River basin

Water pollution in the Tisza basin

Sites in the 2025 yearbook
2
Failed the standard (100%)
2
Counted in the score
1

River basin overview

In the Tisza basin the SHMÚ yearbook has 2 monitoring sites; in 2025, 2 of them (100%) failed the standard for at least one indicator. 1 are counted in the scores of the fishing districts.

Watercourse profile of Tisza

SHMÚ sites from source to mouth

Watercourse profile from source to mouthnumber of unmet indicators in 2025 at SHMÚ sites

01234Malé Trakany, river km 3.0: 3 indicators (2025)Zemplénagard, river km 0.0: 3 indicators (2025)river km 3 (upper course)river km 0 (towards the mouth)
Show sites in the table (2)
  • Malé Trakanyriver km 3.03 indicators
  • Zemplénagardriver km 0.03 indicators
  • standard not met
  • no unmet standard
  • site not in the yearbook

Year-by-year trend

Share of sites in the river basin that failed the standard

  1. 20222 of 2100%
  2. 20232 of 2100%
  3. 20242 of 2100%
  4. 20252 of 2100%

Worst sites in the river basin

Click to expand the history by year

  1. Malé TrakanyTisza, river km 3.03 indicators in 2025
    Indicator2022202320242025
    Nutrients and nitrogen
    nitrites●standard not met●standard not met·standard met·standard met
    Harmful organic substances
    petroleum substances (NEL)●standard not met·standard met●standard not met·standard met
    AOX (adsorbable organic halogens)●standard not met·standard met·standard met·standard met
    Biology and bacteria
    chlorophyll a●standard not met·standard met●standard not met●standard not met
    phytoplankton abundance●standard not met·standard met●standard not met·standard met
    saprobic index of biosestone·standard met●standard not met●standard not met·standard met
    PAHs: 2 substances (not counted in the score)
    Indicator2022202320242025
    PAHs (combustion and deposition)
    benzo(a)pyrene●standard not met●standard not met●standard not met●standard not met
    fluoranthene·standard met·standard met·standard met●standard not met

    Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. The standard for benzo(a)pyrene is extremely low (0.17 ng/l), so most streams exceed it; the main sources are combustion and atmospheric deposition.

    Nearest site for the fishing districts: Tisza

    The location of the site is only approximate (based on the water body).

  2. ZemplénagardTisza, river km 0.03 indicators in 2025
    Indicator2022202320242025
    Nutrients and nitrogen
    nitrites●standard not met●standard not met·standard met·standard met
    Harmful organic substances
    AOX (adsorbable organic halogens)●standard not met·standard met●standard not met●standard not met
    Biology and bacteria
    coliform bacteria●standard not met●standard not met●standard not met·standard met
    culturable microorganisms (22 °C)●standard not met●standard not met●standard not met·standard met
    intestinal enterococci●standard not met●standard not met●standard not met·standard met
    thermotolerant coliform bacteria·standard met●standard not met●standard not met·standard met
    phytoplankton abundance●standard not met·standard met·standard met·standard met
    chlorophyll a·standard met·standard met·standard met●standard not met
    PAHs: 1 substance (not counted in the score)
    Indicator2022202320242025
    PAHs (combustion and deposition)
    benzo(a)pyrene·standard met·standard met·standard met●standard not met

    Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. The standard for benzo(a)pyrene is extremely low (0.17 ng/l), so most streams exceed it; the main sources are combustion and atmospheric deposition.

    The location of the site is only approximate (based on the water body).

  • standard not met
  • no unmet standard
  • site not in the yearbook

Fishing districts near these sites

Fishing districts whose nearest SHMÚ site lies in this river basin

  • Tiszasite Malé Trakany · standard not met in 4 of 4 years3 indicators

What most often fails

Number of sites in the river basin that failed this indicator in 2025

  1. benzo(a)pyrenePAHs (combustion and deposition)2
  2. chlorophyll aBiology and bacteria2
  3. fluoranthenePAHs (combustion and deposition)1
  4. AOX (adsorbable organic halogens)Harmful organic substances1
  • counted in the fishing district score
  • shown, not counted in the score

Where the data come from and what they do not say

  • Surface waters: yearbooks of the Slovak Hydrometeorological Institute (SHMÚ) Surface Water Quality for the years 2022 to 2025. We transcribed the list of sites and indicators that failed the standard under Government Regulation no. 269/2010 Coll. into a table in the plugin. Older yearbooks are in a different format and we did not include them.
  • Groundwater: SHMÚ yearbooks Groundwater Quality, stations and indicators exceeded in 2017 to 2025 according to the drinking-water limits. The connection to the fishing district is only indirect.
  • Groundwater, measured values: the public SHMÚ interface "Groundwater quality monitoring results". We have actually measured values (nitrates, ammonium, iron, chlorides, metals, pesticides, PFAS, solvents) for 758 stations; for each substance we take the highest value from the samples in 2025 (for stations without data for that year, from one of the two previous years). A value equal to the standard counts as an exceedance, as it does at SHMÚ.
  • Treatment plants: register of wastewater treatment plants (VÚVH, EEA) from the "Points near fishing districts" file, that is, only plants within 2 km of the fishing district line. There are considerably more treatment plants in Slovakia.

What this data does not say. The yearbook lists the sites that failed the standard. A site missing from it is not proof of clean water, so the score of a fishing district is only ever lowered and never raised. We did not include industrial polluters (the National Pollution Register) in the list because the register was unavailable when the data was collected, and for wastewater treatment plants we list only those we found near the fishing districts. Only 31% of SHMÚ sites have an exact location, 47% have only an approximate location (based on the water body, so they count less near the districts) and 22% have no location at all, so we do not assign them to any district. We determine the distance, the match of the watercourse name and the ranking ourselves; the assignment is indicative.