Environmental Modeling & Assessment

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 315–332 | Cite as

Water quality assessment using integrated modeling and monitoring in Narva Bay, Gulf of Finland

  • Gennadi Lessin
  • Urmas Raudsepp
Original Paper


A coupled three-dimensional hydrodynamic–ecological model was used for the assessment of water quality in Narva Bay during one biologically active season. Narva Bay is located in the south-eastern Gulf of Finland. Narva River with a catchment’s area covering part of Russia and Estonia discharges water and nutrients to Narva Bay. The ecological model includes phytoplankton carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus, chlorophyll a, zooplankton, detritus carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus, inorganic nitrogen, inorganic phosphorus and dissolved oxygen as state variables. Both the hydrodynamic and ecosystem models were validated using a limited number of measurements. The hydrodynamic model validation included comparison of time series of currents and temperature and salinity profiles. The ecological model results were compared with the monitoring data of phytoplankton biomass, total nitrogen and phosphorus and dissolved oxygen. The comparison of hydrodynamic parameters, phytoplankton biomass, surface layer total phosphorus and dissolved oxygen and near-bottom layer total nitrogen was reasonable. Time series of spatially mean values and standard deviations of selected parameters were calculated for the whole Narva Bay. Combining model results and monitoring data, the characteristic concentrations of phytoplankton biomass, total nitrogen and phosphorus and near-bottom dissolved oxygen were estimated. Phytoplankton biomass and total phosphorus showed seasonal variations, of 0.6–1.1 and 0.022–0.032 mg/l, respectively, during spring bloom, 0.1–0.3 and 0.015–0.025 mg/l in summer and 0.2–0.6 and 0.017–0.035 mg/l during autumn bloom. Total nitrogen and near-bottom oxygen concentrations were rather steady, being 0.25–0.35 and 2–6 mg/l, respectively. The total nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations show that according to the classification of Estonian coastal waters, Narva Bay water belongs to a good water quality class.


ecological modeling water quality model validation Narva Bay Gulf of Finland 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Andrejev, O., Myrberg, K., Alenius, P., & Lundberg, P. A. (2004). Mean circulation and water exchange in the Gulf of Finland – a study based on three-dimensional modelling. Boreal Environment Research, 9, 1–16.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boyer, J. N., Sterling, P., & Jones, R. D. (2000). Maximizing information from a water quality monitoring network through visualization techniques. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 50, 39–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burchard, H., Petersen, O., & Rippeth, T. P. (C5, 1998). Comparing the performance of the Mellor–Yamada and the k–ɛ two-equation turbulence models. Journal of Geophysical Research, 10388, 10.543–10.554.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Comim, F. A., Menemdez, M., & Herrera, J. A. (2004). Spatial and temporal scales for monitoring coastal aquatic ecosystems. Aquatic Conservation – Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 14.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    S. Cozzi, G. Adami, P. Barbieri, C. Cantoni, G. Catalano, F. Crisciani, V., et al. (2004). Matching monitoring and modelling in the Gulf of Trieste. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 48, 587–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    DHI Water and Environment (2001). MIKE 3: environmental hydraulics. DHI Software User Guide, Documentation and Reference Manual.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Edelvang, K., Kaas, H., Erichsen, A. C., Alvarez-Berastegui, D., Bundgaard, K., & Jørgensen, P. V. (2005). Numerical modelling of phytoplankton biomass in coastal waters. Journal of Marine Systems, 57, 13–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Erichsen, A. C., & Rasch, P. S. (2001). Two- and three-dimensional model system predicting the water quality of tomorrow. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Estuarine and Coastal Modeling. American Society of Civil Engineers.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    EU (2000). Council Directive of 23 October 2002. Establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy (2000/60/EC). Official Journal of the European Communities, L327, 22 December.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    HELCOM (2002). Environment of the Baltic Sea Area 1994–1998. Balt. Sea Environ. Proc. No. 82B.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kauppila, P., Meeuwig, J. J., & Pitkänen, H. (2003). Predicting oxygen in small estuaries of the Baltic Sea: A comparative approach. Estuarine, and Coastal Shelf Science, 57, 1115–1126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kiirikki, M., Haapanmäki, J., Koponen, J., Ruuskanen, A., & Sarkkula, J. (1998). Linking the growth of filamentous algae to the 3D-ecohydrodynamic model of the Gulf of Finland. Environmental Modeling & Software, 13, 503–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kiirikki, M., Inkala, A., Kuosa, H., Pitkänen, H., Kuusisto, M., & Sarkkula, J. (2001). Evaluating the effects of nutrient load reductions on the biomass of toxic nitrogen-fixing cyanobacteria in the Gulf of Finland, Baltic Sea. Boreal Environment Research, 6, 131–146.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kim, L.-H., Choi, E., & Stenstrom, M. K. (2003). Sediment characteristics, phosphorus types and phosphorus release rates between river and lake sediments. Chemosphere, 50, 53–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kuusisto, M., Koponen, J., & Sarkkula, J. (1998). Modelled phytoplankton dynamics in the Gulf of Finland. Environmental Modeling & Software, 13, 461–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lips, U. (2005). Typology and classification system for Estonian coastal waters. Proceedings of Estonian Maritime Academy, 2, 62–74.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Losa, S. N., Kivman, G. A., Schröter, J., & Wenzel, M. (2003). Sequential weak constraint parameter estimation in an ecosystem model. Journal of Marine Systems, 43, 31–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Morris, I. (1986). The physiological ecology of phytoplankton. Studies in Ecology, 7. Blackwell Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Palmén, E. (1930). Untersuchungen über die Strömungen in den Finnland umgebenden Meeren, Societas Scientiarum Fennica. Commentationes Physico-Mathematicae, 5, 1–93.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Petihakis, G., Triantafyllou, G., Pollani, A., Koliou, A., & Theodorou, A. (2005). Field data analysis and application of a complex water column biogeochemical model in different areas of a semi-enclosed basin: Towards the development of an ecosystem management tool. Marine Environmental Research, 59, 493–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Piirsoo, K., Porgasaar, V., & Viik, M. (1992). Environmental conditions, phytoplankton and chlorophyll a in the Narva Bay (the southern part of the Gulf of Finland). Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences. Biology, 41, 149–161.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rasmussen, E. B. (1993). Three-dimensional hydrodynamic models. Section 3.1 hydrodynamic models. In M. B. Abbot & N. A. Price (Eds.), Coastal, Estuarine and Harbour Engineer's Reference Book. Chapman and Hall, 109–116.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rasmussen, E. B., Pietrzak, J., & Brandt, R. (1999). A coupled ice-ocean model for the Greenland, Iceland and Norwegian Seas. Deep-Sea Research Part II, 46, 1169–1198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stålnacke, P., Grimvall, A., Sundblad, K., & Tonderski, A. (1999). Estimation of riverine loads of nitrogen and phosphorus to the Baltic Sea, 1970–1993. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 58, 173–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tamsalu, R., & Ennet, P. (1995). Ecosystem modelling in the Gulf of Finland. II. The aquatic ecosystem model FINEST. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 41, 429–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Telesh, I.V. (2004). Plankton of the Baltic estuarine ecosystems with emphasis on Neva Estuary: A review of present knowledge and research perspectives. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 49, 206–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Valiela, I. (1984). Marine ecological processes. Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zonneveld, C. (1998). A cell-based model for the chlorophyll a to carbon ratio in phytoplankton. Ecological Modeling, 113, 55–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Marine Systems InstituteTallinn University of TechnologyTallinnEstonia

Personalised recommendations