Surface Water Quality Assessment of Chalk Rivers: The case of River Itchen, Southampton, UK

Helen Michael

University of Portsmouth

School of Earth and Environmental Science

April 2014

Research Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for

BSc Environmental Science Degree

Abstract

Unpolluted waters in rivers are vital natural resources, in providing drinking, irrigation water

for human use, livestock and agriculture (UNESCO 2012). However, water quality in many

large river waters have deteriorated significantly worldwide due to many anthropogenic

activities (Palaniappan et al. 2010). Dramatic population growth, rapid urbanization and

increment of various industries, have been negatively influenced the water quality and

chemical composition of many UK Rivers. The increase of certain trace metals, including

heavy metals, may have serious impact upon the overall river water quality, and may lead to

toxicity to the biota that live there (WHO 1984). The EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) is

the most significant legislative instrument for the protection of water bodies. The WFD sets

important physical and chemical standards for local governments for maximum and

minimum values of other water quality parameters. The aim of this research was the

assessment of the current water quality status of the River Itchen catchment and evaluate

the compliance with the Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) set by the EU Water

Framework Directive (WFD). Several variables monitored in the River Itchen include pH,

conductivity, temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), alkalinity and nutrient levels (phosphate

and nitrate). Water samples were also collected and analysed for trace metal

concentrations. Main findings involved high nutrient (Nitrate and Phosphate)

concentrations, and very high salt concentrations (Major cation elements) near the mouth

of the river. The results aided to conclude the quality of the River Itchen to be of ‘moderate’

quality. And for the improvement and remediation of the problems outlined in the by this

study, larger monitoring operations need to be carried out by Environmental bodies.

Acknowledgments

Foremost, I would like to thank Dr. Mike Fowler, supervisor of this project, for his consistent guidance and experience throughout this project. Similarly, I would like to thank Nick Walton and Dr. Michelle Hale for their expertise and advice throughout the project, which has been priceless.

Many thanks must also get to all the laboratory staff, namely Elaine and Sue, who took time to explain concepts to me and taught me the skills I needed to complete this effectively, without the help of these people much of the analysis that forms the core of this project would not have been possible.

Finally, I would also like to thank my fellow researchers and friends; Lydia Elizabeth Coote, Isabella Stefanoudaki Darsha Joshi and Mark Lloyd Jones, who have been a constant source or encouragement and support for the duration of the project

Declaration

I, Helen Michael, state that this paper and the work it presents is my own and has been produced by myself from the resulted that I conducted. I also declare the use of other related published work from previous studies where it applies, which is correctly attributed.

SIGN …………..………………………..

DATE……………………………………

Contents1. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................1

1.1. Background....................................................................................................2

1.1.1. River Water Quality.......................................................................................................2

1.1.2. Major water quality issues in rivers................................................................................4

1.2. Policy..........................................................................................................12

1.2.1. The European Union Water Framework Directive (EU WFD).............................12

1.2.2. Related Legislation....................................................................................................15

1.3. Study Area..................................................................................................16

1.3.1. Spatial Background...................................................................................................16

1.3.2. Geology and Hydrogeology.....................................................................................18

1.3.3. Climate........................................................................................................................20

1.4. Aims & Objectives........................................................................................22

2. METHODOLOGY....................................................................................................24

2.1. Water Quality Monitoring..............................................................................24

2.2. Sampling Stations........................................................................................26

2.3. Field (In-situ) Sampling................................................................................30

2.4. Laboratory Water Analysis..............................................................................36

2.4. Quality Assurance/ Control..........................................................................37

3. RESULTS................................................................................................................37

3.1. Water Quality Parameters............................................................................37

Temperature..............................................................................................................................37

pH................................................................................................................................................38

Dissolve Oxygen (DO)..............................................................................................................38

Conductivity...............................................................................................................................38

Alkalinity.....................................................................................................................................39

Total Hardness..........................................................................................................................39

Nutrients.....................................................................................................................................39

3.2. Trace Metal concentrations..........................................................................43

3.3. Data Analysis...............................................................................................48

4. DISCUSSION..........................................................................................................49

4.1. Nutrient levels.................................................................................................49

4.2. High Salt Concentrations................................................................................50

4.3. Dissolved Oxygen...........................................................................................50

4.4. Water Quality Parameters...............................................................................51

4.5. Trace Metal Concentrations............................................................................51

5. CONCLUSION.........................................................................................................52

5.1. Limitations of the Research..........................................................................54

6. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY.................................................55

REFERENCE.................................................................................................................56

List of Figures

Figure 1. Resulting effects of organic discharge into the riverine system

Figure 2. Percentage of rivers in England with high phosphate and nitrate levels from 1990-2009

Figure 3. Manganese concentration in stream water

Figure 4. Interaction between the river Itchen and Solent Estuary

Figure 5. The role of EQS in water quality classification

Figure 6. The Catchment area of the River Itchen

Figure 7. Geological map of Hampshire showing the underlying Chalk.

Figure 8. Average and recorded temperatures (weather2 2014).

Figure 9. Average Precipitation (weather2 2014).

Figure 10. Study sites at River Itchen (Google Earth 2014).

Figure 11. Detection limits of ICP-MS (Wolf 2005).

Figure 12.Results of water temperature (°C)

Figure 13. Results of Conductivity

Figure 14. pH results

Figure 15. Dissolved oxygen results

Figure 16. Nitrate Results

Figure 17. Trace Metal Concentration data a-c

List of Tables

Table 1. Examples of Mining areas in England with their metal output (EA 2008)

Table 2. A Comparison of the different drinking water Environmental Quality Standards (EQS)

Table 3. Water Pollution Law Materials (Environmental Law 2014)

Table 4. The water quality parameters chosen for monitoring

Table 5. Parameters sampled for this study (Behar 1997; US EPA 1997; Dates 1995).

Table 6. River Itchen Sampling Locations

Table 7. Field water quality measuring equipment

Table 8. Water Quality Parameters results table

Table 9. Major Cations found in the River Itchen

Table 10. Trace Metal concentrations found at the River Itchen

1. INTRODUCTION

Considered, one of the `finest’ chalk rivers in the world, The River Itchen is

designated as a SSSI and SAC area, which contains a large high quality habitats

and supports a range of protected species (EA 2011). Therefore, the river has to

meet the WFD quality standards to be able to support these sensitive life forms.

Constant management and quality assessment of the river water quality is, therefore,

essential to prevent the deterioration of the complex fresh water catchment ().

`The WFD is a legally binding policy that provides a common framework for water

management and protection throughout Europe’ (Kaika 2003).The framework

commits all European nations to achieve a broad goal of ‘good ecological and

chemical statuses’ and sets environmental quality standards that each state needs to

adhere to. Significant river and canal water quality improvements have been noted

in England and Wales over the past 20 years. Although this improvement is

promising, several catchments around the UK are still of poor water quality constant

assessment and monitoring is required to restore them to good water quality status

(DEFRA 2012). With respect to the requirements of the EU Water Framework

Directive (WFD), several methods have been proposed for the assessment of

ambient water quality in Europe (Shindler et al., 2008).

This project sets out to conduct an updated water quality assessment for the River

Itchen, with a particular focus on the application to the Water Framework Directive

(WFD). It has been undertaken as a follow-on to previous studies conducted at the

river and other nearby sites.

1

1.1. Background

River water quality needs be understood in the context of fluvial and riverine

catchment processes, which control the fundamental features of the river system

Moreover, the understanding of freshwater processes should be applicable in the

design of monitoring, choice of sampling method and factors to be measured

(Chapman, 1992). To allow the effective and accurate water quality assessment of

River Itchen and meet project, evaluation of previous work conducted on this area is

required. This includes; the points other studies recognised to be affecting water

quality in a river basin, the policy that commands the standard of waters (such as in

the River Itchen) and possible recommendations to improve pollution problems

(Renie, 2012). Previous literature available on water quality of the River Itchen as

well as other rivers is essential to detect potential gaps in prior research. The goal of

this section is to provide background context to the study in several areas; Major

water quality issues in rivers, the various parameters that indicate the quality of a

river (chemical, biological, nutrient status) and the Environmental Quality Standards

(EQS) set by the EU WFD that need to be adhered to.

1.1.1. River Water Quality

Overview: Rivers

“Rivers are dynamic systems which respond to the physical characteristics of the

watershed, which in turn are controlled by the local and regional geological and

climatic conditions” (Babiker & Shakak 2011). Social, economic and political

development has, in the past, been largely related to the availability and distribution

of freshwaters contained in riverine systems (Chapman 2002). Rivers supply water

for various uses (e.g. drinking water and irrigation uses) and sponsor variety of

activities (recreational).

2

River Itchen is considered a good quality chalk river. These rivers possess crystal

clarity and are generally expected to be of good quality. This is due to the fact that

the existing chalk purifies the rainwater as it percolates through allowing it to emerge

as spring on the valley floor. The resultant water is very hard and alkaline with

constant temperature (DEFRA 2011). Different plants and animals are also

supported by the natural features in these chalk rivers and streams (FER 2014). For

example, range of aquatic species live within riffles and pools and wild animals and

flowers make home within bordering vegetation of rivers (FWD 2010). The River

Itchen is designated as Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Special Area of

Conservation (SAC) as it is rich of various rare and scarce species. The site is

known for its rich habitat of fen meadows, swamps, flood pasture, water crowfoot

and various in-channel and riparian vegetation. There are over 300 different

invertebrate species located at the river including nation-rare invertebrates including;

southern damselfly, mayfly, crayfish and shrimps. The southern damselfly is

considered to be an endangered species on both national and global terms. The

largest group of the species is believed to be situated within the river. The river

Itchen is also rich with various freshwater birds (pochard, wader birds, redshank and

tussled duck) and fishes such as Atlantic salmon (Salmo Salar) and Bullhead

(Cottius Gabbo) (EA 2001).

Degradation of river quality in England

Although the ecological significance of England’s chalk rivers (as discussed above)

is immense and nationally recognised, these systems are susceptible to great deal of

contamination from various pollutants. Activities resulting from both natural

(weathering, sediment input) and anthropogenic (industrial, domestic and

3

agricultural) activities continuously create a polluting source (UNEP 2008).

Increasing levels of population as well as rapid industrialization has put great

pressure on freshwater demand, making freshwater availability scarce and more

valued (Gleik, 2000). The most common pollutants include heavy metal input,

nutrients (phosphate and nitrate), dissolved materials and organic compounds. The

effect of each of these and the problem it poses to the catchment, is discussed

below.

Moreover, the length of the Rive Itchen has been continuously modified by the

construction of the Itchen Navigation and several mills, which subsidise to risk of

flooding on the river. Although the river is not susceptible surface flooding due to the

efficiency of the chalk aquifer, high floods have been recorded at the river where

months of heavy rain have led to the groundwater levels to peak up. In early January

2014, flood warnings were announced by the EA following a heavy storm surge

recorded (Turner 2014).

1.1.2. Major water quality issues in rivers

1.1.2.1. Organic pollution

Organic pollution occurs when watercourses receive large amounts of organic

compounds from human-induced entries such as wastewater treatment plants,

agricultural run-off and industrial effluents (EEA 2012). Ecological effects of this

include; high levels of ammonia that lead to toxicity, decreased oxygen levels due to

large Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) that exert biological stress to systems,

stream deoxygenation and loss of organisms that are sensitive to organic pollution

such as mayflies, stone-flies and salmonoids ( Natural England 2010).

4

Origins of organic matter include; urban-runoff, farm wastes, domestic sewage and

industrial discharges. There are several thousand (more than 9000) discharges

inputting treated sewage into river and canal systems as well as crude oil discharges

to the open sea in England and Wales. The graph below shows the processes that

follow in a river system due to discharge (Loos et al., 2009).

As seen in figure 1, section A shows the increase and decline (due to

decomposition) of suspended solids from the outfall down the river. A drop in oxygen

levels is visible before a slow recovery. This outlines the major impacts of organic

pollution, which involves the loss of aquatic communities due to the decreased levels

of oxygen. B shows the development of the main components that cause

eutrophication in rivers and streams causing ‘algal blooms’, such as nitrate,

phosphate and ammonium ions that result from organic matter decay. The peak in

algal growth after the rise in nitrate (eutrophication) is shown on C, revealing the

reason for the oxygen depletion following large sewage bacteria and fungus growth.

The final graph D, demonstrates the dramatic decline of pollution-sensitive fauna

communities. This closely correlates with graphs A and B that show changes in

oxygen levels and increase in nitrogen causing eutrophication. One of the species

replacing the pollution-sensitive organisms is Tubifex worms that feed on organic

matter and survive in low oxygen conditions (FSC 2011).

5

Figure 1. Resulting effects of organic discharge into the riverine system. A and B

relate to physical and chemical changes, C is the effects on microorganisms and D

refers to effects on larger organisms (Hynes 1978).

6

In the case of River Itchen, as early as January 2014, there has been reports of

untreated sewage entering near several pumping stations at Brambridge and

Eastleigh due the “exceptional rainfall” reported in the area (BBC 2014). The incident

was due to operational problems that input vast amount of sewage into the river,

which could potentially result in some of the environmental impacts listed above.

The two general contributors to eutrophication in the UK are nitrates and

phosphates, phosphorous being the main limiting factor in freshwaters. However,

high levels of nitrate are still posing a major problem in marine and coastal waters.

Agriculture and sewage effluents to be the main sources for these nutrients.

According to DEFRA, about 40% of phosphates and 70% of nitrates in UK rivers

originate from agricultural practices (DEFRA 2006). Nitrogen and phosphorous

concentration patterns confirm the rapid increase in these nutrients (Figure 2)

enough to impact the riverine ecology particularly in the South East England (Jarvie

et al., 2002).

7

Figure 2. Percentage of rivers in England with high phosphate and nitrate levels from 1990-

2009 (DEFRA 2011)

1.1.2.3. Heavy metals

Past and present mining and processing of base metals have resulted in the heavy

metal contamination of river catchments, which poses a hazard to ecosystem and

human health (Macklin et al. 2006). Although most of these activities have now

ceased, the mine sites are still seen as significant sources of heavy metal

contaminations of a number of river systems. Water in mining-affected river systems

is contaminated with heavy metals such as Pb, Cu, Cd and Zn (Hart & Lake, 1987)

through processes such as acid-mine drainage and heap waters, direct discharge of

spoils and high-flow events (EA 2009). In England and Wales, several river

catchments have been heavily contaminated with metals from previous mining

activities. The WFD estimates over 400 surface water systems were polluted from

abandoned mine works. Table 1 shows some of the mining areas in England and

their metal outputs.

Tabe 1. Examples of Mining areas in England with their metal output (EA 2008)

8

1.1.2.4. Trace Metal concentrations

Chemical composition of streams and rivers is highly dependent on setting of the

catchment, morphology, anthropogenic activities, lithology and climatic effects that

will impact the rate of rock weathering as well as the type of flora that exist in the

river ( Dinelli et al. 2005). This makes the concentration of metals highly variable.

For Example, Figure 3 shows the variability in Manganese concentration across the

UK in pristine waters (WFD 2009). Trace metals involve elements such as Cr, Cu,

Fe, Mg and Zn that usually occur at very minute levels. Although, small amount of

these elements is essential, excess amounts can be deadly (Markert et al., 1993).

Trace metals are available naturally through processes like the weathering of rocks

and volcanic activities. However, human-induced activities enhance this

concentration from industrial mining processes and sewage discharges. The toxicity

of each trace metal depends on the various factors mentioned above (Morel & Price,

2003). In order to avoid casualties of humans as well as other organisms that live in

aquatic catchments, regular monitoring and sampling needs to be carried out.

9

Figure 3. Manganese concentration in stream water (WFD 2009)

1.1.2.5. Salt intrusions into rivers

The salinity in rivers is a result of the interaction between the seawater flowing in

from the sea due to tides and the freshwater flowing into the Solent estuary from the

Itchen river and other tributaries (Figure 4, the red arrow showing where the

interaction occurs). These interactions vary depending on seasons and the level of

freshwater flowing into the estuary (Towned 2008). For example, during winter, large

amount of freshwater enters the river systems preventing sea water from moving

deep enough into the estuary lowering the salinity of the river during this period.

However, in summer this effect is reversed as more saltwater is able to move further

into the estuary near the river mouth due to the low levels of freshwater flowing into

the estuary. And due to the density difference of the two water bodies, it results in

the two waters flowing over each other creating a “salt wedge”. The mixing of these

two waters will commence gradually by wind, increasing the salinity of the surface

water. Some of the salinity could also be due to the geological setting of the river and

10

the interaction between water and rock. Some elements that make up the solutes in

aquatic systems include Calcium, Magnesium, Potassium and Chloride ( Tuttle &

Grauch 2009).

Figure 4. Interaction between the river Itchen and Solent Estuary (Google Earth

2013).

11

1.2. Policy

Department of Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA), the Environmental

Agency (EA) and the Water Service Regulatory Authority are the partners involved

with the improvement of water quality in bathing waters, lakes, rivers and other water

bodies. Much of the work carried out is governed by the EU Water Framework

Directive (WFD). The monitoring and briefing of the objectives of the WFD are done

by the EA, as well as producing river management plans for each catchment in order

to protect and improve the water systems (DEFRA 2014). The WFD and the quality

standards it sets are discussed below.

1.2.1. The European Union Water Framework Directive (EU WFD)

The WFD is a substantial legal initiative, proposed to unite all European water

legislatives under one piece to allow the better protection, monitoring and

sustainability of the environment. The directive requires all EU nations to enhance

their coastal and inland water quality to a ‘good status’ by 2015 and outlines guiding

objectives of how this should be achieved as well as ecological targets for surface

waters. The WFD was adopted in the UK in the year 2000. The main objectives set

by the directive include; to avert the decline of surface and groundwater status and

the enhancement, protection and restoration of all water bodies with the aim of

improving the status.

12

1.2.1.1. Environmental Quality Standards

The WFD sets out Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) for different pollutants.

This is the maximum allowed limits of each substance, if surpassed, could potentially

cause tremendous impacts to the environment. For the assessment of Good

Chemical Status for surface water bodies, EQS for priority substances and

hazardous substances are set. Moreover, the WFD requires ‘specific pollutants’

standard to be developed by each Member State. These are substances are

expressed as those seen to be released in substantial quantity and are able to affect

the biological quality.

Figure 5. The role of EQS in water quality classification (DOE 2014).

13

Surface water quality is determined using two types of classification: Ecological and

Chemical. Overall status of the system is established by the assessment of these

two factors and a ‘good status’ is given once both the chemical and ecological

statuses must be good standard. The chemical assessment considers all the

chemicals that could be harmful to ecology and includes most of the polluting

substances some of which are listed on table2. Figure 6 shows the processes

involved in order to achieve an overall ‘good status’ (DOE 2014).

Table 2. A Comparison of the different drinking water Environmental Quality Standards (EQS)

14

1.2.2. Related Legislation

Although the Water Framework Directive is the most dominant water quality

regulatory document in Europe, several legislative material relating to water still

exists nationally and on a state level. Some of them are listed in Table 3 (CIRIA

2010).

Table 3. Water Pollution Law Materials (CIRIA 2010)

Europe England and Wales

Bathing Water Directive 76/464/EEC Water Resources Act 1991

Drinking Water Directive 80/778/EEC Water Industry Act 1991

Nitrates Directive 91/676/EEC Environment Act 1995

Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive

91/271/EEC

Water Act 2003

Groundwater Directive 80/68/EEC The Water Environment (Water

Framework Directive) (England and

Wales) Regulations 2003

The Water Framework Directive

2000/60/EC

Environmental Permitting (England and

Wales) Regulations 2010

1.3. Study Area

This section will introduce the chosen area for this study in terms of location, climate,

hydrology, hydrogeology and general overview of the River Itchen.

15

1.3.1. Spatial Background

The River Itchen, a world-renowned Chalk river, has a total watershed area of 400

km2, out of which calk comprises about 360 square kilometres. The total length of the

catchment is 42 km. The Itchen has various tributaries such as River Allre, Candover

Brook and Bow Lake. Down its length, the river divides into separate parallel

channels such as the Itchen Navigation, which connects Southampton and

Winchester. It finally resides and becomes Southampton Water joining its sister river,

River Test (EA 2006) (Figure 6).

Several modifications have taken place at the river over past centuries, reflecting the

constant economic and social changes over the years. The steady population growth

as well as increased urbanisations have put a lot of pressure on the river. Examples

of such changes include, building of mills, water meadows and the Itchen Navigation

System. Large and small fisheries are also found along the length of the river. The

river is especially famous for its high abundance of Salmon and trout communities

that attracts lots of fishers to the area. Continuous monitoring is carried out in the

catchment to ensure the maintenance of these populations. Sewage treatment

plants are located on the upper side of the river that release sewage effluent into the

river adding on to the river water quality problem (EA 2010)..

16

Figure 6. The Catchment area of the River Itchen (EA 2006)

17

1.3.2. Geology and Hydrogeology

Geology dominates the characteristics of the River Itchen. The geological structure is

formed from underlying rocks of the Hampshire Basin. A fine-grained, porous and

oldest limestone rock called Cretaceous Chalk forms the length of the catchment all

the way up to Eastleigh (Figure 7). This rock contributes to the unique quality of the

river. Rainwater is absorbed by the chalk and infiltrates through with the aid of

gravity and end up in valleys and streams. This Calk aquifer is the most valuable and

reliable water storage system for the river, providing it with constant freshwater (EA

2010).

18

Figure 7. Geological map of Hampshire showing the underlying Chalk.

19

1.3.3. Climate

Changes in temperature, wind speed and rainfall control the biological and chemical

processes that take place within a riverine system. Precipitation brings nutrient loads

ito the water system, whilst dissolved oxygen concentrations are affected by the

combined forces of wind and temperature (Tundisi et al. 1993).Typically, temperate

climate, affected by dominant North Atlantic Current that send out southwest winds.

Average rainfall for the area is thought to be 42mm and wind speed can reach up to

7mph. The yearly trends of rainfall and temperature are shown on the graphs below.

Temperature levels are expected to be higher in the months from May-September

and precipitation is expected to be highest from October- January (weather2 2014).

Figure 8. Average and recorded temperatures (weather2 2014).

20

Figure 9. Average Precipitation (weather2 2014).

21

1.4. Aims & Objectives

The overall aim of this study is to conduct a water quality assessment of selected

sites alongside the length of the River Itchen catchment up to Eastleigh, which

allows the comparison with the EQS set by the European Union WFD. The data

collected is used to assess the compliance with policy and thus, provides the reader

an updated chemical health status summary of the river.

To further narrow the study scope, the following objectives are set:

To compare a review of literature providing background to the project.

This involves gathering contextual information material through the study of

literature regarding water quality assessment, EU and UK policy, environment

water standards and previous studies.

To review detailed previous water data collected by other environmental

and governmental bodies for comparison and deducing a trend.

To gather an understanding of the implications of water pollution and

contamination of river bodies from various sources.

This is achieved through meetings with field experts on the field and going on

talks on the subject.

To conduct a water quality investigation on selected locations along the

River Itchen.

Learn and apply the important field and laboratory skills to collect, analyse

and interpret water samples, with respect to essential quality parameters. This

includes measure of pH, water temperature, conductivity, total alkalinity, total

hardness, Dissolved Oxygen (DO) and nutrient (nitrate and phosphate) levels.

22

Water sample was also collected form the sites and taken back to the

laboratory for the analysis of trace metals using the ICP-MS.

To evaluate the implications of the conclusions with regards to the

future of the River Itchen.

Identify sources of any threat to the overall water quality of the river and

possible solutions and recommendations.

To create an engaging summary report of major findings of the study

conducted at the catchment for the understanding of the current river

status

Summarise all the key findings in a professional scientific manner for

interested groups and wider dissemination.

23

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1. Water Quality Monitoring

The need for water quality monitoring is for the purpose of characterising water

bodies and identify changes within them as well as identify any potential or existing

quality problems. Moreover, monitoring allows the collection of information to help

develop prevention and remediation plans. It also helps environmental agencies to

regulate the compliance against policy and aid to assess reaching any set goals (US

EPA 2012). This section describes the various methods that were conducted for the

assessment at the River Itchen. The River was sampled for chemical conditions such

as dissolved metals, nutrients and dissolved oxygen. Other physical variables such

as alkalinity, temperature, pH, total hardness and conductivity of the surface waters

of Itchen, along the selected sites were also measured.

Table 4. The water quality parameters chosen for monitoring

The need to measure each of these parameters is explained in the table below

(Table 5)

24

Table 5. Parameters sampled for this study (Behar 1997; US EPA 1997; Dates 1995).

25

2.2. Sampling Stations

Selection of the study sites need to be able to meet the requirements of the study,

i.e. the aims and objectives. The location of sampling sites collected will depend on

the actual size of the catchment area where the study takes place in. As soon as the

extent of the catchment is selected, individual areas of sampling can be defined.

These sites need to be representative of the whole catchment area. This is done so

that the sites chosen are able to answer the aims and objectives of the site.

Moreover, the representativeness will add on the reliability of the study conducted.

For this particular study along the River Itchen, the lower mouth of the river entering

the estuary all the way up to Eastleigh is chosen. This is done because this length

will be able to show the variations in chemical and catchment conditions, ranging

from the urban side of the lower end of the catchment near Southampton estuary to

the rural and designated sites of upper Eastleigh. The chosen sites and their

longitude and latitude locations are shown on Table 6 and Figure 10.

26

Station ID Station Name Latitude Longitude

1 Ocean Village 50 ͦ53’40.28N 1 ͦ23’26.03W

2 Itchen Bridge 50 ͦ54’00.37N 1 ͦ23’13.90W

3 Shamrock Quays 50 ͦ54’34.60N 1 ͦ22’48.63W

4 St. Denys 50 ͦ55’27.71N 1 ͦ22’46.17W

5 Woodmill 50 ͦ56’03.82N 1 ͦ22’30.04W

6 Man’s Bridge 50 ͦ56’15.173 1 ͦ21’24.07W

7 Itchen Valley/

Airport

50 ͦ57’08.13N 1 ͦ20’26.66W

8 The Itchen

Navigation Valley

50 ͦ57’30.40N 1 ͦ20’04.03W

9 Gaters Mill 50 ͦ57’31.59N 1 ͦ20’03.03W

10 Bishopsoke 50 ͦ57’58.02N 1 ͦ20’12.47W

Table 6. River Itchen Sampling Locations

The frequency in sampling should also be chosen to satisfy the needs of the study

and what is trying to be achieved. The more samples available from the study the

more data available to draw a more accurate evaluation of the status of the river.

One main factor to consider when choosing the size, location, duration and

frequency of study is the amount of resources available to conduct the study. This

includes both financial and number of people available to carry out the sampling. The

assessment carried out in the River Itchen was conducted over the course of three

days (25/01/2014- 27/01/2014). This is enough to have enough replica of samples

with the consideration of different conditions that could be met each day. The reason

for this s also time and financial restrictions.

27

Figure 10. Study sites at River Itchen (Google Earth 2014).

28

Plate 1. Ocean Village (Site 1)

2.3.

Field (In-situ) Sampling

The field sampling involved taking measurements for the different variables outlined

on section 2.1. In Table5. The following table shows the various field ( In-situ)

sampling carried out at each site in the River Itchen and the equipment used.

29

Plate 6. Itchen Valley (Site 7) Plate 7. The Itchen Navigation (Site 8)

Plate 8. Gaters Mill (Site 9) Plate 9. Bishopsoke (Site 10)

Plate 10 (Michael 2014) Activity description

a) Temperature The temperature was measures using a

Multi Thermo thermometer. The readings

were taken as ° C.

b) Dissolved Oxygen

The dissolved oxygen was measured with

the Dissolved oxygen vile tool kit, which

takes up the water allowing a colour

change to develop (clear- blue) that can

be compared with the different

concentration readings given as mg/l

(ppm) of DO concentration. The readings

in the toolbox range from 1-9 ppm.

c) Nitrates

Nitrate is also measured using the same

technique as the DO except the colour

change varies between clear- orange/pink

colours. The readings are given ranging

from 0 – 3 ppm (mg/l).

d) Phosphates

Phosphates involve using the same

method as above, however the sample

processing of the waters follows different

30

instructions. Also, the concentrations

given for comparison have very low

detecting limits going up to only 3 ppm.

e) pH

pH was measured using two techniques: a

pH stick and pH meter. This is to allow a

more accurate data to be collected as well

as allowing a comparative data set.

f) Conductivity

Conductivity was measured by the use of

two HANNA conductivity meters with

different detecting limits. One with mS and

the other µS.

g) Total Alkalinity

Total alkalinity was measured using

alkalinity test strips that measure the

31

colour change of the strips that can be

compared to the list of concentrations at

the back of the bottle ranging from 0-240

ppm.

h) Total Hardness

Total Hardness was measured using

hardness test strips that measure the

colour change of the strips that can be

compared to the list of concentrations at

the back of the bottle.

Table 7. Field water quality measuring equipment.

Dissolved metals analysis

The collection of water for trace metal analysis is a delicate process and assurance

of sample quality is of the highest of priorities in order to make sure the desired data

is collected. All environmental factors that could potentially affect sampling should be

considered prior to study (Overdier & Shafer 1995). This could involve processes

32

involved with how and with what samples are collected to direction of sample

collection. Before sample collection, all sample collection apparatus is cleaned in a

laboratory as it needs to be completely clean to avoid cross contamination. In order

to avoid contamination several factors are taken into account. These include; the use

of apparatus that is non-metal, conducting sampling in a free contamination area,

minimizing exposure of sample, wearing gloved at all times during the operation (US

EPA 2000).

Samples were taken using a polyethene water jug with rod and wire attached to it

(Plate 12 b), allow water to be taken from the river in inaccessible areas. The

samples are then put directly put into a correctly labelled, small 30ml polyethene

bottles (Plate 11) ensuring the water is filled up to the mark. 3 drops of 1% HNO3

reagent is then added (Plate 12 a & c) to each sample before enduring the cap is

securely closed. The samples were then kept in a freezer bag to ensure that they are

kept cool to prevent any chemical processes from taking place which could affect the

quality of the samples. After all the samples were collected from each site, they were

refrigerated until they were taken to the laboratory for analysis (US EPA Field

Sampling Guidance Documents #1229).

33

2.

4. Laboratory Water Analysis

34

Plate 11. Polyethene Sample Bottles (Michael 2014)

Plate 12. Water Sample Collection; a) addition of 1% HNO3; b) Apparatus used for water collection and c) HNO3 (Michael 2014)

The water samples were analysed using Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass

Spectrometer (ICP MS). This method is chosen because it is ideal for elemental

determinations and its capability of detection limits of parts per billion (ppb), which

makes it superior to other analytical techniques. Moreover, possesses high

precision, speed and high sensitivity (Wolf 2005). The detecting competence of this

method for different elements in the periodic table is shown on Figure 11.

Figure 11. Detection limits of ICP-MS (Wolf 2005).

35

2.4. Quality Assurance/ Control

This is carried out for the purpose of improving performance and reliability of the

study by making changes to the sampling process and ensuring contamination is

avoided in all stages of the procedure (US EPA Field Sampling Guidance

Documents 1229). There are several examples of how this is achieved. Equipment

blanks can be generated to guarantee the equipment are contamination-free. This is

done both on field site and the laboratory. Moreover, for improving the precision and

reliability of the data samples replicas were generated for each site.

3. RESULTS

3.1. Water Quality Parameters

During the conductance of the study, some areas were not available to access due

to the high levels of flooding during the time of the research. This explains the

reason why data doesn’t exist for sites 8 and 9 for all the three days. This is further

discussed in the limitation section of the conclusion in section 5.1.

Description of Data

Temperature

Great water temperature variability was observed along the river on all the sites. On

day one the study (25.01/2014), the highest temperature recorded was 10 °C at Site

7 and the lowest observed temperature was 8.1°C at Site 6. However, gradual trend

of temperature increase is visible as you move further up the river. This is also true

for the second day of sampling (26/01/2014) with highest temperature recorded

36

being 10.1 °C, which is similar to day one of sampling. However this trend changed

on the third day (27/01/2014), as low temperatures are recorded, ranging from 7.3 -

8.9 °C. This is shown on Table 8.

pH

pH values are seen to be alkaline amongst most of the sampling sites. Day 1 of the

study showed pH ranging from 8 to 8.33. Day 2 follows with similar trend with the

highest pH of 8.35 and the lowest of 8.35. The last day of sampling shows similar

alkaline results with a value of around 8, except for an anomaly of 6.88 recorded at

Site 7.

Dissolve Oxygen (DO)

The dissolved oxygen (DO) levels are found to be within the limits of 7-9 mg/L. The

oxygen levels start off with 7 mg/L in between sites 1- 6 then gradually increasing to

9mg/L further up the river from sites 7-10 on the first day of sampling. There are

variations of oxygen concentrations on day two of sampling. However, the limits

staying between 7-9 mg/L. similarly day 3 shows the dissolved oxygen concentration

to be between 7- 9 mg/L except for Site 1, which recorded to be 8 mg/L.

Conductivity

Conductivity decreased when moving further into the river (from Site 1- 10). For day

1 of sampling, conductivity was the highest at site 1 with a value of 19.49mS.

Gradual decrease of conductivity is seen after this point with the lowest recorded on

Site 10 with value of 0.46mS. Slightly lower conductivity levels were recorded on day

2 at Site 1 with a value of 16.65mS but with the same value at Site 10 (0.46mS). A

37

similar trend is visible on day 3 of sampling with highest values being 17.87mS and

the lowest of 0.53mS.

Alkalinity

Steady increase of alkalinity as moving up the river is visible on days 1 and 3. Day 1

ranges from 80ppm at Site 1 up to 120ppm on Site 10. Similarly, on day 3, the

values start with 120ppm on Site 1 then go up to 160ppm on Site 10. However, this

is not the same for day two as the reverse is observed with decreasing values of

alkalinity ranging from 180-40 ppm going up the river.

Total Hardness

Hardness values were observed to be decreasing up the river from Site 1 – 10. This

is the same for all the sites. Total hardness at the river mouth on Site 1 ranges

between 250-425 mg/L for all the sites. This gradually decreases down to 120mg/L

by Site 10 on the upper side of the river.

Nutrients

Nitrate

A dramatic increase of nitrates is visible as moving up the river catchment with

values reaching above detecting limit of the equipment to (3+ mg/L). Observations

from day 1 reveal the concentrations starting low with 0.8mg/L at Site 1 then with a

steady increase of more than 3mg/L. This is true for all of the sampling dates. The

highest nitrate concentration on Site 1 was recorded on day 3 with concentrations of

1.2mg/L.

38

Phosphate

Due to the very low traces of phosphate levels detected in waters the levels are set

in decimal places. The highest concentration of phosphates is found at Site 1 with

values of 0.2-0.3 mg/L then concentration stays the same with concentrations of 0.1-

0.2 mg/L for all of the sites of all the study dates.

Table 8. Water Quality Parameters results table

39

Interpretation of Data

Temperature

Figure 12.Results of water temperature (°C)

Conductivity

Figure 13. Results of Conductivity

40

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110

2

4

6

8

10

12

Day 1 (25/01/2014)Day 2 (26/01/2014)Day 3 (27/01/2014)

Sites

Wat

er T

empe

ratu

re (°

C)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110

5

10

15

20

25

Day 1 (25/01/2014)Day 2 (26/01/2014)Day 3 (27/01/2014)

Sites

Cond

uctiv

ity (m

S)

pH

Figure 14. pH results

Dissolved Oxygen

Figure 15. Dissolved oxygen results

41

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

day 1 (25/01/2014)Day 2 ( 26/01/2014)Day 3 (27/01/2014)

Sites

Diso

lved

Oxy

gen

(mg/

L)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Day 1 (25/01/2014)Day 2 (26/01/2014)Day 3 (27/01/2014)

Sites

pH

Nitrate

Figure 16. Nitrate Results

3.2. Trace Metal concentrations

Table 9. Major Cations found in the River Itchen

Na Mg k Ca

25/01/2014

Site 1 2353 343.3 201.8 318.5

Site 2 1635 239.1 142.2 261.2

Site 3 728.3 107.9 65.57 182.8

Site 4 104.9 16.13 14.75 104

Site 5 6.114 2.856 2.521 115.6

Site 6 9.278 3.923 2.894 115.1

Site 7 6.169 2.857 2.67 113.7

Site 8 x x x x

42

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Day 1 (25/01/2014)Day 2 (26/01/2014)Day 3 (27/01/2014)

Sites

Nitr

ate

Conc

entr

ation

s (m

g/L)

Site 9 x x x x

Site 10 5.285 2.583 2.238 118.6

26/01/2014 Na Mg k Ca

Site 1 1971 286.3 170.6 288.2

Site 2 933.2 137.6 82.79 149.7

Site 3 1012 149.3 89.4 216.3

Site 4 134.9 20.7 15.11 118.8

Site 5 6.951 3.177 2.719 122.4

Site 6 6.199 2.849 2.574 118.1

Site 7 5.947 2.765 2.592 110.8

Site 8 x x x x

Site 9 x x x x

Site 10 5.195 2.536 2.226 117.5

27/01/2014

Na Mg k Ca

Site 1 2002 291 175.4 278.5

Site 2 1482 217.9 131.2 239.3

Site 3 966.2 143.4 86.81 206.5

Site 4 60.63 9.628 7.912 121.5

Site 5 7.222 3.245 2.733 121.8

Site 6 6.303 2.837 2.581 119.5

Site 7 5.956 2.7 2.457 116

x x x x

x x x x

Site 10 5.479 2.521 2.184 123.8

43

Table 10. Trace Metal concentrations found at the River Itchen

25/01/2014 Cr Fe Cu Zn As Sr Cd

Sample 1 1.447 101.2 1.902 9.662 2.479 3930 0.2823

Sample 2 1.346 82.73 2.959 9.567 2.057 2813 4.119

Sample 3 1.034 125.2 1.462 4.173 1.499 1494 0.4316

Sample 4 0.3255 44.32 3.502 7.341 0.9573 443.8 21.33

Sample 5 0.0448 66.18 1.69 2.432 0.4453 279.6 5.692

Sample 6 0.0357 49.86 2.155 2.715 0.7292 296.1 14.57

Sample 7 0.1416 79.24 1.995 3.507 0.6448 294.4 1.257

Sample 10 0.0897 59.24 1.502 1.848 0.5794 291.8 1.432

26/01/2014

Sample 1 2.049 137.9 2.265 8.674 1.393 3421 18.55

Sample 2 0.9979 73.43 2.672 10.7 1.387 1711 4.371

Sample 3 1.483 112 1.941 5.125 1.114 1936 5.718

Sample 4 0.4104 50.22 1.912 8.655 0.6277 516.4 2.962

Sample 5 0.1239 67.19 2.716 4.815 0.6745 297.2 3.151

Sample 6 0.1076 68.26 1.431 3.507 0.4056 291.7 1.879

Sample 7 0.193 75.15 1.668 3.263 0.5923 285.5 1.29

Sample 10 0.0718 67.81 1.382 1.132 0.5227 293.5 1.109

44

27/01/2014

Sample 1 2.019 123.9 2.413 5.989 1.491 3481 2.393

Sample 2 2.078 122.1 1.946 5.548 1.277 2649 61.75

Sample 3 0.9937 125.5 1.526 3.391 1.319 1878 24.44

Sample 4 0.2012 64.79 1.92 5.731 0.6233 387.1 21.78

Sample 5 0.0954 79.25 1.502 2.446 0.71 298 17.35

Sample 6 -

0.0245

85.59 1.308 2.658 0.7389 292.1 71.17

Sample 7 0.1576 88.67 2.007 7.549 0.4778 284.4 264.5

Sample 10 0.1695 64.33 1.081 1.431 0.5923 301.9 6.671

The trace metal analysis indicated very high concentration of the major cations Na,

K, Mg and Calcium. These concentrations are found in a very excessive amounts

near the mouth of the river then gradually decreasing up the river. For example.

Sodium concentrations reach more than 2 million ppm and Calcium concentrations

at around 300,000ppm. In Comparison, the heavy metal concentrations are found to

much lower with Iron being the highest of them at 110ppm. The rest fall within

decimal values.

Interpretation of data

45

Figure 17 a).

Trace Metal Concentration data (Data 1)

b) Day 2

c) Day 3

46

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7 Site 8 Site 9 Site 100

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Major Trace Metal Cations (mg/L) at various sites along the River Itchen ( Day 1)

Na Mg k Ca

Sites

Cone

ntra

tion

(ppm

)

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7 Site 8 Site 9 Site 100

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Major tace element cations/heavy metal concenrat-ration in the River Itchen (Day 2)

Na Mg k Ca Fe Zn

Sites

Conc

entr

ation

(ppm

)

3.3. Data Analysis

Data was handled using PASW statistical software. Application of the normality test

(Kolmogornov Smirnoff) indicated a departure from normal distribution (p=<0.05) for

the concentration of trace metals on each site. This enabled the application of

Wilcoxon Signed-rank test (non-parametric), which showed that there is a significant

difference (Na, z = -3.0, p = 0.03) between the trace metals to the sites located at

River Itchen.

47

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7 Site 100

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Major Tace Element Cations /heavy metal Concentration in the River Itchen (Day 3)

Na Mg k Ca Zn Fe

Sites

Conc

entr

ation

(ppm

)

4. DISCUSSION

4.1. Nutrient levels

Reasonable concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorous are essential for healthy

abundances of plant and animals in aquatic systems. However, excessive

concentrations could exaggerate plant growth leading to elevated cases of algal

growth that will lead to the problem of eutrophication (USGS 2003). In the UK the

limits for nitrate levels are set at 30 mg NO3/L and Phosphate levels are expected to

be within the limits of 0.1 mg P/L. Since the year 2000 nitrate levels in the UK have

been observed to fall from almost 40% that exceeded the quality standard, down to

29% in the year 2009. For England and Wales, the (DEFRA 2012).

The high nutrient concentrations were observed from the study conducted in different

sites at the River Itchen. A gradual increase of nitrates from around 0.8 mg/L to more

that 3+ mg/L is visible travelling further up the river from the mouth. This is expected

because factors affecting the levels of NO3 in rivers, mainly agricultural activities are

found further up the river that could be washed into the water system. Moreover,

higher nitrate levels could be due to other types of land use, fertilisation and disposal

of effluent into the river system. Although the actual concentrations of nitrate levels

cannot be determined, it is still evident that the levels of the nutrients are high. For

the correct determination of the concentrations a more applicable analytical

technique such as Nutrient Autoanalyzer (QUAATRO) in order to identify the

compliance against EQSs.

Phosphate levels although expected to be very low, on average they were found to

be slightly higher (between 0.1-0.2 mg/L) than the set guidance of 0.1 mg P/L.

phosphate concentrations could spike up due to an existence of the Sewage

48

treatment Plant (Jarvie et al. 2006) located further up the river. For example, cases

of sewage discharges entering the river have been reported in January 2014 (BBC

2014), which was just before the study was conducted. Therefore, the high

concentrations of phosphates could be due to this fact. The high levels of rainfall

received ill also be a contributing factor for large inputs of nutrient load into the river.

4.2. High Salt Concentrations

The salinity in rivers is a result of the interaction between the seawater flowing in

from the sea due to tides and the freshwater flowing into the Solent estuary from the

Itchen river and other tributaries (Figure 4). These interactions vary depending on

seasons and the level of freshwater flowing into the estuary (Towned 2008).

The trace metal analysis indicated very high concentration of the major cations Na,

K, Mg and Calcium. This could be due to the geological background of the river such

as its underlying rock being Cretaceous chalk (carbonate rock), which could

contribute to the hardness of the river water. High levels of sodium near the river

mouth were also recorded (highest – 2353 mg/l, which exceeds the WFD guidelines

and is associated with pollution), which could be due to intrusions of saltwater mixing

with the fresh water, making it to be more saline water. This is further proven with the

fact that the conductivity is high (around 19.4 mS) at the mouth of the river where

more saline than compared to the top.

4.3. Dissolved Oxygen

The level oxygen available in river systems is essential for the function and survival

of all life forms in a river system. However, human-induced activities lower the level

49

of oxygen available to be used by these organisms. For example, processes that

input inorganic matter from sewage discharges demand a lot of oxygen. The

fluctuation of oxygen also varies seasonally, daily and also are dependent on water

temperature and elevation. Cold water is able to hold more oxygen than warm water

and higher altitudes hold less water compared to lower regions (EPA 2012).

In this study, dissolved oxygen levels of ranged between 7-9 mg/L with temperatures

of around 10 °C. This may be due to the large amount of rainfall received that month

and

4.4. Water Quality Parameters

The great temperature variability and relatively low temperature observed (7.9-10.1

°C) (Table 2) may be due to seasonal effects as study was conducted in winter

(January 2014). This level is seen to be normal for the time of season and the cool

temperatures of the waters allows more oxygen to dissolve in waters, which is

beneficial to the river catchment.

pH is found to be mainly alkaline (around 8) which is within the WFD guidelines of 6-

9. The alkalinity of the rivers may be due to the geology of the underlying limestone

rock, which supplies salts to dissolve into the waters. The high levels of nutrients

also affect the temperature and pH levels of the river.

4.5. Trace Metal Concentrations

Trace metals usually exist in very small amounts naturally and these small levels are

essential for the wellbeing of many living forms. However, if these levels are

exceeded, it could be devastating. There are various contributors to the level of trace

50

metals found in aquatic systems including both natural and human-prompted

activities. Natural processes involve rock weathering, volcanic activities. The geology

of a place could also play a vital part in increasing the concentrations of these

metals. Human activities such as mining, disposal of waste and agricultural practices

into surroundings.

In the study conducted at the River Itchen, very small levels of trace metals were

detected over the course of the three day study. A trend exists in the level of trace

metals with the highest levels of metals observed at Site 1 then gradually decreasing

up the river course ( Average results; Fe= 150mg/L, Cd= 15, Cu= 1.9 mg/L and Zn=

9.6 mg/L). This result coincides with the water parameter results. The same

decreasing trend upstream is observed with alkalinity and conductivity levels high at

the river mouth (Site 1) then going down up the river. This can be explained with the

high level of dissolved metals found at these sites including the dissolved salts (Na,

K, Ca and Mg).

5. CONCLUSION

An overall water quality research was conducted at the famous chalk river; River

Itchen. This study was done to analyse the current quality status of the river and

evaluate its compliance against the EQSs set by the Water Framework Directive.

The purpose was also to aid the understanding of underlying factors involved that

affect influence water quality and also to identify the various parameters used to

determine the status of a river system.

Ten sites were chosen along the length of River Itchen and study was conducted

over the course of three days. This was done so that the samples represent the

overall catchment and will be able to meet the aims and objectives of the study.

51

Various chemical and physical parameters were chosen such as water temperature,

dissolved oxygen, nutrient levels and pH. Water samples were also collected to be

analysed for trace metal concentrations by using ICP MS.

The study was able to achieve the aims set in the preliminary stages of the research

and the main results obtained are listed below. These include;

High nitrate concentrations along the river, progressively increasing upstream

all the way to Site 10. Nitrate levels, along with phosphate levels increase the

oxygen demand of the catchment by aiding algal blooms and contributing to

the eutrophication problems. These high levels are thought to be from sewage

discharges into the river and runoff from land

Great temperature variability and low water temperatures averaging around 7-

9 °C was observed, which is within the WFD guideline and is expected for the

season the study was carried out in.

Trace metal analysis revealed that heavy metals such as Co, Cu, Fe and Zn

were found in low amounts but slightly going over some of the guidance limits.

- However, the major Cations such as Na, Mg, K and Calcium were

found to be in very high concentrations near the mouth of the river

(Site 1). This high level of salts is explained by the interactions of

freshwater from the river with the saltwater from the estuary. In this

case, the saltwater flowing further into the river and creating a Salt-

wedge stratification. This is further proven with the high alkalinity

level.

Generally, it can be concluded that the water quality of the river range s from

‘moderate –good quality’ due to the fact that some pollution problems still occur.

52

However, the river still supports rich abundance of various flora and fauna and no

visible damage has been noted that affects these living organisms. However, in

order to remediate the existing problems and improve the status of the river to ‘good

status’ and meet the WFD target by 2015, further research and monitoring needs to

be conducted regularly and on a larger scale.

5.1. Limitations of the Research

The research sample was very small, in terms of the length of the catchment.

Although good amount, ten sites are not enough to represent a catchment of

40km in length. This limited the number of samples that could be taken.

Different travelling arrangements need to be set. Due to the vast length of the

river and choice of travel from site to site (walking), it took very long time to

reach each site. This prevented the amount of replicas that could be taken to

improve the validity and reliability of the samples taken.

Due to the choice of time to conduct the study, which was in winter, it caused

a lot of problems with the data collection and analysis. Huge amounts of rain

were received in months of December- January which flooded the entire river

and because of this some of the sites were inaccessible for sampling. This

affected the validity and representativeness of the samples collected.

Only one analytical method was used to analyse the samples. This is a

limitation as only one set of data can be collected. Moreover, the correct

nutrient levels were not able to be determined since the nitrate and phosphate

vile tool boxes did not go above a certain level.

53

6. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

Considerations for other quality factors: biological, ecological and

physical as well as chemical need to be considered

This study took on to study the overall water quality of the River Catchment.

However, in order to have an overall quality report, all aspects of the river

catchment with reference to biology, chemistry, hydrogeology, ecology and

physical aspects need to be included in the study.

Long-term Sampling

Long term sampling of all the parameters should be carried out with both

spatial and seasonal variations considered. This could involve the comparison

of the river to other sister rivers such as the Humble, Test and Meon. This will

provide an overall water quality status of the whole of Southampton rivers and

aids the overall understanding of different processes that affect water quality

and the processes involved.

54

REFERENCE

BARTRAM, J. & BALLANCE, R. 1996. Water Quality Monitoring, London, E&FN Spon

Barwell-Clarke, J. & Whitney, F. (1996). INSTITUTE OF OCEAN SCIENCES. In: - Canadian technical report of hydrography & ocean sciences. Sydney: Institute of Ocean Sciences.

Chapman, D. (1996). Water Quality Assessments - A Guide to Use of Biota,. 2nd ed. United Kingdom: UNESCO/WHO/UNEP.

CIRIA. 2010. Legislation England and Wales [Online]. Available: http://www.ciria.com/suds/legislation_england_and_wales.htm [Accessed 10/05/2012 2012].

DEFRA (2012). Statistics on Sustainability and the Environment in England and the UK. London: DEFRA.

DEFRA. (2010). RIVER WATER QUALITY INDICATOR FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT - 2009 ANNUAL RESULTS. Available:https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/141697/rwq-ind-sus-2009-resultsv2.pdf. Last accessed 2nd Apr 2014.

Department of Water (2009). Surface water sampling methods and analysis — technical appendices. West Australia: Department of Water.

DOE. (2011). European and National Drinking Water Standards. Available: http://www.doeni.gov.uk/niea/european_and_national_drinking_water_quality_standards_-_october_2011.pdf. Last accessed 20th Apr 2014.

DoH (2001). Qaulity of Domestic Water Supplies. Pretoria: DoH, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry & Department of Water Affairs and Forestry.

EA. (2001). River Itchen. Available: http://www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/2000227.pdf. Last accessed 20th Feb 2014.

EA. (2006). Groundwater Quality Review: River Itchen Chalk Aquifer. Available: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140328084648/https://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/skeleton/publications/viewpublication.aspx?id=7b68a45f-d94c-473d-b11b-9dd0f14fa526. Last accessed 7th Feb 2014.

EA. (2010). 2010. Available: http://www.serbd.com/FINAL-SERBD-RBMP-Sept2010_v1.pdf. Last accessed 22nd Jan 2014.

EA. (2013). Water Framework Directive Classification 2013 progress update. Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/297275/LIT_8869_f916ba.pdf. Last accessed 11th Feb 2014.

55

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY. 2010a. Classification for General Quality Assessment. Available: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/37811.aspx.

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY. 2012. About us [Online]. Available: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/aboutus/default.aspx [Accessed 10/05/2012 2012].

ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCY. 2011. Bathing Water Quality [Online]. Available: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/37841.aspx [Accessed 29/10/2011 2011].

EU. (2008). Deliverable 12: Water abstraction from the River Itchen, Hampshire, UK. Available: http://www.envliability.eu/docs/D12CaseStudies/D12_REMEDE_Itchen_Oct%2008.pdf. Last accessed 20th Apr 2014.

Europian Comission. (2014). The EU Water Framework Directive - integrated river basin management for Europe. Available: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/index_en.html. Last accessed 20th April 2014.

Gilvear, D.J., Heal, K.V. & Stephen, A.. (2002). Hydrology and the ecological quality of Scottish river ecosystems. The Science of the Total Environment. 294.

Kaika, M. (2003) The Water Framework Directive: a new directive for changing social, political and economic European Framework. European Planning Studies. 11. (3).

KALLIS, G. & BUTLER, D. 2001. The EU water framework directive: measures and implications. Water Policy, 3, 125-142.

National Environmental Research Council, Report No: 22, 25-35.

partially-mixed estuary, Southampton Water, UK, University of Southampton, 1-228.

Raven, P.J., Holmes, N.T.H., Dwson, F.H., Fox, P.J., Everard, M., Fozzard, I.R & Rouven, K.J. (1998). River Habitat Survey. New Forest.

Rennie, M.J.. (2012). A Water Quality Survey of the River Ouseburn.

Royal Geographyical Society. (2012). Water Policy in the UK: the challenges.

Salmon and Trout Association. (2014). The River Itchen. Available: http://www.fishpal.com/England/TestAndItchen/AboutTheItchen.asp?dom=SalmonAndTrout. Last accessed 1st Mar 2014.

Schindler, N, Tranckner & Kerbs, P. (2008). Assessment of river water quality criteria with integrated models and extreme value statistics. 11th International Conference on Urban Drainage. 11

Sharp, J.H., Clfuentes, L.A., Coffin, R.B. & Pennock, J.R.. (1986). The Influence of River Variability on the. Estuaries. 9.

56

Shi L, 2000, Development and application of a three-dimensional water quality model in aUNEP (2008). Water Qaulity for Ecosystem and Human Health . 2nd ed. Ontaro: UNEP.

WATER UK 2009. Combined Sewer Overflows. In: UK, W.

Webber NB, 1980, Hydrography and water circulation in the Solent, Publications Series C,WFDUK. (2008). UK ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS AND CONDITIONS. Available: http://www.wfduk.org/sites/default/files/Media/Environmental%20standards/Environmental%20standards%20phase%201_Finalv2_010408.pdf. Last accessed 12th Mar 2014.

WHO (2008). Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality. Geneva: WHO.

WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION 2001. Water Quality: Guidelines, Standards and Health Cornwall, UK, TJ International.

Xiong, J.. (2000). Phosphorus biogeochemistry and models in estuaries: Case study of the Southampton Water system.

57