QA/QC Week 2006 Review of state wide results Waterwatch Coordinators Meeting September 8, 2006...
-
Upload
nigel-sullivan -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of QA/QC Week 2006 Review of state wide results Waterwatch Coordinators Meeting September 8, 2006...
QA/QC Week 2006Review of state wide results
Waterwatch Coordinators Meeting
September 8, 2006
Melbourne
And strategising a plan for 2007
2006 demand compared with 2004/2005
2004 2005 2006
Number of phys-chem sets ordered
110 120 260
Number of macro sets ordered
80 80 100
Number of phosphate std sets ordered
- 20 25
2004 2005 2006
Returned phys-chem datasheets
104%
(50%-200%)
125%
(75% - 180%)
85%
(62% - 130%)
Returned macro datasheets
70%
(50 – 133%)
86%
(0 – 220%)
65%
(25%-120%)
Returned phosphate datasheets
- Too few returned
44%
(0% - 80%)
Return rate of datasheets
2006 compared with 2004/2005
Congratulations and THANKYOU to the following regions for exceptional datasheet return rates:
Phys-chem (100% or greater):
• Corangamite • Central Highlands
• Wimmera • North Central
Macro (100% or greater):
• Corangamite • Central Highlands
• Mallee • North Central • North East
Samples wasted during this year’s QA/QC Week – phys-chem samples
Despite there being a total 235 data sheets returned:
• the greatest number of participants for any one parameter/sample was 167 responses (75%, turbidity 1)
• the least being 136 responses (61% being for phosphate sample 2)
Working on a per sample basis, the amount lost in unused samples during this year’s QA/QC Week was $2786 (including macros and phosphate stds)
As a percentage of total sample costs (minus pH samples), this loss was 35% of total sample preparation costs.
We do not have the budget to support this sort of waste/loss each year.
The good, the not so good, and the ugly
The Good -
Clear handwriting, QA/QC code included, almost all information filled in (EC cal missing), dilution information supplied, pH troubles clearly documented
Terrific to see monitors questioning the values they were measuring, I was so impressed with the number of thorough notes recorded on some datasheets.
And so amused by the ‘sorry’ stories I received….
The Not So Good -
Easy to read, but no calibration or dilution information, no information about instrument performance.
Feedback = guesswork when there is no supporting information provided.
The Ugly -
illegible handwriting, multiple results per datasheet.
However most information was provided including calibration information, dilutions and instrument problems.
Ugly continued -
unfortunately the samples weren't shaken up before we did the tests
2006 results compared with 2004/5• Overall, good results for EC, not too bad for most
turbidity readings, but phosphate reading needs work.
• Regional reports should provide more specific areas to focus efforts on.
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
2004 2005 2006
Year
Pas
s ra
te (
%)
EC low range - combined EC high range - combined
EC low range - coordinators EC high range - coordinators
EC low range - monitors EC high range - monitors
EC Results 2004 - 2006
All results above 80% this year, vast improvement. Right equipment resolution for range.
Turbidity (tube) results - 2004 - 2006
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
2004 2005 2006
Year
Pa
ss
ra
te (
%)
Turbidity (tube) low range - combined Turbidity (tube) low range - coordinatorsTurbidity (tube) low range - monitors Turbidity (tube) high range - combinedTurbidity (tube) high range - coordinators Turbidity (tube) high range - monitors
* Not shaken
* test done at night indoors
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
2004 2005 2006
Year
Pas
s ra
te (
%)
Turbidity (meter) low range - combined Turbidity (meter) low range - coordinatorsTurbidity (meter) low range - monitors Turbidity (meter) high range - combinedTurbidity (meter) high range - coordinators Turbidity (meter) high range - monitors
Turbidity (meter) results - 2005 - 2006
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
2004 2005 2006
Year
Pas
s ra
te (
%)
Ortho-P (comparator) low range - combined Ortho-P (comparator) low range - coordinatorsOrtho-P (comparator) low range - monitors Ortho-P (comparator) high range - combinedOrtho-P (comparator) high range - coordinators Ortho-P (comparator) high range - monitors
Ortho-P (comparator) - 2004 - 2006
35404550556065707580859095
100
2004 2005 2006
Year
Pa
ss
ra
te (
%)
Ortho-P (colorimeter) low range - combined Ortho-P (colorimeter) low range - coordinator
Ortho-P (colorimeter) low range - monitor Ortho-P (colorimeter) high range - combined
Ortho-P (colorimeter) high range - coordinator Ortho-P (colorimeter) high range - monitor
Ortho-P (colorimeter) results - 2004 - 2006
Overall, parameter of most concern is PHOSPHATES, regardless of the equipment used.
• Colorimeters MUST be well maintained and checked often against calibration standards for accuracy. Otherwise, pressing the button is as accurate as reading from a colour guide while squinting.
• Dilution results were poor for Coordinators and Monitors
• Smart 2 range 0 – 0.978mg/l PO4-P
• Hach DR700/890 range 0 – 0.815 mg/l PO4-P
±3% light refraction =
0.029mg/L P
0.024mg/L P
Plan for QA/QC Week 2007
How do we reduce wastage?
•Order less and make it stretch further?
• Individual regional orders of parameters and sample type? (eg 6 x ECsample1, 10 x Turbidity sample2)
• Introduce co-investment so that you are wasting half of your own $$ instead of all of ours (I’m serious)
• Other ideas...
How do we support volunteer monitors and improve these results in 2006/7?
• Regional DC Plan - scheduling of QC activities, including refresher training, shadow testing, mystery samples.
• Standard monitoring methodologies, including dilutions if used regularly in your region.
• Maintain calibration solutions, batteries, perishables.
Regions are responsible for providing feedback and follow up support to monitors after QA/QC Week.
Macroinvertebrates results 2006
Order %Correct
Odonata 95.4
Trichoptera 90.5
Coleoptera 76.7
Diptera 90.6
Decapoda 98.4
Amphipoda 93.1
Order %Correct
Odonata 100.0
Trichoptera 100.0
Coleoptera 95.7
Diptera 100.0
Decapoda 100.0
Amphipoda 96.0
Family %CorrectTelephlebiidae
68.0
Hydrobiosidae
60.0
Elmidae(larvae)
82.6
Culicidae 100.0
Atyidae 100.0
Ceinidae 68.0
CoordinatorsCombined
Pretty happy with Coordinators results, would hope to see 80% pass rates for families in the future too.
I have a story to confess about the Macro QA/QC. We were moving office and I was doing it on the rush one day with stuff just everywhere. I took out my first bug and started to ID it, turned back to grab a something or other (pen, tweezers, light, can't remember what) and knocked the lid-less vial onto the floor - bugs everywhere.
I managed to find 3 but the little ones were camouflaged with the carpet + dirt so I just gave up. So a huge sorry for not sending in my bug QA/QC, shall not happen again.
My favourite ‘Sorry, no bugs’ story (from a Coordinator) -