| Literature DB >> 28451533 |
Mitra Tavakol1, Reza Arjmandi1, Mansoureh Shayeghi2, Seyed Masoud Monavari1, Abdolreza Karbassi3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: One of the key issues in determining the quality of water in rivers is to create a water quality control network with a suitable performance. The measured qualitative variables at stations should be representative of all the changes in water quality in water systems. Since the increase in water quality monitoring stations increases annual monitoring costs, recognition of the stations with higher importance as well as main parameters can be effective in future decisions to improve the existing monitoring network.Entities:
Keywords: Environment; Monitoring network; Optimization; Statistics; Water quality
Year: 2017 PMID: 28451533 PMCID: PMC5401940
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Iran J Public Health ISSN: 2251-6085 Impact factor: 1.429
Fig. 1:water quality mentoring stations in Haraz River
measurement methods and devices used in the present research
| Dissolved oxygen | DO | mg/L | Standard method | Sension156 Hach | |
| pH | pH | pH unit | Standard method | Sension156 Hach | |
| Temperature | Temp. | c° | Standard method | Sension156 Hach | |
| Nitrate nitrogen | NO3- | mg/L | Nitrate with Test | Spectrophotometric | |
| Phosphate | PO43- | mg/L | Phosphate orth LR with Tube Test | Spectrophotometric | |
| Chemical oxygen demand | COD | mg/L | COD Total with Vario Tube | Dichromate reflex method | |
| Biochemical oxygen demand | BOD | mg/L | Instrumental method | Winkler azide method | |
| Total coliform | TColi. | MPN/10 0ml | A 9-tube system | Multiple tube method | |
| Fecal coliform | FColi. | MPN/10 0ml | A 9-tube system | Multiple tube method | |
| Discharge | Q | m3/s | Synoptic data | Synoptic data |
ANOVA and post hoc (Duncan) test results for comparison of the measurement parameters at different stations
| DO | Between Groups | 66.326 | 14 | 4.738 | 5.336 | .000 |
| Within Groups | 146.489 | 165 | .888 | |||
| Total | 212.815 | 179 | ||||
| Temp | Between Groups | 996.436 | 14 | 71.174 | 2.823 | .001 |
| Within Groups | 4160.479 | 165 | 25.215 | |||
| Total | 5156.915 | 179 | ||||
| pH | Between Groups | .095 | 14 | .007 | .031 | 1.000 |
| Within Groups | 36.471 | 165 | .221 | |||
| Total | 36.566 | 179 | ||||
| BOD | Between Groups | 46716.478 | 14 | 3336.891 | 2.921 | .001 |
| Within Groups | 188501.583 | 165 | 1142.434 | |||
| Total | 235218.061 | 179 | ||||
| Phosphate | Between Groups | 51.819 | 14 | 3.701 | 6.252 | .000 |
| Within Groups | 97.677 | 165 | .592 | |||
| Total | 149.496 | 179 | ||||
| Nitrate | Between Groups | 548.158 | 14 | 39.154 | 28.147 | .000 |
| Within Groups | 229.527 | 165 | 1.391 | |||
| Total | 777.685 | 179 | ||||
| COD | Between Groups | 546697.633 | 14 | 39049.831 | 2.061 | .016 |
| Within Groups | 3125575.167 | 165 | 18942.880 | |||
| Total | 3672272.800 | 179 | ||||
| Pb | Between Groups | 4.644 | 14 | .332 | 28.601 | .000 |
| Within Groups | 1.914 | 165 | .012 | |||
| Total | 6.558 | 179 |
Fig. 2:Changing trend of nitrate, phosphate, DO, and BOD over the various stations in Haraz River (mg/l)
Fig. 3:cluster dendrogram of the stations based on the measured parameters in Haraz River Basin
Fig. 4:Relationship between the factors and eigenvalues