DEVELOPING A METHOD DETECTION LEVEL (MDL) FOR WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY (WET) TESTING
|
|
- Aleesha Jennings
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 DEVELOPING A METHOD DETECTION LEVEL (MDL) FOR WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY (WET) TESTING Background EPA has long maintained that the analytical variability associated with whole effluent toxicity test methods is well within the range of precision routinely observed for chemical test procedures used to implement the NPDES program 1. The analogy to chemical testing is appropriate because EPA told Congress that: The generation of scientifically accurate and valid biological measurements for environmental pollutants requires approximately the same criteria for assessing the adequacy of a method as previously described for chemical analyses. The same performance characteristics and development states of the method must be known in order to make an assessment of adequacy. Availability, Adequacy, and Comparability of Testing Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants Established Under Section 304(h) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act - Report to Congress; EPA/600/9-87/030; September, 1988; pg Given the similar levels of precision observed for WET testing and chemical testing, EPA endeavors to treat the variability similarly. EPA manages the regulation of WET in the same way it manages the regulation of chemical-specific pollutants in order to determine reasonable potential (RP), derive permit limits, determine data quality control, and evaluate self-monitoring data. Many similarities between chemical-specific toxicant and WET controls can be found in the Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control (1991). Determining RP in both cases uses many of the same strategies. Permit limit derivation makes similar exposure assumptions and relies on nearly identical toxicological data bases. Understanding and Accounting for Method Variability in WET Applications Under the NPDES Program; EPA-833-R ; June, 2000; p See 60 Federal Register (Oct. 16, 1995); see also Understanding and Accounting for Method Variability in WET Applications Under the NPDES Program; EPA-833-R ; June, 2000; p. 4-4 and , Risk Sciences REVISED DRAFT Page 1 of 10
2 Although the relative test precision may be similar, WET test methods differ significantly from chemical test methods in several important ways. First, whole effluent toxicity is a method-defined parameter. Unlike chemical analyses, there is no way to independently corroborate the toxicity estimates reported by a WET test. Consequently, the accuracy of toxicity tests cannot be ascertained, only the precision of toxicity can be estimated..." 2 Second, whole effluent toxicity is estimated using living organisms rather than inanimate machines. This introduces many new and potentially confounding variables into the analysis. The health of test organisms an biological systems cannot be calibrated before the experiment in the same way as analytical instrumentation. A single living organism is far more complex than the most sophisticated analytical instrumentation ever conceived There are no knobs to turn to adjust for these factors to achieve consistent performance during a test method. Availability, Adequacy, and Comparability of Testing Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants Established Under Section 304(h) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act - Report to Congress; EPA/600/9-87/030; September, 1988; pg Third, EPA has never developed or applied Method Detection Levels to whole effluent toxicity test data. A Method Detection Level is the threshold at which the standard test method can accurately and reliably distinguish whether a specific chemical is present or absent from a given sample. 3 The MDL is not the level at which the amount of chemical can be reliably quantified; that threshold is more frequently called the Practical Quantitation Level or PQL. In NPDES permitting, values observed below the MDL are usually described as Not Detected (or ND or < mdl ) because such values cannot be distinguished from zero. The lack of scientific confidence about the true sample quality limits the regulatory utility of all ND values. In WET tests, where no MDL is applied, all results are presumed to be equally accurate and reliable. Such an assumption is inconsistent with EPA s written guidance. While chemical precision is often determined well above analytical detection, WET precision is often based on the minimum detection level. Understanding and Accounting for Method Variability in WET Applications Under the NPDES Program; EPA-833-R ; June, 2000; Pg. 4-2 (citing Ausley, 1996) 2 60 Federal Register 199; Oct. 16, 1995; p C.F.R (f) 2002, Risk Sciences REVISED DRAFT Page 2 of 10
3 The precision of toxicity test measurements is similar to that of finely tuned instruments operating at detection limits. Availability, Adequacy, and Comparability of Testing Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants Established Under Section 304(h) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act - Report to Congress; EPA/600/9-87/030; September, 1988; pg In general, methods can only be used to measure analytes over a specified concentration range, defined as the linear dynamic range. The linear dynamic range is limited at the lower level by the detection limit and above the detection limit by the linearity of the measurement process Availability, Adequacy, and Comparability of Testing Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants Established Under Section 304(h) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act - Report to Congress; EPA/600/9-87/030; September, 1988; pg. 3-4 Quantifying WET Test Precision Using Coefficients-of-Variation The primary reason that MDLs have not been established for WET test methods is that EPA believes it is not possible to know the true biological response for any given exposure to one or more toxic chemicals. That is an accurate statement when referring to the range of expected results that may occur during reference toxicant tests. It may not be possible to define a full calibration curve for WET testing. However, it may be possible to identify curves that deviate from shapes observed across different laboratories. While it may be impossible to know how much adverse impact to expect from a given exposure to a toxic substance, it is possible to know what biological response must be expected from exposure to non-toxic conditions: there should be no difference in survival, reproduction, growth, etc. Data from several EPA-sponsored studies clearly indicates that biological organisms will routinely respond differently to identical exposure conditions. 4,5,6 This is true regardless of whether the test samples were initially formulated to be toxic or non-toxic. 4 See Preliminary Report: Interlaboratory Variability Study of EPA Short-term Chronic and Acute Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Methods; EPA-821-R A; October, 2000 (co-sponsored by AMSA, EEI, & Westcas) 5 See Precision of the EPA Seven-Day Ceriodaphnia dubia Survival and Reproduction Test: Intra- and Interlaboratory Study; Electric Power Research Institute; EPRI-EN-6469; November, (co-sponsored by EPA) 6 See Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing Methods: Accounting for Variance; Water Environment Research Foundation; Report #D93002; (co-sponsored by EPA) 2002, Risk Sciences REVISED DRAFT Page 3 of 10
4 EPA has quantified the level of inter- and intra-lab test precision and published the results in new guidance documents (seen Appendix A & B of this white paper). Using EPA s precision estimates, it is possible to calculate an MDL for each toxicity test method. Calculating an MDL for WET Test Methods Using Coefficient-of Variation A coefficient-of-variation (CV) is calculated by dividing the standard deviation by the mean of the same data set: CV = Std. Dev. Mean If one knows the mean and the coefficient-of-variation, one can calculate the standard deviation by rearranging the equation: CV x Mean = Std. Dev. And, if one knows the mean and the standard deviation, one can calculate the upper 99 th percentile of expected values. For a large data set with a normal distribution, the upper 99 th percentile can be derived using the following formula: 7 Mean + (2.33 x Std. Dev.) For non-toxic samples, the LC-50 and EC-25 should be >100% and the NOEC should be equal to 100. That is, there is no observed effect in undiluted effluent (100% concentration). If expressed at toxicity units (TU), the LC-50, the NOEC and the EC-25 should be <1.0 TU for non-toxic samples. Toxicity units are calculated by dividing 100 by the LC-50 or NOEC or EC- 25 (hence, 100 /100 = 1.0). Assuming a sample is non-toxic, and using the coefficients-of-variation published by EPA, 8 we can calculate the upper 99% confidence interval. For example, the median CV for the EC-25 endpoint in the Ceriodaphnia reproduction test is Therefore, the standard deviation of test results reported for identical non-toxic samples must also be 0.27 (Std. Dev. = CV / EC-25 = 0.27 / 1). Thus, the 99 th percentile upper confidence level must be 1.63 toxicity units (1 + [2.33 * 0.27]). 7 Naiman, A., Rosenfeld, R. & Zirkel, G. Understanding Statistics 2 nd Ed.; 1977 pg See Appendix B to this white paper/ 2002, Risk Sciences REVISED DRAFT Page 4 of 10
5 The 99 th percentile upper confidence level of a WET test is functionally equivalent to an MDL in a chemical test. And, the value may be used to express the same concept. We cannot be confident that toxicity exists in a sample until we observe a test result greater than 1.63 TU. Values smaller than 1.63 TU cannot reliably be distinguished from 1.0 TU (zero toxicity) and should be reported as not-detected or ND or <1.63 TU just as chemical test results are recorded. The following table shows the estimated MDL for the most common chronic sublethal endpoints using the method described above and the median CV s published by EPA 9. Estimated Method Detection Level for Non-Toxic Samples 10 (expressed as chronic toxicity units TUc) Test MDL for MDL for Test Species Endpoint NOEC EC-25 Fathead minnow Growth 1.7 TUc 1.6 TUc Ceriodaphnia dubia Reproduction 1.8 TUc 1.6 TUc Selenastrum (algae) Cell Count 2.1 TUc 1.6 TUc Sheepshead minnow Growth 1.9 TUc 1.3 TUc Inland Silverside Growth 2.1 TUc 1.6 TUc Mysid Shrimp Growth 1.9 TUc 1.7 TUc If EPA s high estimate of the CV (0.45) is used instead of the median estimate of CV, then the MDL for chronic Ceriodaphnia dubia reproduction would be 2.04 toxicity units 11. By using the higher estimate we are saying that 75% of the time the intralaboratory coefficient-of-variation is less than the value recorded in Tables 3-2, 3-3 and 3-4 of EPA s new guidance. By using the median estimate, we are stating that the intra-laboratory CV is less than the table value half the time and greater than the table value half the time. All of the above calculations and estimates are made based on the assumption that the WET test data is normally-distributed. Non-toxic samples will conform to a normal distribution. However, reference toxicant samples are more likely to resemble a log-normal distribution just as most chemical analyses do. In either case, the data can be transformed as necessary to meet the distributional and statistical assumptions. 9 Understanding and Accounting for Method Variability in WET Applications Under the NPDES Program; EPA- 833-R ; June, 2000, Appendix pg. A-5 10 Calculations based on assumption that underlying population data is normally-distributed. 11 Understanding and Accounting for Method Variability in WET Applications Under the NPDES Program; EPA- 833-R ; June, 2000; Pg , Risk Sciences REVISED DRAFT Page 5 of 10
6 Calculating an MDL Using EPA s Reasonable Potential Procedure Another way to calculate the MDL would be to apply the same procedure EPA recommends for estimating whether an effluent has reasonable potential to exceed a water quality criterion. The TSD procedure 12 assumes that the pollutant parameter is log-normally distributed and does not assume that there is a statistically-large data set available. The TSD procedure multiplies the highest measured water quality value by a specific factor to derive the 99 th percentile expected value. The specific factor varies based on the number of samples available and the coefficient-of-variation for all measured values. EPA s table of specific values is reproduced in Appendix C of this white paper. Assuming that the highest measured value for non-toxic samples should be 1 TU, then the 99 th percentile confidence level can be calculated by multiplying that value by the factor appropriate for each test endpoint. To be conservative, all calculations should be performed using the table value derived when there are 20 samples available. So, for example, for Ceriodaphnia dubia reproduction the EC-25 has an average CV equal to The appropriate factor derived by interpolation from the table above is approximately 1.5. Multiplying 1.5 times 1TUc produces an MDL of 1.5 TUc. This answer is very close to the one calculated based on normally-distributed data (1.63 TUc). Therefore, using the TSD procedure, we can conclude that there is a "reasonable potential" for a non-toxic water sample to exhibit a value up to 1.5 TUc (based on the EC-25 endpoint). Conversely, there is no reasonable potential to record values greater than 1.5 TUc for non-toxic samples. In effect, the 1.5 TUc threshold serves the same purpose as the MDL does in traditional chemical analysis. Values less than 1.5 TUc carry to much uncertainty and should be reported as Not Detected, or ND or <1.5 TUc. As before, if EPA s higher estimate of the CV is employed, the calculated MDL will also increase. In the Ceriodaphnia dubia example, if the CV = 0.45, then the specific factor is 1.9 and the MDL is 1.9 TUc (1.0 TUc * 1.9). This value is very close to the MDL estimate derived from using the assumption that the underlying data is normally-distributed (e.g TUc). It is important to note that EPA s highest estimate of the CV is recorded at the 75% confidence level. Normally, the TSD procedure is applied using the 99 th percentile confidence level and the 99 th percentile probability basis. Therefore, even when using the high CV estimate, the calculated MDL is not as rigorously derived as normally occurs when analyzing variability in effluent quality. The actual MDL for WET would be much higher if the effluent characterization procedure was used. 12 See Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control; EPA-505/ ; 1991; Chapter , Risk Sciences REVISED DRAFT Page 6 of 10
7 All of the MDLs shown above were calculated based on toxicity units (TU). And, TU is calculated based on sample concentration (NOEC or EC-25 or LC-50). The results are consistent with EPA s previous published guidance on the width of the expected error band for WET methods. "It should be noted here that the dilution factor selected for a test determines the width of the No-Observed-Effect-Concentration and the Lowest Observed Effect Concentration Interval and the inherent maximum precision of the test...with a dilution factor of 0.5, the NOEC could be considered to have a relative variability of plus or minus 100%." Short-Term Methods for Estimating Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Water to Freshwater Organisms (EPA ); July, 1994; Section ; p. 16 The plus or minus 100% error band is also consistent with the acceptance range used by EPA to judge laboratory performance on WET testing in the DMR-QA program. When the expected value is 4 TUc, a laboratory s performance is deemed acceptable if they report a value between 8 TUc and 2 TUc (NOEC = 25% with a range between 12.5% to 50%). If laboratories are allowed to vary within that range, then it is appropriate for dischargers to take account of that variability prior to certifying a specific result on a DMR. However, the choice of dilution intervals can have a significant impact on the estimates of NOEC, IC-25 or LC-50. A tighter dilution series might reduce the coefficient-of-variation for any given method. 13 Calculating and MDL Using Percent Effect Using data from EPA s recent interlaboratory variability study, it is possible to estimate the level of percent effect that is likely to occur by chance (see Figure 1 below). The chart shown in figure 7 was generated using interlaboratory reproduction data for Ceriodaphnia that were only exposed to laboratory control water. By repeatedly sampling two random groups of ten organisms and comparing the mean reproduction for those groups, we can calculate the frequency with which apparent adverse impacts occur for reasons unrelated to effluent toxicity. For example, Figure 1 shows that we can be 90% certain that the effect is real when the observed inhibition is greater than 25%. 13 Understanding and Accounting for Method Variability in WET Applications Under the NPDES Program; EPA- 833-R ; June, 2000; Appendix D, Pg , Risk Sciences REVISED DRAFT Page 7 of 10
8 Figure1: Federal regulations define the MDL as the level at which we can be 99% certain that the test correctly distinguishes between the presence and absence of any given pollutant parameter (see 40 CFR 136.2). Figure 1 shows that an inhibition greater than 40% is unlikely to occur by chance more than 1% of the time (e.g. 99% confidence). Therefore, if the MDL for toxicity were calculated in the same manner as it is for chemical tests, inhibitions less than 40% would be reported as not detected or ND. Similar graphs can be prepared for any combination of species, method, and biological endpoint (survival, growth, reproduction) provided there is a large body of data describing organisms performance in non-toxic control water. 2002, Risk Sciences REVISED DRAFT Page 8 of 10
9 Special Implementation Considerations Dischargers are obligated to report all toxicity test data just as they received it from the laboratory. However, permittees are also required to certify those results based on a system designed to establish the validity of the data. 14 As noted earlier, EPA believes that the analytical variability of WET test methods is substantially similar to that seen for chemical methods. And, EPA recommends that WET testing be implemented in the same way that chemical-specific pollutants are regulated. Therefore, it is appropriate to calculate and apply an MDL for toxicity tests just as is done for chemical analyses. The safest way to implement the MDL for WET tests is to report the NOEC or EC-25 as it was calculated by the laboratory, but certify compliance based on the MDL value. This approach will avoid any claim by the permitting authority that the discharger failed to report all test results as required. The permitting authority has the right to make an independent determination as to whether a permit exceedence has occurred without using an MDL. It is strongly recommended that all permittees seek advance regulatory approval for calculating and using a WET-MDL rather than planning to defend the approach in court. Finally, it is also important to note that all of the above estimates are for an MDL used to evaluate a single WET test only. The level of confidence increases as the number of tests showing similar results increases. Likewise, the MDL will decrease as the number of organisms (replicates) used in each WET test increases CFR (d) 2002, Risk Sciences REVISED DRAFT Page 9 of 10
10 Appendix A: Interim Coefficients-of-Variation for Acute WET Methods 15 : 15 Reproduced from Understanding and Accounting for Method Variability in WET Applications Under the NPDES Program; EPA-833-R ; June, 2000; Appendix pg. A , Risk Sciences REVISED DRAFT Page 10 of 10
11 Appendix B: Interim Coefficients-of-Variation for Chronic WET Methods 16 : 16 Reproduced from Understanding and Accounting for Method Variability in WET Applications Under the NPDES Program; EPA-833-R ; June, 2000; Appendix pg. A , Risk Sciences REVISED DRAFT Page 11 of 10
12 Appendix C: Reasonable Potential Factors in TSD Reproduced from the Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control; EPA-505/ ; 1991; Chapter , Risk Sciences REVISED DRAFT Page 12 of 10
USING 99% STATISTICAL CONFIDENCE LEVELS TO MINIMIZE FALSE POSITIVES IN TOXICITY TESTING
USING 99% STATISTICAL CONFIDENCE LEVELS TO MINIMIZE FALSE POSITIVES IN TOXICITY TESTING Background The presence or absence of toxicity is determined by comparing survival, growth or reproduction of effluent-exposed
More informationThe Primary Purpose of Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Proficiency Testing (PT) or Discharge Monitoring Report Quality Assurance Testing (DMR-QA)
1 The Primary Purpose of Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Proficiency Testing (PT) or Discharge Monitoring Report Quality Assurance Testing (DMR-QA) The primary purpose of EPA s DMR-QA testing program (and
More informationNORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY BIOLOGICAL LABORATORY CERTIFICATION/CRITERIA PROCEDURES DOCUMENT
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY BIOLOGICAL LABORATORY CERTIFICATION/CRITERIA PROCEDURES DOCUMENT These procedures are part of the State of North Carolina s response to requirements set forth by
More informationToxicity 101 An Introduction to Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Testing
Toxicity 101 An Introduction to Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Testing VA AWWA/VWEA 23 rd Annual Good Laboratory Practices Conference July 25, 2017 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Peter F. De Lisle, Ph.D. Coastal
More informationDEVELOPING A METHOD DETECTION LIMIT FOR CHRONIC WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY TESTING USING CERIODAPHNIA DUBIA
DEVELOPING A METHOD DETECTION LIMIT FOR CHRONIC WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY TESTING USING CERIODAPHNIA DUBIA Timothy F. Moore Risk Sciences 1417 Plymouth Dr., Brentwood, TN 37027 Steven P. Canton Chadwick
More informationAcute Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Report NPDES Permit Program
Acute Whole Toxicity Test Report NPDES Permit Program Doc Type: Limit Standards Review Please read all instructions carefully before completing each section of the report. Instructions are found on Page
More informationBIOMONITORING REQUIREMENTS 48-HOUR ACUTE BIOMONITORING REQUIREMENTS: FRESHWATER
BIOMONITORING REQUIREMENTS 48-HOUR ACUTE BIOMONITORING REQUIREMENTS: FRESHWATER The provisions of this Section apply to Outfall 001 for whole effluent toxicity testing (biomonitoring). 1. Scope, Frequency
More informationCeriodaphnia Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Report NPDES Permit Program
Ceriodaphnia Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Report NPDES Permit Program Doc Type: Effluent Limit Standards Review Please read all instructions carefully before completing each section of the report.
More informationUnderstanding and Accounting for Method Variability in Whole Effluent Toxicity Applications Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Wastewater Management (4203) EPA 833-R-00-003 June 2000 http:\\www.epa.gov\owm\npdes.htm Understanding and Accounting for Method Variability in Whole
More informationIMPLEMENTATION OF THE NARRATIVE STANDARD FOR TOXICITY IN DISCHARGE PERMITS USING WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY (WET) TESTING
Colorado Water Quality Control Division Policy No.: WQP - 28 WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION PERMITS SECTION Drafted By: Approved By: Andrew Neuhart Effective Date: September 30, 2010 IMPLEMENTATION OF
More informationIMPLEMENTATION OF THE NARRATIVE STANDARD FOR TOXICITY IN DISCHARGE PERMITS USING WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY (WET) TESTING
Colorado Water Quality Control Division WATER POLLUTON CONTROL PROGRAM Policy No.: WPC Program Permits - 1 Drafted By: Andrew Neuhart Approved By: Effective Date: September 30, 2010 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
More informationWhole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Testing
Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Testing Where did it come from? Stems from the Clean Water Act NPDES permit program State Agencies Individual NPDES permit holders What does it accomplish? Can address combinations
More information6. Using Toxicity Data as Indicators of Water Quality
6. Using Toxicity Data as Indicators of Water Quality ontents 6.1 How Are Toxicity Data Used Within the ontext of the State s Water Quality Standards?... 6-4 6.2 What Actions Does the State Take To Assess
More informationPermit Issues Forum White Paper
Permit Issues Forum White Paper Date: Name of Issue: November 9, 2018 Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing Options for Discharges with Unidentifiable Pollutants Summary of Issue/Background: Since the implementation
More informationWater Quality Control Division. Biomonitoring Guidance Document
Colorado Water Quality Control Division July 1, 1993 Revised June 1, 2002 Minor Revision September 27, 2004 This document is to serve as Division Guidance for biomonitoring to implement section 61.8(2)(b)(i)
More informationHELPFUL TIPS FOR COMPLETING THE WASTEWATER DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT (DMR)
HELPFUL TIPS FOR COMPLETING THE WASTEWATER DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT (DMR) Wastewater Compliance Evaluation Section Bureau of Water Facilities Regulation February 2012 (850) 245-8567 HELPFUL TIPS FOR
More informationReporting and Testing Guidance for Biomonitoring Required by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Permit Guidance 5 Final Reporting and Testing Guidance for Biomonitoring Required by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Rule reference: 40CFR Part 136.3; OAC 3745-2-09; OAC 3745-33-07 Ohio EPA, Division
More informationAPPENDIX A: STUDY PLAN FOR DETERMINING INTERLABORATORY VARIABILITY OF THE EPA SHORT-TERM CHRONIC AND ACUTE WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY TEST METHODS
APPENDIX A: STUDY PLAN FOR DETERMINING INTERLABORATORY VARIABILITY OF THE EPA SHORT-TERM CHRONIC AND ACUTE WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY TEST METHODS TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
More informationError Analysis and Data Quality
Error Analysis and Data Quality B-1 Error Analysis The overall accuracy of water budget calculations depends on the relative accuracy of the input data. A simplified example is discussed as follows to
More informationSECTION 11 ACUTE TOXICITY DATA ANALYSIS
SECTION 11 ACUTE TOXICITY DATA ANALYSIS 11.1 INTRODUCTION 11.1.1 The objective of acute toxicity tests with effluents and receiving waters is to identify discharges of toxic effluents in acutely toxic
More informationGround Water / Surface Water Characteristics and Aquatic Toxicity Testing
Ground Water / Surface Water Characteristics and Aquatic Toxicity Testing O Niell Tedrow NTS Thursday, May 06, 2010 1 Overview GW / SW Characteristics Influences on Toxicity Tests Introduce Toxicology
More informationUltimate Products (Aust) Pty Ltd Toxicity Assessment: Triple Strike
Ultimate Products (Aust) Pty Ltd Toxicity Assessment: Triple Strike \\Server08\Vgt\Lab Reports\Water Reports\Ultimate\UL110124.Docx Ultimate Products (Aust) Pty Ltd Toxicity Assessment: Triple Strike Prepared
More informationExecutive Order on Enforcing Regulatory Reform Agenda SCAP Correspondence regarding Burdensome NPDES Permit Requirements
May 15, 2017 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA Docket Center Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-2017-1090 Mail Code 28221T 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 Submitted electronically via www.regulations.gov
More informationStatistics in Risk Assessment
What s about Truth? 100% 80% Effect 60% 40% 20% 0% 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Log (Dose/concentration) Hans Toni Ratte Institute of Environmental Research (Biology V) Chair of Ecology, Ecotoxicology, Ecochemistry
More informationSummary of the NELAP Accreditation Council Meeting November 4, 2013
Summary of the NELAP Accreditation Council Meeting November 4, 2013 The NELAP Accreditation Council (AC) met at 1:30 pm EDT on Monday, November 4, 2013, for the third of its quarterly series of assessor
More informationToxicity Testing In Ambient Water Quality Assessment
Toxicity Testing In Ambient Water Quality Assessment Ronald MacGillivray and Thomas Fikslin, DRBC John Jackson and David Funk, Stroud Water Research Ctr. Christopher Nally, AAT Laboratory Delaware Estuary
More informationENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY SECTOR VOLUME 1 MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LABORATORIES PERFORMING ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
EL-VM-0 ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY SECTOR VOLUME MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LABORATORIES PERFORMING ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Module : Quality Systems for Toxicity Testing Working Draft Standard
More informationAppendix A Regulatory Aspects
Appendix A Regulatory Aspects APPENDIX A BACKGROUND INFORMATION RELATING TO THE FUNDAMENTAL INTERMITTENT STANDARDS This Appendix provides further background information concerning the Fundamental Intermittent
More informationTHE ACUTE TOXICITY OF ENVIRO TECH CHEMICAL SERVICES INC. S. BromMax 7.1 TO THE FRESHWATER ALGAE, SELENASTRUM CAPRICORNUTUM,
THE ACUTE TOXICITY OF ENVIRO TECH CHEMICAL SERVICES INC. S BromMax 7.1 TO THE FRESHWATER ALGAE, SELENASTRUM CAPRICORNUTUM, FRESHWATER CRUSTACEAN, DAPHNIA MAGNA, AND THE FRESHWATER FISH, PIMEPHALES PROMELAS
More informationToxicity Report. Section 1. Overview
Toxicity Report Date: October 25, 2010 JSC SPACE TOXICOLOGY GROUP Noreen N. Khan-Mayberry, Ph.D. NASA Space Toxicologist Johnson Space Center, SF 23 Houston, TX 77058 Ref. Acute Aquatic Toxicity- AKGA
More informationComparative Toxicity of Eight Oil Dispersant Products on Two Gulf of Mexico Aquatic Test Species
Comparative Toxicity of Eight Oil Dispersant Products on Two Gulf of Mexico Aquatic Test Species U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development U.S.EPA/ORD Contributors National
More informationHow Effluent Data Affect Water Quality Based Effluent Limits - Case Studies
How Effluent Data Affect Water Quality Based Effluent Limits - Case Studies Nick Muenks September 8, 2017 REGFORM 2017 Water Seminar Cases of WQBEL Blues Case #1 - Dramatic decrease from limits used for
More informationRESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORT NO. 08-63 BIOMONITORING REPORT 2008 CHRONIC WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY TEST RESULTS FOR THE HANOVER PARK WATER RECLAMATION PLANT HANOVER PARK, ILLINOIS NATIONAL
More informationVerification of Method XXXXXX
Reviewed By: Date: Technical Supervisor Reviewed By: Date: General Supervisor Reviewed By: Date: Quality Assurance Coordinator Approved By: Date: Director Page 1 of 11 Table of Contents Purpose and Principle:...
More informationEFFECTIVE STRATEGIES FOR RESIDUAL POLYMER AND AQUATIC TOXICITY TESTING FOR DREDGE SLURRY DEWATERING
EFFECTIVE STRATEGIES FOR RESIDUAL POLYMER AND AQUATIC TOXICITY TESTING FOR DREDGE SLURRY DEWATERING Randy Wilcox, P.E. 1, Gregg E. Lebster 1, and Bruce Rabe 2 ABSTRACT Chemical conditioning is typically
More information(Question N EFSA-Q ) adopted on 14 December 2005
Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Plant health, Plant protection products and their Residues on a request from EFSA related to the assessment of the acute and chronic risk to aquatic organisms with regard
More informationMonitoring in Tributaries of the Delaware River for Ambient Toxicity 2016 Narrative Report
Monitoring in Tributaries of the Delaware River for Ambient Toxicity 2016 Narrative Report Submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III Delaware River Basin Commission Contact: A. Ronald
More informationMonitoring in Tributaries of the Delaware River for Ambient Toxicity 2015 Narrative Report
Monitoring in Tributaries of the Delaware River for Ambient Toxicity 2015 Narrative Report Submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III Delaware River Basin Commission Contact: A. Ronald
More informationDeveloping Chemical-Specific Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations for Toxic Pollutants
Developing Chemical-Specific Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations for Toxic Pollutants Learning Objectives Review process for determining reasonable potential for toxic pollutants Discuss procedures
More informationTOXICITY REDUCTION EVALUATION ACTIVITY REPORT THIRD QUARTER 2014
TOXICITY REDUCTION EVALUATION ACTIVITY REPORT THIRD QUARTER 2014 UMETCO MINERALS CORPORATION FORMER WILSON MINE SITE OUTFALL 001 NPDES PERMIT NO. AR0048950 AFIN: 26-00277 Prepared for Umetco Minerals Corporation
More informationRegulation 85. Navigating Regulation 85 Part II Lab Methods and Data Submission
Regulation 85 Navigating Regulation 85 Part II Lab Methods and Data Submission Presented By: Colorado Water Quality Monitoring Council (CWQMC) and Colorado Monitoring Framework (CMF) rk (CMF) Presenters
More informationISO 13528:2015 Statistical methods for use in proficiency testing by interlaboratory comparison
ISO 13528:2015 Statistical methods for use in proficiency testing by interlaboratory comparison ema training workshop August 8-9, 2016 Mexico City Class Schedule Monday, 8 August Types of PT of interest
More information7 Statistical characteristics of the test
7 Statistical characteristics of the test Two key qualities of an exam are validity and reliability. Validity relates to the usefulness of a test for a purpose: does it enable well-founded inferences about
More informationMeasurement Uncertainty Guide. ISO Accreditation Program
Measurement Uncertainty Guide ISO 15189 Accreditation Program Background Why This is Necessary The ISO 15189:2012 standard contains enhanced expectations regarding measurement uncertainty (MU) in clause
More information09/17/2014. Nucor Yamato Mr. Tony Hodge 5929 East Hwy 18 Blytheville, AR, 72315
09/17/2014 Nucor Yamato Mr. Tony Hodge 5929 East Hwy 18 Blytheville, AR, 72315 Ref: Analytical Testing ETC Report Number: 14-232-0192 Client Project Description: Outfall 001 Acute Bio-monitoring Dear Permittee:
More informationAquatic Toxicity and Fate of VigorOx WWT II
Aquatic Toxicity and Fate of VigorOx WWT II June 2014 Table of Contents Acronyms / Definitions 3 Content 4 Background 4 Aquatic Fate of VigorOx WWT II 5 Aquatic Toxicity 6 Aquatic toxicity testing specific
More informationOther substances or articles presenting a danger during transport, but not meeting the definitions of another class
Genetically modified live animals shall be transported under terms and conditions of the competent authorities of the countries of origin and destination. Other substances or articles presenting a danger
More informationGROUNDWATER STATISTICAL METHOD CERTIFICATION WALTER SCOTT JR. ENERGY CENTER COAL COMBUSTION RESIDUAL MONOFILL POTTAWATTAMIE COUNTY, IOWA
GROUNDWATER STATISTICAL METHOD CERTIFICATION WALTER SCOTT JR. ENERGY CENTER COAL COMBUSTION RESIDUAL MONOFILL POTTAWATTAMIE COUNTY, IOWA 1.0 INTRODUCTION Terracon Project No. 05157640 October 15, 2017
More informationBusiness Quantitative Analysis [QU1] Examination Blueprint
Business Quantitative Analysis [QU1] Examination Blueprint 2014-2015 Purpose The Business Quantitative Analysis [QU1] examination has been constructed using an examination blueprint. The blueprint, also
More informationDecember, Biological Laboratory Certification Guidance Manual for Effluent Toxicity Testing
Biological Laboratory Certification Guidance Manual for Effluent Toxicity Testing December, 2014 Biological Laboratory Certification Guidance Manual for Effluent Toxicity Testing Revision 1.4-December
More informationStrategies for Mitigating Risk to Aquatic Environments Using Biological Testing
Strategies for Mitigating Risk to Aquatic Environments Using Biological Testing Elisabeth Henson, B.Sc. Ecotoxicology Team Leader Lyriam Marques, Ph.D. Senior Scientist WaterTech 2013 April 10-12th OUTLINE
More informationEPA Wood Heater Test Method Variability Study
EPA Wood Heater Test Method Variability Study Analysis of Uncertainty, Repeatability and Reproducibility based on the EPA Accredited Laboratory Proficiency Test Database Rick Curkeet, PE Chief Engineer
More information(B) The following exceptions apply to paragraph (A) of this rule.:
ACTION: Original DATE: 11/14/2018 12:45 PM 3745-2-04 Determinations preliminary to development of water qualitybased effluent limitations. [Comment: For dates of non-regulatory government publications,
More informationGLP/SC/01 Basic statistical tools for analytical chemistry (2 days)
GLP Consulting http://consultglp.com Courses on offer (See outlines below) GLP/SC/01 Basic statistical tools for analytical chemistry (2 days) GLP/SC/02 The GUM bottom-up evaluation technique of measurement
More informationEvaluation of the Toxicity of an Effluent Entering the Deep Fork River, OK
Evaluation of the Toxicity of an Effluent Entering the Deep Fork River, OK Ning Wang, James Kunz, Jeff Steevens USGS, Columbia Environmental Research Center, Columbia, MO Suzanne Dunn and David Martinez
More informationRevisione della norma ISO 4259 Andrea Gallonzelli
Revisione della norma ISO 4259 Andrea Gallonzelli 1 ISO 4259, Petroleum products - Determination and application of precision data in relation to methods of test Editions: 1979 / 1992 + Cor. 1:1993 / 2006
More informationExecutive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. ES.1 Monitoring Program Objectives. ES.2 Summary of Monitoring Results
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES.1 Monitoring Program Objectives The following are the major monitoring program objectives, as outlined in the Municipal Stormwater Permit: Assess compliance with the Municipal Stormwater
More informationValidation of Analytical Methods used for the Characterization, Physicochemical and Functional Analysis and of Biopharmaceuticals.
Validation of Analytical Methods used for the Characterization, Physicochemical and Functional Analysis and of Biopharmaceuticals. 1 Analytical Method Validation: 1..1 Philosophy: Method validation is
More informationAP Statistics Scope & Sequence
AP Statistics Scope & Sequence Grading Period Unit Title Learning Targets Throughout the School Year First Grading Period *Apply mathematics to problems in everyday life *Use a problem-solving model that
More informationGroundwater Statistical Methods Certification. Neal South CCR Monofill Permit No. 97-SDP-13-98P Salix, Iowa. MidAmerican Energy Company
Groundwater Statistical Methods Certification Neal South CCR Monofill Permit No. 97-SDP-13-98P Salix, Iowa MidAmerican Energy Company GHD 11228 Aurora Avenue Des Moines Iowa 50322-7905 11114654 Report
More informationGroundwater Statistical Methods Certification. Neal North Impoundment 3B Sergeant Bluff, Iowa. MidAmerican Energy Company
Groundwater Statistical Methods Certification Neal North Impoundment 3B Sergeant Bluff, Iowa MidAmerican Energy Company GHD 11228 Aurora Avenue Des Moines Iowa 50322-7905 11114642 Report No 11 October
More informationGroundwater Statistical Methods Certification. Neal North CCR Monofill Permit No. 97-SDP-12-95P Sergeant Bluff, Iowa. MidAmerican Energy Company
Groundwater Statistical Methods Certification Neal North CCR Monofill Permit No. 97-SDP-12-95P Sergeant Bluff, Iowa MidAmerican Energy Company GHD 11228 Aurora Avenue Des Moines Iowa 50322-7905 11114642
More informationvalidation report for TaqMan Roundup Ready Quantification Kit
validation report for TaqMan Roundup Ready Quantification Kit Life Technologies offers a breadth of products DNA RNA protein cell culture instruments For Research Use Only. Not intended for any animal
More informationSupporting Guidance (WAT-SG-57)
Water Use Supporting Guidance (WAT-SG-57) Toxicity Screening for Discharges Version: v2 Released: Jun 2012 Copyright and Legal Information Copyright 2012 Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA).
More informationMixture Hazard Assessment Methodology
Mixture Hazard Assessment Methodology March 2018 Written in collaboration with ToxServices LLC Copyright 2017 Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute No part of this publication is to be reproduced
More informationMethod Update Rule and Sufficiently Sensitive Methods Rule: What You Need to Know
EPA/RVIPA 31st ANNUAL PRETREATMENT WORKSHOP Method Update Rule and Sufficiently Sensitive Methods Rule: What You Need to Know 6 August 2015 Fort Worth, TX Dr. Paul N. Boothe Senior Scientist Albion Environmental
More informationTrace Metals in Waters by GFAAS, in Accordance with U.S. EPA and Health Canada Requirements
application Note Atomic Absorption Author: Randy L. Hergenreder PerkinElmer, Inc. Shelton, CT 06484 USA Trace Metals in Waters by GFAAS, in Accordance with U.S. EPA and Health Canada Requirements Introduction
More informationIowa Water Quality Standards Update TDS, Chloride, and Sulfate
Iowa Water Quality Standards Update TDS, Chloride, and Sulfate AMI Environmental Conference Kansas City, Missouri June 5, 2008 Gregory L. Sindt, P.E. Bolton & Menk, Inc. History Prior to June 2004 750
More informationVICH Topic GL2 (Validation: Methodology) GUIDELINE ON VALIDATION OF ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES: METHODOLOGY
The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products Veterinary Medicines Evaluation Unit CVMP/VICH/591/98-FINAL London, 10 December 1998 VICH Topic GL2 (Validation: Methodology) Step 7 Consensus
More informationRESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORT NO. 08-66 BIOMONITORING REPORT 2008 ACUTE WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY TEST RESULTS FOR THE JAMES C. KIRIE WATER RECLAMATION PLANT DES PLAINES, ILLINOIS NATIONAL POLLUTANT
More informationDistinguish between different types of numerical data and different data collection processes.
Level: Diploma in Business Learning Outcomes 1.1 1.3 Distinguish between different types of numerical data and different data collection processes. Introduce the course by defining statistics and explaining
More informationVICH Topic GL49. at step 4 GUIDELINES FOR THE VALIDATION OF ANALYTICAL METHODS USED IN RESIDUE DEPLETION STUDIES
European Medicines Agency Veterinary Medicines and Inspections London, 14 December 2009 Doc. Ref. EMEA/CVMP/VICH/463202/2009-CONSULTATION VICH Topic GL49 at step 4 GUIDELINES FOR THE VALIDATION OF ANALYTICAL
More information2.9.3 Environmentally hazardous substances (aquatic environment)
Ammonium nitrate based fertilizers 2071 AMMONIUM NITRATE BASED FERTILIZERS Solid ammonium nitrate based fertilizers shall be classified in accordance with the procedure as set out in the Manual of Tests
More informationMolecular Diagnosis Challenges & Solutions. Using Molecular Kits or Laboratory Developed Tests (Home Brew), Emphasis on Validation
Using Molecular Kits or Laboratory Developed Tests (Home Brew), Emphasis on Validation Molecular Diagnosis Challenges & Solutions Behzad Poopak, DCLS PhD Tehran Medical Branch- Islamic Azad University
More informationAPPENDIX C Technical Approach Used to Generate Maximum Daily Loads
APPENDIX C Technical Approach Used to Generate Maximum Daily Loads Summary This appendix documents the technical approach used to define maximum daily loads of TSS consistent with the average annual TMDL,
More informationSOIL-SEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVE. Dust Control, Erosion Control, Stabilization
SOIL-SEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVE Dust Control, Erosion Control, Stabilization Midwest Industrial Supply, Inc. is committed to providing comprehensive and relevant environmental information about our
More informationInternal Assessment. How can students meet the internal assessment criteria?
Internal Assessment How can students meet the internal assessment criteria? Internal Assessment-Design Aspect 1- Formulate a focussed Research Question Includes both dependent and independent variables
More informationResearc n. Burlingto TOXICITY REDUCTION EVALUATION PHASE I PROPOSAL CITY OF HENDERSON JANUARY 1995
Burlingto Researc n h I TOXICITY REDUCTION EVALUATION PHASE I PROPOSAL I ~ 1 I CITY OF HENDERSON JANUARY 1995 - Burlington Research, Inc. P. 0. BOX 2481 Burlington, NC 27215 Telephone 919-584-5564 i I'
More informationWhole Effluent Toxicity Testing Expert Committee Meeting Summary
Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing Expert Committee Meeting Summary June 17, 2015 1 pm Eastern 1. Welcome, Roll Call, Approval of Minutes and Announcements Rami Naddy welcomed everyone to the meeting, and
More informationNJ Drinking Water Quality Institute (DWQI) Testing Subcommittee APPENDIX B: Report on the Development of a Practical Quantitation Limit (PQL)
NJ Drinking Water Quality Institute (DWQI) Testing Subcommittee APPENDIX B: Report on the Development of a Practical Quantitation (PQL) 1,2,3-Trichloropropane October 28, 2015 Testing Subcommittee Members:
More informationUnderstanding the Characteristics and Establishing Acceptance Criteria for Analytical Methods Validation
Understanding the Characteristics and Establishing Acceptance Criteria for Analytical Methods Validation Ying Verdi IVT LAB WEEK EUROPE June 2017 Partners in Health Since 1919 Regulatory View of Method
More information(1) Final effluent limitations shall be required for pollutants that meet any of the following conditions:
3745-33-07 Establishing permit conditions. [Comment: For dates of non-regulatory government publications, publications of recognized organizations and associations, federal rules and federal statutory
More informationCalculation of BLM Fixed Monitoring Benchmarks for Copper at Selected Monitoring Sites in Colorado
Prepared by HydroQual, Inc. for the US Environmental Protection Agency Calculation of BLM Fixed Monitoring Benchmarks for Copper at Selected Monitoring Sites in Colorado Final Report October 10, 2008 GLEC.030.004.01.001
More informationGlossary of Standardized Testing Terms https://www.ets.org/understanding_testing/glossary/
Glossary of Standardized Testing Terms https://www.ets.org/understanding_testing/glossary/ a parameter In item response theory (IRT), the a parameter is a number that indicates the discrimination of a
More informationA2LA. R231 Specific Requirements: Threat Agent Testing Laboratory Accreditation Program. December 6, 2017
Laboratory Page 1 of 17 Laboratory December 6, 2017 2017 by A2LA All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of A2LA.
More informationACTIVE COAL COMBUSTION RESIDUALS LANDFILL GROUNDWATER STATISTICAL METHOD CERTIFICATION. Escalante Generating Station
ACTIVE COAL COMBUSTION RESIDUALS LANDFILL GROUNDWATER STATISTICAL METHOD CERTIFICATION Escalante Generating Station Prewitt, New Mexico REPORT Submitted To: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association,
More informationVQA Proficiency Testing Scoring Document for Quantitative HIV-1 RNA
VQA Proficiency Testing Scoring Document for Quantitative HIV-1 RNA The VQA Program utilizes a real-time testing program in which each participating laboratory tests a panel of five coded samples six times
More informationLabGuide 13 How to Verify Performance Specifications
1 LG 13 Comments? Feedback? Questions? Email us at info@cola.org or call us at 800 981-9883 LabGuide 13 How to Verify Performance Specifications The verification of performance specifications confirms
More informationGuidance Document. A Guide for the Validation and Approval of New Marine Biotoxin Test Methods. 10 April 2017
Guidance Document A Guide for the Validation and Approval of New Marine Biotoxin Test Methods A guidance document issued by the Ministry for Primary Industries Title Guidance Document: Validation and Approval
More informationWater Quality. Ambient Water Quality Guidelines for Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) Overview Report. Summary
Water Quality Ambient Water Quality Guidelines for Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) Overview Report Prepared pursuant to Section 2(e) of the Environment Management Act, 1981 Original signed by Margaret
More informationVALIDATION OF ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES: METHODOLOGY *)
VALIDATION OF ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES: METHODOLOGY *) Guideline Title Validation of Analytical Procedures: Methodology Legislative basis Directive 75/318/EEC as amended Date of first adoption December 1996
More informationrecovery and between 0% and 10% relative standard deviation.
THE NEED FOR ANALYTICAL QUALITY CONTROL IN ORDER TO MEET EFFLUENT PERMIT REGULATIONS IN THE METAL FINISHING INDUSTRY JEFFREY GLASS LABORATORY MANAGER ENVIROPACT, INC. MIAMI DIVISION 479 NW 157 STREET MIAMI,
More informationChapter 8 Interpreting Uncertainty for Human Health Risk Assessment
What s Covered in Chapter 8: Chapter 8 Interpreting Uncertainty for Human Health Risk Assessment 8.1 Uncertainty and Limitations of the Risk Assessment Process 8.2 Types of Uncertainty 8.3 Qualitative
More informationGOOD LABORATORY PRACTICE Agilent Cary 8454 UV-Visible Spectroscopy System
GOOD LABORATORY PRACTICE Agilent Cary 8454 UV-Visible Spectroscopy System Introduction The objective of good laboratory practice (GLP) is to obtain accurate and precise results, using a measurement system
More informationTRE ACTIVITIES REPORT ALMATIS INC. OUTFALL 001 (NPDES PERMIT NO. AR ) 4th QUARTER 2010
TRE ACTIVITIES REPORT ALMATIS INC. OUTFALL 001 (NPDES PERMIT NO. AR 0050270) 4th QUARTER 2010 JANUARY 20, 2011 TRE ACTIVITIES REPORT ALMATIS INC. OUTFALL 001 (NPDES PERMIT NO. AR0050270) 4th QUARTER 2010
More informationIPC TECHNICAL PAPER SERIES NUMBER 215
THE INSTITUTE O AER CHEMISTRY, ALETON, WISCONSIN IC TECHNICAL AER SERIES NUMBER 21 ELUENT BIOMONITORING IN WISCONSIN JAMES H. STARK AND DAVID L. RADES JANUARY, 87 Effluent Biomonitoring in Wisconsin James
More informationALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (ADEM) NOTICE OF INTENT NPDES GENERAL PERMIT NUMBER ALG110000
ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (ADEM) NOTICE OF INTENT NPDES GENERAL PERMIT NUMBER ALG110000 Instructions: This form should be used to submit a Notice of Intent for coverage under NPDES
More informationAgreed by VICH Steering Committee January Adoption by CVMP 12 February Date for coming into effect January 2016
12 February 2015 EMA/CVMP/VICH/463202/2009 Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use (CVMP) VICH topic GL49: Studies to evaluate the metabolism and residues kinetics of veterinary drugs in human
More informationLaboratory Developed Tests. William Castellani, MD Inter-regional Commissioner Clinical Pathologist, Penn State Hershey Medical Center
Laboratory Developed Tests William Castellani, MD Inter-regional Commissioner Clinical Pathologist, Penn State Hershey Medical Center Objectives Compare and contrast new test validation requirements for
More information