Next Article in Journal
The Morphological and Functional Organization of Cattails Typha laxmannii Lepech. and Typha australis Schum. and Thonn. under Soil Pollution by Potentially Toxic Elements
Next Article in Special Issue
The Use of Constructed Wetland for Mitigating Nitrogen and Phosphorus from Agricultural Runoff: A Review
Previous Article in Journal
The Status of Arsenic Pollution in the Greek and Cyprus Environment: An Overview
Previous Article in Special Issue
Identification of Nitrate Sources in Rivers in a Complex Catchment Using a Dual Isotopic Approach
Review

A Critical Review of Methods for Analyzing Freshwater Eutrophication

1
School of Environmental and Chemical Engineering, Foshan University, Foshan 528000, China
2
Department of Geography and Environment Science, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6AB, UK
3
New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, 1243 Bruxner Highway, Wollongbar, NSW 2477, Australia
4
School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Water 2021, 13(2), 225; https://doi.org/10.3390/w13020225
Received: 4 December 2020 / Revised: 11 January 2021 / Accepted: 12 January 2021 / Published: 18 January 2021

Abstract

Water eutrophication is a global environmental problem that poses serious threats to aquatic ecosystems and human health. The evaluation of eutrophication provides a theoretical basis and technical guidance for the management and rehabilitation of water ecosystems. In the last four decades, dozens of evaluation methods have been applied to freshwater eutrophication, but there is a clear need to optimize and standardize the most suitable methods. We have addressed this gap by presenting a systematic review of methodologies. Due to the diversity and complexity of water bodies, no single evaluation method was identified that would adequately represent eutrophication under all scenarios. We demonstrate that lakes can best be assessed using the trophic level index (TLI) method, reservoirs and wetlands the trophic state index (TSI) and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation (FCE) method, respectively, and rivers the FCE method or back propagation (BP) neural network methods. More recently applied methodologies including spectral imaging and 3-D mapping of water quality using underwater gliders allow greater resolution and can be effective in managing waterbodies to avoid future eutrophication. The aim of this review is to guide future studies on the most appropriate methods available for assessing and reporting water eutrophication.
Keywords: water quality; evaluation methods; BP neural network; fuzzy comprehensive evaluation (FCE); trophic state index (TSI); trophic level index (TLI) water quality; evaluation methods; BP neural network; fuzzy comprehensive evaluation (FCE); trophic state index (TSI); trophic level index (TLI)

1. Introduction

Water eutrophication has become an increasingly serious problem worldwide [1]. Water eutrophication refers to the phenomenon whereby an excess of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and other inorganic nutrients enter a relatively closed and slow-flowing water body (such as lake, reservoir, river and freshwater wetland) stimulating the proliferation of algae and other plankton in the water, resulting in lower dissolved oxygen (DO), increased chlorophyll-a (Chl-a) content and the deterioration of water quality. This can result in the death of fish and other aquatic life. The decomposition of algae under anoxic conditions further releases nutrients such as N and P back into water for the next generation of algae to utilize [2] (Figure 1). Eutrophication can result in toxic cyanobacteria blooms in lakes and waterways and the proliferation of algae in coastal areas [1], manifesting in the death of native aquatic organisms, reduction in biodiversity, and impacts on human health (Figure 1).
The occurrence of eutrophication has been increasing globally since the 1960s. The number of eutrophic lakes increased from 41 to 61% between the late 1970s to the late 1990s [3,4]. In 2012, 63% of the world’s inland water bodies were eutrophic with the area accounting for 31% of all water bodies [5,6]. In 2019, among the 107 lakes (reservoirs) monitored in China, 5.6% were middle-eutrophic (the trophic level index (TLI): 60 ≤ TLI (∑) ≤ 70) and 23.4% were light-eutrophic (50 ≤ TLI (∑) ≤ 60), while 61.7% were mesotrophic and 9.3% oligotrophic [7,8]. The proportion of large lakes (lakes with an area of more than 500 square kilometers) with each trophic state (eutrophic, mesotrophic, and oligotrophic) is shown in Figure 2 and represents the number of lakes and lake surface area globally in 2018. It was shown that the southern regions of South America (Patagonia plateau) and Central Asia (Qinghai-Tibet Plateau) are primarily oligotrophic, while the large lakes in southeast and mid-northern North America (south Canada and the southeast United States), East Asia (East China), and Central Africa are eutrophic. In terms of the number of lakes, Oceania had the highest proportion of large lakes with oligotrophication (23.1%), Europe had the highest proportion of large lakes with mesotrophication (35.2%), and Africa had the highest proportion of large lakes with eutrophication (88.8%). In terms of surface area, North America has the highest proportion of oligotrophic large lakes (49.8%), Asia has the highest proportion of mesotrophic large lakes (71.2%) and Africa has the highest proportion of eutrophic large lakes [9]. The majority of eutrophic water was located in Africa, Oceania, South America, North America, Europe and Asia [9,10]. For example, Victoria Lake in Africa and Erie Lake in North America [11,12].
Different eutrophic water bodies use different methods to evaluate their state of eutrophication and their evaluation parameters are also diversified. Total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) content are key drivers for water eutrophication, resulting in an increased concentration of Chl-a [13,14]. Therefore, in this review, we selected the concentration of TN, TP and Chl-a as the key water quality indicators (Table 1). These values in the table are the average values of local eutrophication water indicators, measured at the time specifically mentioned in the references. Here, eutrophic water from 21 studies worldwide is described with middle-eutrophic and hyper-eutrophic (TLI (∑) ≥ 70) water bodies commonly reported [15]. Importantly, this review has also identified that there are many methods (criteria) used to evaluate the eutrophication level of water, which makes direct comparison between studies challenging [16]. In 1982, the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) set the criteria for trophic status of lakes and defined ultra-oligotrophic (Table 1). In Table 2, most of the methods have similar eutrophication water quality parameters, but some of the evaluation methods are unique.
Understanding water quality is a key step to better managing the problems associated with eutrophic water. To facilitate the further assessment of the existing eutrophic water bodies, an enhanced understanding and appropriate choice of an evaluation method for the eutrophication level is necessary [17]. For this reason, we present a comprehensive review of 13 water eutrophication evaluation methods and a comparative analysis of their applicability. The purpose is to find the most suitable method to evaluate water eutrophication, and further improve and develop the treatment of water eutrophication.

2. Methods

We searched the published papers as well as regional databases of water monitoring (Google Scholars, Web of Science and China National Knowledge Infrastructure). The search terms were “eutrophication evaluation”, “water eutrophication”, “evaluation method”, with a time span of 1972–2020. In order to study the feasibility of the evaluation method, we set up two criteria: (1.) In order to ensure that data was not influenced by studies that assessed minor water bodies, we excluded datasets where waterbodies had an area < 1 km2. We extracted the eutrophication status of 29 lakes, 17 reservoirs, 14 rivers and 9 wetlands, and the database covers waters ranging from shallow to deep, oligotrophic to hyper-eutrophic (Table 1 and Table 2). (2.) Our dataset recorded meta-data including geographical location, area, average depth; the concentration of TN, TP, and Chl-a.

3. Globally Applied Methods for Determining the Eutrophication Status of Waters

Indicators for the evaluation of water eutrophication have commonly included the following: N content greater than 0.2–0.3 mg/L, P content greater than 0.01–0.02 mg/L, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) greater than 10 mg/L, total number of bacteria in fresh water with a pH value of 7–9 of greater than 104 units/mL, and Chl-a greater than 10 μg/L [18]. Currently, the evaluation of water eutrophication has evolved from the use of simple single indicators (N or P) to comprehensive indicators, such as the total nutrition status index. Here we describe a broad range of methodologies for the evaluation and quantification of eutrophication.

3.1. Methods Based on Mathematical Calculations

3.1.1. The Single Factor Index Evaluation (SFIE) Method

The SFIE method initially appeared in 1990 and consists of one factor that has the greatest impact on water quality [19].
The main idea is to compare the monitoring value of each water quality index with the concentration value of the target water quality index according to the standard table of water quality evaluation factors. If the ratio is greater than 1, then the water is judged to meet the standard level [20]. After comparing all of the evaluation factors, the worst water quality factor level is selected as the level for the entire water body [21]. The expression of the index, Ii, is shown in Equation (1) [22].
I i   =   C i C i 0 ,
where Ci is the actual measured value of the class I assessment pollutants; Ci0 is the starting pollution value or relevant standard of the class I assessment pollutants; Ii ≤ 1 means the water is not polluted; Ii > 1 means the water is polluted. The calculation results can directly reflect the severity of water pollution [23,24].
The SFIE method can clearly and intuitively compare the measured value with the standard value, so as to quickly understand the water quality category. However, it is a comparison of one factor at one point in time and ignores the other water quality indicators [25].

3.1.2. Formula Scoring (SCO) Method

This basic evaluation model is widely used and is based upon a scoring formula that is simple and can quickly and conveniently evaluate the level of water eutrophication. Its expression is shown in Equation (2):
M = 1 n i = 1 n M i
where M is the score of lake eutrophication; Mi is the index score value of item i to evaluate the pollutant; n is the number of indexes. According to the selected evaluation factors and their corresponding evaluation standards, the corresponding scores of each evaluation parameter are in the range of 0–100 (Table 2). The higher the total score, the higher the eutrophication level of lakes and reservoirs [24,26]. Shu used the Formula scoring method to evaluate eutrophication of 24 lakes in China. The results showed that there were 16 eutrophic lakes, accounting for 66.6% of the total number of the survey [27].
However, in applying the methodology, if a certain parameter score is significantly below (or above) score values of other parameters, the parameter should be deleted. This makes the method more subjective [28].

3.1.3. The Algal Dominant Species Evaluation Method

Algae are an important component of the biological resources in aquatic ecosystems. As the community structure and growth of algae are directly affected by the changes in the water ecological environment, they can be used to assess water eutrophication. This method initially appeared in 1993 and is primarily used for rivers that tend to be polluted and have a population of algae [29]. The qualitative and quantitative collection of phytoplankton in water is used to determine whether the water is eutrophied [30].
The algae comprehensive index (K) further refines the algal population structure and determines the water eutrophication level, which is then expressed as:
K = (Cyanophyta + Chlorococcales + Centricae + Euglena)/species of desmidiales,
when k ≥ 3, it is hyper-eutrophic, when 1 ≤ K < 2, it is middle-eutrophic, when k < 1, it is light-eutrophic [31]. Zhou et al., evaluated the algal diversity of 4 tributaries of The Yangtze River in China, and the results showed that the nutrient levels of the 4 tributaries all belonged to the middle-eutrophic status, and the maximum algal cell density was 6.036 × 106 cells/L.

3.1.4. The Nemerow Index (NI)

The Nemerow water quality index first proposed in 1974 focuses on the most serious pollution factors [54]. The method can also be used to assess heavy metal pollution in water [25]. The NI method considers the average value of evaluation indexes and the impact of the most serious pollution evaluation indexes on water quality. However, the weight of pollution factors is not considered, thus the method has potential to underrepresent the current level of eutrophication. Therefore, different correction methods to correct the NI have been adopted, for example (Equation (4)):
PI = C i L i , j MAX 2 + C i 2 L i , jAug 2
where PI is the water quality index; Ci is the measured concentration of a pollutant (i is the number of water quality items), (mg/L); Li,j is the maximum allowable value of i water quality parameters for the purpose of j water (mg/L) (j is the purpose of the water; the purpose of water is divided into three categories: used by human in direct contact, used by human in indirect contact and not used by humans.) [54]. Alberto et al., investigated of the eutrophication of Lugano Lake using this method and showed that it was hyper-eutrophic [32].

3.1.5. The Trophic Level Index (TLI) Method

TLI is widely used for eutrophication assessments of lakes, rivers and freshwater wetlands in China. It uses the chemical oxygen demand (CODMn), TN, TP, secchi disk (SD), and Chl-a as the evaluation indices of water eutrophication to calculate the nutritional state (Table 2). The calculation includes Equations (5)–(11):
TLI ( )   =   j = 1 m w j   TLI ( j ) .
Calculation formula of the TLI nutritional status evaluation index [55] is as follows:
TLI chl   =   10 2.5   +   1.086 lnchl ,
TLI TP   =   10 9.436   +   1.624 lnTP ,
TLI TN   =   10 5.453   +   1.694 lnTN ,
TLI SD   =   10 5.118     1.94 lnSD ,
TLI COD Mn   =   10 0.109   +   2.661 lnCOD Mn
Formula for calculating the weight of each index [30]:
ω j = r ij 2 j = 1 m r ij 2
where rij is the correlation of the basic parameter Chl-a and the j-th parameter; m is the number of basic parameters to be evaluated.
The evaluation criteria for the TLI method are oligotrophic, TLI (∑) ≤ 30; mesotrophic, 30 < TLI (∑) ≤ 60; light-eutrophic, TLI (∑) ≤ 70; mid-eutrophic, 70 < TLI (∑) ≤ 90; hyper-eutrophic, TLI (∑) > 90 [55,56] (Table 2).
Because the eutrophication parameters of water are constantly changing, for some waterbodies that have been reevaluated across long periods of time, the correlation and weight of Chl-a and TP, TN, and SD display change over time. Therefore, the commonly used TLI index formula based on the original weight cannot accurately evaluate the nutritional status of water. To evaluate the eutrophication status of water accurately, it is necessary to improve the comprehensive nutritional status index method (an improved TLI). This is done by modifying the correlation coefficient of the TLI method equation, so it is more suitable for the current status of the water body. The improved TLI is Equation (12):
TLI (∑) = 0.6286TLI(Chl-a) + 0.1093TLI(TP) + 0.1936TLI(TN) + 0.0685TLI(SD)

3.1.6. The Trophic State Index (TSI) Method: Carlson Index

In 1977, Carlson synthesized a number of eutrophication indicators, with the SD as the core, combined CODMn, Chl-a and TP, calculated these parameters into TSI, and successively graded the nutritional status of lakes [57,58] (Table 2). The evaluation method overcomes the limitation of single factor evaluation and is one of the main methods for assessing lake eutrophication [59]. Its expression is shown in Equations (13)–(16) [60,61]. Maryam et al. assessed Ecbatan reservoir using Carlson’s index, and showed that the reservoir is middle-eutrophic [45].
TSI SD   =   10 6     lnSD ln 2
TSI COD Mn   =   10 6     1.21     0.76 ln   ln 2
TSI Chl-a   =   10 6     2.04     0.68 ln   Chl-a ln 2 ,
TSI TP   =   10 6     ln 48 TP ln 2
The revised trophic state index (TSIM) based on Chl-a is a widely used assessment method for eutrophication in China that can make up for the deficiency of the TSI. It is a trophic state index based on the concentration of Chl-a, and its expression is shown in Equations (17)–(19) [62,63]:
TSI   Chl-a   =   10 2.46     lnChl-a ln 2.5
TSI   SD   =   10 2.46   3.69     1.53 lnSD ln 2.5 ,
TSI   TP   =   10 2.46   6.71 1.15 lnTP ln 2.5

3.1.7. Stochastic Assessment Method (Empirical Frequency)

The water quality indexes including CODMn, TN, TP, SD, and Chl-a are treated as random variables in the stochastic assessment method. It is necessary to deduce the empirical frequency of each water quality index and use the weighted average method to calculate the empirical frequency of lake eutrophication level. The following is the empirical frequency (P) calculation equation [64] (Equation (20)):
P   =   m n   +   1   ×   100 %
where m is the water sample number; n is the sample size; P of each random variable is calculated. According to the coefficients related to CODMn, TN, TP, SD, and Chl-a, the weight, Wi, of each water quality index in the eutrophication assessment is obtained. It is applicable to the weighted average equation. Thus P = Wi × Pi. Furthermore, the lake eutrophication evaluation frequency standard can be obtained (Table 2). Xie et al., used the stochastic assessment method and the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation (FCE) method to evaluate the eutrophication of 30 lakes in China. The data showed that the evaluation results of 19 lakes were completely consistent, indicating that the two methods were reliable in their evaluation of lake eutrophication [65].

3.2. Methods Based on Models

3.2.1. The Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation (FCE) Method

The basic idea of the FCE method is to establish the index monitoring data of each factor and membership standard of each level. Then a membership degree matrix is formed. The membership degree matrix of weight-setting factors is then multiplied to obtain a dataset for the evaluation of water eutrophication [66]. The method is based on the measured values of the physical and chemical parameters of water quality [67,68] shown in Equation (21):
D A ( u )   =   μ A u   μ Ac ( u )
The following are the specific steps of this method. (1) Establish a set of water quality evaluation factors and classification sets. (2) Establish a single factor evaluation matrix. (3) Determine the weight of each factor. (4) Establish an evaluation model [62,69] (Table 2). The relationship between each index and classification is listed in Table 2. This method considers the contribution of all factors and can reduce subjectivity. This method has been shown to be more suitable for rivers and freshwater wetlands [70].
According to the mathematical fuzzy operation rules, the average weighted model is used as the fuzzy operator. In addition, the fuzzy matrices A and R (A is the weight distribution matrix, and R is the fuzzy relation matrix between the evaluation factors and their relative evaluation standards) are combined to obtain the hierarchical setting of the evaluation standard of the fuzzy subset [71]. According to the principle of its maximum membership degree, the (Bn) max (B is a fuzzy subset of the standard hierarchical setting; n = 1, 2, hierarchical setting) is selected as the result of the comprehensive water quality evaluation [25]. Fang evaluated the eutrophication of the region and the whole lake based on the FCE method. The results showed that most of the region and the whole lake are mesotrophic [72].

3.2.2. The Back Propagation (BP) Neural Network

The BP neural network model is a nonlinear mathematical model based on neural network methodology [30,73]. It was first proposed in 1986 [74]. It is a feedforward multilevel neural network with a transfer continuity function, and it is the most widely used neural network model [75,76]. This model uses a BP algorithm as the learning algorithm of the network and does not need to establish mathematical equations. It weights the differentiable nonlinear functions in the software MATLAB, which can be used to analyze the influencing factors of water eutrophication [20,77] (Table 2).
The BP neural network model simulates a biological neural network for processing information [31,78,79]. Its training method is the error backpropagation algorithm (the BP algorithm), which constantly modifies the network weights and thresholds to minimize the mean square error [80,81]. For detailed formulas of the BP neural network model, please refer to Shao [82].
The BP neural network is a nonlinear system that is adaptive, self-organized, self-learning, anti-interference, and fault-tolerant. It has a strong adaptability to various evaluations and is widely used [22,24]. Compared with other methods, this method eliminates the influence of setting the weight of each pollution factor and relying on an empirical equation. Cui evaluated the eutrophication degree of 24 lakes in China based on the MATLAB neural network and eutrophication evaluation criteria. The results showed that there were 2 mesotrophic lakes, 3 light-eutrophic lakes, 10 middle-eutrophic lakes and 9 hyper-eutrophic lakes [52].

3.2.3. The One-Dimensional Normal Cloud Model (ONCM) Method

The ONCM method is a recently developed evaluation method [83] where the eutrophication level is divided into six grades. The evaluation factor corresponds to the nutrition level and is expressed by a comprehensive cloud (Table 2). Table 2 shows the relationship between Ex, En and He, and the classification.
According to the evaluation factors and standards, three digital characteristics of the cloud model can be determined using the following equation [84] (Equations (22)–(24)):
E x   =   B min   +   B max 2 ,
E n   =   B max     B min 6 ,
H e   =   k ,
where Bmin and Bmax are the minimum and maximum boundaries of VQa (the evaluation factor), and k is a constant.
According to the determined cloud model parameters Ex, En and He, the indexes of the evaluation factors TN, TP, SD, and Chl-a, the corresponding comprehensive cloud models are generated using the positive normal cloud generator and the half cloud generator (the ascending cloud and descending cloud, respectively) [85].

3.2.4. The Multidimensional Normal Cloud Model (MNCM) Method

The multidimensional normal cloud model is an extension of the one-dimensional normal cloud model and uses an improved selection of the correlation coefficient of the cloud model. It can more comprehensively reflect the water eutrophication level [86]. The degree of water eutrophication can be divided into n levels. The model is established by taking multidimensional evaluation factors as one dimension of the multidimensional cloud model. The MNCM method determines three numerical characteristics, select the appropriate evaluation factors and their evaluation criteria, and generates one-dimensional and multidimensional cloud models based on these evaluation factors [40]. Then, the established model is used to confirm the maximum degree of certainty, it can be directly judged that each evaluation factor is located in the level of water samples with different nutritional levels [87,88].
The MNCM is used to evaluate the eutrophication of 6 lakes in China. The results show the MNCM method can judge the eutrophication degree of different water bodies at the same level, which proves the feasibility and effectiveness of the method [86].

3.3. Methods Based on Spectral Imaging

3.3.1. Remote Sensing

Water quality assessment using remote sensing is based on the spectral characteristics, and statistical analyses of water quality parameters. This forms a water quality parameter inversion model. The spectral characteristics of water are mainly determined by plankton content, suspended matter content (turbidity), nutrient content (yellow matter, salinity index), other pollutants, bottom morphology (underwater topography), water depth, surface roughness and other factors. This technology has the advantages of producing a large amount of information, and it is less limited by surface conditions [90].
The spectral characteristics of water reflect the scattering and absorption of light radiation by a wide range of photochemically active substances in the water. Satellite imagery was originally obtained from Landsat Thematic mapper (TM), spot satellite images of France, and NOAA/AVHRR. Satellite remote sensing (HJ1B-CCD and GF-2 PMS2) is currently used to research inland water quality [91]. The eutrophication of Pamvotis Lake in Ioannina, Greece, was studied using the application of Chl-a detection algorithms based on Sentinel-2 satellite image data. The results showed that Pamvotis Lake is a eutrophic lake, and the highest Chl-a concentration was located in the east and south-east of the lake [92]. The Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) derived from the Moderate-resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) imagery was used to investigate duckweed blooms and other floating vegetation in Lake Maracaibo, Venezuela. The data showed that there were different amounts of duckweed and floating vegetation in the lake from 2003 to 2006 [93]. The Landsat TM image data and hyperspectral remote sensing data also has been used to assess water eutrophication [94,95]. The consequences show that the calculation results of these data can accurately analyze water quality, indicating that remote sensing technologies have the potential to be applied to water quality monitoring in large-scale basins (Table 3).

3.3.2. Multiple Equipment

With the progress of modern continuous monitoring technology, the analysis technology of integrated data of multiple equipment, such as the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) and underwater glider (UG), has emerged, which can carry out real-time, continuous and intuitive monitoring of water bodies. UAVs can carry a range of remote sensing equipment including photography, multi and hyperspectral imaging that can be used to quantify Chl-a and other water quality parameters [96]. The UG is an underwater robot and collects water quality information (CODMn, pH) enabling a 3-dimensional map of water quality indices to be developed [97].

4. Methods Best Suited to Describe the Degree of Eutrophication

Water eutrophication is a complex chemical, biological and physical process that is affected by many factors, and these indicators and standards are not universally applicable [50]. There are different evaluation methods for multiple eutrophic waters (Figure 3). We discussed and analyzed the advantages and disadvantages of these methods, and chose the methods (TLI, TSI, BP neural network or FCE and FCE) with high frequency and the most accurate results to describe the degree of waters (lakes, reservoirs, rivers and freshwater wetlands) eutrophication. It is better to choose traditional calculation formulas to evaluate eutrophication with limited funds. The higher technical methods (e.g., UAV and UG) require a certain amount of funds.

4.1. The TLI Method for Lake Eutrophication

Lakes are a large and complex system. Lakes can be divided into deep and thermally stratified lakes or shallow and non-stratified lakes. Here, we focus on the shallow and non-stratified lake systems [14]. The evaluation of lake eutrophication is based on a series of indicators related to a lake’s nutritional status and interrelations of these factors (e.g., CODMn, TN, TP and Chl-a). Due to the complex chemical effects of various pollutants in the water, the eutrophication assessment of lake water is a difficult nonlinear prediction problem [56]. Currently, the basic methods for the evaluation of lake eutrophication include the following [98]: the TLI method, the MNCM method, the BP neural network method, the FCE method, and the NI method [72]. Among these, the selection of cloud model parameters (expected value, Ex; entropy, En; hyper entropy, He) used in MNCM method is inherently uncertain, indicating that the operational formula used in this method is not mature enough. Further research is needed on how to reasonably select cloud model parameters and how to combine the cloud model with other theories [99]. The BP neural network model was established by MATLAB software, and the network can be trained with enough calibration samples to avoid subjective influences. The methodology has been shown to accurately depict the level of eutrophication. However, there may be local minimum values in the BP neural network calculation, which is not good enough for the accuracy of this algorithm. Moreover, the local minimum point may appear in the squared sum function of the error, which is unfavorable to the operation of the algorithm. Therefore, the BP neural network method required further development [100]. However, the TLI method uses CODMn, TN, TP, SD and Chl-a as the evaluation indexes [101] to overcome the one-sidedness of a single factor evaluation of eutrophication [102]. We, therefore, suggest that the TLI is currently the most suitable method for the evaluation of lake eutrophication.

4.2. The TSI Method for Reservoir Eutrophication

Reservoirs (artificial lakes) have been built for flood control, irrigation, power generation and fish farming [103]. Currently, the evaluation methods for reservoir eutrophication primarily include the TSI method [104], the SFIE method [105], the FCE method [106], and the BP neural network method. It should be noted that, when the above methods are used to evaluate and analyze the eutrophication of the reservoirs, the results are often more objective. Of all the methods, the SFIE method is most influenced by individual water quality indicators. Therefore, it lacks objectivity, and although the FCE method focuses on the subordination degree of different monitoring indexes to different water qualities, it fails to consider the inevitable randomness and other uncertainties in the evaluation process. This can lead to deviations in the evaluation results. However, the TSI method dismisses the traditional single indicator as presented by the SFIE method and integrates multiple factors, focuses on the comparison of water quality between tested water and its water function area, and effectively analyzes the fuzziness of the degree of eutrophication and water quality category [107]. Hence, it is particularly applicable for the evaluation of reservoir eutrophication [108].

4.3. The BP Neural Network or the FCE Method for River Eutrophication

Evaluation of river eutrophication has used the BP neural network method, the FCE method [109], the TLI method, and the NI method [110]. Among these, the BP neural network method provides a comprehensive evaluation following calibration. The method can avoid the subjectivity of determining the evaluation index and index weight, thus better reflecting the level of water pollution [111]. The FCE method can describe water quality both qualitatively and quantitatively, and it objectively considers the contribution of various factors [37]. Nevertheless, based on the complexity of a river system, water environment and the complex water quality dataset obtained by water environmental monitoring, a variety of evaluation methods should be used to evaluate and manage water quality. Therefore, the BP neural network method and the FCE method are more suitable to evaluate river eutrophication.

4.4. The FCE Method for Freshwater Wetland Eutrophication

The protection of wetland aquatic environments is particularly important. Here, we discuss the freshwater wetlands, such as the Rietvlei wetland. The eutrophication evaluation methods for freshwater wetlands primarily include the FCE method [112], the TLI method [113], the NI method, and the TSI method. The NI method has the advantages of a simple mathematical description. This easily leads to the degradation of water quality if the change level in the range is omitted [114]. The FCE method uses the degree of membership to indicate the classification range of eutrophication, which can better reflect the difference and continuity of water quality levels. This method considers the influence of a series of different indicators on water eutrophication and can determine the weight of each pollution index in the overall evaluation. In addition, it can determine the membership degree of an evaluation index, which can objectively reflect the eutrophication status of the water. Consequently, the FCE method is considered most suitable for the evaluation of eutrophication of freshwater wetlands.

5. Conclusions and Perspectives

Algal blooms caused by water eutrophication have become a global environmental and human health risk, and they are very frequent in many regions [104,115]. In this review, we evaluated the most common methods used to assess the levels of eutrophication in lakes, reservoirs, rivers, and freshwater wetlands. To effectively manage eutrophication, it is essential to have adequate metrics for the level and extent of contamination. The water assessment methods recommended in this review all have universal applicability with suitable accuracy. As a mature method, the TLI and TSI has been widely recognized for the evaluation of eutrophication of lakes and reservoirs. A river system is a complex water environment, and there was no consensus found for the optimal evaluation method. BP neural network methodology and the FCE method have, however, been commonly used for the evaluation of rivers. The FCE method is more appropriate to evaluate freshwater wetland eutrophication, and the analysis results have high credibility that can objectively reflect freshwater wetland eutrophication.
Introduction of new methodologies and ability to capture remote data will allow improvements in the assessment of eutrophication. In particular: (1) the integration of data from new monitoring tools such as underwater gliders and unmanned aerial vehicles, remote sensing, and meteorological and hydrological data with traditional assessments will allow the status of eutrophication to be accurately reported and will enable improved management of eutrophication. (2) The evaluation of freshwater eutrophication should pay attention to the differences in the ecological environment. For example, four kinds of water bodies (lakes, reservoirs, wetlands and rivers) correspond to different recommended evaluation methods (TLI method, TSI method, FCE method or BP neural network methods and FCE method). (3) Methodologies should consider the utilization of existing and big data sets, numerical model reanalysis, and neural networks. This mathematical approach can make up for a shortage of survey data and the limitation of evaluation methods while improving the accuracy of evaluation results.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.L. and Y.Z.; figure production, M.L., Z.Z. and Y.B.; table production, M.L. and J.D.; validation and supervision, Y.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, M.L. and J.D.; writing—review and editing, M.L. and J.D.; provided comments and proof-read, Y.Z., H.W., H.Y., L.V.Z., H.L., A.A., X.C., X.J. and W.X. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province (grant no. 2019A1515111024 and 2019A1515110811), the College Teacher Characteristic Innovation Research Project (grant no. 2020JNHB08), the Research Fund Program of Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Environmental Pollution Control and Remediation Technology, and Foshan University Lingnan Visiting Professor scheme.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study did not involve humans or animals.

Informed Consent Statement

This study did not involve humans.

Data Availability Statement

This study did not report any data.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Moal, L.M.; Gascuel, O.C.; Ménesguen, A.; Souchon, Y.; Étrillard, C.; Levain, A.; Moatar, F.; Pannard, A.; Souchu, P.; Lefebvre, A.; et al. Eutrophication: A new wine in an old bottle? Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 651, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Schneider, S.C.; Biberdžić, V.; Braho, V.; Gjoreska, B.B.; Cara, M.; Dana, Z.; Đurašković, P.; Eriksen, T.E.; Hjermann, D.; Imeri, A.; et al. Littoral eutrophication indicators are more closely related to nearshore land use than to water nutrient concentrations: A critical evaluation of stressor-response relationships. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 748, 141193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Gibson, G.; Carlson, R.; Simpson, J.; Smeltzer, E.; Gerritson, J.; Chapra, S.; Heiskary, S.; Jones, J.; Kennedy, R. Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual—Lakes and Reservoirs; Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2000; pp. 9-1–9-17. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/nutrient-policy-data/nutrient-criteria-technical-guidance-manuals (accessed on 1 April 2000).
  4. European Commission. The EU Water Framework Directive; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Lu, H.S.; Cao, X.Q.; Zhaori, G.T.; Wang, Y.; Cheng, J.G. Research progress of water eutrophication control. Sci. Technol. Consult. Her. 2012, 11, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Zhou, Y.; Wang, L.L.; Zhou, Y.Y.; Mao, X.Z. Eutrophication control strategies for highly anthropogenic influenced coastal waters. Sci. Total. Environ. 2020, 705, 135760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Ministry of Ecology and Environment. Bulletin of Marine Ecology and Environment Status of China in 2018; Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2019. Available online: http://english.mee.gov.cn/Resources/Reports/bomeaesoc/201911/P020191129369234962072.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2019).
  8. Yu, C.X.; Li, Z.Y.; Xu, Z.H.; Yang, Z. Lake recovery from eutrophication: Quantitative response of trophic states to anthropogenic influences. Ecol. Eng. 2020, 143, 105697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wang, S.L.; Li, J.S.; Evangelos, S. Trophic state assessment of global inland waters using a MODIS-derived Forel-Ule index. Remote Sens. Environ. 2018, 217, 444–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Murphy, A.E.; Sageman, B.B.; Hollander, D.J. Eutrophication by decoupling of the marine biogeochemical cycles of C, N, and P: A mechanism for the Late Devonian mass extinction. Geology 2000, 28, 427–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Pearl, H.W.; Huisman, J. Blooms like it hot. Science 2008, 20, 57–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Vollenweider, R.A. Scientific fundamentals of the eutrophication of lakes and flowing waters, with particular reference to nitrogen and phosphorous as factors in eutrophication. OECD Rep. Water Manag. Res. 1968, 159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Caspers, H. OECD: Eutrophication of Waters. Monitoring, Assessment and Control; Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development: Paris, France, 1982; p. 154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Farley, M. Eutrophication in fresh waters: An international review. In Encyclopedia of Lakes and Reservoirs; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 258–270. ISBN 978-1-4020-5616-1. [Google Scholar]
  15. Aurea, M.; Francisco, J.; Lino, J. Water artificial circulation for eutrophication control. Math. Control Relat. Fields 2018, 8, 277–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Yang, X.E.; Wu, X.; Hao, H.L. Mechanisms and assessment of water eutrophication. J. Zhejiang Univ. Sci. B 2008, 9, 197–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Wang, Y.M.; Zhang, X.; Wu, Y.F. Eutrophication assessment based on the cloud matter element model. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Channar, A.G.; Rind, A.M.; Mastoi, G.M.; Almani, K.F.; Lashari, K.H.; Qurishi, M.A.; Mahar, N. Comparative study of water of Manchhar lake with drinking water quality standard of World Health Organization. Am. J. Environ. Prot. 2014, 3, 68–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zeng, G.S.; Hu, C.; Zou, S.M.; Zhang, L. BP neural network model for predicting the mechanical performance of a foamed wood-fiber reinforced thermoplastic starch composite. Polym. Compos. 2019, 40, 3923–3928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wang, D.X. Water quality evaluation of Xinyang section of Huaihe River mainstream based on single factor evaluation method. Henan Water Resour. South North Water. Divers. 2015, 12, 93–94. [Google Scholar]
  21. Hu, Z.D. Application of pollution index method based on dynamic combination weight to water quality evaluation. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2018, 153, 1427–1433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Yan, B.Z.; Sun, J.; An, N. Groundwater quality assessment method based on Stochastic Forest model. Hydropower. Energy.Sci. 2019, 37, 66–69. [Google Scholar]
  23. Zhai, K. Application of improved water quality index assessment method in water quality assessment of reservoirs. Guizhou Agric. Sci. 2010, 38, 232–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Shang, B.X.; LÜ, Z.L.; Li, J.N.; Li, T.Q. Application of fuzzy mathematics and single factor index in water quality evaluation. J. China Inst. Environ. Manag. 2013, 5, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Luo, F.; Wu, G.R.; Wang, C. Application of Nemerow pollution index method and single factor evaluation method in water quality evaluation. Environ. Sustain. Dev. 2016, 41, 87–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Shu, J.H. Evaluation of lake Eutrophication degree in China. Environ. Pollut. Control 1990, 5, 2–7, 47. [Google Scholar]
  27. Shu, J.H. Evaluation of eutrophication degree of main lakes in China. J. Ocean Limnol. 1993, 6, 616–620. Available online: http://159.226.73.51/handle/332005/9591 (accessed on 1 November 1993).
  28. Wang, M.C.; Liu, X.Q.; Zhang, J.H. Evaluation method and classification standard of lake eutrophication. J. China Environ. Monit. 2002, 5, 47–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Cairns, J.; Dickson, K.L.; Lanza, G.R.; Almeida, S.P.; Balzo, D.D. Coherent optical spatial filtering of diatoms in water pollution monitoring. Arch. Mikrobiol. 1972, 83, 141–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Yan, H.; Huang, Y.; Wang, G. Water eutrophication evaluation based on rough set and petri nets: A case study in Xiangxi-River, Three Gorges Reservoir. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 69, 463–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zhao, W.; Li, H.; Xu, Q.J. Analysis of succession of dominant algal species in water bloom of Yanghe Reservoir. J. Environ. Eng. 1993, 5, 101–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Barbieri, A.; Simona, M. Trophic evolution of Lake Lugano related to external load reduction: Changes in phosphorus and nitrogen as well as oxygen balance and biological parameters. Lakes Reserv. Res. Manag. 2001, 6, 37–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Alikaj, M.; Brahushi, F.; Piro, C. Assessment of trophic state in the water ecosystem of Gjirokastra district, Albania. Fresen. Environ. Bull. 2014, 23, 3308–3313. Available online: https://www.academia.edu/20816933/ASSESSMENTOFTROPHICSTATEINTHEWATERECOSYSTEMO-FGJIROKASTRADISTRICTALBANIA (accessed on 13 June 2014).
  34. Wei, H.Q.; Fu, F.; Zhu, Q.L.; Shi, L. The Olympic Forest Park wetland water quality monitoring and analysis. Proc. Int. Conf. Energy Environ. Prot. 2016, 2352–5401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ruley, J.E.; Rusch, K.A. An assessment of long-term post-restoration water quality trends in a shallow, subtropical, urban hypereutrophic lake. Ecol. Eng. 2002, 19, 265–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ali, E.M.; Khairy, H.M. Environmental assessment of drainage water impacts on water quality and eutrophication level of Lake Idku, Egypt. Environ. Pollut. 2016, 216, 437–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Yang, S.; Sun, L.P.; Zhong, Y. Water quality analysis and eutrophication assessment of Jinhe River. Ecol. Sci. 2015, 34, 105–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zhang, Y.H.; Li, M.; Du, Y. Distribution of nitrogen and phosphorus and eutrophication assessment in water of Guanshan Lake Wetland Park. Anhui Agric. Sci. 2018, 46, 60–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Zhang, R.; Gao, L.G.; Xi, B.D. Improved TLI index method and its application in the evaluation of Chaohu Lake’s nutritional status. J. Environ. Eng. 2013, 7, 2127–2133. [Google Scholar]
  40. Wang, D.; Zeng, D.B.; Vijay, P.S.; Xu, P.C.; Liu, D.F.; Wang, Y.K. A new model for water quality assessment. Uncertain Model. Knowl. Eng. Decis. Mak. 2016, 10, 681–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Stow, C.A.; Glassner-Shwayder, K.; Lee, D.; Wang, L.Z.; Arhonditsis, G.; DePinto, J.V.; Twiss, M.R. Lake Erie phosphorus targets: An imperative for active adaptive management. J. Great Lakes Res. 2020, 46, 672–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Jeppesen, E.; Søndergaard, M.; Kronvang, B.; Jensen, J.P.; Svendsen, L.M.; Lauridsen, T.L. Lake and catchment management in Denmark. Hydrobiologia 1999, 395, 419–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Parul, B.; Saurabh, M. Risk assessment and analysis of water quality in Ramgarh Lake, India. J. Integr. Sci. Technol. 2015, 3, 22–27. Available online: https://www.semanticscholar.Org/paper/Risk-assessment-and-analysis-of-water-quality-in-Barnwal-Mishra/7da797e38ac9965af68812dd391d4707dc5b663c (accessed on 25 April 2015).
  44. Lourantou, A.; Thome, J.P.; Goffart, A. Water quality assessment of a recently refilled reservoir: The case of Bütgenbach Reservoir, Belgium. Lake Reserv. Res. Manag. 2007, 12, 261–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ghashghaie, M.; Maralan, M.R.S.; Askari, K.O.A.; Eslamian, S.; Singh, V.P. Determining the eutrophication state of Ecbatan reservoir using Carlson index. Am. J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 2018, 11, 491–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Guo, S.Q.; Bu, X.Q.; Liao, J. Water quality evaluation and Eutrophication Analysis of Dawangtan reservoir in Nanning. Environ. Prot. Sci. 2019, 45, 63–68. [Google Scholar]
  47. Oberholster, P.J.; Botha, A.M.; Cloete, T.E. Biological and chemical evaluation of sewage water pollution in the Rietvlei nature reserve wetland area, South Africa. Environ. Pollut. 2008, 156, 184–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Zhang, B.; Zhai, L.; Lin, J.; Sun, C.; Fu, Z.Y. Water quality dynamics and evaluation of urban lake wetlands in Nanjing. Wetl. Sci. Manag. 2011, 7, 29–32, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Romero, J.R.; Kagalou, I.; Imberger, J.; Hela, D.; Kotti, M.; Bartzokas, A.; Albanis, T.; Evmirides, N.; Karkabounas, S.; Papagiannis, J.; et al. Seasonal water quality of shallow and eutrophic Lake Pamvotis, Greece: Implications for restoration. Hydrobiologia 2002, 474, 91–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Fang, T.Z.; Du, Y.; Cai, S.M. Fuzzy mathematics for evaluation of eutrophic levels in Honghu Lake of Hubei Province. J. Zhejiang A & F Univ. 2008, 4, 116–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. De, V.S. The deteriorating nutrient status of the Berg River, South Africa. Water SA 2007, 33, 659–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Cui, D.W. The application of MATLAB neural network in the evaluation of eutrophication degree of lakes and reservoirs—Taking the evaluation of eutrophication degree of 24 lakes in China as an example. Environ. Res. Monit. 2012, 25, 42–48. [Google Scholar]
  53. Yao, L.G.; Zhao, X.M.; Zhou, G.G.; Wan, Y.H.; Cai, L.M.; Hu, G.W.; Xu, Z.C. Preliminary regulating factors of spring cyanobacteria bloom in Gaozhou Reservoir, Guangdong Province. J. Lake Sci. 2011, 23, 534–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Guan, B.R. Evaluation of Nemero’s pollution index. Environ. Sci. 1979, 4, 67–71. [Google Scholar]
  55. Wu, Y.Q.; Gao, R.L.; Yang, J.Z. Prediction of coal and gas outburst: A method based on the BP neural network optimized by GASA. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2019, 133, 64–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Jiang, L.Y.; Li, Q.Z.; Liu, L. Evaluation of and control schemes for current eutrophication of land-scape lakes in Kaifeng City, Henan Province. J. Landsc. Res. 2012, 4, 57–60. [Google Scholar]
  57. Carlson, R.E. A trophic state index for lakes. Limnol. Oceanogr. 1977, 22, 361–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Zou, W.; Zhu, G.W.; Cai, Y.J.; Vilmi, A.; Xu, H.; Zhu, M.Y.; Gong, Z.J.; Zhang, Y.L.; Qin, B.Q. Relationships between nutrient, chlorophyll a and Secchi depth in lakes of the Chinese Eastern Plains ecoregion: Implications for eutrophication management. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 260, 109923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Li, B.C. Application comparison of different water quality assessment methods in river water quality assessment. Reg. Govern. 2019, 28, 69–71. [Google Scholar]
  60. Awo, M.E.; Fonge, B.A.; Tabot, P.T.; Akoachere, J.T.K. Water quality of the volcanic crater lake, Lake Barombi Kotto, in Cameroon. Afr. J. Aquat. Sci. 2020, 45, 401–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Tian, H. Application of Carlson TSI index in the study of water quality eutrophication in Yanghe Reservoir. Water Sci. Eng. Technol. 2001, 5, 23–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ansa-Asare, O.D.; Asante, K.A. A comparative study of the nutrient status of two reservoirs in southeast Ghana. Lake Reserv. Res. Manag. 2010, 3, 205–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Ji, B.; Liang, J.C.; Chen, R. Bacterial eutrophic index for potential water quality evaluation of a freshwater ecosystem. Environ. Sci. Pollut. R. 2020, 27, 32449–32455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Xie, P.; Li, H.Q.; Ye, A.Z. A lake eutrophication stochastic assessment method by using empirical frequency curve and its verification. J. Lake Sci. 2004, 16, 371–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Liu, X.; Du, G.S.; Zhang, H. Phytoplankton and nutrient degree of water in Miyun Reservoir. Res. Environ. Sci. 2003, 16, 27–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Zhang, X.Q.; Liang, C. Application of fuzzy matter-element model based on coefficients of entropy in comprehensive evaluation of water quality. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2005, 36, 1057–1061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Cheng, J.L.; Wang, L.Q.; Ji, G.H. Eutrophication evaluation of landscape waters in ten urban parks in Shanghai. J. Shanghai Ocean Univ. 2009, 18, 435–442. [Google Scholar]
  68. Wang, Y.Y.; Wang, B.G. Fuzzy evaluation method of scouring stability on soil subgrade slope. J. Highw. Transp. 2005, 18, 24–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Chen, S.Y.; Guo, Y. Fuzzy variable set method for comprehensive evaluation of water quality. Water Res. Prot. 2005, 6, 23–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Zhang, H.; Li, W.J.; Miao, P.P.; Sun, B.W.; Kong, F.Q. Risk grade assessment of sudden water pollution based on analytic hierarchy process and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation. Environ. Sci. Pollut. R. 2020, 27, 469–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Zhao, H.F.; Qiu, W.H.; Wang, X.Z. Fuzzy integrative evaluation method of the risk factor. Syst. Eng. Theory Pract. 1997, 7, 95–98, 125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Fang, T.Z.; Du, Y.; Cai, S.M.; Chen, B.; Jiang, Y.S. Application of fuzzy mathematics in eutrophication evaluation of Honghu Lake. J. Zhejiang A & F Univ. 2008, 25, 517–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Yue, C.Y.; Sun, T.; Xie, J.F. The remote sensing image geometrical model of bp neural network. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inform. Sci. 2020, XLII-3/W10, 381–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Kolehmainen, M.; Martikainen, H.; Ruuskanen, J. Neural networks and periodic components used in air quality forecasting. Atmos. Environ. 2001, 35, 815–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Shen, Y.Y.; Wang, Y.; Huang, X.F.; Xu, J.C. Application of BP-RBF neural network model in water eutrophication assessment of urban landscape. J. Digit. Technol. Appl. 2012, 7, 47–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Wei, S.; Chen, C.H. A carbon price prediction model based on secondary decomposition algorithm and optimized back propagation neural network. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 243, 118671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Soepangkat, B.; Norcahyo, R.; Effendi, M.K.; Pramujati, B. Multi-response optimization of carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) drilling using back propagation neural network-particle swarm optimization (BPNN-PSO). Eng. Sci. Technol. 2019, 23, 700–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Zhou, S.; Shen, C.Y.; Zhang, L.L. Dual-optimized adaptive Kalman filtering algorithm based on BP neural network and variance compensation for laser absorption spectroscopy. Opt. Express 2019, 27, 31874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Yan, J.; Pan, Z.F.; Tan, J.; Tian, H. Assessment of water quality by firefly algorithm based on BP neural network model. South North Water Transf. Water Sci. Technol. 2020, 18, 104–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Ma, Z.Y.; Zhang, W.; Luo, Z.B. Ultrasonic characterization of thermal barrier coatings porosity through BP neural network optimizing Gaussian process regression algorithm. Ultrasonics 2019, 100, 105981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Ghose, D.K.; Panda, S.S.; Swain, P.C. Prediction of water table depth in western region, Orissa using BPNN and RBFN neural networks. J. Hydrol. 2010, 394, 296–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Xiao, J.Z. Study on Water Quality Evaluation Model Based on BP Neural Network. Master’s Thesis, Nanchang University, Jiangxi, China, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Cai, H.Y.; Du, R.Z.; Tian, J.F. Research of trust model based on multidimensional trust cloud. J. Comput. Appl. 2012, 32, 5–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Richard, A.; Anthes, A. A cumulus parameterization scheme utilizing a one-dimensional cloud model. J. Mon. Weather Rev. 1977, 105, 270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Mouftah, H.T.; Guennoun, M.; Khanafer, M. Priority-based CCA periods for efficient and reliable communications in wireless sensor networks. Wirel. Sens. Netw. 2012, 4, 45–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Zeng, D.B.; Wang, D.; Ding, H. The comparison between multidimensional normal cloud model method and several other methods for water eutrophication evaluation. J. Nanjing Univ. 2015, 1, 67–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Li, D.Y. AI research and development in the network age. CAAI Trans. Intell. Syst. 2009, 4, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Zeng, D.B. Evaluation Method of Water Eutrophication Based on Multidimensional Normal Cloud Model. Master’s Thesis, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China, 2015. Available online: https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/download.aspx?filename=yEFTlt2QFtiRwwUcqNmQOljbpFHO44melhzSENFaGpnUZRTWmhFZ2RDbJJHWKNWUysSM0IEb0hWTCRmYpFUTiR0LjJ3ROJXYws2c5IHNo9SVaBXQ5MVNZtUb4EVWxU3U2RWWLtCW3pGRBhUV6dXVrp2YFdFc4pUQ&dflag=nhdown&dflag=cajdown&tablename=CMFD201601 (accessed on 27 May 2015).
  89. Wang, J.L.; Fu, Z.S.; Qiao, H.X.; Liu, F.X. Assessment of eutrophication and water quality in the estuarine area of Lake Wuli, Lake Taihu, China. Sci. Total. Environ. 2019, 650, 1392–1402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Gao, Y.N.; Gao, J.F.; Yin, H.B.; Liu, C.S.; Xia, T.; Wang, J.; Huang, Q. Remote sensing estimation of the total phosphorus concentration in a large lake using band combinations and regional multivariate statistical modeling techniques. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 151, 33–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Chen, B.M. Application progress of remote sensing technology in ecological environment monitoring and law enforcement. Min. Metall. Eng. 2020, 40, 165–168, 173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Peppa, M.; Vasilakos, C.; Kavroudakis, D. Eutrophication monitoring for lake Pamvotis, Greece, using sentinel-2 data. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2020, 9, 143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Kiage, L.M.; Walker, N.D. Using NDVI from MODIS to monitor duckweed bloom in Lake Maracaibo, Venezuela. Water Resour. Manag. 2009, 23, 1125–1135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Wang, X.J.; Ma, T. Monitoring and evaluation of water quality in Taihu Lake by remote sensing technology. Environ. Sci. 2000, 6, 65–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Rostom, N.G.; Shalaby, A.A.; Issa, Y.M.; Afifi, A.A. Evaluation of Mariut Lake water quality using hyperspectral remote sensing and laboratory works. Egypt. J. Remote Sens. Space Sci. 2017, 20, S39–S48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Ding, C.J.; Song, S.; Feng, Y.B.; Chen, X. Design of stereo atmospheric environment monitoring system based on UAV. Transducer Microsyst. Technol. 2020, 39, 62–65, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Fang, E.Z.; Zhou, Z.L.; Gui, C.Y. Principles and applications of underwater gliders. Def. Sci. Technol. Ind. 2020, 8, 66–68. Available online: http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail.aspx?FileName=ZGBG202008020&DbName=CJFQ2020 (accessed on 1 August 2020).
  98. Jia, Y.I.; Schmid, C.; Yin, B.Q.; Elke, Z. Toxicological and ecotoxicological evaluation of the water quality in a large and eutrophic freshwater lake of China. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 667, 809–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Zhang, L.C.; Li, M. Research on controller based on multidimensional normal cloud model. Ind. Control Comput. 2014, 27, 77–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Bao, G.Q.; Yin, L.; Yu, J.L. Evaluation of eutrophication of Heihe river based on comprehensive nutrition state index and BP neural network. Bull. Soil Water Conserv. 2018, 38, 264–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Rao, J.G.; Zhang, T.; Rao, X.W. Water quality evaluation of Qingshan national wetland park based on nutrition state index and grey pattern recognition model. Hubei Agric. Sci. 2019, 58, 39–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Zhang, K.S.; Wan, J.Y.; Liu, S. Application of BP neural network in lake water quality assessment. J. Yangtze Univ. Med. V 2004, 1, 28–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Huang, W.Y.; Shu, J.H.; Wu, Y.G. Eutrophication evaluation of main reservoirs in China. Environ. Prot. Technol. 1997, 2, 12–16. [Google Scholar]
  104. Yang, G.; Liu, H.Z.; Zhu, K.; Liu, D.S. The inversion analysis for mechanical parameters of dam based on the artificial fish swarm algorithm. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2013, 416, 1786–1790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Luo, F.; Wu, G.R. Analysis of reservoir water quality based on single factor evaluation method and ratio method. Resour. Econ. Environ. Prot. 2018, 195, 91–98. [Google Scholar]
  106. Zheng, G.C.; Ma, P.F. Comprehensive evaluation of water quality of Xinlicheng Reservoir Based on cloud model method. Water Conserv. Tech. Superv. 2019, 3, 124–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Lin, Z.J. Eutrophication assessment and control of water quality of Shanmei Reservoir in Quanzhou. Dam Saf. 2014, 2, 31–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Qiu, D.L. Comparison of influence of different water quality evaluation methods on trend analysis of reservoir water quality. Guangdong Water Resour. Hydropower 2018, 7, 13–15. [Google Scholar]
  109. Li, F.; Qiu, Z.Z.; Zhang, J.D.; Liu, C.Y. Temporal variation of major nutrients and probabilistic eutrophication evaluation based on stochastic-fuzzy method in Honghu Lake, Middle China. Sci. China Technol. Sci. 2019, 62, 417–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Chen, Y.H. Discussion on evaluation method of river eutrophication degree. New Technol. New Prod. China 2016, 1, 144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Wang, Z.J.; Zhang, Y. Application of improved BP neural network in eutrophication evaluation of Baiyangdian Lake. South North Water Divers. Water Conserv. Technol. 2012, 10, 90–92. Available online: http://qikan.cqvip.com/Qikan/Article/Detail?id=43100428 (accessed on 1 July 2012).
  112. Xia, F.; Hu, S.; Gong, Z.J. Comparative study on the application of different water quality assessment methods-Taking Danjiangkou Reservoir as an example. Yangtze River 2017, 48, 11–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Yu, H.X.; He, P.; Zhao, J.J. Eutrophication assessment and control of Xixi Wetland Park. J. Wuhan Inst. Technol. 2011, 33, 50–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Luo, S.Q.; Jia, Z.S. Application of improved Nemero index method in water quality evaluation of Dongfanghong wetland. J. Nat. Sci. Heilongjiang Univ. 2018, 35, 19–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Liu, Y.Q. Analysis of water eutrophication: Causes, prevention principles and measures. Technol. Wind 2018, 3, 126–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. (a) Sources of nutrient inputs and the cycling of nutrients in the water body, (b) Demonstration of eutrophication and its effects in the water body.
Figure 1. (a) Sources of nutrient inputs and the cycling of nutrients in the water body, (b) Demonstration of eutrophication and its effects in the water body.
Water 13 00225 g001
Figure 2. Global distribution of water eutrophication. The pie chart of the outside circle corresponds to the proportion of the number of large lakes in each eutrophication state in the continent, and the pie chart of the inside circle corresponds to the proportion of the surface area of large lakes in each eutrophication state in the continent (Africa, Asia, South America, North America, Oceania and Europe). Global data for the six continents of the world (except Antarctica) in 2018 [12].
Figure 2. Global distribution of water eutrophication. The pie chart of the outside circle corresponds to the proportion of the number of large lakes in each eutrophication state in the continent, and the pie chart of the inside circle corresponds to the proportion of the surface area of large lakes in each eutrophication state in the continent (Africa, Asia, South America, North America, Oceania and Europe). Global data for the six continents of the world (except Antarctica) in 2018 [12].
Water 13 00225 g002
Figure 3. Evaluation methods applied to different waters (lakes, reservoirs, rivers and wetlands). The best methods identified in this work is written in red color.
Figure 3. Evaluation methods applied to different waters (lakes, reservoirs, rivers and wetlands). The best methods identified in this work is written in red color.
Water 13 00225 g003
Table 1. Nutritional status of water eutrophication and evaluation method (criteria) in lakes, reservoirs, rivers, and freshwater wetlands.
Table 1. Nutritional status of water eutrophication and evaluation method (criteria) in lakes, reservoirs, rivers, and freshwater wetlands.
Evaluation Method (Criteria)WaterNutrient (N)
(mg/L)
Nutrient (P)
(mg/L)
Chl-a 9
(μg/L)
Documented EutrophicationReference
NI 1Lugano Lake, SwitzerlandNA 10TP 4: 0.140NAHyper-eutrophic (1960~2001)[32]
Viroi Lake, AlbaniaNH4+: 0.090
NO3: 0.670
NANAEutrophic (2013~2014)[33]
Olympic Forest Park wetland, ChinaTN 5:
0.300~2.100
TP:
0.040~0.180
NALight-eutrophic (2016)[34]
TLI 2City Park Lake, Louisiana, USATN: 0.682TP: 0.33035.1Eutrophic (2000~2001)[35]
Idku Lake, EgyptNAPO43−: 0.200~0.43039.9~104.2Hyper-eutrophic (2016)[36]
Jinhe River, ChinaTN:
0.240~8.340
TP:
0.019~0.490
1.6~92.7Eutrophic (2007~2011)
Hyper-eutrophic (2012~2014)
Middle-eutrophic (2015)
[37]
Guanshan Wetland, ChinaTN:
0.520~2.200
TP:
0.019~1.040
1.0~37.0Light-eutrophic (2014~2016)[38]
Improved TLIChaohu Lake, ChinaTN:
1.500~2.680
TP:
0.150~0.230
13.2~21.9Light-eutrophic (2000~2006)
Middle-eutrophic (2007~2017)
[39]
TSI 3Erie Lake, USANATP: 0.11558.0Blue-green algae bloom (1965~1979) Declined quality (1995~2004)[40,41]
Lyng Lake, DanishTN: 2.400TP: 0.37073.0Hyper-eutrophic (1999)[42]
Ramgarh Lake, IndiaNANANAHyper-eutrophic (2015)[43]
Bütgenbach Reservoir, BelgiumNH4:
0~0.480
PO43−:
0~0.110
0~39.4Hyper-eutrophic (2007)[44]
Ecbatan Reservoir, EgyptTN: 2.200TP: 0.0755.8Middle-eutrophic (2018)[45]
Dawangtan Reservoir, ChinaNH4⁺−N: 0.180~0.710 TN: 0.820~2.760TP: 0.020~0.090NAMiddle-eutrophic (2019)[46]
TSIRietvlei nature reserve wetland, South AfricaTN: 0.358~6.000TP: 0.081~0.371NAMiddle-eutrophic (2005~2006)[47]
Xuanwu Wetland, ChinaTN: 2.010~2.110TP: 0.160~0.310NAHyper-eutrophic (2011)[48]
FCE 6Pamvotis Lake, Northwest GreeceNH4: 0.250
NO3: 0.560
NANAEutrophic (2002)[49]
Honghu Lake, ChinaTN: 1.410TP: 0.0652.6~3.7Middle-eutrophic (2005~2006)[50]
Berg River, South AfricaTN: 2.170TP: 0.700NAHyper-eutrophic (2007)[51]
BP neural network 7Dianshan Lake, ChinaTN: 1.086TP: 0.0293.0Light-eutrophic (2011)[52]
Gaozhou Reservoir, ChinaTN: 0.358TP: 0.0461.4Mesotrophic (2011)[53]
OECD 8 classificationWastwaterNO3: 0.352TP: 0.0030.8Ultra-oligotrophic[14]
Ennerdale WaterNO3: 0.333TP: 0.0081.05Oligotrophic[14]
ButtermereNO3: 0.175TP: 0.0041.43Oligotrophic[14]
Crummock WaterNO3: 0.193TP: 0.0072.075Oligotrophic[14]
Coniston WaterNO3: 0.365TP: 0.0083.585Oligotrophic[14]
DerwentwaterNO3: 0.199TP: 0.0153.275Mesotrophic[14]
GrasmereNO3: 0.253TP: 0.0165.655Mesotrophic[14]
LoweswaterNO3: 0.529TP: 0.0137.68Mesotrophic[14]
Bassenthwaite LakeNO3: 0.384TP: 0.0226.37Mesotrophic[14]
UllswaterNO3: 0.254TP: 0.0125.44Mesotrophic[14]
Blelharn TarnNO3: 0.827TP: 0.03918.345Eutrophic[14]
Esthwaite WaterNO3: 0.695TP: 0.03122.355Eutrophic[14]
1 NI, nemerow index; 2 TLI, trophic level index method; 3 TSI, trophic state index method; 4 TP, total phosphorus; 5 TN, total nitrogen; 6 FCE, fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method; 7 BP, back propagation; 8 OECD, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development; 9 Chl-a, chlorophyll-a;10 NA, not available.
Table 2. Water eutrophication evaluation parameter and classification.
Table 2. Water eutrophication evaluation parameter and classification.
MethodParameterClassificationReference
SCO 1CODMn (mg/L)TN (mg/L)TP (mg/L)SD (m)Chl-a (mg/L)Score [26]
≤0.15≤0.020≤0.001≥10.0≤0.0005≤10Oligotrophic
>0.15, ≤0.3>0.020, ≤0.030>0.001, ≤0.0025<10.0, ≥8.0>0.0005, ≤0.0010>10, ≤20
>0.3, ≤0.4>0.030, ≤0.050>0.0025, ≤0.005<8.0, ≥5.0>0.0010, ≤0.0020>20, ≤30Mesotrophic
>0.4, ≤2.0>0.050. ≤0.300>0.005, ≤0.025<5.0, ≥1.5>0.0020, ≤0.0040>30, ≤40Eutrophic
>2.0, ≤4.0>0.050, ≤0.300>0.025, ≤0.050<1.5, ≥1.0>0.0040, ≤0.0100>40, ≤50Light-eutrophic
>4.0, ≤8.0>0.300, ≤0.800>0.025, ≤0.050<1.0, ≥0.5>0.0100, ≤0.0260>50, ≤60Mid-eutrophic
>8.0, ≤18.0>0.800, ≤2.000>0.050, ≤0.200<0.5, ≥0.4>0.0260, ≤0.0650>60, ≤70
>18.0, ≤25.0>2.000, ≤6.000>0.200, ≤0.600<0.4, ≥0.3>0.0650, ≤0.1600>70, ≤80Hyper-eutrophic
>25.0, ≤40.0>6.000, ≤9.000>0.600, ≤0.900<0.3, ≥0.2>0.1600, ≤0.4000>80, ≤90
>60.0>14.000>1.300<0.12>1.0000>90, ≤100
TLI (Σ) 2CODMn (mg/L)TN (mg/L)TP (mg/L)SD (m)Chl-a (mg/L)TLI [89]
≤0.15≤0.02≤0.001≥10.0≤0.0005≤30Oligotrophic
>0.15, ≤0.40>0.02, ≤0.05>0.001, ≤0.004<10.0, ≥5.0>0.0005, ≤0.0010
>0.40, ≤1.00>0.05, ≤0.10>0.004, ≤0.010<5.0, ≥3.0>0.0010, ≤0.0020>30, ≤50Mesotrophic
>1.00, ≤2.00>0.10, ≤0.30>0.010, ≤0.030<3.0, ≥1.5>0.0020, ≤0.0040
>2.00, ≤4.00>0.30, ≤0.50>0.030, ≤0.050<1.5, ≥1.0>0.0040, ≤0.0100
>4.00, ≤8.00>0.50, ≤1.00>0.050, ≤0.100<1.0, ≥0.5>0.0100, ≤0.0300>50, ≤60Light-eutrophic
>8.00, ≤10.00>1.00, ≤2.00>0.100, ≤0.200<0.5, ≥0.4>0.0300, ≤0.0640>60, ≤70Mid-eutrophic
>10.00, ≤25.00>2.00, ≤6.00>0.200, ≤0.600<0.4, ≥0.3>0.0640, ≤0.1600
>40.00>9.00>0.900<0.2>0.4000>70Hyper-eutrophic
TSIM 3TSIM (TP)TSIM (SD)TSIM (Chl-a) [61]
≤2.0≤4.4≤24.6Oligotrophic
>2.0, ≤11.9>4.4, ≤18.2>24.6, ≤32.2Mesotrophic
>11.9, ≤35.1>18.2, ≤42.1>32.2, ≤39.7Eutrophic
>35.1, ≤45.2>42.1, ≤50.1>39.7, ≤47.6Light-eutrophic
>45.2, ≤65.2>50.1, ≤68.3>47.6, ≤70.2Mid-eutrophic
>65.2>68.3>70.2Hyper-eutrophic
Empirical
Frequency
CODMn (mg/L)TN (mg/L)TP (mg/L)SD (m)Chl-a (mg/L)Empirical Frequency [64]
≤0.3≤0.030≤0.0025≥10.0≤0.001≤14.3Oligotrophic
>0.3, ≤0.4>0.030, ≤0.050>0.0025, ≤0.0050<10.0, ≥5.0>0.001, ≤0.002>0.4, ≤28.6Mesotrophic
>0.4, ≤2.0>0.050, ≤0.300>0.0050, ≤0.0250<5.0, ≥1.5>0.002, ≤0.004>0.4, ≤42.9Eutrophic
>2.0, ≤4.0>0.300, ≤0.500>0.0250, ≤0.0500<1.5, ≥1.0>0.004, ≤0.010>0.4, ≤57.1Light-eutrophic
>10.0, ≤25.0>2.000, ≤6.000>0.2000, ≤0.6000<0.4, ≥0.3>0.065, ≤0.160>71.4, ≤85.7Mid-eutrophic
>25.0>6.000>0.6000<0.3>0.160>85.7Hyper-eutrophic
FCE 4DO
(mg/L)
BOD5 (mg/L)CODMn
(mg/L)
NH3-N(mg/L)Cyanogen
(mg/L)
As
(mg/L)
Cr
(mg/L)
F (mg/L) [66]
≥8.0≤3.0≤15.0≤0.5≤0.005≤0.05≤0.01≤1.0Class I
<8.0, ≥6.0≤3.0≤15.0≤0.5>0.005, ≤0.050≤0.05>0.01, ≤0.05≤1.0Class II
<6.0, ≥5.0>3.0, ≤4.0>15.0,
≤20.0
>0.5, ≤10.0>0.050, ≤0.200>0.05, ≤0.20>0.01, ≤0.05≤1.0Class IV
<5.0, ≥3.0>4.0, ≤6.0>20.0,
≤30.0
>1.0, ≤2.0>0.200>0.20>0.01, ≤0.05>1.0, ≤1.5Class IV
<1.0>10.0>40.0>2.0>0.200>0.20>0.10>1.5Class V
BP
neural
network
CODMn (mg/L)TN (mg/L)TP (mg/L)Chl-a (mg/L)value [75]
≤0.3≤0.03≤0.0025≤0.0010 ≤ y < 1Oligotrophic
>0.3, ≤0.4>0.03, ≤0.05>0.0030, ≤0.0050>0.001, ≤0.0051 ≤ y < 2Mesotrophic
>0.4, ≤2.0>0.05, ≤0.30>0.0050, ≤0.0300>0.005, ≤0.0252 ≤ y < 3Eutrophic
>2.0, ≤4.0>0.30, ≤0.50>0.0300, ≤0.0500>0.025, ≤0.0503 ≤ y < 4Light-eutrophic
>4.0, ≤10.0>0.50, ≤2.00>0.0500, ≤0.2000>0.050, ≤0.5004 ≤ y < 5Mid-eutrophic
>10.0>2.00>0.2000>0.500y ≥ 5Hyper-eutrophic
Ex 7En 8He 9 [88]
ONCM 5≥15.05.00.01C1
<15.0, ≥7.55.00.01C2
<7.5, ≥3.85.00.01C3
MNCM 6<3.8, ≥1.35.00.01C4
<1.3, ≥0.75.00.01C5
<0.25.00.01C6
1 SCO, formula scoring method; 2 TLI, trophic level index; 3 TSI, trophic state index; 4 FCE, fuzzy comprehensive evaluation; 5 MNCM, multidimensional normal cloud model; 6 ONCM, one-dimensional normal cloud model; 7 Ex, digital characteristics of the cloud model; 8 En, digital characteristics of the cloud model; 9 He, digital characteristics of the cloud model.
Table 3. The remote sensing parameters and TM radiation of lake data.
Table 3. The remote sensing parameters and TM radiation of lake data.
Monitoring ParametersSS 1
(mg/L)
SD 2
(m)
DO 3
(mg/L)
CODMn 4
(mg/L)
BOD5 5
(mg/L)
TN 6
(mg/L)
TP 7
(mg/L)
Reference
Monitoring parameters AVG 837.530.338.834.052.074.391.30[95]
Radiation data
MW 9/(cm2·SR 10)
TM1 11TM2TM3TM4TM5TM6TM7
Radiation data AVG0.6870.5540.2670.0330.0100.0860.002
Monitoring parametersT (°C)pHTUB 12 (NTU)HDO 13 (% Sat.)Chl (μg/L)[96]
17.3~20.97.5~8.918.5~110.018.9~207.64.79~219.1
1 SS, suspended solids; 2 SD, secchi disk; 3 DO, dissolved oxygen; 4 CODMn, chemical oxygen demand; 5 BOD5, biochemical oxygen demand; 6 TN, total nitrogen; 7 TP, total phosphorus; 8 AVG, average value; 9 MW, megawatt; 10 SR, steradian; 11 TM, thematic mapper; 12 TUB, Turbidity; 13 HDO, high dissolved oxygen.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Back to TopTop