USGS ScienceSearch

USGS · fs06700

Comparison of water-quality samples collected by siphon samplers and automatic samplers in Wisconsin

Abstract

In small streams, flow and water-quality concentrations often change quickly in response to meteorological events. Hydrologists, field technicians, or locally hired stream ob- servers involved in water-data collection are often unable to reach streams quickly enough to observe or measure these rapid changes. Therefore, in hydrologic studies designed to describe changes in water quality, a combination of manual and automated sampling methods have commonly been used manual methods when flow is relatively stable and automated methods when flow is rapidly changing. Auto- mated sampling, which makes use of equipment programmed to collect samples in response to changes in stage and flow of a stream, has been shown to be an effective method of sampling to describe the rapid changes in water quality (Graczyk and others, 1993). Because of the high cost of automated sampling, however, especially for studies examining a large number of sites, alternative methods have been considered for collecting samples during rapidly changing stream conditions. One such method employs the siphon sampler (fig. 1). also referred to as the "single-stage sampler." Siphon samplers are inexpensive to build (about $25- $50 per sampler), operate, and maintain, so they are cost effective to use at a large number of sites. Their ability to collect samples representing the average quality of water passing though the entire cross section of a stream, however, has not been fully demonstrated for many types of stream sites.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 43.10424159435386° to 43.12667190770115° latitude; -89.49531555175781° to -89.47711944580078° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

David J. Graczyk, Dale M. Robertson, William J. Rose, Jeffrey J. Steur. 2000. Comparison of water-quality samples collected by siphon samplers and automatic samplers in Wisconsin. https://doi.org/10.3133/fs06700

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Divisions of geologic time—Major chronostratigraphic and geochronologic units

Introduction The reports and maps of our Nation’s geological surveys inform and benefit the public, private industry, government officials, and scientists. The use of clear and consistent nomenclature and classifications can improve communication of data and interpretations. Since 1899, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Geologic Names Committee (GNC) has been responsible for defining standards that promote uniform geologic nomenclature and classifications among geoscientists. The GNC periodically publishes a geologic time scale, the “Divisions of Geologic Time,” that serves as the national standard for USGS publications (for example, refer to Orndorff and others, 2023). Authors may use other published geologic time scales, such as those of the Geological Society of America (GSA) or the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS), provided that they are clearly specified and referenced. Access to the USGS, GSA, and ICS geologic time scales is also available from the U.S. Geologic Names Lexicon (Geolex) website https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Geolex/stratres/timescales. The geologic time scale serves a dual purpose by enabling authors to distinguish earth material units by position (chronostratigraphic) and time (geochronologic), as outlined in order of decreasing rank.

Fact Sheet