Ambient Air Monitoring and Quality Assurance/Quality Control Guidelines: National Air Pollution Surveillance Program

AMBIENT AIR MONITORING AND QUALITY

ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL GUIDELINES

National Air Pollution Surveillance Program

PN 1599

ISBN 978-1-77202-056-4 PDF

NOTE TO READERS

The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) is the primary minister-led

intergovernmental forum for collective action on environmental issues of national and

international concern.

This document contains guidance related to air quality monitoring procedures at National Air

Pollution Surveillance (NAPS) sites across the country and replaces the Ambient Air Monitoring

Protocol for PM

2.5

and Ozone: Canada-wide Standards for Particulate Matter and Ozone (CCME

2011) and the manual titled National Air Pollution Surveillance Network Quality Assurance and

Quality Control Guidelines (EC 2004). It provides recommendations and establishes minimum

requirements to ensure that data collected by the NAPS Program are of known quality, defensible,

and comparable across Canada.

This document was developed for the Air Management Committee, by staff of the Analysis and

Air Quality Section of Environment and Climate Change Canada. CCME would like to thank all

individuals that participated in completing this document and more specifically the following

working group members representing provincial and territorial governments: Melynda Bitzos and

Mike Noble (Ontario), Eric Blanchard (New Brunswick), Fran Di Cesare (Nova Scotia), Chris

Gray (Saskatchewan), Jany McKinnon (Québec) and Ryan Wiederick (British Columbia), and

Christian Vezina for his contribution as an external reviewer.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

NOTE TO READERS ..................................................................................................................... i

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... v

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... vi

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................... vii

GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................................ viii

1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1

2.0 NAPS PROGRAM AND MONITORING OBJECTIVES................................................. 1

2.1 NAPS Monitoring Objectives ......................................................................................... 2

3.0 NAPS PROGRAM ORGANIZATION .............................................................................. 3

3.1 NAPS Program Operation ............................................................................................... 3

Environment and Climate Change Canada ................................................................. 3

Provincial and Territorial Governments, Metro Vancouver and Montréal ................. 4

4.0 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES (DQO) .......................................................................... 4

5.0 TRAINING ......................................................................................................................... 7

6.0 DOCUMENTATION AND RECORDS ............................................................................ 8

6.1 Network Quality Assurance Plan (NQAP) ...................................................................... 9

6.2 Site Classification ......................................................................................................... 11

6.2.1 Class 1: Urbanization ................................................................................................ 11

6.2.2 Class 2: Neighbourhood Population ......................................................................... 12

6.2.3 Class 3: Local Land Use ........................................................................................... 12

6.2.4 Class 4: Site Type ..................................................................................................... 13

6.3 Equipment Information and Inventory.......................................................................... 17

6.4 Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for the NAPS Program ................................... 17

7.0 NETWORK DESIGN AND SITE LOCATION .............................................................. 17

7.1 Network Design ............................................................................................................ 20

7.1.1 Core Sites .................................................................................................................. 20

7.1.2 Program-specific Sites .............................................................................................. 23

7.1.3 Pollutant-specific Sites.............................................................................................. 25

7.2 Site Location Selection Process ...................................................................................... 26

7.2.1 Prioritizing Monitoring Objectives ........................................................................... 27

7.2.2 Spatial Scales of Representativeness ........................................................................ 27

7.2.3 Site Types.................................................................................................................. 30

7.2.4 Population Density .................................................................................................... 31

7.2.5 Local Land Use ......................................................................................................... 32

8.0 MONITORING STATION DESIGN ............................................................................... 32

8.1 Station Design ............................................................................................................... 32

8.2 Sampling Inlet System Design ....................................................................................... 32

8.2.1 Sampling Inlet Placement ......................................................................................... 33

8.3 Manifold Design ........................................................................................................... 35

iii

8.3.1 Residence Time (Rt) Calculations ............................................................................ 37

8.3.2 Pressure Drop Measurements ................................................................................... 37

9.0

MONITORING, SAMPLING

AND ANALYTICAL METHODS ..................................... 37

9.1 Continuous Methods ..................................................................................................... 38

9.2 Integrated Methods ....................................................................................................... 41

9.3 New Instrument Pre-deployment Testing and Inspection ............................................. 43

9.3.1 Continuous Gas Analyzers ........................................................................................ 43

9.3.2 PM Instruments ......................................................................................................... 43

10.0 ROUTINE OPERATION ................................................................................................. 43

10.1 Routine Inspection and Maintenance Checks ................................................................ 43

10.1.1 Integrated Samples: Specific Requirements ......................................................... 44

10.2 Quarterly and Semi-annual Station Visits..................................................................... 45

10.3 Site and Station Logs .................................................................................................... 45

10.4 Instrument Maintenance Records ................................................................................. 46

11.0 VERIFICATION AND CALIBRATION ......................................................................... 46

11.1 Gas Analyzers................................................................................................................ 47

11.1.1 QC Checks for Gas Analyzers .............................................................................. 47

11.1.2 Verification and Calibration ................................................................................. 47

11.1.3 Tolerance Levels and Acceptance Criteria ........................................................... 49

11.1.4 Multi-Point Verification and Calibration Considerations ..................................... 51

11.1.5 Automatic Zero or Span Adjustments................................................................... 51

11.2 PM

Instruments ............................................................................................................. 51

11.2.1 PM Instrument Tolerance Levels and Acceptance Criteria .................................. 52

11.2.2 PM Instrument Verification and Calibration Considerations ............................... 53

11.3 Verification and Calibration Documentation ................................................................ 54

11.4 Integrated VOC, Carbonyls and PAH Samplers ........................................................... 54

11.5 Traceability of Calibration and Standards .................................................................... 54

11.5.1 Traceability ........................................................................................................... 55

11.5.2 Reference and Transfer Standards ........................................................................ 56

12.0 DATA COLLECTION AND VALIDATION: CONTINUOUS DATA .......................... 57

12.1 Data Collection .............................................................................................................. 57

12.1.1 Sample Rates and Averaging Intervals ................................................................. 58

12.1.2 Datalogger Reading Verification .......................................................................... 59

12.2 Data Validation Process ................................................................................................ 59

12.3 Data Flags and Validation Logs .................................................................................... 62

12.4 Level 0 Verification ...................................................................................................... 62

12.5 Level 1 Validation......................................................................................................... 63

12.5.1 Review of Field Records ....................................................................................... 63

12.5.2 Review of Operational and Instrument Parameters .............................................. 63

12.5.3 Review of Multi-point Verification Results ......................................................... 63

12.5.4 Over-range Values ................................................................................................ 64

12.5.5 Review of Automatic Zero Adjustments .............................................................. 64

12.5.6 Baseline Adjustments............................................................................................ 64

12.5.7 Below Zero Adjustments ...................................................................................... 66

12.5.8 Derived Parameter Relationship of NO/NO

/NO

.............................................. 66

12.6 Level 2 Validation......................................................................................................... 67

12.7 Level 3 Validation......................................................................................................... 68

12.8 Post Validation .............................................................................................................. 68

13.0 DATA COLLECTION AND VALIDATION: INTEGRATED DATA .......................... 69

13.1 Integrated Sample Metadata ......................................................................................... 71

13.2 Sample Collection ......................................................................................................... 71

13.3 Level 0 Verification ...................................................................................................... 72

13.4 Level 1 Validation......................................................................................................... 72

13.5 Level 2 Validation......................................................................................................... 73

13.6 Level 3 Validation......................................................................................................... 74

13.7 Post Validation .............................................................................................................. 75

14.0 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................... 76

14.1 Continuous Data Reporting........................................................................................... 76

14.1.1 Real-time Reporting of Continuous Data ............................................................. 76

14.1.2 Continuous Data Reporting to the CWAQD ........................................................ 77

14.1.3 Posting Continuous Data to the NAPS Data Portal .............................................. 77

14.2 Integrated Data Reporting ............................................................................................. 79

14.2.1 Integrated Data Reporting to the CWAQD ........................................................... 79

14.2.2 Integrated Data Reporting to the NAPS Data Portal ............................................ 80

14.3 Other NAPS Data Reporting Requirements ................................................................. 80

14.3.1 Data Reported to the Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators (CESI) 81

14.3.2 Ozone Annex to the 1991 Canada-US Air Quality Agreement ............................ 81

14.3.3 Air Quality Management System (AQMS) .......................................................... 81

14.3.4 NAPS Annual Data Summary Reports ................................................................. 82

15.0 ASSESSMENTS AND CORRECTIVE ACTION ........................................................... 82

15.1 Performance and Systems Audits ................................................................................. 83

15.1.1 Performance Audit ................................................................................................ 83

15.1.2 Systems Audit ....................................................................................................... 84

15.1.3 Audit Response ..................................................................................................... 84

15.2 Inter-Agency Measurement Study ................................................................................ 85

15.3 Data Quality Assessments (DQA) ................................................................................ 85

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 87

APPENDIX A – AMBIENT AIR MONITORING EQUIPMENT .............................................. 88

APPENDIX B – NAPS METHOD AND SOP REFERENCE LIST ........................................... 89

APPENDIX C – TECHNICAL SYSTEMS AUDIT QUESTIONNAIRES................................. 91

APPENDIX D – PERFORMANCE AUDIT QUESTIONNAIRE ............................................. 106

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4-1 NAPS Program DQO criteria ......................................................................................... 5

Table 4-2 NAPS Program DQO and relevant determination methodologies ................................. 6

Table 6-1 Recommended documentation and records .................................................................... 8

Table 6-2 NAPS site classification system ................................................................................... 16

Table 7-1 Parameters monitored at core ....................................................................................... 21

Table 7-2 Monitoring objective priorities by pollutant and spatial scales of representativeness . 29

Table 7-3 Pollutants and relevant spatial scale of representativeness .......................................... 30

Table 7-4 Site types and spatial scale of representativeness......................................................... 30

Table 8-1 Sampling inlet material and Residence Time (Rt) ....................................................... 33

Table 8-2

Minimum separation distance between roadways and sampling inlets for neighbourhood

and urban scale sites.............................................................................................................. 34

Table 8-3 Specifications for sampling inlet siting ........................................................................ 34

Table 9-1 NAPS minimum performance specifications and operating ranges for continuous

methods ................................................................................................................................. 39

Table 9-2 Principles of operation for NAPS continuous methods ................................................ 40

Table 9-3 Principles of sampling and analysis for NAPS integrated methods ............................. 42

Table 11-1 Gas analyzer QC, verification and calibration activity frequencies ........................... 49

Table 11-2 Multi-point verification and calibration ranges .......................................................... 49

Table 11-3 QC checks tolerance levels for gas analyzers............................................................. 50

Table 11-4a Multi-point verification: Zero-point tolerance levels for gas analyzers ................... 50

Table 11-4b Multi-point verification: Upscale points acceptance criteria for gas analyzers ....... 50

Table 11-6 QC check tolerance and acceptance criteria for PM instruments ............................... 53

Table 11-7 Transfer standards certification frequency ................................................................. 57

Table 12-1 Data verification and validation review ..................................................................... 60

Table 12-2 Multi-point verification: Zero-point tolerance levels for gas analyzers ..................... 65

Table 12-3 Zero adjustment criteria .............................................................................................. 66

Table 13-1 Data verification and validation review ..................................................................... 69

Table 14-0-1 Required significant figures and units by parameter............................................... 79

Table 15-1 ECCC audit and assessment schedule ........................................................................ 83

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1 NAPS Network.............................................................................................................. 1

Figure 1-2 Air quality parameters currently measured by NAPS ................................................... 1

Figure 3-1 NAPS MOU parties....................................................................................................... 3

Figure 6-1 Elements of an NQAP ................................................................................................... 9

Figure 6-2 Urbanization ................................................................................................................ 11

Figure 6-3 Neighbourhood Population ......................................................................................... 12

Figure 7-1

NAPS sites ................................................................................................................... 18

Figure 7-2 Population distribution in Canada, 2016 ..................................................................... 19

Figure 7-3 Graphical concept of core sites ................................................................................... 22

Figure 7-4 NAPS site hierarchy .................................................................................................... 23

Figure 7-5 AQMS air zones .......................................................................................................... 24

Figure 7-6 Design requirements of the monitoring network and the selection of sites ................ 27

Figure 7-7

Spatial scales ............................................................................................................... 28

Figure 8-1 Example of a conventional 1-, 2- and 4-inch manifold system (which can be configured

horizontally or vertically) ..................................................................................................... 36

Figure 8-2 Example of octopus-style manifold system ................................................................ 36

Figure 11-1 Multi-point verification ............................................................................................. 48

Figure 11-2 Allowable levels of traceability from reference standard to station gas analyzers

(excluding ozone).................................................................................................................. 55

Figure 11-3 Allowable levels between calibrations from the reference standard to station ozone

analyzers ............................................................................................................................... 56

Figure 12-1 Data collection and management .............................................................................. 58

Figure 12-2 Continuous data validation flow chart ...................................................................... 61

Figure 12-3 Zero drift ................................................................................................................... 65

Figure 12-4 PM

2.5

data of two buddy sites ................................................................................... 68

Figure 13-1 Data process flow chart for integrated samples ........................................................ 70

Figure 13-2 Reconstructed PM

2.5

mass by major component for the 10 highest mass days (2012–

2015) ..................................................................................................................................... 74

Figure 13-3 Cobalt concentrations, 2010–2016 ............................................................................ 75

Figure 14-1 Continuous data flow ................................................................................................ 76

Figure 14-2 Calculation of Daily Maximum 8-hour Ozone ......................................................... 78

Figure 14-3 Integrated data flow ................................................................................................... 79

vii

Figure 14-4 Air Quality Management System .............................................................................. 82

Figure 15-1 Collocated PM

2.5

continuous monitor vs NAPS RM measurements ........................ 86

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

µg/m

microgram per cubic metre

µm micron/micrometre

AADT annual average daily traffic

AAQS Analysis and Air Quality Section

AQHI Air Quality Health Index

AQMS Air Quality Management System

CA census agglomeration

CAAQS Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards

CAPS cavity attenuated phase shift

CCME Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment

CEPA Canadian Environmental Protection Act 1999

CESI Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CO carbon monoxide

CMA census metropolitan area

CWAQD Canada-wide Air Quality Database

DNPH 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine

DQA data quality assessment

DQO data quality objective

ECCC Environment and Climate Change Canada

ED-XRF energy-dispersive X-ray fluorescence

FEM federal equivalent method (US)

FRM federal reference method (US)

HEPA high efficiency particulate air

ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry

IR infrared

MOU memorandum of understanding

NALC North American Landscape Characterization

NAPS National Air Pollution Surveillance Program

NAPS RM NAPS reference method

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology (United States)

NO nitric oxide

nitrogen dioxide

oxides of nitrogen

NQAP Network Quality Assurance Plan

ozone

OC/EC organic carbon/elemental carbon

PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon

PC population centre

PM particulate matter

2.5

particulate matter ≤2.5 µm (fine)

2.5–10

particulate matter ≤10 µm and ≥2.5 µm (coarse)

particulate matter ≤10 µm

ppb parts per billion

ppm parts per million

QA/QC quality assurance/quality control

RM reference method

RMS root mean square

Rt residence time

SCC sharp cut cyclone

sulphur dioxide

SOP standard operating procedure

SRM standard reference material

SRP standard reference photometer

TEOM tapered element oscillating microbalance

TRAP traffic-related air pollution

US EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

UV ultraviolet

VOC volatile organic compound

VSCC very sharp cut cyclone

VSL Dutch National Metrology Institute

WHMIS Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System

GLOSSARY

Accuracy: The comparison of a measurement to a known value. Accuracy can include measures

of agreement among repeated measurements (precision) and measurements of positive or

negative systematic errors (bias).

Actual conditions: The ambient temperature and pressure of a gas during the time its volume (or

volumetric flow rate) is measured.

Buddy sites: Sites that are in close proximity or that would be expected to measure similar

concentrations.

Calibration: Adjustment of an instrument or firmware that establishes the relationship between

instrument response and expected concentration. It compares values delivered by a device

under testing with those of a calibration standard of known accuracy (traceable).

Calibration range: Scale used for multi-point verification and calibration.

Comparability: A qualitative term that expresses the confidence that data sets or methods can be

compared with those at other sites for common interpretation and analysis. Data

comparability is achieved via uniform procedures and methods.

Completeness: Comparison of the valid data collected versus the total number of data points

expected for the measurement frequency (e.g., hourly, daily, seasonally, annually).

Completeness confirms whether enough information is being collected to ensure

confidence in the conclusion or decisions made with the resulting data.

Continuous Data: Data that is collected using continuous monitoring equipment.

Data flag: Metadata applied to each continuous data record during data collection; can be modified

during the validation process.

Datalogger/data acquisition system: Device that collects data and other information from

instruments at the monitoring site.

Data qualifier code: Metadata applied to each integrated data record during the validation process.

Data validation: Process of examining objective evidence to confirm that the data are fit for

purpose.

Detection limit: The lowest value that a method can report with confidence.

Integrated Data: Data that are integrated from chemical and gravimetric analysis by the NAPS

Laboratory on integrated samples.

Multi-point verification: Establishes and subsequently verifies the accuracy and linearity of the

instrument at regular intervals to ensure data validity. It must include a pre- and post-zero

and at least three upscale points (100%, 60% and 30% of calibration range) in

recommended ranges.

Outlier: Data point that is statistically separate from the rest of the data set.

Performance audit: A quantitative evaluation of a measurement system by an independent auditor

to determine if criteria are meeting specifications.

Quality assurance (QA): An integrated system that involves determination of monitoring and data

quality objectives, network design, site selection, equipment evaluation and training to

ensure measurements meet defined standards of quality.

Quality control (QC): Operational procedures and checks used to assess equipment performance

relative to desirable or specified criteria. QC is also a check or comparison performed

during data validation for the purpose of identifying data that may be invalid, suspect or in

need of adjustment.

Reference standard: The standard used by the monitoring organization to which all other gas

mixtures or instruments are compared. It can be a standard reference material (SRM) or a

transfer standard but not both.

Representativeness: The degree to which data accurately and precisely represent the pollutant

concentration of an air parcel surrounding the site for a specific averaging period.

Residence time: The amount of time in seconds that it takes for a sample of air to travel from the

sampling inlet to the instrument.

Rise/fall time: The time interval between initial response (the first observable change in analyzer

output) and a level of signal output that is 95% of the steady state output after a step

increase (rise) or decrease (fall) in input concentration.

Sampling inlet: An opening through which air enters the sampling system before continuing to an

analyzer, monitor or sampler.

Span check: The introduction of a known concentration of a gas near the calibration range. The

span check point is compared to a reference span value established at the time of multi-

point verification or calibration.

Span drift: The percent change in analyzer response to a constant upscale pollutant concentration

over a certain number of hours of unadjusted continuous operation.

Standard reference material: A material or gas mixture whose composition is known and is taken

as the standard to which all other gas mixtures are compared. In the NAPS Network, this

refers to the NIST or VSL materials and the NIST Standard Reference Photometer (SRP).

Suspect data: Data that do not follow expected behaviour (e.g., statistical, historical trend, temporal

or spatial). They can also be data that do not have the required documentation or the

supporting QC checks.

Tolerance levels: Levels at which calibrations or repair should be initiated to address issues before

acceptance criteria are exceeded and data becomes invalid.

Traceability: An unbroken chain of calibrations linked to national/international standards such as

NIST, VSL, National Research Council of Canada’s Measurement Science and Standards

Research Centre (NRC-MSS), and Innovation, Science and Economic Development

Canada.

Transfer standard: A gas mixture of known concentration or an instrument of known accuracy

verified against a reference standard. It is used in the field for comparison and analytical

purposes.

Ultra-fine particles: Particulate matter of size less than 0.1μm (100 nm) in diameter.

Zero air/zero gas: A gas mixture that is free of contaminants to a concentration below the detection

limit of the analyzer.

Zero drift: The absolute change in analyzer response to a constant zero air input over a certain

number of hours of unadjusted continuous operation.

Zero noise: Measure of the deviations from zero while sampling constant zero air. The noise is

measured as the root mean square (RMS) of the deviations from zero.

Zero check: Pollutant-free air introduced to measure responses below the analyzer’s detection

limit.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The National Air Pollution Surveillance (NAPS) Program is managed by provincial and territorial

governments across Canada in cooperation with Environment and Climate Change Canada

(ECCC) (Figure 1.1).

In existence since 1969, NAPS was established

to facilitate the collection of air quality data

primarily in urban areas (Figure 1-2). Program

goals include providing a long-term air quality

data record that conforms to quality standards

designed to ensure data are reliable, defensible

and easily accessible.

The quality of monitoring data is contingent

upon the entire air quality monitoring system:

station siting, instrumentation selection and

performance, and data collection, validation and

dissemination. The NAPS Ambient Air

Monitoring and Quality Assurance/Quality

Control (QA/QC) Guidelines (hereafter referred

to as the “Guidance”) are intended to assist air

monitoring networks reporting data to the

Canada-wide Air Quality Database (hereafter

referred to as “Networks”) to develop and

implement quality systems to meet, at a

minimum, the NAPS data quality objectives

(DQO).

This Guidance is designed to be both practical

and achievable by the participating Networks.

2.0 NAPS PROGRAM AND

MONITORING OBJECTIVES

The NAPS Program was established to facilitate

and coordinate the collection of ambient air quality

data that is representative of populated areas

across the country. NAPS is the primary source of

air monitoring information in Canada, with nearly

260 stations located in approximately 150

communities reporting to the Canada-wide Air

Quality Database (CWAQD). Ambient air quality

monitoring is an essential component of Canada’s

Air quality data are currently collected from nearly

300 stations Canada

-wide, including:

Continuous measurements:

• ground-level ozone (O

)

• oxides of nitrogen (NO/NO

/NO

)

• sulphur dioxide (SO

)

• carbon monoxide (CO)

• PM

2.5

Integrated measurements:

• particulate matter (PM

2.5

/PM

2.5–10

)

• volatile organic compounds (VOC) including

carbonyls

• polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)

The resulting data support government policies,

programs and research studies.

Figure 1-1 NAPS Network

Figure 1-2 Air quality parameters currently

measured by NAPS

air pollution management and research program. Air quality data collected by the NAPS Program

are used by governments to assess air quality, produce reports, and develop air quality monitoring

programs.

The NAPS Program:

• supports the air quality data needs of Air Quality Management System (AQMS); the

Canada-United States Air Quality Agreement; the Canadian Air Quality Prediction

Program; the Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators (CESI) Program; and

other regional, Canada-wide and international air quality initiatives that may arise

• provides common guidance on collection, measurement, validation and transmission of

data from participating monitoring networks across Canada

• provides centralized laboratory facilities to ensure common analysis techniques that

meet or exceed Canadian laboratory standards

• provides a centralized data repository to facilitate access to information

• provides Canada-wide data summary reports that highlight spatial patterns and regional

assessments of air quality conditions and long-term trends

• performs technical and scientific research to identify additional potential pollutants of

concern and to evaluate appropriate monitoring methods

• shares information and experiences among Networks on air quality monitoring.

2.1 NAPS Monitoring Objectives

The most important consideration in designing or implementing any monitoring system is defining

its monitoring objectives. Monitoring objectives are statements that clarify the purpose for

monitoring and ensure that the data collected are fit for the intended use. The following are the

primary and secondary monitoring objectives of the NAPS Program.

Primary objectives:

• track and report on progress for achieving air quality objectives or standards

• measure representative pollutant concentrations in populated areas across Canada and

determine long-term trends in air quality

• provide air quality information to the public.

Secondary objectives (not in order of priority):

• support the development of air management strategies

• support regional, Canada-wide and international air quality agreements and initiatives

• support research studies to assess air pollution impacts on both health and ecosystems

• verify and validate emissions inventories, models, mapping applications, and support

forecast and advisory programs

• support development and evaluation of new monitoring technologies and their

application in the NAPS Program

• measure the highest representative pollutant concentrations in populated areas

• measure the upwind and downwind air pollution affecting urban areas

• measure regional background concentrations and transport of pollutants from regional

sources (including transboundary sources).

3.0 NAPS PROGRAM ORGANIZATION

Participation in the NAPS Program is formalized through a memorandum of understanding (MOU)

between the federal, provincial and territorial governments (Figure 3-1).

All parties and NAPS sites are specified in the MOU, which outlines the general terms and

conditions of cooperation among the parties that participate in overall management and support of

the NAPS Program.

Figure 3-1 NAPS MOU parties

3.1 NAPS Program Operation

The NAPS Program is operated by ECCC, provincial and territorial governments as well as Metro

Vancouver Regional District and Ville de Montréal.

Their respective roles are defined below.

Environment and Climate Change Canada

The Analysis and Air Quality Section (AAQS) of the Air Quality Research Division within the

Science and Technology Branch of ECCC oversees the NAPS Program.

The roles of NAPS Operations with respect to this Guidance are to:

• direct and coordinate a Canada-wide quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) program

(including monitoring performance and system audits, as well as inter-agency testing

programs)

• provide laboratory calibration services and field transfer standards

• provide technical training and support to participating Networks.

The roles of NAPS Laboratory are to:

• provide sampling media for manual or integrated samplers (including filters, canisters

and cartridges) and to receive samples

• analyze integrated samples for particulate matter (PM) components, polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons (PAH) and volatile organic compounds (VOC)

• conduct research and special studies in air quality monitoring and coordinate method

development with participating Networks.

The roles of NAPS Data Management are to:

• maintain the CWAQD and the NAPS Data Products portal

• manage NAPS ambient air quality data and information requests

• report validated NAPS laboratory results to the NAPS Data Products portal

• report validated continuous data received from provinces and territories to the NAPS

Data Products portal

• analyze and report on ambient air quality.

Provincial and Territorial Governments, Metro Vancouver and Montréal

Provincial and territorial governments as well as Metro Vancouver Regional District and Ville de

Montréal contribute to the NAPS Program.

In accordance with this Guidance, they should:

• prepare and submit a Network Quality Assurance Plan (NQAP)

• select, maintain, calibrate and operate NAPS sites, analyzers, monitors and samplers

• validate and archive continuous data collected at NAPS sites

• inform ECCC of any change or updates to monitoring sites and equipment

• report final validated continuous data to NAPS Data Management.

4.0 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES (DQO)

DQO are qualitative and quantitative statements that define the tolerable level of data uncertainty.

The DQO of the NAPS Program ensure that the data collected and reported by monitoring sites

are of acceptable quality to meet Program objectives (as described in Section 2.0). This Guidance

has been designed to help ensure that uncertainties associated with the DQO are controlled through

appropriate planning, implementation and assessment.

Controlling data quality to achieve the DQO requires identifying both the appropriate criteria and

the methodologies that can be used to achieve DQO.

Important DQO elements for the NAPS Program are:

• Accuracy: The comparison of a measurement to a known value. Accuracy can include

measures of agreement among repeated measurements (precision) and measures of

positive or negative systematic errors (bias).

• Comparability: A measure of confidence that one data set or method can be compared

with those at other NAPS sites.

• Completeness: Comparison of the valid data collected versus the total number of data

points expected for the measurement frequency. This assessment confirms whether

enough information is being collected to ensure confidence in the conclusion or decisions

made with the resulting data.

• Detection limit: Detection limit is the lowest value that the method can report with

confidence.

• Representativeness: The degree to which data accurately and precisely represent the

pollutant concentration of an air parcel surrounding the site for a specific averaging

period. A monitoring site may also be representative of surrounding environments and

other influences (e.g., exposure of the general population or the impacts of emissions

from traffic). These sites can be used for grouping, interpreting and extrapolating NAPS

data.

The NAPS Program has defined specific criteria for some of the DQO, listed in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1 NAPS Program DQO criteria

Pollutant

Sampling frequency

Averaging period

Accuracy

Completeness

, NO/NO

/NO

, SO

continuous

1 hour

15%

75%

2.5

continuous/semi-

continuous

24 hours

15%

75%

Speciated particulate

compounds

1 per 3 or 6 days

24 hours

see note 3

75%

VOC/carbonyls/PAH 1 per 6 days

24 hours

see note 3

75%

Completeness refers to the amount of valid data represented for the indicated averaging period (e.g., 45 valid one-minute

averages within an hour, or 18 valid one-hour averages in a 24-hour period).

Varies by location.

Accuracy values are pollutant-specific and compound-specific, as indicated in specific analytical laboratory standard operating

procedures (SOP) and methods.

Table 4-2 identifies the DQO elements and their associated determination methodology as

provided in this Guidance. If methods follow guidelines and meet the quality acceptance criteria

described in the Guidance, the NAPS DQO should be met. Adherence to this Guidance should be

verified as described in Assessments and Corrective Action (Section 15.0). If deficiencies are

noted, the assessments can help inform either the need for corrective action or a reassessment of

DQO (as well as associated methods and measurement objectives for future use).

Table 4-2 NAPS Program DQO and relevant determination methodologies

DQO

Determination methodologies

Accuracy

Accuracy is assessed through comparisons to certified, traceable reference

standards or

methods. Reference to the relevant sections addressing accuracy are:

• Use of analyzers, samplers and methods with appropriate performance

specification, including method-detection limits, as described in:

– Section 9.0, Monitoring and Sampling Analytical Methods

• Calibration and audit checks against certified, traceable reference

standards, as described in:

– Section 11.0, Verification/Calibration

– Section 15.0, Assessments and Corrective Action

• The use of QC checks and performance acceptance criteria to invalidate

data that do not meet data quality objectives (DQO) related to data

accuracy, as described in:

– Section 11.0, Verification/Calibration

– Section 12.0, Data Collection and Validation – Continuous Data

– Section 13.0, Data Collection and Validation – Integrated Data

• Collection of collocated and duplicate samples

– Section 13.0, Data Collection and Validation – Integrated Data

Comparability

Consistency of measurements throughout the NAPS Program. Reference to the

relevant sections addressing comparability are:

•

consistent site design as described in:

– Section 7.0, Network Design and Site Location

– Section 8.0, Monitoring Station Design

• use of monitoring and analysis methods that meet defined minimum

performance specifications, as described in:

– Section 9.0, Monitoring, Sampling and Analytical Methods

• consistent operation and implementation of monitoring and analysis

methods, as described in:

– Section 10.0, Routine Operation

– Section 11.0, Verification and Calibration

• consistent data validation techniques, as described in:

– Section 12.0, Data Collection and Validation: Continuous Data

– Section 13.0, Data Collection and Validation – Integrated Data

Detection limit

• Use of analyzers, samplers and methods with appropriate performance

specification, including method-detection limits, as described in Section 9.0,

Monitoring, Sampling and Analytical Methods

Completeness

Meeting this requirement requires that data collection issues that could result in

missing or invalid data are minimized.

Reference to the relevant sections addressing completeness are:

• ensuring adequate education and training for field and data personnel, as

described in Section 5.0, Training

• ensuring sufficient documentation exists to provide procedure references,

track issues and reduce errors, as described in Section 6.0,

Documentation and Records

• verifying the safe unattended operation of the monitoring station and

equipment, and appropriate preventative maintenance to improve system

reliability, as described in Section 10.0, Routine Operation.

DQO

Determination methodologies

Representativeness

Representativeness related to the temporal and spatial scale of pollutant

concentrations, along with methods that are able to appropriately represent the

pollutants measured.

Reference to the relevant sections addressing representativeness are:

• sufficient sampling frequency, as listed in Table 4-1

• site classification, as defined in Section 6.0

• appropriate site location to represent target populations, as described in

Section 7.0, Network Design and Site Location

• section 8.0, Monitoring Station Design

• selection of appropriate sampling/analytical methods, as described in

Section 9.0, Monitoring, Sampling and Analytical Methods

5.0 TRAINING

Relevant education and training are essential for the ability of a monitoring program to achieve

network objectives. Networks are responsible for ensuring that appropriate training is available to

employees supporting the NAPS Program, commensurate with functions and activities listed in

this Guidance. The Networks’ NQAP and SOP are important references for training purposes.

Often, more experienced staff will provide training to newer staff, but a number of additional

training opportunities are available. Networks should maintain records of personnel qualifications

and training that are accessible for review during audit activities.

NAPS Operations will facilitate training related to instrument operation, maintenance and repair;

station set-up; and QA/QC. NAPS Program managers will also facilitate training that may be

offered by equipment manufacturers.

Furthermore, a number of courses have been developed for personnel involved with ambient air

monitoring. These courses are offered through government and professional organizations such as

the Air & Waste Management Association and the United States Environmental Protection Agency

(US EPA) Air Pollution Training Institute. Many of these training opportunities are offered online

and in person. In addition to training related to air quality monitoring, it is recommended that

Networks implement a health and safety training program.

Field technicians who work at NAPS sites to install, troubleshoot and repair electrical equipment

should have training related to:

• workplace electrical safety (CSA Group)

• Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS)

• working alone

• working at heights and ladder safety

• proper lifting techniques

• safe driving techniques

• first aid.

Transportation of Dangerous Goods training is required for any staff who handle, ship or offer

for shipping dangerous goods.

6.0 DOCUMENTATION AND RECORDS

Maintaining appropriate documentation and records is an essential component to ensure that

objectives are met and that defensible data are collected and reported. Table 6-1 outlines the

recommended documentation for several categories of air quality monitoring activities.

Components of NQAP are also described in this section.

All documentation should be easily accessible and retained for a minimum of five years. Most

documentation referred to in this section can be in electronic form, enabling ease of accessibility

and longer-term storage.

Responsibility for identifying, preparing and supervising quality management documents and

records lies with the Network that created these documents or records. Networks may work with

NAPS Operations to incorporate documents into a control system, either as a new document or as

part of an existing document (e.g., NQAP, SOP, calibrations). Previous versions of documents

should be archived if no longer in use. Effective document management includes a system for

generating, updating, maintaining and disseminating quality management–related documents and

records. Actual, ongoing and completed records are to be maintained as part of the Network’s

overall record management system and should be available to NAPS Operations upon request.

Table 6-1 Recommended documentation and records

Documentation Relevant section

NQAP

Site information

Equipment inventory

SOP

Section 6.0, Documentation and Records

Instrument maintenance records

Sample handling

Records

Station logs

Section 10.0, Routine Operation

Calibration documentation Section 11.0, Verification and Calibration

Raw data

Validation logs

Validated data

Section 12.0, Data Collection and Management:

Continuous Data

Integrated field data sheets

Integrated validated data

Section 13.0, Data Collection and Management:

Integrated Data

Audit records

Audit reports

Section 15.0, Assessments and Corrective Action

6.1

Network

Quality Assurance Plan (NQAP)

It is important to note that while this Guidance provides QA criteria and recommended procedures

to meet QA goals, specific procedures to meet these goals should be determined by the Network

performing the actual monitoring and reporting.

The NAPS Program is initiating a process that requests all participating Networks and ECCC

develop NQAP. The NQAP will describe how Networks are implementing the Guidance in order

to meet the DQO. These plans should be completed by 2021 and reviewed annually thereafter. An

NQAP facilitates communication among data users, staff, Networks and external users of the data.

An NQAP can relate to a single site or a group of sites operated by the same Network using similar

methodologies.

NAPS Program managers will submit their

respective NQAP and subsequent updates to

ECCC prior to the annual management

meeting. The NQAP will be available to

Networks on a document-sharing website with

restricted access.

Figure 6-1 and the rest of this section describe

proposed elements of the NQAP as related to

this Guidance. Networks should indicate

criteria that were not met and what corrective

actions will be implemented to address these.

Monitoring Program Management

Provide a revision history of the NQAP, including the following:

• Program organization, including a list of individuals and Networks involved with the

program identifying their roles and responsibilities

• an organizational chart showing the relationship and lines of communication among

project personnel is also helpful

• special training/certifications (Section 5.0)

• DQO (Section 4.0)

• documentation and records, including a list of types of records generated (Table 6-1).

Routine Operation (Section 10.0)

• Provide schedule for routine operations, including site visits and verification/calibration

checks

• provide references to any inspection/maintenance requirements in instrument or method-

specific SOP

• describe any instrument testing, inspection and maintenance checklists and schedules

• describe corrective action to be taken if issues are noted.

• Monitoring program management

• Routine operation

• Verification and calibration

• Data collection and validation for continuous

data

• Sample collection for integrated data

• Data reporting

• Assessments and corrective action

• Site and equipment information

Figure 6-1 Elements of an NQAP

Verification and Calibration (Section 11.0)

• List verification/calibration frequency for each instrument type requiring verification

checks and calibrations

• provide references to any calibration procedures in instrument-specific SOP (Note that

ECCC has developed a number of NAPS SOP, but these should be modified to

accurately reflect the specific methods and procedures used by a monitoring Network)

• describe methods for calibration and example forms

• provide references to QC check acceptance criteria used (Section 11.0)

• describe methods for tracking traceability/frequency and certification for calibration

standards.

Data Collection and Validation for Continuous Data (Section 12.0)

• Describe any software used and procedures for data collection, handling and storage

• identify data flags used to screen or invalidate data

• identify “on the fly” rules for flagging and correcting data from sites

• identify levels of validation and individuals responsible for each level

• list any criteria used to accept, reject or qualify data (at a minimum, performance-check

acceptance criteria listed in Section 10.0 should be used)

• describe analysis methods used for identification and treatment of outliers.

Sample Collection for Integrated Data (Section 13.0)

• Describe handling of integrated samples (see method-specific SOP)

• describe or provide procedures for inspection/acceptance of sample supplies and media

• outline procedures for filling out and submitting field data sheets for sample-tracking

purposes

• describe corrective action to be taken if problems arise.

Data Reporting (Section 14.0)

• Describe methods and schedules for data reporting (e.g., how data are submitted, format,

hour-ending or hour-beginning)

• describe any Network-specific reports

• provide schedule and level of validation for data reporting to the NAPS CWAQD.

Assessments and Corrective Action (Section 15.0)

• Provide an approximate schedule for any internal or external assessments

• include procedures for assessment review and responses.

Site and Equipment Information

Gathering and maintaining accurate site information is a vital part of records management for air

monitoring networks. Site information records should include, but are not limited to:

• the unique NAPS ID for each site

• site name and location, including geographical coordinates (lat/long, elevation above sea

level), postal code and street address (if available)

• spatial scale of representativeness (Section 7.2).

• monitoring start date (and stop date, if applicable)

• site photographs in each cardinal direction

• site map or satellite image of the area (e.g., Google Earth image)

• sampling inlet placement (Section 8.2.1), including height above ground (metres),

distances from local pollutant sources (e.g., roads) and flow obstructions (e.g., trees).

• site diagrams, sketches or photos (e.g., manifold flow diagram, service lines

(electrical/communication, equipment configurations)

• instrumentation, sampling and analysis method for each parameter at each site (Section

9.0)

• indicate averaging time for continuous measurements and sampling frequency for

integrated samples (see minimum requirements in Section 4.0).

Note that a number of these site details are required metadata when reporting to the CWAQD.

6.2 Site Classification

For site classification, the NAPS Program has adopted a hierarchical classification system (Table

6-2) based on work by University of British Columbia researchers (Brauer et al. 2011; Brauer et

al. 2013; Brauer and Hystad 2012). This classification system includes variables derived in a

geographic information system (GIS) and captures urbanization, neighbourhood population, local

land use and site type characteristics as described below. This system provides important metadata

information that can be used for grouping, interpreting and extrapolating NAPS measurement data.

6.2.1 Class 1: Urbanization

Class 1 identifies the degree of urbanization

around the monitoring site (Figure 6-2). The

Statistics Canada census population centre

(PC) classification (Statistics Canada 2017a,

Dictionary) is used to define levels of

urbanization. A PC is a populated place or a

cluster of interrelated populated places having

a population of at least 1,000 people and a

density of no fewer than 400 people per km

based on the latest census. All areas outside

PCs are classified as non-urban (rural) areas.

Taken together, PCs and non-urban areas cover

all of Canada.

A 250 m buffer was used to capture sites that

Figure 6-2 Urbanization

are adjacent to but not contained within the PC boundaries.

6.2.2 Class 2: Neighbourhood Population

Class 2 summarizes the size of residential populations residing within 4 km of NAPS monitoring

sites (Figure 6-3). A distance of 4 km represents the maximum distance associated with a

neighbourhood scale of spatial representativeness (Section 7.2). Census “block-face” population

(the smallest geographic area for which

census information is collected) was

used to determine the residential

population within 4 km.

Six population size categories have

been selected to maximize the

differences between sites. They are

meant to aid in the grouping of similar

sites and provide insights into emission

source strengths, such as domestic

heating. The neighbourhood population

provides further information to inform

population exposure assessment.

6.2.3 Class 3: Local Land Use

Class 3 represents the dominant land use category within a 400 m radius around each site (Figure

6-4). A radius of 400 m was selected because this distance represents the middle scale of spatial

representativeness (Section 7.2) and corresponds to the US Air Quality System metadata, which

summarizes land use within a quarter-mile radius of sites.

Land use data sets are used to assess this

classification. The DMTI Spatial

data set,

at a spatial resolution of 30 m, covers

exclusively urban areas and includes

residential, industrial, commercial,

government and institutional, open, parks,

and waterbody classifications. The

government and institutional classifications

are not included in the NAPS classification,

as this category captures a diverse mix of

land use types.

The forested and agriculture land use

classifications come from the 2010 North

American Landscape Characterization

Figure 6-4 Local land use

Figure 6-3 Neighbourhood Population

(NALC) data set, which covers all areas of Canada, at a spatial resolution of 250 m, since these

are not available in the DMTI Spatial

data set. The higher spatial resolution (30 m) 2010 land use

data set produced by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada was also used in conjunction with the

NALC for the current version update in 2017. Similar to NALC, this data set covers the entirety

of Canada and includes the classifications of forest, cropland, settlement, wetland and waterbody.

Aerial imagery is required to classify monitoring sites that meet one of the following criteria:

• have incomplete DMTI Spatial

data within the 400 m buffers

• are under DMTI Spatial

’s government and institutional classification

• are under DMTI Spatial

’s open area category and have a NALC urban classification

• are under DMTI Spatial

’s resource and industrial classification.

Eight categories are used to describe the land use surrounding NAPS sites (Table 6-2).

6.2.4 Class 4: Site Type

Class 4 characterizes sites in terms of source influences. These include general population

exposure, regional background and local source–influenced (transportation and point source).

General Population Exposure

General population exposure sites measure urban background conditions where concentration

gradients are usually small, so measurements tend to be quite representative of larger areas and

thus are suitable to assess community-wide or neighbourhood-wide population exposure. This site

type is the most common in the NAPS Program (Figure 6-5).

Figure 6-5 Site Types

Regional Background

Regional background sites are sited outside of urban areas to measure:

• air pollutants flowing into an urban area from distant sources, including transboundary

sources

• air pollutants flowing out of an urban area

• background concentrations.

These sites are used to determine the contribution of local sources versus distant sources to air

pollutant concentrations. They may also be sited to extend the spatial coverage of monitoring for

use in air quality forecasting, mapping, modelling and remote sensing applications.

Local Source–Influenced

Local source–influenced sites tend to be pollutant-specific and include both transportation-

influenced and point source–influenced sites. They are sited to represent air pollutant exposure to

populations residing within the influence of the source(s).

Transportation-influenced sites

These sites are located in areas significantly impacted by transportation emissions (defined as

within 100 m of a major roadway). A distance of 100 m was selected based on a review conducted

by the Health Effects Institute (2010) on traffic-related air pollution (TRAP) gradients and health

effects. Major roadways are classified as having volumes greater than 15,000 annual average daily

traffic (AADT) counts. Only sites within 100 m of major roadways in large urban or medium urban

areas are classified as transportation-influenced based on a review of the traffic volumes in

urbanization classes.

Other types of transportation-influenced sites (off-road vehicles and engines, rail, marine and

aviation) are classified according to their proximity to these sources and based on an analysis of

the air quality data.

Point source–influenced sites

These sites are located in populated areas close to a major VOC (typically within 10 km) and SO

(~1 kt or greater per year) stationary emissions source. An analysis of point source sites indicated

much higher levels of SO

or VOC compared with transportation and general population exposure

site types, confirming that the point source sites are being significantly influenced by these sources.

Site classification should be documented in the Networks’ central databases as metadata records

and will help end-users and analysts with data interpretation and reporting.

Table 6-2 NAPS site classification system

Site class

Variables

Definition

Code

Urbanization

large urban area

large PC

(population ≥100,000)

medium urban area

medium PC

(population between 30,000 and 99,999)

small urban area

small PC

(population between 1,000 and 29,999)

non-urban (rural) area

non-urban area

(population <1,000)

Neighbourhood

population

<500

categories of residential population within 4 km of site

500–9,999 P2

10,000–49,999 P3

50,000–99,999 P4

100,000–149,999 P5

≥150,000 P6

Local land use residential

the dominant land use category within a 400 m radius

commercial C

industrial I

parks P

water W

agriculture A

forested F

open O

Site type

general population

exposure

site located in an urban area where populations live,

work, shop, play, and that are not classified as

transportation or point sources

regional backgrounds

site outside urban area RB

transportation

source–influenced

site within 100 m of a major road

or influenced by off-

road vehicles and engines, rail, marine or aviation

sources located in an urban area

point source–

influenced

site near (< ~10 km) a major stationary emissions

source

located in an urban area; classification based

on VOC and SO

ambient measurement data

1 A population centre (PC) is defined as having a minimum population concentration of 1,000 people and a population density of at

least 400 people per square km. All areas outside PCs are classified as non-urban (rural areas) (Statistics Canada 2017a).

2 All freeways, highways, and arterial and collector roads with an AADT >15,000 (US EPA 2018).

3 Stationary sources include: industrial facilities, power generation, incinerators and waste-treatment plants.

4 SO

emissions greater than ~1,000 tonnes per year (RWDI 2016)

6.3 Equipment Information and Inventory

Along with station documentation, each Network should maintain an up-to-date inventory of all

monitoring equipment in use. This inventory should include:

• type of equipment used

• ownership information

• purchase price and date of receipt

• equipment description (name and manufacturer)

• equipment identification number (where applicable: e.g., model and serial number)

• equipment location and history (e.g., date of installation).

6.4 Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for the NAPS Program

SOP are task-specific or method-specific documents that detail the method for an operation,

analysis or action with thoroughly prescribed steps. SOP can help ensure consistent performance

with organizational practices. They can also serve as training aids, provide ready reference and

documentation of proper procedures, reduce error occurrences in data, and improve data

comparability, credibility and defensibility. Networks should reference relevant SOP in their

NQAP and also ensure that applicable SOP and all manufacturer operation and maintenance

manuals are accessible for reference on site.

NAPS Operations has developed a number of technical SOP and forms. NAPS SOP related to

continuous analyzers and monitors, procedures for collecting integrated samples, data collection,

management and reporting processes are referenced in Appendix A.

These SOP contain most of the information needed for a given method or procedure, but users

should modify them to accurately reflect the methods and procedures implemented.

7.0 NETWORK DESIGN AND SITE LOCATION

The NAPS Program was established in 1969 to monitor and assess the quality of ambient air in

the populated regions of Canada. The primary purpose of the Program was to support the

development of Canada-wide air quality objectives for criteria air contaminants and subsequently

to track progress towards achieving these objectives. The scope of the Program has evolved to

include monitoring the precursors and components of air pollutants, identifying the sources and

regions that contribute to air pollutant levels, and providing timely air quality information to the

public. However, characterizing air quality for the achievement of Canada-wide ambient standards

and objectives continues to be the primary focus of the NAPS Program.

Figure 7-1

NAPS sites

Human health is the key driver for the establishment of the Canadian Ambient Air Quality

Standards (CAAQS). As such, locating NAPS sites (Figure 7-1) in populated areas is the highest

priority. Canada has a small population living in a large land area, leading to a low population

density compared to other countries. The Canadian population, however, is highly concentrated

geographically (Figure 7-2). In 2016, two out of three people (66%) lived within 100 km of the

southern Canada–United States border, an area that represents about 4% of Canada’s territory

(Statistics Canada, 2017b).

Figure 7-2 Population distribution in Canada, 2016

The network design will depend on human health effects as well as the magnitude and distribution

of pollutant concentrations within a defined area or region. Monitoring of air pollutants for which

there is no safe level for health effects (e.g., NO

, O

, PM

2.5

) should focus on sites located within

densely populated areas.

All census metropolitan areas (CMA) and census agglomerations (CA) with a population greater

than 100,000 should have at least one monitoring site. There are 41 CMA and CA in Canada with

a population greater than 100,000 (2016 Census; see Statistics Canada 2017a). These account for

73% of the total population. However, regionally important urban areas and communities with air

quality concerns should also be considered as a priority for air quality monitoring sites.

Within urban areas, Networks must determine the number of sites to be deployed and their

distribution (for many communities there will only be one site). The typical approach to monitoring

in urban areas involves placing sites at carefully selected representative locations, chosen to meet

the desired monitoring objectives and considering the emission and dispersion patterns of the

pollutants being monitored. The representativeness of a site will depend on the spatial variability

of air pollutant concentrations across a defined area. These variations occur as a result of several

factors, including emission characteristics, atmospheric conditions, topography, urban effects,

chemical transformations, and natural removal processes. Modelling and other assessment

techniques may be used to assess how representative a monitoring site is of a community or

neighbourhood.

Sites for monitoring pollutants associated with local sources (e.g., CO, PAH, SO

, VOC) should

be optimally sited for measurement data to be useful. Data from these sites may also be used to

identify sources or regions (as tracers for certain emission types) that contribute to poor air quality

and to assess long-term trends in air quality.

Another consideration for network design is the extent of the air pollution coverage. If the air

pollutant is mostly of local origin, then sites will be focused in urban areas. If there is a substantial

regional contribution to the pollutant concentrations, additional sites may be located outside of

urban areas to measure the portion that comes from regional transport or background sources (e.g.,

, PM

2.5

, VOC).

There has been and continues to be a very large monetary investment in air quality monitoring in

Canada. This investment and the importance of air quality data demand strategic planning and

design to ensure that the network provides adequate coverage to characterize air quality conditions

that address NAPS monitoring objectives. Selecting sites that satisfy multiple objectives will

reduce costs and maximize the efficiency of the network. Wherever feasible, air pollutants that

share similar characteristics (e.g., spatial variability, common sources, health or environmental

impacts) should be monitored at the same site.

Networks should recognize that air monitoring networks are dynamic and should adapt to changes

in air pollution patterns, as well as address new and emerging air quality issues. Each monitoring

network should be evaluated periodically to assess whether its objectives are being met. Networks

may relocate sites to meet changes in requirements, as warranted. However, sites with long trend

record should not be moved unless continued operation is no longer possible. In such a case, every

effort should be made to ensure that the new location measures comparable data. This will allow

for analysis of long-term air quality trends.

7.1 Network Design

The NAPS Network has, as its foundation, a subset of “core” monitoring sites that measure a

comprehensive set of air pollutant parameters. These sites satisfy many monitoring objectives and

provide the basis for multi-pollutant characterizations across a range of site types. The core sites

operate in addition to the other NAPS sites, which are designed specifically to meet various

program and pollutant-specific requirements (Figure 7-3 and Figure 7-4).

7.1.1 Core Sites

Core sites include a comprehensive set of measurements at a select number of representative

locations across Canada that addresses multiple monitoring objectives.

The integrated NAPS PM

2.5

reference method

(RM) sampling sites form the basis of the core

sites. In addition, continuous PM

2.5

, O

and

parameters should be included, as a

minimum. Additional parameters (e.g., CO,

PAH, integrated PM

10-2.5,

, VOC) are

measured at a subset of core sites.

Factors that are to be considered for locating

core sites include:

• Population (including regional

population centres)

• geographical and spatial

representativeness

• areas with known or suspected high

pollutant concentrations

• areas influenced by local emission

sources.

It is not feasible or necessary to measure all

pollutants at core sites and as such, two levels

or tiers of core monitoring sites are identified

as Tier 1 (T1) and Tier 2 (T2).

This tiered approach specifies the parameters measured at core sites, and T1 features the most

comprehensive set of parameters (Table 7-1).

Table 7-1 Parameters monitored at core

sites

Parameter T1 T2

2.5

x x

Continuous PM

2.5

x x

2.5

speciation

x o

CO x o

VOC x o

Integrated PM

2.5-10

x o

Carbonyl o o

PAH o

Meteorology R

x = monitored

o = optional

R = recommended

Core stations are located so as to support different site types at various spatial scales.

Tier 2 Sites

The NAPS PM

2.5

reference method (NAPS PM

2.5

RM) forms the basis of the T2 core monitoring

sites. In each province or territory, the recommended number of sites increase with population

(in million) as follows:

Population

Number of sites

<1 million at least one

≥1 million to <2 million at least two

≥2 million to <4 million at least three

≥4 million to <6 million at least four

≥6 million to <8 million at least five

≥8 million to <10 million at least six

≥10 million to <12 million at least seven

≥12 million at least eight

In Canada, the NAPS PM

2.5

RM uses a time-integrated filter-based method for determining PM

2.5

mass. Although the US EPA’s testing procedures for PM

2.5

automated federal equivalent methods

(FEM) approval (US EPA 2006) covers a diverse range of conditions, side-by-side comparisons

Figure 7-3 Graphical concept of core sites

of different FEMs and the NAPS RM has shown that instruments do not always agree with one

another over varying timescales and meteorological conditions. It is recommended that each

Network operate at least one co-located NAPS PM

2.5

RM with the FEM instrument models

deployed in their network. Larger Networks should deploy additional co-located NAPS PM

2.5

sites to compare with their FEMs (Table 7-2).

Tier 1 Sites

T1 core sites are based on the PM

2.5

speciation sampling sites. T1 sites can also serve as platforms

to support the introduction of monitoring technologies to the NAPS Program by testing and

evaluating new instruments and parameters (e.g., ultra-fine particles and continuous black carbon).

Figure 7-4 NAPS site hierarchy

7.1.2 Program-specific Sites

Most sites in the NAPS Program support the following policy initiatives:

Air Quality Management System and Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards

CAAQS have been developed for PM

2.5

, O

, NO

and SO

. They are established as objectives

under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act 1999 (CEPA).

The following site distribution is recommended for reporting on achievement of CAAQS:

• In communities with a population greater than 100,000, at least one site measuring

continuous PM

2.5

, O

and NO

• In each provincial or territorial air zone (Figure 7-5), at least one site measuring

continuous PM

2.5

, O

and NO

• The highest priority for measuring SO

should be in communities where populations are

(or may be) exposed to levels within the health effects range (>40 ppb, one-hour

average). Other priorities include core sites (T1 and possibly T2) and trend sites (CESI)

• Based on considerations such as regional population density, proximity to point sources,

local air quality and public concern, sites measuring NO

, O

, continuous PM

2.5

or SO

could also be located in communities with populations of less than 100,000.

• Regionally representative background sites measuring, as a minimum, PM

2.5

and O

Figure 7-5 AQMS air zones

Air Quality Health Index (AQHI)

The Air Quality Health Index (AQHI) is delivered in partnership with Health Canada and the

provincial and territorial governments. This index provides a current hourly value and a two-day

air quality forecast for communities across Canada. Warnings and alerts are also issued when

conditions warrant. In addition, the AQHI includes messaging on how to reduce personal health

risks and air pollutant emissions from individual activities.

To deliver the AQHI to Canadians, consistent and reliable data are required from at least one site

measuring continuous PM

2.5

, O

and NO

for a community or a determined forecast region.

7.1.3 Pollutant-specific Sites

Other than the previously mentioned program-specific and core sites, the NAPS Program supports

additional sites that are mainly targeted to specific secondary monitoring objectives

(Section 2.0).

VOC Sites

The NAPS Program includes measurements of VOC. In addition to being an important precursor

to the formation of ground-level O

and PM (secondary organic aerosol), individual VOC species

have been declared “toxic” under CEPA.

A program of systematic year-round measurements of VOC began in 1989 at a large number of

urban sites across the country. Several non-urban sites were added to the Program in 1993.

Measurements of VOC are important in both characterizing emission changes in O

precursors

and in characterizing human health effects from toxic species. Consistent methodology applied in

the NAPS Program provides accurate trend determinations. Speciated VOC measurements can

also be used to infer emission contributions and validate emission inventories.

Near-road Sites

Living near major roadways has been identified as a risk factor for various health outcomes.

Statistics Canada estimates that 4 million Canadians, about 13% of the total population, live within

100 m of a major road (Evans et al. 2011). Information from these sites is used to characterize air

quality near roadways and the spatial extent to which Canadians are exposed to TRAP.

The recommended criteria for near-road sites should include:

• at least one site for CMA with a population greater than 1 million

• the following parameters: black carbon, CO, NO

, O

, PM

2.5

, SO

, ultra-fine particles

and traffic counting

• if resources allow, a second near-road site for CMA with a population greater than 2.5

million

• locating the stations within 30 m of the outside edge of the nearest traffic lane.

Note: A major roadway with an AADT greater than 30,000 is recommended for near-road sites.

AADT is defined as “the total volume of vehicle traffic of a road for a year, divided by 365 days”

(U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration 2014).

Regional background sites

Regional background sites are located outside of urban areas to measure:

• air pollutants flowing into an urban area from distant sources, including transboundary

sources

• air pollutants flowing out of an urban area

• background concentrations.

These sites are used to determine the contribution of local sources versus distant sources to air

pollutant concentrations. They may also be sited to extend the spatial coverage of monitoring for

use in air quality forecasting, mapping, modelling and remote sensing applications.

7.2 Site Location Selection Process

Multiple steps are required for designing and implementing a monitoring network and selecting

site locations (Figure 7-6):

• identify the program or purpose for monitoring (e.g., CAAQS)

• determine the monitoring objective(s)

• siting stations

• identify the number and location of sites (e.g., communities with a population > 100,000)

• select the pollutants to be monitored by determining:

o the site type

o the most appropriate spatial scale (Table 7-2 and Figure 7-7)

• investigate information on land use, including transportation and point sources that may

impact air quality

• identify possible locations that would meet monitoring objectives and the populations

living in the surrounding area.

A number of practical considerations should be accounted for prior to final site selection:

• sampling inlet spacing criteria (Section 8.0)

• station design within existing structures (e.g., inlet or exhaust holes, access to roof)

• site suitability in terms of terrain

• security against unauthorized access and vandalism

• site safety

• availability of power

• soil conditions

• underground utilities

• availability of communication systems (e.g., cellular reception, land line or satellite)

• year-round accessibility

• property ownership

• long-term viability of the site

• acquiring a lease or agreement from the property owner to install a monitoring station

• obtaining permit(s) to install and operate the monitoring station.

Note: Ideal siting may not be possible for practical, logistical or other reasons. Networks may

consult with NAPS Operations in cases where proposed new locations do not meet all

recommended criteria.

Figure 7-6 Design requirements of the monitoring network and the selection of

sites

7.2.1 Prioritizing Monitoring Objectives

Section 2.1 identifies the monitoring objectives for the NAPS Program. However, these objectives

do not apply to all the pollutants monitored under NAPS, nor do they indicate their relative

importance. Table 7-2 provides a qualitative priority ranking (low, medium, high) of these

objectives for each of the pollutants monitored. This ranking is based on factors such as data usage,

pollutant levels, air quality programs or policies, and network reviews. The relative priority of a

particular monitoring objective may vary according to the data user.

7.2.2 Spatial Scales of Representativeness

Representativeness is one of the DQO for the NAPS Program. The spatial representativeness of a

particular monitoring site is dependent on a number of factors, such as topography, meteorological

conditions, proximity to sources, and the chemical and physical properties of the pollutant being

measured. The goal when siting stations is to correctly match the spatial scale represented by the

air sample with the scale most appropriate for the monitoring objective at the site. To satisfy the

Program’s primary monitoring objectives, NAPS sites are generally spatially categorized as

neighbourhood or urban scales. Table 7-3 and Table 7-4 show the relationship between spatial

scale of representativeness and the pollutants measured and site types respectively.

Figure 7-7

Spatial scales

This document defines five categories of spatial scales of representativeness, these are:

• MI (micro) = concentrations in air typical of areas ranging from several metres up to

approximately 100 m

• M (middle) = concentrations in air typical of areas up to several city blocks ranging from about

100 m to 0.5 km

• N (neighbourhood) = concentrations in air typical of some extended area of the city that has

relatively uniform land use on the order of 0.5–4 km

• U (urban) = concentrations in air typical of the overall city-wide area on the order of 4–50 km

• R (regional) = usually a non-urban area of reasonably homogeneous geography that may extend

from tens to hundreds of kilometres (U.S. EPA 1997).

Table 7-2 Monitoring objective priorities by pollutant and spatial scales of

representativeness

Monitoring objectives

2.5

Cont.

2.5

Int.

2.5–10

Int.

PAH

VOC

Appropriate

spatial

scales

Track and report progress

on achievement of air

quality objectives or

standards

low high high high high N,U

Measure representative

pollutant concentrations

in populated areas and

enable the determination

of long-term trends in air

pollutant concentrations

low

med

low

med

low

med

M,N,U

Provide air pollution

information to the public

high high med high M,N,U

Support development of

air management

strategies

low low med low med low low med M,N,U

Support research studies

to assess air pollution

impacts on health and

ecosystems

low low low low med low med med M,N,U

Verify and validate

emissions inventories,

models, mapping, and

support forecast and

advisory programs

med med low med low low U,R

Measure highest

representative pollutant

concentrations in

populated areas

med med med med med low MI,M,N

Measure regional

background

concentrations and

transport of pollutants

from regional sources

(including transboundary)

low

med

low

med

low

U,R

Measure air pollution

upwind and downwind of

urban areas

low low low low low U,R

Support regional,

Canada-wide and

international air quality

agreements and

initiatives

low low low low low med low U,R

Support development and

evaluation of new

monitoring technologies

low low med med low MI,M,N

Cont. = continuous

Int. = integrated

Table 7-3 Pollutants and relevant spatial scale of representativeness

CO NO

2.5

Cont.

2.5

Int.

2.5–10

Int.

PAH VOC

Micro * * * * * *

Middle * * * * * * *

Neighbourhood * * * * * * * *

Urban * * * * *

Regional * * * * *

7.2.3 Site Types

There are three monitoring site types (Section 6.0):

• general population exposure

• regional background

• local-source influenced (transportation and point source).

Table 7-4 Site types and spatial scale of representativeness

Micro Middle Neighbourhood Urban Regional

General population exposure * *

Regional background *

Local source–influenced:

transportation

* *

Local source–influenced: point

source

* *

General Population Exposure Sites

Population or community-oriented monitoring sites are used to determine the area-wide exposure

to air pollutants. These sites should be located within the urban boundary (urbanization

classification) in residential, commercial or other areas where people spend significant amounts of

time, and the levels measured should not be unduly influenced by individual sources. Local land

use and neighbourhood population classifications can be useful in determining optimal site

locations.

Existing sites should be assessed periodically to ensure that they measure representative

concentrations in densely populated areas (i.e., >P1), in contrast to sites located in less populated

areas that may not necessarily represent the entire area under consideration.

Regional Background Sites

Regional background sites are located in non-urban (rural) areas upwind or downwind of

communities to measure air pollution from regional sources or background levels.

These sites should be located in sparsely populated areas (i.e., P1 or P2) away from significant air

pollution sources (i.e., >250 m from major roadways and >15,000 AADT; > ~10 km from point

sources emitting > ~1 kt/year). It is also desirable to site these stations in an open area, away from

tree canopies and preferably on high ground.

Regional background sites may also be deployed to extend the geographical coverage required for

air quality forecasting, mapping, modelling and remote sensing.

Local Source-Influenced Sites

Transportation-influenced sites

Sites located in populated areas influenced by traffic located within 100 m of a major road (defined

as all freeways, highways, and arterial and collector roads), or by other forms of transportation

such as off-road vehicles and engines, rail, marine or aviation sources.

Traffic-influenced sites are located in large urban (LU) and medium urban (MU) PCs near major

roadways (AADT >15,000).

Point source-influenced sites

Sites located in populated areas close (typically within 10 km) to a major stationary emissions

source. These sites are primarily located near large VOC or SO

(~1 kt/year or greater) sources,

which are the pollutants most influenced by stationary source emissions.

Note: Fence-line monitoring sites are not reported to the NAPS CWAQD. They are defined as

“sites that are located within or on the property line of a facility or those sites that are very near to

a facility and in areas not used or accessed by the public or with no nearby population of

appreciable size” (RWDI 2016).

7.2.4 Population Density

An important consideration in the selection of a NAPS monitoring site is the population living

nearby. For urban monitoring, sites should be located in densely populated areas. Conversely, sites

that are intended to capture regional background concentrations should be located in sparsely

populated areas. There are six categories of neighbourhood population (Table 6-2).

7.2.5 Local Land Use

The dominant land use assigned within a 400 m radius of each site, which corresponds to the

middle scale of representativeness, must conform to the monitoring objectives and site type

(Section 6.2.1). General population exposure and local source–influenced sites should be located

in residential, commercial or industrial land use categories. Regional background sites are located

in agricultural, forested, water or open land use categories. Park category sites may be located in

either urban or non-urban areas.

8.0 MONITORING STATION DESIGN

8.1 Station Design

The proper design of a monitoring station is crucial and takes into consideration air sample

integrity, instrument requirements, functionality and operator safety. Requirements and

considerations for station design include the following:

• Stations must be secure, with restricted access to the public.

• All electrical circuits should adhere to provincial and territorial electrical codes.

Electrical circuits located outdoors should use ground-fault circuit interrupters and be

able to support load demands.

• The station and monitoring system must adhere to provincial and territorial safety codes,

be equipped with an ABC-class fire extinguisher and a first aid kit and have a mobile

telephone or land line available.

• The station should be designed with sufficient lighting, access to instrumentation and a

workspace for the station operator.

• The station should be designed with reliable power and communications systems. For

sites with transient power, a line and power conditioning system should be added.

• The shelter must be ventilated, heated and cooled to maintain a stable temperature in the

desirable range of 20-30°C throughout the year.

• Instrument racks inside a station should be properly secured, and instruments should be

installed to allow air to circulate freely to avoid overheating.

• The station should be designed to ensure safe access to the roof, including appropriate

guardrails (as required by local safety codes) to prevent falls.

• Gas cylinders should be properly mounted.

8.2 Sampling Inlet System Design

Components of a sampling inlet system vary by method and can include a PM-sized selective inlet,

an inlet line or probe, a manifold (and bypass pump), filters, and sample lines to the instruments.

The sampling inlet system should be designed to prevent water from entering the air stream (using

a rain cover such as a funnel) and should follow the manufacturer’s installation requirements,

NAPS methods, SOP and guidelines.

One important consideration for the sampling inlet system is that all components in contact (or

close contact) with the air sample prior to analysis (including the tubing and manifold) must be

non-reactive (Table 8-1) with the pollutants measured. Also, to reduce residence time (Rt) within

the system, all sample lines should be kept as short as possible.

Table 8-1 lists acceptable sampling inlet system material and required sample Rt. Section 8.3.1

provides Rt definition and calculations.

Table 8-1 Sampling inlet material and Residence Time (Rt)

Pollutant

Inlet system components

Lines to manifold

Sample Rt

borosilicate glass (e.g., Pyrex), quartz or Teflon

clear Teflon ¼ -inch

(FEP, PFA, PTFE)

<20 seconds

borosilicate glass (e.g., Pyrex), quartz or conductive

material, such as stainless steel or anodized

aluminum

1,2

N/A

PAH

conductive material, such as stainless steel or

anodized

aluminum

1,2

N/A

VOC

borosilicate glass (e.g., Pyrex), quartz or stainless

steel

clear Teflon ¼ -inch

1 For PM instruments, anodized aluminum inlet system components are often provided by the manufacturer.

2 Teflon or other plastics are not acceptable materials for PM and PAH monitoring, because these materials can become statically

charged and attract particles.

3 Sampler lines to the Summa canister must be stainless steel or nickel.

4 Although <20 seconds is required, ~10 seconds is preferable to allow for variability in flow rates.

A manifold system with a water trap to collect condensation is preferable for a monitoring station

with multiple gas analyzers, rather than separate sample lines for individual instruments.

For continuous and integrated PM monitoring, manifold systems are not recommended. These

instruments should use individual inlets, and the sampling tube from inlet to instrument should be

as vertical as possible to avoid particle loss due to impaction.

8.2.1 Sampling Inlet Placement

The sampling inlet is an opening through which an air sample enters the sampling inlet system

before being routed to an analyzer, monitor or sampler. These inlets are either provided by the

instrument manufacturer or custom designed.

To obtain a representative air sample, placement of the sampling inlet should meet the following

recommended spacing criteria for height, obstructions, roadways and distance between inlets.

Specifications for spacing of sampling inlets relative to roadways at neighbourhood and urban

scales are listed in Table 8-2, and spacing requirements relative to obstructions that can alter air

flow are listed in Table 8-3.

Table 8-2

Minimum separation distance between roadways and sampling inlets

for

neighbourhood and urban scale sites

Annual average daily traffic (vehicles per day) ≤10,000 ≤15,000 ≤20,000 ≤40,000 ≤70,000 ≥110,000

Minimum distance between roadway and inlet

(metres)

≥10 20 30 50 100 ≥250

1 For traffic-influenced sites (where AADT value exceeds 15,000), the inlet must be located within 100 m (maximum) of the

roadway.

2 Distance to the nearest traffic lane. The distance for intermediate traffic counts should be interpolated.

Table 8-3 Specifications for sampling inlet siting

Pollutant

Height from ground to

inlet (metres)

Horizontal and vertical

distance from supporting

structures to inlet

(metres)

Distance from inlet to any air

flow obstacle

(e.g., bui

ldings,

trees) (metres)

CO 2–15 >1

>2 × height of obstacle above

inlet

2–15 >1

PM 2–15 >2

PAH 2–15 >2

VOC 2–15 >1

1 For micro up to neighbourhood scales, the maximum height should be as low as feasible.

2 When inlet is located on a rooftop, this separation distance is in reference to roof, walls, parapets or other structures located on

the roof.

3 Must have unobstructed air flow 270° surrounding the inlet (180° if located on the side of a building).

For flow rates less than 20 litres per minute (L/min), sampling inlets must be at least 1 m apart and

at least 2 m apart for flow rates greater than 20 L/min (distance measured from centre of inlets).

Sampling inlets for co-located instruments should be no greater than 4 m from each other.

In addition to the requirements listed in the tables above, sampling inlet placement should consider

the following:

• If an inlet is located on the side of a building, ideally it should be located on the side of

prevailing winds.

• Inlets should not be placed in close proximity to air outlets (e.g., exhaust fans).

• To avoid undue local influences, inlets should be located away from minor sources such

as fugitive emissions, exhausts or stacks.

• Inlets should be located away from dirty or dusty areas (such as dirt roads).

• Areas subject to possible heavy snow accumulation should be avoided.

8.3 Manifold Design

For a monitoring station with multiple gas analyzers, an air sampling manifold can reduce excess

moisture, pressure drops and dust entrainment.

Manifold designs commonly used for NAPS monitoring include either a conventional borosilicate

glass (Pyrex) or quartz manifold with a blower motor (Figure 8-1), or an octopus-style manifold

system (Figure 8-2).

Important considerations and requirements for manifold design include the following:

• Check that air flow is unrestricted, with minimal bends.

• Install a water trap at the manifold.

• For gas analyzers, install Teflon filters between the manifold and the analyzer’s sample

inlet port, unless the analyzer is configured with an existing internal filter. Note that

filters located before the manifold inlet are not recommended, as the flow restriction

created by a filter may limit the ability of a fan or blower to provide a sufficient flow

rate. More importantly, the filter will create a vacuum in the manifold.

• Ensure air flow through the manifold does not cause the pressure inside the manifold to

be more than 1 inch of water below the ambient pressure. The methodology for

determining pressure drops is described in Section 8.3.2.

• Use individual sampling lines and inlets for VOC or carbonyl instruments. However,

they may be connected to a manifold only if a conventional 4-inch, 2-inch or 1-inch

manifold is used.

• Take care to ensure that the inlet system does not have any leaks. Calibration checks

through the entire sampling inlet system will indicate possible dilution due to leaks.

• Check that placement of the calibration gas lines be designed to challenge the entire

measurement system, including the sampling line and manifold system.

• Vent exhaust from analyzers and the manifold outside and away from the sample inlet

using an exhaust manifold or individual lines. If using individual lines, ensure that they

are of minimal length to avoid back-pressure to the analyzer. If venting to the outside is

not possible, the exhaust should be scrubbed before venting into the station.

Figure 8-1 Example of a conventional 1-, 2- and 4-inch manifold system (which can

be configured horizontally or vertically)

Figure 8-2 Example of octopus-style manifold system

8.3.1 Residence Time (Rt) Calculations

Rt is defined as the amount of time that it takes for a sample of air to travel from the sampling inlet

to the instrument. Although a 20-second Rt is the maximum allowed, it is recommended that the

Rt within the sampling inlet system be approximately 10 seconds to allow for variability in flow

rates.

The Rt is determined as follows. First, calculate the total volume using the following equation:

Total volume = C

+ L

Where:

= volume of the sample probe and extensions

= volume of the sample manifold and trap

= volume of the sampling line to the instrument

Once the total volume is calculated, divide the sum of the flow rates of all instruments to obtain

the Rt. If the Rt is greater than 20 seconds, attach a blower or metered pump to increase the flow

rate and decrease the Rt to the acceptable level.

8.3.2 Pressure Drop Measurements

If a manifold system is used, the air flow through the sample system must not create a pressure

drop greater than approximately 1 inch of water below the ambient pressure. The pressure drop

should be assessed as follows:

• measure the ambient pressure near the manifold

• measure the pressure inside the manifold by attaching a manometer to a spare sampling

port on the manifold

• calculate the pressure drop

• adjust the flow rate to ensure that the pressure drop is less than 1 inch and the Rt

requirements are met.

If these requirements cannot be met, the manifold volume is too small, and an appropriately sized

manifold must be used.

9.0

MONITORING, SAMPLING

AND ANALYTICAL METHODS

To achieve the NAPS DQO for accuracy and comparability, monitoring, sampling and analytical

methods must meet defined minimum performance specifications for the following pollutants:

Continuous (hourly) parameters:

• CO

• NO, NO

, NO

• O

• SO

• PM

2.5

Integrated sampling:

• PM

2.5

and PM

2.5–10

o mass concentration

• PM

2.5

components

o major elements

o trace elements

o ions

o inorganic PM precursors: ammonia, nitric acid, SO

o organic carbon/elemental carbon (OC/EC)

o levoglucosan and other biomass burning markers

• PM

2.5–10

components

o major elements and ions

• VOC

o non-polar hydrocarbons

o non-polar halogenated

o polar, including carbonyls (e.g., ketones, aldehydes)

• PAH

9.1 Continuous Methods

Analyzers that satisfy the requirements of the US EPA as federal reference methods (FRM) or

FEM for ambient air monitoring are selected for use in the network (US EPA 2018).

Modifications to reference or equivalent methods may be permitted for use within the NAPS

Program if it can be demonstrated that they meet the NAPS performance specifications. The

operating characteristics of these modified instruments will be documented, and their performance

will be evaluated in the laboratory and field for environmental conditions encountered across the

country.

For example, the PM

2.5

FEM requires a very sharp cut cyclone (VSCC), but the use of a sharp cut

cyclone (SCC) is allowed under NAPS because field testing has demonstrated that the SCC

performs as well as the VSCC.

A current list of US EPA reference and equivalent methods is maintained online (US EPA 2018)

and includes approved methods for O

, NO

, CO, SO

and PM

2.5

. Acceptance of the US EPA

FRM and FEM for use in the NAPS Program assures the comparable performance of air quality

measurements.

Non-FRMs/FEMs could be used for the initial assessment of an area prior to selecting an air

monitoring site location.

Table 9-1 lists NAPS minimum acceptable performance specifications for continuous methods.

Table 9-2 lists principles of operation for methods currently used by the NAPS Program for

continuous ambient air monitoring.

Table 9-1 NAPS minimum performance specifications and operating ranges

for continuous methods

Pollutant

Instrument

range

Operating

range

Lower

detection

limit

Zero noise

Zero drift

(24 hours)

Span drift

(24 hours)

Rise/fall

time

(max.)

CO 0–10 ppm

0–5 or

0–10 ppm

0.04 ppm

0.02 ppm

RMS

<0.1 ppm

<1% of full

scale

60 sec

NO/NO

/NO

0–500 ppb 0–500 ppb 0.4 ppb 0.2 ppb RMS <0.5 ppb

<1% of full

scale

80 sec

0–500 ppb 0–500 ppb 1 ppb 0.3 ppb RMS <1 ppb

<1% of full

scale

20 sec

0–500 ppb

0–200 or

0–500 ppb

0.1 ppb

<0.06 ppb

RMS

<0.2 ppb

<0.5 % of full

scale

140 sec

2.5

0–200 µg/m

0–1000 µg/m

2 µg/m

(daily)

N/A N/A N/A N/A

ppm = parts per million; ppb = parts per billion; µg/m3 = microgram per cubic metre; RMS = root mean square

Instrument range represents the minimum full-scale output that must be available from an analyzer/monitor to be used.

2 Based on the US EPA–approved specified range for the instrument.

3 Lower detection limit refers to the lowest detectable quantity of pollutant that can be distinguished from the absence of the pollutant

(i.e., zero air for gas analyzers).

4 Zero noise is a measure of the deviations from zero while sampling constant zero air. The noise is measured as the RMS of the

deviations from zero.

5 Zero drift (24-hour) is the absolute change in analyzer response to a constant zero air input over 24 hours of unadjusted continuous

operation.

6 Span drift (24-hour) is the percent change in analyzer response to a constant upscale pollutant concentration over 24 hours of

unadjusted continuous operation.

7 Rise/fall time is the time interval between initial response (the first observable change in analyzer output) and a level of signal

output that is 95% of the steady state output after a step increase (rise) or decrease (fall) in input concentration.

8 Range of 0–200 µg/m

applicable only if using analog output, 0–1,000 µg/m

if using digital output (but not exceeding 2,000 µg/m

Relying solely on the performance specifications provided by a manufacturer does not necessarily

guarantee that a method will perform as expected in the field during routine operations. To ensure

that NAPS minimum performance specifications are met, appropriate maintenance, operating

conditions and performance evaluations should be followed (as detailed in this Guidance).

The US EPA has approved a number of continuous methods as FRMs or FEMs, including those

found in Table 9-2.

Table 9-2 Principles of operation for NAPS continuous methods

Parameter

Principle of operation

Non-dispersive infrared (FRM): This is the most commonly used continuous CO

measurement method. These analyzers operate on the principle that the CO molecule has a

sufficiently characteristic infrared (IR) absorption spectrum for detection. Sample air passes

through a chamber in front of an IR source. Optical bandpass filters focus the wavelength of

the IR energy to the CO absorption range. The detector produces a signal proportional to

the amount of IR absorbed, enabling the concentration of CO to be calculated.

NO/NO

Chemiluminescence (FEM): NO concentrations are determined photometrically by

measuring the light intensity from the chemiluminescent reaction of NO mixed with excess

. The chemiluminescence method detects only NO, so NO

must first be converted to

NO for measurement purposes. Sample flow either is directed through a converter to reduce

to NO, or it bypasses the converter to allow detection of only NO. The sample stream

with reduced NO

is a measurement of NO plus NO

, expressed as NO

. The difference

between NO

and NO detection is calculated as the NO

concentration.

Cavity attenuated phase shift (CAPS) (NO

only; FEM): Direct measurements of NO

using

CAPS technology are approved as an EPA-equivalent method and are acceptable for

NAPS. CAPS instruments use low-power LEDs, where NO

light absorption is directly

correlated to NO

concentration. CAPS analyzers measure only NO

, not NO or NO

Ultraviolet (UV) photometry (FEM): This is the most commonly used continuous O

measurement method. An air sample passes through a beam of light from a UV lamp, which

is absorbed by O

. The amount of UV light absorbed is proportional to the amount of O

the sample. These instruments are favoured due to ease of operation and low maintenance

and because they do not require reagent gases or solutions.

UV fluorescence (FEM): This is the most commonly used continuous SO

measurement

method. This method is based on the principle that SO

molecules absorb UV light at one

wavelength and emit UV light at a different wavelength. The intensity of the emitted light is

proportional to the number of SO

molecules in the sample gas. These instruments are

favoured because of their inherent linearity, sensitivity and the absence of consumable

reagent gases.

2.5

Beta attenuation (FEM): Particle sizes (e.g., ≤2.5 µm) are aerodynamically separated before

analysis. For these measurements, filter tape is exposed to ambient sample flow, and PM is

deposited on the filter. Beta rays are emitted from a source and attenuated when they pass

through the deposits on the filter. The beta attenuation through the deposit is blank

corrected using beta attenuation through a clean filter. The blank-corrected attenuation

readings are converted to mass concentrations.

Light scattering (FEM): This method relates light-scattering measurements to mass

measurements, where particle light scattering is determined by illuminating particles and

measuring the scattered intensity at different orientations from the incident light. The

scattering measurement is often highly correlated with mass concentrations, but the

relationship can depend on particle properties like size, shape and composition.

Tapered element oscillating microbalance (TEOM): Particle sizes are aerodynamically

separated before analysis. A TEOM consists of a hollow glass element that oscillates at a

known frequency. The air sample passes through a filter attached to the tapered element.

As particles are deposited on the filter, the oscillating frequency changes in proportion to the

amount of mass deposited. This change in frequency is used to determine PM

concentration. For US EPA equivalency, TEOMs measuring PM

2.5

must be operated with a

Filter Dynamics Measurement System, which corrects for volatilization and other filter mass

loading issues.

9.2 Integrated Methods

For the NAPS Program, ECCC conducts chemical and gravimetric analysis of samples at its

ISO17025-accredited laboratories in Ottawa. ECCC also provides sampling media for integrated

samplers, including filters, VOC canisters, cartridge assemblies and filter packs. Accredited

procedures to ensure sample integrity are followed throughout the process from sample preparation

to shipping, collection and analysis.

NAPS PM

2.5

Reference Method (RM)

Atmospheric particulate matter (PM) is a complex mixture of solid and liquid particles including

the vapour-phase semi-volatile compounds that are adsorbed or absorbed to the particle. True

measurement of the aerosol is rarely, if ever done, and therefore, PM

2.5

can only be defined

operationally according to the sampling and mass determination method utilized.

An integrated, 24-hour interval, gravimetric method has been adopted as the NAPS Reference

Method (RM) for PM

2.5

mass concentration measurements. Although constituent mass loss or gain

artifacts can occur during filter sampling, reference methods provide a benchmark for comparing

measurement techniques.

The NAPS PM

2.5

RM collects fine particulate matter of aerodynamic diameter 2.5 μm and smaller

(PM

2.5

) on a pre-weighed Teflon filter using a particle size selective inlet, located on the inlet tube,

by drawing a known volume of ambient air over a 24-hour interval. Once the sampling period is

completed, the filter is removed and transported to the NAPS Laboratory where it undergoes

conditioning and gravimetric weight determination. The average PM

2.5

concentration (in units of

µg/m

) is calculated from the mass difference of the filter divided by the actual volume calculated

from the flow meter and the sampling time interval (24 hours).

Brief descriptions of sampling and analysis methods are listed in Table 9-3.

Table 9-3 Principles of sampling and analysis for NAPS integrated methods

Parameter Principle of operation

2.5

mass

concentration

(NAPS PM

2.5

RM)

Samples are collected on Teflon filters using the NAPS PM

2.5

RM.

Mass concentrations are calculated from the difference between pre- and post-

sampling weights using sampled volumes. Gravimetric analysis is performed under

controlled environmental conditions.

2.5–10

mass

concentration

Samples are collected on pre-weighed Teflon filters. Mass concentrations are

calculated from the difference between pre- and post-sampling weights using

sampled volumes. Gravimetric analysis is performed under controlled

environmental conditions.

Chemical

Characterization of

2.5

To characterize PM

2.5

and PM

2.5–10

species, samples undergo laboratory analysis

using a variety of techniques such as ion chromatography (precursor gases, ions),

energy-dispersive x-ray fluorescence (ED-XRF) for elements, and inductively

coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) for both near-total and water soluble

metals.

Chemical

characterization of

2.5-10

2.5–10

samples are analysed for elements by energy-dispersive x-ray

fluorescence (ED-XRF), and for PM precursor gases and ions by ion

chromatography.

2.5

Speciation

Samples are collected using a combination of denuders and Teflon, nylon and

quartz filters at PM

2.5

Speciation sites.

In addition to the chemical characterization described above, samples undergo

laboratory analysis using a variety of techniques such as ion chromatography

(precursor gases, ions, biomass burning markers), total optical reflectance for

carbon (OC/EC), energy-dispersive x-ray fluorescence (ED-XRF) for elements, and

inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) for both near-total and

water soluble metals.

VOC VOC are collected using stainless steel Summa canisters. Ambient air is drawn into

an evacuated canister at a constant flow rate.

A combined gas chromatography/flame ionization detector system is used for

quantification of C2 hydrocarbons, while a combined gas chromatography/mass

selective detector system is used for quantification of C3 to C12 hydrocarbons and

chlorinated hydrocarbons.

Carbonyls Samples are collected by drawing ambient air at a constant flow rate through a 2,4-

dinitrophenylhydrazine (DNPH)–coated silica-gel cartridge.

Samples undergo analysis using high-pressure liquid chromatography.

PAH Samples are collected using a NAPS-modified high-volume particulate sampler.

Ambient air is drawn at a constant flow rate through a Teflon-coated borosilicate

glass filter to capture the particle components, in combination with a cartridge that

contains polyurethane foams to trap the gaseous PAH.

Samples undergo analysis using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry.

9.3 New Instrument Pre-deployment Testing and Inspection

Testing and inspecting instruments in a controlled environment such as a laboratory or workshop

prior to deployment in the field ensures that they are performing within a manufacturer’s

specifications. This baseline testing may also help identify problems associated with instrument

siting.

9.3.1 Continuous Gas Analyzers

To identify potential issues, several multi-point verifications and zero/span checks should be

performed for at least one week. This testing should also include monitoring of instrument

diagnostics to ensure that the various internal electromechanical, temperature and pneumatic

sensors are performing as expected. Manufacturer operation manuals may include such testing

procedures.

9.3.2 PM Instruments

The most important operating parameter of PM instruments is the flow rate. A calibration should

be performed and all sensors verified (pressure, temperature, flow, etc.). Testing should include

monitoring of instrument diagnostics. To determine instrument stability, the instrument should be

operated with a zero filter (high efficiency particulate air [HEPA]) for at least three days.

Manufacturers’ operation manuals may include such testing procedures.

10.0 ROUTINE OPERATION

Routine operation and maintenance at monitoring sites is the responsibility of the Network, and

includes site- and equipment-preventative maintenance, repairs, instrument checks and

calibrations, as well as sample collection for laboratory analysis. Although routine site visits are

discussed in this section, additional guidelines and schedules for verification and calibration

activities are also discussed in Section 11.0.

10.1 Routine Inspection and Maintenance Checks

Routine visits are necessary to verify the continued operation of the unattended monitoring station

and equipment. Preventive maintenance increases data capture, ensures system reliability, and

helps to identify any potential problems and corrections before failures occur. Station operators

should visit sites weekly for routine checks, but actual schedules may vary according to the

Networks due to unique circumstances or constraints.

Remote diagnostic testing of various monitoring equipment and station parameters can

complement station visits. Such routine checks or diagnostic tests may indicate that corrective

action on-site is necessary; a trained field technician visiting the site would be able to troubleshoot

and address these issues. Additionally, instrument manufacturers or NAPS Operations may also

be able to provide troubleshooting and repair assistance.

Due to the many types of equipment in use, only general inspection and maintenance guidance is

provided here. In most cases, US EPA reference or equivalent method requirements, instrument-

specific SOP, and manufacturer information will provide detailed preventative maintenance

schedules and specific requirements or recommendations. Consequently, it is important that

instrument SOP and manufacturers’ manuals are readily available on site for reference during

maintenance or repair.

Furthermore, an up-to-date preventative maintenance checklist should be available at each site

(either electronically or as a paper log) to help ensure that maintenance performed is documented

in an appropriate and consistent manner.

General site and monitoring system inspection and maintenance items include the following:

• check shelter integrity and security, including any wear, corrosion or weathering

• inspect inlet, manifold and sample lines to the instruments for dirt buildup; clean the

manifold and replace sample lines as necessary

• inspect PM size selective inlets for dirt or damage; clean/replace inlets and empty water-

trap jars as necessary

• inspect continuous PM sample tape for pinholes or damage

• inspect the gas analyzer inlet filters (replace as necessary)

• inspect drying agents such as silica gel (replace as necessary)

• confirm adequate supply of consumables (e.g., desiccant, filters, gloves)

• if station temperature is not logged, verify that the temperature has remained within the

correct range (20-30°C) since the last visit; adjust the thermostat if necessary

• review any instrument alarms, instrument issues and data issues that have been identified

since the last visit

• update site and station logs (Section 10.3) and instrument maintenance records (Section

10.4).

10.1.1 Integrated Samples: Specific Requirements

Routine site visits are required to install and remove sampling media (e.g., filters, canisters,

cartridges and filter packs). Appropriate sample handling procedures must also be in place to

prevent contamination or sample loss during handling, sampling, and transport to and from the

laboratory. During these visits, routine checks should be performed.

Each instrument has detailed field SOP describing sample collection procedures, as listed in

Appendix B.

Requirements for handling samples include:

• wearing disposable, powder-free gloves while handling carbonyl cartridges and PAH

sampling media

• inspecting individual filters prior to use to ensure their integrity (i.e., no pinholes, tears,

creases or other flaws)

• purging the VOC sampling system before sampling

• ensuring that the sampler is set to the specified flow rate, start/end time, date and duration

• fully completing the field data sheets; a copy of each must be sent to the lab, and a

copy should be retained by the operating Network.

NAPS Operations provides troubleshooting and repair services for all integrated samplers and

should be contacted if issues occur.

10.2 Quarterly and Semi-annual Station Visits

In addition to routine inspection and maintenance checks, scheduled site visits are recommended,

either quarterly or semi-annually, by trained field technicians. During these visits, multi-point

verification checks are performed. If instrumentation is outside of recommended criteria,

calibration adjustments should be conducted.

The following activities should be performed during scheduled quarterly or semi-annual station

visits:

• verify or update inventory for all equipment at the site

• perform any scheduled maintenance, such as leak checks, sample inlet and manifold

cleaning, and sample line replacement

• verify zero-air supply system for each analyzer and change and correct if necessary

• perform multi-point verification checks for gas analyzers (Section 11.1)

• perform flow verification and calibration checks for PM instruments (Section 11.2)

• verify time-stamps against correct time for all instrumentation, including datalogger

• update site and station logs (Section 10.3) and instrument maintenance records (Section

10.4).

10.3 Site and Station Logs

Field data records for ambient air monitoring provide valuable reference information for the data

validation process and help ensure data defensibility. A checklist is used for routine site visits: it

should be maintained along with site documentation and detailed field logs. Paper copies of log

notes can be maintained on site. However, electronic or web-based logging systems ensure that

information is better organized and readily available to any personnel involved in station operation

and in data-validation processes. All on-site activities should include documentation of both “as-

found” and “as-left” site and instrument conditions. Documented information for each log entry

should include, at a minimum, the following:

• site name and ID number

• date and time, instruments and systems assessed, and name of the operator or technician

conducting all routine and non-routine maintenance activities

• a record of damage, malfunction, modification, repair or other corrective action to station

systems and equipment

• information relevant to site-specific operational checks (e.g., air conditioning, fencing,

shelter leaks)

• date and time of most recent verification checks and calibrations, including associated

calibration records (see Section 10.4 for calibration documentation requirements)

• anything unusual that may have affected results (e.g., burning nearby, construction

activities, loose connections to the instrument).

10.4 Instrument Maintenance Records

Each instrument and associated equipment should have its own maintenance log containing the

repair and calibration history. Repairs can occur on site, in Network laboratories or at NAPS

Operations, or equipment can be returned to the manufacturer.

Minimum information that should be documented includes:

• the manufacturer’s name, equipment model and serial number, or other unique

identification

• a record of any instrument-specific damage, malfunction, modification, repair or other

corrective action

• information relevant to instrument-specific operational checks and maintenance (e.g.,

leak checks, flow checks)

• date and time of most recent verification checks and calibrations, including reference to

associated calibration records (see Section 11.3 for calibration documentation

requirements).

11.0 VERIFICATION AND CALIBRATION

DQO (Section 4.0) help to ensure that data collected are of acceptable accuracy, completeness,

comparability and representativeness. An important part of meeting DQO is defining acceptance

criteria.

The calibration of an instrument establishes the quantitative relationship between the value of a

known traceable standard and the instrument’s response. The term calibration is associated with

an adjustment of an instrument or software, while verification does not involve any adjustment.

Once an instrument’s calibration relationship is established, the instrument should be verified at

frequencies recommended in this Guidance. Results from this multi-point verification should be

used to determine if an instrument calibration (adjustment) is necessary or whether data should be

further assessed.

The NAPS Program has defined acceptance criteria for QC checks, multi-point verification, and

calibration of continuous analyzers and integrated PM samplers. Along with the general guidance

provided here, specific analyzer and sampler verification and calibration procedures should follow

instrument SOP and manufacturer operation manuals.

11.1 Gas Analyzers

For gas analyzers, multi-point verification occurs upon initial installation, in response to

exceedances of tolerance levels of QC checks and at specified frequencies. QC checks can be

accomplished on an automated schedule, initiated remotely or performed on-site by a trained

technician.

• Table 11-1 lists recommended activity frequencies for QC checks, as well as multi-point

verification and calibration.

• Table 11-2 lists verification and calibration ranges.

• Table 11-3 lists tolerance levels for QC checks.

• Table 11-4a and Table 11-4b list tolerance levels and acceptance criteria for multi-point

verification.

11.1.1 QC Checks for Gas Analyzers

Zero check: For a zero check, pollutant-free air is introduced to measure the analyzer’s response

to concentrations below its detection limit. The zero check is compared to the zero reference value

established at the time of multi-point verification or calibration. If the zero is outside of tolerance

levels, a zero adjustment should be performed using either a scrubber or zero-air source with a

dilution calibrator.

If the value from the zero check immediately following multi-point verification or calibration is

not essentially zero, then either the scrubber or the zero-air system scrubbing media may need to

be replaced.

Span check: A span check involves introducing a known concentration of a pollutant gas at a

concentration higher than values expected at the site during routine operations, and near the

calibration range. Table 11-2 shows the recommended calibration ranges by parameter. The span

check point is compared to a reference span value established at the time of multi-point verification

or calibration. If the span is found to be outside of the tolerance level, an “as-found” multi-point

verification should be conducted, and a subsequent corrective action should be initiated. A span

check can be performed using permeation devices, span gases or high-concentration gases with a

dilution calibrator (recommended method).

11.1.2 Verification and Calibration

Multi-point verification: A multi-point verification (using traceable standards and materials)

initially establishes and subsequently verifies the accuracy and linearity of the instrument at regular

intervals to ensure data validity. This verification must be performed before any instrument

calibration and includes a pre- or post-zero and at least three upscale points (100%, 60% and 30%

of calibration range) in the recommended ranges (Figure 11-1 and Table 11-2).

Figure 11-1 Multi-point verification

These recommended ranges have been set from NAPS data assessed over a three-year period

(2012–2015) and are meant to encompass at least 150% of the air quality objectives and standards.

These ranges are both realistic and achievable using existing calibration equipment and reference

materials.

Calibration: A calibration is an instrument adjustment that establishes the relationship between

instrument response and expected concentration. If a multi-point verification indicates the

instrument is operating outside defined tolerance levels or acceptance criteria, a calibration should

be performed according to the manufacturer’s operating manual. Analyzer calibration must include

a zero adjustment and an upscale adjustment at the recommended calibration ranges as indicated

in Table 11-2. After completing the adjustments, allow the analyzer to stabilize; then perform an

additional verification on the zero and at least one upscale point, recording “as-left” information,

to confirm that any adjustments made were applied correctly.

Table 11-1 Gas analyzer QC, verification and calibration activity frequencies

Activity

Minimum frequency

Analyzer QC checks

(zero and span)

(CO, NO

, O

, SO

)

Weekly

Analyzer multi-point

verification

(CO, NO

, O

, SO

)

Upon installation or relocation

Before and after any repairs that may affect calibration

Before instrument calibration

Every 6 months (semi-annually) if zero/span checks are performed daily

Every 3 months (quarterly) if zero/span checks are performed on any schedule

other than daily

Before instrument shutdown

When span check exceeds tolerance levels

Analyzer calibration

(CO, NO

, O

, SO

)

In response to exceedance of the multi-point verification tolerance levels and

acceptance criteria

Zero and span checks can be automated to be performed daily.

Verification prior to repair may not be possible.

Additional verification checks of the zero and at least one upscale point after a calibration are recommended to ensure the

instrument was appropriately calibrated.

Table 11-2 Multi-point verification and calibration ranges

Level

Pollutants

Calibration range 0 – 3 ppm 0 – 300 ppb 0 – 200 ppb 0 – 200 ppb

11.1.3 Tolerance Levels and Acceptance Criteria

Tolerance levels for zero and span checks: Levels at which analyzer multi-point verification,

calibration adjustment or repair should be initiated to address issues before acceptance criteria

are exceeded and data become invalid. To avoid potential data loss, these levels are more

restrictive than the acceptance criteria.

Acceptance criteria for multi-point verification: When multi-point verification exceeds these

limits, data should be invalidated to the most recent time when such measurements were known

to be valid, unless data correction can be justified.

Table 11-3 QC checks tolerance levels for gas analyzers

1 When the zero check is exceeded, an adjustment of the zero may be required; a trend analysis of the zero results will determine if

a baseline-drift correction is needed.

2 When the span check is exceeded, a multi-point verification is required.

Note: Frequent adjustment of the instrument should not be necessary and can lead to increased data uncertainty. Furthermore,

frequent adjustment usually indicates that instrument issues need to be addressed.

Table 11-4a Multi-point verification: Zero-point tolerance levels for gas analyzers

Activity Instrument

Tolerance level

Zero point

+/- 0.08 ppm

+/- 1.0 ppb

+/- 0.5 ppb

When exceeded, instrument zero adjustment is required.

Note: Frequent adjustment of the instrument should not be necessary and can lead to increased data uncertainty, which usually

indicates instrument issues that need to be addressed.

Table 11-5b Multi-point verification: Upscale points acceptance criteria for gas

analyzers

The accuracy of multi-point verification and calibration is considered to be within these levels when using traceable standards.

When exceeded, a calibration is required.

This is the maximum difference between each measured upscale point and the transfer standard value.

Instrument QC checks Tolerance levels

Zero check

span check

± 0.1 ppm

10% of reference value

Zero check

span check

± 2.0 ppb

10% of reference value

Zero check

span check

± 2.0 ppb

10% of reference value

Zero check

span check

± 1.0 ppb

10% of reference value

Activity Instrument

Tolerance level

Acceptance criteria

Upscale points maximum %

difference

CO, NO

, O

, SO

4% 15%

Molybdenum converter

efficiency (NO

coefficient)

NO/NO

/ NO

96 – 104% 15%

11.1.4 Multi-Point Verification and Calibration Considerations

Calibration adjustments should be performed according to the operation manual. Procedures may

also be described in analyzer-specific SOP.

Additional considerations for gas analyzer multi-point verification and calibration adjustments are

as follows:

• The analyzer, dilution and ozone calibrator, gas cylinders and zero air system should be

equilibrated to operating temperature prior to verification or calibration.

• All calibration and verification transfer standards must be traceable to a NAPS reference

standard and the certification cannot have expired.

• The certified gas should pass through as much of the sampling inlet system as possible,

including all filters and other components used during normal sampling. Injecting gas

through the manifold is recommended and could identify issues with the manifold and

sample lines. However, it is acceptable to inject gas directly to an analyzer that has an

internal filter or to an external sample filter if the analyzer does not have an internal

filter.

• The instrument response should be allowed to stabilize at each point before results are

recorded or adjustments made. For the upscale point, two consecutive five-minute

averages should be compared. These two five-minute averages should be within 1 ppb

of each other for O

, NOx and SO

and 0.02 ppm for CO.

• All verification and calibration should include documentation of both “as-found” and

“as-left” conditions (even if no changes were made).

• After a multi-point verification or calibration:

o verify linearity to confirm that the instrument is operating within the

manufacturer’s specifications

o update the new reference zero and span check values in the datalogger

o restore the sampling inlet system and analyzer to normal operation.

• Station documentation for calibration events should be maintained (Section 10.4).

11.1.5 Automatic Zero or Span Adjustments

Several analyzers can perform automatic zero or span adjustments based on zero and span check

results. Automatic zero adjustments may be desirable because zero drift is common in many

analyzers.

If automated zero adjustments are made, it is important that they be reviewed during the data

validation process, as zero-check results could become unreliable due to equipment failure or other

issues. Automatic span adjustments are not permitted, unless they are performed using traceable

standards and materials.

11.2 PM

Instruments

Unlike the reference (gas) standards available for verifying and calibrating gas analyzers, no such

standards are available for calibrating PM instruments. As a result, the only parameters that can be

verified and calibrated are flow, temperature, pressure and other instrument-specific parameters.

These are critical to proper instrument operation and collection of appropriately sized particles.

Recommended PM instruments checks frequencies are listed in Table 11-5 and NAPS acceptance

criteria are listed in Table 11-6.

QC checks for PM instruments:

• Flow rate: Verification of the flow rate set-point against a certified flowmeter. A

specific flow rate is required at the inlet to properly separate particles in the air (e.g.,

16.67 L/min for PM

2.5

particle size selection).

• Temperature, pressure and relative humidity: One-point verification of these

parameters against traceable standards. This is important for PM instruments, as ambient

conditions affect the sampled volume used for concentration calculations.

• Zero: Verification of the instrument zero by removing all particulates in the sample air

using a HEPA filter. The zero check should be performed according to the instrument

operating manual.

• Leak: Verification of the pressure in the inlet system according to manufacturer-

recommended procedures. The PM inlet is replaced with a leak-check adapter, and the

pressure or flow rate is measured and compared with manufacturer specifications.

• Calibration: Instrument adjustment that establishes the relationship between instrument

response and expected value. If QC checks indicate that the instrument is operating

outside of defined tolerance levels or acceptance criteria (Table 11-6), a calibration

should be performed according to the manufacturer’s operating manual. To confirm that

all adjustments were applied correctly, perform an additional verification to record “as-

left” information.

Table 11-5 PM instruments QC activity frequencies

Activity Minimum frequency

PM instrument QC Checks

(one-point flow, temperature,

pressure and leak check)

Upon installation or relocation

Before and after any repairs that may affect instrument calibration

Before instrument calibration

Every 3 months for continuous monitors

Every 6 months for integrated samplers

Before instrument shutdown

1 Verification prior to repair may not be possible.

11.2.1 PM Instrument Tolerance Levels and Acceptance Criteria

Tolerance levels: These are levels at which calibrations or repair should be initiated to address

issues before acceptance criteria are exceeded and data become invalid. To avoid potential data

loss, these levels are more restrictive than the acceptance criteria.

Acceptance criteria: When one-point verification exceeds these limits, data should be invalidated

to the most recent time when such measurements were known to be valid, unless data correction

can be justified.

Table 11-6 QC check tolerance and acceptance criteria for PM instruments

Instrument Frequency One-point verification

Tolerance level

Acceptance criteria

Continuous

2.5

every 3 months

flow rate

(set point vs. standard)

4% 7%

temperature (reading vs.

standard)

± 2 °C N/A

barometric pressure (reading

vs. standard)

± 10 mmHg N/A

relative humidity (reading vs.

standard)

10% N/A

leak check

as per instrument

manual

as per instrument

manual

Integrated PM

every 6 months

or every 30

samples

(whichever

comes first)

flow rate

(set point vs. standard)

4% 7%

temperature (reading vs.

standard)

± 2°C N/A

barometric pressure (reading

vs. standard)

± 10 mmHg N/A

leak check

as per instrument

manual

as per instrument

manual

1 When tolerance level is exceeded, a calibration is required.

11.2.2 PM Instrument Verification and Calibration Considerations

Calibration adjustments should be performed according to the operation manual. Procedures may

also be described in instrument-specific SOP.

Additional considerations for PM instrument verification and calibration adjustments are as

follows:

• Traceable standard materials and devices should be equilibrated to operating temperature

prior to verification or calibration.

• All calibration and verification standards must be traceable to a NAPS reference

standard, and the certification cannot have expired.

• A leak check should be performed before all other QC checks, as this will affect

instrument flow rate and resulting volume. Leaks in the sampling inlet system exceeding

manufacturer specifications invalidate data up to the date of the previous acceptable leak

check. During calibration, if the inlet system has been disassembled, a post-leak check

must be performed.

• Flow rate is dependent on ambient temperature and pressure, so these checks and

calibrations must be made before flow calibrations.

• An “as-found” flow verification should be performed before any instrument maintenance

or adjustments (if possible).

• After flow calibration, an “as-left” one-point flow verification should be performed.

• For continuous PM monitors, comparison to a NAPS RM sampler can be used to assess

PM concentration data accuracy.

• Station documentation for calibration events should be maintained (Section 11.3).

11.3 Verification and Calibration Documentation

Calibration documentation should be maintained and updated as required. Results should readily

be available for review by data validators and auditors.

Documentation should include:

• date of calibration

• instrument location (site ID)

• name of technician performing activity

• instrument serial number or other identification

• verification and calibration data, including both “as-found” and “as-left” conditions

• if the span gas is from a cylinder, cylinder ID, installation date and cylinder pressure

should be recorded

• calibration standards traceability and certification documentation (Section 11.5)

• any comments regarding calibration issues or instrument or system servicing that may

affect calibration results.

11.4 Integrated VOC, Carbonyls and PAH Samplers

An accurate sample volume and elapsed time is necessary to determine sample concentration. For

VOC, carbonyl and PAH samplers, all flow meters and control devices (such as mass flow meters

and roots meters) are verified and calibrated in a laboratory that applies NAPS metrology prior to

field deployment, and they should be returned for repair or re-calibration as required.

11.5 Traceability of Calibration and Standards

Traceability promotes measurement quality across the NAPS Program and across time. NAPS data

should be traceable to one or more of these fundamental units through an unbroken chain of

calibrations, each associated with an estimated uncertainty of measurement and therefore

contributing to total measurement uncertainty.

Base units of measurement in the International System of Units include:

• mass (kilogram)

• amount of substance (mole)

• length (metre)

• temperature (kelvin)

• current (ampere)

• time (second).

11.5.1 Traceability

Materials and devices used for calibrating NAPS equipment must be certified for accuracy against

NAPS reference standards, which can be recognized primary standards or traceable to one. The

following are recognized sources of primary standards:

• The US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST): standard reference

material (SRM), ozone standard reference photometer (SRP), relative humidity devices.

• The Dutch National Metrology Institute (VSL): SRM.

• The National Research Council Canada’s Measurement Science and Standards Research

Centre (NRC-MSS): low-flow measurement devices.

• Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada: high-flow measurement

devices.

The NAPS Applied Metrology Laboratory maintains the NAPS Program reference standards.

Networks may choose to maintain their own SRM.

For the calibration of gas analyzers (excluding ozone), a maximum of two levels of traceability

from the reference standard is allowed, to ensure an acceptable degree of uncertainty. This is

because each level of traceability must account for the dilution of a high-concentration gas, which

includes uncertainties associated with the zero air and gas flow measurements plus gas

concentration (Figure 11-2).

Figure 11-2 Allowable levels of traceability from reference standard to station gas

analyzers (excluding ozone)

For the calibration of ozone analyzers only, three levels of calibrations are allowed to maintain

uncertainty to an acceptable degree (Figure 11-3). An additional level is allowed, as only one

uncertainty is transferred between levels.

Figure 11-3 Allowable levels between calibrations from the reference standard to

station ozone analyzers

11.5.2 Reference and Transfer Standards

Periodic re-certifications of transfer standards against reference standards are required for

traceability. Transfer standards and certification services may be provided by the NAPS Applied

Metrology Laboratory. The Network is responsible for ensuring that equipment certifications have

not expired, re-certifications are obtained as necessary and copies of certification documents are

maintained (Table 11-7).

Re-certification of gas dilution calibrators and ozone transfer standards is required following any

maintenance or repair.

Table 11-7 Transfer standards certification frequency

Transfer standards Certification frequency

Gas mixtures

obtain as needed, based on cylinder pressure or

certification expiry (two years)

Ozone photometers annually or upon request

Flow measurement devices (dilution mass flow

controller, low- and high-volume transfer devices)

annually or upon request

Temperature and pressure measurement devices

upon request

Relative humidity measurement devices

annually or upon request

12.0 DATA COLLECTION AND VALIDATION: CONTINUOUS DATA

Data collection is the process of acquiring data from instruments, while data verification and

validation includes techniques used to accept, reject, modify and qualify data. Networks

participating in the NAPS Program are responsible for collecting and validating continuous data

according to the guidelines presented in this section. They should identify the details of the

validation and the level achieved in their NQAP.

The data collection and validation requirements listed in this section are intended to ensure that

final reported data meet the NAPS Program DQO.

12.1 Data Collection

Data acquisition systems, referred to as dataloggers, collect data and other information from the

instruments. The central data management system manages communications and data gathering

with the station dataloggers, which are stored in a database (Figure12-1). The data management

system also offers a set of tools to assess and validate data against defined quality requirements

and to analyze, display and report the data. The reporting features of the central system allow for

the calculation of air quality indices and the transfer of data to various external clients and to NAPS

Data Management.

Dataloggers and software packages are commercially available for collecting, verifying, validating

and reporting air quality data.

Most continuous instruments include both analog and digital data output options. Networks are

encouraged to collect data using the digital output. This has the advantage of improving

measurement sensitivity, as analog output is subject to electronic noise that affects the signal at

low concentrations. Also, QC and metadata information are available only digitally, while analog

output only provides data.

The following sections discuss considerations for the NAPS data collection processes.

12.1.1 Sample Rates and Averaging Intervals

Sample rates are the intervals at which a datalogger retrieves a value measured by an instrument,

which is subsequently used to generate averaged values. Most modern dataloggers are capable of

sample rates of at least once per second and can be configured to calculate and store data intervals

such as 1-minute, 5-minute and 1-hour averages.

Figure 12-1 Data collection and management

For NAPS Program reporting purposes, at least 1-hour averaging interval data are required. It is

also recommended that 1-minute data be stored to validate the 1-hour data, zero/span checks and

multi-point verifications. Datalogger output should be configured to ensure that any averages

calculated from shorter time intervals include at least 75% of valid data (e.g., at least 45 1-minute

data intervals in a 1-hour average).

It is important to note that the averaging period stored in the datalogger can be either hour-ending

or hour-beginning.

Data reported to the NAPS database must be in the hour-ending format (e.g., minute data

collected between 01:01 and 02:00 are averaged and reported as the 02:00 hour).

In the case of semi-continuous monitors (e.g., PM monitors), discrepancies can occur between the

actual sample times and the times recorded by the datalogger. For example, in a beta attenuation

monitor, the filter is loaded with PM for a period of time before a measurement is made. The

concentration reported at the end of the measurement cycle corresponds to the sample measured

during the previous hour. To report data correctly, a time adjustment in the datalogger is necessary

to ensure that the time associated with the sample is not offset by an hour.

12.1.2 Datalogger Reading Verification

It is important to ensure that datalogger readings match those of the instruments. Discrepancies in

data stored by the datalogger could occur because of calibration issues with the instrument analog-

to-digital converters or from time-stamps that do not match between the datalogger and the

instrument.

Datalogger readings should be verified against instrument digital readings during commissioning,

as well as after any changes to the data collection system. Additional periodic checks (e.g.,

monthly) are also recommended to ensure that signal drift over time, or any other data collection

issues, have not affected the recorded data.

12.2 Data Validation Process

Networks are responsible for ensuring that continuous data are collected and validated following

documented procedures in accordance with the Guidance.

Data verification and validation is a stepwise process that involves increasingly detailed analysis

of the data (Figure 12-2). Networks should validate data to at least Level 0. The level is determined

by their reporting application and available resources.

The verification and validation are performed at a set frequency, and the data are reviewed over

specified periods (Table 12-1).

Table 12-1 Data verification and validation review

Level

Frequency

Period of

data reviewed

Level 0

verification

–7 days

Level 1

validation

ollowing multi-point verification or

calibration

–6 months

Level 2

validation

–12 months

Level 3

validation

nnual

1 or more years

Figure 12-2 Continuous data validation flow chart

12.3 Data Flags and Validation Logs

Individual data points are identified as valid or invalid using various flags. Data flags are stored in

databases using determined codes.

As data are reviewed, validation logs should be used to provide a record of the validation process

by summarizing and justifying the decisions to validate, invalidate or qualify data. During the

automated screening process, flags are applied and data can be changed automatically based upon

set rules. Automated changes should be reviewed during the manual verification and validation

process. Data adjustment logs and flag modification logs create an audit trail for all edited data,

thereby saving time and effort if, at a later date, questions arise regarding specific data. Most

central data systems are able to store this information in their database.

Validation log entries should include all the following information:

• name of person who performed the validation

• when the validation was completed

• parameter(s) reviewed

• identification of data adjustments and flag modifications

• brief description of any actions performed to address instrument and data issues

• identification of anomalous data or outliers

• justification for changes made.

Data available from the CWAQD are reported as valid (represented by the value) or invalid

(represented with the code -9999), with no attached flags. However, it is recommended that

monitoring Networks maintain descriptive data flags for internal data review, audit and archival

purposes (Section 6.0).

12.4 Level 0 Verification

The process of Level 0 verification involves both automated and manual screening and flagging.

Most dataloggers can automatically flag values based on instrument status and data completeness.

They are also able to log instrument operational information, which can be an efficient and

effective way to identify and mitigate instrument issues leading to data quality problems.

Central data systems are able to apply screening criteria (or rules) to change and flag data. These

criteria can be optimized over time to reflect specific site conditions.

Automated screening includes:

• identifying periods of missing data (e.g., communication errors and power failures)

• comparing data to upper and lower limits (e.g., physical limits, such as instrument

thresholds, or limits established based on experience or historical data)

• comparing to rate-of-change thresholds that indicate data has either changed too rapidly

or not changed at all.

In addition to automated screening, frequent manual review of data (Table 12-1) is recommended.

Manual review could result in a reversal of an automated screening decision or identify potential

issues that were not flagged.

Manual verification includes:

• reviewing automated screening flags, instrument operational information and alarms

• reviewing 1-hour data for all parameters using tabular and graphical displays

• reviewing 1-minute data for completeness and instrument malfunctions

• verifying that zero and span check results are within specifications

• verifying (at regular intervals) that time-stamps throughout the collection process agree

with the correct time.

Data identified as suspect during Level 0 verification should be noted. If corrective action is

warranted, the cause of the problem should be identified and assigned to appropriate personnel as

soon as possible to avoid data loss. Corrective actions may involve remote systems adjustments,

troubleshooting, on-site repair or removal of instruments for repair. All issues and corrective

actions must be documented.

12.5 Level 1 Validation

Level 1 data validation begins with a review of all data and information from Level 0 and includes

both 1-hour and 1-minute data. Next, reviewers evaluate the issues identified and consult available

documentation (e.g., electronic or paper logbooks), after which appropriate flags and adjustments

are applied to the data. This level of validation is performed at regular intervals (Table 12-1) and

after any instrument malfunction, repair or adjustment (e.g., calibration) that may affect data

validity.

The following sections describe Level 1 validation activities, in the recommended order.

12.5.1 Review of Field Records

Along with the documentation reviewed for Level 0 Verification, additional documentation (e.g.,

station and instrument maintenance logs) should be reviewed and evaluated for data validation.

12.5.2 Review of Operational and Instrument Parameters

Level 1 Validation should include consideration of any instrument-specific operational limitations

that may invalidate data. These specifications are generally listed in SOP or manufacturer manuals.

Examples include leak checks and environmental temperature controls.

12.5.3 Review of Multi-point Verification Results

Multi-point verifications (Section 11.0) are an important part of the data validation process. These

verifications ensure that measurement uncertainty remains within established acceptance criteria.

Following multi-point verification, reviewers must reconcile zero and span checks with multi-

point verification results to determine whether any data are to be invalidated (flags changed) or to

apply corrections based on the multi-point verification results.

If the multi-point verification results exceed acceptance criteria, data should be invalidated to the

previous point in time when measurements were valid, unless data correction can be justified

(Table 11-4a and Table 11-4b).

To avoid potential data loss due to violation of multi-point acceptance criteria, corrective action

(calibration or instrument maintenance) should be initiated when QC check tolerance limits are

exceeded (Table 11-3).

12.5.4 Over-range Values

In some cases, an uncharacteristically high value may be recorded at a site. For example, a wildfire

may cause an extreme value that is outside the operating range of the instrument. In these cases, it

is desirable to retain the value and change the flag to indicate that an exceptional event occurred.

Data validation logs should indicate an over-range value and note that it likely underestimates the

actual concentration.

12.5.5 Review of Automatic Zero Adjustments

Several analyzers can perform zero adjustments based on automated zero checks. If automated

zero adjustments are made, it is important that they be reviewed because zero-check results could

become unreliable due to equipment failure or other issues.

12.5.6 Baseline Adjustments

Analyzer zero drift is common in many analyzers and may appear when the daily minimum

concentration (referred to as the baseline concentration) increases or decreases over a period of

days or weeks. Zero drift can be confirmed by reviewing zero checks using graphs and tables

(Figure 12-3). The zero point of the multi-point verification will indicate if the cause of the drift

is the analyzer or depletion of the scrubber used for zero checks.

Figure 12-3 Zero drift

Baseline drift correction is performed when deemed necessary or when tolerance levels (Table 11-

4a) are exceeded (for readers’ convenience, the table is shown again as Table 12-2).

Generally, data affected by analyzer drift can be corrected by adjusting the data using the multi-

point verification zero-point result. Because drift is not usually constant over time, all zero-check

results should be evaluated to determine the appropriate correction(s) that should be applied.

Excessive drift correction will cause significant uncertainty of the hourly data and possible

invalidation, though longer-term averages may be reasonably accurate.

Table 12-2 Multi-point verification: Zero-point tolerance levels for gas analyzers

Activity Instrument

Tolerance Level

Zero point CO 0.08 ppm

1.0 ppb

0.5 ppb

1 When exceeded, instrument zero adjustment is required.

Note: Frequent adjustment of the instrument should not be necessary and can lead to increased data uncertainty, which usually

indicates instrument issues that need to be addressed

Rapid or excessive change in zero is not considered drift and may signal an analyzer malfunction,

which could result in invalid data.

Although drifts in span results may be noted, adjustments based on span results are not

recommended. Upscale adjustments should be limited to analyzer calibration against traceable

reference standards.

12.5.7 Below Zero Adjustments

Zero noise is defined as a measure of the deviations from zero while sampling constant zero air

and may result in an instrument reading negative values.

For consistency, 1-hour instrument values that are determined to be valid, even if negative, should

be adjusted to zero (e.g., a valid −1 ppb O

should be reported as 0 ppb O

It is important to distinguish normal instrument noise (refer to instrument manual for

specifications) from instrument malfunction, as data affected by the latter should be invalidated.

Note: Adjustments of negative values to zero should be applied after baseline adjustments are

performed and only applied to 1-hour averages (rather than sub-hourly averages).

Table 12-3 lists the applicable zero adjustment criteria by parameter.

Table 12-3 Zero adjustment criteria

Averaging Interval Parameters Criteria

Sub-hourly all All negative values determined valid shall remain negative prior

to aggregation into hourly averages.

1-hour

2.5

(µg/m

)

2.5

value ≥−3 and <0 are adjusted to 0.

2.5

value <−3 are flagged as invalid.

all gases (ppb)

Below-zero values

determined valid are adjusted to zero (values

<−3 should be further investigated prior to setting to zero).

1 ppm for CO

12.5.8 Derived Parameter Relationship of NO/NO

/NO

During data validation, it is important to ensure that expected relationships are preserved. NO

not measured directly when using a chemiluminescent analyzer, but rather derived from the

difference in measured concentrations of NO

and NO in the sample. If adjustments are applied

to NO, NO

or NO

(e.g., baseline or zero), it will be necessary to apply adjustments to the other

parameters to preserve the relationship where NO + NO

= NO

For analyzers that use a single reaction cell that switches from NO to NO

mode (as they are not

measured simultaneously), a ±2 ppb difference is allowed for the 1-hour average of the NO

value

compared to the sum of NO and NO

values.

As a final note, any technical system audit performed by a third party that identified issues must

be addressed prior to finalizing Level 1 validation.

12.6 Level 2 Validation

Level 2 data validation begins with a review of all data and information to confirm that issues

identified during Level 1 have been addressed. The validation process continues by broadening

the analysis to consider additional information obtained from other related data.

Level 2 validation should be performed every 6 to 12 months, reviewing 6 to 12 months of data

and using hourly averaged data.

Two primary types of data are used for this level of validation: dependent data, which are measured

from the same site, and independent data, which are obtained from similar or nearby sites (Figure

12-4).

The next step is to generate summaries in various statistical forms and time-series plots of

dependent data. Plotting data can show relationships that are difficult to detect when reviewing

large amounts of tabular data. Dependent data are used to verify that the data follow expected

behaviour and relationships as well as to screen for outliers (e.g., unusually high or low values that

are not expected at the given site) using defined criteria.

Independent data can be used as an additional check to validate suspect data and assess regional

or similar site-type behaviour. For example, large pollution events such as wildfires could be

identified by examining data on a large regional scale. Data points identified as outliers in Level 1

can be determined valid by citing similar spikes or dips during the same approximate time period

at nearby locations.

Meteorological data (e.g., wind and pollution roses, back trajectories) can also be reviewed to

identify any suspect data.

Some examples of data relationships are listed below:

• O

and NO

are often inversely correlated. NO reacts quickly with O

, which can result

in low O

near NO sources (e.g., in urban areas impacted by traffic sources).

• O

is formed through photochemical processes in the atmosphere; concentrations often

increase with higher UV and temperature (e.g., diurnal highs towards the latter part of

the afternoon or day, and seasonal highs during spring and summer).

• Pollutant events are often confirmed by examining multiple parameters that may exhibit

similar behaviour and extend over a wide area.

• Pollutant levels might change abruptly if meteorological conditions change (e.g.,

weather fronts, storms, wind direction and speed).

• Pollutant levels surrounding the monitoring site (e.g., spikes in SO

) would be expected

only from nearby sources.

Further investigation of suspect data may determine instrument malfunction or other equipment

issues at the site affecting data.

Suspect data and outliers should nevertheless be considered valid unless there is sufficient

evidence to invalidate. Justification for decisions regarding validity of suspect data and outliers

should be documented in data validation logs.

Figure 12-4 PM

2.5

data of two buddy sites

12.7 Level 3 Validation

Level 3 validation is defined as a review of validated data by someone independent of both field

operations and the previous data validation process. The intent of this level of review is not to

repeat previous validation tasks, but rather to ensure that data have undergone an independent

review.

The independent reviewer should have extensive knowledge of air pollution and meteorology and

be familiar with the sites to evaluate data based on expected or historical behaviour.

Data reviews performed on an annual basis can identify issues that are not evident on a monthly

basis but become apparent when data are viewed over a longer time period. The reviews should

include at least one year of data, along with comparisons to other existing data sets. Data identified

as suspect should be brought to the attention of the previous data validators for investigation,

modification or justification.

12.8 Post Validation

Regardless of what level of validation is performed, all data should be reviewed by the Network

as a whole at the end of each calendar year. This review can include an inspection of annual plots

and summary statistics (including comparisons to historical mean, maximum and minimum

values). If errors in the data are suspected or discovered, an investigation should be conducted and

data should be corrected as necessary.

13.0 DATA COLLECTION AND VALIDATION: INTEGRATED DATA

For integrated methods, samples are collected in the field and analyzed at the NAPS laboratory in

Ottawa using ISO 17025–accredited analytical methods. Validation of these data is performed by

field, laboratory and NAPS data management personnel and requires review of information

generated at every step of the process: sample media preparation, shipping, sampling in the field,

reception and analysis in the laboratory.

Networks participating in the NAPS Program are responsible for sample handling and sampler

calibration and maintenance.

The data collection and validation requirements and recommendations are intended to ensure that

final reported data meet the NAPS Program DQO. Additional detailed procedures are documented

in specific field and lab SOP and methods.

Data verification and validation for integrated samples is a stepwise process that involves

increasingly detailed analysis of the data (Figure 13-1).

Table 13-1 Data verification and validation review

Level

Frequency

Reviewed by

Sample collection as scheduled Network

Level 0 verification upon receipt of sample from field sample-handling lab

Level 1 validation after analytical measurement sample analysis laboratory

Level 2 validation Less than 1 year

sample analysis laboratory and NAPS data

management

Level 3 validation annually or less often NAPS data management

Figure 13-1 Data process flow chart for integrated samples

13.1 Integrated Sample Metadata

Field metadata specific to integrated samples is important to assess sampler performance and the

conditions under which samples were collected. Metadata are also generated throughout the

laboratory analysis. Defined qualifier codes are assigned to samples and analytical results as

warranted.

13.2 Sample Collection

Collecting integrated samples involves:

• sample media (e.g., filters, cartridges and canisters) preparation in the laboratory

• transportation to the site

• set-up of the samplers and operation on the appropriate date and period

• collection of samples from sites

• transportation to the laboratory.

Sample collection procedures must ensure adequate identification, tracking and sample integrity.

The NAPS laboratory provides datasheets along with the sample media to field personnel. The

sample media is labelled with identification information that must be recorded on the associated

field datasheet.

The following information must be recorded on field datasheets:

• site name and ID number

• sample ID

• sampler type (model, serial number)

• sample type (e.g., routine, duplicate, field blank, travel blank)

• date and time of sampling (both start and end)

• instrument operational parameters (e.g., flow, volume, pressure)

• environmental parameters (e.g., ambient pressure and temperature).

Sample qualifiers recorded at the time of collection can be used by lab personnel to aid in the

verification and subsequent validation of samples.

Examples of sample qualifiers recorded on field datasheets include:

• sampling equipment status (e.g., warnings, malfunctions)

• sampling media not received

• damaged sampling media

• sample duration out of range

• sampling system failed leak or flow check

• environmental events (e.g., fires, construction).

Additional comments related to sample integrity or other sampling conditions (such as unusual

weather) should also be noted on the field datasheets in the appropriate comment section.

It is important that field datasheets are legible and complete and that samples are properly

packaged and returned to the lab as soon as possible. Certain sampling media have limited shelf

life and should be used according to the SOP. There may also be sample-specific handling and

shipping procedures to preserve sample integrity.

13.3 Level 0 Verification

Level 0 verification is related to sample integrity upon receipt from the field and prior to analysis.

All samples collected in the field are shipped to the laboratory along with field datasheets. Upon

receipt, samples and paperwork are inspected to verify the following:

• Contamination or damage: Visually assess for damage or potential sample

contamination, and review issues noted on the field datasheets and other issues that may

have arisen during shipment to the lab.

• Documentation completeness: Ensure field datasheets and any other required sample

documentation is present, legible and complete. Follow-up with the Network may be

necessary if questions arise or additional information is required.

• Canister leak checks: Leak checks are performed in the field, but in the case of VOC

canisters, leakage can occur during transit. As a result, canister pressure should be

measured upon receipt and compared to the final sample pressure recorded in the field.

Acceptance criteria should consider the sampling location, as the altitude at which the

sample is collected can differ from the lab, resulting in differences in measured pressure.

• Flow rate and volume: Ensure flow and volume information recorded on the field

datasheet and from instrument readings are within acceptance criteria.

• Sample date and time: Ensure sample was collected on the scheduled date, for the

specified period of time. All times should be in local standard time, and sample dates

should coincide with the applicable NAPS sampling schedule of once every three days

or once every six days.

• Sample shipment and holding time: Ensure sampling holding time criteria, as listed in

method specific SOP, have not been exceeded to help ensure the integrity of the sample.

After a review of field datasheets and other recorded information, samples are assigned qualifier

codes prior to analysis. Certain codes (e.g., damaged or unexposed sample media) will result in a

sample being invalidated and archived with no further analysis performed.

13.4 Level 1 Validation

Following sample verification, valid samples undergo gravimetric and/or chemical analysis.

Subsequently, the laboratory performs Level 1 validation, which generates the analytical results

and includes the following:

• Review of field QC results: Field quality controls include travel and field blanks plus

duplicates that are checks to evaluate sample integrity throughout the sample collection

process.

• Review of laboratory QC results: Laboratory QC checks ensure that equipment is

calibrated and maintained and that methods are followed. These checks include analysis

of lab blanks, instrument calibration, and verification of reagents and calibration

standards. Laboratory analysis conditions, such as temperature and humidity constraints,

are important for certain methods. Detailed procedures and acceptable criteria are

specified in lab methods and SOP.

Suspect analytical results are investigated and may require further review of field datasheets and

QC checks. In some cases, reanalysis may be required.

13.5 Level 2 Validation

Level 2 validation is performed by the NAPS laboratory that generated the results and the NAPS

data management, beginning with the review of Level 1 data.

Level 2 validation is to:

• check for outliers

• examine relationships between pollutants

• review summary statistics and compare with historical data.

Examples of Level 2 validation activities include:

• Negative mass: Gravimetric laboratory procedures include equilibration of filters at

controlled conditions of temperature and humidity prior to each weighing, regular use of

reference weights, and filter re-weighing. A negative mass may indicate issues with filter

weighing either before or after the sample is collected.

• Identification of outliers: Data can be reviewed on time-series plots or sorted and

screened to identify suspect data that are unusually high or low for a given pollutant at a

site.

• Expected pollutant relationships: Chemical species may exhibit consistent

relationships with other species. Certain species are expected at higher concentrations

than related species from the same sample (e.g., crustal elements such as iron are

expected to be higher in the coarse fraction than in the fine fraction of ED-XRF samples).

• Complementary measurement checks: In some cases, more than one measurement of

a species is performed on a sample (e.g., metals analyzed by ICP-MS and ED-XRF).

Measurements that do not agree are investigated.

• Reconstructed PM mass balance checks: Reconstructed mass from major chemical

components of a sample is expected to be close to the gravimetric mass measured. This

involves assumptions in mass calculations including particle-bound water.

Reconstructed masses that do not agree with measured mass are investigated (Figure 13-

2).

• Pollutant events: These events are often confirmed by examining multiple species that

may exhibit similar behaviour and extend over a wide area.

• Source-influenced pollutants: Pollutant sources surrounding the monitoring site (e.g.,

spikes in VOC would be expected only from nearby sources).

• Meteorological parameters: Meteorological parameters may impact pollutant levels

(e.g., stagnation events or inversions, temperature, wind direction and speed).

Figure 13-2 Reconstructed PM

2.5

mass by major component for the 10 highest

mass days (2012–2015)

During Level 2 validation, data that do not appear representative of the time or place monitored

are investigated. Therefore, when necessary, samples may be reanalyzed in an attempt to rule out

issues with the original analysis.

Suspect data or outliers should nevertheless be considered valid unless there is sufficient evidence

to invalidate. Justification for decisions regarding validity of suspect data or outliers should be

documented in data validation logs.

13.6 Level 3 Validation

Level 3 validation is defined as a review of validated data by someone independent of both field

operations and the laboratory analysis process. The intent of this level of review is not to repeat

previous validation tasks, but rather to ensure that data have undergone an independent review.

The independent reviewer should have extensive knowledge of air pollution and meteorology and

be familiar with the sites to evaluate data based on expected or historical behaviour.

Figure 13-3 Cobalt concentrations, 2010–2016

Data reviews performed on a regular basis should include data from at least a one-year period,

along with comparisons to other existing data sets.

Level 3 validation includes:

• screening for outliers and flagging for further investigation (Figure 13-3)

• comparing data sets, including continuous data

• comparing data against similar or nearby sites (“buddy” sites)

• analyzing using other techniques (e.g., statistical tests)

• examining meteorological data.

Data identified as suspect should be brought to the attention of the data originators for

investigation, modification or justification.

13.7 Post Validation

Data are posted on a quarterly basis to the public NAPS Data Products portal. Networks should

review posted data and report issues or inconsistencies to NAPS Data Management. Other data

users may find issues which should also be brought to the attention of NAPS Data Management.

If changes are made to the data, updates will be posted to the portal and reflected in the “change

log” documentation.

14.0 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

14.1 Continuous Data Reporting

For continuous data, Networks are responsible for reporting quality-assured data, as specified in

this Guidance, to NAPS Data Management for archiving in the CWAQD. NAPS Data

Management coordinates continuous data dissemination to the NAPS Data Products portal (Figure

14-1).

Figure 14-1 Continuous data flow

14.1.1 Real-time Reporting of Continuous Data

Networks may make data available to the public in “near real-time.” These data have typically

undergone only the automated screening portion of data verification and should be made available

with disclaimers indicating that data are not fully validated and reviewed.

Networks participate in national and international real-time reporting initiatives such as:

• ECCC’s AQHI: The AQHI is a multi-pollutant index based on the combined

concentrations of PM

2.5

, O

and NO

. This index was developed through a federal

program coordinated jointly by ECCC and Health Canada and is designed to provide the

public with health-risk information (e.g., low, moderate, high or very high health risk).

ECCC, in partnership with a number of provinces and municipalities, reports AQHI

indices on their websites and nationwide through the Government of Canada website.

• Info-Smog: ECCC has been producing daily air quality forecasts and timely smog

warnings for Québec. The Info-Smog Program is available for 95% of Québec’s

population. The index reports on three categories of air quality: good, fair and poor.

When air pollutant concentrations are likely to reach or actually do reach levels harmful

to the health and environment, ECCC issues a smog warning for the affected areas. The

warning is accompanied by advice on protecting health and improving local air quality.

• AirNow: Networks can upload real-time data to the US EPA–sponsored AirNow

website. The AirNow program provides regional summaries and maps with air quality

indices and forecasts using data from participating sites across Canada, the United States

and several countries worldwide.

14.1.2 Continuous Data Reporting to the CWAQD

The CWAQD is the national archive for continuous air pollutants (CO, NO/NO

/NO

, O

, PM

2.5

and SO

). Networks transfer their validated data to NAPS Data Management. Data transfer

usually occurs annually (six months after calendar year-end) by File Transfer Protocol (FTP) or e-

mail (for small data sets). Acceptable file formats are flat files (.xlsx or .csv), DR DAS custom and

XML formats.

Final validated data should be submitted in hour-ending average format (e.g., minute data collected

between 01:01 and 02:00 are averaged and reported as the 02:00 hour), in local standard time, with

no adjustment for daylight saving time. All hourly data should be reported to at least 5 decimal

places.

Invalid and missing data are noted with a flag and/or a -9999 value as defined in the transfer

method SOP.

Data in the CWAQD should always reflect the most current validated data. Changes to data should

be resubmitted to NAPS Data Management by the Network and documented by both.

14.1.3 Posting Continuous Data to the NAPS Data Portal

Data received from Networks, from the previous calendar year, are prepared by NAPS Data

Management and posted to the NAPS data portal in the form of hourly data and statistical summary

files. Preliminary data are posted after Networks’ submissions are compiled (late summer). A final

version is posted after further review (by the end of the calendar year).

Detailed information on the format and the use of these files is available on the NAPS Data portal

home page.

Data summaries are also reported for

various averaging periods and statistical

forms, including: 1-hour, 8-hour, 24-

hour, daily maximum 1-hour, daily

maximum 8-hour and daily means. 8-

hour means are running 8-hour averages

for each hour of the year, with the result

reported for the end hour (Figure 14-

2). Daily maximum 8-hour values are

the maximum 8-hour mean values for

each day of the year. 24-hour means are

running 24-hour averages for each hour

of the year, with the result reported for

the end hour. Daily means are based on

the average hourly concentrations

recorded from 01 to 24 hours.

Figure 14-2 Calculation of Daily Maximum

8-hour Ozone

Table 14-1 Required significant figures and units by parameter

Parameter

Averaging

time

Minimum

significant figures and units

hour

0.01 ppm

NO/NO

/NO

hour

1 ppb

hour

1 ppb

hour

0.1 ppb

2.5

hour

1 µg/m

at actual temperature and pressure

1 Rounding convention: for digits ≥ 5, round up to the nearest required significant figure; for digits < 5, round down to the nearest required

significant figure (e.g., 4.5 rounds to 5 and 4.4 rounds to 4).

14.2 Integrated Data Reporting

The NAPS Data Management coordinates integrated data dissemination to the NAPS Data portal

(Figure 14-3).

Figure 14-3 Integrated data flow

14.2.1 Integrated Data Reporting to the CWAQD

The NAPS Laboratory reports all sample information, analysis results and qualifier codes to NAPS

Data Management. They are responsible for storing all sample information in the CWAQD as well

as reporting validated data to the public.

The NAPS Laboratory also reports sample information (metadata) to NAPS Data Management.

These reports contain:

• sample site ID

• sampling date, time and volume

• information on the sampling media and equipment

• all field and sampling lab information and qualifier codes.

The NAPS laboratory reports Level 1 validated data to NAPS Data Management. These reports

also contain:

• information about sample preparation

• analytical method and equipment

• qualifier codes associated with the analysis.

The NAPS Data Management loads the reports into the CWAQD. At this point, NAPS Data

Management collaborates with the NAPS Laboratory to conduct Level 2 validation of the data.

14.2.2 Integrated Data Reporting to the NAPS Data Portal

On a quarterly basis, NAPS Data Management reports Level 3 validated data, including associated

validation codes, to the NAPS Data Products portal.

Integrated data are posted in Excel files to the portal by year. Detailed information on the format

and the use of these files is available on the NAPS Data Products portal.

14.3 Other NAPS Data Reporting Requirements

NAPS data support air management policies and reporting obligations under major national and

international air quality agreements such as the Canadian AQMS and the Ozone Annex to the 1991

Canada-US Air Quality Agreement. Data provided by NAPS support public information tools on

air quality conditions, including governments’ air quality websites, CESI and the US AirNow

mapping site. Data are also used to track trends in ambient air quality in communities (urban and

rural) across the country; support health and environmental research and analysis; conduct

environmental assessments; verify emissions inventories; conduct source apportionment analysis;

validate and calibrate air quality models, remote sensing and air quality forecasting; and develop

and assess new monitoring technologies.

NAPS data support ECCC’s risk management, monitoring and enforcement actions for targeted

chemicals under the Chemicals Management Plan and CEPA. The NAPS Program has a large

number of clients from government, consulting groups, Canadian and international non-

governmental organizations, industry, academia, media and the public.

Below are some examples of reporting obligations that use NAPS data.

14.3.1 Data Reported to the Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators (CESI)

The CESI Program provides data and information to track Canada’s performance on key

environmental sustainability issues, including climate change and air quality, water quality and

availability, and protection of nature.

Air quality indicators have been developed at the national, regional and station level. These

indicators are a means to present the state of air quality and trends across Canada on an annual

basis using data collected from the NAPS Program.

14.3.2 Ozone Annex to the 1991 Canada-US Air Quality Agreement

Beginning in 2002, as part of biennial progress reports, Canada and the United States agreed to

provide the following ambient air quality information:

• ambient O

concentration trends, reported in the form of the applicable standards

• ambient VOC concentration trends

• ambient NO

concentration trends.

Ambient air quality information is reported for all relevant monitors located within 500 km of the

border between Canada and the lower 48 states of the United States.

14.3.3 Air Quality Management System (AQMS)

In October 2012, jurisdictions, with the exception of Québec, agreed to begin implementing a new

AQMS. Québec supports the general objectives of AQMS and is collaborating with jurisdictions

on developing other elements of the system, notably air zones and airsheds. AQMS provides a

comprehensive framework for collaborative action across Canada to further protect human health

and the environment from harmful air pollutants through continuous improvement of air quality.

The key elements of AQMS include new CAAQS, active air quality management at the local and

regional levels, industrial emissions requirements for industrial sectors and equipment groups, and

intergovernmental collaboration to reduce mobile source emissions (Figure 14-4).

CAAQS are established with the goal of protecting human health and the environment. They are

intended to drive continuous air quality improvement across Canada.

The air quality data collected by the NAPS Program are used by governments to assess and report

on air quality and develop programs to address priority air quality issues in air zones as part of

AQMS.

Figure 14-4 Air Quality Management System

14.3.4 NAPS Annual Data Summary Reports

NAPS started publishing annual data summaries in 1972. NAPS Data Management continues to

publish annual data summaries on national air quality to the NAPS Data Products portal.

15.0 ASSESSMENTS AND CORRECTIVE ACTION

This Guidance is intended to assist Networks in developing and implementing QA/QC for their

ambient air monitoring program. By following these guidelines, the NAPS DQO should be met.

Routine assessments of network operations provide assurance that the monitoring systems and data

management procedures are of sufficient quality to meet NAPS DQO, and they identify where

improvements might be necessary (Table15-1).

Types of assessments performed in the NAPS Program include:

• Performance and systems audits that are conducted either by ECCC auditors or other

organizations and that are separate from the host operating Network.

• The NAPS Inter-agency Measurement Study, in which participants analyze an unknown

sample gas concentration provided by the NAPS Applied Metrology Laboratory.

• DQA, which involve the statistical analysis of air quality data to determine if reported

data are meeting program objectives and DQO.

Note that audits and assessments of the NAPS Laboratory for analysis of integrated samples

include:

• performance and systems audits by accredited bodies

• participation in blind sample tests and round robins with independent labs.

Table 15-1 ECCC audit and assessment schedule

Assessment type Frequency

Performance or systems audit every 2 years at selected sites (per Network)

NAPS Inter-agency Measurement Study every 3 years

DQA annually

Number of sites will depend on time and resources available and may be performed upon request by a Network.

15.1 Performance and Systems Audits

Performance and systems audits are independent evaluations of data quality. A systems audit

reviews the entire monitoring system documentation and procedures for the station siting,

instrumentation calibration and maintenance, and data collection and validation. A performance

audit focusses on station operation (e.g., instrument performance, inlet manifold, siting,

maintenance, safety). These audits can be performed either independently or concurrently.

The Network should ensure that all site documentation is readily available (e.g., NQAP, SOP, field

and QC records) and should ensure that all sites, instruments and data collection systems are easily

and safely accessible. Discussions prior to the audit are useful for reviewing schedules and

anticipated activities, and for addressing preliminary questions.

Prior to a scheduled ECCC audit, the Network will receive a letter and a questionnaire. The auditors

will use the responses to familiarize themselves with individual site specifications and to better

prepare for the audit. Example questionnaires are included in Appendix C.

A post-audit meeting to review major findings and corrective actions may be required. It should

involve ECCC auditors and Network personnel (e.g., personnel from field operations, QA/QC,

data management and reporting).

Specific components of both performance and systems audits are discussed below.

15.1.1 Performance Audit

Performance audit procedures are instrument-specific and generally follow procedures used for

verification and calibrations. These include multi-point checks for gas analyzers and flow checks

for continuous PM and integrated samplers.

The following are important considerations for performance audits:

• no adjustments should be made to the measurements system prior to the audit

• audit gases and measurement devices must be certified against the NAPS reference

standards or other NIST traceable sources

• instrument readings should be stable before being recorded

• readings should be recorded from the data collection system and verified against the

analyzer’s display to ensure that readings are comparable.

Performance is evaluated by comparing audit results with the NAPS acceptance criteria (Section

11.0). To facilitate comparisons, an Excel workbook template is available for download from the

NAPS document-sharing website. This workbook includes instrument-specific spreadsheets that

calculate the differences between readings and reference standards, providing a pass/fail

indication. Audit results that do not meet the acceptance criteria should be addressed by the

Network and may require corrective action.

15.1.2 Systems Audit

A systems audit is primarily an administrative review of all documentation for the entire

monitoring process to ensure that the Network is following procedures outlined in this Guidance

and in the Network’s NQAP.

An example of a system audit is available in Appendix C.

15.1.3 Audit Response

Within 30 days of an ECCC audit, auditors will provide a summary report to the Network. The

report will include:

• audit date and site name

• audit team members

• Network staff involved in station operation

• summary and conclusions regarding audit results, required corrective actions and

recommended improvements

• attachments or appendices that include audit results or performance evaluation

spreadsheets used.

Within 90 days of receiving the audit report, the Network will provide an audit summary response

that includes a plan to address findings and issues highlighted in the report. Findings that may

compromise data quality or indicate that an instrument is not meeting acceptance criteria should

be addressed as soon as possible to avoid data loss.

If the Network disputes any audit findings, the response should provide a detailed justification or

rationale. All documentation of audits, including any findings, corrective actions, disputes and

resolutions should be kept on file.

15.2 Inter-Agency Measurement Study

The NAPS Applied Metrology laboratory coordinates an inter-agency comparison study. The

objective of the inter-agency measurement study is to provide information on the accuracy and

method bias of the calibration systems used across the network.

For this study, gas cylinders containing an unknown concentration of NO, SO

or CO are sent to

participants for analysis. Written procedures are also provided and should be followed closely to

help ensure consistent application of the tests across participants.

After analyzing the cylinder, participants should return results and information promptly. The

reference gas concentration in the cylinder is verified against primary standards at the NAPS

Applied Metrology laboratory and is the average of all measured concentrations before and after

testing by participants. For this study, values are expected to be within ±4% of the reference

concentration.

Participants are contacted with the test results within 30 days after the return of the cylinder.

Results outside of the ±4% limit should trigger an investigation and possible corrective action.

The final report summarizes the results from all participants.

15.3 Data Quality Assessments (DQA)

DQA involve the statistical analysis of air quality data to help determine if reported data meet

NAPS DQO. These assessments can help Networks evaluate overall systems performance and

revise guidelines or objectives as necessary.

Assessments may include:

• Network Data Quality Reports

o Precision and bias: estimates both bias and precision derived from the daily

or weekly QC checks results for the four continuous gaseous methods (CO,

, O

, and SO

). These reports should be aggregated for each method, for

all methods at each site and for the Network as a whole. Summaries should

also include annual QC checks completeness

o Continuous PM performance: estimates instrument performance using the

results from the flow rate QC checks and leak checks. Summaries should also

include annual QC checks completeness

o Annual data completeness: includes percent completeness for each

continuous method per site. Data completeness information accompanies the

pollutant-specific annual summary files available on the NAPS Data portal.

• ECCC Reports

o Five-year NAPS audit summary report summarizing audit results by

parameters and for all provinces and territories.

• ECCC and Network data Reports

o Data comparisons such as between continuous PM

2.5

FEM versus integrated

NAPS RM (Figure 15-1).

The assessments can help inform either the need for corrective action, or a reassessment of DQO

for future updates of the Guidance.

Figure 15-1 Collocated PM

2.5

continuous monitor vs NAPS RM measurements

REFERENCES

Brauer, M., and Hystad, P. 2012. Developing a Monitor Classification System for the National Air Pollution

Surveillance System. University of British Columbia School of Environmental Health and School of

Population and Public Health. Report to Environment Canada, Ottawa.

Brauer, M., Hystad, P., and Cervantes, A. 2013. Refining the NAPS Monitor Classification, Extending It to Inform

Population Exposure Assessment, and Identifying High-Traffic Air Pollution Locations in Vancouver.

University of British Columbia School of Environmental Health and School of Population and Public Health.

Report to Environment Canada, Ottawa.

Brauer, M., Hystad, P., and Poplawski, K. 2011. Assessing the Spatial Representativeness of PM

2.5

and O

Measurements from the National Air Pollutant Surveillance System. University of British Columbia School

of Environmental Health and School of Population and Public Health. Report to Environment Canada,

Ottawa.

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. 2011. Ambient Air Monitoring Protocol for PM

2.5

and Ozone.

Available online: www.ccme.ca

Environment Canada. 2004. National Air Pollution Surveillance Network Quality Assurance and Quality Control

Guidelines. Report No. AAQD 2004-1. Environment Canada Analysis and Air Quality Division, Ottawa.

Evans, G.J., Jeong, C.-H., Sabaliauskas, K., Jadidian, P., Aldersley, S., Larocque, H., and Herod, D. 2011. Design of

a Near-road Monitoring Strategy for Canada. Southern Ontario Centre for Atmospheric Aerosol Research.

Report produced for Environment Canada, Ottawa.

Health Effects Institute. 2010. Traffic-related Air Pollution: A Critical Review of the Literature on Emissions,

Exposure, and Health effects. Final Version of Special Report No. 17. Health Effects Institute, Boston.

Available online: http://pubs.healtheffects.org/view.php?id=334

(viewed 2017-04-17).

RWDI Consulting Engineers and Scientists. 2016. Recommendations on Siting Criteria for SO2 Air Quality

Monitoring. Conducted under the National Air Pollution Surveillance (NAPS) Program. Environment

Canada Contract # 3000601059.

Statistics Canada. 2017a. Dictionary, Census of Population. 2016. Statistics Canada catalogue no. 98-301-X. Ottawa.

Ottawa. http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/rt-td/population-eng.cfm

(viewed 2017-06-

22).

Statistics Canada. 2017b. The Daily, Wednesday, February 8, 2017. Component of Statistics Canada catalogue no.

11-001-X. Ottawa. Ottawa. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/170208/dq170208a-eng.htm

(viewed

2017-06-22).

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 2014. Traffic Monitoring Guide. Chapter 1

Traffic Monitoring Theory, Technology and Concepts. Available online:

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/tmguide/tmg_2013/traffic-monitoring-theory.cfm

(viewed

2018-04-30).

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1997. Guidance for Network Design and Optimum Site Exposure

for PM

2.5

and PM

. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, December 1997. Available online:

www.epa.gov/ttnamti1/files/ambient/pm25/network/r-99-022.pdf

(viewed 2017-04-17).

U.S. EPA. 2006. Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 53, Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and

Equivalent Method. Available online: https://www3.epa.gov/ttnamti1/files/ambient/pm25/pt5006.pdf

(viewed 2017-06-07).

U.S. EPA. 2018. List of Designated Reference and Equivalent Methods. Available online:

www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/criteria.html

(viewed 2017-06-11).

APPENDIX A – AMBIENT AIR MONITORING EQUIPMENT

APPENDIX B – NAPS METHOD AND SOP REFERENCE LIST

Methods and SOP are listed here for reference purposes. Updates are implemented regularly, and

this list follows the latest revisions of the documents. The NAPS document sharing website should

be referred to for the most complete current list.

Table B-1 NAPS Operations methods and SOP

Field methods and SOP

Continuous instrument operation

Title

Author

Continuous Measurement of Ozone in Ambient Air by Ultraviolet (UV) Photometry

ECCC,

NAPS Operations

Operating Procedures for BAM

-1020 PM

2.5

Monitors in the NAPS Network

ECCC,

NAPS Operations

National Air Pollution Surveillance (NAPS) Network RM for the Measurement of

2.5

Concentration in Ambient Air Using Filter Collection and Gravimetric Mass

Determination

ECCC, AAQS, AQRD

Continuous Measurement of Carbon Dioxide (CO) in Ambient Air by Nondispersive

Infrared Photometry with Gas Filter Correlation (GFC)

ECCC,

NAPS Operations

Continuous Measurement of Nitrogen Dioxide (NO

) in Ambient Air by

Chemiluminescence

ECCC, NAPS Operation

Continuous Measurement of Sulphur Dioxide (SO

) in Ambient Air by Ultraviolent

(UV) Fluorescence

ECCC,

NAPS Operations

Thermo

Synchronized Hybrid Ambient Real-time Particulate (SHARP5030) Monitor

Operating Instructions

ECCC,

NAPS Operations

Manual/

integrated instrument operation SOP

Title

Author

Partisol 2000i

-D Dichotomous Operating Instructions

ECCC,

NAPS Operations

Dichotomous Partisol

-Plus model 2025 Sequential Air Sampler

ECCC,

NAPS Operations

Met One Super SASS

-Plus Operating Instructions

ECCC,

NAPS Operations

Operating Instructions for RM Environmental VOC Sampler Model 910C with

sequential 912

ECCC,

NAPS Operations

Operating Procedure of Model 926 Carbonyl

Sampler

ECCC,

NAPS Operations

Environment Canada PUF Sampler Instructions

ECCC,

NAPS Operations

Data

management SOP

Title

Author

Standard Operating Procedure for NAPS FTP

ECCC, NAPS

data

anagement

Sample

management

Title

Author

Procedures for

Preparing and Receiving PAH Canisters and Filters

ECCC, AAQS, AQRD

Determination of the Weight of Particulate Matter Collected on Teflon® Membrane

Filters

ECCC, AAQS, AQRD

Preparation, Shipping, and Unloading of ChemComb Cartridges

ECCC, AAQS, AQRD

VOC Sample Management Procedures

ECCC, AAQS, AQRD

APPENDIX C – TECHNICAL SYSTEMS AUDIT QUESTIONNAIRES

a) Network

(Attach organization flow chart if available)

KEY INDIVIDUALS

PROVINCIAL/TERRITORIAL NATIONAL AIR

POLLUTION SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM (NAPS)

MANAGERS:

QUALITY ASSURANCE OFFICER:

FIELD OPERATIONS CO-ORDINATOR:

DATA CO-ORDINATOR/ANALYSTS:

FIELD OPERATORS:

COMMENTS:

KEY RESPONSIBILITIES

ACTIVITY

RESPONSIBLE PARTY

INSTRUMENT REPAIR

CERTIFICATION OF STANDARDS (PROTOCOL GAS,

FLOW STANDARDS, ETC)

DATA VERIFICATION AND REDUCTION

COMMENTS:

b) Site and system design

SITE SPECIFICATIONS

SITE NAME

SITE NUMBER/ID

SITE ADDRESS

CITY, PROVINCE

SITE COORDINATES

(WGS84 DATUM)

LATITUDE (DECIMAL DEGREES): LONGITUDE (DECIMAL DEGREES):

ELEVATION (M):

LIST OF MONITORED

POLLUTANTS:

NAPS PARAMETERS:

NON-NAPS PARAMETERS:

DISTANCE TO

NEAREST ROADWAY

NEAREST

NAPS SITE CLASSIFICATION

URBANIZATION o LARGE o MEDIUM o SMALL o NON-URBAN

NEIGHBOURHOOD

POPULATION

o < 500 o 500–9,999 o 10,000–49,999 o 50,000–99,999

o 100,000–149,999 o > 149,999

LOCAL LAND USE o RESIDENTIAL o AGRICULTURAL o OPEN o FORESTED

o COMMERCIAL o INDUSTRIAL o PARKS o WATER

SITE TYPE o GENERAL POPULATION EXPOSURE o REGIONAL BACKGROUND

o POINT SOURCE–INFLUENCED o TRANSPORTATION-SOURCE INFUENCED

PROVIDE A MAP OF SITE AND SURROUNDING TERRAIN AND FEATURES

PROVIDE RECENT SITE PHOTOGRAPHS (ALL QUADRANTS FROM THE SITE AND LOOKING AT THE

SITE)

COMMENTS:

INSTRUMENT INFORMATION

MANUFACTURER

MODEL

SERIAL NUMBER

HEIGHT OF

INLET

ABOVE

GROUND (M)

HEIGHT OF INLET

ABOVE ROOF TOP

(M)

UNRESTRICTED

AIRFLOW IN AT LEAST 3

QUADRANTS

(YES, NO)

SAMPLING INLET SYSTEM/MANIFOLD DESIGN

BRIEFLY DESCRIBE THE SAMPLE

MANIFOLD TYPE USED.

WHAT IS THE RESIDENCE TIME?

WHAT MATERIAL IS USED FOR

SAMPLING LINES?

WHAT IS THE HEIGHT OF THE

SAMPLING INLET?

YES

COMMENT

IS MANIFOLD EQUIPPED WITH A

BLOWER/PUMP?

HOW IS THE AIR FLOW THROUGH

THE MANIFOLD VERIFIED?

COMMENTS:

c) Documentation and records

QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN (NQAP)

TITLE AUTHOR

DATE OF LAST

NQAP REVIEW

DATE OF LAST

NQAP REVISION

COMMENTS:

STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES (SOP)

TITLE AUTHOR DATE OF LAST

SOP REVIEW

DATE OF LAST

SOP REVISION

COMMENTS:

NETWORK

DOCUMENTATION

ARE EACH OF THE FOLLOWING SITE REQUIREMENTS DOCUMENTED IN A NETWORK MONITORING

PLAN OR NQAP OR OTHERWISE AVAILABLE AS OFFICIAL RECORDS?

YES

COMMENT

STREET ADDRESS AND GEOGRAPHIC

COORDINATES?

MONITORED

POLLUTANTS

PHOTOGRAPHS OF EACH SITE AND ITS

ASSOCIATED CARDINAL VIEWS?

START

-UP AND SHUTDOWN DATES?

DOCUMENTATION OF INSTRUMENTATION

AND MAINTENANCE RECORDS?

WHO HAS CUSTODY OF CURRENT

NETWORK DOCUMENTS?

NAME: TITLE:

HOW OFTEN IS

NETWORK SITING

REVIEWED?

FREQUENCY:

COMMENTS:

d) Routine operation

SITE MAINTENANCE

ON AVERAGE, HOW OFTEN ARE SITES

VISITED?

ON AVERAGE, HOW MANY SITES DOES A

SINGLE OPERATOR HAVE RESPONSIBILITY

FOR?

WHAT IS YOUR SCHEDULE FOR CLEANING

MANIFOLDS?

WHAT IS USED TO PERFORM THE

CLEANING?

YES

COMMENT

IS THERE A CONDITIONING PERIOD FOR

THE MANIFOLD AFTER CLEANING?

AT WHAT FREQUENCY ARE LINES

CHANGED?

AT WHAT FREQUENCY ARE PARTICULATE

FILTERS FOR GAS ANALYZERS REPLACED?

YES

COMMENT

DO SITES EMPLOY UNINTERRUPTABLE

POWER SUPPLY (UPS) DEVICES?

EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR

MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS?

YES

COMMENT

IS TRAINING PROVIDED?

IS ANY ONGOING TRAINING

AVAILABLE/PROVIDED?

WHERE IS MAINTENANCE PERFORMED?

•

FIELD STATION

•

HEADQUARTERS

•

SENT TO MANUFACTURER (AT THE DIRECTION OF

EC NAPS)

•

SENT TO EC NAPS

DESCRIBE ADEQUACY AND

AVAILABILITY OF SPARE PARTS,

INSTRUMENTS AND TOOLS.

ARE MANUALS AND METHOD SOP

AVAILABLE TO THE OPERATOR TO

PERFORM ANY NECESSARY

MAINTENANCE OR REPAIR?

FIELD

DOCUMENTATION

WHAT TYPE OF LOGS ARE MAINTAINED

FOR THIS SITE?

(E.G., MAINTENANCE, CALIBRATION, SITE

CONDITION/ MAINTENANCE,

INSTRUMENTS)

INDICATE IF ELECTRONIC (E) OR PAPER

(P)

WHO REVIEWS AND VERIFIES THE LOGS

FOR ADEQUACY OF INFORMATION

ENTERED?

HOW IS CONTROL OF LOGS MAINTAINED?

ARE THE COMPLETED LOGS ARCHIVED?

IF SO WHERE?

WHAT OTHER RECORDS ARE USED?

YES NO COMMENT

ZERO SPAN RECORD?

GAS USAGE LOG? ADD DETAILS

CAL/SPAN, EXPIRY DATES, ETC

MAINTENANCE LOG?

RECORD OF AUDITS?

ARE CALIBRATION RESULTS AVAILABLE

TO FIELD OPERATORS?

PROVIDE EXAMPLE FIELD VERIFICATION/

CALIBRATION WORKSHEETS

e) Verification and calibration/QC checks

MULTI-POINT VERIFICATION/CALIBRATION FREQUENCY (FIELD INSTRUMENTS)

INSTRUMENT

ZERO/SPAN CHECK TYPE

(INTERNAL, WITH CALIBRATOR, ETC)

FREQUENCY

COMMENTS:

TRACEABILITY

OF CALIBRATION AND TRANSFER STANDARDS

YES

COMMENT

ARE ALL FLOW-MEASUREMENT

TRANSFER STANDARDS CERTIFIED?

FREQUENCY OF CERTIFICATION? BY

WHOM?

ARE ALL GAS CYLINDERS CERTIFIED?

FREQUENCY OF CERTIFICATION? BY

WHOM?

ARE ALL DILUTION CALIBRATORS

CERTIFIED?

FREQUENCY OF CERTIFICATION? BY

WHOM?

ARE ALL RELATIVE HUMIDITY TRANSFER

STANDARDS CERTIFIED?

FREQUENCY OF CERTIFICATION? BY

WHOM?

ARE ALL TEMPERATURE TRANSFER

STANDARDS COMPARED?

(TEMPERATURE PROBE ON DELTACAL)

FREQUENCY OF

CERTIFICATION? BY

WHOM?

WHERE DO FIELD OPERATORS OBTAIN

GASEOUS STANDARDS?

ARE COPIES OF CERTIFICATIONS OF ALL

STANDARDS CURRENTLY IN USE

READILY AVAILABLE TO QUALIFIED FIELD

TECHNICIANS?

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING

FIELD TRANSFER

STANDARDS?

COMMENTS:

f) Data collection and management

SOFTWARE DOCUMENTATION

YES NO COMMENT

DOES DOCUMENTATION EXIST FOR ALL

DATA PROCESSING SOFTWARE?

IS SOFTWARE PURCHASED, WRITTEN IN

HOUSE, OR PURCHASED, WITH

MODIFICATIONS IN HOUSE?

SOFTWARE TITLE:

DATE OF LATEST VERSION:

YES

COMMENT

IS A USER MANUAL AVAILABLE TO DATA

MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL FOR ALL

SOFTWARE CURRENTLY IN USE?

ARE COMPUTER SYSTEM CONTENTS

BACKED UP REGULARLY?

WHAT IS THE RECOVERY CAPABILITY?

(HOW MUCH TIME AND DATA WOULD BE LOST)

YES

COMMENT

ARE COMPUTER SYSTEM CONTENTS

BACKED UP REGULARLY?

ARE THESE TESTS DOCUMENTED?

HOW ARE SOFTWARE VERSIONS TRACKED?

YES

COMMENT

IS A UNIQUE LOG-IN REQUIRED FOR

PROGRAMS WHERE DATA CAN BE

CHANGED?

ARE RAW VALUES MAINTAINED WITHIN

THE DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM?

IS THERE A PROCESS IN PLACE FOR

ADJUSTING DATA WHERE NEEDED?

DOES THE DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

SUPPORT THE FUNCTIONALITY FOR

VALIDATION BY MULTIPLE USERS WITH

DIFFERENT LEVELS OF REVIEW?

COMMENTS:

100

DATA COLLECTION (CONTINUOUS DATA)

YES NO COMMENT

DO YOU FOLLOW A PRESCRIBED

PROCEDURE, DESCRIPTION, OR A

CHART THAT SHOWS A COMPLETE DATA

FLOW FROM POINT OF ACQUISITION TO

POINT OF SUBMISSION? IF YES,

IDENTIFY THE AUTHOR.

ARE DATA HANDLING PROCEDURES

DOCUMENTED FOR DATA FROM

CONTINUOUS ANALYZERS?

INDICATE BELOW THE FORMAT AND MEDIUM OF DATA SUBMITTED TO THE DATA PROCESSING SECTION

REPORTING NETWORK

DATA MEDIUM

FORMAT

HOW ARE RAW DATA RECORDS ARCHIVED AT THE SITE?

DESCRIBE ALL FIELDS THAT ARE INCLUDED WITH RAW DATA (FLAGS, DIAGNOSTICS,

VERIFICATION/CALIBRATION RESULTS, ETC.)

HOW OFTEN ARE DATA RECEIVED AT THE PROCESSING CENTRE FROM THE FIELD SITES AND

MONITORING NETWORK?

HOW ARE THE DATA ENTERED INTO THE DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM? MANUAL OR AUTOMATED

TRANSCRIPTION?

HOW ARE DATA STORED AT THE PROCESSING CENTRE?

HOW FAR BACK ARE DATA STORED?

WHAT METADATA ARE STORED IN THE DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM?

ARE DATA SCREENED AGAINST USER-DEFINED RULES AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA WHEN LOADED

INTO THE DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM?

HOW ARE YOU ALERTED TO AN INSTRUMENT MALFUNCTION?

101

IS THERE DOCUMENTATION ACCOMPANYING THE DATA REGARDING ANY MEDIA CHANGES,

TRANSCRIPTIONS, AND/OR FLAGS THAT HAVE BEEN PLACED INTO THE DATA BEFORE DATA ARE

RELEASED TO THE PROCESSING CENTER? DESCRIBE.

IS THERE A PROCESS IN PLACE TO VERIFY THE TIME-STAMP

ASSOCIATED WITH EACH DATA RECORD

IS ACCURATE?

DATA VALIDATION AND CORRECTION (CONTINUOUS DATA)

YES NO COMMENT

DO DATA VALIDATION GUIDELINES EXIST

THAT OUTLINE THE VALIDATION

PROCESS?

ARE FIELD LOGBOOKS OR SITE

OPERATOR INPUT USED DURING THE

DATA VALIDATION PROCESS?

IF YES, HOW IS THIS INFORMATION USED

IN TERMS OF DATA VALIDITY?

HOW MANY DATA REVIEW STEPS EXIST?

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR EACH STEP?

IS THERE A REQUIREMENT FOR THE

MINIMUM NUMBER OF DATA POINTS THAT

ARE NEEDED TO CREATE A VALID

HOURLY AVERAGE?

HAVE VALIDATION CRITERIA, APPLICABLE

TO ALL DATA PROCESSED BY THE

REPORTING NETWORK, BEEN

ESTABLISHED AND DOCUMENTED?

IF YES, INDICATE DOCUMENT WHERE

SUCH CRITERIA CAN BE FOUND (TITLE,

REVISION DATE).

ARE ZERO/SPAN RESULTS OR OTHER

CALIBRATION DIAGNOSTICS FLAGGED BY

THE DATALOGGER?

ARE AMBIENT DATA CORRECTED BASED

ON ZERO/SPAN RESULTS?

IF SO, PLEASE DESCRIBE:

DO DOCUMENTED DATA VALIDATION CRITERIA ADDRESS LIMITS FOR THE FOLLOWING AND IS THERE

A PLAN IN PLACE IF ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA ARE NOT MET?

OPERATIONAL PARAMETERS SUCH AS

STATION TEMPERATURE, RANGE TESTS

AND/OR FLOW RATES

102

ZERO/SPAN CHECKS FOR GASEOUS

ANALYZERS

OTHER CHECKS UNIQUE TO A

MEASUREMENT SYSTEM (FLOW,

TEMPERATURE, PRESSURE, ETC.)

OUTLIER TESTS AS PART OF THE

SCREENING PROCESS

MANUAL DATA CHECKS

ARE THERE METRICS IN PLACE TO

COMPARE VALIDATED DATA TO DATA

QUALITY OBJECTIVES?

ARE CHANGES TO THE DATA

DOCUMENTED?

HOW ARE DATA MARKED AS INVALID?

ARE JUSTIFICATIONS FOR INVALIDATING

DATA DOCUMENTED?

ARE CHANGES PERFORMED ACCORDING

TO CURRENT SOP OR NQAP?

IF NOT, DESCRIBE:

WHO HAS AUTHORITY FOR APPROVING CORRECTIONS?

HOW ARE THESE CORRECTIONS DOCUMENTED?

ARE DATA VALIDATION SUMMARIES

PREPARED AT EACH CRITICAL POINT IN

THE MEASUREMENT PROCESS OR

INFORMATION FLOW AND FORWARDED

WITH THE APPLICABLE DATA SET TO THE

NEXT LEVEL OF VALIDATION?

PLEASE INDICATE THE POINTS WHERE

SUCH SUMMARIES ARE PERFORMED

ARE DATA EVER DELETED?

IF YES, WHAT CRITERIA ARE APPLIED FOR

DATA TO BE DELETED?

WHAT CRITERIA ARE APPLIED TO CAUSE DATA TO BE REPROCESSED?

ARE GROUPS SUPPLYING DATA

PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW

DATA AND CORRECT ERRONEOUS

ENTRIES?

IF YES, HOW?

103

ARE ZERO/SPAN AND VERIFICATION/

CALIBRATION DATA REVIEWED AS PART

OF THE VALIDATION PROCESS?

DO DATA VALIDATION ACCEPTANCE

CRITERIA EXIST FOR THESE CHECKS?

DESCRIBE THE DATA HANDLING PROCESS WHEN THESE CHECKS ARE OUTSIDE

OF ACCEPTABLE LIMITS:

ARE ZERO/SPAN AND

VERIFICATION/CALIBRATION DATA

CHECKED PRIOR TO SUBMISSION?

IS A FINAL DATA PROCESSING CHECK

PERFORMED PRIOR TO SUBMISSION OF

ANY DATA?

ARE CALIBRATION AND/OR AUDIT

RESULTS REVIEWED AS PART OF THE

VALIDATION PROCESS?

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REVIEWING

THESE RESULTS AND DETERMINING DATA

VALIDITY?

DESCRIBE THE VALIDATION PROCESS FOLLOWED IF THESE CHECKS ARE OUTSIDE OF VALIDATION

ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA:

HOW ARE CHANGES TO DATA DOCUMENTED?

DATA COLLECTION (MANUAL/INTEGRATED DATA)

YES NO COMMENT

ARE THERE ANY NAPS-SUPPORTED

MANUAL/ INTEGRATED SAMPLING

METHODS SUPPORTED AT THE SITE?

ARE CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY PROCEDURES

IN PLACE?

ARE THE APPROPRIATE CALIBRATION

EQUATIONS SUBMITTED WITH THE DATA

TO THE PROCESSING CENTER (AS

REQUIRED)?

104

PROVIDE A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROCEDURES AND APPROPRIATE FORMULAE USED TO

CONVERT FIELD DATA TO CONCENTRATIONS PRIOR TO INPUT INTO THE DATABASE.

ARE ALL CONCENTRATIONS REPORTED

IN ACTUAL CONDITIO

NS?

ARE DATA REDUCTION AUDITS

PERFORMED ON A ROUTINE BASIS?

ARE AUDITS DONE BY AN INDEPENDENT

GROUP?

DATA DISSEMINATION AND REPORTING

YES NO COMMENT

DOES THE NETWORK GENERATE DATA

SUMMARY REPORTS?

DO THESE REPORTS UNDERGO

QUALITY

CONTROL REVIEW PRIOR TO RELEASE?

IF YES, WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR QC

REVIEW?

ARE THE DATA USED FOR IN-HOUSE

DISTRIBUTION?

ARE THE DATA PRESENTED IN ANY

PUBLICATION?

LIST REPORTS ROUTINELY GENERATED

REPORT TITLE

DISTRIBUTION PERIOD

YES

COMMENT

ARE THE DATA SUBMITTED TO OTHER

ORGANIZATIONS?

WHO WITHIN THE REPORTING NETWORK IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SUBMITTING THE DATA?

IS THE DATA SUBMITTAL APPROVED BY

AN OFFICER OF THE NETWORK?

HOW OFTEN ARE DATA SUBMITTED?

105

HOW AND/OR IN WHAT FORM ARE DATA SUBMITTED?

ARE REQUIREMENTS FOR DATA CODING

AND SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTED?

ARE THESE REQUIREMENTS FOLLOWED

CLOSELY?

IS THERE A PROCESS IN PLACE TO MAKE

CHANGES TO DATA IF NEEDED AFTER

FINAL SUBMISSION?

IF YES, WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO

APPROVE THESE CHANGES?

HOW FREQUENTLY ARE DATA UPDATED BASED ON CHANGES TO DATA?

HOW ARE CHANGES TO HISTORICAL DATA IDENTIFIED?

HOW LONG ARE RECORDS KEPT?

COMMENTS:

INTERNAL

REPORTING

LIST

INTERNAL QUALITY CONTROL REPORTS BELOW

REPORT TITLE

FREQUENCY

YES

COMMENT

DO REPORTS INDICATED INCLUDE A

DISCUSSION OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS

INITIATED BASED ON QUALITY CONTROL

CHECK RESULTS?

106

APPENDIX D – PERFORMANCE AUDIT QUESTIONNAIRE

• Who are the operators of the NAPS stations selected for audit? Are these operators on your

staff or hired on contract? How many stations are operated by these staff/contractors?

• How frequently do operators visit each station; what activities are usually performed during

these visits?

• How frequently are gas analyzers zeroed and spanned? Are these manual or automated?

__________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

CO __________________________________________________________________

• Are the zero/span values flagged by the datalogger? Are ambient data corrected based on

zero and span results? If so, how?

• What action threshold values, if any, apply to zero and span results?

• How are you alerted to an instrument malfunction? How do you determine the date/time

beyond which you can no longer be sure valid data was obtained?

• Are spare instruments available in the event of a malfunction requiring removal of an

instrument from a station for repair? Who repairs malfunctioning instruments?

• Are logbooks (hard-copy or electronic) maintained for each station to record all activities

performed during site visits? Are these records available at the station at all times, or do

they remain with the operator?

• What makes/models of calibrators are in service in your network? How many of each?

• Who calibrates gas analyzers and PM monitors and samplers? Are calibrations performed

at stations or off site?

• When are instruments calibrated? (i.e., based on what criteria)

• Who certifies your calibrators for 1) ozone concentration, and 2) flow? How frequently?

• What makes/models of flow transfer standards (certified flowmeters) are in service in your

network? How many of each?

• Who certifies your flow transfer standards? How frequently?

• Who provides and/or certifies your gas calibration standards?

• What are you using as calibration verification (span) standards for CO, NO

and SO

(e.g.

gas, permeation device)? Who is your provider for span gases?

• What makes/models of dataloggers are in service in your network?

• What is the station operator’s role in the ambient data validation process? Who are the

other staff involved in the data validation process in your network? Briefly describe

respective responsibilities if shared.

• Do you follow formal documented procedures for 1) station operation and 2) data

validation? If so, who authored these documents?

• Do you have an audit program in place? Describe briefly (e.g., who, frequency, coverage,

type).

• How may Environment Canada improve its audit program to increase its value relative to

your organization’s quality objectives for ambient air monitoring?