5.1 The principal use of this standard is in the identification of effective groundwater monitoring constituents for a detection-monitoring program. The significance of the guide is to minimize the false positive rate for the facility by only monitoring those constituents that are intrinsic to the waste mass and eliminate those constituents that are present in background in concentrations that confound evaluation from downgradient wells.5.2 Governing regulations require large generic lists of constituents to be monitored in an effort to detect a release from a WMU. However, identification and selection of parameters based on site-specific physical and chemical conditions are in many cases also acceptable to regulatory agencies and result in a more effective and environmentally protective groundwater monitoring system.5.2.1 Naturally occurring soil and groundwater constituents within and near a WMU area should be determined prior to the development of a monitoring program. This is important in the selection of site-specific constituents lists and avoiding difficulties with a regulatory authority regarding sources of monitored constituents.5.2.2 Site-specific lists of constituents relative to the WMU will provide for the regulator those constituents which will effectively measure the performance of a WMU rather than the use of a generic list that could include naturally occurring constituents as well as those not present in the WMU.5.3 Site-specific constituent lists often result in fewer monitored constituents (that is, monitoring programs are optimized). This process is critical to the overall success of the monitoring program for the following reasons:5.3.1 The reduction of the monitoring constituents to only those found or expected to be found or derived from site-specific source material will reduce the number of false-positive results since only those parameters that could indicate a release are monitored.5.3.2 The use of constituents that contrast significantly to background groundwater eliminates those that could lead to erroneous results merely due to temporal and spatial variability of components found in the natural geochemistry of the upper-most water-bearing zone.5.3.3 Where statistics are required, fewer statistical comparisons through well and constituent optimization enhances the statistical power (or effectiveness) of the monitoring program (Gibbons, 1994; USEPA, April 1998).5.3.4 Eliminating the cost of unnecessary laboratory analyses produces a more efficient and cost-effective monitoring program and minimizes the effort needed by both the local enforcement agency and the owner/operator to respond (either with correspondence or additional field/laboratory efforts) to erroneous detection decisions.5.4 This type of approach is acceptable to regulatory agencies arid applicable under most groundwater monitoring programs.NOTE 1: For example, in the United States, determining the alternate constituent list at Solid Waste Facilities, 40 CFR 258.54(a)(l) allows for deletion of 40 CFR 258 Appendix I constituents if it can be shown that the removed constituents are not reasonably expected to be in or derived from the waste contained in the unit. 40 CFR 258(a)(2) allows approved States to establish an alternate list of inorganic parameters in lieu of all or some of the heavy metals (constituents 1-14 in Appendix I to Part 258), if the alternative constituents provide a reliable indication of inorganic releases from the unit to groundwater.5.5 The framework for this standard is generally based on the guidelines established under 40 CFR 258.54(a)(l) to optimize a groundwater-monitoring network in such a manner as to still provide an early warning system of a release from the WMU. This guidance document is, however, applicable for most WMU, not just those associated with solid waste disposal facilities. In determining the alternative constituents, consideration must be made for: (1) the types, quantities, and concentrations of constituents in wastes managed at the waste management unit (or WMU); (2) the mobility, stability, and persistence of waste constituents in the unsaturated zone beneath the WMU; (3) the detectability of indicator parameters, waste constituents, and reaction products in groundwater; and (4) the concentration or contrast between monitoring constituents in leachate and in background groundwater.5.6 An essential factor in this guide is the knowledge of the quality of the potential source material [for example, the types and concentrations of liquid or other leachable wastes (that is, leachate) within the WMU]. The characterization of the source material is critical in determining an optimum set of indicator parameters that provide an early warning system of a release from the unit. Details for the appropriate levels of effort to characterize the waste stream or source(s) in the WMU are not included within this guidance document. Waste stream and/or source data collected by the owner/operator as well as liquid data from key collection points (that is, sumps or natural gravity drain collection points) are an integral part of any waste characterization process.5.7 Another key factor to be used in this guide is knowledge of background quality of groundwater unaffected by the WMU and knowledge of local sources other than the WMU that may presently be impacting groundwater quality. The main objective then is to choose those constituents that are derived from the WMU (for example, are present in the leachate or residual liquids) at much higher concentrations than groundwater and/or that are only present in the waste or waste residuum (for example, leachate) and absent in groundwater. The analytes chosen must also be mobile, persistent, and easily quantifiable in the specific hydrogeologic and groundwater regime.1.1 This standard provides a general method of selecting effective constituents for detection monitoring programs at Waste Disposal Facilities. The process described in this standard presents a methodology that takes into consideration physical and chemical characteristics of the source material(s), the surrounding hydrogeologic regime, and site-specific geochemistry to identify and select those parameters that provide most effective detection of a potential release from a waste management unit (WMU).1.2 In the following sections, details of an evaluation of effective monitoring constituents for a groundwater detection-monitoring program were based on site-specific waste characterization.1.3 The statistical methodology described in the following sections should be used as guidance. Other methods may also be appropriate based on site-specific conditions or for monitoring situations or media that are not presented in this standard.1.4 This guide offers an organized collection of information or a series of options and does not recommend a specific course of action. This document cannot replace education, experience and professional judgements. Not all aspects of this guide may be applicable in all circumstances. This ASTM standard is not intended to represent or replace the standard of care by which the adequacy of a given professional service must be judged without consideration of a project's many unique aspects. The word standard in the title of this document only means that the document has been approved through the ASTM consensus process.1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory requirements prior to use.

定价： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

5.1 Method Considerations—The objective of most groundwater sampling programs is to obtain samples that are similar in composition to that of the formation water near the well screen. The low-flow purging and sampling method uses the stabilization of indicator parameters to determine when the pump discharge is considered to represent a flow-weighted average of the formation water. Measurements of operational parameters are used to determine potential sampling bias (for example, artifactual turbidity and increased temperature) that may have been introduced by pumping operations and to ensure that the sample is representative of formation water. The low-flow purge rate minimizes lowering of the ambient groundwater level and thereby minimizes potential entrainment of blank-riser pipe (and potentially stagnant) water above or below the screen into the screened-zone of the well. This sampling method assumes that the well has been properly designed and constructed as described in Practices D5092/D5092M and D6725/D6725M, adequately developed as described in Guide D5521/D5521M, and has received proper well maintenance and rehabilitation as described in Guide D5978/D5978M (see Note 1).NOTE 1: This Standard is not intended to replace or supersede any regulatory requirements, standard operating procedure (SOP), quality assurance project plan (QAPP), ground water sampling and analysis plan (GWSAP) or site-specific regulatory permit requirements. The procedures described in this Standard may be used in conjunction with regulatory requirements, SOPs, QAPPs, GWSAPs or permits where allowed by the authority with jurisdiction.5.2 Applicability—Low-flow purging and sampling may be used in a monitoring well that can be pumped at a constant low-flow rate without continuously increasing drawdown in the well (2). If a well cannot be purged without continuously increasing drawdown even at very low pumping rates (for example, 50 – 100 mL/min), the well should not be sampled using this sampling method as described in this standard; a passive sampling method, as described in Guide D7929, may be considered as an alternative.5.3 Target Analytes—Low-flow purging and sampling can be used to collect samples for all categories of aqueous-phase contaminants and naturally-occurring analytes. It is particularly well suited for use where it is desirable to sample aqueous-phase constituents that may sorb or partition to particulate matter, because the method minimizes the potential for artifactual turbidity compared with high flow/high volume purging using a pump, bailer, or inertial-lift device (9-12).1.1 This practice describes the method of low-flow purging and sampling used to collect groundwater samples from wells to assess groundwater quality.1.2 The purpose of this procedure is to collect groundwater samples that represent a flow-weighted average of solute and colloid concentrations transported through the formation near the well screen under ambient conditions. Samples collected using this method can be analyzed for groundwater contaminants and/or naturally occurring analytes.1.3 This practice is generally not suitable for use in wells with very low-yields and cannot be conducted using grab sampling or inertial lift devices. This practice is not suitable for use in wells with non-aqueous phase liquids.1.4 Units—The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are approximate mathematical conversions to inch-pound units that are provided for information only and are not considered standard.1.5 This practice offers a set of instructions for performing one or more specific operations. This document cannot replace education or experience and should be used in conjunction with professional judgment. Not all aspects of this practice may be applicable in all circumstances. This ASTM standard is not intended to represent or replace the standard of care by which the adequacy of a given professional service must be judged, nor should this document be applied without consideration of a project's many unique aspects. The word “standard” in the title means only that the document has been approved through the ASTM consensus process.1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.7 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

1.1 This practice describes highway-traffic monitoring, which is the activity of collecting, summarizing, and reporting traffic volume, vehicle classification, and vehicle weight data. This practice is foundational and is not intended to be all-inclusive. Users of this practice are allowed, indeed encouraged, to exceed the practice. 1.2 Traffic monitoring results in traffic-volume, classification, and weight-summary statistics which are used in highway geometric and pavement design, alternative highway route selection, roadway demand and service assessment, and accident-exposure estimation. 1.3 Traffic-monitoring practices are based on the principle of truth-in-data. This principle involves providing the supplementary information required for appropriate use of traffic data and summary statistics. 1.4 To measure traffic for summary-statistic calculation, traffic-monitoring practices are also based on the principle of unedited base-data integrity. Missing or inaccurate unedited base data shall not be completed, filled-in, or replaced for any type of traffic measurement. 1.5 A limitation of this practice is traffic-data summarization. Traffic-data summarization procedures are hypotheses, particularly in the use of adjustment factors. These hypotheses shall be consistently calculated, but may also be expected to be challenged and to change across time. These changes will be important in improving the precision of traffic-summary statistics. 1.6 The inherent limitation of traffic-monitoring practice results in strict adherence to the principle of unedited base-data retention. Only with adequate historical unedited base data can alternative hypotheses be tested, the impact of the alternative hypotheses assessed, and standard practice refined. 1.7 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as standard. 1.8 The following safety hazards caveat applies only to the traffic data collection portion, Section 6, of this practice. This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

定价： 0元 / 折扣价： 0 元

4.1 Detection and location of AE sources in weldments during fabrication may provide information related to the integrity of the weld. Such information may be used to direct repair procedures on the weld or as a guide for application of other nondestructive evaluation (NDE) methods. A major attribute of applying AE for in-process monitoring of welds is the ability of the method to provide immediate real-time information on weld integrity. This feature makes the method useful to lower weld costs by repairing defects at the most convenient point in the production process. The AE activity from discontinuities in the weldment is stimulated by the thermal stresses from the welding process. The AE activity resulting from this stimulation is detected by AE sensors in the vicinity of the weldment, which convert the acoustic waves into electronic signals. The AE instrumentation processes signals and provides means for immediate display or indication of AE activity and for permanent recordings of the data.4.2 Items to be considered in preparation and planning for monitoring should include but not be limited to the following:4.2.1 Description of the system or object to be monitored or examined,4.2.2 Extent of monitoring, that is, entire weld, cover passes only, and so forth,4.2.3 Limitations or restrictions on the sensor mounting procedures, if applicable,4.2.4 Performance parameters to be established and maintained during the AE system verification procedure (sensitivity, location accuracy, and so forth),4.2.5 Maximum time interval between AE system verification checks,4.2.6 Performance criteria for purchased equipment,4.2.7 Requirements for permanent records of the AE response, if applicable,4.2.8 Content and format of test report, if required, and4.2.9 Operator qualification and certification, if required.1.1 This practice provides recommendations for acoustic emission (AE) monitoring of weldments during and immediately following their fabrication by continuous welding processes.1.2 The procedure described in this practice is applicable to the detection and location of AE sources in weldments and in their heat-affected zone during fabrication, particularly in those cases where the time duration of welding is such that fusion and solidification take place while welding is still in progress.1.3 The effectiveness of acoustic emission to detect discontinuities in the weldment and the heat-affected zone is dependent on the design of the AE system, the AE system verification procedure, the weld process, and the material type. Materials that have been monitored include low-carbon steels, low-alloy steels, stainless steels, and some aluminum alloys. The system performance must be verified for each application by demonstrating that the defects of concern can be detected with the desired reliability.1.4 Units—The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system may not be exact equivalents; therefore, each system shall be used independently of the other. Combining values from the two systems may result in non-conformance with the standard.1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

5.1 The principal use of this standard is in assessment, compliance and corrective action environmental monitoring programs (for example, for a facility that could potentially contaminate groundwater). The significance of the guidance is that it presents a statistical method that allows comparison of groundwater data to regulatory and/or health based limits.5.2 Of course, there is considerable support for statistical methods applied to detection, assessment and corrective action monitoring programs that can be applied to environmental sites.NOTE 1: For example, in the United States, the 90 % upper confidence limit (UCL) of the mean is used in USEPA’s SW846 (Chapter 9) for determining if a waste is hazardous. If the UCL is less than the criterion for a particular hazardous waste code, then the waste is not a hazardous waste even if certain individual measurements exceed the criterion. Similarly, in the USEPA Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities Addendum to the Interim Final Guidance (1992) (2), confidence intervals for the mean and various upper percentiles of the distribution are advocated for assessment and corrective action. Interestingly, both the 1989 and 1992 USEPA guidance documents (2, 3) suggest use of the lower 95 % confidence limit (LCL) as a tool for determining whether a criterion has been exceeded in assessment monitoring.The latest guidance in this area calls for use of the LCL in assessment monitoring and the UCL in corrective action. In this way, corrective action is only triggered if there is a high degree of confidence that the true concentration has exceeded the criterion or standard, whereas corrective action continues until there is a high degree of confidence that the true concentration is below the criterion or standard. This is the general approach adopted in this guide, as well.5.3 There are several reasons why statistical methods are needed in assessment and corrective action monitoring programs. First, a single measurement indicates very little about the true concentration in the sampling location of interest, and with only one sample it cannot be determined if the measured concentration is a typical or an extreme value. The objective is to compare the true concentration (or some interval that contains it) to the relevant criterion or standard. Second, in many cases the constituents of interest are naturally occurring (for example, metals) and the naturally existing concentrations may exceed the relevant criteria. In this case, the relevant comparison is to background (for example, off-site soil or upgradient groundwater) and not to a fixed criterion. As such, background data should be statistically characterized to obtain a statistical estimate of an upper bound for the naturally occurring concentrations so that it can be confidently determined if onsite concentrations are above background levels. Third, there is often a need to compare numerous potential constituents of concern to criteria or background, at numerous sampling locations. By chance alone there will be exceedances as the number of comparisons becomes large. The statistical approach to this problem can decrease the potential for false positive results.5.4 Statistical methods for detection monitoring have been well studied in recent years (see Gibbons, 1994a, 1996, USEPA 1992 (2, 4, 5) and Practice D6312, formerly PS 64-96 authored by Gibbons, Brown and Cameron, 1996). Although equally important, statistical methods for assessment monitoring, Phase I and II Investigations, on-going monitoring and corrective action monitoring have received less attention, (Gibbons and Coleman, 2001) (6).5.5 The guide is summarized in Fig. 1, which provides a flow-chart illustrating the steps in developing a statistical evaluation method for assessment and corrective action programs. Fig. 1 illustrates the various decision points at which the general comparative strategy is selected, and how the statistical methods are to be selected based on site-specific considerations.1.1 The scope and purpose of this guidance is to present a variety of statistical approaches for assessment, compliance and corrective action environmental monitoring programs. Although the methods provided here are appropriate and often optimal for many environmental monitoring problems, they do not preclude use of other statistical approaches that may be equally or even more useful for certain site-specific applications.1.2 In the following sections, the details of select statistical procedures used in assessment and corrective action programs for environmental monitoring (soil, groundwater, air, surface water, and waste streams) are presented.1.3 The statistical methodology described in the following sections should be used as guidance. Other methods may also be appropriate based on site-specific conditions or for monitoring situations or media that are not presented in this document.1.4 This practice offers an organized collection of information or a series of options and does not recommend a specific course of action. This document cannot replace education, experience and professional judgements. Not all aspects of this practice may be applicable in all circumstances. This ASTM standard is not intended to represent or replace the standard of care by which the adequacy of a given professional service must be judged without consideration of a project's many unique aspects. The word Standard in the title of this document only means that the document has been approved through the ASTM consensus process.1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory requirements prior to use.

定价： 646元 / 折扣价： 550 元 加购物车

5.1 Thiodiglycol is a Schedule 2 compound under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). Schedule 2 chemicals include those that are precursors to chemical weapons, chemical weapons agents or have a number of other commercial uses. They are used as ingredients to produce insecticides, herbicides, lubricants, and some pharmaceutical products. Schedule 2 chemicals can be found in applications unrelated to chemical weapons. Thiodiglycol is both a mustard gas precursor and degradant as well as an ingredient in water-based inks, ballpoint pen inks, dyes and some pesticides.45.2 This test method has been investigated for use with reagent and surface water.1.1 This procedure covers the determination of thiodiglycol (TDG) in surface water by direct injection using liquid chromatography (LC) and detected with tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS). TDG is qualitatively and quantitatively determined by this test method. This test method adheres to single reaction monitoring (SRM) mass spectrometry.1.2 This test method has been developed by U.S. EPA Region 5 Chicago Regional Laboratory (CRL).1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.1.4 The detection verification level (DVL) and reporting range for TDG are listed in Table 1.TABLE 1 Detection Verification Level and Reporting RangeAnalyte DVL (μg/L) Reporting Range (μg/L)Thiodiglycol 20 100–10 0001.4.1 The DVL is required to be at a concentration at least 3 times below the reporting limit (RL) and have a signal/noise ratio greater than 3:1. Fig. 1 displays the signal/noise ratio at the DVL.FIG. 1 Example SRM Chromatograms Signal/Noise at Detection Verification Level1.4.2 The RL is the concentration of the Level 1 calibration standard as shown in Table 2. The reporting limit for this test method is 100 μg/L.TABLE 2 Concentrations of Calibration Standards (PPB)Analyte/Surrogate LV 1 LV 2 LV 3 LV 4 LV 5 LV 6 LV 7Thiodiglycol 100 250 500 1 000 2 500 5 000 10 0003,3’-Thiodipropanol 100 250 500 1 000 2 500 5 000 10 0001.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

5.1 N-Ethyldiethanolamine, N-methyldiethanolamine and triethanolamine are Schedule 3 compounds under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). Schedule 3 chemicals include those that have been produced, stockpiled or used as a chemical weapon, poses otherwise a risk to the object and purpose of the CWC because they possess such lethal or incapacitating toxicity as well as other properties that might enable it to be used as a chemical weapon, poses otherwise a risk to the object and purpose of the CWC by virtue of it’s importance in the production of one or more chemicals listed in Schedules 1 or 2, or it may be produced in large commercial quantities for purposes not prohibited under the CWC.4 Ethanolamines have a broad spectrum of applications. They are used to produce adhesives, agricultural products, cement grinding aids, concrete additives, detergents, specialty cleaners, personal care products, gas treatments, metalwork, oil well chemicals, packaging and printing inks, photographic chemicals, rubber, textile finishing, urethane coatings, textile lubricants, polishes, pesticides, and pharmaceuticals. Ethanolamines are readily dissolved in water, biodegradable and the bio-concentration potential is low.55.2 This test method has been investigated for use with reagent and surface water.1.1 This procedure covers the determination of diethanolamine, triethanolamine, N-methyldiethanolamine and N-ethyldiethanolamine (referred to collectively as ethanolamines in this test method) in surface water by direct injection using liquid chromatography (LC) and detected with tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS). These analytes are qualitatively and quantitatively determined by this test method. This test method adheres to single reaction monitoring (SRM) mass spectrometry.1.2 This test method has been developed by U.S. EPA Region 5 Chicago Regional Laboratory (CRL).1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.1.4 The Detection Verification Level (DVL) and Reporting Range for the ethanolamines are listed in Table 1.TABLE 1 Detection Verification Level and Reporting RangeAnalyte DVL (μg/L) Reporting Range (μg/L)Diethanolamine 5 25–500Triethanolamine 5 25–500N-Ethyldiethanolamine 5 25–500N-Methyldiethanolamine 10 50–5001.4.1 The DVL is required to be at a concentration at least 3 times below the Reporting Limit (RL) and have a signal/noise ratio greater than 3:1. Fig. 1 displays the signal/noise ratios at the DVLs and at higher concentrations for N-methyldiethanolamine.FIG. 1 Example SRM Chromatograms Signal/Noise Ratios1.4.2 The reporting limit is the concentration of the Level 1 calibration standard as shown in Table 2 for diethanolamine, triethanolamine, and N-ethyldiethanolamine and Level 2 for N-methyldiethanolamine. The reporting limit for N-methyldiethanolamine is set at 50 μg/L due to poor sensitivity at a 5 μg/L concentration which did not meet the DVL criteria. The DVL for N-methyldiethanolamine is at 10 μg/L, which forces a raised reporting limit (chromatograms are shown in Fig. 1). However, the multi-laboratory validation required a spike of all target analytes at 25 μg/L. The mean recovery for N-methyldiethanolamine at this level was 88 % as shown in Table 3. If your instrument’s sensitivity can meet the requirements in this test method, N-methyldiethanolamine may have a 25 μg/L reporting limit.TABLE 2 Concentrations of Calibration Standards (PPB)Analyte/Surrogate LV 1 LV 2 LV 3 LV 4 LV 5 LV 6 LV 7Diethanolamine 25 50 75 150 250 350 500Triethanolamine 25 50 75 150 250 350 500N-Ethyldiethanolamine 25 50 75 150 250 350 500N-Methyldiethanolamine 25 50 75 150 250 350 500Diethanolamine-D8 (Surrogate) 25 50 75 150 250 350 500TABLE 3 Multi-Laboratory Recovery Data in Reagent WaterAnalyte Spike Conc.(ppb) # Results # Labs Bias PrecisionMeanRecovery(%) MinRecovery(%) MaxRecovery(%) Overall SD(%) Pooledwithin-labSD (%) OverallRSD (%) Pooledwithin-labRSD (%)Diethanolamine 25 24 6 96.34 51.00 156.96 31.31 10.96 32.50 9.49Diethanolamine 50 24 6 101.41 54.00 154.80 29.54 7.97 29.13 7.91Diethanolamine 200 24 6 101.57 61.00 138.00 20.98 10.50 20.66 10.85Diethanolamine 425 24 6 102.06 70.00 138.82 17.98 5.90 17.61 5.70Triethanolamine 25 24 6 87.70 35.96 157.20 27.00 25.18 30.79 27.48Triethanolamine 50 24 6 94.95 67.00 121.66 16.39 9.57 17.26 9.66Triethanolamine 200 22 6 105.00 79.50 132.00 14.06 11.81 13.39 11.52Triethanolamine 425 24 6 96.94 40.00 144.94 27.56 4.41 28.43 5.76N-Ethyldiethanolamine 25 24 6 90.61 31.00 132.00 39.42 7.47 43.51 10.42N-Ethyldiethanolamine 50 23 6 111.88 49.00 146.00 28.71 7.19 25.66 7.56N-Ethyldiethanolamine 200 24 6 106.20 60.00 134.00 23.09 11.96 21.74 12.23N-Ethyldiethanolamine 425 24 6 99.67 51.00 130.00 23.07 4.68 23.15 6.01N-Methyldiethanolamine 25 24 6 88.43 41.72 133.60 25.24 13.29 28.55 16.70N-Methyldiethanolamine 50 24 6 102.28 56.00 153.80 25.85 8.73 25.27 8.22N-Methyldiethanolamine 200 24 6 101.02 59.00 136.50 20.07 9.51 19.87 9.54N-Methyldiethanolamine 425 24 6 94.75 63.00 115.76 15.02 3.34 15.85 3.72Diethanolamine-D8 (Surrogate) 200 96 6 103.02 60.00 151.95 21.13 9.40 20.51 9.251.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

5.1 The AE produced during the production of a spot-weld can be related to weld quality parameters such as the strength and size of the nugget, the amount of expulsion, and the amount of cracking. Therefore, in-process AE monitoring can be used both as an examination method, and as a means for providing feedback control.1.1 This practice describes procedures for the measurement, processing, and interpretation of the acoustic emission (AE) response associated with selected stages of the resistance spot-welding process.1.2 This practice also provides recommendations for feedback control by utilizing the measured AE response signals during the spot-welding process.1.3 Units—The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system may not be exact equivalents; therefore, each system shall be used independently of the other. Combining values from the two systems may result in non-conformance with the standard.1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

4.1 An inclinometer is a deformation monitoring system, which uses a grooved pipe or casing with internal longitudinal grooves aligned with the anticipated direction of movement, installed in either a soil/rock mass or a geotechnical structural element. The inclinometer casing can be surveyed with a single traversing probe or with an array of in-place inclinometer (IPI) gauges connected to a data logger. The measurement and calculation of deformation normal to the axis of the inclinometer casing is done by passing a probe along the length of this pipe or placement of a sensor array, guided by the internal grooves. The probe or sensor array measures the inclination of the pipe, usually in two orthogonal directions 90° apart (X- and Y-direction) with respect to the axis of the casing (Z-direction, usually the line of gravity). Measurements are converted to distances using trigonometric functions. Successive surveys compared with an initial survey give differences in position and indicate deformation normal to the axis of the inclinometer casing. In most cases the inclinometer casing is installed in a near-vertical hole, and the measurements indicate subsurface horizontal deformation. In some cases, the inclinometer casing is installed horizontally, and the measurements indicate vertical deformation.4.2 Inclinometers are also called slope inclinometers or slope indicators. Typical applications include measuring the rate and direction of landslide movement and locating the zone of shearing, monitoring the magnitude and rate of horizontal movements for embankments and excavations, monitoring the settlement and lateral spread beneath tanks and embankments, and monitoring the deflection of bulkheads, piles or structural walls.NOTE 1: The precision of this standard is dependent on the competence of the personnel performing it and the suitability of the equipment and facilities used. Agencies that meet the criteria of Practice D3740 are generally considered capable of competent and objective testing. Users of this standard are cautioned that compliance with Practice D3740 does not in itself ensure reliable results. Reliable testing depends on many factors; Practice D3740 provides a means of evaluating some of those factors.1.1 This standard covers the use of inclinometers to monitor the internal movement of ground, or lateral movement of subsurface structures. The standard covers types of instruments, installation procedures, operating procedures, and maintenance requirements. The standard also provides formulae for data reduction.1.2 All observed and calculated values shall conform to the guidelines for significant digits and rounding established in Practice D6026 unless superseded by this standard.1.2.1 The procedures used to specify how data are collected, recorded or calculated in this standard are regarded as the industry standard. In addition, they are representative of the significant digits that generally should be retained. The procedures used do not consider material variation, purpose for obtaining the data, special purpose studies, or any considerations for the user’s objectives; it is common practice to increase or reduce significant digits of reported data to be commensurate with these considerations. It is beyond the scope of this standard to consider significant digits used in analytical methods for engineering design.1.3 Units—The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. The inch-pound units given in parentheses are for information only. Reporting of test results in units other than SI shall not be regarded as nonconformance with this standard.1.4 This standard offers an organized collection of information or a series of options and does not recommend a specific course of action. This document cannot replace education or experience and should be used in conjunction with professional judgment. Not all aspects of this standard may be applicable in all circumstances. This ASTM standard is not intended to represent or replace the standard of care by which the adequacy of a given professional service must be judged, nor should this document be applied without consideration of a project’s many unique aspects. The word “Standard” in the title of this document means only that the document has been approved through the ASTM consensus process.1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 646元 / 折扣价： 550 元 加购物车

5.1 An increase in soot material can lead to increased wear, filter plugging and viscosity. Monitoring of soot is therefore an important parameter in determining overall machinery health and should be considered in conjunction with data from other tests such as atomic emission (AE) and atomic absorption (AA) spectroscopy for wear metal analysis (Test Method D5185), physical property tests (Test Methods D445 and D2896), and other FT-IR oil analysis methods for oxidation (Test Method D7414), sulfate by-products (Test Method D7415), nitration (Test Method D7624), and additive depletion (Test Method D7412), which also assess elements of the oil’s condition (1-6).1.1 This test method pertains to field-based monitoring soot in diesel crankcase engine oils as well as in other types of engine oils where soot may contaminate the lubricant as a result of a blow-by due to incomplete combustion of in-service fuels.1.2 This test method uses FT-IR spectroscopy for monitoring of soot build-up in in-service lubricants as a result of normal machinery operation. Soot levels in engine oils rise as soot particles contaminate the oil as a result of exhaust gas recirculation or a blow-by. This test method is designed as a fast, simple spectroscopic check for monitoring of soot in in-service lubricants with the objective of helping diagnose the operational condition of the machine based on measuring the level of soot in the oil.1.3 Acquisition of FT-IR spectral data for measuring soot in in-service oil and lubricant samples is described in Standard Practice D7418. In this test method, measurement and data interpretation parameters for soot using both direct trend analysis and differential (spectral subtraction) trend analysis are presented.1.4 This test method is based on trending of spectral changes associated with soot in in-service lubricants. For direct trend analysis, values are recorded directly from absorbance spectra and reported in units of 100*absorbance per 0.1 mm pathlength. For differential trend analysis, values are recorded from the differential spectra (spectrum obtained by subtraction of the spectrum of the reference oil from that of the in-service oil) and reported in units of 100*absorbance per 0.1 mm pathlength (or equivalently absorbance units per centimeter). Warnings or alarm limits can be set on the basis of a fixed maximum value for a single measurement or, alternatively, can be based on a rate of change of the response measured (1).2 In either case, such maintenance action limits should be determined through statistical analysis, history of the same or similar equipment, round robin tests or other methods in conjunction with the correlation of soot levels to equipment performance.1.4.1 Interpretation of soot values reported as a percentage is more widely understood within the industry. As an alternate reporting option, an equation to convert the soot absorbance value generated from Procedure A (direct trend) analysis to percent is provided. This equation is based on the Beer-Lambert law which states that concentration is directly proportional to absorbance.NOTE 1: It is not the intent of this test method to establish or recommend normal, cautionary, warning, or alert limits for any machinery. Such limits should be established in conjunction with advice and guidance from the machinery manufacturer and maintenance group.1.5 This test method is primarily for petroleum/hydrocarbon based lubricants but is also applicable for ester based oils, including polyol esters or phosphate esters.1.6 This method is intended as a field test only, and should be treated as such. Critical applications should use laboratory based methods, such as Thermal Gravimetric (TGA) analysis described in Standard Method D5967, Annex A4.1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.8 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

4.1 This practice provides one way for a laboratory to develop data-based Type A estimates of uncertainty as referred to in Section A22 in Form and Style for ASTM Standards.4.2 Laboratories accredited under ISO/IEC 17025 are required to present uncertainty estimates for their test results. This practice provides procedures that use test results to develop uncertainty estimates for an individual laboratory.4.3 Generally, these test results will be from a single sample of stable and homogeneous material known as a control or check sample.4.4 The true value of the characteristic(s) of the control sample being measured will ordinarily be unknown. However, this methodology may also be used if the control sample is a reference material, in which case the test method bias may also be estimated and incorporated into the uncertainty estimate. Many test methods do not have true reference materials available to provide traceable chains of uncertainty estimation.4.5 This practice also allows for ongoing monitoring of the laboratory uncertainty. As estimates of the level of uncertainty change, possibly as contributions to uncertainty are identified and minimized, revision to the laboratory uncertainty will be possible.AbstractThis practice describes techniques for a laboratory to estimate the uncertainty of a test result using data from test results on a control sample. This practice provides one method for a laboratory to estimate Measurement Uncertainty in accordance with Section A22.3 in Form and Style for ASTM Standards. This practice describes the use of control charts to evaluate the data obtained and presents a special type of control chart to monitor the estimate of uncertainty.This practice provides one way for a laboratory to develop data-based Type A estimates of uncertainty as referred to in Section A22 in Form and Style for ASTM Standards.1.1 This practice describes techniques for a laboratory to estimate the uncertainty of a test result using data from test results on a control sample. This practice provides one method for a laboratory to estimate Measurement Uncertainty in accordance with Section A22.3 in Form and Style for ASTM Standards.1.2 Uncertainty as defined by this practice applies to the capabilities of a single laboratory. Any estimate of uncertainty determined through the use of this practice applies only to the individual laboratory for which the data are presented.1.3 The laboratory uses a well defined and established test method in determining a series of test results. The uncertainty estimated using this practice only applies when the same test method is followed. The uncertainty only applies for the material types represented by the control samples, and multiple control samples may be needed, especially if the method has different precision for different sample types or response levels.1.4 The uncertainty estimate determined by this practice represents the intermediate precision of test results. This estimate seeks to quantify the total variation expected within a single laboratory using a single established test method while incorporating as many known sources of variation as possible.1.5 This practice does not establish error estimates (error budget) attributed to individual factors that could influence uncertainty.1.6 This practice describes the use of control charts to evaluate the data obtained and presents a special type of control chart to monitor the estimate of uncertainty.1.7 The system of units for this standard is not specified. Dimensional quantities in the standard are presented only as illustrations of calculation methods. The examples are not binding on products or test methods treated.1.8 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.9 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

5.1 Atmospheric corrosion of metallic materials is a function of many weather and atmospheric variables. The effect of specific corrodants, such as sulfur dioxide, can accelerate the atmospheric corrosion of metals significantly. It is important to have information available for the level of atmospheric SO2 when many metals are exposed to the atmosphere in order to determine their susceptibility to corrosion damage during their life time in the atmosphere.5.2 Volumetric analysis of atmospheric SO2 concentration carried out on a continuous basis is considered by some investigators as the most reliable method of estimating the effects caused by this gas. However, these methods require sophisticated monitoring devices together with power supplies and other equipment that make them unsuitable for many exposure sites. These methods are beyond the scope of this practice.5.3 The sulfation plate method provides a simple technique to independently monitor the level of SO2 in the atmosphere to yield a weighted average result. The lead peroxide cylinder is similar technique that produces comparable results, and the results are more sensitive to low levels of SO2.5.4 Sulfation plate or lead peroxide cylinder results may be used to characterize atmospheric corrosion test sites regarding the effective average level of SO2 in the atmosphere at these locations.5.5 Either sulfation plate or lead peroxide cylinder testing is useful in determining microclimate, seasonal, and long term variations in the effective average level of SO2.5.6 The results of these sulfur dioxide deposition rate tests may be used in correlations of atmospheric corrosion rates with atmospheric data to determine the sensitivity of the corrosion rate to SO2 level.5.7 The sulfur dioxide monitoring methods may also be used with other methods, such as Practice G84 for measuring time of wetness and Test Method G140 for atmospheric chloride deposition, to characterize the atmosphere at sites where buildings or other construction is planned in order to determine the extent of protective measures required for metallic materials.1.1 This practice covers two methods of monitoring atmospheric sulfur dioxide, SO2 deposition rates with specific application for estimating or evaluating atmospheric corrosivity as it applies to metals commonly used in buildings, structures, vehicles and devices used in outdoor locations.1.2 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.4 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

1.1 Justification -This guide considers the characterization of karst and fractured-rock aquifers as an integral component of monitoring-system design. Hence, the development of a conceptual hydrogeologic model that identifies and defines the various components of the flow system is recommended prior to the design and implementation of a monitoring system. 1.2 Methodology and Applicability -This guide is based on recognized methods of monitoring-system design and implementation for the purpose of collecting representative ground-water data. The design guidelines are applicable to the determination of ground-water flow and contaminant transport from existing sites, assessment of proposed sites, and determination of wellhead or springhead protection areas. 1.3 Objectives -The objectives of this guide are to outline procedures for obtaining information on hydrogeologic characteristics and water-quality data representative of karst and fractured-rock aquifers. 1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

定价： 0元 / 折扣价： 0 元

1. Scope 1.1 At the onset of an accident, certain protective actions (e.g., reactor trip, emergency core cooling actuation, containment isolation) are designed to be performed automatically. Specific CSA Standards cover the systems that perform these

定价： 819元 / 折扣价： 697 元

5.1 General corrosion is characterized by areas of greater or lesser attack, throughout the plant, at a particular location, or even on a particular probe. Therefore, the estimation of corrosion rate as with mass loss coupons involves an averaging across the surface of the probe. Allowance must be made for the fact that areas of greater or lesser penetration usually exist on the surface. Visual inspection of the probe element, coupon, or electrode is required to determine the degree of interference in the measurement caused by such variability. This variability is less critical where relative changes in corrosion rate are to be detected.5.2 Both electrical test methods described in this guide provide a technique for determining corrosion rates without the need to physically enter the system to withdraw coupons as required by the methods described in Guide G4.5.3 Test Method B has the additional advantage of providing corrosion rate measurement within minutes.5.4 These techniques are useful in systems where process upsets or other problems can create corrosive conditions. An early warning of corrosive attack can permit remedial action before significant damage occurs to process equipment.5.5 These techniques are also useful where inhibitor additions are used to control the corrosion of equipment. The indication of an increasing corrosion rate can be used to signal the need for additional inhibitor.5.6 Control of corrosion in process equipment requires a knowledge of the rate of attack on an ongoing basis. These test methods can be used to provide such information in digital format easily transferred to computers for analysis.1.1 This guide covers the procedure for conducting online corrosion monitoring of metals in plant equipment under operating conditions by the use of electrical or electrochemical methods. Within the limitations described, these test methods can be used to determine cumulative metal loss or instantaneous corrosion rate, intermittently or on a continuous basis, without removal of the monitoring probes from the plant.1.2 The following test methods are included: Test Method A for electrical resistance, and Test Method B for polarization resistance.1.2.1 Test Method A provides information on cumulative metal loss, and corrosion rate is inferred. This test method responds to the remaining metal thickness except as described in Section 5.1.2.2 Test Method B is based on electrochemical measurements for determination of instantaneous corrosion rate but may require calibration with other techniques to obtain true corrosion rates. Its primary value is the rapid detection of changes in the corrosion rate that may be indicative of undesirable changes in the process environment.1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be considered standard. The values in parentheses are for information only.1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. Specific precautionary statements are given in 5.6.1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车