A water-monitoring report - what it should contain
Monitoring ends where the report begins - because it is the report that turns tables of figures into understandable conclusions. Whether you are writing an account for an institution, a client or your own team, a well-arranged report saves time and builds trust in the data. Here is what it should contain.
The skeleton of a report
- Aim and scope - why the monitoring was run, what it concerns, over what period.
- Area and measurement points - a description of the sites (ideally with a map and coordinates).
- Methodology - what, how and with what was measured; references to standards/methods; the way of sampling and preservation.
- Results - tables and charts; series over time, not just single values.
- Assessment - relating the results to standards / classes / reference values (see Classes and status of water quality).
- Conclusions and recommendations - what the data shows and what next.
- Sources and appendices - raw data, metadata, references.
Each section answers a different question of the reader - and each has its own, repeatable way of spoiling the report:
| Section | Which question it answers | The commonest omission |
|---|---|---|
| Aim and scope | why am I reading this and what does it cover | the period given loosely (“the 2026 season”) instead of by dates |
| Area and points | where exactly was it measured | no coordinates - the site cannot be reproduced or compared years later |
| Methods | can the results be trusted | preservation and holding time left out, so it is unknown whether a result is valid |
| Results | what was measured | a table instead of a time series - values are visible, change is not |
| Assessment | is this good or bad | bare numbers with no reference to a standard, class or background |
| Conclusions | what follows and what next | the results repeated in other words instead of a decision |
| Sources and annexes | where it came from and how to check | no raw data - the report cannot be verified |
⚠️ A gap in the data that is described is part of the result; a gap passed over in silence is an error. A reader who sees a break in the series together with an explanation (“probe serviced, 12-26 July”) still trusts the report. The same chart without an explanation undermines everything else written in it.
What sets a good report apart
- Context - results set against weather, season, events (see interpreting results).
- Readable charts - a time series says more than a column of figures.
- Explicit limitations - gaps in the data, uncertainty, values below the limit of quantification.
- Repeatability - a methodology described so that someone else could reproduce the monitoring.
Common shortcomings
- no reference to standards (figures alone without assessment),
- hidden gaps in the data,
- charts with a “categorical” time axis instead of one proportional to the dates,
- no metadata (units, the method of measurement).
Sources
- What a test report has to contain: ISO/IEC 17025:2017 General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories, clause 7.8 on reporting of results - among others the unique identification of the report and of each of its pages, the customer, the description and dates of the item tested, the method used, the results with units and the person authorising the report; a separate subclause 7.8.8 governs amendments to a report already issued.
- ⚠️ This is a standard for laboratories (the basis of accreditation), not a requirement for every monitoring report. Treat its list of elements as a checklist of what not to omit, not as an obligation.
(Edition verified on 18 August 2026.)
In practice
The better organised the data, the faster the report comes together. LimnoLog keeps measurements in a structure of stations and sessions, generates charts, lets you mark guidelines (for assessment) and export the data to Excel - ready to paste into the report. On the data reliability on which such a report stands, we write in the article QA/QC and data quality.
See it in the LimnoLog app
Explore LimnoLog features