Appendices

Multi-Laboratory Validation Study of PFAS
by Isotope Dilution LC-MS/MS
Wastewater, Surface Water, and Groundwater

July 25, 2023


-------
PFAS Multi-Laboratory Validation Study Report
Aqueous Media: Wastewater, Surface Water, and Groundwater

SERDP

List of Appendices

Appendix A Multi-Laboratory Study Plan and Analytical Method Standard Operating Procedure
Appendix B Preparation of PFAS-Spiked Samples

Appendix C Data Management Report (Exa Data and Mapping Services Inc.)

Appendix D PFAS MLVS Institute for Defense Analyses Report
Appendix E Wastewater Supporting Tables
Appendix F Surface Water Supporting Tables
Appendix G Groundwater Supporting Tables

Date: July 25, 2023

xxii


-------
PFAS Multi-Laboratory Validation Study Report
Aqueous Media: Wastewater, Surface Water, and Groundwater

SERDP

Appendix A

Multi-Laboratory Study
Plan and Analytical Method
Standard Operating
Procedure

Date: July 25, 2023


-------
Study Plan for Multi-Laboratory Validation of Draft EPA Method 1633 -
PFAS in Aqueous, Solid, Biosolids, and Tissue Samples by LC-MS/MS

Contract: W912DY-17-D-0004
Delivery Order: W912DY19F1365

Prepared for:

Dr. Andrea Leeson
Program Manager for Environmental Restoration
Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP)

4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 16F16
Alexandria, VA 22350-3605
Phone: 571-372-6398
E-Mail: Andrea.Leeson. civ@mail. mil

Prepared by:

SERDP/ESTCP PFAS Method Validation Study Team
Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP)

4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 16F16
Alexandria, VA 22350-3605
Phone: 571-372-6398

Prepared Under Contract:

U.S. Army Engineering Command
Huntsville Engineering & Support Center
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Contract No.: W912DY-17-D-0004
Task Order No.: W912DY19F1365
By

HydroGeoLogic, Inc.

11107 Sunset Hills Road, Suite 400
Reston, Virginia 20190-5375

Final, Revision 1
March 2023


-------
Study Plan for Multi-Lab Validation of PFAS LC MS/MS Method

APPROVALS

LEESON.ANDR Digitally signed by

LEESON .AN DREA.1291529050

EA. 1291 529050 Da,e: 2023.03.13 11:40:20 -04'00'

SERDP/ESTCP Study Supervisor	Date

MCCLELLAN.MELI mcclellan.melinda.s.i5303
N DA. S. 1530356481 ^,2,,,^™

US ACE EM-CX Study Manager	Date

A n RI A M	Digitally signed by

ADRIAN HANLEY

HAN LEY ?3:3e423323 03 06

EPA Technical Manager	Date

WILLEY.JANICE.L w?lley.janicevlynn. 1276837
YNN.1276837229 2D1 2023,,28 14:57:16.0,00.

NAVSEA LQAO QC Manager	Date

ANDERSON.RICH/ anderson.richard.h. 13979
RDH.1397946777 S:72023,3,608:25:41 ,6W

AFC EC Study Evaluation Manager	Date

n;, ,r\r>
-------
Study Plan for Multi-Lab Validation ofPFAS LC MS/MS Method

DISCLAIMER

Mention of company names, trade names, or commercial products does not constitute endorsement
or recommendation for use.

Final, Revision 1
March 2023

Contract No.: W912DY-17-D-0004
Delivery Order No.: W912DY19F1365


-------
Study Plan for Multi-Lab Validation ofPFAS LC MS/MS Method

DISTRIBUTION LIST

Siudj Phi 11 Recipients

Tide

Oi'^iini/iilion

Telephone
Nil in her

I'lniiiil Address or Miiilin^ Address

Dr. Andrea Leeson

Study Supervisor

SERDP/ESTCP

(720) 491-8149

andrea.leeson.civ@mail.mil

Dr. Melinda McClellan

Principal Investigator

USACE EM-CX

(850) 901-7029

Mel inda.S.McclellanVv usace.armv.mil

Tim Thompson

Co-Principal Investigator

SERDP/ESTCP

(206)418-6173

tthompson@seellc.onmicrosoft.com

Janice Willey

Quality Assurance (QA) Manager

NAVSEA LQAO

(843) 737-1574

Janice. l.\villcv.civV7 us.navv.mil

Cara M. Patton

Study Support

SERDP/ESTCP

(571)635-5276

Cara.Patton@noblis.ors

Mike Malone

Contracting Officer Representative/
Project Manager

USACE CEHNC

(256) 895-1637

Michael.D.Malone@usace.armv.mil

Barry Hodges

Chemist

USACE CEHNC

(256) 895-1894

Barrv.A.Hodses@usace.armv.mil

Dr. Marc Mills

Study Evaluation Manager

EPAORD

(513) 569-7322

mills.marc@epa.gov

Dr. Richard (Hunter)
Anderson

Study Evaluation Manager

AFCEC

(210) 395-0625

Richard.anderson.55@us.af.mil

Dr. Allyson Buytendyk

Chemist

IDA

(703) 845-6806

abuvtend@ida. ors

Adrian Hanley

Technical Manager

EPA OW

(202) 564-1564

Hanley. Adrian@epa. gov

Troy Strock

Senior Chemist

EPA OLEM

(703) 308-8637/
(202) 566-0504

strock.trov@era. sov

Page 1 of 5


-------
Study Plan for Multi-Lab Validation ofPFAS LC MS/MS Method

DISTRIBUTION LIST (Continued)

Siudj Phi it Recipients

Tide

Or^iiiii/iilioii

Telephone
Nil in her

llniiiil Address or Mnilinii Address

Dr. Harry McCarty

Chemist

GDIT
(EPA Contractor)

(703)254-0093

Harrv.mccartv@sdit.com

Dr. Coreen Hamilton

Project Manager

SGS AXYS

(250) 655-5802

Coreen.Hamilton@sgs.com

Ivona Zysk

Project Manager

SGS AXYS

(913) 378-2315

Ivona.ZvskVv sss.com

Dr. Denise Rivers

Project Chemist

HGL

(910) 233-8460

drivers@hgl.com

Joe Skibinski

Project Manager

HGL

(703) 326-7803

i skibinski@hsl.com

Dawn Smorong

Project Manager and Data Manager

Exa

(250)713-8601

dawn@exadata.net

Peggy Myre

Data Quality Officer

Exa

(360) 774-0380

pessv.mvre@exadata.net

Michael Tweiten

Data Library Manager

Exa

(206) 319-3686

michaelf® exadata. net

Mingta Lin

Contracted, Independent, Third-Party
Data Validator

Pyron Environmental Inc.

(360) 556-5952

mingta_lin@comcast.net

Maggie Radford

Contracted, Independent, Third-Party
Data Validator

Jacobs Engineering
Group, Inc.

(919) 749-9479

massie.radford@iacobs.com

Jeremy Bishop

Contracted, Independent, Third-Party
Data Validator

Jacobs Engineering
Group, Inc.

(541)768-3299

2inisa.Bishor)(®,iacobs.com

Kathi Gumpper

Contracted, Independent, Third-Party
Data Validator

Chem Val Consulting,
Inc.

(801) 541-6983

ksumroer@chemval. com

Page 2 of 5


-------
Study Plan for Multi-Lab Validation ofPFAS LC MS/MS Method

DISTRIBUTION LIST (Continued)

Siudj Phi it Recipients

Tide

Or^iiiii/iilioii

Telephone
Nil in her

lliiiiiil Address or Mnilinii Address

John Gumpper

Contracted, Independent, Third-Party
Data Validator

Chem Val Consulting,
Inc.

(801) 554-9362

i eumpper(®chemval.com

Alycia Mogayzel

Laboratory Project Manager

Alpha Analytical, Inc.

(508) 844-4120

amo eavzelt®alphalab. com

Jonathan Thorn

Laboratory Director

Battelle Memorial
Institute

(781) 681-5565

thorni ©battelle .ore

Charles Neslund

Scientific Officer and PFAS Practice
Leader

ELLET

(717) 556-7231

charlesneslund@eurofinsus.com

Vanessa Badman

Laboratory Project Manager

ELLET

(717) 556-9762

Vanessa.Badman@eurofinset.com

Melissa Coyner

Director, Sales and Marketing

ERA

(440) 503-4153

melissa covner(®waters.com

Tom Gilroy

North America Sales Manager

ERA

(303) 463-3519

torn eilrov(®waters.com

Shelby Turner

Laboratory Project Manager

ETA, Denver

(303)736-0165

Shelby.Turner@eurofinsET.com

Robert Hrabak

Operations Manager

ETA, Sacramento

(916) 374-4433

Robert. H rabak a eurofinsct.com

Jill Kellman

Laboratory Project Manager

ETA, Sacramento

(916) 374-4402

i ill.kellmanm®eurofinsET. com

Robert Pullano

Director, Quality Systems

GEL Laboratories, Inc.

(843) 556-8171

Bob.Pullano(®eel.com

Valerie Davis

Laboratory Project Manager

GEL Laboratories, Inc

(843) 556-8171

Valcric.DavisV7iicl.com

Page 3 of 5


-------
Study Plan for Multi-Lab Validation ofPFAS LC MS/MS Method

DISTRIBUTION LIST (Continued)

Siudj Phi it Recipients

Tide

Or^iiiii/iilioii

Telephone
Nil in her

lliiiiiil Address or Mnilinii Address

Stephen Somerville

Laboratory Project Manager

Pace

(804) 516-5887

SteBhen.somerville@Bacelabs.com

Norm Farmer

Project Manager

SGS North America

(407) 425-6700

N o rm a n. fa rmc r<7s a s. c o m

Andrea Colby

Laboratory Project Manager

SGS North America

(609) 495-5231

andrea.colby@sgs.com

Jamie Fox

Laboratory Director

Vista Analytical
Laboratory

(916) 673-1520

ifox@vista-analvtical.com

Karen Volpendesta

Laboratory Project Manager

Vista Analytical
Laboratory

(916) 673-1520

kvolpendesta@vista-analytical.com

Scott Halstrom

Manager

Wellington

(913) 722-4919

wellinetom®swbell. net

Dr. Mui Koltunov

Laboratory Project Manager

CalEPA DTSC

(213) 923-4879

Mui.Koltunov@dtsc.ca.gov

Dr. Sinisa (Sin) Urban

Division Chief

MDH

(443) 681-3852

sinisa. urban a man kind, eov

AFCEC = Air Force Civil Engineer Center

CalEPA DTSC = California Environmental Protection Agency Department of Toxic Substances Control
ELLET = Eurofins Lancaster Laboratories Environmental Testing, LLC

EPA OLEM = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Land and Emergency Management

EPA ORD = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development

EPA OW = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water

ERA = ERA, A Waters Company

ETA = Eurofins-Test America

Exa = Exa Data & Mapping Services Inc.

GDIT = General Dynamics Information Technology

HGL = HydroGeoLogic, Inc.

IDA = Institute for Defense Analyses

Page 4 of 5


-------
Study Plan for Multi-Lab Validation ofPFAS LC MS/MS Method

DISTRIBUTION LIST (Continued)

Siudj Phi it Recipients

lillo

Or^iiiii/iilion

Telephone
Nil in her

lliiiiiil Address or Mnilinii Address

MDH = Maryland Department of Health

NAVSEA LQAO = Naval Sea Systems Command Laboratory Quality and Accreditation Office

SERDP/ESTCP = Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program/ Environmental Security Technology Certification Program
SGS AXYS = SGS AXYS Analytical Services Ltd.

USACE CEHNC = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army Engineering and Support Center, Huntsville
USACE EM CX = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental and Munitions Center of Expertise

Page 5 of 5


-------
Section

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

APPROVALS
DISCLAIMER
DISTRIBUTION LIST

1.0 BACKGROUND	1-1

2.0 STUDY OBJECTIVES	2-1

3.0 STUDY MANAGEMENT	3-1

3.1	MVS TEAM	3-1

3.2	PROCUREMENT OF PFAS REFERENCE STANDARD MIXTURES

AND TEST MATRICES	3-1

3.3	PARTICIPATING LABORATORIES	3-2

3.4	VALIDATORS	3-2

3.5	STATISTICAL ANALYSIS	3-3

4.0 TECHNICAL APPROACH	4-1

4.1	PHASE 1 - SOLICITING LABORATORIES	4-1

4.2	PHASE 2 - PROCURING REFERENCE STANDARD MIXTURES AND
STUDY SAMPLES	4-2

4.2.1	Reference Standard Mixtures	4-2

4.2.2	Pre-Spike Sample Matrix Characterization	4-2

4.2.3	Study Sample Development and Handling	4-4

4.2.4	Bench-Scale Cooler Temperature Study	4-5

4.3	PHASE 3 - CALIBRATION AND DEMONSTRATION OF CAPABILITY... 4-5

4.3.1	Initial Calibration	4-5

4.3.2	Initial Demonstration of Capability (IDC)	4-6

4.4	PHASE 4 - ANALYSES OF STUDY SAMPLES	4-7

4.4.1	Groundwater, Surface Water, and Wastewater	4-7

4.4.2	Soil and Sediment	4-8

4.4.3	Fish Tissue	4-8

4.4.4	Landfill Leachate and Biosolids	4-8

4.5	PHASE 5 - DATA VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION	4-9

4.6	PHASE 6 - DEVELOPMENT OF QC ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA	4-10

5.0 DATA REPORTING AND DATA MANAGEMENT	5-1

5.1	LABORATORY REPORTING REQUIREMENTS	5-1

5.2	DATA MANAGEMENT AND REPORTING	5-2

6.0 EVALUATION OF METHOD PERFORMANCE	6-1

7.0 REFERENCES	7-1

Final, Revision 1
March 2023

i

Contract No.: W912DY-17-D-0004
Delivery Order No.: W912DY19F1365


-------
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

Study Method (Annotated Version of EPA Draft Method 1633)

Attachment 2

Required Sample Nomenclature and Matrix Types for the Multi-Laboratory



Validation Study

Attachment 3

Electronic Data Deliverable Instructions and Format

Attachment 4

Data Management Plan, QA/QC and Data Processing Procedures, and Data



Management Plan Addendum

Attachment 5

Study Data Validation Guidelines

Attachment 6

Wellington Laboratories, Inc. Certificate of Analysis Documentation for PFAS



Reference Standard Mixtures

Attachment 7

ERA Cooler Study Report in Support of the HGL/DoD PFAS Multi-Lab oratory



Method Validation Study - January 2022



LIST OF TABLES

Table 3-1

MVS Team

Table 3-2

List of Suppliers and Participating Laboratories

Table 4-1

Reference Standard Mixtures

Table 4-2

Summary of Sample Matrices Included in the Study

Table 4-3

Names, Abbreviations, and CAS Registry Numbers for Target PFAS, Extracted



Internal Standards, and Non-extracted Internal Standards

Table 4-4

Sample Analysis Method Summary, Sample Containers, Preservation, and Hold



Times

Table 4-5

List of Study Samples to Be Provided to Laboratories



LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3-1	Organizational Chart

Final, Revision 1
March 2023

ii

Contract No.: W912DY-17-D-0004
Delivery Order No.: W912DY19F1365


-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

°C	degrees Celsius

%	percent

AFCEC	Air Force Civil Engineer Center

CalEPA	California Environmental Protection Agency

CEHNC	US ACE Huntsville Engineering and Support Center

DoD	U.S. Department of Defense

DTSC	Department of Toxic Substances Control

DVG	data validation guideline

EDD	electronic data deliverable

EIS	extracted internal standard

ELAP	Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program

ELLET	Eurofins Lancaster Laboratories Environmental Testing, LLC

EM-CX	Environmental and Munitions Center of Expertise

EPA	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ERA	ERA, A Waters Company

ESTCP	Environmental Security Technology Certification Program

ETA	Eurofins-TestAmerica

Exa	Exa Data & Mapping Services, Inc.

GCC	®Microsoft Government Community Cloud

GDIT	General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc.

HGL	HydroGeoLogic, Inc.

IDA	Institute for Defense Analysis

IDC	initial demonstration of capability

IPR	initial precision and recovery

ISO	International Organization for Standardization

LC-MS/MS	liquid chromatography mass spectrometry/mass spectrometry

LLOQ	lower limit of quantitation

LOQ	limit of quantitation

LOQVER	LOQ Verification

LQAO	Laboratory Quality and Accreditation Office

MDH	Maryland Department of Health

MDL	method detection limit

MDLb	MDL based on method blanks

MDLS	MDL based on spiked samples

mg/L	milligram per liter

MLV	multi-laboratory validation

MVS	Method Validation Study

Final, Revision 1	Contract No.: W912DY-17-D-0004

March 2023	iii	Delivery Order No.: W912DY19F1365


-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (Continued)

NAPT

North American Proficiency Testing Program

NAVSEA

Naval Sea Systems Command

NIS

non-extracted internal standard

OLEM

Office of Land and Emergency Management

ORD

Office of Research and Development

OW

Office of Water

PFAS

per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances

QA

quality assurance

QC

quality control

QSM

Quality Systems Manual

RF

response factor

RR

response ratio

RSD

relative standard deviation

SERDP

Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program

SLV

single-laboratory validation

SGS AXYS

SGS AXYS Analytical Services Ltd.

SOP

standard operating procedure

SOW

statement of work

SW

solid waste

TDS

total dissolved solids

TOC

total organic carbon

TSS

total suspended solids

USACE

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Wellington

Wellington Laboratories, LLC

Final, Revision 1
March 2023

iv

Contract No.: W912DY-17-D-0004
Delivery Order No.: W912DY19F1365


-------
Study Plan for Multi-Laboratory Validation of Draft EPA Method 1633 -
PFAS in Aqueous, Solid, Biosolids, and Tissue Samples by LC-MS/MS

1.0 BACKGROUND

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination and the composition of other PFAS
sources within the environment change over time due to properties of the individual PFAS
analytes. Heightened interest in PFAS and ambiguities in PFAS identification led several
researchers to investigate and identify over 4,000 PFAS analytes using liquid chromatography
mass spectrometry/mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Detecting the individual PFAS analytes
provides a quantitative measure of the PFAS contamination in an environmental sample.

Through the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program/Environmental
Security Technology Certification Program (SERDP/ESTCF), the U.S. Department of Defense
(DoD), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and their contractor, General Dynamics
Information Technology, Inc. (GDIT), formed the Method Validation Study (MVS) Team. The
MVS Team conducted a single-laboratory validation (SLV) study of isotope dilution methods for
quantifying PFAS in environmental matrices. The results of the SLV study were used by the EPA
to support development of Draft Method 1633 Analysis of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances
(PFAS) in Aqueous, Solid, Biosolids, and Tissue Samples by LC-MS/MS, which EPA published on
2 September 2021. In December 2022, EPA published the 3rd Draft Method 1633 (Reference 7.1,
https://www.epa.gov/cwa-methods/cwa-analvtical-methods-and-polvfluorinated-alkyl-substances
-pfas). It presents multiple-laboratory validation (MLV) data for the wastewater matrix, which
includes required quality control (QC) criteria for the wastewater matrix. This revision provided
additional clarifications and added flexibilities in response to formal comments received from
multiple parties.

EPA Method 1633 is an interim draft method and now requires a MLV study. The end goal of the
MLV study is to use the findings to revise, as necessary, draft Method 1633, and to submit the
supporting data packages to the EPA Office of Water (OW) for consideration as a final method
under the Clean Water Act. If recommended for approval, EPA will prepare a proposed rule for
approval, as is required for all new wastewater methods, using the information provided by the
MVS Team in a future report from this study. Then, EPA will compile the rule docket, pass the
proposed rule through internal and/or external review at EPA, and then submit it to the Office of
the Federal Register for publication.

The information and data from this MLV Study will also be submitted to the EPA Office of Land
and Emergency Management (OLEM) for the future development and validation of an EPA solid
waste (SW)-846 method. The OW will distribute the method/data package to OLEM.

This study is being undertaken pursuant to the procedures described in EPA's Protocol for Review
and Validation of New Methods for Regulated Organic and Inorganic Analytes in Wastewater
Under EPA's Alternate Test Procedure Program (Reference 7.2). During the course of testing,
certain elements of this Study Plan may change. The MVS Team will evaluate the changes and
determine whether they will be documented in an addendum to this Study or in the MLV Study
Report.

Final, Revision 1
March 2023

1-1

Contract No.: W912DY-17-D-0004
Delivery Order No.: W912DY19F1365


-------
Study Plan for Multi-Lab Validation ofPFAS LC MS/MS Method

2.0 STUDY OBJECTIVES

The goals of the MLV study are to achieve the following:

•	Obtain data from matrices that are representative of the method's intended use;

•	Obtain data from laboratories that are representative of those likely to use the approved
method;

•	Obtain feedback from laboratory users on the specifics of the Study Method (Reference
7.3, Attachment 1);

•	Use study data to characterize performance of the method;

•	Develop statistically derived QC acceptance criteria;

•	Generate data according to specified analytical and quality assurance (QA)/QC procedures;
and

•	Obtain data from each participating laboratory subject to verification and validation by an
independent review.

As noted in multiple locations in the Study Method (Reference 7.3, Attachment 1),
"...Participating laboratories must follow this method without modification..." to meet these goals
and the underlying quality objectives. In addition, the MVS Team will employ the following
QA/QC strategies:

•	Perform all activities in accordance with this Study Plan.

•	Require that the vendor selected to prepare the study samples must (1) have demonstrated
experience in performing work of a similar nature, (2) have a comprehensive and current
QA program in place, and (3) submit applicable standard operating procedures (SOPs) for
review by the MVS Team.

•	Require that each participating laboratory must have demonstrated experience with
analyses of a similar nature and must have a comprehensive and current QA program in
place.

•	Ensure that the study report and the final Study Method have been reviewed by the MVS
Team to ensure the QC requirements meet data quality objectives.

Cumulatively, these requirements are intended to ensure that the data produced in this study are of
appropriate and documented quality.

Final, Revision 1
March 2023

2-1

Contract No.: W912DY-17-D-0004
Delivery Order No.: W912DY19F1365


-------
Study Plan for Multi-Lab Validation ofPFAS LC MS/MS Method

3.0	STUDY MANAGEMENT

3.1	MVS TEAM

This MLV Study is being managed by the MVS Team, which includes SERDP/ESTCP; the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE); EPA's Offices of Water, of Land and Emergency
Management, of Research and Development; the U.S. Navy; and the U.S. Air Force. Funding for
this project was provided by SERDP/ESTCP and EPA's OW to USACE, which in turn contracted
with HydroGeoLogic, Inc. (HGL) to serve as the Oversight Contractor for the project.
SERDP/ESTCP also established contracts with Science and Engineering for the Environment
LLC, for program management; Exa Data & Mapping Services, Inc., (Exa) for data management;
and the following firms for independent, third-party data validation: Chem Val Consulting, Inc.;
Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.; and, Pyron Environmental, Inc. The MVS Team structure is given
in Figure 3-1. MVS Team members and responsibilities are provided in Table 3-1.

3.2	PROCUREMENT OF PFAS REFERENCE STANDARD MIXTURES AND TEST
MATRICES

Under the direction of the MVS Team, HGL has responsibility for the following:

•	Soliciting, reviewing qualifications, and contracting laboratories to participate in the study;

•	Procuring certified PFAS reference standard mixtures;

•	Acquiring samples and characterizing sample media through third-parties; and

•	Creating the Study Samples for this study through the use of a third-party vendor.

Specifics of these tasks are described in Section 4. Participating suppliers and laboratories are
described here.

A commercial vendor, Wellington Laboratories, LLC (Wellington), has been selected to provide
reference standard mixtures and individual, high-concentration PFAS reference standard mixtures
as defined by the MVS Team to the laboratories participating in the study. Another commercial
vendor, ERA (A Waters Company) (ERA), that specializes in proficiency testing samples, will
prepare Study Samples using "real-world" environmental sample matrices provided for use in this
study (see Table 3-2). The Oversight Contractor, HGL, is responsible for procuring and providing
oversight of both vendors and ensuring sufficient volumes of sample matrices from various sources
are delivered to ERA for homogenization, aliquoting, spiking, and then shipping to the participant
laboratories listed in Table 3-2. HGL is also responsible for procuring standards from Wellington,
which will provide them to the participant laboratories listed in Table 3-2. Attachment 6 includes
the Certificate of Analysis Documentation for PFAS Reference Standard Mixtures provided by
Wellington Laboratories, Inc. to each participating laboratory.

Storage requirements for source samples and samples prepared by the Study Sample vendor were
determined by the MVS Team, based on the holding time study results from the SLV study and
consistent with requirements in draftMethod 1633. In addition, a separate bench-scale cooler study
has been conducted by ERA to determine the potential effects on sample temperatures during
shipment. Findings from this cooler study completed by ERA are included in Attachment 7.

Final, Revision 1
March 2023

3-1

Contract No.: W912DY-17-D-0004
Delivery Order No.: W912DY19F1365


-------
Study Plan for Multi-Lab Validation ofPFAS LC MS/MS Method

3.3	PARTICIPATING LABORATORIES

HGL is responsible for procuring and providing oversight of eight commercial contract
laboratories and two state laboratories that will participate in the MLV study. The number and
identity of participating laboratories was determined by the MVS Team based on factors such as
cost and ability to support the study. In keeping with the approach described in Protocol for Review
and Validation of New Methods for Regulated Organic and Inorganic Analytes in Wastewater
Under EPA's Alternate Test Procedure Program (Reference 7.2), HGL solicited participation
from the 10 laboratories listed in Table 3-2, recognizing the possibility that some participants may
drop out or otherwise fail to provide usable data. Candidate laboratories were added to the study
after review and confirmation with the MVS Team.

To comply with policies regarding laboratory competency, HGL required accreditations from the
DoD Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) for all commercial laboratories
relevant to the analysis of PFAS in environmental matrices and International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) accreditation for government laboratories. Table 3-2 includes the relevant
accreditations for participating laboratories and vendors. HGL maintains copies of QA program
documentation obtained during the solicitation process. Laboratories that are unable to
demonstrate competency in PFAS analyses and that do not have an adequate QA program in place
were not included as participants in the study. HGL is responsible for ensuring all accredited
laboratories maintain all method and data reporting requirements contained in this Plan throughout
the period of MLV study testing. Additionally, HGL will compile all documentation from the
studies, analytical data packages, and results with the associated communication records.

HGL will ensure each submittal includes a data package and an electronic data deliverable (EDD),
as defined in this Study Plan. Both will be reviewed for completeness relative to ensuring that all
required analytes, extracted internal standard (EIS) analytes, and non-extracted internal standard
(NIS) analytes are reported for each sample received; only one result will be reported for each
analyte for each sample in both the data packages and EDDs. Before providing the EDDs to the
Government, HGL will review them to ensure all data for samples and QC samples reported in the
data packages have been included and that all fields are completed, as required by this Study Plan.
HGL will not send data packages and EDDs to the MVS Team for data validation until this review
is complete and any issues are resolved.

3.4	VALIDATORS

The contracted, independent, third-party validators will receive the EDDs and data packages after
HGL and Exa have completed their reviews and resolved any issues with submittals from the
laboratories (Attachment 4). The validator will validate the data packages and EDDs in accordance
with the study data validation guidelines (DVGs) (Attachment 5) that the MVS Team has reviewed
and approved for use for this study. The validator will provide a data validation report and the
associated amended EDD (amended per DVGs) and data package submittals for each EDD/data
package that has been validated to the Study QC Manager. The MVS Team will review the
validator's submittals. If changes are required, the validator will be responsible for making the
requested changes.

Final, Revision 1
March 2023

3-2

Contract No.: W912DY-17-D-0004
Delivery Order No.: W912DY19F1365


-------
Study Plan for Multi-Lab Validation ofPFAS LC MS/MS Method

3.5 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The MVS Team and Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) will review and evaluate all data
collected during this study to characterize the performance of the Study Method. This includes
data on calibration, initial precision and recovery (IPR), method detection limits (MDL),
performance in real-world matrices, and labeled compound recoveries. The MLVStudy Report will
contain statistically derived QC limits that will be calculated from the data collected during this
study. The laboratories that participate are representative of the real-world laboratories that will
potentially conduct this method, and the matrices are typical of matrices that a laboratory using
this method would analyze.

Final, Revision 1
March 2023

3-3

Contract No.: W912DY-17-D-0004
Delivery Order No.: W912DY19F1365


-------
Study Plan for Multi-Lab Validation ofPFAS LC MS/MS Method

4.0	TECHNICAL APPROACH

The study will be performed in six phases. Work on some phases may occur simultaneously.

•	Phase 1 (Section 4.1) involves soliciting laboratories to participate in the study.

•	Phase 2 (Section 4.2) involves procuring the reference standard mixtures, acquiring and
characterizing sample media, and creating the Study Samples for this study.

•	Phase 3 (Section 4.3) involves using the Study Method (Attachment 1, dated October
2021), which includes MLV Study-specific requirements and guidance to (1) perform the
initial steps (calibration, initial demonstrations of capability [IDCs], IPR, MDLs, and verify
limits of quantitation [LOQs]), (2) demonstrate laboratory capability with standards and
clean matrices, and (3) generate an applicable SOP. Phase 3 submittals must be received,
validated (by the validator), and deemed acceptable by an independent, third-party data
validation entity, and reviewed and approved by the Project QA Manager and Technical
Manager prior to the laboratory starting Phase 4.

•	Phase 4 (Section 4.3) involves all participant laboratories using the Study Method to
analyze the aqueous, solid, and tissue Study Samples after receiving approval from the
MVS Team to proceed.

•	Phase 5.1 (Section 4.5) involves data verification of all study results by the HGL Project
Chemist and automated checks of the EDDs. HGL's Proj ect Chemist will perform an initial
evaluation of the data from each phase of the study with the MVS Team before authorization
is given to proceed with the next phase of the study.

•	Phase 5.2 (Section 4.5) involves data validation of all study results by an independent third-
party validation entity. Validation will begin as data becomes available from Phase 4.

•	Phase 6 (Section 4.6) involves a statistical analysis of the data, development of QC
acceptance criteria, and revision to the draft Method to be recommended in the MLV Study
Report that will be submitted to the EPA.

4.1	PHASE 1 - SOLICITING LABORATORIES

Phase 1 of the study involves executing subcontracts or other agreements with 10 laboratories to
participate in the MLV study. As shown in Table 3-2, HGL has established subcontracts with eight
commercial environmental laboratories and has written agreements with two state government
laboratories.

Prior to the award of this contract, the Government Technical Manager and QC Manager
developed a broad list of likely participants and contacted them in advance of a formal solicitation
to determine their potential interest. From the list of potential participants, HGL solicited bids
using competitive, government-approved procurement procedures. Since the Study Method has
changed from the original bids, HGL has sent to all participating laboratories the Study Method
(Attachment 1), an interim final version of this MLV Study Plan, and a brief statement of work
(SOW) to update price estimates. This Study Plan and the Study Method detail the requirements
for sample preparation, storage, shipment, analysis, and QA/QC needed for laboratories to conduct
the testing as well as reporting requirements.

Final, Revision 1
March 2023

4-1

Contract No.: W912DY-17-D-0004
Delivery Order No.: W912DY19F1365


-------
Study Plan for Multi-Lab Validation ofPFAS LC MS/MS Method

All laboratories must have a comprehensive laboratory QA program in place and operating at all
times during the MLV study, and this program must be consistent with the Guidance for
Developing Quality Systems for Environmental Programs (Reference 7.4) and the general
laboratory procedures specified in the Handbook for Analytical Quality Control in Water and
Wastewater Laboratories (Reference 7.5).

Regardless of the nature of a laboratory's participation (contract or agreement), the same study
requirements will apply. If laboratories are unable to successfully complete Phase 3 or provide the
required documentation, they will not proceed to Phase 4.

4.2 PHASE 2 - PROCURING REFERENCE STANDARD MIXTURES AND STUDY
SAMPLES

For Phase 2, HGL has procured and provided sufficient quantities of the reference standard
mixtures (Table 4-1) from Wellington needed for laboratories to perform sample analysis per the
method. HGL also procured laboratory support services to analyze pre-spiked sample matrices that
were provided to the MVS Team and transferred under chain of custody to ERA.

After the MVS Team reviewed the pre-spike characterization results, they finalized the agreed-
upon spike levels for all samples. ERA procured the reference standard mixtures, homogenized
the matrices used for the study, spiked the Study Samples required for the MLV Study, and shipped
the Study Samples to each participating laboratory.

4.2.1	Reference Standard Mixtures

A list of the method analytes, NIS compounds, and EIS compounds is provided in Table 4-1 and
was developed by each laboratory using the reference standard mixtures provided by Wellington
in Attachment 6. Each laboratory participating in the study utilized these standard mixtures
provided by Wellington to generate all study data. This requirement avoided having each
laboratory prepare their own standards from neat materials or available stock solutions, which
would add significant variability to the study results as well as not likely reflect routine laboratory
practice when performing the method.

HGL has centrally purchased an initial lot of the reference standard mixtures specified by the
Government Technical Manager and the QC Manager from Wellington, who distributed the lots
to the participating laboratories. Additional volumes of these standard mixtures may be purchased
by the laboratories.

ERA purchased separate, high-concentration stock reference standard mixtures of the method
analytes listed in Table 4-1 to create the spiking solutions needed to create the Study Samples that
were provided to the participating laboratories.

Laboratories were responsible for purchasing qualitative method analyte standards (stock
standards) (including branched isomers, as noted in the table) listed in Table 4-1 as well as the bile
salt standards required by the Study Method.

4.2.2	Pre-Spike Sample Matrix Characterization

The focus of this study is on the analysis of real-world environmental matrices, including
wastewater, groundwater, surface water (fresh and marine), soil, sediment (fresh and marine),

Final, Revision 1
March 2023

4-2

Contract No.: W912DY-17-D-0004
Delivery Order No.: W912DY19F1365


-------
Study Plan for Multi-Lab Validation ofPFAS LC MS/MS Method

fish/clam tissue, landfill leachate, and biosolids. To obtain a wide diversity and sufficient quantity
of matrices and samples, the MVS Team worked with EPA and municipal, state, and regional
contacts to obtain sufficient volumes/mass of several media to be used in the study. A list of the
sample types and quantities that were provided to the MVS Team are listed in Table 4-2. All media
were shipped to and held at ERA at < 6 degrees Celsius (°C).

ERA will homogenize all sample matrices and ship aliquots of composite samples collected from
each to SGS AXYS Analytical Services Ltd. (SGS AXYS) for native PFAS analyses and to
Eurofins-TestAmerica (ETA)-Denver for conventional physical and chemical analyses. Shipments
to SGS AXYS will be coordinated with HGL to ensure proper paperwork is included with
shipments. Shipments to ETA-Denver will be coordinated with a courier from the laboratory. HGL
is responsible for transmission of these results to the MVS Team.

All sample matrices will be characterized before spiking to ensure the appropriate amounts of high-
concentration PFAS reference standard mixtures are used to create the Study Samples. SGS AXYS
will analyze all samples for the 40 PFAS method analytes listed in Table 4-3. HGL will conduct a
preliminary data review, and the MVS Team will identify contracted, independent, third-party
entities to conduct data validation, as described in Section 4.5 and Attachment 5 of this Plan. The
MVS Team will review the results and determine the spiking levels for PFAS method analytes for
each Study Sample/matrix. The MVS Team will also determine if any adjustments to the samples
are necessary prior to spiking (e.g., dilutions due to potentially elevated native PFAS
concentrations).

The seven wastewater matrices will include effluents from a publicly owned treatment works, a
substitute wastewater as specified in ASTM International Reference D5905-98, Standard Practice
for the Preparation of Substitute Wastewater (Reference 7.6), and wastewaters from specific
industrial discharges. As recommended in the EPA Protocol for Review and Validation of New
Methods for Regulated Organic and Inorganic Analytes in Wastewater Under EPA's Alternate
Test Procedure Program (Reference 7.2), at least one of the wastewater matrix types will have
one of the following characteristics, such that each criterion below is represented by at least one
wastewater sample:

•	Total suspended solids (TSS) greater than 40 milligrams per liter (mg/L),

•	Total dissolved solids (TDS) greater than 100 mg/L,

•	Oil and grease greater than 20 mg/L,

•	Sodium chloride greater than 120 mg/L, and

•	Calcium carbonate greater than 140 mg/L.

In anticipation of future data user needs, ETA-Denver will also analyze the samples for other
physical and chemical characteristics (Table 4-4) as follows:

•	Aqueous Samples (9 Wastewaters, 3 Landfill Leachates, 3 Groundwaters, and 4 Surface
Waters): alkalinity (total, carbonate, and bicarbonate), ammonia, calcium, chloride,
conductivity, oil and grease, pH, sodium, sulfate, TDS, and TSS;

•	Sediment Samples (3) and Soil Samples (8): grain size, moisture, pH, salinity (sediment
only), and total organic carbon;

Final, Revision 1
March 2023

4-3

Contract No.: W912DY-17-D-0004
Delivery Order No.: W912DY19F1365


-------
Study Plan for Multi-Lab Validation ofPFAS LC MS/MS Method

•	Tissue Samples (3): Lipids; and

•	Biosolid Samples (3): pH.

After HGL conducts data verification and an independent, third-party entity conducts data
validation, the MVS Team will review the results to determine if any adjustments (e.g., adding
water to increase moisture content in soil samples, other additions to adjust solids, oil and grease,
sodium chloride or calcium carbonate content) are needed for any of the sample matrices prior to
their spiking with PFAS compounds. If adjustments are needed, ERA may need to conduct
additional follow-on chemical analyses to ensure the characteristics meet specifications stipulated
by the MVS Team prior to spiking with PFAS.

Requirements for sample nomenclature are included in Attachment 2. Additional matrix-specific
sample preparation guidelines and chain of custody forms will be included in the coolers used for
shipping packages from ERA. Participating laboratories will use the nomenclature provided on
sample labels and chain of custody forms and follow the matrix-specific sample preparation
guidelines received from ERA.

4.2.3 Study Sample Development and Handling

The MVS Team and HGL ensured that the required matrices were delivered to ERA to be
homogenized, characterized, spiked, aliquoted into study-specific sizes, and distributed to each
laboratory in accordance with the Study Method (Attachment 1).

While SGS AXYS and ETA-Denver analyze the samples, ERA will procure the necessary stock
solutions for the list of required PFAS analytes from the qualified vendor (Wellington). ERA will
also procure all necessary sample containers and shipping supplies (e.g., coolers, ice, packaging
material).

After the MVS Team determines the spiking levels and if any adjustments are needed (e.g.,
dilutions due to native PFAS concentrations), ERA will create spiking solutions containing the
PFAS compounds including two solutions for the aqueous matrices and two for the solid matrices,
as noted in Table 4-5. ERA will certify the spiking solutions based on weights and measures.

After ERA confirms the certified values for each spiking solutions using LC-MS/MS analysis in
their laboratory, they will create, label, package, and ship the Study Samples specified for each
matrix to all 10 participating laboratories. All samples are to be frozen to -20°C and then shipped
frozen with sufficient blue ice to maintain the samples in a frozen state during transit.

ERA will create at least two replacement samples for each matrix/level, should breakage occur
during shipment or handling by laboratories. Depending on the remaining volume of the matrices
selected for the Study Samples, additional sets may be created. When complete, ERA will provide
a Certificate of Analysis for each Study Sample. Each Certificate will be stored with other
documentation for this study.

HGL staff will work with ERA to schedule and direct the shipments of materials to each
participating laboratory. HGL staff will notify each laboratory of impending shipments, track each
shipment from ERA to the laboratory, and confirm the condition of the materials on receipt by
each laboratory. HGL will work with ERA and participating laboratories to resolve any issues or
discrepancies and will communicate with the MVS Team regularly.

Final, Revision 1
March 2023

4-4

Contract No.: W912DY-17-D-0004
Delivery Order No.: W912DY19F1365


-------
Study Plan for Multi-Lab Validation ofPFAS LC MS/MS Method

4.2.4 Bench-Scale Cooler Temperature Study

ERA will conduct a bench-scale cooler temperature study at their laboratory to assess the ability
of water samples to remain frozen during shipping. This study will consist of freezing bottles of
water identical to the bottles that will be used for the MLV study and then placing them in coolers
filled with ice. The coolers will be packed as they normally would for typical sample shipping
purposes, and they will be the same type as will be used to ship the Study Samples to the
laboratories. The coolers will be chilled before the beginning of this study. The ice that is used for
this study will be the same type as will be used to ship the Study Samples. The use of "blue ice"
is acceptable for the bench-scale cooler temperature and to ship Study Samples for this MLV study.

The temperature of a bottle of water from each of the coolers will be checked using an infrared
temperature gun after 12 hours have transpired. Similar temperature checks will be made using
bottles from additional coolers checked after 24, 36, 48, and 72 hours have elapsed. A separate
frozen bottle of water and cooler with blue ice will be used for each time interval such that the
cooler is not opened before the temperature of the bottle is taken. ERA will photograph the cooler,
ice, packing materials, and bottle when recording temperatures at each time interval. These
photographs will be maintained with other project records.

4.3 PHASE 3 - CALIBRATION AND DEMONSTRATION OF CAPABILITY

Prior to analyzing any of the environmental sample matrices, each laboratory will (1) develop and
submit an SOP that is compliant with the requirements of the Study Method (Attachment 1), (2)
perform a minimum of three initial multi-point calibrations, and (3) conduct an IDC for 'clean'
sample matrices, as described in the sections below.

4.3.1 Initial Calibration

Each laboratory will use the reference standard mixtures provided by Wellington specifically for
the project to create all laboratory standards (initial calibration and calibration verification) and
spiking solutions needed. A list of the method analytes, EIS compounds, and NIS compounds
required is provided in Table 4-3. The laboratory must purchase all other supplies and standards
(e.g., the qualitative branched standards and bile salt interference check standards) required by the
draft Study Method (Attachment 1). The laboratory will perform (or compile) at least three initial
calibrations, including verifications, to demonstrate the applicable range of the procedure in
accordance with requirements in the draft Study Method for initial calibration and initial
calibration verification requirements. Each laboratory will report the calibration linearity metric
that they use (e.g., the relative standard deviation [RSD] of response factors [RFs]) for each
analyte. A data package that includes all elements required for Stage 4 validation per the DVGs
used for this study (Attachment 5) must be submitted for each initial calibration. In addition to the
Stage 4 required documentation, the data packages provided for the initial calibrations and their
verifications must include the following:

•	Documentation of the mass calibration and mass calibration verification;

•	A list of the concentrations of the method analytes, NIS compounds, and EIS compounds
in each calibration standard and calibration verification standard;

Final, Revision 1
March 2023

4-5

Contract No.: W912DY-17-D-0004
Delivery Order No.: W912DY19F1365


-------
Study Plan for Multi-Lab Validation ofPFAS LC MS/MS Method

•	Tabulation of the response ratios (RRs) or RFs for each method analyte and EIS compound
in each of the initial calibration standards in each of the initial calibrations, and the mean
RR or RF and mean RSD across the three initial calibrations for each method analyte and
EIS compound;

•	Tabulation of the ion ratios of applicable method analytes;

•	Data for the calibration linearity metric that is used (e.g., the RSD of RRs and RFs) for
each analyte; and

•	Tabulation of the concentrations (reported and spiked) and recoveries of the method
analytes, NIS compounds, and EIS compounds in each calibration verification and
instrument sensitivity check.

One data package will be submitted for the three initial calibrations. No EDD is required for the
initial calibrations submittal.

4.3.2 Initial Demonstration of Capability (IDC)

Each laboratory will perform an IDC for clean media similar to each of the matrix types in the
study using a suitable spiked reference matrix. Each laboratory is required to prepare spiking
solutions from the reference standard mixtures provided for this project by Wellington. Each
laboratory will spike a set of clean reference matrices for subsequent analysis in accordance with
the Study Method (Attachment 1). The spiked reference matrix is created from a clean matrix (void
of target compounds at or above the MDL/limit of detection). If background contamination cannot
be resolved for any of the method analytes, the MVS Team will be contacted for additional
guidance. For this project, the reference matrices are blank media consisting of PFAS-free reagent
water (aqueous samples), wetted Ottawa sand and/or PFAS-free reagent grade sand (solid
samples), and PFAS-free fish tissue (tissue samples). Each laboratory will provide and spike their
own clean reference matrices.

Each IDC will include an IPR determination, an MDL study, and a LOQ Verification (LOQVER).
A method blank must be prepared with each IDC batch of samples. For data package requirements
for the IDC, see Section 5.1 of this document. The IPR consists of a blank and four replicate
samples of each reference matrix spiked with native PFAS analytes (replicate samples only) and
labeled compounds and carried through the entire analytical process (sample preparation and
analysis). Each laboratory will perform an IPR study for each matrix.

Each laboratory will establish MDLs for all method analytes using the MDL procedure in 40 Code
of Federal Regulations Part 136, Appendix B for each matrix.

Each laboratory will perform LOQVERs in each reference matrix in accordance with the
requirements of the DoD Quality Systems Manual (QSM) for Environmental Laboratories, Version
5. 4 (Reference 7.7). The requirements for LOQVER can be found in the DoD QSM, Module 4,
Section 1.5.2. Each LOQVER will consist of a method blank and a reference matrix sample spiked
with method analytes, EIS compounds, and NIS compounds and will be carried through the entire
analytical process (sample preparation and analysis) in accordance with the Study Method
(Attachment 1). Samples used in the MDL study can overlap with samples used for the LOQVER.
Sample volumes are defined in the Study Method (Attachment 1). Exact spike concentrations will
be determined by each participating laboratory based on the results of the MDL study and

Final, Revision 1
March 2023

4-6

Contract No.: W912DY-17-D-0004
Delivery Order No.: W912DY19F1365


-------
Study Plan for Multi-Lab Validation ofPFAS LC MS/MS Method

acceptable initial calibration range. EIS compounds will be spiked around the midpoint of the
calibration curve.

The LOQ is the smallest concentration that produces a quantitative result with known and recorded
precision and bias. A LOQVER meets all requirements of a lower limit of quantitation (LLOQ),
as defined by EPA SW-846. The LOQVER is spiked between 1-2 times the LOQ and will go
through the same sequence of preparation and analytical steps as used when analyzing a normal
sample. For this study, the following limits will apply to the IPR and LOQVER: 40 to 150 percent
(%) for target analytes, 20 to 150% for EIS compounds, and>30%forNIS compounds. The Project
Chemist should be contacted if these limits are not achieved. The stated criteria for EIS and NIS
compound recoveries also apply to the MDL Study.

For data package requirements for the IDC, see Section 5.1 of this document. One data package
and EDD per sample matrix will be submitted. In addition to the elements required by Section 5.1,
IDC data packages must include the following:

•	IPR: Tabulation of individual sample results for each matrix, and the mean % recovery,
standard deviation, and RSD of the results; and

•	IPR: Tabulation of IPR spiking levels for each matrix.

•	MDL: Tabulation of individual MDL sample results; and

•	MDL: Tabulation of the computed MDL based on method blanks (MDLb), the MDL based
on spiked samples (MDLS), and the final MDL; and

•	LOQVER: Tabulation of individual sample results and spike concentrations for each
matrix, and the % recovery.

One data package and one EDD per matrix (aqueous, solid, and tissue; three EDDs and three data
packages per laboratory) will be submitted for the IDCs after the completion of each matrix.

4.4 PHASE 4 - ANALYSES OF STUDY SAMPLES

The focus of Phase 4 is to evaluate the Study Method (Attachment 1) in various real-world
matrices. Phase 4 will be staged such that wastewater/groundwater/surface water are analyzed first,
followed by soils/sediments, tissues, and lastly, landfill leachate and biosolids. These are described
further, below. One data package and EDD per matrix (groundwater, surface water, soil, sediment,
tissue, landfill leachate, and biosolids) will be submitted. The number of samples for each data
package will require multiple sample delivery groups (or QC batches) for each of these data
packages that require more than 20 samples to be analyzed (i.e., 8 EDDs per laboratory).

4.4.1 Groundwater, Surface Water, and Wastewater

Aqueous sample matrices are to be extracted following the procedures described in Attachment 1.
A total of three groundwater, three surface water, and seven wastewater matrices of different origin
(see Table 4-2 and Attachment 2) will be used to create the first sets of Study Samples to be sent
to the laboratories. For each real-world aqueous matrix, ERA will prepare and send to each
laboratory sets of spiked (six) and unspiked (one) Study Samples required for the MLV Study as
listed in Table 4-5 (13 sets of aqueous Study Samples). Laboratories will follow the instructions

Final, Revision 1
March 2023

4-7

Contract No.: W912DY-17-D-0004
Delivery Order No.: W912DY19F1365


-------
Study Plan for Multi-Lab Validation ofPFAS LC MS/MS Method

provided to them by the ERA. A total of 91 aqueous Study Samples will be prepared and analyzed
by each laboratory in accordance with the draft Study Method (Attachment 1).

Assuming that 10 laboratories successfully complete the study, the study design will yield 490
results for wastewater Study Samples and 210 results each for groundwater and surface water
Study Samples for each method analyte and labeled compound. Even if fewer than 10 laboratories
participate, or if some are unable to produce usable results, the MVS Team will still have a
significant body of performance data with which to judge the method's capabilities.

4.4.2	Soil and Sediment

Soil and sediment sample matrices are to be extracted following the procedures described in
Attachment 1. A total of three soil and three sediment matrices of different origin (see Table 4-2
and Attachment 2) will be used to create the next set of Study Samples sent to the laboratories. For
each real-world solid matrix, ERA will prepare and send to each laboratory sets of spiked (six) and
unspiked (one) Study Samples required for the MLV Study as listed in Table 4-5 (six sets of solid
Study Samples). Laboratories will follow the instructions provided to them by ERA. A total of 42
solid Study Samples will be prepared and analyzed by each laboratory, in accordance with the
draft Study Method (Attachment 1).

Assuming that 10 laboratories successfully complete the study, the study design will yield 210
results for each soil and sediment Study Sample for each method analyte and labeled compound.
Even if fewer than 10 laboratories participate, or if some are unable to produce usable results, the
MVS Team will still have a significant body of performance data with which to judge the method's
capabilities.

4.4.3	Fish Tissue

Tissue sample matrices are to be extracted following the procedures described in Attachment 1. A
total of three tissue sample matrices of different origin (see Table 4-2 and Attachment 2) will be
used to create the next set of Study Samples to be sent to the laboratories. For each real-world
tissue matrix, ERA will prepare and send to each laboratory sets of spiked (six) and unspiked (one)
Study Samples required for the MLV Study as listed in Table 4-5 (three sets of tissue Study
Samples). Laboratories will follow the instructions provided to them by ERA. A total of 21 Study
Samples will be prepared and analyzed by each laboratory, in accordance with the draft Study
Method (Attachment 1).

Assuming that 10 laboratories successfully complete the study, the study design will yield 210
results for each Study Sample for each method analyte and labeled compound. Even if fewer than
10 laboratories participate, or if some are unable to produce usable results, the MVS TeamwiW still
have a significant body of performance data with which to judge the method's capabilities.

4.4.4	Landfill Leachate and Biosolids

A total of three landfill leachate and three biosolid matrices of different origin (see Table 4-2 and
Attachment 2) are to be extracted following the procedures in Attachment 1. For each real-world
matrix, ERA will prepare and send to each laboratory sets of spiked (six) and unspiked (one) Study
Samples required for the MLV Study as listed in Table 4-5 (6 sets of leachate/biosolids Study
Samples). Laboratories will follow the instructions provided to them by ERA. A total of 42 Study

Final, Revision 1
March 2023

4-8

Contract No.: W912DY-17-D-0004
Delivery Order No.: W912DY19F1365


-------
Study Plan for Multi-Lab Validation ofPFAS LC MS/MS Method

Samples will be prepared and analyzed by each laboratory in accordance with the draft Study
Method (Attachment 1).

Assuming that 10 laboratories successfully complete the study, the study design will yield 210
results each for the biosolid and landfill leachate Study Samples for each method analyte and
labeled compound. Even if fewer than 10 laboratories participate, or if some are unable to produce
usable results, the MVS Team will still have a significant body of performance data with which to
judge the method's capabilities.

4.5 PHASE 5 - DATA VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION

Laboratories will submit their SOPs to HGL, who will provide them to the MVS Team. All data
and documents will be posted to the MLV Library SharePoint site (Section 5.2). HGL and Exa
will review each data package/EDD to ensure that the following criteria are met:

a)	Each data package includes all documentation required by the Study Method and this Study
Plan (Section 5.0 specifies documentation required to perform Stage 4 Data Validation per
the study DVGs);

b)	Each EDD includes a single result for each method analyte required by the Study Method
for each sample (batch QC and study samples). Multiple results for EIS and NIS
compounds may be required for instances where sample dilution(s) or reanalysis are
required in order to report a method analyte(s) result for a sample (batch QC and study
samples);

c)	Each EDD contains all samples (batch QC and Study Samples) and all results reported in
the EDD matches all results reported in the data package, and the EDD contains no
additional results for each sample;

d)	Each EDD contains all information required by Attachment 3; and

e)	Each data field in each EDD is completed in accordance with the instructions included in
Attachment 3.

If any issues are identified, HGL will work with the laboratory to clarify the situation, obtain any
missing information, document the resolution, and request corrected data packages and EDDs.
Once all issues are resolved, HGL will transfer the compliant data package and EDD to Exa for
storage, tracking, and additional automated QA/QC (Attachment 4). The data packages and EDDs
will then be provided to a contracted, independent, third-party data validation entity. The MVS
Team will be advised of the status of the review efforts on a regular basis via a Tracking System
(Attachment 4).

Because this is a method validation effort, there are no a priori QC acceptance criteria, and data
from the study will not be excluded from consideration simply because they appear to fail some
pre-conceived performance expectations. Every effort will be made to retain as many results as is
practical. The validation entity will validate the data in accordance with the study DVGs
(Attachment 5), update the EDDs to include the necessary data qualifiers, and submit a validation
report, in the format stated in Attachment 5, to the MVS Team. The study Government QA Manager
and/or study Government Technical Manager will review the report and revised EDDs prior to
submitting EDDs to the MVS Team and IDA for use in the statistical tests in Phase 6 of the study.
The MLV Study Report will include an explanation for any data that is excluded from the statistical

Final, Revision 1
March 2023

4-9

Contract No.: W912DY-17-D-0004
Delivery Order No.: W912DY19F1365


-------
Study Plan for Multi-Lab Validation ofPFAS LC MS/MS Method

analysis, including discussion of potential and likely root causes of non-conformances, and
distinguish the excluded data in the EDD from the acceptable study data.

4.6 PHASE 6 - DEVELOPMENT OF QC ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

The last major phase of the study will be to develop statistically based QC acceptance criteria and
summarize method performance in real-world samples. The overall procedures used for that
process are based on guidance in Protocol for Review and Validation of New Methods for
Regulated Organic and Inorganic Analytes in Wastewater Under EPA 's Alternate Test Procedure
Program (Reference 7.2) and described in Section 6 of this Study Plan. Observed failure rates may
also be pursued if the criteria generated do not resemble the plotted data.

Final, Revision 1
March 2023

4-10

Contract No.: W912DY-17-D-0004
Delivery Order No.: W912DY19F1365


-------
Study Plan for Multi-Lab Validation ofPFAS LC MS/MS Method

5.0	DATA REPORTING AND DATA MANAGEMENT

5.1	LABORATORY REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

Each laboratory participating in the study will be required to (1) provide all required information
electronically, including raw data; (2) submit summary-level electronic data and sufficient
information for Stage 4 data validation to be performed (References 7.7 and 7.9) for the list of
forms and data elements required for Stage 4 data validation; (3) deliver an EDD in the format
summarized in Attachment 3; and (4) maintain raw data for a period of 5 years and provide it upon
request during this 5-year time period. Raw data will include all calibration data; chromatograms;
quantitation reports (including quantitation and qualifier peaks, transition ion ratios, peak areas);
preparation records for reference standard mixtures (including manufacturer's Certificate of
Analysis); bench sheets; and laboratory notebooks showing weights, volumes, manual
calculations, and other data that will allow verification of the calculations performed and the final
results reported to be traced back to the raw data.

Each laboratory also must adhere to the following rules when reporting data:

•	All reports and documentation, including instrument printouts and other raw data, must be
sequentially paginated; clearly labeled with the laboratory name; and labeled to provide
sufficient identification for method blanks, calibration, and interference checks, etc.,
necessary to link the raw data with associated summary reports.

•	Results from all analyses must be reported, including calibration data and any dilutions or
reanalyses performed. The laboratory also must include an explanation of any dilutions or
reanalyses performed and identify which of the analyses it considers to be most appropriate
for use.

•	Concentrations of all qualitatively identifiable peaks must be reported to three significant
figures in the appropriate reporting units of parts per trillion or nanograms per liter for
aqueous samples and parts per billion or micrograms per kilogram for solid and tissue
samples.

•	The terms "zero," "trace," or "ND" are not to be used; if a signal is not detected or if the
signal produces a concentration < MDL, the value is the MDL and a corresponding "U"
flag must be applied to this value.

•	If a signal is produced, and the value is above the MDL, it must be reported. If the value is
>MDL and 
-------
Study Plan for Multi-Lab Validation ofPFAS LC MS/MS Method

All data packages, EDDs, and results will be submitted to HGL and Exa for initial review through
the process outlined in Attachment 4. Exa will provide secure access for each laboratory to upload
files to the MLV Library SharePoint site hosted both on ^Microsoft Government Community
Cloud (GCC) High and DoD environments to meet the unique and evolving requirements of DoD
and contractors holding or processing DoD-controlled unclassified information. Access will be
strictly controlled to ensure the protection of procurement-sensitive and proprietary data.

5.2 DATA MANAGEMENT AND REPORTING

Exa and HGL will store all submitted electronic data on the MLV Library SharePoint site as
described in Attachment 4. The content of the MLV Library will be organized into specific folders
that allow different permissions for different users to ensure protection of sensitive and proprietary
information. The Library will accommodate storage of the following documents and records:

•	This Study Plan (including all draft versions, comments, and revisions);

•	Documentation of the procedures used to assess the competency of laboratories
participating in this study;

•	Documents and records associated with the solicitation and award of participant
laboratories, including the SOWs or equivalent that describe participant laboratory
requirements;

•	Documents and records associated with the procurement of reference standard mixtures
and study samples, including SOWs or equivalent that describe the process used to collect
and produce study samples;

•	The name, address, phone number, and primary contact at the standards vendor and each
participating laboratory;

•	Copies of all written correspondence (excluding emails) with laboratory staff, sampling
personnel, and MVS Team staff regarding the study;

•	A log (or other record) that documents verbal communication with laboratory staff, sample
coordinators, sampling personnel, and MVS Team staff regarding study status or problems;

•	Records concerning sample shipment and receipt;

•	All analytical data resulting from this study, including a database of compiled, validated
EDDs;

•	All laboratory comments on the method resulting from this study;

•	Records of all data review assessments, data validation reports, and statistical analyses
submitted to the MVS Team; and

•	All draft and final reports submitted to the MVS Team pertaining to this study.

HGL and the MVS Team will develop a schedule for routine communications during the course of
the study, based on the specific activities underway at the time. For example, HGL will
communicate with the MVS Team Project Manager more frequently (e.g., daily) during those
periods when samples are being shipped to the laboratories, versus less frequently during the
periods when sample analyses are taking place.

Final, Revision 1
March 2023

5-2

Contract No.: W912DY-17-D-0004
Delivery Order No.: W912DY19F1365


-------
Study Plan for Multi-Lab Validation ofPFAS LC MS/MS Method

Delivery of all data submittals to the MLV Library will be tracked apprise the MVS Team of project
status. Exa will be responsible for summarizing information from the Tracking System and
providing regular updates to the MVS Team.

Each laboratory will provide an EDD in the format specified in Attachment 3 as part of the
submittal to the Government and IDA for the purpose of conducting planned statistical analyses.
Following verification of these data, the EDDs will be posted to the Library folder set up
specifically to provide access to the validation entity to upload data validation reports. Laboratory
EDDs with embedded validation comments and updated qualifiers will be imported into the project
database.

Following validation and review by the MVS Team, the validated data will be provided from the
project database to IDA to conduct analyses and upload statistical reports. After the MVS Team
has reviewed these reports, approval documents will also be stored in the MLV Study Library.

Details of the data management process are found in Attachment 4.

Final, Revision 1
March 2023

5-3

Contract No.: W912DY-17-D-0004
Delivery Order No.: W912DY19F1365


-------
Study Plan for Multi-Lab Validation ofPFAS LC MS/MS Method

6.0 EVALUATION OF METHOD PERFORMANCE

The overall goal of this MLV study is to develop performance data for Method 1633. The results
from Phases 3 and 4 will be evaluated using common statistical procedures (References 7.2, 7.10,
7.11,7.12). The MVS Team and IDA will use the results from the samples to develop QC criteria
for IPR tests, ongoing precision and recovery tests, labeled compound recoveries, etc. A general
description of the derivation of those QC acceptance criteria is based on EPA's method evaluation
protocol (Reference 7.2).

Finally, the MVS Team and IDA will develop tables of method performance data, including
precision and accuracy, as a function of analyte concentration that will provide an indication of
expected performance of the procedures under typical conditions. Such tables may be included in
the revised procedure as further evidence of its overall capabilities or limitations.

Following completion of the method performance evaluation, IDA and the MVS TeamwiW prepare
a formal report on the results of the MLV study. The MVS Team will submit that draft report to
appropriate levels of management review within stakeholder agencies and then revise the report,
as needed.

Final, Revision 1
March 2023

6-1

Contract No.: W912DY-17-D-0004
Delivery Order No.: W912DY19F1365


-------
Study Plan for Multi-Lab Validation of PFAS LC MS/MS Method

7.0	REFERENCES

7.1	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2022. 3rd Draft Method 1633, Analysis of
Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Aqueous, Solid, Biosolids, and Tissue Samples by
LC-MS/MS. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Science and
Technology, Engineering and Analysis Division, Washington, DC 20460. EPA 821-D-21-001.
December. Available online at https://www.epa.gov/cwa-methods/cwa-analvtical-methods-and-
polyfluorinated-alkvl-substances-pfas.

7.2	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2018. Protocol for Review and Validation
of New Methods for Regulated Organic and Inorganic Analytes in Wastewater Under EPA's
Alternate Test Procedure Program. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water,
Engineering and Analysis Division. EPA 821-B-18-001. February. Available online at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-03/documents/chemical-new-method-protocol_feb-
2018.pdf.

7.3	MVS Team, 2022. Method 1633 -Analysis of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)
in Aqueous, Solid, Biosolids, and Tissue Samples by LC-MS/MS. This version includes Multi-
Laboratory Validation Study-specific requirements and guidance dated October 21, 2021, and the
MLV Study Method Update dated February 11, 2022.

7.4	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2002. Guidance for Developing Quality
Systems for Environmental Programs (QA/G-1). EPA/240/R-02/008. November (reissued January
2008).

7.5	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1979. Handbook for Analytical Quality
Control in Water and Wastewater Laboratories. Environmental Monitoring and Support
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268. EPA-600/4-79-019.

7.6	ASTM International, 2018. Method D5905-98 (Reapproved 2018). Standard Practice for
the Preparation of Substitute Wastewater. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
http://www.astm.org.

7.7	U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), 2021. Department of Defense (DoD) and Department
of Energy (DOE) Consolidated Quality Systems Manual (QSM) for Environmental Laboratories.
Based on ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), ISO/IEC 17025:2017(E), and the NELAC Institute (TNI)
Standards, Volume 1, (September 2009). DoD Quality Systems Manual Version 5.4. October.
https://www.denix.osd.mil/edqw/home/.

7.8	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2018. Data Review and Validation
Guidelines for Perfluoroalky I Substances (PFASs) Analyzed Using EPA Method 537. EPA 910-R-
18-001. November.

7.9	U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). 2019. United States Department of Defense, General
Data Validation Guidelines. Environmental Data Quality Workgroup. November.

7.10	SAS Institute, Inc., 1994. SAS/STAT User's Guide, Volume 2, GLM-VARCOMP.
Version 6, 4th Edition, June.

7.11	Berry, D. A.; Lindgren, B. W. 1990. Statistics: Theory and Methods. pp. 286-290, 600-
618. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. Pacific Grove, California.

Final, Revision 1
March 2023

7-1

Contract No.: W912DY-17-D-0004
Delivery Order No.: W912DY19F1365


-------
Study Plan for Multi-Lab Validation ofPFAS LC MS/MS Method

7.12 Federal Register. Clean Water Act Methods Update Rule for the Analysis of Effluent. Vol. 82,
No. 165. August 28, 2017. pp. 40939 -40941.

Final, Revision 1
March 2023

7-2

Contract No.: W912DY-17-D-0004
Delivery Order No.: W912DY19F1365


-------
Tables


-------
Table 3-1. MVS Team

Name

Ajii'iio /
Oriiiini/alion

Project
Kos|)oiisihili(\

cm nil

1

Phono Nilmher

Dr. Andrea Leeson

SERDP/ESTCP

Study Supervisor

andrea.leeson.civ@mail.mil

(571) 372-6398

Dr. Melinda McClellan

USACE

Principal Investigator

melinda. s. mcclellan@usace. armv. mil

(850) 567-1660

Timothy Thompson

SEE LLC

Co-Principal
Investigator

tthomBson@seellc.com

(206)418-6173

Janice Willey

U.S. Navy
(NAVSEA)

Quality Assurance
Manager

ianice.l.willev.civ@us.naw.mil

(843) 737-1574

Dr. Marc Mills

EPA (ORD)

Technical Manager

mills.marcVvcDa. sov

(513) 595-7322

Dr. Richard Anderson

U.S. Air Force
(AFCEC)

Study Evaluation
Manager

richard. anderson. 5 5 @us. af. mil

(210) 395-0625

Adrian Hanley

EPA (OW)

Liaison Office of
Water

hanlev.adrian@era. sov

(202) 564-1564

Troy Strock

EPA (OLEM)

Liaison Office of
Land and Emergency
Management

strock. trov@era. sov

(703) 308-8637 /
(202) 566-0504

Dr. Allyson Buytendyk

IDA

Statistical Analyses

abuvtend@ida. ors

(703) 845-6806

Joe Skibinski

HGL

Contractor Project
Manager

i skibinski@hsl.com

(703) 326-7803

Dr. Denise Rivers

HGL

Contractor Project
Chemist

drivers@hsl.com

(910) 233-8460

Dawn Smorong

Exa

Project Manager and
Data Manager

dawn@exadata. net

(250)713-8601

Peggy Myre

Exa

Data Quality Officer

oessv.mvre@exadata.net

(360) 774-0380

Michael Tweiten

Exa

Data Library Manager

michael@exadata.net

(206) 319-3686

Mingta Lin

Pyron
Environmental

Data Validator

mingta_lin@comcast.net

(360) 556-5952

Maggie Radford

Jacobs
Engineering
Group

Data Validator

massie.radford@iacobs.com

(919) 749-9479

Jeremy Bishop

Jacobs
Engineering
Group

Data Validator

linisa.Bishoo@iacobs.com

(541)768-3299

Kathi Gumpper

Chem Val
Consulting

Data Validator

ksumroer@chemval.com

(801) 541-6983

John Gumpper

Chem Val
Consulting

Data Validator

i sumroer@chemval. com

(801) 554-9362

Notes:

AFCEC = Air Force Civil Engineer Center

EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ESTCP = Environmental Security Technology Certification Program

Exa = Exa Data & Mapping Services Inc.

HGL = HydroGeoLogic, Inc.

IDA = Institute for Defense Analyses

NAVSEA = Naval Sea Systems Command

OLEM = Office of Land and Emergency Management

ORD = Office of Research and Development

OW = Office of Water

SERDP = Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program
USACE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Page 1 of 1


-------
Table 3-2. List of Suppliers and Participating Laboratories

Liihonilorv/Siipplior

Role sind Accreditation Deliiils

Alpha Analytical, Inc.
Mansfield, New Jersey

MLY Slud\ Pariicipaiil Laboralon (accrediled b\ ANAL! lor aqueous
and solid matrices for PFAS by LC MS/MS compliant with Table B-
15 of QSM 5.1 or latest version under DoD ELAP until 05/30/2023)

Battelle Memorial Institute
Norwell, Massachusetts

MLV Study Participant Lab (accredited by PJLA for aqueous, solid,
and tissue matrices for PFAS by LC MS/MS compliant with Table B-
15 of QSM 5.1 or latest version under DoD ELAP until 03/31/2023)

California Department of Toxic
Substances Control
Pasadena, California

MLV Study Participant Laboratory (accredited by A2LA under
ISO/IEC 17025:2017; began collecting data for PFAS method
validation/verification and plan to add PFAS to accreditation scope in
near future; valid until October 31, 2023)

ERA, A Waters Company
Golden, Colorado

Study Sample Preparation (accredited by a PTPA under the NEPTP;
ISO/IEC 17043:2010 - General requirements for proficiency testing;
ISO/IEC 17034:2016 - General requirements for competence of
reference material producers; ISO/IEC 17025:2017 - General
requirements for the competence of testing and calibration
laboratories; and ISO 9001:2015 - Quality management systems-
requirements)

Eurofins Lancaster Laboratories
Environmental, LLC
Lancaster, Pennsylvania

MLV Study Participant Laboratory (accredited by A2LA for aqueous
and solid matrices for PFAS by LC MS/MS compliant with Table B-
15 of QSM 5.1 or latest version under DoD ELAP until 11/30/2024)

Eurofins-TestAmerica, Sacramento
West Sacramento, California

MLV Study Participant Laboratory (accredited by ANAB for
aqueous, solid, and tissue matrices for PFAS by LC MS/MS
compliant with Table B-15 of QSM 5.1 or latest version under DoD
ELAP until 01/20/2024)

GEL Laboratories, Inc.
Charleston, South Carolina

MLV Study Participant Laboratory (accredited by A2LA for AFFF,
aqueous, solid, and tissue matrices for PFAS by LC MS/MS
compliant with Table B-15 of QSM 5.1 or latest version under DoD
ELAP until 06/30/2023)

Gulf Coast Analytical Laboratories,
LLC dba Pace Analytical
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

MLV Study Participant Laboratory (accredited by PJLA for AFFF,
aqueous, and solid matrices for PFAS by LC MS/MS compliant with
Table B-15 of QSM 5.1 or latest version under DoD ELAP until
01/31/2023)

Maryland Department of Health
Baltimore, Maryland

MLV Study Participant Laboratory (accredited by A2LA under
ISO/IEC 17025:2017 for Determination of PFAS in Aqueous, Solid,
Biosolids, and Tissues Samples by Aqueous, Solid, Biosolids, and
Tissues [Draft EPA Method 16331 until 05/31/2024)

SGS North America, Inc.
Orlando, Florida

MLV Study Participant Laboratory (accredited by ANAB for aqueous
and solid matrices for PFAS by LC MS/MS compliant with Table B-
15 of QSM 5.1 or latest version under DoD ELAP until 12/15/2024)

SGS AXYS Analytical Services, Ltd.
Sydney, British Columbia, Canada

Background PFAS Analysis Laboratory (accredited by ANAB for
AFFF. Aqueous, solid, and tissue matrices for PFAS by LC MS/MS
compliant with Table B-15 of QSM 5.1 or latest version under DoD
ELAP until 04/23/2024)

TestAmerica, Denver
Arvada, Colorado

Chemical Characterization Analyses Laboratory (accredited by A2LA
for aqueous and solid matrices for various general, inorganic, and
organic chemistry analyses until 10/31/2023)

Vista Analytical Laboratory
El Dorado Hills, California

MLV Study Participant Laboratory (accredited by A2LA for aqueous,
solid, and tissue matrices for PFAS by LC MS/MS compliant with
Table B-15 of QSM 5.1 or latest version under DoD ELAP until
09/30/2023)

Page 1 of 2


-------
Table 3-2. List of Suppliers and Participating Laboratories (Continued)

l.iibonilon/Supplier

Uolo ;iihI Accrediliilion Dcliiils

Wellington Laboratories, LLC
Overland Park, Kansas

Pl'AS Reference Standard \li\lilies Supplier (accredited b\ AN ALJ as

Reference Material Producer in accordance with ISO 17034:2016
until 02/17/2023)

Notes:

A2LA = American Association of Laboratory Accreditation
AFFF = Aqueous Film-Forming Foam

ANAB = ANSI [American National Standards Institute] National Accreditation Board

DoD ELAP = U.S. Department of Defense Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program

EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

IEC = International Electrotechnical Commission

ISO = International Organization for Standardization

LC MS/MS = liquid chromatography mass spectrometry/mass spectrometry

MLV = Multiple Laboratory Validation

NEPTP = National Environmental Proficiency Testing Program

PFAS = per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances

PJLA = Perry Johnson Laboratory Accreditation, Inc.

PTPA = Proficiency Testing Provider Accreditors

QSM = Quality Systems Manual

Page 2 of 2


-------
Table 4-1. Reference Standard Mixtures







Proposed





Ansilvte

Acronym

C'ASRN

Mixture

Concent nition

Ampoule Si/e

Method Analytes

Perfluorobutanoic acid

PFBA

375-22-4



4 ug/mL



Perfluoropentanoic acid

PFPeA

2706-90-3



2 ug/mL



Perfluorohexanoic acid

PFHxA

307-24-4



1 ug/mL



Perfluoroheptanoic acid

PFHpA

375-85-9



1 ug/mL



Perfluorooctanoic acid

PFOA

335-67-1



1 ug/mL



Perfluorononanoic acid

PFNA

375-95-1



1 ug/mL



Perfluorodecanoic acid

PFDA

335-76-2



1 ug/mL



Perfluoroundecanoic acid

PFUnA

2058-94-8



1 ug/mL



Perfluorododecanoic acid

PFDoA

307-55-1



1 ug/mL



Perfluorotridecanoic acid

PFTrDA

72629-94-8



1 ug/mL



Perfluorotetradecanoic acid

PFTeDA

376-06-7



1 ug/mL



Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid* (K salt)

PFBS

375-73-5



1 ug/mL



Perfluoropentansulfonic acid* (K salt)

PFPeS

2706-91-4

Custom Mixture

1 ug/mL

3 mL

Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid1* (K salt)

PFHxS

355-46-4



1 ug/mL



Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid* (K salt)

PFHpS

375-92-8



1 ug/mL



Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid1* (K salt)

PFOS

1763-23-1



1 ug/mL



Perfluorononanesulfonic acid* (K salt)

PFNS

68259-12-1



1 ug/mL



Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid* (K salt)

PFDS

335-77-3



1 ug/mL



Perfluorododecanesulfonic acid* (K salt)

PFDoS

120226-60-0



1 ug/mL



MI. \I I. 211. 2/f-Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid * (K salt)

4:2FTS

757124-72-4



4 ug/mL



\II. \II. 211. 2//-Pcrfluorooctanc sulfonic acid * (K salt)

6:2FTS

27619-97-2



4 ug/mL



\II. \II. 211. 2//- Pc rfl norodccanc sulfonic acid * (K salt)

8:2FTS

39108-34-4



4 ug/mL



N-methyl perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid1

NMeFOSAA

2355-31-9



1 ug/mL



N-ethyl perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid1

NEtFOSAA

2991-50-6



1 ug/mL



Perfluorooctanesulfonamide

PFOSA

754-91-6



1 ug/mL



N-methyl perfluorooctanesulfonamide

NMeFOSA

31506-32-8



1 ug/mL



N-ethyl perfluorooctanesulfonamide

NEtFOSA

4151-50-2

Custom Mixture

1 ug/mL

3 mL

N-methyl perfluorooctanesulfonamidoethanol

MeFOSE

24448-09-7

10 ug/mL

N-ethyl perfluorooctanesulfonamidoethanol

NEtFOSE

1691-99-2



10 ug/mL



3-Perfluoropropyl propanoic acid

3:3 FTCA

356-02-5



4 ug/mL



2 / /. 2 / /. 3 / /. 3 / /- Pc rfl uo ro o c t a no i c acid

5:3 FTCA

914637-49-3

Custom Mixture

20 ug/mL

3 mL

3-Perfluoroheptyl propanoic acid

7:3 FTCA

812-70-4



20 ug/mL



Page 1 of 3


-------
Table 4-1. Reference Standard Mixtures (Continued)

Aiuilvle

Acronym

C'ASRN

Proposed
Mixture

Concent riilion

Ampoule Si/e

Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid

HFPO-DA

13252-13-6

Existing Mixture
(PFAC-MXF)

2 ug/mL

3 mL

4.8 - D i o x a - 3 / /- pc rfl uo ro no na no i c acid* (K salt)

ADONA

919005-14-4

2 iig/niL

9-Chlorohexadecafluoro-3-oxanonane-l-sulfonic acid* (K salt)

9C1-PF30NS

756426-58-1

2 ng/niL

ll-Chloroeicosafluoro-3-oxaundecane-l-sulfonic acid* (K salt)

llCl-PF30udS

763051-92-9

2 ng/niL

Perfluoro-3-methoxypropanoic acid

PFMPA

377-73-1

Existing Mixture
(PFAC-MXG)

2 ng/niL

3 mL

Perfluoro-4-methoxybutanoic acid

PFMBA

863090-89-5

2 ng/niL

Nonafluoro-3,6-dioxaheptanoic acid

NFDHA

151772-58-6

2 ng/niL

Perfluoro(2-ethoxyethane)sulfonic acid* (K salt)

PFEESA

113507-82-7

2 ng/niL

EIS Compounds

Pc rfl uo ro - n -113 C i | b u t a no i c acid

13c4-pfba



Custom Mixture

2000 ng/mL

1.2 mL

Pcrfluoro-n-l13Cs Ipcntanoic acid

13C5-PFPeA



1000 ng/mL

Pcrfluoro-n-l 1.2.3.4.6-l3C\|lic\anoic acid

13C5-PFHxA



500 ng/mL

Pc rfl no ro-ii-11.2. 3.4-13Ci | licpta no ic acid

13C4-PFHpA



500 ng/mL

Pc rfl no ro - n-113 Cx | oc ta no i c acid

13c8-pfoa



500 ng/mL

Pcrfluoro-n-l13Cy|nonanoic acid

13c9-pfna



250 ng/mL

Pc rfl no ro - n-11.2. 3.4.5.6 -13 0,1 dcca no i c acid

13c6-pfda



250 ng/mL

Perfluoro-n-[l,2,3,4,5,6,7-13C7lundecanoic acid

13C7-PFUnA



250 ng/mL

Perfluoro-n-11.2-l3C21 dodecanoic acid

13C2-PFDoA



250 ng/mL

Pcrfluoro-n-l 1.2-l3C'2|tctradccanoic acid

13C2-PFTeDA



250 ng/mL

Perfluoro-l-r2,3,4-13C3lbutanesulfonic acid* (Na salt)

13c3-pfbs



500 ng/mL

Perfluoro-l-ri,2,3-13C3lhexanesulfonic acid* (Na salt)

13C3-PFHxS



500 ng/mL

Perfluoro-l-pCsloctanesulfonic acid* (Na salt)

13c8-pfos



500 ng/mL

III. 1 //.2//.2//-Pcrfluoro-1 -| 1.2-l3C'2|lic\aiic sulfonic acid* (Na salt)

13C2-4:2 FTS



1000 ng/mL

Iff. 1 //.2//.2//-Pcrfluoro-1 -| 1.2-' 3C2|octancsulfonic acid* (Na salt)

13C2-6:2 FTS



1000 ng/mL

III. 1 //.2//.2//-Pcrfluoro-1 -| 1.2-' 3C2|dccancsulfonic acid* (Na salt)

13C2-8:2 FTS



1000 ng/mL

Perfluoro-1 -r13Csl octanesulfonamide

13c8-pfosa



500 ng/mL

N-methyl-d3-perfluoro-1 -octanesulfonamide

d3-N-MeFOSA



500 ng/mL

N-ethyl-d5-perfluoro-1 -octanesulfonamide

ds-N-EtFOSA



500 ng/mL

N-methyl-d3-perfluoro-1 -octanesulfonamidoacetic acid

d3-N-MeFOSAA



1000 ng/mL

N-ethyl-d5-perfluoro-1 -octanesulfonamidoacetic acid

ds-N-EtFOSAA



1000 ng/mL

N-methyl-d7-perfluorooctanesulfonamidoethanol

d-N-McFOSE



5000 ng/mL

N-ethyl-ds-perfluorooctanesulfonamidoethanol

ds-N-EtFOSE



5000 ng/mL

Tetrafluoro-2-heptafluoropropoxy-13C3-propanoic acid

13c3-hfpo-da



2000 ng/mL

Page 2 of 3


-------
Table 4-1. Reference Standard Mixtures (Continued)

Aiuilvle

Acronym

CASRN

Proposed
Mixture

Concent rsition

Ampoule Si/e

NIS Compounds

Pc rfl uo ro - n -12.3.4 -13 Cs, | b u t a no i c acid

13c3-pfba



Custom Mixture

1000 ng/mL

1.2 mL

Pc rfl uo ro-n-11.2 -13C211 ic \ano ic acid

13C2-PFHxA



500 ng/mL

Perfluoro-l-hexaner1802lsulfonic acid* (Na salt)

1802-PFHxS



500 ng/mL

Pcifluoro-n-l 1.2.3.4-l3C' i|octanoic acid

13c4-pfoa



500 ng/mL

Pcrnuoro-n-| 1.2.3.4.5-'3Cs| nonanoic acid

13c5-pfna



250 ng/mL

Perfluoro-n-11.2-l3C21 decanoic acid

13c2-pfda



250 ng/mL

Perfluoro-n-[l,2,3,4-13C4]octanesulfonic acid* (Na salt)

13c4-pfos



500 ng/mL

Notes:

¦"Concentration of the salt is listed

'Includes branched and linear isomers

CASRN = Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number

EIS = extracted internal standard

(ig/mL = micrograms per milliliter

mL = milliliters

ng/mL = nanograms per milliliter
NIS = non-extracted internal standard

Page 3 of 3


-------
Table 4-2. Summary of Sample Matrices Included in the Study

I'mji'ii I'hiiso

Medium

Chiiriiclcrislics

Number of
Siimpk-
M .ilricrs

Siimpli' Miilrix1

Phase 3

Purified or
Reagent Water

Aqueous medium, no detectable PFAS
contamination

192

Provided by each
laboratory

Wetted Ottawa
Sand

Solid medium, no detectable PFAS
contamination

192

Clean Tissue

Tissue medium, no detectable PFAS
contamination

192

Phase 4

Groundwater

No special characteristics, collected
from field sites with PFAS in
groundwater

3

Matrices collected from
multiple sources, with

homogenization,
spiking, and aliquoting
performed by Study
Sample vendor.

Surface Water

River, reservoir, and marine (salt)
water, not further characterized

3

Wastewater

One or more of the following:
TSS > 40 mg/L,

TDS >100 mg/L,

Oil and grease > 20 mg/L,
CaC03 >140 mg/L

7

Landfill Leachate

Municipal solid waste and construction
debris landfill leachate

3

Sediment

Marine, freshwater low TOC,
freshwater high TOC

3

Biosolids

Municipal biosolids

3

Soil

NAPT soils

3

Fish/Shellfish
Tissue

Low lipid and high lipid samples

3

Notes:

'Detailed sample matrix descriptions provided in Attachment 2.

includes 14 sample matrices for the Method Detection Limit Study, 1 sample matrix for the limit of quantitation verification, and 4
sample matrices for the on-going precision and recovery.

CaCC>3 = calcium carbonate
mg/L = milligram per liter

NAPT = North American Proficiency Testing Program

PFAS = per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances

TDS = total dissolved solids

TOC = total organic carbon

TSS = total suspended solids

Page 1 of 1


-------
Table 4-3. Names, Abbreviations, and CAS Registry Numbers for Target PFAS,
Extracted Internal Standards, and Non-extracted Internal Standards1

Tiirgel Aiiiilvlc \:imo

Ahhrc\ iiilion

CAS Niimhcr

Pcrllii<>m;ilk\ 1 cnrbow lie iicids

Perfluorobutanoic acid

PFBA

375-22-4

Perfluoropentanoic acid

PFPeA

2706-90-3

Perfluorohexanoic acid

PFHxA

307-24-4

Perfluoroheptanoic acid

PFHpA

375-85-9

Perfluorooctanoic acid

PFOA

335-67-1

Perfluorononanoic acid

PFNA

375-95-1

Perfluorodecanoic acid

PFDA

335-76-2

Perfluoroundecanoic acid

PFUnA

2058-94-8

Perfluorododecanoic acid

PFDoA

307-55-1

Perfluorotridecanoic acid

PFTrDA

72629-94-8

Perfluorotetradecanoic acid

PFTeDA

376-06-7

Pcrlliiomiilk\ 1 sulfonic iicids

Acid Form

Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

PFBS

375-73-5

Perfluoropentansulfonic acid

PFPeS

2706-91-4

Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFHxS

355-46-4

Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid

PFHpS

375-92-8

Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

PFOS

1763-23-1

Perfluorononanesulfonic acid

PFNS

68259-12-1

Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid

PFDS

335-77-3

Perfluorododecanesulfonic acid

PFDoS

79780-39-5

l-'liiomlclumcr sulfonic ileitis

MI. \I I. 211. 2/f-Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid

4:2FTS

757124-72-4

MI. MI. 211. 2 //- Pc rfl uo rooc ta nc sulfonic acid

6:2FTS

27619-97-2

MI. MI. 211. 2 //- Pc rfl uo rodcca nc sulfonic acid

8:2FTS

39108-34-4

Pcrfliioroocliinc nii 11'(m;iinides

Perfluorooctanesulfonamide

PFOSA

754-91-6

N-methyl perfluorooctanesulfonamide

NMeFOSA

31506-32-8

N-ethyl perfluorooctanesulfonamide

NEtFOSA

4151-50-2

Pcrfliioroocliinc sulfoiiiimidoiicclic iicids

N-methyl perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid

NMeFOSAA

2355-31-9

N-ethyl perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid

NEtFOSAA

2991-50-6

PorlliioroocliiiK* siiMdiiniiiido olhiinols

\-niclli> 1 |VTnik>i\.H>cl;iiiesiilfoii;inikk>elli;iik>l

\\lel'( >si:

:444X-u<>--

\-clh> 1 pci°riiKsi:



Per- iind Pol\riiiorocihcr Ciirhow lie iicids

Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid

HFPO-DA

13252-13-6

4.8 - D i o \ a - 3 / /- pc rfl no ro no na no i c acid

ADONA

919005-14-4

Perfluoro-3-methoxypropanoic acid

PFMPA

377-73-1

Perfluoro-4-methoxybutanoic acid

PFMBA

863090-89-5

Nonafluoro-3,6-dioxaheptanoic acid

NFDHA

151772-58-6

Page 1 of 3


-------
Table 4-3. Names, Abbreviations, and CAS Registry Numbers for Target PFAS,
Extracted Internal Standards, and Non-extracted Internal Standards1 (Continued)

Tiirgel Aiiiilvlc \:imo

Ahhro\ iiition

CAS Nunihor

r.llicr sulfonic ;icids





9-Cldorolie\adecalluoro-3-oxuiioiuuic-1 -sulfonic acid

yci-Pt'3u\s

~5o42o-5S-l

1 l-Chloroeicosafluoro-3-oxaundecane-l-sulfonic acid

llCl-PF30udS

763051-92-9

Perfluoro(2-ethoxyethane)sulfonic acid

PFEESA

113507-82-7

l-'liiorniclnim-r cnrbow lie ;icids

3-Perfluoropropyl propanoic acid

3:3FTCA

356-02-5

2 / /. 2 / /. 3 / /. 3 / /- Pe rfl uo ro o c t a no i c acid

5:3FTCA

914637-49-3

3-Perfluoroheptyl propanoic acid

7:3FTCA

812-70-4

HIS ( (impounds

Perfluoro-n-[13C4]butanoic acid

13c4-pfba



Perfluoro-n-[13C5]pentanoic acid

13C5-PFPeA



Perfluoro-n-[l,2,3,4,6-13C5]hexanoic acid

13C5-PFHxA



Perfluoro-n-[l,2,3,4-13C4]heptanoic acid

13C4-PFHpA



Perfluoro-n-[13C8]octanoic acid

13c8-pfoa



Perfluoro-n-[13C9]nonanoic acid

13c9-pfna



Perfluoro-n-[l,2,3,4,5,6-13C6]decanoic acid

13c6-pfda



Perfluoro-n-[l,2,3,4,5,6,7-13C7]undecanoic acid

13C7-PFUnA



Perfluoro-n- [ 1,2 -13C2] dodecanoic acid

13C2-PFDoA



Perfluoro-n- [1,2 -13C2]tetradecanoic acid

13C2-PFTeDA



Perfluoro-l-[2,3,4-13C3]butanesulfonic acid

13c3-pfbs



Perfluoro-l-[l,2,3-13C3]hexanesulfonic acid

13C3-PFHxS

NA

Perfluoro-l-[13C8]octanesulfonic acid

13c8-pfos

Perfluoro-1 -|l3Cx| octanesulfonamide

13c8-pfosa



N-methyl-d3-perfluoro-1 -octanesulfonamidoacetic acid

D3-NMeFOSAA



N-ethyl-d5-perfluoro-1 -octanesulfonamidoacetic acid

Ds-NEtFOSAA



Ml. 1 //.2//.2//-Pcrfluoro-1 -| 1.2-l3C'2|lic\anc sulfonic acid

13C2-4:2FTS



1H, 1 //.2//.2//-Pcrfluoro-1 -| 1.2-l3C2|octancsulfonic acid

13C2-6:2FTS



1H, 1 //.2//.2//-Pcrfluoro-1 -| 1.2-' 3C2|dccancsulfonic acid

13C2-8:2FTS



Tetrafluoro-2-heptafluoropropoxy-13C3-propanoic acid

13c3-hfpo-da



N-methyl-d7-perfluorooctanesulfonamidoethanol

Dv-NMeFOSE



N-ethyl-ds-perfluorooctanesulfonamidoethanol

D9-NEtFOSE



N-ethyl-d5-perfluoro-1 -octanesulfonamide

Ds-NEtFOSA



N-methyl-d3-perfluoro-1 -octanesulfonamide

D3-NMeFOSA



MS ( onipoulids

Perfluoro-n-[2,3,4-13C3]butanoic acid

13c3-pfba



Perfluoro-n-[l,2,3,4-13C4]octanoic acid

13c4-pfoa



Perfluoro-n-[ 1,2-13C2]decanoic acid

13c2-pfda



Perfluoro-n-[l,2,3,4-13C4]octanesulfonic acid

13c4-pfos

NA

Perfluoro-n-[l,2,3,4,5-13C5] nonanoic acid

13c5-pfna



Perfluoro-n-[l,2-13C2]hexanoic acid

13C2-PFHxA



Perfluoro-1 -hc\anc| lxC>2|sulfonic acid

1802-PFHxS



Page 2 of 3


-------
Table 4-3. Names, Abbreviations, and CAS Registry Numbers for Target PFAS,
Extracted Internal Standards, and Non-extracted Internal Standards1 (Continued)

Notes:

NIS and EIS compounds do not have CASRN.

'The target analyte names are for the acid and neutral forms of the analytes. See Table 8 in the Draft Method 1633, Analysis of PFAS
in Aqueous, Solid, Biosolids, and Tissue Samples by LC-MS/MS (Reference 7.1) for the names and CASRN of the corresponding
anion forms, where applicable.

CAS = Chemical Abstracts Service
CASRN = Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number
EIS = Extracted Internal Standard

LC-MS/MS = liquid chromatography mass spectrometry/mass spectrometry
NIS =Non-extracted Internal Standard
PFAS = Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances

Page 3 of 3


-------
Table 4-4. Sample Analysis Method Summary, Sample Containers, Preservation, and Hold Times

Analyte

Analytical
Method

Container

Preservation

Minimum Sample
Volume/Mass

Holding
Time

Aqueous Samples

Alkalinity (total, carbonate, and bicarbonate)

SM 2320B

250 mL Plastic

< 6°C

100 mL

14 days

Ammonia

EPA 350.1

250 mL Amber Glass

< 6°C, H2SO4

250 mL

28 days

Calcium, sodium

SW 6010C

250 mL Plastic

< 6°C, HNO3

50 mL

6 months

Chloride, sulfate

SW 9056A

250 mL Plastic

< 6°C

100 mL

28 days

Conductivity

SW 9050A

250 mL Plastic

< 6°C

50 mL

28 days

Oil and grease

EPA1664B

250 mL Amber Glass

< 6°C, H2SO4

1 Liter

28 days

pH

SW 9040C

250 mL Plastic

< 6°C

100 mL

Immediately

Total dissolved solids

SM 2540C

250 mL Plastic

< 6°C

100 mL

7 days

Total suspended solids

SM 2540D

250 mL Plastic

< 6°C

100 mL

7 days

Soil and Sediment Samples

Grain Size*

ASTM D422

16 oz Plastic or Glass

None

500 g

Not defined

Moisture

ASTM D2216

4 oz Glass

< 6°C

20 g

1 year

pH

SW 9045D

4 oz Glass

< 6°C

50 g

Immediately

Salinity (sediment only)

SM 2520B

4 oz Glass

< 6°C

50 g

6 months

Total Organic Carbon

SW 9060A

4 oz Glass

< 6°C

10 g

28 days

Tissue

Lipids

SM 2540B

4 oz Glass

< 6°C

20 g

1 year

Biosolids

pH

SW 9045D

4 oz Glass

< 6°C

50 g

Immediately

Notes:

*Grain size analysis will be conducted if sufficient mass of natural soil/sediment matrices was provided to ERA. An estimated 757.5 g of soil/sediment is needed to create the

Study Samples (spiked and imspiked) for the MLV Study and to include additional soil/sediment for moisture testing.

EPA Methods - USEPA Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes (MCA WW) USEPA/600/4-79-020, Revised March 1983.

SW Methods - USEPA Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, SW-846, Third Edition, 1998.

SM Methods - Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, Revised 2018.

ASTM Methods - ASTM International, Revised 2019.

°C = degrees Celsius	g = grams	L = milliliter	oz = ounce

EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency	EDST03 = nitric acid	mL = milliliter

ERA = ERA, A Waters Company	H2SO4 = sulfuric acid	MLV = multi-laboratory validation

Page 1 of 1


-------
Table 4-5. List of Study Samples to Be Provided to Laboratories

Matrix

Individual
Samples
Collected

Number of
Unspiked
Samples

Number of
Replicates
Spiked at
Low Level1

Number of
Replicates
Spiked at High
Level1'2

Total
Number of
Samples

Spiked Volume/Mass to
Be Provided for Each
Study Sample

Water

Wastewater

7

1

3

3

49

500 inL

Groundwater

3

1

3

3

21

500 inL

Surface Water

3

1

3

3

21

500 inL

Landfill Leachate

3

1

3

3

21

100 inL

Soil/Sediment

Soil

3

1

3

3

21

5g3

Sediment

3

1

3

3

21

5g3

Biosolids

3

1

3

3

21

0.5 g3

Tissue

Fish

3

1

3

3

21

2g

Total Number

196



Notes:

'Low and high levels for spiking defined in analytical method "Analysis of Analysis of PFAS in Aqueous, Solid, Biosolids, and Tissue

Samples by LC-MS/MS" (Reference 7.2).

2An exception applies to fluorotelomer sulfonic acids spiked at 1.5 times the low level.

3An additional 10 g of unspiked matrix to be provided for each sample in a separate container for percent moisture determination,
g = grams

LC-MS/MS = liquid chromatography mass spectrometry/mass spectrometry
mL = milliliter

PFAS = Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances

Page 1 of 1


-------
Figure


-------
Figure 3-1. Organizational Chart


-------
Attachment 1

Study Method (Annotated Version of EPA Draft Method 1633)

(Dated 10/21/21 and Update Dated 02/11/22)


-------
MLV Study Method Update

On February 8, 2022 the EPA OW released an updated Errata Sheet relating to EPA Draft
Method 1633. The changes made to the method as a result of this Errata Sheet apply to the MLV
Study Method as well, with one exception. The changes made to Sections 8.2.3 and 8.3.2
relating to laboratory sample storage requirements DO NOT apply to the MLV Study Method.
The MLV Study note in Section 8.4.3 of the MLV Study Method still applies; all study samples
must be stored at < -20°C.

Errata Sheet: https://www.epa.gov/cwa-methods/cwa-analvtical-methods-and-polvfluorinated-alkvl"
substances-pfas


-------
MLV Study Method
Analysis of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in
Aqueous, Solid, Biosolids, and Tissue Samples by LC-MS/MS

October 2021

Notice

This document represents a draft of a PFAS method currently under development by the EPA Office
of Water, Engineering and Analysis Division (EAD), in conjunction with the Department of Defense
(DOD). This method is not approved for Clean Water Act compliance monitoring until it has
been proposed and promulgated through rulemaking.

A single-laboratory validation of the procedure has been completed and the report on the results of
that study is being prepared. Historically, EAD posts draft methods on the Clean Water Act website
after the single-laboratory validation report is completed. However, due to a large number of public
and stakeholder requests, this method is being posted on the web before the single-laboratory
validation study report is finalized. A revision of this draft method with a later publication date may
be issued at that time. No procedural changes are expected as a result of the single-laboratory
validation, but some of the performance data (which are presented only as examples) may change
once the statistical analysis of the single-laboratory validation data is completed.

This draft method has been subjected to multiple levels of review across several EPA Program
Offices. DOD expects to begin a multi-laboratory validation study of the procedure in late 2021, in
collaboration with the Office of Water and the Office of Land and Emergency Management.

The Office of Water will use the results of the multi-laboratory validation study to finalize the method
and add formal performance criteria. The method validation process may eliminate some of the
parameters listed in this draft method.

In the meantime, the Office of Water is releasing this draft on its web site. Laboratories, regulatory
authorities, and other interested parties are encouraged to review the method, and where appropriate,
utilize it for their own purposes, with the explicit understanding that this is a draft method, subject to
revision.

Draft Method 1633 - subject to revision

August 2021


-------
Acknowledgements

This draft method was prepared under the direction of Adrian Hanley of the Engineering and Analysis
Division, Office of Science and Technology, within EPA's Office of Water, in collaboration with the
Department of Defense.

EPA acknowledges the support of a number of organizations in the development and validation of this
draft method, including the developers of the original procedure, the Department of Defense, the
members of EPA's workgroup, and EPA's support contractor staff at General Dynamics Information
Technology, including:

Adrian Hanley
S. Bekah Burket
Troy Strock
Diane Reese
Steve Reimer
Janice Willey
Richard H. Anderson
Allyson Buytendyk
Coreen Hamilton
Ivona Zysk
Ting Chen
Henry Huang
Mirna Alpizar
Harrry McCarty

EPA Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Engineering and Analysis Division
EPA Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Engineering and Analysis Division
EPA Office of Land and Emergency Management
EPA Region 4
EPA Region 10

Department of Defense, Naval Sea Systems Command

Department of Defense, Air Force Civil Engineer Center

Institute for Defense Analysis

SGS-AXYS Analytical

SGS-AXYS Analytical

SGS-AXYS Analytical

SGS-AXYS Analytical

General Dynamics Information Technology

General Dynamics Information Technology

Disclaimer

See the notice on the title page regarding the status of this method.

Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for
use.

Contact

Please address questions, comments, or suggestions to:

CWA Methods Team, Engineering and Analysis Division (4303T)

Office of Science and Technology

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington, DC 20460

https://www.epa.gov/cwa-methods

https://www.epa.gov/cwa-methods/forms/contact-us-about-cwa-analytical-methods

MLV Study Method

l

October 2021


-------
Table of Contents

Acknowledgements	i

Disclaimer	i

Contact	i

I.0	Scope and Application	1

2.0 Summary of Method	1

3.0 Definitions	2

4.0 Contamination and interferences	2

5.0 Safety	4

6.0 Equipment and Supplies	5

7.0 Reagents and standards	9

8.0 Sample collection, preservation, storage, and holding times	13

9.0 Quality Control	15

10.0 Calibration and Standardization	20

II.0	Sample preparation and extraction	26

12.0 Extraction, Cleanup, and Concentration	32

13.0 Instrumental Analysis	34

14.0 Performance Tests during Routine Operations	35

15.0 Data Analysis and Calculations	37

16.0 Method Performance	41

17.0 Pollution Prevention	42

18.0 Waste Management	42

19.0 References	42

20.0 Tables, Diagrams, Flowcharts, and Validation Data	44

21.0 Glossary	58

Appendix A - Sample Pre-screening Instructions	62

Appendix B - Aqueous Sample Subsampling Instructions	63

ML V Study Method	ii	October 2021


-------
MLV Study Method - Analysis of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)
in Aqueous, Solid, Biosolids, and Tissue Samples by LC-MS/MS

1.0	Scope and Application

1.1	Method 1633 is for use in the Clean Water Act (CWA) for the determination of the per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in Table 1 in aqueous, solid (soil, biosolids, sediment) and tissue
samples by liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS).

1.2	The method calibrates and quantifies PFAS analytes using isotopically labeled standards. Where
linear and branched isomers exist in the sample and either qualitative or quantitative standards
containing branched and linear isomers are commercially available, the PFAS analyte is reported as
a single analyte consisting of the sum of the linear and branched isomer concentrations.

1.3	The instrumental portion of this method is for use only by analysts experienced with LC-MS/MS or
under the close supervision of such qualified persons. Each laboratory that uses this method must
demonstrate the ability to generate acceptable results using the procedure in Section 9.2.

1.4	By their very nature, many components of PFAS present analytical challenges unique to this class
of analytes. For example, PFAS analytes readily adhere to the walls of the sample containers and
may also stratify in the container. EPA has included procedures in the method that must be
employed to address such challenges (see Section 11.0 and Appendices A and B).

1.5	This method is "performance-based," which means that modifications may be made without
additional EPA review to improve performance (e.g., overcome interferences, or improve the
sensitivity, accuracy, or precision of the results) provided that all performance criteria in this
method are met. Requirements for establishing equivalency are in Section 9.1.2 and include
9.1.2.2c. For CWA uses, additional flexibility is described at 40 CFR 136.6. Changes in
performance, sensitivity, selectivity, precision, recovery, etc., that result from modifications within
the scope of 40 CFR Part 136.6, and Section 9.0 of this method must be documented, as well as
how these modifications compare to the specifications in this method. Changes outside the scope
of 40 CFR Part 136.6 and Section 9.0 of this method may require prior review or approval.

*** mlv Study: Participating laboratories must follow this method without modification.

2.0	Summary of Method

Environmental samples are prepared and extracted using method-specific procedures. Sample extracts
are subjected to cleanup procedures designed to remove interferences. Analyses of the sample extracts
are conducted by LC-MS/MS in the multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) mode. Sample concentrations
are determined by isotope dilution or extracted internal standard quantification (see Section 10.3) using
isotopically labeled compounds added to the samples before extraction.

2.1	Extraction

2.1.1	Aqueous samples are spiked with isotopically labeled standards, extracted using
solid-phase extraction (SPE) cartridges and undergo cleanup using carbon before
analysis.

2.1.2	Solid samples are spiked with isotopically labeled standards, extracted into basic
methanol, and cleaned up by carbon and SPE cartridges before analysis.

MLV Study Method

1

October 2021


-------
2.1.3 Tissue samples are spiked with isotopically labeled standards, extracted in potassium

hydroxide and acetonitrile followed by basic methanol, and cleaned up by carbon and SPE
cartridges before analysis.

2.2	This method measures the analytes as either their anions or neutral forms. The default approach for
Clean Water Act uses of the method is to report the analytes in their acid or neutral forms, using the
equations in Section 15.2, although the differences between the anion and acid form concentrations
are minimal (See Table 8). Other project-specific reporting schemes may be used where required.

*** MLV Study participants must quantify and report the analytes in their acid form.

2.3	Individual PFAS analytes are identified through peak analysis of the quantification and
confirmation ions, where applicable.

2.4	Quantitative determination of target analyte concentrations is made with respect to an isotopically
labeled PFAS standard; the concentrations are then used to convert raw peak areas in sample
chromatograms to final concentrations.

2.5	Results for target analytes are recovery corrected by the method of quantification (i.e., either
isotope dilution or extracted internal standard quantification, see Section 10.3). Isotopically labeled
compound recoveries are determined by comparison to the responses of one of seven non-extracted
internal standards (a.k.a., the "recovery" standards) and are used as general indicators of overall
analytical quality.

2.6	The quality of the analysis is assured through reproducible calibration and testing of the extraction,
cleanup, and LC-MS/MS systems.

3.0 Definitions

Definitions are provided in the glossary at the end of this method.

4.0	Contamination and interferences

4.1	Solvents, reagents, glassware, and other sample processing hardware may yield artifacts and
elevated baselines causing misinterpretation of chromatograms. Specific selection of reagents and
solvents may be required.

4.2	Clean all equipment prior to, and after each use to avoid PFAS cross-contamination. Typical
cleaning solvents used include water, methanol, and methanolic ammonium hydroxide. The
residual PFAS content of disposable plasticware and filters must be verified by batch/lot number
and may be used without cleaning if PFAS levels are less than half the Minimum Level (ML, see
Table 6).

*** miv Study: Minimum Level (ML) is equivalent to Limit of Quantitation (LOQ).

4.2.1 All glass equipment that is used in the preparation or storage of reagents is cleaned by
washing with detergent and baking in a kiln or furnace (Section 6.2.2). After detergent
washing, glassware should be rinsed immediately with reagent water. Prior to use, baked

MLV Study Method

2

October 2021


-------
glassware must be solvent rinsed and then air dried. A solvent rinse procedure using
methanolic ammonium hydroxide (1%), toluene, and methanol is recommended.

4.2.2	All parts of the SPE manifold must be cleaned between samples by sonicating in
methanolic ammonium hydroxide (1%) and air drying prior to use. Smaller parts, like the
needles, adapters, reservoirs, and stopcocks associated with the manifold require rinsing
with tap water prior to sonicating in methanolic ammonium hydroxide (1%) and air drying.
When in use, after loading the samples but prior to elution procedures, the chamber must be
rinsed with methanolic ammonium hydroxide (1%).

4.2.3	All equipment used in the filleting, dissecting, shucking, compositing, and homogenization
of tissue must be cleaned with detergent and hot water, then rinsed with ultra-pure water
followed by a series of solvent rinses. A typical solvent rinse procedure would be acetone,
followed by toluene, and then dichloromethane.

4.3	All materials used in the analysis must be demonstrated to be free from interferences by running
method blanks (Section 9.5) at the beginning and with each sample batch (samples started through
the extraction process on a given analytical batch to a maximum of 20 field samples).

4.3.1	The reference matrix must simulate, as closely as possible, the sample matrix being tested.
Ideally, the reference matrix should not contain PFAS in detectable amounts but should
contain potential interferents in the concentrations expected to be found in the samples to
be analyzed.

4.3.2	For tissue, chicken breast or other similar animal tissue (see Section 7.2.3) may be used as
the reference matrix. The laboratory must verify that the source product used does not
contain PFAS in detectable amounts.

4.3.3	When a reference matrix that simulates the sample matrix under test is not available,
reagent water (Section 7.2.1) can be used to simulate water samples and Ottawa sand
and/or reagent-grade sand (Section 7.2.2) can be used to simulate soils.

4.4	Interferences co-extracted from samples will vary considerably from source to source, depending
on the diversity of the site being sampled. Interfering compounds may be present at concentrations
several orders of magnitude higher than the native PFAS. Because low levels of PFAS are
measured by this method, elimination of interferences is essential. The cleanup steps given in
Section 12.0 can be used to reduce or eliminate these interferences and thereby permit reliable
determination of the PFAS at the levels shown in Table 6. The most frequently encountered
interferences are fluoropolymers; however, when analyzing whole fish samples, bile salts (e.g.,
Taurodeoxycholic Acid [TDCA]) can interfere in the chromatography. For this reason, analysis of
a standard containing TDCA is required as part of establishing the initial chromatographic
conditions (see Sections 10.2.2.5 and 10.3.5).

4.5	Each piece of reusable glassware may be numbered to associate that glassware with the processing
of a particular sample. This may assist the laboratory in tracking possible sources of contamination
for individual samples, identifying glassware associated with highly contaminated samples that may
require extra cleaning, and determining when glassware should be discarded.

MLV Study Method

3

October 2021


-------
5.0 Safety

5.1	The toxicity or carcinogenicity of each chemical used in this method has not been precisely
determined; however, each compound should be treated as a potential health hazard. Exposure to
these compounds should be reduced to the lowest possible level.

5.1.1	PFOA has been described as likely to be carcinogenic to humans. Pure standards should be
handled by trained personnel, with suitable protection to skin and eyes, and care should be
taken not to breathe the vapors or ingest the materials.

5.1.2	It is recommended that the laboratory purchase dilute standard solutions of the analytes in
this method. However, if primary solutions are prepared, they must be prepared in a hood,
following universal safety measures.

5.2	The laboratory is responsible for maintaining a current awareness file of Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) regulations regarding the safe handling of the chemicals specified
in this method. A reference file of safety data sheets (SDS) should also be made available to all
personnel involved in these analyses. It is also suggested that the laboratory perform personal
hygiene monitoring of each analyst who uses this method and that the results of this monitoring be
made available to the analyst. Additional information on laboratory safety can be found in
References 1-4. The references and bibliography at the end of Reference 3 are particularly
comprehensive in dealing with the general subject of laboratory safety.

5.3	Samples suspected to contain these compounds are handled using essentially the same techniques
employed in handling radioactive or infectious materials. Well-ventilated, controlled access
laboratories are required. Assistance in evaluating the health hazards of particular laboratory
conditions may be obtained from certain consulting laboratories and from State Departments of
Health or Labor, many of which have an industrial health service. Each laboratory must develop a
strict safety program for handling these compounds.

5.3.1	Facility - When finely divided samples (dusts, soils, dry chemicals) are handled, all
operations (including removal of samples from sample containers, weighing, transferring,
and mixing) should be performed in a glove box demonstrated to be leak tight or in a fume
hood demonstrated to have adequate air flow. Gross losses to the laboratory ventilation
system must not be allowed. Handling of the dilute solutions normally used in analytical
and animal work presents no inhalation hazards except in the case of an accident.

5.3.2	Protective equipment - Disposable plastic gloves, apron or lab coat, safety glasses or mask,
and a glove box or fume hood adequate for radioactive work should be used. During
analytical operations that may give rise to aerosols or dusts, personnel should wear
respirators equipped with activated carbon filters. Eye protection (preferably full-face
shields) must be worn while working with exposed samples or pure analytical standards.
Latex gloves are commonly used to reduce exposure of the hands.

5.3.3	Training - Workers must be trained in the proper method of removing contaminated gloves
and clothing without contacting the exterior surfaces.

5.3.4	Personal hygiene - Hands and forearms should be washed thoroughly after each
manipulation and before breaks (coffee, lunch, and shift).

5.3.5	Confinement - Isolated work areas posted with signs, segregated glassware and tools, and
plastic absorbent paper on bench tops will aid in confining contamination.

MLV Study Method

4

October 2021


-------
5.3.6 Waste Handling - Good technique includes minimizing contaminated waste. Plastic bag
liners should be used in waste cans. Janitors and other personnel should be trained in the
safe handling of waste.

5.3.7 Laundry - Clothing known to be contaminated should be collected in plastic bags. Persons
that convey the bags and launder the clothing should be advised of the hazard and trained in
proper handling. The clothing may be put into a washer without contact if the launderer
knows of the potential problem. The washer should be run through a cycle before being
used again for other clothing.

5.4 Biosolids samples may contain high concentrations of biohazards and must be handled with gloves
and opened in a fume hood or biological safety cabinet to prevent exposure. Laboratory staff
should know and observe the safety procedures required in a microbiology laboratory that handles
pathogenic organisms when handling biosolids samples.

6.0 Equipment and Supplies

Note: Brand names, suppliers, and part numbers are for illustration purposes only and no endorsement
is implied. Equivalent performance may be achieved using apparatus and materials other than
those specified here. Meeting the performance requirements of this method is the responsibility
of the laboratory.

6.1 Sampling equipment for discrete or composite sampling
6.1.1 Sample bottles and caps

Note: Do not use PTFE-lined caps on sample containers.

6.1.1.1 Liquid samples (waters, sludges, and similar materials containing < 50 mg
solids per sample) - Sample bottle, HDPE, with linerless HDPE or
polypropylene caps.

Note: At least two aliquots of aqueous samples are collected to allow sufficient volume
for the determination of percent solids and for pre-screening analysis. One
aliquot should be collected in a 500-mL container while the second aliquot may
be collected in a smaller sample container (e.g., 250-mL or 125-mL).

MLV Study: Only one sample is received for each sample. Samples are not to be screened
by the laboratory. Samples have been prescreened to eliminate excessively
high concentrations, where possible. The majority of the analytes will be
within the calibration range provided by this method (Table 4). This is one
reason why we do not want laboratories to stray significantly from these
calibration levels.

6.1.1.2 Solid samples (soils, sediments, and biosolids that contain more than 50 mg
solids) - Sample bottle or jar, wide-mouth, HDPE, 500-mL, with linerless
HDPE or polypropylene caps.

MLV Study: Two sample containers will be received for each sample. One will be
designated for the determination of % moisture, the other for sample
preparation and analysis for PFAS. DO NOT MIX THESE CONTAINERS

MLV Study Method

5

October 2021


-------
UP. The container designated for the determination of % moisture will not be
spiked.

6.1.1.3 Tissue samples - Sample jar, wide-mouth HDPE, 100-mL, with linerless HDPE
or polypropylene caps.

6.1.2 Compositing equipment - Automatic or manual compositing system incorporating

containers cleaned per bottle cleaning procedure above. Only HDPE tubing must be used.
If the sampler uses a peristaltic pump, a minimum length of compressible silicone rubber
tubing may be used in the pump only. Before use, the tubing must be thoroughly rinsed
with methanol, followed by repeated rinsing with reagent water to minimize sample
contamination. An integrating flow meter is used to collect proportional composite
samples.

6.2 Equipment for glassware cleaning

Note: If blanks from bottles or other glassware, show no detectable PFAS contamination when using
fewer cleaning steps than required above, unnecessary cleaning steps and equipment may be
eliminated.

6.2.1	Laboratory sink with overhead fume hood

6.2.2	Kiln - Capable of reaching 450 °C within 2 hours and maintaining 450 - 500 °C ± 10 °C,
with temperature controller and safety switch (Cress Manufacturing Co., Santa Fe Springs,
CA, B31H, X3 ITS, or equivalent). For safety, the kiln or furnace should be vented outside
the laboratory, or to a trapping system.

6.3 Equipment for sample preparation

6.3.1	Polyethylene gloves

6.3.2	Laboratory fume hood (of sufficient size to contain the sample preparation equipment listed
below)

6.3.3	Glove box (optional)

6.3.4	Tissue homogenizer

6.3.5	Meat grinder - Hobart, or equivalent, with 3- to 5-mm holes in inner plate

6.3.6	Equipment for determining percent moisture

6.3.6.1	Oven - Capable of maintaining a temperature of 110 ± 5 °C

6.3.6.2	Desiccator

6.3.7	Balances

6.3.7.1	Analytical - Capable of weighing 0.1 mg

6.3.7.2	Top loading - Capable of weighing 10 mg

MLV Study Method

6

October 2021


-------
6.3.8	Aluminum foil

6.3.9	Disposable spoons, 10 mg, polypropylene or stainless steel

6.3.10	Ultrasonic mixer (sonicator)

6.3.11	HDPE bottles, with linerless HDPE or polypropylene caps - 60 mL

6.3.12	pH Paper, range 0-14 - (Whatman® Panpeha™ or equivalent), 0.5-unit readability

6.3.13	Analog or digital vortex mixer, single or multi-tube (Fisher Scientific 02-215-452, or
equivalent)

6.3.14	Volumetric flasks, Class A

6.3.15	Disposable polypropylene collection tubes (13 x 100 mm, 8 mL)

6.3.16	Variable speed mixing table (Fisherbrand™ Nutating mixer or equivalent)

6.4	Filtration

6.4.1	Silanized glass wool (Sigma-Aldrich, Cat # 20411 or equivalent) - store in a clean glass jar
and rinsed with methanol (2 times) prior to use.

6.4.2	Disposable syringe filter, 25-mm, 0.2-(.un Nylon membrane, PALL/Acrodisc or equivalent

6.4.3	Glass fiber filter, 47 mm, 1 |_im. PALL A/E or equivalent

6.5	Centrifuge apparatus

6.5.1	Centrifuge (Thermo Scientific Legend RT+, 16 cm rotor, or equivalent), capable of
reaching at least 3000 rpm

6.5.2	Centrifuge tubes - Disposable polypropylene centrifuge tubes (50 mL)

6.6	Pipettes

6.6.1	Norm-Ject® syringe (or equivalent), polypropylene/HDPE, 5 mL

6.6.2	Variable volume pipettes with disposable HDPE or polypropylene tips (10 |aL to 5 mL) -
used for preparation of calibration standards and spiked samples.

6.6.3	Disposable glass pipets

6.6.4	Calibrated mechanical pipettes or Hamilton graduated syringes

6.7	Solid-Phase Extraction

6.7.1 Solid-phase extraction (SPE) cartridges (Waters Oasis WAX 150 mg, Cat # 186002493 or
equivalent). The SPE sorbent must have a pKa above 8 so that it remains positively
charged during the extraction.

ML V Study Method	7	October 2021


-------
aaa mlv Study: Participants must use a 150 mg WAX cartridge.

Note: SPE cartridges with different bed volume (e.g., 500 mg) maybe used; however, the
laboratory must demonstrate that the bed volume does not negatively affect analyte
absorption and elution, by performing the initial demonstration of capability analyses
described in Section 9.2.

6.7.2 Vacuum manifold for SPE Cartridges (Waters™ extraction manifold #WAT200607 or
equivalent)

Evaporation

6.8.1	Automatic or manual solvent evaporation system (TurboVap® LV or
equivalent)

6.8.2	Evaporation/concentrator tubes: 60 mL clear glass vial, 30 x 125 mm, without
caps (Wheaton Cat # W226060 or equivalent). Cover with foil if required.

Vials

6.9.1	Snap cap/crimp top vials, 300 |_iL. polypropylene (12x32 mm) - used in sample
pre-screening (DWK Life Sciences Cat # 225180 or equivalent)

6.9.2	Polypropylene crimp/snap vials, 1 mL (Agilent Cat # 5182-0567 or equivalent)

6.9.3	Clear snap cap, PVDC film/white silicone, 11 mm (American Chromatography
Supplies Cat # C299-11 or equivalent)

6.9.4	Single step filter vials (Restek Thomson SINGLE StEP® Standard Filter Vials,
0.2 (mi Nylon membrane, with Black Preslit caps Cat # 25891 or equivalent) -
used in sample pre-screening.

6.10	Instrument

6.10.1	Ultra high-performance liquid chromatograph (UPLC also called UHPLC) or high-
performance liquid chromatograph (HPLC) equipped with tandem quadrupole mass
spectrometer (Waters Xevo TQ-S Micro or equivalent).

6.10.2	C18 column, 1.7 |_im. 50x2.1 mm (Waters Acquity UPLC® BEH or equivalent)

6.10.3	Guard column (Phenomenex Kinetex® Evo C18 or equivalent)

6.10.4	Trap/delay column (Purospher Star RP-18 endcapped [3 |im | Hibar® RT 50-4 or
equivalent)

6.11	Bottles, HDPE or glass, with linerless HDPE or polypropylene caps. Various sizes. To store
prepared reagents.

6.8

6.9

ML V Study Method	8	October 2021


-------
7.0	Reagents and standards

7.1	Reagents

Reagents prepared by the laboratory may be stored in either glass or HDPE containers. Proper
cleaning procedures (Section 4.2) must be followed prior to using the containers.

7.1.1	Acetic acid - ACS grade or equivalent, store at room temperature

7.1.2	Acetic acid (0.1%) - dissolve acetic acid (1 mL) in reagent water (1 L), store at room
temperature, replace after 3 months.

7.1.3	Acetonitrile - UPLC grade or equivalent, verified before use, store at room temperature

7.1.4	Ammonium acetate - (Caledon Ultra LC/MS grade, or equivalent), store at 2-8° C, replace
2 years after opening date

7.1.5	Ammonium hydroxide - certified ACS+ grade or equivalent, 30% in water, store at room
temperature

7.1.6	Aqueous ammonium hydroxide (3%) - add ammonium hydroxide (10 mL, 30%) to reagent
water (90 mL), store at room temperature, replace after 3 months

7.1.7	Methanolic ammonium hydroxide

7.1.7.1	Methanolic ammonium hydroxide (0.3%) - add ammonium hydroxide (1 mL,
30%) to methanol (99 mL), store at room temperature, replace after 1 month

7.1.7.2	Methanolic ammonium hydroxide (1%) - add ammonium hydroxide (3.3 mL,
30%) to methanol (97 mL), store at room temperature, replace after 1 month

7.1.7.3	Methanolic ammonium hydroxide (2%) - add ammonium hydroxide (6.6 mL,
30%) to methanol (93.4 mL), store at room temperature, replace after 1 month

7.1.8	Methanolic potassium hydroxide (0.05 M) - add 3.3 g of potassium hydroxide to 1 L of
methanol, store at room temperature, replace after 3 months

7.1.9	Methanol with 4% water, 1% ammonium hydroxide and 0.625% acetic acid - add
ammonium hydroxide (3.3 mL, 30%), reagent water (1.7 mL) and acetic acid (0.625 mL) to
methanol (92 mL), store at room temperature, replace after 1 month. This solution is used
to prepare the instrument blank (Section 7.3.6) and sample dilutions.

7.1.10	Eluent A - Acetonitrile, Caledon Ultra LCMS grade or equivalent

7.1.11	Eluent B - 2 mM ammonium acetate in 95:5 water/acetonitrile. Dissolve 0.154 g of
ammonium acetate (Section 7.1.4) in 950 mL of water and 50 mL of acetonitrile (Caledon
Ultra LCMS grade, or equivalent). Store at room temperature, shelf life 2 months.

7.1.12	Formic acid - (greater than 96% purity or equivalent), verified by lot number before use,
store at room temperature

7.1.13	Formic acid

MLV Study Method

9

October 2021


-------
7.1.13.1	Formic acid (aqueous, 0.1 M) - dissolve formic acid (4.6 g) in reagent water (1
L), store at room temperature, replace after 2 years

7.1.13.2	Formic acid (aqueous, 0.3 M) - dissolve formic acid (13.8 g) in reagent water (1
L), store at room temperature, replace after 2 years

7.1.13.3	Formic acid (aqueous, 5% v/v) - mix 5 mL formic acid with 95 mL reagent
water, store at room temperature, replace after 2 years

7.1.13.4	Formic acid (aqueous, 50% v/v) - mix 50 mL formic acid with 50 mL reagent
water, store at room temperature, replace after 2 years

7.1.13.5	Formic acid (methanolic 1:1, 0.1 M formic acid/methanol) - mix equal volumes
of methanol and 0.1 M formic acid, store at room temperature, replace after 2
years

7.1.14	Methanol - (HPLC grade or better, 99.9 % purity), verified by lot number before use, store
at room temperature

7.1.15	Potassium hydroxide - certified ACS or equivalent, store at room temperature, replace after
2 years

7.1.16	Reagent water - Laboratory reagent water, test by lot/batch number for residual PFAS
content

7.1.17	Carbon - EnviCarb® 1-M-USP or equivalent, verified by lot number before use, store at
room temperature. Loose carbon allows for better adsorption of interferent organics.

Note: The single-laboratory validation laboratory achieved better performance with loose carbon
than carbon cartridges. Loose carbon will be used for the multi-laboratory validation to
set statistically based method criteria. Once the method is multi-laboratory validated,
laboratories will have the flexibility to use carbon cartridges as long as all method QC
criteria are met.

MLV Study: Participants must use loose EnviCarb® 1-M-USP or equivalent. The single-
laboratory validation laboratory achieved better performance with loose carbon than
carbon cartridges. Loose carbon will be used for the multi-laboratory validation to set
statistically based method criteria. Once the method is multi-laboratory validated,
laboratories will have the flexibility to use carbon cartridges so long as all method QC
criteria are met.

7.1.18	Toluene - HPLC grade, verified by lot number before use. Store at room temperature.

7.1.19	Acetone - Pesticide grade, verified by lot number before use in rinsing tissue dissection and
processing equipment.

7.1.20	Dichloromethane (methylene chloride), pesticide grade, verified by lot number before use
in rinsing tissue dissection and processing equipment.

MLV Study Method

10

October 2021


-------
7.2	Reference matrices - Matrices in which PFAS and interfering compounds are not detected by this
method. These matrices are to be used to prepare the batch QC samples (e.g., method blank, and
ongoing precision and recovery sample).

7.2.1	Reagent water - purified water, Type I

7.2.2	Solids reference matrix - Ottawa or reagent-grade sand

7.2.3	Tissue reference matrix - chicken breast or similar animal tissue

7.3	Standard solutions - Prepare from materials of known purity and composition or purchase as
solutions or mixtures with certification to their purity, concentration, and authenticity. Observe the
safety precautions in Section 5.

Purchase of commercial standard solutions or mixtures is highly recommended for this method;
however, when these are not available, preparation of stock solutions from neat materials may be
necessary. If the chemical purity is 98% or greater, the weight may be used without correction to
calculate the concentration of the standard. Dissolve an appropriate amount of assayed reference
material in the required solvent. For example, weigh 10 to 20 mg of an individual compound to
three significant figures in a 10-mL ground-glass-stoppered volumetric flask and fill to the mark
with the required solvent. Once the compound is completely dissolved, transfer the solution to a
clean vial and cap.

When not being used, store standard solutions in the dark at less than 4 °C unless the vendor
recommends otherwise in screw-capped vials with foiled-lined caps. Place a mark on the vial at the
level of the solution so that solvent loss by evaporation can be detected. Replace the solution if
solvent loss has occurred.

Note: Native PFAS standards are available from several suppliers. Isotopically labeled compounds are
available from Cambridge Isotope Laboratories and Wellington Laboratories, but may also be
available from other suppliers. Listing of these suppliers does not constitute a recommendation
or endorsement for use. All diluted solutions must be stored in glass or HDPE containers that
have been thoroughly rinsed with methanol.

I80-mass labeledperfluoroalkyl sulfonates may undergo isotopic exchange with water under
certain conditions, which lowers the isotopic purity of the standards over time.

The laboratory must maintain records of the certificates for all standards for traceability purposes.
Copies of the certificates must be provided as part of the data packages in order to check that proper
calculations were performed.

*** mlv Study: Participating laboratories will receive commercial standard mixtures from the
project that must be used for this study when preparing the standards listed in
Sections 7.3.1 through 7.3.4. If additional volume is needed, the laboratory must
purchase the same standards that were provided by the project.

7.3.1 Extracted Internal Standard (EIS) - (a.k.a. isotopically labeled compound) Prepare the EIS
solution containing the isotopically labeled compounds listed in Table 3 as extracted
internal standards in methanol from prime stocks. An aliquot of EIS solution, typically 50
l_iL. is added to each sample prior to extraction. Table 3 presents the nominal amounts of
EIS compounds added to each sample. The list of isotopically labeled compounds in Table

MLV Study Method

11

October 2021


-------
3 represents the compounds that were available at the time this method was validated.

Other isotopically labeled compounds may be used as they become available.

*** mlv Study: Participating laboratories must use the EIS provided by the project and not
change or add any additional isotopically labeled compounds.

7.3.2	Non-Extracted Internal Standard (NIS) - The NIS solution containing the isotopically
labeled compounds listed in Table 3 as non-extracted internal standards is prepared in
methanol from prime stock. An aliquot of NIS solution, typically 50 |_iL. is added to each
sample prior to instrumental analysis. Table 3 presents the nominal amounts of NIS
compounds added to each sample.

aaa mlv Study: Participating laboratories must use the NIS provided by the project and not
change or add any additional isotopically labeled compounds.

7.3.3	Native Standards Solution - Prepare a spiking solution, containing the method analytes
listed in Table 4, in methanol from prime stocks. The solution is used to prepare the
calibration standards and to spike the known reference QC samples that are analyzed with
every batch. Quantitative standards containing a mixture of branched and linear isomers
must be used for method analytes if they are commercially available. Currently, these
include PFOS, PFHxS, NMeFOSAA, and NEtFOSAA.

7.3.4	Calibration standard solutions - A series of calibration solutions containing the target
analytes and the 13C-, 180-, and deuterium-labeled extracted internal standards (EIS) and
non-extracted internal standards (NIS) is used to establish the initial calibration of the
analytical instrument. The concentration of the method analytes in the solutions varies to
encompass the working range of the instrument, while the concentrations of the EIS and
NIS remain constant. The calibration solutions are prepared using methanol, methanolic
ammonium hydroxide (2%), water, acetic acid and the method analyte and isotopically
labeled compound standard solutions. After dilution, the final solution will match the
solvent mix of sample extracts, which contain methanol with 4% water, 1% ammonium
hydroxide and 0.625% acetic acid (Section 7.1.9). Calibration standard solutions do not
undergo solid phase extraction/cleanup.

Concentrations for seven calibration solutions are presented in Table 4. A minimum of six
contiguous calibrations standards are required for a valid analysis when using a linear
calibration model, with at least five of the six calibration standards being within the
quantitation range (e.g., from the LOQ to the highest calibration standard). If a second-
order calibration model is used, then a minimum of seven calibration standards are
required, with at least six of the seven calibration standards within the quantitation range.
The lowest level calibration standard must meet a signal-to-noise ratio of 3:1 and be at a
concentration less than or equal to the Limit of Quantitation (LOQ). All initial calibration
requirements listed in Table 7 must be met. An instrument sensitivity check (ISC) standard
at the concentration of the lowest calibration standard within the quantitation range is
required to be analyzed at the beginning of the analytical run (Section 10.3.3.1 and Section
13.3). A mid-level calibration solution is analyzed at least every ten samples or less, on an
ongoing basis for the purpose of calibration verification. A mid-level calibration
verification (CV) standard must also be analyzed after all sample analyses in order to
bracket the analytical batch.

Note: Additional calibration standards, at levels lower than the lowest calibration standard listed
in the method, maybe added to accommodate a lower limit of quantitation if the instrument

MLV Study Method

12

October 2021


-------
sensitivity allows. Calibration standards at the high end of the calibration may be
eliminated if the linearity of the instrument is exceeded or at the low end if those
calibration standards do not meet the S/Nratio criterion of 3:1, as long as the required
number of calibration points is met. All analytes with commercially available stable
isotope analogues must be quantified using isotope dilution.

7.3.5	Qualitative Standards - Standards that contain mixtures of the branched and linear isomers
of the method analytes and that are used for comparison against suspected branched isomer
peaks in field samples. These qualitative standards are not required for those analytes
where the quantitative standards in Section 7.3.3 already contain the branched and linear
isomers. Qualitative standards that are currently commercially available include PFOA,
PFNA, PFOSA, NMeFOSA, NEtFOSA, NEtFOSE, and NMeFOSE.

7.3.6	Instrument Blank - During the analysis of a batch of samples, a solvent blank is analyzed
after samples containing high level of target compounds (e.g., calibration, CV) to monitor
carryover from the previous injection. The injection blank consists of the solution in
Section 7.1.9 fortified with the EIS and NIS for quantitation purposes.

7.3.7	Stability of solutions - Standard solutions used for quantitative purposes (Sections 7.3.1
through 7.3.5) should be assayed periodically (e.g., every 6 months) against certified
standard reference materials (SRMs) from the National Institute of Science and Technology
(NIST), if available, or certified reference materials from a source that will attest to the
authenticity and concentration, to assure that the composition and concentrations have not
changed.

7.4	Sodium iodide/cesium iodide mass calibration solution - 2 mg/mL Nal and 50 |a,g/mL Csl in (1:1)
isopropyl alcohol:water (Waters 700000889, or equivalent) or other solution, based on
manufacturer's specifications.

7.5	Bile salt interference check standard containing Taurodeoxycholic Acid (TDCA) or Sodium
taurodeoxychloate hydrate - (Sigma Aldrich 580221-5GM, or equivalent). This standard is used to
evaluate the chromatographic program relative to the risk of an interference from bile salts in tissue
samples when using acetonitrile as the mobile phase in the instrument. Prepare solution at a
concentration of 1.0 (ig/mL in the same solvent as the calibration standards. If using other mobile
phases and analyzing tissues, it will be necessary to evaluate taurochenodeoxycholic acid (TCDA)
and tauroursodeoxycholic acid (TUDCA) as well.

8.0	Sample collection, preservation, storage, and holding times

8.1	Collect samples in HDPE containers following conventional sampling practices (Reference 5). All
sample containers must have linerless HDPE or polypropylene caps. Other sample collection
techniques, or sample volumes may be used, if documented.

8.2	Aqueous samples

8.2.1 Samples that flow freely are collected as grab samples or in refrigerated bottles using
automatic sampling equipment. Collect 500 mL of sample (other than leachates) in an
HDPE bottle.

MLV Study Method

13

October 2021


-------
Note: Collect at least two aliquots of all aqueous samples to allow sufficient volume for the

determination of percent solids and for pre-screening analysis. That second aliquot may be
collected in a smaller sample container (e.g., 250-mL or 125-mL).

Because the target analytes are known to bind to the interior surface of the sample
container, the entire aqueous sample that is collected must be prepared and analyzed and
subsampling avoided whenever possible. Therefore, if a sample volume smaller than 500
mL is to be used for analysis, collect the sample in an appropriately sized HDPE container.

8.2.2	Leachate samples from landfills can present significant challenges and therefore only 100
mL of sample is collected for the analysis. Collect two 100-mL leachate sample aliquots in
a similar manner as described in Section 8.2.1, using appropriately sized containers.

8.2.3	Maintain all aqueous samples protected from light at 0 - 6 °C from the time of collection
until shipped to the laboratory. Samples must be shipped as soon as practical with
sufficient ice to maintain the sample temperature below 6 °C during transport and be
received by the laboratory within 48 hours of collection. The laboratory must confirm that
the sample temperature is 0 - 6 °C upon receipt. Once received by the laboratory, the
samples must be stored at < -20 °C until sample preparation.

8.3	Solid (soil, sediment, biosolid), excluding tissue

8.3.1	Collect samples as grab samples using wide-mouth jars and fill no more than % full (see
Section 6.1.1.2 for container size and type).

8.3.2	Maintain solid samples protected from light (in HDPE containers) at 0 - 6 °C from the time
of collection until receipt at the laboratory. The laboratory must confirm that the sample
temperature is 0 - 6 °C upon receipt. Once received by the laboratory, the samples must be
stored at < -20 °C until sample preparation.

8.4	Fish and other tissue samples

The nature of the tissues of interest may vary by project. Field sampling plans and protocols should

explicitly state the samples to be collected and if any processing will be conducted in the field (e.g.,

filleting of whole fish or removal of organs). All field procedures must involve materials and

equipment that have been shown to be free of PFAS.

8.4.1	Fish may be cleaned, filleted, or processed in other ways in the field, such that the
laboratory may expect to receive whole fish, fish fillets, or other tissues for analysis.

8.4.2	If whole fish are collected, wrap the fish in aluminum foil or food-grade polyethylene
tubing, and maintain at 0 - 6 °C from the time of collection until receipt at the laboratory, to
a maximum time of 24 hours. If a longer transport time is necessary, freeze the sample
before shipping. Ideally, fish should be frozen upon collection and shipped to the
laboratory on dry ice.

8.4.3	Once received by the laboratory, the samples must be maintained protected from light at
< -20 °C until prepared. Store unused samples in HDPE containers or wrapped in
aluminum foil at < -20 °C.

*** mlv Study: All study samples will be shipped to the laboratory at < -20 °C. The laboratories
must document the sample temperature upon receipt and note in the case

MLV Study Method

14

October 2021


-------
narrative any samples received at a temperature >6 °C (providing their receipt
temperatures). When samples are received at >6 °C, the laboratory must contact
HGL before proceeding with analysis. Participating laboratories must store all
samples at < -20 °C (and tissue protected from light) until prepared. THIS
APPLIES TO ALL SAMPLES, REGARDLESS OF MATRIX TYPE.

8.5 Holding times

8.5.1	Aqueous samples (including leachates) should be analyzed as soon as possible; however,
samples may be held in the laboratory for up to 90 days from collection, when stored at

< -20 °C and protected from the light. When stored at 0 - 6 °C and protected from the light,
aqueous samples may be held for up to 28 days, with the caveat that issues were observed
with certain perfluorooctane sulfonamide ethanols and perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic
acids after 7 days. These issues are more likely to elevate the observed concentrations of
other PFAS compounds via the transformation of these precursors if they are present in the
sample.

8.5.2	Solid samples (soils and sediments) and tissue samples may be held for up to

90 days, if stored by the laboratory in the dark at either 0 - 6 °C or < -20 °C, with the caveat
that samples may need to be extracted as soon as possible if NFDHA is an important
analyte.

*** MLV Study: Given that NFDHA is a target analyte of the study, laboratories must try to
extract solid samples as soon as possible.

8.5.3	Biosolids samples may be held for up to 90 days, if stored by the laboratory in the dark at

0 - 6 °C or at -20 °C. Because microbiological activity in biosolids samples at 0 - 6 °C may
lead to production of gases and noxious odors, EPA recommends that samples be frozen if
they need to be stored for more than a few days before extraction.

8.5.4	Store sample extracts in the dark at less than 0 - 4 °C until analyzed. If stored in the dark at
less than 0 - 4 °C, sample extracts may be stored for up to 90 days, with the caveat that
issues were observed for some ether sulfonates after 28 days. These issues may elevate the
observed concentrations of the ether sulfonates in the extract over time. Samples may need
to be extracted as soon as possible if NFDHA is an important analyte.

aaa MLV Study: Laboratories must analyze all extracts within 28 days of preparation. If the 28
day time period is exceeded, the laboratory must discuss the exceedance in the case narrative.

9.0	Quality Control

9.1	Each laboratory that uses this method is required to operate a formal quality assurance program
(Reference 6). The minimum requirements of this program consist of an initial demonstration of
laboratory capability, analysis of samples spiked with isotopically labeled compounds to evaluate
and document data quality, and analysis of standards and blanks as tests of continued performance.
Laboratory performance is compared to established performance criteria to determine if the results
of analyses meet the performance characteristics of the method.

If the method is to be applied to a sample matrix other than water (e.g., soils, biosolids, tissue), the
appropriate alternative reference matrix (Sections 7.2.2 - 7.2.3) is substituted for the reagent water
matrix (Section 7.2.1) in all performance tests.

MLV Study Method

15

October 2021


-------
9.1.1 The laboratory must make an initial demonstration of the ability to generate acceptable
precision and recovery with this method. This demonstration is given in Section 9.2.

9.1.2 In recognition of advances that are occurring in analytical technology, and to overcome
matrix interferences, the laboratory is permitted certain options to improve separations or
lower the costs of measurements. These options include alternative extraction,
concentration, and cleanup procedures, and changes in sample volumes, columns, and
detectors. Alternative determinative techniques and changes that degrade method
performance, are not allowed without prior review and approval.

*** mlv Study: Participating laboratories must follow this method without modification.

Note: For additional flexibility to make modifications without prior EPA review, see
40 CFR Part 136.6.

9.1.2.1 Each time a modification is made to this method, the laboratory is required to

repeat the procedure in Section 9.2. If calibration will be affected by the change,
the instrument must be recalibrated per Section 10. Once the modification is
demonstrated to produce results equivalent or superior to results produced by this
method as written, that modification may be used routinely thereafter, so long as
the other requirements in this method are met (e.g., isotopically labeled
compound recovery).

9.1.2.2 The laboratory is required to maintain records of any modifications made to this
method. These records include the following, at a minimum:

a)	The names, titles, business addresses, and telephone numbers of the analyst(s)
that performed the analyses and modification, and of the quality control officer
that witnessed and will verify the analyses and modifications.

b)	A listing of pollutant(s) measured, by name and CAS Registry number.

c)	A narrative stating reason(s) for the modifications (see Section 1.6).

d)	Results from all quality control (QC) tests comparing the modified method to
this method, including:

i.	Calibration (Section 10)

ii.	Calibration verification (Section 14.3)

iii.	Initial precision and recovery (Section 9.2.1)

iv.	Isotopically labeled compound recovery (Section 9.3)

v.	Analysis of blanks (Section 9.5)

vi.	Accuracy assessment (Section 9.4)

e) Data that will allow an independent reviewer to validate each determination
by tracing the instrument output (peak height, area, or other signal) to the final
result. These data are to include:

i.	Sample numbers and other identifiers

ii.	Extraction dates

iii.	Analysis dates and times

iv.	Analysis sequence/run chronology

MLV Study Method

16

October 2021


-------
V.

Sample weight or volume (Section 11)

vi.

Extract volume prior to each cleanup step (Section 12)

vii.

Extract volume after each cleanup step (Section 12)

viii.

Final extract volume prior to injection (Section 12)

ix.

Injection volume (Section 13.3)

X.

Dilution data, differentiating between dilution of a sample or extract



(Section 15.3)

xi.

Instrument

xii.

Column (dimensions, liquid phase, solid support, film thickness, etc.)

xiii.

Operating conditions (temperatures, temperature program, flow rates)

xiv.

Detector (type, operating conditions, etc.)

XV.

Chromatograms, printer tapes, and other recordings of raw data

xvi.

Quantitation reports, data system outputs, and other data to link the raw



data to the results reported

9.1.2.3 Alternative columns and column systems - If a column or column system other
than those specified in this method is used, that column or column system must
meet all the requirements of this method.

Note: The use of alternative columns or programs will likely result in a different elution order.

9.1.3	Analyses of method blanks are required on an on-going basis to demonstrate the extent of
background contamination in any reagents or equipment used to prepare and analyze field
samples (Section 4.3). The procedures and criteria for analysis of a method blank are
described in Section 9.5.

9.1.4	The laboratory must spike all samples with isotopically labeled compounds to monitor
method performance. This test is described in Section 9.3. When results of these spikes
indicate atypical method performance for samples, the samples are diluted to evaluate
whether the performance issue is caused by the sample matrix. Procedures for dilution are
given in Section 15.3.

9.1.5	The laboratory must, on an ongoing basis, demonstrate that the analytical system is in
control through calibration verification and the analysis of ongoing precision and recovery
standards (OPR), spiked at low (LLOPR) and mid-level, and blanks. These procedures are
given in Sections 14.1 through 14.7.

9.1.6	The laboratory must maintain records to define the quality of data generated. Development
of accuracy statements is described in Section 9.4.

9.2 Initial Demonstration of Capability

9.2.1 Initial precision and recovery (IPR) - To establish the ability to generate acceptable

precision and recovery, the laboratory must perform the following operations for each
sample matrix type to which the method will be applied by that laboratory.

9.2.1.1 Extract, concentrate, and analyze four aliquots of the matrix type to be tested

(Section 7.2.1 through 7.2.3), spiked with 200 |_iL of the native standard solution
(Section 7.3.3), 50 (iL of the EIS solution (Section 7.3.1), and 50 (iL of NIS
solution (Section 7.3.2). At least one method blank, matching the matrix being
analyzed, must be prepared with the IPR batch. In the event that more than one
MB was prepared and analyzed with the IPR batch, all blank results must be

MLV Study Method

17

October 2021


-------
reported. All sample processing steps that are to be used for processing samples,
including preparation and extraction (Sections 11.2 - 11.4), cleanup (Section
12.0) and concentration (Section 12.0), must be included in this test.

Using results of the set of four analyses, compute the average percent recovery
(R) of the extracts and the relative standard deviation (RSD) of the concentration
for each target and EIS compound.

For each native and isotopically labeled compound, compare RSD and %
recovery with the corresponding limits for initial precision and recovery in Table
5. If RSD and R for all compounds meet the acceptance criteria, system
performance is acceptable, and analysis of blanks and samples may begin. If,
however, any individual RSD exceeds the precision limit or any individual R
falls outside the range for recovery, system performance is unacceptable for that
compound. Correct the problem and repeat the test (Section 9.2).

*** jvily Study: For this study, the target recovery for method analytes in the IPRs, is 40-150%,
the target recovery for EIS compounds is 20-150%, and the target recovery for
NIS compounds greater than 30%. If any of the target recoveries are not met in
an IPR, rerun the IPR using a fresh aliquot of the extract. If the failure
confirms, report the original analysis, if it does not confirm, report the result
from the second analysis.

9.2.2 Method detection limit (MDL) - Each laboratory must also establish MDLs for all the
analytes using the MDL procedure at 40 CFR Part 136, Appendix B. An MDL
determination must be performed for all compounds. The minimum level of quantification
(ML) is then calculated by multiplying the MDL by 3.18 and rounding the result to the
nearest 1, 2 or 5 x 10n, where n is zero or an integer. Example matrix-specific detection
limits are listed in Table 6.

9.3	To assess method performance on the sample matrix, the laboratory must spike all samples with the
isotopically labeled compound standard solution (Section 7.3.1) and all sample extracts with the
NIS spiking solution (Section 7.3.2).

9.3.1	Analyze each sample according to the procedures in Sections 11.0 through 16.0.

9.3.2	Compute the percent recovery of the isotopically labeled compound using the non-extracted
internal standard method (Section 15.2) and the equation in Section 14.5.2.

9.3.3	The recovery of each isotopically labeled compound must be within the limits in Table 5.
If the recovery of any compound falls outside of these limits, method performance is
unacceptable for that compound in that sample. Additional cleanup procedures must then
be employed to attempt to bring the recovery within the normal range. If the recovery
cannot be brought within the normal range after all cleanup procedures have been
employed, water samples are diluted, and smaller amounts of soils, biosolids, sediments,
and other matrices are prepared and analyzed, per Section 15.3.

aaa jvily Study: See MLV Study note in Section 15.3.2 for applicable EIS and NIS criteria and
corrective actions.

9.4	Recovery of isotopically labeled compounds from samples must also be assessed and records
maintained.

9.2.1.2

9.2.1.3

MLV Study Method

18

October 2021


-------
9.4.1	After the analysis of 30 samples of a given matrix type (water, soil, biosolids, tissues, etc.)
for which the isotopically labeled compounds pass the tests in Section 9.3, compute the R
and the standard deviation of the percent recovery (Sr) for the isotopically labeled
compounds only. Express the assessment as a percent recovery interval from R - 2Sr to R
+ 2Sr for each matrix. For example, if R = 90% and Sr = 10% for five analyses of soil, the
recovery interval is expressed as 70 to 110%.

9.4.2	Update the accuracy assessment for each isotopically labeled compound in each matrix on a
regular basis (e.g., after each five to ten new measurements).

9.5	Method blanks - A method blank is analyzed with each sample batch (Section 4.3) to demonstrate
freedom from contamination. The matrix for the method blank must be similar to the sample
matrix for the batch (e.g., reagent water blank [Section 7.2.1], solids matrix blank [Section 7.2.2],
or tissue blank [Section 7.2.3]).

9.5.1	Analyze the cleaned extract (Section 12.0) of the method blank aliquot before the analysis
of the OPRs (Section 14.5).

9.5.2	If any PFAS is found in the blank at 1) at a concentration greater than the ML for the
analyte, 2) at a concentration greater than one-third the regulatory compliance limit, or 3) at
a concentration greater than one-tenth the concentration in a sample in the extraction batch,
whichever is greatest, analysis of samples must be halted, and the problem corrected. Other
project-specific requirements may apply; therefore, the laboratory may adopt more
stringent acceptance limits for the method blank at their discretion. If the contamination is
traceable to the extraction batch, samples affected by the blank must be re-extracted and
analyzed, provided enough sample volume is available and the sample are still within
holding time.

If, continued re-testing results in repeated blank contamination, the laboratory must
document and report the failures (e.g., as qualifiers on results), unless the failures are not
required to be reported as determined by the regulatory/control authority. Results
associated with blank contamination for an analyte regulated in a discharge cannot be used
to demonstrate regulatory compliance. QC failures do not relieve a discharger or permittee
of reporting timely results.

9.6	The specifications contained in this method can be met if the apparatus used is calibrated properly
and then maintained in a calibrated state. The standards used for initial calibration (Section 10.3),
calibration verification (Sections 14.2 and 14.3), and for initial (Section 9.2.1) and ongoing (Section
14.5) precision and recovery may be prepared from the same source; however, the use of a
secondary source for calibration verification is highly recommended whenever available. If
standards from a different vendor are not available, a different lot number from the same vendor
can be considered a secondary source. A LC-MS/MS instrument will provide the most
reproducible results if dedicated to the settings and conditions required for determination of PFAS
by this method.

*** MLV Study: If analytes are detected in the blank at concentrations greater than Vz
ML (or LOQ) for the analyte, or 2) at concentrations greater than one-
tenth the concentration in a sample in the extraction batch, whichever is
greatest, a B-flag must be applied to all results for the specific analyte(s)

MLV Study Method

19

October 2021


-------
in the method blank and all affected samples in the associated
preparatory batch and discuss the failure in the case narrative.

9.7	Depending on specific program requirements, field replicates may be collected to determine the
precision of the sampling technique, and spiked samples may be required to determine the accuracy
of the analysis when the extracted internal standard method is used.

9.8	Matrix spikes generally are not required for isotope dilution methods because any deleterious
effects of the matrix should be evident in the recoveries of the isotopically labeled compounds
spiked into every sample. However, because some of the compounds are quantified by a non-
analogous isotopically labeled compounds (e.g., PFPeS is quantified by 13C3-PFHxS), the analysis of
matrix spike samples may help diagnose matrix interferences for specific compounds.

10.0	Calibration and Standardization

10.1	Mass Calibration

The mass spectrometer must undergo mass calibration to ensure accurate assignments of m/z's by
the instrument. This mass calibration must be performed at least annually to maintain instrument
sensitivity and stability. Mass calibration must be repeated on an as-needed basis (e.g., QC failures,
ion masses fall outside of the instrument required mass window, major instrument maintenance, or
if the instrument is moved). Mass calibration must be performed using the calibration compounds
and procedures prescribed by the manufacturer. The procedures used for mass calibration and mass
calibration verification must evaluate an ion range that encompasses the ion range (Q1 and Q2 m/z)
of the analytes of interest of this method (Table 2).

Multiple Reaction Monitoring (MRM) analysis is required to achieve better sensitivity than full-
scan analysis. The ions to be monitored (Q1 and Q2 m/z) for each native compound, isotopically
labeled compound, and NIS are given in Table 2.

10.1.1	During the development of this method, instrumental parameters were optimized for the
precursor and product ions listed on Table 2. Product ions other than those listed may be
selected; however, the use of ions with lower mass or common ions that may not provide
sufficient discrimination between analytes of interest and co-eluting interferences must be
avoided.

10.1.2	Optimize the response of the precursor ion [M-H]" or [M-CO2] for each method analyte
following the manufacturer's guidance. MS parameters (e.g., source voltages, source and
desolvation temperatures, gas flow, etc.) must be methodically changed until optimal
analyte responses are determined. Typically, carboxylic acids have similar MS/MS
conditions and sulfonic acids have similar MS/MS conditions. However, since analytes
may have different optimal parameters, some compromise on the final operating conditions
may be required.

10.1.3	Establish suitable operating conditions using the manufacturer's instructions and use the
table below for the MS conditions used during the development of this method as guidance.

Operating Conditions for Waters Acquity UPLC, TQ-S Xevo MS/MS

. . . ,	2.0 11L (This is the default volume, and may be changed to improve

Iniection volume	,r

J	performance)

MLV Study Method

20

October 2021


-------
Operating Conditions for Waters Acquity UPLC, TQ-S Xevo MS/MS

Source Temp (°C) 140
Desolvation Temp (°C) 500
MS/MS Conditions	Capillary Voltage (kV) 0.70

Cone Gas (L/h) ~70
Desolvation gas (L/h) -800

10.1.4	In the absence of manufacturer-specific instructions and acceptance criteria, the following

procedure may be used for mass calibration.

10.1.4.1	Introduce the NaCsI calibration solution (Section 7.4) to the MS at the flow rate
necessary to produce a stable aerosol spray (e.g., 10 |a,L/min).

10.1.4.2	Scan the MS/MS over the mass range from 20 to 3000 atomic mass units (amu)
(or Daltons [Da]). Adjust the source parameters to optimize peak intensity and
shape across the mass range. The exact m/z's for NaCsI calibration are:

Calibration Masses (Daltons)

22.9898	922.3552	1971.6149

132.9054	1072.2494	2121.5091

172.8840	1222.1437	2271.4033

322.7782	1372.0379	2421.2976

472.6725	1521.9321	2571.1918

622.5667	1671.8264	2721.0861

772.4610	1821.7206	2870.9803

10.1.4.3	Mass calibration is judged on the basis of the presence or absence of the exact
calibration masses (e.g., a limit of the number of masses that are "missed").
Absent vendor-specific instructions, all masses from 22.9898 to 1971.6149 must
be present. If peaks in this range are missing or not correctly identified, adjust
the MS/MS, and repeat the test. Only after the MS/MS is properly calibrated
may standards, blanks, and samples be analyzed.

10.1.4.4	Mass spectrometer optimization - Prior to measurements of a given analyte the
mass spectrometer must be separately optimized for that analyte.

10.1.4.5	Using the post-column pump, separately infuse a solution containing 2-5 (ig/mL
of each compound in methanol into the MS.

10.1.4.6	Optimize sensitivity to the product ion m/z for each compound. Precursor-
product ion m/z's other than those listed may be used provided requirements in
this method are met.

10.1.4.7	After MS calibration and optimization and LC-MS/MS calibration, the same LC-
MS/MS conditions must be used for analysis of all standards, blanks, IPR and
OPR standards, and samples.

10.1.5	Mass Calibration Verification

MLV Study Method

21

October 2021


-------
A mass calibration verification must be performed following mass calibration, prior to
standards and samples analysis. Mass verification checks must also be performed after any
subsequent mass calibrations. Each laboratory must follow the instructions for their
individual instrument software to confirm the mass calibration, mass resolution and peak
relative response. Mass calibration verification must be performed using standards whose
mass range brackets the masses of interest (quantitative and qualitative ions).

10.1.5.1	Check the instrument mass resolution to ensure that it is at least unit resolution.
Inject a mid-level CAL standard under LC-MS/MS conditions to obtain the
retention times of each method analyte. Divide the chromatogram into retention
time windows each of which contains one or more chromatographic peaks.
During MS/MS analysis, fragment a small number of selected precursor ions
([M-H]") for the analytes in each window and choose the most abundant product
ion. The product ions (also the quantitation ions) chosen during method
development are in Table 2, although these will be instrument dependent. Unit
resolution is demonstrated when the value of the peak width at half-height is
within 0.5 ±0.1 amu or Da.

10.1.5.2	Check the mass calibration by measuring the amount of peak drift from the
expected masses. If the peak apex has shifted more than approximately 0.1 Da,
then the instrument will need to be recalibrated following the manufacturer's
instructions.

10.2 Chromatographic conditions

10.2.1 The chromatographic conditions should be optimized for compound separation and

sensitivity. The same optimized operating conditions must be used for the analysis of all
standards, blanks, IPR and OPR standards, and samples. The following table gives the
suggested chromatographic conditions for this method using the specified instrument and
column. Different instruments may require slightly different operating conditions.
Modification of the solvent composition of the standard or extract by increasing the
aqueous content to prevent poor peak shape is not permitted. The peak shape of early
eluting compounds may be improved by increasing the volume of the injection loop or
increasing the aqueous content of the initial mobile phase composition.

General LC Conditions

Column Temp (°C) 40
Max Pressure (bar) 1100.0

LC Gradient Program
Time (min)	Flow mixture 12	Flow Rate Program Gradient Curve

0.0

2% eluent A, 98% eluent B

0.35 mL/min

Initial

0.2

2% eluent A, 98% eluent B

0.35 mL/min

2

4.0

30% eluent A, 70% eluent B

0.40 mL/min

7

7

55% eluent A, 45% eluent B

0.40 mL/min

8

9

75% eluent A, 25% eluent B

0.40 mL/min

8

10

95% eluent A, 5% eluent B

0.40 mL/min

6

10.4

2% eluent A, 98% eluent B

0.40 mL/min

10

11.8

2% eluent A, 98% eluent B

0.40 mL/min

7

12.0

2% eluent A, 98% eluent B

0.35 mL/min

1

1	Eluent A = Acetonitrile

2	Eluent B = 2 mM ammonium acetate in 95:5 water/acetonitrile

MLV Study Method

22

October 2021


-------
Note: LC system components, as well as the mobile phase constituents, may contain many of the
analytes in this method. Thus, these PFAS will build up on the head of the LC column
during mobile phase equilibration. To minimize the background PFAS peaks and to keep
baseline levels constant, the time the LC column sits at initial conditions must be kept
constant and as short as possible (while ensuring reproducible retention times). Ln
addition, priming the mobile phase and flushing the column with at least 90% methanol
before initiating a sequence may reduce background contamination.

10.2.2 Retention time calibration

10.2.2.1	Inject compound solution(s) to determine its retention time. The laboratory may
want to inject compounds separately the first time they perform the calibration.
All native compounds for which there is an isotopically labeled analog will elute
slightly before or with the labeled analog. Store the retention time (RT) for each
compound in the data system.

10.2.2.2	Once RT windows have been confirmed for each analyte, once per ICAL and at
the beginning of the analytical sequence, the position of each method analyte,
EIS analyte, and NIS analyte peaks shall be set using the midpoint standard of
the ICAL curve when ICAL is performed. When ICAL is not performed, the
initial CV retention times or the midpoint standard of the ICAL curve can be
used to establish the RT window position.

10.2.2.3	Method analyte, EIS analyte, and NIS analyte RTs must fall within 0.4 minutes of
the predicted retention times from the midpoint standard of the ICAL or initial
daily CV, whichever was used to establish the RT window position for the
analytical batch. All branched isomer peaks identified in either the calibration
standard or the qualitative (technical grade) standard must fall within in the
retention time window for that analyte.

10.2.2.4	For all method analytes with exact corresponding isotopically labeled analogs,
method analytes must elute within 0.1 minutes of the associated EIS.

10.2.2.5	When establishing the chromatographic conditions, it is important to consider the
potential interference of bile salts during analyses of tissue samples. Inject a
standard containing TDCA (Section 7.5 if the mobile phase is not acetonitrile)
during the retention time calibration process and adjust the conditions to ensure
that TDCA (or TCDCA and TUDCA) does not coelute with any of the target
analytes, EIS, or NIS standards. Analytical conditions must be set to allow a
separation of at least 1 minute between the bile salts and PFOS.

10.3 Initial calibration

Initial calibration is performed using a series of at least six solutions, with at least five of the six
calibration standards being within the quantification. (If a second-order calibration model is used,
then one additional concentration is required.) The initial calibration solutions contain the entire
suite of isotopically labeled compounds, NISs, and target compounds. Calibration is verified with a
calibration verification (CV) standard at least once every ten field samples or less, by analysis of a
mid-level calibration solution. Calibration verification uses the mean RRs or RFs determined from
the initial calibration to calculate the analyte concentrations in the verification standard.

MLV Study Method

23

October 2021


-------
Note: Six calibration standards is the minimum number that must be used in the initial

calibration; however, the laboratory may use more standards, as long as the criteria in
Section 10.3.3.3 can be met.

Prior to the analysis of samples, and after the mass calibration check has met all criteria in Section
10.1.4, each LC-MS/MS system must be calibrated at a minimum of 6 standard concentrations
(Section 7.3.4 and Table 4). This method procedure calibrates and quantifies 40 PFAS target
analytes, using the isotopically labeled compounds added to the sample prior to extraction, by one
of two approaches:

•	True isotope dilution quantification (ID), whereby the response of the target compound is
compared to the response of its isotopically labeled analog. Twenty-four target compounds are
quantified in this way.

•	Extracted internal standard quantification (EIS), whereby the response of the target compound
is compared to the response of the isotopically labeled analog of another compound with
chemical and retention time similarities. Sixteen target compounds are quantified in this way.

*** jvily Study: Prepare calibration standards containing the native compounds, EISs, and
NISs, at the concentrations described in Table 4. If lower LOQs can be
achieved, additional lower concentration standards can be added to the
calibration. Similarly, standards can be eliminated from the high end of the
calibration if the instrument's linear range is exceeded, however, elimination
of standards at the high end may result in additional dilutions of samples
being required due to quantification range exceedances.

10.3.1	Initial calibration frequency

Each LC-MS/MS system must be calibrated whenever the laboratory takes corrective
action that might change or affect the initial calibration criteria, or if either the CV or
Instrument Sensitivity Check (ISC) acceptance criteria have not been met.

10.3.2	Initial calibration procedure

Prepare calibration standards containing the native compounds, EISs, and NISs, at the
concentrations described in Table 4. Analyze each calibration standard by injecting 2.0 |_iL
(this volume may be changed to improve performance).

Note: The same injection volume must be used for all standards, samples, blanks, and QC
samples.

10.3.3 Initial calibration calculations

10.3.3.1	Instrument sensitivity

Sufficient instrument sensitivity is established if a signal-to-noise ratio >3:1 can
be achieved when analyzing the lowest concentration standard within the
quantitation range that the laboratory includes in its assessment of calibration
linearity (Table 4).

10.3.3.2	Response Ratios (RR) and Response Factors (RF)

MLV Study Method

24

October 2021


-------
The response ratio (RR) for each compound calibrated by isotope dilution is
calculated according to the equation below, separately for each of the calibration
standards, using the areas of the quantitation ions (Ql) with the m/z shown in
Table 2. RR is used for the 24 compounds quantified by true isotope dilution.

Arean Mi

RR =

Areai Mn
where:

Arean = The measured area of the Q1 m/z for the native (unlabeled) PFAS
Areai = The measured area at the Ql m/z for the corresponding isotopically

labeled PFAS added to the sample before extraction
Mi = The mass of the isotopically labeled compound in the calibration
standard

Mn = The mass of the native compound in the calibration standard

Similarly, the response factor (RF) for each unlabeled compound calibrated by
extracted internal standard is calculated according to the equation below. RF is
used for the 16 compounds quantified by extracted internal standard.

AreasMEIS

RF = 		—

AreaEIS Ms

where:

Areas = The measured area of the Q1 m/z for the target (unlabeled) PFAS
Areasis = The measured area at the Q1 m/z for the isotopically labeled PFAS

used as the extracted internal standard (EIS)

Meis = The mass of the isotopically labeled PFAS used as the extracted

internal standard (EIS) in the calibration standard
Ms = The mass of the target (unlabeled) PFAS in the calibration standard

A response factor (RFS) is calculated for each isotopically labeled compound in
the calibration standard using the equation below. RFS is used for the 24
isotopically labeled compounds quantified by non-extracted internal standard.

Areat MNIS

= 	

AreaNIS Mt

where:

Areai = The measured area of the Q1 m/z for the isotopically labeled PFAS

standard added to the sample before extraction
AreaNis = The measured area at the Ql m/z for the isotopically labeled PFAS

used as the non-extracted internal standard (NIS)

Mnis = The mass of the isotopically labeled compound used as the non-

extracted internal standard (NIS) in the calibration standard
Mi = The mass of the isotopically labeled PFAS standard added to the
sample before extraction

Note: Other calculation approaches may be used, such as linear regression or non-linear
regression based on the capability of the data system used by the laboratory

MLV Study Method

25

October 2021


-------
10.3.3.3 Instrument Linearity

One of the following two approaches must be used to evaluate the linearity of the
instrument calibration:

Option 1: Calculate the relative standard deviation (RSD) of the RR or RF
values of the six initial calibration standards for each native
compound and isotopically labeled compound. The RSD must be
< 20% to establish instrument linearity.

Option 2: Calculate the relative standard error (RSE) of the six initial calibration
standards for each native compound and isotopically labeled
compound. The RSE for all method analytes must be < 20% to
establish instrument linearity.

10.3.4	Initial calibration corrective actions

If the instrument sensitivity or the instrument linearity criteria for initial calibration are not
met, inspect the system for problems and take corrective actions to achieve the criteria.

This may require the preparation and analysis of fresh calibration standards. All initial
calibration criteria must be met before any samples or required blanks are analyzed.

10.3.5	Bile salts interference check

The laboratory must analyze a bile salt interference check standard (See Section 7.5) after
the initial calibration, prior to the analysis of tissue samples, to check for interferences
caused by bile salts. If an interference is present, the chromatographic conditions must be
modified to eliminate the interference from the bile salts (e.g., changing the retention time
of TDCA such that it falls outside the retention window for PFOS by at least one minute),
and the initial calibration repeated. If tissue sample analyses are not being conducted, this
check may be skipped.

*** jvily Study: Participating laboratories must analyze a bile salt interference check standard
after the initial calibration, prior to the analysis of any samples, regardless of
media type.

11.0 Sample preparation and extraction

For aqueous samples that contain particles and solid samples, percent solids are determined using
the procedures in Section 11.1. This section describes the sample preparation procedures for
aqueous samples with < 50 mg solids (Section 11.2), solid (soil, sediment orbiosolid) samples
(Section 11.3) and tissue samples (Section 11.4).

Note: It is highly recommended that the laboratory pre-screens all samples prior to performing the
analysis (see Appendix A). For aqueous samples, use the secondary container provided for
percent solids to perform the pre-screening. If high levels ofPFAS are present in the sample, a
lower volume is required for analysis.

The laboratory may subsample the aqueous samples as described in Appendix B; however,
subsampling must meet project-specific requirements. The laboratory must notify the client
before proceeding with subsampling. Once the laboratory becomes familiar with the levels of

MLV Study Method

26

October 2021


-------
PFAS in the samples for their clients, the samples should be collected in the appropriate sample
container size to avoid subsampling. The sample data report must state when subsampling has
been employed.

Do not use any fluoropolymer articles or task wipes in these extraction procedures. Use only
HDPE or polypropylene wash bottles and centrifuge tubes. Reagents and solvents for cleaning
syringes may be kept in glass containers.

*** jvily Study: Participating laboratories are not to pre-screen aqueous sample. The study

samples have been pre-screened to ensure analyte concentrations allow for the
method extraction procedures to be followed and have been verified to contain <
50 mg solids.

11.1	Determination of Percent Solids

11.1.1	Determination of percent suspended solids - Aqueous liquids and multi-phase samples
consisting of mainly an aqueous phase

11.1.1.1	Desiccate and weigh a glass fiber filter (Section 6.4.3) to three significant
figures.

11.1.1.2	Filter 10.0 ± 0.02 mL of well-mixed sample through the filter.

11.1.1.3	Dry the filter a minimum of 12 hours at 110 ± 5 °C and cool in a desiccator.

11.1.1.4	Calculate percent solids as follows:

weight of sample aliquot after drying (g) — weight of filter (g)

% solids = 	x 100

10 g

11.1.2	Solids (excluding tissues)

11.1.2.1	Weigh 5 to 10 g of sample to three significant figures in a tared beaker.

11.1.2.2	Dry a minimum of 12 hours at 110 ± 5 °C, and cool in a desiccator.

11.1.2.3	Calculate percent solids as follows:

weiqht of sample aliquot after dryinq (q)

% SMdS~ 1 100

aaa jvily Study: Participating laboratories are to determine % Moisture of solids (excluding

tissues) using the Waters/ERA designated container for each sample per Waters/ERA
instructions.

11.2	Aqueous Sample Processing

This method is applicable to aqueous samples containing up to 50 mg of suspended solids per
sample. The procedure requires the preparation of the entire sample. Smaller sample volumes may
be analyzed for samples containing solids greater than specified for this method, or when
unavoidable due to high level of PFAS; however, subsampling should be avoided whenever
possible. Typical sample size is 500 mL; however, sample size may be up to 1000 mL. The

MLV Study Method

27

October 2021


-------
sample is to be analyzed in its entirety and should not be filtered. Leachate samples are analyzed
using a 100-mL sample volume. Therefore, they must not be included in the same sample
preparation batch as aqueous samples analyzed which are analyzed using 500-mL sample volumes.

11.2.1	Homogenize the sample by inverting the sample 3-4 times and allowing the sample to
settle. Do not filter the sample. The standard procedure is to analyze the entire sample,
plus a basic methanol rinse of the container.

11.2.2	The volume of the aqueous sample analyzed is determined by weighing the full sample
bottle and then the empty sample bottle (see Section 12.2). Weigh each sample bottle (with
the lid) to 0.1 g.

*** jvily Study: Participating laboratories will record the volume of sample as indicated by
Waters/ERA instructions.

11.2.3	Prepare a method blank and two OPRs using PFAS-free water in HDPE bottles. Select a
volume of water that is typical of the samples in the batch. Spike one OPR sample with
native standard solution (Section 7.3.3) at 2xthe LOQ (LLOPR). This aliquot will serve to
verify the LOQ. Spike the other OPR sample at the concentration of the mid-level
calibration point. This aliquot will serve as the traditional OPR.

Note: If matrix spikes are required for a specific project, spike the field sample bottles designated
for use as MS/MSD samples with native standard solution (Section 7.3.3) at a
concentration 3 to 5 times the background concentration determined during screening of
the unspiked sample. If screening was not performed, then spike those samples at the
concentration of the mid-level calibration point.

aaa jvily Study: No MS/MSDs samples are to be prepared for this study.

11.2.4	Spike an aliquot of EIS solution (Section 7.3.1) directly into the sample in the original
bottle (or subsampled bottle) as well as to the bottles prepared for the QC samples. Mix by
swirling the sample container.

11.2.5	Check that the pH is 6.5 ± 0.5. If necessary, adjust pH with 50% formic acid (Section
7.1.13.4) or ammonium hydroxide (or with 5% formic acid [Section 7.1.13.3] and 3%
aqueous ammonium hydroxide [Section 7.1.6.2]). The extract is now ready for solid-phase
extraction (SPE) and cleanup (Section 12.0).

11.3 Solid Sample (excluding tissues) Processing

Use a stainless spoon to mix the sample in its original jar. If it is impractical to mix the sample
within its container transfer the sample to a larger container. Remove rocks, invertebrates, and
foreign objects. Vegetation can either be removed from the sample before homogenization or cut
into small pieces and included in the sample, based on project requirements. Mix the sample
thoroughly, stirring from the bottom to the top and in a circular motion along the sides of the jar,
breaking particles to less than 1 mm by pressing against the side of the container. The homogenized
sample should be even in colour and have no separate layers. Store the homogenized material in its
original container or in multiple smaller containers. Determine the percent solids as per Section
11.1.2.

Note: The maximum sample weight for sediment or soil is 5 g dry weight. The maximum sample weight
for biosolids is 0.5 g dry weight.

MLV Study Method

28

October 2021


-------
Small amounts of reagent free water used for method blanks (10% of sample weight or less) can
be added to unusually dry samples. This is an option, not a requirement.

*** jvily Study: The container designated for the determination of percent solids must be used for
this determination. This container has not been spiked with analytes, therefore is
NOT interchangeable with the container designated for PFAS analysis.
Participating laboratories are NOT to add reagent water to dry samples. Samples
have been prepared with the appropriate % moisture content. Laboratories are
still to add PFAS-free reagent water to QC samples per section 11.3.2 and
document the amount added.

11.3.1	Weigh out an aliquot of solid sample, not dried (aliquot should provide 5 g dry weight for
soil and sediment or 0.5 g dry-weight for biosolids) into a 50-mL polypropylene centrifuge
tube. Because biosolids samples are analyzed with a 0.5-g sample, they must not be
included in the same sample preparation batch as solid samples analyzed with 5-g sample
masses.

aaa jvily Study: Participating laboratories will follow the instructions provided by Waters/ERA
with respect to sample amount and record the weight as directed.

11.3.2	Prepare batch QC samples using 5 g of reference solid (Section 7.2.2) wetted with 2.5 g of
reagent water for the method blank and two OPRs (use 0.5 g of reference solid with 0.25 g
of reagent water for biosolid sample batches). The addition of reagent water to the sand
provides a matrix closer in composition to real-world samples. Spike one OPR sample with
native standard solution (Section 7.3.3) at 2xthe LOQ (LLOPR). This aliquot will serve to
verify the LOQ. Spike the other OPR sample at the concentration of the mid-level
calibration point. This aliquot will serve as the traditional OPR.

Note: If matrix spikes are required for a specific project, spike the field sample aliquots

designated for MS/MSD samples with native standard solution (Section 7.3.3) at the
concentration 3 to 5 times the background concentration determined during screening of
the unspiked sample. If screening was not performed, then spike those samples at the
concentration of the mid-level calibration point.

aaa jvily Study: No MS/MSDs samples will be used in this study.

11.3.3	Spike an aliquot of EIS solution (Section 7.3.1) directly into each centrifuge tube
containing the aliquoted field and QC samples. Vortex the sample to disperse the standard
and allow to equilibrate for at least 30 minutes.

11.3.4	Add 10 mL of 0.3% methanolic ammonium hydroxide (Section 7.1.7.1) to each centrifuge
tube. Vortex to disperse, then shake for 30 minutes on a variable speed mixing table.
Centrifuge at 2800 rpm for 10 minutes and transfer the supernatant to a clean 50-mL
polypropylene centrifuge tube.

11.3.5	Add 15 mL of 0.3% methanolic ammonium hydroxide (Section 7.1.7.1) to the remaining
solid sample in each centrifuge tube. Vortex to disperse, then shake for 30 minutes on a
variable speed mixing table. Centrifuge at 2800 rpm for 10 minutes and decant the
supernatant from the second extraction into the centrifuge tube with the supernatant from
the first extraction.

MLV Study Method

29

October 2021


-------
11.3.6	Add another 5 mL of 0.3% methanolic ammonium hydroxide (Section 7.1.7.1) to the
remaining sample in each centrifuge tube. Shake by hand to disperse, centrifuge at 2800
rpm for 10 minutes and decant the supernatant from the third extraction into the centrifuge
tube with supernatant from the first and second extractions.

11.3.7	Using a 10-mg scoop, add 10 mg of carbon (Section 7.1.17) to the combined extract, mix
by occasional hand shaking for no more than five minutes and then centrifuge at 2800 rpm
for 10 minutes. Immediately decant the extract into a 60-mL glass evaporation or
concentrator tube.

11.3.8	Dilute to approximately 35 mL with reagent water. A separate concentrator tube marked at
the 35-mL level may be kept for a visual reference to get the approximate volume.

Samples containing more than 50% water may yield extracts that are greater than 35 mL in
volume; therefore, do not add water to these. Determine the water content in the sample as
follows (percent moisture is determined from the % solids):

Sample Weight (a) x Moisture (%)

Water Content in Sample = 	

p	100

11.3.9	Concentrate each extract at approximately 55 °C with a N2 flow of approximately 1.2 L/min
to a final volume that is based on the water content of the sample (see table below). Allow
extracts to concentrate for 25 minutes, then mix (by vortex if the volume is < 20 mL or
using a glass pipette if the volume is > 20 mL). Continue concentrating and mixing every
10 minutes until the extract has been reduced to the required volume as specified in the
table below. If the extract volume appears to stop dropping, the concentration must be
stopped and the volume at which it was stopped recorded.

Water Content in Sample	Concentrated Final Volume

< 5 g	7 mL

5 - 8 g	8 mL

8	- 9 g	9 mL

9	- 10 g	10 mL

Note: Slowly concentrating extracts, in 1-mL increments, is necessary to prevent excessive

concentration and the loss of neutral compounds (methyl and ethyl FOSEs and FOSAs) and
other highly volatile compounds. The extract must be concentrated to remove the methanol
as excess methanol during SPE clean-up results in poor recovery of C13 and C14
carboxylic acids and CIO and C12 sulfonates.

11.3.10 Add 40 - 50 mL of reagent water to the extract and vortex. Check that the pH is 6.5 ±0.5
and adjust as necessary with 50% formic acid (Section 7.1.13.4) or 30% ammonium
hydroxide (or with 5% formic acid [Section 7.1.13.3] and 3% aqueous ammonium
hydroxide [Section 7.1.6.2]). The extracts are ready for SPE and cleanup (Section 12.0).

11.4. Tissue Sample Processing

Prior to processing tissue samples, the laboratory must determine the exact tissue to be analyzed. Common
requests for analysis of fish tissue include whole fish with the skin on, whole fish with the skin removed,
edible fish fillets (filleted in the field or by the laboratory), specific organs, and other portions. Once the
appropriate tissue has been determined, the samples must be prepared and homogenized.

MLV Study Method

30

October 2021


-------
If the laboratory must dissect the whole fish to obtain the appropriate tissue for analysis, cover the benchtop
with clean aluminum foil and use clean processing equipment (knives, scalpels, tweezers) to dissect each
sample to prevent cross-contamination. Samples should be handled in a semi-thawed state for compositing
and/or homogenization. All tissue comprising a sample is collected in a stainless-steel bowl during
grinding, then mixed using a stainless-steel spoon. Homogenized samples must be stored in clean HDPE
containers and stored frozen for subsequent use.

If using a grinder, after the entire sample has been processed, mix the ground tissue with a spoon, transfer
back to the grinder, and repeat the grinding at least two more times until the homogenize tissue has a
consistent texture and color.

11.4.1 For each sample, weigh a 2-g aliquot of homogenized tissue into a 15-mL polypropylene
centrifuge tube. Reseal the container with the remaining homogenized portion of the
sample and return it to frozen storage in the event that it needs to be used for reanalysis.

Note: The default sample weight for tissue is 2g wet weight; however, a 1-g sample may be used.
Higher sample weights are not recommended for this method.

*** jvily Study: Participating laboratories will follow the instructions provided by Waters/ERA
with respect to sample amount and record the weight as directed.

11.4.2 Prepare the batch QC samples using 2 g of reference tissue matrix (Section 7.2.3) for the
method blank and two OPRs. Spike one OPR sample with native standard solution
(Section 7.3.3) at 2x the LOQ (LLOPR). This aliquot will serve to verify the LOQ. Spike
the other OPR sample at the concentration of the mid-level calibration point. This aliquot
will serve as the traditional OPR.

Note: If matrix spikes are required for a specific project, spike the field sample aliquots
designated as MS/MSD samples with native standard solution (Section 7.3.3) at the
concentration 3 to 5 times the background concentration determined during screening of
the unspiked sample. If screening was not performed, then spike those samples at the
concentration of the mid-level calibration point.

aaa jvily Study: No MS/MSDs samples will be prepared for this study.

11.4.3	Spike an aliquot of EIS solution (Section 7.3.1) directly into each field and QC sample.
Vortex and allow to equilibrate for at least 30 minutes.

11.4.4	Add 10 mL of 0.05M KOH in methanol (Section 7.1.8) to each sample. Vortex to disperse
the tissue then place tubes on a variable speed mixing table to extract for at least 16 hours.
Centrifuge at 2800 rpm for 10 minutes and collect the supernatant in a 50-mL
polypropylene centrifuge tube.

11.4.5	Add 10 mL of acetonitrile to remaining tissue in the 15-mL centrifuge tube, vortex to mix
and disperse the tissue. Sonicate for 30 minutes. Centrifuge at 2800 rpm for 10 minutes
and collect the supernatant, adding it to the 50-mL centrifuge tube containing the initial
extract.

11.4.6	Add 5 mL of 0.05M KOH in methanol (Section 7.1.8) to the remaining sample in each
centrifuge tube. Vortex to disperse the tissue and hand mix briefly. Centrifuge at 2800
rpm for 10 minutes and collect the supernatant, adding it to the 50-mL centrifuge tube
containing the first two extracts.

MLV Study Method

31

October 2021


-------
11.4.7	Using a 10-mg scoop, add 10 mg of carbon (Section 7.1.17) to the combined extract, mix
by occasional hand shaking over a period of no more than five minutes and then centrifuge
at 2800 rpm for 10 minutes. Immediately decant the extract into a 60-mL glass evaporation
or concentrator tube.

11.4.8	Add 1 mL of reagent water to each evaporation/concentrator tube, set the
evaporator/concentrator to 55 °C with a N2 flow of 1.2 L/min and concentrate the extract to
2.5 mL (only ~1 mL of the methanol should remain).

11.4.9	Add reagent water to each evaporation/concentrator tube to dilute the extracts to 50 mL.
Check that the pH = 6.5 ± 0.5 and adjust as needed with 50% formic acid (Section 7.1.13.4)
or ammonium hydroxide (or with 5% formic acid [Section 7.1.13.3] and 3% aqueous
ammonium hydroxide [7.1.6.2]). The extracts are ready for SPE and cleanup (Section
12.0).

12.0 Extraction, Cleanup, and Concentration

All matrices (including batch QC) must undergo SPE and carbon cleanup to remove interferences
(Section 12.1). Sample elution as well as any further extract treatment is matrix specific and may be
found in Sections 12.2 through 12.4.

Note: Carbon cleanup is required. Carbon cleanup may remove analytes if the sample has a very low
organic carbon content (this is unusual for non-drinking water environmental samples). This will
be apparent if the isotope dilution standard recoveries are significantly higher on the reanalysis.
If the laboratory can demonstrate that the carbon cleanup is detrimental to the sample analysis
(by comparing results when skipping the carbon cleanup during reanalysis), then the carbon
cleanup may be skipped for that specific sample.

*** jvily Study: Participating laboratories must use carbon cleanup on all samples. Loose carbon
must be used (carbon cartridges not permitted.)

12.1 All sample matrices

12.1.1	Pack clean silanized glass wool to half the height of the WAX SPE cartridge barrel (Section
6.7.1).

12.1.2	Set up the vacuum manifold with one WAX SPE cartridge plus a reservoir and reservoir
adaptor for each cartridge for each sample and QC aliquot.

12.1.3	Pre-condition the cartridges by washing them with 15 mL of 1% methanolic ammonium
hydroxide (Section 7.1.7.2) followed by 5 mL of 0.3M formic acid (Section 7.1.13.2) (do
not use the vacuum for this step). Do not allow the WAX SPE to go dry. Discard the wash
solvents.

12.1.4	Pour the sample into the reservoir (do not use a pipette), taking care to avoid splashing
while loading. Adjust the vacuum and pass the sample through the cartridge at 5 mL/min.
Retain the empty sample bottle and allow it to air dry for later rinsing (Section 12.2.2).
Discard eluate.

MLV Study Method

32

October 2021


-------
Note: For aqueous samples, in the event the SPE cartridge clogs during sample loading, place a
second pre-conditioned cartridge and continue loading the remaining sample aliquot using
the same reservoir. Proceed to Section 12.1.5.

12.1.5 Rinse the walls of the reservoir with 5 mL reagent water (twice) followed by 5 mL of 1:1
0.1M formic acid/methanol (Section 7.1.13.5) and pass those rinses through the cartridge
using vacuum. Dry the cartridge by pulling air through for 15 seconds. Discard the rinse
solution. Continue to the elution and concentration steps based on the matrix (Section 12.2
- Aqueous, Section 12.3 - Solids and Section 12.4 - Tissue).

12.2 Elution and Extract Concentration of Aqueous Samples

Note: If two cartridges were used, perform Sections 12.2.1 through 12.2.3 with each cartridge.
Filter the eluates through a 25-mm, 0.2-ptm syringe filter. Combine both sets of filtered
eluates into a clean tube, add the NIS solution, and vortex to mix. Transfer 350 jiL of the
filtered extract into a 1-mL polypropylene microvial and mark the level. Add another
350-jjL portion and using a gentle stream of nitrogen (water bath at 40 °C), concentrate to
the 350-jjL mark and submit for LC-MS/MS analysis. This concentration step is only
applicable to situations where two SPE cartridges were eluted, each with 5 mL of elution
solvent.

12.2.1	Place clean collection tubes (13 x 100 mm polypropylene) inside the manifold, ensuring
that the extract delivery needles do not touch the walls of the tubes. DO NOT add NIS to
these collection tubes.

12.2.2	Rinse the inside of the sample bottle with 5 mL of 1% methanolic ammonium hydroxide
(Section 7.1.7.2), then, using a glass pipette, transfer the rinse to the SPE reservoir, washing
the walls of the reservoir. Use vacuum to pull the elution solvent through the cartridge and
into the collection tubes.

Note: Air dry the empty sample bottle after the rinse is transferred. Weigh the empty bottle with
the cap on and subtract from the weight with the sample determined in Section 11.2.2.

12.2.3	Add 25 |_iL of concentrated acetic acid to each sample eluted in the collection tubes and
vortex to mix. Add 10 mg of carbon (Section 7.1.17) to each sample and batch QC extract,
using a 10-mg scoop. Hand-shake occasionally for no more than 5 minutes. It is important
to minimize the time the sample extract is in contact with the carbon. Immediately vortex
(30 seconds) and centrifuge at 2800 rpm for 10 minutes.

12.2.4	Add NIS solution (Section 7.3.2) to a clean collection tube. Place a syringe filter (25-mm
filter, 0.2-(.un nylon membrane) on a 5-mL polypropylene syringe. Take the plunger out
and carefully decant the sample supernatant into the syringe barrel. Replace the plunger
and filter the entire extract into the new collection tube containing the NIS. Vortex to mix
and transfer a portion of the extract into a 1-mL polypropylene microvial for LC-MS/MS
analysis. Cap the collection tube containing the remaining extract and store at 0 - 4 °C.

12.3 Elution and Extract Concentration of Solid Samples

12.3.1 Add NIS solution (Section 7.3.2) to a clean collection tube (13 x 100 mm polypropylene)
for each sample and QC aliquot and place them into the manifold rack, ensuring the extract
delivery needles are not touching the walls of the tubes.

MLV Study Method

33

October 2021


-------
12.3.2	Rinse the inside of the evaporation/concentrator tube using 5 mL of 1% methanolic
ammonium hydroxide (Section 7.1.7.2), then, using a glass pipette, transfer the rinse to the
reservoir, washing the walls of the reservoir. Use the vacuum to pull the elution solvent
through the cartridge and into the collection tubes.

12.3.3	Add 25 |_iL of concentrated acetic acid to each sample extract in its collection tube and
swirl to mix. Place a syringe filter (25-mm filter, 0.2-(im nylon membrane) on a 5 mL
polypropylene syringe. Take the plunger out and carefully decant ~1 mL of sample extract
into the syringe barrel. Replace the plunger and filter into a 1-mL polypropylene microvial
for LC-MS/MS analysis. Cap the collection tube containing the remaining extract and store
at 0 - 4 °C.

12.4 Elution and Extract Concentration of Tissue Samples

12.4.1	Add NIS solution (Section 7.3.2) to clean collection tubes (13 x 100 mm, polypropylene)
for each sample and QC aliquot. Place the tubes into the manifold rack and ensure the
extract delivery needles are not touching the walls of the tubes.

12.4.2	Rinse the inside of the evaporation/concentrator tube using 5 mL of 1% methanolic
ammonium hydroxide (Section 7.1.7.2), then, using a glass pipette, transfer the rinse to the
reservoir, washing the walls of the reservoir. Use the vacuum to pull the elution solvent
through the cartridge and into the collection tubes.

12.4.3	Add 25 |_iL of concentrated acetic acid to each sample extract. Place a syringe filter (25-
mm filter, 0.2-(.un nylon membrane) on a 5 mL polypropylene syringe. Take the plunger
out and carefully decant an aliquot (~1 mL) of the sample extract into the syringe barrel.
Replace the plunger and filter into a 1-mL polypropylene microvial for LC-MS/MS
analysis. Cap the collection tube containing the remaining extract and store at 0 - 4 °C.

13.0	Instrumental Analysis

Analysis of sample extracts for PFAS by LC-MS/MS is performed on an ultrahigh performance liquid

chromatograph coupled to a triple quadrupole mass spectrometer, running manufacturer's software. The

mass spectrometer is run with unit mass resolution in the multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) mode.

13.1	Perform mass calibration (Section 10.1), establish the operating conditions (Section 10.2), and
perform an initial calibration (Section 10.3) prior to analyzing samples. If tissue samples are to be
analyzed during the analytical shift, repeat the analysis of the bile salts interference check standard
in Section 10.3.5 before analyzing any tissue samples.

*** jvily Study: For each analytical shift (daily sequence), analyze the bile salts interference check
standard in Section 10.3.5 before analyzing any field samples, regardless of media
type.

13.2	Only after all performance criteria are met may blanks, MDLs, IPRs/OPRs, and samples be
analyzed.

13.3	After a successful initial calibration has been completed, the analytical sequence for a batch of
samples analyzed during the same time period is as follows. The volume injected for samples and
QCs must be identical to the volume used for calibration (Section 10.3). Standards and sample

MLV Study Method

34

October 2021


-------
extracts must be brought to room temperature and vortexed prior to aliquoting into an instrument
vial in order to ensure homogeneity of the extract.

1.

Instrument Blank

2.

Instrument Sensitivity Check (see Section 10.3.3.1)

3.

Calibration Verification Standard

4.

Qualitative Identification Standards

5.

Instrument Blank

6.

Method Blank

7.

Low-level OPR (LLOPR)

8.

OPR

9.

Bile salts interference check standard (Section 7.5)

10.

Samples (10 or fewer)

11.

Calibration Verification Standard

12.

Instrument Blank

13.

Samples (10 or fewer)

14.

Calibration Verification Standard

15.

Instrument Blank

If the results are acceptable, the closing calibration verification solution (#13 above) may be used as
the opening solution for the next analytical sequence.

13.4 If the response exceeds the calibration range for any sample, extracts are diluted as per Section 15.3
to bring all target responses within the calibration range.

Note: If the analytes that exceed the calibration range in the original analysis are known to not be of
concern for the specific project (e.g., are not listed in a discharge permit), then the laboratory
may consult with the client regarding the possibility of reporting that sample from the undiluted
analysis.

*** jvily Study: If the response for any analyte exceeds the calibration range for any sample,
extracts must be diluted as per Section 15.3 to bring the exceeding analyte(s)
response(s) within the calibration range. Method analytes reported from a
dilution must be qualified with a "D" data qualifier.

14.0	Performance Tests during Routine Operations

The following performance tests must be successfully completed as part of each routine
instrumental analysis shift described in Section 13.3 above.

14.1	MS resolution - A mass calibration must be performed prior to analysis of the calibration curve.
LC-MS/MS system performance is checked by performing an MS resolution verification after the
mass calibration. MS resolution must be verified prior to any samples or QC as per Section 10.1.
If the requirements in Section 10.1 cannot be met, the problem must be corrected before analyses
can proceed. If any of the samples in the previous shift may be affected by poor mass resolution,
the extracts of those samples must be re-analyzed.

14.2	Instrument sensitivity check

The signal-to-noise ratio of the ISC standard (Section 7.3.4) must be greater than or equal to 3:1.
If the requirements cannot be met, the problem must be corrected before analyses can proceed.

Note: An interim limit of 70-130% for 90% of the native and isotopically labeled compounds
should be used, with the other recoveries achieving 50-150%.

MLV Study Method

35

October 2021


-------
aaa jvily Study: Method analytes and EIS compound recoveries must be within 70-130% in the
ISC standard.

14.3 Calibration verification (CV)

After a passing MS resolution (Section 14.1) and a successful initial calibration (Section 10.3.3.3)
is achieved, prior to the analysis of any samples, analyze a mid-level calibration standard (Section
7.3.4).

14.3.1	The calibration is verified by analyzing a CV standard at the beginning of each analytical
sequence, every ten samples or less, and at the end of the analytical sequence.

14.3.2	Calculate concentration for each native and isotopically labeled compound in the CV using
the equation in Section 15.2.

14.3.3	The recovery of native and isotopically labeled compounds for the CVs must be within 70 -
130%.

14.3.4	If the CV criterion in Section 14.3.3 is not met, recalibrate the LC-MS/MS instrument
according to Section 10.3.

14.4 Retention times and resolution

14.4.1	For all method analytes with exact corresponding isotopically labeled analogs, method
analytes must elute within ±0.1 minutes of the associated EIS.

14.4.2	The retention times of each native and isotopically labeled compound must be within ± 0.4
minutes of the ICAL or CV used to establish the RT windows for the samples and batch
QC.

14.5 Ongoing precision and recovery (OPR)

14.5.1 After verification, analyze the extract of the OPR (Sections 12.2.4, 12.3.3, and 12.4.3) prior
to analysis of samples from the same batch to ensure the analytical process is under control.

14.5.2	Compute the percent recovery of the native compounds by the appropriate quantification
method depending on the compound (Section 10.3). Compute the percent recovery of each
isotopically labeled compound by the non-extracted internal standard method (Sections 1.2
and 10.3).

Concentration found (nq/mL)

Recovery (%) = 			—		——	—— x 100

Concentration spiked (ng/mL)

14.5.3	For the native compounds and isotopically labeled compounds, compare the recovery to the
OPR limits given in Table 5. If all compounds meet the acceptance criteria, system
performance is acceptable, and analysis of blanks and samples may proceed. If, however,
any individual concentration falls outside of the given range, the extraction/concentration
processes are not being performed properly for that compound. In this event, correct the
problem, re-prepare, extract, and clean up the sample batch and repeat the ongoing
precision and recovery test.

MLV Study Method

36

October 2021


-------
aaa jvily Study: For this study, the target recovery for method analytes in the OPRs, is 40-150%,
the target recovery for EIS compounds is 20-150%, and the target recovery for
NIS compounds is greater than 30%. If any of these criteria are not met in an
OPR, rerun the OPR using a fresh aliquot of the extract. If the failure confirms,
report the original analysis, if it does not confirm, report the result from the
second analysis.

14.5.4 If desired, add results that pass the specifications in Section 14.5.3 to initial and previous
ongoing data for each compound in each matrix. Update QC charts to form a graphic
representation of continued laboratory performance. Develop a statement of laboratory
accuracy for each compound in each matrix type by calculating the average percent
recovery (R) and the standard deviation of percent recovery (SR). Express the accuracy as
a recovery interval from R - 2SR to R + 2SR. For example, if R = 95% and SR = 5%, the
accuracy is 85 to 105%.

14.6	Instrument blank - At the beginning of the analytical sequence and after the analysis of high
concentration samples (e.g., highest calibration standard, CV), analyze an instrument blank to
ensure no instrument contamination has occurred.

14.7	Method blank - After the analysis of the solvent blank and prior to the analysis of samples, analyze
a method blank (Section 9.5).

14.8	A qualitative identification standard (Section 7.3.5) containing all available isomers (branched and
linear) is analyzed once daily at the beginning of the analytical sequence, to confirm the retention
time of each linear and known branched isomer or isomer group.

14.9	Instrument sensitivity (optional)

This step is recommended as a follow-up step if the ISC does not meet criteria.

Compare the NIS peak areas from the QC and field samples to the average area of the
corresponding NIS on the calibration standards to check for possible bad injections of NIS solution
or loss of instrument sensitivity. The QC and field sample NIS areas should be within 50 - 200%
of that in the standards. If the areas are low for all the samples and QC in the batch, it suggests a
loss of instrument sensitivity, while low areas on only some QC or field samples suggests a possible
bad injection.

aaa jvily Study: If the NIS criteria (>30% of the average area of the corresponding NIS on the
calibration standards) is not met for any field or QC sample, reanalyze the
sample using a fresh aliquot of the extract. If the failure is not confirmed,
report results from the second analysis. If the failure is confirmed, report the
original analysis.

15.0	Data Analysis and Calculations

15.1	Qualitative determination and peak identification

A native or isotopically labeled compound is identified in a standard, blank, sample, or QC sample
when all of the criteria in Sections 15.1.1 through 15.1.5 are met.

15.1.1 Peak responses must be at least three times the background noise level (S/N 3:1). If the
S/N ratio is not met due to high background noise, the laboratory must correct the issue
(e.g., perform instrument troubleshooting to check and if needed, replace, the transfer line,

MLV Study Method

37

October 2021


-------
column, detector, liner, filament, etc.). If the S/N ratio is not met but the background is
low, then the analyte is to be considered a non-detect.

15.1.2	Target analyte, EIS analyte, and NIS analyte RTs must fall within ± 0.4 minutes of the
predicted retention times from the midpoint standard of the ICAL or initial daily CV,
whichever was used to establish the RT window position for the analytical batch. The
retention time window used must be of sufficient width to detect earlier-eluting branched
isomers. For all method analytes with exact corresponding isotopically labeled analogs,
method analytes must elute within ±0.1 minutes of the associated EIS.

15.1.3	The laboratory must follow the identification requirements specified by the client for the
project. In the event there are no project-specific requirements, the following general
requirements apply. For concentrations at or above the method LOQ, the total (branched
and linear isomer) quantification ion response to the total (branched and linear isomer)
confirmation ion response ratio must fall within ± 50% of the ratio observed in the mid-
point initial calibration standard. If project-specific requirements involve reporting sample
concentrations below the LOQ or ML, the response ratio must also fall within ± 50% of the
ratio observed in the initial daily CV.

*** MLV Study: Since results are required to be reported down to the MDL for this study, the
requirement contained in 15.1.3 (project-specific requirements) applies. If
ion response ratios fail to meet the any of the criteria stated in Section 15.1.3,
the failure must be confirmed through re-analysis. If the failure confirms,
the analyte concentration must be qualified with an "I" data qualifier and
discussed in the case narrative (providing the % response for each failure).

The response of all isomers in the quantitative standards should be used to define ratio. In
samples, the total response should include only the branched isomer peaks that have been
identified in either the quantitative or qualitative standard (see Section 7.3 regarding
records of traceability of all standards). If standards (either quantitative or qualitative) are
not available for purchase, only the linear isomer can be identified and quantitated in
samples. The ratio requirement does not apply for PFBA, PFPeA, NMeFOSE, NEtFOSE,
PFMPA, and PFMBA because suitable (not detectable or inadequate S/N) secondary
transitions are unavailable.

15.1.4	If the field sample result does not all meet the criteria stated in Sections 15.1.2 through
15.1.3, and all sample preparation avenues (e.g., extract cleanup, sample dilution, etc.) have
been exhausted, the result may only be reported with a data qualifier alerting the data user
that the result could not be confirmed because it did not meet the method-required criteria
and therefore should be considered an estimated value. If the criteria listed above are not
met for the standards, the laboratory must stop analysis of samples and correct the issue.

15.2 Quantitative determination

Concentrations of the target analytes are determined with respect to the extracted internal standard
(EIS) which is added to the sample prior to extraction. The EIS is quantitated with respect to a non-
extracted internal standard (NIS), as shown in Table 2, using the response ratios or response factors
from the most recent multi-level initial calibration (Section 10.3). Other equations may be used if
the laboratory demonstrates that those equations produce the same numerical result as produced by
the equations below.

For the native analytes:

MLV Study Method

38

October 2021


-------
AreanMt 1
Concentration (nq/L ornq/q) =	—		 x —

v y/	am) Areai(-RR or RF^ Ws

where:

Arean = The measured area of the Q1 m/z for the native (unlabeled) PFAS
Areai = The measured area at the Q1 m/z for the isotopically labeled PFAS (EIS). See note
below.

Mi = The mass of the isotopically labeled compound added (ng)

RR = Average response ratio used to quantify target compounds by the isotope dilution method
RF = Average response factor used to quantify target compounds by the extracted internal

standard method
Ws = Sample volume (L) or weight (g)

Note: For better accuracy, PFTrDA is quantitated using the average of the areas of labeled
compounds13C2-PFTeDA and I3C2-PFDoA.

And for the EIS analytes:

Areai Mnis 1

Concentration (ng/L orng/g) =		x —

AreanisRFs Ws

where:

Areai = The measured area at the Q1 m/z for the isotopically labeled PFAS (EIS)

Areams = The measured area of the Q1 m/z for the non-extracted internal standard (NIS)
Mms = The mass of the added non-extracted internal standard (NIS) compound (ng)
Ws = Sample volume (L) or weight (g)

RFS = Average response factor used to quantify the isotopically labeled compound by the non-
extracted internal standard method

Results for native compounds are recovery corrected by the method of quantification. Extracted
internal standard (EIS) recoveries are determined similarly against the non-extracted internal
standard (NIS) and are used as general indicators of overall analytical quality.

The instrument measures the target analytes as either their anions or neutral forms. The default
approach for Clean Water Act uses of the method is to report the analytes in their acid or
neutral forms, using the following equation to convert the concentrations:

r — r	v ^^Acid

^Acid ~ ^Anion * '

MWAnion
where:

CAmon = The analyte concentration in anion form
MWacm = The molecular weight of the acid form
MWAmon = The molecular weight of the anion form

*** MLV Study: MLV Target analytes must be quantified and reported in their acid form.

15.3 Sample dilutions

15.3.1 If the Q1 area for any compound exceeds the calibration range of the system, dilute a
subsample of the sample extract with methanol containing 4% water, 1% ammonium

MLV Study Method

39

October 2021


-------
hydroxide, and 0.625% acetic acid (Section 7.1.9) by a factor no greater than lOx adjust the
amount of the NIS in the diluted extract, then analyze the diluted extract using the percent
recovery of the EIS from the original analysis. If the compound cannot be measured
reliably by isotope dilution, dilute and analyze aqueous sample, or analyze a smaller aliquot
of soil, biosolid, sediment, or tissue sample. Adjust the compound concentrations,
detection limits, and minimum levels to account for the dilution.

15.3.2 If the recovery of any isotopically labeled compound is outside of the acceptance limits
(Table 5), a diluted aqueous sample or smaller aliquot (for solids and tissue) must be
analyzed (Section 15.3.1). If the recovery of any isotopically labeled compound in the
diluted sample is outside of the normal range, the method does not apply to the sample
being analyzed and the result may not be reported or used for permitting or regulatory
compliance purposes. In this case, an alternative column could be employed to resolve the
interference. If all cleanup procedures in this method and an alternative column have been
employed and isotopically labeled compound recovery remains outside of the normal
range, extraction and/or cleanup procedures that are beyond this scope of this method will
be required to analyze the sample.

*** mlv Study: For this study, the target recovery for EIS compounds is 20-150%, and the

target recovery for NIS compounds is greater than 30%. If any of these criteria
are not met in a sample, rerun the sample using a fresh aliquot of the extract. If
the rerun does not confirm the failure, report the second analysis. If the failure
confirms, dilute the sample as instructed in Section 15.3.2. If the diluted sample
meets criteria, report the diluted sample results. If the failure confirms, report
the original analysis.

15.4 Reporting of analytical results (acid/neutral forms)

The data reporting practices described here are focused on NPDES monitoring needs and may not
be relevant to other uses of the method. For analytes reported in their acid form, use the equations
in Section 15.2 and the analyte names Table 1. For analytes reported in their anion form, see Table
8 for the appropriate names and CAS Registry Numbers.

15.4.1	Report results for aqueous samples in ng/L. Report results for solid samples in ng/g, on a
dry-weight basis, and report the percent solids for each sample separately. Report results
for tissue samples in ng/g, on a wet-weight basis. Other units may be used if required in a
permit or for a project. Report all QC data with the sample results.

15.4.2	Reporting level

Unless specified otherwise by a regulatory authority or in a discharge permit, results for
analytes that meet the identification criteria are reported down to the concentration of the
ML established by the laboratory through calibration of the instrument (see the glossary for
the derivation of the ML). EPA considers the terms "reporting limit," "quantitation limit,"
"limit of quantitation," and "minimum level" to be synonymous.

aaa mlv Study: Results for analytes that meet the identification criteria and are at or above the
MDL concentration must be reported.

15.4.2.1 Report a result for each analyte in each field sample or QC standard at or above
the ML to 3 significant figures. Report a result for each analyte found in each
field sample or QC standard below the ML as "
-------
concentration of the analyte at the ML, or as required by the regulatory/control
authority or permit.

MLV Study: Report a result for each analyte in each field sample or QC standard at or
above the MDL to 3 significant figures. For analytes that are not detected,
report the laboratory's sample specific MDL (i.e. with extract dilution factor,
sample volume/weight and final volume taken into account) and qualify the
concentration with a "U" data qualifier. Report a result for each analyte
found in each field sample or QC standard between the MDL and ML (LOQ)
and qualify the concentration with a "J" data qualifier.

15.4.2.2	Report a result for each analyte in a blank at or above the MDL to 2 significant
figures. Report a result for each analyte found in a blank below the MDL as
"
-------
This method is being validated, and performance specifications will be developed using data from DOD's
interlaboratory validation study (Reference 10). A summary of the single-laboratory performance is
presented in Table 5.

17.0	Pollution Prevention

17.1	Pollution prevention encompasses any technique that reduces or eliminates the quantity or toxicity
of waste at the point of generation. Many opportunities for pollution prevention exist in laboratory
operation. EPA has established a preferred hierarchy of environmental management techniques that
places pollution prevention as the management option of first choice. Whenever feasible,
laboratory personnel should use pollution prevention techniques to address waste generation. When
wastes cannot be reduced feasibly at the source, EPA recommends recycling as the next best option.

17.2	The compounds in this method are used in extremely small amounts and pose little threat to the
environment when managed properly. Standards should be prepared in volumes consistent with
laboratory use to minimize the disposal of excess volumes of expired standards.

17.3	For information about pollution prevention that may be applied to laboratories and research
institutions, consult Less is Better: Laboratory Chemical Management for Waste Reduction
(Reference 7).

18.0	Waste Management

18.1	The laboratory is responsible for complying with all Federal, State, and local regulations governing
waste management, particularly the hazardous waste identification rules and land disposal
restrictions, and to protect the air, water, and land by minimizing and controlling all releases from
fume hoods and bench operations. Compliance is also required with any sewage discharge permits
and regulations. An overview of requirements can be found in Environmental Management Guide
for Small Laboratories (Reference 8).

18.2	Samples at pH < 2 or pH >12, are hazardous and must be handled and disposed of as hazardous
waste or neutralized and disposed of in accordance with all federal, state, and local regulations. It
is the laboratory's responsibility to comply with all federal, state, and local regulations governing
waste management, particularly the hazardous waste identification rules and land disposal
restrictions.

18.3	For further information on waste management, consult The Waste Management Manual for
Laboratory Personnel and Less is Better-Laboratory Chemical Management for Waste Reduction,
(Reference 9).

19.0 References

1.	"Working with Carcinogens," Department of Health, Education, & Welfare, Public Health
Service, Centers for Disease Control, NIOSH, Publication 77-206, August 1977, NTIS PB-
277256.

2.	"OSHA Safety and Health Standards, General Industry," OSHA 2206, 29 CFR 1910.

3.	"Safety in Academic Chemistry Laboratories," ACS Committee on Chemical Safety, 1979.

MLV Study Method

42

October 2021


-------
4.	"Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater," 18th edition and later
revisions, American Public Health Association, 1015 15th St, NW, Washington, DC 20005, 1-
35: Section 1090 (Safety), 1992.

5.	"Standard Practice for Sampling Water," ASTM Annual Book of Standards, ASTM, 1916 Race
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-1187, 1980.

6.	"Handbook of Analytical Quality Control in Water and Wastewater Laboratories," USEPA
EMSL, Cincinnati, OH 45268, EPA 600/4-79-019, April 1979.

7.	"Less is Better: Laboratory Chemical Management for Waste Reduction," American Chemical
Society, 1993. Available from the American Chemical Society's Department of Government
Relations and Science Policy, 1155 16th Street NW, Washington, DC 20036.

8.	"Environmental Management Guide for Small Laboratories," USEPA, Small Business
Division, Washington DC, EPA 233-B-00-001, May 2000.

9.	"The Waste Management Manual for Laboratory Personnel," American Chemical Society,
1990. Available from the American Chemical Society's Department of Government Relations
and Science Policy, 1155 16th Street NW, Washington, DC 20036.

10.	DOD single- laboratory study reference will be added here.

11.	DOD interlaboratory study reference will be added here.

12.	DoD QSM (US Department of Defense Quality Systems Manual for Environmental
Laboratories, version 5.3, 2019)

13.	Woudneh, Million B., Bharat Chandramouli, Coreen Hamilton, Richard Grace, 2019, "Effects
of Sample Storage on the Quantitative Determination of 29 PFAS: Observation of Analyte
Interconversions during Storage", Environmental Science and Technology 53(21): 12576-
12585.

MLV Study Method

43

October 2021


-------
20.0 Tables, Diagrams, Flowcharts, and Validation Data

Table 1. Names, Abbreviations, and CAS Registry Numbers for Target PFAS, Extracted Internal
Standards and Non-extracted Internal Standards1

Target Analyte Name

Abbreviation

CAS Number

l>erNiioroiilk\ 1 carbowlic acids

Perfluorobutanoic acid

PFBA

375-22-4

Perfluoropentanoic acid

PFPeA

2706-90-3

Perfluorohexanoic acid

PFHxA

307-24-4

Perfluoroheptanoic acid

PFHpA

375-85-9

Perfluorooctanoic acid

PFOA

335-67-1

Perfluorononanoic acid

PFNA

375-95-1

Perfluorodecanoic acid

PFDA

335-76-2

Perfluoroundecanoic acid

PFUnA

2058-94-8

Perfluorododecanoic acid

PFDoA

307-55-1

Perfluorotridecanoic acid

PFTrDA

72629-94-8

Perfluorotetradecanoic acid

PFTeDA

376-06-7

l>erNiioroalk\ 1 suMonic acids

Acid Form

Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

PFBS

375-73-5

Perfluoropentansulfonic acid

PFPeS

2706-91-4

Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFHxS

355-46-4

Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid

PFHpS

375-92-8

Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

PFOS

1763-23-1

Perfluorononanesulfonic acid

PFNS

68259-12-1

Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid

PFDS

335-77-3

Perfluorododecanesulfonic acid

PFDoS

79780-39-5

l-'liioroiclomcr sulfonic acids

1 //. 1 II. HI 2//-Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid

4:2FTS

757124-72-4

1 //. 1 II. HI 2//-Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid

6:2FTS

27619-97-2

1 //. 1 II. HI. 2//-Perfluorodecane sulfonic acid

8:2FTS

39108-34-4

Pcrl'liiorooclanc sulfonamides

Perfluorooctanesulfonamide

PFOSA

754-91-6

N-methyl perfluorooctanesulfonamide

NMeFOSA

31506-32-8

N-ethyl perfluorooctanesulfonamide

NEtFOSA

4151-50-2

I'crfluorooclanc siilfonamidoacclic acids

\-niclh\ 1 pci°riiKs \ \

2w|-5<)-(,

I'ei'riiioi'ooclaue siiHoiiamide elhauols

N-methyl perfluorooctanesulfonamidoethanol

NMeFOSE

24448-09-7

N-ethyl perfluorooctanesulfonamidoethanol

NEtFOSE

1691-99-2

I'ei - and l'ol\I'lunmclhcr carbow lie acids

Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid

HFPO-DA

13252-13-6

4,8-Dioxa-3//-perfluorononanoic acid

ADONA

919005-14-4

Perfluoro-3-methoxypropanoic acid

PFMPA

377-73-1

Perfluoro-4-methoxybutanoic acid

PFMBA

863090-89-5

Nonafluoro-3,6-dioxaheptanoic acid

NFDHA

151772-58-6

MLV Study Method

44

October 2021


-------
Table 1. Names, Abbreviations, and CAS Registry Numbers for Target PFAS, Extracted Internal
Standards and Non-extracted Internal Standards1

Target Analyte Name

Abbreviation

CAS Number

I-'.iIkt sulfonic acids

9-Chlorohexadecafluoro-3 -oxanonane-1 -sulfonic acid

9C1-PF30NS

756426-58-1

1 l-Chloroeicosafluoro-3-oxaundecane-l-sulfonic acid

llCl-PF30UdS

763051-92-9

Perfluoro(2-ethoxyethane)sulfonic acid

PFEESA

113507-82-7

l-'liioroiclomcr carbowlie acids

3-Perfluoropropyl propanoic acid

3:3FTCA

356-02-5

2//.2//.3//.3//-Pcrriuorooctanoic acid

5:3FTCA

914637-49-3

3-Perfluoroheptyl propanoic acid

7:3FTCA

812-70-4

EIS Compounds

Perfluoro-n-[13C4]butanoic acid

13c4-pfba



Perfluoro-n-[13C5]pentanoic acid

13C5-PFPeA



Perfluoro-n-[l,2,3,4,6-13C5]hexanoic acid

13C5-PFHxA



Perfluoro-n-[l,2,3,4-13C4]heptanoic acid

13C4-PFHpA



Perfluoro-n-[13C8]octanoic acid

13c8-pfoa



Perfluoro-n-[13C9]nonanoic acid

13c9-pfna



Perfluoro-n-[l,2,3,4,5,6-13C6]decanoic acid

13c6-pfda



Perfluoro-n-[l,2,3,4,5,6,7-13C7]undecanoic acid

13C7-PFUnA



Perfluoro-n-[l,2-13C2]dodecanoic acid

13C2-PFDoA



Perfluoro-n-[l,2-13C2]tetradecanoic acid

13C2-PFTeDA



Perfluoro-l-[2,3,4-13C3]butanesulfonic acid

13c3-pfbs



Perfluoro-1-| 1.2.3-'3C-3|hexanesulfonic acid

13C3-PFHxS

NA

Perfluoro -l-|l3Cx| octanesulfonic acid

13c8-pfos

Perfluoro-l-[13Cs] octanesulfonamide

13c8-pfosa



N-methyl-d3-perfluoro-1 -octanesulfonamidoacetic acid

D3-NMeFOSAA



N-ethyl-d5-perfluoro-l-octanesulfonamidoacetic acid

Ds-NEtFOSAA



\H,l/^2/^2//-Perfluoro-l-[l,2-13C2]hexan sulfonic acid

13C2-4:2FTS



IH,l/^2/^2//-Perfluoro-l-[l,2-13C2]octanesulfonic acid

13C2-6:2FTS



\H,l/^2/^2//-Perfluoro-l-[l,2-13C2]decanesulfonic acid

13C2-8:2FTS



Tetrafluoro-2-heptafluoropropoxy-13C3-propanoic acid

13c3-hfpo-da



N-methyl-d7-perfluorooctanesulfonamidoethanol

D-NMcFOSE



N-ethyl-ds-perfluorooctanesulfonamidoethanol

D9-NEtFOSE



N-ethyl-d5-perfluoro-l-octanesulfonamide

Ds-NEtFOSA



N-methyl-d3-perfluoro-1 -octanesulfonamide

D3-NMeFOSA



NIS Compounds

Perfluoro-n-[2,3,4-13C3]butanoic acid

13c3-pfba



Perfluoro-n-[l,2,3,4-13C4]octanoic acid

13c4-pfoa



Perfluoro-n-[l,2-13C2]decanoic acid

13c2-pfda



Perfluoro-n-[l,2,3,4-13C4]octanesulfonic acid

13c4-pfos

NA

Perfluoro-n-[l,2,3,4,5-13C5] nonanoic acid

13c5-pfna



Perfluoro-n-[l,2-13C2]hexanoic acid

13C2-PFHxA



Perfluoro -1 -hexane |lxO:| sulfonic acid

1802-PFHxS



1 The target analyte names are for the acid and neutral forms of the analytes. See Table 8 for the names and

CASRN of the corresponding anion forms, where applicable.

NA Not assigned a CASRN

MLV Study Method

45

October 2021


-------
Table 2. Analyte Ions Monitored, Extracted Internal Standard, and Non-extracted Internal Standard

Used for Quantification

Abbreviation

Example
Retention
Time 1

Parent Ion
Mass

Quantification
Ion Mass

Confirmation
Ion Mass

Typical Ion
Ratio

Quantification
Reference
Compound

Target Analytes

PFBA

1.96

212.8

168.9

NA

NA

13c4-pfba

PFPeA

4.18

263.0

219.0

68.9

NA

13C5-PFPeA

PFHxA

4.81

313.0

269.0

118.9

13

13C5-PFHxA

PFHpA

5.32

363.1

319.0

169.0

3.5

13C4-PFHpA

PFOA

6.16

413.0

369.0

169.0

3.0

13Cs-PFOA

PFNA

6.99

463.0

419.0

219.0

4.9

13C9-PFNA

PFDA

7.47

512.9

469.0

219.0

5.5

13c6-pfda

PFUnA

7.81

563.1

519.0

269.1

6.9

13C7-PFUnA

PFDoA

8.13

613.1

569.0

319.0

10

13C2-PFDoA

PFTrDA2

8.53

663.0

619.0

168.9

6.7

avg.13C2-PFTeDA
and13C2-PFDoA

PFTeDA

8.96

713.1

669.0

168.9

6.0

13C2-PFTeDA

PFBS

4.79

298.7

79.9

98.8

2.1

13C3-PFBS

PFPeS

5.38

349.1

79.9

98.9

1.8

13C3-PFHxS

PFHxS

6.31

398.7

79.9

98.9

1.9

13C3-PFHxS

PFHpS

7.11

449.0

79.9

98.8

1.7

13Cs-PFOS

PFOS

7.59

498.9

79.9

98.8

2.3

13Cs-PFOS

PFNS

7.92

548.8

79.9

98.8

1.9

13Cs-PFOS

PFDS

8.28

599.0

79.9

98.8

1.9

13Cs-PFOS

PFDoS

9.14

699.1

79.9

98.8

1.9

13Cs-PFOS

4:2FTS

4.67

327.1

307.0

80.9

1.7

13C2-4:2FTS

6:2FTS

5.81

427.1

407.0

80.9

1.9

13C2-6:2FTS

8:2FTS

7.28

527.1

507.0

80.8

3.0

13C2-8:2FTS

PFOSA

8.41

498.1

77.9

478.0

47

13Cs-PFOSA

NMeFOSA

9.70

511.9

219.0

169.0

0.66

Ds-NMeFOSA

NEtFOSA

9.94

526.0

219.0

169.0

0.63

D5-NEtFOSA

NMeFOSAA

7.51

570.1

419.0

483.0

2.0

Ds-NMeFOSAA

NEtFOSAA

7.65

584.2

419.1

526.0

1.2

D5-N-EtFOSAA

NMeFOSE

9.57

616.1

58.9

NA

NA

D7-NMeFOSE

NEtFOSE

9.85

630.0

58.9

NA

NA

Dsi-NEtFOSE

HFPO-DA

4.97

284.9

168.9

184.9

1.95

13C3-HFPO-DA

ADONA

5.79

376.9

250.9

84.8

2.8

13c3-hfpo-da

9C1-PF30NS

7.82

530.8

351.0

532.8^353.0

3.2

13c3-hfpo-da

llCl-PF30UdS

8.62

630.9

450.9

632.9^452.9

3.0

13c3-hfpo-da

3:3FTCA

3.89

241.0

177.0

117.0

1.70

13C5-PFPeA

5:3FTCA

5.14

341.0

237.1

217.0

1.16

13C5-PFHxA

7:3FTCA

6.76

441.0

316.9

336.9

0.69

13C5-PFHxA

PFEESA

5.08

314.8

134.9

82.9

9.22

13C5-PFHxA

PFMPA

3.21

229.0

84.9

NA

NA

13C5-PFPeA

PFMBA

4.53

279.0

85.1

NA

NA

13C5-PFPeA

NFDHA

4.84

295.0

201.0

84.9

1.46

13C5-PFHxA

Extracted Internal Standards

13c4-pfba

1.95

216.8

171.9

NA



13c3-pfba

13C5-PFPeA

4.18

268.3

223.0

NA



13C2-PFHxA

13C5-PFHxA

4.80

318.0

273.0

120.3



13C2-PFHxA

13C4-PFHpA

5.32

367.1

322.0

NA



13C2-PFHxA

13Cs-PFOA

6.16

421.1

376.0

NA



13c4-pfoa

MLV Study Method

46

October 2021


-------
Table 2. Analyte Ions Monitored, Extracted Internal Standard, and Non-extracted Internal Standard

Used for Quantification

Abbreviation

Example
Retention
Time 1

Parent Ion
Mass

Quantification
Ion Mass

Confirmation
Ion Mass

Typical Ion
Ratio

Quantification
Reference
Compound

13c9-pfna

6.99

472.1

427.0

NA



13c5-pfna

13c6-pfda

7.47

519.1

474.1

NA



13c2-pfda

13C7-PFUnA

7.81

570.0

525.1

NA



13c2-pfda

13C2-PFDoA

8.13

615.1

570.0

NA



13c2-pfda

13C2-PFTeDA

8.96

715.2

670.0

NA



13c2-pfda

13C3-PFBS

4.78

302.1

79.9

98.9



1802-PFHxS

13C3-PFHxS

6.30

402.1

79.9

98.8



1802-PFHxS

13Cs-PFOS

7.59

507.1

79.9

98.9



13c4-pfos

13C2-4:2FTS

4.67

329.1

80.9

309.0



1802-PFHxS

13C2-6:2FTS

5.82

429.1

80.9

409.0



1802-PFHxS

13C2-8:2FTS

7.28

529.1

80.9

509.0



1802-PFHxS

13Cs-PFOSA

8.41

506.1

77.8

NA



13c4-pfos

Ds-NMeFOSA

9.70

515.0

219.0

NA



13c4-pfos

D5-NEtFOSA

9.94

531.1

219.0

NA



13c4-pfos

Ds-NMeFOSAA

7.51

573.2

419.0

NA



13c4-pfos

D5-NEtFOSAA

7.65

589.2

419.0

NA



13c4-pfos

D7-NMeFOSE

9.56

623.2

58.9

NA



13c4-pfos

Dsi-NEtFOSE

9.83

639.2

58.9

NA



13c4-pfos

13C3-HFPO-DA

4.97

286.9

168.9

184.9



13C2-PFHxA

Non-Extracted Internal Standards

13C3-PFBA

1.95

216.0

172.0

NA





13C2-PFHxA

4.80

315.1

270.0

119.4





13c4-pfoa

6.16

417.1

172.0

NA





13c5-pfna

6.99

468.0

423.0

NA





13c2-pfda

7.47

515.1

470.1

NA





1802-PFHxS

6.30

403.0

83.9

NA





13C4-PFOS

7.59

502.8

79.9

98.9





1	Times shown are in decimal minute units. Example retention times are based on the instrument operating
conditions and column specified in Section 10.2.

2	For improved accuracy, PFTrDA is quantitated using the average areas of the labeled compounds 13C2-PFTeDA
and 13C2-PFDoA.

MLV Study Method

47

October 2021


-------
Table 3. Nominal Masses of Spike Added to Samples or Extracts

Analyte

Amount Added (ng)

Extracted Internal Standards

13c4-pfba

40

13C5-PFPeA

20

13C5-PFHxA

10

13C4-PFHpA

10

13c8-pfoa

10

13c9-pfna

5

13c6-pfda

5

13C7-PFUnA

5

13C2-PFDoA

5

13C2-PFTeDA

5

13c3-pfbs

10

13C3-PFHxS

10

13c8-pfos

10

13C2-4:2FTS

20

13C2-6:2FTS

20

13C2-8:2FTS

20

13c8-pfosa

10

D3-NMeFOSA

10

Ds-NEtFOSA

10

D3-NMeFOSAA

20

Ds-NEtFOSAA

20

D-NMcFOSE

100

Dg-NEtFOSE

100

13C3-HFPO-DA

40

Non-extracted Internal Standards

13c3-pfba

20

13C2-PFHxA

10

13c4-pfoa

10

13c5-pfna

5

13c2-pfda

5

1802-PFHxS

10

13c4-pfos

10

MLV Study Method

48

October 2021


-------
Table 4. Calibration Solutions (ng/mL)

Compound

CS1 (LOQ)

CS2

CS3

CS4 (CV1)

CS5

CS6

CS72

Perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids

PFBA

0.8

2

5

10

20

50

250

PFPeA

0.4

1

2.5

5

10

25

125

PFHxA

0.2

0.5

1.25

2.5

5

12.5

62.5

PFHpA

0.2

0.5

1.25

2.5

5

12.5

62.5

PFOA

0.2

0.5

1.25

2.5

5

12.5

62.5

PFNA

0.2

0.5

1.25

2.5

5

12.5

62.5

PFDA

0.2

0.5

1.25

2.5

5

12.5

62.5

PFUnA

0.2

0.5

1.25

2.5

5

12.5

62.5

PFDoA

0.2

0.5

1.25

2.5

5

12.5

62.5

PFTrDA

0.2

0.5

1.25

2.5

5

12.5

62.5

PFTeDA

0.2

0.5

1.25

2.5

5

12.5

62.5

Perfluoroalkyl sulfonic acids

PFBS

0.2

0.5

1.25

2.5

5

12.5

62.5

PFPeS

0.2

0.5

1.25

2.5

5

12.5

62.5

PFHxS

0.2

0.5

1.25

2.5

5

12.5

62.5

PFHpS

0.2

0.5

1.25

2.5

5

12.5

62.5

PFOS

0.2

0.5

1.25

2.5

5

12.5

62.5

PFNS

0.2

0.5

1.25

2.5

5

12.5

62.5

PFDS

0.2

0.5

1.25

2.5

5

12.5

62.5

PFDoS

0.2

0.5

1.25

2.5

5

12.5

62.5

Fluorotelomer sulfonic acids

4:2FTS

0.8

2

5

10

20

50

NA

6:2FTS

0.8

2

5

10

20

50

NA

8:2FTS

0.8

2

5

10

20

50

NA

Perfluorooctane sulfonamides

PFOSA

0.2

0.5

1.25

2.5

5

12.5

62.5

NMeFOSA

0.2

0.5

1.25

2.5

5

12.5

62.5

NEtFOSA

0.2

0.5

1.25

2.5

5

12.5

62.5

Perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acids

NMeFOSAA

0.2

0.5

1.25

2.5

5

12.5

62.5

NEtFOSAA

0.2

0.5

1.25

2.5

5

12.5

62.5

Perfluorooctane sulfonamide ethanols

NMeFOSE

2

5

12.5

25

50

125

625

NEtFOSE

2

5

12.5

25

50

125

625

Per- and polyfluoroether carboxylic acids

HFPO-DA

0.8

2

5

10

20

50

250

ADONA

0.8

2

5

10

20

50

250

PFMPA

0.4

1

2.5

5

10

25

125

PFMBA

0.4

1

2.5

5

10

25

125

NFDHA

0.4

1

2.5

5

10

25

125

Ether sulfonic acids

9C1-PF30NS

0.8

2

5

10

20

50

250

llCl-PF30UdS

0.8

2

5

10

20

50

250

PFEESA

0.4

1

2.5

5

10

25

125

MLV Study Method

49

October 2021


-------
Table 4. Calibration Solutions (ng/mL)

Compound

CS1 (LOQ)

CS2

CS3

CS4 (CV1)

CS5

CS6

CS72

Fluorotelomer carboxylic acids

3:3FTCA

1.0

2.5

6.26

12.5

25

62.4

312

5:3FTCA

5.0

12.5

31.3

62.5

125

312

1560

7:3FTCA

5.0

12.5

31.3

62.5

125

312

1560

Extracted Internal Standard (EIS) Analytes

13c4-pfba

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

13C5-PFPeA

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

13C5-PFHxA

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

13C4-PFHpA

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

13c8-pfoa

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

13c9-pfna

1.25

1.25

1.25

1.25

1.25

1.25

1.25

13c6-pfda

1.25

1.25

1.25

1.25

1.25

1.25

1.25

13C7-PFUnA

1.25

1.25

1.25

1.25

1.25

1.25

1.25

13C2-PFDoA

1.25

1.25

1.25

1.25

1.25

1.25

1.25

13C2-PFTeDA

1.25

1.25

1.25

1.25

1.25

1.25

1.25

13c3-pfbs

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

13C3-PFHxS

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

13c8-pfos

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

13C2-4:2 FTS

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

13C2-6:2 FTS

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

13C2-8:2 FTS

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

13c8-pfosa

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

D3-NMeFOSA

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

Ds-NEtFOSA

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

D3-NMeFOSAA

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

Ds-NEtFOSAA

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

D-NMeFOSE

25

25

25

25

25

25

25

D9-NEtFOSE

25

25

25

25

25

25

25

13C3-HFPO-DA

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

Non-extracted Internal Standard (NIS) Analytes

13c3-pfba

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

13C2-PFHxA

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

13c4-pfoa

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

13c5-pfna

1.25

1.25

1.25

1.25

1.25

1.25

1.25

13c2-pfda

1.25

1.25

1.25

1.25

1.25

1.25

1.25

1802-PFHxS

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

13c4-pfos

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

1	This calibration point is used as the calibration verification (CV)

2	A minimum of six contiguous calibrations standards are required for linear models and a minimum of seven
calibration standards are required for second-order models.

MLV Study Method

50

October 2021


-------
Table 5. Single-Laboratory Validation Performance Summary for Target Compounds and Extracted
Internal Standards

Compounds

Blank

(ng/mL)

Aqueous Matrices1

Solid Matrices1

Tissue Matrices1

IPRRec
(%)

RSD
(%)

OPR

Rec (%)

IPRRec
(%)

RSD
(%)

OPR Rec

(%)

IPRRec

(%)

RSD

(%)

OPR Rec

(%)

Target Compounds

PFBA

<0.4

89 -107

4.8

89-113

95-99

1.0

92 -108

89 - 104

3.9

90-110

PFPeA

<0.2

85 -106

5.5

89-121

92 - 105

3.4

94-115

80-98

5.0

96-114

PFHxA

<0.1

75 -109

9.1

89-111

93-101

2.2

89-107

72-110

10.2

90-111

PFHpA

<0.1

87 -102

4.1

90-110

94 - 102

2.2

89-107

87 - 102

4.0

87-118

PFOA

<0.1

88-98

2.8

87-112

92 - 100

2.0

90 - 106

78-85

2.4

82-114

PFNA

<0.1

88 -104

4.1

90-111

91 - 102

2.7

88-112

85-110

6.3

87-119

PFDA

<0.1

82-115

8.3

92-115

97-103

1.5

89-118

76-115

10.2

84-112

PFUnA

<0.1

83-98

4.2

89-112

91-107

4.0

92-111

83 - 102

5.1

91-117

PFDoA

<0.1

58-111

15.7

84 -123

73 - 120

12.1

88-119

83-105

5.7

77-141

PFTrDA

<0.1

80-111

8.1

92-119

91-112

5.2

89-125

92-114

5.3

106-133

PFTeDA

<0.1

88 -103

4.1

89-116

94 - 104

2.5

92-110

76 - 103

7.4

91-111

PFBS

<0.1

85-111

6.6

87-116

91-103

3.2

91 - 111

69-105

10.3

89-117

PFPeS

<0.1

87-115

6.9

87-115

87-103

4.3

89-112

77-96

5.4

89-112

PFHxS

<0.1

90 -107

4.4

97-119

98-106

2.0

96-113

81 - 101

5.3

91-123

PFHpS

<0.1

84 -126

10.2

86-114

87 - 104

4.4

88 - 104

77-108

8.4

86-108

PFOS

<0.1

93 -122

6.7

91 -120

95-108

3.4

94-115

98-112

3.2

97 - 124

PFNS

<0.1

64 -141

18.8

86 -123

98-111

3.0

76-117

65-88

7.5

85-114

PFDS

<0.1

75 -121

11.7

84 -107

83 - 102

5.2

84 - 107

82-94

3.6

78-110

PFDoS

<0.1

74-114

10.6

78 -102

76-99

6.5

77 - 100

73-96

6.9

29-108

4:2FTS

<0.4

76 -123

12.0

91-119

98-100

0.5

87-113

66 - 126

15.6

90-103

6:2FTS

<0.4

71 -148

17.5

81-129

94 - 123

6.5

60 - 166

77-105

7.8

92-119

8:2FTS

<0.4

85 -109

6.1

99 -124

109-128

3.8

104-127

66 - 148

19.3

102-136

PFOSA

<0.1

90 -107

4.4

91 -122

92 - 106

3.4

94-114

92-116

5.7

96-121

NMeFOSA

<0.1

78-90

3.6

84-112

87 - 104

4.4

91 - 117

81 - 100

5.5

86-117

NEtFOSA

<0.1

79-97

5.0

83 -108

98 - 102

1.0

96-115

74-114

10.7

90 - 127

NMeFOSAA

<0.1

82-115

8.2

81 -120

91-107

4.0

90-113

89-136

10.4

93-117

NEtFOSAA

<0.1

79 -120

10.3

85 -124

102-108

1.6

87-117

53-115

18.3

90-117

NMeFOSE

< 1

87 -102

3.9

92-115

98-103

1.3

94-112

71 - 292

30.3

118-344

NEtFOSE

< 1

87 -104

4.7

91-118

97 - 104

1.9

96-115

97-133

8.0

61-159

HFPO-DA

<0.4

88-114

6.5

84-118

83-105

5.9

80 - 120

73 - 100

7.8

86-114

ADONA

<0.4

77 -106

7.9

77-117

85-96

3.2

76 - 124

82-95

3.8

86-132

PFMPA

<0.2

86 -106

6.6

83 -120

91-98

1.8

85-117

78-93

4.2

86-109

PFMBA

<0.2

62 -122

5.2

81-115

88-97

2.6

85 - 120

74 - 104

8.4

84-117

NFDHA

<0.2

44 -149

16.3

56-138

53-103

16.2

58-136

49-86

13.8

56-115

9C1-PF30NS

<0.4

84 -101

27.4

80 -120

84 - 100

4.4

79-131

69-98

8.7

95 - 126

llCl-PF30UdS

<0.4

80-95

4.5

76-116

84-96

3.3

77 - 127

85 - 100

4.3

94-138

PFEESA

<0.2

80 -104

4.4

85-115

80-93

3.8

89-109

68-99

9.3

88-107

3:3FTCA

<0.5

84 -103

5.0

66 -127

86-98

3.3

76-116

66-94

9.0

41 - 126

5:3FTCA

<2.5

84 -101

4.6

84-113

83-94

3.1

80-101

95-131

7.9

78-199

7:3FTCA

<2.5

78 -103

7.0

82-116

90 - 106

4.1

75 - 104

84-111

6.7

99-139

MLV Study Method

51

October 2021


-------
Table 5. Single-Laboratory Validation Performance Summary for Target Compounds and Extracted
Internal Standards

Compounds

Blank

(ng/mL)

Aqueous Matrices1

Solid Matrices1

Tissue Matrices1

IPRRec
(%)

RSD
(%)

OPR

Rec (%)

IPRRec
(%)

RSD
(%)

OPR Rec

(%)

IPRRec

(%)

RSD

(%)

OPR Rec

(%)

Extracted Internal Standard (EIS)

13c4-pfba

N/A

85-91

1.6

88-108

92-99

1.6

95-109

93-97

1.0

95-105

13C5-PFPeA

N/A

87-95

2.4

84-111

86 - 106

5.3

80-110

85-108

6.0

89-103

13C5-PFHxA

N/A

85-92

1.9

83 -108

83-101

4.8

92 - 106

79-111

8.5

88-98

13C4-PFHpA

N/A

78 -100

6.2

83 -106

87 - 102

4.1

90 - 100

88-93

1.3

80 - 102

13Cs-PFOA

N/A

77-98

6.0

84 -107

89-101

3.2

92 - 104

91-98

1.7

86 - 102

13C9-PFNA

N/A

82-96

3.8

84 -107

86-101

4.1

90 - 106

91 - 104

3.3

89-101

13c6-pfda

N/A

81-98

4.7

84 -106

79-101

6.0

86-109

89 - 104

4.0

90 - 104

13C7-PFUnA

N/A

84 -100

4.4

84 -109

84 - 104

5.4

91 - 116

84-118

8.4

88-109

13C2-PFDoA

N/A

61 -103

12.9

73-101

70-93

7.1

73 - 106

95 - 125

6.8

70 - 108

13C2-PFTeDA

N/A

72-89

5.4

74-97

83-88

1.5

74 - 107

81 - 114

8.5

10-110

13C3-PFBS

N/A

87-94

2.0

88-110

97-105

1.8

96-109

87-114

6.5

95 - 106

13C3-PFHxS

N/A

83-89

1.9

85 -103

92-97

1.4

92 - 106

92-97

1.4

91-103

13Cs-PFOS

N/A

78-92

3.9

86-110

87-107

4.9

95-109

87-93

1.6

95-103

13C2-4:2 FTS

N/A

64 -106

12.1

87-137

132-135

0.6

123-145

106-221

17.6

155-291

13C2-6:2 FTS

N/A

93 -102

2.2

67 -149

118-129

2.3

104-138

87-135

10.8

117-149

13C2-8:2 FTS

N/A

99 -109

2.5

71-137

96 - 122

6.1

93 - 123

179-299

12.5

79 - 304

13Cs-PFOSA

N/A

60 -107

14.2

57-109

69-86

5.4

66 - 100

104-153

9.4

88 - 120

Ds-NMeFOSA

N/A

55-85

10.8

39-84

47-59

5.4

25-64

20-58

24.5

3-34

D5-NEtFOSA

N/A

54-91

12.9

43-84

43-51

4.5

18-58

30-56

15.2

0-56*

Ds-NMeFOSAA

N/A

63-117

14.9

66-117

98-107

2.1

86-109

102-187

14.7

144-196

D5-NEtFOSAA

N/A

66-115

13.7

63-115

98 - 104

1.3

85-109

178-216

4.9

175-223

D7-NMeFOSE

N/A

61 -106

13.6

42-99

50-61

5.1

35-76

3-5

11.6

0-8*

Dsi-NEtFOSE

N/A

63 -108

13.2

44-90

46-57

5.5

32-72

8-33

30.0

0-33*

13C3-HFPO-DA

N/A

89 -106

4.5

88-121

98-108

2.4

83 - 125

87-106

4.9

81-106

1 The recovery limits are applied to all samples, method blanks, IPR, OPR samples for all matrix types.

* Ranges were determined at ± 2 standard deviations from the mean. Because of the low recoveries for these EIS, the calculated
lower limits were negative values. Therefore, the lower limits have been set to 0 for these analytes.

Data for this table are derived from the single-laboratory validation study, and are only provided
as examples for this draft method. The data will be updated to reflect the interlaboratory study
results in a subsequent revision. Therefore, these criteria will change after interlaboratory
validation. Several sections of this method state that Table 5 criteria are required, this is standard
language that will be applicable when the method is finalized.

MLV Study Method

52

October 2021


-------
Table 6. Pooled MDLS and ML values from the Single-laboratory Validation Study,
by Matrix1

Compound

Aqueous (ng/L)

Solid (ng/g)

Tissue (ng/g)

MDLS

ML

MDLS

ML

MDLs

ML

PFBA

0.330

6.4

0.401

0.8

0.593

2.0

PFPeA

0.196

3.2

0.021

0.4

0.083

1.0

PFHxA

0.318

1.6

0.020

0.2

0.096

0.5

PFHpA

0.221

1.6

0.029

0.2

0.088

0.5

PFOA

0.302

1.6

0.037

0.2

0.086

0.5

PFNA

0.221

1.6

0.086

0.2

0.160

0.5

PFDA

0.333

1.6

0.031

0.2

0.124

0.5

PFUnA

0.264

1.6

0.033

0.2

0.152

0.5

PFDoA

0.379

1.6

0.059

0.2

0.130

0.5

PFTrDA

0.238

1.6

0.038

0.2

0.086

0.5

PFTeDA

0.264

1.6

0.032

0.2

0.185

0.5

PFBS

0.245

1.6

0.014

0.2

0.070

0.5

PFPeS

0.204

1.6

0.015

0.2

0.032

0.5

PFHxS1

0.217

1.6

0.018

0.2

0.083

0.5

PFHpS

0.137

1.6

0.057

0.2

0.043

0.5

PFOS1

0.327

1.6

0.067

0.2

0.294

0.5

PFNS

0.303

1.6

0.046

0.2

0.114

0.5

PFDS

0.334

1.6

0.040

0.2

0.101

0.5

PFDoS

0.179

1.6

0.038

0.2

0.177

0.5

4:2 FTS

2.281

6.4

0.282

0.8

0.740

2.0

6:2 FTS

3.973

6.4

0.116

0.8

1.149

2.0

8:2 FTS

1.566

6.4

0.225

0.8

0.373

2.0

PFOSA

0.227

1.6

0.068

0.2

0.094

0.5

NMeFOSA

0.196

1.6

0.049

0.2

0.161

0.5

NEtFOSA

0.585

1.6

0.038

0.2

0.169

0.5

NMeFOSAA1

0.586

1.6

0.030

0.2

0.093

0.5

NEtFOSAA1

0.324

1.6

0.044

0.2

0.138

0.5

NMeFOSE

1.191

16

0.203

2.0

9.978

5.0

NEtFOSE

1.022

16

0.247

2.0

1.501

5.0

HFPO-DA

0.406

6.4

0.136

0.8

0.161

2.0

ADONA

0.779

6.4

0.057

0.8

0.082

2.0

PFEESA

0.137

3.2

0.018

0.4

0.045

1.0

PFMPA

0.177

3.2

0.033

0.4

0.070

1.0

PFMBA

0.117

3.2

0.029

0.4

0.069

1.0

NFDHA

1.384

3.2

0.084

0.4

0.294

1.0

9CL-PF30NS

0.871

6.4

0.038

0.8

0.152

2.0

11CL-PF30UDS

0.819

6.4

0.071

0.8

0.312

2.0

3:3 FTCA

0.721

8.0

0.060

1.0

0.247

2.5

5:3 FTCA

5.066

40

0.363

5.0

1.537

12.5

7:3 FTCA

5.942

40

0.308

5.0

0.845

12.5

1 A standard containing a mixture of branched and linear isomer of suitable quality to be used for quantitation is currently
available and required to be used for all calibration, calibration verifications, and QC samples. If more become commercially
available for other target analytes, they must be utilized in the same manner.

Data for this table are derived from the single-laboratory validation study, and are only provided
as examples for this draft method. The data will be updated with the pooled MDLs from the
interlaboratory study results in a subsequent revision.

MLV Study Method

53

October 2021


-------
Table 7. Summary of Quality Control

Method Reference

Requirement

Specification and Frequency

Section 10.1

Mass Calibration

Annually and on as-needed basis

Section 10.1.5

Mass Calibration Verification

After mass calibration

Section 10.3

Initial Calibration (ICAL)

Minimum 6 calibration standards for linear model
and 7 calibration standards for non-linear models.

Sections 10.2.2,
14.4

Retention Time (RT) window

After ICAL and at the beginning of analytical
sequence

Sections 7.3.1, 9.4

Extracted Internal Standard (EIS)
Analytes

All CAL standards, batch QC and field samples

Sections 7.3.2

Non-extracted Internal Standards
(NIS)

All CAL standards, batch QC and field samples

Sections 7.3.4,
10.3.1, 13.3

Instrument Sensitivity Check (ISC)

Daily, prior to analysis

Section 14.2

Calibration Verification (CV)

At the beginning and every 10 samples

Section 14.6

Instrument Blank

Daily prior to analysis and after high standards

Sections 9.1.3, 9.5,
14.7

Method Blank (MB)

One per preparation batch

Section 14.5

Ongoing Precision Recovery
(OPR)

One per preparation batch

Section 11.0

Limit of Quantitation Verification
(LLOPR)

Prior to analyzing samples

Section 11.0

Matrix Spike (MS/MSD)

One per preparation batch (if required)

MLV Study Method

54

October 2021


-------
Table 8. Cross-reference of Abbreviations, Analyte Names, CAS Numbers for the Acid and

Anion Forms of the Perfluoroalkyl carboxylates and Perfluoroalkyl sulfonates

Perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids/anions

Abbreviation

Acid Name

CASRN

Anion Name

CASRN

PFBA

Perfluorobutanoic acid

375-22-4

Perfluorobutanoate

45048-62-2

PFPeA

Perfluoropentanoic acid

2706-90-3

Perfluoropentanoate

45167-47-3

PFHxA

Perfluorohexanoic acid

307-24-4

Perfluorohexanoate

92612-52-7

PFHpA

Perfluoroheptanoic acid

375-85-9

Perflluoroheptanoate

120885-29-2

PFOA

Perfluorooctanoic acid

335-67-1

Pefluorooctanoate

45285-51-6

PFNA

Perfluorononanoic acid

375-95-1

Perfluorononanoate

72007-68-2

PFDA

Perfluorodecanoic acid

335-76-2

Perfluorodecanoate

73829-36-4

PFUnA

Perfluoroundecanoic acid

2058-94-8

Perfluoroundecanoate

196859-54-8

PFDoA

Perfluorododecanoic acid

307-55-1

Perfluorododecanoate

171978-95-3

PFTrDA

Perfluorotridecanoic acid

72629-94-8

Perfluorotridecanoate

862374-87-6

PFTeDA

Perfluorotetradecanoic acid

376-06-7

Perfluorotetradecanoate

365971-87-5

Perfluoroalkyl sulfonic acids/anions

PFBS

Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

375-73-5

Perfluorobutane sulfonate

45187-15-3

PFPeS

Perfluoropentansulfonic acid

2706-91-4

Perfluoropentane sulfonate

175905-36-9

PFHxS

Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

355-46-4

Perfluorohexane sulfonate

108427-53-8

PFHpS

Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid

375-92-8

Perfluoroheptane sulfonate

146689-46-5

PFOS

Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

1763-23-1

Perfluorooctane sulfonate

45298-90-6

PFNS

Perfluorononanesulfonic acid

68259-12-1

Perfluorononane sulfonate

474511-07-4

PFDS

Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid

335-77-3

Perfluorodecane sulfonate

126105-34-8

PFDoS

Perfluorododecanesulfonic acid

79780-39-5

Perfluorododecane sulfonate

343629-43-6

MLV Study Method

55

October 2021


-------
Table 9. Range of Recoveries for Extracted Internal Standards (EIS) in the Single-laboratory

Validation Study, by Matrix

EIS Compounds

Aqueous

Solid

Tissue

% Recovery

RSD
(%)

% Recovery

RSD

(%)

% Recovery

RSD

(%)

Min

Max

Min

Max

Min

Max

13c4-pfba

9

97

15.9

3

113

37.4

84

99

8.0

13C5-PFPeA

39

103

13.3

28

112

17.2

86

107

11.1

13C5-PFHxA

73

97

2.7

79

110

5.5

92

95

1.6

13C4-PFHpA

77

95

2.4

73

111

6.0

80

93

8.2

13Cs-PFOA

87

95

0.8

86

115

4.4

90

95

2.8

13Cs-PFNA

82

95

1.6

87

110

4.2

90

98

4.3

13c6-pfda

71

93

3.3

87

112

4.9

83

97

7.7

13C7-PFUnA

56

94

6.5

66

124

11.6

71

91

12.9

13C2-PFDoA

34

87

13.7

26

109

24.3

54

96

29.2

13C2-PFTeDA

17

153

26.2

18

110

30.1

31

102

67.8

13C3-PFBS

72

100

4.7

89

120

5.4

89

98

5.1

13C3-PFHxS

79

95

1.6

87

110

4.4

98

99

0.1

13Cs-PFOS

67

96

3.6

79

113

5.7

92

103

6.0

13C2-4:2FTS

81

199

14.8

95

248

17.0

192

215

6.2

13C2-6:2FTS

64

183

16.4

76

127

9.4

145

230

27.2

13C2-8:2FTS

65

139

8.4

86

173

15.2

136

220

24.6

13Cs-PFOSA

27

93

15.4

61

123

10.0

87

96

4.5

Ds-NMeFOSA

14

74

16.4

28

86

22.7

8

38

61.9

D5-NEtFOSA

12

70

16.5

21

70

25.5

8

30

57.8

Ds-NMeFOSAA

21

113

7.3

52

142

14.8

106

139

13.1

D5-NEtFOSAA

12

106

8.2

68

151

16.9

79

151

31.8

D7-NMeFOSE

11

77

18.6

13

107

27.9

5

30

81.1

Dsi-NEtFOSE

8

73

19.6

16

97

30.4

0

29

103.1

13C3-HFPO-DA

92

113

2.0

70

119

10.4

93

102

5.1

Data for this table are derived from the single-laboratory validation study, and are only provided
as examples for this draft method. The data will be updated with the interlaboratory study results
in a subsequent revision.

MLV Study Method

56

October 2021


-------
Table 10. Range of Recoveries for Non-Extracted Internal Standards in the Single-laboratory
Validation Study, by Matrix

NIS Compounds

Aqueous

Solid

Tissue

% Recovery

RSD
(%)

% Recovery

RSD
(%)

% Recovery

RSD
(%)

Min

Max

Min

Max

Min

Max

13c3-pfba

60

91

10.3

54

89

6.4

51

82

7.0

13C2-PFHxA

43

94

18.6

52

90

7.4

41

80

19.3

13c4-pfoa

59

87

9.7

54

89

6.4

51

82

9.5

13c5-pfna

64

87

7.5

59

94

7.1

52

88

11.2

13c2-pfda

57

86

10.0

55

91

8.6

47

85

19.4

1802-PFHxS

59

87

9.6

53

87

7.1

51

80

8.1

13c4-pfos

60

82

7.5

58

86

7.0

52

85

10.3

Data for this table are derived from the single-laboratory validation study, and are only provided
as examples for this draft method. The data will be updated with the interlaboratory study results
in a subsequent revision.

MLV Study Method

57

October 2021


-------
21.0 Glossary

These definitions and purposes are specific to this method, but have been conformed to common usage to
the extent possible.

21.1 Units of weight and measure and their abbreviations
21.1.1 Symbols

°c

degrees Celsius

Da

Dalton (equivalent to "amu" below)

Mg

microgram

(iL

microliter

(im

micrometer

<

less than

<

less than or equal

>

greater than

>

greater than or equal

0/
/O

percent

lb

plus or minus

21.1.2 Alphabetical abbreviations

amu

atomic mass unit (equivalent to Dalton)

cm

centimeter

g

gram

h

hour

L

liter

M

molar

mg

milligram

min

minute

mL

milliliter

mm

millimeter

cm

centimeter

m/z

mass-to-charge ratio

ng

nanogram

Qi

quantitation ion

Q2

confirmation ion

rpm

revolutions per minute

v/v

percent volume per volume

21.2 Definitions and acronyms (in alphabetical order)

Analyte - A PFAS compound included in this method. The analytes are listed in Table 1.

Calibration standard (CS) - A solution prepared from a secondary standard and/or stock
solutions and used to calibrate the response of the LC-MS/MS instrument.

Calibration verification standard (CV) - The mid-point calibration standard (CS-4) that is used
to verify calibration. See Table 6.

CFR - Code of Federal Regulations

MLV Study Method

58

October 2021


-------
Compound - One of many variants or configurations of a common chemical structure.

Individual compounds are identified by the number of carbon atoms and functional group
attached at the end of the chain.

Class A glassware - Volumetric glassware that provides the highest accuracy. Class A
volumetric glassware complies with the Class A tolerances defined in ASTM E694, must be
permanently labeled as Class A, and is supplied with a serialized certificate of precision.

CWA - Clean Water Act

Extracted internal standard (EIS) quantification - The response of the target compound is
compared to the response of the labeled analog of another compound in the same LOC.

LC - Liquid chromatograph or liquid chromatography

Internal standard - A labeled compound used as a reference for quantitation of other labeled
compounds and for quantitation of native PFAS compounds other than the compound of which it
is a labeled analog. See Internal standard quantitation.

Instrument sensitivity check - solution used to check the sensitivity of the instrument. The
solution contains the native compounds at the concentration of the LOQ.

Internal standard quantitation - A means of determining the concentration of (1) a naturally
occurring (native) compound by reference to a compound other than its labeled analog and (2) a
labeled compound by reference to another labeled compound

IPR - Initial precision and recovery; four aliquots of a reference matrix spiked with the analytes
of interest and labeled compounds and analyzed to establish the ability of the laboratory to
generate acceptable precision and recovery. An IPR is performed prior to the first time this
method is used and any time the method or instrumentation is modified.

Isotope dilution (ID) quantitation - A means of determining a naturally occurring (native)
compound by reference to the same compound in which one or more atoms has been isotopically
enriched. The labeled PFAS are spiked into each sample and allow identification and correction
of the concentration of the native compounds in the analytical process.

Isotopically labeled compound - An analog of a target analyte in the method which has been
synthesized with one or more atoms in the structure replaced by a stable (non-radioactive) isotope
of that atom. Common stable isotopes used are 13C (Carbon-13) or Deuterium (D or 2H). These
labeled compounds do not occur in nature, so they can be used for isotope dilution quantitation or
other method-specific purposes.

Limit of Quantitation (LOQ) - The smallest concentration that produces a quantitative result
with known and recorded precision and bias. The LOQ shall be set at or above the concentration
of the lowest initial calibration standard (the lowest calibration standard must fall within the
linear range).

Method blank - An aliquot of reagent water that is treated exactly as a sample including
exposure to all glassware, equipment, solvents, reagents, internal standards, and labeled
compounds that are used with samples. The method blank is used to determine if analytes or
interferences are present in the laboratory environment, the reagents, or the apparatus.

MLV Study Method

59

October 2021


-------
Method Detection Limit (MDL) - The minimum measured concentration of a substance that
can be reported with 99% confidence that the measured analyte concentration is distinguishable
from method blank results (40 CFR 136, Appendix B).

MESA - Mining Enforcement and Safety Administration

Minimum level of quantitation (ML) - The lowest level at which the entire analytical system
must give a recognizable signal and acceptable calibration point for the analyte. The ML
represents the lowest concentration at which an analyte can be measured with a known level of
confidence. It may be equivalent to the concentration of the lowest calibration standard,
assuming that all method-specified sample weights, volumes, and cleanup procedures have been
employed. Alternatively, the ML may be established by multiplying the MDL (pooled or
unpooled, as appropriate) by 3.18 and rounding the result to the number nearest to 1, 2, or 5 x 10n,
where n is zero or an integer (see 68 FR 11770).

MS - Mass spectrometer or mass spectrometry

Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate (MS/MSD) - Aliquots of field samples that have been
fortified with a known concentration of target compounds, prior to sample preparation and
extraction, and analyzed to measure the effect of matrix interferences. The use of MS/MSD
samples is generally not required in isotope dilution methods because the labeled compounds
added to every sample provide more performance data than spiking a single sample in each
preparation batch.

Multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) - Also known as selected reaction monitoring (SRM). A
type of mass spectrometry where a parent mass of the compound is fragmented through MS/MS
and then specifically monitored for a single fragment ion.

Must - This action, activity, or procedural step is required.

NIOSH - The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health

Non-extracted internal standard (NIS) -Labeled PFAS compounds spiked into the
concentrated extract immediately prior to injection of an aliquot of the extract into the LC-
MS/MS.

OPR - Ongoing precision and recovery standard (OPR); a method blank spiked with known
quantities of analytes. The OPR is analyzed exactly like a sample. Its purpose is to assure that
the results produced by the laboratory remain within the limits specified in this method for
precision and recovery.

Precursor Ion - For the purpose of this method, the precursor ion is the deprotonated molecule
([M-H]-) of the method analyte. In MS/MS, the precursor ion is mass selected and fragmented by
collisionally activated dissociation to produce distinctive product ions of smaller m/z.

PFAS - Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl substances -A group of man-made fluorinated compounds that
are hydrophobic and lipophobic, manufactured and used in a variety of industries globally. These
compounds are persistent in the environment as well as in the human body. This method
analyzes for the PFAS listed in Table 1.

Reagent water - Water demonstrated to be free from the analytes of interest and potentially
interfering substances at the method detection limit for the analyte.

MLV Study Method

60

October 2021


-------
Relative standard deviation (RSD) - The standard deviation multiplied by 100 and divided by
the mean. Also termed "coefficient of variation."

Relative Standard Error (RSE) - The standard error of the mean divided by the mean and
multiplied by 100.

RF - Response factor. See Section 10.3.3.2.

RR- Relative response. See Section 10.3.3.2.

RT - Retention time; the time it takes for an analyte or labeled compound to elute off the
HPLC/UPLC column

Should - This action, activity, or procedural step is suggested but not required.

Signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) - The height of the signal as measured from the mean (average) of
the noise to the peak maximum divided by the width of the noise.

SPE - Solid-phase extraction; a technique in which an analyte is extracted from an aqueous
solution or a solid/tissue extract by passage over or through a material capable of reversibly
adsorbing the analyte. Also termed liquid-solid extraction.

Stock solution - A solution containing an analyte that is prepared using a reference material
traceable to EPA, NIST, or a source that will attest to the purity and authenticity of the reference
material.

MLV Study Method

61

October 2021


-------
Appendix A - Sample Pre-screening Instructions

Samples that are known or suspected to contain high levels of analytes may be pre-screened using the
following procedure. These are example procedures using smaller sample aliquots spiked with EIS and
NIS and no clean up procedures. Other pre-screening procedures may be used.

Aqueous Samples

1.	Weight out 10 (±0.1) g of sample into a 50-mL centrifuge tube.

2.	Add 50 (iL of EIS and NIS to the sample and vortex to mix.

3.	Filter 1 mL of the sample through 0.2-f.im membrane filter into a microvial. Sample is ready for
instrumental analysis.

Solid and Tissue Samples

1.	Weigh 1.0 (±0.1) g sample into 50-mL polypropylene centrifuge tubes.

2.	Add 20 mL of 0.3% methanolic ammonium hydroxide (Section 7.1.7.1). Vortex and mix on a shaker
table (or equivalent) for 10 min. Allow to settle and/or centrifuge to produce a clear extract.

3.	Filter using a Single Step® filter vial:

a.	Add 20 |_iL of EIS to a clean Single Step® filter vial (chamber).

b.	Add 400 |_iL of clear extract from step 2 (e.g., by adding extract until it reaches the fill line),
carefully vortex to mix.

c.	Use filter/plunger part and filter.

4.	Transfer 30 |_iL of filtrate to a ~300-f.iL polypropylene micro-vial and dilute to 300 |_iL with 0.3%
methanolic ammonium hydroxide (Section 7.1.7.1). Add NIS to the filtrate.

5.	The extract is now a lOx dilution.

6.	Sample is ready for instrumental analysis.

Calculate results using the equivalent sample weight computed as follows:

0.4 mL

Equivalent Weight = Sample weight (g) x ——-

La U 7/lL

Note that the EIS concentration in the diluted portion is 0.5x the level in the regular analysis of solid
samples.

MLV Study Method

62

October 2021


-------
Appendix B - Aqueous Sample Subsampling Instructions

Warning: Because some target analytes may be stratified within the sample (e.g., AFFF-

contaminated media, surfactants), or adhere to the walls of the sample container,
subsampling may only be done on a project-specific basis. Subsampling has been shown
to increase uncertainty in PFAS analysis, especially on foaming samples.

If a reduced sample size is required, transfer a weighed subsample using the following subsampling

procedure to a 60-mL HDPE bottle and dilute to approximately 60 mL using reagent water. This

container is now considered the "sample bottle."

1.	Gently invert sample 3-4 times being careful to avoid foam formation and subsample immediately (do
not let stand).

2.	If foam forms and more than 5 mL is required - pour sample, avoiding any foam.

3.	If foaming forms and a volume less than 5 mL is required - pipette from cm below the foam.

4.	If no foam forms - pour or pipette based on volume required.

MLV Study Method

63

October 2021


-------
Attachment 2

Required Sample Nomenclature and Matrix Types for the
Multi-Laboratory Validation Study


-------
Attachment 2. Required Sample Nomenclature and Matrix Types for the Multi-Laboratory Validation Study

M;ilri\ Tjpe

Ki'(|iii'Mc(l Niinu*

Description

Miilrix
Cock'

Siimplo
Identifier

(h;ir;iclcri/;ilion
Prc-spikc

MIA S(ud\ Siimplo IDs

I nspikcri

Low
Replicnle 1

Low
Kcpliciilc 2

Low
Kcpliciilc 3

lli»h
Kcpliciilc 1

llilili
Kcpliciilc 2

llilili
Kcpliciilc 3

Groundwater

USACE

GW #1, midwest

GW

A

GWA0

GWA1

GWA2

GWA3

GWA4

GWA5

GWA6

GWA7

Groundwater

LRPCD

GW #2, southwest

GW

B

GWB0

GWB1

GWB2

GWB3

GWB4

GWB5

GWB6

GWB7

Groundwater

USACE

GW #13

GW

C

GWC0

GWC1

GWC2

GWC3

GWC4

GWC5

GWC6

GWC7

Surface Water

Lake Harsha, OH

SW OH 9/10

SW

D

SWD0

SWD1

SWD2

SWD3

SWD4

SWD5

SWD6

SWD7

Surface Water

Norwell, MA

SW MA 9/24

SW

E

SWE0

SWE1

SWE2

SWE3

SWE4

SWE5

SWE6

SWE7

Surface Water

Burley Creek, WA

Burley Creek

SW

F

SWF0

SWF1

SWF2

SWF3

SWF4

SWF5

SWF6

SWF7

Surface Water

Sequim Bay, WA

Sequim Seawater

SW

G

SWG0

SWG1

SWG2

SWG3

SWG4

SWG5

SWG6

SWG7

Wastewater

Metal Finisher

Metal Finisher

WW

H

WWH0

WWH1

WWH2

WWH3

WWH4

WWH5

WWH6

WWH7

Wastewater

Hospital

Hospital

WW

I

WWI0

WWII

WWI2

WWI3

WWI4

WWI5

WWI6

WWI7

Wastewater

POTW Influent

POTW Influent

WW

J

WWJ0

WWJ1

WWJ2

WWJ3

WWJ4

WWJ5

WWJ6

WWJ7

Wastewater

ASTM Substitute

ASTM Substitute

WW

K

WWK0

WWK1

WWK2

WWK3

WWK4

WWK5

WWK6

WWK7

Wastewater

WW Bus Washing Station

WW Bus Wash

WW

L

WWL0

WWL1

WWL2

WWL3

WWL4

WWL5

WWL6

WWL7

Wastewater

Playa Del Ray, CA

Plant Effluent

WW

M

WWM0

WWM1

WWM2

WWM3

WWM4

WWM5

WWM6

WWM7

Wastewater

Pulp & Paper WW

#1-28

WW

N

WWN0

WWN1

WWN2

WWN3

WWN4

WWN5

WWN6

WWN7

Wastewater

POTW Effluent

POTW Effluent

WW

O

WWOO

WWOl

WW02

WW03

WW04

WW05

WW06

WW07

Soil

Musselshell, Clark Co. MT

AA (2016-106), L32547-2

ss

R

SSR0

SSR1

SSR2

SSR3

SSR4

SSR5

SSR6

SSR7

Soil

Ivy, Cashe Co. UT

BB (2017-111), L32547-3

ss

S

ssso

SSS1

SSS2

SSS3

SSS4

SSS5

SSS6

SSS7

Soil

Fruitland, San Juan Co. NM

CC (2018-105), L32547-4

ss

T

SST0

SST1

SST2

SST3

SST4

SST5

SST6

SST7

Soil

Armijo, Dona Ana Co. NM

DD (2018-116), L32547-5

ss

U

ssuo

SSU1

SSU2

SSU3

SSU4

SSU5

SSU6

SSU7

Soil

Drummer, Dekalb Co. IL

EE (2019-107), L32547-6

ss

V

ssvo

SSV1

SSV2

SSV3

SSV4

SSV5

SSV6

SSV7

Soil

Brock, Wheatley Co. TN

FF (2019-110), L32547-7

ss

W

sswo

SSW1

SSW2

SSW3

SSW4

SSW5

SSW6

SSW7

Soil

Delhi, Fresno County. CA

2014-107

ss

X

ssxo

SSX1

SSX2

SSX3

SSX4

SSX5

SSX6

SSX7

Sediment

Burley 1 Sed. Burley Creek, WA

Burley 1 Sed.

SD

Y

SDY0

SDY1

SDY2

SDY3

SDY4

SDY5

SDY6

SDY7

Sediment

Burley 2 Sed. Burley Creek, WA

Burley 2 Sed.

SD

Z

SDZ0

SDZ1

SDZ2

SDZ3

SDZ4

SDZ5

SDZ6

SDZ7

Sediment

Sequim Bay Sediment

Sequim Bay Sediment

SD

AA

SDAA0

SDAA1

SDAA2

SDAA3

SDAA4

SDAA5

SDAA6

SDAA7

Fish Tissue

Walleye (low lipid fish)

Walleye

TS

AB

TSAB0

TSAB1

TSAB2

TSAB3

TSAB4

TSAB5

TSAB6

TSAB7

Fish Tissue

Salmon (high lipid fish)

Salmon

TS

AC

TSAC0

TSAC1

TSAC2

TSAC3

TSAC4

TSAC5

TSAC6

TSAC7

Fish Tissue

Clams

Clams

TS

AD

TSAD0

TSAD1

TSAD2

TSAD3

TSAD4

TSAD5

TSAD6

TSAD7

Leachate

MSW LF Leachate Sample

MSW LF Leachate Sample

LC

AE

LCAE0

LCAE1

LCAE2

LCAE3

LCAE4

LCAE5

LCAE6

LCAE7

Leachate

CDD Landfill

CDD

LC

AF

LCAF0

LCAF1

LCAF2

LCAF3

LCAF4

LCAF5

LCAF6

LCAF7

Leachate

Ash leachate

Ash leachate

LC

AG

LCAG0

LCAG1

LCAG2

LCAG3

LCAG4

LCAG5

LCAG6

LCAG7

Biosolids

Playa Del Ray, CA

Wetcake

BS

AH

BSAH0

BSAH1

BSAH2

BSAH3

BSAH4

BSAH5

BSAH6

BSAH7

Biosolids

Biosolids

Biosolids

BS

AI

BSAI0

BSAI1

BSAI2

BSAI3

BSAI4

BSAI5

BSAI6

BSAI7

Biosolids

Renton, WA

Renton, WA

BS

AJ

BSAJ0

BSAJ1

BSAJ2

BSAJ3

BSAJ4

BSAJ5

BSAJ6

BSAJ7

Page 1 of 1


-------
Attachment 3
Electronic Data Deliverable Instructions

(Instructions Dated 02/18/22)


-------
Following is the description of data fields requested for electronic data deliverables (EDDs) for
the PFAS Multi-laboratory Validation Study. The format of data in each field is indicated in
brackets (e.g. [text string string]). [Note: The format of the EDD will be finalized when spiked
matrices are shipped to the laboratories participating in the MLV study].

Data Fields:

1)	Lab_ID: [text string] Laboratory Name.

2)	Sample_No: [text string] For samples, these are the sample identification names (IDs)
from the Chain of Custody. The SampleNo is the same, regardless of whether or not the
sample is diluted or reanalyzed. For preparation batch QC, these are "MB" for the
Method Blank, "OPR" for the OPR, and "LLOPR" for the LLOPR. For Initial
Demonstration of Capability samples, "IPR" for the IPR samples, "MDLB" for the MDLb
samples, "MDLS" for the MDLs samples, and "LOQVER" for the LOQVER samples.

Lab_Sample_ID: [text string] The ID the laboratory assigns to the sample (which
identifies the sample on the associated data files and reports). For samples that need to be
re-analyzed for issues other than dilution, attach the following identifiers to the end of the
lab sample identifier without a space between them (e.g., 02082022-01R):

o "R" for analytes, EISs and NISs reported from first re-analysis not due to dilution;

o "Rl" for analytes, EISs and NISs reported from second re-analysis not due to
dilution; and

o "R2" for analytes, EISs and NISs reported from second re-analysis not due to
dilution

If more re-analyses not due to dilution are needed to be reported beyond three for a
sample, continue on with the numbering (e.g., R3, R4, R5, etc.).

3)	Analysis_Date: [short date] Use format mm/dd/yyyy (e.g., 11/20/2019) - do not include
time stamp.

4)	Analysis: [text string] fill in "PFAS"

5)	Compound: [text string] Use the names included in the example EDD. DO NOT
CHANGE. Method analytes, and EIS and NIS compounds must be reported for each
sample.

6)	CAS_No: [text string] Use the Chemical Abstract Service Registration Number
(CASRN) included in the example EDD. DO NOT CHANGE. For compounds with no
CASRN, leave blank.

7)	PFAS_Acronym: [text string] Use acronyms included in the example EDD. DO NOT
CHANGE.

8)	Dilution: [number integer] Dilution made post extraction (e.g., extract diluted 1:10 is
entered as "10"). If analyzed without dilution, enter "1."

Page 1 of 4


-------
9)	Conc_Found: [number, double] Enter numeric quantitative result value only. Report to
three significant figures. Do NOT enter any text string strings or symbols (e.g., "ND",
"<"). For analytes that are not detected, the laboratory's sample specific MDL (i.e., with
extract dilution factor, sample volume/weight and final volume taken into account) is
entered. Solids are reported on a dry-weight basis. Tissues are reported on a wet-weight
basis. Report result units in "Unit" field, consistent for all sample fields.

10)Lab_Flag:	[text string] Laboratory qualifiers

"U" for analytes that were not detected or were detected at a concentration less than the
MDL.

"J" for analytes that were at a concentration between the MDL and LOQ.

"B" for analytes that were detected in the associated MB of a sample that exceeded V2
LOQ or is at a concentration greater than 1/10th the concentration in the sample,
whichever is greatest. The MB must also be flagged with a "B" for all concentrations
greater than V2 the LOQ.

"I" for analytes that fail to meet ion ratio criteria.

"D" for analytes, EISs, and NISs reported from a dilution.

These flags apply to all samples (field and QC).

11)	If you have multiple flags assigned to a result, do not include any spacing between the
flags. Conc_Spike: [number, double] For unspiked samples enter "0" for method
analytes. For spiked samples, enter the spike concentration representing the estimated
concentration in the final extract (i.e., with extract dilution factor, sample volume/weight
and final volume taken into account). Solids are reported on a dry-weight basis. Tissues
are reported on a wet-weight basis. For EIS and NIS, enter the spike concentration
representing the concentration in the final extract in units consistent with sample result
units. The reporting units for this project are parts per trillion (ppt) or nanograms per liter
(ng/L) for aqueous samples and parts per billion micrograms per kilogram (|ig/kg) for
solid samples. Report to three significant figures.

12)Percent_Rec:	[number, double] For unspiked samples, leave blank. No text should be
included in this field (e.g., N/A). For spiked samples (OPR, LLOPR, MDLS and
LOQVER), enter the spike percentage recovery as a whole number (e.g., 95 versus 0.95).
Do NOT include "%" symbol. For EIS and NIS recoveries, enter the spike % recovery as
a whole number (e.g., 95 versus 0.95). Report to three significant figures. Do NOT
include

13)	MDL (Method Detection Limit): [number, double] Enter the sample specific MDL (i.e.,
with extract dilution factor, sample volume/weight and final volume taken into account).
The reporting units for this project are parts per trillion (ppt) or nanograms per liter
(ng/L) for aqueous samples and parts per billion micrograms per kilogram (|ig/kg) for
solid samples. Report to three significant figures.

14)	LOQ (Limit of Quantitation): [number, double] Enter the sample specific LOQ (i.e., with
extract dilution factor, sample volume/weight and final volume taken into account).

Page 2 of 4


-------
Report to 3 significant figures. The reporting units for this project are parts per trillion
(ppt) or nanograms per liter (ng/L) for aqueous samples and parts per billion micrograms
per kilogram (|ig/kg) for solid samples. Report to three significant figures.

15)	Unit: [text string] The reporting units must be consistent for the sample record including
ConcFound, MDL, LOQ etc. The reporting units for this project are parts per trillion
(ppt) or nanograms per liter (ng/L) for aqueous samples and parts per billion micrograms
per kilogram (|ig/kg) for solid samples. Ensure that all values for the sample record are
reported in the same units.

16)	Sample_Transition_Ratio: [text string] Enter the calculated Transition Ratio (Quant Ion
Area/Conf Ion Area) for each analyte in the sample. Report to three significant figures.
For analytes this does not apply to (PFBA, PFPeA, NMeFOSE, NEtFOSE, PFMPA, and
PFMBA), leave this field blank. No text should be included in this field (e.g., N/A).

17)	Expected_Transition_Ratio: [text string] Enter the expected Transition Ratio (Quant
Ion Area/Conf Ion Area) for each analyte per the method. Report to three significant
figures. For analytes this does not apply to (PFBA, PFPeA, NMeFOSE, NEtFOSE,
PFMPA, and PFMBA), leave this field blank. No text should be included in this field
(e.g., N/A).

18)	RRT: [text string] Enter relative retention time

19)	Sample_Size: [number, double] Enter volume (aqueous samples) or weight (solid
samples) of sample extracted (in liters for aqueous samples, in kilograms for solids).

20)	Sample_size_unit: [text string] Will be liters (L) for aqueous samples or kilograms (Kg)
for solid samples

21)	Extraction_date: [short date] Use format mm/dd/yyyy (e.g., 11/20/2019) - do not
include time stamp.

22)	PercMoisture [number double] Percent moisture in soil, solid, and biosolid samples
only. Enter the percent moisture as a whole number (e.g., 73 versus 0.73). Do NOT
include "%" symbol.

23)	Matrix: [text string]

For method analytes, EIS, and NIS in field samples only:

•	GW = Groundwater

•	SW = Surface Water

•	SD = Sediment

•	SS = Soil

•	TS = Tissue

•	WW = Wastewater

•	LC = Leachate

Page 3 of 4


-------
•	BS = Biosolid

For method analytes, EIS, and NIS in Method Blanks and MDLBs:

•	RW = Reagent water for all aqueous MBs

•	OS = Ottawa sand for all soil, sediment, and biosolid MBs

•	RT = Reference Tissue for tissue MBs

For method analytes, EIS, and NIS in OPRs, IPRs, LOQVERs, MDLSs, and LLOPRs:

•	QC = quality control sample

24)	Method: [text string] Laboratory SOP Name in format of "name(space)revision number."

25)	Study_Phase - [text string] Multi-Lab Validation Study Phase:

•	Enter "Phase 3" for Initial Demonstration of Capabilities (IDC), MDL Study,
IPRs, and LOQ Verification

•	Enter "Phase 4.4.1" for GW, SW, and WW matrices

•	Enter "Phase 4.4.2" = SS and SD matrices

•	Enter "Phase 4.4.3" = TS matrices

•	Enter "Phase 4.4.4" = LC and BS matrices

26)	Sample_Type [text string]:

•	For method analytes in MDL Blank IDC samples enter "MDLB"

•	For method analytes in MDL Spike IDC samples enter "MDLS"

•	For method analytes in IPR IDC samples enter "IPR"

•	For method analytes in LOQVER IDC samples enter "LOQVER"

•	For method analytes in field samples enter "NORMAL"

•	For method analytes in MBs enter "BLANK"

•	For method analytes in OPRs enter "OPR"

•	For method analytes in LLOPRs enter "LLOPR"

•	For EISs in all samples enter "EIS"

•	For NISs in all samples enter "NIS"

Page 4 of 4


-------
Attachment 4

Data Management Plan, QA/QC and Data Processing Procedures, and

Data Management Plan Addendum

(Dated 03/01/22, 05/04/22, and 01/23/23, respectively)


-------
Data Management Plan for the

Multi-Laboratory Validation Draft EPA Method 1633 -
PFAS in Aqueous, Solid, Biosolids, and Tissue Samples by

LC-MS/MS

Prepared for:

SERDP/ESTCP PFAS Method Validation Study Team
Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP)
4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 16F16
Alexandria, VA 22350-3605

Prepared by:

Exa Data & Mapping Services, Inc.

19530 23rd Ave NE
Poulsbo, WA 98370

And

HydroGeoLogic, Inc.

11107 Sunset Hills Road, Suite 400
Reston, Virginia 20190-5375

March 1, 2022


-------
Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION	1

1.1	Background	l

1.2	Phases of Data Management	2

1.3	Data Management Objectives	3

2.0 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES	4

3.0 DATA SHARING PU\N AND FILE TRACKING	6

3.1	MLV Study Library: Host and Software	6

3.1.1	Folder Structure	7

3.1.2	Access and Permissions	11

3.2	Fi le Tracki ng System	13

3.3	File-Naming Protocols	13

4.0 DATA MANAGEMENT PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES	15

4.1	Workflow	15

4.1.1	Receipt of Data Sets.	15

4.1.2	Review Laboratory EDD/Data Package Submissions.	18

4.1.3	Data Validation	19

4.1.4	Statistical Analyses	20

4.1.5	Data Archiving	21

4.1.6	Rejection and Resubmission Process.	21

4.2	Database and Tools	22

4.2.1	Database Structure	22

4.2.2	Import and Export File Structures	24

4.2.3	Data Processing Tools.	25

5.0 REFERENCES	26


-------
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. MLV Study Data Management Team Member Roles and Responsibilities

Table 2. MLV Study General Data Types

Table 3. MLV Study Library Permission Structure

Table 4. Project Participants with Access to the MLV Study Library

Table 5. Laboratory Data File-Naming Protocol Examples

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Organization of the Multi-Laboratory Validation Study teams relative to their roles in

managing data
Figure 2. Folder structure for the MLV Study Library
Figure 3a. Workflow for the PFAS Multi-Laboratory Validation Study
Figure 3b. Workflow for the PFAS Multi-Laboratory Validation Study (continued)

Figure 4. Entity-Relationship Diagram (ERD) for the Project Database

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A1 - Description of File Tracking System

Appendix A2 - File Tracking System - ValidValues

Appendix B1 - Quick Start Guide for LABORATORIES

Appendix B2 - Quick Start Guide for VALIDATORS

Appendix B3 - Quick Start Guide for IDA

Appendix CI - Project Database - Database Dictionary

Appendix C2 - Project Database - Valid Value Codes and Descriptions

Appendix C3 - Project Database - Valid Value Codes and Descriptions for Compounds

ii


-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AFFF

Aqueous Film-Forming Foams

DoD

US Department of Defense

DMP

Data Management Plan

EDD

electronic data deliverable

EIS

extracted internal standard

EPA

US Environmental Protection Agency

ESTCP

Environmental Security Technology Certification Program

ETL

Extract, Transform, Load

GCC

Government Community Cloud

HGL

HydroGeoLogic, Inc.

IDA

Institute for Defense Analysis

MLV

Multi-Laboratory Validation

MVS Team

Method Validation Study Team

NIS

Non-extracted internal standard

PFAS

per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances

QA

quality assurance

QC

quality control

SEE

Science and Engineering for the Environment

SERDP

Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program

SLV

Single-Laboratory Validation

USACE

US Army Corps of Engineers


-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION

This document describes data management processes and procedures for the Multi-
Laboratory Validation of Draft EPA Method 1633 - PFAS in Aqueous, Solid, Biosolids, and Tissue
Samples by LC-MS/MS. EPA Method 1633 is an interim draft method for analyzing per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and now requires a Multiple-Laboratory Validation (MLV)
Study. The Data Management Plan (DMP) includes the processes and procedures for the
transmission, tracking, verification, review, storage, and delivery of laboratory data and
associated validation and analyses data collected in support of the MLV Study. During the
course of the project, the intended design of certain elements of the DMP may be adjusted; the
final processes and procedures used during the project will be documented in the Final Data
Management Summary Report.

To meet study requirements for the acquisition of technically sound and legally
admissible data, a traceable audit trail will be established from the shipment of sample matrices
to each participating laboratory through the archiving of information and data. Each step will be
conducted in accordance with the MLV Study Work Plan (SERDP/ESCTP 2022). All potential
variations in the analytical and reporting process will be documented and retained with other
laboratory data and digital information generated during the MLV Study.

1.1 Background

The MLV Study is currently being conducted by the US Department of Defense's (DoD)
Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) in cooperation with the
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the US Navy (Navy), the US Air Force (Air Force),
and the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Members from each of these agencies comprises
the advisory Method Validation Study (MVS) Team. The study is being conducted as SERDP
Project ER19-1409. The end goal of the MLV Study is to use the findings to revise, as
necessary, draft Method 1633, and to submit the supporting data packages to the EPA Office of
Water for consideration as a final method under the Clean Water Act.

As part of the method validation, the MVS Team also worked with Federal, municipal,
state, and regional contacts to obtain sufficient volumes/masses of samples from eight different
environmental matrices, including wastewater, landfill leachate, groundwater, surface water,
fish tissue/clams, biosolids, sediment, and soil. Sample matrices were collected and transferred
under chain of custody between September and December 2020. A replacement biosolids
sample was collected in October 2021 and an ASTM substitute wastewater sample was
developed in December 2021.

l


-------
Specific steps of the MLV Study are to (a) develop the analytical method, (b) conduct
single and multi-laboratory validation studies, and (c) perform statistical analyses of the
resultant analytical data to develop appropriate Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Control
(QC) criteria for the method. The draft EPA Office of Water Method 1633 for PFAS has been
demonstrated in the Single Laboratory Validation (SLV) Study conducted under ER19-1409
(Willey etal. 2021). The Method was evaluated and determined to be sufficiently robust to
proceed to the Multi-Laboratory Validation Study. A Final EPA Office of Water Method 1633 for
PFAS is critical to DoD Remedial Project Managers working at aqueous film-forming foams
(AFFF)-impacted sites. The method is also of critical importance nationally to wastewater permit
writers, ecological and human health risk assessments.

1.2 Phases of Data Management

The DMP processes and procedures described herein are applicable to Phases 3-6 of the
MLV Study Work Plan (SERDP/ESTCP 2022). The six phases of the plan include:

•	Phase 1 - Soliciting Laboratories: This phase involved soliciting proposals and awarding
subcontracts to laboratories and suppliers to participate in the Study.

•	Phase 2 - Procuring Standards and Study Samples: This phase involved procuring the
standards, acquiring and characterizing sample media, and creating the Study Samples.

•	Phase 3 - Calibration and Demonstration of Capability: This phase requires each
laboratory to (1) develop and submit a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), (2)
perform a minimum of three initial multi-point calibrations, and (3) conduct an initial
demonstration of capabilities (IDC) for'clean'sample matrices. Data/information for this
phase includes laboratory-specific SOPs, calibration data, and results from the IDC as
well as records related to document reviews, corrections, and approvals.

•	Phase 4 - Analyses of Study Samples: This phase involves all participant laboratories
using the Study Method to analyze the Study Samples. Data/information for this phase
includes laboratory-specific data for each Study Sample (electronic data deliverables
[EDDs] and Data Packages).

•	Phase 5 - Data Validation: An independent third-party will conduct data validation for all
study results. Data/information for this phase includes data reviews, updated/corrected
EDDs and Data Packages, correspondence related to corrections, and approvals.

•	Phase 6 - Development of QC Acceptance Criteria: Data/information for this phase
includes results from the statistical analysis of data from the MLV Study, quality control
(QC) acceptance criteria, recommendations for revisions to draft Method 1633, and the
MLV Study Report that will be submitted to EPA.

2


-------
1.3 Data Management Objectives

The primary objective of the DMP is to provide an efficient and organized method of
data management to streamline data flow and ensure the highest quality data are compiled.
Specific objectives are:

•	To facilitate and coordinate with the MVS Team members to ensure that data
management system meets overall project objectives;

•	To ensure high quality data that provides an accurate representation of all data
produced during the study;

•	To standardize and store the data in a structured format to allow for accurate
querying and statistical analyses;

•	To ensure efficient and timely data processing;

•	To store the data produced during the MLV Study in a secure location that restricts
access to team members with appropriate credentials;

•	To allow easy access to the data by project stakeholders; and,

•	To implement documentation procedures that ensure the data is technically
defensible and legally admissible.

The data management methodology is critical to ensure that laboratory analytical data,
validation information, and final statistical calculations are of the highest quality to support and
defend the publication of the final method.

3


-------
2.0 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Under the leadership and guidance of the MVS Team, the Data Management Team will
work to properly execute the DMP and ensure that the project objectives and scope are
achieved. The Data Management Team consists of Exa Data & Management, Inc. (Exa) and
HydroGeoLogic, Inc. (HGL; Figure 1). The Data Management Team will coordinate with the data
providers, including the analytical laboratories, the validator team, and the statistics and
analysis team (Institute for Defense Analysis [IDA]). HGL will manage the laboratories and
provide an initial review of the laboratory data to ensure contractual compliance, and Exa will
be responsible for all other aspects of data management as described in Section 4.0.

Figure 1. Organization of the Multi-Laboratory Validation Study teams relative to
their roles in managing data

Specific roles of individual team members are provided in Table 1. Ms. Dawn Smorong, Exa's
Project/Database Manager, has overall responsibility for ensuring the data are managed in
accordance with the approved MLV Study Work Plan (SERDP/ESTCP 2022) and other related
documents. Other Exa team roles include that of Ms. Peggy Myre, who will serve an oversight
role to ensure that project data management goals and target schedule milestones are met. Dr.
Michael Tweiten of Exa will bear primary responsibility for management of centralized file
sharing system discussed in in Section 3.0.

4


-------
Table 1. MLV Study Data Management Team Member Roles and Responsibilities

Organization

Team Member

Role

Data Management
Responsibility

Exa Data &
Management

Dawn Smorong

Exa PM; Data
Manager

Exa project completion
and database
management



Peggy Myre

Exa Data
Quality Officer

Ensure compliance with
project goals and the DMP



Michael Tweiten

Exa Data

Library

Manager

Setup and manage MLV
Study Library storage and
users

HydroGeoLogic

Joe Skibinski

HGL PM

HGL project completion,
lab coordination



John Powell

HGL Program
Chemist

Laboratory coordination,
chemistry review



Denise Rivers

HGL Project
Chemist

Laboratory data
compliance, chemistry
review



Ken Rapuano

HGL Project
Chemist

Laboratory data
compliance, chemistry
review



Andrea Fletcher

HGL Data
Manager

Laboratory EDD and data
package tracking and
coordination

The HGL data management role will be to coordinate incoming data from the
laboratories, and to perform initial checks of data acceptability as described in Section 4.1.2.

5


-------
3.0 DATA SHARING PLAN AND FILE TRACKING

A critical element to ensure proper organization of the data collected for the MLV Study
will be managing the files generated to support the project. A file storage server will be
deployed to serve as a repository for all documents and data for the project, termed the MLV
Study Library (Section 3.1). As part of the file organization strategy, a File Tracking System was
developed (Section 3.2), including strict rules for file-naming (Section 3.3).

3.1 MLV Study Library: Host and Software

All project data and information will be stored on a centralized, secure server managed
by the Exa team. Table 2 provides a listing of the general data types stored on the server, as
well as the MVS Team member responsible for upload and maintenance of the associated files.

Table 2. MLV Study General Data Types





Team Member

Data Type

Example Data

Responsible for
Upload/Maintenance

Project Documents

Background Documents - UFP-QAPP and PMP,
Study Work Plan, MLV Study Report

HGL/Exa



Correspondence

All



Meetings and Schedules - Schedule, Contact

HGL, SEE



list, Meeting Minutes





Samples and Shipments - Sample Shipments,
Standards and Study Samples

HGL



Project Reports - working and final versions of

MVS Team



reports generated for the MLV Study



Laboratory Data

EDDs (csv)

Individual labs



Data packages (pdf)

Individual labs



ICAL Data Packages

Individual labs



IDC (EDD and Data Packages for aqueous,
solid and tissue matrices)

Individual labs



Standard Operating Procedures (SOP)

Individual labs



Spike Levels and Background Analytical Data

HGL

Validator Data

Amended EDDs (xlsx), Lab Data Packages

Exa



DV Report (pdf)

Individual validators



Amended EDDs with validator fields populated

Individual validators



(xlsx)





Evidence of 10% verification (xlsx)

Individual validators

Statistics Data

Database exports (xlsx)

Exa



Report with appendices (pdf) and supporting
calculations (xlsx)

IDA

Database

Database (accdb), documentation (pdf)

Exa

Tracking

File Tracking system

Exa/HGL

6


-------
Access will be strictly controlled to ensure the protection of all proprietary data. The
selected platform is ©Microsoft (MS) Office 365 Enterprise software; the SharePoint application
will be used for the central storage and accessing of documents, data, and other information
related to the MLV Study. This section details server specifications, the folder structure, as well
as the list of users and their access level (permissions).

The MLV Study Library will be hosted on the Microsoft Azure Government Community
Cloud (GCC) High and DoD environments to ensure cloud-service compliance, including Federal
Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP) High, Department of Defense Security
Requirements Guidelines, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations Supplement (DFARS), and
International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). The MLV Study Library will utilize a Microsoft
Office 365 El Enterprise environment, including Microsoft Office 365 software tools to enable
file sharing, editing and team communications and identity and access management.

The MLV Study Library will include access restrictions with requirements for
authentication and user credentials to gain access. Exa's Michael Tweiten will be responsible for
setting up the system and assigning users and user privileges based on assigned project roles
and responsibilities. The laboratory, validator and statistics participants will only be allowed to
upload/view their own data. Additional details regarding users and defined privileges are
provided in Section 3.1.2.

3.1.1 Folder Structure

The MLV Study Library will employ a strict, hierarchal folder structure, and will display a
list of files and key information about the files, such as who was the last person to modify the
file. The folder and sub-folder structure will support access permissions as described in Section
3.1.2. The top-level folders will clearly indicate the type of data and other content available in
each folder (Figure 2).

7


-------
Figure 2. Folder structure for the MLV Study Library

8


-------
Each top-level folder contains sub-folders for different types of data, from different sources:

Project Documents

•	Background Documents - This folder will include reports and documentation that
guide the MLV Study (e.g., Study Work Plan, UFP-QAPP).

•	Correspondence - MVS Team members will ensure that project communication
(including email) is backed up. Correspondence to include on the MLV Study Library
includes: any written communication (including emails) that document major decisions
and information regarding study status and/or problems; a log documenting verbal
communication with team participants regarding study status or issues.

•	Meetings and Schedules - The project schedule (MS Project) will be a shared
document updated regularly by HGL and Science and Engineering for the Environment
(SEE); a method for sharing key milestones with all team members will be developed.

•	Samples and Shipments - This folder will include records concerning sample
shipments and receipts, as well as records and documents associated with the
procurement of standards from Wellington, and the creation and production of ERA
Study Samples.

•	Project Reports - MVS Team members with appropriate permissions (Section 3.1.2)
will maintain working and final versions of the reports generated during the MLV Study
in this folder by Phase and Matrix.

Laboratory Data

•	Lab Name - Each laboratory will have their own folder including the same structure of
sub-folders.

o Phase 3 IDC - This folder will include the Phase 3 Initial Demonstration of
Capability (IDC) EDDs and Data Packages for aqueous, solid and tissue matrices.

o Phase 3 ICAL - This folder will include the Phase 3 Initial Calibration (ICAL)
Data Package.

o Matrix - There will be one sub-folder for each of eight matrices.

¦	Phase 4 Analyses - This folder will include the EDDs and Data
Packages for the relevant matrix.

¦	Communications - This folder will contain documents provided to the
laboratories (e.g., EDDs with comments incorporated, resubmission
requests).

o SOP - This folder will contain each laboratory's Standard Operating Procedures.

•	Other Lab Data - This folder will include the files provided by AXYS, Test America and
ERA/Waters with data for spike levels, conventional results and background analytical
data.

Validator Data

•	Validator Name - Each validator will have their own folder including the same
structure of sub-folders.

9


-------
o Phase 3 IDC - There will be one folder for each of the three IDC matrices
(aqueous, solid and tissue).

¦	To Validator - Phase 3 IDC Amended EDDs will be provided in this
folder (by Exa) for each laboratory (not shown on Figure 2).

¦	From Validator - Phase 3 IDC results provided by the data validator
(Amended EDD with validator fields populated) will be included in this
folder, for each laboratory (not shown on Figure 2).

o Matrix - There will be one sub-folder for each of eight matrices.

¦	To Validator - This folder will include Amended EDDs (from Exa) and
laboratory Data Packages, for each laboratory.

¦	From Validator - This folder will include the DV Report, Amended EDD
with validator fields populated, and evidence of 10% verification, for each
laboratory.

Statistics

•	Phase 3 - There will be one folder for each of the three IDC matrices and the ICAL
data.

o Matrix - There will be one folder for each of the three IDC matrices (aqueous,
solid and tissue).

¦	To IDA - This folder will contain IDA Database Exports (from Exa) (not
shown on Figure 2).

¦	From IDA - This folder will include IDA'S report with appendices (pdf),
along with supporting calculations (xlsx) (not shown on Figure 2).

o ICAL

¦	To IDA - This folder will contain the tabular version of the ICAL results
(from SEE) (not shown on Figure 2).

¦	From IDA - This folder will include IDA'S report with appendices (pdf),
along with supporting calculations (xlsx) (not shown on Figure 2).

•	Matrix - There will be one sub-folder for each of eight matrices.

o To IDA - This folder will contain Database Exports (from Exa).

o From IDA - This folder will include IDA'S report with appendices (pdf), along
with supporting calculations (xlsx).

Database

•	Database - A copy of the Project Database (MS Access) will be posted regularly
throughout the program; version will be indicated by the date in the filename (e.g.,
MLVS_Database_20220203). Older versions of the database copies will be moved to an
Archive within the Documentation folder.

•	Documentation - This folder will contain database documentation files (e.g., database
dictionary, valid value lists, QA/QC application, scripts, archived database copies).

10


-------
Tracking

• The File Tracking System will be a shared document that will be updated by Exa and
HGL; Exa will have responsibility for the overall management of the File Tracking
System.

Laboratory, validator and statisticians will be given access to their specific folders ONLY as
described in Section 3.1.2. The Project Documents folder will also have limited access as
described below. Exa is responsible for reviewing the files uploaded to the site by the
laboratory, validator, and statistician team members, ensuring their documents are properly
filed and the file-naming protocols are adhered to (described in Section 3.3).

3.1.2 Access and Permissions

There will be a strict permission structure limiting access to certain folders to specific
users. Staff at Exa will be the only organization with Administrator permission, with full control
to audit all site content and receive administrative messages. All other permissions will be
"Owner" status, which allows full control permissions (upload/download/edit) to the folders
specified in Table 3.

Table 3. MLV Study Library Permission Structure

Team Member
Organization

Team Member
Role

Team
Member

MLV Study Library Folder

Project
Documents
/Project
Reports

Project
Documents
/Other
Folders

Laboratory
Data

Validator
Data

Statistics

Database

Exa*

Data Management

See Table 1

X

X

X

X

X

X

SEE

Co-Principal
Investiqator

Tim Thompson

X

X

X

X

X

X

NAVSEA LQAO

QA Manager

Janice Willey

X

X

X

X

X

X

SERDP/ESTCP

Study Supervisor

Dr. Andrea
Leeson

X

X









AFCEC

Study Evaluation
Manaqer

Dr. Hunter
Anderson

X

X





X

X

EPAOW

Senior Chemist

Adrian Hanley

X

X





X



HGL

Laboratory / Data
Management

See Table 1



X

X

X

X



Multiple

Laboratory Analyses

See Table 4





X







Multiple

3rd-Party Data
Validation

See Table 4







X





IDA

Statistical Analyses

Allyson
Buytendyk



X





X



*AI team members have full control permisbns for the folders to which they have designated access; Exa has Administrator permisbn level.

Library information is permissions-trimmed, meaning that individuals will only have
access to designated folders within the MLV Study Library folder structure. In other words,
members from each individual laboratory can only access their own EDDs and Data Packages in

11


-------
order to maintain control of proprietary data. Similarly, individuals from the validation or
statistics groups will only be able to access the folders designated to them.

Table 4. Project Participants with Access to the MLV Study Library

Team /

Team Member

Phone

Email

Organization

Method Validation Study Team





NAVSEA

Janice Willey

843-327-1152

janice.willey@navy.mil

SEE LLC

Tim Thompson

206-418-6173

tthompson@seellc.onmicrosoft.com

AFCEC

Hunter Anderson

210-395-0625

Richard.anderson.55@us.af.mil

SERDP/ESTCP

Andrea Leeson

571-372-6398

andrea.leeson.civ@mail.mil

EPA (OW)

Adrian Hanley

202-564-1564

hanley.adrian@epa.gov

Data Management Team





Exa

Dawn Smorong

250-713-8601

dawn@exadata.net



Michael Tweiten

360-930-8530

michael@exadata.net



Peggy Myre

360-774-0380

peggy. myre@exadata. net

HGL

John Powell

913-378-2315

jpowell@hgl.com



Joe Skibinski

703-853-5083

jskibinski@hgl.com



Denise Rivers

910-233-8460

drivers@hgl.com



Ken Rapuano

703-736-4546

krapuano@hgl.com



Andrea Fletcher

913-317-8860

afletcher@hgl.com

Laboratories







California DTSC

Katie Hamblin

626-344-1220

Katherine.Castor@dtsc.ca.gov

Pace

Stephen Somerville

804-516-5887

Stephen.somerville@pacelabs.com

SGS

Andrea Colby

609-495-5231

andrea.colby@sgs.com

Battel le

Jon Thorn

781-681-5565

thorn@battelle.org

GEL

Vonda Fields

843-556-8171 x4262

Vonda.Fields@gel.com

Vista Analytical

Anne Wilhoit

916-673-1520

awilhoit@vista-analytical.com

Maryland DOH

Sin Urban

443-681-3852

sinisa.urban@maryland.gov

Alpha Analytical

Alycia Mogayzel

508-844-4120

amogayzel@alphalab.com

Eurofins Lancaster

Bradley Ayars

717-556-7265

Bradley.Ayars@EurofinsET.com

ETA - Sacramento

Jill Kellman

916-374-4402

jill.kellmann@eurofinsET.com

Validators







Pyron

Mingta Lin

360-556-5952

mingta_lin@comcast.net

Jacobs

Maggie Radford, PE

919-749-9479

maggie.radford@jacobs.com



Jeremy Bishop

541-768-3299

jeremy.Bishop@jacobs.com

Chem Val

Kathi Gumpper

801-541-6983

kgumpper@chemval .com



John Gumpper

801-554-9362

jgumpper@chemval.com



Gumpper (home)

231-723-4043

--

Statisticians (IDA)

Allyson Buytendyk

703-845-6806

abuytend@ida.org

Specific members of the MVS Team will have access to different folders. For example,
under the primary folder called "Project Documents," most team members will have access to
Background Documents, Meetings and Schedules, Samples and Shipments, and Correspondence
folders. A smaller group will have access to the Project Reports folder (Table 3). Table 4

12


-------
includes the list of project participants that will have access to the MLV Study Library site, as
well as their contact information.

3.2	File Tracking System

A File Tracking System ("Tracking System") was developed to ensure that the flow of
laboratory data is logged at each stage of the project. The workflow for handling data from the
laboratories, through the validators and the statisticians is discussed in Section 4.1. In this
section, the format of the Tracking System is defined and described.

The Tracking System includes four stages of laboratory data tracking:

•	General - Defines the basis for a unique set of files from the laboratory, including the
EDD and the Data Package, linked to the laboratory of origin and the matrix analyzed. If
an EDD is rejected and resubmitted, then the resubmitted EDD/Data Package receives a
new version number and are tracked separately from the original.

•	Laboratory - This element of the Tracking System defines the status of laboratory data
receipt and review by the Data Management Team.

•	Validator - This element of the Tracking System defines the status of receipt,
processing, and return of the laboratory data to and from the Validators.

•	Dbase - This element of the Tracking System defines the status of laboratory and
validation information compiled into the Project Database.

The status of data provided to the statistics team (IDA) will be tracked separately, since
they will receive Database Exports for each matrix (i.e., not on an EDD-specific basis).

A summary of the tracking fields is provided in Appendix Al. Several Tracking System fields
will be limited to specific content ("valid values"); the list of acceptable entries for the valid
value fields is provided in Appendix A2.

Tracking information will be imported into the Project Database and used to build regular
status reports for the MVS Team partners.

3.3	File-Naming Protocols

As part of the File Tracking System, a strict file-naming protocol has been devised and
guidance produced for the laboratories, validators, and statisticians. Each laboratory EDD and
accompanying Data Package (DP) will be named according to the laboratory, the matrix, and
the version of the data. If the delivered data is a resubmission (Section 4.1.6), then the file
name will reflect that the data are of a new version (Table 5). Importantly, the laboratory must
resubmit BOTH the EDD and the Data Package with a new version number, even if only one or

13


-------
the other was revised. Similar file-naming protocols have been developed for the validators and
statisticians.

The Exa team will be responsible for reviewing the names of submitted files and if the file-
naming protocols are not adhered to the participant will be asked to resubmit the files. Details
of the file-naming protocols are provided in Appendices B1 - B3. A Quick Start Guide will be
provided to the participating laboratories, validators and statisticians to provide instructions on
file-naming protocols and using the MLV Study Library site.

Table 5. Laboratory Data File-Naming Protocol Examples

Tracking ID

EDD File Name

Data Package File
Name

Laboratory
Name Code

Matrix
Code

Description

ALPHA_GW_ver
0

A LPHA_GW_ve rO.csv

ALPHA_GW_ver0.pdf

ALPHA

GW

First EDD/DP submitted
by Alpha for
aroundwater

ETA_SD_verO

ETA_SD_ver0.csv

ETA_SD_ver0.pdf

ETA

SD

First EDD/DP submitted
by ETA for sediment

ETA_SD_verl

ETA_SD_verl.csv

ETA_SD_verl.pdf

ETA

SD

First revision of ETA
EDD/DP for sediment

ALPHA_GW_ver
1

ALPHA_GW_verl.csv

ALPHA_GW_verl.pdf

ALPHA

GW

First revision of Alpha
EDD/DP for
aroundwater

ALPHA_GW_ver
2

ALPHA_GW_ver2.csv

ALPHA_GW_verl.pdf

ALPHA

GW

Second revision of Alpha
EDD/DP for
aroundwater

14


-------
4.0	DATA MANAGEMENT PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES

In addition to the MLV Study Library, a Project Database ("database") will be developed
to incorporate the laboratory EDD data generated for the project, as well as the data validation
results. This section of the DMP provides an overview of the main components of the workflow
(Section 4.1.1 - 4.1.5), a description of the rejection criteria and resubmission process (Section
4.1.6), and a description of the database and related tools for processing data (Section 4.2).

4.1	Workflow

One important element to meet project goals is a specific, rigorous, and well-
documented workflow for the data generated during the project. This section provides detailed
descriptions of every step of that workflow. At each step, dates of actions and descriptions of
decisions will be logged in the Tracking System.

A diagram of the MLV Study workflow is provided in Figures 3a and 3b. The workflow
outlines the sequence of processes that will be adhered to by all team members, including the
Data Management Team (Exa/HGL), the MVS Team, laboratories, the validation team, and the
statistical analysis team (IDA).

One of the key elements of workflow is the multiple stages of data QA/QC by the Data
Management Team, the validators, and the MVS Team. At each stage, the Exa Data Manager
will ensure that the review information is captured in the Tracking System so that the MVS
Team will always know the status of the laboratory data.

4.1.1 Receipt of Data Sets

As shown in Figure 3a, the first component of the workflow is the receipt of data sets,
where the laboratories upload an EDD/Data Package to the MLV Study Library site. The initial
QA/QC checks and tracking steps to be conducted immediately upon receipt of the EDD and
Data Package by the Exa Data Manager and include:

•	Verify EDD and Data Package match;

•	Enter EDD in File Tracking System; and,

•	Confirm file-naming protocol was followed.

In addition, the MVS Team are notified that the laboratory has uploaded a submission. If
errors or omissions are found, the issues are documented in the Tracking System and the EDD
and Data Package will be rejected. Exa will inform HGL of the issues, who will subsequently
inform the laboratories that they must address the issue(s) and resubmit the data.

Details on the rejection criteria and resubmission process is described in Section 4.1.6.

15


-------
Figure 3a. Workflow for the PFAS Multi-Laboratory Validation Study

16


-------
Exa Informs that
Validation is Underway

Export
Amended EDD
format and
upload to
Library

O

Legend

Process step

Decision point
Communication

Back-and-forth
communication

u

Manual step

PEnd of process
Data archiving

Enter information in
Tracking System

Insert Validator
and EPA/NAVY
results to
database

DB QA/QC
procedures

<
o

Data Validation —>

Statistical Analyses —>

Data Archiving

Figure 3b. Workflow for the PFAS Multi-Laboratory Validation Study (continued)

17


-------
4.1.2 Review Laboratory EDD/Data Package Submissions

The next step in the workflow (Figure 3a) is to conduct a detailed review of the data
submitted from the laboratory. This involves two major steps. First, the HGL Project Chemist
will review the Data Package. These checks include:

•	Verify each element is reported and no gross contamination in blanks;

•	Ensure all mandatory elements are present in Data Packages for validation;

•	Confirm all data for samples and QC samples reported in the Data Packages have been
included and that all fields are completed.

If errors or omissions are found, the issues are documented in the Tracking System and the
EDD and Data Package will be rejected. HGL will inform the laboratories that they must address
the issue(s) and resubmit the data. A timetable for receipt of the resubmitted data will be
established and logged into the Tracking System.

Details on the rejection criteria and resubmission process is described in Section 4.1.6.

The second step of this part of the workflow involves Exa conducting automated QA/QC
checks on the EDD using a customized application. If errors are found, the file will be noted as
rejected in the Tracking System, with the reasons for rejection. HGL will then notify the
laboratory that they must address the issue(s) and resubmit the data.

These automated QA/QC checks will ensure that each EDD contains all information
required by the template guidance (SERDP/ESTCP 2022, Attachment 3), and each data field in
each EDD is completed in accordance with those instructions. The initial list of automated
QA/QC checks will require that:

•	Required fields are populated;

•	Valid value fields match required content;

•	Significant figures are compliant (more than three significant figures are not allowed);

•	The full list of required analytes are reported;

•	Records are unique, based on ensuring a single result for each method analyte,
Extracted Internal Standard (EIS) compound, and non-extracted internal standard (NIS)
compound is present for each sample (batch QC and study samples);

•	The NIS/EIS result can be linked to the associated target analyte for the same sample
by SDG;

•	Specific cell formats are correct:

o Dates use the correct format, and does not include time stamp
o Numbers reported in number field (e.g., no text content like 'trace' or W)
o Spike percentage recoveries are entered as whole numbers;

•	Units are appropriate for the matrix (ppt or ng/L for aqueous samples; ppb or mg/kg for
solid and tissue samples);

18


-------
•	Check for reported value of zero (0) in number fields.

There are other logic checks comparing different fields that will be generated. For example,
concentration checks:

•	If Conc_found = MDL, then Lab_Flag must contain *U*

•	If Conc_found < MDL, then flag as error (if a signal is not detected or if the signal
produces a concentration < MDL the value must be set to the MDL)

•	If Lab_Flag contains *U* then Conc_found = MDL

•	If the Conc_found is >/= MDL and 
-------
resubmission. A timetable for receipt of the resubmitted data will be established and logged into
the Tracking System.

If no errors are found in the laboratory data, the validator will complete the data
validation procedures and provide a data validation report and the associated Amended EDD
with the validator fields populated. The Exa team will be responsible for logging the receipt of
the submitted files into the Tracking System, reviewing the names of submitted files and if the
file-naming protocols are not adhered to the validator will be asked to resubmit the files.

The next step in the workflow is for Navy and EPA members of the MVS Team to review
the validator results. If the Navy/EPA reviewers disagree with the validator qualifiers, they will
enter qualifiers and comments into the valReviewer_qualifier and valReviewer_notes fields of
the Amended EDD; these changes will be communicated to the data validator.

The NAVY/EPA reviewers will upload the revised Amended EDD (including the
valReviewer fields populated) with a '_valreviewed' suffix on the file name, to the appropriate
folder in the MLV Study Library. For example, if the file name submitted by the validator was
'CHEMVAL_ALPHA_GW_results_v0.xlsx', the file re-uploaded by the NAVY/EPA review should be
,CHEMVAL_ALPHA_GW_results_vO_valreviewed.xlsx.

When the review of the validation results has been completed by the NAVY/EPA
reviewers, they will notify the Exa Data Manager and inform them whether they uploaded a
revised Amended EDD file to the MLV Study Library, or if the original file submitted by the
validator is the final version. The Exa Database Manager will then run a routine to link the
Project Database to the appropriate file to incorporate validator and validator reviewer qualifiers
and comments.

Exa will be responsible for logging the receipt of the submitted files in the Tracking
System, checking that the file-naming protocols are followed.

4.1.4 Statistical Analyses

The next step of the workflow is Statistical Analyses and is shown in Figure 3b. Once the
database is complete for one matrix, the Exa Data Manager will execute automated database-
level checks to ensure results are consistent for the given matrix, and then export the complete
dataset for that matrix and provide it to the statistics team member (IDA) in their folder in the
MLV Study Library. The format of this Database Export is described in Section 4.2.2 and
Appendix CI. Upon completion of the statistical analysis, IDA will upload all files discussing the
results to the appropriate MLV Study Library folder [for each matrix, this will include a report
with appendices (pdf), along with supporting calculations (xlsx)]. The Exa team will be
responsible for reviewing the names of submitted files and if the file-naming protocols are not
adhered to the participant will be asked to resubmit the files.

20


-------
The Phase 3 ICAL results have a slightly different workflow - these data will be compiled
from the laboratory Data Packages by SEE and then provided to Exa for QA/QC review.
Subsequently, Exa will upload the final file to the appropriate folder in the MLV Study Library
(Phase 3 ICAL/To IDA). After statistical analyses are complete, IDA will supply the results in the
Phase 3 ICAL/From IDA folder. Note that Phase 3 ICAL data is not stored in the Project
Database.

If the statisticians encounter issues with the Database Export provided to them by Exa,
the issues will be recorded in the Tracking System, the issues will be resolved and a new
Database Export will be provided, with a revised version number.

4.1.5	Data Archiving

The final step of the workflow (Figure 3b) is to archive the data, both during the project
and at project completion. The master version of the Project Database will be backed up
regularly on Exa's servers and copies will also be posted on the MLV Study Library with the date
of posting, along with current versions of the QA/QC application and other database routines
and scripts. The MLV Study Library has several features as a part of the Microsoft Enterprise
environment, to ensure the information stored on the SharePoint site is always recoverable
(Microsoft 2022). For example, the Microsoft datacenters are geo-distributed to mitigate the
impact of a natural disaster or local power outage; backups are retained for 14 days and can be
restored to any point in time.

At the completion of the project, an archive of the database, all related templates, tools,
and documentation will be compiled for delivery, along with the final data management report.
The data archive information package will be prepared that describes the data system, file
format, and method of archival. Sufficient documentation will accompany the archived data to
fully describe the source, contents, and structure of the data to ensure future usability.

A final archive of the MLV Study Library will be transmitted to the SERDP upon project
completion as requested. Prior to archiving the MLV Study Library, the folder structure under
the following top-level folders will be condensed to separate the final versions of the raw data
files from preliminary versions: Laboratory Data, Validator Data, Statistics.

4.1.6	Rejection and Resubmission Process

There are several steps along the workflow where laboratory EDDs/Data Packages can
be rejected, as shown in Figure 3a and 3b and described in Sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.4. If the
laboratory EDD and/or Data Package includes any inconsistencies with the instructions provided
in their contract, or they have not followed the instructions for populating the EDD template,
the submission will be rejected. Importantly, the Exa data managers will not conduct any

21


-------
editing or data cleaning procedures to amend the data provided by the laboratories. In addition,
the laboratory EDD/Data Package may be rejected if the data validators find issues with the
data that require re-analysis. If the EDD/Data Package is rejected, the laboratory will be
informed that they must address the errors and resubmit the data. A timetable for receipt of the
resubmitted data will be established and logged into the Tracking System. The resubmittal must
be given a revised version number as described above and shown on Table 5.

4.2 Database and Tools

This section describes the structure and associated tools for compiling the EDDs into the
Project Database. The Project Database will be a relational database using MS Access as the
selected database software. Access was chosen due to its common usage and ease of
transforming the data to other formats, as necessary. The master version of the Project
Database will be stored on Exa's local server, ensuring that access to the 'working' database is
limited to the Database Managers. If project participants request access to the Project
Database, they will be given permissions to access the current copy of the database posted on
the MLV Study Library site. Alternatively, Exa can generate customized data exports for specific
purposes, if requested. During the project, there will only a portion of the EDDs loaded into the
database, and not all EDDs will have the data validation information loaded; therefore, prior to
uploading the current version of the Project Database to the MLV Study Library, Exa will devise
a method for identifying laboratory EDDs that are not complete and finalized (i.e., may still be
undergoing review and/or may not yet have data validation results incorporated).

The goals of the Project Database and associated toolsets are as follows:

•	Maximize the reliability of the database by designing and implementing automated
QA/QC and verification checks;

•	Store the data in a structured database with rules that restrict data import to specific
valid values, and that follow relational database rules such as primary keys and inter-
table relationships;

•	Promote accurate and rapid transfer of data to a variety of export and imports formats
for use by team members (validators, IDA) and reporting to the MVS Team.

4.2.1 Database Structure

The database will be managed in MS Access and copies will be posted regularly on the
MLV Study Library. The structure of the database is provided in Figure 4 as an entity-
relationship diagram (ERD), which describes the tables and fields in the database and how they
are related. The field definitions are compiled in the database dictionary as seen in Appendix
CI.

22


-------
Figure 4. Entity-Relationship Diagram (ERD) for the Project Database

23


-------
The main EDD data table ("Lab_EDD_Results") parallels the format of the laboratory
EDD (SERDP/ESTCP 2022, Attachment 3), with EDD field names shown in all capital letters in
Figure 4. In addition to the EDD fields, there are several additional fields that will be added to
the main EDD table, shown in lower case, including the Tracking ID, validation information, a
result type and the spike level (Appendix CI).

The valid value tables (dicValidValues, LU_Compound) will be maintained separately but
linked to the main EDD table to enforce those valid values and are shown in Appendix C2 and
C3, respectively. Retaining strict valid values will enable both the validators and IDA to
accurately filter and analyze the output data.

The database structure includes the LU_SpikeLevels table to allow this information to be
included in the Database Exports for the statisticians, and the CONVENT table to store
conventional results measured in select samples.

Finally, the database structure includes all tables from the Tracking System in order to
support summary status reports for the project.

4.2.2 Import and Export File Structures

The primary import structure for the Project Database is the laboratory EDD, provided as
Attachment 3 in the Study Plan (SERDP/ESTCP 2022).

There are several other import and export routines that will be used in the overall workflow
of the MLV Study using queries in the database:

•	Export of the Amended EDD for the validators - Includes the laboratory EDD results,
and additional fields to be populated by the validator when reviewing the results
provided by one laboratory for one matrix.

•	Import of the Amended EDD, with validation fields populated - Used to update the
Project Database with the results from the validator and the data validation reviewers.

•	Database Export for the statistics team - Used to create a dataset for for a single matrix
for IDA in generating statistics and analysis for the project. This database export
includes final results and qualifiers, considering laboratory, data validator and data
validator reviewer results.

The output formats to be provided to the validators and IDA are provided in Appendix CI
(see columns named 'Include in Amended EDD for DV' and 'Include in Exports for IDA',
respectively).

24


-------
4.2.3 Data Processing Toots

A variety of database scripts, queries, and routines will be developed in order to
automate workflow processes. These tools are described in this section.

•	EDD Import - The import script will automatically import the EDD into a customized
QA/QC application in preparation for the initial QA/QC checks on the EDD.

•	EDD QA/QC Checks - The code in the customized QA/QC application will runa series of
automated data verification checks as described in 4.1.2. If any of the checks fail, a
report of those failed items will be provided to HGL and the laboratory for addressing.

•	Extract, Transform, and Load (ETL) routine - Once the EDD has passed the QA/QC
screening checks, the ETL database code will extract the fields from the EDD, add the
additional related fields as described in Section 4.2.1, and then append the new rows to
the master EDD table. The code will also include a check to ensure accuracy of the
number of rows appended.

•	Database QA/QC Checks - Automated routines to check for internal consistency within
the Project Database.

•	Tracking System - An automated routine will be developed to import the Tracking
System tables into the Project Database and then generate summary reports for the
MVS Team.

•	Generation of files for validators and statisticians - Queries will be developed to
generate the Amended EDD for the Validators and the Database Export forthe
Statisticians.

•	Validation Import - A routine will be generated to import the Amended EDD with
validator fields populated, link to the Project Database, and update the validator fields
including the final qualifier code.

•	EDD archiving - Procedures will be developed to extract and archive EDDs loaded into
the Project Database and subsequently rejected (i.e., EDDs that passed initial QA/QC
checks but were then rejected by the data validators; these EDDs will be replaced by re-
submissions).

The automated data processing procedures will be developed by the Exa team and then
tested. Testing will involve multiple Exa team members running the procedures on multiple test
data sets to identify bugs and inconsistencies. Fixes will then be incorporated into the
automated routines.

25


-------
5.0 REFERENCES

SERDP/ESTCP PFAS Method Validation Study Team. 2022. Study Plan for Multi-Laboratory
Validation of Draft EPA Method 1633 - PFAS in Aqueous, Solid, Biosolids, and Tissue
Samples by LC- MS/MS. Prepared for Program Manager for Environmental Restoration,
Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP).

Microsoft. 2022. How SharePoint and OneDrive safeguard your data in the cloud.

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sharepoint/safea uardina-your-d^k;

Willey, J., R. Anderson, A. Hanley, M. Mills, C. Hamilton, T. Thompson, and A. Leeson. 2021.
Report on the Single-Laboratory Validation of PFAS by Isotope Dilution LC-MS/MS.
Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) Project ER19-
1409. https://serdP~estcp.org/content/download/54966/539631/file/Sinale~

LaMrato.[M%2MaJjdatM

26


-------
Appendix A1 - Description of File Tracking System

TRACKING
WORKSHEET

TRACKING FIELD

VV Field

TRACKING FIELD DESCRIPTION

GENERAL

Tracking ID



Root file name



Project Phase



Project Phase. See 'ValidValues'



EDD File Name



EDD File name



Data Package File Name



Data Package File Name



Laboratory Name

Yes

Laboratory Name. See 'ValidValues'



Matrix

Yes

Matrix. See 'ValidValues'

LABORATORY

EDD/DP Due Date



Due date for the Lab EDD/Data Package (mm/dd/yyyy)



EDD/DP Date Received



Date Lab EDD/Data Package received (mm/dd/yyyy; uploaded to
Sharepoint)



HGL Reviewer



Initials of HGL staff conducting the Data Package review



Date HGL Review Complete



Date HGL review complete (mm/dd/yyyy)



EDD Rejected or Approved - HGL

Yes

Indicate whether EDD/Data Package was rejected by HGL. See
'ValidValues'



Summary of Errors - HGL



Brief summary of issues found during HGL Data Package review



Exa Reviewer



Initials of Exa staff conducting the automated EDD review



Date Exa Review Complete



Date Exa review complete (mm/dd/yyyy)



EDD Rejected or Approved - Exa

Yes

Indicate whether EDD/Data Package was rejected by Exa. See
'ValidValues'



Summary of Errors - Exa



Brief summary of issues found during Exa EDD review



Report/EDD Resubmission
Request Date



Date Lab EDD/Data Package re-submission requested by HGL
(mm/dd/yyyy). If a re-submission is requested, these will be entered
on new rows when they are received. Remaining columns for the
original submission should be left blank.

VALIDATOR

Data Validator

Yes

Data Validator. See 'ValidValues'. Get this from the table tracking
which Data Validator will get which EDD (from Tim).



Amended EDD File Name to DV



Name of file provided to Data Validator (Amended EDD prepared by
Exa)



Date Amended EDD to DV



Date the Amended EDD was provided to Data Validator (mm/dd/yyyy)



DV Amended EDD File Name



Name of the Amended EDD file provided by the Data Validator (with
validator fields populated)



DV Other File Names



Names of other files provided by the Data Validator (verification file,
report file)



Date DV Report/Files Received



Date Data Validator report/files received (mm/dd/yyyy; uploaded to
Sharepoint).



EDD Rejected or Approved - DV

Yes

Indicate whether EDD/Data Package was rejected by the Data
Validator. See 'ValidValues'



Summary of Errors - DV



Brief summary of issues found during data validation that require
additional communication with lab and/or a re-submission.



DV Report/Files Resubmission
Request Date



Date Lab EDD/Data Package re-submission requested by HGL
(mm/dd/yyyy). If a re-submission is requested, these will be entered
on new rows when they are received. Remaining columns for the
original submission should be left blank.



EPA/NAVY Reviewer



Initials of EPA/NAVY staff conducting the review of the Data Validation
report



DV Amended EDD Revised or
Accepted?

Yes

Indicate whether the Data Validator Amended EDD was revised by the
EPA/NAVY reviewers, or whether it was accepted with no revisions.



Summary of Revisions -
EPA/NAVY



Brief summary of issues found during EPA/NAVY EDD review that
require additional communication with the data validator.

27


-------
Appendix A1 - Description of File Tracking System

TRACKING
WORKSHEET

TRACKING FIELD

VV Field

TRACKING FIELD DESCRIPTION



EPA/NAVY Reviewer File Name



Name of the Amended EDD file provided by the NAVY/EPA Reviewer

DBASE

EDD Upload Date



Date the Lab EDD was uploaded to the database (mm/dd/yyyy)



EDD Upload Initials



Initials of Exa staff conducting EDD upload to the database



DV Upload Date



Date the Data Validator results were uploaded to the database
(mm/dd/yyyy)



DV Upload Initials



Initials of Exa staff conducting DV results upload to the database



Date Removed From DB



Data the EDD was removed from the database (mm/dd/yyyy). EDDs
loaded into the database and subsequently rejected will be removed
from the main database and archived (to be replaced by re-
submissions).

STATS**

Stats DB Export File Name



Name of file provided to IDA (Database Export prepared by Exa)



Date DB Export to IDA



Date the DB export was provided to IDA (mm/dd/yyyy)



Stats File Name



Name of the files provided by IDA



Date Stats Results Received



Date IDA report/files received (mm/dd/yyyy; uploaded to Sharepoint)



Summary of Errors - IDA



Brief summary of issues found during statistical analysis that require a
re-submission of the DB Export from Exa and/or additional
communication with other team members.

**STATS table will not be linked to the other Tracking tables directly because statistics are conducted on a
matrix-basis (not a Tracking ID basis).

Acronyms

DB - Project Database

DP - Data Package

DV - Data Validator

EDD - Electronic Data Deliverable

28


-------
Appendix A2 - File Tracking System - ValidValues

Worksheet

Field

Valid Value
Code

Valid Value Code Description

GENERAL

Laboratory Name

ALPHA

Alpha Analytical

GENERAL

Laboratory Name

BATTELLE

Battelle

GENERAL

Laboratory Name

CALEPA

CalEPA DTSC

GENERAL

Laboratory Name

ELLET

Eurofins Lancaster Labs

GENERAL

Laboratory Name

ETA

ETA, Sacramento

GENERAL

Laboratory Name

GEL

GEL Laboratories

GENERAL

Laboratory Name

MDH

Maryland Department of Health

GENERAL

Laboratory Name

PACE

GCAL/Pace

GENERAL

Laboratory Name

SGSNA

SGS North America

GENERAL

Laboratory Name

VISTA

Vista Analytical

GENERAL

Matrix

GW

Groundwater

GENERAL

Matrix

SW

Surface water

GENERAL

Matrix

SD

Sediment

GENERAL

Matrix

SS

Soil

GENERAL

Matrix

TS

Tissue

GENERAL

Matrix

WW

Wastewater

GENERAL

Matrix

LC

Landfill Leachate

GENERAL

Matrix

BS

Biosolids

GENERAL

Project Phase

Phase 3

Initial Demonstration of Capabilities (IDC)

GENERAL

Project Phase

Phase 4.4.1

GW, SW, LC, and WW matrices

GENERAL

Project Phase

Phase 4.4.2

SS, SD, and BS matrices

GENERAL

Project Phase

Phase 4.4.3

Tissue matrices

LABORATORY

EDD Rejected or Approved - HGL

Approved

Passed review

LABORATORY

EDD Rejected or Approved - HGL

Rejected

Did not pass review

LABORATORY

EDD Rejected or Approved - Exa

Approved

Passed review

LABORATORY

EDD Rejected or Approved - Exa

Rejected

Did not pass review

VALIDATOR

Data Validator

CHEMVAL

ChemVal

VALIDATOR

Data Validator

PYRON

Pyron Environmental

VALIDATOR

Data Validator

JACOBS

Jacobs Engineering

VALIDATOR

EDD Rejected or Approved - DV

Approved

Passed review

VALIDATOR

EDD Rejected or Approved - DV

Rejected

Did not pass review

VALIDATOR

DV Amended EDD Revised or Accepted?

Accepted

Amended EDD accepted with no revisions

VALIDATOR

DV Amended EDD Revised or Accepted?

Revised

Amended EDD revised by NAVY/EPA reviewers



29


-------
Appendix B1 - Quick Start Guide for LABORATORIES

Lines of Communication

Michael Tweiten (Exa) - Questions/issues with the technical aspects of the SharePoint site (e.g., log in credentials).
HGL Team - Questions/issues with data provided in the EDD/Data Packages.

Dawn Smorong (Exa) - Questions/issues regarding naming of files submitted and/or which folder they were uploaded to.

Contact information:

John Powell

913-378-2315

jpowell@hgl.com

HGL

Joe Skibinski

703-853-5083

jskibinski@hgl.com

HGL

Denise Rivers

910-233-8460

drivers@hgl.com

HGL

Ken Rapuano

703-736-4546

krapuano@hgl.com

HGL

Andrea Fletcher

913-317-8860

afletcher@hgl.com

HGL

Dawn Smorong

250-713-8601

dawn@exadata.net

Exa

Michael Tweiten

360-930-8530

michael@exadata.net

Exa

File-naming Protocols

Instructions:

Data package (pdf) must have the EXACT sample file name as the EDD (xlsx or csv).

If either the EDD or the Data Package is revised, the laboratory must resubmit both with the same file name (even if
one or the other hasn't been revised).

Files submitted that do not adhere to these file naming protocols will require that they are renamed and resubmitted.

Format:

Phase 3 example - EDD:

Phase 3 example - data package:

Phase 4 example - EDD:

Phase 4 example - data package:

LabName codes:

Alpha Analytical

Battelle

CalEPA DTSC

Eurofins Lancaster Labs

ETA, Sacramento

GEL Laboratories

Maryland Department of Health

GCAL/Pace

SGS North America

Vista Analytical

Matrix Codes:

Phase 3:
IDC-aqueous
IDC-solid
IDC-tissue

Phase 4:

GW
SW
SD
SS
TS
WW
LC
BS

Version codes:

verO
verl
ver2
etc...

LabName_matrix_version

BATTELLE J DC-solid_verl.csv
BATTELLE_IDC-solid_verl.pdf

ALPHA_GW_verl.csv
ALPHA_GW_verl.pdf

ALPHA

BATTELLE

CALEPA

ELLET

ETA

GEL

MDH

PACE

SGSNA

VISTA

Initial Demonstration of Capability - aqueous matrix
Initial Demonstration of Capability - solid matrix
Initial Demonstration of Capability - tissue matrix

Groundwater

Surface water

Sediment

Soil

Tissue

Wastewater

Landfill Leachate

Biosolids

version 0 (original submission)
version 1 (re-submission)
version 2 (re-submission)

30


-------
Appendix B1 - Quick Start Guide for LABORATORIES

SharcPoint instructions

Michael Tweiten will be in contact with you to provide credentials for accessing the MLV Study SharePoint site.

Your folder can only be viewed by your team and select members of the MVS Team.

Original and resubmitted files will be retained - do not delete any files from the SharePoint site.

Please ensure you upload your files into the appropriate sub-folder within your main folder, as follows:

Phase 3 IDC

Aqueous

Solids

Tissue

Upload the Phase 3 Initial Demonstration of Capability EDD/Data Package for the aqueous matrix into this folder.
Upload the Phase 3 Initial Demonstration of Capability EDD/Data Package for the solids matrix into this folder.
Upload the Phase 3 Initial Demonstration of Capability EDD/Data Package for the tissue matrix into this folder.

Phase 3 ICAL

SOP

Upload the Phase 3 initial calibration data package into this folder.
Upload the Standard Operating Procedure developed for the MLV Study.

Groundwater

Phase 4 Analysis
Communications*

Upload the Phase 4 EDDs and Data Packages for the groundwater matrix into this folder.

Will contain documents provided to you by the Data Management Team relevant to the groundwater matrix.

Surface water

Phase 4 Analysis
Communications

Upload the Phase 4 EDDs and Data Packages for the surface water matrix into this folder.

Will contain documents provided to you by the Data Management Team relevant to the surface water matrix.

Sediment

Phase 4 Analysis
Communications

Upload the Phase 4 EDDs and Data Packages for the sediment matrix into this folder.

Will contain documents provided to you by the Data Management Team relevant to the sediment matrix.

Soil

Phase 4 Analysis Upload the Phase 4 EDDs and Data Packages for the soil matrix into this folder.

Communications Will contain documents provided to you by the Data Management Team relevant to the soil matrix.

Tissue

Phase 4 Analysis
Communications

Upload the Phase 4 EDDs and Data Packages for the tissue matrix into this folder.

Will contain documents provided to you by the Data Management Team relevant to the tissue matrix.

Wastewater

Phase 4 Analysis
Communications

Upload the Phase 4 EDDs and Data Packages for the wastewater matrix into this folder.

Will contain documents provided to you by the Data Management Team relevant to the wastewater matrix.

Landfill Leachate

Phase 4 Analysis
Communications

Upload the Phase 4 EDDs and Data Packages for the landfill leachate matrix into this folder.

Will contain documents provided to you by the Data Management Team relevant to the landfill leachate matrix.

Biosolids

Phase 4 Analysis
Communications

Upload the Phase 4 EDDs and Data Packages for the biosolids matrix into this folder.

Will contain documents provided to you by the Data Management Team relevant to the biosolids matrix.

Examples of files to be provided in the Communications folder: EDDs with comments incorporated, details regarding resubmission requests.

31


-------
Appendix B2 - Quick Start Guide for VALIDATORS

Lines of Communication

Michael Tweiten (Exa) - Questions/issues with the technical aspects of the SharePoint site (e.g., log in credentials).

Dawn Smorong (Exa) - Questions/issues regarding Amended EDDs, naming of files submitted and/or which folder they were uploaded to.

Janice Willey (NAVYSEA) - Questions/issues with the laboratory data and/or the validation results.

Contact information:

Janice Willey

843-327-1152

janice.willey@navy.mil

NAVSEA

Dawn Smorong

250-713-8601

dawn@exadata.net

Exa

Michael Tweiten

360-930-8530

michael@exadata.net

Exa

File-naming Protocols

Instructions:

If a resubmission is required, resubmit all files in the package with the same revision number.

Files submitted that do not adhere to these file naming protocols will require that they are renamed and resubmitted.

Amended EDDs from Exa
Format:

Phase 3 example:

Phase 4 example:

Validator_LabName_matrix_filetype_version

PYRON_ELLET_IDC-tissue_amended_EDD_VO.xlsx
CHEMVAL ALPHA GW amended EDD VO.xIsx

Results from Validators
Format:

Phase 3 example - DV Results:
Phase 3 example - report:

Phase 3 example - verification file:

Phase 4 example - DV Results:
Phase 4 example - report:

Phase 4 example - verification file:

Validator_LabName_matrix_filetype_version

PYRON_ELLET_IDC-tissue_results_v0.xlsx
PYRON_ELLET_IDC-tissue_report_v0.pdf
PYRON_ELLET_IDC-tissue_verification_v0.xlsx

CHEMVAL_ALPHA_GW_results_v0.xlsx
CHEMVAL_ALPHA_GW_report_v0.pdf
CHEMVAL ALPHA GW verification vO.xIsx

Validator codes:

ChemVal

Pyron Environmental
Jacobs Engineering

CHEMVAL

PYRON

JACOBS

LabName codes:

Alpha Analytical	ALPHA

Battelle	BATTELLE

CalEPA DTSC	CALEPA

Eurofins Lancaster Labs	ELLET

ETA, Sacramento	ETA

GEL Laboratories	GEL

Maryland Department of Health	MDH

GCAL/Pace	PACE

SGS North America	SGSNA

Vista Analytical	VISTA

Matrix Codes:

Phase 3:
IDC-aqueous
IDC-solid
IDC-tissue

Initial Demonstration of Capability - aqueous matrix
Initial Demonstration of Capability - solid matrix
Initial Demonstration of Capability - tissue matrix

32


-------
Appendix B2 - Quick Start Guide for VALIDATORS

File-naming Protocols (continued)

Matrix Codes:



Phase 4:

GW

Groundwater

SW

Surface water

SD

Sediment

SS

Soil

TS

Tissue

WW

Wastewater

LC

Landfill Leachate

BS

Biosolids

Version codes:

vO

version 0 (original submission)

vl

version 1 (re-submission)

V2

version 2 (re-submission)

etc..

Filetype codes:

amendedEDD

Amended EDD including lab EDD results and fields to capture validator results

results

Amended EDD with validator results incorporated

report

Associated validator narrative report

verification

Evidence of 10% verification

33


-------
Appendix B2 - Quick Start Guide for VALIDATORS

SharcPoint instructions

Michael Tweiten will be in contact with you to provide credentials for accessing the MLV Study SharePoint site.

Your folder can only be viewed by your team and select members of the MVS Team.

Original and resubmitted files will be retained - do not delete any files from the SharePoint site.

Please ensure you upload your files into the appropriate sub-folder within your main folder, as follows:

Phase 3 IDC

Aqueous
To Validator
From Validator*
Solids
To Validator
From Validator
Tissue
To Validator
From Validator

Phase 3 IDC Amended EDDs will be provided in this folder (by Exa) for each laboratory, for the aqueous matrix.
Upload the validation results for the Phase 3 IDC aqueous data for each laboratory into this folder.

Phase 3 IDC Amended EDDs will be provided in this folder (by Exa) for each laboratory, for the solids matrix.
Upload the validation results for the Phase 3 IDC solids data for each laboratory into this folder.

Phase 3 IDC Amended EDDs will be provided in this folder (by Exa) for each laboratory, for the tissue matrix.
Upload the validation results for the Phase 3 IDC tissue data for each laboratory into this folder.

Groundwater

To Validator
From Validator

Amended EDDs will be provided in this folder (by Exa) for each laboratory, for the groundwater matrix.
Upload the validation results for each laboratory for the groundwater matrix.

Surface water

To Validator
From Validator

Amended EDDs will be provided in this folder (by Exa) for each laboratory, for the surface water matrix.
Upload the validation results for each laboratory for the surface water matrix.

Sediment

To Validator
From Validator

Amended EDDs will be provided in this folder (by Exa) for each laboratory, for the sediment matrix.
Upload the validation results for each laboratory for the sediment matrix.

Soil

To Validator	Amended EDDs will be provided in this folder (by Exa) for each laboratory, for the soil matrix.

From Validator Upload the validation results for each laboratory for the soil matrix.

Tissue

To Validator
From Validator

Amended EDDs will be provided in this folder (by Exa) for each laboratory, for the tissue matrix.
Upload the validation results for each laboratory for the tissue matrix.

Wastewater

To Validator
From Validator

Amended EDDs will be provided in this folder (by Exa) for each laboratory, for the wastewater matrix.
Upload the validation results for each laboratory for the wastewater matrix.

Landfill Leachate

To Validator
From Validator

Amended EDDs will be provided in this folder (by Exa) for each laboratory, for the landfill leachate matrix.
Upload the validation results for each laboratory for the landfill leachate matrix.

Biosolids

To Validator
From Validator

Amended EDDs will be provided in this folder (by Exa) for each laboratory, for the biosolids matrix.
Upload the validation results for each laboratory for the biosolids matrix.

Results expected from the validator are: DV Report, Amended EDD with validator fields populated, and evidence of 10% verification.

34


-------
Appendix B3 - Quick Start Guide for IDA

Lines of Communication

Michael Tweiten (Exa) - Questions/issues with the technical aspects of the SharePoint site (e.g., log in credentials).

Dawn Smorong (Exa) - Questions/issues regarding Database Exports, naming of files submitted and/or which folder they were uploaded to.
Janice Willey (NAVYSEA) - Questions/issues with the data and statistical analyses.

Contact information:

janice.willey@navy.mil

Janice Willey
Dawn Smorong
Michael Tweiten

843-327-1152
250-713-8601
360-930-8530

dawn@exadata.net
michael@exadata.net

NAVSEA

Exa

Exa

File-naming Protocols

Instructions:

If a resubmission is required, resubmit all files in the package with the same revision number.

Phase 3 ICAL Database Export from Exa will be named 'ICAL_Dbexport_V0.xlsx'; the files with the ICAL statistical results should
be named 'ICAL_report_V0.xlsx' and 'ICAL_results_V0.xlsx'. If additional submissions are necessary change the prefix to _V 1, _V2, etc.
Files submitted that do not adhere to these file naming protocols will require that they are renamed and resubmitted.

Database Exports from Exa
Format:

Phase 3 IDC Example:
Phase 4 Example:

Matrix_filetype_version

IDC-solid_Dbexport_V0.xlsx
GW_DBexport_V0.xlsx

Statistical Results from IDA
Format:

Phase 3 IDC Example - report:

Phase 3 IDC Example - supporting calculations:

Phase 4 Example - report:

Phase 4 Example - supporting calculations:

Matrix_filetype_version

IDC-solid_report_V0.xlsx
IDC-solid_results_V0.xlsx
GW_report_V0.pdf
GW results VO.xIsx

Matrix Codes:

Phase 3:
IDC-aqueous
IDC-solid
IDC-tissue

Initial Demonstration of Capability - aqueous matrix
Initial Demonstration of Capability - solid matrix
Initial Demonstration of Capability - tissue matrix

Phase 4:
GW
SW
SD
SS
TS
WW
LC
BS

Groundwater

Surface water

Sediment

Soil

Tissue

Wastewater

Landfill Leachate

Biosolids

Version codes:

vO
vl
v2
etc..

version 0 (original submission)
version 1 (re-submission)
version 2 (re-submission)

Filetype codes:

DBexport

report

results

Database export including final results

Statistical analyses report

Files with supporting calculations

35


-------
Appendix B3 - Quick Start Guide for IDA

SharcPoint instructions

Michael Tweiten will be in contact with you to provide credentials for accessing the MLV Study SharePoint site.

Your folder can only be viewed by your team and select members of the MVS Team.

Original and resubmitted files will be retained - do not delete any files from the SharePoint site.

Please ensure you upload your files into the appropriate sub-folder within your main folder, as follows:

Phase 3

Aqueous IDC
To IDA
From IDA*
Solids IDC
To IDA
From IDA
Tissue IDC
To IDA
From IDA
ICAL
To IDA
From IDA

Phase 3 IDC Database Exports will be provided in this folder (by Exa) for the aqueous matrix.
Upload the statistical results for the Phase 3 IDC water data into this folder.

Phase 3 IDC Database Exports will be provided in this folder (by Exa) for the solids matrix.
Upload the statistical results for the Phase 3 IDC solids data into this folder.

Phase 3 IDC Database Exports will be provided in this folder (by Exa) for the tissue matrix.
Upload the statistical results for the Phase 3 IDC tissue data into this folder.

Phase 3 ICAL results will be provided in this folder (by Exa/SEE).

Upload the statistical results for the Phase 3 ICAL data into this folder.

Groundwater

To IDA
From IDA

Database Exports will be provided in this folder (by Exa) for the groundwater matrix.
Upload the statistical results for the groundwater matrix.

Surface water

To IDA
From IDA

Database Exports will be provided in this folder (by Exa) for the surface water matrix.
Upload the statistical results for the surface water matrix.

Sediment

To IDA
From IDA

Database Exports will be provided in this folder (by Exa) for the sediment matrix.
Upload the statistical results for the sediment matrix.

Soil

To IDA	Database Exports will be provided in this folder (by Exa) for the soil matrix.

From IDA	Upload the statistical results for the soil matrix.

Tissue

To IDA
From IDA

Database Exports will be provided in this folder (by Exa) for the tissue matrix.
Upload the statistical results for the tissue matrix.

Wastewater

To IDA
From IDA

Database Exports will be provided in this folder (by Exa) for the wastewater matrix.
Upload the statistical results for the wastewater matrix.

Landfill Leachate

To IDA
From IDA

Database Exports will be provided in this folder (by Exa) for the landfill leachate matrix.
Upload the statistical results for the landfill leachate matrix.

Biosolids

To IDA
From IDA

Database Exports will be provided in this folder (by Exa) for the biosolids matrix.
Upload the statistical results for the biosolids matrix.

Results expected from IDA are: statistical report with appendices (pdf), along with supporting calculations (xlsx).

36


-------
Appendix CI - Project Database - Database Dictionary

Table



Field

Data type

Definition and Comments

Direct
from
EDD

Valid
Value
Field

Required
field

Default
Value

Primary
Key

Include in
Amended
EDD for
DV

Include

Expo rts
for IDA

La b_

EDD

Results

TrackingID

text

Tracking ID from Tracking System; incorporated during ETL procedures

No

No

Yes



X

Yes

Yes

Lab

EDD

Results

LAB ID

text

Laboratory Name. See Valid Value list.

Yes

Yes

Yes



X

Yes

No

La b_

EDD

Results

lab_num

number
double

LabJD code, to keep laboratories anonymous. See Valid Value list.

No

Yes

Yes





No

Yes

La b_

EDD

Results

sdg_num

text

SDG number; incorporated during ETL procedures; extracted from Lab_Sample_ID

No

No

No





Yes

No

La b_

EDD

Results

SAMPLE_NO

text

For samples, these are the sample identification names (IDs) from the Chain of
Custody. The Sample_No is the same, regardless of whether or not the sample is
diluted or reanalyzed. For preparation batch QC, these are "MB" for the Method
Blank, "OPR" for the OPR, and "LLOPR" for the LLOPR. For IDOC samples, "1 PR" for
the IPR samples, "MDLB" for the MDLbsamples "MDLS" for the MDLs samples, and
"LOQVER" for the LOQVER samples.

Yes

No

Yes



X

Yes

Yes

La b_

EDD

Results

LAB_SAMPLE_ID

text

The ID the laboratory assigns to the sample (which identifies the sample on the
associated data files and reports).

For samples that need to be re-analyzed for issues other than dilution, attach the
following identifiers to the end of the lab sample identifier without a space
between them (e.g., 02082022-01R):

"R" for analytes, EISs & NISs reported from first re-analysis not due to dilution
"Rl" for analytes, EISs & NISs reported from second re-analysis not due to dilution
"R2" for analytes, EISs & NISs reported from second re-analysis not due to dilution
If more re-analyses not due to dilution are needed to be reported beyond three for
a sample, continue on with the numbering (e.g., R3, R4, R5, etc.).

Yes

No

Yes



X

Yes

Yes

La b_

EDD

Results

ANALYSIS_DATE

short date;
mm/dd/yyyy

Use format mm/dd/yyyy (e.g. 11/20/2019) - do not include time stamp.

Yes

No

Yes





Yes

No

Lab

EDD

Results

ANALYSIS

text

Fill in "PFAS". See Valid Value list.

Yes

Yes

Yes

PFAS



Yes

No

La b_

EDD

Results

PFAS_ACRONYM

text

Use acronyms included in the example EDD. See Valid Value list.

Yes

Yes

Yes

X

Yes

Yes

La b_

EDD

Results

DILUTION

number
integer

Dilution made post extraction (e.g., extract diluted 1:10 is entered as "10"). If
analyzed without dilution, enter "1".

Yes

No

Yes

1

X

Yes

Yes

La b

EDD

Results

LAB FLAG

text

Laboratory qualifiers. See Valid Value list.

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

20


-------
Appendix CI - Project Database - Database Dictionary

Table



Field



Data type

Definition and Comments

Direct
from
EDD

Valid
Value
Field

Required
field

Default
Value

Primary
Key

Include in
Amended
EDD for
DV

Include

Expo rts
for IDA

La b_

EDD

Results

CONC

FOUND

number
double

Enter numeric quantitative result value only. Report to three significant figures.
Do NOT enter any text string strings or symbols (e.g., "ND", For analytes that
are not detected, the laboratory's sample specific MDL (i.e. with extract dilution
factor, sample volume/weight and final volume taken into account) is entered.
Solids are reported on a dry-weight basis. Tissues are reported on a wet-weight
basis. Report result units in "Unit" field, consistent for all sample fields.

Yes

No

Yes





Yes

No

La b_

EDD

Results

CONC

SPIKE

number
double

For unspiked samples enter "0" for method analytes. For spiked samples, enter the
spike concentration representing the estimated concentration in the final extract
(i.e. with extract dilution factor, sample volume/weight and final volume taken into
account). Solids are reported on a dry-weight basis. Tissues are reported on a wet-
weight basis. For EIS and NIS, enter the spike concentration representing the
concentration in the final extract in units consistent with sample result units. The
reporting units for this project are parts per trillion (ppt) or nanograms per liter
(ng/L) for aqueous samples and parts per billion micrograms per kilogram (ng/kg)
for solid samples. Report to 3 significant figures.

Yes

No

Yes





Yes

Yes

La b_

EDD

Results

PERCENT_REC

number

For unspiked samples, leave blank. No text should be included in this field (e.g.

Yes

No

No





Yes

Yes











double

N/A). For spiked samples (OPR, LLOPR, MDLs and LOQVER), enter the spike
percentage recovery as a whole number (e.g., 95 versus 0.95). Do NOT include "%"
symbol. For EIS and NIS recoveries, enter the spike % recovery as a whole number
(e.g., 95 versus 0.95). Report to 3 significant figures. Do NOT include















La b_

EDD

Results

MDL



number
double

Method Detection Limit. Enter the sample specific MDL (i.e. with extract dilution
factor, sample volume/weight and final volume taken into account). The reporting
units for this project are parts per trillion (ppt) or nanograms per liter (ng/L) for
aqueous samples and parts per billion micrograms per kilogram (ng/kg) for solid
samples. Report to 3 significant figures.

Yes

No

Yes

-9



Yes

Yes

La b_

EDD

Results

LOQ



number
double

Limit of Quantitation. Enter the sample specific LOQ (i.e. with extract dilution
factor, sample volume/weight and final volume taken into account). Report to 3
significant figures. The reporting units for this project are parts per trillion (ppt) or
nanograms per liter (ng/L) for aqueous samples and parts per billion micrograms
per kilogram (ng/kg) for solid samples. Report to 3 significant figures.

Yes

No

Yes

-9



Yes

Yes

20


-------
Appendix CI - Project Database - Database Dictionary

Table



Field

Data type

Definition and Comments

Direct
from
EDD

Valid
Value
Field

Required
field

Default
Value

Primary
Key

Include in
Amended
EDD for
DV

Include

Expo rts
for IDA

La b_

EDD

Results

UNIT

text

The reporting units must be consistent for the sample record including
Conc_Found, MDL, LOQ etc. The reporting units for this project are parts per
trillion (ppt) or nanograms per liter (ng/L) for aqueous samples and parts per
billion micrograms per kilogram (ng/kg) for solid samples. Ensure that all values for
the sample record are reported in the same units. See Valid Value list.

Yes

Yes

Yes





Yes

Yes

La b_

EDD

Results

SAM PLE_TRANS ITI
ON_RATIO

text

;Enter the calculated Transition Ratio (Quant Ion Area/Conf Ion Area) for each
ianalyte in the sample. Report to 3 significant figures. For analytes this does not
iapply to (PFBA, PFPeA, NMeFOSE, NEtFOSE, PFMPA, and PFMBA), leave this field
i blank. No text should be included in this field (e.g. N/A).

Yes

No

No





Yes

No

La b_

EDD

Results

EXPECTED_TRANSI
TION_RATIO

text

: Enter the expected Transition Ratio (Quant Ion Area/Conf Ion Area) for each
ianalyte per the method. Report to three significant figures. For analytes this does
Inot apply to (PFBA, PFPeA, NMeFOSE, NEtFOSE, PFMPA, and PFMBA), leave this
| fie Id blank. No text should be included in this field (e.g., N/A).

Yes

No

No





Yes

No

La b_

EDD

Results

RRI

text

Enter relative retention time

Yes

No

No





Yes

No

La b_

EDD

Results

!sample_size

number
double

Enter volume (aqueous samples) or weight (solid samples) of sample extracted (in
liters for aqueous samples, in kilograms for solids).

Yes

No

Yes





Yes

No

La b_

EDD

Results

SAMPLE_SIZE_UNI

T

text

: Will be liters (L) for aqueous samples or kilograms (Kg) for solid samples

Yes

No

Yes





Yes

No

La b_

EDD

Results

1

l-XIRACIION DAI j
E

short date;
mm/dd/yyyy

Use format mm/dd/yyyy (e.g. 11/20/2019) - do not include time stamp.

Yes

No

Yes





Yes

No

La b_

EDD

Results

|PERC_MOISTURE ;

number
double

Percent moisture in solid samples only. Enter the percent moisture as a whole
number (e.g., 73 versus 0.73). Do NOT include "%" symbol.

Yes

No

No





Yes

No

La b_

EDD

Results

MATRIX

text

Matrix analyzed. See Valid values list.

Yes

Yes

Yes





Yes

Yes

La b_

EDD

Results

METHOD

text

; Laboratory SOP Name in format of "name(space)revision number"

Yes

No

Yes





Yes

No

La b_

EDD

Results

SIUDY PHASI-

text

(Multi-Lab Validation Study Phase. See Valid Value list.

Yes

Yes

Yes





Yes

No

La b_

EDD

Results

®SAMPLE_TYPE

text

See Valid Value list.

Yes

Yes

Yes



X

Yes

Yes

La b_

EDD

Results

1 resu lt_type

text

(Code for Result Type. See Valid Value list.

No

Yes

Yes





Yes

Yes

La b_

EDD

Results

so'
-------
Appendix CI - Project Database - Database Dictionary

Table



Data type

Definition and Comments

Direct
from
EDD

Valid
Value
Field

Required
field

Default
Value

Primary
Key

Include in
Amended
EDD for
DV

Include

Expo rts
for IDA

La b_EDD_Results

ValNotes_l

text

Include comments to distinguish the meaning of the val_qualifier assignment (e.g.,
distinguishing the -J qualifier)

No

No

No





Yes

No

La b_EDD_Results

ValNotes_2

text

: Additional information provided by validator deemed pertinent to their
:val_qualifier assignment.

No

No

No





Yes

No

La b_EDD_Results

:validator_result

number
double

Validator recommended result for concentration. If this is provided, entries must
be made in the valResultChange_yn field and valResultChange_desc fields.

No

No

No





Yes

No

La b_EDD_Results

jvalResultChange_y(

in

Logical

Enter Y or N. Indicates whether the validator made a recommendation to change
the result for concentration.

No

No

Yes





Yes

No

La b_EDD_Results

:valResultChange_d>
esc

text

Description of the reasons for validator recommending a change to the result for
concentration.

No

No

No





Yes

No

La b_EDD_Results

valReviewer_qualif:
ier

text

ICode for qualifiers applied by NAVY/EPA reviewers of data validation results. See
| Valid Value list.

No

Yes

No





Yes

No

La b_EDD_Results

valReviewer_notes|

text

'Notes from NAVY/EPA reviewers of data validation results.

No

No

No





Yes

No

La b_EDD_Results

:final_qualifier

text

(Code for Final Qualifier. See Valid Value list.

No

Yes

No





No

Yes

La b_EDD_Results

'final_result

number
double

Final result for concentration. Combines CONC_FOUND and validator_result fields.

No

No

Yes





No

Yes

dicValidValues

(VVLField

text

(Valid value field name.

No

No

Yes





No

No

dicValidValues

'ValidValue

text

^ Acceptable valid value codes.

No

No

Yes





No

No

dicValidValues

'VV_Description

text

Description of valid value codes.

No

No

Yes





No

No

dicValidValues

VVL_match_alt_fie
Md

VVL_match_alt_co
de

PI AS ACRONYM |

text

Related valid value field name.

No

No

No





No

No

dicValidValues

text

^Matching valid value code.

No

No

No





No

No

LU_Compound

text

Use acronyms included in the example EDD. See Valid Value list.

No

Yes

Yes



X

No

No

LU_Compound

COMPOUND

text

Use the names included in the example EDD. Method analytes, and EIS and NIS
compounds must be reported for each sample. See Valid Value list.

Yes

Yes

Yes





Yes

Yes

LU_Compound

CAS NO

text

(Chemical Abstract Service Registration Number

Yes

Yes

Yes





Yes

Yes

LU_Compound

result_type

text

ICode for Result Type. See Valid Value list.

No

Yes

Yes





No

No

LU_Spike_Levels

PFAS_ACRONYM

text

Use acronyms included in the example EDD. See Valid Value list.

No

Yes

Yes



X

No

No

LU_Spike_Levels

Matrix

text

Name of the matrix. See Valid Value list.

No

Yes

Yes



X

No

No

LU_Spike_Levels

PREP

text

Preparation code provided in the spiking level file.

No

No

Yes

REG



No

No

LU_Spike_Levels

Low_Spike_ngL

number
double

'Low spike concentration (ng/L)

No

No

Yes





No

Yes

LU_Spike_Levels

i H igh_Spike_ngL

number
double

1 High spike concentration (ng/L)

No

No

Yes





No

Yes

Convent

As in EDDsfor conventional

















TR1_GENERAL

--

--

See Table describing the Tracking System.

-

-

-





No

No

20


-------
Appendix CI - Project Database - Database Dictionary

Table Field

Data type Definition and Comments

Direct
from

Valid
Value
Field

Required
field

Default
Value

Primary
Key

Include in
Amended
EDD for
DV

include

Expo rts
for IDA

TR2_LABORATORY --

See Table describing the Tracking System.

-

-

-





No

No

TR3_VALIDATOR --

'See Table describing the Tracking System.

-

-

-





No

No

TR4_DBASE

(See Table describing the Tracking System.

-

-

-





No

No

TR5_STATS

See Table describing the Tracking System.

-

-

-





No

No

Note: The Required Fields may be revised during database development; maximum field lengths will be incorporated into the database structure during development.

20


-------
Appendix C2 - Project Database - Valid Value Codes and Descriptions

VVLField

ValidValuc

VV_Doscription

WL_match_alt_f VVL_match_
icld alt code

LABJD

ALPHA

Alpha Analytical

lab_num

3

LAB ID

BATTELLE

Battelle

lab_num

6

LABJD

CALEPA

iCalEPA DTSC

lab_num

2

LABJD

LLLLI

Eurofins Lancaster Labs

lab_num

10

LABJD

LI A

ETA, Sacramento

lab_num

1

LABJD

GEL

GEL Laboratories

lab_num

8

LABJD

MDH

Maryland Department of Health

lab_num

5

LABJD

PACE

GCAL/Pace

lab_num

9

LABJD

SGSNA

SGS North America

lab_num

7

LABJD

VIS 1A

__

Vista Analytical

lab_num

4

MATRIX



Landfill Leachate





MATRIX

WW

Wastewater





MATRIX

sw

Surface water





MATRIX

GW

Groundwater





MATRIX

QC

Ouality Control Sample





MATRIX

Rl

Reference Tissue for tissue MBs





MATRIX

OS

Ottawa sand for all solid MBs





MATRIX

RW

Reagent water for all aqueous MBs





MATRIX



Biosolids





MATRIX

IS

Tissue





MATRIX

ss

Soil





MATRIX

SD

Sediment





MATRIX

IDC-water

Initial Demonstration of Capability - water matrix





MATRIX

IDC-solid

Initial Demonstration of Capability - solid matrix





MATRIX

IDC-tissue

Initial Demonstration of Capability - tissue matrix





resultjype

EIS

(Extracted Internal Standard





resultjype

IRG

(Target analyte





resultjype

NIS

(Non-Extracted Internal Standard





SAMPLE J"YPE

M

iMethod analytes in MDL Blank IDC samples





SAMPLE J"YPE

MDLS

iMethod analytes in MDL Spike IDC samples





SAMPLE J"YPE

MDLLOQVER

(Method analytes in MDL LOOVER IDC samples





SAMPLE_TYPE

NORMAL

(method analytes in field samples





SAMPLE_TYPE

BLANK

(method analytes in MBs





SAMPLE_TYPE

OPR

(method analytes in OPRs





SAMPLE_TYPE

LLOPR

(method analytes in LLOPRs





SAMPLE_TYPE

EIS

LIS in all samples





SAMPLE J"YPE

NIS

iNIS in all samples





spike_cat

HIGH

1 High





spike_cat

LOW

iLow





STUDY_PHASE

Phase 3

(Initial Demonstration of Capabilities (IDC), MDL Study, IPRs, and
LOO Verification





STUDY_PHASE

Phase 4.4.1

iGW, SW, LC, and WW matrices





STUDY_PHASE

Phase 4.4.2

iSS, SD, and BS matrices





STUDY_PHASE

Phase 4.4.3

(Tissue matrices





validator

CHEMVAL

iChemVal





validator

JACOBS

(Jacobs Engineering





validator

PYRON

Pyron Environmental





Analysis

PFAS

1NULL





Lab_Flag

B

(Detected in the associated MB of a sample that exceeded % LOO
|or is at a concentration greater than l/10th the concentration in
jthe sample, whichever is greatest. The MB must also be flagged
(with a "B" for all concentrations greater than % the LOO.





Lab_Flag

D

(when the reported result is from a dilution, for analytes, EIS, NISs





42


-------
Appendix C2 - Project Database - Valid Value Codes and Descriptions

VVL match alt f VVL match

VVLFicId ValidValuc VV Description . , , , ,

¦eld alt code

Lab_Flag
Lab_Flag
Lab_Flag

UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT

dv_qualifier
dv_qualifier
dv_qualifier
dv_qualifier

1

J
U

ug/kg

ng/L

ng/L

ug/kg

ug/kg

ng/L

ug/kg

ng/L

1

X
J

J-

Fail to meet ion ratio criteria

At a concentration between the MDL and LOQ

Not detected or were detected at a concentration less than the

MDL

micrograms per kilogram
nanograms per liter
nanograms per liter
micrograms per kilogram
micrograms per kilogram
nanograms per liter
micrograms per kilogram
nanograms per liter
Suspect

Exclusion of data is recommended
Estimated

If branched isomers were not included in the summed result
reported, qualify associated detects as J-

or

Verify that the %Ds are within the acceptance criteria. If any
target analytes do not meet the acceptance criteria, qualify
detects for that analyte as estimated J- when the %D is below
acceptance criteria

MATRIX
MATRIX
MATRIX
MATRIX
MATRIX
MATRIX
MATRIX
MATRIX

BS
GW
LC
SD
SS
SW
TS
WW

dv_qualifier

J+

Verify that the %Ds are within the acceptance criteria. If any
target analytes do not meet the acceptance criteria, qualify
detects for that analyte as estimated J+ when the %D is higher
than acceptance criteria





dv_qualifier Ju

Values below the MDL are considered non-detects and are
qualified as U at the stated MDL.





dv_qualifier

valReviewer_qualifier
valReviewer_qualifier
valReviewer_qualifier

UJ
1

X
J

Estimated non-detect
or

Verify that the %Ds are within the acceptance criteria. Non-
detects are qualified as UJ in all associated samples for %D
outside of acceptance criteria.

Suspect

Exclusion of data is recommended
Estimated





valReviewer_qualifier

J-

If branched isomers were not included in the summed result
reported, qualify associated detects as J-

or

Verify that the %Ds are within the acceptance criteria. If any
target analytes do not meet the acceptance criteria, qualify
detects for that analyte as estimated J- when the %D is below
acceptance criteria





valReviewer_qualifier

J+

Verify that the %Ds are within the acceptance criteria. If any
target analytes do not meet the acceptance criteria, qualify
detects for that analyte as estimated J+ when the %D is higher
than acceptance criteria





43


-------
Appendix C2 - Project Database - Valid Value Codes and Descriptions

VVLField

ValidValuc

VV_Doscription

WL_match_alt_f VVL_match_
icld alt code

valReviewer_qualifier

U

Values below the MDL are considered non-detects and are
qualified as U at the stated MDL.





valReviewer_qualifier

UJ

Estimated non-detect
or

Verify that the %Ds are within the acceptance criteria. Non-

















detects are qualified as UJ in all associated samples for %D









outside of acceptance criteria.





valReviewer_qualifier

NQ

No qualifier. Use this code when the dv_qualifier should be over-
ridden by no qualifier.





dv_qualifier_reason

TBD

To be standardized in final database.



44


-------
Appendix C3 - Project Database - Valid Value Codes and Descriptions for Compounds

PFAS_ACRONYM

Compound

CAS_NO

Result_Type

13C2-4:2FTS

lH,lH,2H,2H-Perfluoro-l-[l,2-13C2]hexanesulfonic acid

NA

EIS

13C2-6:2FTS

i lH,lH,2H/2H-Perfluoro-l-[l/2-13C2]octanesulfonic acid

NA

EIS

13C2-8:2FTS

i lH,lH,2H/2H-Perfluoro-l-[l/2-13C2]decanesulfonic acid

NA

EIS

13C2-PFDoA

Perfluoro-n-[l,2-13C2]dodec,"inoic ncid

NA

EIS

13C2-PFTeDA

Perfluoro-n-[l,2-13C2]tetradecanoic acid

NA

EIS

13C3-HFPO-DA

Tetrafluoro-2-heptafluoropropoxy-13C3-propanoic acid

NA

EIS

13C3-PFBS

iPerfluoro-l-[2,3,4-13C3]butanesulfonic acid

NA

EIS

13C3-PFHxS

Perfluoro-l-[l,2,3-13C3]hexanesulfonic acid

NA

EIS

13C4-PFBA

Perfluoro-n-[13C4]butanoic acid

NA

EIS

13C4-PFHpA


-------
Appendix C3 - Project Database - Valid Value Codes and Descriptions for Compounds

PFAS_ACRONYM

Compound

CAS_NO

Result_Type

PFBS

Perfluorobut.inesulfonic ncid

375-73-5

TRG

PFDA

Perfluorodecanoic acid

135-76-2

TRG

PFDoA

Perfluorododecanoic acid

307-55-1

TRG

PFDoS

Perfluorododecanesulfonic acid

"¦9780-39-5

TRG

PFDS

Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid

335-77-3

TRG

PFEESA

Perfluoro(2-ethoxyethane)sulfonic acid

.13507-82-7

TRG

PFHpA

Perfluoroheptanoic acid

175-85-9

TRG

PFHpS

Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid

175-92-8

TRG

PFHxA

Perfluorohexanoic acid

107-24-4

TRG

PFHxS

Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

155-46-4

TRG

PFMBA

Perfluoro-4-methoxybutanoic acid

163090-89-5

TRG

PFMPA

Perfluoro-3-methoxypropanoic acid

377-73-1

TRG

PFNA

Perfluorononanoic acid

175-95-1

TRG

PFNS

Perfluorononanesulfonic acid

68259-12-1

TRG

PFOA

Perfluorooctanoic acid

135-67-1

TRG

PFOS

Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

.763-23-1

TRG

PFOSA

Perfluorooctanesulfonamide

754-91-6

TRG

PFPeA

Perfluoropentanoic acid

2706-90-3

TRG

PFPeS

Perfluoropentanesulfonic acid

2706-91-4

TRG

PFTeDA

Perfluorotetradecanoic acid

376-06-7

TRG

PFTrDA

Perfluorotridecanoic acid

"'2629-94-8

TRG

PFUnA

,Perfluoroundecanoic acid

2058-94-8

(TRG

46


-------
Multi-Laboratory Validation Study Database Management

QA/QC and
Data Processing Procedures

WHITE PAPER

Prepared for:

SERDP/ESTCP PFAS Method Validation Study Team
Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP)
4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 16F16
Alexandria, VA 22350-3605

Prepared by:

Exa Data & Mapping Services, Inc.

19530 23rd Ave NE
Poulsbo, WA 98370

May 4, 2022


-------
Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction	2

1.1	Overview of the EDD Management Process	3

1.2	Overview of the EDD Checking Phases.	3

2.0 QA/QC Checks at Receipt	3

3.0 QA/QC Checks at Import	3

4.0 Detailed EDD QA/QC and Reporting	5

5.0 QA/QC Checks on Master EDD Database	10

6.0 Final Processing Steps	10

7.0 References	13

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. List of Required Fields

Table 2. Fields with Range Checks

Table 3. Detailed List of EDD QA/QC Checks

Table 4. Allowed Code Combinations for Sample_No, Matrix, and Sample_Type fields
Table 5. Additional Fields included in the Amended EDD

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Opening Form of the MLV Study EDD QA/QC Tool

Figure 2. EDD Checking Routines and Reporting Form

Figure 3. QA/QC Report and Detailed QA/QC Queries Form

Figure 4. Append to Master EDD Database and Generate Amended EDD Form


-------
1.0 Introduction

This white paper describes specific data quality checking processes and procedures for the
Multi-Laboratory Validation of Draft EPA Method 1633 - PFAS in Aqueous, Solid, Biosolids, and
Tissue Samples by LC-MS/MS. EPA Method 1633 is an interim draft method for analyzing per-
and polyfluoroaIkyI substances (PFAS), and now requires a Multiple-Laboratory Validation (MLV)
Study. The study requires technically sound and legally admissible data; thus the QA/QC
procedures documented in this white paper are a key element to project success. All of the data
quality review steps are conducted in accordance with the MLV Study Plan (SERDP/ESCTP
2022).

Data management processes and procedures described herein are applicable to Phases 3-6 of
the MLV Study Plan (SERDP/ESTCP 2022).

The Data Management Plan (DMP) for the MLV Study describes the objectives, framework,
workflow, file management, and tracking procedures for the project (SERDP/ESCTP 2022;
Attachment 4). This white paper provides additional details on the specific QA/QC procedures
conducted on the electronic data deliverables (EDDs) from the study laboratories.

The checking routines as described here were developed under the auspices of the data
management objectives for the project:

•	To facilitate and coordinate with the MVS Team members to ensure that data
management system meets overall project objectives;

•	To ensure high quality data that provides an accurate representation of all data
produced during the study;

•	To standardize and store the data in a structured format to allow for accurate
querying and statistical analyses;

•	To ensure efficient and timely data processing;

•	To store the data produced during the MLV Study in a secure location that restricts
access to team members with appropriate credentials;

•	To allow easy access to the data by project stakeholders; and,

•	To implement documentation procedures that ensure the data is technically
defensible and legally admissible.

The data management methodology is critical to ensure that laboratory analytical data,
validation information, and final statistical calculations are of the highest quality to support and
defend the publication of the final method.

2


-------
1.1 Overview of the EDD Management Process

Electronic data from the laboratories are submitted to the MVS Team in a specific electronic
data deliverable (EDD) format, as described in the Study Plan (SERDP/ESTCP 2022). The EDD
records are imported into a ®Microsoft (MS) Access database using automated Visual Basic for
Applications (VBA) code. In addition to the checking routines, there are additional functions to
post-process the data which will be described in Section 6.0. The primary goal of this white
paper is to provide a detailed description of the EDD and database QA/QC procedures
conducted on data provided from the participating laboratories.

1.2 Overview of the EDD Checking Phases

There are four phases of EDD QA/QC in the workflow that have been developed:

1.	Initial checks performed at receipt of data files from the laboratories;

2.	Preliminary checks conducted upon import of the EDD;

3.	Detailed checks conducted on individual EDDs, prior to submission of the data to the
validators;

4.	Database checks on the cumulative Master EDD Database conducted prior to
submission to the data analysis (statistics) team.

Each of these phases of QA/QC procedures will be discussed in the following sections.

2.0 QA/QC Checks at Receipt

Upon receipt of data files submitted from the laboratories, the files are logged into the Tracking
System and it is confirmed that the data files (data packages, EDDs, supplemental files) are
appropriately filed on the MLV Study Library (SharePoint site). The Tracking System is described
in the DMP (SERDP/ESCTP 2022; Attachment 4). Additionally, the file names are reviewed to
ensure the file naming protocol was followed, and a high-level check is performed to ensure
that the data package and EDD are associated with one another.

3


-------
3.0 QA/QC Checks at Import

Import of the EDDs into the database is the first step of the MLV Study QA/QC tool (Figure 1).
As each EDD is imported, a series of preliminary checks are conducted to ensure that the EDD
imported properly. This includes checks to ensure all of the EDD template fields are present and
named properly, and all of the EDD records were imported.

IH Main Form	— ~ X

Import Data Lab
EDD Template

MLV Study
EDD QA/QC tool

Import data from the Laboratory EDD Template.
Ensure a relevant path is entered in tbIPath priorto
Import.

Remove lmpLab_EDD_Results

Go To Checking
Routines



Close

Figure 1. Opening Form of the MLV Study EDD QA/QC Tool

4


-------
4.0 Detailed EDD QA/QC and Reporting

Once the EDD is imported as a stand-alone table into the database (e.g., not yet appended to
the Master EDD Database), a series of automated QA/QC checks are conducted. These checks
are under continual development as new issues arise, but the description provided below is
comprehensive for the EDDs received for Phase 3 as of the publication of this white paper.

The EDD QA/QC checks are run in a sequential order (Routines 1-3, Figure 2). Results of the
checks are written to the QA/QC Report for review and generating feedback to the data
provider (Routine 4).

Data File

MLV

Checking Routines (to be executed in sequence)

1 Check
Required
Fields and
Relationships

Check all required fields have entries and
relationships are maintained.

Check each table to ensure that the primary key
uniquely identifies each record in the table.

A number of additional tests are conducted.

2 Unique
Records Check

3 Additional
Checks





Reports

QA/QC Report
and Detailed
Queries

View the QA/QC report showing the results of
the automated checking routines and the detailed
QA/QC queries that identify problem records.

Lab_rep must be reviewed and updated
before proceeding.

Figure 2. EDD Checking Routines and Reporting Form

The first routine checks that all required fields have entries. The list of required fields is drawn
from the EDD Instructions and Format (SERDP/ESCTP 2022, Attachment 3, Table 1).

5


-------
Table 1. List of Required Fields

lie Id Niinio

ANALYSIS

LVBSAMPLLJD

SAMPLLSIZLLMI

COMPOUND

MATRIX

SAMPLE TOE

CONCFOUND

METHOD

STUDYPHASE

CONCSPKE

PFASACRONYM

UNIT

DEJJIION

SAMPLE NO



LABID

SAMPLESIZE



In addition, the first routine also checks that relationships between tables are maintained -
specifically the links between the EDD and the standardized SamplelD (from the MatrixKey
table) and the standardized compound codes in the compound table.

The second routine checks for unique records based on the following fields: LAB_ID,
SAMPLE_NO, LAB_SAMPLE_ID, PFAS_ACRONYM, DILUTION, and SAMPLE_TYPE. If there is
more than one record in the EDD with the same combination of these fields, this check will
generate an error message.

The third routine ("Additional Checks" in Figure 2) includes a wide variety of automated QA/QC
checks and summaries, some that require manual review. Range checks are conducted on
numeric fields to ensure that the values are "reasonable" (e.g., percent moisture must be <
100%, Table 2). All fields that are constrained to valid entries are checked for specific required
content, including exact spelling for the following fields: ANALYSIS, LAB_FLAG, MATRIX,
SAMPLE_TYPE, STUDY_PHASE, UNIT, PFAS_ACRONYM, COMPOUND, CAS_NO, Result_Type.

Table 2. Fields with Range Checks

Field Name

Min

Max

Default

CONC_FOUND

0.0001

1000

REQUIRED

PERC_MOISTURE

0

100

REQUIRED

CONC_SPIKE

1

1000

0

DILUTION

0

100

1

PERCENT_REC

0

170

NULL

SAMPLE_SIZE

0.004

1000

REQUIRED

MDL

0.0001

100



LOQ

0.0001

100



Following these checks, a series of additional QA/QC checks and review summaries are
executed (Table 3). The Additional Checks can be easily modified, and new checks are added as
needed.

6


-------
Table 3. Detailed List of EDD QA/QC Checks

Type of Che ck

Description

Completeness

71 results for each sample

All compounds have been reported for all samples
Three sample types for each sample
Review sample type counts

Units

Consistent units
Correct units

Formatting

No suffixes added to SAMPLE NO
ANALYSIS DATE is in the correct format
PERC MOISTURE must be a whole number
PERCENT REC must be a whole number
Numeric entries in number fields

Null and placeholders

NuH in CONC FOUND field



NuH in CONC SPIKE field



Null in DILUTION fie Id



NuH in LOQ field



Null in MDL field



NuH in PERC MOISTURE field



NuH in SAMPLE SIZE field



CONC SPIKE = 0 ok



CONC SPIKE not equal to 0 ok



PERCENT REC = null ok



PERCENT REC not null ok



CAS NO can only be null for EIS or MS



PERC MOISTURE should not be populated for aqueous samples

Sample Type/Matrix Coding

MATRIX is coded correctly for blank samples

MATRIX is coded correctly for study samples

MATRIX is coded correctly for QC samples

SAMPLE NO is coded correctly for blank samples

SAMPLE NO is coded correctly for QC samples

SAMPLE NO is coded correctly for study samples

SAMPLE TYPE is coded correctly for MS and EIS result type

SAMPLE TYPE is coded correctly for TRGresult type



SAMPLE TYPE is coded correctly for TRGresult type (not EIS or



MS)

Detection limit/ Qualifier

MDL is not greater than the LOQ

Checks

LAB FLAG not set to J when CONC FOUND >MDL and 
-------
Many of the QA/QC checks listed in Table 3 are based on the Supplemental EDD Instructions
(2022, unpublished), in particular the sample coding guidance (Table 4).

Table 4. Allowed Code Combinations for Sample_No, Matrix, and Sample_Type fields

Phase

SAMPLE NO

Gbmpound Type

Matrix

Sample_type



C OM SPIKE

PERCENT REC

Phase 4

GWAO

Method analyte s

GW, SW, etc

NORMAL



0

NITLL

Phase 4

GWAO

HS

GW, SW, etc

HS



Populated

Populated

Phase 4

GWAO

NIS

GW, SW, etc

NIS



Populated

Populated

Phase 4

MB

Method analyte s

RW, OS, RT

HANK



0

NITLL

Phase 4

MB

HS

RW, OS, RT

HS



Populated

Populated

Phase 4

MB

NIS

RW, OS, RT

NIS



Populated

Populated

Phase 4

OPR*

Method analyte s

QC

OPR



Populated

Populated

Phase 4

OPR*

HS

QC

HS



Populated

Populated

Phase 4

OPR*

NIS

QC

NIS



Populated

Populated

Phase 4

IIOPR*

Method analyte s

QC

IIOPR



Populated

Populated

Phase 4

IIOPR*

HS

QC

HS



Populated

Populated

Phase 4

IIOPR*

NIS

QC

NIS



Populated

Populated

Phase 3 IDC

IPR*

Method analyte s

QC

IPR



Populated

Populated

Phase 3 IDC

IPR*

HS

QC

HS



Populated

Populated

Phase 3 IDC

IPR*

NIS

QC

NIS



Populated

Populated

Phase 3 IDC

MDIB

Method analyte s

RW, OS. RT

MDIB



0

NITLL

Phase 3 IDC

MDIB

HS

RW. OS. RT

HS



Populated

Populated

Phase 3 IDC

MDIB

NIS

RW, OS, RT

NIS



Populated

Populated

Phase 3 IDC

MDIS*

Method analyte s

QC

MDIS



Populated

Populated

Phase 3 IDC

MDIS*

HS

QC

HS



Populated

Populated

Phase 3 IDC

MDIS*

NIS

QC

NIS



Populated

Populated

Phase 3 IDC

IOQVER*

Method analyte s

QC

IOQVER



Populated

Populated

Phase 3 IDC

IOQVER*

HS

QC

HS



Populated

Populated

Phase 3 IDC

IOQVER*

NIS

QC

NIS



Populated

Populated

Phase 3 IDC

MB

Method analyte s

RW, OS, RT

HANK



0

NITLL

Phase 3 IDC

MB

HS

RW, OS, RT

HS



Populated

Populated

Phase 3 IDC

MB

NIS

RW, OS, RT

NIS



Populated

Populated

During the execution of the checking routines, an error report with standardized error messages
is automatically generated for the checks that fail. This report can be viewed within the
application by selecting "View Report" (Figure 3), and is also exported to an Excel file to
generate the Error Summary Report to be provided to the laboratories.

Most of the QA/QC checks are associated with detailed queries that provide information on what
the specific problem is (see the bottom part of the Figure 3, "Detailed QA/QC Queries"). For the
errors that are applicable to a certain EDD, the query results are copied into separate
worksheets of the Error Summary report and provided to the laboratories. The standardized
error messages and the worksheets containing the detailed QA/QC query results are cross-
referenced with the query name (e.g., qry_Edd_review_sample_no).

Finally, there is a manual step to modify the lab_rep field to account for re-analyses and
dilutions.

8


-------
3 QA/QC Reports and Detailed Queries

O »

OA QC Report

f» >QA/QC lipift Crisili'if Bi *a3i55ii3"checkhi rouffiisf'"]
r Include delate about items that passed checks



1

. Review - chedc for 71 results for each sample

Review - al compounds have been reported for all samples
.. Review - 3 sample types for each sample,

¦ ¦ Review - no suffixes added to SAMPLE_NO

Consistent units
6 Correct unite

MDL is not greater than the IOQ

LAB_R_AG not set to 3 when CONC_FOUND >MDL and 
-------
If the EDD passes the checking routines, the EDD is then ready to be appended into the Master
EDD Database. Following that, an Amended EDD is generated to be submitted to the
designated validator.

5.0 QA/QC Checks on Master EDD Database

As EDDs are compiled into the Master EDD Database, additional QA/QC checking routines have
been developed to apply to the entire database. The purpose of this operation is to review the
data across phases, laboratories and matrices to ensure that there are no internal
inconsistencies or other issues that arise as the data are compiled. These checks will identify
differences in how the data are reported from different laboratories and/or validators and
ensure consistency in the data exports provided to the project statisticians. It is good practice
to incorporate redundancy in the QA/QC procedures to ensure that issues are not overlooked.

Examples of these database-wide queries include:

•	Min-max checks on number fields

•	Dictionary checks

•	Unique record check

•	Date range checks

•	Consistent unit checks

•	Review of summary of lab_flag, lab_qual, dv_qualifier, reviewer_qual, final_qualifier

•	Review of summary of conc_found, dv_result, final_result, dv_ResultChange_yn,
dv_Resu ItCha nge_desc

6.0 Final Processing Steps

There are additional data processing steps that occur after the QA/QC routines have been
executed on individual EDDs (Figure 4). Routine 5 populates the spike category (spike_cat)
field, and Routine 6 appends the EDD to the Master EDD Database, with separate steps to
populate the Tracking ID, LAB_ID and SDG fields. Finally, Routine 7 automatically exports an
individual EDD in the Amended EDD format which will be provided to the data validators in
Excel format. Table 5 lists the additional fields that are not in the EDD laboratory template but
are included in the Amended EDD.

10


-------
Fill Spike Cat

Step 1

Populates spike_cat field.

Append to DB

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

EnterTrackingID and LABJD

Append to database; opens table to enter SDG
information.

Updates database with SDG information.

Export Amended EDD

Step 1

Step 2

Create temp export file based on Tracking ID

Export to Excel. Rename file to the current
Tracking D, and post to SharePoint site.

Return to
Previous

Figure 4. Append to Master EDD Database and Generate Amended EDD Form

11


-------
Table 5. Additional Fields included in the Amended EDD

Definition

I

TrackingID

Tracking ID from Tracking System; incorporated during EIL
procedures

sdgnum

SDGnumber; incorporated duringEILprocedures; extracted
from Lab_Sample_ID

labrep

lab rep number added to easily filter for re-analysis/dilutions.

ResultType

Code for Result Type. See Valid Value list.

validationlevel

Stores information on the level of data validation that has been
completed for the chemistry data. Automatically populated
with 'level 4'.

validator

Code for Data Validator. See Valid Value list.

dvqualifier

Code for Data Validator qualifiers. See Valid Value list.

d vqualifie r_re as on

Data validation qualifier reason codes.

dv_notesl

Include comments to distinguish the meaning of the
dv_qualifier assignment (e.g., distinguishing the -Jqualifier)

dv_notes2

Additional information provided by validator deemed pertinent
to their dv_qualifier assignment.

dvresult

Validator recommended result for concentration. If this is
provided, entries must be made in the dv_ResultChange_yn
field and dvResultChangedesc fields.

dv_Re sultChange_yn

EnterYorN Indicates whether the validator made a
recommendation to change the result for concentration.

dv_Re sultQiangede sc

Description of the reasons for validator recommending a change
to the result for concentration.

Re vie we r qualifie r

Code for qualifiers applied by NAW EPA re viewers of data
validation results. See Valid Value list.

Reviewernotes

Notes from NAW EPA re viewers of data validation results.

12


-------
7.0 References

SERDP/ESTCP PFAS Method Validation Study Team. 2022. Study Plan for Multi-Laboratory
Validation of Draft EPA Method 1633 - PFAS in Aqueous, Solid, Biosolids, and Tissue
Samples by LC- MS/MS. Prepared for Program Manager for Environmental Restoration,
Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP).

13


-------
ADDENDUM
Data Management Plan for the

Multi-Laboratory Validation Draft EPA Method 1633 -
PFAS in Aqueous, Solid, Biosolids, and Tissue Samples by

LC-MS/MS

Prepared for:

SERDP/ESTCP PFAS Method Validation Study Team
Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP)
4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 16F16
Alexandria, VA 22350-3605

Prepared by:

Exa Data & Mapping Services, Inc.

19530 23rd Ave NE
Poulsbo, WA 98370

And

HydroGeoLogic, Inc.

11107 Sunset Hills Road, Suite 400
Reston, Virginia 20190-5375

January 23, 2023


-------
Addendum to Attachment 4 (Data Management Plan)

Key differences in the procedures outlined in the Data Management Plan and the actual procedures
followed are described in this Addendum.

Section 2.0 Roles and Responsibilities

There have been changes to project personnel - Glenn Sutula (Exa) and Joe Vilain (HGL) were added to
the data management team, and John Powell (HGL) took on a different role in the project.

Section 3.0 Data Sharing Plan and File Tracking

Section 3.1 MLV Study Library: Host and Software

The DMP's description of the MLV Study Library, commonly referred to as ExaBlue, has
differences in the folder structure as originally envisioned (Figure 2 of DMP) and modifications
to levels of access and permissions (Table 3 of DMP). There have been some updates to the
actual content stored on Exa Blue (Table 2 of DMP); this continues to evolve as final documents
are generated. For example, there is a variety of information that is stored in
Documents/Laboratory Data/Other Lab Data, as follows: Corrective Action Reports, ERA
Certificates of Spiking, ERA laboratory instructions, laboratory instructions, Wellington
Certificates of Analysis.

Section 3.2 File Tracking System

Modifications and improvements were made in the procedures for tracking submissions from
laboratories, validators and reviewers. The File Tracking System as originally designed was
meant to have information entered by key team members (Exa, HGL, validators, NAVY/EPA
reviewers). The actual process, however, has been that most tracking information is entered and
tracked only by Exa personnel. The Tracking System (as described in Appendix A1 of the DMP)
was streamlined, tracking information was not maintained in the Project Database, a live shared
Excel status document was used for sharing status with the MLV Team (rather than weekly
summary updates), and coordination with NAVSEA reviewers was conducted with a new
tracking file 'EPA NAVSEA Review Tracker'.

Section 3.3 File-Naming Protocols

The DMP states: "Importantly, the laboratory must resubmit BOTH the EDD and the Data
Package with a new version number, even if only one or the other was revised." However, as
the project progressed, multiple submissions and version numbers of EDD/Data Packages were
not updated together as required in the DMP due to the unforeseen magnitude of changes.

Also, there were exceptions to the required file-naming conventions, as not all labs were in
compliance.

Section 4.0 Data Management Processes and Procedures
Section 4.1 Workflow

This section of the DMP documented the plan for adhering to a specific, rigorous, and well-
documented workflow for the data generated during the project. A diagram of the revised MLV
Study workflow is provided in Figures la and lb. The workflow outlines the sequence of


-------
processes that are adhered to by all team members, including the Data Management Team
(Exa/HGL), the MVS Team, laboratories, the validation team, and the statistical analysis team
(IDA). This figure has been updated for this addendum to reflect the workflow that was
ultimately established for the project.

Key changes to the workflow were:

•	MLVS Team members were not informed of individual submissions of data packages and
EDDs from the laboratories. Rather, the ExaBlue SharePoint was set up to automatically
send email notifications to Team members that were interested in this level of detail.

•	HGL completed a checklist when reviewing data packages submitted by the lab, and
when the data package was approved, HGL posted the data package and the checklist to
the Validator folders on ExaBlue.

•	When validators found issues with the data packages/EDDs, in some cases they directly
informed the laboratories of the action needed, instead of all communication flowing
through HGL.

•	Figure 3 in the DMP did not include the step for the data validators preparing and
submitting the data validation report and the amended EDD (with validation qualifiers
added) to ExaBlue

•	A new review step was incorporated into the process, in which the Project Manager
(Tim Thompson) reviewed the Data Validation Reports and resolved any inconsistencies
prior to releasing it to NAVSEA/EPA for review.

•	If the NAVSEA/EPA reviewers found issues in the Data Validation Report, they would
request that the data validators resolve the issues and re-submit. NAVSEA/EPA
reviewers added Reviewer Qualifiers directly in the amended EDD; in some cases, the
data validator was asked to re-submit a revised amended EDD. After the EDD was
finalized, it was uploaded and provided to Exa to incorporate the data validator and
reviewer qualifiers into the database.

•	A new step was added to the data processing procedures in that Exa calculated %
recoveries considering the native concentration in the samples. The general calculation
is:

Final_result Spiked Sample/[spike_level + CONC_FOUND unspiked sample], and there
were special data handling options if the Unspiked sample was a non-detect, or rejected


-------
Receipt of Data Sets >

Review Laboratory EDD/Data Package Submissions—>

Figure la. Revised workflow for the PFAS Multi-Laboratory Validation Study


-------
Data Archiving

o

Legend

Process step
Decision point
Communication

Back-and-forth
communication



Manual step
End of process

Data archiving

Enter information
in Tracking
System	a

Figure lb. Revised workflow for the PFAS Multi-Laboratory Validation Study (continued)


-------
Section 4.1.6 Rejection and Resubmission Process

The Data Management Plan states that '...the Exa data managers will not conduct any editing or
data cleaning procedures to amend the data provided by the laboratories.' In order to expedite
the flow of EDDs, Exa directly edited minor inconsistencies in the EDDs, after receiving
permission from the laboratories.

Section 4.2 Database and Tools

4.2.1 Database Structure

As the project progressed, there were modifications made to the structure of the Project
Database, as follows:

•	Tracking tables were removed

•	The lu_matrixKey table was added, which provides a description of the test samples,
the spike category of each sample, and whether it was selected for analysis

•	Additional fields were added to the Lab_EDD_Results table: spikejevel,
conc_minus_native, spike_percent_rec

A revised version of the Entity-Relationship Diagram (ERD) for the Project Database is provided
in Figure 2 and reflects the current database structure.


-------
,				-	1













Liab_ŁE!>C_P,eŁ\iits







LU_Spke„Le.^



1 TiMu - j

i t- .*

; lU^Costipounci









_ j

LABJDJteported

,pf,v: .^Ponrr.i







^ « 1 tj u jli-L1 . |

VO













iab„num

| tf





1 ¦:¦.• . c_r. ,\l



, i-c-u a'"'j

sno- nuirn

! j\,i't "'Pe





Hi'-jh, I'Lm



' 1 ,'t .itch,. h t j



1 :-CriT_





{,0'v" i•-;iL







¦¦¦¦ /











-rUi.:-;WU7F

--1_ „ 	









ANALYSIS











j'.f S

....

*.™.„ 1 "









ft











•:cnc.Fo,ji'^-











:-S, FL-0











.rCtl-' 'Ji;f«*,F-





	





rtP'TtNT^F. :



lu.MalrixKcy





f'" C L





f ^fn• T,p.-





i; ''J ! - !







s-—



SampteiO















Figure 2. Revised Entity-Relationship Diagram (ERD) for the Project Database


-------
4.2.3 Data Processing Tools

The procedures for data processing and QA/QC review of the EDDs was completed and is in use
since the publication of the DMP. A 'QA/QC and Data Processing Procedures' white paper was
prepared and submitted to the project team and is included in Appendix 1 of this Addendum.

In conjunction with developing the 'QA/QC and Data Processing Procedures' white paper, the
EDD Template instructions were reviewed and 'MLV_Study_Supplemental_EDD_lnstructions'
were developed and distributed to the MLV Study team, to clarify some details of how the EDD
Template is expected to be populated. The 'MLV_Study_Supplemental_EDD_lnstructions' is
included in Appendix 2 of this Addendum.


-------
MLV Study - EDD Template Legend

Field

Data type



Valid Value
Field

Required
field*

Default
Value

.

Primary
„

Key

LAB ID

text

Laboratory Name.



YES





SAMPLE_NO

text

For samples, these are the sample identification names (IDs) from the Chain of Custody. The Sample_No is the same,
regardless of whether or not the sample is diluted or reanalyzed.

For preparation batch QC and Initial Demonstration of Capability samples:

Refer to the Sample Coding worksheet for information on populating this field.



YES



X

LAB_SAMPLE_ID

text

The ID the laboratory assigns to the sample (which identifies the sample on the associated data files and reports). For
samples that need to be re-analyzed for issues otherthan dilution, attach the following identifiers to the end of the lab
sample identifier without a space between them (e.g., 02082022-01R):

-	"R" for analytes, EISs and NISs reported from first re-analysis not due to dilution;

-	"Rl" for analytes, EISs and NISs reported from second re-analysis not due to dilution; and,

-	"R2" for analytes, EISs and NISs reported from second re-analysis not due to dilution

If more re-analyses not due to dilution are needed to be reported beyond three for a sample, continue on with the
numbering (e.g., R3, R4, R5, etc.).



YES



X

ANALYSIS_DATE

short date;
mm/dd/yyyy

Use format mm/dd/yyyy (e.g. 11/20/2019) - do not include time stamp.



YES





ANALYSIS

text

Fill in "PFAS". See Valid Value list.

YES

YES

PFAS



COMPOUND

text

PFAS compound name. Method analytes, and EIS and NIS compounds must be reported for each sample. See
LU_Compound list.

YES

YES





CASNO

text

Chemical Abstract Service Registration Number (CASRN). For compounds with no CASRN, leave blank. See LU_Compound
list.

YES

YES





PFAS ACRONYM

text

Short form code for Compounds. See LUCompound list.

YES

YES



X

DILUTION

number integer

Dilution made post extraction (e.g., extract diluted 1:10 is entered as "10"). If analyzed without dilution, enter "1".



YES

1

X

CONCFOUND

number double

Measured concentration.

Enter numeric quantitative result value only. Do NOT enter any text string strings or symbols (e.g., "ND", For
analytes that are not detected, the laboratory's sample specific MDL (i.e. with extract dilution factor, sample
volume/weight and final volume taken into account) is entered. Report result units in "Unit" field.



YES





LAB_FLAG

text

Laboratory qualifier codes. These flags apply to all samples (field and QC). See Valid Value list.

YES







CONCSPIKE

number double

Spiked concentration.

For unspiked samples enter "0" for method analytes. For spiked samples, enter the spike concentration representing the
estimated concentration in the final extract (i.e. with extract dilution factor, sample volume/weight and final volume
taken into account). For EIS and NIS, enter the spike concentration representing the concentration in the final extract in
units consistent with sample result units.



YES





Appendix 2, Page 1


-------
MLV Study - EDD Template Legend

Valid Value Required Default Primary
Field Datatype Definition „ , , „ ,

PERCENT_REC

number double

Calculated percent recovery.

For spiked samples (OPR, LLOPR, MDLs and LOQVER), enter the spike percentage recovery as a whole number (e.g., 95
versus 0.95). Do NOT include "%" symbol.

For EIS and NIS recoveries, enter the spike % recovery as a whole number (e.g., 95 versus 0.95).

For unspiked samples, leave blank.

Do NOT include "%".

Refer to the Sample Coding worksheet for information on populating this field.





null



MDL

number double

Method Detection Limit.

Enterthe sample specific MDL (i.e. with extract dilution factor, sample volume/weight and final volume taken into
account).





null



LOQ

number double

Limit of Quantitation.

Enterthe sample specific LOQ (i.e. with extract dilution factor, sample volume/weight and final volume taken into
account).





null



UNIT

text

Reporting unit. See Valid Value list.

YES

YES





SAMPLE_TRANSITION_l

number double

Calculated Transition Ratio (Quant Ion Area/Conf Ion Area).

Enterfor each analyte in the sample. For analytes this does not apply to (PFBA, PFPeA, NMeFOSE, NEtFOSE, PFMPA, and
PFMBA), leave this field blank.





null



EXPECTED_TRANSITIOI\

number double

Expected Transition Ratio (Quant Ion Area/Conf Ion Area).

Enterfor each analyte in the sample. For analytes this does not apply to (PFBA, PFPeA, NMeFOSE, NEtFOSE, PFMPA, and
PFMBA), leave this field blank.





null



RRT

text

Relative retention time









SAMPLE_SIZE

number double

Volume (aqueous samples) or weight (solid samples) of sample extracted (in liters for aqueous samples, in kilograms for
solids).



YES





SAMPLE SIZE UNIT

text

Will be liters (L) for aqueous samples or kilograms (Kg) for solid samples



YES





EXTRACTION_DATE

short date;
mm/dd/yyyy

Use format mm/dd/yyyy (e.g. 11/20/2019) - do not include time stamp.



YES





PERCMOISTURE

number double

Percent moisture in solid samples only. Enterthe percent moisture as a whole number (e.g., 73 versus 0.73). Do NOT
include "%" symbol.









MATRIX

text

Matrix of sample. See Valid values list.

Refer to the Sample Coding worksheet for information on populating this field.

YES

YES





METHOD

text

Laboratory SOP Name in format of "name(space)revision number"



YES





STUDY_PHASE

text

Multi-Lab Validation Study Phase. See Valid Value list.

YES

YES





SAMPLE_TYPE

text

See Valid values list.

Refer to the Sample Coding worksheet for information on populating this field.

YES

YES



X

Appendix 2, Page 2


-------
Combinations codes to use in the SAMPLE_NO, MATRIX and SAMPLE_TYPE fields.

Phase

SAMPLE_NO

Compound Type

Matrix

Sample_type

CONC_SPIKE

PERCENT_REC

Phase 4

GWAO

Method analytes

GW, SW, etc

NORMAL

0

NULL

Phase 4

GWAO

EIS

GW, SW, etc

EIS



Populated

Populated

Phase 4

GWAO

NIS

GW, SW, etc

NIS



Populated

Populated

Phase 4

MB

Method analytes

RW, OS, RT

BLANK



0

NULL

Phase 4

MB

EIS

RW, OS, RT

EIS



Populated

Populated

Phase 4

MB

NIS

RW, OS, RT

NIS



Populated

Populated

Phase 4

OPR*

Method analytes

QC

OPR



Populated

Populated

Phase 4

OPR*

EIS

QC

EIS



Populated

Populated

Phase 4

OPR*

NIS

QC

NIS



Populated

Populated

Phase 4

LLOPR*

Method analytes

QC

LLOPR



Populated

Populated

Phase 4

LLOPR*

EIS

QC

EIS



Populated

Populated

Phase 4

LLOPR*

NIS

QC

NIS



Populated

Populated

Phase 3 IDC

IPR*

Method analytes

QC

IPR



Populated

Populated

Phase 3 IDC

IPR*

EIS

QC

EIS



Populated

Populated

Phase 3 IDC

IPR*

NIS

QC

NIS



Populated

Populated

Phase 3 IDC

MDLB

Method analytes

RW, OS, RT

MDLB



0

NULL

Phase 3 IDC

MDLB

EIS

RW, OS, RT

EIS



Populated

Populated

Phase 3 IDC

MDLB

NIS

RW, OS, RT

NIS



Populated

Populated

Phase 3 IDC

MDLS*

Method analytes

QC

MDLS



Populated

Populated

Phase 3 IDC

MDLS*

EIS

QC

EIS



Populated

Populated

Phase 3 IDC

MDLS*

NIS

QC

NIS



Populated

Populated

Phase 3 IDC

LOQVER*

Method analytes

QC

LOQVER



Populated

Populated

Phase 3 IDC

LOQVER*

EIS

QC

EIS



Populated

Populated

Phase 3 IDC

LOQVER*

NIS

QC

NIS



Populated

Populated

Phase 3 IDC

MB

Method analytes

RW, OS, RT

BLANK



0

NULL

Phase 3 IDC

MB

EIS

RW, OS, RT

EIS



Populated

Populated

Phase 3 IDC

MB

NIS

RW, OS, RT

NIS



Populated

Populated

*spiked samples

Appendix 2, Page 3


-------
Valid Value list for EDD Template fields with constrained entries:

Field

Field sub-category

Value

Description |

ANALYSIS



PFAS

Default value.

LAB_FLAG



B

For analytes that were detected in the associated MB of a sample that exceeded K LOQ or is at
a concentration greater than l/10th the concentration in the sample, whichever is greatest. The
MB must also be flagged with a "B" for all concentrations greater than K the LOQ.

Lab_Flag



D

For analytes, EISs, and NISs reported from a dilution.

Lab_Flag



1

For analytes that fail to meet ion ratio criteria.

Lab_Flag



J

For analytes that were at a concentration between the MDL and LOQ.

Lab_Flag



U

For analytes that were not detected or were detected at a concentration less than the MDL.

MATRIX

Field samples

BS

Biosolid

MATRIX

Field samples

GW

Groundwater (method analytes, EIS, NIS)

MATRIX

Field samples

LC

Leachate

MATRIX

Field samples

SD

Sediment

MATRIX

Field samples

SS

Soil

MATRIX

Field samples

SW

Surface water

MATRIX

Field samples

TS

Tissue

MATRIX

Field samples

WW

Wastewater

MATRIX

Method blanks and MDLB

OS

Ottawa sand for all soil, sediment, and biosolid MBs

MATRIX

Method blanks and MDLB

RT

Reference Tissue for tissue MBs

MATRIX

Method blanks and MDLB

RW

Reagent water for all aqueous MBs

MATRIX

Quality Control sample

QC

Quality Control Sample

SAMPLE TYPE



BLANK

method analytes in MBs

SAMPLE_TYPE



EIS

EIS in all samples

SAMPLE TYPE



IPR

method analytes in IPR IDC samples

SAMPLE TYPE



LLOPR

method analytes in LLOPRs

SAMPLE TYPE



LOQVER

Method analytes in MDL LOQVER IDC samples

SAMPLE_TYPE



MDLB

Method analytes in MDL Blank IDC samples

SAMPLE TYPE



MDLS

Method analytes in MDL Spike IDC samples

SAMPLE TYPE



NIS

NIS in all samples

SAMPLE TYPE



NORMAL

method analytes in field samples

SAMPLE TYPE



OPR

method analytes in OPRs

STUDY PHASE



Phase 3

Initial Demonstration of Capabilities (IDC)

STUDY PHASE



Phase 4.4.1

GW, SW, LC, and WW matrices

STUDY PHASE



Phase 4.4.2

SS, SD, and BS matrices

STUDY_PHASE



Phase 4.4.3

Tissue matrices

UNIT



ng/L

nanograms per liter

UNIT



ug/kg

micrograms per kilogram

Appendix 2, Page 4


-------
Valid Value list for EDD Template fields PFAS_ACRONYM, COMPOUND and CAS_NO:

PFAS_ACRONYM

COMPOUND

CAS_NO

Result_Type

13C2-4:2FTS

lH,lH,2H,2H-Perfluoro-l-[l,2-13C2]hexanesulfonic acid



EIS

13C2-6:2FTS

lH,lH,2H,2H-Perfluoro-l-[l,2-13C2]octanesulfonic acid



EIS

13C2-8:2FTS

lH,lH,2H,2H-Perfluoro-l-[l,2-13C2]decanesulfonic acid



EIS

13C2-PFDoA

Perfluoro-n-[l,2-13C2]dodecanoic acid



EIS

13C2-PFTeDA

Perfluoro-n-[l,2-13C2]tetradecanoic acid



EIS

13C3-HFPO-DA

Tetrafluoro-2-heptafluoropropoxy-13C3-propanoic acid



EIS

13C3-PFBS

Perfluoro-l-[2,3,4-13C3]butanesulfonic acid



EIS

13C3-PFHxS

Perfluoro-l-[l,2,3-13C3]hexanesulfonic acid



EIS

13C4-PFBA

Perfluoro-n-[13C4]butanoic acid



EIS

13C4-PFHpA

Perfluoro-n-[l,2,3,4-13C4]heptanoic acid



EIS

13C5-PFHxA

Perfluoro-n-[l,2,3,4,6-13C5]hexanoic acid



EIS

13C5-PFPeA

Perfluoro-n-[13C5]pentanoic acid



EIS

13C6-PFDA

Perfluoro-n-[l,2,3,4,5,6-13C6]decanoic acid



EIS

13C7-PFUnA

Perfluoro-n-[l,2,3,4,5,6,7-13C7]undecanoic acid



EIS

13C8-PFOA

Perfluoro-n-[13C8]octanoic acid



EIS

13C8-PFOS

Perfluoro-l-[13C8]octanesulfonic acid



EIS

13C8-PFOSA

Perfluoro-l-[13C8]octanesulfonamide



EIS

13C9-PFNA

Perfluoro-n-[13C9]nonanoic acid



EIS

D3-NMeFOSA

N-methyl-d3-perfluoro-l-octanesulfonamide



EIS

D3-NMeFOSAA

N-methyl-d3-perfluoro-l-octanesulfonamidoacetic acid



EIS

D5-NEtFOSA

N-ethyl-d5-perfluoro-l-octanesulfonamide



EIS

D5-NEtFOSAA

N-ethyl-d5-perfluoro-l-octanesulfonamidoacetic acid



EIS

D7-NMeFOSE

N-methyl-d7-perfluorooctanesulfonamidoethanol



EIS

D9-NEtFOSE

N-ethyl-d9-perfluorooctanesulfonamidoethanol



EIS

13C2-PFDA

Perfluoro-n-[l,2-13C2]decanoic acid



NIS

13C2-PFHxA

Perfluoro-n-[l,2-13C2]hexanoic acid



NIS

13C3-PFBA

Perfluoro-n-[2,3,4-13C3]butanoic acid



NIS

13C4-PFOA

Perfluoro-n-[l,2,3,4-13C4]octanoic acid



NIS

13C4-PFOS

Perfluoro-n-[l,2,3,4-13C4]octanesulfonic acid



NIS

13C5-PFNA

Perfluoro-n-[l,2,3,4,5-13C5]nonanoic acid



NIS

1802-PFHxS

Perfluoro-l-hexane[1802]sulfonic acid



NIS

llCI-PF30UdS

ll-chloroeicosafluoro-3-oxaundecane-l-sulfonic acid

763051-92-9

Mei

Appendix 2, Page 5


-------
Valid Value list for EDD Template fields PFAS_ACRONYM, COMPOUND and CAS_NO:

| PFAS_ACRONYM

| COMPOUND

| CAS_NO

| Result_Type |

3:3FTCA

3-Perfluoropropyl propanoic acid

356-02-5

Method analytes

4:2 FTS

lH,lH,2H,2H-Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid

757124-72-4

Method analytes

5:3FTCA

2H,2H,3H,3H-Perfluorooctanoic acid

914637-49-3

Method analytes

6:2 FTS

lH,lH,2H,2H-Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid

27619-97-2

Method analytes

7:3FTCA

3-Perfluoroheptyl propanoic acid

812-70-4

Method analytes

8:2 FTS

lH,lH,2H,2H-Perfluorodecane sulfonic acid

39108-34-4

Method analytes

9CI-PF30NS

9-chlorohexadecafluoro-3-oxanonane-l-sulfonic acid

756426-58-1

Method analytes

ADONA

4,8-dioxa-3H-perfluorononanoic acid

919005-14-4

Method analytes

HFPO-DA

Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid

13252-13-6

Method analytes

NEtFOSA

N-ethyl perfluorooctanesulfonamide

4151-50-2

Method analytes

NEtFOSAA

N-ethyl perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid

2991-50-6

Method analytes

NEtFOSE

N-ethyl perfluorooctanesulfonamidoethanol

1691-99-2

Method analytes

NFDHA

Nonafluoro-3,6-dioxaheptanoic acid

151772-58-6

Method analytes

NMeFOSA

N-methyl perfluorooctanesulfonamide

31506-32-8

Method analytes

NMeFOSAA

N-methyl perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid

2355-31-9

Method analytes

NMeFOSE

N-methyl perfluorooctanesulfonamidoethanol

24448-09-7

Method analytes

PFBA

Perfluorobutanoic acid

375-22-4

Method analytes

PFBS

Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

375-73-5

Method analytes

PFDA

Perfluorodecanoic acid

335-76-2

Method analytes

PFDoA

Perfluorododecanoic acid

307-55-1

Method analytes

PFDoS

Perfluorododecanesulfonic acid

79780-39-5

Method analytes

PFDS

Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid

335-77-3

Method analytes

PFEESA

Perfluoro(2-ethoxyethane)sulfonic acid

113507-82-7

Method analytes

PFHpA

Perfluoroheptanoic acid

375-85-9

Method analytes

PFHpS

Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid

375-92-8

Method analytes

PFHxA

Perfluorohexanoic acid

307-24-4

Method analytes

PFHxS

Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

355-46-4

Method analytes

PFMBA

Perfluoro-4-methoxybutanoic acid

863090-89-5

Method analytes

PFMPA

Perfluoro-3-methoxypropanoic acid

377-73-1

Method analytes

PFNA

Perfluorononanoic acid

375-95-1

Method analytes

PFNS

Perfluorononanesulfonic acid

68259-12-1

Method analytes

PFOA

Perfluorooctanoic acid

335-67-1

Method analytes

Appendix 2, Page 6


-------
Valid Value list for EDD Template fields PFAS_ACRONYM, COMPOUND and CAS_NO:

PFAS_ACRONYM |	COMPOUND	|	CAS_NO | Result_Type

PFOS

Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

1763-23-1

Method analytes

PFOSA

Perfluorooctanesulfonamide

754-91-6

Method analytes

PFPeA

Perfluoropentanoic acid

2706-90-3

Method analytes

PFPeS

Perfluoropentanesulfonic acid

2706-91-4

Method analytes

PFTeDA

Perfluorotetradecanoic acid

376-06-7

Method analytes

PFTrDA

Perfluorotridecanoic acid

72629-94-8

Method analytes

PFUnA

Perfluoroundecanoic acid

2058-94-8

Method analytes

Appendix 2, Page 7


-------
Supplemental guidance for correctly populating the EDD Template:

Item Guidance

1	If possible, include all results in one worksheet.

2	We will be running QA/QC routines on the EDDs to ensure they are populated correctly. These will be delivered to you in an Excel file (e.g.,
LABNAME_RW_verO_EDD_Error_Summary.xlsx).

If you have questions/issues regarding the Error Summary report, please incorporate comments directly into the Excel file and send it back to us for review (via SharePoint).

3	Instructions for reporting CONC_FOUND for NIS compounds:

1.	Option 1: Report NIS Mass in CONC_FOUND, and in the accompanying report provide example calculation and point to where the data in the numerator (e.g., field sample)
and the denominator (e.g. CCV) are found.

2.	Option2: Complete the EDDs with the NIS percent recoveries based on areas (i.e., no mass reported). CONC_FOUND does not need to be populated.

a. If Option 2 is selected then

i.	In the report provide the formula and example calculations for one sample per batch

ii.	Point to where those areas values are found in their data packages (i.e., ensure they have reported the NIS area for the field (target) sample and the comparative area
from either the mid-point ofthe ICAL, CCV, or equivalent.

4	Instructions for populating EDD when a single sample is serving the purpose ofthe MDLB and MB samples:

1.	Copy the results and code the SAMPLE_NO field as 'MDLB' for one set of results, and 'MB' for the other set of results.

2.	Ensure that the case narrative clearly identifies that the blank sample was used for multiple purposes.

5	Ensure that B flags are applied as indicated by the instructions:

"For analytes that were detected in the associated MB of a sample that exceeded Vi LOQ or is at a concentration greaterthan l/10th the concentration in the sample,
whichever is greatest. The MB must also be flagged with a "B" for all concentrations greaterthan Vi the LOQ."

If the CONC_FOUND is between the MDL and LOQ AND it is at a concentration greaterthan 1/2 LOQ, the flag should be BJ or JB.

6	Although the instructions for the CONC_FOUND field indicate "For analytes that are not detected, the laboratory's sample specific MDL", the exceptions are for the following sample
types, where CONC_FOUND can be less than the MDL:

MDLS
LOQVER

Blanks (MB and MDLB)

7	For instances where there are re-analysis not due to dilution, all results must be reported in the EDD (i.e., the original analysis and all subseqent re-analysis).

8 The Sample Coding spreadsheet lists the mandatory batch QC samples that are required for Phase 3 and Phase 4 submittals. All mandatory batch QC samples must be present in the
EDD submittals.

Appendix 2, Page 8


-------
Supplemental guidance for correctly populating the EDD Template:

Item Guidance

9	Do not add suffixes to SAMPLE_NO (e.g., IPR1, MLDB 2) - LAB_SAMPLE_ID will differentiate samples.

10	Fields that must be reported to 3 significant figures:

CONC_FOUND

CONC_SPIKE

PERCENT_REC

MDL

LOQ

SAMPLE_TRANSITION_RATIO
EXPECTED_TRANSITION_RATIO

Note that the results in these fields must be rounded appropriately to 3 significant figures. Changing the display for the number of decimal places is not sufficient.

11	Solids are reported on a dry-weight basis. Tissues are reported on a wet-weight basis.

12	UNIT field must be consistent across all samples.

13	The reporting units for this project are parts per trill ion (ppt) or nanograms per liter (ng/L) for aqueous samples and parts per billion micrograms per kilogram (|ig/kg) for solid
samples.

14	Do not include text in number fiels (e.g. N/A, %, ND, <).

15	Percent recovery must be reported in the EDD for IPR samples.

Appendix 2, Page 9


-------
Attachment 5
Study Data Validation Guidelines

(Dated 01/10/22)


-------
Data Validation
Procedure for Per- and
Polyfluoroalkyl
Substances Results
from the Multi-laboratory
Validation Study

FINAL 01/10/2022


-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS

DATA VALIDATION PROCEDURE FOR PER- AND POLYFLUOROALKYL SUBSTANCES RESULTS FROM THE

MULTI-LABORATORY VALIDATION STUDY	1

1.0 Purpose	1

2.0 Procedure	1

2.1	Introduction	1

2.2	Deliverables	1

2.3	Validation Stages	2

3.0 Stage 1 Validation	2

3.1	Sample Results	3

3.2	Chain of Custody (CoC)	4

3.3	Sample Preservation, Handling, and Transport	4

3.4	Holding Times	5

4.0 Stage 2A Validation	5

4.1	Ion Ratio	6

4.2	Extracted Internal Standard (EIS) Recovery	6

4.3	Non-Extracted Internal Standard (NIS) Recovery	7

4.4	Ongoing Precision and Recovery (OPR) Sample and Low-Level Ongoing Precision and Recovery (LLOPR)
Sample	8

4.5	Method Blanks	8

4.6	Extract Dilution and Reanalysis	9

4.7	Bile Salts Interference Check	10

4.8	Qualitative Identification Standard	10

5.0 Stage 2B Validation	11

5.1	Sequence and Preparation Logs	11

5.2	Mass Calibration and Mass Calibration Verifications	11

5.3	Initial Calibration	12

5.4	Calibration Verification, and Instrument Sensitivity Check	14

5.5	Instrument Blanks	15

6.0 Stage 3 Validation	15

6.1	Samples and Field QC	15

6.2	Method QC	16

6.3	Instrument QC	17

6.4	Standards Traceability	18

6.5	Method Detection Limit Studies	19

6.6	Limit of Quantitation Verification Studies	19

6.7	Initial Precision and Recovery Studies	20

7.0 Stage 4 Validation	20

7.1	Target Compound Identification	20

7.2	Manual Integrations	21

Appendix A: Formulas used in Stages 3 and 4 Data Validation	23


-------
Data Validation Procedure for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl
Substances Results from the Multi-laboratory Validation
Study	

1.0 Purpose

This document provides guidance on the validation of data generated by Liquid
Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) analysis for per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) according to the Multi-Laboratory Validation (MLV)

Study Method. The objective of this procedure is to provide the end user with a clear
understanding of the quality and limitations of the data through documented validation
procedures and to encourage consistency in the validation technique and reporting of data
generated by the MLV Study of Draft EPA Method 1633.

This document assumes the user is familiar with data validation conventions and qualifiers
used in the DoD General Data Validation Guidelines (2019). This document is not intended
to obviate the need for professional judgment during the validation process.

2.0	Procedure

2.1	Introduction

This document was written with primary consideration to the MLV Study Plan and the MLV
Study Method. This guidance is to be applied to PFAS data generated in support of the
MLV Study of Draft EPA Method 1633. This guidance should be implemented by personnel
familiar with the methodology contained herein.

Data validation personnel are responsible for implementing this procedure for validation of
data and generation of data validation reports for the MLV Study of Draft EPA Method
1633.

2.2	Deliverables

Laboratory data deliverables consist of a combination of forms and raw data. The manner in
which laboratories label their forms is not dictated nor specified. The labeling convention
below is used for simplicity.

•	Cover Sheet

•	Table of Contents

•	Case Narrative

•	Sample Receipt and Conditions Summary

•	Sample Results Summary

•	Transition Ion Summary

•	Sample Transition Ion Ratio Summary

•	Extracted Internal Standard Recovery and Retention Time Summary

•	Non-Extracted Internal Standard Recovery and Retention Time Summary

•	Ongoing Precision and Recovery Sam pie/Low-Level Ongoing Precision and
Recovery Sample Recovery Summary

Page 1 of 26


-------
•	Method Blank Summary

•	Sample Dilution and Reanalysis Summary

•	Bile Salts Interference Check Summary

•	Qualitative Identification Standards Summary

•	Sequence and Preparation Logs (or equivalent to include Instrument Blanks)

•	Mass Calibration and Mass Calibration Verification Check Summary

•	Initial Calibration Summary (any equivalent to include the Initial Calibration Analyte
Responses, Isomeric Profiles, Average Response Factors, and Regression)

•	Calibration Verifications and Instrument Sensitivity Check Summary

•	Manufacturer provided Certificate of Analysis for Standards

•	Raw Data- including quantitative and confirmation transition ion chromatograms,
peak areas, and ion ratios

2.3 Validation Stages

The types of laboratory data deliverables, staged data validation, and the relationship
between the two are outlined in the DoD General Data Validation Guidelines.

Stage 1 data validation consists of a review of sample results forms, associated sample
receipt summaries (chain of custody), and field QC data.

Stages 2A and 2B data validation consist of review of summary forms only.

Stages 3 and 4 data validation require review of both summary forms and all associated
raw data.

This MLV Study is using Stage 4 validation for all of the data review. Both the
laboratory deliverable and the stage of validation required by the MLV Study are specified
in MLV Study Plan. Specifically, each laboratory deliverable must include all of the
elements required to conduct the level of data validation required for the study, which is
Stage 4 data validation (see Section 7.0). Data review guidelines and how they apply to the
different validation stages are indicated in the following sections.

3.0 Stage 1 Validation

The following documents should be reviewed for representativeness (compliance with
required analytical protocols outlined in the MLV STUDY PLAN), completeness, and project
sensitivity needs:

•	Cover Sheet

•	Table of Contents

•	Case Narrative

•	Sample Results form or equivalent Laboratory Report

•	Transition Ion Summary

•	Chain-of-Custody (CoC) forms, Laboratory Receipt Checklists, and other supporting
records

Stage 1 is the validation of investigative and field QC samples.

Page 2 of 26


-------
3.1 Sample Results

Examine the Laboratory Report sample results and verify the following information,
ensuring that:

•	Holding times have been met, as applicable

•	All project target analytes have been analyzed and are reported

•	All ion transitions used for quantitation and confirmation are identified

•	All project target analytes whose quantitation includes branched and linear isomers
are identified

•	All sample identification labels are unique, and match the chain of custody

•	All laboratory reported Method Detection Limits (MDLs) and Limits of Quantitation
(LOQs) have sample preparation factors and dilutions taken into account

•	All analyte results are reported from the lowest dilution possible (i.e., the lowest
dilution for which QC parameters are met)

•	All reported units (e.g., ng/L) are accurate and reflect the requirements of the MLV
Study Plan and Method and that units are consistent with the type of sample matrix

•	Soil, sediment, and biosolid samples have been reported on a dry-weight basis

•	Tissue samples have been reported on a wet-weight basis

•	Each laboratory report has a case narrative that explains all non-conformities with
the data

For sample results (assuming no other qualifications due to data quality issues):

Qualification of data is based upon the reporting requirements of the MLV Study Plan and
Method.

Any detects between the MDL and LOQ are qualified as estimated J. Values below the
MDL are considered non-detects and are qualified as U at the stated MDL.

Evaluation of the Laboratory Report

Any samples received for analysis that were not analyzed should be noted in the data
validation report, along with the reason(s) for failure to analyze the samples, if the reason(s)
can be determined; conversely, samples that were analyzed by LC/MS/MS but were not
requested should also be noted.

Check that all 40 PFAS included in the scope of the MLV Study method have been reported
by the laboratory.

Errors in reported units and case narrative non-conformities that call into question the
quality of the data should be discussed in the data validation report.

Generally speaking, errors in quantitation limits or missing or misidentified samples may
require a higher than Stage 1 validation, but this study is only using Stage 4. Data
validators are encouraged to reach out to the MLV Study QA Manager
(Janice.willey@navy.mil) and communicate issues when preparing the data validation
report.

Page 3 of 26


-------
The transitions provided in the MLV Study Method, Table 2 must be used, unless
interference renders the required product ion unusable. In these cases, MLV Study
approval is required before using the alternative product ion. When evaluating the Sample
Transition Ion Summary, if the ion transitions specified in the MLV Study Method, Table 2,
are not used for quantitation, the technical justification provided in the case narrative should
be reviewed. If a technical justification is not provided or the explanation provided does not
provide a technical justification for the change, use professional judgment to qualify the
data and all affected results must be noted in the data validation report. Use of any
quantitative transitions other than those listed in the MLV Study Method, Table 2 must be
identified in the data validation report.

3.2	Chain of Custody (CoC)

Examine the CoC form (some information may be included on Laboratory Receipt
Checklists) for legibility and check that all of the samples have been analyzed and reported
by the laboratory. Ensure that the CoC sample identification on the Laboratory Sample
Results Form matches the sample identification on the CoC. Read the laboratory case
narrative for additional information.

Evaluation of the CoC

Any discrepancies in sample naming between the CoC and sample results form should be
noted in the data validation report with the correct sample name being identified in the
report and on the appropriate summary form, if the correct sample name can be
determined. These edit corrections should also be verified in any associated electronic data
deliverables (EDDs). If any samples submitted to the laboratory were not analyzed, contact
the MLV Study point of contact as soon as possible.

3.3	Sample Preservation, Handling, and Transport

Evaluate sample handling, transport, and laboratory receipt from the CoC and laboratory
receipt checklists to ensure that the samples have been properly handled. The MLV Study
Method specifies temperatures for sample shipment to the laboratory and sample storage
at the laboratory. The following are general guidance if project specifications were not
stipulated.

Evaluation of Preservation, Handling, and Transport

If the temperature of receipt is outside of the acceptable range required by the MLV Study
Method, the discrepancy, identifying which samples were affected, should be documented
in the data validation report.

In the event that both a cooler temperature and a temperature blank were measured, the
temperature blank should be evaluated for temperature compliance as it best assimilates
the condition of the samples; however, both temperatures shall be noted in the data
validation report. If the temperature upon receipt at the laboratory was not recorded, note
this in the data validation report.

Page 4 of 26


-------
3.4 Holding Times

Holding times for PFAS are measured from the date of collection (as shown on the CoC) to
the time of sample extraction and analysis (as shown on the sample results form or
extraction log). Based on input from the DoD Environmental Data Quality Workgroup
(EDQW), holding time exceedances are calculated as follows:

Total holding time is based on the time frame (i.e., hours, days, or months) of the
requirement. The following example gives guidance on how holding time exceedances are
measured:

For a test with a recommended maximum holding time measured in days, the holding time
is tracked by the day.

•	An exceedance of holding time for a sample with a 14-day holding time will occur
when the 15th day is reached. Therefore, a sample with a 14-day holding time
collected at 8:30 AM on April 4th must be analyzed or extracted before 12:00 AM
April 19th (midnight, the start of the 15th day), or an exceedance has occurred.

The MLV Study Method specifies the holding time requirements.

Evaluation of Holding Times

If the holding time is exceeded, document that holding time was exceeded in the data
validation report.

4.0 Stage 2A Validation

Note: Stage 2A includes all of Stage 1

Stage 2A requires the review and qualification of the following summary documents:

•	Sample Transition Ion Ratio Summary

•	Extracted Internal Standard Recovery and Retention Time Summary

•	Non-Extracted Internal Standard Recovery and Retention Time Summary

•	Ongoing Precision and Recovery Sam pie/Low-Level Ongoing Precision and
Recovery Sample Recovery Summary

•	Method Blank Summary

•	Extract Dilution and Reanalysis Summary

•	Bile Salts Interference Check Summary

•	Qualitative Identification Standards Summary

Stage 2A is the validation of preparation batch specific QC data in addition to any sample
specific parameters included in Stage 1.

Generally, a "preparation batch" of samples consists of 20 field samples (maximum) along
with blank, and control type QC samples. They must be analyzed together on a single
instrument. If multiple instrumentation is used, it should be noted in the data validation
report.

Page 5 of 26


-------
4.1 Ion Ratio

Ion ratios can be used to help determine if the matrix of the sample has resulted in a bias in
the data. Ion ratios must be determined in accordance with the requirements of the MLV
Study Method. To determine if a bias has potentially occurred, the ion ratio is evaluated
against the ion ratio of the mid-point initial calibration standard, which do not contain matrix
interferences. Ion ratios should not exceed 50-150% of the ion ratio observed in the mid-
point initial calibration standard. In addition, if the concentration reported for an analyte falls
between the MDL and LOQ, the ion ratios should also not exceed 50-150% of the ion ratio
observed in the initial daily CV.

Evaluation of Ion Ratios

Verify the ion ratio(s) for each detect were reported and met the requirements of the MLV
Study Method. For detects reported with ion ratios exceeding the 50-150% acceptance
criteria, qualify the sample results as suspect I and note all affected results in the data
validation report. Values reported with an I qualifier are estimated values. Ion ratio failures
could be caused by matrix interference and/or be the result of the presence of isomers in
the sample at different ratios than the ratio of isomers present in the calibration standards.
A full evaluation (Stage 4 validation) of the raw data and quantitation report is necessary to
fully evaluate the potential cause of the failure.

4.2 Extracted Internal Standard (EIS) Recovery

Extracted Internal Standard (EIS) recoveries are used to correct for bias associated with
matrix interferences and sample preparation efficiencies, injection volume variances,
chromatographic behavior, and mass spectrometry ionization efficiency. All samples,
standards, QC samples (including blanks) are fortified with EIS compounds. EIS
compounds are added to the solid sample prior to extraction and to an aqueous sample in
the original sample container prior to extraction. EIS recoveries are quantitated with respect
to Non-Extracted Internal Standard (NIS) responses using the response ratios or response
factors from the most recent multi-level initial calibration.

Verify that EIS recoveries and acceptance limits were reported for all field samples, batch
QC samples, standards, and instrument blanks.

Sample and batch QC sample EIS percent recoveries should be within target control limits
of the MLV Study Method of 20 - 150%. Verify that no samples or batch QC have EIS
percent recoveries outside the criteria.

The EIS retention times (RTs) for all field and QC samples should be within 0.40 minutes of
the retention time of the midpoint standard in the ICAL, or on days when an ICAL is not
performed, the initial CV is used.

Evaluation of Extracted Internal Standards

If EIS percent recoveries are out of specification with no evidence of reanalysis, justification
should be noted in the laboratory case narrative (e.g., limited extract volume prevented
reanalysis). If justification is not noted, the point of contact identified for the MLV Study Plan
should be reached for further guidance.

Page 6 of 26


-------
If the EIS percent recovery control criteria displayed in the deliverable are not the same
ranges stipulated in the MLV Study Method, reference the required control ranges for
evaluation instead of the summarized ranges in the deliverable. The point of contact
identified for the MLV Study should be informed to implement changes to the current
deliverables or those to be created in the future.

If extremely low area counts are reported (< 10%), detects and non-detects should be
qualified X.

If an EIS retention time varies by more than 0.40 minutes, use professional judgment to
qualify the sample results and note all affected results in the data validation report.

EIS results may not be reported as "diluted out" since they are used as the internal
standard for calculation of the native analyte. A full evaluation (Stage 4 validation) of the
sample, chromatogram, mass spectral ions and quantitation report may be necessary to
determine that diluted analytes are quantified correctly.

Some extracts may require dilution to bring analytes within the calibration range or resolve
interferences with EIS compounds. This can result in EIS dilution to the point that EIS
recoveries may not be sufficiently measurable and would require EIS fortification to the
diluted extract. In these instances, detects for analytes quantified from this type of diluted
extract should be identified in the data validation report.

4.3 Non-Extracted Internal Standard (NIS) Recovery

Non-Extracted Internal Standard (NIS) peak areas are used to quantify EIS recoveries. NIS
analytes are labeled PFAS compounds spiked into the concentrated extract immediately
prior to injection of an aliquot of the extract into the LC-MS/MS.

Verify that NIS recoveries and acceptance limits were reported for all field samples, batch
QC samples, standards, and instrument blanks.

Sample and batch QC NIS peak areas must be greater than 30% of the average area of the
corresponding NIS in the calibration standards. Verify that no samples or batch QC have
NIS peak areas outside the criteria.

If any NIS peak area is out of specification, then a reanalysis should be performed and
reported. The laboratory should have reported the first run if the second was still
unsuccessful. If the second run did not confirm the failure, it should have been reported.

The NIS retention times (RTs) for all field and QC samples should be within 0.40 minutes of
the retention time of the midpoint standard in the ICAL, or on days when an ICAL is not
performed, the initial CV is used.

Evaluation of Non-Extracted Internal Standards

If NIS peak areas are out of specification, justification should be noted in the laboratory
case narrative (e.g., limited sample extract volume prevented reanalysis). If justification is
not noted, the point of contact identified in the MLV Study Plan should be reached for
further guidance.

Page 7 of 26


-------
If the control range documented in the deliverable does not correlate to 30% of the average
area of the corresponding NIS in the calibration standards, reference the required control
ranges for evaluation instead of the summarized ranges in the deliverable. The point of
contact identified in the MLV Study Plan should be informed to implement changes to the
current deliverables or those to be created in the future.

If low area counts are reported (< 30%), detects and non-detects should be qualified X.

If an NIS retention time varies by more than 0.40 minutes, use professional judgment to
qualify the sample results and note all affected results in the data validation report.

NIS results may not be reported as "diluted out" since they are used as the internal
standard for calculation of the EIS recoveries. A full evaluation (Stage 4 validation) of the
sample, chromatogram, mass spectral ions and quantitation report may be necessary to
determine that diluted analytes are quantified correctly.

4.4	Ongoing Precision and Recovery (OPR) Sample and Low-Level Ongoing
Precision and Recovery (LLOPR) Sample

An OPR is an analyte-free reference matrix spiked with known amounts of the analytes of
interest and taken through all sample preparation, cleanup and analytical steps. OPRs
establish the method precision and bias for a specific batch of samples. LLOPRs verify the
LOQ. An LLOPR is an OPR spiked at a low concentration (2x the LOQ), while the OPR is
spiked at mid-level concentration relative to the calibration range.

OPR (sometimes called a "Blank Spike") and LLOPR recoveries should be within 40-150%
recovery.

Evaluation of OPR/LLOPR

Verify that results (from appropriate summary form), spiking levels, percent recoveries, and
acceptance limits were reported for all target analytes.

If the spike percent recovery control criteria displayed in the deliverable are not the same
range (i.e., outside or wider than) as those stipulated in the MLV Study Method, reference
the required control ranges for evaluation instead of the summarized ranges in the
deliverable. The point of contact identified in the MLV Study Plan should be informed to
implement changes to the current deliverables or those to be created in the future.

If the analyte recoveries in the OPR or LLOPR are outside of the MLV Study Method target
recovery criteria of 40 - 150% or are not spiked at the required level, qualify the affected
data with a J and identify the non-conformance in the data validation report.

4.5	Method Blanks

A method blank is used to identify systemic contamination originating in the laboratory that
may have a detrimental effect on project sample results. The validator should identify
samples associated with each method blank using a method blank summary form (or
equivalent). Verify that the method blank has been reported per batch. Compare the results
of each method blank with the associated sample results. The reviewer should note that the
blank analyses may not involve the same weights, volumes, percent moistures, or dilution

Page 8 of 26


-------
factors as the associated samples. Care should be taken to factor in the percent moisture
or dilution factor when doing comparisons between detects in the sample and the method
blank.

In the method blank, no analytes should be detected > Vz LOQ or > 1/1 Oth the amount
measured in any sample, whichever is greater.

Evaluation of Method Blanks

If no method blank was prepared and analyzed with a batch of samples, identify the non-
conformance in the data validation report. The point of contact identified in the MLV Study
Plan should be informed of this nonconformance as soon as possible.

Compare the results of each method blank with the associated sample results. The
reviewer should note that the blank analyses.

•	If an analyte is detected in the method blank, but not in the associated samples, no
action is taken.

•	If an analyte is detected in the method blank (at any concentration) and in the
associated samples, the action taken depends on both the blank and sample
concentrations (Table I).

Table I: Blank Qualifications

Sample

Result

Validated Result

Validation Qualifier

< MDL

Report at MDL

U

> MDL and < 5x MB result

Report at Sample Result

J+

> 5x MB result

Report at Sample Result

None

VIDL = Method Detection Limit

Note: The laboratory B qualifier is maintained, and the validation qualifier is added in
addition to the laboratory qualifier.

4.6 Extract Dilution and Reanalysis

The MLV Study Plan and Method require aqueous samples to be prepared using the entire
sample volume received; sample dilutions are not permitted. If the entire sample received
by the laboratory was not prepared, document the nonconformance in the data validation
report. Dilutions of sample extracts are required by the MLV Study Method when
concentrations of target analytes exceed the quantification range or EIS failures are
associated with a sample and matrix interference is suspected. Reanalysis of samples is
required by the MLV Study Method when NIS or EIS compounds fail to meet the MLV Study
Method acceptance criteria.

Evaluation of Extract Dilution and Reanalysis

When sample results are reported for a sample at more than one dilution due to analyte
concentrations exceeding the calibration curve, the dilution that results in the lowest
MDL/LOQ should be used each target analyte unless a QC criterion has been exceeded.

Page 9 of 26


-------
The data validation report should indicate the reason for all reported dilutions resulting in
elevated sensitivity limits for non-detected results.

When reanalysis has occurred due to quality control non-conformities, the validator should
ensure that the non-conformity was corrected during the reanalysis. If that is not the case,
then the appropriate qualifier should be placed on the reported results.

In some cases, using professional judgment, the validator may determine that an alternate
result was more appropriate than the one reported. In those cases, explain the rationale for
accepting the alternate result in the data validation report.

4.7	Bile Salts Interference Check

A bile salts interference check standard consisting of taurodeoxycholic acid (TDCA) when
the mobile phase used for analysis is acetonitrile, or taurodeoxycholic acid (TDCA),
taurochenodeoxycholic acid (TCDA), and tauroursodeoxycholic acid (TUDCA) when an
alternate mobile phase is used, must be analyzed daily, prior to analysis of all matrix types
(aqueous, solid, and tissue). During the retention time calibration process, conditions are
adjusted to ensure that bile salt peaks do not coelute with any of the target analytes, EIS, or
NIS standards. Analytical conditions must be set to allow a separation of at least 1 minute
between retention time of the bile salts and the retention time window of PFOS.

All MLV Study Method requirements for evaluation of the relationship of the retention time
of the TDCA peak to the retention time of PFOS must be met. The retention time of PFOS
applies to the retention time of all isomers of PFOS.

Evaluation of the Bile Salts Interference Check

If no bile salts interference check standard was analyzed or the required separation was not
achieved, discuss the nonconformance in the data validation report.

4.8	Qualitative Identification Standard

A qualitative identification standard(s) containing a mixture of the branched and linear
isomers of PFOA, PFNA, PFOSA, NMeFOSA, NEtFOSA, NEtFOSE, and NMeFOSE must
be analyzed daily, prior to analysis of all samples. This qualitative standard should be used
to determine the retention time of branched isomers of these target analytes in samples.
The only target analytes that should include branched isomers in their quantitation are
those whose retention times match those determined by a qualitative standard(s) or
quantitative standard that contained an isomeric mixture of the target analyte that was used
to create the calibration standards (PFOS, PFHxS, NMeFOSAA, and NEtFOSAA).

Evaluation of the qualitative standard

The qualitative identification standard summary should include the retention times and
retention time windows for each target analyte determined by qualitative identification
standard. If the required qualitative standards were not analyzed with the samples, the
target analyte quantitation included branched isomers not identified in the qualitative
standard, or the target analyte quantitation did not include branched isomers identified in

Page 10 of 26


-------
the qualitative standard and present in the sample, discuss the nonconformance in the data
validation report.

5.0	Stage 2B Validation

Note: Stage 2B includes all of Stage 1, and Stage 2A

Stage 2B requires the review and qualification of the following summary documents for
each instrument.

•	Sequence and Preparation Logs (or equivalent to include Instrument Blanks)

•	Mass Calibration and Mass Calibration Verification Summary

•	Initial Calibration Summary (any equivalent to include the Initial Calibration Analyte
Responses, Spike Concentrations, Isomeric Profiles, Response Ratios (RRs) or
Response Factors (RFs), RR or RF Relative Standard Deviation or Relative
standard Error)

•	Instrument Blank Summary

•	Calibration Verification and Instrument Sensitivity Check Summaries
Stage 2B adds for review, the validation of instrument specific QC data.

5.1	Sequence and Preparation Logs

Sequence logs are reviewed by the data validator to ensure all QC samples (both batch-
and instrument-specific) had been analyzed within a specific batch, in the correct order
(Section 13.0 of MLV Study Method). Preparation logs are reviewed by the data validator to
ensure that samples had the proper extraction performed (Section 12 of MLV Study
Method), within specified holding times. The logs themselves do not require validation.
However, non-conformities uncovered in the review of the logs may point the validator to
specific samples that require further review. Non-conformities uncovered in preparation or
sequence logs should be noted in the data validation report.

Sequence logs are helpful in identifying when multiple instruments are used to analyze a
batch of samples. For example, it is not uncommon to analyze a single batch of 20 samples
at the same time on two or more instruments. At a minimum, mass calibration and mass
calibration verification documentation should be included for each instrument used. Batch
QC should be reviewed on each instrument, as appropriate. Non-conformities involving the
use of multiple instruments should be noted in the data validation report.

5.2	Mass Calibration and Mass Calibration Verifications

A mass calibration of the LC/MS/MS instrument is required prior to analysis of an initial
calibration curve. The mass calibration must meet all of the requirements included in the
MLV Study Method. A mass calibration verification is performed after the mass calibration
to ensure mass resolution, identification, and to some degree, sensitivity are all within
criteria. Conformance is determined using reference standards; therefore, acceptance
criteria should be met in all circumstances. Check that all samples and associated QC
analyses are associated with an acceptable mass calibration verification.

Page 11 of 26


-------
Make certain that a mass calibration verification has been performed prior to the initial
calibration used. The mass calibration verification should verify a mass range which
includes the ion masses of all quantitative and qualitative ion masses of the target analytes
of this method. Unit resolution should be such that the value of the peak width at half-
height is within 0.5 ± 0.1 amu or Da. The peak apex should not shift more than 0.1 Da from
the expected masses for each target analyte.

Evaluation of Mass Calibration and Mass Calibration Verifications

If the mass calibration and/or mass calibration verifications do not meet the requirements of
the SLV Study Method, those non-conformities should be noted in the data validation
report.

5.3 Initial Calibration

The objective of initial calibration is to ensure that the instrument is capable of producing
acceptable qualitative and quantitative data. Initial calibration demonstrates that the
instrument is capable of acceptable performance prior to sample analysis and of producing
an acceptable calibration curve.

The instrument should be calibrated for all target analytes and isotopically labeled analogs
of target analytes (EIS compounds and NIS compounds) with least six solutions, with at
least five of the six calibration standards being within the quantification range (LOQ to
highest calibration standard that meet criteria). (If a second-order calibration model is used,
then one additional concentration is required.) The EIS and NIS compounds listed in the
MLV Study Method should be used; no other NIS or EIS compounds should be included.
The target analyte-EIS compound and EIS compound-NIS compound associations stated in
the MLV Study Method should be used.

The instrument calibration summary should identify which analytes were calibrated using
standards that contained branched and linear isomers of the analyte. Branched and linear
isomers that should be used for calibration standards are listed in Table II. The target
analyte response for analytes containing branched and linear isomer should be result of the
summation of peaks from all isomers. A certified linear standard should be used to build the
calibration curve for all other target analytes.

Table II: Currently Available Certified PFAS Standards Containing Branched
and Linear Isomers	

Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS)	

Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS)	

2-(N-methylperfluorooctanesulfonamido) acetic acid (NMeFOSAA)	

2-(N-ethylperfluorooctanesulfonamido) acetic acid (NEtFOSAA)	

Evaluation of Initial Calibration

If target analytes were not calibrated, qualify associated non-detects and detects as X,
exclusion of data is recommended.

If less than the required minimum number of calibration standards were used, make note in
the data validation report and notify the MLV Study point of contact as soon as possible.

Page 12 of 26


-------
If the laboratory has analyzed more than the required number of calibration standards and
picked out the "best" set (e.g., analyzed seven calibration standards and picked the five
"best" to pass calibration criteria), make note of this in the data validation report.

Any other manipulation of calibration points (such as 'dropping' calibration levels at the
ends of the calibration curve) should have a technical justification documented in the
laboratory report. This study is providing laboratories with commercially prepared
calibration mixtures, and it is expected that some laboratories may not be able to calibrate
the analytes through the full calibration range in the mixtures. It is not acceptable to 'drop'
a calibration point in between two points that are used. Use professional judgment to
evaluate the data. If no technical justification is provided, then make note of this in the data
validation report.

The lowest calibration standard should be at or below the LOQ. If the LOQ is below the
lowest calibration standard, then the LOQ is inconsistent with MLV Study requirements. If
the concentration of the lowest calibration standard was greater than the LOQ and the
concentration of the associated Instrument Sensitivity Check (ISC) is at the LOQ and meets
its acceptance criteria, no qualification is needed. If the concentration of the lowest
calibration standard was greater than the LOQ and the associated ISC concentration is
greater than the LOQ or it fails to meet acceptance criteria, qualify all associated data that
are at a concentration below the concentration of the lowest calibration standard that meets
acceptance criteria as X and make note of this in the data validation report.

Verify isotope dilution quantitation was used for all target analytes where isotopically
labeled analogs are commercially available and EIS quantitation was used for all other
target analytes. Verify the target analyte-EIS compound and EIS compound-NIS compound
associations stated in the MLV Study Method were used. If either of these criteria were
not met, make note of this in the data validation report and inform the point of contact for
the MLV Study as soon as possible.

In order to produce acceptable sample results, the response of the instrument must be
within the quantification range established by the initial calibration. Any sample detections
above the working range of the calibration curve should be accompanied by a dilution that
is within the quantification range. If dilutions were not performed, qualify all detections
above the initial calibration working range as estimated J, and make note of the lack of
dilution(s) in the data validation report.

If dilution(s) were performed that were within the working range of the initial calibration,
then qualification of the data is not necessary. Make note in the data validation report that
dilution(s) were performed. If reported concentration exceeded the calibration range, qualify
detects as estimated J.

If branched isomers were not included in the summed result reported, qualify associated
detects as J-.

5.3.1 Response Ratios (RRs), Response Factors (RFs), Relative Standard Deviation
(%RSD), and Relative Standard Error (RSE)

Evaluate the average response ratio (RR) for each target analyte calibrated by isotope
dilution and each response factor (RF) for each target analyte calibrated by extracted
internal standard. The response factor of each EIS compound is quantified by non-

Page 13 of 26


-------
extracted internal standard (NIS). RRs/RFs are an indicator of the sensitivity of the analyte
to detection and quantitation by Mass Spectrometry (the higher the RR/RF the more
sensitive the analyte).

All target analytes should have either an associated %RSD or %RSE of < 20% for an
average calibration fit. Second order fits should use a %RSE of < 20% criteria.

Evaluation of RRs/RFs, %RSD, and %RSE

Evaluate the %RSD or %RSE for all target analytes. If any target analyte has a %RSD or
%RSE > 20% and < 30%, flag detects for the affected analytes as J and non-detects as UJ
in the associated samples.

If the %RSD or %RSE for any target analyte is excessively high (defined as > 30%), qualify
associated sample results as X, exclusion of data is recommended.

5.4 Calibration Verification, and Instrument Sensitivity Check

The LOQ should be verified following the initial calibration and daily at the beginning of the
analytical sequence, with a standard that is prepared at the concentration of the LOQ. This
standard is called the ISC. The ISC should contain all of the target analytes. Note that
multiple ISCs may be analyzed to encompass all of the target analytes. A CV containing all
target compounds at the concentration of the mid-level calibration standard should be
analyzed at the beginning of every analytical sequence prior to sample analysis, after every
ten field samples, and at the end of the analytical sequence. These ISCs and CVs verify
satisfactory performance of the instrument on a day-to-day basis.

Verify the CVs have been run prior to sample analysis, every ten field samples, and at the
end of the analytical sequence.

Verify the ISC was analyzed following the initial calibration and contained all target
analytes. Verify the ISCs have been run daily prior to sample analysis.

The ISC, and CV percent difference (%D) or percent drift for each target analyte and EIS
analytes should be within ± 30%.

Evaluating the CV and ISC

Verify that the %Ds are within the acceptance criteria. If any target analytes do not meet
the acceptance criteria, qualify detects for that analyte as estimated J+ when the %D is
higher than acceptance criteria and J- when below acceptance criteria. Non-detects are
qualified as UJ in all associated samples for %D outside of acceptance criteria.

For gross exceedances of %D (defined as > 50% for ISC/CV) qualify all associated data as
X.

If the ISC have not been performed after an initial calibration and daily, prior to sample
analysis, qualify all associated data as X, exclusion of the data is recommended. No
samples should have been analyzed without a valid ISC.

Page 14 of 26


-------
If the CV and/or ISC have not been analyzed (either continuing or end-of-run), qualify all
associated data as X. No samples should have been analyzed without a valid CV and ISC.

If CVs have been analyzed at a frequency less than every ten field samples, qualify the
associated sample detects as J and the non-detects as UJ.

5.5 Instrument Blanks

Instrument blanks (IBs) are used to ensure that the LC/MS/MS system does not contribute
unacceptable concentrations of a target analyte into a sample result. The IB should be
analyzed immediately following the highest calibration standard, prior to the ISC, after the
qualitative identification standards, and after every CV. In order to quantify contamination,
the IBs should contain EIS and NIS compounds. Each analyte in the IB should meet the
acceptance criteria defined in the MLV Study Method (target analytes concentrations
should be < Vz LOQ).

Evaluation of Instrument Blanks

Careful consideration should be given to any reported results that accompany an
instrument blank that does not meet criteria. If the MLV Study method criteria is not met,
note affected samples in the data validation report.

6.0 Stage 3 Validation

Note: Stage 3 validation includes all of Stage 1, Stage 2A and Stage 2B

The following documents are used for a Stage 3 validation:

•	Raw data (including any laboratory forms, instrument outputs, spreadsheets, or
handwritten calculations necessary for recalculation and re-quantification)

•	Standards traceability forms and worksheets

•	Method Detection Limit Studies Summaries

•	Limit of Quantitation Verification Studies Summaries

•	Initial Precision and Recovery Determinations Summaries

Stage 3 validation includes the recalculation and re-quantification of selected samples, and
method and instrument QC. The types of results that should be recalculated and re-
quantified include target analytes, analytes with detects above the LOQ, and field QC
samples (blanks and duplicates). For method QC results, spiked recoveries and method
blanks should be considered. For instrument QC, calibrations (including response factors
and regressions), and calibration verifications, EIS recoveries should be recalculated and re-
quantified. Some calculations may include the need to review standards preparation and
serial dilutions.

6.1 Samples and QC Samples

When choosing samples, QC samples, and analytes for re-quantification and recalculation,
consideration should be given to the laboratory's batching scheme to ensure a
representative subsample of recalculations is performed. Recalculations should include
some target analytes that have both salt and acid/anion concentrations provided on the

Page 15 of 26


-------
manufacturer's certificate of analysis to ensure the appropriate concentration was used in
calculations (the acid/anion concentration). Other circumstances that should be prioritized
for re-quantification and recalculation are diluted samples, manual integrations, or re-runs
of samples.

As a minimum, 10% of the sample results should be re-quantified and recalculated.

Sample recalculations should include the raw instrument result, re-quantified from the
instrument response against the calibration function, and the final reported sample result,
including any dilution, preparation factor, or percent moisture (if applicable). The equations
in Appendix A can be used to calculate a sample result from the corresponding reported
calibration or regression function, as appropriate.

Verify that one or more of the laboratory's sample-specific MDLs and LOQs are calculated
correctly for the non-detects and reported accordingly. Verify that the MDLs are less than
the LOQs for each target analyte.

Re-quantitate all detected target analytes in the 10% sample data chosen. For some
samples, all results may be non-detects, therefore recalculation would typically not be
necessary. In the case of method blanks, non-detects should be verified to ensure peaks
are identified when all of the qualitative requirements of the method are met. Verify that
sample-specific results have been adjusted correctly to reflect percent solids, original
sample mass/volume, and any applicable dilutions.

When recalculations require rounding of data, the rounding should be completed only once
at the end of all calculations to minimize rounding errors. Calculations should be rounded to
the significant figures of the underlying criteria. For example, an OPR criteria of 80 -117%
would still be considered acceptable if the recalculation was 117.4%.

Evaluation of Sample and QC Samples recalculations

If the laboratory's LOQs are calculated incorrectly, then continue to recalculate limits until it
is determined that the problem is systemic (such as incorrect equations used) or isolated
(such as a transcription or rounding errors).

In all cases of nonconformance, the MLV Study point of contact should be notified as soon
as possible, and all affected results noted in the data validation report, including listing the
calculation errors. It may be necessary to engage the point of contact as identified in the
MLV Study Plan to contact the laboratory so they can provide revised (corrected) results.

6.2 Method QC

Re-quantification of batch QC sample results should use raw instrument response in
tandem with the reported calibration factor, response factor, or slope; the preparation
information; and percent moisture for solid samples to recreate the reported result.

6.2.1 EIS Compound Spike

Verify the concentrations of EIS compounds from the raw data. Verify that the EIS
compound result and percent recovery were calculated and reported correctly by re-
calculating all EIS compounds in the 10% of the sample results and method QC that were
originally selected.

Page 16 of 26


-------
6.2.2	NIS Compound Spike

Verify the peak areas of NIS compounds from the raw data. Verify that the NIS compound
result and percent recovery were calculated and reported correctly by re-calculating all NIS
compounds in the 10% of chosen sample data and method QC that were originally
selected.

6.2.3	OPR/LLOPR

To check that the spike percent recovery was calculated and reported correctly, using the
equation in Appendix A, re-quantitate and then recalculate a random 10% of the analytes in
the OPR/LLOPR.

6.2.6 Method Blanks

Method blank analytical results are assessed to determine the existence and magnitude of
contamination problems associated with sample extraction (if applicable) and analysis. If
problems with any method blank exist, all associated data should be carefully evaluated to
determine whether there is any bias associated with the data, or if the problem is an
isolated occurrence not affecting other data. Results may not be corrected by subtracting
any blank values.

Re-quantitate one or more detects found in the method blank (if applicable) from the
reported average RF (or higher order regression, if used) per each batch of samples.

Evaluation of all EIS Compound Spike, NIS Compound Spike, OPR, LLOPR, and Method
Blank Recalculations

If transcription errors (or other minor issues such as rounding errors) are found in method
QC results, use professional judgment to qualify the data. It may be necessary to engage
the point of contact as identified in the MLV Study Plan to contact the laboratory so they can
provide revised (corrected) results. In all cases, if method QC calculation errors affect
project target analytes, including peaks that should have been identified in method blanks
but were not, the MLV Study point of contact should be notified, and all affected results
noted in the data validation report, including listing the calculation errors.

6.3 Instrument QC

6.3.1 Response Ratios, Response Factors, Instrument Sensitivity Checks, and
Calibration Verifications

Initial calibration recalculations should use the raw instrument response for the target
analytes and associated EIS and NIS compounds, to recreate the calibration curve from the
individual calibration standards. If multiple types (e.g., first order or second order curve fit)
of calibration curves are employed a data package, at least one analyte per curve type
should be recalculated.

Commercial PFAS standards available as salts are acceptable, providing the measured
mass is corrected to the neutral acid concentration. Results shall be reported as the neutral
acid with CAS numbers provided in the MLV Study Method. If sample results were not
corrected to the neutral acid but reported from the salt, the MLV Study point of contact
should be notified, and all affected results noted in the data validation report.

Page 17 of 26


-------
Re-quantitate and recalculate the individual and average RRs/RFs for at least 10% of the
target analytes.

Re-quantitate and recalculate the CV, ISC, %D, %RSD or %RSE for at least 10% of the
target analytes, proportionally selecting analytes based on each calibration curve type.

The laboratory may employ a linear or weighted linear least squares regression. The low
standard should be recalculated using the calibration curve and evaluated. If the ICAL
included refitting of the data back to the model (relative standard error), then recalculate
10% of the target analytes for the relative standard error in each ICAL.

Evaluation of Instrument Performance Checks, ICAL, Calibration Factors, Regressions,
CV/ISC, and EIS Recalculations

If the files provided do not match the quantitation report, the RFs ) reported are likely to be
from another initial calibration and the laboratory report should be revised. The MLV Study
point of contact should be reached to get a revised (corrected) report from the laboratory.

In all cases where instrument QC are calculated incorrectly, the MLV Study point of contact
should be notified and noted in the data validation report.

6.4 Standards Traceability

Evaluate the calibration standards used for the analytes of concern. From the Certificate of
Analysis (however named), verify that the "true values" of each analyte of concern were
correctly applied to create the calibration curve, that all analytes of concern were in the
calibration mix, and contained both branched and linear isomers, if commercially available.
Some standards are made by manufacturers using the salt of a PFAS. In these cases, the
concentration of those PFAS should be corrected to the neutral acid concentration. Results
should be reported as the neutral acid with appropriate CAS number.

Check that the stock standards were diluted properly into working standards by
recalculating the dilutions of one or more calibration standards. Recalculate one or more
method QC sample dilutions (such as OPR or LLOPR) from the stock to the working
standard.

Note: It is not the role of the data validator to evaluate the Certificate of Analysis for
compliance with the ISO-17034 Standard, but to verify that stock and working standards
were correctly applied in the creation of calibration curves.

Evaluation of Standards

If calculation errors have been identified, the MLV Study point of contact should be
contacted to get a revised (corrected) report from the laboratory and the nonconformances
should be noted in the data validation report.

For expired standards, the nonconformances should be noted in the data validation report.

Page 18 of 26


-------
6.5	Method Detection Limit Studies

A Method Detection Limit (MDL) study for each media type (aqueous, solid, and tissue) will
be included in the Phase 3 laboratory submittals, as required by the MLV Study Plan. The
MLV Study Plan requires the MDL to be determined using the MDL procedure at 40 CFR
Part 136, Appendix B. The MLV Study Plan requires the laboratory's submittal include a
summary that tabulates the individual MDL sample results, the computed MDL values
based on the method blanks (MDLb), the MDL values based on spiked samples (MDLs),and
the final MDLs.

Evaluation of Detection Limit Studies

The criteria for evaluating a MDL study is provided in the MDL procedure at 40 CFR Part
136, Appendix B. A minimum of seven method blanks and seven spiked samples should
be prepared over the course of three days (i.e., three separate batches) and analyzed over
three analytical sequences. The Student's t-values and the standard deviations should be
checked for error.

If transcription errors (or other minor issues such as rounding errors) are found in
detection/quantitation limit studies, note the errors in the data validation report. It may be
necessary to engage the MLV Study point of contact to communicate with the laboratory, so
they can provide revised (corrected) results. In all cases, if calculation errors affect MDLs,
the point of contact should be notified, and all affected results noted in the data validation
report, including listing the calculation errors.

6.6	Limit of Quantitation Verification Studies

A Limit of Quantitation Verification (LOQVER) study for each media type (aqueous, solid,
and tissue) will be included in the Phase 3 laboratory submittals, as required by the MLV
Study Plan. The MLV Study Plan requires the limit of quantitation in each media type to be
verified by a method blank and a reference matrix sample spiked with method analytes, EIS
compounds, and NIS compounds and will be carried through the entire analytical process
(sample preparation and analysis) in accordance with the MLV Study Method. Exact spike
concentrations will be determined by each participating laboratory based on the results of
the MDL study and acceptable initial calibration range. EIS compounds will be spiked at the
same quantity in every sample, QC sample, and calibration injection; typically the EIS is
spiked close to the midpoint of the calibration curve. Target analytes are spiked between 1-
2 times the LOQ. The MLV Study plan requires the target analytes in the LOQVER to
recover within the 40-150% of their true value, EIS compounds to recover within 20-150%,
and NIS compounds to recover greater than 30%.

Evaluation of Limit of Quantitation Verification Studies

If recoveries fail to meet the criteria stated in the MLV Study Plan, qualify the affected data
with a J and note the nonconformance in the data validation report. It may be necessary to
engage the MLV Study point of contact to communicate with the laboratory, so they can
provide revised (corrected) results. In all cases, if recoveries fail to meet the criteria stated in
the MLV Study Plan, the point of contact should be notified, and all affected results noted in
the data validation report.

Page 19 of 26


-------
6.7 Initial Precision and Recovery Studies

An Initial Precision and Recovery (IPR) study for each media type (aqueous, solid, and
tissue) will be included in the Phase 3 laboratory submittals, as required by the MLV Study
Plan. The MLV Study Plan requires the limit of quantitation in each media type to be
verified by a method blank and four reference matrix samples spiked with method analytes,
EIS compounds, and NIS compounds and will be carried through the entire analytical
process (sample preparation and analysis) in accordance with the MLV Study Method.

Exact spike concentrations will be determined by each participating laboratory based on the
results of the MDL study and acceptable initial calibration range. Target analytes and EIS
compounds will be spiked around the midpoint of the calibration curve. The MLV Study
plan requires the target analytes in each IPR to recover within the 40-150% of their true
value, EIS compounds to recover within 20-150%, and NIS compounds to recover greater
than 30%.

Evaluation of Initial Precision and Recovery Studies

If mean recoveries of the target analytes fail to meet the criteria stated in the MLV Study
Plan, note the nonconformance in the data validation report. If recoveries of the EIS
compounds fall below the 20% criteria and/or the recoveries of NIS compounds fall below
30% for NIS compounds, qualify the affected data with a J. It may be necessary to engage
the MLV Study point of contact to communicate with the laboratory, so they can provide
revised (corrected) results. In all cases, if recoveries fail to meet the criteria stated in the
MLV Study Plan, the point of contact should be notified, and all affected results noted in the
data validation report.

7.0	Stage 4 Validation

Note: Stage 4 validation includes all of Stage 1, Stage 2A, Stage 2B and Stage 3

Raw Data (including any instrument outputs, mass spectra, chromatograms, instrument
parameters such as mobile phases and mobile phase gradients)

Stage 4 is a qualitative review of non-detected and detected results from instrument
outputs. Chromatograms are checked for peak integration (10% of automated integration
and 100% of manual integrations), baseline, and interferences; mass spectra are checked
for minimum quantitative ion and qualitative ion signal-to-noise ratio, transition ion ratios,
retention times or relative retention times are within method requirements for analyte
identification. Raw data quantitation reports and ion transition chromatograms are required
to perform review of the instrument outputs.

7.1	Target Compound Identification

The objective of the criteria for LC/MS/MS qualitative analysis is to minimize the number of
erroneous identifications of target compounds. An erroneous identification can either be
false positive (reporting a compound present when it is not) or a false negative (not
reporting a compound that is present).

The identification criteria can be applied more easily in detecting false positives than false
negatives. More information is available for false positives because of the requirement for

Page 20 of 26


-------
submittal of data supporting positive identifications. Negatives or non-detects, on the other
hand, represent an absence of data and are therefore more difficult to assess.

The peak area of the branched isomers, if present, should be summed with the peak area
integration of the linear isomer. Branched isomers elute prior to the linear isomer of a target
analyte.

Target analyte detections should display a signal-to-noise of > 3:1 for both the quantitative
ion and confirmation ion (where one exists), have proper peak integration, and display all
ions at the correct retention times with passing ion ratios (50 - 150%).

The retention time of each target analyte and EIS compound should be within ± 0.40
minutes of the predicted retention and updated with the latest daily CV. Check a minimum
of 10% of the reported target analyte detects for retention time. RT performance in samples
with only non-detects can be evaluated by reviewing the EIS times.

Evaluation of Target Compound Identification

The application of qualitative criteria for LC/MS/MS analysis of target analytes requires
professional judgment. It is up to the reviewer's discretion to obtain additional information
from their MLV Study point of contact if qualitative identification problems are uncovered.
The point of contact should arrange with the laboratory to obtain a revised (corrected)
laboratory report. All qualitative identification problems should be discussed in the data
validation report. If it is determined that incorrect identifications were made, or if a
confirmed positive detect was made, but the confirmation ion was not detected (when
available), then all affected data should be qualified as X, exclusion of data recommended.

If evaluation of the ion ratios, retention times, or signal-to-noise for a detected target
analyte is considered invalid, document the nonconformances in the data validation report.

While retention time windows are usually less critical to mass spectrometry systems,
retention times have an acute effect on LC/MS/MS using Multiple Reaction Monitoring
(MRM) mode. For example, retention time window drift on an MRM system can have a
direct impact on the reported results. Professional judgment should be used to qualify the
data.

7.2 Manual Integrations

For Stage 4, the reviewer should examine and verify the validity of all manual integrations.

Performing improper manual integrations, including peak shaving, peak enhancing, or
baseline manipulation to meet QC criteria or to avoid corrective actions is unwarranted
manipulation and misrepresents the data. All manual integrations should be reviewed by
the data validator. When manual integrations are performed, raw data records should
include a complete audit trail for those manipulations (i.e., the chromatograms obtained
before and after the manual integration should be retained to permit reconstruction of the
results). This requirement applies to all analytical runs including calibration standards and
QC samples. The person performing the manual integration should sign and date each
manually integrated chromatogram and record the rationale for performing manual

Page 21 of 26


-------
integration (electronic signature is acceptable). Any manual integration should be fully
discussed in the case narrative, including the cause and justification.

Evaluation of Manual Integrations

Some level of manual integration is considered necessary for the normal operation of
chromatographic systems. Instances of properly integrated peaks do not require
qualification, but should be noted in the data validation report. However, excessive manual
integrations may show a lack of routine maintenance by the laboratory, a rush to complete
samples, or the results of analyzing excessively 'dirty' samples. Excessive manual
integrations may also be the result of faulty software peak/baseline integration.

The data validator should use professional judgment in the review of manual integrations.
All instances of manual integrations should be noted in the data validation report. Instances
of incomplete information for manual integrations (such as failure to provide justification)
should be reported to the MLV Study point of contact to obtain a revised (corrected)
laboratory report.

If, in the professional judgment of the validator, there are instances of unwarranted
manipulation of data (such as multiple manual integrations used to 'pass' QC criteria), then
those cases should be reported to the MLV Study point of contact as soon as practical.

Page 22 of 26


-------
Appendix A: Formulas used in Stages 3 and 4 Data Validation

Calibration:

Response Ratio (RR):

Areola Mi

RR = ~a—

Areai Mn

where:

Arean = The measured area of the Q1 m/z for the native (unlabeled) PFAS

Areai = The measured area at the Q1 m/z for the corresponding isotopically labeled PFAS added
to the sample before extraction

Mi = The mass of the isotopically labeled compound in the calibration standard

Mn = The mass of the native compound in the calibration standard

Response Factor (RF) of Target Analytes:

AreasMEIS

"r ~ ~a	77~

AreaEIS Ms

where:

Areas = The measured area of the Q1 m/z for the target (unlabeled) PFAS

Areasis = The measured area at the Q1 m/z for the isotopically labeled PFAS used as the extracted
internal standard (EIS)

Meis = The mass of the isotopically labeled PFAS used as the extracted internal standard (EIS) in
the calibration standard

Ms = The mass of the target (unlabeled) PFAS in the calibration standard

Response Factor (RF) of EIS Compounds:

AreatMNIS
RF = 		—

AreaNIS Mt

where:

Areai = The measured area of the Q1 m/z for the isotopically labeled PFAS standard added to the
sample before extraction

AreaNis = The measured area at the Q1 m/z for the isotopically labeled PFAS used as the non-
extracted internal standard (NIS)

Mnis = The mass of the isotopically labeled compound used as the non-extracted internal standard
(NIS) in the calibration standard

Page 23 of 26


-------
Mi = The mass of the isotopically labeled PFAS standard added to the sample before extraction
Relative Retention time:

Retention time of the analyte

RRT =

Retention time of the extracted internal standard
Percent Difference:

Cs — Cfr
% D =	x 100

Wc

where:

Cs = Concentration, reported
Ck = Concentration, known

Sample Concentration:

Target Analyte Reported Values:

Arean Mi	1

Concentration (nq/L ornq/q) =	—		 x —

v y/ v/vj Area^RR or RF) Ws

where:

Arean = The measured area of the Q1 m/z for the native (unlabeled) PFAS

Areai = The measured area at the Q1 m/z for the isotopically labeled PFAS (EIS). See note below.

Mi = The mass of the isotopically labeled compound added (ng)

RR = Average response ratio used to quantify target compounds by the isotope dilution method

RF = Average response factor used to quantify target compounds by the extracted internal
standard method

Ws = Sample volume (L) or weight (g)

Page 24 of 26


-------
EIS Compound Reported Values:

Areat Mnis 1

Concentration (ng/L orng/g) =	=¦ x —

AreanisRFs Ws

where:

Areai = The measured area at the Q1 m/z for the isotopically labeled PFAS (EIS)

Areanis = The measured area of the Q1 m/z for the non-extracted internal standard (NIS)

Mms = The mass of the added non-extracted internal standard (NIS) compound (ng)

Ws = Sample volume (L) or weight (g) (wet weight for tissue, dry weight for solids)

RFS = Average response factor used to quantify the isotopically labeled compound by the non-
extracted internal standard method

EIS, OPR, or LLOPR Percent Recovery:

Cs

Percent Recovery = — x 100
Ck

Where:

Cs = Concentration, Reported
Ck = Concentration, Known

Transition Ion Ratio:

Where:

IR = Ion Ratio
Qq = quantitative ion abundance
Qc = confirmation ion abundance

Page 25 of 26


-------
Ion Ratio Percent Recovery:

Rs

Percent Recovery = — x 100
Rr

where:

Rs= Ion Ratio, Reported in Sample

Rk= Ion Ratio, Reported in mid-point initial calibration standard and/or initial daily CV.

Page 26 of 26


-------
Attachment 6

Wellington Laboratories, Inc. Certificate of Analysis
Documentation for PFAS Reference Standard Mixtures


-------
m WELLINGTON

LABORATORIES

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS

DOCUMENTATION

MPFAC-HIF-ES

Mass-Labelled Per- and Poly-fluoroalkyl Substance
Extraction Standard Solution

PRODUCT CODE:

LOT NUMBER:

SOLVENTS):

DATE PREPARED: ¦ „, 	

LAST TESTED:

EXPIRY DATE: 			

RECOMMENDED STORAGE

DESCRIPTION:

MPFAC-HIF-ES is a solution/mixture often mass-labelled ("C) perfluoroalkylcarboxylic acids (C4-C^, CM),
three mass-labelled ("C) perfluoroalkanesulfonates (Cs» C^, and C,), three mass-labelled (one "C and two
H) perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamides, three mass-labelled ("C) fluorotelomer sulfonates (4:2, 6:2, and 8:2),
two mass-labelled (3H) perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acids, two mass-labelled fH) perfluorooctane-
sulfonamidoethanols. and mass-labelled f'JC) hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid. The components and
their concentrations are given in Table A,

The individual mass-labelled perfluoroalkylcarboxylic acids, mass-labelled perfluoroalkanesulfonates, mass-
labelled fluorotelomer sulfonates, perfluoro-1-( 'C.)octanesulfonamide, and mass-labelled
hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid all have chemical purities of >98% and isotopic purities of >99%.
The individual mass-labelled perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acids, mass-labelled perftuorooctanesulfon-
amidoethanols, and two mass-labelled f'H) perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamldes all have chemical purities of
>98% and isotopic purities of >98%.

DOCUMENTATION/ DATA ATTACHED:

Table A: Components and Concentrations of the Solution/Mixture

Figure 1: LC/MS Data (SIR)

Figure 2: LC/MS/MS Data (Selected MRM Transitions)

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

« See page 2 for further details.

• Contains 4 mole eq. of NaOH to prevent conversion of the carboxylic acids to their respective
methyl esters.

FOR LABORATORY USE ONLY; NOT FOR HUMAN OR DRUG USE

Wellington Laboratories Inc., 345 Southgate Dr. Guelph ON N1G 3M5 CANADA
519-822-2436 • Fax: 519-822-2849 • info@well-labs.com

MPFAC-HIF-ES
MPFACHIFES0821

Methanol/lsopropanol (1%)/Water (<1%)

08/05/2021
08/16/2021
08/16/2024
Refrigerate ampoule

13, biUftt) t'OM-fMU
9, Revised 2020 12-33

MprAC}nrEGC8i?i uf 7,

revt)


-------
INTENDED USE:

The products prepared by Wellington Laboratories Inc. are (or laboratory use only. This certified reference material (CRM) was
designed to be used as a standard for the identification and/or quantification of the specific chemical compounds it contains.

HANDLING!

This product should only be used by qualified personnel familiar with its potential hazards and trained in the handling of hazardous
chemicals. Due rare should be exercised to prevent unnecessary human contact or ingestion. All procedures should be carried
out in a well-functioning fume hood and suitable gloves, eye protection, and clothing should be worn at all times. Waste should
be disposed of according to national and regional regulations. Safety Data Sheets (SDSs) are available upon request.

SYNTHESIS / CHARACTERjZMIQN:

Our products are synthesized using single-product unambiguous routes whenever possible. They are then characterized, and
their structures and purities confirmed, using a combination of the most relevant techniques, such as NMR. GC/MS, LC/MS/MS,
SFC/UV7M5/MS, x-ray crystallography, and melting point. Isotoplc purities of mass-labelled compounds are also confirmed using
HRGC/HRMS and/or LC/MS/MS.

Prior to solution preparation, crystalline material is tested for homogeneity using a variety of techniques (as stated above) and its
solubility in a given diluent is taken into consideration. Duplicate solutions of a new product are prepared from the same crystalline
lot and, after the addition of an appropriate internal standard, they are compared by GC/MS, LC/MS/MS. and/or 5FC/UV/MS/MS.
The relative response factors of the analyte of interest in each solution are required to be <5% RSD. New solution lots of existing
products, as well as mixtures and calibration solutions, are compared to older lots in a similar manner. This further confirms the
homogeneity of the crystalline material as well as the stability and homogeneity of the solutions in the storage containers. In order
to maintain the integrity of the assigned valtie(s), and associated uncertainty, the dilution or injection of a subsampte of this product
should be performed using calibrated measuring equipment.

UNCERTAINTY:

The maximum combined relative standard uncertainty of our reference standard solutions is calculated using the following
equation;

The combined relative standard uncertainty, u (y). of a value y and the uncertainty ot the independent parameters
x;„...*r, on which it depends is:	J-

u ( n.i,	v )) - I / if( l',.V )'

" * " \rt ' "

where x is expressed as a relative standard uncertainty of the individual parameter.

The individual uncertainties taken into account include those associated with weights (calibration of the balance) and volumes
(calibration of the volumetric glassware). An expanded maximum combined percent relative uncertainty of ±5% (calculated with a
coverage factor of 2 and a level of confidence of 95%) ts stated on the Certificate of Analysis for all of our products.

TRACEABILiTY:

All reference standard solutions are traceable to specific crystalline lots. The mlcrobalances used for solution preparation are
regularly calibrated by an external ISO/IEC 17025 accredited laboratory. In addition, their calibration is verified prior to each
weighing using calibrated external weights traceable to an ISO/IEC 17025 accredited laboratory, All volumetric glassware used
is calibrated, of Class A tolerance, and traceable to an ISO/IEC 17025 accredited laboratory. For certain products, traceability to
international intertaboratory studies has also been established.

EXPIRY DATE I PERIOD OF VALIDITY:

Ongoing stability studies of this product have demonstrated stability in its composition and concentration, until the specified expiry
date, in the unopened ampoule. Monitoring for any degradation or change in concentration of the listed analyte(s) is performed
on a routine basis.

LIMITED WARRANTY:

At the time of shipment, all products are warranted to be free of defects in material and workmanship and to conform to the stated
technical and purity specifications.

QUALITY MANAGEMENT:

This product was produced using a Quality Management System registered to the latest versions of ISO 9001 by SAl Global,
ISO/IEC 17025 by the Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation Inc. (CALA; A1228), and ISO 17034 by ANSI National
Accreditation Board (ANAB; AR-1523).

O CALA

			ACCREDITED

Vl'ft

™ssrL

'Tor additional information or assistance concerning this or any other products from Wellington Laboratories Inc.,
please visit our website at www.well-labs.com or contact us directly at infoiSjwell-l

fuffit# 11	Ji '04-f Ml I

Pwi i6i '/if* 9 Rnii.e
-------
Tabte A:	MPFAC-HIF-ES; Components and Concentrations

(ng/mL, ± 5% in Methanol/lsopropanol (1%)/Water (<1%))

Compound

Acronym

Concentration
(nq/roL)

in Figure 1

Perfluoro-n-('sC,)butartoicadcl

ynrn a

IVIrrun

2000

1

Perfluoro-n-("'C. ipentanoic acio

MSPFPeA

1000

2

Perfluon>n-(1,2,3>4,6-,'Cjh&xanaic acid

MSPFHxA

500

5

Perfluoro-n-(1,2,3,4-' 'CJheptanoic acid

M4PFHpA

500

7

Perfluoro-n-C^CJoctarioic acid

MfiPFOA

500

10

Perfluoro-n-C'CJnonanolc acid

M9PFNA

2S0

11

Perfluoro-n-(1,2,3,4,5,8-'sCs)cJecaiioic acid

y^DCHA

murrUH

260

14

Perfluoro-n-(1,2,3,4.5,6,7-,JC,)uf>d6caooic acid

M7PFUdA

250

17

Peril u of o-n-(1,2-"3C,)dodecanoic acid

MPFDoA

250

19

Perfluoro-n-(1,2-"C2)tetradecanoic acid

M2PFTeDA

250

22

Perfluoro-1-("C,)octane6u«ofvami(Je

M8FOSA

500

18

N-m ethyt-d ,-perfl u or o-1 -octenesutfonamtde

U IVIcr vOn

500

21

N-ethyl-ds-perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide

d-N-EtFOSA

500

24

N-methyl-d.-perfluoro-1 -octanesutfonamktoacatic add

Hq.KI MoPnCiAA

Ua-liiWcruom

1000

15

N-ethyl-d,-perfl uoro-1 -octanesulf on ami doacohc acid

dS-N-EtFOSAA

1000

16

2-{N-methy!-t)J-peff)yoro-1-octanesulfortamicio)etfian-{J<-ol

d?-N-MeFOSE

5000

20

2-{ N -ethyl-d,-perfluoro-1 -octane su tfonam kk>)elha r>-d4-ol

d9*N*EtFOSE

5000

23

2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoro-2-{1,1,2,2»3,3,3-h®ptafluoropropoxyK"CJ)propanoteacicl

M3HFPO-DA

2000

6

Compound

Acronym

Concentration"
(ny.'mL)

Peak
Assignment
in Figure 1

as the
salt

as the
acid

Sodium perfluoro-1 -{2,3,4-°CJ)butafiesutfonate

M3PFBS

500

48S

3

Sodium pe rfl u oro-1 -{1,2,3-,3CJ)hexanesutfor»ate

M3PFHXS

500

474

8

Sodium perftuoro-1-("C,)octaaesutfonate

M8PFOS

500

A7Q

12

Sodium 1H,1 H.2H,2H-perfiuoro-(1.2-'>C,)hexane8utfooate

M2-4:2FTS

1000

938

4 |

Sodium 1H, 1 H.2H.2H-perfluoco-<1,2-HCJoctanes«lfofiate

M2-6:2FTS

1000

951

9 |

Sodium 1H, 1 H,2H,2H-perfluoro-(i,2-13C jdecanesuifonate

M2-8:2FTS

1000

960

13

* Concentrations have been roinelea to three significant figures

Certified By:

8.G. Chittim, General Manager

Date: 08/27/2021

rutnm n, A>Q4'11-!U	Mf rACHiFTS0821 {3 ot 7)

9 Rf-'i-iseii	<	revO


-------
Figure 1: MPFAC-HiF-ES: LC/MS Data (SIR)

16AUG2021. MPFACHIFES .007	16-Aug-2021 13:21:01

MPFACHIFES0821 1/10 c!it

100

100
33
0	

100 •
a?

0

100

SB-

1.00

1.00

10

11

2.00	3.00	4.00	5.00

12

14 17 19

6.00

8

13

2,00 3.00 4,00 5,00 6.00

18

15 16

.

21

24

1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00 8,00
6

1: SIR of 10 Channels ES-
TIC
1 80e6

22

7.00 8.00

2: SIR of 8 Channels ES-
TIC
2 20e6

7.00 8.00

4: SIR of 7 Channels ES-
20 23	TIC

3,08e8

7.00 8.00

3: SIR of 1 Channel ES-
TtC
1.29eS

1.00

ŁM!Mo.n..S..f.gr Figu.f.e.1,

2.00

3,00

4.00

Waters Acquity Ultra Performance LC

Waters Xevo TQ-S micro MS

I	i! ions I

Column: Acquity UPLC BEH Shield RP„

1.7 pirn, 2.1 x 100 mm

Mobile phase: Gradient

Start: 50% H O / 50% (80:20 MeOHACN)

{both with 10 mM nh,OAc buffer)

Ramp to 90% organic over 9 min and hold for
2 min before returning to initial conditions in 1 miri.
Time: 18 min

5,00

6.00

7.00

8,00

MS Parameters:

Experiment: SIR

Source: Electrospray (negative)
Capillary Voltage (kV) = 2.00
Cone Voltage (V) = variable (2-44)
Desolvation Temperature ("C) = 350
Desolvation Gas Flow (L/hr) = 1000

Time

Flow:

300 pL/min

fufrit# n, ur
-------
Figure 2: MPFAC-HIF-ES; LC/MS/MS Data (Selected MRM Transitions)

16aug2021_MPFACHIFES_008	16-Aug-2021 13:36:55

M PFAC HIF ES0821 1/10 ctil

100

MPFBA	[,3C4F702J- l13C3F7]-

0s-

0 	

100
5?

0	

100
0 	

100

100
ss
0	

100
#

0 •-

100
0	

100

0

M2-4:2FTS	[,3C212C4H4FgSO^]' . l1-,C^12C4H3F8SO,r

M5PFHXA [13C512C1F1102]" —

M3HFPO-DA [l3C2l?C3FnO]" - l,2C3F7]-

M4PFHpA	t"C^CjFn02J ¦

MSPFHxS	[1iC3^C3F13S03]- • {S03]

217> 172
6.83eS

268>223

3.31e5

1.00 2.00 3.00	4.00 5.00 8.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00

MSPFPeA	l13C5F802r — lnC4Ą g]'

1,00 2.00 3.00	4,00 5,00 8.00 7.00 8.00 9,00 10.00
M3PFBS f"C312C1F9S03|- - (SO,)

302 > 80
7.94e4

1.00 2,00 3.00 4,00 5,00 8.00 7.00 i.OO 9,00 10,00

329 > 309
8.15e4

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5,00 8.00 7.00 3.00 9.00 10.00

318 >273

2.38e5

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 8.00 7,00 3.00 9.00 10,00

287>169
1,30eS

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5,00 8.00 7.00 8.00 9,00 10,00

367 > 322

3.05e5

1.00 2 00 3.00 4.00 5.00 8.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00

402 > 80

9.02e4

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5,00	6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00

nn	429 > 408

00	1 07e5

M2-6:2FTS	l13C„12CbHdF,3S03l- - [13C?l2C6H,F„SG,r

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 8.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00

Time

f U, tssurd Ł004-11-10
Pei'WionK 9 Q*wseJ 20JO 12>2 *

MPrACtiircS0821 (5 of ?5

fs-vO


-------
Figure 2: MPFAC-HIF-ES; LC/MS/MS Data (Selected MRM Transitions)

16-Aug-2021 13:36:55

16aug2021_MPFACHIFES_008

MPFACH1FES0821 1/10 dil

100
S3-

0 	

100

•

65.
0

100

as
o

100

100
0

100 .
#

0

100
#
0 -

100

0

100

0 --

1.00

M8PFOA	i13C8F1502j- ¦ PC7F15]-

421> 378

3.67e5

8.00

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00	5.00

M9PFNA	[«C9F1702J- • [1JC0F17]"

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00	5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00

M8PFOS	l13CaF17S03]- • [S03j"

7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00

472 > 42?
1.86e5

9.00 10.00

507 > 80
8 98o4

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00

M2-8:2FTS r*C212C8H4F17S03]- . l"C2»C8H3F,6S03]-

529 > 509
1.15e5

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 8.00 7,00 8.00 9.00 10.00

81§> 474
2.04e5

M6PFDA [13Cc'?C4F1902]- ¦ [«C5"C4F19]"

2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9,00 10.00

d3-N-MeFOSAA [12C.|12H31H2Fl;fN04S]- — {12C8F17J"

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 8.00 7.00 8.00 9.00

573 >41S
1.34e5

10.00

589 >419

1.23e5

dS-N-EtFOSAA [12C 12'H5'H2F17N04S] - [I2C8F17]-
100 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 8.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00

M7PFUdA [13C712C4F2102] ¦ — [13c613c.sf21]-

570 > 525

1.82e5

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.C0 6.00 7.00 8.00 S.00 10.00

M8FOSA [,3CuHFr/N02S]' 	 [NO^S]

506 > 78
3.53e5

1.00

2.00 3.00 4.00 5 CO

	-		-	-	-	-—	-			-			-	— Time

6.00 7.00 8.00 S.00 10.00

?3, Isxuftil 2004-11*10
Rev\swM:9. Revised 2020-12-23

MPrAGfiirES0821 (6 of 7}

revO


-------
Figure 2: MPFAC-HIF-ES: LC/MS/MS Data (Selected MRM Transitions)

16aug2021_MPFACHIFES_008	16-Aug-2021 13:36:55

MPFACHIFES0821 1/10 dil

100	,

MPFDoA	- ["C «C10FZ3]-

0 -

d7-N-MeFOSE [C,, 2H ? 1H, F,7N03SHC1H3COO]- [C1H3COO]"

adduct

d9-N-EtFOSE [C l22H91H,F17N03SHC1H3C00]- —~ [C1H3COO]'

i"	adduct

d-N-F-tFOSA	[C,02H5F,,NO2S]- - ¦ [C3F7]"

615 >570

1,85e5

1,00 2.00 3.00 4,00 5,00 8.00 7.00 8,00 9,00 10,00

100:

623 > 59
4.12e5

1.00 2,00 3.00 4.00 5.C0 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00

515 > 169

100 - I	7.92e4

d-N-MeFOSA	[C92H,F17N02S]" 	 [C )

3?

715 >670
1.28e5

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00

100

^	M2PFTeDA [13C2»C12F„02]- • E,3C,«c12F27]

0-	

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00
100	,

639 > 59

8.20e5

1,00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00

100

531 >169
5.08e4

0 1 • -	-	—	—	-	-	-		- -	-		—		•	-			—		-	— • —	¦—	- Time

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 8.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00

Conditions for Figure 2:

Injection: On-colurnn (MPFAC-HIF-ES)	MS Parameters:

Mobile phase: Same as Figure 1	Collision Gas (mbar) = 3.41 e-3

Collision Energy (eV) = 4-64 (variable)

Flow	300 tjLimin

fu?m# 13, t&ikUr%i tU04*1l-10
PewsiorH 9, Rf vised 20^0-12>,* 1

MPFACHIFES0821 (7 of 7)
»ev0


-------
m WELLINGTON

LABORATORIES

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS

DOCUMENTATION

MPFAC-H1F-IS

Mass-Labelled Perfluoroalkyl Substance

Injection Standard Solution

PRODUCT CODE:

LOT NUMBER:

SOLVENTS):

DATE PREPARED: ¦ „. ....

LAST TESTED:

EXPIRY DATE: 			

RECOMMENDED STORAGE

DESCRIPTION:

MPFAC-HIF-IS is a solution/mixture of five mass-labelled (X) perfiuoroalkylcarboxylic acids (C4, C,, C,-Cl0)
and two mass-labelled (!"0 and "C) perfluoroalkanesulfonates (C and CJ.The components and their
concentrations are given in Table A,

The individual mass-labelled perfiuoroalkylcarboxylic acids and mass-labelled perfluoroalkanesulfonates all
have chemical purities of >98% and isotopic purities of >99% per ,3C or >94% per '*0.

DOCUMENTATION/ DATA ATTACHED:

Table A: Components and Concentrations of the Solution/Mixture
Figure 1: LC/MS Data (SIR)

Figure 2: LC/MS/MS Data (Selected MRM Transitions)

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION;

* See page 2 for further details.

Contains 4 mole eq. of NaOH to prevent conversion of the carboxylic acids to their respective
methyl esters.

FOR LABORATORY USE ONLY: NOT FOR HUMAN OR DRUG USE

Wellington Laboratories Inc., 345 Southgate Dr. Guelph ON N1G 3M5 CANADA
519-822-2436 • Fax: 519-822-2849 • info@well-labs.com

MPFAC-HIF-IS

MPFACHIFIS0921
Methanol/Water (<1%)

09/07/2021
09/07/2021
09/07/2028

Store ampoule in a cool, dark place

13, biUftt) t'OM-fMU
iRWt.swrt 9, Revised 2020 12-33

MrrACHtnsoyn n of hi

ffcvfi


-------
INTENDED USE:

The products prepared by Wellington Laboratories Inc. are (or laboratory use only. This certified reference material (CRM) was
designed to be used as a standard for the identification and/or quantification of the specific chemical compounds it contains.

HANDLING!

This product should only be used by qualified personnel familiar with its potential hazards and trained in the handling of hazardous
chemicals. Due rare should be exercised to prevent unnecessary human contact or ingestion. All procedures should be carried
out in a well-functioning fume hood and suitable gloves, eye protection, and clothing should be worn at all times. Waste should
be disposed of according to national and regional regulations. Safety Data Sheets (SDSs) are available upon request.

SYNTHESIS / CHARACTERjZMIQN:

Our products are synthesized using single-product unambiguous routes whenever possible. They are then characterized, and
their structures and purities confirmed, using a combination of the most relevant techniques, such as NMR. GC/MS, LC/MS/MS,
SFC/UV7M5/MS, x-ray crystallography, and melting point. Isotoplc purities of mass-labelled compounds are also confirmed using
HRGC/HRMS and/or LC/MS/MS.

Prior to solution preparation, crystalline material is tested for homogeneity using a variety of techniques (as stated above) and its
solubility in a given diluent is taken into consideration. Duplicate solutions of a new product are prepared from the same crystalline
lot and, after the addition of an appropriate internal standard, they are compared by GC/MS, LC/MS/MS. and/or 5FC/UV/MS/MS.
The relative response factors of the analyte of interest in each solution are required to be <5% RSD. New solution lots of existing
products, as well as mixtures and calibration solutions, are compared to older lots in a similar manner. This further confirms the
homogeneity of the crystalline material as well as the stability and homogeneity of the solutions in the storage containers. In order
to maintain the integrity of the assigned valtie(s), and associated uncertainty, the dilution or injection of a subsampte of this product
should be performed using calibrated measuring equipment.

UNCERTAINTY:

The maximum combined relative standard uncertainty of our reference standard solutions is calculated using the following
equation;

The combined relative standard uncertainty, u (y). of a value y and the uncertainty ot the independent parameters
x;„...*r, on which it depends is:	J-

u ( n.i,	v )) - I / if( l',.V )'

" * " \rt ' "

where x is expressed as a relative standard uncertainty of the individual parameter.

The individual uncertainties taken into account include those associated with weights (calibration of the balance) and volumes
(calibration of the volumetric glassware). An expanded maximum combined percent relative uncertainty of ±5% (calculated with a
coverage factor of 2 and a level of confidence of 95%) ts stated on the Certificate of Analysis for all of our products.

TRACEABILiTY:

All reference standard solutions are traceable to specific crystalline lots. The mlcrobalances used for solution preparation are
regularly calibrated by an external ISO/IEC 17025 accredited laboratory. In addition, their calibration is verified prior to each
weighing using calibrated external weights traceable to an ISO/IEC 17025 accredited laboratory, All volumetric glassware used
is calibrated, of Class A tolerance, and traceable to an ISO/IEC 17025 accredited laboratory. For certain products, traceability to
international intertaboratory studies has also been established.

EXPIRY DATE I PERIOD OF VALIDITY:

Ongoing stability studies of this product have demonstrated stability in its composition and concentration, until the specified expiry
date, in the unopened ampoule. Monitoring for any degradation or change in concentration of the listed analyte(s) is performed
on a routine basis.

LIMITED WARRANTY:

At the time of shipment, all products are warranted to be free of defects in material and workmanship and to conform to the stated
technical and purity specifications.

QUALITY MANAGEMENT:

This product was produced using a Quality Management System registered to the latest versions of ISO 9001 by SAl Global,
ISO/IEC 17025 by the Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation Inc. (CALA; A1228), and ISO 17034 by ANSI National
Accreditation Board (ANAB; AR-1523).

O CALA

			ACCREDITED

Vl'ft

™ssrL

'Tor additional information or assistance concerning this or any other products from Wellington Laboratories Inc.,
please visit our website at www.well-labs.com or contact us directly at infoiSjwell-l

fuffit# 11	Ji '04-f Ml I

Pwi i6i '/if* 9 Rnii.e Uof 5»

lev!


-------
Table A:

MPFAC-HIF-IS; Components and Concentrations (ng/mL, ± 5% in methanol/water (<1%))

Compound

Acronym

Concentration
(ng/mL)

Peak
Assignment
in Figure 1

Perfluoro-n-(2,3,4-"C.1)butanoic acid

M3PFBA

1000

1

Peril uoro-rt-(1,2-'"C,)hexanoic acid

MPFHxA

500

2

Perfiuoro-n-(1,2,3,4-,3C.)octanoic acid

MPFOA

500

4

Periluoro-n-(1,2,3,4,5-'3C5)nonanoic acid

MPFNA

250

5

Peril uoro-n-(1,2-"C2)decanoic acid

MPFDA

250

7

Compound

Acronym

Concentration*
(ng/mL)

Peak
Assignment
in Figure 1

as the
salt

as the
acid

Sodium periluoro-1 -hexane("02)sulfonate

MPFHxS

500

474

3

Sodium perfluoro-HI ,2,3(4-'sC4)octanesulfonate

MPFOS

500

479

6

* Concentrations have been rounded to three significant figures-

Certified By:	Date: 09/23/2021

~ V ^	(mrnftW/yyyy)

B.G. Chittim, General Manager

Form#: 13, Issued 2004-11-10
Re vision Revised 2020-12-23

MPFACHIFIS0921 (3 of 5)
revO


-------
Figure 1:

MPFAC-HIF-IS; LC/MS Data (SIR)

07sept2021_MPFACH)FIS_003

MPFACHIFIS921 1/10 dil

100	1

100

07-Sep-2021 19:29:01
4

1: SIR of 5 Channels ES-
TIC
8.88e5

0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50

5.00 5.50 6.00
2: SIR of 2 Channels ES-
TIC
1.22e6

J,

Time

0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00

Conditions for Fiaurel:



Waters Acquity Uttra Performance LC
Waters Xevo TQ-S micro MS



Chromatoaraohic Conditions:

Column: Acquity UPLC BEH Shield RPle
1.7 pm, 2.1 x 100 mm

WIS Parameters:

Experiment: SIR

Mobile phase: Gradient

Start: 50% H O / 50% (80:20 MeOH:ACN)

(both with 10 mM NH.OAc buffer)

Ramp to 90% organic over 9 min and hold for
2 min before returning to initial conditions in 1 min.
Time: 15 min

Source: Electrospray (negative)
Capillary Voltage (kV) = 2.00
Cone Voltage (V) = variable (2-6)
Desolvation Temperature (°C) = 350
Desolvation Gas Flow (L/hr) = 1000

Flow: 300 pL/min



Form#: 13, Issued 2004-11-10
Re vision Revised 2020-12-23

MPFACHIFIS0921 (4 of 5)
revO


-------
Figure 2: MPFAC-HIF-IS; LC/MS/MS Data (Selected MRM Transitions)

07sept2021 ..MPFACHIFIS 002	07-Sep-2021 19:13:08

100

Sfi-.

'

0 -
100

se

0 	

100

s*

0 -

100

0

100

s?

MPFACHIF1S921 1/10 dii
100

ss

0

1,00

100
: #

o			

M3PFBA l';3C,12CF702]- — {,3C3F7]"

218>172

3,43e5

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

MPFHxA [13C212C4F,f02]- • [,3C1i2C4F11]'

7.00

315 >270

2J5e5

1,00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5,00

6.00

MPFHxS IC6F13S«02«0]- ~ [FS1802180]-

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

403 >103
4.33e4

7.00

417 >372

4 1 fipr»

NIPFOA I13C412C4F1502]- [«C3«C4F15J- "

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

MPFNA I13Cs12C4F1702]- 	 [13c412c4F„r

1.00

7.00

468> 423
1.16e5

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

8.00

MPFOS I13C412C4F1?S031- — IFSOj]'

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5,00

6.00

MPFDA [13C21ZC8F19G2r -

7.00

503 > 99

5,2Se4

7.00

515 >470
1 33e5

2.00

1.00

Conditions for Figure ?.:

Injection: On-column (MPFAC-HIF-IS)

Mobile phase: Same as Figure 1
Flow:	300 pUmiri

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

Time

700

MS Parameters:

Collision Gas (mbar) = 3.18e-3
Collision Energy (eV) = 4-64 (variable)

fulfit# (1 isiuej tWW-fWf
pwi'iiiOfi# 9 Rp\tserf 1?>J 1

MPrACHinSlJS21 i5 of

?ev
-------
m WELLINGTON CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS

LABORATORIES	docum entation

PFAC-MXF

Native Replacement PFAS
Solution/Mixture

PRODUCT CODE:	PFAC-MXF

LOT NUMBER:	PFACMXF1219

SOLVENTfSk	Methanol / Water (<1%)

DATE PREPARED: ...	12/03/2019

LAST TESTED: Vy»,	05/04/2020

EXPIRY DATE:	05/04/2023

RECOMMENDED STORAGE:	Refrigerate ampoule

DESCRIPTION:

PFAC-MXF is a solution/mixture of sodium dodecafluoro-3H-4,8-dioxanonanoate (NaDONA), the major and
minor components of F-53B (9CI-PF30NS and 11CI-PF3QUdS), and GenX (HFPO-DA). The components
and their concentrations are given in Table A.

The individual native components of this mixture all have chemical purities of >98%.

Table A: Components and Concentrations of the Solution/Mixture
Figure 1: LC/MS Data (SIR)

Figure 2: LC/MS/MS Data (Selected MRM Transitions)

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

See page 2 for further details.

Contains 4 mole eq. of NaOH to prevent conversion of the carboxyiic acid to the methyl ester.

FOR LABORATORY USE ONLY: NOT FOR HUMAN OR DRUG USE

Wellington Laboratories Inc., 345 Southgate Dr. Guelph ON N1G 3M5 CANADA
519-822-2436 • Fax: 519-822-2849 • info@well-labs.com

fuftntf 13, /fcAUwd l'004'tl-W
Powor* 7 Rewe-J 20?G 01-09

PtACMXFl2l9 M of 5;

revt


-------
INTENDED USE:

The products prepared by Wellington Laboratories Inc. are (or laboratory use only. This certified reference material (CRM) was
designed to be used as a standard for the identification and/or quantification of the specific chemical compounds it contains.

HANDLING!

This product should only be used by qualified personnel familiar with its potential hazards and trained in the handling of hazardous
chemicals. Due rare should be exercised to prevent unnecessary human contact or ingestion. All procedures should be carried
out in a well-functioning fume hood and suitable gloves, eye protection, and clothing should be worn at all times. Waste should
be disposed of according to national and regional regulations. Safety Data Sheets (SDSs) are available upon request,

SYNTHESIS / CHARACTERLMIIQN:

Our products are synthesized using single-product unambiguous routes whenever possible. They are then characterized, and
their structures and purities confirmed, using a combination of the most relevant techniques, such as NMR. GC/MS, LC/MS/MS,
SFC/UV7M5/MS, x-ray crystallography, and melting point. Isotoplc purities of mass-labelled compounds are also confirmed using
HRGC/HRMS and/or LC/MS/MS.

Prior to solution preparation, crystalline material is tested for homogeneity using a variety of techniques (as stated above) and its
solubility in a given diluent is taken into consideration. Duplicate solutions of a new product are prepared from the same crystalline
lot and, after the addition of an appropriate internal standard, they are compared by GC/MS, LC/MS/MS. and/or 5FC/UV/MS/MS.
The relative response factors of the analyte of interest in each solution are required to be <5% RSD. New solution lots of existing
products, as well as mixtures and calibration solutions, are compared to older lots in a similar manner. This further confirms the
homogeneity of the crystalline material as well as the stability and homogeneity of the solutions in the storage containers. In order
to maintain the integrity of the assigned valtie(s), and associated uncertainty, the dilution or injection of a subsampte of this product
should be performed using calibrated measuring equipment.

UNCERTAINTY:

The maximum combined relative standard uncertainty of our reference standard solutions is calculated using the following
equation;

The combined relative standard uncertainty, u (y). of a value y and the uncertainty ot the independent parameters

x;„...*r, on which it depends is:	|

H(rtA,,A 	0> -	)•

where x is expressed as a relative standard uncertainty of the individual parameter.

The individual uncertainties taken into account include those associated with weights (calibration of the balance) and volumes
(calibration of the volumetric glassware). An expanded maximum combined percent relative uncertainty of ±5% (calculated with a
coverage factor of 2 and a level of confidence of 95%) is stated on the Certificate of Analysis for all of our products.

TRACEABILiTY:

All reference standard solutions are traceable to specific crystalline lots. The mtcrobalances used for solution preparation are
regularly calibrated by an external ISO/IEC 17025 accredited laboratory. In addition, their calibration is verified prior to each
weighing using calibrated external weights traceable to an ISO/IEC 17025 accredited laboratory, All volumetric glassware used
is calibrated, of Class A tolerance, and traceable to an ISO/IEC 17025 accredited laboratory. For certain products, traceability to
international intedaboratory studies has also been established.

EXPIRY DATE I PERIOD OF VALIDITY:

Ongoing stability studies of this product have demonstrated stability in its composition and concentration, until the specified expiry
date, in the unopened ampoule. Monitoring for any degradation or change in concentration of the listed analyte(s) is performed
on a routine basis.

LIMITED WARRANTY:

At the time of shipment, all products are warranted to be free of defects in material and workmanship and to conform to the stated
technical and purity specifications.

QUALITY MANAGEMENT:

This product was produced using a Quality Management System registered to the latest versions of ISO 9001 by SAI Global,
ISO/IEC 17025 by the Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation Inc. (CALA; A1226), and ISO 17034 by ANSI-ASQ
National Accreditation Board (ANAB: AR-1523),

C:i CALA

f	'm-y j

iWsrnrtfieiMcr.Wn 'V

"For additional information or assistance concerning this or any other products from Wellington Laboratories Inc.,
please visit our website at www, well-labs .com or contact us directly at info@well-labs.com**

Alike

rufM# 73,

htm	m ti>j

rrACMxr'.2i$M2 of 5)

tevi


-------
Table A: PFAC-MXF: Components and Concentrations (nq/ml: ± 5% in Methanol / Water

Compound

Abbreviation

Concentration'
(ng/mi)

Peak
Assignment
in Figure 1

2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoro-2-{1,1,2,2,3.3,3-heptafluoropropoxy)- |
propanoic acid

HFPO-DA

2000

A

Compound

Abbreviation

Concentration"
(ng/mi)
as the as the
salt acid

Peak
Assignment
in Figure 1

Sodium dodecafluoro-3H-4,8-dtoxanonanoafe t

¦¦¦:¦ -v.

2000

1890

B

Potassium 9-chlorohexadecafluoro-3-oxanonane-l -sulfonate

9CI-PF30NS

?Q0Q

1870

C j

Potassium 11 -chloroeicosafluoro-3-oxaundecane-1 -sulfonate

11Cf-PF30UdS

2000

1890

0 \

Concentrations have been rounded lo three significant figures.









Certified By:			Date: 05/27/2020

-y

B.G. Chittim, General Manager

{mrrii'ii'ii'yyyy)

rufiiiH i 1,

hew r9

PfACMXHZiy (3of5*

revl


-------
Figure 1:

PFAC-MXF; LC/MS Data (SIR)

12dec2019_PFACMXF_003

PFACMXF1219 50 ng/ml ea

100

12-Dec-2019 13:28:01

SIR of 5 Channels ES-
TIC
1.70e6

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

3.00

Time
9.00

Conditions for Fiaure 1:



LC: Waters Acquity Ultra Performance LC
MS: Waters Xevo TQ-S micro MS



ChromatoaraDhic Conditions

Column: Acquity UPLC BEH Shield RPle
1.7 pm, 2.1 x 100 mm

MS Parameters

Experiment: SIR

Mobile phase: Gradient

Start: 50% (80:20 MeOH:ACN) / 50% Hp
(both with 10 mM NH.OAc buffer)

Ramp to 90% organic over 8 min and
hold for 2 m n before returning
to initial conditions in 0.75 min.

Time: 12 min

Source: Electrospray (negative)
Capillary Voltage (kV) = 2.00
Cone Voltage (V) = variable (15-74)
Desolvation Temperature (°C) = 350
Desolvation Gas Flow (l/hr) = 1000

Flow: 300 |jl/min



Form#:13, Issued 2004-11-10
Revision#:7, Revised 2020-01-09

PFACMXF1219 (4 of 5)
rev1


-------
Figure 2: PFAC-MXF; LC/MS/MS Data (Selected MRM Transitions)

12 dec2019_PFACNIXF_002	12-Dec-2019 13:15:06

PFACMXF1219 50 rig/ml ea

100

0

1.00

HFPO-DA

[CsFiiO]- — [C3F7r

2.00

3.00

100

4.00

NaDONA

5.00

6.00

7.00

B.00

[C7HF12OJ- — [c4f9o2]-

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

B.00

100

11CI-PF30UdS

[C10F20CISOJ- —* [CbF16CIO]-

0

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

Conditions for Figure 2;

Injection: On-column (PFAC-MXF)

Mobile phase: Same as Figure 1
Flow:	300 fjl/min

MS Parameters

Collision Gas (mbar) = 3.59e-3
Collision Energy (eV) = 8-24 (variable)

285>169

2.00e5

9.00

377 > 251

8.86e5

1.00	2.00	3.00	4.00	5.00	6.00	7.00	B.00	9.00

100	i

9CI-PF30NS	[C8F16CISCg- —- [C6F12CIO]-

531 > 351

4.70e5

i i i i i i

9.00

631> 451

2.77e5

Time

9.00

Farmtt:13, Issued 2004-11-10
Revision#:7, Revised 2020-01-09

PFACMXF1219 (5 of 5)
rev1


-------
m WELLINGTON CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS

LABORATORIES	docum entation

PFAC-MXG

Native Perfluoroalkyl Ether Carboxylic

Acids and Sulfonate Solution/Mixture

PRODUCT CODE:
LOT NUMBER:

SOLVENTfS):

DATE PREPARED: ..... .

LAST TESTED: 		

EXPIRY DATE:

RECOMMENOEP STORAGE:

PFAC-MXG
PFACMXG1219

Methanol/Water {<1%)

12/03/2019
05/04/2020
05/04/2025

Store ampoule in a cool, dark place

DESCRIPTION:

PFAC-MXG is a solution/mixture of three native perfluoroalkyl ether carboxylic acids and a native
perfluoroalkyl ether sulfonate. The components and their concentrations are given in Tsble A.

The individual components all have chemical purities of >98%.

DOCUMENTATION/ DATA ATTACHED:

Table A: Components and Concentrations of the Solution/Mixture
Figure 1: LC/MS Data (SIR)

Figure 2: LC/MS/MS Data (Selected MRM Transitions)

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

See page 2 for further details.

Contains 4 mole eq. of NaOH to prevent conversion of the carboxylic acids to their respective
methyl esters.

FOR LABORATORY USE ONLY: NOT FOR HUMAN OR DRUG USE

Wellington Laboratories Inc., 345 Southgate Dr. Guelph ON N1G 3M5 CANADA
519-822-2436 • Fax: 519-822-2849 • info@well-labs.com

I J, biUftt) t'OM-fMU
iRWt.swrt 9, Revised 2020 12-33

PFACMXG12^H? of 5-
rev2


-------
INTENDED USE:

The products prepared by Wellington Laboratories Inc. are (or laboratory use only. This certified reference material (CRM) was
designed to be used as a standard for the identification and/or quantification of the specific chemical compounds it contains.

HANDLING!

This product should only be used by qualified personnel familiar with its potential hazards and trained in the handling of hazardous
chemicals. Due rare should be exercised to prevent unnecessary human contact or ingestion. All procedures should be carried
out in a well-functioning fume hood and suitable gloves, eye protection, and clothing should be worn at all times. Waste should
be disposed of according to national and regional regulations. Safety Data Sheets (SDSs) are available upon request.

SYNTHESIS / CHARACTERjZMIQN:

Our products are synthesized using single-product unambiguous routes whenever possible. They are then characterized, and
their structures and purities confirmed, using a combination of the most relevant techniques, such as NMR. GC/MS, LC/MS/MS,
SFC/UV7M5/MS, x-ray crystallography, and melting point. Isotoplc purities of mass-labelled compounds are also confirmed using
HRGC/HRMS and/or LC/MS/MS.

Prior to solution preparation, crystalline material is tested for homogeneity using a variety of techniques (as stated above) and its
solubility in a given diluent is taken into consideration. Duplicate solutions of a new product are prepared from the same crystalline
lot and, after the addition of an appropriate internal standard, they are compared by GC/MS, LC/MS/MS. and/or 5FC/UV/MS/MS.
The relative response factors of the analyte of interest in each solution are required to be <5% RSD. New solution lots of existing
products, as well as mixtures and calibration solutions, are compared to older lots in a similar manner. This further confirms the
homogeneity of the crystalline material as well as the stability and homogeneity of the solutions in the storage containers. In order
to maintain the integrity of the assigned valtie(s), and associated uncertainty, the dilution or injection of a subsampte of this product
should be performed using calibrated measuring equipment.

UNCERTAINTY:

The maximum combined relative standard uncertainty of our reference standard solutions is calculated using the following
equation;

The combined relative standard uncertainty, u (y). of a value y and the uncertainty ot the independent parameters

x;„...*r, on which it depends is:	|

H(rtA,,A 	0> -	)•

where x is expressed as a relative standard uncertainty of the individual parameter.

The individual uncertainties taken into account include those associated with weights (calibration of the balance) and volumes
(calibration of the volumetric glassware). An expanded maximum combined percent relative uncertainty of ±5% (calculated with a
coverage factor of 2 and a level of confidence of 95%) ts stated on the Certificate of Analysis for all of our products.

TRACEABILiTY:

All reference standard solutions are traceable to specific crystalline lots. The mtcrobalances used for solution preparation are
regularly calibrated by an external ISO/IEC 17025 accredited laboratory. In addition, their calibration is verified prior to each
weighing using calibrated external weights traceable to an ISO/IEC 17025 accredited laboratory, All volumetric glassware used
is calibrated, of Class A tolerance, and traceable to an ISO/IEC 17025 accredited laboratory. For certain products, traceability to
international intedaboratory studies has also been established.

EXPIRY DATE I PERIOD OF VALIDITY:

Ongoing stability studies of this product have demonstrated stability in its composition and concentration, until the specified expiry
date, in the unopened ampoule. Monitoring for any degradation or change in concentration of the listed analyte(s) is performed
on a routine basis.

LIMITED WARRANTY:

At the time of shipment, all products are warranted to be free of defects in material and workmanship and to conform to the stated
technical and purity specifications.

QUALITY MANAGEMENT:

This product was produced using a Quality Management System registered to the latest versions of ISO 9001 by SAl Global,
ISO/IEC 17025 by the Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation Inc. (CALA; A1228), and ISO 17034 by ANSI National
Accreditation Board (ANAB; AR-1523).

OAKAEJ

I	AM$t	&W

L»MLn	srr^M^rrTT o

«nsssr"t

"For additional information or assistance concerning this or any other products from Wellington Laboratories Inc.,
please visit our website at www.well-labs.com or contact us directly at info@weil-l3bs.com"

fuffit# 11	Ji '04-f Ml I

Pwi i6i '/if* 9 Rnii.e
-------
Table A:

PFAC-MXG; Components and Concentrations (ng/mL; ± 5% in methanol/water (<1%))

Compound

Peril uoro-4 -oxapenta note acid
Peril uoro-5-oxahexanoic acid

Acronym

Concentration
(ng/mL)

2000
2000

Peak
Assignment
in Figure 1

A

Perfluoro-3,8-dioxaheptarioic acid

I 3,6-OPFHpA

2000

D

Compound

Potassium perfluoro(2:-ethoxyethane)suIfonate

Acronym

IPFEESA

Concentration'
I ng/mL)

as the
salt

2000

as the
aciO

1780

Peak
Assignment
in Figure 1

' Concentrations have been rounded to three significant figures.

Certified By:



Date: 07/30/2021

B.G. Chittim, General Manager

{miniMrl/yyyy)

fuMT# t %	A)Q4-U-iO

PfAC&,1XG12l9 i'J of 5s
?ev2


-------
Figure 1: PFAC-MXG; LC/MS Data (SIR)

12dec2019_PFACMXG_003

PFACMXG1219 50 ng/ml ea

100

12-Dec-2019 12:23:21

B

SIR of 4 Channels ES-
TIC
2.58e6

100

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50 5.00
SIR of 4 Channels ES-
TIC
4.24e6

Conditions for Figure 1:

Waters Acquity Uttra Performance LC

Waters Xevo TQ-S micro MS

Chromatographic Conditions:

Column: Acquity UPLC BEH Shield RP,a
1.7 pm, 2.1 x 100 mm

Mobile phase: Gradient

Start: 50% H O / 50% (80:20 MeOH:ACN)

(both with 10 rnM NH.OAc buffer)

Ramp to 90% organic over 8 min and hold for 2 min
before returning to initial conditions in 0.75 min.
Time: 12 min

MS Parameters:

Experiment: SIR

Source: Electrospray (negative)
Capillary Voltage (kV) = 1.00
Cone Voltage (V) = variable (15-35)
Desolvation Temperature (°C) = 500
Desolvation Gas Flow (L/hr) = 1000

Flow:

300 pL/min

Form#: 13, Issued 2004-11-10
Re vision Revised 2020-12-23

PFACMXG1219 (4 of 5)
rev2


-------
Figure 2: PFAC-MXG; LC/MS/MS Data (Selected MRM Transitions)

PFACMXG1219 50 ng/ml ea

12dec2019_PFACMXG_002

100

100

100

12-Dec-2019 12:10:28

PF40PeA	[C4F703]- — [CF30]-

229 > 85

1.10e6

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00 3.50

4.00 4.50

5.00





I









279 > 85















1.24e6





i

PFSOHxA

L

[CsW —

ICF3Oj-



0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00 3.50

4.00 4.50

5.00















315>135







I







1.51e6









PFEESA

[C4F9S04r

— [C2F50]-











I







0,50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

100

3,6-OPFHpA [C5Fg04]- — IC3F7Q2]-

0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50

295 > 201

1.29e4

Time
5.00

Conditions for Fiaure 2:



Injection: On-column (PFAC-MXG)

MS Parameters:



Collision Gas (mbar) - 3.59e-3

Mobile phase: Same as Figure 1

Collision Energy (eV) = 8-48 (variable)

Flow: 300 jjL/min



Form#: 13, Issued 2004-11-10
Re vision Revised 2020-12-23

PFACMXG1219 (5 of 5)
rev2


-------
m WELLINGTON CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS

LABORATORIES	docum entation

PFAC-MXH

Native Per- and Poly-fluoroalkyl Substance
Solution/Mixture

PRODUCT CODE:
LOT NUMBER:

SOLVENTfS):

DATE PREPARED:

LAST TESTED: 		

EXPIRY DATE:

RECOMMENDED STORAGE:
DESCRIPTION:

PFAC-MXH
PFACMXH0921

Methanol / Isopropanol (2%) / Water (<1%)

09/09/2021

09/14/2021

09/14/2026

Refrigerate ampoule

PFAC-MXH is a solution/mixture of eleven native linear perfluoroalkylcarboxylic acids (C,-CI4). eight native
perfluoroalkanesulfonates (C,, Cv C., C„, C,(Sand Cw linear; C(. and Cs linear and branched), three native
fluorotelomer sulfonates (4:2, 6:2, arid 8:2), two native linear and branched perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic
acids, and perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide (FOSA). The components and their concentrations are given in Table

A.

The individual components of this mixture all have chemical purities of >98%.
DOCUMENTATION/ DATA ATTACHED:

Table A: Components and Concentrations of the Solution/Mixture

Table B: Isomeric Components and Percent Composition of br-NMeFOSAA

Table C: Isomeric Components and Percent Composition of br-NEtFOSAA
Table D: Isomeric Components and Percent Composition of PFHxSK
Table E: Isomeric Components and Percent Composition of PFOSK
Figure 1: LC/MS Data (SIR)

Figure 2: LC/MS/MS Data (Selected MRM Transitions)
ADDITIONAUMORmiiON:

See page 2 for further details.

Contains 4 mole eq. of NaOH to prevent conversion of the carboxylic acids to their respective
methyl esters.

FOR LABORATORY USE ONLY; NOT FOR HUMAN OR DRUG USE

Wellington Laboratories Inc., 345 Southgate Dr. Guelph ON N1G 3M5 CANADA
519-822-2436 * Fax: 519-822-2849 • info@well-labs.com

I J, biUftt) t'OM-fMU
iRWt.swrt 9, Revised 2020 12-33

PPACMXH0821 {1 of \\)
(fevO


-------
INTENDED USE:

The products prepared by Wellington Laboratories Inc. are (or laboratory use only. This certified reference material (CRM) was
designed to be used as a standard for the identification and/or quantification of the specific chemical compounds it contains.

HANDLING!

This product should only be used by qualified personnel familiar with its potential hazards and trained in the handling of hazardous
chemicals. Due rare should be exercised to prevent unnecessary human contact or ingestion. All procedures should be carried
out in a well-functioning fume hood and suitable gloves, eye protection, and clothing should be worn at all times. Waste should
be disposed of according to national and regional regulations. Safety Data Sheets (SDSs) are available upon request.

SYNTHESIS / CHARACTERjZMIQN:

Our products are synthesized using single-product unambiguous routes whenever possible. They are then characterized, and
their structures and purities confirmed, using a combination of the most relevant techniques, such as NMR. GC/MS, LC/MS/MS,
SFC/UV7M5/MS, x-ray crystallography, and melting point. Isotoplc purities of mass-labelled compounds are also confirmed using
HRGC/HRMS and/or LC/MS/MS.

Prior to solution preparation, crystalline material is tested for homogeneity using a variety of techniques (as stated above) and its
solubility in a given diluent is taken into consideration. Duplicate solutions of a new product are prepared from the same crystalline
lot and, after the addition of an appropriate internal standard, they are compared by GC/MS, LC/MS/MS. and/or 5FC/UV/MS/MS.
The relative response factors of the analyte of interest in each solution are required to be <5% RSD. New solution lots of existing
products, as well as mixtures and calibration solutions, are compared to older lots in a similar manner. This further confirms the
homogeneity of the crystalline material as well as the stability and homogeneity of the solutions in the storage containers. In order
to maintain the integrity of the assigned valtie(s), and associated uncertainty, the dilution or injection of a subsampte of this product
should be performed using calibrated measuring equipment.

UNCERTAINTY:

The maximum combined relative standard uncertainty of our reference standard solutions is calculated using the following
equation;

The combined relative standard uncertainty, u (y). of a value y and the uncertainty ot the independent parameters

x;„...*r, on which it depends is:	|

H(rtA,,A 	0> -	)•

where x is expressed as a relative standard uncertainty of the individual parameter.

The individual uncertainties taken into account include those associated with weights (calibration of the balance) and volumes
(calibration of the volumetric glassware). An expanded maximum combined percent relative uncertainty of ±5% (calculated with a
coverage factor of 2 and a level of confidence of 95%) ts stated on the Certificate of Analysis for all of our products.

TRACEABILiTY:

All reference standard solutions are traceable to specific crystalline lots. The mtcrobalances used for solution preparation are
regularly calibrated by an external ISO/IEC 17025 accredited laboratory. In addition, their calibration is verified prior to each
weighing using calibrated external weights traceable to an ISO/IEC 17025 accredited laboratory, All volumetric glassware used
is calibrated, of Class A tolerance, and traceable to an ISO/IEC 17025 accredited laboratory. For certain products, traceability to
international intedaboratory studies has also been established.

EXPIRY DATE I PERIOD OF VALIDITY:

Ongoing stability studies of this product have demonstrated stability in its composition and concentration, until the specified expiry
date, in the unopened ampoule. Monitoring for any degradation or change in concentration of the listed analyte(s) is performed
on a routine basis.

LIMITED WARRANTY:

At the time of shipment, all products are warranted to be free of defects in material and workmanship and to conform to the stated
technical and purity specifications.

QUALITY MANAGEMENT:

This product was produced using a Quality Management System registered to the latest versions of ISO 9001 by SAl Global,
ISO/IEC 17025 by the Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation Inc. (CALA; A1228), and ISO 17034 by ANSI National
Accreditation Board (ANAB; AR-1523).

OAKAEJ

I	AM$t	&W

L»MLn	srr^M^rrTT o

«nsssr"t

"For additional information or assistance concerning this or any other products from Wellington Laboratories Inc.,
please visit our website at www.well-labs.com or contact us directly at info@weil-l3bs.com"

fuffit# 11	Ji '04-f Ml I

Pwi i6i '/if* 9 Rnii.e
-------
Table A:	PFAC-MXH: Components and Concentrations

((jg/mL. ± 5% in methanol I isopropanol (2%) I water (<1%))

Compound

Acronym

Concentration*
lug/mL)

Peak
Assignment

In Figure 1

[ PRrfkioro-n-foutanoie acid

PFBA

4 00

1

: Perfl uoro- n- pentanotc acid

PFPeft

2,00

2

; Perfluoro-n-haxanoic acid

PFHxA

1,00

5

Perfluoro-n-heptanoic acid

PFHpA

1.00

7

Perfl uoro-n-octano«c acid

PfOA

1,00

11

Perfl uoro-o-nonanoic ncid

PF-NA

1.00

14

Perfluoro-n-decanolc acid

PFDA

1.00

18

Perfiuoro-n-undecanoic acid

PFUdA

IX

23

_ ...a. .. _	_ M A

pernuoro-n-dooecanotc ac«i

PFDoA

100

as

Perfl uoro-n trtdecaootc acid

PFTrOA

1.00

27

Perfluofo-n-tetradecaootc acid

PFTcDA

1,00

29

Perfluofo-l-octanesulfonamide

FOSA

1.00

25

N-methyl perfluorooctarresulfonamicJoacefc acid *

N-MeFOSAA; linear isomer

0,760

20

N-M&FOSAA: Ł branched isomers

0,240

1?

N-cthytperftuorooctancsulfonumtdoacctic acid '

N-EtFOSAA: linear isomer
N-EtFOSAA: Ł branched isomers

0.775
0.225

22
21

Compound

Acronym

Concentration*

(pg/mL)

Pert

Assignment
In Figure 1

as the
salt

as She
acid

Potassium perf!uort>-1-bytan#su)foiiafe

L-PFBS

100

0 9S7

3

Sodium perfluoro-1-pemanesuttooet*

L-PFPeS

1 00

0.941

6

Potassium perfluorohexanesutfonate"

PFHxSK: linear isomer

0,811

0,741

9

PFHxSK* ^ branched isomers

0.180

0 173

8

Sodium perftaro-1 -heptanesulfonate

L-PFHpS

1,00

0 953

12

Potassium pertuorooctanesulfonate *

PFOSK linear isomer

0,788

0,732

15

PFOSK Ł branched isomers

0.211

0.136

13

Sodium perfluoro-1 •nonanesulfonate

1.-PFNS

1 00

0 962

19

Sodium perfluon> 1 -decanesuHonate

L-PFDS

1,00

0.965

7.4

Sodium perfluoro-1 -dodecanesutfooata

L-PFDoS

too

0,070

28

Sodium 1H,1H,2H.2H-pemuofotwxarieBUlfoi«tB

4.2FTS

4,00

3-75 | 4

Sodium 1H,1 H,2H,2H-perfluoroocianesutfonate

6:2FTS

4,00

3 80

10

Sodium 1H.1H.2H 2H-perfluorodecanesulfonate

8:2FTS

4 00

3.84

16

' Sea Table B for percent composition of linear and branched N-fvfeFOSAA isomeit,
" See Table C for percent composition of linear and branched N-EtFOSAA isomers.

See Table D for percent composition of linear and branched PFHxSK isomers,
' See Fable E for percent composition of linear and branched PFOSK isomers,

" Concentrations have been rounded to three significant figures

Certified By:	Date: _ 09/23/2021

B.G. Chittim, General Manager

fuMT# t %	A)Q4-U-iO

Pei'teW# 9 Rf-'i-iseii	i

Pr ACMXH0&21 {3 oM1}
ibvfl


-------
Table B:	br-NMeFOSAA: Isomeric Components and Percent Composition (by ,SF-NMR)*

Isomer

Compound

Structure

Percent

Composition
by "F-NMR

1

N-methylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamkJoacetic acid

CF3(CFa}rS02NCHi,C0iH

ch3

78.0

78 0

2

N-methylperfluoro-3-methy!heptanesulfonamidoacetic acid

CF,|CF2),CF(CF2)?SOrNCH;,CO,H

CF.j CHj

0.7

24.0

3

W-metbylperfluoro-4-methylbeptanesuIfonamidoacetie acid

CF;i(CFj}2CFfCF.,)3S04,NCH2C0iH

CF ( CH:<

2.0

4

N-rnethylperfluoro-5-methylheptanesulfonamidoacetic acid

CF|(CF CF(CF<)),|SOk,NCHsCG.H
CF j CH,

cf3cf
-------
Table C:

br-NEtFOSAA: Isomeric Components and Percent Composition (by "F-NMR)"

Percent

Isomer

Compound

Structure

Composition
by viF-NMR

1

N-ethylperfluoro-1 -octanesulfonamidoacetic acid

CF..(Cf,i)7S02NCH2C02H

c2hs

77.5

77.5

2

N-ethylperfluoro-3-roelhylheptanesylfonamWoacelic acid

CF:j(CF2)^CF(CF2)250j,NCH2C02H
CF. CjH,

2.3

22.5

3

N-ethylperfluoro-4-methylheptanesulfonamidoac8tic acid

CF3(CF2)2CF{CF2»SS°2NCH2C0,H
cf3 c2h5

2.2

4

N-ethylperfluoro-S-methylheptanesulfonamtdoaoetic acid

CFjCF2CF(CF2)4S0:,NCH2C02H
CF3 CjHij

5.4

5

Kl -ethyI perfl uoro-6-methy I hepta nesuIfonamidoacetic acid

CF3CF(CF2}sS02NCH2C0-,H
CF, C2H5

10.4
0.3

6

N-ethylperfluoro-5,5-dirnethylhexanesulfonamidoacetic acid

cf3

C F3C(CF2)„S0?NCH;fC02H

CFa q,H6

7 N-ethylperfluoro-4,5-dim8thythexanesulfonamidoacetic acid

cf3

CF3CFCF(CF2)jS02NCH2C02H

cf3 c?h5

0.3

8

NI-ethylperfluoro-3,5-dim8thythexanesulfonamtdoacetic acid

cf3

CF,CFCF,CF(CF2)2S02NCH,C02H
CF, C2H;,

0.3

9

Other Unidentified Isomers

1,3

* Percent of total N-ethyiperfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid isomers only.

futmH i %	A)Q4-U-iO

Pf~ACMXH032 S (5 of 11J


-------
Table D:

PFHxSK; Isomeric Components and Percent Composition (by '"F-NMR)*

isomer

Compound

Structure

Percent
Composition
by 'F-NMR

1

Potassium perfluoro-1 -hexanesulfonate

CF3CF;,CF2CF2CF2CF2S03 k*

81.1

811

2

Potassium 1-trifluoromethylperfluoropentanesulfonate**

CF3CF2CF1»CF?CFSO_vK-'

cf3

2.3

18.9

3

Potassium 2-trifluoromethylperfluoropentanesulfonate

cf3cf2cf2cfcf2so3-k+

CF;

1.4

4

Potassium 3-trifluoromethylperfluoropentanesulfonate

cf3cf2cfcf2cf2so3-k+
cf3

5.0

5

Potassium 4-trifluoromethylperfluoropentanesuffonate

CF^CFCF^CFmCF^jSOj k*
CF,

8.9

6

Potassium 3.3-di(tnfiuoromethyl)perfluorobutanesulfonate

CF,

cf3ccf?cf2so3k+

cf3

0.2

7

Other Unidentified Isomers

0.5

* Percent of total perfluorohexanesulfonate isomers only.
** Systematic Name: Potassium perfluorohexane-2-suIfonate.

fufriT# n, ur
-------
Table E:

PFOSK: Isomeric Components and Percent Composition (by "F-NMR)*

Percent

Isomer Compound

Structure Composition

by ' F-NMR

1

Potassium perfluoro-1 -octanesulfonate

CF3CFXF?CF?CFjCF,CF;>CF?5D,i'K+

78.8

78.8

2

Potassium 1 -trifluoromethylperfluoroheptanesuffonate**

cf:,cf2cf2cf2cf2cf2cfso3k+

i

CF.,

1.2

21.1

3

4

CF jCFjCF .CFjCF ,CFCF-,SO., K+
Potassium 2-trifluoromethylperfluoroheptanesulfonate ' I

I 3

0.6

CF3CF2CF?CFXFCF7CF2SO,1<4
Potassium 3-trifluoromethylperfluoroheptanesulfonate i I

I CF3

1.9

5

Potassium 4-trifluoromethylperfluorobeptanesutfonate

CF3CF2CF2CFCF2CF2CF2SO, k+
CF,

2.2

6

Potassium. 5-trifluoromethytperiuorotieptanesuIfonate

CF3CF2CFCF2CF2CF2CF2S03-r

cf3

4.5

?

Potassium 8-trifluoromethylperfluoroheptanesulfonate

CF3CFCF?CF2CP2CF2CP25Q3~r
CF,

10.0

8

Potassium

5.5-di(trifluoromethyl)perfluorohexanesulfonate

CF ,ccf,cf,,cf2cf2so3-k+

CF,

0.2

9

Potassium

4,4-di(trifluoromethyl)perfluorohexanesulfonate

CF.

CF3CFXCF2CF2CF2S03-K+

cf3

cf3

Cf3CFCPCFaeF2CF2SQ3ie

CF3

0 03

0,4

10

Potassium

4,5-di(trifluororr.ethyl)perfluorohexanesulfonate

11

Potassium

3,5-di(tnfluoromethyl)perfluorohexanesutfonate

CF,

1 3

cf3cfcf?cfcf2cf2so3k+

CFg

0.07

1 Percent of total perfluorooctanesuifonate isomers only.
** Systematic Name: Potassium perfluorooctane-2-sulfonate.

futmH i %	A)Q4-U-iO

prACMXH09i;j ^ ot 11,


-------
Figure 1: PFAC-MXH: LC/MS Data (SIR)

14-Sep-2021

I4sep2021 PFACMXH 003

PFACMXH0921 1/20 dil

100	1

2

11

°0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50

100

§

12

0

8

0.50 1.00 ISO 2.00 2,50 3,00 3,50

100

58

0

10

0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50

100
3?

0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50

100

°0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2 50 3.00 3.50

Conditions for Figure 1:

Waters Acquity Ultra Performance LC

Waters Xevo TQ-S micro MS

Chrgniatoajmhie CondJiions:

Column; Acquity UPLC BEH Shield RPn
1.7 ym, 2.1 x 100 mm

Mobile phase: Gradient

Start: 50% H O / 50% (80:20 MeOH.ACNj
{both with 10 mM nh OAc buffer)

Ramp to 90% organic over 9 mtn and hold for 2 miri
before returning to initial conditions in 1 min.

Time: 15 min

14:48:50

26

14

1: SIR of 11 Channels ES-
27 --	T,C

IS

29

23

2.27e6

4,00 4.50 5,00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00

4: SIR of 9 Channels ES-

19 24 25

28

15

TIC
4,50eS

13

4.00 4.50 5.00 5,50 8.00 6,50 7.00

3: SIR of 8 Channels ES-

16

TIC
3 55e6

4,00 4,50 5,00 5,50 8.00 8.50 7,00

5: SIR of 8 Channels ES-
20	TIC

7.43@5

17

4,00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6 00 6.50 7.00

5: SIR of 8 Channels ES-
22	TIC

6.04e5

21

	-	-	- ; • '		 ¦ ¦ • • .	Time

4.00 4,50 5,00 5,50 6.00 6.50 7.00

MS Parameters:

Experiment: SIR

Source: Electrospray (negative)
Capillary Voltage (kV) = 2.50
Cone Voltage (V) = variable (2-74)
Desolvation Temperature ( C) = 350
Desolvation Gas Flow (L/hr) = 1000

Flow:

300 pL/min

fufrit# n, ur
-------
Figure 2: PFAC-MXH; LC/MS/MS Data (Selected MRM Transitions)

14sep2021 PFACMXH 002	14-Sep-2021 14:32:55

PFACMXH0921 1/20 di!

100

PFBA	[C4F70,]- [C,F7]*

3?

100

se

0
100

0

100

s?

0

100 :

2?

0 •-

100

#
0 -

100 :

ss;
0

100

a?

PFPeA	[C5F9Ozr • [C4Fg

L-PFBS [C.jFgSO..]- — [SOnr

100

p	4;2FTS [C6H/9S033- . [CeH3F8SO;J

0			¦

PFHxA	lC^nO?Y 	 [C5FuY

L-PFPeS [C^SO-jJ- • [S03l"

PFHxSK [CGF13S03)- - • (FSO

3i

6:2FTS tCBH,F13S03]- • [C8H3F,,S03]

213 > 169

9.74e5

1.00	2.00	3.00	4.00	5.00	6.00	7.00	8.00	9.00

263 >219

5.52e5

1.00	2.00	3.00	4.00	5.00	6.00	7.00	8.00	9.00

299 > 80
1.29e5

1.00	2.00	3 00	4.00	5,00	6 00	7 00	8.00	9.00

327 > 307
2.55e5

1.00	2.00	3.00	4.00	5.00	6.00	7.00	8.00	9 00

313 > 269

3.90eS

1.00	2.00	3.00	4.00	5.00	6 00	7.00	8.00	9.00

349 > 80

1.48eS

1.00	2.00	3.00	4.00	5.00	6.00	7.00	8.00	9.00

PFHpA [C7F1302]- - > [C6F13]-

363> 319
5.27e5

1.00	2.00	3.00	4.00	5.00	6.00	7.00	8.00	9.00

399 > 99
1.01e5

1.00	2 00	3.00	4.00	5.00	6 00	7.00	8.00	9,00

427 > 407

3,27eS

0 —	—	-	—	-	—	—	-		-	-	-	-	-	-		-		-	-		 Time

1.00	2.00	3.00	4.00	5.00	6.00	7.00	8.00	9,00

furn* 13, Ustm.1 i004-11-!U
Fm-iMOfi# 9 Roused JO.'H 12-JJ

rTACMXHQ92? iSot M


-------
Figure 2: PFAC-MXH; LC/MS/MS Data (Selected MRM Transitions)

14sep2021 PFACMXH 002	14-Sep-2021 14:32:55

PFACMXBG921 1/20 di!

100

^	PFOA	[CeF1s02]- - [C7F15]-

100

.

0

100

#
0

100

1.00 2.00 3,00 4,00 5,00 8.00 7..00 8.00

L-PFHpS [C7F1sSOj]- — (SO.,]'
1.00	2 00	3.00	4.00	5.00	6.00	7.00	8.00

PFNA [CgF1T02r • [CBFi73

1.00

2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

6.00

7,00 8.00

PFQSK {CsF17S03] • [SO,]

1.00 2,00 3,00 4.00

5,00

6.00

7 00	8.00

100

^ 8:2FTS |C10H4F17SO3]" • [C10H3Fl65O3]

0 	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-

1.00

2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

6.00

7.00 8,00

100
#

0

100
a?

o •-

PFDA [C,0F,;)O?]- - |C3F19]-
1.00 2.00 3,00 4.00 5,00
L-PFNS [C0F19SO3J- • (S03I

6.00

7,00 8,00

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00

100
0

N-MeFOSAA CC,1H5F17N04Sj- - [C8F17]"

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00

100

N-EtFOSAA	[C,,H7F17NO,Sr ¦ [CaF17]-

o •			-	-			• 								

1.00 2.00 3.00 4,00 5,00 8,00 7,00 8,00

413 > 369

8.45e5

9.00

449 > SO
1.90e5

9,00

463 >419

3.87e5

9.00

499 > 80

1.45e5

9.00

527>507

4.44eS

9.00

513 > 469

4.7SeS

9.00

549 > 80
2.09e5

9.00

570 >419

1,04e5

9,00

584> 419
8.15e4

Time

9.00

Tuim# 13, hsufil 2:1104-1 l-W

Q Revised 12-2 1

PFACMXH0921 
-------
Figure 2: PFAC-MXH; LC/MS/MS Data (Selected MRM Transitions)

14sep2021 PFACMXH0Q2	14-Sep-2021 14:32:55

PFACMXH0921 1/20 dil

100

0 -

PFUdA tC^F^Oj]" ¦ [C10F21]-

563 > 519

7.23e5

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 8.00 7.00 8.00 9.00

100

#	L-PFDS [C10F21SO3l- — [S03|-

0
100

0 -

100

a?

0 -

100

38
0 -

100
*.
0 -

FOSA [C8HFi;.N02S]- ¦ [NO,S]

PFDoA [C12F2302]- - lCV!F23j-

PFTrDA [C13F2502]-	[C12F25]"

L-PFDoS IC12F25SOJ- — [SOJ-

100
s?

PFTeDA 1C14F2702J" • LC13f27]

599 > 80
1,39e5

1.00 2,00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00

498 > 78

3.97e5

1,00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7,00 8.00 9.00

613> 569

4.55e5

1.00	2.00	3.00	4.00	5.00	6 00	7.00	8.00	9.00

663 > 619

7.12e5

			 	 		.		 	 	 	 	_ _		

1.00 2,00 3.00 4.00 5,00 8.00 7,00 8,00 9,00

639 > 80

1,94e5

1.00 2 00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7,00 8.00 9.00

713 >669

8.18e5

0 ————	______	,									—			-									 , 								 					 Tjme

1,00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 8.00 7,00 8.00 9.00

Conditions lot ,1- iqure 2;

Injection: On-column (PFAC-MXH)	MS Parameters:

Collision Gas (mbar) * 3.31e-3
Mobile phase: Same as Figure 1	Collision Energy (eV) = 8-60 (variable)

Flow:	300 (jL/min

fu?m# 13,	AW-fT-vj

f ei'iiiy/tM 9 Reused 1?'J •

PfACMXH0325 fU uf >1}

'fvO


-------
m WELLINGTON CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS

LABORATORIES	docum entation

PFAC-MXI

Native Perfluorooctanesulfonamide
and Perfluorooctanesulfonamidoethanol
Solution/Mixture

PRODUCT CODE:
LOT NUMBER:

SOLVENTfS):

DATE PREPARED:

LAST TESTED: 		

EXPIRY DATE:
RECOMMENOEP STORAGE:

PFAC-MXI

PFACMXI0921

Methanol

09/08/2021

09/14/2021

09/14/2026

Store ampoule ir a cool, dark place

DESCRIPTION:

PFAC-MXI is a solution/mixture of two native perfluorooctanesulfonamides (FOSAs) and two native
perfluorooctanesulfonamidoethanols (FOSEs). The components and their concentrations are given in Table A.

The individual components have a chemical purity of >98%.

DOCUMENTATION/ DATA ATTACHED:

Table A: Components and Concentrations of the Solution/Mixture
Figure 1; LC/MS Data (SIR)

Figure 2: LC/MS/MS Data (Selected MRM Transitions)

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

See page 2 for further details.

FOR LABORATORY USE ONLY: NOT FOR HUMAN OR DRUG USE

Wellington Laboratories Inc., 345 Southgate Dr. Guelph ON N1G 3M5 CANADA
519-822-2436 • Fax: 519-822-2849 • info@well-labs.com

I J, biUftt) t'OM-fMU
iRWt.swrt 9, Revised 2020 12-33

PFACMXi092 2 n of 5}

?evD


-------
INTENDED USE:

The products prepared by Wellington Laboratories Inc. are (or laboratory use only. This certified reference material (CRM) was
designed to be used as a standard for the identification and/or quantification of the specific chemical compounds it contains.

HANDLING!

This product should only be used by qualified personnel familiar with its potential hazards and trained in the handling of hazardous
chemicals. Due rare should be exercised to prevent unnecessary human contact or ingestion. All procedures should be carried
out in a well-functioning fume hood and suitable gloves, eye protection, and clothing should be worn at all times. Waste should
be disposed of according to national and regional regulations. Safety Data Sheets (SDSs) are available upon request.

SYNTHESIS / CHARACTERjZMIQN:

Our products are synthesized using single-product unambiguous routes whenever possible. They are then characterized, and
their structures and purities confirmed, using a combination of the most relevant techniques, such as NMR. GC/MS, LC/MS/MS,
SFC/UV7M5/MS, x-ray crystallography, and melting point. Isotoplc purities of mass-labelled compounds are also confirmed using
HRGC/HRMS and/or LC/MS/MS.

Prior to solution preparation, crystalline material is tested for homogeneity using a variety of techniques (as stated above) and its
solubility in a given diluent is taken into consideration. Duplicate solutions of a new product are prepared from the same crystalline
lot and, after the addition of an appropriate internal standard, they are compared by GC/MS, LC/MS/MS. and/or 5FC/UV/MS/MS.
The relative response factors of the analyte of interest in each solution are required to be <5% RSD. New solution lots of existing
products, as well as mixtures and calibration solutions, are compared to older lots in a similar manner. This further confirms the
homogeneity of the crystalline material as well as the stability and homogeneity of the solutions in the storage containers. In order
to maintain the integrity of the assigned valtie(s), and associated uncertainty, the dilution or injection of a subsampte of this product
should be performed using calibrated measuring equipment.

UNCERTAINTY:

The maximum combined relative standard uncertainty of our reference standard solutions is calculated using the following
equation;

The combined relative standard uncertainty, u (y). of a value y and the uncertainty ot the independent parameters

x;„...*r, on which it depends is:	|

H(rtA,,A 	0> -	)•

where x is expressed as a relative standard uncertainty of the individual parameter.

The individual uncertainties taken into account include those associated with weights (calibration of the balance) and volumes
(calibration of the volumetric glassware). An expanded maximum combined percent relative uncertainty of ±5% (calculated with a
coverage factor of 2 and a level of confidence of 95%) ts stated on the Certificate of Analysis for all of our products.

TRACEABILiTY:

All reference standard solutions are traceable to specific crystalline lots. The mtcrobalances used for solution preparation are
regularly calibrated by an external ISO/IEC 17025 accredited laboratory. In addition, their calibration is verified prior to each
weighing using calibrated external weights traceable to an ISO/IEC 17025 accredited laboratory, All volumetric glassware used
is calibrated, of Class A tolerance, and traceable to an ISO/IEC 17025 accredited laboratory. For certain products, traceability to
international intedaboratory studies has also been established.

EXPIRY DATE I PERIOD OF VALIDITY:

Ongoing stability studies of this product have demonstrated stability in its composition and concentration, until the specified expiry
date, in the unopened ampoule. Monitoring for any degradation or change in concentration of the listed analyte(s) is performed
on a routine basis.

LIMITED WARRANTY:

At the time of shipment, all products are warranted to be free of defects in material and workmanship and to conform to the stated
technical and purity specifications.

QUALITY MANAGEMENT:

This product was produced using a Quality Management System registered to the latest versions of ISO 9001 by SAl Global,
ISO/IEC 17025 by the Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation Inc. (CALA; A1228), and ISO 17034 by ANSI National
Accreditation Board (ANAB; AR-1523).

OAKAEJ

I	AM$t	&W

L»MLn	srr^M^rrTT o

«nsssr"t

"For additional information or assistance concerning this or any other products from Wellington Laboratories Inc.,
please visit our website at www.well-labs.com or contact us directly at info@weil-l3bs.com"

fuffit# 11	Ji '04-f Ml I

Pwi i6i '/if* 9 Rnii.e
-------
Table A:	PFAC-MXI; Components and Concentrations (fjg/mL; ± 5% in methanol)

Compound

Acronym

Concentration
(ng/mL)

Peak
Assignment
in Figure 1

N-methytperfluoro-1 -octanesutfonamide

N-MeFOSA

1.00

B

IM-ethylperfluofo-1-ocfanesuIfonamide

N-E-FOSA

1.00

D

2-{N-methytpeffluoro-1 -octanesutfooamido Methanol

N-MeFOSE

10.0

A

2-{N-ethylperfiuoro-1-odanosutforiairiWo)-sthanol

N-E'FOSE

10.0

C

Certified By:			Date: 09/23/2021



B.G. Chittim, General Manager

ijmm.'rta'f/yyi

futmH i %	A)Q4-U-iO

rTACMXI0?^1 ,3u?5«
mvu


-------
Figure 1:

PFAC-MXI; LC/MS Data (SIR)

14se p2021 _PFACMXI_Q04

PFACMXI0921 1/40 dil

100

14-Sep-2021 15:52:39
C

5: SIR of 6 Channels ES-
TIC
6.05e6

0

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

100

B

9.00

5: SIR of 6 Channels ES-
TIC
1.54e6

0	Time

3.00	4.00	5.00	6.00	7.00	8.00	9.00

Conditions for Fiaurel:



Waters Acquity Ultra Perforrnance LC
Waters Xevo TQ-S micro MS



Chromatoaraohic Conditions:

Column: Acquity UPLC BEH Shield RP,a
1.7 pm, 2.1 x 100 mm

WIS Parameters:

Experiment: SIR

Mobile phase: Gradient

Start: 50% H O / 50% (80:20 MeOH:ACN)

(both with 10 mM NH.OAc buffer)

Ramp to 90% organic over 9 min and hold for
2 min before returning to initial conditions in 1 min.
Time: 15 min

Source: Electrospray (negative)
Capillary Voltage (kV) = 2.50
Cone Voltage (V) = variable (2-74)
Desolvation Temperature (°C) = 350
Desolvation Gas Flow (L/hr) = 1000

Flow: 300 pL/min



Form#: 13, Issued 2004-11-10
Re vision Revised 2020-12-23

PFACMXI0921 (4 of 5)
revO


-------
Figure 2: PFAC-MXI; LC/MS/MS Data (Selected MRM Transitions)

14sep2021_PFACMXI_002	14-Sep-2021 15:20:46

PFACMXI0921 1/40 dil

100

3.00
100

0

3.00

100

100

0

3.00

4,00

4.00

N-MeFOSE

[C11H8F17N03S],[CH3C00]* — ECH3COO]-

adduct



616 > 59

7,31e5

5.00

N-MeFOSA

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

512 >219

3.51e4

[CgH3F17N02S]- — [C4F g]"

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

630 > 59

7,56e5

N-EtFOSE
adduct

ŁC12H10F17NO3S].[CH3COO)- — [CH3COO]-

I !

.00

4.00

5.00

i i , i i i i i i i i i

6.00

7.00 8.00 9.00

526 >219

4.48e4

N-EtFOSA

[C10H5F17NO2S]- — [C4F9]'

Time

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

Conditions for Figure 2:

Injection: On-column (PFAC-MXI)

Mobile phase: Same as Figure 1
Flow:	300 jjL/min

MS Parameters:

Collision Gas (mbar) = 3.31 e-3
Collision Energy (eV) = 6-60 (variable)

Form#: 13, Issued 2004-11-10
Re vision Revised 2020-12-23

PFACMXI0921 (5 of 5)
revO


-------
m WELLINGTON CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS

LABORATORIES	docum entation

PFAC-MXJ

Native Fluorotelomer Propanoic Acid
Solution/Mixture

PRODUCT CODE:
LOT NUMBER:

SOLVENTfS):

DATE PREPARED:

LAST TESTED: 		

EXPIRY DATE:
RECOMMENOEP STORAGE:

PFAC-MXJ
PFACMXJ0921

Methanol
09/08/2021
09/14/2021
09/14/2028

Store ampoule ir a cool, dark place

DESCRIPTION:

PFAC-MXJ is a solution/mixture of three native fluorotelomer propanoic acids. The components and their
concentrations are given in Table A.

The individual components have a chemical purity of >98%.

DOCUMENTATION/ DATA ATTACHED:

Table A: Components and Concentrations of the Solution/Mixture
Figure 1: LC/MS Data (SIR)

Figure 2: LC/MS/MS Data (Selected MRM Transitions)

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

See page 2 for further details.

FOR LABORATORY USE ONLY: NOT FOR HUMAN OR DRUG USE

Wellington Laboratories Inc., 345 Southgate Dr. Guelph ON N1G 3M5 CANADA
519-822-2436 • Fax: 519-822-2849 • info@well-labs.com

I J, biUftt) t'OM-fMU
iRWt.swrt 9, Revised 2020 12-33

rrACMXJ092! n uf 5,
»«rfv0


-------
INTENDED USE:

The products prepared by Wellington Laboratories Inc. are (or laboratory use only. This certified reference material (CRM) was
designed to be used as a standard for the identification and/or quantification of the specific chemical compounds it contains.

HANDLING!

This product should only be used by qualified personnel familiar with its potential hazards and trained in the handling of hazardous
chemicals. Due rare should be exercised to prevent unnecessary human contact or ingestion. All procedures should be carried
out in a well-functioning fume hood and suitable gloves, eye protection, and clothing should be worn at all times. Waste should
be disposed of according to national and regional regulations. Safety Data Sheets (SDSs) are available upon request.

SYNTHESIS / CHARACTERjZMIQN:

Our products are synthesized using single-product unambiguous routes whenever possible. They are then characterized, and
their structures and purities confirmed, using a combination of the most relevant techniques, such as NMR. GC/MS, LC/MS/MS,
SFC/UV7M5/MS, x-ray crystallography, and melting point. Isotoplc purities of mass-labelled compounds are also confirmed using
HRGC/HRMS and/or LC/MS/MS.

Prior to solution preparation, crystalline material is tested for homogeneity using a variety of techniques (as stated above) and its
solubility in a given diluent is taken into consideration. Duplicate solutions of a new product are prepared from the same crystalline
lot and, after the addition of an appropriate internal standard, they are compared by GC/MS, LC/MS/MS. and/or 5FC/UV/MS/MS.
The relative response factors of the analyte of interest in each solution are required to be <5% RSD. New solution lots of existing
products, as well as mixtures and calibration solutions, are compared to older lots in a similar manner. This further confirms the
homogeneity of the crystalline material as well as the stability and homogeneity of the solutions in the storage containers. In order
to maintain the integrity of the assigned valtie(s), and associated uncertainty, the dilution or injection of a subsampte of this product
should be performed using calibrated measuring equipment.

UNCERTAINTY:

The maximum combined relative standard uncertainty of our reference standard solutions is calculated using the following
equation;

The combined relative standard uncertainty, u (y). of a value y and the uncertainty ot the independent parameters

x;„...*r, on which it depends is:	|

H(rtA,,A 	0> -	)•

where x is expressed as a relative standard uncertainty of the individual parameter.

The individual uncertainties taken into account include those associated with weights (calibration of the balance) and volumes
(calibration of the volumetric glassware). An expanded maximum combined percent relative uncertainty of ±5% (calculated with a
coverage factor of 2 and a level of confidence of 95%) ts stated on the Certificate of Analysis for all of our products.

TRACEABILiTY:

All reference standard solutions are traceable to specific crystalline lots. The mtcrobalances used for solution preparation are
regularly calibrated by an external ISO/IEC 17025 accredited laboratory. In addition, their calibration is verified prior to each
weighing using calibrated external weights traceable to an ISO/IEC 17025 accredited laboratory, All volumetric glassware used
is calibrated, of Class A tolerance, and traceable to an ISO/IEC 17025 accredited laboratory. For certain products, traceability to
international intedaboratory studies has also been established.

EXPIRY DATE I PERIOD OF VALIDITY:

Ongoing stability studies of this product have demonstrated stability in its composition and concentration, until the specified expiry
date, in the unopened ampoule. Monitoring for any degradation or change in concentration of the listed analyte(s) is performed
on a routine basis.

LIMITED WARRANTY:

At the time of shipment, all products are warranted to be free of defects in material and workmanship and to conform to the stated
technical and purity specifications.

QUALITY MANAGEMENT:

This product was produced using a Quality Management System registered to the latest versions of ISO 9001 by SAl Global,
ISO/IEC 17025 by the Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation Inc. (CALA; A1228), and ISO 17034 by ANSI National
Accreditation Board (ANAB; AR-1523).

OAKAEJ

I	AM$t	&W

L»MLn	srr^M^rrTT o

«nsssr"t

"For additional information or assistance concerning this or any other products from Wellington Laboratories Inc.,
please visit our website at www.well-labs.com or contact us directly at info@weil-l3bs.com"

fuffit# 11	Ji '04-f Ml I

Pwi i6i '/if* 9 Rnii.e
-------
Table A: PFAC-MXJ: Components and Concentrations (uq/mL:

± 5% in methanol)



Compound

Acronym



Concentration
(pg/mL)

Peak
Assignment
in Figure 1

3-Perfluoropropyl propanoic acid

FPrPA

4.00

A

3-PerfluoropentyI propanoic acid

FPbPA

20.0

B

3-Perfluorohepty! propanoic acid

FHpPA

20..0

C

Certified By:			Date: 09/23/2021

^ni m.'rtn ''y/yy<

B.G. Chittim, Genera! Manager

futmH 11,	*'u04-f MU

fTACMXJ0921 ,lof 5

Tt-^O


-------
Figure 1: PFAC-MXJ; LC/MS Data (SIR)

14sept2021 _PFAC MXJ_008	14-Sep-2021 12:22:41

PFACMXJ0921 1/50 dil

100

2: SIR of 7 Channels ES-
TIC
4.13e5



0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50

100

5.00 5.50 6.00

2: SIR of 7 Channels ES-
TIC
4.19e6



>H"|~ i "I * II rl-t 1 | , f-TTTl M • | • I ¦ | 1 ' r i 1 ~ • J ¦ ~1 1 i ¦ I ' < | ' i ' - i ' 1 ' | 1 ¦ i ' • 'I f v f-r.-r '"",f " 'THTi 'i '| p ' rtT' ]' ' ] '• ' * i : --1 " • | ¦ J ¦

0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00

100

2: SIR of 7 Channels ES-
TIC
4.89e6

0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4,50

5.00 5.5D

6.00

Time

Conditions for Fiqurel:



Waters Acquity Uttra Perforrnance LC
Waters Xevo TQ-S micro MS



Chromatoaraohic Conditions:

Column: Acquity UPLC BEH Shield RP,a
1.7 pm, 2.1 x 100 mm

WIS Parameters:

Experiment: SIR

Mobile phase: Gradient

Start: 50% H O / 50% (80:20 MeOH:ACN)

(both with 10 mM NH.OAc buffer)

Ramp to 90% organic over 9 min and hold for
2 min before returning to initial conditions in 1 min.
Time: 15 min

Source: Electrospray (negative)
Capillary Voltage (kV) = 2.50
Cone Voltage (V) = variable (2-74)
Desolvation Temperature (°C) = 350
Desolvation Gas Flow (L/hr) = 1000

Flow: 300 pL/min



Form#: 13, Issued 2004-11-10
Re vision Revised 2020-12-23

PFACMXJ0921 (4 of 5)
revO


-------
Figure 2: PFAC-MXJ; LC/MS/MS Data (Selected MRM Transitions)

14sept2021_PFACMXJ_001	14-Sep-2021 09:45:06

PFACMXJ0921 1/50 dil

100

241>177

2.56e4

FPrPA

[C6H4F702]- — tC5H3F6]-

0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00

3.50

100

FPePA

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

100

FHpPA

4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50

6.00

341 > 237

4.24e5

[C8H

4^1 lOz]

[C7HF8]-

4.00

4.50

5.00 5.50

6.00

[C10H4F15OJ- — tc9F„]-

441> 317

1.52e5

Time

0.50 1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50 5.00

5.50

6.00

Conditions for Flaure 2:



injection: On-column (PFAC-MXJ)

MS Parameters:



Collision Gas (mbar) = 3.31 e-3

Mobile phase: Same as Figure 1

Collision Energy (eV) = 6-60 (variable)

Flow: 300 jjL/min



Form#: 13, Issued 2004-11-10
Re vision Revised 2020-12-23

PFACMXJ0921 (5 of 5)
revO


-------
Attachment 7

ERA Cooler Study Report in Support of the HGL/DoD PFAS
Multi-Laboratory Method Validation Study - January 2022

(Dated January 2022)


-------
ERA Cooler Study Report in Support of the HGL/DoD PFAS Multi-
Laboratory Method Validation Study- January 2022

Table of Contents

Purpose...
Objective.
Procedure

1

1

1

Study Evaluation and Results
Conclusion	

5

2

Appendix

7

1.	Purpose:

¦	To assess the ability of the aqueous matrix samples to retain a temperature of < 6°C during the scheduled 24 hr.
shipping process and to measure/document sample temperatures out to 120 hours under ambient external
temperature conditions.

2.	Objective:

¦	To assess if pre-frozen aqueous samples will be able to maintain a < 6°C temperature under ambient shipping
conditions when packed per normal ERA protocol and shipped in ERA coolers to participating laboratories.

3.	Procedure:

1. (7) large shipping coolers (25" x 15.5" x 17" Styrofoam cooler in a cardboard shipping box) were assembled for

2.	(108) 1L HDPE bottles were filled with approximately 500 mL of tap water to represent study samples. Bottles
were stored at < 0 deg C for a minimum of 16 hrs. or until frozen.

3.	Each cooler was packed according to ERA Work Instruction 730002425 Whole Volume Cooler Shipping.

•	A minimum of 26 freezer packs (blue ice type) were used per cooler.

•	A layer of freezer packs was placed in the bottom and top of the cooler.

•	Each cooler was filled with 13 pre-frozen 1L Amber HDPE bottles containing tap water and packed per
this protocol for shipping.

•	Any remaining space around and on top of the bottles was filled with additional insulating material
(foam sheets, bubble wrap or packing paper) or ice packs.

4.	Each cooler was labeled 1-7 corresponding to the different time interval of 12, 24, 36, 48, 72, 96 & 120 hours.

5.	Initial sample temperatures for each of the seven coolers was taken with an IR temperature gun prior to cooler
sealing. Sample #1 was checked for this temperature.

6.	The (7) coolers were placed at ambient temperature in a central location of ERA's lab under four large work
benches for this project.

•	This location is environmentally controlled and is suggested to best represent temperature conditions
during shipment (according to the planned schedule).

•	A thermometer was placed adjacent to but outside of the coolers to monitor ambient room
temperature.

the study.

Page 1 of 7


-------
7.	One cooler was opened, and the temperature was checked at each time intervals: 12, 24, 36, 48, 72, 96 & 120
hours (± 30 minutes). At each interval, the time was recorded, and the following performed:

•	The temperature for the 3 samples from across the cooler was checked with an IR temperature gun and
the results were recorded.

•	The ambient room temperature was checked and recorded

8.	Results were compiled in an Excel spreadsheet which is included at the end of this document.

4. Study Evaluation/Results;

The 1L Amber bottles exhibited either a very slight or no apparent bulge in the side of the bottle after the water
became frozen. If the bulge was noticed it was located at the top of the frozen water level from the expansion of the
ice (see photo below). None of the 108 frozen bottles broke and all bulges that were observed were insignificant
and would have no impact on the structural integrity of the bottle.

I

The first five (of seven) coolers were packed on 1/10/2022 and three samples in each cooler were randomly labeled
1-3. The Ambient temperature and the temperature of a single bottle from each cooler was recorded at the time of
the initial cooler packing. See photos of packing configurations within the coolers below.

Page 2 of 7


-------
Page 3 of 7


-------
At each time interval the temperature of the three bottles, the ambient temperature and the thermometer IDs were
recorded. All data for the cooler study were recorded and entered in a spread sheet (which is included at the end of
this document). Samples for the 12 and 24 hr. check remained completely frozen. A small amount of thawed water
(~ 10 mL) was noticeable in the bottles at the 36 hr. check. At the 72 hr. check, bottles were about % frozen and Va
thawed. It was decided to extend the cooler study to 96 hr. and 120 hr. checks to anticipate any delays that may
occur with the delivery carrier for the planned overnight deliveries. At the 96 hr. check, bottles 1 and 3 (which were
located along the outside of the cooler) were % frozen and % thawed. Bottle 1 (located in the middle of the cooler)

Page 4 of 7


-------
had only ~ 20 ml of thawed water. At 120 hrs., all sample temperatures were below 0°C and the volumes of thawed
water can be seen in the following two pictures below.

Pictures Representing Volume(s) of Thawed Water After 120 hrs.:

Bottle #1 - 60 mL	Bottle #2-180 mL	Bottle #3 - -300 mL

5. Conclusion:

The current cooler packing design will keep all samples in the coolers frozen for the planned shipping duration of 24
hrs. and if the samples are shipped within the originally scheduled proposed timeline. The coolers will keep the
samples at least half frozen and below 0°C for a duration of 120 hrs. (under the conditions of test). If it is decided

Page 5 of 7


-------
that the samples need to be received completely frozen and/or additional shipping conditions or if the distribution
schedule is adjusted to a time when the ambient temperature may be significantly higher, further testing may be
needed.

Page 6 of 7


-------
Appendix:

HGL/DOD PFAS Cooler Temperature Study Log

A Wstsrs Contpurty

Cooler ID

Temp.
Check


Start Date/Time
of Cooler Study

Initial
Temp.
Check*

Scheduled
Date/Time
to be Checked

Bottle

#1
Temp.

Bottle

#2
Temp.

Bottle

#3
Temp.

IR

Thermometer
ID

Ambient
Temp.

Ambient
Thermometer
ID

Initials

Date/Time
Checked

Comment

Cooler #1

12 hr.

1/10/202216:40

-19°C

1/11/2022 5:30

-1.9°C

-3.1°C

-2.6°C

TH-118

2i. rc

TH-65

ES

1/11/2020 5:30

Samples completely frozen.

Cooler #2

24 hr.

1/10/202216:40

-14°C

1/11/202217:30

-1.6°C

-1.8°C

-1.6°C

TH-118

2i. re

TH-65

AJC

1/11/2022 16:40

Samples completely frozen.

Cooler #3

36 hr.

1/10/202216:50

-18°C

1/12/2022 5:30

-1.4°C

-2.3°C

-2.4°C

TH-118

20.8°C

TH-65

ES

1/12/2022 5:30

Little thawed water noticeable ~10 mL.

Cooler #4

48 hr.

1/10/202217:00

-19°C

1/12/202217:30

-1.4°C

-1.8°C

-1.9°C

TH-118

21.3°C

TH-65

MG

1/12/2022 16:50

N/A

Cooler #5

72 hr.

1/10/202217:00

-19°C

1/13/202217:30

-1.0°C

-1.6°C

-1.1°C

TH-118

21.1°C

TH-65

AJC

1/13/2022 16:35

Samples 3/4frozen, l/4thawed.

Cooler #6

96 hr.

1/14/202210:30

-16°C

1/18/202210:30

-0.9°C

-1.6°C

-0.5°C

TH-118

2i. rc

TH-65

BPM

1/18/2022 10:32

Bottle #2 middle cooler location
~20mL thawed, outside bottle 1&3
~3/4frozen, ~l/4thawed.

Cooler #7

120 hr.

1/14/202210:30

-17°C

1/19/202210:30

-0.9°C

-0.6°C

-0.4°C

TH-118

20.0°C

TH-65

BPM

1/19/2022 10:35

Bottle #1 middle cooler location 60mL
thawed, thawed. Bottle #2 outside
location 180 mL thawed and bottle #3
outside location ~300mL thawed.

Mark bottles, randomize marked bottles in coolers.

All coolers stored under micro benches in the lab.

* Initial Temperature Check performed using IRThermometer ID : TH-118. All on Bottle #1
Initial ambientTemp = 20.9°C



Page 7 of 7


-------
PFAS Multi-Laboratory Validation Study Report
Aqueous Media: Wastewater, Surface Water, and Groundwater

SERDP

Appendix B

Preparation of PFAS-
Spiked Samples

Date: July 25, 2023


-------
Waters

THE SCIENCE OF WHAT'S POSSIBLE."

Document No: 73000PFAS

WORK INSTRUCTION
Title: Hydrogeologic PFAS Validation Study Procedure

Version No: 13	Page 1of14

Content Table

1	PURPOSE	1

2	SCOPE	1

3	DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS	3

4	ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES	3

5	REFERENCES / RELATED DOCUMENTS	4

6	FORMS	5

6.1 Records	5

7	HEALTH & SAFETY	5

8	EQUIPMENT/MATERIALS	5

9	PROCEDURE/INSTRUCTION	6

9.1	Matrix Check-in & Preparation Process	6

9.2	Matrix Characteristics Testing	9

9.3	PFAS Spiking Concentrate Manufacturing & Verification Process	9

9.4	Sample PFAS Spiking Process	10

9.5	Sample Shipping Process	10

9.6	Certificate of Analysis and Sample Instructions Generation	11

10	APPENDICES /ATTACHMENTS	12

1	PURPOSE

1.1 The purpose of this procedure/work instruction is to supply samples for a characterization determination
and a Multi-Laboratory Validation Study for per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

2	SCOPE

2.1 The scope of this procedure is to prepare the defined sample matrices for characterization testing and
then spiking the prepared matrices with known amounts of PFAS analytes for a Multi-Laboratory
Validation Study for analytical Method 1633 - October 2021.

2.1.1 Matrix Characterization for PFAS and Chemical Characteristics:

Sample Chart 1 - PFAS Characterization Samples

Matrix

Matrix
Type

Number
Matrix
Types

Number of
Unspiked
Samples

Total Number
of Samples
Shipping/
Matrix Type

Volume/Mass
to be provided
for each
Sample

Water

Wastewater

9 1

3

27

550 mL



Groundwater

3

3

9

550 mL



Surface Water

4 2

3

12

500 mL



Landfill Leachate

3

3

9

125 mL

Soil/Sediment

Soil

83

3

24

10.0 g



Sediment

3

3

9

10.0 g



Biosolids

3

3

9

1.00 g

Tissue

Fish/Clams4

3

3

9

10.0 g

Total Number







108



Footnotes:

1 Eight wastewaters were received by ERA and ERA will manufacture one substitute wastewater following ASTM method

Template 730000483 V08

It is the responsibility of the user to verify they are using the current released version.

HARD COPY UNCONTROLLED UNLESS STAMPED, SIGNED AND DATED BY AUTHORISED PERSONNEL


-------
Waters

THE SCIENCE OF WHAT'S POSSIBLE."

Document No: 73000PFAS

WORK INSTRUCTION
Title: Hydrogeologic PFAS Validation Study Procedure

Version No: 13	Page 2 of 14

D5905-98 (Reapproved 2018).

2	Four different surface water lots were received by ERA.

3	Eight different soil lots were received by ERA. One received soil lot does not contain enough sample to supply all samples for the study.

4	Two fish filets (salmon and walleye) with skin were received and un-shucked clams.

Sample Chart 2 - Chemical Characteristics Testing

Analyte

Analytical
Method

Container

Preservation

Minimum Sample
Volume/Mass

Number
of Lots 1

Number of
Unspiked
Samples per Lot

Holding
Time

Aqueous Samples

Alkalinity (total, carbonate and bicarbonate)

SM 2320B

250 mL HDPE

< 6°C

100 ml

19

1

14 days

Ammonia

EPA 350.1

250 mL Amber
Glass

< 6°C, H2S04

250 ml

19

1

28 days

Calcium, sodium

SW 6010C

250 mL HDPE

< 6°C, HNO3

50 ml

19

1

6 months

Chloride, sulfate

SW 9056A

250 mL HDPE

< 6°C

100 ml

19

1

28 days

Conductivity

SW 9050A

250 mL HDPE

< 6°C

50 ml

19

1

28 days

Oil and grease

EPA 1664B

1000 mL Amber
Glass

< 6°C, H2SO4

1 L

19

1

28 days

pH

SW 9040C

250 mL HDPE

< 6°C

100 ml

19

1

Immediately

Total dissolved solids

SM 2540C

250 mL HDPE

< 6°C

100 ml

19

1

7 days

Total suspended solids

SM 2540D

250 mL HDPE

< 6°C

100 ml

19

1

7 days

Soil and Sediment Samples

Grain Size

ASTM D422

16 oz Plastic or
Glass Jar

None

500 g

11

1

Not defined

Moisture

ASTM
D2216

4oz Glass Jars

< 6°C

20 g

11

1

1 year

pH

SW 9045D

4 oz Glass Jars

< 6°C

50 g

11

1

Immediately

Salinity (sediment only)

SM 2520B

4 oz Glass Jars

< 6°C

50 g

3

1

6 months

Total Organic Carbon

SW 9060A

4 oz Glass Jars

< 6°C

10 g

11

1

28 days

Tissue

Lipids

SM 2540B

4 oz Glass Jar

< 6°C

20 g

3

1

1 year

Biosolids

pH

SW 9045D

4 oz Glass Jar

< 6°C

50 g

3

1

Immediately

Total Number of Samples Shipping: 188



Notes:

EPA Methods - USEPA Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes (MCAWW) USEPA/600/4-79-020, Revised March
1983.

SW Methods - USEPA Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, SW-846, Third Edition, 1998.
SM Methods - Standards Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, Revised 2018
ASTM Methods - ASTM International, Revised 2019
Footnotes:

1 Refer to Sample Chart 1 for further information regarding Matrix Type.

2.1.1.1 Samples listed in Sample Chart 1 will be sent to SGS AXYS for PFAS characterization
testing and samples listed in Sample Chart 2 will be sent to Eurofins TestAmerica
Denver for sample chemical characteristics testing.

2.1.2 Multiple Laboratory Validation Study Samples:

2.1.2.1 The chart below lists the matrix types, spiking levels and sample quantities required for
the Multiple Laboratory Validation testing.

Template 730000483 V08

It is the responsibility of the user to verify they are using the current released version.

HARD COPY UNCONTROLLED UNLESS STAMPED, SIGNED AND DATED BY AUTHORISED PERSONNEL


-------
Waters

THE SCIENCE OF WHAT'S POSSIBLE."

Document No: 73000PFAS

WORK INSTRUCTION
Title: Hydrogeologic PFAS Validation Study Procedure

Version No: 13	Page 3 of 14

Multiple Laboratory Validation Study Sample Chart

Matrix

Matrix
Type

Number
Matrix
Types

Number of
Unspiked
Samples/
Matrix Type

Number of
Replicates
Spiked at
Low Level1/
Matrix Type

Number of
Replicates
Spiked at
High Level1,2/
Matrix Type

Total
Number of
Samples
Shipping/
Matrix Type

Spiked
Volume/Mass to
be provided for
each Sample

Water

Wastewater

7

1

3

3

49

500 mL3



Groundwater

3

1

3

3

21

500 mL3



Surface Water

3

1

3

3

21

500 mL3



Landfill Leachate

3

1

3

3

21

100 mL3











3

21

5.00 g3



Sediment

3

1

3

3

21

5.00 g3



Biosolids

3

1

3

3

21

0.500 g3

Tissue

Fish/Clams

3

1

3

3

21

2.00 g3

Total Number











205



Footnotes:

1	Low and High levels for spiking defined in analytical method "Analysis of Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Aqueous, Solid, Biosolids, and Tissue
Samples by LC-MS/MS", October 2021.

2	Except for FTSs spiked at 1.5 times low level.

3	Labs will be instructed to use the entire sample contents for analysis and assume the volume or mass listed.

2.1.2.2	Samples listed in the Multiple Laboratory Validation Study Sample Chart will be sent to
the labs that were selected for the Multiple Laboratory Validation Study.

2.1.2.3	ERA will prepare 5 extra sets of prepped samples for use as: replacement samples,
future testing, and/or other use by the client.

2.1.3	Analyte lists as determined from the analytical Method 1633 - October 2021 (as referenced
above) will be confirmed by the SERDP/ESTCP team. New analyte addition(s) to be reviewed
and approved by ERA Technical department.

2.1.4	Final product concentrations as determined from the analytical Method 1633 - October 2021 (as
referenced above) will be confirmed by the SERDP/ESTCP team.

3	DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS

3.1	PFAS - Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances

3.2	GHS - Globally Harmonized System

3.3	HDPE - High Density Polyethylene

3.4	PWS - Performance Work Statement

3.5	NIST - National Institute of Standards & Technology

3.6	CofA - Certificate of Analysis

3.7	DWBSS - Dry Weight Basis Sample Size is the state of the soil without the presence of water.

4	ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

4.1 Technical Manager

4.1.1	Responsible for the project evaluation and project scope feasibility.

4.1.2	Documentation review.

Template 730000483 V08

It is the responsibility of the user to verify they are using the current released version.

HARD COPY UNCONTROLLED UNLESS STAMPED, SIGNED AND DATED BY AUTHORISED PERSONNEL


-------
Waters

THE SCIENCE OF WHAT'S POSSIBLE,"

Document No: 73000PFAS

WORK INSTRUCTION
Title: Hydrogeologic PFAS Validation Study Procedure

Version No: 13	Page 4 of 14

4.1.3 Providing technical assistants for the steps described in this Work Procedure.

4.2	Product Line Manager

4.2.1	Responsible for the overall project management and task scheduling of the project.

4.2.2	Documentation review.

4.2.3	Overseeing project progress for the steps described in this Work Procedure.

4.3	Chemist/Chemistry Technician

4.3.1	Responsible for performing the sample homogenizing and packaging.

4.3.2	Manufacturing PFAS concentrates and verification analysis of concentrates.

4.3.3	Perform sample spiking.

4.3.4	Preparing samples and coolers for shipping.

4.4	Production Technician

4.4.1	Responsible for performing the sample homogenizing and packaging.

4.4.2	Preparing samples and coolers for shipping.

5 REFERENCES/RELATED DOCUMENTS

5.1 The listed ERA ISO 17025 Accredited Work Procedures in the table below are associated with this
procedure.

Doc No:

Document Title

730002414

Environmental Product Packaging and Labeling

730002350

Organic Liquid Standards Preparation

730002570

Semi-volatile Analytical Verification by High Performance Liquid Chromatography

730002497

Analytical Verification of Grease and Oil in Water Samples

730002520

Analytical Verification by ICP-OES

730002523

Analytical Verification of Anions, Perchlorate and DBPs by Dionex Ion
Chromatography

730002515

Analytical Verification of Total Alkalinity in Water Samples

730002510

Analytical Verification of Ammonia in Water and Soil Samples

730002501

Analytical Verification of pH in Water and Soil Samples

730002508

Analytical Verification of Specific Conductance in Water and Soil Samples

730002492

Analytical Verification of Total Dissolved Solids in Water Samples

730002493

Analytical Verification of Total Suspended Solids (TSS) in Water Samples

730002434

Reagents Manufacturing

730002412

Environmental Product Manual Certificate of Analysis Generation

Template 730000483 V08

It is the responsibility of the user to verify they are using the current released version.

HARD COPY UNCONTROLLED UNLESS STAMPED, SIGNED AND DATED BY AUTHORISED PERSONNEL


-------
Waters

THE SCIENCE OF WHAT'S POSSIBLE,"

Document No: 73000PFAS

WORK INSTRUCTION
Title: Hydrogeologic PFAS Validation Study Procedure

Version No: 13	Page 5 of 14

730002425

Whole Volume Cooler Shipping

730002254

Control of Quality Records

6 FORMS

8.1 Records

8,1.1 All records associated with this procedure will be retained by Quality according to OP
730002254 Control of Quality Records.

7 HEALTH & SAFETY

7.1 GHS Evaluation

7.1.1 ERA will perform GHS (Globally Harmonized System) evaluation as needed for product
shipments.

8 EQUIPMENT /MATERIALS

8.1	Mixing Equipment:

8.1.1	30-gal Blue HDPE Open Top Drum

8.1.2	Stainless Steel Mixer

8.1.3	Rotational Mixer

8.1.4	Food Processor

8.1.5	Mixing Bins - for solids/tissues

8.2	ERA will procure other required (non-chemical) materials. Quantities will be based upon number of
laboratories and samples. Items will include but are not limited to:

8.2.1	1000 mL amber HDPE Narrow Mouth Bottles - Thermo Scientific Part# 03-313-8F

8.2.2	1000 mL Amber Glass Bottles - ESS Part# 1000-0150-PC

8.2.3	250 mL HDPE Narrow Mouth Bottles - Thermo Scientific Part# 312002-0016

8.2.4	250 mL Amber Glass Bottles - ESS Part# 0250-0150-PC

8.2.5	125 mL HDPE Narrow Mouth Bottles - Thermo Scientific Part# 312089-0004

8.2.6	4 oz Glass Jars - Berlin Part# - GLA-00869

8.2.7	24 mL clear glass screw top vial - Berlin Packaging Part# 293339, Cap Part# CAP-00145

8.2.8	12 oz Blue Gel Ice Packs - Katzke Paper Part# MM-PP12

8.2.9	Large Styrofoam Coolers - Katzke Paper Part# CP211312C

8.2.10	Medium Coolers - Katzke Paper Part# CP121213

8.2.11	Reusable Matrix Coolers

8.2.12	Packaging Material

Template 730000483 V08

It is the responsibility of the user to verify they are using the current released version.

HARD COPY UNCONTROLLED UNLESS STAMPED, SIGNED AND DATED BY AUTHORISED PERSONNEL


-------
Waters

THE SCIENCE OF WHAT'S POSSIBLE,"

Document No: 73000PFAS

WORK INSTRUCTION
Title: Hydrogeologic PFAS Validation Study Procedure

Version No: 13	Page 6 of 14

8.3	ERA will work with Client to source high level PFAS starting materials from an ERA approved vendor.
ERA will consult Client with any availability or lead time concerns for vendor supplied starting materials.

8.4	ERA will procure PFAS starting materials. Lead time will be determined by vendor.

8.5	Client Supplied Matrices for preparation of PFAS spiking:

8.5.1	8 - Client supplied Wastewater Matrix Lots, 1 ASTM manufactured by ERA, 7 lots will be chosen
for the study

8.5.2	3 - Client supplied Leachate matrix lots all 3 will used for the study.

8.5.3	4 - Client supplied Surface Water matrix lots, 3 will be chosen for the study.

8.5.4	3 - Client supplied Ground Water matrix lots all 3 will used for the study.

8.5.5	8 - Client supplied Soil lots, 3 will be chosen for the study.

8.5.6	3 - Client supplied Sediment lots all 3 will used for the study.

8.5.7	3 - Client supplied Biosolids lots all 3 will used for the study.

8.5.8	3 - Client supplied Fish/Clam Tissue lots all 3 will used for the study.

9 PROCEDURE I INSTRUCTION

9.1 Matrix Check-in & Preparation Process:

9.1.1	Check-In - When each matrix is received containers will be:

9.1.1.1	Labelled:

9.1.1.1.1	With matrix type

9.1.1.1.2	Source ID from clients Chain of Custody (When Provided)
9.1 1.1.3 Container#

9.1.1.2	Login all matrices into an electronic matrix log for record keeping & organization. File is
available to client. File Location - K:Customs-WholeVolumes\Hydrogeologic PFAS
Round Robin 2020\Matrix Log.

9.1.1.3	Store labelled and logged in matrices in a walk-in refrigerator. Fish/clam tissues are
stored in a freezer until needed for preparation.

9.1.1.4	Client will be notified when each matrix has been received.

9.1.2	Matrix Preparation & Homogenizing:

9.1.2.1 Prior to the homogenization and final packaging of the matrices, composite samples
will be prepared for each matrix lot by taking subsamples from each homogenized
container and combining.

9.1.2.1.1 The unspiked composite samples of each matrix lot will be sent to SGS
Axys (PFAS) and Eurofins TestAmerica Denver (characteristic
parameters) for background analysis.

9.1.2.1.1.1	HGL will advise ERA of any dilutions or adjustments
required to any of the matrices.

9.1.2.1.1.2	Any required dilutions will be made using approximate
volumes.

Template 730000483 V08

It is the responsibility of the user to verify they are using the current released version.

HARD COPY UNCONTROLLED UNLESS STAMPED, SIGNED AND DATED BY AUTHORISED PERSONNEL


-------
Waters

THE SCIENCE OF WHAT'S POSSIBLE,"

Document No: 73000PFAS

WORK INSTRUCTION
Title: Hydrogeologic PFAS Validation Study Procedure

Version No: 13	Page 7 of 14

9.1 2.1.2 Any matrix adjustment (to inorganic background parameters) will be
verified in ERA's laboratory.

9 1.2.2 Aqueous Matrices:

9.1.2.2.1	All samples for each individual aqueous matrix will be combined and
homogenized in a pre-cleaned and sealable 30-gal blue HDPE open top
drum with a powered stainless-steel mixer.

9.1.2.2.2	Each aqueous matrix will mix for 1 hr and be stored in a labeled 30-gal blue
HDPE sealable container until the specific aqueous matrices for the study
have been selected by the SERDP/ESTCP team.

9.1.2.2.3	Once the specific aqueous matrices are selected, they will be packaged in
1000 ml_ amber HDPE bottles for the Waste, Surface & Ground waters,
125 ml_ HDPE bottles for the Leachate, while mixing.

9.1.2.2.4	Wastewater, Surface Water & Ground Water bottles will be filled to a
nominal fill of 500 ml_ in a 1000 ml_ amber HDPE bottle and Leachate
bottles will be filled to a nominal fill of 100 ml_ in a 125 ml_ HDPE bottle.

9.1.2.2.5	The labs will be directed in the sample instructions to use the entire
contents of the sample and assume 500 ml_ for Waste, Surface & Ground
waters and 100 ml_ for Leachate Waters.

9.1.2.2.6	The packaging sequence for each lot will be recorded for reference.

9.1.2.2.7	Label each bottle with an adhesive label listing matrix type and lot number,
that is listed in the Appendices section under the Sample Labeling
Scheme.

9.1.2.2.8	Filled bottles will then be stored in a walk-in refrigerator until the spiking
event.

9.1.2.2.9	The steps above will be repeated for each aqueous matrix.

9.1.2.3 Soil/Sediment/Biosolids:

9.1.2.3.1	All sample containers for each Soil, Sediment and Biosolid matrix will be
combined and homogenized in pre-cleaned sealable containers. Sediment
samples containing standing liquid will be decanted prior to homogenizing.

9.1.2.3.2	Each solid matrix in the bulk container will be mixed until thoroughly
homogenized for at least 1 hr in a rotational mixer.

9.1.2.3.3	All soil matrices will be tested for the percent moisture content and
recorded.

9.1.2.3.4	Each soil matrix will be stored in a bulk labeled sealable container until the
specific matrices for the study have been selected by the SERDP/ESTCP
team.

9.1.2.3.5	The labs will be directed in the sample instructions for the soil, sediment
and biosolid matrices to use the entire contents of the sample and rinse
the vial out to remove any PFAS material that may adhere to the vial walls.
The labs will also be directed in the instructions to assume 5.0 g dry
weight basis for soil/sediment samples and 0.5 g dry weight basis for the
biosolids is packaging in the vial. Instructions will also include that
moisture content and moisture correction will not be necessary by the labs.

Template 730000483 V08

It is the responsibility of the user to verify they are using the current released version.

HARD COPY UNCONTROLLED UNLESS STAMPED, SIGNED AND DATED BY AUTHORISED PERSONNEL


-------
Waters

THE SCIENCE OF WHAT'S POSSIBLE,"

Document No: 73000PFAS

WORK INSTRUCTION
Title: Hydrogeologic PFAS Validation Study Procedure

Version No: 13	Page 8 of 14

9.1.2.3.6	When the specific matrices are chosen, 5 g dry weight basis ± 0.5 g soil
and sediment sample sizes will be packaged in 24 ml_ clear glass screw
top vials. The dry weight basis sample size is the state of the soil without
the presence of water.

9.1.2.3.7	0.5 g dry weight basis ± 0.05 g sample size for each biosolid matrix will be
packaged in 24 ml_ clear glass screw top vials.

9.1.2.3.8	Percent Moisture Content (MC) and Dry Weight Basis Sample Size
(DWBSS) will be calculated by ERA as follows.

% Moisture Content:

M- D

MC

D

x 100

MC = % Moisture Content
M = Weight of Moist Soil
D = Weight of Dry Soil

Dry Weight Basis Sample Size:

DWBSS

s~

'mc^



Dx







.100„

J

+ D

DWBSS = Dry Weight Sample Size
MC = % Moisture Content
D = Weight of Dry Soil

9.1.2.3.9	The packaging sequence for each lot will be recorded for reference.

9.1.2.3.10	Label each vial with an adhesive label listing matrix type and lot number,
that is listed in the Appendices section under the Sample Labeling
Scheme.

9.1.2.3 11 Filled vials will then be stored in a walk-in refrigerator until spiking and
shipping.

9.1,2.3.12 Steps above will be repeated for each solid matrix.

9.1.2.4 Fish/Clam Tissue:

9.1.2.4.1	Each tissue will be homogenized separately in a pre-cleaned bin.

9.1.2.4.2	Fish tissue including skin and shucked clams will be processed with a food
processer until a smooth paste consistency is achieved. Due to the
amount of the tissue and capacity of the food processor, the tissue may
need to be processed in separate batches and combined in the pre-
cleaned bin.

Template 730000483 V08

It is the responsibility of the user to verify they are using the current released version.

HARD COPY UNCONTROLLED UNLESS STAMPED, SIGNED AND DATED BY AUTHORISED PERSONNEL


-------
Waters

THE SCIENCE OF WHAT'S POSSIBLE,"

Document No: 73000PFAS

WORK INSTRUCTION
Title: Hydrogeologic PFAS Validation Study Procedure

Version No: 13	Page 9 of 14

9.1.2.4.3	After the paste consistency is achieved each tissue will be mixed until
thoroughly homogenized for at least 1 hr in a pre-cleaned bin. 2 g ± 0.5 g
fish/clam tissue sample size will be packaged in 24 ml_ clear glass screw
top vials.

9.1.2.4.4	The packaging sequence for each lot will be recorded for reference.

9.1.2.4.5	Label each vial with an adhesive label listing matrix type and lot number,
that is listed in the Appendices section under the Sample Labeling
Scheme.

9.1.2.4.6	Filled vials will then be stored in a freezer until spiking and shipping.

9.1.2.4.7	Labs will be directed in the tissue sample instructions to use the entire
contents of the sample and rinse the vial out to remove any PFAS material
that may adhere to the vial walls. The labs will also be directed in the
sample instructions to assume 2.0 g for each tissue sample is packaging
in the vial.

9.1.2.4.8	Steps above will be repeated for each fish/clam tissue matrix.

9.2	Matrix Characteristics Testing:

9.2.1	All aqueous, soil, sediments, and tissue matrices will be sent to Eurofins TestAmerica Denver for
sample chemical characteristics testing.

9.2.2	Reference Sample Chart 2 in section 2.1.1 for a summary of sample requirements for the
chemical characteristic analysis for each matrix. Detailed are the testing parameters, testing
method, packaging container, sample preservative, volume/mass and holding times.

9.2.3	After external characteristic testing is completed, data will be reviewed by the Method Validation
Team and they will determine if any adjustments are needed to any of the sample matrices.

9.2.4	If any adjusting is required, ERA will adjust the determined lot to meet any outstanding criteria.
Adjustments will be analytically verified by ERA using the ERA work procedures listed in section
5.1 of this work procedure.

9.3	PFAS Spiking Concentrate Manufacturing & Verification Process:

9.3.1	ERA will manufacture an estimate of 4 unique mixed PFAS spiking concentrates, depending on
analyte concentrations using gravimetric balances and volumetric glassware traced to NIST
weights following ERA ISO 17025 Accredited Work Instruction 730002350 (Organic Liquid
Standards Preparation).

9.3.2	The 4 mixed spiking concentrates will consist of 2 mixed spiking concentrate solutions for the
aqueous matrices and 2 mixed spiking concentrate solutions for the solid matrices will be used
to manufacture all final products. See "MARTIX SPIKING LEVELS" in Appendices section of this
procedure for spiking levels.

9.3.3	New analyte addition(s) may affect the total number of spiking concentrates and/or the originally
planned concentrations. PFAS analytes, concentrations, and levels will be approved by the
client prior to manufacturing commencement. Depending on background PFAS levels more
spiking concentrates maybe be required.

9.3.4	ERA will analytically verify the 4 PFAS spiking concentrates by LC/MS/MS following ERA ISO
17025 Accredited Work Procedure 730002570 (Semi-volatile Analytical Verification by High
Performance Liquid Chromatography). A minimum of n=5 for each concentration will be verified.

9.3.5	Method development will be performed as needed for any new analyte addition(s).

Template 730000483 V08

It is the responsibility of the user to verify they are using the current released version.

HARD COPY UNCONTROLLED UNLESS STAMPED, SIGNED AND DATED BY AUTHORISED PERSONNEL


-------
y^Q|ers	WORK INSTRUCTION

THE science of what's possible.- jjtie: Hydrogeologic PFAS Validation Study Procedure

Document No: 73000PFAS	Version No: 13	Page 10 of 14

9.4	Sample PFAS Spiking Process:

9.4.1 Sample Spiking Organization:

9.4.1.1	Sample spiking, freezing and packing timeline will be determined by the

SERDP/ESTCP team and communicated to ERA.

9.4.1.2	Whole volume spiking bench sheets will be created and reviewed prior to shipment.

9.4.1.2.1	Two spiking concentrates will be used to spike all aqueous final whole
volume products at varying levels.

9.4.1.2.2	Two spiking concentrates will be used to spike all solid/tissue final whole
volume products at varying levels.

9.4.1.3	Sample Organization:

9.4.1.3.1	The designated samples for each week will be pulled from
refrigeration/freezer on the day the of the spiking.

9.4.1.3.2	Samples will be organized according to the spiking levels.

9.4 1.3.3 Spiking concentrations will be pulled from refrigeration storage and
allowed to reach ambient temperature prior to spiking samples.

9.4.1.4	Sample Spiking:

9.4.1.4.1 Once samples and spiking concentrates reach room temperature they will
be mixed/vortexed prior to being opened and aliquots withdrawn. They will
be organized on physically separated work benches according to spiking
levels.

9.4 1.4.2 A validated repeating pi petto r delivery system will be used to deliver the
aliquots on to the samples.

9.4.1.4.3	Bench sheets will list the amount of each spiking concentrate to deliver to
the specific sample. Spiking aliquots will be determined upon
determination of final concentrations.

9.4 1.4.4 Detailed records of the spiking events will be recorded and a peer witness
review of samples, spiking concentrates and pipettor will be performed
prior to and during actual spiking event.

9.4.1.4.5	Once the designated aliquot of spiking concentrate has been delivered,
each sample will be sealed and placed in a designated completed area to
avoid double spiking.

9.4.1.4.6	A peer witness review of samples, spiking concentrates and pipettor will
be performed during the actual spiking event and documented.

9.4.1.4.7	Aqueous sample bottles will be inverted to homogenize and stored in the
walk-in freezer until they are scheduled to ship. Soil/Sediments/Biosolids
and fish tissue will be stored in a walk-in refrigerator until they are
scheduled to ship.

9.4.1.4.8	Samples will be spiked in advanced by the Friday prior to the scheduled
shipping week and then ship overnight by Wednesday to give ample time
for samples to freeze.

9.5	Sample Shipping Process:

9.5.1 Order confirmations for shipments will be setup by ERA in consultation with client.

Template 730000483 V08

It is the responsibility of the user to verify they are using the current released version.

HARD COPY UNCONTROLLED UNLESS STAMPED, SIGNED AND DATED BY AUTHORISED PERSONNEL


-------
W0t©rS	WORK INSTRUCTION

THE science of what's possible.- jjtie: Hydrogeologic PFAS Validation Study Procedure

Document No: 73000PFAS	Version No: 13	Page 11 of 14

9.5.2	Sample shipping will follow the determined schedule by the SERDP/ESTCP team and will be
communicated to ERA.

9.5.3	Frozen Blue Ice Gel packs and packing material will be used with each shipment to chill and
protect samples.

9.5.4	Shipment Preparation:

9.5.4.1 Cooler shipments will be prepared following ERA work instruction 730002425 (Whole
Volume Cooler Shipping). Each order will include the following listed below.

9.5.4.1.1	A set number of coolers will be determined by matrix type.

9.5.4.1.2	The samples that are prescheduled for each shipping event.

9.5.4.1.3	Temperature Blank

9.5.4.1.4	Completed chain of custody form.

9.5.4.1.5	Sample Preparation Instructions
9.5 4.1.6	Blue Gel Ice Packs

9.5.4.1.7	A 4x4 label applied to outside of cooler box stating, "Upon arrival, contact
(LAB POC) immediately."

9.5 4.2 Laboratory contacts and client personnel will be notified by email of shipment and
supplied with shipment tracking numbers.

9.6 Certificate of Analysis and Sample Instruction Generation:

9.6.1 CofA's for each spiked level matrix will be created using ERA ISO 17025 Accredited Work
Instruction 730002412 (Environmental Product Manual Certificate of Analysis Generation).

9.6 2 Sample instructions for each matrix type will generated.

9.6.3	CofA's & Sample instructions content will be discussed and mutually agreed upon with client.

9.6.4	CofA's & Sample instructions will be distributed to personnel designated by the client.

Template 730000483 V08

It is the responsibility of the user to verify they are using the current released version.

HARD COPY UNCONTROLLED UNLESS STAMPED, SIGNED AND DATED BY AUTHORISED PERSONNEL


-------
YYq|0	WORK INSTRUCTION

the science of what's possiBLEr Title: Hydrogeologic PFAS Validation Study Procedure

Document No: 73000PFAS	Version No: 13	Page 12 of 14

10 APPENDICES/ATTACHMENTS

SAMPLE LABELING SCHEME

Matrix
Type

Requested
Name

Description

Matrix
Code

Sample
Identifier

Characterization
Sample Lot#

Spiked Study Sample Lot Numbers

Unspiked

Low
Replicate

Low
Replicate
2

Low
Replicate
3

High
Replicate

High
Replicate
2

High
Replicate
3

Ground
Water

USACE

GW#1, Midwest

GW

A

GWA0

GWA1

GWA2

GWA3

GWA4

GWA5

GWA6

GWA7

Ground
Water

LRPCD

GW #2,
Southwest

GW

B

GWB0

GWB1

GWB2

GWB3

GWB4

GWB5

GWB6

GWB7

Ground
Water

USACE

GW#13

GW

C

GWC0

GWC1

GWC2

GWC3

GWC4

GWC5

GWC6

GWC7

Surface
Water

Lake Harsha, OH

SWOH 9/10

SW

D

SWD0

SWD1

SWD2

SWD3

SWD4

SWD5

SWD6

SWD7

Surface
Water

Norwell, MA

SW MA 9/24

SW

E

SWE0

SWE1

SWE2

SWE3

SWE4

SWE5

SWE6

SWE7

Surface
Water

Burley Creek,
WA

Burley Creek

SW

F

SWF0

SWF1

SWF2

SWF3

SWF4

SWF5

SWF6

SWF7

Surface
Water

Sequim Bay, WA

Sequim
Seawater

SW

G

SWG0

SWG1

SWG2

SWG3

SWG4

SWG5

SWG6

SWG7

Waste
Water

Metal Finisher

Metal Finisher

WW

H

WWH0

WWH1

WWH2

WWH3

WWH4

WWH5

WWH6

WWH7

Waste
Water

Hospital

Hospital

WW

I

WWI0

WWI1

WWI2

WWI3

WWI4

WWI5

WWI6

WWI7

Waste
Water

POTW Influent

POTW Influent

WW

J

WWJ0

WWJ1

WWJ2

WWJ3

WWJ4

WWJ5

WWJ6

WWJ7

Waste
Water

ASTM Substitute

ASTM Substitute

WW

K

WWK0

WWK1

WWK2

WWK3

WWK4

WWK5

WWK6

WWK7

Waste
Water

WW Bus
Washinq Station

WW Bus Wash

WW

L

WWL0

WWL1

WWL2

WWL3

WWL4

WWL5

WWL6

WWL7

Waste
Water

Playa Del Ray,
CA

Plant Effluent

WW

M

WWM0

WWM1

WWM2

WWM3

WWM4

WWM5

WWM6

WWM7

Waste
Water

P&P WW

#1-28

WW

N

WWN0

WWN1

WWN2

WWN3

WWN4

WWN5

WWN6

WWN7

Waste
Water

POTW Effluent

POTW Effluent

WW

O

WWOO

WW01

WW02

WW03

WW04

WW05

WW06

WW07

Waste
Water1

Dairy
Wastewater1

Dairy
Wastewater

WW

P

WWP01

WWP1

WWP2

WWP3

WWP4

WWP5

WWP6

WWP7

Soil

Musselshell,
Clark Co. MT

AA (2016-106),
L32547-2

ss

R

SSR0

SSR1

SSR2

SSR3

SSR4

SSR5

SSR6

SSR7

Soil

Ivy, Cashe Co.
UT

BB (2017-111),
L32547-3

ss

S

SSSO

SSS1

SSS2

SSS3

SSS4

SSS5

SSS6

SSS7

Soil

Fruitland, San
Juan Co. NM

CC (2018-105),
L32547-4

ss

T

SST0

SST1

SST2

SST3

SST4

SST5

SST6

SST7

Soil

Armijo, Dona
Ana Co. NM

DD (2018-116),
L32547-5

ss

U

SSUO

SSU1

SSU2

SSU3

SSU4

SSU5

SSU6

SSU7

Soil

Drummer,
Dekalb Co. IL

EE (2019-107),
L32547-6

ss

V

ssvo

SSV1

SSV2

SSV3

SSV4

SSV5

SSV6

SSV7

Soil

Brock, Wheatley
Co. TN

FF (2019-110),
L32547-7

ss

w

sswo

SSW1

SSW2

SSW3

SSW4

SSW5

SSW6

SSW7

Soil

Delhi, Fresno
County. CA

2014-107

ss

X

ssxo

SSX1

SSX2

SSX3

SSX4

SSX5

SSX6

SSX7

Sediment

Burley 1 Sed.
Burley Creek,
WA

Burley 1 Sed.

SD

Y

SDY0

SDY1

SDY2

SDY3

SDY4

SDY5

SDY6

SDY7

Sediment

Burley 2 Sed.
Burley Creek,
WA

Burley 2 Sed.

SD

z

SDZ0

SDZ1

SDZ2

SDZ3

SDZ4

SDZ5

SDZ6

SDZ7

Sediment

Sequim Bay
Sediment

Sequim Bay
Sediment

SD

AA

SDAA0

SDAA1

SDAA2

SDAA3

SDAA4

SDAA5

SDAA6

SDAA7

Template 730000483 V08

It is the responsibility of the user to verify they are using the current released version.

HARD COPY UNCONTROLLED UNLESS STAMPED, SIGNED AND DATED BY AUTHORISED PERSONNEL


-------
YYq|0	WORK INSTRUCTION

the science of what's possiBLEr Title: Hydrogeologic PFAS Validation Study Procedure

Document No: 73000PFAS	Version No: 13	Page 13 of 14

Fish
Tissue

Walleye (low lipid
fish)

Walleye

TS

AB

TSABO

TSAB1

TSAB2

TSAB3

TSAB4

TSAB5

TSAB6

TSAB7

Fish
Tissue

Salmon (high
lipid fish)

Salmon

TS

AC

TSACO

TSAC1

TSAC2

TSAC3

TSAC4

TSAC5

TSAC6

TSAC7

Fish
Tissue

Clams

Clams

TS

AD

TSADO

TSAD1

TSAD2

TSAD3

TSAD4

TSAD5

TSAD6

TSAD7

Leachate

MSWLF
Leachate
Sample

MSWLF
Leachate
Sample

LC

AE

LCAEO

LCAE1

LCAE2

LCAE3

LCAE4

LCAE5

LCAE6

LCAE7

Leachate

CDD Landfill

CDD

LC

AF

LCAFO

LCAF1

LCAF2

LCAF3

LCAF4

LCAF5

LCAF6

LCAF7

Leachate

Ash leachate

Ash leachate

LC

AG

LCAGO

LCAG1

LCAG2

LCAG3

LCAG4

LCAG5

LCAG6

LCAG7

Biosolids

Playa Del Ray,
CA

Wetcake

BS

AH

BSAHO

BSAH1

BSAH2

BSAH3

BSAH4

BSAH5

BSAH6

BSAH7

Biosolids

Biosolids #1 East

Biosolids #1
East

BS

Al

BSAI0

BSAI1

BSAI2

BSAI3

BSAI4

BSAI5

BSAI6

BSAI7

Biosolids

South Plant
Biosolids

South Plant
Biosolids

BS

AJ

BSAJO

BSAJ1

BSAJ2

BSAJ3

BSAJ4

BSAJ5

BSAJ6

BSAJ7

1 Dairy Wastewater determined to not be fit for the study and will not be used.

Matrices highlighted in yellow above are to be excluded from MLV study.

Template 730000483 V08

It is the responsibility of the user to verify they are using the current released version.

HARD COPY UNCONTROLLED UNLESS STAMPED, SIGNED AND DATED BY AUTHORISED PERSONNEL


-------
Waters

THE SCIENCE OF WHAT'S POSSIBLE."

Document No: 73000PFAS

WORK INSTRUCTION
Title: Hydrogeologic PFAS Validation Study Procedure

Version No: 13	Page 14 of 14

MATRIX SPIKING LEVELS

Wastewater, Ground Waterand Surface Water

Leac hates

Soils, Sediments, Biosolidsand Tissues



Low Spike1

High Spike1

Low Spike1

High Spike1



High Spike1

PFAS Compound

(ng/L)

(ng/L)

(ng/L)

(ng/L)

Low Spike1 (ng/Kg)

(ng/Kg)

PFBA

80

400









PFPEA

40

200









PFHXA

20

100









PFHPA

20

100









PFOA

20

100









PFNA

20

100









PFDA

20

100









PFUNA

20

100









PFDOA

20

100









PFTRDA

20

100









PFTEDA

20

100









PFBS

20

100









PFPES

20

100









PFHXS

20

100









PFHPS

20

100









PFOS

20

100









PFNS

20

100









PFDS

20

100









PFDOS

20

100









4:2 FTS

80

240









6:2 FTS

80

240









8:2FTS

80

240









PFOSA

20

100









NMeFOSA

20

100









NEtFOSA

20

100









NMeFOSAA

20

100









NEtFOSAA

20

100









NMeFOSE

160

400









NEtFOSE

160

400









HFPO-DA

80

240









ADONA

80

240









9CL-PF30NS

80

240









11CL-PF30UDS

80

240









3:3FTCA

80

400









5:3FTCA

120

2000









7:3FTCA

120

2000









PFEESA

40

200









PFMPA

40

200









PFMBA

40

200









NFDHA

40

200









All spike concentrations are presented as acid concentrations; not salts

Template 730000483 V08

It is the responsibility of the user to verify they are using the current released version.

HARD COPY UNCONTROLLED UNLESS STAMPED, SIGNED AND DATED BY AUTHORISED PERSONNEL


-------
PFAS Method Validation Study:

Wastewater Sample Preparation Guidelines

Shipment Contents

(4) 25"xl5.5"xl7" Styrofoam box coolers

(7) Wastewaters Lots

(49) 1L amber HDPE bottles

Temperature blank

Sample Preparation Guidelines

Sample Chain of Custody (COC)

Sample Description

Samples are packaged in a 1L amber HDPE bottle containing approximately 500 mL of spiked sample.
Samples will be received at < 6°C.

Samples are not preserved.

Samples must be stored immediately at <-20°C until sample preparation.

Each sample will contain the PFAS analytes as defined in "MLV Study Method Analysis of Per- and
Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Aqueous, Solid, Biosolids, and Tissue Samples by LC-MS/MS",
October 2021.

Before You Begin

• Prior to preparation, samples should be allowed to equilibrate to room temperature and then analyzed as
soon as possible.

Sample Instructions

1. The sample preparation procedure found in the MLV Study Method is to be followed, with one exception.
Do not measure the volume of the container as required by Section 11.2.2 of the MLV Study Method.
Instead, record 500 mL as the volume of sample prepared. This is the volume to be used when calculating
PFAS concentrations in each sample. The container is to be rinsed as required by the MLV Study Method."

2. Report your results as ng/L and report the sample lot number that is provided on the sample container
and on the COC, without any modifications, as the Sample Number (Sample NO. on the EDD).

Page 1 of 1

Version: 04


-------
PFAS Method Validation Study:

Surface & Ground Water Sample Preparation Guidelines

Shipment Contents

(4) 25"xl5.5"xl7" Styrofoam box coolers

(3) Surface Waters Lots

(3) Ground Water Lots

(42) 1L amber HDPE bottles

Temperature blank

Sample Preparation Guidelines

Sample Chain of Custody (COC)

Sample Description

Samples are packaged in a 1L amber HDPE bottle containing approximately 500 mL of spiked sample.
Samples will be received at < 6°C.

Samples are not preserved.

Samples must be stored immediately at <-20°C until sample preparation.

Each sample will contain the PFAS analytes as defined in "MLV Study Method Analysis of Per- and
Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Aqueous, Solid, Biosolids, and Tissue Samples by LC-MS/MS",
October 2021.

Before You Begin

• Prior to preparation, samples should be allowed to equilibrate to room temperature and then analyzed as
soon as possible.

Sample Instructions

The sample preparation procedure found in the MLV Study Method is to be followed, with one exception.
Do not measure the volume of the container as required by Section 11.2.2 of the MLV Study Method.
Instead, record 500 mL as the volume of sample prepared. This is the volume to be used when calculating
PFAS concentrations in each sample. The container is to be rinsed as required by the MLV Study Method."

Report your results as ng/L and report the sample lot number that is provided on the sample container
and on the COC, without any modifications, as the Sample Number (Sample NO. on the EDD).

Page 1 of 1

Version: 01


-------
PFAS Multi-Laboratory Validation Study Report
Aqueous Media: Wastewater, Surface Water, and Groundwater

SERDP

Appendix C

Data Management Report
(Exa Data and Mapping
Services Inc.)

Date: July 25, 2023


-------
Data Management Summary Report
for the

Multi-Laboratory Validation Draft EPA Method 1633 - PFAS in Aqueous, Solid, Biosolids,

and Tissue Samples by LC-MS/MS

DRAFT

Prepared for:

SERDP/ESTCP PFAS Method Validation Study Team
Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP)
4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 16F16
Alexandria, VA 22350-3605

Prepared by:

Exa Data & Mapping Services, Inc.
19530 23rd Ave NE
Poulsbo, WA 98370

And

HydroGeoLogic, Inc.
11107 Sunset Hills Road, Suite 400
Reston, Virginia 20190-5375

July 19, 2023


-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES	ii

LIST OF FIGURES	ii

LIST OF APPENDICES	ii

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS	iii

1.0 INTRODUCTION	1

1.1	Background	1

1.2	Phase s of Data Management	2

1.3	Data Management System Objectives	3

2.0 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES	4

3.0 DATA SHARING PLAN AND FILE TRACKING	6

3.1	ExaBlue SharePoint: Host and Software	6

3.1.1	Folder Structure	8

3.1.2	Access and Permissions	13

3.2	File Tracking System	14

3.2.1	Exa Internal Tracking	15

3.2.2	MLVReview Status	16

3.2.3	EPA NA VSEA Review Tracker	18

3.3	File-Naming Protocols	18

4.0 DATA MANAGEMENT PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES	19

4.1	Workflow	19

4.1.1	Receipt of Data Sets	19

4.1.2	Review Laboratory Data Package/EDD Submissions	22

4.1.4	Statistical Analyses	23

4.1.5	Data Archiving	24

4.1.6	Rejection and Resubmission Process	25

4.2	EDD QA/QC Procedures	26

4.2.1	QA/QC Checks at Import	26

4.2.2	Detailed EDD QA/QC and Reporting	28

4.2.3	Final Processing Steps	34

4.3	Database and Tools	36

4.3.1	Database Structure	36

4.3.2	Populating Final Result and Final Qualifier	39

4.3.3	QA/QC Checks on Master EDD Database	39

4.3.4	Matrix Spike Percent Recovery Calculation Procedures	40

4.3.5	Import and Export File Structures	40

5.0 REFERENCES	42

i


-------
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. MLV Study Data Management Team Member Roles and Responsibilities
Table 2. MLV Study General Data Types

Table 3. Project Participants with Access to the ExaBlue SharePoint

Table 4. Example Review Status Table

Table 5. Laboratory Data File-Naming Protocol Examples

Table 6. List of Required Fields

Table 7. Detailed List of EDD QA/QC Checks

Table 8. Fields with Range Checks

Table 9. Allowed Code Combinations for Sample No, Matrix, and SampleType fields

Table 10. Additional Fields Included in the Amended EDD

Table 11. Data Rules for Calculating Percent Matrix Spike Recoveries

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Organization of the Multi-Laboratory Validation Study Teams Relative to their Roles

in Managing Data
Figure 2. Folder Structure for the ExaBlue SharePoint
Figure 3a. Workflow for the PFAS Multi-Lab oratory Validation Study
Figure 3b. Workflow for the PFAS Multi-Lab oratory Validation Study (continued)

Figure 4. Opening Form of the MLV Study EDD QA/QC Tool
Figure 5. EDD Checking Routines and Reporting Form
Figure 6. QA/QC Report and Detailed QA/QC Queries Form
Figure 7. Append to Master EDD Database and Generate Amended EDD Form
Figure 8. Entity-Relationship Diagram (ERD) for the Project Database

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A - Description of the File Tracking System
Appendix B - File Tracking System Valid Values
Appendix C - Project Database - Database Dictionary

Appendix D - Supplemental Guidance for Correctly Populating the EDD Template

Appendix E - Project Database - Valid Value Codes and Descriptions

Appendix F - Project Database - Valid Value Codes and Descriptions for Compounds

ii


-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AFFF	Aqueous Film-Forming Foams

ASTM	American Society for Testing and Materials

DoD	US Department of Defense

DFARS	Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations Supplement

DMP	Data Management Plan

DP	Data Package

DVR	Data Validation Report

GDIT	General Dynamics Information Technology

EDD	electronic data deliverable

EIS	extracted internal standard

EPA	US Environmental Protection Agency

ESTCP	Environmental Security Technology Certification Program

GCC	Government Community Cloud

HGL	HydroGeoLogic, Inc.

IDA	Institute for Defense Analysis

IDC	initial demonstrations of capability

IPR	initial precision and recovery

ITAR	International Traffic in Arms Regulations

LC-MS/MS Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry

MLV	Multi-Laboratory Validation

MVS Team Method Validation Study Team

NAVSEA	Naval Sea Systems Command

NIS	Non-extracted internal standard

PFAS	per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances

QA	quality assurance

QC	quality control

SDG	sample delivery group

SEE	Science and Engineering for the Environment

SERDP	Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program

SLV	Single-Laboratory Validation

SOP	Standard Operating Procedures

US ACE	US Army Corps of Engineers

VBA	Visual Basic for Applications


-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION

This document describes data management processes and procedures for the Multi-Laboratory
Validation of Draft EPA Method 1633 - PFAS in Aqueous, Solid, Biosolids, and Tissue Samples
by LC-MS/MS. EPA Method 1633 is an interim draft method for analyzing per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and now requires a Multiple-Laboratory Validation (MLV)
Study. A Data Management Plan (DMP; SERDP/ESCTP 2023, Attachment 4) was generated at
the outset of the project to describe the design of the data management system which outlined the
processes and procedures intended to be used for the transmission, tracking, verification, review,
storage, and delivery of laboratory data and associated validation and analyses data collected in
support of the MLV Study. During the course of the project, the intended design of certain elements
of the data management system were adjusted; the processes and procedures actually used during
the project are documented in this report.

To meet study requirements for the acquisition of technically sound and legally admissible data, a
traceable audit trail was established from the shipment of sample matrices to each participating
laboratory through the archiving of information and data. Each step was conducted in accordance
with the MLV Study Work Plan (SERDP/ESTCP 2023). All potential variations in the analytical
and reporting process were documented and retained with other laboratory data and digital
information generated during the MLV Study.

1.1 Background

The MLV Study was conducted by the US Department of Defense's (DoD) Strategic
Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) in cooperation with the US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the US Navy (Navy), the US Air Force (Air Force), and
the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Members from each of these agencies comprise the
advisory Method Validation Study (MVS) Team. The study is being conducted as SERDP Project
ER19-1409. The end goal of the MLV Study is to use the findings to revise, as necessary, draft
Method 1633, and to submit the supporting data packages to the EPA Office of Water for
consideration as a final method under the Clean Water Act.

As part of the method validation, the MVS Team worked with Federal, municipal, state, and
regional contacts to obtain sufficient volumes/masses of samples from eight different
environmental matrices, including wastewater, landfill leachate, groundwater, surface water, fish
tissue/clams, biosolids, sediment, and soil. Sample matrices were collected and transferred under
chain of custody between September and December 2020. A replacement biosolids sample was
collected in October 2021 and an ASTM substitute wastewater sample was developed in December
2021.

1


-------
Specific steps of the MLV Study are to (a) develop the analytical method, (b) conduct single and
multi-laboratory validation studies, and (c) perform statistical analyses of the resultant analytical
data to develop appropriate Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC) criteria for the
method. The draft EPA Office of Water Method 1633 for PFAS has been demonstrated in the
Single-Laboratory Validation (SLV) Study conducted under ER19-1409 (Willey etal. 2021). The
Method was evaluated and determined to be sufficiently robust to proceed to the Multi-Lab oratory
Validation Study. AFinalEPA Office ofWater Method 1633 for PFAS is critical to DoD Remedial
Project Managers working at aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF)-impacted sites. The method is
also of critical importance nationally to wastewater permit writers, ecological and human health
risk assessments.

1.2 Phases of Data Management

The data management processes and procedures described herein are applicable to Phases 3-6 of
the MLV Study Work Plan (SERDP/ESTCP 2023). The six phases of the plan include:

•	Phase 1 - Soliciting Laboratories: This phase involved soliciting proposals and awarding
subcontracts to laboratories and suppliers to participate in the Study.

•	Phase 2 - Procuring Standards and Study Samples: This phase involved procuring the
standards, acquiring and characterizing sample media, and creating the Study Samples.

•	Phase 3 - Calibration and Demonstration of Capability: involves using the Study Method
(SERDP/ESTCP 2023, Attachment 1), which includes MLV Study-specific requirements
and guidance to (1) perform the initial steps (calibration, initial demonstrations of
capability [IDCs], initial precision and recovery [IPR], MDLs, and verify limits of
quantitation [LOQs]), (2) demonstrate laboratory capability with standards and clean
matrices, and (3) generate an applicable standard operating procedure (SOP).
Data/information for this phase includes laboratory-specific SOPs, calibration data, and
results from the IDC as well as records related to document reviews, corrections, and
approvals.

•	Phase 4 - Analyses of Study Samples: This phase involves all participant laboratories using
the Study Method to analyze the Study Samples. Data/information for this phase includes
laboratory-specific data for each Study Sample (electronic data deliverables [EDDs] and
Data Packages).

•	Phase 5.1- Data Verification: This phase involves data verification of all study results by
the HydroGeoLogic (HGL) Project Chemist and automated checks of the EDDs by Exa.
HGL's Project Chemist performed an initial evaluation of the data from each phase of the
study with the MVS Team before authorization is given to proceed with the next phase of
the study. Data/information for this phase includes the data package completeness review
checklist and EDD Error Summary reports.

2


-------
•	Phase 5.2 - Data Validation: An independent third-party conducted data validation for all
study results. Data/information for this phase includes data reviews, updated/corrected
EDDs and Data Packages, correspondence related to corrections, and approvals.

•	Phase 6 - Development of QC Acceptance Criteria: Data/information for this phase
includes results from the statistical analysis of data from the MLV Study, quality control
(QC) acceptance criteria, recommendations for revisions to draft Method 1633, and a MLV
Study Report submitted to the EPA.

1.3 Data Management System Objectives

The primary objective of the data management system (DMS) is to provide an efficient and
organized method of data management to streamline data flow and ensure the highest quality data
are compiled. Specific objectives are:

•	To facilitate and coordinate with the MVS Team members to ensure that the data
management system meets overall project objectives;

•	To ensure high quality data that provides an accurate representation of all data produced
during the study;

•	To standardize and store the data in a structured format to allow for accurate querying
and statistical analyses;

•	To ensure efficient and timely data processing;

•	To store the data produced during the MLV Study in a secure location that restricts
access to team members with appropriate credentials;

•	To allow easy access to the data by project stakeholders; and,

•	To implement documentation procedures that ensure the data is technically defensible
and legally admissible.

The data management methodology is critical to ensure that laboratory analytical data, validation
information, and final statistical calculations are of the highest quality to support and defend the
publication of the final method.

3


-------
2.0 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Under the leadership and guidance of the MVS Team, the Data Management Team developed the
data management system and ensured that the project objectives and scope were achieved. The
Data Management Team consists of Exa Data & Management, Inc. (Exa) and HydroGeoLogic,
Inc. (HGL; Figure 1). The Data Management Team coordinated with the MVS Team and data
providers, including the analytical laboratories, the validator team, and the statistics and analysis
team (Institute for Defense Analysis [IDA]). HGL was responsible for managing the laboratories
and reviewing the data packages submitted by the laboratories to ensure contractual compliance
and coordinating communication between data validators and laboratories. Exa was responsible
for maintaining the project database, reviewing EDDs submitted by the laboratories, and assisting
with coordinating the multi-level review process (described in Section 4.0).

Method
Validation Study
Team

1

Data Management
Team

Legend

—~ Primary communication
Ancillary communication

Figure 1. Organization of the Multi-Laboratory Validation Study Teams Relative to their
Roles in Managing Data

Specific roles of individual team members are provided in Table 1. Ms. Dawn Smorong, Exa's
Project/Database Manager, has overall responsibility for ensuring the data are managed in
accordance with the approved MLV Study Work Plan (SERDP/ESTCP 2023) and other related
documents. Other Exa team roles include that of Ms. Peggy Myre, who served an oversight role to


-------
ensure that project data management goals and target schedule milestones were met. Dr. Michael
Tweiten of Exa had primary responsibility for management of the centralized file sharing system
discussed in Section 3.0. Mr. Glenn Sutula assisted with data management processes.

The HGL data management role will be to coordinate incoming data from the laboratories, and to
perform initial checks of data acceptability as described in Section 4.1.2.

Table 1. MLV Study Data Management

Team Member Roles and Responsibilities

Organization

Team Member

Role

Data Management
Responsibility

Exa Data & Mapping

Dawn Smorong

Exa PM; Data
Manager

Exa project completion and
database management



Peggy Myre

Exa Data
Quality Officer

Ensure compliance with
project goals and the DMP



Michael Tweiten

Exa Data
Library Manager

Setup and manage MLV
Study Library storage and
users



Glenn Sutula

Data Manager

Database management

HvdroGco Logic

Joe Skibinski

HGL Project
Manager

HGL project completion, lab
coordination



John Powell

HGL Program
Chemist

Laboratory coordination,
chemistrv review



Denise Rivers

HGL Project
Chemist

Laboratory coordination,
laboratory data compliance,
chemistry review



Ken Rapuano

HGL Project
Chemist

Laboratory data compliance,
chemistry review



Joe Vilain

HGL Project
Chemist

Laboratory data compliance,
chemistry review



Andrea Fletcher

HGL Data
Manager

Laboratory EDD and data
package tracking and
coordination

5


-------
3.0

DATA SHARING PLAN AND FILE TRACKING

A critical element to ensure proper organization of the data collected for the MLV Study is
managing the files generated to support the project. A file storage server was deployed to serve as
a repository for all documents and data for the project, termed the ExaBlue SharePoint (Section
3.1). As part of the file organization strategy, a File Tracking System was developed (Section 3.2),
including strict rules for file-naming (Section 3.3).

3.1 ExaBlue SharePoint: Host and Software

All project data and information were stored on a centralized, secure server managed by the Exa
team. Table 2 provides a listing of the general data types stored on the server, as well as the MVS
Team member responsible for upload and maintenance of the associated files.

Access is strictly controlled to ensure the protection of all proprietary data. The selected platform
was Microsoft® (MS) Office 365 Enterprise software; the SharePoint application was used for the
central storage and accessing of documents, data, and other information related to the MLV Study.
This section details server specifications, the folder structure, as well as the list of users and their
access level (permissions).

The ExaBlue SharePoint is hosted on the Microsoft Azure Government Community Cloud (GCC)
High and DoD environments to ensure cloud-service compliance, including Federal Risk and
Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP) High, Department of Defense Security
Requirements Guidelines, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations Supplement (DFARS), and
International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). The ExaBlue SharePoint utilizes a Microsoft
Office 365 El Enterprise environment, including Microsoft Office 365 software tools to enable
file sharing, editing, team communications and identity/access management.

The ExaBlue SharePoint employs access restrictions with requirements for authentication and user
credentials to gain access. Exa's Michael Tweiten was responsible for setting up the system,
assigning users and user privileges based on assigned project roles and responsibilities, and making
required adjustments as the project progressed. The laboratory and data validator participants are
only allowed to upload/view their own data. Additional details regarding users and defined
privileges are provided in Section 3.1.2.

The ExaBlue SharePoint was set up to automatically send email notifications to Team members
when files were posted in certain folders.

6


-------
Table 2. MLV Study General Data Types





Team Member

Data Type

Example Data

Responsible for





I Jnlo ad/M ainte nance

Project Documents

Background Documents - UFP-QAPP and

HGL/Exa



PMP, Study Work Plan, Background





Analytical Data (SGS AXYS), conventional





analyses





Correspondence

All



Final DVR and Data - final versions of the

Exa



laboratory data package, HGL data package





review checklist, data validation reports,





validated EDDs, EPA/NAVSEA review





documents.





Meetings and Schedules - Schedule, Contact

HGL, SEE



list, Meeting Minutes



Project Reports

Working and final versions of reports

MVS Team

(generated for the MLV Study: Aqueous.



i Biosolids/Lnndfill Leacliate. Soil/Sediment.



i Tissue



Laboratory Data

EDDs (csv)

Individual labs



Data packages (pdf)

Individual labs



Sample receipts - Sample acknowledgment

HGL



forms, chain-of-custody records





Standard Operating Procedures (SOP)

Individual labs



Corrective action reports

HGL



ERA laboratory instructions

HGL



Spike Levels and Wellington Certificates of

HGL



Analysis





Data package completenes review checklists

HGL

Validator Data

To validator:



i Amended EDDs (xlsx). Lab Data Packages

Exa/HGL

(pdf)



\From validator:



1 DV Report (pdf)

Individual valid;)tors



Amended EDDs with valid;)lor fields

Individual validators



populated (xlsx)





Evidence of 10% verification (xlsx)

Individual validators



Data validation checklist (doc)

Individual validators

Statistics Data

To IDA:





Database exports (xlsx)

Exa



From IDA:





Report with appendices (pdf) and supporting

IDA



calculations (xlsx)



Database

Database (accdb). documentation (pdf)

Exa

Tracking

MLVS Review Status (xlsx); Exa internal

Exa/SEE/NAVSEA



tracking (xlsx); EPA/NAVSEA Review





Tracker (xlsx)



7


-------
3.1.1 Folder Structure

The ExaBlue SharePoint employs a strict, hierarchical folder structure, and displays a list of files
and key information about the files, such as who was the last person to modify the file. The folder
and sub-folder structure supported access permissions as described in Section 3.1.2. The top-level
folders indicate the type of data and other content available in the folder (Figure 2).

8


-------
Appendix A - Description of the File Tracking System

TRACKING
WORKSHEET

TRACKING FIELD

W Field

TRACKING FIELD DESCRIPTION

GENERAL

Tracking ID



Root file name



Project Phase



Project Phase. See 'ValidValues'



EDD File Name



EDD File name



Data Package File Name



Data Package File Name



Laboratory Name

Yes

Laboratory Name. See 'ValidValues'



Matrix

Yes

Matrix. See 'ValidValues'



Notes



Notes regarding submitted files



Log Date



Date the reciept of files was logged into the Tracking System

LABORATORY

EDD/DP Due Date



Due date for the Lab EDD/Data Package (mm/dd/yyyy)



EDD/DP Date Received



Date Lab EDD/Data Package received (mm/dd/yyyy; uploaded to
Sharepoint)



HGL Reviewer



Initials of HGL staff conducting the Data Package review



Date HGL Review Complete



Date HGL review complete (mm/dd/yyyy)



EDD Rejected or Approved -
HGL

Yes

Indicate whether EDD/Data Package was rejected by HGL. See
'ValidValues'



Summary of Errors - HGL



Brief summary of issues found during HGL Data Package review



Exa Reviewer



Initials of Exa staff conducting the automated EDD review



Date Exa Review Complete



Date Exa review complete (mm/dd/yyyy)



EDD Rejected or Approved - Exa

Yes

Indicate whether EDD/Data Package was rejected by Exa. See
'ValidValues'



Summary of Errors - Exa



Brief summary of issues found during Exa EDD review



Date Data Package to DV



Date the Data Package was posted to the Validator folder
(mm/dd/yyyy).



Date Amended EDD to DV



Date the Amended EDD was posted to the Validator folder
(mm/dd/yyyy).

VALIDATOR

Data Validator

Yes

Data Validator. See 'ValidValues'.



DP version reviewed



Current version number of the Data Package provided to the data
validator for review.



Amended EDD version reviewed



Current version number of the Amended EDD provided to the data
validator for review.



Date DV Report/Files Received



Date of receipt for the current data validator report/files (mm/dd/yyyy).



DV Amended EDD version



Current version number of the Amended EDD with validator fields
populated (posted by the data validator).



DV Report version



Current version number of the data validator report (posted by the data
validator).



DV Verification version



Current version number of the Verification file (posted by the data
validator).



DV Checklist version



Current version number of the Checklist (posted by the data validator).



EDD Rejected or Approved - DV

Yes

Indicate whether EDD/Data Package was rejected by the Data Validator.
See 'ValidValues'



Notes



Notes regarding submitted files



Date EPA/NAVY Files Received



Date of receipt for the current review files posted by EPA/NAVY
reviewers (mm/dd/yyyy).

Acronyms:	DB - Project Database

DP - Data Package
DV - Data Validator
EDD - Electronic Data Deliverable

27


-------
Appendix B - File Tracking System Valid Values List

WorksluTl

Held

Y;ili(l Y.due
('ode

\';ili(l Y;due ( ode Description

GENERAL

Laboratory Name

AI.l'IIA

Alpha Analytical

GENERAL

Laboratory Name

BATTELLE

Battelle

GENERAL

Laboratory Name

CALEPA

CalEPA DTSC

GENERAL

Laboratory Name

ELLET

Eurofins Lancaster Labs

GENERAL

Laboratory Name

ETA

ETA, Sacramento

GENERAL

Laboratory Name

GEL

GEL Laboratories

GENERAL

Laboratory Name

MDH

Maryland Department of Health

GENERAL

Laboratory Name

PACE

GCAL/Pace

GENERAL

Laboratory Name

SGSNA

SGS North America

GENERAL

Laboratory Name

VISTA

Vista Analytical

GENERAL

Matrix

GW

Groundwater

GENERAL

Matrix

SW

Surface water

GENERAL

Matrix

SD

Sediment

GENERAL

Matrix

ss

Soil

GENERAL

Matrix

TS

Tissue

GENERAL

Matrix

WW

Wastewater

GENERAL

Matrix

LC

Landfill Leachate

GENERAL

Matrix

BS

Biosolids

GENERAL

Project Phase

Phase 3 - ICAL

Initial Calibration

GENERAL

Project Phase

Phase 3 - IDC

Initial Demonstration of Capabilities (IDC)

GENERAL

Project Phase

Phase 4.4.1

GW, SW, and WW matrices

GENERAL

Project Phase

Phase 4.4.2

SS and SD matrices

GENERAL

Project Phase

Phase 4.4.3

Tissue matrices

GENERAL

Project Phase

Phase 4.4.4

LC and BS matrices

LABORATORY

EDD Rejected or Approved - HGL

Approved

Passed review

LABORATORY

EDD Rejected or Approved - HGL

Rejected

Did not pass review

LABORATORY

EDD Rejected or Approved - HGL

NA

Not applicable (not reviewed)

LABORATORY

EDD Rejected or Approved - HGL

To Validator

Bypassed review and went straight to validator.

LABORATORY

EDD Rejected or Approved - HGL

Re-submitting

Re-submission from the lab expected

LABORATORY

EDD Rejected or Approved - HGL

Pending

Lab has submitted a data package and it's
pending review

LABORATORY

EDD Rejected or Approved - HGL

Not Submitted

Lab hasn't submitted

LABORATORY

EDD Rejected or Approved - Exa

Approved

Passed review

LABORATORY

EDD Rejected or Approved - Exa

Rejected

Did not pass review

LABORATORY

EDD Rejected or Approved - Exa

NA

Not applicable (not reviewed)

LABORATORY

EDD Rejected or Approved - Exa

Re-submitting

Re-submission from the lab expected

LABORATORY

EDD Rejected or Approved - Exa

Pending

Lab has submitted an EDD and it's pending
review

LABORATORY

EDD Rejected or Approved - Exa

Not submitted

Lab hasn't submitted

VALIDATOR

Data Validator

CHEMVAL

ChemVal

VALIDATOR

Data Validator

PYRON

Pyron Environmental

VALIDATOR

Data Validator

JACOBS

Jacobs Engineering

VALIDATOR

EDD Rejected or Approved - DV

Approved

Approved as is (no DV input)

VALIDATOR

EDD Rejected or Approved - DV

Revised

Approved with DV input added

VALIDATOR

EDD Rejected or Approved - DV

Rejected

Did not pass review

VALIDATOR

EDD Rejected or Approved - DV

NA

Not applicable (not reviewed)



28


-------
Appendix C - Project Database - Database Dictionary

1 :i lilt-





Data l\lu-

Definition anil ( 'ommeiit>>

Di nil
Innii
I.DI)

\ aliil
Value
Iit-Id

Uci|iiiml
ll.ld

Default
\ .iliit-

I'liina n
Ur\

Inclihli- in
Amended
I I)|) lor

HHNI

Ini'luile in
|-'.\porl* lor
IDA

Lab

EDD

Results

TrackingID

text

Tracking ID from Tracking System; incorporated during ETL
procedures

No

No

Yes



X

Yes

No

Lab

EDD

Results

Lab ID Reported

text

LAB ID reported by the laboratories in the EDD

Yes

No

Yes





No

No

Lab

EDD

Results

I.AIS ID

text

^Laboratory Name. See Valid Value list.

No ]

Yes

Yes



X

Yes

No

Lab

EDD

Results

lab num

number

Lab ID code, to keep laboratories anonymous. See Valid Value list.

No |

Yes

Yes





No

Yes

Lab

EDD

Results

:sdg num

text

SDG number; incorporated during ETL procedures; extracted from
Lab Sample ID

No

No

No





Yes

Yes

Lab

EDD

Results

SAMPLENO

text

For samples, these are the sample identification names (IDs) from the
Chain of Custody. The Sample No is the same, regardless of whether
or not the sample is diluted or reanalyzed. For preparation batch QC,
these are "MB" for the Method Blank, "OPR" for the OPR, and
"LLOPR" for the LLOPR. For IDOC samples, "IPR" for the IPR
samples, "MDLB" for the MDLb samples "MDLS" for the MDLs
samples, and "LOQVER" for the LOQVER samples.

Yes

No

Yes



X

Yes

Yes

Lab

EDD

Results

[LAB S AMPLE ID

text

The ID the laboratory assigns to the sample (which identifies the

sample on the associated data files and reports).

IFor samples that need to be re-analyzed for issues other than dilution,

; attach the following identifiers to the end of the lab sample identifier

^without a space between them (e.g., 02082022-01R):

;"R" for analytes, EISs & NISs reported from first re-analysis not due to

! dilution

;"R1" for analytes, EISs & NISs reported from second re-analysis not
:due to dilution

;"R2" for analytes, EISs & NISs reported from second re-analysis not
Idue to dilution

;If more re-analyses not due to dilution are needed to be reported
:beyond three for a sample, continue on with the numbering (e.g., R3,
R l. R5. etc.).

Yes

No

f Yes



X

Yes

Yes

Lab

EDD

Results

ANALYSISDATE

short date;
; mm/dd/yyyy

[Use format mm/dd/yyyy (e.g. 11/20/2019) - do not include time stamp.

Yes

No

Yes





Yes

No

Lab

EDD

Results

ANALYSIS

text

Fill in "PFAS". See Valid Value list.

Yes

Yes

Yes

PFAS



Yes

No

Lab

EDD

Results

PFAS_ ACRONYM

text

Use acronyms included in the example EDD. See Valid Value list.

Yes

Yes

Yes



X

Yes

Yes

Lab

EDD

Results

lab rep

text

l ab replicate identifier

" No j

No

Yes

1



Yes

Yes

15


-------
Appendix C - Project Database - Database Dictionary

1 :i lilt-





Data l\lu-

Definition anil ( 'oniuicut>>

Di nil
hum

I.DI)

\ aliil
Value
Iit-Id

Uci|iiiml Default
Ill-Id Value

I'liina n
Ur\

Include ill
Amended
COD for

Include in
|-'.\porl* lor
IDA

Lab

EDD

Results

DILUTION

number

Dilution made post extraction (e.g., extract diluted 1:10 is entered as
"10"). If analyzed without dilution, enter "1".

Yes

No

Yes 1

X

Yes

Yes

Lab

EDD

Results

LABFLAG

text

Laboratory qualifiers. See Valid Value list.

Yes

Yes

No



Yes

No

Lab

EDD

Results

CONCFOUND

number

Enter numeric quantitative result value only. Report to three significant
figures. Do NOT enter any text string strings or symbols (e.g., "ND",

For analytes that are not detected, the laboratory's sample
specific MDL (i.e. with extract dilution factor, sample volume/weight
and final volume taken into account) is entered. Solids are reported on
a dry-weight basis. Tissues are reported on a wet-weight basis. Report
result units in "Unit" field, consistent for all sample fields.

Yes

No

Yes



Yes

No

Lab

EDD

Results

CONCSPIKE

number

For unspiked samples enter "0" for method analytes. For spiked
samples, enter the spike concentration representing the estimated
concentration in the final extract (i.e. with extract dilution factor,
sample volume/weight and final volume taken into account). Solids are
reported on a dry-weight basis. Tissues are reported on a wet-weight
basis. For EIS and NIS, enter the spike concentration representing the
concentration in the final extract in units consistent with sample result
units. The reporting units for this project are parts per trillion (ppt) or
nanograms per liter (ng/L) for aqueous samples and parts per billion
micrograms per kilogram (jig/kg) for solid samples. Report to 3
significant figures.

Yes

No

Yes



Yes

Yes

Lab

EDD

Results

PERCENTREC

number

For unspiked samples, leave blank. No text should be included in this
field (e.g. N/A). For spiked samples (OPR. LLOPR, MDLs and
LOQVER), enter the spike percentage recovery as a whole number
(e.g., 95 versus 0.95). Do NOT include "%" symbol. For EIS and NIS
recoveries, enter the spike % recovery as a whole number (e.g., 95
versus 0.95). Report to 3 significant figures. Do NOT include

Yes

No

No



Yes

Yes

Lab

EDD

Results

MDL

number

Method Detection Limit. Enter the sample specific MDL (i.e. with
extract dilution factor, sample volume/weight and final volume taken
into account). The reporting units for this project are parts per trillion
(ppt) or nanograms per liter (ng/L) for aqueous samples and parts per
billion micrograms per kilogram (jig/kg) for solid samples. Report to 3
significant figures.

Yes

No

No -9



Yes

Yes

15


-------
Appendix C - Project Database - Database Dictionary

Table



Field

Data type

Definition and Comments

Direct
from
EDD

Valid
Value
Field

Required
field

Default
Value

Primary
Key

Include in
Amended
EDD for
DV

Include in

Exports for
IDA

Lab EDD

Results

LOQ

number

Limit of Quantitation. Enter the sample specific LOQ (i.e. with extract
dilution factor, sample volume/weight and final volume taken into
account). Report to 3 significant figures. The reporting units for this
project are parts per trillion (ppt) or nanograms per liter (ng/L) for
aqueous samples and parts per billion micrograms per kilogram ((.ig/kg)
for solid samples. Report to 3 significant figures.

Yes

No

No

-9



Yes

Yes

Lab EDD

Results

UNIT

text

The reporting units must be consistent for the sample record including
Cone Found, MDL, LOQ etc. The reporting units for this project are
parts per trillion (ppt) or nanograms per liter (ng/L) for aqueous
samples and parts per billion micrograms per kilogram ((.ig/kg) for solid
samples. Ensure that all values for the sample record are reported in the
same units. See Valid Value list.

Yes

Yes

Yes





No

No

Lab EDD

Results

unit final

text

The reporting unit, standardized

No

Yes

Yes





Yes

Yes

Lab EDD

Results

SAMPLE_

TRAN SITIONRATIO

text

Enter the calculated Transition Ratio (Quant Ion Area/Conf Ion Area)
for each analyte in the sample. Report to 3 significant figures. For
analytes this does not apply to (PFBA, PFPeA, NMeFOSE, NEtFOSE,
PFMPA, and PFMBA), leave this field blank. No text should be
included in this field (e.g. N/A).

Yes

No

No





Yes

No

Lab EDD

Results

EXPECTED_

TRAN SITIONRATIO

text

Enter the expected Transition Ratio (Quant Ion Area/Conf Ion Area)
for each analyte per the method. Report to three significant figures. For
analytes this does not apply to (PFBA, PFPeA, NMeFOSE, NEtFOSE,
PFMPA, and PFMBA), leave this field blank. No text should be
included in this field (e.g., N/A).

Yes

No

No





Yes

No

Lab EDD

Results

RRT

text

Enter relative retention time

Yes

No

No





Yes

No

Lab EDD

Results

SAMPLESIZE

number

Enter volume (aqueous samples) or weight (solid samples) of sample
extracted (in liters for aqueous samples, in kilograms for solids).

Yes

No

Yes





Yes

No

Lab EDD

Results

SAMPLESIZEUNIT

text

Will be liters (L) for aqueous samples or kilograms (Kg) for solid
samples

Yes

No

Yes





Yes

No

Lab EDD

Results

EXTRACTIONDATE

short date;

mm/dd/yyyy

Use format mm/dd/yyyy (e.g. 11/20/2019) - do not include time stamp.

Yes

No

Yes





Yes

No

Lab EDD

Results

PERCMOISTURE

number

Percent moisture in solid samples only. Enter the percent moisture as a
whole number (e.g., 73 versus 0.73). Do NOT include "%" symbol.

Yes

No

No





Yes

No

Lab EDD

Results

MATRIX

text

Matrix analyzed. See Valid values list.

Yes

Yes

Yes





Yes

Yes

15


-------
Appendix C - Project Database - Database Dictionary

1 :i lilt-





Data l\lu-

Definition anil ( 'oniuicut>>

Di nil
Innii
I.DI)

\ aliil
Value
Iit-Id

Uci|iiiml Default
Ill-Id Value

I'liina n
Ur\

Include ill
Amended
COD for

HHNI

Include
|-'.\porl*

IDA

Lab

EDD

Results

METHOD

text

Laboratory SOP Name in format of "name(space)revision number"

Yes

No

Yes



Yes

No

Lab

EDD

Results

jSTUDYPHASE

text

(Multi-Lab Validation Study Phase. See Valid Value list.

Yes

Yes

Yes



Yes

No

Lab

EDD

Results

] SAMPLE TYPE

text

(See Valid Value list.

Yes

Yes

Yes

X

Yes

Yes

Lab

EDD

Results

(result type

text

(Code for Result Type. See Valid Value list.

' No

Yes

Yes



Yes

Yes

Lab

EDD

Results

spike cat

text

(Code for Spike Category. See Valid Value list.

" No

Yes

Yes



Yes

Yes

Lab

EDD

Results

validation level

text

Stores information on the level of data validation that has been
completed for the chemistry data.

No ]

No

Yes ( Level 4



Yes

No

Lab

EDD

Results

(validator

text

(Code for Data Validator. See Valid Value list.

No

Yes

Yes



Yes

No

Lab

EDD

Results

(dv qualifier

text

(Code for Data Validator qualifiers. See Valid Value list.

No

Yes

r No r



Yes

No

Lab

EDD

Results

dv qualifier reason

text

Data validation qualifier reason codes.

" No (

No

No



Yes

No

Lab

EDD

Results

dv notes 1

text

(Include comments to distinguish the meaning of the dv qualifier
(assignment (e.g., distinguishing the -J qualifier)

"" No

No

No r



Yes

No

Lab

EDD

Results

dv notes2

text

(Additional information provided by validator deemed pertinent to their
(dv qualifier assignment.

" No (

No

I" No



Yes

No

Lab

EDD

Results

d\ result

number

( Validator recommended result for concentration. If this is provided,
(entries must be made in the dv ResultChange yn field and
(dv ResultChange desc fields.

No j

No

No



Yes

No

Lab

EDD

Results

(dv ResultChange yn

Logical

(Enter Y or N. Indicates whether the validator made a recommendation
(to change the result for concentration.

No ;

No

Yes



Yes

No

Lab

EDD

Results

(dv ResultChange desc

text

Description of the reasons for validator recommending a change to the
result for concentration.

No !

No

r No r



Yes

No

Lab

EDD

Results

Reviewer qualifier

text

Code for qualifiers applied by NAVY/EPA reviewers of data
validation results. See Valid Value list.

No j

Yes

r No



Yes

No

Lab

EDD

Results

(Reviewer notes

text

Notes from NAVY/EPA reviewers of data validation results.

No

No

f No



Yes

No

Lab

EDD

Results

( final qualifier

text

iCode for Final Qualifier. See Valid Value list.

No |

Yes

r No r



No

Yes

Lab

EDD

Results

final result

number

(Final result for concentration. Combines CONC FOUND and
(validator result fields.

No

No

Yes



No

Yes

Lab

EDD

Results

lab rep

text

Data manager assigned. Laboratory replicate number; to assist with
completeness and duplicate checks.

No ;

No

Yes



Yes

No

Lab

EDD

Results

(sample rep

text

(Data manager assigned. From lu MatrixType.Rep field; to assist with
(spike percent rec calculation

" No

No

r No r



No

No

Lab

EDD

Results

(sample root

text

Data manager assigned. Sample NO without the Reg suffix; to assist
with spike percent rec calculation

No !

No

No



No

No

Lab

EDD

Results

(spike level

number

Data manager assigned. From lu SpikeLevel table; to assist with
spike percent rec calculation

No

No

r No r



No

Yes

15


-------
Appendix C - Project Database - Database Dictionary

Direct Valid Include in jncju(je jn
Table Field Datatype Definition and Comments from Value Re?Z le''Ult P™y Exports for

EDO Field fidd Value Key EDDDvf°r IDA

Lab EDD Results

cone minus native

spike percent rec
spk pet rec DNC

CONCFOUNDval

LOQ val

MDL val

LABSAMPLEIDclean

qaqc dup

DM notes
DM notes2
EditDate

number

Data manager calculated. Interim value in spike percent rec
calculation

No

No

No





No

Yes

Lab EDD Results

number

Data manager calculated. Matrix spike percent recovery.

No

No

No





No

Yes

Lab EDD Results

text

Data manager assigned. Determination of Calculate/DNC (do not
calculate)for spike percent rec calculation

No

No

No





No

Yes

Lab EDD Results

text

Data manager assigned. CONC FOUND as a value; to assist with
database-wide QAQC checks.

No

No

No





No

No

Lab EDD Results

text

Data manager assigned. LOQ as a value; to assist with database-wide
QAQC checks.

No

No

No





No

No

Lab EDD Results

text

Data manager assigned. MDL as a value; to assist with database-wide
QAQC checks.

No

No

No





No

No

Lab EDD Results

text

Data manager assigned. Standardized LAB SAMPLE ID to remove re-
analysis suffixes; to assist with completeness and duplicate checks.

No

No

Yes





No

Yes

Lab EDD Results

text

Data manager assigned. Identifies LLOPR OPR and MB double-duty
samples and exclude one of the results for the 'all in' database exports.

No

No

No





No

No

Lab EDD Results

text

Data manager notes.

No

No

No





No

No

Lab EDD Results

text

Data manager notes - 2.

No

No

No





No

No

Lab EDD Results

text

Date of append to Lab EDD Results table.

No

No

Yes





No

No

dicValidValues

Table

text

Valid value table name.

No

No

Yes





No

No

dicValidValues

Field

text

Valid value field name.

No

No

Yes





No

No

dicValidValues

Value

text

Acceptable valid value codes.

No

No

Yes





No

No

dicValidValues

Description

text

Description of valid value codes, if necessary

No

No

Yes





No

No

dicValidValues

VVL match alt field

text

Related valid value field name.

No

No

No





No

No

dicValidValues

VVL match alt code

text

Matching valid value code.

No

No

No





No

No

dicValidValues

Validator

text

Data validator assoicated with each LAB ID CODE

No

No

No





No

No

LU Compound

SORT ORDER

number

Sort order to apply to data summary tables.

No

No

Yes





No

No

LU Compound

PFAS_ ACRONYM

text

Use acronyms included in the example EDD. See Valid Value list.

No

Yes

Yes



X

No

No

LU Compound

COMPOUND

text

Use the names included in the example EDD. Method analytes, and EIS
and NIS compounds must be reported for each sample. See Valid Value
list.

Yes

Yes

Yes





Yes

Yes

LU Compound

CAS NO

text

Chemical Abstract Service Registration Number

Yes

Yes

Yes





Yes

Yes

LU Compound

result type

text

Code for Result Type. See Valid Value list.

No

Yes

Yes





No

No

LU Spike Levels

PFAS_ ACRONYM

text

Use acronyms included in the example EDD. See Valid Value list.

No

Yes

Yes



X

No

No

LU Spike Levels

Matrix

text

Name of the matrix. See Valid Value list.

No

Yes

Yes



X

No

No

LU Spike Levels

Low Spike

number

Low spike concentration

No

No

Yes





No

No

LU Spike Levels

High Spike

number

High spike concentration

No

No

Yes





No

No

15


-------
Appendix C - Project Database - Database Dictionary

1 able



Data l\lu-

Definition anil ( 'oniuicut>>

Di reel
Innii

inn

\ aliil
Value
Held

Uci|iiiml
ll.ld

Default
\ .iliie

I'liina n
l\e\

Include ill
Amended
COD for

HHNI

Include in
lAporl* lor
IDA

LU Spike Levels

Unit

text

Unit of spike concentration

No

No

Yes





No

No

lu MatrixKey

Matrix Type

text

Matrix (full name)

No !

No

Yes





No

No

lu MatrixKey

¦ Requested Name

text

Descriptive name of sample

: No

No

Yes





No

No

lu MatrixKey

: Description

text

¦Description of sample

No '

No

Yes





No

No

lu MatrixKey

Matrix Code

text

Matrix (code)

: No

No

Yes





No

No

lu MatrixKey

Sample Identifier

text

Sample identifier (middle component of SamplelD)

No '

No

Yes





No

No

lu MatrixKey

SamplelD

text

SamplelD (EDD SAMPLE NO must match to this code)

No

No

Yes





No

No

lu MatrixKey

spike cat

text

Spike category (low, high, etc)

No

No

Yes





No

No

lu MatrixKey

¦ Rep

text

Sample replicate number (last component of SamplelD)

No

No

Yes





No

No

lu MatrixKey

: Selected

text

Indicates if sample was selected for use in the study

No

No

Yes





No

No

Note: The Required Fields may be revised during database development; maximum field lengths will be incorporated into the database structure during development.

15


-------
ADDendix D - Supplemental guidance for correctly DODulatine the EDD Template





Item

Guidance

1

If possible, include all results in one worksheet.





2

We will be running QA/QC routines on the EDDs to ensure they are populated correctly. These will be delivered to you in an Excel file (e.g.,
L ABN AME_RW_verO_EDD_Error_Summary. xlsx).



If you have questions/issues regarding the Error Summary report, please incorporate comments directly into the Excel file and send it back to us for review
(via SharePoint).





3

Instructions for reporting CONCFOUND for NIS compounds:



1. Option 1: Report NIS Mass in CONC FOUND, and in the accompanying report provide example calculation and point to where the data in the
numerator (e.g., field sample) and the denominator (e.g. CCV) are found.



2. Option2: Complete the EDDs with the NIS percent recoveries based on areas (i.e., no mass reported). CONC FOUND does not need to be populated.



a. If Option 2 is selected then



i. In the report provide the formula and example calculations for one sample per batch



ii. Point to where those areas values are found in their data packages (i.e., ensure they have reported the NIS area for the field (target) sample and
the comparative area from either the mid-point of the ICAL, CCV, or equivalent.





4

Instructions for populating EDD when a single sample is serving the purpose of the MDLB and MB samples:



1. Copy the results and code the SAMPLE NO field as 'MDLB' for one set of results, and 'MB' for the other set of results.



2. Ensure that the case narrative clearly identifies that the blank sample was used for multiple purposes.





5

Ensure that B flags are applied as indicated by the instructions:



"For analytes that were detected in the associated MB of a sample that exceeded Vi LOQ or is at a concentration greater than 1/1 Oth the concentration in
the sample, whichever is greatest. The MB must also be flagged with a "B" for all concentrations greater than 'A the LOQ."



If the CONC FOUND is between the MDL and LOO AND it is at a concentration greater than 1/2 LOO. the flag should be BJ or JB.





6

Although the instructions for the CONC FOUND field indicate "For analytes that are not detected, the laboratory's sample specific MDL", the exceptions
are for the following sample types, where CONC FOUND can be less than the MDL:



MDLS



LOQVER



Blanks (MB and MDLB)





7

For instances where there are re-analysis not due to dilution, all results must be reported in the EDD (i.e., the original analysis and all subseqent re-analysis).

35


-------
ADDendix D - SuDDlemental guidance for correctly DODulatine the EDD Template









8

The Sample Coding spreadsheet lists the mandatory batch QC samples that are required for Phase 3 and Phase 4 submittals. All mandatory batch QC
samples must be present in the EDD submittals.





9

Do not add suffixes to SAMPLE NO (e.g., IPR1, MLDB 2) - LAB SAMPLE ID will differentiate samples.





10

Fields that must be reported to 3 significant figures:



CONC FOUND



CONC SPIKE



PERCENT REC (DOES need to be reported to 3 sig figs; report as a whole number (95.1), not a fraction (0.951)



MDL



LOQ



SAMPLE TRANSITION RATIO



EXPECTED TRANSITION RATIO







Note that the results in these fields must be rounded appropriately to 3 significant figures. Changing the display for the number of decimal places is not
sufficient.





11

Solids are reported on a dry-weight basis. Tissues are reported on a wet-weight basis.





12

UNIT field must be consistent across all samples.





13

The reporting units for this project are parts per trillion (ppt) or nanograms per liter (ng/L) for aqueous samples and parts per billion micrograms per
kilogram (ng/kg) for solid samples.





14

Do not include text in number fiels (e.g. N/A, %, ND, <).





15

Percent recovery must be reported in the EDD for IPR samples.

36


-------
Appendix E - Project Database - Valid Value Codes and Descriptions

YYI.Iuld

YalidYalue

YY l)i'v(i i|>linii

YYI. mahli
all Ik-Id

YYI.
inalcli all
code

Yalidalor

LAB ID CODE

ALPHA

Alpha Analytical

lab num

3

JACOBS

LAB ID CODE

BATTELLE

Battelle

lab num

6

JACOBS

LAB ID CODE

CALEPA

CalEPA DTSC

lab num

2

PYRON

LAB ID CODE

ELLET

Eurofins Lancaster Labs

lab num

10

JACOBS

LAB ID CODE

ETA

ETA, Sacramento

lab num

1

PYRON

LAB ID CODE

GEL

GEL Laboratories

lab num

8

JACOBS

LAB ID CODE

MDH

Maryland Department of Health

lab num

5

JACOBS

LAB ID CODE

PACE

GCAL/Pace

lab num

9

JACOBS

LAB ID CODE

SGSNA

SGS North America

lab num

7

PYRON

LAB ID CODE

VISTA

Vista Analytical

lab num

4

PYRON

MATRIX

BS

Biosolids







MATRIX

GW

Groundwater







MATRIX

LC

Landfill Leachate







MATRIX

OS

Ottawa sand for all soil, sediment, and biosolid MBs







MATRIX

QC

Quality Control Sample







MATRIX

RT

Reference Tissue for tissue MBs







MATRIX

RW

Reagent water for all aqueous MBs







MATRIX

SD

Sediment







MATRIX

ss

Soil







MATRIX

sw

Surface water







MATRIX

TS

Tissue







MATRIX

WW

Wastewater







result type

EIS

Extracted Internal Standard







result type

NIS

Non-Extracted Internal Standard







result type

TRG

Target analyte







SAMPLE TYPE

BLANK

method analytes in MBs







SAMPLE TYPE

EIS

EIS in all samples







SAMPLE TYPE

IPR

method analytes in IPR IDC samples







SAMPLE TYPE

LLOPR

method analytes in LLOPRs







SAMPLETYPE

LOQVER

Method analytes in MDL LOQVER IDC samples







SAMPLE TYPE

MDLB

Method analytes in MDL Blank IDC samples







SAMPLE TYPE

MDLS

Method analytes in MDL Spike IDC samples







SAMPLE TYPE

NIS

NIS in all samples







SAMPLE TYPE

NORMAL

method analytes in field samples







SAMPLE TYPE

OPR

method analytes in OPRs







spike cat

HIGH

High







spike cat

LOW

Low







STUDYPHASE

Phase 3 - ICAL

Initial Calibration







STUDY PHASE

Phase 3 - IDC

Initial Demonstration of Capabilities (IDC)







STUDY PHASE

Phase 4.4.1

GW, SW, and WW matrices







STUDY PHASE

Phase 4.4.2

SS and SD matrices







STUDY PHASE

Phase 4.4.3

Tissue matrices







STUDY PHASE

Phase 4.4.4

LC and BS matrices







validator

CHEMVAL

ChemVal







validator

JACOBS

Jacobs Engineering







validator

PYRON

Pyron Environmental







Analysis

PFAS

NULL







Lab Flag

B

Detected in the associated MB of a sample that
exceeded lA LOQ or is at a concentration greater
than l/10th the concentration in the sample,
whichever is greatest.







37


-------
Appendix E - Project Database - Valid Value Codes and Descriptions

YYI. I-kid

YalidYalue

YY l)i'v(i i|>linii

YYI. mahli
all Held

YYI.
inalcli all
code

Yalidalor

Lab Flag

D

When the reported result is from a dilution







Lab Flag

I

Fail to meet ion ratio criteria







Lab Flag

J

At a concentration between the MDL and LOQ







Lab Flag

U

Not detected or were detected at a concentration less
than the MDL







UNIT

ng/L

nanograms per liter

MATRIX

GW



UNIT

ng/L

nanograms per liter

MATRIX

LC



UNIT

ng/L

nanograms per liter

MATRIX

SW



UNIT

ng/L

nanograms per liter

MATRIX

WW



UNIT

ug/kg

micrograms per kilogram

MATRIX

BS



UNIT

ug/kg

micrograms per kilogram

MATRIX

SD



UNIT

ug/kg

micrograms per kilogram

MATRIX

ss



UNIT

ug/kg

micrograms per kilogram

MATRIX

TS



dv qualifier

I

Suspect







dv qualifier

J

Estimated







dv qualifier

J-

Verify that the %Ds are within the acceptance
criteria. If any target analytes do not meet the
acceptance criteria, qualify detects for that analyte as
estimated J- when the %D is below acceptance
criteria







dv qualifier

J-

If branched isomers were not included in the
summed result reported, qualify associated detects
as J-







dv qualifier

J+

Verify that the %Ds are within the acceptance
criteria. If any target analytes do not meet the
acceptance criteria, qualify detects for that analyte as
estimated J+ when the %D is higher than acceptance
criteria







dv qualifier

U

Values below the MDL are considered non-detects
and are qualified as U at the stated MDL.







dv qualifier

UJ

Verify that the %Ds are within the acceptance
criteria. Non-detects are qualified as UJ in all
associated samples for %D outside of acceptance
criteria.







dv qualifier

UJ

Estimated non-detect







dv qualifier

X

Exclusion of data is recommended







Reviewer qualifier

I

Suspect







Reviewer qualifier

J

Estimated







Reviewer qualifier

J-

If branched isomers were not included in the
summed result reported, qualify associated detects
as J-







Reviewer qualifier

J-

Verify that the %Ds are within the acceptance
criteria. If any target analytes do not meet the
acceptance criteria, qualify detects for that analyte as
estimated J- when the %D is below acceptance
criteria







Reviewer qualifier

J+

Verify that the %Ds are within the acceptance
criteria. If any target analytes do not meet the
acceptance criteria, qualify detects for that analyte as
estimated J+ when the %D is higher than acceptance
criteria







38


-------
Appendix E - Project Database - Valid Value Codes and Descriptions

YYI. I-kid

\ ulid\ ahu-

YY l)i'v(i i|>linii

YYI. maUli
all Held

YYI.
inalcli all
code

Yalidalor

Reviewer qualifier

ll

Values below the MDL are considered noil-delects
and are qualified as U at the stated MDL.







Reviewer qualifier

UJ

Verify that the %Ds are within the acceptance
criteria. Non-detects are qualified as UJ in all
associated samples for %D outside of acceptance
criteria.







Reviewer qualifier

UJ

Estimated non-detect







Reviewer qualifier

X

Exclusion of data is recommended







39


-------
Appendix F - Project Database - Valid Value Codes and Descriptions for Compounds

PIWS At RON Y\1

Compound

( AS NO

Kesul(_ 1 >pe |

13C2-4:2FTS

| lH,lH,2H,2H-Perfluoro-l-[l,2-13C2]hexanesulfonic acid

NA

EIS

13C2-6:2FTS

111.111.211.21 l-IVi 1 Iiioio- 1 -| 1.2-1 '( 2|iiclaiicsiiirniiic acid

NA

EIS

13C2-8:2FTS

lH.lH.2H.2H-Pcrfluoro-l-| 1.2-13C2|dccancsulfonic acid

NA

EIS

13C2-PFDoA

Pcrfluoro-n-l 1.2-13C2|dodccanoic acid

NA

EIS

13C2-PFTcDA

Pcrfluoro-n-| 1.2-13C2|lclradccanoic acid

\ \

EIS

13C3-HFPO-DA

Tclrafluoro-2-hcplafluoropropoxy-13C3-propanoic acid

\ \

EIS

13C3-PFBS

Pcrfluoro-1 -|2.3.4-13C3 |bulancsulfonic acid

\ \

EIS

13C3-PFH.\S

Pcrflnoro-1 -| 1.2.3-13C3|hcxancsulfonic acid

\ \

EIS

13C4-PFBA

Pcrfluoro-n-l 13C4|bulanoic acid

\ \

EIS

13C4-PFHpA

Pcrfluoro-n-[l,2,3,4-13C4]heptanoic acid

\ \

EIS

13C5-PFH.\A

Pcrfluoro-n-[l,2,3,4,6-13C5]hexanoic acid

\ \

EIS

13C5-PFPcA

Pcrlluoro-n-l 13C5"|pcnlanoic acid

\ \

EIS

13C6-PFDA

Pcrfluoro-n-l 1.2.3.4.5.6-13C6|dccanoic acid

\ \

EIS

13C7-PFUnA

Pcrfluoro-n-| 1.2.3.4.5.6.7-13C7|undccanoic acid

NA

EIS

13C8-PFOA

Pcrfluoro-n-[13C8]octanoic acid

NA

EIS

13C8-PFOS

Pcrfluoro-l-[13C81oclancsulfonic acid

\ \

EIS

13C8-PFOSA

Pcrfluoro-1 -| 13C8 |oclancsulfonamidc

\ \

EIS

13C9-PFNA

Pcrfluoro-n-[13C9]nonanoic acid

\ \

EIS

D3-NMcFOSA

N-mcthyl-d3 -perfluoro- 1-octanesulfonamide

\ \

EIS

D3-NMcFOSAA

:N-mclhyl-d3-pcrfluoro-1-oclancsulfonamidoacclic acid

NA

EIS

D5-NEIFOSA

N-clhv l-d5-pcrfluoro-1 -oclancsulfonamidc

\ \

EIS

D5-NEIFOSAA

N-clhv l-d5-pcrfluoro-1 -oclancsulfonamidoacclic acid

\ \

EIS

D7-NMcFOSE

N-mcthyl-d7 -perfluorooctanesulfonamidoethanol

\ \

EIS

D9-NEIFOSE

N-clhy l-d9-pcrfluorooclancsulfonamidoclhanol

\ \

EIS

13C2-PFDA

Pcrfluoro-n-| 1.2-13C2|dccanoic acid

\ \

NIS

13C2-PFH.\A

Pcrfluoro-n-[l,2-13C2]hexanoic acid

\ \

NIS

13C3-PFBA

¦Pcrfluoro-n-l2.3.4-13C3|bulanoic acid

\ \

NIS

13C4-PFOA

Pcrfluoro-n-[ 1.2.3.4-13C4]oclanoic acid

\ \

NIS

13C4-PFOS

Pcrfluoro-n-| 1.2.3.4-13C4|oclancsulfonic acid

NA

NIS

13C5-PFNA

Pcrfluoro-n-[l,2,3,4,5-13C5]nonanoic acid

NA

NIS

1802-PFHxS

Pcrfluoro-l-hexane[1802]sulfonic acid

\ \

NIS

1 lCl-PF30UdS

1 l-chlorocicosafluoro-3-oxaundccanc-l-sulfonic acid



TRG

3:3 FTC A

3-Pcrfluoropropyl propanoic acid

i5(>-i>2-5

TRG

4:2FTS

1H. lH.2H.2H-Pcrfluorohcxanc sulfonic acid

757124-72-4

TRG

5:3 FTC A

211.211. '11. '1 l-IVi'l'liKii\KiclaiKnc acid

914637-49-3

TRG

6:2FTS

1H. lH.2H.2H-Pcrfluorooclanc sulfonic acid

27619-97-2

TRG

7:3 FTC A

3-Pcrfluorohcplyl propanoic acid

812-70-4

TRG

8:2FTS

1H. lH.2H.2H-Pcrfluorodccanc sulfonic acid

39108-34-4

TRG

9C1-PF30NS

9-chlorohexadecafluoro-3-oxanonane-l-sulfonic acid

756426-58-1

TRG

ADONA

4.8-dio.\a-3H-pcrfluorononanoic acid

919005-14-4

TRG

HFPO-DA

Hcxafluoropropylcnc oxide dimcr acid

13252-13-6

TRG

NElFOSA

N -cl hy 1 pc rfl uo roocla ncsul fo na midc

415 I-5U-2

TRG

NElFOSAA

N-clhyl perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid

2991-50-6

TRG

NElFOSE

N-clhy 1 pcrfluorooclancsulfonamidoclhanol

1691-99-2

TRG

NFDHA

Nonafluoro-3.6-dioxahcplanoic acid

151772-58-6

TRG

NMcFOSA

N-mclhvl pcrfluorooclancsulfonamidc



TRG

NMcFOSAA

jN-methyl perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid

2355-31 -9

TRG

NMcFOSE

N-mclhvl pcrfluorooclancsulfonamidoclhanol

24448-09-7

TRG

PFBA

Pcrfluorobulanoic acid

375-22-4

TRG

PFBS

(Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

375-73-5

TRG

40


-------
Appendix F - Project Database - Valid Value Codes and Descriptions for Compounds

PIWS At RON Y\1

Compound

( AS NO

Resull T\pe

PI 1) \

Pcrfluorodccanoic acid

>35-76-2

TRG

PI \ )o\

Pcrfluorododecanoic acid

>07-55-1

TRG

Pll)^

Pcrfluorododecanesulfonic acid

-35-77-3

TRG

PI IIS \

Pcrriiioro(2-clho.\> clhanc)siiironic acid

1 1 ^507-82-7

TRG

PI 1 Ip \

Pcrfluorohcplanoic acid

'"5-S5-1'

TRG

PI 1 lp-

Pcrfluoroheptanesulfonic acid

:"5-'J:-S

TRG

PI 1 K \

Pcifluorohcxanoic acid



TRG

PI 1 K-

Pcrfliiorohcxancsuironic acid

;55-4i-4

TRG

PI All! \

Pcrniioro-4-mclho.\\bulanoic acid

S(..()'J()-S'J-5

TRG

PIMP \

Pcifliinrn-'-iiiclhn\\ propanoic acid



TRG

Pl \ \

Pcrfluorononanoic acid

;"5-.)5-|

TRG

PI\S

Pcrfluorononancsulfonic acid

i.s:5'j-i:-i

TRG

PI () \

Pcrfluorooclanoic acid

:'5-(>"-l

TRG

PR >S

PcifliinriKiclMiicMiirniiic acid

n.-:-i

TRG

PI ()S\

Pcrfliiorooclancsuironamidc

"54-'H-(.

TRG

PI IV \

Pcrfluoropcnlanoic acid



TRG

Pi ivs

Pcrfluoropcnlancsulfonic acid

:"()(,-•) 1-4

TRG

PI 1 cl) \

IViriiininicliadccaiinic acid



TRG

PI III) \

Pcrfluorolridccanoic acid



TRG

PFUnA

(Pcrlluoroundecanoic acid

,2058-94-8

TRG

41


-------
Figure 2. Folder Structure for the ExaBlue SharePoint

9


-------
Each top-level folder contains sub-folders for different types of data, from different sources:
Project Documents

•	Background Documents - This folder includes reports and documentation that guide the
MLV Study (e.g., Study Work Plan, UFP-QAPP, Background Analytical Data from SGS
AXYS, conventional analyses).

•	Correspondence - MVS Team members ensured that project communication (including
email) is backed up. Correspondence included on the ExaBlue SharePoint are: any
written communication (including emails) that document major decisions and
information regarding study status and/or problems; a log documenting verbal
communication with team participants regarding study status or issues.

•	Final DVR and Data - When the review processes for a matrix were completed, the
final versions of key documents were moved into this folder to provide efficient access
for MVS Team members tasked with preparing the MLV Study reports. This included:
final versions of the laboratory data package, HGL data package review checklist, data
validation reports (DVR), validated EDDs, EPA and Naval Sea Systems Command
(NAVSEA) review documents.

•	Meetings and Schedules - This folder is a repository for meeting notes and status
reports.

Project Reports - MVS Team members with appropriate permissions (Section 3.1.2) maintain
working and final versions of the following reports generated during the MLV Study:

•	Aqueous

•	Biosolids/Landfill Leachate

•	Soil/Sediment

•	Tissue

Laboratory Data

•	Lab Name - Each laboratory has their own folder including the same structure of sub-
folders.

o Phase 3 IDC - This folder includes the Phase 3 Initial Demonstration of

Capability (IDC) EDDs and Data Packages for aqueous, solid and tissue matrices.

o Phase 3 ICAL - This folder includes the Phase 3 Initial Calibration (ICAL) Data
Package.

o Matrix - There is one sub-folder for each of eight matrices (e.g, wastewater,
surface water, groundwater, soil, sediment, biosolids, landfill leachate, tissue),
and includes the current version of the EDDs and Data Packages. There are
additional directories for:

10


-------
¦	Communications - This folder is used to store documents provided to the
laboratories (e.g., EDDs with comments incorporated, resubmission
requests).

¦	Archive - This folder includes versions of the EDDs and Data Packages
that have been replaced with re-submissions.

o SOP - This folder stores each laboratory's Standard Operating Procedures.

•	Other Lab Data - This folder includes sub-directories to store files for:

o Corrective Actions

o ERA Laboratory Instructions

o Spike Levels

o Wellington Certificates of Analysis

•	PFAS Compound Names - The folder includes the file listing the Compound Name,
CAS_NO, and PFAS_Acronyms to be used by the laboratory.

•	Shared - This folder includes miscellaneous files providing instruction to the
laboratories.

Each sub-folder in the Laboratory sub-directory includes an Archive folder to store versions of
database exports and files with statistical results that have been replaced with revised file
versions.

Validator Data

•	Validator Name - Each validator has their own folder including the same structure of
sub-folders.

o Phase 3 IDC- This folder includes sub-directories for each of the three IDC
matrices (aqueous, solid and tissue).

¦	To Validator - Phase 3 IDC data packages and Amended EDDs are
uploaded to this folder (by HGL and Exa, respectively) for each laboratory
(not shown on Figure 2).

¦	From Validator - Phase 3 IDC results provided by the data validator are
posted to this folder (data validation report, Amended EDD with validator
fields populated, evidence of 10% verification, checklist) for each
laboratory (not shown on Figure 2).

o Matrix - There is one sub-folder for each of eight matrices.

¦	To Validator - data packages and Amended EDDs are uploaded to this
folder (by HGL and Exa, respectively), for each laboratory.

¦	From Validator - results provided by the data validator are posted to this
folder (data validation report, Amended EDD with validator fields
populated, evidence of 10% verification and checklist), for each
laboratory.

•	Shared - This folder includes miscellaneous files providing directions to the validators.

11


-------
Each sub-folder in the Validator Data sub-directory includes an Archive folder to store versions
of Amended EDDs, Data Packages and data validator submissions that have been replaced with
re-submissions.

Statistics

•	Phase 3 - There is one folder for each of the three IDC matrices and the ICAL data.

o Phase 3 IDC - There is one folder for each of the three IDC matrices (aqueous,
solid and tissue).

¦	To IDA - Database Exports are posted to this folder (from Exa; not shown
on Figure 2).

¦	From IDA - IDA posts the statistical report with appendices (pdf), along
with supporting calculations (csv; not shown on Figure 2) to this folder.

o ICAL

¦	To IDA - This folder stores the tabular version of the ICAL results (from
Science and Engineering for the Environment [SEE] and HGL; not shown
on Figure 2).

¦	From IDA - IDA posts the statistical report with appendices (pdf), along
with supporting calculations (csv; not shown on Figure 2).

•	Matrix - There is one sub-folder for each of eight matrices, as well as folders with
combined matrices (e.g., "AqueousCombined; not shown on Figure 2).

o To IDA - Database Exports are posted to this folder (from Exa).
o From IDA - IDA posts the statistical report with appendices (pdf), along with

supporting calculations (csv) to this folder,
o Report Statistics - When final versions of Database Exports and IDA reports are
prepared, they are posted to this folder to provide access to EPA and General
Dynamics Information Technology (GDIT) contractors.

Each sub-folder in the Statistics sub-directory includes an Archive folder to store versions of
database exports and files with statistical results that have been replaced with revised file
versions.

Database

•	Database - A copy of the Project Database (MS Access) is posted to this folder when the
MLV Study reports are completed. The version will be indicated by the matrix included
(AQ for aqueous media; SOL for soils/sediment; TS for tissue; BLL for biosolids/landfill
leachate) and the posted date in the filename (e.g., MLVS_AQ_Database_20230630).

•	Documentation - When MLV Study reports are completed, current database
documentation files (e.g., database dictionary, valid value lists, QA/QC application,
scripts, archived database copies) are posted in this folder.

12


-------
Tracking - this folder contains the shared files used for logging submissions from laboratories,
data validators and reviewers, and tracking project status. This main directory includes the
following folders:

•	Exa Internal Tracking - stores detailed information on file submissions and the status
of the review process.

•	Archive - stores backup versions of the tracking files.

Laboratories have access to their specific folders ONLY as described in Section 3.1.2. The
Project Documents folder also allowed limited access as described below. Exa and HGL are
responsible for reviewing the files uploaded to the site by the laboratory, validator, and
statistician team members, ensuring their documents are properly filed and the file-naming
protocols are adhered to (described in Section 3.3).

3.1.2 Access and Permissions

There is a strict permission structure limiting access to certain folders to specific team members.
Exa is the only organization with Administrator permission, with full control to audit all site
content and receive administrative messages.

SharePoint information is permissions-trimmed, meaning that individuals only have access to
designated folders within the ExaBlue SharePoint folder structure. In other words, members from
each individual laboratory can only access their own EDDs and Data Packages in order to maintain
control of proprietary data. Similarly, individuals from the validation or statistics groups are only
able to access the folders designated to them.

Specific members of the MVS Team have access to different folders. For example, under the top-
level "Statistics" folder, some MVS Team members have access to the "To IDA" and "From IDA"
folders which store the draft versions of database exports and statistical results. A smaller group
will have permissions to access the final versions included in the "Report Statistics" folder. Table
3 includes the list of project participants that have access to the ExaBlue SharePoint.

13


-------
Table 3. Project Participants with Access to the ExaBlue SharePoint

Team / Organization

Team Member

Method Validation Study Team

NAVSEA

Janice Willev

SEE LLC

Tim Thompson

AFCEC

Hunter Anderson

SERDP/ESTCP

Andrea Leeson

EPA (OW)

Adrian Hanlev

SERDP/ESTCP

Anastasia Nickerson

SERDP/ESTCP

Stephen Levitas

GDIT

Chip McCartv

GDIT

Mirna Alpizar

Data Management Team



Exa

Dawn Smorong. Michael Tweiten. Peggy Mvre. Glenn Sutula

HGL

Joe Skibinski. Denise Rivers. Ken Rapuano. Andrea Fletcher.



Joe Vilain. John Powell

Laboratories



California DTSC

Katie Hamblin

Pace

Stephen Somerville

SGS

Andrea Colby

Battel lc

Jon Thorn

GEL

Vonda Fields

Vista Analytical

Anne Wilhoit: Jamie Fox

Maryland DOH

Sin Urban

Alpha Analytical

Alvcia Mogavzel

Eurofins Lancaster

Bradley Avars

ETA - Sacramento

Jill Kellman

Validators



Pvron

Mingta Lin

Jacobs

Maggie Radford. Jeremy Bishop

Chcm Val

Kathi Gumpper: John Gumpper

Statisticians (IDA)

Allyson Buytendyk

3.2 File Tracking System

A File Tracking System ("Tracking System") was developed to ensure that files and information
provided by project participants are logged at each stage of the project. The workflow for handling
data from the laboratories, through the validators and the statisticians, is discussed in Section 4.1.
In this section, the format of the Tracking System is defined and described.

14


-------
The Tracking System includes three shared documents, posted in the ExaBlue SharePoint:

1.	MLVS_FileTracking.xlsx - Exa internal tracking, which is a detailed log of files
received.

2.	MLVS_Review_Status.xlsx - summary status information for the overall project.

3.	EPA NAVSEA Review Tracker.xlsx - status of the review of data validation reports
conducted by EPA and NAVSEA personnel.

3.2.1 Exa Internal Tracking

The purpose of Exa's internal tracking file (MLVSFileTracking.xlsx) is to log the receipt of
submissions from laboratories, validators and reviewers, record the status of the review process,
and ensure that file versioning is recorded and monitored. Exa is responsible for updating the
internal tracking tables as files are submitted.

Exa Internal Tracking includes three main stages of logging files, partitioned into separate
worksheets in the file:

•	General - Defines the basis for a unique set of files from the laboratory, including the EDD
and the Data Package, linked to the laboratory of origin and the matrix analyzed. If an EDD
is rejected and resubmitted, then the resubmitted EDD/Data Package receives a new
version number and are tracked separately from the original.

•	Laboratory - This element of the Tracking System defines the status of laboratory data
receipt and review by the Data Management Team.

•	Validator - This element of the Tracking System defines the status of receipt, processing,
and return of the laboratory data to and from the data validators.

The MLVS FileTracking.xlsx file also includes the following ancillary worksheets:

•	EDD for DB - identifies the final Amended EDD versions, with data validator and review
input added, which were incorporated in the Project Database

•	NIS updates - tracks the revisions of percent recovery results for non-extracted internal
standards (NIS) in the Project Database, which were received separately from the main
EDD for three laboratories.

•	ICAL files - a listing of Phase 3 ICAL files received from the laboratories.

•	ValidValues - a listing of acceptable entries for fields in the Tracking System constrained
by valid values.

•	Field Descriptions - a listing of fields, with field descriptions in the three main tracking
worksheets.

The status of data provided to the statistics team (IDA) is not included in the Tracking System,
since they receive Database Exports for each matrix (i.e., not on an EDD-specific basis).

15


-------
A summary of the tracking fields is provided in Appendix A. Several Tracking System fields are
limited to specific content ("valid values"); the list of acceptable entries for the valid value fields
is provided in Appendix B.

3.2.2 ML V Review Status

The purpose of the shared 'MLVS Review Status.xlsx' document is to communicate overall
status information to the MVS Team. Each project phase is included in separate worksheets and
each matrix has a separate table to record the status of review progress. Table 4 shows an example
of a Review Status table. Exa and SEE are responsible for updating the MLV Review Status tables
as files are submitted and review steps are completed.

16


-------
Table 4. Example Review Status Table

Phase 3 IDOC - Reagent Water (RW)

Laboratory
Name

Current
Version
(DP/EDD)

DP Approval
Status (HGL)

EDD
Approval
Status (Exa)

Data Package
to DV?

Amended
EDD to DV?

DV Reports
Received?

SEE DVR

Review
complete?

DVR Ready
for Navy/EPA
Review

EDD Ready for

Navy/EPA
Review

Navy/EPA DV
Review
complete?

DV qualifiers
added to EDD?

Navy/EPA
qualifiers added
to EDD?

Data
Ready for
IDA?

ALPHA

8

Approved

Approved

10-Oct-22

06-Mar-23

Tech Memo
VO - yes

1—/ \J W U111VX11*3

confirmed

Tech Memo
VO - yes

Yes V2
3/30/2023

Yes

No

No

V

BATTELLE

2

Approved

Approved

27-Apr-22

29-Apr-22

V2-yes

All documents
confirmed 9/16

Yes V2
9/16/2022

Yes V0
9/16/2022

Yes

No

No

V

ELLET

3

Approved

Approved

29-Mar-23

18-Aug-22

V3 - yes

All documents
confirmed 9/27

Yes V3
9/27/2022

Yes V2
9/20/2022

Yes

Yes

Yes

V

GEL

-

Rejected

Rejected

-

-

-

-

NA

NA

-

-

-

NA

PACE

1

Approved

Approved

27-Apr-22

29-Apr-22

V1 - yes

All documents
confirmed 9/16

Yes VI
9/16/2022

Yes V0
9/16/2022

Yes

No

No

V

CALEPA

5

Approved

Approved

12-Aug-22

12-Aug-22

V2 - Yes

All documents
confirmed 9/15

Yes V2
9/15/2022

Yes V2
9/15/2022

Yes

No

No

V

ETA

5

Approved

Approved

10-Mar-23

21-Mar-23

V2 - yes

All documents
confirmed 9/27

Yes V2
9/27/2022

Yes V2
9/20/2022

Yes

Yes

No

V

MDH

2/6

Approved

Approved

27-Apr-22

20-Sep-22

V2 - yes

All documents
confirmed 10/4

Yes V2
10/4/2022

Yes V3
10/7/2022

Yes

Yes

Yes

V

SGSNA

4/6

Approved

Approved

18-Aug-22

18-Aug-22

V3 - yes

All documents
confirmed 9/16

Yes V3
9/16/2022

Yes VI
9/16/2022

V3 DVR - Yes
VI EDD-Yes

Yes

No

V

VISTA

4/3

Approved

Approved

21-Jul-22

30-Aug-22

V4 - yes

All documents
confirmed 9/16

Yes V4
9/16/2022

Yes V2
9/16/2022

V4 DVR - Yes
V2 EDD - Yes

No

No

V

Acronyms: DP - data package; DV - data validator; DVR - data validation report; EDD - electronic data deliverable; HGL - HydroGeoLogic: IDA - Institute for Defence Analyses; SEE - Science, Engineering and the Environment LLC

17


-------
3.2.3 EPA NAVSEA Review Tracker

The purpose of the shared 'EPA NAVSEA Review Tracker.xlsx' document is to communicate the
status and summary results from the review of data validation reports conducted by EPA and
NAVSEA personnel. NAVSEA and EPA are responsible for updating the 'EPA NAVSEA Review
Tracker.xlsx' tables as reviews are completed.

3.3 File-Naming Protocols

As part of the File Tracking System, a strict file-naming protocol was devised and guidance
produced for the laboratories, validators, and statisticians. Each laboratory EDD and
accompanying Data Package (DP) was to be named according to the laboratory, the matrix, and
the version of the data. If the delivered data is a resubmission (Section 4.1.6), then the file name
reflects that the data are of a new version (Table 5). Similar file-naming protocols were developed
for the validators and statisticians.

The DMP states: "Importantly, the laboratory must resubmit BOTH the EDD and the Data
Package with a new version number, even if only one or the other was revised." However, as the
project progressed, multiple submissions and version numbers of EDD/Data Packages were not
updated together as indicated in the DMP due to the unforeseen magnitude of changes. Also,
there were exceptions to the required file-naming conventions, as not all labs were in
compliance.

The Quick Start Guides provided to the participating laboratories, validators and statisticians to
give instructions on file-naming protocols and using the ExaBlue SharePoint site are available in
Appendices B1 - B3 of the Data Management Plan (SERDP/ESTCP 2023, Attachment 4).

Table 5. Laboratory Data File->

aming Protocol Examples

Tracking ID

EDD File Name

Data Package File
Name

Laboratory
Name Code

Matrix
Code

Description

ALPHA_GW_verO

ALPHAGWverO.csv

ALPHA_GW_ver0.pdf

ALPHA

GW

First EDD/DP submitted
by Alpha for
groundwater

ALPHA_GW_verl

ALPHAGWver 1 .csv

ALPHA_GW_verl.pdf

ALPHA

GW

First revision of Alpha
EDD/DP for groundwater

ALPHA_GW_ver2

ALPHA_GW_ver2.csv

ALPHA_GW_verl.pdf

ALPHA

GW

Second revision of Alpha
EDD/DP for groundwater

ETASDverO

ETA SD verO.csv

ETA_SD_ver0.pdf

ETA

SD

First EDD/DP submitted
by ETA for sediment

ETA_SD_verl

ETA SD verl.csv

ETA_SD_verl.pdf

ETA

SD

First revision of ETA
EDD/DP for sediment

18


-------
4.0 DATA MANAGEMENT PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES

In addition to the ExaBlue SharePoint, a data management system (DMS) was developed to
compile the laboratory EDD data generated for the project, as well as the data validation and
EPA/NAVSEA reviewer results. The overall DMS consists of several elements. This section
provides an overview of the DMS, including the main components of the workflow (Section 4.1.1
- 4.1.5), a description of the rejection criteria and resubmission process (Section 4.1.6), an
overview of the QA/QC procedures applied to laboratory EDD submissions (Section 4.2), and a
description of the database and related tools for processing data (Section 4.3).

4.1 Workflow

An important element for meeting project goals and objectives is the use of a specific, rigorous,
and well-documented workflow for the data generated during the project. This section provides
detailed descriptions of every step of that workflow. At each step, dates of actions and descriptions
of decisions are logged in the Tracking System.

The workflow designed and described in the DMP was modified as the project progressed to
accommodate requests and requirements from the MVS Team. The workflow that reflects the
actual process used during the MLV Study is provided as a flowchart diagram in Figures 3a and
3b. The workflow outlines the sequence of processes that were followed by all team members,
including the Data Management Team (Exa/HGL), the MVS Team, laboratories, the validation
team, and the statistical analysis team (IDA).

One of the key elements of workflow is the multiple stages of data QA/QC by the Data
Management Team, the validators, and the MVS Team. At each stage, the Exa Data Manager
ensured that the review information was captured in the Tracking System so that the MVS Team
could always understand the status of the review procedures.

4.1.1 Receipt of Data Sets

As shown in Figure 3 a, the first component of the workflow is the receipt of data sets, where the
laboratories upload EDDs and Data Packages to the ExaBlue SharePoint site. The Exa team is
responsible for logging the receipt of the submission in the Tracking System.

19


-------
Receipt of Data Sets—>

Review Laboratory EDD/Data Package Submissions—>

Legend

O

Process step
Decision point
Communication

¦ — — —	Back-and-forth

communication

Manual step
End of process

Data archiving

Enter information
in Tracking System

Figure 3a. Workflow for the PFAS Multi-Laboratory Validation Study

20


-------
CD

X 2

Export
Amended EDD
format and
upload to
Validator folders

Insert Validator
and EPA/NAVY
results to
database

DB QA/QC
procedures;
calculate matrix

Prepare Data
export for
statisticians

Archive

EDD
packages

and
database

<
o

Data Validation — >

Statistical Analyses —>

Data Archiving

Figure 3b. Workflow for the PFAS Multi-Laboratory Validation Study (continued)

21


-------
4.1.2	Review Laboratory Data Package/EDD Submissions

The next step in the workflow (Figure 3a) is to conduct a detailed review of the data submitted
from the laboratory. This involves two major steps. First, the HGL Project Chemists review the
Data Package for completeness and record the findings in a checklist. If errors or omissions were
found, HGL rejected the Data Package and informed the laboratories that they must address the
issue(s) and resubmit the Data Package. HGL managed the timetable for submissions and this was
logged separately from the Tracking System. If there were no issues with the Data Package, HGL
posted the Data Package and the completed checklist to the Validator folders on the ExaBlue
SharePoint.

The second step of this part of the workflow involves Exa conducting automated QA/QC checks
on the EDD using a customized application. If errors were found, the Exa team completed an Error
Report with the reasons for rejection and sent this to the laboratory, and noted the EDD as rejected
in the Tracking System.

The automated QA/QC checks ensured that the EDDs contained all information required by the
template guidance (SERDP/ESTCP 2023, Attachment 3), and each data field in the EDD was
completed in accordance with those instructions. Section 4.2 provides the specific details on the
EDD checking procedures.

The final step of this component of the workflow was to load the EDD data into the Project
Database.

Details on the rejection criteria and resubmission process are described in Section 4.1.6.

4.1.3	Data Validation

The next component of the workflow is Data Validation and is shown in Figure 3b. Three
independent third-party validators were responsible for the validation of Data Packages and EDDs
in accordance with the study data validation guidelines (SERDP/ESTCP 2023, Attachment 5).
Following review and approval of the EDD and Data Packages by the Data Management Team,
the Exa team generated an Amended EDD file from the database, which included the laboratory
EDD fields, as well as several additional fields incorporated for the validator to populate. The
format of the validator Amended EDD is described in Section 4.3.5 and Appendix C. The
Amended EDD was then posted for the validator in the appropriate folder on the ExaBlue
SharePoint. Amended EDDs were posted for the validators review only after HGL approved the
Data Package.

22


-------
The validator then conducted the data validation procedures. If the validator found errors in the
laboratory data that require the laboratory to revise the information and data submitted, the
validator informed the MVS Team to determine the course of action to be followed. In some cases
the data validators communicated directly with the laboratories regarding the action(s) needed. If
a laboratory resubmission was warranted, HGL managed the timetable for submissions and this
was logged separately from the Tracking System.

If no errors were found in the laboratory data, the validator completed the data validation
procedures and provided: a data validation report; the associated Amended EDD with the validator
fields populated; a file with evidence of 10% verification; and, the data validation checklist. The
Exa team is responsible for logging the receipt of the submitted files into the Tracking System.

The next step in the workflow is for the SEE Co-Principal Investigator to review the files submitted
by the data validators to ensure it is complete and ready for EPA/NAVSEA review. If issues were
found, SEE communicated this to the data validators and they revised the data validation files and
posted updated files with a revised version number. When this review was complete, SEE was
responsible for updating the Tracking System.

The next step in the workflow is for NAVYSEA and EPA members of the MVS Team to review
the validator results. If the EPA/NAVSEA reviewers disagree with the validator qualifiers, they
enter qualifiers and comments into the Reviewerqualifier and Reviewernotes fields of the
Amended EDD; these changes are communicated to the data validator. If the EPA/NAVSEA
reviewers found issues with the data validation report and associated files, they posted a narrative
of their review findings to the validator folders on the ExaBlue SharePoint. The data validators
then revised the data validation report and posted updated files with a revised version number.

If a resubmission of the data validation report was not warranted, the EPA/NAVSEA reviewers
will upload the revised Amended EDD, with the Reviewer fields populated and a suffix on the file
name indicating the review is complete, as well as a narrative of their review findings (.doc), to
the appropriate folder in the ExaBlue SharePoint. The Exa Database Manager then ran a routine
to link the Project Database to the appropriate file to incorporate validator and validator reviewer
qualifiers and comments.

Exa was responsible for logging the receipt of the files submitted by the data validators and
EPA/NAVSEA reviewers into the Tracking System.

4.1.4 Statistical Analyses

The next step of the workflow is Statistical Analyses and is shown in Figure 3b. Once the database
is complete for a matrix, the Exa Data Manager executed automated database-level checks to

23


-------
ensure results are consistent for the given matrix to ensure the dataset is ready for statistical
analysis. In addition, the Exa team calculated matrix percent recovery considering the native
concentration in the samples (see Section 4.3.4).

The Exa team then exported the complete dataset for that matrix and posted it to the statistics team
member (IDA) in the Statistics folder in the ExaBlue SharePoint. The format of this Database
Export is described in Section 4.3.5 and Appendix C. Upon completion of the statistical analysis,
IDA uploaded all statistical files to the appropriate ExaBlue SharePoint folder [for each matrix,
this included a report with appendices (pdf), supporting calculations (csv), figures (png), and their
log file (txt) documenting the statistical output].

The Phase 3 ICAL results had a slightly different workflow - these data were compiled from the
laboratory Data Packages by HGL and then provided to Exa for QA/QC review. Subsequently,
Exa uploaded the file to the appropriate folder in the ExaBlue SharePoint (Phase 3 ICAL/To IDA).
After statistical analyses were complete, IDA posted the files with statistical results to the ExaBlue
SharePoint. Note that Phase 3 ICAL data is not stored in the Project Database.

If the statisticians encountered issues with the Database Export provided to them by Exa, the issues
were resolved and a new Database Export was provided with a revised version number.
4.1.5 Data Archiving

The final step of the workflow (Figure 3b) is to archive the data, both during the project and at
project completion. When the review procedures are completed for a given matrix, all of the final
files are moved from the various folders on the ExaBlue SharePoint and compiled in the 'Final
DVR and Data' folder (in the Project Documents top-level folder). This includes the final versions
for: laboratory data package, HGL data package review checklist, data validation reports, validated
EDDs, and EPA/NAVSEA review documents.

The master version of the Project Database will be backed up regularly on Exa's servers. When a
Study report is drafted, a copy of the Project Database is posted on the ExaBlue SharePoint for the
matrices addressed in the Study report, with the date of posting.

At project completion, the Exa team will provide a final report documenting data processing
procedures and a summary of the contents of the final database. This report will take the form of
a Data Management Final Report. This report will summarize components of data management
for the project, including workflow, database structure, data sharing, Tracking System, and the
processes and procedures established for managing the data and conducting QA/QC procedures.

Prior to the completion of the MLV project, Exa will coordinate with team members to assess
options for archiving the data from the project. Some of the long-term data needs that will be
addressed include:

24


-------
The level of long-term access required by the MVS team, other government
entities, or the public;

Whether to utilize existing government data archive resources and platforms;

Data security level required;

The options for accessible data formats;

The need to retain preliminary versions of files from the laboratories, data

validators and statisticians;

Requirements for metadata, if any; and

Consistency with other SERDP programs and/or databases.

A Data Archive Plan will be produced and delivered as part of this project. Upon acceptance, the
data will be archived to these specifications at the completion of the project and documented in
the Data Management Report.

As a part of project completion, Exa will work with team partners to ensure smooth technology
transition of all work products to the SERDP and the EPA. This delivery will include
documentation that provides information on the data structure, all developed processes, automated
tools and scripts, and related export products. Sufficient documentation will accompany the
archived data to fully describe the source, contents, and structure of the data to ensure future
usability.

The ExaBlue SharePoint has several features as a part of the Microsoft Enterprise environment, to
ensure the information stored on the SharePoint site is always recoverable (Microsoft 2022). For
example, the Microsoft datacenters are geo-distributed to mitigate the impact of a natural disaster
or local power outage; backups are retained for 14 days and can be restored to any point in time.

4.1.6 Rejection and Resubmission Process

There are several steps along the workflow where laboratory EDDs/Data Packages could be
rejected, as shown in Figure 3a and 3b and described in Sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.4. If the
laboratory EDD and/or Data Package includes any inconsistencies with the instructions provided
in their contract, or they did not follow the instructions for populating the EDD template, the
submission was rejected. In addition, the laboratory EDD/Data Package could be rejected if the
data validators found issues with the data that required re-analysis. If the EDD/Data Package was
rejected, the laboratory was informed that they must address the errors and resubmit. HGL
managed the timetable for submissions, and this was logged separately from the Tracking System.
The resubmittal was given a revised version number as described above and shown in Table 5.

The Data Management Plan states that ".. .the Exa data managers will not conduct any editing or
data cleaning procedures to amend the data provided by the laboratories." However, in order to
expedite the flow of EDDs, Exa directly edited minor inconsistencies in the EDDs after receiving

25


-------
permission from the laboratories. There were also instances where updates were made to the
original database entries at the request of the MVS Team. When edits were made the Exa data
manager added comments in the DM Notes field of the Project Database, to document the
revision.

4.2 EDD QA/QC Procedures

The purpose of this section of the report is to describe specific data quality checking processes and
procedures conducted on the electronic data deliverables (EDDs) from the study laboratories. The
study requires technically sound and legally admissible data; thus the QA/QC procedures
documented in this section are a key element to project success. The data management
methodology is critical to ensure that laboratory analytical data, validation information, and final
statistical calculations are of the highest quality to support and defend the publication of the final
method.

Electronic data from the laboratories are submitted to the MVS Team in a specific electronic data
deliverable (EDD) format, as described in the Study Plan (SERDP/ESTCP 2023; Attachment 3).
The EDD records are imported into a Microsoft® (MS) Access database using automated Visual
Basic for Applications (VBA) code. In addition to the checking routines, there are additional
functions to post-process the data which will be described in Section 4.2.3.

There are three phases of EDD QA/QC in the workflow:

1.	Preliminary checks conducted upon import of the EDD;

2.	Detailed checks conducted on individual EDDs, prior to submission of the data to the
validators;

3.	Database checks on the cumulative Project Database conducted prior to submission to
the data analysis (statistics) team.

The custom application for processing data for the MLV Study was designed and developed by
the Exa team and tested extensively. Testing involved multiple Exa team members running the
procedures on multiple test data sets to identify bugs and inconsistencies. Fixes were then
incorporated into the automated routines.

Each of these phases of QA/QC procedures will be discussed in the following sections.
4.2.1 QA/QC Checks at Import

Upon receipt of data files submitted from the laboratories, the files are logged into the Tracking
System and HGL confirms that the data files (data packages, EDDs, supplemental files) are
appropriately filed on the ExaBlue SharePoint.

26


-------
Import of the EDDs into the database is the first step of the MLV Study QA/QC tool (Figure 4).
As each EDD is imported, a series of preliminary checks are conducted to ensure that the EDD is
imported properly. This includes checks to ensure all EDD template fields are present and named
properly, and all of the EDD records were imported.

m Main Form

MLV Study
EDD QA/QC tool

Import Data Lab
EDD Template

Import data from the Laboratory EDD Template.
Ensure a relevant path is entered in tbIPath prior to
import.

Remove ImpLabEDDResults

Go To Checking
Routines

Close

Figure 4. Opening Form of the MLV Study EDD QA/QC Tool

27


-------
4.2.2 Detailed EDD OA OC and Reporting

Once the EDD is imported as a stand-alone table into the database (i.e., not yet appended to the
main database tables), a series of automated QA/QC checks are conducted. These checks
underwent modification as the project progressed, but the description provided below is
comprehensive for the EDDs received for Phase 4 as of the publication of this report.

The EDD QA/QC checks are executed in a sequential order (Routines 1-3, Figure 5). Results of
the checks are written to the QA/QC Report for review and generating feedback to the data
provider (Routine 4).

Data File

MLV

Checking Routines (to be executed in sequence)

Check
Required
Fields and
Relationships

Unique

Records Check

Additional
Checks

Check all required fields have entries and
relationships are maintained.

Check each table to ensure that the primary key
uniquely identifies each record in the table.

A number of additional tests are conducted.

Reports

QA/QC Report
and Detailed
Queries

View the QjVQC report showing the results of
the automated checking routines and the detailed
QAj'QC queries that identify problem records.

Lab_rep must be reviewed and updated
before proceeding.

Figure 5. EDD Checking Routines and Reporting Form

The first routine checks that all required fields have been fully populated. The list of required fields
(Table 6) is drawn from the EDD Instructions and Format (SERDP/ESTCP 2023, Attachment 3,
Table 1).

28


-------
Table 6. List of Required Fields

Field Name

ANALYSIS

LAB_SAMPLE_ID

S A M P LE_S 1 ZE_U N IT

COMPOUND

MATRIX

SAMPLE_TYPE

CONC_FOUND

METHOD

STUDY_PHASE

CONC_SPIKE

PFAS_ACRONYM

UNIT

DILUTION

SAMPLE_NO



LABJD

SAMPLE_SIZE



In addition, the first routine also checks that relationships between tables are maintained -
specifically the links between the EDD and the standardized SamplelD (from the lu MatrixKey
table) and the standardized compound codes in the lucompound table.

The second routine checks for unique records based on the following fields: LABID,
SAMPLENO, LABSAMPLEID, PF ASACRONYM, DILUTION, and SAMPLETYPE. If
there is more than one record in the EDD with the same combination of these fields, this check
will generate an error message.

The third routine ("Additional Checks" in Figure 5) includes a wide variety of automated QA/QC
checks and summaries, some that require manual review (Table 7). Range checks are conducted
on numeric fields to ensure that the values are "reasonable" (e.g., dilution is checked if is less than
0 or greater than 100, Table 8). Fields that are constrained to valid entries are checked for specific
required content, including exact spelling. These fields are: ANALYSIS, LAB FLAG, MATRIX,
SAMPLE TYPE, STUDY PHASE, UNIT, PFAS ACRONYM, COMPOUND, CAS NO,
ResultType.

29


-------
Table 7. Detailed List of EDD QA/QC Checks

Type of Check

Description

Completeness

71 results for each sample

All compounds have been reported for all samples
Three sample types for each sample
Review sample type counts

Re-analysis results without the original analysis reported

Missing SAMPLENO

Missing compounds (from all samples)

Units

Consistent units
Correct units

Consistent sample size units
Correct sample size units

SAMPLE SIZE is consistent within EDD and across the matrix

Formatting

No suffixes added to SAMPLE NO
ANALYSIS DATE is in the correct format
PERCENT REC must be a whole number
Numeric entries in number fields
Re-analysis has incremented lab rep

Null and placeholders

Null in CONCFOUND field

Null in CONCSPIKE field

Null in DILUTION field

Null in LOQ field

Null in MDL field

Null in SAMPLE SIZE field

CONC SPIKE = 0 ok

CONC SPIKE not equal to 0 ok

PERCENTREC = null ok

PERCENTREC not null ok

CAS NO can only be null for EIS or NIS

Sample Type/Matrix Coding

MATRIX is coded correctly for blank samples

MATRIX is coded correctly for study samples

MATRIX is coded correctly for QC samples

SAMPLE NO is coded correctly for blank samples

SAMPLE NO is coded correctly for QC samples

SAMPLE NO is coded correctly for study samples

SAMPLE TYPE is coded correctly for NIS and EIS result type

SAMPLE TYPE is coded correctly for TRG result type

SAMPLE TYPE is not EIS or NIS for TRG resultJype (not EIS or NIS)
Mis-coded Normal samples
Mis-coded compounds

Detection Limit / Qualifier
Checks

MDL is not greater than the LOQ

LABFLAG not set to J when CONC FOUND >MDL and  MDL and U flagged

MDL can only be null for EIS or NIS

LOQ can only be null for EIS or NIS

LOQ should not be populated for EIS/NIS

MDL should not be populated for EIS/NIS

Calculations

PERCENT REC calculations (>100)

PERCENT REC calculations (>10 and <100)
PERCENT REC calculations (<10)

Review fields that must reported to 3 sig figs
ANALYSIS DATE is after the EXTRACTION DATE
NIS PERCENT REC are not all 100

30


-------
Table 8. Fields with Range Checks

Field Name

Min

Max

Default

CONC_FOUND

0.0001

1000

REQUIRED

CONC_SPIKE

1

1000

0

DILUTION

0

100

1

PERCENT_REC

0

170

NULL

SAMPLE_SIZE

0.004

1000

REQUIRED

MDL

0.0001

100



LOQ

0.0001

100



In conjunction with developing the data management system, the EDD Template instructions were
reviewed and 'MLVStudySupplementalEDDInstructions' were developed and distributed to
the MLV Study team, to clarify some details of how the EDD Template is expected to be
populated. Many of the QA/QC checks listed in Table 7 are based on the Supplemental EDD
Instructions (2022, unpublished), in particular, the sample coding guidance (Table 9). Narrative
guidance included in the Supplemental EDD Instructions are found in Appendix D.

Table 9. Allowed Code Combinations for Sample No, Matrix, and Sample Type fields

Phase

SAMPLENO

Compound Type

Matrix

Sample type



CONCSPIKE

PERCENTREC

Phase 4

GWA0

Method analytes

GW, SW, etc

NORMAL



0

NULL

Phase 4

GWA0

EIS

GW, SW, etc

EIS



Populated

Populated

Phase 4

GWA0

NIS

GW, SW, etc

NIS



Populated

Populated

Phase 4

MB

Method analytes

RW, OS, RT

BLANK



0

NULL

Phase 4

MB

EIS

RW, OS, RT

EIS



Populated

Populated

Phase 4

MB

NIS

RW, OS, RT

NIS



Populated

Populated

Phase 4

OPR*

Method analytes

QC

OPR



Populated

Populated

Phase 4

OPR*

EIS

QC

EIS



Populated

Populated

Phase 4

OPR*

NIS

QC

NIS



Populated

Populated

Phase 4

LLOPR*

Method analytes

QC

LLOPR



Populated

Populated

Phase 4

LLOPR*

EIS

QC

EIS



Populated

Populated

Phase 4

LLOPR*

NIS

QC

NIS



Populated

Populated

Phase 3 IDC

IPR*

Method analytes

QC

IPR



Populated

Populated

Phase 3 IDC

IPR*

EIS

QC

EIS



Populated

Populated

Phase 3 IDC

IPR*

NIS

QC

NIS



Populated

Populated

Phase 3 IDC

MDLB

Method analytes

RW, OS, RT

MDLB



0

NULL

Phase 3 IDC

MDLB

EIS

RW, OS, RT

EIS



Populated

Populated

Phase 3 IDC

MDLB

NIS

RW, OS, RT

NIS



Populated

Populated

Phase 3 IDC

MDLS*

Method analytes

QC

MDLS



Populated

Populated

Phase 3 IDC

MDLS*

EIS

QC

EIS



Populated

Populated

Phase 3 IDC

MDLS*

NIS

QC

NIS



Populated

Populated

Phase 3 IDC

LOQVER*

Method analytes

QC

LOQVER



Populated

Populated

Phase 3 IDC

LOQVER*

EIS

QC

EIS



Populated

Populated

Phase 3 IDC

LOQVER*

NIS

QC

NIS



Populated

Populated

Phase 3 IDC

MB

Method analytes

RW, OS, RT

BLANK



0

NULL

Phase 3 IDC

MB

EIS

RW, OS, RT

EIS



Populated

Populated

Phase 3 IDC

MB

NIS

RW, OS, RT

NIS



Populated

Populated

*spiked samples

31


-------
During the execution of the checking routines, an error report with standardized error messages is
automatically generated for the checks that failed. This report can be viewed within the application
by selecting "View Report" (Figure 6) and is also exported to an Excel file to generate the Error
Summary Report that was provided to the laboratories. This auto-generated report was carefully
reviewed by the Exa team and apparent errors were examined prior to sending to laboratories.

Most of the QA/QC checks are associated with detailed queries that provide information on what
the specific problem is (see the bottom part of Figure 6, "Detailed QA/QC Queries"). For the errors
that are applicable to a certain check, the query results are copied into separate worksheets of the
Error Summary report and provided to the laboratories, to assist them in identifying the issue(s) in
the submitted EDD. The standardized error messages and the worksheets containing the detailed
QA/QC query results are cross-referenced with the query name (e.g.,
qry Edd review sample no).

32


-------
tH QA/QC Reports and Detailed Queries	— ~ X

QAi'QC Report

(* jQA/QC Report (results of the automated checking routines) j
r Include details about items that passed' checks

View Report

Detailed GAi'QC Queries







Select query to view problem records. View

Query





1

Review - check for 71 results for each sample



2

Review - all compounds have been reported for all samples



3

Review - 3 sample types for each sample.



4

Review - no suffixes added to SAMPLE_NO



5

Consistent units





6

Correct units





7

MDL is not greater than the LOQ



8

LAB_FLAG not set to J when CONC_FOUND >MDL and 
-------
4.2.3 Final Processing Steps

There are additional data processing steps that occur after the QA/QC routines have been executed
on individual EDDs (Figure 7). Routine 5 populates the spike category (spike cat) field, and
Routine 6 appends the EDD to the main database table (LabEDDResults), with separate steps
to populate the Tracking ID, LABID and SDG fields. Finally, Routine 7 automatically exports an
individual EDD in the Amended EDD format which will be provided to the data validators in Excel
format. Table 10 lists the additional fields that are not in the EDD laboratory template but are
included in the Amended EDD (also see Appendix C).

Fill SpikeCat

Step 1

Populates spike_cat field.

Append to DB

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

EnterTrackingID and LABJD

Append to database: opens table to enter SDG
information.

Updates database with SDG information.

Export Amended EDD

Step 1

Step 2

Create temp export file based on Tracking ID

Export to Excel. Rename file to the current
Tracking ID, and post to SharePoint site.

Return to
Previous

0

Figure 7. Append to Master EDD Database and Generate Amended EDD Form

34


-------
Table 10. Additional Fields Included in the Amended EDD

Field

Definition

TrackingID

Tracking ID from Tracking System; incorporated during ETL
procedures

sdgnum

SDG number; incorporated during ETL procedures; extracted from
Lab_Sample_ID

labrep

Lab rep number added to easily filter for re-analysis/dilutions.

ResultTvpe

Code for Result Type. See Valid Value list.

validation_level

Stores information on the level of data validation that has been
completed for the chemistry data. Automatically populated with 'Level
4'.

validator

Code for Data Validator. See Valid Value list.

dvqualifier

Code for Data Validator qualifiers. See Valid Value list.

dvqual ifierreason

Data validation qualifier reason codes.

dv_notes 1

Include comments to distinguish the meaning of the dvqualifier
assignment (e.g., distinguishing the -J qualifier)

dv_notes2

Additional information provided by validator deemed pertinent to their
dv qualifier assignment.

dv_result

Validator recommended result for concentration. If this is provided,
entries must be made in the dv_ResultChange_yn field and
dv_ResultChange_desc fields.

dv_ResultChange_yn

Enter Y or N. Indicates whether the validator made a recommendation
to change the result for concentration.

dv_ResultChange_desc

Description of the reasons for validator recommending a change to the
result for concentration.

Reviewerqualifier

Code for qualifiers applied by NAVY/EPA reviewers of data validation
results. See Valid Value list.

Reviewer_notes

Notes from NAVY/EPA reviewers of data validation results.

35


-------
4.3 Database and Tools

The purpose of this section is to describe the structure and associated tools for compiling the EDDs
into the Project Database. The Project Database is a relational database using MS Access as the
selected database software. MS Access was chosen due to its common usage and ease of
transforming the data to other formats, as necessary. The master version of the Project Database
will be stored on Exa's local server, ensuring that access to the 'working' database is limited to
the Database Managers. If project participants requested access to the Project Database, they were
given permissions to access a copy of the database posted on the ExaBlue SharePoint.
Alternatively, Exa generated customized data exports for specific purposes, when requested.

The goals of the Project Database and associated toolsets are as follows:

•	Maximize the reliability of the database by designing and implementing automated QA/QC
and verification checks;

•	Store the data in a structured database with rules that restrict entries for certain fields to
specific valid values, and that follow relational database rules such as primary keys and
inter-table relationships;

•	Promote accurate and rapid transfer of data to a variety of export and imports formats for
use by team members (validators, IDA) and reporting to the MVS Team.

The custom application for processing data for the MLV Study was designed and developed by
the Exa team and tested extensively. Testing involved multiple Exa team members running the
procedures on multiple test data sets to identify bugs and inconsistencies. Fixes were then
incorporated into the automated routines.

4.3.1 Database Structure

The structure of the database is provided in Figure 8 as an entity-relationship diagram (ERD),
which describes the tables and fields in the database and how they are related. The field definitions
are compiled in the database dictionary as seen in Appendix C.

The main EDD data table (Lab EDD Resuits) parallels the format of the laboratory EDD
(SERDP/ESTCP 2023, Attachment 3), with EDD field names shown in all capital letters in Figure
8. In addition to the EDD fields, several additional fields were added to the main EDD table, shown
in lower case, including the TrackingID, result type, spike level, and fields to capture results from
the data validators and EPA/NAVSEA (Appendix C).

The valid value tables (dicValidValues, luCompound) were maintained separately but linked to
the main EDD table to enforce entries in fields constrained by valid values, and are shown in

36


-------
Appendices E and F, respectively. Retaining strict valid values enable both the validators and IDA
to accurately filter and analyze the output data.

The database structure includes the lu SpikeLevels table which stores the spike concentrations
reported in the ERA Certificates of Spiking. This facilitates the matrix spike percent recovery
calculations (see Section 4.3.4).

The lu MatrixType table stores the required sample nomenclature, matrix types and spike levels
from the Study Plan (SERDP/ESTCP 2023; Attachment 2). This facilitates the matrix spike
percent recovery calculations (see Section 4.3.4) and QA/QC EDD checks that ensure the Sample
Identifiers used by the laboratories are compliant.

The dicEDD table stores information on whether individual EDDs are Approved or Rejected; it
was decided by the MVS Team to include rejected EDDs in the database, when possible.

As the project progressed, modifications were made to the structure of the Project Database, as
needed.

37


-------
dicValidValues

Table

Field

Field Subcategory
Value

Description
WL_match_a lt_f i e I d
WL_match_alt_code
Validator

dicEDD

Matrix
TrackinglD
Approval_status
DV_Revi ew_f I a gs_a d

Lab_EDD_Results

ie TrackinglD
LA6_ID_Reported
LAB_ID
lab_num
? SAMPLE.NO
H LAB_SAMPLE_ID
ANALĄSIS_DATE
ANALYSIS
? PFAS_ACRONYM
H DILUTION
CONC_FOUND
LAB_FLAG
CONC.SPIKE
PERCENT_REC
MDL
LOQ
UNIT
unit_final

SAM PLE_T RAN SIT 10 N_RAT IC
EXPECT ED_T RAN SIT 10 N_RAT
RRT

SAMPLE.SIZE
SAM PLE_S IZE_U N IT
EXT RACT10 N_D AT E
PERC.MOISTURE
MATRIX
METHOD
STUDY_PHASE
H SAMPLEJYPE
result_type
spike_cat
spike_level
? Iab_rep

validationjevel

validator

dv_qualifier

final_qualifier

dv_qualifier_reason

dv_notes1

dv_notes2

dv result

LU_Compound

8 PFAS.ACRONYM
8 Compound
! CAS.NO
Result_Type
SORT ORDER

LU_Spike_Levels

sort

PFAS.ACRONYM

Matrix

Low_Spike

High_Spike

Unit

lu_MatrixKey

Matrix Type
Requested Name
Description
Matrix Code
Sample Identifier
SamplelD
spike_cat
Rep

Selected

Figure 8. Entity-Relationship Diagram (ERD) for the Project Database

38


-------
4.3.2	Populating Final Result and Final Qualifier

After data are compiled and finalized for a matrix, the Exa team populates the FinalQualifier
field based on these rules:

•	Data validators only populate the dvqualifier field if they do not agree with the
laboratory qualifier. If a qualifier should be changed, they enter the new qualifier; if they
want to remove a qualifier, they enter "[null]".

•	EPA/NAVSEA only populate the reviewer_qualifier field if they do not agree with the
dv qualifier or LABFLAG qualifier. If a qualifier should be changed, they enter the
new qualifier; if they want to remove a qualifier, they enter "[null]".

•	The following logic is used for updating finalqualifier: 1. update with LAB FLAG
entry; 2. Overide with dv_qualifier entry; 3. Override with reviewer_qualifier entry; 4.
Update [null] entries to null.

Similar logic would be employed to populate the FinalResult field (CONCFOUND would be
overridden with the dv result entry, but at the date of publishing this report the data validators
have not included entries in the dv result field. Therefore, finalresult has been updated with the
CONC FOUND entry.

4.3.3	QA/QC Checks on Master EDD Database

In addition to the checks applied to individual EDDs, there are additional QA/QC checking
routines that were developed to apply to the entire database. The purpose of this operation is to
review the data across Study Phases, laboratories and matrices to ensure that there are no internal
inconsistencies or other issues that arise as the data are compiled. These checks identify differences
in how the data are reported from different laboratories and/or validators and ensure consistency
in the data exports provided to the project statisticians. It is good practice to incorporate
redundancy in the QA/QC procedures to ensure that issues are not overlooked.

Examples of these database-wide queries include:

•	Min-max checks on number fields

•	Dictionary checks

•	Unique record check

•	Date range checks

•	Consistent unit checks

•	Review of summary of lab flag, lab qual, dv qualifier, reviewer qual, final qualifier

•	Review of summary of conc found, dv result, final result, dv_ResultChange_yn,
dvResultChangedesc

39


-------
4.3.4 Matrix Spike Percent Recovery Calculation Procedures

After data are compiled and finalized for a matrix, the Exa team calculates matrix percent recovery
considering the native concentration in the samples. This calculation applies to target compounds
in matrix samples (i.e., it did not apply to QA/QC samples). The general calculation is:

Final result Spiked Sample/[spike level + Final result Unspiked sample]

There were specific data handling options developed by the MVS Team for certain scenarios and
the specific procedures used for calculating matrix percent recovery are provided in Table 11.

Table 11. Data Rules for Calculating Percent Matrix Spike Recoveries

Case

Un-spiked Sample

Spiked Sample

Calculation of MS Spike Recovery

Data for Statistical Analyses

1

detected

detected

Base case. Use Equation 1

All resultant values used

2

not detected

detected

(Final Result Spiked Sample [ ] / (Spike
[] Added])* 100

All resultant values used

3

not detected/X-flagged

not detected/X-
flagged

when spiked sample is X or U, it is
excluded, and %recovery is not
calculated

No % recovery value for that sample and
analyte pair

4

not detected/X-flagged

detected

(Final Result Spiked Sample [ ] / (Spike
[] Added])* 100

All resultant values used

5

detected/X-flagged

detected

(Final Result Spiked Sample [ ] / (Spike
[] Added])* 100

Values were reviewed on a case-by-case basis
for inclusion or rejection.

6

detected [ ] > spike
level

detected

Not calculated

No % recovery value for that sample and
analyte pair

7

detected

< Un-spiked [ ]

Calculated, but results in negative %
recovery.

Negative % Recovery values excluded from
statistical analyses

Notes: [ ] - reported analyte concentration; X-flagged data are excluded from calculations and excluded from statistical analyses.

4.3.5 Import and Export File Structures

The primary import structure for the Project Database is the laboratory EDD, provided as
Attachment 3 in the Study Plan (SERDP/ESTCP 2023).

There are several other import and export routines that were used in the overall workflow of the
MLV Study using queries in the database:

•	Export of the Amended EDD for the validators - Includes the laboratory EDD results, and
additional fields to be populated by the validator when reviewing the results provided by
one laboratory for one matrix.

•	Import of the Amended EDD, with validation fields populated - Used to update the Project
Database with the results from the validator and the EPA/NAVSEA reviewers.

•	Database Export for the statistics team - Used to create a dataset for a single matrix, or a
combination of matrices, for IDA in generating statistics and analysis for the project. This

40


-------
database export includes final results and qualifiers, considering laboratory, data validator
and data validator reviewer results.

• EDD archiving - Procedures were developed to extract and archive EDDs loaded into the
Project Database and subsequently rejected (i.e., EDDs that passed initial QA/QC checks
but were then rejected by the data validators; these EDDs were replaced by re-
submissions).

The output formats provided to the validators and IDA are available in Appendix C (see columns
named 'Include in Amended EDD for DV' and 'Include in Exports for IDA', respectively).

41


-------
5.0 REFERENCES

Microsoft. 2022. How SharePoint and OneDrive safeguard your data in the cloud.

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sharepoint/safeguarding-vour-data

SERDP/ESTCP PFAS Method Validation Study Team. 2023. Study Plan for Multi-Laboratory
Validation of Draft EPA Method 1633 - PFAS in Aqueous, Solid, Biosolids, and Tissue
Samples by LC- MS/MS. Prepared for Program Manager for Environmental Restoration,
Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP).

Willey, J., R. Anderson, A. Hanley, M. Mills, C. Hamilton, T. Thompson, and A. Leeson. 2021.
Report on the Single-Laboratory Validation of PFAS by Isotope Dilution LC-MS/MS.
Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) Project ER19-
1409. https://serdp-estcp.org/content/download/54966/539631/file/Single-

Laboratorv%20Validation%20Studv%20Report.pdf

42


-------
Appendix A - Description of the File Tracking System

tuackim;

WOUKSIII.IT

tuackim; i ir.i.i)

YY 1 kl.l

tuackim; i h i d i)i:scuirno\

GENERAL

Trucking II)

Root lile name



Project Phase



Project Phase. See 'ValidValues'



EDD File Name



EDD File name



Data Package File Name



Data Package File Name



Laboratory Name

Yes

Laboratory Name. See 'ValidValues'



Matrix

Yes

Matrix. See 'ValidValues'



Notes



Notes regarding submitted files



Log Date



Date the reciept of files was logged into the Tracking System

LABORATORY

EDD/DP Due Date



Due date for the Lab EDD/Data Package (mm/dd/yyyy)



EDD/DP Date Received



Date Lab EDD/Data Package received (mm/dd/yyyy; uploaded to
Sharepoint)



E1GL Reviewer



Initials of HGL staff conducting the Data Package review



Date HGL Review Complete



Date HGL review complete (mm/dd/yyyy)



EDD Rejected or Approved -

Yes

Indicate whether EDD/Data Package was rejected by HGL. See



HGL



'ValidValues'



Summary of Errors - E1GL



Brief summary of issues found during HGL Data Package review



Exa Reviewer



Initials of Exa staff conducting the automated EDD review



Date Exa Review Complete



Date Exa review complete (mm/dd/yyyy)



EDD Rejected or Approved - Exa

Yes

Indicate whether EDD/Data Package was rejected by Exa. See
'ValidValues'



Summary of Errors - Exa



Brief summary of issues found during Exa EDD review



Date Data Package to DV



Date the Data Package was posted to the Validator folder
(mm/dd/yyyy).



Date Amended EDD to DV



Date the Amended EDD was posted to the Validator folder
(mm/dd/yyyy).

VALIDATOR

Data Validator

Yes

Data Validator. See 'ValidValues'.



DP version reviewed



Current version number of the Data Package provided to the data
validator for review.



Amended EDD version reviewed



Current version number of the Amended EDD provided to the data
validator for review.



Date DV Report/Files Received



Date of receipt for the current data validator report/files (mm/dd/yyyy).



DV Amended EDD version



Current version number of the Amended EDD with validator fields
populated (posted by the data validator).



DV Report version



Current version number of the data validator report (posted by the data
validator).



DV Verification version



Current version number of the Verification file (posted by the data
validator).



DV Checklist version



Current version number of the Checklist (posted by the data validator).



EDD Rejected or Approved - DV

Yes

Indicate whether EDD/Data Package was rejected by the Data Validator.
See 'ValidValues'



Notes



Notes regarding submitted files



Date EPA/NAVY Files Received



Date of receipt for the current review files posted by EPA/NAVY
reviewers (mm/dd/yyyy).

Acronyms:	DB - Project Database

DP - Data Package
DV - Data Validator
EDD - Electronic Data Deliverable

27


-------
Appendix B - File Tracking System Valid Values List

WorksluTl

Held

Y;ili(l Y.due
('ode

\';ili(l Y;due ( ode Description

GENERAL

Laboratory Name

AI.l'IIA

Alpha Analytical

GENERAL

Laboratory Name

BATTELLE

Battelle

GENERAL

Laboratory Name

CALEPA

CalEPA DTSC

GENERAL

Laboratory Name

ELLET

Eurofins Lancaster Labs

GENERAL

Laboratory Name

ETA

ETA, Sacramento

GENERAL

Laboratory Name

GEL

GEL Laboratories

GENERAL

Laboratory Name

MDH

Maryland Department of Health

GENERAL

Laboratory Name

PACE

GCAL/Pace

GENERAL

Laboratory Name

SGSNA

SGS North America

GENERAL

Laboratory Name

VISTA

Vista Analytical

GENERAL

Matrix

GW

Groundwater

GENERAL

Matrix

SW

Surface water

GENERAL

Matrix

SD

Sediment

GENERAL

Matrix

ss

Soil

GENERAL

Matrix

TS

Tissue

GENERAL

Matrix

WW

Wastewater

GENERAL

Matrix

LC

Landfill Leachate

GENERAL

Matrix

BS

Biosolids

GENERAL

Project Phase

Phase 3 - ICAL

Initial Calibration

GENERAL

Project Phase

Phase 3 - IDC

Initial Demonstration of Capabilities (IDC)

GENERAL

Project Phase

Phase 4.4.1

GW, SW, and WW matrices

GENERAL

Project Phase

Phase 4.4.2

SS and SD matrices

GENERAL

Project Phase

Phase 4.4.3

Tissue matrices

GENERAL

Project Phase

Phase 4.4.4

LC and BS matrices

LABORATORY

EDD Rejected or Approved - HGL

Approved

Passed review

LABORATORY

EDD Rejected or Approved - HGL

Rejected

Did not pass review

LABORATORY

EDD Rejected or Approved - HGL

NA

Not applicable (not reviewed)

LABORATORY

EDD Rejected or Approved - HGL

To Validator

Bypassed review and went straight to validator.

LABORATORY

EDD Rejected or Approved - HGL

Re-submitting

Re-submission from the lab expected

LABORATORY

EDD Rejected or Approved - HGL

Pending

Lab has submitted a data package and it's
pending review

LABORATORY

EDD Rejected or Approved - HGL

Not Submitted

Lab hasn't submitted

LABORATORY

EDD Rejected or Approved - Exa

Approved

Passed review

LABORATORY

EDD Rejected or Approved - Exa

Rejected

Did not pass review

LABORATORY

EDD Rejected or Approved - Exa

NA

Not applicable (not reviewed)

LABORATORY

EDD Rejected or Approved - Exa

Re-submitting

Re-submission from the lab expected

LABORATORY

EDD Rejected or Approved - Exa

Pending

Lab has submitted an EDD and it's pending
review

LABORATORY

EDD Rejected or Approved - Exa

Not submitted

Lab hasn't submitted

VALIDATOR

Data Validator

CHEMVAL

ChemVal

VALIDATOR

Data Validator

PYRON

Pyron Environmental

VALIDATOR

Data Validator

JACOBS

Jacobs Engineering

VALIDATOR

EDD Rejected or Approved - DV

Approved

Approved as is (no DV input)

VALIDATOR

EDD Rejected or Approved - DV

Revised

Approved with DV input added

VALIDATOR

EDD Rejected or Approved - DV

Rejected

Did not pass review

VALIDATOR

EDD Rejected or Approved - DV

NA

Not applicable (not reviewed)



28


-------
Appendix C - Project Database - Database Dictionary

1 :i lilt-





Data l\lu-

Definition anil ( 'ommeiit>>

Di nil
Innii
I.DI)

\ aliil
Value
Iit-Id

Uci|iiiml
ll.ld

Default
\ .iliit-

I'liina n
Ur\

Inclihli- in
Amended
I I)|) lor

HHNI

Ini'luile in
|-'.\porl* lor
IDA

Lab

EDD

Results

TrackingID

text

Tracking ID from Tracking System; incorporated during ETL
procedures

No

No

Yes



X

Yes

No

Lab

EDD

Results

Lab ID Reported

text

LAB ID reported by the laboratories in the EDD

Yes

No

Yes





No

No

Lab

EDD

Results

I.AIS ID

text

^Laboratory Name. See Valid Value list.

No ]

Yes

Yes



X

Yes

No

Lab

EDD

Results

lab num

number

Lab ID code, to keep laboratories anonymous. See Valid Value list.

No |

Yes

Yes





No

Yes

Lab

EDD

Results

:sdg num

text

SDG number; incorporated during ETL procedures; extracted from
Lab Sample ID

No

No

No





Yes

Yes

Lab

EDD

Results

SAMPLENO

text

For samples, these are the sample identification names (IDs) from the
Chain of Custody. The Sample No is the same, regardless of whether
or not the sample is diluted or reanalyzed. For preparation batch QC,
these are "MB" for the Method Blank, "OPR" for the OPR, and
"LLOPR" for the LLOPR. For IDOC samples, "IPR" for the IPR
samples, "MDLB" for the MDLb samples "MDLS" for the MDLs
samples, and "LOQVER" for the LOQVER samples.

Yes

No

Yes



X

Yes

Yes

Lab

EDD

Results

[LAB S AMPLE ID

text

The ID the laboratory assigns to the sample (which identifies the

sample on the associated data files and reports).

IFor samples that need to be re-analyzed for issues other than dilution,

; attach the following identifiers to the end of the lab sample identifier

^without a space between them (e.g., 02082022-01R):

;"R" for analytes, EISs & NISs reported from first re-analysis not due to

! dilution

;"R1" for analytes, EISs & NISs reported from second re-analysis not
:due to dilution

;"R2" for analytes, EISs & NISs reported from second re-analysis not
Idue to dilution

;If more re-analyses not due to dilution are needed to be reported
:beyond three for a sample, continue on with the numbering (e.g., R3,
R l. R5. etc.).

Yes

No

f Yes



X

Yes

Yes

Lab

EDD

Results

ANALYSISDATE

short date;
; mm/dd/yyyy

[Use format mm/dd/yyyy (e.g. 11/20/2019) - do not include time stamp.

Yes

No

Yes





Yes

No

Lab

EDD

Results

ANALYSIS

text

Fill in "PFAS". See Valid Value list.

Yes

Yes

Yes

PFAS



Yes

No

Lab

EDD

Results

PFAS_ ACRONYM

text

Use acronyms included in the example EDD. See Valid Value list.

Yes

Yes

Yes



X

Yes

Yes

Lab

EDD

Results

lab rep

text

l ab replicate identifier

" No j

No

Yes

1



Yes

Yes

15


-------
Appendix C - Project Database - Database Dictionary

Table



Field

Data type

Definition and Comments

Direct
from
EDD

Valid
Value
Field

Required
field

Default
Value

Primary
Key

Include in
Amended
EDD for
DV

Include in

Exports for
IDA

Lab EDD

Results

DILUTION

number

Dilution made post extraction (e.g., extract diluted 1:10 is entered as
"10"). If analyzed without dilution, enter "1".

Yes

No

Yes

1

X

Yes

Yes

Lab EDD

Results

LABFLAG

text

Laboratory qualifiers. See Valid Value list.

Yes

Yes

No





Yes

No

Lab EDD

Results

CONCFOUND

number

Enter numeric quantitative result value only. Report to three significant
figures. Do NOT enter any text string strings or symbols (e.g., "ND",

For analytes that are not detected, the laboratory's sample
specific MDL (i.e. with extract dilution factor, sample volume/weight
and final volume taken into account) is entered. Solids are reported on
a dry-weight basis. Tissues are reported on a wet-weight basis. Report
result units in "Unit" field, consistent for all sample fields.

Yes

No

Yes





Yes

No

Lab EDD

Results

CONCSPIKE

number

For unspiked samples enter "0" for method analytes. For spiked
samples, enter the spike concentration representing the estimated
concentration in the final extract (i.e. with extract dilution factor,
sample volume/weight and final volume taken into account). Solids are
reported on a dry-weight basis. Tissues are reported on a wet-weight
basis. For EIS and NIS, enter the spike concentration representing the
concentration in the final extract in units consistent with sample result
units. The reporting units for this project are parts per trillion (ppt) or
nanograms per liter (ng/L) for aqueous samples and parts per billion
micrograms per kilogram ((.ig/kg) for solid samples. Report to 3
significant figures.

Yes

No

Yes





Yes

Yes

Lab EDD

Results

PERCENTREC

number

For unspiked samples, leave blank. No text should be included in this
field (e.g. N/A). For spiked samples (OPR LLOPR, MDLs and
LOQVER), enter the spike percentage recovery as a whole number
(e.g., 95 versus 0.95). Do NOT include "%" symbol. For EIS and NIS
recoveries, enter the spike % recovery as a whole number (e.g., 95
versus 0.95). Report to 3 significant figures. Do NOT include "%".

Yes

No

No





Yes

Yes

Lab EDD

Results

MDL

number

Method Detection Limit. Enter the sample specific MDL (i.e. with
extract dilution factor, sample volume/weight and final volume taken
into account). The reporting units for this project are parts per trillion
(ppt) or nanograms per liter (ng/L) for aqueous samples and parts per
billion micrograms per kilogram ((.ig/kg) for solid samples. Report to 3
significant figures.

Yes

No

No

-9



Yes

Yes

15


-------
Appendix C - Project Database - Database Dictionary

Table



Field

Data type

Definition and Comments

Direct
from
EDD

Valid
Value
Field

Required
field

Default
Value

Primary
Key

Include in
Amended
EDD for
DV

Include in

Exports for
IDA

Lab EDD

Results

LOQ

number

Limit of Quantitation. Enter the sample specific LOQ (i.e. with extract
dilution factor, sample volume/weight and final volume taken into
account). Report to 3 significant figures. The reporting units for this
project are parts per trillion (ppt) or nanograms per liter (ng/L) for
aqueous samples and parts per billion micrograms per kilogram ((.ig/kg)
for solid samples. Report to 3 significant figures.

Yes

No

No

-9



Yes

Yes

Lab EDD

Results

UNIT

text

The reporting units must be consistent for the sample record including
Cone Found, MDL, LOQ etc. The reporting units for this project are
parts per trillion (ppt) or nanograms per liter (ng/L) for aqueous
samples and parts per billion micrograms per kilogram ((.ig/kg) for solid
samples. Ensure that all values for the sample record are reported in the
same units. See Valid Value list.

Yes

Yes

Yes





No

No

Lab EDD

Results

unit final

text

The reporting unit, standardized

No

Yes

Yes





Yes

Yes

Lab EDD

Results

SAMPLE_

TRAN SITIONRATIO

text

Enter the calculated Transition Ratio (Quant Ion Area/Conf Ion Area)
for each analyte in the sample. Report to 3 significant figures. For
analytes this does not apply to (PFBA, PFPeA, NMeFOSE, NEtFOSE,
PFMPA, and PFMBA), leave this field blank. No text should be
included in this field (e.g. N/A).

Yes

No

No





Yes

No

Lab EDD

Results

EXPECTED_

TRAN SITIONRATIO

text

Enter the expected Transition Ratio (Quant Ion Area/Conf Ion Area)
for each analyte per the method. Report to three significant figures. For
analytes this does not apply to (PFBA, PFPeA, NMeFOSE, NEtFOSE,
PFMPA, and PFMBA), leave this field blank. No text should be
included in this field (e.g., N/A).

Yes

No

No





Yes

No

Lab EDD

Results

RRT

text

Enter relative retention time

Yes

No

No





Yes

No

Lab EDD

Results

SAMPLESIZE

number

Enter volume (aqueous samples) or weight (solid samples) of sample
extracted (in liters for aqueous samples, in kilograms for solids).

Yes

No

Yes





Yes

No

Lab EDD

Results

SAMPLESIZEUNIT

text

Will be liters (L) for aqueous samples or kilograms (Kg) for solid
samples

Yes

No

Yes





Yes

No

Lab EDD

Results

EXTRACTIONDATE

short date;

mm/dd/yyyy

Use format mm/dd/yyyy (e.g. 11/20/2019) - do not include time stamp.

Yes

No

Yes





Yes

No

Lab EDD

Results

PERCMOISTURE

number

Percent moisture in solid samples only. Enter the percent moisture as a
whole number (e.g., 73 versus 0.73). Do NOT include "%" symbol.

Yes

No

No





Yes

No

Lab EDD

Results

MATRIX

text

Matrix analyzed. See Valid values list.

Yes

Yes

Yes





Yes

Yes

15


-------
Appendix C - Project Database - Database Dictionary

1 :i lilt-





Data l\lu-

Definition anil ( 'oniuicut>>

Di nil
Innii
I.DI)

\ aliil
Value
Iit-Id

Uci|iiiml Default
Ill-Id Value

I'liina n
Ur\

Include ill
Amended
COD for

HHNI

Include
|-'.\porl*

IDA

Lab

EDD

Results

METHOD

text

Laboratory SOP Name in format of "name(space)revision number"

Yes

No

Yes



Yes

No

Lab

EDD

Results

jSTUDYPHASE

text

(Multi-Lab Validation Study Phase. See Valid Value list.

Yes

Yes

Yes



Yes

No

Lab

EDD

Results

] SAMPLE TYPE

text

(See Valid Value list.

Yes

Yes

Yes

X

Yes

Yes

Lab

EDD

Results

(result type

text

(Code for Result Type. See Valid Value list.

' No

Yes

Yes



Yes

Yes

Lab

EDD

Results

spike cat

text

(Code for Spike Category. See Valid Value list.

" No

Yes

Yes



Yes

Yes

Lab

EDD

Results

validation level

text

Stores information on the level of data validation that has been
completed for the chemistry data.

No ]

No

Yes ( Level 4



Yes

No

Lab

EDD

Results

(validator

text

(Code for Data Validator. See Valid Value list.

No

Yes

Yes



Yes

No

Lab

EDD

Results

(dv qualifier

text

(Code for Data Validator qualifiers. See Valid Value list.

No

Yes

r No r



Yes

No

Lab

EDD

Results

dv qualifier reason

text

Data validation qualifier reason codes.

" No (

No

No



Yes

No

Lab

EDD

Results

dv notes 1

text

(Include comments to distinguish the meaning of the dv qualifier
(assignment (e.g., distinguishing the -J qualifier)

"" No

No

No r



Yes

No

Lab

EDD

Results

dv notes2

text

(Additional information provided by validator deemed pertinent to their
(dv qualifier assignment.

" No (

No

I" No



Yes

No

Lab

EDD

Results

d\ result

number

( Validator recommended result for concentration. If this is provided,
(entries must be made in the dv ResultChange yn field and
(dv ResultChange desc fields.

No j

No

No



Yes

No

Lab

EDD

Results

(dv ResultChange yn

Logical

(Enter Y or N. Indicates whether the validator made a recommendation
(to change the result for concentration.

No ;

No

Yes



Yes

No

Lab

EDD

Results

(dv ResultChange desc

text

Description of the reasons for validator recommending a change to the
result for concentration.

No !

No

r No r



Yes

No

Lab

EDD

Results

Reviewer qualifier

text

Code for qualifiers applied by NAVY/EPA reviewers of data
validation results. See Valid Value list.

No j

Yes

r No



Yes

No

Lab

EDD

Results

(Reviewer notes

text

Notes from NAVY/EPA reviewers of data validation results.

No

No

f No



Yes

No

Lab

EDD

Results

( final qualifier

text

iCode for Final Qualifier. See Valid Value list.

No |

Yes

r No r



No

Yes

Lab

EDD

Results

final result

number

(Final result for concentration. Combines CONC FOUND and
(validator result fields.

No

No

Yes



No

Yes

Lab

EDD

Results

lab rep

text

Data manager assigned. Laboratory replicate number; to assist with
completeness and duplicate checks.

No ;

No

Yes



Yes

No

Lab

EDD

Results

(sample rep

text

(Data manager assigned. From lu MatrixType.Rep field; to assist with
(spike percent rec calculation

" No

No

r No r



No

No

Lab

EDD

Results

(sample root

text

Data manager assigned. Sample NO without the Reg suffix; to assist
with spike percent rec calculation

No !

No

No



No

No

Lab

EDD

Results

(spike level

number

Data manager assigned. From lu SpikeLevel table; to assist with
spike percent rec calculation

No

No

r No r



No

Yes

15


-------
Appendix C - Project Database - Database Dictionary

Direct Valid Include in jncju(je jn
Table Field Datatype Definition and Comments from Value Re?Z le''Ult P™y Exports for

EDO Field fidd Value Key EDDDvf°r IDA

Lab EDD Results

cone minus native

spike percent rec
spk pet rec DNC

CONCFOUNDval

LOQ val

MDL val

LABSAMPLEIDclean

qaqc dup

DM notes
DM notes2
EditDate

number

Data manager calculated. Interim value in spike percent rec
calculation

No

No

No





No

Yes

Lab EDD Results

number

Data manager calculated. Matrix spike percent recovery.

No

No

No





No

Yes

Lab EDD Results

text

Data manager assigned. Determination of Calculate/DNC (do not
calculate)for spike percent rec calculation

No

No

No





No

Yes

Lab EDD Results

text

Data manager assigned. CONC FOUND as a value; to assist with
database-wide QAQC checks.

No

No

No





No

No

Lab EDD Results

text

Data manager assigned. LOQ as a value; to assist with database-wide
QAQC checks.

No

No

No





No

No

Lab EDD Results

text

Data manager assigned. MDL as a value; to assist with database-wide
QAQC checks.

No

No

No





No

No

Lab EDD Results

text

Data manager assigned. Standardized LAB SAMPLE ID to remove re-
analysis suffixes; to assist with completeness and duplicate checks.

No

No

Yes





No

Yes

Lab EDD Results

text

Data manager assigned. Identifies LLOPR OPR and MB double-duty
samples and exclude one of the results for the 'all in' database exports.

No

No

No





No

No

Lab EDD Results

text

Data manager notes.

No

No

No





No

No

Lab EDD Results

text

Data manager notes - 2.

No

No

No





No

No

Lab EDD Results

text

Date of append to Lab EDD Results table.

No

No

Yes





No

No

dicValidValues

Table

text

Valid value table name.

No

No

Yes





No

No

dicValidValues

Field

text

Valid value field name.

No

No

Yes





No

No

dicValidValues

Value

text

Acceptable valid value codes.

No

No

Yes





No

No

dicValidValues

Description

text

Description of valid value codes, if necessary

No

No

Yes





No

No

dicValidValues

VVL match alt field

text

Related valid value field name.

No

No

No





No

No

dicValidValues

VVL match alt code

text

Matching valid value code.

No

No

No





No

No

dicValidValues

Validator

text

Data validator assoicated with each LAB ID CODE

No

No

No





No

No

LU Compound

SORT ORDER

number

Sort order to apply to data summary tables.

No

No

Yes





No

No

LU Compound

PFAS_ ACRONYM

text

Use acronyms included in the example EDD. See Valid Value list.

No

Yes

Yes



X

No

No

LU Compound

COMPOUND

text

Use the names included in the example EDD. Method analytes, and EIS
and NIS compounds must be reported for each sample. See Valid Value
list.

Yes

Yes

Yes





Yes

Yes

LU Compound

CAS NO

text

Chemical Abstract Service Registration Number

Yes

Yes

Yes





Yes

Yes

LU Compound

result type

text

Code for Result Type. See Valid Value list.

No

Yes

Yes





No

No

LU Spike Levels

PFAS_ ACRONYM

text

Use acronyms included in the example EDD. See Valid Value list.

No

Yes

Yes



X

No

No

LU Spike Levels

Matrix

text

Name of the matrix. See Valid Value list.

No

Yes

Yes



X

No

No

LU Spike Levels

Low Spike

number

Low spike concentration

No

No

Yes





No

No

LU Spike Levels

High Spike

number

High spike concentration

No

No

Yes





No

No

15


-------
Appendix C - Project Database - Database Dictionary

1 able



Data l\lu-

Definition anil ( 'oniuicut>>

Di reel
Innii

inn

\ aliil
Value
Held

Uci|iiiml
ll.ld

Default
\ .iliie

I'liina n
l\e\

Include ill
Amended
COD for

HHNI

Include in
lAporl* lor
IDA

LU Spike Levels

Unit

text

Unit of spike concentration

No

No

Yes





No

No

lu MatrixKey

Matrix Type

text

Matrix (full name)

No !

No

Yes





No

No

lu MatrixKey

¦ Requested Name

text

Descriptive name of sample

: No

No

Yes





No

No

lu MatrixKey

: Description

text

¦Description of sample

No '

No

Yes





No

No

lu MatrixKey

Matrix Code

text

Matrix (code)

: No

No

Yes





No

No

lu MatrixKey

Sample Identifier

text

Sample identifier (middle component of SamplelD)

No '

No

Yes





No

No

lu MatrixKey

SamplelD

text

SamplelD (EDD SAMPLE NO must match to this code)

No

No

Yes





No

No

lu MatrixKey

spike cat

text

Spike category (low, high, etc)

No

No

Yes





No

No

lu MatrixKey

¦ Rep

text

Sample replicate number (last component of SamplelD)

No

No

Yes





No

No

lu MatrixKey

: Selected

text

Indicates if sample was selected for use in the study

No

No

Yes





No

No

Note: The Required Fields may be revised during database development; maximum field lengths will be incorporated into the database structure during development.

15


-------
ADDendix D - Supplemental guidance for correctly DODulatine the EDD Template





Item

Guidance

1

If possible, include all results in one worksheet.





2

We will be running QA/QC routines on the EDDs to ensure they are populated correctly. These will be delivered to you in an Excel file (e.g.,
L ABN AME_RW_verO_EDD_Error_Summary. xlsx).



If you have questions/issues regarding the Error Summary report, please incorporate comments directly into the Excel file and send it back to us for review
(via SharePoint).





3

Instructions for reporting CONCFOUND for NIS compounds:



1. Option 1: Report NIS Mass in CONC FOUND, and in the accompanying report provide example calculation and point to where the data in the
numerator (e.g., field sample) and the denominator (e.g. CCV) are found.



2. Option2: Complete the EDDs with the NIS percent recoveries based on areas (i.e., no mass reported). CONC FOUND does not need to be populated.



a. If Option 2 is selected then



i. In the report provide the formula and example calculations for one sample per batch



ii. Point to where those areas values are found in their data packages (i.e., ensure they have reported the NIS area for the field (target) sample and
the comparative area from either the mid-point of the ICAL, CCV, or equivalent.





4

Instructions for populating EDD when a single sample is serving the purpose of the MDLB and MB samples:



1. Copy the results and code the SAMPLE NO field as 'MDLB' for one set of results, and 'MB' for the other set of results.



2. Ensure that the case narrative clearly identifies that the blank sample was used for multiple purposes.





5

Ensure that B flags are applied as indicated by the instructions:



"For analytes that were detected in the associated MB of a sample that exceeded Vi LOQ or is at a concentration greater than 1/1 Oth the concentration in
the sample, whichever is greatest. The MB must also be flagged with a "B" for all concentrations greater than 'A the LOQ."



If the CONC FOUND is between the MDL and LOO AND it is at a concentration greater than 1/2 LOO. the flag should be BJ or JB.





6

Although the instructions for the CONC FOUND field indicate "For analytes that are not detected, the laboratory's sample specific MDL", the exceptions
are for the following sample types, where CONC FOUND can be less than the MDL:



MDLS



LOQVER



Blanks (MB and MDLB)





7

For instances where there are re-analysis not due to dilution, all results must be reported in the EDD (i.e., the original analysis and all subseqent re-analysis).

35


-------
ADDendix D - SuDDlemental guidance for correctly DODulatine the EDD Template









8

The Sample Coding spreadsheet lists the mandatory batch QC samples that are required for Phase 3 and Phase 4 submittals. All mandatory batch QC
samples must be present in the EDD submittals.





9

Do not add suffixes to SAMPLE NO (e.g., IPR1, MLDB 2) - LAB SAMPLE ID will differentiate samples.





10

Fields that must be reported to 3 significant figures:



CONC FOUND



CONC SPIKE



PERCENT REC (DOES need to be reported to 3 sig figs; report as a whole number (95.1), not a fraction (0.951)



MDL



LOQ



SAMPLE TRANSITION RATIO



EXPECTED TRANSITION RATIO







Note that the results in these fields must be rounded appropriately to 3 significant figures. Changing the display for the number of decimal places is not
sufficient.





11

Solids are reported on a dry-weight basis. Tissues are reported on a wet-weight basis.





12

UNIT field must be consistent across all samples.





13

The reporting units for this project are parts per trillion (ppt) or nanograms per liter (ng/L) for aqueous samples and parts per billion micrograms per
kilogram (ng/kg) for solid samples.





14

Do not include text in number fiels (e.g. N/A, %, ND, <).





15

Percent recovery must be reported in the EDD for IPR samples.

36


-------
Appendix E - Project Database - Valid Value Codes and Descriptions

YYI.Iuld

YalidYalue

YY l)i'v(i i|>linii

YYI. mahli
all Ik-Id

YYI.
inalcli all
code

Yalidalor

LAB ID CODE

ALPHA

Alpha Analytical

lab num

3

JACOBS

LAB ID CODE

BATTELLE

Battelle

lab num

6

JACOBS

LAB ID CODE

CALEPA

CalEPA DTSC

lab num

2

PYRON

LAB ID CODE

ELLET

Eurofins Lancaster Labs

lab num

10

JACOBS

LAB ID CODE

ETA

ETA, Sacramento

lab num

1

PYRON

LAB ID CODE

GEL

GEL Laboratories

lab num

8

JACOBS

LAB ID CODE

MDH

Maryland Department of Health

lab num

5

JACOBS

LAB ID CODE

PACE

GCAL/Pace

lab num

9

JACOBS

LAB ID CODE

SGSNA

SGS North America

lab num

7

PYRON

LAB ID CODE

VISTA

Vista Analytical

lab num

4

PYRON

MATRIX

BS

Biosolids







MATRIX

GW

Groundwater







MATRIX

LC

Landfill Leachate







MATRIX

OS

Ottawa sand for all soil, sediment, and biosolid MBs







MATRIX

QC

Quality Control Sample







MATRIX

RT

Reference Tissue for tissue MBs







MATRIX

RW

Reagent water for all aqueous MBs







MATRIX

SD

Sediment







MATRIX

ss

Soil







MATRIX

sw

Surface water







MATRIX

TS

Tissue







MATRIX

WW

Wastewater







result type

EIS

Extracted Internal Standard







result type

NIS

Non-Extracted Internal Standard







result type

TRG

Target analyte







SAMPLE TYPE

BLANK

method analytes in MBs







SAMPLE TYPE

EIS

EIS in all samples







SAMPLE TYPE

IPR

method analytes in IPR IDC samples







SAMPLE TYPE

LLOPR

method analytes in LLOPRs







SAMPLETYPE

LOQVER

Method analytes in MDL LOQVER IDC samples







SAMPLE TYPE

MDLB

Method analytes in MDL Blank IDC samples







SAMPLE TYPE

MDLS

Method analytes in MDL Spike IDC samples







SAMPLE TYPE

NIS

NIS in all samples







SAMPLE TYPE

NORMAL

method analytes in field samples







SAMPLE TYPE

OPR

method analytes in OPRs







spike cat

HIGH

High







spike cat

LOW

Low







STUDYPHASE

Phase 3 - ICAL

Initial Calibration







STUDY PHASE

Phase 3 - IDC

Initial Demonstration of Capabilities (IDC)







STUDY PHASE

Phase 4.4.1

GW, SW, and WW matrices







STUDY PHASE

Phase 4.4.2

SS and SD matrices







STUDY PHASE

Phase 4.4.3

Tissue matrices







STUDY PHASE

Phase 4.4.4

LC and BS matrices







validator

CHEMVAL

ChemVal







validator

JACOBS

Jacobs Engineering







validator

PYRON

Pyron Environmental







Analysis

PFAS

NULL







Lab Flag

B

Detected in the associated MB of a sample that
exceeded lA LOQ or is at a concentration greater
than l/10th the concentration in the sample,
whichever is greatest.







37


-------
Appendix E - Project Database - Valid Value Codes and Descriptions

YYI. I-kid

YalidYalue

YY l)i'v(i i|>linii

YYI. mahli
all Held

YYI.
inalcli all
code

Yalidalor

Lab Flag

D

When the reported result is from a dilution







Lab Flag

I

Fail to meet ion ratio criteria







Lab Flag

J

At a concentration between the MDL and LOQ







Lab Flag

U

Not detected or were detected at a concentration less
than the MDL







UNIT

ng/L

nanograms per liter

MATRIX

GW



UNIT

ng/L

nanograms per liter

MATRIX

LC



UNIT

ng/L

nanograms per liter

MATRIX

SW



UNIT

ng/L

nanograms per liter

MATRIX

WW



UNIT

ug/kg

micrograms per kilogram

MATRIX

BS



UNIT

ug/kg

micrograms per kilogram

MATRIX

SD



UNIT

ug/kg

micrograms per kilogram

MATRIX

ss



UNIT

ug/kg

micrograms per kilogram

MATRIX

TS



dv qualifier

I

Suspect







dv qualifier

J

Estimated







dv qualifier

J-

Verify that the %Ds are within the acceptance
criteria. If any target analytes do not meet the
acceptance criteria, qualify detects for that analyte as
estimated J- when the %D is below acceptance
criteria







dv qualifier

J-

If branched isomers were not included in the
summed result reported, qualify associated detects
as J-







dv qualifier

J+

Verify that the %Ds are within the acceptance
criteria. If any target analytes do not meet the
acceptance criteria, qualify detects for that analyte as
estimated J+ when the %D is higher than acceptance
criteria







dv qualifier

U

Values below the MDL are considered non-detects
and are qualified as U at the stated MDL.







dv qualifier

UJ

Verify that the %Ds are within the acceptance
criteria. Non-detects are qualified as UJ in all
associated samples for %D outside of acceptance
criteria.







dv qualifier

UJ

Estimated non-detect







dv qualifier

X

Exclusion of data is recommended







Reviewer qualifier

I

Suspect







Reviewer qualifier

J

Estimated







Reviewer qualifier

J-

If branched isomers were not included in the
summed result reported, qualify associated detects
as J-







Reviewer qualifier

J-

Verify that the %Ds are within the acceptance
criteria. If any target analytes do not meet the
acceptance criteria, qualify detects for that analyte as
estimated J- when the %D is below acceptance
criteria







Reviewer qualifier

J+

Verify that the %Ds are within the acceptance
criteria. If any target analytes do not meet the
acceptance criteria, qualify detects for that analyte as
estimated J+ when the %D is higher than acceptance
criteria







38


-------
Appendix E - Project Database - Valid Value Codes and Descriptions

YYI. I-kid

\ ulid\ ahu-

YY l)i'v(i i|>linii

YYI. maUli
all Held

YYI.
inalcli all
code

Yalidalor

Reviewer qualifier

ll

Values below the MDL are considered noil-delects
and are qualified as U at the stated MDL.







Reviewer qualifier

UJ

Verify that the %Ds are within the acceptance
criteria. Non-detects are qualified as UJ in all
associated samples for %D outside of acceptance
criteria.







Reviewer qualifier

UJ

Estimated non-detect







Reviewer qualifier

X

Exclusion of data is recommended







39


-------
Appendix F - Project Database - Valid Value Codes and Descriptions for Compounds

PIWS At RON Y\1

Compound

( AS NO

Kesul(_ 1 >pe |

13C2-4:2FTS

| lH,lH,2H,2H-Perfluoro-l-[l,2-13C2]hexanesulfonic acid

NA

EIS

13C2-6:2FTS

111.111.211.21 l-IVi 1 Iiioio- 1 -| 1.2-1 '( 2|iiclaiicsiiirniiic acid

NA

EIS

13C2-8:2FTS

lH.lH.2H.2H-Pcrfluoro-l-| 1.2-13C2|dccancsulfonic acid

NA

EIS

13C2-PFDoA

Pcrfluoro-n-l 1.2-13C2|dodccanoic acid

NA

EIS

13C2-PFTcDA

Pcrfluoro-n-| 1.2-13C2|lclradccanoic acid

\ \

EIS

13C3-HFPO-DA

Tclrafluoro-2-hcplafluoropropoxy-13C3-propanoic acid

\ \

EIS

13C3-PFBS

Pcrfluoro-1 -|2.3.4-13C3 |bulancsulfonic acid

\ \

EIS

13C3-PFH.\S

Pcrflnoro-1 -| 1.2.3-13C3|hcxancsulfonic acid

\ \

EIS

13C4-PFBA

Pcrfluoro-n-l 13C4|bulanoic acid

\ \

EIS

13C4-PFHpA

Pcrfluoro-n-[l,2,3,4-13C4]heptanoic acid

\ \

EIS

13C5-PFH.\A

Pcrfluoro-n-[l,2,3,4,6-13C5]hexanoic acid

\ \

EIS

13C5-PFPcA

Pcrlluoro-n-l 13C5"|pcnlanoic acid

\ \

EIS

13C6-PFDA

Pcrfluoro-n-l 1.2.3.4.5.6-13C6|dccanoic acid

\ \

EIS

13C7-PFUnA

Pcrfluoro-n-| 1.2.3.4.5.6.7-13C7|undccanoic acid

NA

EIS

13C8-PFOA

Pcrfluoro-n-[13C8]octanoic acid

NA

EIS

13C8-PFOS

Pcrfluoro-l-[13C81oclancsulfonic acid

\ \

EIS

13C8-PFOSA

Pcrfluoro-1 -| 13C8 |oclancsulfonamidc

\ \

EIS

13C9-PFNA

Pcrfluoro-n-[13C9]nonanoic acid

\ \

EIS

D3-NMcFOSA

N-mcthyl-d3 -perfluoro- 1-octanesulfonamide

\ \

EIS

D3-NMcFOSAA

:N-mclhyl-d3-pcrfluoro-1-oclancsulfonamidoacclic acid

NA

EIS

D5-NEIFOSA

N-clhv l-d5-pcrfluoro-1 -oclancsulfonamidc

\ \

EIS

D5-NEIFOSAA

N-clhv l-d5-pcrfluoro-1 -oclancsulfonamidoacclic acid

\ \

EIS

D7-NMcFOSE

N-mcthyl-d7 -perfluorooctanesulfonamidoethanol

\ \

EIS

D9-NEIFOSE

N-clhy l-d9-pcrfluorooclancsulfonamidoclhanol

\ \

EIS

13C2-PFDA

Pcrfluoro-n-| 1.2-13C2|dccanoic acid

\ \

NIS

13C2-PFH.\A

Pcrfluoro-n-[l,2-13C2]hexanoic acid

\ \

NIS

13C3-PFBA

¦Pcrfluoro-n-l2.3.4-13C3|bulanoic acid

\ \

NIS

13C4-PFOA

Pcrfluoro-n-[ 1.2.3.4-13C4]oclanoic acid

\ \

NIS

13C4-PFOS

Pcrfluoro-n-| 1.2.3.4-13C4|oclancsulfonic acid

NA

NIS

13C5-PFNA

Pcrfluoro-n-[l,2,3,4,5-13C5]nonanoic acid

NA

NIS

1802-PFHxS

Pcrfluoro-l-hexane[1802]sulfonic acid

\ \

NIS

1 lCl-PF30UdS

1 l-chlorocicosafluoro-3-oxaundccanc-l-sulfonic acid



TRG

3:3 FTC A

3-Pcrfluoropropyl propanoic acid

i5(>-i>2-5

TRG

4:2FTS

1H. lH.2H.2H-Pcrfluorohcxanc sulfonic acid

757124-72-4

TRG

5:3 FTC A

211.211. '11. '1 l-IVi'l'liKii\KiclaiKnc acid

914637-49-3

TRG

6:2FTS

1H. lH.2H.2H-Pcrfluorooclanc sulfonic acid

27619-97-2

TRG

7:3 FTC A

3-Pcrfluorohcplyl propanoic acid

812-70-4

TRG

8:2FTS

1H. lH.2H.2H-Pcrfluorodccanc sulfonic acid

39108-34-4

TRG

9C1-PF30NS

9-chlorohexadecafluoro-3-oxanonane-l-sulfonic acid

756426-58-1

TRG

ADONA

4.8-dio.\a-3H-pcrfluorononanoic acid

919005-14-4

TRG

HFPO-DA

Hcxafluoropropylcnc oxide dimcr acid

13252-13-6

TRG

NElFOSA

N -cl hy 1 pc rfl uo roocla ncsul fo na midc

415 I-5U-2

TRG

NElFOSAA

N-clhyl perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid

2991-50-6

TRG

NElFOSE

N-clhy 1 pcrfluorooclancsulfonamidoclhanol

1691-99-2

TRG

NFDHA

Nonafluoro-3.6-dioxahcplanoic acid

151772-58-6

TRG

NMcFOSA

N-mclhvl pcrfluorooclancsulfonamidc



TRG

NMcFOSAA

jN-methyl perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid

2355-31 -9

TRG

NMcFOSE

N-mclhvl pcrfluorooclancsulfonamidoclhanol

24448-09-7

TRG

PFBA

Pcrfluorobulanoic acid

375-22-4

TRG

PFBS

(Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

375-73-5

TRG

40


-------
Appendix F - Project Database - Valid Value Codes and Descriptions for Compounds

PIWS At RON Y\1

Compound

( AS NO

Resull T\pe

PI 1) \

Pcrfluorodccanoic acid

>35-76-2

TRG

PI \ )o\

Pcrfluorododecanoic acid

>07-55-1

TRG

Pll)^

Pcrfluorododecanesulfonic acid

-35-77-3

TRG

PI IIS \

Pcrriiioro(2-clho.\> clhanc)siiironic acid

1 1 ^507-82-7

TRG

PI 1 Ip \

Pcrfluorohcplanoic acid

'"5-S5-1'

TRG

PI 1 lp-

Pcrfluoroheptanesulfonic acid

:"5-'J:-S

TRG

PI 1 K \

Pcifluorohcxanoic acid



TRG

PI 1 K-

Pcrfliiorohcxancsuironic acid

;55-4i-4

TRG

PI All! \

Pcrniioro-4-mclho.\\bulanoic acid

S(..()'J()-S'J-5

TRG

PIMP \

Pcifliinrn-'-iiiclhn\\ propanoic acid



TRG

Pl \ \

Pcrfluorononanoic acid

;"5-.)5-|

TRG

PI\S

Pcrfluorononancsulfonic acid

i.s:5'j-i:-i

TRG

PI () \

Pcrfluorooclanoic acid

:'5-(>"-l

TRG

PR >S

PcifliinriKiclMiicMiirniiic acid

n.-:-i

TRG

PI ()S\

Pcrfliiorooclancsuironamidc

"54-'H-(.

TRG

PI IV \

Pcrfluoropcnlanoic acid



TRG

Pi ivs

Pcrfluoropcnlancsulfonic acid

:"()(,-•) 1-4

TRG

PI 1 cl) \

IViriiininicliadccaiinic acid



TRG

PI III) \

Pcrfluorolridccanoic acid



TRG

PFUnA

(Pcrlluoroundecanoic acid

,2058-94-8

TRG

41


-------
PFAS Multi-Laboratory Validation Study Report
Aqueous Media: Wastewater, Surface Water, and Groundwater

SERDP

Appendix D

PFAS MLVS Institute for
Defense Analyses Report

Date: July 25, 2023


-------
IDA

INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM

SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
DIVISION

26 July 2023

To:	Dr. Kimberly Spangler, Dr. Andrea Leeson, SERDP/ESTCP

CC:	Mr. Timothy Thompson, Science, Engineering and the Environment, LLC

From:	Dr. Allyson Buytendyk, Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA)

Subject:	IDA Statistical Analyses in the PFAS Multi-Lab Validation

In 2022, SERDP/ESTCP sponsored IDA as the independent organization to conduct the
statistical analyses in the joint Department of Defense (DoD) and Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) multi-laboratory validation (MLV) of a PFAS measurement method—EPA Draft
Method 1633. IDA's role in the PFAS MLV study is to summarize the overall performance of the
laboratories for each test where those values inform the quality control (QC) acceptance criteria
set by the EPA for the method.

The study plan for the PFAS MLV closely follows the process outlined in the EPA
Alternate Test Procedure (ATP) guidance1 which, describes the tests and procedures for
developing QC acceptance criteria based on data generated in a study. The ATP specifies three
tiers of statistical formulas based on the number of labs analyzing each sample. The PFAS MLV
study includes ten participating laboratories and three types of datasets: initial calibration (ICAL),
initial demonstration of capability (IDC) and environmental matrix samples.

IDA analyzed the ICAL, aqueous IDC and three environmental matrices: wastewater
(WW), surface water (SW) and ground water (GW) datasets provided by the sponsor2. IDA used
the statistical formulas outlined in the MLV/EPA's ATP at Tier 33 for most tests and identified
alternative calculations in instances when a discrepancy between the PFAS MLV dataset and

1	EPA, Protocol for Review and Validation of new Methods for Regulated Organic and Inorganic Analytes in

Wastewater Under EPA's Alternative Test Procedure Program. February 2018. EPA 821-B-18-001

2	IDA perforins calculations on the dataset using coded scripts in Python version 3.7.8, rounds statistical values based

on the number of significant figures reported in the dataset and delivers the outputs as CSV files to the sponsor.

3	QC acceptance criteria at Tier 3 requires a minimum of nine laboratories. EPA ATP, pg. G-22.

1


-------
formulas ocurred. This memo explains the formulas IDA used in the statistical analyses and
documents the version of the dataset and corresponding tables generated for the PFAS MLV study.

STATISTICAL FORMULAS

ICAL DATASET
Calibration Linearity

Equation 1: Pooled Percent RSD4

_ l^-DRSPf
mVpooled ~ ^ s(n._i) ,

where n = number of RF values, RSDi = relative standard deviation of ith RF values.

IDC DATASET

Method Detection Limit (MDL)

MDL Spiked Samples

Equation 2: MDL Spiked Samples (MDLS)5

MDLSj — S sj 1 t(n_i ,l-oc=0.99)'

where Ss,j=sample standard deviation, of spiked sample measured concentrations for lab j, t(n_11_K=0 99) =
student's t-value for the one tailed test at the 99% confidence level with n-1 degrees of freedom.

MDL Blank Samples6

• If none of the blank samples give a numerical result, the MDL for the blank samples does
not apply.

4	https://goldbook.iupac.org/terms/view/P04757; PureAppl. Chem., 1981, 53 (9), 1805-1826.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1351/pacl98153091805

5	EPA ATP, pg. G-9.

6	Ibid.

2


-------
•	If some (but not all) of the blank samples give a numerical result, the MDL for the blank
samples is the max value.

•	If all of the blank samples give a numerical result, the MDL for the blank samples is:

Equation 3: MDL Blank Samples (MDLb)7

MDLjyj — Xj + Sjjj ¦ t(n-i,i-oc=o.99)<

where Xj = mean measured concentration of the blank samples for lab j, Sb = sample standard deviation, of the
blank samples measured concentration for lab j, t!11_ l l_K=0 c|c|) = student's t-value for the one tailed test at the
99% confidence level with n-1 degrees of freedom.

where MDLsj = the MDL for the spiked samples for lab j, MDLbj = the MDL for the blank samples for lab j.

where m = number of labs, MDLj = method detection limit for the jth lab, n,j = number of replicates for the jth
lab, N = total number of replicates, tinl_u=099) = student's t-value for the one tailed test at the 99% confidence
level with n degrees of freedom.

Limit of Quantitation Verification (LOQVER)

7	EPA ATP, pg. G-9.

8	40 CFR 136, Appendix B (2020).

9	EPA, ATP pg. G-22.

Lab MDL

Equation 4: MDL8

MDLj = max{MDLsj, MDLb j);

Pooled MDL

Equation 5: Pooled MDL9

3


-------
Equation 6: LOQ Percent Bias10

			spike concentration-X; _	

LOQbtas / = 	:—L ¦ 100;

spike concentration

where X, = mean of the measured sample concentrations for lab j.

Initial Precision and Recovery (IPR)

Equation 7: Between Lab Standard Deviation (Sb)11

km-1)1

S'=J m — 1

where m = the number of labs, X = overall mean percent recovery, Xj = the mean percent recovery for the jth
lab.

Equation 8: Within Lab Standard Deviation (sw)12

fcr=ife)2
S*» = \sr-

where m = the number of labs, Sj = the variance of the percent recovery values for the jth lab.

Equation 9: IPR Combined Standard Deviation (sipr)13

where m = the number of labs, n = the number of data points per lab, Sb = the between lab standard deviation,
sw = the within lab standard deviation.

Equation 10: RSD14

RSD = ^ ¦ 100;

X

where sw = the within lab standard deviation, X= mean percent recovery across all labs.

10	DoD QSM Version 5.4 (2021), Module 4, Section 1.5.2, pg. 77.

11	EPA, ATP pg. G-25.

12	EPA ATP, pg. G-25.

13	Ibid.

14	EPA ATP, pg. G-26.

4


-------
ENVIRONMENTAL MATRIX DATASET

Ongoing Precision and Recovery (OPR) & Low-Level Ongoing Precision and Recovery
(LLOPR)

Equation 11: OPR Combined Standard Deviation (sopr)15

where m = the number of labs, n = the number of data points per lab, Sb = the between-lab standard deviation,
sw = the within-lab standard deviation.

Equation 10 provides the formula for the RSD for the OPR test. The calculations for the
LLOPR test follow those for the OPR using Equations 7, 8, 10, and 11.

Matrix Spike Recovery

The calculations for the matrix spike test include those in Equations 7 and 8 to determine
Sb and sw as well as Equation 10 to find the RSD for the matrix test.

DATASETS & TABLES

Dataset Type & File Version

IDA Generated Tables

ICAL

ICAL Concentrations 08182022.xlsx
ICAL Average RF_05182023.xlsx

IC AL_calibration_V0_220907_093 746. csv
AverageRF ICAL results V4 230519 091739.csv

IDC

RW_DBexport_Vl_2023 0426. csv

MDL_results_Vl_230503_215159. csv
LOQVER_results_Vl_230503_215921.csv
IPR_results_V 1_230503_215140.csv

WW

WW_DBexport_V7_20230328.csv

LLOPR_results_V4_23 0406_212723. csv

15 EPA ATP, pg. G-26.

5


-------
Dataset Type & File Version

IDA Generated Tables





OPR_results_V4_23 0406_21223 7. csv
Matrix EIS results V4 230406 212819.csv
Matrix sample results V4 230406 211329.csv
Matrix compiled results V4 230406 211329.csv
MB_results_V4_230406_212853.csv

SW

SW_DBexport_V4_20230407.csv

LLOPRresultsV0 23 0411_08013 0. csv
OPRresultsV0 23 0411_080146. csv
Matrix EIS results V0 230411 080212.csv
Matrix sample results V0 230411 080232.csv
Matrix compiled results V0 230411 080232.csv
MB_results_V0_23041 l_080058.csv

GW

GW_DBexport_V6_2023 0417b. csv

LLOPRresultsV0 23 0421_07493 5. csv
OPRresultsV0 23 0420_183 700. csv
Matrix EIS results V0 230420 175829.csv
Matrix sample results V0 230421 153930.csv
Matrix compiled results V0 230421 153930.csv
MB_results_V0_230420_l 83436.csv

All

Aqueous

WW_SW_GW_EXPORT_2023 0605. csv

LLOPRresultsV 1 _23 0607_12465 5. csv
OPR_results_V 1 _23 0607_124749. csv
Matrix EIS results VI 230607 124828.csv
Matrix_NIS_results_Vl_230607_124909.csv

6


-------
PFAS Multi-Laboratory Validation Study Report
Aqueous Media: Wastewater, Surface Water, and Groundwater

SERDP

Appendix E

Wastewater Supporting
Tables

Date: July 25, 2023


-------
Appendix E: List of Tables

El	Target analytes detected in unspiked wastewater samples by kaboratory

E2	Minimum and maxium target analytes concentrations in unspiked wastewater samples

E3	Summary of wastewater spike percent recoveries in low spike samples for each laboratory.

E4	Summary of wastewater spike percent recoveries in high spike samples for each laboratory.

E5	Summary of wastewater EIS percent recovery for each laboratory.


-------
Table E-l. Target Analytes Detected in Unspiked Wastewater Samples by Laboratory (ng/L)

Analyte

Number

Lab 1

Lab 2

Lab 3

Lab 4

Lab 5

Lab 6

Lab 7

Lab 9

Cone

Qual

Cone

Qual

Cone

Qual

Cone

Qual

Cone

Qual

Cone

Qual

Cone

Qual

Cone

Qual

IIII / - Hospital

PFBA

8

2.64

J

3.58

J

1.04

U

1.86

J-

24.1



0.597

U

25.1



6



PFPeA

8

5.76



6.23

Jl

8.56



5.1



5.03



0.563

U

4.4



5.06



PFHxA

8

14.2



11.8



13.1



9.82



9.7



8.69



9.4



10.4



PFHpA

8

2.5



2.41

J

2.8



2.4



2.48



0.173

u

1.8

J

1.95



PFOA

8

2.09



3.75

J

2.24



2.35



2.45

BJ+

2.75



1.6

J

1.62



PFBS

8

1.84

J

2.35

J

4.16



1.57

J

1.82



0.177

u

1.8

J

2.02



PFPeS

8

2.1



2.22

J

2.8



2.03



2.07



1.72



1.6

J

1.82



PFHxS

8

14.1



18



21.8



18



16.1



13.6



7.8



11.7



PFOS

8

3.04



5



5.6



4.63



3.37



3.44



2.2



1.7

J

6:2FTS

8

1.76

J

7.92

U

2.82

U

1.6

U

1.46

U

1.54

J

3.5

U

0.945

U

PFOSA

8

0.346

U

0.724

U

0.416

u

0.565

U

0.746

BJ+

0.472

J

0.67

U

0.154

U

PFMPA

8

0.578

U

1.09

u

0.48

u

0.556

u

0.745

J

0.628

u

0.99

u

0.321

u

II ll./-mril Influent

PFBA

8

4.93

J

4.2

J

5.04

J

4.64

J-

4.63

J

0.597

u

12.2



5.83



PFPeA

8

9.19



10.1



11.1



9.45



8.88



0.563

u

9.1



9.37



PFHxA

8

21.7



21.2



21.8



18.2



17.2



20.2



18.7



19.8



PFHpA

8

7.97



8.24



9.12



7.83



7.68



5.96



8.5



7.98



PFOA

8

12



13.7



16.5



12.5



14.2



11.3



12.6



13.2



PFNA

8

3.12



3.3

J

3.6



2.93



2.59



3.53



3.2



3.44



PFDA

8

1.29

J

1.62

J

1.2

J

1.22

J

0.892

U

0.223

u

1.9

J

1.3



PFBS

8

4.43



4.72



0.528

u

3.58



0.348

U

0.177

u

3.3



4.96



PFPeS

8

0.351

u

1.31

u

0.272

u

0.375

u

0.729

U

0.129

u

1.1

u

1.37

1

PFHxS

8

4.2



2.92

J

3.52



3.68



3.04



2.83



2.1



3.03



PFOS

8

7.45



6.18



7.6



7.63



7.25



7.09



6.2



7.38

J

6:2FTS

8

23.7



25.3



26.2



25.6



22.3



24.4



22.5



24.9



8:2FTS

8

4.5

J

7.48

u

5.36

J

3.56

u

4.67

J

4.38

J

5.6

J

5.32



PFOSA

8

0.346

u

0.724

u

0.416

u

0.565

u

0.397

BJ+

0.188

u

0.67

u

0.154

u

NMeFOSAA

8

1.44

J

3.3

u

1.68



2.19



1.49

J

0.655

u

2



1.97



NEtFOSAA

8

0.75

J

2.26

u

0.856

u

0.61

u

0.531

Jl

0.571

u

1.3

u

0.283

u

5:3FTCA

8

5.54

u

16.7

u

9.36

u

6.66

u

29.2

U

4.72

J

8.7

u

1.88

u


-------
Table E-l. Target Analytes Detected in Unspiked Wastewater Samples by Laboratory (ng/L)

Analyte

Number

Lab 1

Lab 2

Lab 3

Lab 4

Lab 5

Lab 6

Lab 7

Lab 9

Cone

Qual

Cone

Qual

Cone

Qual

Cone

Qual

Cone

Qual

Cone

Qual

Cone

Qual

Cone

Qual

WWL - Bus Washing Station

PFBA

8

11.7



3.06

J

11.5



9.77

J-

8.98



0.597

U

14



11.4



PFPeA

8

45



41



61.1



35.6



35.2



43.8



38.9



37.6



PFHxA

8

81.6



84.1



83.9



76.9



78.6



66.5



81



79.5



PFHpA

8

32.2



32.5



31.3



28.4



29.5



29.7



32.1



30.7



PFOA

8

8.36



9.53



11



8.61



11.8



8.85



7.3



9



PFNA

8

2.18



2.24

J

2.8



2.16



2.33



2.12



2.3



2.28



PFDA

8

1.21

J

1.53

J

1.04

Jl

0.899

J

-

X

0.223

U

0.77

J

1.01



PFUnA

8

0.609

U

1.73

J

0.664

U

0.574

U

-

X

0.203

u

0.6

U

0.182

U

PFDoA

8

0.603

U

1.16

J

0.752

U

0.345

U

-

X

0.301

u

0.6

U

0.169

U

PFBS

8

0.289

u

1.45

J

0.528

u

0.628

u

0.941

J

0.177

u

1.4

J

1.03



PFHxS

8

1.3

Jl

1.43

U

0.464

u

0.789

u

0.803

J

0.291

u

0.7

u

0.171

u

PFOS

8

2.08



1.75

J

2.48

1

1.98

1

-

X

1.42

J

0.54

u

2.23

J

6:2FTS

8

6.15

J

7.92

U

5.2

J

4.42

J

4.72

J

2.63

J

35

u

4.07



PFOSA

8

0.346

u

1.02

J

0.416

u

0.565

u

-

X

0.188

u

0.67

u

0.154

u

HFPO-DA

8

1.85

u

4.17

u

2

J

2.89

u

2.14

u

0.748

u

0.97

u

0.891

u

3:3FTCA

8

2.12

J

3.97

u

3.36

J

3.19

J

6.57

u

1.67

u

4.5

u

1.48

u

7:3FTCA

8

6.53

u

27.7

J

5.18

u

4.15

u

25.3

u

5.22

u

7.9

u

2.56

u


-------
Table E-l. Target Analytes Detected in Unspiked Wastewater Samples by Laboratory (ng/L)

Analyte

Number

Lab 1

Lab 2

Lab 3

Lab 4

Lab 5

Lab 6

Lab 7

Lab 9

Cone

Qual

Cone

Qual

Cone

Qual

Cone

Qual

Cone

Qual

Cone

Qual

Cone

Qual

Cone

Qual

IIIIM-mill HJJlucnl

PFBA

8

10



9.28

J

10.7



8.26

J-

8.56



0.597

U

14.6



12



PFPeA

8

10.5



12.9



15



10.6



10.6



0.563

U

10.2



10.8



PFHxA

8

38.1



41.4



41.4



36.2



39.3



32.3



36



38.5



PFHpA

8

4.07



4.47



4.4



4.2



3.97



3.26



3.6



4.38



PFOA

8

12



12.9



14.2



11.7



13.8



10.1



10



12.3



PFNA

8

0.93

J

1.06

U

1.76

1

0.718

J

0.851

J

1.35

J

0.63

J

1.18



PFDA

8

2.33



2.96

J

2.16



1.97

J

1.58

J

2.14



1.9

J

1.92



PFUnA

8

0.609

U

1.48

J

0.664

U

0.574

U

0.786

U

0.203

u

0.6

U

0.182

U

PFDoA

8

0.603

U

1.31

J

0.752

U

0.345

U

0.412

U

0.301

u

0.6

U

0.169

U

PFTrDA

8

0.478

u

1.02

J

0.608

u

0.281

u

0.838

u

0.363

u

0.84

u

0.196

u

PFBS

8

4.53



5.25



3.44



3.83



3.8



0.177

u

3.6



5.68



PFHxS

8

2.88

1

1.53

J

2.08



0.789

u

1.48

J

2.03



0.86

J

1.41



PFOS

8

2.73



3.23

J

2.96



3.35



3.15



2.53



2.2



2.68

J

6:2FTS

8

6.96

J

7.92

U

9.44



6.96

J

7.92



6.75



7.8

J

7.07



PFOSA

8

0.346

u

1.11

Jl

0.416

u

0.565

u

0.359

BJ+

0.188

u

0.67

u

0.154

u

NMeFOSA

8

0.453

u

0.809

J

0.704

u

1.21

u

0.341

U

0.199

u

0.64

u

0.153

u

NMeFOSAA

8

0.739

J

3.3





X

1.08

J

0.84

J

0.655

u

0.98

u

0.186

u

7:3FTCA

8

6.53

u

25.4

J

5.18

u

4.15

u

25.3

U

5.22

u

7.9

u

2.56

u

II IIX - Pulp mid Paper lijlhicnl

PFBA

8

0.941

u

3.42

J

2.64

J

-

X

5.51

J

-

X

1.9

u

-

X

PFPeA

8

0.552

u

3.42

J

13.8



0.306

u

6.7



0.563

u

3.4

J

3.19



PFHxA

8

0.454

u

2.99

J

4.56



2.36



2.7



0.412

u

2.7



2.14



PFHpA

8

0.501

u

1.07

J

1.12

J

0.368

u

1.7

Jl

0.173

u

1.5

J

0.158

u

PFOA

8

1.1

J

1.96

J

1.68



1.29

J

1.82

BJ+

1.63



1.4

J

1.56



PFNA

8

0.657

u

1.06

u

2.08

1

0.29

u

0.792

U

0.25

u

0.61

u

0.166

u

PFBS

8

0.289

u

1.08

u

1.2

J

0.628

u

0.864

J

0.177

u

0.95

J

0.104

u

PFHxS

8

1.65

J

1.57

J

1.36

J

1.32

Jl

1.27

J

1.04

J

1.2

J

1.39



PFOS

8

3.55



3.85



4.72



3.61



3.78



3.21



2.8



3.41

J

PFOSA

8

0.346

u

0.724

u

0.416

u

0.565

u

0.344

BJ+

0.188

u

0.67

u

0.154

u


-------
Table E-l. Target Analytes Detected in Unspiked Wastewater Samples by Laboratory (ng/L)

Analyte

Number

Lab 1

Lab 2

Lab 3

Lab 4

Lab 5

Lab 6

Lab 7

Lab 9

Cone

Qual

Cone

Qual

Cone

Qual

Cone

Qual

Cone

Qual

Cone

Qual

Cone

Qual

Cone

Qual

11 IK)-ro/ ll lljjlucnl

PFBA

8

7.88

J

7.94

J

8.56



7.4

J

8.33



0.597

U

12.3



8.31



PFPeA

8

22.6



25



27.1



23.1



23



22.8



22.4



22.4



PFHxA

8

51.7



61



52.9



50.7



57.7



46.2



52.7



49



PFHpA

8

8.4



8.86



9.04



8.01



7



6.78



8



8.31



PFOA

8

9.56



12.1



12.9



9.43



11.1



7.6



10.3



10.7



PFNA

8

1.95

J

2.64

J

3.36

J-

1.84

J

2.64



2.51



2.5



2.71



PFDA

8

1.06

J

1.36

U

0.72

Jl

0.596

U

0.892

U

0.223

U

0.69

J

0.181

U

PFBS

8

10.7



11.1



13.4



9.33



9.64



15.3



14.2



13.1



PFPeS

8

1.66

J

1.94

J

2.08



1.96



1.75

J

0.129

u

2.2



2



PFHxS

8

12.5



13.6



14.2



13.4



13.9



11.1



10.8



12.2



PFHpS

8

0.874

J

3.06

U

1.6



0.633

U

0.731

J

0.204

u

0.49

U

0.112

U

PFOS

8

35.2



27.6



35.5



32.5



31.3



31.2



30.3



28.8



6:2FTS

8

233



341



289



267



274



352



277



264



8:2FTS

8

1.41

U

7.48

u

2.5

U

3.56

u

1.45

U

1.08

J

4.1

U

0.544

u

PFOSA

8

0.346

U

0.724

u

0.416

U

0.565

u

0.228

BJ+

0.188

u

0.67

u

0.154

u

5:3FTCA

8

9.54

J

18.5

J

11.8

J

13.1

J

29.2

U

13.8

J

8.7

u

1.88

u

Compounds undetected in all samples included: PFTeDA, PFNS, PFDS, PFDoS, 4:2FTS, NEtFOSA, NMeFOSE, NEtFOSE, PFMBA, NFDHA, ADONA, PFEESA, 9CI-PF30NS, HCI-PF30UdS


-------
Table E-2. Minimum and Maxium Target Analytes Concentrations in Unspiked Wastewater Samples (ng/L)

Analyte

Number of
Labs

WW I

WW,I

WWL

WWM

WWN

wwo

min

max

min

max

min

max

min

max

min

max

min

max

PFBA

8

0.597 U

25.1

0.597 U

12.2

0.597 U

14

0.597 U

14.6

0.941 U

5.51 J

0.597 U

12.3

PFPeA

8

0.563 U

8.56

0.563 U

11.1

35.2

61.1

0.563 U

15

0.306 U

13.8

22.4

27.1

PFHxA

8

8.69

14.2

17.2

21.8

66.5

84.1

32.3

41.4

0.412 U

4.56

46.2

61

PFHpA

8

0.173 U

2.8

5.96

9.12

28.4

32.5

3.26

4.47

0.158 U

1.7 JI

6.78

9.04

PFOA

8

1.6 J

3.75 J

11.3

16.5

7.3

11.8

10

14.2

1.1 J

1.96 J

7.6

12.9

PFNA

8

0.166 U

1.06 U

2.59

3.6

2.12

2.8

1.06 U

1.761

0.166 U

2.081

1.84 J

3.36 J-

PFDA

8

0.181 U

1.36 U

0.223 U

1.9 J

0.223 U

1.53 J

1.58 J

2.96 J

0.181 U

1.36 U

0.181 U

1.06 J

PFUnA

8

0.182 U

0.928 U

0.182 U

0.928 U

0.182 U

1.73 J

0.182 U

1.48 J

0.182 U

0.928 U

0.182 U

0.928 U

PFDoA

8

0.169 U

0.822 U

0.169 U

0.822 U

0.169 U

1.16 J

0.169 U

1.31 J

0.169 U

0.822 U

0.169 U

0.822 U

PFTrDA

8

0.196 U

0.978 U

0.196 U

0.978 U

0.196 U

0.978 U

0.196 U

1.02 J

0.196 U

0.978 U

0.196 U

0.978 U

PFBS

8

0.177 U

4.16

0.177 U

4.96

0.177 U

1.45 J

0.177 U

5.68

0.104 U

1.2 J

9.33

15.3

PFPeS

8

1.6 J

2.8

0.129 U

1.371

0.166 U

1.31 U

0.166 U

1.31 U

0.166 U

1.31 U

0.129 U

2.2

PFHxS

8

7.8

21.8

2.1

4.2

0.171 U

1.3 JI

0.789 U

2.881

1.04 J

1.65 J

10.8

14.2

PFHpS

8

0.112U

3.06 U

0.112 U

3.06 U

0.112U

3.06 U

0.112 U

3.06 U

0.112U

3.06 U

0.112 U

1.6

PFOS

8

1.7 J

5.6

6.18

7.63

0.54 U

2.481

2.2

3.35

2.8

4.72

27.6

35.5

6:2FTS

8

0.945 U

1.76 J

22.3

26.2

7.92 U

6.15 J

7.92 U

9.44

0.945 U

7.92 U

233

352

8:2FTS

8

0.544 U

7.48 U

3.56 U

5.6 J

0.544 U

7.48 U

0.544 U

7.48 U

0.544 U

7.48 U

0.544 U

1.08 J

PFOSA

8

0.154 U

0.746 BJ+

0.154 U

0.397 BJ+

0.154 U

1.02 J

0.154 U

1.11 JI

0.154 U

0.344 BJ+

0.154 U

0.228 BJ+

NMeFOSA

8

0.153 U

1.21 U

0.153 U

1.21 U

0.153 U

1.21 U

0.153 U

0.809 J

0.153 U

1.21 U

0.153 U

1.21 U

NMeFOSAA

8

0.186 U

3.3 U

0.655 U

2.19

0.186 U

9.8 U

0.186 U

1.08 J

0.186 U

3.3 U

0.186 U

3.3 U

NEtFOSAA

8

0.283 U

2.26 U

0.283 U

0.75 J

0.283 U

13 U

0.283 U

2.26 U

0.283 U

2.26 U

0.283 U

2.26 U

PFMPA

8

0.321 U

0.745 J

0.321 U

1.33 U

0.321 U

1.33 U

0.321 U

1.33 U

0.321 U

1.33 U

0.321 U

1.33 U

HFPO-DA

8

0.338 U

4.17 U

0.339 U

4.17 U

0.748 U

2 J

0.354 U

4.17 U

0.319 U

4.17 U

0.355 U

4.17 U

3:3FTCA

8

0.86 U

6.57 U

0.86 U

6.57 U

1.48 U

3.36 J

0.86 U

6.57 U

0.86 U

6.57 U

0.86 U

6.57 U

5:3FTCA

8

1.88 U

29.2 U

1.88 U

4.72 J

1.88 U

29.2 U

1.33 U

29.2 U

1.33 U

29.2 U

1.88 U

18.5 J

7:3FTCA

8

2.56 U

25.3 U

2.56 U

25.3 U

2.56 U

27.7 J

2.56 U

25.4 J

2.56 U

25.3 U

2.56 U

25.3 U


-------
Table E-3. Summary of wastewater spike percent recoveries in low spike samples for each laboratory.

Analyte

Lab 1 spike % recover

y

Lab 2 spike % recover

y

Lab 3 spike % recover

y

Lab 4 spike % recover

y

Lab 5 spike % recover

y

n

Min

Max

Mean

n

Min

Max

Mean

n

Min

Max

Mean

n

Min

Max

Mean

n

Min

Max

Mean

PFBA

18

91.6

132.5

101.5

18

100.6

128

110.9

17

107.2

113.6

110.6

14

87.1

112.3

103

18

51.4

96.4

80.7

PFPeA

15

90.1

148.2

103

15

100

139.9

113.1

14

102.6

116

110.2

17

92.1

116.2

103.2

18

64.5

101

87.2

PFHxA

6

87

170.5

108.8

6

92.5

124.5

102.9

6

96

110.5

104.7

9

91.4

121

101.9

9

77.5

113

94.3

PFHpA

15

81

149.5

98.1

15

95.2

129

104.1

14

95.3

110

100.4

15

89.4

108.4

97.6

15

72.5

104

87

PFOA

18

84.7

152.5

99.5

18

89.5

127.8

108.3

17

91

138

117

18

87

105.8

98.3

18

68.5

138.5

99.1

PFNA

18

80.1

139.5

96.7

18

94.5

141.5

105.6

17

96.2

133.7

113.3

18

88.5

119

98.2

18

70

106.5

89.8

PFDA

18

89.2

169.5

106.2

18

92.2

121.5

99.6

17

97.3

137.2

108.8

18

90.5

109.5

98.6

18

70.5

106

86.8

PFUnA

18

71

148

94.5

18

65

113.4

94.2

17

90.5

135

109.9

18

81

100

94.9

18

69

107

83.9

PFDoA

18

68

131

84.8

18

37

109.5

86.7

17

81

119

95.9

18

85

106.5

95.9

16

62

96.5

78.5

PFTrDA

18

62

138

86.4

18

15.6

105.5

60.8

17

57.5

129

89.9

17

84

102.5

94.6

16

41

95

68.4

PFTeDA

17

75

127

96.2

17

18

111

81.9

17

90.5

140

111.2

17

95

122

103.8

12

79.5

124.5

96.7

PFBS

18

76.4

144.5

93.9

18

98.9

129.2

105.4

17

100.5

141

115.8

18

91.1

112

101.7

18

72.7

109.5

83.7

PFPeS

18

83.2

147

101.9

18

91.6

129.6

102.8

17

95.5

116.8

102.1

18

93.9

110.1

101.7

18

81.2

114.9

92.7

PFHxS

18

81.1

139.6

93.8

18

91.7

140.3

102

14

95.1

113.9

103.6

18

89.6

130.8

106.6

18

77.6

117.4

96.1

PFHpS

18

85.5

139.5

98.2

18

100

154

112.1

17

99

129

109.1

18

87.5

127.5

102.4

18

78.5

173

102.4

PFOS

15

90.6

143.7

105.3

15

94.5

121.5

102.3

15

95.9

120.7

105.1

15

85.4

105.7

95

15

81.6

103.5

93.1

PFNS

18

66.3

133.7

88.4

18

60.4

97.5

79.7

17

81.7

109.9

96.4

18

53.5

102

89.9

18

31.8

90.6

69.6

PFDS

18

29.2

125.3

67.7

18

19.9

89.9

59.4

17

65.7

114.6

92.3

18

14.7

96

78.9

18

00
00

89.4

51.7

PFDoS

18

14.3

86.9

45.4

17

00
00

63.8

37.7

17

40.2

113.1

77.4

17

53.8

93

74.5

15

5.1

54.3

29.6

4:2FTS

18

92.2

126.7

103.9

18

97.6

120.1

105.2

17

99

111.2

104.9

18

75.2

111.3

92.8

18

84.4

103.4

93.4

6:2FTS

15

76.9

121.8

97.5

15

94

143.8

112.4

15

104

119.5

110.2

15

90.5

109

100.2

15

86.1

109.4

97

8:2FTS

18

92.8

123.7

102.2

18

100.1

136.8

110.9

17

106

151.8

123.6

18

69.8

116.7

102.9

18

87.5

110.8

100.4

PFOSA

18

91

151

103.4

18

72.5

136

100.9

17

98.5

124.5

110.1

18

96

183.5

113.9

13

73.5

104.3

86.2

NMeFOSA

18

75.5

122.5

86.8

18

32.8

108.5

84.9

17

77.5

164

98.3

18

49.8

117.5

90.2

13

69.5

104

93.3

NEtFOSA

18

78.5

125

88.8

17

23.5

92.5

74.8

17

73

168

97.3

18

57.5

110

90.9

12

82.5

99

91.4

NMeFOSAA

18

79

213

127.5

18

78.5

197

144.5

6

146.6

188.6

171.1

18

103

535

215.6

17

80.5

165

124

NEtFOSAA

18

72.5

223

119.5

18

64.5

205.5

136.8

17

106

381.5

172.1

18

100

400

188.4

15

87

177

123.8

NMeFOSE

18

72.5

94.4

85

17

34.2

95

77.2

17

47.1

126.9

83.2

17

46.3

101.9

83.9

12

66.9

113.8

87.3

NEtFOSE

18

73.8

89.4

81.6

17

21.9

96.2

71.1

17

56.4

135.6

90.6

17

53.1

101.2

84.8

10

61.6

126.9

97

PFMPA

18

64.8

102.2

89.1

18

78.2

116.8

100.4

17

62

109.5

97.4

17

15.2

107

84.5

18

36

113.5

79.9

PFMBA

18

85

146.2

101.4

18

98.8

129.8

111.2

17

115.3

139.5

127.2

17

98

156

112.8

18

99.2

163.2

123.4

NFDHA

18

78.2

121.2

93.9

18

58.8

111.5

83.5

17

64.2

141.2

99.6

18

25.8

102.8

79.8

18

90.3

131.2

113.2

HFPO-DA

18

96.4

124.8

104.7

18

110.5

228.8

151.9

17

96.1

108.6

102.8

18

88.6

128.8

105.6

18

88.1

125

102.2

ADONA

18

92.5

130.9

107.9

18

120.7

228.2

153.7

17

92.8

124.7

106.7

18

88.8

446.4

129.7

18

89.9

120.6

102

PFEESA

18

100.2

159.6

109.8

18

45.9

99

76.8

17

83

125.2

98.2

18

95

118.7

102.8

18

81.3

119.5

100.3

9C1-PF30NS

18

99.4

144.5

114.6

18

81.7

144.5

122.5

17

71

110.8

95.9

18

56.7

447.1

126.5

18

9.9

121.2

80.2

llCl-PF30UdS

18

36

113.6

74.4

18

9.3

111.1

66.3

17

44.9

106.5

82.7

18

5

313

104.6

16

3.7

95.4

55.2

3:3FTCA

18

51.7

94.3

80.1

18

58.8

102.6

79.5

17

94.1

114.2

103.2

17

51

136

101.3

18

40.4

151.2

83.9

5:3FTCA

18

80.8

253.3

94.6

18

67.4

133.8

91.9

17

77.5

116.7

93.9

18

82.6

302.5

114.6

18

64

123.3

96.6

7:3FTCA

18

81

257.5

98.9

18

61.7

255.8

98.6

17

90.8

189.2

128.6

18

63.9

301.7

103.3

18

24.6

105.8

73.9


-------
Table E-3. Summary of wastewater spike percent recoveries in low spike samples for each laboratory.

Analyte

Lab 6 spike % recover

y

Lab 7 spike % recover

y

Lab 9 spike % recover

y

All Labs

n

Min

Max

Mean

n

Min

Max

Mean

n

Min

Max

Mean

n

Min

Max

Mean

PFBA

16

78.9

99.2

88.6

18

92.9

125

103.1

15

42.1

104.4

91.3

134

42.1

132.5

98.8

PFPeA

15

58.5

195

106.7

18

79

113.8

101.2

18

20.5

97

87.7

130

20.5

195

100.8

PFHxA

6

99

151.5

122.4

9

86

108

98.6

9

78

102

90.6

60

77.5

170.5

101.7

PFHpA

15

52.1

101

84

15

86

105

94

15

23.9

97

84.3

119

23.9

149.5

93.6

PFOA

18

68.8

99

82.2

18

90

109.5

99.1

18

22.5

94

83.5

143

22.5

152.5

98.2

PFNA

18

66

100

81.3

18

86

104

94.7

18

43

96

88.1

143

43

141.5

95.8

PFDA

18

61.5

107.5

80.6

18

89

116.5

101.3

18

52

98.5

90.1

143

52

169.5

96.4

PFUnA

18

66.5

119.5

88.8

18

72.5

108

84.9

18

52.5

105

87.5

143

52.5

148

92.2

PFDoA

18

49.2

105.5

74.8

18

64

116.5

93.2

18

48.7

106.5

83.5

141

37

131

86.7

PFTrDA

18

48.6

144

84.3

18

60

113

80.8

18

37.2

91.5

65.3

140

15.6

144

78.8

PFTeDA

18

53

109

79

18

88

180.5

115.6

18

42.7

110

84.7

134

18

180.5

96

PFBS

18

55.5

137.5

102.6

18

83.8

110.5

99.1

18

18.5

101.8

90.7

143

18.5

144.5

99

PFPeS

18

68.3

117.8

86

18

84.7

106.9

96.3

18

42.1

96

89.3

143

42.1

147

96.6

PFHxS

18

48.8

108.3

82

18

60.7

110.9

87

18

19.4

113.4

87.9

140

19.4

140.3

94.6

PFHpS

18

64

114

87.9

18

97.5

117

109.3

18

51.5

101.5

91.7

143

51.5

173

101.6

PFOS

15

69.8

95.8

84.1

15

79

108.5

97.5

15

76.9

99

88.4

120

69.8

143.7

96.4

PFNS

18

57.4

83.2

70.3

18

67.3

99.5

82.6

18

43

88.1

76.5

143

31.8

133.7

81.6

PFDS

18

37.4

88.4

66

18

48

90.4

68.9

18

40.2

84.8

64.6

143

00
00

125.3

68.5

PFDoS

18

22.3

66.8

50.6

18

30.2

92

56.7

18

11.7

63.8

43.5

138

5.1

113.1

52.2

4:2FTS

18

64.2

125.3

91.8

18

63.1

99.7

85.9

18

47.1

94.4

89

143

47.1

126.7

95.8

6:2FTS

15

45.3

152.8

89.6

15

78.9

143.8

104.1

15

90.2

100.4

95.6

120

45.3

152.8

100.8

8:2FTS

18

60.1

107.6

81.7

18

80.2

140.5

109.6

18

54.6

107.4

99.4

143

54.6

151.8

103.7

PFOSA

18

68

113.1

85.7

18

81

108.5

97

18

47.5

770

205.4

138

47.5

770

113.8

NMeFOSA

18

63

92

80.6

18

73

102

83.9

18

47.6

115.5

87.3

138

32.8

164

87.9

NEtFOSA

18

63

91

75.5

18

69

97.5

81.7

18

45.5

114

86.5

136

23.5

168

85.6

NMeFOSAA

18

66

202

121.9

18

100

183

140.9

18

52

194.5

128.8

131

52

535

144.7

NEtFOSAA

18

69

211.5

126.7

18

90

174

125.9

18

58

237

126.6

140

58

400

140.1

NMeFOSE

17

49.8

87.5

73.4

18

70.6

113.1

85.5

18

46.1

106.9

77.8

134

34.2

126.9

81.5

NEtFOSE

17

53.4

77.5

67.6

18

68.8

110

81.9

17

46.8

106.2

76.9

131

21.9

135.6

80.6

PFMPA

18

23.5

84

50

18

68.2

92.2

81

18

20.2

90.3

69.4

142

15.2

116.8

81.3

PFMBA

18

48.8

92.2

72.3

18

91.5

100.5

95.4

18

45.2

123.5

92.1

142

45.2

163.2

104.3

NFDHA

18

55.8

155

119.5

18

37.5

81.2

65.4

18

45.8

91.5

78.5

143

25.8

155

91.6

HFPO-DA

18

70.8

102.9

85.1

18

89.4

101.9

93.6

18

46.4

97.1

90.2

143

46.4

228.8

104.5

ADONA

18

53.4

89

70.2

18

108

134.7

117.1

18

47.9

107.5

94.9

143

47.9

446.4

110.3

PFEESA

18

64.1

106.5

86.2

18

86.8

98.8

92.7

18

47.6

97.3

89.3

143

45.9

159.6

94.5

9C1-PF30NS

18

44

80.4

61.8

18

67.6

155.7

107.8

18

47.8

109.2

94.1

143

9.9

447.1

100.5

1 lCl-PF30UdS

18

28.7

72.6

49.7

18

38

132.2

74.5

18

37.8

94.4

69.1

141

3.7

313

72.2

3:3FTCA

18

53.5

95.5

76.7

18

71.8

97.5

87.3

18

52.6

157.5

105.1

142

40.4

157.5

89.5

5:3FTCA

18

68.4

130

95.9

18

76.8

121.7

98.1

18

54.2

165

119

143

54.2

302.5

100.6

7:3FTCA

18

75

121.7

90.4

18

84.2

125.8

101.9

18

46.8

136.7

100.3

143

24.6

301.7

99.3


-------
Table E-4. Summary of wastewater spike percent recoveries in high spike samples for each laboratory.

Analyte

Lab 1 spike % recover

y

Lab 2 spike % recover

y

Lab 3 spike % recover

y

Lab 4 spike % recover

y

Lab 5 spike % recover

y

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

PFBA

18

92.8

106.8

100.6

18

100.8

131.4

109.9

18

22.5

114.7

104.3

13

101.8

112.7

106.8

17

82.1

94.5

88.5

PFPeA

18

81.5

113

96.4

18

97.5

137.9

112.4

18

22.2

119.2

103.1

18

93.3

105.4

98.5

18

82

97.6

90.6

PFHxA

18

83.4

110

94.3

18

89.9

118.2

101.1

18

32.2

120.2

100

18

88.3

110.3

97.8

18

62.3

115.4

89.9

PFHpA

18

81.8

102

92.1

18

95.5

117.6

104.5

18

21.1

105.9

93.4

18

85.6

105.2

95

18

75.5

105.5

92.1

PFOA

18

87.4

104

97.7

18

100

120.2

105.8

18

21.6

125.8

108.4

18

88.2

107.3

95.8

18

96.2

132.2

108.8

PFNA

18

80.1

97.9

89.3

18

99.8

121

106.7

18

19.5

141.2

106.7

18

90.2

101.3

96.2

18

70

104.7

87.8

PFDA

18

88.6

110

101.2

18

89.2

122

99.6

18

22.7

120.8

98.6

18

88

105

96.9

18

73.9

105

88

PFUnA

18

72.5

107

89.3

18

70.1

123

98.3

18

27

124

101.8

18

84.4

101

94.2

18

75.3

109

88.6

PFDoA

18

65.7

91.6

79.7

18

39.6

101

83.2

18

28.5

140

93.1

18

86.4

107

95.3

17

63.8

90.6

79.4

PFTrDA

18

62.1

101

82.3

18

17.3

95.8

61.6

18

26

144

85.3

18

84.4

105

93.5

17

57

87

74

PFTeDA

18

77

118

93.4

18

22.9

118

84.2

17

24.6

157

113.7

18

92.9

113

101.5

16

80.5

109

91.8

PFBS

18

86.5

98.4

91.8

18

97.8

120.6

105

18

21.8

120

104.4

18

93.8

111.2

101.6

18

79.8

91.3

85.3

PFPeS

18

87.3

108

96.8

18

96.9

123.8

104.4

18

22.4

122

98.9

18

91.8

110

98

18

84.8

116.3

94.1

PFHxS

18

81.6

95.9

89.5

18

82.5

126

101.4

18

23.4

112.5

98.3

18

91.4

108

100.7

18

99.7

110.9

105

PFHpS

18

85.2

103

93.8

18

95.6

136

109.6

18

22.3

156

104.9

18

88.7

111

100

18

79.7

143.3

93.9

PFOS

18

92.4

110.3

100

18

96

118

103.7

18

25.3

134

102.1

18

85.9

110.5

96.3

18

86.9

115.7

93.9

PFNS

18

70.8

103

86.9

18

65.6

95.7

79.8

18

19.4

110

91.4

18

80.9

106

94.5

18

54.8

90.1

80.1

PFDS

18

35

95.5

69.7

18

35.6

83.3

56.6

18

17.3

112

86.7

18

73.7

96.4

84.7

18

26.9

95

68.3

PFDoS

18

17

71.7

47

18

11.3

67.4

35.3

18

3

103

70.5

18

59.3

96.9

77

18

5.3

56.7

35.6

4:2FTS

18

91.7

110.4

102.7

18

92.9

120

103.5

18

34

108.7

96.1

18

80

117.1

92.2

18

91.2

101.7

96.6

6:2FTS

18

79.6

104.6

94.8

15

100.5

123.4

109.5

15

100.4

115.3

107.3

15

91.3

112.3

101.4

15

94.6

109.6

100

8:2FTS

18

91.7

113.8

101.3

18

97.1

124.6

107.8

18

47.9

147.5

121.4

18

82.1

111.7

98.7

18

92.9

111.4

104.4

PFOSA

18

91.2

110

99.3

18

73.2

130

100.5

18

25.8

124

104.7

18

92.5

130

105.2

14

81

101.3

88.4

NMeFOSA

17

75.4

99.1

84.3

18

37.6

101

79.6

18

39

212

99.5

18

59

122

91

16

82.1

99.7

93

NEtFOSA

17

75.6

94.8

86.5

18

23.4

93.6

75

18

38.7

193

99.3

18

67.3

124

95.9

16

80.3

97.3

91

NMeFOSAA

18

81

125

101.2

18

79.7

138

116

6

126

165.3

138.2

18

89.3

200.8

134.9

18

89

115.2

101

NEtFOSAA

18

72.6

112

94.9

18

64.9

139

110.4

18

30.6

182

117.2

18

96.8

206

124.2

17

94.2

119

103.9

NMeFOSE

18

76.2

97.5

86.1

18

37

96.2

76.1

18

59.2

134.8

89.5

18

62.5

104.5

88.1

16

76.5

114.2

93.8

NEtFOSE

17

70.8

93.5

82.7

18

25.8

96

72

18

60.5

136.5

94.2

18

62.3

109.5

90.1

16

77.2

107.2

89.8

PFMPA

18

59.5

99

85.6

18

81

111.5

98.8

18

20.9

104.5

90

18

17.5

106

77.7

18

37.4

118

82.2

PFMBA

18

86

115

97.6

18

97

135.5

108.8

18

24.5

138

116.7

18

97.5

141.5

110.4

18

111.5

175

132.1

NFDHA

18

73

104.5

88.9

18

54

122.5

91.4

18

19.6

123.5

93.7

18

52.5

114.5

81.5

18

88.5

114

101.1

HFPO-DA

18

94.2

110

101.7

18

109.2

198.3

135.9

18

35.6

108.7

95.8

18

89.6

120.4

103.9

18

93.8

116.3

103.8

ADONA

18

90.8

111.7

100.3

18

109.6

216.2

141.1

18

35.1

116.7

97.3

18

94.6

132.5

110.4

18

91.2

126.2

107.9

PFEESA

18

85.5

99.5

92.4

18

44.8

96

79

18

21.4

117.5

91.1

18

91

108.5

99

18

85.5

119

100.1

9C1-PF30NS

18

95.4

124.2

112.1

18

71.7

170.4

116.8

18

33.1

104.2

84.6

18

94.2

143.8

109.3

18

21.1

135.8

101.1

1 lCl-PF30UdS

18

37.2

105.8

77.1

18

26.2

101.2

60.7

18

7

106.2

73.1

18

74.6

127.1

97

18

5.7

115.4

75.7

3:3FTCA

18

51.7

93.8

79.2

18

62.3

105.5

86.1

18

20.6

116

97.8

18

60

131.5

103.1

18

35.2

173.2

94.5

5:3FTCA

18

75

89.5

81.4

18

63

133

100.7

18

6.3

110.5

86.1

18

90

115

101.7

18

61

117.5

94.6

7:3FTCA

18

82.5

95

89.4

18

71

195

107.3

18

6.6

153.5

107.2

18

73.5

105

93.3

18

22

120

84.6


-------
Table E-4. Summary of wastewater spike percent recoveries in high spike samples for each laboratory.

Analyte

Lab 1 spike % recover

y

Lab 2 spike % recover

y

Lab 3 spike % recover

y

Lab 4 spike % recover

y

Lab 5 spike % recover

y

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

PFBA

18

92.8

106.8

100.6

18

100.8

131.4

109.9

18

22.5

114.7

104.3

13

101.8

112.7

106.8

17

82.1

94.5

88.5

PFPeA

18

81.5

113

96.4

18

97.5

137.9

112.4

18

22.2

119.2

103.1

18

93.3

105.4

98.5

18

82

97.6

90.6

PFHxA

18

83.4

110

94.3

18

89.9

118.2

101.1

18

32.2

120.2

100

18

88.3

110.3

97.8

18

62.3

115.4

89.9

PFHpA

18

81.8

102

92.1

18

95.5

117.6

104.5

18

21.1

105.9

93.4

18

85.6

105.2

95

18

75.5

105.5

92.1

PFOA

18

87.4

104

97.7

18

100

120.2

105.8

18

21.6

125.8

108.4

18

88.2

107.3

95.8

18

96.2

132.2

108.8

PFNA

18

80.1

97.9

89.3

18

99.8

121

106.7

18

19.5

141.2

106.7

18

90.2

101.3

96.2

18

70

104.7

87.8

PFDA

18

88.6

110

101.2

18

89.2

122

99.6

18

22.7

120.8

98.6

18

88

105

96.9

18

73.9

105

88

PFUnA

18

72.5

107

89.3

18

70.1

123

98.3

18

27

124

101.8

18

84.4

101

94.2

18

75.3

109

88.6

PFDoA

18

65.7

91.6

79.7

18

39.6

101

83.2

18

28.5

140

93.1

18

86.4

107

95.3

17

63.8

90.6

79.4

PFTrDA

18

62.1

101

82.3

18

17.3

95.8

61.6

18

26

144

85.3

18

84.4

105

93.5

17

57

87

74

PFTeDA

18

77

118

93.4

18

22.9

118

84.2

17

24.6

157

113.7

18

92.9

113

101.5

16

80.5

109

91.8

PFBS

18

86.5

98.4

91.8

18

97.8

120.6

105

18

21.8

120

104.4

18

93.8

111.2

101.6

18

79.8

91.3

85.3

PFPeS

18

87.3

108

96.8

18

96.9

123.8

104.4

18

22.4

122

98.9

18

91.8

110

98

18

84.8

116.3

94.1

PFHxS

18

81.6

95.9

89.5

18

82.5

126

101.4

18

23.4

112.5

98.3

18

91.4

108

100.7

18

99.7

110.9

105

PFHpS

18

85.2

103

93.8

18

95.6

136

109.6

18

22.3

156

104.9

18

88.7

111

100

18

79.7

143.3

93.9

PFOS

18

92.4

110.3

100

18

96

118

103.7

18

25.3

134

102.1

18

85.9

110.5

96.3

18

86.9

115.7

93.9

PFNS

18

70.8

103

86.9

18

65.6

95.7

79.8

18

19.4

110

91.4

18

80.9

106

94.5

18

54.8

90.1

80.1

PFDS

18

35

95.5

69.7

18

35.6

83.3

56.6

18

17.3

112

86.7

18

73.7

96.4

84.7

18

26.9

95

68.3

PFDoS

18

17

71.7

47

18

11.3

67.4

35.3

18

3

103

70.5

18

59.3

96.9

77

18

5.3

56.7

35.6

4:2FTS

18

91.7

110.4

102.7

18

92.9

120

103.5

18

34

108.7

96.1

18

80

117.1

92.2

18

91.2

101.7

96.6

6:2FTS

18

79.6

104.6

94.8

15

100.5

123.4

109.5

15

100.4

115.3

107.3

15

91.3

112.3

101.4

15

94.6

109.6

100

8:2FTS

18

91.7

113.8

101.3

18

97.1

124.6

107.8

18

47.9

147.5

121.4

18

82.1

111.7

98.7

18

92.9

111.4

104.4

PFOSA

18

91.2

110

99.3

18

73.2

130

100.5

18

25.8

124

104.7

18

92.5

130

105.2

14

81

101.3

88.4

NMeFOSA

17

75.4

99.1

84.3

18

37.6

101

79.6

18

39

212

99.5

18

59

122

91

16

82.1

99.7

93

NEtFOSA

17

75.6

94.8

86.5

18

23.4

93.6

75

18

38.7

193

99.3

18

67.3

124

95.9

16

80.3

97.3

91

NMeFOSAA

18

81

125

101.2

18

79.7

138

116

6

126

165.3

138.2

18

89.3

200.8

134.9

18

89

115.2

101

NEtFOSAA

18

72.6

112

94.9

18

64.9

139

110.4

18

30.6

182

117.2

18

96.8

206

124.2

17

94.2

119

103.9

NMeFOSE

18

76.2

97.5

86.1

18

37

96.2

76.1

18

59.2

134.8

89.5

18

62.5

104.5

88.1

16

76.5

114.2

93.8

NEtFOSE

17

70.8

93.5

82.7

18

25.8

96

72

18

60.5

136.5

94.2

18

62.3

109.5

90.1

16

77.2

107.2

89.8

PFMPA

18

59.5

99

85.6

18

81

111.5

98.8

18

20.9

104.5

90

18

17.5

106

77.7

18

37.4

118

82.2

PFMBA

18

86

115

97.6

18

97

135.5

108.8

18

24.5

138

116.7

18

97.5

141.5

110.4

18

111.5

175

132.1

NFDHA

18

73

104.5

88.9

18

54

122.5

91.4

18

19.6

123.5

93.7

18

52.5

114.5

81.5

18

88.5

114

101.1

HFPO-DA

18

94.2

110

101.7

18

109.2

198.3

135.9

18

35.6

108.7

95.8

18

89.6

120.4

103.9

18

93.8

116.3

103.8

ADONA

18

90.8

111.7

100.3

18

109.6

216.2

141.1

18

35.1

116.7

97.3

18

94.6

132.5

110.4

18

91.2

126.2

107.9

PFEESA

18

85.5

99.5

92.4

18

44.8

96

79

18

21.4

117.5

91.1

18

91

108.5

99

18

85.5

119

100.1

9C1-PF30NS

18

95.4

124.2

112.1

18

71.7

170.4

116.8

18

33.1

104.2

84.6

18

94.2

143.8

109.3

18

21.1

135.8

101.1

1 lCl-PF30UdS

18

37.2

105.8

77.1

18

26.2

101.2

60.7

18

7

106.2

73.1

18

74.6

127.1

97

18

5.7

115.4

75.7

3:3FTCA

18

51.7

93.8

79.2

18

62.3

105.5

86.1

18

20.6

116

97.8

18

60

131.5

103.1

18

35.2

173.2

94.5

5:3FTCA

18

75

89.5

81.4

18

63

133

100.7

18

6.3

110.5

86.1

18

90

115

101.7

18

61

117.5

94.6

7:3FTCA

18

82.5

95

89.4

18

71

195

107.3

18

6.6

153.5

107.2

18

73.5

105

93.3

18

22

120

84.6


-------
Table E-5. Summary of wastewater EIS percent recovery for each laboratory.

Analyte

Lab 1 % recovery

Lab 2 % recovery

Lab 3 % recovery

Lab 4 % recovery

Lab 5 % recovery

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

13c4-pfba

42

22.4

130

74.2

42

39.1

92.6

73.2

42

13

291

83.5

42

1

84.9

43.5

42

8.44

83.8

45.4

13C5-PFPeA

42

72

127

89.3

42

55.4

105

85.5

42

46

244

79.5

42

2.1

87.8

69

42

45.4

85.8

68.7

13C5-PFHxA

42

80.6

127

91.8

42

58.8

96.3

85.4

42

66

306

98.8

42

28.3

86.3

75.6

42

48

97.2

74.7

13C4-PFHpA

42

75.5

123

88.3

42

49.4

113

80.9

42

67

350

110.3

42

64.7

85.4

75.4

42

31.1

90.8

72.6

13C8-PFOA

42

77.7

135

93.4

43

55.9

100

82.2

42

68

268

95.4

42

66

86.1

77.2

42

25.9

105

77.6

13c9-pfna

42

79.5

134

91.8

42

49.2

97.4

81.6

42

58

266

94.6

42

68.5

87.2

77.8

42

12.2

110

73.6

13c6-pfda

42

74.2

134

91.1

42

43.9

94.6

77.9

42

47

302

90

42

60.1

84.7

72.7

42

2.68

92

67.6

13C7-PFUnA

42

43.7

101

79.5

42

29.3

82.6

65.7

42

26

278

81.9

42

38

82.6

71

42

0.617

96.8

60.7

13C2-PFDoA

42

26.2

97.5

67.3

42

12.3

75.3

52.8

42

15

282

90.8

42

10.6

77.2

63

42

0.563

85.6

53.6

13C2-PFTeDA

42

8.9

85

44.9

42

0.242

56.7

32.3

42

1

130

52.1

42

0.5

69.2

51.9

42

0.0848

57.5

27.8

13c3-pfbs

42

82

119

92.4

42

54.4

94.1

83.8

42

58

273

86.4

42

19

88.6

75.6

42

40.9

85

69.4

13C3-PFHxS

42

82.5

134

93.6

42

51

97.7

85.4

42

59

337

99.2

42

66.8

88.5

75.8

42

11.8

83.1

68.5

13c8-pfos

42

70.1

120

84.2

42

34.3

89.1

77.1

42

48

288

94.2

42

61.1

82.7

73.1

42

0.251

83.8

56.9

13C2-4:2FTS

42

112

175

136.8

42

128

546

298.4

42

111

550

165.5

42

45.7

155

105.5

42

78.3

194

136.7

13C2-6:2FTS

42

65.7

187

136.4

42

68

426

199

42

58

328

103.8

42

69.8

125

91

42

18.6

132

95.5

13C2-8:2FTS

42

93.9

378

157.9

42

48.3

439

218.3

42

54

428

130.1

42

61.8

390

139.6

42

2.52

285

118.1

13c8-pfosa

42

9.96

91.2

66.2

42

27.6

98.4

70.9

42

57

282

88.2

42

49.6

72.7

59.8

42

0.122

64

43.2

D3-NMeFOSA

42

7.4

67.2

44.6

42

11.9

65.3

46.1

42

24

225

69.8

42

28.1

61.2

46.2

42

1.43

52.4

28.2

D5-NEtFOSA

42

9.07

63.8

39.5

42

7.44

50.8

34.6

42

18

220

68.2

42

12.8

66.4

45.8

42

0.948

50.8

25.4

D3-NMeFOSAA

42

54.7

92.5

72.3

42

40.4

140

99.9

42

24

599

143.3

42

46.6

95.6

72.8

42

1.07

122

59.1

D5-NEtFOSAA

42

48.4

110

71.7

42

34.7

178

117.3

42

15

279

97

42

29.6

88.4

72.4

42

0.846

90.8

53.5

D7-NMeFOSE

42

8.13

72.4

42.4

42

8.7

94

46.7

42

35

299

89.1

42

0.1

70.4

54.7

42

0.396

65.2

29.3

D9-NEtFOSE

42

7.81

66

37.8

42

5.44

76.8

43.6

42

24

289

79.5

42

0.2

68.4

51.2

42

0.331

44

21.1

13C3-HFPO-DA

42

72.9

126

84.7

42

25.5

80.3

54.2

42

68

305

98.9

42

17.7

89.5

68

42

48.7

98

72.2


-------
Table E-5. Summary of wastewater EIS percent recovery for each laboratory.

Analyte

Lab 6 % recovery

Lab 7 % recovery

Lab 9 % recovery

All]

^ahs

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

13C4-PFBA 42

3.54

88.9

38

42

30

87

66.9

42

3

161

47.7

336

1

291

59.1

13C5-PFPeA 42

54

149

90.9

42

48

91

76.8

42

38

156

73.3

336

2.1

244

79.1

13C5-PFHxA 42

71.5

120

87.4

42

57

98

82

42

62

158

83.1

336

28.3

306

84.8

13C4-PFHpA 42

69.5

142

97.5

42

62

105

84.5

42

59

152

79.5

336

31.1

350

86.1

13C8-PFOA 42

64.5

115

86.8

42

62

107

84.3

42

63

157

84.4

337

25.9

268

85.1

13C9-PFNA 42

62.1

111

86

42

62

97

82.2

42

59

154

83.8

336

12.2

266

83.9

13C6-PFDA 42

66

132

88.6

42

59

90

78.6

42

52

148

80.7

336

2.68

302

80.9

13C7-PFUnA 42

57.1

119

81.1

42

48

78

64.3

42

31

126

75.9

336

0.617

278

72.5

13C2-PFDoA 42

40.4

134

79.7

42

44

71

57.1

42

11

109

63.1

336

0.563

282

65.9

13C2-PFTeDA 42

22.7

105

63.2

42

22

53

37.8

42

2

108

42.1

336

0.0848

130

44

13C3-PFBS 42

74.7

153

114

42

63

95

83

42

61

157

81.2

336

19

273

85.7

13C3-PFHxS 42

64.7

141

95.5

42

73

104

85.2

42

58

159

82.8

336

11.8

337

85.8

13C8-PFOS 42

64.6

108

82.9

42

57

89

77.1

42

49

150

79.9

336

0.251

288

78.2

13C2-4:2FTS 42

113

323

167.1

42

62

150

106.3

42

156

327

220.7

336

45.7

550

167.1

13C2-6:2FTS 42

68.7

282

145.2

42

56

135

91

42

92

226

148.6

336

18.6

426

126.3

13C2-8:2FTS 42

57.6

362

128.8

42

54

140

91.3

42

91

441

165.5

336

2.52

441

143.7

13C8-PFOSA 42

61

96

79.1

42

53

98

73.2

42

47

139

75.5

336

0.122

282

69.5

D3-NMeFOSA 42

38.4

80.5

59.8

42

40

65

50.3

42

19

83

52.2

336

1.43

225

49.7

D5-NEtFOSA 42

33

75.5

55.3

42

31

61

47.2

42

9

81

43.6

336

0.948

220

44.9

D3-NMeFOSAA 42

65.8

116

91.4

42

65

143

95.9

42

46

140

81.9

336

1.07

599

89.6

D5-NEtFOSAA 42

63

142

89.9

42

66

138

95.2

42

26

132

80.1

336

0.846

279

84.6

D7-NMeFOSE 42

2.82

92

56

42

34

59

45.6

42

0.252

86

39.7

336

0.1

299

50.4

D9-NEtFOSE 42

2.65

80

51.4

42

25

59

43.9

42

0.145

68

29.3

336

0.145

289

44.7

13C3-HFPO-DA 42

75.6

171

111.5

42

44

84

68.6

42

59

156

79.3

336

17.7

305

79.7


-------
PFAS Multi-Laboratory Validation Study Report
Aqueous Media: Wastewater, Surface Water, and Groundwater

SERDP

Appendix F

Surface Water Supporting
Tables

Date: July 25, 2023


-------
Appendix F: List of Tables

F1	Target analytes detected in unspiked wastewater samples by kaboratory

F2	Minimum and maxium target analytes concentrations in unspiked wastewater samples

F3	Summary of wastewater spike percent recoveries in low spike samples for each laboratory.

F4	Summary of wastewater spike percent recoveries in high spike samples for each laboratory.

F5	Summary of wastewater EIS percent recovery for each laboratory.


-------
Table F-l. Target Analytes Detected in Unspiked Surface Water Samples by Laboratory (ng/L)

Analyte

Number
of Labs

Lab 1

Lab 2

Lab 3

Lab 4

Lab 5

Lab 6

Lab 7

Lab 9

Lab 10

Cone

Qual

Cone

Qual

Cone

Qual

Cone

Qual

Cone

Qual

Cone

Qual

Cone

Qual

Cone

Qual

Cone

Qual

SU D -SU Oil!) If)

PFBA

9

0.941

U

4.05

J

2.56

J

1.31

U

2.23

J

0.597

U

6.5

J

2.99

J

2.53

J

PFPeA

9

0.552

U

1.7

JI

1.12

J

0.306

U

1.26

J

0.563

U

1

J

1.1

IJ

0.549

U

PFHxA

9

1.65

J

2.02

J

1.04

JI

1.32

J

1.02

J

0.412

u

1.1

J

1.16



0.298

U

PFHpA

9

0.849

J

1.66

J

0.8

J

0.788

JI

0.845

J

0.173

u

0.66

J

0.785

J

1.02

J

PFOA

9

1.89

J

--

X

1.2

J

1.12

J

1.17

J

1.28

J

1

J

1.18



1.33

J

PFNA

9

0.657

u

--

X

1.28

J

0.332

J

0.792

U

0.25

u

0.61

U

0.331

J

0.565

J

PFBS

9

0.736

J

1.18

JI

1.36

J

0.94

J

0.348

U

0.177

u

0.78

J

0.879

J

1.22

JI

PFHxS

9

0.393

u

--

X

0.464

U

0.789

u

0.625

u

0.291

u

0.7

U

0.363

J

0.567

u

PFOS

9

0.978

J

--

X

1.28

J

1.7

u

1.43

JI

0.96

J

0.54

u

0.977

J

0.415

u

6:2FTS

9

1.07

u

--

X

2.82

U

1.6

u

2.39

J

1.48

u

3.5

u

0.945

U

2.36

UJ

PFOSA

9

0.346

u

--

X

0.416

u

0.565

u

0.198

u

0.188

u

0.67

u

11.1



0.212

u

.S'll / '- !lurh'\Crook

PFBA

9

0.941

u

1.93

J

1.04

u

--

X

1.47

J

--

X

1.9

u

--

X

0.952

u

PFPeA

9

0.552

u

1.08

u

0.768

u

0.306

u

0.772

u

0.563

u

0.94

u

0.726

J

0.549

u

PFHxA

9

0.454

u

1.45

u

0.8

J

0.768

J

0.604

J

0.412

u

0.67

J

0.704

J

0.298

u

PFHpA

9

0.501

u

1.06

u

0.4

J

0.382

J

0.76

u

0.173

u

0.44

u

0.415

J

0.519

u

PFOA

9

1.5

J

2.93

J

0.88

J

0.924

J

1.09

J

0.29

u

0.74

J

0.932

J

1.09

J

PFBS

9

0.801

J

1.08

u

1.04

JI

0.628

u

0.717

J

0.177

u

0.66

J

0.928

J

0.292

JI

PFPeS

9

0.425

J

1.31

u

0.272

u

0.502

JI

0.729

u

0.129

u

1.1

u

0.399

IJ

0.468

u

PFHxS

9

0.835

J

1.43

u

1.04

J

0.968

J

0.679

J

0.784

J

0.79

J

0.912

J

0.824

J

PFOS

9

0.441

u

1.68

u

0.64

J

1.7

u

0.486

u

0.248

u

0.54

u

0.563

J

0.415

u

PFOSA

9

0.346

u

0.724

u

0.416

u

0.565

u

0.198

u

0.188

u

0.67

u

12.3



0.212

u

NEtFOSAA

9

0.554

u

2.26

u

0.88

J

0.61

u

0.531

u

0.571

u

1.3

u

0.283

u

0.693

u

.S irr; - Sci/nim Somvulor

PFHxA

9

0.454

u

1.45

u

0.472

u

0.455

u

0.509

J

0.412

u

0.39

u

0.493

J

0.298

u

PFOA

9

0.367

u

1.78

u

0.696

u

0.651

u

0.427

u

0.29

u

0.46

u

0.189

J

0.634

u

PFHxS

9

0.393

u

1.43

u

0.384

u

0.789

u

0.625

u

0.291

u

0.7

u

0.189

J

0.567

u

PFOSA

9

0.346

u

0.724

u

0.432

u

0.565

u

0.198

u

0.188

u

0.67

u

13.6



0.212

u

Compounds undetected in all samples included: PFDA, PFUnA, PFDoA, PFTrDA, PFTeDA, PFHpS, PFNS, PFDS, PFDoS, 4:2FTS, 8:2FTS, NMeFOSA, NEtFOSA, NMeFOSAA, NMeFOSE,
NEtFOSE, PFMPA, PFMBA, NFDHA, HFPO-DA, ADONA, PFEESA, 9CI-PF30NS, llCI-PF30UdS, 3:3FTCA, 5:3FTCA, 7:3FTCA


-------
Table F-2. Minimum and Maximum Detected Values Reported

)y all Laboratories

Analyte

Number

SWD1

SWF1

SWG1

of Labs

Min

Max

Min

Max

Min

Max

PFBA

9

0.597 U

6.5 J

0.941 U

1.93 J

0.545 U

1.9 U

PFPeA

9

0.306 U

1.7 JI

0.306 U

0.726 J

0.289 U

1.08 U

PFHxA

9

0.298 U

2.02 J

0.298 U

0.8 J

0.298 U

0.509 J

PFHpA

9

0.173 U

1.66 J

0.173 U

0.415 J

0.158 U

1.06 U

PFOA

9

1 J

1.89 J

0.29 U

2.93 J

0.29 U

0.189 J

PFNA

9

0.25 U

1.28 J

0.166 U

1.06 U

0.166 U

1.06 U

PFBS

9

0.177 U

1.36 J

0.177 U

1.04 JI

0.104 U

1.08 U

PFPeS

9

0.116 U

1.1 U

0.129 U

0.502 JI

0.116 U

1.31 U

PFHxS

9

0.291 U

0.363 J

1.43 U

1.04 J

0.291 U

0.189 J

PFOS

9

0.415 U

1.43 JI

0.248 U

0.64 J

0.248 U

1.7 U

6:2FTS

9

0.945 U

2.39 J

0.945 U

7.92 U

0.945 U

7.92 U

PFOSA

9

0.188 U

11.1

0.188 U

12.3

0.188 U

13.6

NEtFOSAA

9

0.283 U

1.3 U

0.283 U

0.88 J

0.283 U

2.26 U

'or Unspiked Samples


-------
Table F-3. Summary of surface water spike percent recoveries in low spike samples for each laboratory.

Analyte

Lab 1 spike % recover

y

Lab 2 spike % recover

y

Lab 3 spike % recover

y

Lab 4 spike % recover

y

Lab 5 spike % recover

y

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

PFBA

9

18.8

101

85.9

6

90.3

98.8

94.5

9

75.8

103.3

94.3

6

91.2

102.5

97.0

9

78.7

91.2

86.6

PFPeA

9

93.2

100

97.4

9

89.2

98.2

93.6

9

92.8

104.5

100.0

9

96.8

108.2

103.1

9

81.4

101.2

90.0

PFHxA

9

86

373.8

123.4

9

92.9

103

98.9

9

87

101

95.1

9

93

108.2

98.1

9

74

99.5

91.1

PFHpA

9

65.3

97.5

88.8

9

101.2

113

107.1

9

94

99

96.7

9

87

103

93.3

9

77.3

97.5

90.0

PFOA

9

86

388

126.1

6

98.8

113

105.5

9

89.5

111

99.4

9

95.4

109

99.8

9

86.6

115.6

97.6

PFNA

9

4.1

106.5

83.2

9

93

106

100.7

9

87

112.1

97.4

9

91

105.3

98.4

9

77

108.5

92.6

PFDA

8

86

100.5

90.0

9

86

101

94.7

9

91.5

128.5

113.3

9

92.5

113

104.2

9

73.5

99.5

84.4

PFUnA

8

82

102.5

92.3

8

91

98.5

95.2

9

74

121

95.9

9

96

112.5

100.6

9

84

110

94.3

PFDoA

8

73.5

103

85.5

8

84.5

95.5

90.1

9

75.5

93

86.2

9

90.5

101

96.8

9

65.5

88.5

81.8

PFTrDA

8

85.5

105.5

92.6

8

63

83

74.2

9

68.5

101

82.2

9

86.5

94

91.4

9

49.6

95.5

82.7

PFTeDA

8

82.5

102.5

91.9

8

75.5

84

80.6

9

75

100

88.3

9

91.5

99.5

94.8

9

76

105

90.7

PFBS

9

81

166.3

95.1

9

91.6

105

97.3

9

82.3

100.2

90.8

9

94.3

108.5

101.6

9

75.9

89.5

82.8

PFPeS

9

84

147

96.4

9

93.1

135.6

100.5

9

88.1

107.9

97.9

9

98

112.4

102.5

9

81.2

91.6

85.9

PFHxS

9

86.1

1447.8

239.9

9

94.5

104

98.9

9

92

112.4

99.9

9

100.5

113.1

107.2

9

73.2

92.5

81.7

PFHpS

9

20.8

100.5

83.7

5

97.5

121.5

109.7

9

101

134.5

114.8

9

87.5

114.5

99.8

9

82

103

90.7

PFOS

9

86

1095.1

204.0

8

98

125.5

109.5

9

85

116.6

100.1

9

88.5

108.5

98.9

9

83.9

97

89.2

PFNS

8

77.7

94.6

87.1

8

57.4

99.5

83.2

9

76.7

100.5

91.3

9

80.7

98

89.0

9

70.3

85.6

76.8

PFDS

8

74.2

84.3

79.8

5

36.1

89.4

65.8

9

48.9

85.9

75.0

9

74.2

97

84.3

9

74.7

91.4

81.1

PFDoS

8

59.8

76.9

67.1

8

14.6

66.8

51.8

9

34.2

76.9

64.1

9

73.9

100

80.8

9

44

66.3

52.6

4:2FTS

8

74.4

99.2

89.1

9

77

93.5

87.1

9

87.1

108.2

98.3

9

80.9

108

93.5

9

91.8

99.4

94.8

6:2FTS

9

15.4

101

86.8

9

106.4

130

115.4

9

94.9

102.8

97.8

9

90.4

111.5

103.4

9

93.1

106.5

101.1

8:2FTS

8

92.5

104

98.0

9

85.9

120.8

105.3

9

97.6

121.1

110.8

9

101.1

117.2

110.6

9

95.6

105.4

102.8

PFOSA

8

87

103.5

96.0

9

91

106

98.8

9

85

148

113.3

9

93.5

117.5

103.5

9

83

98

89.4

NMeFOSA

8

79

91.5

84.6

8

85.5

102.5

95.7

9

75

103

89.1

9

74.5

101.5

91.8

9

90.5

99.5

96.3

NEtFOSA

8

77

97

86.1

8

85

101

89.7

9

71

101.5

86.8

9

78.5

104

88.7

9

86

95.5

92.1

NMeFOSAA

8

95

222.5

132.8

9

89.5

205.5

138.5

9

92.5

280.5

168.4

9

97

253.5

156.0

9

89.5

198

126.2

NEtFOSAA

8

85.5

289

142.8

8

91

242.5

153.7

9

87

321.5

169.8

9

93.5

302.5

170.6

9

92

283

153.3

NMeFOSE

8

74.4

91.2

84.5

8

73.1

88.1

82.3

9

62.1

88.8

77.8

9

75.6

97.5

86.7

9

76.2

112.5

95.7

NEtFOSE

8

57.8

88.1

78.2

5

82.5

87.5

84.5

9

50.9

91.9

72.7

9

65

92.5

80.0

9

70.6

110.6

91.6

PFMPA

8

48.5

98.8

77.5

9

21.2

59

40.7

9

78.5

92

87.3

9

10.2

79.8

51.7

9

68.5

114.5

92.3

PFMBA

8

90.5

106.5

99.1

9

95.7

112.5

103.3

9

83.5

100.7

93.4

9

98

130

108.1

9

106.8

124

115.5

NFDHA

8

83

98.8

91.5

9

70.8

102.8

86.0

9

84.5

101.8

90.9

9

85.2

125.7

105.8

9

93.5

123.8

109.2

HFPO-DA

8

86.2

101.8

95.3

9

101.8

122.8

110.8

9

90.8

114.1

102.1

9

79

116.1

93.4

9

90

116.6

104.2

ADONA

8

94.1

99

96.6

9

97.5

127.2

111.9

9

85.7

105.4

95.2

9

93.9

109.2

100.7

9

90.3

124.2

106.0

PFEESA

8

99

112.7

104.1

9

91.3

100.7

97.4

9

93.3

121.9

105.0

9

93.5

112

103.7

9

84

101

91.7

9C1-PF30NS

8

90

103.7

96.4

8

53.2

113

91.2

9

69.6

101.9

89.8

9

91

106.7

98.9

9

89.4

118.7

105.1

llCl-PF30UdS

8

78.6

86.5

82.8

8

18.8

83.2

61.7

9

29.4

80.9

63.4

9

74.1

93

84.8

9

81.2

110.8

98.4

3:3FTCA

8

38.9

86.8

66.0

9

29.1

72.5

53.3

9

74.8

95

88.3

9

59.2

102.1

86.6

9

46.8

83.4

70.2

5:3FTCA

8

74.5

94.2

82.6

9

87.5

108.3

99.6

9

85

96.7

92.0

9

85

106.7

97.4

9

85

101.7

94.0

7:3FTCA

8

66.1

90.8

79.4

9

68.8

102.5

92.0

9

73.5

98.3

84.0

9

64.2

101.7

87.3

9

66.6

91.7

80.9


-------
Table F-3. Summary of surface water spike percent recoveries in low spike samples for each laboratory.

Analyte

Lab 6 spike % recover

y

Lab 7 spike % recover

y

Lab 9 spike % recover

y

Lab 10 spike % recovery

All Labs

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

PFBA

6

0.9

83

67.0

9

87.9

98.9

93.5

6

88.8

95.5

93.5

9

104.7

116.6

111.2

69

0.9

116.6

92.1

PFPeA

9

4.4

101.5

74.5

9

89.5

100.5

94.5

9

88.2

96.2

93.5

9

88.5

118

106.6

81

4.4

118

94.8

PFHxA

9

72

91.5

83.6

9

85.1

96.5

90.9

9

89.5

97.5

93.2

9

97.5

128

111.9

81

72

373.8

98.5

PFHpA

9

70.5

90

79.2

9

83

91

87.7

9

85.4

94

90.3

9

91.5

124

111.3

81

65.3

124

93.8

PFOA

9

75

84.5

78.9

9

88.3

99.5

92.7

9

83.8

90.6

86.9

9

99.6

142

117.1

78

75

388

100.3

PFNA

9

63

82.5

74.4

9

89.5

125

104.3

9

86.5

96.5

92.3

9

92

133

110.2

81

4.1

133

94.8

PFDA

9

75.5

100

83.9

9

81

163.5

114.7

9

88.5

97

92.5

9

98.5

124.5

111.2

80

73.5

163.5

98.9

PFUnA

9

68

87.5

76.2

9

86

151

110.8

9

81

92

88.6

9

90

125.5

110.6

79

68

151

96.1

PFDoA

9

69.5

91

77.8

9

47.5

123.5

88.2

9

71.5

86.5

83.2

9

81

121.5

100.6

79

47.5

123.5

87.8

PFTrDA

9

66

106.5

86.4

9

43.5

100

74.4

9

63.5

81.5

75.1

8

89

109.5

99.1

78

43.5

109.5

84.1

PFTeDA

9

65.5

79.5

71.7

9

59

93.5

74.7

9

68

87.5

80.8

8

80

118.5

93.4

78

59

118.5

85.1

PFBS

9

57.5

87

72.8

9

85.2

103

92.5

9

89.4

98.6

93.9

9

100.5

116.5

108.2

81

57.5

166.3

92.8

PFPeS

9

62.4

96.5

74.3

9

81.7

102

94.3

9

82.2

101

95.6

9

96.5

135.6

112.3

81

62.4

147

95.5

PFHxS

9

63.3

93.5

77.2

9

86.6

102

92.8

9

83

95.7

90.5

9

83

119.9

99.9

81

63.3

1447.8

109.8

PFHpS

9

60.5

96

79.2

9

105.5

239.5

146.3

9

88

103

98.3

9

98.5

231.5

123.6

77

20.8

239.5

104.9

PFOS

9

65

86

76.3

9

92.5

218

132.6

9

83.7

95.2

90.3

9

98

139

109.8

80

65

1095.1

112.4

PFNS

9

62.4

82.2

72.0

9

58.9

121.8

90.0

9

78.2

92.6

85.7

9

42.8

102.5

89.4

79

42.8

121.8

84.9

PFDS

9

59.1

75.8

65.9

9

33.3

78.8

55.8

9

65.2

82.3

75.7

9

10.9

89.4

73.3

76

10.9

97

73.3

PFDoS

9

31.2

63.8

53.6

9

31.7

55.3

41.6

9

51.8

78.4

61.2

8

58.3

82.9

68.6

78

14.6

100

60.1

4:2FTS

9

55.5

121.2

83.5

9

75.7

95.6

86.8

9

91.2

96.9

94.8

9

85.6

128

104.7

80

55.5

128

92.6

6:2FTS

9

69.2

133.8

98.1

9

79.6

106.4

91.8

9

97.2

103.2

99.7

9

73.6

146.2

117.3

81

15.4

146.2

101.3

8:2FTS

9

65.2

113.8

83.4

9

103.3

204.5

129.6

9

98.2

105.6

102.6

9

110.8

145.5

124.5

80

65.2

204.5

107.6

PFOSA

9

71.5

85

80.3

9

92.5

153

112.6

9

88

211

123.2

9

101.5

141.5

120.7

80

71.5

211

104.3

NMeFOSA

9

68.5

93

79.4

9

75

135.5

101.6

9

86.5

96.5

89.7

9

68

112.5

95.7

79

68

135.5

91.6

NEtFOSA

9

65

86

71.1

9

64

133

94.8

9

76

96.5

88.4

9

81.5

118

96.1

79

64

133

88.2

NMeFOSAA

9

88

191

122.2

9

86

375.5

186.5

9

83

211.5

135.1

9

152.5

665

368.6

80

83

665

170.9

NEtFOSAA

9

74

235.5

127.8

9

70.5

479.5

203.9

9

75

269.5

146.1

9

116.5

785

366.7

79

70.5

785

182.5

NMeFOSE

7

56

80.6

69.4

9

53.5

104.4

78.3

9

64.4

93.1

74.5

8

34.1

87.5

65.4

76

34.1

112.5

79.7

NEtFOSE

6

46.9

96.9

74.9

9

41.2

78.8

61.0

9

59

94.4

73.1

8

24.8

86.2

63.0

72

24.8

110.6

75.1

PFMPA

9

11.7

66

40.2

9

72.2

88.8

79.8

9

13.8

68

46.2

9

66.2

115

89.6

80

10.2

115

67.1

PFMBA

9

65.3

102

81.9

9

93

98.2

95.2

9

92

145.5

105.7

9

88.5

116.8

101.9

80

65.3

145.5

100.5

NFDHA

9

53.8

115

90.1

9

82

94.8

88.8

9

70.5

90

84.3

9

94.8

114.8

104.4

80

53.8

125.7

94.6

HFPO-DA

9

71.9

93.1

82.0

9

84.4

97.2

91.9

9

90.6

96.4

93.6

9

106.4

130

117.4

80

71.9

130

99.0

ADONA

9

65.7

80.3

73.9

9

95.5

112.3

103.2

9

92.3

118.8

99.0

9

103.6

135.9

117.3

80

65.7

135.9

100.5

PFEESA

9

70.3

92.3

81.6

9

86.3

94.3

89.4

9

88.5

96.3

91.3

9

99.3

122.4

108.0

80

70.3

122.4

96.8

9C1-PF30NS

9

68.6

82.8

74.8

9

57

87.3

73.1

9

78.8

124.5

91.6

9

24.9

130.8

100.8

79

24.9

130.8

91.2

1 lCl-PF30UdS

9

47.9

67.7

60.1

9

18.6

42.8

28.5

9

55.1

105.5

70.6

8

76.6

94.9

84.7

78

18.6

110.8

70.3

3:3FTCA

9

49.1

79.9

66.8

9

70.4

89.2

79.6

9

17.5

80.5

60.9

9

76.2

104.2

90.1

80

17.5

104.2

73.6

5:3FTCA

9

72.1

84.2

78.8

9

74.3

90

82.6

9

54.2

90.8

80.1

9

66.3

111.7

89.2

80

54.2

111.7

88.6

7:3FTCA

9

57

74.1

66.3

9

63.4

85

75.9

9

51.4

92.5

75.6

9

30.8

96.7

68.6

80

30.8

102.5

78.9


-------
Table F-4. Summary of surface water spike percent recoveries in high spike samples for each laboratory.

Analyte

Lab 1 spike % recover

y

Lab 2 spike % recover

y

Lab 3 spike % recover

y

Lab 4 spike % recover

y

Lab 5 spike % recover

y

n

Mill

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

PFBA

6

92.8

99.8

95.9

5

87.3

104

93.4

9

81

101.1

94.6

6

100.2

106.2

103.0

9

86.2

93.9

89.4

PFPeA

9

92

104

97.8

9

90

96.2

93.2

9

90

102

98.3

9

91

96.5

93.8

9

88.9

105

96.8

PFHxA

9

86.6

96.1

91.4

9

96

103

98.5

9

81.2

103.2

93.7

9

92.1

109

99.9

9

75.2

110.4

88.5

PFHpA

9

85.3

103

92.4

9

107

116

111.3

9

89.4

97.3

94.5

9

97.4

106

101.2

9

86.8

111

96.8

PFOA

9

89.3

98.5

94.1

8

102.1

118

110.9

9

91.8

109.1

100.0

9

93.8

110

98.9

9

101.9

126.8

117.3

PFNA

9

85.8

100

92.7

8

100

112

104.9

9

79.6

120

93.5

9

89.3

102

98.1

9

79.1

107

93.6

PFDA

9

86

98.2

91.4

8

93.1

102

98.1

9

93.5

135

107.2

9

90.2

106

97.1

9

74.7

100

90.8

PFUnA

9

79.5

97.6

90.0

8

93.8

101

97.8

9

81

115

94.2

9

84.1

96.3

91.5

9

77

92

84.3

PFDoA

9

72.5

93.5

81.2

8

88.9

98.7

93.5

9

78.1

99.8

86.9

9

88.1

99.7

94.0

9

61.9

101

84.7

PFTrDA

9

75.9

92.5

83.6

8

70.5

90.2

79.8

9

71.4

94.2

84.8

9

85.1

93.6

89.1

9

73.4

93.8

83.0

PFTeDA

9

76

95.7

86.9

8

79.1

94.4

85.5

9

84.1

109

95.9

9

86.5

95.8

92.1

9

74.1

101

85.9

PFBS

9

82.8

94

87.4

9

94.2

102.8

98.0

9

84.1

96.8

88.8

9

94.7

109.1

103.1

9

78.8

85.5

81.8

PFPeS

9

86.3

102.6

94.3

8

97

105

100.4

9

91.5

102

96.0

9

91.1

98.8

95.9

9

85.5

92.1

88.7

PFHxS

9

88.6

101

93.8

8

96.1

107

99.9

9

92.8

101

97.0

9

94.6

102

98.5

9

85.5

89.4

87.6

PFHpS

9

87.7

102

96.2

8

93.1

115

104.5

9

101

146

113.6

9

95.3

122

106.5

9

84.5

95.8

90.7

PFOS

9

90.3

101

97.8

8

102

117

110.5

9

89.9

118

99.9

9

91.2

109

99.0

9

86.7

98.2

92.5

PFNS

9

85.5

97.2

90.5

8

75.4

101

90.0

9

89.8

105

92.9

9

88.6

102

92.6

9

74.2

85.2

80.2

PFDS

9

70.4

86.9

81.8

8

63.2

88

77.4

9

66.6

92.6

77.3

9

79.8

92

85.4

9

80.8

94.7

87.4

PFDoS

9

50

78.9

65.5

8

42

79.3

60.0

9

62.2

98.6

73.2

9

73.3

97.4

83.5

9

42.6

69.5

58.5

4:2FTS

9

82.5

95.8

88.3

9

80.4

100.4

89.1

9

85.8

107.5

93.1

9

89.2

110.8

98.6

9

89.6

100.4

94.7

6:2FTS

9

90.9

101.3

96.7

8

113.4

130.5

119.5

9

95.5

99.2

96.8

9

99.2

114.6

107.0

9

97

137.8

107.6

8:2FTS

9

88.8

108.3

96.4

8

107.1

123.3

115.7

9

95.8

135

111.1

9

97.5

119.6

103.9

9

100.8

109.6

104.5

PFOSA

9

93.2

99.4

96.9

8

94.6

104

98.1

9

91.8

150

118.6

9

93.9

107

100.2

9

87.5

96

90.7

NMeFOSA

9

73.9

91.4

82.1

8

82.1

102

92.7

9

72.4

118

91.7

9

81.5

103

92.0

9

87.9

103

95.7

NEtFOSA

9

75.9

93.6

84.7

8

83.2

96.3

89.4

9

77

104

89.9

9

74.8

104

90.4

9

85.7

102

92.5

NMeFOSAA

9

91.7

117

102.8

8

95.8

134

108.9

9

90.5

151

119.3

9

89.8

128

107.5

9

87.2

116

98.8

NEtFOSAA

9

80.9

126

96.1

8

89.4

153

109.8

9

95.2

135

110.0

9

92.5

146

114.8

9

95.1

150

112.2

NMeFOSE

9

68.5

92.5

83.5

8

75.8

89.5

84.8

9

71.5

87.5

79.2

9

84

93.5

89.4

9

76.5

109.5

97.6

NEtFOSE

9

66

93

81.2

8

74.2

90.2

84.9

9

65.5

93.2

81.7

9

78.2

92

86.1

9

88.5

114

102.2

PFMPA

9

31.2

95

72.7

9

19.9

65.5

39.8

9

80.5

91

87.4

9

13.2

74

46.9

9

74

115.5

95.3

PFMBA

9

90.5

112

100.1

9

93.5

122

107.3

9

81

96.5

89.8

9

95.5

130.5

104.9

9

113.5

142.5

125.6

NFDHA

9

90

98

92.7

9

87

103

95.9

9

68.5

99

84.2

9

85

121

105.6

9

85.5

126.5

97.7

HFPO-DA

9

87.9

101.2

95.9

9

89.6

117.5

105.5

9

83.3

105.4

99.2

9

82.5

105.4

94.5

9

87.1

112.5

106.2

ADONA

9

84.6

99.6

93.0

9

29.4

123.8

100.3

9

82.9

101.2

95.5

9

87.1

102.5

93.4

9

101.7

121.2

112.2

PFEESA

9

84

94.5

87.9

9

47.8

106.5

93.5

9

85.5

103

95.5

9

94.5

106

101.4

9

78.5

109

85.4

9C1-PF30NS

9

87.5

101.2

95.9

8

70

117.5

93.9

9

85

97.9

92.1

9

85

103.3

93.4

9

102.1

118.3

111.9

llCl-PF30UdS

9

67.1

87.9

78.1

8

49.2

90.4

70.0

9

52.5

87.9

67.5

9

73.3

92.9

82.2

9

97.5

114.6

107.1

3:3FTCA

9

23.4

86.8

63.3

9

40.2

79.5

53.9

9

77.5

103.2

92.8

9

52.2

96.2

81.5

9

51.7

88.2

72.9

5:3FTCA

9

70.5

92

83.7

9

73

118

101.5

9

81

96

89.9

9

80.5

103.5

93.7

9

84.5

118.5

93.3

7:3FTCA

9

62

103.5

83.5

9

6.8

115.5

90.4

9

79.5

112.5

98.8

9

65

101.5

87.4

9

80

131.5

95.4


-------
Table F-4. Summary of surface water spike percent recoveries in high spike samples for each laboratory.

Analyte

Lab 6 spike % recover

y

Lab 7 spike % recover

y

Lab 9 spike % recover

y

Lab 10 spike % recovery

All Labs

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

PFBA

6

95.8

99.8

97.5

9

95

116

99.5

6

94

98

96.4

9

107.4

119.8

112.1

65

81

119.8

98.2

PFPeA

9

80

103.5

87.2

9

99.5

105.5

102.3

9

93.6

100

97.2

9

95.5

129

109.0

81

80

129

97.3

PFHxA

9

84.3

100

94.2

9

93.7

99.7

96.5

9

94

101.5

97.1

9

87.6

128

104.4

81

75.2

128

96.0

PFHpA

9

82.5

90

85.9

9

92

99

94.1

9

92.9

98.6

95.1

9

92.9

114

105.7

81

82.5

116

97.5

PFOA

9

79.8

103.7

92.7

9

93.3

105

100.3

9

90.1

95

92.4

9

100.7

118.9

107.6

80

79.8

126.8

101.5

PFNA

9

85.9

103

97.2

9

93.2

113

101.1

9

92.8

99.5

97.1

9

89

121

105.5

80

79.1

121

98.1

PFDA

9

86.7

112

96.9

9

98

144

112.5

9

96.4

102

98.6

9

106

124

113.7

80

74.7

144

100.7

PFUnA

9

88.3

110

99.1

9

75.9

141

102.8

9

88.3

97.6

93.0

9

95.1

127

111.2

80

75.9

141

96.0

PFDoA

9

67.4

102

84.5

9

46.6

125

83.7

9

76.9

94.7

87.8

9

82.4

115

102.3

80

46.6

125

88.7

PFTrDA

9

86

109

94.3

9

46.1

102

70.6

9

67.7

87.4

80.3

9

83.6

117

101.3

80

46.1

117

85.3

PFTeDA

9

68.8

113

91.8

9

70.3

113

92.1

9

74.7

92.6

85.3

9

71.5

121

95.0

80

68.8

121

90.1

PFBS

9

89.6

113

99.4

9

88.9

104.2

96.9

9

94.7

100.1

98.0

9

83.6

125.8

108.3

81

78.8

125.8

95.7

PFPeS

9

82.5

115

105.0

9

89.5

114

98.6

9

95.2

105

99.2

9

98.7

116

107.4

80

82.5

116

98.4

PFHxS

9

80

103

91.4

9

83.3

107.2

95.9

9

89.8

97.1

93.0

9

78.5

107

97.4

80

78.5

107.2

94.9

PFHpS

9

78.4

109

98.2

9

101

167

129.7

9

95.6

109

101.7

9

95

122

105.1

80

78.4

167

105.1

PFOS

9

80.3

112

97.8

9

96.8

146

114.8

9

90.9

98.5

94.9

9

96.9

114

105.1

80

80.3

146

101.3

PFNS

9

92.2

117

103.5

9

69.2

109

83.7

9

81.7

92.3

86.8

9

91.9

106

97.2

80

69.2

117

90.8

PFDS

9

77.3

104

91.5

9

39.6

63.5

52.3

9

66.2

85.4

76.0

9

78.9

93.4

84.7

80

39.6

104

79.3

PFDoS

9

65

86.7

76.1

9

32.4

56.7

42.4

9

46.1

66.4

58.2

9

60.6

86

72.8

80

32.4

98.6

65.7

4:2FTS

9

72.5

114.2

88.0

9

79.2

101.2

91.9

9

94.2

103.8

98.7

9

92.9

161.2

121.0

81

72.5

161.2

95.9

6:2FTS

9

71.3

168.4

109.0

9

87.1

103.4

98.3

9

100.9

104.2

102.4

9

78.8

135.9

110.5

80

71.3

168.4

105.1

8:2FTS

9

67.9

107.9

90.5

9

95.8

132.9

115.4

9

104.2

108.7

106.7

9

98.8

119.2

107.5

80

67.9

135

105.6

PFOSA

9

83.1

107

92.9

9

92.4

120

103.3

9

95.4

105.9

99.4

9

103

114

109.0

80

83.1

150

101.1

NMeFOSA

9

86

101

94.4

9

77.1

120

100.9

9

90.3

101

95.5

9

96.8

114

104.3

80

72.4

120

94.4

NEtFOSA

9

77.1

94.5

87.4

9

58.6

126

89.8

9

87.8

103

95.0

9

91.4

113

101.0

80

58.6

126

91.1

NMeFOSAA

9

91.1

144

113.2

9

85.1

149

117.4

9

96.1

127

108.8

9

104

272

175.8

80

85.1

272

117.0

NEtFOSAA

9

93.2

161

114.8

9

81.4

177

125.7

9

90.3

139

111.3

9

94

317

184.4

80

80.9

317

120.0

NMeFOSE

9

76.8

102.8

87.5

9

53.8

110.5

76.8

9

67

88

79.4

9

58

97

80.8

80

53.8

110.5

84.3

NEtFOSE

9

68.8

98.5

83.2

9

40.5

86.5

61.6

9

60.8

90.5

81.2

9

47.5

99

79.4

80

40.5

114

82.4

PFMPA

9

15.7

78.5

47.5

9

78

92

84.9

9

12

75

50.1

9

71

105

90.3

81

12

115.5

68.3

PFMBA

9

82.5

117

93.7

9

97.5

103

100.4

9

92.5

131

102.3

9

91

114.5

103.8

81

81

142.5

103.1

NFDHA

9

66.5

123.5

90.5

9

90

98.5

94.5

9

84.5

91.5

87.8

9

77

113

97.3

81

66.5

126.5

94.0

HFPO-DA

9

89.2

113.8

100.3

9

89.6

95

92.5

9

94.2

99.6

96.9

9

103.3

129.6

117.3

81

82.5

129.6

100.9

ADONA

9

62.1

87.1

75.7

9

95

110

103.7

9

102.5

105.8

104.4

9

101.7

141.2

116.5

81

29.4

141.2

99.4

PFEESA

9

76.5

94.5

85.4

9

91

97.5

94.6

9

90.5

100

94.9

9

90.5

116.5

104.2

81

47.8

116.5

93.7

9C1-PF30NS

9

67.5

91.2

75.5

9

65.8

98.8

80.6

9

77.9

92.5

86.7

9

108.3

130.8

117.9

80

65.8

130.8

94.2

1 lCl-PF30UdS

9

57.5

72.1

65.8

9

22.4

55

35.1

9

57.1

77.1

66.9

9

78.8

102.1

89.4

80

22.4

114.6

73.6

3:3FTCA

9

66.8

91

81.1

9

66.8

83.8

74.4

9

58.8

97.5

82.9

9

71.8

112.8

94.2

81

23.4

112.8

77.5

5:3FTCA

9

66.5

84

75.8

9

77.5

97.5

90.2

9

81.5

95

89.2

9

69.5

122.5

100.6

81

66.5

122.5

90.9

7:3FTCA

9

44

85.5

69.4

9

65.5

100

87.4

9

65.5

92.5

82.4

9

44.4

132.5

86.1

81

6.8

132.5

86.7


-------
Table F-5. Summary of surface water EIS percent recovery for each laboratory.

Analyte

Lab 1 % recovery

Lab 2 % recovery

Lab 3 % recovery

Lab 4 % recovery

Lab 5 % recovery

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

13c4-pfba

21

6.95

85

43

21

6.16

24.9

12.9

21

85

113

102

21

1.7

23.6

12.8

21

20.1

68.6

40.4

13C5-PFPeA

21

64

98.7

85.9

21

60.9

106

84.5

21

83

132

99.2

21

56

101

73.9

21

40.8

91.2

70.9

13C5-PFHxA

21

83.2

99.3

88.5

21

39.5

96.2

86.5

21

88

112

100.2

21

63.9

100

75.2

21

45.2

90.4

73.3

13C4-PFHpA

21

83.2

101

88.8

21

12.3

94

79.6

21

87

112

95.4

21

59.6

101

72

21

44

90

72

13C8-PFOA

21

75.4

94.5

87.2

21

2.37

93

74.2

21

86

124

99.6

21

66.6

103

76

21

49.2

99.6

83.1

13c9-pfna

21

73.8

101

85.8

21

0.35

99.8

78.1

21

78

118

97.3

21

65.8

95.1

74.4

21

35.4

95.2

76.9

13c6-pfda

21

70.4

91.9

80.5

21

0.35

100

71.9

21

65

103

85.3

21

61.5

88.3

70.1

21

39.4

94.4

78.5

13C7-PFUnA

21

65.6

90.8

79.3

21

0.01

91.7

63.1

21

50

97

78.5

21

59.1

87.2

69

21

35.4

90.4

76.8

13C2-PFDoA

21

57.2

82.9

70.2

21

0.02

87.2

56.9

21

44

91

72.4

21

54.5

82.4

63.9

21

32.7

87.2

73.3

13C2-PFTeDA

21

50

81.4

62

21

0.02

68.9

47

21

27

78

61.1

21

53

78.3

62.4

21

23.3

72.6

58.3

13c3-pfbs

21

78.3

105

90.6

21

17.7

97.2

83.7

21

94

115

104.9

21

65.8

99.9

76.6

21

39

79.4

66.5

13C3-PFHxS

21

79.6

96.4

87.6

21

0.75

95.2

78.1

21

83

117

100.6

21

63

101

74.6

21

39.7

82.7

74.6

13c8-pfos

21

75.1

92.8

83.3

21

0.04

95.7

68.4

21

61

105

86.3

21

58.2

104

72.5

21

37.8

88.8

79.1

13C2-4:2FTS

21

86.9

120

102.2

21

48.4

187

133.7

21

104

165

131.1

21

59.7

112

76.2

21

45.4

168

122.1

13C2-6:2FTS

21

79.7

93.5

87.4

21

2.61

116

90.1

21

90

114

100.5

21

65.6

105

76.3

21

37.4

157

107.8

13C2-8:2FTS

21

73.2

98.2

86.5

21

0.11

178

96.8

21

70

127

94.5

21

54.7

103

72.8

21

33.3

149

106.9

13c8-pfosa

21

73.8

91.1

81.9

21

0.35

111

74.6

21

59

100

78.6

21

44.9

87.5

63.5

21

36

80

63

Dj-NMeFOSA

21

59.2

77.9

69.2

21

0.11

85.6

60.1

21

54

82

69.4

21

24.1

59.8

40

21

26.3

66.4

48.8

D5-NEtFOSA

21

52

73.5

63.9

21

0.03

74

52

21

48

85

67.5

21

20.5

59.4

37.3

21

23

64.4

45.6

Dj-NMeFOSAA

21

69.3

87.8

78.1

21

0.01

125

77.2

21

57

97

82.8

21

55.1

94.1

67.7

21

35.8

89.8

76.3

D5-NEtFOSAA

21

65.5

84.4

77.2

21

0.04

108

68.4

21

44

94

74.6

21

49.4

96.1

64.2

21

33.6

85.8

74.1

DrNMeFOSE

21

57.2

81.3

67.2

21

0.01

69

46.7

21

50

87

70.4

21

34.5

81.1

50.3

21

26.4

68.8

52.9

D9-NEtFOSE

21

56.4

76.3

64.6

21

0.01

67.2

43.6

21

48

92

69.1

21

31.9

95.8

51

21

17.8

60.8

44.2

13C3-HFPO-DA

21

84

103

90.8

21

42.6

97.7

84.4

21

85

127

99.7

21

65.9

109

77.8

21

39.3

80.7

67


-------
Table F-5. Summary of surface water EIS percent recovery for each laboratory.

Analyte

Lab 6 % recovery

Lab 7 % recovery

Lab 9 % recovery

Lab 10 % recovery

All Labs

n

Mill

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

13c4-pfba

21

2.49

28.6

13.1

21

46

88

60.2

14

14

27

21.2

21

31.7

76.1

54.4

182

1.7

113

40.7

13C5-PFPeA

21

51.2

91

74.2

21

79

100

90.3

21

19

79

65.3

21

74.8

114

89.6

189

19

132

81.5

13C5-PFHxA

21

68.5

104

80.4

21

90

106

97.3

21

58

81

74.7

21

79.3

99.2

87.5

189

39.5

112

84.8

13C4-PFHpA

21

70.5

92.5

80

21

91

108

98.2

21

65

76

71.1

21

72.6

103

86.8

189

12.3

112

82.7

13C8-PFOA

21

56.5

106

80.9

21

77

105

92.2

21

73

85

78.8

21

66.1

97.1

80.4

189

2.37

124

83.6

13c9-pfna

21

63.9

86.4

75.4

21

62

97

83

21

70

80

74.3

21

64.8

97.9

83.4

189

0.35

118

80.9

13c6-pfda

21

61.6

88.3

76.7

21

40

92

68.5

21

64

79

71.4

21

51

91.3

82.2

189

0.35

103

76.1

13C7-PFUnA

21

61.6

97.9

76

21

29

76

51

21

57

73

67.8

21

38.1

90.7

77.2

189

0.01

97.9

71

13C2-PFDoA

21

58.2

91.2

71.5

21

24

57

41.8

21

53

70

63.5

21

19.1

85.9

71.7

189

0.02

91.2

65

13C2-PFTeDA

21

36.1

80.7

61.6

21

22

52

36.4

21

48

71

58.3

21

2.2

71.3

61.8

189

0.02

81.4

56.5

13c3-pfbs

21

70.4

108

90.6

21

84

107

97.9

21

56

81

76.1

21

68.9

103

85.6

189

17.7

115

85.8

13C3-PFHxS

21

61.6

102

79

21

74

109

93.5

21

69

79

74.8

21

69.6

98.9

86.4

189

0.75

117

83.3

13c8-pfos

21

62.5

96.9

76.8

21

33

94

68.2

21

67

80

72.9

21

30.6

94.7

84.4

189

0.04

105

76.9

13C2-4:2FTS

21

67.5

150

105.4

21

88

119

98.4

21

66

116

88.2

21

69.5

116

87.5

189

45.4

187

105

13C2-6:2FTS

21

46.3

99.7

74.9

21

87

115

100.3

21

67

85

76.4

21

63.7

122

88.8

189

2.61

157

89.2

13C2-8:2FTS

21

60.4

91.4

72

21

40

109

75.9

21

57

78

68.2

21

51.4

114

85

189

0.11

178

84.3

13c8-pfosa

21

64

91.5

78

21

47

88

74.9

21

22

74

63.8

21

60.3

99.5

83.5

189

0.35

111

73.6

Dj-NMeFOSA

21

50.5

83

66.5

21

27

64

50.1

21

35

69

56.5

21

37.4

82.6

68.2

189

0.11

85.6

58.8

D5-NEtFOSA

21

52.5

81.5

62.9

21

26

57

44.9

21

35

68

52

21

27

79.3

64.4

189

0.03

85

54.5

Dj-NMeFOSAA

21

63.2

91

75.9

21

42

79

64.8

21

57

70

63.8

21

40.1

85.8

76.2

189

0.01

125

73.6

D5-NEtFOSAA

21

62.2

92.2

75.2

21

32

69

55.2

21

55

69

62.9

21

29

82.6

70

189

0.04

108

69.1

DrNMeFOSE

21

0.339

86

56.6

21

20

48

33.2

21

33

64

47.6

21

8.33

77

63.2

189

0.01

87

54.2

D9-NEtFOSE

21

0.53

79

54.1

21

18

51

33.5

21

24

61

44.9

21

3.13

72.3

59.8

189

0.01

95.8

51.7

13C3-HFPO-DA

21

70.1

97.4

81.3

21

80

108

90.7

21

52

78

71.5

21

70.7

101

84.7

189

39.3

127

83.1


-------
PFAS Multi-Laboratory Validation Study Report
Aqueous Media: Wastewater, Surface Water, and Groundwater

SERDP

Appendix G

Groundwater Supporting
Tables

Date: July 25, 2023


-------
Appendix G: List of Tables

G1	Target analytes detected in unspiked wastewater samples by kaboratory

G2	Minimum and maxium target analytes concentrations in unspiked wastewater samples

G3	Summary of wastewater spike percent recoveries in low spike samples Gor each laboratory.

G4	Summary of wastewater spike percent recoveries in high spike samples Gor each laboratory

G5	Summary of wastewater EIS percent recovery Gor each laboratory.


-------
Table G-l. Target Analytes Detected in Unspiked Groundwater Samples by Laboratory (ng/L)

Analyte

Number of
Labs

Lab 1

Lab 2

Lab 3

Lab 4

Lab 5

Lab 6

Lab 7

Lab 10

Cone | Qual

Cone | Qual

Cone | Qual

Cone | Qual

Cone | Qual

Cone | Qual

Cone | Qual

Cone | Qual

Ml 1 Ml /. initlurM

PFBA

8

10.3



12.6

J

10



6.29

J

9.26



12.1



9.7



11.4



PFPeA

8

11.4



12.7



11.8



11.7



10.7



16.6



10



9.3



PFHxA

8

22.9



24.1



20



22



25



24



19.8



22.6



PFHpA

8

6.59



6.39



6.08



5.86



5.75



7.09



5.5



8.31



PFOA

8

5.55



5.09



4.72



5.6



6.36



5.64



4.2



6.79



PFNA

8

0.657

U

1.06

U

0.504

U

0.29

U

1.24

J

0.25

U

0.61

U

0.493

U

PFBS

8

41.9



48



39.3



47.9



36.6



43.1



45.6



58.7



PFPeS

8

33.4



35.2



30.1



34.1



27.1



36.3



32.2



47.1



PFHxS

8

139



139



123



138



98.9



126



126



131



PFHpS

8

2.96



3.06

U

4.32



2.97



3.31



5.44



4.7



3.17



PFOS

8

78.8



78.5



70.6



62.3



75.8



80



78.4



0.415

U

6:2FTS

8

1.07

U

7.92

u

2.16

U

1.6

U

53.3



1.48

u

3.5

U

2.36

u

NMeFOSA

8

0.453

u

0.822

J

0.696

u

1.21

u

0.341

U

0.199

u

0.64

u

0.35

u

Ml II Ml j". \niiili\ii'\i

PFBA

8

--

X

17



15.1



14.2



13.7



16.2



13.3



16.6



PFPeA

8

--

X

37.7



35.8



33.6



31.9



39.6



33.4



36.7



PFHxA

8

--

X

95.5



73.4



87.2



85.8



93.8



85.6



108



PFHpA

8

--

X

15.3



14.1



14.1



11.3



15.9



12.5



14



PFOA

8

--

X

83



75.8



76.2



78.3



90.1



76.3



96



PFNA

8

--

X

1.06

u

1.12

J

0.72

J

0.792

U

0.922

J

0.61

u

0.849

J

PFBS

8

--

X

37.4



31.3



36.6



27.6



29.5



34



34.5



PFPeS

8

--

X

33.5



30.6



29.6



26.4



32.7



31.4



35.3



PFHxS

8

--

X

369



322



324



244



316



341



308



PFHpS

8

--

X

5.65



6.4



4.29



4.22



8.77



6.9



4.48



PFOS

8

--

X

246



197



200



198



246



240



212



6:2FTS

8

--

X

13.8

J

10.9



13.4



37.3



9.94



11



12



owe cwm

PFPeA

8

0.552

u

1.39

JI

0.856

u

0.533

JI

0.772

u

0.563

u

0.94

u

0.549

u

PFHxA

8

1.22

J

--

X

0.88

JI

1

J

0.944

JI

0.412

u

0.63

J

0.298

u

PFOA

8

1.15

J

--

X

0.696

u

0.651

u

0.547

J

0.29

u

0.46

u

1.03

J

PFBS

8

1.57

J

--

X

1.92



1.53

J

1.36

J

2.04



1.5

J

2.46



PFPeS

8

0.361

J

--

X

0.56

J

0.422

J

0.729

u

0.542

J

1.1

u

0.72

JI

PFHxS

8

1.62

J

--

X

2.4



1.67

J

1.61

J

1.83



1.3

J

1.81

J

PFOS

8

0.441

u

--

X

0.728

u

1.7

u

0.631

J

0.548

J

0.54

u

0.415

u

6:2FTS

8

1.07

u

--

X

2.16

u

1.6

u

3.02

BJ+

1.48

u

3.5

u

2.36

u

PFOSA

8

0.346

u

--

X

0.432

u

1.58

JI

2.17



0.188

u

0.67

u

0.212

u

NEtFOSA

8

0.365

u

--

X

0.736

u

1.07

J

0.521

u

0.0998

u

0.62

u

0.273

u

NEtFOSAA

8

0.554

u

--

X

0.88

J

0.61

u

0.531

u

0.571

u

1.3

u

0.693

u

Compounds undetected in all samples included: PFDA, PFUnA, PFDoA, PFTrDA, PFTeDA, PFNS, PFDS, PFDoS, 4:2FTS, 8:2FTS, NMeFOSAA, NMeFOSE, NEtFOSE, PFMPA, PFMBA, NFDHA,
HFPO-DA, ADONA, PFEESA, 9CI-PF30NS, llCI-PF30UdS, 3:3FTCA, 5:3FTCA, 7:3FTCA.


-------
Table G-2. Minimum and Maximum Detected Values Reported by all Laboratories for
Unspiked Samples	

Analyte

Number of
Labs

GWA1

GWB1

GWC1

Min

Max

Min

Max

Min

Max

PFBA

8

6.29 J

12.6 J

13.3

17

0.597 U

1.9 U

PFPeA

8

9.3

16.6

31.9

39.6

0.549 U

1.39 JI

PFHxA

8

19.8

25

73.4

108

0.298 U

1.22 J

PFHpA

8

5.5

8.31

11.3

15.9

0.173 U

0.76 U

PFOA

8

4.2

6.79

75.8

96

0.29 U

1.15 J

PFNA

8

0.25 U

1.24 J

0.61 U

1.12 J

0.25 U

0.792 U

PFBS

8

36.6

58.7

27.6

37.4

1.36 J

2.46

PFPeS

8

27.1

47.1

26.4

35.3

0.729 U

0.72 JI

PFHxS

8

98.9

139

244

369

1.3 J

2.4

PFHpS

8

3.06 U

5.44

4.22

8.77

0.204 U

0.633 U

PFOS

8

0.415 U

80

197

246

0.415 U

0.631 J

6:2FTS

8

1.07 U

53.3

9.94

37.3

1.07 U

3.02 BJ+

NMeFOSA

8

0.199 U

0.822 J

0.199 U

1.21 U

0.199 U

1.21 U

PFOSA

8

0.188 U

0.724 U

0.188 U

0.724 U

0.188 U

2.17

NEtFOSA

8

0.0998 U

1.11 U

0.0998 U

1.11 U

0.0998 U

1.07 J

NEtFOSAA

8

0.531 U

2.26 U

0.531 U

2.26 U

0.531 U

0.88 J


-------
Table G-3. Summary of groundwater spike percent recoveries in low spike samples for each laboratory.

Analyte

Lab 1 spike % recover

y

Lab 2 spike % recover

y

Lab 3 spike % recover

y

Lab 4 spike % recover

y

Lab 5 spike % recover

y

n

Mill

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

PFBA

6

97.1

100.8

99.5

7

100.8

107.5

104.2

9

93.1

99

95.6

9

96.5

105.4

101.9

9

83.7

94.2

88.2

PFPeA

6

97.3

107

101.4

9

105.3

114.2

109

9

79.5

102.7

95.1

9

95.2

114.5

104

9

86.5

112.8

97.6

PFHxA

3

90.9

101.4

97.7

3

106

116.5

111

6

70

98

86.8

3

91.5

109

100.2

3

82.8

98.8

92.1

PFHpA

6

83

104.5

92

9

101

114

104.6

9

86

97

92.4

9

79.5

104.5

91.4

9

68.2

105.7

90.2

PFOA

6

89.8

97.8

93.7

3

102

111

105.3

6

90.5

109.9

99.4

6

90

100

95.5

6

83.7

124.2

99.2

PFNA

6

87.5

98

94.5

7

99.5

111.5

105.6

9

83.9

109.5

92.2

9

93.5

107.9

99.4

9

74.8

95

86.7

PFDA

6

90.5

108.5

99.4

7

97

111.5

102

9

95.5

115.5

104.2

9

93.5

113

101.2

9

71

107.5

86.6

PFUnA

6

89

99

95.1

7

96.5

103.5

99.9

9

90.5

113.5

101.4

9

95.5

108.5

102.1

9

74

103.5

87.1

PFDoA

6

76

96.5

87

7

99.5

109.5

102.8

9

76.5

103.5

90.8

9

96.5

110

100.9

9

84

100.5

92.6

PFTrDA

6

90.5

111.5

98.1

7

48.4

97.5

83.1

9

70.5

101

85.3

9

90.5

102

94.8

9

78

99.5

88.6

PFTeDA

6

89

107

96.5

6

90.5

94.5

93.1

9

72

113

84.1

9

87.5

100

93.9

9

85

97

90.8

PFBS

3

94.7

99.7

97.9

3

104.5

122

113.8

3

85.4

95.4

88.9

3

99.8

112.4

105.9

3

77.7

86.7

82.7

PFPeS

3

90.8

100.7

94.9

2

103

111.4

107.2

3

89.8

99.7

96.2

3

96.9

107.3

101

3

83.2

90.1

86.6

PFHxS

3

88.5

96.4

93.8

2

106

107.5

106.8

3

86.6

97.5

92.2

3

100.6

116.6

107.3

3

74.6

89

79.7

PFHpS

6

92.5

104.2

96.9

7

99

146.5

123.7

9

101.4

117

108.8

9

85.2

110.5

97.6

9

83.5

119

95.6

PFOS

3

91

100.5

95.2

0

--

--

--

3

99

113

107.7

3

92.5

96

94

3

89.3

123.3

101

PFNS

6

80.7

93.1

86

5

51.5

104

87.4

9

89.6

97

93.2

9

82.7

98

89.5

9

73.3

100

82.9

PFDS

6

71.2

87.4

78.4

5

25.9

91.4

69.5

9

73.7

85.9

79.7

9

75.3

91.4

83.2

9

73.7

111.6

89.7

PFDoS

6

65.8

83.9

76.1

6

44.3

81.9

67

9

51.3

79.4

63.6

9

71.4

92

80.6

9

46

80.9

63.1

4:2FTS

6

84.1

100.5

93.3

9

92.8

106.5

99.9

9

88

99.2

94.5

9

91.7

104.6

98.2

9

92

104

96.7

6:2FTS

6

90.4

100.9

94.7

8

101.9

120.3

111

9

91.5

101.5

94.9

9

89.6

119.3

102.5

9

30

99.6

71.6

8:2FTS

6

98.9

104.6

102.2

5

97.2

117.6

108.7

9

95.2

135.5

111.8

9

97.4

111.2

105.4

9

102.3

115.9

107

PFOSA

6

97

103.5

99.9

5

104.5

113

107

9

95

131

105.3

9

98

115.1

104.4

9

79.6

98

87.8

NMeFOSA

6

87.5

104.5

95.2

5

85.4

97

91.8

9

82.5

98

88.2

9

87

101

96.1

9

91.5

103

97.9

NEtFOSA

6

88

92.5

89.8

5

87.5

104.5

95.7

9

81

94

87.3

9

79.1

98.5

88.6

9

90

101

95.2

NMeFOSAA

6

102

129

112.3

7

94

147

113.9

9

94

215

141.9

9

91

171.5

135

9

82.5

129.5

107.3

NEtFOSAA

6

79.5

160.5

124.3

5

96.5

111.5

105.5

9

89.5

210.1

135.2

9

86.5

210.5

146.3

9

89

180

126.5

NMeFOSE

6

87.5

103.1

94.7

4

92.5

97.5

94.9

9

76.2

88.8

81

9

84.4

98.1

90.6

9

86.9

110.6

98.4

NEtFOSE

6

83.8

89.4

87.1

4

89.4

100

94.4

9

71.2

86.2

76.9

9

78.8

88.1

83.8

9

73.1

116.9

94.3

PFMPA

6

96

105.2

101.2

9

34.8

108.5

67.3

9

85.5

95

89.9

9

78.5

106.5

94.1

9

95.5

130

111.8

PFMBA

6

100.7

106

104.5

9

101.2

122.2

113.1

9

82

98.2

90.1

9

97.2

105.2

101.6

9

106.5

138.8

119.9

NFDHA

6

94.5

109

102.8

9

81.8

110.2

97.7

9

75.5

118.2

100.5

9

92.2

117.5

106

9

99.5

128.2

109

HFPO-DA

6

95.9

102.8

98.9

9

112.4

135

119.9

9

88.9

102.6

95.6

9

82.6

109.4

92.6

9

87.4

112.4

104.7

ADONA

6

90.6

97.9

92.8

9

56.9

132.2

102.4

9

84.4

91.5

88.2

9

83.3

112.3

98.2

9

90.8

114.1

103.6

PFEESA

6

112

121.2

114.7

9

45.6

110.7

90.1

9

86.8

110.5

98.6

9

92.8

114.2

104.3

9

80.8

95.3

87.9

9C1-PF30NS

6

95.9

112.7

103.7

7

49.4

129.5

99.2

9

83.8

102.1

92.8

9

83.9

105.4

97.8

9

94.5

117.8

105.9

llCl-PF30UdS

6

70.8

92.5

81.6

7

9.5

95.3

68

9

59.7

79.4

68.7

9

71.1

93

84.6

9

91.3

118.8

105.3

3:3FTCA

6

74.9

79.3

77.1

9

46.8

97.9

73.2

9

84.2

95.2

89.6

9

92

102.9

98.9

9

73.6

85.5

81.7

5:3FTCA

6

80.2

85.8

82.7

9

78.7

104.2

93.7

9

86.7

95

89.8

9

90

107.5

101.1

9

84.2

99.2

92.8

7:3FTCA

6

81.8

91.7

85.9

8

21.1

101.7

85.4

9

79.7

90.8

83

9

85

100.8

94.7

9

72.3

100.8

83.8


-------
Table G-3. Summary of groundwater spike percent recoveries in low spike samples for each laboratory.

Analyte

Lab 6 spike % recover

y

Lab 7 spike % recover

y

Lab 10 spike % recovery

All Labs

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

PFBA

9

99.2

105.5

102.9

9

89.5

93

91.5

9

101.7

123.2

112.1

67

83.7

123.2

99.3

PFPeA

9

74.8

122.2

99.6

9

93.5

101.3

97.3

9

106.8

141.2

118.2

69

74.8

141.2

102.9

PFHxA

3

90.5

106.5

100.5

6

89.9

103

96.5

3

90.5

116

105.8

30

70

116.5

97.4

PFHpA

9

91.1

139

110.1

9

88.5

102.5

94

9

90

160.5

128.6

69

68.2

160.5

100.8

PFOA

6

99.5

118.8

108.2

6

91

119

100.3

6

102.8

144

121.2

45

83.7

144

102.7

PFNA

9

85.9

122.4

106.7

9

89.5

132

102.1

9

92.8

124

108.7

67

74.8

132

99.5

PFDA

9

91

113.5

104.3

9

88

166.5

113.9

9

98

119.5

106.8

67

71

166.5

102.4

PFUnA

9

89

121

99.4

9

82

143

109

9

93.5

126.5

115

67

74

143

101.4

PFDoA

9

81

113.5

103.5

9

54

102

87.3

9

85.5

120.5

106.8

67

54

120.5

96.7

PFTrDA

9

76

118

98.8

9

44

90.5

74.4

9

94

114

104.9

67

44

118

90.9

PFTeDA

9

73.5

115.5

95.6

9

39.5

114.5

70.6

9

91.5

111

103.6

66

39.5

115.5

90.7

PFBS

3

92.3

96.8

95

3

84.5

97

92

3

110.2

124.7

119

24

77.7

124.7

99.4

PFPeS

3

93.4

117.1

106.1

3

89.1

118.8

100

3

108.8

132.6

120.5

23

83.2

132.6

101.3

PFHxS

3

88.9

107.8

98.4

3

79.6

111.9

93.4

3

97.5

107.4

101.8

23

74.6

116.6

96.2

PFHpS

9

88.1

126.3

112.1

9

96

226.5

156.3

9

103.5

121.6

110.3

67

83.5

226.5

113

PFOS

3

92.8

95.8

94.6

3

94

189.5

127.5

6

94.5

575

318.9

24

89.3

575

157.2

PFNS

9

88.6

120.3

105

9

77.2

139.6

97.1

9

86.6

125.2

100.3

65

51.5

139.6

93.3

PFDS

9

73.7

114.6

98.3

9

48

100.5

69.7

9

81.8

110.6

97.3

65

25.9

114.6

84.3

PFDoS

9

76.4

103.5

91.1

9

23.1

90.5

55.6

9

84.4

107.5

95.4

66

23.1

107.5

74.3

4:2FTS

9

71.3

117.6

94

9

82.7

99

91.1

9

92.7

129.2

113

69

71.3

129.2

97.8

6:2FTS

9

88.9

137.6

114.6

9

86.6

111.9

95.3

9

115

178.8

133

68

30

178.8

102.4

8:2FTS

9

87

140.5

106

9

103.4

154.3

119.4

9

84.7

134.3

109.7

65

84.7

154.3

109.1

PFOSA

9

99

116

103.7

9

90

155.5

112.4

9

101

148.5

123.8

65

79.6

155.5

105.7

NMeFOSA

9

83.5

98

91.6

9

61

115

94.8

9

76

116

96.6

65

61

116

94.1

NEtFOSA

9

90

98.5

94.2

9

47

95

79.6

9

74

102

90.7

65

47

104.5

89.8

NMeFOSAA

9

96.5

149.5

124.9

9

102

237.5

140

9

102.5

570

328.3

67

82.5

570

153.3

NEtFOSAA

9

92

190

137.7

9

79

230

139.1

9

115.5

655

309.1

65

79

655

157.2

NMeFOSE

9

88.1

101.9

95.7

9

54.4

87.5

76.5

9

50.9

101.9

78.5

64

50.9

110.6

88

NEtFOSE

9

83.8

108.1

98.1

9

43.5

78.1

64.6

9

49

102.5

80.5

64

43.5

116.9

84.1

PFMPA

9

73.2

125.7

100.2

9

88.2

93.2

91.5

9

93.5

113.2

102.1

69

34.8

130

94.5

PFMBA

9

81.8

117.8

104.3

9

89.2

94.8

92.5

9

89

121.8

103.9

69

81.8

138.8

103.7

NFDHA

9

57.8

119

90.6

9

83.5

96.2

88.4

9

95.5

121.8

107.7

69

57.8

128.2

100.2

HFPO-DA

9

93.4

147.5

110.1

9

88.2

94.8

91.4

9

104.4

132.5

118.1

69

82.6

147.5

104.1

ADONA

9

65.7

118

97

9

100.6

107.1

102.8

9

96.1

143.4

119.5

69

56.9

143.4

100.9

PFEESA

9

83.5

109.5

101

9

89.3

94

91.2

9

85.3

122.4

107.5

69

45.6

122.4

98.7

9C1-PF30NS

9

89.7

113.6

100.4

9

56.4

92.3

74.8

9

100.4

142

116

67

49.4

142

98.6

1 lCl-PF30UdS

9

82.9

117.3

99.4

9

26.6

59.2

39

9

91

130.9

108

67

9.5

130.9

82.3

3:3FTCA

9

91.2

120.8

102.7

9

90

101

94.5

9

81

104

91.2

69

46.8

120.8

89.1

5:3FTCA

9

88.3

105.8

96.7

9

83.3

95

89.8

9

80.6

124.2

101.9

69

78.7

124.2

94

7:3FTCA

9

83.3

98.3

91.9

9

72.6

90.8

84.7

9

60.4

122.5

93.2

68

21.1

122.5

87.9


-------
Table G-4. Summary of groundwater spike percent recoveries in high spike samples for each laboratory.

Analyte

Lab 1 spike % recover

y

Lab 2 spike % recover

y

Lab 3 spike % recover

y

Lab 4 spike % recover

y

Lab 5 spike % recover

y

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

PFBA

6

93.8

102.7

98.1

6

99.8

107

104.6

9

92.7

100.2

95.6

9

102.4

109.2

106.5

9

83.6

93.4

89.4

PFPeA

6

92

100.3

97.1

9

106.8

111.2

108.6

9

88.1

107

98

9

92.2

96.7

94.7

9

90.2

106

96.5

PFHxA

6

88.5

96.9

93

9

98.9

110.5

105.6

9

81

97.3

89.8

9

90.8

105

98.3

9

53.2

101.1

84.6

PFHpA

6

88

96.8

93

9

99.4

106.7

102.4

9

88.5

98.5

92.3

9

95.9

103

100.1

9

86.8

101

92.4

PFOA

6

87

94.4

90.9

6

93

117

102.8

9

76.2

107.2

91.2

9

89.8

102

96.1

9

95.4

144.7

120.8

PFNA

6

85.6

98.9

92

8

102

119

108.3

9

79.1

114

90.4

9

89.9

103

96

9

72.8

93

84.4

PFDA

6

80.8

105

91.4

8

105

112

108.5

9

86.8

137

104.4

9

93.1

107

98.5

9

64.7

109

87.5

PFUnA

6

83.2

98.7

87.5

8

103

120

108.1

9

91.8

123

100.6

9

84

99.8

93.1

9

74.1

109

89

PFDoA

6

78.1

91.9

85.5

8

97.8

109

103.2

9

78.4

102

89.7

9

92

105

97.1

9

78.7

103

88.5

PFTrDA

6

86

96.3

92.1

8

80.7

95.3

87.6

9

67.8

97.5

86.8

9

84.7

98

91.6

9

78.8

101

87.6

PFTeDA

6

82.9

105

94.9

8

91.9

97.3

94.9

9

68.6

113

86.9

9

89.6

94.6

92.2

9

79.6

99.5

91.1

PFBS

6

84.8

107.1

94.2

9

100

113.6

107.9

9

75.7

97.7

89

9

90.1

114.1

100

9

76.4

91.4

83

PFPeS

6

82.6

106.6

94.6

8

106

126.5

113.1

9

89.9

102.4

96.1

9

92.9

106.9

99.5

9

81.4

105.6

92.4

PFHxS

3

83.1

97.3

90.2

3

102

104

103.3

3

92.7

104.6

98

3

94.9

100.3

97.3

6

81

123.1

96.9

PFHpS

6

92.5

102

98.8

8

107

133.4

117.5

9

91

131

105.8

9

96.7

108

102

9

87

100.8

93

PFOS

6

95.3

111.2

104.2

5

30.5

106

75.6

6

85.4

112

96.6

6

89.7

116.7

100.9

6

78.2

106.2

91.9

PFNS

6

82.7

94.1

89.2

8

86.6

109

96.4

9

87.2

101

94.2

9

89.2

97.8

93.3

9

78.6

89.9

83.1

PFDS

6

75.1

90.1

83

8

74.6

92.6

83.3

9

75.4

88.1

81.9

9

81.2

92.4

87.9

9

80.9

97.8

90.4

PFDoS

6

68.2

81.5

74.8

8

61.6

77.8

72

9

57

82.4

70.2

9

77.1

88.6

83.6

9

54.5

69.9

63.9

4:2FTS

6

86.7

106.7

95.4

9

91.7

100.8

95.3

9

83.3

90.8

87.4

9

87.5

108.3

97

9

88.8

98.8

93.8

6:2FTS

6

88

99.2

95.2

9

89.2

121.3

111.7

9

85.1

102.5

92.5

9

99.6

116.3

107.5

9

73.2

105

91.2

8:2FTS

6

93.8

104.2

99.3

5

101.2

117.5

107.5

9

94.2

131.7

107.2

9

99.6

119.2

103.7

9

97.5

109.6

105.6

PFOSA

6

95.2

102

98.8

8

101

108

103.4

9

91.4

156

109.4

9

94

110.4

101.8

9

84.2

96

90.5

NMeFOSA

6

82.8

86.5

85.2

8

93.4

101

97.5

9

82

124

96.8

9

83.8

98.6

91.6

9

90.8

101

95

NEtFOSA

6

80.9

92.5

86.4

8

86.1

104

92.7

9

76.3

112

92.1

9

78.3

91.6

83.9

9

89.6

100

93.6

NMeFOSAA

6

88.6

108

97.5

8

95

115

105.6

9

94.9

154

113.7

9

92.3

106

100.3

9

82.9

102

93

NEtFOSAA

6

84.1

97.1

92.2

5

94.9

110

101.8

9

92

164.1

114.7

9

95.9

119

104.7

9

91.8

119

104.6

NMeFOSE

6

87.5

97.5

92.7

5

91.5

96.2

94.7

9

76.5

99.5

89.4

9

89.2

95.5

92.7

9

85.8

118.8

96.4

NEtFOSE

6

86.8

91.8

89.3

5

90.5

96.5

93.9

9

70.5

100.5

81.4

9

86.2

92.8

90.2

9

82.8

123.8

97.7

PFMPA

6

99

106

101.8

9

25.7

100.5

64.8

9

84.5

93

89.4

9

65

93.5

81.6

9

99.5

127

114.7

PFMBA

6

90.5

105.5

99.8

9

106.5

139

116.6

9

76.5

90

85.8

9

95.5

99.5

97.4

9

111.5

134.5

123.9

NFDHA

6

92.5

104.5

100.8

9

90

111

99

9

75.5

113

94.2

9

85.5

112

98

9

79

102

91.2

HFPO-DA

6

89.6

106.2

95.7

9

92.1

116.3

105.7

9

83.3

115

95.9

9

93.8

119.6

103.6

9

90.4

122.1

104.1

ADONA

6

84.6

95

89.3

9

52.5

113.3

98

9

81.7

100.4

88.8

9

92.5

106.7

97.3

9

90

130.4

111.3

PFEESA

6

82

99

90.2

9

61

106.5

96.6

9

85.5

113

93.1

9

98

105.5

102.6

9

71.5

93.5

84.9

9C1-PF30NS

6

91.3

104.6

97.8

8

91.7

107.9

99.6

9

80.4

97.1

87.6

9

93.3

110.4

98.9

9

95.8

130

111.1

llCl-PF30UdS

6

70.8

89.6

79.4

8

68.3

80.8

74.8

9

62.5

76.7

70.3

9

85

95.8

90.5

9

91.7

136.7

111.4

3:3FTCA

6

79

94.8

84.8

9

35

91.5

68.5

9

87.8

98.2

92.1

9

95

98.8

96.8

9

72.2

96.8

86.4

5:3FTCA

6

79.5

86

83.6

9

87.5

105.5

98.7

9

86.5

104

91.1

9

93

103.5

98.5

9

79

105

94.1

7:3FTCA

6

82.5

95.5

88.6

9

16.4

106

90.5

9

88.5

108

96.1

9

91.5

103

97.4

9

86

111

98.4


-------
Table G-4. Summary of groundwater spike percent recoveries in high spike samples for each laboratory.

Analyte

Lab 6 spike % recover

y

Lab 7 spike % recover

y

Lab 10 spike % recovery

All Labs

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

PFBA

9

96.4

103.2

99.4

9

94.6

99.7

97.1

9

98.5

118.3

108.7

66

83.6

118.3

99.8

PFPeA

9

91.2

115.5

98.8

9

97.5

104.8

101.9

9

89.2

122

107

69

88.1

122

100.5

PFHxA

9

64.2

128.2

91.3

9

94.2

112.4

100.9

6

92.4

123.4

106.7

66

53.2

128.2

95.9

PFHpA

9

86.7

113.9

100.2

9

92.3

101.5

96.8

9

94

155

116.2

69

86.7

155

99.4

PFOA

9

76.9

118

99.7

9

96.7

117.7

104.6

9

98

121

111.2

66

76.2

144.7

102.6

PFNA

9

84.4

114

98.3

9

90.1

122

107.2

9

89.2

118

104.7

68

72.8

122

97.8

PFDA

9

87.4

109

98.2

9

99.7

144

117.3

9

97.3

123

107.8

68

64.7

144

102.1

PFUnA

9

88.4

115

98.5

9

96.5

127

110.6

9

90

130

104.5

68

74.1

130

99.4

PFDoA

8

88.1

109

99.8

9

69

103

90.1

9

91.6

108

100.8

67

69

109

94.5

PFTrDA

8

80.3

168

106.5

9

62.7

86

77.7

7

86.5

115

100.8

65

62.7

168

90.8

PFTeDA

8

74.8

107

91.5

9

69

92.7

78

7

84.5

109

95.3

65

68.6

113

90.2

PFBS

9

72.9

96.9

83.5

9

96.3

103

98.9

9

84.3

120.5

103.3

69

72.9

120.5

95

PFPeS

9

67.7

99.3

87.3

9

94.6

118

108.9

9

95.9

131.9

114.6

68

67.7

131.9

100.9

PFHxS

3

78.3

88

84.6

3

99.7

105.7

102

3

92.4

103.2

97

27

78.3

123.1

96.2

PFHpS

9

94

171.2

108.7

9

100.3

185

144

9

103.8

242

136.7

68

87

242

113.9

PFOS

6

82

107.5

97.3

6

91.6

172.6

136.6

6

105

223

157.5

47

30.5

223

108.2

PFNS

9

38.6

105

87.7

9

82.1

131

94.2

9

30.9

111

87.6

68

30.9

131

90.7

PFDS

9

3.9

96.1

79.7

9

57.6

123

74.5

9

8.5

106

77.9

68

3.9

123

82.3

PFDoS

8

48.8

94

75.5

9

43.2

101

60.8

8

2.5

95.7

78.2

66

2.5

101

72.1

4:2FTS

9

87.1

115.8

98

9

82.9

99.2

90.5

9

79.2

123.3

95.8

69

79.2

123.3

94.1

6:2FTS

9

71.7

140.1

107.2

9

83.8

108

96.9

9

78.8

147.1

111.7

69

71.7

147.1

102

8:2FTS

9

86.7

129.6

101

9

108.3

162.9

124.6

9

81.7

148.3

114.1

65

81.7

162.9

108.3

PFOSA

9

85.2

105

94.7

9

92.4

138

114.7

9

98.7

119

106.4

68

84.2

156

102.6

NMeFOSA

9

80.6

95.3

86

9

86.2

103

96

9

82.9

108

98.6

68

80.6

124

93.6

NEtFOSA

8

88.4

94.8

91.7

9

61.2

87.1

78.9

9

77.5

93.7

89.5

67

61.2

112

88.6

NMeFOSAA

8

88.9

128

103.6

9

106

135

114.9

9

106

183

136.1

67

82.9

183

108.7

NEtFOSAA

8

106

132

115.4

9

100

134

110.4

9

89.6

192

127.9

64

84.1

192

110.1

NMeFOSE

6

88.8

97

92

9

60

80.8

75.8

9

66

99.8

87.1

62

60

118.8

89.6

NEtFOSE

6

86.8

99.2

92.6

9

51.5

71.5

64

8

64.5

94

84.5

61

51.5

123.8

85.8

PFMPA

9

55.5

114.5

85.8

9

93.5

101.5

98.8

9

85

111.5

97.1

69

25.7

127

91.3

PFMBA

9

99

124.5

106.1

9

94.5

101

98.8

9

93.5

117

100.5

69

76.5

139

103.8

NFDHA

9

69

111.5

89.6

9

87

95.5

91.6

9

93

115.5

104.4

69

69

115.5

95.9

HFPO-DA

9

74.2

111.2

97.4

9

88.8

99.2

94

9

100

131.2

116.2

69

74.2

131.2

101.8

ADONA

9

63.7

100.4

84

9

97.5

107.5

102.1

9

106.7

144.2

121.7

69

52.5

144.2

99.5

PFEESA

9

82

116.5

93

9

89

100

95.1

9

80

108.5

93.3

69

61

116.5

93.7

9C1-PF30NS

9

32.2

106.7

82.4

9

57.9

85.4

71.1

9

6.4

137.5

90.2

68

6.4

137.5

92

llCl-PF30UdS

9

0.5

85.4

70.3

9

34.1

47.9

40.2

8

1.2

125

93.4

67

0.5

136.7

78.6

3:3FTCA

9

93

131

105.9

9

97.2

104.5

101

9

85.5

106

94.3

69

35

131

91.5

5:3FTCA

9

76.5

108.5

87.9

9

98.5

103.5

101.2

9

90.5

121.5

102.6

69

76.5

121.5

95.2

7:3FTCA

9

74.5

90.5

84.3

9

82.5

103

94.9

9

78

124

96.1

69

16.4

124

93.5


-------
Table G-5. Summary of groundwater EIS percent recovery for each laboratory.

Analyte

Lab 1 % recovery

Lab 2 % recovery

Lab 3 % recovery

Lab 4 % recovery

Lab 5 % recovery

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

13C„-PFBA

21

57.2

95.7

86.1

21

4.73

62.4

24.4

21

93

108

99.3

21

18.8

79.3

40.1

21

58.3

79.5

71.6

13C5-PFPeA

21

78

97.8

88.8

21

34.1

92

79.5

21

86

116

99.2

21

71.7

84.6

78.1

21

62.4

88.2

72.7

13C5-PFHxA

21

80.1

102

88.9

21

4.55

95.1

82.5

21

85

111

97.8

21

64.7

80.7

74

21

66.8

83.6

75.7

13C„-PFHpA

21

75.3

97.1

84.3

21

0.832

94.9

77.5

21

86

107

95.2

21

65

83.4

71.9

21

63.2

92

75.1

13C8-PFOA

21

79.9

94.7

87.6

21

0.0857

95.9

73.7

21

91

112

100.7

21

69.1

88.4

75.7

21

66.8

97.6

81.3

13c9-pfna

21

73.9

99.5

87.3

21

0.157

97.2

72.5

21

78

110

96.2

21

66.8

81.9

73.8

21

60.2

88

76.6

13c6-pfda

21

78.7

102

90.3

20

0.133

94.8

73.6

21

62

116

86.3

21

57.2

79.5

70.5

21

72.7

99.2

84.4

13C7-PFUnA

21

72.9

101

84.2

20

0.0556

81.4

64.8

21

46

104

78.3

21

51.6

80.8

70

21

66.3

99.2

82.9

13C2-PFDoA

21

58.9

90

76.6

20

0.0292

75.6

56.4

21

51

88

70.7

21

52.3

74.1

64.2

21

59

94.4

75.9

13C2-PFT eDA

21

57.3

84.1

70.5

20

0.003

74.9

52.3

21

46

87

63.6

21

51.5

69.6

62.3

21

52

86.4

66.3

13C3-PFBS

21

78.5

89.2

84.2

21

1.47

96.9

79

21

94

112

103.3

21

63.9

87

76.1

21

59.2

79.4

69.5

13C3-PFHxS

21

81.1

91.5

85.5

24

0.0497

90.1

72.8

21

88

111

98.4

21

65.4

85.1

74.2

21

70

82.7

76.9

13Cs-PFOS

21

75.1

95.2

84

21

0.00469

90.1

65.7

21

74

101

89.9

21

63.8

87.4

73.9

21

74.2

86.7

80.2

13C2-4:2FTS

21

81

112

98.4

21

5.22

149

111

21

95

136

116

21

62.5

82.3

72.6

21

81.7

158

119.2

13C2-6:2FTS

21

79

111

96.9

21

0.112

97.8

74.7

21

88

110

99.2

21

64.1

84.3

74

21

69.3

143

108.2

13C2-8:2FTS

21

78.4

107

92.2

21

0.0158

242

116.3

21

73

97

88.1

21

54.9

88.3

72.5

21

69

146

106.5

13Cs-PFOSA

21

67.3

82.8

76.1

21

0.0465

110

71.3

21

56

93

82.5

21

56.2

70.5

63.3

21

57.2

83.6

67.3

D3-NMeFOSA

21

51

74.1

61

21

0.143

83.1

59.6

21

44

77

65.5

21

30.6

41.3

35.5

21

38.8

60.4

49.8

Dj-NEtFOSA

21

45.8

71.2

57.2

21

0.0502

73.6

50.7

21

44

80

65

21

28.6

39

33.1

21

35.4

58

47.2

Dj-NMeFOSAA

21

68.2

90.9

77.8

21

0.0681

101

65.3

21

59

97

79.4

21

59.9

74.8

68

21

72.2

88.2

79.6

Dj-NEtFOSAA

21

62.2

94.7

77

21

0.0885

82.8

60.4

21

52

83

70.5

21

55.8

75.4

64.6

21

67

86.6

78.4

D7-NMeFOSE

21

51.2

80

64.9

21

0.016

68.4

46.2

21

52

85

72.3

21

42.8

60.4

51.2

21

43.2

80.8

63.9

Dg-NEtFOSE

21

49.7

74.6

63.5

21

0.0149

75.8

47.2

21

56

87

73.6

21

38.1

71.6

50.9

21

35.6

67.6

53.6

13C3-HFPO-DA

21

84

106

94.1

21

5.91

96.9

77.9

21

91

119

98.6

21

67.6

90.7

77.9

21

55.8

84.8

69.8


-------
Table G-5. Summary of groundwater EIS percent recovery for each laboratory.

Analyte

Lab 6 % recover

y

Lab 7 % recover

y

Lab 10 % recovery

All Labs Combined

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

n

Min

Max

Avg

13c4-pfba

21

11

39

27.1

21

91

101

97.3

21

54.3

92.5

80.9

168

4.73

108

65.9

13C5-PFPeA

21

53

78

65.7

21

89

98

92.7

21

73.8

110

92.6

168

34.1

116

83.7

13C5-PFHxA

21

58

85

71.6

21

89

100

94.5

21

78.4

105

89.1

168

4.55

111

84.3

13C4-PFHpA

21

61

80

67.7

21

87

100

94

21

68.2

110

86.2

168

0.832

110

81.5

13C8-PFOA

21

56

83

68.7

21

67

102

87.5

21

75.1

98.5

84.4

168

0.0857

112

82.4

13c9-pfna

21

58

96

73.7

21

49

93

76.9

21

74.9

106

87.9

168

0.157

110

80.6

13c6-pfda

21

37

78

68.7

21

33

98

64.9

21

51.6

103

85.5

167

0.133

116

78.1

13C7-PFUnA

21

10

83

67.2

21

29

77

51.1

21

26.1

102

81.6

167

0.0556

104

72.6

13C2-PFDoA

21

1

74

65.5

21

33

59

44.4

21

10.3

94.9

78.4

167

0.0292

94.9

66.6

13C2-PFTeDA

21

0.3

81

58.8

21

29

62

48.5

21

0.138

95.9

75.3

167

0.003

95.9

62.3

13c3-pfbs

21

66

120

87.3

21

89

105

96.5

21

68.7

117

85.2

168

1.47

120

85.1

13C3-PFHxS

21

69

108

81.2

21

68

102

88.7

21

59.4

112

88.2

171

0.0497

112

83.1

13c8-pfos

21

37

80

70

21

32

96

61.8

21

14

98.3

85.3

168

0.00469

101

76.4

13C2-4:2FTS

21

69

116

82.4

21

85

112

97.5

21

71.3

113

91.3

168

5.22

158

98.6

13C2-6:2FTS

21

49

101

75.4

21

77

114

99.2

21

63.3

131

90.2

168

0.112

143

89.7

13C2-8:2FTS

21

36

114

84

21

40

98

70.7

21

50.5

134

92.4

168

0.0158

242

90.4

13c8-pfosa

21

51

85

72.8

21

48

101

74.5

21

49.8

104

87.4

168

0.0465

110

74.4

D3-NMeFOSA

21

11

70

57.1

21

32

66

43.2

21

28.6

90.7

70.5

168

0.143

90.7

55.3

D5-NEtFOSA

21

2

67

52.3

21

30

60

43.3

21

18

90.6

68.6

168

0.0502

90.6

52.2

D3-NMeFOSAA

21

9

77

64.2

21

33

82

57.5

21

30.6

103

84.5

168

0.0681

103

72

D5-NEtFOSAA

21

5

83

63

21

36

70

51.9

21

18.7

116

80.5

168

0.0885

116

68.3

D7-NMeFOSE

21

0.3

82

57

21

26

49

39.5

21

12.3

99

78.3

168

0.016

99

59.2

D9-NEtFOSE

21

0.4

80

53.8

21

26

51

40.3

21

4.71

98.9

75.4

168

0.0149

98.9

57.3

13C3-HFPO-DA

21

60

95

72.9

21

82

96

88.9

21

66.5

120

87.6

168

5.91

120

83.5


-------