Literature DB >> 27295626

Calibration of UV/Vis spectrophotometers: A review and comparison of different methods to estimate TSS and total and dissolved COD concentrations in sewers, WWTPs and rivers.

Mathieu Lepot1, Andres Torres2, Thomas Hofer3, Nicolas Caradot4, Günter Gruber3, Jean-Baptiste Aubin5, Jean-Luc Bertrand-Krajewski5.   

Abstract

UV/Vis spectrophotometers have been used for one decade to monitor water quality in various locations: sewers, rivers, wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), tap water networks, etc. Resulting equivalent concentrations of interest can be estimated by three ways: i) by manufacturer global calibration; ii) by local calibration based on the provided global calibration and grab sampling; iii) by advanced calibration looking for relations between UV/Vis spectra and corresponding concentrations from grab sampling. However, no study has compared the applied methods so far. This collaborative work presents a comparison between five different methods. A Linear Regression (LR), Support Vector Machine (SVM), EVOlutionary algorithm method (EVO) and Partial Least Squares (PLS) have been applied on various data sets (sewers, rivers, WWTPs under dry, wet and all weather conditions) and for three water quality parameters: TSS, COD total and dissolved. Two criteria (r(2) and Root Mean Square Error RMSE) have been calculated - on calibration and verification data subsets - to evaluate accuracy and robustness of the applied methods. Values of criteria have then been statistically analysed for all and separated data sets. Non-consistent outcomes come through this study. According to the Kruskal-Wallis test and RMSEs, PLS and SVM seem to be the best methods. According to uncertainties in laboratory analysis and ranking of methods, LR and EVO appear more robust and sustainable for concentration estimations. Conclusions are mostly independent of water matrices, weather conditions or concentrations investigated.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Accuracy; Calibration method; On-line measurement; Robustness; Sensor; Water quality

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27295626     DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2016.05.070

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Water Res        ISSN: 0043-1354            Impact factor:   11.236


  4 in total

1.  Organic carbon causes interference with nitrate and nitrite measurements by UV/Vis spectrometers: the importance of local calibration.

Authors:  Sari Uusheimo; Tiina Tulonen; Lauri Arvola; Hanna Arola; Jarmo Linjama; Timo Huttula
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2017-06-27       Impact factor: 2.513

Review 2.  Applications of Online UV-Vis Spectrophotometer for Drinking Water Quality Monitoring and Process Control: A Review.

Authors:  Zhining Shi; Christopher W K Chow; Rolando Fabris; Jixue Liu; Bo Jin
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2022-04-13       Impact factor: 3.847

3.  Ultraviolet absorption of contaminants in water.

Authors:  Martin Spangenberg; James I Bryant; Sam J Gibson; Philip J Mousley; Yorck Ramachers; Gavin R Bell
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-02-11       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  Global calibration model of UV-Vis spectroscopy for COD estimation in the effluent of rural sewage treatment facilities.

Authors:  Peng Li; Jiangbei Qu; Yiliang He; Zhang Bo; Mengke Pei
Journal:  RSC Adv       Date:  2020-06-01       Impact factor: 4.036

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.