Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0003-0003
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-03-12T05:00Z

Chapter
4
Evaluation
Criteria
This
chapter
presents
the
criteria
developed
by
EPA
as
a
means
for
selecting
acceptable
detection
and
quantitation
limit
approaches
for
use
in
Clean
Water
Act
(
CWA)
programs.
These
criteria
reflect
EPA s
careful
consideration
of
the
issues
identified
and
discussed
in
Chapter
3.
A
total
of
six
criteria
were
established,
and
are
discussed
in
Sections
4.1
­
4.6.
Table
4­
1
at
the
end
of
this
chapter
summarizes
the
relationship
between
each
issue
discussed
in
Chapter
3
and
the
criteria
discussed
in
Sections
4.1
­
4.6.

4.1
Criterion
1
Criterion
1:
The
detection
and
quantitation
limit
approaches
should
be
scientifically
valid.

The
concept
of
scientific
validity
is
widely
accepted
but
loosely
defined.
For
the
purposes
of
this
evaluation,
a
detection/
quantitation
approach
or
methodology
will
be
considered
scientifically
valid
if
it
meets
the
following
conditions:

 
It
can
be
(
and
has
been)
tested,
 
It
has
been
subjected
to
peer
review
and
publication,
 
The
error
rate
associated
with
the
approach
or
methodology
is
either
known
or
can
be
estimated,
 
Standards
exist
and
can
be
maintained
to
control
its
operation
(
i.
e.,
it
is
supported
by
well­
defined
procedures
for
use),
and
 
It
has
attracted
(
i.
e.,
achieved)
widespread
acceptance
within
a
relevant
scientific
community.

While
EPA
acknowledges
that
other
measures
could
be
established
to
demonstrate
scientific
validity,
EPA
has
adopted
the
conditions
cited
because
they
reflect
those
discussed
by
the
U.
S.
Supreme
Court
as
considerations
pertaining
to
assessments
of
scientific
validity
when
considering
the
admissibility
of
expert
scientific
testimony1
.
EPA
believes
that
considerations
discussed
by
the
Court
as
necessary
to
demonstrate
the
scientific
validity
of
an
expert s
reasoning
or
methodology
are
equally
valid
for
demonstrating
the
scientific
validity
of
a
detection/
quantitation
approach.

4.2
Criterion
2
Criterion
2:
The
approach
should
address
demonstrated
expectations
of
laboratory
and
method
performance,
including
routine
variability.

As
discussed
in
Chapter
3
of
this
Assessment
Document,
the
detection
and
quantitation
limit(
s)
for
an
analyte
in
an
analytical
method
can
be
established
from
a
single­
laboratory
study,
multiple
single­
laboratory
studies,
or
an
interlaboratory
study.
Historical
methods
developed
by
EPA
under
Clean
Water
Act
programs,
and
nearly
all
methods
developed
by
EPA
under
Safe
Drinking
Water
Act
programs,
were
developed
by
EPA's
research
laboratory
in
Cincinnati,
Ohio.
In
the
course
of
method
development,
this
single
laboratory
established
detection
and
quantitation
limits.
In
many
instances,
these
detection
and
quantitation
limits
were
found
to
be
unrealistic,
in
that
they
could
not
be
achieved
in
many
non­
research
laboratories.
However,
with
time
laboratory
and
method
performance,
as
well
as
analytical
instrumentation
improved,
making
detection
and
quantitation
limits
more
easily
achievable
in
nearly
all
laboratories.
Therefore,
the
difficulty
created
was
in
initial
application
of
the
research
methods.

1Daubert
v.
Merrell
Dow
Pharmaceuticals,
509
U.
S.
579
(
1993)
and
Kumho
Tire
Co.
v.
Carmichael,
526
U.
S.
137
(
1999)

February
2003
4­
1
Assessment
of
Detection
and
Quantitation
Approaches
In
recent
years,
EPA's
Office
of
Science
and
Technology
has
used
single­
laboratory
studies
to
develop
an
initial
estimate
of
the
detection
and
quantitation
limit
for
a
new
or
modified
method,
and
has
verified
these
limits
in
interlaboratory
studies
or
by
conducting
additional
single­
laboratory
studies
in
other
laboratories.

Voluntary
consensus
standards
bodies
(
VCSBs)
such
as
ASTM
International
have
historically
used
interlaboratory
studies
to
establish
method
performance.
Over
the
past
5
to
10
years,
ASTM
International
has
been
developing
interlaboratory
and
single­
laboratory
approaches
for
detection
and
quantitation.
Whereas
the
single­
laboratory
studies
at
EPA's
research
laboratory
in
Cincinnati
produce
the
lowest
detection
and
quantitation
limits,
approaches
such
as
those
published
by
ASTM
International
gather
all
sources
of
variability
to
produce
the
highest
detection
and
quantitation
limits.
A
realistic
expectation
of
method
and
laboratory
performance
likely
lies
somewhere
in
between.

As
noted
in
Section
3.2.2
of
this
Assessment
Document,
laboratory
and
method
performance
can
be
affected
by
the
use
of
performance
criteria
that
serve
as
prediction
or
tolerance
limits.
Examples
of
such
criteria
include
measures
to
demonstrate
that
a
laboratory
is
producing
accurate
results
at
a
concentration
of
interest
(
i.
e.,
analysis
of
reference
standards
or
spiked
samples),
measures
to
demonstrate
that
results
are
not
biased
by
contamination
(
i.
e.,
analysis
of
blanks),
and
measures
to
demonstrate
that
the
laboratory
can
achieve
the
sensitivity
required
to
reliably
detect
pollutants
at
low
concentrations
(
i.
e.,
at
the
detection
limit).
It
is
likely
that
laboratory
performance
will
improve
(
and
variability
will
be
lower)
when
laboratories
are
required
to
meet
specified
performance
criteria
in
order
to
report
results.

A
further
consideration
concerning
routine
variability
is
the
means
for
rejection
of
outliers.
True
outliers
can
occur
in
laboratory
data
and
some
means
of
resolving
outlier
issues
must
be
included.
Statistical
procedures
are
available
for
the
identification
of
candidate
outlier
values.
Once
a
candidate
outlier
has
been
identified,
evaluation
of
the
value
from
a
chemical
analytical
perspective
(
e.
g.,
some
procedural
error
or
quality
control
error
has
occurred)
should
be
the
basis
of
exclusion
of
the
value
from
a
data
set.
In
cases
where
no
cause
for
the
outlier
has
been
identified,
it
may
reasonable
to
reject
an
outlier
on
statistical
grounds,
but
every
effort
should
be
made
to
justify
the
exclusion
on
technical
grounds.

In
examining
each
approach
against
this
criterion,
EPA
will
evaluate
whether
the
approach
can
be
used
to
provide
a
realistic
expectation
of
laboratory
performance.
As
part
of
this
assessment,
EPA
will
examine
the
sources
of
variability
captured
by
the
approach,
and
the
degree
to
which
the
statistics
that
underlie
the
approach
realistically
reflect
these
sources
of
variability.

4.3
Criterion
3
Criterion
3:
The
approach
should
be
supported
by
a
practical
and
affordable
procedure
that
a
single
laboratory
can
use
to
evaluate
method
performance.

Any
approach
or
procedure
should
be
simple,
complete,
and
cost­
effective
to
implement
(
i.
e.,
it
should
be
reliable
and
?
laboratory­
friendly ).
The
laboratories
that
can
be
expected
to
use
detection
or
quantitation
procedures
will
range
from
large
laboratories
and
laboratory
chains
with
a
wide
range
of
technical
capabilities,
to
"
mom
and
pop"
laboratories
operated
by
one
or
a
few
people
with
a
limited
set
of
statistical
skills.
If
a
procedure
is
complicated,
it
will
be
prone
to
error
in
its
use.
Similarly,
if
a
procedure
requires
investment
of
extensive
resources
that
cannot
be
billed
to
the
client,
laboratories
will
have
a
disincentive
to
use
the
procedure.
Therefore,
if
the
Agency
wishes
to
encourage
the
development
and
use
of
innovative
techniques
that
improve
measurement
performance
or
lower
measurement
costs,
the
Agency
must
consider
practicality
and
affordability
as
significant,
if
not
equal,
considerations
to
scientific
validity.

4­
2
February
2003
Chapter
4
After
evaluating
each
of
the
issues
discussed
in
Chapter
3
of
this
document,
EPA
concluded
that
successful
implementation
of
CWA
programs
depends
on
the
ability
of
laboratories
to
easily
and
affordably:

1.
demonstrate
that
a
method
works
in
a
particular
matrix
at
the
levels
of
concern,
2.
characterize
improvements
in
measurement
capabilities
in
terms
of
measurement
sensitivity,
and
3.
characterize
the
sensitivity
of
new
methods.

A
matrix
effect
is
an
interference
in
a
measurement
that
is
caused
by
substances
or
materials
in
the
sample
other
than
the
analyte
of
interest
that
are
not
removed
using
the
procedures
in
the
method
or
other
commonly
applied
procedures.
In
the
context
of
detection
and
quantitation,
matrix
effects
may
manifest
themselves
by
precluding
measurements
at
levels
as
low
as
could
be
measured
were
the
interference
not
present.
From
a
practical
perspective,
it
is
not
possible
to
test
the
sensitivity
of
each
new
method
in
every
possible
matrix
in
which
it
may
be
used.
At
a
minimum,
it
is
unlikely
that
EPA
or
any
other
organization
could
possibly
identify
and
obtain
samples
of
every
matrix
to
which
the
method
might
be
applied,
and
even
if
such
a
feat
were
possible,
the
cost
and
logistics
of
doing
so
would
be
prohibitive.
The
situation
for
characterizing
matrix
effects
on
analytical
sensitivity
is
similar
to
the
situation
for
characterizing
matrix
effects
on
measurement
performance
at
higher
concentration
levels.
In
the
latter
case,
EPA
typically
uses
one
or
more
spiked
reference
matrices
(
e.
g.,
reagent
water,
sand,
diatomaceous
earth)
to
establish
QC
acceptance
criteria
for
real­
world
matrix
samples
that
are
spiked
with
the
analyte
of
interest
at
a
mid­
to­
high
concentration.
Each
analytical
method
includes
QC
acceptance
criteria
for
such
matrix
spikes,
along
with
a
suite
of
quality
control
requirements
designed
to
verify
that
failures
are
attributable
to
the
matrix
rather
than
to
an
analytical
system
that
is
out
of
control.
EPA
prefers
to
identify
a
similar
concept
that
allows
for
characterization
of
measurement
sensitivity
in
representative
matrices
and
that
is
supported
by
a
simple,
cost­
effective
procedure
that
would
allow
individual
laboratories
to
evaluate,
on
an
as­
needed
basis,
the
effects
of
specific
matrices
on
measurement
sensitivity.
Because
methods
approved
at
40
CFR
part
136
already
contain
a
suite
of
quality
control
procedures
and
QC
acceptance
criteria,
EPA
believes
that
it
is
not
necessary
to
verify
method
sensitivity
in
each
and
every
batch
of
each
and
every
matrix
analyzed.
Rather,
such
testing
could
be
done
only
on
an
as­
needed
basis
when
it
is
suspected
that
matrix
interferences
may
preclude
reliable
measurements
at
low
levels.

Another
consideration
is
that
measurement
capabilities
generally
improve
over
time.
This
is
attributable
to
a
variety
of
factors,
including:

1.
increased
staff
experience
with
a
given
technique,
2.
technological
upgrades
or
improvements
in
the
instrumentation
used
for
analysis,
and
3.
development
of
new
instrumentation
or
techniques
that
improves
sensitivity,
precision,
or
bias.
In
each
case,
the
improvements
may
not
be
observed
across
the
entire
laboratory
community.
In
the
case
of
increased
staff
experience,
for
example,
it
is
obvious
that
a
laboratory
that
specializes
in
one
type
of
analysis,
such
as
low­
level
mercury
measurements,
will
develop
greater
experience
than
a
laboratory
that
rarely
performs
this
measurement.
Likewise,
it
is
easy
to
see
how
one
or
a
few
laboratories
that
concentrate
their
business
on
a
particular
type
of
analysis
might
be
willing
to
invest
significant
resources
in
new
or
upgraded
equipment
to
improve
performance,
whereas
laboratories
that
rarely
perform
such
analyses
would
not
find
such
upgrades
to
be
cost­
effective.

Improvements
in
measurement
capability,
including
the
development
of
new
methods,
may
create
a
dynamic
decision­
making
process,
in
that
measurements
at
lower
levels
may
allow
EPA
and
states
to
identify
previously
undetected
pollutants.
Such
situations
offer
a
means
for
monitoring
and
controlling
(
i.
e.,
regulating)
the
discharge
of
previously
unregulated,
but
harmful,
pollutants.
Therefore,
it
is
in
the
best
interest
of
the
environment
for
EPA
to
encourage
the
development
and
use
of
improved
environmental
analysis
procedures
and
equipment.

February
2003
4­
3
Assessment
of
Detection
and
Quantitation
Approaches
In
evaluating
this
criterion,
EPA
will
favor
affordable
and
easy­
to­
use
approaches
and
procedures
that
allow
analysts
in
a
single
laboratory
to
1)
determine
matrix­
specific
variations
when
necessary,
based
on
realistic
data,
and
2)
demonstrate
lower
detection
and
quantitation
limits
associated
with
improvements
in
their
measurement
capabilities.
Procedures
for
establishing
the
sensitivity
of
new
methods
or
improved
measurement
capabilities
must
be
practical
enough
to
encourage
such
development.
These
procedures
should
specify
the
spiking
level
at
which
measurements
are
to
be
made
and
the
corrective
action
to
be
taken
if
the
resulting
detection
or
quantitation
limit
is
inconsistent
with
the
data
from
which
it
is
derived.

4.4
Criterion
4
Criterion
4:
The
detection
level
approach
should
identify
the
signal
or
estimated
concentration
at
which
there
is
99%
confidence
that
the
substance
is
actually
present
when
the
analytical
method
is
performed
by
experienced
staff
in
a
well­
operated
laboratory.

Any
approach
to
establishing
levels
at
which
detection
decisions
are
made
should
be
capable
of
providing
regulators,
the
regulated
community,
and
data
users
with
a
high
level
of
confidence
that
a
pollutant
reported
as
being
present
really
is
present.
Historically,
nearly
every
approach
to
making
detection
decisions
has
set
the
criterion
for
detection
at
99
percent
confidence
(
i.
e.,
the
lowest
level
at
which
a
pollutant
will
be
detected
with
a
probability
of
99
percent).
This
criterion
results
in
the
probability
of
a
false
positive
(
i.
e.,
that
a
pollutant
will
be
stated
as
being
present
when
it
actually
is
not
[
a
Type
I
error])
of
one
percent.

In
evaluating
this
criterion,
EPA
will
favor
approaches
and
procedures
that
reflect
routine
analytical
conditions
in
a
well­
operated
laboratory.
That
is,
the
procedure
must
be
capable
of
generating
a
detection
level
when
the
substance
of
interest
is
not
present
in
a
blank
and/
or
when
instrument
thresholds
are
adjusted
for
routine
operation.

4.5
Criterion
5
Criterion
5:
The
quantitation
limit
approach
should
identify
the
concentration
that
gives
a
recognizable
signal
that
is
consistent
with
the
capabilities
of
the
method
when
a
method
is
performed
by
experienced
staff
in
well­
operated
laboratories.

Measurement
capabilities
among
laboratories
vary
depending
on
a
number
of
factors,
including,
but
not
limited
to,
instrumentation,
training,
and
experience.
Similarly,
measurement
capabilities
among
different
analytical
methods
vary
depending
on
a
number
of
factors,
including
the
techniques
and
instrumentation
employed
and
the
clarity
of
the
method
itself.

Historical
approaches
to
recognizing
laboratory
capabilities
in
establishing
detection
and
quantitation
limits
have
varied
between
two
extremes
of
establishing
the
limit
in
a
state­
of­
the­
art
research
laboratory
to
reflect
the
lowest
possible
limit
that
can
be
achieved,
and
establishing
the
limit
based
on
statistical
confidence
intervals
calculated
from
a
large
number
of
laboratories
with
varying
levels
of
experience,
instrumentation
and
competence.
Generally,
use
of
the
former
has
been
employed
to
serve
as
a
goal
or
performance
standard
to
be
met
by
other
laboratories,
whereas
use
of
the
latter
treats
the
limit,
not
as
a
performance
standard
that
needs
to
be
met
by
each
laboratory,
but
rather
as
a
characterization
of
the
performance
of
the
capabilities
of
a
population
of
laboratories
at
the
time
of
method
development.

4­
4
February
2003
Chapter
4
Historical
approaches
to
recognizing
method
capabilities
also
have
varied
between
those
that
allow
the
error
expressed
as
relative
standard
deviation,
or
RSD
among
low­
level
measurements
to
vary,
depending
on
the
capabilities
of
the
method,
and
those
that
fix
this
error
(
RSD)
at
a
specific
level.

Initially,
Criterion
5
stated
that
the
 
quantitation
limit
should
identify
a
concentration
at
which
the
reliability
of
the
measured
result
is
consistent
with
the
capabilities
of
the
method
when
a
method
is
performed
by
experienced
staff
in
a
well­
operated
laboratory. 
Reviewers
from
within
EPA
questioned
the
criterion s
implication
that
measurements
below
a
quantitation
limit
could
be
considered
unreliable.
A
similar
concern
was
expressed
by
one
of
the
peer
reviewers
charged
with
evaluating
EPA s
assessment
and
an
earlier
draft
of
this
Assessment
Document.
This
reviewer
noted
that:

 
almost
all
implementations
of
limits
of
quantitation
have
nothing
to
do
with
whether
the
measurements
are
actually
quantitative, 
and
that
 
any
level
at
which
the
instrument
can
be
read,
and
at
which
there
is
a
reliably
estimated
standard
deviation
is
a
level
at
which
quantitation
is
possible 
(
Rocke,
2002)

The
peer
reviewer
suggested
that
Criterion
5
might
be
rewritten
as:

 
the
quantitation
limit
should
identify
a
concentration
at
which
the
instrument
yields
a
measurable
signal
at
least
99%
of
the
time,
and
which
is
no
smaller
than
the
detection
level.
Such
a
quantitation
limit
will
often
be
the
same
as
the
detection
level. 

EPA
agrees
that
this
is
a
valid
perspective,
in
that
if
the
pollutant
is
identified
and
the
analytical
system
produces
a
result,
quantitation
occurs.
Although
this
interpretation
of
a
quantitation
limit
has
validity,
implementation
of
such
an
approach
would
require
that
all
values
generated
by
an
analytical
system
be
reported,
along
with
an
estimate
of
the
uncertainty
associated
with
each
value
(
e.
g.,
the
"
reliably
estimated
standard
deviation"
mentioned
by
the
peer
reviewer).
As
noted
in
Section
2.3.4,
several
organizations,
including
the
European
Union,
are
developing
procedures
for
estimating
the
uncertainty
associated
with
measured
results.
If
successful,
such
an
approach
would
eliminate
many
of
the
data
censoring
concerns
discussed
in
Section
3.3.2.
Given
the
difficulty
in
achieving
consensus
on
an
appropriate
means
of
establishing
a
detection
limit,
however,
EPA
believes
that
it
would
also
be
difficult,
to
obtain
consensus
on
an
appropriate
means
for
estimating
the
uncertainty
associated
with
each
result
measured
on
each
environmental
sample.
In
addition,
analytical
chemists
have
used
and
believe
that
they
understand
a
quantitation
limit
to
mean
the
lowest
concentration
at
which
an
analyte
can
be
identified
and
determined
with
some
degree
of
certainty.

Therefore,
EPA
prefers
to
monitor
developments
by
the
EU
and
others
on
this
subject,
and
if
appropriate,
re­
evaluate
this
issue
if
and
when
it
becomes
widely
accepted
by
the
laboratory,
regulatory,
and
regulated
communities.
In
the
meantime,
EPA
believes
that
the
traditional
approach
of
defining
a
quantitation
limit
at
some
level
above
the
detection
limit
provides
a
data
user
with
a
reasonable
degree
of
confidence
in
the
measured
value
without
requiring
that
individual
estimates
of
uncertainty
be
developed
and
reported.
Criterion
5
reflects
this
belief.

EPA
will
evaluate
various
approaches
against
this
criterion
by
examining
the
ease
of
adjustment
of
the
RSD
or
other
performance
measures
in
the
context
of
the
measurement
capability
of
the
laboratory
or
the
need
to
adjust
the
measurement
error
to
allow
for
environmental
decisions.
In
evaluating
the
approaches,
EPA
will
give
preference
to
those
approaches
that
strike
a
reasonable
balance
between
using
either
state­
of­
the
art
laboratories
or
a
highly
varied
community
of
laboratories
to
establish
quantitation
limits.

February
2003
4­
5
Assessment
of
Detection
and
Quantitation
Approaches
4.6
Criterion
6
Criterion
6:
Detection
and
quantitation
approaches
should
be
applicable
to
the
variety
of
decisions
made
under
the
Clean
Water
Act,
and
should
support
state
and
local
obligations
to
implement
measurement
requirements
that
are
at
least
as
stringent
as
those
set
by
the
Federal
government.

The
Clean
Water
Act
requires
EPA
to
conduct,
implement,
and
oversee
a
variety
of
data
gathering
programs.
As
noted
in
Section
3.2
of
this
Assessment
Document,
these
programs
include,
but
are
not
limited
to:

 
Survey
programs
to
establish
baselines
and
monitor
changes
in
ambient
water
quality,
 
Screening
studies
to
identify
emerging
concerns
and
establish
the
need
for
more
in­
depth
assessment,
 
Effluent
guideline
studies
to
establish
technology­
based
standards
for
the
control
of
pollutants
in
wastewater
discharges,
 
Toxicity
and
environmental
assessment
studies
to
establish
water
quality­
based
standards
for
the
control
of
pollutants
in
wastewater,
and
 
Risk
assessment
studies
designed
to
characterize
and
evaluate
human
health
and
environmental
risks
associated
with
various
water
body
uses.

In
addition,
EPA
needs
to
apply
a
detection
limit
or
quantitation
limit
approach
to
permitting,
compliance
monitoring,
and
other
uses
of
the
40
CFR
part
136
methods.
These
applications
include:

C
Permitting,
C
Ambient
and
effluent
compliance
monitoring
under
NPDES
and
the
pretreatment
program,
C
Ambient
and
effluent
compliance
monitoring
under
state
and
local
programs,
C
Quality
control
in
analytical
laboratories,
and
C
Method
promulgation.

In
theory,
EPA
could
evaluate
each
of
these
applications
independently
and
identify
a
detection
and
quantitation
limit
approach
that
is
best
suited
to
each
application.
However,
doing
so
could
potentially
result
in
the
need
for
up
to
10
different
detection
and/
or
quantitation
limit
approaches.
EPA
believes
that
this
would
increase
confusion,
increase
record
keeping
burdens,
and
increase
laboratory
testing
burdens.
For
these
reasons,
EPA
believes
it
is
desirable
to
adopt
a
single
pair
of
related
detection
and
quantitation
procedures
that
can
be
used
to
address
all
Clean
Water
Act
applications.

EPA
also
believes
that
1)
it
is
unrealistic
to
expect
other
organizations,
such
as
the
U.
S.
Geological
Survey,
the
Food
and
Drug
Administration,
ASTM
International,
AOAC­
International,
etc.,
to
adopt
and
standardize
on
the
approach
selected
by
EPA
for
its
use
in
CWA
programs,
and
2)
it
is
desirable
to
allow
use
of
approaches
and
methods
developed
by
these
and
other
organizations
to
be
used
in
CWA
programs.
The
inclusion
of
such
approaches
and
methods
provides
the
stakeholder
community
with
increased
measurement
options
that
may
help
reduce
measurement
costs
or
improve
measurement
performance
for
specific
situations.
This
approach
is
consistent
with
EPA's
movement
towards
a
performance­
based
measurement
system
(
PBMS)
and
with
the
intent
of
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
(
NTTAA).
Therefore,
although
EPA
prefers
to
identify
and
adopt
a
single
pair
of
detection
and
quantitation
limit
approaches
that
can
meet
CWA
needs,
EPA
also
believes
that
any
approach
should
be
acceptable
for
use
if
it
meets
all
of
the
criteria
established
above
and
fulfills
the
needs
of
the
specific
CWA
application
in
which
it
should
be
used.

The
Clean
Water
Act
authorizes
state
or
local
governments
to
implement
specific
aspects
of
the
Act,
with
the
proviso
that
they
do
so
in
a
way
that
is
at
least
as
protective
(
i.
e.,
stringent)
as
the
national
4­
6
February
2003
Chapter
4
standards
put
forth
by
EPA.
Therefore,
this
criterion
is
intended
to
ensure
that
any
detection
and
quantitation
limit
approach
adopted
by
the
Office
of
Water
is
sufficiently
clear
and
defined
that
it
allows
for
comparison
with
approaches
adopted
by
state
or
local
governments.
It
is
important
to
note
that
this
criterion
does
not
establish
the
need
for
an
approach
or
procedure
that
is
less
stringent
than
those
already
in
use
by
state
or
local
governments.

Finally,
it
is
important
to
differentiate
between
detection
and
quantitation
limit
approaches
and
compliance
evaluation
thresholds.
Detection
and
quantitation
limit
approaches
pertain
to
measurement
process
thresholds.
More
specifically,
a
detection
limit
describes
the
lowest
concentration
at
which
it
is
possible
to
determine
that
a
substance
is
present
with
some
stated
confidence,
and
a
quantitation
limit
describes
the
lowest
concentration
at
which
it
is
possible
to
quantify
the
amount
of
a
substance
that
is
present.
In
contrast,
compliance
evaluation
thresholds
are
used
to
support
wastewater
discharge
limits
established
in
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
or
pretreatment
program
permits.
Such
limits
are
usually
expressed
as
either
a
maximum
concentration
of
pollutant
allowed
in
the
discharge
or
a
maximum
mass
of
pollutant
allowed
to
be
discharged
in
a
specific
time
period.

Ideally,
analytical
methods
are
available
to
allow
for
detection
and
quantitation
of
pollutants
at
concentrations
that
are
lower
than
the
discharge
levels
needed
to
protect
or
restore
the
quality
of
the
receiving
water.
When
such
measurement
capability
does
not
exist,
permitting
authorities
must
decide
how
to
incorporate
detection
and
quantitation
limits
into
the
discharge
permit.
Historically,
EPA
has
recommended
that
in
such
cases,
the
permitting
authority
include
the
water
quality­
based
limit
in
the
permit,
but
establish
the
compliance
evaluation
threshold
at
the
quantitation
limit
of
the
most
sensitive
available
method.
However,
as
with
other
aspects
of
the
Clean
Water
Act,
state
and
local
governments
may
adopt
permitting
and
compliance
evaluation
approaches
that
are
at
least
as
stringent
as
those
put
forth
by
EPA,
and
some
states
have
preferred
to
use
the
detection
limit
as
the
compliance
evaluation
threshold.

In
examining
each
approach
against
this
criterion
EPA
will
consider
1)
the
applicability
of
various
detection/
quantitation
approaches
to
the
variety
of
data
gathering
decisions
that
must
be
made
under
the
CWA,
including
those
that
do
and
those
that
do
not
involve
compliance
monitoring,
and
2)
the
ability
of
the
approaches
to
support
state
and
local
obligations
for
implementing
the
CWA.

February
2003
4­
7
Table
4­
1.
Relationship
of
Issues
Considered
in
Chapter
3
to
Evaluation
Criteria
Established
in
Chapter
4
Chapter
3
Section
Summary
of
Issue
Discussion
Evaluation
Criterion
in
Chapter
4
All
sections
in
Chapter
3
Any
approach
adopted
by
EPA
must
be
scientifically
valid.
Although
not
explicitly
discussed
in
Chapter
3,
the
need
for
scientific
validity
has
been
an
underlying
condition
throughout
EPA s
assessment.
Criterion
1:
The
concept
of
scientific
validity
is
widely
accepted
but
loosely
defined.
For
the
purposes
of
establishing
scientific
validity
in
this
evaluation,
EPA
has
adopted
conditions
discussed
by
the
U.
S.
Supreme
Court
as
considerations
pertaining
to
assessments
of
scientific
validity
when
considering
the
admissibility
of
expert
scientific
testimony.
These
conditions
are
that
it
can
be
(
and
has
been)
tested;
it
has
been
subjected
to
peer
review
and
publication;
the
error
rate
associated
with
the
approach
or
methodology
is
either
known
or
can
be
estimated;
standards
exist
and
can
be
maintained
to
control
its
operation;
and
it
has
attracted
(
i.
e.,
achieved)
widespread
acceptance
within
a
relevant
scientific
community.

3.2.2,
Descriptive
vs.
Prescriptive
Uses
of
Lower
Limits
to
Measurement
In
order
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment,
EPA
must
measure
pollutants
at
ever
lower
concentrations.
Establishing
stringent
standards
and
a
compliance
scheme
for
laboratories
is
one
way
to
more
rapidly
develop
the
ability
to
measure
at
these
concentrations.
A
prescriptive
strategy
concerning
detection
and
quantitation
limits
would
be
to:

determine
these
limits
at
one
or
more
well­
operated
laboratories;
use
the
performance
of
these
laboratories
as
the
basis
to
establish
limits
for
the
method;
and
use
the
established
limits
as
a
performance
standard
that
must
be
demonstrated
by
laboratories
that
practice
the
method.
The
use
of
such
an
approach
is
consistent
with
EPA's
use
of
other
prescriptive
laboratory
performance
standards
and
would
ensure
that
prescriptive
detection
and
quantitation
limits
(
i.
e.,
performance
standards)
reflect
the
capabilities
of
a
well­
performing
laboratory
or
laboratories
This
is
in
contrast
to
a
descriptive
approach
that
would
base
performance
on
a
population
of
laboratories
that
may
not
be
representative
of
the
best
possible
performance.
Criterion
2:
 ...
laboratory
and
method
performance
can
be
affected
by
the
use
of
performance
criteria
that
serve
as
prediction
or
tolerance
limits.

Examples
of
such
criteria
include
measures
to
demonstrate
that
a
laboratory
is
producing
accurate
results
at
a
concentration
of
interest...,

measures
to
demonstrate
that
results
are
not
biased
by
contamination...,

and
measures
to
demonstrate
that
the
laboratory
can
achieve
the
sensitivity
required
to
reliably
detect
pollutants
at
low
concentrations
(
i.
e.,

at
the
detection
limit).
It
is
likely
that
laboratory
performance
will
be
better
(
and
variability
will
be
lower)
when
laboratories
are
required
to
meet
specified
performance
criteria
in
order
to
report
results. 

Criterion
4:
 
In
evaluating
this
criterion,
EPA
will
favor
procedures
that
reflect
routine
analytical
conditions
in
a
well­
operated
laboratory. 

Criterion
5:
 
In
evaluating
the
approaches,
EPA
will
give
preference
to
those
approaches
that
strike
a
reasonable
balance
between
using
state­

of­
the­
art
laboratories
and
a
highly
varied
community
of
laboratories
to
establish
quantitation
limits. 

3.3.1,
Sources
of
Variability
There
are
a
number
of
ways
in
which
variability
can
be
controlled.

However,
it
is
not
possible
to
completely
eliminate
all
variability
within
or
between
laboratories.
Even
if
prescribed
quality
control
and
variability
control
procedures
are
in
place,
it
should
be
recognized
that
some
laboratories
may
achieve
lower
detection
and
quantitation
limits
than
others.
The
potential
effects
of
sources
of
variability
should
be
considered
when
establishing
detection
and
quantitation
limit
approaches.
Criterion
2:
 ...
laboratory
and
method
performance
can
be
affected
by
the
use
of
performance
criteria
that
serve
as
prediction
or
tolerance
levels...

In
examining
each
approach
against
this
criterion,
EPA
will
evaluate
if
the
approach
can
be
used
to
provide
a
realistic
expectation
of
laboratory
performance.
As
part
of
this
assessment,
EPA
will
examine
the
sources
of
variability
captured
by
the
approach,
and
the
degree
to
which
the
statistics
that
underlie
the
approaches
realistically
reflect
these
sources
of
variability. 

4­
8
4­
9
Chapter
3
Section
Summary
of
Issue
Discussion
Evaluation
Criterion
in
Chapter
4
3.3.7,
Statistical
Prediction
and
Tolerance
Percentiles
and
prediction
and
tolerance
intervals
are
statistical
tools
for
describing
how
something
that
already
exists
(
percentiles)
and
describing
a
future
occurrence
(
prediction
and
tolerance
limits).
Percentiles
are
fairly
straight
forward
to
interpret,
i.
e.,
they
specify
the
percentage
of
a
distribution
that
false
below
a
given
percentile
value.
Prediction
and
tolerance
limits
are,
in
effect,
confidence
limits
on
percentiles
and
can
be
somewhat
more
difficult
to
apply...
Statistical
intervals
can,
and
have
by
a
number
of
authors,
be
adapted
for
use
in
setting
detection
and
quantitation
levels...
However,
the
use
of
prediction
and/
or
tolerance
limits
in
setting
detection
and
quantitation
limits
is
not
an
absolute
requirement
and
should
be
evaluated
in
the
context
of
specific
applications
and
policy
considerations.
In
practice,
the
effect
of
adjustment
of
detection
and
quantitation
limits
by
use
of
prediction
and
tolerance
intervals
can
be
quite
ailable
data
and
the
choices
oflarge,

depending
on
the
amount
of
av
percentiles
and
confidence
levels.

3.3.8,
Design
of
Detection
and
Quantitation
Studies
Studies
designed
to
characterize
sensitivity
can
be
affected
by
the
selection
of
spiking
concentrations
in
studies,
how
well
uncontrollable
factors
in
the
measurement
process
are
reduced,
the
degree
to
which
the
entire
measurement
process
is
studied,
and
the
flexibility
of
the
design
factors
in
terms
of
the
physical
measurement.
Resources
may
be
insufficient
to
support
detection/
quantitation
limit
approaches
that
model
variability
versus
concentration
because
the
selection
of
concentrations
may
require
iteration
when
results
do
not
meet
their
respective
criteria.
Criterion
2:
"
In
examining
this
criterion,
EPA
will
evaluate
if
the
approach
can
be
used
to
provide
a
realistic
expectation
of
laboratory
performance.

As
part
of
this
assessment,
EPA
will
examine
the
sources
of
variability
captured
by
the
approach,
and
the
degree
to
which
the
statistics
that
underlie
the
approach
realistically
reflect
these
sources
of
variability. 
4­
10
Chapter
3
Section
Summary
of
Issue
Discussion
Evaluation
Criterion
in
Chapter
4
3.3.3,
Outliers
One
or
more
statistical
procedures
may
be
used
to
identify
extremely
large
or
small
measurement
values
(
outliers).
Because
extreme
values
are
expected
to
occur,
it
is
not
necessarily
appropriate
to
exclude
them
from
measurement
results
used
to
develop
detection
or
quantitation
values.

Ideally,
the
analyst's
records
should
be
reviewed
to
establish
if
an
extreme
value
was
caused
by
failure
to
follow
the
method
or
by
some
rare
event
associated
with
the
method.
In
large
detection
and
quantitation
studies,
it
may
not
be
feasible
to
review
all
extreme
values
to
determine
if
they
are
outliers.
In
such
cases,
removing
all
extreme
values
as
if
they
were
outliers
may
be
acceptable,
but
study
documentation
should
state
this
is
the
case
and
the
percentage
of
data
removed.
Removing
large
percentages
of
extreme
values
may
cause
variability
estimates
to
be
understated,
indicate
that
there
are
systematic
problems
with
following
the
method,
or
indicate
that
there
are
problems
with
the
procedure
for
determining
the
extreme
values.
Criterion
2:
 
A
further
consideration
concerning
routine
variability
is
the
means
for
rejection
of
outliers.
True
outliers
can
occur
in
laboratory
data
and
some
means
of
resolving
outlier
issues
must
be
included.
Statistical
procedures
are
available
for
the
identification
of
candidate
outlier
values.

Once
a
candidate
outlier
has
been
identified,
evaluation
of
the
value
from
a
chemical
analytical
perspective
(
e.
g.,
some
procedural
error
or
quality
control
error
has
occurred)
should
be
the
basis
of
exclusion
of
the
value
from
a
data
set.
In
cases
where
no
cause
for
the
outlier
has
been
identified
it
may
reasonable
to
reject
an
outlier
on
statistical
grounds
but
every
effort
should
be
made
to
justify
the
exclusion
on
technical
grounds. 

3.1.3,
Matrix
Effects
Reference
matrices
should
be
used
to
establish
method
detection
and
quantitation
limits.
The
procedures
used
to
define
detection
and
quantitation
limits
should
allow
for
evaluation
of
data
collected
in
particular
matrices
of
concern.
Matrix­
specific
determinations
should
be
used
only
after
all
efforts
to
resolve
matrix
interferences
have
been
exhausted.
Criterion
3:
 
The
reality
of
environmental
analysis
is
that
measurement
capabilities
generally
improve
over
time.
This
is
attributable
to
a
number
of
factors...
In
each
case,
the
improvements
may
not
be
observed
across
the
entire
laboratory
community...
In
evaluating
this
criterion,
EPA
will
favor
affordable
and
easy­
use
procedures
that
allow
analysts
in
a
single
laboratory
to
1)
determine
matrix
­
specific
variations
based
on
real
data
and
2)
demonstrate
that
lower
detection
and
quantitation
limit
approaches
associated
with
improvements
in
their
measurement
capabilities. 

3.1.4,
Measurement
Quality
over
the
Life
of
a
Method
Given
that
measurement
capabilities
generally
improve
over
time,
EPA
believes
that
detection
and
quantitation
limit
approaches
should
be
supported
by
procedures
that
will
allow
individual
laboratories
and
other
organizations
to
affordably
characterize
such
improvements.

3.2.1.2,
Method
Performance
Verification
by
a
Laboratory
Even
where
a
method
describes
the
sensitivity
measured
or
estimated
by
the
developer
or
the
organization
that
published
the
method,
some
means
is
needed
to
demonstrate
that
given
laboratory
can
achieve
sufficient
sensitivity
to
satisfy
the
regulatory
decision
(
e.
g.,
monitoring
compliance).
4­
11
Chapter
3
Section
Summary
of
Issue
Discussion
Evaluation
Criterion
in
Chapter
4
3.2.6,
Cost
and
Implementation
Issues
The
financial
and
technical
resources
required
to
determine
detection
limit
approaches
vary
widely
according
to
the
complexity
of
the
procedures
involved.
Organizations
that
develop
methods
typically
have
greater
resources
available
for
determining
limits
than
do
organizations
that
use
the
methods.
EPA
must
be
sensitive
to
the
capabilities
of
the
organizations
that
develop
and
use
the
methods.
Data
from
EPA
studies
indicate
that
the
true
detection/
quantitation
limits
can
only
be
arrived
at
by
running
hundreds
of
replicates.
A
better
alternative
would
be
to
identify
a
simple
procedure
that
yields
a
reproducible
estimate
and
to
allow
laboratory­
specific
adjustment
based
on
actual
conditions
in
the
laboratory.
Criterion
3:
 
Any
approach
or
procedure
should
be
simple,
complete,
and
cost
effective
to
implement.
The
laboratories
that
can
be
expected
to
use
detection/
quantitation
procedures
will
range
from
large
laboratories
and
laboratory
chains
with
a
wide
range
of
technical
capability
to
 
mom
and
pop 
laboratories
operated
by
one
or
few
people
with
a
limited
set
of
statistical
skills.
If
a
procedure
is
complicated
it
will
be
error
prone
in
its
use...
if
a
procedure
requires
investment
of
extensive
resources...

laboratories
will
have
a
disincentive
to
use
the
procedure.
Therefore,
if
the
Agency
wishes
to
encourage
the
development
and
use
of
innovative
techniques
that
improve
measurement
performance
or
lower
measurement
cost,
the
Agency
must
consider
practicality
and
affordability
as
significant,
if
not
co­
equal,
considerations
to
scientific
validity. 

3.3.4,
Criteria
for
the
Selection
and
Appropriate
Use
of
Statistical
Models
What
can
be
sometimes
overlooked
in
considering
estimation
for
model
fitting
is
that
direct
measurement
of
variation
of
the
blank
or
low­
level
concentration
may
be
the
most
cost­
effective
and
least
difficult
method
to
implement.
The
loss
in
statistical
efficiency
in
comparison
to
more
elaborate
estimation
and
model
fitting
methodology
would
be
offset
by
the
relative
ease
and
lower
cost.

3.3.6,
False
Positives
and
False
Negatives
A
common
error
in
many
published
discussions
of
false
negatives
in
relation
to
detection
and
quantitation
is
the
claim
that
using
Currie s
detection
limit
(
as
opposed
to
the
critical
level)
as
a
reporting
limit
or
action
level
will
somehow
 
control 
false
negatives.
That
claim
is
both
false
and
counter­
productive...
As
long
as
the
only
tool
for
setting
requirements
for
false
positive
and
false
negative
measurement
results
is
the
reporting
limit,

setting
the
reporting
limit
higher
reduces
the
probability
of
a
false
positive
at
the
expense
of
increasing
the
probability
of
a
false
negative.
Criterion
4:
 
Any
detection
limit
approach
should
be
capable
of
providing
regulators,
the
regulated
community,
and
data
users
with
confidence
that
a
pollutant
reported
as
being
present
really
is
present.
Historically,
nearly
every
detection
approach
has
set
the
criterion
for
detection
at
99
percent
confidence...
This
criterion
results
in
the
probability
of
a
false
positive
(

i.
e.,
that
a
pollutant
will
be
stated
as
being
present
when
it
actually
is
not
[
a
Type
1
error])
of
one
percent. 

3.1.1,
Blank
vs.

Zero
Concentration
Useful
detection
and
quantitation
limit
approaches
should
address
the
potential
contribution
of
the
blank,
through
both
the
design
of
the
study
that
generates
the
detection
and
quantitation
limit
estimates
and
evaluation
of
study
results.
Criterion
4:
 
In
evaluating
this
criterion,
EPA
will
favor
procedures
that
reflect
routine
analytical
conditions
in
a
well­
operated
laboratory.
For
example,
the
procedure
must
be
capable
of
arriving
a
detection
limit
when
the
substance
of
interest
is
not
found
in
a
blank
and/
or
when
instrument
thresholds
are
adjusted
for
routine
operation. 

3.1.2,
Lack
of
Instrument
Response
Procedures
for
establishing
detection
or
quantitation
limits
should
take
into
account
the
impact
of
instrument
non­
response.
4­
12
Chapter
3
Section
Summary
of
Issue
Discussion
Evaluation
Criterion
in
Chapter
4
3.3.4,
Criteria
for
the
Selection
and
Appropriate
Use
of
Statistical
Models
 
Method
sensitivity
is
usually
established
based
on
measurement
variation.
Nearly
all
analytical
techniques
produce
results
that
can
generally
be
classified
according
to
one
of
three
basic
models.

 
The
LOQ
advanced
by
Currie
and
ACS,
and
EPA s
ML
result
from
multiplying
the
standard
deviation
of
replicate
analyses
by
a
factor
of
10.
This
factor
of
10
is
directed
at
achieving
a
relative
standard
deviation
of
10
percent.
An
advantage
of
this
approach
is
that
a
quantitation
limit
is
produced,
regardless
of
what
the
RSD
turns
out
to
be.
Another
means
of
arriving
at
a
limiting
RSD
is
to
graph
RSD
versus
concentration.
This
approach
is
used
by
the
ASTM
International
IQE.
It
has
the
advantage
that
a
model
is
fit
to
data,
rather
than
using
a
point
estimate
such
as
the
LOQ
or
ML.
However,
it
requires
considerably
more
data
timates,
and
how
a
model
isthan
approaches
based
on
point
es
selected
can
play
a
major
role
in
the
outcome.
Criterion
5:
 
Measurement
capabilities
among
laboratories
vary
depending
on
a
number
of
factors,
including,
but
not
limited
to,

instrumentation,
training,
and
experience.
Similarly,
measurement
capabilities
among
different
analytical
methods
vary
depending
on
a
number
of
factors,
including
the
techniques
and
instrumentation
employed
and
the
clarity
of
the
method
itself...
Historical
approaches
to
recognizing
method
capabilities
also
have
varied
between
those
that
allow
the
error
expressed
as
relative
standard
deviation,
or
RSD
among
low­
level
measurements
to
vary,
depending
on
the
capabilities
of
the
method,
and
those
that
fix
this
error
(
RSD)
at
a
specific
level. 

 
EPA
will
evaluate
various
approaches
against
this
criterion
by
examining
the
ease
of
adjustment
of
the
RSD
or
other
performance
measure
in
the
context
of
the
measurement
capability
of
the
laboratory
or
the
need
to
adjust
measurement
error
to
allow
for
environmental
decisions.
In
evaluating
the
approaches,
EPA
will
give
preference
to
those
approaches
that
strike
a
reasonable
balance
between
using
state­
of
the­
art
laboratories
and
a
highly
varied
community
of
laboratories
to
establish
quantitation
limits. 

3.2.1.3,
NPDES
The
NPDES
system
serves
as
the
primary
means
by
which
EPA,
states,

and
Tribes
control
point
source
releases
into
the
nation s
waters.
Under
this
system
individual
facilities
are
issued
NPDES
permits
that
provide
limitations
on
the
type,
concentration,
and
volume
of
pollutants
that
may
be
legally
discharged.
Typically,
these
pollutant
controls
reflect
technology­

based
standards.
If,
however,
these
technology­
based
controls
are
not
adequate
to
protect
the
water
quality
standard
designated
for
the
facility s
receiving
water,
stricter
controls
are
warranted.
In
such
cases,
NPDES
permits
contain
water
quality­
based
controls.
Criterion
6:
 ...
it
is
important
to
differentiate
between
detection
and
quantitation
limit
approaches
and
compliance
evaluation
thresholds.

Detection
and
quantitation
limit
approaches
pertain
to
measurement
process
thresholds.
More
specifically,
a
detection
limit
describes
the
lowest
concentration
at
which
it
is
possible
to
determine
that
a
substance
is
present
with
some
stated
confidence,
and
a
quantitation
limit
describes
the
lowest
concentration
at
which
it
is
possible
to
quantify
the
amount
of
a
substance
that
is
present.
In
contrast,
compliance
evaluation
thresholds
are
used
to
support
wastewater
discharge
limits
established
in
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
or
pretreatment
program
permits. 

3.2.3,
Compliance
Evaluation
Thresholds
A
situation
that
arises
frequently
in
addressing
water
quality­
based
limits
is
the
setting
of
the
permit
limit
below
the
detection
or
quantitation
limit
of
the
most
sensitive,
approved
analytical
method.
Permit
writers
should
have
the
flexibility
to
use
the
detection
limit,
the
quantitation
limit,
or
other
limit
as
the
compliance
evaluation
threshold
so
that
the
environment
is
protected.
4­
13
Chapter
3
Section
Summary
of
Issue
Discussion
Evaluation
Criterion
in
Chapter
4
3.2.4,
Accepting
the
Procedures
of
Voluntary
Consensus
Standards
Bodies
 
The
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
(
NTTAA)
encourages
Federal
agencies
to
focus
on
increasing
their
use
of
voluntary
consensus
standards
whenever
possible,

and
gives
Federal
agencies
discretion
to
use
other
standards
where
use
of
voluntary
consensus
standards
would
be
inconsistent
with
applicable
law
or
otherwise
impractical.
Two
types
of
technical
standards
apply
to
NTTAA;
a
performance
standard
and
a
prescriptive
standard.
NTTAA
does
not
direct
agencies
to
favor
one
type
of
standard
over
another.
One
option
is
for
EPA
to
employ
a
performance­
based
approach
to
establishing
detection
and
quantitation
limits,
in
which
method
developers,
laboratories,
and
others
would
be
free
to
use
any
one
of
a
variety
of
approaches
to
establishing
these
limits,

including
the
existing
MDL
procedure,
or
a
VCSB.
Thus,

establishing
method
sensitivity
would
be
considered
a
performance
standard
under
NTTAA,
rather
than
a
prescriptive
standard.
The
fact
that
different
approaches
(
prescriptive
standards)
yield
different
answers
would
be
immaterial
if
EPA
evaluates
the
answers
(
e.
g.,
the
detection
limit
that
is
determined)
relative
to
a
specific
decision
(
e.
g.,
the
regulatory
limit
for
a
given
pollutant).
Criterion
6:
 
The
Clean
Water
Act
requires
EPA
to
conduct,
implement,

and
oversee
a
variety
of
data
gathering
programs...
In
addition,
EPA
needs
to
apply
detection
to
permitting,
compliance
monitoring,
and
other
uses
of
the
40
CFR
part
136
methods.
These
applications
include:

permitting;
ambient
and
effluent
compliance
monitoring
under
NPDES
and
the
pretreatment
program;
ambient
and
effluent
compliance
monitoring
under
state
and
local
programs;
quality
control
in
analytical
laboratories;
and
method
promulgation...
In
theory,
EPA
could
evaluate
each
of
these
applications
independently
and
identify
a
detection
and
quantitation
limit
approach
that
is
best
suited
to
each
application...
EPA
believes
that
such
an
approach
would
increase
confusion,
increase
record
keeping
burdens,
and
increase
laboratory
testing
burdens.
For
these
reasons,
EPA
believes
it
is
desirable
to
adopt
a
single
pair
of
related
detection
and
quantitation
procedures
that
can
be
used
to
address
all
Clean
Water
Act
applications...
In
examining
each
approach
against
this
criterion,
EPA
will
consider
1)
the
applicability
of
various
detection/
quantitation
approaches
to
the
variety
of
data
gathering
decisions
that
must
be
made
under
the
CWA,
including
those
that
do
and
those
that
do
not
involve
compliance
monitoring,
and
2)
the
ability
of
the
approaches
to
support
state
and
local
obligations
for
implementing
the
CWA.
 

3.2.1.1,
Method
Development
and
Promulgation
 
EPA
believes
it
would
be
impractical
to
force
standardization
on
a
single
detection
or
quantitation
limit
approach
on
method
developers
and
promulgate
only
those
methods
that
contain
the
standardized
approach.

 
EPA
also
believes
there
are
real
benefits
to
standardization
and
that
1)
all
new
methods
developed
by
EPA
for
promulgation
at
40
CFR
part
136
should
reflect
such
standardization,
and
2)
EPA
should
strongly
encourage
outside
organizations
to
include
these
approaches
in
their
methods.
4­
14
Chapter
3
Section
Summary
of
Issue
Discussion
Evaluation
Criterion
in
Chapter
4
3.2.7,
Use
of
a
Pair
of
Related
Detection
and
Quantitation
Procedures
Although
EPA
could
develop
a
separate
detection
and
quantitation
limit
approach
for
each
application
and
attempt
to
define
and
evaluate
each
of
the
separate
approaches,
the
resulting
matrix
of
approaches
would
cause
confusion
to
regulators,
permittees,
and
the
laboratory
community.

Further,
when
proposed,
each
item
in
the
matrix
of
approaches
and
applications
would,
individually,
be
subject
to
contention
and
second­

guessing,
and
it
is
likely
that
the
outcome
would
be
nearly
the
same
as
if
a
single
pair
of
approaches
is
selected.
To
avoid
this
outcome,
EPA
believes
it
is
desirable
to
use
a
single
pair
of
related
detection
and
quantitation
procedures
to
meet
needs
where
they
exist
in
all
CWA
applications.
Criterion
6:
In
theory,
EPA
could
evaluate
each
of
these
applications
independently
and
identify
a
detection
and
quantitation
limit
approach
that
is
best
suited
to
each
application...
EPA
believes
that
such
an
approach
would
increase
confusion,
increase
record
keeping
burdens,

and
increase
laboratory
testing
burdens.
For
these
reasons,
EPA
believes
it
is
desirable
to
adopt
a
single
pair
of
related
detection
and
quantitation
procedures
that
can
be
used
to
address
all
Clean
Water
Act
applications.

3.2.5,
National
versus
Local
Standards
for
Measurement
CWA
authorizes
states
and
local
governments
to
implement
permits,
with
the
requirement
that
they
be
at
least
as
protective
(
stringent)
as
the
national
standards
established
by
EPA.
Thus,
EPA
must
take
into
account
the
impact
of
any
revised
or
new
detection/
quantitation
limit
approaches
and
procedures
on
state
and
local
governments,
as
well
as
on
those
affected
by
state
and
local
requirements.
Criterion
6:
"
This
criterion
will
be
evaluated
by
studying
...
2)
the
ability
of
the
approaches
to
support
state
and
local
obligations
for
implementing
the
CWA."

3.3.2,
Censoring
Measurement
Results
Measurement
results
are
often
reported
as
less
than
some
detection,

quantitation,
or
reporting
limit
(
i.
e.,
they
are
censored
below
a
designated
limit).
The
primary
reason
for
censuring
is
to
avoid
reporting
highly
unreliable
results.
Although
such
results
may
have
high
measurement
error
in
a
relative
sense,
they
are
of
value
to
statisticians
and
modelers
who
are
interested
in
analysis
and
modeling
of
measurement
processes.
None.
Although
the
issue
of
censoring
is
important,
it
should
not
be
a
consideration
when
selecting
a
detection
and
quantitation
limit
approach.

The
decision
to
censor
data
is
a
data
reporting
and
data
use
issue.
Chapter
5
Assessment
This
chapter
summarizes
EPA s
assessment
of
various
detection
and
quantitation
limit
approaches
against
the
evaluation
criteria
established
in
Chapter
4.
Assessments
of
detection
limit
approaches
are
presented
in
Section
5.1
and
include
an
assessment
of
the:

 
EPA
method
detection
limit
(
MDL;
Section
5.1.1),
 
ASTM
International
interlaboratory
detection
estimate
(
IDE;
Section
5.1.2),
 
American
Chemical
Society
(
ACS)
limit
of
detection
(
LOD;
Section
5.1.3),
 
International
Organization
for
Standardization/
International
Union
of
Pure
and
Applied
Chemistry
(
ISO/
IUPAC)
critical
value
(
CRV;
Section
5.1.4),
and
 
ISO/
IUPAC
minimum
detectable
value
(
MDV;
Section
5.1.5).

Assessments
of
quantitation
limit
approaches
are
presented
in
Section
5.2
and
include
an
assessment
of
the:

 
EPA
minimum
level
of
quantitation
(
ML;
Section
5.2.1),
 
ASTM
International
interlaboratory
quantitation
estimate
(
IQE;
Section
5.2.2),
 
ACS
limit
of
quantitation
(
LOQ;
Section
5.2.3),
and
 
ISO/
IUPAC
LOQ
(
section
5.2.4).

A
brief
summary
of
the
evaluation
is
presented
in
Tables
5­
1
(
detection
limit
approaches)
and
5­
2
(
quantitation
limit
approaches).

EPA
limited
the
assessment
to
detection
and
quantitation
limit
approaches
advanced
by
ASTM
International,
ACS,
ISO/
IUPAC,
and
EPA,
for
use
in
EPA's
Clean
Water
Act
(
CWA)
programs,
because
these
approaches
are
the
most
widely
published
and
pertinent.

5.1
Detection
Limit
Approaches
Sections
5.1.1
through
5.1.5
describe
EPA s
assessment
of
five
detection
limit
approaches.
Each
discussion
is
divided
into
two
major
subsections.
The
first
subsection
describes
the
approach
and,
where
applicable,
the
procedure
that
supports
the
approach.
The
second
subsection
details
EPA s
assessment
of
the
approach
based
on
the
five
criteria
established
in
Chapter
4
for
evaluating
detection
limit
approaches.

Note:
Six
criteria
are
given
in
Chapter
4.
Four
of
these
pertain
to
both
detection
and
quantitation
limit
approaches.
Criterion
4
pertains
only
to
detection
limit
approaches
and
Criterion
5
pertains
only
to
quantitation
limit
approaches.
Therefore,
the
discussions
of
each
detection
and
quantitation
limit
approach
that
follow
will
omit
the
criterion
that
does
not
apply.

5.1.1
Evaluation
of
the
MDL
Section
5.1.1.1
provides
an
overview
of
the
MDL
approach
and
the
procedures
used
to
implement
the
approach.
Section
5.1.1.2
describes
EPA s
assessment
of
the
MDL
against
the
five
evaluation
criteria
that
concern
detection
limit
approaches.(
i.
e.,
Criteria
1­
3,
and
Criteria
4
and
6).

February
2003
5­
1
Assessment
of
Detection
and
Quantitation
Approaches
5.1.1.1
As
promulgated
at
40
CFR
part
136,
Appendix
B,
the
MDL
is
defined
as:

 
the
minimum
concentration
of
a
substance
that
can
be
measured
and
reported
with
99%
confidence
that
the
analyte
concentration
is
greater
than
zero
and
is
determined
from
analysis
of
a
sample
in
a
given
matrix
containing
the
analyte. 

A
six­
step
procedure
is
given
in
Appendix
B,
with
an
optional
seventh
step
to
verify
the
reasonableness
of
the
MDL
determined
in
the
first
six
steps.
experienced
analytical
chemists.
summary
of
the
MDL
procedure
is
as
follows:

1.
The
analyst
makes
an
estimate
of
the
detection
limit
based
on
one
of
four
options:
ent
signal
to
noise
ratio;
three
times
the
standard
deviation
of
replicate
blank
measurements;
a
break
in
the
slope
of
an
instrument
calibration
curve;
or
known
instrument
limitations.

2.
The
analyst
prepares
a
volume
of
reagent
water
that
is
as
free
of
the
target
analyte
as
possible
(
if
the
MDL
is
to
be
determined
in
reagent
water).

3.
The
analyst
prepares
a
sufficient
volume
of
spiked
reagent
water
(
or
of
an
alternate
matrix)
to
yield
seven
replicate
aliquots
that
have
a
concentration
of
the
target
analyte
that
is
at
least
equal
to
or
in
the
same
concentration
range
as
the
estimated
detection
limit
(
it
is
recommended
that
the
concentration
of
the
replicate
aliquots
be
between
1
and
5
times
the
estimated
detection
limit).

4.
All
of
the
replicate
aliquots
are
processed
through
the
entire
analytical
method.

5.
The
variance
(
S2)
and
standard
deviation
(
S)
of
the
replicate
measurements
are
determined,
as
follows:

where:

Xi
;
i=
1
to
n,
=
are
the
analytical
results
in
the
final
method
reporting
units
obtained
from
the
n
sample
aliquots
and
E
refers
to
the
sum
of
the
X
values
from
i=
l
to
n.

6.
The
MDL
is
then
determined
by
multiplying
the
standard
deviation
(
S)
by
the
Student s
t­
statistic
at
a
99%
percentile
for
n­
1
degrees
of
freedom.
s
t­
value
is
3.143.
ation
is
used
to
calculate
the
MDL
as
follows:
Description
of
the
MDL
Approach
and
Procedure
The
procedure
is
intended
for
use
by
A
brief
the
instrum
If
seven
replicates
are
used,
the
Student 
This
inform
5­
2
February
2003
Chapter
5
where:

MDL
=
the
method
detection
limit
t(
n­
1,1­"
=
.99)
=
the
Student's
t­
value
appropriate
for
a
99%
confidence
level
with
n­
1
degrees
of
freedom,
and
S
=
the
standard
deviation
of
the
replicate
analyses.

A
95%
confidence
interval
for
the
determined
MDL
may
be
calculated
from
percentiles
of
the
chi
square
over
degrees
of
freedom
distribution
(
P2/
df).

7.
The
optional
iterative
procedure
to
verify
the
reasonableness
of
the
MDL
involves
spiking
the
matrix
at
the
MDL
that
was
determined
in
Step
6,
and
analyzing
another
seven
replicates
spiked
at
this
level.
The
F­
ratio
of
the
variances
(
S2)
is
determined
and
compared
with
the
F­
ratio
found
in
the
table,
which
is
3.05.
2
A/
S2
B>
3.05,
the
analyst
is
instructed
to
respike
at
the
most
recently
calculated
MDL
and
process
the
samples
through
the
procedure
starting
with
Step
4.
2
A/
S2
B>
3.05,
then
the
pooled
standard
deviation
is
determined.
The
pooled
standard
deviation
is
then
used
to
calculate
the
final
MDL
as
follows:

where
2.681
is
equal
to
t(
12,
1­"
=.
99).

The
95%
confidence
interval
around
the
final
MDL
may
be
determined
using
the
chi
squared
over
degrees
of
freedom
distribution.

The
MDL
procedure
given
at
40
CFR
part
136,
Appendix
B
is
described
as
being
applicable
to
1)
a
wide
variety
of
sample
types,
ranging
from
reagent
water
containing
the
analyte
of
interest
to
wastewater
containing
the
analyte
of
interest,
and
2)
a
broad
variety
of
physical
and
chemical
measurements.
plish
this,
the
procedure
was
made
device­
and
instrument­
independent.

5.1.1.2
The
following
five
subsections
discuss
the
MDL
approach
and
procedure
in
the
context
of
the
five
evaluation
criteria
that
concern
detection
limit
approaches
(
i.
e.,
Criteria
1­
4,
and
Criterion
6).

5.1.1.2.1
Criterion
1:
The
detection
and
quantitation
limit
approaches
should
be
scientifically
valid.

For
the
purposes
of
evaluating
scientific
validity,
EPA
is
using
the
conditions
discussed
by
the
Supreme
Court
in
Daubert
v.
Merrell
Dow
Pharmaceuticals
(
1993)
and
Kumho
Tire
Co.
v.
Carmichael,
(
1999)
(
see
Chapter
4,
Criterion
1).

Condition
1:
The
MDL
procedure
meets
this
condition.
been
used
experimentally
since
1980
and
in
a
regulatory
context
since
1984.
most
widely
used
and,
therefore,
the
most
widely
tested
detection
limit
procedure
in
the
history
of
approaches
of
detection.

Critics
of
the
MDL
have
noted
that
the
detection
limit
produced
with
the
MDL
procedure
can
vary
depending
on
the
spike
levels
used.
d
suggest,
on
the
surface,
that
the
MDL
procedure
can
be
used
to
obtain
results
that
do
not
support
the
MDL
approach.
isinterpretation
of
the
MDL
If
S
SIf
To
accom
Assessment
of
the
MDL
Against
the
Evaluation
Criteria
It
can
be
(
and
has
been)
tested.
The
MDL
has
The
MDL
procedure
is
the
This
woul
This
is
a
m
February
2003
5­
3
Assessment
of
Detection
and
Quantitation
Approaches
based
on
the
mistaken
assumption
that
spike
levels
may
be
arbitrarily
selected.
In
fact,
step
1)
of
the
MDL
procedure
specifies
a
number
of
criteria,
based
on
chemical
analytical
considerations,
that
must
be
met
in
selecting
the
spike
levels
(
see
Section
5.1.1.1,
Step
1).

In
preparation
for
the
assessment
of
detection
and
quantitation
approaches,
EPA
exhaustively
tested
the
MDL
procedure
with
10
different
techniques,
at
decreasing
spike
concentrations,
to
evaluate
this
concern
and
determine
how
well
the
procedure
characterized
the
region
of
interest.
Results
of
the
study
suggest
that,
although
the
calculated
MDL
could
vary
depending
on
the
spike
level
used,
the
procedure
was
capable
of
reasonably
estimating
a
detection
limit
when
the
full
iterative
procedure
was
employed.
Given
these
findings,
and
the
previously
noted
concern
that
acceptable
spike
levels
have
been
subject
to
misunderstanding,
EPA
believes
that
Step
1
of
the
MDL
procedure
should
be
revised
to
improve
reader
understanding
of
appropriate
spiking
levels,
and
that
the
iterative
procedure
in
Step
7
of
the
MDL
procedure
should
be
made
mandatory
for
development
or
revision
of
an
MDL
published
in
an
analytical
method.

Condition
2:
It
has
been
subjected
to
peer
review
and
publication.
The
MDL
meets
this
condition.
Prior
to
promulgation
by
EPA,
the
MDL
approach
and
supporting
procedure
was
published
by
Glaser
et
al.
in
a
peer­
reviewed
journal
(
Glaser,
et
al.,
1981).

Condition
3:
The
error
rate
associated
with
the
procedure
is
either
known
or
can
be
estimated.
It
is
possible
to
estimate
error
rates
associated
with
the
MDL
procedure.
It
is
also
possible
to
calculate
confidence
intervals
about
estimated
MDLs
that
are
expressions
of
uncertainty
in
the
estimates.
Clarification
is
in
order
because
the
promulgated
MDL
definition
may
be
somewhat
confusing
in
some
respects.
In
particular,
the
definition
is
confusing
with
regard
to
whether
the
MDL
is
a
true
concentration
or
a
value
estimated
from
measured
data.
Another
source
of
confusion
lies
in
terminology.
Because
the
MDL
employs
the
term
 
detection 
and
is
based
on
the
approaches
developed
by
Currie,
it
has
often
been
incorrectly
assumed
to
be
the
equivalent
of
Currie s
 
detection
limit, 
when
in
fact,
it
is
the
equivalent
of
Currie s
 
critical
value, 
which
is
the
point
at
which
the
detection
decision
is
made.
EPA
believes
that
the
approach
of
MDL
can
be
clarified
by
slightly
revising
the
definition
as
follows:

 
The
method
detection
limit
(
MDL)
is
an
estimate
of
the
measured
concentration
at
which
there
is
99%
confidence
that
a
given
analyte
is
present
in
a
given
sample
matrix.
The
MDL
is
the
concentration
at
which
a
decision
is
made
regarding
whether
an
analyte
is
detected
by
a
given
analytical
method.
The
MDL
is
calculated
from
replicate
analyses
of
a
matrix
containing
the
analyte
and
is
functionally
analogous
to
the
 
critical
value 
described
by
Currie
(
1968,
1995)
and
the
Limit
of
Detection
(
LOD)
described
by
the
American
Chemical
Society
(
MacDougall,
et
al.
1980,
and
Keith,
et
al.
1983). 

Condition
4:
Standards
exist
and
can
be
maintained
to
control
its
operation.
The
MDL
approach
is
supported
by
a
clearly
defined,
published
procedure
to
control
its
operation.
The
procedure
gives
the
steps
to
be
followed
and
instructs
the
analyst
to
use
the
entire
measurement
process.
Hundreds,
if
not
thousands,
of
laboratories
have
successfully
implemented
the
MDL
procedure
since
its
promulgation
in
1984.
EPA
has
found
that
when
laboratories
are
required
to
perform
MDL
studies
as
part
of
an
interlaboratory
study,
the
results
reported
by
the
laboratories
are
generally
consistent
(
i.
e.,
within
the
expected
variability).
EPA
has
observed
similar
consistency
in
use
of
the
MDL
by
laboratories
required
to
perform
the
procedure
to
demonstrate
proficiency
with
a
method.
Therefore,
the
MDL
meets
this
condition.

That
said,
however,
EPA
believes
that
additional
guidance
can
be
provided
to
clarify
certain
aspects
of
the
MDL
procedure,
particularly
with
respect
to
handling
outliers,
the
optional
reasonableness
step,
and
multi­
analyte
test
methods.
The
MDL
procedure
contains
no
discussion
of
outliers.
It
may
be
5­
4
February
2003
Chapter
5
helpful
to
clarify
that
1)
results
should
be
discarded
only
if
the
results
are
associated
with
a
known
error
that
occurred
during
analysis
(
e.
g.,
the
replicate
was
spiked
twice)
or
through
a
statistically
accepted
analysis
of
outliers,
and
2)
that
laboratories
should
not
run
more
than
seven
replicates
and
simply
pick
the
best
of
the
seven
results.
The
optional
step
involves
iterative
testing
to
verify
that
the
determined
MDL
is
reasonable;
EPA
has
observed
that
few
organizations
bother
to
perform
this
step.
EPA
also
has
observed
that
when
a
method
involves
a
large
number
of
analytes,
it
can
be
difficult
to
get
all
analytes
to
pass
the
iterative
test
in
the
same
run.
The
MDL
procedure
would
benefit
from
the
addition
of
guidance
on
how
and
when
to
address
each
of
these
issues.

In
addition,
EPA
notes
that
the
calculation
of
the
95%
confidence
interval
described
in
Step
7
is
neither
routinely
performed
by
laboratories,
nor
are
the
results
employed
by
regulatory
agencies,
including
EPA.
Therefore,
EPA
believes
that
the
MDL
procedure
could
be
streamlined
by
deleting
this
calculation.

Condition
5:
It
has
attracted
widespread
acceptance
within
a
relevant
scientific
community.
The
MDL
meets
this
condition.
Within
EPA,
the
MDL
has
been
used
by
the
Office
of
Research
and
Development,
Office
of
Science
and
Technology,
Office
of
Ground
Water
and
Drinking
Water,
Office
of
Solid
Waste,
Office
of
Emergency
and
Remedial
Response,
and
other
offices.
The
MDL
also
has
been
used
outside
of
EPA
in
methods
published
by
ASTM
International,
in
Standard
Methods
for
the
Examination
of
Water
and
Wastewater,
jointly
published
by
the
American
Public
Health
Association
(
APHA),
the
American
Water
Works
Association
(
AWWA),
and
the
Water
Environment
Federation
(
WEF),
and
in
methods
elsewhere.
Although
the
MDL
has
been
criticized
by
some,
EPA
believes
that
it
is
the
most
widely
used
approach
of
detection
within
the
environmental
chemistry
community.
Many
states
incorporate
the
MDL
into
NPDES
permits,
for
example,
and
laboratories
often
advertise
MDLs
in
their
sales
literature.

5.1.1.2.2
Criterion
2:
The
approach
should
address
demonstrated
expectations
of
laboratory
and
method
performance,
including
routine
variability.

The
MDL
procedure
is
designed
to
demonstrate
laboratory
performance
with
a
given
method,
and
can
be
applied
to
a
broad
variety
of
physical
and
chemical
methods.
To
accomplish
this,
the
procedure
was
made
device­
or
instrument­
independent.
The
procedure
also
recognizes
the
importance
of
analyst
experience,
and
explicitly
directs
the
analyst
to
employ
all
sample
processing
and
computation
steps
given
in
the
analytical
method
when
determining
the
MDL.
(
All
of
these
aspects
are
addressed
in
the
MDL
procedure
published
at
40
CFR
136,
Appendix
B).

When
the
MDL
procedure
is
followed
as
intended
(
i.
e.,
the
MDL
is
determined
by
an
experienced
analyst
on
each
device
or
instrument
used
for
a
given
method),
the
demonstrated
MDL
will
include
routine
variability
associated
with
the
laboratory
and
the
method.
As
noted
in
the
previous
section,
EPA
believes
the
MDL
procedure
could
be
improved
by
describing
appropriate
means
for
the
identification
and
treatment
of
outliers.
Such
modifications
would
ensure
that
laboratories
do
not
inappropriately
discard
replicate
data
when
calculating
MDLs.

EPA
recognizes
that
one
laboratory
may
obtain
detection
limits
that
are
lower
or
higher
than
those
in
another
laboratory.
If
the
MDL
is
being
determined
during
method
development,
it
is
important
to
determine
the
MDL
at
more
than
one
laboratory
to
ensure
the
MDL
published
in
the
method
reflects
demonstrated
expectations
of
method
performance
in
a
community
of
laboratories.
EPA
does
not
believe
that
this
community
should
be
so
broad
as
to
include
the
entire
universe
of
possible
laboratories
that
might
desire
to
practice
the
method.
Rather,
EPA
believes
this
community
should
include
well­
operated
laboratories
that
are
experienced
with
the
techniques
used
in
the
method
and
that
have
some
familiarity
with
the
method.

February
2003
5­
5
Assessment
of
Detection
and
Quantitation
Approaches
In
recent
years,
EPA's
Office
of
Science
and
Technology
has
used
single­
laboratory
studies
to
develop
an
initial
estimate
of
the
MDL
for
a
new
or
modified
method,
and
has
verified
these
limits
in
interlaboratory
studies
or
by
conducting
additional
single­
laboratory
studies
in
other
laboratories.
For
example,
when
EPA
initially
drafted
Method
1631
for
measurement
of
mercury,
EPA
estimated
the
MDL
to
be
0.05
ng/
L
based
on
results
produced
by
a
contract
research
laboratory.
Additional
single­
laboratory
MDL
studies
conducted
in
other
laboratories
suggested
that
the
MDL
should
be
raised
to
0.2
ng/
L
to
better
reflect
existing
capabilities
of
the
measurement
community.
During
EPA s
interlaboratory
study,
each
laboratory
was
asked
to
conduct
an
MDL
study.
Every
laboratory
in
the
interlaboratory
study
met
the
MDL
of
0.2
ng/
L,
the
value
published
in
the
promulgated
version
of
Method
1631.

EPA
believes
that
1)
the
MDL
procedure
does
address
demonstrated
expectations
of
laboratory
and
method
performance,
including
routine
variability,
and
2)
if
the
MDL
procedure
is
being
employed
for
method
development
purposes,
it
should
be
performed
in
multiple
laboratories
to
ensure
that
it
adequately
demonstrates
expectations
in
a
community
of
qualified
laboratories.

5.1.1.2.3
Criterion
3:
The
approach
should
be
supported
by
a
practical
and
affordable
procedure
that
a
single
laboratory
can
use
to
evaluate
method
performance.

The
MDL
is
designed
for
use
by
a
single
laboratory.
The
promulgated
version
of
the
MDL
procedure
can
be
performed
with
as
few
as
seven
analyses.
If
the
MDL
is
to
be
determined
in
a
matrix
other
than
reagent
water,
additional
analyses
will
be
needed.

Use
of
the
optional
iterative
procedure
would
increase
the
number
of
analyses
by
seven
each
time
the
procedure
is
implemented.
If
the
procedure
is
implemented
two
times
in
reagent
water,
a
total
of
14
analyses
are
required.
If
the
procedure
is
implemented
two
times
in
an
alternative
matrix,
EPA
estimates
that
17­
20
analyses
may
be
required,
given
the
possible
need
to
determine
the
background
concentration
of
the
analyte
in
the
alternative
matrix.
In
any
of
these
scenarios,
the
entire
MDL
determination
can
be
performed
in
a
single
analytical
batch
(
most
EPA
methods
specify
batch
sizes
of
20
samples).
As
a
result,
EPA
believes
that
the
MDL
is
among
the
most
affordable
of
the
procedures
that
have
been
suggested
for
determining
detection
limits.
In
terms
of
cost,
the
only
approach
that
compares
favorably
with
the
MDL
is
the
instrument
detection
limit
(
IDL).
Although
most
versions
of
the
IDL
compare
favorably
in
terms
of
the
number
of
samples
analyzed,
the
requirement
to
perform
the
test
on
three
non­
consecutive
days
has
the
potential
to
disrupt
routine
laboratory
operations
on
three
days
instead
of
one.
In
addition,
the
IDL
does
not
include
sample
preparation
steps
and,
therefore,
does
not
completely
characterize
a
method.

5.1.1.2.4
Criterion
4:
The
detection
level
approach
should
identify
the
signal
or
estimated
concentration
at
which
there
is
99%
confidence
that
the
substance
is
actually
present
when
the
analytical
method
is
performed
by
experienced
staff
in
a
well­
operated
laboratory.

EPA
believes
the
MDL
meets
this
condition
and
refers
the
reader
to
the
discussion
of
this
subject
under
Section
5.1.1.2.1,
Condition
3.

5.1.1.2.5
Criterion
6:
Detection
and
quantitation
approaches
should
be
applicable
to
the
variety
of
decisions
made
under
the
Clean
Water
Act,
and
should
support
state
and
local
obligations
to
implement
measurement
requirements
that
are
at
least
as
stringent
as
those
set
by
the
Federal
government.

The
MDL
meets
this
criterion.
The
MDL
has
been
successfully
applied
to
a
variety
of
decisions
under
the
CWA
since
1984.
In
addition,
many
states
and
others
have
adopted
the
MDL
in
their
own
programs.

5­
6
February
2003
Chapter
5
5.1.2
Evaluation
of
the
ASTM
International
Interlaboratory
Detection
Estimate
(
IDE)

The
interlaboratory
detection
estimate
(
IDE)
was
developed
by
ASTM
International
with
support
from
members
of
the
regulated
industry
in
an
attempt
to
provide
a
scientifically
sound,
comprehensive
detection
limit
procedure
that
addresses
the
concerns
of
the
regulated
industry,
of
statisticians,
and
of
analysts
involved
in
ASTM
Committee
D
19
on
water.

A
brief
summary
of
the
procedure
is
given
in
Section
5.1.2.1
and
Section
5.1.2.2
presents
EPA s
assessment
of
the
IDE
against
the
five
criteria
established
for
evaluating
detection
limit
approaches
(
i.
e.,
Criteria
1­
4,
and
Criterion
6).

5.1.2.1
Description
of
the
IDE
Approach
and
Procedure
ASTM
Designation
D
6091
is
the
Standard
Practice
for
99
%/
95
%
Interlaboratory
Detection
Estimate
(
IDE)
for
Analytical
Methods
with
Negligible
Calibration
Error.
As
stated
in
the
practice:

"
The
IDE
is
computed
to
be
the
lowest
concentration
at
which
there
is
90
%
confidence
that
a
single
measurement
from
a
laboratory
selected
from
the
population
of
qualified
laboratories
represented
in
an
interlaboratory
study
will
have
a
true
detection
probability
of
at
least
95
%
and
a
true
nondetection
probability
of
at
least
99
%
(
when
measuring
a
blank
sample)."

The
IDE
is
determined
and
verified
using
a
procedure
containing
5
major
steps
with
approximately
53
substeps
and
conditions.
The
full
text
of
the
IDE
procedure
is
available
from
ASTM
International.
The
five
major
steps
and
their
functions
are
given
in
Section
6
of
the
IDE
procedure
and
are
as
follows:

1.
Overview
of
the
procedure.

2.
IDE
Study
Plan,
Design,
and
Protocol
­
in
this
section,
the
task
manager
(
study
supervisor)
chooses
the
analyte,
matrix,
and
analytical
method.
Details
are
given
for
range
finding;
the
concentrations
to
be
used
in
the
study;
the
study
protocol
(
ASTM
Practice
D
2777
is
suggested);
the
allowable
sources
of
variation;
and
the
number
of
laboratories,
analysts,
and
days
over
which
the
study
will
be
conducted.

3.
Conduct
the
IDE
Study,
Screen
the
Data,
and
Choose
a
Model
­
after
the
study
data
are
collected
and
screened
according
to
ASTM
Practice
D
2777,
interlaboratory
standard
deviation
(
ILSD)
versus
concentration
data
are
tabulated
and
one
of
three
models
is
fit
to
the
data.
The
first
attempt
is
at
fitting
a
constant
model.
If
the
attempt
fails,
a
straight­
line
model
is
attempted.
If
the
straight­
line
model
fails,
an
exponential
model
is
fitted.
After
fitting,
the
model
is
evaluated
for
reasonableness
and
lack
of
fit.
If
the
model
fails,
the
study
supervisor
determines
if
a
subset
of
the
data
should
be
analyzed
or
if
more
data
are
needed.

4.
Compute
the
IDE
­
the
IDE
is
computed
using
the
ILSD
model
selected
in
Step
3
to
estimate
the
interlaboratory
standard
deviation
at
a
true
concentration
of
zero
and
at
the
IDE,
using
a
mean
recovery
model
to
transform
measured
and
true
concentrations.
The
IDE
is
computed
as
a
one­
sided
90
%
confidence
upper
statistical
tolerance
limit.

5.
Nontrivial
Amount
of
Censored
Data
­
this
section
addresses
the
effect
of
"
non­
detects"
or
"
lessthans
Suggestions
are
given
to
see
if
uncensored
data
can
be
obtained
from
the
laboratories
or
if
the
February
2003
5­
7
Assessment
of
Detection
and
Quantitation
Approaches
study
needs
to
be
augmented
with
additional
data.
Suggestions
are
given
for
fitting
a
model
to
data
that
contain
less
than
10
%
non­
detects
or
less­
thans
to
produce
an
IDE.

5.1.2.2
Assessment
of
the
IDE
Against
the
Evaluation
Criteria
The
following
five
subsections
discuss
the
IDE
approach
and
procedure
in
the
context
of
the
five
evaluation
criteria
that
concern
detection
limit
approaches.

5.1.2.2.1
Criterion
1:
The
detection
and
quantitation
limit
approaches
should
be
scientifically
valid.

Condition
1:
It
can
be
(
and
has
been)
tested.
EPA
is
not
aware
of
any
organization,
including
ASTM
International,
that
has
conducted
a
study
to
test
the
procedure
as
written
(
i.
e.,
designed
and
implemented
an
interlaboratory
study
that
involves
estimating
an
initial
IDE
[
IDE0]
and
multilaboratory
analyses
of
multiple
concentrations
of
each
matrix
of
interest
surrounding
IDE0).
Developers
of
the
approach
performed
limited
testing
of
the
approach
on
1)
simulated
data
sets
and
2)
real­
world
data
sets
generated
for
other
purposes.
However,
these
real­
world
data
sets
are
of
limited
value
for
testing
the
IDE
because
the
concentration
ranges
associated
with
the
data
are
above
the
low­
level
region
of
interest.
As
part
of
this
reassessment,
EPA
tested
a
variant
of
the
IDE
procedure
on
single­
laboratory
data
sets
designed
for
characterization
of
an
analytical
method
in
the
region
of
detection.
Despite
the
lack
of
comprehensive
testing,
EPA
believes
that
the
procedure
can
be
tested,
and
therefore
meets
part
of
this
condition.
Specifically,
the
IDE
meets
the
condition
that
it
can
be
tested,
but
it
only
partially
meets
the
condition
that
it
has
been
tested.

Condition
2:
It
has
been
subjected
to
peer
review
and
publication.
Although
the
IDE
has
not
been
published
in
the
peer­
reviewed
scientific
literature,
the
IDE
has
undergone
extensive
review
and
ballot
by
members
of
ASTM
Committee
D
19,
many
of
whom
are
qualified
peer
reviewers.
Therefore,
although
the
IDE
does
not
meet
this
condition
in
the
sense
of
formal
peer
review
and
publication,
EPA
believes
it
does
meet
the
intent
of
this
condition
(
i.
e.,
submission
to
scrutiny
of
the
scientific
community).
In
addition,
the
IDE
was
reviewed
by
four
peer
reviewers
as
part
of
EPA s
assessment
of
detection
and
quantitation
limit
approaches.

Condition
3:
The
error
rate
associated
with
the
procedure
is
either
known
or
can
be
estimated.
In
theory,
expert
statisticians
could
estimate
the
error
rate
of
the
IDE.
However,
the
IDE
procedure
is
extremely
complex
from
an
analytical
chemistry
and
statistical
perspective.
As
a
result,
it
is
unlikely
that
the
error
rate
could
be
estimated
by
the
typical
users
of
the
analytical
method
to
which
it
would
be
applied,
or
even
by
the
typical
developers
of
an
analytical
method.
Moreover,
EPA
found
the
model
selection
procedure
to
be
highly
subjective,
a
situation
likely
to
yield
different
IDEs
from
the
same
data
set,
depending
on
the
staff
involved
in
performing
the
calculations.
In
practice,
such
conditions
make
it
impossible
to
estimate
the
actual
error
associated
with
the
IDE.
Therefore,
the
IDE
fails
this
condition.

One
of
the
four
peer
reviewers
charged
with
evaluating
EPA s
assessment
of
detection
and
quantitation
limit
approaches
concurred
with
EPA s
assessment
of
the
IDE,
specifically
stating,
 
I
agree
that
the
IDE
procedure
as
outlined
is
so
complex
as
to
make
simple
determination
of
error
rates
associated
with
it
untenable. 
(
Piegorsch,
2002)

Condition
4:
Standards
exist
and
can
be
maintained
to
control
its
operation.
The
IDE
approach
and
procedure
is
supported
by
a
published
procedure
(
standard)
to
control
its
operation.
The
procedure
gives
the
steps
to
be
followed
in
determining
the
IDE
and
instructs
the
study
supervisor
how
to
gather
the
data
and
compute
an
IDE.

5­
8
February
2003
Chapter
5
However,
there
are
several
"
gray
areas"
in
the
published
procedure.
The
most
significant
gray
area
is
in
the
description
of
model
selection.
The
procedure
provides
insufficient
guidance
on
use
of
residual
plots
to
evaluate
and
select
models
and,
as
a
result,
selection
of
the
model
may
be
very
subjective,
especially
if
the
number
of
concentrations
is
low.
The
discussion
of
what
model
to
use
after
rejecting
the
exponential
and
linear
model
is
also
very
vague.
The
Rocke
and
Lorenzato
(
hybrid)
model
is
mentioned,
as
well
as
models
with
more
than
one
coefficient.
Much
of
the
data
evaluated
by
EPA
have
tended
to
suggest
the
exponential
model,
based
on
the
statistical
tests
discussed.
However,
those
data
have
almost
always
shown
residual
 
patterns 
when
using
this
model,
which
would
then
lead
to
consideration
of
other
models.
In
addition,
fitting
the
constant
model
is
never
discussed
in
detail.
Most
likely,
this
is
done
by
simply
calculating
a
mean
(
weighted
if
necessary)
of
the
variances
from
the
different
concentrations;
however,
such
calculations
are
never
explicitly
stated.

Another
concern
with
the
standard
is
that
it
gives
procedures
that
are
inconsistent
with
procedures
given
in
the
IQE
standard,
even
though
the
two
approaches
should
be
consistent
for
a
given
analyte
with
a
given
method.
For
example,
the
exponential
model
figures
prominently
in
the
IDE
procedure,
where
it
is
one
of
the
three
main
models
discussed.
The
Rocke
and
Lorenzato
model
is
not
discussed
in
the
IDE
procedure,
but
it
figures
prominently
in
the
IQE
procedure.
In
theory,
a
single
model
should
support
the
definition
of
both
the
detection
and
quantitation
limits
for
a
given
analyte
by
a
given
method.
As
another
example,
the
IDE
procedure
includes
a
multiplier
to
account
for
bias
in
estimating
the
true
standard
deviation
with
the
sample
standard
deviation,
but
the
IQE
does
not.

Finally,
the
procedure
contains
statistical
errors
that,
if
followed
as
written,
could
produce
inaccurate
IDE
values.
For
example,
Table
1
of
the
procedure
contains
 
Computations
to
Estimate
Straight­
Line
Model
Coefficients
by
Means
of
Least
Squares
 
Ordinary
and
Weighted, 
but
the
weighted
least
squares
formulae
given
in
the
table
are
incorrect.
The
formulae
for
the
weighted
means
of
the
spike
values
and
results
given
in
Table
1
of
D6091
would
only
be
appropriate
if
the
weighting
were
done
based
on
the
number
of
replicates
per
spike
level,
rather
than
on
the
estimated
variance
calculated
using
the
chosen
standard
deviation
model.

In
conclusion,
EPA
believes
that
although
the
IDE
is
supported
by
a
published
procedure,
that
procedure
will
not
control
its
operation
because
of
the
degree
of
subjectivity
involved
implementing
the
procedure,
errors
in
the
procedure,
and
inconsistencies
with
its
IQE
counterpart.
Therefore,
the
IDE
fails
this
condition.

Condition
5:
It
has
attracted
widespread
acceptance
within
a
relevant
scientific
community.
The
IDE
fails
this
condition
because
it
is
only
familiar
to,
and
has
been
accepted
by,
a
very
narrow
segment
of
the
scientific
community.
Although
the
IDE
has
been
approved
by
ASTM
for
more
than
5
years,
EPA
is
not
aware
of
an
IDE
that
has
been
published
in
the
open
literature
or
in
an
analytical
method,
including
an
ASTM
method.

5.1.2.2.2
Criterion
2:
The
approach
should
address
demonstrated
expectations
of
laboratory
and
method
performance,
including
routine
variability.

The
IDE
procedure
is
designed
to
reflect
expectations
of
interlaboratory
performance,
including
routine
variability.
The
procedure
contains
extensive
instructions
for
dealing
with
unusual
conditions,
including
sources
of
variability
and
outliers.
However,
EPA
studies
of
a
single­
laboratory
variant
of
the
procedure
suggested
that
the
procedure
may
not
always
work
as
intended.
For
example,
model
selection
based
upon
hypothesis
tests
(
as
described
in
D6091,
Section
6.3.3.2)
almost
always
indicated
that
the
exponential
model
should
be
used,
even
when
the
data
seemed
to
be
show
constant
or
approximately
linear
error,
while
examination
of
residual
plot
indicated
 
systematic
behavior 
(
i.
e.,
non­
random
deviations
from
the
model)
for
the
exponential
and
linear
models.
Another
concern
with
the
IDE
February
2003
5­
9
Assessment
of
Detection
and
Quantitation
Approaches
procedure
is
that
use
of
the
non­
mandatory
appendices
in
ASTM
D
6512
to
determine
the
fit
of
a
model
may
produce
results
that
differ
from
those
that
would
be
obtained
by
using
the
default
procedures
for
testing
model
fit
that
are
built
into
off­
the­
shelf
statistical
software.
Such
observations,
along
with
the
concerns
described
in
Section
5.1.2.2.1,
condition
4,
lead
EPA
to
believe
that,
while
the
IDE
approach
addresses
demonstrated
expectations
of
laboratory
and
method
performance,
the
IDE
procedure
does
not
adequately
do
so.
Therefore,
the
IDE
only
partially
meets
this
criterion.

5.1.2.2.3
Criterion
3:
The
approach
should
be
supported
by
a
practical
and
affordable
procedure
that
a
single
laboratory
can
use
to
evaluate
method
performance.

The
IDE
procedure
is
designed
for
use
by
an
ASTM
International
study
supervisor
or
task
manager
and
not
as
a
procedure
that
a
single
laboratory
can
use
to
evaluate
method
performance.
EPA
is
aware
that
ASTM
Committee
D
19
is
developing
a
Within­
laboratory
Detection
Estimate
(
WDE),
but
the
WDE
is
presently
only
in
the
formative
stages.
The
WDE
may
meet
this
criterion,
but
the
IDE
does
not.

Regarding
cost,
the
IDE
procedure
would
be
the
most
costly
of
the
procedures
that
EPA
has
evaluated
because
of
the
time
it
would
take
to
understand
and
implement
the
procedure,
and
requirements
for:
1)
estimation
of
IDE0
,
2)
interlaboratory
data,
3)
extensive
statistical
intervention
in
determining
the
correct
model,
and
4)
possible
reanalyses
if
the
resulting
IDE
does
not
meet
the
criteria
in
the
procedure.

5.1.2.2.4
Criterion
4:
The
detection
level
approach
should
identify
the
signal
or
estimated
concentration
at
which
there
is
99%
confidence
that
the
substance
is
actually
present
when
the
analytical
method
is
performed
by
experienced
staff
in
a
well­
operated
laboratory.

By
definition,
the
IDE
is
designed
to
achieve
"
a
true
detection
probability
of
at
least
95
%
and
a
true
nondetection
probability
of
at
least
99
%."
Although
the
99%
probability
of
a
"
true
nondetection"
is
equivalent
to
the
99%
confidence
that
the
substance
is
actually
present
given
in
Criterion
4,
ASTM
International
also
included
the
simultaneous
requirement
for
a
95%
probability
of
a
"
true
detection."
The
developers
are
using
the
IDE
as
a
means
to
control
the
rates
of
both
false
positive
and
false
negative
results,
in
essence,
making
the
IDE
analogous
by
definition
and
formulaic
construction
to
the
detection
limit
(
DL)
defined
by
Currie
(
1968).
The
IDE
accomplishes
this
goal
by
using
a
tolerance
limit
that
increases
the
IDE
well
above
the
point
at
which
the
detection
decision
would
be
made.
For
a
discussion
of
this
issue,
see
Sections
3.3.6
(
false
positives
and
false
negatives)
and
3.3.7
(
prediction
and
tolerance
intervals)
in
Chapter
3
of
this
document.

As
noted
in
Section
2.1
of
Chapter
2
of
this
document,
Currie
(
1968)
used
the
term
detection
limit
(
subsequently
termed
the
minimum
detectable
value)
to
refer
to
a
true
concentration
that
has
a
high
probability
of
generating
measured
values
greater
than
the
critical
value.
That
is,
measurements
on
samples
that
contain
concentrations
equal
to
the
detection
limit
have
a
high
probability
of
exceeding
the
critical
value
and
are,
therefore,
unlikely
to
result
in
a
decision
that
the
substance
is
not
detected
in
the
sample.
However,
the
detection
decision
is
made
on
the
basis
of
comparing
sample
measurements
to
the
critical
value.
With
regard
to
his
definition
of
the
"
detection
limit,"
Currie
(
1995)
states
 
The
single,
most
important
application
of
the
detection
limit
is
for
planning. 

When
the
allowance
for
false
negatives
and
the
prediction
and
tolerance
limits
are
taken
into
account,
the
resulting
IDE
is
raised
to
the
point
at
which
the
probability
of
a
false
positive
is
less
than
0.00000001
(
10­
8
).
This
protection
against
false
positive
results
is
excessive
and
would
yield
numerical
values
of
little
practical
value
for
making
the
detection
decision.

5­
10
February
2003
Chapter
5
5.1.2.2.5
Criterion
6:
Detection
and
quantitation
approaches
should
be
applicable
to
the
variety
of
decisions
made
under
the
Clean
Water
Act,
and
should
support
state
and
local
obligations
to
implement
measurement
requirements
that
are
at
least
as
stringent
as
those
set
by
the
Federal
government.

EPA's
comparison
of
detection
limits
produced
by
various
detection
limit
approaches
shows
that
the
median
IDE
is
considerably
higher
than
ACS,
ISO/
IUPAC,
and
EPA
detection
limits.
Although
the
IDE
could
be
applied
to
some
decisions
to
be
made
under
CWA,
it
may
not
support
decisions
when
pollutant
levels
need
to
be
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment
because
the
IDE
is
an
implementation
of
Currie
detection
level
or
minimum
detectable
value,
and
may
be
considerably
higher
than
these
levels.
At
best,
the
IDE
only
partially
meets
this
criterion.

5.1.3
Evaluation
of
the
ACS
Limit
of
Detection
The
limit
of
detection
(
LOD)
was
developed
by
the
Committee
on
Environmental
Improvement
(
CEI)
of
the
American
Chemical
Society
(
ACS).
ACS
is
a
professional
society
for
chemists
and
other
scientists
and
the
publisher
of
a
number
of
scientific
journals.
It
is
not
a
voluntary
consensus
standards
body
(
VCSB),
nor
does
it
develop
or
publish
analytical
methods.
In
1978,
the
ACS/
CEI
began
addressing
concerns
about
the
lack
of
useful
standards
for
interlaboratory
comparisons.
In
1980,
the
Committee
published
its
"
Guidelines
for
Data
Acquisition
and
Data
Quality
Evaluation
in
Environmental
Chemistry"
(
MacDougall,
et
al.,
1980),
which
included
the
approaches
of
the
LOD
and
the
limit
of
quantitation
(
LOQ).

5.1.3.1
Description
of
the
ACS
LOD
The
1980
"
Guidelines"
define
the
LOD
as:

"...
the
lowest
concentration
of
an
analyte
that
the
analytical
process
can
reliably
detect.
...
The
LOD
in
most
instrumental
methods
is
based
on
the
relationship
between
the
gross
analyte
signal
St
,
the
field
blank
Sb
,
and
the
variability
in
the
field
blank
Fb
."

and
construct
the
formal
relations
using
the
equation:

where
Kd
is
a
constant.
ACS
recommended
a
minimal
value
of
3
for
Kd
.
Thus,
the
LOD
is
3F
above
the
gross
blank
signal,
Sb
.
In
the
1980
publication,
the
ACS
stated
that
at
Kd
=
3,
there
is
a
7%
risk
of
false
negatives
and
false
positives.
Given
that
the
LOD
is
3F
above
the
blank,
however,
EPA
believes
that
the
risk
of
false
positives
is
somewhat
less
than
1%.

In
1983,
the
ACS
Committee
published
"
Principles
of
Environmental
Analysis"
(
Keith
et
al.,
1983).
That
publication
occurred
after
the
1981
paper
on
the
Method
Detection
Limit
(
MDL),
and
ACS/
CEI
stated
that
the
LOD
is
numerically
equivalent
to
the
MDL
as
Sb
approaches
zero.
However,
neither
the
1980
nor
1983
ACS
publications
provide
a
specific
procedure
for
estimating
the
LOD,
nor
do
they
provide
a
minimum
number
of
observations
needed
to
estimate
the
gross
blank
signal
or
the
variability
term
Fb.

5.1.3.2
Assessment
of
the
LOD
Against
the
Evaluation
Criteria
The
following
five
subsections
discuss
the
LOD
approach
and
procedure
in
the
context
of
the
five
evaluation
criteria
that
concern
detection
limit
approaches
(
i.
e.,
Criteria
1­
4,
and
Criterion
6).

February
2003
5­
11
Assessment
of
Detection
and
Quantitation
Approaches
5.1.3.2.1
Criterion
1:
The
detection
and
quantitation
limit
approaches
should
be
scientifically
valid.

Condition
1:
It
can
be
(
and
has
been)
tested.
Testing
of
the
ACS
LOD
is
hampered
by
1)
the
lack
of
a
supporting
procedure
for
establishing
an
LOD,
and
2)
it s
conceptual
dependence
on
the
variability
associated
with
measuring
blanks.
For
example,
there
is
no
procedure
to
govern
the
minimum
number
of
analyses
needed
to
characterize
the
variability
of
a
blank
sample.
Because
many
environmental
chemistry
techniques
yield
a
zero,
or
possibly
even
negative,
value
when
a
blank
sample
is
analyzed,
and
because
the
LOD
approach
is
based
on
the
standard
deviation
of
these
results,
directly
testing
the
LOD
in
such
techniques
will
yield
a
zero
or
negative
value.
One
solution
for
testing
is
to
rely
on
ACS 
1983
statement
that
the
LOD
is
conceptually
equivalent
to
the
MDL
as
the
blank
signal
approaches
zero,
and
employ
the
MDL
procedure
as
a
means
for
indirectly
testing
the
LOD
approach.
EPA
believes
that
use
of
the
MDL
procedure
is
a
viable
means
for
testing
the
approach;
therefore,
the
LOD
meets
this
condition.

Condition
2:
It
has
been
subjected
to
peer
review
and
publication.
The
LOD
definition
was
published
in
the
peer­
reviewed
journal
Analytical
Chemistry
in
1980
and
1983.
Therefore,
the
LOD
meets
this
condition.

Condition
3:
The
error
rate
associated
with
the
procedure
is
either
known
or
can
be
estimated.
The
error
rates
can
be
estimated,
so
the
LOD
meets
this
condition.
The
error
rate
for
both
false
positives
and
false
negatives
is
stated
to
be
7
%
in
the
1980
Analytical
Chemistry
article.
However,
EPA
believes
that,
because
the
LOD
is
stated
to
be
3
times
the
standard
deviation
of
replicate
measurements
of
a
blank,
the
false
positive
rate
is
overstated
and
is
actually
somewhat
less
than
1
%
whereas
the
false
negative
rate
depends
on
the
true
concentration
in
the
sample.

Condition
4:
Standards
exist
and
can
be
maintained
to
control
its
operation.
The
LOD
lacks
a
clearly
defined
procedure
for
estimating
the
important
terms
required
to
derive
it.
Although
it
may
be
possible
to
derive
LOD
values
from
data
used
to
derive
EPA
MDL
values,
there
is
no
procedure
giving
explicit
instructions
on
the
use
of
replicate
blanks,
replicate
spiked
samples,
or
a
minimum
recommendation
for
the
number
of
replicates.
Therefore,
the
LOD
fails
this
condition.

Condition
5:
It
has
attracted
widespread
acceptance
within
a
relevant
scientific
community.
Because
ACS
does
not
develop
and
publish
analytical
methods,
it
is
difficult
to
determine
the
degree
of
acceptance
of
the
LOD.
EPA
has
not
specifically
investigated
the
numbers
of
papers
published
in
ACS
journals
that
include
LOD
values,
and
EPA's
literature
search
for
detection
and
quantitation
approaches
did
not
uncover
a
large
number
of
citations
that
promote
the
LOD
in
particular.
However,
ACS
LOD
values
have
appeared
in
the
technical
literature.
Given
that
ACS
is
a
relevant
scientific
community,
and
that
use
of
the
LOD
has
appeared
in
the
technical
literature,
EPA
believes
the
LOD
meets
this
condition.

5.1.3.2.2
Criterion
2:
The
approach
should
address
demonstrated
expectations
of
laboratory
and
method
performance,
including
routine
variability.

The
LOD
approach
is
designed
to
address
demonstrated
expectations
of
laboratory
and
method
performance,
including
routine
variability,
and
thus
appears
to
meet
this
criterion.
Unfortunately,
ACS
has
not
published
a
procedure
to
implement
the
approach.
In
other
words,
the
LOD
addresses
demonstrated
expectations
of
laboratory
and
method
performance
in
theory,
but
in
practice,
provides
no
direct
means
for
performing
these
demonstrations.
Therefore,
EPA
believes
the
ACS
LOD
only
partially
meets
this
criterion.

5­
12
February
2003
Chapter
5
5.1.3.2.3
Criterion
3:
The
approach
should
be
supported
by
a
practical
and
affordable
procedure
that
a
single
laboratory
can
use
to
evaluate
method
performance.

The
ACS
LOD
approach
is
not
supported
by
a
clearly
defined
procedure
for
establishing
the
LOD.
Therefore,
it
fails
this
criterion.

5.1.3.2.4
Criterion
4:
The
detection
level
approach
should
identify
the
signal
or
estimated
concentration
at
which
there
is
99%
confidence
that
the
substance
is
actually
present
when
the
analytical
method
is
performed
by
experienced
staff
in
a
well­
operated
laboratory.

The
1983
publication
associated
the
LOD
with
the
"
99%
confidence
level
when
the
difference
(
St
­
Sb
)
>
3F."
Therefore,
the
LOD
satisfies
this
criterion.

5.1.3.2.5
Criterion
6:
The
detection
level
approach
should
identify
the
signal
or
estimated
concentration
at
which
there
is
99%
confidence
that
the
substance
is
actually
present
when
the
analytical
method
is
performed
by
experienced
staff
in
a
well­
operated
laboratory.
In
the
absence
of
a
procedure
for
determining
LOD
values,
the
ACS
LOD
fails
to
meet
this
criterion
because
it
cannot
be
used
in
a
regulatory
context.
The
LOD
passes
only
if
it
is
assumed
to
be
functionally
equivalent
to
the
MDL
(
i.
e.,
the
MDL
procedure
is
used
to
establish
an
LOD).

5.1.4
Evaluation
of
the
IUPAC/
ISO
Critical
Value
(
CRV)

The
critical
value
(
CRV)
was
developed
by
the
International
Union
of
Pure
and
Applied
Chemistry
(
IUPAC)
and
the
International
Organization
for
Standardization
(
ISO).
IUPAC
and
ISO
are
professional
societies
for
chemists
and
other
scientists.
ISO
develops
and
publishes
analytical
methods
through
its
Task
Groups.
In
1995,
Lloyd
Currie
of
the
National
Institute
for
Standards
and
Technology
(
NIST;
formerly
the
National
Bureau
of
Standards)
published
a
signature
discussion
of
IUPAC
approaches
for
detection
and
quantitation
(
Pure
and
Appl.
Chem.
67:
10,
1699­
1722).
Although
refined
during
the
intervening
years
(
see
Currie,
L.
A.,
J.
Radiochem.
And
Nuclear
Chem.
245:
1,
145­
156,
2000),
the
CRV
approach
remains
basically
as
described
in
1995.

5.1.4.1
Description
of
the
ISO/
IUPAC
Critical
Value
(
CRV)
Approach
and
Procedure
The
1995
article
states
that
the
critical
value
(
Lc
)
is:

"...
the
minimum
significant
value
of
an
estimated
net
signal
or
concentration,
applied
as
a
discriminator
against
background
noise.
This
corresponds
to
a
1­
sided
significance
test. 

For
a
normal
distribution
with
known
variance,
Lc
reduces
to:

Lc
=
z(
1­")
F0
where:

1­"
is
the
false
positive
error
rate,
recommended
at
5
%
("
=
0.05),
and
F0
is
the
standard
deviation
at
zero
concentration
February
2003
5­
13
Assessment
of
Detection
and
Quantitation
Approaches
If
F0
is
estimated
by
s0
(
replicate
measurements
of
a
blank),
z(
1­")
is
replaced
by
the
Student s
t­
value.
For
7
replicates
(
6
degrees
of
freedom),
the
Student s
t­
value
is
1.943,
where
"
=
0.05.

5.1.4.2
Assessment
of
the
CRV
Against
the
Evaluation
Criteria
The
following
five
subsections
discuss
the
CRV
approach
and
procedure
in
the
context
of
the
five
evaluation
criteria
that
concern
detection
limit
approaches
(
i.
e.,
Criteria
1­
4,
and
Criterion
6).

5.1.4.2.1
Criterion
1:
The
detection
and
quantitation
limit
approaches
should
be
scientifically
valid.

Condition
1:
It
can
be
(
and
has
been)
tested.
The
lack
of
a
supporting
procedure
for
establishing
the
CRV,
coupled
with
it s
conceptual
dependence
on
the
variability
of
blank
measurements
makes
testing
of
the
approach
difficult.
For
example,
if
blank
measurements
fail
to
produce
a
response,
it
is
impossible
to
calculate
a
CRV
because
the
standard
deviation
of
zero
is
zero.
One
solution
for
testing
the
approach
is
to
assume
that
the
CRV
is
functionally
equivalent
to
the
MDL
as
the
blank
signal
approaches
zero,
and
use
a
slightly
modified
version
of
the
MDL
procedure
to
test
the
CRV
approach.
The
slight
modification
involves
selecting
a
Student s
t­
value
based
on
"
=
0.05
instead
of
"
=
0.01,
for
n­
1
degrees
of
freedom.
EPA
believes
this
is
a
reasonable
assumption,
and
therefore,
that
the
MDL
procedure
is
a
viable
means
for
testing
the
CRV
approach.
Therefore,
the
CRV
meets
this
condition.

Condition
2:
It
has
been
subjected
to
peer
review
and
publication.
The
IUPAC/
ISO
definitions
meet
this
criterion.
Moreover,
it
is
likely
that
these
definitions
have
received
greater
peer
review
than
any
of
the
other
approaches.

Condition
3:
The
error
rate
associated
with
the
procedure
is
either
known
or
can
be
estimated.
The
error
rate
is
specified
by
",
with
a
suggested
value
of
0.05
(
5%).
Therefore,
the
CRV
meets
this
condition.

Condition
4:
Standards
exist
and
can
be
maintained
to
control
its
operation.
The
CRV
is
defined
in
the
various
publications
by
Currie.
However,
EPA s
search
of
the
literature
and
the
ISO
web
site
found
no
standard
for
control
of
the
approach.
Therefore,
the
CRV
fails
this
condition.

Condition
5:
It
has
attracted
widespread
acceptance
within
a
relevant
scientific
community.
Because
IUPAC
and
ISO
are
international
bodies,
it
is
difficult
to
determine
the
degree
of
acceptance
of
the
CRV
in
the
U.
S.
and
the
world
community.
EPA
has
not
specifically
investigated
the
number
of
papers
in
published
journals
that
include
CRV
values,
but
EPA's
literature
search
for
detection
and
quantitation
approaches
did
not
uncover
a
large
number
of
citations
that
promote
the
CRV
in
particular.
Therefore,
it
is
difficult
to
determine
if
the
CRV
meets
this
condition.

5.1.4.2.2
Criterion
2:
The
approach
should
address
demonstrated
expectations
of
laboratory
and
method
performance,
including
routine
variability.

The
CRV
approach
is
designed
to
account
for
the
variability
of
measurements
of
the
blank
in
the
context
of
a
 
chemical
measurement
process 
(
method).
Unfortunately,
neither
ISO,
IUPAC,
nor
Currie
have
published
a
procedure
to
implement
the
approach.
As
a
result,
the
CRV
addresses
demonstrated
expectations
of
laboratory
and
method
performance
in
theory,
but
in
practice,
provides
no
direct
means
for
performing
these
demonstrations.
Therefore,
EPA
believes
the
CRV
partially
meets
this
criterion.

5­
14
February
2003
Chapter
5
5.1.4.2.3
Criterion
3:
The
approach
should
be
supported
by
a
practical
and
affordable
procedure
that
a
single
laboratory
can
use
to
evaluate
method
performance
The
CRV
approach
is
not
supported
by
a
clearly
defined
procedure
for
establishing
a
CRV.
Therefore,
the
CRV
fails
this
criterion.

5.1.4.2.4
Criterion
4:
The
detection
level
approach
should
identify
the
signal
or
estimated
concentration
at
which
there
is
99%
confidence
that
the
substance
is
actually
present
when
the
analytical
method
is
performed
by
experienced
staff
in
a
well­
operated
laboratory.

Although
the
CRV
suggests
"
=
0.05,
resulting
in
1­"
of
0.95
or
95
%
probability
of
detection,
the
approach
allows
for
the
specification
of
other
probabilities.
Therefore,
the
CRV
satisfies
this
criterion.

5.1.4.2.5
Criterion
6:
Detection
and
quantitation
approaches
should
be
applicable
to
the
variety
of
decisions
made
under
the
Clean
Water
Act,
and
should
support
state
and
local
obligations
to
implement
measurement
requirements
that
are
at
least
as
stringent
as
those
set
by
the
Federal
government.

In
the
absence
of
a
procedure
for
establishing
CRVs,
the
CRV
approach
fails
to
meet
this
criterion
because
it
cannot
be
used
in
a
regulatory
context.
The
CRV
passes
only
if
it
is
assumed
to
be
functionally
equivalent
to
an
MDL
determined
with
"
set
at
0.05
instead
of
0.01
(
i.
e.,
if
the
MDL
procedure,
with
"=
0.05,
is
used
to
establish
a
CRV).

5.1.5
Evaluation
of
the
IUPAC/
ISO
Detection
Limit
The
detection
limit
or
minimum
detectable
value
(
MDV)
was
developed
by
IUPAC/
ISO
and
published
in
the
same
papers
as
the
CRV
(
Section
5.1.4)

5.1.5.1
Description
of
the
IUPAC/
ISO
Detection
Limit
Procedure
The
1995
publications
define
the
minimum
detectable
value
(
detection
limit)
as
follows:

"
The
Minimum
Detectable
Value
(
MDV)
...
[
is]
...
the
net
signal
(
or
concentration)
of
that
value
(
LD
)
for
which
the
false
negative
error
is
$,
given
LC
(
or
"). 
(
see
the
CRV
for
LC
)

For
a
normal
distribution
with
known
variance,
LD
reduces
to:

LD
=
z(
1­$)
FD
where:
z
is
the
state
variable
1­
$
is
the
false
negative
error
rate,
recommended
at
5
%
($
=
0.05),
and
FD
is
the
standard
deviation
at
the
detection
limit
Earlier
publications
refer
to
the
minimum
detectable
value
as
the
detection
limit.
To
avoid
confusion
in
terminology
and
to
help
distinguish
the
ISO/
IUPAC
approach
from
the
MDL,
LOD,
and
CRV,
EPA
will
refer
to
the
ISO/
IUPAC
detection
limit
as
the
Minimum
Detectable
Value,
abbreviated
as
MDV.

February
2003
5­
15
Assessment
of
Detection
and
Quantitation
Approaches
5.1.5.2
Assessment
of
the
ISO/
IUPAC
MDV
Against
the
Evaluation
Criteria
The
following
five
subsections
discuss
the
ISO/
IUPAC
MDV
approach
and
procedure
in
the
context
of
the
five
evaluation
criteria
that
concern
detection
limit
approaches
(
i.
e.,
Criteria
1­
4,
and
Criterion
6).

5.1.5.2.1
Criterion
1:
The
detection
and
quantitation
limit
approaches
should
be
scientifically
valid.

Condition
1:
It
can
be
(
and
has
been)
tested.
The
lack
of
a
supporting
procedure
for
establishing
the
MDV
makes
testing
of
the
approach
difficult.
However,
EPA
believes
that
the
MDV
can
be
tested
using
data
similar
to
those
used
to
generate
MDL
values.
Therefore,
the
MDV
meets
this
condition.

Condition
2:
It
has
been
subjected
to
peer
review
and
publication.
The
IUPAC/
ISO
definitions
meet
this
condition;
moreover,
it
is
likely
that
this
definition
has
received
greater
peer
review
than
any
of
the
other
approaches.

Condition
3:
The
error
rate
associated
with
the
procedure
is
either
known
or
can
be
estimated.
The
error
rates
are
specified
by
"
and
$,
both
with
suggested
values
of
0.05
(
5
%).
Therefore,
the
error
rate
is
known.

Condition
4:
Standards
exist
and
can
be
maintained
to
control
its
operation.
The
MDV
is
defined
in
the
various
publications
by
Currie.
However,
EPA s
search
of
the
literature
and
the
ISO
web
site
found
no
standard
for
control
of
the
approach.
Therefore,
the
MDV
fails
this
criterion.

Condition
5:
It
has
attracted
widespread
acceptance
within
a
relevant
scientific
community.
Because
IUPAC
and
ISO
are
international
bodies,
it
is
difficult
to
determine
the
degree
of
acceptance
of
the
MDV
in
the
U.
S.
and
the
world
community.
EPA
has
not
specifically
investigated
the
number
of
papers
in
published
journals
that
include
MDV
values,
but
EPA's
literature
search
for
detection
and
quantitation
approaches
did
not
uncover
a
large
number
of
citations
that
promote
the
MDV
in
particular.
Therefore,
it
is
difficult
to
determine
if
the
CRV
meets
this
criterion.

5.1.5.2.2
Criterion
2:
The
approach
should
address
demonstrated
expectations
of
laboratory
and
method
performance,
including
routine
variability.

The
MDV
approach
is
designed
to
account
for
the
variability
of
measurements
of
the
blank
in
the
context
of
a
 
chemical
measurement
process 
in
the
sense
that
it
is
used
in
concert
with
a
critical
value
that
is
based
on
blank
measurement
variability.
The
MDV
is
the
true
concentration
that
is
used
in
the
planning
of
method
evaluation
and
development.
The
actual
detection
decision
is
made
at
the
critical
value
(
CRV)
which
is
determined
from
measured
values.
The
approach
of
a
true
concentration
MDV
and
its
associated
allowance
for
false
negatives
is
of
little
practical
value
in
making
the
actual
detection
decision.
Therefore,
the
MDV
fails
this
criterion.
The
allowance
for
false
negatives
in
a
regulatory
context
is
discussed
in
greater
detail
in
Chapter
3.

5.1.5.2.3
Criterion
3:
The
approach
should
be
supported
by
a
practical
and
affordable
procedure
that
a
single
laboratory
can
use
to
evaluate
method
performance
The
MDV
approach
is
not
supported
by
a
clearly
defined
procedure
for
establishing
MDV
values.
Therefore,
the
MDV
fails
this
criterion.

5­
16
February
2003
Chapter
5
5.1.5.2.4
Criterion
4:
The
detection
level
approach
should
identify
the
signal
or
estimated
concentration
at
which
there
is
99%
confidence
that
the
substance
is
actually
present
when
the
analytical
method
is
performed
by
experienced
staff
in
a
well­
operated
laboratory.

The
allowance
for
false
negatives
raises
the
probability
of
detection
to
a
value
estimated
to
be
greater
than
99.999999
%
(
probability
of
a
false
positive
less
than
10­
8
).
This
protection
against
false
positive
results
is
excessive
and
would
yield
numerical
values
of
little
practical
value
for
making
the
detection
decision.
Perhaps
more
importantly,
as
noted
by
Currie
(
1995)
and
discussed
in
Section
5.1.2.2.4
of
this
document,
the
detection
decision
is
made
on
the
basis
of
comparing
sample
measurements
to
the
critical
value.
Therefore,
the
MDV
fails
this
criterion.

5.1.5.2.5
Criterion
6:
Detection
and
quantitation
approaches
should
be
applicable
to
the
variety
of
decisions
made
under
the
Clean
Water
Act,
and
should
support
state
and
local
obligations
to
implement
measurement
requirements
that
are
at
least
as
stringent
as
those
set
by
the
Federal
government
In
the
absence
of
a
procedure
for
establishing
MDV
values,
the
MDV
approach
fails
to
meet
this
criterion
because
it
cannot
be
used
in
a
regulatory
context.

5.2
Quantitation
Limit
Approaches
Sections
5.2.1
through
5.2.4
describe
EPA s
assessment
of
four
quantitation
limit
approaches.
Each
discussion
is
divided
into
two
major
subsections.
The
first
subsection
describes
the
approach
and,
where
applicable,
the
procedure
that
supports
the
approach,
and
the
second
subsection
details
EPA s
assessment
of
the
approach
based
on
the
five
criteria
established
in
Chapter
4
for
evaluating
quantitation
limit
approaches.

Note:
Six
criteria
are
given
in
Chapter
4.
Four
of
these
pertain
to
both
detection
and
quantitation
limit
approaches.
Criterion
4
pertains
only
to
detection
limit
approaches
and
Criterion
5
pertains
only
to
quantitation
limit
approaches.
Therefore,
the
discussions
of
each
detection
and
quantitation
limit
approach
that
follow
will
omit
the
criterion
that
does
not
apply.

5.2.1
Assessment
of
the
EPA
Minimum
level
of
Quantitation
(
ML)

Section
5.2.2.1
provides
an
overview
of
the
ML
approach
and
the
procedures
used
to
implement
the
approach.
Section
5.2.2.2
contains
EPA s
assessment
of
the
ML
against
the
five
evaluation
criteria
that
concern
quantitation
limit
approaches
(
i.
e.,
Criteria
1­
3,
and
Criteria
5
and
6).

5.2.1.1
Description
of
the
ML
Approach
and
Procedures
The
present
definition
of
the
ML
includes
a
statement
of
the
approach
and
the
procedures
used
to
establish
the
ML.
This
definition
states
that
the
ML
is:

 
the
lowest
level
at
which
the
entire
analytical
system
must
give
a
recognizable
signal
and
acceptable
calibration
point
for
the
analyte.
It
is
equivalent
to
the
concentration
of
the
lowest
calibration
standard,
assuming
that
all
method­
specified
sample
weights,
volumes,
and
clean
up
procedures
have
been
employed.
The
ML
is
calculated
by
multiplying
the
MDL
by
3.18
and
rounding
the
results
to
the
number
nearest
to
(
1,
2,
or
5)
x
10n
,
where
n
is
an
integer. 

February
2003
5­
17
Assessment
of
Detection
and
Quantitation
Approaches
The
ML
is
designed
to
provide
a
practical
embodiment
of
the
quantification
level
proposed
by
Currie
and
adopted
by
IUPAC.
It
is
functionally
analogous
to
Currie s
 
determination
limit 
(
described
in
Chapter
2,
Section
2.1)
and
the
American
Chemical
Society s
Limit
of
Quantitation
(
LOQ).
The
LOQ
is
discussed
in
Section
5.2.3
of
this
chapter.
Chapter
2
(
Section
2.2.2)
describes
the
ML
approach
in
additional
detail.

The
first
part
of
the
ML
definition
(
i.
e.,
the
lowest
level
at
which
the
system
gives
a
recognizable
signal
and
acceptable
calibration
point
for
the
analyte)
ties
the
quantification
limit
to
the
capabilities
of
the
measurement
system.
The
second
part
of
the
ML
definition
provides
a
procedural
means
for
establishing
the
ML.

The
procedural
component
of
the
definition
is
designed
to
yield
an
ML
value
that
equals
approximately
10
times
the
standard
deviation
of
replicate
analyses
used
to
determine
the
MDL.
(
The
exact
value
corresponding
to
10
times
the
standard
deviation
is
rounded
to
avoid
error
that
would
arise
from
preparation
of
calibration
standards
at
exact,
unrounded
concentrations.)
The
procedure
given
in
the
above
definition
assumes
that
exactly
seven
replicates
are
used
to
determine
the
MDL.
EPA
has
observed,
however,
that
laboratories
occasionally
perform
MDL
studies
with
more
than
the
required
minimum
of
seven
replicates.
When
this
is
done,
the
Student's
t­
value
used
to
calculate
the
MDL
should
be
adjusted
accordingly.
Similarly,
the
Student s
t­
value
would
need
to
be
adjusted
when
a
laboratory
performs
the
optional
iterative
test
described
in
Step
7
of
the
MDL
procedure,
or
if
outlier
testing
results
in
the
use
of
less
than
seven
replicates
to
establish
the
MDL.
Therefore,
EPA
believes
that
the
ML
definition
should
be
revised
to
eliminate
the
assumption
of
seven
replicates
and
clarify
its
functional
equivalence
to
Currie s
critical
value
and
ACS 
LOQ.
In
addition,
a
detailed
procedure
should
be
developed
to
ensure
proper
calculation
of
the
ML
when
more
than
seven
replicates
are
used
to
establish
the
MDL
or
when
iterative
testing
is
used
to
establish
the
MDL.

5.2.1.2
Assessment
of
the
ML
against
the
Evaluation
Criteria
The
following
five
subsections
discuss
the
ML
approach
and
procedure
in
the
context
of
the
five
evaluation
criteria
that
concern
quantitation
limit
approaches
(
i.
e.,
Criteria
1­
3,
and
Criteria
5
and
6).

5.2.1.2.1
Criterion
1:
The
detection
and
quantitation
limit
approaches
should
be
scientifically
valid.

Condition
1:
It
can
be
(
and
has
been)
tested.
The
ML
meets
this
condition.
The
ML
has
been
used
experimentally
since
1979
and
in
the
regulatory
context
since
1984.
The
ML
is
tested
each
time
a
laboratory
calibrates
an
instrument
because
methods
that
include
the
ML
require
that
it
be
included
as
the
lowest
non­
zero
standard
in
these
calibrations.

Moreover,
EPA
exhaustively
tested
the
MDL
and
ML
procedure
with
10
different
techniques
at
decreasing
spike
concentrations
to
evaluate
how
well
the
MDL
and
ML
procedures
characterized
the
region
of
interest
in
preparation
for
this
reassessment
of
detection
and
quantitation
limit
approaches.
Results
of
the
study
suggest
that
1)
although
the
calculated
MDL
and
ML
could
vary
depending
on
the
spike
level
used,
the
procedure
was
capable
of
reasonably
estimating
detection
and
quantitation
limits
when
the
full
iterative
MDL
procedure
was
employed,
and
2)
the
rounding
process
employed
to
determine
the
ML
generally
yielded
consistent
MLs
even
with
slight
variations
in
the
calculated
MDL.

In
other
words,
if
the
procedure
for
establishing
an
ML
is
properly
implemented
for
a
given
method,
it
will
yield
an
ML
value
that
is
consistent
with
the
approach,
and
this
ML
value
will
be
verified
(
tested)
by
a
laboratory
each
and
every
time
it
calibrates
the
instrument
used
to
analyze
samples
by
the
method.

5­
18
February
2003
Chapter
5
Condition
2:
It
has
been
subjected
to
peer
review
and
publication.
The
ML
has
not
been
published
in
a
peer
reviewed
journal.
However,
it
was
evaluated
by
four
peer
reviewers
as
part
of
EPA s
assessment
of
detection
and
quantitation
limits.
These
reviewers
noted
that:

 
The
MDL
and
ML
concepts
evaluated
in
Section
5.1.1
and
5.2.1,
respectively,
are
shown
in
this
evaluation
to
be
technically
sound
and
practical. 
(
Wait,
2002)

 
With
respect
to
the
limit
of
quantitation
concept,
the
EPA
ML
is
as
good
as
any
of
the
others
given... 
(
Rocke,
2002)

 
The
MDL
and
ML
have
stood
the
test
of
time
and
provide
a
proven
methodology
which
meets
evaluation
criteria
stated
in
the
TSD. 
(
Cooke,
2002).

In
addition,
the
present
definition
of
the
ML
describes
the
approach
and
the
procedures
used
to
establish
the
ML.
This
definition
is
included
in
EPA
Method
1631,
which
was
extensively
peer
reviewed
in
accordance
with
EPA
policies
on
peer
review
prior
to
publication
and
promulgation.
Given
that
EPA s
policies
on
peer
review
are
as
stringent
as
or
more
stringent
than
those
used
by
many
published
journals,
EPA
believes
that
the
ML
has
met
a
high
standard
of
scientific
review
and
scrutiny,
and
therefore,
meets
the
intent
of
this
condition.

Condition
3:
The
error
rate
associated
with
the
procedure
is
either
known
or
can
be
estimated.
The
uncertainty
associated
with
any
ML
value
can
be
calculated.
EPA
performed
such
calculations
during
this
assessment
and
found
that,
on
average
across
all
techniques
tested,
the
relative
standard
deviation
of
replicate
measurements
at
the
ML
was
approximately
7%.
Median
RSD
values
calculated
for
each
multianalyte
method
tested
ranged
from
6
to
14
percent.
RSD
values
calculated
for
each
single­
analyte
method
tested
ranged
from
4
to
16
percent.
(
See
Appendix
C
to
this
Assessment
Document
for
a
detailed
discussion
and
presentation
of
results.)

Condition
4:
Standards
exist
and
can
be
maintained
to
control
its
operation.
The
ML
meets
this
criterion.
Detailed
procedures
(
i.
e.,
standards)
for
establishing
the
ML
are
given
in
the
definition
itself,
although,
as
noted
above,
EPA
believes
that
a
detailed,
stand­
alone
procedure
should
be
created
to
ensure
that
the
ML
is
properly
calculated
when
other
than
seven
replicates
are
used
in
its
determination.

Condition
5:
It
has
attracted
widespread
acceptance
within
a
relevant
scientific
community.
EPA
believes
the
ML
meets
this
condition.
The
ML
is
functionally
analogous
to
the
American
Chemical
Society s
LOQ
and
to
the
ISO/
IUPAC
quantification
limit,
suggesting
widespread
acceptance.

5.2.1.2.2
Criterion
2:
The
approach
should
address
demonstrated
expectations
of
laboratory
and
method
performance,
including
routine
variability.

The
ML
procedure
is
designed
to
provide
a
means
by
which
a
laboratory
can
demonstrate
performance
with
a
method
under
routine
laboratory
operating
conditions.
All
recently
developed
EPA
CWA
methods
require
that
a
laboratory
calibrate
its
instrument
prior
to
analyzing
environmental
samples.
The
ML
is
defined
as
the
lowest
non­
zero
standard
in
the
laboratory s
calibration,
and
therefore,
reflects
realistic
expectations
of
laboratory
performance
with
a
given
method
under
routine
laboratory
conditions
(
i.
e.,
under
conditions
of
routine
variability).

Also,
the
ML
is
based
on
the
standard
deviation
of
replicate
analyses
used
to
establish
the
MDL.
As
described
in
Section
5.1.1.2.2,
these
analyses
are
performed
to
characterize
laboratory
and
method
performance,
including
routine
variability,
at
low
concentrations.
When
a
laboratory
performs
an
MDL
February
2003
5­
19
Assessment
of
Detection
and
Quantitation
Approaches
study
with
seven
replicates
and
multiplies
the
results
by
3.18,
the
laboratory
has
demonstrated
that
it
can
achieve
expected
levels
of
performance
at
the
ML.

EPA
recognizes
that
one
laboratory
may
obtain
an
MDL
or
ML
that
is
lower
or
higher
than
those
in
another
laboratory.
If
the
ML
is
being
established
during
method
development,
it
is
important
to
determine
the
ML
at
more
than
one
laboratory
to
ensure
that
the
published
ML
reflects
demonstrated
expectations
of
method
performance
in
a
community
of
laboratories.
EPA
does
not
believe
this
community
should
be
so
broad
as
to
include
the
entire
universe
of
possible
laboratories
that
might
desire
to
practice
the
method.
Rather,
EPA
believes
that
this
community
should
include
well­
operated
laboratories
that
are
experienced
with
the
techniques
used
in
the
method
and
that
have
some
familiarity
with
the
method.
See
Section
5.1.1.2.2
for
additional
discussion
of
this
topic.

5.2.1.2.3
Criterion
3:
The
approach
should
be
supported
by
a
practical
and
affordable
procedure
that
a
single
laboratory
can
use
to
evaluate
method
performance.

The
ML
is
designed
for
use
by
a
single
laboratory.
The
ML
can
be
directly
determined
from
the
MDL,
which
is
among
the
most
affordable
of
procedures
for
determining
detection
limits
(
see
discussion
in
Section
5.1.1.2.3
for
additional
details
regarding
affordability).
As
a
result,
the
ML
is
among
the
most
affordable
of
procedures
for
determining
quantitation
limits.

5.2.1.2.4
Criterion
5:
The
quantitation
limit
approach
should
identify
the
concentration
that
gives
a
recognizable
signal
that
is
consistent
with
the
capabilities
of
the
method
when
a
method
is
performed
by
experienced
staff
in
well­
operated
laboratories.

The
ML
meets
this
criterion.
The
ML
can
be
verified
in
a
laboratory
each
time
it
calibrates
an
instrument.
This
calibration
is
dependent
on
identifying
a
recognizable
signal
for
the
analyte.
In
addition,
because
EPA
includes
the
ML
as
the
low
point
in
the
calibration
range,
that
concentration
is
within
the
capabilities
of
the
method,
as
demonstrated
by
either
multiple
single­
laboratory
studies
or
a
multi­
laboratory
study
of
the
method.

5.2.1.2.5
Criterion
6:
Detection
and
quantitation
approaches
should
be
applicable
to
the
variety
of
decisions
made
under
the
Clean
Water
Act,
and
should
support
state
and
local
obligations
to
implement
measurement
requirements
that
are
at
least
as
stringent
as
those
set
by
the
Federal
government.

The
ML
meets
this
criterion.
It
has
been
used
successfully
to
support
state
and
local
obligations
under
the
Clean
Water
Act
since
1984.

5.2.2
Assessment
of
the
IQE
The
Interlaboratory
Quantitation
Estimate
(
IQE)
was
developed
by
ASTM
International
with
support
from
members
of
the
regulated
industry
in
an
attempt
to
provide
a
scientifically
sound,
comprehensive
quantitation
limit
procedure
that
addresses
the
concerns
of
the
regulated
industry,
statisticians,
and
analysts
involved
in
ASTM
Committee
D
19
on
water.
A
brief
summary
of
the
procedure
for
establishing
an
IQE
is
given
in
Section
5.2.2.1.
Section
5.2.2.2
presents
EPA s
assessment
of
the
IQE
against
the
five
criteria
established
for
evaluating
quantitation
limit
approaches
(
i.
e.,
Criteria
1­
3,
and
Criteria
5
and
6).

5­
20
February
2003
Chapter
5
5.2.2.1
Description
of
the
IQE
Approach
and
Procedure
The
ASTM
Designation
D
6512
is
the
Standard
Practice
Interlaboratory
Quantitation
Estimate.
As
stated
in
the
practice:

"
IQEZ%
is
computed
to
be
the
lowest
concentration
for
which
a
single
measurement
from
a
laboratory
selected
from
the
population
of
qualified
laboratories
represented
in
an
interlaboratory
study
will
have
an
estimated
Z
%
relative
standard
deviation
(
Z
%
RSD,
based
on
interlaboratory
standard
deviation),
where
Z
is
typically
an
integer
multiple
of
10,
such
as
10,
20,
or
30,
but
Z
can
be
less
than
10."

The
IQE
is
determined
and
verified
using
a
procedure
containing
5
major
steps
with
approximately
46
substeps
and
conditions.
The
full
text
of
the
IQE
procedure
is
available
from
ASTM
International.
The
5
major
steps
and
their
functions
are
given
in
Section
6
of
the
IQE
procedure
and
are
summarized
below:

1.
Overview
of
the
procedure.

2.
IQE
Study
Plan,
Design,
and
Protocol
­
in
this
section,
the
task
manager
(
study
supervisor)
chooses
the
analyte,
matrix,
and
analytical
method.
Details
are
given
for
the
appropriate
range
of
study
concentrations;
the
model
of
recovery
vs.
concentration;
the
study
protocol
(
ASTM
Practice
D
2777
is
suggested);
the
instructions
to
be
given
to
the
participating
laboratories,
including
reporting
requirements;
the
allowable
sources
of
variation;
and
the
number
of
laboratories,
analysts,
measurement
systems,
and
days
over
which
the
study
will
be
conducted.

3.
Conduct
the
IQE
Study,
Screen
the
Data,
and
Choose
a
Model
­
after
the
study
data
are
collected
and
screened
according
to
ASTM
Practice
D
2777,
the
interlaboratory
standard
deviation
(
ILSD)
versus
concentration
data
are
tabulated
and
one
of
three
models
is
fit
to
the
data.
The
first
attempt
is
at
fitting
a
constant
model.
If
the
attempt
fails,
a
straight­
line
model
is
attempted.
If
the
straight­
line
model
fails,
a
hybrid
(
Rocke/
Lorenzato)
model
is
fit.
After
fitting,
the
model
is
evaluated
for
reasonableness
and
lack
of
fit.
If
the
model
fails,
the
study
supervisor
determines
if
a
subset
of
the
data
should
be
analyzed
or
if
more
data
are
needed.

4.
Compute
the
IQE
­
the
IQE
is
computed
using
the
ILSD
model
selected
in
Step
3
to
estimate
the
relative
standard
deviation
as
a
function
of
concentration.
The
first
attempt
is
at
10%
RSD
(
IQE10%
).
If
this
attempt
fails,
IQE20%
is
tried,
then
IQE30%
.
IQEs
greater
than
30%
are
not
recommended.

5.
Nontrivial
Amount
of
Censored
Data
­
this
section
of
the
IQE
procedure
addresses
the
effect
of
"
non­
detects"
or
"
less­
thans."
Suggestions
are
given
to
see
if
uncensored
data
can
be
obtained
from
the
laboratories
or
if
the
study
needs
to
be
augmented
with
additional
data.
Suggestions
are
given
for
fitting
a
model
to
data
that
contain
less
than
10%
non­
detects
or
less­
thans
to
produce
an
IQE.

5.2.2.2
Assessment
of
the
IQE
Against
the
Evaluation
Criteria
The
following
five
subsections
discuss
the
IQE
approach
and
procedure
in
the
context
of
the
five
evaluation
criteria
that
concern
detection
limit
approaches
(
i.
e.,
Criteria
1­
3,
and
Criteria
5
and
6).

February
2003
5­
21
Assessment
of
Detection
and
Quantitation
Approaches
5.2.2.2.1
Criterion
1:
The
detection
and
quantitation
limit
approaches
should
be
scientifically
valid.

Condition
1:
It
can
be
(
and
has
been)
tested.
EPA
is
not
aware
of
any
organization,
including
ASTM,
that
has
conducted
a
study
to
test
the
IQE
procedure
as
written
(
i.
e.,
designed
and
implemented
an
interlaboratory
study
involving
multi­
laboratory
analysis
of
multiple
concentrations
of
each
matrix
of
interest).
It
has
been
tested
by
its
developers
using
simulated
data
sets
and
on
interlaboratory
data
sets
that
do
not
adequately
characterize
the
low
level
region
of
interest.
As
part
of
this
reassessment,
EPA
tested
a
variant
of
the
IQE
procedure
on
single­
laboratory
data
sets
that
were
designed
to
characterize
an
analytical
method
in
the
region
of
detection
and
quantitation.
Despite
the
lack
of
comprehensive
testing
performed
to
date,
however,
EPA
believes
that
the
IQE
procedure
can
be
tested
if
sufficient
resources
are
invested.
In
other
words,
the
IQE
meets
the
condition
that
it
 
can
be 
tested,
but
only
partially
meets
the
condition
that
it
 
has
been 
tested.

Condition
2:
It
has
been
subjected
to
peer
review
and
publication.
Although
the
IQE
has
not
been
published
in
the
peer­
reviewed
scientific
literature,
the
IQE
has
undergone
extensive
review
and
ballot
by
members
of
ASTM
Committee
D
19,
many
of
whom
are
qualified
peer
reviewers.
Therefore,
although
the
IQE
does
not
meet
this
condition
in
the
sense
of
formal
peer
review
and
publication,
EPA
believes
it
does
meet
the
intent
of
this
condition
(
i.
e.,
submission
to
scrutiny
of
the
scientific
community).

Condition
3:
The
error
rate
associated
with
the
procedure
is
either
known
or
can
be
estimated.
In
theory,
an
expert
statistician
could
estimate
the
error
rate
of
the
IQE.
However,
the
IQE
procedure
is
extremely
complex
from
an
analytical
chemistry
and
statistical
perspective.
As
a
result,
it
is
unlikely
that
the
error
rate
could
be
estimated
by
the
staff
of
an
environmental
testing
laboratory.
Moreover,
in
attempting
to
follow
the
IQE
procedure
during
this
reassessment,
EPA
found
the
procedure
to
be
highly
subjective,
particularly
with
respect
to
selection
of
an
appropriate
model.
The
subjective
nature
of
the
procedure
is
likely
to
yield
different
IQEs
from
the
same
data
set,
depending
on
the
staff
involved
in
analyzing
the
data
and
performing
the
calculations.
(
The
likelihood
of
this
problem
is
illustrated
in
Appendix
C
to
this
Assessment
Document.)
EPA
believes
such
conditions
make
it
difficult,
if
not
impossible,
to
estimate
the
actual
error
associated
with
the
IQE.
Therefore,
the
IQE
fails
this
condition.

Condition
4:
Standards
exist
and
can
be
maintained
to
control
its
operation.
The
IQE
approach
and
procedure
is
supported
by
a
published
procedure
(
standard)
to
control
its
operation.
The
procedure
gives
the
steps
to
be
followed
in
determining
the
IQE
and
instructs
the
study
supervisor
how
to
gather
the
data
and
compute
an
IQE.

However,
there
are
several
"
gray
areas"
in
the
published
procedure.
The
most
significant
gray
area
is
in
model
selection.
The
procedure
provides
insufficient
guidance
on
the
use
of
residual
plots
as
a
basis
for
selecting
models
and
as
a
result,
selection
of
the
model
may
be
very
subjective,
especially
if
the
number
of
concentrations
is
low.
The
discussion
of
what
model
to
use
after
rejecting
the
hybrid
and
linear
models
also
is
very
vague.
The
exponential
model
is
mentioned,
as
well
as
models
with
more
than
one
coefficient.
Much
of
the
data
evaluated
by
EPA
tended
to
suggest
the
exponential
model,
based
on
the
statistical
tests
discussed.
However,
those
data
have
almost
always
shown
residual
 
patterns 
when
using
this
model,
which
would
then
lead
to
consideration
of
other
models.
In
addition,
fitting
the
 
constant
model 
is
never
discussed
in
detail.
Most
likely,
this
is
done
by
simply
calculating
a
mean
(
weighted
if
necessary)
of
the
variances
from
the
different
concentrations,
however
such
a
calculation
never
explicitly
stated.

As
discussed
under
Condition
4
of
Section
5.1.2.2.1
(
scientific
validity
of
the
IDE
procedure),
EPA
also
is
concerned
about
inconsistencies
between
the
IDE
and
IQE
that
suggest
conceptual
problems
with
these
standards.
Finally,
EPA
observed
that
the
IQE
contains
statistical
errors
that,
if
followed
as
written,
could
produce
inaccurate
IQE
values.
For
example,
the
computations
for
weighted
least
squares
5­
22
February
2003
Chapter
5
given
in
Table
1
of
the
procedure
are
incorrect.
The
formulae
for
the
weighted
means
of
the
spike
values
and
results
given
in
Table
1
of
D6512
would
only
be
appropriate
if
the
weighting
were
done
based
on
the
number
of
replicates
per
spike
level,
rather
than
on
the
estimated
variance
calculated
using
the
chosen
standard
deviation
model.

Based
on
these
findings
(
along
with
those
discussed
under
Criterion
2
below),
EPA
believes
that,
although
the
IQE
is
supported
by
a
published
procedure,
the
procedure
is
not
sufficient
to
control
operation
of
the
IQE
because
of
the
high
degree
of
subjectivity
involved
in
implementing
the
procedure,
statistical
errors
in
the
procedure,
and
internal
inconsistencies
with
the
IDE.
Therefore,
the
IQE
fails
this
condition.

Condition
5:
It
has
attracted
widespread
acceptance
within
a
relevant
scientific
community.
The
IQE
fails
this
condition
because
it
is
familiar
to,
and
has
been
accepted
only
by,
a
very
narrow
segment
of
the
scientific
community.
Although
the
IQE
has
been
approved
by
ASTM
for
more
than
2
years,
EPA
has
not
found
an
IQE
in
the
open
literature
or
in
an
analytical
method,
including
an
ASTM
method.

5.2.2.2.2
Criterion
2:
The
approach
should
address
demonstrated
expectations
of
laboratory
and
method
performance,
including
routine
variability.

The
IQE
procedure
is
designed
to
reflect
expectations
of
interlaboratory
performance,
including
routine
variability.
The
procedure
contains
extensive
instructions
for
dealing
with
unusual
conditions,
including
sources
of
variability
and
outliers.
Based
on
studies
of
the
single­
laboratory
variant
of
the
procedure
in
which
the
model
selection
proved
to
be
highly
subjective,
EPA
is
skeptical
about
the
procedure
being
able
to
demonstrate
realistic
expectations
of
laboratory
and
method
performance.

The
IQE
procedure
suggests
attempting
to
fit
study
results
to
a
constant,
linear,
or
hybrid
model.
If
all
of
these
fail,
the
procedure
suggests
trying
a
different
model,
such
as
the
exponential
model.
(
The
exponential
model
figures
more
prominently
in
the
IDE
procedure,
where
it
is
one
of
the
three
main
models
discussed,
replacing
the
Rocke
and
Lorenzato
model.)
Although
the
exponential
model
may
be
appropriate
for
the
IDE
(
which
is
not
tied
to
a
fixed
RSD),
it
yields
unacceptable
results
when
applied
to
the
IQE
procedure.
Under
the
exponential
model,
relative
variability
(
standard
deviation
divided
by
the
true
concentration)
is
a
parabolic
function
(
i.
e.,
as
concentration
increases,
relative
variability
decreases
down
to
a
specific
percentage,
and
then
begins
to
increase).
This
is
not
realistic
of
laboratory
and
method
performance.
In
addition,
the
exponential
model
will
often
result
in
having
two
possible
values
each
for
IQE10%
,
IQE20%
,
and
IQE30%
.

Another
concern
with
the
IQE
procedure
is
that
use
of
the
non­
mandatory
appendices
in
ASTM
D
6512
to
determine
the
fit
of
a
model
may
produce
results
that
differ
from
those
that
would
be
obtained
using
the
default
procedures
for
testing
model
fit
that
are
built
into
off­
the­
shelf
statistical
software.

Given
the
subjectivity
and
confusion
involved
in
selecting
the
model,
EPA
tried
using
the
same
data
set
to
calculate
a
single­
laboratory
variant
of
the
IQE
with
each
of
the
available
models
and
found
that
the
calculated
IQEs
varied
widely
when
different
models
were
used.

Based
on
the
problems
described
above,
EPA
believes
the
IQE
fails
this
criterion.

5.2.2.2.3
Criterion
3:
The
approach
should
be
supported
by
a
practical
and
affordable
procedure
that
a
single
laboratory
can
use
to
evaluate
method
performance.

The
IQE
procedure
is
neither
practical
nor
affordable
in
a
single­
laboratory
context..
It
is
designed
for
use
by
an
ASTM
study
supervisor
or
task
manager
and
not
as
a
procedure
that
a
single
February
2003
5­
23
Assessment
of
Detection
and
Quantitation
Approaches
laboratory
can
use
to
evaluate
method
performance.
EPA
is
aware
that
ASTM
Committee
D
19
is
contemplating
development
of
a
within­
laboratory
quantitation
estimate
(
WQE),
but
the
WQE
has
not
been
approved
through
an
ASTM
ballot
and
therefore,
it
cannot
be
adequately
evaluated
at
this
time.
The
WQE
may
meet
this
criterion,
but
the
IQE
does
not.

Regarding
affordability,
EPA
estimates
that
the
cost
of
implementing
IQE
procedure
would
be
more
than
twice
the
cost
of
EPA's
present
implementation
of
the
ML.
The
increased
cost
stems
from
the
additional
low­
level
data
required
to
assure
that
variability
versus
concentration
is
being
characterized
in
the
region
of
detection
and
quantitation,
challenges
involved
in
applying
the
statistical
procedures
in
the
IQE,
and
because
of
the
anticipated
reanalysis
and
rework
required
if
either
the
procedure
failed
to
produce
an
IQE
or
if
the
resulting
IQE
failed
to
meet
the
specifications
in
the
IQE
procedure.

5.2.2.2.4
Criterion
5:
The
quantitation
limit
approach
should
identify
the
concentration
that
gives
a
recognizable
signal
that
is
consistent
with
the
capabilities
of
the
method
when
a
method
is
performed
by
experienced
staff
in
well­
operated
laboratories.

If
the
IQE
were
developed
in
an
interlaboratory
study
that
met
the
requirements
of
D
6512,
the
calculated
IQE
would
likely
be
achievable
by
experienced
staff
in
a
well­
operated
laboratory.
Therefore,
the
IQE
passes
this
criterion.
However,
EPA
also
notes
that
although
it
passes
the
criterion,
based
on
this
assessment,
EPA
believes
that
it
is
very
likely
that
the
IQE
may
not
identify
the
lowest
concentration
at
which
the
signal
is
recognizable
when
the
method
is
performed
by
experienced
staff
in
a
well­
operated
laboratory.

5.2.2.2.5
Criterion
6:
Detection
and
quantitation
approaches
should
be
applicable
to
the
variety
of
decisions
made
under
the
Clean
Water
Act,
and
should
support
state
and
local
obligations
to
implement
measurement
requirements
that
are
at
least
as
stringent
as
those
set
by
the
Federal
government
Although
the
IQE
could
be
applied
to
some
decisions
to
be
made
under
CWA,
it
may
not
support
decisions
when
pollutant
levels
need
to
be
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment
because
the
IQE
may
be
considerably
higher
than
these
levels.
At
best,
the
IQE
only
partially
passes
this
criterion.

5.2.3
Assessment
of
the
ACS
Limit
of
Quantitation
The
Limit
of
Quantitation
(
LOQ)
was
developed
by
the
Committee
on
Environmental
Improvement
of
the
American
Chemical
Society
(
ACS)
and
published
in
the
same
two
papers
as
the
LOD.

5.2.3.1
Description
of
the
ACS
LOQ
Approach
and
Procedure
The
1983
"
Principles"
define
the
LOQ
as:

"...
the
level
above
which
quantitative
results
may
be
obtained
with
a
specified
degree
of
confidence."

The
same
relationship
used
to
define
the
LOD
is
used
for
the
LOQ:

but
the
recommended
minimal
value
for
Kd
be
set
at
10.
Thus,
the
LOQ
is
10F
above
the
gross
blank
signal,
Sb
.
According
to
the
1983
publication,
the
LOQ
corresponds
to
an
uncertainty
of
±
30%
(
10F
±
5­
24
February
2003
Chapter
5
3F).
This
uncertainty
statement
is
based
on
F
equal
to
10%
of
the
LOQ.
Other
statements
of
uncertainty
are,
of
course,
possible
using
knowledge
of
F
and/
or
the
RSD.

Neither
the
1980
nor
1983
ACS
publications
provide
a
specific
procedure
for
estimating
the
LOQ,
nor
do
they
provide
a
minimum
number
of
observations
needed
to
estimate
the
gross
blank
signal
or
the
variability
term
Fb
.

5.2.3.2
Assessment
of
the
ACS
LOQ
Against
the
Evaluation
Criteria
The
following
five
subsections
discuss
the
ACS
LOQ
approach
and
procedure
in
the
context
of
the
five
evaluation
criteria
that
concern
detection
limit
approaches
(
i.
e.,
Criteria
1­
3,
and
Criteria
5
and
6).

5.2.3.2.1
Criterion
1:
The
detection
and
quantitation
limit
approaches
should
be
scientifically
valid.

Condition
1:
It
can
be
(
and
has
been)
tested.
Testing
of
the
LOQ
is
hampered
by
1)
the
lack
of
a
supporting
procedure
for
establishing
an
LOQ,
and
2)
its
conceptual
dependence
on
the
variability
of
blank
measurements.
If
the
blank
measurements
fail
to
produce
a
response,
it
is
impossible
to
calculate
an
LOQ
because
the
standard
deviation
of
zero
is
zero.
One
solution
for
testing
the
approach
is
to
assume
that
the
LOQ
is
functionally
equivalent
to
the
ML
as
the
blank
signal
approaches
zero.
EPA
believes
this
is
a
reasonable
assumption,
and
therefore,
that
the
ML
procedure
is
a
viable
means
for
testing
the
LOQ
approach.
Therefore,
the
LOQ
meets
this
condition.

Condition
2:
It
has
been
subjected
to
peer
review
and
publication.
The
ACS
LOQ
definition
was
published
in
the
peer­
reviewed
journal
Analytical
Chemistry
in
1980
and
1983.
Therefore,
the
ACS
LOQ
meets
this
condition.

Condition
3:
The
error
rate
associated
with
the
procedure
is
either
known
or
can
be
estimated.
The
definition
of
the
LOQ
specifically
estimates
the
uncertainty
associated
with
a
concentration
at
the
LOQ
as
±
30%
based
on
10%
RSD.
Other
valid
statements
in
terms
of
%
RSD
may
be
made
based
on
study
requirements,
policy
judgments
and/
or
specific
results.
For
example,
the
estimate
of
an
uncertainty
of
±
30%
based
on
10%
RSD
is
inconsistent
with
EPA
and
ISO/
IUPAC
estimations
that
place
the
uncertainty
at
±
20%
(
at
±
2F),
and
is
inconsistent
with
the
Episode
6000
data
that
place
the
median
RSD
at
7%
and
therefore,
the
±
2F
uncertainty
at
approximately
±
14%.

Condition
4:
Standards
exist
and
can
be
maintained
to
control
its
operation.
The
ACS
LOQ
lacks
a
clearly
defined
procedure
for
estimating
the
important
terms
required
to
derive
it.
Although
it
may
be
possible
to
derive
ACS
LOQ
values
from
data
used
to
derive
EPA
MDL
values,
there
is
no
discussion
of
using
replicate
blanks,
replicate
spiked
samples,
or
a
minimum
recommendation
for
the
number
of
replicates.
Therefore,
the
ACS
LOQ
fails
this
condition.

Condition
5:
It
has
attracted
widespread
acceptance
within
a
relevant
scientific
community.
Because
the
ACS
does
not
develop
and
publish
reference
analytical
methods,
it
is
difficult
to
determine
the
degree
of
acceptance
of
the
LOQ.
EPA
has
not
investigated
the
numbers
of
papers
published
in
ACS
journals
that
include
LOQ
values,
but
EPA's
literature
search
for
detection
and
quantitation
approaches
did
not
uncover
a
large
number
of
citations
that
promote
the
LOQ
in
particular.

February
2003
5­
25
Assessment
of
Detection
and
Quantitation
Approaches
5.2.3.2.2
Criterion
2:
The
approach
should
address
demonstrated
expectations
of
laboratory
and
method
performance,
including
routine
variability
The
LOQ
approach
is
designed
to
address
demonstrated
expectations
of
laboratory
and
method
performance,
including
routine
variability,
and
therefore,
it
appears
to
meet
this
criterion.
Unfortunately,
ACS
has
not
published
a
procedure
to
implement
the
approach.
In
other
words,
the
LOQ
addresses
demonstrated
expectations
of
laboratory
and
method
performance
in
theory,
but
in
practice,
provides
no
direct
means
for
performing
these
demonstrations.
Therefore,
EPA
believes
the
ACS
LOQ
only
partially
meets
this
criterion.

5.2.3.2.3
Criterion
3:
The
approach
should
be
supported
by
a
practical
and
affordable
procedure
that
a
single
laboratory
can
use
to
evaluate
method
performance.

The
ACS
LOQ
approach
is
not
supported
by
a
clearly
defined
procedure
for
establishing
the
LOQ.
Therefore,
it
fails
this
criterion.

5.2.3.2.4
Criterion
5:
The
quantitation
limit
approach
should
identify
the
concentration
that
gives
a
recognizable
signal
that
is
consistent
with
the
capabilities
of
the
method
when
a
method
is
performed
by
experienced
staff
in
well­
operated
laboratories.

Given
the
relationship
of
the
ACS
LOQ
to
the
ML,
EPA
believes
the
LOQ
meets
this
criterion
for
the
reasons
outlined
in
Section
5.2.1.2.4,
which
discusses
EPA s
assessment
of
the
ML
against
Criterion
4
for
evaluating
quantitation
limit
approaches.

5.2.3.2.5
Criterion
6:
Detection
and
quantitation
approaches
should
be
applicable
to
the
variety
of
decisions
made
under
the
Clean
Water
Act,
and
should
support
state
and
local
obligations
to
implement
measurement
requirements
that
are
at
least
as
stringent
as
those
set
by
the
Federal
government.

In
the
absence
of
a
procedure
for
determining
LOQ
values,
the
ACS
LOQ
fails
to
meet
this
criterion
because
it
cannot
be
used
in
a
regulatory
context.
The
LOQ
passes
this
criterion
only
if
it
is
assumed
to
be
functionally
equivalent
to
the
ML
(
i.
e.,
the
ML
procedure
is
used
to
establish
an
LOQ).

5.2.4
Assessment
of
the
IUPAC/
ISO
Limit
of
Quantitation
A
similar
LOQ
approach
was
developed
by
IUPAC/
ISO
and
published
in
the
same
papers
as
the
CRV
and
MDV
(
see
Sections
5.1.4
and
5.1.5).

5.2.4.1
Description
of
the
ISO/
IUPAC
LOQ
Approach
The
1995
"
Recommendations"
define
the
LOQ
as:

"...
the
ability
of
a
CMP
[
chemical
measurement
process]
to
adequately
 
quantify 
an
analyte.
The
ability
to
quantify
is
generally
expressed
in
terms
of
the
signal
or
analyte
(
true)
value
that
will
produce
estimates
having
a
specified
relative
standard
deviation
(
RSD),
commonly
10
%. 

The
relationship
used
to
define
the
LOQ
is:

LQ
=
KQ
×
FQ
5­
26
February
2003
Chapter
5
The
recommended
value
for
KQ
is
10.
Thus,
the
LOQ
is
10F
above
the
blank
signal,
FQ
.

5.2.4.2
Assessment
of
the
IUPAC/
ISO
LOQ
Against
the
Evaluation
Criteria
The
following
five
subsections
discuss
the
IUPAC/
ISO
LOQ
approach
and
procedure
in
the
context
of
the
five
evaluation
criteria
that
concern
detection
limit
approaches
(
i.
e.,
Criteria
1­
3,
and
Criteria
5
and
6).

5.2.4.2.1
Criterion
1:
The
detection
and
quantitation
limit
approaches
should
be
scientifically
valid.

Condition
1:
It
can
be
(
and
has
been)
tested.
Testing
of
the
IUPAC/
ISO
LOQ
is
hampered
by
1)
the
lack
of
a
supporting
procedure
for
establishing
and
LOQ,
and
2)
it s
conceptual
dependence
on
the
variability
of
blank
measurements.
If
the
blank
measurements
fail
to
produce
a
response,
it
is
impossible
to
calculate
an
LOQ
because
the
standard
deviation
of
zero
is
zero.
One
solution
for
testing
the
approach
is
to
assume
that
the
ISO/
IUPAC
LOQ
is
functionally
equivalent
to
the
ML
as
the
blank
signal
approaches
zero.
EPA
believes
this
is
a
reasonable
assumption,
and
that
the
ML
procedure
is
a
viable
means
for
testing
the
LOQ
approach.
Therefore,
the
ISO/
IUPAC
LOQ
meets
this
condition.

Condition
2:
It
has
been
subjected
to
peer
review
and
publication.
The
IUPAC/
ISO
LOQ
definition
has
been
published
by
Currie
in
the
peer­
reviewed
journals
Pure
and
Appl.
Chem.
in
1995;
in
Anal.
Chim.
Acta
in
1999,
in
Chemometrics
and
Intelligent
Lab
Systems
in
1997;
and
in
J.
Radioanal.
and
Nuclear
Chem.
in
2000.
Therefore,
the
IUPAC/
ISO
LOQ
meets
this
condition.

Condition
3:
The
error
rate
associated
with
the
procedure
is
either
known
or
can
be
estimated.
EPA
used
data
generated
in
the
Episode
6000
study
to
estimate
the
error
rate
associated
with
the
LOQ.
The
Episode
6000
results
show
that
the
median
error
across
all
analytes
and
analytical
techniques
at
10F
is
approximately
±
14%
with
approximately
95%
confidence.

Condition
4:
Standards
exist
and
can
be
maintained
to
control
its
operation.
The
IUPAC/
ISO
LOQ
lacks
a
clearly
defined
procedure
for
estimating
the
important
terms
required
to
derive
it.
Although
it
may
be
possible
to
derive
IUPAC/
ISO
LOQ
values
from
data
used
to
derive
EPA
MDL
values,
there
is
no
discussion
of
using
replicate
blanks,
replicate
spiked
samples,
or
a
minimum
recommendation
for
the
number
of
replicates.
Therefore,
EPA
believes
that
the
IUPAC/
ISO
LOQ
fails
this
condition.

Condition
5:
It
has
attracted
widespread
acceptance
within
a
relevant
scientific
community.
Acceptance
by
the
scientific
community
is
not
known.
Acceptance
would
be
indicated
by
use
of
the
LOD
in
ISO
methods.
EPA
did
not
perform
a
search
of
ISO
methods
because
of
copyright
restrictions.
However,
EPA's
literature
search
for
detection
and
quantitation
approaches
in
the
open
technical
literature
did
not
uncover
a
large
number
of
citations
that
reference
the
LOQ.
Therefore,
it
is
difficult
to
determine
if
the
ISO/
IUPAC
LOQ
meets
this
condition.

5.4.2.2.2
Criterion
2:
The
approach
should
address
demonstrated
expectations
of
laboratory
and
method
performance,
including
routine
variability.

The
most
recent
publication
on
the
IUPAC/
ISO
LOQ
(
J.
Radioanal.
and
Nuclear
Chem.,
op.
cit.)
provides
insight
into
this
issue
through
measurements
of
14
C
by
accelerator
mass
spectrometry.
Therefore,
EPA
believes
that
the
IUPAC/
ISO
LOQ
passes
this
criterion
for
at
least
some
measurement
techniques.

February
2003
5­
27
Assessment
of
Detection
and
Quantitation
Approaches
5.4.2.2.3
Criterion
3:
The
approach
should
be
supported
by
a
practical
and
affordable
procedure
that
a
single
laboratory
can
use
to
evaluate
method
performance.

The
ISO/
IUPAC
LOQ
approach
is
not
supported
by
a
clearly
defined
procedure
for
establishing
the
LOQ.
Therefore,
it
fails
this
criterion.

5.4.2.2.4
Criterion
5:
The
quantitation
limit
approach
should
identify
the
concentration
that
gives
a
recognizable
signal
that
is
consistent
with
the
capabilities
of
the
method
when
a
method
is
performed
by
experienced
staff
in
well­
operated
laboratories.

Given
the
relationship
of
the
IUPAC/
ISO
LOQ
to
the
ML,
EPA
believes
that
the
LOQ
satisfies
this
criterion
for
the
reasons
outlined
in
Section
5.2.1.2.4,
which
discusses
EPA s
assessment
of
the
ML
against
Criterion
4
for
evaluating
quantitation
limit
approaches.

5.4.2.2.5
Criterion
6:
Detection
and
quantitation
approaches
should
be
applicable
to
the
variety
of
decisions
made
under
the
Clean
Water
Act,
and
should
support
state
and
local
obligations
to
implement
measurement
requirements
that
are
at
least
as
stringent
as
those
set
by
the
Federal
government
In
the
absence
of
a
procedure
for
determining
LOQ
values,
the
ISO/
IUPAC
LOQ
fails
to
meet
this
criterion
because
it
cannot
be
used
in
a
regulatory
context.
The
ISO/
IUPAC
LOQ
passes
only
if
the
ML
procedure
is
used
to
establish
an
LOQ.

5­
28
February
2003
Table
5­
1.
Assessment
of
Detection
Limit
Approaches
Against
Evaluation
Criteria
Evaluation
Criteria
MDL
IDE
ACS
LOD
ISO/
IUPAC
CRV
ISO/
IUPAC
MDV
The
detection
limit
approach
should
be
scientifically
valid:

 
It
can
be
(
and
has
been
tested)

 
Has
undergone
peer
review
and
publication
 
Has
an
error
rate
that
is
known
or
can
be
estimated
 
Has
standards
that
can
be
maintained
to
control
its
operation
 
Has
achieved
widespread
acceptance
in
a
relevant
scientific
community
Meets
all
5
conditions
for
scientific
validity
with
slight
modifications
noted
to
clarify
understanding
of
error
rate.
Meets
1,
partially
meets
1,
and
fails
3
of
the
5
conditions
for
scientific
validity.

 
Can
be,
but
has
not
been
fully
tested
(
partial)

 
Subjectivity
makes
calculation
of
error
rate
impossible
(
fails)

 
Has
a
standard
but,
due
to
the
high
degree
of
subjectivity,
errors,

and
conceptual
inconsistency,
it
is
unlikely
to
control
its
operation
(
fails)

 
Is
familiar
to
and
accepted
by
a
very
narrow
segment
of
the
scientific
community
(
fails)
Meets
4
of
the
5
conditions
for
scientific
validity.

 
No
standards
exist
to
control
its
operation
Meets
3
of
the
5
conditions
for
scientific
validity.

 
No
standards
exist
to
control
its
operation
 
Degree
of
acceptance
is
unclear
Meets
3
of
the
5
conditions
for
scientific
validity.

 
No
standard
exist
to
control
its
operation
 
Degree
of
acceptance
is
unclear
The
approach
should
address
demonstrated
expectations
of
laboratory
and
method
performance,
including
routine
variability.
Can
meet
this
criterion
if
properly
applied.
Conceptually
passes
this
criterion,

but
fails
in
practice
due
to
problems
with
model
selection
Partially
meets
the
criterion.
Approach
meets
the
criterion
but
no
procedure
for
implementing
the
approach
is
given.

Passes
the
criterion
only
if
equivalency
to
the
MDL
is
assumed.
Partially
meets
this
criterion.
Approach
meets
the
criterion
but
no
procedure
for
implementing
the
approach
is
given.

Passes
the
criterion
only
if
equivalency
to
the
MDL
is
assumed.
Could
be
used
in
planning
method
development
and
evaluation
studies
as
recommended
but
not
in
operational
detection
decision
making.

The
approach
should
be
supported
by
a
practical
and
affordable
procedure
that
a
single
laboratory
can
use
to
evaluate
method
performance.
Meets
this
criterion.

Procedure
can
be
performed
by
a
single
laboratory
during
a
single
shift,
or
for
method
development
by
multiple
labs
in
a
single
shift
Fails
this
criterion.
Requires
interlaboratory
study
involving
a
reference
lab
or
coordinating
body,
a
minimum
of
6
complete
data
sets,

and
a
skilled
statistician.
The
cost
of
implementing
this
procedure
would
exceed
most
method
development
budgets.
Fails
this
criterion.

No
procedure
provided.
Fails
this
criterion.

No
procedure
provided.
Fails
this
criterion.

No
procedure
provided.
5­
29
5­
30
Table
5­
1.
Assessment
of
Detection
Limit
Approaches
Against
Evaluation
Criteria
Evaluation
Criteria
MDL
IDE
ACS
LOD
ISO/
IUPAC
CRV
ISO/
IUPAC
MDV
The
detection
level
approach
should
identify
the
signal
or
estimated
concentration
at
which
there
is
99%
confidence
that
the
substance
is
actually
present
when
the
analytical
method
is
performed
by
experienced
staff
in
a
well­
operated
laboratory.
Meets
this
criterion.
When
the
allowance
for
false
negatives
and
for
prediction
and
tolerance
are
taken
into
account,
the
resulting
detection
limit
(
IDE)
is
raised
to
the
point
at
which
detection
probability
is
estimated
to
be
greater
than
99.999999%;
this
yields
numerical
values
that
have
no
practical
meaning
as
a
detection
standard.
Therefore,
the
IDE
fails
this
criterion.
Meets
this
criterion.
Meets
this
criterion.
The
MDV
is
a
true
concentration
value
not
used
in
the
actual
detection
decision.

Does
not
meet
the
criterion.

Detection
and
quantitation
approaches
should
be
applicable
to
the
variety
of
decisions
made
under
the
Clean
Water
Act,
and
should
support
state
and
local
obligations
to
implement
measurement
requirements
that
are
at
least
as
stringent
as
those
set
by
the
Federal
government.
Meets
this
criterion.
At
best,
only
partially
passes
this
criterion.
Not
likely
to
meet
this
criterion
in
instances
in
which
a
compliance
limit
is
close
to
a
detection
limit
determined
by
a
procedure
such
as
the
MDL.
In
the
absence
of
a
procedure
for
determining
LOD
values,
fails
to
meet
this
criterion.
In
the
absence
of
a
procedure
for
determining
CRV
values,
fails
to
meet
this
criterion.
In
the
absence
of
a
procedure
for
determining
MDV
values,
fails
to
meet
this
criterion.
5­
31
Table
5­
2.

Evaluation
Criteria
ML
IQE
ACS
LOQ
ISO/
IUPAC
LOQ
The
quantitation
limit
approach
should
be
scientifically
valid.

 
It
can
be
(
and
has
been
tested)

 
Has
undergone
peer
review
and
publication
 
Has
an
error
rate
that
is
known
or
can
be
estimated
 
Has
standards
that
can
be
maintained
to
control
its
operation
 
Has
achieved
widespread
acceptance
in
a
relevant
scientific
community
Meets
all
5
conditions
for
scientific
validity,

though
slight
modification
to
the
definition
is
suggested
to
improve
operation
when
other
than
7
replicates
are
used
to
estimate
the
ML.
Meets
1
condition,
partially
meets
1
condition,
and
fails
3
conditions.

 
Can
be,
but
has
not
been
fully
tested
(
partial)

 
Error
rate
cannot
be
estimated
due
to
problems
with
the
procedure
(
fail)

 
Standards
are
not
likely
to
control
its
operation
(
fail)

 
Has
not
achieved
widespread
acceptance
(
fail)
Meets
3
of
the
5
conditions
for
scientific
validity.

 
Lacks
a
standard
to
control
its
operation
 
Difficult
to
determine
the
degree
of
acceptance
Meets
4
of
the
5
conditions
for
scientific
validity.

 
Lacks
a
standard
to
control
its
operation
 
Difficult
to
determine
the
degree
of
acceptance
The
approach
should
address
demonstrated
expectations
of
laboratory
and
method
performance,
including
routine
variability.
Meets
this
criterion.

Procedure
can
be
performed
by
a
single
laboratory
during
a
single
shift,

or
for
method
development
by
multiple
labs
in
a
single
shift.
Fails
this
criterion
due
to
subjectivity,

errors,
and
theoretical
inconsistencies
in
the
procedure.
Partially
meets
this
criterion.

The
approach
is
designed
to
address
these
expectations
but
in
practice,
there
is
no
procedure
for
performing
such
demonstrations.
Meets
this
criterion.

The
approach
should
be
supported
by
a
practical
and
affordable
procedure
that
a
single
laboratory
can
use
to
evaluate
method
performance.
Meets
this
criterion.
Fails
this
criterion.
Requires
interlaboratory
study
involving
a
reference
lab
or
coordinating
body,
6
complete
data
sets,
and
a
highly
skilled
statistician.

this
procedure
would
exceed
most
method
development
budgets.
Fails
this
criterion.
Fails
this
criterion.

The
quantitation
limit
approach
should
identify
the
concentration
that
gives
a
recognizable
signal
that
is
consistent
with
the
capabilities
of
the
method
when
a
method
is
performed
by
experienced
staff
in
well­
operated
laboratories.
Meets
this
criterion.
Meets
this
criterion,
but
is
not
likely
to
estimate
the
lowest
level
at
which
reliable
measurements
can
be
made
by
an
experienced
analyst
in
a
well
operated
lab
Meets
this
criterion.
Meets
this
criterion.

Assessment
of
Quantitation
Limit
Approaches
Against
Evaluation
Criteria
The
cost
of
implementing
5­
32
Table
5­
2.

Evaluation
Criteria
ML
IQE
ACS
LOQ
ISO/
IUPAC
LOQ
Assessment
of
Quantitation
Limit
Approaches
Against
Evaluation
Criteria
Detection
and
quantitation
approaches
should
be
applicable
to
the
variety
of
decisions
made
under
the
Clean
Water
Act,
and
should
support
state
and
local
obligations
to
implement
measurement
requirements
that
are
at
least
as
stringent
as
those
set
by
the
Federal
government.
Meets
this
criterion.
At
best,
only
partially
passes
this
criterion.
Fails
for
those
instances
in
which
the
IQE
limit
is
greater
than
an
effluent
limit
or
water
quality­
based
limit.
Fails
this
criterion.

absence
of
a
procedure
for
determining
ACS
LOQ
values,
the
ACS
LOQ
cannot
be
used
in
a
regulatory
context.
Fails
this
criterion.

absence
of
a
procedure
for
determining
LOQ
values,
the
ISO/
IUPAC
used
in
a
regulatory
context.

In
the
In
the
LOQ
cannot
be
Chapter
6
Conclusions
This
chapter
summarizes
the
results
of
EPA s
assessment
of
detection
and
quantitation
limit
approaches.
This
assessment,
which
is
detailed
in
the
previous
five
chapters,
was
based
on:

 
Identification
of
relevant
approaches
to
include
in
the
assessment
(
Chapter
2),
 
Identification
of
issues
that
may
be
relevant
to
the
assessment
from
an
analytical
chemistry,
statistical,
or
regulatory
perspective
(
Chapter
3),
 
Development
of
criteria
that
reflect
EPA s
views
concerning
these
issues
(
Chapter
4)
and
form
the
primary
basis
for
evaluating
the
ability
of
each
approach
to
meet
EPA
needs
under
the
Clean
Water
Act,
 
Assessment
of
how
well
each
approach
met
the
evaluation
criteria
(
Chapter
5),
and,
 
Use
of
real­
world
data
to
evaluate
both
the
theoretical
and
practical
limitations
of
each
approach
(
Appendices
B
and
C).

EPA
evaluated
four
sets
of
detection
and
quantitation
limit
approaches
advanced
by
EPA,
ASTM
International,
ACS,
and
both
ISO
and
IUPAC.
Each
approach
was
assessed
against
the
suite
of
criteria
described
in
Chapter
4.
The
EPA
approaches
(
i.
e.,
the
MDL
and
ML)
and
the
ASTM
International
approaches
(
i.
e.,
the
IDE
and
IQE)
were
supported
by
clearly
defined
procedures
for
implementing
the
approach.
Neither
the
ACS
nor
the
ISO/
IUPAC
approaches
are
supported
by
detailed
procedures
for
implementation;
this
lack
of
supporting
procedures
was
reflected
in
the
outcome
of
EPA s
overall
assessment.

After
evaluating
each
approach
against
each
of
the
evaluation
criteria,
EPA
found
that
1)
no
single
pair
of
detection
and
quantitation
limit
approaches
perfectly
meets
EPA s
criteria,
2)
the
MDL
and
ML
are
closest
to
meeting
EPA s
criteria,
and
3)
minor
revisions
and
clarifications
to
the
MDL
and
ML
would
allow
both
approaches
to
fully
meet
the
Agency s
needs
under
the
CWA.

EPA
also
found
that,
although
the
IDE
and
IQE
procedures
may
be
acceptable
for
planning
and
implementing
interlaboratory
studies
to
develop
and
validate
analytical
methods,
there
are
a
number
of
difficulties
with
these
procedures
that
make
them
unsuitable
as
the
primary
means
of
establishing
sensitivity
under
the
Clean
Water
Act.
In
particular,
the
IDE
is
analogous
by
definition
and
formulaic
construction
to
the
 
Detection
Limit 
defined
by
Currie
(
1968,
1995),
while
it
is
Currie s
 
Critical
Value 
approach
that
is
most
relevant
to
Agency
needs
under
the
CWA.
Currie
(
1995)
states
that
the
decision
 
detected 
or
 
not
detected 
is
made
by
comparison
of
the
estimated
quantity
or
measured
value
with
the
critical
value.
Currie
describes
his
 
Detection
Limit 
as
a
true
concentration
that
has
a
high
probability
of
generating
measured
values
that
exceed
the
critical
value,
and
states
that
the
single
most
important
application
of
the
detection
limit
is
for
planning
and
evaluation
of
measurement
procedures
and
that
the
detection
limit:

 ...
allows
one
to
judge
whether
the
CMP
(
Chemical
Measurement
Process)
under
consideration
is
adequate
for
detection
requirements.
This
is
in
sharp
contrast
to
application
of
the
critical
value
for
decision
making,
given
the
result
of
a
measurement. 

It
is
important
to
note
that
the
formulation
of
the
MDL
is
analogous
to
the
Currie
critical
value,
and
as
such,
is
intended
to
be
used
to
make
detection
decisions
in
the
manner
described
by
Currie
(
i.
e.,
the
MDL
is
designed
and
used
to
make
the
decision
of
 
detected 
or
 
not
detected ).
EPA
believes
that
form
of
detection
decision
best
supports
the
use
of
 
detection
limits 
under
CWA
programs.

February
2003
6­
1
Assessment
of
Detection
and
Quantitation
Approaches
In
contrast,
although
the
IDE
is
intended
to
be
used
in
a
manner
analogous
to
Currie s
critical
value
(
i.
e.,
to
make
the
decision
of
 
detected 
or
 
not
detected ),
it
is,
by
definition
and
design,
functionally
analogous
to
Currie s
detection
limit
(
i.
e.,
it
identifies
a
concentration
that
will
have
a
high
probability
of
generating
measured
values
that
exceed
the
critical
value).
(
See
Chapter
2,
Section
2.1
for
a
discussion
of
Currie s
critical
value
and
detection
limit).

Other
drawbacks
with
the
ASTM
International
approach
include
the
complexities
of
the
IDE
and
IQE
procedures,
along
with
their
inability
to
address
individual
laboratory
performance.
Despite
these
limitations,
however,
EPA
believes
the
IDE
and
IQE
can
be
used
to
establish
sensitivity
for
certain
applications.
For
example,
consider
the
theoretical
situation
of
an
ASTM
method
for
the
determination
of
an
analyte
regulated
under
the
NPDES
program
that
uses
the
IDE
or
IQE
to
describe
method
sensitivity
and
for
which
the
value
of
the
IDE
or
IQE
was
below
the
relevant
criterion
or
regulatory
limit.
EPA
would
evaluate
the
overall
performance
of
such
a
method
for
approval
at
40
CFR
part
136,
despite
the
fact
that
the
method
did
not
contain
an
MDL
determined
using
the
procedure
described
in
40
CFR
part
136,
Appendix
B.
(
See
Chapter
3,
Section
3.2.8
for
a
more
in­
depth
discussion
of
using
alternative
procedures
to
establish
sensitivity.)

EPA s
assessment
of
the
theoretical
and
practical
applications
of
each
detection
and
quantitation
approach
(
see
Appendices
B
and
C)
is
summarized
in
Exhibit
6­
1.
This
exhibit
suggests
that
no
approach
produces
the
 
right 
answer,
and
that
different
approaches
produce
different
detection
and
quantitation
limits.
Observed
differences
are
largely
due
to
different
sources
of
variability
accounted
for
among
the
approaches.

As
part
of
this
assessment,
EPA
identified
the
need
for
approaches
that
can
support
CWA
programs,
including:

­
method
performance
verification
at
a
laboratory,
­
method
development
and
promulgation,
­
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
applications,
­
non­
regulatory
studies
and
monitoring,
­
descriptive
versus
prescriptive
uses
of
lower
limits
to
measurement,
and
­
use
of
a
pair
of
related
detection
and
quantitation
procedures
in
all
OW
applications
EPA
has
concluded
that
the
MDL
and
ML
can
meet
all
of
these
applications
and
that
the
addition
of
a
scope
and
application
section
to
the
procedure
would
help
clarify
use
of
the
MDL
for
these
applications.
However,
as
noted
in
Chapter
3,
outside
organizations
use
different
detection
and
quantitation
approaches
that
meet
their
own
needs.
Given
EPA s
diverse
needs
and
desire
to
encourage
the
development
of
improved
measurement
techniques,
EPA
does
not
believe
it
is
necessary
or
appropriate
to
require
the
exclusive
use
of
the
MDL
and
ML
approaches
in
CWA
programs.
As
indicated
above,
EPA
would
allow
use
of
alternative
detection
and
quantitation
procedures
to
establish
detection
and
quantitation
limits
in
an
analytical
method,
provided
that
the
resulting
detection
and
quantitation
limits
meet
the
sensitivity
needs
for
the
specific
application.

6­
2
February
2003
Chapter
6
Exhibit
6­
1:
Theoretical
and
Practical
Application
of
Each
Approach
Finding
1:
Each
approach
yields
different
values.
Detection
Limit
Approaches
 
The
EPA
MDL
and
ACS
LOD
approaches,
which
are
functionally
analogous,
produced
detection
limits
that
are
a
median
of
1.25
times
higher
than
the
limits
produced
by
the
CRV
advanced
by
ISO
and
IUPAC
(
Appendix
C
of
this
document).
 
The
Minimum
Detectable
Value
(
MDV)
advanced
by
ISO
and
IUPAC
produced
detection
limits
that
are
a
median
of
1.2
times
higher
than
the
limits
produced
by
the
MDL
and
LOD
approaches
(
Appendix
C
of
this
document).
 
A
single­
laboratory
variant
of
the
IDE
(
the
IDE
has
been
advanced
by
ASTM
International)
produced
detection
limits
that
are
a
median
of
2.9
times
higher
than
the
median
limits
produced
by
the
MDL
and
LOD
approaches
(
Appendix
C
of
this
document).
This
result
is
not
surprising
given
that
the
IDE
is
functionally
analogous
to
Currie's
detection
level,
while
the
MDL
and
LOD
are
analogous
to
Currie's
critical
value.
Quantitation
Limit
Approaches
 
The
EPA
ML
and
the
functionally
equivalent
ACS
LOQ
produced
quantitation
limits
that
are
a
median
of
1.1
times
higher
than
the
limits
produced
by
the
LOQ
approach
advanced
by
ISO
and
IUPAC
(
Appendix
C
of
this
document).
 
A
single­
laboratory
variant
of
the
IQE
(
the
IQE
has
been
advanced
by
ASTM
International)
produced
median
quantitation
limits
that
are
equivalent
to
the
median
limits
produced
by
the
EPA
ML
and
ACS
LOQ
approaches
(
Appendix
C
of
this
document).

Finding
2:
More
than
the
5
levels
specified
by
ASTM
are
required
to
produce
a
reliable
IDE
and
IQE
 
EPA
found
that
the
IDEs
produced
with
a
subset
of
data
generated
from
the
minimum
of
5
concentrations
recommended
in
the
IDE
procedure
differed
widely
from
the
IDEs
produced
with
a
larger
set
of
data
involving
16
concentrations
(
which
included
the
subset
of
5
concentrations)
(
Appendix
C
of
this
document).
 
Findings
suggest
that
more
than
5
concentrations
are
needed
to
produce
a
reliable
IDE,
due
to
the
limited
power
of
the
statistical
tests
for
significant
model
parameters
and
the
difficulty
of
drawing
conclusions
based
on
residual
plots
with
only
5
points
(
Appendix
C
of
this
document).
 
Parallel
reasoning
can
be
applied
to
the
IQE
based
on
its
similarity
to
the
IDE.

Finding
3:
The
ML
procedure
yields
quantitation
limits
that
are
generally
in
the
range
of
the
10%
RSD
intended
in
the
ML
(
and
the
functionally
analogous
ACS
LOQ)
approach.
 
EPA
calculated
the
uncertainty
associated
with
replicate
measurements
made
at
the
ML
for
a
large
number
of
analytes
and
techniques
(
Appendix
C
of
this
document).
 
EPA
found
that
on
average,
across
all
techniques
tested,
the
RSD
of
replicate
measurements
at
the
ML
was
approximately
7%.
Median
RSDs
calculated
for
each
multi­
analyte
method
ranged
from
6
­
14%,
and
RSD
values
calculated
for
each
single­
analyte
method
ranged
from
4
­
16%
(
Appendix
C
of
this
document).

Finding
4:
No
single
model
adequately
predicts
the
behavior
of
all
analytes
and
all
methods
across
the
measurement
range.
 
EPA
produced
graphs
representing
hundreds
of
analyte/
method
combinations.
Selection
of
an
appropriate
model
based
on
these
graphs
is
highly
subjective,
at
best,
due
to
the
lack
of
clear
patterns
and
the
residuals
observed
with
each
model
applied
(
Chapter
3,
Section
3.3,
and
Appendix
B
of
this
document).
 
The
IDE
and
IQE
are
the
only
approaches
other
than
the
MDL
and
ML
that
are
supported
by
a
procedure
for
their
implementation.
The
IDE
and
IQE
procedures
rely
heavily
on
model
selection,
and
the
degree
of
subjectivity
involved
in
selecting
these
models
makes
implementation
of
the
IDE
and
IQE
difficult
(
Chapter
5,
Sections,
5.1.2
and
5.2.2,
and
the
third
conclusion
in
Appendix
C).

Finding
5:
Use
of
a
recovery
correction
when
establishing
detection
and
quantitation
limits
may
not
be
appropriate.
 
EPA
found
that
using
a
regression
to
estimate
a
recovery
correction
at
zero
concentration
causes
great
swings
in
the
resulting
detection
and
quantitation
limits
(
Appendix
C
of
this
document).
 
Use
of
a
recovery­
correction
procedure
also
can
result
in
 
double­
correcting 
for
recovery
because
1)
nearly
all
methods
already
contain
specifications
for
acceptable
recovery
performance,
and
2)
some
methods
include
recovery
correction
in
the
computation
of
sample
results
(
Chapter
3,
Section
3.1.4).

February
2003
6­
3
Assessment
of
Detection
and
Quantitation
Approaches
Exhibit
6­
2:
Summary
of
Recommended
Modifications
to
the
MDL
and
ML
procedures
EPA
believes
that
the
following
revisions
and
clarifications
to
the
MDL
and
ML
would
allow
these
procedures
to
fully
meet
the
Agency's
needs
under
the
CWA.

 
Refine
the
definition
of
the
MDL
to
make
it
more
consistent
with
the
MDL
procedure
and
note
the
functional
analogy
of
the
MDL
with
the
"
critical
value"
described
by
Currie
(
1968
and
1995)
and
with
the
"
limit
of
detection"
(
LOD)
described
by
the
American
Chemical
Society
in
1980
and
1983
(
Chapter
5,
Section
5.2.1.1.1).
 
Expand
the
Scope
and
Application
discussion
to
acknowledge
that
there
are
a
variety
of
purposes
and
analytical
methods
for
which
the
MDL
procedure
may
be
employed
and
to
provide
examples
of
common
uses
of
the
MDL
procedure
(
i.
e.,
demonstrating
laboratory
capability
with
a
particular
method;
monitoring
trends
in
laboratory
performance;
characterizing
method
sensitivity
in
a
particular
matrix;
and
establishing
an
MDL
for
a
new
or
revised
method
for
nationwide
use).
 
Clarify
the
considerations
for
estimating
the
detection
limit
in
Step
1
of
the
current
MDL
procedure,
and
suggest
that
the
method­
specified
MDL
can
be
used
as
the
initial
estimate
when
performing
an
MDL
study
to
verify
laboratory
performance
or
to
demonstrate
that
the
MDL
can
be
achieved
in
a
specific
matrix
(
Chapter
5,
Section
5.2.1.1.1).
 
Revise
the
specifications
for
establishing
the
test
concentration
range
(
i.
e.,
determining
the
spike
levels)
in
Section
3.1
according
to
the
intended
application
of
the
MDL
as
follows:
1)
if
verifying
a
published
MDL,
the
test
concentration
should
be
no
more
than
five
times
the
published
MDL;
2)
if
verifying
an
MDL
to
support
a
regulatory
objective
or
the
objective
of
a
study
or
program,
the
test
concentration
should
be
no
more
than
one
third
the
compliance
or
target
limit;
3)
if
determining
an
MDL
for
a
new
or
revised
method,
the
test
concentration
should
be
no
more
than
five
times
the
estimated
detection
limit;
and
4)
if
performing
an
iteration,
the
test
concentration
should
be
no
more
than
five
times
the
MDL
determined
in
the
most
recent
iteration.
 
Delete
the
calculation
of
a
95%
confidence
interval
estimate
for
the
MDL
from
Step
6.
EPA
has
determined
that
these
calculations
are
neither
routinely
performed
by
laboratories,
nor
are
the
results
employed
by
regulatory
agencies,
including
EPA.
 
Revise
Step
7
to
1)
require
that
the
iterative
procedure
be
used
to
verify
the
reasonableness
of
the
MDL
when
developing
an
MDL
for
a
new
or
revised
method
or
when
developing
a
matrix­
specific
MDL,
but
that
it
remain
optional
when
verifying
a
method­,
matrix­,
program­,
or
study­
specific
MDL,
and
2)
provide
specific
instructions
on
how
to
assess
the
reasonableness
of
an
MDL
used
to
verify
laboratory
performance
(
Chapter
5,
Section
5.2.1.1.1).
 
Add
a
new
Step
8
to
the
MDL
procedure
to
address
the
treatment
of
suspected
outliers
(
Chapter
5,
Section
5.2.1.1.1).
 
Delete
the
discussion
of
analysis
and
use
of
blanks
included
in
Section
4(
a)
of
the
current
MDL
procedure.
The
current
discussion
applies
to
methods
in
which
a
blank
measurement
is
required
to
calculate
the
measured
level
of
an
analyte;
it
requires
separate
measurements
of
blank
samples
for
each
MDL
sample
aliquot
analyzed
and
subtraction
of
the
average
result
of
the
blank
samples
from
each
respective
MDL
sample
measurement.
Deletion
of
this
discussion
recognizes
that
subtraction
of
a
single
(
or
average)
blank
sample
result
from
the
result
for
each
MDL
sample
would
not
change
the
standard
deviation
and
thus,
would
have
no
effect
on
the
resulting
MDL.
Although
EPA
believes
laboratories
would
be
prudent
to
analyze
method
blanks
for
assessing
potential
contamination,
EPA
also
believes
that
requiring
analysis
of
method
blanks
or
subtraction
of
method
blank
results
during
MDL
determinations
is
unnecessarily
burdensome.
 
Revise
the
optional
pre­
test
described
in
Section
4(
b)
of
the
current
MDL
procedure
to
provide
criteria
that
allow
the
analyst
to
determine
if
the
test
samples
are
the
desirable
range.
 
Improve
overall
readability
and
understanding
of
the
MDL
procedure
through
editorial
changes
to
the
specific
numbering
scheme,
the
addition
of
clearer
titles
to
some
of
the
steps,
and
minor
clarifications.
 
Clarify
the
ML
to
emphasize
its
relationship
to
Currie s
Quantitation
Limit
and
ACS 
Limit
of
Quantitation
(
LOQ)
 
Clarify
the
ML
procedure
to
address
the
use
of
other
than
seven
replicates
for
determination
of
the
MDL
and
ML.

6­
4
February
2003