4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Graphical statistics to explore the natural and anthropogenic processes influencing the inorganic quality of drinking water, ground water and surface water

期刊

APPLIED GEOCHEMISTRY
卷 88, 期 -, 页码 133-148

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apgeochem.2017.09.006

关键词

Cumulative distribution function; Boxplot; Heatmap; Compositional data; European surface water; Groundwater; European bottled water; European tap water

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Plots of cumulative distribution functions (CDF) are a simple but powerful exploratory data analysis (EDA) tool to evaluate and compare statistical data distributions. Here, empirical CDF plots are used to compare results of four large (476-884 samples) national-to continental-scale inorganic water chemistry data sets: (1) European surface water, (2) European tap water, (3) European bottled waters as a proxy for groundwater and (4) Norwegian crystalline bedrock rock groundwater, all analysed at the same laboratory, albeit at different times. For many parameters (e.g., Ba, Cl (-), K, SO42-) median values and ranges are, given the differing origins and, in some cases, treatment processes of the waters, surprisingly comparable. Unusually high concentrations of some other elements (e.g., B, Be, Br, Cs, F-, Ge, Li, Rb, Te and Zr) appear to be characteristic of deeper-seated, mature groundwaters. Other influences that can be inferred include contamination from well construction or plumbing materials (Cu, Pb, Zn - in tap waters, bottled waters and Norwegian groundwaters), water treatment (Fe, Mn - in tap-and Norwegian groundwater), bottle materials (Sb - bottled waters). The empirical CDF plots also reveal analytical issues for some elements (excessive rounding, element interferences). The best reference for natural and uncontaminated 'water' is probably provided by the mineral water samples, representing 'deep groundwater' at the European scale. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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