© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Table 2. Borehole water parameters compared with WHO standards and Flood water results © The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Advertisements

Hospital Live Delivery Captured Maternal Death

and Statistics, 2016, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1-8. doi: /ajams-4-1-1

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Table 1. Empirical MSE to estimate the CP distribution parameter λ

Perception of discriminatory organizational relationships

Hospital live Deliveries

Research, 2015, Vol. 3, No. 6, doi: /education

Table 4. Filter Sand Sieve Analysis

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Thermotolerant coliforms

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

osteoporosis among the studied working women (n= 365)

Research, 2017, Vol. 5, No. 4, doi: /ajnr-5-4-6

SON Nurse Practitioner Blackboard Community

Major Works Under MGNREGA.

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Table 4. Physicochemical properties of cyclone fly ash

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

student achievement scores

Table 11. Chi-Square Analysis Based on Grade Shift for Study Group

Table 8. Unit Key Performance Indicators

Variables Coefficient Prob.

Table 4. Percentage of post-harvest waste reported by the farmers

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Table 6. Inhibition of Pathogenic Bacteria by honey samples

Table 1. Mean score of GAP perception of the farmers’ understanding

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Rating of Water Quality

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Table 1. Social capital comparison of adopters and non-adopters

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Table 2. Showing mean and SD along with t- critical ratio

Number of categories that are mentioned (0% < categories < 5%)

Table 2. Modal parameters estimated by Pulse Reflex®

Table 9. Functional Properties of Lentil Protein Isolate

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Entrapment Efficiency (%) ± S.D.

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Simulation Frequency(Hz)

Number of questionnaires sent out

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics

Phyaical Quantity of Lost Output Taka Equivalent / yr (Million)

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Table 4. Summary of Multi ways ANOVA results

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Table 2. Drug use among family members and friends of the students

Electrode ν (mm/s) I (A) V (V) HI (J/mm) HI average AWS E309L

Table 5. Water quality A3 well during pumping test

Table 9. Water quality of DiSi- Mudawarra groundwater resources

post intervention (n=60)

Category Quantity Secondary school 3 Student participant

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Table 1. Illiteracy distribution by Gender and Place (No. in million)

Cashew juice stored for 30 days

Table 4. Value creation (Y2)

Data from present research

Table 7. The Result of T Test After Treatment

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Sum of Square df Mean Square F Sig Health Between Groups

Table 6. Range Comparisons amongst Subgroups and grade levels

Education, 2016, Vol. 4, No. 1, doi: /wjce-4-1-4

Presentation transcript:

© The Author(s) 2013. Published by Science and Education Publishing. Table 1. Colombian drinking water quality standards and its value for some streams in the studied areas [44-47] Parameter E. coli Coliform bacteria Colour Turbidity pH Units No./ 100ml Pt/Co scale NTU Colombian drinking water quality standards (Resolution 2115) 15.00 2.00 6.5-9.0 Stream / Water without treatment (Point of measure: near the raw water collection point ) La Aguapante 172 221 0.76 7.71 El Hato 26 >1600 9.18 0.68 6.78 El Hato (near to the water treatment plant) 14 10.33 1.17 6.86 Guayabala <2 4.26 9.89 7.38 La Chata 39 1.31 6.91 La Chata’s affluent (1) 48 1.15 6.00 7.46 La Chata’s affluent (2) 70 1.64 3.00 6.90 La Iguaná 33 36 2.46 0.55 6.87 Luisa Fernanda Roldán Rojas et al. Perception of Water Quality and Health Risks in the Rural Area of Medellín. American Journal of Rural Development, 2013, Vol. 1, No. 5, 106-115. doi:10.12691/ajrd-1-5-2 © The Author(s) 2013. Published by Science and Education Publishing.