&EPA
United Slates
Efwirwirwilal Protoctnti
Agancy
Quality Assurance
Handbook for Air
Pollution Measurement
Systems
Volume II
Ambient Air Quality
Monitoring Program
-------
Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
EPA-454/B-08-003
December, 2008
QA Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems
Volume II
Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Air Quality Assessment Division
RTP,NC 27711
-------
QA Handbook Volume II
December, 2008
Contents
Section Page
Contents iv
Figures vi
Tables vii
Acknowledgments viii
Acronyms and Abbreviations ix
0. Introduction
0.1 Intent of the Handbook 1/2
0.2 Use of Terms Shall, Must, Should, May 2/2
0.3 Use of Footnotes 2/2
0.4 Handbook Review and Distribution 2/2
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
1. Program Background
1.1 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network 1/10
1.2 The EPA Quality System Requirements 5/10
1.3 The Ambient Air Monitoring Program Quality System 7/10
2. Program Organization
2.1 Organization Responsibilities 1/7
2.2 Lines of Communication 5/7
2.3 Quality Assurance Workgroups 7/7
3. Data Quality Objectives
3.1 The DQO Process 4/7
3.2 Ambient Air Quality DQOs 5/7
3.2 Measurement Quality Objectives 5/7
4. Personnel Qualification and Training
4.1 Personnel Qualifications 1/3
4.2 Training 2/3
5. Documentation and Records
5.1 Management and Organization 2/8
5.2 Site Information 2/8
5.3 Environmental Data Operations 3/8
5.4 Raw Data 7/8
5.5 Data Reporting 7/8
5.6 Data Management 8/8
5.7 Quality Assurance 8/8
MEASUREMENT ACQUISITION
6. Monitoring Network Design
6.1 Monitoring Objectives and Spatial Scales 4/14
6.2 Monitoring Site Location 7/14
6.3 Monitor Placement 11/14
6.4 Minimum Network Requirements 11/14
6.5 Operating Schedules 12/14
7. Sampling Methods
7.1 Environmental Control 1/14
7.2 Sampling Probes and Manifolds 4/14
7.3 Reference/Equivalent and Approved Regional Methods 10/14
8. Sample Handling and Custody
8.1 Sample Handling 2/6
8.2 Chain of Custody 4/6
9. Analytical Methods
9.1 Good Laboratory Practices 2/2
9.2 Laboratory Activities 2/2
Revision
1
1
1
1
1
1
Date
12/08
12/08
12/08
12/08
12/08
12/08
12/08
12/08
12/08
12/08
12/08
12/8
12/08
12/08
IV
-------
QA Handbook Volume II
December, 2008
Section Page
10. Quality Control
10.1 QC Activity Areas 3/8
10.2 Internal vs. External Quality Control 4/8
10.3 CFR Related Quality Control Samples 7/8
10.4 Use of Computers for Quality Control 8/8
11. Instrument/Equipment Testing, Inspection, and Maintenance
11.1 Instrumentation 1/6
11.2 Preventative Maintenance 4/6
12. Calibration
12.1 Calibration Standards and Reagents 2/11
12.2 Multi-point Verifications/Calibrations 7/11
12.3 Frequency of Calibration and Analyzer Adjustment 8/11
12.4 Adjustment to Analyzers 9/11
12.5 Data Reduction using Calibration Information 10/11
12.6 Validation of Ambient Data 11/11
13 Inspection/Acceptance for Supplies and Consumables
13.1 Supplies Management 1/4
13.2 Standards and Reagents 2/4
13.3 Volumetric Glassware 2/4
13.4 Sample Containers 3/4
13.5 Paniculate Sampling Filters 3/4
13.6 Field Supplies 4/4
14. Data Acquisition and Management
14.1 Data Acquisition 2/14
14.2 Data Transfer-Public Reporting 9/14
14.3 Data Transfer-Reporting to External Data Bases 11/14
14.4 Data Management 13/14
ASSESSMENT/OVERSIGHT
15. Assessment and Corrective Action
15.1 Network Reviews 1/14
15.2 Performance Evaluations 4/14
15.3 Technical Systems Audits 8/14
15.4 Data Quality Assessments 14/14
16. Reports to Management
16.1 Guidelines for Preparation of Reports to Management 2/4
DATA VALIDATION AND USABILITY
17. Data Review, Verification, Validation
17.1 Data Review Methods 3/7
17.2 Data Verification Methods 3/7
17.3 Data Validation Methods 4/7
18. Reconciliation with Data Quality Objectives
18.1 Five Steps of the DQA Process 1/9
APPENDICES
A. National Monitoring Program Fact Sheets 11
B: Ambient Air Monitoring QA Information and Web Addresses 4
C: Using the Graded Approach for the Development of QMPs and 6
QAPPs
D: Measurement Quality Objectives and Validation Templates 25
E: Characteristics of Spatial Scales Related to Each Pollutant 7
F: Sample Manifold Design for Precursor Gas Monitoring 13
G: Example Procedure for Calibrating Data Acquisition System 3
H: Audit Information 46
I: Example of Reports to Management 25
Revision Date
1 12/08
12/08
12/08
12/08
12/08
12/08
12/08
12/08
12/08
12/08
-------
QA Handbook Volume II December, 2008
Figures
Number Title Section/Page
1.1 Ambient air quality monitoring process 1/1
1.2 Hierarchy of quality system development 1/5
1.3 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring QA Program 1/7
2.1 Program organization and lines of communication 2/1
2.2 Relationship of monitored pollutants to site, monitoring organizations and 2/4
primary quality assurance organizations
3.1 Effect of positive bias on the annual average estimate resulting in a false 3/1
rejection error
3.2 Effect of negative bias on the annual average estimate resulting in a false 3/1
acceptance error
6.1 Wind rose pattern 6/8
6.2 Sampling schedule based on ratio to the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS 6/13
7.1 Example design for shelter 7/2
7.2 Position of calibration line in sampling manifold 7/5
7.3 Acceptable areas for PM10 and PM2 5 micro, middle, neighborhood, and 7/7
urban samplers except for microscale canyon sites
7.4 Optical mounting platform 7/8
8.1 Example sample label 8/3
8.2 Example field COC form 8/6
8.3 Example laboratory COC form 8/6
10.1 QC samples for PM2 5 placed at various stages of measurement process 10/2
10.2 Example control chart 10/8
12.1 Suggested zero/span drift limits 12/8
14.1 DAS data flow 14/4
14.2 Flow of data from gas analyzers to final reporting 14/4
15.1 Definition of independent assessment 15/7
15.2 Pre-Audit activities 15/8
15.3 On-Site audit activities 15/10
15.4 Audit finding form 15/11
15.5 Post-audit activities 15/12
15.6 Audit response form 15/13
18.1 DQA in the context of data life cycle 18/2
VI
-------
QA Handbook Volume II December, 2008
Tables
Number Title Section/Page
3-1 Measurement Quality Objectives Developed into a Validation Template 3/7
4-1 Monitoring Functions the Need Some Level of Staffing or Expertise 4/1
4-2 Suggested Sequence of Core QA Related Ambient Air Training Courses ... 4/3
5-1 Types of Information the Should be Retained Through Document Control 5/1
6-1 Relationship Among Monitoring Objectives and Scale of Representativeness 6/5
6-2 Summary of Spatial Scales for SLAMS, NCore, PAMS, and Open Path Sites 6/6
6-3 Relationships of Topography, Air Flow, and Monitoring Site Selection 6/9
6-4 Site Descriptions of PAMS Monitoring Sites 6/10
6-5 Monitoring Station Categories Related to Monitoring Site Placement 6/11
6-6 Completeness Goals for Ambient Monitoring Data 6/14
7-1 Environment Control Parameters 7/3
7-2 Summary of Probe and Monitoring Path Siting Criteria 7/6
7-3 Minimum Separation Distance between Road and Sampling Probes... 7/7
7-4 Techniques for Quality Control for Support Services 7/10
7-5 Performance Specifications for Automated Methods 7/12
9-1 Acceptable Analytical Methods 9/1
10-1 QC Samples Used in Various Ambient Air Monitoring Programs 10/5
10-2 PM2 5 Field and Lab QC Checks 10/6
10-3 Ambient Air Monitoring Measurement Quality Samples 10/7
11-1 Routine Operation Checks 11/5
12-1 Certification Periods for Compressed Gas Calibration Standards... 12/4
12-2 Instrumentation and Devices Requiring Calibration and Certifications 12/6
14-1 AQS Data Reporting Requirements 14/12
14-2 NCore Information Technology Performance Needs 14/13
15-1 National Performance Evaluation Activities Performed by EPA 15/5
15-2 NPAP Acceptance Criteria 15/7
15-3 Suggested Elements of an Audit Plan 15/9
16-1 Types of QA Reports to Management 16/2
16-2 Sources of Information for Preparing Reports to Management 16/2
16-3 Presentation Methods for Use in Reports to Management 16/3
18-1 Summary of Violations of DQO Assumptions 18/5
18-2 Weights for Estimating Three-Year Bias and Precision 18/6
18-3 Summary of Bias and Precision 18/8
Vll
-------
QA Handbook Volume II December, 2008
Acknowledgments
This QA Hand Book is the product of the combined efforts of the EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, the EPA Regional Offices, and the State, Tribal and Local monitoring organizations. The
development and review of the material found in this document was accomplished through the activities
of the QA Strategy Workgroup. The following individuals are acknowledged for their contributions.
State, Tribal and Local Organizations
Andy Clifton, Andy Johnson, Anna Kelley, Arun Roychowdhury, Barb Regynski, Ben Davis, Charles
Pearson, Ceresa.Stewart, Cindy Wike, Dick Duker, Dennis Fenlon, Don Gourley, Donovan Rafferty,
Edward Huck, Erick Saganic, Glenn Gehring, Hugh Tom, Jim Conner, Joseph Ugorowski, Jackie
Waynick , James Jordan, Jeff Wasson Jeremy Hardin, Jason Low, Keith Duncan, Ken Cowen, Kent
Curtis, Kevin Watts, Leonard Marine, Larry Taylor, Leroy Williams, Merrin Wright, Mary Kay Clark,
Melinda Ronca-Battista, Melvin Schuchardt, Mickey Palmer, Mike Draper, Mike Hamdan, Nydia
Burdick, Patti DeLaCruz, Paul Sanborn, Robert Franicevich, Rachael Townsend, Randy Dillard, Rayna
Broadway, Richard Heffern, Ritchie Scott, Robert Olson, Ryan Callison, Scott Reynolds, Stephanie
McCarthy, Susan Kilmer, Susan Selby, Tyler Muxworthy ,Terry Rowles, Thomas Mcgrath , Sandra
Wardwell, Yousaf Hameed
EPA Regions
Region
1 Mary Jane Cuzzupe, Peter Kahn, Chris St.Germane, Karen Way
2 Mustafa Mustafa, Avraham Teitz, Mark Winter
3 Victor Guide, Andrew Hass
4 Greg Noah, Danny France, Jerry Burge, Doug Jager
5 Gordon Jones, Scott Hamilton, Basim Dihu
6 Kuenja Chung, John Lay
7 Thien Bui, James Regehr, Leland Grooms, Michael Davis
8 Michael Copeland, Gordan MacRae, Joe Delwiche
9 Mathew Plate, Catherine Brown, Bob Pallarino, Roseanne Sakamoto
10 Chris Hall, Bill Puckett
Office of Radiation and Indoor Air
Montgomery, AL - Eric Boswell, Jewell Smiley, Steve Taylor
Las Vegas, NV - David Musick, Emilio Braganza, Jeff Lantz
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Dennis Mikel, Dennis Grumpier, Mark Shanis, Louise Camalier, Jonathan Miller, Lewis Weinstock, Tim
Hanley, Joseph Elkins
Vlll
-------
QA Handbook Volume II
December, 2008
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AAMG Ambient Air Monitoring Group
APTI Air Pollution Training Institute
ADQ audit of data quality
AMTIC Ambient Monitoring Technical Information Center
ANSI American National Standards Institute
AQAD Air Quality Assessment Division
AQI Air Quality Index
AQS Air Quality System
ARM approved regional method
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ASQ American Society for Quality
AWMA Air and Waste Management Association
CAA Clean Air Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CL confidence limit
CBS A core-based statistical area
CMSA combined metropolitan statistical area
CMZ community monitoring zone
COC chain of custody
CPU central processing unit
CSA combined statistical area
CSN PM2.5 Chemical Speciation Network
CRM certified reference material
CV coefficient of variation
DAS data acquisition system
DASC Data Assessment Statistical Calculator
DC direct current
DQA data quality assessment
DOP digital aerosol photometer
DQI data quality indicators
DQOs data quality objectives
EDO environmental data operation
EDERF energy dispersive x-ray flouresence
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FEM federal equivalent method
FR flow rate
FRM federal reference method
FTIR fourier transform infrared (spectroscopy)
GC/MS gas chromatography mass spectrometry
GIS geographical information systems
GLP good laboratory practice
GMIS gas manufactures internal standards
HAP hazardous air pollutants
HC hydrocarbon
HPLC high performance liquid chromatography
HVAC heating, ventilating and air conditioning
ICP inductively coupled plasma
IMPROVE Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments
IT information technology
LDL lower detectable limit
LIMS' laboratory information management systems
MDL method detection limit
MFC mass flow control
IX
-------
QA Handbook Volume II
Acronyms and Abbreviations (Continued)
MPA monitoring planning area
MQAG Monitoring and Quality Assurance Group
MQOs measurement quality objectives
MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NACAA National Association of Clean Air Agencies
NATTS National Air Toxics Trends Sites
NECTA New England city and town area
NEIC National Enforcement Investigations Center
NTAA National Tribal Air Association
NTEC National Tribal Environmental Council
NCore National Core Network
NERL National Environmental Research Laboratory
NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology
NF National Formulary
NFS National Park Service
NPAP National Performance Audit Program
NPEP National Performance Evaluation Program
NOAA National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration
NTRM NIST traceable reference material
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
ORD Office of Research and Development
ORIA Office of Radiation and Indoor Air
P&A precision and accuracy
PAMS Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations
PDFID Cryogenic Preconcentration and Direct Flame lonization Detection
PC personal computer
PE performance evaluation
PEP PM2 5 Performance Evaluation Program
PBMS performance based measurement system
ppb part per billion
ppm part per million
PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration
PQAO primary quality assurance organization
PT proficiency test
PWD primary wind direction
QA quality assurance
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
QAARWP quality assurance annual report and work plan
QAD EPA Quality Assurance Division
QAM quality assurance manager
QAO quality assurance officer
QAPP quality assurance project plan
QMP quality management plan
RPO regional planning organization
RSD relative standard deviation
SD standard deviation
SIPS State Implementation Plans
SLAMS state and local monitoring stations
SOP standard operating procedure
SPMS special purpose monitoring stations
SRM standard reference material
SRP standard reference photometer
STN PM2 5 Speciation Trends Network (a subset of Chemical Speciation Network)
December, 2008
-------
QA Handbook Volume II December, 2008
Acronyms and Abbreviations (Continued)
TAD technical assistance document
TEOM tapered element oscillating microbalance
TIP tribal implementation plan
TSA technical system audit
TSP total suspended paniculate
TTL transistor-transistor logic
USB universal serial bus
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UTM universal transverse Mercator
USP US Pharmacopeia!
VAC volts of alternating current
VOC volatile organic carbon
XI
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Introduction
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 1 of2
0. Introduction
0.1 Intent of the Handbook
This document is Volume II of a five-volume quality assurance (QA) handbook series dedicated to air
pollution measurement systems. Volume II is dedicated to the Ambient Air Quality Surveillance
Program and the data collection activities inherent to that program. This guidance is part of a quality
management system designed to ensure that the Ambient Air Quality Surveillance Program: (1) provides
data of sufficient quality to meet the program's objectives and (2) is implemented consistently across the
Nation.
The purpose of the Handbook is twofold. First, the document is intended to assist technical personnel at
tribal, state and local monitoring organizations1 develop and implement a quality system for the Ambient
Air Quality Monitoring Program. A quality system, as defined by The American National Standard-
Specifications and Guidelines for Quality Systems for Environmental Data Collection and
Environmental Technology Programs(ANSI/ASQ E4), 2 is "a structured and documented management
system describing the policies, objectives, principles, organizational authority, responsibilities,
accountability, and implementation plan of an organization for ensuring the quality in its work processes,
products, and services. The quality system provides the framework for planning, implementing, and
assessing the work performed by the organization and for carrying out required quality assurance (QA)
and quality control (QC) activities". A monitoring organization's quality system for the Ambient Air
Quality Surveillance Program is described in its quality assurance project plan (QAPP). Second, the
Handbook provides additional information and guidance on the material covered in the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) pertaining to the Ambient Air Quality Surveillance Program.
The Handbook has been written in a style similar to a QA project plan as specified in the document EPA
Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans for Environmental Data Operations (EPA QA/R5) 3.
Environmental data operations (EDO) refer to the work performed to obtain, use, or report information
pertaining to natural surroundings and conditions. The information in this Handbook can be used as
guidance in the development of detailed monitoring organization QAPPS.
Earlier versions of the Handbook focused on the six criteria pollutants monitored at the State and Local
Ambient Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) and National Ambient Monitoring Stations (NAMS). In 2006,
the term NAMS was discontinued and a new national monitoring concept-the National Ambient Air
Monitoring Strategy- was adopted. Although the focus will remain on the criteria pollutants, this edition
is expanded to cover quality assurance guidance for:
• Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS);
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/pamsmain.html;
• Open path monitoring ( http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/longpath.html);
• PM2 5 Chemical Speciation Network (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/speciepg.html):
1 Monitoring organization will be used throughout the handbook to identify any tribal, state or local organization
that is implementing an ambient air monitoring program, especially if they are using the data for comparison to the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
2http://webstore.ansi.org/RecordDetail.aspx?sku=ANSI%2fASQ+E4-2004
3 http://www.epa.gov/qualityl/qa docs.html
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Introduction
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 2 of2
• National Air Toxics Trends Network (NATTS) http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/airtoxpg.html; and
• NCore Network (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/ncore/index.html)
This Handbook is not intending to supplant the detailed guidance provided by the programs listed above
but to provide general information and pointers, in the form of hyperlinks, where one can go for more
detailed information. Extensive use of hyperlinks will be used throughout the document.
0.2 Use of the Terms Shall, Must, Should and May
The intent of this handbook is to provide additional guidance on the ambient air monitoring requirements
found in the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR Parts 50, 53 and 58. In order to distinguish requirements from
guidance, the following terms will be used with consistency.
*• shall, must- when the element is a requirement in 40 CFR and the Clean Air Act
*• should- when the element is recommended. This term is used when extensive experience in
monitoring provides a recommended procedure that would help establish or improve
the quality of data or a procedure. The process that includes the term is not required
but identifies something that is considered important to data quality that may have
alterative methods that can be implemented to achieve the same quality results.
*• may- when the element is optional or discretionary. The term also indicates that what is
suggested may improve data quality, that it is important to consider, but it is not as
important as those that have been suggested using the term "should".
0.3 Use of Footnotes
This document will make extensive use of internet links that will provide the user with access to more
detailed information on a particular subject. Due to the limitations of Adobe, full URL addresses must be
provided in order for the links to work. Rather than clutter the body of the document with long URL
addresses, footnotes will be used to direct the interested reader to the correct link.
0.4 Handbook Review and Distribution
The information in this Handbook was revised and/or developed by many of the organizations
responsible for implementing the Ambient Air Quality Surveillance Program (see Acknowledgments). It
has been peer-reviewed and accepted by these organizations and serves to promote consistency among
the organizations collecting and reporting ambient air data.
This Handbook is accessible as a PDF file on the Internet under the AMTIC Homepage:
[http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/qabook.html1
Recommendations for modifications or revisions are always welcome. Comments should be sent to the
appropriate Regional Office Ambient Air Monitoring contact or posted on AMTIC forum4. The
Handbook Steering Committee will meet quarterly to discuss any pertinent issues and proposed changes.
4http://vosemite.epa.gov/oar/Forums.nsf/Forum%5CAMTICByTopic?OpenView&CollapseView
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 1.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Pagel of 10
1.0 Program Background
1.1 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network
( ^ EPAResporeibiliy
Stats/Loci!
ttauunent o
Air Quality
Standards
The purpose of this section
is to describe the general
concepts for establishing the
Ambient Air Quality
Monitoring Network. The
majority of this material, as
well as additional details,
can be found in the Clean
AirAct(CAA)1,40CFR
Parts 50, 53 and 582, and
their references.
Between the years 1900 and
1970, the emission of six
principal pollutants
increased significantly. The
principal pollutants, also
called criteria pollutants are:
particulate matter (PMi0 and
PM2 5), sulfur dioxide,
carbon monoxide, nitrogen
dioxide, ozone, and lead. In
1970 the CAA was signed
into law. The CAA and its
amendments provide the
framework for all pertinent
organizations to protect air
quality.
Figure 1.1 Ambient air quality monitoring process
40 CFR Part 58, Appendix D requires that monitoring networks be designed for three basic monitoring
objectives:
• to provide air pollution data to the general public in a timely manner
• to support compliance with ambient air quality standards and emission strategy development
• to support air pollution research studies
In addition, these monitoring networks can also be developed:
• to activate emergency control procedures that prevent or alleviate air pollution episodes
• to observe pollution trends throughout the region, including non-urban areas
1 http ://epa. gov/air/caa/
2 http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search. html
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 1.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 2 of 10
To meet these basic needs, networks are designed with a variety of types of monitoring sites located to:
• Determine the highest concentration expected to occur in the area covered by the network.
• Measure typical concentrations in areas of high population density.
• Determine the impact of significant sources or source categories on air quality.
• Determine background concentration levels.
• Determine the extent of regional pollutant transport among populated areas; and in support of
secondary standards.
• Measure air pollution impacts on visibility, vegetation damage, or welfare-based impacts.
These six objectives will be used during the development of data quality objectives (Section 3). As one
reviews the objectives, it becomes apparent that it will be rare that individual sites can be located to meet
more than two or three objectives. Therefore, monitoring organizations need to choose the sites that are
most representative of its priority objective(s).
Through the process of implementing the CAA, six major categories of monitoring stations or networks
that measure the air pollutants have been developed. These networks are described below. In addition, a
fact sheet on each network (with the exception of SPMs) can be found in Appendix A.
State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) including Tribal Monitoring Stations
The SLAMS consist of a network of monitoring stations whose size and distribution is largely determined
by the monitoring requirements for NAAQS comparison and the needs of monitoring organizations to
meet their respective tribal/state implementation plan (TIP/SIP) requirements. The TIP/SIPs provide for
the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) in each air quality control region within a tribe/state. The Handbook is largely devoted to
guidance related to the SLAMS network. SLAMS exclude special purpose monitor (SPM) stations and
include NCore, PAMS, and all other State or locally operated stations that have not been designated as
SPM stations.
Special Purpose Monitoring Stations (SPMs)
An SPM station means a monitor included in a monitoring organizations network has been designated as
a special purpose monitor station in its monitoring network plan and in the Air Quality System (AQS),
and which the agency does not count when showing compliance with the minimum monitoring
requirements for the number and siting of monitors of various types. SPMs provide for special studies
needed by the monitoring organizations to support TIPs/SIPs and other air program activities. These
monitors are not counted towards the monitoring organization's minimum requirements established in
CFR for monitoring certain pollutants. The SPMs are not permanently established and can be adjusted to
accommodate changing needs and priorities. The SPMs are used to supplement the fixed monitoring
network as circumstances require and resources permit. If the data from SPMs are used for SIP purposes,
they must meet all QA, siting and methodology requirements for SLAMS monitoring. Any SPM data
collected by an air monitoring agency using a Federal reference method (FRM), Federal equivalent
method (FEM), or approved regional method (ARM) must meet the requirements of 40 CFR Part 58.11,
58.12, and the QA requirements in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix A or an approved alternative to Appendix
A to this part. Compliance with the probe and monitoring path siting criteria in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix
E is optional but encouraged except when the monitoring organization's data objectives are inconsistent
with those requirements. Data collected at an SPM using a FRM, FEM, or ARM meeting the
requirements of Appendix A must be submitted to AQS according to the requirements of 40 CFR Part
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 1.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 3 of 10
58.16. Data collected by other SPMs may be submitted. The monitoring agency must also submit to AQS
an indication of whether each SPM reporting data to AQS meets the requirements of Appendices A and E.
PA/25 Chemical Spedation Network (CSN)3
As part of the effort to monitor particulate matter, EPA monitors and gathers data on the chemical
makeup of these particles. EPA established a chemical speciation network consisting of approximately
300 monitoring sites. These sites are placed at various SLAMS across the Nation. Fifty-four of these
CSN sites, the Speciation Trends Network (STN), will be used to determine, over a period of several
years, trends in concentration levels of selected ions, metals, carbon species, and organic compounds in
PM2 5. Further breakdown on the location or placement of the trends sites requires that approximately 20
of the monitoring sites be placed at existing Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS).
The placement of the remaining trends sites will be coordinated by EPA, the regional offices, and the
monitoring organizations. Locations will be primarily in or near larger Metropolitan Statistical Areas
(MSAs) The remaining chemical speciation sites will be used to enhance the required trends network
and to provide information for developing effective TIPs/SIPs.
The STN is a component of the National PM2 5 SLAMS. Although the STN is intended to complement
the SLAMS activities, STN data will not be used for attainment or nonattainment decisions. The
programmatic objectives of the STN network are:
• annual and seasonal spatial characterization of aerosols;
• air quality trends analysis and tracking the progress of control programs;
• comparing, aggregating and evaluating the chemical speciation data set to the data collected from
the IMPROVE network; and
• development of emission control strategies.
Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS)4
Section 182(c)(l) of the 1990 CAA required the Administrator to promulgate rules for the enhanced
monitoring of ozone, oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and volatile organic compounds (VOC) to obtain more
comprehensive and representative data on ozone air pollution. Immediately following the promulgation of
such rules, the affected states/tribes were to commence such actions as were necessary to adopt and
implement a program to improve ambient monitoring activities and the monitoring of emissions of NOx
and VOC. Each TIP/SIP for the affected areas must contain measures to implement the ambient
monitoring of such air pollutants. The subsequent revisions to 40 CFR 58 required states to establish
Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS) as part of their SIP monitoring networks in
ozone nonattainment areas classified as serious, severe, or extreme.
The chief objective of the enhanced ozone monitoring revisions is to provide an air quality database that
will assist air pollution control agencies in evaluating, tracking the progress of, and, if necessary, refining
control strategies for attaining the ozone NAAQS. Ambient concentrations of ozone and ozone precursors
will be used to make attainment/nonattainment decisions, aid in tracking VOC and NOx emission
inventory reductions, better characterize the nature and extent of the ozone problem, and to evaluate air
quality trends. In addition, data from the PAMS will provide an improved database for evaluating
photochemical model performance, especially for future control strategy mid-course corrections as part of
3 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/speciepg.html
4 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/pamsmain. html
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 1.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 4 of 10
the continuing air quality management process. The data will help to ensure the implementation of the
most cost-effective regulatory controls.
National Air Toxic Trends Stations (NATTS)5
There are currently 188 hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) or Air Toxics (AT) regulated under the
CAA. These pollutants have been associated with a wide variety of adverse health and ecosystem effects.
In 1999, EPA finalized the Urban Air Toxics Strategy (UATS). The UATS states that emissions data are
needed to quantify the sources of air toxics impacts and aid in the development of control strategies, while
ambient monitoring data are needed to understand the behavior of air toxics in the atmosphere after they
are emitted. Part of this strategy included the development of the National Air Toxics Trends Stations
(NATTS). Specifically, it is anticipated that the NATTS data will be used for:
• tracking trends in ambient levels to evaluate progress toward emission and risk reduction goals;
• directly evaluating public exposure & environmental impacts in the vicinity of monitors;
• providing quality assured data for risk characterization;
• assessing the effectiveness of specific emission reduction activities; and
• evaluating and subsequently improving air toxics emission inventories and model performance.
Currently the NATTS program is made up of 22 monitoring sites; 15 representing urban communities and
7 representing rural communities.
National Core Monitoring Network (NCore)6
The NCore multi-pollutant stations are part of an overall strategy to integrate multiple monitoring
networks and measurements. Each state (i.e., the fifty states, District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the
Virgin Islands) is required to operate at least one NCore site. Monitors at NCore multi-pollutant sites will
measure particles (PM2 5, speciated PM2 5, PMi0_2 5, speciated PMi0.2.5), O3, SO2, CO, nitrogen oxides
(NO/NO2/NOy), and basic meteorology. In addition a number of NCore sites will be selected to measure
lead (Pb).
The objective is to locate sites in broadly representative urban (about 55 sites) and rural (about 20 sites)
locations throughout the country to help characterize regional and urban patterns of air pollution. The
NCore network should be fully operational by 2011.
In many cases, monitoring organizations will collocate these new stations with STN sites measuring
speciated PM2 5 components, PAMS sites already measuring O3 precursors, and/or NATTS sites
measuring air toxics. By combining these monitoring programs at a single location, EPA and its partners
will maximize the multi-pollutant information available. This greatly enhances the foundation for future
health studies, NAAQS revisions, validation of air quality models, assessment of emission reduction
programs, and studies of ecosystem impacts of air pollution.
5 http://www. epa. gov/ttn/amtic/airtoxpg. html
6 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/ncore/index.html
-------
1.2 The EPA Quality System Requirements
Ambient Air
(CAA, CFR 50,53, 53 I
Regional Policy /«-
SLppcrting System Bemerts
(efl., Procurements.
Computer Hardw
J
Standa-d
Cp erasing
FT':":~dLres
.
Technical
tesessrnerts
-^- IHPLEHENTftTION •
-^- AIIEIIHENT
Defensible Products and Decisions
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 1.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 5 of 10
A quality system is the "blueprint" or
framework by which an organization
applies sufficient quality control (QC)
and quality assurance (QA) practices to
ensure that the results of its
environmental programs meet or exceed
expectations. It is based upon the model
of planning the work, implementing
what is planned, assessing the results
against the performance criteria,
reporting on data quality and making
improvements if necessary. Figure 1.2
provides an illustration of the pertinent
regulations and policy that drive the
development of a quality system. Some
important aspects of this figure are
explained below.
1.2.1 Policy and Regulations
At the highest level, standards and
regulations determine what QA is
required for the monitoring program
and, therefore, set the stage for program
and project specific guidance. The
standards and regulations pertinent to
the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring
Program include:
Figure 1.2. Hierarchy of quality system development
• ANSI/ASQ E4 - EPA's quality system is based on the document: American National Standard-
Quality Systems for Environmental Data and Technology Programs-Requirements with Guidance
for use (ANSI/ASQ E4-2004)7. This document describes a basic set of mandatory specifications
and non-mandatory guidelines by which a quality system for programs involving environmental
data collection can be planned, implemented, and assessed.
• Internal Policies- EPA Order 5360.18 expresses the EPA policy in regards to the quality system
development for all EPA organizations and by non-EPA organizations performing work on behalf
of EPA through extramural agreements. The EPA QA Orders adhere to E4 under the authority of
the Office of Management and Budget. Section 1.2.5 below provides more specifics on this
Order.
7 http://webstore.ansi.org/default.aspx
8 http://www.epa.gov/qualityl/.
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 1.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 6 of 10
NOTE: During development of this document EPA Order 5360.1 was under revision and its new
reference may be changed to CIO 2105.0. This Handbook will continue to use 5360.1 as the
current reference.
• External Policies - Refers to the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR). The references to the
external regulations are those that apply to the quality system requirements for external funding.
Those most important to the monitoring community are 40 CFR Parts 30, 31 and 35 but are not
specific to ambient air monitoring.
• Ambient Air -The consensus standards (E4) and internal and external requirements then funnel
to the Headquarters and Regional programs (yellow circle) where additional QA requirements,
specific to a particular monitoring program, are included. Ambient air requirements include
documents like the Clean Air Act (CAA) and 40 CFR Parts 50, 53 and 58 which are specific to
ambient air monitoring.
1.2.2 Organization/Program
This area in Figure 1.2 refers to the monitoring organization and is used to describe its overall quality
system, usually in the form of a quality management plan (QMP)9. Many monitoring organizations
perform a multitude of data collection activities for different media (e.g., air, water, solid waste) where
ambient air monitoring might be only one branch in a large organization. It is the responsibility of each
organization to have a QMP that demonstrates an acceptable quality system. QMPs are approved by the
EPA Regions.
1.2.3 Project
The term "project" refers to the specific environmental data operation (EDO) that occurs at the
monitoring organization. An environmental data operation refers to the work performed to obtain, use, or
report information pertaining to environmental processes and conditions. This handbook provides the
majority of the guidance necessary for the monitoring organizations to develop QA project plans specific
to its data collection needs. Other guidance has been developed specific to a part of the measurement
system (i.e., calibration techniques) or to specific methods. A listing of this guidance is included in
Appendix B. It is anticipated that the majority of these documents will be available on the AMTIC
bulletin board.
1.2.4 Quality System Requirements for EPA Funded Programs
EPA's national quality system requirements can be found in EPA QA Policy 5360.110. Any organization
using EPA funds for the collection of environmental data are covered under 5360.1 and must develop,
implement, and maintain a quality system that demonstrates conformance to the minimum specifications
of ANSI/ASQC E4-1994 and that additionally provides for the following (excerpt from 5360.1):
1. A quality assurance manager (QAM), or person/persons assigned to an equivalent position, who
functions independently of direct environmental data generation, model development, or
technology development responsibility; who reports on quality issues to the senior manager
9 http://www.epa.gov/qualityl/qs-docs/r2-final.pdf
10 http://www.epa.gov/irmpoli8/ciopolicv/2105-0.pdf
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 1.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 7 of 10
having executive leadership authority for the organization; and who has sufficient technical and
management expertise and authority to conduct independent oversight of and assure the
implementation of the organization's quality system in the environmental programs of the
organization.
2. A Quality Management Plan (QMP), which documents the organization's quality policy,
describes its quality system, identifies the environmental programs to which the quality system
applies, and which is implemented following approval by the organization's executive leadership.
3. Sufficient resources to implement the quality system defined in the approved QMP.
4. Assessments of the effectiveness of the quality system at least annually.
5. Submittal to the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) of the Quality Assurance Annual
Report and Work Plan (QAARWP) for the organization that summarizes the previous years QA
and QC activities and outlines the work proposed for the current year (not applicable to air
monitoring organizations)
6. Use of a systematic planning approach to develop acceptance or performance criteria for all work
covered by this Order.
7. Approved Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs), or equivalent documents defined by the
QMP, for all applicable projects and tasks involving environmental data with review and approval
having been made by the EPA QAM (or authorized representative defined in the QMP). QAPPs
must be approved prior to any data gathering work or use, except under circumstances requiring
immediate action to protect human health and the environment or operations conducted under
police powers.
8. Assessment of existing data, when used to support Agency decisions or other secondary purposes,
to verify that they are of sufficient quantity and adequate quality for their intended use.
9. Implementation of Agency-wide Quality System requirements in all applicable EPA-funded
extramural agreements
10. Implementation of corrective actions based on assessment results.
11. Appropriate training, for all levels of management and staff, to assure that QA and QC
responsibilities and requirements are understood at every stage of project implementation.
Planning
DQOs Methods
Training Guidance
Reports
Data Quality Assessments
P & A Reports
QA Reports
Audit Reports
Ambient Air 1
QA
Life Cycle
Implementation
QAPP development
Internal QC Activities
P&A
Systems Audits (State/EPA)
Network Reviews
FRM Performance Evaluation
1.3 The Ambient Air Monitoring
Program Quality System
Figure 1.3 represents the stages of the
Ambient Air Quality Monitoring QA
Program. OAQPS modified EPA 5360.1 as
appropriate in order to provide data of the
quality needed to meet the Ambient Air
Monitoring Program objectives. The planning,
implementation, assessment and reporting
tools will be briefly discussed below.
1.3.1 Planning
Planning activities include:
Figure 1.3 Ambient Monitoring Quality Monitoring QA Program
from the outputs of the DQO Process that: (1) clarify the study objective; (2) define the most appropriate
Data Quality Objectives (DOOs) - DQOs are
qualitative and quantitative statements derived
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 1.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 8 of 10
type of data to collect; (3) determine the most appropriate conditions from which to collect the data; and
(4) specify tolerable limits on decision errors which will be used as the basis for establishing the quantity
and quality of data needed to support the decision. Section 3 will provide more information on the DQO
Process.
Methods- Reference methods and measurement principles have been written for each criteria pollutant.
For monitoring for comparison to the NAAQS, monitoring organizations must use methods that are
designated as Federal Reference (FRM) Federal Equivalent (FEM)11 or approved regional monitor
(ARM)12 for PM2 5. ORD NERL implements the FRM/FEM designation program and provides technical
assistance in the PM2s ARM process. Approved FRM/FEM methods refer to individual monitoring
instruments that either provide a pollutant concentration or provide a sample for further laboratory
analysis and must be operated minimally as required in 40 CFR Part 50. Since these methods cannot be
applied to the actual instruments acquired by each monitoring organization, they should be considered as
guidance for detailed standard operating procedures that would be developed by monitoring organizations
as part of an acceptable QAPP.
Training - Training is an essential part of any good monitoring program. Training activities are
discussed in Section 4.
Guidance - This QA Handbook as well as many other guidance documents have been developed for the
Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program. Many of the monitoring networks listed above have
developed technical assistance documents and generic QAPPs to help guide personnel in the important
aspects of these programs. A list of these documents is included in Appendix B.
1.3.2 Implementation
Implementation activities include:
QMP/QAPP Development - Each state, local, and tribal organization must develop a QMP and QAPP.
• QMP - describes the quality system in terms of the organizational structure, functional
responsibilities of management and staff, lines of authority, and required interfaces for those
planning, implementing, and assessing activities involving environmental data collection. The
QMP is not specific to any particular project, but related to how the monitoring organization
implements its quality system.
• QAPP- is 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 work performed
will satisfy the stated performance criteria, which may be in the form of a data quality objective
(DQO). The QAPP is specific to a particular monitoring project. Standard operating procedures
(SOPs) are part of the QAPP development process and are vital to the quality of any monitoring
program. The QAPP should be detailed enough to provide a clear description of every aspect of
the project and include information for every member of the project staff, including samplers, lab
staff, and data reviewers. The QAPP facilitates communication among clients, data users, project
staff, management, and external reviewers.
11 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/criteria.html
12 40 CFR Part 58 Appendix C Section 2.4
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 1.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 9 of 10
Guidance for the development of both QMPs and QAPPs can be found on the EPA Quality Staffs
website13. In addition, EPA has provided flexibility on how EPA organizations implement this policy,
allowing for use of a graded approach. Since EPA funds the collection and use of data for a number of
monitoring objectives and for organizations with a broad range of capabilities, flexibility in the QMP and
QAPP requirements is necessary. For example, data collection for the purpose of comparison to the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) will require more stringent requirements, while
monitoring programs for special purposes may not require the same level of quality assurance. The level
of detail of QMPs and QAPPs, as explained by the EPA Quality Staff in the EPA Quality Manual,
"should be based on a common sense, graded approach that establishes the QA and QC requirements
commensurate with the importance of the work, available resources, and the unique needs of the
organization." The ambient air program has developed a graded approach that will help tribes and
smaller monitoring organizations develop both a QMP and QAPPs. Appendix C provides information on
this approach.
Internal OC Activities - The quality control (QC) system is used to fulfill requirements for quality. It is
the overall system of technical activities that measure the attributes and performance of a process, item, or
service against defined standards to verify that they meet the stated requirements established by the
customer. In the case of the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network, QC activities are used to ensure
that measurement uncertainty is maintained within established acceptance criteria for the attainment of
the DQOs.
Federal regulation provides for the implementation of a number of qualitative and quantitative checks to
ensure that the data will meet the DQOs. Each of the checks attempt to evaluate phases of measurement
uncertainty. Some of these checks are discussed below and in Section 10.
• Precision and Bias (P & B) Checks - These checks are described in the 40 CFR Part 58,
Appendix A. These checks can be used to provide an overall assessment of measurement
uncertainty.
• Zero/Span Checks - These checks provide an internal quality control check of proper operation
of the measurement system.
• Annual Certifications - A certification is the process which ensures the traceability and viability
of various QC standards. Standard traceability is the process of transferring the accuracy or
authority of a primary standard to a field-usable standard. Traceability protocols are available for
certifying a working standard by direct comparison to a NIST-SRM14'15.
• Calibrations - Calibrations should be carried out at the field monitoring site by allowing the
analyzer to sample test atmospheres containing known pollutant concentrations. Calibrations are
discussed in Section 12.
1.3.3 Assessments
Assessments, as defined in ANSI/ASQC-E4 and EPA's document, Guidance on Technical Audits and
Related Assessments for Environmental Data Operations (QA/G-7)16, are evaluation processes used to
measure the performance or effectiveness of a system and its elements. It is an all inclusive term used to
denote any of the following: audit, performance evaluation, management systems review, peer review,
(http://www.epa.gov/qualityl/)
14 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/criteria/reldocs/4-79-056.pdf
15 http://www.epa.gov/appcdwww/pubs/600r9712l/600r97121 .htm
16 ,
' http://www.epa.gov/qualitv l/qs-docs/g7-final.pdf
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 1.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
10 of 10
inspection, or surveillance. Assessments for the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program, as discussed
in Section 15, include:
Technical Systems Audits (TSA) -A TSA is an on-site review and inspection of a State or local agency's
ambient air monitoring program to assess its compliance with established regulations governing the
collection, analysis, validation, and reporting of ambient air quality data. Both EPA and State
organizations perform TSAs. Procedures for this audit are discussed in general terms in Section 15.
Network Reviews - The network review is used to determine how well a particular air monitoring
network is achieving its required air monitoring objective(s) and how it should be modified to continue to
meet its objective(s). Network reviews are discussed in Section 15.
Performance Evaluations- Performance evaluations are a type of audit in which the quantitative data
generated in a measurement system are obtained independently and compared with routinely obtained
data to evaluate the proficiency of an analyst, laboratory, or measurement system. The following
performance evaluations, discussed in further detail in Section 15, are included in the Ambient Air
Quality Monitoring Program:
• Monitoring Organization Performance Evaluations (Audits) - These performance evaluation
audits are used to provide an independent assessment of the measurement operations of each
instrument being audited. This is accomplished by comparing performance samples or devices
of "known" concentrations or values to the values measured by the instruments being audited.
• National Performance Evaluation Program (NPEP) - These performance evaluation audits
are implemented at the federal level although some programs may be implemented by the
monitoring organizations if certain requirements are met.
1.3.4 Reports
All concentration data should be assessed in order to evaluate the attainment of the DQOs or the
monitoring objectives. These assessments can be documented using the following types of reports:
• Data quality assessment (DQA) is the scientific and statistical evaluation to determine if data
are of the right type, quality, and quantity to support their intended use (DQOs). QA/QC data can
be statistically assessed at various levels of aggregation to determine whether the DQOs have
been attained. Data quality assessments of precision, bias, and accuracy can be aggregated at the
following three levels.
o Monitor- monitor/method designation
o PQAO - monitors in a method designation, all monitors
o National - monitors in a method designation, all monitors
• P & B reports are generated annually and evaluate the precision and bias of data against the
acceptance criteria discussed in Section 3.
• QA reports provide an evaluation of QA/QC data for a given time period to determine whether
the data quality objectives were met. Discussions of QA reports can be found in Sections 16 and
18.
• Meetings and Calls at various national meetings and conference calls can be used as assessment
tools for improving the network. It is important that information derived from the avenues of
communication is appropriately documented.
-------
2.0 Program Organization
Local Monitoring
Organization
Local Monitoring
Organization
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 2.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 1 of 7
Federal, state, tribal, and local
agencies all have important roles
in developing and implementing
air monitoring programs. Figure
2.1 identifies the major entities
involved in the Ambient Air
Quality Monitoring Program, the
organizational structure, and the
lines of communication. The
responsibilities of each
organization follow.
Figure 2.1 Program organization and lines of communication
2.1 Organization Responsibilities
2.1.1 EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS)
EPA's responsibility, under the Clean Air Act (CAA) as amended in 1990, includes: setting National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for pollutants considered harmful to the public health and
environment; ensuring that these air quality standards are met or attained through national standards and
strategies to control air emissions from sources; and ensuring that sources of toxic air pollutants are well
controlled.
OAQPS1 is the organization charged under the authority of the CAA to protect and enhance the quality of
the nation's air resources. OAQPS evaluates the need to regulate potential air pollutants and develops
national standards; works with state, tribes and local agencies to develop plans for meeting these
standards; monitors national air quality trends and maintains a database of information on air pollution
and controls; provides technical guidance and training on air pollution control strategies; and monitors
compliance with air pollution standards.
Within the OAQPS Air Quality Assessment Division, the Ambient Air Monitoring Group (AAMG)2 is
responsible for the oversight of the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network and its quality assurance
program. AAMG, relative to quality assurance, has the responsibility to:
• develop a satisfactory quality system for the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network;
• ensure that the methods and procedures used in making air pollution measurements are adequate
to meet the programs objectives and that the resulting data are of appropriate quality;
• manage the National Performance Evaluation Program (NPEP);
1 http://www.epa.gov/air/oarofcs.html
2 http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/organization/aqad/aamg.html
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 2.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 2 of 7
• perform data quality assessments of organizations making air pollution measurements of
importance to the regulatory process;
• ensure that guidance pertaining to the quality assurance aspects of the Ambient Air Program are
written and revised as necessary; and
• render technical assistance to the EPA Regional Offices and the air pollution monitoring
community.
In particular to this Handbook, OAQPS will be responsible for:
• coordinating the Handbook Revision Workgroup responsible for continued improvement of the
Handbook;
• seeking resolution on Handbook issues;
• incorporating agreed upon revisions into the Handbook; and
• reviewing and revising the Handbook (Vol II) as necessary.
Specific AAMG leads for the various QA activities (e.g., precision and bias, training, etc.) can be found
within the QA Section3 of the Ambient Monitoring Technical Information Center (AMTIC).
2.1.2 EPA Regional Offices
EPA Regional Offices4 play a critical role in addressing environmental issues related to the monitoring
organizations within their jurisdiction and to administering and overseeing regulatory and congressionally
mandated programs.
The major quality assurance responsibilities of EPA's Regional Offices in regards to the Ambient Air
Quality Program are the coordination of quality assurance matters between the various EPA offices and
the monitoring organizations. This role requires that the Regional Offices:
• distribute and explain technical and quality assurance information to the monitoring
organizations;
• identify quality assurance needs of the monitoring organization to EPA Headquarters that are
"national" in scope;
• provide personnel and the infrastructure to implement NPEP programs;
• provide the personnel with knowledge of QA regulations and with adequate technical expertise to
address ambient air monitoring and QA issues;
• ensure monitoring organization have approved quality management plans (QMPs) and quality
assurance project plans (QAPPs) prior to routine monitoring;
• evaluate the capabilities of monitoring organizations to measure the criteria air pollutants by
implementing network reviews and technical systems audits;
• assess data quality of monitoring organizations within its Regions; and
• assist SLT agencies in defining primary quality assurance organizations within their jurisdiction
and in assigning sites to a primary quality assurance organization.
Specific responsibilities as they relates to the Handbook include:
• serving as a liaison to the monitoring organizations for their particular Region;
3 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/qacon.html
4 http://www.epa.gov/epahome/locate2.htm
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 2.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 3 of 7
• serving on the Handbook Revision Workgroup;
• fielding questions related to the Handbook and ambient air monitoring programs;
• reporting issues that would require Handbook Revision Workgroup attention; and
• serving as a reviewer of the Handbook and participating in its revision.
2.1.3 Monitoring Organizations
40 CFR Part 585 defines a monitoring organization as a "state, local or other monitoring organization
(such as tribes) responsible for operating a monitoring site for which quality assurance regulations apply."
Federally recognized Indian Tribes are Sovereign Nations. However, Section 301(d) of the CAA gives the
Administrator the authority to treat an Indian Tribe as a State Agency with some exceptions. Additionally,
Section 302 of the CAA states an air pollution control agency can be an agency of an Indian Tribe.
The major responsibility of the monitoring organization6 is the implementation of a satisfactory
monitoring program, which would naturally include the implementation of an appropriate quality
assurance program. Implementation of an appropriate quality assurance program includes the
development and implementation of a QMP and QAPPs for the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring
Program. It is the responsibility of monitoring organizations to implement quality assurance programs in
all phases of the data collection process, including the field, its own laboratories, and in any consulting
and contractor laboratories which it may use to obtain data.
Monitoring organizations may be identified for reasons such as:
distinguishing geographic regions (e.g. CA Districts)
distinguishing different entities or sources of funds (e.g., tribal funds versus state/local funds)
identifying organizations receiving funds directly from EPA
identifying organizations that have different methods or objectives for monitoring
Therefore, if the monitoring organization accepts federal funds for monitoring, it will be identified as a
monitoring organization that will be required to submit a requisite QMP and QAPPs to cover its
monitoring activities. This does not eliminate it from consolidating to a PQAO with other organizations
that it shares common factors, as described in the next section.
Specific responsibilities of monitoring organizations as they relates to the Handbook include:
• serving as a representative for the monitoring organization on the Handbook Revision
Workgroup;
• assisting in the development of QA guidance for various sections; and
• reporting issues and comments to Regional Contacts or on the AMTIC Bulletin Board.
2.1.4 Primary Quality Assurance Organizations (PQAOs)
A PQAO is a monitoring organization or a group of monitoring organizations that share a number of
common "QA Factors". Below is an excerpt on PQAOs from 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix A:
5 http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html
6 http://www.4cleanair.org/contactUsaLevel.asp
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 2.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 4 of 7
3.1.1 Each primary quality assurance organization shall be defined such that measurement uncertainty
among all stations in the organization can be expected to be reasonably homogeneous, as a result of
common factors. Common factors that should be considered by monitoring organizations in defining
primary quality assurance organizations include:
(a) Operation by a common team of field operators according to a common set of procedures;
(b) Use of a common QAPP or standard operating procedures;
(c) Common calibration facilities and standards;
(d) Oversight by a common quality assurance organization; and
(e) Support by a common management, laboratory or headquarters.
PQAO has very important implications to quality assurance activities. For each pollutant, the number of
monitoring sites in a PQAO is used to determine the number and frequency of quality control checks,
including the number of collocated monitors and the NPAP/PEP audit frequencies. PQAO is also used to
aggregate data for assessments of completeness, precision and bias. EPA will base many of its data
quality assessments at the PQAO level. The 5 common factors listed are the key criteria to be used when
an agency decides the sites to be considered for aggregation to a PQAO. There are cases where state,
local and tribal monitoring organizations have consolidated to one PQAO. The requirement does not
intend that all 5 factors have to be fulfilled but that these factors are considered. However, common
procedures and a common QAPP should be strongly considered as key to making decisions to consolidate
sites into a PQAO. However, the QAPP(s) of the monitoring organizations must refer to the PQAO that
the monitoring organization is affiliated with. EPA Regions will need to be aware of monitoring
organizations consolidating to a PQAO and have documentation on file to this effect. Figure 2.2 shows
the relationship of pollutants monitored at unique sites and how these unique sites are then related to
monitoring organizations and primary quality assurance organizations. In the case of PQAO #1, a tribal
monitoring organization and local monitoring organization have common factors that allow for
consolidation.
Primary Quality
Assurance Org
Monitoring
Org. Level
Site Level
(Unique ID)
Pollutants
Monitored
Figure 2.2 Relationship of monitored pollutants to sites, monitoring organizations
and primary quality assurance organizations
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 2.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 5 of 7
PQAO is identified at the pollutant (monitor) level so two monitoring organizations may consolidate to a
single PQAO for one pollutant due to similar methods and QA procedure, but not consolidate for another
pollutant where they may have different quality requirements.
2.1.5 EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) National Exposure Research
Laboratory (NERL)7
NERL conducts research and development that leads to improved methods, measurements and models to
assess and predict exposures of humans and ecosystems to harmful pollutants and other conditions in air,
water, soil, and food. The NERL provides the following activities relative to the Ambient Air Quality
Monitoring networks:
• develops, improves, and validates methods and instruments for measuring gaseous, semi-volatile,
and non-volatile pollutants in source emissions and in ambient air;
• supports multi-media approaches to assessing human exposure to toxic contaminated media
through development and evaluation of analytical methods and reference materials, and provides
analytical and method support for special monitoring projects for trace elements and other
inorganic and organic constituents and pollutants;
• develops standards and systems needed for assuring and controlling data quality;
• assesses whether candidate sampling methods conform to accepted reference method
specifications and are capable of providing data of acceptable quality and completeness for
determining compliance with applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standards;
• assesses whether emerging methods for monitoring criteria pollutants are "equivalent" to
accepted Federal Reference Methods and are capable of addressing the Agency's research and
regulatory objectives; and
• provides an independent audit and review function on data collected by NERL or other
appropriate clients.
NERL will continue to assist in the Handbook by:
• providing overall guidance;
• participating in the Handbook review process;
• developing new methods including the appropriate QA/QC; and
• conducting laboratory and field evaluations of sampling and analysis methods to resolve ad hoc
technical issues.
2.2 Lines of Communication
In order to maintain a successful Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program, effective communication is
essential. Lines of communication will ensure that decisions can be made at the most appropriate levels
in a more time-efficient manner. It also means that each organization in this structure must be aware of
the regulations governing the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program. In most circumstances, the
monitoring organizations first line of contact is the EPA Region. Any issues that require a decision,
especially in relation to the quality of data, or the quality system, should be addressed to the EPA Region.
A monitoring organization should, in only rare circumstances, contact OAQPS with an issue if it has not
initially contacted the EPA Region. If this does occur, OAQPS normally tries to include the pertinent
EPA Region in the conversation, or at a minimum, briefs the EPA Region about the issue(s) discussed.
7 http://www.epa.gov/nerl/
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 2.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 6 of 7
This is appropriate as long as decisions are not made during these information-seeking communications.
If important decisions are made at various locations along the line, it is important that the information is
disseminated in all directions in order that improvements to the quality system can reach all organizations
in the Program. Nationwide communication will be accomplished through AMTIC and the subsequent
revisions to this Handbook.
There are many other routes of communication available in the monitoring community. Three that occur
with some frequency and should be used to identify important monitoring and QA issues are:
National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA)8- represents air pollution control agencies in 53
states and territories and over 165 major metropolitan areas across the United States. It formed in the
1970's to improve their effectiveness as managers of air quality programs. The association serves to
encourage the exchange of information among air pollution control officials, to enhance communication
and cooperation among federal, state, and local regulatory agencies, and to promote good management of
our air resources. Specifically for the Ambient Air Monitoring Program, it facilitates a monthly
conference call and has organized a Steering Committee, made up of monitoring organization
representatives and EPA, that meet twice a year to discuss issues related to ambient air monitoring.
National Tribal Air Association (NTAA)9- is an autonomous organization affiliated with the National
Tribal Environmental Council (NTEC). The NTAA's mission is to advance air quality management
policies and programs, consistent with the needs, interests, and unique legal status of American Indian
Tribes, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians. This organization has many similarities to NACCA. It
also facilitates a monthly conference call with EPA and holds a national annual meeting.
EPA Headquarters and Regional Monitoring and QA Calls- These calls occur monthly and are
devoted to relevant monitoring and QA topics where EPA tries to develop consistent approaches to
relevant monitoring issues.
Besides the three communication mechanisms described above, there are many others, such as the
Regional Planning Organization (RPOs)10 conference calls/meetings, EPA Regional conference
calls/meetings that also serve to communicate the needs and issues of the ambient air monitoring
community.
http://www.4cleanair.org/about.asp
9 http://www.ntaatribalair.org/
10 http://epa.gov/visibilitv/regional.html
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 2.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 7 of 7
2.3 Quality Assurance (QA) Workgroups
Two workgroups have been formed to provide information for improving the Ambient Air Monitoring
Program Quality System
• QA Strategy Workgroup
• Handbook Revision Workgroup
2.3.1 QA Strategy Workgroup
Organized and chaired by the QA Team Lead of OAQPS/AQAD, the Workgroup consists of Ambient Air
Quality Assurance personnel from OAQPS, EPA Regions, and monitoring organizations. The Workgroup
members were solicited through NACAA in 2001 in conjunction with OAQPS vision of a new
monitoring strategy for the ambient air monitoring community. The goal, established by the Workgroup,
was to define the elements of a Quality System. To achieve this goal, the Workgroup scheduled
conference calls and meetings. Additionally, the work group meets on an annual basis at the National QA
Meeting to discuss issues relevant to quality assurance work in the ambient air monitoring field. For
information on the workgroup's activities please refer to: www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/qaqcrein.html.
2.3.2 The Handbook Revision Workgroup
The Handbook Revision Workgroup is made up of representatives from the following four entities in
order to provide representation at the Federal, State and local level:
• OAQPS - OAQPS is represented by the coordinator for the Handbook and other
representatives of the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring QA Team.
• Regions - A minimum of 1 representative from each EPA Regional Office.
• NERL -A minimum of one representative. NERL represents historical knowledge of the
Handbook series as well as the expertise in the reference and equivalent methods program
and QA activities.
• Monitoring Organizations- A minimum of 10 representatives of the monitoring
organizations.
The mission of the workgroup is the continued clarification and addition of quality assurance procedures
as related to ambient air monitoring and the networks. The workgroup provides experiences and insights
in the ambient air monitoring field that will assist OAQPS with the task of the continuous improvement of
the quality system. This ensures data integrity and provides valid quality indicators for decision makers
faced with attainment/nonattainment issues as well as providing quality data to health professionals,
academia and environmental professionals using the data.
The Handbook Revision Workgroup will be formed every five years for the purpose of reviewing and
revising the Handbook or sections as needed. Issues may surface from comments made by monitoring
organizations liaisons, AMTIC bulletin board comments, or the development/revision of regulations.
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 3.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 1 of 7
3.0 Data Quality Objectives
Baseline condition- site is in attainment
,,•„,
a
nbiased.mean = 14
Biased (+15%), mean = 16.6
A decision maker declaring
&IQ site non-attainmeni
{based on the biased data)
would be falsely rejecting
the baseline condition.
Concentration
Data collected for the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program are used to make very specific decisions
that can have an economic impact on the area represented by the data. Data quality objectives (DQOs)
are qualitative and quantitative statements derived from the DQO Planning Process that clarify the
purpose of the study, define the most appropriate type of information to collect, determine the most
appropriate conditions from which to collect that information, and specify tolerable levels of potential
decision errors. Throughout this document, the
term decision maker is used. This term represents
individuals that are the ultimate users of ambient
air data and therefore may be responsible for
setting the NAAQS (or other objective),
developing a quality system, or evaluating the data
(e.g., NAAQS comparison). The DQO will be
based on the data requirements of the decision
maker who needs to feel confident that the data
used to make environmental decisions are of
adequate quality. The data used in these decisions
are never error free and always contain some level
of uncertainty. Because of these uncertainties or
errors, there is a possibility that decision makers
may declare an area "nonattainment" when the area
is actually in "attainment" (Fig. 3.1 a false
rejection of the baseline condition) or "attainment"
when actually the area is in "nonattainment" (Fig.
3.2 false acceptance of the baseline condition)1.
Figures 3.1 and 3.2 illustrate how false rejection
and acceptance errors can affect a NAAQS
decision based on an annual mean concentration
value of 15 and the baseline condition that the area
is in attainment. There are serious political,
economic and health consequences of making such
decision errors. Therefore, decision makers need to
understand and set limits on the probabilities of
making incorrect decisions with these data.
In order to set probability limits on decision
errors, one needs to understand and control
uncertainty. Uncertainty is used as a generic term
to describe the sum of all sources of error associated with an EDO and can be illustrated as follows:
Figure 3.1 Effect of positive bias on the annual average
estimate, resulting in a false rejection error.
Baseline condition- site 3s in attainment
006-
B1 u us -
01
Q ULW
^
J]
A
e
1 n rr?
nm -
1 /**\ ^--Unbiased, mean = IB
' / % \7 ' Biased (-1 S%), mean = 1 36
;'/ 'rf '
* j \
, /
. /
;/
, .'
•/
* /
//
A decsion maker declaring
tre site attainment (based on
\ the biased data) would be
* \ falsely accepting the baseline
^ \ condttion
\ \
•>. \
* ^ ''•v
X" v""'i~-
r " ~ • - f~
U 6 1U 15 20 .fi :jU Ji 40 -46
Concentration
Figure 3.2 Effect of negative bias on the annual average
resulting in a false acceptance error.
Equation 3-1
where:
S0= overall uncertainty
Sp= population uncertainty (spatial and temporal)
Sm= measurement uncertainty (data collection).
1 "Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data Quality Objectives Process," EPA QA/G-4 U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, QAD, February 2006. http://www.epa.gov/qualityl/qs-docs/g4-final.pdf
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 3.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 2 of 7
The estimate of overall uncertainty is an important component in the DQO process. Both population and
measurement uncertainties must be understood.
Population uncertainties - The most important data quality indicator of any ambient air monitoring
network is representativeness2. This term refers to the degree to which data accurately and precisely
represent a characteristic of a population, a parameter variation at a sampling point, a process condition,
or a condition. Population uncertainty, the spatial and temporal components of error, can affect
representativeness. These uncertainties can be controlled through the selection of appropriate boundary
conditions (the monitoring area and the sampling time period/frequency of sampling) to which the
decision will apply, and the development of a proper statistical sampling design (see Section 6).
Appendix B of the Quality Staffs document titled Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans
(EPA/G5)3 provides a very good dissertation on representativeness. It does not matter how precise or
unbiased the measurement values are if a site is unrepresentative of the population it is presumed to
represent. Assuring the collection of a representative air quality sample depends on the following factors:
• selecting a network size that is consistent with the monitoring objectives and locating
representative sampling sites;
• identifying the constraints on the sampling sites that are imposed by meteorology, local
topography, emission sources, land access and the physical constraints and documenting these;
and
• selecting sampling schedules and frequencies that are consistent with the monitoring objectives.
Measurement uncertainties are the errors associated with the EDO, including errors associated with the
field, preparation and laboratory measurement phases. At each measurement phase, errors can occur, that
in most cases, are additive. The goal of a QA program is to control measurement uncertainty to an
acceptable level through the use of various quality control and evaluation techniques. In a resource
constrained environment, it is most important to be able to calculate and evaluate the total measurement
system uncertainty (Sm) and compare this to the DQO. If resources are available, it may be possible to
evaluate various phases (e.g., field, laboratory) of the measurement system.
Three data quality indicators are most important in determining total measurement uncertainty:
• Precision - a measure of agreement among repeated measurements of the same property under
identical, or substantially similar, conditions. This is the random component of error. Precision
is estimated by various statistical techniques typically using some derivation of the standard
deviation.
• Bias - the systematic or persistent distortion of a measurement process which causes error in one
direction. Bias will be determined by estimating the positive and negative deviation from the true
value as a percentage of the true value.
• Detection Limit - The lowest concentration or amount of the target analyte that can be
determined to be different from zero by a single measurement at a stated level of probability. Due
to the fact the NCore sites will require instruments to quantify at lower concentrations, detection
limits are becoming more important. Some of the more recent guidance documents suggest that
monitoring organizations develop method detection limits (MDLs) for continuous instruments
and or analytical methods. Many monitoring organizations use the default MDL listed in AQS for
a particular method. These default MDLs come from instrument vendor advertisements and/or
2 http://www.epa.gov/qualitv I/glossary.htm#R
3 http://www.epa.gov/qualitv 1/qa docs.html
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 3.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 3 of 7
method manuals. Monitoring organizations should not rely on instrument vendor's documentation
on detection limits but determine the detection limits that are being achieved in the field during
routine operations. Use of MDL have been listed in the NCore Precursor Gas Technical
Assistance Document (TAD)4.
Accuracy is a measure of the overall agreement of a measurement to a known value and includes a
combination of random error (precision) and systematic error (bias) components of both sampling and
analytical operations. This term has been used throughout the CFR and in some sections of this
document. Whenever possible, it is recommended that an attempt be made to distinguish measurement
uncertainties into precision and bias components. In cases where such a distinction is not possible, the
term accuracy can be used.
Other indicators that are considered during the DQO process include completeness and comparability.
Completeness describes the amount of valid data obtained from a measurement system compared to the
amount that was expected to be obtained under correct, normal conditions. For example, a PM2 5 monitor
that is designated to sample every sixth day would be expected to have an overall sampling frequency of
one out of every six days. If, in a thirty day period, the sampler misses one sample, the completeness
would be recorded as four out of five, or 80 percent. Data completeness requirements are included in the
reference methods (40 CFR Part 50). Comparability is a measure of the confidence with which one data
set or method can be compared to another, considering the units of measurement and applicability to
standard statistical techniques. Comparability of datasets is critical to evaluating their measurement
uncertainty and usefulness.
Performance Based Measurement System Concept: Consistency vs. Comparability
The NATTS Program proposes to use of the performance based measurement system (PBMS) concept. In
simple terms, this means that as long as the quality of data that the program requires (DQOs) are defined,
the data quality indicators are identified, and the appropriate measurement quality objectives (MQOs) that
quantify that the data quality are met, any sampling/analytical method that meets these data quality
requirements should be appropriate to use in the program. The idea behind PBMS is that if the methods
meet the data quality acceptance criteria the data are "comparable" and can be used in the program.
Previous discussions in this document allude to the need for "nationally consistent data", "utilization of
standard monitoring methods" and "consistency in laboratory methods". Comparability is a data quality
indicator because one can quantify a number of data quality indicators (precision, bias, detectability) and
determine whether two methods are comparable. Consistency is not a data quality indicator and requiring
that a particular method be used for the sake of consistency does not assure that the data collected from
different monitoring organizations and analyzed by different laboratories will yield data of similar
(comparable) quality. Therefore, the quality system will continue to strive for the development of data
quality indicators and measurement quality objectives that will allow one to judge data quality and
comparability and allow program managers to determine whether or not to require the use of a particular
method (assuming this method meets the data quality needs). However, PBMS puts a premium on up-
front planning and a commitment from monitoring organizations to adhere to implementing quality
control requirements.
The data quality indicator comparability must be evaluated in light of a pollutant that is considered a
method-defined parameter. The analytical result of a pollutant measurement, of a method-defined
parameter, has a high dependence on the process used to make the measurement. Most analytical
measurements are determinations of a definitive amount of a specific molecule or mixture of molecules.
An example of this would be the concentration of carbon monoxide in ambient air. However, other
1 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/ncore/guidance.html
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 3.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 4 of 7
measurements are dependent on the process used to make the measurement. Method-defined parameters
include measurements of physical parameters such as temperature and solar radiation which are
dependent on the collection height and the design of the instrumentation used. Measurements of
particulate mass, especially fine particulate, are also method-defined parameters because they are not
"true" measures of particulate mass, being dependent on criteria such as: size cut-points which are
geometrically defined; level of volatilization of particulates during sampling; and analytical methods that
control the level of moisture associated with particulates at a concentration that may not represent actual
conditions. (This should not be interpreted to mean that using a method-defined measurement of
particulate is inferior. A "true" measurement of fine particulate in some environments can include a
significant contribution from water, which is not a concern from a public/environmental health
perspective). When selecting methods or comparing data sets for method-defined parameter it is
important to consider that there is no "correct" measurement only a "defined" method. However as
mentioned above in the PBMS discussion, there are certain data quality acceptance limits for "defined"
methods that can be used to accept alternative methods.
3.1 The DQO Process
The DQO process is used to facilitate the planning of EDOs. It asks the data user to focus their EDO
efforts by specifying the use of the data (the decision), the decision criteria, and the probability they can
accept making an incorrect decision based on the data. The DQO process:
• establishes a common language to be shared by decision makers, technical personnel, and
statisticians in their discussion of program objectives and data quality;
• provides a mechanism to pare down a multitude of objectives into major critical questions;
• facilitates the development of clear statements of program objectives and constraints that will
optimize data collection plans; and
• provides a logical structure within which an iterative process of guidance, design, and feedback
may be accomplished efficiently.
The DQO process contains the following steps:
State the problem: Define the problem that necessitates the study; identify the planning team,
examine budget, schedule.
Identify the goal: State how environmental data will be used in meeting objectives and solving
the problem, identify study questions, define alternative outcomes.
Identify information inputs: Identify data and information needed to answer study questions.
Define boundaries: Specify the target population and characteristics of interest, define spatial
and temporal limits, scale of inference.
Develop the analytical approach: Define the parameter of interest, specify the type of
inference, and develop the logic for drawing conclusions from findings.
Specify performance or acceptance criteria:
o Decision making (hypothesis testing): Specify probability limits for false rejection and
false acceptance decision errors.
o Estimation approaches: Develop performance criteria for new data being collected or
acceptable criteria for existing data being considered for use.
Develop the plan for obtaining data: Select the resource-effective sampling and analysis plan
that meets the performance criteria.
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 3.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 5 of 7
The DQO Process is fully discussed in the document titled Guidance on Systematic Planning using the
Data Quality Objectives Process (EPA QA/G-4), and is available on the EPA's Quality System for
Environmental Data and Technology website5. For an illustration of how the DQO process was applied to
a particular ambient air monitoring problem, refer to the EPA document titled Systematic Planning: A
Case Study of Paniculate Matter Ambient Air Monitoring6.
3.2 Ambient Air Quality DQOs
As indicated above, the first steps in the DQO process are to identify the problems that need to be
resolved and the objectives to be met. As described in Section 2, the ambient air monitoring networks are
designed to collect data to meet three basic objectives:
1. provide air pollution data to the general public in a timely manner;
2. support compliance with air quality standards and emission strategy development; and
3. support air pollution research.
These different objectives could potentially require different DQOs, making the development of DQOs
complex. However, if one were to establish DQOs based upon the objective requiring the most stringent
data quality requirements, one could assume that the other objectives could be met. Therefore, the DQOs
have been initially established based upon ensuring that decision makers can make comparisons to the
NAAQS within a specified degree of certainty. OAQPS has established formal DQOs for PM25 Ozone,
the NCore Precursor Gas Network, the PM2 5 Speciation Trends Network (STN)7, and the National Air
Toxics Trends Network (NATTS)8. As the NAAQS for the other criteria pollutants come up for review,
EPA will develop DQOs for these pollutants.
3.3 Measurement Quality Objectives
Once a DQO is established, the quality of the data must be evaluated and controlled to ensure that it is
maintained within the established acceptance criteria. Measurement Quality Objectives (MQOs) are
designed to evaluate and control various phases (e.g., sampling, transportation, preparation, analysis) of
the measurement process to ensure that total measurement uncertainty is within the range prescribed by
the DQOs. MQOs can be defined in terms of the following data quality indicators: precision, bias,
representativeness, detection limit, completeness and comparability as described in Section 3.0.
MQOs can be established to evaluate overall measurement uncertainty, as well as for an individual phase
of a measurement process. As an example, the precision DQO for PM2 5 is 10% and it is based on 3 years
of collocated precision data collected at a PQAO level. Since only 15% of the sites are collocated, the
data can be used to control the quality from each site and since the results can be effected by field and
laboratory processes one cannot pinpoint a specific phase of the measurement system when a precision
result is higher than the 10% precision goal. Therefore individual precision values greater than 10% may
be tolerated as long as the overall 3-year DQO is achieved. In contrast, the flow rate audit, which is
specific to the appropriate functioning of the PM2 5 sampler, has an MQO of + 4% of the audit standard
and + 5% of the design value. This MQO must be met each time or the instrument is recalibrated. In
summary, since uncertainty is usually additive, there is much less tolerance for uncertainty for individual
http://www.epa.gov/qualityl/qa docs.html
6 http://www.epa.gov/qualityl/qs-docs/casestudv2-final.pdf
7 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/specguid.html
8 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/airtoxqa.html
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 3.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 6 of 7
phases of a measurement system (e.g., flow rate) since each phase contributes to overall measurement. As
monitoring organizations develop measurement specific MQOs they should think about being more
stringent for individual phases of the measurement process since it will help to keep overall measurement
uncertainty within acceptable levels.
For each of these indicators, acceptance criteria can be developed for various phases of the EDO. Various
parts of 40 CFR Parts 50 and 58 have identified acceptance criteria for some of these indicators. In
theory, if these MQOs are met, measurement uncertainty should be controlled to the levels required by the
DQO. Table 3-1 is an example of an MQO table for ozone. MQO tables for the remaining criteria
pollutants can be found in Appendix D. The ozone MQO table has been "re-developed" into what is
known as a validation template. In June 1998, a workgroup of QA personnel from the monitoring
organizations, EPA Regional Offices, and OAQPS was formed to develop a procedure that could be used
by monitoring organizations for consistent use of MQOs and the validation of the criteria pollutants
across the US. The workgroup developed three tables of criteria:
Critical Criteria- deemed critical to maintaining the integrity of a sample (or ambient air concentration
value) or group of samples were placed on the first table. Observations that do not meet each and every
criterion on the critical table should be invalidated unless there are compelling reason and justification for
not doing so. Basically, the sample or group of samples for which one or more of these criteria are not
met is invalid until proven otherwise.
Operational Criteria Table- important for maintaining and evaluating the quality of the data collection
system. Violation of a criterion or a number of criteria may be cause for invalidation. The decision
should consider other quality control information that may or may not indicate the data are acceptable for
the parameter being controlled. Therefore, the sample or group of samples for which one or more of these
criteria are not met is suspect unless other quality control information demonstrates otherwise. The
reason for not meeting the criteria should be investigated, mitigated or justified.
Systematic Criteria Table- include those criteria which are important for the correct interpretation of the
data but do not usually impact the validity of a sample or group of samples. For example, the data quality
objectives are included in this table. If the data quality objectives are not met, this does not invalidate any
of the samples but it may impact the error rate associated with the attainment/non-attainment decision.
More information about data validation and the use of the validation templates can be found in Section
17.
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 3.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 7 of 7
Table 3-1 Measurement Quality Objectives for Ozone Developed into a Validation Template
Requirement Frequency Acceptance Criteria
Critical Criteria
One Point QC Check
Single analyzer
Zero/span check
1/2 weeks
1/2 weeks
<1% (percent difference)
Zero drift < ± 3% of full scale
Span drift < ± 7 %
Operational Criteria
Shelter Temperature
Temperature range
Temperature Control
Precision
(using 1-point QC checks)
Bias
(using 1-point QC checks)
Annual Performance
Evaluation
Single analyzer
PQAO
Federal Audits (NPAP)
State audits
Calibration
Zero Air
Gaseous Standards
Zero Air Check
Ozone Transfer standard
Qualification and certification
Recertification to local
primary standard
Ozone local primary standard
Certification/recertification to
Standard Photometer
(if recertified via a transfer
standard)
Detection
Noise
Daily
(hourly values)
Daily (hourly values)
Calculated annually and as appropriate
for design value estimates
Calculated annually and as appropriate
for design value estimates
Every site I/year 25 % of sites
quarterly
annually
I/year at selected sites 20% of sites
audited
I/year
Upon receipt/adjustment/repair and
1/6 months if manual zero/span
performed biweekly
I/year if continuous zero/span
performed daily
I/year
Upon receipt of transfer standard
Beginning and end of O3 season or 1/6
months whichever less
I/year
I/year
NA
20 to 30° C. (Hourly ave)
or
per manufacturers specifications if designated to
a wider temperature range
< ± 2 ° C SD over 24 hours
90% CL CV< 7%
95% CL < + 7%
Percent difference at each audit level < 15%
95% of audit percent differences fall within the
one point QC check 95% probability intervals at
PQAO level of aggregation
Mean absolute difference < 10%
State requirements
All points within ± 2 % of full scale of best-fit
straight line
Concentrations below LDL
NIST Traceable (e.g., EPA Protocol Gas)
Concentrations below LDL
±4% or ±4 ppb (whichever greater)
RSD of six slopes < 3.7%
Std. Dev. of 6 intercepts 1.5
New slope = + 0.05 of previous
single point difference < ±5 %
(preferably ± 3%)
Regression slopes = 1.00 ± 0.03 and two
intercepts are 0 ± 3 ppb
0.003 ppm
Systematic Criteria
Standard Reporting Units
Completeness (seasonal)
Sample Residence Times
Sample Probe, Inlet,
Sampling train
Siting
EPA Standard Reference
Photometer Recertification
All data
Daily
I/year
ppm (final units in AQS)
75% of hourly averages for the 8- hour period
< 20 seconds
Pyrex Glass or Teflon
Un-obstructed probe inlet
Regression slope = 1.00 + 0.01
and intercept < 3 ppb
-------
QA Handbook Vol II Section 4.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page: 1 of 3
4.0 Personnel Qualifications and Training
4.1 Personnel Qualifications
Ambient air monitoring personnel may be required to perform a number of functions that are important to
the quality of data. Table 4-1 identifies these functions and provides some of the key activities within the
functional category. Once the list is completed for a monitoring organization, it can be used in the
development of position descriptions for recruitment and training programs.
Not all functions are needed for the entire duration of the project. Monitoring organizations may feel that
it can contract some of the functions that are needed. For example, an organization may wish to contract
the information technology (IT) function to have the monitoring instruments connected to a data logging
system that would transfer data to a local data base and eventually to an external data base like AQS.
This part of the process might be considered a "one-time" event needing a particular expertise whose
function might not require a full time person. However, it is critical that someone within the program
understands this IT function to ensure data collection is operating properly on a day-to-day basis.
Table 4-1 Monitoring Functions that Need Some Level of Staffing or Expertise
Function
Procurement
Technical
Data Analysis (Statistical)
Quality Assurance
Information Technology
Activities
- Purchasing capital equipment and consumables
- Developing contracts and maintenance agreements
- Applying for EPA grants
- Setting up a monitoring site, electricity, communications
- Developing standard operating procedures
- Selecting and installing monitoring equipment
- Calibrating equipment, performing quality control
- Shelter and equipment maintenance
- Understanding population and measurement uncertainty
- Developing sampling designs
- Developing networks to achieve objectives
- Assessing/interpreting data (data quality assessments)
- Developing quality systems, QMPs/QAPPs
- Developing data quality objectives
- Implementing technical systems audits, performance evaluations
- Validating data
- QA reporting
- Selecting information technology (data loggers and local data base)
- Developing analyzer outputs to data loggers and data transfer to local data base
- Transfering data from local data base to external data repositories (AQS, etc.)
Personnel assigned to ambient air monitoring activities are expected to have the educational, work
experience, responsibility, personal attributes and training requirements for their positions. In some
cases, certain positions may require certification and/or recertification. These requirements should be
outlined in the position advertisement and in personal position descriptions. Records on personnel
qualifications and training should be maintained and accessible for review during audit activities (unless
the records are maintained as part of confidential personnel records). These records should be retained as
described in Section 5.
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 4.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page:2of3
4.2 Training
Adequate education and training are integral to any monitoring program that strives for reliable and
comparable data. It is recommended that monitoring organizations maintain some requirements for air
personnel qualifications (combination of education and experience). Training is aimed at increasing the
effectiveness of employees and their organization. As part of a quality assurance program, EPA QA/G-
10, Guidance for Developing a Training Program for Quality System1 suggests the development of
operational procedures for training. These procedures should include information on:
• personnel qualifications- general and position specific
• training requirements - by position
• frequency of training
Appropriate training should be available to employees supporting the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring
Program, commensurate with their duties. Such training may consist of classroom lectures, workshops,
web-based courses, teleconferences, vendor provided, and on-the-job training.
Along with suggested training, there are some EPA programs that require mandatory training and/or
certifications. These programs include, but are not limited to, the National Performance Audit Program
(NPAP), Performance Evaluation Program (PEP), Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual
Environments (IMPROVE), and PM2 5 Speciation Trends Network Audit Program. All personnel
performing audits in these projects or programs are required to possess mandatory training or a current
certification issued by the EPA Office responsible for the monitoring program.
EPA encourages regional planning organizations and monitoring organizations to develop training
programs that require some level of certification.
4.2.1 Suggested Training
Over the years, a number of courses have been developed for personnel involved with ambient air
monitoring and quality assurance aspects. Formal QA/QC training is offered through the following
organizations:
• Air Pollution Training Institute (APTI) http://www.epa.gov/apti/
• Air & Waste Management Association (AWMA) http ://www.awma.org/
• American Society for Quality Control (ASQC) http://www.asq.org/
• EPA Quality Assurance Staff http://www.epa. gov/quality 1 /
• EPA Regional Offices http://www.epa.gov/epahome/locate2.htm
• EPA Ambient Monitoring Technology Information Center (AMTIC) Technology Transfer
Network (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/training.htmD
In addition, OAQPS uses contractors and academic institutions to develop and provide training for data
collection activities that support regulatory efforts throughout EPA and monitoring organizations. In
addition, instrument and data management manufacturers provide training on the equipment they sell.
Sometimes this can be added to the purchase cost.
http://www.epa.gov/qualirvl/qs-docs/glO-final.pdf
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 4.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page:3 of 3
Table 4-2 provides a suggested sequence of core QA-related ambient air monitoring courses for ambient
air monitoring staff by job position. The suggested course sequences assume little or no experience in
QA/QC or air monitoring but some courses may have pre-requisites. Persons having experience in the
subject matter described in the courses would select courses according to their appropriate experience
level. Courses not included in the core sequence would be selected according to individual
responsibilities, preferences, and available resources.
Table 4-2 Suggested Sequence of Core QA-related Ambient Air Training Courses for Ambient Air Monitoring and QA
Personnel
Source-
Sequence
APTI- Sl:422
APTI 452
APTI-SI:100
QS- QA1
APTI-SI:434
APTI -Sl:471
APTI- Sl:409
APTI SI:473A
APTI-470
QS-QA2
QS-QA3
APTI-435
No Source
APTI-SI:476B
APTI-474
APTI-SI:433
APTI-464
APTI
APTI- Sl:436
OAQPS
QS- QA4
QS- QA5
APTI-SI:473B
AWMA QA6
ASQC-STAT1
Course Title (SI = self instructional)
Air Pollution Control Orientation Course
Principles and Practices of Air Pollution Control
Mathematics Review for Air Pollution Control
Orientation to Quality Assurance Management
Introduction to Ambient Air Monitoring
General Quality Assurance Considerations for Ambient
Air Monitoring
Basic Air Pollution Meteorology
Beginning Environmental Statistical Techniques
(Revised)
Quality Assurance for Air Pollution Measurement
Systems
Data Quality Objectives Workshop
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Atmospheric Sampling
Basic Electronics
Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems - Operation &
Maintenance of Gas Monitors
Continuous Emission Monitoring
Network Design and Site Selection for Monitoring PM25
and PMio in Ambient Air
Analytical Methods for Air Quality Standards
Chain Of Custody Procedures for Samples and Data
Site Selection for Monitoring SO2
AQS Training (annual AQS conference)
Data Quality Assessment
Management Systems Review
Introduction to Environmental Statistics
Quality Audits for Improved Performance
Statistics for Effective Decision Making
Field
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Lab
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
QC-
Supv.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Data
Mgt.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Mon
Supv.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
QA
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
QA
Mgt.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 5.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Iof8
5.0 Documentation and Records
Organizations that perform Environmental Data Operations (EDO) and management activities must
establish and maintain procedures for the timely preparation, review, approval, issuance, use, control,
revision and maintenance of documents and records. Each organization should have a documented
records management policy with the following elements addressed:
1. A list of files considered the official records and their media type i.e., paper, electronic
2. Schedule for retention and disposition of records
3. Storage and retrieval system of records
4. Person(s) responsible at each level of storage and retrieval for records
5. Assignment of appropriate levels of security
This information should be included in a monitoring organization's Quality Assurance Project Plan. In
ambient air monitoring, the majority of the records are data and related information. However, these steps
could be used for other records management practices in a monitoring organization. Please refer to
Section 14 for further information and the EPA records website1
Table 5-1 Types of Information that Should be Retained Through Document
Control.
Categories
Management and
Organization
Site Information
Environmental Data
Operations
Raw Data
Data Reporting
Data Management
Quality Assurance
Record/Document Types
State Implementation Plan
Reporting agency information
Organizational structure of monitoring program
Personnel qualifications and training
Quality management plan
Document control plan
Support contracts
Network description
Site characterization file
Site maps/pictures
QA Project Plans (QAPPs)
Standard operating procedures (SOPs)
Field and laboratory notebooks
Sample handling/custody records
Inspection/maintenance records
Any original data (routine and QC)
Air quality index report
Annual SLAMS air quality information
Data/summary reports
Journal articles/papers/presentations
Data algorithms
Data management plans/flowcharts
Control charts and strip charts
Data quality assessments
QA reports
System audits
Network reviews
A document, from a records
management perspective, is a
volume that contains
information that describes,
defines, specifies, reports,
certifies, or provides data or
results pertaining to
environmental programs. As
defined in the Federal Records
Act of 1950 and the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (now
44 U.S.C. 3101-3107), records
are: "...books, papers, maps,
photographs, machine readable
materials, or other documentary
materials, regardless of
physical form or
characteristics, made or
received by an agency of the
United States Government
under Federal Law or in
connection with the transaction
of public business and
preserved or appropriate for
preservation by that agency or
its legitimate successor as
evidence of the organization,
functions, policies, decisions,
http://www.epa.gov/records/
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 5.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 2 of 8
procedures, operations, or other activities of the Government or because of the informational value of data
in them....". This section will provide guidance of documentation and records for the Ambient Air
Quality Monitoring Program.
Table 5-1 represents the categories and types of records and documents that are applicable for document
control. Information on key documents in each category follows. It should be noted that the list contains
documents that may not be applicable to particular organizations and, therefore, is not meant to be a list of
required documentation. This list should also not be construed as the definitive list of record and
document types.
Electronic Records
Today, more data are generated and retained electronically in the ambient air monitoring community. The
majority of the documentation referred to in this section can be an electronic record. Retention of
electronic records2 is included in the above definition. It is recommended that electronic as well as paper
records be stored in a logical order for ease of access should it be necessary. This is discussed more in-
depth in Section 14.
Statute of Limitations
As stated in 40 CFR Part 31.42, in general, all information considered as documentation and records
should be retained for 3 years from the date the grantee submits its final expenditure report unless
otherwise noted in the funding agreement. However, if any litigation, claim, negotiation, audit or other
action involving the records has been started before the expiration of the 3-year period, the records must
be retained until completion of the action and resolution of all issues that arise from it, or until the end of
the regular 3-year period, whichever is later. For clarification purposes, the retention of samples produced
as a result of required monitoring may differ depending on the program and/or purpose collected. For
example, CFR requires that PM2 5 filter samples be archived for a minimum of one year. For retention of
samples for a specific program please refer to the appropriate reference in CFR for the individual
program.
5.1 Management and Organization
How the monitoring organization handles the document types listed in Table 5-1 for this category can be
found in a single document, a quality management plan, which is a blueprint for how an organization's
quality management objectives will be attained. The Quality Management Plan documents management
practices, including QA and QC activities, used to ensure that the results of technical work are of the type
and quality needed for their intended use. The EPA Quality Staff provide requirements for quality
management plans3 that monitoring organizations may find helpful.
5.2 Site Information
Site information provides vital data about each monitoring site. Historical site information can help
determine and evaluate changes in measurement values at the site. This information should be kept to
characterize the site through time. The Air Quality System (AQS) Site File is one record used to capture
and retain site information. Another source where site information is provided is the quality assurance
2 http://www.epa.gov/records/tools/erks.htm
3 EPA Requirements for Quality Management Plans (QA/R-2) http://www.epa.gov/qualityl/qa_docs.html
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 5.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 3 of 8
project plan. This should include specific documentation of site characteristics for each monitoring
station. This information will assist in providing objective inputs into the evaluation of data gathered at
that site.
Most ambient air agencies retain these records in paper and/or electronic file format. Included in a site
information file are maps and pictures of an individual site. Because monitoring organizations are
required to file an annual network plan and perform network assessments at a minimum of every five
years, (40 CFR Part 58.10), this information should be retained and updated periodically by both the
agency responsible for the site and/or the office responsible for reviewing the site information as needed
for the network assessment process. Typically, the kinds of information found in a site identification
record should include:
1. Purpose of measurements (e.g., monitoring to determine compliance with air quality standards).
2. Station type.
3. Instrumentation and methods (manufacturer's model number, pollutant measurement technique,
etc.).
4. Sampling system.
5. Spatial scale of the station (site category~i.e., urban/industrial, suburban/commercial, etc.;
physical location~i.e., address, AQCR, UTM coordinates, etc.).
6. Influential pollutant sources (point and area sources, proximity, pollutant density, etc.).
7. Topography (hills, valleys, bodies of water, trees; type and size, proximity, orientation, etc.,
picture of a 360 degree view from the probe of the monitoring site).
8. Atmospheric exposure (unrestricted, interferences, etc.).
9. Site diagram (measurement flowsheet, service lines, equipment configuration, etc.).
10. Site audits.
5.3 Environmental Data Operations
A quality assurance program associated with the collection of ambient air monitoring data must include
an effective procedure for preserving the integrity of the data. Ambient air monitoring results and in
certain types of measurements, the sample itself, may be essential elements in proving the validity of the
data or the decisions made using the data. Data can not be admitted as evidence unless it can be shown
that they are representative of the conditions that existed at the time that the data (or sample) was
collected. Therefore, each step in the sampling and analysis procedure must be carefully monitored and
documented. There are basically four elements in the evidentiary phase of an overall quality assurance
program:
1. Data collection - includes measurement preparation and identification of the sample, location,
time, and conditions during the measurements in the form of data sheets, logbooks, strip charts,
and raw data.
2. Sample and/or measurement result handling - includes evidence that the sample and data were
protected from contamination and tampering during transfer between people and from the
sampling site to the evidence locker (i.e., chain of custody) and during analysis, transmittal, and
storage.
3. Analysis - includes evidence that samples and data were properly stored prior to and after
analysis interpretation, and reporting.
4. Preparation and filing of measurement report - includes evidentiary requirements and retention of
records.
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 5.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 4 of 8
Failure to include any one of these elements in the collection and analysis of ambient air monitoring data
may render the results of the program inadmissible as evidence, or may seriously undermine the
credibility of any report based on these data.
Environmental data operations include all the operations required to successfully measure and report a
value within the data quality objectives. Documentation for environmental data operations would
include:
• QA Project Plans - Documents how environmental data operations are planned, implemented,
and assessed during the life cycle of a program, project, or task (see below).
• Standard operating procedures (SOPs)- Written documents that give detailed instruction on
how a monitoring organization will perform daily tasks: field, laboratory and administrative.
SOPs are a required element of a QAPP and therefore any EDO must include these (see below).
• Field and laboratory notebooks- Any documentation that may provide additional information
about the environmental data operation (e.g., calibration notebooks, strip charts, temperature
records, site notes, maintenance records etc.) (see below).
• Sample handling and/or custody records- Records tracing sample and data handling from the
site through analysis, including transportation to facilities, sample storage, and handling between
individuals within facilities. (Section 12 provides more information on this activity.)
Quality Assurance Project Plan
As mentioned in the assistance agreement sections of 40 CFR Parts 30.54 (Non-State and Local Gov.)
and 31.45 (State and Local Gov.) quality assurance programs must be established. In addition to the grant
requirements, 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix A4 states that each quality assurance program must be described
in detail in accordance with the EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans''.
Standard Operating Procedures
In order to perform sampling and analysis operations consistently, standard operating procedures (SOPs)
must be written as part of the QAPP. SOPs are written documents that detail the method for an operation,
analysis, or action with thoroughly prescribed techniques and steps, and are officially approved as the
method for performing certain routine or repetitive tasks. Although not every activity in the
field/laboratory needs to be documented, the activities that could potentially cause measurement
uncertainties, or significant variance or bias, should be described in an SOP. In general, approval of
SOPs occurs during the approval of the QAPP. Individuals with appropriate training and experience with
the particular SOPs in the QAPP need to review the SOPs.
SOPs should ensure consistent conformance with organizational practices, serve as training aids, provide
ready reference and documentation of proper procedures, reduce work effort, reduce error occurrences in
data, and improve data comparability, credibility, and defensibility. They should be sufficiently clear and
written in a step-by-step format to be readily understood by a person knowledgeable in the general
concept of the procedure.
4 http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html
5 http://www.epa.gov/qualityl/qa docs.html
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 5.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
i 5 of 8
Elements that may be included in SOPs which are explained in the guidance document Guidance for the
Preparation of Standard Operating Procedures EPA QA/G-66 are:
1. Scope and Applicability
2. Summary of Method
3. Definitions
4. Health and Safety Warnings
5. Cautions
6. Interferences
7. Personnel Qualifications
8. Equipment and Supplies
9. Procedure (section may include all or part of these sections):
a. Instrument or Method Calibration
b. Sample Collection
c. Sample Handling and Preservation
d. Sample Preparation and Analysis
e. Troubleshooting
f Data Acquisition, Calculations & Data Reduction
g. Computer Hardware & Software (used to manipulate analytical results and report data)
10. Data Management and Records Management Parameters
11. Quality Control/Quality Assurance
Elements that are not needed may be excluded or listed as "NA" (not applicable).
Personnel implementing SOPs may not be involved in the "larger picture" which includes the use of the
data and whether or not DQOs are being achieved. Therefore, it's very important that the SOP covers the
objectives of the monitoring program and the importance of following each step in an SOP in order to
achieve quality results.
NOTE: There may be some incentive to rely on vendor developed methods manuals or to
reference analytical methods on internet sites (e.g., TO-15 for NATTS VOCs) as a
monitoring organization's SOP without revision. Although the majority of information in
these documents may be appropriate, many times the methods provide more than one
option for method implementation and is not specific to the organization implementing
the method. Therefore, organizations are encouraged to utilize these methods but edit
them to make them specific to the organization.
Many of these operational procedures listed above are included in the EPA reference and equivalent
methods, and EPA guidance documents. However, it is the organization's responsibility to develop its
own unique written operational procedures applicable to air quality measurements made by the
organization.
SOPs should be written by individuals performing the procedures that are being standardized. SOPs for
the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program environmental data operations must be included in QAPPs,
either by reference or by inclusion of the actual method. If a method is referenced, it should be stated that
the method is followed exactly or an addendum that explains changes to the method should be included in
the QAPP (see NOTE above). If a modified method will be used for an extended period of time, the
http://www.epa.gov/earthlr6/6pd/qa/qadevtools/mod4references/secondaryguidance/g6-final.pdf
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 5.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 6 of 8
method should be revised to include the changes to appropriate sections. In general, approval of SOPs
occurs during the approval of the QAPP. Individuals with appropriate training and experience with the
particular SOPs in the QAPP need to review the SOPs.
SOPs should have some level of documented approval by the monitoring organization and be
reviewed/approved at some frequency. There should be some level of document control on SOPs so that
personnel can quickly determine whether or not they are using the most current method. The document
control information on the pages of this Handbook provide a good example. It is suggested that the
monitoring organization create a "master" list of the current SOPs it uses and include some document
control information to allow users to identify the appropriate SOPs.
Field and Laboratory Notebooks--
Recording of some field and laboratory data is necessary for ambient air monitoring. Section 11 provides
some details of activities that can be recorded in these notebooks. A standardized format should be
utilized to ensure that all necessary information is obtained. The format should be designed to clearly
identify the parameters during the measurements, the date and time, location of the measurement station,
and operating personnel. This information may determine the credibility of the data and should not be
erased or altered. Recording of the data should be legible. If a manual record is kept, any error should be
crossed out with a single line, and the correct value recorded above the crossed-out entry.
Electronic recording and storage of data is widely used. Electronic recording of the data allows for
flagging and retention of additional information that is pertinent to day to day operations that could
otherwise be lost with conventional systems. The same information as listed in the above paragraph
should be recorded during routine quality checks. Some monitoring organizations like to electronically
produce strip charts of data and/or supporting information. This data can be used to enhance and support
the validity of the data.
It is recommended a log book be kept for each instrument in a monitoring organization's network. The
information contained in this log should consist of the above information as well as any calibration, audit,
and maintenance work performed on the instrument. This log should follow the instrument from site to
site as the instrument may be moved. The date of any movement of the instrument should also be
recorded in the log. This log can either be an electronic record or a hardbound book.
Additionally, a site log can be kept documenting maintenance of a specific monitoring site and the
auxiliary monitoring equipment located there. Information that could be recorded includes maintenance to
station HVAC system, air conditioner cleaning, maintenance to external sample intake pumps, permeation
tube changes, sample line replacement or cleaning, and replacement of any equipment associated with the
shelter or monitoring system. This log can also be either electronic or a hard bound book. Keeping this
log can alert a field technician to upcoming maintenance as well as serve as a tool in determining data
quality as necessary.
Do not discard original field records; copies of them are not normally admissible as evidence. For
neatness, the field data may be transcribed or copied for incorporation in a final report, but the originals
should be kept on file. Since these records may be subpoenaed, it is important that all field notes be
legible.
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 5.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
i 7 of 8
5.4 Raw Data
Raw data includes any original factual information from a measurement activity or study recorded in
laboratory work sheets, records, memoranda, notes, computer (electronic) files or exact copies thereof and
that are necessary for the reconstruction and evaluation of the report of the activity or study. Raw data
may include photographs, microfilm or microfiche copies, computer printouts, magnetic media, including
dictated observations, and recorded data from automated instruments. For automated information
systems, raw data is considered the original observations recorded by the information system that are
needed to verify, calculate, or derive data that are or may be reported. Organizations should critically
review the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program and create a list of what the organization considers
raw data and provide a means to store this information in a manner that is readily accessible.
5.5 Data Reporting
In addition to samples and field records, the report of the analysis itself may serve as material evidence.
Just as the procedures and data leading up to the final report are subject to the rules of evidence, so is the
report. Written documents are generally considered as hearsay and are not admissible as evidence
without a proper foundation. A proper foundation consists of introducing testimony from all persons
having anything to do with the major portions of the measurement and analysis. Thus, the field operator,
all persons having custody of the samples and data, and the analyst would be required to lay the
foundation for the introduction of the measurement as evidence. This evidence can and should be
recorded in the form of initials and notes written in indelible ink at the time of data collection on paper
that is kept on file. The proper foundation is laid and available in case the data are questioned. Examples
of this include strip charts dated and initialed by operator when visiting the site for routine quality checks
and initials on routine paperwork and in logbooks when events are recorded. Electronic records should
also allow for a recording of initials or be traceable to the operator performing the work.
To ensure compliance with legal rules, all measurement reports should be filed in a safe place by a
custodian having this responsibility. Although the field notes and calculations are not generally included
in the summary report, these materials may be required at a future date to bolster the acceptability and
credibility of the report as evidence in an enforcement proceeding. Therefore, the full report including all
original notes and calculation sheets should be kept in the file. Signed receipts for all samples, strip
charts, or other data, should also be filed.
The original of a document is the best evidence; a copy is not normally admissible as evidence.
Microfilm, snap-out carbon copies, and similar contemporary business methods of producing copies are
acceptable in many jurisdictions if the unavailability of the original is adequately explained and if the
copy was made in the ordinary course of business.
In summary, although all original calculations and measurement data need not be included in the final
report, they should be kept in the agency's files. It is a good rule to file all reports together in a secure
place. Keeping these documents under lock and key will ensure that the author can testify at future court
hearings that the report has not been altered.
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 5.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
i 8 of 8
5.6 Data Management
Much of the data collected for the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program will be collected through the
use of automated systems. These systems must be effectively managed and documented by using a set of
guidelines and principles by which adherence will ensure data integrity. Discussions of data management
activities and the requirements for documentation can be found in Section 14.
5.7 Quality Assurance
Quality assurance information is necessary to document the quality of data. A monitoring organization's
plan for all quality assurance activities must be documented in its QAPP. This information should be
retained in a manner that it can be associated with the routine data that it represents. QA information
includes:
• Control charts - Use of control charts is explained in Section 12.
• Data quality assessments (DQAs) - These assessments are a statistical and scientific evaluation
of the data set to determine the validity and performance of the data collection design and to
determine the adequacy of the data set for its intended use. More discussion on DQAs can be
found in Section 18.
• QA Reports - Reports pertaining to the quality of data are discussed in Sections 3 and 16.
• Evaluation/Audits - Assessments of various phases of the environmental data operation are
discussed in Section 15.
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 6.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 1 of 14
6.0 Monitoring Network Design
The selection of a specific monitoring site includes four major activities:
1. Developing and understanding the monitoring objective and appropriate data quality objectives.
2. Identifying the spatial scale most appropriate for the monitoring objective of the site.
3. Identifying the general locations where the monitoring site should be placed.
4. Identifying specific monitoring sites.
This section describes the general concepts for establishing the SLAMS, NCore, STN, PAMS, and open
path monitoring. Additional details can be found in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix D : and the guidance
information for the various monitor networks that can be found on AMTIC2.
As described in Section 1, air quality samples are generally collected for one or more of the following
purposes:
• To provide air pollution data to the general public in a timely manner.
• To judge compliance with and/or progress made towards meeting ambient air quality standards.
• To activate emergency control procedures that prevent or alleviate air pollution episodes.
• To observe pollution trends throughout the region, including non-urban areas.
• To provide a data base for research evaluation of effects: urban, land-use, and transportation
planning; development and evaluation of abatement strategies; and development and validation of
diffusion models.
Network information related to these 5 purposes is discussed below.
"Real-Time" Air Quality Public Reporting
The U.S. EPA, NOAA, NPS, tribal, state, and local agencies developed the AIRNow3 Web site to provide
the public with easy access to national air quality information. The Web site offers daily Air Quality
Index (AQI):
Conditions- Nationwide and regional real-time ozone and PM2 5 air quality maps covering 46 US
States and parts of Canada. These maps are updated daily every hour. A click of a mouse brings up
the U.S. map and a second click can bring up the AQI details of a region, state or local area within a
state.
Forecasts - Nationwide daily air quality forecasts provided by monitoring organizations for over
300 major cities and areas in the U.S.
Federal requirements state that Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MS As) with a population of more than
350,000 are required to report the AQI daily to the general public. The U.S. Office of Management and
Budget defines MS As according to the 2000 census. However, many other tribal, state and local
monitoring organizations participate in AIRNow.
There are no specific network requirements or guidelines for reporting to AIRNow. Sites used for
1 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/40cfr53.html
2 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/
3 http://airnow.gov/
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 6.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 2 of 14
reporting to AIRNow are sites that have been set up for the other monitoring objectives discussed above.
The air quality data used in these maps and to generate forecasts are collected using either federal
reference or equivalent monitoring techniques or techniques approved by the monitoring organizations.
Since the information needed to make maps must be as "real-time" as possible, the data are displayed as
soon as practical after the end of each hour. Although some preliminary data quality assessments are
performed, the data as such are not fully verified and validated through the quality assurance procedures
monitoring organizations use to officially submit and certify data on the EPA AQS. Therefore, data are
used on the AIRNow Web site only for the purpose of reporting the AQI. Information on the AIRNow
web site is not used to formulate or support regulation, guidance or any other Agency decision or
position.
Compliance Monitoring
The information required for selecting the number of samplers4 and the sampler locations include isopleth
maps, population density maps, and source locations. The following are suggested guidelines:
• the priority area is the zone of highest pollution concentration within the region; one or more
stations should be located in this area;
• close attention should be given to densely populated areas within the region, especially when they
are in the vicinity of heavy pollution;
• the quality of air entering the region is to be assessed by stations situated on the periphery of the
region; meteorological factors (e.g., frequencies of wind directions) are of primary importance in
locating these stations;
• sampling should be undertaken in areas of projected growth to determine the effects of future
development on the environment;
• a major objective of compliance monitoring is the evaluation of progress made in attaining the
desired air quality; for this purpose, sampling stations should be strategically situated to facilitate
evaluation of the implemented control strategies; and
• some information of air quality should be available to represent all portions of the region of
concern.
Some stations will be capable of fulfilling more than one of the functions indicated. For example, a
station located in a densely populated area can indicate population exposures and can also document the
changes in pollutant concentrations resulting from mitigation strategies used in the area.
Emergency Episode Monitoring
For episode avoidance purposes, data are needed quickly—in no less than a few hours after the pollutant
contacts the sensor. While it is possible to obtain data rapidly by on-site manual data reduction and
telephone reporting, there is a trend towards using automated monitoring networks. The severity of the
problem, the size of the receptor area, and the availability of resources all influence both the scope and
sophistication of the monitoring system.
It is necessary to use continuous air samplers because of the short durations of episodes and the control
actions taken must be based on real-time measurements that are correlated with the decision criteria.
Based on episode alert criteria and mechanisms now in use, 1-h averaging times are adequate for
4 A "sampler" in this context refers to both continuous instruments that provide an ambient air concentration without
additional preparation or analytical techniques as well as instruments that provide a sample needing additional
analysis.
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 6.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 3 of 14
surveillance of episode conditions. Shorter averaging times provide information on data collecting
excursions, but they increase the need for automation because of the bulk of data obtained. Longer
averaging times (>6 hours) are not desirable because of the delay in response that these impose. After an
alert is announced, data are needed quickly so that requests for information on the event can be provided.
Collection and analysis must be accomplished rapidly if the data are to be useful immediately. Collection
instruments must be fully operable at the onset of an episode. For the instrument to be maintained in peak
operating condition, either personnel must be stationed at the sites during an episode or automated
equipment must be operated that can provide automatic data transmission to a central location.
Monitoring sites should be located in areas where human health and welfare are most threatened:
• in densely populated areas;
• near large stationary source of pollution;
• near hospitals;
• near high density traffic areas; and
• near homes for the aged.
A network of sites is useful in determining the range of pollutant concentrations within the area, but the
most desirable monitoring sites are not necessarily the most convenient. Public buildings such as schools,
firehouses, police stations, hospitals, and water or sewage plants should be considered for reasons of
access, security and existing communications.
Trends Monitoring
Trends monitoring is characterized by locating a minimal number of monitoring sites across as large an
area as possible while still meeting the monitoring objectives. The program objective is to determine the
extent and nature of the air pollution and to determine the variations in the measured levels of the
atmospheric contaminants in respect to the geographical, socio-economic, climatological and other
factors. The data are useful in planning epidemiological investigations and in providing the background
against which more intensive regional and community studies of air pollution can be conducted.
Urban sampling stations are usually located in the most densely populated areas of the region. In most
regions, there are several urban sites. Non-urban stations encompass various topographical categories
such as farmland, desert, forest, mountain and coast. Non-urban stations are not selected specifically to
be "clean air" control sites for urban areas, but they do provide a relative comparison between some urban
and nearby non-urban areas.
In interpreting trends data, limitations imposed by the network design must be considered. Even though
precautions are taken to ensure that each sampling site is as representative as possible of the designated
area, it is impossible to be certain that measurements obtained at a specific site are not unduly influenced
by local factors. Such factors can include topography, structures, sources of pollution in the immediate
vicinity of the site, and other variables; the effects which cannot always be accurately anticipated, but
nevertheless, should be considered in network design. Comparisons among pollution levels for various
areas are valid only if the sites are representative of the conditions for which the study is designed.
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 6.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 4 of 14
Research Monitoring
Air monitoring networks related to health effects are composed of integrating samplers both for
determining pollutant concentrations for <24 hours and for developing long term (>24 hour) ambient air
quality standards. The research requires that monitoring points be located so that the resulting data will
represent the population group under evaluation. Therefore, the monitoring stations are established in the
centers of small well-defined residential areas within a community. Data correlations are made between
observed health effects and observed air quality exposures.
Requirements for aerometric monitoring in support of health studies are as follows:
• the station must be located in or near the population under study;
• pollutant sampling averaging times must be sufficiently short to allow for use in acute health
effect studies that form the scientific basis for short-term standards;
• sampling frequency, usually daily, should be sufficient to characterize air quality as a function of
time; and
• the monitoring system should be flexible and responsive to emergency conditions with data
available on short notice.
6.1 Monitoring Objectives and Spatial Scales
With the end use of the air quality samples as a prime consideration, the national ambient air monitoring
networks are designed to determine one of six basic monitoring objectives listed below:
1. Determine the highest concentration expected to occur in the area covered by the network.
2. Measure typical concentrations in areas of high population density.
3. Determine the impact of significant sources or source categories on air quality.
4. Determine background concentration levels.
5. Determine the extent of regional pollutant transport among populated areas; and in support of
secondary standards.
6. Measure air pollution impacts on visibility, vegetation damage, or welfare-based impacts.
These six objectives indicate the nature of the samples that the monitoring network will collect that must
be representative of the spatial area being studied. In the case of PAMS, the design criteria are site
specific and, therefore, there are specific monitoring objectives associated with each location for which
PAMS stations are required (see Table 6-4).
Sampling equipment requirements are generally divided into three categories, consistent with the desired
averaging times:
1. Continuous- Pollutant concentrations determined with automated methods, and recorded or
displayed continuously.
2. Integrated- Pollutant concentrations determined with manual or automated methods from
integrated hourly or daily samples on a fixed schedule (i.e., manual PM2 5).
3. Static- Pollutant estimates or effects determined from long-term (weekly or monthly) exposure to
qualitative measurement devices or materials (i.e., passive monitoring5)
1 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/passive.html
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 6.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 5 of 14
Air monitoring sites that use automated equipment to continually sample and analyze pollutant levels may
be classified as primary. Primary monitoring stations are generally located in areas where pollutant
concentrations are expected to be among the highest and in areas with the highest population densities;
thus, they are often used in health effects research networks. These stations are also designed as part of
the air pollution episode warning system and used to report data to the public through AIRNow6 and the
air quality index (AQI).
The goal in siting stations is to correctly match the spatial scale represented by the sample of monitored
air with the spatial scale most appropriate for the monitoring objective of the station. This achieves the
goal of data quality indicator representativeness discussed in Section 3. The representative measurement
scales of greatest interest are shown below:
Micro
Middle
Neighborhood
Urban
Regional
National/Global
Concentrations in air volumes associated with area dimensions ranging from
several meters up to about 100 meters.
Concentrations typical of areas up to several city blocks in size with
dimensions ranging from about 100 meters to 0.5 kilometer.
Concentrations within some extended area of the city that has relatively
uniform land use with dimensions in the 0.5 to 4.0 kilometers range.
Overall, citywide conditions with dimensions on the order of 4 to
50 kilometers. This scale would usually require more than one site for
definition.
Usually a rural area of reasonably homogeneous geography and extends from
tens to hundreds of kilometers.
Concentrations characterizing the nation and the globe as a whole.
Table 6-1 illustrates the relationships among the four basic monitoring objectives and the scales of
representativeness that are generally most appropriate for that objective. Appendix E provides more
detailed spatial characteristics for each pollutant while Table 6-2 provides a summary for the various
monitoring programs.
Table 6-1 Relationship Among Monitoring Objectives and Scales of Representativeness
Monitoring Objective
Highest Concentration
Population
Source impact
General/background & Regional Transport
Welfare-related
Appropriate Siting Scale
Micro, middle, neighborhood,
Neighborhood, urban
Micro, middle, neighborhood
Urban/regional
Urban/regional
sometimes urban
There is the potential for using open path monitoring for microscale spatial scales. For microscale areas,
however, siting of open path analyzers must reflect proper regard for the specific monitoring objectives.
Specifically, the path-averaging nature of open path analyzers could result in underestimations of high
pollutant concentrations at specific points within the measurement path for other ambient air monitoring
situations. In open path monitoring, monitoring path lengths must be commensurate with the intended
scale of representativeness and located carefully with respect to local sources or potential obstructions.
For short-term/high-concentration or source-oriented monitoring, the monitoring path may need to be
further restricted in length and be oriented perpendicular to the wind direction(s) determined by air
quality modeling leading to the highest concentration, if possible. Alternatively, multiple paths may be
used advantageously to obtain both wider area coverage and peak concentration sensitivity.
' http://airnow.gov/
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 6.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 6 of 14
Fable 6-2 Summary of Spatial Scales for SLAMS, NCore, PAMS, and Open Path (OP) Sites
Spatial Scale
Micro
Middle
Neighborhood
Urban
Regional
SLAMS Sites1
SO,
*
*
*
CO
*
*
0,
*
*
*
N02
*
*
*
Pb
*
*
*
*
*
PM10
*
*
*
PM25
*
*
*
*
*
PM10_2.5
*
*
*
NCore
*
*
*
STN
*
*
NATTs
*
*
*
PAMS
*
*
OP
*
*
*
*
SLAMS Site scales based on current listing in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix D and do not include NCore spatial scale objective.
6.1.1 Monitoring Boundaries
The NAAQS refer to several boundaries that are defined below. These definitions are derived from the
U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Core-based Statistical Area (CBSA) - is defined by the OMB as a statistical geographic entity
consisting of the county or counties associated with at least one urbanized area/urban cluster of at least
10,000 population, plus adjacent counties having a high degree of social and economic integration.
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) - a category of CBSA with populations greater than 50,0007.
Micropolitan Statistical Area - are a category of CBSA with populations between 10,000 and 50,000
Combined Statistical Area (CSA) - is defined by the OMB as a geographical area consisting of two or
more adjacent Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSA) with employment interchange of at least 15 percent.
Combination is automatic if the employment interchange is 25 percent and determined by local opinion if
more than 15 but less than 25 percent8.
New England city and town areas (NECTAs) - are analogous to CBSAs and are similarly classified as
either metropolitan NECTAs (corresponding to MSAs) or micropolitan NECTAs (corresponding to
micropolitan statistical areas). The principal difference between a CBSA and aNECTA is that NECTAs
use New England towns as building blocks instead of counties. In the New England region, towns are a
much more important level of government than counties. Because of this, NECTAs are usually a much
closer approximation to metropolitan areas in New England than MSAs
Monitoring Planning Area (MPA) - means a contiguous geographic area with established, well defined
boundaries, such as a CBSA, county or State, having a common area that is used for planning monitoring
locations for PM2 5. An MPA may cross State boundaries, such as the Philadelphia PA-NJ MSA, and be
further subdivided into community monitoring zones. MPAs are generally oriented toward CBSAs or
CSAs with populations greater than 200,000, but for convenience, those portions of a State that are not
associated with CBSAs can be considered as a single MPA.
Community Monitoring Zone (CMZ) - means an optional averaging area with established, well defined
boundaries, such as county or census block, within an MPA that has relatively uniform concentrations of
annual PM2 5 as defined by 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix N. Two or more community oriented SLAMS
monitors within a CMZ that meet certain requirements as set forth in Appendix N may be averaged
(spatial averaging) for making comparisons to the annual PM2 5 NAAQS.
7 http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/metro-city/Listl.txt
8 http://www.census. £ov/population/estimates/metro-city/List6. txt
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 6.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 7 of 14
6.2 Monitoring Site Location
Four criteria should be considered, either singly or in combination when locating sites, depending on the
sampling objective. Orient the monitoring sites to measure the following:
1. Impacts of known pollutant emission categories on air quality.
2. Population density relative to receptor-dose levels, both short and long term.
3. Impacts of known pollutant emission sources (area and point) on air quality.
4. Representative area-wide air quality.
To select locations according to these criteria, it is necessary to have detailed information on the location
of emission sources, geographical variability of ambient pollutant concentrations, meteorological
conditions and population density. Therefore, selection of the number, locations and types of sampling
stations is a complex process. The variability of sources and their intensities of emissions, terrains,
meteorological conditions and demographic features require that each network be developed individually.
Thus, selection of the network will be based upon the best available evidence and on the experience of the
decision team.
The sampling site selection process involves considerations of the following factors:
Economics - The amount of resources required for the entire data collection activity, including operators,
instrumentation, installation, safety equipment, maintenance, data retrieval/data transfer, data analysis,
quality assurance and data interpretation.
Security - Experience has shown that in some cases, a particular site may not be appropriate for the
establishment of an ambient monitoring station simply due to problems with the security of the equipment
in a certain area. If the problems cannot be remedied via the use of standard security measures such as
lighting, fences, etc., then attempts should be made to locate the site as near to the identified sector as
possible while maintaining adequate security.
Logistics - Logistics is the process of dealing with the procurement, maintenance and transportation of
material and personnel for a monitoring operation. This process requires the full knowledge of all aspects
of the data collection operation including:
Planning Staffing
Reconnaissance Procurement of goods and services
Training Communications
Scheduling Inventory
Safety
Atmospheric considerations - Atmospheric considerations may include the spatial and temporal
variability of the pollutants and its transport to the monitoring site. Effects of buildings, terrain, and heat
sources or sinks on the air trajectories can produce local anomalies of excessive pollutant concentrations.
Meteorology must be considered in determining not only the geographical location of a monitoring site
but also such factors as height, direction, and extension of sampling probes. The following
meteorological factors can greatly influence the dispersal of pollutants:
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 6.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 8 of 14
Wind speed affects the travel time from the pollutant source to the receptor and the dilution of
polluted air in the downwind direction. The concentrations of air pollutants are inversely
proportional to the wind speed.
Wind direction influences the general movements of pollutants in the atmosphere. Review of
available data can indicate mean wind direction in the vicinity of the major sources of emissions.
Win d variability refers to the random motions in both horizontal and vertical velocity components
of the wind. These random motions can be considered atmospheric turbulence, which is either
mechanical (caused by structures and changes in terrain) or thermal (caused by heating and
cooling of land masses or bodies of water). If the scale of turbulent motion is larger than the size
of the pollutant plume, the turbulence will move the entire plume and cause looping and fanning;
if smaller, it will cause the plume to diffuse and spread out.
If the meteorological phenomena impact with some regularity, data may need to be interpreted in light of
these atmospheric conditions. Other meteorological conditions to consider are atmospheric stability and
lapse rate (the decrease of an atmospheric variable with height).
a 2.
A useful way of displaying wind data is a wind rose
diagram constructed to show the distribution of wind
speeds and directions. The wind rose diagram
shown in Figure 6.1 represents conditions as they
converge on the center from each direction of the
compass. More detailed guidance for
meteorological considerations is available9.
Relevant weather information, such as stability-wind
roses, is usually available from local National
Weather Service stations. For PAMS monitoring, in
many areas there are three types of high ozone days:
overwhelming transport, weak transport (or mixed
transport and stagnation) and stagnation. The wind
rose concept to site monitors is only applicable to
the transport types, but not applicable to the
stagnation type. In general, transport types
dominate north of 40° N, stagnation types dominate
the Ohio River Valley and northern Gulf Coast, and
a mixture of the two is observed in the rest of the eastern United States. In areas where stagnation
dominates the high ozone days, a well-defined primary wind direction (PWD) may not be available. If no
well-defined PWD can be resolved, the major axes of the emissions sources should be used as substitutes
for the PWDs and the PAMS monitors should be located along these axes.
Meteorological conditions, particularly those that can affect light transmission, should also be considered
in selecting the location for open path analyzers (e.g., the influence of relative humidity on the creation of
fog, the percentage of heavy snow, and the possible formation of haze, etc.). The percent fog, percent
snow fall, percent haze, and hourly visibility (from nearest airport) may impact data completeness.
Although sites with high relative humidity may have data capture rates around 90 percent, sites with
relative humidity greater than 80 percent more than 20 percent of the time should be carefully assessed
Figure 6.1 Wind rose pattern
' QA Handbook for Meteorological Measurements Volume IV http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/met.html
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 6.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 9 of 14
for data completeness, or avoided. Similarly, severe fog, snow fall, or haze that affects visibility can
affect data completeness and should be kept to less than 20 percent of the time. The time of day or season
when such conditions occur should also be determined to ensure that representative data from various
time periods and seasons are collected. No more than 20 percent of data in any time period should be lost
as a result of the aforementioned meteorological conditions. Sometimes, high data capture at locations
with frequent fog or other obscurant conditions can be enhanced by using a shorter path length of
50 to 100 meters. However, this can be done only for microscale sites. Meteorological data
considerations therefore should include the following measurements: (1) hourly precipitation amounts for
climatological comparisons, (2) hourly relative humidity, (3) percent haze, and (4) airport visibility.
Topography - Both the transport and the diffusion of air pollutants are complicated by topographical
features. Minor topographical features may exert small influences; major features, such as deep river
valleys or mountain ranges, may affect large areas. Before final site selection, review the topography of
the area to ensure that the purpose of monitoring at that site will not be adversely affected. Table 6-3
summarizes important topographical features, their effects on air flow, and some examples of influences
on monitoring site selection. Land use and topographical characterization of specific areas can be
determined from U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maps as well as from land use maps.
Table 6-3 Relationships of Topography, Air Flow, and Monitoring Site Selection
Topographical
feature
Slope/Valley
Water
Hill
Natural or manmade
obstruction
Influence on air flow
Downward air currents at night and on cold
days; up slope winds on clear days when
valley heating occurs. Slope winds and
valley channeled winds; tendency toward
down-slope and down- valley winds;
tendency toward inversions
Sea or lake breezes inland or parallel to
shoreline during the day or in cold weather;
land breezes at night.
Sharp ridges causing turbulence; air flow
around obstructions during stable
conditions, but over obstructions during
unstable conditions
Eddy effects
Influence on monitoring site selection
Slopes and valleys as special sites for air monitors
because pollutants generally are well dispersed;
concentration levels not representative of other
geographic areas; possible placement of monitor to
determine concentration levels in a population or
industrial center in valley
Monitors on shorelines generally for background readings
or for obtaining pollution data on water traffic
Depends on source orientation; upwind source emissions
generally mixed down the slope, and siting at foot of hill
not generally advantageous; downwind source emissions
generally down washed near the source; monitoring close
to a source generally desirable if population centers
adjacent or if monitoring protects workers
Placement near obstructions not generally representative
in readings
Pollutant Considerations - A sampling site or an array of sites for one pollutant may be appropriate for
another pollutant species because of the configuration of sources, the local meteorology, or the terrain.
Pollutants undergo changes in their compositions between their emission and their detection; therefore,
the impact of that change on the measuring system should be considered. Atmospheric chemical
reactions such as the production of O3 in the presence of NOX and hydrocarbons (HCs) and the time delay
between the emission of NOX and HCs and the detection peak of O3 values may require either a sampling
network for the precursors of O3 and/or a different network for the actual O3 measurement.
The success of the PAMS monitoring program is predicated on the fact that no site is unduly influenced
by any one stationary emissions source or small group of emissions sources. Any significant influences
would cause the ambient levels measured by that particular site to mimic the emissions rates of this
source or sources rather than following the changes in nonattainment area-wide emissions as intended by
the Rule. For purposes of this screening procedure, if more than 10% of the typical "lower end"
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 6.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
10 of 14
concentration measured in an urban area is due to a nearby source of precursor emissions, then the PAMS
site should be relocated or a more refined analysis conducted than is presented here. Detailed procedures
can be found in the PAMS Implementation Manual10.
None of the factors mentioned above stand alone. Each is dependent in part on the others. However, the
objective of the sampling program must be clearly defined before the selection process can be initiated,
and the initial definition of priorities may have to be reevaluated after consideration of the remaining
factors before the final site selection. While the interactions of the factors are complex, the site selection
problems can be resolved. Experience in the operation of air quality measurement systems; estimates of
air quality, field and theoretical studies of air diffusion; and considerations of atmospheric chemistry and
air pollution effects make up the required expertise needed to select the optimum sampling site for
obtaining data representative of the monitoring objectives.
6.2.1 PAMS Site Descriptions
The PAMS network array for an area should be fashioned to supply measurements that will assist States
in understanding and solving ozone nonattainment problems. Table 6-4 describes the five site types
identified in the PAMS network. In 2007, EPA determined that the number of required PAMS sites could
be reduced. Only one Type 2 site is required per area regardless of population; Type 4 sites would not be
required; and only one Type 1 or one Type 3 site would be required per area.
Table 6-4 Site Descriptions of PAMS Monitoring Sites
Type#
1
2
2a
3
4
Me as. Scale
Urban
Neighborhood
Neighborhood
Urban
Urban
Description
Upwind and background characterization to identify those areas which are subjected to
overwhelming incoming transport of ozone. The #1 Sites are located in the predominant morning
upwind direction from the local area of maximum precursor emissions and at a distance sufficient to
obtain urban scale measurements. Typically, these sites will be located near the upwind edge of the
photochemical grid model domain.
Maximum ozone precursor emissions impacts located immediately downwind (using the same
morning wind direction as for locating Site #1) of the area of maximum precursor emissions and are
typically placed near the downwind boundary of the central business district (CBD) or primary area
of precursor emissions mix to obtain neighborhood scale measurements.
Maximum ozone precursor emissions impacts -second-most predominant morning wind
direction
Maximum ozone concentrations occurring downwind from the area of maximum precursor
emissions. Locations for #3 Sites should be chosen so that urban scale measurements are obtained.
Typically, these sites are located 10 to 30 miles from the fringe of the urban area
Extreme downwind monitoring of transported ozone and its precursor concentrations exiting the
area and will identify those areas which are potentially contributing to overwhelming ozone transport
into other areas. The #4 Sites are located in the predominant afternoon downwind direction from the
local area of maximum precursor emissions at a distance sufficient to obtain urban scale
measurements. Typically, these sites will be located near the downwind edge of the photochemical
grid model domain.
There are three fundamental criteria to consider when locating a final PAMS site: sector analysis,
distance, and proximate sources. These three criteria are considered carefully by EPA when approving or
disapproving a candidate site for PAMS.
' http ://www. epa. gov/ttn/amtic/pams. html
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 6.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 11 of 14
6.3 Monitor Placement
Final placement of the monitor at a selected site depends on physical obstructions and activities in the
immediate area, accessibility/availability of utilities and other support facilities in correlation with the
defined purpose of the specific monitor and its design. Because obstructions such as trees and fences can
significantly alter the air flow, monitors should be placed away from obstructions. It is important for air
flow around the monitor to be representative of the general air flow in the area to prevent sampling bias.
Detailed information on urban physiography (e.g., buildings, street dimensions) can be determined
through visual observations, aerial photography and surveys. Such information can be important in
determining the exact locations of pollutant sources in and around the prospective monitoring site areas.
Network designers should avoid sampling locations that are unduly influenced by down wash or ground
dust (e.g., a rooftop air inlet near a stack or a ground-level inlet near an unpaved road); in these cases, the
sample intake should either be elevated above the level of the maximum ground turbulence effect or
placed at a reasonable distance from the source of ground dust.
Depending on the defined monitoring objective, the monitors are placed according to exposure to
pollution. Due to the various physical and meteorological constraints discussed above, tradeoffs will be
made to locate a site in order to optimize representativeness of sample collection. The consideration
should include categorization of sites relative to their local placements. Suggested categories relating to
sample site placement for measuring a corresponding pollution impact are identified in Table 6-5.
Table 6-5 Monitoring Station Categories Relating to Sample Site Placement
Station Category
A (ground level)
B (ground level)
C (ground level)
D (ground level)
E (air mass)
F (source-oriented)
Char acteriz ation
Heavy pollutant concentrations, high potential for pollutant buildup. A site 3 to 5 m (10-16 ft) from
major traffic artery and that has local terrain features restricting ventilation. A sampler probe that is
3 to 6 m (10-20 ft) above ground.
Heavy pollutant concentrations, minimal potential for a pollutant buildup. A site 3 to 15 m
(15-50 ft) from a major traffic artery, with good natural ventilation. A sampler probe that is 3 to
6 m (10-20 ft) above ground.
Moderate pollutant concentrations. A site 15 to 60 m (5-200 ft) from a major traffic artery. A
sampler probe that is 3 to 6 m (10-20 ft ) above ground.
Low pollutant concentrations. A site 60 > m (>200 ft) for a traffic artery. A sampler probe that is
3 to 6 m (10-20 ft) above ground.
Sampler probe that is between 6 and 45 m (20-150 ft) above ground. Two subclasses: (1) good
exposure from all sides (e.g., on top of building) or (2) directionally biased exposure (probe
extended from window).
A sampler that is adjacent to a point source. Monitoring that yields data directly relatable to the
emission source.
6.4 Minimum Network Requirements
In 2007, the minimum network site requirements for the criteria pollutants CO, NO2 and SO2 were
removed. Where SLAMS monitoring for these three criteria pollutants are ongoing, at least one site must
be a maximum concentration sites for that area under investigation. Rather than place tables for minimum
monitoring site requirements in the Handbook (since they have a tendency to change), the reader is
directed to 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix D11 of the most current regulation to find the appropriate minimum
monitoring network requirements.
1' http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html or http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/40cfr53.html
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 6.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 12 of 14
6.5 Operating Schedules
NOTE: The reader should check the most current version of 40 CFR Part 58 to ensure the
schedules below have not changed.
For continuous analyzers, consecutive hourly averages must be collected except during:
1. periods of routine maintenance;
2. periods of instrument calibration; or
3. periods or monitoring seasons exempted by the Regional Administrator.
For Pb manual methods, at least one 24-hour sample must be collected every 6 days except during
periods or seasons exempted by the Regional Administrator.
For PAMS VOC samplers, samples must be collected as specified in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix D
Section 5. Area specific PAMS operating schedules must be included as part of the PAMS network
description and must be approved by the Regional Administrator.
For manual PM2.5 samplers:
1. Manual PM2.5 samplers at SLAMS stations other than NCore stations must operate on at least a
l-in-3 day schedule at sites without a collocated continuously operating PM25 monitor. For
SLAMS PM2 5 sites with both manual and continuous PM2 5 monitors operating, the monitoring
agency may request approval for a reduction to l-in-6 day PM2 5 sampling at SLAMS stations or
for seasonal sampling from the EPA Regional Administrator. The EPA Regional Administrator
may grant sampling frequency reductions after consideration of factors, including but not limited
to the historical PM25 data quality assessments, the location of current PM25 design value sites,
and their regulatory data needs. Sites that have design values that are within plus or minus 10
percent of the NAAQS; and sites where the 24-hour values exceed the NAAQS for a period of 3
years are required to maintain at least a l-in-3 day sampling frequency. Sites that have a design
value within plus or minus 5 percent of the daily PM2 5 NAAQS must have an FRM or FEM
operate on a daily schedule. The national sampling schedule can be found on AMTIC12.
2. Manual PM25 samplers at NCore stations and required regional background and regional
transport sites must operate on at least a l-in-3 day sampling frequency.
3. Manual PM2.5 speciation samplers at STN stations must operate on a l-in-3 day sampling
frequency.
For PMio samplers, a 24-hour sample must be taken from midnight to midnight (local time) to ensure
national consistency. The minimum monitoring schedule for the site in the area of expected maximum
concentration shall be based on the relative level of that monitoring site concentration with respect to the
24-hour standard as illustrated in Figure 6.2. If the operating agency demonstrates by monitoring data
that during certain periods of the year conditions preclude violation of the PMi0 24-hour standard, the
increased sampling frequency for those periods or seasons may be exempted by the Regional
Administrator and permitted to revert back to once in six days. The minimum sampling schedule for all
other sites in the area remains once every six days.
12 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/calendar.html
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 6.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 13 of 14
>
f
\
f
Every Day
>
f
\
f
0,8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3
Figure 6.2 Sampling schedule based on ratio to the 24-hour PMi0 NAAQS
For manual PMi0_2.s samplers:
1. Manual PMi0_2.s samplers at NCore stations must operate on at least a l-in-3 day schedule at
sites without a collocated continuously operating federal equivalent PM10_2.5 method that has been
designated in accordance with 40 CFR Part 53.
2. Manual PMi0_2.s speciation samplers at NCore stations must operate on at least a l-in-3 day
sampling frequency.
For NATTS Monitoring, samplers must operate year round and follow the national l-in-6 day sampling
schedule.
6.5.1 Operating Schedule Completeness
Data required for comparison to the NAAQS have specific completeness requirements. These
completeness requirements generally start from completeness at hourly and 24-hour concentration values.
However, the data used for NAAQS determinations include 3-hour, 8-hour, quarterly, annual and multiple
year levels of data aggregation. Generally, depending on the calculation of the design value, EPA requires
data to be 75% complete. All continuous measurements come down to what is considered a valid hour
and currently all 24-hour estimates based on sampling (manual PM, Pb, TSP) are based on a 24-hour
sampling period. Table 6-6 provides the completeness goals for the various ambient air program
monitoring programs.
The data cells highlighted in Table 6-6 refer to the standards that apply to the specific pollutant. Even
though a highlighted cell lists the completeness requirement, CFR provides additional detail, in some
cases, on how a design value might be calculated with less data than the stated requirement. Therefore,
the information provided in Table 6-6 should be considered the initial completeness goal which should be
attempted to be achieved. Completeness goals that are not highlighted, although not covered in CFR, are
very important to the achievement of the CFR completeness goals. So, for example, even though there is
only an 8-hour ozone standard, it's important to have complete 1-hour values in order to compare to the
8-hour standard.
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 6.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 14 of 14
Table 6-6 Completeness Goals for Ambient Air Monitoring Data
Pollutants
CO
03
S02
NO2
PM10 Cont
PM25Cont.
PM10
Manual
PM2.5
Manual
Pb
PAMS
NATTS
STN
Completeness Goals and Associated Standards (highlighted)
1-hour
45, 1 min. values
45, 1 min. values
45, 1 min. values
45, 1 min. values
45, 1 min. values
45, 1 min. values
3-hour
All 3 hours
75%
complete
8-hour
75% of
hourly values
75% of
hourly values
24-hour
75% of hourly
values
75% of hourly
values
23 hours**
23 hours
23 Hours**
23 hours
23 Hours
23 Hours
23 Hours
23 Hours
Quarterly
75% of
samples
75% of
samples**
Annual
75% of hourly
values per quarter
75% of hourly
values per quarter
75% of hourly
values per quarter
** not defined in CFR
For continuous instruments, it is suggested that 45, 1-minute values be considered a valid hour. Therefore,
it is expected that 1-minute concentration values would be archived for a period of time (see statute of
limitations in Section 5). Since various QC checks take time to complete, (zero/span/1-point QC) it is
suggested that they be implemented in a manner that spans two hours (e.g., at 11:45 PM to 12:15 AM) in
order to avoid losing an hour's worth of data.
6.5.2 Monitoring Seasons
Most of the monitoring networks operate year round with the exception of PAMS and ozone monitoring.
PAMS - 40 CFR 58, Appendix D10 stipulates that PAMS precursor monitoring must be conducted
annually throughout the months of June, July and August (as a minimum) when peak O3 values are
expected in each area. Alternate precursor monitoring periods may be submitted for approval to the
Administrator as a part of the annual monitoring network plan.
Ozone - Since O3 levels decrease significantly in the colder parts of the year in many areas, O3 is required
to be monitored at SLAMS monitoring sites only during the "ozone season" as designated in the AQS
files on a State-by-State basis and described in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix D13. Deviations from the O3
monitoring season must be approved by the EPA Regional Administrator, documented within the annual
monitoring network plan, and updated in AQS.
13
http ://www. gpoaccess. gov/cfr/index. html
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Section 7.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 1 of 14
7.0 Sampling Methods
To establish the basic validity of ambient air monitoring data, it must be shown that:
• the proposed sampling method complies with the appropriate monitoring regulations;
• the equipment is accurately sited;
• the equipment was accurately calibrated using correct and established calibration methods; and
• the organization implementing the data collection operation are qualified and competent.
For example, if the only reasonable monitoring site has a less than ideal location, the data collection
organization must decide whether a representative sample can be obtained at the site. This determination
should be recorded and included in the program's QAPP. Although after-the-fact site analysis may
suffice in some instances, good quality assurance techniques dictate that this analysis be made prior to
expending the resources required to collect the data.
The purpose of this section is to describe the attributes of the sampling system that will ensure the
collection of data of a quality acceptable for the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program.
7.1 Environmental Control
7.1.1 Monitoring Station Design
State and local agencies should design their monitoring stations with the station operator in mind. Careful
thought to safety, ease of access to instruments and optimal work space should be given every
consideration. If the station operator has these issues addressed, then he/she will be able to perform their
duties more efficiently and diligently. Having the instruments in an area that is difficult to work in creates
frustration and prolongs downtime. The goal is to optimize data collection and quality. This must start
with designing the shelter and laboratory around staff needs and requirements.
Monitoring stations may be located in urban areas where space and land are at a premium, especially in
large cities that are monitoring for NOX and CO. In many cases, the monitoring station is located in a
building or school that is gracious enough to allow an agency to locate its equipment. Sometimes, a storage
or janitorial closet is all that is available. However, this can pose serious problems. If the equipment is
located in a closet, then it is difficult for the agency to control the effects of temperature, humidity, light,
vibration and chemicals on the instruments. In addition, security can also be an issue if people other than
agency staff have access to the equipment. Monitoring organizations should give serious thought to
locating air monitoring equipment in stand-alone shelters with limited access, or modify existing rooms to
the recommended station design if funds and staff time are available.
In general, air monitoring stations should be designed for functionality and ease of access for operation,
maintenance and repair. In addition, the shelter should be rugged enough to withstand local weather
condition extremes. In the past, small utility trailers were the norm in monitoring shelters. However, in
some areas, this will not suffice. Recently, steel and aluminum storage containers are gaining wide
acceptance as monitoring shelters. It is recommended that monitoring stations be housed in shelters that
are fairly secure from intrusion or vandalism. All sites should be located in fenced or secure areas with
access only through locked gates or secure pathways. The shelter's design dictates that they be insulated
(R-19 minimum) to prevent temperature extremes within the shelter. All structures should be secured to
their foundations and protected from damage during natural disasters. All monitoring shelters should be
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Section 7.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 2 of 14
designed to control excessive vibrations and external light falling on the instruments, and provide 110/220
VAC voltage throughout the year. When designing a monitoring shelter, make sure that enough electrical
circuits are secured for the current load of equipment plus other instruments that may be added later or
audit equipment (e.g., NPAP/PEP). Every attempt should be made to reduce the environmental footprint of
shelters to make them as energy efficient as possible. Some possibilities include venting of excess heat of
monitoring instruments to the outside in summer months, use of energy efficient fixtures and HVAC
systems, and ensuring that the amount of space devoted to the monitors is not excessive (remembering that
space is needed at times for additional QA equipment). Figure 7.1 represents one shelter design that has
proven adequate.
The first feature of the shelter is that there are two rooms separated by a door. The reasons for this are two-
fold. The entry and access should be into the computer/data review area. This allows access to the site
without having to open the room that houses the equipment. It also isolates the equipment from cold/hot air
that can come into the shelter when someone enters. Also, the Data Acquisition System (DAS)/data review
area is isolated from the noise and vibration of the equipment. This area can be a place where the operator
can print data, and prepare samples for the laboratory. This also gives the operator an area where cursory
data review can take place. If something is observed during this initial review then possible problems can
be corrected or investigated at that time. The DAS can be linked through cables that travel through conduit
into the equipment area. The conduit is attached to the ceiling or walls and then dropped down to the
instrument rack.
The air conditioning/heating unit
should be mounted to heat and cool
the equipment room. When
specifying the unit, make sure it will
cool the room on the warmest and
heat on the coldest days of the year.
Also, make sure the electrical circuits
are able to carry the load. If
necessary, keep the door closed
between the computer and equipment
room to lessen the load on the heating
or cooling equipment.
All air quality instrumentation should
be located in an instrument rack or
equivalent. The instruments and their
support equipment are placed on
sliding trays or rails. By placing the
racks away from the wall, the rear of the instruments are accessible. The trays or rails allow the site
operators access to the instruments without removing them from the racks. Most instrument vendors offer
sliding rails as an optional purchase.
7.1.2 Sampling Environment
A proper sampling environment demands control of all physical parameters external to the samples that
might affect sample stability, chemical reactions within the sampler, or the function of sampler
components. The important parameters to be controlled are summarized in Table 7-1.
Manifold
1
AC
Unit
~^, ,
Instrument Rjack
f
Cable Conduit
1
4
Temp. Sensor
Printer
DAS i
i
'
I
<-
i
«
r~i
•••*»» 4 1 0 1
- Wall
Door
Figure 7.1 Example Design for Shelter
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Section 7.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 3 of 14
Table 7-1 Environment Control Parameters
Parameter
Instrument vibration
Light
Electrical voltage
Temperature
Humidity
Source of specification
Manufacturer's specifications
Method description or
manufacturer's specifications
Method description or
manufacturer's specifications
Method description or
manufacturer's specifications
Method description or
manufacturer's specifications
Method of Control
Design of instrument housings, benches, etc., per
manufacturer's specifications.
Shield chemicals or instruments that can be affected by
natural or artificial light
Constant voltage transformers or regulators; separate
power lines; isolated high current drain equipment such
as hi-vols, heating baths, pumps from regulated circuits
Regulated air conditioning system 24-hour temperature
recorder; use electric heating and cooling only
Regulated air conditioning system; 24-hour
temperature recorder
With respect to environmental temperature for designated analyzers, most such analyzers have been tested
and qualified over a temperature range of 20°C to 30°C; few are qualified over a wider range. This
temperature range specifies both the range of acceptable operating temperatures and the range of
temperature change which the analyzer can accommodate without excessive drift. The latter, the range of
temperature change that may occur between zero and span adjustments, is the most important. When one
is outfitting a shelter with monitoring equipment, it is important to recognize and accommodate the
instrument with the most sensitive temperature requirement.
To accommodate energy conservation regulations or guidelines specifying lower thermostat settings,
designated analyzers located in facilities subject to these restrictions may be operated at temperatures
down to 18°C, provided the analyzer temperature does not fluctuate by more than 10°C between zero and
span adjustments. Operators should be alert to situations where environmental temperatures might fall
below 18°C, such as during night hours or weekends. Temperatures below 18°C may necessitate
additional temperature control equipment or rejection of the area as a sampling site.
Shelter temperatures above 30°C also occur, due to temperature control equipment that is malfunctioning,
lack of adequate power capacity, or shelters of inadequate design for the environmental conditions.
Occasional fluctuations above 30°C may require additional assurances that data quality is maintained.
Sites that continually have problems maintaining adequate temperatures may necessitate additional
temperature control equipment or rejection of the area as a sampling site. If this is not an option, a waiver
to operate beyond the required temperature range should be sought with the EPA Regional Office, if it
can be shown that the site can meet established data quality requirements.
In order to detect and correct temperature fluctuations, a 24-hour temperature recorder at the analyzer site
is suggested. These recorders can be connected to data loggers and should be considered official
documentation that should be filed (see Section 5). Many vendors offer these type of devices. Usually
they are thermocouple/thermistor devices of simple design and are generally very sturdy. Reasons for
using electronic shelter temperature devices are two-fold: 1) through remote interrogation of the DAS,
the agency can tell if values collected by air quality instruments are valid, and 2) that the shelter
temperature is within a safe operating range if the air conditioning/heating system fails.
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Section 7.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 4 of 14
7.2 Sampling Probes And Manifolds
7.2.1 Design of Probes and Manifolds for Automated Methods
Some important variables affecting the sampling manifold design are the diameter, length, flow rate,
pressure drop, and materials of construction. With the development of NCore precursor gas monitoring,
various types of probe/manifold designs were reviewed. This information can be found in the Technical
Assistance Document (TAD) for Precursor Gas Measurements in the NCore Multi-pollutant Monitoring
Network1 and is also included in Appendix F of this Handbook.
Of the probe and manifold material looked at over the years, only Pyrex® glass and Teflon® have been
found to be acceptable for use as intake sampling lines for all the reactive gaseous pollutants.
Furthermore, the EPA has specified borosilicate glass or FEP Teflon® as the only acceptable probe
materials for delivering test atmospheres in the determination of reference or equivalent methods.
Therefore, borosilicate glass (which includes Pyrex®), FEP Teflon® or their equivalent must be the only
material in the sampling train (from inlet probe to the back of the analyzer) that can be in contact with the
ambient air sample for existing and new SLAMS.
For volatile organic compound (VOC) monitoring at PAMS, FEP Teflon® is unacceptable as the probe
material because of VOC adsorption and desorption reactions on the FEP Teflon®. Borosilicate glass,
stainless steel, or its equivalent, are the acceptable probe materials for VOC and carbonyl sampling. Care
must be taken to ensure that the sample residence time is kept to 20 seconds or less.
Residence Time Determination
No matter how nonreactive the sampling probe material may be, after a period of use, reactive particulate
matter is deposited on the probe walls. Therefore, the time it takes the gas to transfer from the probe inlet
to the sampling device is also critical. Ozone, in the presence of nitrogen oxide (NO), will show
significant losses even in the most inert probe material when the residence time exceeds 20 seconds.
Other studies indicate that a 10-second or less residence time is easily achievable.
Residence time is defined as the amount of time that it takes for a sample of air to travel from the opening
of the cane to the inlet of the instrument and is required to be less than 20 seconds for reactive gas
monitors. The residence time of pollutants within the sampling manifold is also critical. It is
recommended that the residence time within the manifold and sample lines to the instruments be less than
10 seconds (of the total allowable 20 seconds). If the volume of the manifold does not allow this to occur,
then a blower motor or other device (vacuum pump) can be used to decrease the residence time. The
residence time for a manifold system is determined in the following way. First the volume of the cane,
manifold and sample lines must be determined using the following equation:
Total Volume = Cv +Mv + Lv
Where:
Cv = Volume of the sample cane and extensions, cm3
Mv = Volume of the sample manifold and trap, cm3
1 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ainbient/monitorstrat/precursor/tadversion4.pdf
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Section 7.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 5 of 14
Lv = Volume of the instrument lines, cm3
Each of the components of the sampling system must be measured individually. To measure the volume
of the components, use the following calculation:
V=pi *(d/2)2 *L
Where:
V = volume of the component, cm3
pi = 3.14159
L = Length of the component, cm
d = inside diameter, cm
Once the total volume is determined, divide the volume by the flow rate of all instruments. This will give
the residence time.
It has been demonstrated that there are no significant losses of reactive gas (O3) concentrations in
conventional 13 mm inside diameter sampling lines of glass or Teflon if the sample residence time is 10
seconds or less. This is true even in sample lines up to 38 m in length, which collect substantial amounts
of visible contamination due to ambient aerosols. However, when the sample residence time exceeds 20
seconds, loss is detectable, and at 60 seconds the loss is nearly complete.
Placement of tubing on the Manifold: If the manifold that
is employed at the station has multiple ports then placement
of the instrument lines can be crucial. If a manifold similar
to Figure 7.2 is used, it is suggested that instruments
requiring lower flows be placed towards the bottom of the
manifold. The general rule of thumb states that the
calibration line (if used) placement should be in a location
so that the calibration gases flow past the instruments before
the gas is evacuated out of the manifold. Figure 7.2
illustrates two potential introduction ports for the calibration
gas. The port at the elbow of the sampling cane provides
more information about the cleanliness of the sampling
system.
Calibrator
Gas —•
Excess Cal. Gas
• Pump
-Analyzer
Figure 7.2 Positions of calibration line in
sampling manifold
7.2.2 Placement of Probes and Manifolds
Probes and manifolds must be placed to avoid introducing
bias to the sample. Important considerations are probe
height above the ground, probe length (for horizontal
probes), and physical influences near the probe.
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Section 7.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 6 of 14
Some general guidelines for probe and manifold placement are:
• probes should not be placed next to air outlets such as exhaust fan openings
• horizontal probes must extend beyond building overhangs
• probes should not be near physical obstructions such as chimneys which can affect the air flow in
the vicinity of the probe
• height of the probe above the ground depends on the pollutant being measured
Table 7-2 summarizes the probe and monitoring path siting criteria while Table 7-3 summarizes the
spacing of probes from roadways. This information can be found in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix E2. For
PMio and PM2 5, Figure 7.3 provides the acceptable areas for micro, middle, neighborhood and urban
samplers, with the exception of microscale street canyon sites.
Table 7-2 Summary of Probe and Monitoring Path Siting Criteria
Pollutant
S02 3A5'6
CO 4'5'7
N02, 03 3'4'5
Ozone
precursors
(for
pAMS) 3,4,5.
PM,Pb
3,4,5,6,8
Scale (maximum
monitoring path
length, meters)
Middle (300 m)
Neighborhood Urban,
and Regional (1 km).
Micro, Middle (300
m), Neighborhood (1
km).
Middle (300 m)
Neighborhood, Urban,
and Regional (1 km).
Neighborhood and
Urban (1 km)
Micro: Middle,
Neighborhood,
Urban and Regional.
Height from
ground to probe,
inlet or 80% of
monitoring path 1
(meters)
2-15
3+1/2: 2-15
2-15
2-15
2-7 (micro);
2-7 (middle PM10-2.5);
2-15 (all other scales).
Horizontal and
vertical distance
from supporting
structures2 to
probe, inlet or
90% of monitoring
path1 (meters)
>1
> 1
>1
> 1
> 2 (all scales,
horizontal distance
only).
Distance from
trees to probe,
inlet or 90% of
monitoring
path1 (meters)
>10
> 10
>10
> 10
> 10 (all scales).
Distance from
roadways to probe,
inlet or monitoring
path1 (meters)
N/A
2-10; see Table 7-3 of
this section for middle
and neighborhood scales.
See Table 7-3 of this
section for all scales.
2-10 (micro); see Figure
7.3 of this section for all
other scales
N/A—Not applicable.
1 Monitoring path for open path analyzers is applicable only to middle or neighborhood scale CO monitoring and all applicable scales for
monitoring SO2,O3, O3 precursors, and NO2.
2 When probe is located on a rooftop, this separation distance is in reference to walls, parapets, or penthouses located on roof.
3 Should be >20 meters from the dripline of tree(s) and must be 10 meters from the dripline when the tree(s) act as an obstruction.
4 Distance from sampler, probe, or 90% of monitoring path to obstacle, such as a building, must be at least twice the height the obstacle protrudes
above the sampler, probe, or monitoring path. Sites not meeting this criterion may be classified as middle scale (see text).
5 Must have unrestricted airflow 270 degrees around the probe or sampler; 180 degrees if the probe is on the side of a building.
6 The probe, sampler, or monitoring path should be away from minor sources, such as furnace or incineration flues. The separation distance is
dependent on the height of the minor source's emission point (such as a flue), the type of fuel or waste burned, and the quality of the fuel (sulfur,
ash, or lead content). This criterion is designed to avoid undue influences from minor sources.
7 For microscale CO monitoring sites, the probe must be >10 meters from a street intersection and preferably at a midblock location.
8 Collocated monitors must be within 4 meters of each other and at least 2 meters apart for flow rates
2 http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search. html
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Section 7.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 7 of 14
Table 7-3 Minimum Separation Distance Between Roadways and Sampling Probes or Monitoring
Paths at Neighborhood and Urban Scales for O3. Oxides of Nitrogen (NO, NO;, NOX, NOT) and CO
Roadway ave. daily
traffic vehicles per
day
< 1,000
10,000
< 10,000
15,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
> 60,000
70,000
>1 10,000
O3 and Oxides of N
Neighborhood
& Urban 1
10
10
20
30
50
100
250
O3 and Oxides of N
Neighborhood.
& Urban1*2
10
20
30
40
60
100
250
CO
Neighborhood
10
25
45
80
115
135
150
1 Distance from the edge of the nearest traffic lane. The distance for intermediate traffic counts should be interpolated
from the table values based on the actual traffic count.
2 Applicable for ozone monitors whose placement has not already been approved as of December 18, 2006.
100
Middle Scale Suitable for
Category (a) site but not preferred
Neighborhood Scale Suitable
for category (b) Site
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Distance of PM10 and PM2.5 Samplers from Nearest Traffic Lane, (meters)
Figure 7.3 Acceptable areas for PMi0 and PM2.s micro, middle, neighborhood, and urban samplers except for
microscale street canyon sites
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Section 7.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 8 of 14
Open Path Monitoring
To ensure that open path monitoring data are representative of the intended monitoring objective(s),
specific path siting criteria are needed. 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix E, contains specific location criteria
applicable to monitoring paths after the general station siting has been selected based on the monitoring
objectives, spatial scales of representativeness, and other considerations presented in Appendix D. The
new open path siting requirements largely parallel the existing requirements for point analyzers, with the
revised provisions applicable to either a "probe" (for point analyzers), a "monitoring path" (for open path
analyzers), or both, as appropriate. Criteria for the monitoring path of an open path analyzer are given
for horizontal and vertical placement, spacing from minor sources, spacing from obstructions, spacing
from trees, and spacing from roadways. These criteria are summarized in Table 7-2.
Cumulative Interferences on a Monitoring Path: To control the sum effect on a path measurement
from all the possible interferences which exist around the path, the cumulative length or portion of a
monitoring path that is affected by obstructions, trees, or roadways must not exceed 10 percent of the total
monitoring path length. This limit for cumulative interferences on the monitoring path controls the total
amount of interference from minor sources, obstructions, roadways, and other factors that might unduly
influence the open path monitoring data.
Monitoring Path Length: For NO2, O3 and SO2, the
monitoring path length must not exceed 1 kilometer for
analyzers in neighborhood, urban, or regional scales, or
300 meters for middle scale monitoring sites. These path
limitations are necessary in order to produce a path
concentration representative of the measurement scale
and to limit the averaging of peak concentration values.
In addition, the selected path length should be long
enough to encompass plume meander and expected
plume width during periods when high concentrations are
expected. In areas subject to frequent periods of rain,
snow, fog, or dust, a shortened monitoring path length
should be considered to minimize the loss of monitoring
data due to these temporary optical obstructions.
Mounting of Components and Optical Path
Alignment: Since movements or instability can misalign
the optical path, causing a loss of light and less accurate
measurements or poor readings, highly stable optical
platforms are critical. Steel buildings and wooden
platforms should be avoided as they tend to move more
than brick buildings when wind and temperature
conditions vary. Metal roofing will, for example, expand
when heated by the sun in the summer. A concrete pillar
with a wide base, placed upon a stable base material, has
been found to work well in field studies. A sketch of an optical platform is included in Figure 7.4.
emitter bolted ID cap
H
can
concrete pipe
~ 7-31 iliartifitfir
sand —
D
I l
— !-»• i
•i
— *•
i
1
I
i
I1
yiuuiiu
51
1
Figure 74 Optical noun ting platform
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Section 7.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 9 of 14
7.2.3 Probe and Manifold Maintenance
After an adequately designed sampling probe and/or manifold has been selected and installed, the
following steps will help in maintaining constant sampling conditions:
1. Conduct a leak test. For the conventional manifold, seal all ports and pump down to
approximately 1.25 cm water gauge vacuum, as indicated by a vacuum gauge or manometer
connected to one port. Isolate the system. The vacuum measurement should show no change at
the end of a 15-min period.
2. Establish cleaning techniques and a schedule. A large diameter manifold may be cleaned by
pulling a cloth on a string through it. Otherwise the manifold must be disassembled periodically
and cleaned with distilled water. Soap, alcohol, or other products that may contain hydrocarbons
should be avoided when cleaning the sampling train. These products may leave a residue that
may affect volatile organic measurements. Visible dirt should not be allowed to accumulate.
3. Plug the ports on the manifold when sampling lines are detached.
4. Maintain a flow rate in the manifold that is either 3 to 5 times the total sampling requirements or
at a rate equal the total sampling requirement plus 140 L/min. Either rate will help to reduce the
sample residence time in the manifold and ensure adequate gas flow to the monitoring
instruments.
5. Maintain the vacuum in the manifold <0.64 cm water gauge. Keeping the vacuum low will help
to prevent the development of leaks.
7.2.4 Support Services
Most of the support services necessary for the successful operation of ambient air monitoring networks
can be provided by the laboratory. The major support services are the generation of reagent water and the
preparation of standard atmospheres for calibration of equipment. Table 7-4 summarizes guidelines for
quality control of these two support services.
In addition to the information presented above, the following should be considered when designing a
sampling manifold:
• suspending strips of paper in front of the blower's exhaust to permit a visual check of blower
operation;
• positioning air conditioner vents away from the manifold to reduce condensation of water vapor
in the manifold ;
• positioning sample ports of the manifold toward the ceiling to reduce the potential for
accumulation of moisture in analyzer sampling lines, and using borosilicate glass, stainless steel,
or their equivalent for VOC sampling manifolds at PAMS sites is to avoid adsorption and
desorption reactions of VOC's on FEP Teflon;
• if moisture in the sample train poses a problem (moisture can absorb gases, namely NOX and
SO2), wrap the manifold and instrument lines with "heat wrap", a product that has heating coils
within a cloth covering that allows the manifold to be maintained at a constant temperature that
does not increase the sampled air temperature by more than 3-5 degrees C above ambient
temperature;
• ensuring the manifold has a moisture trap and that it is emptied often; and
• using water resistant particulate filters in-line with the instrument.
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Section 7.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 10 of 14
Table 7-4 Techniques for Quality Control of Support Services
Support
Parameters affecting quality
Control techniques
Develop purchasing guides
Overlap use of old and new cylinders
Adopt filtering and drying procedures
Ensure traceability to primary standard
Laboratory and
calibration gases
Purity specifications vary among manufacturers
Variation among lots
Atmospheric interferences
Composition
Reagents and
water
Commercial source variation
Purity requirements
Atmospheric interferences
Generation and storage equipment
Develop purchasing guides. Batch test for conductivity
Redistillation, heating, deionization with ion exchange
columns
Filtration of exchange air
Maintenance schedules from manufacturers
7.3 Reference/Equivalent Methods and Approved Regional Methods
For monitoring in a SLAMS network, either reference or equivalent methods are usually required. This
requirement, and any exceptions, are specified in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix C3. In addition, reference or
equivalent methods may be required for other monitoring applications, such as those associated with
prevention of significant deterioration (PSD). Requiring the use of reference or equivalent methods helps
to assure the reliability of air quality measurements including: ease of specification, guarantee of
minimum performance, better instruction manuals, flexibility of application, comparability with other
data and increased credibility of measurements. However, designation as a reference or equivalent
method provides no guarantee that a particular analyzer will always operate properly. 40 CFR Part 58,
Appendix A requires the monitoring organization to establish an internal QC program. Specific guidance
for a minimum QC program is described in Section 10 of this Handbook.
The definitions and specifications of reference and equivalent methods are given in 40 CFR Part 53. For
most monitoring applications, the distinction between reference and equivalent methods is unimportant
and either may be used interchangeably.
Reference and equivalent methods may be either manual or automated (analyzers). For SC>2, particulates,
and Pb, the reference method for each is a unique manual method that is completely specified in 40 CFR
Part 50 (Appendices A, and G respectively); all other approved methods for 862 and Pb qualify as
equivalent methods. For CO, NO2, and O3, Part 50 provides only a measurement principle and calibration
procedure applicable to reference methods for these pollutants. Automated methods (analyzers) for these
pollutants may be designated as either reference methods or equivalent methods, depending on whether
the methods utilize the same measurement principle and calibration procedure specified in Part 50.
Because any analyzer that meets the requirements of the specified measurement principle and calibration
procedure may be designated as a reference method, there are numerous reference methods for CO, NO2,
and O3. Further information on this subject is in the preamble to 40 CFR Part 53.
3 http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html All references to CFR in following section can be found
at this site.
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Section 7.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 11 of 14
Except for the unique reference methods for SO2, particulates, and Pb specified in 40 CFR Part 50, all
reference and equivalent methods must be officially designated as such by EPA under the provisions of
40 CFR Part 53. Notice of each designated method is published in the Federal Register at the time of
designation. A current list of all designated reference and equivalent methods is maintained and updated
by EPA whenever a new method is designated. This list can be found on AMTIC4. Moreover, any
analyzer offered for sale as a reference or equivalent method after April 16, 1976 must bear a label or
sticker indicating that the analyzer has been designated as a reference or equivalent method by EPA.
Sellers of designated automated methods must comply with the conditions summarized below:
1. A copy of the approved operation or instruction manual must accompany the analyzer when it is
delivered to the purchaser.
2. The analyzer must not generate any unreasonable hazard to operators or to the environment.
3. The analyzer must function within the limits of the performance specifications in Table 7-5 for at
least 1 year after delivery when maintained and operated in accordance with the operation
manual.
4. Any analyzer offered or sale as a reference or equivalent method must bear a label or sticker
indicating that it has been designated as a reference or equivalent method in accordance with 40
CFR Part 53.
5. If such an analyzer has one or more selectable ranges, the label or sticker must be placed in close
proximity to the range selector and must indicate which range or ranges have been designated as
reference or equivalent methods.
6. An applicant who offers analyzers for sale as reference or equivalent methods is required to
maintain a list of purchasers of such analyzers and to notify them within 30 days if a reference or
equivalent method designation applicable to the analyzers has been canceled or if adjustment of
the analyzers is necessary under 40 CFR Part 53.1 l(b) to avoid a cancellation.
Accordingly, in selecting a designated method for a particular monitoring application, consideration
should be given to such aspects as:
• the suitability of the measurement principle;
• the suitability for the weather and/or geographic conditions at the site;
• analyzer sensitivity and available operating ranges suitable for the site;
• susceptibility to interferences that may be present at the monitoring site;
• requirements for support gases or other equipment;
• reliability;
• maintenance requirements;
• initial as well as operating costs;
• features such as internal or fully automatic zero and span checking or adjustment capability, etc.;
• compatibility to your current and future network, i.e. software and connections (RS 232,
Ethernet); and
• manual or automated methods.
4 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/criteria.html
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Section 7.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 12 of 14
It is important that the purchase order for a new reference or equivalent analyzer specify the designation
by the EPA.
The required performance specifications, terms of the warranty, time limits for delivery and acceptance
testing, and what happens in the event that the analyzer falls short of performance requirements should be
documented. Aside from occasional malfunctions, consistent or repeated noncompliance with any of
these conditions should be reported to EPA. In selecting designated methods, remember that designation
of a method indicates only that it meets certain minimum standards. Competitive differences still exist
among designated analyzers. Some analyzers or methods may have performance, operational, economic
or other advantages over others. A careful selection process based on the individual air monitoring
application and circumstances is very important.
Some of the performance tests and other criteria used to qualify a method for designation as a reference or
equivalent method are intended only as pass/fail tests to determine compliance with the minimum
standards. Test data may not allow quantitative comparison of one method with another.
Table 7-5 Performance Specifications for Automated Methods
Performance Parameter
1) Range
2) Noise
3) Lower detectable limit
4) Interference equivalent
Each Interferant
Total Interferant
5) Zero drift, 14 and 24 hour
6) Span drift, 24 hour
20% of upper range limit
80% of upper range limit
7) Lag time
8) Rise Time
9) Fall Time
10) Precision
20% of upper range limit
80% of upper range limit
Units
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
percent
minutes
minutes
minutes
ppm
S02
0-0.5
0.005
0.01
+ 0.02
0.06
+.02
+ 20.0
+ 5.0
20
15
15
0.01
0.015
03
0-0.5
0.005
0.01
+ 0.02
0.06
+.02
+ 20.0
+ 5.0
20
15
15
0.01
0.01
CO
0-50
0.50
1.0
+ 1.0
1.5
+1.0
+ 10.0
+ 2.5
10
5
5
0.5
0.5
N02
0-0.5
0.005
0.01
+ 0.02
0.04
+.02
+ 20.0
+ 5.0
20
15
15
0.02
0.03
Def and Test
procedure-CFR Sec
53.23(a)
53.23(b)
53.23(c)
53.23(d)
53.23(e)
53.23(e)
53.23(e)
53.23(e)
53.23(e)
53.23(e)
FRM/FEM Designated Operating Ranges and the Affect of Span Checks
Although all FRM/FEMs are required to meet the range specified in Table 7-5, many instruments are
designated for ranges narrower and or broader than the requirement. During the equipment
purchase/selection phase, monitoring organizations should select an instrument with ranges most
appropriate to the concentration at the site which the instrument will be established and then use the range
that is most appropriate for the monitoring situation. Earlier versions of this Handbook suggested that the
concentration of the span checks be 70 - 90% of the analyzers measurement range. Using this guidance
and the designated ranges of some of the FRM/FEM method being used, a span check might be selected
at a concentration that is never found in the ambient air at the site for which the monitoring is operating.
The span check concentration should be selected that is more beneficial to the quality control of the
routine data at the site and EPA suggests: 1) the selection of an appropriate measurement range and 2)
selecting a span that at a minimum is above 120% of the highest NAAQS (for sites used for designation
purposes) and above the 99% of the routine data over a 3 year period. The multi-point
verification/calibrations that are performed at a minimum annually can be used to challenge the
instrument and confirm linearity and calibration slope of the selected operating range.
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Section 7.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 13 of 14
PM2.s Reference and Equivalent Methods
All formal sampler design and performance requirements and the operational requirements applicable to
reference methods for PM2 5 are specified in 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix L. These requirements are quite
specific and include explicit design specifications for the type of sampler, the type of filter, the sample
flow rate, and the construction of the sample collecting components. However, various designs for the
flow-rate control system, the filter holder, the operator interface controls, and the exterior housing are
possible. Hence, various reference method samplers from different manufacturers may vary considerably
in appearance and operation. Also, a reference method may have a single filter capability (single) or a
multiple filter capability (sequential), provided no deviations are necessary in the design and construction
of the sample collection components specified in the reference method regulation. A PM2 5 method is not
a reference method until it has been demonstrated to meet all the reference method regulatory
requirements and has been officially designated by EPA as a reference method for PM2 5.
Equivalent methods for PM2 5 have a wider latitude in their design, configuration, and operating principle
than reference methods. These methods are not required to be based on filter collection of PM25;
therefore, continuous or semi-continuous analyzers and new types of PM2 5 measurement technologies are
not precluded as possible equivalent methods. Equivalent methods are not necessarily required to meet all
the requirements specified for reference methods, but they must demonstrate both comparability to
reference method measurements and similar PM2 5 measurement precision.
The requirements that some (but not all) candidate methods must meet to be designated by EPA as
equivalent methods are specified in 40 CFR Part 53. To minimize the difficulty of meeting equivalent
method designation requirements, three classes of equivalent methods have been established in the 40
CFR Part 53 regulations, based on a candidate method's extent of deviation from the reference method
requirements. All three classes of equivalent methods are acceptable for SLAMS or SLAMS-related
PM2 5 monitoring. But not all types of equivalent methods may be equally suited to various PM2 5
monitoring requirements or applications.
Class I equivalent methods are very similar to reference methods, with only minor deviations, and must
meet nearly all of the reference method specifications and requirements. The requirements for designation
as Class I equivalent methods are only slightly more extensive than the designation requirements for
reference methods. Also, because of their substantial similarity to reference methods, Class I equivalent
methods operate very much the same as reference methods.
Class II equivalent methods are filter-collection-based methods that differ more substantially from the
reference method requirements. The requirements for designation as Class II methods may be
considerably more extensive than for reference or Class I equivalent methods, depending on the specific
nature of the variance from the reference method requirements.
Class III equivalent methods cover any PM2 5 methods that cannot qualify as reference or Class I or II
equivalent methods because of more profound differences from the reference method requirements. This
class encompasses PM2 5 methods such as continuous or semi-continuous PM2 5 analyzers and potential
new PM2 5 measurement technologies. The requirements for designation as Class III methods are the most
extensive, and, because of the wide variety of PM25 measurement principles that could be employed for
candidate Class III equivalent methods, the designation requirements are not explicitly provided in 40
CFR Part 53.
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Section 7.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 14 of 14
Approved Regional Methods (ARM)
There are some continuous PM2 5 methods that currently may not be able to meet the national FRM and
FEM designation criteria. However, these methods may operate at acceptable levels of data quality in
certain regions of the country or under certain conditions. The EPA has expanded the use of alternative
PM2 5 measurement methods through ARMs. A method for PM2 5 that has not been designated as an FRM
or FEM as defined in 40 CFR Part 50.1 may be approved as an ARM. If a monitoring organization feels
that a particular method may be suitable for use in its network, it can apply for the method to be
designated as an ARM. The following provides a summary of the ARM requirements.
PM2.5 ARM Criteria Summary
1. Must meet Class III Equivalency Criteria
o Precision
o Correlation
o Additive and multiplicative bias
2. Tested at site(s) where it will be used
o 1 site in each MSA/CMSA up to the first 2 highest pop MSA/CMSA
o 1 site in rural area or Micropolitan Statistical Area
o Total of 3
If the ARM has been approved by another agency then:
o 1 site in MSA/CMSA and 1 site in rural area or Micropolitan Statistical Area
o Total of 2
3. 1 year of testing all seasons covered
o 90 valid sample pairs per site with at least 20 valid sample pairs per season.
o Values < 3 ug/m3 may be excluded in bias estimates but this does not affect completeness criteria.
4. Collocation to establish precision not required
o peer reviewed published literature or data in AQS that can be presented is enough
5. ARM must be operated on an hourly sampling frequency providing for aggregation into 24-hour average
measurements.
6. Must use approved inlet and separation devices (Part 50 Appendix L or FEM Part 53)
o Exception -methods that by their inherent measurement principle may not need an inlet or
separation device.
7. Must be capable of providing for flow audits
o Exception -that by their inherent measurement principle measured flow is not required.
8. Monitoring agency must develop and implement appropriate procedures for assessing and reporting
precision and bias.
Routine Monitoring Implementation
9. Collocation of ARM and FRM/FEM at 30% of SLAMS network or at least I/network
o At 1 in 6 day sampling frequency
o Located at design value site among the largest MSA/CMSA
o Collocated FRM/FEM can be substituted for ARM if ARM is invalidated
10. Collocation ARM with ARM
o 7.5% of sites or at least 1 site
11. Bias assessment (PEP)
o Same frequency as Appendix A
ARM Approval
1. New ARM- EPA NERL, RTF, NC
2. ARM that has been approved by another agency- EPA Regional Administrator
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 8.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Iof6
8.0 Sample Handling and Custody
A critical activity within any data collection phase involving physical samples is the handling of sample
media prior to sampling, handling/transporting sample media to the field, handling samples from the field
at the time of collection, storage of samples (at field or other locations), transport of samples from the
field site, and the analysis of the samples. Documentation ensuring that proper handling has occurred
throughout these activities is part of the custody record, which provides a mechanism for tracking samples
through sample collection, processing and analysis. Custody records document the "chain of custody"; the
date and person responsible for the various sample handling steps associated with each sample. Custody
records also provide a reviewable trail for quality assurance purposes and as evidence in legal
proceedings.
Prior to the start of an EDO, the various types of samples should be identified and the following questions
asked:
• Does the sample need to be analyzed within a specified time period?
• What modes of sample transport are necessary and how secure should they be?
• What happens if a sample is collected on Friday? Is the sample shipped or stored at the field
office and what are the procedures?
• Can the sample's integrity be affected by outside influences (e.g. temperature, pressure, humidity,
jostling/dropping during shipment, other influences) and do these need to be monitored (e.g.,
max/min thermometers, pressure sensors)?
• How critical is it that sample integrity be known (e.g., is evidence tape necessary)?
• How can it be documented that sample integrity was maintained from the collection to reporting?
• What are the procedures when sample integrity is compromised (e.g., flag, don't analyze)?
These are some of the questions that should be answered and documented in the monitoring
organization's QAPP and SOPs.
This section specifically addresses the handling and custody of physical environmental samples (e.g.,
exposed filters for particulate matter (PM) determinations and canisters containing whole air samples)
that are collected at a field location and transported to a laboratory for analysis. For specific details of
sample handling and custody (i.e., PAMS, NATTS, STN etc) monitoring organization should consult the
appropriate technical assistance documents located in the National Programs summaries in Appendix A.
In addition to physical samples, some types of field data collected in hard copy (e.g., strip charts, sampler
flow data, etc.) or electronic (e.g., data downloaded from a data logger with limited storage space) format
are irreplaceable and represent primary information about physical samples or on-site measurements that
are needed to report a final result. When such hard copy or electronic data are transported and/or change
custody, it is advised that the same chain of custody practices described in this section for physical
samples be employed to ensure that irreplaceable data can be tracked and are not altered or tampered
with.
For additional information, an EPA on-line self-instructional course, "Chain-of-Custody Procedures for
Samples and Data1" is available for review. The National Enforcement Investigation Center2 (NEIC) also
offers a course relevant to chain of custody issues.
1 http://www.epa.gov/apti/coc/
2 http://www.epa.gov/compliance/about/offices/division/neic.html
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 8.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
i 2 of 6
Laboratory Information Management Systems
A laboratory information management system or LIMS, is a computer system used in the laboratory for
the management and tracking of samples, instruments, standards and other laboratory functions such as
data reductions, data transfer and reporting. The goal is to create an EDO where:
• Instruments used are integrated in the lab network; receive instructions and worklists from the
LIMS and return finished results including raw data back to a central repository where the LIMS
can update relevant information to external systems (i.e., AIRNow or AQS).
• Lab personnel will perform calculations, documentation and review results using online
information from connected instruments, reference databases and other resources using electronic
lab notebooks connected to the LIMS.
• Management can supervise the lab process, react to bottlenecks in workflow and ensure
regulatory demands are met.
• External participants can review results and print out analysis certificates and other
documentation (QA Reports, quality control charts, outlier reports etc.).
For monitoring programs that are fairly stable, such as criteria pollutant monitoring, development of a
LIMS system may be very cost effective and should be considered. There is an upfront cost in the
development of these systems but monitoring organizations that have devoted resources to their
development have seen pay offs in improved data quality, sample tracking and data reporting.
8.1 Sample Handling
In the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program, discrete samples from manual methods associated with
SLAMS, PAMS, NATTS, and other networks, are physically handled prior to analysis. One must pay
particular attention to the handling of filters for particulate matter and lead since it has been suggested
that the process of filter handling may be the largest source of measurement error (especially low-volume
methods). Due to the manner in which concentrations are determined, it is critical that samples are
handled as specified in SOPs. The various phases of sample handling that should be documented in a
QAPP and SOP include:
• Sample preparation, labeling and identification;
• sample collection;
• transportation;
• sample analysis; and
• storage and archival
8.1.1 Sample Preparation, Labeling and Identification
Sample containers or filters are cleaned and prepared (pre-weighing of filters) before being used to collect
samples. SOPs should indicate the proper care and handling of the containers/filters to ensure their
integrity. Proper lab documentation that tracks the disposition of containers/filters through preparation is
just as important as the documentation after sampling. Care must be taken to properly mark all samples to
ensure positive, unambiguous identification throughout the sample collection, handling, and analysis
procedures. Figure 8.1 shows a standardized identification sticker that may be used to label physical
samples. Additional information may be added as required, depending on the particular monitoring
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 8.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
i 3 of 6
program. The rules of evidence used in legal proceedings require that procedures for identification of
samples used in analyses form the basis for future evidence. An admission by the laboratory analyst that
he/she cannot be positive whether he/she analyzed sample No. 6 or sample No. 9, for example, could
destroy the validity of the entire test report. Any information that can be used to assess sample integrity,
such as the pressure of canisters or liquid level, should be recorded at the time of sample collection.
Liquid levels for samples in non-graduated containers can be marked on the side of the container with a
grease pencil or permanent marker.
Positive identification also must be provided for any filters used in the program. If ink is used for
marking, it must be indelible and unaffected by the gases and temperatures to which it will be subjected.
Other methods of identification can be used (e.g., bar coding), if they provide a positive means of
identification and do not impair the capacity of the filter to function.
(Name of Sampling Organization)
Sample ID No: Storage Conditions: _
Sample Type: Site Name:
Date/Time Collected: Site Address:_
Sampler:
Figure 8.1 Example Sample Label.
8.1.2 Sample Collection
To reduce the possibility of invalidating the results, all collected samples must be carefully removed from
the monitoring device, placed in labeled, nonreactive containers, and sealed. Use of tamper-evident
custody seals are suggested and may be required in certain cases. The sample label must adhere firmly to
the container to ensure that it cannot be accidentally removed. Custody seals on sample containers serve
two purposes: to prevent accidental opening of the sample container and to provide visual evidence
should the container be opened or tampered with. The best type of custody seal depends on the sample
container; often, a piece of tape placed across the seal and signed by the operating technician is sufficient;
for other containers, wire locks or tie wraps may be the best choice. In some cases, the opening of sample
containers by unauthorized personnel, such as Transportation Security Administration officers, cannot be
avoided. The proper use of custody seals minimizes the loss of samples and provides direct evidence
whether sample containers have been opened and possibly compromised. Samples whose integrity is
questioned should be qualified (flagged).
8.1.3 Sample Transportation
Samples should be delivered to the laboratory for analysis as soon as possible following sample
collection. It is recommended that this be done on the same day that the sample is taken from the
monitor. If this is impractical, all the samples should be placed in transport containers (e.g., carrying
case, cooler, shipping box, etc.) for protection from breakage, contamination, and loss and in an
appropriate controlled-temperature device (i.e., refrigerator or freezer) if the samples have specific
temperature requirements. Each transport container should have a unique identification, such as sampling
location, date, and transport container number (e.g., number 2 of 5) to avoid interchange and aid in
tracking the complete shipment. The number of the transport containers should be subsequently recorded
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 8.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 4 of6
on the chain of custody (COC) form (described in Section 8.2) along with the sample identification
numbers of the samples included within each transport container. It is advised that the container be sealed
using an appropriate tamper-evident method, such as with custody tape or a wire lock.
In transporting samples, it is important that precautions be taken to eliminate the possibility of tampering,
accidental destruction, and/or physical and chemical action on the sample. The integrity of samples can
be affected by temperature extremes, air pressure (air transportation), and the physical handling of
samples (packing, jostling, etc.). These practical considerations must be dealt with on a site-by-site basis
and should be documented in the organization's QAPP and site specific SOPs.
The person who has custody of the samples must be able to testify that no tampering occurred. Security
must be continuous. If the samples are put in a vehicle, lock the vehicle. After delivery to the laboratory,
the samples must be kept in a secured place with restricted access.
8.1.4 Sample Analysis
SOPs, if properly developed, have detailed information on the handling of samples at the analysis phase.
Similar to the preparation step, if the sample undergoes a number of steps (preparation, equilibration,
extraction, dilution, analysis, etc.), and these steps are performed by different individuals, there should be
a mechanism in place to track the sample through the steps to ensure SOPs are followed and the integrity
of the sample was maintained. Laboratories make extensive use of laboratory notebooks at the various
steps (stations) of the analytical process to record the sample handling process and maintain sample
integrity.
8.1.5 Storage and Archival
Samples must be properly handled to ensure that there is no contamination and that the sample analyzed
is actually the sample taken under the conditions reported. For this reason, whenever samples are not
under the direct control of the sample custodian, they should be kept in a secured location. This may be a
locked vehicle, locked refrigerator, or locked laboratory with limited access. It is highly recommended
that all samples be secured until discarded. These security measures should be documented by a written
record signed by the handlers of the sample on the COC form or in a laboratory notebook, indicating the
storage location and conditions. Any samples not destroyed during the analysis process (e.g., exposed
filters for PM) should be archived as directed by the method requirements or applicable QAPP. 40 CFR
Part 58.16 requires PMio, PMio-25 and PM2 5 filters from SLAMS manual lo-volume samplers be
archived for 1 year from collection. However, it is suggested that they be archived the first year in cold
conditions (e.g., at 4° C) and at room temperature for 2 additional years. It is also suggested that non-
destructive lead analysis and STN samples follow this guidance.
8.2 Chain of Custody (COC)
In order to use the results of a sampling program as evidence, a written record must be available listing
the location of the samples at all times. This is also an important component of good laboratory
practices3. The COC record is necessary to make a prima facie showing of the integrity of the samples.
Without it, one cannot be sure that the samples and sampling data analyzed were the same as the samples
and data reported to have been taken at a particular time. Procedures may vary, but an actual COC record
sheet with the names and signatures of the relinquishers/receivers works well for tracking physical
1 http://www.fda.gov/ora/compliance ref/bimo/glp/default.htm
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 8.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 5 of6
samples. The samples should be handled only by persons associated in some way with the monitoring
program. A good general rule to follow is "the fewer hands the better," even though a properly sealed
sample may pass through a number of hands without affecting its integrity.
Each person handling the samples must be able to state from whom and when the item was received and
to whom and when it was delivered. A COC form should be used to track the handling of the samples
through various stages of storage, processing, and analysis at the laboratory. It is recommended practice
to have each person who relinquishes or receives samples sign the COC form for the samples. An
example of a form that may be used to establish the COC for samples generated in the field is shown in
Figure 8.2. This form should accompany the samples at all times from the field to the laboratory. All
persons who handle the samples should sign the form. Figure 8.3 is an example of a laboratory COC
form. COC forms should be retained and archived as described in Section 5 (Documents and Records).
When using professional services to transport physical samples, only reliable services that provide a
tracking number should be used. Information describing the enclosed samples should be placed on the bill
of lading. A copy of the shipping receipt and tracking number should be kept as a record. The package
should be addressed to the specific person authorized to receive the package, although it is recognized
that staff not typically part of the COC may receive the samples and deliver them to the authorized
addressee. A procedure must be in place to ensure that samples are delivered to the appropriate person
without being opened or damaged. In this circumstance, the sample is considered still in transport until
received by the authorized addressee. It may be necessary to ship and/or receive samples outside of
normal business hours. A procedure should be developed in advance that considers staff availability,
secure storage locations, and appropriate storage conditions (e.g., temperature-controlled).
8.2.1 Sample Inspection and Acceptance
Once the samples arrive at their destination and at every custody change, the samples should first be
checked to ensure that their integrity is intact. The contents of the shipment should be checked against
the COC form to ensure that all samples listed were included in the shipment. The levels of liquid
samples should be compared to original levels (if marked on the container or recorded), to identify
whether major leaks have occurred. When using passivated stainless steel canisters, the canister pressure,
upon receipt, should be recorded and compared to the final sample collection pressure to indicate canister
leakage and sample loss. It is recommended that this comparison be made using a certified gauge that is
calibrated annually. Any samples whose integrity or identity are questionable should be brought to the
attention of the relinquisher and flagged. All flags should be "carried" along with the samples until the
validity of the samples can be proven. This information can be included in the remark section of the COC
form.
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 8.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
i 6 of 6
Chain of Custody Record
Project No.
Shipping
Container No.
Field Samplers: print
Date
Time
Project Title
signature
Site/Location
Relinquished by (print and signature):
Sample Type
Sample ID
Received by (print and signature):
Organization
Contact
Address
Remarks
Comments
Figure 8.2 Example Field COC Form.
Chain of Custody Record
Project No. Project Title Organization
Laboratory /Plant:
Sample Number
Number of
Container
Sample Description
Person responsible for samples Time: Date:
Sample Number
Relinquished By:
Received By: Time: Date: Reason for change in custody
Figure 8.3 Example Laboratory COC Form.
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 9.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 1 of2
9.0 Analytical Methods
The choice of methods used for any EDO should be influenced by the DQO. From the DQO and an
understanding of the potential population uncertainty, one can then determine what measurement
uncertainty is tolerable and select the method most appropriate in meeting that tolerance. Methods are
usually selected based upon their performance characteristics (precision, bias, limits of detection), ease of
use, and their reliability in field and laboratory conditions.
Since both field and analytical procedures have been developed for the criteria pollutants in the Ambient
Air Quality Monitoring Program, and in the various technical assistance documents for the other national
ambient air programs, this section will discuss the general concepts of standard operating procedures and
good laboratory practices as they relate to the reference and equivalent methods. A more detailed
discussion on the attributes of SOPs can be found in Section 5. Information on reference and equivalent
methods can be found on the AMTIC website1 as well as the current list of designated Federal Reference
and Equivalent Methods2.
Many ambient air methods utilize continuous instruments and therefore do not involve laboratory
analysis. However particulate matter methods involve both continuous and manual methods and some of
the other major monitoring programs involve sampling which requires the use of laboratory analysis.
Table 9-1 provides a summary of the pollutants measured and the analytical methods for these programs.
Table 9-1 Acceptable Analytical Methods
Network
SLAMS
SLAMS
SLAMS
SLAMS
SLAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
NATTS
NATTS
NATTS
STN
STN
STN
STN
STN
STN
Pollutant
PM10 - Hi- Vol
PMio- dichot
PM2.5
PMiQ-25
Pb
VOCs
Carbonyl
compounds
Non-Methane
Organic Compounds
(NMOC)
Metals
Aldehydes
VOCs
PM25
Elements
Anions
Cations
Organic, Elemental,
Carbonate, Total
Carbon
Semi-volatile
Organic Compounds
Acceptable Method
Gravimeteric
Gravimeteric
Gravimeteric
Gravimeteric- difference
Atomic Absorption Spectrometry
Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS)
High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC)
Cryogenic Preconcentration and Direct Flame lonization
Detection (PDFID)
Inductively coupled plasma (ICP)
High Pressure Liquid Chromatography
Gas Chromatography
Gravimeteric
Energy Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence (EDXRF)
Thermal Optical Carbon Analyzer
Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS)
Reference
40 CFR Part 50 App B
40 CFR Part 50 App J
40 CFR Part 50 App L
40 CFR Part 50 App G
TO- 15
T011-A
TO-12
103.5
TO11-A
TO- 15
40 CFR Part 50 App L
STN QAPP and SOPs
STN QAPP and SOPs
STN QAPP and SOPs
STN QAPP and SOPs
STN QAPP and SOPs
The SLAMS network provides more rigorous quality control requirements for the analytical methods.
These methods are found in 40 CFR Part 50, as described in the references. In addition, the method
identified for Pb is the reference method. There are a number of equivalent analytical methods that are
1 http://www.epa.gov/ttnamtil/pmfrm.html
2 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/criteria.html
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 9.0
Re vision No :1
Date: 12/08
Page 2 of2
available for the Pb. Some of the NATTS methods are derived from the Toxics Organic Method
Compendium3. Others, like the STN Network4 may be developed specifically for the program, based on
the national laboratory currently performing the analysis. The PAMS, NATTS and STN networks follow
the performance based measurement process paradigm. These Networks' QA project plans or technical
assistance documents suggest a method, but also allow some flexibility to use other methods that meet the
network's measurement quality objectives. Various, independent proficiency test samples and technical
systems audits are performed to ensure that the data quality within these networks remains acceptable.
9.1 Good Laboratory Practices
Good laboratory practices (GLPs)5 refer to general practices that relate to many, if not all, of the
measurements made in a laboratory. They are usually independent of the SOP and cover subjects such as
maintenance of facilities, records, sample management and handling, reagent control, and cleaning of
laboratory glassware. In many cases, the activities mentioned above may not be formally documented
because they are considered common knowledge. However, for consistency in laboratory technique, these
activities should have some form of documentation.
9.2 Laboratory Activities
For ambient air samples to provide useful information or evidence, laboratory analyses must meet the
following four basic requirements:
1. Equipment must be frequently and properly calibrated and maintained (Section 12).
2. Personnel must be qualified to make the analysis (Section 4).
3. Analytical procedures must be in accordance with accepted practice (Section 9.1 above).
4. Complete and accurate records must be kept (Section 5).
As indicated, these subjects are discussed in other sections of this document. For the Ambient Air
Quality Monitoring Program, laboratory activities are mainly focused on the pollutants associated with
manual measurements for lead, particulate matter (PM and STN), NATTS6 and PAMS7 (VOCs).
However, many laboratories also prepare reference material, test or certify instruments, and perform other
activities necessary to collect and report measurement data. Each laboratory should define these critical
activities and ensure there are consistent methods for their implementation.
3 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/airtox.html
4 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/specsop.html
5 http://www.epa.gov/Compliance/monitoring/programs/fifra/glp.html
6 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/airtox/NATTS TAD SECT 4.pdf
7 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/pams/newtad.pdf
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 10
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Iof8
10.0 Quality Control
Uncertainty =
Population
Measurement
Data Quality Indicators
2.Precision
3.Bias
4. Completeness
5. Comparability
6. Detectability
ystert1
As described in Section 3, any data
collection process that provides an
estimate of a concentration contains
uncertainties related to spatial/temporal
variability (population) and the
measurement process. DQOs define
the data quality needed to make a
correct decision an acceptable
percentage of the time. Data quality is
defined through quantification of the
following data quality indicators.
Representativeness - the degree in which data accurately and precisely represent a characteristic of a population,
parameter variation at a sampling point, a process condition, or an environmental condition.
Precision - a measure of mutual agreement among individual measurements of the same property usually under
prescribed similar conditions. This is the random component of error. Precision is estimated by various statistical
techniques using some derivation of the standard deviation.
Bias - the systematic or persistent distortion of a measurement process which causes error in one direction. Bias
will be determined by estimating the positive and negative deviation from the true value as a percentage of the true
value.
Detectabilitv - The determination of the low range critical value of a characteristic that a method specific procedure
can reliably discern.
Completeness - a measure of the amount of valid data obtained from a measurement system compared to the
amount that was expected to be obtained under correct, normal conditions. Data completeness requirements are
included in the reference methods (40 CFR Pt. 50).
Comparability - a measure of confidence with which one data set can be compared to another.
Measurement quality objectives (MQOs) identify the quality control samples and the acceptance
criteria for those samples that will allow one to quantify the data quality indicators.
Data quality assessments (DQAs) are the statistical assessments that determine if the DQOs are met and
to provide descriptions of data uncertainty. If the DQOs are not met, the DQAs are used to determine
whether modifications to the DQOs are necessary or "tighter" quality control is required.
Within any phase or step of the data collection process, errors can occur. For example:
• samples and filters can be mislabeled;
• data can be transcribed or reported incorrectly or information management systems can be
programmed incorrectly;
• calibration or check standards can be contaminated or certified incorrectly resulting in faulty
calibrations;
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 10
Re vision No :1
Date: 12/08
Page 2 of 8
• instruments can be set up improperly or over time fail to operate within specifications; and
• procedures may not be followed.
Quality Control (QC) is the overall system of technical activities that measures the attributes and
performance of a process, item, or service against defined standards to verify that they meet the stated
requirements established by the customer1. Quality control includes establishing specifications or
acceptance criteria for each quality characteristic of the monitoring/analytical process, assessing
procedures used in the monitoring/analytical process to determine conformance to these specifications,
and taking any necessary corrective actions to bring them into conformance. The EPA's QAPP guidance
document QA/G52 suggests that "QC activities are those technical activities routinely performed, not to
eliminate or minimize errors, but to measure their effect". Although there is agreement that the
measurement or assessment of a QC check or procedure does not itself eliminate errors, the QC data can
and should be used to take appropriate corrective actions which can minimize error or control data to an
acceptable level of quality in the future. So, QC is both proactive and corrective. It establishes
techniques to determine if field and lab procedures are producing acceptable data and identifies actions to
correct unacceptable performance.
The goal of quality control is to provide a reasonable level of checking at various stages of the data
collection process to ensure that data quality is maintained and if it is found that the quality has not been
maintained, that it is discovered with a minimal loss of data (invalidation). Figure 10.1 provides an
example of some of the QC samples used in the PM2s data collection process. The figure also identifies
what sources of error are associated with the QC sample. So, in developing a quality control strategy, one
must weigh the costs associated with quality control against the risks of data loss.
Laboratory
Pre- Field Weighing
With the objective to
minimize data loss,
quality control data is
most beneficial when it is
assessed as soon as it is
collected. Therefore,
information management
systems can play a very
important role in
reviewing QC data and
flagging or identifying
spurious data for further
review. These
information management
procedures can help the
technical staff review
these QC checks coming
from a number of
monitoring sites in a consistent and time efficient manner. There are many graphical techniques (e.g.,
control charts and outlier checks) that can be employed to quickly identify suspect data. More details of
information management systems are discussed later in this section.
Laboratory
Post-Field Weighing
Meas. System Instrument
Contamination precision/big
Lab Weighing lab
Contamination Precision/Bias
Figure 10.1 QC samples for PM2.s placed at various stages of measurement process
1 American Nation Standard ANSI/ASQ E4-2000 http://www.asq.org/
2 http://www.epa.gov/qualitv/qa docs.html
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 10
Re vision No :1
Date: 12/08
Page 3 of 8
It is the responsibility of the monitoring organization, through the development of its QAPP, policies and
procedures, to develop and document the:
• QC techniques;
• frequency of the QC checks and the point in the measurement process that the check is
introduced;
• traceability of QC standards;
• matrix of the check sample;
• appropriate test concentrations;
• actions to be taken in the event that a QC check identifies a failed or changed measurement
system;
• formulae for estimating data quality indicators;
• QC results, including control charts; and
• the means by which the QC data will be used to determine that the measurement performance is
acceptable.
10.1QC Activity Areas
For air monitoring projects the following three areas must have established QC activities, procedures and
criteria:
1. Data Collection.
2. Data management and the verification and validation process.
3. Reference materials.
Data collection includes any process involved in acquiring a concentration or value, including but not
limited to: sample preparation, field sampling, sample transportation, field analytical (continuous)
methods, and laboratory preparation/analytical processes. Depending on the importance of the data and
resources available, monitoring programs can implement QC samples, as illustrated in Figure 10.1, to
identify the errors occurring at various phases of monitoring process. Many of the QC samples can
identify errors from more than one phase. Table 10-1 provides a list of the majority of the QC samples
utilized in the ambient air program and include both their primary and secondary uses in error
identification. Many of these checks are required in CFR; others are strongly suggested in the method
guidance. The MQO/validation templates provided in Appendix D provide the minimum requirements
for the frequency that these checks be implemented but many monitoring organization choose more
frequent checking in order to reduce the risk of data invalidation. A good example of this is the zero/span
and one-point precision checks for the gaseous criteria pollutants. Although CFR requires the check to
be performed once every two weeks, due to the advent of more sophisticated automated monitoring
systems, many monitoring organization perform these checks every 24-hours (11:45 PM - 12:15 AM). In
addition, once the QC checks are developed for a particular monitoring method, it is important to identify
the acceptance criteria and what corrective action will be taken once a QC check fails. The
MQO/Validation template in Appendix D can be used to list the QC samples with a column added to
include corrective action. Table 10-2 provides an example of a QC Sample Table for PM25. Although
the validation templates provide guidance for when data should be invalidated, it is up to the monitoring
organization to provide the specific corrective actions for the failure of a specific QC check and therefore,
Table 10-2 does not identify specific corrective actions.
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 10
Re vision No :1
Date: 12/08
Page 4 of 8
Data management quality control is discussed in more detail in Section 14 and the
verification/validation process in Section 17. However, both processes require some frequency of checks
to ensure that they are performed consistently and without error. This is especially true for data
management since errors in programming can cause consistent errors for long periods of time if not
checked.
Reference materials are the standards by which many of the QC checks are performed. Reference
material can be gaseous standards as well as devices (e.g., flow rate standards). If these standards are not
checked and verified as to their certified values, then the quality of data becomes suspect. Reference
materials need to be certified and recertified at acceptable frequencies in order to maintain the integrity of
the reference material. It is suggested that standards be certified annually. More discussion on standards is
included in Section 12.
10.2 Internal vs. External Quality Control
Quality control can be separated into 2 major categories: internal QC and external QC. Most of the
quality control activities take place internally, meaning the monitoring organization responsible for
collecting the data also develops and implements the quality control activities, evaluates the data, and
takes corrective action when necessary. The internal activities can be used to take immediate action if
data appear to be out of acceptance. External quality control samples are usually of two types: "double-
blind" meaning the QC sample is not known (looks like a routine sample) and therefore its concentration
in unknown, or "single-blind" meaning they are known to be a QC sample but its concentration is
unknown. These samples are also called performance evaluation or proficiency test samples and are
explained in Section 15. Because these checks are performed by external organizations, the results are
not always immediately available and therefore have a diminished capacity to control data quality in
"real-time." However they are useful as an objective test of the internal QC procedures and may identify
errors (i.e., biased or contaminated standards) that might go unnoticed in an internal QC system. Both
types of quality control are important in a well implemented quality system. Other elements of an
organization's QAPP that may contain related sampling and analytical QC requirements include:
• Sampling Design which identifies the planned field QC samples as well as procedures for QC
sample preparation and handling;
• Sampling Methods Requirements which includes requirements for determining if the collected
samples accurately represent the population of interest;
• Sample Handling and Custody Requirements which discusses any QC devices employed to
ensure samples are not tampered with (e.g., custody seals) or subjected to other unacceptable
conditions during transport;
• Analytical Methods Requirements which includes information on the subsampling methods and
information on the preparation of QC samples (e.g., blanks and replicates); and
• Instrument Calibration and Frequency which defines prescribed criteria for triggering
recalibration (e.g., failed calibration checks).
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 10
Revision No: Final Draft
Date: 12/08
i 5 of 8
Purpose
To evaluate or determine the source
of measurement error arising from:
o
LJJ
e—
a)
S
m
"o
0
L_
1
o
•(5
0
•£,
(D
«t
£•
O
s
o
^
(O
o
c
o
,££,,
2
_2i O
Q. Q
C «
O
8
o
o
.32
E
3
8 §
-^ Q.
lit
-8
°
IJ2-8
S 5 ro
"Rce 55
8
CZ
Q. CD
E CD
CD CL
D_
-SB-li
Q. O3 CD
E 03 S5
03 CL ro
Q_
CD CD
03 0
CO CO
"tz co
CD CO
E 8
.e- o
SCL.
.EX
CL -t=
03 ^
£=
0 CD
"03 o~
CD -£=
CO 0
CD CD
Ql^
£= 03
"g zl E
§ Q CD
0 OT
c? cB
L= E
ro o-
T3
-I
o t
0) CO
-£Z CO
o a
a
.>> ,_
"CO °
=> CO
O .0
CO T3
Q
-ilters that have not equilibrated
>
/
Lot Blank
A batch of filters that have not equilibrated
*>
•V
'
>
$
CO
£=
O3
CQ
"o
CD
=3
CO
&
X
LU
Ambient contamination arising within
aboratory or balance not operating
*>
/
*^
^
*>
?
S
*
>
Laboratory Blanks
nation from shipping and/or lab
E
^D
O
r i
•>
•»i
/
"*>
>
>
">
>
V)
CZ
JS
CQ
.S
eld activities
and/or lab
Ambient contamination from f
sampling equipment, shipping
>
X
'
">
">
>
'
^8
>
*>
>
?
Field Blanks
reagents used in
on.
Contamination introduced by
sample preparation/preservat
^
X
f
'y
>
"Xi
>
Reagent Blank
O CD
O5 CL
.£ '5
Carryover contamination resu
successive use of sampling e
>
'
*^
*^
>
?
>
">
'
">
?
Equipment Blank
(Rinsate Blank)
S§ CO S CZ CD 0
^: >s .ro CD o -° "CD
fllfllll
X
7
">
*>
>
'Q.
X
^
specific sample
Reparation/analytical bias fo
matrices
^
X
'
">
*>
>
Surrogate Spike
£=
03
lity to accurately iden
e target compounds
JD O3
03 •;£
JD O3
03 =3
>
'
"^
**•
">
7
?
Lab Control Samples
03 ^ "Cl^ ^
v=r CL p £= — O)
69 E | . Q 8 -§
2 o o CD -^ _o
< a E
High temperatures causing volitilization
affecting mass concentration
"4
>
>
"Ss
>
Cooler Temp Check
Sampler, sample storage, or laboratory prep
facilityproblems
>
/
^
?
Temp Verifications
CD
CO ™ -
m O" ±=
— CD d
=^-o o
o 03 o
| S CL
o 2 E
O CD ^
/
Balance Check
zquipment not operating within specified
parameters
>
/
?
Flow Rate Verifications/
Audits
_aboratories inability to have an adequate
measurement environment
>
/
*>
J1
?
Humidity
Verifications
malfunction
CL
E
CD
tn
?
Pressure Verifications
malfunction
CL
E
CD
tn
?
Leak Checks
malfunction
CL
E
CD
tn
>
Timer Verifications
out of calibration or bad standards
CD
Ei
CD
CZ
/
1-
/
>
Zero/Span
CO O O o ^_
till ill
lltpil
< o_ I 8 °
out of calibration or bad standards
CD
B,
CD
CZ
/
•V
/
"">
One-Point QC Check
S
ecision/Bi
Q_
Cumulative effects of both field 8 lab precision
to measure overall precision
^
>,
t
">
>
>
*
>
">
**»
/
?
Collocated Samples
Cumulative effects of both field 8 lab precision
to measure overall precision
^
X
f
"*>
">
">
''
>
>
X
'
>
Field Duplicates
-liters not equilibrating, incorrect weighing
procedure or balance problems
>
/
Sample /Analytical
Replicate
o
'co
'0
CD
nated Reagents/Standards
E
CD
g
r i
>
/
>
">
?
Standard Certifications
*>
Q_
LJJ
D_
cS
CD
Overall sampling/analysis process
>
*>
x
Q_
>
e
>
**>
>
>
•s
MDL Studies
Sensitivity
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 10
Revision No: Final Draft
Date: 12/08
Page 6 of 8
Table 10-2 PM2.S Field and Lab QC Checks
Requirement
Frequency
Acceptance Criteria
Corrective Action
Field QC Checks
Calibration Standards
Flow Rate Transfer Std.
Field Thermometer
Field Barometer
Calibration/Verification
Flow Rate (FR) Calibration
FR multi-point verification
One point FR verification
External Leak Check
Internal Leak Check
Temperature Calibration
Temp multi-point verification
One- point temp Verification
Pressure Calibration
Pressure Verification
Clock/timer Verification
Blanks
Field Blanks
Precision Checks
Collocated samples
Audits (external assessments)
FRM PEP
Flow rate audit
External Leak Check
Internal Leak Check
Temperature Audit
Pressure Audit
1/yr
1/yr
1/yr
If multi-point failure
1/yr
1/4 weeks
every 5 sampling events
every 5 sampling events
If multi-point failure
on installation, then 1/yr
1/4 weeks
on installation, then 1/yr
1/4 weeks
I/ 4 weeks
See 2.12 reference
every 6 days
5 or 8 sites/year
l/6mo
l/6mo
l/6mo
l/6mo
l/6mo
+2% of NIST-traceable Std.
+ 0.1°C resolution
+ 0.5°C accuracy
+ 1 mm Hg resolution
+ 5 mm Hg accuracy
+ 2% of transfer standard
+ 2% of transfer standard
+ 4% of transfer standard
80 mL/min
80 mL/min
+ 2% of standard
+ 2°C of standard
+ 4°C of standard
±10 mm Hg
±10 mm Hg
1 min/mo
+30 Mg
CV< 10%
± 10%
+ 4% of audit standard
< 80 mL/min
< 80 mL/min
±2°C
±10 mm Hg
Laboratory QC Checks
Blanks
Lot Blanks
Lab Blanks
Calibration/Verification
Balance Calibration
Lab Temp. Calibration
Lab Humidity Calibration
Bias
Balance Audit
Balance Check
Calibration standards
Working Mass Stds.
Primary Mass Stds.
Precision
Duplicate filter weighings
3-lot
3 per batch
1/yr
3 mo
3 mo
I/year
beginning, every 10th
samples, end
3-6 mo.
1/yr
1 per weighing session
+15 /^g difference
+15 /^g difference
Manufacturers spec.
+ 2°C
±2%
+ 1 5 fj,g for unexposed filters
<±3^g
25 Mg
25 Mg
+15 /^g difference
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 10
Revision No: Final Draft
Date: 12/08
i 7 of 8
10.3 CFR Related Quality Control Samples
40 CFR Part 58, Appendix A identifies a number of quality control samples that must be implemented for
the SLAMS (and NCore) SPM and PSD networks. By 2009, any special purpose monitors that use FRMs
or FEMs will be required to follow these requirements unless granted a waiver by the Regional
Administrator. Table 10-3 provides a summary of the QC checks for the criteria pollutants and the CFR
reference where an explanation of each check is described. The reader should distinguish the
requirements that are related to automated and manual methods since there are some differences.
Table 10-3 Ambient Air Monitoring Measurement Quality Samples
Method
CFR Reference
Coverage (annual)
Minimum frequency
MQOs*
Automated Methods
One-Point QC:
for SO2, NO2, O3, CO
Annual performance
evaluation
for S02, N02, 03, CO
Flow rate verification
PMio,PM25, PMio-2.5,
TSP
Semi-annual flow rate
audit
PMio, PM25, PMio-2.5,
TSP
Collocated sampling
PM25, PMio-2.5,TSP
PM Performance
evaluation program
PM2.5,PMio-2.5
Section 3. 2.1
Section 3.2.2
Section 3.2.3
Section 3.2.4
Section 3.2.5
Section 3.2.7
Each analyzer
Each analyzer
Each sampler
Each sampler
15% within PQAO
1 . 5 valid audits for primary
QA orgs, with < 5 sites
2. 8 valid audits for primary
QA orgs, with > 5 sites
3. All samplers in 6 years
Once per 2 weeks
Once per year
Once every month
Once every 6 months
Every twelve days
over all 4 quarters
O3 Precision 7%, Bias + 7%.
S02, N02, CO
Precision 10% , Bias + 10%
< 15 % for each audit
concentration
< 4% of standard and 5% of
design value
< 4% of standard and 5% of
design value
PM25, - 10% precision
PMio-2.5- - 15% precision
TSP - 10% precision
PM2.5, - + 10% bias
PMio-is- - ±15% bias
Manual Methods
Collocated sampling
PMio, TSP, PMio-is,
PM2.5
Flow rate verification
PMio (low Vol),PMio-2.5,
PM2.5-, TSP
Flow rate verification
PMio (High- Vol), TSP
Semi-annual flow rate
audit
PMio (low Vol), PMio-2.5,
PM25, TSP
Semi-annual flow rate
audit
PMio (High- Vol), TSP
Manual Methods
Lead
Performance evaluation
program
PM25- PMio-2.5
3.3. land 3.3. 5
3.3.2
3.3.2
3.3.3
3.3.3
3.3.4
3.3.7 and 3.3. 8
15% within PQAO
Each sampler
Each sampler
Each sampler, all locations
Each sampler, all locations
1. Each sampler
2. Analytical (lead strips)
1. 5 valid audits for primary
QA orgs, with < 5 sites
2. 8 valid audits for primary
QA orgs, with > 5 sites
3. All samplers in 6 years
Every 12 days
PSD every 6 days
Once every month
Once every quarter
Once every 6 months
Once every 6 months
1. Include with TSP
2. Each quarter
Over all 4 quarters
PMio, TSP, PM25, - 10%
precision
PMio-2.5- - 15% precision
< 4% of standard and 5% of
design value
< 10% of standard and design
value
<_ 4% of standard and 5% of
design value
<_ 10% of standard and design
value
1. Same as for TSP.
2. - + 10% bias
PM2.5, + 10% bias
PMio-2.5., +15% bias
* Some of the MQOs are found in CFR and others in Appendix D of this guidance document.
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 10
Revision No: Final Draft
Date: 12/08
i 8 of 8
10.4 Use of Computers for Quality Control
With the wide range of economical computers now available, and the advancements in data acquisition
system (DAS) technologies, consideration should be given to a computer system that can process and
output the information in a timely fashion. Such a computer system should be able to:
1
y
.r-'''
£^_
--^
""^,v
\
1
1
Zone 1
Zone 2
+H
sigma
sigma
Zone 3 +/- 3 sigma
2 3
4
', 6
n
3
Zone 3 +/- 3 sigma
Zooe 2 +/- 2 sigma
Zone 1
;
10
+/- 1 sigma
11
2
13
14 l:
Figure 10.2 Example Control Chart (courtesy of Six Sigma SPC
see footnote)
compute calibration equations
compute measures of linearity of
calibrations (e.g., standard error
or correlation coefficient)
plot calibration curves
compute zero/span drift results
plot zero/span drift data
compute precision and bias
results
compute control chart limits
plot control charts3
automatically flag out-of-control
results
maintain and retrieve calibration
and performance records
Some of these checks (e.g., calibrations) only need to be reviewed as needed or when the actual check is
performed. Other checks, like zero/span/one point QC checks or programmed routine data range or
outlier checks that may occur every day are much more easily performed automatically by properly
programmed computer systems. Earlier versions of this Handbook provided examples of quality control
charts for zero and span drifts but with the advanced data acquisition system technologies available, the
development of these charts is fairly straight forward.
Many vendors offering newer generation data loggers and ambient air information management systems
provide programming of some of the QC checking capabilities listed above. EPA has also provided
guidance and a Data Assessment Statistical Calculator (DASC) tool for the precision and bias calculations
of the quality control checks required in CFR Part 58, Appendix A. In addition, the AMP 255 Report in
AQS also provides these statistics for many of the QC samples described in Table 10-3 but use of these
reports requires data reporting to AQS which does not usually occur in time frames needed for quality
control.
1 http://www.sixsigmaspc.com/
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 11.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Iof6
11.0 Instrument Equipment Testing, Inspection and Maintenance
Implementing an ambient air monitoring network, with the various types of equipment needed, is no easy
task. Through appropriate testing, inspection and maintenance programs, monitoring organizations can
be assured that equipment is capable of operating at acceptable performance levels. Every piece of
equipment has an expected life span, and its use should be discontinued if its performance quality ceases
to meet appropriate standards. For amortization purposes, EPA estimates a 7 year lifespan for most
monitoring instruments and a somewhat longer lifespan for more permanent types of equipment
(instrument racks, monitoring shelters etc.). This means that funds for replacing capital equipment are
provided in resource allocations and monitoring organizations should make the best use of equipment
replacement resources. Monitoring organizations may be able to prolong the life of equipment but in
doing so they may run the risk of additional downtime, more upkeep and a greater chance of data
invalidation, while losing out on newer technologies, better sensitivity/stability and the opportunities for
better information management technologies.
Due to the many types of equipment that can be used in an ambient air monitoring program, this section
provides general guidance on testing, inspection, and maintenance procedures for broad categories of
equipment only. In most cases, equipment manufacturers include inspection and maintenance
information in the operating manuals. The role of monitoring organizations, in developing a quality
system, is to address the scheduling and documentation of routine testing, inspection, and maintenance.
Detailed maintenance documents should be available for each monitoring site. Elements incorporated
into testing, inspection and maintenance documents include:
equipment lists - by organization and station;
spare equipment/parts lists - by equipment, including suppliers;
inspection/maintenance frequency - by equipment;
testing frequency and source of the test concentrations or equipment;
equipment replacement schedules;
sources of repair - by equipment;
service agreements that are in place; and
monthly check sheets and entry forms for documenting testing, inspections and maintenance
performed.
11.1 Instrumentation
11.1.1 Analyzers and Samplers
Aside from the specific exceptions described in Appendix C of Part 581, monitoring methods used for
SLAMS monitoring must be a reference or equivalent method, designated as such by 40 CFR Part 532.
Reference or equivalent methods also must be used at NCore monitoring sites intended for comparison
with any NAAQS. Among reference and equivalent methods, a variety of analyzer designs and features
are available. For certain pollutants, analyzers employing different measurement principles are available.
Some analyzer models only meet the minimum performance specifications (see Table 7-5), while others
provide a higher level of performance. Section 7 provides information on what aspects to consider when
selecting a particular monitoring instrument/analyzer. Upon receiving the new analyzer, the user should
1 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 58, Appendix C, U.S. Government Printing Office, 2006.
2 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 53, U.S. Government Printing Office, 2006.
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 11.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 2 of6
carefully read the instructions or operating manual provided by the manufacturer. Information or
instructions concerning the following should be found in the manufacturer's manual:
unpacking and verifying that all component parts were delivered;
checking for damage during shipment;
checking for loose fittings and electrical connections;
assembling the analyzer;
installing the analyzer;
calibrating the analyzer;
operating the analyzer;
electrical and plumbing diagrams;
preventive maintenance schedule and procedures;
troubleshooting; and
a list of expendable parts.
Many vendors have specific time periods when the initial checks for damage in transit need to be made.
The monitor should be assembled and set up according to the instructions in the manufacturer's manual.
It may be important to do this initial set-up and testing at the main office or laboratory facility (see
Section 11.1.3) before taking the equipment to the site. Following analyzer set-up, an initial verification
of performance characteristics such as power flow, noise, and response time and a muti-point verification
should be performed to determine if the analyzer is operating properly. These guidelines assume that the
instrument was previously calibrated. If the instrument was disassembled after calibration, or no
calibration of the instrument had previously been performed, the monitor must have a multi-point
verification/calibration to ensure it is within acceptable calibration requirements prior to use. Short-term
span, zero drift and precision should be checked during the initial calibration or measured using
abbreviated forms of the test procedures provided in 40 CFR Part 533. Acceptance of the analyzer should
be based on results from these performance tests. Once accepted, reference and equivalent analyzers are
guaranteed by the manufacturer to operate within the required performance specifications for one year4,
unless major repairs are performed or parts are replaced. In such instances, the analyzers must be
recalibrated before use.
11.1.2 Support Instrumentation
Experiences of monitoring organization staff; preventive maintenance requirements, ease of maintenance
and general reliability play crucial roles in the selection of support equipment. The following examples
depict general categories of support equipment and typical features to look for when selecting this
equipment. This list is meant to guide agencies in the selection of equipment and does not represent
required specifications.
• Calibration Standards: Calibration standards fall into several categories:
mass flow controlled (MFC) devices;
standards that meet the 1997 Traceability Protocol for Gaseous Calibration Standards5;
permeation devices;
photometers;
3 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 53, U.S. Government Printing Office, 2006.
4 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 53, U.S. Government Printing Office, 2006.
5 EPA 600/R-97/121: Traceability Protocol for Gaseous Calibration Standards, September 1997
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 11.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
i 3 of 6
flow measurement devices;
water pressure measurement devices;
barometric pressure measurement devices; and
temperature measurement devices.
It is recommended that the devices be 110 VAC, be compatible with data acquisition systems for
automated calibrations, and have digital compatibility or true transistor-transistor logic (TTL).
The most common standards are MFC devices and permeation devices. Both use dilution air to
obtain the needed output pollutant concentration.
• Data Acquisition Systems (DAS): DAS should have at least 32-bit logic for improved
performance (DAS with at least 16-bit logic can still be used); have modem and internet
capabilities; allow remote access and control; allow for digital input; and be able to initiate
automated calibrations and polling. It is also recommended that DAS have software compatible
with AQS and AQI reporting and editing. Both data loggers and analog chart recorders may be
used for recording data; however, the storage, communicability, and flexibility of DAS coupled
with data loggers makes the DAS systems the preferred option. More information on DAS is
found in Section 14.
• Instrument Racks: Instrument racks should be constructed of steel and be able to accept sliding
trays or rails. Open racks help to keep instrument temperatures down and allow air to circulate
freely.
• Instrument Benches: Instrument benches should be of sufficient space to allow adequate room
for multiple instruments with room to work and be capable of supporting a fair amount of weight
(> 100 Ibs). Slate or other hard, water-proof materials (e.g., steel) are recommended.
• Zero Air Systems: Zero air systems should be able to deliver 10 liters/min of air that is free of
ozone, NO, NO2, and SO2 to 0.001 ppm and CO and non-methane hydrocarbons to 0.1 ppm.
There are many commercially available systems; however, simple designs can be obtained by
using a series of canisters.
11.1.3 Laboratory Support
While it is not required, monitoring organizations should employ full laboratory facilities. These facilities
should be equipped to test, repair, troubleshoot, and calibrate all analyzers and support equipment
necessary to operate the ambient air monitoring network. In cases where individual laboratories are not
feasible, a monitoring organization may be able to find a central laboratory where these activities can be
performed.
It is recommended that the laboratory be designed to accommodate the air quality laboratory/shop and
PMio and PM2 5 filter rooms, as well as enforcement instrumentation support activities. The air quality
portion consists of several benches flanked by instrument racks. One bench and rack are dedicated to
ozone traceability. The other instrument racks are designated for calibration and repair. A room should
be set aside to house spare parts and extra analyzers.
A manifold/sample cane should be mounted behind the bench. If possible, a sample cane that passes
through the roof to allow analyzers that are being tested to sample outside air should be mounted to the
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 11.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 4 of6
bench. This also allows any excess calibration gas to be exhausted to the atmosphere. It is recommended
that the pump room be external to the building to eliminate noise.
Each bench area should have an instrument rack attached to the bench. The instrument rack should be
equipped with sliding trays or rails that allow easy installation of instruments. If instrumentation needs to
be repaired and then calibrated, this can be performed on the bench top or within the rack. Analyzers then
can be allowed to warm up and be calibrated by a calibration unit. Instruments that are to be tested are
connected to the sample manifold and allowed to sample air in the same manner as if the analyzer were
being operated within a monitoring station. The analyzer is connected to an acquisition system (e.g.,
DAS, data logger, chart recorder, etc.) and allowed to operate. Any intermittent problems that occur can
be observed on the data logger/chart recorder. The analyzer can be allowed to operate over several days
to see if anomalies or problems reoccur; if they do, there is a record of them. If the instrument rack has a
DAS and calibrator, nightly auto calibrations can be performed to see how the analyzer reacts to known
gas concentrations. In addition, the ozone recertification bench and rack should be attached to a work
bench. The rack should house the local ozone primary standard and the ozone transfer standards that are
being checked for recertification. Zero air is plumbed into this rack for the calibration and testing of
ozone analyzers and transfer standards.
11.2 Preventive Maintenance
Every monitoring organization should develop a preventive maintenance program. Preventive
maintenance is what its name implies; maintaining the equipment within a network to prevent downtime
and costly repairs and data loss. Preventive maintenance is an ongoing element of quality control and is
typically enveloped into the daily routine. In addition to the daily routine, scheduled activities must be
performed monthly, quarterly, semi-annually and annually.
Preventive maintenance is the responsibility of the station operators and the supervisory staff. It is
important that the supervisor review the preventive maintenance work and continually check the schedule.
The supervisor is responsible for making sure that preventive maintenance is being accomplished in a
timely manner. Preventive maintenance is not a static process; procedures must be updated for many
reasons, including, but not limited to, new models or types of instruments and new or updated methods.
The preventive maintenance schedule is changed whenever an activity is completed or performed at an
alternate time. For instance, if a multipoint calibration is performed in February instead of on the
scheduled date in March, then the subsequent six-month calibration date moves from September to
August. On a regular basis, the supervisor should review the preventive maintenance schedule with the
station operators. Following all repairs, the instruments must be verified (multi-point) or calibrated.
Lists can facilitate the organization and tracking of tasks and improve the efficiency of preventive
maintenance operations. A checklist of regular maintenance activities (e.g., periodic zero-span checks,
daily routine checks, data dump/collection, calibrations, etc.) is recommended. A spare parts list,
including relevant catalog numbers, is also recommended, as it facilitates the ordering of replacement
parts. Such a list should be readily accessible and should include the types and quantities of spare parts
already on-hand.
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 11.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 5 of6
11.2.1 Station Maintenance
Station maintenance is an element of preventive maintenance that does not occur on a routine basis;
rather, these tasks usually occur on an "as needed" basis. Station maintenance items are checked monthly
or whenever an agency knows that the maintenance needs to be performed. Examples of station
maintenance items include:
• floor cleaning;
• shelter inspection;
• air conditioner repair;
• AC filter replacement;
• weed abatement and grass cutting;
• roof repair;
• general cleaning;
• inlet and manifold cleaning;
• manifold exhaust blower lube;
• desiccant replacement; and
• ladder, safety rails, safety inspection, if applicable.
Simple documentation of these activities, whether in station logs or electronic logs, helps provide
evidence of continuous attention to data quality.
11.2.2 Routine Operations
Routine operations are the checks that occur at specified periods of time during a monitoring station visit.
These duties must be performed and documented in order to operate a monitoring network at optimal
levels. Examples of typical routine operations are detailed in Table 11-1.
Table 11-1 Routine Operation Checks
Item
Review Data
Mark charts, where applicable
Check/Oil Exhaust Blower
Check Exterior
Check/Change Desiccant
Manifold Leak Test
Inspect tubing
Replace Tubing
Inspect manifold and cane
Clean manifold and cane
Check HVAC systems
Check electrical connections
Field site supply inventory
Each Visit
X
X
X
X
X
X
Weekly/Monthly
X
X
X
X
X
Minimum
Annually
Every 6 months or as needed
If tubing is used externally as an inlet devices it may need to be replaced every 6 months or more frequently depending upon site
specific issues.
In addition to these items, the exterior of the building, sample cane, meteorological instruments and
tower, entry door, electrical cables, and any other items deemed necessary to check, should be inspected
for wear, corrosion, and weathering. Costly repairs can be avoided in this manner.
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 11.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
i 6 of 6
11.2.3 Instrument and Site Logs
Each instrument and piece of support equipment (with the exception of the instrument racks and benches)
should have an Instrumentation Repair Log (either paper or electronic). The log should contain the repair
and calibration history of that particular instrument. Whenever multipoint calibration, instrument
maintenance, repair, or relocation occurs, detailed notes are written in the instrumentation log. The log
contains the most recent multipoint calibration report, a preventive maintenance sheet, and the acceptance
testing information or reference to the location of this information. If an instrument is malfunctioning and
a decision is made to relocate that instrument, the log travels with that device. The log can be reviewed
by staff for possible clues to the reasons behind the instrument malfunction. In addition, if the instrument
is shipped to the manufacturer for repairs, it is recommended that a copy of the log be sent with the
instrument. This helps non-agency repair personnel with troubleshooting instrument problems. Improper
recording of instrument maintenance can complicate future repair and maintenance procedures. The
instrument log should be detailed enough to determine easily and definitively which instrument was at
which sites over any given time period. If a problem is found with a specific instrument, the monitoring
staff should be able to track the problem to the date it initially surfaced and invalidate data even if the
instrument was used at multiple sites.
The site log is a chronology of the events that occur at the monitoring station. The log is an important
part of station maintenance because it contains the narrative of past problems and solutions to those
problems. Site log notes should be written in the form of a narrative, rather than shorthand notes or
bulleted lists. Examples of items that should be recorded in the site log are:
the date, time, and initials of the person(s) who have arrived at the site;
brief description of the weather (e.g., clear, breezy, sunny, raining);
brief description of exterior of the site. Any changes that might affect the data should be recorded
- for instance, if someone is parking a truck or tractor near the site, this may explain high NOX
values;
any unusual noises, vibrations, or anything out of the ordinary;
records of any station maintenance or routine operations performed;
description of the work accomplished at the site (e.g., calibrated instruments, repaired analyzer);
and
• detailed information about the instruments that may be needed for repairs or troubleshooting.
It is not required that the instrument and site logs be completely independent of each other. However,
there is an advantage to having separate instrument logs. If instruments go in for repair, they may
eventually be sent to another site. Having a separate instrument log allows the log to "travel" with the
instrument. Keeping electronic instrument and station maintenance logs at stations and at centralized
facilities (see LIMS discussion Section 8) also has record keeping advantages, but there needs to be a way
that these records can be considered official and not be tampered with or falsified. Newer electronic
signature technologies are helping ensure that electronic records can be considered official. It is
important, however, that all of the required information for each instrument and site be properly recorded
using a method that is comprehensive and easily understood. Many monitoring organizations have
developed standard station maintenance forms that contain all the items to be checked and the frequency
of those checks. It then becomes a very simple procedure to use this form to check off and initial the
activities that were performed.
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 12.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 1 of 11
12.0 Calibrations
Calibration is defined as:
the comparison of a measurement standard, instrument, or item with a standard or instrument of
higher accuracy to detect and quantify inaccuracies and to report or eliminate those
inaccuracies by adjustment1.
Prior to the implementation of any ambient air monitoring activities, the sampling and analysis equipment
must be checked to assure it is within calibration tolerances, and if it fails these tolerances, must be
appropriately calibrated. This function is most routinely carried out at the field monitoring location.
Calibration of an analyzer or instrument establishes the quantitative relationship between an actual value
of a standard, be it a pollutant concentration, a temperature, or a mass value (in ppm, °C or ^g, etc.) and
the analyzer's response (chart recorder reading, output volts, digital output, etc.). This relationship is
used to convert subsequent analyzer response values to corresponding concentrations. Once an
instrument's calibration relationship is established it is checked/verified at reasonable frequencies to
verify that it remains in calibration.
Verification Versus Calibration
Since the term calibration is associated with an adjustment in either the instrument or software, these
adjustments should be minimized as much as possible. Sometimes performing frequent adjustments to
provide the "most accurate data possible" can be self-defeating and be the cause of additional
measurement uncertainty. Therefore, quality control procedures that include verification checks and
multi-point calibration verifications are considered "checks without correction" and are used to ensure
the instruments are within the calibration tolerances. Usually these tolerances have been developed so
that as long as the instrument is within these tolerances, adjustments do not need to be made. However,
verifications should be implemented at reasonable frequencies to avoid invalidating significant amounts
of data.
NOTE: When the term "calibration" is used in the remainder of this section, it is assumed
that multi-point verification is initially performed and the operator has concluded that
calibration (adjustment) is necessary.
NOTE: EPA does not recommend post-processing of data to "correct" for data failing one
point or multi-point verifications.
1 American National Standard Quality Systems for Environmental Data and Technology Programs ANSI /ASQ E4
http://www.asq.org/
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 12.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 2 of 11
Each analyzer should be calibrated as directed by the analyzer's operation or instruction manual and in
accordance with the general guidance provided here. For reference methods for CO, NO2, SO2 and O3,
detailed calibration procedures may also be found in the appropriate reference method Appendix in 40
CFR Part 502 and the method guidance and technical assistance documents listed in the fact sheets in
Appendix A.
Calibrations should be carried out at the field monitoring site by allowing the analyzer to sample test
atmospheres containing known pollutant concentrations. The analyzer to be calibrated should be in
operation for at least several hours (preferably overnight) prior to the calibration so that it is fully
warmed up and its operation has stabilized. During the calibration, the analyzer should be operating in
its normal sampling mode, and it should sample the test atmosphere through all filters, scrubbers,
conditioners, and other components used during normal ambient sampling and through as much of the
ambient air inlet system as is practicable. All operational adjustments to the analyzer should be
completed prior to the calibration (see section 12.7). Some analyzers can be operated on more than one
range. For sites requiring the use of FRM or FEMs (NAAQS sites), the appropriate ranges are identified
in the Designated Reference and Equivalent Method List found on AMTIC3. Analyzers that will be used
on more than one range or that have auto-ranging capability should be calibrated separately on each
applicable range.
Calibration documentation should be maintained with each analyzer and also in a central backup file.
Documentation should be readily available for review and should include calibration data, calibration
equation(s) (and curve, if prepared), analyzer identification, calibration date, analyzer location,
calibration standards used and their traceability, identification of calibration equipment used, and the
person conducting the calibration.
12.1 Calibration Standards and Reagents
Calibration standards are:
• Reagents of high grade
• Gaseous standards of known concentrations that are certified as EPA protocol gasses
• Instruments and or standards of high sensitivity and repeatability.
12.1.1 Reagents
In some cases, reagents are prepared prior to sampling. Some of these reagents will be used to calibrate
the equipment, while others will become an integral part of the sample itself. In any case, their integrity
must be carefully maintained from preparation through analysis. If there are any doubts about the method
by which the reagents for a particular test were prepared or about the competence of the laboratory
technician preparing them, the credibility of the ambient air samples and the test results will be
diminished. It is essential that a careful record be kept listing the dates the reagents were prepared, by
whom, and their locations at all times from preparation until actual use. Prior to the test, one individual
should be given the responsibility of monitoring the handling and the use of the reagents. Each use of the
reagents should be recorded in a field or lab notebook.
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html
3 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/criteria.html
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Section 12.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 3 of 11
Chemical reagents, solvents, and gases are available in various grades. Reagents can be categorized into
the following six grades4:
1. Primary standard - Each lot is analyzed, and the percentage of purity is certified.
2. Analyzed reagents- Can fall into 2 classes: (a) each lot is analyzed and the percentages of
impurities are reported; and (b) conformity with specified tolerances is claimed, or the maximum
percentages of impurities are listed.
3. USP and NF Grade - These are chemical reference standards where identity and strength
analysis are ensured.
4. "Pure," "c.p.," "chemically pure," "highest purity" - These are qualitative statements for
chemicals without numerical meaning.
5. "Pure," "purified," "practical grades" - These are usually intended as starting substances for
laboratory syntheses.
6. Technical or commercial grades - These are chemicals of widely varying purity.
The reference and equivalent methods define the grades and purities needed for the reagents and gases
required in the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program.
All reagent containers should be properly labeled either with the original label or, at a minimum, the
reagent, date prepared, expiration date, strength, preparer, and storage conditions. Leftover reagents used
during preparation or analysis should never be returned to bottles.
12.1.2 Gaseous Standards
In general, ambient monitoring instruments should be calibrated by allowing the instrument to sample and
analyze test atmospheres of known concentrations of the appropriate pollutant in air. The following is an
excerpt from 50 CFR Part 58, Appendix A Section 2.6.1:
"Gaseous pollutant concentration standards (permeation devices or cylinders of compressed gas)
used to obtain test concentrations for carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen
oxide (NO), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) must be traceable to either a National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) Traceable Reference Material (NTRM) or a NIST-certified
Gas Manufacturer's Internal Standard (GMIS), certified in accordance with one of the
procedures given in reference 4 of this appendix. Vendors advertising certification with the
procedures provided in reference 4 of this appendix and distributing gasses as ' 'EPA Protocol
Gas'' must participate in the EPA Protocol Gas Verification Program or not use ' 'EPA '' in any
form of advertising."
"Traceable" is defined in 40 CFR Parts 50 and 58 as meaning that a local standard has been compared and
certified, either directly or via not more than one intermediate standard, to a primary standard such as a
National Institute of Standards and Technology Standard Reference Material (NIST SRM) or a
USEPA/NIST-approved Certified Reference Material (CRM)". Normally, the working standard should
be certified directly to the SRM or CRM, with an intermediate standard used only when necessary. Direct
use of a CRM as a working standard is acceptable, but direct use of an NIST SRM as a working standard
is discouraged because of the limited supply and expense of SRM's. At a minimum, the certification
4 Quality Assurance Principles for Analytical Laboratories, 3rd Edition. By Frederick M. Garfield, Eugene Klesta,
and Jerry Hirsch. AOAC International (2000). http://www.aoac.org/
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Section 12.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 4 of 11
procedure for a working standard should:
• establish the concentration of the working standard relative to the primary standard;
• certify that the primary standard (and hence the working standard) is traceable to a NIST primary
standard;
• include a test of the stability of the working standard over several days; and
• specify a recertification interval for the working standard.
Table 12-1 suggests the requirements for the certification period for verification and calibration standards
used in the ambient air program.
Certification of the working standard may be established by either the supplier or the user of the standard.
As describe in CFR, gas supplier advertising "EPA Protocol Gas" will be required to participate in the
EPA Protocol Gas Verification Program. Information on this program, including the gas supplier
participating in the program, can be found on AMTIC5. EPA has developed procedures for the
establishment of protocol gasses in the document: EPA Traceability Protocol for Assay and Certification
of Gaseous Calibration Standards6.
Test concentrations of ozone must be traceable to a primary standard (see discussion of primary standards
below) UV photometer as described in 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix D and the guidance document:
Transfer Standards for the Calibration of Ambient Air Monitoring Analyzers for Ozone7.
Test concentrations at zero concentration are considered valid standards. Although zero standards are not
required to be traceable to a primary standard, care should be exercised to ensure that zero standards are
adequately free of all substances likely to cause a detectable response from the analyzer and at a
minimum, below the lower detectable limit of the criteria pollutants being measured. Periodically,
several different and independent sources of zero standards should be compared. The one that yields the
lowest response can usually (but not always) be assumed to be the "best zero standard." If several
independent zero standards produce exactly the same response, it is likely that all the standards are
adequate.
Table 12-1 Certification Periods for Compressed Gas Calibration Standards in Aluminum Cylinders That
Are Certified Under the EPA Protocol Gas Program
Certified components
Ambient nonmethane organics (15 components)
Ambient toxic organics (19 components)
Aromatic organic gases
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Hydrogen sulfide
Balance gas
Nitrogen
Nitrogen
Nitrogen
Nitrogen or aira
Nitrogen or air
Nitrogen
Applicable
concentration range
5ppb
5ppb
>0.25 ppm
>300 ppm
>8 ppm
>4 ppm
Certification period
(months)
24
24
36
36
36
12
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/
6 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/news.html
7 EPA-600/4-79-056. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. September 1979.
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/criteria/reldocs/4-79-056.pdf
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Section 12.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 5 of 11
Certified components
Vlethane
Sfitric oxide
Sfitrous oxide
Oxides of nitrogen (i.e., sum of nitrogen dioxide
and nitric acid)
Oxygen
Propane
Sulfur dioxide
Sulfur dioxide
Vlulticomponent mixtures
Mixtures with lower concentrations
Balance gas
Nitrogen or air
Oxygen-free nitrogenb
Air
Air
Nitrogen
Nitrogen or air
Nitrogen or air
Nitrogen or air
—
—
Applicable
concentration range
>1 ppm
>4 ppm
>300 ppb
>80 ppm
>0.8%
>1 ppm
40 to 499 ppm
>500 ppm
—
—
Certification period
(months)
36
24
36
24
36
36
24
36
See text0
See text
aWhen used as a balance gas, "air" is defined as a mixture of oxygen and nitrogen where the minimum concentration of oxygen is
10 percent and the concentration of nitrogen is greater than 60 percent.
bOxygen-free nitrogen contains >0.5 ppm of oxygen.
0 Text refers to Section 2 of EPA Protocol Gas Guidance Document
Certification periods decrease for concentrations below the applicable concentration ranges provide in
Table 12-1. For example the certification period for SO2 standards between 13-40 ppm is 6 months.
Also, tank size may affect stability in low level standards. Some gas manufacturers claim that standards
supplied in smaller tanks are stable for longer periods of time then the same concentration in larger tanks.
Although this claim has not been verified if true it may be helpful in making purchasing decisions.
Primary Reference Standards
A primary reference standard can be defined as a homogenous material with specific properties, such as
identity, unity, and potency that has been measured and certified by a qualified and recognized
organization8, such as the NIST SRMs. NIST also describes a Primary Reference Standard as a standard
that is designated or widely acknowledged as having the highest metrological qualities and whose value is
accepted without reference to other standards of the same quantity. For example, the NIST-F1 Atomic
Clock9, is recognized as a primary standard for time and frequency. A true primary standard like NIST-F1
establishes maximum levels for the frequency shifts caused by environmental factors. By summing or
combining the effects of these frequency shifts, it is possible to estimate the uncertainty of a primary
standard without comparing it to other standards. NIST maintains a catalog of SRMs that can be accessed
through the Internet10. Primary reference standards are usually quite expensive and are often used to
calibrate, develop, or assay working or secondary standards. In order to establish and maintain NIST
traceability the policies posted at the NIST Website11 should be observed.
8 Garfield, Frederick M., "Quality Assurance Principles for Analytical Laboratories" Association of Official
Analytical Chemists, Arlington VA, 1984
9 http ://tf. nist. gov/timefreq/cesium/fountain. htm
10 http://www.nist.gov
11 http: //ts .nist. gov/traceabilitv/
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Section 12.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 6 of 11
It is important that primary reference standards are maintained, stored, and handled in a manner that
maintains their integrity. These samples should be kept under secure conditions and records should be
maintained that document chain of custody information.
12.1.3 Instruments
The accuracy of various measurement devices in sampling and continuous instruments is very important
to data quality. For example, in order to produce the correct flow rate to establish an accurate PM25 cut
point, the temperature and barometric pressure sensors, as well as the flow rate device, must be producing
accurate measurements. Table 12-2 provides some of the more prevalent instruments that need to be
calibrated at a minimum annually or when shown through various verification checks to be out of
acceptable tolerances. In addition, the audit standards used to implement the checks and calibrations
should be certified annually in order to establish their accuracy and traceability to higher standards
(NIST).
Table 12-2 Instruments and Devices Requiring Calibration and Certifications.
Criteria
40CFR
Acceptable Range Reference
Verification/Calibration of devices in sampler/analyzer/laboratory against an authoritative standard
Barometric Pressure
Temperature
Flow Rate
Design Flow Rate Adjustment
Clock/timer Verification
Mirobalance Calibration
± 10 mmHg
± 2°C of standard
± 2% of transfer standard
± 2% of design flow rate
1 min/mo
Readability 1 ^g
Repeatability \/j,g
Part 50, App.L, Sec 9.3
Part 50, App.L, Sec 9.3
Part 50, App.L, Sec 9.2
Part 50, App.L, Sec 9.2.6
Part 50, App.L, Sec 7.4
Part 50, App.L, Sec 8.1
Verification/Calibration of devices in shelter or lab against an authoritative standard
Lab Temperature
Lab Humidity
Mirobalance Calibration
±2°C
±2%
Readability 1 /j,g
Repeatability l^jg
not described
not described
Part 50, App.L, Sec 8.1
Verification/calibration standards requiring certification annually
Standard Reference
Photometer (SRP)
SRP recertification to local
primary standard
Flow rate
Pressure
Temperature
Gravimetric Standards
±4% or ±4 ppb (whichever greater)
RSD of six slopes < 3.7%
Std. Dev. of 6 intercepts 1.5
New slope = + 0.05% of previous
± 2% of NIST -Traceable Standard
± 1 mm Hg resolution, ± 1 mm Hg
accuracy
± 0.1 °C of standard resolution^ 0.5 °C 1
mm Hg accuracy
0.025 mg
not described
not described
Part 50, App L Sec 9.2
not described
not described
not described
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Section 12.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 7 of 11
12.2 Multi-point Verifications/Calibrations
Multi-point calibrations consist of a zero and 4 upscale points, the highest being a concentration between
80 percent and 90 percent of the full scale range of the analyzer under calibration. Multi-point
calibrations are used to establish or verify the linearity of analyzers upon initial installation, after major
repairs and at specified frequencies. Most modern analyzers have a linear or very nearly linear response
with concentration. If a non-linear analyzer is being calibrated, additional calibration points should be
included to adequately define the calibration relationship, which should be a smooth curve. Calibration
points should be plotted or evaluated statistically as they are obtained so that any deviant points can be
investigated or repeated immediately.
Most analyzers have zero and span adjustment controls, which should be adjusted based on the zero and
highest test concentrations, respectively, to provide the desired scale range within the analyzer's
specifications (see section 12.5). For analyzers in routine operation, unadjusted ("as is") analyzer zero
and span response readings should be obtained prior to making any zero or span adjustments.
NO/NO2/NOX analyzers may not have individual zero and span controls for each channel; the analyzer's
operation/instruction manual should be consulted for the proper zero and span adjustment procedure.
Zero and span controls often interact with each other, so the adjustments may have to be repeated several
times to obtain the desired final adjustments.
After the zero and span adjustments have been completed and the analyzer has been allowed to stabilize
on the new zero and span settings, all calibration test concentrations should be introduced into the
analyzer for the final calibration. The final, post-adjusted analyzer response readings should be obtained
from the same device (chart recorder, data acquisition system, etc.) that will be used for subsequent
ambient measurements. The analyzer readings are plotted against the respective test concentrations, and
the best linear (or nonlinear if appropriate) curve to fit the points is determined. Ideally, least squares
regression analysis (with an appropriate transformation of the data for non-linear analyzers) should be
used to determine the slope and intercept for the best fit calibration line of the form, y = mx + a, where y
represents the analyzer response, x represents the pollutant concentration, m is the slope, and a is the x-
axis intercept of the best fit calibration line. When this calibration relationship is subsequently used to
compute concentration measurements (x) from analyzer response readings (y), the formula is transposed
to the form, x = (y - a)/m.
For the gaseous pollutants, the verification/calibration is considered acceptable if all calibration points fall
within 2% of the full scale, best fit straight line. For manual samplers, devices (flow rate, temperature,
pressure) are checked at different settings. Acceptance criteria for these devices can be found in the
MQO Tables in Appendix D.
As a quality control check on calibrations, the standard error or correlation coefficient can be calculated
along with the regression calculations. A control chart of the standard error or correlation coefficient
could then be maintained to monitor the degree of scatter in the calibration points and, if desired, limits of
acceptability can be established.
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Section 12.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 8 of 11
12.3 Frequency of Calibration and Analyzer Adjustment
An analyzer should be calibrated (or recalibrated):
• upon initial installation,
• following physical relocation,
• after any repairs or service that might affect its calibration,
• following an interruption in operation of more than a few days,
• upon any indication of analyzer malfunction or change in calibration, and
• at some routine interval (see below).
Zero
Drift
+ 10 to 15 ppb
(1 to 1.5 ppm CO)
0
-1 std dev
-3 std dev
-10 to -15 ppb
(-1 to -1.5 ppm CO)
Span
Invalidate data, adjust
and recalibrate analyzer
t
Adjust and recalibrate analyzer
'
_.
Normal analyzer
^ A A, t t
0 T Adjustment
• optional
f
y Analyzer adjustment
• not recommended
i
Adjustment
i • optional
adjust and recalibrate analyzer
i
k
Invalidate data, adjust
Drift
+15%
and recalibrate analyzer
When calibration relationships are applied to
analyzer responses to determine actual
concentrations, it is suggested that the analyzer be
recalibrated periodically to maintain close
agreement. The frequency of this routine periodic
recalibration is a matter of judgment and is a
tradeoff among several considerations, including:
the inherent stability of the analyzer under the
prevailing conditions of temperature, pressure, line
voltage, etc., at the monitoring site; the cost and
inconvenience of carrying out the calibrations; the
quality of the ambient measurements needed; the
number of ambient measurements lost during the
calibrations; and the risk of collecting invalid data
because of a malfunction or response problem with
the analyzer that wouldn't be discovered until a
calibration is carried out.
When a new monitoring instrument is first installed,
zero/span and one point QC checks should be very
frequent, perhaps daily or 3 times per week,
because little or no information is available on the
drift performance of the analyzer. With the
advancement in data acquisition system technology,
many monitoring organizations are running these
QC checks daily. However, the QC checks are
required to be implemented every two weeks.
Information on another unit of the same model
analyzer may be useful; however, individual units of the same model may perform quite differently.
After enough information on the drift performance of the analyzer has been accumulated, the calibration
frequency can be adjusted to provide a suitable compromise among the various considerations mentioned
above.
Figure 12.1 Suggested zero/span drift limits
To facilitate the process of determining calibration frequency, it is strongly recommended that control
charts be used to monitor the zero/span and one-point QC drift performance of each analyzer. Control
charts can be constructed in different ways, but the important points are to visually represent and
statistically monitor drift, and to be alerted if the drift becomes excessive so that corrective action can be
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 12.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 9 of 11
taken. Such control charts make important use of the unadjusted zero and span response readings.
NOTE: Many newer technology analyzers have an "auto-zeroing" function incorporated in the
instrument that can be implemented at user defined frequencies. Use of internal auto-zero functions
typically does not need any post-processing of the data. EPA finds auto or manual zero adjustment
acceptable, but does not recommend making automatic or manual adjustments (corrections) to the span
until drift is unacceptable and warrants a calibration.
In continuous monitoring, the total cumulative drift, average of the absolute values of the individual
drifts, and the standard deviation of the individual drifts should be calculated on a running basis over the
last 100 or so days. Figure 12.1 summarizes some of the ranges and control chart limits that can be used
to decide when calibration is warranted.
12.4 Adjustments to Analyzers
Ideally, all ambient measurements obtained from an analyzer should be calculated on the basis of the
most current multipoint calibration or on the basis of both the previous and subsequent calibrations (see
Section 12.5). Some acceptable level of drift (i.e., deviation from an original or nominal response curve)
can be allowed before physical adjustments (a calibration) must be made because the calibration curve
used to calculate the ambient measurements is kept in close agreement with the actual analyzer response.
The chief limitations are the amount of change in the effective scale range of the analyzer that can be
tolerated and possible loss of linearity in the analyzer's response due to excessive deviation from the
design range. Cumulative drifts of up to 15 percent of full scale from the original or nominal zero and
span values may not be unreasonable, subject to the limitations mentioned above.
Due to the advancement in monitoring technologies, ambient air monitors are much more stable and
adjustments not as necessary. Earlier versions of this Handbook included sections for zero/span
calibrations as well as physical zero/span adjustments. Precise adjustment of the zero and span controls
may not be possible because of: (1) limited resolution of the controls, (2) interaction between the zero
and span controls, and (3) possible delayed reaction to adjustment or a substantial stabilization period
after adjustments are made. Precise adjustments may not be necessary because calibration of the analyzer
following zero and span adjustments will define the precise response characteristic (calibration curve).
EPA feels that frequent adjustments of instruments should not be necessary and may in fact lead to more
data quality uncertainty. EPA does not recommend span adjustments be made between multi-point
calibrations but zero adjustments are appropriate.
EPA is no longer including guidance suggesting that the calibration equation be updated after each
zero/span check and suggests the ambient readings be calculated from the most recent multipoint
calibration curve or from a fixed nominal or "universal" calibration curve (Section 12.5). In this case, the
zero and span checks serve only to measure or monitor the deviation (drift error) between the actual
analyzer response curve and the calibration curve used to calculate the ambient measurements.
Automatic Self-Adjusting Analyzers
Some air monitoring analyzers are capable of periodically carrying out automatic zero and span
calibrations and making their own zero and span self adjustments to predetermined readings. Automatic
zero adjustments are considered reasonable, but EPA discourages the use of automatic span adjustments.
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 12.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 10 of 11
If the automatic zero standards pass through the sample inlet and sample conditioning system and both the
adjusted and unadjusted zero response readings can be obtained from the data recording device, then the
zero adjustment can be implemented.
12.5 Data Reduction Using Calibration Information
As noted previously, an analyzer's response calibration curve relates the analyzer response to actual
concentration units of measure, and the response of most analyzers tends to change (drift)
unpredictably with passing time. These two conditions must be addressed in the mechanism that is used
to process the raw analyzer readings into final concentration measurements. Three practical methods are
described below. They are listed in order of preference,
1) "Universal" Calibration—A fixed, "universal" calibration is established for the analyzer and used to
calculate all ambient readings. All verifications and checks are used to measure the deviation of the
current analyzer response from the universal calibration. Whenever this deviation exceeds the established
zero and span adjustment limits, the analyzer is recalibrated.
2) Major Calibration Update—In this method, the calibration slope and intercept used to calculate
ambient measurements are updated only for "major" calibration (i.e., semi-annual or annual multi-point
verification/calibrations). All ambient measurements are calculated from the most recent major
calibration. Between major calibrations, periodic zero and span calibrations are used to measure the
difference between the most recent major calibration and the current instrument response. Physical or
automated adjustments of the zero may be appropriate however span adjustment to restore a match
between the current analyzer response and the most recent major calibration is not suggested. Whenever
this deviation exceeds the established zero and span adjustment limits, the analyzer is recalibrated.
3) Step-Change Update— the adjusted slope and intercept of the most recent calibration are used to
calculate all subsequent ambient readings until updated by another calibration (i.e., no interpolation). No
unadjusted zero or span readings are used, and ambient measurements can be calculated in real time if
desired.
A significant problem with this method is acquiring the requisite calibration data and making sure they
are merged correctly with the ambient data to facilitate the required calculations. Some automated data
acquisition systems support this application by making special provisions to acquire and process periodic
zero and span data. One way to ensure that the zero/span data are correctly merged with the ambient
readings is to code the zero and span values directly into the data set at the location corresponding to the
time of calibration, replacing the normal hourly reading that is lost anyway because of the calibration.
These data can be marked (such as with a negative sign) to differentiate them from ambient data and later
deleted from the final report printout. When zero and span data are acquired automatically by a data
acquisition system for direct computer processing, the system must be sufficiently sophisticated to:
• ensure that zero or span data is never inadvertently reported as ambient measurements
• ignore transient data during the stabilization period before the analyzer has reached a stable zero
or span response (this period may vary considerably from one analyzer to another)
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 12.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 11 of 11
• average the stable zero and span readings over some appropriate time period so that the zero or
span reading obtained accurately represents the analyzers true zero or span response
• ignore ambient readings for an appropriate period of time immediately following a zero or span
reading until the analyzer response has restabilized to the ambient-level concentration
12.6 Validation of Ambient Data Based on Calibration Information
When zero or span drift validation limits (see Figure 12.1) are exceeded, ambient measurements should
be invalidated back to the most recent acceptable zero/span/one-point QC check where such
measurements are known to be valid. Also, data following an analyzer malfunction or period of non-
operation should be regarded as invalid until the next subsequent calibration unless unadjusted zero and
span readings at that calibration can support its validity.
Documentation
All data and calculations involved in these calibration activities should be recorded in the instrument log
book described in Section 11.
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 13.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 1 of4
13.0 Inspection/Acceptance for Supplies and Consumables
Both field operations and laboratory operations need supplies and consumables. The focus of this section
is the management of laboratory and field sampling supplies and consumables. For information on the
actual field/lab supplies and consumables needed for any specific method, see the reference method in 40
CFR Part 501, the general guidance methods and technical assistance documents on AMTIC2 and the
manufacturer's operations manuals. From this information, monitoring organizations, as part of the
QAPP requirements, will develop specific SOPs for its monitoring and analytical methods. One section of
the SOPs requires a listing of the acceptable supplies and consumables for the method.
Pollutant parameters are measured using electronic (e.g., continuous emission monitors, FTIRs, etc...),
wet chemical techniques, or physical methods. Chemical analysis always involves the use of consumable
supplies that must be replaced on a schedule consistent with their stability and with the rate at which
samples are taken. Currently used physical methods require adequate supplies of chemicals for operation
for three months so that the supplier can comply with the delivery schedules. In some cases, analytical
reagents for specific air contaminants deteriorate rapidly and need protective storage. The following
information may be helpful when considering the use of these consumable items. Much of the
information presented below is derived from the document Quality Assurance Principles for Analytical
Laboratories3.
13.1 Supplies Management
Control of supplies and consumables is important to the success of the quality assurance program. It is
important that specifications for each item are prepared and adhered to during the procurement process.
When specifications are prepared, the following points should be considered: identity, purity, potency,
source, tests to be conducted for quality and purity, need for further purification, storage and handling
procedures, and replacement dates. As part of supplies management, the following actions are
recommended:
• establish criteria and specifications for the important supplies and consumables.
• check and test the supplies and consumables against specifications, before placing them in use.
• design and maintain a supplies management program to ensure the quality of reagents used in
day-to-day operations, paying particular attention to primary reference standards, working
standards, and standard solutions.
• decide on the kinds of purified water that are necessary, and develop suitable tests and testing
intervals to ensure the quality of water used in analytical work and for cleaning glassware.
• purchase only Class A volumetric glassware and perform calibrations and recalibrations that are
necessary to achieve reliable results.
• establish procedures for cleaning and storing glassware/sample containers with due consideration
for the need for special treatment of glassware/sample containers used in trace analysis.
• establish a useful life for glassware/sample containers and track this.
• discard chipped and etched glassware or damaged containers.
1 http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html
2 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/
3 Quality Assurance Principles for Analytical Laboratories, 3rd Edition. By Frederick M. Garfield, Eugene Klesta,
and Jerry Hirsch. AOAC International (2000). http://www.aoac.org/
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 13.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 2 of4
13.2 Standards and Reagents
Discussions on gaseous standards and reagents are discussed in Section 12. What is most important is
that the standards and reagents used are of appropriate purity and certified within the acceptable limits of
the program for which they are used. Table 12-1 provides certification frequencies for gaseous standards,
but within these timeframes, and as new cylinders are purchased, monitoring organizations need to
develop a standard checking scheme to establish ongoing acceptance of standards. For example a new
SRM should be purchased months prior to the expiration (or need for recertification) or complete use of
an older standard in order to develop a overlapping cylinder acceptance process so there is some
establishment of traceability and consistency in monitoring. For example, if a new SRM is put into use in
a monitoring organization and all monitoring instruments traced to the cylinder start failing calibration, it
may mean that either the new or older cylinder was not properly certified or has integrity problems. By
checking both cylinders prior to new cylinder use, this issue can be avoided.
13.2.1 Standard Solutions
Most laboratories maintain a stock of standard solutions. The following information on these solutions
should be kept in a log book:
• identity of solution
• strength
• method of preparation (reference to SOP)
• standardization calculations
• recheck of solution for initial strength
• date made/expiration date
• initials of the analyst
• storage
As mentioned above, all standard solutions should contain appropriate labeling as to contents and
expiration dates.
13.2.2 Purified Water
Water is one of the most critical but most often forgotten reagent. The water purification process should
be documented from the quality of the starting raw water to the systems used to purify the water,
including how the water is delivered, the containers in which it is stored, and the tests and the frequency
used to ensure the quality of the water.
13.3 Volumetric Glassware
Use of the appropriate glassware is important since many preparations and analyses require the
development of reagents, standards, dilutions, and controlled delivery systems. It is suggested that
"Class A" glassware be used in all operations requiring precise volumes. SOPs requiring volumetric
glassware should specify the size/type required for each specific operation.
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 13.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 3 of4
13.4 Sample Containers
Samples may be contaminated by using containers that have not be properly cleaned and prepared (e.g.,
VOC canisters, participate filter cassettes/containers) or purchased from vendors without proper
inspection prior to use. In addition, all sample containers have a "useful" life. Some containers, such as
the low volume PM sample filter cassettes can be damaged overtime and cause leaks in the sampling
system. It is important to track the inventory of sampling containers from:
• date of purchase;
• first use;
• frequency of use (estimate);
• time of retirement.
An inventory of this type can help ensure new containers are purchased prior to old ones expiring and/or
causing sample integrity problems. Use of appropriate sample containers is important since the matter of
the container could potentially affect the collected sample. Always refer to the specific method to see if a
particular type of container (e.g., high density polyethylene [HDPE] bottles, amber glass) is required for
the storage of the sample.
13.5 Particulate Sampling Filters
Filters are used for the manual methods for criteria pollutants (e.g., PM10, PM25, PM10.25, total PM, Pb,
etc...). No commercially available filter is ideal in all respects. The sampling program should determine
the relative importance of certain filter evaluation criteria (e.g., physical and chemical characteristics,
ease of handling, cost). The reference methods provide detailed acceptance criteria for filters. Some of
the basic criteria that must be met regardless of the filter type follows:
• Visual inspection - for pinholes, tears, creases, or other flaws that may affect the collection
efficiency of the filter, which may be consistent through a batch. This visual inspection would
also be made prior to filter installation and during laboratory pre- and post-weighings to assure
the integrity of the filter is maintained and, therefore, the ambient air sample obtained with each
filter adequately represents the sampled pollutant conditions.
• Collection efficiency - greater than 99% as measured by OOP test (ASTM 2988) with
0.3 micrometer particles at the sampler's operating face velocity.
• Integrity - (pollutant specific) measured as the concentration equivalent corresponding to the
difference between the initial and final weights of the filter when weighed and handled under
simulated sampling conditions (equilibration, initial weighing, placement on inoperative sampler,
removal from a sampler, re-equilibration, and final weighing).
• Alkalinity - less than 0.005 milliequivalent/gram of filter following at least two months of
storage at ambient temperature and relative humidity.
Note: Some filters may not be suitable for use with all samplers. Due to filter handling characteristics or
rapid increases in flow resistance due to episodic loading, some filters, although they meet the above
criteria, may not be compatible with the model of sampler chosen. It would be prudent to evaluate more
than one filter type before purchasing large quantities for network use. In some cases, EPA Headquarters
may have national contracts for acceptable filters that will be supplied to monitoring organizations.
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 13.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 4 of4
13.6 Field Supplies
Field instrumentation, which includes samplers and analyzers, require supplies for the actual collection
process as well as quality control activities and crucial operational maintenance. These supplies can
include, but are not limited to:
• Gas standards/Permeation standards
• HVAC units
• Maintenance equipment (tools, ladders)
• Safety supplies (first aid kit)
• Information technology supplies (PC, printers, paper, ink, diskettes)
• Sample line filters
• Charcoal
• Desiccant
• Gaskets and O-rings
• Sample lines and manifolds
• Disposable gloves
• Water/distilled water
• Pumps and motors
• Chart paper and ink
• Impaction oil
• TEOM FDMS filter
The site logbook discussed in Section 11 should include a list and inventory of these critical field
supplies. As part of routine maintenance activates, this inventory can be reviewed to determine if any
supplies are in need of restocking.
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 14
Revision: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 1 of 14
14.0 Data Acquisition and Information Management
Success of the Ambient Air Quality Program
objectives relies on data and its correct
interpretation. It is critical that data be available to
users and that these data are:
• reliable;
• of known quality;
• easily accessible to a variety of users; and
• aggregated in a manner consistent with its
prime use
In order to accomplish this activity, information must be collected and managed in a manner that protects
and ensures its integrity.
Most of the data collected from the Ambient Air Monitoring Program will be collected through automated
systems at various facilities. These systems must be effectively managed by using a set of guidelines and
principles by which adherence will ensure data integrity. The EPA has a document entitled Good
Automated Laboratory Practices (GALP)1. The GALP defines six data management principles:
1. DATA: The system must provide a method of assuring the integrity of all entered data.
Communication, transfer, manipulation, and the storage/recall process all offer potential for data
corruption. The demonstration of control necessitates the collection of evidence to prove that the system
provides reasonable protection against data corruption.
2. FORMULAE: The formulas and decision algorithms employed by the system must be accurate and
appropriate. Users cannot assume that the test or decision criteria are correct; those formulas must be
inspected and verified.
3. A UDIT: An audit trail that tracks data entry and modification to the responsible individual is a critical
element in the control process. The trail generally utilizes a password system or equivalent to identify the
person or persons entering a data point, and generates a protected file logging all unusual events.
4. CHANGE: A consistent and appropriate change control procedure capable of tracking the system
operation and application software is a critical element in the control process. All software changes
should follow carefully planned procedures, including a pre-install test protocol and appropriate
documentation update.
5. STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES (SOPs): Control of even the most carefully designed and
implemented systems will be thwarted if appropriate procedures are not followed. The principles implies
the development of clear directions and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs); the training of all users;
and the availability of appropriate user support documentation.
6. DISASTER: Consistent control of a system requires the development of alternative plans for system
failure, disaster recovery, and unauthorized access. The control principle must extend to planning for
reasonable unusual events and system stresses.
http://www.epa.gov/irmpoli8/ciopolicy/2185.pdf
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 14.0
Revision: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 2 of 14
The principles listed above apply to both the local and central information management systems.
The ambient pollutant data generated by gas analyzers or manual samplers must be captured, organized,
and verified in order to be useful. The process of capturing the data is known as data acquisition. The
organization of the data is known as data management. This section provides guidance in these areas,
including identification of advanced equipment and procedures that are recommended for
implementation. The recommended procedures rely on digital communication by the data acquisition
system to collect a wider variety of information from the analyzers, to control instrument calibrations, and
to allow for more routine, automated, and thorough data quality efforts. The section will discuss:
1. Data acquisition- collecting the raw data from the monitor/sampler, storing it for an appropriate
interval, aggregating or reducing the data, and transferring this data to final storage in a local data
base (monitoring organizations database)
2. Data transfer- preparing and moving data to external data bases such as AIRNow or the Air
Quality System (AQS).
3. Data management- ensuring the integrity of the data collection systems
In response to guidelines issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Section 515(a) of
the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-554;
H.R. 5658), EPA developed the document titled Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality,
Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by the Environmental Protection Agency2.
The Guideline contains EPA's policy and procedural guidance for ensuring and maximizing the quality of
information it disseminates. The Guideline also incorporates the following performance goals:
• Disseminated information should adhere to a basic standard of quality, including objectivity,
utility, and integrity.
• The principles of information quality should be integrated into each step of EPA's development
of information, including creation, collection, maintenance, and dissemination.
• Administrative mechanisms for correction should be flexible, appropriate to the nature and
timeliness of the disseminated information, and incorporated into EPA's information resources
management and administrative practices.
EPA suggests monitoring organizations review this document since it is relevant to the ambient air
information it generates and can help to ensure that data can withstand challenges to its quality.
14.1 Data Acquisition
Data acquisition technology is advancing and ever changing. Computer systems are now available in
most air quality instruments. This has changed data acquisition in a profound way; most data is available
in an instantaneous digital format from the instrument. This can be a powerful tool to quickly recognize
and mitigate data quality problems. These digital systems should increase data capture and reporting. On
the other hand, this increase in instantaneous data can be overwhelming if the monitoring organization is
not prepared. The timely reporting of high quality, highly time-resolved ambient monitoring data will
require a coordinated effort to ensure data management systems are meeting desired performance needs.
These data management systems will need to provide validated data, to the extent possible, in near real
time to multiple clients within minutes from the end of a sample period. Data management systems used
2 http://www.epa.gov/qualitv/informationguidelines/documents/EPA InfoQualitvGuidelines.pdf
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 14.0
Revision: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 3 of 14
in ambient air monitoring will need to provide efficient processing and validation of data, and provide
appropriate communication of that data in a format appropriate and available for multiple users. As an
example, improved data management systems from all NCore continuous monitors can provide near real-
time, high quality, hourly data during episodes. This will allow technical and policy staff to better
understand the exposure and interactions of air pollutants in the atmosphere of most interest. This section
provides information on Data Acquisition Systems (DAS), a term used for systems that collect, store,
summarize, report, print, calculate or transfer data. The transfer is usually from an analog or digital
format to a digital medium. This section will also discuss limitations of data collected with DAS.
14.1.1 Automated Data Acquisition Requirements
DAS have been available to air quality professionals since the early 1980s. The first systems were single
and multi-channel systems that collected data on magnetic media. This media was usually hand
transferred to a central location or laboratory for downloading to a central computer. With the advent of
digital data transfer from the stations to a central location, the need to hand transfer data has diminished.
However, errors in data reporting can occur with digital data. For DAS, there are two sources of error
between the instrument (sensor) and the recording device: 1) the output signal from the sensor, and 2) the
errors in recording by the data logger. For DAS that collect digital meta and reported data, these are not
issues. Digital transfer of data does not suffer from the same problems as digital to analog transfer.
When one digital device sends digital signals, the data is sent in data package streams that are coded then
decoded at the receiving end. This digital transfer does not suffer from signal degradation. Most
automated data acquisition systems support the acquisition of QC data like zero, one point QC and span
data. One way to ensure that the QC data are correctly merged with the ambient readings is to code the
QC values directly into the data set at the location corresponding to the time of the checks, replacing the
normal hourly reading that is lost anyway because of the check. These data can be marked or flagged to
differentiate it from ambient data and later deleted from the final routine data report printout. When QC
data is acquired automatically by a data acquisition system for direct computer processing, the system
must be sufficiently sophisticated to:
• ensure that the QC data is never inadvertently reported as ambient measurements,
• ignore transient data during the stabilization period before the analyzer has reached a stable QC
response (this period may vary considerably from one analyzer to another),
• average the stable QC readings over some appropriate time period so that the readings obtained
accurately represents the analyzer's QC response,
• ignore ambient readings for an appropriate period of time immediately following a QC reading
until the analyzer response has restabilized to the ambient-level concentration.
14.1.2 Instrument to Data logger
Figure 14.1 shows the basic transfer of data from the instrument to the final product; a hard copy report,
or data transfer to a central computer. Most continuous monitors have the ability to output data in at least
two ways: analog output and an RS232 digital port. Some instrumentation may now be including USB,
Ethernet and firewire capability. The instrument has a voltage potential that generally is a DC voltage.
This voltage varies directly with the concentration collected. Most instruments' output is a DC voltage in
the 0-1 or 0-5 volts range. The following provide a brief summary of the analog (A) or digital (D) steps
-------
Figure 14.1 DAS data flow
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 14.0
Revision: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 4 of 14
(A) the voltage is measured by the multiplexer
which allows voltages from many instruments to
be read at the same time.
(A) the multiplexer sends a signal to the a/d
converter which changes the analog voltage to a
low amperage digital signal.
(A) the a/d converter send signals to the central
processing unit (cpu) that directs the digital
electronic signals to a display or to the random
access memory (ram) which stores the short-term
data until the end of a pre-defined time period.
(A/D) the cpu then shunts the data from the ram to
the storage medium which can be magnetic tape,
computer hard-drive or computer diskette.
(A/D) the computer storage medium can be
accessed remotely or at the monitoring location.
The data transfer may occur via modem to a central computer storage area or printed out as hard copy. In
some instances, the data may be transferred from one storage medium (i.e. hard drive to a diskette, tape,
or CD) to another storage medium. The use of a data logging device to automate data handling from a
continuous sensor is not a strict guarantee against recording errors. Internal validity checks are necessary
to avoid serious data recording errors.
Analog Versus Digital DAS -
Station Desktop
System
Most analyzers built within
the last 15 years have the
capability (RS232 ports) to
transfer digital signals, yet
many monitoring
organizations currently
perform data acquisition of
automated monitors by
recording an analog output
from each gas analyzer
using an electronic data
logger. As explained above,
the analog readings are
converted and stored in
digital memory in the data
logger for subsequent
automatic retrieval by a
remote data management
system. This approach can
reliably capture the
monitoring data, but does not
allow complete control of monitoring operations, and the recorded analog signals are subject to noise that
limits the detection of low concentrations. Furthermore, with the analog data acquisition approach, the
data review process is typically labor-intensive and not highly automated. For these reasons, EPA
Figure 14.2 Flow of data from gas analyzers to final reporting
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 14.0
Revision: 1
Date: 12/08
i5 of 14
encourages the adoption of digital data acquisition methods. In that regard, the common analog data
acquisition approach often does not fully utilize the capabilities of the electronic data logger. Many data
loggers have the capability to acquire data in digital form and to control some aspects of calibrations and
analyzer operation, but these capabilities are not utilized in typical analog data acquisition approaches.
Digital data acquisition reduces noise in the recording of gas monitoring data, thereby improving
sensitivity. It also records and controls the instrument settings, internal diagnostics, and programmed
activities of monitoring and calibration equipment. Such data acquisition systems also typically provide
automated data quality assessment as part of the data acquisition process.
It may be cost-effective for monitoring organizations to adopt digital data acquisition and calibration
control simply by more fully exploiting the capabilities of their existing electronic data loggers. For
example, many gas analyzers are capable of being calibrated under remote control. The opportunity to
reduce travel and personnel costs through automated calibrations is a strong motivator for monitoring
organizations to make greater use of the capabilities of their existing data acquisition systems. The
NCore multi-pollutant sites are taking advantage of the newer DAS technologies. Details of these
systems can be found in the technical assistance document for this program3.
Figure 14.2 illustrates the recommended digital data acquisition approach for the NCore sites. It presents
the data flow from the gas monitors, through a local digital data acquisition system, to final reporting of
the data in various public databases. This schematic shows several of the key capabilities of the
recommended approach. A basic capability is the acquisition of digital data from multiple analyzers and
other devices, thereby reducing noise and minimizing the effort needed in data processing. Another
capability is two-way communication, so that the data acquisition system can interrogate and/or control
the local analyzers, calibration systems, and even sample inlet systems, as well as receive data from the
analyzers. Data transfer to a central location is also illustrated, with several possible means of that
transfer shown. Monitoring organizations are urged to take advantage of the latest technology in this part
of the data acquisition process, as even technologies such as satellite data communication are now well
established, commercially available, and inexpensive to implement for monitoring operations.
Depending on the monitoring objective, it may be important that data are reported in formats of
immediate use in public data bases such as AQS4, and the multi-monitoring organization AIRNow5 sites.
An advantage of DAS software is the ability to facilitate the assembly, formatting and reporting of
monitoring data to these databases.
Digital data acquisition systems such as those in Figure 14.2 offer a great advantage over analog systems
in the tracking of calibration data, because of the ability to control and record the internal readings of gas
analyzers and calibration systems. That is, a digital data acquisition system not only can record the
analyzer's output readings, but can schedule and direct the performance of analyzer calibrations, and
record calibrator settings and status. Thus, flagging of calibration data to distinguish them from ambient
monitoring data is conducted automatically during data acquisition with no additional effort or post-
analysis. These capabilities greatly reduce the time and effort needed to organize and quantify calibration
results.
3 Version 4 of the Technical Assistance Document for Precursor Gas Measurements in the NCore Multi-pollutant
Monitoring Network, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/pretecdoc.html
4 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/aqsweb/
5 http://airnow.gov/
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 14.0
Revision: 1
Date: 12/08
i6 of 14
14.1.3 DAS Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Quality assurance aspects of the DAS deal with whether the system is being operated within defined
guidelines. Usually, this means that each value that is collected on the DAS is the same value that is
generated from the analyzer and reported to the Air Quality System (AQS) data base. This usually is
accomplished by calibrations, data trail audits and performance audits.
Calibration- In the case where analog signals from monitoring equipment are recorded by the DAS, the
calibration of a DAS is similar to the approach used for calibration of a strip chart recorder. To calibrate
the DAS, known voltages are supplied to each of the input channels and the corresponding measured
response of the DAS is recorded. Specific calibration procedures in the DAS owner's manual should be
followed when performing such DAS calibrations. For DAS that receive digital data from the
instruments, a full scale check (the instrument is in a mode and the output is at the full scale of the
instrument) should be performed to see if the data received digitally is the same as the display of the
instrument. The DAS should be calibrated at least once per year. Appendix G provides a simple approach
for calibration of the DAS.
In addition, gas analyzers typically have an option to set output voltages to full scale or to ramp the
analog output voltages supplied by the analyzer over the full output range. Such a function can be used to
check the analog recording process from the analyzer through the DAS.
Data Trail Audit- The data trail audit consists of following a value or values collected by the DAS to the
central data collection site and then eventually to AQS. A person other than the normal station operator
should perform this duty. The following procedure should be followed:
• A data point should be collected from the DAS (usually an hourly value or another aggregated
value reported to AQS) and be checked on the DAS storage medium against the hard copy report.
Also if strip chart recorders are used, a random number of hourly values should be compared to
the data collected by the DAS. This audit should be completed on a regular defined frequency and
for every pollutant reported.
• From the central computer, the auditor checks to see if this hourly value is the same.
The above actions should be completed well in advance of data submittal to AQS. If the data has been
submitted to AQS, then the AQS data base should be checked and modified as necessary per the
appropriate AQS procedures.
Whether a monitoring organization is transferring the data from an instrument via an on-site DAS or
transferring the data digitally, the data trail audit should be performed on a routine basis.
Performance Audit- The performance audit consists of challenging the instrument and DAS to a known
audit source gas and observing the final response. The response should correspond to the value of the
audit source gas. Section 15 discusses these performance audits.
Initialization Errors
All data acquisition systems must be initialized. The initialization consists of an operator "setting up" the
parameters so that the voltages produced by the instruments can be read, scaled correctly and reported in
the correct units. Errors in initializations can create problems when the data is collected and reported.
Read the analyzer manufacturer's literature before parameters are collected. If the manufacturer does not
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 14.0
Revision: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 7 of 14
state how these parameters are collected, request this information. The following should be performed
when setting up the initializations:
• Check the full scale outputs of each parameter.
• Calibrations should be followed after each initialization (each channel of a DAS should be
calibrated independently). Appendix G provides an example of a DAS calibration technique.
• Review the instantaneous data stream, if possible, to see if the DAS is collecting the data
correctly.
• Save the initializations to a storage medium; if the DAS does not have this capability, print out
the initialization and store it at the central computer location and at the monitoring location.
• Check to see if the flagging routines are performed correctly; data that are collected during
calibrations and down time should be flagged correctly.
• Check the DAS for excessive noise (variability in signal). Noisy data that are outside of the
normal background are a concern. Noisy data can be caused by improperly connected leads to
the multiplexer, noisy AC power, or a bad multiplexer. Refer to the owner's manual for help on
noisy data.
• Check to see that the average times are correct. Some DAS consider 45 minutes to be a valid
hour, while others consider 48 minutes. Agency guidelines should be referred to before setting
up averaging times.
14.1.4 Data Logger to Database
Once data are on the data logger at the ambient air monitoring station, they need to be sent to servers
where they can be summarized and disseminated to data users. In most cases this will occur by using a
server at the office of the monitoring organization. The conventional way to get data from the monitoring
stations has been to poll each of the stations individually. With more widespread availability of the
internet, pushing data from monitoring sites on a regular basis will be especially effective in mapping and
public reporting of data. Note, in some cases it is possible to report data directly from a monitor to a
database without the use of a station data logger. This solution is acceptable so long as the monitor is
capable of data storage for periods when telemetry is off-line.
Data transfer is usually accomplished in three ways: hard copy printout, downloading data from internal
storage medium to external storage medium, or digital transfer via the telephone lines, internet, satellite or
other advanced means of communication. Due to the desire for real time data for the Air Quality Index
(AQI) and other related needs, monitoring organizations should plan to upgrade to digital data acquisition
and communication systems.
Hard copy report- Most DAS have the ability to create a hard copy report. Usually, this report is in
tabular format showing 1 minute, 5 minute or hourly averages. Monitoring organization are encouraged
to keep hard copy printouts for several reasons:
• they can be reviewed by the station operators prior to and/or during site visits to ascertain the
quality of the data;
• they can be compared against the historical data stored on the DAS at the site for validation;
• notes can be made on the hard copy reports for later review by data review staff; and
• they create a "back-up" to the electronically based data.
NOTE: It is strongly recommended that monitoring organizations create an electronic back-up
of their data on a defined schedule. The frequency of the back-ups and any other associated
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 14.0
Revision: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 8 of 14
information should be reflected in their Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) and Standard
Operating Procedures (SOP).
External Storage- This term refers to storing and transferring the data on diskettes or CD. Many new
generation DAS are computer platforms. The newer generation computers generally have the ability to
download data to CD or zip drive. If remote access via telephone is not an option, then data can be hand
transferred to a central office for downloading and data review.
Digital Transfer- All new generation DAS allow access to the computer via the telephone and modem.
These systems allow fast and effective ways to download data to a central location. The EPA
recommends using these systems for the following reasons:
• in case of malfunction of an ambient instrument, the appropriate staff at the central location can
begin to diagnose problems and decide a course of action;
• down loading the data allows the station operators, data processing team, and/or data validators to
get a head start on reviewing the data; and
• when pollution levels are high or forecasted to be high, digital transfer allows the pollution
forecaster the ability to remotely check trends and ensure proper operation of instruments prior to
and during an event.
14.1.5 DAS Data Review
The data review is an ongoing process that is performed by the station operators (SO) and the data
processing team (DP). At a minimum a cursory review is performed daily, preferably in the morning to
provide a status of the data and instrument performance at monitoring sites. Detailed analysis can be
extremely difficult for the data processing team when reviewing the raw data without the notations, notes
and calibration information that the station operators provide for the group. The typical review process
for the station operator and data reviewer(s) include:
• (SO) Review of zero, span, one point QC verification information, the hourly data, and any flags
that could effect data and record any information on the daily summaries that might be vital to
proper review of the data.
• (SO) Transfer strip charts both analog and digital information, daily summaries, monthly
maintenance sheets, graphic displays of meta data and site log notes to the central location for a
secondary and more thorough review.
• (SO) At the central location, review the data, marking any notations of invalidations and provide
electronic strip charts, meta data charts, daily summaries, site notes, and monthly maintenance
sheets for ready access by the data processing staff.
• (DP) Review zero, span and one point QC verifications, station notes, and monthly maintenance
sheets for the month; check a percentage of all zero, span and one point verifications. Compare a
defined number of hand reduced and/or strip chart readings to electronic data points generated by
the DAS. If significant differences are observed, determine what corrective action steps are
required.
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 14.0
Revision: 1
Date: 12/08
i9 of 14
Outliers
Outliers are "measurements that are extremely large or small relative to the rest of the data and are
suspected of misrepresenting the population from which they were collected" (EPAQA/G9R)6. When
reviewing data, some potential outliers will be obvious such as, spikes in concentrations, data remaining
the same for hours, or a sudden drop in concentration but still in the normal range of observed data. Many
of these outlier checks can be automated and provide efficient real-time checks of data. Outliers do not
necessarily indicate the data is invalid; they serve to alert the station operator and/or data reviewers there
may be a problem. In fact, the rule of thumb for outliers should be that the data be considered valid until
there is an explanation for why the data should be invalidated. At some point it may be necessary to
exclude outliers from instantaneous reporting to the AIRNow network and/or AQI reporting until further
investigation has occurred. EPA Guidance Documents7 Guidance on Environmental Data Verification
and Validation (EPA QA/G8) and Guidance for Data Quality Assessment - a Reviewers Guide (EPA
QA/G9R) provide insight on outlier and data reviews in general.
14.2 Data Transfer - Public Reporting
The area of public reporting for air monitoring data may provide the largest number of users of data. This
area has been growing rapidly in the last few years as a result of the increased availability of air quality
reporting, especially for ozone and PM2 5. For public reporting of the AQI, the AIRNow web site will
remain the EPA's primary medium for distribution of air monitoring data. The additional continuous
monitoring parameters collected from NCore will also be reported to AIRNow. These parameters are
expected to be made publicly available for sharing throughout technical user communities. However,
they are not expected to be widely distributed through AIRNow as products for public consumption.
This section will discuss the transfer of data from the monitoring organization to two major data
repositories: 1) AIRNow for near real-time reporting of monitoring data, and 2) AQS for long term
storage of validated data.
14.2.1 Real-time Data Reporting for AIRNow and NCore
One of the most important emerging uses of ambient monitoring data has been public reporting of the Air
Quality Index (AQI). This effort has expanded on EPA's AIRNow web site from regionally-based near
real-time ozone mapping products color coded to the AQI, to a national multi-pollutant mapping,
forecasting, and data handling system of real-time data. Since ozone and PM2 5 drive the highest
reporting of the AQI in most areas, these two pollutants are the only two parameters currently publicly
reported from AIRNow. While other pollutants such as CO, SO2, NO2, and PMi0 may not drive the AQI,
they are still important for forecasters and other data users to understand for model evaluation and
tracking of air pollution episodes. Therefore, the NAAMS seeks the following goals:
• Share all continuous O3, PM25 and PMi0 data, where available, across the nation;
• For NCore sites, share all gaseous CO, SO2, NO and NOy data and base meteorological
measurements across the nation.
6 http://www.epa.gov/qualiryl/qs-docs/g9r-final.pdf
7 http://www.epa.gov/qualitv 1/qa docs.html
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 14.0
Revision: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 10 of 14
This program allows for short term non-validated data to be collected by a centrally located computer that
displays the data in near real time data formats such as tables and contour maps. In addition, EPA, in
conjunction with the monitoring organizations, developed the National Ambient Air Monitoring Strategy
(NAAMS) which includes the development of the NCore network. This section will discuss the needs of
real time data acquisition for the deployment of AIRNow and the NAAMS.
Reporting Intervals
Currently, hourly averages are the reporting interval for continuous particulate and gaseous data. These
are the reporting intervals for both AQS (AQS supports a variety of reporting intervals) and to AIRNow
for AQI purposes. These reporting intervals will meet most of the multiple objectives of NCore for
supporting health effects studies, AQI reporting, trends, NAAQS attainment decisions, and accountability
of control strategies. However, with these objectives also comes the desire for data at finer time
resolutions: 5 minute averages for gaseous pollutants and sub-hourly averages for certain particulate
matter monitors. Examples of this need for finer time resolution of data include, but are not limited to:
tracking air pollution episodes, providing data for exposure studies, model evaluation, and evaluating
shorter averaging periods for potential changes to the NAAQS. Monitoring organizations generally have
the hardware and software necessary to log and report this data. The challenge to obtaining and reporting
the data is the current communication packages used, such as conventional telephone modem polling. One
widely available solution to this would be the use of internet connectivity, allowing data at individual
monitoring sites to be pushed to a central server rather than being polled. Monitoring organizations
should begin to investigate the possibilities of using this media.
With this generation of data having a shorter averaging interval, the challenge becomes validation of all
the data. The historical perception has been that each criteria pollutant measurement needs to be verified
and validated manually. With the amount of data generated, this would be a time-consuming task. To
provide a nationally consistent approach for the reporting interval of data, the NCore networks will take a
tiered approach to data reporting. At the top tier, hourly data intervals will remain the standard for data
reporting. Long term, the NCore networks will be capable of providing at least 5 minute intervals for
those methods that have acceptable data quality at those averaging periods. For QA/QC purposes such as
zero/span and one-point QC, monitoring organizations should be capable of assessing data on at least a 1-
minute interval.
With instantaneous data going to external websites, monitoring organizations operating their own
websites containing the same local and/or regional data should add a statement about the quality of data
being displayed at the site. This cautionary statement will notify the public that posted data has not been
fully quality assured and discrepancies may occur. For an example, the AIRNow Website makes the
statement
"Although some preliminary data quality assessments are performed, the data as such are
not fully verified and validated through the quality assurance procedures monitoring
organizations use to officially submit and certify data on the EPA AQS(Air Quality
System). Therefore, data are used on the AIRNow Web site only for the purpose of
reporting the AQI. Information on the AIRNow web site is not used to formulate or
support regulation, guidance or any other Agency decision or position. "
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 14.0
Revision: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 11 of 14
14.2.2 Reporting Frequency and Lag Time for Reporting Data
Continuous monitoring data that are being shared in near real-time from NCore monitoring stations are to
be reported each hour. Data should be reported as soon as practical after the end of each hour. For the
near term, the goal is to report data within twenty minutes past the end of each hour. This will provide
enough time for data processing and additional validation at the Data Management Center (DMC);
generation of reports and maps; distribution of those products to a variety of stakeholders and web sites;
and still allow enough time for staff review before the end of the hour. This is an important goal to
support reporting of air pollution episodes on news media programs by the top of the hour. The long term
goal is to report all data within five minutes after the end of an hour. This will further enhance NCore's
ability to deliver timely data within a reasonable time period that takes advantage of existing
commercially available technology.
14.3 Data Transfer-Reporting to External Data Bases
Today, the need for the ambient air monitoring data reaches outside the monitoring community. In
addition to the traditional needs of the data, determination of NAAQS compliance and the daily AQI
report, a health researcher or modeler may want a very detailed accounting of the available data in the
shortest time intervals possible. Atmospheric scientists typically desire data in a relatively unprocessed
yet comprehensive form with adequate descriptions (meta data) to allow for further processing for
comparability to other data sets. These needs increase the demands for the data and require multiple
reports of the information.
14.3.1 AQS Reporting
All ambient air monitoring data will eventually be transferred and stored in AQS. The current system,
implemented in early 2002, has much more functionality than the previous main-frame system. As stated
in 40 CFR Part 58.16s, the monitoring organization shall report all ambient air monitoring and associated
quality assurance data and information specified by the AQS Users Guide into the AQS format. The data
is to be submitted electronically and on a specified quarterly basis. Since changes in reporting
requirement occur, monitoring organization should review CFR for the specifics of this requirement.
The AQS manuals are located at the AQS Website9. This site contains the old AIRS/AQS manuals as
well as the new AQS Manuals. The AQS Data Coding Manual replaces the previous Volume II and
provides coding instructions, edits performed, and system error messages. The AQS User Guide replaces
the former Volume III and describes the procedures for data entry. Both manuals will be updated as
needed and the new versions will be available at the web site. Table 14-1 provides the units and the
number of decimal places that, at a minimum, are required for reporting to AQS for the criteria pollutants.
These decimal places are used for comparison to the NAAQS and are displayed in AQS summary reports.
However, monitoring organizations can report data up to 5 values to the right of the decimal (beyond five
AQS will truncate). Within the five values to the right of the decimal place, AQS will round to the
minimum displayed in Table 14-1. Reported values will remain in raw data files.
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html
9 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/manuals/
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 14.0
Revision: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 12 of 14
Table 14-1 AQS Data Reporting Requirements
Pollutant
PM25
PM10
PMiQ-2.5
Lead
SO2
N02
CO
03
PAMS (VOCs)
Decimal Places
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
3
2
Example
10.2
26.2
10.2
1.5
0.03
0.053
2.0
0.108
6.23
Units
fig/m3
[ig/m3
^g/m3
jug/m3
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppb-carbon
14.3.2 Standard Format for Reporting to AQS
AQS allows flexibility in reporting formats. The formats previously used by AQS can be used for raw
data (hourly, daily, or composite) and for reporting precision and bias data. The system also has new
report formats for this data as well as formats for registering new sites and monitors. These new formats
are defined in the AQS Data Coding Manual. Work is also in progress to define an Extensible Markup
Language (XML) schema for AQS to allow for that reporting format as well. Use of XML as a data
format is consistent with EPA and Federal guidelines towards better data integration and sharing.
14.3.3 Annual Certification of Data
The annual data certification is also stored in AQS. The monitoring organization is required to certify the
data (by formal letter) for a calendar year (Jan 1-Dec 31) by July 1 through the year 2009. Beginning in
2010 the annual data certification letter is due by May 1. See 40 CFR Part 5 8.15 for details. This
certification requires the monitoring organization to review the air quality data and precision/bias data for
completeness and validity and to submit a certification letter to the Regional Office. The certification
letter and accompanying reports are reviewed and if the results of the review are consistent with the
criteria for certification, the certification flag is set in the AQS database. After certification is complete,
any updates to the data will cause the critical review process to identify that the certified data has been
changed and the certification flag will be dropped.
14.3.4 Summary of Desired Performance for Information Transfer Systems
To define the needed performance criteria of a state-of-the art information technology system, a table of
needs has been developed. This table provides performance needs for an optimal information technology
system, but is not intended to address what the individual components should look like. For instance,
once low level validated data for a specific time period are ready to leave the monitoring station, a
number of telemetry systems may actually accomplish moving those data. By identifying the needed
performance criteria of moving data, rather than the actual system to move it, monitoring organizations
may be free to identify the most optimal system for their network. Table 14-2 summarizes the
performance elements of the data management systems used to log, transfer, validate, and report data
from NCore ambient air monitoring stations.
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 14.0
Revision: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 13 of 14
Table 14-2 NCore (Level 2 and 3) Information Technology Performance Needs
Performance Element
Sample Periods
Data Delivery
Low Level Validation
Data Availability
Types of monitoring data to
disseminate-externally
Additional data for internal
tracking
Relevant site information
Remote calibration
Reviewing calibration
Initialization of manual collection
method
Reporting Format
Performance Criteria
5 minutes (long term goal), and 1 hour data
(current standard)
Near Term goal - Within 20 minutes nationally
each hour
Long term goal - Within 5 minutes nationally
each hour
- Last automated zero and QC check acceptable
- Range check acceptable
- Shelter parameters acceptable
-Instrument parameters acceptable
- all QC data, operator notes, calibrations, and
pollutant data within network
- Low level validated pollutant data externally
-continuous and semi-continuous pollutant data
-accompanying meteorological data
Status of ancillary equipment such as shelter
temperature, power surges, zero air system,
calibration system
Latitude, longitude, altitude, land use category,
scale of representativeness, pictures and map of
area
Ability to initiate automated calibrations on
regular schedule or as needed
- allow for 1 minute data as part of electronic
calibration log
Need to be able to remotely initiate these or have
them set at an action level from a specific
monitor
Short Term - Maintain "Obs" file format and pipe
delimited formats for AIRNow and AQS
reporting, respectively
Near Term -XML
Notes
5 minutes and 1 hour data to support exposure,
mapping and modeling. 1 hour data for Air Quality
Index reporting and NAAQS.
Sample period may need to be higher for certain
pollutant measurement systems depending on
method sample period and measurement precision
when averaging small time periods.
As monitoring organizations migrate to new
telemetry systems the goal will be to report data
within 5 minutes. This should be easily obtained
with broadband pushing of data to a central server.
Other validation should be applied as available:
- site to site checks
- rate of change
-lack of change.
Create log of all monitoring related activities
internally. Allow only validated data to leave
monitoring organization network.
Associated manual method supporting data (for
instance FRM ambient Temperature) should be
collected but not reported externally.
Other site information may be necessary.
Need to coordinate development of XML schema
with multiple stakeholders. XML is an open
format that will be able to be read by most
applications.
14.4 Data Management
Managing the data collected is just as important as correctly collecting the data. The amount of data
collected will continue to grow based on the needs of the data users. Previous sections have confirmed
this statement providing a glimpse of the potential data users and the uses. Generally, data is to be
retained for a period of 3 years from the date the grantee submits its final expenditure report unless
otherwise noted in the funding agreement. Refer to 40 CFR Part 31.42. With electronic records and
electronic media, this information can be stored and managed with less use of space than with the
conventional paper records. However, even with today's technology there will be some paper records and
those need to be managed in an orderly manner. The manner in which a monitoring organization manages
its data is documented in its QMP and QAPP.
All information collected in any ambient air monitoring program should be organized in a logical and
systematic manner. There is no one best way to organize a system. How a monitoring organization
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 14.0
Revision: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 14 of 14
organizes its information is required to be discussed in its QMP (QA/R-2)10 and QAPP (QA/R-5)11.
Monitoring organizations should consult EPA's records management webpage12 for other useful
information when beginning to plan or revise how its data records are stored.
This information should be reviewed not only by those in a monitoring organization responsible for
overall data management but also by the monitoring organization's Systems or Network Administrator.
The latter person(s) can provide helpful information in designing the overall data management system
according to today's industry standards. Remember, the data has to be of known quality, reliable and
defensible. In order for monitoring organizations to continue to meet those objectives, many sources of
information need to be reviewed.
Section 5 presented guidance on documentation and records. This information can be helpful in managing
ambient air monitoring data. In addition, the EPA Office of Environmental Information (OEI) has a
website13 that provides information management policies and guidance. As an example the document
Good Automated Laboratory Practices, described earlier in this document, is posted on the OEI website
and can be very useful in developing information management systems.
10 http://www.epa.gov/qualiryl/qs-docs/r2-fmal.pdf
11 http://www.epa.gov/qualirvl/qs-docs/r5-final.pdf
12 http://www.epa.gov/records/
13 http://www.epa.gov/irmpoli8/policies.htm
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 15.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 1 of 14
15.0 Assessment and Corrective Action
An assessment is an evaluation process used to measure the performance or effectiveness of a system and
its elements. It is an all-inclusive term used to denote any of the following: audit, performance
evaluation, management systems review, peer review, inspection and surveillance. For the Ambient Air
Quality Monitoring Program, the following assessments will be discussed: network reviews, performance
evaluations, technical systems audits and data quality assessments.
15.1 Network Reviews
Beginning July 2007, the State, or where applicable, local monitoring organizations shall adopt and
submit to the Regional Administrator an annual monitoring network plan which shall provide for the
establishment and maintenance of an air quality surveillance system that consists of a network of SLAMS
monitoring stations including FRM, FEM, and ARM monitors that are part of SLAMS, NCore stations,
STN stations, State speciation stations, SPM stations, and/or, in serious, severe and extreme ozone
nonattainment areas, PAMS stations, and SPM stations. The plan shall include a statement of purposes for
each monitor and evidence that siting and operation of each monitor meets the requirements of
appendices A, C, D, and E of Part 58, where applicable. The annual monitoring network plan must be
made available for public inspection for at least 30 days prior to submission to EPA. The AMTIC
Website has a page1 devoted to the progress and adherence to this requirement. This page contains links
to State and local ambient air monitoring plans.
In addition to an annual network plan, starting in 2010, the State, or where applicable local, monitoring
organization shall perform and submit to the EPA Regional Administrator an assessment of the air quality
surveillance system every 5 years to determine, at a minimum, if the network meets the monitoring
objectives defined in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix D, whether new sites are needed, whether existing sites
are no longer needed and can be terminated, and whether new technologies are appropriate for
incorporation into the ambient air monitoring network. The network assessment must consider the ability
of existing and proposed sites to support air quality characterization for areas with relatively high
populations of susceptible individuals (e.g., children with asthma), and, for any sites that are being
proposed for discontinuance, the effect on data users other than the monitoring organization itself, such as
nearby States and Tribes or health effects studies. For PM2 5, the assessment also must identify needed
changes to population-oriented sites. The State, or where applicable, local monitoring organization must
submit a copy of this 5-year assessment, along with a revised annual network plan, to the Regional
Administrator.
Conformance with network requirements of the Ambient Air Monitoring Network set forth in 40 CFR
Part 58, Appendices D and E are determined through annual network reviews of the ambient air quality
monitoring system. The annual review of the network is used to determine how well the network is
achieving its required monitoring objectives and how it should be modified to continue to meet its
objectives. Most network reviews are accomplished by the EPA Regional Office, however, the following
information can be useful to State and local organizations to prepare for reviews or assess their networks.
In order to maintain consistency in implementing and collecting information from a network review, EPA
has developed SLAMS/PAMS Network Review Guidance. The information presented in this section
provides some excerpts from this guidance document.
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/plans.html
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 15.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 2 of 14
15.1.1 Network Selection
Due to the resource-intensive nature of network reviews, it may be necessary to prioritize monitoring
organizations and/or pollutants to be reviewed. The following criteria may be used to select networks:
• date of last review;
• areas where attainment/nonattainment designations are taking place or are likely to take place;
• results of special studies, saturation sampling, point source oriented ambient monitoring, etc.; and
• monitoring organizations which have proposed network modifications since the last network
review.
In addition, pollutant-specific priorities may be considered (e.g., newly designated ozone nonattainment
areas, PMi0 "problem areas", etc.). Once the monitoring organizations have been selected for review,
significant data and information pertaining to the review should be compiled and evaluated. Such
information might include the following:
• network files for the selected monitoring organization (including updated site information and site
photographs);
• AQS reports (AMP220, 225, 255, 380, 390, 450);
• air quality summaries for the past five years for the monitors in the network;
• emissions trends reports for major metropolitan areas;
• emission information, such as emission density maps for the region in which the monitor is
located and emission maps showing the major sources of emissions; and
• National Weather Service summaries for monitoring network area.
Upon receiving the information, it should be checked to ensure it was the latest revision and for
consistency. Discrepancies should be noted on the checklist (Appendix H) and resolved with the
monitoring organization during the review. Files and/or photographs that need to be updated should also
be identified.
15.1.2 Conformance to 40 CFR Part 58 Appendix D- Network Design Requirements
With regard to 40 CFR Part 58 Appendix D requirements, the network reviewer must determine the
adequacy of the network in terms of number and location of monitors: specifically, (1) is the monitoring
organization meeting the number of monitors required by the design criteria requirements; and (2) are the
monitors properly located, based on the monitoring objectives and spatial scales of representativeness?
Number of Monitors
For SLAMS, the minimum number of monitors required is specified in the regulations for ozone, PMi0,
PM 25, and PAMS. The other criteria pollutants do not have minimum requirements and is determined by
the Regional Office and the monitoring organizations on a case-by-case basis to meet the monitoring
objectives specified in Appendix D. Adequacy of the network may be determined by using a variety of
tools, including the following:
• maps of historical monitoring data;
• maps of emission densities;
• dispersion modeling;
• special studies/saturation sampling;
• best professional judgment;
• SIP requirements; and
• revised monitoring strategies (e.g., lead strategy, reengineering air monitoring network).
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 15.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 3 of 14
Location of Monitors
For the ozone, PMi0, and PM 2.s SLAMS sites, Appendix D does provide general locations of sites in
regards to NAAQS related concentrations. For other criteria pollutants the location of monitors is not
specified in the regulations, but is determined by the Regional Office and State monitoring organizations
on a case-by-case basis to meet the monitoring objectives specified in Appendix D. Adequacy of the
location of monitors can only be determined on the basis of stated objectives. Maps, graphical overlays,
and GIS-based information can be extremely helpful in visualizing or assessing the adequacy of monitor
locations. Plots of potential emissions and/or historical monitoring data versus monitor locations are
especially useful.
For PAMS, there is considerable flexibility when locating each PAMS within a nonattainment area or
transport region. The three fundamental criteria which need to be considered when locating a final PAMS
site are: (1) sector analysis - the site needs to be located in the appropriate downwind (or upwind) sector
(approximately 45°) using appropriate wind directions; (2) distance - the sites should be located at
distances appropriate to obtain a representative sample of the areas precursor emissions and represent the
appropriate monitoring scale; and (3) proximate sources.
15.1.3 Conformance to 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix E - Probe Siting Requirements
Applicable siting criteria for SLAMS, and PAMS are specified in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix E. The on-
site visit itself consists of the physical measurements and observations needed to determine compliance
with the Appendix E requirements, such as height above ground level, distance from trees, paved or
vegetative ground cover, etc. Prior to the site visit, the reviewer should obtain and review the following:
• most recent hard copy of site description (including any photographs)
• data on the seasons with the greatest potential for high concentrations for specified pollutants
• predominant wind direction by season
The checklist provided in Appendix H of this Handbook is also intended to assist the reviewer in
determining conformance with Appendix E. In addition to the items on the checklist, the reviewer should
also do the following:
• ensure that the manifold and inlet probes are clean
• estimate probe and manifold inside diameters and lengths
• inspect the shelter for weather leaks, safety, and security
• check equipment for missing parts, frayed cords, etc.
• check that monitor exhausts are not likely to be introduced back to the inlet
• record findings in field notebook and/or checklist
• take photographs/videotape in the 8 directions
• document site conditions, with additional photographs/videotape
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 15.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 4 of 14
15.1.4 Checklists and Other Discussion Topics
Checklists are provided in Appendix H to assist network reviewers (SLAMS and PAMS) in conducting
the review. In addition to the items included in the checklists, other subjects for possible discussion as
part of the network review and overall adequacy of the monitoring program include:
• installation of new monitors;
• relocation of existing monitors;
• siting criteria problems and suggested solutions;
• problems with data submittals and data completeness;
• maintenance and replacement of existing monitors and related equipment;
• quality assurance problems;
• air quality studies and special monitoring programs; and
• other issues (proposed regulations/funding).
15.1.5 Summary of Findings
Upon completion of the network review, a written network evaluation should be prepared. The
evaluation should include any deficiencies identified in the review, corrective actions needed to address
the deficiencies, and a schedule for implementing the corrective actions. The kinds of
discrepancies/deficiencies to be identified in the evaluation include discrepancies between the monitoring
organization network description and the AQS network description; and deficiencies in the number,
location, and/or type of monitors.
15.2 Performance Evaluations
Performance evaluations (PEs) are a type of audit in which the
quantitative data generated in a measurement system are obtained
independently and compared with routinely obtained data to
evaluate the proficiency of an analyst, or a laboratory2. The
National Performance Evaluation Programs:
• Allow one to determine data comparability and usability
across sites, monitoring networks (Tribes, States, and
geographic regions), instruments and laboratories.
• Provide a level of confidence that monitoring systems are
operating within an acceptable level of data quality so data
users can make decisions with acceptable levels of certainty.
• Help verify the precision and bias estimates performed by
monitoring organizations.
• Identify where improvements (technology/training) are
needed.
• Assure the public of non-biased assessments of data quality.
NPAP through the probe audit
PEP Audit
2 American National Standard-Quality Systems for Environmental Data and Technology Programs-Requirements
with Guidance for Use (ANSI/ASQC E4-2004)
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 15.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 5 of 14
• Provide a quantitative mechanism to defend the quality of data.
• Provide information to monitoring organizations on how they compare with the rest of the nation,
in relation to the acceptance limits and to assist in corrective actions and/or data improvements.
Some type of national PE program is implemented for all of the ambient air monitoring activities. Table
15-1 provides more information on these activities. It is important that these performance evaluations be
independent in order to ensure they are non-biased and objective. With the passage of the Data Quality
Act3, there is potential for EPA to receive challenges to the quality of the ambient air data. Independent
audits help provide another piece of objective evidence on the quality of a monitoring organizations data
and can help EPA defend the quality of the data.
Table 15-1 National Performance Evaluation Activities Performed by EPA
Program/
Lead Agency
NPAP
OAQPS
PM2.5 PM10j.5 PEP
OAQPS
NATTS PT
OAQPS
SRP
ORIA-LV
PAMS Cylinder
Certs
ORIA LV
STN/IMPROVE
Round Robins PTs
and Audits
ORIA-AL
Protocol Gas
OAQPS
Explanation
National Performance Audit Program provides audit standards for the gaseous pollutants either as devices that the site
operator connects to the back of the instrument or through the probe in which case the audits are conducted by
presenting audit gases through the probe inlet of ambient air monitoring stations. Flow audit devices and lead strips are
also provided through NPAP. NPAP audits are required at 20% of a primary quality assurance organizations sites each
year with a goal of auditing all sites in 5-7 years.
Performance Evaluation Program. The strategy is to collocate a portable FRM PM2.5 or PMio-2.5 air sampling audit
instrument with an established primary sampler at a routine air monitoring site, operate both samplers in the same
manner, and then compare the results. Each year five PEP audits are required for primary quality assurance
organizations (PQAOs) with less than or equal to 5 monitoring sites or eight audits are required for PQAOs with greater
than five sites. These audits are not required for PMio
A National Air Toxics Trend Sites (NATTS) proficiency test (PT) is a type of assessment in which a sample, the
composition of which is unknown to the analyst, is provided to test whether the analyst/laboratory can produce
analytical results within the specified acceptance criteria. PTs for volatile organic carbons (VOCs), carbonyls and
metals are performed quarterly for the —22 NATTS laboratories
The Standard Reference Photometer (SRP) Program provides a mechanism to establish traceability among the ozone
standards used by monitoring organizations with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Every year
NIST certifies an EPA SRP. Upon certification, this SRP is shipped to the EPA Regions who use this SRP to certify the
SRP that remains stationary in the Regional Lab. These stationary SRPs are then used to certify the ozone transfer
standards that are used by the State, Local and Tribal monitoring organizations who bring their transfer standards to the
Regional SRP for certification.
EPA developed a system to certify the standards used by the monitoring organizations to calibrate their PAMS
analytical systems. The standards are sent to the EPA Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA-LV) who perform an
independent analysis/certification of the cylinders. This analysis is compared to the vendor concentrations to determine
if they are within the contractually required acceptance tolerance.
PM2.5 Speciation Trends Network (STN) and IMPROVE Round Robins are a type of performance evaluation where the
audit samples are developed in ambient air; therefore, the true concentration is unknown. The Office of Indoor Air and
Radiation (ORIA) in Montgomery, AL) implement these audits for the STN/IMPROVE programs and for the PEP
weighing laboratories. The audit is performed by collecting samples over multiple days and from multiple samplers.
These representative samples are then characterized by the ORIA lab and sent to the routine sample laboratories for
analysis. Since the true concentrations are unknown, the reported concentrations are reviewed to determine general
agreement among the laboratories. In addition ORIA implements technical systems audits of IMPROVE and STN
laboratories
EPA Protocol Gases are used in quality control activities (i.e., calibrations, audits etc.) to ensure the quality of data
derived from ambient air monitors used by every State in the country. EPA developed the Protocol Gas Program to
allow standards sold by specialty gas producers to be considered traceable to NIST standards. This program was
discontinued in 1998. In 2002, there was interest by the gas vendors and EPA to reestablish this program. The program
is presently (as of 2008) undergoing re-structuring.
Although Table 15-1 lists seven performance evaluation programs operating at the federal level, the
NPAP and PEP Programs will be discussed in more detail. Additional information on both programs can
be found on the AMTIC Website4. The October 17, 2006 monitoring rule identified the monitoring
organizations as responsible for ensuring the implementation of these audits5. Monitoring organizations
seewww.eenews.net/Greenwire/Backissues/081604/08160403.htm
4 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/npepqa.html
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/40cfr53.html-Final - Revisions to Ambient Air Monitoring Regulations.
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 15.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 6 of 14
can either implement the program itself or continue to participate in the federally implemented program.
This choice is provided to the monitoring organization on an annual basis through a memo from OAQPS
through the EPA Regions. In order for monitoring organization to self-implement the program they must
meet criteria related to the adequacy of the audit (number of audits and how it is accomplished) as well as
meet independence requirements (see Figure 15.1).
15.2.1 National Performance Audit Program6
Monitoring organizations operating SLAMS/PAMS/PSD are required to participate in the National
Performance Evaluation Programs by providing adequate and independent audits for its monitors as per
Section 2.4 of 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix. One way of providing the audits is to participate in the NPAP
program either through self-implementation or federal implementation.
The NPAP is a cooperative effort among OAQPS, the 10 EPA Regional Offices, and the monitoring
organizations that operate the SLAMS/PAMS/PSD air pollution monitors. The NPAP's goal is to provide
audit materials and devices that will enable EPA to assess the proficiency of monitoring organizations
that are operating monitors in the SLAMS/PAMS/PSD networks. To accomplish this, the NPAP has
established acceptable limits or performance criteria, based on the data quality needs of the networks, for
each of the audit materials and devices used in the NPAP.
All audit devices and materials used in the NPAP are certified as to their true value, and that certification
is traceable to a National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) standard material or device
wherever possible. The audit materials used in the NPAP are as representative and comparable as
possible to the calibration materials and actual air samples used and/or collected in the
SLAMS/PAMS/PSD networks. The audit material/gas cylinder ranges used in the NPAP are specified in
the Federal Register.
Initially the NPAP system was a mailable system where standards and gasses were mailed to monitoring
organizations for implementation. In 2003, OAQPS started instituting a through the probe audit system
where mobile laboratories are sent to monitoring sites and audit gasses are delivered through the inlet
probe of the analyzers. The goal of the NPAP audit is:
• Performing audits at 20 percent of monitoring sites per year, and 100% in 5-7 years.
• Data submission to AQS.
• Development of a delivery system that will allow for the audit concentration gasses to be
introduced to the probe inlet where logistically feasible.
• Use of audit gases that are NIST certified and validated at least once a year for CO, SO2, and
NO2.
• Validation/certification with the EPA NPAP program through collocated auditing, at an
acceptable number of sites each year. The comparison tests would have to be no greater than 5
percent different from the EPA NPAP results.
• Incorporation of NPAP in the monitoring organization's quality assurance project plan (if self
implementing).
Table 15-2 lists the acceptance limits of the NPAP audits.
6 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/npapgen.html
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 15.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 7 of 14
Table 15-2 NPAP Acceptance Criteria
Audit
High volume/PM10 (SSI)
Dichot (PM10)
Pb (analytical)
SO2, NO2, and CO
03
PAMS
Volatile Organic Compounds
Carbonyls
EPA determined limits
% difference <15% for 1 or more flows
% difference <15% for 1 or more flows
% difference <15% for 1 or more levels
Mean absolute % difference < 15%
Mean absolute % difference < 10%
Compound Specific
Compound and level specific
15.2.2 PM2.5 and PMi0-2.s Performance Evaluation Program (PEP)
The Performance Evaluation Program7 is a quality assurance activity which will be used to evaluate
measurement system bias of the PM2 5 and the PMi0_2 5 monitoring networks. The pertinent regulations
for this performance audit are found in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix A. The strategy is to collocate a
portable PEP instrument with an established routine air monitoring site, operate both monitors in exactly
the same manner and then compare the results of this instrument against the routine sampler at the site.
For primary quality assurance organizations with less than or equal to five monitoring sites, five valid
performance evaluation audits must be collected and reported each year. For primary quality assurance
organizations with greater than five monitoring sites, eight valid performance evaluation audits must be
collected and reported each year. A valid performance evaluation audit means that both the primary
monitor and PEP audit
concentrations are valid and
above 3 ug/m3. Additionally,
each year, every designated
FRM or FEM within a
primary quality assurance
organization must: (1) have
each method designation
evaluated each year; and, (2)
have all FRM or FEM
samplers subject to a PEP
audit at least once every six
years; which equates to
approximately 15 percent of
the monitoring sites audited
each year.
Since performance
evaluations are independent
assessments, Figure 15.1 was
developed to define
independence for the FRM
performance evaluation to
allow monitoring
organizations to implement
this activity.
Independent assessment - an assessment performed by a qualified individual, group, or
organization that is not part of the organization directly performing and accountable for
the work being assessed. This auditing organization must not be involved with the
generation of the routine ambient air monitoring data. An organization can conduct the
PEP if it can meet the above definition and has a management structure that, at a
minimum, will allow for the separation of its routine sampling personnel from its
auditing personnel by two levels of management, as illustrated in the figure below. In
addition, the pre and post weighing of audit filters must be performed by separate
laboratory facility using separate laboratory equipment. Field and laboratory personnel
would be required to meet the FRM Performance Audit field and laboratory training and
certification requirements. The State and local organizations are also asked to consider
participating in the centralized field and laboratory standards certification process.
Figure 15.1 Definition of independent assessment
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/pmpep.html
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 15.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 8 of 14
Since the regulations define the performance evaluations as an NPAP like activity, EPA has made
arrangements to implement this audit. Monitoring organizations can determine, on a yearly basis, to
utilize federal implementation by directing their appropriate percentage of grant resources back to the
OAQPS or implement the audit themselves. The following activities will be established for federal PEP
implementation:
• field personnel assigned to each EPA Region, the hours based upon the number of required audits
in the Region; and
• one national laboratory in Region 4 will serve as a national weighing lab and will include data
submittaltoAQS.
All documentation including the PEP Implementation Plan, QAPP, Field and Laboratory SOPs, and
reports can be found on the AMTIC Bulletin Board at the PEP Website8.
Send ISA Questionnaire
request fa* preliminary
support material
15.2.3 State and Local Organization
Performance Audits
Any of the performance evaluation activities
mentioned in this section can be performed
internally by the monitoring organizations. If
the monitoring organization intends to self-
implement NPAP or PEP then they will be
required to meet the adequacy and
independence criteria mentioned in earlier
sections. Since a monitoring organization may
want more audits then can be supplied by the
NPAP and PEP, it may decide to "augment"
the federally implemented programs with
additional performance audits. These audits
can be tailored to the needs of the monitoring
organization and do not necessarily need to
follow NPAP and PEP adequacy and
independence requirements. Some information
on the procedures for this audit can be found
in Appendix H.
15.3 Technical Systems Audits
A systems audit is an on-site review and
inspection of a monitoring organization's
ambient air monitoring program to assess its
compliance with established regulations
governing the collection, analysis, validation,
and reporting of ambient air quality data. A systems audit of each monitoring organization within an EPA
Region is performed every three years by a member of the Regional Quality Assurance (QA) staff.
Review material and discuss
With PQAO QA Officer
Develop checklist of points
fee discussion
Finalize travel plans with
Information provided by PQAO
Contact PQAO to set specific
interview and site inspection time
Figure 15.2 Pre-audit activities
1 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/pmpep.html
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 15.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 9 of 14
Detailed discussions of the audits performed by the EPA and the State and local organizations are found
in Appendix H; the information presented in this section provides general guidance for conducting
technical systems audits. A systems audit should consist of three separate phases:
• Pre-audit activities.
• On-site audit activities.
• Post-audit activities.
Summary activity flow diagrams have been included as Figures 15.2, 15.3 and 15.5, respectively. The
reader may find it useful to refer to these diagrams while reading this guidance.
15.3.1 Pre-Audit Activities
At the beginning of each fiscal year, the audit lead or a designated member of the audit team should
establish a tentative schedule for on-site systems audits of the monitoring organizations within their
Region. It is suggested that the audit lead develop an audit plan. This plan should address the
elements listed in Table 15-3. The audit plan is not a major undertaking and in most cases will be a
one page table or report. However, the document represents thoughtful and conscious planning for an
efficient and successful audit. The audit plan should be made available to the organization audited,
with adequate lead time to ensure that appropriate personnel and documents are available for the
audit. Three months prior to the audit, the audit lead should contact the quality assurance officer
(QAO) of the organization to be audited to coordinate specific dates and schedules for the on-site
audit visit. During this initial contact, the audit lead should arrange a tentative schedule for meetings
with key personnel as well as for inspection of selected ambient air quality monitoring and
measurement operations. At the same time, a schedule should be set for the exit interview used to
debrief the monitoring organization director or his/her designee, on the systems audit outcome. As
part of this scheduling, the audit lead should indicate any special requirements such as access to
specific areas or activities. The audit lead should inform the monitoring organization QAO that the
QAO will receive a questionnaire, which is to be reviewed and completed.
Table 15-3 Suggested Elements of an Audit Plan
Audit Title -
Audit it-
Scope -
Purpose -
Standards -
Audit team -
Auditees -
Documents -
Timeline -
Official title of audit that will be used on checksheets and reports
Year and number of audit can be combined; 08-1, 08-2 Date of audit
Establishes the boundary of the audit and identifies the groups and activities to be evaluated.
The scope can vary from general overview, total system, to part of system, which will
determine the length of the audit.
What the audit should achieve
Standards are criteria against which performance is evaluated. These standards must be clear
and concise and should be used consistently when auditing similar facilities or procedures. The
use of audit checklists is suggested to assure that the full scope of an audit is covered. An
example checklist for the Regional TSA is found in Appendix H.
Team lead and members.
People who should be available for the audit from the audited organization. This should include
the program manager(s), principal investigator(s), monitoring leads, organizations QA
representative(s), and other management and technicians as necessary.
Documents that should be available in order for the audit to proceed efficiently. Too often
documents are asked for during an audit, when auditors do not have the time to wait for these
documents to be found. Documents could include QMPs, QAPPs, SOPs, GLPs, control charts,
raw data, QA/QC data, previous audit reports etc.
A timeline of when organizations (auditors/auditees) will be notified of the audit in order for
efficient scheduling and full participation of all parties.
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 15.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
10 of 14
The audit lead should emphasize that the completed questionnaire is to be returned within one (1) month
(or time frame deemed appropriate) of receipt. The information within the questionnaire is considered a
minimum, and both the Region and the monitoring organization under audit should feel free to include
additional information. Once the completed questionnaire has been received, it should be reviewed and
compared with the pertinent criteria and regulations. The AQS precision, bias and completeness data as
well as any other information on data quality can augment the documentation received from the reporting
organization under audit. This preliminary evaluation will be instrumental in selecting the sites to be
evaluated and in the decision on the extent of the monitoring site data audit. The audit team should then
prepare a checklist detailing specific points for discussion with monitoring organization personnel.
The audit team should be made of several members to offer a wide variety of backgrounds and expertise.
This team may then divide into groups once on-site, so that both audit coverage and time utilization can
be optimized. A possible division may be that one group assesses the support laboratory and headquarters
operations while another evaluates sites, and subsequently assesses audit and calibration information.
The audit lead should confirm the proposed audit schedule with the audited organization immediately
prior to traveling to the site.
Establish Data Audit Trail Through
Management Function
1
'
Meet to
Discuss
Findings
Establish Trial Through Field
Operations to Data Management
Finalize Audit Trails and Complete Data Audit
Prepare Audit Result Summary of
(a) overall operations (b) data audit findings
(c) laboratory operations (d) field operations:
Complete audit finding forms and debriefing report ,:
Disouss findings with Key Personnel & QA Officer
Exit Interview with Monitoring Org. Director
to obtain signatures on audit finding form
On~site Audit Compiefe
Figure 15.3 On-site audit activities
be devoted to this activity so that the audit team has a clear understanding and complete documentation of
15.3.2. On-Site Activities
The audit team should meet initially
with the audited monitoring
organization's director or his/her
designee to discuss the scope,
duration, and activities involved with
the audit. This should be followed by
a meeting with key personnel
identified from the completed
questionnaire, or indicated by the
monitoring organization QAO. Key
personnel to be interviewed during
the audit are those individuals with
responsibilities for: planning, field
operations, laboratory operations,
QA/QC, data management and
reporting. At the conclusion of these
introductory meetings, the audit team
may begin work as two or more
independent groups, as illustrated in
Figure 15.3. To increase uniformity
of site inspections, it is suggested that
a site checklist be developed and
used. The format for Regional TSAs
can be found in Appendix H.
The importance of the audit of data
quality (ADQ) cannot be overstated.
Thus, sufficient time and effort should
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 15.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 11 of 14
data flow. Its importance stems from the need to have documentation on the quality of ambient air
monitoring data for all the criteria pollutants for which the monitoring organization has monitoring
requirements. The ADQ will serve as an effective framework for organizing the extensive
Audit Finding
Audit Title:
Finding:
Audit #: Finding #:
Discussion:
QA Lead Signature:
Audited Agencies
Signature:
Date:
Date:
Figure 15.4 Audit finding form
amount of information gathered during the audit of laboratory, field monitoring and support functions
within the monitoring organization.
The entire audit team should prepare a brief written summary of findings, organized into the following
areas: planning, field operations, laboratory operations, quality assurance/quality control, data
management, and reporting. Problems with specific areas should be discussed and an attempt made to
rank them in order of their potential impact on data quality. For the more serious problems, audit findings
should be drafted (Fig. 15.4).
The audit finding form has been designed such that one is filled out for each major deficiency that
requires formal corrective action. They inform the monitoring organization being audited about a serious
finding that may compromise the quality of the data and therefore require specific corrective actions.
They are initiated by the audit team, and discussed at the debriefing. During the debriefing discussion,
evidence may be presented that reduces the significance of the finding; in which case the finding may be
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 15.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 12 of 14
removed. If the audited monitoring organization is in agreement with the finding, the form is signed by
the monitoring organization's director or his/her designee during the exit interview. If a disagreement
occurs, the QA Team should record the opinions of the monitoring organization audited and set a time at
some later date to address the finding at issue.
The audit is now completed by having the audit team members meet once again with key personnel, the
QAO and finally with the monitoring organization's director to present their findings. This is also the
opportunity for the monitoring organization to present their disagreements.
The audit team should simply state the audit results, including an indication of the potential data quality
impact. During these meetings, the audit team should also discuss the systems audit reporting schedule
and notify monitoring organization personnel that they will be given a chance to comment in writing,
within a certain time period, on the prepared audit report in advance of any formal distribution.
15.3.3 Post-Audit Activities
The major post-audit activity is the preparation of the
systems audit report. The report will include:
• audit title, number and any other identifying
information;
• audit team leaders, audit team participants
and audited participants;
• background information about the project,
purpose of the audit, dates of the audit,
particular measurement phase or parameters
that were audited, and a brief description of
the audit process;
• summary and conclusions of the audit and
corrective action requirements; and
• attachments or appendices that include all
audit evaluations and audit finding forms.
To prepare the report, the audit team should meet and
compare observations with collected documents and
results of interviews and discussions with key
personnel. Expected QA project plan implementation
is compared with observed accomplishments and
deficiencies and the audit findings are reviewed in
detail. Within thirty (30) calendar days of the
completion of the audit, the audit report should be
prepared and submitted.
The technical systems audit report is submitted to the
Figure 15.5 Post-audit activities ,.. , ... ... T. • . , ., .
^* audited monitoring organization. It is suggested that
a cover letter be used to reiterate the fact that the audit report is being provided for review and written
comment. The letter should also indicate that, should no written comments be received by the audit lead
within thirty (30) calendar days from the report date, it will be assumed acceptable to the monitoring
organization in its current form, and will be formally distributed without further changes.
Travel Back to Regional Office
Audit Team Works Together to Prepare Report
Internal Review at Regional Headquarters
'*
Incorporate Comments and Revise Document
!
Issue Copies to Monitoring Org. Director for
Distribution and Written Comment
•
Incorporate Written Comments Received
From PQAO
•
Submit Final Draft Report for
Internal Regional Review
:
= '
Revise Report and Incorporate Comments
as Necessary
s
Prepare Final Copies
Distribute to Monitoring Org. Director and Archive
i
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 15.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 13 of 14
Audit Title:
Audit Finding Response Form
Audit #: Finding #:
Finding:
Cause of the problem:
Actions taken or planned for correction:
Responsibilities and timetable for the above actions:
Prepared by:.
Reviewed by:.
Remarks:
Is this audit finding closed?.
Date:
Date:
When?
File with official audit records. Send copy to auditee
If the monitoring
organization has written
comments or questions
concerning the audit report,
the audit team should
review and incorporate
them as appropriate, and
subsequently prepare and
resubmit a report in final
form within thirty (30) days
of receipt of the written
comments. Copies of this
report should be sent to the
monitoring organization
director or his/her designee
for internal distribution.
The transmittal letter for the
amended report should
indicate official distribution
and again draw attention to
the agreed-upon schedule
for corrective action
implementation.
Figure 15.6 Audit response form
15.3.4 Follow-up and Corrective Action Requirements
As part of corrective action and follow-up, an audit finding response form (Fig 15.6) is generated by the
audited organization for each finding form submitted by the audit team. The audit finding response form
is signed by the audited organization's director and sent to the organization responsible for oversight who
reviews and accepts the corrective action. The audit response form should be completed by the audited
organization within 30 days of acceptance of the audit report.
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 15.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 14 of 14
15.4 Data Quality Assessments
A data quality assessment (DQA) is the statistical analysis of environmental data, to determine whether
the quality of data is adequate to support the decisions which are based on the DQOs. Data are
appropriate if the level of uncertainty in a decision, based on the data, is acceptable. The DQA process is
described in detail in the guidance document: Data Quality Assessment: A Reviewers Guide (EPA QA/G-
9R)9, in Section 18 and is summarized below.
1) Review the data quality objectives (DQOs) and sampling design of the program: review the DQO
and develop one, if it has not already been done. Define statistical hypothesis, tolerance limits,
and/or confidence intervals.
2) Conduct preliminary data review. Review QA data and other available QA reports, calculate
summary statistics, plots and graphs. Look for patterns, relationships, or anomalies.
3) Select the statistical test: select the best test for analysis based on the preliminary review, and
identify underlying assumptions about the data for that test.
4) Verify test assumptions: decide whether the underlying assumptions made by the selected test hold
true for the data and the consequences.
5) Perform the statistical test: perform test and document inferences. Evaluate the performance for
future use.
A companion document to EPA QA/G-R, EPA QA/G-9S document provides many appropriate statistical
tests. QAD is also developing statistical software to complement the document. Both can be found on
the QAD Homepage (http://es.epa.gov/ncerqa).
OAQPS plans on performing data quality assessments for the pollutants of the Ambient Air Quality
Monitoring Network at a yearly frequency for data reports and at a 3-year frequency for more
interpretative reports. Reporting organizations and State and local monitoring organizations are
encouraged to implement data quality assessments at their levels. Attaining the DQOs at a local level will
ensure that the DQOs will be met when data is aggregated at higher levels.
'http://www.epa.gov/qualirvl/qs-docs/g9r-final.pdf
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 16.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 1 of4
16.0 Reports to Management
This section provides guidance and suggestions to air monitoring organizations on how to report the
quality of the aerometric data, and how to convey personnel information and requests for assistance
concerning quality control and quality assurance problems. The guidance offered here is primarily
intended for PQAOs that provide data to one or more of these national networks:
• SLAMS (State and Local Air Monitoring Stations)
• PAMS (Photochemical Air Monitoring Stations)
• PSD (Prevention of Significant Deterioration stations)
• NCore (National Core Monitoring Network)
• Chemical Speciation Network
• NATTS (National Air Toxic Trend Stations)
This guidance may also be useful in preparing reports that summarize data quality of other pollutant
measurements such as those made at Special Purpose Monitoring Stations (SPMS) and state-specific
programs.
Several kinds of reports can be prepared. The size and frequency of the reports will depend on the
information requested or to be conveyed. A brief, corrective action form or letter-style report might ask
for attention to an urgent problem. On the other hand, an annual quality assurance report to management
would be a much larger report containing sections such as:
• executive summary
• network background and present status
• quality objectives for measurement data
• quality assurance procedures
• results of quality assurance activities, and
• recommendations for further quality assurance work, with suggestions for improving
performance and fixing equipment problems, personnel training, infrastructure needs, etc.
A report to management should not solely consist of tabulations of analyzer-by-analyzer precision and
bias check results for criteria pollutants. This information is required to be submitted with the data each
quarter and is thus already available to management through AQS. Instead, the annual quality assurance
report to management should summarize and discuss the results of such checks. These summaries from
individual PQAOs can be incorporated into additional reports issued by the state, local, tribal and/or the
EPA Regional Office.
This section also provides general information for the preparation of reports to management and includes:
• the types of reports that might be prepared, the general content of each type of report, and a
suggested frequency for their preparation
• sources of information that can be tapped to retrieve information for the reports, and
• techniques and methods for concise and effective presentation of information.
Appendix I presents examples of two types of reports to management; the annual quality assurance report
to management and a corrective action request.
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 16.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 2 of4
16.1 Guidelines for Preparation of Reports to Management
16.1.1 Types of QA Reports to Management
Listed in Table 16-1 are examples of typical QA reports to management. An individual reporting
organization may have others to add to the list or may create reports that are combinations of those listed
below.
Table 16-1 Types of QA Reports to Management
Type of QA Report
to Management
Corrective action
request
Control chart with
summary
National Performance
Evaluation Program
results
State and local
organization
performance audits
Technical systems
audits
Quality assurance
report to management
Network reviews (by
EPA Regional
Office)
Contents
Description of problem; recommended
action required; feedback on resolution
of problem.
Repetitive field or lab activity; control
limits versus time. Prepare monthly or
whenever new check or calibration
samples are used.
Summary of PEP,NPAP, NATTS PT
and CSN audit results.
Summary of audit results;
recommendations for action, as needed.
Summary of system audit results;
recommendations for action, as needed.
Executive summary. Precision, bias, and
system and performance audit results.
Review results and suggestions for
actions, as needed.
Suggested Reporting Frequency
As
required
X
X
X
X
X
X
Week
Month
X
Quarter
X
X
Year
X
X
X
X
X
X
16.1.2 Sources of Information
Information for inclusion in the various reports to management may come from a variety of sources,
including: records of precision and bias checks (AMP255 reports), results of systems and performance
audits, laboratory and field instrument maintenance logbooks, NPAP audits, etc. Table 16-2 lists useful
sources and the type of information expected to be found.
Table 16-2 Sources of Information for Preparing Reports to Management
Information Source
State implementation plan
Quality assurance program and project plans
Quality objectives for measurement data document
Laboratory and field instrument maintenance logbooks
Laboratory weighing room records of temperature, humidity
Audit results (NPAP, local, etc.)
Quality control data on local information management
systems or AQS
Expected Information and Usefulness
Types of monitors, locations, and sampling schedule.
Data quality indicators and goals for precision, bias,
completeness, timeliness.
Quality objectives for measurement data. Audit procedures
and frequency.
Record of maintenance activity, synopsis of failures,
recommendations for equipment overhaul or replacement.
A record of whether or not environmental control in the
weighing room is adequate to meet goals.
Results of audit tests on ambient air pollutant measurement
devices.
Results are generally considered valid and can be used to
determine achievement of data quality objectives.
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 16.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 3 of4
16.1.3 Methods of Presenting Information
Reports to management are most effective when the information is given in a succinct, well-summarized
fashion. Methods useful for distilling and presenting information in ways that are easy to comprehend are
listed in Table 16-3. A 2008 Guidance Document, designed to assist Tribes in developing monitoring
programs contains an expanded section (Section 7) that discusses many of the statistical techniques
described in Table 16-31. Several of these methods are available on-line in AQS; others are available in
commercially available statistical and spreadsheet computer programs.
Table 16-3 Presentation Methods for Use in Reports to Management
Presentation Method
Written text
Control chart
Black box report
Bar charts
X Y (scatter) charts
Probability limit charts and box and
whisker plots
Typical Use
Description of results and responses to
problems
Shows whether a repetitive process
stays within QC limits.
Shows if project goals were met.
Shows relationships between numerical
values.
Shows relationships between two
variables.
Show a numerical value with its
associated precision range.
Examples
Appendix I
Figure 10.2 of this Handbook
Executive Summary of Appendix I
Included in most graphic and
spreadsheet programs
Included in most graphic and
spreadsheet programs
Figure 1 of Appendix I
16.1.4 Annual Quality Assurance Report
The annual quality assurance report (an example is provided in Appendix I) should consist of a number of
sections that describe the quality objectives for measurement data and how those objectives have been
met. A suggested organization might include:
Executive Summary of Report to Management - The executive summary should be a short section
(no more than two pages) that summarizes the annual quality assurance report to management. It
should contain a checklist graphic that lets the reader know how the reporting organization has met
its goals for the report period. In addition, a short discussion of future needs and plans should be
included.
Introduction - This section describes the quality objectives for measurement data and serves as an
overview of the reporting organization's structure and functions. It also briefly describes the
procedures used by the reporting organization to assess the quality of field and laboratory
measurements.
Quality Information for each Ambient Air Pollutant Monitoring Program - These sections are
organized by ambient air pollutant category (e.g., gaseous criteria pollutants, air toxics). Each
section includes the following topics:
• program overview and update
• quality objectives for measurement data
• data quality assessment
1 Technical Guidance for the Development of Tribal Monitoring Programs
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/tl/memoranda/techguidaticetribalattch.pdf
-------
16.1.5 Corrective Action Request
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 16.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 4 of4
A corrective action request should be made whenever anyone in the reporting organization notes a
problem that demands either immediate or long-term action to correct a safety defect, an operational
problem, or a failure to comply with procedures. A typical corrective action request form, with example
information entered, is shown in Appendix I. A separate form should be used for each problem identified.
The corrective action report form is designed as a closed-loop system. First it identifies the originator; the
person who reports and identifies the problem, states the problem and may suggest a solution. The form
then directs the request to a specific person or persons (i.e., the recipient), who would be best qualified to
"fix" the problem. Finally, the form closes the loop by requiring that the recipient state how the problem
was resolved and the effectiveness of the solution. The form is signed and a copy is returned to the
originator and other copies are sent to the supervisor and the applicable files for the record.
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 17.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 1 of7
17.0 Data Review, Verification and Validation
Data review, verification and validation are techniques used to accept, reject or qualify data in an
objective and consistent manner. Verification can be defined as confirmation, through provision of
objective evidence that specified requirements have been fulfilled1. Validation can be defined as
confirmation through provision of objective evidence that the particular requirements for a specific
intended use are fulfilled. It is important to describe the criteria for deciding the degree to which each
data item has met its quality specifications as described in an organization's QAPP. This section will
describe the techniques used to make these assessments.
In general, these assessment activities are performed by persons implementing the environmental data
operations as well as by personnel "independent" of the operation, such as the organization's QA
personnel and at some specified frequency. The procedures, personnel and frequency of the assessments
should be included in an organization's QAPP. These activities should occur prior to submitting data to
AQS and prior to final data quality assessments that will be discussed in Section 18.
Each of the following areas of discussion should be considered during the data
review/verification/validation processes. Some of the discussion applies to situations in which a sample
is separated from its native environment and transported to a laboratory for analysis and data generation;
others are applicable to automated instruments. The following information is an excerpt from EPA G-52:
Sampling Design - How closely a measurement represents the actual environment at a given time and
location is a complex issue that is considered during development of the sampling design. Each sample
should be checked for conformity to the specifications, including type and location (spatial and temporal).
By noting the deviations in sufficient detail, subsequent data users will be able to determine the data's
usability under scenarios different from those included in project planning.
Sample Collection Procedures- Details of how a sample is separated from its native time/space location
are important for properly interpreting the measurement results. Sampling methods and field SOPs
provide these details, which include sampling and ancillary equipment and procedures (including
equipment decontamination). Acceptable departures (for example, alternate equipment) from the QAPP,
and the action to be taken if the requirements cannot be satisfied, should be specified for each critical
aspect. Validation activities should note potentially unacceptable departures from the QAPP. Comments
from field surveillance on deviations from written sampling plans also should be noted.
Sample Handling- Details of how a sample is physically treated and handled during relocation from its
original site to the actual measurement site are extremely important. Correct interpretation of the
subsequent measurement results requires that deviations from the sample handling section of the QAPP
and the actions taken to minimize or control the changes, be detailed. Data collection activities should
indicate events that occur during sample handling that may affect the integrity of the samples. At a
minimum, investigators should evaluate the sample containers and the preservation methods used and
ensure that they are appropriate to the nature of the sample and the type of data generated from the
sample. Checks on the identity of the sample (e.g., proper labeling and chain of custody records) as well
as proper physical/chemical storage conditions (e.g., chain of custody and storage records) should be
made to ensure that the sample continues to be representative of its native environment as it moves
through the analytical process.
1 ISO-9000 http://www.iso.org/iso/iso catalogue/management standards/iso 9000 iso 14000.htm
2 EPA Guidance to Quality Assurance Project Plans http://www.epa.gov/qualirvl/qs-docs/g5-fmal.pdf
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 17.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 2 of7
Analytical Procedures- Each sample should be verified to ensure that the procedures used to generate
the data were implemented as specified. Acceptance criteria should be developed for important
components of the procedures, along with suitable codes for characterizing each sample's deviation from
the procedure. Data validation activities should determine how seriously a sample deviated beyond the
acceptable limit so that the potential effects of the deviation can be evaluated during DQA.
Quality Control- The quality control section of the QAPP specifies the QC checks that are to be
performed during sample collection, handling and analysis. These include analyses of check standards,
blanks and replicates, which provide indications of the quality of data being produced by specified
components of the measurement process. For each specified QC check, the procedure, acceptance
criteria, and corrective action (and changes) should be specified. Data validation should document the
corrective actions that were taken, which samples were affected, and the potential effect of the actions on
the validity of the data.
Calibration- Calibration of instruments and equipment and the information that should be presented to
ensure that the calibrations:
• were performed within an acceptable time prior to generation of measurement data
• were performed in the proper sequence
• included the proper number of calibration points
• were performed using standards that "bracketed" the range of reported measurement results
otherwise, results falling outside the calibration range should be flagged as such
• had acceptable linearity checks and other checks to ensure that the measurement system was
stable when the calibration was performed
When calibration problems are identified, any data produced between the suspect calibration event and
any subsequent recalibration should be flagged to alert data users.
Data Reduction and Processing- Checks on data integrity evaluate the accuracy of "raw" data and
include the comparison of important events and the duplicate keying of data to identify data entry errors.
Data reduction may be an irreversible process that involves a loss of detail in the data and may involve
averaging across time (for example, 5-minute, hourly or daily averages) or space (for example,
compositing results from samples thought to be physically equivalent) such as the Pb sample aggregation
or PM2 5 spatial averaging techniques. Since this summarizing process produces few values to represent a
group of many data points, its validity should be well-documented in the QAPP. Potential data anomalies
can be investigated by simple statistical analyses.
The information generation step involves the synthesis of the results of previous operations and the
construction of tables and charts suitable for use in reports. How information generation is checked, the
requirements for the outcome, and how deviations from the requirements will be treated, should be
addressed.
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 17.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 3 of7
17.1 Data Review Methods
The flow of data from the field environmental data operations to the storage in the database requires
several distinct and separate steps:
• initial selection of hardware and software for the acquisition, storage, retrieval and transmittal of
data
• organization and the control of the data flow from the field sites and the analytical laboratory
• input and validation of the data
• manipulation, analysis and archival of the data
• submittal of the data into the EPA's AQS database.
Both manual and computer-oriented systems require individual reviews of all data tabulations. As an
individual scans tabulations, there is no way to determine that all values are valid. The purpose of manual
inspection is to spot unusually high (or low) values (outliers) that might indicate a gross error in the data
collection system. In order to recognize that the reported concentration of a given pollutant is extreme,
the individual must have basic knowledge of the major pollutants and of air quality conditions prevalent
at the reporting station. Data values considered questionable should be flagged for verification. This
scanning for high/low values is sensitive to spurious extreme values but not to intermediate values that
could also be grossly in error.
Manual review of data tabulations also allows detection of uncorrected drift in the zero baseline of a
continuous sensor. Zero drift may be indicated when the daily minimum concentration tends to increase
or decrease from the norm over a period of several days. For example, at most sampling stations, the
early morning (3:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m.) concentrations of carbon monoxide tend to reach a minimum
(e.g., 2 to 4 ppm). If the minimum concentration differs significantly from this, a zero drift may be
suspected. Zero drift could be confirmed by review of the original strip chart.
In an automated data processing system, procedures for data validation can easily be incorporated into the
basic software. The computer can be programmed to scan data values for extreme values, outliers or
ranges. These checks can be further refined to account for time of day, time of week, and other cyclic
conditions. Questionable data values are then flagged on the data tabulation to indicate a possible error.
Other types of data review can consist of preliminary evaluations of a set of data, calculating some basic
statistical quantiles and examining the data using graphical representations.
17.2 Data Verification Methods
Verification can be defined as confirmation, through provision of objective evidence that specified
requirements have been fulfilled3. The verification requirements for each data operation are included in
the organizations' QAPP and in SOPs and should include not only the verification of sampling and
analysis processes but also operations like data entry, calculations and data reporting. The data
verification process involves the inspection, analysis, and acceptance of the field data or samples. These
inspections can take the form of technical systems audits (internal or external) or frequent inspections by
3 Guidance on Environmental Data Verification and Data Validation (QA/G-8) http://www.epa.gov/qualityl/qa_docs.html throgh
proviosion of objective evidence
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 17.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 4 of7
field operators and lab technicians. Questions that might be asked during the verification process include:
• Were the environmental data operations performed according to the SOPs governing those
operations?
• Were the environmental data operations performed on the correct time and date originally
specified? Many environmental operations must be performed within a specific time frame; for
example, the NAAQS samples for particulates are collected once every six days from midnight to
midnight. The monitor timing mechanisms must have operated correctly for the sample to be
collected within the time frame specified.
• Did the sampler or monitor perform correctly? Individual checks such as leak checks, flow
checks, meteorological influences, and all other assessments, audits, and performance checks
must have been acceptably performed and documented.
• Did the environmental sample pass an initial visual inspection? Many environmental samples can
be flagged (qualified) during the initial visual inspection.
• Have manual calculations, manual data entry, or human adjustments to software settings been
checked? Automated calculations should be verified and accepted prior to use, but at some
frequencies these calculations should be reviewed to ensure that they have not changed.
• Were the environmental data operations performed to meet data quality objectives designed for
those specific data operations and were the operations performed as specified? The objectives for
environmental data operations must be clear and understood by all those involved with the data
collection.
17.3 Data Validation Methods
Data validation is a routine process designed to ensure that reported values meet the quality goals of the
environmental data operations. Data validation is further defined as examination and provision of
objective evidence that the particular requirements for a specific intended use are fulfilled. A progressive,
systematic approach to data validation must be used to ensure and assess the quality of data.
The purpose of data validation is to detect and then verify any data values that may not represent actual
air quality conditions at the sampling station. Effective data validation procedures usually are handled
completely independently from the procedures of initial data collection.
Because the computer can perform computations and make comparisons extremely rapidly, it can also
make some determination concerning the validity of data values that are not necessarily high or low. Data
validation procedures should be recommended as standard operating procedures. For example, one can
evaluate the difference between successive data values, since one would not normally expect very rapid
changes in concentrations of a pollutant during a 5-min or 1-h reporting period. When the difference
between two successive values exceeds a predetermined value, the tabulation can be flagged, with an
appropriate symbol.
Quality control data can support data validation procedures (see section 17.3.3). If data assessment
results clearly indicate a serious response problem with the analyzer, the agency should review all
pertinent quality control information to determine whether any ambient data, as well as any associated
assessment data, should be invalidated. Therefore if ambient data are determined to be invalid, then the
associated precision, bias and accuracy readings should also be invalidated. Any data quality calculations
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 17.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 5 of7
using the invalidated readings should be redone. Also, the precision, bias or accuracy checks should be
rescheduled, preferably in the same calendar quarter. The basis or justification for all data invalidations
should be permanently documented.
Certain criteria, based upon CFR and field operator and laboratory technician judgment, may be used to
invalidate a sample or measurement. These criteria should be explicitly identified in the organization's
QAPP. Many organizations use flags or result qualifiers to identify potential problems with data or a
sample. A flag is an indicator of the fact and the reason that a data value (a) did not produce a numeric
result, (b) produced a numeric result but it is qualified in some respect relating to the type or validity of
the result, or (c) produced a numeric result but for administrative reasons is not to be reported outside the
organization. Flags can be used both in the field and in the laboratory to signify data that may be suspect
due to contamination, special events or failure of QC limits. Flags can be used to determine if individual
samples (data), or samples from a particular instrument, will be invalidated. In all cases, the sample
(data) should be thoroughly reviewed by the organization prior to any invalidation.
Flags may be used alone or in combination to invalidate samples. Since the possible flag combinations
can be overwhelming and can not always be anticipated, an organization needs to review these flag
combinations and determine if single values or values from a site for a particular time period will be
invalidated. The organization should keep a record of the combination of flags that resulted in
invalidating a sample or set of samples. These combinations should be reported to the EPA Region and
can be used to ensure that the organization evaluates and invalidates data in a consistent manner.
Procedures for screening data for possible errors or anomalies should also be implemented. The data
quality assessment document series (EPA QA/G-9R4, EPA QA/G-9s5) provide several statistical
screening procedures for ambient air quality data that should be applied to identify gross data anomalies.
NOTE: it is strongly suggested that flags, specifically the appropriate null data code flags, be used in
place of any routine values that are invalidated. This provides some indication to data users and data
quality assessors to the reasons why data that was expected to be collected was missing.
17.3.1 Automated Methods
When zero, span or one-point QC checks exceed acceptance limits, ambient measurements should be
invalidated back to the most recent point in time where such measurements are known to be valid.
Usually this point is the previous check, unless some other point in time can be identified and related to
the probable cause of the excessive drift or exceedance (such as a power failure or malfunction). Also,
data following an analyzer malfunction or period of non-operation should be regarded as invalid until the
next subsequent (level 1) acceptable check or calibration. Based on the sophistication of DAS (see
Section 14) monitoring organization may have other automated programs for data validation. These
programs should be described in the monitoring organization's approved QAPP prior to implementation.
Even though the automated technique may be considered acceptable, the raw invalidated data should be
archived for statute of limitations discussed in Section 5.
Data Quality Assessment: A Reviewer's Guide http://www.epa.gov/qualitvl/qs-docs/g9r-fmal.pdf
Data Quality Assessment: Statistical Methods for Practitioners http://www.epa.gov/qualityl/qs-docs/g9s-final.pdf
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 17.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
i 6 of 7
17.3.2 Manual Methods
For manual methods, the first level of data validation should be to accept or reject monitoring data based
upon results from operational checks selected to monitor the critical parameters in all three major and
distinct phases of manual methods—sampling, analysis, and data reduction. In addition to using
operational checks for data validation, the user must observe all limitations, acceptance limits, and
warnings described in the reference and equivalent methods per se that may invalidate data. It is further
recommended that results from performance audits/evaluations required in 40 CFR 58, Appendix A not
be used as the sole criteria for data invalidation because these checks (performance audits) are intended to
assess the quality of the data.
17.3.3 Validation Templates
In June 1998, a workgroup was formed to develop a procedure that could be used by monitoring
organizations that would provide for a consistent validation of PM2 5 mass concentrations across the US.
The Workgroup developed three tables of criteria where each table has a different degree of implication
about the quality of the data. The criteria included on the tables are from 40 CFR Part 50, Appendices L
and N, 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix A, Method 2.12, and a few criteria that are neither in CFR nor Method
2.12.
One of the tables has the criteria that must be met to ensure the quality of the data. An example criterion
is that the average flow rate for the sampling period must be maintained to within 5% of 16.67 liters per
minute. The second table has the criteria that indicate that there might be a problem with the quality of
the data and further investigation is warranted before making a determination about the validity of the
sample or samples. An example criterion is that the field filter blanks should not change weight by more
than 30//g between weighings. The third table has criteria that indicate a potentially systematic problem
with the environmental data collection activity. Such systematic problems may impact the ability to make
decisions with the data. An example criterion is that at least 75% of the scheduled samples for each
quarter should be successfully collected and validated.
To determine the appropriate table for each criterion, the members of the workgroup considered how
significantly the criteria impact the resulting PM2 5 mass. This was based on experience from workgroup
members, experience from non-workgroup members, and feasibility of implementing the criterion.
Criteria that were deemed critical to maintaining the integrity of a sample or group of samples were
placed on the first table. Observations that do not meet each and every criterion on the Critical Criteria
Table should be invalidated unless there are compelling reason and justification for not doing so.
Basically, the sample or group of samples for which one or more of these criteria are not met is invalid
until proven otherwise. The cause of not operating in the acceptable range for each of the violated criteria
must be investigated and minimized to reduce the likelihood that additional samples will be invalidated.
Criteria that are important for maintaining and evaluating the quality of the data collection system are
included on the second table, the Operational Criteria Table. Violation of a criterion or a number of
criteria may be cause for invalidation. The decision should consider other quality control information that
may or may not indicate the data are acceptable for the parameter being controlled. Therefore, the sample
or group of samples for which one or more of these criteria are not met is suspect unless other quality
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 17.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 7 of7
control information demonstrates otherwise. The reason for not meeting the criteria MUST be
investigated, mitigated or justified.
Finally, those criteria which are important for the correct interpretation of the data but do not usually
impact the validity of a sample or group of samples are included on the third table, the Systematic
Criteria Table. For example, the data quality objectives are included in this table. If the data quality
objectives are not met, this does not invalidate any of the samples but it may impact the error rate
associated with the attainment/non-attainment decision.
Based on the success and use of the PM2 5 validation template, the Workgroup embarked on the
development of similar templates for the remaining criteria pollutants. Appendix D provides templates
for each criteria pollutant. The validation templates are based on the current state of knowledge at the
time of development of the Handbook. The template will evolve as new information is discovered about
the impact of the various criterion on the error in the resulting concentration estimate. Interactions of the
criteria, whether synergistic or antagonistic, should also be incorporated when the impact of these
interactions becomes quantified. Due to the potential misuse of invalid data, data that are invalidated will
not be uploaded to AQS but should be retained on the monitoring organizations local database. This data
will be invaluable to the evolution of the validation template.
NOTE: Strict adherence to the validation templates is not required. They are meant to be a guide
based upon the knowledge of the Workgroup who developed them and may be a starting point for
monitoring organization specific validation requirement.
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 18.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Iof9
18.0 Reconciliation with Data Quality Objectives
Section 3 described the data quality objective (DQO) process, which is an important planning tool to
determine the objectives of an environmental data operation, to understand and agree upon the allowable
uncertainty in the data and, with that, to optimize the sampling design. This information, along with
sampling and analytical methods and appropriate QA/QC, should be documented in an organization's
QAPP. The QAPP is then implemented by the monitoring organizations under the premise that if it is
followed, the DQOs should be met. Reconciliation with the DQO involves reviewing both routine and
QA/QC data to determine whether the DQOs have been attained and that the data are adequate for their
intended use. This process of evaluating the data against the DQOs has been termed data quality
assessment (DQA).
The DQA process has been developed for cases where formal DQOs have been established. However,
these procedures can also be used for data that do not formally have DQOs. Guidance on the DQA
process can be found in the documents titled Data Quality Assessment: A Reviewer's Guide (EPA QA/G-
9R)1 and its companion document Data Quality Assessment: Statistical Tools for Practitioners (EPA
QA/G-9S)2. This document focuses on evaluating data for fitness in decision-making and also provides
many graphical and statistical tools.
As stated in EPA QA/G-9R "Data quality, as a concept, is meaningful only when it relates to the intended
use of the data". By using the DQA Process, one can answer four fundamental questions:
1. Can the decision (or estimate) be made with the desired level of certainty, given the quality of the
data set?
2. How well did the sampling design perform?
3. If the same sampling design strategy is used again for a similar study, would the data be expected
to support the same intended use with the desired level of uncertainty?
4. Is it likely that sufficient samples were taken to enable the reviewer to see an effect if it was
really present?
DQA is a key part of the assessment phase of the data life cycle (Figure 18.1), which is very similar to the
ambient air QA life cycle described in Section 1. As the part of the assessment phase that follows data
validation and verification, DQA determines how well the validated data can support their intended use.
18.1 Five Steps of the DQA Process
As described in EPA QA/G-9R1 and EPA QA/G-9S2, the DQA process is comprised of five steps. The
steps are detailed below. Since DQOs are available for the PM2 5 program, they will be used as an
example for the type of information that might be considered in each step. The PM2s information is
italicized and comes from a model PM2 5 QAPP3 for a fictitious reporting organization called
Palookaville. The model QAPP was developed to help monitoring organizations develop QAPPs based
upon the new R-5 QAPP requirements.
1 http://www.epa.gov/qualitvl/qs-docs/g9r-final.pdf
2 http://www.epa.gov/qualityl/qs-docs/g9s-fmal.pdf
3 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/pmqainf.html
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 18.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
i 2 of 9
PLANNING
Data Qua! ty Objectives Process
al ty Assurance Project Plan Oeveioprner
IMPLEMENTATION
Fssd Data Collection anc Associated
Qualsty Assurance (' Quality Control Actsvitie:
ASSESSMENT
Data v'ersfscatiop/ Va iclation
Data Quality Assessment
QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT
/ • 1
! _ . _ A / / QC/Ferfbrronce
; Rojtire Data /,'_.,. ^ j
1 1 ! Evaluation _>ata >
^ INPUTS ^
[ DATA VERIFICATION A/ALIDATIOU
1 • Verry measurement performance
| • Verify measurement prcoecures aid
| reDorting specifications
^ OUTPUT
VERI-IED /VALIDATED DATA
/ /
i INPUT
DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT
* Review project ob.ectsves and
samohig design
- Conduct pre.iminary dsta review
* Select statistical rnetnoG
• Verry assumptions of the method
- Draw conclusions from tne data
1 OUTPUT
/ PROJECT" CONCL-JSiOKS
/ /
Figure 18.1 DQA in the context of data life cycle.
Step 1. Review DOOs and Sampling Design. Review the DQO outputs to assure that they are still
applicable. If DQOs have not been developed, specify DQOs before evaluating the data (e.g., for
environmental decisions, define the statistical hypothesis and specify tolerable limits on decision errors;
for estimation problems, define an acceptable confidence probability interval width). Review the
sampling design and data collection documentation for consistency with the DQOs observing any
potential discrepancies.
The PM2.s DQOs define the primary objective of the PM2,5 ambient air monitoring network (PM2,5 NAAQS
comparison), translate the objective into a statistical hypothesis (3-year average of annual mean PM2.S
concentrations less than or equal to 15 ^ig/m3 and 3-year average of annual 98th percentiles of the PM2,5
concentrations less than or equal to 35 ^g/m3), and identify limits on the decision errors (incorrectly
conclude area in non-attainment when it truly is in attainment no more than 5% of the time, and
incorrectly conclude area in attainment when it truly is in non-attainment no more than 5% of the time).
The CFR contains the details for the sampling design, including the rationale for the design, the design
assumptions, and the sampling locations and frequency. If any deviations from the sampling design have
occurred, these will be indicated and their potential effect carefully considered throughout the entire
DQA.
Step 2. Conduct Preliminary Data Review. Review QA reports, calculate basic statistics, and generate
graphs of data. Use this information to understand the structure of the data and identify patterns,
relationships, or potential anomalies.
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 18.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
i 3 of 9
A preliminary data review will be performed to uncover potential limitations of using the data, to reveal
outliers, and generally to explore the basic structure of the data. The first step is to review the quality
assurance reports. The second step is to calculate basic summary statistics, generate graphical
presentations of the data, and review these summary statistics and graphs.
Review Quality Assurance Reports. Palookaville will review all relevant quality assurance reports that
describe the data collection and reporting process. Particular attention will be directed to looking for
anomalies in recorded data, missing values, and any deviations from standard operating procedures.
This is a qualitative review. However, any concerns will be further investigated in the next two steps.
Calculation of Summary Statistics and Generation of Graphical Presentations. Palookaville will
generate prominent summary statistics for each of its primary and QA samplers. These summary
statistics will be calculated at the quarterly, annual, and three-year levels and will include only valid
samples. The summary statistics are:
Number of samples, mean concentration, median concentration, standard deviation, coefficient of
variation, maximum concentration, minimum concentration, interquartile range, skewness and
kurtosis.
These statistics will also be calculated for the percent differences at the collocated sites. The results will
be summarized in a table. Particular attention will be given to the impact on the statistics caused by the
observations noted in the quality assurance review. For example, Palookaville may evaluate the
influence of a potential outlier by evaluating the change in the summary statistics resulting from
exclusion of the outlier.
Palookaville will generate graphics to present the results from the summary statistics and show the
spatial continuity over the sample areas. Maps will be created for the annual and three-year means,
maxima, and interquartile ranges for a total of 6 maps. The maps will help uncover potential outliers and
will help in the network design review. Additionally, basic histograms will be generated for each of the
primary and QA samplers and for the percent difference at the collocated sites. The histograms will be
useful in identifying anomalies and evaluating the normality assumption in the measurement errors.
Step 3. Select the Statistical Test. Select the most appropriate procedure for summarizing and
analyzing the data, based upon the reviews of the performance and acceptance criteria associated with the
DQOs, the sampling design, and the preliminary data review. Identify the key underlying assumptions
that must hold for the statistical procedures to be valid.
The primary objective for the PM25 mass monitoring is determining compliance with the PM25NAAQS.
As a result, the null and alternative hypotheses are:
3 and Y <35 \5jUg/m3 or Y>35jUg/m3
where X is the three-year average PM2,5 concentration and Y is the three-year average of the annual 98th
percentiles of the PM2.5 concentrations recorded for an individual monitor. The exact calculations for X
and Y are specified in 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix N. The null hypothesis is rejected; that is, it is
concluded that the area is not in compliance with the PM2,5 NAAQS when the observed three-year
average of the annual arithmetic mean concentration exceeds 15.05 ^g/m3 or when the observed
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 18.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 4 of9
three-year average of the annual 98th percentiles exceeds 35.5 ^g/m3. If the bias of the sampler is ± 10%
and the precision is within 10%, then the error rates (Type I and Type II) associated with this statistical
test are less than or equal to 5%. The definitions of bias and precision will be outlined in the following
step.
Step 4. Verify Assumptions of Statistical Test. Evaluate whether the underlying assumptions hold, or
whether departures are acceptable, given the actual data and other information about the study.
The assumptions behind the statistical test include those associated with the development of the DQOs in
addition to the bias and precision assumptions. The method ofverification will be addressed in this step.
Note that when less than three years of data are available, this verification will be based on as much data
as are available.
The DQO is based on the annual arithmetic mean NAAQS. For each primary sampler, Palookaville
will determine which, if either, of the PM2.s NAAQS concentration is violated. In the DQO development,
it was assumed that the annual standard is more restrictive than the 24-hour standard. If there are any
samplers that violate ONLY the 24-hour NAAQS, then this assumption is not correct. The seriousness of
violating this assumption is not clear. Conceptually, the DQOs can be developed based on the 24-hour
NAAQS and the more restrictive bias and precision limits selected. However, Palookaville will assume
the annual standard is more restrictive, until proven otherwise.
Normal distribution for measurement error. Assuming that measurement errors are normally
distributed is common in environmental monitoring. Palookaville has not investigated the sensitivity of
the statistical test to violate this assumption; although, small departures from normality generally do not
create serious problems. Instead, Palookaville will evaluate the reasonableness of the normality
assumption by reviewing a normal probability plot, and calculating the Shapiro-Wilk WTest statistic (if
sample size less than 50) or calculating the Kolmogorov-SmirnoffTest statistic (if sample size greater
than 50). All three techniques are provided by standard statistical packages. If the plot or statistics
indicate possible violations of normality, Palookaville may need to determine the sensitivity of the DQOs
to departures in normality.
Decision error can occur when the estimated 3-year average differs from the actual (true) 3-year
average. This is not really an assumption as much as a statement that the data collected by an ambient
air monitor is stochastic, meaning that there are errors in the measurement process, as mentioned in the
previous assumption.
The limits on precision and bias are based on the smallest number of required sample values in a 3-year
period. In the development of the DQOs, the smallest number of required samples was used. The reason
for this was to ensure that the confidence was sufficient in the minimal case; if more samples are
collected, then the confidence in the resulting decision will be even higher. For each of the samplers,
Palookaville will determine how many samples were collected in each quarter. If this number meets or
exceeds 12, then the data completeness requirements for the DQO are met.
The decision error limits were set at 5%. If the other assumptions are met, then the decision error limits
are less than or equal to 5%.
Measurement imprecision was established at 10% coefficient ofvariation (CV). For each sampler,
Palookaville will review the coefficient ofvariation calculated in Step 2. If any exceed 10%, Palookaville
may need to determine the sensitivity of the DQOs to larger levels of measurement imprecision.
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 18.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 5 of9
Table 18-1 will be completed during each DQA. The table summarizes which, if any, assumptions have
been violated. A check will be placed in each of the row/column combinations that apply. Ideally, there
will be no checks. However, if there are checks in the table, the implication is that the decision error
rates are unknown, even if the bias and precision limits are achieved. As mentioned above, if any of the
DQO assumptions are violated, then Palookaville will need to reevaluate its DQOs.
Achievement of bias and precision limits. Lastly, Palookaville will check the assumption that at the
3-year level of aggregation, the sampler bias is within +_ 10% and precision is < 10%. The data from the
collocated samplers will be used to calculate quarterly, annual, and 3-year bias and precision estimates
even though it is only the 3-year estimates that are critical for the statistical test.
Since all the initial samplers being deployed by Palookaville will be FRMs, the samplers at each of the
collocated sites will be identical method designations. As such, it is difficult to determine which of the
collocated samplers is closer to the true PM2.s concentration. Palookaville will calculate an estimate of
precision. A bias measure will also be calculated, but it can only describe the relative difference of one
sampler to the other, not definitively indicate which sampler is closer to the "true " value. The following
paragraphs contain the algorithms for calculating precision and bias. These are similar, but differ
slightly, from the equations in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix A.
Table 18-1 Summary of Violations of DQO Assumptions
Site
Violate 24-Hour
Standard ONLY?
Measurement Errors
Non-Normal?
Data Complete?
O 12 samples per quarter)
Measurement CV
> 10%?
Primary Samplers
Al
A2
A3
A4
Bl
QA Samplers
Al
Bl
Before describing the algorithm, some ground work is necessary. When less than three years of
collocated data are available, then the three-year bias and precision estimates must be predicted.
Palookaville 's strategy for accomplishing this will be to use all available quarters of data as the basis for
projecting where the bias and precision estimates will be at the end of the three-year monitoring period.
Three-year point estimates will be computed by weighting the quarterly components, using the most
applicable of the following assumptions:
1. Most recent quarter's precision and bias are most representative of what the future quarters will
be.
2. All previous quarters precision and bias are equally representative of what the future quarter's
will be.
3. Something unusual happened in the most recent quarter, so the most representative quarters are
all the previous ones, minus the most recent.
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 18.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
i 6 of 9
Each of these scenarios results in weights that will be used in the following algorithms. The weights are
shown in Table 18-2 where the variable Q represents the number of quarters for which observed bias and
precision estimates are available. Note that when Q=12, that is, when there are bias and precision
values for all of the quarters in the three-year period, then all of the following scenarios result in the
same weighting scheme.
Table 18-2 Weights for Estimating Three-Year Bias and Precision
Scenario
1
2
3
Assumption
Latest quarter most representative
All quarters equally representative
Latest quarter unrepresentative
Weights
wq = \2-(Q-\) for latest quarter,
wq = 1 otherwise
wq = 12/2 f°r eacn quarter
wq = I for latest quarter,
Wq= I l/(Q-l) otherwise
In addition to point estimates, Palookaville will develop confidence intervals for the bias and precision
estimates. This will be accomplished using a re-sampling technique. The protocol for creating the
confidence intervals are outlined in Box 18.1.
Box 18.1 Method for Estimating Confidence in Achieving Bias and Precision DQOs
Let Z be the statistic of interest (bias or precision). For a given weighting scenario, the re-sampling will be
implemented as follows:
1. Determine M, the number of collocated pairs per quarter for the remaining 12-Q quarters (default is M=15
or can use M=average number observed for the previous Q quarters.
2. Randomly select with replacement M collocated pairs per quarter for each of the future 12-Q quarters in a
manner consistent with the given weighting scenario.
Scenario 1: Select pairs from latest quarter only.
Scenario 2: Select pairs from any quarter.
Scenario 3: Select pairs from any quarter except the latest one.
Result from this step is "complete" collocated data for a three-year period, from which bias and precision
estimates can be determined.
3. Based on the "filled-out" three-year period from step 2, calculate three-year bias and precision estimate,
using Equation 1 where wq = 1 for each quarter.
4. Repeat steps 2 and 3 numerous times, such as 1000 times.
5. Determine P, the fraction of the 1000 simulations for which the three-year bias and precision criteria are
met. P is interpreted as the probability that the sampler is generating observations consistent with the
three-year bias and precision DQOs.
The algorithms for determining whether the bias and precision DQOs have been achieved for each
sampler follow:
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 18.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
i 7 of 9
Bias Algorithm
1. For each measurement pair, estimate the percent relative bias, dt.
Y —X
d =-
where Xt represents the concentration recorded by the primary sampler and Yt represents the
concentration recorded by the collocated sampler.
2. Summarize the percent relative bias to the quarterly level, Z);>g, according to
D"^'P'
where n^q is the number of collocated pairs in quarter qfor sitej.
3. Summarize the quarterly bias estimates to the three-year level using
IX ^
D . = — - Equation 18-1
1 n 1
where nq is the number of quarters with actual collocated data andwq is the weight for quarter q
as specified by the scenario in Table 18-2.
4. Examine Z);>g to determine whether one sampler is consistently measuring above or below the
other. To formally test this, a non-parametric test will be used (Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test),
which is described in EPA QA/G-9S2. If the null hypothesis is rejected, then one of the samplers
is consistently measuring above or below the other. This information may be helpful in directing
the investigation into the cause of the bias.
Precision Algorithm
1. For each measurement pair, calculate the coefficient of variation, cvt,
,,4
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 18.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
i 8 of 9
2.
Summarize the coefficient of variation to the quarterly level, CVj,q, according to
3.
cv,,, =
where n^q is the number of collocated pairs in quarter qfor sitej.
Summarize the quarterly precision estimates to the three-year level using
cv, =
Equation 18-2
y
I'".
where nq is the number of quarters with actual collocated data andwq is the weight for quarter q
as specified by the scenario in Table 24-2 (reference to Model QAPP).
4. If the null hypothesis in the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test was not rejected, then the coefficient of
variation can be interpreted as a measure of precision. If the null hypothesis in the Wilcoxon
Ssigned Rank Test was rejected, the coefficient of variation has both a component representing
precision and a component representing the (squared) bias.
Confidence in Bias and Precision Estimates
1. Follow the method described in Box 18.1 to estimate the probability that the sampler is
generating observations consistent with the three-year bias and precision DQOs. The
re-sampling must be done for each collocated site.
Summary of Bias and Precision Estimation
The results from the calculations and re-sampling will be summarized in Table 18-3. There will be one
line for each site operating a collocated sampler.
Table 18-3 Summary of Bias and Precision
Collocated
Al
Bl
Three-year Bias Estimate
(Equation. 1)
Three-year Precision Estimate
(Equation. 2)
Null Hypothesis of Wilcoxon Test
Rejected?
P
(Box 18-1)
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Section 18.0
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
i 9 of 9
Step 5. Draw Conclusions from the Data. Perform the calculations required for the statistical test and
document the inferences drawn as a result of these calculations. If the design is to be used again, evaluate
the performance of the sampling design.
Before determining whether the monitored data indicate compliance with the PM2.s NAAQS, Palookaville
must first determine if any of the assumptions upon which the statistical test is based are violated. This
can be easily checked in Step 5 because of all the work done in Step 4. In particular, as long as
* in Table 18-1, there are no checks, and
• in Table 18-3,
° the three year bias estimate is in the interval [-10%, 10%], and
° the three year precision estimate is less than or equal to 10%
then the assumptions underlying the test appear to be valid. As a result, if the observed three-year
average PM2,5 concentration is less than 15 ^ig/m3 and the observed three-year average 98th percentile is
less than 35 [tg/m3, the conclusion is that the area seems to be in compliance with the PM2,5 NAAQS, with
an error rate of 5%.
If any of the assumptions have been violated, then the level of confidence associated with the test is
suspect and will have to be further investigated.
DQA without DQOs
Even though DQOs, based upon the EPA G-4 guidance, have not been developed for all criteria
pollutants, a process very similar to this approach was originally used4. In addition, monitoring
organizations collect enough types of QA/QC data to estimate the quality of their data and should be able
to express the confidence in that information.
Curran, Thomas C. et.al., "Establishing Data Quality Acceptance Criteria for Air Pollution Data" Transactions of
the 35 Annual Conference of the American Society for Quality Control (May 27-29,1981)
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix A
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page lof 11
Appendix A
National Air Quality Monitoring Program Fact Sheets
The following information provides a fact sheet on a number of national ambient air
monitoring networks including:
• State or Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) Network
• National Core (NCore) Network
• Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS)
• PM2.5 Chemical Speciation Network (CSN)
• National Toxics Trends Network (NATTS)
• Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE)
• Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET)
• National Atmospheric Deposition Network (NADP)
• National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA)
Only the SLAMS, NCore, PAMS, CSN and NATTS pertain to the information
covered in the Handbook. The other networks described are for the benefit of the
reader.
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix A
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 2 of 11
Page intentionally left blank
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix A
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 3 of 11
State or Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) Network
Background
The SLAMS make up the ambient air quality monitoring sites that are operated by State or local agencies
for the primary purpose of comparison to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), but may
serve other purposes such as:
• provide air pollution data to the general public in a timely manner;
• support compliance with air quality standards and emissions strategy development; and
• support air pollution research studies.
The SLAMS network includes stations classified as NCore, PAMS, and Speciation, and formerly
categorized as NAMS, and does not include Special Purpose Monitors (SPM) and other monitors used for
non-regulatory or industrial monitoring purposes.
In order to support the objectives, the monitoring networks are designed with a variety of monitoring sites
that generally fall into the following categories which are used to determine:
1. the highest concentrations expected to occur in the area covered by the network;
2. typical concentrations in areas of high population density;
3. the impact on ambient pollution levels of significant sources or source categories;
4. the general background concentration levels;
5. the extent of regional pollutant transport among populated areas, and in support of secondary
standards; and
6. air pollution impacts on visibility, vegetation damage, or other welfare- based impacts.
The monitoring aspects of the SLAMS program are found in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40,
Parts 50, 53 and 58.
SLAMS must use approved Federal reference method (FRM), Federal equivalent method (FEM), or Approved
Regional Method (ARM) monitors for ambient pollutant levels being compared to the NAAQS.
Reference Category
Program References
Pollutants Measured
Methods References
Network Design References
Siting Criteria
Quality System References
Data Management
References
References
40 CFR Part 50, 53 and 58
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/
03, CO, S02, N02 PM2 5, PM10, Pb
40 CFR Part 50 and 58 Appendix C
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/criteria.html
40 CFR Part 58 Appendix D, E
40 CFR Part 58 Appendix E
40 CFR Part 58 Appendix A
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/qualitv.html
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/met.html
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/
Comments
Must be FRM, FEM, or ARM for
NAAQS comparisons.
Website lists designated methods
Website for QA Handbook Vol II
Eebsite for QA Handbook Vol IV
Air Quality System
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix A
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 4 of 11
National Core (NCore) Network
Background
The NCore multi-pollutant stations are part of an overall strategy to integrate multiple monitoring networks
and measurements. As required by the revised monitoring regulations promulgated in 2006, monitors at
NCore multi-pollutant sites will measure particles (PM25, speciated PM25, PM10-2.5j speciated PMi 0-2.5), O3,
SO2, CO, nitrogen oxides (NO/NO2/NOy), and basic meteorology. Monitors for all the gases except for O3
will be more sensitive than standard FRM/FEM monitors, so they could accurately report concentrations
that are well below the respective NAAQS but that can be important in the formation of O3 and PM.
The objective is to locate sites in broadly representative urban (about 55 sites) and rural (about 20 sites)
locations throughout the country to help characterize regional and urban patterns of air pollution. The
NCore network must be fully operational by 20 1 1 . Many stations will be operational before that deadline.
In many cases, states will collocate these new stations with STN sites measuring speciated PM2 5
components, PAMS sites already measuring O3 precursors, and/or NATTS sites measuring air toxics. By
combining these monitoring programs at a single location, EPA and its partners will maximize the multi-
pollutant information available. This greatly enhances the foundation for future health studies, NAAQS
revisions, validation of air quality models, assessment of emission reduction programs, and studies of
ecosystem impacts of air pollution.
Reference Category
Program References
Pollutants Measured
Methods References
Network Design References
Siting Criteria
Quality System References
Data Management
References
References
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/monitor.html
SO2, CO, NO and NOy, and O3, PM2.5,
PMio-2.5 , basic meteorological parameters
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/precursop.html
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/pretecdoc.html
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/monstratdoc.html
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/pretecdoc.html
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/qaqcrein.html
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/pretecdoc.html
Comments
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix A
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 5 of 11
Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS)
Background
Section 182(c)(l) of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) require the Administrator to
promulgate rules for the enhanced monitoring of ozone, oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and volatile organic
compounds (VOC) to obtain more comprehensive and representative data on ozone air pollution.
Immediately following the promulgation of such rules, the affected states were to commence such actions
as were necessary to adopt and implement a program to improve ambient monitoring activities and the
monitoring of emissions of NOx and VOC. Each State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the affected areas
must contain measures to implement the ambient monitoring of such air pollutants. The subsequent
revisions to Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 58 (40 CFR 58) required states to establish
Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS) as part of their SIP monitoring networks in ozone
nonattainment areas classified as serious, severe, or extreme.
The chief objective of the enhanced ozone monitoring revisions is to provide an air quality database that
will assist air pollution control agencies in evaluating, tracking the progress of, and, if necessary, refining
control strategies for attaining the ozone NAAQS. Ambient concentrations of ozone and ozone precursors
will be used to make attainment/nonattainment decisions, aid in tracking VOC and NOx emission inventory
reductions, better characterize the nature and extent of the ozone problem, and prepare air quality trends. In
addition, data from the PAMS will provide an improved database for evaluating photochemical model
performance, especially for future control strategy mid-course corrections as part of the continuing air
quality management process. The data will be particularly useful to states in ensuring the implementation
of the most cost-effective regulatory controls.
Reference Category
Program References
Pollutants Measured
Methods References
Network Design
References
Siting Criteria
Quality System
References
Data Management
References
References
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/pamsrein.html
http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/pams/docs.html
Ozone, Nitrogen Oxides, VOCs, surface meteorological
http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/pams/general.htmWparameters
http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/pams/network.html
http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/pams/general.htmWsiting
Comments
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix A
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 6 of 11
PM2.s Chemical Speciation Network
Background
As part of the effort to monitor paniculate matter, EPA monitors and gathers data on the chemical makeup
of these particles. EPA established a chemical speciation network consisting of approximately 300
monitoring sites. These sites are placed at various NAMS and SLAMS across the Nation. Fifty-four of
these chemical speciation sites, the Speciation Trends Network (STN), will be used to determine, over a
period of several years, trends in concentration levels of selected ions, metals, carbon species, and organic
compounds in PM2 5. Further breakdown on the location or placement of the trends sites requires that
approximately 20 of the monitoring sites be placed at existing Photochemical Assessment Monitoring
Stations (PAMS). The placement of the remaining trends sites will be coordinated by EPA, the Regional
offices, and the monitoring agencies. Locations will be primarily in or near larger Metropolitan Statistical
Areas (MSAs). The remaining chemical speciation sites will be used to enhance the required trends
network and to provide information for developing effective State Implementation Plans (SIPs).
The STN is a component of the National PM25 Monitoring Network. Although the STN is intended to
complement the activities of the much larger gravimetric PM25 measurements network component (whose
goal is to establish if NAAQS are being attained), STN data will not be used for attainment or
nonattainment decisions. The programmatic objectives of the STN network are:
• annual and seasonal spatial characterization of aerosols;
• air quality trends analysis and tracking the progress of control programs;
• compare the chemical speciation data set to the data collected from the IMPROVE network; and
• development of emission control strategies.
Stakeholders in the STN will be those at EPA seeking to determine concentration trends of PM2 5 chemical
species over a period of 3 or more years and decision-makers at tribal, state and local levels who will use
the data as input to models and for development of emission control strategies and determination of their
long-term effectiveness. Other users will be public health officials and epidemiological researchers.
However, expectations for data sets from the STN must be put in context.
Reference Category
Program References
Pollutants Measured
Methods References
Network Design References
Siting Criteria
Quality System References
Data Management
References
References
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/speciepg.html
ions, metals, carbon species, and organic
compounds
http ://www. epa.gov/ttn/amtic/specqual . html
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/specdat.html
Comments
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix A
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 7 of 11
National Toxics Trends Network (NATTS)
Background
There are currently 188 hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), or Air Toxics (AT), regulated under the
Clean Air Act (CAA) that have been associated with a wide variety of adverse health effects,
including cancer, neurological, reproductive and developmental effects, as well as eco-system effects. In
1999. EPA finalized the Urban Air Toxics Strategy (UATS). The UATS states that emissions data are
needed to quantify the sources of air toxics impacts and aid in the development of control strategies, while
ambient monitoring data are needed to understand the behavior of air toxics in the atmosphere after they are
emitted. Part of this strategy included the development of the National Air Toxics Trends Stations
(NATTS). Specifically, it is anticipated that the NATTS data will be used for:
• tracking trends in ambient levels to facilitate tracking progress toward emission and risk reduction
goals, which is the major objective of this program;
• directly evaluating public exposure & environmental impacts in the vicinity of monitors;
• providing quality assured data AT for risk characterization;
• assessing the effectiveness of specific emission reduction activities; and
• evaluating and subsequently improving air toxics emission inventories and model performance.
Currently the NATTS program is made up of 22 monitoring sites; 15 representing urban communities and 7
representing rural communities.
Reference Category
Program References
Pollutants Measured
Methods References
Network Design
References
Siting Criteria
Quality System
References
Data Management
References
References
http://www.epa.
gov/ttn/amtic/natts.html
33 HAPS which
http://www.epa.
http://www.epa.
include metals, VOCs and carbonyls
gov/ttn/amtic/ai rtox.html
gov/ttn/amtic/ai rtoxqa.html.
http://www.epa.
gov/oar/oaaps/pams/general.html#siting
http://www.epa.
gov/ttn/amtic/airtoxqa.html
http://www.epa.
gov/ttn/amtic/toxdat.html
Comments
Reference : National Air
Toxics Trends Stations -
Quality Management Plan -
final 09/09/05
Reference : 40 CFR part 58
Appendix E, PAMS Probe and
Path Siting Criteria
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix A
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 8 of 11
Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE)
Background
The Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) program is a cooperative
measurement effort governed by a steering committee composed of representatives from federal and
regional-state organizations. The IMPROVE monitoring program was established in 1985 to aid the
creation of Federal and State Implementation Plans for the protection of visibility in Class I areas (156
national parks and wilderness areas) as stipulated in the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act.
The objectives of IMPROVE are:
1. to establish current visibility and aerosol conditions in mandatory class I areas;
2. to identify chemical species and emission sources responsible for existing man-made visibility
impairment;
3 . to document long-term trends for assessing progress towards the national visibility goal;
4. and with the enactment of the Regional Haze Rule, to provided regional haze monitoring
representing all visibility -protected federal class I areas where practical.
IMPROVE has also been a key participant in visibility -related research, including the advancement of
monitoring instrumentation, analysis techniques, visibility modeling, policy formulation and source
attribution field studies. In addition to 1 10 IMPROVE sites at visibility -protected areas, IMPROVE
Protocol sites are operated identically at locations to serve the needs of state, tribes and federal agencies.
Reference
Category
Program
References
Pollutants
Measured
Methods
References
Network Design
References
Siting Criteria
Quality System
References
Data
Management
References
References
http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/
http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Overview/IMPROVEP
rogram files/frame. htm
PM10 & PM2 5 mass concentration, and PM2 5 elements
heavier than sodium, anions, organic and elemental carbon
concentrations. Optical & met. parameters at select sites
http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Publications/IMPROV
E SOPs.htm
http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Publications/IMPROV
E SOPs.htm
http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Publications/IMPROV
E SOPs.htm
http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Data/OA OC/qa qc B
ranch.htm
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/visinfo.html
http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Data/data.htm
Comments
All sites have aerosol speciation
monitoring by one day in three
24-hour duration sampling
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix A
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 9 of 11
Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET)
Background
EPA, in coordination with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), established
CASTNET with the goal of assessing the impact and effectiveness of Title IV of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments (CAAA) through a large-scale monitoring network. CASTNET was designed to compile a
sound scientific data base through routine environmental monitoring for the evaluation of air-quality
management and control strategies. The network provides estimates of dry deposition using an inferential
modeling method that relies on atmospheric concentrations, meteorological variables and other input as
recorded at each site. The data record extends back to 1987, when routine field measurements first began
under National Dry Deposition Network (NDDN). CASTNET currently consists of over 80 sites across the
eastern and western United States and is cooperatively operated and funded with the National Park Service.
CASTNET complements the National Atmospheric Deposition Program/National Trends Network
(NADP/NTN) which provides information on precipitation chemistry and wet deposition values.
The main objective of the network is to:
1) track the effectiveness of national and regional scale emission control programs;
2) report high quality, publicly available data on the temporal and geographic patterns of air
quality and atmospheric deposition trends; and
3) provide the necessary information for understanding the environmental effects in sensitive
terrestrial and aquatic receptor areas associated with atmospheric loadings of pollutants.
Reference
Category
Program
References
Pollutants
Measured
Methods
References
Network Design
References
Siting Criteria
Quality System
References
Data Management
References
References
http : //www.epa. go v/castnet/
- weekly average atmospheric concentrations of sulfate, nitrate,
ammonium, sulfur dioxide, nitric acid and base cations
-hourly concentrations of ambient ozone levels
—hourly averages of meteorological variables required for
calculating dry deposition rates
CASTNET Quality Assurance Project Plan
httD://www.epa.gov/castnet/librarv.html
CASTNET Quality Assurance Project Plan
http : //www.epa. go v/castnet/library .html
CASTNET Quality Assurance Project Plan
httD://www.epa.gov/castnet/librarv.html
CASTNET Quality Assurance Project Plan
http://www.epa.gov/castnet/librarv.html
http://www.epa.gov/castnet/librarv.html
http://cfpub.epa. go v/gdm/index.cfm?fuseaction=aciddepositi on. wizard
Comments
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix A
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 10 of 11
National Atmospheric Deposition Network (NADP)
Background
The National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) provides quality -assured data and information in
support of research on the exposure of managed and natural ecosystems and cultural resources to acidic
compounds, nutrients, base cations, and mercury in precipitation. NADP data serve science and education
and support informed decisions on air quality issues related to precipitation chemistry.
The NADP operates three precipitation chemistry networks: the 250-station National Trends Network
(NTN), 7-station Atmospheric Integrated Research Monitoring Network (AIRMoN), and 100-station
Mercury Deposition Network (MDN). The NTN provides the only long-term nationwide record of the wet
deposition of acids, nutrients, and base cations. NTN stations collect one-week precipitation samples in 48
states, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Quebec Province, Canada. Complementing the NTN is the 7-
station AIRMoN. The daily precipitation samples collected at AIRMoN stations support continued research
of atmospheric transport and removal of air pollutants and the development of computer simulations of
these processes. The 100-station MDN offers the only regional measurements of mercury in North
American precipitation. MDN data are used to quantify mercury deposition to water bodies that have fish
and wildlife consumption advisories due to this toxic chemical. Presently, 48 states and 10 Canadian
provinces list advisories warning people to limit fish consumption due to high mercury levels. Advisories
also were issued for Atlantic Coastal waters from Maine to Rhode Island and North Carolina to Florida, for
the entire U.S. Gulf Coast, and for Hawaii.
In addition to these long-term monitoring networks, the NADP is responsive to emerging issues requiring
new or expanded measurements. Its measurement system is efficient, its data meet pre-defined data quality
objectives, and its reports and products are designed to meet user needs.
Reference Category
Program References
Pollutants Measured
Methods References
Network Design
References
Siting Criteria
Quality System
References
Data Management
References
References
NADP http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/
AIRMoN http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/airmon/
MDN http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/mdn/
sulfate, nitrate, chloride, ammonium, calcium,
magnesium, sodium, potassium, pH, mercury
http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/lib/manuals/opman.pdf
http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/lib/manuals/mdnopman.pdf
http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/lib/manuals/siteinst.pdf
http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/lib/manuals/siteinst.pdf
http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/OA/
http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/lib/qaplans/NADP-OMP-
Dec2003.pdf
http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/lib/qaplans/qapCal2006.pdf
http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/airmon/getamdata.asp
Comments
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix A
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 11 of 11
National Air Toxics Assessment (NAT A)
Background
NATA is a national-scale assessment of 33 air pollutants (a subset of 32 air toxics on the Clean Air Act's list of 188,
plus diesel particulate matter). The assessment considers the year 1996 (an update to 1999 is in preparation), including:
• compilation of a national emissions inventory of air toxics emissions from outdoor sources;
• estimates of ambient concentrations across the contiguous United States;
• estimates of population exposures; and
• characterizations of potential public health risks including both cancer and non-cancer effects.
NATA identifies those air toxics which are of greatest potential concern, in terms of contribution to population risk.
This information is relevant and useful in assessing risk for tribal programs.
Reference Category
Program References
Pollutants Measured
Methods References
Network Design References
Siting Criteria
Quality System References
Data Management
References
References
http ://www. epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/index. html
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/34poll.html
Comments
33 air pollutants (see link)
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix B
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 1 of 4
Appendix B
Ambient Air Monitoring Quality Assurance Information and
Web Addresses
The following information provides key guidance documents and reports that can
be found on various sites within the Ambient Monitoring Technical Information
Center (AMTIC) Website. The following identifiers are used to describe national
ambient air monitoring programs
SLAMS- State or Local Air Monitoring Stations Network
NCore- National Core Network
PAMS - Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations
CSN PM2.s Chemical Speciation Network
NATTS- National Toxics Trends Network
SLAMS-NPAP- National Performance Audit Program
SLAM-PEP- National PM2.5 Performance Evaluation Program
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix B
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 2 of 4
Page intentionally left blank
-------
Ambient Air Quality Assurance Information
Identifier
CSN
NATTS
NCore
NCore
PAMS
SLAMS
SLAMS
SLAMS
SLAMS
SLAMS PM2.5
CSN
NATTS
SLAMS
SLAMS
SLAMS-PM2.5
SLAMS-PEP
CSN
NATTS
NCore
SLAMS
SLAMS
SLAMS
SLAMS
SLAMS-NPAP
Title
GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
Participate Matter (PM2.5) Speciation Guidance Document
NATTS Technical Assistance Document (TAD)
NCore Technical Assistance Document (TAD)
QA Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems Volume
IV Meteorloqical Measurment Systems
Technical Assistance Document (TAD) for Sampling and
Analysis of Ozone Precursors;
QA Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems Volume II
Guideline on the Meaning and the Use of Precision and Bias
Data Required by 40 CFR Part 58 Appendix A
Transfer Standards for the Calibration of Air Monitoring
Analyzers for Ozone
Techical Assitance Document for the Calibration of Ozone
Monitors
PM2.s Quality Assurance Program Overview
QA REPORTS
PM 2.5 Speciation Lab Audit Reports and Assessments
National Air Toxics Trends Stations Quality Assurance Annual
Reports and Proficiency Reports
2007 Quality Management Plan and Quality Assurance Project
Plan Tracking Matrix as of June 25, 2007
Annual Precision, Bias and Completeness Reports for Criteria
Pollutants
3-Year and Annual QA Reports
Laboratory Comparison Study of Gravimetric Laboratories
Performing PM2.s Filter Weighing for the PM2.s Performance
Evaluation Program and Tribal Air Monitoring Support
Methods
Speciation Field Guidance Documents
Air Toxics Methods- Various Methods
Calibration of Meterological Measurement -Videos
QA Handbook Vol II (DRAFT Procedure for the "Determination
of Ozone By Ultraviolet Analysis")
Sec. 2. 10 of QA Handbook- Draft- PM10- Dichot revised to
local standard and pressure
Sec. 2.11 of QA Handbook- Draft- PM10 Hi Vol revised to local
standard and pressure
Section 2.3 — DRAFT - Reference Method for the Determination
of Nitrogen Dioxide in the Atmosphere (Chemiluminescence)
DRAFT SOP forThrough-the-Probe Performance Evaluations of
Ambient Air Quality Monitoring of Criteria Air Pollutants
EPA Number
EPA-454/B-08-002
EPA/600-R-98/161
EPA-454/R-98-004
EPA-545/B-07-001
EPA-600/4-79-056
EPA-600/4-79-057
EPA-600/4-77-027a
Pub Date Year
1999
2007
2005
2008
1998
1998
2007
1979
1979
1997
Various Years
Various Years
2007
Various Years
Various Years
Various Years
Various Years
2007
2008
1998
1997
1997
2002
2007
URL
http://www.epa.qov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/pm25/spec/specfinl.pdf
http://www.epa.qov/ttn/amtic/airtox.html
http://www.epa.qov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/monitorstrat/precursor/tad
version4.pdf
http://www.epa.qov/ttn/amtic/met.html
http://www.epa.qov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/pams/newtad.pdf
http://www.epa.qov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/qaqc/redbook.pdf
http://www.epa. qov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/qaqc/P&B%20Guidance%
2010.10.07%20vers1.1.pdf
http://www.epa.qov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/criteria/reldocs/4-79-
056.pdf
http://www.epa.qov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/criteria/reldocs/4-79-
057.pdf
http://www.epa.qov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/pm25/qa/pm25qa.pdf
http://www.epa.qov/ttn/amtic/pmspec.html
http://www.epa.qov/ttn/amtic/airtoxqa.html
httD://www.eDa.qov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/qaqc/Reqion%20Matrix%2
06.25.07.pdf
http://www.epa.qov/ttn/amtic/parslist.html
http://www.epa.qov/ttn/amtic/anlqa.html
httD://www.eDa.qov/ttn/amtic/DmDeD.html
http://www.epa.qov/ttn/amtic/specquid.html
httD://www.eDa.qov/ttn/amtic/airtox.html
httD://www.eDa.qov/ttn/amtic/met.html
httD://www.eDa.qov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/qaqc/ozone4.Ddf
httD://www.eDa.qov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/qaqc/2-10meth.Ddf
httD://www.eDa.qov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/qaqc/2-11meth.Ddf
httD://www.eDa.qov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/Dm25/qa/no2.Ddf
http://www.epa.qov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/npapsop/npapttpsop.pdf
-------
Ambient Air Quality Assurance Information
Identifier
SLAMS-NPAP
SLAMS-PEP
SLAMS-PEP
SLAMS-PM2.5
CSN
CSN
CSN
NATTS
NATTS
NATTS
PAMS
SLAMS
SLAMS PM2.5
SLAMS PM2.5
SLAMS PM2.5
CSN
CSN
SLAMS
SLAMS
Title
Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Audit Support Program -
N PAP and NATTS
Method Compendium "Field Standard Operating Procedures for
the PM2.s Performance Evaluation Program"
Method Compendium "PM2.5 Mass Weighing Laboratory
Standard Operating Procedures for the Performance Evaluation
Program
2.12 "Monitoring PM25 in Ambient Air Using Designated
Reference or Class I Equivalent Methods"
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS and QAPPs
Speciation Laboratory Standard Operating Procedures
Quality Management Plan for the PM25 Speciation Trends
Network
"Speciation Trends Network Quality Assurance Project Plan"
Model Quality Assurance Project Plan for the National Air Toxics
Trends Stations - updated version 1.1
Model QAPP for Local-Scale Monitoring Projects"
National Air Toxics Trends Stations - Quality Management Plan
Final
PAMS Implementation Manual
Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Audit Support Program -
N PAP and NATTS
PM2.5 Model QA Project Plan (QAPP)"
PM2.5 FRM Network Federal Performance Evaluation Program
Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)
PM25 Performance Evaluation Program Implementaion Plan
WHITE PAPERS/IMPORTANT MEMOS
Current List of CSN Sites as of 07-1 1 -2007
Modification of Carbon Procedures in the Speciation Network;
Overview and Frequently Asked Questions
QA National Meeting Presentations
QA Newsletters
EPA Number
EPA-454/R-01-009
EPA-454/R-01-001
EPA-454/R-01-007
EPA-454/B-93-051
EPA-454/R-98-005
Pub Date Year
2006
2006
1998
1998
Various Years
2001
2001
2007
2006
2005
1994
2008
1998
2007
1998
2007
2006
Various Years
Various Years
URL
http://www.epa.qov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/qaqc/NPAPQAPPrvsn071
007onforTTP.pdf
http://www.epa.qov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/pm25/qa/pepfield.pdf
http://www.epa.qov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/pm25/qa/peplsop.pdf
http://www.epa.qov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/pm25/qa/m212covd.pdf
httD://www.eDa.aov/ttn/amtic/SDecsoD.html
http://www.epa.qov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/pm25/spec/finlqmp.pdf
http://www.epa.qov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/pm25/spec/1025sqap.pdf
http://www.epa.qov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/airtox/NATTS Model QA
PP.pdf
http://www.epa.qov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/airtox/pilotqapp.pdf
http://www.epa.qov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/airtox/nattsqmp.pdf
http://www.epa.qov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/pams/b93-051a.pdf
http://www.epa.qov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/qaqc/NPAPQAPPrvsn071
007onforTTP.pdf
http://www.epa.qov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/pm25/qa/totdoc.pdf
http://www.epa.qov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/pm25/qa/pepqapp DRAF
T 12-2007 cmt vrsn.pdf
http://www.epa.qov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/pm25/qa/pep-ip.pdf
http://www.epa.qov/ttn/amtic/specqen.html
http://www.epa.qov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/pm25/spec/faqcarbon.pdf
http://www.epa.qov/ttn/amtic/qamsmtq.html
http://www.epa.qov/ttn/amtic/qanews.html
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix C
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 1 of 7
Appendix C
Using the Graded Approach for the Development of QMPs and
QAPPs in Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Programs
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix C
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 2 of 7
This page intentionally left blank
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix C
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 3 of 7
Using the Graded Approach for the Development of QMPs and QAPPs in Ambient Air
Quality Monitoring Programs
EPA policy requires that all organizations funded by EPA for environmental data operations
(EDOs) develop quality management plans (QMPs) and quality assurance project plans
(QAPPs). In addition, EPA has provided flexibility to EPA organizations on how they implement
this policy, allowing for use of a graded approach. The following proposal explains the graded
approach for data collection activities related to ambient air monitoring. OAQPS proposes a
graded approach for the development of QAPPs and QMPs.
The Graded Approach
The QMP describes the quality system in terms of the organizational structure, functional
responsibilities of management and staff, lines of authority, and required interfaces for those
planning, implementing, and assessing activities involving EDOs. Each program should provide
appropriate documentation of their quality system. Here are a few ways that this could be
handled.
Concept - Small organizations may have limited ability to develop and implement a quality
system. EPA should provide options for those who are capable of making progress towards
developing a quality system. If it is clear that the EDO goals are understood and that progress in
quality system development is being made, a non-optimal quality system structure, for the
interim, is acceptable. The concept is to work with the small organization to view the QMP as a
long-term strategic plan with an open ended approach to quality system development that will
involve continuous improvement. The graded approach to QMP development is described below
and is based on the size of the organization and experience in working with EPA and the
associated QA requirements.
1. Small organization that just received its first EPA grant or using a grant for a discrete,
small, project-level EDO. Such organizations could incorporate a description of its
quality system into its QAPP.
2. Small organization implementing EDOs with EPA at more frequent intervals or
implementing long-term monitoring programs with EPA funds. If such an organization
demonstrates capability of developing and implementing a stand-alone quality system, it
is suggested that an appropriate separate QMP be written.
3. Medium or large organization. Develop QMP to describe its quality system and QAPPs
for specific EDOs. Approval of the recipient's QMP by the EPA Project Officer and the
EPA Quality Assurance Manager may allow delegation of the authority to review and
approve Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs) to the grant recipient based on
acceptable procedures documented in the QMP.
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix C
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 4 of 7
Quality Assurance Project Plans
The QAPP is 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 work performed
will satisfy the stated performance criteria, which may be in the form of a data quality objective
(DQO). The quality assurance policy of the EPA requires every EDO to have written and
approved quality assurance project plans (QAPPs) prior to the start of the EDO. It is the
responsibility of the EPA Project Officer (person responsible for the technical work on the
project) to adhere to this policy. If the Project Officer gives permission to proceed without an
approved QAPP, he/she assumes all responsibility. If a grantee's QMP is approved by EPA and
provides for delegation of QAPP approval to the grantee, the grantee is responsible to ensuring
approval of the QAPP prior to the start of the EDO.
The Ambient Air Monitoring Program recommends a four-tiered project category approach to
the Ambient Air QA Program in order to effectively focus QA. Category I involves the most
stringent QA approach, utilizing all QAPP elements as described in EPA R5a (see Table 2),
whereas category IV is the least stringent, utilizing fewer elements. In addition, the amount of
detail or specificity required for each element will be less as one moves from category I to IV.
Table 1 provides information that helps to define the categories of QAPPs based upon the data
collection objective. Each type of ambient air monitoring program EDO will be associated with
one of these categories. The comment area of the table will identify whether QMPs and QAPPs
can be combined and the type of data quality objectives (DQOs) required (see below). Table 2
identifies which of the 24 QAPP elements are required for each category of QAPP. Based upon
a specific project, the QAPP approving authority may add/delete elements for a particular
category as it relates to the project but in general, this table will be applicable based on the
category of QAPP.
Flexibility on the systematic planning process and DQO development
Table 1 describes 4 QAPP/QMP categories which require some type of statement about the
program or project objectives. Three of the categories use the term data quality objectives
(DQOs), but there should be flexibility with the systematic planning process on how these DQOs
are developed based on the particular category. For example, a category 1 project would have
formal DQOs. Examples of category I projects, such as the State and Local Monitoring Stations
(SLAMS), have DQOs developed by OAQPS. Category II QAPPS may have formal DQOs
developed if there are national implications to the data (i.e., Speciation Trends Network) or less
formal DQOs if developed by organizations implementing important projects that are more local
in scope. Categories 3 and 4 would require less formal DQOs to a point that only project goals
(category 4) may be necessary.
a EPA Requirements for QA Project Plans (QA/R-5) http://www.epa.gov/quality/qa_docs.html
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix C
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 5 of 7
Standard Operating Procedures- (SOP)
SOPs are an integral part of the QAPP development and approval process and usually address
key information required by the QAPP elements. Therefore, SOPs can be referenced in QAPP
elements as long as the SOPs are available for review or are part of the QAPP.
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix C
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 6 of 7
o
0
o
Q
,3
rS
.S
UH
Obj
als
Proje
or G
fc
O1
.a
S3
E— S3
.Ss
."S s
.S3
PH
e
0,
S3
o-
g
S
P-,
I
I
i
'<
J
I
-S
-,
s • s
u
i ^ -
.3
•G
de
xpl
Q i^-S
^•|:1
p-a -E
•|fo
.8 SO1
t|S
"^ .a -a
^t-i
O ?i
ne
gh
cts i
r int
hat
tegory
rojects i
uch proj
ptions fo
assessme
Cat
Pr
Su
ED
gory
cts in
pts,
Cate
Proje
-------
Table 2 QAPP Elements
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix C
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 7 of 7
QAPP Element
Al Title and Approval Sheet
A2 Table of Contents
A3 Distribution List
A4 Project/Task Organization
A5 Problem Definition/Background
A6 Project/Task Description
A7 Quality Objectives and Criteria for Measurement Data
A8 Special Training Requirements/Certification
A9 Documentation and Records
Bl Sample Process (Network) Design
B2 Sampling Methods Requirements
B3 Sample Handling and Custody Requirements
B4 Analytical Methods Requirements
B5 Quality Control Requirements
B6 Instrument/Equipment Testing, Inspection & Maintenance
B7 Instrument Calibration and Frequency
B8 Inspection/Acceptance Requirements for Supplies and Con.
B9 Data Acquisition Requirements for Non-direct Measurements
BIO Data Management
Cl Assessments and Response Actions
C2 Reports to Management
Dl Data Review, Validation, and Verification Requirements
D2 Validation and Verification Methods
D3 Reconciliation and User Requirements
Category
Applicability
I, II, III, IV
I, II, III
I,
I, II, III
I, II, III
I, II, III, IV
I, II, III, IV
I
I, II, III
I, II, III, IV
I, II, III,
I, II, III
I, II, III, IV
I, II, III, IV
I, II, III
I, II, III
I,
I, II, III
I, II
I, II,
I, II,
I, II, III
I, II
I, II,
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix D
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page Iof30
Appendix D
Measurement Quality Objectives and Validation Templates
In June 1998, a workgroup was formed to develop a procedure that could be used by State and
locals that would provide for a consistent validation of PM2.5 mass concentrations across the US.
The workgroup included personnel from the monitoring organizations, EPA Regional Offices,
and OAQPS who are involved with assuring the quality of PM2.5 mass and was headed by a State
and local representative. The workgroup developed three tables of criteria where each table has
a different degree of implication about the quality of the data. The criteria included on the tables
are from 40 CFR Part 50 Appendices L and N, 40 CFR Part 58 Appendix A, Method 2.12, and a
few criteria that are neither in CFR nor Method 2.12. Upon completion and use of the table, it
was decided that a "validation template" should be developed for all the criteria pollutants.
One of the tables has the criteria that must be met to ensure the quality of the data. An example
criterion is that the average flow rate for the sampling period must be maintained to within 5% of
16.67 liters per minute. The second table has the criteria that indicate that there might be a
problem with the quality of the data and further investigation is warranted before making a
determination about the validity of the sample or samples. An example criterion is that the field
filter blanks should not change weight by more than 30 |_ig between weighings. The third table
has criteria that indicate a potentially systematic problem with the environmental data collection
activity. Such systematic problems may impact the ability to make decisions with the data. An
example criterion is that at least 75% of the scheduled samples for each quarter should be
successfully collected and validated.
To determine the appropriate table for each criterion, the members of the workgroup considered
how significantly the criterion impact the resulting concentration. This was based on experience
from workgroup members, experience from non-workgroup members, and feasibility of
implementing the criterion.
Criteria that were deemed critical to maintaining the integrity of a sample or group of samples
were placed on the first table. Observations that do not meet each and every criterion on the
Critical Criteria Table should be invalidated unless there are compelling reason and
justification for not doing so. Basically, the sample or group of samples for which one or more
of these criteria are not met is invalid until proven otherwise. The cause of not operating in the
acceptable range for each of the violated criteria must be investigated and minimized to reduce
the likelihood that additional samples will be invalidated.
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix D
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 2 of 30
Criteria that are important for maintaining and evaluating the quality of the data collection
system are included on the second table, the Operational Evaluations Table. Violation of a
criterion or a number of criteria may be cause for invalidation. The decision should consider
other quality control information that may or may not indicate the data are acceptable for the
parameter being controlled. Therefore, the sample or group of samples for which one or more of
these criteria are not met is suspect unless other quality control information demonstrates
otherwise. The reason for not meeting the criteria MUST be investigated, mitigated or justified.
Finally, those criteria which are important for the correct interpretation of the data but do not
usually impact the validity of a sample or group of samples are included on the third table, the
Systematic Issues Table. For example, the data quality objectives are included in this table. If
the data quality objectives are not met, this does not invalidate any of the samples but it may
impact the error rate associated with the attainment/non-attainment decision.
Following are the tables. For each criterion, the tables include (1) the operational range that is
acceptable, (2) the frequency with which compliance is to be evaluated, (3) the number of
samples that are impacted if violation of a criterion occurs (possible values include single filters,
a batch of filters, or a group of filters from a specific instrument);.(4) sections of 40 CFR and (5)
Method 2.12 that describe the criterion. The table also indicates whether samples violating the
criterion must be flagged before entering them into AQS.
This validation template has been developed based on the current state of knowledge. The
template should evolve as new information is discovered about the impact of the various
criterion on the error in the resulting mass estimate. Interactions of the criteria, whether
synergistic or antagonistic, should also be incorporated when the impact of these interactions
becomes quantified. Due to the potential misuse of invalid data, data that are invalidated will not
be uploaded to AQS but should be retained on the monitoring organizations local database. This
data will be invaluable to the evolution of the validation template.
Note of Caution
The validation templates for PMio get complicated because PMio is required to be reported at
standard temperature and pressure (STP) for comparison to the NAAQS (and follow 40 CFR Part
50 App J) and at local conditions if using it to monitor for PMio-2.5 (and follow 40 CFR Part 50
App O) in addition PMio is measured with filter based sampling techniques as well as with
automated methods. The validation templates developed for PMio try to accommodate these
differences but monitoring organizations are cautioned to review the operations manual for the
monitors/samplers they use and augment the validation template with QC information specific to
their method.
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix D
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 3 of 30
Ozone Validation Template
Requirement
Frequency
Acceptance Criteria
Information /Action
CRITICAL CRITERIA-Ozone
One Point QC Check
Single analyzer
Zero/span check
1/2 weeks
1/2 weeks
< +7% (percent difference)
Zero drift < ± 2% of full scale
Span drift < ± 7 %
0.01 -O.lOppm
Relative to routine concentrations
40 CFR Part 58 App A Sec 3.2
OPERATIONAL CRITERIA - Ozone
Shelter Temperature
Temperature range
Temperature Control
Temperature Device Check
Precision(using 1-point QC
checks)
Bias (using 1-point QC checks)
Annual Performance
Evaluation
Single analyzer
Primary QA Organization
(PQAO)
Federal Audits (NPAP)
State audits
Verification/Calibration
Zero Air
Gaseous Standards
Zero Air Check
Daily
(hourly values)
Daily (hourly values)
2/year
Calculated annually and as
appropriate for design value estimates
Calculated annually and as
appropriate for design value estimates
Every site I/year 25 % of sites
quarterly
annually
I/year at selected sites 20% of sites
audited
I/year
Upon receipt/adjustment/repair/
installation/moving
1/6 months if manual zero/span
performed biweekly
I/year if continuous zero/span
performed daily
I/year
20 to 30° C. (Hourly ave)
or
per manufacturers specifications if designated
to a wider temperature range
< ± 2 ° C SD over 24 hours
± 2°C of standard
90% CL CV< 7%
95% CL < + 7%
Percent difference of each audit level <_ 15%
95% of audit percent differences fall within the
one point QC check 95% probability intervals
at PQAO level of aggregation
Mean absolute difference < 10%
State requirements
All points within ± 2 % of full scale of best-fit
straight line
Linearity error <5%
Concentrations below LDL
NIST Traceable
(e.g., EPA Protocol Gas)
Concentrations below LDL
Generally the 20-30 ° C range will apply but the
most restrictive operable range of the instruments in
the shelter may also be used as guidance
90% Confidence Limit of coefficient of variation. 40
CFR Part 58 App A sec 4. 1 .2
95% Confidence Limit of absolute bias estimate. 40
CFR Part 58 App A sec 4. 1 .3
3 consecutive audit concentration not including zero.
40 CFR Part 58 App A sec 3.2.2
40 CFR Part 58 App A sec 4. 1 .4
40 CFR Part 58 App A sec 2.4
Multi-point calibration (0 and 4 upscale points) 40
CFR Part 50 App D sec 5.2.3
40 CFR Part 58 App A sec 2.6.1
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix D
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 4 of 30
Requirement
Ozone Local primary standard
Certification/recertification to
Standard Reference
Photometer
(if recertified via a transfer
standard)
Ozone Transfer standard
Qualification
Certification
Recertification to local primary
standard
Lower detectable level
Frequency
I/year
I/year
Upon receipt of transfer standard
After qualification and upon
receipt/adjustment/repair
Beginning and end of O3 season or
1/6 months whichever less
I/year
Acceptance Criteria
single point difference < ± 3%
Regression slopes = 1 .00 ± 0.03 and two
intercepts are 0 ± 3 ppb
± 4% or ±4 ppb (whichever greater)
RSD of six slopes < 3.7%
Std. Dev. of 6 intercepts 1.5
New slope = + 0.05 of previous and
RSD of six slopes < 3.7%
Std. Dev. of 6 intercepts 1.5
0.003 ppm
Information /Action
Primary Standards usually transported to EPA
Regions SRP for comparison
Transfer Standard Doc EPA 600/4-79-056 Section
6.4
Transfer Standard Doc EPA 600/4-79-056 Section
6.6
1 recertification test that then gets added to most
recent 5 tests. If does not meet acceptability
certification fails
SYSTEMATIC CRITERIA- Ozone
Requirement
Standard Reporting Units
Completeness (seasonal)
Sample Residence Times
Sample Probe, Inlet, Sampling
train
Siting
EPA Standard Ozone
Reference Photometer (SRP)
Recertification
Frequency
All data
Daily
I/year
Acceptance Criteria
ppm (final units in AQS)
75% of hourly averages for the 8-hour period
< 20 seconds
Borosilicate glass (e.g., Pyrex ) or Teflon
Un-obstructed probe inlet
Regression slope = 1.00 + 0.01
and intercept < 3 ppb
Information /Action
8-Hour Average
40CFRPart58AppE
40CFRPart58AppE
This is usually at a Regional Office and is compared
against the traveling SRP
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix D
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 5 of 30
CO Validation Template
Requirement
Frequency
Acceptance Criteria
Information /Action
CRITICAL CRITERIA-CO
One Point QC Check
Single analyzer
Zero/span check
I/ 2 weeks
1/2 weeks
< +10% (percent difference)
Zero drift < ± 2% of full scale
Span drift < ± 10 %
1 - lOppm
Relative to routine concentrations
40 CFR Part 58 App A Sec 3.2
OPERATIONAL CRITERIA-CO
Shelter Temperature
Temperature range
Temperature Control
Temperature Device Check
Precision(using 1-point QC
checks)
Bias (using 1-point QC checks)
Annual Performance
Evaluation
Single analyzer
Primary QA Organization
(PQAO)
Federal Audits (NPAP)
State audits
Verification/Calibration
Gaseous Standards
Zero Air/Zero Air Check
Daily
(hourly values)
Daily (hourly values)
2/year
Calculated annually and as
appropriate for design value estimates
Calculated annually and as
appropriate for design value estimates
Every site I/year 25 % of sites
quarterly
annually
I/year at selected sites 20% of sites
audited
I/year
Upon receipt/adjustment/repair/
installation/moving
1/6 months if manual zero/span
performed biweekly
I/year if continuous zero/span
performed daily
I/year
20 to 30° C. (Hourly ave)
or
per manufacturers specifications if designated to
a wider temperature range
< ± 2° CSD over 24 hours
± 2°C of standard
90%CLCV<10%
95%CL< +10%
Percent difference of each audit level <_ 15%
95% of audit percent differences fall within the
one point QC check 95% probability intervals at
PQAO level of aggregation
Mean absolute difference < 15%
State requirements
All points within ± 2 % of full scale of best-fit
straight line
NIST Traceable
(e.g., EPA Protocol Gas)
Concentrations below LDL
Generally the 20-30 ° C range will apply but the
most restrictive operable range of the instruments
in the shelter may also be used as guidance
90% Confidence Limit of coefficient of variation.
40 CFR Part 58 App A sec 4. 1 .2
95% Confidence Limit of absolute bias estimate 40
CFR Part 58 App A sec 4.1.3
3 consecutive audit concentration not including
zero. 40 CFR Part 58 App A sec 3.2.2
40 CFR Part 58 App A sec 4. 1 .4
40 CFR Part 58 App A sec 2.4
Multi-point calibration
(0 and 4 upscale points)
Vendor must participate in EPA Protocol Gas
Verification Program 40 CFR Part 58 App A sec
2.6.1
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix D
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 6 of 30
Requirement
Gas Dilution Systems
Detection
Noise
Lower detectable level
Frequency
1/3 months
NA
I/year
Acceptance Criteria
Accuracy ± 2 %
0.50 ppm
1.0 ppm
Information /Action
40CFR Part 53. 20
40CFR Part 53. 20
SYSTEMATIC CRITERIA-CO
Standard Reporting Units
Completeness (seasonal)
Sample Residence Times
Sample Probe, Inlet, Sampling
train
Siting
All data
Hourly
ppm (final units in AQS)
75% of hourly averages for the 8-hour period
< 20 seconds
Borosilicate glass (e.g., Pyrex ) or Teflon
Un-obstructed probe inlet
8-Hour average
40CFRPart58AppE
40CFRPart58AppE
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix D
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 7 of 30
Validation Template
Requirement
Frequency
Acceptance Criteria
Information /Action
CRITICAL CRITERIA- NO2
One Point QC Check
Single analyzer
Zero/span check
1/2 weeks
1/2 weeks
< +10% (percent difference)
Zero drift < ± 3% of full scale
Span drifts ±10%
0.01 -O.lOppm
Relative to routine concentrations
40 CFR Part 58 App A Sec 3.2
OPERATIONAL CRITERIA- NO2
Shelter Temperature
Temperature range
Temperature Control
Temperature Device Check
Precision (using 1-point QC
checks)
Bias (using 1-point QC checks)
Annual Performance
Evaluation
Single analyzer
Primary QA Organization
(PQAO)
Federal Audits (NPAP)
State audits
Verification/Calibration
Converter Efficiency
Gaseous Standards
Daily
(hourly values)
Daily (hourly values)
2/year
Calculated annually and as appropriate
for design value estimates
Calculated annually and as appropriate
for design value estimates
Every site I/year 25 % of sites quarterly
annually
I/year at selected sites 20% of sites
audited
I/year
Upon receipt/adjustment/repair/
installation/moving
1/6 months if manual zero/span
performed biweekly
I/year if continuous zero/span performed
daily
During multi-point calibrations, span and
audit
11 2 weeks
20 to 30° C. (Hourly ave)
or
per manufacturers specifications if designated
to a wider temperature range
< ± 2° C SD over 24 hours
± 2°C of standard
90%CLCV<10%
95% CL < + 10%
Percent difference of each audit level <_ 15%
95% of audit percent differences fall within the
one point QC check 95% probability intervals
at PQAO level of aggregation
Mean absolute difference < 1 5%
State requirements
Intrument residence time < 2 min
Dynam. parameter > 2. 75 ppm-min
All points within ± 2 % of full scale of best- fit
straight line
96%
NIST Traceable
Generally the 20-30 ° C range will apply but the
most restrictive operable range of the instruments
in the shelter may also be used as guidance
90% Confidence Limit of coefficient of variation.
40 CFR Part 58 App A sec 4. 1 .2
95% Confidence Limit of absolute bias estimate.
40 CFR Part 58 App A sec 4. 1 . 3
3 consecutive audit concentration not including
zero. 40 CFR Part 58 App A sec 3.2.2
40 CFR Part 58 App A sec 4. 1 .4
40 CFR Part 58 App A sec 2.4
Multi-point calibration (0 and 4 upscale points) 40
CFR Part 50 App F
Vendor must participate in EPA Protocol Gas
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix D
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 8 of 30
Requirement
Zero Air/ Zero Air Check
Gas Dilution Systems
Detection
Noise
Lower detectable level
Frequency
I/year
1/3 months
NA
I/year
Acceptance Criteria
(e.g., EPA Protocol Gas)
Concentrations below LDL
Accuracy ± 2 %
0.005 ppm
0.01 ppm
Information /Action
Verification Program 40 CFR Part 58 App A sec
2.6.1
40 CFR Part 53. 20
40 CFR Part 53.20
SYSTEMATIC CRITERIA- NO2
Standard Reporting Units
Completeness (seasonal)
Sample Residence Times
Sample Probe, Inlet, Sampling
train
Siting
All data
Quarterly
ppm (final units in AQS)
75%
< 20 seconds
Borosilicate glass (e.g., Pyrex ) or Teflon
Un-obstructed probe inlet
Annual standard (hourly data)
40 CFR Part 5 8 App E
40 CFR Part 5 8 App E
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix D
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 9 of 30
SO2 Validation Template
Requirement
Frequency
Acceptance Criteria
Information /Action
CRITICAL CRITERIA- SO2
One Point QC Check
Single analyzer
Zero/span check
I/ 2 weeks
1/2 weeks
< +10% (percent difference)
Zero drift < ± 3% of full scale
Span drift < ± 10%
0.01-0. 10 ppm
Relative to routine concentrations
40 CFR Part 58 App A Sec 3.2
OPERATIONAL CRITERIA- SO2
Shelter Temperature
Temperature range
Temperature Control
Temperature Device Check
Precision (using 1-point QC
checks)
Bias (using 1-point QC checks)
Annual Performance
Evaluation
Single analyzer
Primary QA Organization
(PQAO)
Federal Audits (NPAP)
State audits
Verification/Calibration
Zero Air
Gaseous Standards
Daily
(hourly values)
Daily (hourly values)
2/year
Calculated annually and as appropriate
for design value estimates
Calculated annually and as appropriate
for design value estimates
Every site I/year 25 % of sites quarterly
annually
I/year at selected sites 20% of sites
audited
I/year
Upon receipt/adjustment/repair/
installation/moving
1/6 months if manual zero/span
performed biweekly
I/year if continuous zero/span
performed daily
20 to 30° C. (Hourly ave)
or
per manufacturers specifications if designated
to a wider temperature range
< ± 2° CSD over 24 hours
± 2°C of standard
90%CLCV<10%
95%CL^+10%
Percent difference of each audit level <_ 15%
95% of audit percent differences fall within the
one point QC check 95% probability intervals
at PQAO level of aggregation
Mean absolute difference < 15%
State requirements
All points within ± 2 % of full scale of best-fit
straight line
Concentrations below LDL
NIST Traceable
(e.g., EPA Protocol Gas)
Generally the 20-30 ° C range will apply but the
most restrictive operable range of the instruments in
the shelter may also be used as guidance
90% Confidence Limit of coefficient of variation 40
CFR Part 58 App A sec 4. 1 .2
95% Confidence Limit of absolute bias estimate 40
CFR Part 58 App A sec 4. 1 .3
3 consecutive audit concentrations not including
zero 40 CFR Part 58 App A sec 3.2.2
40 CFR Part 58 App A sec 4.1 .4
40 CFR Part 58 App A sec 2.4
Multi-point calibration
(0 and 4 upscale points)
Vendor must participate in EPA Protocol Gas
Verification Program 40 CFR Part 58 App A sec
2.6.1
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix D
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 10 of 30
Requirement
Zero Air/ Zero Air Check
Gas Dilution Systems
Detection
Noise
Lower detectable level
Frequency
I/year
1/3 months
NA
I/year
Acceptance Criteria
Concentrations below LDL
Accuracy ± 2 %
0.005 ppm
0.01 ppm
Information /Action
40CFR Part 53.20
40CFR Part 5 3. 20
SYSTEMATIC CRITERIA- SO2
Standard Reporting Units
Completeness (seasonal)
Sample Residence Times
Sample Probe, Inlet, Sampling
train
Siting
All data
Quarterly
24 hours
3 hours
ppm (final units in AQS)
75%
75%
75%
< 20 seconds
Borosilicate glass (e.g., Pyrex ) or Teflon
Un-obstructed probe inlet
Annual standard
24-hour standard
3 -hour standard
40CFRPart58AppE
40CFRPart58AppE
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix D
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 11 of 30
PM2.s Filter Based Local Conditions Validation Template
Criteria
Filter Holding Times
Sample Recovery
Post- sampling Weighing
Sampling Period (including
multiple power failures)
Sampling Instrument
Average Flow Rate
Variability in Flow Rate
Filter
Visual Defect Check (unexposed)
Filter Conditioning Environment
Equilibration
Temp. Range
Temp. Control
Humidity Range
Humidity Control
Pre/post Sampling RH
Balance
Verification/Calibration
One-point Flow Rate Verification
Filter Checks
Lot Blanks
Exposure Lot Blanks
Filter Integrity (exposed)
Filter Holding Times
Pre- sampling
Lab QC Checks
Field Filter Blank
Lab Filter Blank
Balance Check
Duplicate Filter Weighing
Sampling Instrument
Frequency | Acceptable Range
CRITICAL CR
all filters
all filters
all filters
every 24 hours of op
every 24 hours of op
all filters
all filters
all filters
all filters
all filters
all filters
all filters
all filters
1/4 weeks
OPERATIONAL EVAL1
9 filters per lot
3 filters per lot
each filter
all filters
10% or 1 per weighing session
10% or 1 per weighing session
beginning, 10th sample, end
1 per weighing session
[TERIA- PM2 .5 Filter Based Local Conditions
< 7 days 9 hours from sample end date
< 10 days from sample end date if shipped at ambient temp, or
< 30 days if shipped below ave ambient (or 4° C or below for
ave sampling temps < 4 ° C ) from sample end date
1380-1 500 minutes, or
value if < 1380 and exceedance of NAAQS ~
midnight to midnight
average within 5% of 16.67 liters/minute
CV < 2%
see reference
24 hours minimum
24-hr mean 20-23 °C
± 2° CSD* over 24 hr
24-hr mean 30% - 40% RH or
< 5% sampling RH but > 20%RH
± 5%SD* over 24 hr.
difference in 24-hr means < ± 5% RH
located in filter conditioning environment
± 4% of transfer standard
JATIONS TABLE PM25 Filter Based Local Condit
less than 15 ,ug change between weighings
less than 15 ^g change between weighings
no visual defects
< 30 days before sampling
± 30 ,ug change between weighings
± 15 fj.g change between weighings
<3,ug
± 15 ,ug change between weighings
Information (CFR or Method
2.12)
Part 50 App L Sec 10.10
Part 50 App L Sec 8. .3. 6
Part 50 App L Sec 3.3
Part50,App.LSec7.4.15
Part 50 App L Sec 7.4
Part 50, App.L Sec 7.4.3.2
Part 50, App.L Sec 10.2
Part 50, App.L Sec 8.2
Part 50, App.L Sec 8.2
Part 50, App.L Sec 8.2
Part 50, App.L Sec 8.2
Part 50, App.L Sec 8.2
Part 50, App.L Sec 8.3. 3
Part 50, App.L Sec 8. 3. 2
Part 50, App.L, Sec 9.2.5
Part 58, Appendix A Sec 3.2.3 & 3.3.2
ions
Method 2. 12 Sec. 7.7
Method 2. 12 Sec. 7.7
Method 2. 12 Sec. 8.2
Part 50, App.L Sec 8.3
Part 50, App.L Sec 8.3
Part 50, App.L Sec 8.3
Method Sec. 7.9
Method Sec 7. 11
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix D
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 12 of 30
Criteria
Individual Flow Rates
Filter Temp Sensor
Verification/Calibration
Routine Verifications
External Leak Check
Internal Leak Check
One-point Temp Verification
Pressure Verification
Lab Temperature
Lab Humidity
Annual Multi-point Verifications
/Calibrations
Temperature multi-point
Verification/Calibration
Pressure Verification/Calibration
Flow Rate Multi-point Verification/
Calibration
Design Flow Rate Adjustment
Other Monitor Calibrations
Mirobalance Calibration
Precision
Collocated Samples
Accuracy
Temperature Audit
Pressure Audit
Balance Audit
Semi Annual Flow Rate Audit
Frequency
every 24 hours of op
every 24 hours of op
every 5 sampling events
every 5 sampling events
1/4 weeks
1/4 weeks
1/6 months
1/6 months
1/yr
on installation, then 1/yr
1/yr
at one-point or multi-point
per manufacturers' op manual
1/yr
every 12 days for 15% of sites
2/yr
2/yr
1/yr
2/yr
Acceptable Range
no flow rate excursions > ± 5% for > 5 min. -
no excursions of > 5 ° C lasting longer than 30 min ~
< 80 mL/min
< 80 mL/min
±2°C
± lOmmHg
±2°C
±2%
±2°C
± 10 mmHg
± 2% of transfer standard
± 2% of design flow rate
per manufacturers' operating manual
Manufacturer's specification
CV < 10% of samples > 3 Mg/m3
±2°C
± 10 mm Hg
± 0.050 mg or manufacturers specs, whichever is tighter
± 4% of audit standard
± 5% of design flow rate
Information (CFR or Method
2.12)
Part 50, App.L Sec 7.4. 3.1
Part 50, App.L Sec 7.4
Part 50, App.L, Sec 7.4
Part 50, App.L, Sec 7.4
Part 50, App.L, Sec 9. 3
Part 50, App.L, Sec 9. 3
Method Sec 3. 3
Method Sec 3. 3
Part 50, App.L, Sec 9. 3
Part 50, App.L, Sec 9. 3
Part 50, App.L, Sec 9.2
Part 50, App.L, Sec 9.2.6
Part 50, App.L, Sec 8.1
Part 58 App A Sec 3.2. 5
Method Sec. 10.2
Method Sec. 10.2
Method Sec. 10.2
Part 58, App A, Sec 3. 3. 3
Calibration & Check Standards -
Field Thermometer
Field Barometer
Working Mass Stds. (compare to
primary standards)
Monitor Maintenance
Impactor (WINs)
Very Sharp Cut Cyclone
Inlet/downtube Cleaning
Filter Chamber Cleaning
1/yr
1/yr
1/3 mo.
every 5 sampling events
Every 30 days
every 15 sampling events
1/4 weeks
± 0.1 ° C resolution, ± 0.5° C accuracy
± 1 mm Hg resolution, ± 5 mm Hg accuracy
0.025 mg
cleaned/changed
cleaned
cleaned
Method Sec 4.2 & 6.4
Method Sec 4.2 & 6.5
Method Sec 4. 3 and 7.3
Method Sec 9.2
Method Sec 9.3
Method Sec 9.3
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix D
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 13 of 30
Criteria
Leak Check®
Circulating Fan Filter Cleaning
Manufacturer-Recommended
Maintenance
Data Completeness
Reporting Units
Rounding Convention
Annual 3-yr average
24-hour, 3-year average
Detection Limit
Lower DL
Upper Cone. Limit
Frequency
1/4 weeks
per manufacturers' SOP
SYSTEMATIC CR
quarterly
all filters
quarterly
quarterly
all filters
all filters
Acceptable Range
see Verification/Calibration
cleaned/changed
per manufacturers' SOP
ITERIA -PM2.5 Filter Based Local Conditions
> 75%
Mg/m at ambient temp/pressure (PM2 5)
nearest 0. 1 ,ug/m (> 0.05 round up)
nearest 1 ,ug/m (> 0.5 round up)
< 2 ,ug/m
> 200 Mg/m3
Information (CFR or Method
2.12)
Method Sec 9.3
Part 50, App. N, Sec. 4.1 (b) 4.2 (a)
Part 50. 3
Part 50, App. N Sec 2.3
Part 50, App. N Sec 2.3
Part50,App.L Sec 3.1
Part50,App.LSec3.2
Verification/Calibration Standards Recertiflcations - All standards should have multi-point certifications against NIST Traceable standards
Flow Rate Transfer Std.
Field Thermometer
Field Barometer
Primary Mass Stds. (compare to
NIST-traceable standards)
Microbalance
Readability
Repeatability
Calibration & Check Standards
Flow Rate Transfer Std.
Verification/Calibration
Clock/timer Verification
Precision
Single analyzer
Single analyzer
Primary Quality Assurance Org.
Bias
Performance Evaluation Program
(PEP)
1/yr
1/yr
1/yr
1/yr
at purchase
1/yr
1/yr
1/4 weeks
1/3 mo.
1/yr
Annual and 3 year estimates
5 audits for PQAOs with < 5
sites
8 audits for PQAOs with > 5
sites
± 2% of NIST-traceable Std.
± 0.1 ° C resolution, ± 0.5° C accuracy
± 1 mm Hg resolution, ± 5 mm Hg accuracy
0.025 mg
1 Mg
IMS
± 2% of NIST-traceable Std.
1 min/mo
Coefficient of variation (CV) < 10%
CV<10%
90%CLofCV< 10%
±10%
Part50,App.LSec9.1&9.2
Method Sec 4.2.2
Method Sec 4.2.2
Method Sec 4.3.7
Part50,App.L Sec 8.1
Part 50, APP L, Sec 9. 1 & 9.2
Part 50, App.L, Sec 7.4
Part 58, App A, Sec 4. 3.1
Part 58, App A, Sec 3.2.7, 4.3.2
I/ value must be flagged * SD= standard deviation CV= coefficient of variation ®= Scheduled to occur immediately after impactor cleaned/changed.
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix D
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 14 of 30
NOTE: There may be a number of continuous monitors that may be designated as an FEM or an ARM. These monitors may have
different measurement or sampling attributes that cannot be identified in this validation template. Monitoring organizations should
review specific instrument operating manuals to augment this validation template as necessary. In general, 40 CFR Part 58 App A
and 40 CFR part 50 App L requirements apply to Continuous PM2.5
Continuous PM2.5 Local Conditions Validation Template
Criteria
Frequency
Acceptable Range
Information (CFR or Method 2.12)
CRITICAL CRITERIA- PM2 5 Continuous, Local Conditions
Sampling Period
24 hour estimate
Hour estimate
Sampling Instrument
Average Flow Rate
Variability in Flow Rate
Verification/Calibration
One-point Flow Rate Verification
Reference Membrane Verification
(BAM)
Verification/Calibration
Leak Check
Temperature Calibration
Temp M-point Verification
One-point Temp Check
Pressure Calibration
Pressure Verification
Other Monitor Calibrations
Flow Rate (FR) Calibration
FR Multi-point Verification
Design Flow Rate Adjustment
Precision
Collocated Samples
every sample period
Every hour
every 24 hours of op
every 24 hours of op
1/4 weeks
Hourly
OPERATIONAL
every 30 days
if multi-point failure
on installation, then 1/yr
1/4 weeks
on installation, then 1/yr
1/4 weeks
per manufacturers' op manual
if multi-point verification
failure
1/yr
at one-point or multi-point
every 12 days for 15% of sites
1380-1 500 minutes, or
value if < 1380 and exceedance of NAAQS ~
midnight to midnight
Instrument dependent
average within 5% of 16.67 liters/minute
CV < 2%
± 4% of transfer standard
± 4% of ABS Value
CRITERIA- PM2 .5 Continuous, Local Conditio
Instrument dependent
±2°C
±2°C
±2°C
± 10 mmHg
± 10 mmHg
per manufacturers' operating manual
±2%
±2%
± 2% of design flow rate
CV < 10% of samples > 3 Mg/m3
Part 50 App L Sec 3.3
Part50,App.LSec7.4.15
See operators manual
Part 50 App L Sec 7.4
Part 50, App.L Sec 7.4. 3.2
Part 50, App.L, Sec 9.2.5
Part 58, Appendix A Sec 3.2.3 & 3.3.2
IS
Part 50, App.L, Sec 7.4
Part 50, App.L, Sec 9.3
Part 50, App.L, Sec 9.3
Part 50, App.L, Sec 9.3
Part 50, App.L, Sec 9.3
Part 50, App.L, Sec 9.3
Part 50, App.L, Sec 9.2
Part 50, App.L, Sec 9.2
Part 50, App.L, Sec 9.2.6
Part 58 App A Sec 3.2. 5
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix D
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 15 of 30
Criteria
Accuracy
Temperature Audit
Pressure Audit
Semi Annual Flow Rate Audit
Calibration & Check Standards
(working standards)
Field Thermometer
Field Barometer
Shelter Temperature
Temperature range
Temperature Control
Temperature Device Check
Monitor Maintenance
Virtual Impactor
Very Sharp Cut Cyclone
Inlet Cleaning
Filter Chamber Cleaning
Circulating Fan Filter Cleaning
Manufacturer-Recommended
Maintenance
Data Completeness
Reporting Units
Rounding Convention
Annual 3-yr average
24-hour, 3-year average
Detection Limit
Lower DL
Upper Cone. Limit
Frequency
2/yr
2/yr
2/yr
1/yr
1/yr
Daily
(hourly values)
Daily (hourly values)
2/year
Every 30 days
Every 30 days
1/4 weeks
1/4 weeks
per manufacturers' SOP
SYSTEMATIC C
quarterly
quarterly
quarterly
all filters
all filters
Acceptable Range
±2°C
± 10 mm Hg
± 4% of audit standard
± 5% of design flow rate
± 0.1 ° C resolution, ± 0.5° C accuracy
± 1 mm Hg resolution, ± 5 mm Hg accuracy
20 to 30° C. (Hourly ave)
or
per manufacturers specifications if designated to a wider
temperature range
< ± 2° CSD over 24 hours
±2°C
cleaned/changed
cleaned
cleaned
cleaned/changed
per manufacturers' SOP
RITERIA- PM2.5 Continuous, Local Conditior
> 75%
Mg/m at ambient temp/pressure (PM2 5)
nearest 0. 1 ,ug/m (> 0.05 round up)
nearest 1 ,ug/m (> 0.5 round up)
< 2 ,ug/m
> 200 Mg/m3
Information (CFR or Method 2.12)
Method 2. 12 Sec. 10.2
Method 2. 12 Sec. 10.2
Method 2. 12 Sec. 10.2
Part 58, App A, Sec 3. 3. 3
Method 2. 12 Sec 4.2 & 6.4
Method 2. 12 Sec 4.2 & 6. 5
Generally the 20-30 ° C range will apply but
the most restrictive operable range of the
instruments in the shelter may also be used as
guidance
Method 2. 12 Sec 9. 2
Method 2. 12 Sec 9.3
Method 2. 12 Sec 9. 3
Method 2. 12 Sec 9.3
IS
Part 50, App. N, Sec. 4. 1 (b) 4.2 (a)
Part 50.3
Part 50, App. N Sec 2. 3
Part 50, App. N Sec 2. 3
Part 50, App.L Sec 3.1
Part 50, App.L Sec 3.2
Verification/Calibration Standards Recertiflcations - All standards should have multi-point certifications against NIST Traceable standards
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix D
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 16 of 30
Criteria
Flow Rate Transfer Std.
Field Thermometer
Field Barometer
Calibration & Check Standards
Flow Rate Transfer Std.
Verification/Calibration
Clock/timer Verification
Precision
Single analyzer
Single analyzer
Primary Quality Assurance Org.
Bias
Performance Evaluation Program
(PEP)
Frequency
1/yr
1/yr
1/yr
1/yr
1/4 weeks
1/3 mo.
1/yr
Annual and 3 year estimates
5 audits for PQAOs with < 5
sites
8 audits for PQAOs with > 5
sites
Acceptable Range
± 2% of NIST-traceable Std.
± 0.1 ° C resolution, ± 0.5° C accuracy
± 1 mm Hg resolution, ± 5 mm Hg accuracy
± 2% of NIST-traceable Std.
1 min/mo**
Coefficient of variation (CV) < 10%
CV<10%
90%CLofCV< 10%
±10%
Information (CFR or Method 2.12)
Part 50, App.L Sec 9.1 & 9.2
Method 2. 12 Sec 4.2.2
Method 2. 12 Sec 4.2.2
Part 50, APP L, Sec 9.1 & 9.2
Part 50, App.L, Sec 7.4
Part 58, App A, Sec 4. 3.1
Part 58, App A, Sec 3.2.7, 4.3.2
I/ value must be flagged due to current implementation of BAM ( sampling 42 minute/hour) only 1008 minutes of sampling in 24 hour period
*= not defined in CFR
SD= standard deviation
CV= coefficient of variation
® = Scheduled to occur immediately after impactor cleaned/changed.
** = need to ensure data system stamps appropriate time period with reported sample value
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix D
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 17 of 30
NOTE: The following validation template was constructed for use of PMio at local conditions where PMio is used in the calculation of
the PMio-2.5 measurement or for objectives other than comparison to the PMio NAAQS. Although the PM 10-2.5 method is found in 40
CFR Part 50 Appendix O, Appendix O references Appendix L (the PM2.s Method) for the QC requirements listed below.
Monitoring organizations using PMio data for a NAAQS comparison purposes should refer to the PMio validation template for STP
(standard temperature and pressure correction).
Filter Based Local Conditions Validation Template
Criteria
Filter Holding Times
Sample Recovery
Post- sampling Weighing
Sampling Period (including
multiple power failures)
Sampling Instrument
Average Flow Rate
Variability in Flow Rate
Filter
Visual Defect Check (unexposed)
Filter Conditioning Environment
Equilibration
Temp. Range
Temp. Control
Humidity Range
Humidity Control
Pre/post Sampling RH
Balance
Verification/Calibration
Frequency
CRITICAL CE
all filters
all filters
all filters
every 24 hours of op
every 24 hours of op
all filters
all filters
all filters
all filters
all filters
all filters
all filters
all filters
Acceptable Range
JTERIA- PM10 Filter Based Local Conditions
< 7 days 9 hours from sample end date
< 10 days from sample end date if shipped at ambient
temp, or
< 30 days if shipped below ave ambient (or 4 ° C or
below for ave sampling temps < 4 ° C ) from sample end
date
13 80- 1500 minutes, or
value if < 1380 and exceedance of NAAQS ~
midnight to midnight
average within 5% of 16.67 liters/minute
CV < 2%
see reference
24 hours minimum
24-hr mean 20-23° C
±2°CSD*over24hr
24-hr mean 30% - 40% RH or
< 5% sampling RH but > 20%RH
± 5%SD* over 24 hr.
difference in 24-hr means < ± 5% RH
located in filter conditioning environment
Information (CFR or Method 2.12)
Part 50 AppL Sec 10. 10
Part 50 AppL Sec 8.. 3.6
Part 50 AppL Sec 3.3
Part50,App.LSec7.4.15
Part 50 App L Sec 7.4
Part 50, App.L Sec 7.4. 3.2
Part 50, App.L Sec 10.2
Part 50, App.L Sec 8.2
Part 50, App.L Sec 8.2
Part 50, App.L Sec 8.2
Part 50, App.L Sec 8.2
Part 50, App.L Sec 8.2
Part 50, App.L Sec 8. 3. 3
Part 50, App.L Sec 8. 3.2
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix D
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 18 of 30
Criteria
One-point Flow Rate Verification
Filter Checks
Lot Blanks
Exposure Lot Blanks
Filter Integrity (exposed)
Filter Holding Times
Pre- sampling
Lab QC Checks
Field Filter Blank
Lab Filter Blank
Balance Check
Duplicate Filter Weighing
Sampling Instrument
Individual Flow Rates
Filter Temp Sensor
Verification/Calibration
Routine Verifications
External Leak Check
Internal Leak Check
One-point Temp Verification
Pressure Verification
Lab Temperature
Lab Humidity
Annual Multi-point Verifications
/Calibrations
Temperature multi-point
Verification/Calibration
Pressure Verification/Calibration
Flow Rate Multi-point Verification/
Calibration
Frequency
1/4 weeks
OPERATIONAL EVAL
9 filters per lot
3 filters per lot
each filter
all filters
10% or 1 per weighing session
10% or 1 per weighing session
beginning, 10th sample, end
1 per weighing session
every 24 hours of op
every 24 hours of op
every 5 sampling events
every 5 sampling events
1/4 weeks
1/4 weeks
1/6 months
1/6 months
1/yr
on installation, then 1/yr
1/yr
Acceptable Range
± 4% of transfer standard
UATIONS TABLE PM10 Filter Based Local Co
less than 15 ,ug change between weighings
less than 15 ,ug change between weighings
no visual defects
< 30 days before sampling
± 30 ,ug change between weighings
± 15 ,ug change between weighings
<3,ug
± 15 ,ug change between weighings
no flow rate excursions > ± 5% for > 5 min. ~
no excursions of > 5 ° C lasting longer than 30 min ~
< 80 mL/min
< 80 mL/min
±2°C
± 10 mmHg
±2°C
±2%
±2°C
± 10 mmHg
± 2% of transfer standard
Information (CFR or Method 2.12)
Part 50, App.L, Sec 9.2.5
Part 58, Appendix A Sec 3.2.3 & 3.3.2
nditions
Method 2. 12 Sec. 7.7
Method 2. 12 Sec. 7.7
Method 2. 12 Sec. 8.2
Part 50, App.L Sec 8.3
Part 50, App.L Sec 8.3
Part 50, App.L Sec 8.3
Method Sec. 7.9
Method Sec 7. 11
Part 50, App.L Sec 7.4. 3.1
Part 50, App.L Sec 7.4
Part 50, App.L, Sec 7.4
Part 50, App.L, Sec 7.4
Part 50, App.L, Sec 9.3
Part 50, App.L, Sec 9.3
Method Sec 3. 3
Method Sec 3. 3
Part 50, App.L, Sec 9.3
Part 50, App.L, Sec 9.3
Part 50, App.L, Sec 9.2
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix D
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 19 of 30
Criteria
Design Flow Rate Adjustment
Other Monitor Calibrations
Mirobalance Calibration
Precision
Collocated Samples
Accuracy
Temperature Audit
Pressure Audit
Balance Audit
Semi Annual Flow Rate Audit
Calibration & Check Standards
(working standards)
Field Thermometer
Field Barometer
Working Mass Stds. (compare to
primary standards)
Monitor Maintenance
Inlet/downtube Cleaning
Filter Chamber Cleaning
Leak Check®
Circulating Fan Filter Cleaning
Manufacturer-Recommended
Maintenance
Data Completeness
Reporting Units
Rounding Convention
Annual 3-yr average
24-hour, 3-year average
Detection Limit
Lower DL
Frequency
at one-point or multi-point
per manufacturers' op manual
1/yr
every 12 days for 15% of sites
2/yr
2/yr
1/yr
2/yr
1/yr
1/yr
1/3 mo.
every 15 sampling events
1/4 weeks
1/4 weeks
per manufacturers' SOP
SYSTEMATIC CI
quarterly
all filters
quarterly
quarterly
all filters
Acceptable Range
± 2% of design flow rate
per manufacturers' operating manual
Manufacturer's specification
CV < 10% of samples > 3 Mg/m3
±2°C
±10 mmHg
± 0.050 mg or manufacturers specs, whichever is tighter
± 4% of audit standard
± 5% of design flow rate
± 0.1 ° C resolution, ± 0.5° C accuracy
± 1 mm Hg resolution, ± 5 mm Hg accuracy
0.025 mg
cleaned
cleaned
see Verification/Calibration
cleaned/changed
per manufacturers' SOP
JTERIA -PMio Filter Based Local Condit
> 75%
Mg/m at ambient temp/pressure (PM2 5)
nearest 0.1 ,ug/m (> 0.05 round up)
nearest 1 ,ug/m (> 0.5 round up)
< 2 ,ug/m
Information (CFR or Method 2.12)
Part 50, App.L, Sec 9.2.6
Part 50, App.L, Sec 8.1
Part 58 App A Sec 3.2. 5
Method Sec. 10.2
Method Sec. 10.2
Method Sec. 10.2
Part 58, App A, Sec 3. 3. 3
Method Sec 4.2 & 6.4
Method Sec 4.2 & 6.5
Method Sec 4. 3 and 7.3
Method Sec 9.3
Method Sec 9.3
Method Sec 9.3
ons
Part 50, App. N, Sec. 2.1
Part 50.3
Part 50, App. N Sec 2. 3
Part 50, App. N Sec 2. 3
Part 50, App.L Sec 3.1
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix D
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 20 of 30
Criteria
Upper Cone. Limit
Frequency
all filters
Acceptable Range
> 200 Mg/m3
Information (CFR or Method 2.12)
Part50,App.LSec3.2
Verification/Calibration Standards Recertiflcations- All standards should have multi-point certifications against NIST Traceable standards
Flow Rate Transfer Std.
Field Thermometer
Field Barometer
Primary Mass Stds. (compare to
NIST-traceable standards)
Microbalance
Readability
Repeatability
Calibration & Check Standards
Flow Rate Transfer Std.
Verification/Calibration
Clock/timer Verification
Precision
Single analyzer
Single analyzer
Primary Quality Assurance Org.
Bias
Performance Evaluation Program
(PEP)
1/yr
1/yr
1/yr
1/yr
at purchase
1/yr
1/yr
1/4 weeks
1/3 mo.
1/yr
Annual and 3 year estimates
5 audits for PQAOs with < 5
sites
8 audits for PQAOs with > 5
sites
± 2% of NIST-traceable Std.
± 0.1 ° C resolution, ± 0.5° C accuracy
± 1 mm Hg resolution, ± 5 mm Hg accuracy
0.025 mg
1 Mg
iMg
± 2% of NIST-traceable Std.
1 min/mo
Coefficient of variation (CV) < 10%
CV<10%
90%CLofCV< 10%
±10%
Part 50, App.L Sec 9.1 & 9.2
Method Sec 4.2.2
Method Sec 4.2.2
Method Sec 4. 3.7
Part 50, App.L Sec 8.1
Part 50, APP L, Sec 9. 1 & 9.2
Part 50, App.L, Sec 7.4
Part 58, App A, Sec 4. 3.1
Part 58, App A, Sec 3.2.7, 4.3.2
I/ value must be flagged
SD= standard deviation
CV= coefficient of variation
® = Scheduled to occur immediately after impactor cleaned/changed.
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix D
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 21 of 30
Filter Based Dichot STP Conditions Validation Template
Criteria
Filter Holding Times
Sample Recovery
Sampling Period
Sampling Instrument
Average Flow Rate
Filter
Visual Defect Check (unexposed)
Collection efficiency
Integrity
Alkalinity
Filter Conditioning Environment
Equilibration
Temp. Range
Temp. Control
Humidity Range
Humidity Control
Pre/post Sampling RH
Balance
Verification/Calibration
One-point Flow Rate Verification
Lab QC Checks
Balance Check
"Standard" filter QC check
"Routine" duplicate weighing
Verification/Calibration
System Leak Check
FR Multi-point
Verification/Calibration
Field Temp M-point Verification
Lab Temperature
Lab Humidity
Microbalance Calibration
Precision
Frequency
CRITICA
all filters
all filters
every 24 hours of op
all filters
all filters
all filters
all filters
all filters
all filters
all filters
all filters
all filters
all filters
all filters
1/4 weeks
OPERATIONAL E
beginning, 10th sample, end
10%
5-7 per weighing session
During precalibration check
1/yr
on installation, then 1/yr
1/6 months
1/6 months
1/yr
Acceptable Range
L CRITERIA- PM10 Filter Based Dichot
ASAP
1440 minutes + 60 minutes
midnight to midnight
average 16.67 liters/minute
see reference
99%
± 5 |ig/m3
< 25.0 microequivalents/gram
24 hours minimum
15-30° C
± 3°CSD*over24hr
20% - 45% RH
± 5% SD* over 24 In-
difference in 24-hr means < ± 5% RH
located in filter conditioning environment
± 7% of transfer standard and 10% from design
VALUATIONS TABLE PM10 Filter Based Dicl
<4 fj.g of true zero
<2 ,ug of 10 mg check weight
± 20 ,ug change from original value
± 20 fj.g change from original value
Vacuum of 10 to 15 in. with decline to 0 >60 seconds
±2%
±2°C
±2°C
±2%
Manufacturer's specification
Information (CFR or Method 2.10)
Part 50 AppJ sec 9. 16
PartSOApp J sec 7. 1.5
Method 2. 10 sec 2.1
Method 2. 10 sec 4. 2
Part 50, App J sec 7.2.2
Part 50, App J sec 7.2.3
Part 50, App J sec 7.2.4
Part 50, App. J sec 9.3
Part 50, App. J sec 7.4.1
Part 50, App. J sec 7.4.2
Part 50, App. J sec 7.4.3
Part 50, App. J sec 7.4.4
Part50,App.Lsec8.3.3
Part50,App.Lsec8.3.2
Method 2.10 sec Table 3-1
ot
Method 2 .10 sec 4.5
Method 2. 10 sec 4. 5
From standard non-routine filter
Method 2. 10 sec 4. 5
From routine filter set
Method 2. 10 sec 2.2.1
Part 50, App.L, sec 9.2
recommendation
recommendation
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix D
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 22 of 30
Criteria
Collocated Samples
Audits
Filter Weighing
Balance Audit
Semi Annual Flow Rate Audit
Monitor Maintenance
Impactor
Inlet/downtube Cleaning
Vacuum pump
Manufacturer-Recommended
Maintenance
Data Completeness
Reporting Units
Rounding Convention
24-hour, 3-year average
Frequency
every 12 days for 15% of sites
1/yr
1/yr
2/yr
1/3 mo
1/3 mo
1/yr
per manufacturers' SOP
SYSTEMA1
quarterly
all filters
quarterly
Acceptable Range
CV < 10% of samples > 3 Mg/m3
± 20 fj.g change from original value
Observe weighing technique and check balance with
ASTM Class 1 standard
± 4% of audit standard
± 5% of design flow rate
cleaned/changed
cleaned
Replace diaphragm and flapper valves
per manufacturers' SOP
1C CRITERIA - PM10 Filter Based Dichot
> 75%
Mg/m at standard temperature and pressure (STP)
nearest 10 ,ug/m (> 5 round up)
Information (CFR or Method 2.10)
Part 58 App A sec 3.2. 5
Method 2.10 Table 7-1
Method 2.10 Table 7-1 section 7.2.2
Part 58, App A, sec 3.3.3
Method 2.10 sec 6. 1.2
Method 2.10 sec 6. 1.2
Method 2.10 sec 6. 1.3
Part 50 App. K, sec. 2.3
Part 50 App K
Part 50 App K sec 1
Verification/Calibration Standards and Recertiflcations - All standards should have multi-point certifications against NIST Traceable standards
Flow Rate Transfer Std.
Field Thermometer
Field Barometer
Primary Mass Stds. (compare to
NIST-traceable standards)
Microbalance
Readability
Repeatability
Calibration & Check Standards
Flow Rate Transfer Std.
Verification/Calibration
Clock/timer Verification
Precision
Single analyzer
Single analyzer
Primary Quality Assurance Org.
1/yr
1/yr
1/yr
1/yr
at purchase
1/yr
1/yr
4/year
1/3 mo.
1/yr
Annual and 3 year estimates
± 2% of NIST-traceable Std.
± 0.1° C resolution, ± 0.5° C accuracy
± 1 mm Hg resolution, ± 5 mm Hg accuracy
NIST traceable
(e.g., ANSI/ASTM Class 1, 1.1 or 2)
1 Mg
Ufg
± 2% of NIST-traceable Std.
5 min/mo
Coefficient of variation (CV) < 10%
CV < 10%
90%CLofCV< 10%
Part 50, App. J sec 7.3
Method 2. 10 sec 9
Method 2. 10 sec 4.4
Method 2. 10 sec 4. 4
Method 2. 10 sec 9
recommendation
recommendation
recommendation
Part 58, App A, sec 4. 3.1
SD= standard deviation CV= coefficient of variation
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix D
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 23 of 30
Filter Based High Volume (HV) STP Conditions Validation Template
Criteria
Filter Holding Times
Sample Recovery
Sampling Period
Sampling Instrument
Average Flow Rate
Filter
Visual Defect Check (unexposed)
Collection efficiency
Integrity
Alkalinity
Filter Conditioning Environment
Equilibration
Temp. Range
Temp. Control
Humidity Range
Humidity Control
Pre/post Sampling RH
Balance
Verification/Calibration
One-point Flow Rate Verification
Lab QC Checks
Balance Check
"Routine" duplicate weighing
Verification/Calibration
System Leak Check
FR Multi-point
Verification/Calibration
Frequency
CRITK
all filters
all filters
every 24 hours of op
all filters
all filters
all filters
all filters
all filters
all filters
all filters
all filters
all filters
all filters
all filters
1/3 mo
OPERATIONAI
beginning, 10th sample, end
5-7 per weighing session
During precalibration check
1/yr
Acceptable Range
:AL CRITERIA- PM10 Filter Based Hi-Vol
ASAP
1440 minutes + 60 minutes
midnight to midnight
-1.13 m3/min (varies with instrument)
see reference
99%
± 5 |ig/m3
< 25.0 microequivalents/gram
24 hours minimum
15-30° C
± 3° C SD* over 24 hr
20%-45%RH
± 5% SD* over 24 In-
difference in 24-hr means < ± 5% RH
located in filter conditioning environment
± 7% of transfer standard and 10% from design
, EVALUATIONS TABLE PM10 Filter Based Hi-V<
+ 0.5 mg of true zero and + O.Smg 1-5 g check weight
±2.8 mg change from original value
Auditory inspection with faceplate blocked
3 of 4 cal points within + 1 0% of design
Information (CFR or Method 2.11)
Part 50 App J sec 9.16
PartSOApp J sec 7. 1.5
Method 2. 11
Method 2. 10 sec 4. 2
Part 50, App J sec 7.2.2
Part 50, App J sec 7.2.3
Part 50, App J sec 7.2.4
Part 50, App.J sec 9.3
Part 50, App. J sec 7.4.1
Part 50, App.J sec 7.4.2
Part 50, App.J sec 7.4. 3
Part 50, App.J sec 7.4.4
recommendation
recommendation
Method 2.10 sec Table 3-1
1
Method 2 .11 sec 4. 5
Method 2.11 sec 4. 5. 3
From routine filter set
Method 2.11 sec 2.3.2
Method 2. 11 sec 2. 3.2
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix D
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 24 of 30
Criteria
Field Temp M-point Verification
Lab Temperature
Lab Humidity
Microbalance Calibration
Precision
Collocated Samples
Audits
Filter Weighing
Balance Audit
Semi Annual Flow Rate Audit
Monitor Maintenance
Inlet/downtube Cleaning
Motor/housing gaskets
Blower motor brushes
Manufacturer-Recommended
Maintenance
Data Completeness
Reporting Units
Rounding Convention
24-hour, 3-year average
Frequency
on installation, then 1/yr
1/6 months
1/6 months
1/yr
every 12 days for 15% of sites
1/yr
1/yr
2/yr
1/3 mo
1/3 mo
600- 1000 hours
per manufacturers' SOP
SYSTEM
quarterly
all filters
quarterly
Acceptable Range
±2°C
±2°C
±2%
Manufacturer's specification
C V < 1 0% of samples > 1 5 Mg/m3
± 5 mg change from original value
Observe weighing technique and check balance with ASTM
Class 1 standard
± 10% of audit standard and design value
cleaned
Inspected replaced
Replace
per manufacturers' SOP
4TIC CRITERIA - PM10 Filter Based Hi-Vol
> 75%
Mg/m at standard temperature and pressure (STP)
nearest 10 ,ug/m (> 5 round up)
Information (CFR or Method 2.11)
recommendation
recommendation
Part 58 App A sec 3.2. 5
Method 2.11 Table 7-1
Method 2.10 Table 7-1
Part 58, App A, sec 3.3.3
Method 2.11 sec 6
Method 2.11 sec 6
Method 2.11 sec 6
Part 50 App. K, sec. 2.3
Part 50 App K
Part 50 App K sec 1
Verification/Calibration Standards and Recertiflcations - All standards should have multi-point certifications against NIST Traceable standards
Flow Rate Transfer Std.
Field Thermometer
Field Barometer
Primary Mass Stds. (compare to
NIST-traceable standards)
Microbalance
Readability
Repeatability
Calibration & Check Standards
1/yr
1/yr
1/yr
1/yr
at purchase
1/yr
± 2% of NIST-traceable Std.
± 0.1 ° C resolution, ± 0.5° C accuracy
± 1 mm Hg resolution, ± 5 mm Hg accuracy
NIST traceable
(e.g., ANSI/ASTM Class 1, 1.1 or 2)
0.1 mg
0.5 mg (HV)
Part 50, App.J sec 7.3
Method 2. 11 sec 9
Method 2. 11 sec 4. 4
Method 2. 11 sec 4. 4
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix D
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 25 of 30
Criteria
Flow Rate Transfer Std.
Verification/Calibration
Clock/timer Verification
Precision
Single analyzer
Single analyzer
Primary Quality Assurance Org.
Frequency
1/yr
4/year
1/3 mo.
1/yr
Annual and 3 year estimates
Acceptable Range
± 2% of NIST-traceable Std.
5 min/mo
Coefficient of variation (CV) < 10%
CV<10%
90%CLofCV< 10%
Information (CFR or Method 2.11)
Method 2. 10 sec 9
recommendation
recommendation
recommendation
Part 58, App A, sec 4.3.1
SD= standard deviation
CV= coefficient of variation
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix D
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 26 of 30
Continuous PM10 STP Conditions Validation Template
NOTE: There are a number of continuous PM10 monitors that are designated as FEM. These monitors may have different
measurement or sampling attributes that cannot be identified in this validation template. Monitoring organizations should review
specific instrument operating manuals to augment this validation template as necessary. In general, 40 CFR Part 58 App A and 40
CFR part 50 App J requirements apply to Continuous PM10. Since a guidance document was never developed for continuous PM10,
many of the requirements reflect a combination of manual and continuous PM2.5 requirements and are therefore considered
recommendations.
Criteria
Frequency
Acceptable Range
Information (CFR or Method 2.11)
CRITICAL CRITERIA- PM10 Continuous
Sampling Period
Sampling Instrument
Average Flow Rate
Verification/Calibration
One-point Flow Rate Verification
Verification/Calibration
System Leak Check
FR Multi-point
Verification/Calibration
Audits
Semi Annual Flow Rate Audit
Monitor Maintenance
Inlet/downtube Cleaning
Motor/housing gaskets
Blower motor brushes
Manufacturer-Recommended
Maintenance
Data Completeness
Reporting Units
Rounding Convention
all filters
every 24 hours of op
1/mo
OPERATIC
During precalibration check
1/yr
1/6 mo
1/3 mo
1/3 mo
600- 1000 hours
per manufacturers' SOP
SYST
quarterly
all filters
1440 minutes + 60 minutes
midnight to midnight
Average within + 5% of design
± 7% of transfer standard and 10% from design
VAL EVALUATIONS TABLE PM10 Continuous
Auditory inspection with faceplate blocked
3 of 4 cal points within + 1 0% of design
± 10% of audit standard and design value
cleaned
Inspected replaced
Replace
per manufacturers' SOP
EMATIC CRITERIA - PM10 Continuous
> 75%
Mg/m at standard temperature and pressure (STP)
Part 50 App J sec 7. 1.5
recommendation
Part 58, App A, sec 3.2.3
Method 2. 11 sec 2. 3.2
Method 2.11 sec 2.3.2
Part 58, App A, sec 3.2.4
Method 2.11 sec 6
Method 2.11 sec 6
Method 2.11 sec 6
Part 50 App. K, sec. 2.3
Part 50 App K
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix D
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 27 of 30
Criteria
24-hour, 3-year average
Frequency
quarterly
Acceptable Range
nearest 10 f^g/m (> 5 round up)
Information (CFR or Method 2.11)
Part 50 App K sec 1
Verification/Calibration Standards and Recertiflcations - All standards should have multi-point certifications against NIST Traceable standards
Flow Rate Transfer Std.
Field Thermometer
Field Barometer
Calibration & Check Standards
Flow Rate Transfer Std.
Verification/Calibration
Clock/timer Verification
1/yr
1/yr
1/yr
1/yr
4/year
± 2% of NIST-traceable Std.
± 0.1 ° C resolution, ± 0.5° C accuracy
± 1 mm Hg resolution, ± 5 mm Hg accuracy
± 2% of NIST-traceable Std.
5 min/mo
Part 50, App.J sec 7.3
recommendation
recommendation
Method 2. 10 sec 9
recommendation
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix D
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 28 of 30
Pb High Volume (TSP) Validation Template
Note: in 2008, the NAAQS was lowered for Pb and new monitoring rules were promulgated which allowed for the use of federal equivalent
analytical methods and the use of PMio sampling in certain circumstances. The following information is guidance based on the current FRM
which is sampling by TSP and analysis by atomic absorption. Information is this table is derived from the TSP sampling method in 40 CFR
Part 50 App B, and QA Handbook Method 2.2 (1977). The analytical requirements/guidance is derived from 40 CFR Part 50, App G and
QA Handbook Method 2.8 (1981). Monitoring for Pb based on the new NAAQS requirements will begin in calendar year 2010. In 2009,
new guidance related to analytical FEM (ICP-MS, XRF, etc.) will be developed and included as additional guidance for Pb. Revised
and/or additional Pb validation templates will be included in this section and posted on AMTIC.
Criteria
Filter Holding Times
Sample Recovery
Sampling Period
Sampling Instrument
Average Flow Rate
Filter
Visual Defect Check (unexposed)
Collection Efficiency
Pressure Drop Range
PH
Pb Content
Verification/Calibration
One-point Flow Rate Verification
Calibration Reproducibility Checks
Reagent Blank
Daily Calibration
Verification/Calibration
System Leak Check
Frequency
all filters
all filters
every 24 hours of op
all filters
all filters
all filters
all filters
all filters pre-sampling batch
check
1/3 mo
Beginning, every 10 samples
and end
Every analytical batch
Daily
OPERA!
During precalibration check
Acceptable Range
CRITICAL CRITERIA- Pb in TSP
ASAP
1440 minutes + 60 minutes
midnight to midnight
1.1-1.70 m /min (varies with instrument)
see reference
99%
42-54 mm Hg
6-10
<75 |ig/filter
+7% from design transfer standard +10% from design
+ 5% of value predicted by calibration curve
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix D
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 29 of 30
Criteria
FR Multi-point
Verification/Calibration
Precision
Collocated Samples
Audits
Semi Annual Flow Rate Audit
Lead Strip Analysis
Blanks
Field Filter Blank
Monitor Maintenance
Inlet cleaning
Motor/housing gaskets
Blower motor brushes
Manufacturer-Recommended
Maintenance
Data Completeness
Reporting Units
Rounding Convention
3-month arithmetic mean
Lower Detectable Limit
Atomic Absorption
Frequency
After receipt, after motor
maintenance or failure of 1-
point check and
1/yr
15% of each method code in
PQAO
Frequency - every 12 days
2/yr
6 strips/quarter
3/conc.
1 /quarter
1/3 mo
-400 hours
400-500
per manufacturers' SOP
SYSTE1V
quarterly
all filters
quarterly
Acceptable Range
5 points over range of 1 . 1 to 1 .7 m3/min
within +5% limits of linearity
CV < 20% of samples > 0.02 Mg/m3 (cutoff value)
± 10% of audit standard and design value
10% (percent difference)
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix D
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 30 of 30
Criteria
Reagents (HNO3 and HCL)
Pb nitrate Pb (NO3)2
Verification/Calibration
Clock/timer Verification
Precision
Single analyzer
Single analyzer
Primary Quality Assurance Org.
Bias
Performance Evaluation Program
(PEP)
Frequency
4/year
1/3 mo.
1/yr
Annual and 3 year estimates
5 audits for PQAOs with < 5
sites
8 audits for PQAOs with > 5
sites
Acceptable Range
ACS reagent grade
ACS reagent grade (99.0% purity
5 min/mo
Coefficient of variation (CV) < 20%
CV < 20%
90%CLofCV< 20%
95% CL Absolute bias ±15%
Information (CFR or Method 2.2 or
2.8
Part 50 App G sec.6.2
Part 50 App G sec.6.2
recommendation
recommendation
recommendation
Part 58, App A, sec 4.3.1
Part 58, App A, Sec 2. 3.1
SD= standard deviation
CV= coefficient of variation
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix E
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page Iof8
Appendix E
Characteristics of Spatial Scales Related to Each Pollutant
The following tables provide information in order to match the spatial scale represented by the monitor
with the monitoring objectives.
NOTE: This information can also be found in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix D and since there is a
possibility that spatial scales have been updated, users should also review CFR.
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix E
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 2 of 7
Page intentionally left blank
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix E
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 3 of 8
Pollutant
Spatial Scale
Characteristics NOTE: This information can also be found in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix D and since there is a
possibility that spatial scales have been updated, users should also review CFR.
NCore
Urban
Rural
Generally located at urban or neighborhood scale to provide representative concentrations of exposure expected throughout the metropolitan area;
however, a middle-scale site may be acceptable in cases where the site can represent many such locations throughout a metropolitan area.
Rural NCore stations are to be located to the maximum extent practicable at a regional or larger scale away from any large local emission source, so
that they represent ambient concentrations over an extensive area.
PM,,
Micro
Middle
Neighborhood
This scale would typify areas such as downtown street canyons, traffic corridors, and fence line stationary source monitoring locations where the
general public could be exposed to maximum PM10 concentrations. Microscale particulate matter sites should be located near inhabited buildings or
locations where the general public can be expected to be exposed to the concentration measured. Emissions from stationary sources such as primary and
secondary smelters, power plants, and other large industrial processes may, under certain plume conditions, likewise result in high ground level
concentrations at the microscale. In the latter case, the microscale would represent an area impacted by the plume with dimensions extending up to
approximately 100 meters. Data collected at microscale sites provide information for evaluating and developing hot spot control measures.
Much of the short-term public exposure to coarse fraction particles (PM10) is on this scale and on the neighborhood scale. People moving through
downtown areas or living near major roadways or stationary sources, may encounter particulate pollution that would be adequately characterized by
measurements of this spatial scale. Middle scale PM10 measurements can be appropriate for the evaluation of possible short-term exposure public
health effects. In many situations, monitoring sites that are representative of micro-scale or middle-scale impacts are not unique and are representative
of many similar situations. This can occur along traffic corridors or other locations in a residential district. In this case, one location is representative of
a neighborhood of small scale sites and is appropriate for evaluation of long-term or chronic effects. This scale also includes the characteristic
concentrations for other areas with dimensions of a few hundred meters such as the parking lot and feeder streets associated with shopping centers,
stadia, and office buildings. In the case of PM10, unpaved or seldomly swept parking lots associated with these sources could be an important source.
Measurements in this category represent conditions throughout some reasonably homogeneous urban subregion with dimensions of a few kilometers
and of generally more regular shape than the middle scale. Homogeneity refers to the particulate matter concentrations, as well as the land use and land
surface characteristics. In some cases, a location carefully chosen to provide neighborhood scale data would represent not only the immediate
neighborhood but also neighborhoods of the same type in other parts of the city. Neighborhood scale PM10 sites provide information about trends and
compliance with standards because they often represent conditions in areas where people commonly live and work for extended periods. Neighborhood
scale data could provide valuable information for developing, testing, and revising models that describe the largerscale concentration patterns,
especially those models relying on spatially smoothed emission fields for inputs. The neighborhood scale measurements could also be used for
neighborhood comparisons within or between cities.
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix E
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 4 of 8
Pollutant
Spatial Scale
Characteristics NOTE: This information can also be found in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix D and since there is a
possibility that spatial scales have been updated, users should also review CFR.
SO,
Micro/Middle
Neighborhood
Some data uses associated with microscale and middle scale measurements for SO2 include assessing the effects of control strategies to
reduce concentrations (especially for the 3-hour and 24-hour averaging times) and monitoring air pollution episodes.
This scale applies where there is a need to collect air quality data as part of an ongoing SO2 stationary source impact investigation. Typical locations
might include suburban areas adjacent to SO2 stationary sources for example, or for determining background concentrations as part of these studies of
population responses to exposure to SO2.
CO
Micro
Middle
This scale applies when air quality measurements are to be used to represent distributions within street canyons, over sidewalks, and near major
roadways. In the case with carbon monoxide, microscale measurements in one location can often be considered as representative of other similar
locations in a city.
Middle scale measurements are intended to represent areas with dimensions from 100 meters to 0.5 kilometer. In certain cases, middle scale
measurements may apply to areas that have a total length of several kilometers, such as "line" emission source areas. This type of emission sources
areas would include air quality along a commercially developed street or shopping plaza, freeway corridors, parking lots and feeder streets
Neighborhood
Urban
Regional
Measurements in this category represent conditions throughout some reasonably homogeneous urban subregion, with dimensions of a few kilometers.
Homogeneity refers to pollutant concentrations. Neighborhood scale data will provide valuable information for developing, testing, and revising
concepts and models that describe urban/regional concentration patterns. These data will be useful to the understanding and definition of processes that
take periods of hours to occur and hence involve considerable mixing and transport. Under stagnation conditions, a site located in the neighborhood
scale may also experience peak concentration levels within a metropolitan area.
Measurement in this scale will be used to estimate concentrations over large portions of an urban area with dimensions of several kilometers to 50 or
more kilometers. Such measurements will be used for determining trends, and designing area-wide control strategies. The urban scale sites would also
be used to measure high concentrations downwind of the area having the highest precursor emissions.
This scale of measurement will be used to typify concentrations over large portions of a metropolitan area and even larger areas with dimensions of as
much as hundreds of kilometers. Such measurements will be useful for assessing the O3 that is transported to and from a metropolitan area, as well as
background concentrations. In some situations, particularly when considering very large metropolitan areas with complex source mixtures, regional
scale sites can be the maximum concentration location.
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix E
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 5 of 8
Pollutant
Spatial Scale
Characteristics NOTE: This information can also be found in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix D and since there is a
possibility that spatial scales have been updated, users should also review CFR.
NO,
Middle
Neighborhood
Urban
Dimensions from about 100 meters to 0.5 kilometer. These measurements would characterize the public exposure to NO2 in populated areas.
Same as for O3
Same as for O3
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix E
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 6 of 8
Pollutant
Spatial Scale
Characteristics NOTE: This information can also be found in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix D and since there is a
possibility that spatial scales have been updated, users should also review CFR.
PM2.5
Micro scale
Middle
Neighborhood
Urban
Regional
Areas such as downtown street canyons and traffic corridors where the general public would be exposed to maximum concentrations from mobile
sources. In some circumstances, the microscale is appropriate for particulate sites; community-oriented SLAMS sites measured at the microscale level
should, however, be limited to urban sites that are representative of long-term human exposure and of many such microenvironments in the area. In
general, microscale particulate matter sites should be located near inhabited buildings or locations where the general public can be expected to be
exposed to the concentration measured. Emissions from stationary sources such as primary and secondary smelters, power plants, and other large
industrial processes may, under certain plume conditions, likewise result in high ground level concentrations at the microscale. In the latter case, the
microscale would represent an area impacted by the plume with dimensions extending up to approximately 100 meters. Data collected at microscale
sites provide information for evaluating and developing hot spot control measures.
People moving through downtown areas, or living near major roadways, encounter particle concentrations that would be adequately characterized by
this spatial scale. Thus, measurements of this type would be appropriate for the evaluation of possible short-term exposure public health effects of
particulate matter pollution. In many situations, monitoring sites that are representative of microscale or middle-scale impacts are not unique and are
representative of many similar situations. This can occur along traffic corridors or other locations in a residential district. In this case, one location is
representative of a number of small scale sites and is appropriate for evaluation of long-term or chronic effects. This scale also includes the
characteristic concentrations for other areas with dimensions of a few hundred meters such as the parking lot and feeder streets associated with
shopping centers, stadia, and office buildings.
Measurements in this category would represent conditions throughout some reasonably homogeneous urban sub-region with dimensions of a few
kilometers and of generally more regular shape than the middle scale. Homogeneity refers to the particulate matter concentrations, as well as the land
use and land surface characteristics. Much of the PM2.5 exposures are expected to be associated with this scale of measurement. In some cases, a
location carefully chosen to provide neighborhood scale data would represent the immediate neighborhood as well as neighborhoods of the same type in
other parts of the city. PM2.5 sites of this kind provide good information about trends and compliance with standards because they often represent
conditions in areas where people commonly live and work for periods comparable to those specified in the NAAQS. In general, most PM2.5
monitoring in urban areas should have this scale.
This class of measurement would be used to characterize the particulate matter concentration over an entire metropolitan or rural area ranging in
size from 4 to 50 kilometers. Such measurements would be useful for assessing trends in area-wide air quality, and hence, the effectiveness of large
scale air pollution control strategies. Community-oriented PM2.5 sites may have this scale.
These measurements would characterize conditions over areas with dimensions of as much as hundreds of kilometers. As noted earlier, using
representative conditions for an area implies some degree of homogeneity in that area. For this reason, regional scale measurements would be most
applicable to sparsely populated areas. Data characteristics of this scale would provide information about larger scale processes of particulate matter.
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix E
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 7 of 8
Pollutant
Spatial Scale
Characteristics NOTE: This information can also be found in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix D and since there is a
possibility that spatial scales have been updated, users should also review CFR.
Pb
Micro
Middle
Neighborhood
This scale would typify areas in close proximity to lead point sources. Emissions from point sources such as primary and secondary lead smelters, and
primary copper smelters may under fumigation conditions likewise result in high ground level concentrations at the microscale. In the latter case, the
microscale would represent an area impacted by the plume with dimensions extending up to approximately 100 meters. Data collected at microscale
sites provide information for evaluating and developing "hot-spot" control measures.
This scale generally represents Pb air quality levels in areas up to several city blocks in size with dimensions on the order of approximately 100 meters
to 500 meters. The middle scale may for example, include schools and playgrounds in center city areas which are close to major Pb point sources. Pb
monitors in such areas are desirable because of the higher sensitivity of children to exposures of elevated Pb concentrations (reference 3 of this
appendix). Emissions from point sources frequently impact on areas at which single sites may be located to measure concentrations representing middle
spatial scales.
The neighborhood scale would characterize air quality conditions throughout some relatively uniform land use areas with dimensions in the 0.5 to 4.0
kilometer range. Sites of this scale would provide monitoring data in areas representing conditions where children live and play. Monitoring in such
areas is important since this segment of the population is more susceptible to the effects of Pb. Where a neighborhood site is located away from
immediate Pb sources, the site may be very useful in representing typical air quality values for a larger residential area, and therefore suitable for
population exposure and trends analyses.
PAMs
Neighborhood
Urban
Would define conditions within some extended areas of the city that have a relatively uniform land use and range from 0.5 to 4 km. Measurements on a
neighborhood scale represent conditions throughout a homogeneous urban subregion. Precursor concentrations, on this scale of a few kilometers, will
become well mixed and can be used to assess exposure impacts and track emissions. Neighborhood data will provide information on pollutants relative
to residential and local business districts. VOC sampling at Site #2 is characteristic of a neighborhood scale. Measurements of these reactants are
ideally located just downwind of the edge of the urban core emission areas. Further definition of neighborhood and urban scales is provided in
Appendix D of 40 CFR 58 and Reference 9.
Would represent concentration distributions over a metropolitan area. Monitoring on this scale relates to precursor emission distributions and control
strategy plans for an MSA/CMSA. PAMS Sites #1, #3, and #4 are characteristic of the urban scale.
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix E
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 8 of 8
Pollutant
Spatial Scale
Characteristics NOTE: This information can also be found in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix D and since there is a
possibility that spatial scales have been updated, users should also review CFR.
Micro
Middle
Neighborhood
The only required monitors for PM10.2.5 are those required at NCore Stations. Although microscale monitoring may be appropriate in some
circumstances, middle and neighborhood scale measurements are the most important station classifications for PM10_2.5
This scale would typify relatively small areas immediately adjacent to: Industrial sources; locations experiencing ongoing construction, redevelopment,
and soil disturbance; and heavily traveled roadways. Data collected at microscale stations would characterize exposure over areas of limited spatial
extent and population exposure, and may provide information useful for evaluating and developing source oriented control measures.
People living or working near major roadways or industrial districts encounter particle concentrations that would be adequately characterized by this
spatial scale. Thus, measurements of this type would be appropriate for the evaluation of public health effects of coarse particle exposure. Monitors
located in populated areas that are nearly adjacent to large industrial point sources of coarse particles provide suitable locations for assessing maximum
population exposure levels and identifying areas of potentially poor air quality. Similarly, monitors located in populated areas that border dense
networks of heavily-traveled traffic are appropriate for assessing the impacts of resuspended road dust. This scale also includes the characteristic
concentrations for other areas with dimensions of a few hundred meters such as school grounds and parks that are nearly adjacent to major roadways
and industrial point sources, locations exhibiting mixed residential and commercial development, and downtown areas featuring office buildings,
shopping centers, and stadiums.
Measurements in this category would represent conditions throughout some reasonably homogeneous urban sub-region with dimensions of a few
kilometers and of generally more regular shape than the middle scale. Homogeneity refers to the particulate matter concentrations, as well as the land
use and land surface characteristics. This category includes suburban neighborhoods dominated by residences that are somewhat distant from major
roadways and industrial districts but still impacted by urban sources, and areas of diverse land use where residences are interspersed with commercial
and industrial neighborhoods. In some cases, a location carefully chosen to provide neighborhood scale data would represent the immediate
neighborhood as well as neighborhoods of the same type in other parts of the city. The comparison of data from middle scale and neighborhood scale
sites would provide valuable information for determining the variation of PM10-2.5 levels across urban areas and assessing the spatial extent of
elevated concentrations caused by major industrial point sources and heavily traveled roadways. Neighborhood scale sites would provide concentration
data that are relevant to informing a large segment of the population of their exposure levels on a given day.
PM2.5
Speciation
NA
Each State shall continue to conduct chemical speciation monitoring and analyses at sites designated to be part of the PM2.5 Speciation Trends
Network (STN). The selection and modification of these STN sites must be approved by the Administrator.
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix F
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Pagel of 13
Appendix F
Sample Manifold Design for Precursor Gas Monitoring
The following information is extracted from the document titled: Version 4 of the Technical
Assistance Document for Precursor Gas Measurements in the NCore Multi-pollutant Monitoring Network
which can be found on the AMTIC website at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/pretecdoc.html
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix F
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 2 of 13
Page intentionally left blank
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix F
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 3 of 13
Sample Manifold Design for Precursor Gas Monitoring
Many important variables affect sampling manifold design for ambient precursor gas monitoring:
residence time of sample gases, materials of construction, diameter, length, flow rate, and
pressure drop. Considerations for these parameters are discussed below.
Residence Time Determination: The residence time of air pollutants within the sampling system
(defined as extending from the entrance of the sample inlet above the instrument shelter to the
bulkhead of the precursor gas analyzer) is critical. Residence time is defined as the amount of
time that it takes for a sample of air to travel through the sampling system. This issue is
discussed in detail for NOy monitoring in Section 4.2, and recommendations in Section 4 for the
arrangement of the molybdenum converter and inlet system should be followed. However,
residence time is also an issue for other precursor gases, and should be considered in designing
sample manifolds for those species. For example, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 40
Part 58, Appendix E.9 states, "Ozone in the presence of NO will show significant losses even in
the most inert probe material when the residence time exceeds 20 seconds. Other studies indicate
that 10-second or less residence time is easily achievable."1 Although 20-second residence time
is the maximum allowed as specified in 40 CFR 58, Appendix E, it is recommended that the
residence time within the sampling system be less than 10 seconds. If the volume of the
sampling system does not allow this to occur, then a blower motor or other device (such as a
vacuum pump) can be used to increase flow rate and decrease the residence time. The residence
time for a sample manifold system is determined in the following way. First the total volume of
the cane (inlet), manifold, and sample lines must be determined using the following equation:
Total Volume = Cv + Mv + Lv Equation 1
Where:
Cv = Volume of the sample cane or inlet and extensions
Mv = Volume of the sample manifold and moisture trap
Lv = Volume of the instrument lines from the manifold to the instrument bulkhead
The volume of each component of the sampling system must be measured individually. To
measure the volume of the components (assuming they are cylindrical in shape), use the
following equation:
V = 7i * (d/2)2 * L Equation 2
Where:
V = volume of the component, cm3
7i = 3.14
L = Length of the component, cm
d = inside diameter of the component, cm
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix F
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 4 of 13
Once the total volume is determined, divide the total volume by the total sample flow rate of all
instruments to calculate the residence time in the inlet. If the residence time is greater than 20
seconds, attach a blower or vacuum pump to increase the flow rate and decrease the residence
time.
Laminar Flow Manifolds: In the past, vertical laminar flow manifolds were a popular design.
By the proper selection of a large diameter vertical inlet probe and by maintaining a laminar flow
throughout, it was assumed that the sample air would not react with the walls of the probe.
Numerous materials such as glass, plastic, galvanized steel, and stainless steel were used for
constructing the probe. Removable sample lines constructed of FEP or PTFE were placed to
protrude into the manifold to provide each instrument with sample air. A laminar flow manifold
could have a flow rate as high as 150 L/min, in order to minimize any losses, and large diameter
tubing was used to minimize pressure drops. However, experience has shown that vertical
laminar flow manifolds have demonstrated many disadvantages which are listed below:
• Since the flow rates are so high, it is difficult to supply enough audit gas to provide an
adequate independent assessment for the entire sampling system;
• Long laminar flow manifolds may be difficult to clean due to size and length;
• Temperature differentials may exist that could change the characteristics of the gases, e.g., if
a laminar manifold's inlet is on top of a building, the temperature at the bottom of the
building may be much lower, thereby dropping the dew point and condensing water.
• Construction of the manifold is frequently of an unapproved material.
For these technical reasons, EPA strongly discourages the use of laminar flow manifolds in the
national air monitoring network. It is recommended that agencies that utilize laminar manifolds
migrate to conventional manifold designs that are described below.
Sampling Lines as Inlet and Manifold: Often air monitoring agencies will place individual
sample lines outside of their shelter for each instrument. If the sample lines are manufactured
out of Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) or Fluoroethylpropylene (FEP) Teflon®, this is
acceptable to the EPA. The advantages to using single sample lines are: no breakage and ease
of external auditing. In addition, rather than cleaning glass manifolds, some agencies just
replace the sampling lines. However, please note the following caveats:
1. PTFE and FEP lines can deteriorate when exposed to atmospheric conditions, particularly
ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Therefore, it is recommended that sample lines be
inspected and replaced regularly.
2. Small insects and particles can accumulate inside of the tubing. It has been reported that
small spiders build their webs inside of tubing. This can cause blockage and affect the
response of the instruments. In addition, particles can collect inside the tubing, especially at
the entrance, thus affecting precursor gas concentrations. Check the sampling lines and
replace or clean the tubing on a regular basis.
3. Since there is no central manifold, these configurations sometimes have a "three-way" tee,
i.e., one flow path for supplying calibration mixtures and the other for the sampling of
ambient air. If the three-way tee is not placed near the outermost limit of the sample inlet
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix F
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 5 of 13
tubing, then the entire sampling system is not challenged by the provision of calibration gas.
It is strongly recommended that at least on a periodic basis calibration gas be supplied so
that it floods the entire sample line. This is best done by placing the three-way tee just
below the sample inlet, so that calibration gas supplied there is drawn through the entire
sampling line.
4. The calibration gas must be delivered to the analyzers at near ambient pressure. Some
instruments are very sensitive to pressure changes. If the calibration gas flow is excessive,
the analyzer may sample the gas under pressure. If a pressure effect on calibration gas
response is suspected, it is recommended that the gas be introduced at more than one place
in the sampling line (by placement of the tee, as described in item #3 above). If the response
to the calibration gas is the same regardless of delivery point, then there is likely no pressure
effect.
Conventional Manifold Design - A number of "conventional" manifold systems exist today.
However, one manifold feature must be consistent: the probe and manifold must be constructed
of borosilicate glass or Teflon® (PFA or PTFE). These are the only materials proven to be inert
to gases. EPA will accept manifolds or inlets that are made from other materials, such as steel or
aluminum, that are lined or coated with borosilicate glass or the Teflon® materials named above.
However, all of the linings, joints and connectors that could possibly come into contact with the
sample gases must be of glass or Teflon®. It is recommended that probes and manifolds be
constructed in modular sections to enable frequent cleaning. It has been demonstrated that there
are no significant losses of reactive gas concentrations in conventional 13 mm inside diameter
(ID) sampling lines of glass or Teflon® if the sample residence time is 10 seconds or less. This is
true even in sample lines up to 38 m in length. However, when the sample residence time
exceeds 20 seconds, loss is detectable, and at 60 seconds the loss can be nearly complete.
Therefore, EPA requires that residence times must be 20 seconds or less (except for NOy).
Please note that for paniculate matter (PM) monitoring instruments, such as nephelometers,
Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance (TEOM) instruments, or Beta Gauges, the ambient
precursor gas manifold is not recommended. Particle monitoring instruments should have
separate intake probes that are as short and as straight as possible to avoid particulate losses due
to impact!on on the walls of the probe.
T-Type Design: The most popular gas sampling system in use today consists of a vertical
"candy cane" protruding through the roof of the shelter with a horizontal sampling manifold
connected by a tee fitting to the vertical section (Figure 1). This type of manifold is
commercially available. At the bottom of the tee is a bottle for collecting particles and moisture
that cannot make the bend; this is known as the "drop out" or moisture trap bottle. Please note
that a small blower at the exhaust end of the system (optional) is used to provide flow through
the sampling system. There are several issues that must be mitigated with this design:
• The probe and manifold may have a volume such that the total draw of the precursor gas
analyzers cannot keep the residence time less than 20 seconds (except NOy), thereby
requiring a blower motor. However, a blower motor may prevent calibration and audit
gases from being supplied in sufficient quantity, because of the high flow rate in the
manifold. To remedy this, the blower motor must be turned off for calibration.
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix F
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 6 of 13
However, this may affect the response of the instruments since they are usually operated
with the blower on.
Horizontal manifolds have been known to collect water, especially in humid climates.
Standing water in the manifold can be pulled into the instrument lines. Since most
monitoring shelters are maintained at 20-30 °C, condensation can occur when warm
humid outside air enters the manifold and is cooled. Station operators must be aware of
this issue and mitigate this situation if it occurs. Tilting the horizontal manifold slightly
and possibly heating the manifold have been used to mitigate the condensation problem.
Water traps should be emptied whenever there is standing water.
Sample Cane
roof line
Screw Type Opening
Blower Motor
Teflon Connectors -
Bushing
n D a Q.
5 '
H adaptor
u
Modular Manifold
Moisture Trap
Figure 1. Conventional T-Type Glass Manifold System
California Air Resources Board "Octopus" Style: Another type of manifold that is being
widely used is known as the California Air Resources Board (CARB) style or "Octopus"
manifold, illustrated in Figure 2. This manifold has a reduced profile, i.e., there is less volume in
the cane and manifold; therefore, there is less need for a blower motor. If the combined flow
rates of the gas analyzers are high enough, then an additional blower is not required.
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix F
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 7 of 13
roof line
Sample Cane
8-port "Octopus1
Manifold
Teflon Connectors -
Bushing
Screw Type Opening
Moisture Trap
Figure 2. CARB or "Octopus" Style Manifold
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix F
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 8 of 13
Placement of Tubing on the Manifold: If the manifold employed at the station has multiple
ports (as in Figure 2) then the position of the instrument lines relative to the calibration input line
can be crucial. If a CARB "Octopus" or similar manifold is used, it is suggested that sample
connections for analyzers requiring lower flows be placed towards the bottom of the manifold.
Also, the general rule of thumb states that the calibration gas delivery line (if used) should be in
a location so that the calibration gas flows past the analyzer inlet points before the gas is
evacuated out of the manifold. Figure 3 illustrates two potential locations for introduction of the
calibration gas. One is located at the ports on the "Octopus" manifold, and the other is upstream
near the air inlet point, using an audit or probe inlet stub. This stub is a tee fitting placed so that
"Through-the-Probe" audit line or sampling system tests and calibrations can be conducted.
Audit and probe
inlet stub
Sample Cane
roof line
Calibration
ouilet line
Instrument
inlet lines
Instrument
inlet lines
Figure 3. Placement of Lines on the Manifold
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix F
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 9 of 13
Measurements and Features
1. Knurled Connector
2. O-ring
3. Threaded opening
4. Top extension - 56 mm
5. Overall Length-304 mm
6. Outside diameter- 24 mm
7. Top and bottom shoulder - 50 mm
8. Length of inlet tube - 30 mm
9. Distancebetween inlet tubes -16 mm
10. Length of internal tube -145 mm
11. Width of inlet tube OD-6 mm
12. Distance from inner tube to wall - 18mm
13. Inside width of outer tube 60 mm
14. Down tube length 76 mm
15. Width Down tube OD - 24 mm
16 Overall Width- 124 mm
Figure 4. Specifications for an 'Octopus" Style Manifold
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix F
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
10 of 13
Figure 4 illustrates the specifications of an Octopus style manifold. Please note that EPA-
OAQPS has used this style of manifold in its precursor gas analyzer testing program. This type
of manifold is commercially available.
Vertical Manifold Design: Figure 5 shows a schematic of the vertical manifold design.
Commercially available vertical manifolds have been on the market for some time. The issues
with this type of manifold are the same with other conventional manifolds, i.e., when sample air
moves from a warm humid atmosphere into an air-conditioned shelter, condensation of moisture
can occur on the walls of the manifold. Commercially available vertical manifolds have the
option for heated insulation to mitigate this problem. Whether the manifold tubing is made of
glass or Teflon®, the heated insulation prevents viewing of the tubing, so the interior must be
inspected often. The same issues apply to this manifold style as with horizontal or "Octopus"
style manifolds: additional blower motors should not be used if the residence time is less than 20
seconds, and the calibration gas inlet should be placed upstream so that the calibration gas flows
past the analyzer inlets before it exits the manifold.
Glass Manifold
roof line
Insulation
Heater Power Cord
Support Pipe
Sample Ports
Exhaust Hose
"T" Connector
Manifold Support
Blower Motor
Floor
Figure 5. Example of Vertical Design Manifold
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix F
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 11 of 13
Manifold/Instrument Line Interface: A sampling system is an integral part of a monitoring
station, however, it is only one part of the whole monitoring process. With the continuing
integration of advanced electronics into monitoring stations, manifold design must be taken into
consideration. Data Acquisition Systems (DASs) are able not only to collect serial and analog
data from the analyzers, but also to control Mass Flow Calibration (MFC) equipment and solid
state solenoid switches, communicate via modem or Ethernet, and monitor conditions such as
shelter temperature and manifold pressure. As described in Chapter 6, commercially available
DASs may implement these features in an electronic data logger, or via software installed on a
personal computer. Utilization of these features allows the DAS and support equipment to
perform automated calibrations (Autocals). In addition to performing these tasks, the DAS can
flag data during calibration periods and allow the data to be stored in separate files that can be
reviewed remotely.
Figure 6 shows a schematic of the integrated monitoring system at EPA's Burden Creek NCore
monitoring station. Note that a series of solenoid switches are positioned between the ambient
air inlet manifold and an additional "calibration" manifold. This configuration allows the DAS
to control the route from which the analyzers draw their sample. At the beginning of an Autocal,
the DAS signals the MFC unit to come out of standby mode and start producing zero or
calibration gas. Once the MFC has stabilized, the DAS switches the analyzers' inlet flow (via
solenoids) from the ambient air manifold to the calibration manifold. The calibration gas is
routed to the instruments, and the DAS monitors and averages the response, flagging the data
appropriately as calibration data. When the Autocal has terminated, the DAS switches the
analyzers' inlet flow from the calibration manifold back to the ambient manifold, and the data
system resets the data flag to the normal ambient mode.
The integration of DAS, solenoid switches, and MFC into an automated configuration can bring
an additional level of complexity to the monitoring station. Operators must be aware that this
additional complexity can create situations where leaks can occur. For instance, if a solenoid
switch fails to open, then the inlet flow of an analyzer may not be switched back to the ambient
manifold, but instead will be sampling interior room air. When the calibrations occur, the
instrument will span correctly, but will not return to ambient air sampling. In this case, the data
collected must be invalidated. These problems are usually not discovered until there is an
external "Through-the Probe" audit, but by then extensive data could be lost. It is recommended
that the operator remove the calibration line from the calibration manifold on a routine basis and
challenge the sampling system from the inlet probe. This test will discover any leak or switching
problems within the entire sampling system.
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix F
Re vision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 12 of 13
Burden's Creek Sampling Station - OAQPS/MQAG
Notes:
S - Teflon 3-way Solenoid
P-Pump
F- Manifold Fan/Blower
V - Vent
-Particulate Filter
Sample tubing lengths < 3-ft
Figure 6. Example of a Manifold/Instrument Interface
Figure 7 shows a close up of an ambient/calibration manifold, illustrating the calibration
manifold - ambient manifold interface. This is the same interface used at EPA's Burden's Creek
monitoring station. The interface consists of three distinct portions: the ambient manifold, the
solenoid switching system and the calibration manifold. In this instance, the ambient manifold is
a T-type design that is being utilized with a blower fan at the terminal. Teflon® tubing connects
the manifold to the solenoid switching system. Two-way solenoids have two configurations.
Either the solenoid is in its passive state, at which time the ports that are connected are the
normally open (NO) and the common (COM). In the other state, when it is energized, the ports
that are connected are the normally closed (NC) and the COM ports. Depending on whether the
solenoid is 'active' or not, the solenoid routes the air from the calibration or ambient manifold to
the instrument inlets. There are two configurations that can be instituted with this system.
Ambient Mode: In this mode the solenoids are in "passive" state. The flow of air (under
vacuum) is routed from the NO port through the solenoid to the COM port.
Calibration Mode: In this mode, the solenoids are in the "active" state. An external
switching device, usually the DAS, must supply direct current to the solenoid. This
causes the solenoid to be energized so that the NO port is shut and the NC port is now
connected to the COM port. As in all cases, the COM port is always selected. The
switching of the solenoid is done in conjunction with the MFC unit becoming active;
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix F
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 13 of 13
generally, the MFC is controlled by the DAS. When the calibration sequences have
finished, the DAS stops the direct current from being sent to the solenoid and switches
automatically back to the NO to COM (inactive) port configuration. This allows the air
to flow through the NO to COM port and the instrument is now back on ambient mode.
Air Flow
o ^
exhaust
Fan
Flow
,—
r Fk
1
)W
[
I
1
J 1
Air
NC
1 1
Air Flow
Flo
k
Ci •
W
[
PL
]
1=1
Air Flo
NC
l=n
,f'
w
[
1.
i
j — i ^
NC
Calibration
Gas from the Mass
Flow Calibrator
Exhaust
TSOM
Air Flow to the Analyzers
Figure 7. Ambient - Calibration Manifold Interface
Reference
1. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 58, Appendix E.9
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Appendix G
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 1 of3
Appendix G
Example Procedure for Calibrating a Data Acquisition System
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Appendix G
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 2 of3
This page left blank intentionally
-------
QA Handbook Vol II, Appendix G
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 3 of3
DAS Calibration Technique
The following is an example of a DAS calibration. The DAS owner's manual should be
followed. The calibration of a DAS is performed by inputting known voltages into the DAS and
measuring the output of the DAS.
1. The calibration begins by obtaining a voltage source and an ohm/voltmeter.
2. Place a wire lead across the input of the DAS multiplexer. With this "shorted" out, the
DAS should read zero.
3. If the output does not read zero, adjust the output according to the owners manual.
4. After the background zero has been determined, it is time to adjust the full scale of the
system. Most DAS system work on a 1, 5 or 10 volt range, i.e., the full scale equals an
output of voltage. In the case of a 0 - 1000 ppb range instrument, 1.00 volts equals 1000
ppb. Accordingly, 500 ppb equals 0.5 volts (500 milivolts). To get the DAS to be linear
throughout the range of the instrument being measured, the DAS must be tested for
linearity.
5. Attach the voltage source to a voltmeter. Adjust the voltage source to 1.000 volts (this is
critical that the output be 1.000 volts). Attach the output of the voltage source the DAS
multiplexer. The DAS should read 1000 ppb. Adjust the DAS voltage A/D card
accordingly. Adjust the output of the voltage source to 0.250 volts. The DAS output
should read 250 ppb. Adjust the A/D card in the DAS accordingly. Once you have
adjusted in the lower range of the DAS, check the full scale point. With the voltage
source at 1.000 volts, the output should be 1000 ppb. If it isn't, then adjust the DAS to
allow the high and low points to be as close to the source voltage as possible. In some
cases, the linearity of the DAS may be in question. If this occurs, the data collected may
need to be adjusted using a linear regression equation. See Section 2.0.9 for details on
data adjustment. The critical range for many instruments is in the lower 10 % of the
scale. It is critical that this be linear.
6. Every channel on a DAS should be calibrated. In some newer DAS systems, there is only
one A/D card voltage adjustment which is carried throughout the multiplexer. This
usually will adjust all channels. It is recommended that DAS be calibrated once per year.
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 1 of46
Appendix H
United States Environmental Protection Agency
National Ambient Air Monitoring Technical System Audit Form
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 2 of46
Page intentionally left blank
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 3 of46
Table of Contents
1) General / Quality Management
a) Program Organization
b) Facilities
c) Independent Quality Assurance and Quality Control
d) Planning Documents (including QMP, QAPPs, & SOPs)
e) General Documentation Policies
f) Training
g) Corrective Action
h) Quality Improvement
i) External Performance Audits
2) Network Management / Field Operations
a) Network Design
b) Changes to the Network since the last audit
c) Proposed changes to the Network
d) Field Support
i) SOPs
ii) Instrument Acceptance
iii) Calibration
iv) Repair
v) Site and Monitor Information Form
3) Laboratory Operations
a) Routine Operations
b) Quality Control
c) Laboratory Preventive Maintenance
d) Laboratory Record Keeping
e) Laboratory Data Acquisition and Handling
f) Specific Pollutants: PM^0 PM2.5 and Lead
4) Data and Data Management
a.) Data Handling
b.) Software Documentation
c.) Data Validation and Correction
d.) Data Processing
e.) Internal Reporting
f.) External Reporting
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 4 of46
1) General / Quality Management
State/ Local / Tribal Agency Audited:
Address:
City, State, and Zip Code:
Date of Technical System Audit:
Auditor / Agency:
a) Program Organization
1) Key Individuals
1.1) Agency Director:
1.2) Ambient Air Monitoring (AAM) Network Manager:
1.3) Quality Assurance Manager:
1.4) QA Auditors:
1.5) Field Operations Supervisor / Lead:
1.6) Laboratory Supervisor:
1.7) QA Laboratory Manager:
1.8) Data Management Supervisor / Lead:
Attach an Organizational Chart:
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 5 of46
Flow Chart:
Key position staffing. Number of personnel available to each of the following program areas:
Program Area
Network
Design and
Siting
QC activities
QA activities
Number of
People
Primary
Number of
People
Backup
Vacancies
Program Area
Data and Data
Management
Equipment
repair and
maintenance
Financial
Management
Number
of People
Primary
Number
of People
Backup
Vacancies
List available personnel by name and percentage of time spent on each task category
Name
Network
Design
and siting
QC
activities
QA
activities
Equipment repair
and maintenance
Data and
Data Management
Financial
Management
Comment on the need for additional personnel, if applicable
List personnel who have authority or are responsible for:
Activity
QA Training Field/Lab
Grant Management
Purchases greater than $500
Equipment and Service Contract
Management
Staff appointment
Name
Title
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 6 of46
b) Facilities
Identify the principal facilities where the agency conducts work that is related to air monitoring. Do not include
monitoring stations but do include facilities where work is performed by contractors or other organizations.
Facility AAM Function
Instrument repair
Certification of Standards e.g.
gases, flow transfers, MFC
PM filter weighing
Data verification and processing
General office space
Storage space, short and long
term
Air Toxics (Carbonyls, VOC s,
Metals):
Offices responsible for
ensuring adequacy
Location
Adequate Y/N
To be completed by auditor
Indicate any facilities that should be upgraded. Identify by function and any suggested improvements or
recommendations
Are facilities adequate concerning safety? Yes / No Please explain if answer is no any suggested
improvements or recommendations
Are there any significant changes which are likely to be implemented to agency facilities within the next one to two
years? Comment on agency's needs for additional physical space (laboratory, office, storage, etc.).
Facility
Function
Proposed Change - Date
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 7 of46
c) Independent Quality Assurance and Quality Control
1. Status of Quality Assurance Program
Question
Does the agency perform QA activities with
internal personnel? If no go to Section d.
Does the agency maintain a separate
laboratory to support quality assurance
activities?
Has the agency documented and
implemented specific audit procedures
separate from monitoring procedures?
Are there two levels of management
separation between QA and QC operations?
Please explain:
Yes
No
Comment
Does the agency have identifiable auditing
equipment and standards (specifically
intended for sole use) for audits?
2. Internal Performance Audits
Question
Does the agency have separate facilities to
support audits and calibrations?
Yes
No
Comment
If the agency has in place contracts or similar agreements either with another agency or contractor to perform
audits or calibrations, please name the organization and briefly describe the type of agreement.
If the agency does not have a performance audit SOP (included as an attachment), please describe performance
audit procedure for each type of pollutant.
Does the agency maintain independence of audit
standards and personnel?
Please provide information on certification of audit standards currently being used. Include information on
vendor and internal or external certification of standards.
Does the agency have a certified source of zero
air for performance audits?
Does the agency have procedures for auditing
and/or validating performance of
Meteorological monitoring?
IVAtltUlUlUgl^dl lllUlllLUllllg '.
Please provide a list of the agency's audit equipment and age of audit equipment
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 8 of46
Is audit equipment ever used to support routine
calibration and QC checks required for
monitoring network operations?
If yes, please describe.
Are standard operating procedures (SOPs) for
air monitoring available to all field personnel?
Has the agency established and has it
documented criteria to define agency -acceptable
audit results?
Please complete the table below with the pollutant, monitor and acceptance criteria.
Pollutant
How is performance tracked (e.g., control
charts)
Audit Result Acceptance
Criteria
CO
03
NO9
S02
PM,,
PM25
Pb
VOCs
Carbonlys
PM2.5 specmtio
5 specmtion
PMiQ-2.5 specmti.
.peciation
PM10-25FRMMass
Continuous PM2 5
Trace Levels (CO)
Trace Levels (SO2)
Trace Levels (NO)
Trace Levels (NOy)
Surface
Meteorology
Others
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 9 of46
Question
Yes
No
Comment
Were these audit criteria based on, or derived from, the
guidance found in Volume II of the QA Handbook for
Air Pollution Measurement System, Section 2.0.12?
If no, please explain.
If yes, please explain any changes or
assumptions made in the derivation.
What corrective action may be taken if criteria are exceeded? If possible, indicate two examples of corrective
actions, taken within the period since the previous systems audit which are based directly on the criteria discussed
above.
Corrective Action # 1
Corrective Action #2
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 10 of 46
d) Planning Documents including QMP, QAPP, &SOP
QMP questions
Does the agency have an EPA-approved
quality management plan?
If yes, have changes to the plan been
approved by the EPA?
Has the QMP been approved by EPA
within the last five years?
Yes
No
Please provide: Date of Original Approval Date of Last Revision: Date of Latest Approval:
QAPP questions
Does the agency have an EPA-approved
quality assurance project plan?
If yes, have changes to the plan been
approved by the EPA?
Has the QAPP been reviewed by EPA
annually?
Yes
No
Comment
Please provide: Date of Original Approval Date of Last Revision Date of Latest
Approval
Does the agency have any revisions to your
QA project plan still pending?
How does the agency verify the QA project
plan is fully implemented?
How are the updates distributed?
What personnel regularly receive updates?
SOP questions
Has the agency prepared and implemented
standard operating procedures (SOPs) for
all facets of agency operation?
Do the SOPs adequately address
ANSI/ASQC E-4 quality system required
by 40 CFR 58, Appendix A?
Are copies of the SOP or pertinent sections
available to agency personnel?
How does the agency verify that the SOPs
are implemented as provided?
How are the updates distributed?
10
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 11 of 46
e) General Documentation Policies
Question
Does the agency have a documented records management
plan?
Does the agency have a list of files considered official records
and their media type I.E. paper, electronic?
Does the agency have a schedule for retention and disposition
of records?
Are records for at least three years?
Who is responsible for the storage and retrieval of records?
What security measures are utilized to protect records?
Where/when does the agency rely on electronic files as
primary records?
What is the system for the storage, retrieval and backup of
these files?
Yes
No
Comment
11
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 12 of 46
f) Training
Question
Does the agency have a training program and training plan?
Where is it documented?
Does it make use of seminars, courses, EPA sponsored
college level courses?
Are personnel cross-trained for other ambient air monitoring
duties?
Are training funds specifically designated in the annual
budget?
Does the training plan include:
Training requirements by position
Frequency of training
Training for contract personnel
A list of core QA related courses
Yes
No
Comment
Yes
No
Comment
Indicate below the three most recent training events and identify the personnel participating in them.
Event
Dates
Participant(s)
12
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 13 of 46
Oversight of Contractors and Suppliers
Question Contractors
Who is responsible for oversight of contract personnel?
What steps are taken to ensure contract personnel meet
training and experience criteria?
How often are contracts reviewed and /or renewed?
Question Suppliers
Have criteria and specification been established for
consumable supplies and for equipment?
What supplies and equipment have established
specifications?
Is equipment from suppliers open for bid?
Yes
No
Comment
g) Corrective Action
Question
Does the agency have a comprehensive corrective
action program in place and operational?
Have the procedures been documented?
As a part of the QA project plan?
As a separate standard operating procedure?
Does the agency have established and documented
corrective limits for QA and QC activities?
Are procedures implemented for corrective actions
based on results of the following which fall outside
the established limits:
Performance evaluations
Precision goals
Bias goals
NPAP audits
PEP audits
Yes
No
Comment
13
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 14 of 46
Question
Yes
No
Comment
Validation of one point QC check goals
Completeness goals
Data audits
Calibrations and zero span checks
Technical Systems Audit
Have the procedures been documented?
How is responsibility for implementing corrective actions assigned? Briefly discuss.
How does the agency follow up on implemented corrective actions?
Briefly describe recent examples of the ways in which the above corrective action system was employed to remove
problems.
14
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 15 of 46
h) Quality Improvement
Question
What actions were taken to improve the quality system
since the last TSA?
Since the last TSA do your control charts indicate that the
overall data quality for each pollutant steady or
improving?
For areas where data quality appears to be declining has a
cause been determined?
Have all deficiencies indicted on the previous TSA been
corrected?
Yes
No
Comment
If not explain.
Are there pending plans for quality improvement such as
purchase of new or improved equipment, standards, or
instruments?
15
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 16 of 46
i) External Performance Audits
Question
Does your agency participate in NPAP, PM2.5 PEP, and
Other performance audits performed by an external party
and/or using external standards.
Yes
No
Comment
If the agency does not participate, please explain why not:
Are NPAP audits performed by QA staff, site operators,
calibration staff, and/or another group?
National Performance Audit Program (NPAP) and Additional Audits
Does the agency participate in the National Performance Audit Program (NPAP) as required
under 40 CFR 58, Appendix A? If so, identify the individual with primary responsibility for the
required participation in the National Performance Audit Program.
Name:
Program function:
Please complete the table below:
Parameter Audited
CO
03
S02
NO2
PM10
PM2.5
Pb
VOCs
Carbonlys
Date of Last NPAP Audit
16
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 17 of 46
2) Network Management/Field Operations
State/Local/Tribal Agency Audited:
Address:
City, State, and Zip Code:
Auditor/Agency:
Key Individuals
Ambient Air Monitoring Network Manager:
Quality Assurance Manager:
Field Operations Supervisor/Lead:
Field Operations Staff involved in the TSA:
17
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 18 of 46
a) Network Design
Complete the table below for each of the pollutants monitored as part of your air monitoring network. (Record applicable count by
category.) Also indicate seasonal monitoring with an S for a Parameter/Category as appropriate. Provide the most recent annual
monitoring network plan, including date of approval and AQS quicklook or if not available, network description and other similar
summary of site data, including SLAMS, Other and Toxics
Category*
NCore
SLAMS
SPM
PAMS
Total
S02
N02
CO
03
PM10
PM2.5
Pb
Other
(type)
Other
(type)
*NCore - National Core monitoring stations; SLAMS - state and local air monitoring stations; SPM - special
purpose monitors; PAMS - photochemical assessment monitoring stations
Question
Yes
No Comment
What is the date of the most current Monitoring Network Plan?
I. Is it available for public inspection
II. Does it include the information required for each site?
AQS Site ID #
Street address and geographic coordinates
Sampling and Analysis Method(s)
Operating Schedule
Monitoring Objective and Scale of Representativeness
Site suitable/not suitable for comparison to annual PM2.5
NAAQS?
MSA, CBSA or CSA indicated as required?
Indicate by Site ID # any non-conformance with the requirements of 40 CFR 58, Appendices D and E, along with any waivers granted
by the Regional Office (provide waiver documentation)
Monitor
S02
03
CO
NO2
PM10
PM2.5
Pb
Site ID
Reason for Non-Conformance
18
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 19 of 46
Question
Yes
No Comment
Are hard copy site information files retained by the agency for all
air monitoring stations within the network?
Does each station have the required information including:
AQS Site ID Number?
Photographs/slides to the four cardinal compass points?
Startup and shutdown dates?
Documentation of instrumentation?
Who has custody of the current network documents
Does the current level of monitoring effort, station placement,
instrumentation, etc., meet requirements imposed by current grant
conditions?
How often is the network siting reviewed?
Are there any issues
Name:
Title:
Frequency:
Date of last review:
Do any sites vary from the required frequency in 40 CFR 58.12?
Does the number of collocated monitoring stations meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 58 Appendix A?
b) Changes to the Network since the last audit
What is the date of the most recent network assessment? (Provide copy) Are all SLAMS parameters included? Any
Others?
Please provide information on any site changes since the last audit
Pollutant
Site ID
Site Address
Site
Added/Deleted/
Relocated
Reason (Assessment, lost lease, etc.
Provide documentation of reason
for each site change.)
19
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 20 of 46
c) Proposed changes to the Network
Are future network changes proposed?
Please provide information on proposed site changes, including documentation of the need for the change and any required
approvals
Pollutant
Site ID
Site Address
Site to be
Added/Deleted/
Relocated
Reason (Assessment, lost lease, etc.
Provide documentation of reason
for each site change.)
d) Field Support
Question
On average, how often are most of your stations visited by a field
operator?
Is this visit frequency consistent for all reporting organizations within
your agency?
On average, how many stations does a single operator have responsibility
for?
How many of the stations of your SLAMS/NCORE network are equipped
with sampling manifolds?
Do the sample inlets and manifolds meet the requirements for through the
probe audits?
I. Briefly describe most common manifold type
II. Are Manifolds cleaned periodically
III. If the manifold is cleaned, what is used to perform cleaning
IV. Are manifold(s) equipped with a blower
V. Is there sufficient air flow through the manifold at all times?
VI. How is the air flow through the manifold monitored?
VII. Is there a conditioning period for the manifold after cleaning?
VIII. What is the residence time?
Sampling lines: 1) What material is used for instrument sampling lines?
2) How often are lines changed?
Do you utilize uninterruptable power supplies or backup power sources at
your sites?
What instruments or devices are protected?
Yes
•
•
H"
Comment
per
How often?
Approximate air flow:
Length of time:
20
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 21 of 46
i). SOPs
Question
Is the documentation of monitoring SOPs complete?
Are any new monitoring SOPs needed?
Are such procedures available to all field operations personnel?
Are SOPs that detail operations during episode monitoring
prepared and available to field personnel?
Are SOPs based on the framework contained in Guidance for
Preparing Standard Operating Procedures EPA QA/G-6?
Yes
No
Comment
Please complete the following table:
Pollutant Monitored
S02
NO2
CO
O3
PM10
PM25 FRMmass
Pb
PM25 speciation
PMiO-2.5 FRMmass
PM10.25speciation
Continuous PM2 5 mass
Trace levels (CO)
Trace levels (SO2)
Trace levels (NO)
Trace levels (NOy)
Total reactive nitrogen
Surface Meteorology
Wind speed and direction, temperature, RH,
precipitation and solar radiation
Others
Date of Last SOP Review
Date of Last SOP Revision
21
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 22 of 46
ii). Instrument Acceptance
Has your agency obtained necessary waiver provisions to operate equipment which does not meet the effective
reference and equivalency requirements? List all waivers.
Please list instruments in your inventory
Pollutant
SO2
N02
CO
03
PM10
PM2.5
Pb
Multi gas calibrator
PM2.5 speciation
PMio-2.5 speciation
PMio-2.5 FRM mass
Continuous PM2 5 mass
Trace levels (CO)
Trace levels (SO2)
Trace levels (NO)
Trace levels (NOy)
Surface Meteorology
Others
Number
Make and Models
Reference or Equivalent number
Please comment briefly and prioritize your currently identified instrument needs.
Question
Are criteria established for field QC equipment?
Are criteria established for field QC gas standards?
Yes
No
Comment
22
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 23 of 46
iii) Calibration
Please indicate the frequency of multi point calibrations.
Pollutant
Frequency
Name of Calibration Method
Question
Are field calibration procedures included in the document? SOPs?
Are calibrations performed in keeping with the guidance in
section Vol II of the QA Handbook for Air Pollution
Measurement Systems?
Are calibration procedures consistent with the operational
requirements of Appendices to 40 CFR 50 or to analyzer
operation/instruction manuals?
Have changes been made to calibration methods based on
manufacturer's suggestions for a particular instrument?
Do standard materials used for calibrations meet the requirements
of appendices to 40 CFR 50 (EPA reference methods) and
Appendix A to 40 CFR 58 (traceability of materials to NIST-
SRMs or CRMs)?
Are all flow-measurement devices checked and certified?
Yes
No
Comment
Location (site, lab etc.):
If no, why not?
If no, why not?
Comment on deviations
Additional comments:
Please list the authoritative standards used for each type of flow measurement, indicate the certification frequency of standards
to maintain field material/device credibility.
Flow Device
HiVol orifice
Streamline
TriCal
BIOS
DeltaCal
Gilibrators
Primary Standard
Where do field operations personnel obtain gaseous standards?
Are those standards certified by:
Frequency of Certification
^^^^H
23
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 24 of 46
Question
Yes
No Comment
The agency laboratory?
EPA/NERL standards laboratory?
A laboratory separate from this agency's but part of the
same reporting organization?
The vendor?
Other (describe).
How are the gas standards verified after receipt?
How are flow measurement devices certified?
Please provide copies of certifications of all standards currently in
use from your master and/or satellite standard certification
logbooks (i.e., chemical standards, ozone standards, flow
standards, and zero air standards).
What equipment is used to perform calibrations (e.g., dilution
devices) and how is the performance of this equipment verified?
Does the documentation include expiration date of certification?
Reference to primary standard used?
What traceability is used?
Please attach an example of recent documentation of
traceability
Is calibration equipment maintained at each station?
How is the functional integrity of this equipment documented?
Who has responsibility for maintaining field calibration standards?
Please list the authoritative standards and frequency of each type of dilution, permeation and ozone calibrator and indicate the
certification frequency...
Calibrator
Primary Standard
Frequency of
CalibrationCertiflcation
Permeation calibrator flow controller
Permeation calibrator temperature
Dilution calibrator air and gas flow controllers
Field/working standard photometer
Ozone generator
24
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 25 of 46
o) Please identify station standards for gaseous pollutants at representative air monitoring stations (attach additional sheets as
appropriate):
Parameter
CO
NO2
SO2
03
Station(s)
Identification of Standard(s)
Recertification Date(s)
iv) Repair
a) Who is responsible for performing preventive maintenance?
b) Is special training provided them for performing preventive maintenance? Briefly comment on background or courses.
c) Is this training routinely reinforced? Yes No
If no, why not?
d) What is your preventive maintenance schedule for each type of field instrumentation?
e) If preventive maintenance is MINOR, it is performed at (check one or more): field station , headquarters facilities ,
equipment is sent to manufacturer
f) If preventive maintenance is MAJOR, it is performed at (check one or more): field station , headquarters facilities ,
equipment is sent to manufacturer
g) Does the agency have service contracts or agreements in place with instrument manufacturers? Indicate below or attach
additional pages to show which instrumentation is covered?
h) Comment briefly on the adequacy and availability of the supply of spare parts, tools and manuals available to the field operator
to perform any necessary maintenance activities. Do you feel that this is adequate to prevent any significant data loss?
i) Is the agency currently experiencing any recurring problem with equipment or manufacturer(s)? If so, please identify the
equipment or manufacturer, and comment on steps taken to remedy the problem.
j) Have you lost any data due to repairs in the last 2 years?
More than 24 hours?
More than 48 hours?
More than a week?
k) Explain any situations where instrument down time was due to lack of preventive maintenance of unavailability of parts.
25
-------
RECORD KEEPING
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 26 of 46
Question
What type of station logbooks are maintained at each
monitoring station? (maintenance logs, calibration logs,
personal logs, etc.)
What information is included in the station logbooks?
Who reviews and verifies the logbooks for adequacy of station
performance?
How is control of logbook maintained?
Where is the completed logbook archived?
What other records are used?
Zero span record?
Gas usage log?
Maintenance log?
Log of precision checks?
Control charts?
A record of audits?
Yes
No
Comment
Please describe the use and storage of these documents.
Are calibration records or at least calibration constants available
to field operators?
Please attach an example field calibration record sheet to this questionnaire.
26
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 27 of 46
V) Site/Monitor Information Form
PQAO
AQS Site Name
AQS Site Number
Agency Site Name/No.
(if different than AQS Site Name/Number)
Site Address
City & County
Site Coordinates
(specify lat/long or UTM)
Site Elevation (m)
Criteria Pollutants Monitored
Other Parameters
Nearst Meterological Site
('on site' is met tower present at this site)
Photographs to and from each cardinal direction attached?
(Yes or No)
Name(s) of Report Preparer(s)
Name(s) of Auditors
Date
Phone Number
27
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 28 of 46
Site Map
Draw map of site and surrounding terrain and features, up to 100 meters.
Map notes
28
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 29 of 46
Monitor Information
Pollutants
Manufacturer
Model
Serial number
Scale of representation
MICro, MIDdle, Neighborhood, Urban
Objective (Population, Max concentration,
Background, Transport)
Height of probe above ground(m)
Distance from obstruction (m)
Type of obstruction (Wall, Tree, etc)
Distance from roadway (m)
Unrestricted airflow (Yes, No)
Designation (NCore, SLAMS,etc)
Siting Criteria Met (Yes, No)
Manufacturer
Model
Serial number
Scale of representation
MICro, MIDdle, Neighborhood, Urban
Averaging time 1-, 8-, 24-hour
Objective (Population, Max concentration,
Background, Transport)
Height of probe above ground(m)
Distance from obstruction (m)
Type of obstruction (Wall, Tree, etc)
Distance from roadway (m)
Unrestricted airflow (Yes, No)
Designation (NCore, SLAMS,etc)
Siting Criteria Met (Yes, No)
Insert additional copies of table as needed
29
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 30 of 46
Area Information
Street Name
Traffic Count
(Vehicles/day)
Direction
North
East
South
West
Predominant Land
Use (Industry, Residential, Commercial
or Agriculture)
Direction
North
East
South
West
Obstructions
Height (m)
Distance (m)
Note: This table is for large obstructions that affect the entire site, such as large clusters of trees
or entire buildings. Individual obstructions, such as walls, single trees, other monitors, etc,
should be entered in the Monitor Information table.
Direction
North
East
South
West
Topographic Features
(hills, valleys, rivers, etc.)
General Terrain
(flat, rolling, rough)
Comments
30
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 31 of 46
3) LABORATORY OPERATIONS
State/Local/Tribal Agency Audited:
City, State, and Zip Code:
Date of Technical System Audit:
Auditor / Agency:
Key Individuals
Laboratory Manager:
Laboratory Supervisor:
Quality Assurance Manager:
Laboratory Staff involved in the ISA:
31
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 32 of 46
a) Routine Operations
What analytical methods are employed in support of your air monitoring network?
Analysis Name or Description of Method
PM10
PM2.5
Pb
Others (list by pollutant)
Please describe areas where there have been difficulties meeting the regulatory requirements for
any of the above analytical methods.
In the table below, please identify the current versions of written methods, supplements, and
guidelines that are used in your agency.
Analysis
PM10
PM2.5
Pb
Others (list by
pollutant)
Documentation of Method
Question
Were procedures for the methods listed above included in
the agency's QA Project Plan or SOP's and were reviewed
by EPA? Also, are SOP's easily /readily accessible for use
and reference?
Does you lab have sufficient instrumentation to conduct
analyses?
Yes
No
Comment
d) Please describe needs for laboratory instrumentation.
32
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 33 of 46
b) Laboratory Quality Control
Please identify laboratory standards used in support of the air monitoring program, including standards which may
be kept in an analytical laboratory and standards which may be kept in a field support area or quality assurance
laboratory that is dedicated to the air monitoring program (attach additional sheets if appropriate):
Parameter
CO
NO2
S02
03
Weights
Temperature
Moisture
Barometric Pressure
Flow
Other Flow Standard
Lead
Other
Location of
Standards
Laboratory
Standard
Recertification
Date
Primary Standard*
* Standards to which the laboratory standards can be traced.
Question
Are all chemicals and solutions clearly marked with an
indication of shelf life?
Are chemicals removed and properly disposed of when shelf
life expires?
Are only ACS grade chemicals used by the laboratory?
Yes
No
Comment
e) Comment on the traceability of chemicals used in the preparation of calibration standards
33
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 34 of 46
Question
Yes
No
Comment
Does the laboratory purchase standard solutions such
as those for use with lead or other metals analysis?
Are all calibration procedures documented?
If answer "yes" to (f), please describe the following:
(1) Title of the document:
(2) Revision number:
(3) Where the document is:
Are at least one duplicate, one blank, and one
standard or spike included with a given analytical
batch?
Briefly describe the laboratory's use of data derived from blank analyses.
Are criteria established to determine whether a
blank data are acceptable?
How frequently and at what concentration ranges does the lab perform duplicate analysis? What constitutes an ac-
ceptable agreement? Please comment in the space below.
Please describe how the lab use data obtained from spiked samples, including the acceptance criteria (e.g.,
acceptable percent recovery).
Question
Does the laboratory routinely include samples of
reference material within an analytical batch?
Yes
If yes, indicate frequency, level, and material used.
Are mid-range standards included in analytical
batches?
Please describe the frequency, level and compound used in the space provided below.
34
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 35 of 46
Question
Are criteria for real time quality control
established that are based on the results obtained
for the mid-range standards discussed above?
Yes
No Comment
If yes, briefly discuss them below or indicate the document in which they can be found.
Are appropriate acceptance criteria for each type
of analysis documented ?
c) Laboratory Preventive Maintenance
Question
Yes
No Comment
For laboratory equipment, who has the responsibility for performing preventive maintenance?
Is most maintenance performed in the lab?
Is a maintenance log maintained for each major laboratory
instrument?
Are service contracts in place for major analytical
instruments?
35
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 36 of 46
d) Laboratory Record Keeping
Question
Yes
No
Comment
Are all samples that are received by the laboratory
logged in?
Discuss sample routing and special needs for analysis (or attach a copy of the latest SOP which covers this). Attach a flow chart
if possible.
Are log books kept for all analytical laboratory
instruments?
Are there log books or other records that indicate
the checks made on materials and instruments such
as weights, humidity indicators, balances, and
thermometers?
Identify type of record, acceptable/non-acceptable
Are log books maintained to track the preparation
of filters for the field?
Are they current?
Do they indicate proper use of conditioning?
Weighings?
Stamping and numbering?
Are log books kept which track filters returning
from the field for analysis?
How are data records from the laboratory archived?
Where?
Who has the responsibility? Person
Title
How long are records kept? Years
Does a chain-of-custody procedure exist for
laboratory samples?
If yes, indicate date, title and revision number where it can be found
36
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 37 of 46
e) Laboratory Data Acquisition and Handling
Question
Yes
No
Comment
Are QC data readily available to the analyst during
a given analytical run?
Identify those laboratory instruments which make use of computer interfaces directly to record data. Which ones use strip charts?
Integrators?
What is the laboratory's capability with regard to data recovery? In case of problems, can they recapture data or are they
dependent on computer operations? Discuss briefly.
Has a user's manual been prepared for the
automated data acquisition instrumentation?
Please provide below a data flow diagram which establishes, by a short summary flow chart: transcriptions, validations, and
reporting format changes the data goes through before being released by the laboratory.
37
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 38 of 46
f) Specific Pollutants: PM10, PM2 5 and Lead
Question
PMin and PM^
Does the agency use filters supplied by EPA?
Do filters meet the specifications in 40 CFR 50?
Are filters visually inspected via strong light from a
view box for pinholes and other imperfections?
Yes
•
No
•
Comment
^^^^^M
Where does the laboratory keep records of the serial numbers of filters?
Are unexposed filters equilibrated in controlled
conditioning environment which meets or exceeds
the requirements of 40 CFR 50?
Are the temperature and relative humidity of the
conditioning environment monitored?
Are the temperature and humidity monitors
calibrated?
Are balances checked with Class S or Class M
weights each day when they are used?
Is the balance check information placed in QC log
book?
To what sensitivity are filter weights recorded?
Are filter serial numbers and tare weights recorded
in a bound notebook?
Are filters packaged for protection while
transporting to and from the monitoring stations?
How often are filter samples collected? (Indicate the average elapsed time in hours between end of sampling and laboratory
receipt.)
In what medium are field measurements recorded (e.g., in a log book, on a filter folder, or on standard forms)?
Are exposed filters reconditioned for at least 24 hrs
in the same conditioning environment as for
unexposed filters?
Briefly describe how exposed filters are prepared for conditioning.
Briefly describe how exposed filters are stored after being weighed.
38
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 39 of 46
Question
Are blank filters reweighed?
Are chemical analyses performed on filters?
LEAD
Is analysis for lead being conducted using atomic
absorption spectrometry with air acetylene flame?
Is either the hot acid or ultrasonic extraction
procedure being followed precisely?
Is Class A borosilicate glassware used throughout
the analysis?
Is all glassware cleaned with detergent, soaked and
rinsed three times with distilled or deionized water?
If extracted samples are stored, are linear
polyethylene bottles used?
Are all batches of glass fiber filters tested for
background lead content?
At a rate of 20 to 30 random filters per batch of
500 or greater?
Are ACS reagent grade HNO3 and HC1 used in the
analysis?
Is a calibration curve available having
concentrations that cover the linear absorption
range of the atomic absorption instrumentation?
Is the stability of the calibration curve checked by
alternately remeasuring every 10th sample a
concentration < l/^ig Pb/ml; < 10 ,ug Pb/ml?
Yes
•
No
•
Comment
^^^^^^m
If not, has the agency received an equivalency
designation of their procedure?
Which?
Indicate rate.
39
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 40 of 46
4) DATA AND DATA MANAGEMENT
State/Local/Tribal Agency Audited:
City, State, and Zip Code:
Date of Technical System Audit:
Auditor / Agency:
Key Individuals
Data Manager:
Data Supervisor:
Quality Assurance Manager:
40
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 41 of 46
a) Data Handling
Question
Is there a procedure, description, or a chart which shows a
complete data sequence from point of acquisition to point of
submission of data to EPA?
Yes No Comment
Please provide below a data flow diagram indicating both the data flow within the reporting organization.
Are procedures for data handling (e.g., data reduction, review,
etc.) documented?
In what media (e.g., diskette, data cartridge, or telemetry) and formats do data arrive at the data processing location? Please list
below.
Category of Data (by Pollutant)
Data Media and Formats
How often are data received at the processing location from the field sites and laboratory?
Is there documentation accompanying the data regarding any
media changes, transcriptions, or flags which have been placed
into the data before data are released to agency internal data
processing?
^^^|
Describe the type of documentation
How data are actually entered to the computer system (e.g., computerized transcription (copy from disk or data transfer device),
manual entry, digitization of strip charts, or other)?
For manual data, is a double-key entry system used?
41
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 42 of 46
b) Software Documentation
Question
Does your agency use any AQS Manual?
Does your agency use any Air Now Manual?
Yes
No Comment
If yes, list the title of manual used including the , version number and date published
Does the agency have information on the reporting of precision and
accuracy data available?
What are the origins of the software used to prepare air monitoring data for release into the AQS and AirNow database? Please
list the documentation for the software currently in use for data processing, including the names of the software packages,
vendor or author, revision numbers, and the revision dates of the software.
What is the recovery capability in the event of a significant computer problem (i.e., how much time and data would be lost)?
Has your agency tested the data processing software to ensure its
performance of the intended function are consistent with the QA
Handbook, Volume II, and Section 14.0?
Does your agency document software tests?
If yes, provide the documentation
42
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 43 of 46
c) Data Validation and Correction
Question
Yes
No
Comment
Have your agency established and document the validation
criteria ?
If yes, indicate document where such
criteria can be found (title, revision date).
Does documentation exist on the identification and applicability
of flags (i.e., identification of suspect values) within the data as
recorded with the data in the computer files?
Does your agency document the data validation criteria
including limits for values such as flow rates, calibration
results, or range tests for ambient measurements?
(i) If yes, please describe what action the data validator will take if he/she find data with limits exceeded
(e.g., flags, modifies, or delete, etc.).
(ii) If yes, give examples to illustrate actions taken when limits were exceeded.
Please describe how changes made to data that were submitted to AQS and AirNow are documented.
Who has signature authority for approving corrections?
Name Program function_
What criteria are used to determine a data point be deleted? Discuss briefly.
What criteria are used to determine if data need to be reprocessed? Discuss.
Are corrected data resubmitted to the issuing group for
cross-checking prior to release?
43
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 44 of 46
d) Data Processing
Question
Does the agency generate data summary reports?
Yes
No
Comment
Please list at least three reports routinely generated, including the information requested below.
Report Title
Distribution
Period Covered
Question
Yes
No
Comment
How often are data submitted to AQS and AirNow?
Briefly comment on difficulties the agency may have encountered in coding and submitting data following the guidance of the
AQS guidelines?
Does the agency routinely request a hard copy printout on
submitted data from AQS?
Are records kept for at least 3 years by the agency in an orderly,
accessible form?
If yes, does this include raw data , calculation , QC data , and reports ? If no, please comment
Has your agency submitted data along with the appropriate
calibration equations used to the processing center?
Are concentrations of pollutants other than PM2 5 corrected to
EPA standard temperature and pressure conditions
(i.e.,298°K, 760 mm Hg) before input to AQS, and
concentrations of PM2 5 reported to AQS under actual
(volumetric) conditions?
Are audits on data reduction procedure performed on a routine
basis?
If yes, at what frequency?
Are data precision and accuracy checked each time they are
calculated, recorded, or transcribed to ensure that incorrect
values are not submitted to EPA?
44
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 45 of 46
e) Internal Reporting
What internal reports are prepared and submitted as a result of the audits required under 40 CFR 58, Appendix A?
Report Title
Frequency
What internal reports are prepared and submitted as a result of precision checks also required under 40 CFR 58, Appendix A?
Report Title
Frequency
Question
Do either the audit or precision check reports
indicated include a discussion of corrective actions
initiated based on audit or precision check results?
Yes
No
Comment
Who has the responsibility for the calculation and preparation of data summaries? To whom are such summaries delivered?
Name
Title
Type of Report
Recipient
45
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix H
Revision No: 1
Date: 12/08
Page 46 of 46
f) External Reporting
For the current calendar year or portion thereof which ended at least 90 calendar days prior to the receipt of this
questionnaire, please provide the following percentages for required data submitted on time.
Percent Submitted on Time* Period Covered:
Monitoring Qtr.
1 (Jan 1- March 31)
2 (Apr 1 - June 30)
3 (July 1 - Sept. 30)
4 (Oct. 1- Dec. 31)
S02
CO
03
N02
PM10
PM2.5
Pb
*"On time" = within 90 calendar days after the end of the quarter in which the data were collected.
For the same period, what fraction of the stations (by pollutant) reported less than 75% of the data (adjusted for seasonal moni-
toring and site start-ups and terminations)?
Pert
Monitoring Qtr.
1 (Jan 1- March 31)
2 (Apr 1 - June 30)
3 (July 1 - Sept. 30)
4 (Oct. 1- Dec. 31)
SO2
ent of Stations <75% Data Recovery Period
CO
03
NO2
Covered:
PM10
PM2.5
Pb
Identify the individual within the agency with the responsibility for reviewing and releasing the data.
Name Program function
Question
Yes
No
Comment
Does your agency report the Pollutant Standard Index?
Has your agency submitted its annual data summary report
(as required in 40 CFR 58.26)?
If yes, did your agency's annual report include the
following:
Data summary required in Appendix F?
Annual precision and accuracy information described in
Section 5.2 of Appendix A?
Location, date, pollution source and duration of all
episodes reaching the significant harm levels?
Is Data Certification signed by a senior officer of your
agency?
46
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page lof 25
Appendix I
Examples of Reports to Management
The following example of an annual quality assurance report consist of a number of sections that
describe the quality objectives for selected sets of measurement data and how those objectives
have been met. Sections include:
Executive Summary,
Introduction, and
Quality information for each ambient air pollutant monitoring program.
The report is titled "Acme Reporting Organization, Annual Quality Assurance Report for 2000".
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I
Revision No. It
Date: 12/08
Page 2 of25
ACME REPORTING ORGANIZATION
ANNUAL QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT FOR 2000
Prepared by
Quality Assurance Department
Acme Reporting Organization
110 Generic Office Building
Townone XX, 00001
April 2001
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 3of 25
ACME REPORTING ORGANIZATION
ANNUAL QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT FOR 2000
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
"Data quality
••Quality assurance procedures
GASEOUS CRITERIA POLLUTANTS
••Program update
••Quality objectives for measurement data
••Data quality assessment
PARTICULATE CRITERIA POLLUTANTS
"Program update
"Quality objectives for measurement data
"Data quality assessment
TOTAL AND SPECIATED VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
"Program update
"Quality objectives for measurement data
"Data quality assessment
AIR TOXIC COMPOUNDS
"Program update
"Quality objectives for measurement data
"Data quality assessment
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 4 of25
ACME REPORTING ORGANIZATION
ANNUAL QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT FOR 2000
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This summary describes the Acme Reporting Organization's (ARO's) success in meeting its quality
objectives for ambient air pollution monitoring data. ARO's attainment of quantitative objectives, such as
promptness, completeness, precision, and bias, are shown in Table 1, below. ARO met these objectives
for all pollutants, with the exception of nitrogen dioxide. The failure to meet completeness and timeliness
goals for nitrogen dioxide was due to the breakdown of several older analyzers. Replacement parts were
installed and the analyzers are now providing data that meet ARO's quality objectives.
Table 1. Attainment of Quantitative Quality Objectives for Ambient Air Monitoring Data
Measurement
Air Toxics
Carbon Monoxide
Lead
Yes
Yes
Nitrogen Dioxide
Ozone
Sulfur Dioxide
PM
10
PM
I2.5
Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs)
Program met objectives for
Promptness Completeness
Yes
Yes
Precision
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Bias
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Other quality objectives (for example those concerning siting, recordkeeping, etc.) were assessed via
laboratory and field system audits. The results of these audits indicate compliance with ARO's standard
operating procedures except for the following:
• The Towntwo site was shadowed by a 20 story office building which was recently completed.
This site was closed in July 2000.
• The Townfour site had problems with vandalism. A new, more secure, fence was installed in
April and the sheriffs department increased patrols in the area to prevent reoccurrences.
• Newly acquired laboratory analytical instruments did not have maintenance logs. New logs were
obtained and personnel were instructed on their use. A spot check, approximately one month
later, indicated the new logs were in use.
A review of equipment inventories identified three older sulfur dioxide ambient air monitors that, based
on our past experience, are likely to experience problems. Cost information and a schedule for
replacement has been prepared and submitted to management for funding. Based on this schedule, the
new monitors will be installed before the end of 2001.
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 5 of25
INTRODUCTION
The Acme Reporting Organization (ARO) conducts ambient air monitoring programs for the State Bureau
of Environmental Quality and local air quality management districts. These programs involve:
• monitoring of criteria pollutants to determine the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) attainment status of state and local air quality. This monitoring is conducted as part of
the State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) and National Air Monitoring Stations
(NAMS) networks.
• monitoring compounds (volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides), referred to as ozone
precursors, that can produce the criteria pollutant ozone. This monitoring is conducted as part of
the Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS) network.
• monitoring toxic air pollutants.
The purpose of this report is to summarize the results of quality assurance activities performed by ARO to
ensure that the data meets its quality objectives. This report is organized by ambient air pollutant
category (e.g., gaseous criteria pollutants, air toxics). The following are discussed for each pollutant
category:
••program overview and update
••quality objectives for measurement data
••data quality assessment
DATA QUALITY
Data quality is related to the need of users for data of sufficient quality for decision making. Each user
specifies their needed data quality in the form of their data quality objectives (DQOs). Quality objectives
for measurement data are designed to ensure that the end user's DQOs are met. Measurement quality
objectives are concerned with both with quantitative objectives (such as representativeness, completeness,
promptness, accuracy, precision and detection level) and qualitative objectives (such as site placement,
operator training, and sample handling techniques).
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES
Quality assurance is a general term for the procedures used to ensure that a particular measurement meets
the quality requirements for its intended use. In addition to performing tests to determine bias and
precision, additional quality indicators (such as sensitivity, representativeness, completeness, timeliness,
documentation quality, and sample custody control) are also evaluated. Quality assurance procedures fall
under two categories:
• quality control - procedures built into the daily sampling and analysis methodologies to ensure
data quality, and
• quality assessment - which refers to periodic outside evaluations of data quality.
Some ambient air monitoring is performed by automated equipment located at field sites, while other
measurements are made by taking samples from the field to the laboratory for analysis. For this reason,
we will divide quality assurance procedures into two parts - field and laboratory quality assurance.
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 6 of25
Field Quality Assurance
Quality control of automated analyzers and samplers consists of calibration and precision checks. The
overall precision of sampling methods is measured using collocated samplers. Quality assurance is
evaluated by periodic performance and system audits.
Calibration - Automated analyzers (except ozone) are calibrated by comparing the instrument's response
when sampling a cylinder gas standard mixture to the cylinder's known concentration level. The analyzer
is then adjusted to produce the correct response. Ozone analyzers are calibrated by on-site generation of
ozone whose concentration is determined by a separate analyzer which has its calibration traceable to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The site's analyzer is then adjusted to produce the same measured
concentration as the traceable analyzer. Manual samplers are calibrated by comparing their volumetric
flow rate at one or more flow rates to the flow measured by a flow rate transfer standard. Calibrations are
performed when an instrument is first installed and at semi-annual intervals thereafter. Calibrations are
also performed after instrument repairs or when quality control charts indicate a drift in response to
quality control check standards.
Precision - Precision is a measure of the variability of an instrument. The precision of automated
analyzers is evaluated by comparing the sample's known concentration against the instrument's response.
The precision of manual samplers is determined by collocated sampling - the simultaneous operation of
two identical samplers placed side by side. The difference in the results of the two samplers is used to
estimate the precision of the entire measurement process (i.e., both field and laboratory precision).
Performance Audits - The bias of automated methods is assessed through field performance audits.
Performance audits are conducted by sampling a blind sample (i.e., a sample whose concentration is
known, but not to the operator). Bias is evaluated by comparing the measured response to the known
value. Typically, performance audits are performed annually using blind samples of several different
concentrations.
System Audits - System audits indicate how well a sampling site conforms to the standard operating
procedures as well as how well the site is located with respect to its mission (e.g., urban or rural sampling,
special purpose sampling site, etc.). System audits involve sending a trained observer (QA Auditor) to the
site to review the site compliance with standard operating procedures. Some areas reviewed include: site
location (possible obstruction, presence of nearby pollutant sources), site security, site characteristics
(urban versus suburban or rural), site maintenance, physical facilities (maintenance, type and operational
quality of equipment, buildings, etc.), recordkeeping, sample handling, storage and transport.
Laboratory Quality Assurance
Laboratory quality control includes calibration of analytical instrumentation, analysis of blank samples to
check for contamination, and analysis of duplicate samples to evaluate precision. Quality assurance is
accomplished through laboratory performance and system audits.
Calibration - Laboratory analytical instruments are calibrated by comparing the instrument's response
when sampling standards of known concentration level. The difference between the measured and known
concentrations is then used to adjust the instrument to produce the correct response.
Blank Analysis - A blank sample is one that has intentionally not been exposed to the pollutant of interest.
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 7 of25
Analysis of blank samples reveals possible contamination in the laboratory or during field handling or
transportation.
Duplicate Analysis - Duplicate analyses of the same sample are performed to monitor the precision of the
analytical method.
Performance Audits - Regular performance audits are conducted by having the laboratory analyze
samples whose physical or chemical properties have been certified by an external laboratory or standards
organization. The difference between the laboratory's reported value and the certified values is used to
evaluate the analytical method's accuracy.
System Audits - System audits indicate how well the laboratory conforms to its standard operating
procedures. System audits involve sending a trained observer (QA Auditor) to the laboratory to review
compliance with standard operating conditions. Areas examined include: record keeping, sample
custody, equipment maintenance, personnel training and qualifications, and a general review of facilities
and equipment.
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 8 of25
GASEOUS CRITERIA POLLUTANTS
The Acme Reporting Organization monitors the ambient concentrations of the gaseous criteria pollutants
carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) to determine
attainment of Federal (NAAQS) and State ambient air quality standards. Monitoring of these pollutants is
conducted continuously by a network of automated stations.
PROGRAM UPDATE
At the beginning of 2000, the Acme Reporting Organization operated 38 ambient air monitoring stations
that measured gaseous criteria pollutants. On March 1, 2000, a station was opened at Townone to monitor
CO, NO2, O3, and SO2. The station at Towntwo, which monitored NO2, O3, and SO2, was closed in April
2000.
QUALITY OBJECTIVES FOR MEASUREMENT DATA
The Quality Objectives for the Acme Reporting Organization's ambient air monitoring of gaseous criteria
pollutants are shown in Table 2, below.
Table 2. Quality Objectives for Gaseous Criteria
Pollutants
Data Quality Indicator
Precision
Bias
Completeness
Promptness
Objective
+ 10%
+ 15%
75%
100%
DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT
Summary
Assessment of the data quality for ARO gaseous criteria pollutants showed that all instruments met goals
for accuracy, precision, completeness, and promptness. System audits showed siting problems at three
sites, two of these were corrected promptly, while the third site had to be closed due to the construction of
a nearby large office building.
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 9 of25
Promptness and Completeness
At least 75 percent of scheduled monitoring data must be reported for purposes of determining attainment
of NAAQS. All data must be submitted within 90 days after the end of the reporting quarter. Table 3
summarizes promptness and completeness for gaseous criteria pollutant data.
Table 3. Data Quality Assessment for Promptness
and Completeness
Pollutant
Carbon monoxide
Nitrogen dioxide
Ozone
Sulfur dioxide
Promptness
100%
100%
100%
100%
Completeness
95%
97%
94%
96%
Precision
At least once every two weeks, precision is determined by sampling a gas of known concentration. Table
4 summarizes the precision checks for gaseous criteria pollutants.
Table 4. Data Quality Assessment for Precision
Pollutant
Carbon monoxide (CO)
Nitrogen dioxide (NO?)
Ozone (Os)
Sulfur dioxide (SO2)
Precision checks
completed
98%
100%
97%
100%
Percentage within
limits
98%
97%
98%
98%
Bias
The results of annual performance audits conducted by ARO personnel are shown in Figure 1, below. The
center line for each pollutant represents the average bias across all analyzers (i.e., with all analyzers
weighted equally). The lower and upper probability limits represent the boundaries within which 95
percent of the individual bias values are expected to be distributed.
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 10 of 25
Figure 1. ARO Performance Audit Results
for Gaseous Criteria Pollutants
10% -,
8% -
6% -
4% -
2% -
m
-2% -
-4% -
-6% -
-8% -
-10% -I
! !
bssssjs^^ssjsissd
,T""™'""'' 34 analyzers audited
25 analyzers 23 ana'yz.ers audited
audited audited
Carbon Monoxide Nitrogen Dioxide Ozone Sulfur Dioxide
iH Lower probability limit d Upper probability limit
Figure 2 shows the results of external performance audits performed with the National Performance Audit
Program (NPAP), administered by the U.S. EPA.
10% -,
6% -
4% -
t/)
co n°/
— U/o
-4% -
-6% -
-8% -
-10% -
Figure 2. NPAP Performanc
for Gaseous Criteria I
e Audit Results
3ollutants
5 analyzers 3 analyzers 6 ana,yzer£
audited audited audited
Carbon Monoxide Nitrogen Dioxide Ozone
B
3 analyzers
audited
Sulfur Dioxide
^ Lower probability limit n Upper probability limit
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 11 of 25
System Audits
Systems audits were performed at approximately 25 percent of the sites during the calendar year
2000. These audits evaluated areas such as siting criteria, analyzer operation and maintenance,
operator training, recordkeeping, and serve as a general review of site operations. No significant
problems were observed, except for the following:
• The Towntwo site was shadowed by a 20 story office building which was recently
completed. This site was closed in July 2000.
• The Townfour site had problems with repeated vandalism. A new, more secure, fence
was installed in April and the sheriffs department increased patrols in the area to prevent
reoccurrences.
• The Townsix site had vegetation which had grown too close to the analyzer inlet probes.
The vegetation was removed within one week after the problem was reported. Personnel
from the County Parks and Recreation Department provided assistance removing the
vegitation.
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 12 of 25
PARTICIPATE CRITERIA POLLUTANTS
The Acme Reporting Organization monitors the ambient concentrations of three particulate criteria
pollutants:
• Lead;
(particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers;
and
• PM2 5 (particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers)
This monitoring is used to determine attainment of Federal (NAAQS) and State ambient air quality
standards. Monitoring of these pollutants is conducted by sampling for 24 hours every six days by a
network of manually operated samplers.
PROGRAM UPDATE
At the beginning of 2000, the Acme Reporting Organization operated 22 ambient air monitoring stations
that measured particulate criteria pollutants. On March 1, 2000, a station was opened at Townone to
monitor PMi0, PM2 5, and lead. The station at Towntwo, which monitored PMi0, PM2 5, and lead, was
closed in April 2000.
QUALITY OBJECTIVES FOR MEASUREMENT DATA
The Quality Objectives for the Acme Reporting Organization's ambient air monitoring of particulate
criteria pollutants are shown in Table 5, below.
Table 5. Quality Objectives for Particulate Criteria
Pollutants
Data Quality Indicator
Precision
Bias
Completeness
Promptness
Objective
+7%
+ 10%
75%
100%
DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT
Summary
Assessment of the data quality for ARO particulate criteria pollutants showed that all samplers
met goals for accuracy, precision, completeness, and promptness. System audits showed siting
problems at three sites. Two of these were corrected promptly, while the third site had to be
closed due to the construction of a large office building, nearby.
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 13 of 25
Promptness and Completeness
At least 75 percent of scheduled monitoring data must be reported for purposes of determining attainment
of NAAQS. All data must be submitted within 90 days after the end of the reporting quarter. Table 6
summarizes promptness and completeness data for particulate criteria pollutants.
Table 6. Data Quality Assessment for Promptness and
Completeness
Pollutant
Lead
PMio
PM2.5
Promptness
100%
100%
100%
Completeness
93%
95%
92%
Precision
Precision is determined by operating collocated samplers (i.e., two identical samplers operated in the
identical manner). Due to the anticipated poor precision for very low levels of pollutants, only collocated
measurements above a minimum level (0.15 yWg/m3 for lead, 20 yWg/m3 for PMi0, and 6 yWg/m3 for PM25)
are used to evaluate precision. Table 7 summarizes the results of collocated measurements made during
the calendar year 2000.
Table 7. Data Quality Assessment for Precision
Pollutant
Lead
PMio
PM2.5
Collocated precision
measurements completed
98%
100%
97%
Collocated
measurements
limits
within
98%
97%
98%
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 14 of 25
Flow rate precision
A flow rate precision check is conducted at least every two weeks for PMi0 and PM2 5 samplers. The flow
should be within +10% of the specified value. Results are shown in Table 8.
Table 8. Flow Rate Precision Checks for Particulate Criteria Pollutants
Pollutant
Lead
PMio
PM2.5
Precision Checks
completed
98%
100%
97%
Precision Checks
within limits
98%
97%
98%
Flow rate bias
Results of the annual flow rate audits conducted by ARO personnel are shown in Figure 3, below. The
center line for each pollutant represents the average bias across all sampler (i.e., with all sampler
weighted equally). The lower and upper probability limits represent the boundaries within which 95
percent of the individual bias values are expected to be distributed.
10% -
8% -
6% -
4% -
2% -
0%
-2%
-4% -
-6% -
-8% -
-10% -
Figure 3. ARO Flow Rate Performance Audit Results
for Particulate Samplers
5 samplers
audited
Lead
6 samplers
audited
PM1O
PM2.5
] Lower probability limit n Upper probability limit
Figure 4 shows the results of external flow rate audits for PMi0 and lead samplers performed with the
National Performance Audit Program (NPAP) which is administered by the U.S. EPA. Currently NPAP
audits of PM2 5 samplers involve sampler collocation rather than flow rate checks
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 15 of 25
Figure 4. NPAP Flow Rate Audit Results
for Particulate Samplers
8% -
6% -
4% -
2% -
in
• 2 O%
-2% -
-4% -
-6% -
-8% -
5 samplers
audited
Lead
3 samplers
audited
6 samplers
audited
PM10
PM2.5
! Lower probability limit n Upper probability limit
Measurement Bias
Measurement bias is evaluated for PM2 5 analyzers by collocated sampling using an audit sampler. For
internal audits, the collocated measurements provide an estimate of bias resulting from sampler
operations. For external NPAP audits, the collocated measurements provide an estimate of bias resulting
from both sampler and laboratory operations. Measurement bias for lead is evaluated by use of standard
lead test samples. This provides an estimate of the bias resulting from laboratory operations. The results
of the annual performance audits of PM2 5 and lead conducted by ARO personnel are shown in Figure 5,
below.
10% -
8% -
6% -
4% -
2% -
S 0%
-2% -
-4% -
-6% -
-8% -
Figure 5. ARO Measurement Performance Audit Results
for Particulate Criteria Pollutants
5 audit
samples
Lead
6 samplers
audited
PM2.5
] Lower probability limit n Upper probability limit
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 16 of 25
Figure 6 shows the results of external performance audits for PMi0 and lead performed with the National
Performance Audit Program (NPAP) which is administered by the U.S. EPA.
Figure 6. NPAP Measurement Audit Results
for Particulate Criteria Pollutants
8% -
6% -
4% -
2% -
tn
-2 Q%
-2% -
-4% -
-6% -
-8% -
5 audit samples
Lead
6 samplers
audited
PM2.5
] Lower probability limit n Upper probability limit
System Audits
Systems audits were performed at approximately one fourth of the sites and at the central analytical
laboratory during calendar year 2000. These audits evaluated areas such as siting criteria, equipment
operation and maintenance, operator training, recordkeeping, and served as a general review of site
operations. No significant problems were observed, except for the following:
• The Towntwo site was shadowed by a 20 story office building which was recently completed.
This site was closed in July 2000.
• The Townfour site had problems with repeated vandalism. A new, more secure, fence was
installed in April and the sheriffs department increased patrols in the area to prevent
reoccurrences.
No significant problems were found in the laboratory audits, except for failure to keep maintenance logs
on several newly acquired analytical instruments. New logs were obtained and personnel instructed on
their use. A spot check, approximately one month later, indicated the logs were in use.
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 17 of 25
TOTAL AND SPECIATED VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (PAMS)
The Acme Reporting Organization monitors the ambient concentrations of ozone precursors (volatile
organic compounds [VOCs], carbonyls, and nitrogen oxides that can produce the criteria pollutant ozone).
This monitoring is conducted as part of the Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS)
network. Nitrogen dioxide (one of the nitrogen oxides measured in PAMS) is also a criteria pollutant and
its measurement is described under the gaseous criteria pollutant section, above. Total nitrogen oxides
(NOX) measurements are obtained continuously by a network of automated stations. Volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), excluding carbonyls, are measured by continuous analyzers (on-line gas
chromatographs) at selected sites. The remaining sites use automated samplers to collect VOC canister
samplers which are then transported to the laboratory for analysis. Carbonyls are collected in adsorbent
sampling tubes, which are transported to the laboratory for analysis.
PROGRAM UPDATE
At the beginning of 2000, the Acme Reporting Organization operated 5 ambient air monitoring stations
that measured ozone precursors. On March 1, 2000, a station was opened at Townone to monitor VOCs,
carbonyls, and NOX.
QUALITY OBJECTIVES FOR MEASUREMENT DATA
The Quality Objectives for the Acme Reporting Organization's ambient air monitoring of ozone
precursors are shown in Table 9, below.
Table 9. Quality Objectives for Ozone Precursors
Data Quality Indicator
Precision (NOX)
Precision (VOC, Carbonyls)
Bias (NOX)
Bias (VOC, Carbonyls)
Completeness
Promptness
Objective
+ 10%
+25%
+ 15%
+20%
75%
100%
DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT
Summary
Assessment of the data quality for ozone precursors showed that all instruments met goals for accuracy,
precision, completeness, and promptness. System audits showed siting problems at two sites, both of
these were corrected promptly.
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 18 of 25
Promptness and Completeness
At least 75 percent of scheduled monitoring data must be reported. All data must be submitted within six
months after the end of the reporting quarter. Table 10 summarizes promptness and completeness data
for ozone precursors.
Table 10. Data Quality Assessment for Promptness and Completeness
Ozone precursor
Carbonyls
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
Total VOCs (Total non-
methane hydrocarbons)
Speciated VOCs
Promptness
100%
100%
100%
100%
Completeness
80%
96%
87%
83%
Precision
At least once every two weeks, precision for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and automated VOC analysis were
determined by sampling a gas of known concentration. Precision for manual VOC sampling and carbonyl
sampling is obtained by analysis of duplicate samples. Duplicates are taken at a frequency of one
duplicate for every 10 samples. Table 11 summarizes the precision check results for 2000.
Table 11. Data Quality Assessment for Precision
Ozone precursor
Carbonyls
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
Total VOCs (Total non-
methane hydrocarbons)
Speciated VOCs
Precision checks
completed
91%
98%
90%
95%
Precision checks
within limits
90%
97%
91%
80%
Bias
The results of the annual performance audits conducted by ARO personnel are shown in
Figure 7, below. For NOX and the automated VOC analyzers, the center line represents the
average bias across all sites (i.e., with all sites weighted equally). For the carbonyl and manual
VOC analyses, the center line represents the average of all audit samples for the central
analytical laboratory. The lower and upper probability limits represent the boundaries within
which 95 percent of the individual bias values are expected to be distributed. Carbonyl and Total VOC
measurements represent the average of all audit species.
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 19 of 25
Figure 7. ARO Performance Audit Results
for Ozone Precursors
25%
20%
15%
5% -
s 0%
-15%
-20%
-25%
Central
laboratory
audited
Carbonyls
5 analyzers
audited
NOx
2 analyzers
audited
Total VOC
(automated)
Central
laboratory
audited
Total VOC (manual)
] Lower probability limit n Upper probability limit
Figure 8 shows the results of the external performance audits performed with the National Performance
Audit Program (NPAP) which is administered by the U.S. EPA.
Figure 8. NPAP Performance Audit Results
for Ozone Precursors
25% -
2O% -
15% -
10% -
5% -
O% -
-5% -
-10% -
-15% -
-20% -
-25% -
Central
laboratory
audited
Carbonyls
5 analyzers
audited
NOx
2 analysers
audited
Total VOC
(automated)
Central
laboratory
Total VOC (manual)
! Lower probability limit n Upper probability limit
System Audits
Systems audits were performed at two sites during calendar year 2000. These audits evaluated
areas such as siting criteria, analyzer and sampler operation and maintenance, operator training,
recordkeeping, and serve as a general review of site operations. In general both sites were
performing well except for the following:
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 20 of 25
• The Townsix site had vegetation which had grown too close to the analyzer inlet probes. The
vegetation was removed within one week, with assistance from the County Parks and Recreation
Department.
A systems audit was also performed at the central analytical laboratory. Results were good with only
minor items noted for improvements.
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 21 of 25
AIR TOXICS
The Acme Reporting Organization monitors the ambient concentrations of air toxic compounds. Three
different methods are used, depending on the class of air toxic compound. Volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), excluding carbonyls, are measured by continuous analyzers (on-line gas chromatographs) at
selected sites. The remaining sites use automated samplers to collect VOC cannister samplers which are
then transported to the laboratory for analysis. Carbonyls are collected with adsorbent sampling tubes,
which are transported to the laboratory for analysis. Inorganic compounds are collected on PM2 5 filters
(as part of particulate criteria pollutant monitoring) and analyzed (after weighing for PM2 5 mass) by
inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP MS). This monitoring is conducted as part of the Air
Toxics monitoring network.
PROGRAM UPDATE
At the beginning of 2000, the Acme Reporting Organization operated five ambient air monitoring stations
that measured ambient air toxics. On March 1, 2000, a station was opened at Townone to monitor air
toxics.
QUALITY OBJECTIVES FOR MEASUREMENT DATA
The Quality Objectives for the Acme Reporting Organization's ambient air monitoring of ambient air
toxics are shown in Table 12, below.
Table 12. Quality Objectives for Air Toxics
Data Quality Indicator
Precision
Bias
Completeness
Promptness
Objective
+25%
+25%
75%
100%
DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT
Summary
Assessment of the data quality for ambient air toxics showed that all instruments met goals for accuracy,
precision, completeness, and promptness. System audits showed siting problems at two sites, both of
these were corrected promptly.
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 22 of 25
Promptness and Completeness
At least 75 percent of scheduled monitoring data must be reported. All data must be submitted within six
months after the end of the reporting quarter. Table 13 summarizes promptness and completeness for
ambient air toxics monitoring data.
Table 13. Data Quality Assessment for Promptness and Completeness
Pollutant
Carbonyls
Volatile organic
compounds
Inorganic compounds
Promptness
100%
100%
100%
Completeness
78%
84%
87%
Precision
At least once every two weeks, precision for automated VOC analysis is determined by sampling a gas of
known concentration. Precision for manual VOC sampling, carbonyl sampling, and inorganic sampling is
obtained by analysis of duplicate samples. Duplicates are taken at a frequency of one duplicate for every
10 samples. Table 14 summarizes the precision check results for 2000.
Table 14. Data Quality Assessment for Precision
Pollutant
Carbonyls
Volatile organic
compounds
Inorganic compounds
Precision checks
completed
91%
98%
90%
Precision checks
within limits
90%
97%
91%
Bias
The results of the annual performance audits conducted by ARO personnel are shown in Figure 9, below.
For the automated VOC analyzers, the center line represents the average bias across all sites (i.e., with all
sites weighted equally). For the carbonyl, manual VOC, and inorganic analyses, the center line represents
the average of all audit samples for the central analytical laboratory. The lower and upper probability
limits represent the boundaries within which 95 percent of the individual bias values are expected to be
distributed. All measurements represent the average of all audit species.
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 23 of 25
Figure 9. ARO Performance Audit Results
for Air Toxic Compounds
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
s 0%
-5% -
-15%
-20%
-25%
Central
laboratory
audited
Carbonyls
Central
laboratory
audited
Inorganics
2 analyzers
audited
VOC (automated)
Central
laboratory
audited
VOC (manual)
] Lower probability limit n Upper probability limit
Figure 10 shows the results of the external performance audits performed with the National
Performance Audit Program (NPAP) which is administered by the U.S. EPA.
Figure 1O. NPAP Performance Audit Results
for Air Toxic Compounds
25%
2O%
15%
5% -
.X 0%
-15%
-2O%
-25%
Central
laboratory
audited
Carbonyls
5 analyzers
audited
NOx
2 analyzers
audited
VOC (automated)
Central
laboratory
audited
VOC (manual)
Lower probability limit n Upper probability limit
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 24 of 25
System Audits
Systems audits were performed at two sites during the calendar year 2000. These audits
evaluated areas such as siting criteria, analyzer and sampler operation and maintenance, operator
training, recordkeeping, and serve as a general review of site operations. No significant
problems were found, except for the following:
> The Townsix site had vegetation which had grown too close to the analyzer inlet probes. The
vegetation was removed within one week, with assistance from the County Parks and
Recreation Department.
A systems audit was also performed at the central analytical laboratory. No significant problems
were found.
Example of Corrective Action Form
A corrective action request should be made whenever anyone in the reporting organization notes
a problem that demands either immediate or long-term action to correct a safety defect, a
operational problem, or a failure to comply with procedures. A typical corrective action request
form, with example information entered, is shown below. A separate form should be used for
each problem identified.
The corrective action report form is designed as a closed-loop system. First it identifies the
originator, that person who reports and identifies the problem, states the problem, and may
suggest a solution. The form then directs the request to a specific person (or persons), i.e., the
recipient, who would be best qualified to "fix" the problem. Finally, the form closes the loop by
requiring that the recipient state how the problem was resolved and the effectiveness of the
solution. The form is signed and a copy is returned to the originator and other copies are sent to
the supervisor and the applicable files for the record.
-------
QA Handbook Volume II, Appendix I
Revision No. 1
Date: 12/08
Page 25 of 25
ARO - Corrective Action Request
Part A - To be completed by requestor
To:
Organization Responsible for Action
Urgency:
n
n
n
John S. Visor
ARO Ambient Air Monitoring Section
Emergency (failure to take action immediately may result in injury or property damage)
Immediate (4 hours)
As resources allow
From:
Copies to:
H
n
Urgent (24 hours)
n
For Information only
Routine (7 days)
William Operator
fax:
phone:
(000) 555 - 1001
(000) 555 - 1000
e-mail:
billo@localhost
(Always send a copy to the ARO Site Coordinator at 115 Generic Office Building, Townone XX, 00001)
Problem Identification
Site(Location):
System:
Townsix site
sample inlet
Date problem identified:
Nature of problem:
Recommended Action:
Signature:
Aug. 1, 2000
Glass sample inlet and dropout trap broken during removal
of weeds from site
Replace broken parts
William Operator
Part B -to be completed by responsible organization
Problem Resolution
Date corrective action taken:
Summary of Corrective Action:
Date:
Aug. 1, 2000
August 4, 2000
Replacement parts were ordered and received. The new
parts were installed within three days of the request. Data from the days with a cracked sample inlet will
be flagged as questionable.
Effectiveness of corrective action:
Sample inlet restored to new condition.
Signature:
Phone:
e-mail:
John Visor
(000) 555 - 2000
jsv@localhost
Date:
Fax:
Aug. 4, 2000
(000) 555 - 2001
Send copies of the completed form to the requestor and the ARO Site Coordinator at 115 Generic Office Building, Townone
XX, 00001)
ARO form CAR-1 , May 1, 1999
-------
United States Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Publication No. EPA-454/B-08-003
Environmental Protection Air Quality Assessment Division December, 2008
Agency Research Triangle Park, NC
------- |