1 / 9

90 likes | 197 Vues

Are there IOPs that are better for estimating total suspended matter in coastal waters? E. Boss & L. Taylor, University of Maine An analysis of the Alliance of Coastal Technology (ACT) turbidity data set. The ACT d ata set is comprised of: 8 sites. 7 instruments spanning:

Télécharger la présentation
## Are there IOPs that are better for estimating total suspended matter in coastal waters?

**An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation**
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.
Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only.
Download presentation by click this link.
While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

**Are there IOPs that are better for estimating total**suspended matter in coastal waters? E. Boss & L. Taylor, University of Maine An analysis of the Alliance of Coastal Technology (ACT) turbidity data set. • The ACT data set is comprised of: • 8 sites. • 7 instruments spanning: • 1 – transmissometer • SeaTech • 2– back-scatter • WETLabs, Aquatec • 3– side-scatter • InSitu, McVan, YSI**Hypothesis:**Beam attenuation at a red wavelength (or particulate scattering at a non-absorbing wavelength) should be the best predictor of TSS. Because beam attenuation is least sensitive of all these IOPs to absorption peaks, composition, shape, and internal structure (particularly for particles >> wavelength). Note: provides a sense of how well we can expect to do from Rrs. Data taken next to sensor.**Data set:**• Note: • Beam attenuation is limited to 4hours after periodic cleaning. • Some other sensors had anti bio fouling devices. • All personnel was trained together on how to do the measurements. Number of matchup data: For the whole data set: 21 co-located measurements with all instruments. 96 co-located measurements with at least one instrument of each method. If we limit ourselves to data within first 5 days of deployment: 13 co-located measurements with all instruments. 36 co-located measurements with at least one instrument of each method. For comparison, Babin et al., 2003, had 220 matchups of TSM with bp(555).**Statistical test of hypothesis:**• Compare IOPs only when the same TSS data are available (100 data points). • Analyze the data distribution (is it normal? lognormal?). Normalizing the data and log-transforming them provide non-dimensional and scaled variables for which linear-correlation analysis is more suited.**Statistical test of hypothesis:**• Take into account uncertainties associated with the data. • Uncertainties: in TSS (std of triplicates) and in optical measurements (based on calibration data and temperature tests). • Conduct linear correlation analysis between log-normalized data {log[data/median(data)} using a Monte-Carlo procedure to obtain uncertainty in the correlation coefficient.**cp*=0.5m2/gr**Data: cp: bbp: cp*=0.25m2/gr bsp:**When we look at data sets comprising all instruments, or**first five days without HI, we find correlations to be high (>0.95) and insignificantly different across methods. • Question: is it worth measuring with more than one method? • Answer: YES!!!, at least bb and beam-c. • Provides redundancy in case of failure. • Provides additional information: Change consistent with change in index of refraction**Summary:**• Analysis suggest NO significant differences between methods when using more stringent criterion and no CaCO3 sediments. • Backscattering/TSS ratio seem less sensitive to CaCO3 then beam-c. • If possible, it is advisable to use different methods to estimate TSS. Beside redundancy, the additional information can provide information on composition.

More Related