Optimization of River Sampling: Application to Nutrients Distribution in Tagus River Estuary

Abstract

The assessment of river water pollution trends is affected by the seasonal variation of river conditions, the variability of pollution sources, the heterogeneity of pollutants distribution, the representativeness/uncertainty of sampling, and the uncertainty of sample analysis. This work presents a methodology to model the uncertainty of river water sampling based on available information about the spatial distribution of the studied parameter in the river. The uncertainty from “single sampling” (SS) or by production of a composite sample by mixing m subsamples collected randomly (RS) or in a line that crosses the sampling circle (LS) was studied. This methodology was applied to the determination of nutrients (NO x , NO2, PO4, and SiO2) in an area of the Tagus River estuary with a range of about 350 m. This methodology can be applied to the determination of the mean value of other parameters in other river areas requiring a previous study of system heterogeneity. The spatial distribution of nutrients in the studied river area was characterized from the analysis of 10 samples collected at known geographical coordinates. The system heterogeneity was described by a three-dimensional (x, y, z) surface with x and y variables for samples positions and z variable representing the measured nutrient levels. The randomization of this surface for the uncertainty of coordinates and repeatability of nutrient concentration measurement, using Monte Carlo simulations, allowed estimation of the uncertainty of the three sampling strategies: SS, RS, and LS. The uncertainty from RS and LS is equivalent and significantly smaller than that from SS when at least three subsamples are mixed in the composite sample. The sampling relative standard uncertainty ranged from 0.31% to 4.4%, producing nutrient concentration estimates in the river area with a relative expanded uncertainty from 5.9% to 10% with approximately 95% confidence level (coverage factor of 2). The used spreadsheet is available as Supporting Information.

Bottom-Up Evaluation of the Uncertainty of the Quantification of Microplastics Contamination in Sediment Samples

“…The nonequivalence conclusion of the contamination levels of T, PP, or PET of various samples cannot be extrapolated to a large and representative fraction of the studied environmental compartments since it must be considered the spatial contamination heterogeneity and the sampling uncertainty for this assessment. − Nevertheless, since these uncertainty components add uncertainty to the comparisons, the contamination equivalence can describe the reality for the environmental compartment. The justification of observed contamination differences from the characterization of contamination sources and of the aquatic system is beyond the scope of this work.…”

“…The type of microplastic(s) is defined by the polymer type, particle size, and shape. The way measurand is defined excludes the sampling process from the measurement, being only characterized the sample and not the sampled population. − Measurement results are expressed in kg –1 units, although some authors prefer to express the same value not following the rules of the International System of Units as “number of particles per kg”…”

Uncertainty of chemical status in surface waters

“…The literature includes numerous papers regarding the uncertainty of biological indicators concerning various water body types (rivers, lakes, reservoirs, transitional, etc.). Quantification issues related to errors in water sampling procedures, errors in chemical and biological analyses, estimates of uncertainty of water quality indicators, and river status assessment uncertainty have been addressed in many research reports and papers discussing monitoring of lakes and rivers 11 – 18 .…”