Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 205

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

THM and HAA formation from NOM in raw and treated surface waters

Open access
Golea, D.M., Upton, A., Jarvis, P., Moore, G., Sutherland, S., Parsons, S.A., Judd, S.J.·2017·Water Research

Abstract

The disinfection by-product (DBP) formation potential (FP) of natural organic matter (NOM) in surface water sources has been studied with reference to the key water quality determinants (WQDs) of UV absorption (UV 254 ), colour, and dissolved organic carbon (DOC) concentration. The data set used encompassed raw and treated water sampled over a 30-month period from 30 water treatment works (WTWs) across Scotland, all employing conventional clarification. Both trihalomethane (THM) and haloacetic acid (HAA) FPs were considered. In addition to the standard bulk WQDs, the DOC content was fractionated and analysed for the hydrophobic (HPO) and hydrophilic (HPI) fractions. Results were quantified in terms of the yield (dDBPFP/dWQD) and the linear regression coefficient R 2 of the yield trend. The NOM in the raw waters was found to comprise 30–84% (average 66%) of the more reactive HPO material, with this proportion falling to 18–63% (average 50%) in the treated water. Results suggested UV 254 to be as good an indicator of DBPFP as DOC or HPO for the raw waters, with R 2 values ranging from 0.79 to 0.82 for THMs and from 0.71 to 0.73 for HAAs for these three determinants. For treated waters the corresponding values were significantly lower at 0.52–0.67 and 0.46–0.47 respectively, reflecting the lower HPO concentration and thus UV 254 absorption and commensurately reduced precision due to the limit of detection of the analytical instrument. It is concluded that fractionation offers little benefit in attempting to discern or predict chlorinated carbonaceous DBP yield for the waters across the geographical region studied. UV 254 offered an adequate estimate of DBPFP based on a mean yield of ∼2600 and ∼2800 μg per cm −1 absorbance for THMFP for the raw and treated waters respectively and ∼3800 and2900 μg cm −1 for HAAFP, albeit with reduced precision for the treated waters.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.watres.2017.01.051

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 205

Metadata

Authors
Golea, D. M., Upton, A., Jarvis, P., Moore, G., Sutherland, S., Parsons, S. A., & Judd, S. J.
Venue
Water Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-04
Volume
112
Pages
226-235
ISSN
0043-1354 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2580371997
Cited by
205
References
1
FWCI
12.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: THM and HAA formation from NOM in raw and treated surface waters. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.watres.2017.01.051
The paper
Golea, D. M., Upton, A., Jarvis, P., Moore, G., Sutherland, S., Parsons, S. A., & Judd, S. J. (2017). THM and HAA formation from NOM in raw and treated surface waters. Water Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.01.051

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.