Environ Monit Assess (2010) 163:449–453
DOI 10.1007/s10661-009-0848-2
Assessing the water quality index of water treatment plant
and bore wells, in Delhi, India
M. K. Chaturvedi · J. K. Bassin
Received: 25 November 2008 / Accepted: 10 March 2009 / Published online: 3 April 2009
© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2009
Abstract Water quality monitoring exercise was
carried out with water quality index (WQI) meth-
od by using water characteristics data for bore
wells and a water treatment plant in Delhi city
from December 2006 to August 2007. The water
treatment plant received surface water as raw wa-
ter, and product water is supplied after treatment.
The WQI is used to classify water quality as excel-
lent, good, medium, bad, and very bad. The Na-
tional Sanitation Foundation WQI procedure was
used to calculate the WQI. The index ranges from
0 to 100, where 100 represents an excellent water
quality condition. Water samples were collected
monthly from a bore well in Nehru Camp (site 1),
a bore well in Sanjay Gandhi pumping station
(site 2), and water treatment plant in Haiderpur
(site 3). Five parameters were analyzed, namely,
nitrate, pH, total dissolved solids, turbidity, and
temperature. We found that the WQI was around
73–80 in site 3, which corresponds to “good,” and
it decreased to 54.32–60.19 and 59.93–70.63 in
site 1 and site 2, respectively, indicating that these
bore wells were classified as “medium” quality.
M. K. Chaturvedi (B) · J. K. Bassin
National Environmental Engineering Research
Institute, (CSIR), Delhi Zonal Laboratory, Council of
Scientific and Industrial Research, A-93/94, Phase-I,
Naraina Industrial Area, New Delhi-110 028, India
e-mail: mkchat@rediffmail.com
Keywords Water quality index ·
Water treatment plant · Bore well ·
Surface water
Introduction
Drinking water quality has become a critical issue
in many countries, especially due to concern that
fresh water will be a scarce resource in the future,
so a water quality monitoring program is neces-
sary for the protection of fresh water resources
(Pesce and Wunderlin 2000). The importance of
water supply with sufficient quantity and accept-
able quality has been emphasized in the Mil-
lennium Development Goals articulated by the
General Assembly of the United Nations (2000).
The water quality index (WQI) has been con-
sidered as one criteria for drinking water classifi-
cation, based on the use of standard parameters
for water characterization. The index is a numeric
expression used to transform large quantities of
water characterization data into a single number,
which represents the water quality level (Sanchez
et al. 2007; Bordalo et al. 2006). The WQI and
classification proposed by Department of Envi-
ronment, Malaysia (DOE 2001), has been used to
assess the quality of major water supply sources
indicating the level of pollution (Sari and Wan
2008). A commonly used WQI was developed by
the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) in 1970
450 Environ Monit Assess (2010) 163:449–453

Water Quality Index

(Brown et al. 1970). The NSF WQI was developed 90
to provide a standardized method for comparing
80
the water quality of various water sources based

WQI
70
upon nine water quality parameters, i.e., tem-
perature, pH, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, fecal 60

coliform, biochemical oxygen demand, total phos- 50

Feb
Jan

March

April

May

July

Aug
Dec

phates, nitrates, and total solids. The water qual-
ity ranges have been defined as excellent, good,
medium, bad, and very bad. The WQI can be
calculated with less than nine parameters as well,
employing available test results for determination
of WQI.
Delhi, the capital of India, has experienced a
rapid population increase from 0.4 million in 1911
to 13.8 million in 2001. The growth of the pop-
ulation exerts severe stress on the water supply
system in Delhi (Rajput 2000). Due to lack of
proper operation and maintenance, the water sup-
ply systems are unable to run at their full capacity
(Biswas et al. 2007). The water treatment plant
(WTP), Haiderpur, with an installed treatment
capacity of 200 million gallons per day (MGD),
is comprised of two streams of treatment units,
each with a design capacity of 100 MGD. The
plant catered to the needs of water of a popu-
lation of 4.3 million. The plant received water
from river Yamuna. The bore wells installed at
Nehru Camp and Sanjay Gandhi pumping station
supplied water to cater the needs of the nearby
populations of 8,000 and 50,000, respectively. The
WTP, Haiderpur, and bore wells are currently
used as sources of drinking water (water supply)
under the management of Delhi Jal Board, Gov-
ernment of National Capital Territory, Delhi.
The objective of this study is to monitor the
water quality of the bore well in Nehru Camp
pumping station (site 1), the bore well in Sanjay
Gandhi pumping station (site 2), and the WTP in
Haiderpur (site 3) using the WQI and classifica-
tion based on NSF WQI as an indicator of the
drinking water quality and compare the quality of
water supply sources.
June
Month
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3
Fig. 1 WQI at all sites from December 2006 to August
2007
monthly for analysis, and after determining field
parameter (temperature), they were kept in the
dark at a cool temperature in a cool box before
being transported to a laboratory for quantifica-
tion of other parameters [nitrate, total dissolved
solids (TDS), turbidity, pH]. In the laboratory,
all the samples were kept in a refrigerator at a
temperature below 4◦ C to reduce all the activities
and metabolism of the organisms in the water.
The laboratory analysis of pH was carried out
using a pH meter (EUTECH CyberScan ISO
9001 Certified). Nitrate and TDS was determined
according to the standard methods procedures
(APHA 1998). Turbidity was measured using a
turbidity meter (EUTECH CyberScan ISO 9001
Certified, model no. ECTBDW 100020).
The NSF WQI procedure (Brown et al. 1970)
was used to calculate the WQI at all three sites.
Although nine parameters are taken into consid-
eration for calculation of WQI by NSF, the index
can be calculated for fewer parameters as well by
appropriately scaling up the results. In the present
paper, five parameters (nitrate, TDS, turbidity,
pH, and temperature) were considered for cal-
culation of WQI proposed by NSF following the
algorithm as given below:
Step 1. Calculate the water quality parameter
value.

Materials and methods Table 1 WQI values in every sampling site

Sites WQI value Classification
Sampling of the bore well at site 1, site 2 and Site 1 58 (54–60) Medium
WTP, Haiderpur, was carried out from December Site 2 66 (60–71) Medium
2006 to August 2007. Water samples were taken Site 3 76 (73–80) Good
Environ Monit Assess (2010) 163:449–453 451

Table 2 Pearson WQI Nitrate TDS Turbidity pH Temperature

correlation coefficient (r)
between WQI and water WQI 1.00
quality parameters Nitrate −0.72 1.00
TDS −0.91 0.84 1.00
Turbidity −0.29 −0.11 0.00 1.00
pH −0.46 0.03 0.12 0.00 1.00
Temperature −0.49 0.18 0.23 0.08 0.41 1.00

Step 2. Calculate quality value (Q value) from to other sites. Among the three sampling sites
the value function graph using a cal- evaluated, the lowest value of WQI was at site 1
culator (http://www.water-research.net/ probably due to high TDS (average 1054 mg/l),
waterqualityindex/index.htm) for each indicating hard water. Table 1 also shows the
parameter. average values of WQI at site 2, which indicates
Step 3. Multiply the Q value by weight factor to slightly polluted quality of water due to high pH
get the parameter subindex. (7.61–8.72). The WQI value at site 3 was classified
Step 4. Compute the WQI from the subindex as good. The average pH value was 7.85, whereas
and weight factor by dividing the sum of pH values varied between 7.02 and 8.2. However,
the subindex of parameters by the sum of the value of water quality of WTP, Haiderpur
weight factors for these parameters. (site 3), is acceptable for water supply.
Table 2 demonstrates that the correlation coef-
ficient between the WQI and nitrate (No− 3 N) (r =
Results and discussion −0.72), TDS (r = −0.91), were significant but
showed a negative relationship. The WQI showed
The variation in WQI in every site during the a negative relationship with pH (r = −0.46), tem-
study period indicated that the water quality in perature (r = −0.49), and turbidity (r = −0.29).
site 3 is of good quality and varied between 72.6 Nitrate (No− 3 –N) was found to be correlated
and 79.7 (Fig. 1). The variation in water quality in positively with TDS (r = 0.84). Nitrate (No− 3 N)
site 1 and site 2 followed almost the same trend was also positively correlated with temperature
during the study period. The minimum value of (r = 0.18). Correlation analysis also showed that
WQI was observed during April in site 1 and site pH has a positive relationship with temperature
2. The average values of WQI in every site are (r = 0.41).
shown in Table 1. The lowest value of WQI at The average nitrate values at site 1, site 2, and
site 1, varying between 54.32 and 60.19, indicates site 3 were 4.78, 0.024, and 0.35 mg/l, respectively,
the slightly polluted water quality when compared

pH
Nitrate 9
6
8.5
Nitrate NO 3-- mg/L

5
8
4
pH

7.5
3
7
2
6.5
1
6
0
Dec

June
Feb

March

May
April

Aug
Jan

July
Dec

June
March
Feb

May
April

Aug
July
Jan

Month Month
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 1 Site 2 Site 3

Fig. 2 The concentration of nitrate at all sites from Fig. 3 pH value at all sites from December 2006 to August
December 2006 to August 2007 2007
452 Environ Monit Assess (2010) 163:449–453

Total Dissolved Solids Temperature

Total Dissolved Solids, mg/L

1200 25

1000

Temperature 0C
20
800

600 15

400
10
200

0 5

Dec

Feb
Jan

Aug
May

July
June
April
Dec

June
Feb

May

Aug
Jan

April

July
March

March
Month Month
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 1 Site 2 Site 3

Fig. 4 The concentration of TDS at all sites from Fig. 6 Temperature at all sites from December 2006 to
December 2006 to August 2007 August 2007

which were within the prescribed desirable limits but there is a secondary standard of pH 6.5–8.5 for
set by WHO (50 mg/l for nitrate) and BIS stan- drinking water (Jassby and Goldman 2003). The
dards (45 mg/l for nitrate). Nitrate was observed variation in pH regulates most of the biochemical
as the most stable parameter that did not show and chemical reactions affecting water composi-
drastic change during the sampling months, for tion (Bellos and Sawidis 2005).
all the sampling sites (Fig. 2). However, nitrate The level of TDS in the water system is at-
values decreased from January (5.36 mg/l) to May tributed to the level of nitrate. The average val-
(4.06 mg/l) at site 1. The nitrate value again in- ues of TDS at site 1 and site 2 were 1,054 and
creased in the month of June (5.31 mg/l). 571.4 mg/l, which were not within the prescribed
pH was shown to be the most stable parameter, acceptable limits set by WHO standards and BIS
which did not show drastic changes during the standards (500 mg/l for TDS). However, the av-
sampling months (Fig. 3). This result is similar erage TDS value at site 3 (146.4 mg/l) was within
to the findings made by Shuhaimi-Othman et al. the prescribed limits set by WHO standard (WHO
(2007). Most of the water samples in this study 1971) and BIS standard (BIS 1991) (Fig. 4).
recorded a pH of about 7.02–8.65 (average pH The average turbidity values at sampling site 1
value is 7.9). The pH of natural waters usually av- (0.516 NTU), site 2 (0.573 NTU), and site 3 (0.457
erages between 6 and 8.5. The normal range of pH NTU) were within the prescribed limits set by
has no immediate direct effect on human health, WHO (1 NTU for turbidity). The study indicates
that the turbidity was not a stable parameter
(Fig. 5).
Turbidity The study shows that variation in temperature
1.2
in most of the water samples from sampling site 1,
1
site 2, and site 3 followed the same trend during
Turbidity, NTU

0.8 the sampling months (Fig. 6). The decomposi-

0.6 tion rate of organic matter is temperature- and
0.4 pH-dependent. An increase in temperature con-
0.2 tributes to an increase in the biological activity
0 (Sanchez et al. 2007)
Feb
Jan

July

Aug
April

May
March
Dec

June

Month Conclusion
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3

Fig. 5 The turbidity at all sites from December 2006 to The WQI is a tool used for classification of water
August 2007 quality that is easy for everyone to understand,
Environ Monit Assess (2010) 163:449–453
and it is based on scientific criteria for water qual-
ity. The values of WQI in the three sampling sites
showed that water quality was between “good”
and “medium.” Accordingly, the water quality of
the site 3 is acceptable for water supply, whereas
water qualities of site 1 and site 2 need pretreat-
ment before being used as water supplies.
References
APHA (1998). Standard methods for the examination of
water and wastewaters (20th edn.) Washington DC:
APHA, AWWA, WEF.
Bellos, D., & Sawidis, T. (2005). Chemical pollution moni-
toring of the River Pinios (Thessalia-Greece). Journal
of Environmental Management, 76(4), 282–292.
BIS (1991). Indian standard drinking water—specification.
(BIS 10500:1991). New Delhi: Bureau of Indian
Standards.
Biswas, R., Khare, D., & Shankar, R. (2007). Water man-
agement in Delhi: Issues, challenges and options.
Journal of Indian Water Works Association, 39(2), 89–
96.
Bordalo, A. A., Teixerra, R., & Wiebe, W. J. (2006).
A water quality index applied to an international
shared river basin: the case of Douro river. Environ-
mental Management, 38, 910–920. doi:10.1007/s00267-
004-0037-6.
Brown, R. M., McCleeland, N. I., Deininger, R. A.,
& Tozer, R. G. (1970). A water quality index—
do we care? Water and Sewage Works, 117, 339–
343.
453
DOE (Department of Environment Malaysia) (2001).
Malaysia environmental quality report 2000. Depart-
ment of Environment, Ministry of Science Technology
and Environment Malaysia (p. 86). Maskha Sdn. Bhd:
Kuala Lumpur.
General Assembly of United Nations (2000). Resolutions
adopted by general assembly, 55th session, A/Res/55/2.
18th September 2000. www.un.org/millenium/
declaration/ares552e.pdf.
Jassby, A. D., & Goldman, C. R. (2003). Water quality
of the upper Big Thompson watershed. Loveland: Big
Thompson Watershed Forum.
Pesce, S. F., & Wunderlin, D. A. (2000). Use of water
quality indices to verify the impact of Cordoba city
(Argentina) on Suquia river. Water Research, 34(11),
2915–2926. doi:10.1016/S0043-1354(00)00036-1.
Rajput, D. (2000). Conserving the heritage of water harvest-
ing. Press Information Bureau, Government of India.
Sanchez, E., Colmenarejo, M. F., Vicente, J., Rubio, A.,
Garcia, M. G., Travieso, L., et al. (2007). Use of the
water quality index and dissolved oxygen deficit as
simple indicators of watershed pollution. Ecological
Indicators, 7(2), 315–328. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2006.
02.005.
Sari, I., & Wan, M. W. O. (2008). Assessing the water qual-
ity index of Air Itam Dam, Penang, Malaysia, 601–605.
Paper in International Conference on Environment
Research and Technology (ICERT 2008) at Penang,
Malaysia, 28–30 May 2008, organised by Environmen-
tal Technology Division, School of Industrial Technol-
ogy, Universiti Sains, Malaysia.
Shuhaimi-Othman, M., Lim, E. C., & Mushrifah, I. (2007).
Water quality changes in Chini Lake, Hahang, West
Malaysia. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment,
131, 279–292.
WHO (1971). International standard for drinking water.
Geneva: World Health Organization.