and chaired by the QA Team Lead of OAQPS/AQAD, the Workgroup consists of Ambient Air 

Quality Assurance personnel from OAQPS, EPA Regions, and monitoring organizations. The Workgroup 

members were solicited through NACAA in 2001 in conjunction with OAQPS vision of a new 

monitoring strategy for the ambient air monitoring community. The goal, established by the Workgroup, 

was to define the elements of a Quality System. To achieve this goal, the Workgroup scheduled 

conference calls and meetings. Additionally, the work group met for a number of years on an annual basis 

at the National QA Meeting to discuss issues relevant to quality assurance work in the ambient air 

monitoring field. For information on the workgroup’s activities please refer to:

www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/qaqcrein.html. This Workgroup continues to communicate on conference calls for 

the revision of this Handbook and issues related to the regulatory QA requirements in 40 CFR Part 58 

Appendix A. 

2.3.2 The Handbook Revision Workgroup

The Handbook Revision Workgroup is made up of representatives from the following four entities in 

order to provide representation at the Federal, State and local level: 

 OAQPS - OAQPS is represented by the coordinator for the Handbook and other 

representatives of the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring QA Team. 

 Regions - A minimum of 1 representative from each EPA Regional Office. 

 NERL -A minimum of one representative. NERL represents historical knowledge of the 

Handbook series as well as the expertise in the reference and equivalent methods program 

and QA activities. 

 Monitoring Organizations- A minimum of 10 representatives of the monitoring 

organizations. 

The mission of the workgroup is the continued clarification and addition of quality assurance procedures 

as related to ambient air monitoring and the networks. The workgroup provides experiences and insights 

in the ambient air monitoring field that will assist OAQPS with the task of the continuous improvement of 

the quality system. This ensures data integrity and provides valid quality indicators for decision makers 

faced with attainment/nonattainment issues as well as providing quality data to health professionals, 

academia and environmental professionals using the data. 

 

9 http://epa.gov/visibility/regional.html 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 2.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 8 of 8 

The Handbook Revision Workgroup will meet twice a year to discuss, generally the “condition” of the 

Handbook and what changes may be necessary. A running list of these changes will be recorded and if 

important, technical guidance developed. A thorough review of the Handbook will occur every five years 

for the purpose of reviewing and revising the Handbook or sections as needed. Issues may surface from 

comments made by monitoring organizations’ liaisons, AMTIC bulletin board comments, or the 

development/revision of regulations. 
 QA Handbook Vol II, Section 3.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 1 of 6 

3.0 Data Quality Objectives 

Data collected for the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program are used to make very specific decisions 

that can have an economic impact on the area represented by the data. Data quality objectives (DQOs)

are qualitative and quantitative statements derived from the DQO Planning Process that clarify the 

purpose of the study, define the most appropriate type of information to collect, determine the most 

appropriate conditions from which to collect that information, and specify tolerable levels of potential 

decision errors. Throughout this document, the 

term decision maker is used. This term represents 

individuals that are the ultimate users of ambient 

air data and therefore may be responsible for 

setting the NAAQS (or other objective), 

developing a quality system, or evaluating the data 

(e.g., NAAQS comparison). The DQO will be 

based on the data requirements of the decision 

maker who needs to feel confident that the data 

used to make environmental decisions are of 

adequate quality. The data used in these decisions 

are never error free and always contain some level 

of uncertainty. Because of these uncertainties or 

errors, there is a possibility that decision makers 

may declare an area “nonattainment” when the area 

is actually in “attainment” (Fig. 3.1 a false 

rejection of the baseline condition) or “attainment” 

when actually the area is in “nonattainment” (Fig. 

3.2 false acceptance of the baseline condition)1

. 

Figures 3.1 and 3.2 illustrate how false rejection 

and acceptance errors can affect a NAAQS 

decision based on an annual mean concentration 

value of 15 and the baseline condition (null 

hypothesis) that the area is in attainment. In the 

figures the probability density is a statistical 

measure that defines a probability distribution for a 

random variable. There are serious economic and 

health consequences of making such decision 

errors. Therefore, decision makers need to 

understand and set limits on the probabilities of 

making incorrect decisions with these data. In 

order to set limits on decision errors, one needs to 

understand and control uncertainty. Uncertainty is used as a generic term to describe the sum of all 

sources of error associated with an EDO and can be illustrated as follows: 

 2 2 2

o p m S  S  S Equation 3-1

where: 

So= overall uncertainty 

Sp= population uncertainty (spatial and temporal) 

Sm= measurement uncertainty (data collection). 

 

1

 “Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data Quality Objectives Process,” EPA QA/G-4 U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, QAD, February 2006. http://www.epa.gov/quality1/qs-docs/g4-final.pdf

Figure 3.2 Effect of negative bias on the annual average 

resulting in a false acceptance error.

Figure 3.1 Effect of positive bias on the annual average 

estimate, resulting in a false rejection error.
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 3.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 2 of 6 

The estimate of overall uncertainty is an important component in the DQO process. Both population and 

measurement uncertainties must be understood. 

Population uncertainties are related to the uncertainty in air concentrations related to spatial and 

temporal variability. The most important data quality indicator of any ambient air monitoring network is 

representativeness. This term refers to the degree to which data accurately and precisely represent the 

frequency distribution of a specific variable in the population (e.g., concentration of air for the spatial 

scale of interest). Population uncertainty, the spatial and temporal components of error, can affect 

representativeness. These uncertainties can be controlled through the selection of appropriate boundary 

conditions (the monitoring area and the sampling time period/frequency of sampling) to which the 

decision will apply, and the development of a proper statistical sampling design (see Section 6). 

Appendix B of the Quality Staff’s document titled Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans 

(EPA/G5)2 provides a very good dissertation on representativeness. It does not matter how precise or 

unbiased the measurement values are if a site is unrepresentative of the population it is presumed to 

represent. Assuring the collection of a representative air quality sample depends on the following factors: 

 selecting a network size that is consistent with the monitoring objectives and locating 

representative sampling sites; 

 identifying and documenting the constraints on the sampling sites that are imposed by 

meteorology, local topography, emission sources, land access and the physical constraints; and 

 selecting sampling schedules and frequencies that are consistent with the monitoring objectives.

Measurement uncertainties are the errors associated with the environmental data operation (EDO), 

including errors associated with the field, preparation and laboratory measurement phases. At each 

measurement phase, errors can occur, that in most cases, are additive. The goal of a QA program is to 

control measurement uncertainty to an acceptable level through the use of various quality control and 

evaluation techniques. In a resource constrained environment, it is most important to be able to calculate 

and evaluate the total measurement system uncertainty (Sm) and compare this to the DQO. If resources 

are available, it may be possible to evaluate various phases (e.g., field, laboratory) of the measurement 

system. For example, the collocated PM10 monitors provide the best estimate of overall measurement 

precision since it captures both measurement uncertainty in the field and the laboratory. 

Three data quality indicators are most important in determining total measurement uncertainty: 

 Precision - a measure of agreement among repeated measurements of the same property under 

identical, or substantially similar, conditions. This is the random component of error. Precision 

is estimated by various statistical techniques typically using some derivation of the standard 

deviation. 

 Bias - the systematic or persistent distortion of a measurement process which causes error in one 

direction. Bias will be determined by estimating the positive and negative deviation from the true 

value as a percentage of the true value. 

 Detection Limit - The lowest concentration or amount of the target analyte that can be 

determined to be different from zero by a single measurement at a stated level of probability. Due 

to the fact the NCore sites will require instruments to quantify at lower concentrations, detection 

limits are becoming more important. Some of the more recent guidance documents suggest that 

monitoring organizations develop method detection limits (MDLs) for continuous instruments 

 

2 http://www.epa.gov/quality1/qa_docs.html 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 3.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 3 of 6 

and or analytical methods. Many monitoring organizations use the default MDL listed in AQS for 

a particular method. These default MDLs come from instrument vendor advertisements and/or 

method manuals. Monitoring organizations should not rely on instrument vendor’s documentation 

on detection limits but determine the detection limits that are being achieved in the field during 

routine operations. Use of MDLs are described in the NCore Precursor Gas Technical Assistance 

Document (TAD)3

.

Accuracy is a measure of the overall agreement of a measurement to a known value and includes a 

combination of random error (precision) and systematic error (bias) components of both sampling and 

analytical operations. This term has been used throughout the CFR and in some sections of this 

document. Whenever possible, it is recommended that an attempt be made to distinguish measurement 

uncertainties into precision and bias components. In cases where such a distinction is not possible, the 

term accuracy can be used. 

Other indicators that are considered during the DQO process include completeness and comparability. 

Completeness describes the amount of valid data obtained from a measurement system compared to the 

amount that was expected to be obtained under correct, normal conditions. For example, a PM2.5 monitor 

that is designated to sample every sixth day would be expected to have an overall sampling frequency of 

one out of every six days. If, in a thirty day period, the sampler misses one sample, the completeness 

would be recorded as four out of five, or 80 percent. Data completeness requirements are included in the 

reference methods (40 CFR Part 50). Comparability is a measure of the confidence with which one data 

set or method can be compared to another, considering the units of measurement and applicability to 

standard statistical techniques. Comparability of datasets is critical to evaluating their measurement 

uncertainty and usefulness. The various National Performance Evaluation Programs implemented in the 

Ambient Air Monitoring Program help EPA evaluate data comparability among PQAOs. Section 15 

provides more details of the performance evaluation programs. 

3.1 The DQO Process

The DQO process is used to facilitate the planning of EDOs. It asks the data user to focus their EDO 

efforts by specifying the use of the data (the decision), the decision criteria, and the probability they can 

accept making an incorrect decision based on the data. The DQO process: 

 establishes a common language to be shared by decision makers, technical personnel, and 

statisticians in their discussion of program objectives and data quality; 

 provides a mechanism to pare down a multitude of objectives into major critical questions; 

 facilitates the development of clear statements of program objectives and constraints that will 

optimize data collection plans; and 

 provides a logical structure within which an iterative process of guidance, design, and feedback 

may be accomplished efficiently. 

The DQO process contains the following steps: 

 State the problem: Define the problem that necessitates the study; identify the planning team, 

examine budget, schedule. 

 Identify the goal: State how environmental data will be used in meeting objectives and solving 

the problem, identify study questions, define alternative outcomes. 

 Identify information inputs: Identify data and information needed to answer study questions. 

 

3 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/ncore/guidance.html 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 3.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 4 of 6 

 Define boundaries: Specify the target population and characteristics of interest, define spatial 

and temporal limits, scale of inference. 

 Develop the analytical approach: Define the parameter of interest, specify the type of 

inference, and develop the logic for drawing conclusions from findings. 

 Specify performance or acceptance criteria: 

o Decision making (hypothesis testing): Specify probability limits for false rejection and 

false acceptance decision errors. 

o Estimation approaches: Develop performance criteria for new data being collected or 

acceptable criteria for existing data being considered for use. 

 Develop the plan for obtaining data: Select the resource-effective sampling and analysis plan 

that meets the performance criteria. 

The DQO Process is fully discussed in the document titled Guidance on Systematic Planning using the 

Data Quality Objectives Process (EPA QA/G-4), and is available on the EPA’s Quality System for 

Environmental Data and Technology website4

. For an illustration of how the DQO process was applied to 

a particular ambient air monitoring problem, refer to the EPA document titled Systematic Planning: A 

Case Study of Particulate Matter Ambient Air Monitoring5

. 

3.2 Ambient Air Quality DQOs

As indicated above, the first steps in the DQO process are to identify the problems that need to be 

resolved and the objectives to be met. As described in Section 2, the ambient air monitoring networks are 

designed to collect data to meet three basic objectives:

1. provide air pollution data to the general public in a timely manner; 

2. support compliance with air quality standards and emission strategy development; and 

3. support air pollution research. 

These different objectives could potentially require different DQOs, making the development of DQOs 

complex and unique for each objective. For the criteria pollutants, the priority objective is to ensure that 

decision makers can make comparisons to the NAAQS within a specified degree of certainty. With the 

data quality needed for NAAQS evaluation, one can support both timely data reporting and research 

goals to a certain extent. 

OAQPS has established formal DQOs for PM2.5, Ozone, Pb, CO, SO2, NCore, PM2.5,CSN6

, and NATTS7. 

As the NAAQS for the other criteria pollutants come up for review, EPA will develop DQOs for these 

pollutants. 

 

4 http://www.epa.gov/quality1/qa_docs.html 5 http://www.epa.gov/quality1/qs-docs/casestudy2-final.pdf 6 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/specguid.html 7 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/airtoxqa.html 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 3.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 5 of 6 

3.3 Measurement Quality Objectives

The DQO process functions to identify 

the allowable population and 

measurement uncertainty for a given 

objective. The monitoring program is 

then developed and quality control 

samples are identified and implemented 

to evaluate data quality [through data quality assessments (DQA)] to ensure that it is maintained within 

the established acceptance criteria. Measurement Quality Objectives (MQOs) are designed to evaluate 

and control various phases (e.g., sampling, transportation, preparation, and analysis) of the measurement 

process to ensure that total measurement uncertainty is within the range prescribed by the DQOs. MQOs 

can be defined in terms of the following data quality indicators: precision, bias, representativeness, 

detection limit, completeness and comparability as described in Section 3.0. 

MQOs can be established to evaluate overall measurement uncertainty, as well as for an individual phase 

of a measurement process. As an example, the precision DQO for PM2.5 is 10% and it is based on 3 years 

of collocated precision data collected at a PQAO level. Since only 15% of the sites are collocated, the 

data cannot be used to control the quality from each site or each sampler (although it could be used for the 

specific site where the collocated sample was collected). Since the collocated results can be affected by 

both field and laboratory processes, one cannot pinpoint a specific phase of the measurement system 

when a precision result is higher than the 10% precision goal. Therefore, individual precision values 

greater than 10% may be tolerated as long as the overall 3-year DQO is achieved. In contrast, the flow 

rate audit, which is specific to the appropriate functioning of the PM2.5 sampler, has an MQO of + 4% of 

the audit standard and + 5% of the design value. This MQO must be met each time or the instrument is 

recalibrated. In summary, since uncertainty is usually additive, there is much less tolerance for 

uncertainty for individual phases of a measurement system (e.g., flow rate) since each phase contributes 

to overall measurement. As monitoring organizations develop measurement specific MQOs they should 

think about being more stringent for individual phases of the measurement process since it will help to 

keep overall measurement uncertainty within acceptable levels. 

For each of these indicators, acceptance criteria can be developed for various phases of the EDO. Various 

parts of 40 CFR Parts 50 and 58 have identified acceptance criteria for some of these indicators. In 

theory, if these MQOs are met, measurement uncertainty should be controlled to the levels required by the 

DQO. MQO tables for the criteria pollutants can be found in Appendix D and have been revised into 

what is known as a validation template. In June 1998, a workgroup of QA personnel from the monitoring 

organizations, EPA Regional Offices, and OAQPS was formed to develop a procedure that could be used 

by monitoring organizations for consistent use of MQOs and the validation of the criteria pollutants 

across the US. The workgroup developed three tables of criteria: 

Critical Criteria- deemed critical to maintaining the integrity of a sample (or ambient air concentration 

value) or group of samples were placed in the first table. Observations that do not meet each and every 

criterion on the critical table should be invalidated unless there are compelling reason and justification for 

not doing so. Basically, the sample or group of samples for which one or more of these criteria are not 

met is invalid until proven otherwise. 

Operational Criteria Table- important for maintaining and evaluating the quality of the data collection 

system. Violation of a criterion or a number of criteria may be cause for invalidation. The decision 

maker should consider other quality control information that may or may not indicate the data are 

acceptable for the parameter being controlled. Therefore, the sample or group of samples for which one 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 3.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 6 of 6 

or more of these criteria are not met is suspect unless other quality control information demonstrates 

otherwise. The reason for not meeting the criteria should be investigated, mitigated or justified. 

Systematic Criteria Table- include those criteria which are important for the correct interpretation of the 

data but do not usually impact the validity of a sample or group of samples. For example, the data quality 

objectives are included in this table. If the data quality objectives are not met, this does not invalidate any 

of the samples but it may impact the error rate associated with the attainment/non-attainment decision. 

More information about data validation and the use of the validation templates can be found in Section 

17. 

Performance Based Measurement System Concept: Consistency vs. Comparability

The NATTS Program uses the performance-based measurement system (PBMS) concept. In simple 

terms, this means that as long as the quality of data that the program requires (DQOs) are defined, the 

data quality indicators are identified, and the appropriate measurement quality objectives (MQOs) that 

quantify that the data quality objectives are met, any sampling/analytical method that meets these data 

quality requirements should be appropriate to use in the program. The idea behind PBMS is that if the 

methods meet the data quality acceptance criteria the data are “comparable” and can be used in the 

program. Previous discussions in this document allude to the need for “nationally consistent data”, 

“utilization of standard monitoring methods” and “consistency in laboratory methods”. Comparability is 

a data quality indicator because one can quantify a number of data quality indicators (precision, bias, 

detectability) and determine whether two methods are comparable. Consistency is not a data quality 

indicator and requiring that a particular method be used for the sake of consistency does not assure that 

the data collected from different monitoring organizations and analyzed by different laboratories will 

yield data of similar (comparable) quality. Therefore, the quality system will continue to strive for the 

development of data quality indicators and measurement quality objectives that will allow one to judge 

data quality and comparability and allow program managers to determine whether or not to require the 

use of a particular method (assuming this method meets the data quality needs). However, PBMS puts a 

premium on up-front planning and a commitment from monitoring organizations to adhere to 

implementing quality control requirements. 

The data quality indicator comparability must be evaluated in light of a pollutant that is considered a 

method-defined parameter. The analytical result of a pollutant measurement, of a method-defined 

parameter, has a high dependence on the process used to make the measurement (e.g., PM2.5). Most 

analytical measurements are determinations of a definitive amount of a specific molecule or mixture of 

molecules. An example of this would be the concentration of carbon monoxide in ambient air. However, 

other measurements are dependent on the process used to make the measurement. Method-defined 

parameters include measurements of physical parameters such as temperature and solar radiation which 

are dependent on the collection height and the design of the instrumentation used. Measurements of 

particulate mass, especially fine particulate, are also method-defined parameters because they are not 

"true" measures of particulate mass, being dependent on criteria such as: size cut-points which are 

geometrically defined; level of volatilization of particulates during sampling; and analytical methods that 

control the level of moisture associated with particulates at a concentration that may not represent actual 

conditions. This should not be interpreted to mean that using a method-defined measurement of 

particulate is inferior, rather when selecting methods or comparing data sets for method-defined 

parameters it is important to consider that there is no “correct” measurement, only a “defined” method. 

However as mentioned above in the PBMS discussion, there are certain data quality acceptance limits for 

“defined” methods that can be used to accept alternative methods. 
 QA Handbook Vol II Section 4.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page: 1 of 3 

4.0 Personnel Qualifications and Training 

4.1 Personnel Qualifications 

Ambient air monitoring personnel may be required to perform a number of functions that are important to 

the quality of data. Table 4-1 identifies these functions and provides some of the key activities within the 

functional category. Once the list is completed for a monitoring organization, it can be used in the 

development of position descriptions for recruitment and training programs. 

Not all functions are needed for the entire duration of a project. Monitoring organizations may feel that it 

can contract some of the functions that are needed. For example, an organization may wish to contract 

the information technology (IT) function to have the monitoring instruments connected to a data logging 

system that would transfer data to a local data base and eventually to an external data base like AQS. 

This part of the process might be considered a “one-time” event needing a particular expertise whose 

function might not require a full time person. However, it is critical that someone within the program 

understands this IT function to ensure data collection is operating properly on a day-to-day basis. 

Table 4-1 Monitoring Functions that Need Some Level of Staffing or Expertise 

Function Activities 

Procurement 

- Purchasing capital equipment and consumables 

- Developing contracts and maintenance agreements 

- Applying for EPA grants 

Technical 

- Setting up a monitoring site, electricity, communications 

- Developing standard operating procedures 

- Selecting and installing monitoring equipment 

- Calibrating equipment, performing quality control 

- Shelter and equipment maintenance 

Data Analysis (Statistical) 

- Understanding population and measurement uncertainty 

- Developing sampling designs 

- Developing networks to achieve objectives 

- Assessing/interpreting data (data quality assessments) 

Quality Assurance 

- Developing quality systems, QMPs/QAPPs 

- Developing data quality objectives 

- Implementing technical systems audits, performance evaluations 

- Validating data 

- QA reporting 

Information Technology 

- Selecting information technology (data loggers and local data base) 

- Developing analyzer outputs to data loggers and data transfer to local data base 

- Transfering data from local data base to external data repositories (AQS, etc.) 

Personnel assigned to ambient air monitoring activities are expected to have the educational, work 

experience, responsibility, personal attributes and training requirements for their positions. In some 

cases, certain positions may require certification and/or recertification. An example would be certifying 

auditors on instruments to be audited. These requirements should be outlined in the position 

advertisement and in personal position descriptions. Records on personnel qualifications and training 

should be maintained and accessible for review during audit activities (unless the records are maintained 

as part of confidential personnel records). These records should be retained as described in Section 5. 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 4.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page:2 of 3 

4.2 Training

Adequate education and training are integral to any monitoring program that strives for reliable and 

comparable data. It is recommended that monitoring organizations maintain some requirements for air 

personnel qualifications (combination of education and experience). Training is aimed at increasing the 

effectiveness of employees and their organization. As part of a quality assurance program, EPA QA/G10, Guidance for Developing a Training Program for Quality System1 suggests the development of 

operational procedures for training. These procedures should include information on: 

 personnel qualifications- general and position specific 

 training requirements - by position 

 frequency of training 

Appropriate training should be available to employees supporting the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring 

Program, commensurate with their duties. Such training may consist of classroom lectures, workshops, 

web-based courses, teleconferences, vendor provided, and on-the-job training. 

Along with suggested training, there are some EPA programs that require mandatory training and/or 

certifications. These programs include, but are not limited to, the National Performance Audit Program 

(NPAP), Performance Evaluation Program (PEP), Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments (IMPROVE), and PM2.5 Speciation Trends Network Audit Program. All personnel 

performing audits in these projects or programs are required to possess mandatory training or a current 

certification issued by the EPA Office responsible for the monitoring program. 

EPA encourages regional planning organizations and monitoring organizations to develop training 

programs that require some level of certification. 

4.2.1 Suggested Training

Over the years, a number of courses have been developed for personnel involved with ambient air 

monitoring and quality assurance aspects. Formal QA/QC training is offered through the following 

organizations: 

 Air Pollution Training Institute (APTI) http://www.epa.gov/apti/ 

 Air & Waste Management Association (AWMA) http://www.awma.org/ 

 American Society for Quality (ASQ) http://www.asq.org/ 

 EPA Quality Staff (QS) http://www.epa.gov/quality1/ 

 EPA Regional Offices http://www.epa.gov/epahome/locate2.htm 

 EPA Ambient Monitoring Technology Information Center (AMTIC) Technology Transfer 

Network (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/training.html) 

In addition, OAQPS uses contractors and academic institutions to develop and provide training for data 

collection activities that support regulatory efforts throughout EPA and monitoring organizations. In 

addition, instrument and data management manufacturers provide training on the equipment they sell. 

Sometimes this training can be added to the equipment purchase cost. 

 

1 http://www.epa.gov/quality1/qs-docs/g10-final.pdf 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 4.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page:3 of 3 

Table 4-2 provides a suggested sequence of core QA-related ambient air monitoring courses for ambient 

air monitoring staff by job position. The suggested course sequences assume little or no experience in 

QA/QC or air monitoring but some courses may have pre-requisites. Persons having experience in the 

subject matter described in the courses would select courses according to their appropriate experience 

level. Courses not included in the core sequence would be selected according to individual 

responsibilities, preferences, and available resources. 

Table 4-2 Suggested Sequence of Core QA-related Ambient Air Training Courses for Ambient Air Monitoring and QA 

Personnel

SourceSequenceCourse Title (SI = self instructional) Field Lab QCSupv. 

Data 

Mgt. 

Mon 

Supv. 

QA* QA 

Mgt. 

APTI- SI:422 Air Pollution Control Orientation Course X X X X X X 

APTI 452 Principles and Practices of Air Pollution Control X X X X X 

APTI -SI:100 Mathematics Review for Air Pollution Control X X 

QS- QA1 Orientation to Quality Assurance Management X X X 

APTI-SI:434 Introduction to Ambient Air Monitoring X X X X X X X 

APTI -SI:471 General Quality Assurance Considerations for Ambient 

Air Monitoring 

X X X X X X X 

APTI- SI:409 Basic Air Pollution Meteorology X X X X X 

APTI SI:473A Beginning Environmental Statistical Techniques 

(Revised) 

X X X X X X X 

APTI-470 Quality Assurance for Air Pollution Measurement 

Systems 

 X X X X 

QS-QA2 Data Quality Objectives Workshop X X X 

QS-QA3 Quality Assurance Project Plan X X X X 

APTI-435 Atmospheric Sampling X X X X X 

No Source Basic Electronics X X X 

APTI-SI:476B Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems - Operation & 

Maintenance of Gas Monitors 

X X X X 

APTI-474 Continuous Emission Monitoring X X X X 

APTI-SI:433 Network Design and Site Selection for Monitoring PM2.5

and PM10 in Ambient Air 

 X X X 

APTI-464 Analytical Methods for Air Quality Standards X X X X 

APTI Chain Of Custody X X X X X X X 

APTI- SI:436 Site Selection for Monitoring SO2 X X X X 

OAQPS AQS Training (annual AQS conference) X X X 

QS- QA4 Data Quality Assessment X X X 

QS- QA5 Assessing Quality Systems X X X 

APTI- Introduction to Environmental Statistics X X X X 

AWMA QA6 Quality Audits for Improved Performance X X 

ASQC-STAT1 Statistics for Effective Decision Making X X X X X 

*- Personnel performing technical system audits (TSAs) would fit into this category 

QS- Refers to Quality Staff http://www.epa.gov/quality1/ 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 5.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 1 of 8 

5.0 Documentation and Records

Organizations that perform environmental data operations (EDO) and management activities must 

establish and maintain procedures for the timely preparation, review, approval, issuance, use, control, 

revision and maintenance of documents and records. Each organization should have a documented 

records management policy with the following elements addressed: 

1. A list of files considered the official records and their media type (e.g., paper, electronic) 

2. Schedule for retention and disposition of records 

3. Storage and retrieval system of records 

4. Person(s) responsible at each level of storage and retrieval for records 

5. Assignment of appropriate levels of security 

This information should be included in a monitoring organization’s quality assurance project plan. Please 

refer to Section 14 for further information and the EPA records website1

A document, from a records 

management perspective, is a 

volume that contains 

information that describes, 

defines, specifies, reports, 

certifies, or provides data or 

results pertaining to 

environmental programs. As 

defined in the Federal Records 

Act of 1950 and the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (now 

44 U.S.C. 3101-3107), records 

are: “...books, papers, maps, 

photographs, machine readable 

materials, or other documentary 

materials, regardless of 

physical form or 

characteristics, made or 

received by an agency of the 

United States Government 

under Federal Law or in 

connection with the transaction 

of public business and 

preserved or appropriate for 

preservation by that agency or 

its legitimate successor as 

evidence of the organization, 

functions, policies, decisions, 

procedures, operations, or other 

 

1 http://www.epa.gov/records/ 

Table 5-1 Types of Information that Should be Retained Through Document 

Control.

Categories Record/Document Types

Management and 

Organization 

State Implementation Plan 

Reporting agency information 

Organizational structure of monitoring program 

Personnel qualifications and training 

Quality management plan 

Document control plan 

Support contracts 

Site Information 

Network description 

Network plans 

Site characterization file 

Site maps/pictures 

Environmental Data 

Operations 

QA Project Plans (QAPPs) 

Standard operating procedures (SOPs) 

Field and laboratory notebooks 

Sample handling/custody records 

Inspection/maintenance records 

Raw Data Any original data (routine and QC) 

Data Reporting 

Air quality index report 

Annual SLAMS air quality information 

Data/summary reports 

Journal articles/papers/presentations 

Data Management Data algorithms 

Data management plans/flowcharts 

Quality Assurance 

Control charts and strip charts 

Data quality assessments 

QA reports 

System audits 

Network reviews 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 5.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 2 of 8 

activities of the Government or because of the informational value of data in them....”. This section will 

provide guidance of documentation and records for the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program. 

Table 5-1 represents the categories and types of records and documents that are applicable for document 

control. Information on key documents in each category follows. It should be noted that the list contains 

documents that may not be applicable to particular organizations and, therefore, is not meant to be a list of 

required documentation. This list should also not be construed as the definitive list of record and 

document types. 

Electronic Records 

As monitoring technologies advance it is becoming more likely that data will be generated and retained 

electronically. The majority of the documentation referred to in this section can be saved as an electronic 

record. Retention of electronic records2

 is included in the above definition. It is recommended that 

electronic as well as paper records be stored in a logical order for ease of access. This is discussed more 

in-depth in Section 14. 

Statute of Limitations

As stated in 40 CFR Part 31.42, in general, all information considered as documentation and records 

should be retained for 3 years from the date the grantee submits its final expenditure report unless 

otherwise noted in the funding agreement. However, if any litigation, claim, negotiation, audit or other 

action involving the records has been started before the expiration of the 3-year period, the records must 

be retained until completion of the action and resolution of all issues that arise from it, or until the end of 

the regular 3-year period, whichever is later. For clarification purposes, the retention of samples produced 

as a result of required monitoring may differ depending on the program and/or purpose collected. For 

retention of samples for a specific program please refer to the appropriate reference in CFR for the 

individual program. 

5.1 Management and Organization

Most of the record types in this category in Table 5-1 can be found in a single document, the quality 

management plan. The quality management plan is a blueprint for how an organization’s quality 

management objectives will be attained. It includes the QA and QC activities used to ensure that the 

results of technical work are of the type and quality needed for their intended use. The EPA Quality Staff 

provide requirements for quality management plans3

 that monitoring organizations may find helpful. 

5.2 Site Information

Site information provides vital data about each monitoring site. Historical site information can help 

determine and evaluate changes in measurement values at the site. This information should be kept to 

characterize the site through time. Because monitoring organizations are required to file an annual 

network plan and perform network assessments at a minimum of every five years, (40 CFR Part 58.10), 

this information should be retained and updated periodically by both the agency responsible for the site 

and the office responsible for reviewing the site information for the network assessment process. The 

Annual Network Monitoring Plans, the 5-Year Network Assessments and the Air Quality System (AQS) 

 

2 http://www.epa.gov/records/tools/erks.htm 3

 EPA Requirements for Quality Management Plans (QA/R-2) http://www.epa.gov/quality1/qa_docs.html 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 5.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 3 of 8 

Site File are good areas to record, capture and retain site information. Another source where site 

information is provided is the quality assurance project plan. At a minimum the QAPP should identify the 

sites for which the QAPP applies. 

Most ambient air agencies retain site records in paper and/or electronic file format. Included in a site 

information file are maps and pictures of an individual site. Typically, the kinds of information found in a 

site identification record should include: 

1. The AQS site identification number 

2. Station type (SLAMS, NCore, CSN, etc.) 

3. Instrumentation, sampling and analysis methods for each parameter (manufacturer’s model 

number, pollutant measurement technique, AQS Method Code and Pollutant Code etc.) 

4. The location, including street address and geographical coordinates 

5. Purpose of measurements (monitoring to determine compliance with air quality standards) 

6. The operating schedule for each monitor 

7. The monitoring objective and spatial scale of representativeness for each monitor as defined in 40 

CFR Part 58 appendix D 

8. The MSA, CBSA, CSA or other area represented by the monitor 

9. The designation of any Pb monitors as either source-oriented or non-source-oriented according to 

40 CFR Part 58 appendix D 

10. Any monitors for which a waiver has been requested or granted by the EPA Regional 

Administrator 

11. Influential pollutant sources (point and area sources, proximity, pollutant density, etc.) 

12. Topography (hills, valleys, bodies of water, trees; type and size, proximity, orientation, etc., 

picture of a 360 degree view from the probe of the monitoring site) 

13. Atmospheric exposure (unrestricted, interferences, etc.) 

14. Site diagram (measurement flow diagram, service lines, equipment configuration, etc.) 

15. Site audits 

5.3 Environmental Data Operations

A quality assurance program associated with the collection of ambient air monitoring data must include 

an effective procedure for preserving the integrity4

 of the data. Ambient air monitoring results, and in 

certain types of measurements - the sample itself, may be essential elements in proving the validity of the 

data or the decisions made using the data. Data can not be admitted as evidence unless it can be shown 

that they are representative of the conditions that existed at the time that the data (or sample) was 

collected. Therefore, each step in the sampling and analysis procedure must be carefully monitored and 

documented. There are basically four elements in the evidentiary phase of an overall quality assurance 

program: 

1. Data collection - includes measurement preparation and identification of the sample, sample 

location and sample time. It also includes the conditions during the measurements in the form of 

data sheets, logbooks, strip charts, and raw data. 

2. Sample and/or measurement result handling - includes evidence that the sample and data were 

 

4

 “the representational faithfulness of information to the true state of the object that the information represents, 

where representational faithfulness is composed of four essential qualities or core attributes: completeness, 

currency/timeliness, accuracy/correctness and validity/authorization." From Boritz, J. Efrim. IS Practioaners’ Views 

on Core Concepts of Information Intergrity. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems. Elsevier. 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 5.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 4 of 8 

protected from contamination and tampering during transfer between people and from the 

sampling site to the laboratory and during analysis, transmittal, and storage. This process is 

documented in chain of custody forms. 

3. Analysis - includes evidence that samples and data were properly stored prior to and after 

analysis, interpretation and reporting. 

4. Preparation and filing of measurement report(s) - includes evidentiary requirements and retention 

of records.

Failure to include any one of these elements in the collection and analysis of ambient air monitoring data 

may render the results of the program inadmissible as evidence, or may seriously undermine the 

credibility of any report based on these data. 

Environmental data operations include all the operations required to successfully measure and report a 

value. Documentation for environmental data operations would include: 

 QA Project Plans - Documents how environmental data operations are planned, implemented, 

and assessed during the life cycle of a program, project, or task (see below). 

 Standard operating procedures (SOPs)- Written documents that give detailed instruction on 

how a monitoring organization will perform daily tasks: field, laboratory and administrative. 

SOPs are a required element of a QAPP and therefore any EDO must include these (see below). 

 Field and laboratory notebooks- Any documentation that may provide additional information 

about the environmental data operation (e.g., calibration notebooks, strip charts, temperature 

records, site notes, maintenance records etc.) (see below). 

 Sample handling and/or custody records- Records tracing sample and data handling from the 

site through analysis, including transportation to facilities, sample storage, and handling between 

individuals within facilities. (Section 12 provides more information on this activity.) 

Quality Assurance Project Plan

As mentioned in the assistance agreement sections of 40 CFR Parts 30.54 (Non-State and Local Gov.) 

and 31.45 (State and Local Gov.) quality assurance programs must be established. In addition to the grant 

requirements, 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix A5

 states that each quality assurance program must be described 

in detail in accordance with the EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans6

.

Standard Operating Procedures

In order to perform sampling and analysis operations consistently, standard operating procedures (SOPs) 

must be written as part of the QAPP. SOPs are written documents that detail the method for an operation, 

analysis, or action with thoroughly prescribed techniques and steps, and are officially approved as the 

method for performing certain routine or repetitive tasks. Although not every activity in the 

field/laboratory needs to be documented, the activities that could potentially cause measurement 

uncertainties, or significant variance or bias, should be described in an SOP. 

SOPs should ensure consistent conformance with organizational practices, serve as training aids, provide 

ready reference and documentation of proper procedures, reduce work effort, reduce error occurrences in 

data, and improve data comparability, credibility, and defensibility. They should be sufficiently clear and 

 

5 http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl 6 http://www.epa.gov/quality1/qa_docs.html 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 5.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 5 of 8 

written in a step-by-step format to be readily understood by a person knowledgeable in the general 

concept of the procedure. 

Elements that may be included in SOPs which are explained in the guidance document Guidance for the 

Preparation of Standard Operating Procedures EPA QA/G-67 are: 

1. Scope and Applicability 

2. Summary of Method 

3. Definitions 

4. Health and Safety Warnings 

5. Cautions 

6. Interferences 

7. Personnel Qualifications 

8. Equipment and Supplies 

9. Procedure (section may include all or part of these sections): 

a. Instrument or Method Calibration 

b. Sample Collection 

c. Sample Handling and Preservation 

d. Sample Preparation and Analysis 

e. Troubleshooting 

f. Data Acquisition, Calculations & Data Reduction 

g. Computer Hardware & Software (used to manipulate analytical results and report data) 

10. Data Management and Records Management Parameters 

11. Quality Control/Quality Assurance 

Elements that are not needed may be excluded or listed as “NA” (not applicable). 

Personnel implementing SOPs may not be involved in the “larger picture” which includes the use of the 

data and whether or not DQOs are being achieved. Therefore, it’s very important that the SOP covers the 

objectives of the monitoring program and the importance of following each step in an SOP in order to 

achieve quality results. 

 

NOTE: There may be some incentive to rely on vendor developed methods manuals or to 

reference analytical methods on internet sites (e.g., TO-15 for NATTS VOCs) as a 

monitoring organization’s SOP without revision. Although the majority of information in 

these documents may be appropriate, many times the methods provide more than one 

option for method implementation and are not specific to the organization implementing 

the method. Therefore, organizations are encouraged to utilize these methods but edit 

them to make them specific to the organization. 

Many of these operational procedures listed above are included in the EPA reference and equivalent 

methods and EPA guidance documents. However, it is the organization’s responsibility to develop its 

own unique written operational procedures applicable to air quality measurements made by the 

organization. 

SOPs should be written by individuals performing the procedures that are being standardized. SOPs for 

the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program environmental data operations must be included in QAPPs, 

 

7 http://www.epa.gov/quality1/qs-docs/g6-final.pdf 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 5.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 6 of 8 

either by reference or by inclusion of the actual method. If a method is referenced, it should be stated that 

the method is followed exactly or an addendum that explains changes to the method should be included in 

the QAPP (see NOTE above). If a modified method will be used for an extended period of time, the 

method should be revised to include the changes to appropriate sections. In general, approval of SOPs 

occurs during the approval of the QAPP. Individuals with appropriate training and experience with the 

particular SOPs in the QAPP need to review the SOPs. 

SOPs should have some level of documented approval by the monitoring organization and be 

reviewed/approved at some frequency. There should be some level of document control on SOPs so that 

personnel can quickly determine whether or not they are using the most current method. The document 

control information on the pages of this Handbook provide a good example. It is suggested that the 

monitoring organization create a “master” list of the current SOPs it uses and include some document 

control information to allow users to identify the appropriate SOPs. 

Field and Laboratory Notebooks--

Recording of some field and laboratory data is necessary for ambient air monitoring. Section 11 provides 

information on the types of notebooks as well as the activities that can be recorded in these notebooks. A 

standardized format should be utilized to ensure that all necessary information is obtained. The format 

should be designed to clearly identify the parameters during the measurements, the date and time, location 

of the measurement station, and operating personnel. This information may determine the credibility of 

the data and should not be erased or altered. Document everything thoroughly from data collection 

through data use, to include conversations with QA/QC personnel and EPA officials concerning the data. 

The motto is “Write it down!” Nothing enhances the credibility of a data collection program more than 

thoroughly detailed documentation. Data usability, for the future as well as the present applications, 

depends on how well all of these details are documented 

If a manual record is kept, any error should be crossed out with a single line, and the correct value 

recorded above the crossed-out entry. It is recommended that manual documentation always use indelible 

black or blue ink when recording or correcting data entries, that corrections be made as specified above, 

and that all forms be completed with the signatures and dates required on the forms. Since these records 

may be subpoenaed, it is important that all field notes be legible. Corrections should be initialed and dated 

as to who made the change and when. Comments at the bottom of the form can provide clarification as to 

why a change was made when others review the document 

Electronic recording and storage of data is widely used. Electronic recording of the data allows for 

flagging and retention of additional information that is pertinent to day to day operations that could 

otherwise be lost with conventional systems. The same information as listed in the above paragraph 

should be recorded during routine quality checks. Some monitoring organizations like to electronically 

produce strip charts of data and/or supporting information. This data can be used to enhance and support 

the validity of the data. 

Do not discard original field records; copies of them are not normally admissible as evidence. For 

neatness, the field data may be transcribed or copied for incorporation in a final report, but the originals 

should be kept on file. 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 5.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 7 of 8 

Developing a consistent technique for documenting information in a logbook and archiving this 

information is very important. Below is a list of resources that may be helpful in developing field and 

laboratory logbooks. 

 Basic Requirements of an Electronic Recordkeeping System at EPA 

http://www.epa.gov/records/tools/erks.htm

 Keeping a Log Book http://www.aerogel.org/?p=814

 Practise Good Lab Book Practices 

http://www.anu.edu.au/commercialisation/pdf/goodpractices.pdf 

 Keeping A Scientific Notebook Or Loghttp://raider.mountunion.edu/Organizations/scienceday/pdf/Scientific%20log.pdf 

 Implementing and Auditing Electronic Recordkeeping Systems Used in Scientific Research and 

Development http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10529410590924577 

 "A Laboratory Quality Handbook of Best Practices" By Donald Singer. Chapter 5, Laboratory 

Documentation and Data, pg. 27-37 

 Good Record Keeping –University of Florida http://www.research.ufl.edu/otl/goodrecords.html

 2003 NELAC Standard Section 5.5.5.5 (pg 215 of 324) http://www.nelacinstitute.org/docs/2003nelacstandard.pdf 

 NEIC Procedures Manual for the Evidence Audit of Enforcement Investigations by Contractor 

Evidence Audit : Page IV-8 http://nepis.epa.gov/Adobe/PDF/9100LLFC.PDF

5.4 Raw Data 

Raw data includes any original factual information from a measurement activity or study recorded in 

laboratory work sheets, records, memoranda, notes, computer (electronic) files or exact copies thereof and 

that are necessary for the reconstruction and evaluation of a concentration, an assessment, a report or a 

decision. Raw data may include photographs, microfilm or microfiche copies, computer printouts, 

magnetic media, including dictated observations, and recorded data from automated instruments. For 

automated information systems, raw data is considered the original observations recorded by the 

information system that are then reduced to data that are reported. Organizations should critically review 

the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program and create a list of what the organization considers raw data 

and provide a means to store this information in a manner that is readily accessible. 

5.5 Data Reporting

In addition to samples and field records, the report of the analysis itself may serve as material evidence. 

Just as the procedures and data leading up to the final report are subject to the rules of evidence, so is the 

report. Written documents are generally considered as hearsay and are not admissible as evidence 

without a proper foundation. A proper foundation consists of introducing testimony from all persons 

having anything to do with the major portions of the measurement and analysis. Thus, the field operator, 

all persons having custody of the samples and data, and the analyst would be required to lay the 

foundation for the introduction of the measurement as evidence. This evidence can and should be 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 5.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 8 of 8 

recorded in the form of initials and notes written in indelible ink at the time of data collection on paper 

that is kept on file. The proper foundation is laid and available in case the data are questioned. Examples 

of this include strip charts dated and initialed by operator when visiting the site for routine quality checks 

and initials on routine paperwork and in logbooks when events are recorded. Electronic records should 

also allow for a recording of initials or be traceable to the operator performing the work. 

To ensure compliance with legal rules, all measurement reports should be filed in a safe place by a 

custodian having this responsibility. Although the field notes and calculations are not generally included 

in the summary report, these materials may be required at a future date to bolster the acceptability and 

credibility of the report as evidence in an enforcement proceeding. Therefore, the full report including all 

original notes and calculation sheets should be kept in the file. Signed receipts for all samples or other 

data (chain of custody, field data sheets, etc.) should also be filed. 

The original of a document is the best evidence; a copy is not normally admissible as evidence. 

Microfilm, snap-out carbon copies, and similar contemporary business methods of producing copies are 

acceptable in many jurisdictions if the unavailability of the original is adequately explained and if the 

copy was made in the ordinary course of business. 

In summary, although all original calculations and measurement data need not be included in the final 

report, they should be kept in the agency’s files. It is a good rule to file all reports together in a secure 

place. Keeping these documents under lock and key will ensure that the author can testify at future court 

hearings that the report has not been altered. 

5.6 Data Management 

Much of the data collected for the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program will be collected through the 

use of automated systems. These systems must be effectively managed and documented by using a set of 

guidelines and principles by which adherence will ensure data integrity. Discussions of data management 

activities and the requirements for documentation can be found in Section 14. 

5.7 Quality Assurance 

Quality assurance information is necessary to document the quality of data. A monitoring organization’s 

plan for all quality assurance activities must be documented in its QAPP. This information should be 

retained in a manner that it can be associated with the routine data that it represents. QA information 

includes: 

 Control charts - Use of control charts is explained in Section 10.6. 

 Data quality assessments (DQAs) - These assessments are a statistical and scientific evaluation 

of the data set to determine the validity and performance of the data collection design and to 

determine the adequacy of the data set for its intended use. More discussion on DQAs can be 

found in Section 18. 

 QA Reports - Reports pertaining to the quality of data are discussed in Sections 3 and 16. 

 Evaluation/Audits - Assessments of various phases of the environmental data operation are 

discussed in Section 15. 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 6.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 1 of 16 

6.0 Monitoring Network Design

The development of a monitoring network of sites for a specific pollutant requires: 

1. Understanding the monitoring objective(s). 

2. Identifying the spatial scale most appropriate for the monitoring objective(s). 

3. Identifying the general locations where the monitoring site(s) should be placed in order to collect 

a representative pollutant measurement. 

4. Identifying specific monitoring sites. 

This section describes the general concepts for establishing the SLAMS, NCore, CSN, PAMS, and open 

path monitoring. Additional details can be found in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix D 1 and the guidance 

information for the various monitor networks that can be found on AMTIC2

. 

As described in Section 1, air quality monitoring data are generally collected for one or more of the 

following objectives: 

 To provide air pollution data to the general public in a timely manner 

 To support compliance with ambient air quality standards and emissions strategy development 

 To support for air pollution research studies 

Network information related to these purposes are discussed below. 

Timely Air Quality Public Reporting- AIRNow

The U.S. EPA, NOAA, NPS, tribal, state, and local agencies developed AIRNow3 to provide the public 

with easy access to national air quality information. The AIRNow site offers daily Air Quality Index 

(AQI): 

Conditions- Nationwide and regional real-time ozone and PM2.5 air quality maps covering 46 US 

States and parts of Canada. These maps are updated daily every hour. A click of a mouse brings up 

the U.S. map and a second click can bring up the AQI details of a region, state or local area within a 

state. 

Forecasts - Nationwide daily air quality forecasts for over 300 major cities and areas in the U.S. 

In addition this information is also found in local/national newspapers/television, on local and tribal web 

pages and more recently on smart phone applications. 

Federal requirements in 40 CFR Part 58.50 state that Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) with a 

population of more than 350,000 are required to report the AQI daily to the general public. The U.S. 

Office of Management and Budget defines MSAs according to the most recent census. However, many 

monitoring organizations who are not subject to the 58.50 AQI requirements participate in AIRNow. 

Guidance for reporting is included in the Technical Assistance Document for the Reporting of Daily Air 

Quality-The Air Quality Index (AQI)4

 

1 http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl 2 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/ 3 http://airnow.gov/ 4 http://www.epa.gov/airnow/aqi_tech_assistance.pdf 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 6.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 2 of 16 

The air quality data used in AIRNow maps and forecasts are collected using either federal reference or 

equivalent monitoring methods (FRM/FEM), or approved regional methods (ARM). Since the 

information needed to make maps must be as "real-time" as possible, the data are displayed as soon as 

practical after the end of each hour. Although some preliminary data quality assessments are performed, 

the data as such are not fully verified and validated through the quality assurance procedures monitoring 

organizations use to officially submit and certify data on the EPA AQS. Therefore, data are used on the 

AIRNow Web site only for the purpose of reporting the AQI. Information on the AIRNow web site is not 

used to formulate or support regulation, guidance or any other Agency decision or position. 

Compliance Monitoring

The information required for selecting the number of samplers5

 and the sampler locations include isopleth 

maps, population density maps, and source locations. The following are suggested guidelines: 

 the priority area is the zone of highest pollution concentration expected to occur in the area 

covered by the network; one or more stations should be located in this area; 

 close attention should be given to densely populated areas within the region, especially when they 

are in the vicinity of heavy pollution; 

 the quality of air entering the region is to be assessed by stations situated on the periphery of the 

region; meteorological factors (e.g., frequencies of wind directions) are of primary importance in 

locating these stations; 

 sampling should be undertaken in areas of projected growth to determine the effects of future 

development on the environment; 

 a major objective of compliance monitoring is the evaluation of progress made in attaining the 

desired air quality; for this purpose, sampling stations should be strategically situated to facilitate 

evaluation of the implemented control strategies; and 

 some information of air quality should be available to represent all portions of the region of 

concern. 

Some stations will be capable of fulfilling more than one of the guideline described above. For example, 

a station located in a densely populated area can indicate population exposures and can also document the 

changes in pollutant concentrations resulting from mitigation strategies used in the area. 

Research Monitoring 

There are a number of activities that could be described under research monitoring. A few are considered 

in this section 

Environmental and Human Health Effects Research -- 

Air monitoring networks related to environmental and human health effects are composed of integrating 

samplers both for determining pollutant concentrations for <24 hours and for developing long term 

(>24 hour) ambient air quality standards. The research requires that monitoring points be located so that 

the resulting data will represent the population group under evaluation. Therefore, the monitoring stations 

 

5

 A “sampler” in this context refers to both continuous instruments that provide an ambient air concentration without 

additional preparation or analytical techniques as well as instruments that provide a sample needing additional 

analysis. 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 6.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 3 of 16 

are established in the centers of small well-defined residential areas within a community. Data 

correlations are made between observed health effects and observed air quality exposures. 

Some considerations for aerometric monitoring in support of health studies follow: 

 the station must be located in or near the population under study; 

 pollutant sampling averaging times must be sufficiently short to allow for use in acute health 

effect studies that form the scientific basis for short-term standards; 

 sampling frequency, usually daily, should be sufficient to characterize air quality as a function of 

time; and 

 the monitoring system should be flexible and responsive to emergency conditions with data 

available on short notice. 

Attention must still be paid to QA/QC activities since environmental or human health research activities 

can lead to policy decisions and potentially compliance related monitoring. The uncertainty of this 

research data should be known and quantified. 

Atmospheric and or Methods Research -- 

Some research will be accomplished either for studying a particular atmospheric phenomenon or for 

determining if a particular sampler or analytical method is appropriate for ambient air monitoring. In this 

regard many of the points described of above for health research are applicable and include: 

 Ensuring the data are representative (spatially and temporally) of the population (or atmospheric 

conditions) under study 

 Enough data are collected (including quality assurance data) to make definitive statements or 

decisions 

 Ensuring that (method research) testing covers the extremes of temperature, pressure, humidity 

and other environmental conditions for which the method will be exposed 

 Testing whether the method can be operated with little maintenance 

 That the precision and bias of the method is comparable to the standard 

Additional Types of Monitoring 

In addition to the three basic monitoring objectives, the following also occur with the Ambient Air 

Monitoring Program 

Trends Monitoring --

Trends monitoring can be used to determine the extent and nature of air pollution and to determine the 

variations in the measured levels of the atmospheric contaminants in respect to the geographical, socioeconomic, climatological and other factors. The data are useful in planning epidemiological 

investigations and in providing the background against which more intensive regional and community 

studies of air pollution can be conducted. Trends monitoring is characterized by locating a minimal 

number of monitoring sites across as large an area as possible while still meeting the monitoring 

objectives. The NCore network, NATTS and the CSN meet the objectives of trends monitoring. 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 6.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 4 of 16 

At times trends monitoring may classify /evaluate certain areas separately. An example would be 

monitoring urban and non-urban areas. Urban sampling stations are usually located in the most densely 

populated areas of the region. In most regions, there are several urban sites. Non-urban stations 

encompass various topographical categories such as farmland, desert, forest, mountain and coast. Nonurban stations are not selected specifically to be “clean air” control sites for urban areas, but they do 

provide a relative comparison between some urban and nearby non-urban areas. 

In interpreting trends data, limitations imposed by the network design must be considered. Even though 

precautions are taken to ensure that each sampling site is as representative as possible of the designated 

area, it is impossible to be certain that measurements obtained at a specific site are not unduly influenced 

by local factors. Such factors can include topography, structures, sources of pollution in the immediate 

vicinity of the site, and other variables; the effects which cannot always be accurately anticipated, but 

nevertheless, should be considered in network design. Comparisons among pollution levels for various 

areas are valid only if the sites are representative of the conditions for which the study is designed. 

Emergency Episode Monitoring -- 

For episode avoidance purposes, data are needed quickly--in less than a few hours after the pollutant 

contacts the sensor. While it is possible to obtain data rapidly by on-site manual data reduction and 

reporting, the norm is the use of automated monitoring/reporting networks that can report data back to 

central information management systems on an hourly basis (see Section 14). The severity of the 

problem, the size of the receptor area, and the availability of resources all influence both the scope and 

sophistication of the monitoring system. 

The control actions for emergencies must be based on real-time measurements that are correlated with the 

various decisions (e.g., evacuation) that need to be made using this information. Therefore it is necessary 

to use continuous air samplers because of the short durations of episodes. Based on episode alert criteria 

and mechanisms now in use, 1-h averaging times are adequate for surveillance of episode conditions. 

Shorter averaging times provide information on data collecting excursions, but they increase the need for 

automation because of the bulk of data obtained. Longer averaging times (>6 hours) are not desirable 

because of the delay in response that these impose. EPA has developed a document titled: EPA 

Emergency Response Air Monitoring Guidance Tables6 that can be helpful in the selection of the right 

type of monitoring equipment based on the pollution and its severity. 

Collection and analysis must be accomplished rapidly if the data are to be useful immediately. Collection 

instruments must be fully operable at the onset of an episode. For the instrument to be maintained in peak 

operating condition, either personnel must be stationed at the sites during an episode or automated 

equipment must be operated that can provide automatic data transmission to a central location. 

Monitoring sites qualified for emergency episode monitoring should typically be located in areas where 

human health and welfare are most threatened such as: 

 in densely populated areas; 

 near large stationary source of pollution; 

 near hospitals or schools; 

 near high density traffic areas; and 

 

6

http://www.uscg.mil/hq/nsfweb/foscr/ASTFOSCRSeminar/Presentations/RemovalandResponseTech/AirMonGuida

nceTables09Ed2.pdf 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 6.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 5 of 16 

 near homes for the aged. 

A network of sites is useful in determining the range of pollutant concentrations within the area, but the 

most desirable monitoring sites are not necessarily the most convenient. Portability of monitoring 

equipment and “footprint” can be key. Solar, satellite and low power technology can make the difference 

in response time and reporting. Public buildings such as schools, firehouses, police stations, hospitals, 

and water or sewage plants should be considered for reasons of access, security and existing 

communications. 

6.1 Monitoring Objectives and Spatial Scales

The monitoring network can include monitoring sites located to meet the following objective(s),: 

1. determine the highest concentrations expected to occur in the area covered by the network. 

2. measure typical concentrations in areas of high population density. 

3. determine the impact of significant sources or source categories on air quality. 

4. determine general background concentration levels. 

5. determine the extent of regional pollutant transport among populated areas; and in support of 

secondary standards. 

6. measure air pollution impacts on visibility, vegetation damage, or other welfare-based impacts. 

These six objectives indicate the nature of the data that the monitoring network will collect that must be 

representative of the spatial area being studied. The primary monitoring objectives should be determined 

before any data is collected. 

Monitoring stations that are located in areas where pollutant concentrations are expected to be among the 

highest and in areas with the highest population densities are often used in health effects research 

networks and generally use automated equipment to continually sample and analyze pollutant levels. 

These stations are used to report data to the public through AIRNow7

 and the air quality index (AQI) and 

can be used to alert the public to potential deleterious air pollution episodes. 

The goal in siting stations is to correctly match the spatial scale represented by the sample of monitored 

air with the spatial scale most appropriate for the monitoring objective of the station. This achieves the 

goal of the data quality indicator representativeness discussed in Section 3. The representative 

measurement scales of greatest interest are shown below: 

Micro Concentrations in air volumes associated with area dimensions ranging from 

several meters up to about 100 meters. 

Middle Concentrations typical of areas up to several city blocks in size with 

dimensions ranging from about 100 meters to 0.5 kilometer. 

Neighborhood Concentrations within some extended area of the city that has relatively 

uniform land use with dimensions in the 0.5 to 4.0 kilometers range. 

Urban Overall, citywide conditions with dimensions on the order of 4 to 

50 kilometers. This scale would usually require more than one site for 

definition. 

 

7 http://airnow.gov/ 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 6.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 6 of 16 

Regional Usually a rural area of reasonably homogeneous geography and extends from 

tens to hundreds of kilometers. 

National/Global Concentrations characterizing the nation and the globe as a whole. 

Table 6-1 illustrates the relationships among the four basic monitoring objectives and the scales of 

representativeness that are generally most appropriate for that objective. Appendix E provides more 

detailed spatial characteristics for each pollutant while Table 6-2 provides a summary for a number of the 

monitoring programs. 

Table 6-1 Relationship Among Monitoring Objectives and Scales of Representativeness 

Monitoring Objective Appropriate Siting Scale

Highest Concentration Micro, middle, neighborhood, (sometimes urban/regional for secondarily 

formed 

Population Neighborhood, urban 

Source impact Micro, middle, neighborhood 

General/background & Regional Transport Urban/regional 

Welfare-related Urban/regional 

There is the potential for using open path monitoring for microscale spatial scales. For microscale areas, 

however, siting of open path analyzers must reflect proper regard for the specific monitoring objectives. 

Specifically, the path-averaging nature of open path analyzers could result in underestimations of high 

pollutant concentrations at specific points within the measurement path for other ambient air monitoring 

situations. In open path monitoring, monitoring path lengths must be commensurate with the intended 

scale of representativeness and located carefully with respect to local sources or potential obstructions. 

For short-term/high-concentration or source-oriented monitoring, the monitoring path may need to be 

further restricted in length and be oriented perpendicular to the wind direction(s) determined by air 

quality modeling leading to the highest concentration, if possible. Alternatively, multiple paths may be 

used advantageously to obtain both wider area coverage and peak concentration sensitivity. 

Table 6-2 Summary of Spatial Scales for SLAMS, NCore, PAMS, and Open Path (OP) Sites 

Spatial Scale SLAMS Sites1 PM10-2.5 NCore CSN NATTs PAMS OP 

 SO2 CO O3 NO2 Pb PM10 PM2.5 

Micro * * * * * * * 

Middle * * * * * * * * 

Neighborhood * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Urban * * * * * * * * * 

Regional * * * * * 

1 SLAMS Site scales based on current listing in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix D and do not include NCore spatial scale objective.

6.1.1 Monitoring Boundaries

The NAAQS refer to several boundaries that are defined below. These definitions are derived from the 

U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 

Core-based Statistical Area (CBSA) – is defined by the OMB as a statistical geographic entity 

consisting of the county or counties associated with at least one urbanized area/urban cluster of at least 

10,000 population, plus adjacent counties having a high degree of social and economic integration. 

Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) - a category of CBSA with populations greater than 50,0008

. 

 

8 http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/metro-city/List1.txt
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 6.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 7 of 16 

Micropolitan Statistical Area - are a category of CBSA with populations between 10,000 and 50,000 

Combined Statistical Area (CSA) - is defined by the OMB as a geographical area consisting of two or 

more adjacent CBSAs with employment interchange of at least 15 percent. Combination is automatic if 

the employment interchange is 25 percent and determined by local opinion if more than 15 but less than 

25 percent9

. 

New England city and town areas (NECTAs) - are analogous to CBSAs and are similarly classified as 

either metropolitan NECTAs (corresponding to MSAs) or micropolitan NECTAs (corresponding to 

micropolitan statistical areas). The principal difference between a CBSA and a NECTA is that NECTAs 

use New England towns as building blocks instead of counties. In the New England region, towns are a 

much more important level of government than counties. Because of this, NECTAs are usually a much 

closer approximation to metropolitan areas in New England than MSAs 

Monitoring Planning Area (MPA) - means a contiguous geographic area with established, well defined 

boundaries, such as a CBSA, county or State, having a common area that is used for planning monitoring 

locations for PM2.5. An MPA may cross State boundaries, such as the Philadelphia PA–NJ MSA, and be 

further subdivided into community monitoring zones. MPAs are generally oriented toward CBSAs or 

CSAs with populations greater than 200,000, but for convenience, those portions of a State that are not 

associated with CBSAs can be considered as a single MPA. 

Community Monitoring Zone (CMZ) – means an optional averaging area with established, well defined 

boundaries, such as county or census block, within an MPA that has relatively uniform concentrations of 

annual PM2.5 as defined by 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix N. 

6.2 Monitoring Site Location

Location of the monitoring site is initially dependent on the monitoring objective. For example once it is 

known that there is a requirement to monitor for peak ambient CO at a microscale site, it reduces the 

monitoring site location to specific areas. Hence, the first task when evaluating a possible site location is 

to determine the scale for which a candidate location can qualify by considering the following: 

1. location and emissions strengths of nearby sources, especially major source 

2. prevailing wind direction in the area 

3. nearby uniformity of land use 

4. nearby population density. 

To select locations according to these criteria, it is necessary to have detailed information on the location 

of emission sources, geographical variability of ambient pollutant concentrations, meteorological 

conditions and population density. Therefore, selection of the number, locations and types of sampling 

stations is a complex process. The variability of sources and their intensities of emissions, terrains, 

meteorological conditions and demographic features require that each network be developed individually. 

Thus, selection of the network will be based upon the best available evidence and on the experience of the 

decision team. 

 

9 http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/metro-city/List6.txt
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 6.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 8 of 16 

There has been trend for multi-pollutant monitoring (e.g., NCore). If possible, monitoring organizations 

should try to take advantage of combining pollutant monitoring to a smaller network of sites only when it 

does not conflict with meeting the primary objective for the pollutants at the site. 

The sampling site selection process involves considerations of the following factors: 

Economics - Site selection economics/expenditures consists of: 1) rental of property, if necessary; 2) 

installation of power and/phone lines; 3) excavation of the grounds; 4) installation of fencing or other 

security; 5)installation of lightning protection; and 6) delivery of trailer/shelter and monitors to the site. 

Different site selections may entail significantly different costs. 

Security - Experience has shown that in some cases, a particular site may not be appropriate for the 

establishment of an ambient monitoring station simply due to problems with the security of the equipment 

in a certain area. If the problems cannot be remedied via the use of standard security measures such as 

lighting, fences, etc., then attempts should be made to locate the site as near to the identified sector as 

possible while maintaining adequate security. 

Logistics - Logistics is the process of dealing with the procurement, maintenance and transportation of 

material and personnel for a monitoring operation. This process requires the full knowledge of all aspects 

of the data collection operation including: 

Planning Staffing 

Reconnaissance Procurement of goods and services 

Training Communications 

Scheduling Inventory 

Safety

Atmospheric considerations - Atmospheric considerations may include the spatial and temporal 

variability of the pollutants and its transport to the monitoring site. Effects of buildings, terrain, and heat 

sources or sinks on the air trajectories can produce local anomalies of excessive pollutant concentrations. 

Meteorology must be considered in determining not only the geographical location of a monitoring site 

but also such factors as height, direction, and extension of sampling probes. The following 

meteorological factors can greatly influence the dispersion of pollutants: 

Wind speed affects the travel time from the pollutant source to the receptor and the dilution of 

polluted air in the downwind direction. The concentrations of air pollutants are inversely 

proportional to the wind speed. 

Wind direction influences the general movements of pollutants in the atmosphere. Review of 

available data can indicate mean wind direction in the vicinity of the major sources of emissions.

Wind variability refers to the random motions in both horizontal and vertical velocity components 

of the wind. These random motions can be considered atmospheric turbulence, which is either 

mechanical (caused by structures and changes in terrain) or thermal (caused by heating and 

cooling of land masses or bodies of water). If the scale of turbulent motion is larger than the size 

of the pollutant plume, the turbulence will move the entire plume and cause looping and fanning; 

if smaller, it will cause the plume to diffuse and spread out. 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 6.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 9 of 16 

If the meteorological phenomena impact with some regularity, data may need to be interpreted in light of 

these atmospheric conditions. Other meteorological conditions to consider are atmospheric stability and 

lapse rate (the decrease of an atmospheric variable with height). 

A useful way of displaying wind data is a wind rose 

diagram constructed to show the distribution of wind 

speeds and directions. The wind rose diagram 

shown in Figure 6.1 represents conditions as they 

converge on the center from each direction of the 

compass. More detailed guidance for 

meteorological considerations is available in QA 

Handbook Volume IV Meteorological 

Measurements10. Relevant weather information, 

such as stability-wind roses, is usually available 

from local National Weather Service stations. For 

PAMS monitoring, in many areas there are three 

types of high ozone days: overwhelming transport, 

weak transport (or mixed transport and stagnation) 

and stagnation. The wind rose concept to site 

monitors is only applicable to the transport types, 

but not applicable to the stagnation type. 

Meteorological conditions, particularly those that can affect light transmission, should also be considered 

in selecting the location for open path analyzers (e.g., the influence of relative humidity on the creation of 

fog, the percentage of heavy snow, and the possible formation of haze, etc.). The percent fog, percent 

snow fall, percent haze, and hourly visibility (from nearest airport) may impact data completeness. 

Although sites with high relative humidity may have data capture rates around 90 percent, sites with 

relative humidity greater than 80 percent more than 20 percent of the time should be carefully assessed 

for data completeness, or avoided. Similarly, severe fog, snow fall, or haze that affects visibility can 

affect data completeness and should be kept to less than 20 percent of the time. The time of day or season 

when such conditions occur should also be determined to ensure that representative data from various 

time periods and seasons are collected. No more than 20 percent of data in any time period should be lost 

as a result of the aforementioned meteorological conditions. Sometimes, high data capture at locations 

with frequent fog or other obscurant conditions can be enhanced by using a shorter path length of 

50 to 100 meters. However, this can be done only for microscale sites. Meteorological data 

considerations therefore should include the following measurements: (1) hourly precipitation amounts for 

climatological comparisons, (2) hourly relative humidity, (3) percent haze, and (4) airport visibility. 

Topography - Both the transport and the diffusion of air pollutants are complicated by topographical 

features. Minor topographical features may exert small influences; major features, such as deep river 

valleys or mountain ranges, may affect large areas. Before final site selection, review the topography of 

the area to ensure that the purpose of monitoring at that site will not be adversely affected. Table 6-3 

summarizes important topographical features, their effects on air flow, and some examples of influences 

on monitoring site selection. Land use and topographical characterization of specific areas can be 

determined from U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maps as well as from land use maps. 

 

10 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/met.html 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 6.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 10 of 16 

Table 6-3 Relationships of Topography, Air Flow, and Monitoring Site Selection 

Topographical

Feature

Influence on Air Flow Influence on Monitoring Site Selection

Slope/Valley Downward air currents at night and on cold 

days; up slope winds on clear days when 

valley heating occurs. Slope winds and 

valley channeled winds; tendency toward 

down-slope and down-valley winds; 

tendency toward inversions 

Slopes and valleys as special sites for air monitors 

because pollutants generally are well dispersed; 

concentration levels not representative of other 

geographic areas; possible placement of monitor to 

determine concentration levels in a population or 

industrial center in valley 

Water Sea or lake breezes inland or parallel to 

shoreline during the day or in cold weather; 

land breezes at night. 

Monitors on shorelines generally for background readings 

or for obtaining pollution data on water traffic 

Hill Sharp ridges causing turbulence; air flow 

around obstructions during stable 

conditions, but over obstructions during 

unstable conditions 

Depends on source orientation; upwind source emissions 

generally mixed down the slope, and siting at foot of hill 

not generally advantageous; downwind source emissions 

generally down washed near the source; monitoring close 

to a source generally desirable if population centers 

adjacent or if monitoring protects workers 

Natural or 

manmade 

obstruction 

Eddy effects Placement near obstructions may not produce 

representative readings 

 

Pollutant Considerations - A sampling site or an array of sites for one pollutant may be appropriate for 

another pollutant species because of the configuration of sources, the local meteorology or the terrain. 

Pollutants undergo changes in their compositions between their emission and their detection; therefore, 

the impact of that change on the measuring system should be considered. Atmospheric chemical 

reactions such as the production of O3 in the presence of NOx and hydrocarbons (HCs) and the time delay 

between the emission of NOx and HCs and the detection peak of O3 values may require either a sampling 

network for the precursors of O3 and/or a different network for the actual O3 measurement. 

The success of the PAMS monitoring program is predicated on the fact that no site is unduly influenced 

by any one stationary emissions source or small group of emissions sources. Any significant influences 

would cause the ambient levels measured by that particular site to mimic the emissions rates of this 

source or sources rather than following the changes in nonattainment area-wide emissions as intended by 

the Rule. For purposes of this screening procedure, if more than 10% of the typical “lower end” 

concentration measured in an urban area is due to a nearby source of precursor emissions, then the PAMS 

site should be relocated or a more refined analysis conducted than is presented here. Detailed procedures 

can be found in the PAMS Implementation Manual11. 

None of the factors mentioned above stand alone. Each is dependent in part on the others. However, the 

objective of the sampling program must be clearly defined before the selection process can be initiated, 

and the initial definition of priorities may have to be reevaluated after consideration of the remaining 

factors before the final site selection. While the interactions of the factors are complex, the site selection 

problems can be resolved. Experience in the operation of air quality measurement systems; estimates of 

air quality, field and theoretical studies of air diffusion; and considerations of atmospheric chemistry and 

air pollution effects make up the required expertise needed to select the optimum sampling site for 

obtaining data representative of the monitoring objectives. 

 

11 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/pamsmain.html 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 6.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 11 of 16 

6.2.1 PAMS Site Descriptions 

The PAMS network array for an area should be fashioned to supply measurements that will assist States 

in understanding and solving ozone nonattainment problems. Table 6-4 describes the five site types 

identified in the PAMS network. In 2007, EPA determined that the number of required PAMS sites could 

be reduced. Only one Type 2 site is required per area regardless of population; Type 4 sites would not be 

required; and only one Type 1 or one Type 3 site would be required per area. 

Table 6-4 Site Descriptions of PAMS Monitoring Sites 

 

Type # Meas. Scale Description

1 Urban Upwind and background characterization to identify those areas which are subjected to 

overwhelming incoming transport of ozone. The #1 Sites are located in the predominant morning 

upwind direction from the local area of maximum precursor emissions and at a distance sufficient to 

obtain urban scale measurements. Typically, these sites will be located near the upwind edge of the 

photochemical grid model domain.

2 Neighborhood Maximum ozone precursor emissions impacts located immediately downwind (using the same 

morning wind direction as for locating Site #1) of the area of maximum precursor emissions and are 

typically placed near the downwind boundary of the central business district (CBD) or primary area 

of precursor emissions mix to obtain neighborhood scale measurements.

2a Neighborhood Maximum ozone precursor emissions impacts -second-most predominant morning wind 

direction

3 Urban Maximum ozone concentrations occurring downwind from the area of maximum precursor

emissions.  Locations for #3 Sites should be chosen so that urban scale measurements are obtained.  

Typically, these sites are located 10 to 30 miles from the fringe of the urban area

4 Urban Extreme downwind monitoring of transported ozone and its precursor concentrations exiting the

area and will identify those areas which are potentially contributing to overwhelming ozone

transport into other areas.  The #4 Sites are located in the predominant afternoon downwind

direction from the local area of maximum precursor emissions at a distance sufficient to obtain

urban scale measurements.  Typically, these sites will be located near the downwind edge of the

photochemical grid model domain.

There are three fundamental criteria to consider when locating a final PAMS site: sector analysis, 

distance, and proximate sources. These three criteria are considered carefully by EPA when approving or 

disapproving a candidate site for PAMS. 

6.2.2 NCore Site Descriptions 

NCore is a multi pollutant network that integrates several advanced measurement systems for particles, 

pollutant gases and meteorology. Most NCore stations have been operating since the formal start of the 

network on January 1, 2011. The NCore Network addresses the following objectives: 

 Timely reporting of data to the public by supporting AIRNow, air quality forecasting, and other 

public reporting mechanisms; 

 Support for development of emission strategies through air quality model evaluation and other 

observational methods; 

 Accountability of emission strategy progress through tracking long-term trends of criteria and 

non-criteria pollutants and their precursors; 

 Support for long-term health assessments that contribute to ongoing reviews of the NAAQS; 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 6.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 12 of 16 

 Compliance through establishing nonattainment/attainment areas through comparison with the 

NAAQS; 

 Support to scientific studies ranging across technological, health, and atmospheric process 

disciplines; and 

 Support to ecosystem assessments recognizing that national air quality networks benefit 

ecosystem assessments and, in turn, benefit from data specifically designed to address ecosystem 

analyses. 

The NCore network began Jan 1, 2011, consisting of 80 sites; 63 urban sites and 17 rural sites. For more 

detailed information on each specific site, click on the "sites map" link and this will connect to each site's 

Characterization Report. 

NCore is both a repackaging and an enhancement of existing networks. The emphasis on the term “Core” 

reflects a multi-faceted, multi-pollutant national network that can be complemented by more specific 

efforts, such as intensive field campaigns to understand atmospheric processes, or personal and indoor 

measurements to assess human exposure and health effects. The NCore network will replace the current 

National Air Monitoring Station (NAMS) and leverages all of the major existing networks to produce an 

integrated multi-pollutant approach to air monitoring. 

Emphasis is placed on a backbone of multi-pollutant sites, continuous monitoring methods, and 

measurement of important pollutants other than the criteria pollutants (e.g., ammonia and NOy). 

When complete, NCore will meet a number of important data needs: improved flow and timely reporting 

of data to the public, including supporting air quality forecasting and information systems such as 

AIRNow; continued determination of NAAQS compliance; improved development of emissions control 

strategies; enhanced accountability for the effectiveness of emission control programs; and more complete 

information for scientific, public health, and ecosystem assessments. Structurally, NCore will establish 

three levels of monitoring sites: 

 Level 1– a small number of research-oriented sites accommodating the greatest diversity of 

instrumentation with specific targeted objectives, reasonably analogous to the current PM 

Supersite program; 

 Level 2 – the backbone network of approximately 75 long-term, nationwide multi-pollutant sites, 

encompassing both urban (about 55 sites) and rural (about 20 sites) locations; 

 Level 3 – sites focused primarily on specific pollutants of greatest concern (PM and O3), with as 

few as one measured parameter. It is estimated that over 1,000 Level 3 sites will be part of 

NCore. 

Specific design criteria for NCore can be found in 40 CFR Part 58 Appendix D. 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 6.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 13 of 16 

6.3 Minimum Network Requirements

Rather than place tables for minimum monitoring site requirements in the Handbook (since they have a 

tendency to change), the reader is directed to 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix D12 of the most current 

regulation to find the appropriate minimum monitoring network requirements. 

6.4 Operating Schedules 

NOTE: The reader should check the most current version of 40 CFR Part 58 to ensure the 

schedules below have not changed. 

For continuous analyzers, consecutive hourly averages must be collected except during: 

1. periods of routine maintenance; 

2. periods of instrument calibration, quality control checks or performance evaluation; or 

3. periods or monitoring seasons exempted by the Regional Administrator. 

For Pb manual methods, at least one 24-hour sample must be collected every 6 days except during 

periods or seasons exempted by the Regional Administrator. 

For PAMS VOC samplers, samples must be collected as specified in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix D 

Section 5. Area specific PAMS operating schedules must be included as part of the PAMS network 

description and must be approved by the Regional Administrator. 

For manual PM2.5 samplers: 

1. Manual PM2.5 samplers at SLAMS stations- a 24-hour sample must be taken from midnight to 

midnight (local time) to ensure national consistency and other than NCore stations, must operate 

on at least a 1-in-3 day schedule at sites without a collocated continuously operating PM2.5

monitor. For SLAMS PM2.5 sites with both manual and continuous PM2.5 monitors operating, the 

monitoring agency may request approval for a reduction to 1-in-6 day PM2.5 sampling or for 

seasonal sampling from the EPA Regional Administrator. The EPA Regional Administrator may 

grant sampling frequency reductions after consideration of factors, including but not limited to 

the historical PM2.5 data quality assessments, the location of current PM2.5 design value sites, and 

their regulatory data needs. 

Required SLAMS stations whose measurements determine the design value for their area and that 

are within plus or minus 10 percent of the NAAQS; and all required sites where one or more 24-

hour values have exceeded the NAAQS each year for a consecutive period of at least 3 years are 

required to maintain at least a 1-in-3 day sampling frequency. A continuously operating FEM or 

ARM PM2.5 monitor satisfies this requirement. Required SLAMS stations whose measurements 

determine the 24-hour design value for their area and whose data are within plus or minus 5 

percent of the level of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS must have an FRM or FEM operate on a daily 

schedule if that area's design value for the annual NAAQS is less than the level of the annual 

PM2.5 standard. A continuously operating FEM or ARM PM2.5 monitor satisfies this requirement 

unless it is identified in the monitoring agency's annual monitoring network plan as not 

 

12 http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 6.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 14 of 16 

appropriate for comparison to the NAAQS. The national sampling schedule can be found on 

AMTIC13. 

2. Manual PM2.5 samplers at NCore stations and required regional background and regional 

transport sites must operate on at least a 1-in-3 day sampling frequency. 

3. Manual PM2.5 speciation samplers at CSN stations must operate on a 1-in-3 day sampling 

frequency. 

For PM10 samplers, a 24-hour sample must be taken from midnight to midnight (local time) to ensure 

national consistency. The minimum monitoring schedule for the site in the area of expected maximum 

concentration shall be based on the relative level of that monitoring site concentration with respect to the 

24-hour standard as illustrated in Figure 6.2. If the operating agency demonstrates by monitoring data 

that during certain periods of the year conditions preclude violation of the PM10 24-hour standard, the 

increased sampling frequency for those periods or seasons may be exempted by the Regional 

Administrator and permitted to revert back to once in six days. The minimum sampling schedule for all 

other sites in the area remains once every six days. 

Figure 6.2 Sampling schedule based on ratio to the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS

For manual PM10–2.5 samplers: 

1. Manual PM10–2.5 samplers at NCore stations must operate on at least a 1-in-3 day schedule at 

sites without a collocated continuously operating federal equivalent PM10–2.5 method that has been 

designated in accordance with 40 CFR Part 53. 

2. Manual PM10–2.5 speciation samplers at NCore stations must operate on at least a 1-in-3 day 

sampling frequency. 

 

13 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/calendar.html 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 6.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 15 of 16 

For NATTS Monitoring, samplers must operate year round and follow the national 1-in-6 day sampling 

schedule. 

6.5.1 Operating Schedule Completeness 

Data required for comparison to the NAAQS have specific completeness requirements. These 

completeness requirements generally start from completeness at hourly and 24-hour concentration values. 

However, the data used for NAAQS determinations include 3-hour, 8-hour, quarterly, annual and multiple 

year levels of data aggregation. Generally, depending on the calculation of the design value, EPA requires 

data to be 75% complete. All continuous measurements come down to what is considered a valid hour 

and currently all 24-hour estimates based on sampling (manual PM, Pb, TSP) are based on a 24-hour 

sampling period. Table 6-5 provides the completeness goals for the various ambient air program 

monitoring programs. 

The data cells highlighted in Table 6-5 refer to the standards that apply to the specific pollutant. Even 

though a highlighted cell lists the completeness requirement, CFR provides additional detail, in some 

cases, on how a design value might be calculated with less data than the stated requirement. Therefore, 

the information provided in Table 6-5 should be considered the initial completeness goal. Completeness 

goals that are not highlighted, although not covered in CFR, are very important to the achievement of the 

CFR completeness goals. So, for example, even though there is only an 8-hour ozone standard, it’s 

important to have complete 1-hour values in order to compare to the 8-hour standard. 

Table 6-5 Completeness Goals for Ambient Air Monitoring Data 

Completeness Goals and Associated Standards (highlighted) 

Pollutants 1-hour 3-hour 8-hour 24-hour Quarterly Annual 

CO 45, 1 min. values 75% of 

hourly values 

75% of 

hourly values 

 75% of hourly 

values per quarter 

O3 45, 1 min. values 75% of 

hourly values 

 

SO2 45, 1 min. values All 3 hours 

75% complete 

75% of 

hourly values 

75% of hourly 

values per quarter 

NO2 45, 1 min. values 75% of hourly 

values per quarter 

PM10 Cont 45, 1 min. values 18 Hours 

PM2.5 Cont. 45, 1 min. values 18 Hours 

PM10

Manual 

 23 Hours** 

PM2.5

Manual 

 23 hours 75% of 

samples 

Pb 23 Hours 3 mo avg 

>75% of 

monthly 

means 

PAMS 23 Hours 

NATTS 23 Hours 

CSN 23 Hours 

** not defined in CFR 

For continuous instruments, it is suggested that 45, 1-minute values be considered a valid hour. Therefore, 

it is expected that 1-minute concentration values would be archived for a period of time (see statute of 

limitations in Section 5). Since various QC checks take time to complete, (zero/span/1-point QC) it is 

suggested that they be implemented in a manner that spans two hours (e.g., at 11:45 PM to 12:15 AM) in 

order to avoid losing an hour’s worth of data. 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 6.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 16 of 16 

6.5.2 Monitoring Seasons 

Most of the monitoring networks operate year round with the exception of PAMS and ozone monitoring. 

PAMS - 40 CFR 58, Appendix D stipulates that PAMS precursor monitoring must be conducted annually 

throughout the months of June, July and August (as a minimum) when peak O3 values are expected in 

each area. Alternate precursor monitoring periods may be submitted for approval to the Administrator as a 

part of the annual monitoring network plan. 

Ozone - Since O3 levels decrease significantly in the colder parts of the year in many areas, O3 is required 

to be monitored at SLAMS monitoring sites only during the ‘‘ozone season’’ as designated in the AQS 

files on a State-by-State basis and described in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix D14. Deviations from the O3

monitoring season must be approved by the EPA Regional Administrator, documented within the annual 

monitoring network plan, and updated in AQS. 

6.5 Network Plan Reporting 

The following two types of documents related to the monitoring network are required to be reported to 

EPA. Additional information on these assessments can be found in 40 CFR Part 58.10 

Annual Monitoring Network Plan 

The monitoring organization shall submit to the Regional Administrator an annual monitoring network 

plan which shall provide for the establishment and maintenance of an air quality surveillance system that 

consists of a network of SLAMS monitoring stations including FRM, FEM, and ARM monitors that are 

part of SLAMS, NCore stations, CSN stations, State speciation stations, SPM stations, and/or, in serious, 

severe and extreme ozone nonattainment areas, PAMS stations, and SPM monitoring stations. The plan 

shall include a statement of purposes for each monitor and evidence that siting and operation of each 

monitor meets the requirements of appendices A, C, D, and E of this part, where applicable. The annual 

monitoring network plan must be made available for public inspection for at least 30 days prior to 

submission to EPA. These network plans are posted on AMTIC15

5-Year Network Assessments 

The monitoring organization shall perform and submit to the EPA Regional Administrator an assessment 

of the air quality surveillance system every 5 years to determine, at a minimum, if the network meets the 

monitoring objectives defined in 40 CFR part 58 Appendix D to this part, whether new sites are needed, 

whether existing sites are no longer needed and can be terminated, and whether new technologies are 

appropriate for incorporation into the ambient air monitoring network. The network assessment must 

consider the ability of existing and proposed sites to support air quality characterization for areas with 

relatively high populations of susceptible individuals (e.g., children with asthma) and, for any sites that 

are being proposed for discontinuance, the effect on data users other than the agency itself, such as nearby 

States and Tribes or health effects studies. For PM2.5, the assessment also must identify needed changes 

to population-oriented sites. The State, or where applicable local, agency must submit a copy of this 5-

year assessment, along with a revised annual network plan, to the Regional Administrator. 

 

14 http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl 15 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/plans.html 
QA Handbook Volume II, Section 7.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 1 of 16 

7.0 The Sampling System 

To establish the validity of ambient air monitoring data, it must be shown that: 

 the proposed sampling method complies with the appropriate monitoring regulations; 

 the equipment is accurately sited; 

 the equipment was accurately calibrated using correct and established calibration methods; 

 there is enough information from data quality indicators to assess data uncertainty; 

 samples are appropriately handled through proper chain of custody procedures, and 

 the organization implementing the data collection operation are qualified and competent. 

For example, if the only reasonable monitoring site has a less than ideal location, the data collection 

organization must decide whether a representative sample can be obtained at the site. This determination 

should be recorded and included in the program's QAPP. Although after-the-fact site analysis may 

suffice in some instances, good quality assurance techniques dictate that this analysis be made prior to 

expending the resources required to collect the data. 

The purpose of this section is to describe the attributes of the sampling system that will ensure the 

collection of data of a quality acceptable for the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program. A sampling 

system for the ambient air monitoring program will include aspects of: 

 siting, 

 the establishment of a monitoring station or platform for monitors/ samplers, 

 outfitting for electricity, HVAC, water etc., 

 use of appropriate probe and inlet material, 

 setting up quality control systems, and 

 information management systems. 

Information management systems will be described in Section 

7.1 Monitor Placement

Final placement of the monitor at a selected site depends on physical obstructions and activities in the 

immediate area, accessibility/availability of utilities and other support facilities in correlation with the 

defined purpose of the specific monitor and its design. Because obstructions such as trees and fences can 

significantly alter the air flow, monitors should be placed away from obstructions. It is important for air 

flow around the monitor to be representative of the general air flow in the area to prevent sampling bias. 

Detailed information on urban physiography (e.g., buildings, street dimensions) can be determined 

through visual observations, aerial photography and surveys. Such information can be important in 

determining the exact locations of pollutant sources in and around the prospective monitoring site areas. 

Network designers should avoid sampling locations that are unduly influenced by down wash or ground 

dust (e.g., a rooftop air inlet near a stack or a ground-level inlet near an unpaved road); in these cases, the 

sample intake should either be elevated above the level of the maximum ground turbulence effect or 

placed at a reasonable distance from the source of ground dust. 
QA Handbook Volume II, Section 7.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 2 of 16 

Depending on the defined monitoring objective, the monitors are placed according to exposure to 

pollution. Due to the various physical and meteorological constraints discussed above, tradeoffs will be 

made to locate a site in order to optimize representativeness of sample collection. The consideration 

should include categorization of sites relative to their local placements. Suggested categories relating to 

sample site placement for measuring a corresponding pollution impact are identified in Table 6-5. 

Table 7-1 Monitoring Station Categories Relating to Sample Site Placement 

Station Category Characterization

A (ground level) Heavy pollutant concentrations, high potential for pollutant buildup.  A site 3 to 5 m (10‐16 ft)

from major traffic artery and that has local terrain features restricting ventilation.  A sampler

probe that is 3 to 6 m (10‐20 ft) above ground.

B (ground level) Heavy pollutant concentrations, minimal potential for a pollutant buildup. A site 3 to 15 m

(15‐50 ft) from a major traffic artery, with good natural ventilation.  A sampler probe that is 3 to

6 m (10‐20 ft) above ground.

C (ground level) Moderate pollutant concentrations. A site 15 to 60 m (5‐200 ft) from a major traffic artery.  A

sampler probe that is 3 to 6 m (10‐20 ft ) above ground.

D (ground level) Low pollutant concentrations.  A site 60 > m (>200 ft) for a traffic artery.  A sampler probe that is

3 to 6 m (10‐20 ft) above ground.

E (air mass) Sampler probe that is between 6 and 45 m (20‐150 ft) above ground.  Two subclasses:  (1) good

exposure from all sides (e.g., on top of building) or (2) directionally biased exposure (probe

extended from window).

F (source‐oriented) A sampler that is adjacent to a point source.  Monitoring that yields data directly relatable to the

emission source.

7.2 Environmental Control

7.2.1 Monitoring Station Design

State and local agencies should design their monitoring stations with the station operator in mind. Careful 

thought to safety, ease of access to instruments and optimal work space should be given every 

consideration. If the station operator has these issues addressed, then he/she will be able to perform their 

duties more efficiently and diligently. Having the instruments in an area that is difficult to work in creates 

frustration, prolongs downtime and may delay required maintenance (i.e., not cleaning manifolds because 

they are too hard to get to). The goal is to optimize data collection and quality and it starts with designing 

the shelter and laboratory around staff needs and requirements. 

Monitoring stations may be located in urban areas where space and land are at a premium, especially in 

large cities that are monitoring for NOx and CO. In many cases, the monitoring station is located in a 

building or school that is gracious enough to allow an agency to locate its equipment. Sometimes, a storage 

or janitorial closet is all that is available. However, this can pose serious problems. If the equipment is 

located in a closet, then it is difficult for the agency to control the effects of temperature, humidity, light, 

vibration and chemicals on the instruments. In addition, security can also be an issue if people other than 

agency staff have access to the equipment. Monitoring organizations should give serious thought to 

locating air monitoring equipment in stand-alone shelters with limited access, or modify existing rooms to 

the recommended station design if funds and staff time are available. 

In general, air monitoring stations should be designed for functionality and ease of access for operation, 

maintenance and repair. In addition, the shelter should be rugged enough to withstand local weather 

condition extremes. In the past, small utility trailers were the norm in monitoring shelters. However, in 

some areas, this will not suffice. Recently, steel and aluminum storage containers are gaining wide 
QA Handbook Volume II, Section 7.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 3 of 16 

acceptance as monitoring shelters. It is recommended that monitoring stations be housed in shelters that 

are fairly secure from intrusion or vandalism. All sites should be located in fenced or secure areas with 

access only through locked gates or secure pathways. The shelter’s design dictates that they be insulated 

(R-19 minimum) to prevent temperature extremes within the shelter. All structures should be secured to 

their foundations and protected from damage during natural disasters. All monitoring shelters should be 

designed to control excessive vibrations and prevent external light from falling on the instruments, and 

provide 110/220 VAC voltage throughout the year. When designing a monitoring shelter, make sure that 

enough electrical circuits are secured for the current load of equipment plus other instruments that may be 

added later or audit equipment (e.g., NPAP/PEP). Every attempt should be made to reduce the 

environmental footprint of shelters to make them as energy efficient as possible. Some possibilities include 

venting of excess heat of monitoring instruments to the outside in summer months, use of energy efficient 

fixtures and HVAC systems, and ensuring that the amount of space devoted to the monitors is not excessive 

(remembering that space is needed at times for additional QA equipment). Figure 7.1 represents one 

shelter design that has proven adequate. 

The first feature of the shelter is that 

there are two rooms separated by a 

door. The reasons for this are twofold. The entry and access should be 

into the computer/data review area. 

This allows access to the site without 

having to open the room that houses 

the equipment. It also isolates the 

equipment from cold/hot air that can 

come into the shelter when someone 

enters. Also, the Data Acquisition 

System (DAS)/data review area is 

isolated from the noise and vibration 

of the equipment. In some cases 

vibration and noise can be reduced by 

locating pumps outside the shelter (if 

appropriate weather conditions exist). 

This area can be a place where the 

operator can print data, and prepare samples for the laboratory. This also gives the operator an area where 

cursory data review can take place. If something is observed during this initial review then possible 

problems can be corrected or investigated at that time. The DAS can be linked through cables that travel 

through conduit into the equipment area. The conduit is attached to the ceiling or walls and then dropped 

down to the instrument rack. 

 

The air conditioning/heating unit should be mounted to heat and cool the equipment room. When 

specifying the unit, make sure it will cool the room on the warmest days and heat on the coldest days of the 

year. Also, make sure the electrical circuits are able to carry the load. If necessary, keep the door closed 

between the computer and equipment room to lessen the load on the heating or cooling equipment. 

All air quality instrumentation should be located in an instrument rack or equivalent. The instruments and 

their support equipment are placed on sliding trays or rails. By placing the racks away from the wall, the 

rear of the instruments are accessible. The trays or rails allow the site operators access to the instruments 

without removing them from the racks. Most instrument vendors offer sliding rails as an optional purchase. 

If several instruments are placed in an instrument rack, the labeling of all power cords, sample and 

Figure 7.1 Example Design for Shelter
QA Handbook Volume II, Section 7.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 4 of 16 

exhaust lines will help to identify where lines and inlets are and it will help when it comes time to 

trace things back to an instrument. 

7.2.2 Sampling Environment

A proper sampling environment demands control of all physical parameters external to the samples that 

might affect sample stability, chemical reactions within the sampler, or the function of sampler 

components. The important parameters to be controlled are summarized in Table 7-2.

Table 7-2 Environment Control Parameters

Parameter Source of specification Method of Control

Instrument vibration Manufacturer’s specifications Design of instrument housings, benches, etc., per 

manufacturer’s specifications. Locate pumps outside it 

appropriate conditions exist. 

Light Method description or 

manufacturer’s specifications 

Shield chemicals or instruments that can be affected by 

natural or artificial light 

Electrical voltage Method description or 

manufacturer’s specifications 

Constant voltage transformers or regulators; separate 

power lines; isolated high current drain equipment such 

as hi-vols, heating baths, pumps from regulated circuits 

Temperature Method description or 

manufacturer’s specifications 

Regulated air conditioning system 24-hour temperature 

recorder; use electric heating and cooling only 

Humidity Method description or 

manufacturer’s specifications 

Regulated air conditioning system; 24-hour 

temperature recorder

With respect to environmental temperature for designated analyzers, most analyzers have been tested and 

qualified over a temperature range of 20o

C to 30oC; few are qualified over a wider range. When one is 

outfitting a shelter with monitoring equipment, it is important to recognize and accommodate the 

instrument with the most sensitive temperature requirement. The temperature range specifies both the 

range of acceptable operating temperatures and the range of temperature change which the analyzer can 

accommodate without excessive drift. The latter, the range of temperature change that may occur 

between zero and span adjustments, is the most important. EPA suggests that shelters be maintained 

within a standard deviation (SD) of + 2 o C over a 24 hour period. The SD can be assessed using 1- hour 

shelter temperature estimates. 

To accommodate energy conservation regulations or guidelines specifying lower thermostat settings, 

designated analyzers located in facilities subject to these restrictions may be operated at temperatures 

down to 18o

C, provided the analyzer temperature does not fluctuate by more than 10oC between zero and 

span adjustments. Operators should be alert to situations where environmental temperatures might fall 

below 18o

C, such as during night hours or weekends. HVAC system must be able to keep shelters 

temperatures above 18o

C. 

Shelter temperatures above 30oC also occur, due to temperature control equipment that is malfunctioning, 

lack of adequate power capacity, or shelters of inadequate design for the environmental conditions. 

Occasional fluctuations above 30o

C may require additional assurances that data quality is maintained. 

Sites that continually have problems maintaining adequate temperatures may necessitate additional 

temperature control equipment or rejection of the area as a sampling site. If this is not an option, a waiver 

to operate beyond the required temperature range should be sought with the EPA Regional Office, if it 

can be shown that the site can meet established data quality requirements. In addition, when providing 
QA Handbook Volume II, Section 7.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 5 of 16 

cooling to shelters, care should be taken to avoid cool air blowing directly on monitors. 

In order to detect and correct temperature fluctuations, it is suggested that a 24-hour temperature recorder 

that collects hourly values (minimally), be located in the shelter. The device should be accurate to within 

+ 2o

C and checked every 6 months by a NIST traceable standard. These recorders can be connected to 

data loggers and should be considered official documentation that should be filed (see Section 5). Many 

vendors offer these type of devices. Usually they are thermocouple/thermistor devices of simple design 

and are generally very sturdy. Reasons for using electronic shelter temperature devices are two-fold: 1) 

through remote interrogation of the DAS, the agency can tell if values collected by air quality instruments 

are valid, and 2) that the shelter temperature is within a safe operating range if the air 

conditioning/heating system fails. 

7.3 Sampling Probes And Manifolds

7.3.1 Design of Probes and Manifolds for Automated Methods

Some important variables affecting the sampling manifold design are the diameter, length, flow rate, 

pressure drop, and materials of construction. With the development of NCore precursor gas monitoring, 

various types of probe/manifold designs were reviewed. This information can be found in the Technical 

Assistance Document (TAD) for Precursor Gas Measurements in the NCore Multi-pollutant Monitoring 

Network1 and is also included in Appendix F of this Handbook.

 

1 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/monitorstrat/precursor/tadversion4.pdf 

Of the probe and manifold material looked at over the years, only Pyrex® glass and Teflon® have been 

found to be acceptable for use as intake sampling lines for all the reactive gaseous pollutants. 

Furthermore, the EPA has specified borosilicate glass or FEP Teflon® as the only acceptable probe 

materials for delivering test atmospheres in the determination of reference or equivalent methods. 

Therefore, borosilicate glass (which includes Pyrex®), FEP Teflon® or their equivalent must be the only 

material in the sampling train (from inlet probe to the back of the analyzer) that can be in contact with the 

ambient air sample for existing and new SLAMS. In recent years questions have been asked about PFA 

(perfluoroalkoxy co-polymer). It’s a newer formulated Teflon than FEP. Like FEP, it is translucent which 

is also not machined but unlike FEP can be molded into fittings. It has been accepted as equivalent the 

FEP Teflon® but there is no real 

advantage to using PFA. 

For volatile organic compound (VOC) 

monitoring at PAMS, FEP Teflon® is 

unacceptable as the probe material 

because of VOC adsorption and 

desorption reactions on the FEP Teflon®. 

Borosilicate glass, stainless steel, or its 

equivalent, are acceptable probe 

materials for VOC and carbonyl 

sampling. Care must be taken to ensure 

that the sample residence time is kept to 

20 seconds or less (see below). 
QA Handbook Volume II, Section 7.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 6 of 16 

When determining how to set up a 

sampling station with regards to probes, 

inlets and sampling material, monitoring 

organization have the option of: 

1) using individual Teflon® sampling 

lines (Fig7.2) which may access the 

ambient air through one port (with a 

number of individual lines) but each line 

would run directly to an analyzer. 

2) using glass manifolds (Fig 7.3) which 

allow for ambient air to enter from a 

single inlet, collect in the manifold and 

then be distributed through manifold 

outlet ports in individual analyzers. 

Either method is appropriate and it may 

depend on the number of analyzers at the 

site, how the shelter is configured for 

access, and what resources are available for maintenance and cleaning. 

Residence Time Determination

No matter how nonreactive the sampling probe material may be, after a period of use, reactive particulate 

matter is deposited on the probe walls. Therefore, the time it takes the gas to transfer from the probe inlet 

to the sampling device is critical. Ozone, in the presence of nitrogen oxide (NO), will show significant 

losses even in the most inert probe material when the residence time exceeds 20 seconds. Other studies 

indicate that a 10 second or less residence time is easily achievable. 

Residence time is defined as the amount of time that it takes for a sample of air to travel from the opening 

of the inlet probe (or cane) to the inlet of the instrument and is required to be less than 20 seconds for 

reactive gas monitors. The residence time of pollutants within the sampling manifold is also critical. It is 

recommended that the residence time within the manifold and sample lines to the instruments be less than 

10 seconds (of the total allowable 20 seconds). If the volume of the manifold does not allow this to occur, 

then a blower motor or other device (vacuum pump) can be used to decrease the residence time. The 

residence time for a manifold system is determined in the following way. First the volume of the cane, 

manifold and sample lines must be determined using the following equation: 

 Total Volume = Cv +Mv + Lv 

Where: 

Cv = Volume of the sample cane and extensions, cm3

Mv = Volume of the sample manifold and trap, cm3

Lv = Volume of the instrument lines, cm3

Each of the components of the sampling system must be measured individually. To measure the volume 
QA Handbook Volume II, Section 7.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 7 of 16 

of the components, use the following calculation: 

 V = pi * (d/2)2

 * L 

Where: 

V = volume of the component, cm3

pi = 3.14159 

L = Length of the component, cm 

d = inside diameter, cm 

Once the total volume is determined, divide the volume by the flow rate of all instruments. This will give 

the residence time. 

It has been demonstrated that there are no significant losses of reactive gas (O3) concentrations in 

conventional 13 mm inside diameter sampling lines of glass or Teflon if the sample residence time is 10 

seconds or less. This is true even in sample lines up to 38 m in length, which collect substantial amounts 

of visible contamination due to ambient aerosols. However, when the sample residence time exceeds 20 

seconds, loss is detectable, and at 60 seconds the loss is nearly complete. 

The air flow through the manifold must not be so great as to cause the pressure inside the manifold to 

be more than one inch of water below ambient. These last two conditions are in opposition to each 

other, but can be assessed as follows. Construct the manifold. Use a pitot tube to measure the flow of 

the sample inside the manifold. At the same time, attach a water manometer to a sampling port. Turn 

on the blower and measure the flow rate and the vacuum. (Remember to allow for the air demand of 

the instrumentation). Adjust the flow rate to fit between these two parameters. If this is impossible, 

the diameter of the manifold is too small.

Placement of tubing on the Manifold: If the manifold that 

is employed at the station has multiple ports then placement 

of the instrument lines can be crucial. If a manifold similar 

to Figure 7.4 is used ambient air flows down the center tube 

and then travels up on both sides of the manifold to the 

analyzer ports. It is suggested that instruments requiring 

lower flows be placed towards the bottom of the manifold. 

The general rule of thumb states that the calibration line (if 

used) placement should be in a location so that the 

calibration gases flow past the instruments before the gas is 

evacuated out of the manifold. Figure 7.4 illustrates two 

potential introduction ports for the calibration gas. The port 

at the elbow of the sampling cane provides more 

information about the cleanliness of the sampling system. 

7.3.2 Placement of Probes and Manifolds 

Probes and manifolds must be placed to avoid introducing 

bias to the sample. Important considerations are probe 

height above the ground, probe length (for horizontal

probes), and physical influences near the probe. 

Figure 7.4 Positions of calibration line in 

sampling manifold 

Pump

Analyzer 

 Calibrator

 Gas

Excess Cal. Gas

Analyzer

Analyzer
QA Handbook Volume II, Section 7.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 8 of 16 

Some general guidelines for probe and manifold placement are: 

 probes should not be placed next to air outlets such as exhaust fan openings 

 horizontal probes must extend beyond building overhangs 

 probes should not be near physical obstructions such as chimneys which can affect the air flow in 

the vicinity of the probe 

 height of the probe above the ground depends on the pollutant being measured 

Table 7-3 summarizes the probe and monitoring path siting criteria while Table 7-4 summarizes the 

spacing of probes from roadways. This information can be found in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix E2

. For 

PM10 and PM2.5, Figure 7.5 provides the acceptable areas for micro, middle, neighborhood and urban 

samplers, with the exception of microscale street canyon sites. 

Table 7-3 Summary of Probe and Monitoring Path Siting Criteria 

Pollutant Scale (maximum 

monitoring path 

length, meters) 

Height from 

ground to probe, 

inlet or 80% of 

monitoring path 1 

(meters) 

Horizontal and 

vertical distance 

from supporting 

structures2

 to 

probe, inlet or 

90% of monitoring 

path1

 (meters) 

Distance from 

trees to probe, 

inlet or 90% of 

monitoring 

path1 (meters) 

Distance from 

roadways to probe, 

inlet or monitoring 

path1 (meters) 

SO2 3,4,5,6 Middle (300 m) 

Neighborhood Urban, 

and Regional (1 km). 

2–15 > 1 > 10 N/A 

CO 4,5,7 Micro, Middle (300 

m), Neighborhood (1 

km). 

3 +1⁄2: 2–15 > 1 > 10 2–10; see Table 7–3 of 

this section for middle 

and neighborhood scales. 

NO2, O3 3,4,5 Middle (300 m) 

Neighborhood, Urban, 

and Regional (1 km). 

2–15 > 1 > 10 See Table 7-3 of this 

section for all scales. 

Ozone 

precursors 

(for 

PAMS) 3,4,5.

Neighborhood and 

Urban (1 km) 

2–15 > 1 > 10 

PM,Pb 

3,4,5,6,8

Micro: Middle, 

Neighborhood, 

Urban and Regional. 

2–7 (micro); 

2–7 (middle PM10-2.5); 

2–15 (all other scales). 

> 2 (all scales, 

horizontal distance 

only). 

> 10 (all scales). 2–10 (micro); see Figure 

7.3 of this section for all 

other scales 

N/A—Not applicable. 

1

 Monitoring path for open path analyzers is applicable only to middle or neighborhood scale CO monitoring and all applicable scales for 

monitoring SO2,O3, O3 precursors, and NO2. 2

 When probe is located on a rooftop, this separation distance is in reference to walls, parapets, or penthouses located on roof. 3

 Should be >20 meters from the dripline of tree(s) and must be 10 meters from the dripline when the tree(s) act as an obstruction. 4 Distance from sampler, probe, or 90% of monitoring path to obstacle, such as a building, must be at least twice the height the obstacle protrudes 

above the sampler, probe, or monitoring path. Sites not meeting this criterion may be classified as middle scale (see text). 5 Must have unrestricted airflow 270 degrees around the probe or sampler; 180 degrees if the probe is on the side of a building. 6 The probe, sampler, or monitoring path should be away from minor sources, such as furnace or incineration flues. The separation distance is 

dependent on the height of the minor source’s emission point (such as a flue), the type of fuel or waste burned, and the quality of the fuel (sulfur, 

ash, or lead content). This criterion is designed to avoid undue influences from minor sources. 7 For microscale CO monitoring sites, the probe must be >10 meters from a street intersection and preferably at a midblock location. 8

 Collocated monitors must be within 4 meters of each other and at least 2 meters apart for flow rates > 200 liters/min and at least 1 meter for 

flow rates < 200 liters/min . 

 

2 http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl All references to CFR in following 

sections can be found at this site. 
QA Handbook Volume II, Section 7.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 9 of 16 

Table 7-4 Minimum Separation Distance Between Roadways and Sampling Probes or Monitoring 

 Paths at Neighborhood and Urban Scales for O3 , Oxides of Nitrogen (NO, NO2, NOx, NOy) and CO 

Roadway ave. daily 

traffic vehicles per 

day

O3 and Oxides of N

Neighborhood 

& Urban 1

(meters) 

O3 and Oxides of N

Neighborhood. 

& Urban 1& 2(meters) 

CO

Neighborhood 

(meters) 

< 1,000 10 10

10,000 10 20

< 10,000 10

15,000 20 30 25

20,000 30 40 45

30,000 80

40,000 50 60 115

50,000 135

> 60,000 150

70,000 100 100

>110,000 250 250

Distance from the edge of the nearest traffic lane. The distance for intermediate traffic counts should be 

interpolated from the table values based on the actual traffic count. 2

 Applicable for ozone monitors whose placement has not already been approved as of December 18, 2006.

Figure 7.5 Acceptable areas for PM10 and PM2.5 micro, middle, neighborhood, and urban samplers except for 

microscale street canyon sites. 

Open Path Monitoring

To ensure that open path monitoring data are representative of the intended monitoring objective(s), 

specific path siting criteria are needed. 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix E, contains specific location criteria 

applicable to monitoring paths after the general station siting has been selected based on the monitoring 

objectives, spatial scales of representativeness, and other considerations presented in Appendix D. The 

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

0

20

40

60

80

100

Distance of PM10 and PM2.5 Samplers from Nearest Traffic Lane, (meters)

A

D

T

of Affe

ctin

g

R

o

a

d

s

x 10

No

Category

(a) Sites

Unacceptable at all traffic levels

Preferred area for category (a) site microscale if

moni ot r is 2 - 7 meters high, middle scale otherwise

 Middle Scale Suitable for

Category (a) site but not preferred

Neighborhood Scale Suitable

 for category (b) Site

Urban Scale

3
QA Handbook Volume II, Section 7.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 10 of 16 

open path siting requirements largely parallel the existing requirements for point analyzers, with the 

revised provisions applicable to either a "probe" (for point analyzers), a "monitoring path" (for open path 

analyzers), or both, as appropriate. Criteria for the monitoring path of an open path analyzer are given 

for horizontal and vertical placement, spacing from minor sources, spacing from obstructions, spacing 

from trees, and spacing from roadways. These criteria are summarized in Table 7-3. 

Cumulative Interferences on a Monitoring Path: To control the sum effect on a path measurement 

from all the possible interferences which exist around the path, the cumulative length or portion of a 

monitoring path that is affected by obstructions, trees, or roadways must not exceed 10 percent of the total 

monitoring path length. This limit for cumulative interferences on the monitoring path controls the total 

amount of interference from minor sources, obstructions, roadways, and other factors that might unduly 

influence the open path monitoring data. 

Monitoring Path Length: For NO2, O3 and SO2, the 

monitoring path length must not exceed 1 kilometer 

for analyzers in neighborhood, urban, or regional 

scales, or 300 meters for middle scale monitoring sites. 

These path limitations are necessary in order to 

produce a path concentration representative of the 

measurement scale and to limit the averaging of peak 

concentration values. In addition, the selected path 

length should be long enough to encompass plume 

meander and expected plume width during periods 

when high concentrations are expected. In areas 

subject to frequent periods of rain, snow, fog, or dust, 

a shortened monitoring path length should be 

considered to minimize the loss of monitoring data due 

to these temporary optical obstructions. 

Mounting of Components and Optical Path 

Alignment: Since movements or instability can 

misalign the optical path, causing a loss of light and 

less accurate measurements or poor readings, highly 

stable optical platforms are critical. Steel buildings 

and wooden platforms should be avoided as they tend 

to move more than brick buildings when wind and 

temperature conditions vary. Metal roofing will, for 

example, expand when heated by the sun in the 

summer. A concrete pillar with a wide base, placed upon a stable base material, has been found to work 

well in field studies. A sketch of an optical platform is included in Figure 7.6. More information on open 

path monitoring can be found in the document: EPA Handbook: Optical Remote Sensing for 

Measurement and Monitoring of Emissions Flux3

. 

 

3 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/guidlnd/gd-052.pdf 
QA Handbook Volume II, Section 7.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 11 of 16 

7.3.3 Probe, Tubing and Manifold Maintenance

 

Figure 7.7 Examples of contaminated tubing and manifolds needing more frequent maintenance 

After an adequately designed sampling probe and/or manifold has been selected and installed, the 

following steps will help in maintaining constant sampling conditions: 

1. Conduct a leak test. For the conventional manifold, seal all ports and pump down to 

approximately 1.25 cm water gauge vacuum, as indicated by a vacuum gauge or manometer 

connected to one port. Isolate the system. The vacuum measurement should show no change at 

the end of a 15-min period. 

2. Establish cleaning techniques and a schedule. A large diameter manifold may be cleaned by 

pulling a cloth on a string through it. Otherwise the manifold must be disassembled periodically 

and cleaned with distilled water. Soap, alcohol, or other products that may contain hydrocarbons 

should be avoided when cleaning the sampling train. These products may leave a residue that 

may affect volatile organic measurements. Visible dirt should not be allowed to accumulate. 

3. Plug the ports on the manifold when sampling lines are detached. 

4. Maintain a flow rate in the manifold that is either 3 to 5 times the total sampling requirements or 

at a rate equal the total sampling requirement plus 140 L/min. Either rate will help to reduce the 

sample residence time in the manifold and ensure adequate gas flow to the monitoring 

instruments. 

5. Maintain the vacuum in the manifold <0.64 cm water gauge. Keeping the vacuum low will help 

to prevent the development of leaks. 

For monitoring organizations that use individual sampling lines instead of manifolds, one may want to 

weigh the cost of cleaning lines versus replacing them. 

In addition to the information presented above, the following should be considered when designing a 

sampling manifold: 

 suspending strips of paper in front of the blower's exhaust to permit a visual check of blower 

operation; 

 positioning air conditioner vents away from the manifold to reduce condensation of water vapor 

in the manifold ; 

 positioning air conditioner vents away from analyzers; 

 positioning sample ports of the manifold toward the ceiling to reduce the potential for 
QA Handbook Volume II, Section 7.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 12 of 16 

accumulation of moisture in analyzer sampling lines, and using borosilicate glass, stainless steel, 

or their equivalent for VOC sampling manifolds at PAMS sites to avoid adsorption and 

desorption reactions of VOC's on FEP Teflon; 

 if moisture in the sample train poses a problem (moisture can absorb gases, namely NOx and 

SO2), wrap the manifold and instrument lines with “heat wrap”, a product that has heating coils 

within a cloth covering that allows the manifold to be maintained at a constant temperature that 

does not increase the sampled air temperature by more than 3-5 degrees C above ambient 

temperature; 

 ensuring the manifold has a moisture trap and that it is emptied often (water traps in sample lines 

from the manifold to the instruments should be avoided) ; and 

 using water resistant particulate filters in-line with the instrument. 

7.4 Reference/Equivalent Methods and Approved Regional Methods

For monitoring in a SLAMS network, either reference or equivalent methods are usually required. This 

requirement, and any exceptions, are specified in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix C. In addition, reference or 

equivalent methods may be required for other monitoring applications, such as those associated with 

prevention of significant deterioration (PSD). Requiring the use of reference or equivalent methods helps 

to assure the reliability of air quality measurements including: ease of specification, guarantee of 

minimum performance, better instruction manuals, flexibility of application, comparability with other 

data and increased credibility of measurements. However, designation as a reference or equivalent 

method provides no guarantee that a particular analyzer will always operate properly. 40 CFR Part 58, 

Appendix A requires the monitoring organization to establish an internal QC program. Specific guidance 

for a minimum QC program is described in Section 10 of this Handbook. The definitions and 

specifications of reference and equivalent methods are given in 40 CFR Part 53. For most monitoring 

applications, the distinction between reference and equivalent methods is unimportant and either may be 

used interchangeably. 

Reference and equivalent methods may be either manual or automated (analyzers). For particulates and 

Pb, the reference method for each is a unique manual method that is completely specified in 40 CFR Part 

50; all other approved methods for particulates and Pb qualify as equivalent methods. SO2, has a 

reference method and a measurement principle. For CO, NO2, and O3, Part 50 provides only a 

measurement principle and calibration procedure applicable to reference methods for these pollutants. 

Automated methods (analyzers) for these pollutants may be designated as either reference methods or 

equivalent methods, depending on whether the methods utilize the same measurement principle and 

calibration procedure specified in Part 50. Because any analyzer that meets the requirements of the 

specified measurement principle and calibration procedure may be designated as a reference method, 

there are numerous reference methods for SO2,CO, NO2, and O3. Further information on this subject is in 

the preamble to 40 CFR Part 53. 

Except for the unique reference methods for SO2, particulates, and Pb specified in 40 CFR Part 50, all 

reference and equivalent methods must be officially designated as such by EPA under the provisions of 

40 CFR Part 53. Notice of each designated method is published in the Federal Register at the time of 

designation. A current list of all designated reference and equivalent methods is maintained and updated 
QA Handbook Volume II, Section 7.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 13 of 16 

by EPA whenever a new method is designated. This list can be found on AMTIC4. Moreover, any 

analyzer offered for sale as a reference or equivalent method after April 16, 1976 must bear a label or 

sticker indicating that the analyzer has been designated as a reference or equivalent method by EPA. 

Sellers of designated automated methods must comply with the conditions as promulgated in 40 CFR Part 

53.9. Monitoring organizations should be aware of the vendor condition. Accordingly, in selecting a 

designated method for a particular monitoring application, consideration should be given to such aspects 

as: 

 the suitability of the measurement principle; 

 the suitability for the weather and/or geographic conditions at the site; 

 analyzer sensitivity and available operating ranges suitable for the site; 

 susceptibility to interferences that may be present at the monitoring site; 

 requirements for support gases or other equipment; 

 reliability; 

 maintenance requirements; 

 initial as well as operating costs; 

 features such as internal or fully automatic zero and span checking or adjustment capability, etc.; 

 compatibility to your current and future network, i.e. software and connections (RS 232, 

Ethernet); and 

 manual or automated methods. 

The order for a new reference or equivalent analyzer should specify the EPA method designation. 

The required performance specifications, terms of the warranty, time limits for delivery and acceptance 

testing, and what happens in the event that the analyzer falls short of performance requirements should be 

documented. Aside from occasional malfunctions, consistent or repeated noncompliance with any of 

these conditions should be reported to EPA. In selecting designated methods, remember that designation 

of a method indicates only that it meets certain minimum standards. Competitive differences still exist 

among designated analyzers. Some analyzers or methods may have performance, operational, economic 

or other advantages over others. A careful selection process based on the individual air monitoring 

application and circumstances is very important.

Some of the performance tests and other criteria used to qualify a method for designation as a reference or 

equivalent method are intended only as pass/fail tests to determine compliance with the minimum 

standards. Test data may not allow quantitative comparison of one method with another. 

FRM/FEM Designated Operating Ranges and the Affect of Span Checks 

Although all FRM/FEMs are required to meet the range specified in Table 7-55

, many instruments are 

designated for ranges narrower and or broader than the requirement. During the equipment 

purchase/selection phase, monitoring organizations should select an instrument with ranges most 

appropriate to the concentration at the site which the instrument will be established and then use the range 

that is most appropriate for the monitoring situation. Earlier versions of this Handbook suggested that the 

concentration of the span checks be 70 – 90% of the analyzers measurement range. Using this guidance 

and the designated ranges of some of the FRM/FEM method being used, a span check might be selected 

 

4 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/criteria.html 5

 performance specifications can be found in 40 CFR Part 53.23 Table B-1 
QA Handbook Volume II, Section 7.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 14 of 16 

at a concentration that is never found in the ambient air at the site for which the monitor is operating. The 

span check concentration should be selected that is more beneficial to the quality control of the routine 

data at the site and EPA suggests: 1) the selection of an appropriate measurement range, and 2) selecting a 

span that at a minimum is above 120% of the highest NAAQS (for sites used for designation purposes) 

and above the 99% of the routine data over a 3 year period. The multi-point verification/calibrations that 

are performed annually can be used to challenge the instrument and confirm linearity and calibration 

slope of the selected operating range. 

Table 7-5 Performance Specifications for Automated Methods 

PM2.5 Reference and Equivalent Methods

All formal sampler design and performance requirements and the operational requirements applicable to 

reference methods for PM2.5 are specified in 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix L. These requirements are quite 

specific and include explicit design specifications for the type of sampler, the type of filter, the sample 

flow rate, and the construction of the sample collecting components. However, various designs for the 

flow-rate control system, the filter holder, the operator interface controls, and the exterior housing are 

possible. Hence, various reference method samplers from different manufacturers may vary considerably 

in appearance and operation. Also, a reference method may have a single filter capability (single) or a 

multiple filter capability (sequential), provided no deviations are necessary in the design and construction 

of the sample collection components specified in the reference method regulation. A PM2.5 method is not 

a reference method until it has been demonstrated to meet all the reference method regulatory 

requirements and has been officially designated by EPA as a reference method for PM2.5. 

Equivalent methods for PM2.5 have a wider latitude in their design, configuration, and operating principle 

than reference methods. These methods are not required to be based on filter collection of PM2.5; 

therefore, continuous or semi-continuous analyzers and new types of PM2.5 measurement technologies are 

not precluded as possible equivalent methods. Equivalent methods are not necessarily required to meet all 
QA Handbook Volume II, Section 7.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 15 of 16 

the requirements specified for reference methods, but they must demonstrate both comparability to 

reference method measurements and similar PM2.5 measurement precision. 

The requirements that some (but not all) candidate methods must meet to be designated by EPA as 

equivalent methods are specified in 40 CFR Part 53. To minimize the difficulty of meeting equivalent 

method designation requirements, three classes of equivalent methods have been established in the 40 

CFR Part 53 regulations, based on a candidate method’s extent of deviation from the reference method 

requirements. All three classes of equivalent methods are acceptable for SLAMS or SLAMS-related 

PM2.5 monitoring, but not all types of equivalent methods may be equally suited to various PM2.5

monitoring requirements or applications. 

Class I equivalent methods are very similar to reference methods, with only minor deviations, and must 

meet nearly all of the reference method specifications and requirements. The requirements for designation 

as Class I equivalent methods are only slightly more extensive than the designation requirements for 

reference methods. Also, because of their substantial similarity to reference methods, Class I equivalent 

methods operate very much the same as reference methods. 

Class II equivalent methods are filter-collection-based methods that differ more substantially from the 

reference method requirements. The requirements for designation as Class II methods may be 

considerably more extensive than for reference or Class I equivalent methods, depending on the specific 

nature of the variance from the reference method requirements. 

Class III equivalent methods cover any PM2.5 methods that cannot qualify as reference or Class I or II 

equivalent methods because of more profound differences from the reference method requirements. This 

class encompasses PM2.5 methods such as continuous or semi-continuous PM2.5 analyzers and potential 

new PM2.5 measurement technologies. The requirements for designation as Class III methods are the most 

extensive, and, because of the wide variety of PM2.5 measurement principles that could be employed for 

candidate Class III equivalent methods, the designation requirements are not explicitly provided in 40 

CFR Part 53. 

Approved Regional Methods (ARM) 

There are some continuous PM2.5 methods that currently may not be able to meet the national FRM and 

FEM designation criteria. However, these methods may operate at acceptable levels of data quality in 

certain regions of the country or under certain conditions. The EPA has expanded the use of alternative 

PM2.5 measurement methods through ARMs. A method for PM2.5 that has not been designated as an FRM 

or FEM as defined in 40 CFR Part 50.1 may be approved as an ARM. If a monitoring organization feels 

that a particular method may be suitable for use in its network, it can apply for the method to be 

designated as an ARM. The following provides a summary of the ARM requirements. 

 
QA Handbook Volume II, Section 7.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 16 of 16 

PM2.5 ARM Criteria Summary 

1. Must meet Class III Equivalency Criteria 

o Precision 

o Correlation 

o Additive and multiplicative bias 

2. Tested at site(s) where it will be used 

o 1 site in each MSA/CMSA up to the first 2 highest pop MSA/CMSA 

o 1 site in rural area or Micropolitan Statistical Area 

o Total of 3 

If the ARM has been approved by another agency then: 

o 1 site in MSA/CMSA and 1 site in rural area or Micropolitan Statistical Area 

o Total of 2 

3. 1 year of testing all seasons covered 

o 90 valid sample pairs per site with at least 20 valid sample pairs per season. 

o Values < 3 ug/m3

 may be excluded in bias estimates but this does not affect completeness criteria. 

4. Collocation to establish precision not required 

o peer reviewed published literature or data in AQS that can be presented is enough 

5. ARM must be operated on an hourly sampling frequency providing for aggregation into 24-hour average 

measurements. 

6. Must use approved inlet and separation devices (Part 50 Appendix L or FEM Part 53) 

o Exception –methods that by their inherent measurement principle may not need an inlet or 

separation device. 

7. Must be capable of providing for flow audits 

o Exception –methods that by their inherent measurement principle measured flow is not required. 

8. Monitoring agency must develop and implement appropriate procedures for assessing and reporting 

precision and bias. 

Routine Monitoring Implementation 

9. Collocation of ARM and FRM/FEM at 30% of SLAMS network or at least 1/network 

o At 1 in 6 day sampling frequency 

o Located at design value site among the largest MSA/CMSA 

o Collocated FRM/FEM can be substituted for ARM if ARM is invalidated 

10. Collocation ARM with ARM 

o 7.5% of sites or at least 1 site 

11. Bias assessment (PEP) 

o Same frequency as Appendix A 

 

ARM Approval 

1. New ARM- EPA NERL, RTP, NC 

2. ARM that has been approved by another agency- EPA Regional Administrator 
QA Handbook Vol II , Section 8.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 1 of 7 

8.0 Sample Handling and Custody

A critical activity within any data collection phase involving physical samples is the handling of sample 

media prior to sampling, handling/transporting sample media to the field, handling samples in the field at 

the time of collection, storage of samples (in the field or other locations), transport of samples from the 

field site, and the analysis of the samples. Documentation ensuring that proper handling has occurred 

throughout these activities is part of the custody record. This documentation initially comes in the form 

of written sample handling and custody procedure and then in the development, use and archiving of field 

and laboratory notebooks and chain of custody forms. 

Custody records document the “chain of custody”; the date and person responsible for the various sample 

handling steps associated with each sample and the information that acknowledges that sample integrity 

remained intact. Custody records also provide a reviewable trail for quality assurance purposes and can 

be used as evidence in legal proceedings. 

Prior to the start of an EDO, the various types of samples should be identified and the following questions 

asked: 

 Does the sample need to be analyzed within a specified time period? 

 What modes of sample transport are necessary and how secure should they be? 

 What happens if a sample is collected on Friday? Is the sample shipped for a weekend delivery 

or (weekday) or stored at the field office and what are the appropriate custody procedures? 

 Can the sample’s integrity be affected by outside influences (e.g. temperature, pressure, humidity, 

jostling/dropping during shipment) and do these need to be monitored (e.g., max/min 

thermometers, pressure sensors)? 

 How critical is it that sample integrity be known (e.g., is evidence tape necessary)? 

 How can it be documented that sample integrity was maintained from the collection to reporting? 

 What are the procedures when sample integrity is compromised (e.g., flag, don’t analyze)? 

These are some of the questions that should be answered and documented in the monitoring 

organization’s QAPP and chain of custody procedures. 

This section specifically addresses the handling and custody of physical environmental samples (e.g., 

exposed filters for particulate matter or lead (PM or Pb) determinations and canisters containing whole air 

samples) that are collected at a field location and transported to a laboratory for analysis. For specific 

details of sample handling and custody (i.e., PAMS, NATTS, CSN etc) monitoring organization should 

consult the appropriate technical assistance documents located in the National Programs summaries in 

Appendix A. 

In addition to physical samples, some types of field data collected in hard copy (e.g., strip charts, sampler 

flow data, etc.) or electronic (e.g., data downloaded from a data logger with limited storage space) format 

are irreplaceable and represent primary information about physical samples or on-site measurements that 

are needed to report a final result. When such hard copy or electronic data are transported and/or change 

custody, it is advised that the same chain of custody practices described in this section for physical 

samples be employed to ensure that irreplaceable data can be tracked and are not altered or tampered 

with. 
QA Handbook Vol II , Section 8.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 2 of 7 

For additional information, an EPA on-line self-instructional course, “Chain-of-Custody Procedures for 

Samples and Data1” is available for review. The National Enforcement Investigation Center2 (NEIC) also 

offers a course relevant to chain of custody issues. 

Laboratory Information Management Systems 

A laboratory information management system (LIMS) is a computer system used in the laboratory for the 

management and tracking of samples, instruments, standards and other laboratory functions such as data 

reductions, data transfer and reporting. The goal is to create an EDO where: 

 Instruments used are integrated in the lab network; receive instructions and worklists from the 

LIMS and return finished results including raw data back to a central repository where the LIMS 

can update relevant information to external systems (i.e., AIRNow or AQS). 

 Lab personnel will review/check calculations, documentation and results using online information 

from connected instruments, reference databases and other resources using electronic lab 

notebooks connected to the LIMS. 

 Management can supervise the lab process, react to bottlenecks in workflow and ensure 

regulatory demands are met. 

 External participants can review results and print out analysis certificates and other 

documentation (QA Reports, quality control charts, outlier reports etc.). 

For monitoring programs that are fairly stable, such as criteria pollutant monitoring, development of a 

LIMS system may be very cost effective and should be considered. There is an upfront cost in the 

development of these systems but monitoring organizations that have devoted resources to their 

development have seen pay offs in improved data quality, sample tracking and data reporting. 

8.1 Sample Handling

In the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program, discrete samples from manual methods associated with 

SLAMS, PAMS, NATTS, and other networks, are physically handled prior to analysis. One must pay 

particular attention to the handling of filters for particulate matter and lead since it has been suggested 

that the process of filter handling may be the largest source of measurement error (especially low-volume 

methods). Due to the manner in which concentrations are determined, it is critical that samples are 

handled as specified in SOPs. The various phases of sample handling that should be documented in a 

QAPP and SOP include: 

 Sample preparation, labeling and identification; 

 sample collection; 

 transportation; 

 sample analysis; and 

 storage (at all stages of use) and archival 

 

1 http://www.epa.gov/apti/coc/

2 http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/training/neti/index.html
QA Handbook Vol II , Section 8.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 3 of 7 

8.1.1 Sample Preparation, Labeling and Identification

Sample containers should be cleaned and filters prepared (pre-weighing of filters) before being used to 

collect samples. SOPs should indicate the proper care and handling of the containers/filters to ensure 

their integrity. Proper lab documentation that tracks the disposition of containers/filters through 

preparation is just as important as the documentation after sampling. Care must be taken to properly mark 

all samples to ensure positive, unambiguous identification throughout the sample collection, handling, 

and analysis procedures. Figure 8.1 shows a standardized identification sticker that may be used to label 

physical samples. Additional information may be added as required, depending on the particular 

monitoring program. The rules of evidence used in legal proceedings require that procedures for 

identification of samples used in analyses form the basis for future evidence. An admission by the 

laboratory analyst that he/she cannot be positive whether he/she analyzed sample No. 6 or sample No. 9, 

for example, could destroy the validity of the entire test report. Any information that can be used to 

assess sample integrity, such as the pressure of canisters or cooler temperature, should be recorded at the 

time of sample collection. Canister pressure or cooler temperature can then be ascertained at another 

stage in the analytical process to confirm sample integrity. 

Positive identification also must be provided for any filters used in the program. If ink is used for 

marking, it must be indelible and unaffected by the gases and temperatures to which it will be subjected. 

Other methods of identification can be used (e.g., bar coding), if they provide a positive means of 

identification and do not impair the capacity of the filter to function. 

(Name of Sampling Organization) 

Sample ID No: _________________________ Storage Conditions: _________________________ 

Sample Type:___________________________ Site Name:_________________________________ 

Date/Time Collected: _____________________ Site Address:_______________________________ 

Sampler:_______________________________ 

Figure 8.1 Example Sample Label.

8.1.2 Sample Collection 

The sample collection phase includes transporting the sampling material (e.g., sample filters, canisters) to 

the sampling site, setting up the samplers to run, and then collecting the samples for transport to the 

laboratory. This section does not cover proper installation of sampling media in a sample/monitor which 

is very important but is specific to individual sampler types and should be covered in detail in SOPs. 

Custody procedures may start prior to sampling if there are specific timeframes when the sampling media 

must be used (e.g., 30 day filter use for PM2.5 filters). Therefore, custody forms may start from the 

laboratory that prepared the sample media and care must be taken to review and ensure the sample media 

is viable for use. 

Sometimes the specific sample media (e.g., specific filter ID) has been identified to a particular sampler at 

the office rather than at the sampling site. If the site operator is setting up a number of samplers at one 

site or at a number of sites it is very important the sample media and the chain of custody data is carefully 

checked to ensure: 1) the chain of custody matches the sample media ID, and 2) the sample media is used 

at the correct site and in the correct sampler. 
QA Handbook Vol II , Section 8.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 4 of 7 

To reduce the possibility of invalidating the results, all collected samples must be carefully removed from 

the monitoring device, placed in labeled, nonreactive containers, and sealed. Use of tamper-evident 

custody seals are suggested and may be required in certain cases. The sample label must adhere firmly to 

the container to ensure that it cannot be accidentally removed. Custody seals on sample containers serve 

two purposes: to prevent accidental opening of the sample container and to provide visual evidence 

should the container be opened or tampered with. The best type of custody seal depends on the sample 

container; often, a piece of tape placed across the seal and signed by the operating technician is sufficient; 

for other containers, wire locks or tie wraps may be the best choice. In some cases, the opening of sample 

containers by unauthorized personnel, such as Transportation Security Administration officers, cannot be 

avoided. The proper use of custody seals minimizes the loss of samples and provides direct evidence 

whether sample containers have been opened and possibly compromised. Samples whose integrity is 

questioned should be qualified (flagged). 

8.1.3 Sample Transportation

Samples should be delivered to the laboratory for analysis as soon as possible following sample 

collection. It is recommended that this be done on the same day that the sample is taken from the 

monitor. If this is impractical, all the samples should be placed in transport containers (e.g., carrying 

case, cooler, shipping box, etc.) for protection from breakage, contamination, and loss and in an 

appropriate controlled-temperature device (i.e., refrigerator or freezer) if the samples have specific 

temperature requirements. Each transport container should have a unique identification, such as sampling 

location, date, and transport container number (e.g., number 2 of 5) to avoid interchange and aid in 

tracking the complete shipment. The number of the transport containers should be subsequently recorded 

on the chain of custody (COC) form (described in Section 8.2) along with the sample identification 

numbers of the samples included within each transport container. It is advised that the container be sealed 

using an appropriate tamper-evident method, such as with custody tape or a wire lock. 

In transporting samples, it is important that precautions be taken to eliminate the possibility of tampering, 

accidental destruction, and/or physical and chemical action on the sample. The integrity of samples can 

be affected by temperature extremes, air pressure (air transportation), and the physical handling of 

samples (packing, jostling, etc.). These practical considerations must be dealt with on a site-by-site basis 

and should be documented in the organization’s QAPP and site specific SOPs. 

The person who has custody of the samples must be able to testify that no tampering occurred. Security 

must be continuous. If the samples are put in a vehicle, lock the vehicle. After delivery to the laboratory, 

the samples must be kept in a secured place with restricted access. 

8.1.4 Sample Analysis 

SOPs, if properly developed, have detailed information on the handling of samples at the analysis phase. 

Similar to the preparation step, if the sample undergoes a number of steps (preparation, equilibration, 

extraction, dilution, analysis, etc.), and these steps are performed by different individuals, there should be 

a mechanism in place to track the sample through the steps to ensure SOPs are followed and the integrity 

of the sample was maintained. Laboratories should make extensive use of laboratory notebooks at the 

various steps (stations) of the analytical process to record the sample handling process and maintain 

sample integrity. 
QA Handbook Vol II , Section 8.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 5 of 7 

8.1.5 Storage and Archival 

Samples must be properly handled to ensure that there is no contamination and that the sample analyzed 

is actually the sample taken under the conditions reported. For this reason, whenever samples are not 

under the direct control of the sample custodian, they should be kept in a secured location. This may be a 

locked vehicle, locked refrigerator, or locked laboratory with limited access. It is highly recommended 

that all samples be secured until discarded. These security measures should be documented by a written 

record signed by the handlers of the sample on the COC form or in a laboratory notebook, indicating the 

storage location and conditions. Any samples not destroyed during the analysis process (e.g., exposed 

filters for PM) should be archived as directed by the method requirements or applicable QAPP. 40 CFR 

Part 58.16 requires PM10, PM10-2.5 and PM2.5 filters from SLAMS manual lo-volume samplers (samplers 

having flow rates less than 200 liters/minute) be archived for 5 years from collection. However, it is 

suggested that they be archived the first year in cold conditions (e.g., at 4 C) and at room temperature for 

2 additional years. It is also suggested that non-destructive lead analysis and CSN samples follow this 

guidance. 

8.2 Chain of Custody (COC)

In order to use the results of a sampling program as evidence, a written record must be available listing 

the location of the samples at all times. This is also an important component of good laboratory 

practices3

. The COC record is necessary to legally demonstrate that the integrity of samples have been 

maintained. Without it, one cannot be sure that the samples and sampling data analyzed were the same as 

the samples and data reported to have been taken at a particular time. Procedures may vary, but an actual 

COC record sheet with the names and signatures of the relinquishers/receivers works well for tracking 

physical samples. The samples should be handled only by persons associated in some way with the 

monitoring program. A good general rule to follow is “the fewer hands the better,” even though a 

properly sealed sample may pass through a number of hands without affecting its integrity. 

Each person handling the samples must be able to state from whom and when the item was received and 

to whom and when it was delivered. A COC form should be used to track the handling of the samples 

through various stages of storage, processing, and analysis at the laboratory. It is recommended practice 

to have each person who relinquishes or receives samples sign the COC form for the samples. An 

example of a form that may be used to establish the COC for samples generated in the field is shown in 

Figure 8.2. This form should accompany the samples at all times from the field to the laboratory. All 

persons who handle the samples should sign the form. Figure 8.3 is an example of a laboratory COC 

form. COC forms should be retained and archived as described in Section 5 (Documents and Records). 

When using professional services to transport physical samples, only reliable services that provide a 

tracking number should be used. Information describing the enclosed samples should be placed on the bill 

of lading. A copy of the shipping receipt and tracking number should be kept as a record. The package 

should be addressed to the specific person authorized to receive the package, although it is recognized 

that staff not typically part of the COC may receive the samples and deliver them to the authorized 

addressee. A procedure must be in place to ensure that samples are delivered to the appropriate person 

without being opened or damaged. In this circumstance, the sample is considered still in transport until 

received by the authorized addressee. It may be necessary to ship and/or receive samples outside of 

 

3 http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/monitoring/programs/fifra/glp.html 
QA Handbook Vol II , Section 8.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 6 of 7 

normal business hours. A procedure should be developed in advance that considers staff availability, 

secure storage locations, and appropriate storage conditions (e.g., temperature-controlled). 

8.2.1 Sample Inspection and Acceptance 

Once the samples arrive at their destination and at every custody change, the samples should first be 

checked to ensure that their integrity is intact. The contents of the shipment should be checked against 

the COC form to ensure that all samples listed were included in the shipment. If max/min thermometers 

are used to monitor the temperature of the shipping containers this information should be recorded to 

document that temperatures were adequately maintained. When using passivated stainless steel canisters, 

the canister pressure, upon receipt, should be recorded and compared to the final sample collection 

pressure to indicate canister leakage and sample loss. It is recommended that this comparison be made 

using a certified gauge that is calibrated annually. Any samples whose integrity or identity may be 

questionable should be brought to the attention of the person/persons that are in the custody chain and 

flagged. All flags should be “carried” along with the samples until the validity of the samples can be 

proven. This information can be included in the remark section of the COC form. 

Chain of Custody Record

Project No. Project Title 

 

Organization 

Shipping 

Container No. Contact 

Field Samplers: print signature Address 

 

 

 

Date Time Site/Location Sample Type Sample ID Remarks 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Relinquished by (print and signature): Received by (print and signature): Comments 

 

 

Figure 8.2 Example Field COC Form.
QA Handbook Vol II , Section 8.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 7 of 7 

Chain of Custody Record 

Project No. Project Title Organization 

 

Laboratory/Plant: _________________________________________________

Sample Number Number of 

Container 

Sample Description 

 

Person responsible for samples Time: Date: 

Sample Number Relinquished By: Received By: Time: Date: Reason for change in custody 

 

Figure 8.3 Example Laboratory COC Form.
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 9.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 1 of 3 

9.0 Analytical Methods

The choice of methods used for any environmental data operation should be based upon the programs 

data quality objectives (DQOs). Outputs from the DQO process can help determine acceptable 

measurement uncertainty and assist in the selection of methods capable of meeting the data quality 

acceptance limits. Methods are usually selected based upon their performance characteristics (precision, 

bias, limits of detection), ease of use, and their reliability in field and laboratory conditions. 

Since both field and analytical procedures have been developed for the criteria pollutants in the Ambient 

Air Quality Monitoring Program, and in the various technical assistance documents for the other national 

ambient air programs, this section will discuss the general concepts of standard operating procedures and 

good laboratory practices as they relate to the reference and equivalent methods. A more detailed 

discussion on the attributes of SOPs can be found in Section 5. 

Many ambient air methods utilize continuous instruments and therefore do not involve laboratory 

analysis. However particulate matter methods involve both continuous and manual methods and some of 

the other major monitoring programs involve sampling which requires the use of laboratory analysis. 

Table 9-1 provides a summary of the pollutants measured and the analytical methods for these programs. 

For the SLAMS Network pollutants, the methods listed are considered the reference methods and are not 

the only methods available for use. Federal equivalent methods are available and posted, once approved, 

on AMTIC and are considered an acceptable alternative to the reference method. Information on 

reference and equivalent methods can be found on the AMTIC website as well as the current list of 

designated Federal Reference and Equivalent Methods1

. CSN2 and NATTS3 SOPs are also on AMTIC. 

Table 9-1 Acceptable Analytical Methods 

Network Pollutant Acceptable Method Reference 

SLAMS PM10 – Hi-Vol Gravimeteric 40 CFR Part 50 App B 

SLAMS PM10- dichot Gravimeteric 40 CFR Part 50 App J 

SLAMS PM2.5 Gravimeteric 40 CFR Part 50 App L 

SLAMS PM10-2.5 Gravimeteric- difference 40 CFR Part 50 App O 

SLAMS Pb from TSP Inductively Coupled Plasma /Mass Spectrometry 

(ICP/MS) 4

40 CFR Part 50 App G 

SLAMS Pb from PM10 Energy Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence (EDXRF) 40 CFR Part 50 App Q 

PAMS VOCs Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) TO-15 

PAMS Carbonyl compounds High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) TO11-A 

PAMS Non-methane organic 

compounds 

Cryogenic Preconcentration and Direct Flame Ionization 

Detection (PDFID) 

TO-12 

NATTS Metals Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP) IO 3.5 

NATTS Aldehydes High Performance Liquid Chromatography TO11-A 

NATTS VOCs Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) TO-15 

CSN PM2.5 Gravimeteric 40 CFR Part 50 App L 

CSN Elements Energy Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence (EDXRF) CSN QAPP and SOPs 

CSN Anions Ion Chromatography CSN QAPP and SOPs 

CSN Cations Ion Chromatography CSN QAPP and SOPs 

CSN Organic, Elemental, 

Carbonate, Total Carbon 

Thermal Optical Reflectance (IMPROVE_A) CSN QAPP and SOPs 

CSN Semi-volatile Organic 

Compounds 

Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) CSN QAPP and SOPs 

 

1 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/criteria.html 2 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/specsop.html 3 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/airtox.html 4

 As of the revision of this document, a new federal reference method for Pb by ICP-MS replaced the Atomic 

Absorption (AA) method App G. The AA method will remain a federal equivalent method. 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 9.0 

Revision No:0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 2 of 3 

The SLAMS network provides more rigorous quality control requirements for the analytical methods. 

These methods are found in 40 CFR Part 50, as described in the references. In addition, the method 

identified for Pb is the reference method. There are a number of equivalent analytical methods that are 

available for the Pb. Some of the NATTS methods are derived from the Toxics Organic Method 

Compendium5

. Others, like the CSN Network6 may be developed specifically for the program, based on 

the national laboratory currently performing the analysis. The PAMS, NATTS and CSN networks follow 

the performance based measurement process paradigm. These Networks’ QA project plans or technical 

assistance documents suggest a method, but also allow some flexibility to use other methods that meet the 

network’s measurement quality objectives. Various, independent proficiency test samples and technical 

systems audits are performed to ensure that the data quality within these networks remain acceptable. 

AQS Parameter and Method Codes-- 

Most monitoring information is reported to the Air Quality System (AQS). The pollutant measured is 

called a “parameter” and the specific method used are designated as the “method codes”. AQS provides 

a website that can assist in identifying the correct method code for data reporting7

. Any approved 

reference or equivalent method listed on the AMTIC website has a reference or equivalent method 

number. An example of an approved reference sampler is the BGI sampler listed below. This sampler can 

be used by the Parameter Code “88101” (PM2.5 local conditions) and is associated with the method code 

“116”. The method code is usually the last three digits of the designated reference (listed as RFPS) or 

equivalent method (listed as EQPM). 

BGI Inc. Models PQ200 or PQ200A PM2.5 Ambient Fine Particle Sampler 

Manual Reference Method: RFPS-0498-116 

“BGI Incorporated Models PQ200 and PQ200A PM2.5 Ambient Fine Particle Sampler,” operated with 

firmware version 3.88 or 3.89R, for 24-hour continuous sample periods, in accordance with the Model 

PQ200/PQ200A Instruction Manual and with the requirements and sample collection filters specified in 40 

CFR Part 50, Appendix L, and with or without the optional Solar Power Supply or the optional dual-filter 

cassette (P/N F-21/6) and associated lower impactor housing (P/N B2027), where the upper filter is used for 

PM2.5. The Model PQ200A is described as a portable audit sampler and includes a set of three carrying cases. 

Federal Register: Vol. 63, page 18911, 04/16/98

9.1 Good Laboratory Practices

Good laboratory practices (GLPs)8 refer to general practices that relate to many, if not all, of the 

measurements made in a laboratory. They are usually independent of the SOP and cover subjects such as 

maintenance of facilities, records, sample management and handling, reagent control, and cleaning of 

laboratory glassware. In many cases, the activities mentioned above may not be formally documented 

because they are considered common knowledge. However, for consistency in laboratory technique, these 

activities should have some form of documentation. 

 

5 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/airtox.html 6 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/specsop.html 7 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/manuals/codedescs.htm 8 http://www.epa.gov/Compliance/monitoring/programs/fifra/glp.html 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 9.0 

Revision No:0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 3 of 3 

9.2 Laboratory Activities

For ambient air samples to provide useful information or evidence, laboratory analyses must meet the 

following four basic requirements: 

1. Equipment must be frequently and properly calibrated and maintained (Section 12). 

2. Personnel must be qualified to make the analysis (Section 4). 

3. Analytical procedures must be in accordance with accepted practice (Section 9.1 above) properly 

documented and received peer and management review. 

4. Complete and accurate records must be kept (Section 5). 

It is assumed that at some frequency the laboratory would be audited by an independent part of the 

monitoring organization or external entity (e.g., EPA Regions) that would document that the basic 

requirements were being met. 

As indicated, these subjects are discussed in other sections of this document. For the Ambient Air 

Quality Monitoring Program, laboratory activities are mainly focused on the pollutants associated with 

manual measurements for lead, particulate matter (PM and CSN), NATTS9

 and PAMS10 (VOCs). 

However, many laboratories also prepare reference material, test or certify instruments, and perform other 

activities necessary to collect and report measurement data. Each laboratory should define these critical 

activities and ensure there are consistent methods for their implementation. 

 

9 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/airtox.html 10 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/pams/newtad.pdf 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 10 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 1 of 12

10.0 Quality Control 

As described in Section 3, any data 

collection process that provides an 

estimate of a concentration contains two 

types of uncertainty; population 

(spatial/temporal variability) and 

measurement uncertainty. DQOs define the data quality needed to make a correct decision an acceptable 

percentage of the time. 

Measurement quality objectives (MQOs) identify the quality control samples and the acceptance 

criteria for those samples that will allow one to quantify the data quality indicators precision, bias, 

representativeness, detection limit, completeness and comparability. The MQOs are designed to evaluate 

and control various phases (sampling, preparation, analysis) of the measurement process to ensure that 

total measurement uncertainty is within the range prescribed by the DQOs. 

Data quality assessment (DQAs) is the scientific and statistical evaluation of environmental data 

to determine if they meet the planning objectives of the project, and thus are of the right type, 

quality, and quantity to support their intended use1. DQA is built on a fundamental premise: data 

quality is meaningful only when it relates to the intended use of the data, which in many cases 

stem from the DQOs. DQAs can be used to determine whether modifications to the DQOs are 

necessary or “tighter” quality control is required. 

10.1 The Quality Control Process 

Within any phase or step of the data collection process, errors can occur. For example: 

 samples and filters can be mislabeled; 

 data can be transcribed or reported incorrectly or information management systems can be 

programmed incorrectly; 

 calibration or check standards can be contaminated or certified incorrectly resulting in faulty 

calibrations; 

 instruments can be set up improperly or over time fail to operate within specifications; and 

 SOPs may not be followed. 

Quality Control (QC) is the overall system of technical activities that measures the attributes and 

performance of a process, item, or service against defined standards to verify that they meet the stated 

requirements established by the customer2

. Quality control includes establishing specifications or 

acceptance criteria for each quality characteristic of the monitoring/analytical process, assessing 

procedures used in the monitoring/analytical process to determine conformance to these specifications, 

and taking any necessary corrective actions to bring them into conformance. The EPA’s QAPP guidance 

 

1

 Data Quality Assessment: Statistical Methods for the Practitioners http://www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/g9sfinal.pdf 2

 American Nation Standard ANSI/ASQ E4-2004 http://www.asq.org/
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 10 

Revision No:0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 2 of 12 

document QA/G53

suggests that “QC 

activities are those 

technical activities 

routinely performed, not to 

eliminate or minimize 

errors, but to measure their 

effect”. The effect of an 

error, such as lab 

contamination, leading to 

high PM2.5 values might 

lead to incorrectly 

concluding a site was in 

non-attainment. Although 

there is agreement that the 

measurement or 

assessment of a QC check 

does not itself eliminate errors, the QC data can and should be used to take appropriate corrective actions 

which can minimize error or control data to an acceptable level of quality in the future. So, QC is both 

proactive and corrective. It establishes techniques to determine if field and lab procedures are producing 

acceptable data and identifies actions to correct unacceptable performance. 

The goal of quality control is to provide a reasonable level of checking at various stages of the data 

collection process to ensure that data quality is maintained and if it is found that the quality has not been 

maintained, that it is discovered with a minimal loss of data (invalidation). Figure 10.1 provides an 

example of some of the QC samples used in the PM2.5 data collection process. The figure also identifies 

what sources of error are associated with the QC sample. So, in developing a quality control strategy, one 

must weigh the costs associated with quality control against the risks of data loss. 

With the objective to minimize data loss, quality control data are most beneficial when they are assessed 

as soon as they are collected. Therefore, information management systems can play a very important role 

in reviewing QC data and flagging or identifying spurious data for further review. These information 

management procedures can help the technical staff review the QC checks coming from a number of 

monitoring sites in a consistent and time efficient manner. There are many graphical techniques (e.g., 

control charts and outlier checks) that can be employed to quickly identify suspect data. More details of 

information management systems are discussed later in this section. It is the responsibility of the 

monitoring organization, through the development of its QAPP, policies and procedures, to develop and 

document the: 

 QC techniques; 

 frequency of the QC checks and the point in the measurement process that the check is 

introduced; 

 traceability of QC standards; 

 matrix of the check sample; 

 appropriate test concentrations; 

 actions to be taken in the event that a QC check identifies a failed or changed measurement 

 

3 http://www.epa.gov/quality/qa_docs.html 

Field 

Blank Laboratory 

Pre- Field Weighing 

 Field 

Sampling 

 Laboratory 

Post-Field Weighing 

 Lab 

Blank QC 

 Checks 

Field 

Blank 

Field 

Blank 

Routine 

Sample 

Collocated 

 Sample 

Routine 

Sample 

Collocated 

 Sample 

Routine 

Sample 

Collocated 

 Sample 

 QC 

Checks PEP 

 PEP 

 PEP 

 Lab 

Blank

 QC 

 Checks 

 Meas. System 

Contamination 

 Instrument 

precision/bias 

Meas. System 

 Precision 

Meas. System 

 Bias 

 Lab 

Contamination 

Weighing lab 

Precision/Bias 

Figure 10.1 QC samples for PM2.5 placed at various stages of measurement process 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 10 

Revision No:0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 3 of 12 

system; 

 formulae for estimating data quality indicators; 

 QC results, including control charts; and 

 the means by which the QC data will be used to determine that the measurement performance is 

acceptable. 

10.2 QC Activity Areas 

For air monitoring projects the following three areas must have established QC activities, procedures and 

criteria: 

1. Data Collection. 

2. Data management and the verification and validation process. 

3. Reference materials. 

Data collection includes any process involved in acquiring a concentration or value, including but not 

limited to: sample preparation, field sampling, sample transportation, field analytical (continuous) 

methods, and laboratory preparation/analytical processes. Depending on the importance of the data and 

resources available, monitoring programs can implement QC samples, as illustrated in Figure 10.1, to 

identify the errors occurring at various phases of monitoring process. Many of the QC samples can 

identify errors from more than one phase. Table 10-1 provides a list of the majority of the QC samples 

utilized in the ambient air program and include both their primary (double check √√) and secondary uses 

(single √) in error identification. Many of these checks are required in CFR; others are strongly suggested 

in the method guidance. The MQO/validation templates provided in Appendix D provide the minimum 

requirements for the frequency that these checks be implemented but many monitoring organization 

choose more frequent checking in order to reduce the risk of data invalidation. A good example of this 

increased effort is the zero/span and one-point precision checks for the gaseous criteria pollutants. 

Although CFR requires the check to be performed once every two weeks, due to the advent of more 

sophisticated automated monitoring systems, many monitoring organization perform these checks every 

24-hours (11:45 PM – 12:15 AM). In addition, once the QC checks are developed for a particular 

monitoring method, it is important to identify the acceptance criteria and what corrective action will be 

taken once a QC check fails. The MQO/Validation template in Appendix D can be used to list the QC 

samples with a column added to include corrective action. Table 10-2 provides an example of a QC 

Sample Table for PM2.5. Although the validation templates provide guidance for when data should be 

invalidated, it is up to the monitoring organization to provide the specific corrective actions for the failure 

of a specific QC check and therefore, Table 10-2 does not identify specific corrective actions. 

Data management quality control is discussed in more detail in Section 14 and the 

verification/validation process in Section 17. Automated verification/validation processes require some 

frequency of checking to ensure that they are performed correctly since errors in programming can cause 

persistent errors for long periods of time. At times new versions of software can cause programs that 

worked properly in the past to falter. Providing QC checks (e.g., entering a data set that has errors that 

the programs are expected to identify) to software to ensure they operate properly is strongly suggested. 

Reference materials are the standards by which many of the QC checks are performed. Reference 

material can be gaseous standards as well as devices (e.g., flow rate standards). If these standards are not 

checked and verified as to their certified values, then the quality of data becomes suspect. Reference 

materials need to be certified and recertified at acceptable frequencies in order to maintain the integrity of 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 10 

Revision No:0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 4 of 12 

the reference material. It is suggested that standards be certified annually. More discussion on standards is 

included in Section 12. 

Other elements of an organization’s QAPP that may contain related sampling and analytical QC 

requirements include: 

 Sampling Design which identifies the planned field QC samples as well as procedures for 

QC sample preparation and handling; 

 Sampling Method Requirements which includes following the QC requirements of the 

reference methods found in CFR Part 50 and for determining if the collected samples 

accurately represent the population of interest (representativeness); 

 Sample Handling and Custody Requirements which discusses any QC devices employed 

to ensure samples are not tampered with (e.g., custody seals) or subjected to other 

unacceptable conditions during transport; 

 Analytical Methods Requirements which includes information on the subsampling methods 

and information on the preparation of QC samples (e.g., blanks and replicates); and 

 Instrument Calibration and Frequency which defines prescribed criteria for triggering 

recalibration (e.g., failed calibration checks).

10.3 Internal vs. External Quality Control 

Quality control can be separated into 2 major categories: internal QC and external QC. Both types of 

quality control are important in a well implemented quality system. 

Internal – 

Most of the quality control activities take place internally; meaning the monitoring organization 

responsible for collecting the data develops and implements the quality control activities, evaluates 

the data, and takes corrective action when necessary. The internal activities can be used to take 

immediate action if data appear to be out of acceptance. 

External QC— 

External quality control can be implemented as an audit with external/independent devices or through 

the submission of samples of two types: “double-blind” meaning the QC sample is not known (looks 

like a routine sample) and therefore its concentration in unknown, or “single-blind” meaning they are 

known to be a QC sample but its concentration is unknown to the person or organization performing 

the measurement. These samples are also called performance evaluation or proficiency test samples 

and are explained in Section 15. External QC may identify errors occurring in internal QC activities. 

For example, an external flow rate audit may identify an internal flow rate verification standard that is 

out of calibration. Because these checks are performed by external organizations, the results are not 

always immediately available and therefore have a diminished capacity to control data quality in 

“real-time.” However they are useful as an objective test of the internal QC procedures and may 

identify errors (i.e., biased or contaminated standards) that might go unnoticed in an internal QC 

system. 

 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 10 

Revision No:0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 5 of 12 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 10 

Revision No:0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 6 of 12 

Table 10-2 PM2.5 Field and Lab QC Checks

Requirement Frequency Acceptance Criteria Corrective Action 

Field QC Checks 

Calibration Standard 

Recertifications 

 Flow Rate Transfer Std. 

 Field Thermometer 

 

 Field Barometer 

1/yr 

1/yr 

1/yr 

+2% of NIST-traceable Std. 

+ 0.1o

 C resolution 

+ 0.5o C accuracy 

+ 1 mm Hg resolution 

+ 5 mm Hg accuracy 

Verification/ Calibration

 Flow Rate (FR) Calibration 

 FR multi-point verification 

 One point FR verification 

 External Leak Check 

 Internal Leak Check 

 Temperature Calibration 

 Temp multi-point verification 

 One- point temp Verification 

 Pressure Calibration 

 Pressure Verification 

 Clock/timer Verification 

If multi-point failure 

1/yr 

1/mo 

every 5 sampling events 

every 5 sampling events 

If multi-point failure 

on installation, then 1/yr 

1/mo 

on installation, then 1/yr 

1/mo 

1/mo 

+ 2% of transfer standard 

+ 2% of transfer standard 

+ 4% of transfer standard 

80 mL/min 

80 mL/min 

+ 2% of standard 

+ 2Cof standard 

+ 4C of standard 

+10 mm Hg 

+10 mm Hg 

1 min/mo 

Blanks

Field Blanks See 2.12 reference +30 μg 

Precision Checks

 Collocated samples every 12 days CV < 10% 

Audits (external assessments) 

 FRM PEP 

 Flow rate audit 

 External Leak Check 

 Internal Leak Check 

 Temperature Audit 

 Pressure Audit 

5 or 8 sites/year 

1/6mo 

1/6mo 

1/6mo 

1/year 

1/ year 

+ 10% 

+ 4% of audit standard 

< 80 mL/min 

< 80 mL/min 

+ 2C 

+ 10 mm Hg 

Laboratory QC Checks

Blanks

 Lot Blanks 

 Exposure lot blanks 

 Lab Blanks 

9-lot 

3 per lot 

10% or 1 per weighing 

session 

+15 μg difference 

+15 μg difference 

+15 μg difference 

Verification/ Calibration

 Balance Calibration 

 Lab Temp. Calibration 

 Lab Humidity Calibration 

1/yr 

1/6mo 

1/6mo 

Manufacturers spec. 

+ 2C 

+ 2% 

Bias

 Balance Audit 

 Balance Check 

1/year 

beginning, every 10th 

samples, end 

+15 μg for unexposed filters 

< +3 μg 

Calibration standards 

 Working Mass Stds. 

 Primary Mass Stds. 

3-6 mo. 

1/yr 

25 μg 

25 μg 

Precision

 Duplicate filter weighings 1 per weighing session +15 μg difference 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 10 

Revision No:0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 7 of 12 

10.4 CFR Related Quality Control Samples 

40 CFR Part 58, Appendix A identifies a number of quality control samples that must be implemented for 

the SLAMS (and NCore) SPM and PSD networks. By 2009, any special purpose monitors that use FRMs 

or FEMs will be required to follow these requirements unless granted a waiver by the Regional 

Administrator (or delegate). Table 10-3 provides a summary of the QC checks for the criteria pollutants 

and the CFR reference where an explanation of each check is described. The reader should distinguish the 

requirements that are related to automated and manual methods since there are some differences.

Table 10-3 Ambient Air Monitoring Measurement Quality Samples 

Method CFR Reference Coverage (annual) Minimum frequency MQOs* 

Automated Methods

One-Point QC:

for SO2, NO2, O3, CO Section 3.2.1 Each analyzer Once per 2 weeks 

O3 Precision 7%, Bias + 7%. 

SO2, NO2, CO 

 Precision 10% , Bias + 10% 

Annual performance 

evaluation

for SO2, NO2, O3, CO 

Section 3.2.2 Each analyzer Once per year See validation templates App 

D. 

Flow rate verification

PM10,PM2.5, PM10-2.5, Section 3.2.3 Each sampler Once every month < 4% of standard and 5% of 

design value 

Semi-annual flow rate 

audit

PM10, PM2.5, PM10-2.5, Section 3.2.4 Each sampler Once every 6 months < 4% of standard and 5% of 

design value 

Collocated sampling

PM2.5, PM10-2.5, Section 3.2.5 

15% within PQAO 

Every twelve days 

PM2.5, - 10% precision 

PM10-2.5- - 15% precision 

TSP – 10% precision 

Performance evaluation 

program

 PM2.5,PM10-2.5 Section 3.2.7 

1. 5 valid audits for primary 

QA orgs, with < 5 sites 

2. 8 valid audits for primary 

QA orgs, with > 5 sites 

3. All samplers in 6 years 

over all 4 quarters PM2.5, - + 10% bias 

PM10-2.5- - +15% bias 

Manual Methods 

Collocated sampling

PM10, , PM10-2.5, PM2.5

Pb-TSP, Pb-P10

3.3.1 and 3.3.5 15% within PQAO 

Every 12 days 

PSD every 6 days 

PM10, TSP, PM2.5, - 10% 

precision 

PM10-2.5- - 15% precision 

Flow rate verification

PM10 (low Vol),PM10-2.5, 

PM2.5,, Pb-PM10 

3.3.2 Each sampler Once every month < 4% of standard and 5% of 

design value 

Flow rate verification

PM10 (High-Vol), Pb-TSP 3.3.2 Each sampler Once every quarter Varies by instrument type see 

validation templates 

Semi-annual flow rate 

audit

PM10 (low Vol), PM10-2.5, 

PM2.5, 

3.3.3 Each sampler, all locations Once every 6 months < 4% of standard and 5% of 

design value 

Semi-annual flow rate 

audit

PM10 (High-Vol), Pb-TSP 

3.3.3 Each sampler, all locations Once every 6 months Varies by instrument type see 

validation templates 

Pb Analysis Audits

 Pb-TSP, Pb-PM10 3.3.4 

1. Each sampler 

2. Analytical (lead strips) 

1. Include with TSP 

2. Each quarter 

 1. Same as for TSP. 

2. - + 10% bias 

Performance evaluation 

program

PM2.5, PM10-2.5 3.3.7 and 3.3.8 

1. 5 valid audits for primary 

QA orgs, with < 5 sites 

2. 8 valid audits for primary 

QA orgs, with > 5 sites 

3. All samplers in 6 years 

Over all 4 quarters 

PM2.5, + 10% bias 

PM10-2.5-, +15% bias 

* Some of the MQOs are found in CFR and others in Appendix D of this guidance document. 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 10 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 8 of 12 

Blanks and Blank Correction 

The objective for collecting blanks at various phases of sample collection is to determine whether 

contamination is occurring at that phase, be it in the field, during sample transport or at the analytical 

laboratory, and to try to reduce this contamination if it is greater than acceptance limits. Some level of 

contamination is acceptable and values below the acceptance limits do not require corrective action or 

investigation. Values above this level should be investigated in order to reduce this contamination to 

acceptable levels. EPA does not endorse blank correction of data unless it is already an accepted practice 

in a monitoring program/method. In rare cases there may be a laboratory or measurement phase that has a 

measurable, consistent and documented level of contamination that cannot be eliminated and blank 

correction may be contemplated to adjust the data for this contamination. In this case the agency should 

contact the EPA Region for advice. 

Operating Ranges, Calibration Scale, Zero, Span, 1-point QC Checks and Performance 

Evaluations 

Due to successes over the years in reducing pollution, ambient air monitoring concentrations are steadily 

decreasing. Many monitoring organizations are now purchasing trace gas monitors not only for NCore 

sites but also for the routine monitoring sites. The ambient air QA regulations have kept up with this trend 

by lowering and expanding the performance evaluation audit levels and suggesting that the audit levels 

chosen “should represent or bracket 80 percent of ambient concentrations measured by the analyzer 

being evaluated . The regulation also suggest the one-point QA checks for the gasses “should be related 

to the routine concentrations normally measured at sites within the monitoring network in order to 

appropriately reflect the precision and bias at these routine concentration ranges”. The intent of the 

regulatory language is to perform and report quality control data at concentrations more reflective of the 

routine concentrations. 

When the ambient air QA regulations and guidance were initially promulgated routine concentrations 

were higher, there were different reference methods, different and less sensitive monitoring instruments 

and calibration technologies and a different quality of gas standards. All of the technological change has 

been for the better and should allow for better precision and bias at lower concentration ranges. In 

addition, older guidance may have suggested that monitors had to be operated and calibrated at one of the 

ranges for which they were approved. Current guidance suggests the following for each of the QC checks 

for gaseous pollutants: 

Operating Range- This term should be used for the ranges that are promulgated in the approved federal 

reference method (FRM) or federal equivalent method (FEM) designation. Some instruments have been 

designated for more than one operating range and one range may need to be selected for operating the 

instrument. This range needs to be acknowledged when determining calibration concentration but only to 

the extent that one would not operate within one operating range and calibrate with points higher than the 

selected operating range. 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 10 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 9 of 12 

Calibration Scale – The term should 

be used to indicate the concentration 

range that the instrument is calibrated 

over. EPA feels that monitoring 

organization should have more 

flexibility in deciding their calibration 

scale and although it needs to be 

within the selected operating range it 

does not necessarily need to be 

performed at concentration levels not 

normally measured by the monitor. 

Figure 10.2 provides an example of 

some calibrations performed in the 

past where the 4 calibration points 

(plus zero point) were spread evenly 

across the operating range starting at 

80% of the operating range. As 

indicated, the routine data for this site 

is clustered around the lowest calibration point. It is suggested that monitoring organizations select a 

calibration scale that provides more calibration points at the lower concentrations to establish a better test 

of linearity at the routine concentration ranges. 

Zero Point- the bi-weekly zero point is fairly well defined and a straight forward procedure for using 

zero air generators or standards to measure a zero point. Some air monitoring analyzers are capable of 

periodically carrying out automatic zero and span calibrations and making their own zero and span self 

adjustments to predetermined readings. EPA discourages the use of automatic span adjustments but 

considers automatic zero adjustments reasonable when 1) the automatic zero standards pass through the 

sample inlet and sample conditioning system, 2) the zero point/adjustment is performed daily, and 3) both 

the adjusted and unadjusted zero response readings can be obtained from the data recording device. 

Previously collected routine data should not be corrected based upon zero or span values.

Span Point-the bi-weekly span points have been traditionally set at 80-90% of the operating range, as 

indicated in Figure 10-2. The span check concentration should be selected that is more beneficial to the 

quality control of the routine data at the site and EPA suggests: 1) the selection of an appropriate 

calibration scale (as described above) and, 2) selecting a span that at a minimum is above 120% of the 

highest NAAQS (for sites used for designation purposes) and above the 99% of the routine data over a 3 

year period. 

One-Point QC – The bi-weekly one point QC check is required to be reported within the range of 0.01- 

0.10 ppm for O3, SO2 and NO2 and 1 – 10 ppm for CO and the concentration selected should be related to 

the routine concentrations normally measured at sites within the monitoring network in order to 

appropriately reflect the precision and bias at the routine concentration ranges. 

Annual Performance Evaluations (PE)- A November 10, 2010 Technical Memorandum4

 expanded the 

list of annual PE audit levels from 5 to 10 and revised the selection process so that one did not have to 

 

4

 Expanded List of Audit Levels for Annual Performance Evaluation for SO2, NO2, O3, and CO as Described in 40 

CFR Part 58 Appendix A Section 3.2.2 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/cpreldoc.html
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 10 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 10 of 12 

select three consecutive levels. This language will be updated in the next revision of 40 CFR Part 58 

Appendix A. The audit levels chosen should represent or bracket 80 percent of ambient concentrations 

measured by the analyzer being evaluated. Due to the audit levels being expanded to allow for lower 

concentration audits to support NCore and trace level work, a February 11, 2011 Technical Memo5

 was 

posted on AMTIC that EPA suggests the use of the following acceptance criteria for levels 1 and 

2 audit ranges: 

 For O3, SO2, and NO2: + 1.5 ppb difference or + 15 percent difference, whichever is 

greater. 

 For CO: + 0.03 ppm difference or + 15 percent difference, whichever is greater. 

For audit levels 3-10, the 15 percent difference acceptance criteria, currently in guidance, is 

acceptable. 

Selecting Appropriate Concentration Ranges for Gaseous QC Samples 

The regulations attempt to provide some flexibility on how monitoring organizations choose the QC 

concentration ranges. The following scenario is an acceptable approach to selecting the QC 

concentrations. It uses ozone data from a typical routine monitoring site. Figure 10.3 illustrates this 

process. 

1) Take 3-years of 8-hour or 1-hour max values (101 ppb is highest 8-hour max for this example) 

2) Multiply the highest 8-hour or 1-hour max 

by 1.5, to establish the calibration scale 

(150 ppb) 

a) If calculation in step 2 is below NAAQS, 

use 1.5x of the NAAQS (if sites are used 

for regulatory purposes) 

3) Take 80% of calibration scale (120 ppb) to 

establish the span check value. The span 

check can now serve as a bi-weekly check 

to protect the NAAQS 

4) Use the current CFR requirements to 

select 1-point QC checks. Since the 

current 1-point QC check range is 10-100 

ppb for O3 and the mean 8-hour max is 

around 50 ppb, 50 ppb would be an 

adequate concentration for this site. 

5) This information can be used to select the 

annual PE audit levels. Since the audit 

levels should reflect 80% of the routine 

data, an “80% box” could be created to 

select 80% of the routine data. The 80% 

 

5

Guidance on Statistics for Use at Audit Levels 1 and 2 of the Expanded List of Audit Levels for Annual 

Performance Evaluation for SO2, NO2, O3, and CO as Described in 40 CFR Part 58 Appendix A Section 3.2.2 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/pm25/datamang/20110217lowlevelstatmemo.pdf 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 10 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 11 of 12 

box can slide in both the left and the right direction. In the case of Figure 10.3, the box represents 

the upper 80% of the routine data. Therefore PE audit levels 3, 4, 5 and 6 would be the most 

appropriate to select for this site. 

The approached described above is an example that allows for flexibility depending on the sites and the 

concentrations measured within a monitoring network. This approach can be used for individual sites 

(where there is greater variability in concentrations across the network) or it can be used for an aggregate 

of sites within a PQAO (where less variability in concentrations exist). The approach can be used with 

one year of data or it can be used with multiple years of data. Two issues should dictate the approach 

used: 

 Ensure that the calibration scale exceeds the range of real and possible routine concentrations and 

is above any primary and secondary NAAQS. 

 Ensure the span check is protective of the NAAQS. 

 The monitoring organizations QAPP would document the approach used.

10.5 Use of Computers for Quality Control 

With the wide range of computers now available, and the advancements in data acquisition system (DAS) 

technologies, consideration should be given to a computer system that can process and output the 

information in a timely fashion. Such a computer system should be able to: 

 compute calibration 

equations 

 compute measures of 

linearity of calibrations (e.g., 

standard error or correlation 

coefficient) 

 plot calibration curves 

 compute zero/span drift 

results 

 plot zero/span drift data 

 compute precision and bias 

results 

 compute control chart limits 

 plot control charts 

 automatically flag out-ofcontrol results 

 maintain and retrieve calibration and performance records 

 format data for reporting to AQS .

Some of these checks (e.g., calibrations) only need to be reviewed as needed or when the actual check is 

performed. Other checks, like zero/span/one point QC checks or programmed routine data range or 

outlier checks that may occur every day are much more easily performed automatically by properly 

programmed computer systems. Earlier versions of this Handbook provided examples of quality control 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 10 

Revision No:0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 12 of 12 

charts for zero and span drifts but with the advanced data acquisition system technologies available, the 

development of these charts is fairly straight forward. Figure 10.4, represents daily CO span checks over a 

3 month period. This control chart can be downloaded from the American Society for Quality (ASQ) 

web site6

. 

Many vendors offering newer generation data loggers and ambient air information management systems 

provide programming of some of the QC checking capabilities listed above. EPA has also provided 

guidance and a Data Assessment Statistical Calculator7

 (DASC) tool for the precision and bias 

calculations of the quality control checks required in CFR Part 58, Appendix A. In addition, the AMP 

255 Report in AQS also provides these statistics for many of the QC samples described in Table 10-3 but 

use of the 255 Report requires data reporting to AQS which does not usually occur in time frames needed 

for quality control. 

 

6 http://asq.org/learn-about-quality/data-collection-analysis-tools/overview/control-chart.html 

7

 DASC tool on AMTIC at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/qareport.html 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 11.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 1 of 7 

11.0 Instrument Equipment Testing, Inspection and Maintenance

Implementing an ambient air monitoring network, with the various types of equipment needed, is no easy 

task. Through appropriate testing, inspection and maintenance programs, monitoring organizations can 

be assured that equipment is capable of operating at acceptable performance levels. Every piece of 

equipment has an expected life span, and its use should be discontinued if its performance quality ceases 

to meet appropriate standards. For amortization purposes, EPA estimates a 7 year lifespan for most 

monitoring instruments and a somewhat longer lifespan for more permanent types of equipment 

(instrument racks, monitoring shelters etc.). This schedule means that funds for replacing capital 

equipment are provided in resource allocations and monitoring organizations should make the best use of 

equipment replacement resources. Monitoring organizations may be able to prolong the life of equipment 

but in doing so they may run the risk of additional downtime, more upkeep and a greater chance of data 

invalidation, while losing out on newer technologies, better sensitivity/stability and the opportunities for 

better information management technologies. 

Due to the many types of equipment that can be used in an ambient air monitoring program, this section 

provides general guidance on testing, inspection and maintenance procedures for broad categories of 

equipment only. In most cases, equipment manufacturers include inspection and maintenance 

information in the operating manuals. The role of monitoring organizations, in developing a quality 

system, is to address the scheduling and documentation of routine testing, inspection, and maintenance. 

Detailed maintenance documents should be available for each monitoring site. Elements incorporated 

into testing, inspection and maintenance documents include: 

 equipment lists - by organization and station; 

 spare equipment/parts lists - by equipment, including suppliers; 

 inspection/maintenance frequency - by equipment; 

 testing frequency and source of the test concentrations or equipment; 

 equipment replacement schedules; 

 sources of repair - by equipment; 

 service agreements that are in place; and 

 monthly check sheets and entry forms for documenting testing, inspections and maintenance 

performed. 

11.1 Instrumentation

11.1.1 Analyzers and Samplers

Aside from the specific exceptions described in Appendix C of Part 581

, monitoring methods used for 

SLAMS monitoring must be a reference or equivalent method, designated as such by 40 CFR Part 532

 and 

will be labeled as such3

. Reference or equivalent methods also must be used at NCore monitoring sites 

intended for comparison with any NAAQS. Among reference and equivalent methods, a variety of 

analyzer designs and features are available. For certain pollutants, analyzers employing different 

measurement principles are available. Some analyzer models only meet the minimum performance 

specifications (see Table 7-6), while others provide a higher level of performance. Section 7 provides 

information on what aspects to consider when selecting a particular monitoring instrument/analyzer. 

 

1

 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix C http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl 2

40 CFR Part 53 

3

 40 CFR Part Part 53.9(d) 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 11.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 2 of 7 

Upon receiving the new analyzer, the user should carefully read the instructions or operating manual 

provided by the manufacturer. Information or instructions concerning the following should be found in 

the manufacturer’s manual: 

 unpacking and verifying that all component parts were delivered; 

 checking for damage during shipment; 

 checking for loose fittings and electrical connections; 

 assembling the analyzer; 

 installing the analyzer; 

 calibrating the analyzer; 

 operating the analyzer; 

 electrical and plumbing diagrams; 

 preventive maintenance schedule and procedures; 

 troubleshooting; and 

 a list of expendable parts. 

NOTE: Many vendors have specific time periods when the initial checks for damage in transit 

need to be made so it may be important to perform an initial check/verification of the 

equipment as soon as possible. The monitor should be assembled and set up according to the 

instructions in the manufacturer’s manual. 

Initial Set-up and Acceptance Testing 

It may be important to do this initial set-up and testing at the main office or laboratory facility (see 

Section 11.1.3) before taking the equipment to the site. Following analyzer set-up, and allowance for the 

instrument to reach required operating conditions, an initial verification of performance characteristics 

such as power flow, noise, response time and a multi-point verification should be performed to determine 

if the analyzer is operating properly. These guidelines assume that the instrument was previously 

calibrated. If the instrument was disassembled after calibration, or no calibration of the instrument had 

previously been performed, the monitor must have a multi-point verification/calibration to ensure it is 

within acceptable calibration requirements prior to use. Zero/span drift and precision should be checked 

during the initial calibration or measured using abbreviated forms of the test procedures provided in 40 

CFR Part 53. Acceptance of the analyzer should be based on results from these performance tests. If the 

analyzer does not perform to stated specifications, document the testing procedures and data and contact 

the manufacturer for corrective action. Once accepted, reference and equivalent analyzers are guaranteed 

by the manufacturer to operate within the required performance specifications for one year4

, unless major 

repairs are performed or parts are replaced. In such instances, the analyzers must be recalibrated before 

use. 

11.1.2 Support Instrumentation

Experiences of monitoring organization staff; preventive maintenance requirements, ease of maintenance 

and general reliability play crucial roles in the selection of support equipment. The following examples 

depict general categories of support equipment and typical features to look for when selecting this 

equipment. This list is meant to guide agencies in the selection of equipment and does not represent 

required specifications. 

 

4

 40 CFR Part 53.9 (c) 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 11.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 3 of 7 

 Calibration Standards: Calibration standards fall into several categories: 

- mass flow controlled (MFC) devices; 

- standards that meet the 2012 Traceability Protocol for Gaseous Calibration Standards5

- permeation devices; 

- voltage standards for equipment testing; 

- photometers; 

- flow measurement devices; 

- barometric pressure measurement devices; and 

- temperature measurement devices. 

It is recommended that the devices be 110 VAC, be compatible with data acquisition systems for 

automated calibrations, and have digital compatibility or true transistor-transistor logic (TTL). 

The most common standards are MFC devices and permeation devices. Both use dilution air to 

obtain the needed output pollutant concentration. 

 Data Acquisition Systems (DAS): DAS should have at least 32-bit logic for improved 

performance (DAS with at least 16-bit logic can still be used); have modem and internet 

capabilities; allow remote access and control; allow for digital input; and be able to initiate 

automated calibrations and polling. It is also recommended that DAS have software compatible 

with AQS and AQI reporting and editing. Both data loggers and analog chart recorders may be 

used for recording data; however, the storage, communicability, and flexibility of DAS coupled 

with data loggers makes the DAS systems the preferred option. More information on DAS is 

found in Section 14. 

 Instrument Racks: Instrument racks should be constructed of steel and be able to accept sliding 

trays or rails. Open racks help to keep instrument temperatures down and allow air to circulate 

freely. 

 Instrument Benches: Instrument benches should be of sufficient space to allow adequate room 

for multiple instruments with room to work and be capable of supporting a fair amount of weight 

(> 100 lbs). Slate or other hard, water-proof materials (e.g., steel) are recommended. 

 Zero Air Systems and Standards: Zero air systems should be able to deliver 10 liters/min of air 

that is free of ozone, NO, NO2, and SO2 to 0.001 ppm and CO and non-methane hydrocarbons to 

0.1 ppm or below the instruments method detection limit (whichever is lower). With NCore 

monitoring and the use of trace gas monitors, there may be a need to audit and calibrate at lower 

level. Therefore monitoring organization may need to acquire zero air systems capable to 

delivering zero air at 20 to 30 liters/min. There are many commercially available systems; 

however, simple designs can be obtained by using a series of canisters. In addition, the 2012 

Traceability Protocol for Gaseous Calibration Standards includes a discussion of zero gas 

standards which are commercially available. Although not required for use under protocol gasses, 

the standards can be used as a check on zero air systems. 

 

5

 EPA Traceability Protocol for Assay and Certification of Gaseous Calibration Standards (EPA-600/R-23/531) 

http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/appcd/mmd/db-traceability-protocol.html 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 11.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 4 of 7 

11.1.3 Laboratory Support

While it is not required, monitoring organizations should employ full laboratory facilities. These facilities 

should be equipped to test, repair, troubleshoot, and calibrate all analyzers and support equipment 

necessary to operate the ambient air monitoring network. In cases where individual laboratories are not 

feasible, a monitoring organization may be able to find a central laboratory (PQAO) where these activities 

can be performed. 

It is recommended that the laboratory be designed to accommodate the air quality laboratory/shop and 

PM10 and PM2.5 filter rooms6

, as well as enforcement instrumentation support activities. The air quality 

portion consists of several benches flanked by instrument racks. One bench and rack are dedicated to 

ozone traceability. The other instrument racks are designated for calibration and repair. A room should 

be set aside to house spare parts and extra analyzers. 

A manifold/sample cane should be mounted behind the bench. If possible, a sample cane that passes 

through the roof to allow analyzers that are being tested to sample outside air should be mounted to the 

bench. This configuration also allows any excess calibration gas to be exhausted to the atmosphere. It is 

recommended that the pump room be external to the building to eliminate noise. 

Each bench area should have an instrument rack attached to the bench. The instrument rack should be 

equipped with sliding trays or rails that allow easy installation of instruments. If instrumentation needs to 

be repaired and then calibrated, these activities can be performed on the bench top or within the rack. 

Analyzers then can be allowed to warm up and be calibrated by a calibration unit. Instruments that are to 

be tested are connected to the sample manifold and allowed to sample air in the same manner as if the 

analyzer were being operated within a monitoring station. The analyzer is connected to an acquisition 

system (e.g., DAS, data logger, chart recorder, etc.) and allowed to operate. Any intermittent problems 

that occur can be observed on the data logger/chart recorder. The analyzer can be allowed to operate over 

several days to see if anomalies or problems reoccur; if they do, there is a record of them. If the 

instrument rack has a DAS and calibrator, nightly auto QC checks can be performed to see how the 

analyzer reacts to known gas concentrations. In addition, the ozone recertification bench and rack should 

be attached to a work bench. The rack should house the local ozone level 2 standard7

 and the ozone 

transfer standards (level 3 and greater) that are being checked for recertification. Zero air is plumbed into 

this rack for the calibration and testing of ozone analyzers and transfer standards. 

During FRM/FEM testing EPA tries to ensure that monitoring equipment manufacturers test instruments 

a varying environmental extremes. However within the period of testing some extremes that exist in 

some monitoring areas may not be achieved. Monitoring organizations that have large regions with 

varying extremes of temperature, humidity and pressure may want to invest in an environmental chamber 

that can be used to test monitoring instruments against the manufactures advertized performance 

standards. 

11.2 Preventive Maintenance

Every monitoring organization should develop a preventive maintenance program. Preventive 

maintenance is what its name implies; maintaining the equipment within a network to prevent downtime 

and costly repairs and data loss. Preventive maintenance is an ongoing element of quality control and is 

 

6

 Guidance on filter room requirements can be found in methods 2.10 and 2.11 for PM10 and 2.12 for PM2.5 7 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/qaqc/OzoneTransferStandardGuidance.pdf 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 11.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 5 of 7 

typically enveloped into the daily routine. In addition to the daily routine, scheduled activities must be 

performed monthly, quarterly, semi-annually and annually. Often the standard operating procedures 

and/or operation manuals will provide preventative maintenance activities for the particular 

instrument/method. It is suggested that these sections could be assembled into a preventative 

maintenance document that could be kept at each site and accessed electronically so that maintenance can 

be implemented and documented in a consistent manner. 

 

Preventive maintenance is the responsibility of the station operators and the supervisory staff. It is 

important that the supervisor review the preventive maintenance work and continually check the schedule. 

The supervisor is responsible for making sure that preventive maintenance is being accomplished in a 

timely manner. Preventive maintenance is not a static process; procedures must be updated for many 

reasons, including, but not limited to, new models or types of instruments and new or updated methods. 

The preventive maintenance schedule is changed whenever an activity is completed or performed at an 

alternate time. For instance, if a multipoint calibration is performed in February instead of on the 

scheduled date in March, then the subsequent six-month calibration date moves from September to 

August. On a regular basis, the supervisor should review the preventive maintenance schedule with the 

station operators. Following all repairs, the instruments must be verified (multi-point) or calibrated. 

Lists can facilitate the organization and tracking of tasks and improve the efficiency of preventive 

maintenance operations. A checklist of regular maintenance activities (e.g., periodic zero-span checks, 

daily routine checks, data dump/collection, calibrations, etc.) is recommended. A spare parts list, 

including relevant catalog numbers, is also recommended, as it facilitates the ordering of replacement 

parts. Such a list should be readily accessible and should include the types and quantities of spare parts 

already on-hand. 

11.2.1 Station Maintenance

Station maintenance is an element of preventive maintenance that does not occur on a routine basis; 

rather, these tasks usually occur on an “as needed” basis. Station maintenance items are checked monthly 

or whenever an agency knows that the maintenance needs to be performed. Examples of station 

maintenance items include: 

 floor cleaning; 

 shelter inspection; 

 security inspection fencing, locks, surveillance cameras, lighting; 

 visual inspection of probes, and met gear 

 air conditioner repair; 

 AC filter replacement; 

 weed abatement and grass cutting; 

 roof repair; 

 general cleaning; 

 inlet and manifold cleaning; 

 manifold exhaust blower lube; 

 desiccant replacement; and 

 ladder, safety rails, safety inspection, if applicable. 

Simple documentation of these activities, whether in station logs or electronic logs, helps provide 

evidence of continuous attention to data quality. 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 11.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 6 of 7 

11.2.2 Routine Operations 

Routine operations are the checks that occur at specified periods of time during a monitoring station visit. 

These duties must be performed and documented in order to operate a monitoring network at optimal 

levels. Examples of typical routine operations are detailed in Table 11-1. 

Table 11-1 Routine Operation Checks 

Item Each Visit Weekly/Monthly Minimum 

Observation of unusual 

conditions/events 

X 

Review Data X 

Mark charts, where applicable X 

Check/Oil Exhaust Blower X 

Check Exterior X 

Check/Change Desiccant X 

Manifold Leak Test X 

Inspect tubing X 

Replace Tubing Annually1

Inspect manifold and cane X 

Clean manifold and cane Every 6 months or as needed 

Check HVAC systems X 

Check electrical connections X 

Field site supply inventory X 

Residence time calculation If manifold and inlets altered 1

If tubing is used externally as an inlet device it may need to be replaced every 6 months or more frequently depending upon site 

specific issues. 

In addition to these items, the exterior of the building, sample cane, meteorological instruments and 

tower, entry door, electrical cables, and any other items deemed necessary to check, should be inspected 

for wear, corrosion, and weathering. Costly repairs can be avoided in this manner. 

11.2.3 Instrument Logs and Site Logs

Each instrument and piece of support equipment (with the exception of the instrument racks and benches) 

should have an Instrumentation Repair Log (either paper or electronic). The log should contain the repair 

and calibration history of that particular instrument. Whenever multipoint verification/calibration, 

instrument maintenance, repair, or relocation occurs, detailed notes are written in the instrumentation log. 

The log contains the most recent multipoint verification/calibration report, a preventive maintenance 

sheet, and the acceptance testing information or reference to the location of this information. If an 

instrument is malfunctioning and a decision is made to relocate that instrument, the log travels with that 

device. The log can be reviewed by staff for possible clues to the reasons behind the instrument 

malfunction. In addition, if the instrument is shipped to the manufacturer for repairs, it is recommended 

that a copy of the log be sent with the instrument. This information helps non-agency repair personnel 

with troubleshooting instrument problems. Improper recording of instrument maintenance can complicate 

future repair and maintenance procedures. The instrument log should be detailed enough to determine 

easily and definitively which instrument was at which site(s) over any given time period. If a problem is 

found with a specific instrument, the monitoring staff should be able to track the problem to the date it 

initially surfaced and invalidate data even if the instrument was used at multiple sites. 

A site log should be kept documenting maintenance of a specific monitoring site and the auxiliary 

monitoring equipment located there. Information that could be recorded includes the activities listed in 

the Station Maintenance and Routine Operations sections (Sections 11.2.1 and 11.2.2). 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 11.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 7 of 7 

The site log is a chronology of the events that occur at the monitoring station. The log is an important 

part of station maintenance because it contains the narrative of past problems and solutions to those 

problems. Site log notes should be written in the form of a narrative, rather than shorthand notes or 

bulleted lists. Examples of items that should be recorded in the site log are: 

 the date, time, and initials of the person(s) who have arrived at the site; 

 brief description of the weather (e.g., clear, breezy, sunny, raining); 

 brief description of exterior of the site. Any changes that might affect the data should be recorded 

– for instance, if someone is parking a truck or tractor near the site, this note may explain high 

NOx values; 

 any unusual noises, vibrations, or anything out of the ordinary; 

 records of any station maintenance or routine operations performed; 

 description of the work accomplished at the site (e.g., calibrated instruments, repaired analyzer); 

and 

 detailed information about the instruments that may be needed for repairs or troubleshooting. 

It is not required that the instrument and site logs be completely independent of each other. However, 

there is an advantage to having separate instrument logs. If instruments go in for repair, they may 

eventually be sent to another site. Having a separate instrument log allows the log to “travel” with the 

instrument. Keeping electronic instrument and station maintenance logs at stations and at centralized 

facilities (see LIMS discussion Section 8) also has record keeping advantages, but there needs to be a way 

that these records can be considered official and not be tampered with or falsified. Newer electronic 

signature technologies are helping ensure that electronic records can be considered official. It is 

important, however, that all of the required information for each instrument and site be properly recorded 

using a method that is comprehensive and easily understood. Many monitoring organizations have 

developed standard station maintenance forms that contain all the items to be checked and the frequency 

of those checks. It then becomes a very simple procedure to use this form to check off and initial the 

activities that were performed. 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 12.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 1 of 10 

12.0 Calibrations

Calibration is defined as: 

the comparison of a measurement standard, instrument, or item with a standard or instrument of 

higher accuracy to detect and quantify inaccuracies and to report or eliminate those 

inaccuracies by adjustment1

. 

Prior to the implementation of any ambient air monitoring activities, the sampling and analysis equipment 

must be checked to assure it is within calibration tolerances, and if it fails these tolerances, must be 

appropriately calibrated. This function is most routinely carried out at the field monitoring location. 

 

1

 American National Standard Quality Systems for Environmental Data and Technology Programs ANSI /ASQ E4 

http://www.asq.org/ 

Calibration of an analyzer or instrument establishes the quantitative relationship between the actual value 

of a standard, be it a pollutant concentration, a temperature, or a mass value (in ppm, o

C or μg, etc.) and 

the analyzer's response (chart recorder reading, output volts, digital output, etc.). This relationship is 

used to convert subsequent analyzer response values to corresponding concentrations. Once an 

instrument’s calibration relationship is established, it is checked at reasonable frequencies to verify that 

it remains in calibration. 

Verification Versus Calibration 

Since the term calibration is associated with an adjustment in either the instrument or software, these 

adjustments should be minimized as much as possible. Sometimes performing frequent adjustments to 

provide the “most accurate data possible” can be self-defeating and be the cause of additional 

measurement uncertainty. For example, adjusting an instrument based upon a standard that might be 

degrading or contaminated may actually cause data to be farther from the true concentration. Therefore, 

quality control procedures that include measurements (e.g., 1-point QC, flow rate verifications, etc.) and 

multi-point verifications are considered “checks without correction” and are used to ensure the 

instruments are within the calibration tolerances. Usually these tolerances have been developed so that as 

long as the instrument is within these tolerances, adjustments do not need to be made. However, 

verifications should be implemented at reasonable frequencies to avoid invalidating significant amounts 

of data. 

NOTE: When the term “calibration” is used in the remainder of this section, it is assumed 

that a multi-point verification is initially performed and the operator has concluded that 

calibration (adjustment) is necessary. 

NOTE: EPA does not recommend post-processing of data to “correct” for data failing one 

point or multi-point verifications. For example, if after failure of a one-point QC check a 

subsequent verification and calibration found that data was biased high by 15% the 

previous routine data up until the last acceptable 1-point QC check is not adjusted down by 

15% and reported. Based upon validation criteria, the data is either reported as initially 

measured or invalidated. 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 12.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 2 of 10 

Each analyzer should be calibrated as directed by the analyzer's operation or instruction manual and in 

accordance with the general guidance provided here. For reference methods for CO, NO2, SO2 and O3, 

detailed calibration procedures may also be found in the appropriate reference method Appendix in 40 

CFR Part 502

 and the method guidance and technical assistance documents listed in the fact sheets in 

Appendix A. 

Calibrations should be carried out at the field monitoring site by allowing the analyzer to sample test 

atmospheres containing known pollutant concentrations. In the case of PM and Pb monitors where 

concentration standards are not available and impractical, calibrations take place on flow, temperature 

and pressure devices as best as possible. At times this may need to be accomplished in laboratory 

settings rather than the field. The analyzer to be calibrated should be in operation for at least several 

hours (preferably overnight) prior to the calibration so that it is fully warmed up and its operation has 

stabilized. During the calibration, the analyzer should be operating in its normal sampling mode, and it 

should sample the test atmosphere through all filters, scrubbers, conditioners, and other components used 

during normal ambient sampling and through as much of the ambient air inlet system as is practicable. 

All operational adjustments to the analyzer should be completed prior to the calibration (see section 

12.7). Some analyzers can be operated on more than one range. For sites requiring the use of FRM or 

FEMs (NAAQS sites), the appropriate ranges are identified in the Designated Reference and Equivalent 

Method List found on AMTIC3

. Analyzers that will be used on more than one range or that have autoranging capability should be calibrated separately on each applicable range. 

 

2 http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html 3 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/criteria.html 

Calibration documentation should be maintained with each analyzer and also in a central backup file. 

Documentation should be readily available for review and should include calibration data, calibration 

equation(s) (and curve, if prepared), analyzer identification, calibration date, analyzer location, 

calibration standards used and their traceability, identification of calibration equipment used, and the 

person conducting the calibration. 

Full Scale vs. Calibration Scale

Many older documents and some of the CFR reference methods refer to calibration at “full 

scale”. The interpretation of this meant that monitoring organizations would calibrate to full 

scale of one of the FRM/FEM approved operating range(s) of the instrument. For example, 

ozone instruments are approved at 0-500 ppb or 0-1000 ppb. Many monitoring organization 

calibrate the instrument by evenly spacing four upscale points up to around 500 ppb. In this 

scenario, with most sites reading less than 80 ppb, the majority of the upscale calibration points 

would be at levels not measured in ambient conditions. EPA suggests monitoring organization 

calibrate using points that are more applicable to the concentrations found in their networks 

while still be protective of concentrations exceeding the NAAQS. Using this procedure more 

points can be used to calibrate the instruments at these lower concentration levels and better 

inform monitoring organizations of stability. For convenience, EPA will use the term 

“calibration scale” to refer to the concentration range used for calibrating the monitoring 

instruments. Section 10 provides more details on this process. 
QA Handbook Volume II, Section 12.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 3 of 10 

12.1 Calibration Standards and Reagents 

Calibration standards are: 

 Reagents of high grade 

 Gaseous standards of known concentrations that are certified as EPA protocol gasses 

 Instruments and or standards of high sensitivity and repeatability. 

12.1.1 Reagents 

In some cases, reagents are prepared prior to sampling. Some of these reagents will be used to calibrate 

the equipment, while others will become an integral part of the sample itself. In any case, their integrity 

must be carefully maintained from preparation through analysis. If there are any doubts about the 

method by which the reagents for a particular test were prepared or about the competence of the 

laboratory technician preparing them, the credibility of the ambient air samples and the test results will 

be diminished. It is essential that a careful record be kept listing the dates the reagents were prepared, 

by whom, and their locations at all times from preparation until actual use. Prior to the test, one 

individual should be given the responsibility of monitoring the handling and the use of the reagents. 

Each use of the reagents should be recorded in a field or lab notebook. 

Chemical reagents, solvents, and gases are available in various grades. Reagents can be categorized 

into the following six grades4

:

1. Primary standard - Each lot is analyzed, and the percentage of purity is certified. 

2. Analyzed reagents- Can fall into 2 classes: (a) each lot is analyzed and the percentages of 

impurities are reported; and (b) conformity with specified tolerances is claimed, or the 

maximum percentages of impurities are listed. 

3. USP and NF Grade - These are chemical reference standards where identity and strength 

analysis are ensured. 

4. “Pure,” “c.p.,” “chemically pure,” “highest purity” - These are qualitative statements for 

chemicals without numerical meaning. 

5. “Pure,” “purified,” “practical grades” - These are usually intended as starting substances 

for laboratory syntheses. 

6. Technical or commercial grades - These are chemicals of widely varying purity. 

The reference and equivalent methods define the grades and purities needed for the reagents and gases 

required in the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program. 

All reagent containers should be properly labeled either with the original label or, at a minimum, the 

reagent, date prepared, expiration date, strength, preparer, and storage conditions. Leftover reagents 

used during preparation or analysis should never be returned to bottles. 

 

4

 Quality Assurance Principles for Analytical Laboratories, 3rd Edition. By Frederick M. Garfield, Eugene 

Klesta, and Jerry Hirsch. AOAC International (2000). http://www.aoac.org/
QA Handbook Volume II, Section 12.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 4 of 10 

12.1.2 Gaseous Standards 

In general, ambient monitoring instruments should be calibrated by allowing the instrument to sample 

and analyze test atmospheres of known concentrations of the appropriate pollutant in air. The following 

is an excerpt from 50 CFR Part 58, Appendix A Section 2.6.1: 

 

“Gaseous pollutant concentration standards (permeation devices or cylinders of compressed gas) 

used to obtain test concentrations for carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxide 

(NO), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) must be traceable to either a National Institute of Standards 

and Technology (NIST) Traceable Reference Material (NTRM) or a NIST-certified Gas 

Manufacturer’s Internal Standard (GMIS), certified in accordance with one of the procedures 

given in reference 4 of this appendix. Vendors advertising certification with the procedures 

provided in reference 4 of this appendix and distributing gasses as ‘‘EPA Protocol Gas’’ must 

participate in the EPA Protocol Gas Verification Program or not use ‘‘EPA’’ in any form of 

advertising.” 

"Traceable" is defined in 40 CFR Parts 50 and 58 as meaning that a local standard has been compared 

and certified, either directly or via not more than one intermediate standard, to a primary standard such 

as a National Institute of Standards and Technology Standard Reference Material (NIST SRM) or a 

USEPA/NIST-approved Certified Reference Material (CRM)”. Normally, the working standard should 

be certified directly to the SRM or CRM, with an intermediate standard used only when necessary. 

Direct use of a CRM as a working standard is acceptable, but direct use of an NIST SRM as a working 

standard is discouraged because of the limited supply and expense of SRM's. At a minimum, the 

certification procedure for a working standard should: 

 establish the concentration of the working standard relative to the primary standard; 

 certify that the primary standard (and hence the working standard) is traceable to a NIST primary 

standard; 

 include a test of the stability of the working standard over several days; and 

 specify a recertification interval for the working standard. 

Certification of the working standard may be established by either the supplier or the user of the 

standard. As describe in CFR, gas supplier advertising “EPA Protocol Gas” will be required to 

participate in the EPA Protocol Gas Verification Program. Information on this program, including the 

gas supplier participating in the program, can be found on AMTIC5

. EPA has developed procedures 

for the establishment of protocol gasses in the document: EPA Traceability Protocol for Assay and 

Certification of Gaseous Calibration Standards6

. Table 2-3 in the Traceability Document provides the 

maximum certification periods for verification and calibration standards used in the ambient air 

program. Since these periods sometimes change the table is not presented here. 

Test concentrations of ozone must be traceable to a primary standard (see discussion of primary 

standards below) UV photometer as described in 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix D and the guidance 

document: Transfer Standards for the Calibration of Ambient Air Monitoring Analyzers for Ozone7

. 

 

5 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/ 6 http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/appcd/mmd/db-traceability-protocol.html 7 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/qaqc/OzoneTransferStandardGuidance.pdf

For ambient air monitoring activities zero concentrations can be acquired through zero air generation 

devices or purchased as standards. Although zero concentrations are not required to be traceable to a 
QA Handbook Volume II, Section 12.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 5 of 10 

primary standard, care should be exercised to ensure that zero device or standards used are adequately 

free of all substances likely to cause a detectable response from the analyzer and at a minimum, below the 

lower detectable limit of the criteria pollutants being measured. Periodically, several different and 

independent sources of zero should be compared. The one that yields the lowest response can usually 

(but not always) be assumed to be the “best zero device/standard.” If several independent zero 

device/standards produce exactly the same response, it is likely that all the standards are adequate. 

Certification periods decrease for concentrations below the applicable concentration ranges provide in 

Table 12-1. For example the certification period for SO2 standards between 13-40 ppm is 6 months. 

Also, tank size may affect stability in low level standards. Some gas manufacturers claim that standards 

supplied in smaller tanks are stable for longer periods of time then the same concentration in larger tanks. 

Although this claim has not been verified, if true it may be helpful in making purchasing decisions. 

Primary Reference Standards

A primary reference standard can be a defined measurement standard designated for the calibration 

of other measurement standards for quantities of a given kind in a given organization8

. NIST’s standard 

reference material (SRM’s) are examples of primary reference standards. NIST also describes a Primary 

Reference Standard as a standard that is designated or widely acknowledged as having the highest 

metrological qualities and whose value is accepted without reference to other standards of the same 

quality. For example, the NIST-F1 Atomic Clock9

 is recognized as a primary standard for time and 

frequency. A true primary standard like NIST-F1 establishes maximum levels for the frequency shifts 

caused by environmental factors. By summing or combining the effects of these frequency shifts, it is 

possible to estimate the uncertainty of a primary standard without comparing it to other standards. NIST 

maintains a catalog of SRMs that can be accessed through the Internet10. Primary reference standards are 

usually quite expensive and are often used to calibrate, develop, or assay working or secondary standards. 

In order to establish and maintain NIST traceability the policies posted at the NIST Website11 should be 

observed. 

It is important that primary reference standards are maintained, stored, and handled in a manner that 

maintains their integrity. These standards should be kept under secure conditions and records should be 

maintained that document chain of custody information. 

12.1.3 Instruments 

The accuracy of various measurement devices in sampling and continuous instruments is very important 

to data quality. For example, in order to produce the correct flow rate to establish an accurate PM2.5 cut 

point, the temperature and barometric pressure sensors, as well as the flow rate device, must be producing 

accurate measurements. Table 12-1 provides some of the more prevalent instruments that need to be 

calibrated at a minimum annually or when shown through various verification checks to be out of 

acceptable tolerances. In addition, the audit standards used to implement the checks and calibrations 

should be certified annually in order to establish their accuracy and traceability to higher standards. 

 

8 definition of reference measurement standard from International vocabulary of metrology – Basic and general 

concepts and associated terms (VIM) http://www.bipm.org/en/publications/guides/vim.html 9 http://www.nist.gov/pml/div688/grp50/primary-frequency-standards.cfm 10 http://www.nist.gov 11 http://ts.nist.gov/traceability/
QA Handbook Volume II, Section 12.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 6 of 10 

 

Table 12-1 Instruments and Devices Requiring Calibration and Certifications. 

Criteria Acceptable Range

40 CFR 

Reference

Verification/Calibration of devices in sampler/analyzer/laboratory against an authoritative standard 

Barometric Pressure  10 mm Hg Part 50, App.L, Sec 9.3 

Temperature  2C of standard Part 50, App.L, Sec 9.3 

Flow Rate  2% of transfer standard Part 50, App.L, Sec 9.2 

Design Flow Rate Adjustment  2% of design flow rate Part 50, App.L, Sec 9.2.6 

Clock/timer Verification 1 min/mo Part 50, App.L, Sec 7.4 

Mirobalance Calibration Readability 1 μg 

Repeatability 1 μg

Part 50, App.L, Sec 8.1 

Verification/Calibration of devices in shelter or lab against an authoritative standard

Lab Temperature  2 C not described 

Lab Humidity  2% not described 

Mirobalance Calibration Readability 1 μg 

Repeatability 1 μg

Part 50, App.L, Sec 8.1 

Verification/calibration standards requiring certification annually 

Standard Reference 

Photometer (SRP) 

4% or 4 ppb (whichever greater) 

RSD of six slopes  3.7%

not described 

SRP recertification to local 

primary standard 

Std. Dev. of 6 intercepts 1.5 

New slope = + 0.05% of previous

not described 

Flow rate  2% of NIST –Traceable Standard Part 50, App L Sec 9.2 

Pressure  1 mm Hg resolution,  1 mm Hg 

accuracy

not described 

Temperature  0.1 C of standard resolution, 0.5 C 1 

mm Hg accuracy

not described 

Gravimetric Standards 0.025 mg not described 

12.2 Multi-point Verifications/Calibrations

Multi-point calibrations consist of a zero and 4 upscale points, the highest being a concentration above the 

NAAQS (for SLAMS criteria pollutants) and higher than any routine values one might expect at the site. 

This is defined as the calibration scale for the instrument and is different then what has been traditionally 

defined as the “full scale” operating range defined in the FRM/FEM approval documentation. Multipoint calibrations are used to establish or verify the linearity of analyzers upon initial installation, after 

major repairs and at specified frequencies. Most modern analyzers have a linear or very nearly linear 

response with concentration. If a non-linear analyzer is being calibrated, additional calibration points 

should be included to adequately define the calibration relationship, which should be a smooth curve. 

Calibration points should be plotted or evaluated statistically as they are obtained so that any deviant 

points can be investigated or repeated immediately. 

Most analyzers have zero and span adjustment controls, which should be adjusted based on the zero and 

highest test concentrations, respectively, to provide the desired scale range within the analyzer's 
QA Handbook Volume II, Section 12.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 7 of 10 

specifications (see section 12.5). For analyzers in routine operation, unadjusted (''as is") analyzer zero 

and span response readings should be obtained prior to making any zero or span adjustments. 

NO/NO2/NOx analyzers may not have individual zero and span controls for each channel; the analyzer's 

operation/instruction manual should be consulted for the proper zero and span adjustment procedure. 

Zero and span controls often interact with each other, so the adjustments may have to be repeated several 

times to obtain the desired final adjustments. 

After the zero and span adjustments have been completed and the analyzer has been allowed to stabilize 

on the new zero and span settings, all calibration test concentrations should be introduced into the 

analyzer for the final calibration. The final, post-adjusted analyzer response readings should be obtained 

from the same device (chart recorder, data acquisition system, etc.) that will be used for subsequent 

ambient measurements. The analyzer readings are plotted against the respective test concentrations, and 

the best linear (or nonlinear if appropriate) curve to fit the points is determined. Ideally, least squares 

regression analysis (with an appropriate transformation of the data for non-linear analyzers) should be 

used to determine the slope and intercept for the best fit calibration line of the form, y = mx + b, where y 

represents the analyzer response, x represents the pollutant concentration, m is the slope, and b is the xaxis intercept of the best fit calibration line. When this calibration relationship is subsequently used to 

compute concentration measurements (x) from analyzer response readings (y), the formula is transposed 

to the form, x = (y - b)/m. 

For the gaseous pollutants, 

the verification/calibration 

is considered acceptable if 

all calibration points fall 

within 2% (or an absolute 

difference) of the 

calibration scale, best fit 

straight line. Which 

acceptance criteria 

(percent or absolute 

difference) is used 

depends on the 

concentration of the 

calibration points. EPA 

has developed a Data 

Assessment Statistical 

Calculator (DASC)12 tool 

that automates this process 

for data evaluation (See 

Fig. 12.1). For manual 

samplers the flow rate, 

temperature, pressure 

devices are checked at 

different settings. 

Acceptance criteria for 

these devices can be found 

 

12 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/qareport.html 
QA Handbook Volume II, Section 12.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 8 of 10 

in the MQO Tables in Appendix D. 

As a quality control check on calibrations, the standard error or correlation coefficient can be calculated 

along with the regression calculations. A control chart of the standard error or correlation coefficient 

could then be maintained to monitor the degree of scatter in the calibration points and, if desired, limits of 

acceptability can be established. 

12.3 Frequency of Calibration and Analyzer Adjustment

An analyzer should be calibrated (or recalibrated): 

 upon initial installation, 

 following physical relocation, 

 after any repairs or service that might affect its calibration, 

 following an interruption in operation of more than a few days, 

 upon any indication of analyzer malfunction or change in calibration, and 

 at some routine interval (multi-point verification, see below). 

When calibration relationships are applied to analyzer responses to determine actual concentrations, it is 

suggested that the analyzer undergo multi-point verification/calibration periodically to maintain close 

agreement. The frequency of this routine periodic recalibration is a matter of judgment and is a tradeoff 

among several considerations, including: the inherent stability of the analyzer under the prevailing 

conditions of temperature, pressure, line voltage, etc., at the monitoring site; the cost and inconvenience 

of carrying out the calibrations; the quality of the ambient measurements needed; the number of ambient 

measurements lost during the calibrations; and the risk of collecting invalid data because of a malfunction 

or response problem with the analyzer that wouldn't be discovered until a calibration is carried out. 

When a new monitoring instrument is first installed, zero/span and one point QC checks should be very 

frequent, perhaps daily or 3 times per week, because little or no information is available on the drift 

performance of the analyzer. With the advancement in data acquisition system technology, many 

monitoring organizations are running these QC checks daily. However, the QC checks are required to be 

implemented every two weeks. Information on another unit of the same model analyzer may be useful; 

however, individual units of the same model may perform quite differently. After enough information on 

the drift performance of the analyzer has been accumulated, the calibration frequency can be adjusted to 

provide a suitable compromise among the various considerations mentioned above. 

To facilitate the process of determining calibration frequency, it is strongly recommended that control 

charts be used to monitor the zero/span and one-point QC drift performance of each analyzer. Control 

charts can be constructed in different ways, but the important points are to visually represent and 

statistically monitor drift, and to be alerted if the drift becomes excessive so that corrective action can be 

taken. Such control charts make important use of the unadjusted zero and span response readings. 

12.4 Adjustments to Analyzers 

Ideally, all ambient measurements obtained from an analyzer should be calculated on the basis of the 

most current multipoint calibration or on the basis of both the previous and subsequent calibrations (see 

Section 12.5). Some acceptable level of drift (i.e., deviation from an original or nominal response curve) 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 12.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 2/13 

Page 9 of 10 

can be allowed before physical adjustments (i.e., calibration) must be made because the calibration curve 

used to calculate the ambient measurements is kept in close agreement with the actual analyzer response. 

The chief limitations are the amount of change in the effective scale range of the analyzer that can be 

tolerated and possible loss of linearity in the analyzer's response due to excessive deviation from the 

design range. Cumulative drifts of up to 15 percent of full scale from the original or nominal zero and 

span values may not be unreasonable, subject to the limitations mentioned above. 

Due to the advancement in monitoring technologies, ambient air monitors are much more stable and 

adjustments not as necessary. Earlier versions of this Handbook included sections for zero/span 

calibrations as well as physical zero/span adjustments. Precise adjustment of the zero and span controls 

may not be possible because of: (1) limited resolution of the controls, (2) interaction between the zero 

and span controls, and (3) possible delayed reaction to adjustment or a substantial stabilization period 

after adjustments are made. Precise adjustments may not be necessary because calibration of the analyzer 

following zero and span adjustments will define the precise response characteristic (calibration curve). 

EPA feels that frequent adjustments of instruments should not be necessary and may in fact lead to more 

data quality uncertainty. EPA does not recommend span adjustments be made between multi-point 

calibrations but zero adjustments are appropriate. 

EPA is no longer including guidance suggesting that the calibration equation be updated after each 

zero/span check and suggests the ambient readings be calculated from the most recent multipoint 

calibration curve or from a fixed nominal or "universal" calibration curve (Section 12.5). In this case, the 

zero and span checks serve only to measure or monitor the deviation (drift error) between the actual 

analyzer response curve and the calibration curve used to calculate the ambient measurements. 

Automatic Self-Adjusting Analyzers

Some air monitoring analyzers are capable of periodically carrying out automatic zero and span 

calibrations and making their own zero and span self adjustments to predetermined readings. EPA 

discourages the use of automatic span adjustments but considers automatic zero adjustments reasonable 

when: 1) the automatic zero standards pass through the sample probe inlet and sample conditioning 

system, 2) the zero test is performed every day, and 3) both the adjusted and unadjusted zero response 

readings can be obtained from the data recording device. EPA does not suggest zero adjustments on 

checks that occur every two weeks. However an adjustment does not mean a post processing correction 

on zero (adjusting the previous 24 hours routine data based on the difference between the current zero 

reading and the previous 24-hour reading). In fact, the automated zero does not correct routine data. The 

zero is “reset” every 24 hours. EPA does not recommend making automatic or manual adjustments 

(corrections) to the span. It is expected that the difference between the unadjusted and adjusted zero 

response is negligible and not greater than the zero drift acceptance criteria listed in the validation 

template (App D). Data invalidation and corrective action should occur if the differences between the 

24-hour unadjusted and adjusted zero drift is greater than the validation template acceptance criteria. Data 

loggers should be programmed to provide flags or warnings of this occurrence.
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 12.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 2/13 

Page 10 of 10 

12.5 Data Reduction Using Calibration Information

As noted previously, an analyzer's response calibration curve relates the analyzer response to actual 

concentration units of measure, and the response of most analyzers tends to change (drift) 

unpredictably with passing time. These two conditions must be addressed in the mechanism that is used 

to process the raw analyzer readings into final concentration measurements. Two practical methods are 

described below. They are listed in order of preference, 

1) "Universal" Calibration--A fixed, "universal" calibration is established for the analyzer and used to 

calculate all ambient readings. All verifications and checks are used to measure the deviation of the 

current analyzer response from the universal calibration. Whenever this deviation exceeds the established 

zero and span adjustment limits, the analyzer is recalibrated. 

2) Major Calibration Update--In this method, the calibration slope and intercept used to calculate 

ambient measurements are updated only for "major" calibration (i.e., semi-annual or annual multi-point 

verification/calibrations). All ambient measurements are calculated from the most recent major 

calibration. Between major calibrations, periodic zero and span verifications are used to measure the 

difference between the most recent major calibration and the current instrument response. Physical or 

automated adjustments of the zero may be appropriate however span adjustment to restore a match 

between the current analyzer response and the most recent major calibration is not suggested. Whenever 

this deviation exceeds the established zero and span adjustment limits, the analyzer is recalibrated. 

12.6 Validation of Ambient Data Based on Calibration Information

When zero or span drift validation limits (see Figure 12.1) are exceeded, ambient measurements should 

be invalidated back to the most recent acceptable zero/span/one-point QC check where such 

measurements are known to be valid. Also, data following an analyzer malfunction or period of nonoperation should be regarded as invalid until the next subsequent calibration unless unadjusted zero and 

span readings at that calibration can support its validity. 

Documentation 

All data and calculations involved in these calibration activities should be recorded in the instrument log 

book described in Section 11. 
 QA Handbook Vol II, Section 13.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 1 of 4 

13.0 Inspection/Acceptance for Supplies and Consumables

Both field operations and laboratory operations need supplies and consumables. The focus of this section 

is the management of laboratory and field sampling supplies and consumables. For information on the 

actual field/lab supplies and consumables needed for any specific method, see the reference method in 40 

CFR Part 501

, the general guidance methods and technical assistance documents on AMTIC2 and the 

manufacturer’s operations manuals. From this information, monitoring organizations, as part of the 

QAPP requirements, will develop specific SOPs for its monitoring and analytical methods. One section of 

the SOPs requires a listing of the acceptable supplies and consumables for the method. 

Pollutant parameters are measured using electronic (e.g., continuous emission monitors, FTIRs, etc...), 

wet chemical techniques, or physical methods. Chemical analysis always involves the use of consumable 

supplies that must be replaced on a schedule consistent with their stability and with the rate at which 

samples are taken. Frequently used chemical methods require adequate supplies of chemicals for 

operation (i.e. three months) so that the supplier can comply with the delivery schedules and there is no 

downtime waiting for supplies. In some cases, analytical reagents for specific air contaminants 

deteriorate rapidly and need protective storage. The following information may be helpful when 

considering the use of these consumable items. Much of the information presented below is derived from 

the document Quality Assurance Principles for Analytical Laboratories3

.

13.1 Supplies Management

Control of supplies and consumables is important to the success of the quality assurance program. It is 

important that specifications for each item are prepared and adhered to during the procurement process. 

When specifications are prepared, the following points should be considered: identity, purity, potency, 

source, tests to be conducted for quality and purity, need for further purification, storage and handling 

procedures, and replacement dates. As part of supplies management, the following actions are 

recommended: 

 establish criteria and specifications for the important supplies and consumables. 

 check and test the supplies and consumables against specifications, before placing them in use. 

 design and maintain a supplies management program to ensure the quality of reagents used in 

day-to-day operations, paying particular attention to primary reference standards, working 

standards, and standard solutions. 

 decide on the kinds of purified water that are necessary, and develop suitable tests and testing 

intervals to ensure the quality of water used in analytical work and for cleaning glassware. 

 purchase only Class A volumetric glassware and perform calibrations and recalibrations that are 

necessary to achieve reliable results. 

 establish procedures for cleaning and storing glassware/sample containers with due consideration 

for the need for special treatment of glassware/sample containers used in trace analysis. 

 establish a useful life for glassware/sample containers and track this. 

 discard chipped and etched glassware or damaged containers. 

 

1 http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl 2 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/ 3

 Quality Assurance Principles for Analytical Laboratories, 3rd Edition. By Frederick M. Garfield, Eugene Klesta, 

and Jerry Hirsch. AOAC International (2000). http://www.aoac.org/ 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 13.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 2 of 4 

13.2 Standards and Reagents

Discussions on gaseous standards and reagents are found in Section 12. What is most important is that 

the standards and reagents used are of appropriate purity and certified within the acceptable limits of the 

program for which they are used. Table 12-1 provides certification frequencies for gaseous standards, but 

within these timeframes, and as new cylinders are purchased, monitoring organizations need to develop a 

standard checking scheme to establish ongoing acceptance of standards. For example a new SRM should 

be purchased months prior to the expiration (or need for recertification) or complete use of an older 

standard in order to develop a overlapping cylinder acceptance process so there is some establishment of 

traceability and consistency in monitoring. For example, if a new SRM is put into use in a monitoring 

organization and all monitoring instruments traced to the cylinder start failing calibration, it may mean 

that either the new or older cylinder was not properly certified or has integrity problems. By checking 

both cylinders prior to new cylinder use, this issue can be avoided. 

13.2.1 Standard Solutions

Most laboratories maintain a stock of standard solutions. The following information on these solutions 

should be kept in a log book: 

 identity of solution 

 strength 

 method of preparation (reference to SOP) 

 standardization calculations 

 recheck of solution for initial strength 

 date made/expiration date 

 initials of the analyst 

 storage 

As mentioned above, all standard solutions should contain appropriate labeling as to contents and 

expiration dates. 

13.2.2 Purified Water

Water is one of the most critical but most often forgotten reagent. The water purification process should 

be documented from the quality of the starting raw water to the systems used to purify the water, 

including how the water is delivered, the containers in which it is stored, and the tests and the frequency 

used to ensure the quality of the water. 

13.3 Volumetric Glassware

Use of the appropriate glassware is important since many preparations and analyses require the 

development of reagents, standards, dilutions, and controlled delivery systems. It is suggested that 

“Class A” glassware be used in all operations requiring precise volumes. SOPs requiring volumetric 

glassware should specify the size/type required for each specific operation. 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 13.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 3 of 4 

13.4 Sample Containers 

Samples may be contaminated by using containers that have not been properly cleaned and prepared (e.g., 

VOC canisters, particulate filter cassettes/containers) or purchased from vendors without proper 

inspection prior to use. In addition, all sample containers have a “useful” life. Some containers, such as 

the low volume PM sample filter cassettes can be damaged over time and cause leaks in the sampling 

system. It is important to track the inventory of sampling containers from: 

 date of purchase; 

 first use; 

 frequency of use (estimate); 

 time of retirement. 

An inventory of this type can help ensure new containers are purchased before the expiration date of older 

containers. Use of appropriate sample containers is important since the matter of the container could 

potentially affect the collected sample. Always refer to the specific method to see if a particular type of 

container (e.g., high density polyethylene [HDPE] bottles, amber glass) is required for the storage of the 

sample. 

13.5 Particulate Sampling Filters

Filters are used for the manual methods for criteria pollutants (e.g., PM10, PM2.5, PM10-2.5 , total PM, Pb, 

etc.). No commercially available filter is ideal in all respects. The sampling program should determine 

the relative importance of certain filter evaluation criteria (e.g., physical and chemical characteristics, 

ease of handling, cost). The reference methods provide detailed acceptance criteria for filters. Some of 

the basic criteria that must be met regardless of the filter type follows: 

 Visual inspection - for pinholes, tears, creases, or other flaws that may affect the collection 

efficiency of the filter, which may be consistent through a batch. This visual inspection would 

also be made prior to filter installation and during laboratory pre- and post-weighing to assure the 

integrity of the filter is maintained throughout the data collection process. 

 Collection efficiency - greater than 99% as measured by DOP test (ASTM 2988) with 

0.3 micrometer particles at the sampler’s operating face velocity. 

 Integrity - (pollutant specific) measured as the concentration equivalent corresponding to the 

difference between the initial and final weights of the filter when weighed and handled under 

simulated sampling conditions (equilibration, initial weighing, placement on inoperative sampler, 

removal from a sampler, re-equilibration, and final weighing). 

 Alkalinity - less than 25 microequivalents/gram of filter of filter following at least two months of 

storage at ambient temperature and relative humidity. 

Note: Some filters may not be suitable for use with all samplers. Due to filter handling characteristics or 

rapid increases in flow resistance due to episodic loading, some filters, although they meet the above 

criteria, may not be compatible with the model of sampler chosen. It would be prudent to evaluate more 

than one filter type before purchasing large quantities for network use. In some cases, EPA Headquarters 

may have national contracts for acceptable filters that will be supplied to monitoring organizations. 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 13.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 4 of 4 

13.6 Field Supplies 

Field instrumentation, which includes samplers and analyzers, require supplies for the actual collection 

process as well as quality control activities and crucial operational maintenance. These supplies can 

include, but are not limited to: 

 Gas standards/Permeation standards 

 HVAC units 

 Maintenance equipment (tools, ladders) 

 Safety supplies (first aid kit) 

 Information technology supplies (PC, printers, paper, ink, diskettes) 

 Sample line filters 

 Charcoal 

 Desiccant 

 Gaskets and O-rings 

 Sample lines and manifolds 

 Disposable gloves 

 Water/distilled water 

 Pumps and motors 

 Chart paper and ink 

 Impaction oil 

 TEOM FDMS filter 

The site logbook discussed in Section 11 should include a list and inventory of these critical field 

supplies. As part of routine maintenance activities, this inventory can be reviewed to determine if any 

supplies are in need of restocking. If electronic logbooks are used, information from each site can be 

aggregated at the field office to better assess needs and develop efficient ordering processes. 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 14 

Revision: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 1 of 15 

14.0 Data Acquisition and Information Management 

Achieving air monitoring objectives depends, in part, 

on collecting data that are: 

 reliable; 

 of known quality; 

 easily accessible to a variety of users; and 

 aggregated in a manner consistent with its 

primary use 

In order to accomplish this, information must be collected and managed in a manner that protects and 

ensures its integrity. Data management is the “development, execution and supervision of plans, 

policies, programs and practices that control, protect, deliver and enhance the value of data and 

information assets”1. 

Most of the data reported by the monitoring organization will be collected through automated systems. 

These systems must be effectively managed according to a set of guidelines and principles designed to 

ensure data integrity. The EPA document Good Automated Laboratory Practices (GALP)2

 defines six 

data management principles that are worth reviewing: 

1. Laboratory management must provide a method of assuring the integrity of all Laboratory 

information management systems (LIMS) data. Communication, transfer, manipulation, and 

the storage/recall process all offer potential for data corruption. The demonstration of control 

necessitates the collection of evidence to prove that the system provides reasonable protection

against data corruption. 

2. The formulas and decision algorithms employed by the LIMS must be accurate and 

appropriate. Users cannot assume that the test or decision criteria are correct; those formulas

must be inspected and verified. 

3. A critical control element is the capability to track LIMS Raw Data entry, modification, and 

recording to the responsible person. This capability utilizes a password system or equivalent to 

identify the time, date, and person or persons entering, modifying, or recording data. 

4. Consistent and appropriate change controls, capable of tracking the LIMS operations and 

software, are a vital element in the control process. All changes must follow carefully planned 

procedures, be properly documented, and when appropriate include acceptance testing. 

5. Procedures must be established and documented for all users to follow. Control of even the 

most carefully designed and implemented LIMS will be thwarted if the user does not follow 

these procedures. This principle implies the development of clear directions and SOPs, the 

training of all users, and the availability of appropriate user support documentation. 

6. The risk of LIMS failure requires that procedures be established and documented to 

minimize and manage their occurrence. Where appropriate, redundant systems must be 

 

1 http://www.dama.org/files/public/DI_DAMA_DMBOK_Guide_Presentation_2007.pdf DAMA-DMBOK Guide 

(Data Management Body of Knowledge) Introduction & Project Status" 

2 http://www.epa.gov/irmpoli8/archived/irm_galp/ 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 14.0 

Revision: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 2 of 15 

installed and periodic system backups must be performed at a frequency consistent with the 

consequences of the loss of information resulting from a failure. The principle of control must 

extend to planning for reasonable unusual events and system stresses. 

Although the GALP is written for LIMS, the principles listed above are applicable to ambient air 

monitoring information management systems in the field and at the central office. This section provides 

guidance in these areas, including identification of advanced equipment and procedures that are 

recommended for implementation. The recommended procedures rely on digital communication by the 

data acquisition system to collect a wider variety of information from the analyzers/samplers, to control 

instrument calibrations, and to allow for more routine, automated, and thorough data quality efforts. The 

section will discuss: 

1. Data acquisition- collecting the raw data from the monitor/sampler, storing it for an appropriate 

interval, aggregating or reducing the data, and transferring this data to final storage in a local data 

base (monitoring organizations database) 

2. Data transfer- preparing and moving data to external data bases such as AIRNow or the Air 

Quality System (AQS). 

3. Data management- the development, execution and supervision of plans, policies, 

programs and practices that control, protect, deliver and enhance the value of data and 

information assets3

In response to guidelines issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)4 EPA developed the 

document titled Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of 

Information Disseminated by the Environmental Protection Agency5

. The Guideline contains EPA’s 

policy and procedural guidance for ensuring and maximizing the quality of information it disseminates. 

The Guideline also incorporates the following performance goals: 

 Disseminated information should adhere to a basic standard of quality, including objectivity, 

utility, and integrity. 

 The principles of information quality should be integrated into each step of EPA’s development 

of information, including creation, collection, maintenance, and dissemination. 

 Administrative mechanisms for correction should be flexible, appropriate to the nature and 

timeliness of the disseminated information, and incorporated into EPA’s information resources 

management and administrative practices. 

EPA suggests that monitoring organizations review this document since it is relevant to the ambient air 

information it generates and can help to ensure that data can withstand challenges to its quality. 

 

3 http://www.dama.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=1 4 Section 515(a) of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-554; H.R. 

5658),

5 http://www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines/documents/EPA_InfoQualityGuidelines.pdf 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 14.0 

Revision: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 3 of 15 

14.1 Data Acquisition Systems 

Continuing advances in computer technology used in monitoring instruments and data loggers are: 

 

 increasing the volume of the pollutant data stream by enabling the capture of more finely, timeresolved data 

 providing operational data about instruments that supports data validation and helps to reduce 

data loss by identifying problems early, and 

 making more data available to users, sooner. 

In order to take full advantage of these capabilities, data management software systems will need to 

support efficient processing and validation of data and provide communication of that data in a format 

and a timeframe that serves the needs of multiple users. An example of a benefit from using these 

systems is the forecasting of pollution episodes with near real-time data captured from NCore and ozone 

monitoring networks. 

This section provides information on Data Acquisition Systems (DAS), a term used for systems that 

collect, store, summarize, report, print, calculate or transfer data. The transfer is usually from an analog 

or digital format to a digital medium. This section will also discuss limitations of data collected with 

DAS. 

14.1.1 Automated Data Acquisition Systems 

DAS have been available to air quality professionals since the early 1980s. The first systems were single 

and multi-channel systems that collected data on magnetic media. This media was usually hand 

transferred to a central location or laboratory for downloading to a central computer. With the advent of 

digital data transfer from the stations to a central location, the need to hand transfer data has diminished. 

14.1.2 Instrument to Data logger 

Figure 14.1 shows the basic transfer of data from the 

instrument to the final product; a hard copy report, or 

data transfer to a central computer. Most continuous 

monitors have the ability to output data in at least two 

ways: analog output and an RS232 digital port. Some 

instrumentation may now be including USB, Ethernet 

and firewire capability. The instrument usually uses 

DC voltage. This voltage varies directly with the 

concentration collected. Most instruments’ output is 

a DC voltage in the 0-1 or 0-5 volts range. The 

following provide a brief summary of the analog (A) 

or digital (D) steps 

 (A) the voltage is measured by the 

multiplexer which allows voltages from many 

instruments to be read at the same time. 

 (A) the multiplexer sends a signal to the a/d 

converter which changes the analog voltage 

Ambient 

Instrument

Storage 

Medium

RAM 

Memory CPU

analog/digital

converter Multiplexer

On site

printer

Data logger

Analog 

Signal

Digital

Signal

Modem

Local 

central

computer

On-site

computer

Hard copy

report

Ambient 

Instrument

Storage 

Medium

RAM 

Memory CPU

analog/digital

converter Multiplexer

On site

printer

Data logger

Analog 

Signal

Digital

Signal

Modem

Local 

central

computer

On-site

computer

Hard copy

report

Figure 14.1 DAS data flow

Ambient 

Instrument

Storage 

Medium

RAM 

Memory CPU

analog/digital

converter Multiplexer

On site

printer

Data logger

Analog 

Signal

Digital

Signal

Modem

Local 

central

computer

On-site

computer

Hard copy

report

Ambient 

Instrument

Storage 

Medium

RAM 

Memory CPU

analog/digital

converter Multiplexer

On site

printer

Data logger

Analog 

Signal

Digital

Signal

Modem

Local 

central

computer

On-site

computer

Hard copy

report

Figure 14.1 DAS data flow
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 14.0 

Revision: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 4 of 15 

to a low amperage digital signal. 

 (A) the a/d converter send signals to the central processing unit (cpu) that directs the digital 

electronic signals to a display or to the random access memory (ram) which stores the short-term 

data until the end of a pre-defined time period. 

 (A/D) the cpu then shunts the data from the ram to the storage medium which can be magnetic 

tape, computer hard-drive or computer diskette. 

 (A/D) the computer storage medium can be accessed remotely or at the monitoring location. 

The data transfer may occur via modem to a central computer storage area or printed out as hard copy. In 

some instances, the data may be transferred from one storage medium (i.e. hard drive to a diskette, tape, 

or CD) to another storage medium. The use of a data logging device to automate data handling from a 

continuous sensor is not a strict guarantee against recording errors. Internal validity checks are necessary 

to avoid serious data recording errors. This can be accomplished by polling a period of data directly from 

the monitor and comparing that data to data that’s stored in the local central computer. 

Analog Versus Digital DAS - 

Most analyzers built within 

the last 15 years have the 

capability (RS232 ports) to 

transfer digital signals, yet 

many monitoring 

organizations currently 

perform data acquisition of 

automated monitors by 

recording an analog output 

from each gas analyzer 

using an electronic data 

logger. As explained above, 

the analog readings are 

converted and stored in 

digital memory in the data 

logger for subsequent 

automatic retrieval by a 

remote data management 

system. This approach can 

reliably capture the 

monitoring data, but does not 

allow complete control of monitoring operations, and the recorded analog signals are subject to noise that 

limits the detection of low concentrations. Furthermore, with the analog data acquisition approach, the 

data review process is typically labor-intensive and not highly automated. For these reasons, EPA 

encourages the adoption of digital data acquisition methods. In that regard, the common analog data 

acquisition approach often does not fully utilize the capabilities of the electronic data logger. Many data 

loggers have the capability to acquire data in digital form and to control some aspects of calibrations and 

analyzer operation, but these capabilities are not utilized in typical analog data acquisition approaches. 

Digital data acquisition reduces noise in the recording of gas monitoring data, thereby improving 

sensitivity. It also records and controls the instrument settings, internal diagnostics, and programmed 

Station Desktop 

CO System

PM

(continuous or FRM)

SO2

NOy

Calibrator

Zero Air Supply

RS-232 Multi-drop

(within manufacturer)

MET

RS 232 connections Digital I/O

Dial-up/DSL

Cable

Satellite Wireless

Status

Relay control

Measurements

Diagnostics

Data pushed or pulled 

from multiple stations

Database

Server

Public reporting

AQS

S/L/T validation

(optional)

Manifold/external valves

Figure 14.2 Flow of data from gas analyzers to final reporting 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 14.0 

Revision: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 5 of 15 

activities of monitoring and calibration equipment. Such data acquisition systems also typically provide 

automated data quality assessment as part of the data acquisition process. 

It may be cost-effective for monitoring organizations to adopt digital data acquisition and calibration 

control simply by more fully exploiting the capabilities of their existing electronic data loggers. For 

example, many gas analyzers are capable of being calibrated under remote control. The opportunity to 

reduce travel and personnel costs through automated calibrations is a strong motivator for monitoring 

organizations to make greater use of the capabilities of their existing data acquisition systems. The 

NCore multi-pollutant sites are taking advantage of the newer DAS technologies. Details of these 

systems can be found in the technical assistance document for this program6

. 

Figure 14.2 illustrates the recommended digital data acquisition approach for the NCore sites. It presents 

the data flow from the gas monitors, through a local digital data acquisition system, to final reporting of 

the data in various public databases. This schematic shows several of the key capabilities of the 

recommended approach. A basic capability is the acquisition of digital data from multiple analyzers and 

other devices, thereby reducing noise and minimizing the effort needed in data processing. Another 

capability is two-way communication, so that the data acquisition system can interrogate and/or control 

the local analyzers, calibration systems, and even sample inlet systems, as well as receive data from the 

analyzers. Data transfer to a central location is also illustrated, with several possible means of that 

transfer shown. Monitoring organizations are urged to take advantage of the latest technology in this part 

of the data acquisition process, as even technologies such as satellite data communication are now well 

established, commercially available, and inexpensive to implement for monitoring operations. 

Depending on the monitoring objective, it may be important that data are reported in formats of 

immediate use in public data bases such as AQS7

, and the multi-monitoring organization AIRNow8 sites. 

An advantage of DAS software is the ability to facilitate the assembly, formatting and reporting of 

monitoring data to these databases. 

Digital data acquisition systems such as those in Figure 14.2 offer a great advantage over analog systems 

in the tracking of calibration data, because of the ability to control and record the internal readings of gas 

analyzers and calibration systems. That is, a digital data acquisition system not only can record the 

analyzer’s output readings, but can schedule and direct the performance of analyzer calibrations, and 

record calibrator settings and status. Thus, flagging of calibration data to distinguish them from ambient 

monitoring data are conducted automatically during data acquisition with no additional effort or postanalysis. These capabilities greatly reduce the time and effort needed to organize and quantify calibration 

results. 

14.1.3 DAS Quality Assurance/Quality Control 

Most automated data acquisition systems support the acquisition of QC data like zero, one point QC, span 

and calibration data. When QC data are acquired automatically by a data acquisition system for direct 

computer processing, the system must be sufficiently sophisticated to: 

 ensure that the QC data are never inadvertently reported as ambient measurements, 

 

6

 Version 4 of the Technical Assistance Document for Precursor Gas Measurements in the NCore Multi-pollutant 

Monitoring Network. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/ncore/guidance.html 7 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/aqsweb/ 8 http://airnow.gov/ 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 14.0 

Revision: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 6 of 15 

 ignore transient data during the stabilization period before the analyzer has reached a stable QC 

response (this period may vary considerably from one analyzer to another), 

 average the stable QC readings over some appropriate time period so that the readings obtained 

accurately represents the analyzer’s QC response, 

 ignore ambient readings for an appropriate period of time immediately following a QC reading 

until the analyzer response has stabilized to the ambient-level concentration. 

In relation to the DAS, quality assurance seeks to ensure that the DAS is being operated within defined 

guidelines. Usually, this means that each value that is collected by the DAS is the same value that is 

generated from the analyzer and reported to the Air Quality System (AQS) data base. This usually is 

accomplished by DAS calibrations, and data trail audits. 

Calibration- In the case where analog signals from monitoring equipment are recorded by the DAS, the 

calibration of a DAS is similar to the approach used for calibration of a strip chart recorder. To calibrate 

the DAS, known voltages are supplied to each of the input channels and the corresponding measured 

response of the DAS is recorded. Specific calibration procedures in the DAS owner’s manual should be 

followed when performing such DAS calibrations. For DAS that receive digital data from the 

instruments, a full scale check (the instrument is in a mode and the output is at the full scale of the 

instrument) should be performed to see if the data received digitally is the same as the display of the 

instrument. The DAS should be calibrated at least once per year. Appendix G provides a simple approach 

for calibration of the DAS. 

In addition, gas analyzers typically have an option to set output voltages to full scale or to ramp the 

analog output voltages supplied by the analyzer over the full output range. Such a function can be used to 

check the analog recording process from the analyzer through the DAS. 

Data Trail Audit- The data trail audit consists of following a value or values from the monitoring 

instrument to the DAS, from the DAS to the local central computer, and then from the local central 

computer to AQS. A person other than the normal station operator should perform this duty. A 

procedure similar to the following should be conducted:

 A data value(s) should be collected from the monitor (usually an hourly value or another 

aggregated value reported to AQS) and be compared to the data stored in the DAS for the same 

time period. Also, if strip chart recorders are used, a random number of hourly values should be 

compared to the data collected by the DAS. This audit should be completed on a regular defined 

frequency and for every pollutant reported. 

 From the central computer, the auditor checks to see if this hourly value is the same. 

The above actions should be completed well in advance of data submittal to AQS. If the data has been 

submitted to AQS, then the AQS data base should be checked and modified as necessary per the 

appropriate AQS procedures. 

Whether a monitoring organization is transferring the data from an instrument via an on-site DAS or 

transferring the data digitally, the data trail audit should be performed on a routine basis. 

Initialization Errors 

All data acquisition systems must be initialized. The initialization consists of an operator “setting up” the 

parameters so that the voltages produced by the instruments can be read, scaled correctly and reported in 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 14.0 

Revision: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 7 of 15 

the correct units. Errors in initializations can create problems when the data are collected and reported. 

Read the analyzer manufacturer’s literature before parameters are collected. If the manufacturer does not 

state how these parameters are collected, request this information. The following should be performed 

when setting up the initializations: 

 Check the full scale outputs of each parameter. 

 Calibrations should be followed after each initialization (each channel of a DAS should be 

calibrated independently). Appendix G provides an example of a DAS calibration technique. 

 Review the instantaneous data stream, if possible, to see if the DAS is collecting the data 

correctly. 

 Save the initializations to a storage medium; if the DAS does not have this capability, print out 

the initialization and store it at the central computer location and at the monitoring location. 

 Check to see if the flagging routines are performed correctly; data that are collected during 

calibrations and down time should be flagged correctly. 

 Check the DAS for excessive noise (variability in signal). Noisy data that are outside of the 

normal background are a concern. Noisy data can be caused by improperly connected leads to 

the multiplexer, noisy AC power, or a bad multiplexer. Refer to the owner’s manual for help on 

noisy data. 

 Check to see that the average times are correct. Some DAS consider 45 minutes to be a valid 

hour, while others consider 48 minutes. Agency guidelines should be referred to before setting 

up averaging times. 

14.1.4 Data Logger to Database

Once data are on the data logger at the ambient air monitoring station, they need to be sent to servers 

where they can be summarized and disseminated to data users. In most cases this will occur by using a 

server at the office of the monitoring organization. The conventional way to get data from the monitoring 

stations has been to poll each of the stations individually. With more widespread availability of the 

internet, pushing data from monitoring sites on a regular basis will be especially effective in mapping and 

public reporting of data. Note, in some cases it is possible to report data directly from a monitor to a 

database without the use of a station data logger. This solution is acceptable so long as the monitor is 

capable of data storage for periods when telemetry is off-line.

Data transfer is usually accomplished in three ways: hard copy printout, downloading data from internal 

storage medium to external storage medium, or digital transfer via the telephone lines, internet, satellite or 

other advanced means of communication. Due to the desire for real time data for the Air Quality Index 

(AQI) and other related needs, monitoring organizations should plan to upgrade to digital data acquisition 

and communication systems. 

Hard copy report- With the advent of sophisticated DAS networks and data backup systems, hard copy 

reports are being generated less frequently. Therefore if hard copy reports are not being used it is 

strongly recommended that monitoring organizations create an electronic back-up of their data on a 

defined and frequent schedule. The frequency of the back-ups and any other associated information 

should be reflected in their Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) and Standard Operating Procedures 

(SOP). However, for some smaller monitoring networks hard copy reports have some advantages: 

 they can be reviewed by the station operators prior to and/or during site visits to ascertain the 

quality of the data; 

 they can be compared against the historical data stored on the DAS at the site for validation; 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 14.0 

Revision: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 8 of 15 

 notes can be made on the hard copy reports for later review by data review staff; and

 they create a “back-up” to the electronically based data. 

External Storage- This term refers to storing and transferring the data on external media such as 

diskettes, flash drives, or CD-ROM’s. Many new generation DAS are computer platforms that contain 

ports these storage devices. If remote access via telephone is not an option, then data can be hand 

transferred to a central office for downloading and data review. This is usually the method used to transfer 

data from manual methods. 

Digital Transfer- All new generation DAS allow access to the computer via the telephone and modem. 

These systems allow fast and effective ways to download data to a central location. The EPA 

recommends using these systems for the following reasons:

 in case of malfunction of an ambient instrument, the appropriate staff at the central location can 

begin to diagnose problems and decide a course of action; 

 down loading the data allows the station operators, data processing team, and/or data validators to 

get a head start on reviewing the data; and 

 when pollution levels are high or forecasted to be high, digital transfer allows the pollution 

forecaster the ability to remotely check trends and ensure proper operation of instruments prior to 

and during an event. 

NOTE: In any of these systems it is necessary to plan for some type of system back-up in case of 

unexpected crashes in order to reduce and minimize data loss. 

14.1.5 Manual Data Acquisition 

Most of this section has been devoted to the collection of data through automated DAS. In some 

ways, once the DAS is properly set up and checked, the systems are reliable, can be checked 

remotely and are easier to manage then manual data acquisition. Recovery and collection of data 

from manual samplers in some ways can more complicated because it includes the retrieval of 

not only samples, which may include the use of hand entered data sheets and chain of custody 

forms, but electronic sampler information downloaded to USB flash drives, or portable laptops 

for data transfer to central offices. The process is further complicated by weather conditions and 

sample shipping to remote laboratories where additional logging of samples and data take place. 

Monitoring organization should identify all critical information necessary for a sampling activity, 

and have standard operating procedures for the procedures necessary to collect all important 

information pertaining to the sample. As soon as possible, any hand entered information should 

be recorded electronically. Samplers have some storage capacity so it is suggested that no data 

be cleared off the samplers until it is confirmed that the sampler data has been downloaded and 

stored in the central office data base. Once stored electronically, the management of this 

information should follow the same procedures as those for automated data retrievals. 

14.2 Data Transfer – Public Reporting 

The area of public reporting for air monitoring data may provide the largest number of users of data. For 

public reporting of the AQI, the AIRNow web site will remain the EPA’s primary medium for 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 14.0 

Revision: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 9 of 15 

distribution of near real- time air monitoring data. The additional continuous monitoring parameters 

collected from NCore will also be reported to AIRNow. These parameters are expected to be made 

publicly available for sharing throughout technical user communities. However, they are not expected to 

be widely distributed through AIRNow as products for public consumption. 

This section will discuss the transfer of data from the monitoring organization to two major data 

repositories: 1) AIRNow for near real-time reporting of monitoring data, and 2) AQS for long term 

storage of validated data. 

14.2.1 Real-time Data Reporting to AIRNow 

One of the most important emerging uses of ambient monitoring data has been public reporting of the Air 

Quality Index (AQI). This effort has expanded on EPA’s AIRNow web site from regionally-based near 

real-time ozone mapping products color coded to the AQI, to a national multi-pollutant mapping, 

forecasting, and data handling system of real-time data. Since ozone and PM2.5 drive the highest 

reporting of the AQI in most areas, these two pollutants are the only two parameters currently publicly 

reported from AIRNow. This program allows for short term non-validated data to be collected by a 

centrally located computer that displays the data in near real time data formats such as tables and contour 

maps. 

While other pollutants such as CO, SO2, NO2, and PM10 may not drive the AQI, they are still important

for forecasters and other data users to understand for model evaluation and tracking of air pollution 

episodes. Therefore, for the NCore sites, the goal is the report all gaseous CO, SO2, NO and NOy data 

and base meteorological measurements to AIRNow 

Reporting Intervals 

Currently, hourly averages are the reporting interval for continuous particulate and gaseous data. These 

are the reporting intervals for both AQS (AQS supports a variety of reporting intervals) and AIRNow for 

AQI purposes. These reporting intervals will meet most of the multiple objectives of NCore for 

supporting health effects studies, AQI reporting, trends, NAAQS attainment decisions, and accountability 

of control strategies. However, with these objectives also comes the desire for data at finer time 

resolutions: 5 minute averages for gaseous pollutants and sub-hourly averages for certain particulate 

matter monitors. Examples of this need for finer time resolution of data include, but are not limited to: 

tracking air pollution episodes, providing data for exposure studies, model evaluation, and evaluating 

shorter averaging periods for potential changes to the NAAQS. Monitoring organizations generally have 

the hardware and software necessary to log and report this data. The challenge to obtaining and reporting 

the data is the current communication packages used, such as conventional telephone modem polling. One 

widely available solution to this would be the use of internet connectivity; allowing data at individual 

monitoring sites to be pushed to a central server rather than being polled. Monitoring organizations 

should begin to investigate the possibilities of using this media. 

With the generation/reporting of data at shorter averaging intervals, the challenge becomes validation of 

all the data. The historical perception has been that each criteria pollutant measurement needs to be 

verified and validated manually. With the amount of data generated, this would be a time-consuming task.

To provide a nationally consistent approach for the reporting interval of data, the NCore networks will 

take a tiered approach to data reporting. At the top tier, hourly data intervals will remain the standard for 

data reporting. Long term, the NCore networks will be capable of providing at least 5 minute intervals for 

those methods that have acceptable data quality at those averaging periods. For QA/QC purposes such as 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 14.0 

Revision: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 10 of 15 

zero/span and one-point QC, monitoring organizations should be capable of assessing data on at least a 1-

minute interval. 

With instantaneous data going to external websites, monitoring organizations operating their own 

websites containing the same local and/or regional data should add a statement about the quality of data 

being displayed at the site. This cautionary statement will notify the public that posted data has not been 

fully quality assured and discrepancies may occur. For an example, the AIRNow Website makes the 

statement 

“Although some preliminary data quality assessments are performed, the data as such are 

not fully verified and validated through the quality assurance procedures monitoring 

organizations use to officially submit and certify data on the EPA AQS(Air Quality 

System). Therefore, data are used on the AIRNow Web site only for the purpose of 

reporting the AQI. Information on the AIRNow web site is not used to formulate or 

support regulation, guidance or any other Agency decision or position.” 

14.2.2 Reporting Frequency and Lag Time for Reporting Data to AIRNow

Continuous monitoring data that are being provided to AIRNow in near real-time are to be reported each 

hour. Data should be reported as soon as practical after the end of each hour. For the near term, the goal 

is to report data within twenty minutes past the end of each hour. This will provide enough time for data 

processing and additional data validation at the AIRNow Data Management Center (DMC), generation of 

reports and maps, distribution of those products to a variety of stakeholders and web sites, and staff 

review before the end of the hour. This is an important goal to support reporting of air pollution episodes 

on news media programs by the top of the hour. The long term goal for NCore sites is to report all data 

within five minutes after the end of an hour. 

14.3 Data Transfer-Reporting to External Data Bases

Today, the need for the ambient air monitoring data reaches outside the monitoring community. In 

addition to the traditional needs of the data, determination of NAAQS compliance and the daily AQI 

report, a health researcher or modeler may want a very detailed accounting of the available data in the 

shortest time intervals possible. Atmospheric scientists typically desire data in a relatively unprocessed 

yet comprehensive form with adequate descriptions (meta data) to allow for further processing for 

comparability to other data sets. These needs increase the demands for the data and require multiple 

reports of the information. 

14.3.1 AQS Reporting

All ambient air monitoring data will eventually be transferred and stored in AQS. As stated in 40 CFR 

Part 58.169

, the monitoring organization shall report all ambient air monitoring and associated quality 

assurance data and information specified by the AQS Users Guide into the AQS format. The data are to 

be submitted electronically and on a specified quarterly basis. Since changes in reporting requirements 

occur, monitoring organizations should review CFR for the specifics of this requirement. 

 

9 http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 14.0 

Revision: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 11 of 15 

The AQS manuals are located at the AQS Website10. The AQS Data Coding Manual replaces the 

previous Volume II and provides coding instructions, edits performed, and system error messages. The 

AQS User Guide replaces the former Volume III and describes the procedures for data entry. Both 

manuals will be updated as needed and the new versions will be available at the web site. Table 14-1 

provides the units and the number of decimal places that, at a minimum, are required for reporting to AQS 

for the criteria pollutants. These decimal places are used for comparison to the NAAQS and are displayed 

in AQS summary reports. However, monitoring organizations can report data up to 5 values to the right 

of the decimal (beyond five AQS will truncate). Within the five values to the right of the decimal place, 

for NAAQS comparison purposes, AQS will reduce the data as indicated in the last column of Table 14-1. 

Table 14-1 AQS Data Reporting Requirements

Pollutant Units Decimal 

Places 

Example Minimum reporting requirement 

(as described in 40 CFR Part 50) 

PM2.5 μg/m3 1 10.2 shall be reported to AQS in micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3 ) to one 

decimal place, with additional digits to the right being truncated (App. 

N)

PM10 μg/m3 1 26.2 No description found 

Lead (Pb) 

TSP and 

PB-PM10

μg/m3 3 1.525 Pb-TSP and Pb-PM10 measurement data are reported to AQS in units of 

micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3

 ) at local conditions (local 

temperature and pressure, LC) to three decimal places; any additional 

digits to the right of the third decimal place are truncated (App. R). 

O3 ppm 3 0.108 Hourly average concentrations shall be reported in parts per million 

(ppm) to the third decimal place, with additional digits to the right of the 

third decimal place truncated (App. P). 

SO2 ppb 1 35.1 reported to AQS in units of parts per billion (ppb), to at most one place 

after the decimal, with additional digits to the right being truncated with 

no further rounding (App. T)

NO2 ppb 1 53.2 reported to AQS in units of parts per billion (ppb), to at most one place 

after the decimal, with additional digits to the right being truncated with 

no further rounding (App. S) 

CO ppm 1 2.5 No description found

PM10-2.5 μg/m3 1 10.2 No description found – follow PM2.5 requirements 

14.3.2 Standard Format for Reporting to AQS 

AQS allows flexibility in reporting formats. The formats previously used by AQS can be used for raw 

data (hourly, daily, or composite) and for reporting precision and bias data. The system also has new 

report formats for this data as well as formats for registering new sites and monitors. These new formats 

are defined in the AQS Data Coding Manual. Work is also in progress to define an Extensible Markup 

Language (XML) schema for AQS reporting. Use of XML as a data format is consistent with EPA and 

Federal guidelines towards better data integration and sharing. 

14.3.3 Important AQS Agency Roles 

Some fields in AQS are key to identifying the agency or organization responsible for certain aspects of 

monitoring. Due to the fact that State agencies may play some overarching roles (such as reporting data or 

responsible for QA aspects as a PQAO) yet not be responsible for the monitoring of some sites (e.g., local 

organizations or Tribe), it is important to understand, identify and use these roles correctly. Table 14-2 

identifies the agency roles for AQS reporting. 

 

10 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/manuals/ 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 14.0 

Revision: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 12 of 15 

Table 14-2 AQS Agency Roles 

Role Name Definition Relationship to a monitor Comments 

Monitoring 

Organization (MO) 

Organization responsible for 

operation of the monitoring network 

Each monitor can only be 

associated with one MO at any 

particular date time 

QMPs must be related to the 

MO 

Primary Quality 

Assurance 

Organization 

(PQAO) 

Agency responsible for operation of 

the monitoring network 

Each monitor can only be 

associated with one PQAO at 

any particular date time 

There can be multiple MOs in 

a PQAO and it can be pollutant 

specific. QAPPs must be 

related to MO and PQAO 

Submitting 

Organization (SO) 

Organization submitting the data to 

AQS 

None Data for particular monitors 

could be submitted by multiple 

organizations for example, field 

data by the MO and analytical 

data for an analyzing agency 

Analyzing Agency Organization performing the 

analysis on samples 

None 

Collecting 

Organization 

Organization responsible for 

collecting data or maintaining 

monitor 

None In some cases the MO may 

contract out monitoring 

activities 

It must be mentioned that at a minimum for any raw data submittal MO, PQAO and SO must be entered. 

In many cases they may be the same organization; in other cases they may not. 

14.3.4 Expanded QA Information to be Reported to AQS 

Since the last revision to this Handbook, the process of reporting QA data to AQS has been improved. 

New QA transactions have been developed that support the reporting of additional quality control data 

that do not need to be “fit” into either an accuracy or precision transaction. Many of the transactions will 

be optional for use (i.e., duplicates, replicates, audit of data quality) depending on the monitoring 

program. However, QA transactions will be required for entry of the traditional Appendix A QC data as 

well as pertinent information for quality management plans (QMPs), quality assurance project plans 

(QAPPs) and Regional Office technical systems audits (TSAs) since they are a requirement for receiving 

grant funds (QMP/QAPPs) and are included in the 40 CFR Part 58 App A. 

PQAO and MO Relationships Relative to QMPs and QAPPs 

QMPs-- 

The following fields will be required for QMP reporting: 

1. Submitting Agency Code – MO code 

2. Submission Date- Date QMP submitted to EPA, helps with tracking approval process 

3. Approving Agency Code – Code for EPA Region 

4. Approval Date – EPA Approval Date 

5. QMP Status Code6. Comments- free form comments 

A MO meeting the definition above and receiving STAG funds must have a QMP approved by EPA. In 

most cases, the QMP is an overarching document that covers all the pollutants measured by the MO and 

is separate from the QAPP. In this case, the submitting agency code should be the MO associated with 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 14.0 

Revision: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 13 of 15 

the QMP. 

For smaller organizations (e.g., tribes and small local MOs), EPA has allowed for consolidation of QMP 

and QAPPs. In this case, even though it is one document, the MO should report a submission and 

approval date for the QMP and the same date for the QAPP as a separate submission (see QAPP 

information below). 

For some pollutants there may be a number of local monitoring organizations (MOs) that have 

consolidated to form a single PQAO. In this instance, there may be a possibility that a single QMP, or a 

consolidated QMP/QAPP is developed. However, even in this case, each distinguishable MO should 

report a submission and approval date for the QMP and the same date for the QAPP. 

QAPPs-- 

The following fields will be required for QAPP reporting: 

1. Submitting Agency Code - MO code 

2. PQAO Code- PQAO Code (may be the same as submitting agency but may not) 

3. Parameter classification- Identifies the individual pollutants or the network (CSN, NATTS) for 

which the QAPP is developed. 

4. Submission Date- Date QAPP submitted to EPA, helps with tracking approval process 

5. Approving Agency Code –May be EPA or submitting agency 

6. Approval Date- Date QAPP approved by EPA or submitting agency 

7. QAPP Status Code- code identify at what stage of review/approval the QAPP is in 

8. Comments- free form comments 

Since a MO can consolidate to larger PQAOs for a pollutant11, there is a possibility that a QAPP can be 

submitted by a MO even though it references its association to a larger PQAO, or a QAPP can be 

developed by the PQAO that is utilized by all or some of the MOs within the PQAO. In order to 

determine this for each MO, the PQAO must also be reported. Therefore, each MO as defined in Table 

14-2 must report QAPP data for any parameter or parameter classification. Since a MO may be 

consolidated into a PQAO for one pollutant and not another, for the criteria pollutants the QAPP reporting 

process will be on the pollutant level. For monitoring networks like NATTS or CSN, the information can 

be submitted at the network identifier level. 

14.3.5 Annual Certification of Data

The annual data certification is also stored in AQS. The monitoring organization is required to certify the 

data (by formal letter) for a calendar year (Jan 1-Dec 31) by May 1 of the following year. See 40 CFR 

Part 58.15 for details since this time period can change. This certification requires the monitoring 

organization to review the air quality data and quality assurance data for completeness and validity and to 

submit a certification letter and accompanying data certification reports to the Regional Office. The 

certification letter and accompanying reports are reviewed and if the results of the review are consistent 

with the criteria for certification, the certification flag is set in the AQS database. After certification is 

complete, any updates to the data will cause the critical review process to identify that the certified data 

has been changed and the certification flag will be dropped. In 2013, EPA developed an automated 

 

11 With the introduction of PQAOs in CFR in 2006, some local monitoring organizations consolidated to a larger 

PQAO for PM2.5 monitoring 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 14.0 

Revision: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 14 of 15 

certification process and allows the EPA Regions to certify monitoring organization data. At the time of 

publication of this document the process was still under development. 

14.3.4 Summary of Desired Performance for Information Transfer Systems 

To define the needed performance criteria of a state-of-the art information technology system, a table of 

needs has been developed. This table provides performance needs for an optimal information technology 

system, but is not intended to address what the individual components should look like. For instance, 

once low level validated data for a specific time period are ready to leave the monitoring station, a 

number of telemetry systems may actually accomplish moving those data. By identifying the needed 

performance criteria of moving data, rather than the actual system to move it, monitoring organizations 

may be free to identify the most optimal system for their network. Table 14-3 summarizes the 

performance elements of the data management systems used to log, transfer, validate, and report data 

from NCore ambient air monitoring stations.

Table 14-3 NCore (Level 2 and 3) Information Technology Performance Needs12

Performance Element Performance Criteria Notes 

Sample Periods 5 minutes (long term goal), and 1 hour data (current 

standard) 5 minutes and 1 hour data to support exposure, 

mapping and modeling. 1 hour data for Air Quality 

Index reporting and NAAQS. Sample period may need 

to be higher for certain pollutant measurement systems 

depending on method sample period and measurement 

precision when averaging small time periods.

Data Delivery Near Term goal - Within 20 minutes nationally each 

hour 

Long term goal - Within 5 minutes nationally each 

hour 

As monitoring organizations migrate to new telemetry 

systems the goal will be to report data within 5 

minutes. This should be easily obtained with 

broadband pushing of data to a central server. 

Low Level Validation - Last automated zero and QC check acceptable 

- Range check acceptable 

- Shelter parameters acceptable 

-Instrument parameters acceptable 

Other validation should be applied as available: 

- site to site checks 

- rate of change 

-lack of change. 

Data Availability - all QC data, operator notes, calibrations, and 

pollutant data within network 

- Low level validated pollutant data externally 

Create log of all monitoring related activities internally. 

Allow only validated data to leave monitoring 

organization network. 

Types of monitoring data 

to disseminate-externally -continuous and semi-continuous pollutant data -

accompanying meteorological data 

Associated manual method supporting data (for 

instance FRM ambient Temperature) should be 

collected but not reported externally. 

Additional data for 

internal tracking 

Status of ancillary equipment such as shelter 

temperature, power surges, zero air system, 

calibration system 

Relevant site information Latitude, longitude, altitude, land use category, scale 

of representativeness, pictures and map of area Other site information may be necessary. 

Remote calibration Ability to initiate automated calibrations on regular 

schedule or as needed 

Reviewing calibration - allow for 1 minute data as part of electronic 

calibration log 

Initialization of manual 

collection method 

Need to be able to remotely initiate these or have 

them set at an action level from a specific monitor 

Reporting Format Short Term - Maintain “Obs” file format and pipe 

delimited formats for AIRNow and AQS reporting, 

respectively 

Near Term -XML 

Need to coordinate development of XML schema with 

multiple stakeholders. XML is an open format that will 

be able to be read by most applications. 

 

 

12 See NCore Technical Assistance Document Version 4 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/ncore/guidance.html 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 14.0 

Revision: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 15 of 15 

14.4 Data Management

Managing the data collected is just as important as correctly collecting the data. The amount of data 

collected will continue to grow based on the needs of the data users. Previous sections have confirmed 

this statement, providing a glimpse of the potential data users and the uses. Generally, data are to be 

retained for a period of 3 years from the date the grantee submits its final expenditure report unless 

otherwise noted in the funding agreement13. With electronic records and electronic media, this 

information can be stored and managed with less use of space than with the conventional paper records. 

However, even with today’s technology there will be some paper records and those need to be managed in 

an orderly manner. The manner in which a monitoring organization manages its data is documented in its 

QMP and QAPP. 

Management is marshaling scarce resources to accomplish goals. Challenges imposed by the need to 

capture increasing volumes of data and to make that data available to the public and other groups in 

various formats and in short timeframes require a strategy for obtaining enough of these resources: 

 computer processing capacity, 

 data storage, archival storage, paper file storage, 

 floor space, and 

 support staff; for deployment among central offices, local offices, and monitoring sites to capture 

data having the quality characteristics listed in 14.0. 

Air monitoring organization managers may want to seek the assistance of their organization’s IT staff 

and/or hardware/software maintenance contractors. Managers may find it helpful to consult these 

references: 

 EPA’s records management webpage14

 section 5 of this document 

 Good Automated Laboratory Practices, posted on the OEI website. 

This information should be reviewed not only by those in a monitoring organization responsible for 

overall data management but also by the monitoring organization’s Systems or Network Administrator. 

The latter person(s) can provide helpful information in designing the overall data management system 

according to today’s industry standards. Remember, the data has to be of known quality, reliable and 

defensible. In order for monitoring organizations to continue to meet those objectives, many sources of 

information need to be reviewed. 

 

13 40 CFR Part 31.42 

14 http://www.epa.gov/records/ 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 15.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 1 of 14

15.0 Assessment and Corrective Action 

An assessment is an evaluation process used to measure the performance or effectiveness of a system and 

its elements. It is an all-inclusive term used to denote any of the following: audit, performance 

evaluation, management systems review, peer review, inspection and surveillance. For the Ambient Air 

Quality Monitoring Program, the following assessments will be discussed: network reviews, performance 

evaluations, technical systems audits and data quality assessments. 

15.1 Network Reviews 

As described in 40 CFR § 58.101, Beginning July 1,2007, the State, or where applicable, local 

monitoring organizations shall adopt and submit to the Regional Administrator an annual monitoring 

network plan (40 CFR 58.10) which shall provide for the establishment and maintenance of an air 

quality surveillance system that consists of a network of SLAMS monitoring stations including FRM, 

FEM, and ARM monitors that are part of SLAMS, NCore stations, CSN stations, State speciation stations, 

SPM stations, and/or, in serious, severe and extreme ozone nonattainment areas, PAMS stations, and 

SPM stations. The plan shall include a statement of purposes for each monitor and evidence that siting 

and operation of each monitor meets the requirements of appendices A, C, D, and E of Part 58, where 

applicable. The annual monitoring network plan must be made available for public inspection for at least 

30 days prior to submission to EPA. The AMTIC Website has a page2

 devoted to the progress and 

adherence to this requirement. This page contains links to State and local ambient air monitoring plans. 

In addition to an annual network plan, starting in 2010, the State, or where applicable, local monitoring 

organization shall perform and submit to the EPA Regional Administrator an assessment of the air quality 

surveillance system every 5 years to determine, at a minimum, if the network meets the monitoring 

objectives defined in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix D, whether new sites are needed, whether existing sites 

are no longer needed and can be terminated, and whether new technologies are appropriate for 

incorporation into the ambient air monitoring network. The network assessment must consider the ability 

of existing and proposed sites to support air quality characterization for areas with relatively high 

populations of susceptible individuals (e.g., children with asthma), and for any sites that are being 

proposed for discontinuance, the effect on data users other than the monitoring organization itself, such as 

nearby States and Tribes or health effects studies. For PM2.5, the assessment also must identify needed 

changes to population-oriented sites. The state, or where applicable, local monitoring organization must 

submit a copy of this 5-year assessment, along with a revised annual network plan, to the Regional 

Administrator. 

In order to maintain consistency in implementing and collecting information from a network review, EPA 

has developed the document Ambient Air Monitoring Network Assessment Guidance3

. The information 

presented in this section provides some excerpts from this guidance document. 

15.1.1 Network Selection 

Due to the resource-intensive nature of network reviews, it may be necessary to prioritize monitoring 

organizations and/or pollutants to be reviewed. The following criteria may be used to select networks: 

 

1 http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl 2 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/plans.html 3 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/cpreldoc.html 

 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 15.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 2 of 14

 date of last review; 

 areas where attainment/nonattainment designations are taking place or are likely to take place; 

 results of special studies, saturation sampling, point source oriented ambient monitoring, etc.; and 

 monitoring organizations which have proposed network modifications since the last network 

review. 

In addition, pollutant-specific priorities may be considered (e.g., newly designated ozone nonattainment 

areas, PM10 "problem areas", etc.). Once the monitoring organizations have been selected for review, 

significant data and information pertaining to the review should be compiled and evaluated. Such 

information might include the following: 

 network files for the selected monitoring organization (including updated site information and site 

photographs); 

 AQS reports (AMP220, 225, 255, 380, 390, 450); 

 air quality summaries for the past five years for the monitors in the network; 

 emissions trends reports for major metropolitan areas; 

 emission information, such as emission density maps for the region in which the monitor is 

located and emission maps showing the major sources of emissions; and 

 National Weather Service summaries for monitoring network area. 

Upon receiving the information, it should be checked for consistency and to ensure it is the latest 

revision. Discrepancies should be noted on the checklist (Appendix H) and resolved with the monitoring 

organization during the review. Files and/or photographs that need to be updated should also be 

identified. 

15.1.2 Conformance to 40 CFR Part 58 Appendix D- Network Design Requirements 

With regard to 40 CFR Part 58 Appendix D requirements, the network reviewer must determine the 

adequacy of the network in terms of number and location of monitors: specifically, (1) is the monitoring 

organization meeting the number of monitors required by the design criteria requirements; and (2) are the 

monitors properly located, based on the monitoring objectives and spatial scales of representativeness? 

Number of Monitors 

For SLAMS, NCore and PAMs the minimum number of monitors required is specified in the regulations. 

As revisions occur to the NAAQS, there is a possibility the number of required monitors will also change 

so the reader should keep abreast of the changes that can occur in Appendix D. Adequacy of the network 

may be determined by using a variety of tools, including the following: 

 maps of historical monitoring data; 

 maps of emission densities; 

 dispersion modeling; 

 special studies/saturation sampling; 

 SIP requirements; 

 revised monitoring strategies (e.g., lead strategy, reengineering air monitoring network); and 

 best professional judgment. 

Location of Monitors 

Appendix D does provide general description of the location of sites needed for NAAQS related 

monitoring. The EPA Regional Office and monitoring organizations work together to identify the best 

location for the monitors based upon the siting /location requirement defined in Appendix D. Adequacy 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 15.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 3 of 14

of the location of monitors can only be determined on the basis of stated objectives. Maps, graphical 

overlays, and GIS-based information can be extremely helpful in visualizing or assessing the adequacy of 

monitor locations. Plots of potential emissions and/or historical monitoring data versus monitor locations 

are especially useful. 

For PAMS, there is considerable flexibility when locating each site within a nonattainment area or 

transport region. The three fundamental criteria which need to be considered when locating a final PAMS 

site are: (1) sector analysis - the site needs to be located in the appropriate downwind (or upwind) sector 

(approximately 45o

) using appropriate wind directions; (2) distance - the sites should be located at 

distances appropriate to obtain a representative sample of the areas precursor emissions and represent the 

appropriate monitoring scale; and (3) proximate sources. 

 

15.1.3 Conformance to 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix E - Probe Siting Requirements 

Applicable siting criteria for SLAMS, NCore, and PAMS are specified in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix E. 

The on-site visit itself consists of the physical measurements and observations needed to determine 

compliance with the Appendix E requirements, such as height above ground level, distance from trees, 

paved or vegetative ground cover, etc. Prior to the site visit, the reviewer should obtain and review the 

following: 

 most recent hard copy of site description (including any photographs) 

 data on the seasons with the greatest potential for high concentrations for specified pollutants 

 predominant wind direction by season 

The checklist provided in Appendix H of this Handbook is also intended to assist the reviewer in 

determining conformance with Appendix E. In addition to the items on the checklist, the reviewer should 

also do the following: 

 ensure that the manifold and inlet probes are clean 

 estimate probe and manifold inside diameters and lengths 

 inspect the shelter for weather leaks, safety, and security 

 check equipment for missing parts, frayed cords, etc. 

 check that monitor exhausts are not likely to be introduced back to the inlet 

 record findings in field notebook and/or checklist 

 take photographs/video in the 8 cardinal directions 

 document site conditions, with additional photographs/video 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 15.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 4 of 14

15.1.4 Checklists and Other Discussion Topics 

Checklists are provided in Appendix H to assist network reviewers (SLAMS and PAMS) in conducting 

the review. In addition to the items included in the checklists, other subjects for possible discussion as 

part of the network review and overall adequacy of the monitoring program include: 

 installation of new monitors; 

 relocation of existing monitors; 

 siting criteria problems and suggested solutions; 

 problems with data submittals and data completeness; 

 maintenance and replacement of existing monitors and related equipment; 

 quality assurance problems; 

 air quality studies and special monitoring programs; and 

 other issues (proposed regulations/funding).

15.1.5 Summary of Findings 

Upon completion of the network review, a written network evaluation should be prepared. The 

evaluation should include any deficiencies identified in the review, corrective actions needed to address 

the deficiencies, and a schedule for implementing the corrective actions. The kinds of 

discrepancies/deficiencies to be identified in the evaluation include discrepancies between the monitoring 

organization network description and the AQS network description; and deficiencies in the number, 

location, and/or type of monitors. 

15.2 Performance Evaluations 

Performance evaluations (PEs) are a type of audit in which the 

quantitative data generated in a measurement system are obtained 

independently and compared with routinely obtained data to 

evaluate the proficiency of an analyst, or a laboratory4

. EPA also 

uses it to evaluate instrument performance. The National 

Performance Evaluation Programs: 

 Allow one to determine data comparability and usability 

across sites, monitoring networks (Tribes, States, and 

geographic regions), instruments and laboratories. 

 Provide a level of confidence that monitoring systems are 

operating within an acceptable level of data quality so data 

users can make decisions with acceptable levels of certainty. 

 Help verify the precision and bias estimates performed by 

monitoring organizations. 

 Identify where improvements (technology/training) are 

needed. 

 

4

 American National Standard-Quality Systems for Environmental Data and Technology Programs-Requirements 

with Guidance for Use (ANSI/ASQC E4-2004) 

PEP Audit 

NPAP through the probe audit 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 15.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 5 of 14

 Assure the public of non-biased assessments of data quality. 

 Provide a quantitative mechanism to defend the quality of data. 

 Provide information to monitoring organizations on how they compare with the rest of the nation, 

in relation to the acceptance limits and to assist in corrective actions and/or data improvements. 

Some type of national PE program is implemented for all of the ambient air monitoring activities. Table 

15-1 provides more information on these activities. It is important that these performance evaluations be 

independent in order to ensure they are non-biased and objective. With the passage of the Data Quality 

Act5

, there is potential for EPA to receive challenges to the quality of the ambient air data. Independent 

audits help provide another piece of objective evidence on the quality of a monitoring organizations data 

and can help EPA defend the quality of the data.

Table 15-1 National Performance Evaluation Activities6 Performed by EPA 

Program/ 

Lead Agency 

Explanation 

NPAP 

OAQPS 

National Performance Audit Program provides audit standards for the gaseous pollutants either as devices that the site 

operator connects to the back of the instrument or through the probe in which case the audits are conducted by 

presenting audit gases through the probe inlet of ambient air monitoring stations. Flow audit devices and lead strips are 

also provided through NPAP. NPAP audits are required at 20% of a primary quality assurance organizations sites each 

year with a goal of auditing all sites in 5-7 years. 

PM2.5 PM10-2.5 PEP 

OAQPS 

Performance Evaluation Program. The strategy is to collocate a portable FRM PM2.5 or PM10-2.5 air sampling audit 

instrument with an established primary sampler at a routine air monitoring site, operate both samplers in the same 

manner, and then compare the results. Each year five PEP audits are required for primary quality assurance 

organizations (PQAOs) with less than or equal to 5 monitoring sites or eight audits are required for PQAOs with greater 

than five sites. These audits are not required for PM10

Pb-PEP Performance Evaluation Program. The strategy is to collocate a portable FRM Pb air sampling audit instrument with an 

established primary sampler at a routine air monitoring site, operate both samplers in the same manner, and then 

compare the results. Each year five PEP audits (1 PEP collocated sample and 4 samples from monitoring organizations 

routine collocated instrument) are required for primary quality assurance organizations (PQAOs) with less than or equal 

to 5 monitoring sites or eight audits are required for PQAOs with greater than five sites (2 PEP collocated samples and 

6 samples from monitoring organizations routine collocated instrument). 

NATTS PT 

OAQPS 

A National Air Toxics Trend Sites (NATTS) proficiency test (PT) is a type of assessment in which a sample, the 

composition of which is unknown to the analyst, is provided to test whether the analyst/laboratory can produce 

analytical results within the specified acceptance criteria. PTs for volatile organic carbons (VOCs), carbonyls and 

metals are performed quarterly for the ~22 NATTS laboratories 

SRP 

EPA-RTP 

The Standard Reference Photometer (SRP) Program provides a mechanism to establish traceability among the ozone 

standards used by monitoring organizations with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Every year 

NIST certifies an EPA SRP. Upon certification, this SRP is shipped to the EPA Regions who use this SRP to certify the 

SRP that remains stationary in the Regional Lab. These stationary SRPs are then used to certify the ozone transfer 

standards that are used by the State, Local and Tribal monitoring organizations who bring their transfer standards to the 

Regional SRP for certification. 

PAMS Cylinder 

Certs 

EPA developed a system to certify the standards used by the monitoring organizations to calibrate their PAMS 

analytical systems. The standards are sent to the EPA Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA-LV) who perform an 

independent analysis/certification of the cylinders. This analysis is compared to the vendor concentrations to determine 

if they are within the contractually required acceptance tolerance. 

CSN/IMPROVE 

Round Robins PTs 

and Audits 

ORIA-AL 

PM2.5 Chemical Speciation Network (CSN) and IMPROVE Round Robins are a type of performance evaluation where 

the audit samples are developed in ambient air; therefore, the true concentration is unknown. The Office of Indoor Air 

and Radiation (ORIA) in Montgomery, AL) implement these audits for the CSN/IMPROVE programs and for the PEP 

weighing laboratories. The audit is performed by collecting samples over multiple days and from multiple samplers. 

These representative samples are then characterized by the ORIA lab and sent to the routine sample laboratories for 

analysis. Since the true concentrations are unknown, the reported concentrations are reviewed to determine general 

agreement among the laboratories. In addition ORIA implements technical systems audits of IMPROVE and CSN 

laboratories 

Protocol Gas 

OAQPS 

EPA Protocol Gases are used in quality control activities (i.e., calibrations, audits etc.) to ensure the quality of data 

derived from ambient air monitors used by every State in the country. EPA developed the Protocol Gas Program to 

allow standards sold by specialty gas producers to be considered traceable to NIST standards. This program was 

discontinued in 1998. In 2010 EPA established an Ambient Air-Protocol Gas Verification Program7

 that utilizes 

volunteers from the ambient air monitoring community. 

 

5

 see www.eenews.net/Greenwire/Backissues/081604/08160403.htm 6

 many of the National PEs can be found at the following website http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/npepqa.html 7 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/aapgvp.html 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 15.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 6 of 14

Although Table 15-1 lists seven performance evaluation programs operating at the federal level, the 

NPAP and PEP Programs will be discussed in more detail. Additional information on both programs can 

be found on the AMTIC Website8

. The October 17, 2006 monitoring rule identified the monitoring 

organizations as responsible for ensuring the implementation of these audits9

. Monitoring organizations 

can either self-implement the program or continue to participate in the federally implemented program. 

This choice is provided to the monitoring organization on an annual basis through a memo from OAQPS 

through the EPA Regions. In order for monitoring organization to self-implement the program they must 

meet criteria related to the adequacy of the audit (number of audits and how it is accomplished) as well as 

meet independence requirements (see Figure 15.1). 

15.2.1 National Performance Audit Program10

Monitoring organizations operating SLAMS/PAMS/PSD are required to participate in the National 

Performance Evaluation Programs by providing adequate and independent audits for its monitors as per 

Section 2.4 of 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix A. One way of providing the audits is to participate in the 

NPAP program either through self-implementation or federal implementation. 

The NPAP is a cooperative effort among OAQPS, the 10 EPA Regional Offices, and the monitoring 

organizations that operate the SLAMS/PAMS/PSD air pollution monitors. The NPAP’s goal is to provide 

audit materials and devices that will enable EPA to assess the proficiency of monitoring organizations 

that are operating monitors in the SLAMS/PAMS/PSD networks. To accomplish this, the NPAP has 

established acceptable limits or performance criteria, based on the data quality needs of the networks, for 

each of the audit materials and devices used in the NPAP. 

All audit devices and materials used in the NPAP are certified as to their true value, and that certification 

is traceable to a National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) standard material or device 

wherever possible. The audit materials used in the NPAP are as representative and comparable as 

possible to the calibration materials and actual air samples used and/or collected in the 

SLAMS/PAMS/PSD networks. The audit material/gas cylinder ranges used in the NPAP are specified in 

the Federal Register. 

Initially the NPAP system was a mailable system where standards and gasses were mailed to monitoring 

organizations for implementation. In 2003, OAQPS started instituting a through the probe audit system 

where mobile laboratories are sent to monitoring sites and audit gasses are delivered through the inlet 

probe of the analyzers. The goal of the NPAP audit is: 

 Performing audits at 20 percent of monitoring sites per year, and 100% in 5-7 years. 

 Data submission to AQS within 3 months of audit. 

 Development of a delivery system that will allow for the audit concentration gasses to be 

introduced to the probe inlet where logistically feasible. 

 Use of audit gases that are NIST certified and validated at least once a year for CO, SO2, and 

NO2. 

 Validation/certification with the EPA NPAP program (if self-implementing) through collocated 

auditing, at an acceptable number of sites each year. The comparison tests would have to be no 

greater than 5 percent different from the EPA NPAP results. 

 

8 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/npepqa.html 9 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/40cfr53.html-Final - Revisions to Ambient Air Monitoring Regulations. 10 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/npapgen.html 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 15.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 7 of 14

 Incorporation of NPAP in the monitoring organization’s quality assurance project plan (if selfimplementing). 

The validation template in Appendix D list the acceptance limits of the NPAP audits. 

NPAP Corrective Action 

Since NPAP can only visit 20% of any monitoring organizations sites in a given year, the data is more 

useful in providing EPA with a national assessment of data comparability across the criteria pollutant 

network. However when individual sites fail an audit, EPA will attempt to work with the monitoring 

agency to discover the reasons for the failure. Usually the failure is related to a site specific issue (e.g., 

leak) and not a network issue (e.g. bad calibration gas used to calibrate all monitors). If time is available, 

the auditor can attempt to re-audit while at the site. If not the EPA Region and monitoring organization 

can communicate on auditing the site at a later date. Unless the failure is related to an issue with NPAP 

equipment, the original results will be reported along with any additional audit results after corrective 

action. 

15.2.2 PM2.5 , PM10-2.5 , and Pb Performance Evaluation Programs (PEP) 

The Performance Evaluation Program11 is a quality assurance activity which will be used to evaluate 

measurement system bias of 

the PM2.5, the PM10-2.5 and the 

Pb monitoring networks. The 

pertinent regulations for this 

performance audit are found 

in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix 

A. The strategy is to 

collocate a portable PEP 

instrument with an 

established routine air 

monitoring site, operate both 

monitors in exactly the same 

manner and then compare the 

results of this instrument 

against the routine sampler at 

the site. For primary quality 

assurance organizations with 

less than or equal to five 

monitoring sites, five valid 

performance evaluation audits 

must be collected and 

reported each year. For 

primary quality assurance 

organizations with greater 

than five monitoring sites, 

eight valid performance 

evaluation audits must be 

collected and reported each 

 

11 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/pmpep.html 

Organization

3rd Level 

Supervision

Organization

2nd Level 

Supervision

Organization 

1st Level 

Supervision

Organization

Personnel

QA Lab Analysis

Organization

1st Level 

Supervision

Organization

Personnel

QA Field Sampling

Organization

2nd Level 

Supervision

Organization

1st Level 

Supervision

Organization 

Personnel

Routine Lab Analysis

Organization

1st Level 

Supervision

Organization

Personnel 

Routine Field Sampling

Independent assessment - an assessment performed by a qualified individual, group, or 

organization that is not part of the organization directly performing and accountable for 

the work being assessed. This auditing organization must not be involved with the 

generation of the routine ambient air monitoring data. An organization can conduct the 

PEP if it can meet the above definition and has a management structure that, at a 

minimum, will allow for the separation of its routine sampling personnel from its 

auditing personnel by two levels of management, as illustrated in the figure below. In 

addition, the pre and post weighing of audit filters must be performed by separate 

laboratory facility using separate laboratory equipment. Field and laboratory personnel 

would be required to meet the FRM Performance Audit field and laboratory training and 

certification requirements. The State and local organizations are also asked to consider 

participating in the centralized field and laboratory standards certification process.

Figure 15.1 Definition of independent assessment 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 15.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 8 of 14

year. A valid performance evaluation audit means that both the primary monitor and PEP audit 

concentrations are valid and above 3 μg/m3

. 

The Pb-PEP operates somewhat differently then the PM2.5, the PM10-2.5 PEP in that it includes a 

combination of independent audits and data obtained form the monitoring organization collocated Pb 

sampler that is then sent to the National PEP Laboratory. More details on this process, including all 

documentation including the PEP Implementation Plan, QAPP, Field and Laboratory SOPs, and reports 

for each PEP can be found on the AMTIC Bulletin Board at the PEP Website12. 

 

12 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/pmpep.html 

Since performance evaluations are independent assessments, Figure 15.1 was developed to define 

independence for the FRM performance evaluation to allow monitoring organizations to self-implement 

this activity. 

Since the regulations define the performance evaluations as an NPAP like activity, EPA has made 

arrangements to implement this audit. Monitoring organizations can determine, on a yearly basis, to 

utilize federal implementation by directing their appropriate percentage of grant resources back to the 

OAQPS or implement the audit themselves. The following activities will be established for federal PEP 

implementation: 

 field personnel assigned to each EPA Region, the hours based upon the number of required audits 

in the Region; and 

 one national laboratory in Region 4 will serve as a national weighing lab and will include data 

submittal to AQS. 

 

PEP Corrective Action 

Unlike the NPAP, which can provide immediate feedback on results, the PEP results are not available 

until the monitoring organizations have reported their results (data from the routine monitor) to AQS. 

This process can take at least 3 months but sometimes longer. Therefore, feedback cannot be immediate 

and so the PEP has limited use (compared to NPAP) for corrective action at a monitoring organization 

level. However, over the years that the PEP has been implemented, EPA has been able to identify bias at 

the PQAO level as well as national levels among method designations. The PEP then helps to inform 

those monitoring organizations that may be outside the DQOs or the norm or that have method 

designations that may need some corrective action. 

15.2.3 State and Local Organization Performance Audits 

Any of the performance evaluation activities mentioned in this section can be performed internally by the 

monitoring organizations. If the monitoring organization intends to self-implement NPAP or PEP then 

they will be required to meet the adequacy and independence criteria mentioned in earlier sections. Since 

a monitoring organization may want more audits then can be supplied by the NPAP and PEP, it may 

decide to “augment” the federally implemented programs with additional performance audits. These 

audits can be tailored to the needs of the monitoring organization and do not necessarily need to follow 

NPAP and PEP adequacy and independence requirements. Some information on the procedures for this 

audit can be found in Appendix H. 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 15.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 9 of 14

15.3 Technical Systems Audits 

A technical systems audit is an on-site review and inspection of a monitoring organization’s ambient air 

monitoring program to assess its compliance with established regulations governing the collection, 

analysis, validation, and reporting of ambient air quality data. A systems audit of each monitoring 

organization within an EPA Region is performed every three years by a member of the Regional Quality 

Assurance (QA) staff. Detailed discussions of the audits performed by the EPA and the monitoring 

organizations are found in Appendix H; the information presented in this section provides general 

guidance for conducting technical systems audits. A systems audit should consist of three separate 

phases: 

 Pre-audit activities. 

 On-site audit activities. 

 Post-audit activities.

Summary activity flow diagrams have been 

included as Figures 15.2, 15.3 and 15.5 

respectively. The reader may find it useful to 

refer to these diagrams while reading this 

guidance. 

15.3.1 Pre-Audit Activities 

At the beginning of each fiscal year, the 

audit lead or a designated member of the 

audit team should establish a tentative 

schedule for on-site systems audits of the 

monitoring organizations within their 

Region. It is suggested that the audit lead 

develop an audit plan. This plan should 

address the elements listed in Table 15-2. 

The audit plan is not a major undertaking 

and in most cases will be a one page table or 

report. However, the document represents 

thoughtful and conscious planning for an 

efficient and successful audit. The audit plan 

should be made available to the organization 

audited, with adequate lead time to ensure 

that appropriate personnel and documents are 

available for the audit. Three months prior to 

the audit, the audit lead should contact the 

quality assurance officer (QAO) of the 

organization to be audited to coordinate 

specific dates and schedules for the on-site 

audit visit. During this initial contact, the 

audit lead should arrange a tentative schedule for meetings with key personnel as well as for 

inspection of selected ambient air quality monitoring and measurement operations. At the same time, 

a schedule should be set for the exit interview used to debrief the monitoring organization director or 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 15.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 10 of 14

his/her designee, on the systems audit outcome. As part of this scheduling, the audit lead should indicate 

any special requirements such as access to specific areas or activities. The audit lead should inform the 

monitoring organization QAO that the QAO will receive a questionnaire, which is to be reviewed and 

completed. 

Table 15-2 Suggested Elements of an Audit Plan 

Audit Title - Official title of audit that will be used on checksheets and reports 

Date/Audit # Year and number of audit can be combined; 08-1, 08-2 

Scope - Establishes the boundary of the audit and identifies the groups and activities to be evaluated. 

The scope can vary from general overview, total system, to part of system, which will 

determine the length of the audit. 

Purpose - What the audit should achieve 

Standards - Standards are criteria against which performance is evaluated. These standards must be clear 

and concise and should be used consistently when auditing similar facilities or procedures. The 

use of audit checklists is suggested to assure that the full scope of an audit is covered. An 

example checklist for the Regional TSA is found in Appendix H. 

Audit team - Team lead and members. 

Auditees - People who should be available for the audit from the audited organization. This should include 

the program manager(s), principal investigator(s), monitoring leads, organizations QA 

representative(s), and other management and technicians as necessary. 

Documents - Documents that should be available in order for the audit to proceed efficiently. Too often 

documents are asked for during an audit, when auditors do not have the time to wait for these 

documents to be found. Documents could include QMPs, QAPPs, SOPs, GLPs, control charts, 

raw data, QA/QC data, previous audit reports etc. 

Timeline - A timeline of when organizations (auditors/auditees) will be notified of the audit in order for 

efficient scheduling and full participation of all parties. 

The audit lead should emphasize that the completed questionnaire is to be returned within one (1) month 

(or time frame deemed appropriate) of receipt. The information within the questionnaire is considered a 

minimum, and both the Region and the monitoring organization under audit should feel free to include 

additional information. Once the completed questionnaire has been received, it should be reviewed and 

compared with the pertinent criteria and regulations. The AQS precision, bias and completeness data as 

well as any other information on data quality can augment the documentation received from the reporting 

organization under audit. This preliminary evaluation will be instrumental in selecting the sites to be 

evaluated and in the decision on the extent of the monitoring site data audit. The audit team should then 

prepare a checklist detailing specific points for discussion with monitoring organization personnel. 

The audit team should be made up of several members to offer a wide variety of backgrounds and 

expertise. This team may then divide into groups once on-site, so that both audit coverage and time 

utilization can be optimized. A possible division may be that one group assesses the support laboratory 

and headquarters operations while another evaluates sites, and subsequently assesses audit and calibration 

information. The audit lead should confirm the proposed audit schedule with the audited organization 

immediately prior to traveling to the site. 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 15.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 11 of 14

15.3.2. On-Site Activities 

The audit team should meet initially 

with the audited monitoring 

organization’s director or his/her 

designee to discuss the scope, 

duration, and activities involved with 

the audit. This should be followed by 

a meeting with key personnel 

identified from the completed 

questionnaire, or indicated by the 

monitoring organization QAO. Key 

personnel to be interviewed during 

the audit are those individuals with 

responsibilities for: planning, field 

operations, laboratory operations, 

QA/QC, data management and 

reporting. At the conclusion of these 

introductory meetings, the audit team 

may begin work as two or more 

independent groups, as illustrated in 

Figure 15.3. To increase uniformity 

of site inspections, it is suggested that 

a site checklist be developed and 

used. The format for Regional TSAs 

can be found in Appendix H. 

The importance of the audit of data 

quality (ADQ) cannot be overstated. 

Thus, sufficient time and effort should 

be devoted to this activity so that the audit team has a clear understanding and complete documentation of 

data flow. Its importance stems from the need to have documentation on the quality of ambient air 

monitoring data for all the criteria pollutants for which the monitoring organization has monitoring 

requirements. The ADQ will serve as an effective framework for organizing the extensive amount of 

information gathered during the audit of laboratory, field monitoring and support functions within the 

monitoring organization. 

The entire audit team should prepare a brief written summary of findings, organized into the following 

areas: planning, field operations, laboratory operations, quality assurance/quality control, data 

management, and reporting. Problems with specific areas should be discussed and an attempt made to 

rank them in order of their potential impact on data quality. For the more serious problems, audit findings 

should be drafted (Fig. 15.4). 

The audit finding form has been designed such that one is filled out for each major deficiency that 

requires formal corrective action. They inform the monitoring organization being audited about a serious 

finding that may compromise the quality of the data and therefore require specific corrective actions. 

They are initiated by the audit team, and discussed at the debriefing. 

During the debriefing discussion, evidence may be presented that reduces the significance of the finding; 

in which case the finding may be removed. If the audited monitoring organization is in agreement with 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 15.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 12 of 14

the finding, the form is signed by the monitoring 

organization's director or his/her designee during the 

exit interview. If a disagreement occurs, the QA 

Team should record the opinions of the monitoring 

organization audited and set a time at some later date 

to address the finding at issue. 

The audit is now completed by having the audit team 

members meet once again with key personnel, the 

QAO and finally with the monitoring organization's 

director to present their findings. This is also the 

opportunity for the monitoring organization to 

present their disagreements. 

The audit team should simply state the audit results, 

including an indication of the potential data quality 

impact. During these meetings, the audit team 

should also discuss the systems audit reporting 

schedule and notify monitoring organization 

personnel that they will be given a chance to 

comment in writing, within a certain time period, on 

the prepared audit report in advance of any formal 

distribution. 

15.3.3 Post-Audit Activities 

The major post-audit activity is the preparation of the 

systems audit report. The report will include: 

 audit title, number and any other identifying 

information; 

 audit team leaders, audit team participants 

and audited participants; 

 background information about the project, 

purpose of the audit, dates of the audit, 

particular measurement phase or parameters 

that were audited, and a brief description of 

the audit process; 

 summary and conclusions of the audit and 

corrective action requirements; and 

 attachments or appendices that include all 

audit evaluations and audit finding forms. 

To prepare the report, the audit team should meet 

and compare observations with collected documents 

and results of interviews and discussions with key 

personnel. Expected QA project plan implementation 

is compared with observed accomplishments and 

deficiencies and the audit findings are reviewed in 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 15.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 13 of 14

detail. Within thirty (30) 

calendar days of the completion 

of the audit, the audit report 

should be prepared and 

submitted. 

The TSA report is submitted to 

the audited monitoring 

organization. It is suggested 

that a cover letter be used to 

reiterate the fact that the audit 

report is being provided for 

review and written comment. 

The letter should also indicate 

that, should no written 

comments be received by the 

audit lead within thirty (30) 

calendar days from the report 

date, it will be assumed 

acceptable to the monitoring 

organization in its current form, 

and will be formally distributed 

without further changes. 

If the monitoring organization 

has written comments or 

questions concerning the audit 

report, the audit team should 

review and incorporate them as 

appropriate, and subsequently prepare and resubmit a report in final form within thirty (30) days of 

receipt of the written comments. Copies of this report should be sent to the monitoring organization 

director or his/her designee for internal distribution. The transmittal letter for the amended report should 

indicate official distribution and again draw attention to the agreed-upon schedule for corrective action 

implementation. 

15.3.4 Follow-up and Corrective Action Requirements 

As part of corrective action and follow-up, an audit finding response form (Fig 15.6) is generated by the 

audited organization for each finding form submitted by the audit team. The audit finding response form 

is signed by the audited organization’s director and sent to the organization responsible for oversight who 

reviews and accepts the corrective action. The audit response form should be completed by the audited 

organization within 30 days of acceptance of the audit report.

15.3.5 TSA Reporting to AQS 

All 40 CFR Appendix A required TSAs will be reported to AQS. In 2013, a QA transaction was 

developed to allow the reporting of 5 parameters: 1) the monitoring organization audited, 2) the auditing 

agency, 3) the begin and 4) end date of the audit, and 5) the close out date. The close out date is defined 

as the date when all corrective actions identified in the audit were completed.

 Audit Finding Response Form

Audit Title: Audit #: Finding #: 

 

Finding: 

Cause of the problem: 

Actions taken or planned for correction: 

Responsibilities and timetable for the above actions: 

Prepared by: Date: 

 

Reviewed by: Date: 

Remarks: 

 

 Is this audit finding closed? When? 

 File with official audit records. Send copy to auditee 

Figure 15.6 Audit response form
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 15.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 14 of 14

15.4 Data Quality Assessments 

A data quality assessment (DQA) is the statistical analysis of environmental data, to determine whether 

the quality of data is adequate to support the decisions which are based on the DQOs. Data are 

appropriate if the level of uncertainty in a decision, based on the data, is acceptable. The DQA process is 

described in detail in the guidance document: Data Quality Assessment: A Reviewers Guide (EPA QA/G9R), in Section 18 and is summarized below. 

1) Review the data quality objectives (DQOs) and sampling design of the program: review the DQO 

and develop one, if it has not already been done. Define statistical hypothesis, tolerance limits, 

and/or confidence intervals. 

2) Conduct preliminary data review: Review QA data and other available QA reports, calculate 

summary statistics, and develop plots/graphs. Look for patterns, relationships, or anomalies. 

3) Select the statistical test: select the best test for analysis based on the preliminary review, and 

identify underlying assumptions about the data for that test. 

4) Verify test assumptions: decide whether the underlying assumptions made by the selected test hold 

true for the data and the consequences. 

5) Perform the statistical test: perform test and document inferences. Evaluate the performance for 

future use. 

EPA QA/G-9S, a companion document to EPA QA/G-9R, provides many appropriate statistical tests. 

Both can be found on the EPA Quality Staffs Website13. 

OAQPS plans on performing data quality assessments for the pollutants of the Ambient Air Quality 

Monitoring Network at a yearly frequency for data reports and at a 3-year frequency for more 

interpretative reports. Currently EPA produces annual box and whisker plots of the gaseous pollutants 

titled: Criteria Pollutant Quality Indicator Summary Report that are posted on AMTIC14 and develops 3-

year QA reports for PM2.5

15. As more QA data becomes accessible and improvements are made in 

reporting and assessment technologies, EPA hopes to develop a library of reports that users can run at 

more frequent intervals. Monitoring organizations are encouraged to implement data quality assessments 

for their data. 

Data not meeting DQOs does not necessarily invalidate this data but it means that those using the 

information for NAAQS decisions or for other objectives have a higher probability of making an incorrect 

decision (declaring an area attainment when it should in truth be non-attainment or declaring an area nonattainment when in truth it is in attainment). These types of errors can have serious financial and health 

risk consequences and monitoring organizations not meeting DQOs should make every effort to discover 

the reasons for the measurement uncertainties in their monitoring networks. EPA Regions or the 

monitoring organization QA staff may want to revise TSA schedules based on the results from data 

quality assessment. 

 

13 http://www.epa.gov/quality1/ 14 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/qareport.html 15 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/anlqa.html 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 16.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 1 of 4 

16.0 Reports to Management

This section provides guidance and suggestions to air monitoring organizations on how to report the 

quality of the aerometric data, and how to convey information and requests for assistance concerning 

quality control and quality assurance problems. The guidance offered here is primarily intended for 

PQAOs that provide data to one or more of these national networks: 

 SLAMS (State and Local Air Monitoring Stations) 

 Tribal Monitoring Stations 

 PAMS (Photochemical Air Monitoring Stations) 

 PSD (Prevention of Significant Deterioration stations) 

 NCore (National Core Monitoring Network) 

 Chemical Speciation Network 

 NATTS (National Air Toxic Trend Stations) 

This guidance may also be useful in preparing reports that summarize data quality of other pollutant 

measurements such as those made at Special Purpose Monitoring Stations (SPMS) and state-specific 

programs. 

Several kinds of reports can be prepared. The size and frequency of the reports will depend on the 

information requested or to be conveyed. A brief, corrective action form or letter-style report might ask 

for attention to an urgent problem. On the other hand, an annual quality assurance report to management 

would be a much larger report containing sections such as: 

 executive summary, 

 network background and present status, 

 quality objectives for measurement data, 

 quality assurance procedures, 

 results of quality assurance activities, 

 recommendations for further quality assurance work, and 

 suggestions for improving performance that include items such as fixing equipment problems, 

personnel training need, and infrastructure improvements 

A report to management should not solely consist of tabulations of analyzer-by-analyzer precision and 

bias check results for criteria pollutants. This information is required to be submitted with the data each 

quarter and is thus already available to management through AQS. Instead, the annual quality assurance 

report to management should summarize and discuss the results of such checks. These summaries from 

individual PQAOs can be incorporated into additional reports issued by the state, local, tribal and/or the 

EPA Regional Office. 

This section also provides general information for the preparation of reports to management and includes: 

 the types of reports that might be prepared, the general content of each type of report, and a 

suggested frequency for their preparation, 

 sources of information that can be tapped to retrieve information for the reports, and 

 techniques and methods for concise and effective presentation of information. 

Appendix I presents examples of two types of reports to management; the annual quality assurance report 

to management and a corrective action request. 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 16.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 2 of 4

16.1 Guidelines for Preparation of Reports to Management

16.1.1 Types of QA Reports to Management

Listed in Table 16-1 are examples of typical QA reports to management. An individual reporting 

organization may have others to add to the list or may create reports that are combinations of those listed 

below. 

Table 16-1 Types of QA Reports to Management

Type of QA Report 

to Management Contents

Suggested Reporting Frequency

As 

required Week Month Quarter Year

Corrective action 

request 

Description of problem; recommended 

action required; feedback on resolution 

of problem. 

x 

Control chart with 

summary 

Repetitive field or lab activity; control 

limits versus time. Prepare monthly or 

whenever new check or calibration 

samples are used. 

x x x x 

National Performance 

Evaluation Program 

results 

Summary of PEP,NPAP, NATTS PT 

and CSN audit results. x x 

State and local 

organization 

performance audits 

Summary of audit results; 

recommendations for action, as needed. x x 

Technical systems 

audits 

Summary of system audit results; 

recommendations for action, as needed. x x 

Quality assurance 

report to management 

Executive summary. Precision, bias, and 

system and performance audit results. x x 

Network reviews (by 

EPA Regional 

Office) 

Review results and suggestions for 

actions, as needed. x 

16.1.2 Sources of Information

Information for inclusion in the various reports to management may come from a variety of sources 

including: records of precision and bias checks (AMP255 reports), results of systems and performance 

audits, laboratory and field instrument maintenance logbooks, and NPAP audits. Table 16-2 lists useful 

sources and the type of information expected to be found. 

Table 16-2 Sources of Information for Preparing Reports to Management

Information Source Expected Information and Usefulness Location 

State implementation plan Types of monitors, locations, and sampling 

schedule. 

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair

/sipstatus/overview.html 

Annual Network Plans Provides for locations of networks and 

objectives of monitoring sites. 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/plans.ht

ml 

Quality management plans and 

quality assurance project plans 

Data quality indicators and goals for 

precision, bias, completeness, timeliness. 

On file at monitoring organization and 

in most cases EPA Regional Offices. 

Quality objectives for measurement 

data document 

Quality objectives for measurement data. 

Audit procedures and frequency. 

Most criteria pollutants posted in CFR. 

Some under criteria pollutant QA site. 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/qapolluta

nt.html 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 16.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 3 of 4

Information Source Expected Information and Usefulness Location 

Laboratory and field instrument 

maintenance logbooks 

Record of maintenance activity, synopsis of 

failures, recommendations for equipment 

overhaul or replacement. 

Internal monitoring organization 

documents 

Laboratory weighing room records 

of temperature, humidity 

A record of whether or not environmental 

control in the weighing room is adequate to 

meet goals. 

Internal monitoring organization 

documents 

Audit results (NPAP, local, etc.) Results of audit tests on ambient air 

pollutant measurement devices. 

AQS data base 

Quality control data on local 

information management systems or 

AQS 

Results are generally considered valid and 

can be used to determine achievement of 

data quality objectives. 

AQS data base 

16.1.3 Methods of Presenting Information

Reports to management are most effective when the information is given in a succinct, well-summarized 

fashion. Methods useful for distilling and presenting information in ways that are easy to comprehend are 

listed in Table 16-3. A 2008 Guidance Document, designed to assist Tribes in developing monitoring 

programs contains an expanded section (Section 7) that discusses many of the statistical techniques 

described in Table 16-31

. Several of these methods are available on-line in AirData2; others are available 

in commercially available statistical and spreadsheet computer programs. 

Table 16-3 Presentation Methods for Use in Reports to Management

Presentation Method Typical Use Examples

Written text Description of results and responses to 

problems 

Appendix I 

Control chart Shows whether a repetitive process stays 

within QC limits. 

Figure 10.4 of this Handbook 

Black box report Visually highlights information by color 

coding boxes to indicate where project 

goals, DQOs, etc were/were not met 

Executive Summary of Appendix I. 

Three year PM2.5 QA Reports on 

AMTIC 

Bar charts Shows relationships between numerical 

values. 

Included in most graphic and 

spreadsheet programs

X Y (scatter) charts Shows relationships between two variables. Included in most graphic and 

spreadsheet programs 

Probability limit charts and box and 

whisker plots 

Show a numerical value with its associated 

precision range. 

Figure 1 of Appendix I

16.1.4 Annual Quality Assurance Report

The annual quality assurance report (an example is provided in Appendix I) should consist of a number of 

sections that describe the quality objectives for measurement data and how those objectives have been 

met. A suggested organization might include: 

Executive Summary of Report to Management - The executive summary should be a short section 

(typically one or two pages) that summarizes the annual quality assurance report to management. It 

should contain a checklist graphic that lets the reader know how the reporting organization has met 

its goals for the report period. In addition, a short discussion of future needs and plans should be 

included. 

 

1

 Technical Guidance for the Development of Tribal Monitoring Programs 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/techguidancetribalattch.pdf 2

 http://www.epa.gov/airdata/ 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 16.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 4 of 4

Introduction - This section describes the quality objectives for measurement data and serves as an 

overview of the reporting organization’s structure and functions. It also briefly describes the 

procedures used by the reporting organization to assess the quality of field and laboratory 

measurements. 

Quality Information for each Ambient Air Pollutant Monitoring Program - These sections are 

organized by ambient air pollutant category (e.g., gaseous criteria pollutants, air toxics). Each 

section includes the following topics: 

 program overview and update 

 quality objectives for measurement data 

 data quality assessment 

16.1.5 Corrective Action Request

A corrective action request should be made whenever anyone in the monitoring organization notes a 

problem that demands either immediate or long-term action to correct a safety defect, or an operational 

problem (either instrument malfunctions or procedural errors). A typical corrective action request form, 

with example information entered, is shown in Appendix I. A separate form should be used for each 

problem identified. 

The corrective action report form is designed as a closed-loop system. First it identifies the originator; the 

person who reports and identifies the problem, states the problem and may suggest a solution. The form 

then directs the request to a specific person or persons (i.e., the recipient), who would be best qualified to 

“fix” the problem. Finally, the form closes the loop by requiring that the recipient state how the problem 

was resolved and the effectiveness of the solution. The form is signed and a copy is returned to the 

originator and other copies are sent to the supervisor and the applicable files for the record. The concepts 

of the corrective action requests and form apply to either hardcopy or electronic processing of this 

information. Laboratory/monitoring organization information management systems may be capable of 

implementing this process. 
 QA Handbook Vol II, Section 17.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 1 of 10

17.0 Data Review, Verification and Validation 

Data review, verification and validation are techniques used to accept, reject or qualify data in an 

objective and consistent manner. Verification can be defined as confirmation, through provision of 

objective evidence that specified requirements have been fulfilled1

. Validation can be defined as 

confirmation through provision of objective evidence that the particular requirements for a specific 

intended use are fulfilled. So, for example one could verify that for a monitor all 1-point QC were 

performed every two weeks (specified requirement) as described in standard operating procedures 

(specified requirement). However, if the checks were higher than expected, the validation process might 

determine that the data could not be used for NAAQS determinations (intended use). It is important to 

describe the criteria for deciding the degree to which each data item has met its quality specifications as 

described in an organization’s QAPP. This section will describe the techniques used to make these 

assessments. 

In general, these assessment activities are performed by persons implementing the environmental data 

operations as well as by personnel “independent” of the operation, such as the organization’s QA 

personnel, and at some specified frequency. The procedures, personnel and frequency of the assessments 

should be included in an organization’s QAPP. These activities should occur prior to submitting data to 

AQS and prior to final data quality assessments that will be discussed in Section 18. 

Each of the following areas of discussion described below should be considered during the data 

review/verification/validation processes. Some of the discussion applies to situations in which a sample 

is collected and transported to a laboratory for analysis and data generation; others are applicable to 

automated instruments. The following information is an excerpt from EPA G-52

: 

Sampling Design - How closely a measurement represents the actual environment at a given time and 

location is a complex issue that is considered during development of the sampling design. Each sample 

should be checked for conformity to the specifications. By noting the deviations in sufficient detail, 

subsequent data users will be able to determine the data’s usability under scenarios different from those 

included in project planning. Deviations should be noted on sample documentation (i.e., chain of custody 

forms, field data forms or log books) in a manner conducive to subsequent data entry. For example, 

development of a detailed set of data qualifiers (flags) makes data aggregation and assessment in 

information management systems much easier, can help identify how often a qualifier is used and whether 

the identified deviation has an effect on data quality. 

Sample Collection Procedures- Details of how a sample is collected are important for properly 

interpreting the measurement results. Sampling methods and field SOPs provide these details, which 

include sampling and ancillary equipment and procedures (including equipment decontamination). 

Acceptable departures (for example, alternate equipment) from the QAPP, and the action to be taken if 

the requirements cannot be satisfied, should be specified for each critical criterion. Validation activities 

should note potentially unacceptable departures from the QAPP. Comments or findings on deviations 

from written sampling plans made during field technical systems audits or reviews should be noted. 

Sample Handling- Details of how a sample is physically treated and handled during transportation to and 

from the field site, through all laboratory handling stages prior to final analysis/reporting, are extremely 

 

1

 American National Standard Quality Systems of Environmental Data and Technology Programs ANSI/ASQ E4-

2004 http://ansi.org/ 2

 EPA Guidance to Quality Assurance Project Plans http://www.epa.gov/quality1/qs-docs/g5-final.pdf 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 17.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 2 of 10

important. Correct interpretation of the subsequent measurement results requires that deviations from the 

sample handling section of the QAPP/SOPs, and the actions taken to minimize or control the changes, be 

detailed. Data collection SOPs should indicate events that occur during sample handling that may affect 

the integrity of the samples. At a minimum, those responsible for reviewing/verifying/validating should 

confirm that the appropriate sample containers and the preservation methods are appropriate to the nature 

of the sample and the type of data generated from the sample. Checks on the identity of the sample (e.g., 

proper labeling and chain of custody records) as well as proper physical/chemical storage conditions (e.g., 

chain of custody and storage records) should be made to ensure that the sample continues to be 

representative of its native environment as it moves through the analytical process. 

Analytical Procedures- Each sample should be verified to ensure that the procedures used to generate 

the data were implemented as specified. Acceptance criteria should be developed for important 

components of the procedures, along with suitable codes (qualifiers) for characterizing each sample's 

deviation from the procedure. Data validation activities should determine how seriously a sample 

deviated beyond the acceptable limit so that the potential effects of the deviation can be evaluated during 

the DQA. 

Quality Control- The quality control section of the QAPP specifies the QC checks that are to be 

performed during sample collection, handling and analysis. These include analyses of check standards, 

blanks and replicates, which provide indications of the quality of data being produced by specified 

components of the measurement process. For each specified QC check, the procedure, acceptance 

criteria, and corrective action (and changes) should be specified. Data validation should document the 

corrective actions that were taken, which samples were affected, and the potential effect of the actions on 

the validity of the data. 

Calibration- Calibration of instruments and equipment and the information that should be presented to 

ensure that the calibrations: 

 were performed before sampling began and at frequencies specified in the QAPP 

 were performed in the proper sequence (i.e., there may be a sequence of checks or other 

implementation activities that must take place prior to calibration) 

 included the proper number of calibration points 

 were performed using standards that “bracketed” the range of reported measurement results 

otherwise, results falling outside the calibration range should be flagged as such 

 had acceptable linearity checks and other checks to ensure that the measurement system was 

stable when the calibration was performed 

When calibration checks are found to be outside the acceptable limits proscribed in the QAPP, raw data 

sampled between this calibration and the previous calibrations should be handled as described in the 

QAPP. This could involve use of data flagging techniques for subsequent data evaluation. 

Data Reduction and Processing- Data reduction/processing may be an irreversible process that involves 

a loss of detail in the data and may involve averaging across time (i.e., 5-minute, hourly or daily averages) 

or space (i.e., example, compositing results from samples thought to be physically equivalent). Since this 

summarizing process produces few values to represent a group of many data points, its validity should be 

well-documented in the QAPP. One can take a subset of raw data and perform the data reduction process 

by hand to verify the reduction/processing techniques are performing as required in the QAPP and SOPs. 

The information generation step involves the synthesis of the results of previous operations and the 
 QA Handbook Vol II, Section 17.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 3 of 10

construction of tables and charts suitable for use in reports. In many cases these types of reports are 

generated on a frequent basis. A process should be developed that verifies that the reports are being 

properly generated. This can include hand generating a subset of the report and reviewing and verifying 

the programming code used to generate the reports. 

17.1 Data Review Methods

The flow of data from the field environmental data operations to the storage in the database requires 

several distinct and separate steps: 

 initial selection of hardware and software for the acquisition, storage, retrieval and transmittal of 

data 

 organization and the control of the data flow from the field sites and the analytical laboratory 

 input and validation of the data 

 manipulation, analysis and archival of the data 

 submittal of the data into the EPA’s AQS database. 

More details of information management systems are included in Section 14. Both manual and computeroriented systems require individual reviews of all data tabulations. As an individual scans tabulations, 

there is no way to determine that all values are valid. The purpose of manual inspection is to spot 

unusually high (or low) values (outliers) that might indicate a gross error in the data collection system. 

Manual review of data tabulations also allows detection of uncorrected drift in the zero baseline of a 

continuous sensor. Zero drift may be indicated when the daily minimum concentration tends to increase 

or decrease from the norm over a period of several days. For example, at most sampling stations the early 

morning (3:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m.) concentrations of carbon monoxide tend to reach a minimum (e.g., 2 to 4 

ppm). If the minimum concentration differs significantly from this, a zero drift may be suspected. Zero 

drift could be confirmed by review of zero control chart information. 

In an automated data processing system, procedures for data validation can easily be incorporated into the 

basic software. The computer can be programmed to scan data values for extreme values, outliers or 

ranges. These checks can be further refined to account for time of day, time of week, and other cyclic 

conditions. Questionable data values are then flagged to indicate a possible error. Other types of data 

review can consist of preliminary evaluations of a set of data, calculating some basic statistical quantiles 

and examining the data using graphical representations. 

DAS Data Review 

The data review is an ongoing process that is performed by the station operators (SO) and the data 

processing team (DP). At a minimum a cursory review is performed daily, preferably in the morning to 

provide a status of the data and instrument performance at monitoring sites. Detailed analysis can be 

extremely difficult for the data processing team when reviewing the raw data without the notations, notes 

and calibration information that the station operators provide for the group. The typical review process 

for the station operator and data reviewer(s) include: 

 (SO) Review of zero, span, one point QC verification information, the hourly data, and any flags 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 17.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 4 of 10

that could effect data and record any information on the daily summaries that might be vital to 

proper review of the data. 

 (SO) Transfer strip charts both analog and digital information, daily summaries, monthly 

maintenance sheets, graphic displays of meta data and site log notes to the central location for a 

secondary and more thorough review. 

 (SO) At the central location, review the data, marking any notations of invalidations and provide 

electronic strip charts, meta data charts, daily summaries, site notes, and monthly maintenance 

sheets for ready access by the data processing staff. 

 (DP) Review zero, span and one point QC verifications, station notes, and monthly maintenance 

sheets for the month. Compare a defined number of hand reduced and/or strip chart readings to 

electronic data points generated by the DAS. If significant differences are observed, determine 

what corrective action is required. 

Outliers 

Outliers are “measurements that are extremely large or small relative to the rest of the data and are 

suspected of misrepresenting the population from which they were collected” (EPAQA/G9R)3

. When 

reviewing data, some potential outliers will be obvious such as, spikes in concentrations, data remaining 

the same for hours, or a sudden drop in concentration but still in the normal range of observed data. Many 

of these outlier checks can be automated and provide efficient real-time checks of data. Outliers do not 

necessarily indicate the data is invalid; they serve to alert the station operator and/or data reviewers there 

may be a problem. In fact, the rule of thumb for outliers should be that the data be considered valid until 

there is an explanation for why the data should be invalidated. At some point it may be necessary to 

exclude outliers from instantaneous reporting to the AIRNow network and/or AQI reporting until further 

investigation has occurred. EPA Guidance Documents4 Guidance on Environmental Data Verification 

and Validation (EPA QA/G8) and Guidance for Data Quality Assessment – a Reviewers Guide (EPA 

QA/G9R) provide insight on outlier and data reviews in general. 

In order to recognize that the reported concentration of a given pollutant is extreme, the individual must 

have basic knowledge of the major pollutants and of air quality conditions prevalent at the reporting 

station. Data values considered questionable should be flagged for verification. This scanning for 

high/low values is sensitive to spurious extreme values but not to intermediate values that could also be 

grossly in error. If possible, use of statistical techniques to identify data anomalies and outliers are 

encouraged since they provide a more consistent evaluation. Some of these techniques and checks may 

be incorporated into data logging systems and well as main office information management systems. 

NOTE: During submission of data to AQS a number of outlier (see outlier information below) 

and gap checks are performed. The AQS website has documents describing these checks. 

When an outlier is observed, a warning is generated and sent to the monitoring organization. 

Monitoring organizations may ignore this warning and submit the data. However, it is 

suggested that the data being reviewed. If the data is valid, a “V” qualifier can be added to the 

data indicating the validity of the value. During automated annual data certification, any outlier 

that does not have a “V” flag will be identified and will require the monitoring organizations to 

review the data and either invalidate the data point or add a “V” qualifier. Therefore, EPA 

 

3 http://www.epa.gov/quality1/qs-docs/g9r-final.pdf 4 http://www.epa.gov/quality1/qa_docs.html 
 QA Handbook Vol II, Section 17.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 5 of 10

suggests that it is better to review and validate outliers during initial reporting rather than delay 

the certification process. 

17.2 Data Verification Methods

Verification can be defined as confirmation, through provision of objective evidence that specified 

requirements have been fulfilled5

. The verification requirements for each data operation are included in 

the organizations’ QAPP and in SOPs and should include not only the verification of sampling and 

analysis processes but also operations like data entry, calculations and data reporting. The data 

verification process involves the inspection, analysis, and acceptance of the field data or samples. These 

inspections can take the form of technical systems audits (internal or external) or frequent inspections by 

field operators and lab technicians. Questions that might be asked during the verification process include 

but are not limited to: 

 

5 http://www.epa.gov/quality/qa_docs.html Guidance on Environmental Data Verification and Data Validation 

(QA/G-8) 

 Were the environmental data operations performed according to the SOPs governing those 

operations? 

 Were the environmental data operations performed on the correct time and date originally 

specified? Many environmental operations must be performed within a specific time frame; for 

example, the NAAQS samples for some particulates are collected once every six days from 

midnight to midnight. The monitor timing mechanisms must have operated correctly for the 

sample to be collected within the time frame specified. 

 Did the sampler or monitor perform correctly? Individual checks such as leak checks, flow 

checks, meteorological influences, and all other assessments, audits, and performance checks 

must have been acceptably performed and documented. 

 Did the environmental sample pass an initial visual inspection? Many environmental samples can 

be flagged (qualified) during the initial visual inspection. 

 Have manual calculations, manual data entry, or human adjustments to software settings been 

checked? Automated calculations should be verified and accepted prior to use, but at some 

frequencies these calculations should be reviewed to ensure that they have not changed. 

17.3 Data Validation Methods

Data validation is a routine process designed to ensure that reported values meet the quality goals 

of the environmental data operations. Data validation is further defined as examination and 

provision of objective evidence that the particular requirements for a specific intended use are 

fulfilled. A progressive, systematic approach to data validation must be used to ensure and assess 

the quality of data. Effective data validation procedures usually are handled completely 

independently from the procedures of initial data collection. 

Because the computer can perform computations and make comparisons extremely rapidly, it can 

also make some determination concerning the validity of data values that are not necessarily high 

or low. Data validation SOPs are needed to ensure the validation process is consistently followed 

within a monitoring organization. For example, one can evaluate the difference between 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 17.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 6 of 10

successive data values, since one would not normally expect very rapid changes in concentrations 

of a pollutant during a 5-min or 1-h reporting period. When the difference between two 

successive values exceeds a predetermined value, the tabulation can be flagged, with an 

appropriate symbol. 

Quality control data can support data validation procedures (see section 17.3.3). If data 

assessment results clearly indicate a serious response problem with the analyzer, the agency 

should review all pertinent quality control information to determine whether any ambient data, as 

well as any associated assessment data, should be invalidated. Therefore, if ambient data are 

determined to be invalid, the associated precision, bias and accuracy readings related to the 

routine data should not be reported to AQS6

. Section 17.3.4 provides additional guidance on how 

to handle QC data when routine data are invalidated. Any data quality calculations using the 

invalidated readings should be redone. Also, the precision, bias or accuracy checks should be 

rescheduled, preferably in the same calendar quarter. The basis or justification for all data 

invalidations should be permanently documented. 

Measurement quality objectives, based upon requirements in CFR, QAPPs and SOPs, in 

combination with field and laboratory technical expertise, may be used to invalidate a sample or 

measurement. Many organizations use flags or result qualifiers to identify potential problems 

with data or a sample. Flags can indicate the reason that a data value (a) did not produce a 

numeric result, (b) produced a numeric result but it is qualified in some respect relating to the 

type or validity of the result, or (c) produced a numeric result but for administrative reasons is not 

to be reported outside the organization. Flags can be used both in the field and in the laboratory 

to signify data that may be suspect due to contamination, special events or failure of QC limits. 

Flags can be used to determine if individual samples (data), or samples from a particular 

instrument, will be invalidated. In all cases, the sample (data) should be thoroughly reviewed by 

the organization and invalidated only for cause (i.e. objective evidence can be found that it does 

not fulfill the requirements for its intended use). 

Flags may be used alone or in combination to invalidate samples. Since the possible flag 

combinations can be overwhelming and can not always be anticipated, an organization needs to 

review these flag combinations and determine if single values or values from a site for a 

particular time period will be invalidated. The organization should keep a record of the 

combination of flags that resulted in invalidating a sample or set of samples. These combinations 

can be used to ensure that the organization evaluates and invalidates data in a consistent manner 

and should be documented in the QAPP and updated as needed. 

Procedures for screening data for possible errors or anomalies should also be implemented. The 

data quality assessment document series (EPA QA/G-9R7

, EPA QA/G-9s8) provide several 

statistical screening procedures for ambient air quality data that should be applied to identify data 

outliers. 

 

6

 See QA EYE Newsletter Issue #13 Page 6 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/qa/qanews13.pdf 7

Data Quality Assessment: A Reviewer’s Guide http://www.epa.gov/quality1/qs-docs/g9r-final.pdf

8 Data Quality Assessment: Statistical Methods for Practitioners http://www.epa.gov/quality1/qs-docs/g9s-final.pdf
 QA Handbook Vol II, Section 17.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 7 of 10

NOTE: it is strongly suggested that flags, specifically the appropriate null data code flags, 

replace any routine values that are invalidated when reporting data to AQS. This provides an 

indication to data users/ assessors to the reasons why data that was expected to be collected 

was missing. The actual data values and associated flags should remain in the monitoring 

organizations local database. 

17.3.1 Automated Methods

When zero, span or one-point QC checks exceed acceptance limits, ambient measurements should 

be invalidated back to the most recent point in time where such measurements are known to be 

valid. Usually this point is the previous check, unless some other point in time can be identified 

and related to the probable cause of the excessive drift or exceedance (such as a power failure or 

malfunction). Also, data following an analyzer malfunction or period of non-operation should be 

regarded as invalid until the next subsequent acceptable check or calibration. Based on the 

sophistication of DAS (see Section 14) monitoring organizations may have other automated 

programs for data validation. These programs should be described in the monitoring 

organization’s approved QAPP prior to implementation. Even though the automated technique 

may be considered acceptable, the raw invalidated data should be archived based on the statute of 

limitations discussed in Section 5.

17.3.2 Manual Methods

For manual methods, the first level of data validation should be to accept or reject monitoring 

data based upon results from operational checks selected to monitor the critical parameters in all 

three major and distinct phases of manual methods--sampling, analysis, and data reduction. In 

addition to using operational checks for data validation, observe all limitations, acceptance limits, 

and warnings described in the reference and equivalent methods per se that may invalidate data. It 

is further recommended that results from national performance evaluations required in 40 CFR 

58, Appendix A not be used as the sole criteria for data invalidation because these checks are 

performed fairly infrequently, not at every site and would result in a significant invalidation of 

data depending on how the information was used. The performance evaluations are used to 

provide an assessment of data comparability and bias at the PQAO level rather than an evaluation 

of a particular monitor. So although a performance evaluation result might lead to a question 

about the data quality of a particular monitor it is expected that other quality control data would 

also be used in the data validation process. 

17.3.3 Validation Templates 

In June 1998, a workgroup was formed to develop a procedure that could be used by monitoring 

organizations that would provide for a consistent validation of PM2.5 mass concentrations across 

the US. The Workgroup developed three tables of criteria where each table has a different degree 

of implication about the quality of the data. The criteria included on the tables are from 40 CFR 

Part 50, Appendices L and N, 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix A, Method 2.12, and a few criteria that 

are neither in CFR nor Method 2.12. 

One of the tables has the criteria that must be met to ensure the quality of the data. An example 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 17.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 8 of 10

criterion is that the average flow rate for the sampling period must be maintained to within 5% of 

16.67 liters per minute. The second table has the criteria that indicate that there might be a 

problem with the quality of the data and further investigation is warranted before making a 

determination about the validity of the sample or samples. An example criterion is that the field 

filter blanks should not change weight by more than 30μg between weighings. The third table 

has criteria that indicate a potentially systematic problem with the environmental data collection 

activity. Such systematic problems may impact the ability to make decisions with the data. An 

example criterion is that at least 75% of the scheduled samples for each quarter should be 

successfully collected and validated. 

To determine the appropriate table for each criterion, the members of the workgroup considered 

how significantly the criteria impact the resulting PM2.5 mass. This was based on experience 

from workgroup members, experience from non-workgroup members, and feasibility of 

implementing the criterion. 

Criteria that were deemed critical to maintaining the integrity of a sample or group of samples 

were placed on the first table. Observations that do not meet each and every criterion on the 

Critical Criteria Table should be invalidated unless there are compelling reason and justification 

for not doing so. Basically, the sample or group of samples for which one or more of these 

criteria are not met is invalid until proven otherwise. The cause of not operating in the acceptable 

range for each of the violated criteria must be investigated and minimized to reduce the likelihood 

that additional samples will be invalidated. 

Criteria that are important for maintaining and evaluating the quality of the data collection system 

are included on the second table, the Operational Criteria Table. Violation of a criterion or a 

number of criteria may be cause for invalidation. The decision should consider other quality 

control information that may or may not indicate the data are acceptable for the parameter being 

controlled. Therefore, the sample or group of samples for which one or more of these criteria are 

not met is suspect unless other quality control information demonstrates otherwise. The reason 

for not meeting the criteria MUST be investigated, mitigated or justified. 

Finally, those criteria which are important for the correct interpretation of the data but do not 

usually impact the validity of a sample or group of samples are included on the third table, the 

Systematic Criteria Table. For example, the data quality objectives are included in this table. If 

the data quality objectives are not met, this does not invalidate any of the samples but it may 

impact the error rate associated with the attainment/non-attainment decision. 

NOTE: the designation Operational or Systematic do not imply that these quality 

control checks need not be performed. If an operational or systematic quality control 

check that is required by regulation is not performed it can be a basis for invalidation of all 

associated data. 

Based on the success and use of the PM2.5 validation template, the Workgroup embarked on the 

development of similar templates for the remaining criteria pollutants. Appendix D provides 

templates for each criteria pollutant. The validation templates are based on the current state of 

knowledge at the time of development of the Handbook. However, the templates will also be 
 QA Handbook Vol II, Section 17.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 9 of 10

placed as a standalone document on AMTIC9. The user is directed to AMTIC to determine if any 

changes have occurred to the template after the date of the Handbook revision. A table will be 

updated with any changes occurring after the date of this Handbook

The template will evolve as new information is discovered about the impact of the various 

criterion on the error in the resulting concentration estimate. Interactions of the criteria, whether 

synergistic or antagonistic, should also be incorporated when the impact of these interactions 

becomes quantified. Due to the potential misuse of invalid data, data that are invalidated should 

not be uploaded to AQS but should be retained on the monitoring organizations local database. 

This data will be invaluable to the evolution of the validation template. 

NOTE: Strict adherence to the validation templates is not required. They are meant to be a 

guide based upon the knowledge of the Workgroup who developed them and may be a 

starting point for monitoring organization specific validation requirement. 

 

17.3.4 Reporting QC Data Relative to Data Validation 

The intent of the QC data that are reported to the AQS is to provide an estimate of precision and 

bias of the routine data collected during a particular time period. For example the 1-point QC 

check is performed minimally every two weeks for the gaseous pollutants and so the data from 

the check represents that the monitor was within acceptance specifications for that time period. 

Upon failure of the QC checks and subsequent invalidation of the data (should that occur) it is 

expected that null value codes would replace the routine data and the QC check would not be 

reported to AQS. Since the routine data would not be available it would not be appropriate to 

provide a QC value that would be used in overall estimates of precision and bias of that site. The 

estimate of precision and bias for that site should represent the valid routine data being reported 

for the site. 

It is suggested that only those QC checks that are performed on each monitor/sampler are subject 

to removal and only for the checks within the same time period that the routine data were 

invalidated. As an example, if the Annual PE for ozone was performed in April, 2012 and the 

ozone data for Dec, 2012 were invalidated, the April, 2012 PE could remain in AQS and only the 

1-point QC checks for Dec. would be removed. Not all Appendix A checks fit nicely into this 

paradigm. For example: 

Collocated data- since they represent a PQAO and not an individual site it becomes more of a 

dilemma. However if routine data from a collocated site were invalidated due to a finding based 

on imprecision of the collocated data then one would not want to have these data represent the 

other sites in the PQAO. 

 

9 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/qalist.html 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 17.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 10 of 10

NPAP and PEP data - Similar to the collocated data, this data represents the PQAO and is not 

often used to invalidate data. However, there are cases where NPAP data have been used in 

concert with other data quality information that led to the invalidation routine data and in that 

case it would not be appropriate to report the NPAP results to AQS. 

Other concerns might arise in connection with the annual PEs, or audits mentioned above. 

Consistent with many agencies’ Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs), data will not be 

invalidated on the basis of an audit alone. Many agencies will verify, such as by independent 

tests, the results of a “failed” audit. It might not be practical in all cases to verify an audit result, 

immediately recalibrate the “failed” channel and schedule a second audit following the 

recalibration. Accordingly, excluding the audit result that discovered a problem in the first place 

could cause the responsible agency either to incur additional audit costs or, alternatively, be 

“penalized” for appearing to fail to meet the required number of audits. Many agencies would be 

concerned about having a less than complete audit count appear in the AMP255 at the time of 

annual data certification. 

As suggested above, monitoring agencies should keep in mind the objective of reporting the 

results of QA and QC checks to AQS; representing the precision and bias of the reported raw 

data. The analysts who report these data should be mindful that precision and bias calculations 

can apply at the monitor level or at the PQAO level. Often, a result that falls outside criteria 

indicates an out-of-control situation that is subsequently corrected such as by invalidating data 

and recalibrating. Under other circumstances, after-the-fact review of QC checks with poor, but 

“passing,” results might reveal a trend consistent with a problem that was only discovered by 

some other means. 

Because of concerns such as these, it is important to consider these recommendations in the 

context of corrective action. It is recommended that QAPPs include wording that addresses when 

to retain and when to exclude QA and QC data from AQS and when to conduct replacement 

QA/QC checks. However, it is impossible to foresee every circumstance that might lead to a poor 

QA/QC result and, in some cases, it might not be obvious whether to report or exclude a result. In 

these cases decisions may fall to the responsible QA officers or managers. Discussions between 

the EPA Region and monitoring organizations might also need to occur to determine the best 

course of action. 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 18.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 1 of 11 

18.0 Reconciliation with Data Quality Objectives

Section 3 described the data quality objective (DQO) process, which is an important planning tool to 

determine the objectives of an environmental data operation, to understand and agree upon the allowable 

uncertainty in the data and, with that, to optimize the sampling design. This information, along with 

sampling and analytical methods and appropriate QA/QC, should be documented in an organization’s 

QAPP. The QAPP is then implemented by the monitoring organizations under the premise that if it is 

followed, the DQOs should be met. Reconciliation with the DQO involves reviewing both routine and 

QA/QC data to determine whether the DQOs have been attained and that the data are adequate for their 

intended use. This process of evaluating the data against the DQOs has been termed data quality 

assessment (DQA). 

The DQA process has been developed for cases where formal DQOs have been established. These 

procedures can also be used for data that do not formal DQOs but some idea of the decisions that will be 

made with the data are needed. Guidance on the DQA process can be found in the documents titled Data 

Quality Assessment: A Reviewer’s Guide (EPA QA/G-9R)1 It has a companion document Data Quality 

Assessment: Statistical Tools for Practitioners (EPA QA/G-9S)

2

 that focuses on evaluating data for 

fitness in decision-making and also provides many graphical and statistical tools. 

As stated in EPA QA/G-9R “Data quality, as a concept, is meaningful only when it relates to the intended 

use of the data”. By using the DQA Process, one can answer four fundamental questions: 

1. Can the decision (or estimate) be made with the desired level of certainty, given the quality of the 

data set? 

2. How well did the sampling design perform? 

3. If the same sampling design strategy is used again for a similar study, would the data be expected 

to support the same intended use with the desired level of uncertainty? 

4. Is it likely that sufficient samples were taken to enable the reviewer to see an effect if it was 

really present? 

The DQA is a key part of the assessment phase of the data life cycle (Figure 18.1), which is very similar 

to the ambient air QA life cycle described in Section 1. As the part of the assessment phase that follows 

data validation and verification, DQA determines how well the validated data can support their intended 

use. 

It is realized that some monitoring organizations may not have the statistical support available to use the 

formal DQA process described below. The information below is intended to provide a good example of 

the steps that would be followed for a formal DQA for those capable and interested in the approach. EPA, 

through the development of the criteria pollutant DQOs and the assessments it produces through 3-year 

QA reports, AQS AMP reports, and annual box and whisker plots attempts to provide information to 

assist monitoring organizations in their data quality assessments. In addition, there are many software 

packages available that can generate the statistics mentioned in the following DQA steps and there are a 

number of internet sites that can be searched to inform one how to use these statistics. Some additional 

guidance will be provided after the five step process that can be used to help evaluate data. 

 

1 http://www.epa.gov/quality1/qs-docs/g9r-final.pdf

2 http://www.epa.gov/quality1/qs-docs/g9s-final.pdf 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 18.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 5/13 

Page 2 of 11 

18.1 Five Steps of the DQA Process

As described in EPA QA/G-9R1

 and EPA QA/G-9S2, the DQA process is comprised of five steps. The 

steps are detailed below. Since DQOs are available for the PM2.5 program, they will be used as an 

example for the type of information that might be considered in each step. The PM2.5 information is 

italicized and comes from a model PM2.5 QAPP3

 for a fictitious PQAO called Palookaville. The model 

QAPP was developed to help monitoring organizations develop QAPPs based upon the R-5 QAPP 

requirements. Most of the information that follows will be provided verbatim from the Model QAPP. 

However, notes will be added where updates, relative to the date of this Handbook, are needed. 

The DQA discussed below is based on a 3 year assessment. The PM2.5 DQOs were developed with goals 

for a 3 year precision estimate of 10 percent coefficient of variation and a 3 year bias estimate of + 10 

percent. Some steps below may seem inefficient since monitoring organizations evaluate QC data on a 

more frequent basis than every three years. However, the example below is used relative to the 

achievement of the 3 year PM2.5 DQO. 

Figure 18.1 DQA in the context of data life cycle. 

Step 1. Review DQOs and Sampling Design. Review the DQO outputs to assure that they are still 

applicable. If DQOs have not been developed, specify DQOs before evaluating the data (e.g., for 

environmental decisions, define the statistical hypothesis and specify tolerable limits on decision errors; 

for estimation problems, define an acceptable confidence probability interval width). Review the 

 

3 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/pmqa.html 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 18.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 5/13 

Page 3 of 11 

sampling design and data collection documentation for consistency with the DQOs observing any 

potential discrepancies. 

The PM2.5 DQOs define the primary objective of the PM2.5 ambient air monitoring network (PM2.5 NAAQS 

comparison), translate the objective into a statistical hypothesis (3-year average of annual mean PM2.5

concentrations less than or equal to 15 μg/m3 and 3-year average of annual 98th percentiles of the PM2.5

concentrations less than or equal to 35 μg/m3

), and identify limits on the decision errors (incorrectly 

conclude area in non-attainment when it truly is in attainment no more than 5% of the time, and 

incorrectly conclude area in attainment when it truly is in non-attainment no more than 5% of the time). 

The CFR contains the details for the sampling design, including the rationale for the design, the design 

assumptions, and the sampling locations and frequency. If any deviations from the sampling design have 

occurred, these will be indicated and their potential effect carefully considered throughout the entire 

DQA.

NOTE: CFR now requires an annual air monitoring network plan4

 that may be helpful in the 

evaluation of this step. 

Step 2. Conduct Preliminary Data Review. Review QA reports, calculate basic statistics, and generate 

graphs of data. Use this information to understand the structure of the data and identify patterns, 

relationships, or potential anomalies. 

A preliminary data review will be performed to uncover potential limitations of using the data, to reveal 

outliers, and generally to explore the basic structure of the data. The first step is to review the quality 

assurance reports5

. The second step is to calculate basic summary statistics, generate graphical 

presentations of the data, and review these summary statistics and graphs. 

Review Quality Assurance Reports. Palookaville will review all relevant quality assurance reports that 

describe the data collection and reporting process. Particular attention will be directed to looking for 

anomalies in recorded data, missing values, and any deviations from standard operating procedures. 

This is a qualitative review. However, any concerns will be further investigated in the next two steps. 

Calculation of Summary Statistics and Generation of Graphical Presentations. Palookaville will 

generate prominent summary statistics for each of its primary and QA samplers. These summary 

statistics will be calculated at the quarterly, annual, and three-year levels and will include only valid 

samples. The summary statistics are: 

Number of samples, mean concentration, median concentration, standard deviation, coefficient of 

variation, maximum concentration, minimum concentration, interquartile range, skewness and 

kurtosis. 

These statistics will also be calculated for the percent differences at the collocated sites. The results will 

be summarized in a table. Particular attention will be given to the impact on the statistics caused by the 

observations noted in the quality assurance review. For example, Palookaville may evaluate the 

 

4

 Monitoring plans can be found on AMTIC at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/plans.html 5

 At the writing of the Handbook , the AQS system produces the AMP255 Data Quality Indicator report which is the 

primary report for the assessment of quality assurance data for criteria pollutants. 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 18.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 5/13 

Page 4 of 11 

influence of a potential outlier by evaluating the change in the summary statistics resulting from 

exclusion of the outlier. 

Palookaville will generate graphics to present the results from the summary statistics and show the 

spatial continuity over the sample areas. Maps will be created for the annual and three-year means, 

maxima, and interquartile ranges for a total of 6 maps. The maps will help uncover potential outliers and 

will help in the network design review. Additionally, basic histograms will be generated for each of the 

primary and QA samplers and for the percent difference at the collocated sites. The histograms will be 

useful in identifying anomalies and evaluating the normality assumption in the measurement errors.

Step 3. Select the Statistical Test. Select the most appropriate procedure for summarizing and 

analyzing the data based upon the reviews of the performance and acceptance criteria associated with the 

DQOs, the sampling design, and the preliminary data review. Identify the key underlying assumptions 

that must hold for the statistical procedures to be valid. 

The primary objective for the PM2.5 mass monitoring is determining compliance with the PM2.5 NAAQS. 

As a result, the null and alternative hypotheses are:

3 3

3 3

0

: 15 / 35 /

: 15 / 35 /

H X g m or Y g m

H X g m and Y g m

A  

 

 

 

where X is the three-year average PM2.5 concentration and Y is the three-year average of the annual 98th 

percentiles of the PM2.5 concentrations recorded for an individual monitor. The exact calculations for X 

and Y are specified in 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix N. The null hypothesis is rejected; that is, it is 

concluded that the area is not in compliance with the PM2.5 NAAQS when the observed three-year 

average of the annual arithmetic mean concentration exceeds 15.05 μg/m3

 or when the observed 

three-year average of the annual 98th percentiles exceeds 35.5 μg/m3

. If the bias of the sampler is ± 10% 

and the precision is within 10%, then the error rates (Type I and Type II) associated with this statistical 

test are less than or equal to 5%. The definitions of bias and precision will be outlined in the following 

step. 

Step 4. Verify Assumptions of Statistical Test. Evaluate whether the underlying assumptions hold, or 

whether departures are acceptable, given the actual data and other information about the study. 

The assumptions behind the statistical test include those associated with the development of the DQOs in 

addition to the bias and precision assumptions. The method of verification will be addressed in this step. 

Note that when less than three years of data are available, this verification will be based on as much data 

as are available.

The DQO is based on the annual arithmetic mean NAAQS. For each primary sampler, Palookaville 

will determine which, if either, of the PM2.5 NAAQS concentration is violated. In the DQO development, 

it was assumed that the annual standard is more restrictive than the 24-hour standard. If there are any 

samplers that violate ONLY the 24-hour NAAQS, then this assumption is not correct. The seriousness of 

violating this assumption is not clear. Conceptually, the DQOs can be developed based on the 24-hour 

NAAQS and the more restrictive bias and precision limits selected. However, Palookaville will assume 

the annual standard is more restrictive, until proven otherwise. 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 18.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 5/13 

Page 5 of 11 

Normal distribution for measurement error. Assuming that measurement errors are normally 

distributed is common in environmental monitoring. Palookaville has not investigated the sensitivity of 

the statistical test to violate this assumption; although, small departures from normality generally do not 

create serious problems. Instead, Palookaville will evaluate the reasonableness of the normality 

assumption by reviewing a normal probability plot, and calculating the Shapiro-Wilk W Test statistic (if 

sample size less than 50) or calculating the Kolmogorov-Smirnoff Test statistic (if sample size greater 

than 50). All three techniques are provided by standard statistical packages. If the plot or statistics 

indicate possible violations of normality, Palookaville may need to determine the sensitivity of the DQOs 

to departures in normality. 

Decision error can occur when the estimated 3-year average differs from the actual (true) 3-year 

average. This is not really an assumption as much as a statement that the data collected by an ambient 

air monitor is stochastic, meaning that there are errors in the measurement process, as mentioned in the 

previous assumption. 

The limits on precision and bias are based on the smallest number of required sample values in a 3-year 

period. In the development of the DQOs, the smallest number of required samples was used. The reason 

for this was to ensure that the confidence was sufficient in the minimal case; if more samples are 

collected, then the confidence in the resulting decision will be even higher. For each of the samplers, 

Palookaville will determine how many samples were collected in each quarter. If this number meets or 

exceeds 12, then the data completeness requirements for the DQO are met. 

The decision error limits were set at 5%. If the other assumptions are met, then the decision error limits 

are less than or equal to 5%. 

Measurement imprecision was established at 10% coefficient of variation (CV). For each sampler, 

Palookaville will review the coefficient of variation calculated in Step 2. If any exceed 10%, Palookaville 

may need to determine the sensitivity of the DQOs to larger levels of measurement imprecision. 

Table 18-1 will be completed during each DQA. The table summarizes which, if any, assumptions have 

been violated. A check will be placed in each of the row/column combinations that apply. Ideally, there 

will be no checks. However, if there are checks in the table, the implication is that the decision error 

rates are unknown, even if the bias and precision limits are achieved. As mentioned above, if any of the 

DQO assumptions are violated, then Palookaville will need to reevaluate its DQOs. 

Achievement of bias and precision limits. Lastly, Palookaville will check the assumption that at the 

3-year level of aggregation, the sampler bias is within + 10% and precision is < 10%. The data from the 

collocated samplers will be used to calculate quarterly, annual, and 3-year bias and precision estimates 

even though it is only the 3-year estimates that are critical for the statistical test. 

Since all the initial samplers being deployed by Palookaville will be FRMs, the samplers at each of the 

collocated sites will be identical method designations. As such, it is difficult to determine which of the 

collocated samplers is closer to the true PM2.5 concentration. Palookaville will calculate an estimate of 

precision. A bias measure will also be calculated, but it can only describe the relative difference of one 

sampler to the other, not definitively indicate which sampler is closer to the “true” value. The following 

paragraphs contain the algorithms for calculating precision and bias. These are similar, but differ 

slightly, from the equations in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix A. 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 18.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 5/13 

Page 6 of 11 

Table 18-1 Summary of Violations of DQO Assumptions

Site Violate 24-Hour 

Standard ONLY? 

Measurement Errors 

Non-Normal? 

Data Complete? 

( 12 samples per quarter) 

Measurement CV 

> 10%? 

Primary Samplers 

A1 

A2 

A3 

A4 

B1 

QA Samplers 

A1 

B1 

Before describing the algorithm, some ground work is necessary. When less than three years of 

collocated data are available, then the three-year bias and precision estimates must be predicted. 

Palookaville’s strategy for accomplishing this will be to use all available quarters of data as the basis for 

projecting where the bias and precision estimates will be at the end of the three-year monitoring period. 

Three-year point estimates will be computed by weighting the quarterly components, using the most 

applicable of the following assumptions: 

1. Most recent quarter’s precision and bias are most representative of what the future quarters will 

be. 

2. All previous quarters precision and bias are equally representative of what the future quarter’s 

will be. 

3. Something unusual happened in the most recent quarter, so the most representative quarters are 

all the previous ones, minus the most recent. 

Each of these scenarios results in weights that will be used in the following algorithms. The weights are 

shown in Table 18-2 where the variable Q represents the number of quarters for which observed bias and 

precision estimates are available. Note that when Q=12, that is, when there are bias and precision 

values for all of the quarters in the three-year period, then all of the following scenarios result in the 

same weighting scheme. 

Table 18-2 Weights for Estimating Three-Year Bias and Precision

Scenario Assumption Weights 

1 Latest quarter most representative wq = 12-(Q-1) for latest quarter, 

wq = 1 otherwise 

2 All quarters equally representative wq = 12/Q for each quarter 

3 Latest quarter unrepresentative wq = 1 for latest quarter, 

wq = 11/(Q-1) otherwise

In addition to point estimates, Palookaville will develop confidence intervals for the bias and precision 

estimates. This will be accomplished using a re-sampling technique. The protocol for creating the 

confidence intervals are outlined in Box 18.1. 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 18.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 5/13 

Page 7 of 11 

The algorithms for determining whether the bias and precision DQOs have been achieved for each 

sampler follow: 

Bias Algorithm

1. For each measurement pair, estimate the percent relative bias, di. 

  100

/ 2





 

i i

i i

i Y X

Y X d % 

 where Xi represents the concentration recorded by the primary sampler and Yi represents the 

concentration recorded by the collocated sampler. 

2. Summarize the percent relative bias to the quarterly level, Dj,q, according to 





n j q

i

i

j q

j q d

n

D

,

, 1

,

1

 where nj,q is the number of collocated pairs in quarter q for site j.

3. Summarize the quarterly bias estimates to the three-year level using 

Box 18.1 Method for Estimating Confidence in Achieving Bias and Precision DQOs

Let Z be the statistic of interest (bias or precision). For a given weighting scenario, the re-sampling will be 

implemented as follows: 

1. Determine M, the number of collocated pairs per quarter for the remaining 12-Q quarters (default is M=15 

or can use M=average number observed for the previous Q quarters. 

2. Randomly select with replacement M collocated pairs per quarter for each of the future 12-Q quarters in a 

manner consistent with the given weighting scenario. 

Scenario 1: Select pairs from latest quarter only. 

Scenario 2: Select pairs from any quarter. 

Scenario 3: Select pairs from any quarter except the latest one. 

Result from this step is “complete” collocated data for a three-year period, from which bias and precision 

estimates can be determined. 

3. Based on the “filled-out” three-year period from step 2, calculate three-year bias and precision estimate, 

using Equation 1 where wq = 1 for each quarter. 

4. Repeat steps 2 and 3 numerous times, such as 1000 times. 

5. Determine P, the fraction of the 1000 simulations for which the three-year bias and precision criteria are 

met. P is interpreted as the probability that the sampler is generating observations consistent with the 

three-year bias and precision DQOs.
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 18.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 5/13 

Page 8 of 11 

 







  q

q

n

q

q

n

q

q j q

j

w

w D

D

1

1

,

ˆ Equation 18-1

where nq is the number of quarters with actual collocated data and wq is the weight for quarter q 

as specified by the scenario in Table 18-2. 

4. Examine Dj,q to determine whether one sampler is consistently measuring above or below the 

other. To formally test this, a non-parametric test will be used (Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test), 

which is described in EPA QA/G-9S2

. If the null hypothesis is rejected, then one of the samplers 

is consistently measuring above or below the other. This information may be helpful in directing 

the investigation into the cause of the bias. 

Precision Algorithm

1. For each measurement pair, calculate the coefficient of variation, cvi, 

2

i

i

d

c v 

2. Summarize the coefficient of variation to the quarterly level, CVj,q, according to 

j q

n

i

i

j q n

CV

CV

j

,

1

2

,

 

 where nj,q is the number of collocated pairs in quarter q for site j. 

3. Summarize the quarterly precision estimates to the three-year level using 

 

 







  q

q

n

q

q

n

q

q j q

j

w

w CV

CV

1

1

2

, ^

 Equation 18-2 

where nq is the number of quarters with actual collocated data and wq is the weight for quarter q 

as specified by the scenario in Table 24-2 (reference to Model QAPP). 

4. If the null hypothesis in the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test was not rejected, then the coefficient of 

variation can be interpreted as a measure of precision. If the null hypothesis in the Wilcoxon 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 18.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 5/13 

Page 9 of 11 

Ssigned Rank Test was rejected, the coefficient of variation has both a component representing 

precision and a component representing the (squared) bias. 

Confidence in Bias and Precision Estimates

1. Follow the method described in Box 18.1 to estimate the probability that the sampler is 

generating observations consistent with the three-year bias and precision DQOs. The 

re-sampling must be done for each collocated site. 

Summary of Bias and Precision Estimation

The results from the calculations and re-sampling will be summarized in Table 18-3. There will be one 

line for each site operating a collocated sampler. 

 Table 18-3 Summary of Bias and Precision

Collocated Three-year Bias Estimate 

(Equation. 1) 

Three-year Precision Estimate 

 (Equation. 2) 

Null Hypothesis of Wilcoxon Test 

Rejected? 

P

(Box 18-1) 

A1 

B1

Step 5. Draw Conclusions from the Data. Perform the calculations required for the statistical test and 

document the inferences drawn as a result of these calculations. If the design is to be used again, evaluate 

the performance of the sampling design. 

Before determining whether the monitored data indicate compliance with the PM2.5 NAAQS, Palookaville 

must first determine if any of the assumptions upon which the statistical test is based are violated. This 

can be easily checked in Step 5 because of all the work done in Step 4. In particular, as long as 

 in Table 18-1, there are no checks, and 

 in Table 18-3, 

o the three year bias estimate is in the interval [-10%,10%], and 

o the three year precision estimate is less than or equal to 10% 

then the assumptions underlying the test appear to be valid. As a result, if the observed three-year 

average PM2.5 concentration is less than 15 μg/m3 and the observed three-year average 98th percentile is 

less than 35 μg/m3

, the conclusion is that the area seems to be in compliance with the PM2.5 NAAQS, with 

an error rate of 5%. 

If any of the assumptions have been violated, then the level of confidence associated with the test is 

suspect and will have to be further investigated. 

What if the DQOs Are Not Met? 

DQOs provide a goal on which to build a quality system. As the DQO process is developed, the EPA 

identifies what are expected to be reasonable and achievable measurement quality objectives that if met it 

can be assumed that the DQOs will be achieved. The DQA process is implemented to confirm the 

achievement of the DQOs. However, achieving the DQOs does not equate to one hundred percent 

certainty that every NAAQS decision (attainment, non-attainment) will be a correct decision. Even when 

a DQO is achieved, the chances of making an incorrect decision increase as the data (e.g., design value) 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 18.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 5/13 

Page 10 of 11 

get closer to the action limit (NAAQS). Similarly, if the DQOs are not met it does not mean that the 

pollutant data cannot be used for NAAQS decisions; it means that the decision makers will have less 

confidence that they will make the correct decision, especially around the action limit. Based on this 

understanding of uncertainty EPA listed the DQOs as goals in CFR. Data quality indicator reports 

demonstrate that these goals are being met for the majority of the monitoring organizations so they are 

considered achievable. However if DQOs are developed and through assessments EPA finds that the 

goals cannot be met then either the DQOs must be revised or new technologies (sampling or analytical 

methods) must be developed to achieve the DQO. 

DQA Tools 

Over the years EPA has developed DQOs for each criteria pollutant as the criteria pollutant moved 

through the NAAQS review process. In addition, monitoring organizations collect enough types of 

QA/QC data to estimate the quality of their data and should be able to express the confidence in that 

information. The following reports and tools can help monitoring organization assess the quality of their 

information. 

AMP255 Report – 

At a minimum the quality control information described in 40 CFR Part 58 Appendix A that is submitted 

to AQS can be used to perform assessments of measurement uncertainty. The AMP255 report is the 

most important QA report in AQS for the criteria pollutants. It provides an assessment of each quality 

control sample based on the statistical criteria set forth in 40 CFR Part 58 Appendix A. It aggregates data 

by PQAO and depending on the begin data and end date of the selected report, it will summarize data by 

year as well as 3-year intervals. It will assess quality control data completeness as well as precision and 

bias (depending on the type of quality control sample). A user ID is required to access AQS and data is 

required to be loaded in AQS in order to run reports. This can be problematic based on the lag time of 

information that is reported to AQS. 

Data Assessment Statistical 

Calculator (DASC) Tool – 

In order to provide monitoring 

organizations access to CFR statistics 

prior to submission to AQS, EPA 

developed the DASC Tool. This 

tool, developed in Microsoft Excel, 

provides for local entry of QC data 

and uses the same statistics provided 

in 40 CFR Part 58 Appendix A. The 

software and a guidance document 

for its use can be found on AMTIC6

 

6

 Data Assessment Statistical Calculator http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/qareport.html 
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 18.0 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 5/13 

Page 11 of 11 

Annual Box and Whisker Plots 

The AMP255 and DAC tools are very useful but EPA was also looking for more graphical ways to 

display precision and bias data in order to assist monitoring organizations identify monitoring site in need 

of corrective action. Each year, after the May certification, AQS develops the Annual Box and Whisker 

Plots for the criteria gaseous pollutant data certified in May. Therefore, the report will be for the 

previous year. Figure 18.3 provides an example of the report. The plots are created using the 1-point QC 

checks for the gaseous pollutants or each site within the PQAO and include the same precision and bias 

information that is generated AMP255 and well as the number of observations used in the assessment 

(yellow band of data in Fig. 18.3). In addition, the graphical display can identify sites that are biased or 

are variable. In the example below, all sites demonstrate acceptable precision with 2 sites showing an 

acceptable but positive bias one site show no positive or negative bias (no sign) and one site shows an 

acceptable negative bias. Information on how to assess the box and whisker information, as well as the 

annual reports, are found on AMTIC7

. At present, the report has not been automated so it is run by EPA 

once a year. In the future, EPA hopes to automate the report for use at any time. 

Figure 18.3 Example Box and Whisker Plots 

 

7

 Criteria Pollutant Quality Indicator Summary Report for AQS Data http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/qareport.html 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix A 

Revision No. 0 

Date:05/13 

Page 1 of 11 

Appendix A 

National Air Quality Monitoring Program Fact Sheets 

The following information provides a fact sheet on a number of national ambient air 

monitoring networks including: 

 State or Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) Network 

 National Core (NCore) Network 

 Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS) 

 PM2.5 Chemical Speciation Network (CSN) 

 National Toxics Trends Network (NATTS) 

 Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) 

 Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET) 

 National Atmospheric Deposition Network (NADP) 

 National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) 

Only the SLAMS, NCore, PAMS, CSN and NATTS pertain to the information 

covered in the Handbook. The other networks described are for the benefit of the 

reader. 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix A 

Revision No. 0 

Date:05/13 

Page 2 of 11 

Page intentionally left blank
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix A 

Revision No. 0 

Date:05/13 

Page 3 of 11 

State or Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) Network 

Background 

The SLAMS make up the ambient air quality monitoring sites that are operated by State or local agencies 

for the primary purpose of comparison to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), but may 

serve other purposes such as: 

 provide air pollution data to the general public in a timely manner; 

 support compliance with air quality standards and emissions strategy development; and 

 support air pollution research studies. 

The SLAMS network includes stations classified as NCore, PAMS, and Speciation, and formerly 

categorized as NAMS, and does not include Special Purpose Monitors (SPM) and other monitors used for 

non-regulatory or industrial monitoring purposes. 

In order to support the objectives, the monitoring networks are designed with a variety of monitoring sites 

that generally fall into the following categories which are used to determine: 

 

1. the highest concentrations expected to occur in the area covered by the network; 

2. typical concentrations in areas of high population density; 

3. the impact on ambient pollution levels of significant sources or source categories; 

4. the general background concentration levels; 

5. the extent of regional pollutant transport among populated areas, and in support of secondary 

standards; and 

6. air pollution impacts on visibility, vegetation damage, or other welfare- based impacts. 

The monitoring aspects of the SLAMS program are found in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, 

Parts 50, 53 and 58. 

SLAMS must use approved Federal reference method (FRM), Federal equivalent method (FEM), or Approved 

Regional Method (ARM) monitors for ambient pollutant levels being compared to the NAAQS. 

Reference Category References Comments 

Program References 40 CFR Part 50, 53 and 58 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/

Pollutants Measured O3, CO, SO2, NO2 PM2.5, PM10, Pb 

Methods References 40 CFR Part 50 and 58 Appendix C 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/criteria.html

Must be FRM, FEM, or ARM for 

NAAQS comparisons. 

Website lists designated methods 

Network Design References 40 CFR Part 58 Appendix D, E 

Siting Criteria 40 CFR Part 58 Appendix E 

Quality System References 40 CFR Part 58 Appendix A 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/quality.html

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/met.html 

Website for QA Handbook Vol II 

Eebsite for QA Handbook Vol IV 

Data Management 

References

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/ Air Quality System 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix A 

Revision No. 0 

Date:05/13 

Page 4 of 11 

 

National Core (NCore) Network 

Background 

NCore is a multi pollutant network that integrates several advanced measurement systems for particles, 

pollutant gases and meteorology. Most NCore stations have been operating since the formal start of the 

network on January 1, 2011. The NCore Network addresses the following objectives: 

 Timely reporting of data to public by supporting AIRNow, air quality forecasting, and other public 

reporting mechanisms; 

 Support for development of emission strategies through air quality model evaluation and other 

observational methods; 

 Accountability of emission strategy progress through tracking long-term trends of criteria and 

non-criteria pollutants and their precursors; 

 Support for long-term health assessments that contribute to ongoing reviews of the NAAQS; 

 Compliance through establishing nonattainment/attainment areas through comparison with the 

NAAQS; 

 Support to scientific studies ranging across technological, health, and atmospheric process 

disciplines; and 

 Support to ecosystem assessments recognizing that national air quality networks benefit ecosystem 

assessments and, in turn, benefit from data specifically designed to address ecosystem analyses. 

The objective is to locate sites in broadly representative urban (about 55 sites) and rural (about 20 sites) 

locations throughout the country to help characterize regional and urban patterns of air pollution. 

In many cases, states will collocate these new stations with STN sites measuring speciated PM2.5

components, PAMS sites already measuring O3 precursors, and/or NATTS sites measuring air toxics. By 

combining these monitoring programs at a single location, EPA and its partners will maximize the multipollutant information available. This greatly enhances the foundation for future health studies, NAAQS 

revisions, validation of air quality models, assessment of emission reduction programs, and studies of 

ecosystem impacts of air pollution. 

Reference Category References Comments 

Program References http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/monitor.html

Pollutants Measured SO2, CO, NO and NOy, and O3, PM2.5, 

PM10-2.5 , basic meteorological parameters 

Methods References http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/precur.html 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/ncore/guidance.html

Network Design 

References

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/monstratdoc.html

Siting Criteria http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/ncore/networks.html

Quality System References http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/ncore/guidance.html

Data Management 

References

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/ncore/guidance.html
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix A 

Revision No. 0 

Date:05/13 

Page 5 of 11 

Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS) 

Background 

Section 182(c)(1) of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) require the Administrator to 

promulgate rules for the enhanced monitoring of ozone, oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) to obtain more comprehensive and representative data on ozone air pollution. 

Immediately following the promulgation of such rules, the affected states were to commence such actions 

as were necessary to adopt and implement a program to improve ambient monitoring activities and the 

monitoring of emissions of NOx and VOC. Each State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the affected areas 

must contain measures to implement the ambient monitoring of such air pollutants. The subsequent 

revisions to Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 58 (40 CFR 58) required states to establish 

Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS) as part of their SIP monitoring networks in ozone 

nonattainment areas classified as serious, severe, or extreme. 

The chief objective of the enhanced ozone monitoring revisions is to provide an air quality database that 

will assist air pollution control agencies in evaluating, tracking the progress of, and, if necessary, refining 

control strategies for attaining the ozone NAAQS. Ambient concentrations of ozone and ozone precursors 

will be used to make attainment/nonattainment decisions, aid in tracking VOC and NOx emission inventory 

reductions, better characterize the nature and extent of the ozone problem, and prepare air quality trends. In 

addition, data from the PAMS will provide an improved database for evaluating photochemical model 

performance, especially for future control strategy mid-course corrections as part of the continuing air 

quality management process. The data will be particularly useful to states in ensuring the implementation 

of the most cost-effective regulatory controls. 

Reference Category References Comments 

Program References http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/pamsrein.html

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/pamsmain.html 

Pollutants Measured Ozone, Nitrogen Oxides, VOCs, surface 

meteorological 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/pamsguidance.html

Methods References

Network Design References http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/pamssites.html 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/pamsguidance.html

Siting Criteria http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/pamsguidance.html

Quality System References http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/pamsdata.html 

Data Management 

References

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/pamsdata.html 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix A 

Revision No. 0 

Date:05/13 

Page 6 of 11 

PM2.5 Chemical Speciation Network 

Background 

As part of the PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) review completed in 1997, EPA 

established a PM2.5 Chemical Speciation Network (CSN) consisting of Speciation Trends Network (STN) 

sites and supplemental speciation sites. The CSN is a component of the National PM2.5 Monitoring 

Network. Although the CSN is intended to complement the activities of the much larger gravimetric PM2.5 

measurements network component (whose goal is to establish if the NAAQS are being attained), CSN data 

is not used for attainment or nonattainment decisions. CSN data is used for multiple objectives, which 

include: 

 The assessment of trends; 

 The development of effective State Implementation Plans (SIPs) and determination of regulatory 

compliance; 

 The development of emission control strategies and tracking progress of control programs; 

 Aiding in the interpretation of health studies by linking effects to PM2.5 constituents; 

 Characterizing annual and seasonal spatial variation of aerosols; 

 Comparison to chemical speciation data collected from the IMPROVE network. 

As of 2012, the PM2.5 Chemical Speciation Network includes about 50 STN sites and about 150 State and 

Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) supplemental sites. All STN sites operate on a one-in-three day 

sample collection schedule. The majority of the SLAMS supplemental sites operate on a one-in-six day 

sample collection schedule. CSN sites collect aerosol samples over 24 hours on filters that are analyzed for 

PM2.5 mass, a number of trace elements, major ions (sulfate, nitrate, ammonium, sodium and potassium), 

and organic and elemental carbon. 

CSN data users include those at EPA seeking to determine concentration trends of PM2.5 chemical species 

over a period of 3 or more years and decision-makers at tribal, state and local levels who use the data as 

input to models and for development of emission control strategies and determination of their long-term 

effectiveness. Other users include public health officials and epidemiological researchers. 

Reference Category References Comments 

Program References http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/speciepg.html

Pollutants Measured Mass, trace elements, ions, and organic and element carbon

Methods References http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/specsop.html 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/spectraining.html 

Network Design 

References

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/specgen.html 

Siting Criteria http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/specgen.html 

Quality System 

References

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/specguid.html 

Data Management 

References

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/specdat.html 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/detaildata/downloadaqsdata.htm

http://www.epa.gov/airdata/
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix A 

Revision No. 0 

Date:05/13 

Page 7 of 11 

National Toxics Trends Network (NATTS) 

Background 

The National Air Toxics Trends Station (NATTS) Network was developed to fulfill the need for long-term 

HAP monitoring data of consistent quality. Among the principle objectives are assessing trends and 

emission reduction program effectiveness, assessing and verifying air quality models (e.g., exposure 

assessments, emission control strategy development, etc.), and as direct input to source-receptor models. 

The current network configuration includes 27 sites (20 urban, 7 rural) across the United States; thirteen 

sites were established in 2003, ten sites in 2004, and two sites each in 2007 and 2008. There are typically 

over 100 pollutants monitored at each NATTS (though only 19 of those are required; included are VOCs, 

carbonyls, PM10 metals, hexavalent chromium, and PAHs. Specifically, it is anticipated that the NATTS 

data will be used for: 

 tracking trends in ambient levels to facilitate tracking progress toward emission and risk reduction 

goals, which is the major objective of this program; 

 directly evaluating public exposure & environmental impacts in the vicinity of monitors; 

 providing quality assured data AT for risk characterization; 

 assessing the effectiveness of specific emission reduction activities; and 

 evaluating and subsequently improving air toxics emission inventories and model performance. 

Currently the NATTS program is made up of 27 monitoring sites; representing urban (20) communities 

and rural (7) communities. 

Reference 

Category 

References Comments 

Program 

References 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/natts.html

Pollutants 

Measured 

33 HAPS which include metals, VOCs and carbonyls 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/airtox/nattsworkplante

mplate.pdf 

Methods 

References

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/airtox.html

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/airtox/nattsworkplante

mplate.pdf 

Network Design 

References

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/airtoxqa.html, National Air Toxics Trends 

Stations – Quality 

Management Plan –final 

09/09/05 

Siting Criteria 40 CFR part 58 Appendix 

E, PAMS Probe and Path 

Siting Criteria 

Quality System 

References

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/airtoxqa.html

Data 

Management 

References

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/toxdat.html
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix A 

Revision No. 0 

Date:05/13 

Page 8 of 11 

Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE)

Background 

The Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) program is a cooperative 

measurement effort governed by a steering committee composed of representatives from federal and 

regional-state organizations. The IMPROVE monitoring program was established in 1985 to aid the 

creation of Federal and State Implementation Plans for the protection of visibility in Class I areas (156 

national parks and wilderness areas) as stipulated in the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act. 

 The objectives of IMPROVE are: 

1. to establish current visibility and aerosol conditions in mandatory class I areas; 

2. to identify chemical species and emission sources responsible for existing man-made visibility 

impairment; 

3. to document long-term trends for assessing progress towards the national visibility goal; 

4. and with the enactment of the Regional Haze Rule, to provided regional haze monitoring 

representing all visibility-protected federal class I areas where practical. 

IMPROVE has also been a key participant in visibility-related research, including the advancement of 

monitoring instrumentation, analysis techniques, visibility modeling, policy formulation and source 

attribution field studies. In addition to 110 IMPROVE sites at visibility-protected areas, IMPROVE 

Protocol sites are operated identically at locations to serve the needs of state, tribes and federal agencies. 

Reference 

Category 

References Comments 

Program 

References 

http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/

http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Overview/IMPROVEP

rogram_files/frame.htm

Pollutants 

Measured 

PM10 & PM2.5 mass concentration, and PM2.5 elements 

heavier than sodium, anions, organic and elemental carbon 

concentrations. Optical & met. parameters at select sites 

All sites have aerosol speciation 

monitoring by one day in three 

24-hour duration sampling 

Methods 

References

http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Publications/IMPROV

E_SOPs.htm

Network Design 

References

http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Publications/IMPROV

E_SOPs.htm

Siting Criteria http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Publications/IMPROV

E_SOPs.htm

Quality System 

References

http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Data/QA_QC/qa_qc_B

ranch.htm

Data 

Management 

References

http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Data/data.htm
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix A 

Revision No. 0 

Date:05/13 

Page 9 of 11 

Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET) 

Background 

The Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET) is a national air quality monitoring network 

designed to provide data to assess trends in air quality, atmospheric deposition, and ecological effects due 

to changes in air pollutant emissions. CASTNET began collecting measurements in 1991 with the 

incorporation of 50 sites from the National Dry Deposition Network, which had been in operation since 

1987. CASTNET provides long-term monitoring of air quality in rural areas to determine trends in regional 

atmospheric nitrogen, sulfur, and ozone concentrations and deposition fluxes of sulfur and nitrogen 

pollutants in order to evaluate the effectiveness of national and regional air pollution control programs. 

CASTNET operates more than 80 regional sites throughout the contiguous United States, Alaska, and 

Canada. Sites are located in areas where urban influences are minimal. Ozone measurements became CFR 

40 Part 58, Appendix A compliant in 2011. Meteorological measurements are made at approximately 30 

sites, and are available for all sites prior 2010. Modeled dry deposition velocities are also provided. 

 The main objectives of the network are to: 

1) track the effectiveness of national and regional scale emission control programs; 

2) report high quality, publicly available data on the temporal and geographic patterns of air 

quality and atmospheric deposition trends; and 

3) provide the necessary information for understanding the environmental effects in sensitive 

terrestrial and aquatic receptor areas associated with atmospheric loadings of pollutants.

Reference 

Category 

References Comments

Program 

References 

CASTNET Main Webpage 

http://www.epa.gov/castnet/

CASTNET Annual Report 

http://java.epa.gov/castnet/documents.do

Pollutants 

Measured

sulfate, nitrate, ammonium, sulfur dioxide, nitric acid, base cations, ozone 

CASTNET Factsheet http://java.epa.gov/castnet/documents.do

Methods 

References

CASTNET Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) Main Body 

http://java.epa.gov/castnet/documents.do

Network 

Design 

References

CASTNET QAPP Main Body 

http://java.epa.gov/castnet/documents.do

Siting 

Criteria 

CASTNET QAPP Main Body 

http://java.epa.gov/castnet/documents.do

Quality 

System 

References

CASTNET QAPP Main Body 

http://java.epa.gov/castnet/documents.do

Data 

Management 

References

CASTNET QAPP Appendix 6: CASTNET Data Operations Standard Operating 

Procedures 

http://java.epa.gov/castnet/documents.do
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix A 

Revision No. 0 

Date:05/13 

Page 10 of 11 

National Atmospheric Deposition Network (NADP)

Background 

The National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) provides quality-assured data and information in support 

of research on the exposure of managed and natural ecosystems and cultural resources to acidic compounds, 

nutrients, base cations, and mercury in precipitation. The NADP also provides data on ambient concentrations of 

speciated mercury and gaseous ammonia. NADP data serve science and education and support informed decisions 

on air quality issues related to precipitation and atmospheric chemistry.

The NADP operates three precipitation chemistry networks: the 250-station National Trends Network (NTN), 7-

station Atmospheric Integrated Research Monitoring Network (AIRMoN), and 100-station Mercury Deposition 

Network (MDN) and two ambient monitoring networks: the 20-station Atmospheric Mercury Network (AMNet) 

and the 50-station Ammonia Monitoring Network. The NTN provides the only long-term nationwide record of the 

wet deposition of acids, nutrients, and base cations. NTN stations collect one-week precipitation samples in 48 

states, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Quebec Province, Canada. Complementing the NTN is the 7-station 

AIRMoN. The daily precipitation samples collected at AIRMoN stations support continued research of 

atmospheric transport and removal of air pollutants and the development of computer simulations of these 

processes. The 100-station MDN offers the only regional measurements of mercury (Hg) in North American 

precipitation. MDN data are used to quantify Hg deposition to water bodies that have fish and wildlife 

consumption advisories due to this toxic chemical. The AMNet compliments the MDN by measuring speciated 

hourly samples of ambient Hg at 25 monitoring stations. AMNet measurements are made using a Tekran 

instrument which analyzes ambient samples for elemental, gaseous and particulate bound Hg fractions. The 

AMoN is the only national monitoring network measuring ambient ammonia (NH3) concentrations. Bi-weekly 

measurements of NH3 compliment the NTN and CASTNET networks by filling a gap in the total nitrogen budget. 

Work continues on developing routine model estimates for Hg and NH3 bi-directional dry deposition velocities. 

In addition to these long-term monitoring networks, the NADP is responsive to emerging issues requiring new or 

expanded measurements. Its measurement system is efficient, its data meet pre-defined data quality objectives, 

and its reports and products are designed to meet user needs. 

Reference 

Category 

References Comments 

Program 

References 

NADP http://nadp.isws.illinois.edu/ 

NTN http://nadp.isws.illinois.edu/NTN/

AIRMoN http://nadp.isws.illinois.edu/AIRMoN/

MDN http://nadp.isws.illinois.edu/MDN/

AMNet http://nadp.isws.illinois.edu/amn/

AMoN http://nadp.isws.illinois.edu/AMoN/

Pollutants 

Measured 

In precipitation: sulfate, nitrate, chloride, ammonium, calcium, 

magnesium, sodium, potassium, pH, mercury 

Ambient concentrations: speciated mercury, ammonia

Methods 

References

http://nadp.isws.illinois.edu/lib/manuals/opman.pdf

http://nadp.isws.illinois.edu/lib/manuals/mdnopman.pdf

http://nadp.isws.illinois.edu/amn/docs/AMNet_Operations_Manual.pdf

Network 

Design 

References

http://nadp.isws.illinois.edu/lib/manuals/NADP_Site_Selection_and_Installation

_Manual.pdf

Siting 

Criteria 

http://nadp.isws.illinois.edu/lib/manuals/NADP_Site_Selection_and_Installation

_Manual.pdf

Quality 

System 

References

http://nadp.isws.illinois.edu/lib/qaPlans.aspx

http://nadp.isws.illinois.edu/lib/qaReports.aspx

Data 

Management 

References

http://nadp.isws.illinois.edu/lib/qaplans/NADP_Network_Quality_Assurance_Pl

an.pdf

http://nadp.isws.illinois.edu/amn/docs/AMNet_Data_Management_Manual.pdf
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix A 

Revision No. 0 

Date:05/13 

Page 11 of 11 

National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) 

Background 

NATA is a national-scale assessment of 33 air pollutants (a subset of 32 air toxics on the Clean Air Act's list of 188, 

plus diesel particulate matter). The assessment considers the year 1996 (an update to 1999 is in preparation), including: 

 compilation of a national emissions inventory of air toxics emissions from outdoor sources; 

 estimates of ambient concentrations across the contiguous United States; 

 estimates of population exposures; and 

 characterizations of potential public health risks including both cancer and non-cancer effects. 

NATA identifies those air toxics which are of greatest potential concern, in terms of contribution to population risk. 

This information is relevant and useful in assessing risk for tribal programs. 

Reference Category References Comments 

Program References http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/index.html

Pollutants Measured http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/34poll.html 33 air pollutants (see link) 

 

Methods References

Network Design References

Siting Criteria 

Quality System References

Data Management 

References
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix B 

Revision No. 0 

Date:05/13 

Page 1 of 4 

Appendix B 

Ambient Air Monitoring Quality Assurance Information and 

Web Addresses 

The following information provides key guidance documents and reports that can 

be found on various sites within the Ambient Monitoring Technical Information 

Center (AMTIC) Website. The following identifiers are used to describe national 

ambient air monitoring programs 

SLAMS- State or Local Air Monitoring Stations Network 

NCore- National Core Network 

PAMS - Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations 

CSN PM2.5 Chemical Speciation Network 

NATTS- National Toxics Trends Network 

SLAMS-NPAP- National Performance Audit Program 

SLAMS-PEP- National PM2.5 Performance Evaluation Program 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix B 

Revision No. 0 

Date:05/13 

Page 2 of 4 

Page intentionally left blank 
Ambient Air Quality Assurance Information 

Identifier Title EPA Number Pub Date Year U

CSN Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Speciation Guidance Document

1999 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/am

NATTS NATTS Technical Assistance Document (TAD)

2009

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/am

Compliant.pdf

NCore NCore Technical Assistance Document (TAD)

2005

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/am

on4.pdf

NCore QA Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems Volume IV 

Meteorlogical Measurment Systems EPA-454/B-08-002 2008

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/am

gical_Measurements.pdf

PAMS Technical Assistance Document (TAD) for Sampling and Analysis 

of Ozone Precursors; EPA/600-R-98/161 1998 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/am

SLAMS QA Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems Volume II 

Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program EPA-454/B-13-003 2013 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/qalist.h

SLAMS Guideline on the Meaning and the Use of Precision and Bias Data 

Required by 40 CFR Part 58 Appendix A EPA-454/B-07-001 2007

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/am

0.10.07%20vers1.1.pdf 

SLAMS Transfer Standards for the Calibration of Air Monitoring Analyzers 

for Ozone EPA-454/B-10-001 2010

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/am

Guidance.pdf

SLAMS PM2.5 PM2.5 Quality Assurance Program Overview

1997 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/am

CSN PM 2.5 Speciation Lab Audit Reports and Assessments Various Years http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/pmspeNATTS National Air Toxics Trends Stations Quality Assurance Annual 

Reports and Proficiency Reports Various Years http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/airtoxq

SLAMS Annual Precision, Bias and Completeness Reports for Criteria 

Pollutants Various Years http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/parslist

PAMS PAMS Data Analysis and Reports Various Years http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/pamsdSLAMS-PM2.5 3-Year and Annual QA Reports Various Years http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/anlqa.hSLAMS AA-PGVP Annual Reports Various Years http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/aapgvpSLAMS-PEP Laboratory Comparison Study of Gravimetric Laboratories Various Years http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/pmpep

Methods

CSN Speciation Field Guidance Documents Various Years http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/specgu

NATTS Air Toxics Methods- Various Methods 2007 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/airtox.hNCore NCore Training Videos Various Years http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/qalist.hSLAMS QA Handbook Vol II (DRAFT Procedure for the "Determination of 

Ozone By Ultraviolet Analysis") 1998 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/am

SLAMS Sec. 2.10 of QA Handbook - Draft - PM10- Dichot revised to local 

standard and pressure EPA-600/4-77-027a 1997 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/am

SLAMS Sec. 2.11 of QA Handbook - Draft - PM10 Hi Vol revised to local 

standard and pressure 1997 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/am

SLAMS Section 2.3 -- DRAFT - Reference Method for the Determination of 

Nitrogen Dioxide in the Atmosphere (Chemiluminescence)

2002 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/am

SLAMS-NPAP DRAFT SOP for Through-the-Probe Performance Evaluations of 

Ambient Air Quality Monitoring of Criteria Air Pollutants

2007 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/npapso

SLAMS-PEP Method Compendium "Field Standard Operating Procedures for 

the PM2.5 Performance Evaluation Program" 2009 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/am

GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS

QA REPORTS

3
Ambient Air Quality Assurance Information 

Identifier Title EPA Number Pub Date Year U

SLAMS-PEP Method Compendium "PM2.5 Mass Weighing Laboratory Standard 

Operating Procedures for the Performance Evaluation Program

1998 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/am

SLAMS-PM2.5 2.12 "Monitoring PM2.5 in Ambient Air Using Designated Reference 

or Class I Equivalent Methods" 1998 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/am

SLAM-Pb Approved Equivalent Methods Various Years http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/pb-monSLAM-Pb RTI Procedure for the development of Pb Analysis Audits (TSP)

2010 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/am

SLAM-Pb RTI Procedure for the development of Pb Analysis Audits (Teflon 

for ICP-MS) 2012 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/am

SLAMS-Pb MO Procedure for the development of Pb Analysis Audits (TSP)

2009 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/am

CSN Speciation Laboratory Standard Operating Procedures Various Years http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/specsoCSN Quality Chemical Speciation Network QAPP for NCore and 

Supplemental Sites EPA-454/B-12-003 2012

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/am

_05-2012.pdf

CSN Quality Management Plan for the PM2.5 Speciation Trends Network

EPA-454/R-01-009 2001 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/am

NATTS Model Quality Assurance Project Plan for the National Air Toxics 

Trends Stations - updated version 1.1 2007

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/am

df

NATTS Model QAPP for Local-Scale Monitoring Projects" EPA-454/R-01-007 2006 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/amNATTS National Air Toxics Trends Stations - Quality Management Plan 

Final 2005 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/am

PAMS PAMS Implementation Manual EPA-454/B-93-051 1994 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/amSLAMS Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Audit Support Program - 

NPAP and NATTS 2008

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/am

onforTTP.pdf 

SLAMS PM2.5 PM2.5 Model QA Project Plan (QAPP)" EPA-454/R-98-005 1998 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/amSLAMS PM2.5 PM2.5 FRM Network Federal Performance Evaluation Program 

Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) 2007

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/am

2-2007_cmt_vrsn.pdf

SLAMS PM2.5 PM2.5 Performance Evaluation Program Implementaion Plan 1998 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/amAA-PGVP Ambient Air Protocal Gas Verification Program QAPP

2010

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/am

march2010v2.pdf

AA-PGVP Ambient Air Protocal Gas Verification Program Implementation 

Plan 2010 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/am

CSN Current List of CSN Sites as of 07-11-2007 2013 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/specgeCSN Modification of Carbon Procedures in the Speciation Network; 

Overview and Frequently Asked Questions 2006 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/am

SLAMS Training and Conferences Various Years http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/trainingSLAMS QA Newsletters Various Years http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/qanews

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS and QAPPs

WHITE PAPERS/IMPORTANT MEMOS

4
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix C 

Revision No. 0 

Date:05/13 

Page 1 of 7 

Appendix C 

Using the Graded Approach for the Development of QMPs and 

QAPPs in Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Programs 

NOTE: As of the date of this Handbook publication the EPA Quality Staff is revising some 

of the requirements for QAPPs and QMPs. Please visit the Quality Staffs website for 

updates on these documents (http://www.epa.gov/quality1/)
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix C 

Revision No. 1 

Date:12/08 

Page 2 of 7 

This page intentionally left blank
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix C 

Revision No. 0 

Date:05/13 

Page 3 of 7 

Using the Graded Approach for the Development of QMPs and QAPPs in Ambient Air 

Quality Monitoring Programs 

 

EPA policy requires that all organizations funded by EPA for environmental data operations 

(EDOs) develop quality management plans (QMPs) and quality assurance project plans 

(QAPPs). In addition, EPA has provided flexibility to EPA organizations on how they implement 

this policy, allowing for use of a graded approach. The following proposal explains the graded 

approach for data collection activities related to ambient air monitoring. OAQPS proposes a 

graded approach for the development of QAPPs and QMPs. 

The Graded Approach 

The QMP describes the quality system in terms of the organizational structure, functional 

responsibilities of management and staff, lines of authority, and required interfaces for those 

planning, implementing, and assessing activities involving EDOs. Each program should provide 

appropriate documentation of their quality system. Here are a few ways that this could be 

handled. 

Concept - Small organizations may have limited ability to develop and implement a quality 

system. EPA should provide options for those who are capable of making progress towards 

developing a quality system. If it is clear that the EDO goals are understood and that progress in 

quality system development is being made, a non-optimal quality system structure, for the 

interim, is acceptable. The concept is to work with the small organization to view the QMP as a 

long-term strategic plan with an open ended approach to quality system development that will 

involve continuous improvement. The graded approach to QMP development is described below 

and is based on the size of the organization and experience in working with EPA and the 

associated QA requirements. 

1. Small organization that just received its first EPA grant or using a grant for a discrete, 

small, project-level EDO. Such organizations could incorporate a description of its 

quality system into its QAPP. 

2. Small organization implementing EDOs with EPA at more frequent intervals or 

implementing long-term monitoring programs with EPA funds. If such an organization 

demonstrates capability of developing and implementing a stand-alone quality system, it 

is suggested that an appropriate separate QMP be written. 

3. Medium or large organization. Develop QMP to describe its quality system and QAPPs 

for specific EDOs. Approval of the recipient's QMP by the EPA Project Officer and the 

EPA Quality Assurance Manager may allow delegation of the authority to review and 

approve Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs) to the grant recipient based on 

acceptable procedures documented in the QMP. 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix C 

Revision No. 1 

Date:12/08 

Page 4 of 7 

Quality Assurance Project Plans

The QAPP is a formal document describing, in comprehensive detail, the necessary QA/QC and 

other technical activities that must be implemented to ensure that the results of work performed 

will satisfy the stated performance criteria, which may be in the form of a data quality objective 

(DQO). The quality assurance policy of the EPA requires every EDO to have written and 

approved quality assurance project plans (QAPPs) prior to the start of the EDO. It is the 

responsibility of the EPA Project Officer (person responsible for the technical work on the 

project) to adhere to this policy. If the Project Officer gives permission to proceed without an 

approved QAPP, he/she assumes all responsibility. If a grantee’s QMP is approved by EPA and 

provides for delegation of QAPP approval to the grantee, the grantee is responsible to ensuring 

approval of the QAPP prior to the start of the EDO.

The Ambient Air Monitoring Program recommends a four-tiered project category approach to 

the Ambient Air QA Program in order to effectively focus QA. Category I involves the most 

stringent QA approach, utilizing all QAPP elements as described in EPA R5a

 (see Table 2), 

whereas category IV is the least stringent, utilizing fewer elements. In addition, the amount of 

detail or specificity required for each element will be less as one moves from category I to IV. 

Table 1 provides information that helps to define the categories of QAPPs based upon the data 

collection objective. Each type of ambient air monitoring program EDO will be associated with 

one of these categories. The comment area of the table will identify whether QMPs and QAPPs 

can be combined and the type of data quality objectives (DQOs) required (see below). Table 2 

identifies which of the 24 QAPP elements are required for each category of QAPP. Based upon 

a specific project, the QAPP approving authority may add/delete elements for a particular 

category as it relates to the project but in general, this table will be applicable based on the 

category of QAPP. 

Flexibility on the systematic planning process and DQO development 

Table 1 describes 4 QAPP/QMP categories which require some type of statement about the 

program or project objectives. Three of the categories use the term data quality objectives 

(DQOs), but there should be flexibility with the systematic planning process on how these DQOs 

are developed based on the particular category. For example, a category 1 project would have 

formal DQOs. Examples of category I projects, such as the State and Local Monitoring Stations 

(SLAMS), have DQOs developed by OAQPS. Category II QAPPS may have formal DQOs 

developed if there are national implications to the data (i.e., Speciation Trends Network) or less 

formal DQOs if developed by organizations implementing important projects that are more local 

in scope. Categories 3 and 4 would require less formal DQOs to a point that only project goals 

(category 4) may be necessary. 

 

a EPA Requirements for QA Project Plans (QA/R-5) http://www.epa.gov/quality/qa_docs.html 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix C 

Revision No. 0 

Date:05/13 

Page 5 of 7 

Standard Operating Procedures- (SOP)

SOPs are an integral part of the QAPP development and approval process and usually address 

key information required by the QAPP elements. Therefore, SOPs can be referenced in QAPP 

elements as long as the SOPs are available for review or are part of the QAPP. 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix C 

Revision No. 1 

Date:12/08 

Page 6 of 7 

 

 

 

 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix C 

Revision No. 0 

Date:05/13 

Page 7 of 7 

 Table 2 QAPP Elements

QAPP Element Category 

Applicability

A1 Title and Approval Sheet 

A2 Table of Contents 

A3 Distribution List 

A4 Project/Task Organization 

A5 Problem Definition/Background 

A6 Project/Task Description 

A7 Quality Objectives and Criteria for Measurement Data 

A8 Special Training Requirements/Certification 

A9 Documentation and Records 

B1 Sample Process (Network) Design 

B2 Sampling Methods Requirements 

B3 Sample Handling and Custody Requirements 

B4 Analytical Methods Requirements 

B5 Quality Control Requirements 

B6 Instrument/Equipment Testing, Inspection & Maintenance 

B7 Instrument Calibration and Frequency 

B8 Inspection/Acceptance Requirements for Supplies and Con. 

B9 Data Acquisition Requirements for Non-direct Measurements 

B10 Data Management 

C1 Assessments and Response Actions 

C2 Reports to Management 

D1 Data Review, Validation, and Verification Requirements 

D2 Validation and Verification Methods 

D3 Reconciliation and User Requirements 

I, II, III, IV 

I, II, III 

I, 

I, II, III 

I, II, III 

I, II, III, IV 

I, II, III, IV 

I 

I, II, III 

I, II, III, IV 

I, II, III, 

I, II, III 

I, II, III, IV 

I, II, III, IV 

I, II, III 

I, II, III 

I, 

I, II, III 

I, II 

I, II, 

I, II, 

I, II, III 

I, II 

I, II, 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix D 

Revision No. 0 

Date:05/13 

Page 1 of 48 

 

Appendix D 

Measurement Quality Objectives and Validation Templates 

Table of Contents 

(click on link to go to individual tables) 

Validation Template Page 

O3 4 

CO 7 

NO2 , NOx, NO 10 

SO2 13 

PM2.5 Filter Based Local Conditions 16 

Continuous PM2.5 Local Conditions 21 

PM10c for PM10-2.5 Low –Volume , Filter-Based Local Conditions 24 

PM10 Filter Based Dichot STP Conditions 29 

PM10 Filter Based High Volume (HV) STP Conditions 32 

Continuos PM10 STP Conditions 35 

PM10 Low Volume STP Filter-Based Local Conditions 37 

Pb High Volume (TSP) 42 

Pb Low Volume (PM10 ) 46 

NOTE: There is a potential that information on the validation templates have been changed. 

They are posted here for reference purposes. However the user is directed to the AMTIC 

website. 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/qalist.html 

The attached validation tables are found there as well as a table that is updated with any change 

occurring after the publication date of the Handbook 

In addition, at the time of publication NCore validation templates were being reviewed and 

refined. When completed they will be posted on the AMTIC Website listed above. 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix D 

Revision No. 0 

Date:05/13 

Page 2 of 48 

In June 1998, a workgroup was formed to develop a procedure that could be used by State and 

locals that would provide for a consistent validation of PM2.5 mass concentrations across the US. 

The workgroup included personnel from the monitoring organizations, EPA Regional Offices, 

and OAQPS who are involved with assuring the quality of PM2.5 mass and was headed by a State 

and local representative. The workgroup developed three tables of criteria where each table has 

a different degree of implication about the quality of the data. The criteria included on the tables 

are from 40 CFR Part 50 Appendices L and N, 40 CFR Part 58 Appendix A, Method 2.12, and a 

few criteria that were neither in CFR nor Method 2.12 but which the workgroup felt should be 

included. Upon completion and use of the table, it was decided that a “validation template” 

should be developed for all the criteria pollutants. 

One of the tables has the criteria that the workgroup felt must be met to ensure the quality of the 

data. An example criterion for PM2.5 is that the average flow rate for the sampling period must 

be maintained to within 5% of 16.67 liters per minute. The second table has the criteria that 

indicate that there might be a problem with the quality of the data and further investigation is 

warranted before making a determination about the validity of the sample or samples. An 

example criterion is that the field filter blanks should not change weight by more than 30 

micrograms between weighings. The third table has criteria that indicate a potentially systematic 

problem with the environmental data collection activity. Such systematic problems may impact 

the ability to make decisions with the data. An example criterion is that at least 75% of the 

scheduled samples for each quarter should be successfully collected and validated. 

To determine the appropriate table for each criterion, the members of the workgroup considered 

how significantly the criterion impacted the resulting concentration. This was based on 

experience from workgroup members, experience from non-workgroup members, and feasibility 

of implementing the criterion. 

Criteria that were deemed critical to maintaining the integrity of a sample or group of samples 

were placed on the first table. Observations that do not meet each and every criterion on the 

Critical Criteria Table should be invalidated unless there are compelling reason and 

justification for not doing so. The sample or group of samples for which one or more of these 

criteria are not met is invalid until proven otherwise. The cause of not operating in the 

acceptable range for each of the violated criteria must be investigated and minimized to reduce 

the likelihood that additional samples will be invalidated. 

Criteria that are important for maintaining and evaluating the quality of the data collection 

system are included on the second table, the Operational Evaluations Table. Violation of a 

criterion or a number of criteria may be cause for invalidation. The decision maker should 

consider other quality control information that may or may not indicate the data are acceptable 

for the parameter being controlled. Therefore, the sample or group of samples for which one or 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix D 

Revision No. 0 

Date:05/13 

Page 3 of 48 

 

more of these criteria are not met is suspect unless other quality control information 

demonstrates otherwise. The reason for not meeting the criteria MUST be investigated, 

mitigated or justified. 

Finally, those criteria which are important for the correct interpretation of the data but do not 

usually impact the validity of a sample or group of samples are included on the third table, the 

Systematic Issues Table. For example, the data quality objectives are included in this table. If 

the data quality objectives are not met, this does not invalidate any of the samples but it may 

impact the error rate associated with the attainment/non-attainment decision. 

Please note the designation Operational or Systematic do not imply that these quality 

control checks need not be performed. If an operational or systematic quality control check 

that is required by regulation is not performed that can be a basis for invalidation of all 

associated data. 

Following are the tables for all the criteria pollutants. For each criterion, the tables include: (1) 

the requirement (2) the frequency with which compliance is to be evaluated, (3) acceptance 

criteria, and (4) information where the requirement can be found or additional guidance on the 

requirement. 

The validation templates have been developed based on the current state of knowledge. The 

templates should evolve as new information is discovered about the impact of the various criteria 

on the error in the resulting mass estimate or concentration. Due to the potential misuse of 

invalid data, data that are invalidated will not be uploaded to AQS but should be retained on the 

monitoring organizations local database. This data will be invaluable to the evolution of the 

validation template. 

Use of Bold Italics Font to Identify CFR Requirements. 

The criteria listed in the validation templates are either requirements that can be found in the 

Code of Federal Regulations, guidance found in a variety of guidance documents, or 

recommendations by the QA Workgroup or EPA. Any time a CFR requirement is identified in 

the Requirement, Frequency or Acceptance Criteria column it will be identified by bold and 

italics font. The Information/Action column will provide the appropriate references for CFR or 

guidance documents. 

Hyperlink References 

Where requirements or guidance documents are found on the web, a hyperlink is created which 

will lead the user to the closest URL address. Any links to CFR are directed to the electronic 

CFR document (e-CFR) which is the most up-to-date. E-CFR will not get you to an individual 

section. Therefore e-CFR is only hyperlinked once on each page. 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix D 

Revision No. 0 

Date:05/13 

Page 4 of 48 

PM10 Note of Caution 

The validation templates for PM10 get complicated because PM10 is required to be reported at 

standard temperature and pressure (STP) for comparison to the NAAQS (and follow 40 CFR Part 

50 App J) and at local conditions if using it to monitor for PM10-2.5 (and follow 40 CFR Part 50 

App O). Moreover, PM10 can be measured with filter-based sampling techniques as well as 

with automated methods. The validation templates developed for PM10 try to accommodate 

these differences, but monitoring organizations are cautioned to review the operations manual for 

the monitors/samplers they use and augment the validation template with QC information 

specific to their EPA reference or equivalent method designation and instrument. 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/criteria/reference-equivalent-methods-list.pdf
QA Hand

Ozone Validation Template 

1) Requirement (O3) 2) Frequency 3) Acceptance Criteria Informa

CRITICAL CRITERIA-OZONE 

One Point QC CheckSingle analyzer 1/ 2 weeks < +7% (percent difference) 

1 and 2) 40 CFR Part 58 Ap3) Recommendation based App A Sec 2.3.1.2. QC Cherelative to routine concentra

Zero/span check 1/ 2 weeks Zero drift < + 1.5 ppb Span drift < + 7 % 1 and 2) QA Handbook Vo

3) Recommendation and re

OPERATIONAL CRITERIA -OZONE

Shelter Temperature Range Daily (hourly values) 

20 to 30o C. (Hourly avg) 

or 

per manufacturers specifications if designated 

to a wider temperature range 

1, 2 and 3) QA Handbook Generally the 20-30 o C ranrestrictive operable range omay also be used as guidanAMTIC provides temp. ranFRM/FEM monitor testing per 40 CFR Part 53.32 

Shelter Temperature Control Daily (hourly values) < + 2o C SD over 24 hours 1, 2 and 3) QA Handbook VShelter Temperature Device Check 

1/6 mo 

+ 2o C of standard 1, 2 and 3) QA Handbook V

Annual Performance Evaluation Single analyzer 

Every site 1/year within period of 

monitor operation, 25 % of sites 

quarterly 

Percent difference of audit levels 3-10 < +15% 

Audit levels 1&2 + 1.5 ppb difference or 

+ 15%

1 and 2) 40 CFR Part 58 Ap3) Recommendation- 3 audzero. AMTIC guidance 2/http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amt

Federal Audits (NPAP) 1/year at selected sites 20% of sites audited Audit levels 1&2 + 1.5 ppb difference all other levels percent difference + 10% 1) 40 CFR Part 58 App A s

2) NPAP adequacy require3) NPAP QAPP/SOP 

Verification/Calibration

Upon receipt/adjustment/repair/ 

installation/moving and repair and 

recalibration of standard of higher 

level 

1/6 months if manual zero/span 

performed biweekly 

1/year if continuous zero/span 

performed daily 

All points within + 2 % of calibration range of 

best-fit straight line 

Linearity error <5% 

1) 40 CFR Part 50 App D 2) Recommendation 3) Recommendation- LineaD Multi-point calibration (0 aPart 50 App D sec 5.2.3 

Zero Air/Zero Air Check 1/year Concentrations below LDL 1) 40 CFR Part 50 App D S

2 and 3) Recommendation 

Ozone Level 2 Standard 

Certification/recertification to 

 Standard Reference  Photometer (Level 1)

1/year single point difference < + 3% 1) 40 CFR Part 50 App D S

2 and 3) Transfer Standard 
QA Hand

1) Requirement (O3) 2) Frequency 3) Acceptance Criteria Informa

Level 2 standard (formerly usually transported to EPA 

Level 2 and Greater Transfer Standard Precision 1/year Standard Deviation less than 0.005 ppm or 3% whichever is greater 1) 40 CFR Part 50 Appendi

2) Recommendation, part o3) 40 CFR Part 50 Appendi

 (if recertified via a transfer  standard) 1/year Regression slopes = 1.00 + 0.03 and two intercepts are 0 + 3 ppb 1, 2 and 3) Transfer Standa

001 

Ozone Transfer standard (Level 3 and greater) Qualification Upon receipt of transfer standard +4% or +4 ppb (whichever greater) 1, 2 and 3) Transfer Standa

001 

 Certification After qualification and upon receipt/adjustment/repair RSD of six slopes < 3.7% Std. Dev. of 6 intercepts 1.5 1, 2 and 3) Transfer Standa

001 1 

 Recertification to higher level  standard 

Beginning and end of O3 season or 

1/6 months whichever less 

New slope = + 0.05 of previous and 

RSD of six slopes <3.7% 

Std. Dev. of 6 intercepts 1.5 

1, 2 and 3) Transfer Standa001 recertification test that 5 tests. If does not meet acc

Detection (FEM/FRMs) Noise 

Upon receipt/adjustment/repair/ 

installation/moving and repair and 

recalibration or 1/year 

 < 0.005 ppm 

1) 40 CFR Part 53.23 (b) (d2) NA 3) 40 CFR Part 53.20 Table 

Lower detectable level 1/year 0.01 ppm 

1) 40 CFR Part 53.23 (b) (d2) Recommendation 3) 40 CFR Part 53.20 Table 

SYSTEMATIC CRITERIA-OZONE 

Sampler/Monitor/ Transfer and Calibration Standard NA Meets requirements listed in FRM/FEM designation 1) 40 CFR Part 58 App C S

2) NA 3) 40 CFR Part 53 & FRM/

Standard Reporting Units All data ppm (final units in AQS) 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50 Rounding convention for data reported to AQS All data 3 places after decimal with digits to right truncated 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50 Completeness (seasonal) 

3-Year Comparison > 90% (avg) daily max available in ozone season with min of 75% in any one year. 1) 40 CFR Part 50 App I 2) 40 CFR Part 50 App I Se

3) 40 CFR Part 50 App I Se

8- hour average >75% of hourly averages for the 8-hour 1) 40 CFR Part 50 App I 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50 Ap

Valid Daily Max > 75% of the 24, 8 hour averages (18 of 24 8- hour averages 1) 40 CFR Part 50 App I 2) 40 CFR Part 50 App I Se

3) 40 CFR Part 50 App I Se

Sample Residence Time Verification 1/year < 20 seconds 

1) 40 CFR Part 58 App E, s2) Recommendation 3) 40 CFR Part 58 App E, s

Sample Probe, Inlet, Sampling All sites Borosilicate glass (e.g., Pyrex®) or Teflon® 1) 40 CFR Part 58 App E, s
QA Hand

1) Requirement (O3) 2) Frequency 3) Acceptance Criteria Informa

train 2) Recommendation 

 3) 40 CFR Part 58 App E, FEP and PFA have been acto Teflon. Replacement or cand more frequent if pollutadictate 

Siting 1/year Meets siting criteria or waiver documented 

1) 40 CFR Part 58 App E, s2) Recommendation 3) 40 CFR Part 58 App E, s

EPA Standard Ozone Reference Photometer (SRP) Recertification (Level 1) 

1/year Regression slope = 1.00 + 0.01 and intercept < 3 ppb 

1,2 and 3) ) Transfer Standa001 This is usually at a Regionaagainst the traveling SRP 

Precision(using 1-point QC checks) 

Calculated annually and as 

appropriate for design value 

estimates 

90% CL CV < 7% 

1) 40 CFR Part 58 App A 22) 40 CFR Part 58 App A s3) 40 CFR Part 58 App A s

Bias (using 1-point QC checks) 

Calculated annually and as 

appropriate for design value 

estimates 

95% CL < + 7% 

1) 40 CFR Part 58 App A 22) 40 CFR Part 58 App A s3) 40 CFR Part 58 App A s

Annual PE Primary QA Organization (PQAO) Evaluation 

1/year 

95% of audit percent differences fall within 

the one point QC check 95% probability 

intervals at PQAO level of aggregation 

1) 40 CFR Part 58 App A S2) Recommendation 3) 40 CFR Part 58 App A s
QA Hand

CO Validation Template

1) Requirement (CO) 2) Frequency 3) Acceptance Criteria Informa

CRITICAL CRITERIA-CO

One Point QC CheckSingle analyzer 1/ 2 weeks < +10% (percent difference) 

1 and 2) 40 CFR Part 58 3) Recommendation baseApp A Sec 2.3.1. QC Chrelative to routine concen

Zero/span check 1/ 2 weeks Zero drift < + 0.03 ppm Span drift < + 10 % 1 and 2) QA Handbook V

3) Recommendation 

OPERATIONAL CRITERIA-CO

Shelter Temperature range Daily (hourly values) 

20 to 30o C. (Hourly avg) 

or 

per manufacturers specifications if designated to 

a wider temperature range 

1, 2 and 3) QA HandbooGenerally the 20-30 o C rrestrictive operable range shelter may also be used found on AMTIC providinstrument. FRM/FEM m20-30 o C range per 40 C

Shelter Temperature Control Daily (hourly values) < + 2o C SD over 24 hours 1, 2 and 3) QA HandbooShelter Temperature Device Check 1/6 mo + 2o C of standard 1, 2 and 3) QA Handboo

Annual Performance 

Evaluation Single Analyzer 

Every site 1/year 25 % of sites 

quarterly Percent difference of audit levels 3-10 < +15% Audit levels 1&2 + 0.03 ppm difference or +15% 

1 and 2) 40 CFR Part 58 3) Recommendation- 3 aincluding zero. AMTIC http://www.epa.gov/ttn/a

Federal Audits (NPAP) 1/year at selected sites 20% of sites audited Audit levels 1&2 + 0.03 ppm difference all other levels percent difference + 15% 1) 40 CFR Part 58 App A 

2) NPAP adequacy requ3) NPAP QAPP/SOP 

Verification/Calibration

Upon receipt/adjustment/repair/ 

installation/moving 

1/6 months if manual zero/span 

performed biweekly 

1/year if continuous zero/span 

performed daily 

All points within + 2 % of calibration range of 

best-fit straight line 

1) 40 CFR Part 50 Appen2 and 3) RecommendatioSee details about CO2 secalibration (0 and 4 upsc

Gaseous Standards All gas cylinders 

NIST Traceable

(e.g., EPA Protocol Gas) 

1) 40 CFR Part 50 Appen2) NA Green book3) 40 CFR Part 50 Appenabout CO2 sensitive instrGas producer used must Protocol Gas Verification 40 CFR Part 58 App A s

Zero Air/Zero Air Check 1/year < 0.1 ppm CO 1) 40 CFR Part 50 App C 

2) Recommendation 
QA Hand

1) Requirement (CO) 2) Frequency 3) Acceptance Criteria Informa

3) 40 CFR Part 50 App C 

Gas Dilution Systems 1/year or after failure of 1 point QC check or performance evaluation Accuracy + 2 % 1,2 and 3) Recommenda

in 40 CFR Part 50 App A

Detection (FEM/FRMs)  Noise 1/year 0.2 ppm (standard range) 0.1 ppm (lower range) 1) 40 CFR Part 53.23 (b

2) Recommendation- inf3) 40 CFR Part 53.20 Ta

 Lower detectable level 1/year 0.4 ppm(standard range) 0.2 ppm (lower range) 1) 40 CFR Part 53.23 (c

2) Recommendation 3) 40 CFR Part 53.20 Ta

SYSTEMATIC CRITERIA-CO

Sampler/Monitor NA Meets requirements listed in FRM/FEM designation 1) 40 CFR Part 58 App C 

2) NA 3) 40 CFR Part 53 & FRM

Standard Reporting Units All data ppm (final units in AQS) 1, 2 and 3) ) 40 CFR Part Rounding convention for data reported to AQS All data 1 decimal place 

1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5for comparison to NAAQhourly values.) 

Completeness 8-hour standard 75% of hourly averages for the 8-hour period 

1) 40 CFR Part 50.8(c) 2) 40 CFR Part 50.8(a-2) 3) 40 CFR Part 50.8(c) 

Sample Residence Time Verification 1/year < 20 seconds 

1,2, and 3) Recommendasuggest following same mpollutants. 

Sample Probe, Inlet, Sampling train 

All Sites Borosilicate glass (e.g., Pyrex®) or Teflon®

1,2, and 3) Recommendasuggest following same mpollutants. FEP and PFA equivalent material to Tesuggested as 1/year and mdictate. 

Siting 1/year Meets siting criteria or waiver documented 

1) 40 CFR Part 58 App E2) Recommendation 3) 40 CFR Part 58 App E

Precision(using 1-point QC checks) 

Calculated annually and as 

appropriate for design value 

estimates 

90% CL CV < 10% 

1) 40 CFR part 58 App A 2) 40 CFR Part 58 App A 3) 40 CFR Part 58 App A 

Bias (using 1-point QC checks) 

Calculated annually and as 

appropriate for design value 

estimates 

95% CL < + 10% 

1) 40 CFR Part 58 App A 2) 40 CFR Part 58 App A 3) 40 CFR Part 58 App A 

Annual PE Primary QA Organization (PQAO) Evaluation 

1/year 

95% of audit percent differences fall within the 

one point QC check 95% probability intervals at 

PQAO level of aggregation 

1) 40 CFR Part 58 App A 2) Recommendation 3) 40 CFR Part 58 App A 
QA Hand

NO2 , NOx, NO Validation Template

1) Requirement (NO2) 2) Frequency 3) Acceptance Criteria Inform

CRITICAL CRITERIA- NO2

One Point QC Check Single analyzer 1/ 2 weeks < +15% (percent difference) 

1 and 2) 40 CFR Part 58 3) Recommendation baApp A Sec 2.3.1.5 QC Check Conc range 0Relative to routine conc

Zero/span check 1/ 2 weeks Zero drift < + 1.5 ppb Span drift < + 10 % 1 and 2) QA Handbook 

3) Recommendation an

Converter Efficiency

During multi-point calibrations, span and 

audit 

1/ 2 weeks 

(>96%) 

96% – 104% 

1) 40 CFR Part 50 App 2) Recommendation 3) 40 CFR Part 50 App Regulation states > 96%recommendation. 

OPERATIONAL CRITERIA- NO2

Shelter Temperature Range Daily (hourly values) 

20 to 30o C. (Hourly avg) 

or 

per manufacturers specifications if designated 

to a wider temperature range 

1, 2 and 3) QA HandboGenerally the 20-30 o C restrictive operable rangshelter may also be used found on AMTIC proviinstrument. FRM/FEM 20-30 o C range per 40 C

Shelter Temperature Control Daily (hourly values) < + 2o C SD over 24 hours 1, 2 and 3) QA HandboShelter Temperature Device Check 1/6 mo + 2o C of standard 1, 2 and 3) QA Handbo

Annual Performance 

Evaluation Single Analyzer

Every site 1/year 25 % of sites quarterly Percent difference of audit levels 3-10 < +15% 

Audit levels 1&2 + 1.5 ppb difference or +15% 

1) 40 CFR Part 58 App 2) 40 CFR Part 58 App 3) Recommendation - 3 including zero. AMTIC http://www.epa.gov/ttn/

Federal Audits (NPAP) 1/year at selected sites 20% of sites audited Audit levels 1&2 + 1.5 ppb difference all other levels percent difference + 15% 1) 40 CFR Part 58 App 

2) NPAP adequacy req3) NPAP QAPP/SOP 

Verification/Calibration

Upon receipt/adjustment/repair/ 

installation/moving 

1/6 months if manual zero/span 

performed biweekly 

1/year if continuous zero/span performed 

daily 

Instrument residence time < 2 min 

Dynamic parameter > 2.75 ppm-min 

All points within +2 % of calibration range of 

best-fit straight line 

1) 40 CFR Part 50 App 2 and 3) RecommendatiMulti-point calibration 

Gaseous Standards All gas cylinders NIST Traceable 1) 40 CFR Part 50 App 
QA Hand

1) Requirement (NO2) 2) Frequency 3) Acceptance Criteria Inform

(e.g., EPA Protocol Gas) 

50-100 ppm of NO in Nitrogen with < 1 ppm 

NO2

2) NA Green book3) 40 CFR Part 50 App Gas producer used musAir Protocol Gas Verifi58 App A sec 2.6.1 

Zero Air/ Zero Air Check 1/year Concentrations below LDL 1) 40 CFR Part 50 App 

2 and 3) Recommendati

Gas Dilution Systems 1/year or after failure of 1 point QC check or performance evaluation Accuracy + 2 % 1,2 and 3) Recommend

requirement in 40 CFR 

Detection (FEM/FRMs) Noise NA 0.005 ppm 

1) 40 CFR Part 53.23 (2) NA 3) 40 CFR Part 53.20 T

Lower detectable level 1/year 0.01 ppm 

1) 40 CFR Part 53.23 (2) Recommendation 3) 40 CFR Part 53.20 T

SYSTEMATIC CRITERIA- NO2

Sampler/Monitor NA Meets requirements listed in FRM/FEM designation 1) 40 CFR Part 58 App 

2) NA 3) 40 CFR Part 53 & FR

Standard Reporting Units All data ppb (final units in AQS) 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part Rounding convention for data reported to AQ S All data 1 place after decimal with digits to right truncated 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part Completeness 

Annual Standard ≥ 75% hours in year 1) 40 CFR Part 50 App 

2) 40 CFR Part 50 App 3) 40 CFR Part 50 App 

1-hour standard 

1) 3consecutive calendars years of complete 

data 

2) 4 quarters complete in each year 

3) ≥75% sampling days in quarter 

4) ≥ 75% of hours in a day 

1) 40 CFR Part 50 App 2) 40 CFR Part 50 App 3) 40 CFR Part 50 App More details in 40 CFR 

Sample Residence Time Verification 1/year < 20 seconds

1) 40 CFR Part 58 App 2) Recommendation 3) 40 CFR Part 58 App 

Sample Probe, Inlet, Sampling train 

All sites Borosilicate glass (e.g., Pyrex®) or Teflon®

1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part FEP and PFA have been material to Teflon. Replsuggested as 1/year and load or contamination d

Siting 1/year Meets siting criteria or waiver documented 1) 40 CFR Part 58 App 
QA Hand

1) Requirement (NO2) 2) Frequency 3) Acceptance Criteria Inform

2) Recommendation 3) 40 CFR Part 58 App 

Precision(using 1-point QC checks)

Calculated annually and as appropriate 

for design value estimates 90% CL CV < 15%

1) 40 CFR Part 58 App 2) 40 CFR Part 58 App 3) 40 CFR Part 58 App 

Bias (using 1-point QC checks) Calculated annually and as appropriate for design value estimates 95% CL < + 15% 1) 40 CFR Part 58 App 

2) 40 CFR Part 58 App 3) 40 CFR Part 58 App 

Annual PE Primary QA Organization (PQAO) Evaluation 

1/year 

95% of audit percent differences fall within 

the one point QC check 95% probability 

intervals at PQAO level of aggregation

1) 40 CFR Part 58 App 2) Recommendation 3) 40 CFR Part 58 App 
QA Hand

SO2 Validation Template 

1) Requirement (SO2) 2) Frequency 3) Acceptance Criteria Inform

CRITICAL CRITERIA- SO2

One Point QC CheckSingle analyzer 1/ 2 weeks < +10% (percent difference) 

1 and 2) 40 CFR Part 58 3) Recommendation baseApp A Sec 2.3.1.2 QC Check Conc range 0.Relative to routine conce

Zero/span check 1/ 2 weeks Zero drift < + 1.5 ppb Span drift < + 10 % 1 and 2) QA Handbook V

3) Recommendation and 

OPERATIONAL CRITERIA- SO2

Shelter Temperature Range Daily (hourly values) 

20 to 30o C. (Hourly avg) 

or 

per manufacturers specifications if designated 

to a wider temperature range 

1, 2 and 3) QA HandbooGenerally the 20-30 o C rrestrictive operable range shelter may also be used found on AMTIC provideinstrument.FRM/FEM m30 o C range per 40 CFR 

Shelter Temperature Control Daily (hourly values) < + 2o C SD over 24 hours 1, 2 and 3) QA Handbook Shelter Temperature Device Check 1/6 mo + 2o C of standard 1, 2 and 3) QA Handbook 

Annual Performance 

Evaluation Single Analyzer

Every site 1/year 25 % of sites quarterly Percent difference of audit levels 3-10 < +15% 

Audit levels 1&2 + 1.5 ppb difference or +15%

1 and 2) 40 CFR Part 58 3) Recommendation - 3 aincluding zero. AMTIC http://www.epa.gov/ttn/a

Federal Audits (NPAP) 1/year at selected sites 20% of sites audited Audit levels 1&2 + 1.5 ppb difference all other levels percent difference + 15% 1) 40 CFR Part 58 App A 

2) NPAP adequacy requ3) NPAP QAPP/SOP 

Verification/Calibration

Upon receipt/adjustment/repair/ 

installation/moving 

1/6 months if manual zero/span 

performed biweekly 

1/year if continuous zero/span 

performed daily 

All points within + 2 % of calibration range of 

best-fit straight line 

1) 40 CFR Part 50 App A2 and 3) RecommendatioMulti-point calibration (0 

Gaseous Standards All gas cylinders NIST Traceable (e.g., EPA Protocol Gas) 

1) 40 CFR Part 50 App A2) NA Green book3) 40 CFR Part 50 App F Producers must participatVerification Program 40 

Zero Air/ Zero Air Check 1/year Concentrations below LDL < 0.1 ppm aromatic hydrocarbons 1) 40 CFR Part 50 App A

2) Recommendation 
QA Hand

1) Requirement (SO2) 2) Frequency 3) Acceptance Criteria Inform

3) Recommendation and Section 4.1.6.2 

Gas Dilution Systems 1/year or after failure of 1 point QC check or performance evaluation Accuracy + 2 % 1) 40 CFR Part 50 App A

2) Recommendation 3) 40 CFR Part 50 App A

Detection (FEM/FRMs)  Noise NA 0.001 ppm (standard range) 0.0005 ppm (lower range) 1) 40 CFR Part 53.23 (b) 

2) NA 3) ) 40 CFR Part 53.20 T

 Lower detectable level 1/year 0.002 ppm (standard range) 0.001 ppm (lower range) 1) 40 CFR Part 53.23 (c) 

2) Recommendation 3) 40 CFR Part 53.20 Tab

SYSTEMATIC CRITERIA- SO2

Sampler/Monitor NA Meets requirements listed in FRM/FEM designation 1) 40 CFR Part 58 App C 

3) 40 CFR Part 53 & FRM

Standard Reporting Units All data ppb (final units in AQS) 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part Rounding convention for data reported to AQS All data 1 place after decimal with digits to right truncated 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part Completeness 1 hour standard 

Hour – 75% of hour 

Day- 75% hourly Conc 

Quarter- 75% complete days 

Years- 4 complete quarters 

5-min value reported only for valid hours 

1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5More details in CFR on a5-min values or 5-min mavalid portion of the hour incomplete no 5-min or 5

Sample Residence Time Verification 1/year < 20 seconds

1) 40 CFR Part 58 App E2) Recommendation 3) 40 CFR Part 58 App E

Sample Probe, Inlet, Sampling train All sites Borosilicate glass (e.g., Pyrex®) or Teflon®

1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5FEP and PFA have been to Teflon. Replacement o1/year and more frequencontamination dictate 

Siting 1/year Meets siting criteria or waiver documented 

1) 40 CFR Part 58 App E2) Recommendation 3) 40 CFR Part 58 App E

Precision(using 1-point QC checks) 

Calculated annually and as appropriate 

for design value estimates 90% CL CV < 10%

1) 40 CFR Part 58 App A 2) 40 CFR Part 58 App A 3) 40 CFR Part 58 App A 

Bias (using 1-point QC checks) Calculated annually and as appropriate for design value estimates 95% CL < + 10% 1) 40 CFR Part 58 App A 

2) 40 CFR Part 58 App A 3) 40 CFR Part 58 App A 

Annual PE Primary QA Organization (PQAO) Evaluation 

1/year

95% of audit percent differences fall within the 

one point QC check 95% probability intervals 

at PQAO level of aggregation

1) 40 CFR Part 58 App A 2) Recommendation 3) 40 CFR Part 58 App A 
QA Hand

PM2.5 Filter Based Local Conditions Validation Template 

1) Criteria (PM2.5 LC ) 2) Frequency 3) Acceptable Range Inform

CRITICAL CRITERIA- PM2.5 Filter Based Local Conditions

Field Activities 

Filter Holding Times Sample Recovery all filters <7 days 9 hours from sample end date 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5Sampling Period (including multiple power failures) all filters 

1380-1500 minutes, or 

value if < 1380 and exceedance of NAAQS 1/

midnight to midnight local standard time

1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5See details if less than 1

Sampling Instrument Average Flow Rate every 24 hours of op average within 5% of 16.67 liters/minute 1, 2 and 3) Part 50 App L Variability in Flow Rate every 24 hours of op CV < 2% 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5One-point Flow Rate Verification 1/mo + 4% of transfer standard + 5% of flow rate design value 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5

and 40 CFR Part 58, App

Laboratory Activities 

Post-sampling Weighing all filters

<10 days from sample end date if shipped at 

ambient temp, or 

<30 days if shipped below avg ambient (or 4o C 

or below for avg sampling temps < 4o C ) from 

sample end date

1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5

Filter Visual Defect Check (unexposed) all filters Correct type & size and for pinholes, particles or imperfections 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5Filter Conditioning Environment 

Equilibration all filters 24 hours minimum 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5Temp. Range all filters 24-hr mean 20-23o C 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5Temp.Control all filters + 2o C SD* over 24 hr 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5Humidity Range all filters 24-hr mean 30% - 40% RH or <5% sampling RH but > 20%RH 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5Humidity Control all filters + 5% SD* over 24 hr. 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5Pre/post Sampling RH all filters difference in 24-hr means < + 5% RH 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5Balance all filters located in filter conditioning environment 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5

OPERATIONAL EVALUATIONS TABLE PM2.5 Filter Based Local Conditions

Field Activities

Sampling InstrumentIndividual Flow Rates every 24 hours of op no flow rate excursions > +5% for > 5 min. 1/ 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5Filter Temp Sensor every 24 hours of op no excursions of > 5o C lasting longer than 30 min 1/ 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5Routine Verifications
QA Hand

1) Criteria (PM2.5 LC ) 2) Frequency 3) Acceptable Range Inform

External Leak Check every 5 sampling events < 80 mL/min (see comment #1)

1) 40 CFR Part 50 App L2) Method 2-12 Table 8-3) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L

Internal Leak Check every 5 sampling events < 80 mL/min 

1) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L2) Method 2-12 Table 8-3) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L

One-point Temp Verification 1/mo + 2oC 

1) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L2) Method 2.12 Table 6-3) Recommendation 

Pressure Verification 1/mo + 10 mm Hg 

1) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L2) Method 2.12 Table 6-3) Recommendation 

Annual Multi-point Verifications/CalibrationsTemperature multi-point Verification/Calibration on installation, then 1/yr + 2oC 1) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L

2 and 3) Method 2.12 se

Pressure Verification/Calibration on installation, then 1/yr + 10 mm Hg 

1) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L2 and 3) Method 2.12 seSampler BP verified agaiverified against a lab primNIST traceable 1/year 

Flow Rate Multi-point Verification/ Calibration 

Electromechanical 

maintenance or transport or 

1/yr

+ 4% of transfer standard 

 1) 40 CFR Part 50, App 2) 40 CFR Part 50, AppTable 6-1 3) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L

Design Flow Rate Adjustment at one-point or multi-point verification/calibration + 2% of design flow rate 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5Other Monitor Calibrations per manufacturers’ op manual per manufacturers’ operating manual 1,2 and 3) RecommendatPrecisionCollocated Samples every 12 days for 15% of sites by method designation CV < 10% of samples > 3 μg/m3 1) and 2) Part 58 App A 

3 Recommendation based App A Sec 2.3.1.3 

AccuracyTemperature Audit 1/yr + 2oC 1, 2 and 3) Method 2.12 Pressure Audit 1/yr +10 mm Hg 1, 2 and 3) Method 2.12 Semi Annual Flow Rate Audit 1/6 mo + 4% of audit standard 

+ 5% of design flow rate 

1 and 2) Part 58, App A, 3) Method 2.12 Sec. 10.2

Monitor MaintenanceImpactor (WINs) every 5 sampling events cleaned/changed 1, 2,and 3) Method 2.12 Very Sharp Cut Cyclone every 30 days cleaned/changed 1,2 and 3) RecommendaInlet/downtube Cleaning every 15 sampling events cleaned 1,2 and 3) Method 2.12 Filter Chamber Cleaning 1/mo cleaned 1, 2 and 3) Method 2.12 
QA Hand

1) Criteria (PM2.5 LC ) 2) Frequency 3) Acceptable Range Inform

Circulating Fan Filter Cleaning 1/mo cleaned/changed 1, 2 and 3) Method 2.12 

Manufacturer-Recommended Maintenance 

per manufacturers’ SOP per manufacturers’ SOP 

Laboratory Activities 

Filter Checks Lot Blanks 9 filters per lot less than 15 μg change between weighings 

1, 2, 3) Recommendation stability of the lot of filtevendor. 

Exposure Lot Blanks 3 filters per lot less than 15 μg change between weighings 1,2 and 3) Method 2.12 S

Used for preparing a sub

Filter Integrity (exposed) each filter no visual defects 1,2 and 3) Method 2.12 SFilter Holding TimesPre-sampling all filters < 30 days before sampling 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5Lab QC ChecksField Filter Blank 10% or 1 per weighing session + 30 μg change between weighings 1) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L 

2 and 3) Method 2.12 Se

Lab Filter Blank 10% or 1 per weighing session + 15 μg change between weighings 1) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L 

2 and 3) Method 2.12 Se

Balance Check (working standards) beginning, 10th sample, end <3 +μg 1,2 and 3) Method 2.12 SDuplicate Filter Weighing 1 per weighing session + 15 μg change between weighings 1,2 and 3) Method 2.12 SMicrobalance Audit 1/yr + 0.050 mg or manufacturers specs, whichever is tighter 1,2 and 3) Method 2.12 SVerification/CalibrationLab Temperature 1/6 months + 2oC 

1) Method 2.12 Table 3-2 2) Recommendation. Tab3) Method 2.12 Table 3-2 

Lab Humidity 1/6 months + 2% 

1) Method 2.12 Table 3-2 2) Recommendation Tab3) Method 2.12 Table 3-2 

Microbalance Calibration 

At installation and prior to 

each weighing session 

1/yr 

Manufacturer’s specification 

1) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L2) 40 CFR Part 50, App.LSec. 7.2 3) NA 

Calibration & Check Standards - Working Mass Stds. (compare to primary standards) Primary standards

1/3 mo. 

1/yr 

0.025 mg 0.025 mg 

1, 2 and 3) Method 2.12 

SYSTEMATIC CRITERIA -PM2.5 Filter Based Local Conditions 

Sampler/Monitor NA Meets requirements listed in FRM/FEM/ARM designation 1) 40 CFR Part 58 App C 

2) NA 3) 40 CFR Part 53 & FRM
QA Hand

1) Criteria (PM2.5 LC ) 2) Frequency 3) Acceptable Range Inform

Siting 1/year Meets siting criteria or waiver documented 

1) 40 CFR Part 58 App E2) Recommendation 3) 40 CFR Part 58 App E

Data Completeness Annual Standard > 75% scheduled sampling days in each quarter 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 

24- Hour Standard > 75% scheduled sampling days in each quarter 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 

Reporting Units all filters μg/m3 at ambient temp/pressure (PM2.5) 1. 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5Rounding convention for data reported to AQS all filters to one decimal place, with additional digits to the right being truncated 1. 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5Annual 3-yr average all concentrations nearest 0.1 μg/m3 (> 0.05 round up) 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5

Rounding convention for recommendation 

24-hour, 3-year average all concentrations nearest 1 μg/m3 (> 0.5 round up) 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5

Rounding convention for recommendation 

Detection LimitLower DL all filters 2 μg/m3 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5Upper Conc. Limit all filters  200 μg/m3 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5PrecisionSingle analyzer (collocated monitors) 1/3 mo. Coefficient of variation (CV) < 10% for values > 3 μg/m3 1,2 and 3) Recommendat

(quarterly) evaluation of 

Primary Quality Assurance Org. Annual and 3 year estimates 90% CL of CV < 10% for values > 3 μg/m3 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5

. 

BiasPerformance Evaluation Program (PEP) 

5 audits for PQAOs with < 5 

sites 

8 audits for PQAOs with > 5 

sites 

+10% for values > 3 μg/m3

1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 52.3.1.1 

Field Activities

Verification/Calibration Standards Recertifications – All standards should have multi-point certifications against NIST Traceab

Flow Rate Transfer Std. 1/yr + 2% of NIST Traceable Std. 

1) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L 2) Method 2-12 Section 63) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L 

Field Thermometer 1/yr + 0.1o C resolution, + 0.5o C accuracy 1, 2 and 3) Method 2.12 Field Barometer 1/yr + 1 mm Hg resolution, + 5 mm Hg accuracy 1, 2 and 3) Method 2.12 Clock/timer Verification 1/mo 1 min/mo 1and 2) Method 2.12 Tab

3) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L 

Laboratory Activities

Microbalance Readability at purchase 1 μg 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5
QA Hand

1) Criteria (PM2.5 LC ) 2) Frequency 3) Acceptable Range Inform

Microbalance Repeatability 1/yr 1 μg 

1) Method 2.12 Sec 4.3.6 2) Recommendation 3) Method 2.12 Sec 4.3.6 

Primary Mass. Verification/Calibration Standards Recertifications 

1/yr 0.025 mg 

1, 2 and 3) Method 2.12 

Comment #1 It’s stated in the CFR that the criteria is <80mL/min. Exactly what samplers use this unit of measure? Most, if not all samplers that I know of use either the How can you convert a “liquid” unit of measure to a “pressure” unit of measure? Is there any way to change or add more applicable units to ease the confuPM2.4 PEP SOP. To pass the test, the actively displayed differential system pressure (shown on the right side of the screen as “SP”) must not drop by more 2-minute time interval (or 10-cm of water if using a 10-minute time interval). This is equivalent to the 80 mL/min acceptance criteria stated in related QA d

1/ value must be flagged SD * = standard deviation CV= coefficient of variation 
QA Hand

Continuous PM2.5 Local Conditions Validation Template NOTE: There may be a number of continuous monitors that may be designated as an FEM or an ARM. These monitors may have different 

attributes that cannot be identified in this validation template. Monitoring organizations should review specific instrument operating manuals 

template as necessary. In general, 40 CFR Part 58 App A and 40 CFR Part 50 App L requirements apply to Continuous PM2.5 

1) Criteria (PM2.5 Cont) 2) Frequency 3) Acceptable Range Infor

CRITICAL CRITERIA- PM2.5 Continuous, Local Conditions

Sampling Period 24 hour estimate every sample period > 75% (18) of hourly averages 

1,2and 3) 40 CFR  See additional det18 hours. 

Hourly estimates Every hour Instrument dependent See operators manu

Sampling Instrument Average Flow Rate every 24 hours of op average within 5% of 16.67 liters/minute 1, 2 and 3) Part 50 Variability in Flow Rate every 24 hours of op CV < 2% 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR One-point Flow Rate Verification 1/mo + 4% of transfer standard + 5% of flow rate design value 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR 

CFR Part 58, Appe

BAM Specific Critical Criteria

Reference Membrane Span Foil Verification (BAM) Hourly + 4% of ABS Value 1,2 and 3) BAM 10

OPERATIONAL CRITERIA- PM2.5 Continuous, Local Conditions

Annual Multi-point Verifications/CalibrationsLeak Check every 30 days < 1.0 lpm BAM (Not Thermo BAMS) + 0.15 lpm TEOM

1) 40 CFR Part 50 2) Recommendatio3) BAM SOP Sec  TEOM SOP Sec Thermo BAM leak Foils could be rupt

Temperature multi-point Verification/Calibration on installation, then 1/yr + 2oC 1) 40 CFR Part 50, 

2 and 3) Method 2

One-point Temp Verification 1/mo + 2oC 

1) 40 CFR Part 50, 2) Method 2.12 Ta3) Recommendatio

Pressure Verification/Calibration on installation, then 1/yr + 10 mm Hg 

1) 40 CFR Part 50, 2 and 3) Method 2 BP verified againsagainst a lab primaNIST traceable 1/y
QA Hand

1) Criteria (PM2.5 Cont) 2) Frequency 3) Acceptable Range Infor

Flow Rate Multi-point Verification/ Calibration 

Electromechanical 

maintenance or transport or 

1/yr

+ 4% of transfer standard 

 1) 40 CFR Part 50 2) 40 CFR Part 50Table 6-1 3) 40 CFR Part 50, 

Design Flow Rate Adjustment at one-point or multi-point verification/calibration + 2% of design flow rate 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Other Monitor Calibrations per manufacturers’ op manual per manufacturers’ operating manual PrecisionCollocated Samples every 12 days for 15% of sites by method designation CV < 10% of samples > 3 μg/m3 1) and 2) Part 58 A

3 Recommendation 58 App A Sec 2.3.

AccuracyTemperature Audit 1/yr + 2oC 1, 2 and 3) Method Pressure Audit 1/yr +10 mm Hg 1, 2 and 3) Method Semi Annual Flow Rate Audit 1/6 mo + 4% of audit standard 

+ 5% of design flow rate 

1 and 2) Part 58, A3) Method 2.12 Se

Shelter Temperature  Temperature range Daily (hourly values) 

20 to 30o C. (Hourly avg) 

or 

per manufacturers specifications if designated to a wider 

temperature range 

Generally the 20-3most restrictive opin the shelter may 

 Temperature Control Daily (hourly values) <+ 2o C SD over 24 hours 1, 2 and 3) QA Han Temperature Device Check 1/6 mo + 2oC 1, 2 and 3) QA HanMonitor MaintenanceVirtual Impactor (VSCC) Every 30 days cleaned/changed 1,2 and 3) RecommInlet Cleaning Every 30 days cleaned 1,2 and 3) Method Filter Chamber Cleaning Every 30 days cleaned 1,2 and 3) Method Circulating Fan Filter Cleaning 1/mo cleaned/changed 1,2 and 3) Method Manufacturer-Recommended  Maintenance per manufacturers’ SOP per manufacturers’ SOP 

TEOM Specific Operational Criteria

Total Flow Verification every 30 days Sum of flow rates from 3 paths equal design flow rate + 5% 1,2 and 3) TEOM SBypass leak check (TEOM) every 30 days + 0.60 lpm 1,2 and 3) TEOM S

Operating Manual 

Replace TEOM filters every 30 days As filter loading approached 100% 1,2 and 3) TEOM SReplace the 47-mm FDMS (Purge) filters 

every 30 days or any time 

TEOM filters are replaced replaced 1,2 and 3) TEOM S

Internal/External Data Logger Data Every 30 days 10 randomly selected values agree exactly (digital) and + 1 μg/m3 (analog) 1, 2 and 3) TEOM Replace In-line filters 1/6 mo replaced 1, 2 and 3) TEOM 
QA Hand

1) Criteria (PM2.5 Cont) 2) Frequency 3) Acceptable Range Infor

Clean cooler assembly 1/yr cleaned 1, 2 and 3) TEOM Clean/Maintain switching valve 1/yr cleaned 1, 2 and 3) TEOM Clean air inlet system of mass transducer enclosure 1/yr cleaned 1, 2 and 3) TEOM Replace the dryers 1/yr or due to poor performance replaced 1, 2 and 3) TEOM Calibration (KO) constant verification 1/yr Pass or Fail (< 2.5%) 

1, 2 TEOM SOP S3) 1405-DF operateither passes or faicriteria is < 2.5 % 

Rebuild sampling pump 18 months < 66% of local pressure 1, 2 and 3) TEOM 

GRIMM Specific Operational Criteria

Internal rinsing air filter After a few years Changed 

1, 2 and 3) GRIMM May require a trainonly require changnozzle and air inlet

Change Dust Filter 1/year Changed 1, 2 and 3) GRIMM 

BAM Specific Operational Criteria

Cleaning Nozzle and Van (BAM) Every 30 days cleaned 1, 2 and 3) BAM SReplace or Clean pump Muffler 1/6 mo Cleaned or changed Internal/External Data Logger Data (BAM) 

Every 30 days 

10 randomly selected values agree exactly (digital) and + 1 μg/m3 (analog) 1, 2 and 3) BAM S

Capstan shaft and pinch roller cleaning (BAM) Every 30 days cleaned 1, 2 and 3) BAM SSmart Heater Test 1/6 mo Heater turns when forced off 1, 2 and 3) BAM SClean/replace internal debris filter 1/year 72-Hour zero filter test At installation and 1/year 1, 2 and 3) BAM SCheck of membrane span foil 1/year Avg. < + 5% of ABS 1, 2 and 3) BAM SBeta detector count rate 1/year Between 600,00 and 1,000,000 1, 2 and 3) BAM S

SYSTEMATIC CRITERIA- PM2.5 Continuous, Local Conditions

Sampler/Monitor NA Meets requirements listed in FRM/FEM/ARM designation 1) 40 CFR Part 58 

2) NA 3) 40 CFR Part 53 

Siting 1/year Meets siting criteria or waiver documented 

1) 40 CFR Part 58 2) Recommendatio3) 40 CFR Part 58 

Data Completeness quarterly > 75% Part 50, App. N, SeReporting Units all filters μg/m3 at ambient temp/pressure (PM2.5) 1. 2 and 3) 40 CFR Rounding convention for data reported to AQS all filters to one decimal place, with additional digits to the right being truncated 1. 2 and 3) 40 CFR 
QA Hand

1) Criteria (PM2.5 Cont) 2) Frequency 3) Acceptable Range Infor

Annual 3-yr average all concentrations nearest 0.1 μg/m3 (> 0.05 round up) 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR 

Rounding conventirecommendation 

24-hour, 3-year average all concentrations nearest 1 μg/m3 (> 0.5 round up) 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR 

Rounding conventirecommendation 

Detection LimitLower DL all filters 2 μg/m3 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Upper Conc. Limit all filters  200 μg/m3 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Verification/Calibration Standards Recertifications - All standards should have multi-point certifications against NIST Traceable standards Flow Rate Transfer Std. 1/yr + 2% of NIST Traceable Std. Part 50, App.L Sec Field Thermometer 1/yr + 0.1o C resolution, + 0.5o C accuracy Method 2.12 Sec 4Field Barometer 1/yr + 1 mm Hg resolution, + 5 mm Hg accuracy Method 2.12 Sec 4Calibration & Check StandardsFlow Rate Transfer Std. 1/yr + 2% of NIST-traceable Std. Part 50, APP L, SeVerification/CalibrationClock/timer Verification 1/mo 1 min/mo** Part 50, App.L, SePrecisionSingle analyzer (collocated monitors) 1/3 mo. Coefficient of variation (CV) < 10% for values > 3 μg/m3 1,2 and 3) Recomm

early (quarterly) evDQOs. 

Primary Quality Assurance Org. Annual and 3 year estimates 90% CL of CV < 10% for values > 3 μg/m3 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR 

2.3.1.1 . 

BiasPerformance Evaluation Program (PEP) 

5 audits for PQAOs with < 5 

sites 

8 audits for PQAOs with > 5 

sites 

+10% for values > 3 μg/m3

1,2 and 3) 40 CFR and 2.3.1.1 

1/ value must be flagged due to current implementation of BAM ( sampling 42 minute/hour) only 1008 minutes of sampling in 24 hour period 

SD= standard deviation , CV= coefficient of variation** = need to ensure data system stamps appropriate time period with reported sample value 
QA Hand

PM10c for PM10-2.5 Low –Volume , Filter-Based Local Conditions Validation Template NOTE: The following validation template was constructed for use of PM10 at local conditions where PM10c is used in the calculation of the P

objectives other than comparison to the PM10 NAAQS. Although the PM 10-2.5 method is found in 40 CFR Part 50 Appendix O, Appendix O 

PM2.5 Method) for the QC requirements listed below. Therefore, the information action column, in most cases, will reference 40 CFR Part 5

organizations using PM10 data for a NAAQS comparison purposes should refer to the PM10 validation template for STP (standard temperatur

In addition, since the samplers are very similar to the PM2.5 samplers, Guidance Document 2.12 Monitoring PM2.5 in Ambient Air Using D

1 Equivalent Methods is referred to where appropriate. 

1) Criteria (PM10c ) 2) Frequency 3) Acceptable Range Inform

CRITICAL CRITERIA- PM10c Filter Based Local Conditions

Field Activities 

Filter Holding Times Sample Recovery all filters <7 days 9 hours from sample end date 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5Sampling Period (including multiple power failures) all filters 

1380-1500 minutes, or 

value if < 1380 and exceedance of NAAQS 1/

midnight to midnight local standard time

1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5See details if less than 1

Sampling Instrument Average Flow Rate every 24 hours of op average within 5% of 16.67 liters/minute 1, 2 and 3) Part 50 App L Variability in Flow Rate every 24 hours of op CV < 2% 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5One-point Flow Rate Verification 1/mo + 4% of transfer standard + 5% of flow rate design value 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5

Part 58, Appendix A Sec 

Laboratory Activities 

Post-sampling Weighing all filters

<10 days from sample end date if shipped at 

ambient temp, or 

<30 days if shipped below avg ambient (or 4o C 

or below for avg sampling temps < 4o C ) from 

sample end date

1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5

Filter Visual Defect Check (unexposed) all filters Correct type & size and for pinholes, particles or imperfections 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5Filter Conditioning Environment 

Equilibration all filters 24 hours minimum 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5Temp. Range all filters 24-hr mean 20-23o C 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5Temp.Control all filters + 2o C SD* over 24 hr 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5Humidity Range all filters 24-hr mean 30% - 40% RH or <5% sampling RH but > 20%RH 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5Humidity Control all filters + 5% SD* over 24 hr. 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5Pre/post Sampling RH all filters difference in 24-hr means < + 5% RH 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5
QA Hand

1) Criteria (PM10c ) 2) Frequency 3) Acceptable Range Inform

Balance all filters located in filter conditioning environment 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5

OPERATIONAL EVALUATIONS TABLE- PM10c Filter Based Local Conditions

Field Activities

Sampling InstrumentIndividual Flow Rates every 24 hours of op no flow rate excursions > +5% for > 5 min. 1/ 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5Filter Temp Sensor every 24 hours of op no excursions of > 5o C lasting longer than 30 min 1/ 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5Routine VerificationsExternal Leak Check every 5 sampling events < 80 mL/min (see comment #1)

1) 40 CFR Part 50 App L2) Method 2-12 Table 8-3) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L

Internal Leak Check every 5 sampling events < 80 mL/min 

1) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L2) Method 2-12 Table 8-3) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L

One-point Temp Verification 1/mo + 2oC 

1) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L2) Method 2.12 Table 6-3) Recommendation 

Pressure Verification 1/mo + 10 mm Hg 

1) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L2) Method 2.12 Table 6-3) Recommendation 

Annual Multi-point Verifications/CalibrationsTemperature multi-point Verification/Calibration on installation, then 1/yr + 2oC 1) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L

2 and 3) Method 2.12 se

Pressure Verification/Calibration on installation, then 1/yr + 10 mm Hg 

1) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L2 and 3) Method 2.12 seSampler BP verified agaiverified against a lab primas NIST traceable 1/year 

Flow Rate Multi-point Verification/ Calibration 

Electromechanical 

maintenance or transport or 

1/yr

+ 4% of transfer standard 

 1) 40 CFR Part 50, App 2) 40 CFR Part 50, AppTable 6-1 3) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L

Design Flow Rate Adjustment at one-point or multi-point verification/calibration + 2% of design flow rate 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5Other Monitor Calibrations per manufacturers’ op manual per manufacturers’ operating manual 1,2 and 3) RecommendatPrecisionCollocated Samples every 12 days for 15% of sites by method designation CV < 15% of samples > 3 μg/m3 1) and 2) Part 58 App A 

3 Recommendation based App A Sec 2.3.1.3 

AccuracyTemperature Audit 1/yr + 2oC 1, 2 and 3) Method 2.12 
QA Hand

1) Criteria (PM10c ) 2) Frequency 3) Acceptable Range Inform

Pressure Audit 1/yr +10 mm Hg 1, 2 and 3) Method 2.12 Semi Annual Flow Rate Audit 1/6 mo + 4% of audit standard 

+ 5% of design flow rate 

1 and 2) Part 58 App A, 3) Method 2.12 Sec. 10.2

Monitor MaintenanceImpactor (WINs) every 5 sampling events cleaned/changed 1, 2,and 3) Method 2.12 Very Sharp Cut Cyclone every 30 days cleaned/changed 1,2 and 3) RecommendaInlet/downtube Cleaning every 15 sampling events cleaned 1,2 and 3) Method 2.12 Filter Chamber Cleaning 1/mo cleaned 1, 2 and 3) Method 2.12 Circulating Fan Filter Cleaning 1/mo cleaned/changed 1, 2 and 3) Method 2.12 

Manufacturer-Recommended Maintenance per manufacturers’ SOP per manufacturers’ SOP 

Laboratory Activities 

Filter Checks Lot Blanks 9 filters per lot less than 15 μg change between weighings 

1, 2 and 3) Recommendfilter stability of the lot ovendor. 

Exposure Lot Blanks 3 filters per lot less than 15 μg change between weighings 1,2 and 3) Method 2.12 S

Used for preparing a sub

Filter Integrity (exposed) each filter no visual defects 1,2 and 3) Method 2.12 SFilter Holding TimesPre-sampling all filters < 30 days before sampling 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5Lab QC ChecksField Filter Blank 10% or 1 per weighing session + 30 μg change between weighings 

1) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L 2 and 3) Method 2.12 Se

Lab Filter Blank 10% or 1 per weighing session + 15 μg change between weighings 1) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L 

2 and 3) Method 2.12 Se

Balance Check (working standards) beginning, 10th sample, end <3 μg 1,2 and 3) Method 2.12 SDuplicate Filter Weighing 1 per weighing session + 15 μg change between weighings 1,2 and 3) Method 2.12 SMicrobalance Audit 1/yr + 0.050 mg or manufacturers specs, whichever is tighter 1,2 and 3) Method 2.12 SVerification/CalibrationLab Temperature 1/6 months + 2oC 

1) Method 2.12 Table 3-2 2) Recommendation Tab3) Method 2.12 Table 3-2 

Lab Humidity 1/6 months + 2% 

1) Method 2.12 Table 3-2 2) Recommendation Tab3) Method 2.12 Table 3-2 
QA Hand

1) Criteria (PM10c ) 2) Frequency 3) Acceptable Range Inform

Microbalance Calibration 

At installation and prior to 

each weighing session 

1/yr 

Manufacturer’s specification 

1) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L2) 40 CFR Part 50, App.LSec. 7.2 3) NA 

Calibration & Check Standards - Working Mass Stds. (compare to primary standards) 1/3 mo. 0.025 mg 1, 2 and 3) Method 2.12 

SYSTEMATIC CRITERIA - PM10c Filter Based Local Conditions 

Sampler/Monitor NA Meets requirements listed in FRM/FEM/ARM designation 1) 40 CFR Part 58 App C 

2) NA 3) 40 CFR Part 53 & FRM

Siting 1/year Meets siting criteria or waiver documented 

1) 40 CFR Part 58 App E2) Recommendation 3) 40 CFR Part 58 App E

Data Completeness NA > 75% scheduled sampling days in each quarter 

1, 2 and 3) Recommendarequirements in 40 CFR 4.2 (a) 

Reporting Units all filters μg/m3 at ambient temp/pressure (PM2.5) 1. 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5Rounding convention for data reported to AQS all concentrations nearest 0.1 μg/m3 (> 0.05 round up) 1,2 and 3) Recommenda

requirements 40 CFR Par

Detection LimitLower DL all filters <3 μg/m3 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5Upper Conc. Limit all filters >200 μg/m3 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5PrecisionSingle analyzer (collocated monitors) 1/3 mo. Coefficient of variation (CV) < 10% for values > 3 μg/m3 1,2 and 3) Recommendat

evaluation of achievemen

Primary Quality Assurance Org. Annual and 3 year estimates 90% CL of CV < 10% for values > 3 μg/m3 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5BiasPerformance Evaluation Program (PEP) 

5 audits for PQAOs with < 5 

sites 

8 audits for PQAOs with > 5 

sites 

+10% for values > 3 μg/m3

1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 2.3.1.1 

Field Activities

Verification/Calibration Standards Recertifications – All standards should have multi-point certifications against NIST Traceable standardsFlow Rate Transfer Std. 1/yr + 2% of NIST-traceable Std. 

1) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L 2) Method 2-12 Section 63) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L 

Field Thermometer 1/yr + 0.1o C resolution, + 0.5o C accuracy 1, 2 and 3) Method 2.12 Field Barometer 1/yr + 1 mm Hg resolution, + 5 mm Hg accuracy 1, 2 and 3) Method 2.12 
QA Hand

1) Criteria (PM10c ) 2) Frequency 3) Acceptable Range Inform

Verification/CalibrationClock/timer Verification 1/mo 1 min/mo 1 and 2) Method 2.12 Ta

3) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L

Laboratory Activities

Microbalance Readability at purchase 1 μg 1, 2 and 3) ) 40 CFR Part Microbalance Repeatability 1/yr 1 μg 

1) Method 2.12 Sec 4.3.6 2) Recommendation 3) Method 2.12 Sec 4.3.6 

Primary Mass Stds. 1/yr 0.025 mg 1, 2 and 3) Method 2.12 Comment #1 It’s stated in the CFR that the criteria is <80mL/min. Exactly what samplers use this unit of measure? Most, if not all samplers that I know of use either the How can you convert a “liquid” unit of measure to a “pressure” unit of measure? Is there any way to change or add more applicable units to ease the confuPM2.4 PEP SOP. To pass the test, the actively displayed differential system pressure (shown on the right side of the screen as “SP”) must not drop by more 2-minute time interval (or 10-cm of water if using a 10-minute time interval). This is equivalent to the 80 mL/min acceptance criteria stated in related QA d

1/ value must be flagged , SD= standard deviation, CV= coefficient of variation 
QA Hand

PM10 Filter Based Dichot STP Conditions Validation Template 

1) Criteria (PM10 Dichot 

STP) 2) Frequency 3) Acceptable Range Informat

CRITICAL CRITERIA- PM10 Filter Based Dichot 

Field Activities

Filter Holding Times Sample Recovery all filters ASAP 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50 ASampling Period all filters 1440 minutes + 60 minutes midnight to midnight local standard time 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50 ASampling Instrument Average Flow Rate every 24 hours of op average 16.67 liters/minute 1,2 and 3) Method 2.10 sec 2Verification/CalibrationOne-point Flow Rate Verification 1/mo + 7% of transfer standard 1,2 and 3) Method 2.10 Tabl

Lab Activities

FilterVisual Defect Check (unexposed) all filters see reference 1,2 and 3) Method 2.10 sec 4Collection efficiency all filters > 99 % 1,2 and 3) Part 50, App J sec Alkalinity all filters < 25.0 microequivalents/gram 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50, AFilter Conditioning Environment 

Equilibration all filters 24 hours minimum 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50, ATemp. Range all filters 15-30o C 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50, ATemp.Control all filters + 3o C SD* over 24 hr 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50, A

SD statistic is recommendati

Humidity Range all filters 20% - 45% RH 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50, AHumidity Control all filters + 5% SD* over 24 hr 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50, A

SD use is recommendation 

Pre/post Sampling RH all filters difference in 24-hr means < + 5% RH 1,2 and 3) Recommendation 

App.L sec 8.3.3 

Balance all filters located in filter conditioning environment 1,2 and 3) Recommendation 

App.L sec 8.3.2 

OPERATIONAL EVALUATIONS TABLE PM10 Filter Based Dichot 

Field Activities

Verification/CalibrationSystem Leak Check During precalibration check Vacuum of 10 to 15 in. & rate of decline to 0 >60 seconds 1,2 and 3) Method 2.10 sec 2FR Multi-point Verification/Calibration 1/yr 

Correlation coefficient of >.990 with no point 

deviating more than 0.5 L/min for total or 0.05 

L/min for coarse 

1) 40 CFR Part 50, App.J, se2 and 3) Method 2.10 Sec 2.

Field Temp M-point Verification on installation, then 1/yr + 2oC 1,2 and 3) Recommendation Precision
QA Hand

1) Criteria (PM10 Dichot 

STP) 2) Frequency 3) Acceptable Range Informat

Collocated Samples every 12 days for 15% of sites 5 μg/m3 for concentrations below 80μg/m3 and 7% for concentrations above 80μg/m3 1 and 2) 40 CFR Part 58 Ap

3) Part 50, App J sec 4.1 

Semi Annual Flow Rate Audit 1/6 mo + 10% of audit standard 1 and 2) 40 CFR Part 58, Ap

3) Method 2.10 Sec 7.1.5 

Monitor MaintenanceImpactor 1/3 mo cleaned/changed 1,2 and 3) Method 2.10 sec Inlet/downtube Cleaning 1/3 mo cleaned 1,2 and 3) Method 2.10 sec 

Vacuum pump 1/yr Replace diaphragm and flapper valves 1,2 and 3) Method 2.10 sec Manufacturer-Recommended Maintenance per manufacturers’ SOP per manufacturers’ SOP 

Lab Activities

Balance Check beginning, 10th sample, end  4 μg of true zero <2 μg of 10 mg check weight 1,2 and 3) Method 2 .10 sec “Standard” filter QC check 10% + 20 μg change from original value 1,2 and 3) Method 2.10 sec 

From standard non-routine fi

“Routine” duplicate weighing 5-7 per weighing session + 20 μg change from original value 1,2 and 3) Method 2.10 sec 

From routine filter set 

Integrity- Random sample of test field blank filters 10% + 5 μg/m3

1) 40 CFR Part 50 App J sec 2) Recommendation 3) 40 CFR Part 50 App J sec 

Lab Temperature Calibration 1/6 months + 2oC 1,2 and 3) Recommendation 

App.L 

Lab Humidity Calibration 1/6 months + 2% 1,2 and 3) Recommendation 

L sec 5.8.1 

Microbalance Calibration 1/yr Manufacturer’s specification 1,2 and 3) Recommendation 

L 

Filter Weighing Audit 1/yr + 20 μg change from original value 1,2 and 3) Method 2.10 TabBalance Audit 1/yr Observe weighing technique and check balance with ASTM Class 1 standard 1,2 and 3) Method 2.10 Tab

SYSTEMATIC CRITERIA - PM10 Filter Based Dichot 

Sampler/Monitor NA Meets requirements listed in FRM/FEM/ARM designation 1) 40 CFR Part 58 App C Se

2) NA 3) 40 CFR Part 53 & FRM/F

Siting 1/year Meets siting criteria or waiver documented 

1) 40 CFR Part 58 App E, se2) Recommendation 3) 40 CFR Part 58 App E, se

Data Completeness 24- Hour Standard > 75% scheduled sampling days in each quarter 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50 AReporting Units all filters μg/m3 at standard temperature and pressure 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50 A
QA Hand

1) Criteria (PM10 Dichot 

STP) 2) Frequency 3) Acceptable Range Informat

Rounding convention for data reported to AQS

Each routine concentration nearest 10 μg/m3 (> 5 round up) 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50 A

Precision Single analyzer 1/3 mo. Coefficient of variation (CV) < 10% > 3 μg/m3 1,2 and 3) Recommendation 

part 58 App A sec 4 

 Single analyzer 1/ yr CV < 10% > 3 μg/m3 1,2 and 3) Recommendation 

58 App A sec 4 

 Primary Quality Assurance Org. Annual and 3 year estimates 90% CL of CV < 10% > 3 μg/m3 1,2 and 3) Recommendation 

58 App A sec 4 

Field Activities

Verification/Calibration Standards and Recertifications - All standards should have multi-point certifications against NIST Traceable standardsFlow Rate Transfer Std. 1/yr + 2% of NIST-traceable Std. 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50 AField Thermometer 1/yr + 0.1o C resolution, + 0.1o C accuracy 1,2 and 3) Method 2.10 sectiField Barometer 1/yr + 1 mm Hg resolution, + 5 mm Hg accuracy 1,2 and 3) Method 2.10 sectiClock/timer Verification 1/6 mo 15 min/day 1,2 and 3) Method 2.10 sec 9 

Lab Activities

Microbalance at purchase Readability 1 μg, Repeatability1 μg 1,2 and 3) Method 2.10 sec 4Primary Mass Stds. (compare to NIST-traceable standards) 

1/yr NIST traceable 

(e.g., ANSI/ASTM Class 1, 1.1 or 2) 

1,2 and 3) Method 2.10 sec 9 

*SD= standard deviation CV= coefficient of variation 
QA Hand

PM10 Filter Based High Volume (HV) STP Conditions Validation Template 

1) Criteria (PM10 Hi-Vol 

STP) 2) Frequency 3) Acceptable Range Informatio

CRITICAL CRITERIA- PM10 Filter Based Hi-Vol

Field Activities

Filter Holding Times Sample Recovery all filters ASAP 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50 App J Sampling Period all filters 1440 minutes + 60 minutes midnight to midnight local standard time 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50 App J Average Flow Rate every 24 hours of op ~1.13 m3/min (varies with instrument) 1,2 and 3) Method 2.11 Verification/CalibrationOne-point Flow Rate Verification 1/3 mo + 7% of transfer standard and 10% from design 1 and 2) 40 CFR Part 58, App A, 

3) Method 2.11 sec 3.5.1, Table 2

Lab Activities

FilterVisual Defect Check (unexposed) all filters see reference Method 2.11 sec 4.2 Collection efficiency all filters 99 % 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50, App J Alkalinity all filters < 25.0 microequivalents/gram 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50, App J Filter Conditioning Environment 

Equilibration all filters 24 hours minimum 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50, App.J Temp. Range all filters 15-30o C 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50, App.J Temp.Control all filters + 3o C SD* over 24 hr 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50, App.J Humidity Range all filters 20% - 45% RH 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50, App.J Humidity Control all filters + 5% SD* over 24 hr 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50, App.J Pre/post Sampling RH all filters difference in 24-hr means < + 5% RH 1,2 and 3) Recommendation based Balance all filters located in filter conditioning environment 1,2 and 3) Recommendation base

OPERATIONAL EVALUATIONS TABLE PM10 Filter Based Hi-Vol 

Field Activities

Verification/CalibrationSystem Leak Check During precalibration check Auditory inspection with faceplate blocked 1,2 and 3) Method 2.11 sec 2.3.2 FR Multi-point Verification/Calibration 1/yr 3 of 4 cal points within + 10% of design 1, 2 and 3) Method 2.11 sec 2.3.2 Field Temp M-point Verification on installation, then 1/yr + 2oC 1,2 and 3) Recommendation PrecisionCollocated Samples every 12 days for 15% of sites CV < 10% of samples > 15 μg/m3 1) and 2) 40 CFR Part 58 App A s

3) Recommendation 

Semi Annual Flow Rate Audit 1/6 mo + 7% of transfer standard and 10% from design 1 and 2) 40 CFR Part 58, App A, 

3) Method 2.11 sec 7 Table 7-1 

Monitor MaintenanceInlet/downtube Cleaning 1/3 mo cleaned 1, 2 and 3) Method 2.11 sec 6 Motor/housing gaskets 1/3 mo Inspected replaced 1, 2 and 3) Method 2.11 sec 6 
QA Hand

1) Criteria (PM10 Hi-Vol 

STP) 2) Frequency 3) Acceptable Range Informatio

Blower motor brushes 600-1000 hours Replace 1, 2 and 3) Method 2.11 sec 6 Manufacturer-Recommended Maintenance per manufacturers’ SOP per manufacturers’ SOP NA 

Lab Activities

Lab QC ChecksBalance Check (Standard Weight Check and Calibration Check) beginning, 15th sample, end + 0.5 mg of true zero and + 0.5 mg 1-5 g check weight 1,2, and 3) Method 2 .11 sec 4.5.1 “Routine” duplicate weighing 5-7 per weighing session + 2.8 mg change from original value 1,2 and 3) Method 2.11 sec 4.5.3 From routine filter set Integrity- Random sample of test field blank filters 10% + 5 μg/m3

1) 40 CFR Part 50 App J sec 7.2.3 2) Recommendation 3) 40 CFR Part 50 App J sec 7.2.3 

Lab Temperature Calibration 1/6 months + 2oC 1,2 and 3) Recommendation relateLab Humidity Calibration 1/6 months + 2% 1,2 and 3) Recommendation relatMicrobalance Calibration 1/yr Manufacturer’s specification Audits Filter Weighing 1/yr + 5 mg change from original value 

1) Method 2.11 Table 7-1 2) Recommendation 3) Method 2.11 Table 7-1 

Balance Audit 1/yr Observe weighing technique and check balance with ASTM Class 1 standard 1) Method 2.11 Table 7-1 2) Recommendation 3) Method 2.11 Table 7-1 

SYSTEMATIC CRITERIA - PM10 Filter Based Hi-Vol 

Sampler/Monitor NA Meets requirements listed in FRM/FEM/ARM designation 1) 40 CFR Part 58 App C, Section 

2) NA 3) 40 CFR Part 53 & FRM/FEM m

Siting 1/year Meets siting criteria or waiver documented 

1) 40 CFR Part 58 App E, section2) Recommendation 3) 40 CFR Part 58 App E, section

Data Completeness quarterly > 75% 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50 App. KReporting Units all filters μg/m3 at standard temperature and pressure 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50 App K Rounding convention for data reported to AQS Each routine concentration nearest 10 μg/m3 (> 5 round up) 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50 App K Precision Single analyzer 1/3 mo. Coefficient of variation (CV) < 10% > 15 μg/m3 1,2 and 3) Recommendation  Single analyzer 1/ yr CV < 10% > 15 μg/m3 1,2 and 3) Recommendation  Primary Quality Assurance Org. Annual and 3 year estimates 90% CL of CV < 10% > 15 μg/m3 1,2 and 3) Recommendation 

Field Activities
QA Hand

1) Criteria (PM10 Hi-Vol 

STP) 2) Frequency 3) Acceptable Range Informatio

Verification/Calibration Standards and Recertifications - All standards should have multi-point certifications against NIST Traceable standardsFlow Rate Transfer Std. 1/yr + 2% of NIST-traceable Std. 

1) 40 CFR Part 50, App.J sec 7.3 2) Method 2.11 Sec 1.1.3 3) 40 CFR Part 50, App.J sec 7.3 

Field Thermometer 1/yr + 0.1o C resolution, + 0.5o C accuracy 1,2 and 3) Method 2.11 Sec 1.1.2 Field Barometer 1/yr + 1 mm Hg resolution, + 5 mm Hg accuracy 1,2 and 3) Method 2.11 Sec 1.1.2 Clock/timer Verification 4/year 5 min/mo recommendation 

Lab Activities

Microbalance at purchase Readability 0.1 mg Repeatability0.5 mg 

(HV) 

1 and 2) 40 CFR Part 50, App.J s3) Method 2.11 sec 4.4 

Primary Mass Stds. (compare to NIST-traceable standards) 

1/yr NIST traceable 

(e.g., ANSI/ASTM Class 1, 1.1 or 2) 

1,2 and 3) Method 2.11 sec 9 

SD= standard deviation CV= coefficient of variation 
QA Hand

Continuos PM10 STP Conditions Validation Template NOTE: There are a number of continuous PM10 monitors that are designated as FEM. These monitors may have different measurement or 

cannot be identified in this validation template. Monitoring organizations should review specific instrument operating manuals and augment QC information specific to their EPA reference or equivalent method designation and instrument.” http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambien

equivalent-methods-list.pdf. In general, 40 CFR Part 58 App A and 40 CFR Part 50 App J requirements apply to Continuous PM10. Since a 

never developed for continuous PM10, many of the requirements reflect a combination of manual and continuous PM2.5 requirements and arecommendations.

1) Criteria (PM10 Cont) 2) Frequency 3) Acceptable Range Informatio

CRITICAL CRITERIA- PM10 Continuous

Sampling Period all filters 1440 minutes + 60 minutes midnight to midnight local standard time 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50 App Average Flow Rate every 24 hours of op Average within + 5% of design recommendation Verification/CalibrationOne-point Flow Rate Verification 1/mo + 7% of transfer standard 1 and 2) 40 CFR Part 58, App A

3) Method 2.10 Table 3-1 

OPERATIONAL EVALUATIONS TABLE PM10 Continuous 

Verification/CalibrationSystem Leak Check During precalibration check Auditory inspection with faceplate blocked 1,2 and 3) Method 2.11 sec 2.3.2 FR Multi-point Verification/Calibration 1/yr 3 of 4 cal points within + 10% of design 1) 40 CFR Part 50 App J sec 8.0 2 and 3) Method 2.10 Sec 2.2.4 Audits Semi Annual Flow Rate Audit 1/6 mo + 10% of audit standard 1,2) Part 58, App A, sec 3.2.4 3) Method 2.10 Sec 7.1.5 Monitor MaintenanceInlet/downtube Cleaning 1/3 mo cleaned 1,2 and 3) Method 2.10 sec 6.1

Manufacturer-Recommended Maintenance per manufacturers’ SOP per manufacturers’ SOP 

SYSTEMATIC CRITERIA - PM10 Continuous 

Sampler/Monitor NA Meets requirements listed in FRM/FEM/ARM designation 1) 40 CFR Part 58 App C Sectio

2) NA 3) 40 CFR Part 53 & FRM/FEM 

Siting 1/year Meets siting criteria or waiver documented 

1) 40 CFR Part 58 App E, sectio2) Recommendation 3) 40 CFR Part 58 App E, sectio

Data Completeness 24-hour quarterly 23 hours > 75% Recommendation 40 CFR Part 50 App. K, sec. 2.3 Reporting Units all filters μg/m3 at standard temperature and pressure (STP) 40 CFR Part 50 App K 
QA Hand

1) Criteria (PM10 Cont) 2) Frequency 3) Acceptable Range Informatio

Rounding convention for data reported to AQS24-hour, 3-year average quarterly nearest 10 μg/m3 (> 5 round up) 40 CFR Part 50 App K sec 1 Verification/Calibration Standards and Recertifications - All standards should have multi-point certifications against NIST Traceable standardsFlow Rate Transfer Std. 1/yr + 2% of NIST-traceable Std. 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50 App J Field Thermometer 1/yr + 0.1o C resolution, + 0.1o C accuracy 1,2 and 3) Method 2.10 section 1Field Barometer 1/yr + 1 mm Hg resolution, + 5 mm Hg accuracy 1,2 and 3) Method 2.10 section 1Clock/timer Verification 1/6 mo 15 min/day 1,2 and 3) Method 2.10 sec 9 
QA Hand

PM10 Low Volume STP Filter-Based Local Conditions Validation Template Monitoring organizations can use low-volume PM instruments for PM10 monitoring. However, PM10 data collection for NAAQS purposes m

temperature and pressure (STP). 40 CFR Part 50 App J describes the reference method for PM10 but this method was promulgated for dichot that have improved over the years. Since monitoring organization may be able to use the low volume methods for multiple uses (PM10c, PM

validation criteria for this method follow the method requirements associated with the PM 2.5 which is Appendix L. Where there are particul

related to the NAAQS evaluation App J will be used. 

1) Criteria (PM10 Lo-Vol 

STP) 2) Frequency 3) Acceptable Range Inform

CRITICAL CRITERIA- PM10 Lo-Vol Filter Based STP

Field Activities 

Filter Holding Times Sample Recovery all filters <7 days 9 hours from sample end date 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5Sampling Period (including multiple power failures) all filters 1440 minutes + 60 minutes midnight to midnight local standard time 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5Sampling Instrument Average Flow Rate every 24 hours of op average within 5% of 16.67 liters/minute 1, 2 and 3) Part 50 App L Variability in Flow Rate every 24 hours of op CV < 2% 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5One-point Flow Rate Verification 1/mo + 4% of transfer standard + 5% of flow rate design value 

1) 40 CFR Part 50, App.LAppendix A Sec 3.2.3 & 2) Recommendation 3) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L

Laboratory Activities 

Post-sampling Weighing all filters

<10 days from sample end date if shipped at 

ambient temp, or 

<30 days if shipped below avg ambient (or 4o C 

or below for avg sampling temps < 4o C ) from 

sample end date

1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5

Filter Visual Defect Check (unexposed) all filters Correct type & size and for pinholes, particles or imperfections 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5Filter Conditioning Environment 

Equilibration all filters 24 hours minimum 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5Temp. Range all filters 24-hr mean 20-23o C 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5Temp.Control all filters + 2o C SD* over 24 hr 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5Humidity Range all filters 24-hr mean 30% - 40% RH or <5% sampling RH but > 20%RH 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5Humidity Control all filters + 5% SD* over 24 hr. 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5Pre/post Sampling RH all filters difference in 24-hr means < + 5% RH 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5Balance all filters located in filter conditioning environment 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5
QA Hand

1) Criteria (PM10 Lo-Vol 

STP) 2) Frequency 3) Acceptable Range Inform

OPERATIONAL EVALUATIONS TABLE PM10 Lo-Vol Filter Based STP 

Field Activities

Sampling InstrumentIndividual Flow Rates every 24 hours of op no flow rate excursions > +5% for > 5 min. 1/ 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5Filter Temp Sensor every 24 hours of op no excursions of > 5o C lasting longer than 30 min 1/ 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5Routine VerificationsExternal Leak Check every 5 sampling events < 80 mL/min (see comment #1)

1) 40 CFR Part 50 App L2) Method 2-12 Table 8-3) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L

Internal Leak Check every 5 sampling events < 80 mL/min 

1) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L2) Method 2-12 Table 8-3) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L

One-point Temp Verification 1/mo + 2oC 

1) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L2) Method 2.12 Table 6-3) Recommendation 

Pressure Verification 1/mo + 10 mm Hg 

1) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L2) Method 2.12 Table 6-3) Recommendation 

Annual Multi-point Verifications/CalibrationsTemperature multi-point Verification/Calibration on installation, then 1/yr + 2oC 1) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L

2 and 3) Method 2.12 se

Pressure Verification/Calibration on installation, then 1/yr + 10 mm Hg 

1) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L2 and 3) Method 2.12 seSampler BP verified agaiverified against a lab primNIST traceable 1/year 

Flow Rate Multi-point Verification/ Calibration 

Electromechanical 

maintenance or transport or 

1/yr

+ 4% of transfer standard 

 1) 40 CFR Part 50, App 2) 40 CFR Part 50, AppTable 6-1 3) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L

Design Flow Rate Adjustment at one-point or multi-point verification/calibration + 2% of design flow rate 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5Other Monitor Calibrations per manufacturers’ op manual per manufacturers’ operating manual 1,2 and 3) RecommendatPrecisionCollocated Samples every 12 days for 15% of sites CV < 10% of samples > 3 μg/m3 1) and 2) 40 CFR Part 5

3) Recommendation 

AccuracyTemperature Audit 1/yr + 2oC 1, 2 and 3) Method 2.12 Pressure Audit 1/yr +10 mm Hg 1, 2 and 3) Method 2.12 
QA Hand

1) Criteria (PM10 Lo-Vol 

STP) 2) Frequency 3) Acceptable Range Inform

Semi Annual Flow Rate Audit 1/6 mo + 4% of audit standard 

+ 5% of design flow rate 

1 and 2) Part 58, App A, 3) Method 2.12 Sec. 10.2

Monitor MaintenanceImpactor (WINs) every 5 sampling events cleaned/changed 1, 2,and 3) Method 2.12 Very Sharp Cut Cyclone every 30 days cleaned/changed 1,2 and 3) RecommendaInlet/downtube Cleaning every 15 sampling events cleaned 1,2 and 3) Method 2.12 Filter Chamber Cleaning 1/mo cleaned 1, 2 and 3) Method 2.12 Circulating Fan Filter Cleaning 1/mo cleaned/changed 1, 2 and 3) Method 2.12 

Manufacturer-Recommended Maintenance 

per manufacturers’ SOP per manufacturers’ SOP 

Laboratory Activities 

Filter Checks Lot Blanks 9 filters per lot less than 15 μg change between weighings 

1, 2, 3) Recommendation stability of the lot of filtevendor. 

Exposure Lot Blanks 3 filters per lot less than 15 μg change between weighings 1,2 and 3) Method 2.12 S

Used for preparing a sub

Filter Integrity (exposed) each filter no visual defects 1,2 and 3) Method 2.12 SFilter Holding TimesPre-sampling all filters < 30 days before sampling 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5Lab QC ChecksField Filter Blank 10% or 1 per weighing session + 30 μg change between weighings 

1) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L 2 and 3) Method 2.12 Se

Lab Filter Blank 10% or 1 per weighing session + 15 μg change between weighings 1) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L 

2 and 3) Method 2.12 Se

Balance Check (working standards) beginning, 10th sample, end <3 μg 1,2 and 3) Method 2.12 SDuplicate Filter Weighing 1 per weighing session + 15 μg change between weighings 1,2 and 3) Method 2.12 SMicrobalance Audit 1/yr + 0.050 mg or manufacturers specs, whichever is tighter 1,2 and 3) Method 2.12 SVerification/CalibrationLab Temperature 1/6 months + 2oC 

1) Method 2.12 Table 3-2 2) Recommendation Tab3) Method 2.12 Table 3-2 

Lab Humidity 1/6 months + 2% 

1) Method 2.12 Table 3-2 2) Recommendation Tab3) Method 2.12 Table 3-2 
QA Hand

1) Criteria (PM10 Lo-Vol 

STP) 2) Frequency 3) Acceptable Range Inform

Microbalance Calibration 

At installation and prior to 

each weighing session 

1/yr 

Manufacturer’s specification 

1) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L2) 40 CFR Part 50, App.LSec. 7.2 3) NA 

Calibration & Check Standards - Working Mass Stds. (compare to primary standards) 1/3 mo. 0.025 mg 1, 2 and 3) Method 2.12 

SYSTEMATIC CRITERIA - PM10 Lo-Vol Filter Based STP

Sampler/Monitor NA Meets requirements listed in FRM/FEM/ARM designation 1) 40 CFR Part 58 App C 

2) NA 3) 40 CFR Part 53 & FRM

Siting 1/year Meets siting criteria or waiver documented 

1) 40 CFR Part 58 App E2) Recommendation 3) 40 CFR Part 58 App E

Data Completeness 24- Hour Standard > 75% scheduled sampling days in each quarter 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5Reporting Units all filters μg/m3 at standard temperature and pressure 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5Rounding convention for data reported to AQS

Each routine concentration nearest 10 μg/m3 (> 5 round up) 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5

Detection LimitLower DL all filters 2 μg/m3 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5Upper Conc. Limit all filters  200 μg/m3 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5Precision Single analyzer 1/3 mo. Coefficient of variation (CV) < 10% > 3 μg/m3 1,2 and 3) Recommenda Single analyzer 1/ yr CV < 10% > 3 μg/m3 1,2 and 3) Recommenda Primary Quality Assurance Org. Annual and 3 year estimates 90% CL of CV < 10% > 3 μg/m3 1,2 and 3) Recommenda

Field Activities

Verification/Calibration Standards Recertifications – All standards should have multi-point certifications against NIST Traceab

Flow Rate Transfer Std. 1/yr + 2% of NIST Traceable Std. 

1) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L 2) Method 2-12 Section 63) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L 

Field Thermometer 1/yr + 0.1o C resolution, + 0.5o C accuracy 1, 2 and 3) Method 2.12 Field Barometer 1/yr + 1 mm Hg resolution, + 5 mm Hg accuracy 1, 2 and 3) Method 2.12 Clock/timer Verification 1/mo 1 min/mo 1and 2) Method 2.12 Tab

3) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L 

Laboratory Activities

Microbalance Readability at purchase 1 μg 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 5
QA Hand

1) Criteria (PM10 Lo-Vol 

STP) 2) Frequency 3) Acceptable Range Inform

Microbalance Repeatability 1/yr 1 μg 

1) Method 2.12 Sec 4.3.6 2) Recommendation 3) Method 2.12 Sec 4.3.6 

Primary Mass. Verification/Calibration Standards Recertifications 

1/yr 0.025 mg 

1, 2 and 3) Method 2.12 

Comment #1 It’s stated in the CFR that the criteria is <80mL/min. Exactly what samplers use this unit of measure? Most, if not all samplers that I know of use either the How can you convert a “liquid” unit of measure to a “pressure” unit of measure? Is there any way to change or add more applicable units to ease the confuPM2.4 PEP SOP. To pass the test, the actively displayed differential system pressure (shown on the right side of the screen as “SP”) must not drop by more 2-minute time interval (or 10-cm of water if using a 10-minute time interval). This is equivalent to the 80 mL/min acceptance criteria stated in related QA d
QA Hand

Pb High Volume (TSP) Validation Template Note: in 2008, the NAAQS was lowered for Pb and new monitoring rules were promulgated which allowed for the use of federal equivalent use of PM10 sampling in certain circumstances. The following information is guidance based on the current FRM which is sampling by TSP 

absorption. Information is this table is derived from the TSP sampling method in 40 CFR Part 50 App B, and QA Handbook Method 2.2 (19requirements/guidance is derived from 40 CFR Part 50, App G and QA Handbook Method 2.8 (1981). Monitoring for Pb based on the new Nbegin in calendar year 2010. Revised and/or additional Pb validation templates will be included in this section (if published before thi

or posted on AMTIC 

1) Criteria 2) Frequency 3) Acceptable Range 4) Inform

CRITICAL CRITERIA- Pb in TSP

Field Activities 

Filter Holding Times Sample Recovery all filters ASAP 1, 2 and 3 ) 40 CFR Part 50 Sampling Period all filters 1440 minutes + 60 minutes midnight to midnight local standard time 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50 ASampling Instrument Average Flow Rate every 24 hours of op 1.1-1.70 m3/min (varies with instrument) in actual condition 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50 One-point Flow Rate Verification 1/3 mo +7% from transfer standard 1 and 2) 40 CFR Part 58 Ap

3) Method 2.2 sec 2.6 

Lab Activities

FilterVisual Defect Check (unexposed) all filters 

Initial backlight inspection- no pinholes or 

imperfections.Visual inspection prior to shipping 

to analytical lab 

1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50 A

Collection Efficiency all filters 99 % 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50 APressure Drop Range all filters 42-54 mm Hg 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50 ApH all filters 6-10 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50, Pb Content all filters pre-sampling batch check <75 μg/filter 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50, 

Method 2.8 sec 6.2.1. Morwhether filters should be co

Calibration Reproducibility Checks Beginning, every 10 samples and end + 5% of value predicted by calibration curve 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50, 

May be FEM dependent 

Reagent Blank Every analytical batch < LDL 1,2 and 3) Recommendation Daily Calibration Daily (on day of analysis) until good agreement is obtained among replicates 1,2 and 3) Method 2.8 sec 2

OPERATIONAL EVALUATIONS TABLE Pb in TSP 

Field Activities

Verification/Calibration
QA Hand

1) Criteria 2) Frequency 3) Acceptable Range 4) Inform

System Leak Check During precalibration check Visual and Auditory inspection with faceplate blocked 1, 2 and 3) RecommendatioFR Multi-point Verification/Calibration 

After receipt, after motor 

maintenance or failure of 1-

point check and 

1/yr 

5 points over range of 1.1 to 1.7 m3/min 

within + 5% limits of linearity 

1, 2 and 3) Method 2.2 sec 

PrecisionCollocated Samples 

15% of each method code in 

PQAO 

Frequency - every 12 days 

CV < 20% of samples > 0.02 μg/m3 (cutoff value) 1 and 2 ) 40 CFR Part 58 A

3) Recommendation for ear

Semi Annual Flow Rate Audit 1/6 mo + 7% of audit standard 1 and 2) 40 CFR Part 58, A

3) Method 2.2 Table 8.2 

Monitor MaintenanceInlet cleaning 1/3 mo cleaned 1,2 and 3) Recommendation Motor/housing gaskets ~400 hours Inspected replaced 1, 2 and 3) Method 2.2 sec 

Blower motor brushes 400-500 Replace 1, 2 and 3) Method 2.2 sec Manufacturer-Recommended Maintenance per manufacturers’ SOP per manufacturers’ SOP NA 

Lab Activities

Analysis Audits 6 strips/quarter 3 at each concentration range 10% (percent difference) 1 and 2) 40 CFR Part 58, A

3) Recommendation 

Field Filter Blank 1/quarter < LDL 1,2 and 3) Recommendation Lab Blanks 1/ sample run < LDL 1,2 and 3) Recommendation Control Standards ( 1 μg Pb/ml and a standard between 1-10 μg Pb/ml) 

1st, every 10 samples and last 

sample. 

Deviation of < 5% from value predicted by 

calibration curve 

1,2 and 3) Method 2.8 sect

SYSTEMATIC CRITERIA - Pb Filter Based Hi-Vol 

Sampler/Monitor NA Meets requirements listed in FRM/FEM/ARM designation

1) 40 CFR Part 58 App C S2) NA 3) 40 CFR Part 53 & FRM/Also described in 40 CFR P

Siting 1/year Meets siting criteria or waiver documented 

1) 40 CFR Part 58 App E, s2) Recommendation 3) 40 CFR Part 58 App E, s

Data Completeness 3-year standard average of the 3 constituent monthly means > 75% . 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50 

there are substitution tests tmeeting completeness crite

Reporting Units all filters μg/m3 at local temperature and pressure. 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50 Rounding convention for data reported to AQS (3-month arithmetic mean)

quarterly Report data to 3 decimal places (data after 3 are truncated. 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50 
QA Hand

1) Criteria 2) Frequency 3) Acceptable Range 4) Inform

Lower Detectable Limit (AA) all samples 0.07 μg Pb/m3 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50 PrecisionSingle analyzer 1/3 mo. Coefficient of variation (CV) < 20% > 0.02 μg/m3 1 and 2 ) 40 CFR Part 58 A

3) Recommendation related 

Primary Quality Assurance Org. Annual and 3 year estimates 90% CL of CV < 20% > 0.02 μg/m3 1, 2 and 3 ) 40 CFR Part 58 

2.3.1.4 

BiasPerformance Evaluation Program (PEP) 

5 audits for PQAOs with < 5 

sites 

8 audits for PQAOs with > 5 

sites 

95% CL Absolute bias +15% > 0.02 μg/m3

1, 2 and 3 ) 40 CFR Part 58 2.3.1.4 The PEP include 1 or indepor 6 samples from the monimonitor sent to the indepen

Field Activities

Verification/Calibration Standards and Recertifications - All standards should have multi-point certifications against NIST Traceable standardsFlow Rate Transfer Std. 1/yr Resolution 0.02 m3/min + 2% reproducibility 1) 40 CFR Part 50, App.B s

2) Method 2.2 section 2.5 3) 40 CFR Part 50, App.B s

Field Thermometer 1/yr 2o C resolution 

1) 40 CFR Part 50, App.B s2) Recommendation 3) 40 CFR Part 50, App.B s

Field Barometer 1/yr + 5 mm Hg resolution 

1) 40 CFR Part 50, App.B s2) Recommendation 3) 40 CFR Part 50, App.B s

Clock/timer Verification 1/3 mo. + 2 min/24-hour R1,2 and 3) Method 2.2. se

Lab Activities

Analytical StandardsReagents (HNO3 and HCL) all ACS reagent grade 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50 Pb nitrate Pb (NO3)2 all ACS reagent grade (99.0% purity) 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50 

SD= standard deviation CV= coefficient of variation 
QA Handbook V

PM10 -Pb Low Volume Filter-Based Local Conditions Validation Template NOTE: The following validation template was constructed for use of PM10-Pb at local conditions where PM10c method in 40 CFR Part 50 Appen

Although the PM 10-2.5 method is found in 40 CFR Part 50 Appendix O, Appendix O also references Appendix L (the PM2.5 Method) for the QC 

below. Therefore, the information action column, in most cases, will reference 40 CFR Part 50 App L. In addition, since the PM10 samplers are 

PM2.5 samplers, Guidance Document 2.12 Monitoring PM2.5 in Ambient Air Using Designated Reference or Class 1 Equivalent Methods is re

appropriate. At present the only analytical FRM is XRF. Therefore quality control criteria are associated with the XRF method which is promul

50 Appendix Q. 

1) Criteria (PM10-Pb LoVol ) 2) Frequency 3) Acceptable Range Information 

CRITICAL CRITERIA- PM10-Pb Filter Based Local Conditions

Field Activities 

Filter Holding TimesSample Recovery all filters ASAP 

1, 2 and 3 ) 40 CFR part 50 AIf filters are used for more thand PM10) the sample recovmost stringent requirement. 

Sampling Period (including multiple power failures) all filters 1440 minutes + 60 minutes midnight to midnight local standard time 

1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50 AIf filters are used for more thand PM10) the sample recovmost stringent requirement. 

Sampling Instrument Average Flow Rate every 24 hours of op average within 5% of 16.67 liters/minute 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50 AVariability in Flow Rate every 24 hours of op CV < 2% 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50, AOne-point Flow Rate Verification 1/mo + 4% of transfer standard + 5% of flow rate design value 

1) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L, S58, Appendix A Sec 3.2.3 & 2) Recommendation 3) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L, S

Laboratory Activities(XRF Analysis) 

Filter Visual Defect Check (unexposed) all filters Correct type & size and for pinholes, particles or imperfections 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50, APb blank filter Acceptance Testing ~ 20 test filters per lot 90% of filters < 4.8 ng Pb/cm2 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50 A

OPERATIONAL EVALUATIONS TABLE- PM10-Pb Filter Based Local Conditions

Field Activities 

Sampling InstrumentIndividual Flow Rates every 24 hours of op no flow rate excursions > +5% for > 5 min. 1/ 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50, A
QA Handbook V

1) Criteria (PM10-Pb LoVol ) 2) Frequency 3) Acceptable Range Information 

Filter Temp Sensor every 24 hours of op no excursions of > 5o C lasting longer than 30 min 1/ 1, 2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50, ARoutine VerificationsExternal Leak Check every 5 sampling events < 80 mL/min (see comment #1)

1) 40 CFR Part 50 App L, Se2) Method 2-12 Table 8-1 3) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L, S

Internal Leak Check every 5 sampling events < 80 mL/min 

1) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L, S2) Method 2-12 Table 8-1 3) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L, S

One-point Temp Verification 1/mo + 2oC 

1) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L, S2) Method 2.12 Table 6-1 3) Recommendation 

Pressure Verification 1/mo + 10 mm Hg 

1) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L, S2) Method 2.12 Table 6-1 3) Recommendation 

Annual Multi-point Verifications/CalibrationsTemperature multi-point Verification/Calibration on installation, then 1/yr + 2oC 1) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L, S

2 and 3) Method 2.12 sec 6.

Pressure Verification/Calibration on installation, then 1/yr + 10 mm Hg 

1) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L, S2 and 3) Method 2.12 sec 6.Sampler BP verified against verified against a lab primary certified as NIST traceable 1

Flow Rate Multi-point Verification/ Calibration 

Electromechanical 

maintenance or transport or 

1/yr

+ 4% of transfer standard 

 1) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L, S 2) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L, STable 6-1 3) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L, S

Design Flow Rate Adjustment at one-point or multi-point verification/calibration + 2% of design flow rate 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50, AOther Monitor Calibrations per manufacturers’ op manual per manufacturers’ operating manual 1,2 and 3) Recommendation PrecisionCollocated Samples 

15% of each method code in 

PQAO 

Frequency - every 12 days 

CV < 20% of samples > 0.02 μg/m3 (cutoff value) 1 and 2 ) 40 CFR Part 58 Ap

3) Recommendation for early 

AccuracyTemperature Audit 1/yr + 2oC 1, 2 and 3) Method 2.12 SecPressure Audit 1/yr +10 mm Hg 1, 2 and 3) Method 2.12 Sec. Semi Annual Flow Rate Audit 1/6 mo + 4% of audit standard 

+ 5% of design flow rate 

1 and 2) 40 CFR Part 58 App 3) Method 2.12 Sec. 10.2.1 & 

Monitor Maintenance
QA Handbook V

1) Criteria (PM10-Pb LoVol ) 2) Frequency 3) Acceptable Range Information 

Impactor (WINs) every 5 sampling events cleaned/changed 1, 2,and 3) Method 2.12 Sec Very Sharp Cut Cyclone every 30 days cleaned/changed 1,2 and 3) Recommendation Inlet/downtube Cleaning every 15 sampling events cleaned 1,2 and 3) Method 2.12 Sec Filter Chamber Cleaning 1/mo cleaned 1, 2 and 3) Method 2.12 Sec Circulating Fan Filter Cleaning 1/mo cleaned/changed 1, 2 and 3) Method 2.12 Sec 

Manufacturer-Recommended Maintenance per manufacturers’ SOP per manufacturers’ SOP 

Laboratory Activities (XRF Analysis)

Filter Holding Times  Pre-sampling all filters < 30 days before sampling 

1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50, ARequired only if filters will bmass as well as Pb. If only upre-sampling holding time no

Analysis Audits 6 filters/quarter 3 at each concentration range 10% (percent difference) 1 and 2) 40 CFR Part 58, Ap

3) Recommendation 

Field Filter Blank 1/quarter < 0.01 μg/m3 1) 40 CFR Part 50 App Q sec 

2 and 3) Recommendation 

Lab Filter Blank 1/ sample run <.003 μg/m3 1 40 CFR part 50 App Q sec 

2 and 3) Recommendation 

Thin Film Standards (standard reference materials) Beginning and end of each analytical run XRF conc. + 3x the 1 sigma uncertainty overlaps the NIST certified conc. + 1x its reported uncertainty. 1) 40 CFR Part 50 App Q sec 

2 and 3) recommendation 

Run time quality control standards Checking peak areas, background areas, centroid and FWHM 

Beginning and end of each 

analytical run Target value + 3 SD 

1,2,and 3) Recommendation Target values and SD of QC prior to analysis. 

XRF analyzer calibration 

1/year or when significant 

repairs or changes occur or 

QC limits exceeded

XRF conc. + 3x the 1 sigma uncertainty overlaps 

the NIST certified conc. + 1x its reported 

uncertainty. 

1 and 2) 40 CFR Part 50 App 3) Recommendation 

Background Measurement and Correction 

20 clean blank filters 

for each filter lot used NA 1 and 2) 40 CFR Part 50 App 

SYSTEMATIC CRITERIA - PM10-Pb Filter Based Local Conditions 

Sampler/Monitor NA Meets requirements listed in FRM/FEM designation 1) 40 CFR Part 58 App C Se

2) NA 3) 40 CFR Part 53 & FRM/F

Siting 1/year Meets siting criteria or waiver documented 

1) 40 CFR Part 58 App E, se2) Recommendation 3) 40 CFR Part 58 App E, se
QA Handbook V

1) Criteria (PM10-Pb LoVol ) 2) Frequency 3) Acceptable Range Information 

Data Completeness 3-year standard average of the 3 constituent monthly means > 75% . 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50 A

addition there are substitutiofor data not meeting complet

Reporting Units all filters μg/m3 at local temperature and pressure. 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50 ARounding convention for data reported to AQS (3-monthmean) quarterly Report data to 3 decimal places (data after 3 are truncated. 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50 ALower DL all filters <0.001 μg/m3 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50 AUpper Conc. Limit all filters >200 μg/m3 1,2 and 3) 40 CFR Part 50, APrecisionSingle analyzer 1/3 mo. Coefficient of variation (CV) < 20% > 0.02 μg/m3 1 and 2 ) 40 CFR Part 58 Ap

3) Recommendation related t

Primary Quality Assurance Org. Annual and 3 year estimates 90% CL of CV < 20% > 0.02 μg/m3 1, 2 and 3 ) 40 CFR Part 58 A

sec 2.3.1.4 

BiasPerformance Evaluation Program (PEP) 

5 audits for PQAOs with < 5 

sites 

8 audits for PQAOs with > 5 

sites 

95% CL Absolute bias +15% > 0.02 μg/m3

1, 2 and 3 ) 40 CFR Part 58 Aand sec 2.3.1.4 The PEP includes 1 or 2 indeaudits and 4 or 6 samples froorganizations collocated monindependent National PEP L

Field Activities

Verification/Calibration Standards Recertifications – All standards should have multi-point certifications against NIST Traceable standardsFlow Rate Transfer Std. 1/yr + 2% of NIST-traceable Std. 

1) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L Se2) Method 2-12 Section 6.3.3 3) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L Se

Field Thermometer 1/yr + 0.1o C resolution, + 0.5o C accuracy 1, 2 and 3) Method 2.12 Sec Field Barometer 1/yr + 1 mm Hg resolution, + 5 mm Hg accuracy 1, 2 and 3) Method 2.12 Sec Verification/CalibrationClock/timer Verification 1/mo 1 min/mo 1 and 2) Method 2.12 Table 

3) 40 CFR Part 50, App.L, S

Comment #1 It’s stated in the CFR that the criteria is <80mL/min. Exactly what samplers use this unit of measure? Most, if not all samplers that I know of use either the “in unit. How can you convert a “liquid” unit of measure to a “pressure” unit of measure? Is there any way to change or add more applicable units to ease the confis in the PM2.4 PEP SOP. To pass the test, the actively displayed differential system pressure (shown on the right side of the screen as “SP”) must not drop by water during the 2-minute time interval (or 10-cm of water if using a 10-minute time interval). This is equivalent to the 80 mL/min acceptance criteria stated in documents.

1/ value must be flagged SD= standard deviation CV= coefficient of variation 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix E 

Revision No. 0 

Date:05/13 

Page 1 of 9 

Appendix E 

Characteristics of Spatial Scales Related to Each Pollutant 

The following tables provide information in order to match the spatial scale represented by the monitor 

with the monitoring objectives. 

NOTE: This information can also be found in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix D and since there is a 

possibility that spatial scales have been updated, users should also review CFR. 

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix E 

Revision No. 0 

Date:05/13 

Page 2 of 9 

Page intentionally left blank 
QA Ha

Pollutant Spatial 

Scale

Characteristics NOTE: This information can also be found in 40 CFR Part 58, A

there is a possibility that spatial scales have been updated, users should also revie

NCore Urban 

Rural 

Generally located at urban or neighborhood scale to provide representative concentrations of exposure expected thr

however, a middle-scale site may be acceptable in cases where the site can represent many such locations througho

Rural NCore stations are to be located to the maximum extent practicable at a regional or larger scale away from an

that they represent ambient concentrations over an extensive area.

PM10 Micro 

Middle Neighborhood 

This scale would typify areas such as downtown street canyons, traffic corridors, and fence line stationary source m

general public could be exposed to maximum PM10 concentrations. Microscale particulate matter sites should be lo

locations where the general public can be expected to be exposed to the concentration measured. Emissions from st

and secondary smelters, power plants, and other large industrial processes may, under certain plume conditions, likconcentrations at the microscale. In the latter case, the microscale would represent an area impacted by the plume w

approximately 100 meters. Data collected at microscale sites provide information for evaluating and developing ho

Much of the short-term public exposure to coarse fraction particles (PM10) is on this scale and on the neighborhoo

downtown areas or living near major roadways or stationary sources, may encounter particulate pollution that woulmeasurements of this spatial scale. Middle scale PM10 measurements can be appropriate for the evaluation of posshealth effects. In many situations, monitoring sites that are representative of micro-scale or middle-scale impacts ar

representative of many similar situations. This can occur along traffic corridors or other locations in a residential direpresentative of a neighborhood of small scale sites and is appropriate for evaluation of long-term or chronic effeccharacteristic concentrations for other areas with dimensions of a few hundred meters such as the parking lot and fe

shopping centers, stadia, and office buildings. In the case of PM10, unpaved or seldomly swept parking lots associa

important source. Measurements in this category represent conditions throughout some reasonably homogeneous urban subregion wi

and of generally more regular shape than the middle scale. Homogeneity refers to the particulate matter concentratiland surface characteristics. In some cases, a location carefully chosen to provide neighborhood scale data would re

neighborhood but also neighborhoods of the same type in other parts of the city. Neighborhood scale PM10 sites pr

and compliance with standards because they often represent conditions in areas where people commonly live and w

Neighborhood scale data could provide valuable information for developing, testing, and revising models that descr

patterns, especially those models relying on spatially smoothed emission fields for inputs. The neighborhood scale 

for neighborhood comparisons within or between cities. 
QA Ha

Pollutant Spatial 

Scale

Characteristics NOTE: This information can also be found in 40 CFR Part 58, Athere is a possibility that spatial scales have been updated, users should also revie

SO2 Micro 

Middle Neighborhood Urban 

This scale would typify areas in close proximity to SO2 point and area sources. Emissions from stationary point and 

sources may, under certain plume conditions, result in high ground level concentrations at the microscale. The micr

impacted by the plume with dimensions extending up to approximately 100 meters. 

This scale generally represents air quality levels in areas up to several city blocks in size with dimensions on the or

to 500 meters. The middle scale may include locations of expected maximum short-term concentrations due to prox

and/or non-road sources. The neighborhood scale would characterize air quality conditions throughout some relatively uniform land use area

kilometer range. Emissions from stationary point and area sources may, under certain plume conditions, result in hi

neighborhood scale. Where a neighborhood site is located away from immediate SO2 sources, the site may be usefu

quality values for a larger residential area, and therefore suitable for population exposure and trends analyses Measurements in this scale would be used to estimate concentrations over large portions of an urban area with dimeSuch measurements would be useful for assessing trends in area-wide air quality, and hence, the effectiveness of la

strategies. Urban scale sites may also support other monitoring objectives of the SO2 monitoring network such as id

monitors are sited upwind of local sources, background concentrations. 

CO Micro 

Middle Neighborhood 

This scale applies when air quality measurements are to be used to represent distributions within street canyons, ovroadways. In the case with carbon monoxide, microscale measurements in one location can often be considered as r

locations in a city. Middle scale measurements are intended to represent areas with dimensions from 100 meters to 0.5 kilometer. In cemeasurements may apply to areas that have a total length of several kilometers, such as ‘‘line’’ emission source are

areas would include air quality along a commercially developed street or shopping plaza, freeway corridors, parkin

Neighborhood scale measurements are intended to represent areas with dimensions from 0.5 kilometers to 4 kilome

category would represent conditions throughout some reasonably urban sub-regions. In some cases, neighborhood the immediate neighborhood spatial area, but also other similar such areas across the larger urban area. Neighborho

relative area-wide concentration data which are useful for providing relative urban background concentrations, supp

research, and for use in modeling. 
QA Ha

Pollutant Spatial 

Scale

Characteristics NOTE: This information can also be found in 40 CFR Part 58, Athere is a possibility that spatial scales have been updated, users should also revie

O3 Neighborhood

Urban Regional 

Measurements in this category represent conditions throughout some reasonably homogeneous urban subregion, wi

kilometers. Homogeneity refers to pollutant concentrations. Neighborhood scale data will provide valuable informa

revising concepts and models that describe urban/regional concentration patterns. These data will be useful to the u

processes that take periods of hours to occur and hence involve considerable mixing and transport. Under stagnationeighborhood scale may also experience peak concentration levels within a metropolitan area. Measurement in this scale will be used to estimate concentrations over large portions of an urban area with dimensimore kilometers. Such measurements will be used for determining trends, and designing area-wide control strategie

also be used to measure high concentrations downwind of the area having the highest precursor emissions. This scale of measurement will be used to typify concentrations over large portions of a metropolitan area and even 

as much as hundreds of kilometers. Such measurements will be useful for assessing the O3 that is transported to an

as background concentrations. In some situations, particularly when considering very large metropolitan areas with 

regional scale sites can be the maximum concentration location. 

NO2 Microscale 

Middle Neighborhood Urban 

This scale represents areas in close proximity to major roadways or point and area sources. Emissions from roadwa

concentrations at the microscale, where concentration gradients generally exhibit a marked decrease with increasinroads. As noted in appendix E of this part, near-road NO2 monitoring stations are required to be within 50 meters o

measure expected peak concentrations. Emissions from stationary point and area sources, and non-road sources ma

result in high ground level concentrations at the microscale. The microscale typically represents an area impacted b

extending up to approximately 100 meters. Dimensions from about 100 meters to 500 meters. The middle scale may include locations of expected maximum h

proximity to major NO2 point, area, and/or non-road sources. 

The neighborhood scale represents air quality conditions throughout some relatively uniform land use areas with di

kilometer range. Measurements in this scale would be used to estimate concentrations over large portions of an urban area with dimeSuch measurements would be useful for assessing trends in area-wide air quality, and hence, the effectiveness of la

strategies 
QA Ha

Pollutant Spatial 

Scale

Characteristics NOTE: This information can also be found in 40 CFR Part 58, Athere is a possibility that spatial scales have been updated, users should also revie

PM2.5 Microscale 

Middle Neighborhood Urban Regional 

Areas such as downtown street canyons and traffic corridors where the general public would be exposed to maximu

sources. In some circumstances, the microscale is appropriate for particulate sites; community-oriented SLAMS sitlevel should, however, be limited to urban sites that are representative of long-term human exposure and of many s

area. In general, microscale particulate matter sites should be located near inhabited buildings or locations where th

to be exposed to the concentration measured. Emissions from stationary sources such as primary and secondary sm

large industrial processes may, under certain plume conditions, likewise result in high ground level concentrations 

case, the microscale would represent an area impacted by the plume with dimensions extending up to approximatel

microscale sites provide information for evaluating and developing hot spot control measures. 

People moving through downtown areas, or living near major roadways, encounter particle concentrations that wou

this spatial scale. Thus, measurements of this type would be appropriate for the evaluation of possible short-term exparticulate matter pollution. In many situations, monitoring sites that are representative of microscale or middle-sca

representative of many similar situations. This can occur along traffic corridors or other locations in a residential direpresentative of a number of small scale sites and is appropriate for evaluation of long-term or chronic effects. Thicharacteristic concentrations for other areas with dimensions of a few hundred meters such as the parking lot and fe

shopping centers, stadia, and office buildings. Measurements in this category would represent conditions throughout some reasonably homogeneous urban sub-rekilometers and of generally more regular shape than the middle scale. Homogeneity refers to the particulate matter use and land surface characteristics. Much of the PM2.5 exposures are expected to be associated with this scale of m

location carefully chosen to provide neighborhood scale data would represent the immediate neighborhood as well in other parts of the city. PM2.5 sites of this kind provide good information about trends and compliance with standconditions in areas where people commonly live and work for periods comparable to those specified in the NAAQS

monitoring in urban areas should have this scale. This class of measurement would be used to characterize the particulate matter concentration over an entire metrop

size from 4 to 50 kilometers. Such measurements would be useful for assessing trends in area-wide air quality, and 

scale air pollution control strategies. Community-oriented PM2.5 sites may have this scale. 

These measurements would characterize conditions over areas with dimensions of as much as hundreds of kilometerepresentative conditions for an area implies some degree of homogeneity in that area. For this reason, regional scaapplicable to sparsely populated areas. Data characteristics of this scale would provide information about larger scaemissions, losses and transport. PM2.5 transport contributes to elevated particulate concentrations and may affect m

with large populations such as in the eastern United States. Development of effective pollution control strategies re

regional geographical scales of the emission sources and atmospheric processes that are responsible for elevated PM

associated with elevated O3 and regional haze. 
QA Ha

Pollutant Spatial 

Scale

Characteristics NOTE: This information can also be found in 40 CFR Part 58, Athere is a possibility that spatial scales have been updated, users should also revie

Pb Micro 

Middle Neighborhood 

This scale would typify areas in close proximity to lead point sources. Emissions from point sources such as primar

and primary copper smelters may under fumigation conditions likewise result in high ground level concentrations athe microscale would represent an area impacted by the plume with dimensions extending up to approximately 100 

where the public has access, and particularly children have access, are desirable because of the higher sensitivity of Pb concentrations. This scale generally represents Pb air quality levels in areas up to several city blocks in size with dimensions on the 

meters to 500 meters. The middle scale may for example, include schools and playgrounds in center city areas whic

sources. Pb monitors in such areas are desirable because of the higher sensitivity of children to exposures of elevatfrom point sources frequently impact on areas at which single sites may be located to measure concentrations repre

The neighborhood scale would characterize air quality conditions throughout some relatively uniform land use area

kilometer range. Sites of this scale would provide monitoring data in areas representing conditions where children l

areas is important since this segment of the population is more susceptible to the effects of Pb. Where a neighborho

immediate Pb sources, the site may be very useful in representing typical air quality values for a larger residential apopulation exposure and trends analyses. 
QA Ha

Pollutant Spatial 

Scale

Characteristics NOTE: This information can also be found in 40 CFR Part 58, Athere is a possibility that spatial scales have been updated, users should also revie

PAMs The PAMS program provides more comprehensive data on O3 air pollution in areas classified as serious, severe, or 

than would otherwise be achieved through the NCore and SLAMS sites. More specifically, the PAMS program inc

oxides of nitrogen, VOC, and meteorology. PAMS design criteria are site specific. Concurrent measurements of O3 

VOC, CO, and meteorology are obtained at PAMS sites. Design criteria for the PAMS network are based on locatio

areas and predominant wind directions associated with high O3 events. Specific monitoring objectives are associate

design should enable characterization of precursor emission sources within the area, transport of O3 and its precurso

processes related to O3 nonattainment. Specific objectives that must be addressed include assessing ambient trends 

species, and determining spatial and diurnal variability of O3 , oxides of nitrogen, and VOC species. Specific monit

each of these sites may result in four distinct site types. Detailed guidance for the locating of these sites may be fou(a) Type 1 sites are established to characterize upwind background and transported O3 and its precursor concentrati

identify those areas which are subjected to transport. (b) Type 2 sites are established to monitor the magnitude and type of precursor emissions in the area where maximuexpected to impact and are suited for the monitoring of urban air toxic pollutants. (c) Type 3 sites are intended to monitor maximum O3 concentrations occurring downwind from the area of maximu

(d) Type 4 sites are established to characterize the downwind transported O3 and its precursor concentrations exitin

areas which are potentially contributing to overwhelming transport in other areas.  Minimum Monitoring Network Requirements. A Type 2 site is required for each area. Overall, only two sites are rall chemical measurements are made. For example, if a design includes two Type 2 sites, then a third site will be ne

measurement. The minimum required number and type of monitoring sites and sampling requirements are listed in alternative plans may be put in place in lieu of these requirements, if approved by the Administrator. 
QA Ha

Pollutant Spatial 

Scale

Characteristics NOTE: This information can also be found in 40 CFR Part 58, Athere is a possibility that spatial scales have been updated, users should also revie

PM 10-2.5

Micro Middle Neighborhood 

The only required monitors for PM10-2.5 are those required at NCore Stations. Although microscale monitoring may 

circumstances, middle and neighborhood scale measurements are the most important station classifications for PM

This scale would typify relatively small areas immediately adjacent to: Industrial sources; locations experiencing o

redevelopment, and soil disturbance; and heavily traveled roadways. Data collected at microscale stations would chlimited spatial extent and population exposure, and may provide information useful for evaluating and developing s

People living or working near major roadways or industrial districts encounter particle concentrations that would bspatial scale. Thus, measurements of this type would be appropriate for the evaluation of public health effects of co

located in populated areas that are nearly adjacent to large industrial point sources of coarse particles provide suitab

maximum population exposure levels and identifying areas of potentially poor air quality. Similarly, monitors locat

dense networks of heavily-traveled traffic are appropriate for assessing the impacts of resuspended road dust. This 

characteristic concentrations for other areas with dimensions of a few hundred meters such as school grounds and pmajor roadways and industrial point sources, locations exhibiting mixed residential and commercial development, aoffice buildings, shopping centers, and stadiums. Measurements in this category would represent conditions throughout some reasonably homogeneous urban sub-rekilometers and of generally more regular shape than the middle scale. Homogeneity refers to the particulate matter use and land surface characteristics. This category includes suburban neighborhoods dominated by residences that a

roadways and industrial districts but still impacted by urban sources, and areas of diverse land use where residenceand industrial neighborhoods. In some cases, a location carefully chosen to provide neighborhood scale data would 

neighborhood as well as neighborhoods of the same type in other parts of the city. The comparison of data from mi

sites would provide valuable information for determining the variation of PM10–2.5 levels across urban areas and aelevated concentrations caused by major industrial point sources and heavily traveled roadways. Neighborhood sca

concentration data that are relevant to informing a large segment of the population of their exposure levels on a giv

PM 2.5

Speciation NA Each State shall continue to conduct chemical speciation monitoring and analyses at sites designated to be part of th

Trends Network (CSN). The selection and modification of these CSN sites must be approved by the Administrator. 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix F 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 1 of 13 

Appendix F 

Sample Manifold Design for Precursor Gas Monitoring 

The following information is extracted from the document titled: Version 4 of the Technical 

Assistance Document for Precursor Gas Measurements in the NCore Multi-pollutant Monitoring Network

which can be found on the AMTIC website at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/pretecdoc.html
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix F 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 2 of 13 

Page intentionally left blank
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix F 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 3 of 13 

Sample Manifold Design for Precursor Gas Monitoring 

Many important variables affect sampling manifold design for ambient precursor gas monitoring: 

residence time of sample gases, materials of construction, diameter, length, flow rate, and 

pressure drop. Considerations for these parameters are discussed below. 

Residence Time Determination: The residence time of air pollutants within the sampling system 

(defined as extending from the entrance of the sample inlet above the instrument shelter to the 

bulkhead of the precursor gas analyzer) is critical. Residence time is defined as the amount of 

time that it takes for a sample of air to travel through the sampling system. This issue is 

discussed in detail for NOy monitoring in Section 4.2, and recommendations in Section 4 for the 

arrangement of the molybdenum converter and inlet system should be followed. However, 

residence time is also an issue for other precursor gases, and should be considered in designing 

sample manifolds for those species. For example, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 40 

Part 58, Appendix E.9 states, “Ozone in the presence of NO will show significant losses even in 

the most inert probe material when the residence time exceeds 20 seconds. Other studies indicate 

that 10-second or less residence time is easily achievable.”1

 Although 20-second residence time 

is the maximum allowed as specified in 40 CFR 58, Appendix E, it is recommended that the 

residence time within the sampling system be less than 10 seconds. If the volume of the 

sampling system does not allow this to occur, then a blower motor or other device (such as a 

vacuum pump) can be used to increase flow rate and decrease the residence time. The residence 

time for a sample manifold system is determined in the following way. First the total volume of 

the cane (inlet), manifold, and sample lines must be determined using the following equation: 

Total Volume = Cv + Mv + Lv Equation 1

Where: 

Cv = Volume of the sample cane or inlet and extensions 

Mv = Volume of the sample manifold and moisture trap 

Lv = Volume of the instrument lines from the manifold to the instrument bulkhead

The volume of each component of the sampling system must be measured individually. To 

measure the volume of the components (assuming they are cylindrical in shape), use the 

following equation: 

V = π * (d/2)2

 * L Equation 2 

Where: 

V = volume of the component, cm3

π = 3.14 

L = Length of the component, cm 

d = inside diameter of the component, cm 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix F 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 4 of 13 

Once the total volume is determined, divide the total volume by the total sample flow rate of all 

instruments to calculate the residence time in the inlet. If the residence time is greater than 20 

seconds, attach a blower or vacuum pump to increase the flow rate and decrease the residence 

time. 

Laminar Flow Manifolds: In the past, vertical laminar flow manifolds were a popular design. 

By the proper selection of a large diameter vertical inlet probe and by maintaining a laminar flow 

throughout, it was assumed that the sample air would not react with the walls of the probe. 

Numerous materials such as glass, plastic, galvanized steel, and stainless steel were used for 

constructing the probe. Removable sample lines constructed of FEP or PTFE were placed to 

protrude into the manifold to provide each instrument with sample air. A laminar flow manifold 

could have a flow rate as high as 150 L/min, in order to minimize any losses, and large diameter 

tubing was used to minimize pressure drops. However, experience has shown that vertical 

laminar flow manifolds have demonstrated many disadvantages which are listed below: 

 Since the flow rates are so high, it is difficult to supply enough audit gas to provide an 

adequate independent assessment for the entire sampling system; 

 Long laminar flow manifolds may be difficult to clean due to size and length; 

 Temperature differentials may exist that could change the characteristics of the gases, e.g., if 

a laminar manifold’s inlet is on top of a building, the temperature at the bottom of the 

building may be much lower, thereby dropping the dew point and condensing water. 

 Construction of the manifold is frequently of an unapproved material. 

For these technical reasons, EPA strongly discourages the use of laminar flow manifolds in the 

national air monitoring network. It is recommended that agencies that utilize laminar manifolds 

migrate to conventional manifold designs that are described below. 

Sampling Lines as Inlet and Manifold: Often air monitoring agencies will place individual 

sample lines outside of their shelter for each instrument. If the sample lines are manufactured 

out of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), perfluoroalkoxy (PFA) or fluoroethylpropylene (FEP) 

Teflon®, this is acceptable to the EPA. The advantages to using single sample lines are: no 

breakage and ease of external auditing. In addition, rather than cleaning glass manifolds, some 

agencies just replace the sampling lines. However, please note the following caveats: 

1. lines can deteriorate when exposed to atmospheric conditions, particularly ultraviolet 

radiation from the sun. Therefore, it is recommended that sample lines be inspected and 

replaced regularly. 

2. Small insects and particles can accumulate inside of the tubing. It has been reported that 

small spiders build their webs inside of tubing. This can cause blockage and affect the 

response of the instruments. In addition, particles can collect inside the tubing, especially at 

the entrance, thus affecting precursor gas concentrations. Check the sampling lines and 

replace or clean the tubing on a regular basis. 

3. Since there is no central manifold, these configurations sometimes have a “three-way” tee, 

i.e., one flow path for supplying calibration mixtures and the other for the sampling of 

ambient air. If the three-way tee is not placed near the outermost limit of the sample inlet 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix F 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 5 of 13 

tubing, then the entire sampling system is not challenged by the provision of calibration gas. 

It is strongly recommended that at least on a periodic basis calibration gas be supplied so 

that it floods the entire sample line. This is best done by placing the three-way tee just 

below the sample inlet, so that calibration gas supplied there is drawn through the entire 

sampling line. 

4. The calibration gas must be delivered to the analyzers at near ambient pressure. Some 

instruments are very sensitive to pressure changes. If the calibration gas flow is excessive, 

the analyzer may sample the gas under pressure. If a pressure effect on calibration gas 

response is suspected, it is recommended that the gas be introduced at more than one place 

in the sampling line (by placement of the tee, as described in item #3 above). If the response 

to the calibration gas is the same regardless of delivery point, then there is likely no pressure 

effect. 

Conventional Manifold Design - A number of “conventional” manifold systems exist today. 

However, one manifold feature must be consistent: the probe and manifold must be constructed 

of borosilicate glass or Teflon® (PFA or PTFE). These are the only materials proven to be inert 

to gases. EPA will accept manifolds or inlets that are made from other materials, such as steel or 

aluminum, that are lined or coated with borosilicate glass or the Teflon® materials named above. 

However, all of the linings, joints and connectors that could possibly come into contact with the 

sample gases must be of glass or Teflon®. It is recommended that probes and manifolds be 

constructed in modular sections to enable frequent cleaning. It has been demonstrated that there 

are no significant losses of reactive gas concentrations in conventional 13 mm inside diameter 

(ID) sampling lines of glass or Teflon® if the sample residence time is 10 seconds or less. This is 

true even in sample lines up to 38 m in length. However, when the sample residence time 

exceeds 20 seconds, loss is detectable, and at 60 seconds the loss can be nearly complete. 

Therefore, EPA requires that residence times must be 20 seconds or less (except for NOy). 

Please note that for particulate matter (PM) monitoring instruments, such as nephelometers, 

Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance (TEOM) instruments, or Beta Gauges, the ambient 

precursor gas manifold is not recommended. Particle monitoring instruments should have 

separate intake probes that are as short and as straight as possible to avoid particulate losses due 

to impaction on the walls of the probe. 

T-Type Design: The most popular gas sampling system in use today consists of a vertical 

"candy cane" protruding through the roof of the shelter with a horizontal sampling manifold 

connected by a tee fitting to the vertical section (Figure 1). This type of manifold is 

commercially available. At the bottom of the tee is a bottle for collecting particles and moisture 

that cannot make the bend; this is known as the “drop out” or moisture trap bottle. Please note 

that a small blower at the exhaust end of the system (optional) is used to provide flow through 

the sampling system. There are several issues that must be mitigated with this design: 

 The probe and manifold may have a volume such that the total draw of the precursor gas 

analyzers cannot keep the residence time less than 20 seconds (except NOy), thereby 

requiring a blower motor. However, a blower motor may prevent calibration and audit 

gases from being supplied in sufficient quantity, because of the high flow rate in the 

manifold. To remedy this, the blower motor must be turned off for calibration. 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix F 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 6 of 13 

However, this may affect the response of the instruments since they are usually operated 

with the blower on. 

 Horizontal manifolds have been known to collect water, especially in humid climates. 

Standing water in the manifold can be pulled into the instrument lines. Since most 

monitoring shelters are maintained at 20-30 oC, condensation can occur when warm 

humid outside air enters the manifold and is cooled. Station operators must be aware of 

this issue and mitigate this situation if it occurs. Tilting the horizontal manifold slightly 

and possibly heating the manifold have been used to mitigate the condensation problem. 

Water traps should be emptied whenever there is standing water. 

Sample Cane

Blower Motor

Teflon Connectors -

 Bushing

Modular Manifold

Moisture Trap

roof line

Screw Type Opening 

"T" 

adaptor

Figure 1. Conventional T-Type Glass Manifold System 

California Air Resources Board “Octopus” Style: Another type of manifold that is being 

widely used is known as the California Air Resources Board (CARB) style or “Octopus” 

manifold, illustrated in Figure 2. This manifold has a reduced profile, i.e., there is less volume in 

the cane and manifold; therefore, there is less need for a blower motor. If the combined flow 

rates of the gas analyzers are high enough, then an additional blower is not required. 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix F 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 7 of 13 

roof line

Screw Type Opening 

Moisture Trap

Sample Cane

Teflon Connectors -

 Bushing

8-port "Octopus" 

 Manifold

Figure 2. CARB or “Octopus” Style Manifold 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix F 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 8 of 13 

Placement of Tubing on the Manifold: If the manifold employed at the station has multiple 

ports (as in Figure 2) then the position of the instrument lines relative to the calibration input line 

can be crucial. If a CARB “Octopus” or similar manifold is used, it is suggested that sample 

connections for analyzers requiring lower flows be placed towards the bottom of the manifold. 

Also, the general rule of thumb states that the calibration gas delivery line (if used) should be in 

a location so that the calibration gas flows past the analyzer inlet points before the gas is 

evacuated out of the manifold. Figure 3 illustrates two potential locations for introduction of the 

calibration gas. One is located at the ports on the “Octopus” manifold, and the other is upstream 

near the air inlet point, using an audit or probe inlet stub. This stub is a tee fitting placed so that 

“Through-the-Probe” audit line or sampling system tests and calibrations can be conducted. 

roof line

Sample Cane

Audit and probe 

inlet stub

Instrument 

inlet lines

Calibration 

outlet line

Instrument 

inlet lines

Figure 3. Placement of Lines on the Manifold 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix F 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 9 of 13 

3

14

2

8

1

4

15

13

12 12

9

11

7

6

16

5

Measurements and Features

1. Knurled Connector

2. O-ring

3. Threaded opening 

4. Top extension - 56 mm

5. Overall Length - 304 mm

6. Outside diameter - 24 mm

7. Top and bottom shoulder - 50 mm

8. Length of inlet tube - 30 mm

9. Distancebetween inlet tubes - 16 mm

10. Length of internal tube - 145 mm

11. Width of inlet tube OD - 6 mm

12. Distance from inner tube to wall - 18 mm

13. Inside width of outer tube 60 mm

14. Down tube length 76 mm

15. Width Down tube OD - 24 mm

16 Overall Width ~ 124 mm

10

7

Figure 4. Specifications for an ‘Octopus” Style Manifold 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix F 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 10 of 13 

Figure 4 illustrates the specifications of an Octopus style manifold. Please note that EPAOAQPS has used this style of manifold in its precursor gas analyzer testing program. This type 

of manifold is commercially available. 

Vertical Manifold Design: Figure 5 shows a schematic of the vertical manifold design. 

Commercially available vertical manifolds have been on the market for some time. The issues 

with this type of manifold are the same with other conventional manifolds, i.e., when sample air 

moves from a warm humid atmosphere into an air-conditioned shelter, condensation of moisture 

can occur on the walls of the manifold. Commercially available vertical manifolds have the 

option for heated insulation to mitigate this problem. Whether the manifold tubing is made of 

glass or Teflon®, the heated insulation prevents viewing of the tubing, so the interior must be 

inspected often. The same issues apply to this manifold style as with horizontal or “Octopus” 

style manifolds: additional blower motors should not be used if the residence time is less than 20 

seconds, and the calibration gas inlet should be placed upstream so that the calibration gas flows 

past the analyzer inlets before it exits the manifold. 

roof line

Support Pipe

Glass Manifold

Sample Ports

Blower Motor

Insulation

Heater Power Cord

Manifold Support

Exhaust Hose

Floor

"T" Connector

Figure 5. Example of Vertical Design Manifold 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix F 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 11 of 13 

Manifold/Instrument Line Interface: A sampling system is an integral part of a monitoring 

station, however, it is only one part of the whole monitoring process. With the continuing 

integration of advanced electronics into monitoring stations, manifold design must be taken into 

consideration. Data Acquisition Systems (DASs) are able not only to collect serial and analog 

data from the analyzers, but also to control Mass Flow Calibration (MFC) equipment and solid 

state solenoid switches, communicate via modem or Ethernet, and monitor conditions such as 

shelter temperature and manifold pressure. As described in Chapter 6, commercially available 

DASs may implement these features in an electronic data logger, or via software installed on a 

personal computer. Utilization of these features allows the DAS and support equipment to 

perform automated calibrations (Autocals). In addition to performing these tasks, the DAS can 

flag data during calibration periods and allow the data to be stored in separate files that can be 

reviewed remotely. 

Figure 6 shows a schematic of the integrated monitoring system at EPA’s Burden Creek NCore 

monitoring station. Note that a series of solenoid switches are positioned between the ambient 

air inlet manifold and an additional “calibration” manifold. This configuration allows the DAS 

to control the route from which the analyzers draw their sample. At the beginning of an Autocal, 

the DAS signals the MFC unit to come out of standby mode and start producing zero or 

calibration gas. Once the MFC has stabilized, the DAS switches the analyzers’ inlet flow (via 

solenoids) from the ambient air manifold to the calibration manifold. The calibration gas is 

routed to the instruments, and the DAS monitors and averages the response, flagging the data 

appropriately as calibration data. When the Autocal has terminated, the DAS switches the 

analyzers’ inlet flow from the calibration manifold back to the ambient manifold, and the data 

system resets the data flag to the normal ambient mode. 

The integration of DAS, solenoid switches, and MFC into an automated configuration can bring 

an additional level of complexity to the monitoring station. Operators must be aware that this 

additional complexity can create situations where leaks can occur. For instance, if a solenoid 

switch fails to open, then the inlet flow of an analyzer may not be switched back to the ambient 

manifold, but instead will be sampling interior room air. When the calibrations occur, the 

instrument will span correctly, but will not return to ambient air sampling. In this case, the data 

collected must be invalidated. These problems are usually not discovered until there is an 

external “Through-the Probe” audit, but by then extensive data could be lost. It is recommended 

that the operator remove the calibration line from the calibration manifold on a routine basis and 

challenge the sampling system from the inlet probe. This test will discover any leak or switching 

problems within the entire sampling system. 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix F 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 12 of 13 

Figure 6. Example of a Manifold/Instrument Interface 

Figure 7 shows a close up of an ambient/calibration manifold, illustrating the calibration 

manifold – ambient manifold interface. This is the same interface used at EPA’s Burden’s Creek 

monitoring station. The interface consists of three distinct portions: the ambient manifold, the 

solenoid switching system and the calibration manifold. In this instance, the ambient manifold is 

a T-type design that is being utilized with a blower fan at the terminal. Teflon® tubing connects 

the manifold to the solenoid switching system. Two-way solenoids have two configurations. 

Either the solenoid is in its passive state, at which time the ports that are connected are the 

normally open (NO) and the common (COM). In the other state, when it is energized, the ports 

that are connected are the normally closed (NC) and the COM ports. Depending on whether the 

solenoid is ‘active’ or not, the solenoid routes the air from the calibration or ambient manifold to 

the instrument inlets. There are two configurations that can be instituted with this system. 

1. Ambient Mode: In this mode the solenoids are in “passive” state. The flow of air (under 

vacuum) is routed from the NO port through the solenoid to the COM port. 

2. Calibration Mode: In this mode, the solenoids are in the “active” state. An external 

switching device, usually the DAS, must supply direct current to the solenoid. This 

causes the solenoid to be energized so that the NO port is shut and the NC port is now 

connected to the COM port. As in all cases, the COM port is always selected. The 

switching of the solenoid is done in conjunction with the MFC unit becoming active; 

Burden's Creek Sampling Station - OAQPS/MQAG

Environics

9100 Cal Sys

TECO 42CY TL

NOx

TECO 43CTL

SO2

TECO 48CTL

CO

P

V V S

S S S

F

V

Other Monitor

(O3 etc)

C

C C C

NC

NC NC NC

NO

NO NO NO

External Moly

Sampling Cane Converter

Manifold Fan

Charcoal

Scrubber

4-ft

Notes:

S - Teflon 3-way Solenoid

P - Pump

F - Manifold Fan/Blower

V - Vent - Particulate Filter

Sample tubing lengths < 3-ft

Cal Standard

(triblend)

Temp/

Pressure/RH

Calibration Manifold

Ambient Sampling Manifold

UPS Power

Supply

Zero Air

Source

Cal

NOy

NO

Sample In

EnviDAS Data 

Acquisition System

Analog Inputs -

To Analyzers/

Sensors

Control Outputs

- To Environics

Cal Sys

Control Out- To Solenoids

Modem

Desktop System
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix F 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 13 of 13 

generally, the MFC is controlled by the DAS. When the calibration sequences have 

finished, the DAS stops the direct current from being sent to the solenoid and switches 

automatically back to the NO to COM (inactive) port configuration. This allows the air 

to flow through the NO to COM port and the instrument is now back on ambient mode. 

Air Flow to the Analyzers

N O

N C

N O N O

N C N C

COM

Calibration 

Gas from the Mass 

Flow Calibrator Exhaust

Air Flow Air Flow

Air Flow 

to 

Exhaust 

Fan

Air Flow Air Flow Air Flow

Figure 7. Ambient – Calibration Manifold Interface 

Reference 

1. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 58, Appendix E.9 
QA Handbook Vol II, Appendix G 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 1 of 3 

Appendix G 

Example Procedure for Calibrating a Data Acquisition System 
QA Handbook Vol II, Appendix G 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 2 of 3 

This page left blank intentionally
QA Handbook Vol II, Appendix G 

Revision No: 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 3 of 3 

DAS Calibration Technique

The following is an example of a DAS calibration. The DAS owner’s manual should be 

followed. The calibration of a DAS is performed by inputting known voltages into the DAS and 

measuring the output of the DAS. 

1. The calibration begins by obtaining a voltage source and an ohm/voltmeter. 

2. Place a wire lead across the input of the DAS multiplexer. With this "shorted" out, the 

DAS should read zero. 

3. If the output does not read zero, adjust the output according to the owners manual. 

4. After the background zero has been determined, it is time to adjust the full scale of the 

system. Most DAS system work on a 1, 5 or 10 volt range, i.e., the full scale equals an 

output of voltage. In the case of a 0 - 1000 ppb range instrument, 1.00 volts equals 1000 

ppb. Accordingly, 500 ppb equals 0.5 volts (500 milivolts). To get the DAS to be linear 

throughout the range of the instrument being measured, the DAS must be tested for 

linearity. 

5. Attach the voltage source to a voltmeter. Adjust the voltage source to 1.000 volts (this is 

critical that the output be 1.000 volts). Attach the output of the voltage source the DAS 

multiplexer. The DAS should read 1000 ppb. Adjust the DAS voltage A/D card 

accordingly. Adjust the output of the voltage source to 0.250 volts. The DAS output 

should read 250 ppb. Adjust the A/D card in the DAS accordingly. Once you have 

adjusted in the lower range of the DAS, check the full scale point. With the voltage 

source at 1.000 volts, the output should be 1000 ppb. If it isn't, then adjust the DAS to 

allow the high and low points to be as close to the source voltage as possible. In some 

cases, the linearity of the DAS may be in question. If this occurs, the data collected may 

need to be adjusted using a linear regression equation. See Section 2.0.9 for details on 

data adjustment. The critical range for many instruments is in the lower 10 % of the 

scale. It is critical that this be linear. 

6. Every channel on a DAS should be calibrated. In some newer DAS systems, there is only 

one A/D card voltage adjustment which is carried throughout the multiplexer. This 

usually will adjust all channels. It is recommended that DAS be calibrated once per year. 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H 

Revision No: 1.0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 1 of 48 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

National Ambient Air Monitoring Technical Systems Audit Checklist 

This version attached is very similar to the checklist in the 2008 QA Handbook. It is an example that 

has been modified for use in EPA Region 5.
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H 

Revision No: 1.0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 2 of 48 

Page intentionally left blank 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H 

Revision No: 1.0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 3 of 48 

Table of Contents 

1) General / Quality Management 

a) Program Organization 

b) Facilities 

c) Independent Quality Assurance and Quality Control 

d) Planning Documents (including QMP, QAPPs, & SOPs) 

e) General Documentation Policies 

f) Training 

g) Corrective Action 

h) Quality Improvement 

i) External Performance Audits 

2) Network Management / Field Operations 

a) Network Design 

b) Changes to the Network since the last audit 

c) Proposed changes to the Network 

d) Field Support 

i) SOPs 

ii) Instrument Acceptance 

iii) Calibration 

iv) Repair 

v) Record Keeping 

vi) Site and Monitor Information Form 

3) Laboratory Operations 

a) Routine Operations 

b) Quality Control 

c) Laboratory Preventive Maintenance 

d) Laboratory Record Keeping 

e) Laboratory Data Acquisition and Handling 

f) Specific Pollutants: PM10,PM 2.5 and Lead 

4) Data and Data Management 

a) Data Handling 

b) Software Documentation 

c) Data Validation and Correction 

d) Data Processing 

e) Internal Reporting 

f) External Reporting 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H 

Revision No: 1.0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 4 of 48 

a) Program Organization 

 Key Individuals 

Agency Director: 

Ambient Air Monitoring (AAM) Network Manager: 

Quality Assurance Manager: 

QA Auditors: 

Field Operations Supervisor / Lead: 

Laboratory Supervisor: 

QA Laboratory Manager: 

Data Management Supervisor / Lead: 

1) General / Quality Management 

State/ Local / Tribal Agency Audited: 

Address: 

City, State, and Zip Code: 

Date of Technical System Audit: 

Auditor / Agency: 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H 

Revision No: 1.0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 5 of 48 

Attach an Organizational Chart: 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H 

Revision No: 1.0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 6 of 48 

Comment on the need for additional personnel if applicable. 

List personnel who have authority or are responsible for: 

Activity Name Title 

QA Training Field/Lab 

Grant Management 

Purchases greater than $500 

Equipment and Service Contract Management 

 Staff appointment 

Flow Chart: 

Key position staffing. Number of personnel available to each of the following program areas: 

Program Area Number of People 

Primary 

Number of People 

Backup 

Vacancies Program Area Number of 

People 

Primary 

Number of 

People 

Backup 

Vacancies

Network Design and Siting Data and Data 

Management 

 

QC activities Equipment 

repair and 

maintenance 

 

QA activities Financial 

Management 

 

List available personnel by name and percentage of time spent on each task category. 

Name Network 

Design and 

Siting 

 QC 

Activities 

 QA 

Activities 

Equipment 

repair and 

maintenance 

Data and 

Data 

Management 

Financial 

Management 

 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H 

Revision No: 1.0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 7 of 48 

b) Facilities 

Identify the principal facilities where the agency conducts work that is related to air monitoring. Do not include monitoring 

stations but do include facilities where work is performed by contractors or other organizations. 

Facility AAM Function Offices responsible for 

ensuring adequacy Location Adequate Y/N To be completed by auditor 

Instrument repair, 

Certification of Standards e.g. 

gases, flow transfers, MFC, 

 

PM filter weighing, 

Data verification and 

processing, 

 

General office space, 

Storage space, short and long 

term, 

 

Air Toxics (Carbonyls, VOCs, 

Metals): 

Indicate any facilities that should be upgraded. Identify by function: 

Are facilities adequate concerning safety? Yes No

Please explain if answer is no: 

Suggested improvements or recommendations for the items above: 

Are there any significant changes which are likely to be implemented to agency facilities within the next one to two years? 

Comment on agency’s needs for additional physical space (laboratory, office, storage, etc.). 

Facility Function Proposed Change - Date 

 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H 

Revision No: 1.0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 8 of 48 

c) Independent Quality Assurance and Quality Control 

Status of Quality Assurance Program 

Question Yes No Comment 

Does the agency perform QA activities with internal 

personnel? If no go to Section d. 

Does the agency maintain a separate laboratory to 

support quality assurance activities? 

Has the agency documented and implemented specific 

audit procedures separate from monitoring 

procedures? 

Are there two levels of management separation 

between QA and QC operations? Please describe 

below: 

Does the agency have identifiable auditing equipment 

and standards (specifically intended for sole use) for 

audits? 

Internal Performance Audits 

Question Yes No Comment 

Does the agency have separate facilities to support 

audits and calibrations? 

If the agency has in place contracts or similar agreements either with another agency or contractor to perform audits or calibrations, 

please name the organization and briefly describe the type of agreement. 

If the agency does not have a performance audit SOP (included as an attachment), please describe performance audit procedure for 

each type of pollutant. 

Does the agency maintain independence of audit 

standards and personnel? 

Please provide information on certification of audit standards currently being used. Include information on vendor and internal or 

external certification of standards. 

Does the agency have a certified source of zero air for 

performance audits? 

Does the agency have procedures for auditing and/or 

validating performance of Meteorological monitoring?
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H 

Revision No: 1.0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 9 of 48 

Please provide a list of the agency’s audit equipment and age of audit equipment. 

Is audit equipment ever used to support routine calibration and QC checks required for monitoring network operations? If yes, 

please describe. 

Are standard operating procedures (SOPs) for air 

monitoring available to all field personnel? 

Has the agency established and has it documented 

criteria to define agency-acceptable audit results? 

Please complete the table below with the pollutant, monitor and acceptance criteria. 

Pollutant How is performance tracked (e.g., control 

charts) 

Audit Result Acceptance Criteria 

CO 

O3 

NO2 

SO2 

PM10 

PM2.5 

Pb 

VOCs 

Carbonyls 

PM2.5 speciation 

PM10-2.5 speciation 

PM10-2.5 FRM Mass 

Continuous PM2.5 

Trace Levels (CO) 

Trace Levels (SO2) 

Trace Levels (NO) 

Trace Levels (NOy) 

Surface Meteorology 

Others 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H 

Revision No: 1.0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 10 of 48 

 

 

Question Yes No Comment 

Were these audit criteria based on, or derived from, the guidance 

found in Volume II of the QA Handbook for Air Pollution 

Measurement System, Section 10.3? 

 If no, please explain. 

If yes, please explain any changes or 

assumptions made in the derivation. 

What corrective action may be taken if criteria are exceeded? If possible, indicate two examples of corrective actions, taken within 

the period since the previous systems audit which are based directly on the criteria discussed above. 

Corrective Action # 1 

Corrective Action #2 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H 

Revision No: 1.0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 11 of 48 

d) Planning Documents (including QMP, QAPP, & SOPs) 

QMP questions Yes No Comment 

Does the agency have an EPA-approved quality 

management plan? 

If yes, have changes to the plan been approved by 

the EPA? 

Has the QMP been approved by EPA within the 

last five years? 

Please provide: 

Date of Original Approval: Date of Last Revision: Date of Latest Approval: 

QAPP questions Yes No Comment 

Does the agency have an EPA-approved quality 

assurance project plan? 

If yes, have changes to the plan been approved by 

the EPA? 

Has the QAPP been reviewed by EPA annually? 

Please provide: 

Date of Original Approval: Date of Last Revision: Date of Latest Approval: 

Does the agency have any revisions to your QA 

project plan still pending? 

How does the agency verify the QA project plan is fully implemented? 

How are the updates distributed? 

What personnel regularly receive updates? 

SOP questions 

Has the agency prepared and implemented standard 

operating procedures (SOPs) for all facets of 

agency operation? 

Do the SOPs adequately address ANSI/ASQC E-4 

quality system required by 40 CFR 58, Appendix 

A? 

Are copies of the SOP or pertinent sections 

available to agency personnel? 

How does the agency verify that the SOPs are 

implemented as provided? 

How are the updates distributed? 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H 

Revision No: 1.0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 12 of 48 

e) General Documentation Policies 

Question Yes No Comment 

Does the agency have a documented records management plan? 

Does the agency have a list of files considered official records and 

their media type i.e., paper, electronic? 

Does the agency have a schedule for retention and disposition of 

records? 

Are records for at least three years? 

Who is responsible for the storage and retrieval of records? 

What security measures are utilized to protect records? 

Where/when does the agency rely on electronic files as primary 

records? 

What is the system for the storage, retrieval and backup of these 

files? 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H 

Revision No: 1.0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 13 of 48 

Indicate below the three most recent training events and identify the personnel participating in them. 

Event Dates Participant(s) 

 

f) Training 

Question Yes No Comment 

Does the agency have a training program and training 

plan? 

Where is it documented? 

Does it make use of seminars, courses, EPA 

sponsored college level courses? 

Are personnel cross-trained for other ambient air 

monitoring duties? 

Are training funds specifically designated in the 

annual budget? 

Does the training plan include: 

Training requirements by position 

Frequency of training 

Training for contract personnel 

A list of core QA related courses 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H 

Revision No: 1.0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 14 of 48 

g) Oversight of Contractors and Suppliers 

Questions about Contractors Yes No Comment 

Who is responsible for oversight of contract personnel? 

What steps are taken to ensure contract personnel meet training 

and experience criteria? 

How often are contracts reviewed and/or renewed? 

Questions about Suppliers 

Have criteria and specification been established for consumable 

supplies and for equipment? 

What supplies and equipment have established specifications? 

Is equipment from suppliers open for bid? 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H 

Revision No: 1.0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 15 of 48 

h) Corrective Action 

Question Yes No Comment 

Does the agency have a comprehensive corrective action program in place and 

operational? 

Have the procedures been documented? 

As a part of the QA project plan? 

As a separate standard operating procedure? 

Does the agency have established and documented corrective limits for QA and 

QC activities? 

Are procedures implemented for corrective actions based on results of the 

following which fall outside the established limits: 

Performance evaluations? 

Precision goals? 

Bias goals? 

NPAP audits? 

PEP audits? 

Validations of one point QC check goals? 

Completeness goals? 

Data audits? 

Calibrations and zero span checks? 

Technical Systems Audit findings? 

Have the procedures been documented? 

How is responsibility for implementing corrective actions assigned? Briefly discuss. 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H 

Revision No: 1.0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 16 of 48 

How does the agency follow up on implemented corrective actions? 

Briefly describe recent examples of the ways in which the above corrective action system was employed to remove problems. 

i) Quality Improvement 

Question Yes No Comment 

What actions were taken to improve the quality system since the last TSA? 

Since the last TSA do your control charts indicate that the overall data 

quality for each pollutant steady or improving? 

For areas where data quality appears to be declining has a cause been 

determined? 

Have all deficiencies indicted on the previous TSA been corrected? 

If not explain. 

Are there pending plans for quality improvement such as purchase of new 

or improved equipment, standards, or instruments? 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H 

Revision No: 1.0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 17 of 48 

j) External Performance Audits 

Question Yes No Comment 

Does your agency participate in NPAP, PM2.5 PEP, Pb PEP 

Pb Strip Audit, AA_PGVP and other performance audits 

performed by an external party and/or using external 

standards? 

If the agency does not participate, please explain why not. 

Are NPAP audits performed by QA staff, site operators, 

calibration staff, and/or another group? 

National Performance Audit Program (NPAP) and Additional Audits 

Does the agency participate in the National Performance Audit Program (NPAP) as required under 40 CFR 58, Appendix A? If so, 

identify the individual with primary responsibility for the required participation in the National Performance Audit Program. 

Name: Program Function: 

Please complete the table below: 

Parameter Audited Date of Last NPAP Audit 

CO 

O3

SO2

NO2

PM10

PM2.5

Pb 

VOCs 

Carbonyls 

Trace CO 

Trace SO2

 Trace NO 

 Trace NOY
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H 

Revision No: 1.0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 18 of 48 

2) Network Management/Field Operations 

State/Local/Tribal Agency Audited: 

Address: 

City, State, and Zip Code: 

Auditor / Agency: 

Key Individuals 

Ambient Air Monitoring Network Manager: 

Quality Assurance Manager: 

Field Operations Supervisor/Lead: 

Field Operations Staff involved in the TSA: 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H 

Revision No: 1.0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 19 of 48 

a) Network Design 

Complete the table below for each of the pollutants monitored as part of your air monitoring network. (Record applicable 

count by category.) Also indicate seasonal monitoring with an S for a Parameter/Category as appropriate. Provide the 

most recent annual monitoring network plan, including date of approval and AQS quick look or if not available, network 

description and other similar summary of site data, including SLAMS, Other and Toxics. 

Category* SO2 NO2 CO O3 PM10 PM2.5 Pb Other 

(type) 

Other 

(type) 

NCore 

SLAMS 

SPM 

PAMS 

Total 

*NCore - National Core monitoring stations; SLAMS - state and local air monitoring stations; SPM - special purpose monitors; 

PAMS - photochemical assessment monitoring stations 

Question Yes No Comment 

What is the date of the most current Monitoring Network Plan? 

Is it available for public inspection? 

Does it include the information required for each site? 

AQS Site ID #? 

Street address and geographic coordinates? 

Sampling and Analysis Method(s)? 

Operating Schedule? 

Monitoring Objective and Scale of Representativeness? 

Site suitable/not suitable for comparison to annual PM2.5 NAAQS? 

MSA, CBSA or CSA indicated as required? 

Indicate by AQS Site ID # any non-conformance with the requirements of 40 CFR 58, Appendices D and E along with any waivers 

granted by the Regional Office (provide waiver documentation). 

Monitor Site ID Reason for Non-Conformance 

SO2

O3

CO 

NO2

PM10

PM2.5

Pb 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H 

Revision No: 1.0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 20 of 48 

Question Yes No Comment 

Are hard copy site information files retained by the agency for all air monitoring 

stations within the network? 

 

Does each station have the required information including: 

AQS Site ID Number? 

Photographs/slides to the four cardinal compass points? 

Startup and shutdown dates? 

Documentation of instrumentation? 

Who has custody of the current network documents Name: 

Title: 

Does the current level of monitoring effort, station placement, instrumentation, 

etc., meet requirements imposed by current grant conditions? 

How often is the network siting reviewed? Frequency: 

Date of last review: 

Are there any issues? 

Do any sites vary from the required frequency in 40 CFR 58.12? 

Does the number of collocated monitoring stations meet the requirements of 40 

CFR 58 Appendix A? 

b) Changes to the Network since the last audit 

What is the date of the most recent network assessment? (Provide copy) Are all SLAMS parameters included? Any others? 

Please provide information on any site changes since the last audit. 

Pollutant Site ID Site Address Site 

Added/Deleted/

Relocated 

Reason (Assessment, lost lease, etc. Provide 

documentation of reason for each site change.) 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H 

Revision No: 1.0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 21 of 48 

c) Proposed changes to the Network 

Are future network changes proposed? 

Please provide information on proposed site changes, including documentation of the need for the change and any required 

approvals 

Pollutant Site ID Site Address Site to be 

Added/Deleted/

Relocated 

Reason (Assessment, lost lease, etc. Provide 

documentation of reason for each site change.) 

d) Field Support 

Question Yes No Comment 

On average, how often are most of your stations visited by a field operator? 

Is this visit frequency consistent for all reporting organizations within your 

agency? 

On average, how many stations does a single operator have responsibility for? 

How many of the stations of your SLAMS/NCORE network are equipped with 

sampling manifolds? 

Do the sample inlets and manifolds meet the requirements for through the probe 

audits? 

I. Briefly describe most common manifold type. 

II. Are Manifolds cleaned periodically? How often? 

III. If the manifold is cleaned, what is used to perform cleaning? 

IV. Are manifold(s) equipped with a blower? 

V. Is there sufficient air flow through the manifold at all times? Approximate air flow: 

VI. How is the air flow through the manifold monitored? 

VII. Is there a conditioning period for the manifold after cleaning? Length of time: 

VIII. What is the residence time? 

 Sampling lines: What material is used for instrument sampling lines? 

 Are lines changed or cleaned once per year? 

 Do you utilize uninterruptable power supplies or backup power sources at 

 your sites? 

 What instruments or devices are protected? 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H 

Revision No: 1.0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 22 of 48 

i) SOPs 

Question Yes No Comment 

Is the documentation of monitoring SOPs complete? 

Are any new monitoring SOPs needed? 

Are such procedures available to all field operations personnel? 

Are SOPs that detail operations during episode monitoring 

prepared and available to field personnel? 

Are SOPs based on the framework contained in Guidance for 

Preparing Standard Operating Procedures EPA QA/G-6? 

Please complete the following table: 

Pollutant Monitored Date of Last SOP Review Date of Last SOP Revision 

SO2 

NO2 

CO 

O3 

PM10 

PM2.5 FRM mass 

Pb 

PM2.5 speciation 

PM10-2.5 FRM mass 

PM10-2.5 speciation 

Continuous PM2.5 mass 

Trace levels (CO) 

Trace levels (SO2) 

Trace levels (NO) 

Trace levels (NOy) 

Total reactive nitrogen 

 

Surface Meteorology 

Wind speed and direction, temperature, RH, precipitation 

and solar radiation 

 

Other parameters 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H 

Revision No: 1.0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 23 of 48 ii) Instrument Acceptance 

Has your agency obtained necessary waiver provisions to operate equipment which does not meet the effective reference and 

equivalency requirements? List all waivers. 

Please list instruments in your inventory 

Pollutant Number Make and Models Reference or Equivalent 

number 

SO2 

NO2 

CO 

O3 

PM10 

PM2.5 

Pb 

Multi gas calibrator 

PM2.5 speciation 

PM10-2.5 speciation 

PM10-2.5 FRM mass 

Continuous PM2.5 mass 

Trace levels (CO) 

Trace levels (SO2) 

Trace levels (NO) 

Trace levels (NOy) 

Surface Meteorology 

Others 

Please comment briefly and prioritize your currently identified instrument needs. 

Question Yes No Comment 

Are criteria established for field QC equipment? 

Are criteria established for field QC gas standards? 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H 

Revision No: 1.0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 24 of 48 

Question Yes No Comment 

Are field calibration procedures included in the document? 

SOPs? 

Location (site, lab etc.): 

Are calibrations performed in keeping with the guidance in Vol. 

II of the QA Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems? 

If no, why not? 

Are calibration procedures consistent with the operational 

requirements of Appendices to 40 CFR 50 or to analyzer 

operation/instruction manuals? 

If no, why not? 

Have changes been made to calibration methods based on 

manufacturer’s suggestions for a particular instrument? 

Do standard materials used for calibrations meet the requirements 

of appendices to 40 CFR 50 (EPA reference methods) and 

Appendix A to 40 CFR 58 (traceability of materials to NISTSRMs or CRMs)? 

Comment on deviations 

Are all flow-measurement devices checked and certified? 

Additional comments: 

Please list the authoritative standards used for each type of flow measurement, indicate the certification frequency of 

standards to maintain field material/device credibility. 

Flow Device Primary Standard Frequency of Certification 

Hi-Volume orifice 

Streamline 

TriCal 

BIOS 

Delta Cal 

Gilibrators 

iii) Calibration 

Please indicate the frequency of multi point calibrations. 

Pollutant Frequency Name of Calibration Method 

 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H 

Revision No: 1.0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 25 of 48 

Where do field operations personnel obtain gaseous standards? 

Standards are certified by: 

The agency laboratory? 

EPA/NERL standards laboratory? 

A laboratory separate from this agency’s but part of the same 

reporting organization? 

The vendor? 

Other (describe). 

How are the gas standards verified after receipt? 

How are flow measurement devices certified? 

Please provide copies of certifications of all standards currently 

in use from your master and/or satellite standard certification 

logbooks (i.e., chemical standards, ozone standards, flow 

standards, and zero air standards). 

What equipment is used to perform calibrations (e.g., dilution 

devices) and how is the performance of this equipment verified? 

Does the documentation include expiration date of 

certification? 

Reference to primary standard used? 

What traceability is used? 

Please attach an example of recent documentation of traceability 

Is calibration equipment maintained at each station? 

How is the functional integrity of this equipment documented? 

Who has responsibility for maintaining field calibration standards? 

Please list the authoritative standards and frequency of each type of dilution, permeation and ozone calibrator and indicate the 

certification frequency. 

Calibrator Primary Standard Frequency of Certification 

Permeation calibrator flow controller 

Permeation calibrator temperature 

Dilution calibrator air and gas flow 

controllers 

 

Field/working standard photometer 

Ozone generator 

 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H 

Revision No: 1.0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 26 of 48 

Please identify station standards for gaseous pollutants at representative air monitoring stations (attach additional sheets 

as appropriate): 

Parameter Station(s) Identification of Standard(s) Recertification Date(s) 

CO 

NO2 

SO2 

O3 

iv) Repair 

Who is responsible for performing preventive maintenance? 

Is special training provided them for performing preventive maintenance? Briefly comment on background or courses. 

Is this training routinely reinforced? Yes No

If no, why not? 

What is your preventive maintenance schedule for each type of field instrumentation? 

If preventive maintenance is MINOR, it is performed at (check one or more): field station , headquarters facilities , 

equipment is sent to manufacturer . 

If preventive maintenance is MAJOR, it is performed at (check one or more): field station , headquarters facilities , 

equipment is sent to manufacturer . 

Does the agency have service contracts or agreements in place with instrument manufacturers? Indicate below or attach 

additional pages to show which instrumentation is covered? 

Comment briefly on the adequacy and availability of the supply of spare parts, tools and manuals available to the field operator 

to perform any necessary maintenance activities. Do you feel that this is adequate to prevent any significant data loss? 

Is the agency currently experiencing any recurring problem with equipment or manufacturer(s)? If so, please identify the 

equipment or manufacturer, and comment on steps taken to remedy the problem. 

Have you lost any data due to repairs in the last 2 years? 

 More than 24 hours? 

 More than 48 hours? 

 More than a week? 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H 

Revision No: 1.0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 27 of 48 

Explain any situations where instrument down time was due to lack of preventive maintenance of unavailability of parts. 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H 

Revision No: 1.0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 28 of 48 

v) RECORD KEEPING 

Question Yes No Comment 

What type of station logbooks are maintained at each monitoring 

station? (maintenance logs, calibration logs, personal logs, etc.) 

What information is included in the station logbooks? 

Who reviews and verifies the logbooks for adequacy of station 

performance? 

How is control of logbook maintained? 

Where is the completed logbook archived? 

What other records are used? 

Zero span record? 

Gas usage log? 

Maintenance log? 

Log of precision checks? 

Control charts? 

A record of audits? 

Please describe the use and storage of these documents. 

Are calibration records or at least calibration constants available to field 

operators? 

Please attach an example field calibration record sheet to this questionnaire. 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H 

Revision No: 1.0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 29 of 48 

vi) Site Information and monitor Information 

PQAO: 

AQS Site Name: 

AQS Site Number: 

Agency Site Name/No.: 

(if different than AQS Site 

Name/Number) 

Site Address: 

City & County: 

Site Coordinates: 

(specify lat/long or UTM) 

Site Elevation (m): 

Criteria Pollutants Monitored: 

Other Parameters: 

Nearest Meteorological Site: 

(‘on site’ is met tower present at this site) 

Photographs to and from each cardinal direction attached? 

(Yes or No) 

Name(s) of Report Preparer(s): 

Name(s) of Auditors: 

Date: 

Phone Number: 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H 

Revision No: 1.0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 30 of 48 

Site Map 

Draw map of site and surrounding terrain and features, up to 100 meters. 

Map notes 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H 

Revision No: 1.0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 31 of 48 

Monitor Information 

Pollutants 

 

Manufacturer 

Model 

Serial number 

Scale of representation Micro, Middle, 

Neighborhood, Urban 

 

Objective (Population, Max concentration, 

Background, Transport) 

Height of probe above ground(m) 

Distance from obstruction (m) 

Type of obstruction (Wall, Tree, etc) 

Distance from roadway (m) 

Unrestricted airflow (Yes, No) 

Designation (NCore, SLAMS, etc) 

Siting Criteria Met (Yes, No) 

Pollutants 

Manufacturer 

Model 

Serial number 

Scale of representation Micro, Middle, 

Neighborhood, Urban 

 

Averaging time 1-, 8-, 24-hour 

Objective (Population, Max concentration, 

Background, Transport) 

 

Height of probe above ground(m) 

Distance from obstruction (m) 

Type of obstruction (Wall, Tree, etc) 

Distance from roadway (m) 

Unrestricted airflow (Yes, No) 

Designation (NCore, SLAMS, etc) 

Siting Criteria Met (Yes, No) 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H 

Revision No: 1.0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 32 of 48 

Insert additional copies of table as needed: 

Area Information 

Street Name Traffic Count (Vehicles/day) 

Direction Predominant Land Use (Industry, Residential, Commercial or Agriculture) 

North 

East 

South 

West 

Direction Obstructions Height (m) Distance (m) 

North 

East 

South 

West 

Note: This table is for large obstructions that affect the entire site, such as large clusters of trees or entire buildings. 

Individual obstructions, such as walls, single trees, other monitors, etc, should be entered in the Monitor Information table. 

Direction Topographic Features (hills, valleys, rivers, 

etc.) 

General Terrain (flat, rolling, rough) 

North 

East 

South 

West 

Comments: 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H 

Revision No: 1.0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 33 of 48 

3) Laboratory Operations 

State/Local/Tribal Agency Audited: 

City, State, and Zip Code: 

Date of Technical System Audit: 

Auditor / Agency: 

Key Individuals 

Laboratory Manager: 

Laboratory Supervisor: 

Quality Assurance Manager: 

Laboratory Staff involved in the TSA: 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H 

Revision No: 1.0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 34 of 48 

a) Routine Operations 

What analytical methods are employed in support of your air monitoring network? 

Analysis Name or Description of Method 

PM10 

PM2.5 

Pb 

Others (list by pollutant) 

 

1. Please describe areas where there have been difficulties meeting the regulatory requirements for any of the above analytical

methods. 

In the table below, please identify the current versions of written methods, supplements, and guidelines that are used in your agency. 

Analysis Documentation of Method 

PM10 

PM2.5 

Pb 

Others (list by pollutant) 

 

 

Question Yes No Comment 

Were procedures for the methods listed above included in the 

agency’s QAAP or SOPs and were they reviewed by EPA? Also, 

are SOPs easily/readily accessible for use and reference? 

Does you lab have sufficient instrumentation to conduct analyses? 

Please describe needs for laboratory instrumentation 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H 

Revision No: 1.0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 35 of 48 

b) Laboratory Quality Control 

Please identify laboratory standards used in support of the air monitoring program, including standards which may be kept 

in an analytical laboratory and standards which may be kept in a field support area or quality assurance laboratory that is 

dedicated to the air monitoring program (attach additional sheets if appropriate): 

Parameter Location of 

Standards 

Laboratory 

Standard 

Recertification Date Primary Standard* 

CO 

NO2 

SO2 

O3 

Weights 

Temperature 

Moisture 

Barometric Pressure 

Flow 

Other Flow Standard 

Lead 

Other 

 

*Standards to which the laboratory standards can be traced. 

Question Yes No Comment 

Are all chemicals and solutions clearly marked with an 

indication of shelf life? 

Are chemicals removed and properly disposed of when 

shelf life expires? 

Are only ACS grade chemicals used by the laboratory? 

Comment on the traceability of chemicals used in the preparation of calibration standards. 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H 

Revision No: 1.0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 36 of 48 

Question Yes No Comment 

Does the laboratory purchase standard solutions such as 

those for use with lead or other metals analysis? 

Are all calibration procedures documented? 

If answer “yes” to (f), please describe the following: 

Title of the document: 

Revision number: 

Where the document is: 

Are at least one duplicate, one blank, and one standard or 

spike included with a given analytical batch? 

Briefly describe the laboratory’s use of data derived from blank analyses. 

Question Yes No Comment 

Are criteria established to determine whether a blank 

data are acceptable? 

How frequently and at what concentration ranges does the lab perform duplicate analysis? What constitutes an acceptable 

agreement? Please comment in the space below. 

Please describe how the lab use data obtained from spiked samples, including the acceptance criteria (e.g., acceptable percent 

recovery). 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H 

Revision No: 1.0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 37 of 48 

Question Yes No Comment 

Does the laboratory routinely include samples of 

reference material within an analytical batch? 

If yes, indicate frequency, level, and material used. 

Are mid-range standards included in analytical batches? 

Please describe the frequency, level and compound used in the space provided below. 

Are criteria for real time quality control established that 

are based on the results obtained for the mid-range 

standards discussed above? 

If yes, briefly discuss them below or indicate the document in which they can be found. 

Are appropriate acceptance criteria for each type of 

analysis documented? 

c) Laboratory Preventive Maintenance 

Question Yes No Comment 

For laboratory equipment, who has the responsibility for performing preventive maintenance? 

Is most maintenance performed in the lab? 

Is a maintenance log maintained for each major 

laboratory instrument? 

Are service contracts in place for major analytical 

instruments? 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H 

Revision No: 1.0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 38 of 48 

d) Laboratory Record Keeping 

Question Yes No Comment 

Are all samples that are received by the laboratory logged 

in? 

Discuss sample routing and special needs for analysis (or attach a copy of the latest SOP which covers this). Attach a flow chart if 

possible. 

Are log books kept for all analytical laboratory 

instruments? 

Are there log books or other records that indicate the 

checks made on materials and instruments such as 

weights, humidity indicators, balances, and thermometers? 

Identify type of record, acceptable/non-acceptable. 

Are log books maintained to track the preparation of filters 

for the field? 

Are they current? 

Do they indicate proper use of conditioning? 

Weightings? 

Stamping and numbering? 

Are log books kept which track filters returning from the 

field for analysis? 

How are data records from the laboratory archived? 

 Where? 

 Who has the responsibility? 

 Title: 

 How long are records kept? Years 

Does a chain-of-custody procedure exist for laboratory 

samples? 

If yes, indicate date, title and revision number where it can be found. 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H 

Revision No: 1.0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 39 of 48 

e) Laboratory Data Acquisition and Handling 

Question Yes No Comment 

Identify those laboratory instruments which make use of computer interfaces directly to record data. Which ones use strip charts? 

Integrators? 

Are QC data readily available to the analyst during a 

given analytical run? 

What is the laboratory’s capability with regard to data recovery? In case of problems, can they recapture data or are they dependent 

on computer operations? Discuss briefly. 

Has a user’s manual been prepared for the automated data 

acquisition instrumentation? 

Please provide below a data flow diagram which establishes, by a short summary flow chart: transcriptions, validations, and 

reporting format changes the data goes through before being released by the laboratory. 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H 

Revision No: 1.0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 40 of 48 

f) Specific Pollutants: PM10, PM2.5 and Lead 

Question Yes No Comment 

PM10 and PM2.5 

Does the agency use filters supplied by EPA? 

Do filters meet the specifications in 40 CFR 50? 

Are filters visually inspected via strong light from a view box 

for pinholes and other imperfections? 

Where does the laboratory keep records of the serial numbers 

of filters? 

Are unexposed filters equilibrated in controlled conditioning environment which meets or exceeds the requirements of 40 CFR 

50? 

Are the temperature and relative humidity of the conditioning 

environment monitored? 

Are the temperature and humidity monitors calibrated? 

Are balances checked with Class S or Class M weights each 

day when they are used? 

Is the balance check information placed in QC log book? 

To what sensitivity are filter weights recorded? 

Are filter serial numbers and tare weights recorded in a 

bound notebook? 

Are filters packaged for protection while transporting to and 

from the monitoring stations? 

How often are filter samples collected? (Indicate the average 

elapsed time in hours between end of sampling and laboratory receipt.) 

In what medium are field measurements recorded (e.g., in a log book, on a filter folder, or on standard forms)? 

Are exposed filters reconditioned for at least 24 hrs in the same conditioning environment as for unexposed filters? 

Briefly describe how exposed filters are prepared for conditioning. 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H 

Revision No: 1.0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 41 of 48 

Briefly describe how exposed filters are stored after being weighed. 

Are blank filters reweighed? How often? 

Are chemical analyses performed on filters? 

LEAD 

Is analysis for lead being conducted using atomic absorption 

spectrometry with air acetylene flame? 

If not, has the agency received an equivalency 

designation of their procedure? 

Is either the hot acid or ultrasonic extraction procedure being 

followed precisely? 

Which? 

Is Class A borosilicate glassware used throughout the 

analysis? 

Is all glassware cleaned with detergent, soaked and rinsed 

three times with distilled or de-ionized water? 

If extracted samples are stored, are linear polyethylene 

bottles used? 

Are all batches of glass fiber filters tested for background 

lead content? 

At a rate of 20 to 30 random filters per batch of 500 or 

greater? 

Indicate rate. 

Are ACS reagent grade HNO3 and HCl used in the analysis? 

Is a calibration curve available having concentrations that 

cover the linear absorption range of the atomic absorption 

instrumentation? 

Is the stability of the calibration curve checked by alternately 

re-measuring every 10th sample a concentration of < = 1ug 

Pb/ml; < = 10 ug Pb/ml? 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H 

Revision No: 1.0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 42 of 48 

4) DATA AND DATA MANAGEMENT 

State/Local/Tribal Agency Audited: 

City, State, and Zip Code: 

Date of Technical System Audit: 

Auditor / Agency: 

Key Individuals 

Data Manager: 

Data Supervisor: 

Quality Assurance Manager: 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H 

Revision No: 1.0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 43 of 48 

a) Data Handling 

Question Yes No Comment 

Is there a procedure, description, or a chart which shows a complete 

data sequence from point of acquisition to point of submission of data 

to EPA? 

Please provide below a data flow diagram indicating both the data flow within the reporting organization. 

Are procedures for data handling (e.g., data reduction, review, etc.) 

documented? 

In what media (e.g., diskette, data cartridge, or telemetry) and formats do data arrive at the data processing location? Please list 

below. 

Category of Data (by Pollutant) Data Media and Formats 

 

How often are data received at the processing location from the field sites and laboratory? 

Is there documentation accompanying the data regarding any media 

changes, transcriptions, or flags which have been placed into the data 

before data are released to agency internal data processing? 

Describe the type of documentation. 

How data are actually entered to the computer system (e.g., computerized transcription (copy from disk or data transfer device), 

manual entry, digitization of strip charts, or other)? 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H 

Revision No: 1.0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 44 of 48 

b) Software Documentation 

Question Yes No Comment 

Does your agency use any AQS Manual? 

Does your agency use any Air Now Manual? 

If yes, list the title of manual used including the, version number and date published. 

Does the agency have information on the reporting of precision and 

accuracy data available (i.e. AMP 255)? 

What are the origins of the software used to prepare air monitoring data for release into the AQS and Air Now database? Please list 

the documentation for the software currently in use for data processing, including the names of the software packages, vendor or 

author, revision numbers, and the revision dates of the software. 

What is the recovery capability in the event of a significant computer problem (i.e., how much time and data would be lost)? 

Has your agency tested the data processing software to ensure its 

performance of the intended function is consistent with the QA 

Handbook, Volume II, and Section 14.0? 

Does your agency document software tests? 

If yes, provide the documentation. 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H 

Revision No: 1.0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 45 of 48 

c) Data Validation and Correction 

Question Yes No Comment 

Have your agency established and document the 

validation criteria? 

If yes, indicate document where such criteria can be 

found (title, revision date). 

Does documentation exist on the identification and 

applicability of flags (i.e., identification of suspect 

values) within the data as recorded with the data in the 

computer files? 

Does your agency document the data validation criteria 

including limits for values such as flow rates, calibration 

results, or range tests for ambient measurements? 

If yes, please describe what action the data validation will take if he/she fined data with limits exceeded (e.g., flags, modifies, or 

delete, etc.) 

If yes, give examples to illustrate actions taken when limits were exceeded. 

Please describe how changes made to data that were submitted to AQS and Air Now are documented. 

Who has signature authority for approving corrections? 

Name: Program Function: 

What criteria are used to determine a data point is deleted? Discuss briefly. 

What criteria are used to determine if data need to be reprocessed? Discuss. 

Are corrected data resubmitted to the issuing group for 

cross-checking prior to release? 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H 

Revision No: 1.0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 46 of 48 

d) Data Processing 

Question Yes No Comment 

Does the agency generate data summary reports? 

Please list at least three reports routinely generated, including the information requested below. 

Report Title Distribution Period Covered 

 

Question Yes No Comment 

How often are data submitted to AQS and Air Now? 

Briefly comment on difficulties the agency may have encountered in coding and submitting data following the guidance of the AQS

guidelines? 

Does the agency routinely request a hard copy printout on 

submitted data from AQS? 

Are records kept for at least 3 years by the agency in an 

orderly, accessible form? 

If yes, does this include raw data , calculation , QC data , And reports ? 

If no, please comment. 

Has your agency submitted data along with the 

appropriate calibration equations used to the processing 

center? 

Are concentrations of pollutants (other than PM2.5) 

corrected to EPA standard temperature and pressure 

conditions (i.e., 298 K, 760 mm Hg) before input to 

AQS, and concentrations of PM2.5 reported to AQS 

under actual (volumetric) conditions? 

I) Are audits on data reduction procedure performed on a 

routine basis? 

If yes, at what frequency? 

Are data precision and accuracy checked each time they 

are calculated, recorded, or transcribed to ensure that 

incorrect values are not submitted to EPA? 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H 

Revision No: 1.0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 47 of 48 

e) Internal Reporting 

What internal reports are prepared and submitted as a result of the audits required under 40 CFR 58, Appendix A? 

Report Title Frequency 

What internal reports are prepared and submitted as a result of precision checks also required under 40 CFR 58, Appendix A? 

Report Title Frequency 

 

Question Yes No Comment 

Do either the audit or precision check reports indicated 

include a discussion of corrective actions initiated based 

on audit or precision check results? 

Who has the responsibility for the calculation and preparation of data summaries? To whom are such summaries delivered? 

Name Title Type of Report Recipient 

 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H 

Revision No: 1.0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 48 of 48 

f) External Reporting 

For the current calendar year or portion thereof which ended at least 90 calendar days prior to the receipt of this 

questionnaire, please provide the following percentages for required data submitted on time. 

Percent Submitted on Time* Period Covered:

Monitoring Qtr. SO2 CO O3 NO2 PM10 PM2.5 Pb 

1 (Jan 1 - March 31) 

2 (Apr 1 - June 30) 

3 (July 1 - Sept. 30) 

4 (Oct.1 - Dec. 31) 

*"On time" = within 90 calendar days after the end of the quarter in which the data were collected. 

For the same period, what fraction of the stations (by pollutant) reported less than 75% of the data (adjusted for seasonal 

monitoring and site start-ups and terminations)? 

Percent of Stations <75% Data Recovery Period Covered: 

Monitoring Qtr. SO2 CO O3 NO2 PM10 PM2.5 Pb 

1 (Jan 1 - March 31) 

2 (Apr 1 - June 30) 

3 (July 1 - Sept. 30) 

4 (Oct.1 - Dec. 31) 

Identify the individual within the agency with the responsibility for reviewing and releasing the data. 

Name: Program Function: 

Question Yes No Comment 

Does your agency report the Air Quality Index? 

Has your agency submitted its annual data summary report as required in 

40 CFR 58.15(b)? 

If yes, did your agency’s annual report include the following: 

Annual precision and accuracy information (i.e. AMP 255) described in 

40 CFR 58.15 (c)? 

 Location, date, pollution source and duration of all episodes reaching 

the significant harm levels? 

Is Data Certification signed by a senior officer of your agency? 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I 

Revision No. 0 

Date:05/13 

Page 1 of 25

Appendix I 

Examples of Reports to Management 

The following example of an annual quality assurance report consist of a number of sections that 

describe the quality objectives for selected sets of measurement data and how those objectives 

have been met. Sections include: 

 Executive Summary, 

 Introduction, and 

 Quality information for each ambient air pollutant monitoring program. 

The report is titled "Acme Reporting Organization, Annual Quality Assurance Report for 2000". 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I 

Revision No. 0 

Date:05/13 

Page 2 of 25 

ACME REPORTING ORGANIZATION

ANNUAL QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT FOR 2000

Prepared by 

Quality Assurance Department 

Acme Reporting Organization 

110 Generic Office Building 

Townone XX, 00001 

April 2001
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I 

Revision No. 0 

Date:05/13 

Page 3 of 25

ACME REPORTING ORGANIZATION 

ANNUAL QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT FOR 2000 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

Data quality 

Quality assurance procedures

GASEOUS CRITERIA POLLUTANTS

Program update 

Quality objectives for measurement data 

Data quality assessment 

PARTICULATE CRITERIA POLLUTANTS

Program update 

Quality objectives for measurement data 

Data quality assessment 

TOTAL AND SPECIATED VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS

Program update 

Quality objectives for measurement data 

Data quality assessment 

AIR TOXIC COMPOUNDS

Program update 

Quality objectives for measurement data 

Data quality assessment 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I 

Revision No. 0 

Date:05/13 

Page 4 of 25

ACME REPORTING ORGANIZATION

ANNUAL QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT FOR 2000 

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This summary describes the Acme Reporting Organization's (ARO's) success in meeting its quality 

objectives for ambient air pollution monitoring data. ARO's attainment of quantitative objectives, such as 

promptness, completeness, precision, and bias, are shown in Table 1, below. ARO met these objectives 

for all pollutants, with the exception of nitrogen dioxide. The failure to meet completeness and timeliness 

goals for nitrogen dioxide was due to the breakdown of several older analyzers. Replacement parts were 

installed and the analyzers are now providing data that meet ARO's quality objectives. 

Table 1. Attainment of Quantitative Quality Objectives for Ambient Air Monitoring Data

Measurement 

Program met objectives for 

Promptness Completeness Precision Bias 

Air Toxics Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Carbon Monoxide Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Lead Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Nitrogen Dioxide No No Yes Yes 

Ozone Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Sulfur Dioxide Yes Yes Yes Yes 

PM10 Yes Yes Yes Yes 

PM2.5 Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Volatile Organic 

Compounds (VOCs) 

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Other quality objectives (for example those concerning siting, recordkeeping, etc.) were assessed via 

laboratory and field system audits. The results of these audits indicate compliance with ARO's standard 

operating procedures except for the following: 

 The Towntwo site was shadowed by a 20 story office building which was recently completed. 

This site was closed in July 2000. 

 The Townfour site had problems with vandalism. A new, more secure, fence was installed in 

April and the sheriff's department increased patrols in the area to prevent reoccurrences. 

 Newly acquired laboratory analytical instruments did not have maintenance logs. New logs were 

obtained and personnel were instructed on their use. A spot check, approximately one month 

later, indicated the new logs were in use. 

A review of equipment inventories identified three older sulfur dioxide ambient air monitors that, based 

on our past experience, are likely to experience problems. Cost information and a schedule for 

replacement has been prepared and submitted to management for funding. Based on this schedule, the 

new monitors will be installed before the end of 2001. 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I 

Revision No. 0 

Date:05/13 

Page 5 of 25

INTRODUCTION

The Acme Reporting Organization (ARO) conducts ambient air monitoring programs for the State Bureau 

of Environmental Quality and local air quality management districts. These programs involve: 

 monitoring of criteria pollutants to determine the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) attainment status of state and local air quality. This monitoring is conducted as part of 

the State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) and National Air Monitoring Stations 

(NAMS) networks. 

 monitoring compounds (volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides), referred to as ozone 

precursors, that can produce the criteria pollutant ozone. This monitoring is conducted as part of 

the Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS) network. 

 monitoring toxic air pollutants. 

The purpose of this report is to summarize the results of quality assurance activities performed by ARO to 

ensure that the data meets its quality objectives. This report is organized by ambient air pollutant 

category (e.g., gaseous criteria pollutants, air toxics). The following are discussed for each pollutant 

category: 

program overview and update 

quality objectives for measurement data 

data quality assessment 

DATA QUALITY

Data quality is related to the need of users for data of sufficient quality for decision making. Each user 

specifies their needed data quality in the form of their data quality objectives (DQOs). Quality objectives 

for measurement data are designed to ensure that the end user's DQOs are met. Measurement quality 

objectives are concerned with both with quantitative objectives (such as representativeness, completeness, 

promptness, accuracy, precision and detection level) and qualitative objectives (such as site placement, 

operator training, and sample handling techniques).

QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES

Quality assurance is a general term for the procedures used to ensure that a particular measurement meets 

the quality requirements for its intended use. In addition to performing tests to determine bias and 

precision, additional quality indicators (such as sensitivity, representativeness, completeness, timeliness, 

documentation quality, and sample custody control) are also evaluated. Quality assurance procedures fall 

under two categories: 

 quality control - procedures built into the daily sampling and analysis methodologies to ensure 

data quality, and 

 quality assessment - which refers to periodic outside evaluations of data quality. 

Some ambient air monitoring is performed by automated equipment located at field sites, while other 

measurements are made by taking samples from the field to the laboratory for analysis. For this reason, 

we will divide quality assurance procedures into two parts – field and laboratory quality assurance.
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I 

Revision No. 0 

Date:05/13 

Page 6 of 25

Field Quality Assurance

Quality control of automated analyzers and samplers consists of calibration and precision checks. The 

overall precision of sampling methods is measured using collocated samplers. Quality assurance is 

evaluated by periodic performance and system audits. 

Calibration - Automated analyzers (except ozone) are calibrated by comparing the instrument's response 

when sampling a cylinder gas standard mixture to the cylinder's known concentration level. The analyzer 

is then adjusted to produce the correct response. Ozone analyzers are calibrated by on-site generation of 

ozone whose concentration is determined by a separate analyzer which has its calibration traceable to the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The site's analyzer is then adjusted to produce the same measured 

concentration as the traceable analyzer. Manual samplers are calibrated by comparing their volumetric 

flow rate at one or more flow rates to the flow measured by a flow rate transfer standard. Calibrations are 

performed when an instrument is first installed and at semi-annual intervals thereafter. Calibrations are 

also performed after instrument repairs or when quality control charts indicate a drift in response to 

quality control check standards. 

Precision - Precision is a measure of the variability of an instrument. The precision of automated 

analyzers is evaluated by comparing the sample's known concentration against the instrument's response. 

The precision of manual samplers is determined by collocated sampling – the simultaneous operation of 

two identical samplers placed side by side. The difference in the results of the two samplers is used to 

estimate the precision of the entire measurement process (i.e., both field and laboratory precision). 

Performance Audits - The bias of automated methods is assessed through field performance audits. 

Performance audits are conducted by sampling a blind sample (i.e., a sample whose concentration is 

known, but not to the operator). Bias is evaluated by comparing the measured response to the known 

value. Typically, performance audits are performed annually using blind samples of several different 

concentrations. 

System Audits - System audits indicate how well a sampling site conforms to the standard operating 

procedures as well as how well the site is located with respect to its mission (e.g., urban or rural sampling, 

special purpose sampling site, etc.). System audits involve sending a trained observer (QA Auditor) to the 

site to review the site compliance with standard operating procedures. Some areas reviewed include: site 

location (possible obstruction, presence of nearby pollutant sources), site security, site characteristics 

(urban versus suburban or rural), site maintenance, physical facilities (maintenance, type and operational 

quality of equipment, buildings, etc.), recordkeeping, sample handling, storage and transport. 

Laboratory Quality Assurance

Laboratory quality control includes calibration of analytical instrumentation, analysis of blank samples to 

check for contamination, and analysis of duplicate samples to evaluate precision. Quality assurance is 

accomplished through laboratory performance and system audits. 

 

Calibration - Laboratory analytical instruments are calibrated by comparing the instrument's response 

when sampling standards of known concentration level. The difference between the measured and known 

concentrations is then used to adjust the instrument to produce the correct response. 

Blank Analysis - A blank sample is one that has intentionally not been exposed to the pollutant of interest. 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I 

Revision No. 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 7 of 25

Analysis of blank samples reveals possible contamination in the laboratory or during field handling or 

transportation. 

Duplicate Analysis - Duplicate analyses of the same sample are performed to monitor the precision of the 

analytical method. 

Performance Audits - Regular performance audits are conducted by having the laboratory analyze 

samples whose physical or chemical properties have been certified by an external laboratory or standards 

organization. The difference between the laboratory's reported value and the certified values is used to 

evaluate the analytical method's accuracy. 

System Audits - System audits indicate how well the laboratory conforms to its standard operating 

procedures. System audits involve sending a trained observer (QA Auditor) to the laboratory to review 

compliance with standard operating conditions. Areas examined include: record keeping, sample 

custody, equipment maintenance, personnel training and qualifications, and a general review of facilities 

and equipment. 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I 

Revision No. 0 

Date:05/13 

Page 8 of 25

GASEOUS CRITERIA POLLUTANTS

The Acme Reporting Organization monitors the ambient concentrations of the gaseous criteria pollutants 

carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) to determine 

attainment of Federal (NAAQS) and State ambient air quality standards. Monitoring of these pollutants is 

conducted continuously by a network of automated stations. 

PROGRAM UPDATE

At the beginning of 2000, the Acme Reporting Organization operated 38 ambient air monitoring stations 

that measured gaseous criteria pollutants. On March 1, 2000, a station was opened at Townone to monitor 

CO, NO2, O3, and SO2 . The station at Towntwo, which monitored NO2, O3, and SO2, was closed in April 

2000. 

QUALITY OBJECTIVES FOR MEASUREMENT DATA

The Quality Objectives for the Acme Reporting Organization's ambient air monitoring of gaseous criteria 

pollutants are shown in Table 2, below. 

Table 2. Quality Objectives for Gaseous Criteria 

Pollutants

Data Quality Indicator Objective

Precision 10% 

Bias 15% 

Completeness 75% 

Promptness 100% 

DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT

Summary

Assessment of the data quality for ARO gaseous criteria pollutants showed that all instruments met goals 

for accuracy, precision, completeness, and promptness. System audits showed siting problems at three 

sites, two of these were corrected promptly, while the third site had to be closed due to the construction of 

a nearby large office building. 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I 

Revision No. 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 9 of 25

Promptness and Completeness

At least 75 percent of scheduled monitoring data must be reported for purposes of determining attainment 

of NAAQS. All data must be submitted within 90 days after the end of the reporting quarter. Table 3 

summarizes promptness and completeness for gaseous criteria pollutant data. 

Table 3. Data Quality Assessment for Promptness 

and Completeness

Pollutant Promptness Completeness

Carbon monoxide 100% 95% 

Nitrogen dioxide 100% 97% 

Ozone 100% 94% 

Sulfur dioxide 100% 96% 

Precision

At least once every two weeks, precision is determined by sampling a gas of known concentration. Table 

4 summarizes the precision checks for gaseous criteria pollutants. 

Table 4. Data Quality Assessment for Precision

Pollutant

Precision checks 

completed

Percentage within 

limits

Carbon monoxide (CO) 98% 98% 

Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 100% 97% 

Ozone (O3) 97% 98% 

Sulfur dioxide (SO2) 100% 98% 

Bias

The results of annual performance audits conducted by ARO personnel are shown in Figure 1, below. The 

center line for each pollutant represents the average bias across all analyzers (i.e., with all analyzers 

weighted equally). The lower and upper probability limits represent the boundaries within which 95 

percent of the individual bias values are expected to be distributed. 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I 

Revision No. 0 

Date:05/13 

Page 10 of 25

Figure 2 shows the results of external performance audits performed with the National Performance Audit 

Program (NPAP), administered by the U.S. EPA. 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I 

Revision No. 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 11 of 25

System Audits

Systems audits were performed at approximately 25 percent of the sites during the calendar year 

2000. These audits evaluated areas such as siting criteria, analyzer operation and maintenance, 

operator training, recordkeeping, and serve as a general review of site operations. No significant 

problems were observed, except for the following: 

 The Towntwo site was shadowed by a 20 story office building which was recently 

completed. This site was closed in July 2000. 

 The Townfour site had problems with repeated vandalism. A new, more secure, fence 

was installed in April and the sheriff's department increased patrols in the area to prevent 

reoccurrences. 

 The Townsix site had vegetation which had grown too close to the analyzer inlet probes. 

The vegetation was removed within one week after the problem was reported. Personnel 

from the County Parks and Recreation Department provided assistance removing the 

vegitation. 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I 

Revision No. 0 

Date:05/13 

Page 12 of 25

 PARTICULATE CRITERIA POLLUTANTS

The Acme Reporting Organization monitors the ambient concentrations of three particulate criteria 

pollutants: 

 Lead; 

 PM10 (particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers; 

and 

 PM2.5 (particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers) 

This monitoring is used to determine attainment of Federal (NAAQS) and State ambient air quality 

standards. Monitoring of these pollutants is conducted by sampling for 24 hours every six days by a 

network of manually operated samplers. 

PROGRAM UPDATE

At the beginning of 2000, the Acme Reporting Organization operated 22 ambient air monitoring stations 

that measured particulate criteria pollutants. On March 1, 2000, a station was opened at Townone to 

monitor PM10, PM2.5, and lead. The station at Towntwo, which monitored PM10, PM2.5, and lead, was 

closed in April 2000. 

QUALITY OBJECTIVES FOR MEASUREMENT DATA

The Quality Objectives for the Acme Reporting Organization's ambient air monitoring of particulate 

criteria pollutants are shown in Table 5, below. 

Table 5. Quality Objectives for Particulate Criteria 

Pollutants

Data Quality Indicator Objective

Precision 7% 

Bias 10% 

Completeness 75% 

Promptness 100% 

DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT

Summary

Assessment of the data quality for ARO particulate criteria pollutants showed that all samplers 

met goals for accuracy, precision, completeness, and promptness. System audits showed siting 

problems at three sites. Two of these were corrected promptly, while the third site had to be 

closed due to the construction of a large office building, nearby. 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I 

Revision No. 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 13 of 25

Promptness and Completeness

At least 75 percent of scheduled monitoring data must be reported for purposes of determining attainment 

of NAAQS. All data must be submitted within 90 days after the end of the reporting quarter. Table 6 

summarizes promptness and completeness data for particulate criteria pollutants. 

Table 6. Data Quality Assessment for Promptness and 

Completeness

Pollutant Promptness Completeness

Lead 100% 93% 

PM10 100% 95% 

PM2.5 100% 92% 

Precision

Precision is determined by operating collocated samplers (i.e., two identical samplers operated in the 

identical manner). Due to the anticipated poor precision for very low levels of pollutants, only collocated 

measurements above a minimum level (0.15 g/m3

 for lead, 20 g/m3 for PM10, and 6 g/m3 for PM2.5) 

are used to evaluate precision. Table 7 summarizes the results of collocated measurements made during 

the calendar year 2000. 

Table 7. Data Quality Assessment for Precision

Pollutant

Collocated precision 

measurements completed

Collocated 

measurements within 

limits

Lead 98% 98% 

PM10 100% 97% 

PM2.5 97% 98% 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I 

Revision No. 0 

Date:05/13 

Page 14 of 25

Flow rate precision 

A flow rate precision check is conducted at least every two weeks for PM10 and PM2.5 samplers. The flow 

should be within 10% of the specified value. Results are shown in Table 8. 

Table 8. Flow Rate Precision Checks for Particulate Criteria Pollutants

Pollutant

Precision Checks 

completed

Precision Checks 

within limits

Lead 98% 98% 

PM10 100% 97% 

PM2.5 97% 98% 

Flow rate bias

Results of the annual flow rate audits conducted by ARO personnel are shown in Figure 3, below. The 

center line for each pollutant represents the average bias across all sampler (i.e., with all sampler 

weighted equally). The lower and upper probability limits represent the boundaries within which 95 

percent of the individual bias values are expected to be distributed. 

Figure 4 shows the results of external flow rate audits for PM10 and lead samplers performed with the 

National Performance Audit Program (NPAP) which is administered by the U.S. EPA. Currently NPAP 

audits of PM2.5 samplers involve sampler collocation rather than flow rate checks 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I 

Revision No. 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 15 of 25

Measurement Bias

Measurement bias is evaluated for PM2.5 analyzers by collocated sampling using an audit sampler. For 

internal audits, the collocated measurements provide an estimate of bias resulting from sampler 

operations. For external NPAP audits, the collocated measurements provide an estimate of bias resulting 

from both sampler and laboratory operations. Measurement bias for lead is evaluated by use of standard 

lead test samples. This provides an estimate of the bias resulting from laboratory operations. The results 

of the annual performance audits of PM2.5 and lead conducted by ARO personnel are shown in Figure 5, 

below. 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I 

Revision No. 0 

Date:05/13 

Page 16 of 25

Figure 6 shows the results of external performance audits for PM10 and lead performed with the National 

Performance Audit Program (NPAP) which is administered by the U.S. EPA. 

System Audits

Systems audits were performed at approximately one fourth of the sites and at the central analytical 

laboratory during calendar year 2000. These audits evaluated areas such as siting criteria, equipment 

operation and maintenance, operator training, recordkeeping, and served as a general review of site 

operations. No significant problems were observed, except for the following: 

 The Towntwo site was shadowed by a 20 story office building which was recently completed. 

This site was closed in July 2000. 

 The Townfour site had problems with repeated vandalism. A new, more secure, fence was 

installed in April and the sheriff's department increased patrols in the area to prevent 

reoccurrences. 

No significant problems were found in the laboratory audits, except for failure to keep maintenance logs 

on several newly acquired analytical instruments. New logs were obtained and personnel instructed on 

their use. A spot check, approximately one month later, indicated the logs were in use. 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I 

Revision No. 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 17 of 25

TOTAL AND SPECIATED VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (PAMS)

The Acme Reporting Organization monitors the ambient concentrations of ozone precursors (volatile 

organic compounds [VOCs], carbonyls, and nitrogen oxides that can produce the criteria pollutant ozone). 

This monitoring is conducted as part of the Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS) 

network. Nitrogen dioxide (one of the nitrogen oxides measured in PAMS) is also a criteria pollutant and 

its measurement is described under the gaseous criteria pollutant section, above. Total nitrogen oxides 

(NOx) measurements are obtained continuously by a network of automated stations. Volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs), excluding carbonyls, are measured by continuous analyzers (on-line gas 

chromatographs) at selected sites. The remaining sites use automated samplers to collect VOC canister 

samplers which are then transported to the laboratory for analysis. Carbonyls are collected in adsorbent 

sampling tubes, which are transported to the laboratory for analysis. 

PROGRAM UPDATE

At the beginning of 2000, the Acme Reporting Organization operated 5 ambient air monitoring stations 

that measured ozone precursors. On March 1, 2000, a station was opened at Townone to monitor VOCs, 

carbonyls, and NOx. 

QUALITY OBJECTIVES FOR MEASUREMENT DATA

The Quality Objectives for the Acme Reporting Organization's ambient air monitoring of ozone 

precursors are shown in Table 9, below. 

Table 9. Quality Objectives for Ozone Precursors

Data Quality Indicator Objective

Precision (NOx) 10% 

Precision (VOC, Carbonyls) 25% 

Bias (NOx) 15% 

Bias (VOC, Carbonyls) 20% 

Completeness 75% 

Promptness 100% 

DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT

Summary

Assessment of the data quality for ozone precursors showed that all instruments met goals for accuracy, 

precision, completeness, and promptness. System audits showed siting problems at two sites, both of 

these were corrected promptly. 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I 

Revision No. 0 

Date:05/13 

Page 18 of 25

Promptness and Completeness 

At least 75 percent of scheduled monitoring data must be reported. All data must be submitted within six 

months after the end of the reporting quarter. Table 10 summarizes promptness and completeness data 

for ozone precursors. 

Table 10. Data Quality Assessment for Promptness and Completeness

Ozone precursor Promptness Completeness

Carbonyls 100% 80% 

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 100% 96% 

Total VOCs (Total nonmethane hydrocarbons) 

100% 87% 

Speciated VOCs 100% 83% 

Precision

At least once every two weeks, precision for nitrogen oxides (NOx) and automated VOC analysis were 

determined by sampling a gas of known concentration. Precision for manual VOC sampling and carbonyl 

sampling is obtained by analysis of duplicate samples. Duplicates are taken at a frequency of one 

duplicate for every 10 samples. Table 11 summarizes the precision check results for 2000. 

Table 11. Data Quality Assessment for Precision

Ozone precursor 

Precision checks 

completed

Precision checks 

within limits

Carbonyls 91% 90% 

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 98% 97% 

Total VOCs (Total nonmethane hydrocarbons) 

90% 91% 

Speciated VOCs 95% 80% 

Bias

 The results of the annual performance audits conducted by ARO personnel are shown in 

Figure 7, below. For NOx and the automated VOC analyzers, the center line represents the 

average bias across all sites (i.e., with all sites weighted equally). For the carbonyl and manual 

VOC analyses, the center line represents the average of all audit samples for the central 

analytical laboratory. The lower and upper probability limits represent the boundaries within 

which 95 percent of the individual bias values are expected to be distributed. Carbonyl and Total VOC 

measurements represent the average of all audit species. 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I 

Revision No. 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 19 of 25

Figure 8 shows the results of the external performance audits performed with the National Performance 

Audit Program (NPAP) which is administered by the U.S. EPA. 

System Audits

Systems audits were performed at two sites during calendar year 2000. These audits evaluated 

areas such as siting criteria, analyzer and sampler operation and maintenance, operator training, 

recordkeeping, and serve as a general review of site operations. In general both sites were 

performing well except for the following: 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I 

Revision No. 0 

Date:05/13 

Page 20 of 25

 The Townsix site had vegetation which had grown too close to the analyzer inlet probes. The 

vegetation was removed within one week, with assistance from the County Parks and Recreation 

Department. 

A systems audit was also performed at the central analytical laboratory. Results were good with only 

minor items noted for improvements. 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I 

Revision No. 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 21 of 25

AIR TOXICS

The Acme Reporting Organization monitors the ambient concentrations of air toxic compounds. Three 

different methods are used, depending on the class of air toxic compound. Volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs), excluding carbonyls, are measured by continuous analyzers (on-line gas chromatographs) at 

selected sites. The remaining sites use automated samplers to collect VOC cannister samplers which are 

then transported to the laboratory for analysis. Carbonyls are collected with adsorbent sampling tubes, 

which are transported to the laboratory for analysis. Inorganic compounds are collected on PM2.5 filters 

(as part of particulate criteria pollutant monitoring) and analyzed (after weighing for PM2.5 mass) by 

inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP MS). This monitoring is conducted as part of the Air 

Toxics monitoring network. 

PROGRAM UPDATE

At the beginning of 2000, the Acme Reporting Organization operated five ambient air monitoring stations 

that measured ambient air toxics. On March 1, 2000, a station was opened at Townone to monitor air 

toxics. 

QUALITY OBJECTIVES FOR MEASUREMENT DATA

The Quality Objectives for the Acme Reporting Organization's ambient air monitoring of ambient air 

toxics are shown in Table 12, below. 

Table 12. Quality Objectives for Air Toxics

Data Quality Indicator Objective

Precision 25% 

Bias 25% 

Completeness 75% 

Promptness 100% 

DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT

Summary

Assessment of the data quality for ambient air toxics showed that all instruments met goals for accuracy, 

precision, completeness, and promptness. System audits showed siting problems at two sites, both of 

these were corrected promptly. 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I 

Revision No. 0 

Date:05/13 

Page 22 of 25

Promptness and Completeness

At least 75 percent of scheduled monitoring data must be reported. All data must be submitted within six 

months after the end of the reporting quarter. Table 13 summarizes promptness and completeness for 

ambient air toxics monitoring data. 

Table 13. Data Quality Assessment for Promptness and Completeness

Pollutant Promptness Completeness

Carbonyls 100% 78% 

Volatile organic 

compounds 

100% 84% 

Inorganic compounds 100% 87% 

Precision

At least once every two weeks, precision for automated VOC analysis is determined by sampling a gas of 

known concentration. Precision for manual VOC sampling, carbonyl sampling, and inorganic sampling is 

obtained by analysis of duplicate samples. Duplicates are taken at a frequency of one duplicate for every 

10 samples. Table 14 summarizes the precision check results for 2000. 

Table 14. Data Quality Assessment for Precision

Pollutant

Precision checks 

completed

Precision checks 

within limits

Carbonyls 91% 90% 

Volatile organic 

compounds 

98% 97% 

Inorganic compounds 90% 91% 

Bias

The results of the annual performance audits conducted by ARO personnel are shown in Figure 9, below. 

For the automated VOC analyzers, the center line represents the average bias across all sites (i.e., with all 

sites weighted equally). For the carbonyl, manual VOC, and inorganic analyses, the center line represents 

the average of all audit samples for the central analytical laboratory. The lower and upper probability 

limits represent the boundaries within which 95 percent of the individual bias values are expected to be 

distributed. All measurements represent the average of all audit species. 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I 

Revision No. 0 

Date: 05/13 

Page 23 of 25

Figure 10 shows the results of the external performance audits performed with the National 

Performance Audit Program (NPAP) which is administered by the U.S. EPA. 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I 

Revision No. 0 

Date:05/13 

Page 24 of 25

System Audits

Systems audits were performed at two sites during the calendar year 2000. These audits 

evaluated areas such as siting criteria, analyzer and sampler operation and maintenance, operator 

training, recordkeeping, and serve as a general review of site operations. No significant 

problems were found, except for the following: 

 The Townsix site had vegetation which had grown too close to the analyzer inlet probes. The 

vegetation was removed within one week, with assistance from the County Parks and 

Recreation Department. 

A systems audit was also performed at the central analytical laboratory. No significant problems 

were found. 

Example of Corrective Action Form

A corrective action request should be made whenever anyone in the reporting organization notes 

a problem that demands either immediate or long-term action to correct a safety defect, a 

operational problem, or a failure to comply with procedures. A typical corrective action request 

form, with example information entered, is shown below. A separate form should be used for 

each problem identified. 

The corrective action report form is designed as a closed-loop system. First it identifies the 

originator, that person who reports and identifies the problem, states the problem, and may 

suggest a solution. The form then directs the request to a specific person (or persons), i.e., the 

recipient, who would be best qualified to "fix" the problem. Finally, the form closes the loop by 

requiring that the recipient state how the problem was resolved and the effectiveness of the 

solution. The form is signed and a copy is returned to the originator and other copies are sent to 

the supervisor and the applicable files for the record. 
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I 

Revision No. 1 

Date:12/08 

Page 25 of 25

 ARO - Corrective Action Request 

 

Part A - To be completed by requestor

To: John S. Visor

Organization Responsible for Action ARO Ambient Air Monitoring Section

 

Urgency:

Emergency (failure to take action immediately may result in injury or property damage) 

Immediate (4 hours) Urgent (24 hours)  Routine (7 days) 

As resources allow For Information only 

 

From: William Operator phone: (000) 555 - 1000

 fax: (000) 555 - 1001 e-mail: billo@localhost

Copies to: 

(Always send a copy to the ARO Site Coordinator at 115 Generic Office Building, Townone XX, 00001)

 

Problem Identification 

 Site(Location): Townsix site

 System: sample inlet

 Date problem identified: Aug. 1, 2000

 Nature of problem: Glass sample inlet and dropout trap broken during removal

 of weeds from site

 

 Recommended Action: Replace broken parts

 Signature: William Operator Date: Aug. 1, 2000

 

Part B - to be completed by responsible organization

Problem Resolution 

 Date corrective action taken: August 4, 2000

 Summary of Corrective Action: Replacement parts were ordered and received. The new 

parts were installed within three days of the request. Data from the days with a cracked sample inlet will 

be flagged as questionable.

 

 Effectiveness of corrective action: Sample inlet restored to new condition.

Signature: John Visor Date: Aug. 4, 2000

Phone: (000) 555 - 2000 Fax: (000) 555 - 2001

e-mail: jsv@localhost

Send copies of the completed form to the requestor and the ARO Site Coordinator at 115 Generic Office Building, Townone 

XX, 00001)

ARO form CAR-1 , May 1, 1999 
United States 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Air Quality Assessment Division 

Research Triangle Park, NC 

Publication N