Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2021 Jan 6;193(1):38.
doi: 10.1007/s10661-020-08786-1.

Choosing an appropriate water quality model-a review

Cássia Monteiro da Silva Burigato Costa  1 , Izabel Rodrigues Leite  1 , Aleska Kaufmann Almeida  1 , Isabel Kaufmann de Almeida  2
Affiliations
Review

Choosing an appropriate water quality model-a review

Cássia Monteiro da Silva Burigato Costa et al. Environ Monit Assess. .

Abstract

Water quality models are quite complex to use even for scientists, requiring knowledge in different areas such as biology, chemistry, physics, and engineering. Hence, the use of these models by a non-specialist is quite complicated, demanding considerable time and research, particularly to choose which model is the most appropriate for a given situation. In this study, a comparative guide is suggested, which can help users select the appropriate water quality model for certain systems and variables. Five models were considered as follows: AQUATOX, CE-QUAL-W2, Spatially Referenced Regression Model on Watershed Attributes (SPARROW), Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT), and Water Quality Analysis Simulation Program 7 (WASP7), which have been widely used during the last 5 years. All of these selected models are free and easily available. It was verified that each model has its particularities and applications; however, the AQUATOX model has several advantages compared with the other models analyzed. In addition, to illustrate the availability of the proposed comparative guide, a case study was carried out to demonstrating the selection process of the selected models.

Keywords: AQUATOX; CE-QUAL-W2; Comparative guide; SPARROW; SWAT; WASP7.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Ahmad, N., Hafiz, M., Sinclair, A., Jamieson, R., Madani, A., Hebb, D., ... , Yiridoe, E. K. (2011) Modeling sediment and nitrogen export from a rural watershed in Eastern Canada using the soil and water assessment tool. Journal of Environmental Quality, 40(4), 1182-1194. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2010.0530
    1. Akkoyunlu, A., & Karaaslan, Y. (2015). Assessment of improvement scenario for water quality in Mogan Lake by using the AQUATOX Model. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 22(18), 14349–14357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-5027-0 . - DOI
    1. Ambrose, B., Wool, T. A., & Martin, J. L. (2001). The water quality analysis simulation program, WASP6, User Manual. US EPA: Athens.
    1. ANA, Agência Nacional de Águas. (2020). Redes de Monitoramento - Portal da Qualidade das Águas. Available in: http://www3.ana.gov.br .
    1. Arnold, J. G., Srinivasan, R., Muttiah, R. S., & Williams, J. R. (1998). Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment part I: model development 1. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 34(1), 73–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.1998.tb05961.x . - DOI

LinkOut - more resources