Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 333

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A Comparison of Computerized Chemical Models for Equilibrium Calculations in Aqueous Systems

NORDSTROM, D. K., PLUMMER, L. N., WIGLEY, T. M. L., WOLERY, T. J., BALL, J. W., JENNE, E. A., BASSETT, R. L., CRERAR, D. A., FLORENCE, T. M., FRITZ, B., HOFFMAN, M., HOLDREN, G. R., LAFON, G. M., MATTIGOD, S. V., McDUFF, R. E., MOREL, F., REDDY, M. M., SPOSITO, G., THRAILKILL, J.·1979·ACS Symposium Series

Abstract

Abstract A survey of computer programs which are currently being used to calculate the distribution of species in aqueous solutions, especially natural waters, has been made in order to 1) provide an inventory of available programs with a short description of their uses, 2) compare the consistency of their output for two given test solutions and 3) identify major weaknesses or problems encountered from their use. More than a dozen active programs which can be used for distribution of species and activity calculations for homogeneos equilibria among the major anions and cations of natural waters have been inventoried. Half of these programs can also accept several trace elements including Fe, Al, Mn, Cu, Ni, Zn, Cd, Pb, Ag, Hg, As, Ba, Sr, and B. Consistency between programs was evaluated by comparing the log of the molal concentrations of free ions and complexes for two test solutions: a hypothetical seawater analysis and a hypothetical river water analysis. Comparison of the free major ion concentrations in the river water test case shows excellent agreement for the major species. In the seawater test case there is less agreement and for both test cases the minor species commonly show orders of magnitude differences in concentrations. These differences primarily reflect differences in the thermodynamic data base of each chemical model although other factors such as activity coefficient calculations, redox assumptions, temperature corrections, alkalinity corrections and the number of complexes used all have an affect on the output.

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 · 10.1021/bk-1979-0093.ch038

Cites

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.

Metadata

Authors
NORDSTROM, D. K., PLUMMER, L. N., WIGLEY, T. M. L., WOLERY, T. J., BALL, J. W., JENNE, E. A., BASSETT, R. L., CRERAR, D. A., FLORENCE, T. M., FRITZ, B., HOFFMAN, M., HOLDREN, G. R., LAFON, G. M., MATTIGOD, S. V., McDUFF, R. E., MOREL, F., REDDY, M. M., SPOSITO, G., & THRAILKILL, J.
Venue
ACS Symposium Series
Published
1979-03-19
Pages
857-892
ISSN
  • 0097-6156 (ISSN-L)
  • 1947-5918
OpenAlex
W2494235278
Cited by
333
References
0
FWCI
30.73
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: A Comparison of Computerized Chemical Models for Equilibrium Calculations in Aqueous Systems. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/bk-1979-0093.ch038
The paper
NORDSTROM, D. K., PLUMMER, L. N., WIGLEY, T. M. L., WOLERY, T. J., BALL, J. W., JENNE, E. A., BASSETT, R. L., CRERAR, D. A., FLORENCE, T. M., FRITZ, B., HOFFMAN, M., HOLDREN, G. R., LAFON, G. M., MATTIGOD, S. V., McDUFF, R. E., MOREL, F., REDDY, M. M., SPOSITO, G., & THRAILKILL, J. (1979). A Comparison of Computerized Chemical Models for Equilibrium Calculations in Aqueous Systems. ACS Symposium Series. https://doi.org/10.1021/bk-1979-0093.ch038

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.