- Email: [email protected]
A common system of notation for use in biological wastewater treatment
ilater Re, Vol. I6. pp. b.I.99 to 1500. 1982 Printed in Great Britain
f)143-1354 ~2 II 1499-02503.00 0 Pergamon Press Ltd
EDITORIAL A COMMON SYSTEM OF NOTATION FOR USE IN BIOLOGICAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT On the recommendation of its members the International Association on Water Pollution Research and Control (IAWPRC) and the International Union on Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) set up a joint Working Group which was requested to consider the subject of a common system of notation for use in biological wastewater treatment. Its seven members were active research workers who had made contributions to the solution of problems in biological wastewater treatment. They approached their task by first making a critical and objective examination of the systems of notation that were in use, including those they themselves had used. The subject of abbreviations also came under close scrutiny. Their observations have been reported in Water Research Vol. 16, pp. 755-757, 1982, in an article entitled "The Use and Abuse of Notation in Biological Wastewater Treatment". It is clear from this article that a number of different systems of notation are in use but in the absence of any reasons why different systems have been introduced or how any new system is related to those that have gone before the Working Group found that confusion existed as a result of this multiplicity of notation systems. Similar uncertainty arose in the use of abbreviations. The main abuses of notation to which the Working Group drew attention in their article were the following: 1. Two symbols are used to denote the same concept. Examples were given of one author using two notations for hydraulic retention time in the same paper while another employed two different notations to describe substrate concentration. 2. One symbol is sometimes used to describe two different concepts. For example, the same symbol is used for the degree of purification as well as the reaction rate in one paper, while another author uses the same symbol for concentration and a constant. 3. Confusion results from the use of defined symbols in a nomenclature list and different symbols in the text. 4. A difficulty might arise when only one symbol is used, adding a subscript or a superscript to denote the different meanings of the symbol. Thus, one symbol with appropriate subscripts has been used to describe temperature constant and reaction rate of different temperatures. 5. The use of quite different symbols to express the same basic concepts unnecessarily hides the features that are common to certain events in biological systems. 6. Some symbols are commonly used. If that same symbol is then used for something quite different the effect can be to mislead the reader. 7. Symbols may be introduced that have a meaning when used in one context but not in another. By way of example it is shown that a symbol used to describe the reaction rate in a continuously stirred tank reactor at steady state is meaningless. As if to add point to their plea for a more rational approach to the use of notation the seven authors of the article give two equations in the first two paragraphs, quoting the symbols S, V. Y, Ks and ~tm,~ which they failed to define in their nomenclature list. This confessional approach to the subject of notation by the Working Group led to the conclusion that an international standard on notation should be established. Their work began by an examination of the world's recent literature on biological treatment and concluded with a proposal to adopt a system of notation which it is hoped will commend itself to research workers and others on account of the already wide usage of the notation recommended, its relevance to biological treatment and the opportunity it offers to minimise the possibility of misunderstanding. The recommendations of the Working Group on notation are given in this issue of Water Research, i.e. Vol. 16, pp. 1501-1505, 1982, and it is entitled "'Recommended Notation for Use in the Description of Biological Wastewater Treatment Processes". The recommendations have been accepted by the International Association on Water Pollution Research and Control and are currently under review the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry. The report will also shortly be published in Water Science and Technology and it will be widely circulated to professional societies and interested authors throughout the world. The object of giving the recommended system of notation wide publicity at this stage is to comply with a resolution of the International Association on Water Pollution Research and Control that a period of a year should be allowed in which to obtain the views of all organizations and individuals on the standard system of notation recommended by the Working Group for use in scientific journals and text books. Such views should wR.
16 l
i--~
1499
1500
Editorial
be addressed to the Secretary Treasurer, International Association on Water Pollution Research and Control (IAWPRC). Alliance House, 29/30 High Holborn, London WC1V 6BA, England. All views and comments will be collectively considered by the Working Group and, if necessary, in due course a revised standard notation system will be issued with which authors of papers intended for publications of IAWPRC will be required to conform. It is appreciated that a recommended standard notation system would probably have been most likely to gain international acceptance if it had been the result of agreement amongst international experts nominated by governments or by some intergovernmental agency. However. in the case of a notation system for biological wastewater treatment the need to arrive at recommendations which could be modified if necessary was, and still is, urgent. Furthermore there already existed a strong motivation by the two international organizations IAWPRC and IUPAC to take the initiative in producing such a standard notation system. In addition, both organizations have been able to find from amongst their own members and from their own resources the means and conditions which have allowed the Working Group to meet and finalise their recommendations and to have these published within the space of two years. The working group feel, therefore, that they are acting in the best interests of international communication by recommending the use of the notation system given in Water Research, Vol. 16, pp. 1501-1505 and look forward to its adoption or consideration by research workers, teachers and designers.
f)143-1354 ~2 II 1499-02503.00 0 Pergamon Press Ltd
EDITORIAL A COMMON SYSTEM OF NOTATION FOR USE IN BIOLOGICAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT On the recommendation of its members the International Association on Water Pollution Research and Control (IAWPRC) and the International Union on Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) set up a joint Working Group which was requested to consider the subject of a common system of notation for use in biological wastewater treatment. Its seven members were active research workers who had made contributions to the solution of problems in biological wastewater treatment. They approached their task by first making a critical and objective examination of the systems of notation that were in use, including those they themselves had used. The subject of abbreviations also came under close scrutiny. Their observations have been reported in Water Research Vol. 16, pp. 755-757, 1982, in an article entitled "The Use and Abuse of Notation in Biological Wastewater Treatment". It is clear from this article that a number of different systems of notation are in use but in the absence of any reasons why different systems have been introduced or how any new system is related to those that have gone before the Working Group found that confusion existed as a result of this multiplicity of notation systems. Similar uncertainty arose in the use of abbreviations. The main abuses of notation to which the Working Group drew attention in their article were the following: 1. Two symbols are used to denote the same concept. Examples were given of one author using two notations for hydraulic retention time in the same paper while another employed two different notations to describe substrate concentration. 2. One symbol is sometimes used to describe two different concepts. For example, the same symbol is used for the degree of purification as well as the reaction rate in one paper, while another author uses the same symbol for concentration and a constant. 3. Confusion results from the use of defined symbols in a nomenclature list and different symbols in the text. 4. A difficulty might arise when only one symbol is used, adding a subscript or a superscript to denote the different meanings of the symbol. Thus, one symbol with appropriate subscripts has been used to describe temperature constant and reaction rate of different temperatures. 5. The use of quite different symbols to express the same basic concepts unnecessarily hides the features that are common to certain events in biological systems. 6. Some symbols are commonly used. If that same symbol is then used for something quite different the effect can be to mislead the reader. 7. Symbols may be introduced that have a meaning when used in one context but not in another. By way of example it is shown that a symbol used to describe the reaction rate in a continuously stirred tank reactor at steady state is meaningless. As if to add point to their plea for a more rational approach to the use of notation the seven authors of the article give two equations in the first two paragraphs, quoting the symbols S, V. Y, Ks and ~tm,~ which they failed to define in their nomenclature list. This confessional approach to the subject of notation by the Working Group led to the conclusion that an international standard on notation should be established. Their work began by an examination of the world's recent literature on biological treatment and concluded with a proposal to adopt a system of notation which it is hoped will commend itself to research workers and others on account of the already wide usage of the notation recommended, its relevance to biological treatment and the opportunity it offers to minimise the possibility of misunderstanding. The recommendations of the Working Group on notation are given in this issue of Water Research, i.e. Vol. 16, pp. 1501-1505, 1982, and it is entitled "'Recommended Notation for Use in the Description of Biological Wastewater Treatment Processes". The recommendations have been accepted by the International Association on Water Pollution Research and Control and are currently under review the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry. The report will also shortly be published in Water Science and Technology and it will be widely circulated to professional societies and interested authors throughout the world. The object of giving the recommended system of notation wide publicity at this stage is to comply with a resolution of the International Association on Water Pollution Research and Control that a period of a year should be allowed in which to obtain the views of all organizations and individuals on the standard system of notation recommended by the Working Group for use in scientific journals and text books. Such views should wR.
16 l
i--~
1499
1500
Editorial
be addressed to the Secretary Treasurer, International Association on Water Pollution Research and Control (IAWPRC). Alliance House, 29/30 High Holborn, London WC1V 6BA, England. All views and comments will be collectively considered by the Working Group and, if necessary, in due course a revised standard notation system will be issued with which authors of papers intended for publications of IAWPRC will be required to conform. It is appreciated that a recommended standard notation system would probably have been most likely to gain international acceptance if it had been the result of agreement amongst international experts nominated by governments or by some intergovernmental agency. However. in the case of a notation system for biological wastewater treatment the need to arrive at recommendations which could be modified if necessary was, and still is, urgent. Furthermore there already existed a strong motivation by the two international organizations IAWPRC and IUPAC to take the initiative in producing such a standard notation system. In addition, both organizations have been able to find from amongst their own members and from their own resources the means and conditions which have allowed the Working Group to meet and finalise their recommendations and to have these published within the space of two years. The working group feel, therefore, that they are acting in the best interests of international communication by recommending the use of the notation system given in Water Research, Vol. 16, pp. 1501-1505 and look forward to its adoption or consideration by research workers, teachers and designers.