Efficiency of Water Quality Index Approach as an Evaluation Tool

Open access


This study aimed to demonstrate efficiency of documented index method “universal water quality index-UWQI” to evaluate surface water quality and investigate seasonal and temporal changes, in the case of Gediz River Basin Turkey. UWQI expressed results relative to levels according to criteria specified in European legislation (75-440 EEC). The method produced a unitless number ranging from 1 to 100 and a higher number was indicator of better water quality. Water quality is classified into five classes and index scores between 95-100 represent excellent and lower than 24 represent poor quality. In the study, dissolved oxygen-DO, pH, mercury-Hg, cadmium-Cd, total phosphorus-TP, biochemical oxygen demand- BOD and nitrate nitrogen-NO3-N have been chosen as index determinants. Samples analyzed for these variables were collected from five stations on monthly basis along two years. Based on UWQI classification scheme, water quality at sampling stations had scores below 40 and assigned to “marginal” which is between fair and poor quality class. On the other hand sub-indices of water quality determinants showed seasonal differences for some parameters. Cd concentrations were higher in “high flow” and lower values were observed in “low flow” periods. This was explained by negative impact of urban runoff on water quality. On the other hand DO concentrations were higher in “high flow” period. Under “low flow” conditions water quality at upstream stations (where the industrial density is low) was comparably better than downstream part. The study showed that index approach can be efficient tool to: a) evaluate water quality, b) investigate spatial and seasonal variations and finally, c) extract required information from complex data sets that is understandable by non-technical people.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • [1] Nagels JW Colley D Smith DG. A water quality index for contact recreation in New Zealand. Water Sci Technol. 2001;43(5):285-292.

  • [2] Sargaonkar A Deshpande V. Development of an overall index of pollution for surfacewater based on a general classification scheme in Indian context. Environ Monit Assess. 2003;89(1):43-67. DOI: 10.1023/A:1025886025137.

  • [3] Abbasi T Abbasi SA. Water Quality Indices. Elsevier B.V.; 2012.

  • [4] Kumar A Dua A. Water quality index for assessment of water quality of river Ravi at Madhopur (India).Global J Environ Sci. 2009;8(1):49-57.

  • [5] Hurley T Sadiq R Mazumder A. Adaptation and evaluation of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Water Quality Index (CCME WQI) for use as an effective tool to characterize drinking source water quality. Water Res. 2012;46(11):3544-3552. DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2012.03.061.

  • [6] Kahler-Royer CA. A water quality index devised for the Des Moines River in Central IOWA. IOWA State University. Master of Science thesis - Supervised by. Prof. T. Al Austin 1999.

  • [7] Prasad RDS Sadashivaiah C Ranganna G. Water quality index and regression models for predicting water quality and water quality parameters for Tumkur Amanikere Lake Watershed Tumkur Karnataka India. Green pages 2009; Accessed on 1 February 2013 from http://www.eco-web.com/edi/index.htm.

  • [8] Horton RK. An index-number system for rating water quality. J Water Pollut Control Federat. 1965;37(3):300-306.

  • [9] Ramesh S Sukumaran N Murugesan AG Rajan MP. An innovative approach of Drinking Water Quality Index - A case study from Southern Tamil Nadu India. Ecol Indicat. 2010;10(4):857-868. DOI:10.1016/j.ecolind.2010.01.007.

  • [10] Królak E Strzałek M Korycińska M. The usefulness of various indices in the assessment of water quality of a lowland river. Ecohydrol & Hydrobiol. 2009;9(2-4):271-280. DOI: 10.2478/v10104-010-0007.

  • [11] Liou SM Lien S Wang SH. Generalized water quality index for Taiwan. Environ Monit Assess. 2004;96:35-52. DOI: 10.1023/B:EMAS.0000031715.83752.a1.

  • [12] Cude C. Oregon Water Quality Index: a tool for evaluating water quality management effectiveness. J Amer Water Resour Associat. 2001;37(1):125-137. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2001.tb05480.x.

  • [13] El-Gafy I Farid MN El-Bahrawy A Khalifa A El-Basiony E Abdelmotaleb M. Decision support system for evaluating the groundwater quality. Emirates J Eng Res. 2005;10(1):69-78.

  • [14] Debels P Figueroa R Urrutia R Barra R Niell X. Evaluation of water quality in the Chillan River (Central Chile) using physicochemical parameters and a modified water quality index. Environ Monit Assess. 2005;110(1-3):301-322. DOI: 10.1007/s10661-005-8064-1.

  • [15] Fulazzaky MA. Water quality evaluation system to assess the Brantas River water. Water Resour Manage. 2009;23(14):3019-3033. DOI: 10.1007/s11269-009-9421-6.

  • [16] Boyacioglu H. Development of a water quality index based on a European classification scheme. Water SA. 2007;33(1):101-106.

  • [17] MoEF. Republic of Turkey Ministry of Environment and Forestry. Gediz Basin Protection Action Plan. 2008.

  • [18] Minareci O Öztürk M Egemen O Minareci E. Detergent and phosphate pollution ın Gediz River Turkey. Afr J Biotechnol. 2009;8(15):3568-3575.

  • [19] European Council-EC. Consolidated text produced by the CONSLEG system of the office for official publications of the European Communities. Council Directive of 16 June 1975 concerning the quality required of surface water intended for the abstraction of drinking water in the Member States (75/440/EEC). Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. CONSLEG: 1975L0440 31/12/1991.

  • [20] Official gazette (2004) Turkish Water Pollution Control Regulation. Numbered 25687 Dated 31.12.2004 Ankara. Revised in 2008 and 2010.

  • [21] ATSDR. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Public Health Service Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Draft toxicological profile for cadmium Atlanta Georgia: 2012.

Journal information
Impact Factor

IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 1.467
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.226

CiteScore 2018: 1.47

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.352
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.907

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 4561 4233 6
PDF Downloads 166 92 12