1. SURFACE WATER (October to December 2017) Surface water sampling was undertaken in October, November and December 2017 from various surface water bodies within the investigation area. A review of the field quality assurance and quality control results has been prepared for each nominal event, and a collated review of internal laboratory quality assurance/quality control has been undertaken combining all three events. 1.1. October 2017 1.1.1. QA/QC General Precision / Accuracy ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment below) 1 Was a NATA registered laboratory used? 2 Did the laboratory perform the requested tests? 3 Were the laboratory methods adopted NATA endorsed? 4 Were the appropriate test procedures followed? 5 Were the reporting limits satisfactory? 6 Was the NATA Seal on the reports? 7 Were the reports signed by an authorised person? Comments Nil Precision / Accuracy of the Laboratory Report Satisfactory Partially Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Sample handling ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment below) 1 Were the sample holding times met? 2 Were the samples in proper custody between the field and reaching the laboratory? 3 Were the samples properly and adequately preserved? This includes keeping the samples chilled, where applicable. 4 Were the samples received by the laboratory in good condition? Comments Nil
107
Embed
1. SURFACE WATER (October to December 2017)€¦ · SURFACE WATER (October to December 2017) Surface water sampling was undertaken in October, November and December 2017 from various
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1. SURFACE WATER (October to December 2017)
Surface water sampling was undertaken in October, November and December 2017 from various surface water bodies within the investigation area. A review of the field quality assurance and quality control results has been prepared for each nominal event, and a collated review of internal laboratory quality assurance/quality control has been undertaken combining all three events.
1.1. October 2017
1.1.1. QA/QC General
Precision / Accuracy
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment below)
1 Was a NATA registered laboratory used?
2 Did the laboratory perform the requested tests?
3 Were the laboratory methods adopted NATA endorsed?
4 Were the appropriate test procedures followed?
5 Were the reporting limits satisfactory?
6 Was the NATA Seal on the reports?
7 Were the reports signed by an authorised person?
Comments
Nil
Precision / Accuracy of the Laboratory Report
Satisfactory
Partially Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Sample handling
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Were the sample holding times met?
2 Were the samples in proper custody between the field and reaching
the laboratory?
3 Were the samples properly and adequately preserved?
This includes keeping the samples chilled, where applicable.
4 Were the samples received by the laboratory in good condition?
Comments
Nil
Sample Handling was:
Satisfactory
Partially Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
1.1.2. Field QA/QC
Type of QA/QC Samples Collected
Primary Samples 34
Days of sampling 2
Field Duplicates (at least 1 in 20 samples) 4 intra lab + 4 inter lab
Trip Blanks (at least 1 per sampling event) 2
Equipment Rinsate (at least
1/day/matrix/equipment)
0
Samples Analysed
Thirty four samples were collected and sent to the primary laboratory Eurofins Environmental Consulting (MGT) over two days of sampling. Four duplicate samples were collected and submitted for laboratory analysis to the primary laboratory Eurofins Environmental Consulting (MGT). Four triplicate samples were collected and submitted for laboratory analysis to the secondary laboratory Australian Laboratory Services (ALS).
Field Duplicates
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Were an Adequate Number of field duplicates analysed for each
chemical?
2 Were RPDs within Control Limits?
< 30% for concentrations
Comments
Where RPDs were outside the acceptable range, sampling procedures, laboratory analytical methods and laboratory results were investigated. The results of this review are presented in Table 1 and ESDAT export table following Section 1.5.
There were 112 duplicate pair analyses for PFAS compounds and 96.4% were reported within the acceptance target of less than 30 % RPD. There were 112 triplicate pair analyses for PFAS compounds and 98.2 % were reported within the acceptance target of less than 30 % RPD.
Table 1. RPDs outside Acceptable Range
Primary sample Duplicate/
Triplicate
sample
Lab Analyte RPD
%
Higher
than
Primary
(Y/N)
1302_SW143_171024 Duplicate Eurofins Perfluoro-n-octane sulfonic acid (PFOS) 67 N
Triplicate ALS Perfluoro-n-octane sulfonic acid (PFOS) 67 N
1302_SW112_171024 Duplicate Eurofins Perfluoro-n-octane sulfonic acid (PFOS) 40 N
1302_SW162_171025 Duplicate Eurofins Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPA or PFPeA) 67 Y
Triplicate ALS Perfluoro-n-octane sulfonic acid (PFOS) 100 N
The RPD discrepancies observed in the October 2017 surface water sampling largely were attributed to analytical results in one of the samples being either at or marginally above the laboratory reporting limit, and the other below – which magnifies the relative difference between the results. Generally, the majority of the discrepancies were between the primary and secondary laboratory, with the secondary laboratory showing no particular bias compared to the primary laboratory. Despite the discrepancies observed, the results from the October 2017 surface water sampling were generally considered acceptable and able to be relied on for the report.
Rinsate Blanks
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Were Equipment Rinsates collected and analysed every day?
2 Were the Equipment Rinsates free of contaminants?
(If no, comment whether the contaminants present are also detected
in the samples and whether they are common laboratory chemicals.)
Not Applicable
Comments
Rinsate samples were not collected during this surface water sampling event as all samples were collected directly into the sampling bottle and disposable gloves used between each location. As a result of the methodology employed, there was considered to be a very low chance of cross contamination and no re-usable sampling equipment employed during the sampling.
Trip Blanks
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Was a trip blank collected on each day of sample?
2 Were the Trip Blanks free of contaminants?
(If no, comment whether the contaminants present are also detected
in the samples and whether they are common laboratory chemicals.)
Comments
Concentrations for all analytes were below the laboratory LOR for all trip blanks and indicated that cross contamination was unlikely to have occurred during sample storage and transport.
In summary, the field QC results are considered generally acceptable for the purposes of this investigation.
Field QA/QC was:
Satisfactory
Partially Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
1.2. November 2017
1.2.1. QA/QC General
Precision / Accuracy
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment below)
1 Was a NATA registered laboratory used?
2 Did the laboratory perform the requested tests?
3 Were the laboratory methods adopted NATA endorsed?
4 Were the appropriate test procedures followed?
5 Were the reporting limits satisfactory?
6 Was the NATA Seal on the reports?
7 Were the reports signed by an authorised person?
Comments
Nil
Precision / Accuracy of the Laboratory Report
Satisfactory
Partially Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Sample handling
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Were the sample holding times met?
2 Were the samples in proper custody between the field and reaching
the laboratory?
3 Were the samples properly and adequately preserved?
This includes keeping the samples chilled, where applicable.
4 Were the samples received by the laboratory in good condition?
Comments
Nil
Sample Handling was:
Satisfactory
Partially Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
1.2.2. Field QA/QC
Type of QA/QC Samples Collected
Primary Samples 9
Days of sampling 7
Field Duplicates (at least 1 in 20 samples) 2 intra lab + 3 inter lab
Trip Blanks (at least 1 per sampling event) 1
Equipment Rinsate (at least
1/day/matrix/equipment)
7
Samples Analysed
Nine samples were collected and sent to the primary laboratory Eurofins Environmental Consulting (MGT) over two days of sampling. Two duplicate samples were collected and submitted for laboratory analysis to the primary laboratory Eurofins Environmental Consulting (MGT). Three triplicate samples were collected and submitted for laboratory analysis to the secondary laboratory Australian Laboratory Services (ALS).
Field Duplicates
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Were an Adequate Number of field duplicates analysed for each
chemical?
2 Were RPDs within Control Limits?
< 30% for concentrations
Comments
Where RPDs were outside the acceptable range, sampling procedures, laboratory analytical methods and laboratory results were investigated. The results of this review are presented in Table 2 and ESDAT export table following Section 1.5.
There were 56 duplicate pair analyses for PFAS compounds and 100% were reported within the acceptance target of less than 30 % RPD. There were 56 triplicate pair analyses for PFAS compounds and 96.4 % were reported within the acceptance target of less than 30 % RPD.
Table 2. RPDs outside Acceptable Range
Primary sample Duplicate/
Triplicate
sample
Lab Analyte RPD
%
Higher
than
Primary
(Y/N)
1302_SW112_171116 Triplicate ALS Perfluoro-n-hexanoic acid (PFHxA) 67 Y
Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) 40 N
Perfluoro-n-octane sulfonic acid (PFOS) 59 Y
1302_SW175_171117 Triplicate ALS Perfluoro-n-octane sulfonic acid (PFOS) 44 Y
The RPD discrepancies observed in the November 2017 surface water sampling partially were attributed to analytical results in one of the samples being either at or marginally above the laboratory reporting limit, and the other below – which magnifies the relative difference between the results. Generally, the majority of the discrepancies were between the primary and secondary laboratory, with the secondary laboratory reporting higher concentrations of PFOS that the primary laboratory suggesting a marginal bias towards the secondary laboratory reporting the more conservative results. However, other PFAS compounds did not suggest such a bias was present. Despite the discrepancies observed, the results from the November 2017 surface water sampling were generally considered acceptable and able to be relied on for the report as the results for PFOS, PFOA and PFHxS were either all above or below the reporting limits, and any decisions on the potential risks from these compounds would not change regardless of the observed discrepancies.
Rinsate Blanks
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Were Equipment Rinsates collected and analysed every day?
2 Were the Equipment Rinsates free of contaminants?
(If no, comment whether the contaminants present are also detected
in the samples and whether they are common laboratory chemicals.)
Comments
Seven rinsate blanks were submitted to Eurofins for selected analysis of PFAS. Surface water sampling water was undertaken using a new HDPE bottle mounted within an aluminium pole. Other non-disposable equipment used included water quality meters.
Rinsate samples were collected from the field equipment (e.g. sampling gloves, aluminium pole sampler, and interface probe) after decontamination. Equipment rinsate samples were collected by pouring laboratory prepared deionised water over the equipment and collecting the ‘rinse’ into sample containers. Concentrations for all analytes were below the laboratory LOR for all rinsate blanks. A rinsate sample was collected for each day of groundwater sampling.
The rinsate results indicated that the decontamination procedures were acceptable and it is considered that there is a low potential for cross-contamination to have impacted on the laboratory results.
Trip Blanks
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Was a trip blank collected on each day of sampling?
2 Were the Trip Blanks free of contaminants?
(If no, comment whether the contaminants present are also detected
in the samples and whether they are common laboratory chemicals.)
Comments
Only a single trip blank sample was collected and analysed during the November surface water sampling event. This complies with the overall trip-blank collection frequency in the approved SAQP of one trip blank per event.
Concentrations for all analytes were below the laboratory LOR for all trip blanks and indicated that cross contamination was unlikely to have occurred during sample storage and transport.
In summary, the field QC results are considered generally acceptable for the purposes of this investigation.
Field QA/QC was:
Satisfactory
Partially Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
1.3. December 2017
1.3.1. QA/QC General
Precision / Accuracy
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment below)
1 Was a NATA registered laboratory used?
2 Did the laboratory perform the requested tests?
3 Were the laboratory methods adopted NATA endorsed?
4 Were the appropriate test procedures followed?
5 Were the reporting limits satisfactory?
6 Was the NATA Seal on the reports?
7 Were the reports signed by an authorised person?
Comments
Nil
Precision / Accuracy of the Laboratory Report
Satisfactory
Partially Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Sample handling
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Were the sample holding times met?
2 Were the samples in proper custody between the field and reaching
the laboratory?
3 Were the samples properly and adequately preserved?
This includes keeping the samples chilled, where applicable.
4 Were the samples received by the laboratory in good condition?
Comments
Nil
Sample Handling was:
Satisfactory
Partially Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
1.3.2. Field QA/QC
Type of QA/QC Samples Collected
Primary Samples 30
Days of sampling 5
Field Duplicates (at least 1 in 20 samples) 3 intra lab + 3 inter lab
Trip Blanks (at least 1 per sampling event) 5
Equipment Rinsate (at least
1/day/matrix/equipment)
5
Samples Analysed
Thirty samples were collected and sent to the primary laboratory Eurofins Environmental Consulting (MGT) over two days of sampling. Three duplicate samples were collected and submitted for laboratory analysis to the primary laboratory Eurofins Environmental Consulting (MGT). Three triplicate samples were collected and submitted for laboratory analysis to the secondary laboratory Australian Laboratory Services (ALS).
Field Duplicates
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Were an Adequate Number of field duplicates analysed for each
chemical?
2 Were RPDs within Control Limits?
< 30% for concentrations
Comments
Where RPDs were outside the acceptable range, sampling procedures, laboratory analytical methods and laboratory results were investigated. The results of this review are presented in Table 3 and ESDAT export table following Section 1.5.
There were 84 duplicate pair analyses for PFAS compounds and 100% were reported within the acceptance target of less than 30 % RPD. There were 84 triplicate pair analyses for PFAS compounds and 95.2 % were reported within the acceptance target of less than 30 % RPD.
Table 3. RPDs outside Acceptable Range
Primary sample Duplicate/
Triplicate
sample
Lab Analyte RPD
%
Higher
than
Primary
(Y/N)
1302_SW115_171205 Triplicate ALS Perfluoro pentanoic acid (PFPA or PFPeA) 50 N
Perfluoro-n-heptanoic acid (PFHpA) 40 N
Perfluoro-n-heptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS) 40 N
Perfluoro-n-pentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS) 43 Y
The RPD discrepancies observed in the December 2017 surface water sampling largely were attributed to analytical results in one of the samples being either at or marginally above the laboratory reporting limit, and the other below – which magnifies the relative difference between the results. Generally, the majority of the discrepancies were between the primary and secondary laboratory, with the secondary laboratory showing no particular bias compared to the primary laboratory. Despite the discrepancies observed, the results from the December 2017 surface water sampling were generally considered acceptable and able to be relied on for the report.
Rinsate Blanks
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Were Equipment Rinsates collected and analysed every day?
2 Were the Equipment Rinsates free of contaminants?
(If no, comment whether the contaminants present are also detected
in the samples and whether they are common laboratory chemicals.)
Comments
Five rinsate blanks were submitted to Eurofins for selected analysis of PFAS. Surface water sampling water was undertaken using a new HDPE bottle mounted within an aluminium pole. Other non-disposable equipment used included water quality meters.
Rinsate samples were collected from the field equipment (e.g. sampling gloves, aluminium pole sampler, and interface probe) after decontamination. Equipment rinsate samples were collected by pouring laboratory prepared deionised water over the equipment and collecting the ‘rinse’ into sample containers. Concentrations for all analytes were below the laboratory LOR for all rinsate blanks. A rinsate sample was collected for each day of groundwater sampling.
The rinsate results indicated that the decontamination procedures were acceptable and it is considered that there is a low potential for cross-contamination to have impacted on the laboratory results.
Trip Blanks
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Was a trip blank collected on each day of sample?
2 Were the Trip Blanks free of contaminants?
(If no, comment whether the contaminants present are also detected
in the samples and whether they are common laboratory chemicals.)
Comments
Concentrations for all analytes were below the laboratory LOR for all trip blanks and indicated that cross contamination was unlikely to have occurred during sample storage and transport.
In summary, the field QC results are considered generally acceptable for the purposes of this investigation.
Field QA/QC was:
Satisfactory
Partially Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
1.4. Laboratory QA/QC (October to December 2017)
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Were the laboratory blanks/reagents blanks free of contamination?
2 Were the spike recoveries within control limits?
3 Were the RPDs of the laboratory duplicates within control limits?
4 Were the surrogate recoveries within control limits?
1.4.1. Laboratory Blanks.
All 366 laboratory method blank results reported concentrations of contaminants below the laboratory reporting limits.
1.4.2. Laboratory Duplicates
A total of 344 internal laboratory duplicates were analysed by Eurofins and all were within acceptable limits (<30% RPD).
1.4.3. Laboratory Control Samples
A total of 228 laboratory control sample analyses were performed by Eurofins and of these, 9 LCS was outside of the acceptable range (>50%). The compounds with LCS discrepancies were not a primary PFAS compounds of concern (PFOS, PFHxS and PFOA). However, these minor discrepancies were not considered to impact on the overall quality of the laboratory results.
1.4.4. Matrix Spikes
A total of 351 matrix spike analyses were performed by Eurofins and of these 25 Matrix spikes were outside of the adopted 70% – 130% acceptability criteria adopted. Whilst these results were outside of the adopted screening criteria for surface waters, all spike recoveries were within the Eurofins dynamic recovery limits for PFAS of 50% – 150%, indicating the matrix spike results for PFAS compounds was acceptable.
1.4.5. Surrogate recoveries
The collated laboratory data for surrogate recoveries reported 71 surrogates (out of a total of 2,378 surrogate analyses undertaken) below the lower recovery limit of 20%. A total of 11 surrogate recoveries were above the adopted upper recovery limit of 150% for PFAS compounds (ranging up to 188%). These discrepancies were for a number of PFAS compounds but did not include the key PFAS compounds (PFOS, PFOA and PFHxS). Consequently, these discrepancies were not considered to impact on the overall outcome of the report.
A summary of the internal laboratory quality control results is provided in Table 4.
Table 4: Summary of internal laboratory QC results
QC test Total Analyses Number outside of
Acceptable Criteria
% of analyses
acceptable
Method Blanks 366 0 100
Laboratory Duplicates 344 0 100
Laboratory Control Samples 228 9 96
Matrix Spikes 351 25 93
Surrogates 2,378 82 97
Totals 3,667 116 97
The review of the laboratory internal quality control testing undertaken indicated that the overall completeness for the internal laboratory quality control results was 97%, which is above the 95% target and the data is therefore considered of an acceptable quality to use in the report.
Laboratory internal QA/QC was:
Satisfactory
Partially Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
1.5. Summary of October to December 2017 Surface Water Data Quality Review
In general, the data quality of the October to December 2017 Surface water monitoring events was considered to be acceptable. Minor discrepancies in replicate results between the primary and secondary laboratory were observed, but no particular bias was noted. Other minor QC deficiencies (internal laboratory discrepancies) were also considered unlikely to impact on the outcome of the report.
RAAF Base DarwinPFAS Assessment
October to December 2017 Surface Water Monitoring EventQuality Control RPD Summary Table
Surface water sampling was undertaken in January and February 2018 from various surface water bodies within the investigation area, including weekly sampling from some points. A review of the field quality assurance and quality control results has been prepared for each month (January and February), and a collated review of internal laboratory quality assurance/quality control has been undertaken combining sampling undertaken across both months.
2.1. January 2018
2.1.1. QA/QC General
Precision / Accuracy
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment below)
1 Was a NATA registered laboratory used?
2 Did the laboratory perform the requested tests?
3 Were the laboratory methods adopted NATA endorsed?
4 Were the appropriate test procedures followed?
5 Were the reporting limits satisfactory?
6 Was the NATA Seal on the reports?
7 Were the reports signed by an authorised person?
Comments
Nil
Precision / Accuracy of the Laboratory Report
Satisfactory
Partially Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Sample handling
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Were the sample holding times met?
2 Were the samples in proper custody between the field and reaching
the laboratory?
3 Were the samples properly and adequately preserved?
This includes keeping the samples chilled, where applicable.
4 Were the samples received by the laboratory in good condition?
Comments
Nil
Sample Handling was: Satisfactory
Partially Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
2.1.2. Field QA/QC
Type of QA/QC Samples Collected
Primary Samples 75
Days of sampling 7
Field Duplicates (at least 1 in 20 samples) 8 intra lab + 7 inter lab
Trip Blanks (at least 1 per sampling event) 8
Equipment Rinsate (at least
1/day/matrix/equipment)
8
Samples Analysed
Seventy five samples were collected and sent to the primary laboratory Eurofins Environmental Consulting (MGT) over seven days of sampling. 8 duplicate samples were collected and submitted for laboratory analysis to the primary laboratory Eurofins Environmental Consulting (MGT). Seven triplicate samples were collected and submitted for laboratory analysis to the secondary laboratory Australian Laboratory Services (ALS).
Field Duplicates
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Were an Adequate Number of field duplicates analysed for each
chemical?
2 Were RPDs within Control Limits?
< 30% for concentrations
Comments
Where RPDs were outside the acceptable range, sampling procedures, laboratory analytical methods and laboratory results were investigated. The results of this review are presented in Table 5 and ESDAT export table following Section 2.4.
There were 224 duplicate pair analyses for PFAS compounds and 98.7% were reported within the acceptance target of less than 30 % RPD. There were 196 triplicate pair analyses for PFAS compounds and 99 % were reported within the acceptance target of less than 30 % RPD.
Table 5. RPDs outside Acceptable Range
Primary sample Duplicate/
Triplicate
sample
Lab Analyte RPD
%
Higher
than
Primary
(Y/N)
1302_SW174_180130 Triplicate ALS Perfluoro-n-octane sulfonic acid (PFOS) 67 N
1302_SW114_180109 Duplicate Eurofins Perfluoro-n-heptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS) 67 N
1302_SW149_180129 Duplicate Eurofins Perfluoro-n-hexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) 50 Y
Triplicate ALS Perfluoro-n-hexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) 40 N
Perfluoro-n-octane sulfonic acid (PFOS) 100 N
1302_SW180_180130 Triplicate ALS Perfluoro pentanoic acid (PFPA or PFPeA) 86 N
Perfluoro-n-octane sulfonic acid (PFOS) 45 Y
The RPD discrepancies observed in the January 2018 surface water sampling largely were attributed to analytical results in one of the samples being either at or marginally above the laboratory reporting limit, and the other below – which magnifies the relative difference between the results. Generally, the majority of the discrepancies were between the primary and secondary laboratory, with the secondary laboratory showing no particular bias compared to the primary laboratory. Despite the discrepancies observed, the results from the January 2018 surface water sampling were generally considered acceptable and able to be relied on for the report.
Rinsate Blanks
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Were Equipment Rinsates collected and analysed every day?
2 Were the Equipment Rinsates free of contaminants?
(If no, comment whether the contaminants present are also detected
in the samples and whether they are common laboratory chemicals.)
N
Comments
Eight rinsate blanks were submitted to Eurofins for selected analysis of PFAS. Surface water sampling water was undertaken using a new HDPE bottle mounted within an aluminium pole. Other non-disposable equipment used included water quality meters.
Rinsate samples were collected from the field equipment (e.g. sampling gloves, aluminium pole sampler, and interface probe) after decontamination. Equipment rinsate samples were collected by pouring laboratory prepared deionised water over the equipment and collecting the ‘rinse’ into sample containers. Concentrations for all analytes were below the laboratory LOR for all rinsate blanks. A rinsate sample was collected for each day of groundwater sampling.
The rinsate results indicated that the decontamination procedures were acceptable and it is considered that there is a low potential for cross-contamination to have impacted on the laboratory results.
Trip Blanks
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Was a trip blank collected on each day of sample?
2 Were the Trip Blanks free of contaminants?
(If no, comment whether the contaminants present are also detected
in the samples and whether they are common laboratory chemicals.)
Comments
Concentrations for all analytes were below the laboratory LOR for all trip blanks and indicated that cross contamination was unlikely to have occurred during sample storage and transport.
In summary, the field QC results are considered generally acceptable for the purposes of this investigation.
Field QA/QC was:
Satisfactory
Partially Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
2.2. February 2018
2.2.1. QA/QC General
Precision / Accuracy
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment below)
1 Was a NATA registered laboratory used?
2 Did the laboratory perform the requested tests?
3 Were the laboratory methods adopted NATA endorsed?
4 Were the appropriate test procedures followed?
5 Were the reporting limits satisfactory?
6 Was the NATA Seal on the reports?
7 Were the reports signed by an authorised person?
Comments
Nil
Precision / Accuracy of the Laboratory Report
Satisfactory
Partially Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Sample handling
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Were the sample holding times met?
2 Were the samples in proper custody between the field and reaching
the laboratory?
3 Were the samples properly and adequately preserved?
This includes keeping the samples chilled, where applicable.
4 Were the samples received by the laboratory in good condition?
Comments
Nil
Sample Handling was:
Satisfactory
Partially Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
2.2.2. Field QA/QC
Type of QA/QC Samples Collected
Primary Samples 22
Days of sampling 3
Field Duplicates (at least 1 in 20 samples) 3 intra lab + 3 inter lab
Trip Blanks (at least 1 per sampling event) 3
Equipment Rinsate (at least
1/day/matrix/equipment)
3
Samples Analysed
Twenty Two samples were collected and sent to the primary laboratory Eurofins Environmental Consulting (MGT) over three days of sampling. Three duplicate samples were collected and submitted for laboratory analysis to the primary laboratory Eurofins Environmental Consulting (MGT). Three triplicate samples were collected and submitted for laboratory analysis to the secondary laboratory Australian Laboratory Services (ALS).
Field Duplicates
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Were an Adequate Number of field duplicates analysed for each
chemical?
2 Were RPDs within Control Limits?
< 30% for concentrations
Comments
Where RPDs were outside the acceptable range, sampling procedures, laboratory analytical methods and laboratory results were investigated. The results of this review are presented in Table 6 and ESDAT export table following Section 2.4.
There were 56 duplicate pair analyses for PFAS compounds and 97.6% were reported within the acceptance target of less than 30 % RPD. There were 56 triplicate pair analyses for PFAS compounds and 78.5 % were reported within the acceptance target of less than 30 % RPD.
Table 6. RPDs outside Acceptable Range
Primary
sample
Duplicate/
Triplicate
sample
Lab Analyte RPD
%
Higher
than
Primary
(Y/N)
1302_SW170_
180222
Duplicate Eurofins Perfluoro-n-heptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS) 67 Y
Triplicate ALS Perfluoro pentanoic acid (PFPA or PFPeA) 120 Y
Perfluoro-n-hexanoic acid (PFHxA) 120 Y
Perfluoro-n-heptanoic acid (PFHpA) 67 Y
Perfluoro-n-octanoate acid (PFOA) 133 Y
Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) 133 Y
Perfluoro-n-hexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) 128 Y
Perfluoro-n-heptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS) 143 Y
Perfluoro-n-octane sulfonic acid (PFOS) 88 Y
Perfluoro-n-decane sulfonic acid (PFDS) 138 Y
1302_SW168_
180222
Duplicate Eurofins Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) 67 Y
Triplicate ALS Perfluoro pentanoic acid (PFPA or PFPeA) 120 Y
Perfluoro-n-hexanoic acid (PFHxA) 124 Y
Perfluoro-n-heptanoic acid (PFHpA) 67 Y
Perfluoro-n-octanoate acid (PFOA) 133 Y
Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) 150 Y
Perfluoro-n-hexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) 119 Y
Perfluoro-n-heptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS) 120 Y
Perfluoro-n-octane sulfonic acid (PFOS) 64 Y
Perfluoro-n-decane sulfonic acid (PFDS) 127 Y
The RPD discrepancies observed in the February 2018 surface water sampling partially were attributed to analytical results in one of the samples being either at or marginally above the laboratory reporting limit, and the other below in the primary laboratory samples – which magnifies the relative difference between the results. However, the RPDs for the secondary laboratory were a result of significantly higher concentrations of PFAS across the board. These results suggest that the PFAS results for the samples collected on the 22 February 2018 may be under-reported by approximately 50-100%. Consequently, the results collected on this day cannot be relied on quantitatively, but only qualitatively. Generally, the results collected on this day are all above the adopted screening levels (with the exception of two samples reporting concentrations below the laboratory reporting limits) and this significant discrepancy would not change the outcome of the assessment – particularly for concentrations of PFOS, PFHxS and PFOA.
Rinsate Blanks
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Were Equipment Rinsates collected and analysed every day?
2 Were the Equipment Rinsates free of contaminants?
(If no, comment whether the contaminants present are also detected
in the samples and whether they are common laboratory chemicals.)
Comments
Three rinsate blanks were submitted to Eurofins for selected analysis of PFAS. Surface water sampling water was undertaken using a new HDPE bottle mounted within an aluminium pole. Other non-disposable equipment used included water quality meters.
Rinsate samples were collected from the field equipment (e.g. sampling gloves, aluminium pole sampler, and interface probe) after decontamination. Equipment rinsate samples were collected by pouring laboratory prepared deionised water over the equipment and collecting the ‘rinse’ into sample containers. Concentrations for all analytes were below the laboratory LOR for all rinsate blanks. A rinsate sample was collected for each day of groundwater sampling.
The rinsate results indicated that the decontamination procedures were acceptable and it is considered that there is a low potential for cross-contamination to have impacted on the laboratory results.
Trip Blanks
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Was a trip blank collected on each day of sampling?
2 Were the Trip Blanks free of contaminants?
(If no, comment whether the contaminants present are also detected
in the samples and whether they are common laboratory chemicals.)
Comments
Concentrations for all analytes were below the laboratory LOR for all trip blanks and indicated that cross contamination was unlikely to have occurred during sample storage and transport.
In summary, the field QC results are considered generally acceptable for the purposes of this investigation.
Field QA/QC was:
Satisfactory
Partially Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
2.3. Laboratory QA/QC (January to February 2018)
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Were the laboratory blanks/reagents blanks free of contamination?
2 Were the spike recoveries within control limits?
3 Were the RPDs of the laboratory duplicates within control limits?
4 Were the surrogate recoveries within control limits?
2.3.1. Laboratory Blanks.
All 412 laboratory method blank results reported concentrations of contaminants below the laboratory reporting limits.
2.3.2. Laboratory Duplicates
A total of 583 internal laboratory duplicates were analysed by Eurofins and two were outside of the acceptable limits (<30% RPD) for Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) (67%) and Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) (67%).
2.3.3. Laboratory Control Samples
A total of 273 laboratory control sample analyses were performed by Eurofins and of these, 17 LCS was outside of the acceptable range (>50%). The compounds with LCS discrepancies were not a primary PFAS compounds of concern (PFOS, PFHxS and PFOA) and these minor discrepancies were not considered to impact on the overall quality of the laboratory results.
2.3.4. Matrix Spikes
A total of 455 matrix spike analyses were performed by Eurofins and of these 31 Matrix spikes were outside of the adopted 70% – 130% acceptability criteria adopted. Whilst these results were outside of the adopted screening criteria for surface waters, none were for the primary PFAS compounds of concern (PFOS, PFHxS and PFOA) and all spike recoveries were within the Eurofins dynamic recovery limits for PFAS of 50% – 150%, indicating the matrix spike results for PFAS compounds was acceptable.
2.3.5. Surrogate recoveries
The collated laboratory data for surrogate recoveries reported 58 surrogates (out of a total of 2,378 surrogate analyses undertaken) below the lower recovery limit of 20%. A total of 20 surrogate recoveries were above the adopted upper recovery limit of 150% for PFAS compounds (ranging up to 179%). These discrepancies were for a number of PFAS compounds but did not include the key PFAS compounds (PFOS, PFOA and PFHxS). Consequently, these discrepancies were not considered to impact on the overall outcome of the report.
A summary of the internal laboratory quality control results is provided in Table 7.
Table 7: Summary of internal laboratory QC results
QC test Total Analyses Number outside of
Acceptable Criteria
% of analyses
acceptable
Method Blanks 412 0 100
Laboratory Duplicates 583 2 99.7
Laboratory Control Samples 273 17 93.8
Matrix Spikes 455 31 93.2
Surrogates 3018 78 97.4
Totals 4741 128 97.3
The review of the laboratory internal quality control testing undertaken indicated that the overall completeness for the internal laboratory quality control results was 97.3%, which is above the 95% target and the data is therefore considered of an acceptable quality to use in the report.
Laboratory internal QA/QC was:
Satisfactory
Partially Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
2.4. Summary of January to February 2018 Surface Water Data Quality Review
In general, the data quality of the January to February 2018 Surface water monitoring events was considered to be acceptable. Minor discrepancies in replicate results between the primary and secondary laboratory were observed and samples collected on 22 February 2018 were not considered to be reliable and likely under-reported the concentrations of PFAS within surface water. However, the majority of results from this day were already above the adopted screening criteria (or below the laboratory reporting limits) and any under-reporting is unlikely to affect the qualitative outcome of the results. Direct comparison of results (such as for trend analysis) on this day should be undertaken with caution as the reported results at the primary laboratory may be 50 to 100% under-reported. Other minor QC deficiencies (internal laboratory discrepancies) were also considered unlikely to impact on the outcome of the report.
RAAF Base DarwinPFAS Assessment
January 2018 Surface Water Monitoring EventQuality Control RPD Summary Table
Field ID 1302_QCSW29_180130 1302_QCSW33_180131 1302_QCSW07_180108 1302_QCSW13_180109 1302_QCSW17_180110 1302_QCSW17_180111 1302_QCSW21_180129 1302_QCSW25_180130
3 Were the laboratory methods adopted NATA endorsed?
4 Were the appropriate test procedures followed?
5 Were the reporting limits satisfactory?
6 Was the NATA Seal on the reports?
7 Were the reports signed by an authorised person?
Comments
Nil
Precision / Accuracy of the Laboratory Report
Satisfactory
Partially Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
3.1.2. Sample handling
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Were the sample holding times met?
2 Were the samples in proper custody between the field and reaching
the laboratory?
3 Were the samples properly and adequately preserved?
This includes keeping the samples chilled, where applicable.
4 Were the samples received by the laboratory in good condition?
Comments
Nil
Sample Handling was:
Satisfactory
Partially Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
3.2. Field QA/QC
3.2.1. Type of QA/QC Samples Collected
Primary Samples 81
Days of sampling 5
Field Duplicates (at least 1 in 20 samples) 7 intra lab + 7 inter lab
Trip Blanks (at least 1 per sampling event) 5
Equipment Rinsate (at least
1/day/matrix/equipment)
5
3.2.2. Samples Analysed
Eighty one samples were collected and sent to the primary laboratory Eurofins Environmental Consulting (MGT) over five days of sampling. Seven duplicate samples were collected and submitted for laboratory analysis to the primary laboratory Eurofins Environmental Consulting (MGT). Seven triplicate samples were collected and submitted for laboratory analysis to the secondary laboratory Australian Laboratory Services (ALS).
3.2.3. Field Duplicates
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Were an Adequate Number of field duplicates analysed for each
chemical?
2 Were RPDs within Control Limits?
< 30% for concentrations
Comments
Where RPDs were outside the acceptable range, sampling procedures, laboratory analytical methods and laboratory results were investigated. The results of this review are presented in Table 8 and ESDAT export table following Section 3.4.
There were 189 duplicate pair analyses for PFAS compounds and 98 % were reported within the acceptance target of less than 30 % RPD. There were 162 triplicate pair analyses for PFAS compounds and 90 % were reported within the acceptance target of less than 30 % RPD.
Table 8. RPDs outside Acceptable Range
Primary sample Duplicate/
Triplicate
sample
Laboratory Analyte RPD
%
Higher
than
Primary
(Y/N)
1302_MW130_17
1114
Triplicate ALS Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) 31 Y
1302_MW151_17
1114
Duplicate Eurofins Perfluoro pentanoic acid (PFPA or PFPeA) 67 N
Perfluoro-n-hexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) 32 N
Perfluoro-n-octane sulfonic acid (PFOS) 34 N
Triplicate ALS Perfluoro-n-hexanoic acid (PFHxA) 40 Y
Perfluoro-n-octane sulfonic acid (PFOS) 34 N
Perfluoro-n-pentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS) 67 Y
1302_230_MW01
_171115
Triplicate ALS Perfluoro-n-hexanoic acid (PFHxA) 43 Y
1302_206_MW06
_171115
Triplicate ALS Perfluoro-n-octane sulfonic acid (PFOS) 49 N
1302_BLD33-
NRTH_171113
Triplicate ALS Perfluoro pentanoic acid (PFPA or PFPeA) 40 N
Perfluoro-n-octanoate acid (PFOA) 67 N
The RPD discrepancies observed in the November 2017 groundwater sampling largely were attributed to analytical results in one of the samples being either at or marginally above the laboratory reporting limit, and the other below – which magnifies the relative difference between the results. Generally, the majority of the discrepancies were between the primary and secondary laboratory, with the secondary laboratory showing no particular bias compared to the primary laboratory. Despite the discrepancies observed, the results from the November 2017 groundwater sampling were generally considered acceptable and able to be relied on for the report.
3.2.4. Rinsate Blanks
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Were Equipment Rinsates collected and analysed every day?
2 Were the Equipment Rinsates free of contaminants?
(If no, comment whether the contaminants present are also detected
in the samples and whether they are common laboratory chemicals.)
Comments
Five rinsate blanks were submitted to Eurofins for selected analysis of PFAS. Groundwater sampling was undertaken using hydrasleeve sampling and the only non-disposable equipment used included interface probes and water quality meters.
Rinsate samples were collected from the field equipment (e.g. sampling gloves, water quality meter, and interface probe) after decontamination. Equipment rinsate samples were collected by pouring laboratory prepared deionised water over the equipment and collecting the ‘rinse’ into sample containers. Concentrations for all analytes were below the laboratory LOR for all rinsate blanks. A rinsate sample was collected for each day of groundwater sampling.
The rinsate results indicated that the decontamination procedures were acceptable and it is considered that there is a low potential for cross-contamination to have impacted on the laboratory results.
3.2.5. Trip Blanks
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Was a trip blank collected on each day of sample?
2 Were the Trip Blanks free of contaminants?
(If no, comment whether the contaminants present are also detected
in the samples and whether they are common laboratory chemicals.)
Comments
Concentrations for all analytes were below the laboratory LOR for all trip blanks and indicated that cross contamination was unlikely to have occurred during sample storage and transport.
In summary, the field QC results are considered generally acceptable for the purposes of this investigation.
Field QA/QC was:
Satisfactory
Partially Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
3.3. Laboratory QA/QC
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Were the laboratory blanks/reagents blanks free of contamination?
2 Were the spike recoveries within control limits?
3 Were the RPDs of the laboratory duplicates within control limits?
4 Were the surrogate recoveries within control limits?
3.3.1. Laboratory Blanks.
All 140 laboratory method blank results reported concentrations of contaminants below the laboratory reporting limits.
3.3.2. Laboratory Duplicates
A total of 336 internal laboratory duplicates were analysed by Eurofins and all but one (Perfluoropentanoic acid PFPeA – 67%) were within acceptable limits (<30% RPD).
3.3.3. Laboratory Control Samples
A total of 140 laboratory control sample analyses were performed by Eurofins and of these, 4 LCS was outside of the acceptable range (>50%). The compounds with LCS discrepancies were not a primary PFAS compounds of concern (PFOS, PFHxS and PFOA). However, this minor discrepancies were not considered to impact on the overall quality of the laboratory results.
3.3.4. Matrix Spikes
A total of 308 matrix spike analyses were performed by Eurofins and of these 6 Matrix spikes were outside of the adopted 70% – 130% acceptability criteria adopted. Whilst these results were outside of the adopted screening criteria for surface waters, all spike recoveries were within the Eurofins dynamic recovery limits for PFAS of 50% – 150%, indicating the matrix spike results for PFAS compounds was acceptable.
3.3.5. Surrogate recoveries
The collated laboratory data for surrogate recoveries reported 13 surrogates (out of a total of 1,863 surrogate analyses undertaken) below the lower recovery limit of 20%. A total of 54 surrogate recoveries were above the adopted upper recovery limit of 150% for PFAS compounds (ranging up to 199%). These discrepancies were for a number of PFAS compounds. However, over-reporting of PFAS compounds is considered to add a level of conservatism to the overall results of the assessment, and not considered to impact on the overall outcome of the DSI report.
A summary of the internal laboratory quality control results is provided in Table 9
Table 9: Summary of internal laboratory QC results
QC test Total Analyses Number outside of
Acceptable Criteria
% of analyses
acceptable
Method Blanks 140 0 100
Laboratory Duplicates 336 1 99.7
Laboratory Control Samples 140 4 97.1
Matrix Spikes 308 6 98.1
Surrogates 2,254 67 97
Totals 3,178 165 97.5
The review of the laboratory internal quality control testing undertaken indicated that the overall completeness for the internal laboratory quality control results was 97.5%, which is above the 95% target. However, the majority of the surrogate recoveries analysed were within the acceptable dynamic recovery limits, and the data is therefore considered of an acceptable quality to use in the report.
Laboratory internal QA/QC was:
Satisfactory
Partially Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
3.4. Summary of November 2017 GME Data Quality Review
In general, the data quality of the November 2017 groundwater monitoring event was considered to be acceptable. Minor discrepancies in replicate results between the primary and secondary laboratory were observed, but no particular bias was noted. Other minor QC deficiencies (internal laboratory discrepancies) were also considered unlikely to impact on the outcome of the report.
RAAF Base DarwinPFAS Assessment
November 2017 Groundwater Monitoring EventQuality Control RPD Summary Table
3 Were the laboratory methods adopted NATA endorsed?
4 Were the appropriate test procedures followed?
5 Were the reporting limits satisfactory?
6 Was the NATA Seal on the reports?
7 Were the reports signed by an authorised person?
Comments
Nil
Precision / Accuracy of the Laboratory Report
Satisfactory
Partially Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
4.1.2. Sample handling
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Were the sample holding times met?
2 Were the samples in proper custody between the field and reaching
the laboratory?
3 Were the samples properly and adequately preserved?
This includes keeping the samples chilled, where applicable.
4 Were the samples received by the laboratory in good condition?
Comments
Nil
Sample Handling was:
Satisfactory
Partially Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
4.2. Field QA/QC
4.2.1. Type of QA/QC Samples Collected
Primary Samples 87
Days of sampling 3
Field Duplicates (at least 1 in 20 samples) 9 intra lab + 9 inter lab
Trip Blanks (at least 1 per sampling event) 3
Equipment Rinsate (at least
1/day/matrix/equipment)
3
4.2.2. Samples Analysed
Eighty seven samples were collected and sent to the primary laboratory Eurofins Environmental Consulting over three days of sampling. Nine duplicate samples were collected and submitted for laboratory analysis to the primary laboratory Eurofins Environmental Consulting. Nine triplicate samples were collected and submitted for laboratory analysis to the secondary laboratory Australian Laboratory Services (ALS).
4.2.3. Field Duplicates
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Were an Adequate Number of field duplicates analysed for each
chemical?
2 Were RPDs within Control Limits?
< 30% for concentrations
Comments
Where RPDs were outside the acceptable range, sampling procedures, laboratory analytical methods and laboratory results were investigated. The results of this review are presented in the ESDAT export table following Section 4.4.
There were 252 duplicate pair analyses for PFAS compounds and 96.1 % were reported within the acceptance target of less than 30 % RPD. There were 252 triplicate pair analyses for PFAS compounds and 94.8% were reported within the acceptance target of less than 30 % RPD.
The RPD discrepancies observed in the January 2018 groundwater sampling event largely were attributed to analytical results from two sample pairs. MW116 and its intra-lab and inter-lab duplicates and MW125 and its intra-lab and inter-lab duplicates did not report good repeatability, although the duplicates were quite similar to each other in both cases. Concentrations in MW116 have varied significantly between events through the year and may indicate heterogeneous distribution of contamination in the area. The January 2018 primary result for MW125, was considerably higher than the result from previous rounds, and the duplicate samples are more consistent with other events.
Generally, the majority of the discrepancies were between the primary and secondary laboratory indicated that the secondary laboratory was reporting lower concentrations of PFAS compounds than the primary laboratory, suggesting a slight bias. This bias adds a level of conservatism to the results and despite the discrepancies observed, the RPD results from the January 2018 groundwater sampling were generally considered acceptable and able to be relied on for the report.
4.2.4. Rinsate Blanks
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Were Equipment Rinsates collected and analysed every day?
2 Were the Equipment Rinsates free of contaminants?
(If no, comment whether the contaminants present are also detected
in the samples and whether they are common laboratory chemicals.)
Comments
Three rinsate blanks were submitted to Eurofins for selected analysis of PFAS. Groundwater sampling was undertaken using hydrasleeve sampling and the only non-disposable equipment used included interface probes and water quality meters, which did not come into contact with groundwater samples.
Rinsate samples were collected from the field equipment (e.g. sampling gloves, water quality meter, and interface probe) after decontamination. Equipment rinsate samples were collected by pouring laboratory prepared deionised water over the equipment and collecting the ‘rinse’ into sample containers. Concentrations for all analytes were below the laboratory LOR for all rinsate blanks. A rinsate sample was collected for each day of groundwater sampling.
The rinsate results indicated that the decontamination procedures were acceptable and it is considered that there is a low potential for cross-contamination to have impacted on the laboratory results.
4.2.5. Trip Blanks
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Was a trip blank collected on each day of sample?
2 Were the Trip Blanks free of contaminants?
(If no, comment whether the contaminants present are also detected
in the samples and whether they are common laboratory chemicals.)
Comments
Concentrations for all analytes were below the laboratory LOR for all trip blanks and indicated that cross contamination was unlikely to have occurred during sample storage and transport.
In summary, the field QC results are considered generally acceptable for the purposes of this investigation.
Field QA/QC was:
Satisfactory
Partially Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
4.3. Laboratory QA/QC
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Were the laboratory blanks/reagents blanks free of contamination?
2 Were the spike recoveries within control limits?
3 Were the RPDs of the laboratory duplicates within control limits?
4 Were the surrogate recoveries within control limits?
4.3.1. Laboratory Blanks.
All 84 laboratory method blank results reported concentrations of contaminants below the laboratory reporting limits.
4.3.2. Laboratory Duplicates
A total of 308 internal laboratory duplicates were analysed by Eurofins and all but one (Perfluoropentanoic acid PFPeA – 67%) were within acceptable limits (<30% RPD).
4.3.3. Laboratory Control Samples
A total of 84 laboratory control sample analyses were performed by Eurofins and of these, 2 LCS was outside of the acceptable range (>50%). The compounds with LCS discrepancies were not a primary PFAS compounds of concern (PFOS, PFHxS and PFOA). However, this minor discrepancies were not considered to impact on the overall quality of the laboratory results.
4.3.4. Matrix Spikes
A total of 279 matrix spike analyses were performed by Eurofins and of these 10 Matrix spikes were outside of the adopted 70% – 130% acceptability criteria adopted. Whilst these results were outside of the adopted screening criteria for surface waters, all spike recoveries were within the Eurofins dynamic recovery limits for PFAS of 50% – 150%, indicating the matrix spike results for PFAS compounds was acceptable.
4.3.5. Surrogate recoveries
The collated laboratory data for surrogate recoveries reported 27 surrogates (out of a total of 2,346 surrogate analyses undertaken) below the lower recovery limit of 20%. A total of 16 surrogate recoveries were above the adopted upper recovery limit of 150% for PFAS compounds (ranging up to 197%). These discrepancies were for a number of PFAS compounds, but none were for the key PFAS compounds (PFOS, PFOA & PFHxS) indicating that the data set was acceptable for the purposes of supporting the outcomes of the report.
A summary of the internal laboratory quality control results is provided in Table 10.
Table 10: Summary of internal laboratory QC results
QC test Total Analyses Number outside of
Acceptable
Criteria
% of analyses
acceptable
Method Blanks 84 0 100
Laboratory Duplicates 308 1 99.7%
Laboratory Control Samples 84 2 97.6%
Matrix Spikes 279 10 96.4%
Surrogates 2,346 43 98.2%
Totals 3,101 56 98.2%
The review of the laboratory internal quality control testing undertaken indicated that the overall completeness for the internal laboratory quality control results was 98.2%, which is above the 95% target. Consequently, the data is therefore considered of an acceptable quality to use in the report.
Laboratory internal QA/QC was:
Satisfactory
Partially Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
4.4. Summary of January 2018 GME Data Quality Review
In general, the data quality of the January 2018 groundwater monitoring event was considered to be acceptable. Minor discrepancies in replicate results between the primary and secondary laboratory were observed, with the primary laboratory generally reporting higher concentrations of PFAS than the secondary laboratory, which adds a level of conservatism to the results. Other minor QC deficiencies (internal laboratory discrepancies) were also considered unlikely to impact on the outcome of the report.
RAAF Base Darwin
PFAS Assessment
January 2018 Groundwater Monitoring Event
Field Replicate RPD Summary Table
Department of Defence
Field Duplicates (WATER) Lab Report Number 580283 580283 580283 EB1801820 580283 580283 580283 EB1801820
Field ID 1302_MW198_180111 1302_QCMW02_180111 RPD 1302_MW198_180111 1302_QCMW03_180111 RPD 1302_MW162_180111 1302_QCMW04_180111 RPD 1302_MW162_180111 1302_QCMW06_180111 RPDSample Date 11/01/2018 11/01/2018 11/01/2018 11/01/2018 11/01/2018 11/01/2018 11/01/2018 11/01/2018
Sum of PFASs (n=28) µg/L 0.1 (Primary): 0.01 (Interlab) 1.35 1.46 8 1.35 1.21 11 23.36 23.21 1 23.36 18.7 22Sum of WA DER PFAS (n=10) µg/L 0.05 (Primary): 0.01 (Interlab) 1.29 1.4 8 1.29 1.18 9 22.76 22.64 1 22.76 18.2 22
*RPDs have only been considered where a concentration is greater than 0 times the EQL.
**High RPDs are in bold (Acceptable RPDs for each EQL multiplier range are: 25 (0-10 x EQL); 25 (10-20 x EQL); 10 ( > 20 x EQL) )
***Interlab Duplicates are matched on a per compound basis as methods vary between laboratories. Any methods in the row header relate to those used in the primary laboratory
Sum of PFASs (n=28) µg/L 0.1 (Primary): 0.01 (Interlab)Sum of WA DER PFAS (n=10) µg/L 0.05 (Primary): 0.01 (Interlab)
*RPDs have only been considered where a concentration is greater than 0 times the EQL.
**High RPDs are in bold (Acceptable RPDs for each EQL multiplier range are: 25 (0-10 x EQL); 25 (10-20 x EQL); 10 ( > 20 x EQL) )
***Interlab Duplicates are matched on a per compound basis as methods vary between laboratories. Any methods in the row header relate to those used in the primary laboratory
Sum of PFASs (n=28) µg/L 0.1 (Primary): 0.01 (Interlab)Sum of WA DER PFAS (n=10) µg/L 0.05 (Primary): 0.01 (Interlab)
*RPDs have only been considered where a concentration is greater than 0 times the EQL.
**High RPDs are in bold (Acceptable RPDs for each EQL multiplier range are: 25 (0-10 x EQL); 25 (10-20 x EQL); 10 ( > 20 x EQL) )
***Interlab Duplicates are matched on a per compound basis as methods vary between laboratories. Any methods in the row header relate to those used in the primary laboratory
Sum of PFASs (n=28) µg/L 0.1 (Primary): 0.01 (Interlab)Sum of WA DER PFAS (n=10) µg/L 0.05 (Primary): 0.01 (Interlab)
*RPDs have only been considered where a concentration is greater than 0 times the EQL.
**High RPDs are in bold (Acceptable RPDs for each EQL multiplier range are: 25 (0-10 x EQL); 25 (10-20 x EQL); 10 ( > 20 x EQL) )
***Interlab Duplicates are matched on a per compound basis as methods vary between laboratories. Any methods in the row header relate to those used in the primary laboratory
Surface water sampling was undertaken in March 2018 from various surface water bodies within the investigation area, including weekly sampling from some points. A review of the field quality assurance and quality control results has been prepared and a collated review of internal laboratory quality assurance/quality control has been undertaken combining sampling undertaken across the month.
5.1. March 2018
5.1.1. QA/QC General
Precision / Accuracy
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment below)
1 Was a NATA registered laboratory used?
2 Did the laboratory perform the requested tests?
3 Were the laboratory methods adopted NATA endorsed?
4 Were the appropriate test procedures followed?
5 Were the reporting limits satisfactory?
6 Was the NATA Seal on the reports?
7 Were the reports signed by an authorised person?
Comments
Nil
Precision / Accuracy of the Laboratory Report
Satisfactory
Partially Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Sample handling
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Were the sample holding times met?
2 Were the samples in proper custody between the field and reaching
the laboratory?
3 Were the samples properly and adequately preserved?
This includes keeping the samples chilled, where applicable.
4 Were the samples received by the laboratory in good condition?
5 Were samples labelled correctly
Comments
Sample SW135 was broken during transit to the laboratory.
Quality control samples collected on 7 March 2018 were mis-labelled and quality control samples collected as a part of the groundwater monitoring program were mislabelled as surface water samples. The table below provides a summary of the mis-labelling of surface water quality control samples
Surface Water QC
Sample ID (on COC)
Quality Control Sample
Details
Correct sample within the
bottle supplied to the
laboratory
Actual surface water
quality control sample
labelled as (and
analysed as)
QCSW13 Trip Blank Duplicate of monitoring well
206-MW06
QCMW13
QCSW15 Triplicate of SW132 Duplicate of monitoring well
204_MW04
QCMW15
QCSW16 Trip Blank Triplicate of monitoring well
204_MW04
QCMW16
QCSW17 Rinsate off Pole Duplicate of monitoring well
MW199
QCMW17
QCSW18 Duplicate of SW105 Triplicate of monitoring well
MW199
QCMW18
The results presented in the RPD calculation and blank summary tables have been corrected to provide the results for the actual corresponding sample.
Sample Handling was:
Satisfactory
Partially Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
5.1.2. Field QA/QC
Type of QA/QC Samples Collected
Primary Samples 94
Days of sampling 7
Field Duplicates (at least 1 in 20 samples) 11 intra lab + 10 inter lab
Trip Blanks (at least 1 per sampling event) 10
Equipment Rinsate (at least
1/day/matrix/equipment)
10
Samples Analysed
Ninety four samples were collected and sent to the primary laboratory Eurofins Environmental Consulting (MGT) over seven days of sampling. Eleven duplicate samples were collected and submitted for laboratory analysis to the primary laboratory Eurofins Environmental Consulting (MGT). Ten triplicate samples were collected and submitted for laboratory analysis to the secondary laboratory Australian Laboratory Services (ALS).
Field Duplicates
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Were an Adequate Number of field duplicates analysed for each
chemical?
2 Were RPDs within Control Limits?
< 30% for concentrations
Comments
Where RPDs were outside the acceptable range, sampling procedures, laboratory analytical methods and laboratory results were investigated. The results of this review are presented in Table 11 and ESDAT export table following Section 5.3.
There were 308 duplicate pair analyses for PFAS compounds and 98.05% were reported within the acceptance target of less than 30 % RPD. There were 280 triplicate pair analyses for PFAS compounds and 97.86 % were reported within the acceptance target of less than 30 % RPD.
Table 11. RPDs outside Acceptable Range
Primary sample Duplicate/
Triplicate
sample
Laboratory Analyte RPD
%
Higher
than
Primary
(Y/N)
1302_SW170_18
0301
Duplicate Eurofins Perfluoro-n-hexanoic acid (PFHxA) 40 Y
1302_SW149_18
0306
Duplicate Eurofins Perfluoro-n-hexanoic acid (PFHxA) 100 Y
Perfluoro-n-hexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) 169 Y
Perfluoro-n-octane sulfonic acid (PFOS) 150 Y
Triplicate ALS Perfluoro-n-hexanoic acid (PFHxA) 67 Y
Perfluoro-n-hexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) 169 Y
Perfluoro-n-octane sulfonic acid (PFOS) 133 Y
1302_SW151_18
0305
Triplicate ALS Perfluoro-n-hexanoic acid (PFHxA) 40 N
1302_SW144_18
0307
Triplicate ALS Perfluoro-n-octanoate acid (PFOA) 67 N
1302_SW109_18
0308
Duplicate Eurofins Perfluoro-n-octanoate acid (PFOA) 67 Y
1302_SW105_18
0307
Duplicate Eurofins Perfluoro-n-octane sulfonic acid (PFOS 46 N
Triplicate ALS Perfluoro-n-octane sulfonic acid (PFOS 56 N
The RPD discrepancies observed in the March 2018 surface water sampling largely were attributed to analytical results in one of the samples being either at or marginally above the laboratory reporting limit, and the other below – which magnifies the relative difference between the results. Generally, the majority of the discrepancies were between the primary and secondary laboratory, with the secondary laboratory showing no particular bias compared to the primary laboratory. Despite the discrepancies observed, the results from the March 2018 surface water sampling were generally considered acceptable and able to be relied on for the report.
Rinsate Blanks
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Were Equipment Rinsates collected and analysed every day?
2 Were the Equipment Rinsates free of contaminants?
(If no, comment whether the contaminants present are also detected
in the samples and whether they are common laboratory chemicals.)
Comments
Ten rinsate blanks were submitted to Eurofins for selected analysis of PFAS. Surface water sampling water was undertaken using a new HDPE bottle mounted within an aluminium pole. Other non-disposable equipment used included water quality meters.
Rinsate samples were collected from the field equipment (e.g. sampling gloves, aluminium pole sampler, and interface probe) after decontamination. Equipment rinsate samples were collected by pouring laboratory prepared deionised water over the equipment and collecting the ‘rinse’ into sample containers. Concentrations for all analytes were below the laboratory LOR for all rinsate blanks. A rinsate sample was collected for each day of groundwater sampling.
The rinsate results indicated that the decontamination procedures were acceptable and it is considered that there is a low potential for cross-contamination to have impacted on the laboratory results.
Trip Blanks
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Was a trip blank collected on each day of sample?
2 Were the Trip Blanks free of contaminants?
(If no, comment whether the contaminants present are also detected
in the samples and whether they are common laboratory chemicals.)
Comments
Concentrations for all analytes were below the laboratory LOR for all trip blanks and indicated that cross contamination was unlikely to have occurred during sample storage and transport.
In summary, the field QC results are considered generally acceptable for the purposes of this investigation.
Field QA/QC was:
Satisfactory
Partially Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
5.2. Laboratory QA/QC (March 2018)
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Were the laboratory blanks/reagents blanks free of contamination?
2 Were the spike recoveries within control limits?
3 Were the RPDs of the laboratory duplicates within control limits?
4 Were the surrogate recoveries within control limits?
5.2.1. Laboratory Blanks.
All 760 laboratory method blank results reported concentrations of contaminants below the laboratory reporting limits.
5.2.2. Laboratory Duplicates
A total of 405 internal laboratory duplicates were analysed by Eurofins and one was outside of the acceptable limits (<30% RPD) for Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) (67%).
5.2.3. Laboratory Control Samples
A total of 324 laboratory control sample analyses were performed by Eurofins and of these, 16 LCS was outside of the acceptable range (>50%). The compounds with LCS discrepancies were not a primary PFAS compounds of concern (PFOS, PFHxS and PFOA) and these minor discrepancies were not considered to impact on the overall quality of the laboratory results.
5.2.4. Matrix Spikes
A total of 440 matrix spike analyses were performed by Eurofins and of these 26 Matrix spikes were outside of the adopted 70% – 130% acceptability criteria adopted. Whilst these results were outside of the adopted screening criteria for surface waters, none were for the primary PFAS compounds of concern (PFOS, PFHxS and PFOA) and all spike recoveries were within the Eurofins dynamic recovery limits for PFAS of 50% – 150%, indicating the matrix spike results for PFAS compounds was acceptable.
5.2.5. Surrogate recoveries
The collated laboratory data for surrogate recoveries reported 69 surrogates (out of a total of 2,923 surrogate analyses undertaken) below the lower recovery limit of 20%. A total of 54 surrogate recoveries were above the adopted upper recovery limit of 150% for PFAS compounds (ranging up to 193%).
A summary of the internal laboratory quality control results is provided in Table 12.
Table 12: Summary of internal laboratory QC results
QC test Total Analyses Number outside of
Acceptable Criteria
% of analyses
acceptable
Method Blanks 760 0 100
Laboratory Duplicates 405 1 99.7
Laboratory Control
Samples
324 16 95.1
Matrix Spikes 440 26 94.1
Surrogates 2,923 123 95.8
Totals 4,852 166 96.6
The review of the laboratory internal quality control testing undertaken indicated that the overall completeness for the internal laboratory quality control results was 96.6%, which is above the 95% target and the data is therefore considered of an acceptable quality to use in the report.
Laboratory internal QA/QC was:
Satisfactory
Partially Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
5.3. Summary of March 2018 Surface Water Data Quality Review
In general, the data quality of the March 2018 Surface water monitoring events was considered to be acceptable. Minor QC deficiencies (RPDs and internal laboratory discrepancies) were considered unlikely to impact on the outcome of the report. Mis-labelling of some quality control samples on the 7 March 2018 occurred with some surface water quality control samples being labelled as groundwater quality control samples and vice-versa. An in-depth review of the results of the laboratory results, as well as field sheets, and interviews with field staff identified this error, and has been corrected within the results tables. No mis-labelling of primary samples appears to have occurred.
RAAF Base DarwinPFAS Assessment
March 2018 Surface Water Monitoring EventQuality Control RPD Summary Table
3 Were the laboratory methods adopted NATA endorsed?
4 Were the appropriate test procedures followed?
5 Were the reporting limits satisfactory?
6 Was the NATA Seal on the reports?
7 Were the reports signed by an authorised person?
Comments
Nil
Precision / Accuracy of the Laboratory Report
Satisfactory
Partially Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
6.1.2. Sample handling
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Were the sample holding times met?
2 Were the samples in proper custody between the field and reaching
the laboratory?
3 Were the samples properly and adequately preserved?
This includes keeping the samples chilled, where applicable.
4 Were the samples received by the laboratory in good condition?
5 Were samples labelled correctly
Comments
Quality control samples collected on 7 March 2018 were mis-labelled and quality control samples collected as a part of the groundwater monitoring program were mislabelled as surface water samples. The table below provides a summary of the mis-labelling of groundwater quality control samples
Groundwater QC
Sample ID (on COC)
Quality Control
Sample Details
Correct sample
within the bottle
supplied to the
laboratory
Actual groundwater
quality control
sample labelled as
(and analysed as)
QCMW13 Duplicate of
monitoring well 206-
MW06
Trip Blank (surface
waters)
QCSW13
QCMW15 Duplicate of
monitoring well
204_MW04
Triplicate of surface
water sample SW132
QCSW15
QCMW16 Triplicate of monitoring
well 204_MW04
Trip Blank (surface
waters)
QCSW16
QCMW17 Duplicate of
monitoring well
MW199
Rinsate off Pole
(surface waters)
QCSW17
QCMW18 Triplicate of monitoring
well MW199
Duplicate of surface
water sample SW105
QCSW18
The results presented in the RPD calculation and blank summary tables have been corrected to provide the results for the actual corresponding sample.
Sample Handling was:
Satisfactory
Partially Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
6.2. Field QA/QC
6.2.1. Type of QA/QC Samples Collected
Primary Samples 151
Days of sampling 6
Field Duplicates (at least 1 in 20 samples) 17 intra lab + 13 inter lab
Trip Blanks (at least 1 per sampling event) 9
Equipment Rinsate (at least
1/day/matrix/equipment)
9
6.2.2. Samples Analysed
151 samples were collected and sent to the primary laboratory Eurofins Environmental Consulting over three days of sampling. 17 duplicate samples were collected and submitted for laboratory analysis to the primary laboratory Eurofins Environmental Consulting. 13 triplicate samples were collected and submitted for laboratory analysis to the secondary laboratory Australian Laboratory Services (ALS).
6.2.3. Field Duplicates
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Were an Adequate Number of field duplicates analysed for each
chemical?
2 Were RPDs within Control Limits?
< 30% for concentrations
Comments
Where RPDs were outside the acceptable range, sampling procedures, laboratory analytical methods and laboratory results were investigated. The results of this review are presented in the ESDAT export table following Section 6.4.
There were 476 duplicate pair analyses for PFAS compounds and 98.3 % were reported within the acceptance target of less than 30 % RPD. There were 364 triplicate pair analyses for PFAS compounds and 98.1% were reported within the acceptance target of less than 30 % RPD.
The RPD discrepancies observed in the March 2018 groundwater sampling event largely were attributed to analytical results in one of the samples being either at or marginally above the laboratory reporting limit, and the other below – which magnifies the relative difference between the results.
Generally, the majority of the discrepancies were between the primary and secondary laboratory indicated that the secondary laboratory was reporting lower concentrations of PFAS compounds than the primary laboratory, suggesting a slight bias. This bias adds a level of conservatism to the results and despite the discrepancies observed, the RPD results from the March 2018 groundwater sampling were generally considered acceptable and able to be relied on for the report.
6.2.4. Rinsate Blanks
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Were Equipment Rinsates collected and analysed every day?
2 Were the Equipment Rinsates free of contaminants?
(If no, comment whether the contaminants present are also detected
in the samples and whether they are common laboratory chemicals.)
Comments
Nine rinsate blanks were submitted to Eurofins for selected analysis of PFAS. Groundwater sampling was undertaken using hydrasleeve sampling and the only non-disposable equipment used included interface probes and water quality meters.
Rinsate samples were collected from the field equipment (e.g. sampling gloves, water quality meter, and interface probe) after decontamination. Equipment rinsate samples were collected by pouring laboratory prepared deionised water over the equipment and collecting the ‘rinse’ into sample containers. Concentrations for all analytes were below the laboratory LOR for all rinsate blanks. A rinsate sample was collected for each day of groundwater sampling.
The rinsate results indicated that the decontamination procedures were acceptable and it is considered that there is a low potential for cross-contamination to have impacted on the laboratory results.
6.2.5. Trip Blanks
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Was a trip blank collected on each day of sample?
2 Were the Trip Blanks free of contaminants?
(If no, comment whether the contaminants present are also detected
in the samples and whether they are common laboratory chemicals.)
Comments
Concentrations for all analytes were below the laboratory LOR for all trip blanks and indicated that cross contamination was unlikely to have occurred during sample storage and transport.
In summary, the field QC results are considered generally acceptable for the purposes of this investigation.
Field QA/QC was:
Satisfactory
Partially Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
6.3. Laboratory QA/QC
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Were the laboratory blanks/reagents blanks free of contamination?
2 Were the spike recoveries within control limits?
3 Were the RPDs of the laboratory duplicates within control limits?
4 Were the surrogate recoveries within control limits?
6.3.1. Laboratory Blanks.
All 252 laboratory method blank results reported concentrations of contaminants below the laboratory reporting limits.
6.3.2. Laboratory Duplicates
A total of 504 internal laboratory duplicates were analysed by Eurofins and three RPDs (Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) – 67%; Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) – 32%; Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) – 46%) were outside of acceptable limits (<30% RPD).
6.3.3. Laboratory Control Samples
A total of 252 laboratory control sample analyses were performed by Eurofins and of these, 22 LCS was outside of the acceptable range (>50%). The compounds with LCS discrepancies were not a primary PFAS compounds of concern (PFOS, PFHxS and PFOA). However, this minor discrepancies were not considered to impact on the overall quality of the laboratory results.
6.3.4. Matrix Spikes
A total of 419 matrix spike analyses were performed by Eurofins and of these 23 Matrix spikes were outside of the adopted 70% – 130% acceptability criteria adopted. Whilst these results were outside of the adopted screening criteria for surface waters, all spike recoveries were within the Eurofins dynamic recovery limits for PFAS of 50% – 150%, indicating the matrix spike results for PFAS compounds was acceptable.
6.3.5. Surrogate recoveries
The collated laboratory data for surrogate recoveries reported 4 surrogates (out of a total of 4,347 surrogate analyses undertaken) below the lower recovery limit of 20%. A total of 27 surrogate recoveries were above the adopted upper recovery limit of 150% for PFAS compounds (ranging up to 187%). .
A summary of the internal laboratory quality control results is provided in Table 13.
Table 13: Summary of internal laboratory QC results
QC test Total Analyses Number outside of Acceptable Criteria
% of analyses acceptable
Method Blanks 252 0 100
Laboratory Duplicates
504 3 99.4
Laboratory Control Samples
252 22 91.3
Matrix Spikes 419 23 94.5
Surrogates 4,347 31 99.2
Totals 5,774 79 98.6
The review of the laboratory internal quality control testing undertaken indicated that the overall completeness for the internal laboratory quality control results was 98.6%, which is above the 95% target. Consequently, the data is therefore considered of an acceptable quality to use in the report.
Laboratory internal QA/QC was:
Satisfactory
Partially Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
6.4. Summary of March 2018 GME Data Quality Review
In general, the data quality of the March 2018 groundwater monitoring event was considered to be acceptable. Minor discrepancies in replicate results between the primary and secondary laboratory were observed, with the primary laboratory generally reporting higher concentrations of PFAS than the secondary laboratory, which adds a level of conservatism to the results. Other minor QC deficiencies (internal laboratory discrepancies) were also considered unlikely to impact on the outcome of the report.
Mis-labelling of some quality control samples on the 7 March 2018 occurred with some surface water quality control samples being labelled as groundwater quality control samples and vice-versa. An in-depth review of the results of the laboratory results, as well as field sheets, and interviews with field staff identified this error, and has been corrected within the results tables. No mis-labelling of primary samples occurred.
RAAF Base DarwinPFAS Assessment
March 2018 Groundwater Monitoring EventQuality Control RPD Summary Table
Department of Defence
754-MELEN199421 Page 1 of 8
R Lab Report Number 588389 588389 EB1806262 588389 588389 EB1807031 588753 588753Field ID 1302_MW207_180306 1302_QCMW03_180306 RPD QCMW04_180306 RPD 1302_MW171_180306 1302_QCMW05_180306 RPD QCMW06_180306 RPD 1302_MW156_180307 1302_QCMW11_180307 RPDSample Date 6/03/2018 6/03/2018 6/03/2018 6/03/2018 6/03/2018 6/03/2018 7/03/2018 7/03/2018
The Biota sampled during this period included fruits and vegetables, plants, fish and crustaceans
7.1. QA/QC General
7.1.1. Precision / Accuracy
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment below)
1 Was a NATA registered laboratory used?
2 Did the laboratory perform the requested tests?
3 Were the laboratory methods adopted consistent with
NEPM principles?
4 Were the appropriate test procedures followed?
5 Were the reporting limits satisfactory?
6 Was the NATA Seal on the reports?
7 Were the reports signed by an authorised person?
Comments
At the start of the investigation Australian analytical labs were not NATA certified for PFAS analysis in biota. Coffey initially used National Measurement Institute for biota analysis and then transitioned primary analysis to Eurofins, maintaining NMI as secondary laboratory. In February 2018 Eurofins became NATA certified for PFAS analysis in some biota media (including fish flesh and fruit). Coffey transitioned to ALS as secondary laboratory in March 2018, who also became NATA certified for PFAS analysis in biota in 2018.
Precision / Accuracy of the Laboratory Report
Satisfactory
Partially Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
7.1.2. Sample handling
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Were the sample holding times met?
2 Were the samples in proper custody between the field and reaching
the laboratory?
3 Were the samples properly and adequately preserved?
This includes keeping the samples chilled, where applicable.
4 Were the samples received by the laboratory in good condition?
Comments
Nil
Sample Handling was:
Satisfactory
Partially Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
7.2. Field QA/QC
7.2.1. Type of QA/QC Samples Collected
Primary Samples 91 fish, 24 vegetation
Days of sampling 10 (2 days of sample preparation)
Field Duplicates (at least 1 in 10 samples) 10 fish, 7 vegetation
Trip Blanks (at least 1 per sampling event) 2
Equipment Rinsate (at least
1/day/matrix/equipment)
6 (related to fish preparation)
7.2.2. Samples Analysed
Duplicate sampling of biota samples was conducted by collecting flesh samples from left and right fillets of fish, splitting large samples (crabs), dividing multiple sample composites (molluscs) or selecting similar samples. Two trip blank samples were collected and analysed during the sampling program. Rinsate samples were collected for analysis from dissection equipment used to fillet fish. No other re-usable sampling equipment was used that could have resulted in cross-contamination of other biota samples.
Field Duplicates
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Were an Adequate Number of field duplicates analysed for each
chemical?
2 Were RPDs within Control Limits?
< 30% for concentrations
Comments
Where RPDs were outside the acceptable range, sampling procedures, laboratory analytical methods and laboratory results were investigated. The results of this review are presented in Table 14 and ESDAT export table following Section 7.4.
There were 140 duplicate pair analyses for PFAS compounds and 99% were reported within the acceptance target of less than 30 % RPD. There were 65 triplicate pair analyses for PFAS compounds and 88 % were reported within the acceptance target of less than 30 % RPD.
Table 14. RPDs outside Acceptable Range
Primary sample Duplicate
sample
Lab Analyte RPD
%
Higher
than
Primary
(Y/N)
1302_FH190_171121
(divided group of
whelk)
Intralab Eurofins Perfluoro-n-octane sulfonic acid (PFOS) 150 Y
1302_FH103_171114
(separate samples with
similar properties)
Interlab NMI Perfluoro-n-octane sulfonic acid (PFOS) 32 N
Perfluoro-n-undecanoic acid (PFUnDA) 54 Y
1302_FH117_171114
(separate samples with
similar properties)
Interlab NMI Perfluoro-n-dodecanoic acid (PFDoDA) 48 Y
Perfluoro-n-hexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) 86 Y
1302_FH119_171117
(left and right fillets)
Interlab NMI Perfluoro-n-octane sulfonic acid (PFOS) 35 N
1302_FH148_171120
(separate samples with
similar properties)
Interlab NMI Perfluoro-n-octane sulfonic acid (PFOS) 56 Y
1302_FH150_171120
(separate samples with
similar properties)
Interlab NMI Perfluoro-n-octanoate acid (PFOA) 105 Y
Perfluoro-n-octane sulfonic acid (PFOS) 79 N
The RPD discrepancies observed in the November 2017 aquatic biota sampling largely were attributed to samples not being true duplicates, where they were either similar samples (same species, size and location) or divided composites of multiple molluscs. Although elevated RPDs were reported, the concentrations were typically in the same range as other results for similar samples in the batch and adoption of either result would not affect the interpretation. Therefore the RPDs are likely to reflect the variability in concentration within the media. This highlights the need for sufficient results to develop statistical exposure concentrations where exposure is interpreted likely to be high. Despite the discrepancies observed, the results from the November 2017 aquatic biota sampling were considered acceptable and able to be relied on for the report, when interpreted statistically. We also note that these results are being considered in combination with other aquatic biota sampling events.
Rinsate Blanks
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Were Equipment Rinsates collected and analysed every day?
2 Were the Equipment Rinsates free of contaminants?
(If no, comment whether the contaminants present are also detected
in the samples and whether they are common laboratory chemicals.)
Not Applicable
Comments
Rinsate samples were collected from dissection equipment used to prepare fish samples. None of the rinsate samples contained PFAS compounds above the laboratory reporting limits. As a result, there was considered to be a very low chance of cross contamination.
7.2.3. Trip Blanks
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Was a trip blank collected on each day of sample?
2 Were the Trip Blanks free of contaminants?
(If no, comment whether the contaminants present are also detected
in the samples and whether they are common laboratory chemicals.)
Comments
Although specific trip blanks were not transported with the samples, concentrations for all analytes were below the laboratory LOR for all rinsates and indicated that cross contamination was unlikely to have occurred during sample storage and transport.
In summary, the field QC results are considered generally acceptable for the purposes of this investigation.
Field QA/QC was:
Satisfactory
Partially Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
7.3. Laboratory QA/QC
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Were the laboratory blanks/reagents blanks free of contamination?
2 Were the spike recoveries within control limits?
3 Were the RPDs of the laboratory duplicates within control limits?
4 Were the surrogate recoveries within control limits?
7.3.1. Laboratory Blanks.
All 28 laboratory method blank results reported concentrations of contaminants below the laboratory reporting limits.
7.3.2. Laboratory Duplicates
A total of 280 internal laboratory duplicates were analysed by Eurofins and all were within acceptable limits (<30% RPD).
7.3.3. Laboratory Control Samples
A total of 28 laboratory control sample analyses were performed by Eurofins and none were outside of the target range (>50%).
7.3.4. Matrix Spikes
A total of 112 matrix spike analyses were performed by Eurofins and of these 6 Matrix spikes were outside of the adopted 70% – 130% acceptability criteria adopted, but all were within 50-150%. Whilst these results were outside of the adopted screening criteria for surface waters, all but 1 spike recoveries were within the Eurofins dynamic recovery limits for PFAS of 50% – 150%, indicating the matrix spike results for PFAS compounds was acceptable.
7.3.5. Surrogate recoveries
The collated laboratory data for surrogate recoveries reported 345 surrogates (out of a total of 4,692 surrogate analyses undertaken) below the lower recovery limit of 50%. A total of 179 surrogate recoveries were above the adopted upper recovery limit of 150% for PFAS compounds (ranging up to 199%). These discrepancies were predominantly for precursor compounds. Only 19 results outside of the 50-150% range were for the PFAS compounds of concern (PFOS, PFOA & PFHxS) and all of these were reported less than 50%, which would lead the quantification following adjustment to a low recovery, to be an overestimate.
A summary of the internal laboratory quality control results is provided in Table 15.
Table 15: Summary of internal laboratory QC results
QC test Total
Analyses
Number outside of
Acceptable Criteria
% of analyses
acceptable
Method Blanks 28 0 100
Laboratory Duplicates 280 0 100
Laboratory Control Samples 28 0 100
Matrix Spikes 112 6 95
Surrogates 2093 523 75
Surrogates (target PFAS compounds) 258 18 93
Overall completeness of internal laboratory QC was greater than 95%. Many surrogate recoveries were identified out of the 50-150% acceptance range, but typically for precursor compounds, which were not typically reported above reporting limits in samples, and were not used quantitatively.
Internal laboratory QC indicates acceptable laboratory data quality.
Laboratory internal QA/QC was:
Satisfactory
Partially Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
7.4. Summary of Biota Sampling (November 2017 to December 2017) Data Quality Review
In general, the data quality of the Biota sampling undertaken between November and December 2017 was considered to be acceptable. Surrogate recovery discrepancies were noted, specifically for precursor compounds which have not been used quantitatively. The QC results were considered to indicate acceptable data quality and allow data to be relied on to support the outcome of the
Appendix J
November Fish Results
Field Duplicates
Field Duplicates (SOIL) Lab Report Number 575752 575752 575752 575752 575752 575752 575752 575752 575752 575752
Field ID 1302_FH123_171117 1302_FH124_171117 RPD 1302_FH180_171121 1302_FH181_171121 RPD 1302_FH187_171121 - A 1302_FH187_171121 - B RPD 1302_FH189_171121 - A 1302_FH189_171121 - B RPD 1302_FH190_171121 - A 1302_FH190_171121 - B RPDSampled Date/Time 17/11/2017 17/11/2017 21/11/2017 21/11/2017 16/11/2017 16/11/2017 20/11/2017 20/11/2017 16/11/2017 16/11/2017
Sum of PFASs (n=28) µg/kg 0.5 121.6 99.5 20 <0.5 <0.5 0 37.4 35.6 5 143.5 143.5 0 <0.5 2.1 123Sum of WA DER PFAS (n=10) µg/kg 0.5 120.0 98.0 20 <0.5 <0.5 0 33.8 32.8 3 121.8 121.8 0 <0.5 2.1 123
*RPDs have only been considered where a concentration is greater than 0 times the EQL.
**High RPDs are in bold (Acceptable RPDs for each EQL multiplier range are: 25 (0-10 x EQL); 25 (10-20 x EQL); 10 ( > 20 x EQL) )
***Interlab Duplicates are matched on a per compound basis as methods vary between laboratories. Any methods in the row header relate to those used in the primary laboratory
Filter: Lab_Report_Number in('575752')
PFAS Investigation RAAF Base Darwin - HHRA
Appendix J
November Fish Results
Field Duplicates
Field Duplicates (SOIL) Lab Report Number
Field IDSampled Date/Time
Chem_Group ChemName Units EQL
PFAS Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) µg/kg 0.5
Perfluoro pentanoic acid (PFPA or PFPeA) µg/kg 0.5
Sum of PFASs (n=28) µg/kg 0.5 Sum of WA DER PFAS (n=10) µg/kg 0.5
*RPDs have only been considered where a concentration is greater than 0 times the EQL.
**High RPDs are in bold (Acceptable RPDs for each EQL multiplier range are: 25 (0-10 x EQL); 25 (10-20 x EQL); 10 ( > 20 x EQL) )
***Interlab Duplicates are matched on a per compound basis as methods vary between laboratories. Any methods in the row header relate to those used in the primary laboratory
The Biota sampled during this period included fruits and vegetables, plants.
8.1. QA/QC General
8.1.1. Precision / Accuracy
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment below)
1 Was a NATA registered laboratory used?
2 Did the laboratory perform the requested tests?
3 Were the laboratory methods adopted consistent with
NEPM principles?
4 Were the appropriate test procedures followed?
5 Were the reporting limits satisfactory?
6 Was the NATA Seal on the reports?
7 Were the reports signed by an authorised person?
Comments
At the start of the investigation Australian analytical labs were not NATA certified for PFAS analysis in biota. Coffey initially used National Measurement Institute for biota analysis and then transitioned primary analysis to Eurofins, maintaining NMI as secondary laboratory. In February 2018 Eurofins became NATA certified for PFAS analysis in some biota media (including fish flesh and fruit). Coffey transitioned to ALS as secondary laboratory in March 2018, who also became NATA certified for PFAS analysis in biota in 2018.
Precision / Accuracy of the Laboratory Report
Satisfactory
Partially Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
8.1.2. Sample handling
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Were the sample holding times met?
2 Were the samples in proper custody between the field and reaching
the laboratory?
3 Were the samples properly and adequately preserved?
This includes keeping the samples chilled, where applicable.
4 Were the samples received by the laboratory in good condition?
Comments
Nil
Sample Handling was:
Satisfactory
Partially Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
8.2. Field QA/QC
8.2.1. Type of QA/QC Samples Collected
Primary Samples 81 vegetation
Days of sampling 10
Field Duplicates (at least 1 in 10 samples) 7 vegetation
Trip Blanks (at least 1 per sampling event) 0
Equipment Rinsate (at least
1/day/matrix/equipment)
No reusable equipment
8.2.2. Samples Analysed
Duplicate sampling of biota samples was conducted by dividing vegetation samples.
Field Duplicates
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Were an Adequate Number of field duplicates analysed for each
chemical?
2 Were RPDs within Control Limits?
< 30% for concentrations
Comments
Field duplicate sample analysis was marginally below the target of 1 in 10 primary samples.
There were no RPDs outside the acceptable range. The results are presented in ESDAT export table following Section 8.4.
There were 112 duplicate pair analyses for PFAS compounds and 100% were reported within the acceptance target of less than 30 % RPD. There were 39 triplicate pair analyses for PFAS compounds and 100% were reported within the acceptance target of less than 30 % RPD.
Rinsate Blanks
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Were Equipment Rinsates collected and analysed every day?
2 Were the Equipment Rinsates free of contaminants?
(If no, comment whether the contaminants present are also detected
in the samples and whether they are common laboratory chemicals.)
Not Applicable
Comments
Rinsate samples were not collected during vegetation sampling, as no reuseable equipment was used. As a result of the methodology employed, there was considered to be a very low chance of cross contamination and no re-usable sampling equipment employed during the sampling.
8.2.3. Trip Blanks
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Was a trip blank collected on each day of sample?
2 Were the Trip Blanks free of contaminants?
(If no, comment whether the contaminants present are also detected
in the samples and whether they are common laboratory chemicals.)
Comments
Trip blanks were not collected on each day of sampling specific to vegetation sampling, however trip blanks were included in other sample transport occurring at the same period (aquatic biota), which indicated a very low potential for cross-contamination. Trip blanks did not contain PFAS compounds above reporting limits.
In summary, the field QC results are considered generally acceptable for the purposes of this investigation.
Field QA/QC was:
Satisfactory
Partially Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
8.3. Laboratory QA/QC
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Were the laboratory blanks/reagents blanks free of contamination?
2 Were the spike recoveries within control limits?
3 Were the RPDs of the laboratory duplicates within control limits?
4 Were the surrogate recoveries within control limits?
8.3.1. Laboratory Blanks.
All 140 laboratory method blank results reported concentrations of contaminants below the laboratory reporting limits.
8.3.2. Laboratory Duplicates
A total of 252 internal laboratory duplicates were analysed by Eurofins and all were within acceptable limits (<30% RPD).
8.3.3. Laboratory Control Samples
A total of 140 laboratory control sample analyses were performed by Eurofins and none were outside of the target range (50-150%).
8.3.4. Matrix Spikes
A total of 224 matrix spike analyses were performed by Eurofins and of these 5 Matrix spikes were outside of the adopted 70% – 130% acceptability criteria adopted, but all were within 50-150%. Whilst these results were outside of the adopted screening criteria for surface waters, all but 1 spike recoveries were within the Eurofins dynamic recovery limits for PFAS of 50% – 150%, indicating the matrix spike results for PFAS compounds was acceptable.
8.3.5. Surrogate recoveries
The collated laboratory data for surrogate recoveries reported 634 surrogates (out of a total of 1,794 surrogate analyses undertaken) outside of the recovery range of 50-150%. A total of 545 surrogate recoveries were below the lower limit or recorded as matrix interference. Approximately half of these discrepancies were for precursor compounds. Only 38 results outside of the 50-150% range were for the PFAS compounds of concern (PFOS, PFOA & PFHxS) and all of these were reported less than 50%, which would lead the quantification following adjustment to a low recovery, to be an overestimate.
A summary of the internal laboratory quality control results is provided in Table 16.
Table 16: Summary of internal laboratory QC results
QC test Total
Analyses
Number outside of
Acceptable Criteria
% of analyses
acceptable
Method Blanks 140 0 100
Laboratory Duplicates 252 0 100
Laboratory Control Samples 140 0 100
Matrix Spikes 224 5 98
Surrogates 1794 634 65
Surrogates (target PFAS compounds) 249 38 85
Overall completeness of internal laboratory QC was greater than 95%, with the exception of surrogate recoveries. Many surrogate recoveries were identified out of the 50-150% acceptance range, but typically for precursor compounds, which were not typically reported above reporting limits in samples, and were not used quantitatively. Recoveries were more frequently out of range in the December
batch of sample results, which contained less vegetation relevant to human health risk assessment. All surrogate recoveries out side of the target range for PFOA, PFOA and PFHxS were reported low, and are most likely to lead to an over estimate of sample concentrations.
Internal laboratory QC indicates acceptable laboratory data quality.
Laboratory internal QA/QC was:
Satisfactory
Partially Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
8.4. Summary of Vegetation Biota Sampling (November 2017 to December 2017) Data Quality Review
In general, the data quality of the Biota sampling undertaken between November 2017 and February 2018 was considered to be acceptable. Surrogate recovery discrepancies were noted, specifically for precursor compounds which have not been used quantitatively. The QC results were considered to indicate acceptable data quality and allow data to be relied on to support the outcome of the
Appendix JField Duplicates
Vegetation Sampling
Lab Report Number 576224 576224 576229 576229 576231 576231 576231 576231Field ID 1302_VG136_171122 1302_VG137_171122 RPD 1302_VG143_171122 1302_VG144_171122 RPD 1302_VG154_171123 1302_VG155_171123 RPD 1302_VG148_171123 - A 1302_VG148_171123 - B RPDSampled Date/Time 22/11/2017 22/11/2017 22/11/2017 22/11/2017 23/11/2017 23/11/2017 23/11/2017 23/11/2017
*RPDs have only been considered where a concentration is greater than 0 times the EQL.**High RPDs are in bold (Acceptable RPDs for each EQL multiplier range are: 25 (0-10 x EQL); 25 (10-20 x EQL); 10 ( > 20 x EQL) )***Interlab Duplicates are matched on a per compound basis as methods vary between laboratories. Any methods in the row header relate to those used in the primary laboratory
*RPDs have only been considered where a concentration is greater than 0 times the EQL.**High RPDs are in bold (Acceptable RPDs for each EQL multiplier range are: 25 (0-10 x EQL); 25 (10-20 x EQL); 10 ( > 20 x EQL) )***Interlab Duplicates are matched on a per compound basis as methods vary between laboratories. Any methods in the row header relate to those used in the primary laboratory
Sum of PFASs (n=28) µg/L 0.1 <0.1Sum of WA DER PFAS (n=10) µg/L 0.05 <0.05
PFAS Investigation RAAF Base Darwin - HHRA
9. BIOTA SAMPLING (March-April 2018)
The Biota sampled during this period included fruits, plants, fish and crustaceans
9.1. QA/QC General
9.1.1. Precision / Accuracy
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment below)
1 Was a NATA registered laboratory used?
2 Did the laboratory perform the requested tests?
3 Were the laboratory methods adopted consistent with
NEPM principles?
4 Were the appropriate test procedures followed?
5 Were the reporting limits satisfactory?
6 Was the NATA Seal on the reports?
7 Were the reports signed by an authorised person?
Comments
At the start of the investigation Australian analytical labs were not NATA certified for PFAS analysis in biota. Coffey initially used National Measurement Institute for biota analysis and then transitioned primary analysis to Eurofins, maintaining NMI as secondary laboratory. In February 2018 Eurofins became NATA certified for PFAS analysis in some biota media (including fish flesh and fruit). Coffey transitioned to ALS as secondary laboratory in March 2018, who also became NATA certified for PFAS analysis in biota in 2018.
Precision / Accuracy of the Laboratory Report
Satisfactory
Partially Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
9.1.2. Sample handling
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Were the sample holding times met?
2 Were the samples in proper custody between the field and reaching
the laboratory?
3 Were the samples properly and adequately preserved?
This includes keeping the samples chilled, where applicable.
4 Were the samples received by the laboratory in good condition?
Comments
Nil
Sample Handling was:
Satisfactory
Partially Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
9.2. Field QA/QC
9.2.1. Type of QA/QC Samples Collected
Primary Samples 138 fish
Days of sampling 11 (2 days of sample preparation)
Field Duplicates (at least 1 in 10 samples) 13 samples
Trip Blanks (at least 1 per sampling event) 0
Equipment Rinsate (at least
1/day/matrix/equipment)
2 (related to fish preparation)
9.2.2. Samples Analysed
Duplicate sampling of biota samples was conducted by collecting flesh samples from left and right fillets of fish or splitting large samples (crabs). Rinsate samples were collected for analysis from dissection equipment used to fillet fish. No other re-usable sampling equipment was used that could have resulted in cross-contamination of other biota samples.
Field Duplicates
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Were an Adequate Number of field duplicates analysed for each
chemical?
2 Were RPDs within Control Limits?
< 30% for concentrations
Comments
Where RPDs were outside the acceptable range, sampling procedures, laboratory analytical methods and laboratory results were investigated. The results of this review are presented in Table 17 and ESDAT export table following Section Error! Reference source not found..
There were 140 duplicate pair analyses for PFAS compounds and 100% were reported within the acceptance target of less than 30 % RPD. There were 224 triplicate pair analyses for PFAS compounds and 98 % were reported within the acceptance target of less than 30 % RPD.
Table 17. RPDs outside Acceptable Range
Primary sample Duplicate
sample
Lab Analyte RPD
%
Higher
than
Primary
(Y/N)
1302_FH310_180315
(Mudcrab - flesh-left)
Interlab ALS Perfluoro-n-octane sulfonic acid (PFOS) 62 N
1302_FH312_180315
(Mudcrab - organs-left)
Interlab ALS Perfluoro-n-octane sulfonic acid (PFOS) 53 N
1302_FH332_180315
(Barramundi – fillet-left)
Interlab ALS Perfluoro-n-octane sulfonic acid (PFOS) 152 N
1302_FH345_180315
(Forktail Catfish – fillet-
left)
Interlab ALS Perfluoro-n-octane sulfonic acid (PFOS) 169 N
Although elevated RPDs were reported, the concentrations were typically in the same range as other results for similar samples in the batch and adoption of either result would not affect the interpretation. The exceptions were 1302_FH332_180315 and 1302_FH345_180315, which were homogenised duplicate samples of samples of the same name analysed by the primary lab. The concentrations reported by the primary laboratory were approximately an order of magnitude higher than the results reported by the secondary lab. In both cases intra-laboratory duplicates were also run from the same fish, and obtained results consistent with the primary laboratory result for the primary sample. Therefore, for those samples, the secondary laboratory result is considered to be anomalous.
Other RPDs are likely to reflect the variability in concentration within the media. This highlights the need for sufficient results to develop statistical exposure concentrations where exposure is interpreted likely to be high. Despite the discrepancies observed, the results from the March/April 2018 aquatic biota sampling were considered acceptable and able to be relied on for the report, when interpreted statistically. We also note that these results are being considered in combination with other aquatic biota sampling events.
Rinsate Blanks
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Were Equipment Rinsates collected and analysed every day?
2 Were the Equipment Rinsates free of contaminants?
(If no, comment whether the contaminants present are also detected
in the samples and whether they are common laboratory chemicals.)
Not Applicable
Comments
Rinsate samples were collected from dissection equipment used to prepare fish samples. None of the rinsate samples contained PFAS compounds above the laboratory reporting limits. As a result, there was considered to be a very low chance of cross contamination.
9.2.3. Trip Blanks
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Was a trip blank collected on each day of sample?
2 Were the Trip Blanks free of contaminants?
(If no, comment whether the contaminants present are also detected
in the samples and whether they are common laboratory chemicals.)
Comments
Although specific trip blanks were not transported with the samples, concentrations for all analytes were below the laboratory LOR for all rinsates and indicated that cross contamination was unlikely to have occurred during sample storage and transport.
In summary, the field QC results are considered generally acceptable for the purposes of this investigation.
Field QA/QC was:
Satisfactory
Partially Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
9.3. Laboratory QA/QC
ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment
below)
1 Were the laboratory blanks/reagents blanks free of contamination?
2 Were the spike recoveries within control limits?
3 Were the RPDs of the laboratory duplicates within control limits?
4 Were the surrogate recoveries within control limits?
9.3.1. Laboratory Blanks.
All 28 laboratory method blank results reported concentrations of contaminants below the laboratory reporting limits.
9.3.2. Laboratory Duplicates
A total of 420 internal laboratory duplicates were analysed by Eurofins and all were within acceptable limits (<30% RPD).
9.3.3. Laboratory Control Samples
A total of 28 laboratory control sample analyses were performed by Eurofins and none were outside of the target range (>50%).
9.3.4. Matrix Spikes
A total of 392 matrix spike analyses were performed by Eurofins and of these 12 Matrix spikes were outside of the adopted 70% – 130% acceptability criteria adopted, but all were within 50-150%. indicating the matrix spike results for PFAS compounds was acceptable.
9.3.5. Surrogate recoveries
The collated laboratory data for surrogate recoveries reported 423 surrogates (out of a total of 3,698 surrogate analyses undertaken) below the lower recovery limit of 50%. A total of 213 surrogate recoveries were above the adopted upper recovery limit of 150% for PFAS compounds (ranging up to 199%). These discrepancies were predominantly for precursor compounds. Only 10 results outside of the 50-150% range were for the PFAS compounds of concern (PFOS, PFOA & PFHxS) and all of these were reported less than 50%, which would lead the quantification following adjustment to a low recovery, to be an overestimate.
A summary of the internal laboratory quality control results is provided in Table 18.
Table 18: Summary of internal laboratory QC results
QC test Total
Analyses
Number outside of
Acceptable Criteria
% of analyses
acceptable
Method Blanks 28 0 100
Laboratory Duplicates 420 0 100
Laboratory Control Samples 28 0 100
Matrix Spikes 392 12 95
Surrogates 3,698 646 82
Overall completeness of internal laboratory QC was less than 95%. Many surrogate recoveries were identified out of the 50-150% acceptance range, but typically for precursor compounds, which were not typically reported above reporting limits in samples, and were not used quantitatively. Only 2 surrogate recoveries for target PFAS compounds (PFOS, PFOA or PFHxS) were outside of the 50-150% range.
Internal laboratory QC indicates acceptable laboratory data quality.
Laboratory internal QA/QC was:
Satisfactory
Partially Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
9.4. Summary of Biota Sampling (March/April 2018) Data Quality Review
In general, the data quality of the Biota sampling undertaken between March and April 2018 was considered to be acceptable. Surrogate recovery discrepancies were noted, specifically for precursor compounds which have not been used quantitatively. The QC results were considered to indicate acceptable data quality and allow data to be relied on to support the outcome of the assessment.