1 / 23

QA/QC Week 2006 Review of state wide results

QA/QC Week 2006 Review of state wide results. Waterwatch Coordinators Meeting September 8, 2006 Melbourne. And strategising a plan for 2007. 2006 demand compared with 2004/2005. Return rate of datasheets 2006 compared with 2004/2005.

catori
Download Presentation

QA/QC Week 2006 Review of state wide results

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. QA/QC Week 2006Review of state wide results Waterwatch Coordinators Meeting September 8, 2006 Melbourne And strategising a plan for 2007

  2. 2006 demand compared with 2004/2005

  3. Return rate of datasheets 2006 compared with 2004/2005

  4. 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

  5. Despite there being a total 235 data sheets returned: Samples wasted during this year’s QA/QC Week – phys-chem samples • 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)

  6. 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.

  7. The good, the not so good, and the ugly

  8. The Good - Clear handwriting, QA/QC code included, almost all information filled in (EC cal missing), dilution information supplied, pH troubles clearly documented

  9. 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….

  10. 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.

  11. The Ugly - illegible handwriting, multiple results per datasheet. However most information was provided including calibration information, dilutions and instrument problems.

  12. Ugly continued -

  13. 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.

  14. EC Results 2004 - 2006 All results above 80% this year, vast improvement. Right equipment resolution for range.

  15. Turbidity (tube) results - 2004 - 2006 * Not shaken * test done at night indoors

  16. Turbidity (meter) results - 2005 - 2006

  17. Ortho-P (comparator) - 2004 - 2006

  18. Ortho-P (colorimeter) results - 2004 - 2006

  19. 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. ±3% light refraction = • Smart 2 range 0 – 0.978mg/l PO4-P • Hach DR700/890 range 0 – 0.815 mg/l PO4-P 0.029mg/L P 0.024mg/L P • Dilution results were poor for Coordinators and Monitors

  20. Plan for QA/QC Week 2007 How do we reduce wastage? • Individual regional orders of parameters and sample type? (eg 6 x ECsample1, 10 x Turbidity sample2) • Order less and make it stretch further? • Introduce co-investment so that you are wasting half of your own $$ instead of all of ours (I’m serious) • Other ideas...

  21. How do we support volunteer monitors and improve these results in 2006/7? Regions are responsible for providing feedback and follow up support to monitors after QA/QC Week. • 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.

  22. Macroinvertebrates results 2006 Combined Coordinators Pretty happy with Coordinators results, would hope to see 80% pass rates for families in the future too.

  23. My favourite ‘Sorry, no bugs’ story (from a Coordinator) - 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.

More Related