1 Guest Speaker: Bill Frietsche US EPA. April 7: QA Systems, EPA definitions, PQAOs and common sense – Mike Papp April 14: Routine Quality Control.

Precision, Bias, and Total Error (Accuracy)

1

Guest Speaker:

Bill FrietscheUS EPA

2

April 7: QA Systems, EPA definitions, PQAOs and common sense – Mike Papp

April 14: Routine Quality Control and Data Management (1-pt QC, flow rate, and instrument stability checks) – Travis Maki

April 21: Audits Overview (NPAP, PEP, Annual PE, Flow Rate Audits) – Jeremy Howe

April 28: Calculating Bias and Precision and AQS reports – Bill Frietsche

May 5: 40 CFR 58 App. A- Gaseous Pollutants – Glenn Gehring

May 12: 40 CFR 58 App. A- Ozone – Brenda Jarrell May 19: 40 CFR 58 App. A- PM filter and continuous

methods –Brandy Toft

Overall Course Overview:

…the difference between your answer and the

“truth”Two components of total error (accuracy):

Bias (jump)Precision (wiggle)

Error

3

Some imprecision is unavoidable

Sometimes up, sometimes down–“random”

Difference divided by best estimate of the truth

“truth” is:◦For gas QC checks: known conc.◦For PM flow rate: audit (known) FR◦For PM2.5 collocated: their average

Precision Error

4

1st way of assessing precision:

5

di = the

difference between a

known value and

your value (flow rate,

conc., voltage,

that should

remain the same)

Sequence of check (date, time, check number)

Repeated measurement of the same thing

Pairs of simultaneous measurements (collocated instruments)

2nd way of assessing precision:

6

di (difference

between collocated

values)

date

Bias = calibration error:

7

Can be sudden or due to slow drift over time:

di = the difference between the true value (audit value) and the analyzer

date

Includes both bias and precision At any one time, an audit value could be

close to the analyzer value due to precision errors in both

Or, audit value could be far from analyzer value due to precision errors adding

Audits estimate Accuracy EPA uses audit results to verify that ongoing

QC checks do represent total error

Accuracy = total error

8

Auditor’s see only one day, while your QC checks see overall big picture

Accuracy = total error:

9

1-pt QC checks no longer called precision checks, because the results are used (by YOU) to calculate both precision and to estimate total error

Each check <= 7% is the CRITICAL criteria for each set of data since last passing check

The audits basically verify your precision and bias that have been calculated all along from your QC checks (concentration and flow rate, for PM)

Precision and total error both are estimated from the QC checks:

10

QC Checks are used to estimate precision*:

Method Pollutants Frequency MQO

One-Point QC SO2, NO2, O3, CO

Every 2 Weeks

O3 :

Precision = 7%

SO2, NO2, CO :

Precision = 10%

Flow Rate Verification (QC check)

PM10 (lo-Vol) PM2.5

Once every 4 weeks

<= 4% of Standard

Flow Rate Verification (QC check)

PM10 (high-Vol), TSP

Once per quarter

<= 7% of Standard

Collocated Sampling

PM10, TSP, PM2.5

15% of Network Every 12 Days

Precision CV= 10% (which means RPD =14%)

11*and total error, more on this later….

Estimates your overall system uncertainty, if you were perfectly calibrated

Changes over time can point to operator error, lab error, poorly written procedures, equipment/standards going bad

Changes can be fixed sooner rather than at audit

EPA compares precision by site and agency

Why is tracking precision important?

12

Useful to track precision (or bias) over time

See this example (and you fill in your values) at:

Another example in the DASC tool:

Control charts:

13

di

The DASC tool automatically writes your values from the columns into the chart:◦ Measured value is your analyzer◦ Audit value is the known

Control chart in PBDASC tool:

14

You may want to add dates to the x-axis, or use my example if you want to set up control charts

in your program

di

In their annual QA reports, from your RP transactions in AQS:

http://www.epa.gov/ttnamti1/qareport.html http://www.epa.gov/ttnamti1/anlqa.html

EPA estimates precision:

15

di

Recommendations in redbook say: Critical criteria invalidate every hour that is

not met Operational criteria means something

probably wrong, go check it Systematic criteria mean as a set (day?

year?) data is not usable for NAAQS, but individual hours or more may be valid

Invalidation criteria for NAAQS:

16

(NO2 and SO2 are the same)

Critical QC invalidation criteria for gas:

17

Critical invalidation criteria for PM:

18

Method Pollutants Frequency

MQO

Flow Rate Verification (QC check)

PM10 (lo-Vol), PM2.5

Once every 4 weeks

<= 4% of Standard

Flow Rate Verification (QC check)

PM10 (high-Vol), TSP

Once per quarter

<= 7% of Standard

Operational precision invalidation criteria for PM:

19

Method Pollutants Frequency MQO

Collocated Sampling

PM10, TSP, PM2.5

15% of Network Every 12 Days

Precision as CV < = 10% (meaning the relative percent diff must be less than 14% for conc > 3 ug/m3)

100

2)(

ii

iii YX

YXd

Keep the bias component minimized by calibrating and verifying your equipment against a standard

Keep precision component low by consistency You can work to keep bias down, while precision

is often out of your control below a certain limit EPA calculates from your RA transactions

Total Error

20

100

audit

auditmeasdi

Total error requirements for NAAQS are all operational criteria (investigate, but not necessarily

invalid):

21

Method Pollutants Frequency MQO

Annual Performance Evaluation (Audit)

SO2, NO2, O3, CO

Once per Year

<= 15% for each audit concentration— OPERATIONAL

Semi-Annual Flow Rate Audit

PM10, PM2.5 Every 6 Months

<= 4% of Standard OPERATIONAL

Semi-Annual Flow Rate Audit

PM10 (high-Vol), TSP

Every 6 Months

<= 10% of Standard OPERATIONAL

PM2.5 PEP Program

NPAP

PM2.5

SO2, NO2, O3, CO

QuarterYear (see QA Requirements.xls)

Bias = 10% -- OPERATIONAL

Bias: systematic difference, or “jump” Precision: random error, or “wiggle” Accuracy = total error, a combination of

both Simple temp bath illustrations at: http://itep68.itep.nau.edu/itep_downloads/Q

A101_Resources/AllDownloadableMovies/

Bias, precision, and total error:

22

DASC (Data Assessment Statistical Calculator)◦http://itep68.itep.nau.edu/itep_download

s/QA101_Resources/DASC%20EPA%20Prec%20and%20Bias%20Calculator/

AQS: Data Quality Indicators Report (AMP255)

23

How do I calculate precision and total error?

Minimize bias by regular calibrations both accuracy (total error) and

precision are first estimated by di on an ongoing basis, by you

Audits verify total error estimates Course website:

http://itep68.itep.nau.edu/itep_downloads/QA101_Resources/

Our emails:◦ Bill Frietsche: [email protected]◦ [email protected]◦ [email protected]

24

Before we cut to Bill:

AMP255 and other AQS QA tools

• Appendix A to Part 58• Table A-2 of App A• AQS TTN web site• AQSP&A Spreadsheet• Discoverer• AMTIC web site• AQS Helpline• AQS AMP255 Data Quality Indicator Report

Appendix A to Part 58

• Regulations that define QA reporting requirements for criteria pollutants• Define assessments for each criteria pollutant

• 1 Pt QC check for gases• Annual performance evaluation for gases• Flow rate verification for particulate matter• Semi-annual flow rate audit for particulate matter• Collocated sampling requirements for particulate matter• Pb audit strips for laboratory analysis QA• Performance Evaluation Program for PM fine, PM coarse,

and Pb• Formerly called precision and accuracy data

– still use these terms on AQS transactions

Table A-2 of Appendix A to Part 58--Minimum Data Assessment Requirements for SLAMS Sites

Method Assessment method Coverage Minimum

Frequency Parameters

reported AQS Trans

Type Reqd Reporting

to AQS

Automated Methods

1-Point QC for SO2, NO2, O3, CO

Response check at concentration 0.01-0.1 ppm SO2, NO2, O3, and 1-10 ppm CO

Each analyzer Once per 2 weeks..

Audit concentration 1 and measured concentration 2.

RP Y

Annual performance evaluation for SO2, NO2, O3, CO

See section 3.2.2 of this appendix

Each analyzer Once per year Audit concentration 1 and measured concentration 2 for each level.

RA Y

Flow rate verification PM10 Check of sampler flow rate Each sampler Once every month

Audit flow rate and measured flow rate indicated by the sampler.

RP Y

Flow rate verification PM2.5, PM10 - 2.5

Check of sampler flow rate Each sampler Once every month

Audit flow rate and measured flow rate indicated by the sampler.

RP N

Semi-annual flow rate audit PM10, PM2.5, PM10 - 2.5.

Check of sampler flow rate using independent standard.

Each sampler Once every 6 months

Audit flow rate and measured flow rate indicated by the sampler.

RA Y

Collocated sampling PM2.5, PM10 - 2.5

Collocated samplers. 15% Every 12 days Primary sampler concentration and duplicate sampler concentration.

RP Y

Performance evaluation program PM2.5, PM10-2.5

Collocated samplers.

1) 5 valid audits for primary QA orgs, with <= 5 sites. 2) 8 valid audits for primary QA orgs, with > 5 sites. 3) All samplers in 6 years

Over all 4 quarters

Primary sampler concentration and performance evaluation sampler concentration.

RP Y

Manual Methods

Collocated sampling PM10, TSP, PM10 - 2.5, PM2.5 , Pb-TSP, Pb-PM10.

Collocated samplers. 15% Every 12 days PSD--every 6 days.

Primary sampler concentration and duplicate sampler concentration. 3

RP (or RD) Y

Flow rate verification PM10 (low Vol), PM10-2.5, PM2.5, Pb-PM10

Check of sampler flow rate. Each sampler Once every month

Audit flow rate and measured flow rate indicated by the sampler.

RP N

Flow rate verification PM10 (High-Vol), TSP, Pb-TSP

Check of sampler flow rate. Each sampler Once every quarter

Audit flow rate and measured flow rate indicated by the sampler.

RP N

Semi-annual flow rate audit PM10, TSP, PM10-2.5, PM2.5, Pb-TSP, Pb-PM10.

Check of sampler flow rate using independent standard.

Each sampler, all locations. Once every 6 months.

Audit flow rate and measured flow rate indicated by the sampler

RA Y

Pb audit strips Pb-TSP, Pb-PM10

Check of analytical system with Pb audit strips.

Analytical. Each quarter.

Actual mass and audit mass for parameters: 14129 - Pb (TSP) LC FRM/FEM 85129 - Pb (TSP) LC Non-FRM/FEM

RA Y

Performance Evaluation Program PM2.5, PM10-2.5

Collocated samplers.

1) 5 valid audits for primary QA orgs, with <= 5 sites. 2) 8 valid audits for primary QA orgs, with > 5 sites. 3) All samplers in 6 years

Over all 4 quarters

Primary sampler concentration and performance evaluation sampler concentration.

RP Y

Performance Evaluation Program Pb-TSP, Pb-PM10

Collocated samplers.

1) 1 valid audit and 4 collocated samples for primary QA orgs, with <=5 sites. 2) 2 valid audits and 6 collocated samples for primary QA orgs with > 5 sites.

Over all 4 quarters

Primary sampler concentration and performance evaluation sampler concentration. Primary sampler concentration and duplicate sampler concentration.

RP Y

1 Effective concentration for open path analyzers. 2 Corrected concentration, if applicable, for open path analyzers. 3 Precision data is system generated when raw data is submitted for both collocated monitors for same date-time, and monitor ids are populated on monitor collocation record in AQS.

Gaseous Parameter Codes Particulate Parameter Codes SO2 42401 PM10 81102

NO2 42602 TSP 11101

O3 44201 PM10-2.5 86101

CO 42101 PM2.5 88101

Pb-TSP 14129

Pb-PM10 85129

This document available at: http://itep68.itep.nau.edu/itep_downloads/QA101_Resources/session%204-prec%20&%20bias/

AQS TTN web site http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/

AQSP&A Spreadsheet http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/padata/

AQS Discoverer http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/aqsdiscover/

AMTIC web site http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/

AQS Help Line [email protected] 1-866-411-4EPA (4372)

Example run of AMP255 shown onscreen

All QC data helps EPA balance your costs of QC with needed information to protect health

Questions to AQS are welcomed EPA committed to improving user friendliness Course website:

http://itep68.itep.nau.edu/itep_downloads/QA101_Resources/

Our emails:◦ Bill Frietsche: [email protected]◦ [email protected]◦ [email protected]

31

AQS Precision and Accuracy Conclusions: