Water, Air, & Soil Pollution

, 229:378 | Cite as

Snapshots Analyses for Turbidity Measurements in Water

  • Antonio Cesar GodoyEmail author
  • Alberto Yoshihiro Nakano
  • David Antônio Brum Siepmann
  • Ricardo Schneider
  • Felipe Walter Dafico Pfrimer
  • Oscar Oliveira Santos


Turbidity has been used as an effective indicator of water quality and it is regulated by national control agencies as a water potability parameter. This work proposes a simple, low-cost, and easily reproducible method based on digitally processed snapshots of electromagnetic radiation beam through a scattering medium in order to measure turbidity. The formazin polymer was used as the standard reference in the experiments to prepare samples from 0.1 to 100 NTU for high turbidity range and from 0.02 to 10 FNU for low turbidity range. The device design is comprised of a webcam and an LED/laser as a light sensor and a radiation source, respectively. The captured scattered light snapshot can be decomposed digitally in color components values and correlated with the turbidity parameter. It is possible to obtain differently device performances changing the light sensor device configuration. The linear regression analyses have shown a distinct relationship among red, green, blue, and grayscale components and the turbidity. At high range, the green component present the best LOD and LOQ values 0.64 and 2.10, respectively, operating with an ordinary webcam and white LED. Nevertheless, the best device performances were obtained with dedicated Raspberry Pi camera modules and white LED for low range turbidity reaching LOD=0.027 and LOQ=0.087 FNU. The figures of merit show recovery between (97.50−101.95%), repeatability (2.11%), within-laboratory reproducibility (2.25%), and limits of quantification (0.087 FNU). The achieved performance device shows the effectiveness of digitally processed snapshots obtained with digital cameras for turbidity measurements.


Turbidity analysis Image processing Formazin polymer CCD 



We would like to thank Fundação Araucária for the undergraduate scientific research scholarship. We thank Juciane Wunsch and Matheus H. Lazzarin for their manuscript reading.

Funding Information

This study is financially supported by FUNASA under Grant 25100.011.260/2014-17.

Supplementary material

11270_2018_4034_MOESM1_ESM.tex (26 kb)
(TEX 26.2 KB)


  1. Amaral, I.C., Braga, R.A. Jr, Ramos, E.M., Ramos, A.L.S., Roxael, E.A.R. (2013). Application of biospeckle laser technique for determining biological phenomena related to beef aging. Journal of Food Engineering, 119(1), 135–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. AOAC. (2017). Appendix f: guidelines for standard method performance requirements.Google Scholar
  3. APHA. (2005). Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 21st edn. Washington: American Public Health Association.Google Scholar
  4. Bui, D.A., & Hauser, P.C. (2015). Analytical devices based on light-emitting diodes – a review of the state-of-the-art. Analytica Chimica Acta, 853, 46–58. Scholar
  5. Cao, H., Chen, X., Grattan, K., Sun, Y. (2002). Automatic micro dimension measurement using image processing methods. Measurement, 31(2), 71–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Costa, G.B., Fernandes, D.D.S., Almeida, V.E., Araújo, T.S.P., Melo, J.P., Diniz, P.H.G.D., Véras, G. (2015). Digital image-based classification of biodiesel. Talanta, 139, 50–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dubal, P., Bhatt, S., Joglekar, C., Patii, S. (2017). Skin cancer detection and classification. In 2017 6th international conference on electrical engineering and informatics (ICEEI), pp. 1–6.
  8. Dworkin, S., & Nye, T. (2006). Image processing for machine vision measurement of hot formed parts. Journal Of Materials Processing Technology, 174(1–3), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. EPA, U. (1993). Method 180.1-determination of turbidity by nephelometry (revision 2.9).Google Scholar
  10. Gonzalez, R.C., & Woods, R.E. (2008). Digital image processing, 3rd edn. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  11. Hargesheimer, E. (2002). Online monitoring for drinking water utilities. Denver: AWWA Research Foundation and American Water Works Association.Google Scholar
  12. Kelley, C.D., Krolick, A., Brunner, L., Burklund, A., Kahn, D., Ball, W.P., Weber-Shirk, M. (2014). An affordable open-source turbidimeter. Sensors, 14(4), 7142–7155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Li, C., Jia, X., Li, H., Deng, L., Shi, X. (2011). Digital image processing technology applied in level measurement and control system. Procedia Engineering, 24, 226–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Li, W., Qiu, M., Zhu, Z., Wu, B., Zhou, G. (2016). Bearing fault diagnosis based on spectrum images of vibration signals. Measurement Science and Technology, 27(3), 035005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Macedo, F., Marsico, E.T., Conte-Júnior, C.A., de Resende, M.F., Brasil, T.F., Netto, A.D.P. (2015). Development and validation of a method for the determination of low-ppb levels of macrocyclic lactones in butter, using hplc-fluorescence. Food Chemistry, 179, 239–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mahapatra, S., Nanda, S.K., Panigrahy, B. (2011). A cascaded fuzzy inference system for indian river water quality prediction. Advances in Engineering Software, 42(10), 787– 796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mangold, K., Shaw, J.A., Vollmer, M. (2013). The physics of near-infrared photography. European Journal of Physics, 34(6), S51.
  18. Moore, S.T., Haslwanter, T., Curthoys, I.S., Smith, S.T. (1996). A geometric basis for measurement of three-dimensional eye position using image processing. Vision Research, 36(3), 445–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Orwin, J.F., & Smart, C.C. (2005). An inexpensive turbidimeter for monitoring suspended sediment. Geomorphology, 68(1-2), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pan, B., Qian, K., Xie, H., Asundi, A. (2009). Two-dimensional digital image correlation for in-plane displacement and strain measurement: a review. Measurement Science And Technology, 20(6), 062001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Peña, E.A., & Slate, E.H. (2006). Global validation of linear model assumptions. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 101(473), 341–354. Scholar
  22. Peña, E.A., & Slate, E.H. (2015). Gvlma: global validation of linear models assumptions.
  23. Ribani, M., Bottoli, C.B.G., Collins, C.H., Jardim, I.C.S.F., Melo, L.F.C., et al. (2004). Validação em métodos cromatográficos e eletroforéticos. Química nova.Google Scholar
  24. Sampedro, Ó., & Salgueiro, J.R. (2015). Turbidimeter and RGB sensor for remote measurements in an aquatic medium. Measurement, 68, 128–134. Scholar
  25. Toivanen, T., Koponen, S., Kotovirta, V., Molinier, M., Chengyuan, P. (2013). Water quality analysis using an inexpensive device and a mobile phone. Environmental Systems Research, 2(1), 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. William, W., Basaza-Ejiri, A.H., Obungoloch, J., Ware, A. (2018). A review of applications of image analysis and machine learning techniques in automated diagnosis and classification of cervical cancer from pap-smear images. In 2018 IST-Africa Week Conference (IST-Africa), pp. 1–11.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonio Cesar Godoy
    • 1
    Email author
  • Alberto Yoshihiro Nakano
    • 2
  • David Antônio Brum Siepmann
    • 2
  • Ricardo Schneider
    • 2
  • Felipe Walter Dafico Pfrimer
    • 2
  • Oscar Oliveira Santos
    • 1
  1. 1.Centro de Ciênicas Exatas–Departamento de QuímicaUniversidade Estadual de MaringáMaringáBrazil
  2. 2.Universidade Tecnológica Federal do ParanáToledoBrazil

Personalised recommendations