4.8 Article

Uses and Biases of Volunteer Water Quality Data

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Volume 44, Issue 19, Pages 7193-7199

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/es100164c

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. WATERS Network Project Office
  2. Iowa Water Center, Iowa State University
  3. Directorate For Engineering [0838607] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  4. Div Of Chem, Bioeng, Env, & Transp Sys [0838607] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

State water quality monitoring has been augmented by volunteer monitoring programs throughout the United States. Although a significant effort has been put forth by volunteers, questions remain as to whether volunteer data are accurate and can be used by regulators. In this study, typical volunteer water quality measurements from laboratory and environmental samples in Iowa were analyzed for error and bias. Volunteer measurements of nitrate+nitrite were significantly lower (about 2-fold) than concentrations determined via standard methods in both laboratory-prepared and environmental samples. Total reactive phosphorus concentrations analyzed by volunteers were similar to measurements determined via standard methods in laboratory-prepared samples and environmental samples, but were statistically lower than the actual concentration in four of the five laboratory-prepared samples. Volunteer water quality measurements were successful in identifying and classifying most of the waters which violate United States Environmental Protection Agency recommended water quality criteria for total nitrogen (66%) and for total phosphorus (52%) with the accuracy improving when accounting for error and biases in the volunteer data. An understanding of the error and bias in volunteer water quality measurements can allow regulators to incorporate volunteer water quality data into total maximum daily load planning or state water quality reporting.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available