The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Potential of turbidity monitoring for measuring the transport of suspended solids in streams
Abstract
Investigating the transport of suspended solids by water sampling usually leads to an underestimation of loads and an unrealistically high sampling frequency is required to properly characterize temporal trends. An alternative method is to use in situ optical turbidimeters to estimate the suspended solids concentration; however, the relationship between turbidity and suspended solids concentration is potentially confounded by variations in particle size, particle composition and water colour. Field measurements, and laboratory measurements using the type of natural material suspended in streamwater, were made to quantify the influences of these factors on nephelometric turbidity (Hach 2100A) and attenuance turbidity (Partech 7000 3RP MKII). The attenuance turbidity was approximately 2.5 times higher than nephelometric turbidity. The turbidity instruments were most sensitive to dispersions with a median diameter of 1.2‐1.4γm. Particle size variation can cause the turbidity to vary by a factor of four for the same concentration of suspended solids. However, the numerous close correlations between turbidity and suspended solids concentration reported previously suggests that either the particle size variations are not usually great, or that particle size variations are often associated with variations in suspended solids concentration. For the same concentration and particle size, organic particles gave attenuance turbidity values two to three times higher than mineral particles. However, shortterm temporal variations from purely organic to purely mineral particle loads are rare in nature, so variations in the percentage of organic matter in the paniculate load will not confound turbidity to this extent. Coloured dissolved organic matter is unlikely to alter the turbidity reading by more than 10%. An adequate relationship between turbidity measured in the field and suspended solids concentration should be expected in most situations. Some variance can be tolerated because a continuous estimate of suspended solids concentration overcomes the problem of infrequent sampling, which is the greatest source of error in the estimation of stream sediment loads.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Understanding the influence of suspended solids on water quality and aquatic biota
Bilotta, G. S., & Brazier, R. E. (2008) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/j.watres.2008.03.018 · Cited by 1,313
Benchmarking observational uncertainties for hydrology: rainfall, river discharge and water quality
McMillan, H., Krueger, T., & Freer, J. (2012) · Hydrological Processes · doi:10.1002/hyp.9384 · Cited by 522
Webster, A. J., & Cadenasso, M. L. (2020) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110307 · Cited by 4
Metadata
- Authors
- Gippel, C. J.
- Venue
- Hydrological Processes
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1995-01
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 83-97
- ISSN
- 0885-6087 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-1085
- OpenAlex
- W2056316473
- Cited by
- 358
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 13.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Potential of turbidity monitoring for measuring the transport of suspended solids in streams. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/hyp.3360090108
- The paper
- Gippel, C. J. (1995). Potential of turbidity monitoring for measuring the transport of suspended solids in streams. Hydrological Processes. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.3360090108
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.