Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Total Phosphorus EPA Method 365.1 (19 93 )

( Semi

- Automated Colorimetry )

SECTION A

- 1. Sample Identifiers

Laboratory Name:

Sampling Episode: Sample Number s or

Range: Data Reviewer

signature: Date:

Instructions: C omplete 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 w ith a * are project requirements not specific to

EPA Method 365. 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 3Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Total Phosphorus EPA Method 365. 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

Instrument Performance Check Solut ion

Results 3

Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix

Results 2, 3

Field Duplicate Results 2, 3

Standard Curve Results 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

outputSteam Study Data Review Checklist

Total Phosphorus EPA Method 365. 1 (1993 )

Page 3 of 5

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### EPA METH OD 365. 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. R eviewed Lab Sample Receipt Record :

**•** Date received?

**•** 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 . SAMPL E PREPARATION/EXTRACT HANDLING

INFORMATION

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 coll ected

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 sampl es?

2. Standard Curve: Were at least three standards and

one blank used to create a calibration curve?

(Suggested ranges 0

- 0.10 mg/L or 0.2

- 1.0 mg/L)

(365. 1/10

. 0 )

What were the concentrations of the three calibration

standards used by lab?Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Total Phosphorus EPA Method 365. 1 (1993 )

Page 4 of 5

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### EPA METH OD 365. 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) ?

(365.1 / 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 resul ts always less than the Method

D etection Limit (MDL)? (365.1/9.3.1)

Note any contamination report ed by the lab.

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%?

(365.1/9.3.2)

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 Pe rformance Checks

1. 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 re sults for the IPC solution and calibration

blank verify that the instrument was within ±10% of

calibration? (365.1/9.3.4)

What were results reported for the IPC and

calibration blank and what were the percent

recoveries ?

2. Laboratory Fortified Sample Mat rix (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%? (365.1/9.4)

What were the % recoveries for all analytes?



### SECTION E

. DATA REVIEW

– Sample Results

1. Calculation: Was the total phosphorus calculated

from the standard curve? (365. 1 / 12.1 )Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Total Phosphorus EPA Method 365. 1 (1993 )

Page 5 of 5

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### EPA METH OD 365. 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? (365.1/12.2)

3. Sample Results Reporting: Was total phosphorus

reported in milligrams per litter (mg/L)?

(365.1/12.3)

Were only results between the lowest and highest

standards reported? (365 .1/12.2)