Data Verification Report
for Package 32498
Data Validators: Michelle Wolfe and Tammy Chang
The following data validation summary report covers environmental soil samples and associated field quality control (QC) samples collected from the Camp Stanley Site (under RL33) on April 21, 2000. Samples in the following laboratory Sample Delivery Group (SDG) were analyzed for semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs); volatile organic compounds (VOCs); and metals:
| 32498 |
Field quality control samples collected were a trip blank; an equipment blank; matrix spike/matrix spike duplicates (MS/MSD); and field duplicates. During the initiation of this project, it was determined that ambient blanks were not necessary due to the absence of a source at the site. The trip blank was analyzed for volatile organics only. All other field quality control samples were analyzed for the same parameters as their associated samples.
All samples were collected by Parsons Engineering Science (Parsons ES). All analyses were performed by APPL, Inc. following procedures outlined in the AFCEE QAPP, version 3.0.
The data submitted by the laboratory has been reviewed and validated following the guidelines outlined in the AFCEE QAPP, version 3.0. Information reviewed in the data packages include sample results; the summary of laboratory quality control results; case narrative; raw data; and chain-of-custody forms. The analyses and findings presented in this report are based on the reviewed information, and whether guidelines in the AFCEE QAPP were met.
This SDG consisted of fifteen (15) samples, including ten (10) confirmation environmental soil samples, two field duplicate soil samples, one set of matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate samples, and one equipment blank sample. The samples were collected on April 21, 2000 and analyzed for semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs).
SVOC analyses were performed using United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) SW846 Method 8270C. All samples for this SDG were analyzed following the procedures outlined in the AFCEE QAPP. All samples collected were prepared and analyzed within the holding times required by the method.
Accuracy was evaluated using the %R results for the MS/MSD samples; LCS samples; and surrogate spikes. Sample B24-SIFT 28 (0.0-0.5�) was used as the MS/MSD sample in this SDG.
All MS/MSD %Rs were within acceptance criteria except for as follows:
Sample B24-SIFT 28 (0.0-0.5�)
Analyte | MS %R | MSD %R | QC |
| 2,4-dinitrophenol benzoic acid | 20.6 11.2 | 23.5 13.5 | 25-161 25-172 |
The results for the non-compliant analytes in the associated samples from the same site and with similar matrix as the MS/MSD sample were flagged �M� to indicate a matrix effect was present.
All LCS and surrogate %Rs were within acceptance criteria.
Precision was evaluated using the Relative Percent Difference (RPD) results obtained from MS/MSD results; and the field duplicate analyte values. Sample B24-SIFT 28 (0.0-0.5�) was used as the MS/MSD sample in this SDG. Sample B24-SIFT 27 (0.0-0.5�) FD was the field duplicate of sample B24-SIFT 27 (0.0-0.5�). Sample B24-SIFT 28 (0.0-0.5�) FD was the field duplicate of sample B24-SIFT 28 (0.0-0.5�).
All MS/MSD RPDs were within acceptance criteria except for as follows:
Sample B24-SIFT 28 (0.0-0.5�)
Analyte | RPD | QC |
| 3,3�-dichlorobenzidine 4-chloroanline | 69.2 40.3 | 30 30 |
The results for the non-compliant analytes in the associated samples from the same site and with similar matrix as the MS/MSD sample were flagged �M� to indicate a matrix effect was present.
All field duplicate RPDs were within acceptance criteria.
Completeness has been evaluated by comparing the total number of samples collected with the total number of samples with valid analytical data.
All results were considered usable. The completeness for this SDG is 100.0% compared to the minimum acceptance limit of 90%.
Representativeness expresses the degree to which sample data accurately and precisely represents actual site conditions. Representativeness has been evaluated by:
Comparing the chain-of-custody procedures to those described in the AFCEE QAPP;
Comparing actual analytical procedures to those described in the AFCEE QAPP;
Evaluating holding times; and
Examining field and laboratory blanks for cross contamination of samples during collection or analysis.
All samples in this SDG were analyzed following chain-of-custody forms (COCs) and analytical procedures described in the AFCEE. All samples were prepared and analyzed within the holding times required for the analysis.
All instrument performance check criteria were met.
All initial calibration criteria were met.
All continuing calibration criteria were met.
All second source verification criteria were met.
All internal standard criteria were met.
There were two method blanks and one equipment blank associated with the SVOC analyses in this SDG. The blanks were free of SVOCs above the RL.
This SDG consisted of sixteen (16) samples, including ten (10) confirmation environmental soil samples, two field duplicate soil samples, one set of matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate samples, one equipment blank sample and one trip blank sample. The samples were collected on April 21, 2000 and analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
VOC analyses were performed using United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) SW846 Method 8260B. All samples for this SDG were analyzed following the procedures outlined in the AFCEE QAPP. All samples collected were prepared and analyzed within the holding times required by the method.
Accuracy was evaluated using the %R results for the MS/MSD samples; LCS samples; and surrogate spikes. Sample B24-SIFT 28 (0.0-0.5�) was used as the MS/MSD sample in this SDG.
All MS/MSD %Rs were within acceptance criteria except for as follows:
Sample B24-SIFT 28 (0.0-0.5�)
Analyte | MS %R | MSD %R | QC |
| 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene 1,2-DCB 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene 1,3-DCB 1,4-DCB 1-chlorohexane 2-chlorotoluene 4-chlorotoluene bromobenzene chlorobenzene | 40.3 40.3 61.3 53.2 (62.9) 56.5 56.5 (66.1) (66.1) 59.7 (66.1) (69.4) | 24.2 25.8 48.4 37.1 50.0 40.3 40.3 51.6 50.0 45.2 50.0 56.5 | 65-147 65-145 65-135 65-135 62-135 65-135 65-135 65-135 63-135 64-135 65-135 65-135 |
Sample B24-SIFT 28 (0.0-0.5�) Continued
Analyte | MS %R | MSD %R | QC |
| cis-1,3-dichloropropane ethylbenzene hexachlorobutadiene isopropylbenzene m&p-xylene n-butylbenzene n-propylbenzene naphthalene o-xylene p-isopropyltoluene sec-butylbenzene styrene tert-butylbenzene tetrachloroethene | (77.4) (71.0) 32.3 (67.7) (73.2) 50.0 (66.1) 50.0 (74.2) 56.5 56.5 (69.4) 59.7 (71.0) | 61.3 58.1 29.0 53.2 56.1 40.3 50.0 29.0 56.5 43.5 43.5 51.6 48.4 56.5 | 64-135 65-135 65-135 65-135 65-135 65-135 65-135 65-135 65-135 65-135 65-135 65-135 65-135 61-135 |
( ) The %R was compliant.
The results for the non-compliant analytes in the associated samples from the same site and with similar matrix as the MS/MSD sample were flagged �M� to indicate a matrix effect was present.
All LCS and surrogate %Rs were within acceptance criteria.
Precision was evaluated using the Relative Percent Difference (RPD) results obtained from MS/MSD results; and the field duplicate analyte values. Sample B24-SIFT 28 (0.0-0.5�) was used as the MS/MSD sample in this SDG. Sample B24-SIFT 27 (0.0-0.5�) FD was the field duplicate of sample B24-SIFT 27 (0.0-0.5�). Sample B24-SIFT 28 (0.0-0.5�) FD was the field duplicate of sample B24-SIFT 28 (0.0-0.5�).
All MS/MSD RPDs were within acceptance criteria except for as follows:
Sample B24-SIFT 28 (0.0-0.5�)
Analyte | RPD | QC |
| 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene 1,2-DCB 1,3-DCB 1,4-DCB naphthalene | 50.0 43.9 48.4 35.7 33.3 33.3 53.1 | 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 |
The results for the non-compliant analytes in the associated samples from the same site and with similar matrix as the MS/MSD sample were flagged �M� to indicate a matrix effect was present.
All field duplicate RPDs were within acceptance criteria.
Completeness has been evaluated by comparing the total number of samples collected with the total number of samples with valid analytical data.
All results were considered usable. The completeness for this SDG is 100.0% compared to the minimum acceptance limit of 90%.
Representativeness expresses the degree to which sample data accurately and precisely represents actual site conditions. Representativeness has been evaluated by:
Comparing the chain-of-custody procedures to those described in the AFCEE QAPP;
Comparing actual analytical procedures to those described in the AFCEE QAPP;
Evaluating holding times; and
Examining field and laboratory blanks for cross contamination of samples during collection or analysis.
All samples in this SDG were analyzed following chain-of-custody forms (COCs) and analytical procedures described in the AFCEE QAPP. All samples were prepared and analyzed within the holding times required for the analysis.
All instrument performance check criteria were met.
All initial calibration criteria were met.
All continuing calibration criteria were met.
All second source verification criteria were met.
All internal standard criteria were met.
There were three method blanks, one equipment blank and one trip blank associated with the VOC analyses in this SDG. The blanks were free of VOCs above the RL.
This SDG consisted of fifteen (15) samples, including ten (10) confirmation environmental soil samples, two field duplicate soil samples, one set of matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate samples, one equipment blank sample. The samples were collected on April 21, 2000 and analyzed for metals; barium, chromium, copper, nickel, and zinc.
The barium, chromium, copper, nickel, and zinc analyses were performed using United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) SW846 Method 6010B. All samples for this SDG were analyzed following the procedures outlined in the AFCEE QAPP. All samples collected were prepared and analyzed within the holding times required by the method.
Accuracy was evaluated using the %R results for the MS/MSD samples and LCS samples. Sample B24-SIFT 28 (0.0-0.5�) was used as the MS/MSD sample in this SDG.
All MS/MSD %Rs were within acceptance criteria except for as follows:
Sample B24-SIFT 28 (0.0-0.5�)
Analyte | MS %R | MSD %R | QC |
| barium copper zinc | (77.7) (76.5) (99.9) | 157.6 174.3 143.8 | 75-125 75-125 75-125 |
( ) The %R was compliant.
The results for the non-compliant analytes in the associated samples from the same site as the MS/MSD sample were flagged �M� to indicate a matrix effect was present.
The LCS %Rs were within acceptance criteria.
Precision was evaluated using the Relative Percent Difference (RPD) results obtained from MS/MSD results; and the field duplicate analyte values. Sample B24-SIFT 28 (0.0-0.5�) was used as the MS/MSD sample in this SDG. Sample B24-SIFT 27 (0.0-0.5�) FD was the field duplicate of sample B24-SIFT 27 (0.0-0.5�). Sample B24-SIFT 28 (0.0-0.5�) FD was the field duplicate of sample B24-SIFT 28 (0.0-0.5�).
All MS/MSD RPDs were within acceptance criteria except for as follows:
Sample B24-SIFT 28 (0.0-0.5�)
Analyte | RPD | QC |
| copper | 32.6 | 20 |
The copper result in the associated samples from the same site as the MS/MSD sample were flagged �M� to indicate a matrix effect was present.
The field RPDs were within acceptance criteria except for as follows:
Field Duplicate Pair | Analyte | RPD | QC |
| B24-SIFT 28 (0.0-0.5�) and B24-SIFT 28 (0.0-0.5�) FD | copper | 49.7 | 20 |
The positive copper result in the associated samples collected on the same day as the non-compliant field duplicate pair were considered estimated and flagged �J�.
Completeness has been evaluated by comparing the total number of samples collected with the total number of samples with valid analytical data.
All results were considered usable. The completeness for this SDG is 100% compared to the minimum acceptance limit of 90%.
Representativeness expresses the degree to which sample data accurately and precisely represents actual site conditions. Representativeness has been evaluated by:
Comparing the chain-of-custody procedures to those described in the AFCEE QAPP;
Comparing actual analytical procedures to those described in the AFCEE QAPP;
Evaluating holding times; and
Examining field and laboratory blanks for cross contamination of samples during the collection and analysis.
All samples in this SDG were analyzed following the chain-of-custody forms (COCs) and analytical procedures described in the AFCEE QAPP. All samples were prepared and analyzed within the holding times required for the analysis.
All initial and continuing calibration criteria were met.
All second source calibration criteria were met.
All interference check criteria were met.
All dilution test criteria were met except for as follows:
Sample B24-SIFT 27 (0.0-0.5�)
Analyte | %D | QC |
| barium copper nickel zinc | 24.0 12.3 29.5 21.3 | 10 10 10 10 |
The barium, copper, nickel and zinc results in the associated samples were considered estimated and flagged �J�. The diluted result for chromium was less than the reporting limit. Therefore, the dilution test was not required for the chromium.
All post digestion spike addition criteria were met.
There were two method blanks, one equipment blank and several calibration blanks associated with the metal analyses in this SDG. All blanks were free of any metals above the RL.
This SDG consisted of fifteen (15) samples, including ten (10) confirmation environmental soil samples, two field duplicate soil samples, one set of matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate samples, one equipment blank sample. The samples were collected on April 21, 2000 and analyzed for mercury.
The mercury analyses were performed using USEPA SW846 Method 7471A. All samples for this SDG were analyzed following the procedures outlined in the AFCEE QAPP. All samples collected were prepared and analyzed within the holding times required by the method.
Accuracy was evaluated using the %R results for the MS/MSD samples and LCS samples. Sample B24-SIFT 28 (0.0-0.5�) was used as the MS/MSD sample in this SDG.
The MS/MSD and LCS %Rs were within acceptance criteria.
Precision was evaluated using the Relative Percent Difference (RPD) results obtained from MS/MSD results; and the field duplicate analyte values. Sample B24-SIFT 28 (0.0-0.5�) was used as the MS/MSD sample in this SDG. Sample B24-SIFT 27 (0.0-0.5�) FD was the field duplicate of sample B24-SIFT 27 (0.0-0.5�). Sample B24-SIFT 28 (0.0-0.5�) FD was the field duplicate of sample B24-SIFT 28 (0.0-0.5�).
All MS/MSD and field duplicate RPDs were within acceptance criteria.
Completeness has been evaluated by comparing the total number of samples collected with the total number of samples with valid analytical data.
All results were considered usable. The completeness for this SDG is 100% compared to the minimum acceptance limit of 90%.
Representativeness expresses the degree to which sample data accurately and precisely represents actual site conditions. Representativeness has been evaluated by:
Comparing the chain-of-custody procedures to those described in the AFCEE QAPP;
Comparing actual analytical procedures to those described in the AFCEE QAPP;
Evaluating holding times; and
Examining field and laboratory blanks for cross contamination of samples during the collection and analysis.
All samples in this SDG were analyzed following the chain-of-custody forms (COCs) and analytical procedures described in the AFCEE QAPP. All samples were prepared and analyzed within the holding times required for the analysis.
All initial and continuing calibration criteria were met.
All second source calibration criteria were met.
There were two method blanks and one equipment blank and several calibration blanks associated with the mercury analyses in this SDG. All blanks were free of any mercury above the RL.
This SDG consisted of fifteen (15) samples, including ten (10) confirmation environmental soil samples, two field duplicate soil samples, one set of matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate samples, one equipment blank sample. The samples were collected on April 21, 2000 and analyzed for arsenic.
The arsenic analyses were performed using United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) SW846 Method 7060A. All samples for this SDG were analyzed following the procedures outlined in the AFCEE QAPP. All samples collected were prepared and analyzed within the holding times required by the method.
Accuracy was evaluated using the %R results for the MS/MSD samples and LCS samples. Sample B24-SIFT 28 (0.0-0.5�) was used as the MS/MSD sample in this SDG.
The MS/MSD %Rs were within acceptance criteria except for as follows:
Sample B24-SIFT 28 (0.0-0.5�)
Analyte | MS %R | MSD %R | QC |
| arsenic | (78.1) | 65.6 | 74-120 |
( ) The %R was compliant.
The arsenic result in samples from the same site and with similar matrix as the MS/MSD sample was flagged �M� to indicate a matrix effect was present.
The LCS %Rs were within acceptance criteria.
Precision was evaluated using the Relative Percent Difference (RPD) results obtained from MS/MSD results; and the field duplicate analyte values. Sample B24-SIFT 28 (0.0-0.5�) was used as the MS/MSD sample in this SDG. Sample B24-SIFT 27 (0.0-0.5�) FD was the field duplicate of sample B24-SIFT 27 (0.0-0.5�). Sample B24-SIFT 28 (0.0-0.5�) FD was the field duplicate of sample B24-SIFT 28 (0.0-0.5�).
The MS/MSD RPD was within acceptance criteria.
The field duplicate RPDs were within acceptance criteria except for as follows:
Field Duplicate Pair | Analyte | %RPD | QC |
| B24-SIFT 28 (0.0-0.5�) and B24-SIFT 28 (0.0-0.5�) FD |
arsenic |
88.9 |
15 |
The positive arsenic result in the associated samples that were collected on the same day as the field duplicate pair were considered estimated and flagged �J�.
Completeness has been evaluated by comparing the total number of samples collected with the total number of samples with valid analytical data.
All results were considered usable. The completeness for this SDG is 100.0% compared to the minimum acceptance limit of 90%.
Representativeness expresses the degree to which sample data accurately and precisely represents actual site conditions. Representativeness has been evaluated by:
Comparing the chain-of-custody procedures to those described in the AFCEE QAPP;
Comparing actual analytical procedures to those described in the AFCEE QAPP;
Evaluating holding times; and
Examining field and laboratory blanks for cross contamination of samples during collection or analysis.
All samples in this SDG were analyzed following chain-of-custody forms (COCs) and analytical procedures described in the AFCEE QAPP. All samples were prepared and analyzed within the holding times required for the analysis.
All initial and continuing calibration criteria were met.
All second source calibration criteria were met.
The dilution test criteria were not met:
Sample B24-SIFT 28 (0.0-0.5�)
| Analyte | %D | QC |
| arsenic | 47.1 | 10 |
The arsenic result in the associated samples were considered estimated and flagged �J�.
� The recovery test criteria were not met:
Sample B24-SIFT 28 (0.0-0.5�)
Analyte | %R | QC |
| arsenic | 208 | 85-115 |
The arsenic result in the associated samples were considered estimated and flagged �J�.
There were two method blanks, one equipment blank and several calibration blanks associated with the arsenic analyses in this SDG. All blanks were free of any arsenic above the RL.
This SDG consisted of fifteen (15) samples, including ten (10) confirmation environmental soil samples, two field duplicate soil samples, one set of matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate samples, one equipment blank sample. The samples were collected on April 21, 2000 and analyzed for cadmium.
The cadmium analyses were performed using United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) SW846 Method 7131A. All samples for this SDG were analyzed following the procedures outlined in the AFCEE QAPP. All samples collected were prepared and analyzed within the holding times required by the method.
Accuracy was evaluated using the %R results for the MS/MSD samples and LCS samples. Sample B24-SIFT 28 (0.0-0.5�) was used as the MS/MSD sample in this SDG.
The MS/MSD and LCS %Rs were within acceptance criteria.
Precision was evaluated using the Relative Percent Difference (RPD) results obtained from MS/MSD results; and the field duplicate analyte values. Sample B24-SIFT 28 (0.0-0.5�) was used as the MS/MSD sample in this SDG. Sample B24-SIFT 27 (0.0-0.5�) FD was the field duplicate of sample B24-SIFT 27 (0.0-0.5�). Sample B24-SIFT 28 (0.0-0.5�) FD was the field duplicate of sample B24-SIFT 28 (0.0-0.5�).
The MS/MSD RPD was within acceptance criteria.
All field duplicate RPDs were within acceptance criteria except for as follows:
Field Duplicate Pair | Analyte | %RPD | QC |
| B24-SIFT 28 (0.0-0.5�) and B24-SIFT 28 (0.0-0.5�) FD | cadmium | 86.7 | 15 |
The positive cadmium results in the associated samples collected on the same day as the non-compliant field duplicate RPDs were considered estimated and flagged �J�.
Completeness has been evaluated by comparing the total number of samples collected with the total number of samples with valid analytical data.
All results were considered usable. The completeness for this SDG is 100.0% compared to the minimum acceptance limit of 90%.
Representativeness expresses the degree to which sample data accurately and precisely represents actual site conditions. Representativeness has been evaluated by:
Comparing the chain-of-custody procedures to those described in the AFCEE QAPP;
Comparing actual analytical procedures to those described in the AFCEE QAPP;
Evaluating holding times; and
Examining field and laboratory blanks for cross contamination of samples during collection or analysis.
All samples in this SDG were analyzed following chain-of-custody forms (COCs) and analytical procedures described in the AFCEE QAPP. All samples were prepared and analyzed within the holding times required for the analysis.
All initial and continuing calibration criteria were met.
All second source calibration criteria were met.
All dilution test criteria were not met:
Sample B24-SIFT 28 (0.0-0.5�)
Analyte | %D | QC |
| cadmium | 169 | 10 |
The cadmium result in the associated samples were considered estimated and flagged �J�.
� All recovery test criteria were not met:
Sample B24-SIFT 28 (0.0-0.5�)
| Analyte | %RPD | QC |
| cadmium | 144 | 85-115 |
The cadmium result in the associated samples were considered estimated and flagged �J�.
There were two method blanks, one equipment blank and several calibration blanks associated with the cadmium analyses in this SDG. All blanks were free of any cadmium above the RL.
This SDG consisted of fifteen (15) samples, including ten (10) confirmation environmental soil samples, two field duplicate soil samples, one set of matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate samples, one equipment blank sample. The samples were collected on April 21, 2000 and analyzed for lead.
The lead analyses were performed using United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) SW846 Method 7421. All samples for this SDG were analyzed following the procedures outlined in the AFCEE QAPP. All samples collected were prepared and analyzed within the holding times required by the method.
Accuracy was evaluated using the %R results for the MS/MSD samples and LCS samples. Sample B24-SIFT 28 (0.0-0.5�) was used as the MS/MSD sample in this SDG.
The MS/MSD %Rs were not within acceptance criteria:
Sample B24-SIFT 28 (0.0-0.5�) � 50x
Analyte | MS%R | MSD %R | QC |
| lead | 2564 | 17425 | 74-124 |
The lead result in the associated samples from the same site as the MS/MSD sample was flagged �M� to indicate a matrix effect was present.
The LCS %Rs were within acceptance criteria.
Precision was evaluated using the Relative Percent Difference (RPD) results obtained from MS/MSD results; and the field duplicate analyte values. Sample B24-SIFT 28 (0.0-0.5�) was used as the MS/MSD sample in this SDG. Sample B24-SIFT 27 (0.0-0.5�) FD was the field duplicate of sample B24-SIFT 27 (0.0-0.5�). Sample B24-SIFT 28 (0.0-0.5�) FD was the field duplicate of sample B24-SIFT 28 (0.0-0.5�).
The MS/MSD RPD was not within acceptance criteria:
Sample B24-SIFT 28 (0.0-0.5�)
Analyte | %RPD | QC |
| lead | 87.5 | 25 |
The lead result in the associated samples from the same site and with similar matrix as the MS/MSD sample was flagged �M� to indicate a matrix effect was present.
The field duplicate RPDs were not within acceptance criteria:
Field Duplicate Pair | Analyte | %RPD | QC |
| B24-SIFT 27 (0.0-0.5�) and B24-SIFT 27 (0.0-0.5�) FD B24-SIFT 28 (0.0-0.5�) and B24-SIFT 28 (0.0-0.5�) FD | lead
lead | 125
59.8 | 25
25 |
The lead result in the associated samples collected on the same day as the non-compliant field duplicate RPDs were considered estimated and flagged �J�.
Completeness has been evaluated by comparing the total number of samples collected with the total number of samples with valid analytical data.
All results were considered usable. The completeness for this SDG is 100% compared to the minimum acceptance limit of 90%.
Representativeness expresses the degree to which sample data accurately and precisely represents actual site conditions. Representativeness has been evaluated by:
Comparing the chain-of-custody procedures to those described in the AFCEE QAPP;
Comparing actual analytical procedures to those described in the AFCEE QAPP;
Evaluating holding times; and
Examining field and laboratory blanks for cross contamination of samples during the collection and analysis.
All samples in this SDG were analyzed following the chain-of-custody forms (COCs) and analytical procedures described in the AFCEE QAPP. All samples were prepared and analyzed within the holding times required for the analysis.
All initial and continuing calibration criteria were met.
All second source calibration criteria were met.
The dilution test criteria was not met:
Sample B24-SIFT 28 (0.0-0.5�) - 50x
Analyte | %D | QC |
| lead | 46.1 | 10 |
The lead result in the associated samples was considered estimated and flagged �J�.
All recovery test criteria were not met:
Sample B24-SIFT 28 (0.0-0.5�)
Analyte | %RPD | QC |
| lead | 29.7 | 75-125 |
The lead result in the associated samples was considered estimated and flagged �J�.
There were three method blanks, one equipment blank and several calibration blanks associated with the lead analyses in this SDG. All blanks were free of any lead above the RL.