Stephens 1

Analyzing the Relationships Between Turbidity, Chlorophyll, and Dissolved Oxygen Levels
Abby Stephens
Abstract
Water quality is an overall term used to detail the biological, chemical, and physical
properties within a body of water. As the parameters that relate to water quality are
quantified, they can provide insight into the health, safety, and overall state of a particular
body of water. Three parameters that can be used to quantify water quality are turbidity
(NTU), chlorophyll levels (RFU), and dissolved oxygen (mg/L). On Tuesday, September 14,
2021, the Advanced Oceanographic Research students visited two testing sites in
Waretown, NJ to collect water quality data including turbidity levels, chlorophyll levels,
and dissolved oxygen levels. Two t-tests were utilized to determine if there is a significant
difference between surface dissolved oxygen levels at both study sites, and depth dissolved
oxygen levels at both study sites. Moreover, eight linear regression tests were performed to
determine if there is a significant correlation between turbidity and dissolved oxygen levels
at both sites, in addition to chlorophyll concentration and dissolved oxygen levels at both
sites. There was no significant difference found between surface dissolved oxygen levels at
both sites; nor was there a significant difference discovered between depth dissolved oxygen
levels at both sites. There were no significant correlations between most parameters;
however, statistical correlations were found between depth turbidity and depth dissolved
oxygen levels at study site #2, as well as surface chlorophyll concentrations and surface
dissolved oxygen levels at study site #2. Overall, this study shows that water quality
parameters in a shallow body of water can be variable.

Introduction
The water quality of a body of water encompasses biological, chemical, and physical
aspects of the water that allow for the identification of possible health and safety concerns
(“Water Quality Information by Topic,” 2020). As water quality in a particular body of water
decreases, the less viable that water becomes to be used by humans and to support life. In order
to quantify water quality, many factors can be tested and analyzed to do so. These water quality
indicators include: conductivity, turbidity, pH, water temperature, chlorophyll, dissolved oxygen,
salinity, and total dissolved solids (“Water Quality,” 2021). As these parameters change over
time, they can indicate poor water quality which can lead to detrimental conditions surrounding
the environment. Evidently, all of the aforementioned factors within a body of water can have an
effect on the overall health of a body of water; however, these water quality indicators can also
have an effect on one another. For instance, if one factor increases in prevalence within a body of
water, it may result in a decrease or increase in a different factor. These relationships between
water quality indicators emphasize how biological, chemical, and physical factors within a body
of water relate to one another and can essentially affect the quality of the water as well. Overall,
 Stephens 2

it is important to regularly monitor these water quality indicators and their relationships to ensure
that water stays safe and healthy.

As mentioned above, turbidity is one of the main factors used to help assess water
quality. Turbidity is the general quantification of how clear water is (“Turbidity and Water,”
2020). Moreover, the murkier a body of water is, the higher its turbidity levels. If a body of water
exceeds a turbidity level of 5 NTUs, the water is considered highly turbid and can be considered
unsafe (“Turbidity Education and Notification Campaign,” 2006). Material within a body of
water such as silt, organic and inorganic matter, clay, and even microscopic organisms can all
lead to an increase in scattered light intensity, which in turn, can cause an increase in turbidity in
the water (“Turbidity and Water,” 2020). If this becomes the case and a body of water becomes
too turbid, it can have numerous harmful effects in the water. Turbid water can lead to an
increase in cost to purify the water for drinking matters, a decrease in food for aquatic organisms,
an impairment of fish gills, and a deprecation of spawning beds for aquatic organisms.
(“Turbidity: Description, Impact on Water Quality, Sources, Measures,” 2008). If turbidity levels
are not managed and controlled, any particular body of water can become very unsafe and
detrimental to aquatic life very quickly. Turbidity levels should be monitored frequently in order
to maintain healthy and safe water quality.

Chlorophyll, another water quality indicator, is the indirect quantification of nutrient

levels that occur based on the type of phytoplankton producing the chlorophylls (Higgins, 2014).
Essentially, the higher the concentration of chlorophyll in a body of water, the higher the chance
of the growth of algae that can be possibly harmful. The following can lead to an increase in
chlorophyll levels in a body of water: an increase of nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen in
the water, chemicals from fertilizers entering the water, and urban runoff passing into the water
(“Indicators: Chlorophyll a,” 2021). If chlorophyll levels in a body of water begin to increase
and reach a high level, the water becomes susceptible to algal blooms (“The Importance of
Chlorophyll as a Water Quality Parameter,” 2020). Algal blooms can be harmful to aquatic
ecosystems. For example, algal blooms can be toxic to organisms that live in or around a body of
water that contains a bloom, leading to illness and possible death for many of these organisms
(“What is a Harmful Algal Bloom?”, 2016). Ideally, a body of water would contain a normal
 Stephens 3

amount of chlorophyll in order to sustain and maintain aquatic life. However, excess nutrients
can create eutrophic conditions that can form a body of water that is less viable for organisms to
live in. Therefore, chlorophyll is a valuable water quality parameter that can give insight into the
overall health of a body of water.

In addition to the previously mentioned water quality parameters, dissolved oxygen levels
also help in assessing water quality. Dissolved oxygen levels simply indicate the amount of
gaseous oxygen found within a body of water that can then be used by the organisms in the water
(“Indicators: Dissolved Oxygen,” 2021). If dissolved oxygen levels are either too low or too high
in a body of water, it can become harmful for the environment. Therefore, dissolved oxygen
levels should be fairly moderate, around 6.5 mg/L to 8.0 mg/L, in order to nurture an ideal,
healthy body of water (“Dissolved Oxygen (DO),” 2020). It can be especially harmful for an
aquatic environment when dissolved oxygen levels fall below 5 mg/L. For instance, if there is a
body of water that contains bacteria using a lot of oxygen as organic matter decreases, the body
of water can go into what is called a eutrophic state (“Dissolved Oxygen and Water,” 2020). In
order for an aquatic system to survive, dissolved oxygen levels must stay balanced and consistent
so harmful conditions can be avoided. Due to its particular importance within any particular
body of water, dissolved oxygen is a pertinent water quality indicator that should be monitored
consistently.

On Tuesday, September 14, 2021, numerous water quality parameters were measured at
the Waretown Creek to ascertain if there was a difference between surface and bottom
conditions, and to determine relationships between the data collected. Moreover, it is
hypothesized that there will be a significant correlation between the following: turbidity and
surface dissolved oxygen levels (both sites), turbidity and depth dissolved oxygen levels (both
sites), chlorophyll concentration and surface dissolved oxygen levels (both sites), and
chlorophyll concentration and depth dissolved oxygen levels (both sites). The aforementioned is
hypothesized because it is believed that these factors have inverse relationships: as turbidity
increases, dissolved oxygen levels decrease, and as chlorophyll concentration increases,
dissolved oxygen levels decrease, and vice versa.
 Stephens 4

Methodology
Study Site
On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 students in the MATES Advanced Oceanographic
Research class visited two locations in Waretown, NJ to collect water samples and data related to
water quality parameters. The first study site visited was Spencer’s Bayside Marina, in
Waretown, NJ. The second study site visited was a segment of the Waretown Creek, also in
Waretown, NJ (Figures 1-4).

Figure 1: A map displaying study site #1,

Spencer’s Bayside Marina, visited on September
14, 2021.
 Stephens 5

Figure 2: A map displaying the Waretown Creek,

study site #2 visited on September 12, 2021, denoted
by the blue line going horizontally through the map.

Procedure
While in the field, dissolved oxygen levels (mg/L) were measured using the LaMotte
dissolved oxygen test kit utilizing the Winkler Titration Method in the field. Both surface and
depth dissolved oxygen levels were measured using this method. Additionally, both turbidity,
measured in nephelometric turbidity units (NTUs), and chlorophyll concentrations, measured in
relative fluorescence units (RFUs), were obtained using an Aquafluor handheld meter. All other
water quality parameters were tested using a YSI 556 multimeter.

Statistical Analysis
In order to analyze the data collected, two statistical analyses were utilized. Two t-tests
assuming unequal variances, or heteroscedastic t-tests, were used to determine if a significant
difference was present between the surface dissolved oxygen levels at each study site and the
depth dissolved oxygen levels at each study site. Additionally, eight linear regression tests were
 Stephens 6

performed to examine if there was a correlation between the following parameters: turbidity and
surface dissolved oxygen levels (from both sites), turbidity and depth dissolved oxygen levels
(from both sites), chlorophyll concentration and surface dissolved oxygen levels (from both
sites), and chlorophyll concentration and depth dissolved oxygen levels (from both sites).
Additionally, the R2 value produced in each linear regression test portrays at what percent the
data analyzed in the test matches the data that would lead to an ideal correlation in each
particular test. The higher the percentage found from the R2 value, the better the analyzed data
fits the ideal data. An alpha value of 0.05 and a confidence level of 95% was used to determine
significance in all of the tests.

Results
Two t-tests with unequal variances were performed in order to determine if there is a
significant difference between the surface dissolved oxygen levels at both sites, and to determine
if there is a significant difference between the depth dissolved oxygen levels at both sides
(Tables 1 and 2). Dissolved oxygen levels at Spencer’s Bayside Marina and the general location
on the Waretown Creek ranged from 3.80 to 5.80 (mg/L), as well as 3.60 to 6.60 (mg/L),
respectively. The first t-test determined that there is no significant difference between the surface
dissolved oxygen levels at study site #1 and the surface dissolved oxygen levels at study site #2.
This t-test utilized an alpha value of 0.05, a confidence level of 95%, and resulted in a p-value of
0.3022. The second t-test found that there is no significant difference between the depth
dissolved oxygen levels at study site #1 and the depth dissolved oxygen levels at study site #2.
Additionally, this t-test also included an alpha value of 0.05, and a confidence level of 95%. The
statistical analysis showed a p-value of 0.5664.
Moreover, eight linear regression tests were performed in order to determine if there is a
significant correlation between two different water quality parameters. Specifically, the linear
regressions were used to determine the relationships between surface turbidity and surface
dissolved oxygen at both study sites, depth turbidity and depth dissolved oxygen at both study
sites, surface chlorophyll and surface dissolved oxygen at both study sites, and depth chlorophyll
and depth dissolved oxygen at both study sites. Turbidity levels at Spencer’s Bayside Marina and
a general location on the Waretown Creek ranged from 1.821 to 5.938 (NTUs), as well as 2.081
to 2.967 (NTUs), respectively. Chlorophyll concentrations, between surface and depth
 Stephens 7

measurements at Spencer’s Bayside Marina and a general location on the Waretown Creek
ranged from 30.30 to 51.17 (RFUs), as well as 71.79 to 107.1 (RFUs). All eight linear regression
tests were completed with an alpha value of 0.05 and a confidence level of 95%. The first linear
regression test found that there is no significant correlation between surface turbidity and surface
dissolved oxygen levels at study site #1 (Figure 5). This linear regression resulted in an f-value
of 0.5655 and an R2 value of 0.3978. The second linear regression determined that there is no
significant correlation between depth turbidity and depth dissolved oxygen levels at study site #1
(Figure 6). After the linear regression was performed, an f-value of 0.1640 and an R2 value of
0.9351 was produced. Following this, a third linear regression deciphered that there is no
significant correlation between surface turbidity and surface dissolved oxygen levels at study site
#2 (Figure 7). The f-value and R2 values resulting from this analysis were 0.3615 and 0.7108,
respectively. Additionally, a fourth linear regression determined that there is a significant
correlation between the depth turbidity and the depth dissolved oxygen levels at study site #2
(Figure 8). This linear regression provided an f-value of 0.0216 and an R2 value of 0.9988. The
next linear regression test showed that there is no significant correlation between the surface
chlorophyll concentration and the surface dissolved oxygen levels at study site #1 (Figure 9).
The aforementioned regression had an f-value of 0.5392 and an R2 value of 0.4386. The sixth
regression found that there is no significant correlation between the depth chlorophyll
concentration and the depth dissolved oxygen levels at study site #1 (Figure 10). Respectively,
the f-value and R2 value for this regression were 0.1465 and 0.9480. Following this, the next
linear regression determined that there is a significant correlation between surface chlorophyll
concentration and surface dissolved oxygen levels at study site #2 (Figure 11). The f-value
produced from this regression is 0.0284 and the R2 value is 0.9980. Lastly, the eighth linear
regression performed showed that there is no significant correlation between depth chlorophyll
concentration and depth dissolved oxygen levels at study site #2 (Figure 12). This analysis
resulted in an f-value of 0.4307 and an R2 value of 0.6081.

Discussion
In both of the statistical t-test analyses that were performed, there was no significant
difference revealed. The first t-test between surface dissolved oxygen levels at study site #1 and
study site #2 concluded in a p-value of 0.3022 (P>0.05). The second t-test used to compare depth
 Stephens 8

dissolved oxygen levels at study site #1 and study site #2 had a p-value of 0.5664 (P>0.05). Each
p-value was greater than the alpha value of 0.05, yielding no significant difference. The results
from the first t-test can best be explained by the fact that the surface dissolved oxygen analyses
from both study sites were taken from two different areas of the same body of water. Both study
site #1, Spencer’s Bayside Marina, and study site #2, a general location on the Waretown Creek,
are both part of the Waretown Creek in Waretown, New Jersey. Dissolved oxygen levels change
depending on pressure, temperature, and salinity (“Dissolved Oxygen,” 2021). Water quality
parameters such as salinity and temperature were also measured at both study sites, and at both
sites they were relatively close in measurement. Therefore, if salinity and temperature
measurements were fairly similar at each site because they connect to the same body of water, it
is most likely that surface dissolved oxygen measurements would be similar as well. The
similarity in surface dissolved oxygen levels, as well as additional water quality parameters that
were tested, at each study site may account for the reason there was no significant difference
between surface dissolved oxygen levels at each study site. As the t-test that analyzed depth
dissolved oxygen levels at each study site also showed no significant difference, it can be
evaluated that the reasoning for a lack of a significant difference is the same as the
aforementioned reason regarding the t-test between surface dissolved oxygen levels.
Additionally, the first linear regression test performed in order to determine if there is a
significant correlation between surface turbidity and surface dissolved oxygen levels at study site
#1 produced an f-value of 0.6605 and an R2 value of 0.3978, so there is no significant correlation
between the surface turbidity and surface dissolved oxygen levels at study site #1 (F>0.05).
Oftentimes, turbidity and dissolved oxygen levels have an inverse relationship in which when
turbidity levels increase, which can also cause an increase in water temperature that can affect
dissolved oxygen levels as well, dissolved oxygen levels decrease (Argenal and Gomez, 2006).
However, the MATES oceanography students only had time to collect three surface turbidity
measurements. Therefore, when the linear regression test was run, there was a lack of data points
to analyze due to a small sample size of turbidity measurements. This can help explain why the
linear regression test showed no significant correlation between surface turbidity and surface
dissolved oxygen levels at study site #1, Spencer’s Bayside Marina. There simply may not have
been enough data for the linear regression to detect a significant correlation between the data
sets. Moreover, there was no significant correlation shown between depth turbidity and depth
 Stephens 9

dissolved oxygen levels at Spencer’s Bayside Marina, and there was no significant correlation
shown between surface turbidity and surface dissolved oxygen at the Waretown Creek. This was
also due to the lack of a large sample size, as with the first linear regression test run on surface
turbidity and surface dissolved oxygen at Spencer’s Bayside Marina.
On the contrary, there was a significant correlation found between depth turbidity and
depth dissolved oxygen levels at study site #1, Spencer’s Bayside Marina. The aforementioned
linear regression test produced an f-value of 0.0216 and an R2 value of 0.9988 (F<0.05). In a
body of water, specifically at its depth, as turbidity increases, it blocks plants at the bottom of the
water from photosynthesizing (“Turbidity, Total Suspended Solids & Water Clarity,” 2014). Due
to this lack of sunlight and plant productivity which helps to create viable oxygen for the body of
water, dissolved oxygen levels can begin to decrease. This is what creates the inverse
relationship seen often between turbidity and dissolved oxygen levels, specifically in deeper
waters. Therefore, the significant correlation between depth turbidity and depth dissolved oxygen
at Spencer’s Bayside Marina could be accounted for by this inverse relationship between
turbidity and dissolved oxygen, oftentimes seen in deeper waters.
In regards to chlorophyll concentrations, the first linear regression test conducted with
surface chlorophyll concentrations and surface dissolved oxygen levels from Spencer’s Bayside
Marina, study site #1, showed no significant correlation. The f-value and R2 value produced from
this test, respectively, were 0.5392 and 0.4386 (F>0.05). Generally, when chlorophyll
concentrations begin to reach high levels, it can lead to a decrease in dissolved oxygen due to an
excess of algae, which consumes dissolved oxygen, in a particular body of water (“Indicators:
Chlorophyll a,” 2021). One viable explanation for why no significant correlation was detected
between these two parameters is simply that the chlorophyll concentrations obtained at the study
site were not large enough to cause a decrease in, or have a relationship with, the dissolved
oxygen levels. The surface chlorophyll concentrations recorded were 39.68, 42.09, and 51.17
(RFUs). Another explanation for the lack of a significant correlation between the aforementioned
water quality parameters is the small sample size for both chlorophyll concentration and
dissolved oxygen measurements. At each study site, only three chlorophyll concentration
measurements and three dissolved oxygen measurements were gathered in relation to both
surface and depth water. If more data was collected and utilized in the linear regression test, the
results may have been different. Additionally, the linear regression tests performed to analyze
 Stephens 10

depth chlorophyll concentrations and depth dissolved oxygen levels at both Spencer’s Marina
and the Waretown Creek also presented no significant correlation. This could be accounted for
by chlorophyll concentration levels that are not high enough to relate to dissolved oxygen levels
significantly, and/or the small sample size collected and used for statistical analysis, as with the
surface chlorophyll concentrations and surface dissolved oxygen levels at Spencer’s Bayside
Marina, study site #1.
Lastly, the linear regression test performed using surface chlorophyll concentration and
surface dissolved oxygen data from study site #2, a general location on the Waretown Creek,
presented a significant correlation between the two parameters with an f-value of 0.0284 and an
R2 value of 0.9880 (F<0.05). As mentioned previously, when chlorophyll concentrations begin to
rise in a body of water, they can begin to cause a decrease in dissolved oxygen as the large
amounts of algae that chlorophyll concentrations indicate consume the dissolved oxygen
(“Indicators: Chlorophyll a,” 2021). The surface chlorophyll concentrations collected from the
Waretown Creek, study site #2, were 87.09, 104.5, and 107.1 (RFUs). These chlorophyll
concentrations were the highest out of all of the concentrations collected at both study sites.
Additionally, they were collected furthest from the bay. The significant correlation between the
surface chlorophyll concentrations and surface dissolved oxygen levels at the Waretown Creek
could be due to the high chlorophyll concentrations that could have caused a decrease in (an
inverse relationship with) the dissolved oxygen levels.

Conclusion
In conclusion, surface dissolved oxygen levels from Spencer’s Bayside Marina, study site
#1, and the general location on the Waretown Creek, study site #2, were not significantly
different which can be explained by the fact that both study sites are a part of the same body of
water, the Waretown Creek in Waretown, New Jersey. Moreover, depth dissolved oxygen levels
from both Spencer’s Bayside Marina (study site #1) and the general location on the Waretown
Creek (study site #2) were also not significantly different. This can also be accounted for due to
the study sites both being a part of the Waretown Creek in Waretown, New Jersey.
Additionally, depth turbidity and depth dissolved oxygen levels, as well as surface
chlorophyll concentrations and surface dissolved oxygen levels, at the general location on the
Waretown Creek (study site #2) showed a significant correlation which is able to be explained by
 Stephens 11

the inverse relationship that both turbidity and chlorophyll often have with dissolved oxygen: if
turbidity/chlorophyll levels increase, dissolved oxygen levels decrease. All other analyses of the
relationships between turbidity and dissolved oxygen levels showed no significant correlation
because of the small sample sizes collected and used for the linear regression tests. The other
examinations of relationships between chlorophyll and dissolved oxygen showed no significant
correlations which can be explained by low chlorophyll concentrations, and/or small sample
sizes collected and utilized for analysis.

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Dr. John Wnek for providing me with the means to complete this
study, as well as providing me with the knowledge and skill set needed to complete this paper. I
would also like to thank my classmates for their assistance in gathering data at both study sites.

Tables and Figures

Table 1: Surface dissolved oxygen levels (mg/L) from both Spencer’s Bayside Marina,
Waretown, NJ (study site #1), and a general location on the Waretown, Creek (study site #2) in
Waretown, NJ. This data was collected on September 14, 2021.
Surface Dissolved Oxygen Surface Dissolved Oxygen
Levels (Study Site #1) in Levels (Study Site #2) in
mg/L mg/L

Test #1 5.8 6.4

Test #2 5.6 6.6

Test #3 5.8 4.2

Test #4 5.7 3.6

Test #5 5.6 4.0

Average: 5.7 4.96

 Stephens 12

Table 2: Depth dissolved oxygen levels (mg/L) from both study site locations visited on
September 14, 2021: Spencer’s Bayside Marina, Waretown, NJ, and a general location on the
Waretown Creek in Waretown, NJ.
Depth Dissolved Oxygen Depth Dissolved Oxygen
Levels (Study Site #1) in Levels (Study Site #2) in
mg/L mg/L

Test #1 4.6 4.8

Test #2 4.4 4.6

Test #3 3.8 3.6

Average: 4.27 4.33

Figure 3: Spencer’s Bayside Marina, the first

study site visited on September 14, 2021.
 Stephens 13

Figure 4: A general location on the Waretown

Creek, the second study site visited on
September 14, 2021.

Figure 5: The relationship between surface dissolved oxygen levels (mg/L) and surface turbidity
(NTUs) at Spencer’s Bayside Marina on September 14, 2021. There was no significant
correlation between the two water quality parameters (F > 0.05). The R2 value depicted was
0.3978.
 Stephens 14

Figure 6: The relationship between surface turbidity, in NTUs, and surface dissolved oxygen
levels, in mg/L, at Spencer’s Bayside Marina in Waretown, NJ on September 14, 2021. No
significant correlation was found between the two aforementioned parameters (F > 0.05). The R2
value found was 0.9351.
 Stephens 15

Figure 7: The correspondence between the surface turbidity (NTUs) and surface dissolved
oxygen levels (mg/L) at the Waretown Creek in Waretown, NJ on September 14, 2021. There
was no significant correlation between surface turbidity and dissolved oxygen at this study site
(F > 0.05). This test produced an R2 value of 0.7108.
 Stephens 16

Figure 8: The correlation between depth turbidity, in NTUs, and depth dissolved oxygen, in
mg/L, at the Waretown Creek in Waretown, NJ on September 14, 2021. There was a significant
correlation between the two sets of data represented above (F<0.05) as the statistical analysis
produced an f-value of 0.0216. There was an R2 value of 0.9988 produced.
 Stephens 17

Figure 9: The relationship between surface chlorophyll concentrations (RFUs) and surface
dissolved oxygen levels (mg/L) at Spencer’s Bayside Marina on September 14, 2021. There is no
significant correlation between the aforementioned parameters (F>0.05). This linear regression
test produced an R2 value of 0.4386.
 Stephens 18

Figure 10: The correspondence between depth chlorophyll concentrations, in RFUs, and depth
dissolved oxygen levels, in mg/L, at Spencer’s Bayside Marina on September 14, 2021. No
significant correlation was found between the parameters depicted above (F>0.05), despite an R2
value of 0.9480 being produced.
 Stephens 19

Figure 11: Correlation between surface chlorophyll concentrations (RFUs) and surface dissolved
oxygen levels (mg/L) sampled at the Waretown Creek in Waretown, NJ on September 14, 2021is
portrayed in the scatter plot. A significant correlation was found between these two parameters in
this linear regression test (F<0.05) which produced an f-value of 0.0284. An R 2 value of 0.9980
was produced.
 Stephens 20

Figure 12: The relationship between depth chlorophyll concentrations (RFUs) and depth
dissolved oxygen levels (mg/L) at the Waretown Creek, in Waretown, NJ on September 14,
2021. The linear regression test performed indicated no significant correlation between the depth
chlorophyll and dissolved oxygen data from the second study site (F>0.05). An R 2 value of
0.6081 was derived.
 Stephens 21

Works Cited

Fondriest Environmental, Inc. (2019, January 23). Dissolved oxygen. Fondriest Environmental

Learning Center. Retrieved September 29, 2021, from

https://www.fondriest.com/environmental-measurements/parameters/water-quality/dissol
ved-oxygen/.

Fondriest Environmental, Inc. (2019, January 23). Turbidity, total suspended SOLIDS & Water

Clarity. Fondriest Environmental Learning Center. Retrieved September 30, 2021, from
https://www.fondriest.com/environmental-measurements/parameters/water-quality/turbidi
ty-total-suspended-solids-water-clarity/.

Fondriest Environmental, Inc. (2019, January 23). Water Quality. Fondriest Environmental

Learning Center. Retrieved September 29, 2021, from

https://www.fondriest.com/environmental-measurements/parameters/water-quality/.

Goldman, & Weltzer. (2021). Dissolved oxygen (DO) . Retrieved September 30, 2021, from

https://www.enr.gov.nt.ca/sites/enr/files/dissolved_oxygen.pdf.

Gomez, R., & Argenal, R. (2006). The Effects of Turbidity on CALIFORNIA STATE SCIENCE

FAIR 2006 PROJECT SUMMARYDissolved Oxygen Levels in Various Water Samples.

CALIFORNIA STATE SCIENCE FAIR 2006 PROJECT SUMMARY. Retrieved
September 30, 2021, from http://csef.usc.edu/History/2006/Projects/S0602.pdf.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2017, April 27). What is a harmful algal

bloom? National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Retrieved September 30,

2021, from
https://www.noaa.gov/what-is-harmful-algal-bloom#:~:text=Under%20the%20right%20c
onditions%2C%20algae,even%20death%20in%20extreme%20cases.

National Park Service. (2021). Key to live data. Jordan Pond Buoy. Retrieved September 29,
2021,

from http://www.jpbuoy.com/key-to-live-data.

Sanctuary, F. K. N. M. (2011, April 7). Water quality describes the condition of the water,
 Stephens 22

including chemical, physical, and biological characteristics, usually with respect to its
suitability for a particular purpose such as drinking or swimming. What is water quality?
Retrieved September 29, 2021, from
https://floridakeys.noaa.gov/ocean/waterquality.html#:~:text=Water%20quality%20descri
bes%20the%20condition,such%20as%20drinking%20or%20swimming&text=In%20the
%20Florida%20Keys%2C%20good,to%20a%20healthy%20marine%20ecosystem.

Scherer, T. (2019). North Dakota State University. Drinking Water Quality: Testing and

Interpreting Your Results - Publications. Retrieved September 29, 2021, from

https://www.ag.ndsu.edu/publications/environment-natural-resources/drinking-water-qual
ity-testing-and-interpreting-your-results.

Turbidity measurement . Fact Sheet 2.33. (2021). Retrieved September 29, 2021, from

https://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/hygiene/emergencies/fs2_33.pdf.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2021, July 7). Indicators: Chlorophyll a. EPA.

Retrieved September 29, 2021, from

https://www.epa.gov/national-aquatic-resource-surveys/indicators-chlorophyll.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2021, July 7). Indicators: Dissolved Oxygen.

EPA. Retrieved September 30, 2021, from

https://www.epa.gov/national-aquatic-resource-surveys/indicators-dissolved-oxygen.

USGS. (2021). Turbidity and Water. USGS science for chaning the world. Retrieved
September 29, 2021, from
https://www.usgs.gov/special-topic/water-science-school/science/turbidity-and-water?qt-sci
ence_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects.

USGS. (2021). Water quality information by topic. USGS science for changing the world.
Retrieved September 29, 2021, from
https://www.usgs.gov/special-topic/water-science-school/science/water-quality-information
-topic.

Water & Wastes Digest. (2021). Water and Wastewater News. WWD. Retrieved September
29, 2021, from https://www.wwdmag.com/.

YSI Environmental. (2021). The Basics of Chlorophyll Measurement. The Basics of

Chlorophyll Measurements. Retrieved September 29, 2021, from
 Stephens 23

https://www.ysi.com/file%20library/documents/technical%20notes/t606-the-basics-of-chlo
rophyll-measurement.pdf.