QA/QC Week 2006 Review of state wide results Waterwatch Coordinators Meeting September 8, 2006 Melbourne And strategising a plan for 2007

2006 demand compared with 2004/ Number of phys-chem sets ordered Number of macro sets ordered Number of phosphate std sets ordered -2025

Returned phys-chem datasheets 104% (50%-200%) 125% (75% - 180%) 85% (62% - 130%) Returned macro datasheets 70% (50 – 133%) 86% (0 – 220%) 65% (25%-120%) Returned phosphate datasheets -Too few returned 44% (0% - 80%) Return rate of datasheets 2006 compared with 2004/2005

Congratulations and THANKYOU to the following regions for exceptional datasheet return rates: Phys-chem (100% or greater): Corangamite Central Highlands Wimmera North Central Macro (100% or greater): Corangamite Central Highlands Mallee North Central North East

Samples wasted during this year’s QA/QC Week – phys-chem samples Despite there being a total 235 data sheets returned: the greatest number of participants for any one parameter/sample was 167 responses (75%, turbidity 1) the least being 136 responses (61% being for phosphate sample 2)

Working on a per sample basis, the amount lost in unused samples during this year’s QA/QC Week was $2786 (including macros and phosphate stds) As a percentage of total sample costs (minus pH samples), this loss was 35% of total sample preparation costs. We do not have the budget to support this sort of waste/loss each year.

The good, the not so good, and the ugly

The Good - Clear handwriting, QA/QC code included, almost all information filled in (EC cal missing), dilution information supplied, pH troubles clearly documented

Terrific to see monitors questioning the values they were measuring, I was so impressed with the number of thorough notes recorded on some datasheets. And so amused by the ‘sorry’ stories I received….

The Not So Good - Easy to read, but no calibration or dilution information, no information about instrument performance. Feedback = guesswork when there is no supporting information provided.

The Ugly - illegible handwriting, multiple results per datasheet. However most information was provided including calibration information, dilutions and instrument problems.

Ugly continued -

2006 results compared with 2004/5 Overall, good results for EC, not too bad for most turbidity readings, but phosphate reading needs work. Regional reports should provide more specific areas to focus efforts on.

EC Results All results above 80% this year, vast improvement. Right equipment resolution for range.

Turbidity (tube) results * Not shaken * test done at night indoors

Turbidity (meter) results

Ortho-P (comparator)

Ortho-P (colorimeter) results

Overall, parameter of most concern is PHOSPHATES, regardless of the equipment used. Colorimeters MUST be well maintained and checked often against calibration standards for accuracy. Otherwise, pressing the button is as accurate as reading from a colour guide while squinting. Dilution results were poor for Coordinators and Monitors Smart 2 range 0 – 0.978mg/l PO4-P Hach DR700/890 range 0 – mg/l PO4-P ±3% light refraction = 0.029mg/L P 0.024mg/L P

Plan for QA/QC Week 2007 How do we reduce wastage? Order less and make it stretch further? Individual regional orders of parameters and sample type? (eg 6 x ECsample1, 10 x Turbidity sample2) Introduce co-investment so that you are wasting half of your own $$ instead of all of ours (I’m serious) Other ideas...

How do we support volunteer monitors and improve these results in 2006/7? Regional DC Plan - scheduling of QC activities, including refresher training, shadow testing, mystery samples. Standard monitoring methodologies, including dilutions if used regularly in your region. Maintain calibration solutions, batteries, perishables. Regions are responsible for providing feedback and follow up support to monitors after QA/QC Week.

Macroinvertebrates results 2006 CoordinatorsCombined Pretty happy with Coordinators results, would hope to see 80% pass rates for families in the future too.

I have a story to confess about the Macro QA/QC. We were moving office and I was doing it on the rush one day with stuff just everywhere. I took out my first bug and started to ID it, turned back to grab a something or other (pen, tweezers, light, can't remember what) and knocked the lid-less vial onto the floor - bugs everywhere. I managed to find 3 but the little ones were camouflaged with the carpet + dirt so I just gave up. So a huge sorry for not sending in my bug QA/QC, shall not happen again. My favourite ‘Sorry, no bugs’ story (from a Coordinator) -