4.6 Article

Using regression models to evaluate the formation of trihalomethanes and haloacetonitriles via chlorination of source water with low SUVA values in the Yangtze River Delta region, China

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL GEOCHEMISTRY AND HEALTH
卷 38, 期 6, 页码 1303-1312

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10653-016-9797-1

关键词

Chlorination; Trihalomethanes (THMs); Haloacetonitriles (HANs); Regression models; Low specific UV absorbance (SUVA); Yangtze River Delta

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21107099, 41373141, 21377002]
  2. Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China [Y5110157]
  3. Special Foundation for provincial scientific research institutions by Science and Technology Department of Zhejiang Province [2015F50014]
  4. Chinese Academy of Sciences President's International Fellowship Initiative [2013T1G0038]
  5. Foundation of Science and Technology Bureau of Jinhua [2014A33208]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to develop the multiple regression models to evaluate the formation of trihalomethanes (THMs) and haloacetonitriles (HANs) during chlorination of source water with low specific ultraviolet absorbance (SUVA) in Yangtze River Delta, China. The results showed that the regression models of THMs exhibited good accuracy and precision, and 86-97 % of the calculated values fell within +/- 25 % of the measured values. While the HANs models showed relatively weak evaluation ability, as only 75-83 % of the calculated values were within +/- 25 % of the measured values. The organic matter [dissolved organic carbon (DOC) or UV absorbance at 254 nm] and bromide exerted the most important influence on the formation of HANs. While for THMs, besides the organic matter and bromide, reaction time was also a key factor. Comparing the models for total THMs (T-THMs) in this study with others revealed that the regression models from the low SUVA waters may have low DOC coefficients, but high bromide coefficients as compared with those from the high SUVA waters.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据