168
D. Absalon et al.
– The average concentrations of dissolved oxygen and BOD5 values in most of the
analysed reservoirs place them in class I of water quality. On the other hand, the
reservoirs located in mountainous areas have the lowest average TOC concentration and conductance not exceeding 300 µS/cm. Higher conductance is found in
reservoirs with large catchments and located in lowland areas;
– Average concentrations of total nitrogen in analysed reservoirs may be classified
as class I water quality. The lowest values are found in reservoirs located in the
Carpathians. Analyses of phosphorus concentra-tions in all analysed reservoirs
(except one) reveal that they do not ex-ceed the limit value for class I quality.
However, significant differences in the average concentrations of total phosphorus
are noticeable—in the Carpathian reservoirs average concentrations are more
than 6 times lower than in reservoirs with the highest concentrations. Also, the
average concentrations of nitrate nitrogen and phosphates in most of the analysed
reservoirs do not exceed the limit values for class I of water quality;
– The values of phytoplankton index IFPL vary in the analysed reservoirs. Six
reservoirs were classified as class I quality and also six as class II quality. The
other nine reservoirs are considered to be class III quality, and one is class V. In
terms of phytobenthos content, eight reservoirs were in class I, three in class II,
and the remaining 11 were in class III.
Only two of the analysed reservoirs have class I of biological elements, eleven
reservoirs are considered to be class II, 6 reservoirs class III, and one reservoir
is considered to be class V in terms of biological elements. The classification of
hydromorphological elements of the studied dam reservoirs points to class I and II.
One reservoir is characterised by class III, whereas two reservoirs have the worst
quality class—below good.
As regards specific pollution, most of the analysed reservoirs (except for one)
were classified as class I and II.
12 reservoirs have a good ecological status. Nine reservoirs have a moderate
ecological status, and one reservoir has a bad ecological status.
8 reservoirs have a good chemical status. The other reservoirs have a bad chemical
status. In most reservoirs bad chemical status was due to exceeded values of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH): Benzo(ghi)perylene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene.
Overall status classification points to a good status for reservoirs located in the
Carpathians. Other reservoirs have a bad status of water.
7.8 Recommendations
Implementing the latest technical and technological developments for the analysis of
quality of water resources is associated with the need to meet the requirements of the
EU Water Framework Directive and state regulations. In the face of this challenge,
reservoirs important from the point of view of water supply should aim to develop
D. Absalon et al.
– The average concentrations of dissolved oxygen and BOD5 values in most of the
analysed reservoirs place them in class I of water quality. On the other hand, the
reservoirs located in mountainous areas have the lowest average TOC concentration and conductance not exceeding 300 µS/cm. Higher conductance is found in
reservoirs with large catchments and located in lowland areas;
– Average concentrations of total nitrogen in analysed reservoirs may be classified
as class I water quality. The lowest values are found in reservoirs located in the
Carpathians. Analyses of phosphorus concentra-tions in all analysed reservoirs
(except one) reveal that they do not ex-ceed the limit value for class I quality.
However, significant differences in the average concentrations of total phosphorus
are noticeable—in the Carpathian reservoirs average concentrations are more
than 6 times lower than in reservoirs with the highest concentrations. Also, the
average concentrations of nitrate nitrogen and phosphates in most of the analysed
reservoirs do not exceed the limit values for class I of water quality;
– The values of phytoplankton index IFPL vary in the analysed reservoirs. Six
reservoirs were classified as class I quality and also six as class II quality. The
other nine reservoirs are considered to be class III quality, and one is class V. In
terms of phytobenthos content, eight reservoirs were in class I, three in class II,
and the remaining 11 were in class III.
Only two of the analysed reservoirs have class I of biological elements, eleven
reservoirs are considered to be class II, 6 reservoirs class III, and one reservoir
is considered to be class V in terms of biological elements. The classification of
hydromorphological elements of the studied dam reservoirs points to class I and II.
One reservoir is characterised by class III, whereas two reservoirs have the worst
quality class—below good.
As regards specific pollution, most of the analysed reservoirs (except for one)
were classified as class I and II.
12 reservoirs have a good ecological status. Nine reservoirs have a moderate
ecological status, and one reservoir has a bad ecological status.
8 reservoirs have a good chemical status. The other reservoirs have a bad chemical
status. In most reservoirs bad chemical status was due to exceeded values of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH): Benzo(ghi)perylene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene.
Overall status classification points to a good status for reservoirs located in the
Carpathians. Other reservoirs have a bad status of water.
7.8 Recommendations
Implementing the latest technical and technological developments for the analysis of
quality of water resources is associated with the need to meet the requirements of the
EU Water Framework Directive and state regulations. In the face of this challenge,
reservoirs important from the point of view of water supply should aim to develop