Water Quality Sensors Where are we, where are we going, and why aren t we there yet?

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Water Quality Sensors Where are we, where are we going, and why aren t we there yet?"

Jared Beasley
8 years ago
Views:

1 Water Quality Sensors Where are we, where are we going, and why aren t we there yet? Mario Tamburri University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science

2 ACT Priorities Transition emerging technologies to operational use rapidly and effectively Maintain a dialogue among technology users, developers, and providers Identify technology needs and novel technologies Document technology performance and potential Provide information required by IOOS for the deployment of accurate, reliable and cost-effective observing networks ACT Services Alliance for Coastal Technologies A third-party testbed for evaluating technologies A forum for capacity and consensus building An information clearinghouse for environmental technologies

required by IOOS for the deployment of accurate, reliable and cost-effective observing networks ACT Services Alliance for Coastal Technologies

3 Generic Testing Approach Types of Evaluations: Performance Verification Performance Demonstration Purpose: Document performance under third party tests NO certifications, recommendations, or comparisons Benefits: Community engagement Enhanced ability to identify appropriate technologies Level playing field among manufacturers Accelerated adoption of innovative technologies Credibility: Objective testing Skilled, trained personnel Sound methodologies with statistical rigor Transparency and comprehensive documentation Rigorous QA/QC

appropriate technologies Level playing field among manufacturers Accelerated adoption of innovative technologies Credibility:

4 Arctic ACT Partner Institutions Great Lakes University of Michigan Cooperative Institute for Limnology & Ecosystems Research Atlantic Pacific Moss Landing Marine Laboratories Tropical Gulf

5 Diverse Environments & Applications

6 Generic Testing Process Technology theme is selected by Partners and Stakeholders Full information packages and propose protocols submitted Laboratory tests conducted (lab audit) Post Evaluation meeting and review held Customer Needs and Use Assessment to identify parameters and applications Strawman Protocols distributed Instruments set up, calibrated and deployed at four field sites Verification Statements finalized and sent to manufacturers Technology Subcommittee established Protocol Workshop held (weekly conference calls) Field audits conducted and weekly data sheets sent to Headquarters One page manufacturer interpretation of results submitted RFT is drafted and released Protocol and QA Plan reviewed and finalized Instruments sent back for reconditioning/recalibration Verification Statements released to the public Initial applications submitted Signed agreements submitted and insurance secured Instruments set up, calibrated and deployed at four field sites Instrument user survey for manufacturers completed Conditional acceptance granted Test instruments are shipped to lab test site Data downloaded, analyzed and plotted Questions/comments addressed and manufacturers monitored for use of results Partner Technology Workshop held Standardization and training session held and recorded Verification Statements drafted

Verification Statements finalized and sent to manufacturers Technology Subcommittee established Protocol Workshop held (weekly conference calls) Field audits conducted and weekly data sheets sent to

7 Sensors Where are we? DO Sensors (2004) - Aanderaa (optode), Greenspan (galvanic cell), In-Situ (optode), YSI (Clark cell) Chl-a Fluorometers (2005) - bbe Moldaenke, Chelsea (2), Hydrolab, Turner (2), WET Labs, YSI Turbidity Sensors (2006) - Aquatec, In-Situ, McVan, WET Labs, YSI Nutrient Analyzers (2007) - American EcoTech, Satlantic, WET Labs, YSI C-T Sensors for In Situ Salinity (2008) - Aanderaa, Campbell, Falmouth, Greenspan, In-Situ, RBR, Rockland, YSI pco 2 Analyzers (2009/2010) - Contros, NOAA/PMEL (Battelle), Pro-Oceanus, Sunburst, YSI Hydrocarbon Sensors (2011) - Aquatec, Chelsea (3), Hach, S:can, Turner Designs, and WET Labs ph Sensors (2012) - Aanderaa, Campbell, Idronaut, In-Situ, Satlantic, Sunburst, YSI

WET Labs, YSI Turbidity Sensors (2006) - Aquatec, In-Situ, McVan, WET Labs, YSI Nutrient Analyzers (2007) - American EcoTech, Satlantic, WET Labs, YSI C-T Sensors for In Situ

8 Nutrients Performance Demonstrations Transitioning into operations Nitrate+Nitrite (mgn/l) /1 10/3 10/5 10/7 10/9 10/11 10/13 10/15 10/17 10/19 10/21 10/23 10/25 10/27 Time Phosphate-P (um) /30 10/5 10/10 10/15 10/20 10/25 10/30 Time

5 0 10/1 10/3 10/5 10/7 10/9 10/11 10/13 10/15 10/17 10/19 10/21 10/23

9 Salinity Performance Verifications Mature reliable/accurate

10 pco 2 Performance Demonstrations pco 2 is important but complex

11 Hydrocarbon Performance Verification Are fluorometers the way to monitor of oil spills?

12 ACT Program Evaluation Where are we?

13 ACT Program Evaluation Where are we? Technology Developers & Providers Private Public Resource Mgrs Technology Users Private Corps Research Scientists Tech Info Providers Relevancy Credibility, Objectivity Quality, Competency Usefulness 100% > 75% > 50% < 50%

Technology Users Private Corps Research Scientists Tech Info

14 ACT Program Evaluation Where are we going? Needs and Use Assessments Technology Training Selection of Themes Technology Workshop Capabilities Assessments Technology Evaluations Subject Matter Clearinghouse Operational Deployment Testing Technology Database Design Requirements Standard Operating Procedures Current Activities Potential Activities

Capabilities Assessments Technology Evaluations Subject Matter Clearinghouse

15 Why aren t we there yet? Limited resources Different requirements for different users Parameters and technologies are complex Nice to have but not must have ACT Headquarters One Williams Street Solomons, MD (410) info@act-us.info

Parameters and technologies are complex Nice to have but not

NOAA funded partnership of: research institutions; state / regional resource managers; private sector companies.

NOAA funded partnership of: research institutions; state / regional resource managers; private sector companies. Interested in developing and applying sensor technologies for use in monitoring coastal