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) -