Comparison of waste water sampling techniques

Simple item page
dc.acquisition-srcDownloaded from-Water Resources Abstractsen_US
dc.call-noen_US
dc.contract-noen_US
dc.contributor.authorTARAZI DSen_US
dc.contributor.authorHISER LLen_US
dc.contributor.authorCHILDERS REen_US
dc.contributor.authorBOLDT CAen_US
dc.contributor.otherJournal of Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol 42, No 5, Part I, P 708-732, May 1970 10 Fig, 11 Tab, 6 Refen_US
dc.date.accessioned2010-02-15T17:15:39Z
dc.date.available2010-02-15T17:15:39Z
dc.date.issued1970 Mayen_US
dc.degreeen_US
dc.descriptionVOL-732en_US
dc.description-otheren_US
dc.description.abstractA SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE EXISTS BETWEEN THE DATA OBTAINED BY GR SAMPLING AND BY FLOW-WEIGHTED COMPOSITE SAMPLING. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THESE DIFFERENCES WAS MAINLY DEPENDENT ON THE FOLLOWING FACTORS: (1) THE OVERALL TIME PERIOD FOR WHICH THE WASTE WATER IS TO CHARACTERIZE, I.E., WHETHER DAILY OR OTHER TIME INCREMENTS OF POLLUTION LOADING ARE TO BE DETERMINED, (2) THE CONFIDENCE LEVELS DESIRED, (3) THE VARI SPECIFIC WASTE WATER STREAM, AND (4) WHETHER CONCENTRATION LEVELS OR MATERIAL TRANSPORT RATES ARE DESIRED. A COMPARISON IS MADE BETWEEN GR INDUSTRIES ON THE HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL. FROM PAST EXPERIENCE THAT THE NUMBER OF GR CONFIDENCE LIMITS TO A FLOW-WEIGHTED COMPOSITE IS EXCESSIVE FOR MOST OF THE WASTE WATER ENTERING THE SHIP CHANNEL. TWO WASTE WATER STREAMS WERE UTILIZED IN THIS DEMONSTRATION. DAILY COMPOSITE AND GR THE FIRST INCLUDED PH, TOTAL RESIDUE, FILTERED COD, TOD, TOTAL FILTERED CARBON, AND INORGANIC FILTERED CARBON. THE SECOND STREAM INCLUDED ONLY TOTAL, FILTER 'T' TEST IS USED TO STATISTICALLY ANALYZE THE COLLECTED DATA AND DEVELOP CONFIDENCE LIMITS. (HANCUFF-TEXAS)en_US
dc.description.urihttp://gbic.tamug.edu/request.htmen_US
dc.historyen_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1969.3/23239
dc.latitudeen_US
dc.locationen_US
dc.longitudeen_US
dc.notesen_US
dc.placeen_US
dc.publisheren_US
dc.relation.ispartofseries50823.00en_US
dc.relation.urien_US
dc.scaleen_US
dc.seriesen_US
dc.subject*'T' TESTSen_US
dc.subject*MONITORINGen_US
dc.subject*SAMPLINGen_US
dc.subject*SAMPLING TECHNIQUESen_US
dc.subject*STATISTICSen_US
dc.subjectANALYTICAL TECHNIQUESen_US
dc.subjectAUTOMATIONen_US
dc.subjectEvaluationen_US
dc.subjectGRAB SAMPLESen_US
dc.subjectHoustonen_US
dc.subjectHouston Ship Channelen_US
dc.subjectINDUSTRIESen_US
dc.subjectPOLLUTIONen_US
dc.subjectPROBABILITYen_US
dc.subjectSTATISTICAL METHODen_US
dc.subjectSW 3040 Wastewater treatment processesen_US
dc.subjectTEXen_US
dc.subjectWASTE WATERen_US
dc.subjectWASTE WATER CHARACTERISTICSen_US
dc.subjectWaste water treatmenten_US
dc.subjectWATERen_US
dc.titleComparison of waste water sampling techniquesen_US
dc.typeJournalen_US
dc.universityen_US
dc.vol-issue()en_US

Files

Collections

Galveston Bay Bibliography
GBIC Abstracts (full text not available through Jack K. Williams Library)