Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> STATE LINE <br /> CAMEO 0 <br />C/) GUNNISON 0 <br />W TUNNEL <br />!::: <br />C/) <br />CJ GUNNISON 0 <br />Z AT 32 ROAD <br />:J <br />a.. <br />:2: <br /><( EAST 0 0 <br />C/) <br /> GORE 0 <br /> BAKER <br /> J F M A M J J S 0 N D J F M A M J J A S 0 N D <br /> 1995 I 1996 I <br /> DATE <br /> <br />Figure 4. Distribution of collection of post-processing split-replicate samples, 1995-96. <br /> <br />Eight post-processing split-replicate samples <br />were collected during water years 1995-96. <br />Comparisons of split A and split B samples <br />for major chemical, nutrient, and organic carbon <br />constituents are presented in the following sections. <br />Post-processing split-replicate data for trace <br />elements are not presented because only one <br />sample for trace elements was collected. <br /> <br />Comparison of General Chemical Constituents <br /> <br />Results of comparison between post-processing <br />split samples for general chemical constituents are <br />listed in table 13. A summary of the differences <br /> <br />between split A and split B samples for the constitu- <br />ents listed in table 13 is given in table 14. Shaded <br />cells in table 13 represent differences greater than <br />plus or minus 1 rounding unit. The majority of the <br />differences agree within plus or minus 1 lowest <br />rounding unit with the exception of residue on evapo- <br />ration. The differences in residue on evaporation <br />probably reflect the precision of the laboratory <br />method. Variability associated with sample shipment <br />and analysis for general chemical constituents is low <br />and will have little effect on interpretation of environ- <br />mental data. <br /> <br />QUALITY-CONTROL SAMPLING PROGRAM 25 <br />