frequency
Each of the short-term sampling strategies described above
(single grab sample, 24-h and 48-h continuous monitoring and
7-d continuous monitoring) could be repeated, while the longterm
weekly grab sampling strategy could vary in length. This
would increase the precision of the simulated estimates. The
influence of taking multiple (n) random grab samples, 24-h
periods, 48-h periods, 7-d periods or weekly grab samples
during n consecutive weeks on the estimated EF was evaluated.
These evaluations started by calculating all possible grab
samples, 24-h periods, 48-h periods, 7-d periods or long-term
weekly grab sample strategies that fulfilled the requirements
as mentioned in Section 2.2. Thereafter 1 to n random grab
samples, 24-h periods, 48-h periods or 7-d periods or longterm
weekly grab sample strategies for 1 to n consecutive
weeks were randomly taken for all possible periods. Finally,
for all 1 to n sampling cases, the relative error between the true
EF (as determined with Eq. (2) and based on the whole dataset)
and the estimated EF (based on a limited number of measurements
and only representing an estimation of the true EF)
was determined as a function of the number of sampling cases
for each of the investigated reduced frequency sampling
strategies (Daelman et al., 2013). These sampling cases were
the number (n) of 24-h (or 48-h) random periods for the 24-h
(or 48-h) reduced sampling strategies, or the number of
random, 7-d periods for the one week reduced sampling
strategy. For the random grab sampling strategies, the number
of single grab samples was determined necessary to obtain
an estimate with a relative error smaller than ±15%. Similarly,
for the long-term weekly grab sampling strategy, the number
of weeks necessary to obtain an estimate with a relative error