Report No. 1184

SD 9.17.13

Report No. 1184

Waters Proficiency Testing Program

Round No. 255

- Metals - Chromium, Copper, Iron, Lead, Nickel,

Thallium, Zinc

March 2020

Acknowledgments PTA wishes to gratefully acknowledge the technical assistance provided for this program by Ms F Dunbar-Smith, Intertek NTEL (Australia). Also our thanks go to the Environmental Resource Associates (USA) for the supply of samples and to Global Proficiency Pty Ltd (Australia) for distributing the samples.

© Copyright Proficiency Testing Australia, 2020

PO Box 7507 SILVERWATER NSW 2128, Australia

SD 9.17.13

CONTENTS

1. Foreword ........................................................................................................................ 1

2. Program Features and Design ........................................................................................ 1

3. Statistical Format ............................................................................................................ 2

4. PTA and Technical Adviser’s Comments ........................................................................ 4

5. Outlier Results ...............................................................................................................15

6. References ....................................................................................................................15

APPENDIX A – Results and Data Analysis

Chromium (Cr) .................................................................................................................... A1

Copper (Cu) ........................................................................................................................ A4

Iron (Fe) .............................................................................................................................. A7

Lead (Pb) .......................................................................................................................... A10

Nickel (Ni).......................................................................................................................... A13

Thallium (Tl) ...................................................................................................................... A16

Zinc (Zn) ............................................................................................................................ A18

APPENDIX B – Sample Homogeneity and Stability

Homogeneity and Stability Testing ...................................................................................... B1

APPENDIX C – Documentation

Instructions to Participants .................................................................................................. C1

Method Codes ..................................................................................................................... C3

Digestion Codes .................................................................................................................. C4

Results Sheet ...................................................................................................................... C5

1

SD 9.17.13

1. Foreword

This report summarises the results of a proficiency testing program on the determination of Chromium, Copper, Iron, Lead, Nickel, Thallium and Zinc in waters. This is round 255 in a planned series of programs involving the analysis of chemical and physical parameters of waters. This program is accredited to ISO/IEC 17043:2010 “Conformity assessment - General requirements for proficiency testing” by International Accreditation New Zealand (IANZ). The exercise was conducted in January 2020 by Proficiency Testing Australia (PTA). The main aim of the program was to assess laboratories’ abilities to competently perform the prescribed analyses. The Program Coordinator was Mrs D Mihaila and the Technical Adviser was Ms F Dunbar-Smith, Intertek NTEL (Australia). This report was authorised by Mrs K Cividin, PTA Quality Manager.

2. Program Features and Design 2.1 Each laboratory was randomly allocated a unique code number for the program to

ensure confidentiality of results. Reference to each laboratory in this report is by code number only. Please note that a number of laboratories reported more than one set of results and, therefore, their code numbers (with letter) could appear several times in the same data set. Also, for this study, participants had the option to submit results with and without digestion of samples prior to analysis. Laboratory codes marked with the symbol (D) indicate results obtained for digested samples.

2.2 Laboratories were provided with the "Instructions to Participants" and "Results Sheet"

(see Appendix C). Laboratories were requested to perform the tests according to their routine methods.

2.3 Participants were provided with one sealed vial (labelled R255) containing solutions

of Chromium, Copper, Iron, Lead, Nickel, Thallium and Zinc. 2.4 A total of 33 laboratories received samples, comprising:

- 29 Australian participants; and

- 4 overseas participants, including:

- Malaysia (2), Qatar (1), Thailand (1). Of these 33 laboratories, one was unable to submit results by the due date. 2.5 Results (as reported by participants) with corresponding summary statistics (i.e.

number of results, median, normalised interquartile range, uncertainty of the median, robust coefficient of variation, minimum, maximum and range) are presented in Appendix A (for each of the analyses performed).

2.6 A robust statistical approach, using z-scores, was utilised to assess laboratories’

testing performance (see Section 3). Robust z-scores and ordered z-score charts relevant to each test are presented in Appendix A.

2

SD 9.17.13

The document entitled Guide to Proficiency Testing Australia, 2019 (reference [1]) defines the statistical terms and details the statistical procedures referred to in this report.

2.7 A tabulated listing of laboratories (by code number) identified as having outlier results

can be found on page 15. 2.8 Prior to sample distribution, a number of randomly selected samples were analysed

for homogeneity and stability. Based on the results of this testing (see Appendix B) it was considered that the samples utilised for this program were homogeneous and stable. As such, any results later identified as outliers could not be attributed to any notable sample variability.

3. Statistical Format

For each test, where appropriate, the following information is given:

- a table of results and calculated z-scores;

- a list of summary statistics; and

- ordered z-score charts.

3.1 Outlier Results and Z-scores In order to assess laboratories’ testing performance, a robust statistical approach,

using z-scores, was utilised. Z-scores give a measure of how far a result is from the consensus value (i.e. the median), and gives a "score" to each result relative to the other results in the group.

A z-score with an absolute value less than or equal to 2.0 is considered to be satisfactory, whereas, a z-score with an absolute value greater than or equal to 3.0 is considered to be an outlier and is marked by the symbol “§”. Laboratories are also encouraged to review results which have an absolute z-score value between 2.0 and 3.0 (i.e. 2.0 < |z-score| < 3.0). These are considered to be questionable results.

Each determination was examined for outliers with all methods pooled. The table on

page 15 summarises the outlier results detected. 3.2 Results Tables and Summary Statistics The tables in Appendix A contain the results returned by each laboratory, including

the code number for the method used and the robust z-score calculated for each result.

Results have been entered exactly as reported by participants. That is, laboratories

which did not report results to the precision (i.e. number of significant figures) requested on the Results Sheet have not been rounded to the requested precision before being included in the statistical analysis.

3

SD 9.17.13

A list of summary statistics appears at the bottom of each of the results tables and consists of:

- No. of Results: the total number of results for that test/sample;

- Median: the middle value of the results;

- Normalised IQR: the normalised interquartile range of the results;

- Uncertainty of the Median: a robust estimate of the standard deviation of the Median;

- Robust CV: the robust coefficient of variation expressed as a percentage, i.e. 100 x Normalised IQR / Median;

- Minimum: the lowest laboratory result;

- Maximum: the highest laboratory result; and

- Range: the difference between the Maximum and Minimum.

The median is a measure of the centre of the data. The normalised IQR is a measure of the spread of the results. It is calculated by multiplying the interquartile range (IQR) by a correction factor, which converts the IQR to an estimate of the standard deviation. The IQR is the difference between the upper and lower quartiles (i.e. the values above and below which a quarter of the results lie, respectively). For normally distributed data, the uncertainty of the median is approximated by:

√𝜋

2 ×

𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚𝐼𝑄𝑅

√𝑛

𝑛 = number of results. Please see reference [1] for further details on these robust summary statistics.

3.3 Ordered Z-score Charts The charts in Appendix A indicate each laboratory's robust z-score, in order of

magnitude, marked with its laboratory code number. From these charts, each laboratory can readily compare its performance relative to the other laboratories.

These charts contain solid lines at +3.0 and -3.0, so that outliers are clearly

identifiable as those laboratories whose "bar" extends beyond these "cut-off" lines. The y-axis of these charts has been limited, so very large z-scores appear to extend beyond the chart boundary.

4

SD 9.17.13

4. PTA and Technical Adviser’s Comments 4.1 Metrological Traceability and Measurement Uncertainty of Assigned Values

Consensus values (median) derived from participants’ results are used in this program. These values are not metrologically traceable to an external reference. Sample preparation was undertaken according to Environmental Resource Associates’ Standard Operating Procedures to ensure samples were fit-for-purpose, homogeneous and stable. Solutions were stable and homogeneous, and medians obtained from this proficiency round were in good agreement with the expected levels (manufacturer’s assigned values), as shown in Table 1. As the assigned value for each analyte in this program is the median of the results submitted by the participants, the uncertainty of the median for each analyte has been calculated and is presented in the Table 1 below. For this study, participants had the option to perform both digested and undigested analyses. Laboratory codes marked with the symbol (D) indicate that results submitted were obtained for digested samples. The summary statistics and z-scores were calculated from the combined results (digested and undigested).

Table 1. Comparison of expected levels and proficiency medians. The values of the calculated uncertainty of the median are also presented.

Analyte Expected Levels

(µg/L) Median (µg/L)

Uncertainty of the median

(µg/L)

Chromium 307 308.0 3.1

Copper 466 465.0 3.7

Iron 3850 3791.0 30.4

Lead 697 700.0 5.7

Nickel 1870 1870.0 16.7

Thallium 279 274.0 5.9

Zinc 1910 1913.5 16.5

Overall, the performance of participants in this round was good, with robust CVs less than 8% for all analytes and comparable to those obtained in previous rounds.

5

SD 9.17.13

4.2 Analysis of Round 255 Results 4.2.1 Chromium (Cr) Table 2 compares the Chromium median and robust CV from this round to those obtained in previous PTA rounds. Table 2. Comparison of current round variability and proficiency median of Chromium testing with the results of the previous two rounds.

Round Sample Median (µg/L) Robust CV (%) Participants

This study R255 308.0 4.7 34

Report 1131 R239 396.0 5.1 35

Report 1092 R228 176.5 4.6 38

Bias / Accuracy The Chromium testing was successfully performed, with satisfactory results (|z-score| ≤ 2.0) ranging between 285 – 329 µg/L. Out of 34 participants, four questionable results (2.0 < |z-score| < 3.0) were reported (laboratory codes 154 (D), 335, 335 (D) and 399 (D)). One outlier result (|z-score| ≥ 3.0) was obtained, requiring follow-up action by laboratory code 154. Figure 1 presents the spread of results and the methods used for Chromium testing in this round.

Figure 1. Spread of results for Chromium testing of sample R255, with a median of 308.0 µg/L.

The data set formed an approximately normal distribution with no notable bias attributable to any one method. The majority of participants (65%) used the method APHA 3120 B (Inductively Coupled Plasma / Atomic Emission Spectrometry).

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370

Fre

qu

en

cy

Results (µg/L)

Chromium - Sample R255

APHA 3111 B

APHA 3111 D

APHA 3120 B

APHA 3125 B

US EPA 0200.7

US EPA 0200.8

US EPA 6010

US EPA 6020 A

Other

6

SD 9.17.13

4.2.2 Copper (Cu) Table 3 compares the Copper median and robust CV from this round to those obtained in previous PTA rounds. Table 3. Comparison of current round variability and proficiency median of Copper testing with the results of the previous two rounds.


This study R255 465.0 3.8 37

Report 1131 R239 462.0 4.3 37

Report 1092 R228 265.0 5.0 42

Bias / Accuracy The Copper testing was successfully performed, with satisfactory results (|z-score| ≤ 2.0) ranging between 433 – 497 µg/L. Out of 37 participants, three questionable results (2.0 < |z-score| < 3.0) were reported (laboratory codes 154, 335 and 335 (D)). No outlier results (|z-score| ≥ 3.0) were obtained . Figure 2 presents the spread of results and the methods used for Copper testing in this round.

Figure 2. Spread of results for Copper testing of sample R255, with a median of 465.0 µg/L.


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

390 400 410 420 430 440 450 460 470 480 490 500 510 520

Fre

qu

en

cy

Results (µg/L)

Copper - Sample R255

APHA 3111 B

APHA 3120 B

APHA 3125 B

US EPA 0200.7

US EPA 0200.8

US EPA 6010

US EPA 6020 A

Other

7

SD 9.17.13

4.2.3 Iron (Fe) Table 4 compares the Iron median and robust CV from this round to those obtained in previous PTA rounds. Table 4. Comparison of current round variability and proficiency median of Iron testing with the results of the previous two rounds.


This study R255 3791.0 4.0 39

Report 1131 R239 556.0 4.2 39

Report 1092 R228 3767.5 5.2 44

Bias / Accuracy The Iron testing was successfully performed, with satisfactory results (|z-score| ≤ 2.0) ranging between 3650 – 4080 µg/L. Out of 39 participants, four questionable results (2.0 < |z-score| < 3.0) were reported (laboratory codes 119 (D), 335, 335 (D) and 410). One outlier result (|z-score| ≥ 3.0) was obtained, requiring follow-up action by laboratory code 535. Figure 3 presents the spread of results and the methods used for Iron testing in this round.

Figure 3. Spread of results for Iron testing of sample R255, with a median of 3791.0 µg/L.


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

3250 3350 3450 3550 3650 3750 3850 3950 4050 4150 4250 4350 4450 4550

Fre

qu

en

cy

Results (µg/L)

Iron - Sample R255

APHA 3111 B

APHA 3111 D

APHA 3120 B

APHA 3125 B

US EPA 0200.7

US EPA 0200.8

US EPA 6010

Other

8

SD 9.17.13

4.2.4 Lead (Pb) Table 5 compares the Lead median and robust CV from this round to those obtained in previous PTA rounds. Table 5. Comparison of current round variability and proficiency median of Lead testing with the results of the previous two rounds.


This study R255 700.0 3.9 35

Report 1131 R239 461.5 4.7 36

Report 1092 R228 661.5 5.1 38

Bias / Accuracy The Lead testing was successfully performed, with satisfactory results (|z-score| ≤ 2.0) ranging between 656 – 746 µg/L. Out of 35 participants, four questionable results (2.0 < |z-score| < 3.0) were reported (laboratory codes 310 (D), 335, 335 (D) and 432 (D)). One outlier result (|z-score| ≥ 3.0) was obtained, requiring follow-up action by laboratory code 735. Figure 4 presents the spread of results and the methods used for Lead testing in this round.

Figure 4. Spread of results for Lead testing of sample R255, with a median of 700.0 µg/L.


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

590 610 630 650 670 690 710 730 750 770 790 810 830 850

Fre

qu

en

cy

Results (µg/L)

Lead - Sample R255

APHA 3111 B

APHA 3120 B

APHA 3125 B

US EPA 0200.7

US EPA 0200.8

US EPA 6010

US EPA 6020 A

Other

9

SD 9.17.13

4.2.5 Nickel (Ni) Table 6 compares the Nickel median and robust CV from this round to those obtained in previous PTA rounds. Table 6. Comparison of current round variability and proficiency median of Nickel testing with the results of the previous two rounds.


This study R255 1870.0 4.2 34

Report 1131 R239 294.5 5.8 32

Report 1092 R228 806.5 4.5 38

Bias / Accuracy The Nickel testing was successfully performed, with satisfactory results (|z-score| ≤ 2.0) ranging between 1718 – 2020 µg/L. Out of 34 participants, one questionable result (2.0 < |z-score| < 3.0) was reported (laboratory code 552). No outlier results (|z-score| ≥ 3.0) were obtained. Figure 5 presents the spread of results and the methods used for Nickel testing in this round.

Figure 5. Spread of results for Nickel testing of sample R255, with a median of 1870.0 µg/L.


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1550 1600 1650 1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100 2150 2200

Fre

qu

en

cy

Results (µg/L)

Nickel - Sample R255

APHA 3111 B

APHA 3111 D

APHA 3120 B

APHA 3125 B

US EPA 0200.7

US EPA 0200.8

US EPA 6010

Other

10

SD 9.17.13

4.2.6 Thallium (Tl) Table 7 compares the Thallium median and robust CV from this round to those obtained in previous PTA rounds. Table 7. Comparison of current round variability and proficiency median of Thallium testing with the results of the previous two rounds.


This study R255 274.0 7.0 17

Report 1131 R239 366.5 6.4 18

Report 1092 R228 486.0 4.9 19

Bias / Accuracy The Thallium testing was successfully performed, with satisfactory results (|z-score| ≤ 2.0) ranging between 244 – 300 µg/L. Out of 17 participants, no questionable results (2.0 < |z-score| < 3.0) and no outlier results (|z-score| ≥ 3.0) were obtained. Figure 6 presents the spread of results and the methods used for Thallium testing in this round.

Figure 6. Spread of results for Thallium testing of sample R255, with a median of 274.0 µg/L.

The data set formed an approximately normal distribution with no notable bias attributable to any one method. The method most frequently used for Thallium testing was APHA 3120 B (Inductively Coupled Plasma / Atomic Emission Spectrometry), which was used by 41% of participants.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

200 212 224 236 248 260 272 284 296 308 320 332 344 356

Fre

qu

en

cy

Results (µg/L)

Thallium - Sample R255

APHA 3120 B

APHA 3125 B

US EPA 0200.8

US EPA 6010

US EPA 6020 A

Other

11

SD 9.17.13

4.2.7 Zinc (Zn) Table 8 compares the Zinc median and robust CV from this round to those obtained in previous PTA rounds. Table 8. Comparison of current round variability and proficiency median of Zinc testing with the results of the previous two rounds.


This study R255 1913.5 4.2 38

Report 1131 R239 491.0 4.5 38

Report 1092 R228 714.0 4.8 43

Bias / Accuracy The Zinc testing was successfully performed, with satisfactory results (|z-score| ≤ 2.0) ranging between 1765 – 2043 µg/L. Out of 38 participants, two questionable results (2.0 < |z-score| < 3.0) were reported (laboratory codes 487 and 682). One outlier result (|z-score| ≥ 3.0) was obtained, requiring follow-up action by laboratory code 410. Figure 7 presents the spread of results and the methods used for Zinc testing in this round.

Figure 7. Spread of results for Zinc testing of sample R255, with a median of 1913.5 µg/L.


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1550 1600 1650 1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100 2150 2200

Fre

qu

en

cy

Results (µg/L)

Zinc - Sample R255

APHA 3111 B

APHA 3120 B

APHA 3125 B

US EPA 0200.7

US EPA 0200.8

US EPA 6010

Other

12

SD 9.17.13

4.3 Measurement Uncertainty (MU)

The majority of participants in this round (82%-94%) reported the measurement uncertainty (MU) associated with their results. Table 9 below presents the number and percentage of laboratories reporting the MU for each analyte.

Table 9. The number and percentage of laboratories reporting MU for analytes in round 255.

Analyte Total

participants Participants reporting

MU (percentage)

Chromium 34 29 (85%)

Copper 37 31 (84%)

Iron 39 33 (85%)

Lead 35 31 (89%)

Nickel 34 28 (82%)

Thallium 17 16 (94%)

Zinc 38 33 (87%)

Many of the stated MUs did not accurately reflect the difference between the median and the participant’s result for this proficiency sample. Some laboratories may have notably underestimated their MU, as they indicated that their MU was less than two times the uncertainty of the median, however, their results were further from the median than this value. Conversely, laboratories which indicated a MU which was greater than three times the normalised IQR may have over-estimated their MU.1

1 MU evaluation is based on minimum / maximum uncertainty criteria (umin and umax) described in ISO 13528:2015 [2]. It should be noted, however, that these are informative indicators only and cannot be solely used to validate or invalidate the MUs reported.

13

SD 9.17.13

4.4 Analysis of Results by Method Groups

Further analysis of results by method groups is undertaken to provide specific information on individual method performance. In order for methods to be grouped for analysis, PTA requires at least 11 sets of results from the same method group. For methods and analytes other than those presented below, there were less than 11 results submitted, therefore reliable conclusions cannot be drawn from analysing them separately on this occasion. The methods used in this round suggest the preference for more recent techniques. Thus, none of the participating laboratories used the APHA Method 3111 E, (method code 4), APHA Electrothermal AAS (APHA 3113 B, method code 5) or US EPA 0200.9 GFAA (method code 10). The method APHA 3120 B (ICP/AES) - Method code 6, was most frequently employed for all analytes and the statistical analyses of the results from this method are outlined in Table 10 below. The statistics for Thallium are not shown as there were insufficient reported results by this method. Table 10. Variability and proficiency medians of results obtained by method 6 in Round 255.

Analysis Method

code Participants

Median ± Uncertainty of the Median

(µg/L)

Robust CV (%)

Chromium 6 22 308.0 ± 2.6 3.2

Copper 6 22 463.5 ± 3.9 3.2

Iron 6 23 3780.0 ± 30.6 3.1

Lead 6 21 704.0 ± 7.7 4.0

Nickel 6 19 1878.0 ± 18.5 3.4

Zinc 6 22 1918.5 ± 17.6 3.4

The results were less variable when analysed exclusively by APHA 3120 B ICP/AES method compared to the overall data set, with the exception of Lead which showed similar variability.

14

SD 9.17.13

4.5 Analysis of Results by Digestion Methods For this study, participants had the option to perform both digested and undigested analyses. Laboratory codes marked with the symbol (D) indicate that results submitted were obtained for digested samples. Most of the digestion methods involved nitric acid or a combination of nitric and hydrochloric acid. One laboratory used microwave digestion. It is worth noting that, from the results reported, there is no notable difference between the non-digestion and various digestion methods. Figure 8 presents the spread of results and the digestion methods used for Chromium testing in this round. Similar patterns were observed for the other analytes.

Figure 8. Spread of results for Chromium testing of sample R255, with a median of 308.0 µg/L.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370

Fre

qu

en

cy

Results (µg/L)

Chromium Digestion Methods - Sample R255

APHA 3030 E (HNO3)

APHA 3030 F(HNO3/HCl)

APHA 2020 K(Microwave Assisted)

US EPA 3010A(HNO3/HCl)

Other

No digestion

15

SD 9.17.13

5. Outlier Results

Laboratories reporting results that have been identified as outliers are listed in Table 11 below. Table 11. Laboratory results identified as outliers for each analysis performed.

Lab Code

Analysis

Chromium Copper Iron Lead Nickel Thallium Zinc

154 §

410 §

535 §

735 §

Note:

1. A “§” indicates the occurrence of a z-score outlier result (i.e. those results for which

|z-score| ≥ 3.0).

6. References

[1] Guide to Proficiency Testing Australia, 2019 (This document can be found on the PTA website, www.pta.asn.au).

[2] ISO 13528:2015 Statistical methods for use in proficiency testing by

interlaboratory comparisons.

SD 9.17.13

APPENDIX A

Results and Data Analysis Chromium (Cr) .................................................................................................................... A1

Copper (Cu) ........................................................................................................................ A4

Iron (Fe) .............................................................................................................................. A7

Lead (Pb) .......................................................................................................................... A10

Nickel (Ni).......................................................................................................................... A13

Thallium (Tl) ...................................................................................................................... A16

Zinc (Zn) ............................................................................................................................ A18

SD 9.17.13

Chromium (Cr) Results

Sample R255

A1

SD 9.17.13

Chromium (Cr)

Results by Laboratory Code

Laboratory Code

Sample R255

Result ± MU1 Robust

z-score2

Method Code

3

Digestion Code

3 µg/L

106 (D) 315 ± 16 0.48 6 20

154 261 ± 2 -3.25 § 6 #

154 (D) 266 ± 2 -2.91 6 15

222 329 ± 54 1.45 6 #

310 308 ± 6 0.00 6 #

310 (D) 315 ± 6 0.48 6 14

335 275 ± 7 -2.28 6 25

335 (D) 273 ± 7 -2.42 6 14

337 (D) 316 ± 31.60 0.55 11 14

343 311 ± 50 0.21 3 #

390 285 ± 26 -1.59 1 #

399 (D) 339 # 2.14 13 24

400 298 ± 30 -0.69 6 #

410 302 # -0.42 6 #

432 310 ± 11.8 0.14 6 #

432 (D) 310 ± 11.8 0.14 6 14

448 (D) 308 ± 22 0.00 6 24

473A 306 ± 9 -0.14 6 #

473B 315 ± 3 0.48 6 #

479 309 ± 62 0.07 7 25

487 290 ± 44 -1.25 9 #

552 312 ± 62 0.28 6 #

559 291 ± 30 -1.18 7 #

559 (D) 292 ± 30 -1.11 7 14

634 293 ± 57 -1.04 12 #

1 Where reported, results are shown with their corresponding measurement uncertainty (MU).

2 "§" denotes an outlier (i.e. those results for which |z-score| ≥ 3.0). Robust z-scores are calculated

as: z = (A - median) ÷ normalised IQR, where A is the participant laboratory's result.

3 Please refer to Appendix C (pages C3-C4) for method and digestion code descriptions.

4 "na" indicates "not applicable".

5 "#" indicates that no result was returned for this sample/test.

6 For this study, participants had the option to perform both digested and undigested analyses.

Laboratory codes marked with the symbol (D) indicate that results submitted were obtained for digested samples. The summary statistics and z-scores were calculated from the combined results (digested and undigested).

A2

SD 9.17.13

Chromium (Cr) - cont.


Laboratory Code

Sample R255


z-score2

Method Code

3

Digestion Code

3 µg/L

634 (D) 307 ± 60 -0.07 12 22

635 315 ± 22 0.48 8 #

652 (D) 310 # 0.14 1 15

682 311 ± 59 0.21 6 #

731 312 # 0.28 6 #

735 300 ± 21 -0.55 6 #

740 309 ± 20 0.07 6 #

768 292 ± 15 -1.11 6 #

796 303 # -0.35 6 #

No of Results: 34

Median: 308.0

Normalised IQR: 14.5

Uncertainty of the Median: 3.1

Robust CV: 4.7%

Minimum: 261

Maximum: 339

Range: 78









SD 9.17.13

Chromium - Sample R255 - Robust Z-Scores

Ord

ere

d R

ob

ust Z

-Sc

ore

Ch

arts

Ch

rom

ium

- Sa

mp

le R

25

5

A3

Robust Z-Scores

154

154 (

D)

335 (

D)

335

390

487

559

559 (

D)

768

634

400

735

410

796

473A

634 (

D)

310

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

z-s

core

lab code

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

z-s

core

lab code

SD 9.17.13

Copper (Cu) Results

Sample R255

A4

SD 9.17.13

Copper (Cu)


Laboratory Code

Sample R255


z-score2

Method Code

3

Digestion Code

3 µg/L

106 (D) 467 ± 20 0.11 6 20

118 469 # 0.22 1 25

119 (D) 477 ± 42 0.67 1 14

154 420 ± 3 -2.53 6 #

154 (D) 452 ± 3 -0.73 6 15

222 445 ± 20 -1.12 6 #

252 (D) 460 # -0.28 1 14

310 468 ± 14 0.17 6 #

310 (D) 478 ± 14 0.73 6 14

335 417 ± 9 -2.70 6 25

335 (D) 420 ± 9 -2.53 6 14

337 (D) 473 ± 56.76 0.45 11 14

343 467 ± 50 0.11 1 #

390 441 ± 24 -1.35 1 #

399 (D) 480 ± 20 0.84 13 24

400 465 ± 47 0.00 6 #

410 449 # -0.90 6 #

432 460 ± 96.6 -0.28 6 #

432 (D) 470 ± 98.7 0.28 6 14

448 (D) 462 ± 28 -0.17 6 24

473A 459 ± 14 -0.34 6 #

473B 475 ± 4 0.56 6 #

479 450 ± 90 -0.84 7 25

487 470 ± 66 0.28 9 #

552 491 ± 98 1.46 6 #









A5

SD 9.17.13

Copper (Cu) - cont.


Laboratory Code

Sample R255


z-score2

Method Code

3

Digestion Code

3 µg/L

559 433 ± 45 -1.80 7 #

559 (D) 441 ± 50 -1.35 7 14

634 471 ± 76 0.34 12 #

634 (D) 486 ± 78 1.18 12 22

635 475 ± 38 0.56 8 #

652 (D) 440 # -1.41 1 15

682 457 ± 57 -0.45 6 #

731 475 # 0.56 6 #

735 465 ± 29 0.00 6 #

740 497 ± 56 1.80 6 #

768 439 ± 22 -1.46 6 #

796 466 # 0.06 6 #

No of Results: 37

Median: 465.0



Robust CV: 3.8%

Minimum: 417

Maximum: 497

Range: 80









SD 9.17.13

Copper - Sample R255 - Robust Z-Scores

Ord

ere

d R

ob

ust Z

-Sc

ore

Ch

arts

Co

pp

er - S

am

ple

R2

55

A6

Robust Z-Scores

335

154

335 (

D)

559

768

652 (

D)

390

559 (

D)

222

410

479

154 (

D)

682

473A

252 (

D)

432

448 (

D)

400

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

z-s

core

lab code

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

z-s

core

lab code

SD 9.17.13

Iron (Fe) Results

Sample R255

A7

SD 9.17.13

Iron (Fe)


Laboratory Code

Sample R255


z-score2

Method Code

3

Digestion Code

3 µg/L

106 (D) 3950 ± 158 1.05 6 20

118 3961 # 1.12 1 25

119 (D) 3483 ± 187 -2.03 1 14

154 3962 ± 23 1.13 6 #

154 (D) 3866 ± 23 0.49 6 15

222 3770 ± 394 -0.14 6 #

252 (D) 3750 # -0.27 1 14

310 3780 ± 80 -0.07 6 #

310 (D) 3949 ± 80 1.04 6 14

335 3398 ± 76 -2.59 6 25

335 (D) 3391 ± 76 -2.64 6 14

337 (D) 4080 ± 448.8 1.91 11 14

343 3830 ± 100 0.26 3 #

390 3700 ± 257 -0.60 1 #

399 (D) 3970 ± 200 1.18 13 24

400 3765 ± 380 -0.17 6 #

410 3479 # -2.06 6 #

432 3780 ± 831.6 -0.07 6 #

432 (D) 3700 ± 814 -0.60 6 14

448 (D) 3768 ± 226 -0.15 6 24

454 (D) 3966 ± 117 1.15 6 14

473A 3892 ± 118 0.67 6 #

473B 3979 ± 15 1.24 6 #

479 3988 ± 798 1.30 7 25

487 3791 ± 569 0.00 9 #









A8

SD 9.17.13

Iron (Fe) - cont.


Laboratory Code

Sample R255


z-score2

Method Code

3

Digestion Code

3 µg/L

535 4420 ± 215 4.15 § 1 25

552 3900 ± 780 0.72 6 #

559 3710 ± 370 -0.53 7 #

559 (D) 3720 ± 380 -0.47 7 14

634 3870 ± 360 0.52 11 #

634 (D) 3930 ± 370 0.92 11 22

635 3780 ± 249 -0.07 8 #

652 (D) 3650 # -0.93 1 15

682 3829 ± 74 0.25 6 #

731 3902 # 0.73 6 #

735 3682 ± 209 -0.72 6 #

740 3750 ± 232 -0.27 6 #

768 3766 ± 188 -0.16 6 #

796 3929 # 0.91 6 #

No of Results: 39

Median: 3791.0



Robust CV: 4.0%

Minimum: 3391

Maximum: 4420

Range: 1029









SD 9.17.13

Iron - Sample R255 - Robust Z-Scores

Ord

ere

d R

ob

ust Z

-Sc

ore

Ch

arts

Iron

- Sa

mp

le R

255

A9

Robust Z-Scores

335 (

D)

335

410

119 (

D)

652 (

D)

735

390

432 (

D)

559

559 (

D)

252 (

D)

740

400

768

448 (

D)

222

310

432

635

487

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

z-s

core

lab code

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

z-s

core

lab code

SD 9.17.13

Lead (Pb) Results

Sample R255

A10

SD 9.17.13

Lead (Pb)


Laboratory Code

Sample R255


z-score2

Method Code

3

Digestion Code

3 µg/L

106 (D) 689 ± 36 -0.41 6 20

119 (D) 746 ± 215 1.70 1 14

154 710 ± 4 0.37 6 #

154 (D) 686 ± 4 -0.52 6 15

222 676 ± 135 -0.89 6 #

310 743 ± 63 1.59 6 #

310 (D) 764 ± 64 2.37 6 14

335 631 ± 15 -2.55 6 25

335 (D) 634 ± 15 -2.44 6 14

337 (D) 733 ± 65.97 1.22 11 14

343 700 ± 50 0.00 1 #

390 715 ± 46 0.55 1 #

399 (D) 705 ± 30 0.18 13 24

400 712 ± 71 0.44 6 #

410 656 # -1.63 6 #

432 720 ± 61.2 0.74 6 #

432 (D) 770 ± 65.4 2.59 6 14

448 (D) 704 ± 71 0.15 6 24

473A 733 ± 18 1.22 6 #

473B 716 ± 6 0.59 6 #

479 683 ± 137 -0.63 7 25

487 697 ± 132 -0.11 9 #

552 737 ± 147 1.37 7 #

559 678 ± 70 -0.81 7 #

559 (D) 691 ± 70 -0.33 7 14









A11

SD 9.17.13

Lead (Pb) - cont.


Laboratory Code

Sample R255


z-score2

Method Code

3

Digestion Code

3 µg/L

634 691 ± 90 -0.33 12 #

634 (D) 690 ± 90 -0.37 12 22

635 722 ± 51 0.81 8 #

652 (D) 680 # -0.74 1 15

682 682 ± 62 -0.67 6 #

731 713 # 0.48 6 #

735 790 ± 52 3.33 § 6 #

740 700 ± 42 0.00 6 #

768 699 ± 35 -0.04 6 #

796 664 # -1.33 6 #

No of Results: 35

Median: 700.0



Robust CV: 3.9%

Minimum: 631

Maximum: 790

Range: 159









SD 9.17.13

Lead - Sample R255 - Robust Z-Scores

Ord

ere

d R

ob

ust Z

-Sc

ore

Ch

arts

Le

ad

- Sam

ple

R25

5

A12

Robust Z-Scores

335

335 (

D)

410

796

222

559

652 (

D)

682

479

154 (

D)

106 (

D)

634 (

D)

559 (

D)

634

487

768

343

740

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

z-s

core

lab code

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

z-s

core

lab code

SD 9.17.13

Nickel (Ni) Results

Sample R255

A13

SD 9.17.13

Nickel (Ni)


Laboratory Code

Sample R255


z-score2

Method Code

3

Digestion Code

3 µg/L

106 (D) 1860 ± 16 -0.13 6 20

118 1826 # -0.57 1 25

154 1927 ± 11 0.73 6 #

154 (D) 1933 ± 11 0.81 6 15

222 2010 ± 126 1.80 6 #

252 (D) 1850 # -0.26 1 14

335 1718 ± 41 -1.96 6 25

335 (D) 1730 ± 41 -1.80 6 14

337 (D) 1950 ± 195 1.03 11 14

343 1866 ± 100 -0.05 3 #

390 1870 ± 147 0.00 1 #

399 (D) 1880 ± 200 0.13 13 24

400 1903 ± 190 0.42 6 #

410 1772 # -1.26 6 #

432 1870 ± 117.8 0.00 6 #

432 (D) 1850 ± 116.6 -0.26 6 14

448 (D) 1880 ± 150 0.13 6 24

473A 1909 ± 55 0.50 6 #

473B 1943 ± 5 0.94 6 #

479 1829 ± 366 -0.53 7 25

487 2020 ± 283 1.93 9 #

552 1680 ± 336 -2.45 1 #

559 1750 ± 180 -1.55 7 #

559 (D) 1760 ± 180 -1.42 7 14

634 1980 ± 210 1.42 11 #









A14

SD 9.17.13

Nickel (Ni)- cont.


Laboratory Code

Sample R255


z-score2

Method Code

3

Digestion Code

3 µg/L

634 (D) 1990 ± 210 1.55 11 22

635 1952 ± 137 1.06 8 #

652 (D) 1840 # -0.39 1 15

682 1838 ± 70 -0.41 6 #

731 1969 # 1.27 6 #

735 1773 ± 101 -1.25 6 #

740 1880 ± 145 0.13 6 #

768 1878 ± 94 0.10 6 #

796 1824 # -0.59 6 #

No of Results: 34

Median: 1870.0



Robust CV: 4.2%

Minimum: 1680

Maximum: 2020

Range: 340









SD 9.17.13

Nickel - Sample R255 - Robust Z-Scores

Ord

ere

d R

ob

ust Z

-Sc

ore

Ch

arts

Nic

ke

l - Sa

mp

le R

25

5

A15

Robust Z-Scores

552

335

335 (

D)

559

559 (

D)

410

735

796

118

479

682

652 (

D)

252 (

D)

432 (

D)

106 (

D)

343

390

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

z-s

core

lab code

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

z-s

core

lab code

SD 9.17.13

Thallium (Tl) Results

Sample R255

A16

SD 9.17.13

Thallium (Tl)


Laboratory Code

Sample R255


z-score2

Method Code

3

Digestion Code

3 µg/L

106 (D) 271 ± 22 -0.16 6 20

154 244 ± 2 -1.56 7 #

154 (D) 252 ± 2 -1.14 7 15

337 (D) 289 ± 49.13 0.78 11 14

399 (D) 281 ± 10 0.36 13 24

400 281 ± 28 0.36 6 #

410 263 # -0.57 6 #

473A 293 ± 7 0.99 6 #

473B 292 ± 6 0.93 6 #

487 300 ± 51 1.35 9 #

552 290 ± 58 0.83 7 #

559 273 ± 30 -0.05 7 #

559 (D) 274 ± 30 0.00 7 14

634 256 ± 32 -0.93 12 #

634 (D) 263 ± 33 -0.57 12 22

682 283 ± 69 0.47 6 #

735 257 ± 19 -0.88 6 #

No of Results: 17

Median: 274.0



Robust CV: 7.0%

Minimum: 244

Maximum: 300

Range: 56









SD 9.17.13

Thallium - Sample R255 - Robust Z-Scores

Ord

ere

d R

ob

ust Z

-Sc

ore

Ch

arts

Th

alliu

m - S

am

ple

R25

5

A17

Robust Z-Scores

154

154 (

D)

634

735

410

634 (

D)

106 (

D)

559

559 (

D)

399 (

D)

400

682

337 (

D)

552

473B

473A

487

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

z-s

core

lab code

SD 9.17.13

Zinc (Zn) Results

Sample R255

A18

SD 9.17.13

Zinc (Zn)


Laboratory Code

Sample R255


z-score2

Method Code

3

Digestion Code

3 µg/L

106 (D) 1840 ± 16 -0.91 6 20

119 (D) 1990 ± 256 0.94 1 14

154 1994 ± 12 0.99 6 #

154 (D) 1941 ± 12 0.34 6 15

222 1910 ± 86 -0.04 6 #

252 (D) 1840 # -0.91 1 14

310 2025 ± 50 1.37 6 #

310 (D) 2043 ± 52 1.60 6 14

335 1765 ± 51 -1.83 6 25

335 (D) 1801 ± 52 -1.39 6 14

337 (D) 2040 ± 244.8 1.56 11 14

343 1958 ± 100 0.55 1 #

390 1850 ± 128 -0.78 1 #

399 (D) 1984 ± 200 0.87 13 24

400 1925 ± 192 0.14 6 #

410 1560 # -4.35 § 6 #

432 1920 ± 82.6 0.08 6 #

432 (D) 1920 ± 82.6 0.08 6 14

448 (D) 1917 ± 173 0.04 6 24

454 (D) 1932 ± 66 0.23 6 14

473A 1922 ± 63 0.10 6 #

473B 1908 ± 8 -0.07 6 #

479 1864 ± 466 -0.61 7 25

487 2142 ± 214 2.81 9 #

535 1868 ± 600 -0.56 1 25









A19

SD 9.17.13

Zinc (Zn) - cont.


Laboratory Code

Sample R255


z-score2

Method Code

3

Digestion Code

3 µg/L

552 1896 ± 379 -0.22 1 #

559 1810 ± 20 -1.28 7 #

559 (D) 1860 ± 190 -0.66 7 14

634 1870 ± 220 -0.54 11 #

634 (D) 1870 ± 220 -0.54 11 22

635 1961 ± 137 0.59 8 #

652 (D) 1970 # 0.70 1 15

682 1699 ± 64 -2.64 6 #

731 1846 # -0.83 6 #

735 1853 ± 105 -0.75 6 #

740 1920 ± 131 0.08 6 #

768 1963 ± 98 0.61 6 #

796 1805 # -1.34 6 #

No of Results: 38

Median: 1913.5



Robust CV: 4.2%

Minimum: 1560

Maximum: 2142

Range: 582









SD 9.17.13

Zinc - Sample R255 - Robust Z-Scores

Ord

ere

d R

ob

ust Z

-Sc

ore

Ch

arts

Zin

c - S

am

ple

R2

55

A20

Robust Z-Scores

410

682

335

335 (

D)

796

559

106 (

D)

252 (

D)

731

390

735

559 (

D)

479

535

634

634 (

D)

552

473B

222

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

z-s

core

lab code

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

z-s

core

lab code

SD 9.17.13

APPENDIX B

Sample Homogeneity and Stability

Homogeneity and Stability Testing ...................................................................................... B1

B1

SD 9.17.13

Homogeneity and Stability Testing

Certified reference samples for this program were obtained from Environmental Resource Associates (ERA, USA). As such, all samples were subjected to rigorous stability and homogeneity testing. On the basis of this testing, the samples utilised for this program were considered to be homogeneous and stable. Table B1 below presents the certification data and analytical verification results prior to sample release1. Table B1. Certified values and analytical verification results for samples used in Round 255.

Analytical Verification

Analyte Certified Value

2 Uncertainty

3

(%) Mean

Recovery (%)

No. of samples

Chromium 307 3.24 305 99.5 47

Copper 466 4.31 459 98.5 59

Iron 3850 3.54 3740 97.1 50

Lead 697 3.68 692 99.3 56

Nickel 1870 4.95 1860 99.6 56

Thallium 279 6.24 273 97.9 31

Zinc 1910 5.35 1880 98.5 51

1 ERA certification and analytical verification data issued 3 July 2019.

2 The Certified Values are the actual “made-to” concentrations confirmed by ERA analytical

verification.

3 The stated Uncertainty is the total propagated uncertainty at the 95% confidence interval. The uncertainty is based on the preparation and analytical verification of the product by ERA, multiplied by a coverage factor. The uncertainty applies to the product as supplied and does not take into account any required or optional dilution and/or preparations the laboratory may perform while using this product.

SD 9.17.13

APPENDIX C

Documentation Instructions to Participants .................................................................................................. C1

Method Codes ..................................................................................................................... C3

Digestion Codes .................................................................................................................. C4

Results Sheet ...................................................................................................................... C5

C1

SD 9.17.13

PROFICIENCY TESTING AUSTRALIA

WATERS PROFICIENCY TESTING PROGRAM

CHEMICAL ANALYSIS ROUND 255 January, 2020

Metals (Chromium, Copper, Iron, Lead, Nickel, Thallium, Zinc)

INSTRUCTIONS TO PARTICIPANTS

**Please record (on the Results Sheet) the approximate temperature of the samples upon receipt**

Please note the following before commencing the analysis of the samples. 1. Sample Information

i) One sealed vial labelled R255 supplied by Environmental Resource Associates (ERA). The vial contains approximately 14mL of artificial water concentrate.

ii) Please note the temperature of vial on receipt.

iii) The sample has been acidified with approximately 2% (v/v) nitric acid and 1% (w/v) tartaric acid.

iv) The sample must be thoroughly mixed prior to analysis.

v) The vial will require dilution in deionised water (please follow the Sample Preparation steps below).

vi) The vial may be stored at room temperature.

Please Note: Where possible, the proficiency testing sample should be treated as a routine laboratory sample.

2. Sample Preparation

i) Analysis must begin immediately after vial is opened.

ii) Prepare sample at 20-22ºC, and allow sufficient time for the vial to reach room temperature before opening.

Please read the Caution notes below before this step

iii) Add approximately 100-200mL deionised water followed by 2-5mL of high purity, concentrated nitric acid to a 500mL volumetric flask.

iv) Mix the vial prior to opening.

v) Using a dry, clean volumetric pipette, transfer 5.0mL from the vial into the flask.

vi) Dilute the flask to the final volume with deionised water.

vii) Cap the flask and mix well by inversion.

viii) Immediately analyse the diluted sample by your normal procedures.

ix) Report your results as µg/L for the diluted sample.

Caution: Caution must be taken when analysing corrosive samples.

While technically it is unnecessary to digest the sample prior to analysis, digestion should be performed if this is your normal procedure. If your laboratory performs both digested and undigested analyses, you can choose to report one or both results.

A volume of acid different from the 2-5mL of nitric acid suggested in step (iii) may be added in order to matrix match calibration standards or meet any other method criteria.

If analysing using colorimetric techniques, it may be necessary to pH adjust the sample prior to analysis. If using colorimetric techniques, it is acceptable to omit the addition of the 2-5mL nitric acid suggested in step (iii).

C2

SD 9.17.13

3. Tests Requested

i) Chromium (Cr) ii) Copper (Cu) iii) Iron (Fe) iv) Lead (Pb) v) Nickel (Ni) vi) Thallium (Tl) vii) Zinc (Zn)

(It is recommended that a reagent water blank is analysed by the same method used to analyse the samples.)

If unable to perform the above please note this on your Results Sheet.

4. Safety

i) Samples are for laboratory use only.

ii) Participants should have sufficient experience and training to take the necessary precautions when handling the samples and reagent chemicals and during disposal.

iii) Use of safety glasses, gloves, and fume hoods, where appropriate during the determinations, is recommended.

5. Reporting

i) Report results to the nearest whole number (no decimal places).

ii) If your laboratory performs both digested and undigested analyses, you can choose to report one or both results.

iii) Report results in micrograms per litre (µg/L).

iv) Do not correct results for recovery.

v) Select the appropriate method code for each test from the Method Code Table and record it on the Results Sheet.

vi) Calculate the measurement uncertainty (MU) for each reported result. All estimates of MU must be given as a 95% confidence interval (coverage factor k ≈ 2) and reported in micrograms per litre (µg/L). Report to the nearest whole number (no decimal places).

6. Testing should commence as soon as possible after receiving the samples and results reported

NO LATER THAN 7 FEBRUARY 2020 to:

Delfina Mihaila Proficiency Testing Australia PO Box 7507 SILVERWATER NSW 2128 AUSTRALIA Phone: +612 9736 8397 Fax: +612 9743 6664 Email: [email protected]

7. For this program your laboratory has been allocated the code number shown on the attached Results Sheet. All reference to your laboratory in reports associated with the program will be through this code number, thus ensuring the confidentiality of your results.

8. The expected concentration ranges of each of tests are given in the following table.

Analyte Range (µg/L)

Chromium (Cr) 100 – 1000 Copper (Cu) 100 – 1000 Iron (Fe) 200 – 4000 Lead (Pb) 100 – 1500 Nickel (Ni) 200 – 2000 Thallium (Tl) 80 – 800 Zinc (Zn) 300 – 2000

mailto:[email protected]

C3

SD 9.17.13

Method Codes to be used for the Results Sheet

ANALYSIS METHOD

REFERENCE

METHOD DESCRIPTION COD

E

Chromium (Cr)

Copper (Cu)

Iron (Fe)

Lead (Pb)

Nickel (Ni)

Thallium (Tl)

Zinc (Zn)

APHA SM

APHA 3111 B. Direct Air-Acetylene Flame Method

1

APHA 3111 C. Extraction/Air-Acetylene Flame Method

2

APHA 3111 D. Direct Nitrous Oxide-Acetylene Flame Method

3

APHA 3111 E. Extraction/Nitrous Oxide-Acetylene Flame Method

4

APHA 3113 B. Electrothermal Atomic Absorption Spectrometric Method

5

APHA 3120 B. METALS BY PLASMA EMISSION SPECTROSCOPY Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP) Method

6

APHA 3125 B. Inductively-Coupled Plasma/Mass Spectrometry (ICP/MS) Method

7

US EPA

US EPA 0200.7 Metals and Trace Elements - ICP/AES

8

US EPA 0200.8 Trace Elements in Water & Wastes - ICP/MS

9

US EPA 0200.9 Trace Elements - GFAA

10

US EPA 6010 Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectrometry

11

US EPA 6020 A Inductively Coupled Plasma/MS

12

Other Other (please specify) 13

C4

SD 9.17.13

Digestion Codes to be used for the Results Sheet

DIGESTION PROCEDURE CODE

APHA

APHA 3030 E (HNO3) 14

APHA 3030 F (HNO3/HCl) 15

APHA 3030 G (HNO3/H2SO4) 16

APHA 3030 H (HNO3/HClO4) 17

APHA 3030 I (HNO3/HClO4/HF) 18

APHA 3030 J (Dry Ashing) 19

APHA 3030 K (Microwave Assisted) 20

US EPA

US EPA 3005 A (HNO3/HCl) 21

US EPA 3010 A (HNO3/HCl) 22

US EPA 3015 A (Microwave Assisted) 23

Other (please specify) 24

No digestion 25

Method Reference Key

i) APHA SM APHA “Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater” (18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 Edition).

ii) USEPA U.S Environmental Protection Agency, http://www.epa.gov/osa/fem/methcollectns.htm.

http://www.epa.gov/osa/fem/methcollectns.htm

C5

SD 9.17.13

PROFICIENCY TESTING AUSTRALIA

WATERS PROFICIENCY TESTING PROGRAM

CHEMICAL ANALYSIS ROUND 255

Metals (Chromium, Copper, Iron, Lead, Nickel, Thallium, Zinc)

JANUARY 2020

RESULTS SHEET (µg/L)

Laboratory

Code

*Approximate temperature of samples upon receipt:

ANALYSIS

UNDIGESTED SAMPLE DIGESTED SAMPLE

SAMPLE R255 METHOD

CODE

SAMPLE R255 METHOD

CODE DIGESTION

CODE Result (µg/L)

±MU (µg/L)

Result (µg/L)

±MU (µg/L)

Chromium (Cr)

Copper (Cu)

Iron (Fe)

Lead (Pb)

Nickel (Ni)

Thallium (Tl)

Zinc (Zn)

Please note: Where possible, the proficiency testing sample should be treated as a routine laboratory sample.

i) For each analyte only a single result is requested.

ii) If your laboratory performs both digested and undigested analyses, you can choose to report one or both results

iii) Report results for the diluted sample.

iv) Report results to the nearest whole number (no decimal places).

v) Report results in micrograms per litre (µg/L).

vi) Do not correct results for recovery.

vii) MU* Laboratories Measurement Uncertainty (MU) if known for the result. Please report in micrograms per litre (µg/L). Report to the nearest whole number (no decimal places).

DATE: ______________________ SIGNATURE: _______________________________

Return results NO LATER THAN 7 FEBRUARY 2020 to: Delfina Mihaila Proficiency Testing Australia PO Box 7507 Phone: +61 2 9736 8397 SILVERWATER NSW 2128 Fax: +61 2 9743 6664 AUSTRALIA Email: [email protected]

INSTRUCT WATERS PROF TEST PROG 255

mailto:[email protected]

SD 9.17.13

- End of Report -

Report No. 1184

Documents

Transcript of Report No. 1184