ABSTRACT
Water quality monitoring has developed over the past century from an unplanned, isolated activity into an important discipline in water management. This development also brought about a discontent between information users and information producers about the usefulness and usability of information, in literature often referred to as the data-rich-but-information-poor syndrome. This article aims to gain a better understanding of this issue by studying the developments over some five decades of Dutch national water quality monitoring, by analyzing four studies in which the role and use of information are discussed from different perspectives, and by relating this to what is considered in literature as useful information. The article concludes that a "water information gap" exists which is rooted in different mutual perceptions and expectations between the two groups on what useful information is, that can be overcome by improving the communication. Such communication should be based on willingness to understand and deal with different mindframes and should be based on a methodology that guides and structures the interactions.
Subject(s)
Conservation of Natural Resources/trends , Environmental Monitoring/methods , Information Services , Water Supply/analysis , Water Supply/standards , Conservation of Natural Resources/legislation & jurisprudence , Environmental Monitoring/legislation & jurisprudence , Environmental Monitoring/standards , Environmental Monitoring/statistics & numerical data , Government Programs , Information Services/standards , Netherlands , Policy Making , Quality Control , Urbanization , Water Supply/legislation & jurisprudenceABSTRACT
The first world-wide interlaboratory study on PBDEs, organised between November 1999 and April 2000, involved five biological samples, two sediments and two standard solutions. These materials were sent to 26 participants in nine different countries. Results were returned from 18 laboratories. The results reported for BDE 47 were acceptable with a range of relative standard deviations (Rsd) of 17-40%. Results for the BDEs 99 (Rsd 25-77%), BDE 100 (Rsd 19-48%), 153 (Rsd 30-48%) and 154 (Rsd 25-43%) showed that a further improvement of these analyses is needed. The BDE 209 analysis is not under the control of the participating laboratories. The data reported for the biota samples were very variable and for the two sediments Rsd values of 48% and 78% were obtained. It is recommended that analysts pay more attention to the special requirements for the BDE 209 analysis such as avoiding exposure to intensive light and exposure for too long times to too high temperatures.
