几种河流水质评价指标的比较研究

IF 2.4 4区 环境科学与生态学 Q2 WATER RESOURCES
Norma Gil-Rodas, Meyer Guevara-Mora, Gabriel Rivas, Gabriela Dávila, Doris García, Alejandra Contreras-Perdomo, Pride Alvizures, Mónica Martínez, G. Calvo-Brenes
{"title":"几种河流水质评价指标的比较研究","authors":"Norma Gil-Rodas, Meyer Guevara-Mora, Gabriel Rivas, Gabriela Dávila, Doris García, Alejandra Contreras-Perdomo, Pride Alvizures, Mónica Martínez, G. Calvo-Brenes","doi":"10.2166/wqrj.2023.029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Water is vital for humans, plants, and animals; unfortunately, some anthropogenic activities adversely alter water quality (WQ). Many indicators can be used for WQ assessment; fortunately, extensive data can be simplified by using WQ indices (WQIs). The main difference among WQIs lies in the way of assessing pollution and the number and types of WQ indicators used; therefore, the selection of a reliable WQI should be the first step. This research aimed to compare several types of indices and evaluate their effectiveness. Eighteen sampling sites were monitored, and the selected indices showed different results. Biological indexes exhibited a significant statistical correlation and yet different quality results. In addition, biological WQIs showed different outcomes from the physicochemical index. The high concentrations of phosphates, fecal coliforms, and biological oxygen demand, found in most rivers, were responsible for adversely influencing the quality results of the physicochemical index; however, their high concentrations found in some sampling sites had no adverse effect on the macroinvertebrate's existence; therefore, biological WQ assessment showed better quality results than the physicochemical index. The Rapid Bioassessment Protocol index, based on visual habitat observations, proved to be an easy way to classify WQ and an adequate replacement for biological indices.","PeriodicalId":23720,"journal":{"name":"Water Quality Research Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparative study of several types of indices for river quality assessment\",\"authors\":\"Norma Gil-Rodas, Meyer Guevara-Mora, Gabriel Rivas, Gabriela Dávila, Doris García, Alejandra Contreras-Perdomo, Pride Alvizures, Mónica Martínez, G. Calvo-Brenes\",\"doi\":\"10.2166/wqrj.2023.029\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n \\n Water is vital for humans, plants, and animals; unfortunately, some anthropogenic activities adversely alter water quality (WQ). Many indicators can be used for WQ assessment; fortunately, extensive data can be simplified by using WQ indices (WQIs). The main difference among WQIs lies in the way of assessing pollution and the number and types of WQ indicators used; therefore, the selection of a reliable WQI should be the first step. This research aimed to compare several types of indices and evaluate their effectiveness. Eighteen sampling sites were monitored, and the selected indices showed different results. Biological indexes exhibited a significant statistical correlation and yet different quality results. In addition, biological WQIs showed different outcomes from the physicochemical index. The high concentrations of phosphates, fecal coliforms, and biological oxygen demand, found in most rivers, were responsible for adversely influencing the quality results of the physicochemical index; however, their high concentrations found in some sampling sites had no adverse effect on the macroinvertebrate's existence; therefore, biological WQ assessment showed better quality results than the physicochemical index. The Rapid Bioassessment Protocol index, based on visual habitat observations, proved to be an easy way to classify WQ and an adequate replacement for biological indices.\",\"PeriodicalId\":23720,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Water Quality Research Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Water Quality Research Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2166/wqrj.2023.029\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"WATER RESOURCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Water Quality Research Journal","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2166/wqrj.2023.029","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"WATER RESOURCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

水对人类、植物和动物都是至关重要的;不幸的是,一些人为活动对水质(WQ)产生了不利影响。可用于WQ评估的指标很多;幸运的是,通过使用WQ索引(wqi)可以简化大量数据。不同wqi的主要区别在于评价污染的方式以及所使用的WQ指标的数量和类型;因此,选择一个可靠的WQI应该是第一步。本研究旨在比较几种类型的指标,并评估其有效性。对18个采样点进行了监测,所选指标显示出不同的结果。生物学指标具有显著的统计学相关性,但质量结果存在差异。此外,生物WQIs表现出与理化指标不同的结果。在大多数河流中发现高浓度的磷酸盐、粪便大肠菌群和生物需氧量是对理化指数质量结果产生不利影响的原因;然而,在一些采样点发现它们的高浓度对大型无脊椎动物的存在没有不利影响;因此,生物WQ评价比理化指标具有更好的质量效果。基于生境目视观察的快速生物评价方案指数被证明是一种简便的WQ分类方法,是生物指标的适当替代。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A comparative study of several types of indices for river quality assessment
Water is vital for humans, plants, and animals; unfortunately, some anthropogenic activities adversely alter water quality (WQ). Many indicators can be used for WQ assessment; fortunately, extensive data can be simplified by using WQ indices (WQIs). The main difference among WQIs lies in the way of assessing pollution and the number and types of WQ indicators used; therefore, the selection of a reliable WQI should be the first step. This research aimed to compare several types of indices and evaluate their effectiveness. Eighteen sampling sites were monitored, and the selected indices showed different results. Biological indexes exhibited a significant statistical correlation and yet different quality results. In addition, biological WQIs showed different outcomes from the physicochemical index. The high concentrations of phosphates, fecal coliforms, and biological oxygen demand, found in most rivers, were responsible for adversely influencing the quality results of the physicochemical index; however, their high concentrations found in some sampling sites had no adverse effect on the macroinvertebrate's existence; therefore, biological WQ assessment showed better quality results than the physicochemical index. The Rapid Bioassessment Protocol index, based on visual habitat observations, proved to be an easy way to classify WQ and an adequate replacement for biological indices.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
8.70%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信