Home

Results 1 - 10 of 312,163 for pit table. Search took 3.577 seconds.  
Sort by date/Sort by relevance
Prunes may be presented in one of the following styles: • Whole, unpitted from which pits have not been removed • Whole, pitted; from which pits have been removed. (...) These stated designations are not correlated. Pitted prunes must be sized after pitting. To ensure uniformity in size, table A, B or the numerical categories must be applied. (...) Size nomenclature by weight, per count Table A. Designation per 500 g Number of prunes per 500 g Designation Pitted prunes Unpitted prunes Super giant not more than 44 not more than 32 Giant from 45 to 56 from 33 to 44 Very large from 57 to 72 from 45 to 55 Large from 73 to 84 from 56 to 66 Medium from 85 to 100 from 67 to 77 Small from 101 to 120 from 78 to 99 Very small more than 120 prunes more than 99 Table B.
Language:English
Score: 1696708.8 - https://unece.org/sites/defaul...WP7_2021_13EPrunes%2030Sep.pdf
Data Source: un
The product is applicable to receive faecal sludge and/or wastewater (Table 2) from: 1. Direct drop dry toilets and pits (dry sanitation) 2. (...) What type of influent characteristics the product can handle must be defined by the supplier to meet the treatment objectives specified in this document (Table 4). Table 2 gives a generic description of the faecal waste generated at the different types of toilets and may vary with different sanitation approaches and context (e.g. unlined pit vs lined pit). (...) Table 5: Illustrates the different pathogen and total solids concentrations found in pit latrines and septic tanks.
Language:English
Score: 1680562.9 - https://www.unicef.org/supply/...udge-wastewater-management.pdf
Data Source: un
These stated designations are not correlated. Pitted prunes must be sized after pitting. To ensure uniformity in size, the subsequent tables or the numeral categories must be applied. (...) Size nomenclature by weight, per count Table A. Designation per 500 g Number of prunes per 500 g Designation Pitted prunes Unpitted prunes Super giant not more than 44 not more than 32 Giant from 45 to 56 from 33 to 44 Very large from 57 to 72 from 45 to 55 Large from 73 to 84 from 56 to 66 Medium from 85 to 100 from 67 to 77 Small from 101 to 120 from 78 to 99 Very small more than 120 prunes more than 99 Table B. (...) Defects allowed (percentages by weight or number). Unpitted Prunes Pitted prunes Class I Class II Class I Class II (a) Tolerance for produce not meeting the minimum requirements 10 15 10 15 of which no more than Non-characteristic colour and texture 10 15 10 15 Fermented 1 2 1 2 Damaged by pests a 2 4 2 4 Rotten or deteriorated a 1 2 0.5 2 of which mouldy a (note about reservation of France) 0.5 1 0.5 1 Skin or flesh damage, calluses, heat injury 2 4 2 4 End cracks 8 10 Living pests 0 0 0 0 (b) Size tolerances (if sized) For produce not conforming to the size indicated, in total, depending on the characteristics of the product 10 10 10 10 (c) Tolerances for other defects Extraneous matter i.e., stem (attached or pieces), leaves (whole or pieces) (by weight) 1 1 1 1 Foreign matter such as stones, metal, and glass (by weight) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Whole pits and pit fragments among pitted fruit 2 2 [Table note text] France does not permit tolerances for produce affected by pest damage, rot and mould.
Language:English
Score: 1678740.2 - https://unece.org/sites/defaul...12/WP7_2021_13EPrunes19Oct.pdf
Data Source: un
  ff
These stated designations are not correlated. Pitted prunes must be sized after pitting. To ensure uniformity in size, the subsequent tables or the numeral categories must be applied. (...) Size nomenclature by weight, per count Table A Designation per 500 g Number of prunes per 500 g Designation Pitted prunes Unpitted prunes Super giant not more than 44 not more than 32 Giant from 45 to 56 from 33 to 44 Very large from 57 to 72 from 45 to 55 Large from 73 to 84 from 56 to 66 3 The moisture content is determined by one of the methods given in Annex I of the Standard Layout – Determination of the moisture content for dried produce https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2020- 12/DDP_StanLayout_2020_e_0.pdf. The laboratory reference method shall be used in cases of dispute. https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2020-12/DDP_StanLayout_2020_e_0.pdf https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2020-12/DDP_StanLayout_2020_e_0.pdf DDP-07 Prunes - 2021 Date of issue: 18 January 2022 5 Number of prunes per 500 g Designation Pitted prunes Unpitted prunes Medium from 85 to 100 from 67 to 77 Small from 101 to 120 from 78 to 99 Very small more than 120 prunes more than 99 Table B Pitted prunes designation per pound (453 g) Designation Number of prunes per pound (453 g) Extra large not more than 36 to 43 prunes Large from 44 to 53 prunes Medium from 54 to 67 prunes Small from 68 to 85 prunes B.
Language:English
Score: 1665768 - https://unece.org/sites/defaul...2022-01/DDP07E-Prunes_2021.pdf
Data Source: un
Tax revenue collection 2005-19: LAC and OECD (percent of GDP) Source: IMF staff calculations based on OECD Tax Revenue Statistics database. Table 1. Tax revenue collection in 2019: LAC and OECD (percent of GDP) Despite improvements over 2005-19, LAC collects significantly less tax revenue than the OECD… …and while VAT is the main revenue source, LAC collects much less (more) than the OECD in PIT (CIT) LAC OECD Value added taxes 6.3 7.2 Personal income taxes 2.3 8.8 Corporate income taxes 3.7 2.8 SSCs and payroll taxes 4.0 10.2 Other taxes 6.1 7.0 Total tax revenue 22.4 35.5 INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND 4 …even when adjusting for development levels, and with different growth effects Fig 2. (...) PIT thresholds in LAC and OECD in 2019 1/ (ratios relative to GDP p. c.) (...) Table 2. Microsimulation of PIT reforms in LA5, 2019 (percent) Deductions significantly reduce the effective PIT rate paid by high income workers/individuals Eliminating deductions simplifies system and raises revenue w/o taxing low- and middle-income workers Top 10% of earners Baseline … 9.2 … No deductions 137 14.3 -1.6 No deductions + EITC 106 14.3 -3.6 Gini change relative to baseline Scenario Revenue change relative to baseline Avg.
Language:English
Score: 1643534.8 - https://www.cepal.org/sites/de..._acosta-ormaechea_santiago.pdf
Data Source: un
In the case of the flood-prone regions in the states of Assam and Gujarat, the following challenges were however observed with the twin-pit toilet system design: • The plinth level of the toilet structure is inadequate (too low) in times of flooding • The pits are submerged during heavy rains/floods, creating environmental and health risks • The design is not appropriate for coastal and riverine areas • Pits designed as dry pits will be submerged as groundwater table is often above the bottom of the pit (as seen in field visits) • As the bottom of the pit is not sealed, the design becomes inappropriate for high water table and water-logged situations • Roof structures are not sufficiently strong considering the likelihood of high-speed winds and cyclones • Doors are under-designed and not sturdy With this information at hand, the WASH experts, with the support of the PHED engineers and UNICEF experts, developed a new design option for DRTs. (...) Anchor the foundations well to prevent uprooting Leach Pits Pit Lining above GL • Recommendation is to raise the pit lining from 600mm to 900mm above GL. (...) The fixed component assumed the following conditions: The pit is designed as a WET pit considering the context of the high groundwater table, this refers to waterlogging up to 30cm above ground level during floods, the soil is sandy or sandy loam, not clayey.
Language:English
Score: 1626972.6 - https://www.unicef.org/rosa/media/11801/file
Data Source: un
Prunes may be presented in one of the following styles: • Whole, unpitted from which pits have not been removed • Whole, pitted; from which pits have been removed * Submitted late due to secretariat resource constraints. 1 In some countries “prunes” is used interchangeably with “dried plums”. (...) Wouldn’t it be better to require the indication of size for pitted prunes? Comment by France: There is no tool to size the product after pitting. (...) Comment by Kyrgyzstan: Regarding not having pressure pitted, agree that uniformity of size should be for all types of pitted prunes.
Language:English
Score: 1608090.4 - https://unece.org/sites/defaul.../files/2021-06/GE2_2021_6E.pdf
Data Source: un
Wales, AU, 2008 Merchant 2 4 193 98 9.65 4.9 2000 2000 7 7 3 7 11 14 25 3 7 11 14 25 Pitted fruit 0.33 0.35 0.18 0.17 0.12 0.30 0.37 0.27 0.24 0.16 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.014 0.013 0.012 0.010 0.015 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Havelock, N. NZ, NZ, 2008 Lapin 2 195 16.3 1200 7 7 Pitted fruit 0.38 1.4 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.013 0.052 4 97 8.08 1200 7 7 Pitted fruit 1.4 < 0.01 0.053 Frankfurt/Oder, DE, EU, 2008 Schatten- morelle 2 192 20.0 960 7 3 7 14 21 Pitted fruit 1.8 1.5 1.2 0.96 0.031 0.029 0.029 0.031 0.040 0.048 0.043 0.044 Agárd, HU, EU, 2008 Kavics 2 194 20.0 970 7 7 Pitted fruit 0.90 0.011 0.017 Söllingen, DE, EU, 2009 Schatten- morelle 2 190 16.7 1140 7 7 Pitted fruit 0.77 0.011 < 0.01 Sulfoxaflor 1784 Application Residues (mg/kg) Location Year Variety No g ai/ha g ai/100L L/ha RTI DAT Portion Sulfoxaflor X11719474 X11721061 Epila, ES, EU, 2008 Blanca 2 201 10.1 1990 7 7 Pitted fruit 0.54 0.010 0.026 Panagitsa, GR, EU, 2008 Mpakirtz-eika 2 202 16.7 1210 7 3 7 14 21 Pitted fruit 0.95 0.98 0.80 0.73 0.011 0.014 0.019 0.021 0.012 0.016 0.021 0.022 Sahorre, FR, EU, 2008 Burlat 2 199 20.1 990 7 7 Pitted fruit 0.80 < 0.01 0.044 Orefield, PA, US, 2009 Montmorency 2 205 8.63 2380 7 6 Pitted fruit 1.2 0.016 0.026 Fennville, MI, US, 2009 Sour 2 202 21.0 960 7 7 Pitted fruit 1.2 0.013 0.048 Hart, MI, US, 2009 Sour 2 202 16.3 1240 7 7 Pitted fruit 1.0 0.016 0.042 Fennville, MI, US, 2009 Sweet 2 202 21.0 960 7 3 7 14 21 Pitted fruit 0.62 0.76 0.56 0.35 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.010 0.018 0.013 0.012 Hart, MI, US, 2009 Sweet 2 202 16.3 1240 7 7 Pitted fruit 0.59 < 0.01 0.019 Marysville, CA, US, 2010 Brooks 2 204 16.2 1260 7 6 Pitted fruit 0.55 < 0.01 0.010 Nectarines Table 9 Residue trials for sulfoxaflor in nectarines Application Residues (mg/kg) Location Year Variety No g ai/ha g ai/100L L/ha RTI DAT Portion Sulfoxaflor X11719474 X11721061 Shepparton, Australia, 2009 Grand Sweet 2 192 16 1200 7 7 Pitted fruit 0.12 < 0.01 < 0.01 Ardmona, Australia, 2008 A38-039 Yellow 2 4 192 96 10.7 5.33 1800 1800 8 7 3 7 14 22 3 7 14 22 Pitted fruit 0.27 0.18 0.13 0.16 0.17 0.14 0.12 0.15 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.010 < 0.01 0.011 0.010 0.013 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.011 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.061 0.010 Orange, Australia, 2008 Fairlane 2 195 9.75 2000 7 7 Pitted fruit 0.14 < 0.01 0.010 4 87 4.85 2000 7 7 Pitted fruit 0.16 < 0.01 0.010 Karragullen, Australia, 2008 Red Gold 2 197 19.7 1000 7 7 Pitted fruit 0.10 < 0.01 < 0.01 4 98 9.8 1000 7 7 Pitted fruit 0.23 0.010 0.015 Havelock, New Zealand, 2008 Red Gold 2 195 13 1500 7 7 Pitted fruit 0.11 < 0.01 0.014 4 98 6.53 1500 7 7 Pitted fruit 0.19 < 0.01 0.021 Sulfoxaflor 1785 Peaches Table 10 Results of residue trials conducted with two (or four) applications of sulfoxaflor 240 g ai/L SC in/on peach Application Residues (mg/kg) Location Year Variety No g ai/ha g ai/100L L/ha RTI DAT Portion Sulfoxaflor X11719474 X11721061 Shepparton, Victoria, Australia, 2008 Taylor Queen 2 4 194 97 10.8 5.4 1800 1800 7 7 3 7 14 28 3 7 14 28 Pitted fruit 0.34 0.22 0.20 0.24 0.22 0.16 0.23 0.14 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.011 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.013 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.011 < 0.01 Orange, New South Wales, Australia, 2008 O’Henry 2 194 9.7 2000 7 7 Pitted fruit 0.27 < 0.01 0.021 4 98 4.9 2000 7 7 Pitted fruit 0.13 < 0.01 0.014 Karragullen, W- Australia, 2008 Rich Lady 2 190 19 1000 7 7 Pitted fruit 0.15 < 0.01 0.010 4 97 9.7 1000 7 7 Pitted fruit 0.15 < 0.01 0.018 Havelock, North New Zealand, 2008 Golden Queen 2 192 10.7 1800 7 7 Pitted fruit 0.14 < 0.01 < 0.01 4 97 5.4 1800 7 7 Pitted fruit 0.10 < 0.01 < 0.01 Ballandean, Queensland, Australia, 2009 Diamond Princess 2 194 19.4 1000 7 7 Pitted fruit 0.012 < 0.01 < 0.01 Shadforth, New South Wales, Australia, 2010 O’Henry 2 198 19.8 1000 7 3 7 14 Pitted fruit 0.18 0.10 0.11 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.022 0.010 0.014 Toolamba, Victoria, Australia, 2010 September Snow 2 199 16.6 1200 7 8 Pitted fruit 0.12 < 0.01 0.010 Yering, Victoria, Australia, 2009 Royal Gem 2 192 16 1200 7 7 Pitted fruit 0.11 < 0.01 0.016 Szekesfehervar, Hungary, EU, 2008 Padana 2 198 20 990 7 3 8 14 21 Pitted fruit 0.64 0.36 0.22 0.14 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.040 0.029 0.024 0.019 Pfinztal-Sollingen, Germaney, EU, 2008 South Have 2 197 22.2 890 7 7 Pitted fruit 0.20 < 0.01 0.010 Corbere, France, EU, 2008 Corindon 2 203 20.0 1020 7 7 Pitted fruit 0.54 0.010 0.022 Quatretonda, Spain, EU, 2008 Federica 2 202 9.99 2020 7 3 7 14 21 Pitted fruit 0.49 0.27 0.25 0.12 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.017 0.017 0.018 0.013 Barbiano, Italy, EU, 2008 Sweet Red 2 198 13.4 1480 7 7 Pitted fruit 0.21 < 0.01 < 0.01 Lakka, Greece, EU, 2009 Andross 2 210 13.4 1570 7 7 Pitted fruit 0.83 < 0.01 0.012 Orefield, PA, USA, 2008 Glen Glow 2 202 7.18 2820 7 7 Pitted fruit 0.90 < 0.01 < 0.01 Montezuma,GA, USA, 2008 Flame Prince 2 202 21.4 940 7 4 7 10 14 Pitted fruit 0.058 0.032 0.032 0.028 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Sulfoxaflor 1786 Application Residues (mg/kg) Location Year Variety No g ai/ha g ai/100L L/ha RTI DAT Portion Sulfoxaflor X11719474 X11721061 Barney, GA, USA, 2008 Suwane 2 202 21.0 960 7 7 Pitted fruit 0.054 < 0.01 < 0.01 Blissfield, MI, USA, 2008 TNR 31 2 202 10.1 1990 7 7 Pitted fruit 0.17 < 0.01 0.017 Vernon, TX, USA, 2008 Loring 2 203 17.1 1180 7 7 Pitted fruit 0.14 < 0.01 < 0.01 Sanger, CA, USA, 2008 Tra-Zee 2 203 14.3 1420 7 6 Pitted fruit 0.12 < 0.01 < 0.01 Apricots Table 11 Results of residue trials conducted with two (or four) applications of sulfoxaflor 240 g ai/L SC in/on apricots Application Residues (mg/kg) Location Year Variety No g ai/ha g ai/100L L/ha RTI DAT Portion Sulfoxaflor X11719474 X11721061 Shepparton, Victoria, Australia 2008 Trevatt 2 4 193 97 14.8 7.5 1300 1300 7 7 0 3 7 10 0 3 7 10 Pitted fruit 0.70 0.46 0.42 0.40 0.29 0.22 0.18 0.28 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.011 0.010 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.026 0.036 0.039 0.043 0.011 0.011 0.017 0.024 Hastings, Hawkes Bay, New Zealand 2008 Sundrop 2 190 9.5 2000 7 7 Pitted fruit 0.15 < 0.01 < 0.01 4 95 4.8 2000 7 7 Pitted fruit 0.17 < 0.01 < 0.01 Plums Table 12 Results of residue trials conducted with two applications of sulfoxaflor 240 g ai/L SC in/on plum Application Residues (mg/kg) Location Year Variety No g ai/ha g ai/100L L/ha RTI DAT Portion Sulfoxaflor X11719474 X11721061 Nashdale, Australia, 2009 Autumn Giant 2 192 19.2 1000 7 3 7 14 28 Fruit, pitted 0.040 0.020 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Blissfield, MI, USA, 2009 NS 2 2 208 [240 SC] 202 [500 WDG] 6.93 15.7 3000 1280 7 7 1 3 7 14 1 3 7 14 Fruit, pitted 0.27 0.27 0.21 0.26 0.37 0.39 0.36 0.31 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.011 0.014 0.012 0.014 0.015 0.017 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Fresno, CA, USA, 2009 NE Flavor 2 203 [240 SC] 10.8 1880 7 7 Fruit, pitted 0.062 < 0.01 < 0.01 Sulfoxaflor 1787 Application Residues (mg/kg) Location Year Variety No g ai/ha g ai/100L L/ha RTI DAT Portion Sulfoxaflor X11719474 X11721061 2 202 [500 WDG] 10.8 1870 7 7 Fruit, pitted 0.090 < 0.01 < 0.01 Porterville, CA, USA, 2009 NE Fortune 2 203 [240 SC] 12.3 12.3 1650 1660 7 7 Fruit, pitted 0.044 < 0.01 < 0.01 2 204 [500 WDG] 12.3 1660 7 7 Fruit, pitted 0.066 < 0.01 < 0.01 Monmouth, OR, USA, 2008 Moyer 2 200 [240 SC] 13.8 1450 7 7 Fruit, pitted 0.045 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 2 201 [500 WDG] 13.8 1460 7 7 Fruit, pitted 0.054 < 0.01 < 0.01 Dinuba, CA, USA, 2008 Black Fryers 2 202 [240 SC] 10.6 1900 7 7 Fruit, pitted 0.030 < 0.01 < 0.01 2 205 [500 WDG] 10.6 1940 7 7 Fruit, pitted 0.017 < 0.01 < 0.01 Lindsay, CA, USA 2009 Angelina’s 2 202 [240 SC] 20.9 960 7 7 Fruit, pitted 0.11 < 0.01 < 0.01 2 201 [500 WDG] 20.8 960 7 7 Fruit, pitted 0.11 < 0.01 < 0.01 Tree nuts Almonds Table 13 Residue trials for sulfoxaflor in almonds Application Residues (mg/kg) Location Year Variety No g ai/ha L/ha RTI DAT Portion Sulfoxaflor X11719474 X11721061 Sanger, CA USA 2008 Ne Plus 2 202 1280 7 7 nutmeat < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Kerman, CA USA 2008 Carmels 2 205 1870 7 3 7 14 21 nutmeat < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Visalia, CA USA 2008 Non-Pareil 2 200 1870 7 7 nutmeat < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Madera, CA USA 2008 Non-Pareil 2 200 1880 7 7 nutmeat 0.012 < 0.01 < 0.01 Madera, CA USA 2008 Butte 2 203 1870 7 7 nutmeat < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Terra Bella, CA 2008 Monterey 2 202 2980 7 7 nutmeat < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Sulfoxaflor 1788 Pecans Table 14 Residue trials for sulfoxaflor in pecans Application Residues (mg/kg) Location Year Variety No g ai/ha L/ha RTI DAT Portion Sulfoxaflor X11719474 X11721061 Chula, GA, USA, 2009 Summer 2 202 1280 7 3 7 14 21 nutmeat < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Scooterville, GA, USA, 2009 Summer 2 202 1280 7 7 nutmeat < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Sycamore, GA, USA, 2009 Summer 2 202 1270 7 7 nutmeat < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Lonoke, AR, USA, 2009 Native/Stuart 2 202 960 7 7 nutmeat < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Madill, OK, USA, 2009 Desirable 2 204 1140 7 7 nutmeat < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Claytonville, TX, USA, 2009 Choctaw 2 204 1140 7 7 nutmeat < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Animal Feeds Table 15 Results of residue trials conducted with two applications of sulfoxaflor 240 g ai/L SC in/on almond hulls in the USA in 2008 Application Residues (mg/kg) Location Year Variety No g ai/ha L/ha RTI DAT Portion Sulfoxaflor X11719474 X11721061 Sanger, CA USA 2008 Ne Plus 2 202 1280 7 7 hulls 3.1 0.097 0.15 Kerman, CA USA 2008 Carmels 2 205 1870 7 3 7 14 21 hulls 2.1 1.7 2.2 1.6 0.032 0.033 0.043 0.039 0.09 0.093 0.13 0.13 Visalia, CA USA 2008 Non-Pareil 2 200 1870 7 7 hulls 1.5 0.039 0.078 Madera, CA USA 2008 Non-Pareil 2 200 1880 7 7 hulls 1.2 0.028 0.047 Madera, CA USA 2008 Butte 2 203 1870 7 7 hulls 1.5 0.028 0.090 Terra Bella, CA 2008 Monterey 2 202 2980 7 7 hulls 2.2 0.040 0.14 APPRAISAL Sulfoxaflor was first evaluated for residues and toxicological aspects by the 2011 JMPR. (...) Sulfoxaflor 1794 Calculated processing factors are summarized in the following table based on the JMPR 2014 recommendations for MRLs and STMRs.
Language:English
Score: 1599641.8 - https://www.fao.org/fileadmin/...R/Evaluation14/Sulfoxaflor.pdf
Data Source: un
Dried persimmons can be red, orange, or yellowish and are presented in the following styles as follows: Whole, peeled and or unpeeled, pitted or unpitted or seedless. • if marked on the package (with or without pits as a result of selection) Cut into different sizes Sliced into different peeled and unpeeled forms if marked on the package (unpitted, without stones as a result of selection or pitted)( peeled and unpeeledwith or without peel, pitted or unpitted.with or without pits). • Any other presentation of the product shall be permitted, provided that the product is sufficiently labeled and distinctive from other forms. (...) Moisture content 3]} The moisture content of dDried persimmons should have moisture content not exceeding the values in the following table should be within the indicated limits, depending on the species: Type Maximum Mmoisture content in untreated dried persimmons (per cent) {[Maximum Mmoisture content in treated dried persimmons (per cent)]} Whole, peeled and unpeeled, pitted and unpitted or seedless if marked on the package (with or without pits as a result of selection) 25 35 1 Definitions of terms and defects are listed in Annex III of the Standard Layout – Recommended terms and definition of defects for standards of dried (Inshell Nuts and Nut Kernels) and dried produce . 2 The presence of sugar on the surface appears as a white film/plaque 3 The moisture content is determined by one of the methods given in or http://www.unece.org/trade/agr/standard/dry/StandardLayout/StandardLayoutDDP_e.pdf The laboratory reference method shall be used in cases of dispute. Commented [LD-A1]: The word “Plaque” should not be used. preferably a “white coating” http://www.unece.org/trade/agr/standard/dried/StandardLayout/StandardLayoutDDP_e.pdf http://www.unece.org/trade/agr/standard/dry/StandardLayout/StandardLayoutDDP_e.pdf 3 Sliced Cut into different sizes, peeled and unpeeled, pitted and unpitted or seedless forms if marked on the package (unpitted, without stones as a result of selection or pitted) 20 25 The dried persimmons may be treated with preservatives or preserved by other means (e.g. pasteurisation).
Language:English
Score: 1595364.4 - https://unece.org/sites/defaul...iles/2021-06/GE2_2021_INF1.pdf
Data Source: un
High groundwater tables may also prevent pit contents from drying out (which can slow the rate of inactivation of pathogens). increasingly consolidated and gradually fill up the containment system. 8 For instance, the ‘sanitation service chain’ schematic does not depict any outflows from the containment system, and most faecal sludge management efforts focus on sludge management. (...) WASH DISCUSSION PAPER DP/03/2020 Page 5 Safe emptying: alternating twin pit latrines Alternating twin pit latrines provide a simple and appropriate solution where households prefer offset latrine pits and have space for a second pit. (...) FACILITY TYPE CONTAINMENT DISPOSAL OVERALL Pit latrine without slab Safe Safe UNIMPROVED Shared improved latrine Safe Safe LIMITED Pit latrine with slab Unsafe Unsafe BASIC Pit latrine with slab Safe Safe SAFELY MANAGED Table 1.
Language:English
Score: 1554666.2 - https://www.unicef.org/media/9...ICEF-SMSS-Discussion-Paper.pdf
Data Source: un