During preliminary treatment of a sewage ?->(Show Answer!)

1. During preliminary treatment of a sewage

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->Preliminary expense is an example of ______.....

QA->A preliminary agreement shall be enclosed along with tender for public works, when estimate exceeds:....

QA->Fish die in water bodies polluted by sewage; why?....

QA->Fish die in water bodies polluted by sewage, why?....

QA->The book "Treatment of Thiyyas in Travancore" was written by....

MCQ->The following are the sewage treatment processes :1. Primary sedimentation2. Screening3. Grit removal4. Secondary sedimentation.When only preliminary treatment is to be given for sewage, select the required treatment proceses including their correct sequence from the codes given below:....

MCQ->Consider the following statements in regard to aerobic and anaerobic treatment processes :1. Biomass production in the aerobic treatment process is more as compared to the anaerobic treatment process.2. Start-up period is more in the aerobic treatment process as compared to the anaerobic treatment process.3. Energy consumption and production is more in the aerobic treatment process as compared to the anaerobic treatment process.Which of the statements given above is/are correct ?....

MCQ-> Study the following information carefully and answer the questions given below : Following are the criteria for short listing candidates for calling for interview for Management Trainees in an organization : The candidates must- (i) not be less than 21 years and more than 28 years as on 1.11.04. (ii) have secured at least 60 per cent marks in graduation. (iii) have secured at least 65 per cent marks in the preliminary selection examination. (iv) have secured at least 55 per cent marks in the final selection examination. (v) be ready to join work immediately after the interview. In the case of a candidate who fulfills all other criteria EXCEPT- (A) at (iv) above but has secured more than 75 per cent marks in preliminary selection examination his/her case is to be referred to Deputy General Manager. (B) at (ii) above but has secured at least 65 per cent marks in post graduation, his/her case is to be referred to General Manager. In each of the questions below is given the information of one candidate. You have to study the information provided with reference to the conditions given above and decide whether the candidate is to be called for interview or some other course of action as stated below is to be taken. You are not to assume other than the information provided in each question. All these cases are given to you as on 1.11.2004. Now read the information provided in each question and decide which of the following courses of actions is to be taken with regard to each candidate and mark your answer.Mark answer a: if the candidate is to be called for interview. Mark answer b: if the case is to be referred to General Manager. Mark answer c: if the candidate is not to be called for interview. Mark answer d: if the data provided are not sufficient to take a decision. Mark answer e: if the case is to be referred to Deputy General Manager.Neelam Srivastava has secured 75 per cent marks in the preliminary selection examination. She was 22 years old as on 5th December, 2000. She has secured 65 per cent and 60 per cent marks in the Final selection examination and in graduation respectively. She is ready to join immediately after the interview.
....

MCQ->During sewage treatment, the sewage is subjected to __________ treatment in Imhoff tank.....

MCQ-> When people react to their experiences with particular authorities, those authorities and the organizations or institutions that they represent often benefit if the people involved begin with high levels of commitment to the organization or institution represented by the authorities. First, in his studies of people's attitudes toward political and legal institutions, Tyler found that attitudes after an experience with the institution were strongly affected by prior attitudes. Single experiences influence post- experience loyalty but certainly do not overwhelm the relationship between pre-experience and post- experience loyalty. Thus, the best predictor of loyalty after an experience is usually loyalty before that experience. Second, people with prior loyalty to the organization or institution judge their dealings with the organization’s or institution's authorities to be fairer than do those with less prior loyalty, either because they are more fairly treated or because they interpret equivalent treatment as fairer.Although high levels of prior organizational or institutional commitment are generally beneficial to the organization or institution, under certain conditions high levels of prior commitment may actually sow the seeds of reduced commitment. When previously committed individuals feel that they were treated unfavourably or unfairly during some experience with the organization or institution, they may show an especially sharp decline in commitment. Two studies were designed to test this hypothesis, which, if confirmed, would suggest that organizational or institutional commitment has risks, as well as benefits. At least three psychological models offer predictions of how individuals’ reactions may vary as a function of a: their prior level of commitment and b: the favorability of the encounter with the organization or institution. Favorability of the encounter is determined by the outcome of the encounter and the fairness or appropriateness of the procedures used to allocate outcomes during the encounter. First, the instrumental prediction is that because people are mainly concerned with receiving desired outcomes from their encounters with organizations, changes in their level of commitment will depend primarily on the favorability of the encounter. Second, the assimilation prediction is that individuals' prior attitudes predispose them to react in a way that is consistent with their prior attitudes.The third prediction, derived from the group-value model of justice, pertains to how people with high prior commitment will react when they feel that they have been treated unfavorably or unfairly during some encounter with the organization or institution. Fair treatment by the other party symbolizes to people that they are being dealt with in a dignified and respectful way, thereby bolstering their sense of self-identity and self-worth. However, people will become quite distressed and react quite negatively if they feel that they have been treated unfairly by the other party to the relationship. The group-value model suggests that people value the information they receive that helps them to define themselves and to view themselves favorably. According to the instrumental viewpoint, people are primarily concerned with the more material or tangible resources received from the relationship. Empirical support for the group-value model has implications for a variety of important issues, including the determinants of commitment, satisfaction, organizational citizenship, and rule following. Determinants of procedural fairness include structural or interpersonal factors. For example, structural determinants refer to such things as whether decisions were made by neutral, fact-finding authorities who used legitimate decision-making criteria. The primary purpose of the study was to examine the interactive effect of individuals a: commitment to an organization or institution prior to some encounter and b: perceptions of how fairly they were treated during the encounter, on the change in their level of commitment. A basic assumption of the group-value model is that people generally value their relationships with people, groups, organizations, and institutions and therefore value fair treatment from the other party to the relationship. Specifically, highly committed members should have especially negative reactions to feeling that they were treated unfairly, more so than a: less- committed group members or b: highly committed members who felt that they were fairly treated.The prediction that people will react especially negatively when they previously felt highly committed but felt that they were treated unfairly also is consistent with the literature on psychological contracts. Rousseau suggested that, over time, the members of work organizations develop feelings of entitlement, i.e., perceived obligations that their employers have toward them. Those who are highly committed to the organization believe that they are fulfilling their contract obligations. However, if the organization acted unfairly, then highly committed individuals are likely to believe that the organization did not live up to its end of the bargain.The hypothesis mentioned in the passage tests at least one of the following ideas.
....