METHODS BOARD An Update from the Aquatic Sensor Workgroup Dan
Sullivan, USGS co-chair, Methods and Data Comparability Board
National Water Quality Monitoring Council
Slide 2
Outline The Aquatic Sensor Workgroup (ASW) Tools developed by
the ASW: laying the groundwork for sensors QA NEMI-ACT web portal
Data Management Specifications Input on USGS/CUASHI Workshop
Slide 3
Aquatic Sensor Workgroup (ASW) The ASW is a subcommittee of the
Methods and Data Comparability Board, a workgroup of the National
Council Objective: to convene a workgroup of experts to consider
efforts to address challenges: SOPs have not kept pace with
technology No central repository for information about SOPs, sensor
performance, etc.
Slide 4
ASW Objectives Develop SOPs for the calibration, QA/QC,
maintenance, and deployment of field-based aquatic sensors Make
recommendations for the creation of a database to store relevant
information on sensors to allow potential users to make informed
decisions on the use of sensors for their projects Recommend types
of sensors for the National Monitoring Network
Slide 5
ASW Membership Industry States Govt.
Slide 6
Sensors QA Initiative FY08-10 Website Deployment Guide QA
(ACRR) Matrix Data Elements Glossary
Slide 7
http://watersensors.org
Slide 8
QA and Deployment Guide Overview Guides are designed as
checklists Important to know site details/specific sensor
requirements Maintenance intervals data quality Document
everything
Slide 9
Field Deployment Guide & QA Matrix
Slide 10
1. System Selection
Slide 11
Whats in the Matrix? The basic sensors that are in wide use for
monitoring (NPS Vital Signs): Temp. SC D.O. pH Turbidity Depth ORP
(Oxidation Reduction Potential)
Slide 12
QA (ACRR) Matrix List of actions you can do to: Affect (act to
influence the outcome) Check (test to evaluate or verify) Record
(documentation) Report (communicate the data quality indicator)
Used in conjunction with users manual, result will be data of known
and documented quality
Slide 13
QA Matrix
Slide 14
QA Matrix SC example
Slide 15
The Future of Sensors? Water Quality Anytime, Anywhere (B.
Hirsch) Capabilities, reliability, and deployment of sensors will
continue to increase Several networks in planning stages
Mississippi River Basin sediment pilot Great Lakes Areas of need:
data & databases Specifications Data analysis
Slide 16
ASW Initiatives FY11- NEMI-ACT web portal Data Management
Specifications Data Quality Objectives
Slide 17
NEMI-ACT web portal Access traditional analytical and sampling
methods from NEMI along with sensors information from ACT Over
4,000 sensors in ACT database Side-by-side comparisons Format for
standardizing performance criteria for sensors w/in single
manufacturers, reported performance for a given analyte can be
different for different models
Slide 18
NEMI-ACT status Web portal is functional Details and layout
still being worked out ACT redesign NEMI redesign
Slide 19
NEMI-ACT: whats next Screen capture
Slide 20
Data Management The QW monitoring community needs better data
management procedures to deal with the large amount of data
generated by remotely-deployed sensors. Sensors provide unique
challenges in almost every phase of data management, from what data
should be collected and stored (the content of the data) to data
transfer.
Slide 21
Data Management SOP for basic data verification, validation,
and error calculation to connect the outcome of quality checks with
the data, plus a standardized set of data qualifiers List of data
elements/data fields that need to be recorded (*DRAFT long list is
complete) Recommendations for a streamlined process of sensors data
correction, i.e., alteration to correct for drift and fouling,
using consistent procedures/algorithms and consistent categories
for the extent of corrections
Slide 22
Data Management Recent presentations to the Board ASW include:
Functions of data processing and analyzing software, Ed Quilty,
Aquatic Informatics Overview of DIF and DMAC, Charly Alexander,
NOAA
Slide 23
Specifications Technology performance standards and test
criteria designed specifically for field sensors and natural
environmental conditions are required to allow inter-comparison of
sensor specifications and the data generated by field sensors Need
for EPA-accepted criteria for sensors for ambient monitoring
Slide 24
ASTM D-19 workgroup standard reference samples ASW will provide
input and comments First meeting Jan. 19 Met with EPAs Forum on
Environmental Measurements in September
Slide 25
Data Quality Objectives State-led Guidelines for questions to
ask: What do you want? What do you need? What can you afford? Goal:
SOP or guidance document on how to write a DQO tailored to the
collection and use of sensors data. Should be helpful for designing
and implementing and estimating costs for a continuous monitoring
program.
Slide 26
Acknowledgements Revital Katznelson, PhD, contract lead Gayle
Rominger, Rob Ellison, Mike Cook, Danielle Dumont,YSI, Inc Chuck
Dvorsky, Texas CEQ Chuck Spooner, US EPA Mike Sadar, Hach Co
Cristina Windsor, In-Situ Janice Fulford, USGS And a review board
consisting of experts from NPS, ACT, US EPA, USGS, ORNL, and VT
Special thanks to Andy Ziegler, USGS-KS for some of the slides in
this presentation
Slide 27
Questions and Comments Dan Sullivan (608) 821-3869
[email protected] watersensors.org