The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Review of robust measurement of phosphorus in river water: sampling, storage, fractionation and sensitivity
Open accessAbstract
Abstract. This paper reviews current knowledge on sampling, storage and analysis of phosphorus (P) in river waters. Potential sensitivity of rivers with different physical, chemical and biological characteristics (trophic status, turbidity, flow regime, matrix chemistry) is examined in terms of errors associated with sampling, sample preparation, storage, contamination, interference and analytical errors. Key issues identified include: The need to tailor analytical reagents and concentrations to take into account the characteristics of the sample matrix. The effects of matrix interference on the colorimetric analysis. The influence of variable rates of phospho-molybdenum blue colour formation. The differing responses of river waters to physical and chemical conditions of storage. The higher sensitivities of samples with low P concentrations to storage and analytical errors. Given high variability of river water characteristics in space and time, no single standardised methodology for sampling, storage and analysis of P in rivers can be offered. ‘Good Practice’ guidelines are suggested, which recommend that protocols for sampling, storage and analysis of river water for P is based on thorough site-specific method testing and assessment of P stability on storage. For wider sampling programmes at the regional/national scale where intensive site-specific method and stability testing are not feasible, ‘Precautionary Practice’ guidelines are suggested. The study highlights key areas requiring further investigation for improving methodological rigour. Keywords: phosphorus, orthophosphate, soluble reactive, particulate, colorimetry, stability, sensitivity, analytical error, storage, sampling, filtration, preservative, fractionation, digestion
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
Sewage-effluent phosphorus: A greater risk to river eutrophication than agricultural phosphorus?
Jarvie, H. P., Neal, C., & Withers, P. J. A. (2006) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2005.08.038 · Cited by 516
Self-citationDaren Harmel, R., & Smith, P. K. (2007) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2007.01.043 · Cited by 265
Meta‐Analysis of Phosphorus Loss from No‐Till Soils
Daryanto, S., Wang, L., & Jacinthe, P. A. (2017) · Journal of Environmental Quality · doi:10.2134/jeq2017.03.0121 · Cited by 93
Zhou, B., Shafii, M., Parsons, C. T., Passeport, E., Rezanezhad, F., Lisogorsky, A., & Van Cappellen, P. (2023) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.162749 · Cited by 22
Metadata
- Authors
- Jarvie, H. P., Withers, J. A., & Neal, C.
- Venue
- Hydrology and Earth System Sciences
- Publisher
- Copernicus GmbH
- Published
- 2002-02-28
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 113-131
- ISSN
- 1027-5606 (ISSN-L)
- 1607-7938
- OpenAlex
- W2072200925
- Cited by
- 206
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 17.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Review of robust measurement of phosphorus in river water: sampling, storage, fractionation and sensitivity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5194/hess-6-113-2002
- The paper
- Jarvie, H. P., Withers, J. A., & Neal, C. (2002). Review of robust measurement of phosphorus in river water: sampling, storage, fractionation and sensitivity. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-6-113-2002
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.