information h aur
USEPA QUALITY ASSURANCE AUDITOR IS
SCHEDULED FOR A VISIT: WHAT CAN I EXPECT
(U.S.) ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC
1995
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Technical Information Service
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
P896-139134
Report Nos : EPA/600/A-95/146
Title : USEPA Quality Assurance Auditor Is Scheduled for a Visit: What Can I Expect.
Date : 1995
Authors . L. 0. Childers.
Performing Organization : Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park. NC.
National Exposure Research Lab.
Sponsoring Organization : *Air and Waste Management Association. Pittsburgh. PA.
NTIS Field/Group Codes : 68A (Air Pollution & Control). 99A (Analytical Chemistry). 70F
( Public Administration & Government)
Price : PC A03/MF AOl
Availability : Available from the National Technical Information Service. Springfield.
VA. 1b1
Number of Pages : 16p
Keywords : *Air pollution monitoring. *Audjts *Data collection, Remote sensing.
Standards compliance. Laboratory tests. Fourier transformation. Infrared spectroscopy.
Requirements. Forms(Paper). Administrative procedures. Quality assurance. Reprints.
Abstract : Environmental studies involving data collection activities conducted by or
br tne United States Environmental Protection A9ency (USEPA) are required to undergo
a review of their data collection activities. This review is usually in the form of an
independent quality assurance (QA) audit. Those studies involving open-path Fourier
transform infrared (OP/FuR) monitoring re also expected to meet this requirement. To
help evaluate the effectiveness of QA pr rams designed for OP/FTIR studies, an audit
questionnaire was developed. This questionnaire provides a meaningful tool in
assessing the study’s compliance with Agency and laboratory QA requirements and
currently accepted quality control (OC) procedures. This paper introduces this audit
questionnaire and discusses the basis for its development.
-------
EPA/600/A-95/146
The USEPA QA Auditor is Scheduled for a Visit. What Can I Expect?
Lconor Ortiz Childcrs
United States Environmental Protection Agency
79 Alexander Drive, (MD-77B)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
ABSTRACT
Environmental studies involving data collection activities conducted by or for the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) zre required to undergo a review of their data
collection activities. This review is usually in the form of an independent quality assurance (QA)
audit. Those studies involving open-path Fourier transform infrared (OP/FTIR) monitoring are also
expected to meet this requirement. This technology,- however, presents special challenges for both
the instrument operator and the QA auditor. First, the instrumentation and data-analysis methods
are evolving. Secondly, research conducted in the area of QA has not yet produced agreed-upon
procedures. Finally, the use of this instrumentation for USEPA-sponsored studies is fairly new. As
a result, many QA auditors will have limited experience in conducting audits on OP/FTIR systems.
Regardless of the technology used to collect environmental measurements, the QA auditor
will expect the field team to develop an adequate QA program before beginning any data-collection
activities. To help evaluate the effectiveness of QA programs designed for OP/FTIR studies, an
audit questionnaire was developed. This questionnaire provides a meaningful tool in assessing the
study's compliance with Agency and laboratory QA requirements and currently accepted quality
control (QC) procedures. This paper introduces this audit questionnaire and discusses the basis for
its development.
INTRODUCTION
Each year, the USIIPA spends millions of dollars on environmental studies. If a particular
study is conducted in an efficient manner there should be little to no difference between what was
expected and what was delivered. If the amount, quality, or type of data collected was inadequate,
this indicates a performance gap.1 A study that experiences these problems does not usually meet
the needs, expectations, or goals of the end user. Such performance gaps between the end user and
the data collector lead to waste and rework.
At one time rework accounted for 20-40% of the budgetary needs at the USEPA.2 To help
prevent the problems of waste and rework, the USEPA developed Agency-wide QA requirements
for all environmental studies involving data collection activities. The primary goal of these QA
requirements is to produce data of a known quality that satisfies the objectives defined by the data
user. The role of the QA auditor is to evaluate the effectiveness of the QA program developed for a
particular study to determine if the data collected will meet this primary goal. However, to conduct
an audit there must first exist assessment criteria against which the study can be evaluated. For the
field of OP/FTIR monitoring, this presents some challenges. First, the instrumentation and data-
analysis methods are evolving. Secondly, research conducted in the area of QA has not yet
produced agreed-upon procedures. In addition to these issues, many QA auditors presently have
limited experience in conducting audits on OP/FTIR systems, given that the use of this instrumenta-
tion for USEPA-sponsored studies is fairly new.
In spite of these challenges, an audit was conducted on a field study using OP/FTTR systems.
Audit procedures and criteria were developed using various reference materials available to the QA
auditor. The Agency-wide QA requirements, the laboratory's Quality Management Plan, and
routine auditing procedures were used as general guidance in conducting the audit and in developing
the audit aupstionnaire. The more technical aspects of the audit questionnaire were based on the
-------
QA/QC research conducted in support of the laboratory and the study documents written by’the field
teams, such as Work Plans, QA Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs).
DISCUSSION
There are various organizational units within the USEPA that develop QAJQC policies,
procedures, methods, and materials. The QA auditor uses this information to develop the proce-
dures and materials used in the audit. The information used to establish the framework for the
OP/FuR audit and questionnaire are discussed in the sections below.
Agency-wide OA Requirements
The policies and requirements that serve as the basis for much of the Agency’s QA activities
are developed by the Quality Assurance Division (QAD), formerly known as the Quality Assurance
Management Staff. QAD is under the newly formed National Center for Environmental Research
and Quality Assurance of the Office of Research and Development.
The policies established by EPA Order 5360. r 3 and the guidance developed by QAD set forth
those QA activities which are required and those which are recommended for a QA Program. The
required activities include the development of Quality Management Plans and QA Project Plans and
the assessment of studies through QA audits and reviews. The recommended activities include the
development of Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) and SOPs. QAD defines these QA activities and
other key terms in specific ways and provides useful requirement- and guidance documents as
reference materials for the auditor and auditee. 48 A brief summary of the material used for the
OP/FuR audit and questionnaire is given in Table 1.
Ouality Management Plan of the Laboratory
Although the OP/FFIR study that was audited was not sponsored by the Atmospheric
Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory (AREAL) in Research Triangle Park, NC, the QA
audit team came from this laboratory. Therefore, the Quality Management Plan of AREAL was
used to govern parts of the audit. Recently, AREAL was reorganized and now forms part of the
National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL). Until the NERL Quality Management Plan is
completed, the one for AREAL will continue to be implemented.
AREAL’s Quality Management Plan incorporates the Agency-wide requirements and further
defines these requirements as they apply to the project needs of the laboratory. According to this
plan: I) the required document of preference is the Quality Systems Implementation Plan (QSIP),
which combines the QA Project Plan, Work Plan, and DQOs into one document, as opposed to the
QA Project Plan; 2) the use of the DQO process is required unless the project meets a specified
ct iteria or it receives an exemption by senior management; and 3) the development of SOPs is
required of all routine and repetitive activities of a project, even those projects categorized as
Research and Development.
QAIOC Research Conducted by the Laboratory
The Methods Branch and Quality Assurance Branch of NERL conduct and direct various
QA/QC research and development activities. General QA Handbooks, developed by the Quality
Assurance Branch, are applicable to many types of environmental studies. ” Various documents
and articles directly related to OP/FTIR systems have been produced in support of the Methods
Branch) 2 ’ 4 Although others have addressed QA/QC issues related to OP/FTIR monitoring,’ 5 ’ 6 the
research conducted for the Methods Branch has produced generally-applicable QA/QC procedures,
which formed the technical basis for the audit questionnaire.
-------
THE QA AUDIT AND QUESTIONNAIRE
The audit conducted on the OPIFTIR field study was done in a manner most often used by
the staff auditors of the Quality Assurance Branch of NERL. This general audit protocol is
normally followed:
1. Gather and review the necessary study documents from the field team, such as Work
Plans, QA Project Plans, QSIPs, SOPs, DQOs, etc.
2. Gather arid review other documeuts pertinent to the study being audited.
3. Conduct pre-audic meetings or briefings.
4. Develop audit materials, such as questionnaires, surveys, checklists, test samples, etc.
based on information gathered in Steps #1, #2, and //3.
5. Conduct the.audit. This includes on-site observations, interviews, and tests.
6. Conduct post-audit meetings or briefings.
7. Compile the audit fmdings.
8. Write the draft audit report and distrib ute it for internal review and clearance.
9. Distribute the draft audit report to the field team for review and comments.
10. Compile the responses to the draft audit report.
ii. Write the final audit report and distribute it for internal review and clearance.
12. Distribute the final audit report to the field team and other appropriate individuals.
As Step #4 indicates, many items contribute to the development of the audit materials. The
study documents prepared by the field team are essential for this purpose. Because of this, it is
important that: 1) they are written according to Agency and laboratory guidelines; 2) they contain
only those activities intended for implementation, and 3) they are made available to the auditor in a
timely manner. Before the study documents are submitted to the QA auditor, they should be
reviewed by someone who is familiar with the study method and the appropriate level of QA/QC
needed to assure the quality of the data. For example, the review of written plans for OPIFrIR
systems should be made by someone familiar with this technology. Under extraordinary circum-
stances, it may be necessary to revise the study documents once in the field. If this occurs, the
approved revision should be provided to the auditor so that they can make the appropriate changes
to their audit materials.
The audit questionnaire developed for the OPIFTIR study was generally based on the
Agency-wide QA requirements and the AREAL Quality Management Plan. It was technically based
on the QAIQC research conducted on behalf of the Methods Branch and Quality Assurance Branch
and the Work Plans, QA Project Plans, and SOPs written by the field teams. Table 2 shows this
audit questionnaire in its entirety except for those portions only relevant to the field teams that were
audited. The questionnaire is divided into these major sections:
I. General Information: This section gathers some basic information about the field
study, auditor(s), and field team. This section asks for names, addresses, and years
of experience of the field operator(s).
II. OP/FuR Instrument: This section gathers information about the type of instrument
used in the field study. This section asks for the manufacturer, model, type, age, and
owner of the instniment.
Ill. Study Documentation: This section determines if the documentation requirements
were met. The section asks about the study’s classification, QA Project Plan, SOPs,
log book, and control charts. In the future, this section may be expanded to include
inquiries about other documents, such as DQOs and QSIPs.
-------
IV. Pre-Field Activities: This section surveys the measurements recorded and procedures
used by the operator prior to employing the instrument in the field to: 1) determine
compliance with the prescribed procedta:es’ 2 ’ 4 and 2) determine if the operator estab-
lished a pre-fleld database against which the measurements collected in the field may
be compared. This section poses questions about detector saturation, return-beam
intensities, stray light, black body radiation, electronic noise, RMS noise, and
resolution.
V. Study Activities: This section surveys the QC and data acquisition procedures em-
ployed in the field to determine compliance with the prescribed procedures. ’ 2 14 The
first part of this section inq&res about QC activities involving electronic noise, RMS
noise, return-beam intensities at specific wavenumbers, stray light, black body
radiation, detector saturation, wavenumber shifts, selected resolution, precision,
accuracy, and the use of a QA cell. In the other two parts, questions are posed about
the end use of the data, how the detecior was cooled, the operating path length for the
field study, if the beam was attenuated, the spectral resolution and measurement time
used, and how the background and water vapor spectra were obtained.
VI. Data Analysis: This section surveys the methods used to analyze the field spectra.
This section inquires about the form in which the data were collected (interferogram
files or single-beam spectra), the target compounds of the field study, the wave-
number regions, apodization, zero filling, reference spectra, and how the stray light
and black body measurements will ‘ndled in the data analysis.
This audit questionnaire was tested in the field and proved to be a useful tool in the
evaluation process. It provided a standard approach in assessing each field team’s performance an’i
compliance with specific audit criterIa. As the technology of OP/PTIR moves forward through
continued research and field use, this questionnaire will be refined to reflect the advancements.
CONCLUSIONS
The quality of environmental databases is important to the USEPA. The Agen:y has
developed extensive QA requirements and guidance to ensure that the data collected are of a known
quality; of the amount, quality, and type needed to meet pre-defmed objectives; and adequate to
support the decisions that the Agency will make based on the data. Those performing work for the
USEPA, including contractors, must design and implement an adequate QA Program that is in
compliance with the Agency-wide QA requirements, the sponsoring- or auditing laboratory’s Quality
Management Plan, and generally accepted QA/QC procedures contained in the scientific literature.
The audit questionnaire introduced in this paper indicates some of the QA/QC issues that
should be considered for a QA program for those employing remote sensing techniques, such as
OP/FTIR monitoring. Until other QA/QC procedures are developed Agency-wide or within this
particular research field, this type of questionnaire will be used as the primary assessment tool for
studies audited by NERL.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to thank the following individuals for providing some of the background
information used in this paper: Bill Mitchell, David Hinton, Linda Porter, Ronald Patterson,
Johnnie Pearson, Nancy Weitworth, Gary Johnson, and Tom Dickson.
REFER!2NCES
1. Organizational Dynamics, the; The Quality Course For EPA, 1991; pp 22-29.
-------
2. Wentworth, N. and Johnson, 0.; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,
course prcsentation, 1992.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Ager’y; Policy and Program Requirements to hnpleinent the
Mandatory Quality Assurance Program, EPA Order 5360.1, 1984.
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; EPA Requirements for Quality Managetnent Plans,
Doc. No. EPA QA/R-2, 1994.
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project
Plans for Environmental Data Operations, Doc. No. EPA QA/R-5, 1994.
6. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency; Orientation to Quality Assurance Management,
Course Notebook, 1995.
7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process,
Doc. No. EPA QA/G-4, 1994.
8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Guidance on Standard Operating Procedures for
Environmental Data Operations, Doe. No. EPA QA/G-6, in preparation.
9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution
Measurement Systems, Vol. 1, A Field Guide to Environmental Quality Assurance, Doe. No.
EPAJ600IR-94/038a, 1994.
10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution
Measurement Systems, Vol. II, Ambient Air Specific Methods (interim Edition), Doe. No.
EPA/600/R-94/038b, 1994.
11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution
Measurement Systeris. Vol. 11<, Meteorological Measurements (as revised August, 1989),
Doe. No. EPA/6001R-941038d, 1994.
12. Russwunn, G.M. and Childers, J.W.; Fr-JR Open-Path Monitoring Guidance Document, SP-
4420-95-04; ManTech Environmental Technology, mc: Research Triangle Park, 1995.
13. Russwurm, G.M., Childers, J.W., and Jr., Thompson, E.L.; Effects of stray light in FTIR
instruments on open path measurements, TM in Proceedings of Optical Sensing for Environmen-
tal and Process Monitoring, VIP-37; Air & Waste Management Association: Pittsburgh,
1995; pp 339-346.
14. Childers, J.W., Russwurm, G.M., and Jr., Thompson, E.L.; TM Quality assurance consider-
ations in a long-term FT-IR monitoring program, • in Proceedings of Optical Sensing for
Environmental and Process Monitoring, VIP-37; Air & Waste Management Association:
Pittsburgh, 1995; pp 389-395.
15. Kagann, R.H., Jolley, J.G., Shoop, D.S., et al.; •Vali jon of open-path FTIR data at
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities, u in Proceedings of Optical Sensing for Environ-
mental Monitoring, SP-89; Air & Waste Management Association: Pittsburgh, 1993; pp 437-
442.
-------
16. Kricks, R.J., Scotto, R.L., Pritchett, T.H. et al.; “Quality assurance issues concerning the
cperation of open-path FuR spectrometers,” in Proceedings of Optical Remote Sensing.
Applications to Environmental and Industrial Safety Problems, SP-81; Air & Waste Manage-
ment Association: Pittsburgh, 1992; pp 224-231.
Copies of the Agency’s requirement- and guidance documents can be obtained from U.S. EPA, ORD Publications Office, Center for
Environmental Research Information (CERI), 26 W. Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH, 45268, phone: 513-569-7562.
Table 1. Terminology and information relevant to Agency-wide QA Activities.
• Quality Management Plan: “A formal document that describes the quality system in terms of
the organizational structure, functional responsibilities of management and staff, lines of
authority, and required interfaces for those planiiing, implementing, and assessing all
activities conducted.” The laboratory Quality Management Plan is prepared and approved by
the senior management of the laboratory and then reviewed and approved by QArJ. Once
approved, it is valid for up to five years but must undergo an internal review on an annual
basis. The ten elements required in a Quality Management Plan, formerly called a QA
Program Plan, are discussed in a new document, EPA QA/R-2. 4
• QA Project Plan: “A formal document describing in comprehensive detail the necessary QA,
QC and other technical activities that must be implemented to ensure that the results of the
work performed will satisfy the stated perfonnance criteria.” The QA Project Plan serves as
the blueprint for conducting the study and collecting and assessing the data. Its development
is the responsibility of USEPA personnel, but the actual preparation may be assigned to
groups outside the Agency, such as contractors, an assistance agreement holder, or interagen-
cy agreement holder. Prior to the start of any data collection, the QA Project Plan must be
reviewed and approved by the USEPA Project Manager and QA Manager. The new
ãocument EPA QA/R-5 discusses the elements that must be addressed in a QA Project Plan. 5
There are now twenty-six required elements instead of the previous sixteen. Appendix A in
EPA QAIR-5 lists the former sixteen elements and their new counterparts.
• Data Quality Objectives (DQOs): “Qualitative and quantitative statements derived from the
DQO Process that clarify study tecimical and quality objectives, define the appropriate type of
data, and specify tolerable levels of potential decision errors that will be used as the basis for
establishing the quality and quantity of data needed to support decisions.” The development
of DQOs is strongly recommended but is not mandatory. If deemed necessary, a USEPA
organization may add them as a special requirement to the QA Project Plan. The new
guidance document for DQOs, EPA QA/G-4, 7 supersedes all previous guidance.
• Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs): “A written document that details the method for an
operation, analysis, or action with thoroughly prescribed techniques and steps, and that is
officially approved as the method for performing certain routine or repetitive tasks.” The
development of SOPs is strongly recommended but is not mandatory. If deemed necessary, a
USEPA organization may add them as a special requirement to the QA Project Plan. SOPs
must be reviewed by individuals with appropriate training and experience and approved by at
least the immediate USEPA supervisor.’ The new guidance for SOPs will be contair d in
EPA QA/G-6.’ 4
-------
Table 2; Audit questionnaire for OP1FTJ.R Systems.
I. General Information
OPIFFIR Audit Questionnaire
Date(s) of Field Audit:
Title of Field Study:
Name(s) of Auditor(s)
Business Address:
Name(s) of Field Operator(s):
Years of Experience working with OP/FTIR Instruments:
Business Address:
II. OP/FflR Instrument
Manufacturer:
Model:
Bistatic Monostatic Age of OPIFFIR Instrument:
Owner of OP/FflR Instrument:
III. Study Documentation
If a question requires a YES/NO answer place an “X” in the appropriate box.
YES NO
1. How would you classif ’ this field study?
data can stand alone, legally defensible, for compliance purposes
data will be used for rule making or policy making
exploratory/preliminary work, data will be used tc design future
purely a research and development project
2. Do you have a Quality Assurance Project Plan for this study?
studies
f
.
I
tf yes, to whom was it submitted?
By whom was it reviewed?
By whom was it approved?
If no, why not?
3. Do you have Standard Operating Procedures for this instrument 9
4. Do you keep a log book for this instrument 9
If yes, what items do you record in this log book?
5. Do you use control charts for this instrument?
I
If yes, what measurements do you record on these control charts?
-------
OPIFTIR Audit Questionnaire
IV. Pre-Fieki Activities - procedures performed prior to going to the field
If a question requires a YES/NO answer place an AX” in the appropriate box. NO
1. In general, how do you determine if the detector is saturated?
2. If you see evidence of saturation what remedial action do you take?
3. Did you determine the path length at which the detector is no longer
saturated (the minimum working distance of the instrument)’)
If yes, what is thispath length?
What procedure did you use?
4. Did you determine the path length at which t.he return-beam intensity
levels off or reaches the noise level (the maximum working distance of
the instrument) 9
If yes, what is this path length?
What procedure did you use?
5. Were the path lengths used for this study between the minimum and
maximum working distances of your instrument?
6. Did you determine the return-beam intensities at specific wavenumbers as
a function of path length?
If yes, what procedure and wavenumbers did you use?
7. Did you determine the return-beam intensities at these wavenumbers?
987 cm’ If yes, at what path length(s)?
2500 cm’ If yes, at what path length(s)?
4400 cm’ If yes, at what path length(s)? ______
8. Did you measure for stray light?
If yes, how did you measure the stray light? ___________
9. Do you know what percentage of the return signal is due to stray light?.
If yes, what is this percentage?
10. Do you routinely subtract the signal due to stray light from the single-
beam spectra 7
11. Did you measure for black body radiation?
If yes, how did you measure the black body radiation?
12. Do you know what percentage of the total signal is due to black body
radiation 9
If yes, what is this percentage? ______ ____
13. Do you routinely subtract the signal due to black body radiation from the
single-beam spectra 7
-------
OP/FflR Audit Questionnaire
If a question requires a YES/NO answer place an X” in the appropriate box.
14. Did you measure the electronic noise of the instrument 9
If yes, how did you measure the electronic noise?
15. Did you measure the random or RMS noise 9
If yes, over what wavenuinber range was this measurement taken?
How did you measure the RMS noise?
16. Did you determine •if the instrument is operating at the selected
resolution 9
If yes, how was this determined?
17. Describe any other pre-field activities that you performed on the instrument.
I
I
V. Study Activities - procedures performed while in the field
A. Quality Control Procedures
1. Did you measure any of the following parameters for QC purposes:
a. Electronic Noise’ I
If yes, how often?
What procedure did you use?
b. Random or RMS Noise 9
If yes, how often?
What procedure did you use?
c. Return-Beam Intensities at Specific Wavenumbers?
If yes, how often?
What procedure did you use?
d. Stray Light”
If yes, how often?
What procedure did you use?
e. Black Body Radiation 9
If yes, how often?
What procedure did you use?
2. Did you check for detector saturation at the operating path length?
If yes, how often?
What procedure did you use?
3. Did you check for possible wavenumber shifts?
If yes, how often?
What procedure did you use?
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
YES INO
-------
OP/Jciix Audit Questionnaire _____ ____
If a question requires a YES/NO answer place an “X” in the appropriate box. YES NO
4. Did you determine if the instrument was operating at the selected
resolution?
If yes, how often?
What procedure did you use?
5. How did you determine the precision of the instrument?
_____ I used the ambient level of N 2 0.
_____ I used the ambient level of CH 4 .
_____ I used an internal QA cell and known concentrations of gases.
Other: ________________
How reliable, repeatable, and reproducible is the procedure that was used?
If you used a QA cell, what target gases and concentrations did you use? What was the
maximum absorbance value of the target gases?
6. How did you determine the accuracy of the instrument?
_____ I used the ambient level of N 2 0.
_____ I used the ambient level of CH 4 .
_____ I used an internal QA cell and known concentrations of gases.
_____ I used an external QA cell and known concentrations of gases.
____ Other: _______________
How reliable, repeatable, and reproducible is the procedure that you used?
If you used a QA cell, what target gases and concentrations did you use? What was thern
maximum absorbance value of the targc gases?
7. What level of precision and accuracy did you obtain with the instrument?
Precision:
Accuracy:
8. What level of precision and accuracy is needed for your end-use?
Precision:
Accuracy:
9. Describe any other QA/QC checks that were perfonned on this instrument? S ie how
often these were performed and give a brief description of the procedure(s) used.
B. Acquisition of Field Spectra
1. What type of data were you responsible for collecting during this study? What will be
its end-use?
2. Was your detector cooled with liquid nitrogen? I I
If yes, how often did you have to refill the Dewar?
If no, how was the detector cooled?
-------
OP/F IR Audit Questionnaire
If a question requires a YES/NO answer place an M X” in the appropriate box.
3. What was the operating path length used in this study?
How was the path length measured?
4. Did you use screens or other means to attenuate the beam while
collecting data?
If yes, of what material are they made?
5. What spectral resolution did you use?
How did you determine the resolution to use?
6. What measurement time did you use?
C. Acquisition of Background Spectra and Water Vapor Spectra
1. Did you take background spectra at the field site 9
If yes, how often?
If no, what background spectra do you plan to use?
2. What method(s) did you use to obtain the background spectra (Ia)?
______ synthetic
_____ upwind
_____ short path
______ averaged
____ Other: _______________
. I
I
What are the limitations of the method(s) used, if any? ____________
3. When acquiring the ambient blackbody background spectra did you see
the presence of emission bands for atmospheric gases? ___________
If yes, how will these be handled when analyzing your data?
4. What method did you use to obtain the water vapor spectra?
_____ obtained from long path ZR cell in the Iaboratoiy
_____ generated from one of the field spectra by subtracting out other ambient gases
_____ used a commercial library
_____ used the HI-TRAN datat.se to calculate spectrum
____ Other: _______________
5. How did you handle the changing concentration of water vapor? ___________
6. Did you record the partial pressure (in torr) of the water vapor? I
If yes, how often?
-------
OP/FuR Audit Questionnaire
VI. Data Analysis
question requires a YES/NO an.nver place an “X” in the appropriate box. I YES I NO
When collecting data did you store the interferogram fiics or the single-
beam spectra?
If you saved the interferogram files, will they also be saved after
conversion to single-beam spectra’
List all the target compounds for this field study.
What techniques will you use to determine the concentration of the target compounds?
_____ comparison method
_____ scaled subtraction technique
_____ multicomponent analysis
____ Other:
Over what wavenumber regions will you analyze for the target compounds?
Note: This questionnaire was compressed to meet the symposium’s paper-length requirement. Normally, sufficient space is
provided to record all answers.
If a
1.
2.
3.
4.
Why did you choose these wavenumber regions to analyze?
5. What kind of apodization will you use?
6. Will you use any zero filling 9 I
7. How will the signal due to stray light be handled in the data analysis?
8. How will the signal due to black body radiation be handled in the data analysis?
9. What is the source of your reference spectra?
If you develop your own, enclose a write-up of your procedure.
-------
DISCLAIMER:
The information in this document has been funded by the
Environmental Protection Agency. It has been subjected to the
Agency’s peer and administrative review, and it has been approved
for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or
commercial products does not conL;titute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
------- |