Resource File - ST Croix River

TNTC
2,000
1,800
1,600
1,400
E. coli (CFU/100ml)
1,200
1,000
800
600
4400
00
200
200 48 67
0
ND
0
Gateway Cathedral
2004 2007 2008
Year
2,000
TNTC 1,933
1,800
1,600
1,370
E. coli (CFU/100ml)
1,400
1,200
1,000 885 870
800
600
366
400
400
200
200
0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
The Cove Dover Hill Year
TNTC
2,000
1,800
1,600
E. coli (CFU/100ml)
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
4400
00
2200
00
0
2004 2007 2008
The Cove Buchanan St.
Year
2,000
TNTC
1,800
1,600
1,400
1,200
E. coli (CFU/100 ml)
1,000
800
600
400
400
200 100
200 0
ND
0
2004 2008
Aliant bldg.
Year
2,000
TNTC
1,800
1,600
E. coli (CFU/100ml)
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
4400
00
2200
00 78 33
6
0
Clark Bldg. 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
2,000
TNTC
1,800
1,600
E. coli (CFU/100ml)
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
4400
00
2200
00
0
2004 2006 2007 2008
Chocolate Park
Year
TNTC
2,000
1,800
1,600
E. coli (CFU/100ml)
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600 500
4400
00 262
2200
00 33
0
Boat Ramp East
2004 2007 2008
Year
2,000
TNTC
1,800
1,600
E. coli (CFU/100ml)
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
400
200
200 52 49
0
Pizza Delight 2004 2006 2007 2008
Year
2,000
TNTC
1,800
1,600
E. coli (CFU/100ml)
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
4400
00
2200
00
0
Picnic Kiosk
2003 2004 2006 2007 2008
Year
TNTC
2,000
1,800
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
4400
00
2200
00 0 0 0
ND ND ND
0
2003 2004 2008
Lower Sewage Lagoon
Year
2,000
TNTC
1,800
1,600
E. coli (CFU/100ml)
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
4400
00 310 296
2200
00 0
ND
0
Seniors Apt 2 2004 2006 2008
Year
TNTC
2,000
1,800
1,600
E. coli (CFU/100ml)
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
4400
00
2200
00 110 87 49
ND
0 ND
0
0
Dennis Stream
2003 2004 2005 2006 2008
Year
2,000
TNTC
1,800
1,600
E. coli (CFU/100ml)
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
4400
00
2200
00 87 91 88
10 0
ND
0
Donalds Cove 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
2,000
TNTC
1,800
1,600
E. coli (CFU/100ml)
1,400 1,200
1,200
1,000
782
800
600
4400
00 239
2200
00 20 18
0
2003 2005 2006 2007 2008
Ledge Loop Rd
Year
2,000
TNTC
1,800
1,600
E. coli (CFU/100ml)
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
4400
00
2200
00 0
ND 53 57 25 0
ND
0
2003 2005 2006 2007 2008
Ganong Park
Year
2,000
TNTC
1,800
1,600
E. coli (CFU/100ml)
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
4400
00
200
200 42 0
ND
0
Bensons Corner 2007 2008
Year
2,000
TNTC
1,800
1,600
E. coli (CFU/100ml)
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
4400
00
2200
00 110 120 100
0
ND 20
0
2003 2004 2006 2007 2008
Oakbay Causeway
Year
2,000
TNTC
1,800
1,600
E. coli (CFU/100ml)
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
4400
00
2200
00 28 11 0
ND
0
Waweig River 2006 2007 2008
Year
2,000
TNTC
1,800
1,600
E. coli (CFU/100mL)
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
4400
00
2200
00 31 ND
0
0
Bayside Port 2007 2008
Year
2,000
TNTC
1,800
1,600
E. coli (CFU/100ml)
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
400 246 233
200
200 10 22 20
0
Island view 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
campground
Year
2,000
TNTC
1,800
1,600
E. coli (CFU/100ml)
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
4400
00
2200
00 37 33
0
Johnson’s Cove
2007 2008
Brook Year
2,000
TNTC
1,800
1,600
E. coli (CFU/100ml)
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
4400
00
2200
00 0
ND 10 1 0
ND 8 0
ND
0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Biological Station Year
2,000
TNTC
1,800
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
4400
00 300 291
2200
00 60 49 0
ND
0
2003 2004 2006 2007 2008
Pottery Creek
Year
2,000
TNTC
1,800
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
4400
00
2200
00 99
0
2004 2008
St. Andrew’s Wharf
Year
2,000
TNTC
1,800
1,600
E. coli (CFU/100ml)
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
4400
00 310
2200
00 53 105
30 ND
0
0
Indian Point 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
2,000
TNTC
1,800
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
4400
00 246
2200
00 110
0
ND
0
2004 2007 2008
Community Park/Old Dump
Year
Locatio (1000's per TOTAL E. coli
LOCATION n Code mL) COLIFORMS/100ML (1000's per mL)
SEWAGE 2 S2 4.78 478.00 ND
EMPTY LOT EL 0.87 87.00 ND
RAMP EAST RE 7.82 782.00 0.50
CLARKE CB >20000 >2 000 000 1650.00
PICNIC KIOSK PK 831.00 83 100 99.00
DENNIS STREAM DS 7.82 782.00 ND
RAMP EAST RAMP 3.24 324.00 ND
PLANNED HOUSING PW 0.31 31.00 ND
OPEN DRAIN OD 4.78 478.00 ND
OLD FERTILIZER OF 238.00 23 800 ND
NBTEL NBT 2.07 207.00 ND
SEWAGE 1 S1 1.50 150.00 ND
CHOC PARK CP 560.00 56 000 53.00
OLD WHARF OW 150.00 15 000 ND
GATEWAY GW 4.06 406.00 ND
COVE 2 C2 >20000 >2 000 000 885.00
RETIREMENT APT RI 42.00 4 200 0.31
COVE 1 C1 14.50 1450.00 1.37
PIZZA DELIGHT PD 42.00 4 200 42.00
NEW LAGOON NL 200.00 20 000 ND
ND = none detected; lower limit of detection 100 per mL
CB, C2 second dilution set, upper limit of detection 2 x 10 exp 7 per
100/100ML OF TOTAL COLIFORMS IS S

E. COLI/100ML CHLORINE
ND
ND
50.00
165 000
9 900
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5 300
ND
ND
88 500
31
137.00
4 200
ND <0.1MG/L
r mL
STANDARD
Parking (8) Cars
Trail Linkage to Downtown
Canoe / Kayak Launch Landing
Demonstration Fish Hatchery
Seating Area
Ferry Point
Boardwalk Bridge
Trail 1.5m width
Proper
ty Line Salt Marsh / Constructed Wetland Legend - Key
Armor Stone
Existing Forest
St Croix River New Planting
Existing Gazebo
Salt Marsh
Existing Trail
America
na ry
Parking / Bus Drop off
Dover Park Prer discuss limi ion
Fo
Scale : 1:1500
0m 50m 100m 150m
hen Dover Hill Marsh Restoration Project

ick Scale 1:750
Concept Plan Project: 2051
Date: January 20, 2005
Air Air
Chemical FlakeBoard Sawmill Pulp Mill Total Av/Day
Woodchem
Acetaldehyde* 3,328 70,000 73,328 200.90
Ammonia* 220 0 160,500 160,720 440.33
Benzo(G,H,I)Perylene* - 7.70 7.70 0.021
Catechol* - 0 0 0
Chlorine* - 3,305 3,305 9.05
Chlorine Diozide* - 6,014 6,014 16.48
Dioxin & dioxinl-like* 0.12 1.10 1.22 0.003
Formaldehyde* 136,664/265 18,885 18,200 174,014 476.75
Formic Acid* - 0 0 0
Hydrochloric Acid* 4.00 60,000 60,004 164.39
Manganese Compounds* 900 2,100 3,000 8.22
Methanol* 750 95,543 226,100 322,393 883.27
Nitrate Compounds* - 0 0 0
Nitric Acid* - ? ? ?
Phenol* 8,527 800 9327 25.55
Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds* 0.93 146.3 147.23 0.40
Sulfuric Acid* - 43,000 43,000 117.81
Zinc compounds* - 1,400 1,400 3.84
TOTAL INPUT 856,661 lbs 2347 lbs

10.2 Chemical Wood Pulping
10.2.1 General
Chemical wood pulping involves the extraction of cellulose from wood by dissolving the
lignin that binds the cellulose fibers together. The 4 processes principally used in chemical pulping
are kraft, sulfite, neutral sulfite semichemical (NSSC), and soda. The first 3 display the greatest
potential for causing air pollution. The kraft process alone accounts for over 80 percent of the
chemical pulp produced in the United States. The choice of pulping process is determined by the
desired product, by the wood species available, and by economic considerations.
10.2.2 Kraft Pulping
10.2.2.1 Process Description1 -

The kraft pulping process (see Figure 10.2-1) involves the digesting of wood chips at elevated
temperature and pressure in "white liquor", which is a water solution of sodium sulfide and sodium
hydroxide. The white liquor chemically dissolves the lignin that binds the cellulose fibers together.
There are 2 types of digester systems, batch and continuous. Most kraft pulping is done in
batch digesters, although the more recent installations are of continuous digesters. In a batch digester,
when cooking is complete, the contents of the digester are transferred to an atmospheric tank usually
referred to as a blow tank. The entire contents of the blow tank are sent to pulp washers, where the
spent cooking liquor is separated from the pulp. The pulp then proceeds through various stages of
washing, and possibly bleaching, after which it is pressed and dried into the finished product. The
"blow" of the digester does not apply to continuous digester systems.
The balance of the kraft process is designed to recover the cooking chemicals and heat. Spent
cooking liquor and the pulp wash water are combined to form a weak black liquor which is
concentrated in a multiple-effect evaporator system to about 55 percent solids. The black liquor is
then further concentrated to 65 percent solids in a direct-contact evaporator, by bringing the liquor into
contact with the flue gases from the recovery furnace, or in an indirect-contact concentrator. The
strong black liquor is then fired in a recovery furnace. Combustion of the organics dissolved in the
black liquor provides heat for generating process steam and for converting sodium sulfate to sodium
sulfide. Inorganic chemicals present in the black liquor collect as a molten smelt at the bottom of the
furnace.
The smelt is dissolved in water to form green liquor, which is transferred to a causticizing tank
where quicklime (calcium oxide) is added to convert the solution back to white liquor for return to the
digester system. A lime mud precipitates from the causticizing tank, after which it is calcined in a
lime kiln to regenerate quicklime.
For process heating, for driving equipment, for providing electric power, etc., many mills need
more steam than can be provided by the recovery furnace alone. Thus, conventional industrial boilers
that burn coal, oil, natural gas, or bark and wood are commonly used.
9/90 (Reformatted 1/95) Wood Products Industry 10.2-1

10.2-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/90
Figure 10.2-1. Typical kraft sulfate pulping and recovery process.

10.2.2.2 Emissions And Controls1-7 -
Particulate emissions from the kraft process occur largely from the recovery furnace, the lime
kiln and the smelt dissolving tank. These emissions are mainly sodium salts, with some calcium salts
from the lime kiln. They are caused mostly by carryover of solids and sublimation and condensation
of the inorganic chemicals.
Particulate control is provided on recovery furnaces in a variety of ways. In mills with either
cyclonic scrubber or cascade evaporator as the direct-contact evaporator, further control is necessary,
as these devices are generally only 20 to 50 percent efficient for particulates. Most often in these
cases, an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) is employed after the direct-contact evaporator, for an overall
particulate control efficiency of from 85 to more than 99 percent. Auxiliary scrubbers may be added
at existing mills after a precipitator or a venturi scrubber to supplement older and less efficient primary
particulate control devices.
Particulate control on lime kilns is generally accomplished by scrubbers. Electrostatic

precipitators have been used in a few mills. Smelt dissolving tanks usually are controlled by mesh
pads, but scrubbers can provide further control.
The characteristic odor of the kraft mill is caused by the emission of reduced sulfur
compounds, the most common of which are hydrogen sulfide, methyl mercaptan, dimethyl sulfide, and
dimethyl disulfide, all with extremely low odor thresholds. The major source of hydrogen sulfide is
the direct contact evaporator, in which the sodium sulfide in the black liquor reacts with the carbon
dioxide in the furnace exhaust. Indirect contact evaporators can significantly reduce the emission of
hydrogen sulfide. The lime kiln can also be a potential source of odor, as a similar reaction occurs
with residual sodium sulfide in the lime mud. Lesser amounts of hydrogen sulfide are emitted with
the noncondensables of offgases from the digesters and multiple-effect evaporators.
Methyl mercaptan and dimethyl sulfide are formed in reactions with the wood component,
lignin. Dimethyl disulfide is formed through the oxidation of mercaptan groups derived from the
lignin. These compounds are emitted from many points within a mill, but the main sources are the
digester/blow tank systems and the direct contact evaporator.
Although odor control devices, per se, are not generally found in kraft mills, emitted sulfur
compounds can be reduced by process modifications and improved operating conditions. For example,
black liquor oxidation systems, which oxidize sulfides into less reactive thiosulfates, can considerably
reduce odorous sulfur emissions from the direct contact evaporator, although the vent gases from such
systems become minor odor sources themselves. Also, noncondensable odorous gases vented from the
digester/blow tank system and multiple effect evaporators can be destroyed by thermal oxidation,
usually by passing them through the lime kiln. Efficient operation of the recovery furnace, by
avoiding overloading and by maintaining sufficient oxygen, residence time, and turbulence,
significantly reduces emissions of reduced sulfur compounds from this source as well. The use of
fresh water instead of contaminated condensates in the scrubbers and pulp washers further reduces
odorous emissions.
Several new mills have incorporated recovery systems that eliminate the conventional direct-
contact evaporators. In one system, heated combustion air, rather than fuel gas, provides direct-contact
evaporation. In another, the multiple-effect evaporator system is extended to replace the direct-contact
evaporator altogether. In both systems, sulfur emissions from the recovery furnace/direct-contact
evaporator can be reduced by more than 99 percent.

Sulfur dioxide is emitted mainly from oxidation of reduced sulfur compounds in the recovery
furnace. It is reported that the direct contact evaporator absorbs about 75 percent of these emissions,
and further scrubbing can provide additional control.
Potential sources of carbon monoxide emissions from the kraft process include the recovery
furnace and lime kilns. The major cause of carbon monoxide emissions is furnace operation well
above rated capacity, making it impossible to maintain oxidizing conditions.
Some nitrogen oxides also are emitted from the recovery furnace and lime kilns, although
amounts are relatively small. Indications are that nitrogen oxide emissions are on the order of 0.5 to
1.0 kilograms per air-dried megagram (kg/Mg) (1 to 2 pounds per air-dried ton [lb/ton]) of pulp
produced from the lime kiln and recovery furnace, respectively.5-6
A major source of emissions in a kraft mill is the boiler for generating auxiliary steam and
power. The fuels are coal, oil, natural gas, or bark/wood waste. See Chapter 1, "External Combustion
Sources", for emission factors for boilers.
Table 10.2-1 presents emission factors for a conventional kraft mill. The most widely used
particulate control devices are shown, along with the odor reductions through black liquor oxidation
and incineration of noncondensable offgases. Tables 10.2-2, 10.2-3, 10.2-4, 10.2-5, 10.2-6, and 10.2-7
present cumulative size distribution data and size-specific emission factors for particulate emissions
from sources within a conventional kraft mill. Uncontrolled and controlled size-specific emission
factors7 are presented in Figure 10.2-2, Figure 10.2-3, Figure 10.2-4, Figure 10.2-5, Figure 10.2-6, and
Figure 10.2-7. The particle sizes are expressed in terms of the aerodynamic diameter in micrometers
(µm).
10.2.3 Acid Sulfite Pulping
10.2.3.1 Process Description -
The production of acid sulfite pulp proceeds similarly to kraft pulping, except that different
chemicals are used in the cooking liquor. In place of the caustic solution used to dissolve the lignin in
the wood, sulfurous acid is employed. To buffer the cooking solution, a bisulfite of sodium,
magnesium, calcium, or ammonium is used. A diagram of a typical magnesium-base process is shown
in Figure 10.2-8.
Digestion is carried out under high pressure and high temperature, in either batch mode or
continuous digesters, and in the presence of a sulfurous acid/bisulfite cooking liquid. When cooking is
completed, either the digester is discharged at high pressure into a blow pit, or its contents are pumped
into a dump tank at lower pressure. The spent sulfite liquor (also called red liquor) then drains
through the bottom of the tank and is treated and discarded, incinerated, or sent to a plant for recovery
of heat and chemicals. The pulp is then washed and processed through screens and centrifuges to
remove knots, bundles of fibers, and other material. It subsequently may be bleached, pressed, and
dried in papermaking operations.
Because of the variety of cooking liquor bases used, numerous schemes have evolved for heat
and/or chemical recovery. In calcium base systems, found mostly in older mills, chemical recovery is
not practical, and the spent liquor is usually discharged or incinerated. In ammonium base operations,
heat can be recovered by combusting the spent liquor, but the ammonium base is thereby consumed.
In sodium or magnesium base operations, the heat, sulfur, and base all may be feasibly recovered.
10.2-4 EMISSION FACTORS (Reformatted 1/95) 9/90

9/90 (Reformatted 1/95)
Table 10.2-1 (Metric And English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR KRAFT PULPINGa
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: A
Sulfur Dioxide Carbon Monoxide Hydrogen Sulfide RSH, RSR, RSSR

Type Particulate (SO2) (CO) (Sm) (Sm)
Of
Source Control kg/Mg lb/ton kg/Mg lb/ton kg/Mg lb/ton kg/Mg lb/ton kg/Mg lb/ton
Digester relief and blow

tank Untreatedb ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.02 0.03 0.6 1.2
b c
Brown stock washer Untreated ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.01 0.02 0.2 0.4c
Multiple effect evaporator Untreatedb ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.55 1.1 0.05 0.1
Wood Products Industry
Recovery boiler and direct

evaporator
Untreatedd 90 180 3.5 7 5.5 11 6e 12e 1.5e 3e
Venturi
scrubberf 24 48 3.5 7 5.5 11 6e 12e 1.5e 3e
ESP 1 2 3.5 7 5.5 11 6e 12e 1.5e 3e
Auxiliary 6e 12e 1.5e 3e
g g
scrubber 1.5 - 7.5 3 - 15
Noncontact recovery boiler
without direct contact
evaporator Untreated 115 230 ND ND 5.5 11 0.05h 0.1h ND ND
ESP 1 2 ND ND 5.5 11 0.05h 0.1h ND ND
Smelt dissolving tank Untreated 3.5 7 0.1 0.2 ND ND 0.1j 0.2j 0.15j 0.3j
Mesh pad 0.5 1 0.1 0.2 ND ND 0.1j 0.2j 0.15j 0.3j
Scrubber 0.1 0.2 ND ND ND ND 0.1j 0.2j 0.15j 0.3j
Lime kiln Untreated 28 56 0.15 0.3 0.05 0.1 0.25m 0.5m 0.1m 0.2m
Scrubber
or ESP 0.25 0.5 ND ND 0.05 0.1 0.25m 0.5m 0.1m 0.2m
Turpentine condenser Untreated ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.005 0.01 0.25 0.5
10.2-5
n
Miscellaneous Untreated ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.25 0.5
10.2-6
Table 10.2-1 (cont.).

a References 8-10. Factors expressed in unit weight of air-dried unbleached pulp (ADP). RSH = Methyl mercaptan. RSR = Dimethyl
sulfide. RSSR = Dimethyl disulfide. ESP = Electrostatic precipitator. ND = No data.
b If noncondensable gases from these sources are vented to lime kiln, recovery furnace, or equivalent, the reduced sulfur compounds are
destroyed.
c Apply with system using condensate as washing medium. When using fresh water, emissions are 0.05 kg/Mg (0.1 lb/ton).
d Apply when cyclonic scrubber or cascade evaporator is used for direct contact evaporation, with no further controls.
e Usually reduced by 50% with black liquor oxidation and can be cut 95 - 99% when oxidation is complete and recovery furnace is
operated optimally.
f Apply when venturi scrubber is used for direct contact evaporation, with no further controls.
g Use 7.5 kg/Mg (15 lb/ton) when auxiliary scrubber follows venturi scrubber, and 1.5 kg/Mg (3 lb/ton) when it follows ESP.
h Apply when recovery furnace is operated optimally to control total reduced sulfur (TRS) compounds.
j Usually reduced to 0.01 g/kg (0.02 lb/ton) ADP when water low in sulfides is used in smelt dissolving tank and associated scrubber.
EMISSION FACTORS
m Usually reduced to 0.015 g/kg (0.03 lb/ton) ADP with efficient mud washing, optimal kiln operation and added caustic in scrubbing
water. With only efficient mud washing and optimal process control, TRS compounds reduced to 0.04 g/kg (0.08 lb/ton) ADP.
n Includes knotter vents, brownstock seal tanks, etc. When black liquor oxidation is included, emissions are 0.3 kg/Mg (0.6 lb/ton).
(Reformatted 1/95)
9/90
Table 10.2-2 (Metric Units). CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND
SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS FOR A RECOVERY BOILER WITH A
DIRECT-CONTACT EVAPORATOR AND AN ESPa
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Cumulative Mass % _< Cumulative Emission Factor

Stated Size (kg/Mg of Air-Dried Pulp)
Particulate Size
(µm) Uncontrolled Controlled Uncontrolled Controlled
15 95.0 ND 86 ND
10 93.5 ND 84 ND
6 92.2 68.2 83 0.7
2.5 83.5 53.8 75 0.5
1.25 56.5 40.5 51 0.4
1.00 45.3 34.2 41 0.3
0.625 26.5 22.2 24 0.2
Total 100 100 90 1.0
aReference 7. ND = no data.
Figure 10.2-2. Cumulative particle size distribution and size-specific emission

factors for recovery boiler with direct-contact evaporator and ESP.

SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS FOR A RECOVERY BOILER WITHOUT A
DIRECT-CONTACT EVAPORATOR BUT WITH AN ESPa

Particulate Size
15 ND 78.8 ND 0.8
10 ND 74.8 ND 0.7
6 ND 71.9 ND 0.7
2.5 78.0 67.3 90 0.6
1.25 40.0 51.3 46 0.5
1.00 30.0 42.4 35 0.5
0.625 17.0 29.6 20 0.3
Total 100 100 115 1.0
aReference 7. ND = no data.
Figure 10.2-3. Cumulative particle size distribution and size-specific emission factors for
recovery boiler without direct-contact evaporator but with ESP.

SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS FOR A LIME KILN WITH A VENTURI SCRUBBERa

Particulate Size
15 27.7 98.9 7.8 0.24
10 16.8 98.3 4.7 0.24
6 13.4 98.2 3.8 0.24
2.5 10.5 96.0 2.9 0.24
1.25 8.2 85.0 2.3 0.21
1.00 7.1 78.9 2.0 0.20
0.625 3.9 54.3 1.1 0.14
Total 100 100 28.0 0.25
a Reference 7.
lime kiln with venturi scrubber.

SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS FOR A LIME KILN WITH AN ESPa
Cumulative Mass % <

_ Cumulative Emission Factor
Particulate Size
15 27.7 91.2 7.8 0.23
10 16.8 88.5 4.7 0.22
6 13.4 86.5 3.8 0.22
2.5 10.5 83.0 2.9 0.21
1.25 8.2 70.2 2.3 0.18
1.00 7.1 62.9 2.0 0.16
0.625 3.9 46.9 1.1 0.12
Total 100 100 28.0 0.25
a Reference 7.
Figure 10.2-5. Cumulative particle size distribution and size-specific emission factors for lime
kiln with ESP.

SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS FOR A SMELT DISSOLVING TANK WITH A
PACKED TOWERa
Cumulative Mass % <

Particulate Size
15 90.0 95.3 3.2 0.48
10 88.5 95.3 3.1 0.48
6 87.0 94.3 3.0 0.47
2.5 73.0 85.2 2.6 0.43
1.25 47.5 63.8 1.7 0.32
1.00 40.0 54.2 1.4 0.27
0.625 25.5 34.2 0.9 0.17
Total 100 100 3.5 0.50
a Reference 7.
Figure 10.2-6. Cumulative particle size distribution and size-specific emission factors for smelt
dissolving tank with packed tower.

SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS FOR A SMELT DISSOLVING TANK WITH A
VENTURI SCRUBBERa
Cumulative Mass % <

Particulate Size
15 90.0 89.9 3.2 0.09
10 88.5 89.5 3.1 0.09
6 87.0 88.4 3.0 0.09
2.5 73.0 81.3 2.6 0.08
1.25 47.5 63.5 1.7 0.06
1.00 40.0 54.7 1.4 0.06
0.625 25.5 38.7 0.9 0.04
Total 100 100 3.5 0.09
a Reference 7.
smelt dissolving tank with venturi scrubber.

10.2-13
Figure 10.2-8. Simplified process flow diagram of magnesium-base process employing chemical and heat recovery.
If recovery is practiced, the spent (weak) red liquor (which contains more than half of the raw
materials as dissolved organic solids) is concentrated in a multiple-effect evaporator and a direct-
contact evaporator to 55 to 60 percent solids. This strong liquor is sprayed into a furnace and burned,
producing steam to operate the digesters, evaporators, etc. and to meet other power requirements.
When magnesium base liquor is burned, a flue gas is produced from which magnesium oxide
is recovered in a multiple cyclone as fine white power. The magnesium oxide is then water slaked
and is used as circulating liquor in a series of venturi scrubbers, which are designed to absorb sulfur
dioxide from the flue gas and to form a bisulfite solution for use in the cook cycle. When sodium
base liquor is burned, the inorganic compounds are recovered as a molten smelt containing sodium
sulfide and sodium carbonate. This smelt may be processed further and used to absorb sulfur dioxide
from the flue gas and sulfur burner. In some sodium base mills, however, the smelt may be sold to a
nearby kraft mill as raw material for producing green liquor.
If liquor recovery is not practiced, an acid plant is necessary of sufficient capacity to fulfill the
mill’s total sulfite requirement. Normally, sulfur is burned in a rotary or spray burner. The gas
produced is then cooled by heat exchangers and a water spray and is then absorbed in a variety of
different scrubbers containing either limestone or a solution of the base chemical. Where recovery is
practiced, fortification is accomplished similarly, although a much smaller amount of sulfur dioxide
must be produced to make up for that lost in the process.
10.2.3.2 Emissions And Controls11 -
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is generally considered the major pollutant of concern from sulfite pulp
mills. The characteristic "kraft" odor is not emitted because volatile reduced sulfur compounds are not
products of the lignin/bisulfite reaction.
A major SO2 source is the digester and blow pit (dump tank) system. Sulfur dioxide is
present in the intermittent digester relief gases, as well as in the gases given off at the end of the cook
when the digester contents are discharged into the blow pit. The quantity of sulfur dioxide evolved
and emitted to the atmosphere in these gas streams depends on the pH of the cooking liquor, the
pressure at which the digester contents are discharged, and the effectiveness of the absorption systems
employed for SO2 recovery. Scrubbers can be installed that reduce SO2 from this source by as much
as 99 percent.
Another source of sulfur dioxide emissions is the recovery system. Since magnesium, sodium,
and ammonium base recovery systems all use absorption systems to recover SO2 generated in recovery
furnaces, acid fortification towers, multiple effect evaporators, etc., the magnitude of SO2 emissions
depends on the desired efficiency of these systems. Generally, such absorption systems recover better
than 95 percent of the sulfur so it can be reused.
The various pulp washing, screening, and cleaning operations are also potential sources of
SO2. These operations are numerous and may account for a significant fraction of a mill’s SO2
emissions if not controlled.
The only significant particulate source in the pulping and recovery process is the absorption
system handling the recovery furnace exhaust. Ammonium base systems generate less particulate than
do magnesium or sodium base systems. The combustion productions are mostly nitrogen, water vapor,
and sulfur dioxide.

Auxiliary power boilers also produce emissions in the sulfite pulp mill, and emission factors
for these boilers are presented in Chapter 1, "External Combustion Sources". Table 10.2-8 contains
emission factors for the various sulfite pulping operations.
10.2.4 Neutral Sulfite Semichemical (NSSC) Pulping
10.2.4.1 Process Description9,12-14 -
In this method, wood chips are cooked in a neutral solution of sodium sulfite and sodium
carbonate. Sulfite ions react with the lignin in wood, and the sodium bicarbonate acts as a buffer to
maintain a neutral solution. The major difference between all semichemical techniques and those of
kraft and acid sulfite processes is that only a portion of the lignin is removed during the cook, after
which the pulp is further reduced by mechanical disintegration. This method achieves yields as high
as 60 to 80 percent, as opposed to 50 to 55 percent for other chemical processes.
The NSSC process varies from mill to mill. Some mills dispose of their spent liquor, some
mills recover the cooking chemicals, and some, when operated in conjunction with kraft mills, mix
their spent liquor with the kraft liquor as a source of makeup chemicals. When recovery is practiced,
the involved steps parallel those of the sulfite process.
10.2.4.2 Emissions And Controls9,12-14 -
Particulate emissions are a potential problem only when recovery systems are involved. Mills
that do practice recovery but are not operated in conjunction with kraft operations often utilize
fluidized bed reactors to burn their spent liquor. Because the flue gas contains sodium sulfate and
sodium carbonate dust, efficient particulate collection may be included for chemical recovery.
A potential gaseous pollutant is sulfur dioxide. Absorbing towers, digester/blower tank

systems, and recovery furnaces are the main sources of SO2, with amounts emitted dependent upon the
capability of the scrubbing devices installed for control and recovery.
Hydrogen sulfide can also be emitted from NSSC mills which use kraft type recovery
furnaces. The main potential source is the absorbing tower, where a significant quantity of hydrogen
sulfite is liberated as the cooking liquor is made. Other possible sources, depending on the operating
conditions, include the recovery furnace, and in mills where some green liquor is used in the cooking
process, the digester/blow tank system. Where green liquor is used, it is also possible that significant
quantities of mercaptans will be produced. Hydrogen sulfide emissions can be eliminated if burned to
sulfur dioxide before the absorbing system.
Because the NSSC process differs greatly from mill to mill, and because of the scarcity of
adequate data, no emission factors are presented for this process.

Table 10.2-8. (Metric And English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR SULFITE PULPING
Emission Factorb
EMISSION
Particulate Sulfur Dioxide FACTOR
Source Base Control kg/ADUMg lb/ADUT kg/ADUMg lb/ADUT RATING
Digester/blow pit or dump All None Neg Neg 5 to 35 10 to 70 C
tankc
MgO Process changed Neg Neg 1 to 3 2 to 6 C
MgO Scrubber Neg Neg 0.5 1 B
MgO Process change and scrubber Neg Neg 0.1 0.2 B
MgO All exhaust vented through recovery

system Neg Neg 0 0 A
NH3 Process change Neg Neg 12.5 25 D
NH3 Process change and scrubber Neg Neg 0.2 0.4 B
Na Process change and scrubber Neg Neg 1 2 C

Ca Unknown Neg Neg 33.5 67 C
Recovery systeme MgO Multicyclone and venturi scrubbers 1 2 4.5 9 A
NH3 Ammonia absorption and mist 0.35 0.7 3.5 7 B
eliminator
Na Sodium carbonate scrubber 2 4 1 2 C
Acid plantf NH3 Scrubber Neg Neg 0.2 0.3 C
Na Unknowng Neg Neg 0.1 0.2 D
Ca Jensen scrubber Neg Neg 4 8 C
Otherh All None Neg Neg 6 12 D
10.2-16
a Reference 11. All factors represent long term average emissions. ADUMg = Air-dried unbleached megagram. ADUT = Air-dried
unbleached ton. Neg = negligible.
b Expressed as kg (lb) of pollutant/air dried unbleached Mg (ton) of pulp.
Table 10.2-8 (cont.).

c Factors represent emissions after cook is completed and when digester contents are discharged into blow pit or dump tank. Some relief
gases are vented from digester during cook cycle, but these are usually transferred to pressure accumulators and SO2 herein reabsorbed for
use in cooking liquor. In some mills, actual emissions will be intermittent and for short periods.
d May include such measures as raising cooking liquor pH (thereby lowering free SO2), relieving digester pressure before contents discharge,
and pumping out digester contents instead of blowing out.
e Recovery system at most mills is closed and includes recovery furnace, direct contact evaporator, multiple effect evaporator, acid
fortification tower, and SO2 absorption scrubbers. Generally only one emission point for entire system. Factors include high SO2
emissions during periodic purging of recovery systems.
f Necessary in mills with insufficient or nonexistent recovery systems.
g Control is practiced, but type of system is unknown.
h Includes miscellaneous pulping operations such as knotters, washers, screens, etc.
10.2-17
References For Section 10.2
1. Review Of New Source Performance Standards For Kraft Pulp Mills, EPA-450/3-83-017,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1983.
2. Standards Support And Environmental Impact Statement, Volume I: Proposed Standards Of

Performance For Kraft Pulp Mills, EPA-450/2-76-014a, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1976.
3. Kraft Pulping - Control Of TRS Emissions From Existing Mills, EPA-450/78-003b,

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March 1979.
4. Environmental Pollution Control, Pulp And Paper Industry, Part I: Air, EPA-625/7-76-001, U.
S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, October 1976.
5. A Study Of Nitrogen Oxides Emissions From Lime Kilns, Technical Bulletin Number 107,
National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement, New York, NY,
April 1980.
6. A Study Of Nitrogen Oxides Emissions From Large Kraft Recovery Furnaces, Technical
Bulletin Number 111, National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream
Improvement, New York, NY, January 1981.
7. Source Category Report For The Kraft Pulp Industry, EPA Contract Number 68-02-3156,
Acurex Corporation, Mountain View, CA, January 1983.
8. Source test data, Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1972.
9. Atmospheric Emissions From The Pulp And Paper Manufacturing Industry,

EPA-450/1-73-002, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
September 1973.
10. Carbon Monoxide Emissions From Selected Combustion Sources Based On Short-Term
Monitoring Records, Technical Bulletin Number 416, National Council of the Paper Industry
for Air and Stream Improvement, New York, NY, January 1984.
11. Background Document: Acid Sulfite Pulping, EPA-450/3-77-005, U. S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1977.
12. E. R. Hendrickson, et al., Control Of Atmospheric Emissions In The Wood Pulping Industry,
Volume I, HEW Contract Number CPA-22-69-18, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, March 15, 1970.
13. M. Benjamin, et al., "A General Description of Commercial Wood Pulping And Bleaching
Processes", Journal Of The Air Pollution Control Association, 19(3):155-161, March 1969.
14. S. F. Caleano and B. M. Dillard, "Process Modifications For Air Pollution Control In Neutral
Sulfite Semi-chemical Mills", Journal Of The Air Pollution Control Association, 22(3):195-199,
March 1972.

3 Simple Steps to Estuary Restoration
1 2 3
Define Target & Repair Monitor
1. Conduct a detailed baseline study 1. Select an annual target site or sites for 1. Design annual monitoring program
2. Determine what has changed remediation 2. Annually monitor all target sites
over time 2. Seek funding, partners, and approvals 3. Target negative changes for detailed
3. Determine what the problem sites 3. Begin physical remediation with appropriate follow-up
exist authorities 4. Perform follow-up sampling and
4. Prioritize problem sites. reporting on remediated sites.
Canada - New Brunswick Water/Economy Agreement
Monitoring Surface
Water Quality
A Guide for Citizens,

Students, and Communities
in Atlantic Canada
Environment Environnement
Canada Canada
1
Monitoring Surface Water Quality:
A Guide for Citizens, Students and Communities in Atlantic Canada
ISBN 0-662021530-3
DSS Cat. No. EN37-109-1994E
2
Editors:
Hugh J. O'Neill Environment Canada

Environmental Conservation Branch
Ecosystem Science Division
Moncton, N.B.
Matthew McKim New Brunswick Community College

Saint John, N.B.
Dr. John Allen Huntsman Marine Science Centre

St. Andrews, N.B.
Jerry Choate New Brunswick Department of the

Environment
Fredericton, N.B.
Contributors:
Dr. Thomas A. Clair Environment Canada

Daniel Léger Environmental Conservation Branch
Harold Bailey Ecosystem Science Division
Joseph Pomeroy Moncton, N. B.
Stephen Hawboldt Clean Annapolis River Project (CARP)
Rob Rainer St. Croix Estuary Project

Jim Sharkey
Harry Collins Miramichi River Environmental

Assessment Committee
Esperanza Stancioff University of Maine Cooperative

Extension
Carl Plourde Société d'aménagement de la

rivière Madawaska et du lac
Temiscouata Inc.
A product of the Canada-New Brunswick Water/Economy Arrangement
1994
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................... vi
PREFACE ......................................................................................................................................................... viii
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1
2.0 WATER AND HOW HUMANS INTERACT WITH IT .................................................................... 3

The Hydrologic Cycle ............................................................................................................... 3
Point and Non-Point Sources of Pollution ................................................................................. 5
3.0 THE CHEMISTRY OF SURFACE WATERS ................................................................................... 9

What do we find in our waters .................................................................................................. 9
Water Quality Parameters ........................................................................................................ 13
Colour……. ....................................................................................................................
Dissolved Oxygen ...................................................................................................... 15
pH ..................................................................................................................... 16
Specific Conductance ................................................................................................. 18
Temperature............................................................................................................... 19
Total Dissolved Solids................................................................................................ 23
Turbidity…………………………………………………………………………………………… 2
Water Clarity ...................................................................................................................................................... 26
Salinity ............................................................................................................................................................... 27
Other Parameters..................................................................................................................... 28
Chlorophyll-a...................................................................................................................................................... 28
Faecal Coliform Bacteria..................................................................................................................................... 28
4. ORGANIZING A COMMUNITY-BASED WATER QUALITY MONITORING

PROGRAM........................................................................................................................................... 31
5. WATER SAMPLING.......................................................................................................................... 43
General Water Sampling Considerations ................................................................................. 43
Observation-Based Samples ....................................................................................... 44
Preparation for Field Trips....................................................................................................... 45
Collecting Surface Water Samples ........................................................................................... 47
Field Quality Assurance........................................................................................................... 48
General Measures ...................................................................................................... 48
Prevention of Sample Contamination ......................................................................... 49
Field Quality Control ................................................................................................. 51
Bottle Blanks ............................................................................................................. 51
Filter Blanks .............................................................................................................. 51
Spiked Samples.......................................................................................................... 52
Field Measured Parameters...................................................................................................... 52
4
Dissolved Oxygen Measurement ................................................................................ 52

Temperature Measurement......................................................................................... 53
Conductivity Measurement......................................................................................... 54
pH Measurement........................................................................................................ 54
Turbidity Measurement .............................................................................................. 54
Secchi Depth: Water Clarity Measurement................................................................ 55
Salinity Measurement ................................................................................................ 55
Recording of Field Data........................................................................................................... 56
Station Location Description ...................................................................................... 56
Field Sheets ............................................................................................................... 58
Sampling for Microbiological Analysis .................................................................................... 58
Field Safety.............................................................................................................................. 59
Safety Precautions when Sampling from Bridges........................................................ 60
Safety Precautions while Wading or Shoreline Sampling............................................ 60
Winter Sampling........................................................................................................ 61
Safety Precautions when Handling Chemicals ..................................................................................................... 61
6. BIOLOGICAL MONITORING ......................................................................................................... 63

Freshwater Stream Surveys...................................................................................................... 63
Plant Types.............................................................................................................................. 65
Zonation Patterns - Major Zones:............................................................................................. 66
Cautionary Comments about Applying Zonation Patterns ........................................................ 67
Eutrophication......................................................................................................................... 68
Data Sheets and Data Entries................................................................................................... 68
7.0 CITED LITERATURE ....................................................................................................................... 71
8.0 REFERENCE MATERIAL ................................................................................................................ 73
9.0 GENERAL GLOSSARY OF COMMONLY USED ENVIRONMENTAL TERMS

........................................................................................................................................................................... 75
APPENDIX I
CASE STUDIES................................................................................................................................................. 80
Clean Annapolis River Project (CARP) ................................................................................................. 80
Société d'aménagement de la rivière Madawaska et du lac Temiscouata Inc................................................ 82
Miramichi River Environmental Assessment Committee....................................................................... 83
St. Croix Estuary Project Inc. ................................................................................................................ 84
ACAP Saint John Inc. ........................................................................................................................... 86
APPENDIX II
POTENTIAL SOURCES OF FUNDING ................................................. 89
APPENDIX III
VENDORS OF WATER QUALITY MONITORING EQUIPMENT ........................... 90
APPENDIX IV ................................................................................................................................................... 91
EXAMPLES OF STATION LOCATION SHEETS
AND FIELD OBSERVATION SHEETS ................................................... 91

5
APPENDIX V
EXAMPLES OF GRAPHICAL OUTPUTS USED TO INTERPRET AND PRESENT WATER QUALITY

INFORMATION 98
APPENDIX VI ...................................................................................................................................................101
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................101
6
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This document is based in part upon the Environment Canada reports "Sampling for Water Quality"
(1983) and the "Water Quality Sourcebook: A Guide to Water Quality Parameters" (1979). Environment Canada,
Atlantic Region, has offered to its environmental technicians a "Basic Course in Water Quality Sampling" from
which sections were extracted and modified for this guidance document.
Esperanza Stancioff's "Clean Water: A Guide to Water Quality Monitoring" is one of the more recent and
comprehensive manuals for volunteer monitoring of coastal waters. Stancioff's steps for organizing a monitoring
program provided an organizational framework, and were modified to reflect a Canadian approach in our section
entitled "Organizing a Community Based Monitoring Program".
The freshwater biological content of this document comes from Dr. Mike Dickman's "Waterways
Walkabouts". Dr. Dickman effectively illustrates how aquatic plants can be used as indicators of water quality.
The Canada-New Brunswick Water Economy Arrangement provided funding support for operating the
New Brunswick pilot projects described in the Case Studies, and for printing this guidance document.
Mrs. Louise Boulter is thanked for typing numerous drafts and the final document.
The Editors
7
PREFACE
The scientific study of water quality is a fairly recent phenomenon which arose from human health
concerns. One of the first major works was in the 1840s where the drinking waters of large English cities were
studied to try to understand the causes of the typhoid and cholera epidemics which raged periodically. This work
provided the initial impetus for ensuring safer drinking waters and sewage disposal.
By the early 1910s, investigators began examining the relationships between industrial effluents and
human health and fisheries resources. It wasn't until the 1950s that legislators in North America and Europe
began to establish laws protecting aquatic habitats.
The history of water quality monitoring in Canada is relatively short. Apart from a small number of
university and fisheries studies, health concerns were the driving force behind most water quality studies in the
early to mid part of the 20th century. In the 1950s, large scale data collection began by the Federal Department of
Energy, Mines and Resources, the Department of Fisheries, and their provincial counterparts. Only since the mid-
1960's has full documentation of results in data banks and reports become the practice.
The work of Environment Canada and of environmental agencies in provincial governments is to provide
environmental monitoring (including water quality) data amenable to scientific interpretation. Depending on the
situation, the data should allow the determination of the severity of pollution problems, to assess trends in water
quality in impacted areas, to provide background information on poorly studied basins, to study seasonal changes
to be expected in undisturbed situations or in gathering data for areas where developments are expected to bring
further changes. These data can be compared to water quality objectives, so that an estimation of overall quality
can be made in relation to the various uses planned or being made of basin waters.
In recent years, interest in community-based water quality monitoring using volunteers has increased.
Regional success stories on the Miramichi River (Miramichi Swim Watch) and Annapolis River (Clean Annapolis
River Project) suggest great potential in community-based programs. Through the Atlantic Coastal Action
Program (ACAP), multi-stakeholder groups are bringing citizens, industry and government together to work
towards a shared goal, a sustainable economy within healthy local environments. ACAP groups are building a
sense of community ownership in their local watersheds, rivers, estuaries and coastal areas. At almost every ACAP
site there has been enthusiasm for some form of community-based environmental monitoring, in general, and
water quality monitoring in particular.
8
Unfortunately, little information exists on community-based water quality monitoring programs in

Canada. Success stories in the United States such as the Massachusetts Water Watch Partnership have provided
inspiration for Canadian efforts. The United States Environmental Protection Agency as well as numerous
community groups have produced documentation on community-based water quality monitoring.
This document is not an all-encompassing manual, but rather a guide and compilation of relevant
Canadian and American information on community-based water quality monitoring. There can be no set
prescription for a program as each community will be different with respect to land-use, stream and coastal
characteristics, industry, population and issues. It is intended that sufficient information be presented so that a
volunteer group can make an organized and well-prepared start on a monitoring project. To do this, appendices
have been included that describe five regional case studies, a list of vendors of monitoring equipment, and a list of
funding agencies. A generic glossary and list of reference material have been compiled. While the focus of this
document is on water quality monitoring, the principles outlined are general enough so that groups interested in
habitat inventory, wildlife monitoring, land-use inventories and other environmental monitoring projects will find
sections relevant.
9
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Canadians generally take for granted what appears to be an almost unlimited amount of clean water. In
reality, most of us live close to our southern border while most of our fresh water flows north. Atlantic Canadians
are dependent upon the fresh water in our wells, rivers, and lakes. As a coastal region, we have numerous
estuaries and near shore areas of importance.
Water plays an intimate role in our living environment. Water of suitable quality and quantity is essential
to all life forms. It shapes and beautifies the landscape, controls our climate, determines the nature of the
surrounding environment and is a vital requirement in agriculture, industry, power generation, recreation and
tourism. The basic problem we face is that human's uses of water can interfere with others. While water of good
quality is needed for drinking, swimming, fishing, farming, and manufacturing, water can also be used for the
disposal of industrial waste, sewage, and waste heat. Its quality can deteriorate and limit its future use.
Increasing population and industrial activity have focussed public attention on water quality and the need
to monitor and protect the resource. This has prompted changes in legislation to control water pollution, and
environmental agencies have been created to manage the resource. Water quality monitoring has traditionally been
carried out by provincial and federal government agencies, municipalities, industry, and researchers at academic
institutions. In recent years, citizens and environmental interest groups have become more active in water quality
monitoring. In the United States, for example, numerous volunteer groups routinely carry out water quality
monitoring.
Water quality monitoring provides an avenue for meaningful participation by the public in environmental
stewardship. Such approaches serve to educate individuals as to the simplicities, complexities, and costs of
monitoring; provide information on environmental resources that can be of value to a large group of data users;
and can influence decision making. Educational functions include removing barriers presented by scientific
terminology, increasing knowledge of key environmental issues, providing experience with simple but relevant
monitoring techniques, and developing an understanding of the expense and value associated with monitoring.
Using this information, a monitoring group can inform the public of the environmental health of their local
ecosystem, monitor changes in environmental quality due to pollution and pollution control measures, and provide
information to both the regulators and the regulated. Identifying locations that most urgently require remediation,
identifying the need for in-depth studies or research to fill important information gaps, and identifying the priority
of contaminants and pollution sources will ensure that the data collected will influence decision making.
10
It is hoped that this manual will spark the participant's interest in water quality work and encourage
greater community participation in watershed management and environmental stewardship.
11
2.0 WATER AND HOW HUMANS INTERACT WITH IT
Before discussing water quality monitoring, it is important to step back and quickly review the
hydrological cycle (water cycle) and how we as humans impact upon water quality. A community-based group
must consider all potential sources of contaminants within a watershed, or study area. What happens upstream in
a watershed has direct influence on a study area.
The Hydrologic Cycle
The hydrologic cycle is a world-wide natural circulation system in which water evaporates from the earth's
surface (from oceans, from other bodies of water and from land areas), condenses to form clouds and is returned to
the earth as precipitation.
Evaporation is a continuous process, particularly from the ocean surface. A large part of the evaporated
moisture condenses and is returned directly to the ocean as precipitation. A considerable portion, however, is
carried over land areas by wind where it is precipitated as rain, sleet or snow. A relatively small amount may
condense as dew or frost. Nearly all of this dew or frost evaporates directly or is absorbed by plants and returned to
the atmosphere by transpiration.
The moisture which falls over the land as precipitation may follow any number of courses. Some re-
evaporates before reaching the ground. Some is intercepted by vegetation, buildings or pavement and evaporates.
That which reaches the ground infiltrates or runs off into stream channels, to be carried to the ocean. In its
passage back to the ocean, some water evaporates from the surface of streams and lakes and some seeps into the
ground.
Of the water which enters the ground, either by direct infiltration or through the banks or beds of streams,
part is stored near the surface where it evaporates or is used by vegetation and returned to the atmosphere by
transpiration. Another portion joins the ground water and may find its way to streams, appear at the surface in
springs, or travel through the ground to the ocean. On the way to the ocean, there may be an interchange, in either
direction, between streams and ground water.
Although the basic cycle is simple in concept--ocean to cloud, to land, to river, to ocean--it is obvious that,
with the many alternative routes water may follow in every phase of the cycle, the analysis of the hydrologic cycle
is an extremely complex task.
12
Throughout the cycle, the composition of water changes. Atmospheric water can be thought of being
fairly pure under natural circumstances, but on contact with soils and bedrock, becomes a dilute solution of
sodium, potassium, calcium, bicarbonate, sulphate and chloride. Moreover, a number of minor inorganic and
organic compounds can also appear. Other factors influencing the composition of water, include sea-spray, and
human activity.
Point and Non-Point Sources of Pollution
One of the main reasons for water quality monitoring, is to assess human influence on aquatic ecosystems.
The sources of ecosystem disturbance, however, are not necessarily as simple as effluent pipes.
Human influence on water quality is often thought of in simple terms, such as discharging wastes from
sewage collection systems or industrial outfalls. Without doubt, these "point sources" can have major impacts on
receiving waters. Generally, related problems are correctable once the sources are identified and remedial
technology is applied.
More difficult to deal with are problems emanating from diffuse, "non-point" sources. Examples of non-
point sources include acid precipitation being generated often thousands of kilometres away, siltation of streams
caused by logging, woods roads and agriculture, the input of nutrients from agricultural fertilization of fields, and
urban runoff.
The changes in water quality which are caused by these activities are often cumulative in effect and difficult to
remedy because of the widely scattered sources.
Special Characteristics of Atlantic Canada
Water quality conditions are somewhat different in Atlantic Canada than in other parts of Canada for a
number of reasons. Firstly, most of the region, due to its coastal setting, receives higher rain and snowfall amounts
than much of Canada. Secondly, because of past glacial activity in large portions of our region, soils and glacial
tills which act as reservoirs for ground water are much thinner than in Central Canada. These two factors combine
to make our lakes and rivers more hydrologically dynamic than in most parts of the country.
13
Coupled with the flow characteristics of our rivers, is an abundance of bogs and other wetlands which can
contribute high levels of naturally produced dissolved organic carbon. In some cases, this gives the waters a
brownish colour and potentially complicates the interpretation of water quality information.
Another characteristic of our region is the generally low number of highly industrialized areas. Most
pollution sources in our region are relatively small-scale or diffuse compared to situations elsewhere in North
America, and so often produce more subtle effects which require careful collection and analysis of data. However,
in the heavily industrialized areas of Saint John, Halifax and Sydney, there are large industries whose effluent can
have a significant influence on environmental quality. Little River in Saint John, N.B. for example, receives
discharges from a paper plant, oil refinery, municipal sewers, as well as urban runoff. Various contaminants could
be present in each effluent type but any environmental effect in the river could be difficult to attribute to a specific
source.
All the above factors support the need for careful evaluation of all aspects of sample collection, analysis
and interpretation regardless of where samples are collected to ensure meaningful results.
14
3.0 THE CHEMISTRY OF SURFACE WATERS
What do we find in our waters
Precipitation itself is not pure water. In much of Atlantic Canada, sodium chloride (salt) is an important
component of precipitation due to the influence of sea-spray on local atmospheric conditions. Other ions carried by
sea-spray are calcium, magnesium, potassium and sulphate. Other potential influences on precipitation chemistry
are dust from soils, a phenomenon more important in western Canada, and the inputs of acid forming substances,
which result in acid rain. Precipitation that reaches the earth, is subject to ion exchange reactions with soils,
bedrock and lake sediments, which considerably alter its original composition. Table 1 illustrates differences in
major ions between precipitation and surface waters at a site in central Nova Scotia. Some parameters increased in
concentration due to geologic input and contributions from soils while others decreased due to uptake by plants and
micro-organisms.
Table 1
Average ion concentrations of rain and streamwater in central Nova

Scotia. Data are in mg/L. (Freedman and Clair 1987)
Constituents Precipitation Roger's Brook
pH 4.6 5.1
Calcium 0.09 0.93
Magnesium 0.07 0.61
Sodium 0.600 3.16
Potassium 0.04 0.27
Iron - 0.4
Aluminum - 0.11
Manganese - 0.04
Ammonium 0.06 -
Sulphate 1.32 3.10
Chloride 1.05 4.8
Nitrate 0.6 0.014
Alkalinity - 0.90
Dissolved Organic Carbon - 7.3
- indicates not detected
Seasonal changes influence the concentration of a number of parameters in water. Snowmelt periods, for
example, will increase parameters such as sulphate and nitrate which are deposited with the snow, and decrease
15
dissolved organic carbon (DOC) which is generated by soils especially in summer. Dry summer periods will
increase the importance of ground water to streams and lakes and thus ions generated there, such as calcium and
magnesium, will be at higher concentrations.
Mineral ions, metals and dissolved organic matter are not the only substances found in water. Gases are
also present. For example, oxygen is produced through photosynthesis by aquatic primary producers, and is also
exchanged with the atmosphere. It is used in most respiration activities of aquatic biota, with the exception of
anaerobic degradation in sediments and pollution situations. A major by-product of aerobic respiration is carbon
dioxide (CO2) which is then used by plants. In natural waters, respiration aside, CO2 is usually formed by the
breakdown of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) and magnesium carbonate (MgCO3). Both oxygen and CO2 are slightly
soluble in water and can be exchanged with the atmosphere, though CO2 solubility is much greater. The amount
of each gas in water is dependent on biological activity, water temperature, and on mixing and turbulance.
Dissolved oxygen concentrations at sea level in pure water has been calculated for a range of temperatures (Table
2). Deviations from these values can indicate high biological uptake if measured values are lower than those
estimated in the table, or high photosynthesis activity or vigorous turbulence in the water body, should measured
values be higher. Decomposition of industrial wastes that contain organic matter can consume oxygen resulting in
less being available for aquatic animals.
Other substances, such as waste discharges from towns and industries, as well as pesticides from a number
of sources can also be found in waters of the region.
Pesticides, for example, are used in silviculture operations, agricultural areas, and in urban areas for home and
garden/turf management. Where these chemicals are found, however, depends greatly upon the chemical
properties of the substance. Some may remain in the water while other contaminants absorb to sediment particles
and are deposited in the bottom sediments.
16
Table 2
Solubility of oxygen, from a wet atmosphere at a pressure of 760 mm Hg, in mg per litre, at temperatures from 0°° to 35°°C.
Temp 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
0 14.16 14.12 14.08 14.04 14.00 13.97 13.93 13.89 13.85 13.81
1 13.77 13.74 13.70 13.66 13.63 13.59 13.55 13.51 13.48 13.44
2 13.40 13.37 13.33 13.30 13.26 13.22 13.19 13.15 13.12 13.08
3 13.05 13.01 12.94 12.94 12.91 12.87 12.84 12.81 12.77 12.74
4 12.70 12.67 12.60 12.60 12.57 12.54 12.51 12.47 12.44 12.41
5 12.37 12.34 12.28 12.28 12.25 12.22 12.18 12.15 12.12 12.09
6 12.06 12.03 12.00 11.97 11.94 11.91 11.88 11.85 11.82 11.79
7 11.76 11.73 11.70 11.67 11.64 11.61 11.58 11.55 11.52 11.50
8 11.47 11.44 11.41 11.38 11.36 11.33 11.30 11.27 11.25 11.22
9 11.19 11.16 11.14 11.11 11.08 11.06 11.03 11.00 10.98 10.95
10 10.92 10.90 10.87 10.85 10.82 10.80 10.77 10.75 10.72 10.70
11 10.67 10.65 10.62 10.60 10.57 10.55 10.53 10.50 10.48 10.45
12 10.43 10.40 10.38 10.36 10.34 10.31 10.29 10.27 10.24 10.22
13 10.20 10.17 10.15 10.13 10.11 10.09 10.06 10.04 10.02 10.00
14 9.98 9.95 9.93 9.91 9.89 9.87 9.85 9.83 9.81 9.78
15 9.76 9.74 9.72 9.70 9.68 9.66 9.64 9.62 9.60 9.58
16 9.56 9.54 9.52 9.50 9.48 9.46 9.45 9.43 9.41 9.39
17 9.37 9.35 9.33 9.31 9.30 9.28 9.26 9.24 9.22 9.20
18 9.18 9.17 9.15 9.13 9.12 9.10 9.08 9.06 9.04 9.03
19 9.01 8.99 8.98 9.96 8.94 8.93 8.91 8.89 8.88 8.86
20 8.84 8.83 8.81 8.79 8.78 8.76 8.75 8.73 8.71 8.70
21 8.68 8.67 8.65 8.64 8.62 8.61 8.59 8.58 8.56 8.55
22 8.53 8.52 8.50 8.49 8.47 8.46 8.44 8.43 8.41 8.40
23 8.38 8.37 8.36 8.34 8.33 8.32 8.30 8.29 8.27 8.26
24 8.25 8.23 8.22 8.21 8.19 8.18 8.17 8.15 8.14 8.13
25 8.11 8.10 8.09 8.07 8.06 8.05 8.04 8.02 8.01 8.00
26 7.99 7.97 7.96 7.95 7.94 7.92 7.91 7.90 7.89 7.88
27 7.86 7.85 7.84 7.83 7.82 7.81 7.79 7.78 7.77 7.76
28 7.75 7.74 7.72 7.71 7.70 7.69 7.68 7.67 7.66 7.65
29 7.64 7.62 7.61 7.60 7.59 7.58 7.57 7.56 7.55 7.54
30 7.53 7.52 7.51 7.50 7.48 7.47 7.46 7.45 7.44 7.43
31 7.42 7.41 7.40 7.39 7.38 7.37 7.36 7.35 7.34 7.33
32 7.32 7.31 7.30 7.29 7.28 7.27 7.26 7.25 7.24 7.23
33 7.22 7.21 7.20 7.20 7.19 7.18 7.17 7.16 7.15 7.14
34 7.13 7.12 7.11 7.10 7.09 7.08 7.07 7.06 7.05 7.05
35 7.04 7.03 7.02 7.01 7.00 6.99 6.98 6.97 6.96 6.95
* From Hutchinson (1957)
Water Quality Parameters
The following sections describe some of the water quality parameters that are used to gain basic insights
into water quality. Some are applicable to both freshwater and estuarine waters. Much of this material has been
extracted from the "Water Quality Sourcebook" (Environment Canada, 1979).
Colour
17
Two measures of colour are possible; true colour is a measure of the dissolved colouring compounds,
whereas apparent colour is influenced by the suspended material in the sample. The colour of water is attributable
to the presence of organic and inorganic materials; different materials absorb various light frequencies. Colour is
measured according to the platinum-cobalt scale, which compares the colour of the water sample with that of a
series of standard chemical solutions. Water with low turbidity exhibits virtually identical values for apparent and
true colour. Water with a turbidity level greater than 3 Jackson Turbidity Units (JTU) usually has a yellow, red, or
brown tinge.
Environmental Range
Water whose colour is less than 10 platinum-cobalt (Pt-Co) units passes unnoticed to visual inspection;
water with a value of 100 resembles black tea and may be encountered in waters draining peat deposits. Water
from swamps and bogs may exhibit values in the 200 to 300 Pt-Co unit range.
Sources
A water's colour may be derived from natural mineral components such as iron and manganese, and from
organic sources. Common organic sources include algae, protozoa, and natural products from decaying vegetation
such as humic substances, tannins, and lignins. The leaching of organic soils can also produce other less common
organic acids. Since humic substances, tannins, and lignins are complex natural organic compounds that are
resistant to microbial decay, they are ubiquitous in the environment and are a common source of natural water
colour.
Organic and inorganic compounds from industrial or agricultural uses may add colour to a water. For
example, steel works, refineries, chemical plants, pulp and paper plants, and a number of other industries may alter
the colour of their discharge waters. Colouration may also result from irrigation.
Water Quality Guidelines
Colour is not normally considered a serious pollution problem, although colour may be detrimental in
that it interferes with the passage of light, thereby impeding the photosynthesis of aquatic plants. Guidelines
suggest that no undue increase in the colour of natural waters be allowed through waste disposal or other activities.
18
Domestic, industrial and recreational uses of a water may be affected by its colour. For aesthetic
considerations and to prevent possible staining of clothes, food, and fixtures the acceptable limit for true colour in
public drinking waters is 15 Pt-Co units. For waters used for direct recreational contact such as swimming the
maximum permissible limit for colour is 100, although the objective is the same as the drinking water limit.
Effects on Use
Any perceptible colour in raw waters is objectionable from a purely aesthetic viewpoint. Although
coloured water often has some absorptive and coagulative action that prevents scaling in industrial boilers, it is
undesirable for many industrial processes. The production of fine papers, white textiles and pharmaceuticals, as
well as steam generation, ice manufacture, beverage and photographic industries, and domestic uses may also be
adversely affected by the colour of a water.
Dissolved Oxygen
Oxygen is one of the gases that is found dissolved in natural surface waters. It is slightly soluble in water.
The amount of dissolved oxygen in natural water varies since it is dependent upon temperature, salinity, turbulence
(mixing) of the water, and atmospheric pressure (decreasing with altitude). The concentration of dissolved oxygen
is subject to diurnal and seasonal fluctuations that are due, in part, to variations in temperature, photosynthetic
activity and river discharge. Respiration by organisms and re-aeration processes control dissolved oxygen
concentrations. The decomposition of organic wastes by micro-organisms and oxidation of inorganic wastes may
reduce dissolved oxygen to concentrations approaching zero.
Environmental Range
Typically the concentration of dissolved oxygen in natural surface water is less than 10 mg/L. The
maximum solubility of atmospheric oxygen (i.e. saturation) in freshwater ranges from approximately 15 mg/L at 0°
C to 8 mg/L at 25°C at sea level (see Table 2). Seawater saturation ranges from 11 mg/L at 0°C to 7 mg/L at 25°
C.
Sources
19
The oxygen dissolved in water may be derived from either the atmosphere or from photosynthesis by
aquatic plants including phytoplankton.
20
Dissolved oxygen concentrations produce no adverse physiological effect on humans, however, adequate
amounts of dissolved oxygen must be available for fish and other aquatic animals.
Many aerobic organisms cannot survive below certain levels of dissolved oxygen. The dissolved oxygen
requirement is dependent on temperature and varies greatly from organism to organism, therefore, the
recommendation of a single arbitrary oxygen concentration for all organisms in all types of waters is not very
useful. Fluctuations in the concentration of dissolved oxygen to extremely low concentrations are particularly
harmful to the organisms in an aquatic environment. Although minimum acceptable values of dissolved oxygen
are not appropriate, it has been shown that concentrations of less than 4 mg/L produce detrimental effects on most
aquatic organisms.
Drinking water criteria do not specify any guidelines for dissolved oxygen. However, waters saturated
with dissolved oxygen are preferable for drinking as improved palatability results form dissolved oxygen's ability to
precipitate substances such as iron and manganese, which produce undesirable tastes.
Effects on Use
Waters highly saturated with dissolved oxygen are acceptable for all uses except for industrial
applications, since the presence of dissolved oxygen increases the corrosiveness of a water. Thus, the absence of
dissolved oxygen is preferable for many industrial applications.
pH
pH indicates the balance between the acids and bases in water and is a measure of the hydrogen ion
concentration in solution. pH values reflect the solvent power of water, thereby indicating its possible chemical
reactions on rocks, minerals, and soils.
Environmental Range
As an index of the hydrogen ion concentration, pH is measured on a scale from 0 to 14. A value of 7
indicates a neutral condition; values less than 7 indicate acid conditions, and values greater than 7 indicate
21
alkaline conditions in a water. Natural fresh waters range from pH 4 to 9 as controlled by the bicarbonate-
carbonate system. The range of pH is broader in fresh water than in seawater; seawater ranges from 8.0 to 8.3 pH
units. The theoretical pH for rain water is actually slightly acidic with a level of 5.6.
Sources
The presence of carbonates, hydroxides, and bicarbonates increases the basicity of water, while the
presence of free mineral acids and carbonic acid increase its acidity. Acid mine drainage and industrial wastes that
have not been neutralized may significantly lower the pH of the water.
A pH range from 6.5 to 8.5 pH units is acceptable in drinking water. If the pH is outside this range, an
evaluation of the cause and its effects must be ascertained. A pH greater than 8.5 interferes with the disinfection
process of drinking water while a pH below 6.5 can result in premature corrosion.
The pH of the water may influence the species composition of an aquatic environment and affect the
availability of nutrients and the relative toxicity of many trace elements. For the protection of the aquatic
environment, the pH should be within the range of 6.5 to 9 units; also, discharges should not alter the ambient pH
by more than 0.5 pH units in mixing zones. An identical range has been suggested for aesthetic and recreational
uses. A pH value above 9 may lower the solubility of calcium carbonate, causing a precipitate and thus a milky
appearance of the water.
Effects on Use
The pH of drinking water supplies is adjusted to control corrosion in the distribution system. Industries
such as bleaching, brewing, photography, electro-plating, ore dressing, and photo-engraving are also affected by
the pH of their water supplies. Thus, pH is important in determining the treatment of water supplies.
Specific Conductance
22
Specific conductance (conductivity) is a numerical expression of a water's ability to conduct an electrical

current. It is measured in microsiemens per centimetre (µS/cm) corrected to a standard temperature, usually 25°C.
The conductivity of water is dependent on the concentration of dissolved salts and temperature.
Specific conductance provides a good indication of the changes in a water's composition, especially in its
mineral concentration. It is particularly sensitive to variations of dissolved solids, but provides no indication of the
relative quantities of the various components. As more dissolved solids are added, the water's specific conductivity
increases. An empirical relationship exists between specific conductance and total dissolved solids; specific
conductance multiplied by 0.65 closely approximates total dissolved solids, although this relationship should be
derived empirically for each site.
23
Environmental Range
Specific conductance in natural surface waters has been found to range from 50 to 150 µS/cm. Ground
water and water in arid regions usually have elevated specific conductance. The conductivity of arid waters is
typically 1000 µS/cm. The specific conductance of seawater is usually expressed in terms of salinity. Specific
conductance in surface water is usually highest when ground water infiltration provides a significant portion of the
streamflow and is lowest in spring when waters from melting snow provide dilution.
Industrial wastes can elevate the specific conductance of receiving waters to 10,000 µS/cm.
No guidelines have been established to regulate specific conductance since the high values are found to
correlate with total dissolved solids; which have outlined objectives.
Effects on Use
Values of high specific conductance reflect the presence of high concentrations of total dissolved solids.
The effects of these are discussed in the section "Total Dissolved Solids".
Temperature
Temperature may be defined as the condition of a body which determines the transfer of heat to, or from,
other bodies. Temperature is usually measured by either a thermometer or thermistor and is expressed on a relative
scale such as the Celsius scale (°C). Physical, biological and chemical processes in the aquatic environment are
affected by temperature. For example, increasing water temperature decreases the solubility of oxygen in water
while increasing the oxygen demand of fish. Higher temperature increases the solubility of many chemical
compounds.
Temperature variations are part of the natural climatic regime. Natural bodies of water may exhibit
seasonal and diurnal variations, as well as vertical stratification in temperature. Aquatic organisms have both an
upper and lower temperature limit for optimal growth, spawning, egg incubation and migration. These limits vary
24
from species to species. Changes in temperature regimes may, therefore, alter the distribution and species
composition of aquatic communities.
Environmental Range
The temperature of surface water is a function of latitude, elevation, season, time of day, rate of flow,
depth, and other factors. Surface water varies from 0°C under ice cover to 40°C in hot springs. Ground water
tends to exhibit more uniform temperatures than surface water. Seawater rarely varies by more than 25°C, either
in a given location or from place to place.
Sources
The temperature of a water is primarily a reflection of the climatic regime: however, humans can modify
water temperatures. Waters used for cooling in power plants transfer waste heat into receiving waters. The
discharge of many industrial wastes may also elevate water temperatures above ambient levels. The release of
bottom waters from impoundments (dams) in summer may introduce cooler water to rivers receiving such
discharges.
Temperature is a pervasive parameter, yet it is difficult to prescribe guidelines. No single temperature

requirement can be applied uniformly to large areas.
Public drinking waters should be of a temperature that is refreshing to the consumer. Temperatures of 15°
C have been viewed acceptable, with an objective of less than 15°C. Water temperatures may also affect the
efficiency of standard water treatment processes. Low temperatures reduce biological growth in distribution lines.
Although water-related recreational activities are generally pursued during the warmer months, water
temperatures may affect recreational uses of water. The degree of hazard depends on the immersion time, the
metabolic rate of a swimmer, and the water temperature. Swimmers who are in contact with waters below 15°C
for periods longer than one hour and who do not take special precautions risk hypothermia. The immersion of the
human body in water with a temperature above 35°C for an extended time period is also hazardous. However, the
temperature that individuals can withstand without decreasing or increasing their deep body (core) temperature
varies considerably.
25
The temperature of irrigation water whether it be high or low temperature may affect plant growth either
by direct contact or by altering the soil temperature. However, no specific temperature guidelines have been
proposed.
Changes in the natural freezing patterns and freeze-up dates should be avoided so that wildlife is not
encouraged to remain past normal migration times and then be forced to over-winter in an environmentally
unsuitable region.
It is difficult to specify a temperature objective for the protection of aquatic life and still account for
diurnal and seasonal fluctuations. Table 3 (Environment Canada, 1979) presents four general levels of protection.
Level I dictates no change from the pristine natural state; level II permits some temperature modification but still a
high level of protection for aquatic life; level III allows further modification of natural values; and level IV offers
minimal protection to the aquatic environment and permits increases that may result in damage.
26
Table 3
Temperature Guidelines for Fish and Other Aquatic
Organisms
(Environment Canada, 1979)
Level of Temperature Criteria

Protection
I No change beyond natural minimum and maximum
temperatures.
II No change greater than 0.5 Celsius degrees

beyond natural minimum and maximum temperatures.
III No change greater than 1.0 Celsius degree

IV No change greater than 2.0 Celsius degrees

Additional Requirements: The natural pattern of daily temperature

fluctuation must be maintained (normally maximum temperature occurs
in daytime, minimum at night).
Effects on Use
Temperature affects the palatability and desirability of water for public consumption. High water
temperatures are the concern of many industries that use water for cooling or condensing purposes.
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) is an index of the amount of dissolved substances in a water. The presence
of such solutes alters the physical and chemical properties of water.
The range of dissolved solids is variable (Table 4).

27
Table 4
Total Dissolved Solids - Salinity Relationships
(Environment Canada, 1979)
Total Dissolved Solids Degree of Salinity

mg/L
0 - 1,000 Fresh: non-saline
1,001 - 3,000 Slightly saline -> Brackish
3,001 - 10,000 Moderately saline-> Brackish
10,001 - 100,000 Saline
>100,001 Brine
Sources
The base flow of a waterway acquires mineral constituents in the form of dissolved salts in solution, such
as sodium, chloride, magnesium, sulphate, etc. In periods of high surface runoff, overland flow contributes
dissolved materials to waters. In addition, significant contributions to the TDS load are anthropogenic in the form
of municipal and industrial effluents, agricultural runoff, and aerosol fallout.
Basic guidelines on the concentration of TDS which have been established relate to taste and palatability
rather than to detrimental health effects on human and aquatic biota. TDS concentrations of 500 mg/L or less have
been designated as an objective level for drinking water providing none of the individual dissolved constituents
exceed their particular guidelines. If the TDS concentration exceeds 2000 mg/L laxative effects have been
observed in humans.
A similar laxative effect has been shown in livestock. For animals, concentrations less than 2500 mg/L
have proven to be satisfactory in most circumstances. Industrial users of waters usually prescribe TDS
concentrations to be less than 1000 mg/L, but this is quite variable among individual users and their particular
requirements.
28
Effects on Use
High concentrations of TDS limit the suitability of a water as a drinking source. Industries are sensitive
to boiler scaling or to accelerated corrosion associated with substantial amounts of TDS in water. High TDS
waters may interfere with the clarity, colour, and taste of manufactured products.
Turbidity
Turbidity is a measure of the suspended particles such as silt, clay, organic matter, plankton, and
microscopic organisms in water which are usually held in suspension by turbulent flow and Brownian movement.
Turbidity is measured by comparing the optical interferences of suspended particles to the transmission of light in
water in an instrument previously standardized with samples of standard turbidity units. Turbidity is reported in
Jackson Turbidity Units (JTU) or in Nephelometric Turbidity Units (N.T.U.). Both units are equivalent.
Environmental Range
It is impractical to assign a range of values to turbidity, however, non-detectable turbidity may be

approximated by pure distilled water (zero Jackson Turbidity Units (JTU)). Values exceeding 1000 JTU may be
observed in wastewaters; waters with very high natural turbidity may be in the range of several hundred JTU.
Sources
The amount of solid materials in suspension in water may result from natural erosion, runoff, and algal
blooms, although humans may contribute to the presence of such materials. The concentration and particle size of
these suspended materials may cause significant variation of turbidity values. Turbidity is high during spring
runoff.
High turbidity reduces photosynthesis by submerged, rooted aquatic vegetation and algae; this reduced
plant growth may in turn suppress fish growth and reproductivity. Turbidity, therefore, can affect aquatic
biological communities. Water quality guidelines suggest that discharges resulting from human activity should not
alter ambient turbidity levels.
29
Turbidity, unless attributable to asbestos-based minerals, does not affect the safety of a drinking water, but
does alter its consumer acceptability. Although water with a turbidity of 5 JTU or less is acceptable for drinking, a
value of less than 1 JTU is the recommended level. Turbidity also affects recreational uses of water and
recommendations for water with direct recreational contact range from 5 to 50 JTU.
Effects on Use
High turbidity adversely affects domestic, industrial, and recreational uses of a water. Often some of this
suspended matter has to be removed prior to industrial use, since highly turbid waters are abrasive to pumps, pipes,
and turbine blades. Turbidity puts an excess load on water treatment plants by interfering with disinfection and
generating extra sludge.
Water Clarity
Material that becomes mixed and suspended in water will reduce its clarity and make the water turbid.
Materials contributing to this turbidity are varied. In the summer, an important constituent is plankton. These
organisms grow and multiply rapidly in warm, sunlit, nutrient rich water. During periods of heavy run-off, silt-
laden surface water can be observed. In shallow areas, wind-generated waves and boat wakes interact with the
bottom to stir up sediments. Wind and boat generated waves breaking on shore also contribute to turbidity.
The Secchi disk provides a convenient method for measuring light penetration below the water surface.
One can determine the transparency or limit of visibility of the water. The Secchi disk is a black and white disk
attached in the centre to a measured and marked rope. The weighted disk is lowered slowly straight down into the
water and the exact depth that the disk disappears from view is observed. This depth is averaged with the depth
that the disk reappears to give what is known as the "Secchi disk transparency". The less algae and silt in the
water, the deeper the Secchi disk will be visible. Alternately, shallow readings will occur in water with significant
amounts of suspended algae, silt, or colour.
30
Salinity
Salinity is a key factor affecting the physical make-up of an estuary. It is the concentration of dissolved
salts in the water, usually expressed in parts of salts per 1000 parts of water (parts per thousand, ppt). Freshwater
contains few salts (drinking water usually has a salinity of less than 0.5 ppt), while seawater averages 35 ppt.
The salinity levels within an estuary vary, depending on the volume of freshwater that flows in. Salinity
declines in the spring when rainfall, ground water and melting snow cause large increases in freshwater inflows.
In the fall, when freshwater inflows are greatly reduced, high levels of salinity can extend further up an estuary.
Salinity levels are graduated on a horizontal plane from one end of the estuary to the other. They are also
graduated vertically from top to bottom. Since the presence of salts increases density, the lighter freshwater tends
to remain at the surface, while salinity increases with depth. However, the relationship between depth and salinity
is not constant. Winds and tidal action can cause mixing of bottom and surface waters, particularly in shallow
areas.
Perhaps the most important aspect of graduated salinity levels is their effect on the distribution and well-
being of the various biological populations living in an estuary. Some species of finfish spawn in fresh water and
live part of their lives at sea; others do the opposite. Bottom dwelling species (oysters) are tolerant of salinity
variations but salinity will affect growth and spawning.
Other Parameters
In addition to the aforementioned water quality parameters, there are others which volunteer groups can
monitor. These additional parameters will require access to specialized equipment or partnership with an agency
that can perform the analyses.
Chlorophyll-a
Chlorophyll-a is a green pigment contained in algae and other organisms and is essential for
photosynthesis. Its abundance is directly proportional to the amount of algae in a body of water. Algal growth
increases and decreases throughout the summer months. As the amount of algae increases, water clarity decreases,
and a water body can assume a greenish, brown, or red coloration depending on algae type. As algal growth
increases, the corresponding increase in chlorophyll-a can be used as a measure of the amount of algae.
31
Faecal Coliform Bacteria
Faecal coliforms originate in the digestive tract of warm-blooded animals and are discharged to the
environment with faecal wastes. Faecal coliform bacteria may indicate sewage pollution entering water bodies.
Faecal coliform measurements indicate human health risks associated with drinking contaminated water, contact
recreation (swimming), and from harvesting and ingesting contaminated shellfish. Another parameter indicative
of faecal coliform presence is the bacteria E. coli which is also used as an indicator of water quality.
Analysis of both faecal coliforms and E. coli requires special laboratory equipment such as incubators and
microscopes, and as a consequence can be beyond the capability of some volunteer groups unless specially trained
and equipped.
32
4. ORGANIZING A COMMUNITY-BASED WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM
Material from the University of Maine Cooperative Extension (Stancioff 1992) and the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (1990(a), 1990(b), 1993) formed the basis of this section. Chapter 8 of the
USEPA (1993) document entitled "Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Non-Point Pollution
in Coastal Waters" provides some good technical background on water quality monitoring.
Types of Monitoring
Community-based water quality monitoring programs differ depending on their purpose and funding.
The objective of a program and the level of funding required to meet the objectives are closely connected. For
example, if the primary purpose is public education, participants may focus on documenting pollution sources in a
watershed, an activity which does not require a high level of expertise or much equipment. If another group
wishes to collect scientifically defensible water quality data, however, considerable expertise in terms of equipment,
training, sample analysis and quality control is needed, thus requiring greater funding.
A monitoring program may include the following activities:
m gathering baseline data by consistent monitoring of the same sites over time;
m conducting investigative sampling to locate sources of pollution by sampling impact areas;
m conducting shoreline or watershed surveys to document potential and actual, direct and indirect
sources of pollution;
m conducting resource inventories to survey flora and fauna of the area as possible indicators of
environmental quality;
m conducting land use inventories to identify types and locations of particular land-use activities
which influence water quality.
The basic principles of a monitoring program include: understanding the system you want to monitor,
designing the monitoring program to meet set objectives, paying attention to details early, monitoring source
activities, and building in ongoing program evaluation processes (USEPA, 1993).
33
Getting Started
Organizing is a dynamic process for each group, and an integral part of a group's learning process. We
recommend an approach where all groups who have an interest (stakeholders) are invited to participate from the
onset. This approach is the backbone of the Atlantic Coastal Action Program (ACAP). The following are some
tips for getting started. Though in a general sequential order, many of the activities should occur concurrently (eg.
planning and budgeting).
1. Gather the troops
m Have an initial planning meeting with a few very interested people and define your purpose.
- education, public awareness
- background water quality data
- watershed management
- investigative monitoring
m Consider youth in your early meeting and throughout the program. High and junior high school
environment clubs are often looking for student projects. Other constituencies include fishermen,
recreational boaters, and anyone who spends time on the water. These stakeholders often have
essential local knowledge and may be very willing to participate.
2. Gather information
m Other groups. What's being done elsewhere?

m Local knowledge. The local community has a valuable knowledge base that must be used.
m Consult with local, provincial and federal government agencies as to their activities in your area
of interest. Consult with industries to find out what water quality monitoring they do. Invite
their participation.
m Is there a university, community college, research or other academic institution in the area that
might have information or have carried out research?
3. Identify the data uses and data users
It is an important aspect of study design to understand who currently collects and uses data in the study
area. It is equally important to know who will use the data produced in a water quality monitoring project.
34
m Uses
- baseline conditions
- determine patterns, trends
- identify emerging issues
- monitor changes
m Users
- public
- local, provincial, federal government
- environmental groups
- industry
- academia
4. Structure and moderate an open public meeting

m At or before the meeting present an agenda and follow it.
m Review basic steps and time requirements to create a monitoring group.
m Invite representatives from industry and government to attend. They are important data users
(and sources of data) and can provide considerable technical knowledge.
m Ask what people want to know about the watershed.
m What areas should be studied?
m List known concerns and problems.
m Identify local people with skills to offer.
m Discuss the formation of a technical committee to provide advice on designing studies. Seek out
local people with technical skills as well as representatives from major stakeholders.
m Record (minutes) that first meeting for your archives.
m Gather names, addresses, and phone numbers. This is your starting core of volunteers.
5. Form a technical advisory committee
A technical advisory committee (TAC) may in fact be your basic organizational or parent committee.
However, it is recommended that a TAC be formed especially from the perspective of data quality and peer review.
35
m Should represent major stakeholders and data users

m Provides advice and technical/scientific expertise on sample collection and quality control
m Provides "peer review" of interpretation products
m Technical liaison to stakeholders
m Can provide "translation" of technical jargon
m Sounding board for study design and objectives so that project expectations can be met.
6. Plan
A monitoring project should have a narrowly and clearly defined objective at an appropriate level of
detail. Streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands, all present different monitoring considerations. For example, upstream-
downstream monitoring can work well in a river but not in all lakes. Estuaries are challenging due to tidal factors
and changing salinity.
m Decide which watershed or estuary issue you want to address.

m Identify your monitoring goals.
m Identify which variables (parameters) are most appropriate to your study plan.
m Identify sample sites that are safe and easy to access.
m Decide in advance how you will handle and interpret the data that is gathered. Develop a
strategy for communicating information to the public and media.
m Determine appropriate quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures to meet your
objectives.
m Consult with your technical advisory committee to ensure your plan is technically sound and can
be accomplished.
7. Operate a pilot project for the first year
Murphy's Law jokingly says that "If anything can go wrong, it will!" It is therefore prudent to start small
and learn by doing through a pilot study.
m Keep the project to a manageable size

m Select a location
m If private property must be crossed, seek permission in advance
m Determine parameters, equipment needs, sampling schedules, personnel requirements
m Design a data collection form to record field observations
36
m Determine costs including equipment, supplies, travel (mileage), communication and

coordination
m Establish quality control procedures and express them in a written document
m Evaluate materials, methods, and training
m Refine pilot project as technical, logistical and financial hurdles are encountered
m Expand program based on knowledge from pilot.
m Budget for full project
8. Budget
As mentioned previously, study objectives and costs are directly related, and must be thoroughly thought
out and examined.
m Determine what equipment is needed to attain the study goals. What can be bought, donated or
borrowed?
m Determine how many people will be needed to collect samples. Determine a value for donated
support.
m Determine what stakeholders can contribute to the project.
m Identify means of raising money to acquire equipment or support associated costs. Appendix II
lists some potential sources of funding, while Appendix III lists vendors of water quality
monitoring equipment.
9. Train and Retrain the Volunteers
m Recruit volunteers for monitoring.

m Develop and conduct training sessions specific to your study needs.
m Emphasize proper sampling and handling techniques (Quality Control).
m Emphasize proper observational note taking and record keeping.
m Document your procedures in a handbook for ready access to volunteers.
10. Maintain volunteer interest
m Recognition (hats, t-shirts, group photo certificates) for efforts

m Newsletter
37
m Communicate results of monitoring

m Special guests
m Local media to promote group activities
m Social event around a specific monitoring activity.
11. Compile data in a data base (eg. dBase, Quattro Pro)
Data are of limited value if left sitting on pieces of paper in a file cabinet. By using electronic storage, a
group can handle large amounts of data and use presentation software to interpret and communicate results. Some
American groups have customized software programs such as Maine's VolWat and the Chesapeake Bays' CitMon.
m Graphics capability
m Location information (description and latitude/longitude from record sheet)
m In situ measurements
m "Lab" measurements
m Field observations (high flow, wind, rain, tidal stage if applicable, etc.)
m Dates
m Time of sampling
12. Data reduction and interpretation
In the interpretation of data, the use of graphics tools can be invaluable in reducing large amounts of data
to simple graphics. Software products range from simple graphs to complex geographic informations systems.
Appendix V has examples of outputs used to present water quality information.
m Graphics: bar charts, time series plots, scatter plot, maps, pie charts
m Statistical summaries: minimum, maximum, mean, median, ranges, box plots
m Comparison to standards, criteria or objectives
m Use technical advisory committee for advice during interpretation to ensure that study objectives
were met. A peer review process is essential to good interpretation, building program credibility,
and producing quality information.
38
13. Communicate
m Keep volunteers informed of findings

m Consult with your technical committee as to interpretation of results
m Communicate results to the stakeholders, public, government, industry, and media
14. Continually Evaluate the Project and Modify as Needed
m Seek input from volunteers on how to make it better

m Are the objectives being attained?
m Is the program evolving with the community?
39
SIX KEY ELEMENTS FOR A SUCCESSFUL AND CREDIBLE PROJECT
1. Co-ordination
At least one person should be recognized as having a strong coordinating role within the water quality
monitoring project, to ensure that all elements of the project flow together. Depending on the size of the
project, paid personnel (eg. co-ordinator, technical director) may be required. Do not necessarily expect
volunteers to be able to manage a very involved project.
2. Budget
Developing a budget will help a group design a monitoring project that can be realistically achieved. The
least expensive part of any program is collecting the sample. Costs associated with analysis, data
management, and project administration can easily be overlooked, and will result in frustration, loss of
motivation, and disenchantment. In the end, the ability to work within the program budget will affect the
quality of the program and the information produced.
3. Training
Training is absolutely critical. Even the most well-explained plans and procedures will be interpreted
differently by different individuals. A periodic step-by-step demonstration, with ample opportunity for
questions and answers, must be built into any training program. Follow-up checks of how well volunteers
are adhering to laboratory and field procedures must be conducted by qualified trainers. A handbook or
field manual is an ideal quick reference for new volunteers, a reminder for the more experienced, and a
useful training tool.
4. Reporting
Reporting is very important in a monitoring program. Data stored in a file drawer have little value, but
data synthesized into a report can be used to meet the objectives of the monitoring project. Reports need
not always be in written form. Consider making visual or oral presentations, or using a mixture of media
like maps, tables, charts, etc. Always consider the target audience and match the presentation and
language to that audience. The important thing is to convert the data into useful, understandable
information.
40
5. Peer Review
As the group decides how to present their information, and before the information is released to the
public, it is highly recommended that the data be reviewed by a "peer" review team such as the technical
advisory committee. This review team should objectively assess and assure the quality of the conclusions
drawn from the data. The makeup of the team will depend on the project's objectives, but the team
members should be invited early in the project to provide oversight and guidance as the project develops.
Major stakeholders and data users often have insights that can contribute significantly to a review process.
6. Documentation
Detailed documentation of procedures, including quality assurance, will enable others to evaluate the
quality of the data. There are many books written on the subject of quality assurance, and space in this
document is insufficient to cover the topic thoroughly. Quality assurance is a consideration in all aspects
of a water quality monitoring project including study design, field sampling, sample analysis, field
measurements, data interpretation and report writing. There are examples where volunteer groups collect
data used by government agencies. Such confidence in a program can only come from early stakeholder
involvement through documentation, sound quality assurance practices, and trust. Some common quality
assurance practices will be discussed in the next section.
41
5. WATER SAMPLING
General Water Sampling Considerations
The collection of water samples may seem a relatively simple task. However, more than the simple
dipping of a container into water is required to obtain representative water samples and to preserve their integrity
until analysed. Representative samples can be easily obtained from well mixed rivers and lakes, but collection of a
representative sample from waters with significant spatial and temporal (space and time) variations becomes more
complex.
The sections on water sampling practices are not intended to be all-inclusive but rather to introduce
common sampling procedures. Furthermore, instructions for operating sampling and field measurement
equipment are not intended to replace those of the manufacturer but are to be considered as supplementary
information. The sampling procedures described in this manual reflect those most widely used for physical,
chemical and microbiological analyses by Environment Canada. Safety measures are also outlined. For more
details, the reader should consult "Sampling for Water Quality" (Environment Canada, 1983).
There can be various approaches to collecting data and sampling. Some groups who must cover a wide
area may wish to equip several volunteer teams with inexpensive monitoring equipment to take stream side "field
measurements". On the other hand, an urban group may want to establish a central "laboratory" where samples
could be delivered for measurement. Both approaches are appropriate as long as quality assurance procedures are
established, documented, followed, and appropriate technical and scientific advice is sought. A Technical
Advisory Committee can be especially valuable in providing expert advice on sampling protocols and quality
control.
Station Location
Sampling stations (locations) and the frequency of sampling must be outlined in the project design. They
are determined by the project objectives, and the spatial and temporal variability of the system. It is the
responsibility of the field investigator to locate all sampling stations accurately, and to take the sample at exactly
the same location each time. Only if the same location is consistently sampled can water quality changes over time
be interpreted with confidence. Therefore, accurate station location descriptions including latitude and longitude
must be prepared on the first visit to every sampling site. An example of a station location form is provided in
Appendix IV.
42
Observation-Based Samples
In addition to locating sampling stations, volunteers should observe and record any unusual conditions
which may indicate a need for additional water samples or notification of regulatory agencies. For example, the
illustration shows old pesticide containers that were near a monitoring site. Their presence was documented on
field sheets and photographed.
Upon observing an unusual condition, such as an unusual colour or odour of the water, excessive algal
growth, indications that foreign substances have entered the system (oil slicks, surface films, etc.) or fish kills, the
field investigator should take samples in addition to those required by the project design. If additional samples are
collected but not exactly at an established station, a new station location description should be accurately recorded.
If a fishkill is observed, provincial and federal authorities should be informed immediately. Examples of field
observation sheets from various community groups are also provided in Appendix IV.
Preparation for Field Trips
Prior to going out to conduct water sampling, the volunteer should go through a checklist to make sure
that everything is in order.
General Preparation
(a) Obtain specific instructions on sampling procedures.

(b) Prepare an itinerary according to the sampling schedule.
(c) Prepare list of required equipment and materials.
(d) Ensure that all sample bottles have been cleaned in accordance with established procedures.
(e) Ensure that the laboratory has prepared the chemical reagents and standards needed for the trip.
(f) Ensure permission has been granted where crossing private property is required.
Checklist Prior to Field Trip
(a) Check and calibrate field meters, if used (pH, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, turbidity) and
thermometers.
43
(b) Replenish supplies of reagents for dissolved oxygen determinations as well as reagents for chemical
preservation.
(c) Obtain fresh buffer solutions; pH values for the buffers should be close to the values expected in the field.
(d) Obtain KCl solution for pH probes if required in field.
(e) Obtain road maps, station location descriptions, field sampling sheets, sampling bottles, labels, samplers,
preservation reagents, pipettes, equipment manuals, etc.
(f) Obtain writing materials and extra rope.
(g) Obtain charging cords if the equipment has in-field charging capabilities.
(h) Obtain distilled water for pH, blanks and buffer measurements.
(i) If field filtering is required, obtain filtering apparatus.
(j) If microbiological sampling is to be done, obtain sterile bottles and ice chests. All samples should be
stored on ice.
Collecting Surface Water Samples
It is recommended that the design of the field sampling program be tested and assessed by a pilot project
or in the initial rounds of sampling to ensure both its efficiency and effectiveness with respect to the objectives of
the study. For example, assumptions about mixing of a river or lake can be tested by cross-sectional and vertical
sampling. Other elements of the sampling program, such as ensuring that an adequate volume of water is collected
or that the handling of samples is adequate, can also be checked during the pilot project.
For water quality sampling sites located on a homogeneous (well mixed) reach of a river or stream, the
collection of depth-integrated samples in a single vertical may be adequate. For small streams a grab sample taken
at a point where the water is well mixed and flowing at an average rate is usually adequate.
44
For each sampling site located on a non-homogeneous reach of a river or stream, it is necessary to sample
the channel cross-section at a specified number of points and depths. Generally, the more points that are sampled
along the cross-section, the more representative the results will be. Three to five sites along the cross-section are
usually sufficient, and fewer are necessary for narrow and shallow streams.
The following general guidelines apply to the collection of a water sample:
(a) Do not include large particles, such as leaves and detritus, in the sample, and avoid disturbing sediments
as much as possible during wading.
(b) All sample bottles and caps should be triple-rinsed at the sampling site before filling with the sample.
(c) Face the sampling apparatus or bottle upstream to avoid contamination. Sampling from the upstream side
of a bridge enables the collector to see whether any floating material is coming downstream and aids in
the prevention of contamination of the sample from paint chips or dirt from the road.
(d) Collect a sufficient volume to permit analysis of all the parameters of interest by the laboratory.
(e) An integrated sample can only be collected using specialized equipment and methods, while a specialized
sampler must also be used for collecting water from pre-determined depths in a lake or river.
Field Quality Assurance
The Field Quality Assurance program is a systematic process which, together with the laboratory and data
storage quality assurance programs, ensures a specified degree of confidence in the data collected. The Field
Quality Assurance program involves a series of steps, procedures and practices as described in the following
sections:
General Measures
(a) All equipment, apparatus and instruments should be kept clean and in good working condition in
accordance with manufacturers' instructions.
45
(b) Records should be kept of all repairs to the instruments and apparatus, and of any irregular incidents or
experiences which may affect the accuracy of results.
(c) Conditions in the working area should be such that they encourage and maintain a completely safe
environment.
(d) It is essential that consistent methodologies be used by volunteers, and that the methodologies have been
reviewed by a Technical Advisory Committee.
Prevention of Sample Contamination
The quality of data generated in a laboratory depends primarily on the integrity of the samples that arrive
at the laboratory. Consequently, the field investigator must take the necessary precautions to protect samples from
contamination and deterioration.
There are many sources of contamination; the following are some basic precautions:
(a) Field measurements should always be made in-situ or on a separate sub-sample, which is then discarded.
They should never be done on the water sample which is being submitted to the analytical laboratory.
(b) Sample bottles, new or used, must be cleaned according to the recommended methods.
(c) Only the recommended type of sample bottle for each parameter should be used.
(d) Water sample bottles should be employed for water samples only. Bottles that have been used in the
laboratory to store concentrated reagents should never be used as sample containers.
(e) Before being used in the field, any preservatives should be freshly prepared and dispensed with clean
glassware.
(f) Recommended preservation methods must be followed.

46
(g) When preserving samples, the possibility of adding the wrong preservative to a sample or cross-
contaminating the preservative stocks should be minimized by preserving, in one operation, all the
samples for a particular parameter.
(h) The inside portion of sample bottles and caps should not be touched with bare hands, gloves, mitts, etc.
Do not put anything in the sample bottle except the water sample.
(i) Sample bottles must be kept in a clean location, away from dust, dirt, fumes and grime. Vehicle
cleanliness is an important factor in eliminating contamination problems.
(j) Petroleum products (gasoline, oil, exhaust fumes) are prime sources of contamination. As such, spills or
drippings (which are apt to occur in boats), exhaust fumes, cigarette smoke, and over-board spillage must
be avoided.
(k) Bottles which have been sterilized for microbiological sampling must remain sterile until the sample is
collected. If the sterile heavy-duty paper or aluminum foil has been lost or if the top seal has been broken,
don't use the bottle.
(l) All foreign, and especially metal, objects must be kept out of contact with preservatives and water
samples.
(m) Specific conductance should never be measured in sample water that was first used for pH measurements.
Potassium chloride diffusing from the pH probe alters the conductivity of the sample.
(n) Samples must never be permitted to stand in the sun; they should be stored in a cool, dark place; ice chests
are recommended. Keep the empty bottles in the coolers for additional cleanliness.
(o) Samples must be submitted to the laboratory promptly.
(p) Persons must refrain from smoking while collecting samples.

47
Field Quality Control
Quality control is an essential element of a field quality assurance program. In addition to standardized
field procedures, field quality control requires the submission of blank and duplicate samples to test the purity of
chemical preservatives; to check for contamination of sample containers, filter papers, filtering equipment or any
other equipment that is used in sample collection or handling; and to detect other systematic and random errors
occurring from the time of the sampling to the time of analysis. Replicate samples must also be collected to check
the reproducibility of the sampling. The timing and the frequency of blank, duplicate and replicate samples are
established in the project design.
Bottle Blanks
Prior to a field sampling trip, one sample bottle for every ten of each type being used during the sampling
trip should be selected at random, filled with distilled water, preserved in the same manner as field samples, and
set aside for submission with the field samples for chemical analysis for the parameters of interest as "bottle
blanks". This should detect any widespread contamination caused by the bottle washing process. A similar
process can be carried out in the field to account for field contamination.
Filter Blanks
Field filtering of samples is a complicated procedure that depends upon the analyses being conducted (eg.
dissolved metals, dissolved phosphorus, chlorophyll-a). In these cases, professional advice should be sought.
Spiked Samples
A spiked sample is one where a known amount of a substance has been added to a water sample to ensure
that there are no systematic errors or bias in the analytical methodology. It also verifies the field handling and
transport of the sample. Spiking is very much parameter specific and cannot be applied to each and every
parameter.
Field Measured Parameters
A number of parameters including pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, temperature and turbidity, can be
measured at the sampling site. Where possible, these measurements are taken in situ. In all other cases, their
values should be determined as soon as possible after sample collection. When using equipment, either in the field
48
or in the laboratory, it is always best to follow the manufacturer's directions for operation, calibration, and
maintenance. Any modification should be documented by the volunteer group.
Dissolved Oxygen Measurement
Dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations may be determined directly with a DO meter or by a chemical
method such as Winkler analysis. The method chosen will depend on a number of factors including the accuracy
and precision required, convenience, equipment and personnel available and expected interferences. Dissolved
oxygen (DO) should be measured in situ, as concentrations may show a large change in a short time if the sample
is not adequately preserved. Even when the sample is preserved, as in a Winkler analysis (a chemical titration
method of determining DO), it is advisable to run the titrations within 3 to 6 hrs from the time the sample was
taken. Numerous DO meters are manufactured and in all cases, the manufacturers' instructions must be followed
to ensure proper calibration and sample measurements.
Reagents in the Hach and LaMotte test kits are contained in individual premeasured "powder pillows".
These kits are less costly than DO meters, but are generally not as accurate. The manufacturer's directions must be
closely followed.
Temperature Measurement
Temperature measurements may be taken with alcohol-toluene, or electronic thermometers. Some meters,
such as those used to measure dissolved oxygen and specific conductance, have temperature measuring capabilities.
Temperature values at specified depths can be measured in situ if adequate cables and probes are available.
Otherwise, temperatures must be measured immediately in the field after the water sample has been taken from the
required location and depth.
In-field Procedure
If a thermometer is used:
(a) Rinse the thermometer by pouring a portion of the water sample over it.
(b) Immerse the thermometer in the sample for approximately 3-5 min. or until the reading stabilizes. Do not
place the thermometer in any of the sample bottles being submitted to the laboratory.
49
(c) Record the value to the nearest 0.5 in degrees Celsius on the field sheet.
Conductivity Measurement
In situ measurements for conductivity are preferable; if this is not possible, a sample is collected and
measurement should be made as soon as possible, since the conductivity of a water sample may change with time.
Conductivity is temperature dependent. If the conductivity measurement is not automatically temperature
corrected, then the temperature at the time of measurement should also be recorded.
There are various conductivity meters available which may also have temperature and salinity
determining capabilities. Since probes vary and cable lengths are optional, the group must select the equipment to
meet the requirements of the sampling program and as always follow the manufacturer's specifications.
pH Measurement
pH is a measure of the acidity or basicity of a solution. Neutral solutions have a pH of 7; acid solutions, a
pH of less than 7; and alkaline solutions, a pH greater than 7. Optimally, pH is determined in situ, but if this
cannot be done it can be determined by taking a water sample and measuring the pH as soon as possible.
There are many portable pH meters on the market today; the group should select the one that best suits
project needs. Digital meters are preferable, since analog meters are sometimes difficult to read while taking in
situ measurements.
Turbidity Measurement
Turbidity is measured by instrumental methods and is a measure of the suspended sediment such as clay,
silt, organic matter, plankton and microscopic organisms in a water sample as indicated by optical interference.
Whenever possible, turbidity should be measured in the field. Otherwise, the turbidity is measured at the
laboratory. The field measurement is preferable, since some of the particulate matter will settle or adhere to the
container wall during transportation. Furthermore, changes in the pH of the sample may cause the precipitation of
carbonates and humic acids, affecting the turbidity of the sample. When the analysis cannot be done immediately,
the sample should be stored in the dark and analyzed within 24 hr.
50
Secchi Depth: Water Clarity Measurement
The Secchi disk is a 20 centimetre (8 inch) diameter disk, with black and white quadrants. A line
measured and marked in decimeters (10 cm) and metres is attached to the center. The limit of visibility is the
deepest point at which you can still see the Secchi disk.
Take the reading without sunglasses and with the sun to your back. (If in a boat, move well forward, clear
of the stern propellers and take reading on shaded side.) Lower the disk into the water until the disk barely
disappears from sight. Note the depth reading, in meters, based on the length of suspension line that is submerged.
Slowly raise the disk and record the depth at which it reappears (barely perceptible).
Average the two depth readings obtained above. The average of the two readings is considered to be the
limit of visibility, or index of transparency.
Salinity Measurement
Salinity can be determined by measuring the specific gravity of a sample using a hydrometer, correcting
the reading for temperature, and converting the specific gravity to salinity at 15°C. This is done by using a table of
corresponding densities and salinities (Ellett 1991). A hand-held salinity refractometer may also be used.
Alternatively, some digital conductivity meters have the capability of determining salinity and conductivity with
automatic temperature correction. As with other parameters, the selection and use of a particular apparatus will be
determined by the study design and to a certain extent budgets. Manufacturer's directions should be followed
regardless of method used.
Recording of Field Data
The sampling location, sampling date, time, parameter measured and value must be recorded. The
interpretataion of water quality data cannot be accomplished without all supporting information.
Station Location Description
The importance of an accurate written description of each station location and the conditions under which
the samples are collected cannot be overemphasized. In fact, interpretation of water quality data may be limited by
51
the accuracy of such descriptions. It is therefore recommended that a consistent format be used (examples may be
found in Appendix IV).
An accurate description of the sampling location includes distances to specific reference points. It is
important that these reference points be long-standing and clearly identified. For example, "5 m NW of the willow
sapling" is a poor location designation for a long-term sampling program. An example of a better description
would be "upstream of a south culvert where Little River passes under Champlain Drive, City of Saint John, and
reaching out 2 m on the left hand side looking upstream".
The latitude and longitude values should be obtained from 1:50,000 topographical maps. If necessary and
if available, navigational charts can be used to provide more accurate latitude and longitude values than the
topographical maps.
The format for a good description should include:
Station Description - Enter descriptions of the water body above and below the sampling station, describe the
banks on either side of the water body, and the bed material, if known. Description of the water body should
include any irregularities in morphology affecting flow or water quality. These irregularities may include a bend in
a river, widening or narrowing of the channel, presence of an island, rapids or falls, or the entry of a tributary near
the sampling station. Description of the banks should mention slope, bank material and extent of vegetation. Bed
or sediment material may be described as rocky, muddy, sandy, vegetation-covered, etc. Station location
descriptions should mention seasonal changes that may interfere with year-round sampling.
Observations - Enter any additional information about conditions, either natural or anthropogenic, which may
have a bearing on water quality. It is very important that events such as rainfall, cloud cover, stage of tide, wind
direction, flow, etc. be recorded in the field. Observations of weather, dead fish, algal growth, slicks on the water
surface and other phenomena may make a significant difference in explaining anomalies in data. Do not hesitate
to record all observations, no matter how trivial they may initially seem.
Detailed Sketch of Station Location - Sketch the location of the sampling station (including distances expressed in
suitable units) with respect to local landmarks and permanent reference points. Some groups photograph sample
locations during different seasons to document location, changes, or unusual events.
52
Map - Include a map which locates the sampling station on a larger scale with respect to roads, highways and
towns. The combination of the map and the sketch of the station location should provide complete location
information. A volunteer travelling to the site for the first time will therefore have enough information to locate
the sampling station confidently and accurately.
Field Sheets
The recording of observations, field measurements, sampling date, time and location on the field sheets
must be standard practice. All field measurements and records must be completed before leaving a station. A
standard field sheet should be designed to ensure that there is consistency in reading observations. Examples are
illustrated in Appendix IV.
Sampling for Microbiological Analysis
All water samples submitted for microbiological analysis must be collected as aseptically as possible in
order to accurately reflect microbiological conditions.
Sample Containers - Microbiological samples were traditionally collected in sterile 200-mL or 500-mL wide-
mouthed glass or non-toxic plastic bottles with cork or screw caps. More recently, however, sterile "whirlpack"
bags (disposable) have been used as they are safer, can be closed with the aid of sampling tongs, and they provide
for less risk of sample contamination.
General Sampling Procedure
(a) Remove as one unit, the protective paper and stopper of the sample bottle.
(b) Do not rinse the sterile bottle.
(c) If the sample is to be collected in a hand-held fashion, hold the sample bottle near the base and plunge the
bottle neck downward below the water surface 25-40 cm. Tilt bottle so that the neck points slightly
upward and during filling push bottle horizontally forward in a direction away from the hand to avoid
contamination. If a current is present, direct the mouth of the bottle against the current.
53
(d) If a bacteria sampling apparatus is used, fit the bottle into the spring clamp with the bottle mouth
downward. The mechanism is designed so that the bottle is then rotated to the upright position under the
water surface by the mechanical sampler.
(e) Remove bottle and decant sufficient water to leave a space of 3-4 cm between stopper and water line.
(f) Replace cap or stopper and paper covering, fasten cover and label bottle (if not pre-labelled) with a
waterproof marking pencil.
(g) Place bottle in an ice chest.
(h) Record the time of sampling and depth of sample, water temperature and ambient temperature on the field
sampling sheet. Description of the location can be obtained from the station location description sheet.
(i) Water samples should be collected in duplicate and submitted to the laboratory promptly. If immediate
processing is impossible, samples should be stored in the dark in melting ice. Storage under these
conditions minimizes multiplication and die-off problems up to 30 hr after collection. Samples should
never be frozen.
Field Safety
Samples are collected during a wide range of weather extremes. Knowledge of the hazards that may be
encountered and the means by which they can be minimized is a necessary consideration in any field project.
Volunteers must ensure that they are adequately equipped before they embark on a sampling trip. As a
precautionary measure, first aid kits are recommended. The collection of surface water samples may involve
collection from bridges, or docks, or from shoreline. The ability to swim is essential. It is highly recommended
that in community-based volunteer program, sampling be carried out in teams of two or more for additional
safety. Some field safety procedures are given in the following sections.
Traffic may present serious problems when working from bridges. Bridges with sidewalks for pedestrian
traffic provide a margin of safety. The volunteer must take special care when sampling from bridges over
navigable water, as boat operators and water skiers may not be able to see apparatus suspension lines. Samples
should be taken in the absence of water traffic, or special precautions such as the attachment of flags, etc. should be
54
taken to make suspension line visible. Power lines strung close to bridges are also dangerous and should be
avoided. A hazard warning should also be noted on the site location form.
Wading is one of the easiest methods to collect samples from many streams, but it may also be extremely
dangerous. Wading permits the investigator to examine stream flow and decide where to sample. Rubber boots or
even chest-high waders are standard equipment. A wading rod or similar probing instrument is often useful to
estimate the current and to locate holes and unsafe footing. If the wader has any uncertainty about his ability to
wade a stream, he or she should be attached by a rope to a rigid mooring and must wear an approved flotation
device. An extra change of clothing is always advisable, and essential during the colder months. In volunteer
programs, it is advisable to use shoreline sampling as much as possible. Even then, one must be conscious of
footing and obstacles.
Winter Sampling
Winter sampling requires suitable clothing to maintain a comfortable working temperature and to prevent
frostbite. A warm hat, woolen undergarments, extra socks, mitts, proper footwear, and in some cases glasses to
prevent snow blindness, should be taken. The volunteer should also check the wind chill factor because reports of
temperature alone may be deceiving. In volunteer programs, sampling through the ice should be avoided for
obvious safety reasons.
Boat Safety
Though shoreline sampling is preferred, it may be necessary in some projects to use watercraft to collect
samples. If so, all appropriate watercraft safety precautions and regulations must be followed.
Safety Precautions when Handling Chemicals
Corrosive compounds, including acids and bases are sometimes used for the preservation of water samples
for special analysis. The best safety precaution is to preserve samples in the laboratory whenever possible to avoid
possible spills in the field. Care must be exercised to avoid inhalation of vapours, powders and or direct contact
with skin, eyes and clothing. Chemicals should never be pipetted orally. Spills should be cleaned up immediately
by dilution with large quantities of water, neutralization or mopping up of the chemical followed by disposal of the
contaminated material.
55
Skin which has been in contact with acids or bases should be washed immediately with plenty of water.
After the skin has been washed, the contaminated area may be swabbed with a neutralizing solution. This
procedure should be followed by a second washing with soap.
If any chemicals enter the eyes, they should be rinsed immediately with plenty of water. Rinse the outside
of the eyes as well. It may be necessary to hold the eyelids open during the wash procedure. Continue rinsing for
several minutes. After first aid, all eye injuries must be treated professionally. A squeeze bottle of distilled water
should be included with the field sampling equipment.
Routine care should be taken to prevent bottle and other glassware breakage during sampling; for
example, freezing, overtightening of tops, rough handling of pipettes, and improper packaging and storage of glass
sampling bottles if called for may result in breakage during transport.
56
6. BIOLOGICAL MONITORING
Methods for monitoring chemical and physical properties of streams have been well recognized and
implemented in numerous community-based monitoring programs. As expertise is gained, there is a natural
progression to examine impacts upon biota and to use biota as indicators of water quality (Ely, 1991).
Dickman (1992) provided an example of how aquatic plants can be used by volunteer groups to monitor
freshwater quality in the Great Lakes area of Ontario. His approach was used identify the location of inputs of
toxic substances to the aquatic ecosystem. The following has been extracted from his publication "Waterways
Walkabout". This approach was developed for southwestern Ontario, and would have to be modified to be
applicable to Atlantic Canada. Nevertheless it is worthy of discussion. As with all monitoring activities, a training
component is essential.
Freshwater Stream Surveys
Aquatic plants can easily be used as monitors to indicate the health of our waterways, and it is not
necessary to be an aquatic plant specialist to do so. Simple ways and means to recognize the impact of pollutants
on aquatic plants.
A Waterways Walkabout is an effective method to recognize, identify and document sources of water
pollution. The method consists of noting changes in the dominant aquatic plants growing along streams or lakes.
Water pollution problems are identified by observing aquatic vegetation and recording any changes. Volunteers
should emerge with a healthy appreciation of the value of natural aquatic vegetation to indicate water pollution
problems.
Large macrophytes (aquatic plants) are easily recognized as there are usually less than 20 common species
at most sites, and their absence is easily detected. Most are rooted and therefore reflect soil, sediment and water
quality conditions. Once the ecological principles determining river vegetation are understood, indices for
assessing the controlling factors can be devised. Many of these indices are presented in standard textbooks of
limnology.
Each aquatic plant species has a particular range of tolerance and therefore, in each habitat, there will be
a range in which each particular plant type can grow well, a peripheral range in which it will grow less well (i.e. a
range in which it occurs less frequently), and there will also be conditions which it cannot tolerate and, therefore,
areas from which it is excluded.
57
Aquatic plants provide the informed observer with a great deal of information about the water quality
conditions to which plants have been exposed. Where natural organic-rich substrates abound in unshaded reaches
of the water, aquatic plants can be used to indicate some rather basic biological information about the amount and
severity of pollution. The observation of these aquatic plants is especially important where the pollution source or
sources continuously discharge into the waterway.
If, for example, a toxic discharge occurs only once a month during the summer, the aquatic plants living
there will be affected by it and therefore, the plants can be said to represent a kind of continuous water quality
monitoring system. Before a walkabout, basic knowledge of aquatic plant life and how various types of plants are
affected by toxic discharges will have to be obtained. The method of recognizing sources of water pollution
presented, relies on a simple classification system of four basic plant types, as follows:
Plant Types
Each of the five basic plant types you will be looking for on a walkabout have been assigned a key or code,
as follows:
1. (T) Tall stemmed emergents (plants taller than 1 m), e.g. cattails
2. (S) Short stemmed emergents (shorter than 1 m), e.g. sedges, arrowheads,
grasses, etc.
3. (F) Floating leaved aquatics (e.g. water lilies)
4. (U) Submersed aquatics or taxa (found underwater), e.g. water milfoil).
5. (FP) Floating plants (e.g. Duckweeds - rare except in stagnant ponds)
It is extremely important to be able to recognize these five plant types as they form 5 strata or levels from
the floating leaf and floating plant level to the tall stemmed emergent level. By observing changes in the
distribution of these strata of aquatic plants, one should be able to locate toxic discharge points (i.e. point sources).
For example, along a gradient of increasing toxicity, there will be a decrease in stratal and species diversity. This
means that as one moves toward increasingly unfavorable conditions (i.e. increasing toxicity), there will be a
58
reduction in stratal types. This simply means that fewer and fewer different species of aquatic plant life will be
found living together in a biotic community as their environment becomes polluted.
In an unpolluted aquatic environment, some examples of the five strata or plant types will often be found
living together. But in general, as one draws closer and closer to a toxic discharge point, this natural stratal
diversity will be reduced to only one or two pollution tolerant plant types. Sometimes no aquatic plants are found
near a discharge sources. One possibility is that at least at one point in time, over the last few months, what is
known as a "shock-load" occurred. This means that at some point in time, a toxic discharge occurred which
exceeded the tolerance limits of the aquatic plants that were growing there. Such infrequent discharges are
referred to as "shock-loads". Toxic "shock-loads" can eliminate one or even all of the aquatic plant species near
the pollution discharge point (pipe, ditch, etc.).
To classify the impact of a toxic input point source zones or zonation is used to describe the present
aquatic plant life.
Zonation Patterns - Major Zones:
There are four major zones in an aquatic plant zonation pattern:
Zone 1 Impact Zone/Dead Zone:

As one draws closer and closer to a toxic discharge, it becomes increasingly apparent that the less
pollution tolerant species are being replaced by more tolerant forms until, if the toxin is powerful enough,
even the most tolerant species cannot survive and all that is left is a Dead Zone or Impact Zone, where no
plants are found. Before concluding that you have found evidence of a toxic discharge source, read the
comments on the Cautionary Comments about Applying Zonation Patterns which are provided on the
following page.
Zone 2 Primary Recovery Zone:
This zone is dominated by the most pollution tolerant plants. Typically, the tall stemmed emergents such
as bulrushes, cane grass (Phragmites) and cattails (Typha) dominate this zone. These tall stemmed
emergents are able to live on the shorelines or stream banks. The water which they receive via their
extensive subterranean root and rhizome system has passed through the soil and sediment where much of
the initial toxic load is filtered out.
59
Zone 3 Secondary Recovery Zone:

This zone is characterized by the presence of short stemmed emergents, such as sedges, arrowheads and
grasses. These plants frequently form a fringe in front of the tall stemmed emergents. The short stemmed
emergents and the floating leaved aquatics (water lilies (Nuphar) and pond weeds (Potamogeton), etc.),
unlike the tall stemmed emergents, have the majority of their stems' surface exposed directly to the toxins
in the water column.
Zone 4 Tertiary Recovery Zone:

This zone is characterized by the presence of submersed aquatics such as water milfoil (Myriophyllum).
These plants are completely immersed in the water and probably for this reason they are the most sensitive
to any toxins present in the water. Thus, when these submersed aquatics are abundant in the water, the
level of toxic substances in the water can be assumed to be below the plants threshold.
Cautionary Comments about Applying Zonation Patterns
The survival of plants and other organisms in a river or stream is affected by many factors. The type of
bottom, strength of current, extent of spring flooding, amount of overhanging vegetation, and other factors are all
important. Thus, conditions for growth of aquatic plants change from place to place along most waterways. Many
streams have places with little or no vegetation, even when there is no human interference. A bare spot may be a
clue to the presence of a toxic effluent, but other supporting information will have to be obtained. As many factors
as possible must be considered before reaching a conclusion about the impact of a point source. Occasionally, the
volume of discharge from a pipe is so great that the natural substrate (sediments) are washed away, making it
impossible for plants to get a footing. You can differentiate between the two because a rocky substrate will always
be found in the second case.
Eutrophication
Nutrient-rich effluents entering a stream or lake can cause either algal blooms or the excessive growth of
higher aquatic plants (aquatic weeds). These aquatic weeds can clog waterways and cause severe night time
oxygen depletion and, ultimately, anoxia (i.e. deficiency of oxygen in the tissues), which limits the natural
distribution and movements of fish and invertebrates.
The luxurious, excessive growth of the higher aquatic plants in a stream or other waterway is called
eutrophication. Typically, eutrophic conditions result in a reduction of species richness and species diversity and
60
an increase in aquatic plant density, height, biomass and productivity. For this reason, whenever higher aquatic
plants grow excessively, to the detriment of other species of both plant and other forms of aquatic life, a pollution
source of nutrient-rich effluents should be suspected.
Data Sheets and Data Entries
Collecting data properly will help summarize findings for a report to describe the waterway's condition.
This will be needed even if there are no pollution problems found, since this is useful information for future
reference to determine any changes in the waterway. The relevant data, to be observed and recorded, include the
various plant types, sources of discharge, diameter and type of pipe (or ditch) from which the discharge is emitted,
type of discharge, and so on. Data must be recorded on a data sheet.
The minimum items to include on a data sheet are:
- Name of participants
- Waterway being surveyed and segment
- Date
- Time
- Site discharge points or non-point sources
- outfall material
- pipe diameter
- discharge flow
- type of discharge
- stream conditions
- damage indicators (smell, surface coating, aquatic plants,

colour, solids, algal growth)
- source of discharge
- stream blockages (erosion, log jam, storm sewer, dumping, construction)
As with all programs, accurate recording of field observations is extremely important.

61
7.0 CITED LITERATURE
Atlantic Coastal Action Program (1993). Sharing the Challenge: A Guide to Community Project Funding.
Environment Canada, Atlantic Region. Dartmouth, N. S.
Dickman, M. (1992). Waterways Walkabout. Biological Sciences Department, Brock University, St. Catherines,
Ontario, L2S 3A1.
Ellett, K.K. (1991). Citizen Monitoring Manual. Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay. 6600 York Road, Suite 100,
Baltimore, MS 21212.
Ely, E. (1992), Editor. The Volunteer Monitor. (Vol. 4 #1,2), 1318 Masonic Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94117.
Environment Canada (1979). Water Quality Sourcebook: A Guide to Water Quality Parameters. Inland Waters
Directorate, Water Quality Branch, Ottawa, Canada.
Environment Canada (1983). Sampling for Water Quality. Inland Waters Directorate, Water Quality Branch,
Ottawa, Canada.
Freedman, B., T.A. Clair (1987). Ion Mass Balances and Seasonal Fluxes from Four Acidic Brownwater
Streams in Nova Scotia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 44: 538-548.
Hoben, L., R. LaForest, M. McKim (1993). Community Environmental Monitoring Handbook. Atlantic
Coastal Action Program Saint John Inc. Box 6878, Station A, Saint John, N.B., E2L 4S3.
Hutchinson, G.E. (1957). A Treatise on Limnology. Vol 1, Chemistry of Lakes. John Wiley and Sons, N.Y.
Stancioff, E. (1992). Clean Water: A Guide to Water Quality Monitoring for Volunteer Monitors of Coastal
Waters. Maine/New Hampshire Sea Grant Marine Advisory Program and University of Maine
Cooperative Extension, Orono, Maine.
US EPA (1990a). Volunteer Water Monitoring: A Guide for State Managers. Report EPA 440/4-90-010. United
States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. 20460.
62
US EPA (1990b). National Directory of Citizen Volunteer Environmental Monitoring Programs. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C., 20460.
US EPA (1993). Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Non-point Source Pollution in
Coastal Waters. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
02460.
63
8.0 REFERENCE MATERIAL
APHA 1992. Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Waste-Water, 18th edition. American Public
Health Association, Washington, D.C.
Canadian Centre for Philanthropy (1991). Canadian Directory of Foundations. 9th Edition. 1329 Bay St.,
Toronto, Ont. M5R 2C4.
Community Conservation in Action. A Case Study of the Middleton, Nova Scotia Water and Energy Conservation
Project. S. Hawboldt, Editor. Clean Annapolis River Project, P.O. Box 118, Clementsport, N.S., B0S
1E0.
Huras, L., P. Miller. Government Assistance Programs in Canada: A Practical Handbook 1992-93. 14th Edition.
CCH Canadian Ltd., 6 Garamond Court, North York, Ont. M3C 1Z5.
Hurley, L.M. (1990). Field Guide to the Submerged Aquatic Vegetation of Chesapeake Bay. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Chesapeake Bay Estuary Program, Annapolis, MD.
Hutchinson, G.E. 1957. A treatise on limnology. Vol. 1, Chemistry of Lakes, John Wiley and Sons, N.Y.
LaMotte Company (1992). The Monitor's Handbook. LaMotte Company, P.O. Box 329, Chesterton, Maryland,
21620.
Maine Coastal Program (1990). Coast-Links: A Resource Guide to Maine's Coastal Organizations. State Planning
Office, State House, Station 38, Augusta, Maine 04333-0038.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment (1992). Potential Funding Mechanisms for Implementation of Remedial
Action Plans and Their Impact of Users, Beneficiaries, and Polluters in Society. 135 St. Clair Ave. W.,
11th Floor, Toronto, Ont. M4V 1P5.
St. Croix International Waterway Commission (1993). St. Croix WaterWatch 1992. A Cooperative Water
Quality Monitoring an Education Program. #8, #1 Highway, St. Stephen, N.B., E3L 2Y7.
64
9.0 GENERAL GLOSSARY OF COMMONLY USED ENVIRONMENTAL TERMS
Refers to the agreement between the measured value and the accepted or "true" value. It is expressed as the
Accuracy difference between these two values.
Acid mine drainage Low pH drainage water from certain mines. The low pH is usually caused by the oxidation of sulphides to sulphuric
acid. Mine drainage can also contain high concentrations of metal ions.
Acute toxicity Mortality that is produced in a short period of time-exposure, usually 24 to 96 hours.
Aerobic That which is dependent upon oxygen, or in the presence of oxygen.
Algae Simple one-celled or many-celled organisms, usually free-flowing, capable of carrying on photosynthesis in aquatic
ecosystems.
Algal blooms Excessive growths of algae that form unsightly scums and layers of turbid water, impairing the water for recreation,
domestic, aesthetic, and aquatic life uses.
Aliquot A representative sample of a larger quantity.
Ambient temperature The temperature of the surrounding medium, such as ambient, air, which comes into contact with the apparatus.
Anerobic That which is not dependent upon oxygen, or in the absence of oxygen.
Anthropogenic Human based or human sourced.
Anoxia The failure of oxygen to gain access to or be utilized by the body tissues of an organism. Absence of oxygen.
(anoxic adj.)
Aseptic sampling Maintaining the sterile nature of sampling equipment and apparatus so as to avoid microbiological contamination.
Assimilative capacity The ability to transform and/or incorporate substances (e.g. nutrients) into an ecosystem, without undue impairment
to the functioning ecosystem.
Baseline information Data generated by consistent monitoring of the same sample sites over time.
Bed material The sediment mixture of which the bed of a water body is composed.
Benthic Of or living on or in the bottom material of a water body.
Bioaccumulation Uptake and retention of environmental substances by an organism from both its environment (i.e. directly from the
water) and its food.
Bioconcentration The ability of an organism to accumulate substances within its body to concentrations greater than in its surrounding
environment or food.
Biodegradability The characteristic of a substance that can be broken down by microorganisms.
Biodegradation The process of destruction or mineralization of either natural or synthetic materials by the microorganisms in soils,
waters or wastewater treatment systems.
Biomagnification The increasing concentration of a substance up the food chain.
Biota All the plants and animals occurring within a certain area.
Blank A sample of distilled water.
Bottom sediment Those sediments which make up the bed of a body of running or still water.
Carcinogen Cancer-causing chemicals or substances.
Centroid of flow Midpoint of a channel of uniform flow.
Chlorophyll-a The photosynthetic green pigment present in most plants or algae.
Chronic toxicity Toxicity marked by a long duration, that produces an adverse effect on organisms. The end result of chronic toxicity
can be death although the usual effects are sublethal (e.g. inhibits reproduction or growth). These effects are
reflected in the productivity and population structure of the community of organisms that are affected.
Composite sample A sample obtained by mixing several discrete samples, or representative portions thereof, into one bottle.
Concentration Amount of a substance in a mixture. Typically, expressed as parts per million (ppm), parts per billion (ppb).
Contaminant A substance foreign to a natural system or present at unnatural concentrations in air, water, soil or food.
Contamination The introduction of a foreign substance to air, water, soil or food.
Conventional pollutants A term which includes nutrients, substances which decompose using oxygen in the process, material which produce
an oily sludge deposit, and bacteria. Conventional pollutants include phosphorus, nitrogen, chemical oxygen
demand, biochemical oxygen demand, oil and grease, volatile solids, total and faecal coliform bacteria, and
chlorides.
Cross section A plane perpendicular to the direction of flow.
Depth-integrated sample A sample which represents the water-suspended sediment mixture throughout the water column so that the
contribution to the sample from each point is proportional to the stream velocity at that point.
Detection limit The smallest concentration of a substance which can be measured with a specified degree of precision and accuracy
by a specific analytical method.
Detritus Decaying plant and animal matter.
Discharge The thaw rate of water at a given time expressed as a volume per unit of time.
65
Dissolved oxygen The amount of oxygen dissolved in a given volume of water (usually expressed as mg/L).
concentration
Diurnal Processes that have daily cycles or vary with the amount of sunlight.
Ecology The study of the relationships of organisms to their environment.
Ecosystem The interacting complex of living organisms including humans and their non-living environment; the biotic
community and its abiotic environment.
Effluent Contaminated waters discharged from facilities to either wastewater sewers or surface waters.
Environment All biotic and abiotic factors that actually affect an individual organism at any point in life cycle.
Erosion The wearing away and transportation of soils, rocks and dissolved minerals from land surface shorelines or river
bottoms by rainfall, running water, wave, wind or current actions.
Estuary A water body that forms a transition zone between fresh water and full-strength salt water.
Eutrophication Having abundant nutrients which leads to excessive productivity of plant and animal matter, frequently resulting in
oxygen depletion in the lower layers of a body of water.
Faecal Coliform bacteria A group of organisms associated with the intestine of warm-blooded animals, used commonly as an indicator of the
presence of fecal material and the presence of organisms potentially capable of causing disease in humans.
Filtration The process of passing a liquid through a filter to remove suspended matter.
Grab sample A sample taken at a selected location, depth and time.
Groundwater All subsurface water in the land portion of a watershed.
Heavy metals Generic term for polluting metals such as lead, cadmium, mercury, zinc, etc.
Homogeneous Uniform in composition.
In situ In place (e.g.: a measurement made in the river).
Inorganic Compounds that do not contain carbon in their molecules.

Invertebrate Animals without a vertebral column.
Leachate A solution that derives its content by dissolving or carrying particles from the soil, wastes or rock layers through
which it moves.
Littoral zone A shallow area along the shore of a body of water with light penetration to the bottom, usually with emergent
subaquatic plants.
Loadings Total mass of a substance to a water body over a specified time (e.g. tonnes per year of phosphorus).
Macrophytes A member of the macroscopic plant life (i.e. larger than algae) especially of a body of water (i.e. water weeds or
marsh vegetation).
Marshland or salt marsh A protected intertidal wetland where freshwater and salt water meet, characterized by salt march cordgrass, salt hay,
and black ruth.
Non-point source Source of pollution in which pollutants are discharged over a widespread area or from a number of small inputs
rather than from distinct identifiable sources.
Nutrient A chemical that is an essential raw material for growth and development of organisms.
Organic Compounds that contain carbon in their molecules.

Organochlorines An organic compound which includes chemically bound chlorine. Many organochlorines are formed in industrial
processes whenever chlorine or chlorine-based compounds are used. Thousands of chlorinated organic compounds
exist, but only a small portion of those in industrial processes have been identified. Organochlorines include
compounds such as PCBs and pesticides.
Pesticides Any substances used to kill plants, insects, fungi or other organisms - includes germicides, insecticides, algicides and
fungicides.
66
Photosynthesis A process occurring in the cells of green plants and some micro-organisms in which solar energy is transformed into
stored chemical energy.
Phytoplankton Minute, microscopic aquatic vegetative life; plant portion of the plankton; the plant community in marine and
freshwater situations which floats free in the water and contains many species of algae and diatoms. They form the
base of the natural food chain.
Point source Any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance such as any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel or conduit from which
pollutants are discharged.
Pollution (water) Anything causing or inducing objectionable conditions in the watercourses and adversely affecting the environment
and use or uses to which the water thereof may be put.
Primary treatment Mechanical removal of floating screenable, rackable or settleable solids from wastewater.
Quality assurance The total integrated program for assuring reliability of monitoring and measurement data. This program includes
quality control measures.
Quality assurance project A written and observed plan detailing the following: Monitoring objectives, program scope, methods, field and lab
plan procedures, and the quality assurance and control activities necessary to meet stated objectives of data quality.
Quality control This is defined as the routine application and procedures for obtaining prescribed standards of performance and for
controlling the measurement process.
Representative sample A sample of a universe or population whose composition is expected to exhibit their average properties.
Sample sites or stations The location where a sample is taken and/or where measurements/tests are conducted. This location should be
documented on a map and described in writing. The same location should be used each time a test is performed.
Sampling vertical A vertical line from the water surface to the bottom along which one or more samples are collected to determine
various properties of the water body, such as the concentration of suspended sediment, nutrients and metals.
Secondary treatment Primary treatment plus bacterial action to remove organic parts of the waste.
Sewer (sanitary) A municipal sewer for the collection and transmission of domestic, commercial and industrial waste not including
land drainage or stormwater runoff.
Sewer (storm) A municipal sewer for the collection and transmission of stormwater runoff, land surface water and water from soil
drainage not including any industrial wastes other than unpolluted cooling waters.
Sludge Solid removed from waste treatment facilities.
Solubility The ability of a substance to form a solution with another substance.

Spatial Varying over a geographic area or space; eg: upstream versus downstream.
Stakeholder Group A group comprising delegates from agencies, organizations, institutions, government departments, industries, and
private citizen groups, all of which have an interest in a specific area or issue.
Stratification The arrangement of a body of water, such as a lake, into two or more horizontal layers of differing characteristics.
Substrate The base on which an organism lives and grows.
Surface water Natural water bodies, such as rivers, streams, brooks and lakes as well as artificial water courses, such as irrigation,
industrial and navigational canals in direct contact with the atmosphere.
Suspended solids Particulate matter suspended in water.
Sustainable development Development which meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations
to met their own needs.
Temporal Varying over time; eg: monthly or weekly sampling.
Toxicity Quality, state or degree of the harmful effect resulting from alteration of an environmental factor.
Trace contaminants Toxic and other deleterious substances found in trace concentrations in the environment.
Trace element A chemical element found naturally or required by living organisms in extremely small quantities.
Water Quality Objectives Goals set by the Government of Canada for protection of the uses of water as in allowable concentrations of
individual chemicals.
Water Quality Standards A criterion or objective for a specific water use standard that is incorporated into enforceable regulations.
Watershed The region draining into a river, river system, or body of water.
Watershed survey A qualitative and quantitative process of determining the extent of pollution in a watershed by identifying existing
non-point sources of pollution and inspecting the point sources of pollution.
67
Wetlands Naturally vegetated lowlands, such as marshes or swamps, located between mean high water and the yearly normal
maximum flood water level.
Winkler analysis A wet chemistry method involving titration to determine dissolved oxygen.
Zooplankton The animal portion of the community of small organisms that live suspended in the water column of a lake.
68
APPENDIX I
CASE STUDIES
Clean Annapolis River Project (CARP)

P.O. Box 118, Clementsport, N.S., B0S 1E0
Phone: (902) 532-7533; FAX (902) 532-7036
The CARP River Guardian Project was initiated in September of 1992 to monitor the quality of the
Annapolis River and some of its tributaries. Initial funding support was through the Environment Canada,
Environmental Partners Fund which provided support for the first two years of this project. By March 1994
alternate sources of funding must be found for the project to continue.
The key to the project are the 31 Annapolis Valley citizens who have been trained as River Guardians.
The project was designed and supported by organizations and individuals with technical and scientific credibility.
Government and academic inputs and in-kind support, from numerous groups and individuals, resulted in the
ability to conduct coliform sampling and in the loaning of equipment. The College of Geographic Sciences
provided the design of a database and the Acadia Centre for Estuarine Research, ACER, contributed monitoring
design, sampling protocol, training, and technical support.
After initial recruitment and training, eight sites were chosen as initial sampling sites. Due to volunteer
interest, this was expanded to 16 sites that span 75 km of the River from Aylesford to Annapolis Royal. Bridges
were used for several sampling sites due to their regular spacing along the river.
The following parameters were measured weekly: water level, secchi depth, suspended particulate matter,
chlorophyll, temperature, pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, air temperature, percent cloud cover, wind speed and
direction. Fecal coliform samples were taken on the first Sunday of each month and were analysed by the Valley
Regional Hospital Laboratory with the N.S. Dept. of Health assuming the cost. ACER provided the analysis for
salinity, chlorophyll, and suspended particulate matter.
All measurements made by River Guardians are recorded on either a Field Data Sheet or a Laboratory
Data Sheet and subsequently entered into a database file. A procedures manual was developed for the River
Guardians by Dr. Michael Brykinsky of ACER to ensure data quality.
The Annapolis River Guardian Project has had a very successful start. Due to the hard work of many
volunteers, a picture of the water quality of the waterway is starting to emerge.
69
Société d'aménagement de la rivière Madawaska et du lac Temiscouata Inc.

P. O. Box 1070, St. Jacques, N.B., E0L 1K0
Phone: (506) 739-1992; FAX 739-1988
The Madawaska group was, in 1993, in the process of planning a water quality monitoring project. This
site is unique as part of the ACAP area borders the United States, and a large portion of the watershed lies in the
Province of Quebec. Their group goal was to have over thirty volunteer participants who would conduct
monitoring using various kits for the parameters dissolved oxygen, pH, and temperature. Qualitative descriptions
of the river would also be determined. One of the major thrusts was to educate the public as to the changes in
water quality that occur as a result of pollution. The support of the Canada-New Brunswick Water Economy
Agreement was used to acquire monitoring equipment, train volunteers, and produce a project report and brochure.
In total 20 volunteers participated in the community-based water quality monitoring project. In addition
to the aforementioned parameters, faecal coliforms were also measured. Six samplings occurred between August
20 and September 20, 1993. At one site, elevated faecal coliform counts were traced to the malfunctioning pump
on a sewage treatment system which resulted in direct discharge to the Madawaska River. Dissolved oxygen,
temperature, and pH were generally within the ranges required to sustain aquatic life. There were a few anomalous
values, the cause of which could not be determined.
The group prepared a public summary report and a brochure on water quality, pollutants, and what could
be done by individuals to minimize pollution. This met the group's principal goal of public education and
awareness.
70
Miramichi River Environmental Assessment Committee

15 Jone Street, Newcastle, N.B., E1V 2S6
Phone (506) 622-6499, FAX (506) 622-3204
The Miramichi River Environmental Assessment Committee MREAC had previously decided to operate
in 1993, a Swim Watch program where volunteers would collect samples for bacteriological analyses by the N.B.
Department of Health. Samples were collected from popular recreation areas in the Miramichi River system and
estuary. Monitoring results were published in the local newspaper.
Support was provided to the existing Swim Watch project so that costs associated with sample collection
could be met. The remainder of the financial support went to the purchase of equipment so that the Swim Watch
volunteers would be in a position to augment their existing monitoring program in 1994 with water quality field
measurements.
One of the strengths of MREAC is a strong parent committee and an active technical committee. The
MREAC monitoring activities are well planned so as to ensure a high degree of success.
71
St. Croix Estuary Project Inc.

237 Water Street, St. Andrews, N.B., E0G 2X0
Phone (506) 529-4868; FAX (506) 529-4878
The St. Croix Estuary Project (SCEP) is a community-based environmental planning organization
concerned with the St. Croix Estuary (part of an international waterway shared by Canada and the United States)
and Chamcook Harbour. As part of the process to assess the environmental quality of these waters, SCEP initiated
a pilot program in 1993 to monitor faecal coliform bacteria and three ambient water quality parameters. Faecal
coliforms was selected to be the priority parameter for sampling because of historically high levels of coliform
counts in the area and the related closure of major shellfish growing areas to harvesting.
The planning and management of the pilot program was the responsibility of SCEP's Water Quality
Monitoring Committee. Input to the program was received by representatives of government agencies on both
sides of the border. Forty people including SCEP staff, citizen volunteers, and senior high school students were
involved directly in field activities.
Thirty-nine sites were sampled with most sites being sampled at least six times. Temperature, dissolved
oxygen, and salinity were measured in situ, while laboratory analyses of coliform samples were performed by either
SCEP technicians or personnel at the Maine Department of Marine Resources water quality laboratory in
Ellsworth, Maine. Results of bacterial analyses showed consistently very high counts in several locations around
the project area. The information confirmed the need to keep shellfish growing areas closed to harvesting in the
near future.
The goal of developing the operational basis for planning and implementing an expanded water quality
monitoring program was met in 1993. In 1994 SCEP is planning to monitor eight major point source discharges
on a regular basis, continue with monitoring at priority stream and estuarine sites, conduct sediment monitoring
for heavy metals, and engage in various other monitoring and public awareness/education activities.
72
ACAP Saint John Inc.

P.O. Box 6878, Station A, Saint John, N.B., E2L 4S3
Phone: (506) 652-2227; FAX (506) 658-2879
Community-based water quality monitoring was identified as the vehicle to fill a need for monitoring in
the Saint John Harbour area. ACAP Saint John established a Community Environmental Monitoring Committee
in 1992, and this group designed and carried out the pilot water quality program in 1993.
Six Harbour and estuary locations were identified for monitoring through a stakeholder survey. The
locations were: Little River, Marsh Creek, the Inner Harbour, South Bay, Duck Cove, and Saints Rest Marsh.
Each location was adopted by a community group. Twenty-two volunteers received training at a one-day session
held at the Saint John campus of the New Brunswick Community College. Training was provided by NBCC staff
and Environment Canada personnel.
During the months of July and August, the volunteers sampled weekly at low tide from two stations for
each location. Volunteers measured and recorded the water and air temperatures at each station, made several site
observations, collected a water sample, and collected and "fixed" a sample for dissolved oxygen. The samples were
analysed for pH, turbidity, salinity, and dissolved oxygen at the NBCC by a Chemical Technology Co-op student.
Results of analyses, including quality control samples, were recorded on laboratory data sheets and entered into a
spreadsheet.
The following conclusions were made from the data collected:
1. Triplicate sampling demonstrated that volunteers could collect reproducible samples and that laboratory
analysis were consistent.
2. The lower portion of Little River was grossly degraded as indicated by severe oxygen depletion, high
turbidity, and significant thermal pollution.
3. The dissolved oxygen depletion and the increased turbidity of Marsh Creek indicated that the possible
uses of this water body were compromised.
4. Locations within the Harbour and estuary with high water flows and exchanges (South Bay, Harbour,
Duck Cove, Saints Rest) had acceptable water quality for the parameters monitored.
During an evening session to present the results and to recognize the volunteers, a round table discussion
was held concerning the positive and negative aspects of the pilot study. Positive aspects included: community
involvement and participation, that good background data had been gathered, that there was a better understanding
of the effort and cost of environmental monitoring, that the data were independent of government or industry, and
73
that the information could be used as a basis to monitor changes in stream quality. The negative comments
appeared to be more along the lines of constructive criticisms: include bacteriological monitoring, include industry
specific parameters, find better thermometers, explore sediment banking, sample through a tidal cycle at some
sites, and make sure the tide tables are accurate for each site.
The strengths of the Saint John pilot were that:
1. there was planning, design, and budgeting

2. a field procedures handbook for the volunteers was produced (Hoben etal. 1993)
3. a training session was held
4. a technical report was prepared and printed after peer review by the ACAP Saint John Technical Advisory
Committee
5. a newsletter for public distribution was prepared based on the technical report
6. a volunteer night was held to recognize the efforts of the volunteers and to present the final results
7. the results were incorporated into a mall display unit
8. existing community groups were recruited to adopt sampling sites
74
APPENDIX II
POTENTIAL SOURCES OF FUNDING
As part of the Atlantic Coastal Action Program, ACAP, a document was prepared to help community
groups solicit financial support for projects (ACAP, 1993). Included in the document are tips for fund raising,
project proposal writing, and a list of potential funding bodies. This document is an excellent starting point for
funding efforts.
Some examples of funding bodies identified include:
Program Agency
Environmental Partners Fund Environment Canada
Nova Scotia Environmental N.S. Department of the Environment

Trust Fund
New Brunswick Environmental N.B. Department of the Environment

Trust Fund
Environment and Development CIDA/Canadian Environmental Network

Support Program
Healthy Environment Program Health and Welfare
SEED Employment and Immigration Canada
P.E.I. Young Environmentalists P.E.I. Department of the Environment
Newfoundland and Labrador Nfld. Department of the Environment

Conservation Corps
Volunteer Support Fund Environment Canada
Youth Action Fund Environment Canada
There is also a list of private non-profit foundations and corporations that provide support to worthy
projects within their mandates.
75
APPENDIX III
VENDORS OF WATER QUALITY MONITORING EQUIPMENT
There are numerous suppliers of water quality monitoring equipment in Canada and the United States.
The following list represents the major vendors of scientific equipment. The list is not intended to be all inclusive.
Atlantic Purification Systems

10 Ferguson Road
Dartmouth, N.S.
B3A 4M1 Ph: (902) 469-2806
Campbell Scientific (Canada) Corp.

192 St. Clair St.
Chatham, Ontario
N7L 3J6 Ph: (519) 354-7356
Canadawide Scientific
1230 Old Innes Road
Unit 414
Ottawa, Ontario
K1B 3V3 Ph: (800) 267-2362
Canlab Division
Baxter Diagnostic Corporation
2390 Argentia Road
Mississauga, Ontario
L5N 3P1 Ph: (800) 323-4340
Cole Parmer Instrument Company

7425 North Oak Park Avenue
Niles, Illinois
U.S.A. 60714 Ph: (800) 323-4340
Fisher Scientific
8505 Devonshire Road
Montreal, Quebec
H4P 2L4 Ph: (800) 361-5423
LaMotte Chemical Products

P. O. Box 329
Chestertown, MD
21620, U.S.A. Ph: (800) 344-3100
76
Millipore (Canada) Ltd.

3688 Nashua Drive
Mississauga, Ontario
L4V 1M5 Ph: (800) 268-4881
YSI Incorporated
1725 Brannum Lane
Yellow Springs, OH
45387, U.S.A. Ph: (800-765-4974
Health Santé Your health and Votre santé et votre
Canada Canada safety… our priority. sécurité… notre priorité.
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality

Summary Table
Prepared by the
Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water
of the
Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee
on Health and the Environment
May 2008
1
FPT Committee on Drinking Water May 2008
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality—Summary Table
Table of Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Membership of the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water . . . . . . . . . . . 4
New, revised, reaffirmed and upcoming guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Table 1. New and revised guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table 2. Reaffirmed guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 3. Upcoming documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Guidelines for microbiological parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Bacteriological guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Protozoa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Viruses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Turbidity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Guidelines for chemical and physical parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Table 4. Health-based and aesthetic guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Table 5. Parameters without numerical guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 6. Parameters that have been archived . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Guidelines for radiological parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Table 7. Primary list of radionuclides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2
Introduction
The Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality are published by Health Canada on behalf
of the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water (CDW). This summary table is
updated regularly and published on Health Canada’s website (www.healthcanada.gc.ca/waterquality). It
supersedes all previous versions, as well as the published booklet of the Sixth Edition of the Guidelines
for Canadian Drinking Water Quality.
These guidelines are based on current, published scientific research related to health effects,
aesthetic effects, and operational considerations. Health-based guidelines are established on the basis of
comprehensive review of the known health effects associated with each contaminant, on exposure levels
and on the availability of treatment and analytical technologies. Aesthetic effects (e.g., taste, odour) are
taken into account when these play a role in determining whether consumers will consider the water
drinkable. Operational considerations are factored in when the presence of a substance may interfere
with or impair a treatment process or technology (e.g., turbidity interfering with chlorination or UV
disinfection) or adversely affect drinking water infrastructure (e.g., corrosion of pipes).
The Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water establishes the Guidelines for

Canadian Drinking Water Quality specifically for contaminants that meet all of the following criteria:
1. exposure to the contaminant could lead to adverse health effects;
2. the contaminant is frequently detected or could be expected to be found in a large number of
drinking water supplies throughout Canada; and
3. the contaminant is detected, or could be expected to be detected, at a level that is of possible
health significance.
If a contaminant of interest does not meet all these criteria, the Federal-Provincial-Territorial
Committee on Drinking Water may choose not to establish a numerical guideline or develop a Guideline
Technical Document. In that case, a Guidance Document may be developed.
Guidance Documents undergo a process similar to Guideline Technical Documents, including

public consultations through the Health Canada web site. They are offered as information for drinking
water authorities, and help provide guidance relating to contaminants, drinking water management
issues or emergency situations. Consultation documents, Guideline Technical Documents and Guidance
documents are available from the Health Canada website (www.healthcanada.gc.ca/waterquality).
In general, the highest priority guidelines are those dealing with microbiological contaminants,
such as bacteria, protozoa and viruses. Any measure taken to reduce concentrations of chemical
contaminants should not compromise the effectiveness of disinfection.
Inquiries can be directed to: water_eau@hc-sc.gc.ca
3
Membership of the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water
Jurisdictional representatives
Alberta Department of Environment Mr. Karu Chinniah
British Columbia Ministry of Health Services Mr. Barry Boettger
Manitoba Department of Water Conservation Mr. Don Rocan
New Brunswick Department of Health and Wellness Ms. Karen White
Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Environment and Conservation Mr. Martin Goebel
Northwest Territories Stanton Territorial Health Authority Mr. Duane Fleming
Nova Scotia Department of Environment and Labour Ms. Judy MacDonald
Nunavut Territory Department of Health and Social Services Mr. Peter Workman
Ontario Ministry of the Environment Dr. Satish Deshpande
Prince Edward Island Department of Environment, Energy and Forestry Mr. George Somers
Québec Ministère du Développement durable, de
l’Environnement et des Parcs Ms. Caroline Robert
Saskatchewan Department of the Environment Mr. Sam Ferris
Yukon Territory Department of Health and Social Services Ms. Patricia Brooks
Canada Department of Health Dr. John Cooper
Liaison officers
Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Health and the Environment (CHE) Mr. Peter Workman
Environment Canada/Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Dr. Doug Spry
Canadian Advisory Council on Plumbing Mr. William Fallow
Committee secretary
Health Canada (Water, Air and Climate Change Bureau, Safe Environments Programme,
Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch) Mr. David Green
4
New, revised, reaffirmed and upcoming guidelines
Guidelines for several chemical, physical and microbiological parameters are new or have been
revised since the publication of the Sixth Edition of the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality
in 1996. These new and revised guidelines are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. New and revised guidelines

Parameter Guideline Previous guideline CHE
(mg/L) (mg/L) approval
Microbiological parametersa
Bacteriological 0 coliforms/100 mL
E.coli 0 per 100 mL 2006
Total coliforms 0 per 100 mL 2006
Heterotrophic plate count No numerical guideline required 2006
Emerging pathogens No numerical guideline required 2006
Protozoa No numerical guideline required None 2004
Enteric viruses No numerical guideline required None 2004
Turbidity 0.3/1.0/0.1 NTUb 1.0 NTU 2004
Chemical and physical parameters
Aluminum 0.1/0.2c None 1999
Antimony 0.006 None 1997
Arsenic 0.010 0.025 2006
Bromate 0.01 None 1999
Bromodichloromethane (BDCM) 0.016 None 2006
Chlorate 1.0 None 2008
Chlorite 1.0 None 2008
Cyanobacterial toxins—microcystin-LR 0.0015 None 2002
Fluoride 1.5 1.5 1996
Formaldehyde No numerical guideline required None 1998
Haloacetic Acids—Total (HAAs) 0.080 None 2008
Methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) 0.015 None 2006
Trichloroethylene (TCE) 0.005 0.05 2005
Trihalomethanes—Total (THMs) 0.100 0.100 2006
Uranium 0.02 0.1 2000

a
Refer to section on Guidelines for microbiological parameters.
b
Based on conventional treatment/slow sand or diatomaceous earth filtration/membrane filtration.
c
This is an operational guidance value, designed to apply only to drinking water treatment plants using aluminum-based
coagulants. The operational guidance values of 0.1 mg/L applies to conventional treatment plants, and 0.2 mg/L applies to
other types of treatment systems.
5
The Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water has established a science-based

process to systematically review older guidelines to assess the need to update them. Table 2 provides the
list of parameters whose guidelines remain appropriate and have been reaffirmed as a result of this
review. Health Canada and the FPT Committee on Drinking Water will continue to monitor research on
these parameters and recommend any revision(s) to the guidelines that is deemed necessary.
Table 2. Reaffirmed guidelines (2005)

Asbestos Cyanazine Iron Taste
Azinphos-methyl Diazinon Magnesium Temperature
Bendiocarb Dicamba Malathion Terbufos
Benzo(a)pyrene 2,4-Dichlorophenol Methoxychlor 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
Bromoxynil Diclofop-methyl Metribuzin Toluene
Cadmium Dimethoate Odour 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Calcium Diquat Paraquat Trifluralin
Carbaryl Diuron Pentachlorophenol Xylenes
Carbofuran Ethylbenzene Phorate Zinc
Chloride Gasoline Picloram
Colour Glyphosate Silver
Table 3 outlines documents which are being or have been developed and are awaiting approval
through the Federal-Provincial-Territorial process.
Table 3. Upcoming documents (not yet finalized/approved)
Parameter or subject Document type Current status

(GTD or guidance)
Protozoa GTD In preparationb
Enteric viruses GTD In preparationb
Ammonia GTD In preparationb
Boil water advisories Guidance In preparationa
Benzene GTD Consultation concludeda
Carbon tetrachloride GTD In preparationb
Chloral hyrate Guidance Consultation concludeda
Chlorine GTD Consultation concludeda
Corrosion control Guidance Consultation concludeda
Drinking water avoidance advisories Guidance In preparationa
Fluoride GTD In preparationb
2-Methyl-4-chlorophenoxyacetic acid (MCPA) GTD In preparationc
Nitrate/Nitrite GTD In preparationb
6
Parameter or subject Document type Current status

(GTD or guidance)
N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) GTD In preparationb
Potassium from water softeners Guidance In preparationa
Radiological characteristics GTD Consultation concludeda

a
Final guideline technical document or guidance document in preparation for final approval/posting
b
Guideline technical document or guidance document being prepared for public consultation
c
Guideline technical document being prepared for second public consultation due to new scientific information
Guidelines for microbiological parameters

Currently available detection methods do not allow for the routine analysis of all microorganisms
that could be present in inadequately treated drinking water. Instead, microbiological quality is
determined by testing drinking water for Escherichia coli, a bacterium that is always present in the
intestines of humans and other animals and whose presence in drinking water would indicate faecal
contamination of the water.
Bacteriological guidelines
Escherichia coli
The maximum acceptable concentration (MAC) of Escherichia coli in public, semi-public, and
private drinking water systems is none detectable per 100 mL.
Testing for E. coli should be carried out in all drinking water systems. The number, frequency, and
location of samples for E. coli testing will vary according to the type and size of the system and
jurisdictional requirements.
Total coliforms
The MAC of total coliforms in water leaving a treatment plant in a public system and throughout
semi-public and private supply systems is none detectable per 100 mL.
For distribution systems in public supplies where fewer than 10 samples are collected in a given
sampling period, no sample should contain total coliform bacteria. In distribution systems where greater
than 10 samples are collected in a given sampling period, no consecutive samples from the same site or
not more than 10% of samples should show the presence of total coliform bacteria.
Testing for total coliforms should be carried out in all drinking water systems. The number,
frequency, and location of samples for total coliform testing will vary according to the type and size of
the system and jurisdictional requirements.
Heterotrophic plate count

No MAC is specified for heterotrophic plate count (HPC) bacteria in water supplied by public, semi-
public, or private drinking water systems. Instead, increases in HPC concentrations above baseline
levels are considered undesirable.
Emerging pathogens
No MAC for current or emerging bacterial waterborne pathogens has been established. Current
bacterial waterborne pathogens include those that have been previously linked to gastrointestinal illness
in human populations. Emerging bacterial waterborne pathogens include, but are not limited to,
7
Legionella, Mycobacterium avium complex, Aeromonas hydrophila, and Helicobacter pylori.
Protozoa
Although Giardia and Cryptosporidium can be responsible for severe and, in some cases, fatal
gastrointestinal illness, it is not possible to establish MACs for these protozoa in drinking water at this
time. Routine methods available for the detection of cysts and oocysts suffer from low recovery rates
and do not provide any information on their viability or human infectivity. Nevertheless, until better
monitoring data and information on the viability and infectivity of cysts and oocysts present in drinking
water are available, measures should be implemented to reduce the risk of illness as much as possible. If
the presence of viable, human-infectious cysts or oocysts is known or suspected in source waters, or if
Giardia or Cryptosporidium has been responsible for past waterborne outbreaks in a community, a
treatment and distribution regime and a watershed or wellhead protection plan (where feasible) or other
measures known to reduce the risk of illness should be implemented. Treatment technologies in place
should achieve at least a 3-log reduction in and/or inactivation of cysts and oocysts, unless source water
quality requires a greater log reduction and/or inactivation.
Viruses
Although enteric viruses can be responsible for severe and, in some cases, fatal illnesses, it is not
possible to establish MACs for enteric viruses in drinking water at this time. Treatment technologies and
watershed or wellhead protection measures known to reduce the risk of waterborne outbreaks should be
implemented and maintained if source water is subject to faecal contamination or if enteric viruses have
been responsible for past waterborne outbreaks. Where treatment is required, treatment technologies
should achieve at least a 4-log reduction and/or inactivation of viruses.
Turbidity
Waterworks systems that use a surface water source or a groundwater source under the direct
influence of surface water should filter the source water to meet the following health-based turbidity
limits, as defined for specific treatment technologies. Where possible, filtration systems should be
designed and operated to reduce turbidity levels as low as possible, with a treated water turbidity target
of less than 0.1 NTU at all times. Where this is not achievable, the treated water turbidity levels from
individual filters:
1. For chemically assisted filtration, shall be less than or equal to 0.3 NTU in at least 95% of the
measurements made, or at least 95% of the time each calendar month, and shall not exceed 1.0 NTU
at any time.
2. For slow sand or diatomaceous earth filtration, shall be less than or equal to 1.0 NTU in at least
95% of the measurements made, or at least 95% of the time each calendar month, and shall not
exceed 3.0 NTU at any time.
3. For membrane filtration, shall be less than or equal to 0.1 NTU in at least 99% of the
measurements made, or at least 99% of the time each calendar month, and shall not exceed 0.3 NTU
at any time. If membrane filtration is the sole treatment technology employed, some form of virus
inactivation* should follow the filtration process.
*
Some form of virus inactivation is required for all technologies. The difference is that chemically assisted, slow
sand and diatomaceous earth filters are credited with log virus reductions and membrane filters receive no credit.
8
Guidelines for chemical and physical parameters

Table 4 provides the complete list of all current numerical Guidelines for chemical and physical
parameters. Guidelines are either health-based and listed as Maximum Acceptable Concentrations
(MAC), based on aesthetic considerations and listed as aesthetic objectives (AO) or established based on
operational considerations and listed as Operational Guidance Values (OG). Parameters for which the
health-based guideline was developed as an interim maximum acceptable concentration (IMAC) are
identified with an asterisk (*) in the table below. The use of these ‘interim’ MACs was discontinued by
the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water in 2003. For more information on
specific guidelines, please refer to the guideline technical document for the parameter of concern.
Table 4. Health-based and aesthetic guidelines

MAC AO Year of approval
Parameter (mg/L) [or OG] (or reaffirmation)
(mg/L)
Aldicarb 0.009 1994

Aldrin + dieldrin 0.0007 1994
a
Aluminum [0.1/0.2] 1998
*Antimonyb 0.006 1997
Arsenic 0.010 2006
*Atrazine + metabolites 0.005 1993
Azinphos-methyl 0.02 1989 (2005)
Barium 1 1990
Bendiocarb 0.04 1990 (2005)
Benzene 0.005 1986
Benzo[a]pyrene 0.00001 1988 (2005)
*Boron 5 1990
*Bromate 0.01 1998
Bromodichloromethane (BDCM) 0.016 2006
*Bromoxynil 0.005 1989 (2005)
Cadmium 0.005 1986 (2005)
Carbaryl 0.09 1991 (2005)
Carbofuran 0.09 1991 (2005)
Carbon tetrachloride 0.005 1986
Chloramines—total 3 1995
Chlorate 1.0 2008
Chloride #250 1979 (2005)
Chlorite 1.0 2008
Chlorpyrifos 0.09 1986
Chromium 0.05 1986
Colourd #15 TCU 1979 (2005)
9

(mg/L)
Copperb #1.0 1992

*Cyanazine 0.01 1986 (2005)
Cyanide 0.2 1991
c
Cyanobacterial toxins–Microcystin-LR 0.0015 2002
Diazinon 0.02 1986 (2005)
Dicamba 0.12 1987 (2005)
e
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0.2 #0.003 1987
e
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.005 #0.001 1987
*1,2-Dichloroethane 0.005 1987
1,1-Dichloroethylene 0.014 1994
Dichloromethane 0.05 1987
2,4-Dichlorophenol, 0.9 #0.0003 1987 (2005)
*2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4 -D) 0.1 1991
Diclofop-methyl 0.009 1987 (2005)
*Dimethoate 0.02 1986 (2005)
Dinoseb 0.01 1991
Diquat 0.07 1986 (2005)
Diuron 0.15 1987 (2005)
Ethylbenzene #0.0024 1986 (2005)
Fluoride 1.5 1996
*Glyphosate 0.28 1987 (2005)
Haloacetic Acids–Total (HAAs) 0.080 2008
Iron #0.3 1978 (2005)
b
Lead 0.01 1992
Malathion 0.19 1986 (2005)
Manganese #0.05 1987
Mercury 0.001 1986
Methoxychlor 0.9 1986 (2005)
Methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) 0.015 2006
*Metolachlor 0.05 1986
Metribuzin 0.08 1986 (2005)
Monochlorobenzene 0.08 #0.03 1987
f
Nitrate 45 1987
Nitrilotriacetic acid (NTA) 0.4 1990
Odour Inoffensive 1979 (2005)
10

(mg/L)
*Paraquat (as dichloride)g 0.01 1986 (2005)

Parathion 0.05 1986
Pentachlorophenol 0.06 #0.030 1987 (2005)
h
pH 6.5–8.5 1995
Phorate 0.002 1986 (2005)
*Picloram 0.19 1988 (2005)
Selenium 0.01 1992
*Simazine 0.01 1986
Sodiumi #200 1992
j
Sulphate #500 1994
Sulphide (as H2S) #0.05 1992
Taste Inoffensive 1979 (2005)
Temperature #15°C 1979 (2005)
*Terbufos 0.001 1987 (2005)
Tetrachloroethylene 0.03 1995
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 0.1 #0.001 1987 (2005)
Toluene #0.024 1986 (2005)
Total dissolved solids (TDS) #500 1991
Trichloroethylene 0.005 2005
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 0.005 #0.002 1987 (2005)
*Trifluralin 0.045 1989 (2005)
k
Trihalomethanes-total (THMs) 0.100 2006
l
Turbidity 2004
*Uranium 0.02 1999
Vinyl chloride 0.002 1992
Xylenes—total #0.3 1986 (2005)
b
Zinc #5.0 1979 (2005)
a
This is an operational guidance value, designed to apply only to drinking water treatment plants using aluminum-based
coagulants. The operational guidance values of 0.1 mg/L applies to conventional treatment plants, and 0.2 mg/L applies to
other types of treatment systems.
b
Faucets should be thoroughly flushed before water is taken for consumption or analysis.
c
The guideline is considered protective of human health against exposure to all microcystins that may be present.
d
TCU = true colour unit.
e
In cases where total dichlorobenzenes are measured and concentrations exceed the most stringent value (0.005 mg/L), the
concentrations of the individual isomers should be established.
f
Equivalent to 10 mg/L as nitrate–nitrogen. Where nitrate and nitrite are determined separately, levels of nitrite should not
exceed 3.2 mg/L.
g
Equivalent to 0.007 mg/L for paraquat ion.
11
h
No units.
i
It is recommended that sodium be included in routine monitoring programmes, as levels may be of interest to authorities who
wish to prescribe sodium-restricted diets for their patients.
j
There may be a laxative effect in some individuals when sulphate levels exceed 500 mg/L.
k
Expressed as a running annual average. The guideline is based on the risk associated with chloroform, the trihalomethane
most often present and in greatest concentration in drinking water.
l
Refer to section on Guidelines for microbiological parameters for information related to various treatment processes.
Parameters without guidelines

Some chemical and physical parameters for which a Guideline Technical Document is available
have been identified as not requiring a numerical guideline, because currently available data indicate
that it poses no health risk or aesthetic problem at the levels generally found in drinking water in
Canada.
Table 5. Parameters without numerical guidelines

Ammonia Asbestos
Calcium Formaldehyde
Gasoline Hardnessa
Magnesium Radon
Silver
a
Public acceptance of hardness varies considerably. Generally, hardness levels between 80 and 100 mg/L (as CaCO3) are
considered acceptable; levels greater than 200 mg/L are considered poor but can be tolerated; those in excess of 500 mg/L are
normally considered unacceptable. Where water is softened by sodium ion exchange, it is recommended that a separate,
unsoftened supply be retained for culinary and drinking purposes.
Archived parameters
The Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water has established a science-based
process to systematically review older guidelines and archive older guidelines which are no longer
required. Guidelines are archived for parameters which are no longer found in Canadian drinking water
supplies at levels that could pose a risk to human health, including pesticides which are no longer
registered for use in Canada, and for mixtures of contaminants that are addressed individually. Table 6
provides the list of parameters whose guidelines have been archived as a result of this review.
Table 6. Parameters that have been archiveda

Chlordane (total isomers)b Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) + metabolitesb Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)c
b
Endrin Resin acids
Heptachlor + heptachlor epoxideb Tannin
Ligninb Temephosd
Lindaneb Total organic carbon (TOC)
Methyl-parathionb Toxapheneb
Mirex Triallated
Pesticides (total) 2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T)d
Phenols (total) 2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxypropionic acid (2,4,5-TP)b
Phthalic acid esters (PAE)
a
Published in the 1978 version of the Supporting Documentation for these parameters (available upon request).
b
In 1978 ‘Pesticides’ Supporting Documentation.
c
Other than benzo[a]pyrene.
d
No documentation available.
12
Guidelines for radiological parameters

In setting dose guidelines for radionuclides in drinking water, it is recognized that water
consumption contributes only a portion of the total radiation dose and that some radionuclides present
are natural in origin and therefore cannot be excluded. Consequently, maximum acceptable
concentrations for radionuclides in drinking water have been derived based on a committed effective
dose of 0.1 mSv** from one year’s consumption of drinking water. This dose represents less than 5% of
the average annual dose attributable to natural background radiation.
To facilitate the monitoring of radionuclides in drinking water, the reference level of dose is
expressed as an activity concentration, which can be derived for each radionuclide from published
radiological data. The National Radiological Protection Board has calculated dose conversion factors
(DCFs) for radionuclides based on metabolic and dosimetric models for adults and children. Each DCF
provides an estimate of the 50-year committed effective dose resulting from a single intake of 1 Bq*** of
a given radionuclide.
The MACs of radionuclides in public water supplies are derived from adult DCFs, assuming a daily
water intake of 2 L, or 730 L/year, and a maximum committed effective dose of 0.1 mSv, or 10% of the
International Commission on Radiological Protection limit on public exposure:
MAC (Bq/L) = 1 × 10–4 (Sv/year)

730 (L/year) × DCF (Sv/Bq)
When two or more radionuclides are found in drinking water, the following relationship should be
satisfied:
C1 + C2 +ÿ Ci #1
MAC1 MAC2 MACi
where Ci and MACi are the observed and maximum acceptable concentrations, respectively, for each
contributing radionuclide.
MACs for radionuclides that should be monitored in water samples are listed in Table 7. If a sample
is analysed by gamma-spectroscopy, additional screening for radionuclides that may be present under
certain conditions can be performed. MACs for a number of additional radionuclides, both natural and
artificial, can be found in the sixth edition of the guidelines booklet.
Water samples may be initially screened for radioactivity using techniques for gross alpha and gross
beta activity determinations. Compliance with the guidelines may be inferred if the measurements for
gross alpha and gross beta activity are less than 0.1 Bq/L and 1 Bq/L, respectively, as these are lower
than the strictest MACs. Sampling and analyses should be carried out often enough to accurately
characterize the annual exposure. If the source of the activity is known, or expected, to be changing
rapidly with time, then the sampling frequency should reflect this factor. If there is no reason to suppose
that the source varies with time, then the sampling may be done annually. If measured concentrations are
consistent and well below the reference levels, this would be an argument for reducing the sampling
frequency. On the other hand, the sampling frequency should be maintained, or even increased, if
**
Sievert (Sv) is the unit of radiation dose. It replaces the old unit, rem (1 rem = 0.01 Sv)
***
Becquerel (Bq) is the unit of activity of a radioactive substance, or the rate at which transformations occur in the
substance. One becquerel is equal to one transformation per second and approximately equal to 27 picocuries (pCi).
13
concentrations are approaching the reference levels. In such a case, the specific radionuclides should be
identified and individual activity concentrations measured.
Table 7. Primary list of radionuclides

Radionuclide Half-life t½ DCF (Sv/Bq) MAC (Bq/L)
Natural radionuclides
Lead-210 210
Pb 22.3 years 1.3 × 10-6 0.1
224 -8
Radium-224 Ra 3.66 days 8.0 × 10 2
226
Radium-226 Ra 1600 years 2.2 × 10-7 0.6
228 -7
Radium-228 Ra 5.76 years 2.7 × 10 0.5
228
Thorium-228 Th 1.91 years 6.7 × 10-8 2
230 4 -7
Thorium-230 Th 7.54 × 10 years 3.5 × 10 0.4
232 10 -6
Thorium-232 Th 1.40 × 10 years 1.8 × 10 0.1
234
Thorium-234 Th 24.1 days 5.7 × 10-9 20
a 234 5 -8
Uranium-234 U 2.45 × 10 years 3.9 × 10 4
a 235 8 -8
Uranium-235 U 7.04 × 10 years 3.8 × 10 4
a 238 9 -8
Uranium-238 U 4.47 × 10 years 3.6 × 10 4
Artificial radionuclides
134
Cesium-134 Cs 2.07 years 1.9 × 10-8 7
137 -8
Cesium-137 Cs 30.2 years 1.3 × 10 10
125
Iodine-125 I 59.9 days 1.5 × 10-8 10
131 -8
Iodine-131 I 8.04 days 2.2 × 10 6
99 -9
Molybdenum-99 Mo 65.9 hours 1.9 × 10 70
90
Strontium-90 Sr 29 years 2.8 × 10-8 5
b 3 -11
Tritium H 12.3 years 1.8 × 10 7000
a
The activity concentration of natural uranium corresponding to the chemical guideline of 0.02 mg/L (see separate
guideline technical document on uranium) is about 0.5 Bq/L.
b
Tritium is also produced naturally in the atmosphere in significant quantities.
14
Health and Welfare Santé et Bien-être social
Canada Canada
Guidelines for
Canadian Recreational
Water Quality
Guidelines for
Canadian Recreational
Water Quality
Prepared by the
Federal-Provincial Working Group on
Recreational Water Quality of the
Federal-Provincial Advisory Committee on
Environmental and Occupational Health
Published by authority of
the Minister of National Health and Welfare
Également disponible en français sous le titre

Recommandations au sujet de la qualité des eaux utilisées à des fins
récréatives au Canada
© Minister of Supply and Services Canada 1992
Available in Canada through

Authorized Bookstore Agents
and other bookstores
or by mail from
Canadian Government Publishing Centre

Supply and Services Canada
Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9
Cat. H49-70/1991E
ISBN 0-660-14239-2
2
Table of Contents
Page
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Members of the Federal-Provincial Working Group on

Recreational Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Purpose and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2. General Requirements for Recreational

Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.1 Environmental Health Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2 Epidemiological Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3 Indicator Organism Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.4 Presence of Pathogens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3. Microbiological Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.1 Indicator Organisms for Fresh Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.1.1 Escherichia coli and fecal coliforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.2 Indicator Organisms for Marine Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.2.1 Enterococci . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.3 Coliphages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.4 Pathogenic Organisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.4.1 Pseudomonas aeruginosa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.4.2 Staphylococcus aureus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.4.3 Salmonella . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.4.4 Shigella . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.4.5 Aeromonas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.4.6 Campylobacter jejuni . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.4.7 Legionella . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.4.8 Viruses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.4.9 Protozoa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.4.10 Toxic phytoplankton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3
Page
4. Nuisance Organisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5. Physical and Chemical Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

5.1 pH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5.2 Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
5.3 Aesthetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5.3.1 Turbidity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
5.3.2 Clarity – Light penetration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
5.3.3 Colour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5.3.4 Oil and grease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
5.4 Chemical Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
5.4.1 Inorganic chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
5.4.2 Organic chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
6. Microbiological Sampling and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

6.1 Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
6.1.1 Sampling locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
6.1.2 Frequency of sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
6.1.3 Sampling procedures for water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
6.1.4 Sampling procedures for sediments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
6.1.5 Sample preservation and storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
6.2 Methods for Microbiological Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
6.2.1 Escherichia coli and fecal coliforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
6.2.2 Enterococci . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
6.2.3 Pseudomonas aeruginosa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
6.2.4 Staphylococcus aureus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
6.2.5 Salmonella and Shigella . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
6.2.6 Aeromonas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
6.2.7 Campylobacter jejuni . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
6.2.8 Legionella . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
6.2.9 Protozoa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
6.2.10 Viruses and coliphages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
6.2.11 Toxic phytoplankton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
7. Posting of Recreational Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Appendix 1: Bathing Area Environmental

Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
4
Preface
The increasing use of surface waters in Canada for body contact recrea-
tional purposes, and the larger number of industrial and municipal wastewater
sources entering surface waters, call for guidelines for recreational water
quality. In 1988, the Federal-Provincial Advisory Committee on
Environmental and Occupational Health requested the formation of a Working
Group to revise the recreational water quality guidelines established in 1983.
In preparing this document, the Working Group has thoroughly reviewed
the existing criteria, the current indicators of hygienic quality, water quality
data from recreational areas in various parts of Canada, and pertinent
epidemiological studies. This review took place between April 1988 and July
1989. Maximum limits for indicator organisms in this document are presented
on a per-litre basis to conform to the SI (International System of Units)
guidelines. It is hoped that the document will serve as a national guideline and
that judicious application by responsible operators and authorities will provide
a measure of safety for all Canadians.
Members of the Federal-Provincial Working Group on Recreational

Water Quality
Alberta British Columbia

Mr. John Shaw Dr. Shaun Peck
Environmental Health Capital Regional District
Services 524 Yates Street
10030-107 Street P.O. Box 1000
Edmonton, Alberta Victoria, British Columbia
T5J 3E4 V8W 2S6
Manitoba New Brunswick

Dr. Laila Sekla Mr. Mark Allen
Cadham Provincial New Brunswick Department
Laboratory of Health and Community
Box 8450, Services
750 William Avenue P.O. Box 6000
Winnipeg, Manitoba Carleton Place, King Street
R3C 3Y1 Fredericton, New Brunswick
E3B 5H1
5
Nova Scotia Ontario
Mr. Robert Sumarah Mr. Eric Leggatt (Chairperson)
Victoria General Hospital Ontario Ministry of the
Microbiology Department Environment
Mackenzie Building Hazardous Contaminants
5788 University Avenue Coordination Branch
Halifax, Nova Scotia 135 St. Clair Avenue West
B3H 1V8 Toronto, Ontario
M4V 1P5
Quebec Saskatchewan
Mme Denise Gouin Mr. Douglas Terry
(corresponding member) Saskatchewan Health
Ministère de Box 6500, 105 Crawford Street
l’Environnement Melfort, Saskatchewan
3900 rue Marly S0E 1A0
Sainte-Foy, Québec
G1X 4E4
Environment Canada
Dr. Margaret Taylor
Water Quality Branch
Environment Canada
Place Vincent Massey
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0H3
Department of National Health and Welfare

Dr. Richard Tobin
Environmental Health Directorate
Tunney’s Pasture
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0L2
Mr. William Robertson (Secretariat)

Environmental Health Directorate
Tunney’s Pasture
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0L2
6
Acknowledgements
The Working Group on Recreational Water Quality wishes to thank the

people who willingly provided input, reviews, and comments on this report.
7
1. Purpose and Scope
Recreational waters refer to those natural waters used not only for primary
contact activities, such as swimming, windsurfing, and waterskiing, but also
for secondary contact activities, such as boating and fishing. In this document,
recreational use is defined as any activity involving the intentional immersion
(e.g., swimming) or incidental immersion (e.g., waterskiing) of the body,
including the head, in natural waters. Natural water is defined as any marine,
estuarine or fresh body of water, as well as any artificially constructed
flow-through impoundment using untreated natural waters. Because swim-
ming pools are subject to specific management practices and provincial
regulations intended to protect public health (e.g., disinfection and construc-
tion standards), they are not covered by this publication.
The guidelines deal with health hazards associated with recreational water
use, as well as aesthetic and nuisance conditions. Health hazards associated
with direct contact with water include infections transmitted by pathogenic
microorganisms, as well as injuries and illness due to physical and chemical
properties of the water. The guidelines discuss the indicator organisms –
enterococci, Escherichia coli, other fecal coliforms, and coliphages – as well
as health risks related to exposure to waterborne pathogenic bacteria, viruses,
protozoa, and toxic blue-green algae. Sampling of recreational waters is also
addressed. Other sections deal with physical, chemical, and aesthetic charac-
teristics, nuisance organisms, microbiological methods of sampling and analy-
sis, and posting of beaches and other recreational waters.
The limits recommended in this document will be periodically revised or
adjusted as new or more significant data become available. They should not be
regarded as legally enforceable standards, except when promulgated by the
appropriate provincial or federal agency. It is intended that judicious use of
these guidelines will result in the provision of safe, attractive recreational
waters in all areas of Canada. It is hoped that additional epidemiological studies
will be conducted to provide for refinement of the guidelines in the future.
9
2. General Requirements for Recreational
Water Quality
Waters used for recreational purposes should be sufficiently free from

microbiological, physical, and chemical hazards to ensure that there is negli-
gible risk to the health and safety of the user. The determination of the risk of
disease or harm from microbiological, physical, or chemical hazards is based
on a number of factors, including the following:
• environmental health assessments
• epidemiological evidence
• indicator organism limits
• presence of pathogens.
The decision to post a warning to users of recreational areas or to close an
area for public use should be made by the Medical Health Officer or other
appropriate authority in accordance with the statutes existing in each province.
This decision will be based on an assessment of existing hazards using
available information on the factors listed above.
2.1 Environmental Health Assessments

An annual environmental health assessment should be carried out prior to
the bathing season on the watershed or the area from which water flows to a
recreational area, as well as on the recreational area itself. This survey should
identify all potential sources of contamination and physical hazards that could
affect the recreational area. Appendix 1 provides a suggested checklist for the
health inspector or other appropriate authority to use when making an
assessment.
Attention should be paid to the following:
• the risk of inadequately treated sewage, fecal matter, or chemical
substances entering the water, from either a discharge or a spill
• knowledge of all outfalls or drainage in the area that may contain sewage,
including urban storm water and agricultural waste or runoff
• an inspection of the area for physical hazards
10
• an assessment of the seasonal variability of hazards, the density of bathers,
the water temperature, the frequency of change or circulation of the water,
changes in water depth, and the occurrence of algal blooms
• the fluctuation of water quality with rainfall (wet and dry conditions)
• a reporting mechanism to ensure that health authorities are informed of
any malfunction or change to a municipal, private, or industrial waste
treatment facility that might cause a deterioration of the water quality of
a bathing area.
2.2 Epidemiological Evidence

The local health authorities responsible for making recommendations for
a recreational area should, wherever possible, establish surveillance for bather
illness or injuries. This can be established by comprehensive epidemiological
studies or by formal and informal reporting from physicians and hospital
emergency departments. This surveillance will be increased if there have been
reports of suspected illness or injuries. The water quality may be considered
impaired and appropriate recommendations made as a result of this surveil-
lance. Procedures for the investigation of illness associated with recreational
waters should adhere to the recommendations given in Procedures to
Investigate Waterborne Illness (International Association of Milk, Food and
Environmental Sanitarians, Inc. 1979).
2.3 Indicator Organism Limits

An indicator organism or organisms should be chosen by the local health
authority in consultation with the laboratory microbiologists for each area. It
is recommended that one of the following indicator organisms be used for
routine monitoring of recreational water quality – enterococci, Escherichia
coli, or fecal coliforms.
11
The choice of indicator organism and of enumeration procedures will be
determined according to:
• whether the water is marine (salt), fresh, or estuarine (variable salinity)
• the presence of turbidity, which may interfere with microbiological
methods
• any known correlation of illness with levels of indicator organisms
• the proportion of fecal coliforms in the area that are E. coli, if fecal
coliforms are used as indicator organisms
• local experience of monitoring with a particular organism.
Later sections recommend the limits for each organism and the criteria to
assist in the choice of that organism for routine monitoring. Guidelines for
sampling and microbiological methods are also discussed.
The decision to carry out routine microbiological monitoring of a recrea-
tional area will be made by the local health authorities or other responsible
agency, based on the usage of the area, the environmental health assessment,
and epidemiological evidence.
2.4 Presence of Pathogens

Tests for pathogenic organisms may be carried out when there have been
reports of illnesses of specific etiology, when there is suspected illness of
undetermined cause, or when levels of an indicator organism demonstrate a
continuous suspected hazard. The tests will help to determine the source of
contamination (e.g., sewage pollution, agricultural or urban runoff, bather
origin).
The local health authorities should take action when pathogenic organisms
are identified in sufficient quantity or frequency to be considered a hazard.
Such pathogenic organisms may be Aeromonas spp., Pseudomonas
aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus, Shigella spp., Salmonella spp.,
Campylobacter spp., Giardia spp., human viruses, and toxic phytoplankton.
An appropriate response should be based on the knowledge of the source of
the organism and the probability of the hazard being temporary or continuous.
12
3. Microbiological Characteristics
Recreational waters may be contaminated by direct human contact and by

waterborne pollutants from external sources (e.g., sewage, storm water and
agricultural runoff). Many epidemiological studies have identified gastro-
intestinal and upper respiratory illnesses in bathers that were a result of such
contamination. The indicator organisms recommended in these guidelines are
surrogates for the presence of pathogenic organisms that may cause
gastrointestinal illnesses.
The ideal indicator of fecal contamination of recreational waters would
be one of the enteric pathogens, such as Salmonella or Norwalk virus, most
frequently responsible for waterborne diseases. However, because these are
usually present at low levels and are irregularly distributed, even during disease
outbreaks, they are difficult to isolate and quantify. Moreover, the absence of
one pathogen does not necessarily ensure that other enteric pathogens are also
absent. In addition, testing for every possible waterborne disease-causing
microorganism would be prohibitively expensive in terms of both time and
money. For these reasons, it is common practice to monitor the other more
plentiful but non-pathogenic bacteria present in human and animal feces. The
presence of elevated numbers of these bacteria in the aquatic environment is
indicative of fecal contamination and the possible presence of enteric
pathogens.
The best indicators of the presence of enteric pathogens in fecal pollution
sources should have the following properties (National Academy of Sciences
1977; Cabelli et al. 1983; Elliot and Colwell 1985):
• present in fecal-contaminated waters when enteric pathogens are present
but in greater numbers
• incapable of growth in the aquatic environment but capable of surviving
longer than pathogens
• equally or more resistant to disinfection than pathogens
• easily and accurately enumerated
• applicable to all types of natural recreational waters (e.g., fresh, estuarine,
and marine)
• absent from non-polluted waters and exclusively associated with
animal and human fecal wastes
13
• density of indicator should be directly correlated with the degree of fecal
contamination
• density of indicator should be quantitatively related to swimming-
associated illnesses.
In the past, the most widely used indicator of recreational water quality
was total coliforms. However, because this group does not conform to most of
the above characteristics, it is now considered unsuitable. For example, many
of the genera in this group, such as Klebsiella, Citrobacter, Enterobacter, and
Aeromonas, are not unique to human or animal feces but are commonly present
in unpolluted surface waters (Boyd and Boyd 1962; Goodrich et al. 1970).
Escherichia coli, enterococci, and, to a lesser degree, fecal coliforms are
currently considered the best fecal indicators, because they most closely fit the
above characteristics. Maximum acceptable concentrations of these indicator
organisms are provided below.
The microbiological parameters selected for review are grouped as either
fecal indicators (Sections 3.1 and 3.2), coliphages (Section 3.3) and pathogenic
organisms (Section 3.4). The list is not intended to be comprehensive; some
control agencies may wish to monitor additional parameters to consider
regional interests.
3.1 Indicator Organisms for Fresh Waters

3.1.1 Escherichia coli and fecal coliforms
Maximum Limits
The geometric mean of at least 5 samples, taken during a period not to
exceed 30 days, should not exceed 2000 E. coli/L. Resampling should be
performed when any sample exceeds 4000 E. coli/L. The Working Group
agreed that the tests to be used to fulfil these requirements are as follows:
1. When experience has shown that greater than 90 per cent of the fecal
coliforms are E. coli, either fecal coliform or E. coli may be determined.
2. When less than 90 per cent of the fecal coliforms are E. coli, only E. coli
may be determined.
14
Criteria
Description
For several years, recreational water quality experts in Canada have
recognized E. coli as the indicator of choice for fecal contamination
(Department of National Health and Welfare 1983). However, because its
enumeration required complicated, time-consuming, and expensive techni-
ques, total coliforms and, more recently, fecal coliforms were established as
the indicators of fecal contamination. Fecal coliforms have all the properties
of total coliforms, plus they are able to ferment lactose with the production of
gas in 24 hours at an incubation temperature of 44.5°C. In practice, fecal
coliforms are enumerated either by the most probable number (MPN) multiple
tube fermentation test or by the membrane filtration (MF) method (American
Public Health Association 1989) (see Chapter 5.0). The organisms most often
recovered by these methods are E. coli and Klebsiella spp.
The development of the mTEC method specifically designed to enumerate
E. coli (Shaw and Cabelli 1980; Dufour et al. 1981) has prompted a re-
evaluation of its use for monitoring recreational water quality. In recent tests,
the mTEC method has proved to be more effective for E. coli isolation than
the fecal coliform test (mFC method) for both freshwater samples (Pagel et al.
1982) and marine water samples, even when resuscitation steps were used with
the mFC method (Rippey et al. 1987). The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (1986) recently proposed the use of E. coli as an indicator for
monitoring fecal contamination of fresh recreational waters. The incorporation
of methylumbelliferone glucuronide (MUG) into various fecal coliform media
has also been examined recently (Feng and Hartman 1982; Freier and Hartman
1987; Mates and Schaffer 1988). The enzyme β-glucuronidase, unique to E.
coli and some strains of Salmonella and Shigella, will metabolize MUG to
produce 4-methylumbelliferone, which fluoresces under longwave ultraviolet
light.
Escherichia coli comprises about 97 per cent of the coliform organisms
in human feces, with Klebsiella spp. comprising 1.5 per cent and Enterobacter
and Citrobacter spp. together comprising another 1.7 per cent (Dufour 1977).
Studies by Geldreich (1970) demonstrated that fecal coliforms represented 93
to 99 per cent of the coliforms in feces from humans, poultry, cats, dogs, and
rodents. Dufour (1977) demonstrated that E. coli represented between 90 and
100 per cent of all coliforms in feces from 8 species of domestic animals,
including chickens. Klebsiella spp. constituted a significant proportion of the
coliforms only in feces from goats (8 per cent of the total coliforms) and pigs
(6.8 per cent).
15
The fecal coliform and E. coli tests do not differentiate between animal
and human fecal pollution (Wolf 1972; Dufour 1977). If this distinction is
necessary, ancillary tests such as the speciation of fecal streptococcal isolates
must be performed.
Soil has been shown to be variably contaminated with fecal coliforms due
to animal fecal contamination (Geldreich et al. 1962; Van Donsel et al. 1967)
and is known to contribute very significant pollution to storm water runoff
(Environment Canada/Ontario Ministry of the Environment 1978; Qureshi and
Dutka 1979) and recreational waters (Bastein et al. 1974; Cabelli 1977).
Runoff from residential areas is usually as contaminated with fecal coliforms
and pathogens as dilute sewage (Qureshi and Dutka 1979) and can thus be a
significant health hazard when discharged in the vicinity of recreational waters.
To counter this problem, some Canadian cities with urban beaches have
adopted beach closure policies based on rainfall data. For example, beaches
along the Rideau River in Ottawa are closed for 24 and 48 hours following a
rainfall of greater than 10 and 20 mm, respectively, in the preceding 24 hours
(Corber 1988). This approach has the advantage of posting beaches when the
health risk to bathers is highest.
Although E. coli is undisputed as the fecal indicator of choice, some of
the fecal coliform tests used will also enumerate Klebsiella spp., which are not
restricted to fecal sources. Numerous studies have demonstrated the ability of
Klebsiella spp. to survive and replicate in organic-rich environments, including
waters receiving effluents from pulp and paper mills (Huntley et al. 1976;
Rokosh et al. 1977; Bell et al. 1978) and textile industries (Dufour and Cabelli
1976; Vlassoff 1977). In the past, this disadvantage was somewhat tempered
by the fact that K. pneumoniae was considered pathogenic for debilitated hosts
and that environmental isolates of this species were virtually indistinguishable
from clinical isolates (Matsen et al. 1974; Dufour and Cabelli 1976). However,
a recent review of the Klebsiella literature by Duncan (1988) has convincingly
demonstrated that there is no evidence to suggest that any community infec-
tions have resulted from exposure to Klebsiella spp. in the natural environment.
The concerns that environmental strains of Klebsiella pose a health hazard
seem to be based on hospital situations that cannot be applied to the community
setting. In addition, Klebsiella may not represent a significant proportion of
fecal coliforms in most Canadian recreational waters. Studies in Ontario by
Vlassoff (1981) on more than 7700 water samples indicated that 91.4 per cent
of fecal coliform isolates were identified as E. coli. However, this value could
be too high in recreational waters receiving pulp and paper mill effluents. A
study by Caplenas and Kanarek (1984) demonstrated that effluents from pulp
and paper mills in northern Wisconsin contained up to 90 per cent non-fecal
K. pneumoniae when fecal coliforms were enumerated by the mFC medium.
In 1985, analyses of beach samples impacted by pulp and paper mill effluents
in the vicinity of Thunder Bay revealed that most of the fecal coliforms, in
16
some cases 100 per cent, were Klebsiella (Young 1989). In 1988, an
examination of 162 samples from 19 beaches in the vicinity of St. Catharines
that were impacted by pulp and paper mill effluents indicated that only 37 per
cent of fecal coliforms were E. coli (Brodsky 1989).
Several jurisdictions and agencies have promulgated regulations or sug-
gested limits for fecal coliforms. Many agencies, in addition to specifying a
limit on the geometric mean, also specify that no more than a certain percentage
(usually 10 per cent) should exceed a specific limit (usually twice the specified
mean). Provincial authorities may wish to include this additional condition in
their guidelines or regulations. It has been pointed out that fecal coliforms are
usually sufficiently dispersed so that this percentage, rather than the established
mean, is the factor most often exceeded (Fuhs 1975).
Association with Pathogens

Fecal coliforms are considered useful as indicators because they are
present in virtually all warm-blooded animals, including humans, in numbers
far exceeding the numbers of pathogens. Some attempts have been made to
quantify the relationship of fecal coliforms to pathogens, with limited success.
The pathogen most extensively studied in relation to indicator densities is
Salmonella, mainly because the methodology has been available for a long
time. Geldreich (1970) compiled the results of several studies in which the
fecal coliform density per 100 mL and the frequency of Salmonella detection
were compared. In fresh water, salmonellae were found in 27.6 per cent of
samples where the fecal coliform density was below 200/100 mL, in 85.2 per
cent of samples where the fecal coliform density was between 201 and
2000/100 mL, and in 98.1 per cent of samples where it was over 2000/100 mL.
In estuarine waters, the results were not as definitive. When fecal coliform
densities were less than 200/100 mL, the probability of finding Salmonella
was 28.4 per cent; however, if fecal coliform densities were greater than
2000/100 mL, the probability of finding Salmonella was only 60 per cent.
A recent study has supported these results. Menon (1985), in an investi-
gation of a tidal river in Nova Scotia receiving municipal and food processing
effluents, reported that Salmonella spp. were always detected when fecal
coliform levels were greater than 2000/100 mL and were occasionally detected
when fecal coliform levels were greater than 200/100 mL. Conversely, Pay-
ment et al. (1982) found no relationship between the presence of Salmonella
(most isolates were S. typhimurium) and other bacterial indicators, including
fecal coliforms, at four freshwater bathing beaches in Quebec.
In general, samples containing high concentrations of fecal coliforms will
likely also contain Salmonella, but the absence of fecal coliforms does not
necessarily indicate that Salmonella or other pathogens will be absent. This
relationship is also subject to considerable regional variation. Other compara-
tive studies have been conducted with Pseudomonas aeruginosa (Cabelli et
17
al. 1976; Sherry 1986), Vibrio parahaemolyticus (Robertson and Tobin 1983;
Larsen and Willeberg 1984), Candida albicans (Sherry 1986), Aeromonas
hydrophila (Seidler et al. 1980; Larsen and Willeberg 1984), and
Campylobacter jejuni (Hill and Grimes 1984; Carter et al. 1987).
Enteric viruses have received considerable notoriety as a hazard associated
with the use of recreational water; unfortunately, the relative incidence of virus
and fecal coliforms has not been constant. In one sewage treatment plant
studied extensively, ratios of fecal coliform to viruses ranged from 7500:1 to
2 900 000:1 over a 2-month period (Berg and Metcalf 1978). Sattar (1978a)
found a large variation among the fecal coliform to enterovirus ratios from a
variety of sources: raw sewage (between 1.1 × 106 and 43 × 106), chlorinated
effluent (between 8.5 × 102 and 2.1 × 104), and 2 beaches on the Ottawa River
(between 1.2 × 103 and 1.2 × 106). Analysis of the data gathered from
freshwater beaches in Quebec by Payment et al. (1982) did not reveal any
correlations between the presence of enteric viruses and enteric bacteria,
including fecal coliforms. It is generally agreed at this time that most bacterio-
logical indicators do not correlate well with virus levels, even though the
presence of large numbers of coliforms may indicate the probable presence of
enteric viruses. However, the converse – that the absence of fecal coliforms
indicates that enteric viruses are not present – cannot be ensured (Berg and
Metcalf 1978).
Related Epidemiological Studies

In order to provide rational microbiological guidelines for recreational
water, it is necessary to establish that there is some degree of health risk
associated with a certain level of contamination. Again, because pathogens are
sparse and difficult to quantify, fecal coliforms, including E. coli, have been
used in all major epidemiological studies.
The first widely publicized epidemiological studies in North America
were carried out by the U.S. Public Health Service (Stevenson 1953). These
studies were conducted at 2 freshwater sites on Lake Michigan and the Ohio
River and at 2 marine sites. Swimming-associated gastroenteritis was not
observed at the marine sites or at the Lake Michigan site. However, the Ohio
River study showed increased gastro-intestinal illness at median coliform
densities of about 2300/100 mL. Data subsequently collected from the Ohio
River site during the 1960s suggested that a level of 400 fecal coliforms was
approximately equivalent to the threshold number of 2300 total coliforms
(Geldreich 1966). Following application of a safety factor, the guideline of 200
fecal coliforms/100 mL was developed. Although the design of Stevenson’s
studies has been severely criticized, it is apparent that these studies have formed
the basis of most guidelines in use today.
18
Since then, other microbiological-epidemiological studies have been con-
ducted for recreational water based on fecal coliform concentrations. Seyfried
et al. (1985a, 1985b) conducted an investigation on 10 beaches in Ontario. In
total, 8402 swimmers and non-swimmers were interviewed. Crude morbidity
rates for all illnesses, including respiratory, gastrointestinal, eye and ear, skin,
and allergy illnesses, were roughly 2.4 times greater for swimmers than for
non-swimmers, and 2.6 times greater for swimmers who immersed their heads
than for those that did not. Morbidity among swimmers was shown to be related
to fecal coliform counts (r = 0.284), even though the mean fecal coliform
densities in the water (76/100 mL) were within the accepted guidelines. The
total staphylococcal count was also related to morbidity among swimmers
(r = 0.439). Levels of all groups of bacteria surveyed were at least 10 times
greater in the sediment than in the surface waters, indicating that the resuspen-
sion of sediment may be a significant source of bacteria in recreational waters.
The authors concluded that sediment samples should be analyzed during
microbiological investigations.
During the summer of 1983, a microbiological-epidemiological study of
three coastal beaches in Israel was conducted by Fattal et al. (1986). Although
all beaches complied with Israel Ministry of Health bacteriological standards,
analysis of the results indicated that the incidence of gastroenteritis among
swimmers, particularly in the 0- to 4-year age group, was related to elevated
densities of E. coli as well as enterococci and staphylococci. The incidence of
ear infections in swimmers of all ages was also related to elevated densities of
fecal coliforms, E. coli, and enterococci.
In the United States, a series of controlled epidemiological studies has
been performed by the Environmental Protection Agency at both marine
(Cabelli 1983) and freshwater (Dufour 1984) beaches. A summary of the
studies and a presentation of proposed criteria for recreational waters were
recently published (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1986). Two
beaches were selected at each site, one relatively unpolluted and the other
impacted with point or non-point sources of fecal contamination. In the
freshwater studies, analyses were conducted for fecal coliforms, E. coli, and
enterococci; in the saltwater studies, analyses were conducted for these
indicators as well as several other waterborne pathogens. Regression coeffi-
cients were determined for levels of each of the parameters and the differential
(swimmers minus non- swimmers) gastrointestinal symptom rates. On the
basis of this pooled information, it was concluded that, for marine beaches,
enterococci presented the best relationship with gastrointestinal symptoms
(r = 0.75). At freshwater beaches, the best correlations were obtained with
E. coli (r = 0.80) and enterococci (r = 0.74). Based on these investigations, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed that at freshwater beaches,
the 30-day geometric mean should not exceed 126 E. coli/100 mL or 33 entero-
cocci/100 mL.
19
From the pooled data, it can be calculated that in fresh waters, the seasonal
risk of gastrointestinal illness per 1000 bathers (y) is related to the density of
E. coli/100 mL (x) by the following relationship:
y = 9.40 (log x) - 11.74
This investigation has been one of the most extensive microbiological-

epidemiological studies ever conducted, but it does have certain limitations.
Although E. coli and enterococci are suitable for indicating the risk of
gastroenteritis, this illness represents only about 30 per cent of overall
swimmer-associated morbidity. Escherichia coli and enterococci are not
suitable indicators for upper respiratory or dermal infections caused by
Pseudomonas and Staphylococcus spp. Furthermore, the epidemiological
information collected on the swimmers and non-swimmers and data on the
water quality were averaged over an entire bathing season. Thus, the
bacteriological data cannot be used to assess the risk of gastroenteritis on any
specific day.
Other epidemiological studies have also noted elevated levels of fecal
coliforms, including E. coli, associated with illness. An investigation by
Philipp et al. (1985) demonstrated that snorkel swimming in fecally con-
taminated water presents a significant risk to health. In this British study, 27 per
cent of the swimmers who participated in a competition experienced gastroin-
testinal symptoms within 48 hours of entering the water. The incidence of these
symptoms was significantly greater than their incidence in the control popu-
lations. Escherichia coli concentrations in water samples collected during the
event averaged 1800/100 mL. In light of the fact that this value still conformed
with the European Economic Community guidelines, the authors suggested
that an appraisal of these guidelines was warranted.
Dewailly et al. (1986) conducted an epidemiological study demonstrating
certain health risks associated with windsurfing on water contaminated with
sewage. Seventy-nine windsurfers and 41 controls were monitored over a
9-day competition for the occurrence of gastroenteritis, otitis, conjunctivitis,
and skin infections. Relative risks were 5.5 for gastroenteritis and 2.9 for one
or more of the above symptoms. This study also demonstrated that the relative
risk increased with the reported number of falls in the water. Based on
hydrodynamic simulation using tide levels and actual fecal coliform counts,
mean densities of fecal coliforms at high tides during the competition were
estimated to be 1000/100 mL.
A recent exercise in the United Kingdom (Brown et al. 1987) at two
seaside resorts, although not a controlled epidemiological study, demonstrated
that swimmers at resort A were more likely to develop stomach upsets, nausea,
diarrhea, or headaches than either non-swimmers at the same resort or all
vacationers at resort B. Furthermore, swimmers who had immersed their heads
20
at resort A were most likely of all respondents to have reported gastrointestinal
symptoms. The resorts investigated were chosen on the basis of existing
microbio-logical data that indicated that fecal coliform concentrations at resort
A were 440/100 mL and at resort B were only 10/100 mL.
Although all of the above epidemiological studies were comprehensive
and detailed, they used different methods and produced data that are not
reproducible or comparable.
Occurrence in the Aquatic Environment

Although most Canadian recreational waters are of high microbiological
quality, certain waters are contaminated throughout part, or all, of the bathing
season. Fecal coliform values range from nearly 0/100 mL in isolated areas to
several thousand per 100 mL in areas directly impacted by sewage discharges
(Payment et al. 1982; Ontario Ministry of the Environment 1984; Williamson
1988; Smith 1988). In temperate recreational waters, 63 to 100 per cent of the
fecal coliforms appear to be E. coli, but this range can be affected by
contamination from industrial effluents, particularly pulp and paper and textile
mills.
Escherichia coli has been enumerated at a number of recreational beaches
in Manitoba and Ontario (Sekla et al. 1987; Brodsky 1989; Palmateer 1989;
Young 1989).
Summary
1. In fresh waters, E. coli is the best available indicator of fecal contamina-
tion from warm-blooded animals.
2. Klebsiella is not a good indicator of fecal contamination, but it may be

present at high levels in certain industrial wastes (e.g., pulp and paper
mills, food processing plants). It is not likely to cause infection or illness
in healthy individuals.
3. Where there is evidence that greater than 90 per cent of the fecal coliforms
are E. coli, the E. coli and fecal coliform tests will be considered
equivalent.
4. The presence of E. coli is associated with bather-associated illness, but
its absence cannot be equated with the lack of risk of illness.
5. Current microbiological-epidemiological studies are not sufficiently

validated to allow calculation of risk levels. However, there is some
evidence for increased risk of illness from bathing compared with non-
bathing (i.e., wading or remaining on the beach).
21
6. The 1983 guidelines were, in principle, based on the definitive fecal
coliform, E. coli. However, at that time, the more general fecal coliform
test was considered the method of choice. The Working Group reaffirms
that E. coli is the indicator of choice and recognizes that either the E. coli
test or the fecal coliform test may be used to enumerate this organism,
depending on the circumstances. The maximum acceptable concentration
of 2000 E. coli (or fecal coliforms)/L can be calculated to correspond to
a seasonal gastrointestinal illness of 1 to 2 per cent, based on the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency studies.
3.2 Indicator Organisms for Marine Waters

3.2.1 Enterococci
Maximum Limits
The geometric mean of at least five samples, taken during a period not to
exceed 30 days, should not exceed 350 enterococci/L. Resampling should be
performed when any sample exceeds 700 enterococci/L. However, if it can be
demonstrated that E. coli or fecal coliforms can adequately demonstrate the
presence of fecal contamination in marine waters, then the E. coli or fecal
coliform maximum limit for fresh waters may be used. If there is any doubt,
samples should be examined for both sets of indicators for extended periods
to determine if a positive relationship exists.
Criteria
Description
Enterococci are large, ovoid, Gram-positive bacteria that are generally
present in chains. The term enterococci refers to those species of the fecal
streptococcal group that conform to the biochemical characteristics of the
Sherman criteria (Clausen et al. 1977). They grow at temperatures between 10
and 45°C, survive exposure to 60°C for at least 30 minutes, and grow at pH
9.6 and in 6.5 per cent NaCl. This subgroup, which includes Streptococcus
faecium and S. faecalis, occurs in significant quantities in both human and
animal feces. Streptococcus avium and S. gallinarium, found principally in
bird feces, are also classified as enterococci in Bergey’s Manual of Systematic
Bacteriology (1986). In the previous guidelines, the entire fecal streptococcal
group, both enterococcal and non-enterococcal species, was addressed.
Because the non-enterococcal subgroup includes species that normally occur
only in animal feces (e.g., S. bovis, S. equinis), the more specific enterococcal
subgroup will be considered in these guidelines. However, the presence of
enterococci unique to animal feces may also indicate the presence of patho-
genic microorganisms infectious to both humans and animals.
22
In the past, the main role of the fecal streptococci was in the use of the
fecal coliform to fecal Streptococcus ratio as an indicator of the nature of the
fecal source (Geldreich 1976; Clausen et al. 1977). However, many factors, for
example, the differential die-off rates between these two groups in the natural
environment, make the routine use of this ratio highly questionable, if not
inaccurate. Recent experience indicates that the identification of enterococcal
isolates is more useful in the determination of the type, source, and degree of
fecal contamination (Rutkowski and Sjogren 1987).
Of all the microorganisms considered as suitable recreational water
quality indicators, the enterococci most closely satisfy the desirable charac-
teristics presented in the introduction to this chapter. Enterococci are
exclusively associated with fecal wastes. They survive much longer than the
other indicators in water and sediment (McFeters et al. 1974; Lessard and
Sieburth 1983). Enterococci are also more resistant to sewage treatment,
including chlorination, and thus may be more sensitive indicators of the
survival of enteric pathogens and viruses (Cohen and Shuval 1973). As well,
a strong correlation between the concentration of enterococci in marine waters
and the risk of gastrointestinal infection has been demonstrated (Cabelli 1983).
A membrane filtration method for the enumeration of enterococci in marine
waters has recently been described in detail (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency 1985).
Epidemiological Studies
During the summer of 1983, a microbiological-epidemiological
examination of 3 coastal beaches in Israel was conducted by Fattal et al. (1986).
Although all beaches complied with Israel Ministry of Health bacteriological
standards, analysis of the results indicated that the incidence of gastroenteritis
among swimmers, particularly in the 0- to 4-year age group, was related to
elevated densities of indicator organisms, most notably the enterococci
(p <0.03).
A series of prospective epidemiological studies has also been performed
in the United States at 3 marine and 2 freshwater sites (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency 1986). Two beaches were selected at each site, 1 relatively
unpolluted and the other receiving point or non-point fecal contamination.
Regression coefficients were determined for levels of each of the indicators
measured and the differential (swimmers minus non-swimmers) gastrointes-
tinal symptom rates. On the basis of results pooled for the entire season,
enterococci displayed the best correlation with these symptoms at marine
beaches (r = 0.75). At freshwater beaches, the best correlations were obtained
with E. coli (r = 0.80) and enterococci (r = 0.74).
23
From the pooled data, it can be calculated that in marine waters, the
seasonal risk of gastrointestinal illness per 1000 swimmers (y) is related to the
densities of enterococci per 100 mL (x) by the following relationship:
y = 0.20 + 12.17 (log x)
Based on these investigations, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

proposed that at marine beaches, the 30-day enterococci geometric mean
should not exceed 35/100 mL.
This investigation has probably been one of the most extensive
epidemiological studies conducted to date on recreational beaches, but it does
have certain limitations. In developing the model, it was assumed that the
non-swimming and swimming populations were equally susceptible to illness
acquired from other sources. Although enterococci appear suitable for estimat-
ing the risk of gastrointestinal illness, they are not suitable indicators for the
more prevalent upper respiratory or dermal infections. Furthermore, the data
collected on both the participants and the water quality were averaged over the
entire bathing season. Thus, the indicator data cannot be used to assess the risk
of gastroenteritis on any specific day.

There have been a few published investigations in Canada on the distribu-
tion of fecal streptococci and enterococci in the marine environment. In a
continuing study of the use of enterococci as a suitable indicator of water
quality at marine recreational beaches, Gibson and Smith (1988) described the
distribution of enterococci at 26 beaches in the Vancouver region. Only 1.6 per
cent of the 30-day geometric means exceeded the 35 enterococci/100 mL limit
proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. In 1988, fecal
streptococcal concentrations were also monitored at eight marine beaches
along the Northumberland Strait, New Brunswick (Allen 1989). The overall
geometric mean was only 3.5/100 mL, and fecal streptococci were absent in
60 per cent of the samples.
Summary
1. In marine waters, the enterococci group is the best available indicator of
fecal contamination from warm-blooded animals.
2. Fecal coliforms do not survive well in marine waters and thus may not be
reliable indicators of fecal contamination.
24
3. Enterococci survive longer than fecal coliforms in marine waters and thus
are preferred when there is considerable time or distance between the
source of fecal pollution and the bathing area.
4. There is a positive correlation between gastrointestinal illness and levels

of enterococci in marine waters, but the absence of enterococci does not
indicate a lack of risk.
5. Based on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency epidemiological

study, a seasonal geometric mean of 35 enterococci/100 mL corresponds
to a seasonal gastrointestinal illness rate of 1 to 2 per cent. Because fecal
coliforms do not survive well in marine waters, the use of the fresh water
maximum limit may increase the risk of illness.
3.3 Coliphages
Maximum Limits
No limits are specified for coliphages in recreational waters.
Criteria
Description
Bacteriophages are virus-like entities that invade bacterial cells.
Coliphage is the general name applied to bacteriophages that attack bacteria
of the coliform group. Bradley (1967) described 6 morphological types of
coliphages and suggested that the diversity among coliphages was greater than
the known diversity among mammalian viruses. They differ in size, shape, site
of attachment, and genetic material (e.g., single-stranded DNA, double-
stranded DNA). The numbers of phages replicated may vary from 100 to
several thousand.
Association with Pathogens

An excellent review of the literature on bacteriophages as indicators of
bacterial and viral contamination has been published by Scarpino (1975). In
the review, Scarpino reported that “correlations appear to exist in fresh and
marine waters between bacterial pathogens such as Salmonella and Shigella
species and fecal indication bacteria such as E. coli and their bacteriophages.”
Studies by Kott et al. (1974, 1978), Petrovicova et al. (1988), Dutka et al.
(1987), and Borrego et al. (1987b) have also indicated a correlation between
the presence of coliphage and other bacteriophages and the presence of viruses
and pathogenic bacteria in rivers, lakes, and sewage effluents.
25
Recent research studies on four continents have found the presence of
coliphages and bacteriophages in natural river waters, potable water, and
coliform-free potable waters. Implications of these observations are that
human enteric viruses could also survive in those waters. A Czechoslovakian
study (Simkova and Cervenka 1981) has also shown that both coliphages and
enteroviruses can survive for similar long periods of time in river water, and
thus coliphages can be used as long-term indicators of enterovirus contamina-
tion, even in the presence of chemical pollution. The view of Russian re-
searchers (Petrovicova et al. 1988) is that “an increase of coliphage numbers
in sewage and surface and recreational (swimming pool) waters shall be
considered as an indication for aimed virological studies.”
It may be useful to include coliphage and bacteriophage enumeration as
part of the continuing evaluation of the impact of fecal pollution on recrea-
tional waters. Dutka et al. (1987) suggested that coliphage levels in recreational
fresh waters should not exceed 20 PFU (plaque-forming units)/100 mL.
Summary
1. No limit on coliphages can be established at this time. Monitoring and
epidemiological studies are required to determine the levels of coliphages
in water and the health effects associated with swimming in water
containing coliphages.
3.4 Pathogenic Organisms
3.4.1 Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Maximum Limits
No numerical limit is proposed; however, it is recommended that
Pseudomonas aeruginosa be used as a parameter to assist in interpreting the
results of sanitary and microbiological surveys.
Criteria
Description
Pseudomonas aeruginosa is a motile, Gram-negative, rod-shaped
bacterium that produces oxidase, pyocyanin, and fluorescein. This organism
typically requires minimal growth factors and can multiply in mineral media
containing very low levels of organic material. Pseudomonas aeruginosa
exhibits extensive biochemical versatility and resistance to anti-microbial
agents. As well as being a pathogen to man and animals and causing a variety
26
of infections, including skin rashes and otitis externa, P. aeruginosa is active
as a spoilage organism, attacking many common and exotic substrates
(Hoadley 1977).
Pathogenicity
Pseudomonas aeruginosa has been identified as the causative agent in
many infections. The organism seems capable of infecting plants, insects,
birds, and mammals including humans. Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections
are most frequent and dangerous in nurseries and among hospital patients with
cancer, burns, and tracheotomies (Hoadley 1977); the organism is a common
causative agent for nosocomial or hospital-acquired infections in patients that
are in a debilitated state or have a compromised immune system, as well as
where there is widespread use of antibiotics.
Pseudomonas aeruginosa is known to cause skin rashes (Kush and
Hoadley 1980) and eye infections (Wilson and Ahearn 1977) and is the primary
organism associated with external ear infections (otitis externa) (Cassisi et al.
1977). Ratnam et al. (1986) reported that P. aeruginosa in a hotel whirlpool
had caused folliculitis in hotel guests that used the whirlpool. Cabelli et al.
(1979) and McKee and Wolfe (1963) claimed that most reports of swimming-
associated illness implicated non-enteric infections; P. aeruginosa has been
implicated in non-enteric infections associated with bathing. Jones (1965)
claimed that P. aeruginosa was the major etiological agent in otitis externa.
Seyfried (1973) and Hoadley and Knight (1975) supported this finding.
Seyfried isolated an identical serological strain from both a pool and an otitis
externa-infected person who was using the pool. Hoadley and Knight, using
telephone surveys, reported that the frequency of “earaches” among swimmers
was 2.4 times higher than among non-swimmers; also, the chance of acquiring
otitis externa, as reported by physicians, increased by five times for swimmers
compared with the general population. Young and Armstrong (1972) reported
the isolation of P. aeruginosa from skin and the outer ear. Craun (1976)
reported the isolation of the same serotype of P. aeruginosa from a swimming
pool and from the skin lesions of two affected bathers. McClausland and Cox
(1975) reported that P. aeruginosa caused a rash outbreak among bathers at a
pool; however, it was never proven whether the source of the organism was
endogenous or exogenous (Cabelli et al. 1975).
Although Hoadley and Knight (1975) observed measurable health effects
associated with swimming in sewage-polluted waters, Cabelli et al. (1979)
were not able to show a good agreement between P. aeruginosa levels and the
differential (swimmers minus non-swimmers) rate of gastrointestinal
symptoms.
Pseudomonas aeruginosa in the water enters the ear canal and may lead
to either colonization or infection. The actual process of infection appears to
be, in part, related to the sensitivity of the individual to P. aeruginosa
27
infections. Pseudomonas aeruginosa can be spread into the water if an
infected ear is immersed while swimming (Seyfried et al. 1984). Data from a
4-year comprehensive Ontario study were used to develop a relationship
between the concentration of P. aeruginosa in the bathing waters and the risk
of ear infection (Ontario Ministry of the Environment 1984). In this study,
10 per cent of the sample bather population reported having ear infections in
the first year of the study (1978), and 8 per cent reported ear infections in the
second year. In both years, over 70 per cent of the cases were in children
14 years old or younger, and 90 per cent of these had reported previous ear
infections.

Pseudomonas aeruginosa has been considered ubiquitous in U.S. waters.
Cabelli et al. (1976) claimed that P. aeruginosa, “because of its poor reliability
as an indicator of fecal pollution, cannot be used as a basis of water standards
for the prevention of enteric diseases during the recreational use of surface
waters.” They based this statement on their observations of geographical and
seasonal density fluctuations and of many non-fecal reservoirs of
P. aeruginosa, as well as the ability of this organism to multiply in waters with
low nutrient content.
Studies done on lakes in Ontario indicated that P. aeruginosa is most
likely to be found in bathing areas impacted by high human activity. Both
sewage and bathers are possible sources of this organism in recreational waters.
In raw domestic sewage, concentrations of 105 to 106 P. aeruginosa/100 mL
are common, as slightly in excess of 10 per cent of the healthy adults in the
United States are intestinal carriers of P. aeruginosa. In addition, Pseudo-
monas levels in excess of 100 organisms/100 mL can be measured in waters
receiving surface drainage from urban areas (Ontario Ministry of the Environ-
ment 1984).
Pseudomonas aeruginosa survives longer in waters than do coliforms
(Lanyi et al. 1966). Drake (1966) suggested that P. aeruginosa levels from 1 to
10/100 mL could be expected in rivers with low but definite sources of
contamination. Levels of P. aeruginosa in Ontario recreational waters range
from 0/100 mL to more than 100/100 mL. The median level is typically less
than 1/100 mL (Ontario Ministry of the Environment 1984).
Summary
1. Pseudomonas aeruginosa is typically isolated from fresh recreational
waters in low numbers. The levels of P. aeruginosa in a bathing area are
influenced by density of bathers, especially individuals that are infected
with P. aeruginosa or are carriers.
28
2. Levels of P. aeruginosa are influenced by sewage or urban drainage
sources.
3. Pseudomonas aeruginosa has been associated with the occurrence of

otitis externa in bathers.
4. One Ontario study has demonstrated that when levels of P. aeruginosa

exceed 10/100 mL in at least 25 per cent of the seasonal samples, otitis
externa may be expected to occur.
3.4.2 Staphylococcus aureus

Maximum Limits
No limits are specified for Staphylococcus aureus. Sampling for this
pathogen should be carried out when there is epidemiological or other evidence
of its presence in the water or in order to assess the hazards of excessive
utilization of the water with possible person-to-person transfer of pathogens.
Criteria
Description
The Staphylococcus genus comprises Gram-positive, catalase-positive
cocci that ferment glucose and grow aerobically and anaerobically. Staphylo-
coccus aureus is identified by its ability to coagulate rabbit plasma in the
presence of anti-coagulating agents. Other important diagnostic tests include
the anaerobic fermentation of mannitol and the production of heat-stable
nuclease (Evans 1977). Six biotypes exist that can be related to the animals
that are their usual hosts (Dimitracopoulos et al. 1977).
Staphylococcus is not considered to be a natural inhabitant of environ-
mental waters and is usually unable to grow there. It requires many organic
nutrients to grow in water at about 20°C and grows little, if at all, below 10°C.
It is, however, resistant to many environmental influences and can survive for
relatively long periods of time. The presence of staphylococci in recreational
waters is considered to be mainly due to discharges from the mouth, nose, and
throat of swimmers, as well as from their skin surface. These organisms have
been shown to be derived from bathers in studies on swimming pools (Mallman
1962; Favero et al. 1964; Paul 1972; Palmquist and Jankow 1973) and, to a
lesser extent, natural waters (Oriz 1977). The 16th edition of Standard Methods
for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (American Public Health Asso-
ciation 1989) identifies staphylococci as among the pathogens of human origin
in natural bathing beaches. The extent and magnitude of the contribution of
animals and land runoff to the total staphylococcal load have not been well
documented.
29
Pathogenicity
Staphylococcus aureus is considered to be the major pathogen of this
genus. It is responsible for most purulent infections, including boils and
infected cuts and scratches (Evans 1977). Seyfried (1973) reported 1 case of
ear infection associated with swimming in a contaminated pool. At present,
there are no convincing data relating the frequency of illness to the degree of
pollution of recreational waters.
In spite of the paucity of information that would allow an estimate of risk
to be made for water of a particular quality, some maximum levels have been
proposed. Limits suggested for safe bathing range from a “cocci” index of less
than 15/100 mL (Seligmann 1951) to 100/100 mL (Favero et al. 1964).
Seyfried (1987) found that total staphylococcus, fecal coliform, and fecal
streptococci correlated best with swimming-associated morbidity. This was
based on a 1983 study of freshwater beaches in southern Ontario and included
an epidemiological component to the study. The study recommended that fecal
coliforms, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and total Staphylo-
coccus be employed as recreational freshwater quality indicators.
Seyfried (1987) found geometric mean levels of total Staphylococcus of
142/100 mL for beaches in use and 96/100 mL for beaches that had been closed.
The total staphylococci index has, in general, been favoured over a S. aureus
index for purposes of health protection.

Limited data indicate that Staphylococcus is present at relatively low
levels at Canadian beaches. One study revealed the presence of 10 to 40
staphylococci/100 mL in urban runoff (Environment Canada/Ontario Ministry
of the Environment 1978). Studies performed by Seyfried (1973) demonstrated
levels of between 30 and 90/100 mL on one of three Lake Erie beaches that
were tested. Two of three Lake Ontario beaches were positive for S. aureus.
Two of three Ontario conservation areas were positive for staphylococci, one
species being coagulase-positive.
A more recent study (Seyfried 1980) of several Great Lakes beaches
revealed the consistent presence of staphylococci. Of 12 Lake Ontario beaches
studied, the modes ranged between 10 and 122/100 mL, with very few
S. aureus being detected. In water from 10 Lake Erie beaches, modes ranged
from 28 to 380/100 mL. In water from seven Lake Huron beaches, modes
ranged from seven to 49/100 mL.
Summary
1. Staphylococcus aureus is known to be a major pathogen to man. It is
responsible for boils, ear infections, and other purulent infections.
30
2. There appears to be a relationship between bather numbers and
staphylococci levels in the water, but there does not appear to be a
significant relationship between bather illness and concentration of
S. aureus in the water.
3. For these reasons, no limit is being established for staphylococci at this

time. Monitoring and epidemiological studies for this pathogen are
recommended.
3.4.3 Salmonella
Maximum Limits
No limit is proposed for Salmonella concentrations in recreational waters.
Instead, it is recommended that Salmonella be used as a parameter to assist in
interpreting the results of sanitary and microbiological surveys. Because
virtually all Salmonella species are pathogenic, a health hazard exists when
Salmonella can be consistently isolated from a bathing area.
Criteria
Description
Salmonella species are members of the family Enterobacteriaceae and are
Gram-negative, motile, straight, rod-shaped bacteria that ferment glucose but
not lactose. Because of the antigenic complexity of the genus, organisms within
this group are often identified by serotype as opposed to species. More than
1400 different Salmonella serotypes have been recognized (Bergey’s Manual
of Systematic Bacteriology 1986).
Pathogenicity
Salmonellosis is any disease in man or animal for which the causative
agent is the Salmonella bacterium. The symptoms of this infection include
acute gastroenteritis, enteric fever, and septicemia. Salmonellosis is a world-
wide animal and human health problem that is compounded by the large
number of serotypes and the widespread occurrence of the causative organism.
Dudley et al. (1976) developed a mathematical model to quantitatively
estimate the recreational user health risk due to exposure to Salmonella in
recreational waters. He concluded that more research was required to develop
standardized quantitative Salmonella detection techniques for routine use with
recreational waters before his model could be used effectively. In addition,
Dutka and Bell (1973) suggested that all members of the genus are potentially
pathogenic and should be considered a health hazard. There have been a
number of reports of salmonellosis in communities where water supplies are
31
considered to meet coliform standards (Dutka and Bell 1973). Van Donsel et
al. (1967) indicated that S. typhimurium was still able to infect humans after
surviving 280 days in contaminated soil.

Cherry et al. (1972) found that 65 per cent of the samples taken from
moderately polluted waters contained Salmonella; 38 per cent of the samples
taken from minimally polluted waters were positive for Salmonella; and 11 per
cent of the samples from unpolluted streams were positive for Salmonella. A
relationship between the presence of Salmonella and the levels of fecal
coliforms in water has also been noted (Geldreich et al. 1968; Smith and Twedt
1971; Smith et al. 1973; Hoadley et al. 1974). It appears that Salmonella can
be consistently isolated from surface waters where the fecal coliform levels are
above 200/100 mL.
Menon (1985) isolated five Salmonella serotypes (S. infantis, S. typhi-
murium, S. saint-paul, S. tennessee, and S. heidelberg) from a tidal river in
Nova Scotia that received both municipal and food processing plant effluents.
The sources of Salmonella were traced to effluents from meat and poultry
plants and several sewage treatment plants. Fecal coliform counts in the river
also exceeded recommended recreational and shellfish harvesting guidelines.
Palmateer (1980) also isolated Salmonella serotypes from surface water
containing the effluent from poultry and meat packing plant operations. It was
confirmed that four of the serotypes isolated (S. bareilly, S. infantis,
S. schwarzengrund, and S. typhimurium) had been identified as the causative
agents of several outbreaks of salmonellosis in Ontario. Salmonella thompson
and S. typhimurium were also frequently recovered from a storm sewer outfall
during periods of rainfall (Qureshi and Dutka 1979). Bell et al. (1978) isolated
Salmonella species from the North Saskatchewan River that were resistant to
five commonly used antibiotics. Qureshi (1977) isolated four Salmonella
serotypes from urban storm water samples collected in Toronto and Guelph.
These four serotypes are among those often isolated from humans during recent
years.
Several studies have demonstrated that S. typhimurium can survive longer
than Escherichia coli in fresh and estuarine waters (Gosselin 1979; McCam-
bridge and McMeekin 1981). In Lake Ontario and Hamilton Harbour,
S. thompson survived for at least 20 days (Dutka and Kwan 1980). Such
survival data demonstrate that occasional discharges of storm water or sewage
may have cumulative effects, so that natural temperate waters could contain
pathogens and therefore constitute a potential health hazard.
Salmonella have been isolated in higher numbers from bottom sediments
than from the overlying waters (Van Donsel and Geldreich 1971; Hendricks
1971). This was linked with prolonged survival of Salmonella in the
32
sediments. Van Donsel and Geldreich (1971) suggested that Salmonella should
be isolated from the sediments only when the fecal coliform levels reach
200/100 mL.
Summary
1. Salmonella organisms are pathogenic, and a health hazard exists if these
organisms can be consistently isolated from a bathing area.
2. The methods for the isolation of Salmonella have not been standardized,
and routine enumeration is not practical.
3. Salmonella can be considered as a support parameter to aid regulatory

agencies in determining the health risk involved in using waters for
recreation.
3.4.4 Shigella
Maximum Limits
No maximum limits are specified for Shigella in bathing areas. Sampling
for these organisms in waters used for recreation should be carried out when
there is epidemiological or other evidence of their presence in the water or in
order to assess the hazards of excessive utilization of the water with possible
person-to-person transfer of pathogens.
Criteria
Description
Members of the genus Shigella are typically Gram-negative, non-mo-
tile, lactose-negative organisms that do not produce hydrogen sulphide. Shigel-
lae are enteric bacilli and have been the main etiological agents of bacillary
dysentery (Lund 1978).
Pathogenicity
Shigellosis, the infection caused by Shigella, can be transmitted through
person-to-person contact, poor-quality drinking water, or contaminated food.
The symptoms of shigellosis range from a mild transitory diarrhea to vomiting,
abdominal pains, fever, and profuse bloody feces. On a few occasions, its
transmission has been reported through bathing in contaminated waters. How-
ever, very few studies have been carried out to detect Shigella spp. in the
aquatic environment, mainly because there are no standardized methods for
detection or enumeration of Shigella in water. The methodologies that have
been used to examine water for Shigella spp. are reported to have low
sensitivity and can be considered qualitative only (Wang et al. 1966; Geldreich
1972).
33
McCabe and Craun (1975) reported that Shigella spp., especially
S. sonnei, were the most commonly identified pathogens causing waterborne
disease outbreaks during 1971 and 1972 in the United States and Canada. These
outbreaks were associated with polluted drinking water. A severe outbreak of
shigellosis associated with swimming in the section of the Mississippi River
below Dubuque, Iowa, has been documented (Anonymous 1974; Rosenberg
et al. 1976). As a result of the follow-up on this epidemic, Rosenberg et al.
(1976) remarked that shigellosis – “a disease that can be caused by ingestion
of only 10 to 100 organisms – can be contracted by swimming in polluted
waters.” This was the first epidemic of shigellosis that could be linked with
bathing. Cabelli (1979), in reconstructing the epidemiological evidence from
the shigellosis outbreak at Dubuque, concluded that, although the fecal coli-
form levels exceeded 200/100 mL for a period of several years, a critical level
of Shigella carriers or ill individuals discharging into the environment had to
occur before there would be an outbreak of shigellosis.
More recently, Makintubee et al. (1987) reported the occurrence of at least
62 cases (38 primary or co-primary and 24 secondary) of shigellosis (S. sonnei)
associated with swimming in a natural reservoir. Although excessive concen-
trations of fecal indicator bacteria were present in the water, Shigella was not
recovered.

Shigella can be isolated from the feces of warm-blooded animals and
sewage. Lund (1978) suggested that the bacterium tends to survive for a
relatively short period of time in the environment. Hendricks (1972), using
autoclaved river water collected downstream from a sewage outfall, found that
Shigella grows best at 30°C and reproduces at a rate 2 to 3 times slower than
coliforms. He observed little or no growth at temperatures of 5 to 20°C. Wang
et al. (1966) found that the organism survives longer in wastewater at 15°C
than at 25°C. Andre et al. (1967) observed that Shigella persisted in untreated
farm pond water for 12 days. Other survival characteristics, reviewed by
Geldreich (1972), include an appreciable reduction in survival time by the use
of aeration or by the reduction of the pH below 7.6.
Summary
1. Shigella organisms are pathogenic, and a health hazard exists if these
organisms can be consistently isolated from a bathing area.
2. The methods for the isolation of Shigella have not been standardized, and
routine enumeration is not practical.
34
3. Shigella can be considered as a support parameter to aid regulatory
agencies in determining the health risk involved in using waters for
recreation.
3.4.5 Aeromonas
Maximum Limits
No maximum limit has been proposed for Aeromonas in bathing areas. It
is recommended that sampling for Aeromonas in waters used for recreation
be considered only for epidemiological investigations.
Criteria
Description
Organisms belonging to the genus Aeromonas are facultatively anaerobic,
Gram-negative rods possessing polar flagella. The temperature range for
bacillus growth is between 0 and 41°C (Ewing et al. 1961). Aeromonas species
are widely distributed in stagnant and flowing fresh waters, in sludge, and in
sewage (Hazen et al. 1978). Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology
(1986) and Popoff et al. (1981) recognize three species of Aeromonas found
in clinical specimens: A. hydrophila, A. caviae, and A. sobria. However,
Aeromonas can be divided into 9 to 12 DNA hybridization groups, and the
taxonomy has yet to be clarified.
Pathogenicity
Human infections with Aeromonas occur predominantly during the
period from May to November, probably because of the aquatic origin of the
bacteria (Davis et al. 1978). Infections caused by the species have been divided
into four categories (von Graevenitz 1985):
• cellulitis or wound infection related to exposure to water
• acute diarrheal disease of short duration
• septicemia, mostly in association with hepatic biliary or pancreatic disease
• other infections, such as soft-tissue infections, urinary tract infections,

meningitis, peritonitis, otitis, and endocarditis, particularly in immuno-
compromised people.
Aeromonas species cause an acute, self-limiting diarrheal illness in
humans; this is supported by the finding of various exotoxins. One of them,
enterotoxin, has been detected by infant mouse tests (Turnbull et al. 1984); it
is a heat- and acid-labile molecule and causes cell lysis in tissue culture.
35
Carrier rates of 2 to 3 per cent for Aeromonas in feces have been observed
in England, the United States, and Australia, with no associated gastrointestinal
disease.

Aeromonas species can be isolated from the feces of warm-blooded
animals, sewage, fresh waters, and salt waters that interface with fresh water.
They have been found at pH values of 5.2 to 9.8 and at temperatures between
4 and 45°C. They are not considered halophilic, because their salt tolerance
ranges from 0 to 4 per cent. They have also been isolated from soil and
foodstuffs (Ewing et al. 1961).
Hanson et al. (1977) reported a case, in a previously healthy young man,
of severe cellulitis that developed from a laceration that occurred during
swimming. Aeromonas hydrophila was recovered in large numbers from the
wound and the freshwater lake where the injury occurred.
Joseph et al. (1979) reported a case of primary soft-tissue infection caused
by two species of Aeromonas (A. hydrophila and A. sobria) in a student diver
conducting scuba operations in a freshwater lake.
Summary
1. As water appears to be the natural habitat of Aeromonas, this organism
should not be used as an indicator of fecal pollution or as a sanitary
indicator for bathing areas.
2. Aeromonas may be pathogenic, but sampling of recreational water should

be considered for epidemiological investigations only.
3.4.6 Campylobacter jejuni

Maximum Limits
No limits are specified for Campylobacter jejuni in recreational waters.
Sampling for this pathogen should be conducted when there is epidemiological
or other evidence of its presence in the water. Sampling should also be
considered to assess the hazards of excessive utilization of the water with
possible person-to-person transfer of pathogens.
Criteria
Description
Campylobacter jejuni (C. fetus subsp. jejuni) and C. coli are now recog-
nized as important enteric pathogens, often responsible for diarrhea in humans
(Benenson 1985). Campylobacteriosis, also known as campylobacter enteritis
or gastroenteritis, is the name of the illness caused by C. jejuni.
36
Campylobacter is thought to be responsible for a greater proportion of
enteritis than either Salmonella or Shigella. Diagnosis is based on isolation of
the organisms from feces using selective media, reduced oxygen tension, and
an incubation temperature of 43°C. Visualization of motile curved, spiral, or
S-shaped rods similar to those of Vibrio cholerae by phase- contrast or
dark-field microscopy of feces can provide rapid presumptive evidence for
campylobacter enteritis.
Source and Pathogenicity

Campylobacter jejuni has been isolated from water, mud, livestock, and
dogs and cats. Birds, in particular, have been a well-documented reservoir, as
small amounts of bird droppings in water can release many Campylobacter
organisms (Benenson 1985; Sacks et al. 1986). Modes of transmission to
humans include contact with animals, handling raw chicken, person-to-person
contact, and consumption of contaminated food, raw milk, and water. The
infective dose of Campylobacter in water is unknown. Comparatively, as few
as 500 organisms in milk can be infectious (Robinson 1981).
Waterborne outbreaks of campylobacter enteritis have been associated
with municipal water systems in North America (Sacks et al. 1986; Borczyk
et al. 1987) and various European countries (Bolton et al. 1987).
Surface waters can contain Campylobacter spp., but their survival is
temperature dependent. At 4°C, they can survive from 11 days to 4 weeks, and
at 25°C, from 2 to 4 days (Mentzing 1981). In another study, C. jejuni
inoculated into autoclaved mountain stream water remained viable for 33 days
at 4°C. At 25°C, the organisms became non-viable within 4 days (Blaser et al.
1980). In an investigation of a waterborne outbreak, it was thought that, despite
warm ambient temperatures, an accumulation of algae and scum in an open
settling tank could have contributed to the organisms’ extended viability (Sacks
et al. 1986).

In a study by Taylor et al. (1982), C. jejuni was responsible for sporadic
summertime diarrheal disease with the consumption of untreated surface
waters in wilderness areas. Subsequently, C. jejuni was isolated from animals
in the area. Another study (Taylor et al. 1983) involved a campylobacter
enteritis outbreak that was epidemiologically linked to the community raw
water system.
The survival of C. jejuni has been tested in drinking water, river water,
and sewage; results indicate that its survival is restricted to a few days (Pickert
and Botzenhart 1985). The concentration of oxygen and nutrients in the
samples did not appear to affect survival, whereas temperature was
demonstrated to be the most significant variable.
37
Campylobacter appears in the environment more commonly during sum-
mer. Studies of birds indicate an increase in Campylobacter carriage in the
summer compared with the winter; this coincides with waterborne
campylobacter outbreaks, which tend to occur only in summer and fall (Sacks
et al. 1986).
In a study by Bolton et al. (1987) involving a river system that traversed
rural and urban areas, the lowest frequency of isolation and the lowest counts
obtained (10 Campylobacter/100 mL) were associated with samples collected
from rural sites and areas with faster river flow. The greatest frequency of
isolation and the highest counts (20 to 30 Campylobacter/100 mL) were
associated with samples collected adjacent to, or downstream from, sewage
works. A seasonal trend was demonstrated: the highest counts and most
isolations were obtained in late autumn and winter, and the lowest counts and
fewest isolations were obtained in the spring and summer. Heavy rainfall and
the subsequent runoff from adjacent farmland were found to contribute to
increased counts of Campylobacter in the river system.
Several studies have isolated Campylobacter spp. from surface water in
association with Escherichia coli (Carter et al. 1987). These studies indicated
that Campylobacter spp. were detected only in the presence of E. coli.
Summary
1. Recent improvements in environmental sampling techniques and means
to distinguish strains have made environmental studies more feasible
(Taylor et al. 1982).
2. Water is potentially an important reservoir of the thermophilic
Campylobacter and is an established vehicle for the transmission of
Campylobacter to man and domestic animals.
3. The use of a standard indicator of fecal pollution would be helpful in

determining potential health hazards related to Campylobacter spp. as
well as other bacterial intestinal pathogens.
4. All data to date link campylobacter enteritis to water consumption and not
recreational contact. For this reason, no limit is being established at this
time. Monitoring may be conducted where warranted on the basis of
epidemiological or other data. A health hazard exists if Campylobacter
can be consistently isolated from a bathing area.
3.4.7 Legionella
Maximum Limits
No limits are specified for Legionella spp. in recreational waters.
38
Criteria
Description
At least 22 species of Legionella have been identified. These are
Gram-negative, non-spore-forming, aerobic bacilli, which grow at 35 to 37°C
in special media (e.g., buffered charcoal yeast extract).
Pathogenicity
Since the outbreak of Legionnaires’ Disease in Philadelphia in 1976,
Legionellaceae have been recognized as an important cause of respiratory
illnesses, causing legionellosis and Pontiac fever. Legionellosis is a
multiple-system disease that can be fatal in immuno-compromised persons.
Pontiac fever is a self-limited, flu-like illness, mainly affecting
immuno-competent persons. The mode of infection is by inhalation of infected
aerosols. Almost all outbreaks of endemic and epidemic, community-acquired,
and nosocomial infections have been related to indoor plumbing and air
conditioning systems (Benenson 1985).

All Legionella are aquatic bacteria, found mainly in water and mud
(Edelstein 1985). Five reports can be found on legionellosis associated with
recreational waters: two outbreaks of Pontiac fever associated with the use of
whirlpool (Mangione et al. 1982; Goldberg et al. 1989); one case of a wound
infection in a hydrotherapy tank (Brabender et al. 1983); one case associated
with near drowning (Sekla et al. 1982); and 1 case following immersion in a
river (Farrant et al. 1988).
Summary
1. Legionella are natural aquatic bacteria and cannot be used as an indicator
of fecal pollution or as a sanitary indicator of bathing areas.
2. There are very few data available on legionellosis associated with

recreational waters.
3. Routine testing of recreational waters for Legionella is not recommended.
3.4.8 Viruses
Maximum Limits
In Canada, no limits are specified for viruses in recreational waters.
Sampling for viruses should be conducted when there is epidemiological or
other evidence of their presence in the water or in order to assess the hazards
of excessive utilization of the water with possible person-to-person transfer of
pathogens.
39
Criteria
Description
Viruses are submicroscopic microorganisms that are unable to replicate
outside their normal host. Among the more than 100 enteric viruses that are
excreted in feces and could possibly be found in recreational waters, some can
remain infective for several months in water and underlying sediments (Sattar
1981), including enteroviruses (polio, coxsackie, echo, and hepatitis A
viruses), adenoviruses, rotaviruses, reoviruses, Norwalk viruses, caliciviruses,
astroviruses, and coronaviruses. The infectious dose of some human enteric
viruses can be as low as one tissue culture unit (Plotkin and Katz 1967; Ward
and Akin 1984; Ward et al. 1986) and at least one order of magnitude lower
than that of bacteria (Blaser and Newman 1982).
Pathogenicity
The diseases produced by the enteric viruses range from unapparent to
severe. Enteric viruses can cause gastroenteritis, hepatitis A and hepatitis E
(non-A, non-B hepatitis), fever, respiratory ailments, eye infections, central
nervous system infections, poliomyelitis, etc. (Sattar 1978b; Gerba et al. 1985;
Gust and Purcell 1987).
The lack of a central reporting of such infections coupled with rapid
person-to-person transmissions have made it extremely difficult to determine
the existence of waterborne viral diseases (Pipes 1978). The risk associated
with bathing in virus-contaminated waters has been discussed by Payment
(1984) and Craun (1986).
Epidemiology
Reports of recreational waterborne viral infections are rare (Paffenbarger
et al. 1959; McLean 1965). Transmission of adenoviruses from swimming
pools has been reported (Foy et al. 1968; Caldwell et al. 1974) and usually
causes eye infections. Transmission of enteric viruses from lake waters has also
been documented for coxsackievirus B3 (Hawley et al. 1973), coxsackie A16
(Denis et al. 1974), hepatitis A virus (Bryan et al. 1974), Norwalk virus
(Koopman et al. 1982; Kappus et al. 1982), and, finally, echovirus (Walter-
Offenhauser and Horn 1974).

A large number of enteric viruses may be found in the aquatic environment
(Department of National Health and Welfare 1977; Bitton et al. 1985) as a
result of pollution by animal wastes, municipal sewage, and other sources of
human waste. In contrast to fecal coliform bacteria, which are present in all
feces, viruses are excreted only from infected individuals (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency 1978a), who often are symptomless carriers in the
40
under-15-years age group (Ramoz-Alverez and Sabin 1956). It is established
that virus levels in water vary markedly on an hourly, daily, and seasonal basis
(Berg and Metcalf 1978), whereas total and fecal coliform levels are generally
more stable. For these reasons, the ratio of viruses to total coliforms of 1:65
000 does not always hold true (Scarpino 1975). Berg and Metcalf (1978) also
demonstrated that fecal coliforms and enteric viruses do not occur in any
constant ratio. Viruses have been found in the absence of detectable fecal
coliforms (Berg 1978), and significant levels of viruses have been found in
waters well within the bacteriological limits recommended for recreational
waters (Goyal et al. 1978). Resistance to chlorine inactivation has been
reported by Bates et al. (1977).
Several studies have investigated virus levels in sewage (Sattar and
Westwood 1977, 1978; Subrahmanyan et al. 1979; Sekla et al. 1980), rivers
(Subrahmanyan 1977; Sattar and Westwood 1977; Sekla et al. 1980; Payment
et al. 1988), and lakes (McLean 1965; Subrahmanyan 1977). An extensive
investigation of water in the Ottawa River (Sattar 1978a) revealed that, at one
site, seven out of 16 samples were positive for virus; at a recreational beach,
11 of 20 samples were positive, with a range of 0.6 to 16.8 infective units/ 10 L.
The sources of contamination were raw sewage inputs, as well as treated,
chlorinated sewage effluents (Sattar and Westwood 1978).
Payment (1977) suggested a limit of one tissue culture infectious
dose/40 L, whereas Sattar (1978a) proposed one infective unit/10 L when a
100-L sample is examined. In Israel, Shuval (1975) recommended that tenta-
tive limits be established. In the United States, Melnick (1976) suggested a
limit of one detectable infectious virus unit/10 U.S. gallons (37.9 L) of
recreational water. The State of Arizona adopted a surface water standard of
not greater than one enteric virus/40-L sample (Gerba 1988).
The investigation of viral waterborne outbreaks requires special
laboratory facilities. Occasional monitoring for viruses can be carried out to
determine their distribution and relationship to disease incidence, but routine
tests of recreational waters is not recommended.
Summary
1. Viruses are known to be pathogenic in low numbers. As few as one
infective tissue culture unit can cause disease when ingested. Concentra-
tion and enumeration steps are too detailed to make routine monitoring
practical.
2. Very few data are available on current virus levels in recreational waters.
3. There is no correlation between viral and bacterial counts in recreational

waters.
41
4. No limit can be established for viruses at this time. Monitoring and
epidemiological studies are needed to determine the levels of viruses in
water and the health effects of swimming in virus-contaminated waters.
3.4.9 Protozoa
Maximum Limits
No limits are specified for pathogenic protozoa in recreational waters.
Criteria
Description, Pathogenicity, and Occurrence
A large number of pathogenic parasites can occur in the aquatic
environment. Of potential importance in Canada are 4 protozoa (Giardia,
Cryptosporidium, Naegleria, and Entamoeba histolytica) and 1 helminth
(Schistosoma).
Giardia is currently the most common pathogenic intestinal protozoan in
Canada and the United States. The ingestion of a few (10 to 100) viable cysts
can cause a diarrheal illness (giardiasis). Transmission can be from person to
person or via food or water. Waterborne giardiasis has received much attention
lately, as outbreaks have been traced to pristine waters, as well as to sewage-
contaminated potable waters (Lin 1985). Giardia are more resistant to
chlorination than indicator organisms, pathogenic bacteria, and viruses
(Sobsey 1989). Thus, fecal coliform counts cannot be used as indicators of
protozoal contamination of recreational waters. Giardiasis associated with
toddler swim classes has been discussed by Harter et al. (1984), and transmis-
sion in a swimming pool was reported by Porter et al. (1988). A water slide
has also been incriminated in an outbreak of giardiasis (Greensmith et al.
1988).
Cryptosporidium, a newly recognized pathogenic protozoan, may be as
important as Giardia (Rose 1988). The ingestion of low levels of viable oocysts
can also result in a diarrheal illness known as cryptosporidiosis. Like Giardia,
Cryptosporidium can also be transmitted from person to person or via food or
water. The illness, which may be fatal in immuno-compromised patients, has
occurred in Canada (Mann et al. 1986). No outbreaks have been linked to
recreational waters, but major outbreaks in the United States and the United
Kingdom have resulted from the ingestion of inadequately treated drinking
water (D’Antonio et al. 1985; Rose 1988). Although information is only
preliminary, it appears that Cryptosporidium is even more resistant to
disinfection than Giardia (Sobsey 1989). Oocysts have been recovered in
surface waters in British Columbia (Isaac-Renton et al. 1987) and the United
States (J. Rose and C. Gerba, unpublished report).
42
Naegleria fowleri and other members of the freshwater amoeba group
have caused more than 100 cases of an often-fatal primary amoebic meningo-
encephalitis (PAM). PAM has been reported from the United States, South
America, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand in persons swimming in fresh
waters, lakes, and ponds, and even in indoor pools filled with chlorinated
heated river water, as these amoeba are very resistant to chlorine and thrive in
warm waters (Griffin 1977; Hallenbeck and Brenniman 1989). Naegleria
fowleri has been recovered from surface waters in Canada (Seyfried et al.
1984).
Entamoeba histolytica is found throughout the world, affecting 10 per
cent of the world population. It can cause amoebic dysentery and liver
abscesses. The cysts can survive well in water. The effect of temperature has
been studied by Jones and Newton (1950). The best-studied outbreak of
waterborne amoebiasis was related to the drinking of contaminated water in
the United States, as reported by Le Maistre et al. (1956).
Schistosoma spp. are digenetic trematodes (also known as flukes or
flatworms). The larvae (cercariae), released in water by infected aquatic snails,
must enter the skin of a susceptible host to complete their life cycle. The species
responsible for human schistosomiasis, a disease of considerable morbidity
affecting 200 million people in Africa, South America, the Middle East, and
parts of Asia, does not occur in North America.
Avian schistosomes can be found in Canada. The cercariae of bird and
rodent schistosomes may penetrate the human skin, causing a dermatitis known
as swimmers’ itch. This itch occurs in bathers using recreational lakes in many
parts of the world, including North America, as well as on certain coastal
seawater beaches. These schistosomes do not mature in humans (Levy and
Folstad 1969; Benenson 1985) but die just beneath the epidermis. Subsequent
exposure to cercariae stimulates an allergic response. At the time of cercarial
penetration, a prickling sensation is noted (Hoeffler 1977).
Prevention of swimmers’ itch can be assured only by complete avoidance
of aquatic sports in areas where the disease has been a problem. An acceptable
alternative might be the elimination of the molluscan hosts, using approved
molluscicides. Prevention of secondary infection by bacteria can be achieved
by appropriate hygienic measures. Attempts to prevent the dermatitis during
or after cercarial penetration are largely ineffective. Time-honoured measures
such as rough towelling and alcohol rubdowns are without significant merit.
Clothing and chemical repellents are of limited value. Treatment of the
dermatitis is directed towards the relief of symptoms with the usual doses of
antihistaminic and antipruritic medications.
43
Summary
1. Routine monitoring of waters for protozoa is not recommended. However,
provincial laboratories should be able to participate in the investigation of
documented waterborne outbreaks.
3.4.10 Toxic phytoplankton

Maximum Limits
No limits are specified for toxic phytoplankton in recreational waters.
However, water containing a blue-green or turquoise scum is indicative of an
algal bloom. Such waters should be avoided because of reduced clarity and the
possible presence of algal toxins.
Criteria
Description
Phytoplankton, which are microscopic floating plants, can become a
hazard and a nuisance in recreational waters, especially when they concentrate
at the water surface in “blooms.” This can be a natural phenomenon, but it is
often caused by cultural eutrophication. The presence of certain species in a
freshwater community is often a sensitive indicator of recreational water
quality. Nutrient enrichment in bodies of water affects the density and diversity
of the fauna and flora.
The algae of concern in lakes and ponds are usually blue-green algae.
These algae are unusual because they share some typical features of both algae
and bacteria. In some species, the algae are tiny single cells that cannot be seen
with the naked eye; in most species found in Canadian lakes, the cells are
grouped in colonies. The colonies may form strings, flakes, or globules and
can reach a size of several millimetres. To the naked eye, they may look like
fine grass clippings in the water or a homogeneous soupy mass.
In a typical summer, a lake water sample usually contains 20 or more
blue-green algal species, along with dozens of other species of algae. The
blue-green algae may form massive blooms under certain conditions during
summer (Reynolds and Walsby 1975).
Blue-green algal cells contain small gas bubbles (vacuoles) that allow
them to control their buoyancy. Usually the algae are well distributed in the
zone where nutrients and light are in the optimum ranges. Blooms are not the
result of a sudden surge in algal growth rate but occur when their buoyancy
regulation is disrupted. Reynolds and Walsby (1975) stated that bloom forma-
tion requires that a substantial population of the algae already exists, that they
have excess buoyancy, and that the water is calm enough to allow them to float
up to the surface. The algae may develop excess buoyancy when turbulence
sends them too deep, during the hours of darkness, when the concentration of
44
carbon dioxide in the water becomes limiting, when the algal population is at
the end of its growth cycle and is aging, or any combination of these factors.
Blooms often occur in late August and in September when the algal population
is aging and the hours of darkness are growing longer. Dillenberg and Dehnel
(1960) and Senior (1960) reported a striking example of a sequence of
meteorological events that illustrated these factors in a Saskatchewan lake.
Toxicity
Toxic algae are found in all aquatic environments and have been respon-
sible for the death or illness of livestock, waterfowl, fish, and humans
(Carmichael et al. 1985). The most important taxonomic phyla are
Pyrrhophyta (dinoflagellates), Chrysophyta, and Cyanophyta (blue-green
algae). Well-known instances of marine algal toxicity are associated with “red
tides,” which cause fish kills and poison edible shellfish and other bottom fauna
(Tangen 1977; Cross and Southgate 1980). On the west coast of North America,
clams and mussels become poisonous by ingesting the dinoflagellate
Gonyaulax catenella and accumulating saxitoxin in the digestive tract. On the
east coast, the associated poisoning is caused by Gonyaulax tamarensis, with
a mixture of saxitoxin and three related toxins.
Blue-green algae have been known to cause animal toxicity in lakes,
ponds, and dugouts for over 100 years. The three blue-green algae most often
identified as the cause of poisoning are Anabaena flos-aquae,
Aphanizomenon flos-aquae, and Microcystis aeruginosa (McLeod and
Bondar l952; Senior 1960; Aziz 1974; Moore 1977, Richard et al. 1983).
A number of toxins produced by freshwater blue-green algae have now
been identified. Two neurotoxins and two hepatotoxins have been associated
with Anabaena flos-aquae. Anatoxin-a is a potent postsynaptic, depolarizing,
neuro-muscular blocking agent that causes death by respiratory arrest within
minutes to a few hours depending on species, dosage and prior food consump-
tion. The purified toxin intraperitoneal LD50 for mice is about 200 mg/kg body
weight, with survival time of 4 to 7 minutes (Carmichael 1988). Another
neurotoxin produced by Anabaena flos-aquae is anatoxin-a(s), an
anticholinesterase, which also causes viscous salivation, lachrymation, urinary
incontinence and defecation prior to death by respiratory arrest. Anatoxin-a(s)
is about four times more toxic than anatoxin-a. The two hepatotoxins produced
by Anabaena flos-aquae appear to be heptapeptides similar to two analogues
produced by Microcystis aeruginosa (Carmichael 1988).
The toxins produced by Aphanizomenon flos-aquae consist mainly of
two neurotoxic alkaloids that strongly resemble saxitoxin and neosaxitoxin
(Sasner et al. 1984) These are more generally known as the paralytic shellfish
poison associated with “red tides”, and received their names from the Alaska
45
butter clam Saxidomus giganteus (Schuett and Rapoport 1962). Three other
neurotoxins have been detected that are labile and not similar to any known
paralytic shellfish poisons (Carmichael 1988).
The hepatotoxins produced by Microcystis aeruginosa attack the liver,
causing severe necrosis and hemorrhaging. Death from hypovolemic shock
caused by interstitial hemorrhage into the liver may occur within 1 to 3 hours
in acutely dosed and sensitive animals. In other animals, death may occur as
long as 36 hours later, with the animals displaying symptoms of incoordination,
muscular weakness and fibrillation, unsteady gait, recumbency, labouredrespi-
ration, salivation, lacrimation, diarrhea, and in those suffering lingering deaths,
icterus, photodermatitis, and loss of condition (Soll and Williams 1985). A
diarrhea toxin has also been isolated from M. aeruginosa, and this may be a
cause of gastroenteritis when no other known etiological agent can be identi-
fied (Aziz 1974).
Toxicity due to blue-green algae can occur only if there is a bloom
dominated by the toxic strains of the bloom species. Toxic strains and non-toxic
strains of a bloom species may occur at the same time in a lake; as a result,
some parts of the lake could become toxic, while others could remain safe.
Toxicity in a lake is normally transient, lasting only as long as the bloom or
signs of the bloom persist.
The reason why toxic strains suddenly become more dominant than the
non-toxic strains is not known (Carmichael et al. 1985). Consequently, toxicity
due to blue-green algae is even less predictable than the blue-green blooms
themselves. Lakes that have never had a problem can suddenly become toxic.
Conversely, lakes that have shown toxicity in the past may never show it again.
Routine monitoring of lakes where blooms have occurred is the best approach
to identifying a problem.
When a lake becomes toxic as a result of a blue-green bloom, the only
sign of a problem may be dead fish, waterfowl or other wildlife along the
shoreline. Occasionally, domestic animals such as cattle or dogs may be
poisoned if they have no other source of drinking water.
In Canada, animal poisonings have been reported for Alberta,
Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario (Stewart et al. 1950; O’Donoghue and
Wilton 1951; McLeod and Bondar 1952; Neil 1957; Senior 1960; Carmichael
and Gorham 1978). Most algal poisonings in western Canada are associated
with blooms of Anabaena flos-aquae.
There is some concern, particularly in the Prairie provinces, about possible
poisoning of swimmers from blooms of blue-green algae. Humans are just as
susceptible to blue-green toxins as animals, but it is unlikely that people would
voluntarily drink much lake water during a bloom because of the objectionable
appearance and odour of the water. However, people may suffer acute
discomfort after accidentally ingesting or contacting blue-green algae or
water containing toxins. Symptoms may include fever, headache, dizziness,
46
stomach cramps, vomiting, diarrhea, skin and eye irritations, sore throat and
swollen lips. Symptoms seldom persist for more than two to eight days.
Children may be more intensely affected because they spend more time in the
water than adults and are more likely to have accidentally swallowed con-
taminated water. In addition, they may have lower tolerances to the toxins than
adults.
Dillenberg and Dehnel (1960) recorded the poisoning of a man who fell
into a Saskatchewan lake containing a dense bloom of blue-green algae.
Nausea, diarrhea, headache, cramps, and high temperature occurred.
Microcystis and Anabaena, but no other pathogens, were found in his feces.
Similar illness occurred among children who swam in another Saskatchewan
lake also containing a bloom of Microcystis and Anabaena. Schwimmer and
Schwimmer (1968) reported a near-fatal case of a boy who developed fever,
laboured breathing, pneumonitis, generalized pains, and coma after swimming
in water containing Microcystis aeruginosa. They also reported the poisoning
of another boy who fell into a lake, accidentally swallowed water containing
Aphanizomenon, and developed symptoms similar to those experienced by
the first case described above. Schwimmer and Schwimmer (1968) cited
reports of allergic responses to Microcystis, Anabaena, and Aphanizomenon,
including papulo-vesicular eruption and acute allergic conjunctivitis, specifi-
cally with Anabaena. Billings (1981) also reported possible contact irritation
associated with Anabaena. The recorded instances of illnesses in humans
associated with blooms of toxic algae are few, but such illnesses may be more
common than is thought because of lack of diagnosis.
Recreational lake users should take particular care where the water
contains algae with the distinctive blue-green or turquoise colour and should
treat any intense bloom with suspicion. Humans should not drink water from
bloom-infested areas of lakes and reservoirs, nor should they swim or wade in
water containing concentrated blue-green algal material. People should also
take care to provide alternative water sources for domestic animals and pets.
Bodies of water that have the green colouration of normal plants, like grass or
the pond-dwelling plant duckweed, are most unlikely to be toxic regardless of
the thickness of the scum.
Controlling Phytoplankton
Attempts at controlling blue-green algae by chemical treatment may be
detrimental to lake water use and lake ecology. Hanson and Stefan (1984)
reported short-term effects, such as the death of some algae, depletion of
dissolved oxygen resulting in occasional fish kills, and the recycling of
phosphorus from the lake bed, which fosters conditions that allow regrowth of
the algae within 7 to 21 days. Further, because the toxins are released on
47
the death of the algae, water that has been treated with copper or other
chemicals to kill the algae may be especially dangerous for the first 24 hours
after treatment.
The detrimental long-term effects of algal control are the accumulation of
copper in the lake bed sediments, increasing resistance of the phytoplankton
to copper, increasing domination of blue-green algae species, particularly
Aphanizomenon, over green algae species and rough fish over game fish, the
disappearance of macrophytes, and the loss of benthic macroinvertebrates.
When the water overlying the bottom sediments becomes anoxic, the copper
will re-enter the limnetic zone (Prepas and Murphy 1988). The use of copper
suphate may be forbidden in some jurisdictions.
There are potential alternatives to the use of copper sulphate and aquatic
herbicides such as Reglone A (Diquat). A finding that total phosphorus may
be the best predictor of relative biomass of blue green algae (Trimbee and
Prepas 1987) has lead to lake treatment based on decreasing the total phospho-
rus concentration in the water. Babin et al. (1989) report that the application
of lime (calcium hydroxide) slurry has dramatically decreased both soluble
reactive phosphorus and chlorophyll a (used to estimate algal biomass) in storm
water retention ponds and in hypereutrophic natural lakes. Stable stratification
of lake water also tends to favour the dominance of blue-green algae because
of their buoyant properties. Experimental mixing has been successful in
suppressing their growth in reservoirs previously subject to frequent blooms
(Reynolds and Walsby 1975).
Summary
1. No limits are recommended for toxic phytoplankton, but swimming in
waters containing blue-green algal blooms should be avoided.
2. Bather poisonings have occurred after immersion in lakes and ponds

containing dense blooms of blue-green algae.
3. Sampling recreational waters for toxic phytoplankton should be

considered only for epidemiological investigations.
48
Water Quality
Data Exchange Guide
Standards and Best Practices
For:
Chlorophyll A,
Dissolved Oxygen,
Dissolved Oxygen and Temperature Depth Profile,
E-coli,
Faecal Coliform,
Surface Temperature
Total Phosphorus
A Centre for Sustainable Watersheds Initiative

Water Quality Data Exchange Guide: Standards and Best Practices
2008
Many thanks to our collaborating organizations:
City of Greater Sudbury
District Municipality of Muskoka
Environment and Sustainable Development Research Centre, University of New Brunswick
Grand River Conservation Authority
H2O Chelsea
Indigenous Cooperative on the Environment
Ontario Ministry of the Environment - Lake Partner Program
Appreciation also to our contractors:
Michelle Wilken Consulting
DM Solutions
J & R Consulting
Additional thanks to:
Gateway Geomatics
Queen’s School of Business
Financial Contribution
This project was made possible thanks to financial support from GeoConnections, a national
partnership initiative led by Natural Resources Canada. GeoConnections and its partners are
working to enhance the Canadian Geospatial Data Infrastructure, an on-line resource that enables
decision-makers to access, combine, and share geographic information over the Internet and gain
new insights into social, environmental, and economic issues.
A project of Centre for Sustainable Watersheds 2

2008
A Centre for Sustainable Watersheds Initiative
The Centre for Sustainable Watersheds is a national, not-for-profit, charitable organization

committed to protecting Canada’s water resources. Our goal is to build capacity within the water
protection sector by enhancing the ability of groups and organizations to share information,
expertise and ideas to the benefit of the environment and all Canadians.
Our work is based on a philosophy of cooperation and inclusion, and over the years we have
partnered with groups, individuals and agencies across the country representing a broad cross
section of the water community – everyone from local lake associations to Aboriginal groups to the
Federal government. We work hard to make our projects and products useful and accessible to all
Canadians and organizations committed to the protection of our most precious resource.

2008
Executive Summary
At present there are hundreds, if not thousands, of diverse organizations and agencies
collecting water quality data across this country. Every year thousands of measurements and
samples are taken, yet there are no commonly used methodologies for storing and managing the
data. The result is a vast amount of valid and essential data that remains either concealed or
ambiguous to every organization or jurisdiction save those that produced it.
In terms of facility to exchange it, this condition of data isolation undermines the
effectiveness of water protection efforts at the local, regional and national levels. Decision makers
invariably set policy and apply various protection and remediation strategies without access to the
full range of collected information. Further, those organizations charged with implementation may
end up with resources wasted on duplication of efforts or the unnecessary burden of data
translation and validation.
At a time where the quality and quantity of our national water resources are becoming
critical, and with the future of water management increasingly turning to an integrated watershed
management approach, the role and availability of reliable and relevant data is paramount. With
this in mind, the Centre for Sustainable Watersheds (CSW) and a group of seven collaborator
organizations undertook the task of examining ways to help meet this challenge. The project’s goal
is to improve knowledge sharing and communication within the sector by developing common
frameworks of data exchange for individual water quality data sets.
The Water Data Standards (WDS) initiative addresses the current state of data dispersion
and format incompatibility by developing data frameworks for a set of seven high-profile water
quality data parameters. With these frameworks applied, related data from any aligned source
becomes completely interoperable and exchangeable.
This Guide outlines the process of alignment and can prepare diverse water quality data
sets from a range of sources for publication and exchange on the Internet through the Open
Geospatial Consortium’s Web Feature Service, or WFS standard. Included are file and content
specifications, technical requirements, and configuration details. These are necessary for the
seamless exchange of water quality data between organizations and online resources such as
GeoConnections’ Discovery Portal and CSW’s own Watersheds InfoXchange (WIX).
The document also provides for consistent registry of data to an online facility such as the
GeoConnections Discovery Portal, compliant with international standards accepted by the Canadian
Geospatial Data Infrastructure (CGDI). For easy access, it will also be posted on Water Connections
(waterconnect.ca), the unique Internet ‘Gateway to Canada’s Water Information’.
This work points the way to building additional standard frameworks for any number of
different water data parameters. Meanwhile, it enables a wide array of data on seven vital water
quality data sets to be exchanged across a myriad of Canadian jurisdictions, among a broad
spectrum of water stakeholders and decision makers.

2008
Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................................ 4
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Exchanging Water Quality Data ......................................................................................................................................... 7
1.0 Preparing your Data ..................................................................................................................................................... 7

1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................................................ 7
1.2 Data Requirements ................................................................................................................................................. 7
1.3 Exchange File Structure ........................................................................................................................................ 8
2.0 Publishing Geospatial Data to the Internet ......................................................................................................... 9

2.1 Background ................................................................................................................................................................ 9
2.2 What is your Organization's Potential for Sharing Spatial Data? ........................................................ 9
2.2.1 Strong Potential ...................................................................................................................................................... 10
2.2.2 Moderate Potential................................................................................................................................................ 10
2.2.3 Low Potential........................................................................................................................................................... 10
3.0 Steps to Share Your Spatial Data According to your Potential .................................................................. 11
3.1 For Strong Potential.............................................................................................................................................. 11
3.2 For Moderate Potential ....................................................................................................................................... 14
3.3 For Low Potential .................................................................................................................................................. 19
Appendix A: Chlorophyll A ............................................................................................................................................... 21

Appendix B: Dissolved Oxygen ....................................................................................................................................... 26
Appendix C: Dissolved Oxygen and Temperature Profile.................................................................................... 31
Appendix D: E-Coli ............................................................................................................................................................... 36
Appendix E: Faecal Coliform ............................................................................................................................................ 41
Appendix F: Surface Temperature ................................................................................................................................ 46
Appendix G: Total Phosphorus ........................................................................................................................................ 51
Appendix H: Theme GCMD Keywords .......................................................................................................................... 57

2008
Introduction
Water quality data is being collected by organizations across the country. They
range in size from a group of people interested in the health of a lake to federal
departments and agencies responsible for national monitoring programs. Yearly,
thousands of measurements are recorded and water samples collected for laboratory
analysis. This plethora of data is often stored in pockets within organizations across our
national landscape; in isolation its value is not fully realized.
Beyond the difficulty of locating existing data, once found, the data itself presents its
own set of issues. Data management has been left to the discretion of the organization that
possesses it. Existing data storage practices and the management software used are as
diverse as the organizations themselves: spread sheets and relational databases, access,
Microsoft SQL Server, and Oracle to name a few. As well, naming conventions are not
consistent or compatible, complicating the comparison of test results across jurisdictional
boundaries. Currently there is no prescribed data warehousing format, nor a central body
dealing with this issue.
Most water quality testing entities are self sustaining and run their own programs
with clearly defined geographic extents and varied mandates. They may also be either
unaware of data in other organizations that may be of interest to them, or do not require
information from other groups to accomplish their goal or further their interests.
There is a need for decision makers to access water quality data to identify areas
that are at risk of degradation or already in need of remediation, and to prioritize which of
these may require immediate attention and funding. With the current state of data
dispersion and format incompatibility, remedial attention is often focused on those issues
that are supported by the loudest voices and not necessarily those backed by
comprehensive scientific analysis. In order to leverage this underutilized resource and
turn the test data into a national water quality picture, we need to be able to easily find and
merge all available data.
The purpose of this Guide is to provide the standards needed for file content
comparability along with documenting procedures for data discovery that will assist in
publishing and locating the data that does exists.
This document is meant to provide guidelines and standards that will facilitate the
seamless exchange and integration of scientific water quality test data. The Guide focuses
on seven high profile water quality parameters: Chlorophyll A, Dissolved Oxygen and
Temperature Profile, Dissolved Oxygen, E-coli, Faecal Coliform, Surface Temperature, and
Total Phosphorus. They are generally seen as being of high priority to the public,
government and academic communities.

2008
Exchanging Water Quality Data
To share your data with other organizations over the Internet, additional data,
software and settings may need to be in place. With the help of this Guide you can identify
the necessary resources and support required to accomplish this.
The Guide divides the process into two main categories: the actual data to be
exchanged and the information technology requirements. In the first section called
“Preparing your Data,” consistent data fields and definitions for a common understanding
of water quality test data and file structure are outlined in detail. The second section,
“Publishing Geospatial Data to the Internet,” describes what you need to know to allow
other organizations to find and access your data via the Internet.
1.0 Preparing Your Data
1.1 Background
Organizations that record and store water quality data may already have
established data management practices in place. This section of the Guide is not meant as a
replacement for current internal methods or as a recommendation to change existing
systems. Instead, this section will provide a recommended file exchange structure to
supply enough supporting data to make water quality test values understandable by all
organizations.
The recommendations for file structure and content were identified through a
collaborative effort. Organizations representing a national cross section of those involved
in water quality testing were consulted. The end results are recommendations for file
structure and content that can be easily used by organizations at all levels and of varying
capacities.
1.2 Data Requirements
Before you attempt to initiate a data exchange you should consider the following:
You must own water quality test data: that is, data that you have collected either in
the field or have had laboratory analysis completed on a water sample;
Data must contain geographic location information;
You must have the right to distribute this data.

2008
1.3 Exchange File Structure
The seamless exchange of digital scientific water quality test data requires a well
defined file structure and consistent content definitions. This section is meant to be a guide
for the content of the exchange files, regardless of the file format used for the actual
exchange.
The recommended format is a single flat file for each water quality parameter.
Within this file each row will represent a single measurement record. The structure of all
parameter files will be the same. The exact field names and order used in the exchange file
will be identical to the list below, while the allowable domain value entries will be specific
to each water quality parameter. (Appendices A through G provide a list of each parameter
examined here)
OrganizationIdentifier
MonitoringLocationIdentifier
MonitoringLocationName
MonitoringLocationTypeName
LatitudeMeasure
LongitudeMeasure
HorizontalCoordinateReferenceSystemDatumName
ActivityTypeCode
ActivityStartDate
Time
ActivityDepthHeightMeasureValue
ActivityDepthHeightMeasureUnitCode
CharacteristicName
ResultMeasureValue
MeasureUnitCode
MeasureQualifierCode
ResultStatusIdentifier
MethodIdentifier
MethodIdentifierContext
MethodName
LaboratoryName
DetectionQuantitationLimitTypeName
DetectionQuantitationLimitMeasureValue
DetectionQuantitationLimitMeasureUnitCode
Comments

2008
2.0 Publishing Geospatial Data to the Internet
2.1 Background
With the popularity of the Internet, many organizations are interested in displaying
their own geospatial data (which is any information that is based on a location) over the
Web in order to share that information with the general public or with other organizations.
The route that many organizations take is to choose a software package to display the
geospatial data on the Internet, build an application to let users interact with their data,
and consider the issue solved. The result is that thousands of spatially-enabled
applications are available on the Internet with that approach, but each of those applications
can only access their own spatial data.
The Open Geospatial Consortium or “OGC,” (http://www.opengeospatial.org/) was

established to solve this problem by providing a non-proprietary framework for sharing
spatial information over the Internet. The approach involves adhering to the OGC's
“standards” for data sharing which are now supported by both proprietary and Open
Source (meaning the software is free and the source code is available) projects.
The benefits of making sure that your organization's published data follows the OGC's
standards are plentiful. For example:
Other organizations can use your data in their own Internet mapping applications.
Other organizations and general users can create their own maps showing your
spatial data using desktop software (such as ESRI's ArcMap or Arcview products, for
example).
Adhering to public standards ensures that your organization maintains consistency
and reliability in your data services.
Registering your data services to portals such as Canada's GeoConnections
Discovery Portal and United States' Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC)
portal is much more straight-forward when following OGC standards.
2.2 What is your Organization's Potential for Sharing Spatial Data?
An initial survey of several organizations was performed to establish the various

levels of potential for sharing their spatial information. All of the organizations fit into one
of three possible levels of potential: strong, moderate, or low. The following sections
describe each of these categories. Please read each section to find out your organization's
potential, and then go to the corresponding section in 4.3.

2008
2.2.1 Strong Potential
If you have strong potential to share your spatial data, the following characteristics
will apply to your organization:
In-house technical knowledge (either through a consultant or on staff) in terms of

creating an Internet application.
Spatial data is actively maintained.
An Internet application showing your spatial data already exists, or you are
currently working on one.
You don't currently publish your data through any OGC standards, but you are
willing to invest the time.
2.2.2 Moderate Potential
If you have moderate potential to share your spatial data, the following
characteristics will apply to your organization:
In-house technical knowledge (either through a consultant or on staff) in terms of

creating an Internet application.
Spatial data is actively maintained.
Your organization does not have an existing Internet application showing its spatial
data, but is willing to invest the time to serve its data through Web standards.
2.2.3 Low Potential
No existing in-house technical knowledge (either through a consultant or on staff) in

terms of creating an Internet application.
Spatial data exists, but little is known about it.
You don't have an existing Internet application showing your spatial data.

2008
3.0 Steps to Share Your Spatial Data According to your Potential
According to whichever category your organization falls into, please follow the
corresponding guide below for the appropriate steps to publish your spatial data. (See
previous section for details)
3.1For Strong Potential
Required Standard
The OGC has several standards for sharing geospatial data over the Internet. The
most popular standards are the Web Map Service (WMS) and Web Feature Service (WFS).
WMS shares data through simply sending an image of the data (i.e. GIF, JPEG, or PNG
formats) to a remote user, whereas WFS shares data by actually sending the data in an XML
format to the remote user (the XML is actually referred to as Geographic Markup Language,
GML). For this project we ask that you publish using the WFS standard. There are several
reasons why we are requesting WFS compliance:
WFS gives access to attributes, so the resulting Internet application can allow users
to get more information on selected areas
WFS allows for styling of data to happen at the application level
Required Software
Since your organization already has an application on the Internet displaying your
data, you probably won't need any new software. However here are some helpful tips:
Make sure your selected Web mapping software (such as ESRI's ArcIMS, or the Open
Source MapServer project) supports WFS. An excellent list of compliant software is
found at the following address: http://www.opengeospatial.org/resource/products
/byspec. Then select “Web Feature Service v1.0”.
If you don't have Web mapping software that supports the OGC’s WFS standard, you
must select software that does.
The recommended choice is the Open Source MapServer project (formerly referred
to as “UMN MapServer”). If you do choose MapServer, please see the following “Moderate
Potential” section for specific installation notes.

2008
Configuring Your Existing Mapping Server for WFS
Of course it is difficult to explain settings for all of the possible compliant WFS
mapping software, so two of the most popular ones are noted below.
MapServer (or UMN MapServer):

Follow the 'WFS Servers Howto' document: http://mapserver.gis.umn.edu/docs/
howto/wfs_server
ESRI ArcIMS
Use the WFS Connector, as described in detail at:
http://webhelp.esri.com/arcims/9.2/
general/mergedProjects/wfs_connect/wfs_connector/overviewwfsconnector.htm
Additional OGC notes (for older Arc versions) can be found at:
http://www.esri.com/software/standards/interopdownload.html
More notes: http://www.geographynetwork.ca/standards/download.html
Testing Your WFS Service
1) Validate the Capabilities

You should be able to send a “REQUEST=GetCapabilities” through your WFS
URL, and an XML file should be returned describing the service. A working
example GetCapabilities request is: http://www2.dmsolutions.ca/cgi-
in/mswfs_gmap?SERVICE=WFS&VERSION=1.0.0&REQUEST=getcapabilities.
2) Request a Feature
You should be able to send a “REQUEST=GetFeature” through your WFS URL,
and an XML file should be returned containing the features of the requested
layer. A working example GetFeature request is:
http://www2.dmsolutions.ca/cgi-
bin/mswfs_gmap?SERVICE=WFS&VERSION=1.0.0&REQUEST=getfeature&TY
PENAME=park.
3) Display a WFS layer in a Desktop client
Many desktop Geographic Information Systems (GIS) support display of
WMS/WFS data. If you don't currently have a GIS, you might try the free (and
Open Source) QuantumGIS software (http://www.qgis.org/) to view your
WFS data.

2008
Register Your Organization to the GeoConnections Discovery Portal
To add your organization to the GeoConnections Discovery Portal so that others may
find and contact your organization, take the following steps:
1) Go to: http://geodiscover.cgdi.ca/gdp/.
2) Click on the “Update Your Content” tab below the top banner image.
3) If you have never registered before, click on the “Register” button, on the resulting
page, fill in the form.
4) Once logged in, select the “Organizations” link (see screenshot below).
5) Select the “Create New Organization” button

6) On the resulting page, fill in the form, making sure in the “Thematic Areas” section to
use the “Select Thematic Areas” button
7) In the resulting pop-up window select “Data Distribution”
8) When you are ready, confirm that the Publish box is selected and click on the “Save”
button at the bottom of the form. Congratulations, you have registered your
organization!
Register Your WFS Service to the GeoConnections Discovery Portal
To add your new WFS service to the GeoConnections Discovery Portal so that others can
find your service, take the following steps:
3) Once logged in, select the “Services” link.
4) On the “Services Summary” page, beside “Create New Service” select the

2008
“WMS/WFS” radio button, enter your GetCapabilities URL, and click “Submit.” (see
the screenshot below)
5) On the resulting page, fill in the form making sure to select the appropriate theme
(see Appendix H) for this service, as well as entering in the appropriate contact
information near the bottom of the form. Metadata is entered automatically.
6) When you are ready, click on the “Save” button at the bottom of the form.
Congratulations, you have registered your WFS service!
3.2For Moderate Potential
Since your organization is interested in publishing spatial data but you do not
currently have a mapping application, the following section will assist you in getting the
required software and setting up a WFS service.
Choosing a Web Mapping Engine
There are many Web mapping projects that you can install to serve your data
through the WFS standard. An excellent list of compliant software is found at the following
address: http://www.opengeospatial.org/resource/products/byspec. Then select “Web
Feature Service v1.0”.
That said, the recommended software for serving WFS data is MapServer (formerly
referred to as “UMN MapServer”). MapServer is Open Source, meaning that you can use it
for free and modify the source as you need. It is arguably the most popular Web mapping
engine in the world today, with tens of thousands of copies downloaded each month.
Therefore the rest of this section will be based on MapServer as your chosen Web mapping
engine.

2008
Installing MapServer
For Windows:
Download MS4W (MapServer for Windows), which contains all of the required
components to get started: http://www.maptools.org/ms4w/index.phtml?page
=downloads.html.
Follow the README in the package for assistance.
For further help please use the MS4W email list (join at http://lists.maptools
.org/mailman/listinfo/ms4w-users)
For Unix/Linux:
You can compile MapServer by following the “Unix Compilation How to”:
http://mapserver.gis.umn.edu/docs/howto/compiling_on_unix
Optionally you can use a package such as FGS that contains all of the necessary
libraries ready to use: http://www.maptools.org/fgs/
Configuring MapServer to Display Your Data
MapServer can access and display hundreds of spatial data formats natively. The
following are essential resources for connecting to and styling your data in MapServer:
Connecting to and displaying Raster data:
http://mapserver.gis.umn.edu/docs/howto/raster_data
Connecting to vector data (e.g. points, lines, polygons): http://mapserver.gis.umn
.edu/docs/reference/vector_data
For tabular data (such as a comma-delimited file) see the “Virtual Spatial Data”
section
Styling data in MapServer through a .map file: http://mapserver.gis.umn.edu/docs/
reference/mapfile
MapServer tutorial for new users:
http://mapserver.gis.umn.edu/docs/tutorial/tutorial/tutorialURL
Hosting with MapServer
Once you have your data displayed locally through MapServer, you will need to make
sure that the public can access your MapServer application. If don't already have the ability
to host your own MapServer instance on a public server, there are several companies
offering MapServer hosting services. You can find a listing of these companies at:
http://mapserver.gis.umn.edu/community/hosting

2008
Required OGC Standard
MapServer has been an early adopter of OGC standards. As mentioned, the OGC has
several standards for sharing geospatial data over the Internet, with the most popular
standards being the Web Map Service (WMS) and Web Feature Service (WFS). WMS shares
data through simply sending an image of the data (i.e. GIF, JPEG, or PNG formats) to a
remote user; whereas WFS shares data by actually sending the data in an XML format to the
remote user (the XML is actually referred to as Geographic Markup Language, GML). For
this project we ask that you publish using the WFS standard. There are several reasons
why we are requesting WFS compliance:
WFS gives access to attributes, so the resulting Internet application can allow users
to get more information on selected areas
WFS allows for styling of data to happen at the application level
Configuring MapServer to Serve WFS
Once you have your data displaying in MapServer, it is actually quite easy to serve
that data through the WFS standard. Your guide that you should follow is the “MapServer
WFS Server Howto”: http://mapserver.gis.umn.edu/docs/howto/wfs_server/
4) Once logged in, select the “Organizations” link (see the screenshot below).

2008
5) Select the “Create New Organization” button.

6) On the resulting page, fill in the form, making sure in the Thematic Areas section to
use the “Select Thematic Areas” button.
7) In the resulting pop-up window select “Data Distribution.”
8) When you are ready, confirm the Publish box is selected and click on the “Save”
button at the bottom of the form. Congratulations you have registered your
organization!
Register Your WFS Service to the GeoConnections Discovery Portal

To add your new WFS service to the GeoConnections Discovery Portal so that others can
find your service, take the following steps:
3) Once logged in, select the “Services” link.
4) On the “Services Summary” page, beside “Create New Service” select the
“WMS/WFS” radio button, enter your GetCapabilities URL, and click “Submit” (view
the screenshot below).

2008
5) On the resulting page, fill in the form, making sure to select the appropriate theme
for this service, as well as entering in the appropriate contact information near the
bottom of the form.
Congratulations, you have registered your WFS service!
Getting Help with MapServer Issues
Options for getting support:

Use the MapServer email list to ask questions or search its archives.
Join: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-users
Search: http://www.nabble.com/Mapserver---User-f31321.html and
http://www.nabble.com/Mapserver---User-%28old%29-f1215.html
Use online chat: http://mapserver.gis.umn.edu/community/irc/
Find a consultant specializing in MapServer: http://www.osgeo.org/search_profile

2008
3.3For Low Potential
For organizations either not interested in publishing their data through Web
Standards or just not having the in-house knowledge, you can register your organization
and your data as-is through the GeoConnections Discovery Portal. Here are some steps to
assist you.

4) Once logged in, select the “Organizations” link (see the screenshot below).
5) Select the “Create New Organization” button.

6) On the resulting page, fill in the form, making sure in the “Thematic Areas” section to
use the “Select Thematic Areas” button.
7) In the resulting pop-up window select “Data Distribution”.
8) When you are ready, confirm the Publish box is selected and click on the “Save”
button at the bottom of the form. Congratulations you have registered your
organization!

2008
Register Your Water Quality Data to the GeoConnections Discovery Portal
To register your water quality with the GeoConnections Discovery Portal so that others
will be able to locate and identify the type of water quality data that is available from your
organization, take the following steps:
3) Select the “Geospatial Data” link.
4) On the “Geospatial Data Summary” page, click on the “Create New Geospatial Data
Entry”.
5) Fill in the forms on the following pages, making sure on the “Identification
Information” page to use the “GCMD keywords” button to select the appropriate
keywords for your water quality data types (see Appendix H).
a. Enter the appropriate information for your organization’s data. Metadata is
generated automatically. By using copy and paste in preview mode, metadata
may be saved on the user PC as a text document which can be distributed as a
reference file with the data.
7) Check “Publish” box at the bottom of the form. Congratulations, you have registered
your water quality data!

2008
Appendix A: Chlorophyll A
OrganizationIdentifier, mandatory, string max 30

A designator used to uniquely identify a unique business establishment within a
context.
MonitoringLocationIdentifier, mandatory, string max 35

A designator used to describe the unique name, number, or code assigned to identify
the monitoring location.
MonitoringLocationName, mandatory, string max 255

The designator specified by the sampling organization for the site at which sampling
or other activities are conducted. Free text name assigned to the Monitoring Location by
the Trading Partner.
MonitoringLocationTypeName, mandatory, string max 45

The descriptive name for a type of monitoring location.
Allowable Domain Value Description

Great Lake
Lake
River/Stream
LatitudeMeasure, mandatory, decimal 6-8 digits

The measure of the angular distance on a meridian north or south of the equator.
Signed Decimal Latitude with positive values north of the Equator
LongitudeMeasure, mandatory, Decimal 6-9 digits

The measure of the angular distance on a meridian east or west of the prime
meridian. Signed Decimal Longitude with negative values west of Greenwich
HorizontalCoordinateReferenceSystemDatumName, mandatory, string max 6

The name that describes the reference datum used in determining latitude and
longitude coordinates.
Allowable Domain Values Description

NAD27 North American Datum 1927
WGS84 World Geodetic System 1984
ActivityTypeCode, mandatory, string max 70

The text describing the type of activity.

2008

Field Msr/Obs MEASUREMENTS involve something measured in its
environmental setting usually using some type of
equipment. OBSERVATIONS are made by people, usually
without the use of equipment, and are frequently
qualitative.
Field Msr/Obs-Portable Data Measurements made in the field by an automated data
Logger logging device, running unattended and producing a suite
of data values at repeating intervals set by its
owner/operator.
Field Msr/Obs-Habitat A field activity conducted to evaluate a habitat, according to
Assessment an organization's pre-defined habitat assessment scheme.
Sample-Routine A sample gathered using straightforward 'grab' procedures
for purposes of a general evaluation of the environment at
the site.
Sample-Integrated Time A discrete/integrated sample, usually derived from a
Series continuous record, representing some portion or segment
of elapsed time within the overall activity duration or
sample period.
Sample-Integrate Flow A sample integrated over an interval or space within which
Proportioned changes in flow are used to alter the proportion of the
sampled medium contributing to the integrated sample.
Sample-Integrate Horizontal A sample integrated over an interval or space within which
Profile changes in flow are used to alter the proportion of the
Sample-Integrated Vertical A discrete/integrated sample, usually derived from a
Profile continuous record, representing some portion or segment
of a vertical track within the study area.
Sample-Integrated Cross- A discrete/integrated sample, usually derived from a
Sectional Profile continuous record, representing cross-section of the
stream.
Sample-Composite Without Describes a sample which is a composite of either several
Parents discrete sampling events not described elsewhere, or is a
sample collected by a continuous process over some time
period. No database record exists as its parent.
Sample-Field Subsample A sample created in the field from a portion of a mother or
parent sample
Sample-Field Split A sample created in the field from half of a mother or
parent sample
ActivityStartDate, mandatory, date (YYYY-MM-DD)

The calendar date on which the field activity was started.

2008
Time, optional, time (hh:mm:ss)

The time of day that is reported.
ActivityDepthHeightMeasureValue, optional, string max 60

Distance from the surface to the point in the water column at which the activity is
conducted.
ActivityDepthHeightMeasureUnitCode, conditional, string max 12

The code that represents the unit for measuring the item. Required if a non text
ActivityDepthHeightMeasureValue is reported; can also be reported for non-numeric
results.

ft Feet
m Meters
CharacteristicName, mandatory, string max 120

The object, property, or substance which is evaluated or enumerated by either a
direct field measurement, a direct field observation, or by laboratory analysis of material
collected in the field.

Chlorophyll a
Chlorophyll a (probe relative
fluorescence)
Chlorophyll a (probe)
Chlorophyll a, free of pheophytin
Chlorophyll a, uncorrected for pheophytin
ResultMeasureValue, mandatory, string max 60

The reportable measure of the result for the chemical, microbiological or other
characteristic being analyzed.
MeasureUnitCode, conditional, string max 12

The code that represents the unit for measuring the chemical substance,
microbiological substance or other characteristic. Required if a non text
ResultMeasureValue is reported; can also be reported for non-numeric results.

ug/l micrograms per litre
mg/l milligrams per litre

2008
MeasureQualifierCode, optional, string max 5

A code used to identify any qualifying issues that affect the results.

Estimated
Rejected
Not Detected
Not Detected/Estimated
Actual
ResultStatusIdentifier, optional, string max 5

Indicates acceptability of the result with respect to QA/QC criteria.

Accepted
Validated
Rejected
Preliminary
Final
MethodIdentifier, optional, string max 20

The identification name, number or code assigned by the method publisher
MethodIdentifierContext, conditional, string max 120

Identifies the source or data system that created or defined the identifier. Can only be used
if MethodIdentifier has a value
MethodName, conditional, string max 120

The title that appears on the method from the method publisher. Can only be used if
MethodIdentifier has a value
LaboratoryName, optional, string max 60

The name of the Lab responsible for the result
DetectionQuantitationLimitTypeName, optional, string max 12

Text describing the type of detection or quantitation limit used in the analysis of a
characteristic.

Instrument Detection Level (IDL)
Method Detection Level (MDL)
Estimated Detection Level
Upper Quantitation Limit

2008
Lower Quantitation Limit

Long Term Method Detection
Level
Drinking Water Maximum
Water Quality Standard or Criteria
Upper Reporting Limit
Lower Reporting Limit
DetectionQuantitationLimitMeasureValue, conditional, string max 12

characteristic being analyzed. Required if DetectionQuantitationLimitTypeName is reported.
DetectionQuantitationLimitMeasureUnitCode, conditional, string max 12

The code that represents the unit for measuring the chemical substance, microbiological
substance or other characteristic. . Required if a non text DetectionQuantitationLimitMeasureValue
is reported; can also be reported for non-numeric results.

Comments, optional, freetext

Any relevant remarks the sampler feels is required e.g. River condition

2008
Appendix B: Dissolved Oxygen

context.




Great Lake
Lake
River/Stream
LatitudeMeasure, mandatory, Decimal 6-8 digits






2008

qualitative.
owner/operator.
the site.
sample period.
stream.
parent sample
parent sample


2008

conducted.

results.

Ft Feet
M Meters


Dissolved oxygen (DO)
Dissolved oxygen saturation
Dissolved oxygen uptake





Estimated

2008
Rejected
Not Detected
Actual


Accepted
Validated
Rejected
Preliminary
Final


Identifies the source or data system that created or defined the identifier. . Can only be used



characteristic.

Level

2008



substance or other characteristic. Required if a non text DetectionQuantitationLimitMeasureValue
is reported; can also be reported for non-numeric results



2008
Appendix C: Dissolved Oxygen and Temperature Profile

context.




Great Lake
Lake
River/Stream






2008

qualitative.
owner/operator.
the site.
sample period.
stream.
parent sample
parent sample


2008


conducted.

results.

ft Feet
m Meters


Dissolved oxygen (DO) profile
Temperature profile, water



deg C Degrees Celsius (Centigrade)


2008

Estimated
Rejected
Not Detected
Actual


Accepted
Validated
Rejected
Preliminary
Final





characteristic.

Level

2008






2008
Appendix D: E-Coli

context.




Great Lake
Lake
River/Stream






2008

qualitative.
owner/operator.
the site.
sample period.
stream.
parent sample
parent sample


2008


conducted.

results.

Ft Feet
M Meters


Escherichia coli



#/100ml Number per hundred millilitres
cfu/100ml Colony Forming Units per 100 Millilitres


Estimated

2008
Rejected
Not Detected
Actual


Accepted
Validated
Rejected
Preliminary
Final





characteristic.

Level

2008






2008
Appendix E: Faecal Coliform

context.




Great Lake
Lake
River/Stream






2008

qualitative.
owner/operator.
the site.
sample period.
stream.
parent sample
parent sample


2008


conducted.

results.

Ft Feet
M Meters


Fecal Coliform
Faecal Coliform





2008

Estimated
Rejected
Not Detected
Actual


Accepted
Validated
Rejected
Preliminary
Final





characteristic.

Level

2008



substance or other characteristic. Required if a non text DetectionQuantitationLimitMeasureValue



2008
Appendix F: Surface Temperature

context.




Great Lake
Lake
River/Stream






2008

qualitative.
owner/operator.
the site.
sample period.
stream.
parent sample
parent sample


2008


conducted.

results.

ft Feet
m Meters


Temperature, water





Estimated
Rejected

2008
Not Detected
Actual


Accepted
Validated
Rejected
Preliminary
Final





characteristic.

Level

2008





2008
Appendix G: Total Phosphorus

context.




Great Lake
Lake
River/Stream






2008

qualitative.
owner/operator.
the site.
sample period.
stream.
parent sample
parent sample


2008


conducted.

results.

ft Feet
m Meters


Phosphate
Phosphated pesticides
Phosphoric acid, diethyl ester
Phosphoric acid, octyl diphenyl ester
Phosphorus
Phosphorus as P
Phosphorus as PO4
Phosphorus, hydrolyzable as P
Phosphorus, hydrolyzable as PO4
Phosphorus, hydrolyzable plus
orthophosphate as P
Phosphorus, organic as P
Phosphorus, orthophosphate as P
Phosphorus, orthophosphate as PO4
Phosphorus, polyphosphate as PO4
Phosphorus-32
Phosphate
Phosphated pesticides
Phosphoric acid, diethyl ester
Phosphoric acid, octyl diphenyl ester
Phosphorus

2008
Phosphorus as P
Phosphorus as PO4
Phosphorus, hydrolyzable as P
Phosphorus, hydrolyzable as PO4
Phosphate, Tris (dichloroisoprophyl)
Phosphorus, phosphate (PO4) as P
Phosphorus, phosphate (PO4) as PO4





Estimated
Rejected
Not Detected
Actual


Accepted
Validated
Rejected
Preliminary
Final


2008




characteristic.

Level





2008
Appendix H: Theme GCMD Keywords
The following are the recommended minimum keyword entries for each water quality
parameter registered with the GeoConnections Discovery Portal.
Chlorophyll A
Theme Keyword: Earth Science > Hydrosphere > Surface Water > Surface Water Chemistry
Theme Keyword: Earth Science > Hydrosphere > Water Quality/Water Chemistry > Chlorophyll
Theme Keyword: Earth Science > Hydrosphere > Water Quality/Water Chemistry > Nutrients
Theme Keyword: Earth Science > Hydrosphere > Water Quality/Water Chemistry > Organic Matter
Theme Keyword: Earth Science > Hydrosphere > Water Quality/Water Chemistry > Contaminants
Dissolved Oxygen and Temperature Depth Profile

Theme Keyword: Earth Science > Hydrosphere > Water Quality/Water Chemistry > Oxygen
Theme Keyword: Earth Science > Hydrosphere > Water Quality/Water Chemistry > Water Temperature
Theme Keyword: Earth Science > Hydrosphere > Water Quality/Water Chemistry > Dissolved Gases
Dissolved Oxygen
E-coli
Faecal Coliform
Theme Keyword: Earth Science > Hydrosphere > Water Quality/Water Chemistry > Dissolved Solids
Surface Temperature
Total Phosphorus
Theme Keyword: Earth Science > Hydrosphere > Water Quality/Water Chemistry > Phosphorous Compounds
Theme Keyword: Earth Science > Hydrosphere > Water Quality/Water Chemistry > Inorganic Matter

2008
List of “GCMD Keywords” button: water quality/water chemistry choices.

Theme Keyword Thesaurus: GCMD
Theme Keyword: Earth Science > Hydrosphere > Water Quality/Water Chemistry > Acid Deposition
Theme Keyword: Earth Science > Hydrosphere > Water Quality/Water Chemistry > Alkalinity
Theme Keyword: Earth Science > Hydrosphere > Water Quality/Water Chemistry > Benthic Index
Theme Keyword: Earth Science > Hydrosphere > Water Quality/Water Chemistry > Carbon Dioxide
Theme Keyword: Earth Science > Hydrosphere > Water Quality/Water Chemistry > Carcinogens
Theme Keyword: Earth Science > Hydrosphere > Water Quality/Water Chemistry > Chlorophyll
Theme Keyword: Earth Science > Hydrosphere > Water Quality/Water Chemistry > Conductivity
Theme Keyword: Earth Science > Hydrosphere > Water Quality/Water Chemistry > Dissolved Solids
Theme Keyword: Earth Science > Hydrosphere > Water Quality/Water Chemistry > Hydrocarbons
Theme Keyword: Earth Science > Hydrosphere > Water Quality/Water Chemistry > Inorganic Matter
Theme Keyword: Earth Science > Hydrosphere > Water Quality/Water Chemistry > Light Transmission
Theme Keyword: Earth Science > Hydrosphere > Water Quality/Water Chemistry > Nitrogen Compounds
Theme Keyword: Earth Science > Hydrosphere > Water Quality/Water Chemistry > Ph
Theme Keyword: Earth Science > Hydrosphere > Water Quality/Water Chemistry > Phosphorous Compounds
Theme Keyword: Earth Science > Hydrosphere > Water Quality/Water Chemistry > Radioisotopes
Theme Keyword: Earth Science > Hydrosphere > Water Quality/Water Chemistry > Stable Isotopes
Theme Keyword: Earth Science > Hydrosphere > Water Quality/Water Chemistry > Suspended Solids
Theme Keyword: Earth Science > Hydrosphere > Water Quality/Water Chemistry > Toxic Chemicals
Theme Keyword: Earth Science > Hydrosphere > Water Quality/Water Chemistry > Trace Metals
Theme Keyword: Earth Science > Hydrosphere > Water Quality/Water Chemistry > Turbidity
Theme Keyword: Earth Science > Hydrosphere > Water Quality/Water Chemistry > Water Ion Concentration
Theme Keyword: Earth Science > Hydrosphere > Water Quality/Water Chemistry > Water Potability
Theme Keyword: Earth Science > Hydrosphere > Water Quality/Water Chemistry > Water Trace Elements

Resource File - ST Croix River

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Resource File - ST Croix River

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TNTC

100/100ML OF TOTAL COLIFORMS IS S

0m 50m 100m 150m

hen Dover Hill Marsh Restoration Project

TOTAL INPUT 856,661 lbs 2347 lbs

10.2.2 Kraft Pulping

10.2.2.1 Process Description1 -

9/90 (Reformatted 1/95) Wood Products Industry 10.2-1

Figure 10.2-1. Typical kraft sulfate pulping and recovery process.

Particulate control on lime kilns is generally accomplished by scrubbers. Electrostatic

9/90 (Reformatted 1/95) Wood Products Industry 10.2-3

10.2.3 Acid Sulfite Pulping

10.2.3.1 Process Description -

10.2-4 EMISSION FACTORS (Reformatted 1/95) 9/90

EMISSION FACTOR RATING: A

Sulfur Dioxide Carbon Monoxide Hydrogen Sulfide RSH, RSR, RSSR

Digester relief and blow

Recovery boiler and direct

Table 10.2-1 (cont.).

EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C

Cumulative Mass % _< Cumulative Emission Factor

Figure 10.2-2. Cumulative particle size distribution and size-specific emission

9/90 (Reformatted 1/95) Wood Products Industry 10.2-7

EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C

Cumulative Mass % _< Cumulative Emission Factor

10.2-8 EMISSION FACTORS (Reformatted 1/95) 9/90

EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C

Cumulative Mass % _< Cumulative Emission Factor

9/90 (Reformatted 1/95) Wood Products Industry 10.2-9

EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C

Cumulative Mass % <

10.2-10 EMISSION FACTORS (Reformatted 1/95) 9/90

EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C

Cumulative Mass % <

9/90 (Reformatted 1/95) Wood Products Industry 10.2-11

EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C

Cumulative Mass % <

10.2-12 EMISSION FACTORS (Reformatted 1/95) 9/90

10.2.3.2 Emissions And Controls11 -

10.2-14 EMISSION FACTORS (Reformatted 1/95) 9/90

10.2.4 Neutral Sulfite Semichemical (NSSC) Pulping

10.2.4.1 Process Description9,12-14 -

10.2.4.2 Emissions And Controls9,12-14 -

A potential gaseous pollutant is sulfur dioxide. Absorbing towers, digester/blower tank

9/90 (Reformatted 1/95) Wood Products Industry 10.2-15

MgO All exhaust vented through recovery

Na Process change and scrubber Neg Neg 1 2 C

Table 10.2-8 (cont.).

2. Standards Support And Environmental Impact Statement, Volume I: Proposed Standards Of

3. Kraft Pulping - Control Of TRS Emissions From Existing Mills, EPA-450/78-003b,

9. Atmospheric Emissions From The Pulp And Paper Manufacturing Industry,

11. Background Document: Acid Sulfite Pulping, EPA-450/3-77-005, U. S. Environmental

10.2-18 EMISSION FACTORS (Reformatted 1/95) 9/90

A Guide for Citizens,

Monitoring Surface Water Quality:

A Guide for Citizens, Students and Communities in Atlantic Canada

Hugh J. O'Neill Environment Canada

Matthew McKim New Brunswick Community College

Dr. John Allen Huntsman Marine Science Centre

Jerry Choate New Brunswick Department of the

Dr. Thomas A. Clair Environment Canada

Stephen Hawboldt Clean Annapolis River Project (CARP)

Rob Rainer St. Croix Estuary Project