USE OF, SATISFACTION WITH, AND REQUIREMENTS FOR IN-SITU NUTRIENT SENSORS Conducted for the Alliance for Coastal Technologies by Responsive Management 2005 USE OF, SATISFACTION WITH, AND REQUIREMENTS FOR IN-SITU NUTRIENT SENSORS 2005 Responsive Management National Office Mark Damian Duda, Executive Director Peter E. De Michele, Ph.D., Director of Research Martin Jones, Research Associate Andrea Criscione, Research Associate Chad Craun, Research Associate Tim Winegord, Survey Center Manager Alison Lanier, Business Manager Steven J. Bissell, Ph.D., Qualitative Research Associate James B. Herrick, Ph.D., Research Associate 130 Franklin Street Harrisonburg, VA 22801 Phone: 540/432-1888 Fax: 540/432-1892 E-mail: mark@responsivemanagement.com www.responsivemanagement.com Acknowledgements Responsive Management would like to thank Drs. Mario Tamburri and Fabien Laurier of the Alliance for Coastal Technologies for their input, support, and guidance on this project. Use of and Capabilities of In-Situ Nutrient Sensors i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This study was conducted for the Alliance for Coastal Technologies (ACT) to gather data about the use of in-situ nutrient sensors. The study entailed a telephone survey of professionals in the coastal resources field, such as biologists, researchers, and coastal managers, who are currently involved in measuring nutrients. For the survey, telephones were selected as the preferred sampling medium because of the universality of telephone ownership. The telephone survey questionnaire was developed cooperatively by Responsive Management and the ACT. Responsive Management conducted a pre-test of the questionnaire, and revisions were made to the questionnaire based on the pre-test. Interviews were conducted Monday through Friday from 9:00a.m. to 9:00p.m., Saturday noon to 5:00p.m., and Sunday from 3:00p.m. to 9:00p.m., all local time. The survey was conducted in February 2005. Responsive Management obtained a total of 56 completed interviews. The software used for data collection was Questionnaire Programming Language 4.1. The analysis of data was performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software as well as proprietary software developed by Responsive Management. NUTRIENTS AND AQUATIC ENVIRONMENTS OF INTEREST ? Overwhelmingly, respondents listed their primary area of interest as research (79%), while 14% listed their primary area of interest as resource management; however, the question asked for the primary area of interest and allowed only one response, and some of those who listed their area of interest as research indicated that they also had resource management responsibilities. ? Respondents who indicated that they are currently measuring nutrients can be categorized as follows: those who use in-situ nutrient sensors and those who do not use in-situ nutrient sensors. Those who do not use in-situ nutrient sensors were asked about the use of in-house sample analyses, outside laboratory for analyses, or both for measuring nutrients. ii Responsive Management ? The nutrients most of interest/concern are nitrates/nitrites (98% said they are interested/ concerned with these), phosphates (98%), ammonium (88%), and silicate (70%). ? An overwhelming majority of respondents (88%) are measuring nitrates/nitrites. ? A large majority of respondents (79%) are currently measuring phosphates. ? A large majority of respondents (70%) are currently measuring ammonium. ? A slight majority of respondents (55%) are currently measuring silicate. ? A fifth of respondents (20%) indicated that they are currently measuring other nutrients (other than nitrates/nitrites, phosphates, ammonium, and silicate). Other nutrients of interest include nitrogen, carbon, and various metals. ? The top aquatic environment of interest is estuarine, followed by coastal/nearshore, open ocean, and rivers/lakes/freshwater wetland/groundwater. Water depths of interest appear to be evenly distributed among shallow, intermediate, and deep water. REASONS FOR NOT MEASURING PARTICULAR NUTRIENTS OR NOT USING IN-SITU SENSORS ? Cost, lack of time, and technical expertise limitations are three important constraints to use of in-situ sensors, among those not currently measuring a nutrient of interest. ? Cost and lack of confidence in data are the top constraints to use of in-situ nutrient sensors, among those not using an in-situ nutrient sensor. ? In a related question, when respondents were asked if they had plans to purchase new commercial sensors within the next 2 years, those who did not have plans most commonly cited lack of need and cost. SPECIFIC PROCEDURES/ASPECTS OF MEASURING NUTRIENTS ? About half of the sample of coastal professionals (48%) currently use in-situ nutrient sensors, and these are typically commercial products, although a substantial percentage are a combination of commercial and custom-made. Use of and Capabilities of In-Situ Nutrient Sensors iii ? The most common application for nutrient sensors is as a deployed sensor on a remote platform for continuous in-situ measurements. ? A majority of those who use in-situ nutrient sensors take measurements hourly (59%), by far the leading answer. ? About a third of respondents (34%) are required to use specific approved analytical techniques and procedures, most commonly EPA-approved methods. ? Nearly a third of respondents (29%) said their sensor needs or requirements are non-standard. ? In-situ nutrient sensors are used by majorities of respondents for absolute concentrations (73%) as well as for relative changes (55%) in the nutrient(s) being measured. ? A majority of coastal professionals (68%) measure nutrients in ?M (micromolars), while 40% measure nutrients in mg/l (milligrams per liter); these percents include the 11% who measure using both. ? Nearly a fifth of respondents (18%) indicated that there are detection limits for nutrients that they measure that are set by regulations or other needs of the data. ? An overwhelming majority of respondents conduct their own absolute calibrations (83%). ? An overwhelming majority of coastal professionals (81%) use in-house sample analyses to measure nutrients at least some of the time, with most of those using in-house sample analyses exclusively; 38% contract with a laboratory to conduct analyses at least some of the time, with about half of those using an outside lab exclusively. ? The performance characteristics of most importance are reliability, accuracy, precision, range/detection limits, and key operational parameters. iv Responsive Management ? The overwhelming majority of those who plan to purchase new commercial sensors within the next 2 years (85%) will have a trained person on staff to operate the new sensor. LIMITATIONS OF SENSORS ? Cost, reliability, and in-field maintenance are the top areas in which current in-situ nutrient sensors have limitations, do not meet expectations, or do not meet needs. ? Ease of calibration, reliability/durability/maintenance, analytical time, hardware, software/data management, and range/detection limits are the top areas in which in-house sample analyses have limitations, do not meet expectations, or do not meet needs?all of these responses had more than 20% giving the answer (of those who use in-house sample analyses as opposed to those who use an outside subcontract laboratory for analyses). ? Analytical time is the top limitation on contracted laboratory analyses. ? 40% indicated that their contracted laboratory analyses had no significant limitations. PURCHASING NEW SENSORS ? A little less than half of respondents (46%) indicated plans to purchase new commercial sensors within the next 2 years. ? The overwhelming majority of those who plan to purchase new commercial sensors within the next 2 years will have a trained person on staff to operate the new sensor. ? Many respondents indicated that they will consider a different type of sensor type than the one they are currently using. ? Common reasons for planning to purchase new commercial sensors include an interest in new technology/new technology will address needs, facility/program expansion, and for replacement (other answers added a caveat regarding availability of funding). ? Common constraints to purchases of new commercial sensors are lack of need and cost. Use of and Capabilities of In-Situ Nutrient Sensors v ? Regarding what respondents (those who plan to acquire/purchase new equipment and will consider a different sensor type) require or would like to see in terms of customer support: ? 16 of the 20 respondents mentioned the need for training of some kind, and 11 of them specifically said on-site training ? 4 respondents specifically mentioned on-site set-up (these 4 also said on-site training). ? 7 mentioned ongoing support (4 wanted telephone support, 1 wanted on-line support, 2 did not specify medium of support). ? 3 mentioned a good manual. vi Responsive Management TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction and Methodology ........................................................................................................1 Nutrients and Aquatic Environments of Interest .............................................................................3 Nitrates/Nitrites ....................................................................................................................7 Phosphates............................................................................................................................9 Ammonium ........................................................................................................................11 Silicate................................................................................................................................13 Other Nutrients...................................................................................................................15 Reasons for Not Measuring Particular Nutrients or Not Using In-Situ Sensors............................17 Specific Procedures/Aspects of Measuring Nutrients....................................................................20 Limitations of Sensors ...................................................................................................................40 Purchasing New Sensors ................................................................................................................55 Characteristics of Sample ...............................................................................................................62 Use of and Capabilities of In-Situ Nutrient Sensors 1 INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY This study was conducted for the Alliance for Coastal Technologies (ACT) to gather data about the use of in-situ nutrient sensors. The study entailed a telephone survey of professionals in the coastal resources field, such as biologists, researchers, and coastal managers, who are currently involved in measuring nutrients. Specific aspects of the research methodology are discussed below. For the survey, telephones were selected as the preferred sampling medium because of the universality of telephone ownership. In addition, a central polling site at the Responsive Management office allowed for rigorous quality control over the interviews and data collection. Responsive Management maintains its own in-house telephone interviewing facilities. These facilities are staffed by interviewers with experience conducting computer-assisted telephone interviews on the subjects of natural resources. The telephone survey questionnaire was developed cooperatively by Responsive Management and the ACT. Responsive Management conducted a pre-test of the questionnaire, and revisions were made to the questionnaire based on the pre-test. To ensure the integrity of the telephone survey data, Responsive Management has interviewers who have been trained according to the standards established by the Council of American Survey Research Organizations. Methods of instruction included lecture and role-playing. The Survey Center Managers conducted project briefings with the interviewers prior to the administration of the survey. Interviewers were instructed on type of study, study goals and objectives, handling of survey questions, interview length, termination points and qualifiers for participation, interviewer instructions within the survey instrument, reading of the survey instrument, skip patterns, and probing and clarifying techniques necessary for specific questions on the survey instrument. The Survey Center Managers randomly monitored telephone workstations without the interviewers? knowledge to evaluate the performance of each interviewer. After the surveys were obtained by the interviewers, the Survey Center Managers and/or statisticians edited each completed survey to ensure clarity and completeness. 2 Responsive Management Interviews were conducted Monday through Friday from 9:00a.m. to 9:00p.m., Saturday noon to 5:00p.m., and Sunday from 3:00p.m. to 9:00p.m., all local time. A five-callback design was used to maintain the representativeness of the sample, to avoid bias toward people easy to reach by telephone, and to provide an equal opportunity for all to participate. When a respondent could not be reached on the first call, subsequent calls were placed on different days of the week and at different times of the day. The survey was conducted in February 2005. Responsive Management obtained a total of 56 completed interviews. The software used for data collection was Questionnaire Programming Language 4.1 (QPL). The survey data were entered into the computer as each interview was being conducted, eliminating manual data entry after the completion of the survey and the concomitant data entry errors that may occur with manual data entry. The survey instrument was programmed so that QPL branched, coded, and substituted phrases in the survey based on previous responses to ensure the integrity and consistency of the data collection. The analysis of data was performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software as well as proprietary software developed by Responsive Management. Note that some results may not sum to exactly 100% because of rounding. Use of and Capabilities of In-Situ Nutrient Sensors 3 NUTRIENTS AND AQUATIC ENVIRONMENTS OF INTEREST ? Overwhelmingly, respondents listed their primary area of interest as research (79%), while 14% listed their primary area of interest as resource management; however, the question asked for the primary area of interest and allowed only one response, and some of those who listed their area of interest as research indicated that they also had resource management responsibilities. ? Respondents who indicated that they are currently measuring nutrients can be categorized as follows: those who use in-situ nutrient sensors and those who do not use in-situ nutrient sensors. Those who do not use in-situ nutrient sensors were asked about the use of in-house sample analyses, outside laboratory for analyses, or both for measuring nutrients. A small percentage of those who do not use in-situ nutrient sensors indicated that they use a method other than in-house or outside laboratory analyses (these graphs are shown in the section of the report titled, ?Specific Procedures/Aspects of Measuring Nutrients?). ? The nutrients most of interest/concern are nitrates/nitrites (98% said they are interested/ concerned with these), phosphates (98%), ammonium (88%), and silicate (70%). ? The top aquatic environment of interest is estuarine, followed by coastal/nearshore, open ocean, and rivers/lakes/freshwater wetland/groundwater. Water depths of interest appear to be evenly distributed among shallow, intermediate, and deep water. ? The organizations of the respondents are listed in the section of this report titled, ?Characteristics of Sample.? 4 Responsive Management Q6. Which of the following best describes your primary area of interest or application concern? 7 14 79 0 20 40 60 80 100 Research Resource management Environmental health Percent (n=56) Use of and Capabilities of In-Situ Nutrient Sensors 5 Q9, 10, and 12-16. Which of the following nutrients are of interest or concern for you? 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 13 23 70 88 98 98 11 4 4 0 20 40 60 80 100 Nitrates/nitrites Phosphates Ammonium Silicate Nitrogen Iron Organic carbon Calcium Chloride Trace metals (unspecified) Zinc Bromide Chlorophyl Chromium Copper Mercury Oxygen Sulfides Organic (unspecified) M ul tip le R es po ns es A llo w ed Percent (n=56) Organic compounds (unspecified) 6 Responsive Management Q101. Which of the following describes your primary investigated/monitored aquatic environment? 4 27 30 45 46 55 63 27 7 5 0 20 40 60 80 100 Estuarine environment Coastal environment/ near shore Open ocean Rivers/lake/ freshwater wetland/ groundwater Shallow water (< 10 meters depth) Intermediate water (10-100 meters depth) Deep water (> 100 meters depth) Agriculture/ aquaculture Other Industrial/ waste water treatment M ul tip le R es po ns es A llo w ed Percent (n=56) Use of and Capabilities of In-Situ Nutrient Sensors 7 NITRATES/NITRITES ? An overwhelming majority of respondents (88%) are currently measuring nitrates/nitrites. ? The range of nitrates/nitrites measured is shown in the tabulation below: Q40 and 71. What is the typical range of concentrations of the nitrates/nitrites you are currently measuring? (Asked of those who said they are currently measuring nitrates/nitrites.) Number of Respondents < 1 ?M 2 Sub ?M-10 ?M 1 Detection limit to 25 ?M 1 0-5 ?M 1 1-9 ?M 5 0-15 ?M 1 0-20 ?M 1 2-25 ?M 1 0-30 ?M 3 15-30 ?M 1 0-40 ?M 1 0-100 ?M 3 10-99 ?M 1 0-120 ?M 1 40-150 ?M 1 10-250 ?M 1 0-2,000 ?M 1 0.002-0.8 mg/l 1 0.02-3.5 mg/l 1 < 1 mg/l 3 0-3 mg/l 1 0.007-5 mg/l 1 Less than 1-10 mg/l 1 Detection limit-10 mg/l 1 Below detection - 20 mg/l 1 0-10 mg/l 1 1-9 mg/l 1 1-15 mg/l 1 10-20 mg/l 1 10-99 mg/l 1 80-150 mg/l 1 1-1,000 mg/l 1 0-20,000 mg/l 1 0.004mdl 1 0.5 -10 ppm and 0.05-1ppm 1 Depends on ocean 1 Varies 1 Don?t know 4 8 Responsive Management Q17. Are you currently measuring nitrates/nitrites? 13 88 0 20 40 60 80 100 Yes No Percent (n=56) Use of and Capabilities of In-Situ Nutrient Sensors 9 PHOSPHATES ? A large majority of respondents (79%) are currently measuring phosphates. ? The range of phosphates measured is shown in the tabulation below: Q42 and 73. What is the typical range of concentrations of the phosphates you are currently measuring? (Asked of those who said they are currently measuring phosphates.) Number of Respondents < 1 ?M 4 0-0.5 ?M 1 Sub ?M-1 ?M 1 0-1.5 ?M 1 0-2 ?M 1 1-2 ?M 1 0-3 ?M 1 0-5 ?M 3 Detection limit-5 ?M 1 0-6 ?M 1 0-10 ?M 1 1-9 ?M 4 0-20 ?M 1 10-99 ?M 1 0-200 ?M 1 0.006-1 mg/l 1 0-1 mg/l 1 Below detection - 5 mg/l 1 Detection limit-20 mg/l 1 0.02-34 mg/l 1 Undetectable-500 mg/l 1 0.05-0.34 mg/l 1 0.003-0.3 mg/l 1 < 1 mg/l 2 0.01-4 mg/l 1 0-2 mg/l 1 6-70 mg/l 1 0-20,000 mg/l 1 1-20,000mg/l 1 0.1 mdl 1 Depends 1 Varies 1 Don?t know 6 10 Responsive Management Q18. Are you currently measuring phosphates? 21 79 0 20 40 60 80 100 Yes No Percent (n=56) Use of and Capabilities of In-Situ Nutrient Sensors 11 AMMONIUM ? A large majority of respondents (70%) are currently measuring ammonium. ? The range of ammonium measured is shown in the tabulation below: Q44 and 75. What is the typical range of concentrations of the ammonium you are currently measuring? (Asked of those who said they are currently measuring ammonium.) Number of Respondents < 1 ?M 1 Detection limit to 10 ?M 1 Sub ?M-10 ?M 1 0-2 ?M 1 0-3 ?M 1 0-4 ?M 1 0-5 ?M 1 0-10 ?M 2 1-9 ?M 6 0-12 ?M 1 0-20 ?M 2 0-100 ?M 1 10-99 ?M 1 0-300 ?M 1 0-2000 ?M 2 0.005-0.4 mg/l 1 0.08-0.9 mg/l 1 < 1 mg/l 1 Undetectable-1 mg/l 1 0.03-1 mg/l 1 0.1-2 mg/l 1 0-2 mg/l 2 5-100 mg/l 1 0-20,000 mg/l 1 1-10,000 mg/l 1 0.008 mdl 1 Depends 1 Don?t know 5 Varies 1 12 Responsive Management Q19. Are you currently measuring ammonium? 30 70 0 20 40 60 80 100 Yes No Percent (n=56) Use of and Capabilities of In-Situ Nutrient Sensors 13 SILICATE ? A slight majority of respondents (55%) are currently measuring silicate. ? The range of silicate measured is shown in the tabulation below: Q46 and 77. What is the typical range of concentrations of the silicate you are currently measuring? (Asked of those who said they are currently measuring silicate.) Number of Respondents < 1 ?M 1 Detection limit to 25 ?M 1 Sub ?M-50 ?M 1 1-9 ?M 2 0-25 ?M 1 0-30 ?M 1 0-50 ?M 1 5-60 ?M 1 40-85 ?M 1 1-100 ?M 1 10-99 ?M 2 0-200 ?M 1 10-200 ?M 1 0-230 ?M 1 0-1000 ?M 1 20-200 ?M 1 20-250 ?M 1 0.1-5 mg/l 1 0.1-10 mg/l 1 1-5 mg/l 1 0-5,000 mg/l 1 100-10,000 mg/l 1 Depends 1 Varies 1 Don?t know 6 14 Responsive Management Q20. Are you currently measuring silicate? 45 55 0 20 40 60 80 100 Yes No Percent (n=56) Use of and Capabilities of In-Situ Nutrient Sensors 15 OTHER NUTRIENTS ? A fifth of respondents (20%) indicated that they are currently measuring other nutrients (other than nitrates/nitrites, phosphates, ammonium, and silicate). Other nutrients of interest and indications of the number of respondents who measure and who do not measure them are shown in the tabulation. Nutrient of Interest Number of Respondents Measuring the Nutrient Number of Respondents Interested in but Not Measuring the Nutrient Bromide 1 0 Calcium 2 0 Carbon 6 0 Chloride 2 0 Chromium 1 0 Copper 0 1 Iron 5 2 Mercury 0 1 Nitrogen 9 4 Other 2 0 Oxygen 1 0 Sulfides 1 0 Trace metals 2 0 Zinc 1 1 16 Responsive Management Q26. Are you currently measuring any other nutrients? 80 20 0 20 40 60 80 100 Yes No Percent (n=56) Use of and Capabilities of In-Situ Nutrient Sensors 17 REASONS FOR NOT MEASURING PARTICULAR NUTRIENTS OR NOT USING IN-SITU SENSORS ? Cost, lack of time, and technical expertise limitations are three important constraints to use of in-situ sensors, among those not currently measuring a nutrient of interest. ? Cost and lack of confidence in data are the top constraints to use of in-situ nutrient sensors, among those not using an in-situ nutrient sensor. ? In a related question, when respondents were asked if they had plans to purchase new commercial sensors within the next 2 years, those who did not have plans most commonly cited lack of need and cost (this graph is shown in the section of the report titled, ?Purchasing New Sensors?). 18 Responsive Management 2 5 7 9 11 16 2 57 0 20 40 60 80 100 Cost Depends on needs Lack of time Technical expertise Limitations of available technology Lack of technical expertise/ability Other Don't know/ not measuring M ul tip le R es po ns es A llo w ed Percent (n=56) Q37 and 38. If you have an interest in a nutrient/nutrients that you are not currently measuring, what are the reasons you are not currently measuring it/them? Use of and Capabilities of In-Situ Nutrient Sensors 19 Q137 and 138. Why don't you use an in-situ nutrient sensor? (Asked of those who do not currently use in-situ nutrient sensors.) 7 10 10 14 38 48 0 20 40 60 80 100 Cost Lack of confidence in data Not needed Inappropriate environment Not ready yet Other M ul tip le R es po ns es A llo w ed Percent (n=29) 20 Responsive Management SPECIFIC PROCEDURES/ASPECTS OF MEASURING NUTRIENTS ? About half of the sample of coastal professionals (48%) currently use in-situ nutrient sensors, and these are typically commercial products. ? Of those who currently use in-situ nutrient sensors, 70% use a commercial product alone, 4% use a custom-designed and custom-made sensor, and 26% use a combination of commercial and custom-made. ? The most common application for nutrient sensors is as a deployed sensor on a remote platform for continuous in-situ measurements. ? A majority of those who use in-situ nutrient sensors take measurements hourly (59%), by far the leading answer. In a related question, all respondents were asked how often they need to provide or obtain nutrient measurement data, and hourly was again the top answer. ? About a third of respondents (34%) are required to use specific approved analytical techniques and procedures, such as EPA-approved methods. ? EPA methods were the most commonly used. ? Nearly a third of respondents (29%) said their sensor needs or requirements are non-standard; descriptions of their non-standard needs are shown. ? In-situ nutrient sensors are used by majorities of respondents for absolute concentrations (73%) as well as for relative changes (55%) in the nutrient(s) being measured. ? A majority of coastal professionals (68%) measure nutrients in ?M (micromolars), while 40% measure nutrients in mg/l (milligrams per liter); these percents include the 11% who measure using both. ? Nearly a fifth of respondents (18%) indicated that there are detection limits for nutrients that they measure that are set by regulations or other needs of the data. Use of and Capabilities of In-Situ Nutrient Sensors 21 ? An overwhelming majority of respondents conduct their own absolute calibrations (83%); descriptions of their calibration techniques are shown. ? An overwhelming majority of coastal professionals (81%) use in-house sample analyses to measure nutrients at least some of the time, with most of those using in-house sample analyses exclusively; 38% contract with a laboratory to conduct analyses at least some of the time, with about half of those using an outside lab exclusively. ? The performance characteristics of most importance are reliability, accuracy, precision, range/detection limits, and key operational parameters. Other performance characteristics considered important are shown in the tabulation that follows the ratings tabulation. ? The overwhelming majority of those who plan to purchase new commercial sensors within the next 2 years (85%) will have a trained person on staff to operate the new sensor. 22 Responsive Management Q103. Do you currently use in-situ nutrient sensors? 52 48 0 20 40 60 80 100 Yes No Percent (n=56) Use of and Capabilities of In-Situ Nutrient Sensors 23 Q106. Which of the following best describes your current sensors? (Asked of those who currently use in-situ nutrient sensors.) 26 4 70 0 20 40 60 80 100 Commercial product Designed and custom-made by yourself Combination of both of the above Percent (n=27) 24 Responsive Management Q104 and 105. What is your most common application? (Asked of those who currently use in- situ nutrient sensors.) 4 4 7 26 59 0 20 40 60 80 100 Deployed sensor on remote platforms for continuous in-situ measurments Sensor as part of a suite of instruments used for profiling Flow-through system on a vessel for periodic surveys, transect, etc. Portable sensor for spot measurements In-line monitoring for water treatment systems Percent (n=27) Use of and Capabilities of In-Situ Nutrient Sensors 25 Q107. How often do you need to do in-situ nutrient measurements? (Asked of those who currently use in-situ nutrient sensors.) 11 7 11 59 11 0 20 40 60 80 100 More often than hourly Hourly Daily Monthly Other Percent (n=27) 26 Responsive Management Q139. How often do you need to provide and/or acquire nutrient measurement data? 14 14 7 7 36 5 16 0 20 40 60 80 100 More often than hourly Hourly Daily Weekly Monthly Other Don't know Percent (n=56) Use of and Capabilities of In-Situ Nutrient Sensors 27 Q98. Are you required to use any specific approved analytical techniques and procedures? For example, EPA-approved methods? 66 34 0 20 40 60 80 100 Yes No Percent (n=56) 28 Responsive Management Q99. Analytical techniques and procedures used. Analytical Technique Number of Respondents Who Use It American Society for Testing and Materials 1 Chain of evidence 1 Depends on project 1 EPA 8 EPA and Florida DEP 1 EPA, American Public Health Association, USGS 1 EPA, QA-QC, in-house 1 National Estuarine Reserve Nutrient guidelines 1 Standard academic procedures 1 USGS 1 USGS and EPA methods 1 Use of and Capabilities of In-Situ Nutrient Sensors 29 Q201. Are any of your sensor needs or requirements non-standard? 4 68 29 0 20 40 60 80 100 Yes No Don't know Percent (n=56) 30 Responsive Management Q202. Please describe briefly the non-standard sensor needs or requirements. (Asked of those who said they had sensor needs and requirements that were non-standard.) Ability to handle variable solidity; needs to be able to self-calibrate Building a urea sensor, reprogram Envirotech instruments for more accuracy Calcium work non-standard; being able to detect low phosphate levels Collection of samples on a moving vessel Deployment time but still trying to match up the physics Detecting lower limits Development of new parameters; experiment dependant Estuarine deployment; cold weather deployment Flexibility Must be able to work in a variety of environments: freshwater to saltwater, clear to turbid water, and highly colored water Non-nutrient chemicals Past research required; some requirements do not exist in sensor types. Needs a real-time dissolved propane or sf6 analyzer. The sensor has more channels than on the market, and depth range was extended as well Very small sample sizes Use of and Capabilities of In-Situ Nutrient Sensors 31 Q203. Do you use your in-situ nutrient sensor to determine absolute concentrations or relative changes? 13 41 14 32 0 20 40 60 80 100 Absolute concentrations Relative changes Both Don't know Percent (n=56) 32 Responsive Management Q39. Do you measure nutrients in ?M (micromolars) or mg/l (milligrams per liter)? 4 11 29 57 0 20 40 60 80 100 ?M (micromolars) mg/l (milligrams per liter) Both Don't know Percent (n=56) Use of and Capabilities of In-Situ Nutrient Sensors 33 Q69. Are there any required detection limits and/or ranges, for instance by regulations, for the nutrient(s) you are currently measuring? (Asked of those who are currently measuring a nutrient/nutrients.) 11 71 18 0 20 40 60 80 100 Yes No Don't know Percent (n=56) 34 Responsive Management Q204. Do you conduct your own absolute calibrations? (Asked of those who said they use the in-situ nutrient sensor to determine absolute concentrations.) 2 15 83 0 20 40 60 80 100 Yes No Don't know Percent (n=41) Use of and Capabilities of In-Situ Nutrient Sensors 35 Q205. If yes, what method do you use to calibrate? (Asked of those who said they use the in-situ nutrient sensor to determine absolute concentrations and that they conduct their own calibrations.) Auto analyzer in lab to cross-calibrate Automatic Certified concentration standards External standards Gravimetric standards in lab vis-?-vis run as unknowns In-house standards (answer given by 12 respondents) In-lab standard and in-field standards Laboratory-based analysis Laboratory standard solution Multipoint linear progression Own laboratory standard; compare with other institutions Photometric analysis or auto-analyzer Post deployment calibration checks Standard automated oceanographic techniques Standard Standard lab methods (answer given by 2 respondents) Standard wastewater Varies; chemistry 36 Responsive Management Q141. How do you currently measure nutrients? 2 20 18 61 0 20 40 60 80 100 In-house sample analysis Outside subcontract laboratory Both Other Percent (n=56) Use of and Capabilities of In-Situ Nutrient Sensors 37 Ratings of the Importance of the Following Performance Characteristics Performance Characteristic (sorted by mean) Percent Rating Item the Highest in Importance (5) Percent Rating the Item Low in Importance (1, 2, or 3) Mean Q180. Reliability 81 4 4.77 Q177. Accuracy 72 11 4.56 Q178. Precision 57 8 4.49 Q176. Range/detection limits 59 9 4.48 Q175. Key operational parameters 64 22 4.36 Q191. Product support/ warranty/vendor reputation 51 17 4.34 Q193. Cost 38 30 4.06 Q181. Deployment life (e.g., biofouling resistance, power limitations, re-agent limitations) 33 26 4.04 Q182. Operating life (i.e., life expectancy of the instrument) 33 27 4.04 Q183. Calibration life 24 25 3.98 Q190. In-field maintenance 53 32 3.94 Q185. Ease of calibration 38 42 3.91 Q192. Quality of product handbook/documentation 32 34 3.87 Q184. Automatic calibration 23 35 3.69 Q179. Sampling interval/ frequency 21 53 3.51 Q188. Input/output interfaces 20 49 3.51 Q186. Real-time sensor data display and/or analysis 15 56 3.31 Q189. Packaging 19 60 3.29 Q187. Off-sensor telemetry 14 59 3.18 Mean is: 39.32 Mean is: 31.46 Mean is: 3.96 Scale is 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest importance. 38 Responsive Management Q195-200. Other Characteristics of Interest in Nutrient Sensors and Rating Characteristic Rating by the Respondent for the Given Other Characteristic Ability for multiple analysis with one instrument 5 Biofouling and operations power 5 Communication power requirements 5 Compatibility with multiple instrument packages 4 Decreased toxicity 3 Ease of use 4 Fouling 5 In-field adaptability or remote adaptability 4 Installation and communication with other instruments 4 Interfacing 4 Interfacing with other instruments 3 Methodology used?measurement based techniques 5 Methods of minimizing fouling is a major issue 3 Parameters that can be measured; that it can do multiple things 4 Power consumption 4 Power supply 5 Skilled technicians 3 Waste disposal and production 5 Waste generation 3 Scale is 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest importance. Use of and Capabilities of In-Situ Nutrient Sensors 39 Q172. Would you have a trained person to operate the newly acquired commercial in-situ nutrient sensor? (Asked of those who plan on acquiring new commercial sensors within the next 2 years.) 4 12 85 0 20 40 60 80 100 Yes No Don't know Percent (n=26) 40 Responsive Management LIMITATIONS OF SENSORS ? Cost, reliability, and in-field maintenance are the top areas in which current in-situ nutrient sensors have limitations, do not meet expectations, or do not meet needs. ? Ease of calibration, reliability/durability/maintenance, analytical time, hardware, software/data management, and range/detection limits are the top areas in which in-house sample analyses have limitations, do not meet expectations, or do not meet needs?all of these responses had more than 20% giving the answer (of those who use in-house sample analyses as opposed to those who use an outside subcontract laboratory for analyses). ? Analytical time is the top limitation on contracted laboratory analyses. ? 40% indicated that their contracted laboratory analyses had no significant limitations. Use of and Capabilities of In-Situ Nutrient Sensors 41 26 26 26 33 37 41 48 52 59 33 30 26 0 20 40 60 80 100 Cost Reliability In-field maintenance Quality of product handbook/ documentation Calibration life Deployment life (e.g., biofouling resistance, power limitations, or re- agent limitations) Ease of calibration None of these Range/ detection limits Sampling interval/ frequency Operating life (e.g., life expectancy of the instrument) Effectiveness dependant on environmental conditions (e.g., ice cover, high salinity, turbidity) M ul tip le R es po ns es A llo w ed Percent (n=27) Q110 and 112. In which of the following areas does the in-situ nutrient sensor/system you are using have significant limitations, not live up to specifications or expectations, or not meet your needs? (Asked of those who currently use in-situ nutrient sensors.) (Part 1.) 42 Responsive Management 7 7 19 19 19 22 22 22 15 11 7 0 20 40 60 80 100 Precision Automatic calibration Packaging Accuracy Real-time sensor data display and/or analysis Off-sensor telemetry Key operational parameters (flowcell path length, injection volume, detector response) Input/ output interfaces (e.g., computers, alarms to other sensors or equipment, etc.) Operating pressure/ depth range Flow sensitivity Other M ul tip le R es po ns es A llo w ed Percent (n=27) Q110 and 112. In which of the following areas does the in-situ nutrient sensor/system you are using have significant limitations, not live up to specifications or expectations, or not meet your needs? (Asked of those who currently use in-situ nutrient sensors.) (Part 2.) Use of and Capabilities of In-Situ Nutrient Sensors 43 Q144. In which of the following areas does the analytical system you are currently using have significant limitations, does not live up to specification or expectations, or does not meet your needs? (Asked of those who use an in-house sample analysis.) 4 13 22 24 26 26 28 28 17 15 13 0 20 40 60 80 100 Ease of calibration/ automatic calibration Reliability/ durability/ maintenance Sample analytical time Hardware Software and data management Range/ detection limits Degree of automation Other Accuracy Precision Key operational parameters (flowcell path length, injection volume, detector response) M ul tip le R es po ns es A llo w ed Percent (n=46) 44 Responsive Management 10 20 40 40 0 20 40 60 80 100 Analytical time No significant limitations Data management Range/ detection limits M ul tip le R es po ns es A llo w ed Percent (n=10) Q158. When subcontracting the analysis, in which of the following areas does the analytical service have significant limitations, not live up to specifications or expectations or not meet your needs? (Asked of those who use exclusively an outside subcontract laboratory for analysis.) Use of and Capabilities of In-Situ Nutrient Sensors 45 ? Issues with each of the performance characteristics of the sensor/sensor system are shown in the tabulations that follow. Q114. What were the issues with key operational parameters of the sensor(s) that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? Cannot measure every possible nitrate and phosphorus species Detection techniques not available or extensive enough; development time of the chemistry More things that you could measure Not adequate nutrient sensors?level of detection not low enough Q115. What were the issues with range/detection limits of the sensor(s) that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? Detection limitations are lower, lower than they are right now Estuarine applications?storm events = big increases?out of range (silicate and ammonium) In more pristine environments, cannot get the detection limit low enough Detection limit Not as sensitive as it should be, especially at lower end of detection Not low enough (specifically for nitrates) Range inadequate at the low end Q116. What were the issues with accuracy of the sensor(s) that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? Biofouling and calibration issues Calibration doesn?t give you the same number back?precise but not accurate Detections not low enough; reproducibility not there, better accuracy needed by a factor of 10 Lack of accuracy When close to the detection limit, get a lot of variation; don?t know how much variability with temperature change Q117. What were the issues with precision of the sensor(s) that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? Biofouling and calibration Improvements in flow cell would improve precision?for most coastal environments, satisfactory technology exists to make it better Lack of precision Noise in the calibration?condition of surface not reliable (reduction step) Not a number of significant figures, factor of at least 10 higher than present Replication of standards 46 Responsive Management Q118. What were the issues with sampling interval/frequency of the sensor(s) that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? Accuracy Cannot sample frequently enough Different chemistries for different nutrients; time consuming; cannot do all simultaneously Hard-wired protocol?substitution of a standard = gapped time series, data analysis problems Instrument dependant?cannot select any sampling rate that you desire, has to be multiples of 2, 4, etc.; frequency not rapid enough to match up with other instruments Multi-channel more use = less frequency, cannot get 3 channels to work at once, need more frequency Too slow Q119. What were the issues with reliability of the sensor(s) that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? Most sensors still in beta test mode Accuracy Biofouling; workmanship Breakdowns Don?t work very well High particle loads difficult Instrument malfunctions Lack of reliability Strange standards?non-consistent Success rate of deployed instruments is about 1 in 3?plumbing issues Too many mechanical problems Tough to get started with correct measurements Very complicated, many moving parts, wet chemistry?pipettes very tedious and complicated, ultra-violet light bulb dims over time Q120. What were the issues with deployment life of the sensor(s) that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? Biofouling and drift Biofouling and workmanship Fouling in longer-term deployments; calibration drift In a mooring configuration, concerns with fouling; battery life Limited reagent bags Only deploy for 2-3 weeks, would like longer Power Reliability for long-time records at issue; some deployments called for are 2-3 years, and no instruments available for that time-frame Stability of reagents Use of and Capabilities of In-Situ Nutrient Sensors 47 Q121. What were the issues with operating life of the sensor(s) that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? Battery Battery life; power hungry Biofouling Life not long enough for the price Longer deployment, corrosion issues, biofouling, electrolysis Not enough battery power for cold temps Parts malfunction, replacement Q122. What were the issues with operating pressure/depth range of the sensor(s) that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? Had to modify to get to a reasonable depth Profiling systems need to be comparable for the normal CTD sensor takes Q123. What were the issues with flow sensitivity of the sensor(s) that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? Hard to deploy (big), defouling, barnacles?all interconnected Some extreme (esp. low) flow situations make sensor not operable?needs to be more rugged Q124. What were the issues with calibration life of the sensor(s) that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? Calibration not stable Don?t hold calibrations long enough Drift (2 respondents gave this answer) Ease of or the ability to hold a calibration If changes in environmental conditions, then calibration becomes less accurate Significant amount of drift esp. in long durations, cut drift factor down by a factor of 10 Stability of on-board standards not adequate Stability or reagents Q125. What were the issues with automatic calibration of the sensor(s) that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? Calibration loops in software are not automatic; laborious and tedious; no commercially prepared standards available Changes in optical response over time Doesn?t exist Ease and ability to hold a calibration Needed to avoid major field costs Run out of autocalibration solution 48 Responsive Management Q126. What were the issues with ease of calibration of the sensor(s) that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? Base-line subtraction, putting a spike in so constantly needs calibration Cumbersome Laborious, not automatic, don?t trust given calibration Not easy to calibrate in hostile environment Primary importance?needs to be done frequently Set up for a single calibration is simple; laborious to set up multiple calibrations Standardization process too labor intensive, time-consuming Still requires the laboratory analysis Time-consuming compared to automatic Q127. What were the issues with real-time sensor data display and/or analysis of the sensor(s) that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? Designed to be deployed autonomously, consequently all data on compact flashcard; download after the instrument removed; telemetry system capabilities not yet figured out Interfaces not completed, not known Telemetry and modems The instrument sends back a signal that we have to process, which is time-consuming Without it, very difficult Q128. What were the issues with off-sensor telemetry of the sensor(s) that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? Not a part of conventional use or practice Not all instruments allow that Not straightforward, protocols not good Set up would entail additional modifications and cost Q129. What were the issues with input/output interfaces of the sensor(s) that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? Interfaces with instrumentation changes?wet chemistry = crude form of computer language, very tedious Standardization would be helpful Written in own command languages, not user-friendly Q130. What were the issues with packaging of the sensor(s) that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? In water?not room for all reagents in container Large, heavy, awkward Size Too big Too big, cases corrode, not in a pressure case that can withstand the depths, too heavy Too bulky Use of and Capabilities of In-Situ Nutrient Sensors 49 Q131. What were the issues with in-field maintenance of the sensor(s) that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? Battery replacement, probe cleaning Breakdowns hard to diagnose Breakdowns, replacement reagent bags Cost of labor, hazards (weather) Defouling, cleaning Difficult to address repairs/adjustments Doesn?t exist Hostile environments?malfunctions hard to determine; removal from field causes time and data loss Large amount of reagents to go in and out, much hauling Not reliable for more than 2-3 weeks, so have replace?time constraints Physical set-up of instrument, reagent reservoirs Very little modularity in computers; too tedious; wet chemistry instruments?too much time and personnel to get ready Wet chemistry process requires labor; clogging; etc. Q132. What were the issues with quality of product handbook/documentation of the sensor(s) that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? Configuration material should be made clearer Needs more information Not clearly written Not detailed enough Not enough helpful information Not enough information, obvious corners cut Not schematic for the instrument?poorly done Not thorough Not user-friendly; should be portable and informative enough to be taken into the field Want to tinker with machine, no direction for how the machine works, why it works the way it works; programming seems obscure Q133. What were the issues with cost of the sensor(s) that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? Cost of labor for deployment Expensive for not much reliability Not suitable for research environment and staff?for cost Too expensive (9 respondents gave this answer) Too expensive, need to work for a long period of time (many weeks-months) to be cost- effective Too expensive, parts expensive to replace, repairs expensive Very expensive-market driven?cheaper products available Very expensive 50 Responsive Management Q135. What were the effectiveness issues of the sensor(s) resulting from dependency on environmental conditions that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? Arctic deployments difficult Biofouling High particle loads?Mississippi River, unique circumstance Limits on temperature (in ice and under ice), reagents freeze or degrade (Gulf of Mexico), electronics have larger drift in extreme temperatures Problems specific to environment?Antarctic Ruggedness, rivers run violently Silicate sensor; standard reagents don?t stay in solution below 8 Celsius Use of and Capabilities of In-Situ Nutrient Sensors 51 ? Issues with each of the performance characteristics of the analytical system(s) are shown in the tabulations that follow. Q146. What were the issues with key operational parameters of the analytical system(s) that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? Limits of detection more than anything else Urea?chemistry not amenable to good level detection Q147. What were the issues with range/detection limits of the analytical system(s) that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? Couldn?t reach required detection limits on the lower end of the spectrum Not enough detection capability on lower end Not low enough Part of this is an operator problem; no one was willing to run it to the detection levels we wanted Phosphate levels in lakes are below detection levels Pushed range on both ends Range not broad enough, especially on the lower end Sensitivity not there for information needed Technicon #2?can measure most things?new ones not made that have the same capability; noisy base-lines with new/commercial instrument Very low concentration limits Q148. What were the issues with accuracy of the analytical system(s) that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? Drift and frequent recalibration; is it a true signal or does it need recalibration? Not highly accurate, precision more important Older systems more accurate?new systems lack of reproducibility, have noisier output Replicability Very low concentrations accuracy becomes more difficult Q149. What were the issues with precision of the analytical system(s) that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? Being able to tell the difference between 2 samples If the instrument is precise, reproducible, reliable and sensitive--than the user has to make that standard accurate Noisy output--older systems more accurate Not high level of precision Replicability 52 Responsive Management Q150. What were the issues with sample analytical time of the analytical system(s) that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? If we could run faster, we would have more sample; there is a bottleneck at the analysis stage Daily sample load limitations Field collect and process?analysis takes too long Heated chemistries too time consuming It?s labor intensive Laborious Length of time for wet chemical analysis is limiting Many samples per hour are not necessarily accurate Slow Time is limited Turn around time Q151. What were the issues with degree of automation of the analytical system(s) that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? Equipment not completely automated Lack of personnel to constantly monitor?many pieces Not automated enough?staff time Same as with analytical time Takes too much time Time and personnel are limited Q152. What were the issues with ease of calibration/automatic calibration of the analytical system(s) that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? Auto-analyzer has trouble getting stable curves Drift (2 respondents gave this answer) Instrument stability Multipoint calibration too cumbersome No commercial standards; make your own?very time consuming?too much time calibrating Related to hardware, if the auto-analyzer hasn?t been used in awhile, takes a long time to set up Reliable external standards Technician effort They take a lot of steps and, in turn, take a lot of time; and the frequency of calibration Time/personnel limits Too laborious, vendors? software should be simplified Use of and Capabilities of In-Situ Nutrient Sensors 53 Q153. What were the issues with software and data management of the analytical system(s) that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? Age/outdated Difficult automated output in preferred form Needs software for direct data entry No good software for metric data Stinks! Write my own?I read my peaks on my own. System crashes = reliability, ?buggy? System is not updated to best level of software Time/personnel limits, not easily accessible to downloading into Excel Too generic User interface?ease of use Q154. What were the issues with hardware of the analytical system(s) that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? Age Age = 30 years = Technicon?still works well, better than new products, but aging Aging equipment and compatibility Antiquated, volume of hazardous waste (cadmium) Complexity Contamination, multiple-channel analysis Get hardware in field, it would help a lot Old system?pumps still working, newer ones less-lasting, constant repair, electronic circuits can go with ships? currents Parts/breakdowns, not reliable Start-up time if it hasn?t been running in awhile; lack of expertise of technicians Time issues Q155. What were the issues with reliability/durability/maintenance of the analytical system(s) that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? Complexity, too many moving pieces Frequent breakdowns Hard to repair Instrument stability Maintenance intensity (reagent replenishment) Not cost-effective Older equipment starting to fail and parts hard to replace Tedious instrument to keep running?lack of trained personnel for upkeep Time/personnel limits?breakdowns waste time 54 Responsive Management ? Finally, the tabulation below shows comments regarding current shortfalls/future desires in terms of in-situ nutrient analyzers (all respondents were asked; 30 responded). ? 9 respondents specifically mentioned durability, long maintenance interval, or long deployment capability, and 7 respondents mentioned reliability. ? 7 respondents wanted a smaller sensor. ? 7 mentioned issues regarding the ease of use. Q206. Based on your experience with in-situ nutrient analyzers, are there any shortfalls in current designs or additions you?d like to see in future designs? Blank out turbidity issue (1-400 ntu) Cheaper, smaller, easier to use Chemical storage and waste, sensor biofouling Currently difficult to operate for our technicians Deployment life a problem in estuarine environments Dumb the fancy ones down; make the simple ones more robust Ease of use Ease of use, reliability, ease of calibration/maintenance Expense and accuracy at low levels, reliability, difficulty in programming them to meet your needs?need a staff member dedicated to programming only Improved reliability Increased reliability and flexibility in mode of operations, less costly Interface with other instruments needs improvement Integrated anti-biofouling, size and power requirements, maintenance interval, cost Long-term deployable instrument that can measure more Made smaller, lower power requirements, pre-packaged reagents Mainly level of detection, durability Miniaturization and power consumption and stability More affordable More chemicals, longer operating life, higher reliability Not very accurate Optimizing aspects for ease of use Precision?standard deviations too large, deployment time, data retrieval?more data analogs?retrieving from moorings etc., reagent life Remote adaptability, reliability (chemistry manifold) Robustness, higher frequency output Smaller Smaller, cheaper, faster Stability, power, smaller, cheaper, faster, long-term autonomous operation Total reactive nitrogen and phosphate measurements?including dissolved organic nutrients and particulate nutrients Usability and reliability over time increased Very limited in what we can measure and how many we can measure Use of and Capabilities of In-Situ Nutrient Sensors 55 PURCHASING NEW SENSORS ? A little less than half of respondents (46%) indicated plans to purchase new commercial sensors within the next 2 years. ? The overwhelming majority of those who plan to purchase new commercial sensors within the next 2 years will have a trained person on staff to operate the new sensor (this graph was previously shown in the section of the report titled, ?Specific Procedures/Aspects of Measuring Nutrients?). ? Of those who use in-situ sensors and who plan to purchase a new commercial sensor, the overwhelming majority indicated that they will consider a different type of sensor type than the one they are currently using. ? Common reasons for planning to purchase new commercial sensors include an interest in new technology/new technology will address needs, facility/program expansion, and for replacement (other answers added a caveat regarding availability of funding). ? Common constraints to purchases of new commercial sensors are lack of need and cost. ? A tabulation shows responses regarding reasons respondents will consider using a different sensor type than the one currently being used. ? A final tabulation in this section of the report shows comments regarding what respondents (those who plan to acquire/purchase new equipment and will consider a different sensor type) require or would like to see in terms of customer support. ? 16 of the 20 respondents mentioned the need for training of some kind, and 11 of them specifically said on-site training ? 4 respondents specifically mentioned on-site set-up (these 4 also said on-site training). ? 7 mentioned ongoing support (4 wanted telephone support, 1 wanted on-line support, 2 did not specify medium of support). ? 3 mentioned a good manual. 56 Responsive Management Q166. Do you plan on acquiring new commercial sensors within the next 2 years? 5 48 46 0 20 40 60 80 100 Yes No Don't know Percent (n=56) Use of and Capabilities of In-Situ Nutrient Sensors 57 Q169. Will you consider a different sensor type than the one you are currently using to measure in- situ nutrients? (Asked of those who plan on acquiring new commercial sensors within the next 2 years.) 14 86 0 20 40 60 80 100 Yes No Percent (n=14) 58 Responsive Management Q167. Please explain why you plan on acquiring new commercial sensors within the next 2 years. (Asked of those who plan on acquiring new commercial sensors within the next 2 years.) 40 24 20 16 0 20 40 60 80 100 Interested in new technology/new technology addresses new needs Adds a caveat re: funding Facilities expansion Replacement Percent (n=25) Use of and Capabilities of In-Situ Nutrient Sensors 59 Q168. Please explain why you do not plan on acquiring new commercial sensors within the next 2 years. (Asked of those who plan on acquiring new commercial sensors within the next 2 years.) 44 41 4 4 4 4 0 20 40 60 80 100 Does not need at present time Cost/funding Builds own Nothing meets needs Does not do purchasing for organization Cannot leave instrument in place Percent (n=27) 60 Responsive Management Q170. Please explain why you will consider a different sensor type than the one you are currently using to measure in-situ nutrients. Compare ultra violet sensor to wet chemistry, if cost effective Ease of operation/use For the range of measurements, and if they are cheaper and easier to maintain Improvements Improvements in technology More suitable to the project, has fewer problems New and improved technology New sensor technologies that overcome current problems with equipment Optical sensors (ISIS) are less of a hassle and more robust Reliability Wants highest quality Will consider modification on existing systems, wants to see what technology brings Use of and Capabilities of In-Situ Nutrient Sensors 61 Q173. What would you require or suggest in terms of training and customer support? Each site should be considered a separate entity and addressed as such; prompt response time Few days for on-site visit and set-up Good manual, availability of tech support by phone Good manual Good manuals, good on-line support, representatives available to trouble-shoot Hands-on time with a representative Hands-on training experience In-house Multiple day introduction and regular follow-up On-site training (3 respondents gave this answer) Person needs to be skilled in analytical chemistry, skilled in lab in field labor Qualified person come for on-site training and initial set-up Response time is tight, and it is difficult to meet program needs, so on-call support is needed; need for a quick time-frame Significant support?2 week course Site visit to set up and demonstrate new equipment, suggested protocols for different ranges Someone who really knows the instrument and all software to come on-site to train and be available by phone to resolve issues as they come up That it be readily available; a one-day course would be helpful Training course if complicated instrument Training for chemical sensors?chemical, computer and engineering training by a company representative Vendor should send technical support people to help with set-up and on-site training 62 Responsive Management CHARACTERISTICS OF SAMPLE ? The sample contained coastal professionals associated with the following organizations: Organization Number of Respondents Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory 1 Bard College?NY State Department of Environmental Conservation 1 Bedford Institute of Oceanography 1 Bermuda Biological Station for Research 1 Department of State (Texas) Health Services 1 Environmental Protection Agency 2 Food and Drug Administration 1 Georgia Department of Natural Resources 1 Greys Reef National Marine Sanctuary 1 Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium 1 Maryland Department of Natural Resources 1 Maryland Department of the Environment 1 Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute 1 National Marine Sanctuary Program 1 Natural Resources Research Institute?University of Minnesota 1 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 1 North Carolina State University 1 Occoquan Watershed Monitoring Laboratory 1 Office of Navel Research 1 Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission 1 Oregon State University 1 Rutgers University?IMCB 1 San Francisco State University-Romberg Tibouron Center 1 Sapelo Island (Georgia) National Estuarine Research Reserve 1 Skidaway Institute of Oceanography 3 South Florida Management District 1 South Florida Management District Team 1 South Florida Water Management District 1 Southern California Coastal Water Research Project 1 The Nitrate Elimination Co., Inc. 1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1 U.S. Geological Survey 3 U.S. Geological Survey?Wildlife Resources Division 1 University of Alaska 1 University of Delaware 1 University of Maine 1 University of Maryland 1 University of Maryland?Center for Environmental Science 3 University of Michigan 2 Use of and Capabilities of In-Situ Nutrient Sensors 63 Organization Number of Respondents University of Rhode Island 1 University of Vermont 2 University of Washington 2 University of West Florida?Center for Environmental Diagnostics and Bioremediation 1 University of West Florida 1 Virginia Institute of Marine Science 1 WetLabs, Inc. 1 ? The sample was 82% male. Q209. Respondent's gender (not asked, but observed by interviewer). 18 82 0 20 40 60 80 100 Male Female Percent (n=56)