1. The UC Davis Semi-Annual Report on Quality Assurance IMPROVE Steering Committee Meeting October 16, | Fort Collins, Colorado Xiaolu Zhang*, Katrine Gorham, Xiaoya Cheng, Sean Raffuse, Jason Giacomo, Warren White, Nicole Hyslop University of California, Davis
Photo Credit: USGS

2. Introduction
UCD has started to deliver semi-annual QA reports since February 2017 (downloadable at Improve/quality-assurance/)
The latest report covers sampling dates from January through December 2017.
The primary objectives of the QA report are to:
Provide NPS with graphical representations to illustrate key QA parameters for species measured within the network.
Highlight observations that may give early indications of emerging trends, whether in atmospheric composition or measurement quality.
Serve as a record and tool for ongoing UCD QA efforts.

3. UCD QA Report Outline Introduction Concentration-Level QC Checks
Analytical QC Checks
Documentation
Site Maintenance Summary
Comparisons Across Years
Comparisons Between Modules
Comparisons Between Collocated Samples
Replicate versus Routine
Blanks
Validation Updates

4. UCD QA Report Outline Introduction Concentration-Level QC Checks
Analytical QC Checks
Documentation
Site Maintenance Summary
Comparisons Across Years
Comparisons Between Modules (Filters)
Comparisons Between Collocated Samples
Replicate versus Routine
Blanks
Validation Updates

5. Concentration-Level QC Checks
Sulfate
1. Comparisons Across Years
90th Percentile
2011
Multi-year time series plots of 10th, 50th (median) and 90th percentile concentrations for each parameter
Six years ( ) data are included to provide context for the 2017 data
Useful for examining network- scale trends and analytical consistency
2017
Median
10th Percentile

6. Decreasing Trend in Nickel (Ni) and Vanadium (V) Concentrations

7. Higher OC in 2017 summer and fall months
Organic Carbon
90th Percentile
Median
10th Percentile
PM2.5 mass
90th Percentile
Median
10th Percentile
Higher OC in 2017 summer and fall months
Similar trend is seen in PM2.5 mass, EC, fabs, K

8. Concentration-Level QC Checks
2. Comparisons Between Modules
Module B
PM2.5
Nylon
Module A
PTFE
Module C
Quartz
Module D
PM10
ions
elements
mass
fabs
carbon
Sulfur (A) vs. Sulfate (B)
Chlorine (A) vs. Chloride (B)
fabs (A) vs. EC (C)
Reconstructed PM2.5 (A, B, C) vs. Gravimetric PM2.5 (A)

9. Concentration-Level QC Checks
2. Comparisons Between Modules
Module B
PM2.5
Nylon
Module A
PTFE
Module C
Quartz
Module D
PM10
ions
elements
mass
fabs
carbon
Sulfur (A) vs. Sulfate (B)
Chlorine (A) vs. Chloride (B)
fabs (A) vs. EC (C)
Reconstructed PM2.5 (A, B, C) vs. Gravimetric PM2.5 (A)

10. Concentration-Level QC Checks
Reconstructed/Gravimetric PM2.5 mass ratio
75th percentile
median
25th percentile
2017
Reconstructed mass = (4.125 × S) + (1.29 × NO­­3ˉ­­­ ) + (1.8 × OC) + (EC) + (2.2 × Al × Si × Ca × Fe × Ti) + (1.8 × chloride)

11. Concentration-Level QC Checks
3. Comparisons Between Collocated Samples A B C D CL
Collocated
(A,B,C or D)
Routine
𝑆𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑑 𝑅𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒= collocated − routine / collocated + routine / 2
𝐶𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 (𝑐𝑝)= 84𝑡ℎ 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑅𝐷 −(16𝑡ℎ 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑅𝐷) 2
𝐹𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑈𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑦= 100 × 1 𝑛 𝑖=1 𝑛 (𝑐𝑝) 𝑖 2
Fractional uncertainties are calculated from collocated measurements (Table 1) and will be updated annually.

12. Collocated SRD plot for XRF elements
𝑆𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑑 𝑅𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒= collocated − routine / collocated + routine / 2

13. UCD QA Report Outline Introduction Concentration-Level QC Checks
Analytical QC Checks
Documentation
Site Maintenance Summary
Comparisons Across Years
Comparisons Between Modules
Comparisons Between Collocated Samples
Replicate versus Routine
Blanks
Validation Updates

14. Analytical QC Checks - Replicates
DRI (carbon) and RTI (ion) labs routinely re-analyze ~10% and ~5% of the network samples as replicates, respectively.
Replicate analysis are not reported to FED and AQS, but used for QC check.
Carbon Fractions
Replicate versus Routine
Blanks
Validation Updates*
Massloading, Routine (µg/filter)
Massloading, Replicate (µg/filter)

15. Analytical QC Checks - Blanks
Chloride Field Blank
lot change
Dashed red lines indicate different Nylon filter lots.
High Cl- field blanks prior to March 2011 due to improper storage will be discussed in an updated data advisory.
Contamination in summer 2017
Chloride Lab Blank

16. Upcoming Delivery Date
UCD QA Report Outline
Introduction
Concentration-Level QC Checks
Analytical QC Checks
Documentation
Site Maintenance Summary
Comparison Across Years
Comparisons Between Modules
Comparisons Between Collocated Samples
Deliverable
Upcoming Delivery Date
SOPs and TI documents
January 31, 2019
Quarterly Site Status Report
November 15, 2018 (2018 Q3)
February 15, 2019 (2018 Q4)
Semiannual Quality Assurance Report
(January – June 2018 data)
April 30, 2019
Replicate versus Routine
Blanks
Validation Updates

17. UCD QA Report Outline Introduction Concentration-Level QC Checks
Analytical QC Checks
Documentation
Site Maintenance Summary
Comparison Across Years
Comparisons Between Modules
Comparisons Between Collocated Samples
Summary of Repair Items Sent (Table 3)
CSU CIRA Field Audits (Table 4)
Summary of UCD Site Visits January through June 2018 (Table 5)
Replicate versus Routine
Blanks
Validation Updates

18. THANKS!! Looking Forward
Continuing effort towards standardizing the report content and figures.
XRF analytical QC section will be added in the next report.
What else would you like to see in the next QA report?
THANKS!!

19. Extra slides

20. Sulfate
Sulfate (Sulfur) decreases
over years

21. Concentration-Level QC Checks
RCMN = (4.125 × S) + (1.29 × NO­­3ˉ­­­ ) + (1.8 × OC) + (EC) (2.2 × Al × Si × Ca × Fe × Ti) + (1.8 × chloride)

22. Concentration-Level QC Checks
Laser and integrating sphere were replaced on HIPS
New calibration (red) consistent with previous one
2. Comparisons Between Modules
Light absorption (fabs)/EC ratio

23. Validation Updates Previous reports Current report:
Chloride is used in UCD RCMN formula instead of chlorine to be consistent with CIRA
Fractional uncertainties were calculated using data before 2017 samples; Now are using last 4 years of collocated measurements. BYIS1 (5A module) data are excluded from the fractional uncertainty.
Carbon reprocessing and redelivery comparison
XRF calibration using multi-elements standards
OC and EC artifact calculation change:
UCD is now using the same method for carbon blank correction as CIRA; 2017 data are redelivered to reflect the change.
New validation tools developed by the UCD software group.

24. Analytical QC Checks – Replicates
y = x
r2 = 0.992
y = x
r2 = 1.000
y = x
r2 = 0.999
Ions
(Chloride, Nitrite, Nitrate, Sulfate)

25. Analytical QC Checks - Blanks
OCTR Field Blank
Dashed red lines indicate when the DRI Model 2015 analyzers are put to use ( )
ECTR Field Blank