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

R equired 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, 3Steam Study Data Review Checklist Mercury in Water Method 1631 Revision E (2002)

P age 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

R equired 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 plu s 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 Mercury in Water Method 1631 Revision E (2002)

P age 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 Co llection Record:

**•** Signatures?

**•** Completed?

**•** Sample ID numbers checked?

**•** Preservations? pH? Temp? Volume ?

**•** Any anomalies reported?

2. Reviewed Lab Sample Receipt Recor d :

**•** Date received?

**•** Lab ID number checked?

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

n umbers ?

**•** Pre servation checked by lab ? pH? Temp?

Volume?

**•** Sample c onditions ?

**•** 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)

P age 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 recov ery within 79

- 121%

and was the Relative Standard D eviation (RSD) less than or equal to 21%? (1631E/9.2.2) What was the IRP spiked at?

What w as 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

blank s analyzed at calibration and during each

batch ? D id 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 th ree 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 deviat ion less than 0.1 ng/L Hg? (1631 E/9.4.2)Steam Study Data Review Checklist Mercury in Water Method 1631 Revision E (2002)

P age 5 of 6

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### EPA 1631 REVISION E REQUIREMENT Reviewer Comment Criterion

met

Y N

3. Calibrati on Points: Were a minimum of five non

zero calibration points tested and was the lowest calibration point at the ML (0.5 ng/L)?

What were the c oncentrations of the 5 calibration points?

Was the RSD of the calibration factor (CF

m ) less than or equal to 15% and was the percent recovery

of the CF

m 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 CF

m ?


### 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 bla nk 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 i n a sampling episode?

Wa s the concentration of Hg in all field blank s 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 prepar ed 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)

P age 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 duplica te, 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 Pre cision 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?


### SECT ION 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/Fie ld 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?