1 / 21

METHODS BOARD

METHODS BOARD. Dan Sullivan, USGS co-chair, Methods and Data Comparability Board. An Update from the Aquatic Sensor Workgroup. National Water Quality Monitoring Council. Outline. The Aquatic Sensor Workgroup (ASW) Tools developed by the ASW: laying the groundwork for sensors QA

chiara
Download Presentation

METHODS BOARD

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. METHODS BOARD Dan Sullivan, USGS co-chair, Methods and Data Comparability Board An Update from the Aquatic Sensor Workgroup National Water Quality Monitoring Council

  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

  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.

  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

  5. ASW Membership • Industry • States • Gov’t.

  6. Sensors QA Initiative FY08-10 • Website • Deployment Guide • QA (ACRR) Matrix • Data Elements • Glossary

  7. http://watersensors.org

  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

  9. Field Deployment Guide & QA Matrix

  10. 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

  11. ASW Initiatives FY11- • NEMI-ACT web portal • Data Management • Specifications • Data Quality Objectives

  12. 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

  13. NEMI-ACT status • Web portal is functional • Details and layout still being worked out • ACT redesign • NEMI redesign

  14. NEMI-ACT: what’s next • Screen capture

  15. 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.

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. ASTM D-19 workgroup – standard reference samples • ASW will provide input and comments • First meeting Jan. 19 • Met with EPA’s Forum on Environmental Measurements in September

  20. 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.

  21. Questions and Comments Dan Sullivan (608) 821-3869 djsulliv@usgs.gov watersensors.org

More Related