| Literature DB >> 23202672 |
Yen-Chang Chen1, Hui-Chung Yeh, Chiang Wei.
Abstract
Tidal streams are complex watercourses that represent a transitional zone between riverine and marine systems; they occur where fresh and marine waters converge. Because tidal circulation processes cause substantial turbulence in these highly dynamic zones, tidal streams are the most productive of water bodies. Their rich biological diversity, combined with the convenience of land and water transports, provide sites for concentrated populations that evolve into large cities. Domestic wastewater is generally discharged directly into tidal streams in Taiwan, necessitating regular evaluation of the water quality of these streams. Given the complex flow dynamics of tidal streams, only a few models can effectively evaluate and identify pollution levels. This study evaluates the river pollution index (RPI) in tidal streams by using kriging analysis. This is a geostatistical method for interpolating random spatial variation to estimate linear grid points in two or three dimensions. A kriging-based method is developed to evaluate RPI in tidal streams, which is typically considered as 1D in hydraulic engineering. The proposed method efficiently evaluates RPI in tidal streams with the minimum amount of water quality data. Data of the Tanshui River downstream reach available from an estuarine area validate the accuracy and reliability of the proposed method. Results of this study demonstrate that this simple yet reliable method can effectively estimate RPI in tidal streams.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23202672 PMCID: PMC3499855 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph9093085
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1A diagram of the theoretical semivariogram.
Figure 2A diagram of the semivariogram r(h) and covariance function C(h).
Figure 3The theoretical semivariogram.
Definition of river pollution index (RPI).
| Items | Ranks | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unpolluted | Negligibly polluted | Moderately polluted | Severely polluted | |
| DO (mg/L) | Above 6.5 | 4.6–6.5 | 2.0–4.5 | Under 2.0 |
| BOD5 (mg/L) | Under 3.0 | 3.0–4.9 | 5.0–15 | Above 15 |
| SS (mg/L) | Under 20 | 20–49 | 50–100 | Above 100 |
| NH3-N (mg/L) | Under 0.5 | 0.5–0.99 | 1.0–3.0 | Above 3.0 |
| Index Scores ( | 1 | 3 | 6 | 10 |
| RPI | Under 2 | 2.0–3.0 | 3.1–6.0 | Above 6.0 |
Figure 4Map of study area.
Figure 5Distances in river kilometers of sampling stations in the catchment of the Tanshui River.
Results of water quality sampled from nine sites and their computed RPI values.
| Water quality | DO (mg/L) | BOD5 (mg/L) | NH3-N (mg/L) | SS (mg/L) | RPI | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Station | mean ± std | Min. | Max. | mean ± std | Min. | Max. | mean ± std | Min. | Max. | mean ± std | Min. | Max. | mean ± std | Min. | Max. |
| Shain Bridge | 4.45 ± 0.84 | 2.8 | 6.1 | 2.21 ± 0.33 | 1.7 | 2.6 | 0.02 ± 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 13.76 ± 3.91 | 10.1 | 23.1 | 1.98 ± 0.43 | 1.50 | 2.75 |
| Shinhai Bridge | 1.22 ± 0.77 | 0.1 | 2.8 | 8.45 ± 2.77 | 4.3 | 12.7 | 5.72 ± 0.94 | 4.37 | 7.40 | 32.08 ± 6.55 | 23.2 | 44.2 | 7.04 ± 0.54 | 5.50 | 7.25 |
| Zonan Bridge | 3.39 ± 0.43 | 2.7 | 4.0 | 1.89 ± 0.58 | 1.3 | 2.8 | 0.53 ± 0.37 | 0.13 | 1.25 | 17.39 ± 5.00 | 7.0 | 24.5 | 2.71 ± 0.42 | 2.25 | 3.50 |
| Chung Cheng Bridge | 4.07 ± 0.75 | 2.9 | 5.1 | 2.48 ± 0.61 | 1.5 | 3.7 | 1.58 ± 0.44 | 0.82 | 2.41 | 23.88 ± 10.32 | 13.9 | 54.0 | 3.67 ± 0.59 | 2.75 | 4.50 |
| Jansho Bridge | 3.99 ± 0.46 | 3.1 | 4.8 | 1.20 ± 0.15 | 1.0 | 1.4 | 0.01 ± 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 13.95 ± 9.48 | 3.4 | 28.9 | 2.38 ± 0.26 | 2.00 | 2.75 |
| Nanhu Bridge | 3.32 ± 0.57 | 2.4 | 4.2 | 3.11 ± 0.81 | 1.8 | 4.5 | 0.70 ± 0.22 | 0.37 | 0.96 | 38.94 ± 26.07 | 15.8 | 95.8 | 3.52 ± 0.81 | 2.25 | 4.50 |
| Banlin Bridge | 1.76 ± 0.22 | 1.4 | 2.1 | 2.98 ± 0.59 | 2.2 | 4.1 | 1.98 ± 0.14 | 1.64 | 2.16 | 13.45 ± 2.88 | 10.5 | 18.9 | 4.50 ± 0.46 | 3.50 | 5.00 |
| Taipei Bridge | 1.78 ± 0.38 | 1.4 | 2.6 | 2.98 ± 0.96 | 1.6 | 4.4 | 3.73 ± 0.71 | 2.55 | 5.33 | 30.51 ± 14.75 | 14.2 | 61.5 | 5.88 ± 1.12 | 3.50 | 7.25 |
| Guandu Bridge | 2.27 ± 0.34 | 1.5 | 2.7 | 1.96 ± 1.49 | 0.01 | 6.1 | 1.66 ± 0.44 | 0.53 | 2.21 | 20.81 ± 6.09 | 12.5 | 33.2 | 3.96 ± 0.67 | 2.75 | 5.25 |
Parameters of the four fitted theoretical semivariograms.
| Parameter | Power | Exponential | Gaussian | Spherical |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| −0.005 | −135.409 | 0.001 | −0.006 |
|
| 2.318 | 136.996 | 2.312 | 2.320 |
|
| 0.417 | 0.002 | 1.000 | 0.480 |
| Least Error Sum of Squares (RSS) | 3.968 | 4.558 | 3.968 | 3.968 |
| Coefficient of Determination (R2) | 0.5289 | 0.4589 | 0.5289 | 0.5289 |
Figure 6Fitted diagram of experimental and theoretical semivariograms of data obtained at 5 a.m. on 29 September 2010.
Fitted parameters of exponential model.
| Time 29 September 2010 |
|
|
| RSS | R2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 a.m. | −0.005 | 2.528 | 0.420 | 9.949 | 0.3476 |
| 6 a.m. | −0.003 | 2.300 | 0.528 | 6.114 | 0.4181 |
| 7 a.m. | −0.006 | 2.773 | 0.424 | 16.512 | 0.2787 |
| 8 a.m. | −0.005 | 2.318 | 0.417 | 3.968 | 0.5289 |
| 9 a.m. | −0.007 | 3.549 | 0.437 | 11.234 | 0.4818 |
| 10 a.m. | −0.002 | 2.215 | 0.617 | 6.567 | 0.3829 |
| 11 a.m. | −0.004 | 3.355 | 0.631 | 18.835 | 0.3317 |
| noon | −0.002 | 2.003 | 0.607 | 5.725 | 0.3678 |
| 1 p.m. | −0.015 | 3.201 | 5.662 | 6.497 | 0.5555 |
| 2 p.m. | −0.002 | 2.073 | 0.623 | 11.562 | 0.2174 |
| 3 p.m. | −0.002 | 1.906 | 0.692 | 4.571 | 0.3727 |
| 4 p.m. | −0.002 | 1.609 | 0.605 | 4.969 | 0.3020 |
| 5 p.m. | −0.002 | 2.221 | 0.609 | 9.146 | 0.3095 |
Figure 7Spatial distribution of RPIs in the Tanshui River estimated by the (a) kriging and (b) IDW method. Data was obtained at 3 p.m. on 29 September 2010.
Figure 8Temporal variation in RPI of the Tanshui River at approximately 23 river kilometers.