If your browser cannot view GIF files, you may want to save the PostScript (PS) files locally (from directory: wqn\qasure\graphics), and print them on your laserprinter.
The naming convention for the PS files is QWyy_nna.ps where 'a' is a sequential character corresponding to the order of presentation of figures and tables in the memoranda. The PostScript file names are listed below, and are also given in the 1st_read.me file in the graphics sub-directory.
Figure 2. Three methods of attaching a polyethylene strip artificial substrate in a stream or lake. (Also available as a 2000K Postscript File, qw74_11b.ps)
Table 2. Parameters that had multiple analytical methods in use for the time periods indicated (Also available as a 140K Postscript File, qw81_18b.ps)
Table 3. Parameters that had multiple analytical methods in use for the time periods indicated (Also available as a 140K Postscript File, qw81_18c.ps)
Table 2. Clear Creek - Nutrient Data Using Various Preservation Techniques (Also available as a 180K Postscript File, qw85_07b.ps)
Table 3. Arvada Lake - Nutrient Data Using Various Preservation Techniques (Also available as a 180K Postscript File, qw85_07c.ps)
Table 4. Arvada Tap Water - Nutrient Data Using Various Preservation Techniques (Also available as a 170K Postscript File, qw85_07d.ps)
Table 5. Deionized Water - Nutrient Data Using Various Preservation Techniques (Also available as a 170K Postscript File, qw85_07e.ps)
Table 12. List of all available parameter codes for bicarbonate (WRD description protocol). (Also available as a 1160K Postscript File, qw88_05b.ps)
Table 13. List of all available parameter codes for carbonate (WRD description protocol). (Also available as a 1160K Postscript File, qw88_05c.ps)
Table 14. List of all available parameter codes for hydroxide (WRD description protocol). (Also available as a 1160K Postscript File, qw88_05d.ps)
Graph II. Regular versus Blanked SO4 (mg/L) (Also available as a 2000K Postscript File, qw90_04b.ps)
Graph III. Regular versus Blanked SO4 (mg/L) Smooth Line Fit (Also available as a 2000K Postscript File, qw90_04c.ps)
Graph IV. Corrected versus Blanked SO4 (mg/L) (Also available as a 2000K Postscript File, qw90_04d.ps)
Graph V. Regular minus Blanked SO4 versus Blanked SO4 (mg/L) (Also available as a 2000K Postscript File, qw90_04e.ps)
Figure 1. Uncorrected minus corrected sulfate concentration versus corrected sulfate concentration (Also available as a 2000K Postscript File, qw90_04f.ps)
Figure 2. Comparative cadmium results (ug/L)for district and NRP samples from the Mississippi River Methods Comparison study (Also available as a 1450K Postscript File, qw91_10b.ps)
Figure 3. Comparative chromium results (ug/L)for district and NRP samples from the Mississippi River Methods Comparison study (Also available as a 1450K Postscript File, qw91_10c.ps)
Figure 4. Comparative copper results (ug/L)for district and NRP samples from the Mississippi River Methods Comparison study (Also available as a 1450K Postscript File, qw91_10d.ps)
Figure 5. Comparative nickel results (ug/L)for district and NRP samples from the Mississippi River Methods Comparison study (Also available as a 1450K Postscript File, qw91_10e.ps)
Figure 6. Comparative lead results (ug/L)for district and NRP samples from the Mississippi River Methods Comparison study (Also available as a 1450K Postscript File, qw91_10f.ps)
Figure 7. Comparative zinc results (ug/L)for district and NRP samples from the Mississippi River Methods Comparison study (Also available as a 1450K Postscript File, qw91_10g.ps)
Figure 8. Comparative aluminum results (ug/L)for district and NRP samples from the Mississippi River Methods Comparison study (Also available as a 1270K Postscript File, qw91_10h.ps)
Figure 9. Comparative iron results (ug/L)for district and NRP samples from the Mississippi River Methods Comparison study (Also available as a 1305K Postscript File, qw91_10i.ps)
Figure 10. Cadmium results from the Blank Sample Study (Also available as a 1590K Postscript File, qw91_10j.ps)
Figure 11. Chromium results from the Blank Sample Study (Also available as a 1520K Postscript File, qw91_10k.ps)
Figure 12. Copper results from the Blank Sample Study (Also available as a 1520K Postscript File, qw91_10l.ps)
Figure 13. Nickel results from the Blank Sample Study (Also available as a 1520K Postscript File, qw91_10m.ps)
Figure 14. Lead results from the Blank Sample Study (Also available as a 1520K Postscript File, qw91_10n.ps)
Figure 15. Zinc results from the Blank Sample Study (Also available as a 1520K Postscript File, qw91_10q.ps)
Figure 16. Iron results from the Blank Sample Study (Also available as a 1520K Postscript File, qw91_10r.ps)
Table 2. Comparisons of District and NRP Data from the Mississippi River Methods Comparison Study (Also available as a 1780K Postscript File, qw91_10s.ps)
Table 2. (cont.) Information on surface-water samplers tested for the 1991 Sampler Study - Continued. (Also available as a 1840K Postscript File, qw92_12b.ps)
Table 3. Concentration of trace elements in DIW and sampler blanks for selected surface-water samplers (Also available as a 1750K Postscript File, qw92_12c.ps)
Table 3. (cont.) Concentration of trace elements in DIW and sampler blanks for selected surface-water samplers (Also available as a 1750K Postscript File, qw92_12d.ps)
Table 3. (cont.) Concentration of trace elements in DIW and sampler blanks for selected surface-water samplers (Also available as a 1750K Postscript File, qw92_12e.ps)
Table 8. Comparison of highest elemental concentrations in sampler blanks versus 1991 NASQAN reporting limits (Also available as a 1725K Postscript File, qw92_12f.ps)
Table 9. Comparison of highest elemental concentrations in sampler blanks versus one-half the targeted importing limits for the new parts-per-billion protocol (Also available as a 1725K Postscript File, qw92_12g.ps)
Figure 1. Comparison of aluminum concentrations in DIW and in sampler blanks from selected surface-water sampling devices (Also available as a 1785K Postscript File, qw92_12h.ps)
Figure 2. Comparison of barium concentrations in DIW and in sampler blanks from selected surface-water sampling devices (Also available as a 1785K Postscript File, qw92_12i.ps)
Figure 3. Comparison of cadmium concentrations in DIW and in sampler blanks from selected surface-water sampling devices (Also available as a 1785K Postscript File, qw92_12j.ps)
Figure 4. Comparison of chromium concentrations in DIW and in sampler blanks from selected surface-water sampling devices (Also available as a 1785K Postscript File, qw92_12k.ps)
Figure 5. Comparison of copper concentrations in DIW and in sampler blanks from selected surface-water sampling devices (Also available as a 1785K Postscript File, qw92_12l.ps)
Figure 6. Comparison of lead concentrations in DIW and in sampler blanks from selected surface-water sampling devices (Also available as a 1785K Postscript File, qw92_12m.ps)
Figure 7. Comparison of manganese concentrations in DIW and in sampler blanks from selected surface-water sampling devices (Also available as a 1785K Postscript File, qw92_12n.ps)
Figure 8. Comparison of nickel concentrations in DIW and in sampler blanks from selected surface-water sampling devices (Also available as a 1785K Postscript File, qw92_12o.ps)
Figure 9. Comparison of zinc concentrations in DIW and in sampler blanks from selected surface-water sampling devices (Also available as a 1785K Postscript File, qw92_12p.ps)
Figure 10. Comparison of barium concentrations in DIW and in sampler blanks from selected surface-water sampling devices (Also available as a 1660K Postscript File, qw92_12q.ps)
