You are on page 1of 15

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/261107594

Water quality models: An overview

Article · January 2012

CITATIONS READS

26 1,663

2 authors, including:

George Tsakiris
National Technical University of Athens
155 PUBLICATIONS   2,849 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Dimitris Em. ALEXAKIS on 27 March 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


European Water 37: 33-46, 2012.
© 2012 E.W. Publications

Water quality models: An overview

G.Tsakiris and D.Alexakis


Centre for the Assessment of Natural Hazards and Proactive Planning and Laboratory of Reclamation Works and
Water Resources Management, School of Rural and Surveying Engineering, National Technical University of
Athens, Greece
e-mail: gtsakir@central.ntua.gr; dial@survey.ntua.gr

Abstract: Through the Water Framework Directive (WFD) the European countries started producing integrated river basin
management plans with the basic objective to achieve “good status” of water bodies by 2015. The main aims of these
plans are to identify procedures for combating the deterioration or overexploitation of water resources in the territory
of each member state. In the first phase of this initiative and in particular in the first improved river basin plans
expected within the next 5 years, the water quality models are expected to play an important role, not only for
assessing water quality and detecting trends of water quality parameters, but for identifying the impact on water
quality of the various potential alternative actions included in the programme of measures of each plan. Today several
water quality models exist and have been applied in many regions of the world serving various purposes. It is the aim
of this paper to present in brief the most popular water quality models for rivers and streams which are currently
available. An additional objective of the paper is to assess the capacities of these models for addressing the
requirements of WFD. From the variety of models, the following selected water quality models are briefly presented
and discussed: DRAINMOD, ECM, MIKE-11, MONERIS, SIMCAT, TOMCAT, TOPCAT and QUAL2K. Finally,
the paper identifies the tendency of construction of the new generation water quality models.

Key words: water quality models, water framework directive (WFD), river flow, dynamic flow

1. INTRODUCTION
Water quality is a vast and very complex topic. It is customary to define water quality by several
parameters known as physical, chemical and biological. It is widely accepted that the deterioration
of the quality of surface water, groundwater and coastal water systems is mainly controlled by the
geological structure and the lithology of the watersheds/aquifers, the chemical reactions that take
place within the watershed/aquifer as well as the type of land uses and the anthropogenic activities
(Alexakis 2008, Loukas 2010, Melidis et al. 2007, Naseem et al. 2010, Tsakiris et al. 2009).
Furthermore, the quality of water resources is vulnerable to a wide range of chemical compounds
including organic pollutants (material), salts, nutrients, sediments, heavy metals etc (Gamvroula et
al. 2012, Korfali and Jurdi 2011, Mosley et al. 2012).
It is understood that in the past water quality management was performed empirically by
decision makers, based mainly on political motivation and to a lesser extent on adequate scientific
information and analysis.
The need for more scientifically sound analyses led to the creation of a large number of water
quality models. However most of these models were developed to tackle specific quality problems
encountered in specific environmental and socioeconomic conditions.
Water quality models can be classified according to the:
 Type of approach (physically based, conceptual, empirical)
 Pollutant item (nutrients, sediments, salts etc.)
 Area of application (catchment, groundwater, river system, coastal waters, integrated)
 Nature (Deterministic or Stochastic)
 State analysed (steady state or dynamic simulation)
 Spatial analysis (lumped, distributed)
34 G.Tsakiris & D.Alexakis

 Dimensions (1-D or 2-D models)


 Data requirements (extensive databases, minimum requirements models (MIR))

Based on these thoughts it would be practically impossible to attempt to review the area of water
quality models in a comprehensive way. On the contrary therefore the aim of this paper is to review
representative water quality models which have been used extensively in the past. These models are
also promising tools for fulfilling, probably after further amendments, future requirements for
developing and improving river basin plans according to Water Framework Directive (WFD;
European Commission 2000) and the other European directives related to the subject. In particular
the models reviewed in this paper are process-based varying in sophistication (from basic mass
balance models to complex simulation of hydrodynamics, dispersion and pollutant kinetic models).
The paper focuses more on the “in-river models” and to a lesser extent on models simulating the
entire catchment processes.

2. WFD WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS


A significant paradigm shift is currently realised in Europe in the field of water resources
management through the WFD which is implemented in all member states. The most significant
shift is encountered in the objective of the water resources management plans. This objective is to
achieve good status of water bodies by 2015 by focusing on the risk of water quality deterioration
and overexploitation.
The water quality assessment of the water bodies of various types proved to be a very difficult
procedure. Very significant difficulties were encountered also in the formulation of water resources
management plans at river basin scale due to the lack of data in most river basins. Finally, the task
for detecting trends of the water quality parameters was even more difficult due to the absence of
long term systematic measurements of the involved parameters.
For the development of strategies contributing to the sustainable water resources management,
the European Water Policy and, in particular the WFD introduced the necessity to evaluate new
methodological approaches. The DPSIR (Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response) approach was
established as a possible analytical framework for determining pressures and impacts under the
WFD (Borja et al. 2006, Alexakis et al. 2011, Kagalou et al. 2012).
The river basin management plans are expected to be improved in a second phase which is
expected after about 5 years from now. In the mean time a systematic effort has been undertaken for
establishing monitoring systems which hopefully will give us more systematic information of the
key determinants of water quality. However, even with these new measurements it is impossible to
have the values of the key parameters in a very dense spatial and temporal network. For all the
above, it is easily understood, that water quality models are expected to play a very important role
for acquiring sufficient water quality data and for better understanding of the water quality
processes which take place.
The water quality models are the key tools to test the impact of various actions (“programme of
measures” of WFD) on the quality of water bodies. Moreover, any attempt for effective water
resources management in a river basin could be supported by water quality modelling. Needless to
say, that each type of water body needs the appropriate type of model. In this paper we review some
popular water quality models most of which are directed to study water quality in rivers and
streams. It is widely known that hundreds of scientific papers have been published in the last 5
years on the field of water quality modelling. In fact the papers published during this period which
are related to water quality are far more than the papers published in any other aspect of water
resources.
It is important to note that most of the models reviewed in this paper, pro-existed to the decision
for enforcing the WFD in the European member states. Therefore, the quality requirements of WFD
were not directly addressed by the existing models. The review of the models concentrates
principally on the most common contamination factor which is the nutrients. Other specialised
European Water 37 (2012) 35

models focusing on several pollutants other than nutrients are beyond the scope of this paper.
In the following paragraphs some selected popular water quality models are briefly analysed;
namely, DRAINMOD, ECM, MIKE-11, MONERIS, SIMCAT, TOMCAT, TOPCAT-NP and
QUAL2K. It should be stressed that some of them are not strictly limited to river water quality
modeling but they also simulate water quality in the corresponding watershed (Table 1). They are
selected due to the tendency for more integrated approach towards water quality modelling, which
is also promoted by the Water Framework Directive (WFD).

3. A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE WATER QUALITY MODELS

3.1. DRAINMOD

This software code of DRAINMOD is developed to assist in the simulation of the transport of
water and the transport and transformation of nitrogen in a stream (Skaggs 1981). DRAINMOD
model was first used as a research tool to investigate the performance of sub-irrigation and drainage
systems and their effects on pollutant treatment, crop response and water use (Skaggs et al.1981,
Massey et al.1983, Deal et al.1986). The most recent DRAINMOD PC version is the 6.1 released
on February 2012. DRAINMOD has been extended to predict the movement of nitrogen
(DRAINMOD-N) and salt (DRAINMOD-S) in shallow water table soils.
It should be noted that the effects of frozen conditions on soil water processes as well as snow
and snowmelt are not considered in DRAINMOD. Therefore, application is confined to periods
when the soil is not frozen; while the model is designed for use in humid regions. Moreover, the
DRAINMOD model may be applied for irrigated arid regions where drainage is required and the
water table is shallow (Skaggs 1981).
According to El-Sadek (2007), DRAINMOD model allows calculating at the scale of an
individual field, the daily nitrate leaching for a given crop, farming, soil and geo-hydrological
conditions. The required information for the application of the model include: (a) soil type, (b)
water and nitrogen status of the soil profile at the start of the period to be simulated, (c) land use, (d)
climate, and (e) nitrogen fertilizer practice. Versions of DRAINMOD model have been successfully
applied to assess the nitrate-nitrogen leaching in the catchment basin of the river Dender which is
located in the west of Brussels (El-Sadek 2007). The value of the nitrate load which is based on a
given land management practice and can be obtained from simulations using DRAINMOD-N for a
field of interest. The attenuation rate and the values of nutrient decay may vary with both the
location in the river and the season. Generally lower values during high flows and vice-versa (El-
Sadek 2007).
DRAINMOD-N and DRAINMOD-S models use a modified version of DRAINMOD to
determine average daily soil water contents and water fluxes. The transport of pollutant is
determined by an explicit solution to the advective-dispersive-reactive equation.
DRAINMOD-N is able to predict nitrogen concentrations in the soil profile and in surface and
subsurface drainage by using functional relationships to quantify rainfall deposition runoff, losses,
drainage losses, denitrification, plant uptake, net mineralization and fertilizer dissolution; while
DRAINMOD-S is able to predict salt concentrations of drainage water, soil salinity distribution,
and the effects of salinity on crop yield (Skaggs 1981).

3.2 Export Coefficient Model (ECM)

The ECM approach which was originally developed in 1976 (Omernik 1976) is not a data-
demanding model, it is simple and logical, while the limited data requirements make the approach
useful for catchment management and assessment (Johnes 1996, Burt and Johnes 1997, Johnes and
Butterfield 2002).
36 G.Tsakiris & D.Alexakis

The ECM has been widely used in several countries to predict the total amount of phosphorus
and nitrogen delivered to any given surface water sampling site (Bowes et al. 2008, European
Commission 2003a, European Commission 2003b, European Commission 2003c, Johnes 1996,
Ierodiaconou et al. 2005).
The ECM approach aims to predict the nutrient loading at any surface water sampling site as a
function of the export of nutrients from each contamination source in the catchment above that site
(Johnes 1996). The ECM model relies on data from readily available databases. In order to avoid
the complications of predicting the concentration of individual phosphorous fractions and nitrogen
species introduced by nutrient cycling processes in surface water bodies, the ECM predictions can
be expressed as the mean annual concentrations of T-N and T-P in the surface water body by taking
account of the total annual discharge at the sampling site (Johnes 1996). Many researchers (Johnes
1996, Heathwaite and Johnes 1996) reported that T-N and T-P are more reliable indicators of
changes in nutrient loading since they show markedly less seasonal variation than the
concentrations of NO3-, NO2-, NH4+, dissolved N, particulate organic N, PO43-, soluble P and
insoluble unreactive P. The model was initially adapted for UK conditions by Johnes and
O’Sullivan (1989); while it was further modified by Johnes (1996) in order to take into account the
following nutrient export factors: (a) areas of semi-natural woodland and vegetation; (b) cultivation
of specific crop types including winter and spring cereal crops, oilseed rape, field vegetables and
root vegetables, temporary, permanent and rough grassland; (c) human settlements and
sewage/septic tank systems. This version of the model runs at catchment scale using export
coefficients selected from the literature or within-catchment field experiments to produce a
calibrated model fit to observed nutrient load at the catchment outlet.
The modified model is expressed by the following equation (Johnes 1996):
n
L   Ei Ai ( I i )  p (1)
i 1

in which L is the loss of nutrients, Ei is the export coefficient for nutrient source i, Ai is the area in
the river basin characterised by land use type i, I i is the input of nutrients to source i and p is input
of nutrients from precipitation.

The modelling procedure of the catchment scale ECM can be divided in three phases (Johnes et
al. 1996):
i. First phase: three data collection programmes are conducted.
First data collection programme-questionnaire survey of all farmers and land owners in the
catchment is conducted to establish: (a) land management, (b) land use, (c) livestock
numbers, (d) livestock density, and (e) fertilizer applications to land by land use type.
Second data collection programme-literature survey is conducted to establish: (a) the
nature and nutrient removal efficiency of sewage treatment, (b) input of N and P to the
catchment from atmospheric sources, (c) human population to the catchments.
Third data collection programme–field monitoring programme is conducted to establish:
T-N and T-P surface water contents and annual loads transported in the surface water body.
ii. Second phase: Assessment of the validity of the calibration procedure. If the overall degree
of accuracy for the validation period does not exceed ± 10% of observed nutrient loads
then the model can be accepted as valid. Comparison of model hindcasts with observed
water quality for the period of interest (Johnes 1996).
iii. Third phase: use of the calibrated model in the forecasting step to assess the potential for
improvement of water quality and to evaluate the range of potential management strategies.

The catchment scale ECM has been successfully applied in the catchment of the River
European Water 37 (2012) 37

Windbrush (UK) and the catchment of Slapton Ley (UK) (Johnes 1996, Matias and Johnes 2011).
In order to avoid time-consuming catchment scale model fitting, however, where multiple
catchment applications are required, and to support national scale policy development, a national
ECM has also been developed (see Johnes 1999, Johnes and Butterfield 2002, Johnes 2007, Johnes
et al. 2007). Here export coefficients have been developed for 6 key geoclimatic regions in England
and Wales representing landscape types with quasi-homogenous hydrochemical function. The
coefficient sets for both N and P have been validated through a rigorous multiple catchment scale
application and historical curve fitting to long term water quality records for at least 3 catchments
within each geoclimatic region and a total of 38 catchments across England and Wales, providing
>90 pairs of observed vs predicted data.
The catchment scale ECM uses the field as the spatial modelling unit, providing output on an
annual basis, and has predicted within ± 5% of observed N (and P) loadings for all catchments
modelled at this scale. The national geoclimatic regions framework ECM, which provides estimates
of N and P flux for all watersheds within England and Wales without the need for basin-specific
calibration in all 1400 watersheds, generating output at 1km2 grid scale to national scale and
produces a similarly strong fit (r2 = 0.98 for both N and P for 38 catchments and >90 pairs of data).

3.3. MIKE-11

MIKE-11 is a one dimensional hydrodynamic model that simulates the dynamic water
movements in a river (DHI 1998). The model is well suited to complex systems and has been
applied as a water quality model to rivers in northern India and England (Crabtree et al. 1996,
Kazmi and Hansen 1997). It requires large amounts of data and remains a deterministic model. It
consists of a set of modules including: sediment transport, water quality, advection-dispersion,
rainfall-runoff and eutrophication. It can be used both as a water quality model to assess the impact
of intermittent discharges on rivers and as a hydraulic model by flood defense analysts and
designers.
The hydrodynamic module, which is the core of the MIKE-11 model, simulates dynamic flows
in rivers. This module assumes that the flow conditions are homogeneous within the channel.
According to DHI (1998), it solves the one dimension shallow water equations (SWE-Saint Venant
equations; Eq.2 and 3):

Ax Q
 q (2)
t x

 aQ 2 
  
Q y  A 
 gA( S0  S f )  gA  (3)
t x x

in which Q is the discharge, t is the time, α is the momentum coefficient, A is the wetted area (or
reach volume per unit length, y is the depth, x is the distance downstream, g is the acceleration due
to gravity, q is the lateral inflow, S0 is the bed slope and Sf is the friction slope.
The advection-dispersion module is suitable for the simulation of first order decays of pollutants.
The water quality module provides advanced simulation at one of six different levels of complexity
that can be summarised as follows:
(a) First Level: first order decay of Dissolved Oxygen and BOD plus temperature effects and
reaeration,
(b) Second Level: as the First Level plus the exchange reactions between BOD and the
sediments,
38 G.Tsakiris & D.Alexakis

(c) Third Level: as the Second Level plus nitrate and ammonium balances without
denitrification,
(d) Fourth Level: as the Third Level plus denitrification,
(e) Fifth Level: as the Forth Level plus an oxygen demand due to the BOD that settles, but
without the nitrogen components of nitrate and ammonium, and (f) Sixth Level: as the
Fifth Level plus nitrate and ammonium.

The processes of coliforms and phosphorous may also be added to any of the six levels. The
water quality module can be run with or without sediment processes. It includes heavy metals, iron
oxidation, eutrophication and nutrient transport. The advection-dispersion, hydrodynamic and water
quality parameters are entered into the system by using a series of editors in the interface.
Abstractions, discharges, and tributaries are referred to as boundary conditions and are linked to a
time-series of quality and flow entered in an interface editor.
A water quality file includes the water quality parameters and the default values. The list of
coefficient and water quality parameters include among others: degradation of BOD, influence of
Dissolved Oxygen concentration on the BOD decay, settling velocity of BOD, resuspension of
BOD from the bed, oxygen demand by nitrification per unit mass of ammonium converted to
nitrate, rate of ammonium release, nitrification rate constant, concentration dependence of
nitrification and emitted heat radiation from the river.
Before the simulation of water quality and solute transport processes the MIKE-11 model
complete the flow simulation. After the successful completion of the flow simulation, the model can
be run for water quality using existing hydrodynamic results. The calculations of the mass balance
for the water quality indicators are performed at all time steps for all reaches, using the advection-
dispersion module.
The MIKE-11 output includes time series of depth, flow and pollutant concentration for in any
reach, as well as statistical options to describe the results.

3.4. MONERIS

The Moneris (MOdelling Nutrient Emissions in RIver Systems) model builds over eight sub-
models that simulate the main processes of generation and transport of suspended solids and
nutrients to the river network (Behrendt et al. 2007, Palmeri et al. 2005). Since many countries are
moving forward a watershed-based approach as proposed by the WFD, the MONERIS model is
configured to support environmental studies in a watershed context (Venohr et al.2009). MONERIS
is a GIS-oriented model which is based on the empirical approach to describe complex relationships
in a simple way. It is a conceptual model for the quantification of nutrient emissions from point and
non-point sources in river catchments larger than 50 km2 (Behrendt et al. 2000).
The model includes a scenario manager in order to calculate the effects of measures on the
emissions of nutrients for different spatial units and pathways. The main processes and pathways in
MONERIS model are presented in Figure 1: (a) groundwater, (b) erosion, (c) overland flow
(dissolved nutrients), (d) tile drainages, (e) atmospheric deposition on water surface areas, (f) urban
areas, and (g) point sources (e.g. waste water treatment plants).

3.5. SIMCAT

SIMCAT (SIMulation of CATchments) is a one dimensional, deterministic, steady state (i.e.


time invariant) model that represents the fate and transport of solutes in the river and the inputs
from point-source effluent discharges on the basis of the following types of behaviour: (a)
Dissolved Oxygen is represented by a relationship involving temperature, reaeration and BOD
European Water 37 (2012) 39

decay, (b) non-conservative substances which decay (i.e. nitrate and BOD), and (c) conservative
substances which are assumed not to decay.

Figure 1. Processes and pathways in MONERIS model. Source: Behrendt et al. (2007)

It is a stochastic model that makes use of Monte Carlo analysis techniques. The model was
developed to assist in the process of planning the measures needed to improve water quality in the
United Kingdom (Warn 2010).
The application of the SIMCAT model requires the splitting of the river system into user defined
reaches, which are generally identified as the distance between points of interest or tributaries
junctions.
Up to 600 reaches can be modeled and up to 1400 “features” such as discharges and abstractions
can be included. For each run, the model randomly selects values for quality and flow from the
given distributions for all of the inputs.
The outputs of the SIMCAT are summary statistics (90th or 95th percentile and means) for each
reach and each pollutant.
The model has been used successfully used in the United Kingdom and is a satisfactory water
quality management tool, even though it does not rely on sediment interactions. Another limitation
of this model is that it cannot represent temporal variability and is not particularly suitable for
complex scenarios. Nonetheless, SIMCAT is a simple versatile model which can be used for
reconnaissance analysis of water quality in a river system.

3.6. TOMCAT

The TOMCAT model (Temporal/Overall Model for CATchments) makes use of Monte Carlo
analysis and was developed to assist in the process of reviewing effluent quality standards at
40 G.Tsakiris & D.Alexakis

sampling sites, in order to meet the objectives of surface water quality preservation (Bowden and
Brown 1984).
The model allows for more complex temporal correlations taking into account the seasonal and
diurnal effects in the flow data and the recorded water quality and then reproduces these effects in
the simulated data. A number of contamination events that are specified at the rivers, monitoring
sites, abstractions and effluent discharges define the river system in TOMCAT.
These events are associated with the following processes (Cox 2003): (a) mass balance and flow
mixing, (b) input, and (c) internal transformations and additions to flow from groundwater and
runoff.
Regarding the processes, the flow model in TOMCAT uses the same load additions and simple
flow used by SIMCAT. The types of input data which are required to run the model include: (a)
fixed values, generally physical parameters that define the reaction rates and (b) quality data and the
flow that are used by the model as input to the process equations.
The TOMCAT structure is defined by: (a) “seasons” to be included in the model, (b) model runs
to be carried out, (c) sub-catchments to be simulated, and (d) mean monthly air temperatures.
According to Cox (2003), a number of reach parameters are supplied for each user-defined reach
including: (a) concentration and decay rate of both BOD and NH4+, (b) oxygen exchange rate , (c)
scale factor for runoff, (d) thermal equilibrium rate constant, (e) catchment number for estimating
the diffuse catchment run-off, (f) scale factor for run-off, (g) reach length and depth, and (h) mean
cross sectional area.
For the model calibration, the observed data are also usually included; while the values are
randomly selected by the model from the flow and quality statistical distributions.
The model is able to simulate the action of storm water overflows. TOMCAT calculates the
quality and flow in each reach by solving the process equations. The recorded data from monitoring
stations are compared with simulated flows in the river. Moreover, the simulated flows are
automatically calibrated against the recorded data.
This model can easily be applied for simulating the current conditions of flow and water quality
in the river (e.g. the TOMCAT can be used to predict what changes to the discharge would be
required in order to comply with the legislative criteria in the river). This model is designed to be
easy to set up; while the produced output will be suitable for comparison with the values included in
the corresponding legislation.

3.7. TOPCAT-NP

TOPCAT model uses subsurface flow equations and identical soil moisture stores, while it is a
minimum information requirement (MIR) version of TOPMODEL (Quinn and Beven 1993). A
nitrate model (N-MIR) and phosphorous model (P-MIR) constitute TOPCAT-NP model which is
able to predict hourly or daily nitrate and phosphorous losses (Quinn et al.1999). This model is
applicable at a research scale within instrumented sites (1-10 km2) and more generally at the wider
catchment scale (100-1500 km2).
The TOPCAT-NP model always tries to retain some physical meaning for the parameters used.
TOPCAT and TOPMODEL use the same subsurface flow equations and soil moisture stores but do
not use a topographic distribution function (Beven et al. 1995, Quinn et al. 2008). This model
contains two overland flow components that are caused by extensive agricultural management
practices and an extra baseflow weather flow component. It uses a simple moisture root-zone store
to receive inputs of potential evapotranspiration and recorded rainfall (Quinn et al.2008). The
moisture content of the root zone store can range from SRMIN to SRMAX (Fig.2).
Another important parameter of the TOPCAT model is hydrologically effective rainfall (HER)
representing the excess rainfall which is allowed to percolate deeper into the soil. According to
Quinn et al. (2008), typically the value of observed root zone depth is more than the value of
SRMAX; while SRMAX is an effective “antecedent drying” parameter that triggers the release of
HER.
European Water 37 (2012) 41

The moisture stores that are used in the TOPCAT model are (Quinn et al. 2008):
(a) the unsaturated zone root zone store
(b) the saturated “event” subsurface store
(c) the old subsurface store (or the background flow store)

Finally, a fraction of water of hydrologically effective rainfall (HER) could bypass the event
subsurface store and enter the old subsurface store (Figure 2). The proportion of the HER that enters
the event subsurface store is controlled by the parameter SPLIT. SBAR describes the current
moisture status in the event subsurface store.

Evaporation Rainfall Surface runoff

(Quick and QuickCSA)

SRMIN
Root zone store

SRMAX

HER * Split

SBAR Event subsurface


Event subsurface flow (Qb)
store
Channel
Background flow
Old subsurface store flow (Qback)

Figure 2. Diagram presenting the parameters and flow components used in the TOPCAT model
[Quick: is fraction of rainfall in one time step that converts directly into quick surface runoff (0.05<Quick<0.3), Quick
CSA: is Critical source-area quick flow, Qb : is event subsurface flow, Qback: background flowrate]
(redrawn from Quinn et al. 2008)

The following equation expresses the rate at which moisture is lost from the store per unit time
(Quinn et al. 2008):

Qb (t )  exp  exp SBAR ( t ) / m (4)

in which: Qb is event subsurface flow;  is the mean of the soils/topographic index and is
calculated according to the expression     ln(T0 ) ; λ is the mean of the TOPMODEL
dimensionless topographic index; T0 is the average transmissivity of the subsurface event store
when the soil is just saturated; m is the recession rate parameter
The total amount of water in the subsurface store within each time step is determined by
calculating the vertical flow entering the subsurface store (HER*SPLIT) and the amount leaving,
Qb :

SBAR(t) = SBAR(t-1)-(HER*SPLIT)+Qb(t) (5)

where SBAR(t-1) and SBAR(t) are the catchment storage deficits at the previous and current time
steps, respectively.
The original paper published by Quinn et al. (2008) presents a series of equations for the
calculation of the concentration of T-N and T-P concentration in a stream. The TOPCAT-NP has
42 G.Tsakiris & D.Alexakis

been applied to Gjen catchment-Denmark, the Swan-canning Estuary-Australia and Bollington


Hall-UK (Quinn 2004, Quinn et al.2008).

3.8. QUAL2K

QUAL2K is a one dimensional, steady-state model of water quality and in-stream flow. It is
neither stochastic nor dynamic simulation model. The QUAL2K model can simulate up to 16 water
quality determinants along a river and its tributaries (Brown and Barnwell 1987). The river reach is
divided into a number of subreaches of equal length. The model uses the following assumptions: (a)
the advective transport is based on the mean flow, (b) the water quality indicators completely are
completely mixed over the cross-section and (c) the dispersive transport is correlated with the
concentration gradient.
The model allows the user to simulate any combination of the following determinants: (a)
Dissolved Oxygen, (b) Temperature, (c) Phosphorous, (d) Nitrate, Nitrite, Ammonium and Organic
Nitrogen, (e) Chlorophyll-a, (f) up to three conservative solutes, (g) one non-conservative
constituent solute, and (h) coliform bacteria.
Furthermore, Nitrate, Phosphate and Dissolved Oxygen are represented in more detail; while
most determinants are simulated as first order decay. The QUAL2K model is suitable for modelling
pollutants in freshwater that rely on sediment interactions, especially as a sink of inorganic and
organic substances. The initial step of the standard QUAL2K model is to divide the river system
into reaches (up to 50) and each of these is then divided into computational elements (up to 20 per
reach) of equal length.
The data requirements of the model in terms of flow and water quality data include single values
of each determinant being modeled. The main feature of this model is the river reach. The data
required for each river reach include: (a) flow data and hydraulic terms, (b) initial conditions, (c)
reaction rate coefficients, (d) local climatological data for heat balance computations, and (e) rate
parameters for all of the biological and chemical reactions.
The output of the model includes solutions to the pollutant mass balance and the flow for each
reach. The main advantage of QUAL2K is the capability of simulation of algae (Chlorophyll-a), an
extensive documentation of its code and theoretical background. QUALK2K is available for free
download from its website. The model requires a small amount of data to represent the sediments
and only partial hydraulic terms.

4. DISCUSSION
Since many organisations have developed water quality models for particular purposes, the
comparison between them is not fair. Moreover, many models which were developed without
financial resources are not sufficiently user’s friendly because the appropriate interface is an
expensive part of the software code. As a result these water quality models are not widely used or
usually require a significance cost of purchase.
A brief description of the special characteristics of each model presented in section 3 is included
in Table 1. All the selected water quality models, except TOMCAT and TOPCAT-NP, are running
in the latest versions of “Windows” operating system. The last column of this table includes website
hyperlinks which assist the reader to easily access and download the executable files and/or the
user’s manual. As mentioned earlier all these models pre-existed to the implementation phase of
WFD; therefore they are not expected to fulfill all the requirements of WFD. However some of
them are currently used or modified for this purpose.
European Water 37 (2012) 43

Table 1. A list of the selected water quality models with their special characteristics
Release
Dimensions
Pollutant Operating date of the File download
Model and State of Comments Open Organization
type system latest information
Hydraulics
version
Prediction on a
Soil & Water
continuous basis of
Management www.bae.ncsu
Total N, water table depth, Windows
DRAINMOD − Yes Feb 2012 Group, North .edu
salt drainage rates, XP/Vista/7
Carolina State
surface runoff and
University
ET
Data collection by
questionnaire
survey and
ECM-
extracted from
catchment
national
environmental
databases
Total N, Data extracted University of −
− from national MS Excel No −
Total P Reading
environmental
databases and
ECM-
coefficients
geoclimatic
selected from
regions
regional database,
based on
geoclimatic region
typology
DO, http://www.dh
BOD, isoftware.com
Windows
1D, NO3-, Full Danish Hydraulic /Download/M
MIKE-11 2000/XP/V No Feb 2011
unsteady NH4+, hydrodynamic Institute IKEByDHI20
ista/7
coliforms, 11.aspx
P (demo mode)
Total N, http://moneris
Semi-empirical,
Total P, .igb-
conceptual model. Leibniz Institute
heavy berlin.de/tl_fil
Based on data for Windows for Freshwater
metals Nov es/downloads/
MONERIS Semi-static run-off water 2000/XP/ No Ecology and
and some 2009 Handbuch_en
quality for the Vista Inland Fisheries
priority glisch.pdf
study area along (IGB)
substance (user’s
with a GIS
s manual only)
www.environ
1D- Steady DO, Stochastic, ment-
state BOD, deterministic, Nov Environment agency.gov.uk
SIMCAT Windows −
(time NO3-, Cl-, Monte Carlo 2010 Agency /
+
invariant) NH4 , analysis techniques (user’s
manual only)
1D- Steady
DO,
state Monte Carlo Environment
TOMCAT NH4+, − − − −
(time analysis techniques Agency
BOD
invariant)
It uses identical http://research
1D Total N, soil moisture stores Newcastle .ncl.ac.uk/iq/T
TOPCAT-NP − Yes −
Total P and subsurface University OPCAT/TOP
flow equations CAT.html
Total N,
Total P,
Windows
DO, BOD, http://epa.gov/
1 D- ME/2000/
sediment U.S. Environment athens/wwqts
QUAL2K Steady state not stochastic, XP
oxygen Yes Jan 2009 Protection c/html/qual2k.
(Q2K) (time not dynamic MS Office
demand, Agency html
invariant) 2000 or
algae, pH,
higher
periphyton,
pathogen
44 G.Tsakiris & D.Alexakis

Obviously the selection of the model is critical step towards the understanding of the processes
which take place in a water body. In a simplified approach adopted in the guidance documents of
the Common Implementation Strategy for the WFD (e.g. Guidance document no.3), the “model” is
used as a synonym for “understanding”.
It is expected that the simpler the model the more gross the understanding. Therefore basic
models could be used for the initial characterisation of a surface water body. As more reliable data
are available, a more refined and improved model could be used. Needless to say, that during the
selection of the model the key issue is the availability of data for the key parameters in time and
space. However we should bear in mind that more complicated models do not necessarily result in
more accurate understanding of the processes, we wish to describe. A wise approach towards this
decision is to start with a basic model and gradually move to more detailed and comprehensive
model.
In the years to come, several new models will be devised for assisting EU member states to
implement WFD effectively. The basic knowledge for establishing a water quality model for a river
or stream is presented in several books, the most recently published of which is the “Water Quality
Modelling for Rivers and Streams” edited by Benedini and Tsakiris (2012).
Finally it should be stressed that the tendency in water quality modelling is in the integrated
watershed modelling. In this type of models the water quality simulation processes are included as a
module of the entire model which includes modules simulating other water related processes most
of which interacting with the water quality issues.
Advanced geoinformatic techniques and tools are envisaged to enhance the capability of models
of the new generation by a more effective realisation of these processes in space and time.

5. CONCLUSIONS
The paper described in brief some popular water quality models with emphasis on models for
rivers and streams. The main characteristics of the models were presented and discussed.
It is concluded that the existing models are not fully appropriate for fulfilling all the
requirements raised by the WFD. A new generation of water quality models is expected to be
devised in the coming years, mainly tailored to the fulfillment of the WFD requirements.
The tendency seems to be for devising integrated watershed models in which the water quality
component is a module in the entire watershed model. The new models are expected to use the
existing high capacity of computing facilities and the advanced tools for mapping and retrieving
spatial and temporal data. They are also expected to account for the cross interactions of the various
processes affecting the water quality.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank Prof. P.Johnes for her comments regarding the section of the
text on the ECM model.

REFERENCES
Alexakis, D. (2008) Geochemistry of stream sediments as a tool for assessing contamination by Arsenic, Chromium and other toxic
elements: East Attica region, Greece. European Water, 21/22:57-72
Alexakis, D., Kagalou, I., Tsakiris, G. (2011) The application of DPSIR (Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response) approach on
surface water bodies. Volume of Proceedings. VI EWRA International Symposium, Catania-Italy (June 29 - July 2, 2011)
Behrendt, H., Huber, P., Kornmilch, M., Opitz, D., Schmoll, O., Scholz, G., Uebe, R. (2000) Nutrient emissions into river basins of
Germany. UBA-FB, 99-087/e.
Benedini M. and Tsakiris G.(2012) Water Quality Modelling for Rivers and Streams. Springer (in press)
European Water 37 (2012) 45

Behrendt, H., Venohr, M., Hirt, U., Hofmann, J., Opitz, D., Gericke, A. (2007) The model system MONERIS Version 2.0 User’s
Manual. Leibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries in the Forschungsverbund Berlin e.V., Müggelseedamm
310, D-12587 Berlin, Germany (Available at: www.icpdr.org)
Beven, K., Lamb, R., Quinn, P., Romanowicz, R., Freer, J. (1995) TOPMODEL. In Computer Models of Watershed Hydrology,
Singh VP (ed.). Water Resources Publications: Highlands Ranch, CO; 627–668.
Borja, A., Galparosa, I., Solaun, O., Muxica, I., Tello, E.M., Uriarte, A., Valencia, V. (2006) The European Water Directive and the
DPSIR: a methodological approach to assess the risk of failing to achieve good ecological states. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf
Sciences, 66:84-96
Bowden, K., Brown, S.R. (1984) Relating effluent control parameters to river quality objectives using a generalised catchment
simulation model. Water Sci Technol. 16:197 –205
Bowes, M.J., Smith, J.T., Jarvie, H.P., Neal, C. (2008) Modelling of phosphorus inputs to rivers from diffuse and point sources. Sci
Total Environ 395:125-138
Brown, LC, Barnwell, TO (1987) The enhanced stream water quality models QUAL2E and QUAL2E-UNCAS: documentation and
user manual. Athens, Georgia: US EPA; EPAy 600y3-87y007
Burt, T. P. and Johnes, P. J. (1997) Managing water quality in agricultural catchments. Transactions of the Institute of British
Geographers 22, 1, 61-69
Cox, B.A. (2003) A review of currently available in-stream water quality models and their applicability for simulating dissolved
oxygen in lowland rivers. The Science of the Total Environment 314-316:335-377
Crabtree, B., Earp, W., Whalley, P. (1996) A demonstration of the benefits of integrated wastewater planning for controlling transient
pollution. Water Sci Technol.33(2):209 –218
Deal, S. C., Gilliam, J.W., Skaggs, R.W., Konyha, K. D. (1986) Prediction of nitrogen and phosphorus losses as related to
agricultural drainage system design. Agri. Ecosystems and Environment,18:37-51.
DHI (1998) MIKE 11: a microcomputer based modeling system for rivers and channels. Reference manual of the Danish Hydraulic
Institute, Hoersholm, Denmark
El-Sadek, A. (2007) Upscaling field scale hydrology and water quality modelling to catchment scale. Water Resour Manage. 21:149-
169
European Commission (2000) Council Directive 2000/60/EC. Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a
framework for the Community action in the field of water policy. The European Parliament and the Council of the European
Union. Official Journal L 327, 22/12/2000
European Commission (2003a) Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive. Guidance Document No. 2,
Identification of Water Bodies. The Directorate General Environment of the European Commission, Brussels
European Commission (2003b) Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive. Guidance Document No. 3,
Analysis of Pressures and Impacts. The Directorate General Environment of the European Commission, Brussels
European Commission (2003c) Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive. Guidance Document No. 7,
Monitoring under the Water Framework Directive. The Directorate General Environment of the European Commission, Brussels
Gamvroula, D., Alexakis, D., Stamatis, G. (2012) Diagnosis of groundwater quality and assessment of contamination sources in the
Megara basin (Attica, Greece). Arab J Geosci. DOI 10.1007/s12517-012-0533-6
Heathwaite, A.L., Johnes, P.J. (1996) The contribution of nitrogen species and phosphorus fractions to stream water quality in
agricultural catchments. Hydrol. Processes, 10:971-983
Johnes. P.J. (1996) Evaluation and management of the impact of land use on the nitrogen and phosphorus load delivered to surface
waters: the export coefficient modelling approach. J Hydrol 183:323-349
Johnes, P. J. (1999) Understanding lake and catchment history as a tool for integrated lake management, Hydrobiologia 395, 41-60
Johnes, P. J. (2007) Meeting ecological restoration targets in European Waters: a challenge for animal agriculture. Chapter 11, pages
185-203 in Redesigning Animal Agriculture: The Challenge for the 21st Century, CABI, Wallingford.
Johnes, P.J., Butterfield, D. (2002) Landscape, regional and global estimates of nitrogen flux from land to sea: errors and
uncertainties. Biogeochem 57/58:429-476
Johnes, P. J., Foy, R., Butterfield, D. and Haygarth, P. M. (2007) Land use for Good Ecological Status: an evaluation of scenarios for
water bodies in England and Wales. Soil Use and Management, 23:176 - 194
Johnes, P.J., O’Sullivan, P.E. (1989) Nitrogen and phosphorus losses from the catchment of Slapton Ley, Devon-an export
coefficient approach. Field Stud., 7: 285-309.
Ierodiaconou, D., Laurenson, L., Leblanc, M. et al. (2005) The consequences of land use change on nutrient exports: a regional scale
assessment in south-west Victoria, Australia. J Environ Manag 74:305-316
Kagalou, I., Leonardos, I., Anastasiadou, C., Neofytou, C. (2012) The DPSIR approach for an integrated river management
framework. A preliminary application on a Mediterranean site (Kalamas River-NW Greece). Water Res Manage 26:1677-1692
Kazmi, A.A., Hansen, I.S. (1997) Numerical models in water quality management: a case study for the Yamuna river (India).Water
Sci Technol., 36(5):193 –200
Korfali, S.I., Jurdi, M. (2011) Suitability of surface water for domestic water use: Awali river case study. European Water.35:3-12
Loukas, A. (2010) Surface water quantity and quality assessment in Pinios River, Thessaly, Greece. Desalination. 250:266-273
Massey, F. C., R. W. Skaggs, Sneed R. E. (1983) Energy and water requirements for subirrigation vs. sprinkler irrigation.
Transactions of the ASAE. 26(1):126-133.
Matias, N.G., Johnes P.J. (2011) Catchment Phosphorous Losses: An Export Coefficient Modelling Approach with Scenario
Analysis for Water Management. Water Resour Manage. DOI 10.1007/s11269-011-9946-3
Melidis, P., Akratos, C.S., Tsihrintzis, V.A., Trikilidou E.(2007) Characterization of rain and roof drainage water quality in Xanthi,
Greece. Environ Monit Assess, 127: 15-27
Mosley, L., Zammit, B.,Leyden E., Heneker T., Hipsey, M., Skinner, D., Aldridge, K. (2012) The Impact of Extreme Low Flows on
the Water Quality of the Lower Murray River and Lakes (South Australia) Water Resour Manage 26:3923–3946
46 G.Tsakiris & D.Alexakis

Naseem, S., Hamza, S., Bashir, E. (2010) Groundwater geochemistry of Winder agricultural farms Balochistan, Pakistan and
assessment for irrigation water quality. European Water, 31:21-32
Omernik, J.M. (1976) The Influence of Land Use on Stream Nutrient Levels. USEPA Ecological Research Series, EPA-60013-76-
014. US Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR.
Palmeri L., Bendroricchio G., Artioli Y. (2005) Modelling nutrient emissions from river systems and loads to the coastal zone: Po
River case study, Italy. Ecological Modelling 184:37-53.
Skaggs R.W.(1981) DRAINMOD Reference Report. Methods for design and evaluation of drainage-water management systems for
soils with high water tables. USDA- SCS 329 pp.
Skaggs, R. W., N. R. Fausey and B. H. Nolte (1981) Water management evaluation for North Central Ohio. Transactions of the
ASAE. 24(4)922-928.
Tsakiris G., Spiliotis M., Paritsis S., Alexakis D. (2009) Assessing the water potential of karstic saline springs by applying a fuzzy
approach: The case of Almyros (Heraklion, Crete). Desalination, 237:54-64
Quinn, P.F., Beven K.J. (1993) Spatial and temporal predictions of soil moisture dynamics, runoff, variable source areas and
evapotranspiration for Plynlimon, mid-Wales, Hydrol. Process., 7, 425-448.
Quinn, P.F, Anthony, S., Lord, E. (1999) Basin scale nitrate modelling using a minimum information requirement approach. In Water
Quality: Processes and Policy, Trudgill S. Walling D, Webb B (eds). Wiley: Chichester; 101–117.
Quinn, P. (2004) Scale appropriate modelling: representing cause and effect relationships in nitrate pollution at the catchment scale
for the purpose of catchment scale planning. Journal of Hydrology 291: 197–217.
Quinn, P.F., Hewett, C.J.M., Dayawansa, N.D.K. (2008) TOPCAT-NP: a minimum information requirement model for simulation of
flow and nutrient transport from agricultural systems. Hydrol. Process 22, 2565–2580
Venohr, M., Hirt, U., Hofmann, J., Opitz, D., Gericke, A., Wetzig, A., Ortelbach, K., Natho, S., Neumann, F., Hurdler, J. (2009) The
model system MONERIS Version 2.14.1vba Manual. Leibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries in the
Forschungsverbund Berlin e.V., Müggelseedamm 310, D-12587 Berlin, Germany (Available at: www.icpdr.org)
Warn, T. (2010) SIMCAT 11.5 A Guide and Reference for Users. Environment Agency (Available at: www.environment-
agency.gov.uk/ static/ documents/.../ 111_07_SD06.pdf )

View publication stats