4.5 Article

Assessment of anthropogenic influences on surface water quality in urban estuary, northern New Jersey: multivariate approach

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT
卷 185, 期 3, 页码 2777-2794

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10661-012-2748-0

关键词

Urban estuary; Water quality; Multivariate analysis; Stepwise regression; Hackensack River; Anthropogenic effect; Combined sewer overflows

资金

  1. New Jersey Meadowlands Commission
  2. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology [2010-0009273]
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea [2010-0009273] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Concentrations of selected heavy metals (Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Fe, and Zn), nutrients (NO (3) (-) and NH3), fecal coliform colonies, and other multiple physical-chemical parameters were measured seasonally from 12 locations in an urban New Jersey estuary between 1994 and 2008. Stepwise regression, principal component analysis, and cluster analysis were used to group water quality results and sampling locations, as well as to assess these data's relationship to sewage treatment effluents and the distance to the mouth of the river. The BOD5, NH3, NO (3) (-) and fecal coliform counts clustered as one group and positively correlated to the distances from treated effluent and the measures of magnitude at the discharge points. Dissolved solids and most metal species scored high along a single principal component axes and were significantly correlated with the proximity to the industrialized area. From these data, one can conclude that the effluent discharge has been a main source of anthropogenic input to the Hackensack River over the past 15 years. Therefore, the greatest improvement to water quality would come from eliminating the few remaining combined sewer overflows and improving the removal of nutrients from treated effluents before they are discharged into the creeks and river.

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