STOCKTON UNIVERSITY

In Situ Water Monitoring

ENVL 4300
Nicholas Freeman & Megan Jones
Dr. Chirenje
 Page |1

Abstract
The purpose of Part I of this lab exercise was to determine the in-situ water quality of Lake Fred,
in Galloway, New Jersey. The water quality was determined by measuring six different in-situ
parameters (salinity, turbidity, pH, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, and temperature) using a
Yellow Springs Instrument (YSI) multi-probe. Measurements were collected from twelve
different GPS locations around the entire area of Lake Fred and then organized in a Microsoft
Excel File. The GPS coordinates were also recorded in this file, and uploaded in ArcMap 10.5.1
to create a map displaying the area. Graphs were also generated to compare the differences
within each parameter for each of the twelve sites; a table shows the overall collective data.
Five of the six parameters were then compared to USGS water quality data for the Frenchtown,
New Jersey station (for the same month and year). Our results show that the most significant
differences in parameters between the two locations are the pH and temperature values. The pH
for Lake Fred is more acidic due to its location in the southern New Jersey Pinelands. The
average temperature for Lake Fred is over three times greater than that of Frenchtown, due to
Frenchtown’s significantly higher elevation (194 vs. 26ft) and location on the banks of the
Delaware River (USGS, 2018). In Part II of this lab exercise we performed a review of in-situ
water quality parameters and their significance. We then collected and analyzed data for the
Chesapeake Bay watershed over a one-year time period, and compared four of its parameters
(DO, temperature, salinity, and pH) to those of Lake Fred.
 Page |2

Table of Contents
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... 1
Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... 2
Part I
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 3
Methods ........................................................................................................................................................ 4
Results & Discussion .................................................................................................................................... 6
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 13

Part 2
Review……………………………………………………………………………………………………15

References…………………………………………………………………………………………………19
 Page |3

Part I:

Introduction
The measurement of water quality requires the analysis of physical, chemical,
and microbiological variables. Monitoring these variables allows us to determine if the water’s
quality can support certain activities and aquatic populations. Analysis of water samples
performed directly in the field, also known as in-situ, provide several advantages. Certain
parameters, such as temperature and pH, actually require measurement in-situ. Some benefits
include the reduced likelihood of contamination from sample storage containers, and reduced
costs associated with laboratories. For this lab exercise, we focused on analyzing six chemical in-
situ parameters for Lake Fred, and then compared our analysis to two different water body
locations (Frenchtown, NJ and the Chesapeake Bay). As our results will show, there are various
factors that contribute to the differences between locations such as topography, water body type,
and designated use.
 Page |4

Methods
To begin data collection, we took the Yellow Springs Instrument (YSI) which were pre-

calibrated for salinity, turbidity, pH, conductivity, temperature and dissolved oxygen (mg) to

Lake Fred. Choosing locations both around and within the lake that were convenient to reach,

two students went out in waders with the YSI meters and began measuring. To do this, the YSI’s

wand end (containing multiple changeable probes pre-calibrated to measure the parameters

mentioned above) was submerged in the water and given two minutes (or until the readings

remained constant) before the readings were taken. These readings as well as the longitude and

latitude of each location were then taken down. We continued this process around the lake until

twelve samples were taken.

Once the data was gathered, it was put into an excel spreadsheet. Taking this spreadsheet,

we exported it to ArcMap 10.5.1 using the add data button and created a layer file of the data

points. Before these points could become visible we right clicked on the layer and chose format

(X,Y) which allowed the sample points to appear on the Longitude Latitude grid ArcMap

employs. Downloading shapefiles for Galloway Township, we clipped the data points file to the

map of the township which created a map of all the locations at the points they were taken on

Lake Fred. Opening the attributes table and symbology, we created a map showing the water

quality sample location around Lake Fred. We also took the data and created graphs comparing

all the samples by each parameter.

After this we downloaded data from the United States Geological Society (USGS) in-situ

testing data from Frenchtown NJ because this was the closest location we found to cover most of

the same parameters. Comparing this to our findings at Lake Fred, we compared to see if our

data reflected the same seasonal and regional variations that the USGS data did. This was done
 Page |5

because unlike the USGS data which is taken constantly every thirty minutes, our own data was

only taken once at each location.

 Page |6

Results and Discussion

Figure 1 shows a map of Lake Fred with the locations of all 12 samples

´
 Page |7

Salinity
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
salinity

0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Sample

Figure 2 compares the salinity levels at the twelve sample points taken around Lake Fred.

Turbitity
180

130
Turbidity

80

30

-20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Sample

Figure 3 compares the turbidity levels at the twelve sample points taken around Lake Fred.
 Page |8

pH
7

4
pH

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Sample

Figure 4 compares the pH levels at the twelve sample points taken around Lake Fred.

DO mg
14

12
Dissolved Oxygen (mg)

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Sample

Figure 5 compares the dissolved oxygen (mg) levels at the twelve sample points taken around Lake Fred.
 Page |9

Conductivity
140

120

100
Conductivity

80

60

40

20

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Sample

Figure 6 compares the Salinity levels of the twelve samples taken around Lake Fred.

Temp C
25

20
Temperature (celcius)

15

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Sample

Figure 7 compares the temperature (Celsius) of the twelve sample points taken around Lake Fred.
 P a g e | 10

Table 1 shows the samples locations and the data collected at each one for our water quality parameters.

sample site Lat Long Temp C Salinity Turbidity pH DO mg Conductivity

-
1 39.49427 74.5301 14 0.11 1.68 6.61 8.23 1.0
-
2 39.49439 74.5313 9.5 0.44 14.7 6.52 9.77 4.82
-
3 39.49448 74.5323 14.92 0.06 1.27 6.1 10.48 71.9
-
4 39.49409 74.5331 17.724 0.06 1.99 5.11 8.97 113.5

5 39.49425 -74.534 20.65 0.07 192 5.23 6.66 106

-
6 39.49462 74.5351 19.873 0.07 73 4.95 10.01 120.2
-
7 39.49531 74.5362 17.081 0.06 2.42 5.88 10.75 85.2
-
8 39.49566 74.5361 16.689 0.06 0.92 5.95 10.9 87.2
-
9 39.49648 74.5338 16.993 0.06 1.5 6.28 11.9 97.8
-
10 39.49681 74.5308 17.34 0.06 10.6 6.39 11.79 86.9
-
11 39.49626 74.5289 17.241 0.06 19.75 6.4 12.08 86
-
12 39.49569 74.5286 15.81 0.06 1.6 6.3 12.71 81.8

Table 2 shows the USGS data for the Frenchtown NJ station for February 2018

Temperature pH Specific cond. Dissolved O (mg/L) Turbidity Salinity

5.1 7.8 199 12.7 5.6 n/a
U. (2018, February 26). Current Conditions NJ Water Quality. Retrieved February 26, 2018, from
https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nj/nwis/current/?type=qw&group_key=basin_cd
 P a g e | 11

Looking at figure 7 the temperature across Lake Fred remains relatively the same with

few extreme fluctuations. Samples remain in range of fourteen to twenty-one degrees with the

only outlier being sample two which registered at 9.5 degrees Celsius. Looking at figure 2 you

can see sample two was taken at a location where water is flowing into Lake Fred from Morses

Mill stream. This inflow of water explains the temperature drop because it is colder than the

water within the lake that sits for a period before continuing along the stream after the dam.

Comparing this to the data collected from the USGS website on water quality for February 21st at

1 pm (the same time we were doing our testing), you can see that the temperature at the

Frenchtown station was four degrees under our lowest temperature.

The pH or the acidity of the Lake was taken for each sample location. Looking at figure 4

and the data table you see the pH stays between 4.9 and just under 7. The normal pH of pure

water is seven. This means that the lake is overall acidic with sample six (the most acidic) being

equivalent to that of black coffee. Looking at figure 1 you can see by the sample map that the

locations where the pH is the lowest are along the Dark Path walking trail which is heavily taken

by students going between classes and campus residents which could explain the lower pH

because of runoff contaminants in this area. When looking at the data you can see that our pH is

much lower than that in Frenchtown (pH 7.8), however this could be contributed to location.

Since we are in the Pine Barrens the topography here calls for more acidic soils and waters

where Frenchtown is north-west of here closer to Pennsylvania which could account for its more

basic pH.

While salinity and conductivity normally go hand in hand, it was interesting to see the

results of figures 2 and 6. Because dissolved ions such as calcium, sodium and magnesium

increase the conductivity of water it would be assumed that with a higher salinity would come a
 P a g e | 12

higher conductivity. However, this is not the case with the Lake Fred data. Looking at figure 3,

you can see the salinity across the lake is overall low with less than .1 g/kg of with the only

variation being at the same inflow point mentioned during temperature where Morses Mill

stream enters the lake and the salinity raises to .44 g/kg. Normally because of this spike in

salinity (probably occurring due to run off accumulation in the stream) you would also see a

spike in conductivity, however looking at figure 6 and the table you can see that conductivity is

at its lowest (4.82) at this location. You see the highest conductivity charges along the edge of

the lake where student housing is. While we were unable to find data on the salinity of the waters

in Frenchtown we were able to get conductivity which was at 199, which was a third greater than

our highest reading of Lake Fred.

Turbidity or total suspended solids (TSS) is the level of particulate (sediments, biotic life

etc.) that is being held within the water by velocity and adhesion which make water murky in

appearance and prevent the amount of sunlight that can penetrate this water. High turbidities can

affect the recreational activities and even the ecosystem within the lake itself. Looking at the

Lake Fred data represented by figure 3 and the table, the turbidity levels across the lake are

extremely low excluding the massive spikes at sample locations five and six. Looking at the map

in figure 1 you can see that these spiked areas are along the Dark Path where students were

fishing during our testing, however I’m not sure that this is an accurate explanation to why the

turbidity had increased so significantly. It is possible that this was an error in data collection

where the two students may have kicked up too much sediment from the lake floor while moving

around prior to sampling. A way to check this would be to take data samples repetitively like the

USGS does. While not necessary to do it every half hour on a continual basis as they do, taking it

more than once to at least confirm accuracy would have helped to solidify our conclusions.
 P a g e | 13

When comparing it to this USGS data, our turbidity measurements were around the same area

fluctuating but not going anywhere over double the levels in Frenchtown (this is excluding our

outlier in sample five).

Finally, dissolved oxygen was the last thing we looked at. Dissolved oxygen is the

amount of oxygen which is absorbed from places like the atmosphere or rapid water movements.

This dissolved oxygen is important for aquatic ecosystems and when levels go below normal

these systems suffer. Looking at figure 5 and the table you can see that dissolved oxygen levels

across Lake Fred stay in a range between eight and thirteen mg. with the only outlier being

sample five. Looking at the map in figure 1, you can see that sample five where the dissolved

oxygen is only 6.66 mg was taken at the part of Lake Fred that is separated from the main body

by the Dark Path. Because of this separation which causes the water to stagnate a little more than

the main body, it would make sense that the dissolved oxygen here would be a little lower. These

findings are in line with the levels at the Frenchtown USGS monitoring station.

Conclusion

The advanced technology of YSI has enabled us to measure in-situ chemical water

quality parameters within Lake Fred, and compare it to those of other water bodies. This is

significant because it allows us to measure and observe how different environmental factors and

anthropogenic activities (i.e. fishing or kayaking) may affect the chemical state of the lake. The

measured parameters have also enabled us to compare and contrast the results of different

watersheds, and assess the factors (i.e. topography) that may contribute to the differences in data.

When looking at our own data and comparing it to that which the USGS collects every half hour
 P a g e | 14

in Frenchtown NJ, it is clear that there is a difference between the USGS station and Lake Fred.

While turbidity, dissolved oxygen and conductivity were relatively close to one another; there

were clear differences in both temperature (where ours were several degrees higher) and pH

(where we found our waters to be more acidic). These differences can be contributed to both

anthropogenic issues such as run off and topographic location where the environments here are

more acidic naturally than those where the USGS station is located. To improve the accuracy of

our future results, it is important that in-situ parameters be measured more frequently, over a

longer time-period as well as ensuring quality of data such as allowing waters to settle before the

turbidities are taken.

 P a g e | 15

Part II:

Table 3 represents the monthly averages for four parameters of water quality available from the

Lower Chesapeake Bay testing center.

Chloro. Total Total Turbidity temperature

Location (UG/L) pH Conductivity N(mg/L) P(mg/L) (mg/L) ( C)
Lower
Chesapeake Bay 3.78 8.1 36460 0.28 0.021 13.82 6.03
Data Hub. (2018, January 1). Water Quality. Retrieved February 26, 2018, from

http://data.chesapeakebay.net/WaterQuality

In-Situ Water Quality

18.0
16.0
14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
Dissolved O (mg/L) Temp ( c) Salinity (ppt) pH
Parameter

Lake Fred Chesapeake Bay

Figure 9 compares four parameters of Lake Fred (average) and the Chesapeake Bay for February 2018
 P a g e | 16

Water quality data can be monitored through a series of detailed field analysis

measurements, also known as in-situ parameters. Measurements are usually recorded using a

multiparameter water quality meter, such as an YSI. The frequency of this analysis is largely

dependent on the size of the water body, as well as the monitoring objective. For example, the

USGS which is responsible for providing public water quality data for thousands of sites,

collects water quality in 30-minute intervals daily. Water quality parameters of interest are also

dependent on monitoring objective, however the most routine parameters include: temperature,

pH, specific conductivity, dissolved oxygen (DO), salinity, turbidity, chlorophyll, nitrates and

phosphates.

Temperature is standardly recorded in units of degree Celsius, and may be defined as the

measure of molecular vibrational energy (Upstate Freshwater Institute, 1994). It is one of the few

parameters that must be measured in-situ because of the effects of air temperature and the

constant movement of water. The most common device for determining temperature is a

thermometer, but may also include a thermostat or thermistor. The biologic activity in water is

strongly determined by temperature, making it one of the most important parameters. When

comparing temperature, those of Lake Fred were dramatically higher than those calculated at the

Bay, this could be because the Lake Fred data is current to this year while the Bay data that was

taken from the website is for last year when there was a colder winter.

The pH of water is a measurement of the acidity or alkalinity on a scale ranging from 0 to

14. Values approaching zero indicate growing acidic conditions, seven is neutral, and

approaching fourteen is increasing alkalinity. An YSI will typically contain an electrode for pH

that must be calibrated before each use. The pH of water is important because it determines
 P a g e | 17

solubility, and the degree to which nutrients may be utilized by aquatic life. Findings showed the

pH of the Lower Chesapeake Bay was the same as the Frenchtown data collected by USGS,

leaving it several degrees higher than that of Lake Fred.

The concentration of dissolved oxygen (DO) is expressed in milligrams per liter, and may

also be measured by an YSI. When considering biological and chemical processes, DO is crucial

to monitor, as oxygen is required for most aquatic life forms. In comparing this data from the

Chesapeake Bay to that which we collected at Lake Fred, you can see where the dissolved

oxygen levels in Lake Fred fluctuate around the mean for February recorded at the Bay.

Salinity and Conductivity are measurements directly related to one another. Salinity is the

amount of absorbed mineral salts in water such as sodium, calcium, magnesium etc., while

conductivity is the capability of this water to pass on or carry an electric flow. In places where

there are high saline levels there is normally a high conductivity do to these dissolved minerals

abilities to conduct a charge. Salinity is important because it directly effects the species that can

exist in aquatic ecosystems. Ways to measure salinity without the use of an YSI are by

evaporating the total water of a sample and measuring the left behind salts. To calculate

conductivity this wat however you would have to separate each type of salt to know the charge

capabilities and then combine them. When comparing the salinity levels for Lake Fred and the

Chesapeake Bay, you can see where the bays salinity levels are several hundred times larger than

those of Lake Fred. This could be contributed to the fact that the bay is a mixing of both fresh

and salt waters where Lake Fred’s salinity comes mostly from run off from the surrounding area.

Turbidity is a measure of how “cloudy” water is depending on the fine particulates and

sediments that are suspended within the water particles due to velocity and adhesion. These

measurements are important because when experiencing a higher turbidity waters will be murky
 P a g e | 18

(like the Mississippi River) causing less sunlight to be able to penetrate the waters and thus

altering the ecosystems here. Turbidity is measured by a nephelometer or a turbidimeter which

calculate this by measuring the intensity of light scatted as a beam in passed through the sample.

We found that the turbidity of the lake was mostly lower than that of the Chesapeake Bay

excluding location five where levels were almost twenty times higher and is still being accounted

for by sampling errors.

Nitrates and Phosphates are also parameters that go hand in hand. While both are found

naturally in the environment due to issues with surface run off from anthropogenic sources, these

nutrients have become to surplus in the bodies of water they end up in. While important for

aquatic ecosystems (both are important for the growth cycle of algae) too much of these nutrients

can cause rapid eutrophication in these bodies. To measure these nutrients in water without the

help of an YSI, samples are taken and tested with strips which react by changing colors

depending on the levels of the nutrient within sample. While not able to compare the Lake Fred

data to the Chesapeake Bay (we didn’t have the proper probes prepared at the time of testing)

table three shows these levels in mg/L, both of which are extremely low.

Chlorophyll was also a parameter we were unable to calculate during the Lake Fred

experiment however it is crucial to ecosystem sustainability. Chlorophyll levels are directly

affected by nutrients such as the previously mentioned nitrogen and phosphorus and because of

this can be used to measure the abundance of phytoplankton in bodies of water. To test this, a

flourometer would be introduced to the water and while emitting light at specific wavelengths,

tracks the light admitted back by the Chlorophyll a and calculates a concentration. While unable

to compare to our own data, these levels for the Chesapeake Bay are displayed above in table 3.
 P a g e | 19

References

Perlman, U. H. (2016, December 2). Turbidity. Retrieved February 25, 2018, from

https://water.usgs.gov/edu/turbidity.html

Perlman, U. H. (2016, December 2). Electrical Conductivity and Water. Retrieved February 25, 2018,

from https://water.usgs.gov/edu/electrical-conductivity.html

U. (2018, February 27). Detail report for Burrough Frenchtown. Retrieved February 25, 2018, from

https://geonames.usgs.gov/apex/f?p=gnispq%3A3%3A0%3A%3ANO%3A%3AP3_FID%3A885227

Monitoring Lake Quality. Environmental Protection Agency. December 1998.

http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/conservation/lake-notes/monitoring-lake-quality/monitoring-lake-

quality.pdf

U. (n.d.). Estuarine Science. Retrieved February 27, 2018, from

http://omp.gso.uri.edu/ompweb/doee/science/physical/chchlor2.htm