Final Checklist July 9, 2010

Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Mercury in Water Method 1631 Revision E (2002)

(Oxidation, Purge and Trap, and Cold Vapor Atomic Fluorescence 

Spectrometry)

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 1631E.

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

Initial Precision and Recovery (IPR) 

Results

3

Quality Control Sample 1, 2, 3
Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Mercury in Water Method 1631 Revision E (2002)

Page 2 of 6

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

Initial Calibration Data (blanks and 

calibration points)

3

Reagent, Method, Field, Equipment, 

Bottle, and Filter Blank Results

2, 3

Matrix Spike (MS)/Matrix Spike 

Duplicate (MSD) Results

1, 2, 3

Ongoing Precision and Recovery (OPR) 3

Field Duplicate Results 1, 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

Mercury in Water Method 1631 Revision E (2002)

Page 3 of 6

Final Checklist July 9, 2010

EPA 1631 REVISION E 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/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 collected 

and analyzed as part of the sampling episode? 

Indicate the relative percent difference. (1631E/9.7)
Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Mercury in Water Method 1631 Revision E (2002)

Page 4 of 6

Final Checklist July 9, 2010

EPA 1631 REVISION E REQUIREMENT Reviewer Comment

Criterion

met

Y N

Section D-1. QC INFORMATION

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

calibrations, QC samples and samples included in a 

batch of 20 samples? 

2. Method Detection Limit data enclosed?: Does the 

laboratory have the capability to detect Hg less than 

or equal to either the MDL for this method (0.2 

ng/L) or 1/3 the regulatory compliance limit?

(1631E/9.2.1) 

What was the MDL reported by the lab?

3. Initial Precision and Recovery (IPR) data 

enclosed?: Were four replicates of the IPR solution 

analyzed? 

Was the average percent recovery within 79-121% 

and was the Relative Standard Deviation (RSD) less 

than or equal to 21%? (1631E/9.2.2)

What was the IRP spiked at?

What was the % recovery of the IPR?

What was the RSD of the IPR?

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

Was a secondary source calibration sample prepared 

with a known amount of mercury and analyzed to 

determine the system performance? 

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 – Instrument Calibration 

1. Bubbler blank: Were at minimum three bubbler 

blanks analyzed at calibration and during each 

batch? Did all bubbler blanks contain less than 50 pg 

of Hg? 

Was the mean for all bubbler blanks less than 25 pg 

Hg and the standard deviation less than 10 pg Hg? 

(1631E/9.4.1)

2. System Blank: Were at minimum three system 

blanks analyzed at calibration and during each batch 

and did all system blanks contain less than 0.50 ng/L 

Hg?

Was the mean for all system blanks less than 0.5 

ng/L Hg and the standard deviation less than 0.1 

ng/L Hg? (1631E/9.4.2)
Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Mercury in Water Method 1631 Revision E (2002)

Page 5 of 6

Final Checklist July 9, 2010

EPA 1631 REVISION E REQUIREMENT Reviewer Comment

Criterion

met

Y N

3. Calibration Points: Were a minimum of five nonzero calibration points tested and was the lowest 

calibration point at the ML (0.5 ng/L)?

What were the concentrations of the 5 calibration

points?

Was the RSD of the calibration factor (CFm) less 

than or equal to 15% and was the percent recovery 

of the CFm within 75-125% for both the bubbler and 

flow-injection systems? (1631E/10.2/10.3)

What was the RSD and percent recovery of the CFm?

SECTION D-3. QC INFORMATION –Blanks

1. Reagent Blank: Were reagent blanks prepared and 

used to confirm that each new batch of reagents had 

less than 0.2 ng/L Hg? (1631E/9.4.3) 

Note any contamination reported by the laboratory.

2. Method Blank: Were at least three method blanks 

prepared and analyzed with each batch for the 

bubbler and flow-injection systems? 

Did all method blanks contain less than 0.5 ng/L 

Hg? (1631E/9.4.4)

Note any contamination reported by the laboratory.

3. Additional Method Blanks: If a sample required 

additional reagent (e.g. BrCl), was a corresponding 

method blank containing an identical amount of 

reagent analyzed? (1631/12.4.2)

4. Field Blank: Was a field blank analyzed for each set 

of samples (i.e. up to 10 samples collected and 

shipped at the same time and place)?

*Was a field blank analyzed for every point in a 

sampling episode?

Was the concentration of Hg in all field blanks less 

than the ML (0.5 ng/L) or less than 1/5 the level in 

the related sample? (1631E/9.4.5)

Note any contamination reported by the laboratory.

5. Filter Blank: Was a filter blank prepared and 

analyzed under the same conditions as the sample? 

(1631E/8.4)

Note any contamination reported by the laboratory.
Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Mercury in Water Method 1631 Revision E (2002)

Page 6 of 6

Final Checklist July 9, 2010

EPA 1631 REVISION E REQUIREMENT Reviewer Comment

Criterion

met

Y N

SECTION E. INSTRUMENT PERFORMANCE CHECKS

1. Matrix Spike (MS)/Matrix Spike Duplicate 

(MSD): Was a known amount of Hg added, in 

duplicate, to whichever is greater one sample or at 

least 10% of the samples from each site? 

Was the percent recovery for Hg in all MS and MSD 

samples within 71-125% and was the Relative 

Percent Difference (RPD) between duplicate 

concentrations ≤ to 24%? (1631E/9.3) 

What was the % recovery of MS/MSD?

Calculation of % recovery checked?

What was the RPD calculated and reported for 

MS/MSD?

Calculation of RPD checked?

2. Ongoing Precision and Recovery (OPR): Was an 

OPR solution containing 5 ng/L Hg analyzed before 

each batch and at the end of a batch/at the end of 

each 12-hour shift?

Was the percent recovery within 77-123% 

(1631E/7.11/9.5)

What was the % recovery of the OPR?

SECTION F. DATA REVIEW – Sample Results

1. Sample Reporting: Were results above or at the ML 

reported in units of nanograms per liter (ng/L) with 

three significant figures and were results below the 

ML reported as <0.5 ng/L? (1631E/12.5.1)

2. Reagent/Method/Field Blank Reporting: Were all 

reagent and field blanks with concentrations greater 

than or equal to the ML reported with three 

significant figures in ng/L?