water

Article
Surface Water Quality Assessment through Remote Sensing
Based on the Box–Cox Transformation and Linear Regression
Juan G. Loaiza 1 , Jesús Gabriel Rangel-Peraza 1, * , Sergio Alberto Monjardín-Armenta 2 ,
Yaneth A. Bustos-Terrones 3 , Erick R. Bandala 4 , Antonio J. Sanhouse-García 1
and Sergio A. Rentería-Guevara 5

1 Tecnológico Nacional de México/Instituto Tecnológico de Culiacán, Juan de Dios Bátiz 310, Col. Guadalupe,
Culiacán 80220, Sinaloa, Mexico; [email protected] (J.G.L.);
[email protected] (A.J.S.-G.)
2 Facultad de Ciencias de la Tierra y el Espacio, Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa, Circuito Interior Oriente,
Cd Universitaria, Culiacán 80040, Sinaloa, Mexico; [email protected]
3 CONAHCYT-Instituto Tecnológico de Culiacán, Juan de Dios Bátiz 310, Col. Guadalupe,
Culiacán 80220, Sinaloa, Mexico; [email protected]
4 Division of Hydrologic Sciences, Desert Research Institute, 755 Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89119, USA;
[email protected]
5 Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa, Circuito Interior Oriente, Cd Universitaria,
Culiacán 80040, Sinaloa, Mexico; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: A methodology to estimate surface water quality using remote sensing is presented based
on Landsat satellite imagery and in situ measurements taken every six months at four separate
sampling locations in a tropical reservoir from 2015 to 2019. The remote sensing methodology
uses the Box–Cox transformation model to normalize data on three water quality parameters: total
organic carbon (TOC), total dissolved solids (TDS), and chlorophyll a (Chl-a). After the Box–Cox
Citation: Loaiza, J.G.; Rangel-Peraza,
transformation, a mathematical model was generated for every parameter using multiple linear
J.G.; Monjardín-Armenta, S.A.;
regression to correlate normalized data and spectral reflectance from Landsat 8 imagery. Then,
Bustos-Terrones, Y.A.; Bandala, E.R.;
Sanhouse-García, A.J.; Rentería-
significant testing was conducted to discard spectral bands that did not show a statistically significant
Guevara, S.A. Surface Water Quality response (α = 0.05) from the different water quality models. The r2 values achieved for TOC, TDS, and
Assessment through Remote Sensing Chl-a water quality models after the band discrimination process were found 0.926, 0.875, and 0.810,
Based on the Box–Cox respectively, achieving a fair fitting to real water quality data measurements. Finally, a comparison
Transformation and Linear between estimated and measured water quality values not previously used for model development
Regression. Water 2023, 15, 2606. was carried out to validate these models. In this validation process, a good fit of 98% and 93% was
https://doi.org/10.3390/w15142606 obtained for TDS and TOC, respectively, whereas an acceptable fit of 81% was obtained for Chl-a.
Academic Editors: Mou Leong Tan, This study proposes an interesting alternative for ordered and standardized steps applied to generate
Fei Zhang, Xiaoping Wang and mathematical models for the estimation of TOC, TDS, and Chl-a based on water quality parameters
Chenfeng Wang measured in the field and using satellite images.

Received: 15 June 2023

Keywords: surface water quality; remote sensing; Box–Cox optimization; linear modeling;
Revised: 6 July 2023
Landsat imagery
Accepted: 12 July 2023
Published: 18 July 2023

1. Introduction
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. Surface water quality monitoring is essential to assess the impacts of anthropogenic
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. activities and natural phenomena [1,2], but it is labor-intensive, time-consuming, and
This article is an open access article costly [3]. Several studies have demonstrated that using remote sensing for water quality
distributed under the terms and
evaluation has significant advantages for surface water quality monitoring [4–7]. Remote
conditions of the Creative Commons
sensing for water quality evaluation is based on measuring the radiance emerging from
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
the water related to electromagnetic radiation that interacts with both suspended and
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
dissolved matter through absorptive, refractive, and scattering mechanisms [8,9]. Specific
4.0/).

Water 2023, 15, 2606. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15142606 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/water

Water 2023, 15, 2606 2 of 19

imagery bands are required to measure water quality parameters, but the remotely sensed
reflectance may be influenced by external conditions, such as atmospheric and air-water
interface effects, illumination conditions, or instrument characteristics [10]. To avoid
these interferences, some authors have suggested observing the scattering and absorption
characteristics of optically active constituents (OACs) to obtain accurate inherent optical
properties [11]. However, identifying specific wavelengths for water quality estimation is a
complex task because water constituents absorb and scatter light across the entire visible
spectral range, which complicates their estimation from optical measurements [10].
The most employed methodologies to estimate surface water quality uses empirical
approaches with multispectral sensors [12]. Water quality modeling using remote sensing is
often carried out using normalized difference indices and spectral band ratios. Normaliza-
tion can remove brightness variations, reducing the influence of atmospheric, and air-water
surface effects [13–15]. Other water quality studies using remote sensing are based on
water quality parameters and spectral reflectance multiple regression [16–20] consisting of
obtaining correlations between water leaving radiance (Lw) and several optically active
parameters such as chlorophyll-a, total suspended solids, and turbidity. Despite some
studies having achieved satisfying results using broadband sensors, others report less
accurate results because of the presence of suspended material in turbid and/or eutrophic
water bodies [21].
Although significant advancements in mathematical models for surface water quality
using reflectance values from satellite imagery are given, improving existing models using
multiple linear regression to estimate water quality using Landsat 8 imagery remains an
interesting pending research task. Recently, Sharaf El Din and Zhang [22] have proposed
a regression-based technique to estimate surface water quality parameters using Landsat
8 OLI imagery. They propose a stepwise regression (SWR) to minimize the number of
predictor variables and to maximize the precision of the water quality estimation. Highly
accurate results were achieved when using the Landsat 8-based-SWR approach (r2 > 85%).
The present study proposes a series of ordered and standardized steps to generate
mathematical models from a multiple linear regression analysis. The multiple regression
analysis was carried out between the reflectance values of Landsat 8 images and the
normalized concentrations of water quality parameters. Normalizing water quality data
was used to eliminate the effects of certain errors that may be still present after the data-
set validation procedures, such as outliers, censored values, seasonality trends, or serial
correlations, and that can affect the accuracy of the data, making it more consistent, reliable,
and suitable for further processing and analysis.
Some studies have normalized the dataset, but they were not used for the estimation
of water quality from satellite imagery. For instance, Feng [23] developed normalized
water quality indexes using band combination, and Qi et al. [24] normalized reflectance
data for water quality estimation. Asadollahfardi et al. [25] suggested using the Box–Cox
transformation for the normalization of water quality data.
The methodology proposes the use of the Box–Cox transformation to normalize data
on three water quality parameters: total organic carbon (TOC), total dissolved solids (TDS),
and chlorophyll a (Chl-a). After the Box–Cox transformation, a mathematical model was
generated for every parameter using multiple linear regression between normalized data
and spectral reflectance from Landsat 8 imagery. Using the proposed methodology, a
surface water quality assessment was carried out in the Adolfo López Mateos (ALM)
reservoir in Culiacan, Mexico. These mathematical models could be considered a crucial
tool for decision-making since they could be used to estimate water quality during periods
when field monitoring is not conducted.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area
The ALM reservoir (Culiacan, Mexico) is in the Humaya River basin (25◦ 050 2500 ,
25◦ 200 1500
North, 107◦ 330 0000 , 107◦ 150 0000 West) at 186.5 m above the sea level (m.a.s.l.). The
 2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
Water 2023, 15, 2606 3 of 19
The ALM reservoir (Culiacan, Mexico) is in the Humaya River basin (25°05′25″,
25°20′15″ North, 107°33′00″, 107°15′00″ West) at 186.5 m above the sea level (m.a.s.l.). The
ALM dam is 105.5 m high, and 765 m long, considered one of the main sources of water
ALM dam is 105.5 m high, and 765 m long, considered one of the main sources of water for
for agricultural irrigation, power generation, fishing, and tourist activities [26–28], cover-
agricultural irrigation, power generation, fishing, and tourist activities [26–28], covering
ing 11,354
11,354 ha ha
andand ranked
ranked tenth
tenth in Mexico
in Mexico according
according to itsto its storage
storage capacity
capacity [29] (Figure
[29] (Figure 1). 1).

Figure 1. Geographic location of ALM reservoir.

Figure 1. Geographic location of ALM reservoir.

The
TheHumaya
HumayaRiver
Riverbasin
basin is
is characterized byaawarm
characterized by warmhumid
humidclimate
climatetoward
toward thethe center
center
and
andsouth,
south,with
withsummer
summerrains.
rains. From
From the center
center toward
towardthe thenorth,
north,the
theclimate
climateis is semi-warm
semi-warm
sub-humid.
sub-humid.The Theaverage
averageannual
annual temperature
temperature is 24.5 ◦°C
is 24.5 andthe
C and themean
meanannual
annual rainfall
rainfall is is
698.9mm
698.9 mmperperyear.
year. The
Thebasin
basin has
has a mountainous
mountainous geography,
geography,with withdeep
deepcanyons,
canyons, lowlow
mountains,highlands,
mountains, highlands, andandlarge
largeplateaus with
plateaus ravines.
with The basin
ravines. elevation
The basin varies between
elevation varies be-
150 and
tween 1502300
andm.a.s.l. [30]. [30].
2300 m.a.s.l.
The predominant vegetation
The predominant vegetationisistropical deciduous
tropical deciduous forest, withwith
forest, smallsmall
areasareas
of pine-oak
of pine-
and pine forests toward the northwestern part [26]. Since high productivity is observed
oak and pine forests toward the northwestern part [26]. Since high productivity is ob-
in the basin, a large proportion of the land is intended for agricultural and livestock
served in the basin, a large proportion of the land is intended for agricultural and livestock
activities [31]. According to Sanhouse-Garcia et al. [30] and Monjardin et al. [32], the
activities [31]. According to Sanhouse-Garcia et al. [30] and Monjardin et al. [32], the Hu-
Humaya River basin is affected by both natural (fires and frequent frosts) and anthro-
maya River
pogenic basin is affected
(deforestation) by both
factors natural
that cause (fires andand
continuous frequent
rapid frosts)
changesand anthropogenic
in land use and
(deforestation) factors
aquatic ecosystems. that cause continuous and rapid changes in land use and aquatic
ecosystems.
2.2. Methodology
2.2. Methodology
Figure 2 sketches the methodology for water quality parameters estimation using
satellite
Figure imagery, whichthe
2 sketches wasmethodology
carried out in three phases:
for water (i) processing
quality Landsat
parameters 8 sensor using
estimation im-
agery and
satellite reflectance
imagery, data
which wasextraction,
carried (ii)
outobtaining water quality
in three phases: data, and Landsat
(i) processing (iii) developing
8 sensor
mathematical
imagery models fordata
and reflectance water quality parameters.
extraction, (ii) obtaining water quality data, and (iii) devel-
oping mathematical models for water quality parameters.
Water
Water 2023,
2023, 15,
15, x2606
FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 419
of 19

Proposedmethodology
Figure2.2.Proposed
Figure methodologytoto estimate
estimate water
water quality
quality using
using satellite
satellite imagery.
imagery.

2.2.1.Satellite
2.2.1. SatelliteImagery
ImageryAcquisition
Acquisition
Satelliteimagery
Satellite imagerywas
wasobtained
obtained through
through the
the United
United States
StatesGeological
GeologicalSurvey
Surveydatabase
database[33]
and coincided with the dates of water quality monitoring campaigns. GeoTiff
[33] and coincided with the dates of water quality monitoring campaigns. GeoTiff level level 1 (L1T)
1
images from Landsat 8 were used. The L1T images are terrain-corrected;
(L1T) images from Landsat 8 were used. The L1T images are terrain-corrected; hence, hence, these
images
these already
images provide
already a radiometric
provide and and
a radiometric geodetic accuracy
geodetic in ain
accuracy cartographic projection
a cartographic pro-
UTM (Universal Transversal of Mercator), referenced in WGS84 (Word
jection UTM (Universal Transversal of Mercator), referenced in WGS84 (Word Geodetic Geodetic System
1984). The
System 1984).images correspond
The images to Pathto32,
correspond Row
Path 32,43 of the
Row Landsat
43 of 8 sensor,
the Landsat whichwhich
8 sensor, covered
the reservoir
covered surfacesurface
the reservoir during during
the study
theperiod (January
study period 2015 to2015
(January Juneto2019). Table 1
June 2019). shows
Table
the acquisition dates of images from Landsat
1 shows the acquisition dates of images from Landsat 8.8.

Datesofofacquisition
Table1.1.Dates
Table acquisitionofofsatellite
satelliteimages.
images.

Sensor
Sensor YearYear Acquisition
Acquisition Date Date Path/Row
Path/Row
May 4th
May 4th
20152015
October 27th 27th
October
May 22nd
May 22nd
20162016
September 11th
September 11th
Landsat
Landsat 88OLI
OLI March 6th 32/43
32/43
2017 March 6th
2017 September 30th
September
February 2nd 30th
2018
February
October 2nd 2nd
2018
2019 January 17th 2nd
October
2019 January 17th
2.2.2. Imagery Pre-Processing
Landsat-8 imagery at level 1T was rescaled to the top of atmosphere (TOA) reflec-
tance using radiometric rescaling coefficients [22,33]. This radiometric rescaling was
Water 2023, 15, 2606 5 of 19

2.2.2. Imagery Pre-Processing

Landsat-8 imagery at level 1T was rescaled to the top of atmosphere (TOA) reflectance
using radiometric rescaling coefficients [22,33]. This radiometric rescaling was performed
in QGIS software based on TOA reflectance (Equations (1) and (2)) and using the semi-
automatic classification plug-in [34].

ρ∗ = Mρ ∗ Qcal + Aρ (1)

where ρ∗ is the TOA planetary reflectance, without correction for solar angle; Mρ is the
band-specific multiplicative rescaling factor from the metadata; Qcal is the quantized
and calibrated standard product pixel values (DN); and Aρ is the band-specific additive
rescaling factor from the metadata.
Since the reflectance obtained from the Landsat 8 data is not corrected for the solar
zenith angle, the provided reflectance is generally too low and this error increases at high
latitudes and in the cold season [22]. Therefore, a TOA reflectance correction for the solar
zenith angle was performed using Equation (2).

ρ∗ ρ∗
ρ= = (2)
cos(θSZ ) sin(θSE )

where ρ is the TOA planetary reflectance; θSE is the local sun elevation angle: θSZ local
solar zenith angle; θSZ = 90◦ − θSE .
Atmospheric correction processes were carried out using dark object subtraction
(DOS). The basic assumption of the DOS method is that within the image some pixels are
in complete shadow and their radiances measured at the satellite are due to atmospheric
scattering (path radiance), selecting the spectral-band haze values that are correlated to
each other [35]. This process was performed in QGIS by using Equations (3)–(7) [22].
h i
ρsur f ace = π ∗ ( Lλ − L P ) ∗ d2 /( TV ∗ {[ ESunλ ∗ cos θSZ ] ∗ TZ } + Edown ) (3)

L P = Lλmin − L DO1% (4)

Lλmin = ML ∗ DNmin + A L (5)

h i
L DO1% = (0.01 ∗ TV ∗ {[ ESunλ ∗ cos θSZ ] ∗ TZ } + Edown )/ π ∗ d2 (6)

h i
ESunλ = π ∗ d2 ∗ Radiancemax /[ Re f lectancemax ] (7)

where ρsur f ace is the surface reflectance; Lλ is the spectral radiance at the sensor’s aperture;
L P is the path radiance due to atmospheric effects; d is the Earth–Sun distance in astronom-
ical units; TV is the atmospheric transmittance in the viewing direction; ESunλ is the mean
solar radiation; TZ is the atmospheric transmittance in the illumination direction; Edown is
the downwelling diffuse irradiance; Lλmin is the radiance values correspond to the mini-
mum pixel values; L DO1% is the radiance of dark object; ML is the radiance band-specific
multiplicative rescaling factor; DNmin is the minimum pixel value; and A L is the radiance
band-specific additive rescaling factor.

2.2.3. Reflectance Data Extraction

The study area was delimited from satellite imagery with a polygon mask using QGIS
software and a semi-automatic extraction utility. Then, reflectance data of corrected bands
were extracted using the QGIS point sampling tools [36]. Landsat 8 has eleven bands, but
in this study, the extraction process was carried out only for the bands B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6,
and B7. Since the TOC, TDS, and Chl-a are known as optically active parameters and their
Water 2023, 15, 2606 6 of 19

spectral responses are mainly in visible and near-infrared domains, B9 (cirrus band), B10,
and B11 (infrared thermal bands) were excluded [37,38]. The B8 panchromatic band was
also excluded from the extraction process since this band combines blue (B2), green (B3),
and red (B4) bands with a greater spatial resolution and does not contain any additional
wavelength-specific information.

2.2.4. Water Quality Monitoring

Water quality is monitored at the ALM reservoir every six months through sampling
campaigns at four sampling sites by Mexico’s National Water Commission (CONAGUA).
CONAGUA is responsible for implementing processes to guarantee quality assurance/control
(QA/QC). Hence, the sampling, transportation, and preservation of samples meet the
appropriate Mexican standards, and the samples are analyzed in triplicate by an accredited
laboratory, based on international standard methods for water analysis [39]. Official
water quality information from CONAGUA has been used to assess water quality by
other studies [26,28,40]. In this study, water quality data from 2015 to 2019 were used.
To demonstrate the appropriateness of the proposed methodology, three water quality
parameters were evaluated: total dissolved solids (TDS), chlorophyll (Chl-a), and total
organic carbon (TOC). TOC, TDS, and Chl-a were measured based on APHA Methods 5310,
2510, and 10200H, respectively [39]. Past studies have shown that these parameters respond
to the energy spectrum changes of reflected solar radiation from waterbodies [41,42].

2.2.5. Box–Cox Transformation of Water Quality Parameters

The Box–Cox transformation is a statistical technique to stabilize the variance of
a certain dataset and ensure normal distribution of deviations around the model [43].
The main goal of data normalization is to adjust values to a common scale, achieving a
standardized data format, which may facilitate comparison and analysis.
The Box–Cox transformation was only applied to the water quality parameters. For
transformation, every data is raised to the λ1 power after changing it to a certain amount
λ2 (often equal to 0). These transformations could be square roots, logarithms, reciprocals,
and/or other common transformations (Table 2) [43]. Hence, the Box–Cox transformation
(Equation (3)) is defined as a continuous function that varies as a function of power (λ) [44].

y0 = (y + λ2 )λ1 , for λ1 6= 0 (8)

where y’ is the normalized water quality parameter, y is the originally measured water
quality data, λ1 and λ2 are values that, when substituted in Equation (3), the standard
deviation of y’ will be zero.

Table 2. Box–Cox power transformation approaches.

Power Transformation Description

λ1 = 2 y0 = y2 Square
λ1 = 1 y0 = y Untransformed data
√
λ1 = 0.5 y0 = y Square root
0 √
λ1 = 0.33 y = 3y Cube root
λ1 = 0 ∗ y0 = ln(y) Logarithm
λ1 = −0.5 y0 = √1y Inverse square root
λ1 = −1 y0 = 1
y Reciprocal
Note: * Note that as λ1 → 0 , the power transformation approaches a logarithm.

The Statgraphics Centurion XVI software was used to perform the Box–Cox transfor-
mation of water quality data. Initially, the λ1 values of 2, 1, 0.5, 0.33, 0, −0.5, and 1 shown
in Table 2 were investigated to determine which, if any, is most suitable. The software was
used to solve for the optimum value of λ1 using maximum likelihood estimation. Once the
Water 2023, 15, 2606 7 of 19

Box–Cox transformation was performed, the normality of the data was evaluated using the
Kolmogorov–Smirnov goodness of fit test.

2.2.6. Multiple Linear Regression

Multiple linear regression was carried out to correlate normalized water quality data
and reflectance values from Landsat 8 imagery, where a fitted (or estimated) value is
calculated using Equation (4) [45]:

yi = b0 + b1 x1 + b2 x2 + . . . + bi xi + ε i foreachobservation i = 1, 2 . . . , n (9)

where yi is the estimated Box–Cox normalized value, x1 , x2 , . . . , xi are Landsat 8 imagery

bands, b0 is the intercept when all the predictors x1 , x2 , . . . , xi are all zero, b1 , b2 , . . . , bi
are the linear regression coefficients obtained from the fitted values and ε is a random
error corresponding to the n observations that are also assumed to be uncorrelated random
variables [46].

2.2.7. Model Performance Evaluation

Two indicators were selected to evaluate model performance in estimating water qual-
ity: the coefficient of determination (r2 ) and the root-mean-square error (RMSE). Equation
(5) was used to estimate r2 , which is a number between 0 and 1 that measures how well a
model estimates an outcome [47]:
2
∑in=1 (ŷi − yi )
r2 = 1 − 2
(10)
∑in=1 (yi − yi )

where yi is the measured water quality parameter, yi is the average water quality parameter,
ŷi is the estimated water quality values, and n is the number of available data.
RMSE statistically assesses differences between values observed and estimated by the
model, the higher the RMSE, the greater the difference between estimated and observed
values. RMSE was calculated using Equation (6) [47,48]:
s
2
∑iN=1 (yi − ŷi )
RMSE = (11)
n

2.2.8. Multiple Linear Regression Significance Testing

The significance of individual regression coefficients in the multiple linear regression
model was carried out using a t-test. This test measures the contribution of an independent
variable while the remaining variables are still included in the model. For the model
yi = b0 + b1 x1 + b2 x2 + . . . + bi xi if the test is performed for b1 , the significance of the
variable x1 is evaluated while controlling for the presence of the variables x2 , . . . , xi (i.e.,
the model yi = b0 + b2 x2 + . . . + bi xi ).
To determine whether x1 , x2 , . . . , xi variables are useful predictors in this model, the
following null and alternative hypotheses were tested:

H0 : b i = 0
H1 : b i 6 = 0
To carry out this hypothesis test, a p-value was obtained for all coefficients in the
model. Each p-value is based on a t-statistic calculated as:

bi
t= (12)
sbi
Water 2023, 15, 2606 8 of 19

where sbi is the standard error of the regression coefficient bi , calculated using Equation (8):
s
Water 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW ∑ y2i − b0 ∑ yi − bi ∑ xi yi 8 of 19
sbi = (13)
n−2

The p-value is then compared with a significance level (α = 0.05). This critical value is
2.2.9. Water
typically set Quality Model testing.
for hypothesis Validation
A model validation procedure was performed comparing estimated and measured
2.2.9.
waterWater
quality Quality
valuesModel Validation
not previously used for model development. In this study, the data
usedAfor model
model validationprocedure
validation were 25%wasof the total field
performed data for the
comparing 2015–2017
estimated andperiod and
measured
the total
water field data
quality fornot
values 2018, as shownused
previously in Figure 2. RMSE
for model and r2 were
development. Inused to estimate the
this study, the data
models’
used for fitness
model to field water
validation quality
were 25% measurements.
of the total field data for the 2015–2017 period and
the total field data for 2018, as shown in Figure 2. RMSE and r2 were used to estimate the
2.2.10. Water
models’ Quality
fitness to fieldMapping
water quality measurements.
Estimated water quality parameters were used to generate simplified models result-
2.2.10. Water Quality Mapping
ing from the significant testing and validation process. These models were represented
Estimated
spatially water quality
and temporally parameters
using GIS tools were used
(raster to generate
calculator) andsimplified
employing models resulting
QGIS software
from the significant testing and validation
for TOC, TDS, and Chl-a estimation. process. These models were represented spatially
and temporally using GIS tools (raster calculator) and employing QGIS software for TOC,
TDS, and Chl-a
3. Results estimation.
and Discussion
3.1.Results
3. Water Quality from Field Sampling
and Discussion
Data Quality
3.1. Water of waterfromquality
Field parameters
Sampling (TOC, TDS, and Chl-a) measured in the field are
summarized in Figure
Data of water 3. Figure
quality 3a shows
parameters that TDS,
(TOC, TOC and has similar spatial distribution
Chl-a) measured in the field in the
are
reservoir remaining within the 3.4 to 5.4 mg/L range, with a slight
summarized in Figure 3. Figure 3a shows that TOC has similar spatial distribution in increase in 2017. These
results
the agree remaining
reservoir with values reported
within the 3.4 bytoZhou et al. range,
5.4 mg/L [49], where
with aTOC slightconcentrations
increase in 2017. of
around 2.5 mg/L were found in a northeast China reservoir. Few studies
These results agree with values reported by Zhou et al. [49], where TOC concentrations have been carried
outaround
of on the 2.5
organic
mg/L matter
were in the study
found area. Gonzalez-Farias
in a northeast China reservoir. [50] (2006) reported
Few studies havethatbeen
the
mean concentration
carried of particulate
out on the organic matter in organic carbon
the study area.in Gonzalez-Farias
the Culiacan River was
[50] 1.73reported
(2006) mg C/L.
TDSthe
that also showed
mean slight spatial
concentration variationorganic
of particulate (Figure 3b) where
carbon 92.4, 93.8,River
in the Culiacan and was117.81.73mg/L
mg
meanTDS
C/L. concentrations
also showedwere observed
slight in 2015, 2016,
spatial variation (Figure and3b)2017,
whererespectively. These
92.4, 93.8, and TDSmg/L
117.8 con-
centrations
mean were similar
concentrations wereto observed
those reported in other
in 2015, 2016, reservoirs
and 2017, located close to
respectively. the ALM
These TDS
reservoir, suchwere
concentrations as Huites
similar(124 mg/L),
to those José Ortiz
reported in other(137reservoirs
mg/L), and Miguel
located closeHidalgo
to the ALM (132
mg/L) reservoirs
reservoir, [51]. Chl-a
such as Huites values José
(124 mg/L), in the ALM
Ortiz (137reservoir
mg/L), andranged from
Miguel 0.1 to (132
Hidalgo 6.1 mg/m
mg/L) 3.

These values
reservoirs areChl-a
[51]. within the reported
values in the ALM by Fregoso-López
reservoir ranged et al. [52]0.1
from who to found
6.1 mg/m a maximum
3 . These
Chl-a concentration
values are within theofreported
3.4 mg/m and a minimumetconcentration
by3 Fregoso-López al. [52] who foundof 0.3amg/m
maximum3 in the Mi-
Chl-a
guel Hidalgo yofCostilla
concentration 3.4 mg/m reservoir located in El Fuerte, Sinaloa.
3 and a minimum concentration of 0.3 mg/m3 in the Miguel

Hidalgo y Costilla reservoir located in El Fuerte, Sinaloa.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 3. Descriptive analysis of the spatial and temporal distribution of water quality parameters
Figure 3. Descriptive analysis of the spatial and temporal distribution of water quality parameters
(a) TOC, (b) TDS, and (c) Chl-a in the studied reservoir.
(a) TOC, (b) TDS, and (c) Chl-a in the studied reservoir.

Figure 3 also shows that Chl-a levels in 2015 and 2016 were higher than those ob-
served in 2017. This behavior is contrary to the behavior observed for TOC and TDS,
where the highest concentration was found in 2017 when Chl-a was significantly reduced.
Normally, there should be a correlation between these parameters because an excess of
Water 2023, 15, 2606 9 of 19

Figure 3 also shows that Chl-a levels in 2015 and 2016 were higher than those observed
in 2017. This behavior is contrary to the behavior observed for TOC and TDS, where the
highest concentration was found in 2017 when Chl-a was significantly reduced. Normally,
there should be a correlation between these parameters because an excess of nitrogen and
phosphorus in the water can lead to an overgrowth of algae or phytoplankton, resulting in
higher Chl-a levels and an increase in organic matter and dissolved solids [53]. However,
if the nutrients are depleted faster than they are being replenished, the algae eventually
die and a decrease in Chl-a levels can be observed, and the decomposition of the excessive
organic matter produced by the algae can increase TOC and TDS levels [54].

3.2. Box–Cox Transformation

Table 3 shows the resulting algorithms (a three-year normalized equation, from January
2015 to December 2017) obtained using the Box–Cox transformation for the water quality
parameters studied. The mathematical models provided in Table 3 were rearranged for
their later use to transform the estimated values to their original water quality units. The
models showed a good fit, with r2 values greater than 0.85 in all cases. Table 4 shows
the results of the Kolmogorov–Smirnov goodness of fit test using the normalized water
quality parameters. According to the Kolmogorov one-sample statistic (Dn) values and
their respective p-values, the Box–Cox transformation was a good tool to normalize the
water quality parameters.

Table 3. Mathematical models and r2 values obtained from the Box–Cox transformation.

Parameter Box–Cox Optimized Mathematical Model r2

TOC Box–Cox (TOC) = 1 + (TOC1.3294 − 1)/(1.3294 × 4.573790.329397 ) 0.96
TDS Box–Cox (TDS) = 1 + (TDS4.16779 − 1)/(4.16779 × 97.64533.16779 ) 0.88
Chl-a Box–Cox (Chl-a) = 1 + (Chl-a0.333508 − 1)/(0.333508 × 1.435840.666492 ) 0.85

Table 4. Kolmogorov–Smirnov test for the normalized water quality parameters.

Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
Water Quality Normalized Parameter
Dn Value p-Value
Chl-a 0.2393 0.2544
TDS 0.1644 0.7149
COT 0.1554 0.7769
Note: p-value > 0.05 suggests that there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that the data is not normally distributed.

3.3. Multiple Linear Regression Modeling and Discriminant Analysis

Multiple linear regression was performed between normalized water quality parame-
ters and band reflectance values extracted from satellite imagery, using B1, B2, B3, B4, B5,
B6, and B7 Landsat 8 bands. In this method, values from the Box–Cox transformation were
considered dependent variables whereas band reflectance values from imagery captured
by the sensor were considered independent variables. Table 5 shows the multiple linear
regression models for the water quality parameters of the ALM reservoir. The multiple
regression models showed fair fitting with r2 greater than 0.80, considered satisfactory
compared with the results of other empirical models used to estimate water quality through
remote sensing [55,56].
A discriminant analysis was then performed to reduce the number of bands used
in each model. A Student’s t-test was carried out to assess whether each band has a
significant effect on the water quality variables. p-values greater than or equal to 0.05 were
considered not significant [57]. After these variables were eliminated, the hypothesis test
was performed again using the simplified model, and the cycle was repeated until the
model included only significant (p < 0.05) independent variables.
Water 2023, 15, 2606 10 of 19

Table 5. Multiple linear regression models for the water quality parameters of the ALM reservoir
based on the reflectance values of the Landsat 8 satellite images.

Parameter Multiple Linear Regression Model r2 RMSE

Box–Cox (TOC) = 9.61963 − 700.238 × B1 + 707.462 × B2 − 39.2047 × B3
TOC 0.95 0.165
− 25.1903 × B4 − 18.2743 × B5 + 216.704 × B6 − 243.629 × B7
Box–Cox (TDS) = 34.849 − 3057.55 × B1 + 4137.63 × B2 − 2526.38 × B3 +
TDS 0.88 3.867
2696.15 × B4 + 1827.6 × B5 − 6080.39 × B6 + 2858.29 × B7
Box–Cox (Chl-a) = −38.8501 + 212.068 × B1 + 1213.14 × B2 + 1207.01 ×
Chl-a 0.87 3.430
B3 − 2935.1 × B4 + 261.245 × B5 − 2468.64 × B6 + 3907.26 × B7

Table 6 shows the band discrimination process for TOC. As shown, six iterations were
used to eliminate non-significant bands without significantly altering the fitting of the
model. Table 7 shows the different p-value for TOC model parameters in each iteration. The
initial mathematical model without band elimination (iteration 1) is the same as presented
in Table 3. The student’s t-test showed that the highest p-value was observed for B4
(Table 7), so this band was eliminated, and another hypothesis test was then performed
generating a simplified model (Table 7, iteration 2) with a similar fit to the original. The
band elimination process from TOC was repeated until only bands with a p-value less
than 0.05 were included (this value is the established significance level for hypothesis
tests). Through this process, B4, B5, B7, B6, and B3 were discriminated against for the TOC
model. Despite the many bands removed, the simplified model presented a similar r2 value
compared to the initial one. This same methodology was carried out for each of the water
quality parameters considered in this study and the results of the simplified models are
shown in Table 8.

Table 6. Models resulting from the discriminant analysis for TOC and their degree of fit.

Iteration Model Discriminated Bands r2 RMSE

Box–Cox (TOC) = 9.61963 − 700.238 × B1 + 707.462 × B2 −
1 39.2047 × B3 − 25.1903 × B4 − 18.2743 × B5 + 216.704 × B6 − 0 0.9608 0.1658
243.629 × B7
Box–Cox (TOC) = 9.82457 − 711.379 × B1 + 705.351 × B2 −
2 B4 0.9611 0.1676
48.6016 × B3 − 25.9899 × B5 + 245.128 × B6 − 273.573 × B7
Box–Cox (TOC) = 9.03939 − 661.472 × B1 + 667.836 × B2 −
3 B4, B5 0.9423 0.1694
45.8407 × B3 + 147.039 × B6 − 191.869 × B7
Box–Cox (TOC) = 8.92542 − 682.488 × B1 + 677.616 × B2 −
4 B4, B5, B7 0.9521 0.1829
38.4808 × B3 + 3.95873 × B6
Box–Cox (TOC) = 8.87165 − 688.128 × B1 + 688.322 × B2 −
5 B4, B5, B7, B6 0.9520 0.1835
40.7919 × B3
6 Box–Cox (TOC) = 9.15197 − 620.429 × B1 + 587.138 × B2 B4, B5, B7, B6, B3 0.9350 0.2024

Table 7. Statistical analysis for the discrimination of variables (bands).

Iteration Parameter Estimate Standard Error t-Statistic p-Value

TOC model with all bands
Constant 9.61963 2.15541 4.46302 0.0012
B1 −700.238 100.765 −6.94922 <0.0000
B2 707.462 109.424 6.4653 0.0001
B3 −39.2047 53.3205 −0.735266 0.4791
1
B4 −25.1903 136.359 −0.184735 0.8571
B5 −18.2743 56.7695 −0.321903 0.7542
B6 216.704 237.583 0.912119 0.3832
B7 −243.629 244.321 −0.997167 0.3422
TOC model after discriminating B4
Water 2023, 15, 2606 11 of 19

Table 7. Cont.

Iteration Parameter Estimate Standard Error t-Statistic p-Value

Constant 9.82457 1.46585 6.70228 <0.0000
B1 −711.379 91.8242 −7.74718 <0.0000
B2 705.351 97.8209 7.21064 <0.0000
2 B3 −48.6016 23.9244 −2.03147 0.0671
B5 −25.9899 40.4164 −0.643053 0.5334
B6 245.128 185.017 1.32489 0.2121
B7 −273.573 187.063 −1.46247 0.1716
TOC model after discriminating B4 and B5
Constant 9.03939 0.526595 17.1657 <0.0000
B1 −661.472 56.2812 −11.753 <0.0000
B2 667.836 80.4374 8.30256 <0.0000
3
B3 −45.8407 23.0887 −1.98542 0.0704
B6 147.039 102.673 1.43211 0.1776
B7 −191.869 134.751 −1.42388 0.18
TOC model after discriminating B4, B5, and B7
Constant 8.92542 0.531479 16.7936 <0.0000
B1 −682.488 55.898 −12.2095 <0.0000
4 B2 677.616 83.0813 8.15606 <0.0000
B3 −38.4808 23.4277 −1.64254 0.1244
B6 3.95873 21.4212 0.184804 0.8562
TOC model after discriminating B4, B5, B7, and B6
Constant 8.87165 0.47848 18.5413 <0.0000
B1 −688.128 47.2176 −14.5735 <0.0000
5
B2 688.322 60.099 11.4531 <0.0000
B3 −40.7919 19.3641 −2.10657 0.0537
TOC model after discriminating B4, B5, B7, B6, and B3
Constant 9.15197 0.510097 17.9416 <0.0000
6 B1 −620.429 42.8204 −14.4891 <0.0000
B2 587.138 44.5094 13.1913 <0.0000

Table 8. Final models after variable discrimination for the different parameters tested.

Parameter Final Model Bands Used r2

TOC Box–Cox (TOC) = 9.15197 − 620.429 × B1 + 587.138 × B2 B1, B2 0.9263
Box–Cox (TDS) = 55.7042 − 3387.46 × B1 + 4108.64 × B2 −
TDS B1, B2, B3, B4, B6 0.8753
2874.84 × B3 + 3514.37 × B4 + 1386.56 × B5 − 3490.39 × B6
Box–Cox (Cha-a) = −24.4586 + 1204.69 × B2 + 956.358 × B3 −
Chl-a B2, B3, B4, B7 0.8100
2506.71 × B4 + 996.356 × B7

Figure 4a shows the estimated and measured TDS values in the ALM reservoir. The
final TDS model accuracy (r2 = 0.875; RMSE = 3.2613) can be considered satisfactory
showing a better fit compared to other studies [58]. This could be attributed to the bands
used for TDS estimation since low model accuracies have been reported in several studies
that have only used B3, B4, and B5 bands (530 to 890 nm) of Landsat 8 [59,60]. According to
Zhao et al. [61] (2020), the B3–B5 wavelength range (530–890 nm) can be used to characterize
whether the water body contains phytoplankton chlorophyll (560–590 nm), cyanobacteria
(620 nm), phycocyanin (650 nm), algae chlorophyll (675 nm), and suspended inorganic
matter (810 nm). However, in this study, the discriminant analysis demonstrated that TDS
estimation should be carried out using the bands B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, and B6 of Landsat
8. The use of a wider wavelength range could explain the satisfactory fit obtained since
higher dissolved content of inorganic and organic substances could be detected, such as
 Water 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 19

Water 2023, 15, 2606

Chl-a is the most studied water quality parameter through remote sensing. Results 12 of 19
for Chl-a showed a lower fit than TOC and TDS probably because of the normalization of
water quality data. Several limitations were observed when Chl-a was normalized using
the Box–Cox transformation, which generated the lowest r2 value (see Table 3) in compar-
the
isoncolored dissolved
with TOC organic
and TDS, likelymatter (CDOM)
because Chl-a is(420–555 nm).parameter
a biological Our results agree with
showing Maliki
exponen-
ettial
al.growth.
[62], who successfully predicted the TDS of surface water in Bangladesh using Landsat
In addition, Chl-a is more susceptible to seasonal variations related to physi-
8cal,
OLIchemical,
and multiple linear models
and climatic (r2 = 0.95).
factors [63,64].

Figure4.4.Estimated
Figure Estimatedand
andobserved
observed values
values forfor
(a) (a)
TOC,TOC, (b) TDS,
(b) TDS, and and (c) Chl-a
(c) Chl-a usingusing the simplified
the simplified models.
models.
Chl-a is the most studied water quality parameter through remote sensing. Results for
Chl-aMohsen
showed et al. [65]fitused
a lower thanaTOC multi-linear
and TDSregression technique
probably because offor
thethe estimation of
normalization ofChl-
water
a through
quality remote
data. Severalsensing using Landsat
limitations 7 bands B1
were observed and Chl-a
when B3 at Lake Burullus, Egypt,
was normalized using ob-
the
Box–Cox = 0.86 (RMSE = which
taining r2transformation, 34.6). Bohn et al. the
generated [66]lowest
reported r2 value
r2 = 0.83(see estimating
Table 3) inChl-a using
comparison
Landsat
with TOC7 bands
and TDS, B3 and
likelyB4.because
The accuracyChl-aofisthese models was
a biological similarshowing
parameter to the results of this
exponential
study (r2In
growth. = addition,
0.81, RMSE = 3.1267)
Chl-a is more(Figure 4c). In the
susceptible Chl-a model,
to seasonal some bands
variations related(such as B2
to physical,
and B7) appear in the final
chemical, and climatic factors [63,64].model generated and do not appear in other studies, such as
the one performed by Bohn et al. [66]. This is because these studies
Mohsen et al. [65] used a multi-linear regression technique for the estimation of estimate Chl-a by cal-
culating
Chl-a predetermined
through remote sensing indices such
using as the 7normalized
Landsat bands B1 and difference
B3 at Lake vegetation
Burullus,index Egypt,
obtaining r = 0.86 (RMSE = 34.6). Bohn et al. [66] reported r = 0.83 estimating(EVI),
(NDVI), normalized
2 area vegetation index (NAVI), enhanced 2 vegetation index Chl-a and
using
ratio vegetation
Landsat 7 bandsindex B3 and (RVI).
B4. The accuracy of these models was similar to the results of
The results
this study obtained
(r2 = 0.81, RMSE in this study (Figure
= 3.1267) can be considered
4c). In thelow Chl-acompared
model, to somethose reported
bands (such
byB2
as Tyler
andetB7) al. appear
[67], (r2 in= 0.95) for amodel
the final linear mixture
generated model
and useddo not to appear
estimateinChl-a otherinstudies,
Lake
Balaton,
such as theHungary, using Landsat
one performed by Bohn TM et imagery. The is
al. [66]. This accuracy
becauseofthese the water
studies quality
estimatemodels
Chl-a
by calculating predetermined indices such as the normalized difference vegetationDOS
can be improved by removing image interferences. For instance, in this study, the index
atmospheric
(NDVI), correction
normalized area method
vegetationwas usedindex which
(NAVI),assumes
enhancedthat there are dark
vegetation targets
index in the
(EVI), and
image, such as water
ratio vegetation index (RVI). and dense vegetation. But when the water body is turbid, such as
the reservoir
The results in obtained
this study,inthe thisreflection
study can ofbe
water in the near-infrared
considered low compared band is close
to those to 0,
reported
which leads to uncertainties
2 of the atmospheric correction over
by Tyler et al. [67], (r = 0.95) for a linear mixture model used to estimate Chl-a in Lake water [68]. Other atmos-
pheric correction
Balaton, Hungary,methods have been
using Landsat TMproven
imagery. to be
Theeffective
accuracy for of
turbid waters,
the water such asmodels
quality AC-
can be improved by removing image interferences. For instance, in this study, the the
OLITE [69,70], ACIX-Aqua [71,72], iCOR [73], POLYMER [74], or MDM [68]. Thus, DOS
performance correction
atmospheric of these algorithms
method on wastheused
regression
whichmodels
assumes should
that be investigated
there are dark in depthin
targets
in further
the image,studies.
such as water and dense vegetation. But when the water body is turbid, such
as the reservoir in this study, the reflection of water in the near-infrared band is close
3.4.
to 0,Model
whichValidation
leads to uncertainties of the atmospheric correction over water [68]. Other
The remaining
atmospheric correction25% of fieldhave
methods water quality
been data
proven to (randomly
be effectiveselected data
for turbid not previ-
waters, such as
ously used[69,70],
ACOLITE for model development)
ACIX-Aqua [71,72],during
iCOR the
[73],2015–2017
POLYMER period and
[74], or 100%[68].
MDM of the data
Thus, the
obtained from January 2018 to June 2019 were used to validate the simplified
performance of these algorithms on the regression models should be investigated in depth models,
showing
in furtherastudies.
fair fit between estimated and observed data. The estimated and observed wa-
ter quality data for the model development and validation is shown in Table S1. A good
3.4. Model
fit of 93%Validation
and 81% was obtained for TOC and Chl-a, respectively (Figure 5b,c). TDS
The remaining 25% of field water quality data (randomly selected data not previously
used for model development) during the 2015–2017 period and 100% of the data obtained
from January 2018 to June 2019 were used to validate the simplified models, showing a
fair fit between estimated and observed data. The estimated and observed water quality
data for the model development and validation is shown in Table S1. A good fit of 93%
 Water 2023, 15, 2606 13 of 19
Water 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 19

and 81% was obtained for TOC and Chl-a, respectively (Figure 5b,c). TDS showed a good
showed a good
adjustment withadjustment
98% (Figure with 98%
5a). (Figure 5a).
Therefore, thisTherefore, this study
study suggests the suggests the highto
high feasibility
feasibility to develop mathematical models based on water quality parameters
develop mathematical models based on water quality parameters measured in the field measured
in the
and fieldsatellite
using and using satellite images.
images.

Figure5.5. Validation
Figure Validation of
of TDS
TDS (a),
(a), TOC
TOC (b),
(b), and
and Chl-a
Chl-a (c)
(c) with
with randomly
randomlyselected
selecteddata
datanot
notpreviously
previously
used for model development.
used for model development.

3.5. Spatial
3.5. Spatial and
and Temporal
Temporal Distribution
Distribution ofof Water
Water Quality
Quality Parameters
Parameters from
from Optimized
Optimized Models
Models
Simplified models were used to evaluate the spatial and temporal
Simplified models were used to evaluate the spatial and temporal distribution ofdistribution ofwater
wa-
Water 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEWquality parameters (TOC, TDS, and Chl-a) in the study area (Figures 6 and 7). Figure66 14 of 19
ter quality parameters (TOC, TDS, and Chl-a) in the study area (Figures 6 and 7). Figure
showsthe
shows thetemporal
temporalbehavior
behaviorof ofTOC,
TOC,TDS,
TDS,and
andChl-a
Chl-aininthe
the ALM
ALM reservoir.
reservoir.InIn this
this figure,
figure,a
a time series comparison between the observed and estimated water
time series comparison between the observed and estimated water quality values is shown. quality values is
shown.
Only two Only two observations
observations are shown are per
shown
yearper year because
because water quality
water quality monitoring
monitoring was
was carried
remote
carried
out sensing
out could
These provide
semi-annually.
semi-annually. a quantitative
These observations
observations thebasis
representrepresent
meanthefor the
mean
value of estimation
value the of
of sample
the four four carbon
sam-in dioxide
sites
plereservoir.
sites inand
emission
the the reservoir.
sediment accumulation.
The similarity between the values estimated using simplified models derived from
remote sensing and field measurements was explained using the RMSE and coefficient of
determination (r2) indicators. A very low RMSE value was obtained when TOC observed
and estimated concentrations were contrasted (Figure 6b). This figure also shows a fair
estimation for TDS and Chl-a from the optimized models and satellite imagery (Figure
6a,c). The r2 values obtained for TDS and Chl-a were higher than 0.81, which indicated a
low variation between the observed and estimated water quality parameters.
This study estimated TOC, TDS, and Chl-a in the ALM reservoir on a bimonthly ba-
sis, despite the water quality information was available every six months. One of the main
problems with empirical models is that they can generate unreliable results when applied
at sites where they were not generated or on dates different from those used for their
generation. The results demonstrated that the estimated water quality data agreed with
the data observed in the ALM reservoir. These models were validated and suggest the
feasibility of using Landsat imagery to estimate TDS, TOC, and Chl-a, which can be used
as a decision-support tool for water quality management and policy analysis.
Figure 7 shows the spatial behavior of the TOC, TDS, and Chl-a through time (using
the ISO 8601 date format YYYY-MM-DD). In this figure, a linear color gradient was used
based on the RGB color model, where red and blue colors correspond to the highest and
lowest concentrations of the water quality parameters depicted, respectively. Figure 7b
shows that the TOC concentration in the ALM reservoir is higher during September and
October, corresponding to the rainy season, associated with the entry of organic matter
into the waterbody by runoff. Similarly, TOC concentrations of the nearshore area were
higher than those within the ALM reservoir. According to this figure, the maximum TOC
content occurred in the ALM upper reaches during May, when the water level in the res-
ervoir is very low. Therefore, TOC behavior in the ALM reservoir is highly related to the
Figure
Figure 6.6.Temporal
Temporal estimation of the
estimation of estimated
the carbon.and observed
estimated values TOC
and continuous
observed values (a),TOC
TDS (b),
(a), and
TDSChl-a
(b), (c). Chl-a
and
biogeochemical processes of organic Hence, monitoring of TOC using
(c).

TDS showed a slight increase during the rainy season as runoff incorporates minera
salts into the reservoir (Figure 7a). Chl-a showed a slight increase in the first months o
the year (Figure 7c) probably related to the lentic regime of the reservoir and the absence
of rain. The spatial water quality variation observed in this study corresponds to wate
 Water2023,
Water 2023,15,
15,2606
x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of
14 of1919

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure7.7.Maps
Figure Mapsgenerated
generatedfrom
fromthe
thesimplified
simplifiedmodel
modelfor
forthe
theestimation
estimationofofwater
waterquality
qualityparameters.
parameters.
Water 2023, 15, 2606 15 of 19

The similarity between the values estimated using simplified models derived from
remote sensing and field measurements was explained using the RMSE and coefficient of
determination (r2 ) indicators. A very low RMSE value was obtained when TOC observed
and estimated concentrations were contrasted (Figure 6b). This figure also shows a fair
estimation for TDS and Chl-a from the optimized models and satellite imagery (Figure 6a,c).
The r2 values obtained for TDS and Chl-a were higher than 0.81, which indicated a low
variation between the observed and estimated water quality parameters.
This study estimated TOC, TDS, and Chl-a in the ALM reservoir on a bimonthly basis,
despite the water quality information was available every six months. One of the main
problems with empirical models is that they can generate unreliable results when applied
at sites where they were not generated or on dates different from those used for their
generation. The results demonstrated that the estimated water quality data agreed with
the data observed in the ALM reservoir. These models were validated and suggest the
feasibility of using Landsat imagery to estimate TDS, TOC, and Chl-a, which can be used
as a decision-support tool for water quality management and policy analysis.
Figure 7 shows the spatial behavior of the TOC, TDS, and Chl-a through time (using
the ISO 8601 date format YYYY-MM-DD). In this figure, a linear color gradient was used
based on the RGB color model, where red and blue colors correspond to the highest and
lowest concentrations of the water quality parameters depicted, respectively. Figure 7b
shows that the TOC concentration in the ALM reservoir is higher during September and
October, corresponding to the rainy season, associated with the entry of organic matter
into the waterbody by runoff. Similarly, TOC concentrations of the nearshore area were
higher than those within the ALM reservoir. According to this figure, the maximum TOC
content occurred in the ALM upper reaches during May, when the water level in the
reservoir is very low. Therefore, TOC behavior in the ALM reservoir is highly related to the
biogeochemical processes of organic carbon. Hence, continuous monitoring of TOC using
remote sensing could provide a quantitative basis for the estimation of carbon dioxide
emission and sediment accumulation.
TDS showed a slight increase during the rainy season as runoff incorporates mineral
salts into the reservoir (Figure 7a). Chl-a showed a slight increase in the first months of
the year (Figure 7c) probably related to the lentic regime of the reservoir and the absence
of rain. The spatial water quality variation observed in this study corresponds to water
characteristics observed in waterbodies located in tropical regions [26,27,40,75].

4. Conclusions
This study proposed a methodology to estimate water quality parameters using
satellite images. We proposed a methodology for band selection, discrimination, and water
quality modeling based on ordered and standardized steps. However, it is important to
highlight that this methodology was only validated for TOC, TDS, and Chl-a in the ALM
reservoir in Mexico. Further studies should be focused on obtaining data from other water
bodies to verify whether the methodology could be generalized.
The Box–Cox normalization proved to be effective in normalizing field water quality
data, which was then used to find an optimal relationship with reflectance data from satellite
bands. The models proposed were found robust since high coefficient of determination (r2 )
values were obtained for the different water quality parameters estimated at the different
stages (model development, discrimination, and validation). The obtained models were
then used to estimate water quality parameters during periods where field monitoring was
not conducted, which represents a crucial tool for decision-making.
This study provides an economical and effective alternative to monitor the water
quality of a large water body in a short time based on a standardized repetitive basis. The
methodology provides the spatial and temporal behavior of surface water quality, which
can be used for water resources management. In this sense, this tool could contribute to
improving the monitoring frameworks in many developing countries in the world, which
Water 2023, 15, 2606 16 of 19

are limited by the expensive and time-consuming traditional methods for assessing and
monitoring water quality.

Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https:
//www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/w15142606/s1, Table S1. Estimated and observed water quality
data for the model development and validation.
Author Contributions: J.G.L.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing—Original
draft preparation, and Writing—Reviewing and Editing. J.G.R.-P.: Conceptualization, Writing—
Original draft preparation, Writing—Reviewing and Editing, and Project administration. S.A.M.-A.:
Writing—Original draft preparation, Software, Formal analysis, Visualization, Resources, and Su-
pervision. Y.A.B.-T.: Resources, Data Curation, Supervision, and Writing—Reviewing and Editing.
E.R.B.: Software, Visualization, Validation, and Writing—Reviewing and Editing. A.J.S.-G.: Concep-
tualization, Investigation, Validation, and Supervision. S.A.R.-G.: Formal analysis, Visualization,
and Writing—Reviewing and Editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported by the Autonomous University of Sinaloa (PROFAPI—PRO_A1_012)
and by the Tecnologico Nacional de Mexico (Convocatoria Proyectos de Investigación Científica,
Desarrollo Tecnológico e Innovación 2023—17107.23-P).
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The authors thank TecNM/Instituto Tecnologico de Culiacán and the Au-
tonomous University of Sinaloa for providing the infrastructure to carry out this work and CONAH-
CYT for the scholarship provided to the first author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Ziemińska-Stolarska, A.; Kempa, M. Modeling and Monitoring of Hydrodynamics and Surface Water Quality in the Sulejów
Dam Reservoir, Poland. Water 2021, 13, 296. [CrossRef]
2. Posthuma, L.; Zijp, M.C.; De Zwart, D.; Van de Meent, D.; Globevnik, L.; Koprivsek, M.; Birk, S. Chemical pollution imposes
limitations to the ecological status of European surface waters. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 14825. [CrossRef]
3. Ryu, J.H. UAS-based real-time water quality monitoring, sampling, and visualization platform (UASWQP). HardwareX 2022,
11, e00277. [CrossRef]
4. Schaeffer, B.A.; Schaeffer, K.G.; Keith, D.; Lunetta, R.S.; Conmy, R.; Gould, R.W. Barriers to adopting satellite remote sensing for
water quality management. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2013, 34, 7534–7544. [CrossRef]
5. Sayers, M.J.; Bosse, K.R.; Shuchman, R.A.; Ruberg, S.A.; Fahnenstiel, G.L.; Leshkevich, G.A.; Stuart, D.G.; Johengen, T.H.; Burtner,
A.M.; Palladino, D. Spatial and temporal variability of inherent and apparent optical properties in western Lake Erie: Implications
for water quality remote sensing. J. Great Lakes Res. 2019, 45, 490–507. [CrossRef]
6. Zhang, Y.; Kong, X.; Deng, L.; Liu, Y. Monitor water quality through retrieving water quality parameters from hyperspectral
images using graph convolution network with superposition of multi-point effect: A case study in Maozhou River. J. Environ.
Manag. 2023, 342, 118283. [CrossRef]
7. Zhang, D.; Li, X.; Huang, Y.; Zhang, L.; Zhu, Z.; Sun, X.; Lan, Z.; Guo, W. Hyperspectral remote sensing technology for water
quality monitoring: Knowledge graph analysis and frontier trend. Front. Environ. Sci. 2023, 11, 1133325.
8. Dev, P.J.; Shanmugam, P. A new theory and its application to remove the effect of surface-reflected light in above-surface radiance
data from clear and turbid waters. J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transf. 2014, 142, 75–92. [CrossRef]
9. Mascarenhas, V.; Keck, T. Marine Optics and Ocean Color Remote Sensing. In YOUMARES 8—Oceans across Boundaries: Learning
from Each Other; Jungblut, S., Liebich, V., Bode, M., Eds.; Conference Paper; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018.
10. Gholizadeh, M.H.; Melesse, A.M.; Reddi, L. A comprehensive review on water quality parameters estimation using remote
sensing techniques. Sensors 2016, 16, 1298. [CrossRef]
11. Chuvieco, E. Digital Image Processing (I): From Raw to Corrected Data. In Fundamentals of Satellite Remote Sensing; Chuvieco, E.,
Ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA; London, UK, 2020; pp. 153–234.
12. Markogianni, V.; Kalivas, D.; Petropoulos, G.; Dimitriou, E. Analysis on the feasibility of Landsat 8 imagery for water quality
parameters assessment in an oligotrophic Mediterranean lake. J. Geotech. Eng. 2017, 11, 906–914.
13. Ahmed, M.; Mumtaz, R.; Baig, S.; Zaidi, S.M.H. Assessment of correlation amongst physico-chemical, topographical, geological,
lithological and soil type parameters for measuring water quality of Rawal watershed using remote sensing. Water Supply 2022,
22, 3645–3660. [CrossRef]
Water 2023, 15, 2606 17 of 19

14. Khalil, M.T.; Saad, A.; Ahmed, M.; El Kafrawy, S.B.; Emam, W.W. Integrated field study, remote sensing and GIS approach for
assessing and monitoring some chemical water quality parameters in Bardawil lagoon, Egypt. Int. J. Innov. Res. Sci. Eng. Technol.
2016, 5, 10–15680.
15. Theologou, I.; Patelaki, M.; Karantzalos, K. Can single empirical algorithms accurately predict inland shallow water quality status
from high resolution, multi-sensor, multi-temporal satellite data? Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2015, 40, 1511.
[CrossRef]
16. Bonansea, M.; Bazán, R.; Ledesma, C.; Rodriguez, C.; Pinotti, L. Monitoring of regional lake water clarity using Landsat imagery.
Hydrol. Res. 2015, 46, 661–670. [CrossRef]
17. Valentini, M.; dos Santos, G.B.; Muller, B. Multiple linear regression analysis (MLR) applied for modeling a new WQI equation for
monitoring the water quality of Mirim Lagoon, in the state of Rio Grande do Sul—Brazil. SN Appl. Sci. 2021, 3, 70. [CrossRef]
18. Najafzadeh, M.; Homaei, F.; Farhadi, H. Reliability assessment of water quality index based on guidelines of national sanitation
foundation in natural streams: Integration of remote sensing and data-driven models. Artif. Intell. Rev. 2021, 54, 4619–4651.
[CrossRef]
19. Kadam, A.K.; Wagh, V.M.; Muley, A.A.; Umrikar, B.N.; Sankhua, R.N. Prediction of water quality index using artificial neural
network and multiple linear regression modelling approach in Shivganga River basin, India. Model. Earth Syst. Environ. 2019, 5,
951–962. [CrossRef]
20. Ewaid, S.H.; Abed, S.A.; Kadhum, S.A. Predicting the Tigris River water quality within Baghdad, Iraq by using water quality
index and regression analysis. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2018, 11, 390–398. [CrossRef]
21. Wang, X.; Yang, W. Water quality monitoring and evaluation using remote sensing techniques in China: A systematic review.
Ecosyst. Health Sust. 2019, 5, 47–56. [CrossRef]
22. Sharaf El Din, E.; Zhang, Y. Estimation of both optical and nonoptical surface water quality parameters using Landsat 8 OLI
imagery and statistical techniques. J. Appl. Remote Sens. 2017, 11, 046008. [CrossRef]
23. Feng, L.; Hu, C.; Han, X.; Chen, X.; Qi, L. Long-term distribution patterns of chlorophyll-a concentration in China’s largest
freshwater lake: MERIS full-resolution observations with a practical approach. Remote Sens. 2014, 7, 275–299. [CrossRef]
24. Qi, L.; Hu, C.; Duan, H.; Barnes, B.B.; Ma, R. An EOF-based algorithm to estimate chlorophyll a concentrations in Taihu Lake
from MODIS land-band measurements: Implications for near real-time applications and forecasting models. Remote Sens. 2014, 6,
10694–10715. [CrossRef]
25. Asadollahfardi, G.; Heidarzadeh, N.; Mosalli, A.; Sekhavati, A. Optimization of water quality monitoring stations using genetic
algorithm, a case study, Sefid-Rud River, Iran. Adv. Environ. Res. 2018, 7, 87–107.
26. Quevedo-Castro, A.; Rangel-Peraza, J.G.; Bandala, E.; Amabilis-Sosa, L.; Rodríguez-Mata, A.; Bustos-Terrones, Y. Developing
a water quality index in a tropical reservoir using a measure of multiparameters. J. Water Sanit. Hyg. Dev. 2018, 8, 752–766.
[CrossRef]
27. Quevedo-Castro, A.; Lopez, J.L.; Rangel-Peraza, J.G.; Bandala, E.; Bustos-Terrones, Y. Study of the water quality of a tropical
reservoir. Environments 2019, 6, 7. [CrossRef]
28. Quevedo-Castro, A.; Bandala, E.R.; Rangel-Peraza, J.G.; Amábilis-Sosa, L.E.; Sanhouse-García, A.; Bustos-Terrones, Y.A. Temporal
and spatial study of water quality and trophic evaluation of a large tropical reservoir. Environments 2019, 6, 61. [CrossRef]
29. CONAGUA. Subdirección General Técnica. Presas de México. Available online: http://sina.conagua.gob.mx/sina/tema.php?
tema=presasPrincipalesandver=reporteando=2andn=nacional (accessed on 13 November 2022).
30. Sanhouse-Garcia, A.J.; Bustos-Terrones, Y.; Rangel-Peraza, J.G.; Quevedo-Castro, A.; Pacheco, C. Multi-temporal analysis for land
use and land cover changes in an agricultural region using open source tools. Remote Sens. Appl. Soc. Environ. 2017, 8, 278–290.
[CrossRef]
31. INEGI. Compendio de Información Geográfica Municipal 2010; Badiraguato; Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía: Aguas-
calientes, Mexico, 2015; Available online: https://www.inegi.org.mx/contenidos/app/mexicocifras/datos_geograficos/25/250
03.pdf (accessed on 26 February 2023).
32. Monjardin-Armenta, S.A.; Plata-Rocha, W.; Pacheco-Angulo, C.E.; Franco-Ochoa, C.; Rangel-Peraza, J.G. Geospatial Simulation
Model of Deforestation and Reforestation Using Multicriteria Evaluation. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10387. [CrossRef]
33. USGS. United States Geological Survey. Earth Explorer. 2021. Available online: https://www.usgs.gov/landsat-missions/using-
usgs-landsat-level-1-data-product (accessed on 2 July 2023).
34. Congedo, L. Semi-automatic classification plugin documentation. Release 2016, 4, 29.
35. Chavez, P.S. Image-based atmospheric corrections–revisited and improved. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 1996, 62, 1025–1036.
36. Prieto-Amparan, J.A.; Villarreal-Guerrero, F.; Martinez-Salvador, M.; Manjarrez-Domínguez, C.; Santellano-Estrada, E.; Pinedo-
Alvarez, A. Atmospheric and radiometric correction algorithms for the multitemporal assessment of grasslands productivity.
Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 219. [CrossRef]
37. Huguet, A.; Vacher, L.; Relexans, S.; Saubusse, S.; Froidefond, J.M.; Parlanti, E. Properties of fluorescent dissolved organic matter
in the Gironde Estuary. Org. Geochem. 2009, 40, 706–719. [CrossRef]
38. Hansen, C.H.; Williams, G.P.; Adjei, Z.; Barlow, A.; Nelson, E.J.; Miller, A.W. Reservoir water quality monitoring using remote
sensing with seasonal models: Case study of five central-Utah reservoirs. Lake Reserv. Manag. 2015, 31, 225–240. [CrossRef]
39. APHA. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 18th ed.; American Public Health Association: Washington,
DC, USA, 1992.
Water 2023, 15, 2606 18 of 19

40. Loaiza, J.G.; Rangel-Peraza, J.G.; Sanhouse-García, A.J.; Monjardín-Armenta, S.A.; Mora-Félix, Z.D.; Bustos-Terrones, Y.A.
Assessment of Water Quality in A Tropical Reservoir in Mexico: Seasonal, Spatial and Multivariable Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res.
Public Health 2021, 18, 7456. [CrossRef]
41. Ritchie, J.C.; Zimba, P.V.; Everitt, J.H. Remote sensing techniques to assess water quality. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 2003, 69,
695–704. [CrossRef]
42. Elkorashey, R.M. Utilizing chemometric techniques to evaluate water quality spatial and temporal variation. A case study: Bahr
El-Baqar drain-Egypt. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2022, 26, 102332. [CrossRef]
43. Vélez, J.I.; Correa, J.C.; Marmolejo-Ramos, F. A new approach to the Box–Cox transformation. Front. Appl. Math. Stat. 2015, 1, 12.
[CrossRef]
44. Peterson, R.A. Finding Optimal Normalizing Transformations via best Normalize. R J. 2021, 13, 3010–3329. [CrossRef]
45. Etemadi, S.; Khashei, M. Etemadi multiple linear regression. Measurement 2021, 186, 110080. [CrossRef]
46. Ouma, Y.O.; Okuku, C.O.; Njau, E.N. Use of artificial neural networks and multiple linear regression model for the prediction of
dissolved oxygen in rivers: Case study of hydrographic basin of River Nyando, Kenya. Complexity 2020, 9570789, 23. [CrossRef]
47. Abunama, T.; Othman, F.; Ansari, M.; El-Shafie, A. Leachate generation rate modeling using artificial intelligence algorithms
aided by input optimization method for an MSW landfill. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2019, 26, 3368–3381. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
48. Jahani, A.; Rayegani, B. Forest landscape visual quality evaluation using artificial intelligence techniques as a decision support
system. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 2020, 34, 1473–1486. [CrossRef]
49. Zhou, Z.; Huang, T.; Ma, W.; Li, Y.; Zeng, K. Impacts of water quality variation and rainfall runoff on Jinpen Dam, in Northwest
China. Water Sci. Eng. 2015, 8, 301–308. [CrossRef]
50. Gonzalez-Farias, F.A.; Hernandez-Garza, M.d.R.; Gonzalez, G.D. Organic carbon and pesticide pollution in a tropical coastal
lagoon-estuarine system in Northwest Mexico. Int. J. Environ. Pollut. 2006, 26, 234. [CrossRef]
51. Rodríguez, H.B.; González, L.C.; Trigueros, J.A.; Ávila, J.A.; Arciniega, M.A. Calidad del agua: Caracterización espacial en época
de sequía en el río Fuerte, Sinaloa, México. Rev. Cienc. Desde Occident. 2016, 3, 35–47.
52. Fregoso-López, M.G.; Armienta-Hernández, M.A.; Alarcón-Silvas, S.G.; Ramírez-Rochín, J.; Fierro-Sañudo, J.F.; Páez-Osuna, F.
Assessment of nutrient contamination in the waters of the El Fuerte River, southern Gulf of California, Mexico. Environ. Monit.
Assess. 2020, 192, 417. [CrossRef]
53. Zhang, H.; Richardson, P.A.; Belayneh, B.E.; Ristvey, A.; Lea-Cox, J.; Copes, W.E.; Moorman, G.W.; Hong, C. Comparative
Analysis of Water Quality between the Runoff Entrance and Middle of Recycling Irrigation Reservoirs. Water 2015, 7, 3861–3877.
[CrossRef]
54. Fang, J.; Wu, F.; Xiong, Y.; Wang, S. A comparison of the distribution and sources of organic matter in surface sediments collected
from northwestern and southwestern plateau lakes in China. J. Limnol. 2017, 76, 571–580. [CrossRef]
55. Markogianni, V.; Kalivas, D.; Petropoulos, G.P.; Dimitriou, E. Estimating chlorophyll-a of inland water bodies in Greece based on
landsat data. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 2087. [CrossRef]
56. Abbas, M.M.; Melesse, A.M.; Scinto, L.J.; Rehage, J.S. Satellite estimation of chlorophyll-a using moderate resolution imaging
spectroradiometer (MODIS) sensor in shallow coastal water bodies: Validation and improvement. Water 2019, 11, 1621. [CrossRef]
57. Shinmura, S.; Shinmura, S. New Theory of Discriminant Analysis; Springer: Singapore, 2016; pp. 81–97.
58. Batur, E.; Maktav, D. Assessment of Surface Water Quality by Using Satellite Images Fusion Based on PCA Method in the Lake
Gala, Turkey. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2018, 57, 2983–2989. [CrossRef]
59. Kumar, M.; Kumar, M.; Denis, D.M.; Verma, O.P.; Mahato, L.L.; Pandey, K. Investigating water quality of an urban water body
using ground and space observations. Spat. Inf. Res. 2021, 29, 897–906. [CrossRef]
60. Mejía Ávila, D.; Torres-Bejarano, F.; Martínez Lara, Z. Spectral indices for estimating total dissolved solids in freshwater wetlands
using semi-empirical models. A case study of Guartinaja and Momil wetlands. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2022, 43, 2156–2184. [CrossRef]
61. Zhao, J.; Zhang, F.; Chen, S.; Wang, C.; Chen, J.; Zhou, H.; Xue, Y. Remote Sensing Evaluation of Total Suspended Solids Dynamic
with Markov Model: A Case Study of Inland Reservoir across Administrative Boundary in South China. Sensors 2020, 20, 6911.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
62. Maliki, A.A.A.; Chabuk, A.; Sultan, M.A.; Hashim, B.M.; Hussain, H.M.; Al-Ansari, N. Estimation of Total Dissolved Solids in
Water Bodies by Spectral Indices Case Study: Shatt al-Arab River. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2020, 231, 482. [CrossRef]
63. Obaid, A.A.; Ali, K.A.; Abiye, T.A.; Adam, E.M. Assessing the utility of using current generation high-resolution satellites
(Sentinel 2 and Landsat 8) to monitor large water supply dam in South Africa. Remote Sens. Appl. Soc. Environ. 2021, 22, 100521.
[CrossRef]
64. Lin, L.; Wang, F.; Chen, H.; Fang, H.; Zhang, T.; Cao, W. Ecological health assessments of rivers with multiple dams based on the
biological integrity of phytoplankton: A case study of North Creek of Jiulong River. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 121, 106998. [CrossRef]
65. Mohsen, A.; Elshemy, M.; Zeidan, B. Water quality monitoring of Lake Burullus (Egypt) using Landsat satellite imageries. Environ.
Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 28, 15687–15700. [CrossRef]
66. Bohn, V.Y.; Carmona, F.; Rivas, R.; Lagomarsino, L.; Diovisalvi, N.; Zagarese, H.E. Development of an empirical model for
chlorophyll-a and Secchi Disk Depth estimation for a Pampean shallow lake (Argentina). Egypt. J. Remote Sens. Space Sci. 2018, 21,
183–191. [CrossRef]
Water 2023, 15, 2606 19 of 19

67. Tyler, A.N.; Svab, E.; Preston, T.; Présing, M.; Kovács, W.A. Remote sensing of the water quality of shallow lakes: A mixture
modelling approach to quantifying phytoplankton in water characterized by high-suspended sediment. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2006,
27, 1521–1537. [CrossRef]
68. Pahlevan, N.; Smith, B.; Schalles, J.; Binding, C.; Cao, Z.; Ma, R.; Alikas, K.; Kangro, K.; Gurlin, D.; Hà, N.; et al. Seamless retrievals
of chlorophyll-a from Sentinel-2 (MSI) and Sentinel-3 (OLCI) in inland and coastal waters: A machine learning approach. Remote
Sens. Environ. 2020, 240, 111604. [CrossRef]
69. Vanhellemont, Q. Adaptation of the dark spectrum fitting atmospheric correction for aquatic applications of the Landsat and
Sentinel-2 archives. Remote Sens. Environ. 2019, 225, 175–192. [CrossRef]
70. Maciel, F.P.; Pedocchi, F. Evaluation of ACOLITE atmospheric correction methods for Landsat-8 and Sentinel-2 in the Río de la
Plata turbid coastal waters. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2022, 43, 215–240. [CrossRef]
71. Pahlevan, N.; Mangin, A.; Balasubramanian, S.; Smith, B.; Alikas, K.; Arai, K.; Barbosa, C.; Bélanger, S.; Binding, C.; Bresciani,
M.; et al. ACIX-Aqua: A global assessment of atmospheric correction methods for Landsat-8 and Sentinel-2 over lakes, rivers,
and coastal waters. Remote Sens. Environ. 2021, 258, 112366. [CrossRef]
72. Zolfaghari, K.; Pahlevan, N.; Simis, S.G.; O’Shea, R.E.; Duguay, C.R. Sensitivity of remotely sensed pigment concentration via
Mixture Density Networks (MDNs) to uncertainties from atmospheric correction. J. Great Lakes Res. 2022, 49, 341–356. [CrossRef]
73. de Keukelaere, L.; Sterckx, S.; Adriaensen, S.; Knaeps, E.; Reusen, I.; Giardino, C.; Bresciani, M.; Hunter, P.; Neil, C.; van der
Zande, D.; et al. Atmospheric correction of Landsat-8/OLI and Sentinel-2/MSI data using iCOR algorithm: Validation for coastal
and inland waters. Eur. J. Remote Sens. 2018, 51, 525–542. [CrossRef]
74. Warren, M.A.; Simis, S.G.H.; Selmes, N. Complementary water quality observations from high and medium resolution Sentinel
sensors by aligning chlorophyll-a and turbidity algorithms. Remote Sens. Environ. 2021, 265, 112651. [CrossRef]
75. Rangel-Peraza, J.G.; De Anda, J.; González-Farias, F.; Erickson, D. Statistical assessment of water quality seasonality in large
tropical reservoirs. Lakes Reserv. Res. Manag. 2009, 14, 315–323. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.