1887

Abstract

Summary

The stochastic analysis of organic water pollution risks in the lower Danube was conducted based on long-term monitoring data (2003–2024) from four key stations: Reni, Izmail, Kiliya, and Vylkove. The study assessed dissolved oxygen (DO) and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), two critical indicators of water quality, using statistical methods and stochastic modeling. The results indicate a declining trend in DO, particularly in Kiliya and Vylkove, suggesting increasing oxygen depletion risks. In contrast, BOD levels show a rising trend, highlighting growing organic pollution pressures. The probability of exceeding critical pollution thresholds (DO < 6 mg/L, BOD > 3 mg/L) is highest in Vylkove (38.6% and 49.2%), marking it as the most vulnerable area. Reni exhibited the most stable conditions, benefiting from lower anthropogenic influence and better self-purification capacity. A spatial analysis revealed that pollution accumulates downstream, making Vylkove and Kiliya high-risk zones. Izmail had moderate pollution risks, while Reni maintained the best water quality. The Monte Carlo method was applied to quantify risk probabilities, and results were validated using empirical data and previous studies.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.2025510195
2025-04-14
2026-02-11
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/2214-4609/2025/monitoring_2025/Mon25-195.html?itemId=/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.2025510195&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Bezsonnyi, V., & Nekos, A. (2022). Modeling of the oxygen regime of the Chervonooskilsky reservoir. 16th International Conference Monitoring of Geological Processes and Ecological Condition of the Environment, Monitoring 2022. https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.2022580216
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bezsonnyi, V., & Nekos, A. (2023). Analysis of the environmental risk of water bodies in conditions of military danger. 17th International Conference Monitoring of Geological Processes and Ecological Condition of the Environment, Monitoring 2023. https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.2023520153
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bezsonnyi, V., Plyatsuk, L., Ponomarenko, R., & Tretyakov, O. (2023). Assessment of ecological safety of a surface water object. 17th International Conference Monitoring of Geological Processes and Ecological Condition of the Environment, Monitoring 2023. https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.2023520155
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Dasgupta, M., & Yildiz, Y. (2016). Assessment of biochemical oxygen demand as indicator of organic load in wastewaters of Morris County, New Jersey, USA. Journal of Environmental Analysis and Toxicology, 6, 378. https://doi.org/10.4172/2161-0525.1000378
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Fernández del Castillo, A., Verduzco, M., Díaz-Vázquez, D., Yebra-Montes, C., Brown, L., Johnson, A., García-González, A., & Gradilla-Hernández, M. (2024). Improving river water quality prediction with hybrid machine learning and temporal analysis. Ecological Informatics, 82, 102655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2024.102655
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Giri, S., & Qiu, Z. (2016). Understanding the relationship of land uses and water quality in Twenty First Century: A review. Journal of Environmental Management, 173, 41–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.02.029
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Guryanova, L., Yatsenko, R., Dubrovina, N., Babenko, V., & Gvozditskyi, V. (2021). Machine learning methods and models, predictive analytics and applications: Development trends in the post-crisis syndrome caused by COVID-19. Proceedings of MPSESM-XIII Conference. https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2927/paper1.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Horoshkova, L., Khlobystov, I., & Danylyshyn, B. (2020). Multifactor mathematical modelling of ecological and economic systems (the example of coal mining development). Geoinformatics 2020 - XIXth International Conference “Geoinformatics: Theoretical and Applied Aspects”. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85094190633&partnerID=40&md5=36726c1399478d1a2d7428bfffcb1211
    [Google Scholar]
  9. ICPDR (International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River). (2021). Danube River Basin Management Plan – Update 2021. https://www.icpdr.org/tasks-topics/tasks/river-basin-management/danube-river-basin-management-plan-2021
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Li, R., Zou, Z., & Yan, A. (2016). Water quality assessment in Qu River based on fuzzy water pollution index method. Journal of Environmental Sciences, 50, 87–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2016.06.014
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Menshov, O., Vyzhva, S., Horoshkova, L., Tonkha, O., Ivanik, O., Pereira, P., Dindaroglu, T., Pastushenko, T., & Eiben, H. (2023). Distribution of soil magnetic susceptibility as a pollution indicator in the urban and tourist city of Lviv, Ukraine. Environmental Earth Sciences, 82(21), Article 486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-023-11176-8
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Voulvoulis, N., Arpon, K. D., & Giakoumis, T. (2017). The EU Water Framework Directive: From great expectations to problems with implementation. Science of the Total Environment, 575, 358–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.228
    [Google Scholar]
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.2025510195
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.2025510195
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error