References in periodicals archive ?
Suppose that the AQL and LQL values are given as, p1 = 1%, p2 = 6%, with = 5% and = 10% and the estimated value of m=25.
Here we consider three values of the shape parameter, namely 5, 50 and 150 for some selected combinations of AQL and LQL values.
Table 7: Lot Acceptance Probabilities of the Proposed Plan at AQL and LQL for Different Shape Parameters when m 0 =10.0
% PI Compound and Curing PO-NPGDA EPD HMPP ITX 4% PI - [N.sub.2] 2.2 0.4 0.2 0.7 7% PI - [N.sub.2] 1.6 0.8 0.3 1.3 10% PI - [N.sub.2] 0.8 * 1.1 0.8 1.9 13% PI - [N.sub.2] 0.0 2.2 1.7 3.2 7% PI - [O.sub.2] 10.0 0.9 0.6 1.6 10% PI - [O.sub.2] 3.5 1.0 0.8 1.9 13% PI - [O.sub.2] 2.4 1.4 1.1 2.5 * : < Lowest Quantifiable Limit (LQL = 0.9 for this material) Odor Analysis % PI Compound Average Odor and Curing Rating Condition 7% PI - [N.sub.2] 4.3 7% PI - Air 2.1 4% PI - [N.sub.2] 3.5 10% PI - Air 3.8 10% PI - [N.sub.2] 3.3 13% PI - Air 3.9 13% PI - [N.sub.2] 3.8 % PI Compound and Curing I Std.
For simplicity of comparison and for compatibility with other studies, mean values were reported for the pesticides and PCB analytes; however, non-parametric statistics (chi square) were used to compare the three exposure groups because the data was not normally distributed due to truncation at the lowest quantifiable limits (LQL).
Values for the other measured analytes (CC, TC, CN, HC, HE, DDT, PCB) are not reported because fewer than 10 persons total had values greater than the LQL and these were distributed among all exposure groups.
Acronyms browser ?
Full browser ?
- LQG problem