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 Numbers or 

Range:

Data Reviewer 

signature:

Date:

Instructions: Complete this 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.

Note: Requirements with a * are 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 

copied 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 

Results

3
Steam 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 preparation

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 

output
Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Ammonia EPA Method 350.1 (1993)

Page 3 of 5

Final Checklist July 9, 2010

EPA Method 350.1 Requirement Reviewer 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 received?

• Lab ID number checked?

• Lab ID number referenced to Sample ID 

numbers?

• Preservation checked by lab? pH? Temp? 

Volume?

• Sample conditions?

• 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 relative 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 concentrations 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 Reviewer 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 QCS 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 all analytes within 90-110%? 

(350.1/9.3.2)

What were the concentrations 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 analyzed 

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 results 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 NH3-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 Reviewer Comment

Criterion

met

Y N

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

standard used to calculate the calibration 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)