Statistical Comparison in Testing Tools of pH of Mud

Jump To References Section

Authors

  • Tarunika Sharma
     Department of Applied Sciences, New Horizon College of Engineering, Bangalore – 560103, Karnataka ,IN
  • Rashi Khubnani
     Department of Applied Sciences, New Horizon College of Engineering, Bengaluru – 560103, Karnataka ,IN
  • N. L. Ramesh
     Department of Mathematics, Ramaiah Institute of Technology, Bengaluru – 560054, Karnataka ,IN

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18311/jmmf/2023/43611

Keywords:

Hydrogen Ion, pH-Testing Kit, pH Meter.

Abstract

As long as a mine is in operation, solid mine waste must be evaluated for environmental impact. Because of this, there is now a need for instruments and procedures to comprehend the net acidity of mine wastes. In order to give a rough assessment of the waste's present net acidity, rinse and paste pH tests are frequently employed during the first screening process. The pH value is basically defining hydrogen ion concentration which define acidic and basic behavior of substances. Since hydrogen ion (H+) is a key component in a variety of chemical reactions. Therefore, an honest measure of the pH is very significant in substances like (mud, water, fruits, vegetables etc.). In this study using statistical analysis of mud samples, the comparison between two different method of testing tools that is pH meter and pH kit is done. The low pH mud has its own harmful consequences, whereas high pH mud tends to develop deposits that clog pipes and alter reaction processes, among other things.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Downloads

Published

2023-12-30

How to Cite

Sharma, T., Khubnani, R., & Ramesh, N. L. (2023). Statistical Comparison in Testing Tools of pH of Mud. Journal of Mines, Metals and Fuels, 71(12A), 335–340. https://doi.org/10.18311/jmmf/2023/43611

Issue

Volume 71, Issue 12A , 2023

Section

Articles

License

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

 

References

Glab S, Hulanicki A. University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.

Balba AM. Management of problem soils in arid ecosystems. CRC Press, Florida: Boca Raton; 1995.

Carter MR. Soil quality for sustainable land management: Organic matter and aggregation interactions that maintain soil functions. Agron J. 2002; 94(1):38-47. https:// doi.org/10.2134/agronj2002.3800 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2002.3800

Lauber CL, Hamady M, Knight R, Fierer N. Pyrosequencing-based assessment of soil pH as a predictor of soil bacterial community structure at the continental scale. Appl Environ Microb. 2009; 75:5111- 20. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00335-09 PMid: 19502440 PMCid:PMC2725504 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00335-09

Zhalnina K, Dias R, de Quadros PD, Davis-Richardson A, Camargo FAO, Clark IM, et al. Soil pH determines microbial diversity and composition in the park grass experiment. Microb Ecol. 2015; 69:395-406. https://doi. org/10.1007/s00248-014-0530-2 PMid:25395291 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-014-0530-2

Tripathi BM, Kim M, Tateno R, Kim W, Wang JJ, Lai-Hoe A, et al. Soil pH and biome are both key determinants of soil archaeal community structure. Soil Biol Biochem. 2015; 88:1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio. 2015.05.004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.05.004

Tripathi BM, Stegen JC, Kim M, Dong K, Adams JM Lee YK. Soil pH mediates the balance between stochastic and deterministic assembly of bacteria. Isme J. 2018; 12:1072-83.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-018-0082-4 PMid:29515169 PMCid:PMC5864241 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-018-0082-4

Young E, Carey M, Meharg AA, Meharg C. Microbiome and ecotypic adaption of Holcus lanatus (L.) to extremes of its soil pH range, investigated through transcriptome sequencing. Microbiome. 2018; 6(1). https:// doi. org/10.1186/s40168-018-0434-3. PMid:29554982 PMCid:PMC5859661 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40168-018-0434-3

Brady NC, Weil RR. The nature and properties of soils. Fifteenth ed. Columbus: Pearson; 2016.

Brouder S M, Hofmann BS, Morris DK. Mapping soil pH: Accuracy of common soil sampling strategies and estimation techniques. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 200; 69:427-42. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2005.0427 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2005.0427

Udgirkar G, Indumathi G. New Horizon college of Engineering, VLSI global routing algorithms: A survey. Proceedings of the 10th INDIACom; 2016 3rd International Conference on Computing for Sustainable Global Development, INDIACom; 2016

Poshtmasari HK, Sarvestani ZT, Kamkar B. Comparison of interpolation methods for estimating Ph and EC in agricultural fields of Golestan province (north of Iran ). International Journal of Agriculture and Crop Sciences. 2012; 4(4):157-67.

Hui-na Z, Xing-zhong Y, Guang-ming Z, Min J, Jie L, Chang Z, et al. Ecological risk assessment of heavy metals in sediments of Xiawan Port established on modified potential ecological risk index. Trans Nonferrous Met Soc China. 2012; 22:1470-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S1003-6326(11)61343-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1003-6326(11)61343-5