Laserfiche WebLink
<br />0 <br />~ STATE LINE ~ <br />--.I <br />CD <br /> CAMEO 0 <br /> (/J GUNNISON 0 <br /> LU TUNNEL <br /> f- <br /> iii <br /> C) GUNNISON 0 <br /> Z AT 32 ROAD <br /> ::; <br /> a. <br /> ::;; j <br /> <( EAST 0 0 <br /> CfJ <br /> GORE 0 <br /> BAKER L, I I I I I 101 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IJ <br /> J F M A M J J A S 0 N 0 J F M A M J J A S 0 N 0 <br /> 1995 I 1996 I <br /> DATE <br /> Figure 4. Distribution of collection of post-processing spiit-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 />conslituents 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 elemenls was collected. <br /> <br />Comparison of General Chemical Constituents <br /> <br />Results of comparison bel ween 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 I rounding unit. The majority ofthe <br />differences agree within plus or minus I 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 Ihe 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 />menial dala. <br /> <br />QUALITY-CONTROL SAMPLING PROGRAM 25 <br />