| Literature DB >> 21695032 |
Wen-Cheng Liu1, Hwa-Lung Yu, Chung-En Chung.
Abstract
Concerns about the water quality in Yuan-Yang Lake (YYL), a shallow, subtropical alpine lake located in north-central Taiwan, has been rapidly increasing recently due to the natural and anthropogenic pollution. In order to understand the underlying physical and chemical processes as well as their associated spatial distribution in YYL, this study analyzes fourteen physico-chemical water quality parameters recorded at the eight sampling stations during 2008-2010 by using multivariate statistical techniques and a geostatistical method. Hierarchical clustering analysis (CA) is first applied to distinguish the three general water quality patterns among the stations, followed by the use of principle component analysis (PCA) and factor analysis (FA) to extract and recognize the major underlying factors contributing to the variations among the water quality measures. The spatial distribution of the identified major contributing factors is obtained by using a kriging method. Results show that four principal components i.e., nitrogen nutrients, meteorological factor, turbidity and nitrate factors, account for 65.52% of the total variance among the water quality parameters. The spatial distribution of principal components further confirms that nitrogen sources constitute an important pollutant contribution in the YYL.Entities:
Keywords: Yuan-Yang Lake; cluster analysis; geostatistical mapping; multivariate statistical technique; principal component analysis; water quality
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21695032 PMCID: PMC3118881 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph8041126
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1.Location of Yuan-Yang Lake (YYL) in Taiwan and eight measurement stations in YYL.
Results of water quality parameters at eight sampling in the YYL.
| Temperature (°C) | Temp | 12.4 ± 2.88 . | 13.63 ± 3.80 | 14.30 ± 3.41 | 14.41 ± 3.66 | 14.67 ± 3.62 | 13.86 ± 3.24 | 13.83 ± 3.49 | 14.47 ± 3.75 |
| Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) | DO | 5.82 ± 0.89 | 6.49 ± 0.92 | 6.85 ± 0.75 | 6.79 ± 1.08 | 6.57 ± 1.26 | 6.11 ± 1.40 | 6.01 ± 1.30 | 6.78 ± 0.82 |
| Secchi Depth (m) | SD | 0.65 ± 0.12 | 0.86 ± 0.14 | 1.79 ± 0.39 | 1.69 ± 0.40 | 1.79 ± 0.44 | 1.95 ± 0.41 | 1.92 ± 0.39 | 1.84 ± 0.36 |
| Total Phosphorus (mg/L) | TP | 0.011 ±.005 | 0.014 ± 0.008 | 0.012 ± 0.006 | 0.011 ± 0.006 | 0.009 ± 0.004 | 0.009 ± 0.004 | 0.010 ± 0.004 | 0.009 ± 0.003 |
| Total Nitrogen (mg/L) | TN | 0.528 ± 0.169 | 0.544 ± 0.219 | 0.452 ± 0.196 | 0.427 ± 0.115 | 0.432 ± 0.144 | 0.454 ± 0.184 | 0.448 ± 0.166 | 0.422 ± 0.169 |
| Ammonium Nitrogen (mg/L) | NH4-N | 0.080 ± 0.112 | 0.078 ± 0.057 | 0.074 ± 0.039 | 0.051 ± 0.037 | 0.055 ± 0.031 | 0.097 ± 0.085 | 0.100 ± 0.102 | 0.077 ± 0.089 |
| Nitrate Nitrogen (mg/L) | NO3-N | 0.111 ± 0.053 | 0.071 ± 0.038 | 0.083 ± 0.045 | 0.092 ± 0.042 | 0.091 ± 0.044 | 0.097 ± 0.044 | 0.095 ± 0.041 | 0.097 ± 0.045 |
| Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) | TSS | 5.38 ±.02 | 5.87 ± 3.88 | 3.79 ± 2.73 | 3.19 ± 1.95 | 4.18 ± 2.84 | 3.44 ± 3.07 | 3.90 ± 3.73 | 3.57 ± 2.74 |
| Turbidity (NTU) | Turb | 14.10 ± 7.60 | 16.24 ± 7.31 | 15.18 ± 6.36 | 15.25 ± 6.95 | 16.14 ± 7.72 | 18.23 ± 7.81 | 18.52 ± 8.65 | 15.83 ± 6.45 |
| Chlorophyll | Chl-a | 4.20 ± 3.44 | 7.33 ± 6.68 | 4.50 ± 3.17 | 3.49 ± 2.05 | 3.11 ± 1.98 | 6.39 ± 5.68 | 7.78 ± 10.14 | 3.83 ± 2.35 |
| pH (pH unit) | pH | 5.89 ± 0.43 | 6.30 ± 0.45 | 6.42 ± 0.39 | 6.43 ± 0.29 | 6.49 ± 0.38 | 6.41 ± 0.29 | 6.48 ± 0.32 | 6.48 ± 0.34 |
| Light attenuation coefficient (m−1) | Ke | 4.78 ± 2.52 | 4.87 ± 2.48 | 2.68 ± 1.17 | 2.58 ± 1.30 | 2.67 ± 1.27 | 2.84 ± 1.26 | 2.37 ± 0.87 | 4.35 ± 1.97 |
| Wind Speed (m/s) | WS | 0.744 ± 0.182 | 0.744 ± 0.182 | 0.744 ± 0.182 | 0.744 ± 0.182 | 0.744 ± 0.182 | 0.744 ± 0.182 | 0.744 ± 0.182 | 0.744 ± 0.182 |
| Rainfall (mm) | R | 4.318 ± 7.048 | 4.318 ± 7.048 | 4.318 ± 7.048 | 4.318 ± 7.048 | 4.318 ± 7.048 | 4.318 ± 7.048 | 4.318 ± 7.048 | 4.318 ± 7.048 |
Note: Values represent mean ± standard deviation.
Figure 2.Dendrogram of cluster analysis for sampling stations accroding to water quality paramters of YYL.
Correlation matrix of water quality parameters of YYL.
| 1 | ||||||||||||||
| −0.38 | 1 | |||||||||||||
| −0.07 | −0.04 | 1 | ||||||||||||
| 0.1 | 0.1 | −0.77 | 1 | |||||||||||
| −0.12 | 0.26 | −0.02 | 0.02 | 1 | ||||||||||
| 0.24 | −0.15 | −0.32 | −0.26 | −0.27 | 1 | |||||||||
| 0.30 | −0.27 | −0.25 | −0.32 | −0.18 | 0.37 | 1 | ||||||||
| −0.26 | −0.10 | 0.21 | 0.22 | 0.13 | −0.28 | 0.04 | 1 | |||||||
| 0.26 | −0.46 | 0.17 | −0.21 | −0.23 | 0.24 | 0.35 | 0.16 | 1 | ||||||
| 0.15 | −0.23 | −0.33 | −0.32 | −0.18 | 0.51 | 0.37 | 0.12 | 0.25 | 1 | |||||
| 0.17 | −0.34 | −0.34 | 0.28 | −0.14 | 0.39 | 0.48 | −0.10 | 0.27 | 0.59 | 1 | ||||
| 0.36 | −0.48 | −0.18 | −0.20 | 0.01 | −0.14 | 0.55 | 0.16 | 0.36 | 0.29 | 0.42 | 1 | |||
| 0.02 | 0.36 | −0.19 | 0.17 | 0.38 | −0.05 | −0.11 | −0.30 | −0.37 | −0.18 | −0.09 | −0.18 | 1 | ||
| −0.11 | −0.15 | −0.01 | 0.14 | −0.38 | 0.04 | −0.08 | 0.07 | 0.24 | 0.11 | 0.13 | −0.08 | −0.36 | 1 |
Values are statistically significant at p < 0.01;
values are statistically significant at p < 0.05.
Figure 3.Scree plot of the characteristic roots (eigenvalues) of principal component analysis.
Loading of 14 parameters on significant VFs for water quality data set.
| Temp | 0.465 | 0.038 | 0.309 | −0.623 |
| DO | −0.582 | 0.437 | −0.205 | 0.171 |
| WS | −0.409 | −0.696 | 0.201 | −0.237 |
| R | 0.383 | 0.735 | −0.105 | 0.218 |
| SD | −0.367 | 0.330 | 0.581 | 0.254 |
| TP | 0.610 | 0.224 | −0.309 | −0.218 |
| NH4-N | 0.718 | 0.096 | 0.252 | 0.051 |
| NO3-N | −0.043 | −0.460 | 0.299 | 0.704 |
| TN | 0.536 | −0.543 | 0.118 | −0.105 |
| TSS | 0.698 | 0.111 | −0.163 | 0.310 |
| Chl-a | 0.737 | 0.133 | −0.047 | 0.148 |
| Turb | 0.655 | −0.067 | 0.533 | 0.110 |
| pH | −0.314 | 0.649 | 0.217 | −0.214 |
| Ke | 0.162 | −0.429 | −0.627 | 0.132 |
| Eigenvalue | 3.76 | 2.53 | 1.54 | 1.34 |
| Percentage of total variance | 26.89 | 18.08 | 11.02 | 9.54 |
| Cumulative percentage of variance | 26.89 | 44.96 | 55.98 | 65.52 |
Variogram models used for spatial mapping.
| PC1 | Nugget[0.031] + Exponential[0.466, 287.106] |
| PC2 | Nugget[0.007] + Gaussian[5.004, 1116.3] |
| PC3 | Nugget[0.036] + Gaussian[1.443, 259.137] |
| PC4 | Nugget[0.018] + Gaussian[0.305, 215.136] |
| FA1 | Nugget[0.038] + Exponential[0.157, 65.983] |
| FA2 | Nugget[0.003] + Exponential[0.080, 185.810] |
| FA3 | Nugget[0.010] + Gaussian[2.056, 383.165] |
| FA4 | Nugget[0.010] + Gaussian[0.409, 288.627] |
Note: The notations that Nugget[ s1 ] + Exponential(or Gaussian)[ s2, r2 ] denote the nest model of nugget model effect of sill s1 and exponential (or Gaussian) model of sill s2 and range r2 in meters. PC: Principal Component; FA: Factor Analysis.
Figure 4.The experimental and modeled variograms of PC1 and FA1.
Figure 5.Variograms in time for PC1 and FA1.
Figure 6.Spatial distribution of (a) first principle component and (b) first factor score at the time on the measured data of September 12, 2009.
Figure 7.Spatial distribution of second principle component by ordinary kriging method on the measured data of February 14, 2009.