March 2003
Environmental Technology
Verification Report
General Oceanics, Inc.
Ocean Seven 316 Multi-Parameter
Water Quality Probe/Sonde
Prepared by
Battelle
Battelle
. . . Putting Technology To Work
In cooperation with the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
%I0
Under a cooperative agreement with
£EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
etV etV eiV
-------
March 2003
Environmental Technology Verification
Report
ETV Advanced Monitoring Systems Center
General Oceanics, Inc.
Ocean Seven 316 Multi-Parameter
Water Quality Probe/Sonde
by
Jeffrey Myers
Amy Dindal
Zachary Willenberg
Karen Riggs
Battelle
Columbus, Ohio 43201
and
Paul Pennington
Michael Fulton
Geoffrey Scott
NOAA CCEHBR
-------
Notice
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), through its Office of Research and
Development, has financially supported and collaborated in the extramural program described
here. This document has been peer reviewed by the Agency and recommended for public release.
Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation by the EPA for use.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) does not approve, recommend,
or endorse any proprietary product or material mentioned in this publication. No reference shall
be made to NOAA in any advertising or sales promotion which would indicate or imply that
NOAA approves, recommends, or endorses any proprietary product or proprietary material
mentioned herein.
11
-------
Foreword
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the
nation's air, water, and land resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the
Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between
human activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this
mandate, the EPA's Office of Research and Development provides data and science support that
can be used to solve environmental problems and to build the scientific knowledge base needed
to manage our ecological resources wisely, to understand how pollutants affect our health, and to
prevent or reduce environmental risks.
The Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program has been established by the EPA to
verify the performance characteristics of innovative environmental technology across all media
and to report this objective information to permitters, buyers, and users of the technology, thus
substantially accelerating the entrance of new environmental technologies into the marketplace.
Verification organizations oversee and report verification activities based on testing and quality
assurance protocols developed with input from major stakeholders and customer groups
associated with the technology area. ETV consists of seven environmental technology centers.
Information about each of these centers can be found on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/etv/.
Effective verifications of monitoring technologies are needed to assess environmental quality
and to supply cost and performance data to select the most appropriate technology for that
assessment. In 1997, through a competitive cooperative agreement, Battelle was awarded EPA
funding and support to plan, coordinate, and conduct such verification tests for "Advanced
Monitoring Systems for Air, Water, and Soil" and report the results to the community at large.
Information concerning this specific environmental technology area can be found on the Internet
at http://www.epa.gov/etv/centers/centerl .html.
111
-------
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge the support of all those who helped plan and conduct the
verification test, analyze the data, and prepare this report. We would like to thank the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's) National Ocean Service, National
Centers for Coastal Ocean Science staff at the Center for Coastal Environmental Health and
Biomolecular Research. In particular, we recognize Paul Pennington and Jennifer Tobias for
their outstanding efforts. In addition, NOAA's Coastal Service Center is acknowledged for
providing access to dock facilities on the Cooper River for the saltwater testing portion of this
study. We also acknowledge the assistance of the ETV Advanced Monitoring Systems Center
stakeholders Vito Minei, Christine Kolbe, and John Carlton.
iv
-------
Contents
Page
Notice ii
Foreword iii
Acknowledgments iv
List of Abbreviations viii
1 Background 1
2 Technology Description 2
3 Test Design and Procedures 4
3.1 Introduction 4
3.2 Test Site Characteristics 4
3.3 Test Design 5
3.3.1 Saltwater Testing 7
3.3.2 Freshwater Testing 9
3.3.3 Mesocosm Testing 11
3.4 Materials and Equipment 12
4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 13
4.1 Instrument Calibration 13
4.2 Field Quality Control 13
4.3 Sample Custody 13
4.4 Audits 14
4.4.1 Performance Evaluation Audit 14
4.4.2 Technical Systems Audit 15
4.4.3 Audit of Data Quality 15
4.5 QA/QC Reporting 15
4.6 Data Review 15
5 Statistical Methods 17
5.1 Pre-and Post-Calibration Results 17
5.2 Relative Bias 17
5.3 Precision 18
5.4 Linearity 18
5.5 Inter-Unit Reproducibility 18
v
-------
6 Test Results 19
6.1 Pre-and Post-Calibration Results 25
6.2 Relative Bias 28
6.3 Precision 31
6.4 Linearity 32
6.5 Inter-Unit Reproducibility 32
6.6 Other Factors 34
6.6.1 Ease of Use 34
6.6.2 Costs 34
6.6.3 Data Completeness 34
7 Performance Summary 43
8 References 45
Appendix A Reference Sample and Probe Readings A-l
Figures
Figure 2-1. General Oceanics, Inc., Ocean Seven 316 Water Probe 2
Figure 3-1. Saltwater Site 5
Figure 3-2. Freshwater Site 6
Figure 3-3. Mesocosm Tanks 6
Figure 3-4. Saltwater Deployment 9
Figure 6-la. Dissolved Oxygen Data Collected from GO 204 and GO 205
During the Verification Test 20
Figure 6-lb. Conductivity Data Collected from GO 204 and GO 205
During the Verification Test 21
Figure 6-lc. Temperature Data Collected from GO 204 and GO 205
During the Verification Test 22
Figure 6-Id. pH Data Collected from GO 204 and GO 205 During the
Verification Test 23
Figure 6-le. Turbidity Data Collected from GO 204 and GO 205 During
the Verification Test 24
Figure 6-2. Percent Accuracy of GO 204 and GO 205 During Calibration Checks 28
vi
-------
Figure 6-3a. Relative Bias Data for Temperature 29
Figure 6-3b. Relative Bias Data for Conductivity 29
Figure 6-3c. Relative Bias Data for Dissolved Oxygen 30
Figure 6-3d. Relative Bias Data for pH 30
Figure 6-3e. Relative Bias Data for Turbidity 31
Figure 6-4a. Inter-Unit Reproducibility Data for Temperature During Saltwater Tests 35
Figure 6-4b. Inter-Unit Reproducibility Data for Temperature During Freshwater Tests 35
Figure 6-4c. Inter-Unit Reproducibility Data for Temperature During Mesocosm Tests 36
Figure 6-5a. Inter-Unit Reproducibility Data for Conductivity During Saltwater Tests 36
Figure 6-5b. Inter-Unit Reproducibility Data for Conductivity During Freshwater Tests .... 37
Figure 6-5c. Inter-Unit Reproducibility Data for Conductivity During Mesocosm Tests .... 37
Figure 6-6a. Inter-Unit Reproducibility Data for Dissolved Oxygen
During Saltwater Tests 38
Figure 6-6b. Inter-Unit Reproducibility Data for Dissolved Oxygen
During Freshwater Tests 38
Figure 6-6c. Inter-Unit Reproducibility Data for Dissolved Oxygen
During Mesocosm Tests 39
Figure 6-7a. Inter-Unit Reproducibility Data for pH During Saltwater Tests 39
Figure 6-7b. Inter-Unit Reproducibility Data for pH During Freshwater Tests 40
Figure 6-7c. Inter-Unit Reproducibility Data for pH During Mesocosm Tests 40
Figure 6-8a. Inter-Unit Reproducibility Data for Turbidity During Saltwater Tests 41
Figure 6-8b. Inter-Unit Reproducibility Data for Turbidity During Freshwater Tests 41
Figure 6-8c. Inter-Unit Reproducibility Data for Turbidity During Mesocosm Tests 42
vii
-------
Tables
Table 3-1. Water Characteristics at the Test Sites 5
Table 3-2. Schedule for the Ocean Seven 316 Verification Test 7
Table 3-3. Schedule for Saltwater Sample Collection 8
Table 3-4. Schedule for Freshwater Sample Collection 10
Table 3-5. Schedule for Mesocosm Sample Collection 11
Table 3-6. Maximum Sample Holding Times 12
Table 4-1. Replicate Analysis Results 14
Table 4-2. Summary of Performance Evaluation Audits 14
Table 4-3. Summary of Data Recording Process 16
Table 6-la. Results from the Pre- and Post-Calibration Tests for GO 204 and
GO 205 in Saltwater 26
Table 6-lb. Results from the Pre- and Post-Calibration Tests for
GO 204 and GO 205 in Freshwater 27
Table 6-lc. Results from the Pre- and Post-Calibration Tests for GO 204 and
GO 205 in Mesocosm 27
Table 6-2. Average Relative Bias Results for GO 204 and GO 205 31
Table 6-3. Percent Relative Standard Deviation for GO 204 and GO 205
During Periods of Stable Operation 32
Table 6-4. Results of Linearity Analysis for GO 204 and GO 205 33
Table 6-5. Average Difference in GO 204 and GO 205 Readings for
Each Parameter at Each Deployment Location 34
viii
-------
List of Abbreviations
AMS Advanced Monitoring Systems
CCEHBR Center for Coastal Environmental Health and Biomolecular Research
cm centimeter
DAS data acquisition system
DO dissolved oxygen
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ETV Environmental Technology Verification
L liter
mg milligram
mm millimeter
ms millisecond
mS millisiemen
NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NTU nephelometric turbidity unit
PE performance evaluation
QA quality assurance
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
QMP Quality Management Plan
RSD relative standard deviation
s second
TSA technical systems audit
IX
-------
Chapter 1
Background
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has created the Environmental Technology
Verification (ETV) Program to facilitate the deployment of innovative environmental tech-
nologies through performance verification and dissemination of information. The goal of the
ETV Program is to further environmental protection by substantially accelerating the acceptance
and use of improved and cost-effective technologies. ETV seeks to achieve this goal by provid-
ing high-quality, peer-reviewed data on technology performance to those involved in the design,
distribution, financing, permitting, purchase, and use of environmental technologies.
ETV works in partnership with recognized testing organizations; with stakeholder groups
consisting of buyers, vendor organizations, and permitters; and with the full participation of
individual technology developers. The program evaluates the performance of innovative tech-
nologies by developing test plans that are responsive to the needs of stakeholders, conducting
field or laboratory tests (as appropriate), collecting and analyzing data, and preparing peer-
reviewed reports. All evaluations are conducted in accordance with rigorous quality assurance
(QA) protocols to ensure that data of known and adequate quality are generated and that the
results are defensible.
The EPA's National Exposure Research Laboratory and its verification organization partner,
Battelle, operate the Advanced Monitoring Systems (AMS) Center under ETV. The AMS Center
recently evaluated the performance of the General Oceanics, Inc., Ocean Seven 316 water probe.
1
-------
Chapter 2
Technology Description
The objective of the ETV AMS Center is to verify the performance characteristics of
environmental monitoring technologies for air, water, and soil. This verification report provides
results for the verification testing of the Ocean Seven 316 water probe by General Oceanics, Inc.
Following is a description of the Ocean Seven 316, based on information provided by the
vendor. The information provided below was not verified in this test.
The 16-bit, multi-parameter Ocean Seven 316 is available with two diameters: 100 millimeter
(mm) and 75 mm. The measurement sensors have time constants of 50 milliseconds (ms) for
physical parameters and 3 seconds (s) for chemical parameters. A high-precision resistor acts as
a reference for the accuracy of the sensor electronic amplifiers. This resistor has a thermal drift
of 1 part per million/°C and is temperature-compensated.
The Ocean Seven 316 is microprocessor-controlled and can measure, store, and transmit sensor
data. For real-time data acquisition, the Ocean Seven 316 operates unattended, and data are
uploaded at the end of the measuring cycle. An automatic power management procedure
switches the Ocean Seven 316 off between the data acquisitions. The internal battery package
consists of 10 batteries that allow the Ocean Seven 316 to operate continuously for about
20 hours. The Ocean Seven 316 can be equipped with an external battery package that greatly
extends operation time. The Ocean Seven 316 stores up to 32,000 data sets.
Figure 2-1. General Oceanics, Inc., Ocean Seven 316 Water Probe
2
-------
The Ocean Seven 316 is equipped with sensors to measure pressure, temperature, conductivity,
salinity, oxygen, pH, and oxidation-reduction potential. Salinity is automatically calculated from
conductivity, temperature, and pressure values. The sensor specifications for the parameters
tested are as follows:
Parameter
Dissolved
Oxygen (DO)
Conductivity
Temperature
PH
(a)In air
(b)At 1 m/sec flow rate
Range
0 to 50 milligrams/
liter (mg/L)
0 to 500% sat.
0 to 64 millisiemen/
centimeter (mS/cm)
-3 to +50°C
Oto 14
Accuracy
0.1 mg/L
1% sat.
0.003 mS/cm
0.003°C
0.01
Resolution
0.01 mg/L
0.1% sat.
0.001 mS/cm
0.0005°C
0.001
Time Constant
3 s(a)
3 s
50 ms®
50 ms
3 s
3
-------
Chapter 3
Test Design and Procedures
3.1 Introduction
This verification test was conducted according to procedures specified in the Test/QA Plan for
Long-Term Deployment of Multi-Parameter Water Quality Probes/Sondes ,{l) The purpose of the
verification test was to evaluate the performance of the Ocean Seven 316 under realistic
operating conditions. The Ocean Seven 316s were evaluated by comparing pre- and post-
calibration results and their measurements with standard reference measurements and handheld
calibrated probes. Two Ocean Seven 316s were deployed in saltwater, freshwater, and laboratory
environments near Charleston, South Carolina, during a 2 '/2-month verification test. Water
quality parameters were measured by both the Ocean Seven 316s and by reference
measurements consisting of both field portable instrumentation and water analyses of collected
samples. During each phase, performance was assessed in terms of pre- and post-calibration
results, relative bias, precision, linearity, and inter-unit reproducibility for each Ocean Seven
316.
The Ocean Seven 316s were verified in terms of its performance on the following parameters:
¦ DO
¦ Conductivity
¦ Temperature
¦ pH
¦ Turbidity.
3.2 Test Site Characteristics
The three test sites used for this verification were selected in an attempt to expose the Ocean
Seven 316 to the widest possible range of conditions while conducting an efficient test. The
three sites included one saltwater, one freshwater, and one controlled location. Approximate
ranges for the target parameters at each of the test sites as determined by reference
measurements are given in Table 3-1.
4
-------
Table 3-1. Water Characteristics at the Test Sites
Saltwater F reshwater Mesocosm
Parameter
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
DO
3 mg/L
7.3 mg/L
1.2 mg/L
13.4 mg/L
3.7 mg/L
7.3 mg/L
Conductivity
20 mS/cm
40 mS/cm
0.2 mS/cm
0.45 mS/cm
0.5 mS/cm
38 mS/cm
Temperature
28°C
32°C
20°C
35°C
24°C
31°C
pH
7
8
6
9
7.3
8.5
Turbiditv
3 NTU
11 NTU
0.1 NTU
20 NTU
0.1 NTU
130 NTU
3.3 Test Design
The verification test was designed to assess the performance of multi-parameter water probes
and was closely coordinated with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) through the CCEHBR. The test was conducted in three phases at a saltwater site in the
Cooper River; a freshwater site at Lake Edmunds, approximately one mile from the Center for
Coastal Environmental Health and Biomolecular Research (CCEHBR), and a controlled site at
the CCEHBR mesocosm facility in Charleston, South Carolina. The first phase of the test was
conducted at the saltwater site and lasted 31 days. The CCEHBR campus has access to the
Charleston Harbor Estuary, which is a predominantly tidal body of water that receives some
riverine input; its salinities range from 20 to 35 parts per thousand. Figure 3-1 shows the
saltwater site at the Cooper River. The second phase of the test was conducted at the freshwater
site and lasted 24 days. The freshwater site was at a five-acre pond, named Lake Edmunds,
approximately one mile from the CCEHBR facility. Figure 3-2 shows the freshwater site. The
third phase was conducted over seven days at the CCEHBR's mesocosm facility. This facility
contains modular mesocosms that can be classified as "tidal" or "estuarine." Figure 3-3 shows
one of the modular mesocosms. At each test site, two Ocean Seven 316s were deployed as close
to each other as possible to assess inter-unit reproducibility.
Figure 3-1. Saltwater Site
The schedule for the various testing
activities is given in Table 3-2. The
saltwater tests began in a small tidal
creek tributary of the Charleston Harbor
near the CCEHBR facilities. Testing at
this location lasted approximately two
weeks, but had to be discontinued due to
a structural failure of the pier. A new site
at NOAA Pier Romeo on the Cooper
River was selected to complete the
testing. This site is approximately
10 miles from the CCEHBR facility and
is operated by NOAA's Coastal Services
Center.
5
-------
am#*
Figure 3-2. Freshwater Site
Figure 3-3. Mesocosm Tanks
6
-------
Table 3-2. Schedule for the Ocean Seven 316 Verification Test
Activity
Date
Vendor setup
Begin saltwater test at CCEHBR small tidal creek
End saltwater test at CCEHBR small tidal creek due to
structural failure
Setup at Cooper River (Pier Romeo)
Begin saltwater test
End saltwater test
Set up freshwater test at Lake Edmunds
Begin freshwater test
End freshwater test
Vendor setup for mesocosm test at CCEHBR
Begin mesocosm test
End mesocosm test
Vendor removal of equipment
June 10
June 17
July 9
July 11
July 15
August 14
August 19
August 21
September 13
September 16
September 19
September 25
September 30
3.3.1 Saltwater Testing
Saltwater testing was conducted at two locations. The planned location was in the Charleston
River near the NOAA CCEHBR facility. However, due to structural problems at that site, the
probes were redeployed in the Charleston Harbor to NOAA Pier Romeo. Pre- and post-
calibration data obtained at the first location are presented in Section 6.1 of this report; however,
no additional data from that location are available.
The saltwater test lasted for 31 days, during which time the Ocean Seven 316s monitored the
naturally occurring range of the target parameters 24 hours a day, while dockside reference
measurements were made, and reference samples for turbidity were collected. The Ocean Seven
316s were mounted on iron posts that were driven into the river bed. The instruments were
approximately 0.5 meters apart (Figure 3-4) in the shallows of the Cooper River. Samples were
collected in rotation during the morning, afternoon, and evening hours throughout the test. More
intense sampling occurred at the beginning (Days 1 and 2) and the end (Days 29 and 30) of the
sampling period, when samples were taken at 15-minute intervals for eight hours, except on
Day 29, when only four hours of sampling occurred because of weather conditions. For the
duration of the test, the Ocean Seven 316s were deployed at depths between approximately
three and 10 feet, varying according to the tide. Table 3-3 shows the times and numbers of
samples taken throughout the saltwater test period. Aside from the initial setup days (July 11
through 14), the Ocean Seven 316s were deployed and collecting data approximately every
15 minutes on the days indicated in Table 3-3.
7
-------
Table 3-3. Schedule for Saltwater Sample Collection
Test
Day of
# Reference
# Field
# Duplicate
Day
Week
Date
Samples
Blanks
Samples
Location
Thu
11 - Jul-02
Pier Romeo
Fri
12-M-02
Pier Romeo
Sat
13-M-02
Pier Romeo
Sun
14-Jul-02
Pier Romeo
1
Mon
15-Jul-02
16
Pier Romeo
2
Tue
16-Jul-02
16
Pier Romeo
3
Wed
17-Jul-02
3
1
1
Pier Romeo
4
Thu
18-Jul-02
Laboratory
5
Fri
19-Jul-02
Laboratory
6
Sat
20-Jul-02
Pier Romeo
7
Sun
21-Jul-02
Pier Romeo
8
Mon
22-Jul-02
2
Pier Romeo
9
Tue
23-Jul-02
Pier Romeo
10
Wed
24-Jul-02
3
1
1
Pier Romeo
11
Thu
25-July-02
2
1
Pier Romeo
12
Fri
26-Jul-02
Laboratory
13
Sat
27-Jul-02
Laboratory
14
Sun
28-Jul-02
Laboratory
15
Mon
29-Jul-02
Laboratory
16
Tue
30-Jul-02
Laboratory
17
Wed
31-Jul-02
Laboratory
18
Thu
01 -Aug-02
Laboratory
19
Fri
02-Aug-02
1
1
Pier Romeo
20
Sat
03-Aug-02
Pier Romeo
21
Sun
04-Aug-02
Pier Romeo
22
Mon
05-Aug-02
1
1
Pier Romeo
23
Tue
06-Aug-02
2
2
1
Pier Romeo
24
Wed
07-Aug-02
3
1
1
Pier Romeo
25
Thu
08-Aug-02
Pier Romeo
26
Fri
09-Aug-02
Pier Romeo
27
Sat
10-Aug-02
Pier Romeo
28
Sun
11-Aug-02
Pier Romeo
29
Mon
12-Aug-02
7
Pier Romeo
30
Tue
13-Aug-02
16
Pier Romeo
31
Wed
14-Aug-02
Pier Romeo
8
-------
Figure 3-4. Saltwater Deployment
3.3.2 Freshwater Testing
Freshwater testing was conducted at Lake Edmunds. Because this site is shallower than
Charleston Harbor, samples were taken at only one depth (approximately 0.3 meters). As in the
saltwater portion of the verification test, the Ocean Seven 316s monitored the naturally
occurring target parameters 24 hours a day, while reference measurements were made and
turbidity reference samples collected, again rotating among collection times. More intense
sampling occurred at the beginning (Day 3) and the end (Day 23) of the sampling period, when
samples were taken at 15- to 30-minute intervals for periods ranging between six and eight
hours, as weather permitted. Table 3-4 shows the sampling times and number of samples
collected throughout the freshwater test period. The Ocean Seven 316s were tethered with cable
ties to large posts driven into the bottom of the lake.
9
-------
Table 3-4. Schedule for Freshwater Sample Collection
Test
Day
Day of
Week
Date
Reference
Samples
# Field
Blanks
# Duplicate
Samples
Location
Mon
19-Aug-02
Laboratory
Tue
20-Aug-02
Laboratory
1
Wed
21 -Aug-02
Lake Edmunds
2
Thu
22-Aug-02
Lake Edmunds
3
Fri
23-Aug-02
16
Lake Edmunds
4
Sat
24-Aug-02
Lake Edmunds
5
Sun
25-Aug-02
Lake Edmunds
6
Mon
26-Aug-02
4
Lake Edmunds
7
Tue
27-Aug-02
Lake Edmunds
8
Wed
28-Aug-02
2
1
1
Lake Edmunds
9
Thu
29-Aug-02
Laboratory
10
Fri
30-Aug-02
Laboratory
11
Sat
31-Aug-02
Lake Edmunds
12
Sun
01-Sep-02
Lake Edmunds
13
Mon
02-Sep-02
Lake Edmunds
14
Tue
03-Sep-02
Lake Edmunds
15
Wed
04-Sep-02
1
1
Lake Edmunds
16
Thu
05-Sep-02
2
1
1
Laboratory
17
Fri
06-Sep-02
Laboratory
18
Sat
07-Sep-02
Lake Edmunds
19
Sun
08-Sep-02
Lake Edmunds
20
Mon
09-Sep-02
3
1
Lake Edmunds
21
Tue
10-Sep-02
3
1
Lake Edmunds
22
Wed
ll-Sep-02
Lake Edmunds
23
Thu
12-Sep-02
12
Lake Edmunds
24
Fri
13-Sep-02
Laboratory
10
-------
3.3.3 Mesocosm Testing
Mesocosm testing was performed according to the schedule shown in Table 3-5. The mesocosm
tanks were filled with water and drained twice daily, simulating a semi-diurnal tidal cycle.
Reference measurements were made and water samples were collected during each test day
throughout the normal operating hours of the facility (nominally 6 a.m. to 6 p.m.). During this
period, the mesocosm was manipulated to introduce variations in the measured parameters. The
turbidity of the system was varied by operating a pump near the sediment trays to suspend
additional solids in the water. Conductivity was varied by adding freshwater to the saltwater
during one of the fill-and-drain cycles.
Variations in temperature, pH, and DO were driven by natural forces and the changes in the
other test parameters. Parameters over the ranges specified in Table 3-1 were monitored by the
Ocean Seven 316. Each collected sample was analyzed using a reference method for
comparison.
Table 3-5. Schedule for Mesocosm Sample Collection
Test
Day of
# Reference
# Field
# Duplicate
Day
Week
Date
Samples
Blanks
Samples
Location
Mon
16-Sep-02
Laboratory
Tue
17-Sep-02
Laboratory
Wed
18-Sep-02
Laboratory
1
Thu
19-Sep-02
2
Mesocosm
2
Fri
20-Sep-02
5a
Mesocosm
3
Sat
21-Sep-02
Mesocosm
4
Sun
22-Sep-02
Mesocosm
5
Mon
23-Sep-02
6b
Mesocosm
6
Tue
24-Sep-02
6c'd
Mesocosm
7
Wed
25-Sep-02
1
1
1
Mesocosm
Thu
26-Sep-02
Laboratory
Fri
27-Sep-02
Laboratory
a Stir sediment.
b Turn off aeration pump.
c Turn on aeration pump.
d Add freshwater.
11
-------
3.4 Materials and Equipment
The reference equipment used in this verification test was selected for the specific parameters, as
follows:
¦ DO—National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)-traceable, commercially
available probe (Orion 83 OA)
¦ Conductivity—NIST-traceable, handheld conductivity meter (Oakton 35631-00)
¦ Temperature—NIST-traceable, handheld thermocouple and readout (Orion 830A)
¦ pH—NIST-traceable, handheld pH meter (Oakton 35631 -00)
¦ Turbidity—Hach Ratio XR turbidity meter (Hach 43900).
Reagents were distilled deionized water (for field blanks) and a Hach Ratio XR turbidity
standard from Advanced Polymer Systems. Sampling equipment consisted of 0.5- to 1.0-L glass
bottles, a Niskin sampling device provided by CCEHBR, and provisions for sample storage. The
maximum sample holding times are given in Table 3-6. All sample holding time requirements
were met.
Table 3-6. Maximum Sample Holding Times
Parameter Holding Time
DO none(a)
Conductivity none
Temperature none
pH none
Turbidity 24 hours
(a)
"None" indicates that the sample analysis must be performed immediately after sample collection or in the
water column at the site.
12
-------
Chapter 4
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures were performed in accordance with the
quality management plan (QMP) for the AMS Center(2) and the test/QA plan for this
verification test.(1)
4.1 Instrument Calibration
Both the portable and laboratory reference instruments were calibrated by CCEHBR according
to the procedures and schedules in place at the test facility, and documentation was provided to
Battelle.
4.2 Field Quality Control
Field blanks and laboratory duplicate samples were taken at the times shown in Tables 3-3
through 3-5. The field blank was a container of deionized water taken to the field and then
brought back to the laboratory. It was analyzed in the same manner as the collected samples. The
laboratory replicate samples were collected once each week during a regular sampling period.
These replicate samples were the field sample split in the field into two separate samples
(containers) and analyzed by the same methods. The results from the replicate analysis were
within the expected values shown in Table 4-1. The results for the field blanks were within the
expected tolerances.
4.3 Sample Custody
Samples collected at the saltwater and freshwater sites were transported to the laboratory in an
ice-filled cooler.
13
-------
Table 4-1. Replicate Analysis Results
Parameter Anticipated Interval of Results
DO ±5%
Conductivity ±5%
Temp erature ± 1 ° C
pH ±0.1
Turbidity ±5 NTU
4.4 Audits
4.4.1 Performance Evaluation Audit
A performance evaluation (PE) audit was conducted by the Battelle Verification Test
Coordinator once during the verification test to assess the quality of the reference measurements.
For the PE audit, an independent standard was used. Table 4-2 shows the procedures used for
the PE audit and associated results.
Table 4-2. Summary of Performance Evaluation Audits
Audited
Parameter
Audit Procedure
Acceptable
Tolerance
Actual
Difference
Passed
Audit
DO
Independent monitor
±5%
6.7%
No(a)
Conductivity
Independent monitor
±5%
0.6%
Yes
Temperature
Independent monitor
±rc
0.2°C
Yes
pH
Independent monitor
±0.1 pH
0.04 pH
Yes
Turbidity
Independent turbidity standard
±10%
0.4%
Yes
(a) Although the measurement recorded during the PE audit was outside the acceptable tolerance, this measurement
was repeated 111 times during the verification test. The average agreement during the verification test was 0.2%;
therefore, no corrective action was taken.
The DO measurement made by the Orion 83OA was compared with that from a handheld DO
monitor made by Hanna (94130M). Agreement within 6.7% was achieved. Although this
measurement was outside the acceptable tolerance, the measurement was, in fact, repeated
111 times during the verification test, with an average difference of 0.2%, indicating acceptable
performance of the reference monitor. A handheld conductivity meter made by Hanna (HI 983 5)
was used to perform the conductivity audit. Agreement within 0.6% between the results of the
Hanna meter and those of the Oakton reference meter was seen. A NIST-traceable
mercury-in-glass thermometer was used for the temperature performance audit. The comparison
was made with a sample of collected water, and agreement was within 0.2°C. The handheld pH
reference meter from Oakton was compared with a handheld pH meter made by Hanna (991301).
14
-------
A pH tolerance of 0.04% was recorded. The Hach turbidity meter measurements were compared
with an independent turbidity standard. Agreement within 0.4% was observed.
4.4.2 Technical Systems Audit
The Battelle Quality Manager conducted a technical systems audit (TSA) on August 28, 2002, to
ensure that the verification test was performed in accordance with the test/QA plan(1) and the
AMS Center QMP.(2) As part of the audit, the Battelle Quality Manager reviewed the reference
methods used, compared actual test procedures to those specified in the test/QA plan, and
reviewed data acquisition and handling procedures. Observations and findings from this audit
were documented and submitted to the Battelle Verification Test Coordinator for response. No
findings were documented that required any corrective action. The records concerning the TSA
are permanently stored with the Battelle Quality Manager.
During the verification test, three deviations from the test/QA plan were necessary. The first was
because the manufacturer's instructions required a different calibration frequency than the
test/QA plan for pH, conductivity, and turbidity measurements. Because the calibrations were
within the specified range during each calibration, it was determined that there was no impact on
the verification test. The second and third deviations were that the sampling frequency and total
number of samples were different than stated in the test/QA plan. Samples were taken at 15-
instead of 30-minute intervals because, in some cases, sampling went faster than anticipated; and
weather and environmental conditions required ending the deployment sooner than specified by
the test/QA plan, resulting in fewer samples.
4.4.3 Audit of Data Quality
At least 10%) of the data acquired during the verification test were audited. Battelle's Quality
Manager traced the data from the initial acquisition, through reduction and statistical analysis, to
final reporting, to ensure the integrity of the reported results. All calculations performed on the
data undergoing the audit were checked.
4.5 QA/QC Reporting
Each assessment and audit was documented in accordance with Sections 3.3.4 and 3.3.5 of the
QMP for the ETV AMS Center.(2) Once the assessment report was prepared, the Verification Test
Coordinator ensured that a response was provided for each adverse finding or potential problem
and implemented any necessary follow-up corrective action. The Battelle Quality Manager
ensured that follow-up corrective action was taken. The results of the TSA were sent to the EPA.
4.6 Data Review
Records generated in the verification test were reviewed within two weeks of generation before
these records were used to calculate, evaluate, or report verification results. Table 4-3 summarizes
15
-------
the types of data recorded. The review was performed by a technical staff member involved in the
verification test, but not the staff member who originally generated the record. The person
performing the review added his/her initials and the date to a hard copy of the record being
reviewed.
Table 4-3. Summary of Data Recording Process
Data to be
Recorded
Responsible
Party
Where Recorded
How Often
Recorded
Disposition of Data
Dates, times of test
events
CCEHBR
Laboratory record
books/data sheets
Start/end of test; at
each change of a
test parameter; at
sample collection
Used to organize/
check test results;
manually incorporated
data into spreadsheets
- stored in study
binder
Test parameters
Battelle/
CCEHBR
Laboratory record
books/ data sheets
Each sample
collection
Used to organize/
check test results;
manually incorporated
data into spreadsheets
- stored in study
binder
Ocean Seven 316
data
- digital display
- electronic output
CCEHBR
CCEHBR
Data sheets
Probe data
acquisition system
(DAS); data stored
on probe
downloaded to PC
Continuous fifteen-
minute sampling;
data downloaded to
PC
Used to organize/
check test results;
incorporated data into
electronic spread-
sheets - stored in study
binder
Reference monitor
readings/reference
analytical results
CCEHBR
Laboratory record
book/data sheets or
data management
system, as
appropriate
After each batch
sample collection;
data recorded after
reference method
performed
Used to organize/
check test results;
manually incorporated
data into spreadsheets
- stored in study
binder
Reference
calibration data
CCEHBR
Laboratory record
books/ data
sheets/DAS
Whenever zero and
calibration checks
are done
Documented correct
performance of
reference methods
PE audit results
Battelle
Laboratory record
books/ data
sheets/DAS
At times of PE
audits
Test reference
methods with
independent standards/
measurements
16
-------
Chapter 5
Statistical Methods
The statistical methods presented in this chapter were used to verify the performance parameters
listed in Section 3.1.
5.1 Pre- and Post-Calibration Results
Pre- and post-calibration of the Ocean Seven 316s was done for each measured parameter
according to that vendor's instruction manual. The results from the calibration checks were
summarized, and accuracy was determined each time the calibration check was conducted.
Calibration check accuracy (A) is reported as a percentage, calculated using the following
equation:
Where Cs is the value of the reference standard, and Cp is the value measured by the vendor's
probe.
5.2 Relative Bias
Water samples were analyzed by both the reference method and the Ocean Seven 316, and the
results were compared. The results for each sample were recorded, and the accuracy was
expressed in terms of the average relative bias (B), as calculated from the following equation:
where CP is a measurement taken from the Ocean Seven 316 being verified at the same time as
the reference measurement was taken, and Cs is the reference measurement. This calculation was
performed for each reference sample analysis for each of the five target water parameters.
Readings of pH were converted to H+ concentration, and temperature readings were converted to
absolute units (i.e., Kelvin) prior to making this calculation. Relative bias was assessed
independently for each Ocean Seven 316 to determine inter-unit reproducibility.
a = i- (c, - cpyc, x ioo
(i)
C -C
B= — — x 100
Cs
(2)
17
-------
5.3 Precision
The standard deviation (S) of the measurements made during a period of stable operation at the
mesocosm was calculated and used as a measure of probe precision:
where n is the number of replicate measurements, Ck is the concentration reported for the kth
measurement, and C is the average concentration of the replicate measurements.
Precision was calculated for each of the five target water parameters. Probe precision was
reported in terms of the percent relative standard deviation (RSD) of the series of measurements:
5.4 Linearity
For target water parameters with a wide range of variation, linearity was assessed by linear
regression, with the analyte concentration measured by the reference method as an independent
variable and the reading from the analyzer verified as a dependent variable. Linearity is expressed
in terms of the slope, intercept, and coefficient of determination (r2). Linearity for pH was
assessed by converting pH results to H+ concentration before comparison. Linearity was assessed
separately for each Ocean Seven 316 and for the data generated at each of the saltwater,
freshwater, and mesocosm test sites.
5.5 Inter-Unit Reproducibility
The results obtained from the two Ocean Seven 316s were compiled independently for each
analyzer and compared to assess inter-unit reproducibility. Inter-unit reproducibility was
determined by calculating the average absolute difference between the two Ocean Seven 316s. In
addition, the two Ocean Seven 316s were compared by evaluating the relative bias of each.
—I" (Ct-cf
n -1 k=1
1/2
(3)
%RSD = = * 100
C
(4)
18
-------
Chapter 6
Test Results
The results of the verification of the two Ocean Seven 316s (identified as GO 204 and GO 205 in
this report) are presented in this section. The Ocean Seven 316 data were recorded at 15-minute
intervals throughout the verification test. Figures 6-1 a through e show plots of nearly 6,000 data
points that were collected by the Ocean Seven 316s during this verification test and data points
for the 132 reference samples that were collected and analyzed. (Figures 6-4 through 6-8 show
parameter-specific data for each of the three tests, so much of the same data is presented as in
Figure 6-la through e, but over a shorter period and with better time resolution).
Reference sample results and corresponding Ocean Seven 316 readings are provided in
Appendix A.
The entire data set is presented in a graphical format in Figures 6-1 a through 6-1 e to allow
several non-quantitative observations. First, a comparison of GO 204 and 205 and the reference
measurements shows that, for each condition and parameter, the Ocean Seven 316s generally
follow the trend of the reference measurements. A visual inspection of the GO 204 and GO 205
data for DO, conductivity, temperature, pH, and turbidity suggests that the GO 204 and 205 data
generally agree with each other and the reference measurements.
The DO measurements (Figure 6-1 a) show tidal and daily fluctuations, with the freshwater
deployment showing the largest magnitude fluctuations. The conductivity measurements
(Figure 6-lb) show that Ocean Seven 316s again track daily fluctuations from the saltwater
environment, to the freshwater environment, and back to the mesocosm environment. Figure 6-lb
also shows that the mesocosm conductivity measured in the saltwater environment closely agrees
with the reference measurement during the transition from saltwater to freshwater on
September 24, 2002, and back to saltwater. The temperature (Figure 6-1 c) and pH (Figure 6-1 d)
measurements from the GO 204 and 205 are overlaid on their respective charts, and their close
agreement makes it difficult to see the individual values. Finally, the turbidity measurements
(Figure 6-le) made by the GO 204 and 205 follow the general trends of the reference measure-
ments and generally agree with each other. It can be seen that on September 21, 2002, a spike in
turbidity corresponded with the activation of the pump in the mesocosm. This increased level in
turbidity was captured by both the GO 204 and 205, as well as the reference measurements. This
report attempts to quantify the extent of agreement using the various statistical methods described
in Chapter 5.
19
-------
Saltwater
Freshwater
Mesocosm
O 204
x 205
ifcti
7/3/02 12:00 7/13/02
AM 12:00 AM
7/23/02 8/2/02 12:00 8/12/02 8/22/02 9/1/02 12:00 9/11/02
12:00 AM AM 12:00 AM 12:00 AM AM 12:00 AM
9/21/02 10/1/02
12:00 AM 12:00 AM
Date and Time
Figure 6-la. Dissolved Oxygen Data Collected from GO 204 and GO 205 During the Verification Test
-------
O 204
x 205
Sa twater
Freshwater
Mesocosm
7/3/02 12:00 7/13/02 7/23/02 8/2/02 12:00 8/12/02 8/22/02 9/1/02 12:00 9/11/02
AM 12:00 AM 12:00 AM AM 12:00 AM 12:00 AM AM 12:00 AM
9/21/02 10/1/02
12:00 AM 12:00 AM
Date and Time
Figure 6-lb. Conductivity Data Collected from GO 204 and GO 205 During the Verification Test
-------
9
8
O204
x 205
Mesocosm
Saltwater
Freshwater
7/3/02 12:00 7/13/02
AM 12:00 AM
7/23/02 8/2/02 12:00 8/12/02 8/22/02 9/1/02 12:00 9/11/02
12:00 AM AM 12:00 AM 12:00 AM AM 12:00 AM
Date and Time
9/21/02 10/1/02
12:00 AM 12:00 AM
Figure 6-lc. Temperature Data Collected from GO 204 and GO 205 During the Verification Test
-------
to
LtJ
11
10
x
Q.
O 204
x 205
Reference
M
Saltwater
Mesocosm
Fmshwatpr
7/3/02 12:00 7/13/02
AM 12:00 AM
7/23/02 8/2/02 12:00 8/12/02 8/22/02 9/1/02 12:00 9/11/02 9/21/02 10/1/02
12:00 AM AM 12:00 AM 12:00 AM AM 12:00 AM 12:00 AM 12:00 AM
Date and Time
Figure 6-ld. pH Data Collected from GO 204 and GO 205 During the Verification Test
-------
200
to
180
160
140
120
^ 100
¦g
!q
Freshwater
Mesocosm
Saltwater
O 204
x 205
Reference
7/3/02 12:00 7/13/02 7/23/02 8/2/02 12:00 8/12/02 8/22/02 9/1/02 12:00 9/11/02 9/21/02 10/1/02
AM 12:00 AM 12:00 AM AM 12:00 AM 12:00 AM AM 12:00 AM 12:00 AM 12:00 AM
Date and Time
Figure 6-le. Turbidity Data Collected from GO 204 and GO 205 During the Verification Test
-------
6.1 Pre- and Post-Calibration Results
The Ocean Seven 316s were calibrated at the beginning and end of each deployment period (noted
as "in Laboratory" in Tables 3-3, 3-4, and 3-5). The only exception to this was on July 29, 2002,
when battery problems prevented a calibration check from being performed on the GO 205. The
calibration was checked periodically throughout the deployments to monitor how well the probes
held the original calibrations. This operation was performed for pH, conductivity, and DO since
only those parameters are adjusted during the calibration. The calibration check levels were
selected based on the manufacturer's instructions. Tables 6-la, b, and c show the results from
these calibration checks for the saltwater, freshwater, and mesocosm tests. Figure 6-2 is a
graphical representation of these calibration results. The "Reference Standard" column refers to
the listed concentration of the standards used in the calibrations, the "GO 204 and GO 205
Readings" columns give the Ocean Seven 316 results during the calibration checks, and the "GO
204 and GO 205 % Accuracy" columns show the calibration check accuracy using the
calculations given in Section 5.1. The accuracy for the pH tests ranged from 99% to 108%, for the
conductivity tests from 94% to 104%), and for the DO tests from 82% to 105%.
25
-------
Table 6-la. Results from the Pre- and Post-Calibration Tests for GO 204 and GO 205 in Saltwater(a)
Reference Standard
GO 204 Readings
GO 205 Readings
GO 204 % Accuracy
GO 205 % Accuracy
Date
pH""
Con-
ductivity
(mS/cm)
DO
(%)
PH
Con-
ductivity
(mS/cm)
DO
(%)
PH
Con-
ductivity
(mS/cm)
DO (%)
PH
Conductivity
DO
PH
Con-
ductivity
DO
6/25/2002
7.00
10.00
100
7.065
9.934
104.5
6.99
10.02
91.4
101
99
105
100
100
91
6/25/2002
10.00
10.1
10.02
101
100
7/1 1/2002
7.00
10.00
100
7.086
9.917
100.5
7.03
10.04
90.7
101
99
101
100
100
91
7/19/2002
7.00
10.04
100
7.145
9.7
96.5
7.11
9.82
95.7
102
97
97
102
98
96
7/19/2002
10.00
--
--
10.09
--
--
10.03
--
--
101
--
--
100
--
--
7/29/2002
7.00
12.88
100
7.061
13.42
98
NA
NA
NA
101
104
98
NA
NA
NA
7/29/2002
10.00
--
--
10.02
--
--
NA
--
--
100
--
--
NA
--
--
8/1/2002
7.00
10.00
100
7.00
10.00
100
7.00
10.00
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
8/1/2002
10.00
--
--
10.00
--
--
10.00
--
--
100
--
--
100
--
--
8/20/2002
7.00
12.88
100
6.933
12.52
99.6
7.11
12.56
103.3
99
97
100
102
98
103
(a) Shaded section is from first saltwater deployment.
(b) The pH calibration checks were performed at two levels, using two separate solutions, while conductivity and DO were checked at one level.
NA= No calibration check was performed because of battery problems.
-------
Table 6-lb. Results from the Pre- and Post-Calibration Tests for GO 204 and GO 205 in Freshwater
Reference Standard
GO 204 Results
GO 205 Results
GO 204 % Accuracy
GO 205 % Accuracy
Con-
Con-
Con-
ductivity DO
ductivity
DO
ductivity
DO
Con-
Con-
Date
PH
(mS/cm) (%)
PH
(mS/cm)
(%)
PH
(mS/cm)
(%)
PH
ductivity
DO
PH
ductivity DO
8/19/2002
7.00
12.88 100
7
12.88
100
7.00
12.88
100
100
100
100
100
100 100
8/19/2002
10.00
--
10
--
--
10
--
100
100
--
--
100
--
8/29/2002
7.00
1.41 100
7.22
1.34
87.7
7.01
1.33
103.3
103
95
88
100
94 103
8/29/2002
10.00
--
10.18
--
--
10.00
--
--
102
--
--
100
--
9/6/2002
7.00
1.41 100
7.38
1.41
90.8
7.151
1.4
98.1
105
100
91
102
99 98
9/6/2002
10.00
--
10.3
--
--
10.09
--
--
103
--
--
101
--
9/17/2002
7.01
1.411 100
7.59
1.41
82
--
--
--
108
100
82
--
--
9/18/2002
7.01
1.41 100
—
—
—
7.32
1.37
102.5
—
—
—
104
97 103
Table 6-lc. Results from the Pre-
and Post-Calibration Tests for GO 204 and GO 205 in Mesocosm
Reference Standard
GO 204 Results
GO 205 Results
GO 204 % Accuracy
GO 205 % Accuracy
Con-
Con-
Con-
ductivity DO
ductivity
DO
ductivity
Con-
Con-
Date
PH
(mS/cm) (%)
PH
(mS/cm)
(%)
PH
(mS/cm) DO (%)
PH
ductivity
DO
PH
ductivity DO
9/25/2002
7.00
1.41 100
7.11
1.42
105
7.17
1.42
97.4
102
101
105
103
100 97
9/25/2002
10.00
--
9.99
--
--
10.04
--
--
100
--
--
100
--
-------
40
20
0
6/13/2002 7/3/2002 7/23/2002 8/12/2002 9/1/2002 9/21/2002 10/11/2002
Date
Figure 6-2. Percent Accuracy of GO 204 and GO 205 During Calibration Checks
6.2 Relative Bias
Relative bias was assessed by comparing the reference measurements with the GO 204 and GO
205 readings. The reading that correlated most closely in time to the reference sample was used.
Plots of the GO 204 and GO 205 data, along with the corresponding reference measurements that
were used for the relative bias calculations, are shown in Figures 6-3a through e.
The relative bias is summarized in Table 6-2. The temperature biases were less than or equal to
0.11% for all deployment settings. Conductivity, pH (reported as FT concentration), and DO
biases were between approximately 2 and 36% for both units for all deployment settings. The
conductivity bias was consistently positive, indicating that generally, the Ocean Seven 316s
reported a higher conductivity than the handheld reference probe. The DO bias was consistently
negative for each deployment setting. The bias for turbidity ranged between approximately -44%
and 420%. From Figure 6-3e it can be seen that the turbidity measurements follow the trends of
the reference measurements for the saltwater and mesocosm tests. The probes, in fact, capture the
spike that occurred in the mesocosm test during a period of high turbidity. Inter-unit
reproducibility was assessed by comparing the direction and size of the relative biases of the
Ocean Seven 316s. In general, the Ocean Seven 316s exhibited close agreement for temperature,
conductivity, and DO.
~ GO 204
fc Accuracy pH
¦ GO 204
f> Accuracy Conductivity
GO 204 °y
f> Accuracy DO
X GO 205 °y
f> Accuracy pH
X GO 205 °y
f> Accuracy Conductivity
• GO 205 °y
f> Accuracy DO
28
-------
A
0 204
«
x 205
X
Reference
i
*
0
X
— j*
o
•
X
A o
ft o
V
X
U
8 ft
X
x *1
X
* *
0 «
* **
Saltwater
Freshwater
Mesocosm
7/3/02 12:00 7/13/02 7/23/02 8/2/02 12:00 8/12/02 8/22/02 9/1/02 12:00 9/11/02 9/21/02
10/1/1
12:00 AM 12:00 AM
12:00 AM 12:00 AM
Date and Time
12:00 AM 12:00 AM 12:00
Figure 6-3a. Relative Bias Data for Temperature
X
Xy
*s
O
* 6
* S PA
f *.
V
Saltwater
Freshwater
Mesocosm
O204
x 205
Reference
O r\ r\ rv \ r\
#
*
i *
7/3/02 12:00
AM
7/13/02
12:00 AM
7/23/02
12:00 AM
8/2/02 12:00
AM
8/12/02
12:00 AM
8/22/02
12:00 AM
9/1/02 12:00
AM
9/11/02
12:00 AM
9/21/02
12:00 AM
10/1/02
12:00
Date and Time
Figure 6-3b. Relative Bias Data for Conductivity
29
-------
16
14
12 -
10
Saltwater
Freshwater
Mesocosm
0 204
x 205
Reference
s
i *
* * „ 5
Ox O
« 0
e
xx "
X
X
O x
IL 8 e 5
x X *
x £*
x* &
* X
| V
o o
V
A
*
X
0
1
7/3/02 12:00
AM
7/13/02
12:00 AM
7/23/02
12:00 AM
8/2/02 12:00
AM
8/12/02
12:00 AM
8/22/02
12:00 AM
9/1/02 12:00
AM
9/11/02
12:00 AM
9/21/02
12:00 AM
10/1/02
12:00 AM
Date and Time
Figure 6-3c. Relative Bias Data Test for Dissolved Oxygen
2.50E-06 -
1 50E-06 -
O204
x 205
Reference
4 b
h
«~ K
4
0.00E+00
7/3/02 12:
AM
- t
o
00
7/13/02
12:00 AM
7/23/02
12:00 AM
8/2/02 12:00
AM
8/12/02
12:00 AM
8/22/02
12:00 AM
9/1/02 12:00
AM
9/11/02
12:00 AM
9/21/02
12:00 AM
10/1/02
12:00 AM
Date and Time
Figure 6-3d. Relative Bias Data for pH
30
-------
200 n
140
_ 120
£ 100 -
20
Saltwater
Freshwater
Mesocosm
X
0
0 204
x 205
Reference
o
X
o
*0
0
X
s
X g
t
X
CO
X o o
o
9
* oS
*
j? £
7/3/02 12:00 7/13/02 7/23/02 8/2/02 12:00 8/12/02 8/22/02 9/1/02 12:00 9/11/02 9/21/02 10/1/02
AM 12:00 AM 12:00 AM AM 12:00 AM 12:00 AM AM 12:00 AM 12:00 AM 12:00 AM
Date and Time
Figure 6-3e. Relative Bias Data for Turbidity
Table 6-2. Average Relative Bias Results for GO 204 and GO 205
Saltwater
Freshwater
Mesocosm
Parameter
Units
% Rel. Bias
204
% Rel. Bias
205
% Rel. Bias
204
% Rel. Bias
205
%ReL Bias
204
%ReL Bias
205
Temperature
K
-0.09
-0.06
-0.11
-0.03
-0.07
-0.09
Conductivity
mS/cm
21.5
10.6
9.21
15.1
2.62
1.96
DO
rng/L
-21.9
-24.8
-28.6
-20.4
-6.19
-15.3
H+
mol/L
28.2
28.8
35.5
-23.9
-20.3
-31.2
Turbidity
NTU
269
-43.9
318
420
146
111
6.3 Precision
Precision, expressed as %RSD, was calculated during periods of stable operation in the mesocosm
tank. Periods of stable operation typically corresponded to times during the mesocosm test when
the pump was not operating, periods when the freshwater replaced the saltwater, or other periods
during which the parameter in question showed no visible change in Ocean Seven 316 measure-
ments. Table 6-3 shows the results of these calculations and the period over which the calculations
were made. No %RSD was determined for DO or turbidity because data from a period of stable
operation were not available for analysis.
31
-------
Table 6-3. Percent Relative Standard Deviation for GO 204 and GO 205 During Periods of
Stable Operation
Stable Time Period
Number of
Parameter
Start
Stop
Measurements
%RSD 204
%RSD 205
Temperature
9/24/02 2:30 PM
9/24/02 3:45 PM
6
0.05
0.04
Conductivity
9/24/02 4:30 PM
9/24/02 11:00 PM
27
1.08
1.07
DO
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
PH
9/24/02 5:15 AM
9/24/02 8:45 AM
15
0.07
0.02
Turbidity
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
The pH and temperature had the lowest %RSD, ranging between 0.02%RSD and 0.07%RSD, and
conductivity was 1,08%RSD and 1,07%RSD for the two probes.
6.4 Linearity
Linearity was assessed by comparing probe readings against the reference values for each of the
parameters at each deployment location. Table 6-4 gives the results of this comparison by showing
the slope, intercept, and coefficient of determination (r2) at each condition. Linear response was
highest for conductivity and temperature, with slopes between 0.85 and 1.23 and r2 values above
0.85. Correlation coefficient results during the mesocosm deployment were above 0.84 except for
DO, which had r2 values of 0.56 and 0.66.
6.5 Inter-Unit Reproducibility
Inter-unit reproducibility was assessed by comparing the relative bias of the two Ocean Seven
316s (Section 6.2), as well as by comparing the average differences between the two probe
readings for each parameter at each deployment location. Figures 6-4 through 6-8 show the data
used for these calculations. In terms of relative bias, the two Ocean Seven 316s exhibited close
agreement for temperature, conductivity, and DO; but showed larger differences for pH
(freshwater only) and turbidity (see Table 6-2). The results of average difference comparisons
between the two Ocean Seven 316s are shown in Table 6-5.
The average difference in temperature readings was 0.08°C over a range of 24 to 34°C. The
difference in conductivity averaged 0.04 mS/cm over a range of 0.3 to 49 mS/cm (Figures 6-5a-c).
The DO difference averaged 0.55 mg/L, while the actual Ocean Seven 316 DO readings varied
from 0 to 12 mg/L (Figures 6-6a-c). The average difference in pH readings was 0.12 over a range
of 6.6 to 9.6 (Figures 6-7a-c). The average difference in turbidity readings was 8.96 NTU, while
the actual turbidity measurement ranged from 0 to 125 NTU (Figures 6-8a-c).
The magnitude of the inter-unit reproducibility results was affected by spatial and temporal
changes in the sampling environment. For example, the Ocean Seven 316s were sampling in an
environment that was changing 8°C over a 24-hour period. Because they were not sampling
32
-------
Table 6-4. Results of Linearity Analysis for GO 204 and GO 205
Saltwater
Freshwater
Mesocosm
GO
Parameter
Slope
Intercept
Coefficient of
Determination
Slope
Intercept
Coefficient of
Determination
Slope
Intercept
Coefficient of
Determination
204
Temp
0.93
20.49
0.85
0.96
10.92
0.99
0.97
9.35
0.98
205
Temp
0.94
18.47
0.86
0.91
28.11
0.91
0.85
45.84
0.95
204
Cond
1.17
-1.59
0.92
1.23
-0.05
0.93
1.05
-0.08
0.99
205
Cond
1.17
-1.55
0.92
1.19
-0.01
0.93
1.04
-0.09
1.00
204
DO
0.16
3.15
0.06
0.67
0.33
0.66
0.97
-0.22
0.56
205
DO
0.36
1.95
0.12
0.82
-0.10
0.92
0.63
1.39
0.66
204
PH
0.94
0.00
0.55
0.26
0.00
0.53
0.62
0.00
0.88
205
PH
0.94
0.00
0.55
0.48
0.00
0.78
0.62
0.00
0.84
204
Turb
0.63
7.67
0.05
2.64
10.18
0.14
1.05
5.88
0.88
205
Turb
0.49
0.43
0.12
4.86
0.21
0.32
1.09
5.42
0.85
-------
Table 6-5. Average Difference in GO 204 and GO 205 Readings for Each Parameter at
Each Deployment Location
Average Difference between GO 204 and GO 205
Temperature
Conductivity
DO
Turbidity
Location
C
(mS/cm)
(mg/L)
pH
(NTU)
Saltwater
0.01
0.10
0.34
0.07
8.18
Freshwater
0.11
0.02
0.60
0.24
17.67
Mesocosm
0.13
0.01
0.71
0.06
1.02
Average
0.08
0.04
0.55
0.12
8.96
in exactly the same location, differences in temperature, caused by the 24-hour fluctuations,
resulted in some differences in measurement by the Ocean Seven 316s. Similar behavior occurs in
any location that experiences dynamic changes in the environment.
6.6 Other Factors
6.6.1 Ease of Use
The Ocean Seven 316s were set up to collect data with minimal difficulty, and data were down-
loaded without incident using the provided data cable and a PC. The Ocean Seven 316 operators
during this verification test included individuals with and without a college education, all of
whom had some experience working with monitoring equipment. The monitors were transported
to and from the testing sites in a five-gallon bucket, wrapped in wet towels. Battery replacement
was necessary every time the Ocean Seven 316s were brought to the lab for the calibration check
interval despite the fact that the Ocean Seven 316s were operating in sleep mode between samples
to conserve power.
6.6.2 Costs
At the time of testing, the Ocean Seven 316, as verified, cost $15,000 per unit.
6.6.3 Data Completeness
All portions of the verification test were completed; however, because one period of low battery
power resulted in no data being collected on one probe, one day out of a total of 62 sampling days
resulted in no data collection. Therefore, data completeness was approximately 98%.
34
-------
7/6/02 12:00
7/11/02 12:00
AM
7/16/02 12:00
AM
7/21/02 12:00
AM
7/26/02 12:00 7/31/02 12:00 8/5/02 12:00 8/10/02 12:00 8/15/02 12:00
AM AM AM AM AM
Date and Time
Figure 6-4a. Inter-Unit Reproducibility Data for Temperature During Saltwater
Tests
204
205
34 -
Reference
8/15/02 12:00 AM 8/20/02 12:00 AM 8/25/02 12:00 AM 8/30/02 12:00 AM 9/4/02 12:00 AM 9/9/02 12:00 AM 9/14/02 12:00 AM
Date and Time
Figure 6-4b. Inter-Unit Reproducibility Data for Temperature During Freshwater
Tests
35
-------
g 27
9/16/02 12:00 AM 9/18/02 12:00 AM 9/20/02 12:00 AM 9/22/02 12:00 AM 9/24/02 12:00 AM 9/26/02 12:00 AM 9/28/02 12:00 AM
Date and Time
Figure 6-4c. Inter-Unit Reproducibility Data for Temperature During Mesocosm
Tests
45
40
E.
35
30
25 -
20
¦
¦
'
¦ ¦
i
. i
-204
-205
Reference
7/6/02 12:00 7/11/02 12:00 7/16/02 12:00 7/21/02 12:00 7/26/02 12:00 7/31/02 12:00 8/5/02 12:00 8/10/02 12:00 8/15/02 12:00
AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM
Date and Time
Figure 6-5a. Inter-Unit Reproducibility Data for Conductivity During Saltwater
Tests
36
-------
0.8
shJ-
-A-
)
-204
-205
Reference
8/15/02 12:00 AM 8/20/02 12:00 AM 8/25/02 12:00 AM 8/30/02 12:00 AM 9/4/02 12:00 AM 9/9/02 12:00 AM 9/14/02 12:00 AM
Date and Time
Figure 6-5b. Inter-Unit Reproducibility Data for Conductivity During Freshwater
Tests
-204
-205
Reference
9/16/02 12:00 AM 9/18/02 12:00 AM 9/20/02 12:00 AM 9/22/02 12:00 AM 9/24/02 12:00 AM 9/26/02 12:00 AM 9/28/02 12:00 AM
Date and Time
Figure 6-5c. Inter-Unit Reproducibility Data for Conductivity During Mesocosm
Tests
37
-------
204
205
Reference
7/6/02 12:00 7/11/02 12:00 7/16/02 12:00 7/21/02 12:00 7/26/02 12:00 7/31/02 12:00 8/5/02 12:00 8/10/02 12:00 8/15/02 12:00
AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM
Date and Time
Figure 6-6a. Inter-Unit Reproducibility Data for Dissolved Oxygen During
Saltwater Tests
204
205
Reference
8/15/02 12:00 AM 8/20/02 12:00 AM 8/25/02 12:00 AM 8/30/02 12:00 AM 9/4/02 12:00 AM 9/9/02 12:00 AM 9/14/02 12:00 AM
Date and Time
Figure 6-6b. Inter-Unit Reproducibility Data for Dissolved Oxygen During
Freshwater Tests
38
-------
>
X
O
9/16/02 12:00 AM 9/18/02 12:00 AM 9/20/02 12:00 AM 9/22/02 12:00 AM 9/24/02 12:00 AM 9/26/02 12:00 AM 9/28/02 12:00 AM
Date and Time
Figure 6-6c. Inter-Unit Reproducibility Data for Dissolved Oxygen During
Mesocosm Tests
8.6 -
8.4
8.2
7.6
-204
-205
Reference
r vv
' 1 ' \ \ *
J. » \ 1 \ 1 /
•vV
IHll
\ 1
V
""
h'
S i
n,
< i . . ; -
1 *
1
7/6/02 12:00 7/11/02 12:00 7/16/02 12:00 7/21/02 12:00 7/26/02 12:00 7/31/02 12:00 8/5/02 12:00 8/10/02 12:00 8/15/02 12:00
AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM
Date and Time
Figure 6-7a. Inter-Unit Reproducibility Data for pH During Saltwater Tests
39
-------
204
205
Reference
7.5
6.5
8/15/02 12:00 AM 8/20/02 12:00 AM 8/25/02 12:00 AM 8/30/02 12:00 AM 9/4/02 12:00 AM 9/9/02 12:00 AM 9/14/02 12:00 AM
Date and Time
Figure 6-7b. Inter-Unit Reproducibility Data for pH During Freshwater Tests
7.5
204
205
Reference
9/16/02 12:00 AM 9/18/02 12:00 AM 9/20/02 12:00 AM 9/22/02 12:00 AM 9/24/02 12:00 AM 9/26/02 12:00 AM 9/28/02 12:00 AM
Date and Time
Figure 6-7c. Inter-Unit Reproducibility Data for pH During Mesocosm Tests
40
-------
60
204
205
i-
z
£
|d
E
3
I-
7/6/02
12:00 7/11/02 12:00 7/16/02 12:00 7/21/02 12:00 7/26/02 12:00 7/31/02 12:00 8/5/02 12:00 8/10/02 12:00 8/15/0$ 12:00
\A AM
AM
AM
AM
AM
AM
AM
Date and Time
Figure 6-8a. Inter-Unit Reproducibility Data for Turbidity During Saltwater Tests
140
120
204
205
100
Reference
i-
z
£
;o
!n
3
I-
8/15/02
2:00 AM 8/20/02 12:00 AM 8/25/02 12:00 AM 8/30/02 12:00 AM 9/4/02 12:00 AM 9/9/02 12:00 AM 9/14/02 12:00 AM
-20
Date and Time
Figure 6-8b. Inter-Unit Reproducibility Data for Turbidity During Freshwater
Tests
41
-------
140
120 -
& 60 -
-204
-205
Reference
9/16/02
2:00 AM 9/18/02 12:00 AM 9/20/02 12:00 AM 9/22/02 12:00 AM 9/24/02 12:00 AM 9/26/02 12:00 AM 9/28/02
2:00 AM
Date and Time
Figure 6-8c. Inter-Unit Reproducibility Data for Turbidity During Mesocosm Tests
42
-------
Chapter 7
Performance Summary
Pre-and post-calibration tests showed that pH measurement values were accurate within a range of
99 to 108% of the true values. Except for the first result of 73%, the remaining DO measurement
values were accurate within a range of 82 to 105% of the true values. Conductivity measurement
values were accurate within a range of 94 to 104% of the true values. No modifications were made
to the probes (calibration adjustments, maintenance, etc.) during the testing.
The temperature biases were less than or equal to 0.11% for all deployment settings. Conductivity,
pH (reported as H+ concentration), and DO biases were between approximately 2 and 36% for
both units under all deployment settings. The conductivity bias was consistently positive,
indicating that generally, the Ocean Seven 316 probes reported a higher conductivity than the
handheld reference probe. The DO bias was consistently negative for each deployment setting.
The bias for turbidity ranged between approximately -44% and 420%.
Percent RSD was lowest for the pH and temperature, ranging between 0.02%RSD and
0.07%RSD. Precision for conductivity was 1,08%RSD and 1,07%RSD for the two Ocean Seven
316s. DO and turbidity precision estimates were not determined.
The linear response for the Ocean Seven 316, expressed in terms of slope, intercept, and
coefficient of determination at each condition, was highest for conductivity and temperature.
Analysis of inter-unit reproducibility, relative bias of the Ocean Seven 316s exhibited close agree-
ment for temperature, conductivity, and DO; but showed larger differences for pH (freshwater
only) and turbidity. The average difference in temperature readings between the two Ocean Seven
316s was 0.08°C over a range of 24 to 34°C. The difference in conductivity averaged 0.04 mS/cm
over a range of 0.3 to 49 mS/cm. The average difference in readings for DO was 0.55 mg/L, while
the actual Ocean Seven 316 DO readings varied from 0 to 12 mg/L. The average difference in pH
readings was 0.12 over a range of 6.6 to 9.6. The average difference in turbidity readings was
8.96 NTU, while the actual turbidity measurement ranged from 0 to 125 NTU.
The magnitude of the inter-unit reproducibility results was affected by spatial and temporal
changes in the sampling environment. For example, the Ocean Seven 316s were sampling in an
environment that was changing 8°C over a 24-hour period. Because the Ocean Seven 316s were
not sampling in exactly the same location, differences in temperature, caused by the 24-hour
fluctuations, resulted in some difference in measurement by the Ocean Seven 316s. Similar
behavior occurs in any location that experiences dynamic changes in the environment.
43
-------
The probes were set up to collect data with minimal difficulty, and data were downloaded without
incident using the provided data cable and a Windows-based PC. Battery replacement was
necessary every time the probes were brought to the lab for the calibration check interval despite
the fact that the probes were operating in sleep mode between samples to conserve power. The
Ocean Seven 316 verified in this test cost $15,000 per unit.
44
-------
Chapter 8
References
1. Test/QA Plan for Long-Term Deployment of Multi-Parameter Water Quality Probes/Sondes,
Battelle, Columbus, Ohio, Version 2.0, May 2002.
2. Quality Management Plan (QMP) for the ETV Advanced Monitoring Systems Center,
Version 3.0, U.S. EPA Environmental Technology Verification Program, Battelle, Columbus,
Ohio, December 2001.
45
-------
Appendix A
Reference Sample and Probe Readings
A-l
-------
m/d/y hh:mm
Temp
C
Cond.
mS/cm
204
GO 205
Reference
DO
Turb.
Temp
Cond.
DO
Turb.
Temp
Cond.
DO
Turb.
mg/L
PH
NTU
C
mS/cm
mg/L
PH
NTU
C
mS/cm
mg/L
PH
NTU
4.41
7.65
9.35
28.574
27.94
3.99
7.60
1.9
28.550
24.7
4.68
7.62
5.2
4.37
7.63
8.48
28.594
26.72
3.99
7.57
1.85
28.650
24.3
4.79
7.64
5.2
4.22
7.63
8.08
28.617
26.45
3.98
7.57
1.7
28.750
24.2
4.72
7.63
4.4
4.11
7.63
8.78
28.638
26.42
3.86
7.57
1.58
28.750
24.1
4.65
7.64
5.2
4.13
7.63
9.73
28.67
26.43
3.83
7.57
1.6
28.950
24.1
4.81
7.67
4.7
4.07
7.63
10.4
28.686
26.43
3.81
7.57
1.6
29.150
25
4.9
7.65
4
3.81
7.73
13.6
28.678
35.49
3.4
7.68
2.75
29.050
30.7
6.18
7.69
4
3.86
7.74
10.2
28.673
35.56
3.45
7.68
1.75
28.950
29.8
4.9
7.71
3
3.9
7.78
11.8
28.662
38.7
3.52
7.72
2.33
28.850
31.5
4.83
7.67
3.5
3.88
7.79
10.7
28.671
39.13
3.48
7.73
1.85
28.950
32.8
4.76
7.71
3.3
3.78
7.79
11.8
28.658
40.1
3.46
7.73
2.03
29.050
32.8
5.09
7.73
3.4
4.03
7.76
11.5
28.874
35.32
3.62
7.71
1.58
29.150
30.5
5.22
7.78
3.1
3.9
7.77
9.28
28.741
38.94
3.53
7.72
1.8
29.150
34.2
5.19
7.78
3.4
3.91
7.78
8.83
28.87
38.06
3.68
7.72
1.58
29.050
35
5.04
7.8
4.5
4
7.78
7.88
28.9
38.17
3.68
7.72
1.65
29.250
34.3
5.32
7.73
4.4
4.24
7.79
8.83
28.97
37.81
3.8
7.73
1.63
29.250
33.3
5.72
7.83
3.8
4.02
7.66
9.35
28.694
27.6
3.64
7.59
1.9
28.650
24.3
4.73
7.61
4.2
3.93
7.65
8.65
28.722
27.11
3.43
7.58
2.13
28.650
23.9
4.78
7.6
4.1
4.16
7.66
10.5
28.74
27.53
3.77
7.61
2.98
28.750
24.9
4.76
7.67
5.2
4.34
7.63
8.03
28.746
26.35
3.94
7.57
2.15
28.850
23.3
4.75
7.61
4.4
4.18
7.6
8.63
28.77
25.46
3.73
7.55
2.35
28.950
23.2
4.72
7.59
4.5
4.07
7.6
8.53
28.837
25.21
3.62
7.55
2.13
28.950
23.4
4.8
7.64
4.4
3.86
7.6
9.55
28.8
25.71
3.49
7.54
2.33
29.050
23.4
4.8
7.63
4.4
3.87
7.61
9.45
28.852
25.6
3.54
7.55
2.1
29.150
23.3
4.76
7.6
3.7
3.62
7.62
8.43
28.894
26.61
3.19
7.55
2.1
29.050
26.6
4.81
7.54
3.6
3.44
7.63
9.65
28.798
28.26
3.12
7.56
2.43
29.050
27.4
4.81
7.67
5.1
3.31
7.63
11.4
28.783
29.64
2.97
7.56
2.7
29.150
27.2
4.89
7.7
5.5
3.55
7.67
11.5
28.845
28.71
3.29
7.60
2.5
28.950
29
4.68
7.73
3.8
3.53
7.73
10.2
28.841
35.38
2.93
7.65
2.43
29.050
34.3
4.37
7.82
6.1
7/15/02 8:00 AM
7/15/02 8:30 AM
7/15/02 9:00 AM
7/15/02 9:30 AM
7/15/02 10:00 AM
7/15/02 10:30 AM
7/15/02 1:00 PM
7/15/02 1:30 PM
7/15/02 2:00 PM
7/15/02 2:30 PM
7/15/02 3:00 PM
7/15/02 3:30 PM
7/15/02 4:00 PM
7/15/02 4:30 PM
7/15/02 5:00 PM
7/15/02 5:15 PM
!:00 AM
!:15 AM
!:30 AM
7/16/02 9:00 AM
7/16/02 9:30 AM
7/16/02 10:00 AM
7/16/02 10:15AM
7/16/02 10:30 AM
7/16/02 12:30 PM
7/16/02 12:45 PM
7/16/02 1:00 PM
7/16/02 1:30 PM
7/16/02 2:00 PM
7/16/02 I
7/16/02 I
7/16/02 I
28.583
28.598
28.631
28.664
28.673
28.697
28.672
28.671
28.663
28.669
28.663
28.874
28.731
28.832
28.926
28.967
28.701
28.729
28.738
28.755
28.778
28.819
28.805
28.858
28.916
28.800
28.784
28.845
28.841
27.97
26.77
26.34
26.29
26.37
26.5
35.53
35.32
38.74
39.07
40.16
34.95
39.17
38.32
37.89
37.5
27.55
27.01
26.98
26.25
25.5
25.32
25.47
25.4
26.66
28.16
29.15
28.7
35.32
-------
GO 204
GO 205
Reference
Temp
Cond.
DO
Turb.
Temp
Cond.
DO
Turb.
Temp
Cond.
DO
Turb.
m/d/y hh:mm
C
mS/cm
mg/L
PH
NTU
C
mS/cm
mg/L
PH
NTU
C
mS/cm
mg/L
PH
NTU
7/17/02 11:15AM
29.411
24.85
3.83
7.58
9.98
29.399
24.96
3.23
7.50
3.2
29.850
23
4.86
7.7
3.9
7/17/02 12:00 PM
29.473
24.8
3.62
7.59
10.8
29.499
24.81
3.13
7.47
3.4
30.050
23.5
4.8
7.66
3.75
7/17/02 1:00 PM
29.335
27.61
3.33
7.6
11.6
29.409
26.64
2.98
7.48
3.75
29.950
24
5.09
7.67
3.65
7/22/02 2:00 PM
30.141
28.31
4.03
7.65
13.7
30.138
28.38
4
7.60
3.9
30.050
25.1
5.32
7.77
5.49
7/22/02 2:30 PM
30.123
28
4.3
7.66
13.7
30.121
28.14
4.18
7.61
3.95
30.150
24
5.09
7.67
4.54
7/24/02 2:30 PM
29.474
30.16
3.5
7.57
14
29.471
30.34
3.78
7.53
4.7
29.450
26.4
4.26
7.63
5.27
7/24/02 2:45 PM
29.447
29.14
3.47
7.55
14.4
29.448
29.31
3.73
7.52
4.85
29.450
26.1
4.76
7.63
4.62
7/24/02 3:30 PM
29.431
27.9
3.36
7.51
15.6
29.433
28.05
3.77
7.51
4.33
29.450
25
4.83
7.61
4.8
7/25/02 2:15 PM
29.795
31.98
4.08
7.62
13.2
29.771
32.35
4.28
7.63
5.75
29.850
28.6
5.78
7.76
5.21
7/25/02 3:00 PM
29.821
30.21
3.96
7.58
15.1
29.818
30.51
4.21
7.60
6
29.850
27.1
5.65
7.73
4.43
8/6/02 2:45 PM
29.761
33.7
4.21
7.64
7.98
29.745
33.53
4.54
7.72
1.85
29.850
30.6
2.98
7.75
3.72
8/6/02 3:00 PM
29.768
33.71
4.09
7.63
7.5
29.744
34.2
4.38
7.72
2.15
29.850
30.7
6.03
7.78
2.8
8/7/02 2:30 PM
29.052
35.36
4.31
7.67
10.9
29.08
35.29
5.22
7.80
1.7
29.050
31.6
5.7
7.83
4.67
8/7/02 3:00 PM
29.076
34.88
4.6
7.67
9.53
29.084
34.63
5.26
7.77
1.55
29.150
31.2
5.74
7.88
3.14
8/7/02 3:30 PM
29.131
34.11
4.6
7.66
8.15
29.156
33.81
5.26
7.76
1.45
29.250
30.3
5.87
7.84
3.11
8/12/02 2:00 PM
27.561
44.84
3.55
7.48
36.7
27.538
42.96
3.85
7.66
4.03
28.150
40.2
5.1
7.82
11.5
8/12/02 2:30 PM
27.561
44.84
3.55
7.48
36.7
27.744
40.61
4.03
7.65
3.85
28.550
36.6
5.33
7.76
6.6
8/12/02 3:15 PM
27.561
44.84
3.55
7.48
36.7
27.76
41.69
3.66
7.65
3.88
28.050
38.1
5.05
7.77
8.7
8/12/02 3:30 PM
27.561
44.84
3.55
7.48
36.7
27.831
40.94
3.85
7.66
3.2
28.250
36.3
5.34
7.8
6.1
8/12/02 3:45 PM
27.561
44.84
3.55
7.48
36.7
28.086
39.77
4.36
7.66
2.85
28.350
35.5
5.53
7.8
7.5
8/12/02 4:00 PM
27.561
44.84
3.55
7.48
36.7
28.224
38.76
4.63
7.67
3.05
28.350
34.3
5.62
7.81
6.9
8/12/02 4:15 PM
27.561
44.84
3.55
7.48
36.7
28.345
37.46
4.86
7.67
3.03
28.450
33.4
5.59
7.8
6.7
8/13/02 8:00 AM
27.561
44.84
3.55
7.48
36.7
27.78
27.97
3.9
7.43
2.8
27.750
25.4
4.52
7.57
5.31
8/13/02 8:15 AM
27.561
44.84
3.55
7.48
36.7
27.782
27.43
3.83
7.42
2.8
27.750
24.9
4.57
7.57
5.14
8/13/02 8:30 AM
27.561
44.84
3.55
7.48
36.7
27.784
27.14
3.59
7.40
2.8
27.850
24.9
4.58
7.54
5.23
8/13/02 8:45 AM
27.561
44.84
3.55
7.48
36.7
27.792
27.04
3.5
7.41
2.9
27.850
25.1
4.58
7.55
5.81
8/13/02 9:15 AM
27.561
44.84
3.55
7.48
36.7
27.766
27.49
3.61
7.40
3
27.950
25.3
4.76
7.57
4.47
-------
GO 204
GO 205
Reference
Temp
Cond.
DO
Turb.
Temp
Cond.
DO
Turb.
Temp
Cond.
DO
Turb.
m/d/y hh:mm
C
mS/cm
mg/L
PH
NTU
C
mS/cm
mg/L
PH
NTU
C
mS/cm
mg/L
PH
NTU
8/13/02 1:00 PM
27.561
44.84
3.55
7.48
36.7
27.778
35.64
3.34
7.44
2.8
27.850
31.7
4.54
7.63
5.1
8/13/02 1:15 PM
27.561
44.84
3.55
7.48
36.7
27.771
37.1
3.41
7.49
2.6
27.850
35.1
4.52
7.69
6.6
8/13/02 1:30 PM
27.561
44.84
3.55
7.48
36.7
27.745
39.45
3.23
7.51
2.6
27.850
35.8
4.56
7.71
6
8/13/02 1:45 PM
27.561
44.84
3.55
7.48
36.7
27.755
38.9
3.62
7.54
2.6
27.850
35.6
4.58
7.71
6.3
8/13/02 2:15 PM
27.561
44.84
3.55
7.48
36.7
27.728
40.26
3.55
7.55
2.53
27.850
36.7
4.52
7.67
7
8/13/02 2:30 PM
27.561
44.84
3.55
7.48
36.7
27.721
40.56
3.52
7.56
2.6
27.850
37.6
4.44
7.72
5.5
8/13/02 2:45 PM
27.561
44.84
3.55
7.48
36.7
27.706
41.3
3.56
7.58
2.6
27.850
38.1
4.48
7.74
8.1
8/13/02 3:00 PM
27.561
44.84
3.55
7.48
36.7
27.706
41.3
3.56
7.58
2.6
27.850
38.6
4.55
7.74
7.25
8/23/02 8:30 AM
27.700
0.485
1.32
7.21
15.8
27.794
0.499
1.3
7.01
16.3
27.750
0.456
1.97
6.84
8.02
8/23/02 8:45 AM
27.744
0.484
1.59
7.22
16.2
27.819
0.499
1.38
7.02
15.5
27.350
0.453
1.98
6.78
9.2
8/23/02 9:00 AM
27.740
0.484
1.53
7.22
15.4
27.828
0.499
1.5
7.02
16.9
27.850
0.456
2.51
6.82
8.19
8/23/02 9:15 AM
27.726
0.485
1.61
7.22
14.8
27.907
0.5
1.52
7.05
15.6
27.950
0.449
2.04
6.78
8.45
8/23/02 9:30 AM
27.833
0.486
1.72
7.25
14.8
27.979
0.501
1.79
7.06
15
28.150
0.454
3.1
6.9
8.54
8/23/02 9:45 AM
27.955
0.487
2.12
7.26
14.6
28.054
0.501
2.15
7.07
15.1
28.050
0.451
2.73
6.89
7.59
8/23/02 10:00 AM
28.166
0.489
2.36
7.29
15.5
28.317
0.503
2.31
7.10
14.6
28.450
0.453
3.88
6.94
7.17
8/23/02 10:15AM
28.257
0.49
2.68
7.29
14.8
28.389
0.505
2.41
7.17
16.2
28.450
0.452
3.25
7.01
6.9
8/23/02 1:30 PM
31.529
0.515
7.6
8.55
19.1
31.61
0.53
8.87
8.40
19.6
31.750
0.449
10.3
8.33
7.1
8/23/02 1:45 PM
31.831
0.517
8.87
8.64
15.2
31.964
0.532
8.91
8.50
16.9
32.650
0.447
10.1
8.41
8.63
8/23/02 2:00 PM
32.118
0.519
8.9
8.73
14.9
32.167
0.534
8.87
8.50
16.1
32.550
0.448
10.7
8.3
6.66
8/23/02 2:15 PM
32.538
0.523
8.74
8.74
14.9
32.476
0.537
9.13
8.48
9.33
32.950
0.447
10.7
8.43
6.88
8/23/02 2:30 PM
33.017
0.528
8.8
8.73
15.5
32.814
0.54
9.64
8.51
17.6
32.950
0.447
10.9
8.28
7.13
8/23/02 2:45 PM
33.253
0.532
8.6
8.77
15.7
33.173
0.545
9.48
8.54
15.3
33.250
0.446
11.4
8.39
6.48
8/23/02 3:00 PM
33.349
0.533
8.82
8.82
15.6
33.305
0.546
9.43
8.59
15.3
33.550
0.449
12.1
8.38
8.11
8/23/02 3:15 PM
33.570
0.534
9
8.92
15.1
33.42
0.548
9.38
8.65
16.1
33.450
0.448
11.7
8.42
6.78
8/26/02 2:00 PM
28.257
0.484
3.62
7.48
23
30.576
0.521
7.54
8.10
33.9
30.650
0.44
11.5
8.49
7
8/26/02 2:15 PM
28.257
0.484
3.62
7.48
23
30.597
0.521
8.12
8.19
34.9
30.650
0.447
11.8
8.37
7.3
8/26/02 2:30 PM
28.257
0.484
3.62
7.48
23
30.735
0.521
8.59
8.41
35.5
30.750
0.442
12.3
8.57
8.1
-------
GO 204
GO 205
Reference
Temp
Cond.
DO
Turb.
Temp
Cond.
DO
Turb.
Temp
Cond.
DO
Turb.
m/d/y hh:mm
C
mS/cm
mg/L
PH
NTU
C
mS/cm
mg/L
PH
NTU
C
mS/cm
mg/L
PH
NTU
9/5/02 1:15 PM
25.503
0.273
4.97
8.12
12.5
25.596
0.292
5.83
8.10
13.6
25.550
0.261
6.91
7.77
0.95
9/5/02 1:30 PM
25.420
0.273
5.06
8.08
12.6
25.516
0.296
5.84
8.07
12.1
25.450
0.267
6.9
7.73
0.77
9/9/02 1:45 PM
27.787
0.366
6.12
7.82
104
27.829
0.392
5.85
7.40
84.8
27.850
0.341
8.37
7.2
10.5
9/9/02 2:00 PM
27.787
0.366
6.12
7.82
104
27.829
0.392
5.85
7.40
84.8
27.850
0.341
9.2
7.55
10
9/9/02 2:15 PM
27.909
0.368
8.02
8.25
104
27.977
0.393
8.46
7.75
86
27.850
0.342
9.86
7.48
10.5
9/10/02 10:00 AM
25.481
0.355
2.47
7.48
86.3
25.545
0.371
2.75
7.18
125
25.550
0.343
3.35
6.66
9.8
9/10/02 10:15 AM
25.481
0.355
2.47
7.48
86.3
25.545
0.371
2.75
7.18
125
25.650
0.344
3.9
6.76
9.7
9/10/02 10:30 AM
25.546
0.354
3.13
7.52
90.6
25.578
0.371
4.05
7.23
100
25.550
0.342
4.2
6.7
9.85
9/12/02 10:30 AM
27.547
0.373
5.97
7.88
35.5
27.582
0.402
6.41
7.64
61.8
27.550
0.349
7.1
7.07
15
9/12/02 10:45 AM
27.688
0.374
6.3
7.96
35.8
27.601
0.401
6.9
7.67
60.5
27.550
0.348
6.9
7.17
12.7
9/12/02 11:00 AM
27.688
0.374
6.3
7.96
35.8
27.601
0.401
6.9
7.67
60.5
28.050
0.348
8.89
7.32
13.7
9/12/02 11:15 AM
28.109
0.378
7.6
8.22
35.6
28.064
0.404
8.06
7.86
59.6
28.050
0.351
8.45
7.42
16.2
9/12/02 1:45 PM
29.442
0.388
8.84
8.91
42.5
29.41
0.414
9.27
8.45
68
29.750
0.349
12.6
8.53
11
9/12/02 2:00 PM
29.442
0.388
8.84
8.91
42.5
29.41
0.414
9.27
8.45
68
29.450
0.35
11
7.84
12.6
9/12/02 2:15 PM
29.391
0.387
8.97
9.04
40.5
29.45
0.414
10.1
8.75
70.4
29.650
0.349
11.2
8.33
13.7
9/12/02 2:30 PM
29.555
0.388
9.78
9.22
42.2
29.253
0.413
9.98
8.51
67.3
29.450
0.349
10.9
8.62
16.9
9/12/02 2:45 PM
29.555
0.388
9.78
9.22
42.2
29.253
0.413
9.98
8.51
67.3
29.950
0.346
13.4
8.88
18.8
9/12/02 3:00 PM
29.707
0.388
10.3
9.43
43
29.921
0.415
11
9.21
74.5
29.750
0.348
12.4
8.78
14.7
9/12/02 3:15 PM
29.712
0.389
10.3
9.41
41
29.736
0.411
11.1
9.18
75.1
29.850
0.347
12.3
8.75
12.6
9/12/02 3:30 PM
29.712
0.389
10.3
9.41
41
29.736
0.411
11.1
9.18
75.1
29.550
0.348
11.1
8.65
15.6
9/19/02 4:00 PM
28.585
38.86
7.28
7.94
5.05
27.364
37.85
4.96
8.03
2.5
28.650
35.3
7.34
7.97
1.59
9/19/02 4:15 PM
28.585
38.86
7.28
7.94
5.05
28.789
38.94
6.43
8.02
4.23
28.950
35.5
7.31
7.94
2.13
9/20/02 9:00 AM
24.515
36.24
6.85
7.81
4.33
24.641
36.24
6.1
7.87
6.15
24.650
35.2
6.87
7.81
1.51
9/20/02 9:30 AM
24.576
36.28
7.55
7.78
114
24.7
36.28
6.37
7.86
122
24.750
35.8
6.77
7.79
60
9/20/02 11:00 AM
25.153
36.7
7.53
7.83
124
25.275
36.7
5.74
7.91
125
25.350
35.9
6.78
7.8
133
9/20/02 4:00 PM
29.641
40.2
6.54
7.85
33.6
28.048
38.86
5.3
7.94
44
29.150
35.8
6.65
7.84
19.4
-------
m/d/y hh:mm
GO 204
GO 205
Reference
Temp
C
Cond.
mS/cm
DO
mg/L
PH
Turb.
NTU
Temp
C
Cond.
mS/cm
DO
mg/L
PH
Turb.
NTU
Temp
C
Cond.
mS/cm
DO
mg/L
PH
Turb.
NTU
9/23/02 11:00 AM
24.958
38.28
5.35
7.88
4.8
25.084
38.29
5.83
7.94
4.6
25.150
37.8
6.94
7.83
2.4
9/23/02 1:45 PM
26.005
39.09
5.45
7.92
4.6
25.959
38.97
5.64
7.97
2.8
26.050
38.3
6.72
7.84
1.45
9/23/02 3:30 PM
27.224
40.05
5.06
7.94
3.3
27.361
40.07
5.45
8.00
2.5
27.450
38.4
6.72
7.88
1.35
9/23/02 4:30 PM
28.642
41.22
5.29
7.85
3.9
27.778
40.43
5.51
7.99
2.6
29.550
38.1
6.5
7.71
2.05
9/24/02 9:30 AM
24.393
38.28
2.77
7.45
4.9
24.513
38.29
3.93
7.49
5.3
24.550
37.7
3.71
7.28
1.9
9/24/02 9:45 AM
24.376
38.27
5.1
7.53
12.5
24.515
38.29
3.89
7.51
5.43
24.550
37.7
4.54
7.36
1.9
9/24/02 11:00 AM
26.967
0.493
5.52
8.72
9.63
27.085
0.511
4.82
8.78
9.4
27.150
0.68
5.96
8.4
6.25
9/24/02 1:30 PM
27.069
1.397
6.11
8.24
5.9
27.116
1.321
5.44
8.33
5.7
27.250
1.304
6.4
7.97
2.46
9/24/02 3:15 PM
27.123
1.516
6.09
8.22
7.4
27.215
1.483
5.56
8.23
5.2
27.250
1.406
6.55
7.89
4.22
9/24/02 4:30 PM
28.311
2.682
6.55
8.19
8.98
28.479
2.691
5.28
8.27
7.23
28.450
2.67
6.22
8.04
3.87
9/25/02 11:00 AM
24.147
3.093
6.78
8.06
6.9
24.265
3.105
6
8.08
7.65
24.350
3.35
6.88
7.63
1.91
------- |