Talk:Total dissolved solids

A fact from Total dissolved solids appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 2 July 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that total dissolved solids, a class of water pollutants, is useful as an indicator of aquatic biota health, yet harmful to the plumbing of aquaria and hot tubs? (pictured: water with dissolved solids)

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2006/July.

Wikipedia

Cites needed?

I added 2 {{citation needed}} because if we're going to refer to somuch research, wemight as well be thorough and cite which reearch. Circeus 15:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ive added the cite to the one i found. where is the other one? by the way i dont know the cite format editing to cite the same source twice and only have it appear once in the ref list. could you help me with that element? thanks. regards. Anlace 04:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

vs. total soluble solids?

Although this article is at present very focused on water quality, the same concept is also used elsewhere. For instance, in the analysis of beverages the concept of total soluble solids is used, as a key determinant of product quality. Worth its own page, or a subsection of this one? See Ron S. Jackson, Wine Science (Second Edition), Academic Press, 2000; ISBN 0-12-379062-X. --Ott2 08:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Water

add this?

fresh water < 1500 mg/L TDS < brackish water < 5000 mg/L TDS < saline water

Also represented by:

fresh water

1500 mg/L TDS

brackish water

5000 mg/L TDS

saline water

Source: ISBN 0-13-148193-2

--Saippuakauppias ⇄ 17:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uniform units?

In the text there is a lot of jumping back and forth between ppm and mg/l without any explanation of how they relate to each other. It would be nice if all figures were in the same units, with an explanation of the different units that could be used and how to convert. Omgoleus (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

The TDS and TSS pages have contradictions and imo does not focus on the usability and purpose of the two measurements in water, wastewater or their use in different water based processes. I propose a merger of the two articles into a single article about water quality and classification. The article can be written with a technical/usability layout to facilitate inclusion of how these measurments are used in other industries than water and wastewater engineering.

In such and article other relevant terms such as Total Solids(All non water elements in water) and volatile solids(all organic elements in water) and the subdivision into suspended/volatile. Having all topics in one place makes the process of how measurements are made easier to explain to the non initiated. Differences in seive sizes and evaporation times in different standards will have less impact when the whole process is known. Morphriz (talk) 07:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. 50.201.195.170 (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does it make sense to merge these two articles to Water quality#Physical indicators? wbm1058 (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge on the grounds that these are distinct topics, and the better action is remove the contradictions (looks simple to fix) rather than merge the pages, either with each other or to another page. The articles are short, but not outrageously so. The only point of contention seems to be the first sentence, which includes the unreferenced claim that TDS includes micro-granular (colloidal sol) suspended form. Removing this should fix the contradiction. Klbrain (talk) 12:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to the idea of creating a single article titled "Water quality and classification", but someone with an interest in or having more knowledge about the topic should simply take the initiative and just do it. You can't expect the volunteers at WP:WikiProject Merge to handle such things. Lacking an editor to take the initiative and create that article, I think the only, and best thing we can do for now is just keep the status quo. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Though on second thought, Water quality and classification risks being a WP:content fork of Water quality. I suppose what I meant is that a merged article might be a viable subtopic of Water quality. wbm1058 (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, given the lack of consensus for any action over the course of more than a year, and arguments to keep the status quo. Klbrain (talk) 12:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Opening figure caption incorrect?

The opening caption presently claims that bottled mineral water usually has more TDS than tap water. I don't believe this is true, and no citation is provided. At least locally, our tap water typically has a TDS ~ 300, and bottled mineral waters I've seen posted are generally under this. However, I don't have enough evidence in hand to make a firm statement; I'd accept it if a verifiable citation were provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.28.194.135 (talk) 02:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. See top of Talk:TDS meter.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]