Insights from the DoD Environmental Monitoring and Data Quality Workshop: A Validator’s Perspective

Data Management

By Virginia Clauser and Jazmine P. McIntyre, part of the Environmental Chemistry Services team at ddms, Inc.

As environmental chemists and data validators, staying current with evolving methodologies and best practices is essential to delivering the legally defensible, high-quality data our clients depend on. Last summer, we both had the opportunity to attend all three sessions of the Department of Defense (DoD) Environmental Monitoring and Data Quality Workshop webinar series.

You can watch videos of each presentation here:

For those who are short on time, we’d like to share insights that are directly applicable to anyone working in the field of environmental chemistry.

Session One: Rapid Evolution of Analytical Methods

The first session focused on the rapid evolution of analytical methods — especially the use of reduced‑volume extractions paired with GC‑QQQ technology. These advancements are driving lower detection limits, expanding analyte lists, and strengthening quantitation across semi‑volatiles and pesticide classes.

As long‑term monitoring programs and site remediations continue adapting to new field technologies and analytical innovations, it’s essential to stay informed about these changes to understand why certain contaminants are now being detected when historically they were not. Our team closely follows advancements to make sure that data quality objectives stay aligned with modern laboratory capabilities and to continue helping clients interpret these shifts.

The session also emphasized that, despite growing automation, critical thinking remains fundamental to high‑quality data validation. The examples showed nuanced professional judgment (particularly during Stage 4 reviews):

  • prevents misqualification of results
  • uncovers upstream sampling issues
  • reduces the risks associated with relying solely on automated validation tools.

This reinforced our experience at ddms. We continually expand our automation capabilities through all stages of validation and review while recognizing the limits of automated logic. Maintaining professional judgment ensures that neither data validity nor usability is compromised. As environmentally impacted sites generate data that drive decision‑making and long‑term monitoring, the balanced use of automation —paired with technical expertise — will remain critical to achieving fast turnaround times and meeting project goals.

Session Two: Understanding the Project Chemist’s Perspective

Session two centered on DoD PFAS Method 1633A validation, with particular emphasis on the project chemist’s role in the data review process. The presenters — Nancy Cooper, Chemist, USACE EM CX and Grace Nepomuceno Ph.D., Chemist, AFCEC [TS1] [VC2] [VC3] — provided an in-depth look at the level of detail required at each stage of validation and how to interpret Module 6 guidelines effectively.

One of the highlights of attending a conference of this magnitude is the level of insight we gain from other chemistry professionals. For those of us working as third-party validators on DoD Navy Clean projects, understanding the project chemist’s workflow helps us collaborate more effectively. The webinar emphasized the importance of confirming DoD accreditation for laboratories and using case narratives to identify anomalies — practices that align with the ddms commitment to data integrity.

One particular revelation: project chemists are required to review all raw data, while third-party validators typically examine a percentage as outlined in the project QAPP. This distinction clarified our complementary roles and reinforced the value of clear communication between all parties.

Perhaps the most valuable takeaway from this phase was the emphasis on collaboration between project chemists and third-party validators. When reviewing raw data and encountering a question, being able to communicate directly with the project chemist—who can then reach out to the laboratory if needed—is crucial for getting to the root of any issues. This collaborative approach is one of the most important aspects of validation, and it’s something we prioritize in our work at ddms.

Nancy Cooper’s presentation included particularly helpful deep-dives into specific validation issues, including isotope mass ratio calculations and signal-to-noise ratio determinations. Her use of interactive poll questions kept the audience engaged and allowed her to gauge our understanding in real time. When the audience answered incorrectly, she took the extra time to explore the concept more thoroughly, which helped everyone get a solid grasp of these critical validation elements.

Session Three: Looking Ahead: The Future of PFAS Analysis

Session three focused specifically on PFAS methods and emerging analytical capabilities, and this is where the webinar really pushed the envelope. The content provided a glimpse of what’s to come for our clients regarding en[JM1] vironmental data management. The presenters for this session included Bharat Chandramouli (SGS), Tiffany Hill (Jacobs), and JP Verheul (Enthalpy Analytics).

Barat’s presentation on extending EPA Method 1633 was particularly relevant. Currently, Method 1633A is limited by commercially available labeled analogs. However, as more analogs become available, the method allows for additional target analytes to be detected without requiring EPA approval, as long as laboratories can follow all guidelines specified in the method.

This is critical for our clients because, as we know, the list of PFAS compounds continues to expand. As commercially available standards hit the market, laboratories will be able to add to their target analyte lists, providing more comprehensive data for decision-making.

The subsequent presentations showcased cutting-edge developments, like the TOP assay (Total Oxidizable Precursor assay) method, which offers a way to screen for PFAS precursors (compounds that will eventually transform into PFAS).

Think of an iceberg: the small portion visible above water represents the PFAS currently being quantified, while everything beneath represents the precursors. The TOP assay aims to reveal what’s hidden below the surface by oxidizing precursors and comparing samples before and after oxidation. While currently used as a screening method, ongoing work aims to develop it into a quantitative approach.

Equally innovative was JP Verhule’s presentation from Enthalpy Analytical on their direct injection method for detecting short-chain PFAS compounds that currently cannot be detected via Method 1633A. This method bypasses solid phase extraction through direct injection isotope dilution, potentially saving laboratories significant time.

The limitation? It requires extremely sensitive LC-MS/MS instrumentation to achieve the necessary detection limits. As these instruments become more widely available, we’ll likely see broader adoption of both the TOP assay and direct injection methods.

Two Key Takeaways for Environmental Data Professionals

From a third-party validator’s perspective, this webinar reinforced two critical questions we ask ourselves with every project:

  • First, am I doing everything possible to ensure the client’s data is defensible? Am I reviewing all the components necessary for each stage of data validation according to project requirements and industry best practices?
  • Second, how can we prepare for the future? New methods are being developed as we speak. Dedicated professionals are working to ensure that every PFAS compound that can become a target analyte will eventually be detectable through standardized, defensible methods. As technology advances and instrument sensitivity increases, our ability to provide comprehensive environmental data will only improve.

This webinar series exemplified the collaborative, forward-thinking approach that defines excellence in environmental data management. The emphasis on clear communication, data defensibility, and continuous innovation fits well with ddms’s mission to deliver actionable insights and trusted expertise to our clients.

We appreciate the Data Quality Working Group organizing this series and look forward to future opportunities to learn and grow alongside other professionals in our field.

About the Authors:

Jazmine McIntyre is a project manager of environmental chemistry services at ddms, where she manages the full chemistry life cycle of environmental projects, overseeing analytical data validation, producing QC workflows, providing technical insights and more to deliver precise, regulator‑ready datasets to drive confident decision‑making.

Virginia Clauser is a senior environmental chemist at ddms, where she specializes in third-party data validation for environmental projects, including DoD Navy Clean initiatives.  Her work focuses on ensuring data quality, integrity, and defensibility for clients managing complex environmental challenges.