Snapshot Methodology for Estimation of Pollution Fluxes Under Different Flow Conditions

“Snapshot” methodology for estimation of pollution fluxes under different

flow conditions

Supplementary material

Aziz ASSAAD, Steve PONTVIANNE, Marie-Noëlle PONS*

Laboratoire Réactions et Génie des Procédés (UMR CNRS 7274), Université de Lorraine, 1, rue Grandville, BP 20451, 54001 Nancy cedex, France

* Corresponding author: tel: +33 3 83 17 52 77, mail: [email protected] Table S1: Wastewater treatment plants in the Madon watershed. CAS = conventional activated sludge; CW = constructed wetland. Average value between 2004 and 2012 (or between the starting date of operation and 2012) with standard deviation in brackets. Data from Rhin-Meuse Water Information System (http://rhin-meuse.eaufrance.fr/).

Place T N W R E N NH N NO COD COD and y b W e ff H4 4 O3 3 efflue effluen opeation p o TP f e eff effl eff effl nt t & start e f ca e ct lue uen lue uen load concen year i pa r i nt t nt t tration n cit e v loa con loa con h y n e d cen d cen a c d trati trati b e ai on on it d l a ai y n l i ts y n i fl n u fl e u n e t n fl t o fl w o r w at r e at e p.e. m3/d m3/d kgN/ mgN/L kgN/ mgN/ kgCOD/d mgCOD/L d d L Mirecourt CAS 900 30100 740 6144 3.17 0.96 3.31 0.24 92. 30. 1999 0 0 (2.97) (0.43) (3.30) (0.20) (79.) (14.)

Puzieux CW 182 430 41 0.19 3.21 0.93 3.27 3.12 41. 2008 (0.17) (3.46) (0.96) (2.65) (2.44) (19)

Offroicourt CW 153 195 38 0.10 3.3 0.58 3 1.48 38 2008 (0.10) (4.5) (0.24) (2) (1.20) (32) Vaudémont CW 78 100 30 46 0.07 3.4 0.6 6.9 1.05 45 2009 (0.09) (5.7) (0.7) (5.6) (1.08) (62.)

Saxon-Sion CW 73 550 125 0.24 11.4 1.14 17 1.20 55 2007 (0.28) (9.0 (1.69 (23 (1.10 (28

Benney 121 263 0.20 1 3.20 3.54 3.27 16 2012 9 (0.18) (0.87) (0.26) (0.14) (0.25) (1.74)

Houdrevill CW 438 375 180 90 0.29 5 1.61 6.22 3.36 58 e (0.12) (1.38) (0.55) (1.31) (0.68) (3) 2010 Haroué CW 411 540 320 166 0.66 9.21 1.28 0.58 17 40 2009 (2.6) (11.) (1.12) (0.62) (27) (90)

Frolois CAS 695 800 140 56 1.19 15.3 0.63 1.40 10. 109. 1970 (1.24) (15.7) (0.84) (1.64) (13) (109.) Table S2: Localization of sampling points along the Madon river

Station name Station # Latitude Longitude Notes Pont-Saint-Vincent 1 48°36’ 0.9’’ 6°6’23.5’’

Xeuilley 2 48°34’ 32.4’’ 6°6’29.1’’ Rhin-Meuse Water Agency sampling station Pierreville 3 48°32’ 58.5’’ 6°7’33.6’’

Pulligny 4 48°32’ 22.1’’ 6°8’21.1’’ Banque Hydro gauging station

Ceintrey 5 48°31’ 26.3’’ 6°9’34.7’’ Lemainville 6 48°30’ 13.9’’ 6°11’34.7’’ Ville-sur-Madon 8 48°28’ 40.0’’ 6°10’6.1’’

Haroué 9 48°27’ 57.2’’ 6°10’42.1’’ Vaudigny 10 48°26’ 39.6’’ 6°11’36.3’’ Xirocourt 11 48°25’ 48.5’’ 6°10’34.9’’ Bralleville 12 48°24’ 25.9’’ 6°11’0.4’’ Battexey 13 48°23’ 24.0’’ 6°10’7.6’’ Pont sur Madon 14 48°22’ 13.8’’ 6°9’12.9’’ Bettoncourt 15 48°21’ 1.0’’ 6°9’35.8’’

Ambacourt 16 48°20’ 47.9’’ 6°8’33.1’’ Rhin-Meuse Water Agency sampling station

Mazirot 17 48°19’ 29.7’’ 6°8’42.6’’ Mirecourt 19 48°18’ 2.2’’ 6°8’13.3’’ Banque Hydro gauging station Mattaincourt 20 48°16’ 48.3’’ 6°8’6.0’’ Rhin-Meuse Water Agency sampling station Maroncourt 21 48°14’ 56.5’’ 6°9’15.9’’ Rhin-Meuse Water Agency sampling station

Hagécourt 22 48°14’ 7.1’’ 6°9’9.9’’ Begnécourt 23 48°12’ 50.1’’ 6°8’59.3’’ Banque Hydro gauging station Pont les Bonfays 26 48°10’ 12.5’’ 6°7’60.0’’

Pont de Faret 27 48°9’ 27.7’’ 6°8’18.5’’ Lerrain 28 48°8’ 40.3’’ 6°8’50.4’’ Escles 29 48°7’ 52.7’’ 6°10’55.9’’

Void d’Escles 30 48°7’ 22.4’’ 6°11’32.7’’ Table S3: Statistics of pollutant fluxes at Xeuilley between 2003 and 2012

Xeuilley (Station

#2) Winter Summer - + - + N-NO3 DOC NH4 N-NO3 DOC NH4

Parameter (kg N d-1) (kg C d-1) (kg N d-1) (kg N d-1) (kg C d-1) (kg N d-1) 1st quartile 1.192 968 25 155 537 9 2nd quartile 2.673 1.942 62 336 876 15 3rd quartile 6.200 6.368 142 1.045 1.423 30 Average 4.973 6.336 124 898 1.405 29 Standard deviation 6.986 11499 165 1307 1843 37 Max 55.266 72.973 740 6.917 16.708 217 Figure S1: Localization of the wastewater treatment plants in the Madon watershed Figure S2: Variations in the average daily flow of the Madon River in 2011 and 2012

(HYDRO stations). Figure S3: Biological quality evaluated by the Biological Diatom Index (BDI 2007) for the four water-quality monitoring stations proposed by the Rhin-Meuse Water Agency along the

Madon River. + - Figure S4: Variations in DOC. N-NH4 and N-NO3 for four water-quality monitoring stations proposed by the Rhin-Meuse Water Agency along the Madon River.

Figure S5: Duration curve of daily flow (for 18112 days) in Pulligny and the flow rates during the sampling campaigns.