1 / 9

Participating Laboratories

Participating Laboratories. Accutest Laboratories - Dayton, NJ and Orlando, FL Del Mar Analytical Laboratories - Phoenix, AZ and Irvine, CA Pace Analytical Services - Indianapolis, IN; Lenexa, KS; New Orleans, LA; and Minneapolis, MN

walden
Download Presentation

Participating Laboratories

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Participating Laboratories • Accutest Laboratories • - Dayton, NJ and Orlando, FL • Del Mar Analytical Laboratories • - Phoenix, AZ and Irvine, CA • Pace Analytical Services • - Indianapolis, IN; Lenexa, KS; New Orleans, LA; • and Minneapolis, MN • North Creek Analytical Laboratories - Portland, OR • Sequoia Analytical Laboratories • - Morgan Hill, CA and Petaluma, CA • Severn Trent Laboratories • - Los Angeles, CA and San Francisco, CA 2

  2. Performance Evaluation (PE) Study Parameters • Each laboratory facility assigned a letter designation (A through M) • One aqueous double-blind PE sample • PE samples analyzed for three fractions: • Volatile organic compounds (VOC, SW-846 Method 8260B) • Semivolatile organic compounds (SVOC, SW-846 Method 8270C) • ICP metals (SW-846 Method 6010B) • Contractors instructed to request Target Compound List (TCL) VOC with typical oxygenate compounds, TCL SVOC, and Target Analyte List (TAL) ICP metals. 3

  3. Reporting/Deliverable Issues • Variability in reporting limits. • Variability in reported analyte lists. • Three laboratories were contacted to address “not-detected” results for analytes in the PE sample. • One laboratory subcontracted the SVOC analyses 4

  4. Reporting/Deliverable Issues (Continued) • Two laboratories reported positive results for a non-spiked SVOC. • One laboratory did not initially perform the VOC analysis due to a log-in error. • One laboratory performed the VOC analysis using a vial with headspace • One laboratory analyzed the VOC fraction outside of the holding time 5

  5. PE Sample Scoring • PE sample included the following: • 15 VOCs • 7 SVOCs • 6 Metals • Laboratory results scored against PE sample true values. 6

  6. PE Sample Scoring(Continued) • Each percent from 100% equals 1 point. • Thus, 90% and 110% both equal 10 points. • PE results ranked on four aspects: • Total VOC score • Total SVOC score • Total Metals score • Average score per analyte reported 7

  7. Aqueous PE Score Summary • VOC analysis (1500 points maximum): • #1 facility scored 112.41 points • #13 facility scored 903.33 points • SVOC analysis (700 points maximum): • #1 facility scored 46.53 points • #13 facility scored 201.57 points 8

  8. Aqueous PE Score Summary (Continued) • Metals analysis (600 points maximum): • #1 facility scored 17.93 points • #13 facility scored 59.16 points • Average Score/Analyte (100 points maximum): • #1 facility scored 7.79 points • #13 facility scored 39.51 points 9

More Related