The car slowly replaced by capacitors Analyzers Analyzers remains a topical issue which is the choice between the two rules governing their use in waste management and drinking water laboratory analysis. Autoanalyzer manufacturers committed in the past were referred to the publication of EPA method or a letter of approval is usually given as an alternative test procedure (ATP). This has allowed producers to small changes in the public method to do because of the naturein terms of platform tool.
For example, a method initially approved by the EPA and Alpkem published a tool that produces runs as a segmented flow analysis (SFA), but another company mainly Flow Injection Analysis (FIA), the equipment, documentation FIA entity to receive the ATP - shows his tool uses the same chemicals, using the same reactions, but is slightly different in that the sample is delivered in the reagent flow. ThisLetter has the certification of a laboratory, their platform tool is EPA and NPDES regulations on waste and drinking water laboratory analysis.
Although historically, very few manufacturers Autoanalyzer receive these letters all they had to do was run their equipment near the method of publication, and rarely was there ever a problem because most of them are basically the same car analyzers, pump, autosampler, detector, etc.. But about 5 years ago, the DiscreteAnalyzers started to move into the realm of Auto Analyzers, compared to this factor in the forefront when making decisions about the replacement of old systems were presented.
At first, for discrete analyzers rough because there is no precedence and change is often slow in this world, especially if the error of law can be costly. In other words, laboratory managers and QC, were reluctant to something new, unless they were sure it complies with all embracingSpecifications for the waste and drinking water laboratory analysis.
Over time, EPA has begun to realize that resistance Analyzer produce the same results as a car Analyzer is capable of because it uses the same substances and can be configured to use the same type of QC parameters such areas, standards, etc. led to the release of a series of letters from the EPA said that its new position on this issue, so that laboratory and QC Manager to replace its outdatedDevices with significantly higher than the modern instrument, still remain in compliance with EPA regulations. (EPA letter dated February 2005 and February 2007).
These letters clearly indicate the position of EPA, which is that the ATP-letters are no longer needed, so that those who insist that the letters were improperly kept careful not to ATP. And again, to meet the EPA considers all discrete analyzers, and the direction of flow of each instrument until the EPA issued NPDES method is compatibleand will continue to follow very specific that no proof the letters must be produced by the EPA.
Validation of laboratory during installation is that these standards relate to the pre-validation of the extended work of producers discrete analyzer that the EPA recognizes that not prohibitively expensive. MDL other data that was required under the letter of approval to the program data is to simply be compared to EPA data in a spreadsheet, but implementation has proven to beattention during the installation, as clearly stated in the letters of reference EPA down and 40 CFR 136.6.
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น