<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
 <!-- Generated by Ektron CMS400.NET -->
 <channel>
  <title>WEF Discussion Forums : Laboratory Management and Technical Issues : BOD blank depletion: 0.2 or 0.20?</title>
  <description></description>
 <item>
  <title></title>
  <description><![CDATA[<root><p>We were having a discussion in our municipal wastewater lab about this... </p>
<p> </p>
<p>The 18th and 20th Editions of Standard Methods use 0.2 mg/L as the limit for blank depletion in a BOD or CBOD test.  </p>
<p> </p>
<p>The 21st Edition uses 0.20 mg/L as the limit. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Perry's wonderful book <u>A Bug's Eye View</u> also uses 0.2 mg/L.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I was sure this had been discussed before -- perhaps it was in the old forum -- but I'm wondering how many sig figs folks use when assessing blank performance in the BOD/CBOD test.  Did SM mean to provide clarification with the additional sig fig in the 21st edition? </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Thanks in advance for the feedback!</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p></root>
<br />]]></description>
  <pubDate>Tue, 25 May 2010 19:59:58 GMT</pubDate>
 </item>
 <item>
  <title></title>
  <description><![CDATA[<root>Using a limit of 0.2 mg/L means that anything up to 0.24 mg/L is acceptable.  Adding that extra significant digit means that you can only go to 0.204 and most meters that I'm aware of don't measure more than two decimal places anyway.<p> </p></root>
<br />]]></description>
  <pubDate>Tue, 25 May 2010 20:52:28 GMT</pubDate>
 </item>
 <item>
  <title></title>
  <description><![CDATA[<root><p>Right... with the extra digit your blanks would have to be 0.20 or less. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Is a blank of 0.24 acceptable to auditors for a lab using the 18th Edition? </p></root>
<br />]]></description>
  <pubDate>Tue, 25 May 2010 22:19:11 GMT</pubDate>
 </item>
 <item>
  <title></title>
  <description><![CDATA[<root><p>It is Perry's conclusion that the <em>Standard Methods </em>BOD committee <em>intended </em>that two significant figures be used when they specified the 0.20 limit and that it wasn't an accident that it changed from 0.2 to 0.20.  The next edition of his book will use 0.20 rather than 0.2.  </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>That extra significant doesn't have much do with protecting the environment, but it <em>can </em>have an impact on the lab's ability to check analytical performance.  Every little thing you do to minimize variables, and accepting 0.204 as your limit rather than 0.24 <em>is </em>little, will make your overall precision better, resulting in a lower standard deviation for the GGA test, something inspectors like to see, and something you should strive for.<br /></p></root>
<br />]]></description>
  <pubDate>Tue, 25 May 2010 22:21:34 GMT</pubDate>
 </item>
 <item>
  <title></title>
  <description><![CDATA[<root><p>Hey thanks so much for the replies!  </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p></root>
<br />]]></description>
  <pubDate>Thu, 27 May 2010 17:58:59 GMT</pubDate>
 </item>
 <item>
  <title></title>
  <description><![CDATA[Geez, that's unbleeivable. Kudos and such.
<br />]]></description>
  <pubDate>Sun, 26 Jun 2011 00:37:25 GMT</pubDate>
 </item>
 <item>
  <title></title>
  <description><![CDATA[Now I feel stupid. That's claered it up for me
<br />]]></description>
  <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jun 2011 08:52:46 GMT</pubDate>
 </item>
 <item>
  <title></title>
  <description><![CDATA[Youre the one with the brinas here. Im watching for your posts.
<br />]]></description>
  <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jun 2011 14:48:07 GMT</pubDate>
 </item>
 <item>
  <title></title>
  <description><![CDATA[Heck of a job there, it absoluelty helps me out.
<br />]]></description>
  <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jun 2011 17:36:31 GMT</pubDate>
 </item>
 </channel>
</rss>
