4.7 Article

Divergence of stable isotopes in tap water across China

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep43653

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation of China [91647205]
  2. Ministry of Science and Technology of P.R. China [2016YFC0402701, 2016YFA0601603]
  3. foundation of State Key Laboratory of Hydroscience and Engineering of Tsinghua University [2016-KY-03]
  4. U.S. National Science Foundation [EAR-1554894]
  5. Division Of Earth Sciences
  6. Directorate For Geosciences [1554894] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  7. Office Of Internatl Science &Engineering
  8. Office Of The Director [1427642] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Stable isotopes in water (e. g., delta H-2 and delta O-18) are important indicators of hydrological and ecological patterns and processes. Tap water can reflect integrated features of regional hydrological processes and human activities. China is a large country with significant meteorological and geographical variations. This report presents the first national-scale survey of Stable Isotopes in Tap Water (SITW) across China. 780 tap water samples have been collected from 95 cities across China from December 2014 to December 2015. (1) Results yielded the Tap Water Line in China is delta H-2 = 7.72 delta O-18 + 6.57 (r(2) = 0.95). (2) SITW spatial distribution presents typical continental effect. (3) SITW seasonal variations indicate clearly regional patterns but no trends at the national level. (4) SITW can be correlated in some parts with geographic or meteorological factors. This work presents the first SITW map in China, which sets up a benchmark for further stable isotopes research across China. This is a critical step toward monitoring and investigating water resources in climate-sensitive regions, so the human-hydrological system. These findings could be used in the future to establish water management strategies at a national or regional scale.

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

4.7
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