USGS ScienceSearch

USGS · ofr20261063

Evaluation of turbidity corrections for EXO fluorescent dissolved organic matter (fDOM) sensors

Abstract

Executive Summary The use of field-deployable fluorescence sensors to better understand dissolved organic matter concentrations and composition has grown immensely in recent years. Applications of these sensors to critical monitoring efforts have also grown, encompassing post-fire monitoring, wastewater tracking, and use as a proxy for various contaminants. Despite the growth, it is well known that these sensors require corrections for temperature (Watras and others, 2011) and are subject to many light-field interferences caused by both scattering and absorbance due to dissolved and particulate substances (Downing and others, 2012; Lee and others, 2015; Booth and others, 2023). The most common fluorescence sensors used by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) include those targeting fluorescent dissolved organic matter (fDOM) and chlorophylls. Because fDOM sensors primarily measure fluorescence in the dissolved to colloidal phases, corrections to the interferences caused by particulates can be made relatively easily. By the end of 2024, the USGS had 69 fDOM sensors deployed within official water quality monitoring networks included on the USGS National Water Dashboard ( https://dashboard.waterdata.usgs.gov/app/nwd/en/ ) and numerous others used in surveys and research applications across the Nation. Although temperature corrections are widely applicable across sensor models, interference corrections can be model specific due to differences in design specifications across manufacturers and models (Booth and others, 2023). The corrections are also potentially subject to changes in manufacturing within a specific sensor model. Recently, USGS staff obtained information regarding possible changes in the manufacturing of its most widely-used fDOM sensor model, raising concerns about data consistency and quality in the USGS fDOM sensor networks. Furthermore, changes in turbidity sensors since the corrections guidance was performed may also affect the performance of the corrections. The turbidity sensor used in the original experiments (Downing and others, 2012) was determined to have a signal output approximately 1.3 times higher than the output of the turbidity sensor currently used in an extensive field comparison study (Messner and others, 2023). With these changes, it is imperative that the corrections be reevaluated to maintain data consistency and continuity across the USGS. In this study, we evaluated turbidity corrections for fDOM sensors over a range of serial numbers covering manufacturing dates 2015 through 2022 and turbidity serial numbers covering the range 2013 through 2022. The goal was to determine whether reported changes in the manufacturing process of the fDOM and turbidity sensors affected the correction approach developed by Downing and others (2012) such that additional guidance would be required to address this manufacturing change. To evaluate, we repeated a laboratory-based test similar to that performed by Downing and others (2012) in which a series of tank experiments with multiple sensors were deployed in a suspension of Elliot Silt Loam (ESL). High turbidities of the ESL suspension were maintained throughout the tank by turbulent recirculation using submersible pumps. Particulates were removed using a recirculated line equipped with a capsule filter (0.45 micron). Measurements were collected throughout the filtration until turbidities reached approximately 5 formazin nephelometric units (FNU; data available in Baxter and others, 2023). Each experimental run included a mixture of unique sensor combinations to account for variability imposed by the turbidity and temperature sensors. The fDOM correction factor was calculated for each combination of fDOM and turbidity sensors included in the test. We observed no systematic change in fDOM correction coefficients across serial numbers representing manufacturing years 2015 through 2022. However, the results highlighted questions raised about the corrections for high-turbidity samples, as noted in USGS Techniques and Methods (Booth and others, 2023). Applying the inverse of the commonly-used fDOM ratio with a quadratic fit performed better than the exponential fits when correcting fDOM data for turbidity in the ESL laboratory filtration test and generated a simple scale factor correction equation. This approach also served as a better indicator of data quality than the exponential fit approach. Similar to fDOM, more rigorous quality assurance measures may be necessary to evaluate turbidity sensor calibrations and performance. Sensors exceeding a certain age may need to be replaced despite passing quality assurance checks during calibration. Further testing of the turbidity corrections for different sediment and water types is warranted to better understand the variations in the fits and correctable ranges of turbidity in different systems.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jacob Fleck, Tim James Baxter, Angela Hansen. 2026-03-06. Evaluation of turbidity corrections for EXO fluorescent dissolved organic matter (fDOM) sensors. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20261063

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Estimating aftershock risk for entry into earthquake-damaged buildings

We present a simple method to estimate the risk of experiencing strong shaking from aftershocks during entry into earthquake-damaged buildings. We compute wait times until the probability of strong ground shaking from aftershocks reaches a predefined risk threshold; for example, a 0.4 percent probability of experiencing Modified Mercalli Intensity 7 or greater shaking during the planned building entry. We also develop a relation between aftershock probability and the probability of strong shaking, so that users can reference the U.S. Geological Survey aftershock forecast during an ongoing aftershock sequence to determine if the risk threshold has been met. We apply our method to active continental regions (for example, the Western United States), stable continental regions (for example, the Central and Eastern United States), and subduction zones (for example, Cascadia or Alaska).

Open-File Report

End-user needs for remote sensing wetlands of the Prairie Pothole Region of North America

The Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) of North America comprises globally important grassland and wetland ecosystems critical for numerous populations of migratory birds. Due to the importance of this region for migratory birds, and particularly waterfowl, and the threats of habitat loss due to intensifying agriculture, there is a mature and diverse system of conservation organizations, agencies, and partnerships that spends hundreds of millions of dollars annually on habitat conservation to support migratory bird populations. Remote sensing can be a powerful tool for observing and evaluating global change at large scales as well as expanding inferences from field studies to the broader landscape with statistical models. However, development and utilization of these tools has lagged behind their demand for several reasons, including concerns over spatial and temporal resolution and accuracy of products; perception of a misalignment with decision-maker needs; technological barriers such as skill sets of conservation professionals, computing resources, data access, and usability. In this report, we summarize the needs of conservation professionals and scientists who use or want to use remote sensing data products to inform science about wetland change and conservation of wetlands in the PPR. We assembled this information through several methods leading up to, during, and following a January 2026 PPR Wetland Remote Sensing Workshop. The workshop included United States and Canadian scientists, conservation professionals, and policy experts. Our goal was to bring together end-users and remote sensing product developers jointly to explore reducing the lag between product development and utilization of products to inform science and conservation. Specifically, we aimed to identify gaps in wetland remote sensing that limit effective monitoring, management, and conservation in the PPR, and to develop a framework that outlines pathways to address these gaps by fostering collaboration, improving communication networks, encouraging discussion, and building on existing and ongoing efforts. This report summarizes our participants’ descriptions of end-user needs and the outcomes of the workshop.

Prairie Pothole region

Bathymetric survey and storage capacity of Upper Lake Mary near Flagstaff, Arizona in 2024

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the city of Flagstaff, collected bathymetric, light detection and ranging (lidar), and land-survey data of Upper Lake Mary in Arizona during the months of April and October 2024. The city of Flagstaff uses a combination of groundwater from well fields throughout the Flagstaff area and surface water, mainly from Upper Lake Mary, for its potable water supply. The purpose of the survey is to update previous surveys using new technology and compare the results to previous surveys to determine if there was a decrease in storage capacity that could affect the city’s water supply. The lakebed was mapped in April 2024 using a vessel equipped with a multibeam echosounder (MBES) and mobile lidar scanner with positioning captured using a real-time kinematic global navigation satellite system (RTK GNSS) base and receivers. In October 2024, areas of the reservoir that were too shallow for the boat and shoreline that were not captured by the vessel-based lidar were surveyed on foot using hand-held RTK GNSS receivers. At full pool (spillway elevation of 6,831.82 feet above NAVD 88 [2,082.34 meters (m)], Upper Lake Mary has a storage capacity of 16,449.80 acre-feet (20,290,611.73 cubic meters) and a surface area of 953.57 acres (3,860,926.075 square meters). The reservoir is 5.7 miles (9.7 kilometers) long and varies in width from 326 feet (99.36 m) near the central, narrow portion of the reservoir to 2,613 feet (796.44 m) in the upper portion. Comparisons between this survey and the previous two surveys from the 1950s and 2006 indicate no apparent decrease in reservoir area or storage capacity. Results of the 2024 survey indicate that Upper Lake Mary’s storage capacity increased by 0.9 percent from the 2006 survey and a 1.6 percent increase in surface area from the 2006 survey.

Arizona