Let me say that nearly all ...
Published by William Turner, Trustee, Chief Hydrogeologist, CEO, QB, and licensed escrow officer at WaterBank
Let me say that nearly all comments are correct except the coefficient in TDS = 0.64*EC is not true. Depending on the character of the water it may vary from 0.55 to 0.75. Here are referencesa to key works on this topic.
Hem, J.D., 1989. Study and Interpretation of the Chemical Characteristics of Natural Water, U.G. Geological Survey, Water Supply Paper 2254
This supercedes
Hem, J.D., 1970. Study and Interpretation of the Chemical Characteristics of Natural Water, 2nd Ed, U.S. Geol. Survey, WSP 1473
also
Garrels, R.M. 1960. Mineral Equilibria at Low Temperature andf Pressure, Harper & Brothers, New York.
and Garrels, R.M. and Christ, C., 1965. Minerals and Equilibria.
The bible of water chemistry is
Stumm, W. and Morgan, J. 1981, 2nd Ed.. Aquatic Chemistry, An Introduction Emphasizing Chemical Equilibria in Natural Waters, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York
Also you might enjoy this fun book
Barth, R.B., 2010. The Chemistry of Beer, 2nd Ed. Greene Publications, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
Regarding to TDS it is generally taken to mean dissolved natural solutes and should not include miscible organic compounds that may show up when the water of a sample is completely evaporated.
Garrels
1 Comment
I agree my friend... because that i propose the gravimetric method as a reference before the conductivity method... each water is diferent and have to be treated like that, as i think you're proposing. cya!
Published by Leonardo Zanata, Professor at Faculdades Oswaldo Cruz