The Data Management Working Group (DMWG) representatives organised a successful meeting with geoenvironmental laboratories on 27th November 2024 in Birmingham (see LinkedIn post). The group was able to discuss issues and concerns related to adoption of AGS 4.1 and general usage of the ELRG and ERES tables. The DMWG and laboratory representatives came up with following recommendations:

• AGS 4.1 Adoption: It was acknowledged that the adoption of AGS 4.1 is low, with only a few requests from clients. Labs are generally not implementing it due to the lack of demand. However, there is a consensus that moving towards AGS 4.1 would be beneficial for the industry.
• Sample Key headings: Sample key headings (LOCA_ID, SAMP_TOP, SAMP_TYPE, SAMP_REF and SAMP_ID) should be provided to the laboratories by the client. If the client doesn’t provide sample key headings but requests AGS data, the lab should request the key headings be provided, null key headings are acceptable. The key headings are not to be altered by the laboratory. (See additional point on Sample ID below).
• Sample ID Usage: It was agreed that the Sample ID (SAMP_ID) should only be created by the person taking the sample and should not be populated by the lab. The lab should use the Lab Sample ID field (ELRG_LSID) in AGS 4.1 or use SPEC_REF in AGS 4.0 for any laboratory derived identification.
• Result Value and Text: The group agreed that if a result is below the detection limit, the result value should be left blank, and the detection limit should be defined in the result text heading with a less than symbol. Result Text (RTXT) is to match the result reported on the laboratory certificate (to the same number of decimal places / significant figures etc).
• Reporting Detection Limits: It was agreed that the reported detection limit (RDLM) is the key value of interest and should be consistently used across all labs, reporting LOD as per the lab certificate.
• Matrix Field Usage: The matrix heading should be used to indicate the physical state of the sample (solid, liquid, gas), and not be misappropriated for other purposes.  We did discuss the addition of LEACHATE and will assess further before any decision is made.
• Laboratory Name: It was agreed that labs will populate the name of the testing laboratory (LAB).
• Soil, Leachate and WAC Testing: There was a consensus on the need to differentiate between soil testing, leachate testing and WAC testing in the AGS data. The group agreed that either an existing AGS ELRG/ERES field will be re-purposed, or a new field will be created, used in AGS 4.0 and 4.1 as user-defined field. Labs noted that a single line in the data can relate to both soil and WAC or leachate and WAC testing.
• Chemical Codes and Testing Methods: A ‘pure chemical’ such as arsenic is to be defined by CAS number (CODE), different types of analysis for that chemical such as total, dissolved, bio-accessible are to be differentiated by Method (METH) for uniqueness and the type of testing to be reported in Determinand Name, e.g. Arsenic (Total), Arsenic (Dissolved). We explored the idea of the TORD heading having additional descriptors added such as Bioavailable.  In AGS 4.1 this is an X heading, but we have seen this exported as PA in several AGS files.  Mixtures or non-chemicals are to use a P code instead of CAS number.
• TPH Testing Methods: It was suggested that AGS consider adopting HWOL system for differentiating testing methods for TPHs.
• Sum vs Total: Sum of a group of determinands is to be indicated by the word Total at the beginning of Determinand Name.  (Total) at the end of the Determinand Name indicates method of analysis: Total PAHs, Arsenic (Total). Total Chromium should not be reported.
• PFAS: Defined chemicals to use CAS numbers as Determinand Code (CODE). More clarity is needed on branched / linear / Total PFAS as this is an emerging field.  TOP Assay also requires further investigation – AGS files provided suggest it is currently indicated by use of differing ELRG/ERES_METH codes.
• AGS Validator: It was agreed that the official AGS Validator should be the de facto tool used for AGS file validation. All stakeholders should use it to ensure consistency.

Actions

• AGS Sample File: AGS Data Management Working Group to create a sample file, discuss with the labs and issue on the website.
• Soil, Leachate and WAC Testing: Propose field for reporting soil, leachate and WAC testing to enhance data interpretation.
• PFAS: Engage with Contaminated Land and Lab Groups of AGS on better understanding of branched vs linear PFAS and TOP Assay.
• Asbestos: Data management working group to review data provided by the labs and propose unified way to report asbestos analysis (bulk screen, level 1 screen + ID, level 2 quantification %, level 3 fibre counting) for further discussion with the labs.

Watch this space for updates!