Water quality index assessment methods for surface water: A case study of the Citarum River in Indonesia
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Water quality index (WQI) can express overall water quality status in a single term. As such, the application of daily WQI assessment should help the general public be more aware of the condition of the surface water around them. As the longest and biggest river in the West Java Province, the Citarum River plays an important role in the life of the community and ecosystem around it. Therefore, this research evaluated which WQI assessment method was best suited for determining the Citarum River's water quality. We utilized West Java Province monitoring data collected from four monitoring stations along the Upstream Citarum. The WQI was calculated using the National Sanitation Foundation WQI (NSF WQI), Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment WQI (CCME WQI), and Oregon Water Quality Index (OWQI) assessment methods. Nine years of monitoring data were grouped and analyzed according to wet vs. dry months, wet vs. dry years, monitoring station, and year. Using the NSF WQI assessment method, the Citarum River obtained a 'Fair' and 'Bad' water quality grade with WQI ranging between 38.212 and 60.903 during dry months, 49.089 and 62.348 during wet months, 42.935 and 65.696 during dry years, and 39.002 and 58.898 during wet years. The data ranged from 41.458 and 61.206 from each monitoring station, and between 35.920 and 58.713 for the data from each monitoring year. The CCME WQI assessment method showed that the Citarum River had 'Fair', 'Marginal', and 'Bad' water quality with WQI ranging between 12.683 and 31.503 during dry months, 21.231 and 33.127 during wet months, 12.683 and 31.503 during dry years, 12.134 and 28.748 during wet years, 13.621 and 30.569 for the data from each monitoring station, and 13.219 and 68.808 for the data from each monitoring year. The OWQI assessment method gave the Citarum River a 'Very Bad' water quality rating with WQI ranging between 11.528 and 18.827 during dry months, 13.898 and 24.563 during wet months, 11.528 and 25.782 during dry years, 11.528 and 15.997 during wet years, 11.528 and 18.842 for each monitoring station, and 11.523 and 16.528 for the data from each monitoring year. Based on these results and the collated advantages and disadvantages of each method, the NSF WQI assessment method was deemed to be the best for determining the Citarum River's water quality.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle