3.8 Article

Sources of oxygen demand in the lower San Joaquin River, California

期刊

ESTUARIES
卷 27, 期 3, 页码 405-418

出版社

ESTUARINE RESEARCH FEDERATION
DOI: 10.1007/BF02803533

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dissolved oxygen concentration below 5 mg l(-1) has characterized the lower tidal portion of the San Joaquin River downstream of Stockton, California, during the summer and fall for the past four decades. Intensive field research in 2000 and 2001 indicated low dissolved oxygen concentration was restricted to the first 14 km of the river, which was deepened to 12 m for shipping, downstream of Stockton. The persistent low dissolved oxygen concentration in the shipping channel was not caused by physical stratification that prevented aeration from vertical mixing or respiration associated with high phytoplankton biomass. The low dissolved oxygen concentration was primarily caused by nitrification that produced up to 81% of the total oxygen demand. Stepwise multiple regression analysis isolated dissolved ammonia concentration and carbonaceous oxygen demand as the water quality variables most closely associated with the variation in oxygen demand. Between these two sources, dissolved ammonia concentration accounted for 60% of the total variation in oxygen demand compared with a maximum of 30% for carbonaceous oxygen demand. The Stockton wastewater treatment plant and nonpoint sources upstream were direct sources of dissolved ammonia in the channel. A large portion of the dissolved ammonia in the channel was also produced by oxidation of the organic nitrogen load from upstream. The phytoplankton biomass load from upstream primarily produced the carbonaceous oxygen demand. Mass balance models suggested the relative contribution of the wastewater and nonpoint upstream load to the ammonia concentration in the shipping channel at various residence times was dependent on the cumulative effect of ammonification, composition of the upstream load, and net downstream transport of the daily load.

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

3.8
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