Has the report been peer reviewed or is it being audited? 7.9 A checklist of points that should be considered in the overall presentation of the report and an assessment of its quality is provided below. Report structure and data presentation Have all tables and figures been referred to correctly in the text of the report? Is the presentation of results consistent with the units for which the standards are written (e.g. using milligrams/m3 instead of nanograms/m3 when sampling ambient air)? Have SI units been used correctly throughout the report (Thompson & Taylor 2008)? Is there a map of testing sites that enables ready identification of sampling sites in relation to relevant environmental sources? Does the presentation format enable easy cross-referencing of results to maps and between different parts of a report? Are results presented in linear geographic sequence (e.g. either going downstream or upstream, or towards or away from a point source)? Has the report been presented in a suitable format to enable ‘track changes’, comments and cutting and pasting into a Word document? PDF formats hinder rapid transcription and can create the potential for transcription errors. Issues of data quality Has the nature of the analyte been specified? This may be important when the valency (e.g. chromium) or chemical form (e.g. organic arsenic versus inorganic arsenic in fish; haem iron versus non-haem iron in animal samples) may be relevant for health risk assessment. Has the level of reporting (LOR) been specified for each analyte and for each batch of results? Have the laboratories involved in the assays been identified, along with their QA/QC procedures? When there have been several sampling periods, have the results been collated into a single table to enable efficient appraisal of results and trends to be readily detected?
Has the report been peer reviewed or is it being audited? 7.9 A checklist of points that should be considered in the overall presentation of the report and an assessment of its quality is provided below. Report structure and data presentation Have all tables and figures been referred to correctly in the text of the report? Is the presentation of results consistent with the units for which the standards are written (e.g. using milligrams/m3 instead of nanograms/m3 when sampling ambient air)? Have SI units been used correctly throughout the report (Thompson & Taylor 2008)? Is there a map of testing sites that enables ready identification of sampling sites in relation to relevant environmental sources? Does the presentation format enable easy cross-referencing of results to maps and between different parts of a report? Are results presented in linear geographic sequence (e.g. either going downstream or upstream, or towards or away from a point source)? Has the report been presented in a suitable format to enable ‘track changes’, comments and cutting and pasting into a Word document? PDF formats hinder rapid transcription and can create the potential for transcription errors. Issues of data quality Has the nature of the analyte been specified? This may be important when the valency (e.g. chromium) or chemical form (e.g. organic arsenic versus inorganic arsenic in fish; haem iron versus non-haem iron in animal samples) may be relevant for health risk assessment. Has the level of reporting (LOR) been specified for each analyte and for each batch of results? Have the laboratories involved in the assays been identified, along with their QA/QC procedures? When there have been several sampling periods, have the results been collated into a single table to enable efficient appraisal of results and trends to be readily detected?
w.Environmental-Health-Risk-Assessment.docx