Assessing The Reliability Of Current Water Quality Monitoring Practices
By Ellie Gabel

High-quality water — and public trust — flows downstream from high-quality monitoring.
The validity of current water quality monitoring practices varies based on the criteria used and conditions testers perform under. Questioning these strategies’ reliability and consistency demands an analysis of these variables. Here are the most critical factors in the industry and what testers can do to improve them.
Sampling Methods
Many methods are straightforward, allowing experts to collect a sample in its typical environment without contaminating it to see the water in its most natural state. Sometimes, delayed testing or unintentional cross-contamination provides inaccurate results. There are no ways to reverse these changes, even when using the most analytical methods with sensitivity considerations.
Experts are designing enhanced techniques to make them less susceptible to changes. Composite sampling considers them over time by acquiring variations of the water’s quality to represent a wide array of conditions. Event-driven sampling is another attentive way to verify how water reacts after specific weather events or contamination.
New technologies, like mass spectrometry, can pinpoint contaminants in lower quantities than conventional measures. Many entities are trying to tackle the growing problem of PFAS, which this method finds in less than three minutes.
Monitored Parameters
Parameters must be comprehensive yet focus-driven. Limiting measurable metrics saves on research labor and hones in on the most critical points of the water’s quality. They should incorporate staples, like pH and dissolved oxygen. Most of these are embedded into most assessment programs. However, many do not consider relevant novel pollutants.
Identifying what is relevant now will make water testing more meaningful for treatment professionals trying to keep the public and environment safe. The parameters should first be context-specific, identifying what is essential to analyze for drinking versus agriculture. There may be some crossover.
Then, observing current events and biological indicators could reveal previously unmonitored criteria. These may include microplastics, bacteria, or pharmaceuticals. Researchers should expand the indicators they focus on by creating a different list for biomonitoring. For example, tracking the health of fish populations could signify what needs to be assessed in water tests.
Citizen Science
Citizen science is public water quality testing. Its input is vital for expanding data collection1 and determining the effectiveness of testing and treatment strategies. Some utility companies and plants may have limited citizen science initiatives. Expanding these efforts increases water dependability.
Organizations should amplify the number of sites from which they collect data. They may monitor a watershed, but other regions nearby, such as city parks, could be affected by altered water. Working with community boards, like Parks and Recreation, city councils, or nonprofits, will improve data density and engage the public in water quality literacy.
Testing Frequency
Some agencies test frequently but not in enough circumstances, while others may execute minimal tests. Improving the public’s perception of water quality requires corporations to test often and in as many situations as possible.
For example, a case study that analyzed snowmelt and ground snow in the Pacific Northwest proved the quality was on par with grocery store-available water,2 regardless of elevation and the recency of the snow’s accumulation. Understanding these figures is important to inform nearby companies how to tend to each water source.
Temporal variability may skew data from one sample to the next in the same location, and these data points are as valuable as results from years prior. Comparative analysis with context visualizes how many influences cause local waters to degrade in quality.
Regulatory Compliance
After investigations from the U.S. EPA, around 70% of water systems in the U.S. failed to comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act.3 When corporations ignore industry-leading recommendations, communities bear the brunt of this negligence through scarcity and health concerns. This impact leads to societal distrust in water treatment and utility systems.
Improving public perception requires multiple measures. First is improved data integrity and reporting. Water stakeholders must send testing and quality reports to compliance agencies to inform their frameworks. Additionally, it can force companies to engage in better quality assurance and control.
Water quality businesses should boost commitments to regulation abidance and create proprietary compliance for emerging contaminants as industry leaders establish new standards. For example, dyes and hormones are growing concerns4 but require more research to inform rule-setting. Companies must get ahead and still focus on how to remove these problems to preserve quality. Enterprises may even engage in pilot studies to contribute to broader bodies of research.
Putting Trust In Water
Many regions experience water scarcity because of questionable quality and inaccessibility. Improving water quality testing worldwide would make affected communities struggle less. Sustainable development and global equity rely on experts dedicating as many resources and as much time as possible to make it the best it can be. Therefore, every stakeholder in the industry must engage with these strategies as soon as possible to enhance testing accuracy and water clarity.
References
- https://terra.nasa.gov/citizen-science/water-quality
- https://www.oceanoptics.com/blog/how-clean-is-our-water/
- https://www.securitymagazine.com/articles/100694-epa-reveals-most-watersystems-do-not-meet-compliance-requirements
- https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10001968/
About The Author
Ellie Gabel is a writer specializing in environmental science and innovative technologies. She can be reached at ellie@revolutionized.com.