Final Checklist July 9, 2010

Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Chloride and Sulfate EPA Method 300.0

(Ion Chromatography)

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 300.0.

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

Quality Control Sample Results 3

Laboratory Reagent Blank Results 2, 3

Laboratory Fortified Blank Results 2, 3

Instrument Performance Check Solution 

Results

3

Laboratory Fortified Matrix (LFM) Results 2, 3

Standard Curve Results 3

Continuing Calibration Data 3

Field Duplicate Results 2, 3
Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Chloride and Sulfate EPA Method 300.0 (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

Chromatograms for Each Sample, Blank, and 

Standard

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

Chloride and Sulfate EPA Method 300.0 (1993)

Page 3 of 5

Final Checklist July 9, 2010

EPA METHOD 300.0 REQUIREMENT

Reviewer 

Comment

Criterion

met

Y N

SECTION B. SAMPLE RECEIPT

1. Reviewed Sample Collection Record: 

• Signatures?

• Completed?

• Sample ID numbers checked?

• Preservations? 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? 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 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 – Instrument 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? (300.0/10.2)

What were the concentrations of the three calibration 

standards used by lab? 
Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Chloride and Sulfate EPA Method 300.0 (1993)

Page 4 of 5

Final Checklist July 9, 2010

EPA METHOD 300.0 REQUIREMENT

Reviewer 

Comment

Criterion

met

Y N

SECTION D-2. QC INFORMATION –Blanks/Duplicates

1. Laboratory Reagent Blank: Was a laboratory 

reagent blank analyzed with each batch of samples?

Were all of the target compounds or interfering 

compounds < Reporting Limit (RL)?1

Note any contamination reported.

If no, was analysis stopped and contamination 

eliminated? (300.0/9.3.1)

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

analyzed with every sample batch and was the 

percent recovery of all analytes within 90-110%? 

Were replicate LFBs analyzed at least quarterly to 

determine precision? (300.0/9.3.2/9.4.8)

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

1. Ion Chromatographic Parameters: Were 

parameters equal to those presented in Tables 1A and 

1B of EPA Method 300.0 established for the ion 

chromatography column? (300.0/10.1)

2. Initial Demonstration of Performance, Quality 

Control Sample (QCS) data enclosed?: Was a QCS 

sample analyzed and was the percent recovery within 

± 10% of the stated values? (300.0/9.2.3)

Indicate the true and reported values of the QCS and 

the percent recovery. 

 

1 Note: EPA method 300.0 requires that the LRB be less than the Method Detection Limit (MDL). 

However, this method is written for drinking water analysis. Because chloride and sulfide levels in FGD 

wastewater will be appreciably higher than in drinking water, TestAmerica will only consider the LRB 

contaminated if analytes are higher than the reporting limit.
Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Chloride and Sulfate EPA Method 300.0 (1993)

Page 5 of 5

Final Checklist July 9, 2010

EPA METHOD 300.0 REQUIREMENT

Reviewer 

Comment

Criterion

met

Y N

3. Instrument Performance Check Solution: Was an 

instrument performance check solution (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? (300.0/9.3.4)

What were results reported for the IPC and the 

percent recovery?

4. 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 80-120% (Method A) or 75-125% (Method 

B)? (300.0/9.4)

What were the % recoveries for all analytes? 

5. Continuing Calibration Verification: Was the 

calibration curve verified at the beginning of each 

day, after every 20 samples, and whenever the anion 

eluent was changed? 

Was the retention time or response for each analyte 

within ± 10% of the expected value?

Note: If the above criteria fail, the continuing 

calibration verification analysis can be repeated using 

fresh standards and if these results are within ± 10% 

of the expected value it is not necessary to recreate 

the calibration curve. (300.0/10.4)

What were the results reported for the CCV and what 

was the percent recovery?

SECTION E. DETAILED RAW DATA REVIEW – Sample Results

1. Calculation: Was the concentration in samples 

determined using the standard curve and were values 

reported in mg/L? (300.0/12.0)

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

standard used to calculate the calibration curve, was 

the sample diluted and reanalyzed? (300.0/12.2)

3. Sample Results Reporting: Were only results 

between the lowest and highest standards reported? 

(300.0/12.2)