1 / 7

Air Toxics Monitoring and Analysis: Laboratory Performance Evaluation

Air Toxics Monitoring and Analysis: Laboratory Performance Evaluation. Van Shrieves, Chief Monitoring & Technical Support Section. Background/Issues.

kacia
Download Presentation

Air Toxics Monitoring and Analysis: Laboratory Performance Evaluation

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. Air Toxics Monitoring and Analysis: Laboratory Performance Evaluation Van Shrieves, Chief Monitoring & Technical Support Section

  2. Background/Issues • In 2006, Sonoma Technology Inc. completed a one year study focused on analyzing air toxics monitoring data collected by Region 4 state and local agencies from 1990 – 2005 • Some of the key findings included: • Key risk drivers are not measured well enough to determine risk • Large differences in sampling and analysis methodology and MDLs among reporting agencies • MDLs in the Southeastern region are higher than in other areas of the nation

  3. Goals for Addressing Key Issues • Conduct interlaboratory comparisons to establish consistency in the analysis methodology and MDLs between reporting agencies • Provide resources to regional laboratories such as training/information exchange and funding for analytical equipment upgrades

  4. Completed Tasks • Regional air toxics workgroup formed with representatives from SC, Hillsborough County, FL, and EPA Region 4 • MDL air toxics survey distributed by EPA Region 4; results showed a significant number of VOC MDLs are higher than benchmark MDLs provided by the NATTS TAD • Laboratory equipment survey distributed by EPA Region 4 showed some variations in systems used to analyze VOCs and carbonyls

  5. Next Steps for 2008 • Development of a Region 4 Organic Chemists Workshop – 1 to 2 day workshop primarily to allow for the exchange of information regarding methods used for VOC and carbonyl analyses and correlations to the MDLs • Performance studies – regional labs will participate in the NATTS proficiency testing in 2008 • Assess equipment needs for laboratory upgrades and determine funding sources

  6. State/Local Agency Support • Long-term Funding Commitment to address sampling and analytical needs and workshop/training participation

  7. RL RL MDL MDL Health-based concentration (e.g., Concentration = Risk of 1E-06) Possible Analytical Sensitivity Points of Departure for Exposure Assessment (i.e., “risk-based DQOs for method sensitivity) Concentration ATRA indicates you should do it this way zero

More Related