The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of NOM character in selected Australian and Norwegian drinking waters
Abstract
Observations from many countries around the world during the past 10-20 years indicate increasing natural organic matter (NOM) concentration levels in water sources, due to issues such as global warming, changes in soil acidification, increased drought severity and more intensive rain events. In addition to the trend towards increasing NOM concentration, the character of NOM can vary with source and time (season). The great seasonal variability and the trend towards elevated NOM concentration levels impose challenges to the water industry and the water treatment facilities in terms of operational optimisation and proper process control. The aim of this investigation was to compare selected raw and conventionally treated drinking water sources from different hemispheres with regard to NOM character which may lead to better understanding of the impact of source water on water treatment. Results from the analyses of selected Norwegian and Australian water samples showed that Norwegian NOM exhibited greater humic nature, indicating a stronger bias of allochthonous versus autochthonous organic origin. Similarly, Norwegian source waters had higher average molecular weights than Australian waters. Following coagulation treatment, the organic character of the recalcitrant NOM in both countries was similar. Differences in organic character of these source waters after treatment were found to be related to treatment practice rather than origin of the source water. The characterisation techniques employed also enabled identification of the coagulation processes which were not necessarily optimised for dissolved organic carbon (DOC) removal. The reactivity with chlorine as well as trihalomethane formation potential (THMFP) of the treated waters showed differences in behaviour between Norwegian and Australian sources that appeared to be related to residual higher molecular weight organic material. By evaluation of changes in specific molecular weight regions and disinfection parameters before and after treatment, correlations were found that relate treatment strategy to chlorine demand and DBP formation.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Fabris et al. (2008) reported an empirical relation between NOM and THM-FP as ~10-40 μg THM-FP/ mg DOC.”
From Regulation, formation, exposure, and treatment of disinfection by-products (DBPs) in swimming pool waters: A critical review (2018) · cites this paper as Fabris et al., 2008
Citations
Cites
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater
Jenkins, S. H. (1982) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/0043-1354(82)90249-4 · Cited by 30,098
Standard methods for the examination of water and waste water.
Gilcreas, F. W. (1966) · American Journal of Public Health and the Nations Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.56.3.387 · Cited by 9,811
Molecular Weight, Polydispersity, and Spectroscopic Properties of Aquatic Humic Substances
Chin, Y., Aiken, G. R., & O’Loughlin, E. J. (1994) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es00060a015 · Cited by 1,734
Evans, C., Monteith, D., & Cooper, D. M. (2005) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2004.12.031 · Cited by 1,033
Leenheer, J. A. (1981) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es00087a010 · Cited by 992
Ma, H. (2001) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/s0043-1354(00)00350-x · Cited by 421
NOM characterization and treatability
Owen, D. M., Amy, G. L., Chowdhury, Z. K., Paode, R. D., McCoy, G., & Viscosil, K. (1995) · American Water Works Association · doi:10.1002/j.1551-8833.1995.tb06301.x · Cited by 294
Trends in Dissolved Organic Carbon in UK Rivers and Lakes
Worrall, F., Harriman, R., Evans, C., Watts, C. D., Adamson, J. K., Neal, C., Tipping, E., Burt, T., Grieve, I. C., Monteith, D., et al. (2004) · Biogeochemistry · doi:10.1007/s10533-004-8131-7 · Cited by 269
Size Exclusion Chromatography To Characterize DOC Removal in Drinking Water Treatment
Allpike, B. P., Heitz, A., Joll, C. A., Kagi, R. I., Abbt‐Braun, G., Frimmel, F. H., Brinkmann, T., Her, N., & Amy, G. L. (2005) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es0496468 · Cited by 204
Chow, C. W. K., Fabris, R., & Drikas, M. (2004) · AQUA - Water Infrastructure Ecosystems and Society · doi:10.2166/aqua.2004.0008 · Cited by 138
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- van Leeuwen, J., Page, D., Spark, K., Fabris, R., Sledz, L., 2004. Pyrolysis and thermochemolysis products from organics recalcitrant to removal by alum, in two drinking waters. In: Proceedings of NOM Research: Innovations and Applications for Drinking Water Treatment, Victor Harbor, Australia, March 2–5, CD-ROM.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Natural organic matter removal by coagulation during drinking water treatment: A review
Matilainen, A., Vepsäläinen, M., & Sillanpää, M. E. T. (2010) · Advances in Colloid and Interface Science · doi:10.1016/j.cis.2010.06.007 · Cited by 1,469
Reverse osmosis desalination: A state-of-the-art review
Qasim, M., Badrelzaman, M., Darwish, N. N., Darwish, N. A., & Hilal, N. (2019) · Desalination · doi:10.1016/j.desal.2019.02.008 · Cited by 1,313
A review of reverse osmosis membrane fouling and control strategies
Jiang, S., Li, Y., & Ladewig, B. P. (2017) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.235 · Cited by 1,003
Matilainen, A., Gjessing, E. T., Lahtinen, T., Hed, L., Bhatnagar, A., & Sillanpää, M. E. T. (2011) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2011.01.018 · Cited by 797
Removal of natural organic matter from drinking water by advanced oxidation processes
Matilainen, A., & Sillanpää, M. E. T. (2010) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2010.04.067 · Cited by 730
Metadata
- Authors
- Fabris, R., Chow, C. W. K., Drikas, M., & Eikebrokk, B.
- Affiliations
- South Australian Water Corporation (AU)
- SINTEF (NO)
- Corresponding author
- Fabris, Rolando
- Venue
- Water Research
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2008-09
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 15
- Pages
- 4188-4196
- ISSN
- 0043-1354 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2164832304
- Cited by
- 266
- References
- 28
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 32 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 10
- FWCI
- 6.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Water Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Water Treatment and Disinfection
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Coagulation and Flocculation Studies
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Advanced oxidation water treatment
- Keywords
- natural organic matter, drinking water, humic substances, molecular weight distribution, coagulation, dissolved organic carbon removal, trihalomethane formation potential, disinfection byproduct formation, chlorine demand, source water, seasonal variation, water treatment, Australia, Norway
- MeSH terms
- Australia, Disinfectants, Norway, Organic Chemicals, Water Pollutants, Chemical, Water Supply
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
