Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Ammonia EPA Method 350.1 ( 1993 )

( Semi

- Automated Colorimetry )

SECTION A

- 1. Sample Identifiers

Laboratory Name:

Sampling Episode: Sample Number s or

Range: Data Reviewer

signature: Date:

Instructions: Complete th is checklist electronically or using a ballpoint pen.

Record reviewer comments in the Reviewer Comment section.

Record detailed information in the Comments in the “Overall Assessment”

section for each criterion not (“N”) met.

No te: Requirements with a * ar e project requirements not specific to

EPA Method 350.1

.



### SECTION A

- 2. OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE QUALITY OF THE DATA

General Comment Checklist

Deliverable Requirement Review

Level

Required Present Comments

Copies of Shipping Documents (Fed

- Ex

Airbills) 1, 2, 3

Case Narrative 1, 2, 3

Table of Contents 3

Cross reference of Field Sample No., Lab

Sample No., and Analytical Batch 1, 2, 3

Traffic Report Form (including Sample

Receipt Checklist) 1, 2, 3

Sample Calculation (usually just a page

co pied from SOW) 3

Results Summary for Each Sample and

Blank 1, 2, 3

Laboratory Reagent Blank Results 2, 3

Laboratory Fortified Blank Results 2, 3

Standard Curve and Quality Control

Sample Results 3

Instrument Performance Check Solution

Result s 3Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Ammonia EPA Method 350.1 (1993 )

Page 2 of 5

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### SECTION A

- 2. OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE QUALITY OF THE DATA

General Comment Checklist

Deliverable Requirement Review

Level

Required Present Comments

Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix

Results 3

Field Duplicate Results 2, 3

Quantitation List 3

Copies of Sample Preparation Work

Sheets 3

Copies of Run Logs 3

Level 1: Review of traffic reports, sample handling, and proper sample prepa ration

Level 2: Level 1 review plus review of QA/QC results

Level 3: Level 2 review plus review of instrument performance

Level 4: Level 3 review plus analysis of raw data such as chromatograms or primary instrument

outputSteam Study Data Review Checklist

Ammonia EPA Method 350.1 (1993 )

Page 3 of 5

Final Checklist July 9, 2010



### EPA Method 350.1 Requirement R eviewer Comment Criterion

met

Y N



### SECTION B. SAMPLE RECEIPT

1. Reviewed Sample Collection Record:

**•** Signatures?

**•** Completed?

**•** Sample ID numbers checked?

**•** Preservations? pH? Temp? Volume

**•** Any anomalies reported?

2. Reviewed Lab Sample Receipt Record :

**•** Date re ceived?

**•** Lab ID number checked?

**•** Lab ID number referenced to Sample ID

n umbers ?

**•** Preservation checked by lab? pH? Temp?

Volume?

**•** Sample c onditions ?

**•** Sample hold time ?

**•** Any anomalies reported by lab ?



### SECTION C . SAMPLE PREPARATION

1. Reviewed Standard Pre logs:

**•** Standard expiration date:

**•** Concentrations prepared?

2. Reviewed Sample Prep Logs:

**•** Sample extraction date :

**•** Sample process or run date :

3. *Field Duplicates: Was a field duplicate collected

and analyzed as part of the sampling episode?

Indicate the relat ive percent difference.



### SECTION D

- 1 . QC INFORMATION

– Calibration

1. Review Lab’s Instrument Run Log Report: Were

calibrations, QC samples and samples included in a

batch of 20 samples?

2. Standard Curve: Were at least three standards

within the standard range and one blank used to

create a calibration curve? (350.1/10.1)

What were the concentration s of the three calibration

standards used by lab?Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Ammonia EPA Method 350.1 (1993 )

Page 4 of 5

Final Checklist July 9, 2010



### EPA Method 350.1 Requirement R eviewer Comment Criterion

met

Y N

3. Quality Control Sample (QCS) data enclosed? :

Was a QCS used to verify the calibration (i.e., were

results within ±10% of QCS true value) ?

(350.1/ 9.2.3/ 10.7)

What was the true value of the QCS?

What was the QC S value reported by the labs ?

What was the percent recovery?



### SECTION D

- 2 . QC INFORMATION

– Blanks/Duplicates

1. Laboratory Reagent Blank: Was a laboratory

reagent blank analyzed with each batch of samples

and were the results always less than the Method

Detection Limit (MDL)? (350.1/9.3.1)

Note any contamination reported.

2. Laboratory Fortified Blank (LFB) : Was a LFB

analyzed with each batch of samples and was the

percent recovery of a ll analytes within 90

- 110%?

(350.1 /9.3.2)

What were the concentration s of all analytes in the

LFB reported by the lab?

What were the % recoveries of all the analytes?



### SECTION D

- 3 . QC INFORMATION

– Instrument Performance Checks

1. Instrument Performance Check Solution (IPC) :

Was an IPC and calibration blank analyz ed

immediately after daily calibration, following every

ten samples, and at the conclusion of the sample

run? Did all results for the IPC solution and

calibration blank verify that the instrument was

within ±10% of calibration? (350.1/9.3.4)

What were res ults reported for the IPC and

calibration blank and what were the percent

recoveries ?

2. Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix (LFM) : Was

a known amount of analyte ( ≥4 times MDL) added

to at least 10% of samples and was the percent

recovery within 90

- 110%? (350.1/9.4)

What were the % recoveries for all analytes?



### SECTION F

. DATA REVIEW

– Sample Results

1. Calculation: Was the concentration in samples

determined using the standard curve and were values

reported in mg NH 3

- N/L? (350.1/12.0)Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Ammonia EPA Method 350.1 (1993 )

Page 5 of 5

Final Checklist July 9, 2010



### EPA Method 350.1 Requirement R eviewer Comment Criterion

met

Y N

2. Dilution: If a result was greater than the highest

standard used to calculate the cali bration curve, was

the sample diluted and reanalyzed? (350.1/12.2)

3. Sample Results Reporting: Were only results

between the lowest and highest standards reported?

(350.1/12.2)