| Literature DB >> 22368505 |
Abstract
The development of a real-time monitoring tool for the estimation of water quality is essential for efficient management of river pollution in urban areas. The Gap River in Korea is a typical urban river, which is affected by the effluent of a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and various anthropogenic activities. In this study, fluorescence excitation-emission matrices (EEM) with parallel factor analysis (PARAFAC) and UV absorption values at 220 nm and 254 nm were applied to evaluate the estimation capabilities for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), and total nitrogen (TN) concentrations of the river samples. Three components were successfully identified by the PARAFAC modeling from the fluorescence EEM data, in which each fluorophore group represents microbial humic-like (C1), terrestrial humic-like organic substances (C2), and protein-like organic substances (C3), and UV absorption indices (UV(220) and UV(254)), and the score values of the three PARAFAC components were selected as the estimation parameters for the nitrogen and the organic pollution of the river samples. Among the selected indices, UV(220), C3 and C1 exhibited the highest correlation coefficients with BOD, COD, and TN concentrations, respectively. Multiple regression analysis using UV(220) and C3 demonstrated the enhancement of the prediction capability for TN.Entities:
Keywords: fluorescence spectroscopy; multiple regression analysis; parallel factor analysis; urban river; water quality monitoring
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22368505 PMCID: PMC3279249 DOI: 10.3390/s120100972
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1.The Gap River watershed. Filled circles indicate sampling locations (adopted from Hur et al. [8]).
Monitoring data of turbidity, SS, BOD, COD, and TN concentrations for the Gap River watershed (September/October) .
| St. 1 | 2.5/1.4 | 2.3/1.6 | 0.7/1.1 | 3.2/2.6 | 1.9/1.9 | |
| St. 2 | 1.7/1.4 | 1.0/1.4 | 0.8/1.4 | 3.3/3.1 | 1.8/2.0 | |
| St. 3 | 5.6/3.4 | 6.0/3.4 | 1.3/1.8 | 4.0/4.2 | 2.3/2.4 | |
| St. 4 | 1.6/1.2 | 1.0/1.6 | 0.5/0.9 | 2.7/1.6 | 2.0/1.8 | |
| St. 5 | Upstream sites of the WWTP | 1.2/1.5 | 0.5/1.6 | 1.0/1.2 | 3.6/2.3 | 2.0/1.9 |
| St. 6 | 0.8/0.7 | 0.7/1.0 | 0.8/1.3 | 3.8/2.1 | 3.9/4.9 | |
| St. 7 | 1.5/1.0 | 1.8/1.2 | 1.2/1.6 | 4.3/3.6 | 4.3/4.8 | |
| St. 8 | 1.7/1.5 | 1.7/2.8 | 1.3/1.7 | 3.4/3.1 | 2.1/2.6 | |
| St. 9 | 4.3/4.1 | 4.8/5.4 | 1.4/2.4 | 5.7/4.9 | 2.3/2.1 | |
| St. 10 | 2.1/2.1 | 3.8/4.8 | 24.4/25.4 | 16.9/20.6 | 15.6/17.1 | |
| St. 11 | 3.0/ND | 4.5/ND | 19.1/ND | 11.7/ND | 11.8/ND | |
| St. 12 | Near the WWTP | 2.8/2.7 | 3.5/4.6 | 7.5/10.3 | 8.0/10.9 | 5.9/10.2 |
| St. 13 | 1.6/1.7 | 2.5/4.2 | 20.2/11.7 | 14.2/16.4 | 18.4/20.0 | |
| St. 14 | 2.6/2.0 | 5.5/4.9 | 9.7/15.2 | 10.8/15.0 | 12.5/15.5 | |
| St. 15 | Downstream sites of the WWTP | 4.2/2.7 | 8.8/5.8 | 7.8/15.5 | 11.5/13.1 | 10.7/12.1 |
| St. 16 | 4.1/3.7 | 7.0/6.4 | 6.1/14.2 | 9.0/12.1 | 8.0/11.8 | |
| St. 17 | Discharge of a dam reservoir | 2.2/2.4 | 2.5/3.4 | 1.5/1.3 | 5.9/5.1 | 1.5/1.5 |
| St. 18 | Downstream sites of the WWTP | 3.3/2.8 | 5.3/5.6 | 0.6/4.0 | 7.0/8.1 | 4.4/4.6 |
One sample was taken per site for each sampling event (09/25/2005, 10/18/2005);
Not determined due to the failure of the sampling.
Figure 2.Fluorescence EEM spectra of the representative samples.
Selected spectroscopic characteristics of the river water for this study (September/October) .
| St. 1 | 4.39/3.30 | 2.41/1.88 | 0.44/0.45 | 0.41/0.43 | 888/899 | 546/475 | 188/221 |
| St. 2 | 4.26/3.17 | 2.37/1.76 | 0.42/0.44 | 0.40/0.41 | 925/950 | 557/487 | 195/243 |
| St. 3 | 4.17/3.26 | 2.27/1.76 | 0.51/0.47 | 0.47/0.44 | 1,355/1,164 | 760/567 | 286/293 |
| St. 4 | 5.18/4.03 | 2.88/2.27 | 0.46/0.41 | 0.44/0.39 | 589/503 | 358/284 | 109/107 |
| St. 5 | 4.31/3.39 | 2.30/1.95 | 0.46/0.41 | 0.44/0.39 | 689/623 | 396/337 | 142/145 |
| St. 6 | 4.02/3.77 | 2.27/2.00 | 0.92/1.14 | 0.90/0.39 | 805/888 | 428/436 | 176/202 |
| St. 7 | 3.79/3.35 | 2.02/1.75 | 0.96/1.08 | 0.93/1.12 | 964/1125 | 486/540 | 227/284 |
| St. 8 | 4.04/3.08 | 2.22/1.63 | 0.46/0.54 | 0.44/1.06 | 700/821 | 397/414 | 150/210 |
| St. 9 | 4.08/3.01 | 2.28/1.71 | 0.50/0.47 | 0.46/0.52 | 1,184/1,091 | 636/525 | 257/282 |
| St. 10 | 1.35/2.07 | 1.06/1.32 | 1.93/1.59 | 1.83/2.1 | 5,853/6,622 | 3,006/4,151 | 3,126/3,080 |
| St. 11 | 1.40/ND | 1.19/ND | 1.41/ND | 1.34/ND | 4,036/ND | 2067/ND | 2,031/ND |
| St. 12 | 2.03/1.91 | 1.28/1.32 | 0.80/0.90 | 0.75/0.90 | 2,210/3,247 | 1,152/1,702 | 888/1343 |
| St. 13 | 1.80/1.85 | 1.33/1.74 | 4.32/3.92 | 4.23/3.92 | 5,485/5,133 | 2,960/2,691 | 2,425/2,046 |
| St. 14 | 2.00/1.95 | 1.37/1.45 | 2.46/2.92 | 2.39/2.92 | 4,096/3,872 | 2,168/2,041 | 1,677/1,827 |
| St. 15 | 1.87/1.93 | 1.51/1.67 | 1.79/1.77 | 1.72/1.77 | 3,279/3,680 | 1,685/1,863 | 1,325/1,428 |
| St. 16 | 2.26/2.18 | 1.55/1.78 | 1.54/1.84 | 1.49/1.84 | 2,486/3,301 | 1,212/1,644 | 877/1,170 |
| St. 17 | 4.63/4.33 | 3.93/2.93 | 0.38/0.36 | 0.32/0.36 | 1,860/1,480 | 1,079/822 | 361/303 |
| St. 18 | 3.22/2.65 | 2.19/1.79 | 0.99/0.95 | 0.94/0.95 | 1,939/2,027 | 1,031/1,001 | 511/600 |
One sample was taken per site for each sampling event (09/25/2005, 10/18/2005);
Not determined due to the failure of the sampling.
Figure 3.Contour plots of the three PARAFAC components decomposed from our samples.
Figure 4.A plot of the C2/C3 ratios against the C1/C3 ratios for the discrimination of the sampling sites (Site 17 is excluded).
Correlation coefficients (Pearson r values and spearman rho values) between selected spectroscopic indices and some water quality parameters (n = 35).
| UV220 | 0.911 | 0.706 | 0.770 |
| 0.971 | 0.720 | 0.750 | |
| UV254 | 0.914 | 0.892 | 0.973 |
| 0.747 | 0.813 | 0.954 | |
| UV220–254 | 0.905 | 0.696 | 0.759 |
| 0.968 | 0.704 | 0.741 | |
| C1 | 0.951 | 0.948 | 0.977 |
| 0.806 | 0.861 | 0.949 | |
| C2 | 0.927 | 0.938 | 0.967 |
| 0.772 | 0.823 | 0.937 | |
| C3 | 0.950 | 0.948 | 0.977 |
| 0.806 | 0.889 | 0.936 |
Significant levels p values are all lower than 0.001 (p < 0.001);
Pearson r values;
Spearman rho values.
Figure 5.Correlations between selected spectroscopic indices (UV absorption indices or PARAFAC components) and water quality parameters (TN, BOD, and COD).
Figure 6.Correlations between the measured TN concentrations and the predicted values by multiple regression method.