Appropriate Discharge from Diversion Dam to Dilute High Concentrated Community Wastewater of Riverbank Settlements along Phetchaburi River in Phetchaburi Province, Thailand
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The research was focused on determining dilatability of traveling mass water from Phetchaburi diversion dam on high concentrated community wastewater that flowing into Phetchaburi river. The mass water quality was sampled at six-consecutive measuring stations from Phetchaburi diversion dam to the river mouth with various distances of traveling, and analyzed for 27 environmental indicators before employing ANOVA ANALYSIS which resulted with highly significant differences between indicator and station only BOD, COD, TSS, and turbidity. When the linear regression was employed to determine both the water quality indicators in relation to discharges (10, 15, 20, and 25 cms.) and the traveling distances, resulting the determination coefficients of 0.93 for BOD, 0.80 for COD, 0.83 for TSS, and 0.50 for turbidity. Only BOD value is included in the list of surface water quality standards. After employing the derived equations to calculate BOD in comparison with observed value, then it was chosen to support the decision of required BOD for 3 mg/L at Muang Municipal bridge together with discharge of 10-15 cms from Phetchaburi diversion dam. If more or less this range in summer period, the dilatability of high contaminant concentration was decreased 2-10 folds due to less mass water flow and washing off organic and solid wastes from flooding along the riverbanks. Furthermore, the traveling mass water from diversion dam is possibly eligible to dilute the high concentrated wastewater from dense and populated community but the diluted mixture depending on the amount and concentration of wastewater inflow.An abstract is a brief, comprehensive summary of the contents of the article, it allows readers to survey the contents of an article quickly and, like a title, it enables persons interested in the document to retrieve it from abstracting and indexing databases. Most scholarly journals require an abstract. Consult the instructions to authors or web page of the journal to which you plan to submit your article for any journal-specific instructions. A well-prepared abstract can be the most important single paragraph in an article. Most people have their first contact with an article by seeing just the abstract, usually in comparison with several other abstracts, as they are doing a literature search. Readers frequently decide on the basis of the abstract whether to read the entire article. The abstract needs to be dense with information. By embedding key words in your abstract, you enhance the user’s ability to find it. Do not exceed the abstract word limit of the journal to which you are submitting your article. Word limits vary from journal to journal and typically range from 150 to 250 words. For information on how abstracts are used to retrieve articles, consult Record Structure for APA Databases
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».