#
New Screening tool for Obtaining Concentration Statistics of Pollution Generated by Rivers in Estuaries^{ †}

^{1}

^{2}

^{*}

^{†}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction and Problem Formulation

## 2. Three-Step Strategy

#### 2.1. Theoretical Background

^{−1}is an attenuation coefficient representing all existing mechanisms that, when combined, concur to progressively reduce U in the x direction, including bathymetry, tides, wind, sea currents, and salinity stratification. The proposed exponential form of mean velocity attenuation as a function of the x resulted from measured velocities, and it was also tested and compared to the hydrodynamic model MOHID [23], as well as to the existing theoretical model for jet flow [24] in [13]. It was shown to be a suitable assumption since it delivered a solution similar to MOHID results and measurements while obtaining a simple expression to be easily used within the recursive equation for standard concentration moments. When such a non-uniform mean velocity field is introduced in Equation (3), the general recursive solution of concentration moments is obtained:

#### 2.2. The Model—CPoRT

^{3}, and the source width (m). The source concentration may be calculated in an additional dialog box if the contaminant mass flux is known ($\dot{m}$ kg/day).

^{−9}m${}^{2}$/s by default, which is a regular value for surface waters [30], but it is user-editable. As previously discussed, molecular diffusion does not have a significant impact in the near field zone, and therefore it may be conservatively kept at a default value unless the user has performed some additional measurements to change it accordingly. The turbulent diffusion coefficient ${e}_{t}$ (m${}^{2}$/s) should be measured and assessed for the estuarine system in question. However, if no data is available, different values can be tested to assess its potential effect on the pollution plume spreading, especially for the worst-case scenario. Depending on the case scenario, lower values of ${e}_{t}$ (e.g., less than 10

^{−4}m${}^{2}$/s) may indicate the longer distance from the river mouth where an acceptable level of concentration may be expected since the plume is narrower as opposed to higher values (e.g., more than 10

^{−2}m${}^{2}$/s). A higher turbulent diffusion coefficient implies greater lateral spreading of the plume which may indicate unwanted concentration at bay sides, but shorter downstream impact. Velocity attenuation may be set to a measured value or calculated within a dialog box if downstream centerline velocity data is known.

#### 2.3. Stakeholders’ Involvement

## 3. Results

#### 3.1. Illustrative Example

#### 3.2. User’s Feedback

## 4. Conclusions and Future Work

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Acknowledgments

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Savenije, H.H. Salinity and Tides in Alluvial Estuaries; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2005; p. 194. [Google Scholar]
- Saraiva, S.; Pina, P.; Martins, F.; Santos, M.; Braunschweig, F.; Neves, R.J. Modelling the influence of nutrient loads on Portuguese estuaries. Hydrobiologia
**2007**, 587, 5–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ascione Kenov, I.; Campuzano, F.; Franz, G.; Fernandes, R.; Viegas, C.; Sobrinho, J.; de Pablo, H.; Amaral, A.; Pinto, L.; Mateus, M.; et al. Advances in Modeling of Water Quality in Estuaries. In Remote Sensing and Modeling: Advances in Coastal and Marine Resources; Finkl, C.W., Makowski, C., Eds.; Springer: Basel, Switzerland, 2014; pp. 237–276. [Google Scholar]
- Rabalais, N.N.; Turner, R.E.; Díaz, R.J.; Justić, D. Global change and eutrophication of coastal waters. ICES J. Mar. Sci.
**2009**, 66, 1528–1537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Smith, V.; Tilman, G.; Nekola, J. Eutrophication: impacts of excess nutrient inputs on freshwater, marine, and terrestrial ecosystems. Environ. Poll.
**1999**, 100, 179–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - European, C. Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC. Off. J. Eur. Commun.
**2000**, 1, 1–33. [Google Scholar] - Piroddi, C.; Teixeira, H.; Lynam, C.P.; Smith, C.; Alvarez, M.C.; Mazik, K.; Andonegi, E.; Churilova, T.; Tedesco, L.; Chifflet, M.; et al. Using ecological models to assess ecosystem status in support of the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Ecol. Ind.
**2015**, 58, 175–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Pinto, R.; de Jonge, V.N.; Neto, J.M.; Domingos, T.; Marques, J.C.; Patrício, J. Towards a DPSIR driven integration of ecological value, water uses and ecosystem services for estuarine systems. Ocean Coast. Manag.
**2013**, 72, 64–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Borowski, I.; Hare, M. Exploring the Gap Between Water Managers and Researchers: Difficulties of Model-Based Tools to Support Practical Water Management. Water Resour. Manag.
**2007**, 21, 1049–1074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Smajgl, A.; Ward, J. Evaluating participatory research: Framework, methods and implementation results. J. Environ. Manag.
**2015**, 157, 311–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Hassenforder, E.; Smajgl, A.; Ward, J. Towards understanding participatory processes: Framework, application and results. J. Environ. Manag.
**2015**, 157, 84–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Feurt, C.B. Collaborative Learning Guide for Ecosystem Management; University of New England: Biddeford, ME, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Galesic, M.; Andricevic, R.; Gotovac, H.; Srzic, V. Concentration statistics of solute transport for the near field zone of an estuary. Adv. Water Resour.
**2016**, 94, 424–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - OECD. Core Set of Indicators for Environmental Performance Reviews: A Synthesis Report by the Group on the State of the Enviroment; Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development: Paris, France, 1993; pp. 1–39. [Google Scholar]
- Sawford, B.; Sullivan, P. A simple representation of a developing contaminant concentration field. J. Fluid Mech.
**1995**, 289, 141–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sullivan, P. The influence of molecular diffusion on the distributed moments of a scalar PDF. Environmetrics
**2004**, 15, 173–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Andricevic, R. Exposure concentration statistics in the subsurface transport. Adv. Water Resour.
**2008**, 31, 714–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sullivan, P.; Ye, H. Moment inversion for contaminant concentration in turbulent flows. Can. Appl. Math. Q.
**1996**, 4, 301–310. [Google Scholar] - Andricevic, R. Effects of local dispersion and sampling volume on the evolution of concentration fluctuations in aquifers. Water Resour. Res.
**1998**, 34, 1115–1129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sarathi, P.; Gurka, R.; Sullivan, P.; Kopp, G.A. Experimental Measurements of Expected Mass Fraction in a Contaminant Plume. Bound. Layer Meteorol.
**2010**, 137, 167–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sarathi, P.; Gurka, R.; Kopp, G.; Sullivan, P. A calibration scheme for quantitative concentration measurements using simultaneous PIV and PLIF. Exp. Fluid.
**2012**, 52, 247–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - De Barros, F.; Fiori, A.; Boso, F.; Bellin, A. A theoretical framework for modeling dilution enhancement of non-reactive solutes in heterogeneous porous media. J. Contam. Hydrol.
**2015**, 175–176, 72–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Marcos, M.; Neves, R.J. (Eds.) Ocean Modelling for Coastal Management-Case Studies with MOHID; IST Press: Lisbon, Portugal, 2013; Volume 68, pp. 88–105. [Google Scholar]
- Ozsoy, E.; Unluata, U. Ebb-tidal flow characteristics near inlets. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci.
**1982**, 14, 251–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Galesic, M.; Andricevic, R.; Divic, V.; Mateus, M.; Pinto, L. Potential data used for validation of concentration statistics obtained using analytical model for conservative transport in an estuary. Water Resour.
**2016**, 31, 714–725. [Google Scholar] - Chatwin, P.; Lewis, D.; Sullivan, P. Turbulent dispersion and the beta distribution. Environmetrics
**1995**, 6, 395–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Schwede, R.L.; Cirpka, O.A.; Nowak, W.; Neuweiler, I. Impact of sampling volume on the probability density function of steady state concentration. Water Resour. Res.
**2008**, 44, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - De Barros, F.P.J.; Fiori, A. First-order based cumulative distribution function for solute concentration in heterogeneous aquifers: Theoretical analysis and implications for human health risk assessment. Water Resour. Res.
**2014**, 50, 4018–4037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - MATLAB. Version 9.10.0 (R2016b); The MathWorks Inc.: Natick, MA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Rutherford, J. River Mixing; John Wiley & Sons Ltd.: Chichester, UK, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Margeta, J.; Barić, A. Rational approach to the solution of the problem of wastewaters management—The Kaštela Bay case. Glob. Nest Int. J.
**2001**, 3, 117–130. [Google Scholar] - Loborec, J.; Kapelj, S.; Novak, H.; Loborec, J.; Kapelj, S.; Novak, H. Analiza opasnosti od onečišćenja podzemnih voda u kršu na primjeru sliva izvora Jadro i Žrnovnica. J. Croat. Assoc. Civ. Eng.
**2015**, 67, 1093–1103. [Google Scholar] - Grizzeti, B.; Bouraoui, F. Assessment of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Environmental Pressure at European Scale; Technical Report; Institute for Environment and Sustainability: Ispra, Italy, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Tavra, M.; Jajac, N.; Cetl, V. Marine Spatial Data Infrastructure Development Framework: Croatia Case Study. ISPRS Int. J. Geo Inf.
**2017**, 6, 117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - European, C. INSPIRE Directive 2007/2/EC. Off. J. Eur. Commun.
**2007**, 108, 1–14. [Google Scholar] - Basco-Carrera, L.; Warren, A.; van Beek, E.; Jonoski, A.; Giardino, A. Collaborative modelling or participatory modelling? A framework for water resources management. Environ. Model. Softw.
**2017**, 91, 95–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

**Figure 1.**Problem description within a broader framework (adapted from Galešić et al. [13]).

**Figure 2.**Coastal Pollution Risk Tool (CPoRT) application graphical interface in general (

**a**) and an example of the mean surface plot in the CPoRT (

**b**).

**Figure 3.**Illustrative results: the Žrnovnica estuary map with surface plot of mean concentration and the probability of exceeding the limit concentration (${c}^{*}=1$ mg/L) in chosen points.

**Figure 4.**The cross-sectional results for total nitrogen from the CPoRT: (

**a**) mean concentration; (

**b**) concentration variance.

**Figure 5.**Probability of exceeding the limit concentration of 1 mg/L along the centerline of the plume.

**Figure 6.**The participants’ statements regarding the applicability of the CPoRT in the decision-making process for coastal water management from students (

**a**) and local stakeholders (

**b**).

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Galešić, M.; Andričević, R.; Divić, V.; Šakić Trogrlić, R.
New Screening tool for Obtaining Concentration Statistics of Pollution Generated by Rivers in Estuaries. *Water* **2018**, *10*, 639.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w10050639

**AMA Style**

Galešić M, Andričević R, Divić V, Šakić Trogrlić R.
New Screening tool for Obtaining Concentration Statistics of Pollution Generated by Rivers in Estuaries. *Water*. 2018; 10(5):639.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w10050639

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Galešić, Morena, Roko Andričević, Vladimir Divić, and Robert Šakić Trogrlić.
2018. "New Screening tool for Obtaining Concentration Statistics of Pollution Generated by Rivers in Estuaries" *Water* 10, no. 5: 639.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w10050639