Time vs. Money: A Quantitative Evaluation of Monitoring Frequency vs. Monitoring Duration

Abstract

The National Research Council has estimated that over 126,000 contaminated groundwater sites are unlikely to achieve low ug/L clean-up goals in the foreseeable future. At these sites, cost-effective, long-term monitoring schemes are needed in order to understand the long-term changes in contaminant concentrations. Current monitoring optimization schemes rely on site-specific evaluations to optimize groundwater monitoring frequency. However, when using linear regression to estimate the long-term zero-order or first-order contaminant attenuation rate, the effect of monitoring frequency and monitoring duration on the accuracy and confidence for the estimated attenuation rate is not site-specific. For a fixed number of monitoring events, doubling the time between monitoring events (e.g., changing from quarterly monitoring to semi-annual monitoring) will double the accuracy of estimated attenuation rate. For a fixed monitoring frequency (e.g., semi-annual monitoring), increasing the number of monitoring events by 60% will double the accuracy of the estimated attenuation rate. Combining these two factors, doubling the time between monitoring events (e.g., quarterly monitoring to semi-annual monitoring) while decreasing the total number of monitoring events by 38% will result in no change in the accuracy of the estimated attenuation rate. However, the time required to collect this dataset will increase by 25%. Understanding that the trade-off between monitoring frequency and monitoring duration is not site-specific should simplify the process of optimizing groundwater monitoring frequency at contaminated groundwater sites.

Dairy slurry application to grasslands and groundwater quality in a volcanic soil

“…Regarding the groundwater movement, our analysis of velocity discarded the idea that groundwater was flowing faster than the temporal separation in the sampling program, making it unlikely that we missed a possible nutrient signal. As stated by McHugh et al (2016), the monitoring frequency vs. monitoring duration is an important trade-off in groundwater studies. (Table 1).…”

Forecasting Groundwater Contaminant Plume Development Using Statistical and Machine Learning Methods

“…Groundwater sampling frequency is determined by many factors, including cost, risk, regulatory requirements, and degree of site characterization. Quarterly sampling is a common scheme required by regulatory agencies and has been used as a benchmark for cost and time required to calculate an effective attenuation rate (McHugh et al 2016). Sites where remedy effectiveness or nearby receptors are being closely monitored may be sampled on a more frequent basis.…”