Water.europa.eu Agenda item 7d Report on the quality assessment of the monitoring database Strategic...

water.europa.eu

Agenda item 7dAgenda item 7d

Report on the quality Report on the quality assessment of the assessment of the monitoring databasemonitoring database

Strategic Co-ordination Group10 - 11 November 2010

Madalina David (DG ENV), Bernd Gawlik (JRC) and Mario Carere (IT)

Working Group E Priority Substances, 8-9.10.2009

Context

Strategic Co-ordination Group, 10 – 11 November 2010


Objective


allow a quick identification of

summary by country (each country identified by a code) to identify strength and weaknesses of the respective datasets in comparison to the complete database

steer future improvement of quality of collected data for future purposes

Quality ofanalyticalMethod

(standardisation,protocol)

Quality ofanalytical result

(QA/QC,LOQ distribution)

Qualityof reporting

Data quality


Overall quality of reporting

a commonly defined template

a software tool used (http://www.oieau.fr/WISE-end-user-tool/)


the level of quality of information is varying considerably (geographical, water category, matrix and temporal distribution)

good quality may be jeopardized by a lack of scrutiny when reporting


the quality of monitoring data can be properly assessed from supplementary information that accompanies the measurements

< 1/2 countries have provided a significant percentage of data with both information on LoD and LoQ it introduces an additional uncertainty when the respective datasets are used together

15 countries from 28 provided information on the analytical methods and 80% use non-standardised methods

plausibility statistics: very low number of analytical results are considered suspicious, whereas a significant proportion of the LoQ are considered suspicious when compared with a benchmark (e.g. organic substances)


Overall quality of data provided

Working Group E Priority Substances, 8-9.10.2009 Strategic Co-ordination Group, 10 – 11 November 2010

Quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%10

4-40

-510

7-06

-211

5-29

-711

7-81

-711

8-74

-112

002-

48-1

120-

12-7

122-

34-9

127-

18-4

140-

66-9

1582

-09-

815

972-

60-8

1912

-24-

920

6-44

-029

21-8

8-2

3253

4-81

-933

0-54

-134

123-

59-6

470-

90-6

50-2

9-3

56-2

3-5

608-

73-1

608-

93-5

67-6

6-3

71-4

3-2

7439

-92-

174

39-9

7-6

7440

-02-

074

40-4

3-9

75-0

9-2

79-0

1-6

8553

5-84

-887

-68-

387

-86-

591

-20-

3

LoQ <= 0,3xEQS

LoQ > 0,3xEQS

no LoQ available

Directive 2009/90/EC

Existing Priority Substances


LoQ distribution

Annex I of the Report: LoQ distribution for substances ranked high and very high + 68 substances monitored in more than 3 countries


PEC = predicted environmental concentrations

PNEC = predicted no-effect concentration

PEC2 = measurements < LoQ (LoQ/2)

PEC1 = measurements > LoQ

for some substances, on which the PNEC is known, the monitoring methods need to be improved


8 classes

LoQ distribution

Annex II of the Report: LoQ distribution for substances monitored in more than 11 countries


wide range of LoQs suggests some monitoring methods are not appropriate

Working Group E Priority Substances, 8-9.10.2009 Strategic Co-ordination Group, 10 – 11 November 2010

Follow-up main areas for improvement:

• way of reporting of analytical results;

• adequate implementation of requirements of the QA/QC Directive, in particular as regards the quality management of labs (participation in proficiency testing programmes, use of certified reference materials, measurement of uncertainties);

• use of standardised and appropriate analytical methods;

• careful consideration to the monitoring of sediment and biota

and then what to do…..?


make use of a so-called “Community Laboratory NetworkCommunity Laboratory Network”

• Coordinate the existing structures (virtual structurevirtual structure with a secretariat run by the JRC as co-chair of CMEP sub-group)

• Developed in the context of the CMEP sub-group (no additional meetings) reporting to WGE

• Facilitate information exchange and gathering for expert group

• Collect and integrate ongoing projects and initiatives

• Liaise, if appropriate, to adjacent policy areas and initiatives (Chemicals, Marine, Waste, etc.)


Proposal for discussion

Competent AuthoritiesResearch Centres Standardisation BodiesAccreditation Bodies Existing Scientific Networks


use CMEP sub-group to take forward some of recommendations made in the report according to the mandate endorsed by the SCG and WDs

further discussions are planned for November meeting of the CMEP

b u t ……….

10 MSs/27 (BE, CZ, FI, FR, DE, IT, LU, NL, SE and UK) committed to provide an active contribution to different task of the CMEP


Proposal


Strategic Co-ordination Group members are invited to:

• To take note of the findings of the report and proposed follow-up

• Make available resources at the expert level during 2011-2012 to support the activity of the CMEP sub-group



Thanks for your attention….


Water.europa.eu Agenda item 7d Report on the quality assessment of the monitoring database Strategic...

Documents

Transcript of Water.europa.eu Agenda item 7d Report on the quality assessment of the monitoring database Strategic...