<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
  <dc:creator>Max Katzenbach</dc:creator>
  <dc:date>1990</dc:date>
  <dc:description>A comparison of data (specific conductance, dissolved-oxygen concentration, temperature, and pH) collected by the U.S. Geological Survey flowthrough monitor, the U.S. Geological Survey minimonitor, and a self-contained commercial 'packaged-sensor' system indicates that the data obtained by means of the most complete of the three systems.&#13;
&#13;
The U.S. Geological Survey flowthrough monitor is powered by 120-volt alternating current and in a heated weather-proof shelter. A pumping system brings water from the stream to sensors clustered in a sample clustered in a sample chamber located in the shelter. This instrument measures output from the senors; data are recorded in binary-coded decimal form on a 16-channel punched-paper tape recorder tape recorder housed in the shelter.&#13;
&#13;
The U.S. Geological Survey's minimonitor is powered by an external battery and is housed in a weatherproof shelter. This instrument measures output of instream sensors with extension cables having underwater connectors; data are recorded in binary-coded decimal form on a 16-channel punched-paper tape recorder housed in the shelter.&#13;
&#13;
The packaged-sensor system also measures output of senors housed in a packages that is submerged in the stream. It has internal power supply, no moving parts, and does not requires a weatherproof shelter; data are stored are stored in solid-state memory.&#13;
&#13;
Minimonitors were installed at four sites in Ohio where U.S. Geological survey flowthrough were in operation. Two package-sensor systems also were assigned to each site and were alternated every two weeks. Detailed records were kept of (1) field measurements, for comparison with monitor-system data from each instrument, and (2) equipment problems that resulted in loss of data. Results of the comparisons shows that the flow-through monitor gave the most accurate and the most complete data.</dc:description>
  <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
  <dc:identifier>10.3133/wri894198</dc:identifier>
  <dc:language>en</dc:language>
  <dc:publisher>Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey ;&#13;
Books and Open-File Reports [distributor],</dc:publisher>
  <dc:title>Comparison of accuracy and completeness of data obtained from three types of automatic water-quality monitors</dc:title>
  <dc:type>reports</dc:type>
</oai_dc:dc>