Comparison of accuracy and completeness of data obtained from three types of automatic water-quality monitors

A comparison of data (specific conductance, dissolved-oxygen concentration, temperature, and pH) collected by the U.S. Geological Survey flowthrough monitor, the U.S. Geological Survey minimonitor, and a self-contained commercial 'packaged-sensor' system indicates that the data obtained by means of the most complete of the three systems.

The U.S. Geological Survey flowthrough monitor is powered by 120-volt alternating current and in a heated weather-proof shelter. A pumping system brings water from the stream to sensors clustered in a sample clustered in a sample chamber located in the shelter. This instrument measures output from the senors; data are recorded in binary-coded decimal form on a 16-channel punched-paper tape recorder tape recorder housed in the shelter.

The U.S. Geological Survey's minimonitor is powered by an external battery and is housed in a weatherproof shelter. This instrument measures output of instream sensors with extension cables having underwater connectors; data are recorded in binary-coded decimal form on a 16-channel punched-paper tape recorder housed in the shelter.

The packaged-sensor system also measures output of senors housed in a packages that is submerged in the stream. It has internal power supply, no moving parts, and does not requires a weatherproof shelter; data are stored are stored in solid-state memory.

Minimonitors were installed at four sites in Ohio where U.S. Geological survey flowthrough were in operation. Two package-sensor systems also were assigned to each site and were alternated every two weeks. Detailed records were kept of (1) field measurements, for comparison with monitor-system data from each instrument, and (2) equipment problems that resulted in loss of data. Results of the comparisons shows that the flow-through monitor gave the most accurate and the most complete data.