ReviewEnvironmental monitoring and assessment2021
Choosing an appropriate water quality model-a review.
Review in Environmental monitoring and assessment, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A graph-based modeling framework for tracing hydrological pollutant transport in surface waters.Computers & chemical engineering · 2023Article
- Identifying sources of antibiotic resistance genes in the environment using the microbialFrontiers in microbiology · 2023Article
- Response Model for Urban Area Source Pollution and Water Environmental Quality in a River Network Region.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Analysis of indicators of surface water pollution in Atlantic Forest preservation areas.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2022Article
- The time of concentration application in studies around the world: a review.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Water quality models are quite complex to use even for scientists, requiring knowledge in different areas such as biology, chemistry, physics, and engineering. Hence, the use of these models by a non-specialist is quite complicated, demanding considerable time and research, particularly to choose which model is the most appropriate for a given situation. In this study, a comparative guide is suggested, which can help users select the appropriate water quality model for certain systems and variables. Five models were considered as follows: AQUATOX, CE-QUAL-W2, Spatially Referenced Regression Model on Watershed Attributes (SPARROW), Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT), and Water Quality Analysis Simulation Program 7 (WASP7), which have been widely used during the last 5 years. All of these selected models are free and easily available. It was verified that each model has its particularities and applications; however, the AQUATOX model has several advantages compared with the other models analyzed. In addition, to illustrate the availability of the proposed comparative guide, a case study was carried out to demonstrating the selection process of the selected models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33409711What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.