89 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25529552)
1. Contaminant classification using cosine distances based on multiple conventional sensors.
Liu S; Che H; Smith K; Chang T
Environ Sci Process Impacts; 2015 Feb; 17(2):343-50. PubMed ID: 25529552
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. A real time method of contaminant classification using conventional water quality sensors.
Liu S; Che H; Smith K; Chang T
J Environ Manage; 2015 May; 154():13-21. PubMed ID: 25700352
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Contamination event detection using multiple types of conventional water quality sensors in source water.
Liu S; Che H; Smith K; Chen L
Environ Sci Process Impacts; 2014 Aug; 16(8):2028-38. PubMed ID: 24953418
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A multivariate based event detection method and performance comparison with two baseline methods.
Liu S; Smith K; Che H
Water Res; 2015 Sep; 80():109-18. PubMed ID: 25996758
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Real-time contaminant detection and classification in a drinking water pipe using conventional water quality sensors: techniques and experimental results.
Jeffrey Yang Y; Haught RC; Goodrich JA
J Environ Manage; 2009 Jun; 90(8):2494-506. PubMed ID: 19269081
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Integrating fuzzy logic with Pearson correlation to optimize contaminant detection in water distribution system with uncertainty analyses.
Osmani SA; Banik BK; Ali H
Environ Monit Assess; 2019 Jun; 191(7):441. PubMed ID: 31203453
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Shellfish and residual chemical contaminants: hazards, monitoring, and health risk assessment along French coasts.
Guéguen M; Amiard JC; Arnich N; Badot PM; Claisse D; Guérin T; Vernoux JP
Rev Environ Contam Toxicol; 2011; 213():55-111. PubMed ID: 21541848
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Online Classification of Contaminants Based on Multi-Classification Support Vector Machine Using Conventional Water Quality Sensors.
Huang P; Jin Y; Hou D; Yu J; Tu D; Cao Y; Zhang G
Sensors (Basel); 2017 Mar; 17(3):. PubMed ID: 28335400
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Why conventional detection methods fail in identifying the existence of contamination events.
Liu S; Li R; Smith K; Che H
Water Res; 2016 Apr; 93():222-229. PubMed ID: 26905801
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A coupled classification - evolutionary optimization model for contamination event detection in water distribution systems.
Oliker N; Ostfeld A
Water Res; 2014 Mar; 51():234-45. PubMed ID: 24268294
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A canonical correlation analysis based method for contamination event detection in water sources.
Li R; Liu S; Smith K; Che H
Environ Sci Process Impacts; 2016 Jun; 18(6):658-66. PubMed ID: 27264637
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. A direct passive method for measuring water and contaminant fluxes in porous media.
Hatfield K; Annable M; Cho J; Rao PS; Klammler H
J Contam Hydrol; 2004 Dec; 75(3-4):155-81. PubMed ID: 15610899
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Use of principal component analysis to profile temporal and spatial variations of chlorinated solvent concentration in groundwater.
Lucas L; Jauzein M
Environ Pollut; 2008 Jan; 151(1):205-12. PubMed ID: 17540487
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Identification of contaminant sources in enclosed spaces by a single sensor.
Zhang T; Chen Q
Indoor Air; 2007 Dec; 17(6):439-49. PubMed ID: 18045268
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Examination of the uncertainty in contaminant fate and transport modeling: a case study in the Venice Lagoon.
Sommerfreund J; Arhonditsis GB; Diamond ML; Frignani M; Capodaglio G; Gerino M; Bellucci L; Giuliani S; Mugnai C
Ecotoxicol Environ Saf; 2010 Mar; 73(3):231-9. PubMed ID: 19493571
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. There is no 1954 in that core! Interpreting sedimentation rates and contaminant trends in marine sediment cores.
Johannessen SC; Macdonald RW
Mar Pollut Bull; 2012 Apr; 64(4):675-8. PubMed ID: 22336092
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Quantifying remediation effectiveness under variable external forcing using contaminant rating curves.
Kirchner JW; Austin CM; Myers A; Whyte DC
Environ Sci Technol; 2011 Sep; 45(18):7874-81. PubMed ID: 21827186
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Water pinch analysis for water and wastewater minimization in Tehran oil refinery considering three contaminants.
Mohammadnejad S; Ataei A; Nabi Bidhendi GR; Mehrdadi N; Ebadati F; Lotfi F
Environ Monit Assess; 2012 May; 184(5):2709-28. PubMed ID: 21713492
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The new potential for understanding groundwater contaminant transport.
Hadley PW; Newell C
Ground Water; 2014; 52(2):174-86. PubMed ID: 24224536
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Distance-constrained contaminant detection networks in aquifers with varying hydraulic gradients.
Hudak PF; Hudak PK
Bull Environ Contam Toxicol; 2006 Jul; 77(1):74-81. PubMed ID: 16832758
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
