对于饮用水供应社区来说 与化学物质有关的问题更多 根据《安全饮用水法》进行监测 （SDWA）是建立有意义的报告 限制。历史上，报告限制一直很糟糕 由法规定义，并被任意设定 而且前后矛盾。 为了解决这个问题，美国加州教育部 饮用水和环境管理 SDWA执法州首要机构成立 报告限制工作组进行调查 确定报告限额的方法和 制定一个设定报告限制的程序 明确定义并基于客观和可再现性 数据在一项自愿研究中，饮用水 国家认可的实验室收到了一系列 含有感兴趣的分析物的配制溶液。 只有美国环境保护局批准的分析方法 SDWA合规保护局 都被使用了。 多年来，争论主要集中在 设置报告限制的最佳方法。大部分 这些数据来自各个实验室或实验室 分析物数量有限。这项研究检验了 大量实验室和分析物的结果 以及所有经批准的方法，提供了更多 以经验为基础评估不同的解决方案 设置报告限制。根据研究发现 设定报告限额的最佳方法 能够生产的实验室的数量或百分比 满足测量质量目标的结果 数据用户（即监管机构）而非 所有实验室或其他集合的平均性能 措施。报告时，使用 这里描述的程序更能反映 实际实验室能力和能力。包括16个参考文献、表格和图表。

For the drinking water supply community, one of the more problematic issues associated with chemical monitoring under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is the establishment of meaningful reporting limits. Historically, reporting limits have been poorly defined by the regulations and have been set arbitrarily and inconsistently. To address this issue, the California Division of Drinking Water and Environmental Management, the state primacy agency for SDWA enforcement, formed the Reporting Limit Workgroup to investigate approaches for determining reporting limits and to develop a procedure for setting reporting limits that are clearly defined and based on objective and reproducible data. In a voluntary study, drinking water laboratories accredited by the state received a series of prepared solutions containing analytes of interest. Only analytical methods approved by the US Environmental Protection Agency for SDWA compliance were used. Over the years, considerable debate has centered on the best approach to setting reporting limits. Much of these data have come from individual laboratories or limited numbers of analytes. This study examined results from a large number of laboratories and analytes as well as all approved methods, providing a more empirically based assessment of different approaches to setting reporting limits. According to study findings, the optimum approach to setting reporting limits considers the number or percentage of laboratories that can produce results that meet the measurement quality objectives of the data user (i.e., the regulators) rather than the average performance of all laboratories or other aggregate measures. When reporting, limits are set using the procedures described here, they are more reflective of actual laboratory capability and capacity. Includes 16 references, tables, figures.