I'm not sure that section 3.2 - 'Establishing a SI Time Line' should be identified separately like this when it is more thoroughly talked about in 3.4.

Also, it may be best to indicate in the Process Calibration heading that some of these steps need not be preformed sequentially.

Reply to 14 April 2007 comments by DSueper

re: Establishing SI timeline

I think that sections 3.2 and 3.4 are meant to discuss two different things and should be kept in a modified form. The intent of section 3.2 is to force users to determine what the SI values WERE during sampling while the intent of section 3.4 is to figure out what the correct SI time line SHOULD BE for the entire campaign. I think that the confusion comes in when we talk about modifying the SI values in both sections and propose that we modify them accordingly (e.g. move all discussions on modifying SI values to section 3.4). Would that take care of it?

re: Order of process calibrations

Without knowing a little more about what the exact issue is, I would hesitate to use that phrasing because there is an order to how these calibrations should be performed as some are more dependent on others. For example, the flow calibration is completely independent of the IE calibration, but the opposite is not true so the flow calibration must precede the IE calibrations. Do you have a particular issue with the order. If so, we should discuss.

(14 April 2007 KDocherty)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.