ASSESSMENT OF WATER QUALITY OF

RIVER NETRAVATI USING FUZZY

INFERENCE SYSTEM
Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY in
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
by
PRETTY MARY
(192EN024)

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KARNATAKA
SURATHKAL, MANGALORE – 575025
JULY 2021
ASSESSMENT OF WATER QUALITY OF
RIVER NETRAVATI USING FUZZY
INFERENCE SYSTEM
Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY in
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
by
PRETTY MARY
(192EN024)
Under the supervision of
Dr. ADANI AZHONI
Department of Civil Engineering

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
KARNATAKA
SURATHKAL, MANGALORE – 575025
JULY 2021

b
 DECLARATION
By the P.G. (M. Tech) Student

I hereby declare that the P.G. Project Work Report entitled “ASSESSMENT
OF WATER QUALITY OF RIVER NETRAVATI USING FUZZY INFERENCE
SYSTEM” which is being submitted to National Institute of Technology Karnataka,
Surathkal, for the partial fulfilment of the requirement for the award of degree of
Master of Technology in Environmental Engineering in the Department of Civil
Engineering, is a bonafide report of the work carried out by me. The material contained
in this report has not been submitted to any university or Institution for the award of
any degree.

………………………………..
PRETTY MARY (192EN024)
Department of Civil Engineering

Place: NITK, Surathkal

Date: July 2021

c
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the P.G. Project Work Report entitled “ASSESSMENT
OF WATER QUALITY OF RIVER NETRAVATI USING FUZZY INFERENCE
SYSTEM” submitted by Ms. PRETTY MARY (192EN024), as the record of the work
carried out by him, is accepted as the P.G. Project Work Report submission in partial
fulfilment of the requirements for the award of the degree of MASTER OF
TECHNOLOGY in ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING in the Department of
CIVIL ENGINEERING, N.I.T.K., Surathkal during the year 2020-2021, is a
bonafide work carried out by her under my supervision and guidance.

………………………………..
Dr. Adani Azhoni
Department of Civil Engineering

………………………………..
Chairman – DPGC
NITK, Surathkal

d
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I take this opportunity to express my sincere gratitude and profound thanks to

my guide Dr. ADANI AZHONI, Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering,
National Institute of Technology Karnataka, Surathkal for his encouragement, excellent
guidance, advice and motivation during the course of the preparation of the P.G. Project
Work Report.
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. K. SWAMINATHAN,
Professor and Head, Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology
Karnataka, Surathkal for providing necessary facilities and sincere co-operation.
I express my heartfelt gratitude to Late Dr. Paresh Chandra Deka, Professor,
Department of Water Resources and Ocean Engineering, National Institute of
Technology for his constant guidance during the course of the project work.
I would like to also like to thank all the teaching and non-teaching staff of
Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology Karnataka,
Surathkal for their cooperation and help during the project work.
I thank my entire family for their patience and love. I would like to thank all my
friends for their continuous help and encouragement for the successful completion of
the project.

PRETTY MARY
(192EN024)

Place: NITK, Surathkal

Date: July 2020

e
 ABSTRACT
Rivers are an essential natural resource for multiple matters such as drinking,
agriculture, residential water supplies, transportation, tourism, and recreation. Besides,
it is one of the most essential factors for the health and well-being of the ecosystem and
its living and non-living constituents. But the quality of water is a significant issue in
recent times as it plays a crucial role in human and animal life. Therefore, the
continuous monitoring of physicochemical parameters in river bodies is an important
activity for detecting potential crises that can be harmful to the organisms. Water
Quality Index is a vital water assessment that sustains and conserves the aquatic
ecosystem. Time-honored methods to predict water quality has indicated problems such
as ambiguity and subjective judgment. Most of the existing water quality indices rely
on normalizing and standardizing data parameters according to the accepted
concentrations. Owing to inherent imprecision and difficulties that always exist in some
conventional methodologies, the present study proposes a methodology based on a
fuzzy inference system to assess water quality. This study presents a comparative study
using the fuzzy logic technique to assess the status of river water quality by comparing
the output generated by fuzzy with that of the conventional weighted arithmetic water
quality index. The study is based on observations made from River Netravati in
Dakshina Kannada, India. The proposed system analyzes the selected parameters and
provides a new Fuzzy water quality index (FWQI), which describes the general status
of the water quality as excellent, good, poor, very poor, and unfit for consumption. The
fuzzy inference system has been developed using triangular membership functions with
the centroid method for defuzzification. It is observed that the values of fuzzy-based
water quality index are more as compared to the conventional WAWQI method. The
assessment results show that water quality at Dharmasthala and Uppinangady is good
and that of Thumbe is Poor. The noted poor quality was due to the exceeding limits of
Total Coliform.

i
 CONTENTS
ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................... i
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................ iv
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................... v
NOMENCLATURE ..................................................................................................... vi
CHAPTER 1 .................................................................................................................. 1
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1
1.1. IMPORTANCE OF RIVERS ............................................................................. 1

1.2. RIVERS AT RISK .............................................................................................. 2

1.3. IMPORTANCE OF MONITORING RIVER BODIES...................................... 2

1.4. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA’S INITIATIVES FOR RIVER DEVELOPMENT

AND REJUVENATION ............................................................................................ 3

1.5. IMPORTANCE OF THIS STUDY .................................................................... 5

1.6. AIM AND OBJECTIVE ..................................................................................... 7

CHAPTER 2 .................................................................................................................. 8
LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................................. 8
2.1. GENERAL .......................................................................................................... 8

2.2. WATER QUALITY INDEX .............................................................................. 8

2.2.1. Different types of Water Quality Indices ..................................................... 9

2.2.2. Water Quality Rating .................................................................................. 12
2.2.3. Significance of each water quality parameter selected for the present study
.............................................................................................................................. 12
2.2.4. Weighting of selected parameters............................................................... 18
2.2.5. Merits and Demerits of different Water Quality Indices ............................ 20
2.3. WATER QUALITY USING FUZZY INFERENCE SYSTEM ....................... 23

2.3.1. Fuzzy Inference System.............................................................................. 24

2.3.2. Evaluation based on fuzzy logic ................................................................. 26
CHAPTER 3 ................................................................................................................ 28
STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................ 28
3.1. DESCRIPTION OF STUDY STATIONS ........................................................ 28

ii
CHAPTER 4 ................................................................................................................ 32
METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................... 32
4.1. STEPS IN METHODOLOGY .......................................................................... 33

4.1.1. Collection of Data ....................................................................................... 33

4.1.2. Selection of Paramters ................................................................................ 33
4.1.3. Selection of water quality index ................................................................. 33
4.1.4. Fuzzy Water Quality Index......................................................................... 34
4.1.5. Weighted Arithmetic Water Quality Index ................................................ 45
CHAPTER 5 ................................................................................................................ 48
RESULTS .................................................................................................................... 48
CHAPTER 6 ................................................................................................................ 54
DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................. 54
CHAPTER 7 ................................................................................................................ 57
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 57
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 599
APPENDIX .................................................................................................................. 59

iii
 LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Water Quality Rating as per different Water Quality Index methods ........ 12
Table 2.2: Assigned weight values adopted from various literature ............................ 19
Table 2.3: Different water quality indices and their merits and demerits .................... 20
Table 4.1: Input parameter ranges for triangular membership function ...................... 36
Table 4.2: Output parameter ranges for triangular membership function ................... 36
Table 4.3: Parameters and their respective assigned and relative weights .................. 46
Table 4.4: Standard permissible limits of the selected parameters .............................. 47
Table 5.1: FWQI results ............................................................................................... 48
Table 5.2: WAWQI results .......................................................................................... 47
Table 8.1: Physicochemical parameter data on River Netravati at the study station...60

iv
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1: Raw sewage flowing into the Netravati at Goodinabali in Bantwal ......... 30
Figure 3.2: Map showing the study area ...................................................................... 32
Figure 4.1: Flowchart representing the methodology .................................................. 33
Figure 4.2: Flowchart representing the structure of a Fuzzy Inference System .......... 35
Figure 4.3: Fuzzy Inference System ............................................................................ 35
Figure 4.4: Membership Function plot of pH .............................................................. 37
Figure 4.5: Membership Function plot of Dissolved Oxygen ..................................... 38
Figure 4.6: Membership Function plot of Total Dissolved Solids............................... 38
Figure 4.7: Membership Function plot of Chloride ..................................................... 39
Figure 4.8: Membership Function plot of Sulphate ..................................................... 39
Figure 4.9: Membership Function plot of Nitrate ........................................................ 40
Figure 4.10: Membership Function plot of BOD......................................................... 40
Figure 4.11: Membership Function plot of Total Coliform ......................................... 41
Figure 4.12: Membership Function plot of FWQI ....................................................... 41
Figure 4.13: The rule editor in MATLAB R2020b...................................................... 45
Figure 4.14: The rule viewer in MATLAB R2020b .................................................... 46
Figure 4.15: Graph showing the variation of FWQI in the study stations ................. 495
Figure 5.1: Flowchart representing the steps involved in the calculation of WQI ...... 47
Figure 5.2: Graph showing the variation of FWQI in the study stations ..................... 50
Figure 5.3: Graph showing the variation of FWQI and WAWQI in Dharmasthala .. 522
Figure 5.4: Graph showing the variation of FWQI and WAWQI in Uppinangady ... 523
Figure 5.5: Graph showing the variation of FWQI and WAWQI in Thumbe ............. 53

v
 NOMENCLATURE
CPCB Central Pollution Control Board
GAP Ganga Action Plan
NRCP National River Conservation Plan
NAP National Action Plan
NWM National Water Mission
STP Sewage Treatment Plant
CEO Chief Executive Officer
NITI National Institute for Transforming India
KSPCB Karnataka State Pollution Control Board
DPR Detailed Project Report
FPZ Functional Process Zone
WQI Water Quality Index
FWQI Fuzzy Water Quality Index
WAWQI Weighted Arithmetic Water Quality Index
NSFWQI National Sanitation Foundation Water Quality Index
CCMEWQI Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Water Quality
Index
OWQI Oregon Water Quality Index
ODEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
UNEP United Nations Environmental Programme
FIS Fuzzy Inference System
APDF Anti-Pollution Drive Foundation
DO Dissolved Oxygen
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand
TC Total Coliform
RW Relative Weight

vi
 AW Assigned Weight
FL Fuzzy Logic
AI Artificial Intelligence
MRPL Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited
BASF Badische Anilin- und Soda Fabrik
NITK National Institute of Technology Karnataka
ANFIS Adaptive Neuro Fuzzy Inference System

vii
 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
A river is a natural water container or catchment that flows from upstream areas to an
estuary (Wetzel, 2001). Rivers are part of the hydrological cycle. Rivers originate in
mountains or hills and eventually flow into larger water bodies like the ocean and sea.
Rivers connect people, places, and other forms of life, inspiring and sustaining diverse
cultural beliefs, values, and ways of life (Anderson et al., 2019). Since the dawn of life,
rivers have contributed to cultural, economic, and spiritual significance.

1.1. IMPORTANCE OF RIVERS

Rivers play a significant role economically, sociologically, and environmentally.
Humans have thrived along rivers from a very ancient age. It is a chief source of food,
income, and livelihood, predominantly in rural communities. Apart from that, rivers
also help in flood control and drought regulation. Fast-flowing rivers are a source of
energy, and many hydropower projects are built on the rivers to produce electricity.
Several countries use rivers for various recreational activities like boating, paddling,
river rafting, and swimming, promoting tourism. In some cultures, rivers have religious
importance, contributing to spiritual contentment and mental wellbeing. For hundreds
of years, rivers convey people and goods from one place to another. Rivers have been
influential in determining political boundaries and defending countries (Parker &
Oates, 2016). Healthy rivers provide water for household activities, farmlands, and
various institutions like schools and other businesses. There will be a reduced risk of
waterborne and vector-borne diseases when clean water is used for drinking, cooking,
and bathing. Rivers nurture their surrounding ecosystem by providing habitat to their
native plants and animal by delivering water to feed, breed, and grow at the right time.
With its natural ability to move downstream, rivers carry pebbles, sand, and silt and
deposit them in the surrounding floodplain, nourishing soils, leading to fertile lands that
aid agriculture. Rivers help climate control in cities as water produces a cooling
atmosphere around them, absorbing excess heat, assisting cities to stay cool.

1
1.2. RIVERS AT RISK
The riverine ecosystem renders many services to humans; nevertheless, they have been
impacted by overutilization, degradation, overfishing, and pollution. River
deterioration is a critical issue in developing, and developed countries as numerous
threats make the river toxic for humans and wildlife, leading to biodiversity loss.
Diversion of the river is another topic of broad importance as it leads to problems like
change in stream velocity, habitat fragmentation, excessive flooding. More than 20%
of the world's 10000 freshwater species have become extinct, threatened, or endangered
in recent decades (Wong CM, Pittock, J, Schelle, 2007). With the rapidly increasing
demand for water, freshwater biodiversity leads to growing concerns. Thus, it is vital
to monitor and manage rivers as endangered rivers threaten humans and wildlife
species' livelihood.

1.3. IMPORTANCE OF MONITORING RIVER BODIES

All living and non-living components of the ecosystem live in harmony and depend on
each other. Both human and wildlife species depend on the rivers for fulfilling their
basic needs. Therefore, it is imperative to ensure good water quality for sustainable use.
Water pollution is prevalent in many parts of the world. The industrialization has
resulted in a negative impact on water bodies. In many developing countries, sewage
and toxic chemicals are discharged into the rivers without proper treatment. Thus, we
can objectify the quality of river bodies only through reliable monitoring. The primary
purpose of river monitoring is to control water's physical, chemical, and biological
characteristics through assessment and regulation. River monitoring is essential to
understand the impact of pollutants and pollution. Monitoring helps in making sound
decisions for the present and the future. It warns us about enduring and evolving
problems. It also determines the amenability of drinking water standards and safeguards
other beneficial water uses. Evaluations based on monitoring data help policymakers
and supervisors measure the efficacy of the existing water policies, determine if water
quality is getting better or worse, and formulate new strategies to improve human health
and the environment.
Present methods of water quality monitoring in India have semi-automated or manually
controlled devices that are handled by a person accountable for monitoring the water

2
quality. Human involvement is essential in obtaining the reading of various parameters.
The apparatus or tools are used either by inserting the part that senses water into the
water and seeing the result on the small display device or directly inserting a portable
device in water and watching the output on display. Central Pollution Control Board
(CPCB) monitors water quality by collecting samples from different situations. These
samples are then analyzed at laboratories. These analyses should be executed within a
specific period. The disadvantage of this method is that it always needs human
intervention.

1.4. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA’S INITIATIVES FOR RIVER

DEVELOPMENT AND REJUVENATION
River rejuvenation programs were first initiated in the country with the Ganga Action
Plan (GAP) in 1985. Later, in 1995, Ganga Action Plan was widened to include other
rivers across the country under the National River Conservation Plan (NRCP). Some of
the laws prevailing in India to prevent and control water pollution are:

(a) Water Prevention and Control of Pollution Act, 1974

(b) The Water Prevention and Control of Pollution Cess Act, 2003

(c) The River Boards Act, 1956

(d) Damodar Valley Corporation Prevention of Water Pollution Act, 1948

Few actions adopted by the Government of India in the past years are discussed below.

The Government of India established National Water Mission as one of the eight
National Missions under the National Action Plan on Climate Change. The objectives
of the mission were to the conservation of water, minimizing wastage, and ensuring its
more equitable distribution both across and within States through integrated water
resources development and management. NWM has identified five goals as under:
1. Comprehensive water database in public domain and assessment of the impact
of climate change on water resource
2. Promotion of citizen and state actions for water conservation, augmentation, and
preservation;
3. Focused attention to vulnerable areas, including over-exploited areas;

3
 4. Increasing water use efficiency by 20%; and
5. Promotion of basin-level integrated water resources management (Ministry of
Water Resources, 2011).
As a part of the National Mission for Clean Ganga, Prime Minister Narendra Modi
inaugurated 43 MLD Beur STP (Rs.78 crores) and 37 MLD Karmalichak STP (Rs.73
crores) in Patna on September 15, 2020. The prime minister laid the foundation stone
for River Front Development Scheme under Namami Gange in Muzaffarpur (Year-End
Review: Department of Water Resources)

The Government of India complements the State Governments' attempts in

encountering the challenges of river pollution by providing monetary and practical
assistance under the centrally sponsored scheme of the National River Conservation
Plan (NRCP). Assistance is provided for taking up various pollution abatement works
relating to diversion of raw sewage, construction of STP, low-cost sanitation, etc. (Press
Information Bureau, 2018).

A skilled group under the chairmanship of Chief Executive Officer (CEO), NITI
Aayog, consisting of Secretaries of the Ministry of Water Resources, River
Development & Ganga Rejuvenation, Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate
Change, Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs, Ministry of Drinking Water &
Sanitation, Ministry of Rural Development and Ministry of Agriculture, Cooperation
& Farmer’s Welfare were constituted by the government of India to inspect the draft
policy recommendations for the revitalization of rivers in India submitted by Isha
Foundation. Later, the Department of Rural Development organized a program for
“River Rejuvenation,” and NITI Aayog has forwarded it to Chief
Secretaries/Administrators of all States and Union Territories.
Real-time environmental monitoring is the future of India’s Environmental Governance
system. This new-age technology uses advanced, digitalized, and sophisticated
equipment to replace the conventional laboratory-based pollution monitoring and
reporting system. More than INR 5000 crores and tremendous effort have already been
invested in the last six experiencing years, and the government plans for
institutionalizing it (Kanchan, 2020).

4
Despite all these massive investments, the NRCP could not effectively save the
country's rivers. According to CPCB’s 2018 report, out of India’s 36 states and Union
territories, 31 are polluted. Rivers face pollution and loss of flow due to a lack of
coordination and proper management. Though India has several laws to curb water
pollution, many rivers are not safeguarded comprehensively (Press Information Bureau,
2018). Protection and rejuvenation of these river bodies end up to a mere statement
proclaimed verbally. In reality, Indian rivers are dumpsite to dispose of whatever
unnecessary.

Actions initiated by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board to protect river
Netravati

1. Inspection, Collection, analysis of river Netravati water sample monthly and

report to CPCB, New Delhi.
2. Distributed bins for the collection of wet & dry waste from individual houses.
3. District-wise estimation of total sewage generation and existing treatment
capacities.
4. Proper design, execution of STPs with total utilization capacity.
5. Ensuring dairy/automobile service stations and Hotels / Restaurants mainly
located on the roadside should have a treatment system and levy of fine in case
found violations.
6. Estimation of the flow of all the drains presently contributing pollution load in
river Netravati and formulate detailed project report (DPR) for each drain and
corresponding town and submission of DPR.
7. Checking encroachments in the functional process zone (FPZ) of river
Netravati.
8. Prohibition of disposal of municipal plastic and bio- medical waste particularly
in drains.
9. Actions to conserve water and practice good irrigation policies by the farmers
by organizing mass awareness programs and media in vernacular language.

1.5. IMPORTANCE OF THIS STUDY

Water is one of the most significant constituents that support life. Water has unique
properties of dissolving and carrying in suspension a wide variety of chemicals. Due to

5
this property, natural surface water bodies are often contaminated. Water pollution from
various natural and human activities is a significant problem across the globe. Every
Year, approximately 25 million persons die due to water pollution (Pimpunchat et al.,
2009). Good quality water is of vital concern for humanity since it is directly linked
with human welfare. Therefore, it is essential to test the quality of water. National
agencies accountable for water supply and water pollution have promoted and
implemented the WQI method to understand the quality of water bodies owing to the
difficulty to comment on the appropriateness of the water tested with respect to different
uses. The water Quality Index method provides a relatively more straightforward
approach to express the quality of a water body (Devi, 2009).

Also, the indices enable communication with lay man. They are considered more
trustful than looking into the values of individual variables as they integrate several
variables in a single number, combining different units of measurement. However,
many WQI methods exhibit a number of weak points; most water quality indices
normalize or standardize parameters according to expected concentrations. Parameters
are then weighted according to their significance in the overall water quality, and the
index is evaluated as the weighted average of all observations (UNEP Report, 2007).
Experts frequently disagree on the relative importance of parameters and give different
weightage to the same parameters. This failure to attain objectivity and consensus
makes it difficult to make decisions. In this regard, the need for more appropriate
techniques to manage the importance of water quality variables and integrate different
parameters involved in the evaluation process is clearly recognized. In this scenario,
some alternate methodologies have emerged from artificial intelligence (AI). One such
method is the fuzzy inference system which uses fuzzy logic as a language that allows
one to translate sophisticated statements from natural language into a mathematical
formalism. This method has many advantages such as; (a) they can be used to describe
a large variety of nonlinear relations (b) they tend to be simple as they can be interpreted
verbally (c) this method uses information that other methods cannot include, such as
personal knowledge and experience.

6
1.6. AIM AND OBJECTIVE
This study aims to use the Fuzzy Inference System (FIS) as a tool for classifying water
quality status and perform a comparison between FIS and the conventional weighted
arithmetic water quality index method.
The objectives of this study are:
1. To use the Fuzzy Inference system as a substitute for conventional methods
adopted by the environmental agencies and thereby overcome the limitations of
the conventional water quality index.
2. To find the water quality index of River Netravati using Mamdani Fuzzy
Inference System.
3. To find the main pollution factor that leads to poor water quality.

7
 CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. GENERAL
Water is a chief natural resource and a valuable national asset that forms an integral
part of the ecosystem. Water sources occur mainly in the form of rivers, lakes, glaciers,
rain water, ground water, etc. Besides the drinking purpose, water resources play a
vivacious role in numerous sectors of the economy, including agriculture, fisheries,
livestock farming, industrial activities, hydroelectric power generation, and many other
activities. The availability and quality of water, either surface or ground, have been
worsened due to some critical factors like increasing population, industrialization, and
urbanization (Tyagi et al., 2020).

2.2. WATER QUALITY INDEX

The water quality evaluation requires collection and analysis of large complicated
data’s of compound parameters that can be difficult to evaluate (Uddin et al., 2021). It
is not easy to assess quality for huge samples containing concentrations for many
parameters (Katyal, 2015). WQI transforms the large and complex information of raw
water quality data into a simplified and logical form with different categories of water
quality that reflects the overall water quality status of the selected area (Kothari et al.,
2021). Calculation of water quality index is based on several physicochemical and
bacteriological parameters (Tirkey et al., 2013). A water quality index is a unitless
number that assigns a quality value to an aggregate set of measured parameters. Water
quality indices generally consist of sub-index scores assigned to each parameter by
comparing its measurement with a parameter-specific rating curve, optionally
weighted, and combined into the final index. The construction of WQI requires first a
normalization step, where each parameter is transformed into a 0±100% scale, with 100
representing the worst quality. The second involves weighting the parameters to reflect
the importance of each parameter as an indicator of the water quality (Zagatto et al.,
2017). The constructed WQI results in a number that can be associated with a quality
percentage, which will be based on the regulatory standards and easy to be understood
by everyone (Pesce & Wunderlin, 2000).

8
Many thoughts have been put to the development of water quality index methods with
the intent of providing a potent tool for simplifying the reporting of water quality data
since Horton first proposed the water quality index in1965 (Karakaya & Evrendilek,
2010). Akhtar et al., 2021 in their study has mentioned that the development process of
a water quality index can be generalized in four steps:
• Parameter selection
• Developing sub-indices
• Assignment of weights
• Aggregation of sub-indices to produce an overall index.
Several national and international organizations have formulated a vast number of water
quality indices. These available indices are unique and have various limitations based
on several water quality variables used and not accepted worldwide. Tyagi et al., (2020)
in their study reviewed WQI methods such as Weighted Arithmetic Water Quality
Index (WAWQI), National Sanitation Foundation Water Quality Index (NSFWQI),
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Water Quality Index (CCMEWQI),
and Oregon Water Quality Index (OWQI) for the relevance of drinking water sources.
They conclude that despite all the efforts and the global usage of different indices, no
index has so far been universally accepted and the search for more useful and universal
water quality index is still going on, so that water agencies, users and water managers
in different countries may use and adopt it with little modifications. Besides, the study
also highlights the merits and demerits of these commonly used methods.

2.2.1. Different types of Water Quality Indices

1. National Sanitation Foundation Water Quality Index (NSFWQI)

The National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) developed this water quality index
by giving great importance to selecting a parameter, creating a standard scale,
and weighing parameters. It was designed to calculate the WQI of various water
bodies disparagingly polluted. The water quality data are transferred to a
weighting curve chart, where a numerical value of Qi is obtained.
The mathematical expression for NSF WQI is given by

9
 𝑛

𝑊𝑄𝐼 = ∑ 𝑄𝑖 𝑊𝑖
𝑖=1

Where Qi = sub-index for ith water quality parameter; Wi = weight associated

with ith water quality parameter; n = number of water quality parameters
(Mnisi, 2010).
2. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Water Quality Index
(CCMEWQI)
Canadian jurisdictions formulated a consistent method, CCMEWQI, to convey
the water quality information for both management and the public. Additionally,
a committee established under the Canadian Council of Ministers of the
Environment (CCME) has developed WQI, which can be applied in different
situations with slight modifications. In their study, (A. Khan et al., 2018) has
modified and applied the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment
Water Quality Index (CCME WQI) to convey the Drinking Water Quality Data
in Newfoundland and Labrador. The CCME WQI index categorization was
modified by adding a new ranking category to incorporate local expert opinion.
This method was developed following specific guidelines to protect aquatic life
(Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life, 2019).
The calculation of the CCME WQI method can be obtained by using the
following relation:

√𝐹1 2 + 𝐹2 2 + 𝐹3 2
𝑊𝑄𝐼 = 100 −
1.732
Where, Scope (F1) = Number of variables whose objectives are not met.
F1= [No. of failed variables /Total no. of variables] *100
Frequency (F2) = Number of times by which the objectives are not met.
F2 = [No. of failed tests/Total no. of tests] *100
Amplitude (F3) = Amount by which the objectives are not met.
(a) excursioni = [Failed test valuei /Objectivej ]-1
𝑒𝑥𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑖
(b) normalized sum of excursions (nse) = ∑𝑛
𝐼=1 𝑁𝑜 𝑜𝑓 𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑠

(c) F3 = [nse/0.01nse+0.01] (A. A. Khan et al., 2005)

10
3. Oregon Water Quality Index (OWQI)
OWQI was formulated by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
(ODEQ) in the late 1970s to evaluate the general water quality of Oregon’s
stream. This method combines eight water quality variables into a single
number (Tirkey et al., 2013). The index is devoid of weighting the parameters
and hires the idea of harmonic averaging. The mathematical expression of this
WQI method is given by

𝑛
𝑊𝑄𝐼 =
√ ∑𝑛 1
𝑖=1 𝑆𝐼 2
𝑖

Where n = number of subindices

SI = subindex of the ith parameter (Cude, 2001).
4. Weighted Arithmetic Water Quality Index Method (WAWQI)
The weighted arithmetic water quality index method developed by R.M. Brown
in 1970 has been the most widely used. It classifies the water quality according
to the degree of purity by using the most commonly measured water quality
variable. (Pattnaik & Bhowmick, 2020) has given the equation to calculate the
Weighted Arithmetic Water Quality Index as follows:
∑ 𝑊𝑖 𝑄𝑖
𝑊𝑄𝐼 =
∑ 𝑊𝑖
The quality rating scale (Qi) for each parameter is calculated by using this
expression:
𝑉𝑛 − 𝑉𝑜
𝑄𝑖 = 100 [ ]
𝑆𝑛 − 𝑉𝑜
Where Vi is estimated concentration of ith parameter in the analyzed water.
Vo is the ideal value of this parameter in pure water.
Vo = 0 (except pH =7.0 and DO = 14 mg/l) Si is recommended standard value
of ith parameter.
The unit weight (Wi) for each water quality parameter is calculated by using the
following formula: 𝑊𝑖 = 𝐾/𝑆𝑖
Where K = proportionality constant and can also be calculated by using the
following equation:

11
 1
𝐾=
1
∑( )
𝑆𝑖

2.2.2. Water Quality Rating

Table 2.1: Water Quality Rating as per different Water Quality Index methods (Tyagi et al.,
2020)
National Sanitation Foundation Water Quality Index (NSFWQI)
WQI Value Water Quality Rating
91-100 Excellent
71-90 Good
51-70 Medium
26-50 Bad
0-25 Very Bad
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environmental Water Quality Index (CCMEWQI)
95-100 Excellent
80-94 Good
60-79 Fair
45-59 Marginal
0-44 Poor
Oregon Water Quality Index (OWQI)
90-100 Excellent
85-89 Good
80-84 Fair
60-79 Poor
0-59 Very Poor
Weighted Arithmetic Water Quality Index
0-25 Excellent
26-50 Good
51-75 Poor
76-100 Very Poor
˃100 Unfit for Consumption

2.2.3. Significance of each water quality parameter selected for the present study

The key parameter to be selected in a particular study is very much dependant on the
significance of that particular parameter in the given environmental conditions, and this
is a point that needs to be given much consideration while making use of the WQI

12
method (Costa et al., 2020). The parameters are selected after understanding the risk
and hazard posed by different pollutants. Emphasis is given to those variables that have
more impact in disturbing environmental and human health. According to Sutadian &
Muttil (2016), there are three systems that are applicable to the parameter selection
process. The three categories are defined as follows:

(a) Fixed system: This system pertains to the set of parameters that are already fixed by
the one who developed the WQI. This system is rigid as it cannot include new
parameters according to the individual choice.

(b) Open system: This flexible system permits the user to incorporate parameters of
their choice. The main hindrance of this method is that the user has to use a similar set
of parameters in a different monitoring site.

(c) Mixed system: This is a combination of fixed and open systems. It consists of a
fixed set of parameters that are obligatory for calculating the index value but here, the
user can also include additional parameters that can be based on his discretion.

pH: World Health Organisation, 2007 defines pH as the negative logarithm of hydrogen
ion concentration. pH is an estimate of the acidity or basicity of a water sample. pH
varies from 0 to 14. A pH of less than 7 represents an acid solution; a pH equals to 7 is
neutral, whereas a pH greater than 7 indicates a base solution. Pure water is neither
acidic nor basic. It has a pH of 7.0 at 25°C (Rahmanian et al., 2015). pH does not have
any health or sanitary significance except that extreme values will show acidity or
alkalinity that leads to organoleptic problems. Extremes of pH can interfere with the
potability of water, but the corrosive effect on the distribution systems is a more urgent
problem. For aquatic animals, the suitable range is 5.0-9.0 though 6.5-8.5 is preferable
(Fri, 1972). Pollution can modify the pH of water. For instance, dumping industrial
effluents directly into water alters its natural pH. Activities like mining expose rocks to
rain water and produce acidic runoff which might lead the pH into toxic levels. Even a
slight change can damage animals and plants that live in the water. (Omer, 2019) says
a shift in pH leads to the following problems:

➢ A high pH decreases the effectiveness of the chlorine disinfection, thereby causing

the need for additional chlorine.

13
➢ A pH below four or above ten will kill most fish. Water with low pH can decrease
the number of hatched fish eggs, irritate and damage gills, exoskeleton, fins, and
membranes of aquatic lives.
➢ Heavy metals like Lead, Chromium, and Cadmium dissolves more easily in highly
acidic water and becomes much more toxic when dissolved in water.
➢ An increase in pH (above 8.5) enhances the conversion of nontoxic ammonia
(ammonium ion) to a toxic form of ammonia (un-ionized ammonia)

Hence it is vital to monitor and maintain the pH within the desirable limit.

Dissolved oxygen: Dissolved oxygen is one of the most critical water quality
parameters in streams, rivers, and lakes as it is is essential for the survival of fish and
other aquatic organisms. It is an important indicator of water quality (Pitot, 2021).
Dissolved oxygen has no direct health or sanitary significance on public, but if the water
used for drinking purposes has very little or no oxygen, it might taste unpalatable to
some people. Its deficiency directly affects the ecosystem of a river due to bio-
accumulation and bio-magnifications. As mentioned earlier, DO value is critical for
aquatic life's survival as it affects all marine organisms' metabolism. A low DO (less
than 2mg/l) would indicate poor water quality, leading to the death of much sensitive
aquatic life (Omer, 2019). Although the saturation concentration of 9.2 mg/l O2 at 20°C
is fully adequate to support an unpolluted river's fauna and flora, it will be depleted
very rapidly by the bacterial degradation of even a tiny amount of organic matter. Many
fishes will begin to be affected as DO levels drop to around 50 percent saturation. In
many instances of fish deaths, the mortality is directly due to asphyxiation as the DO
levels fall massively because of organic pollution. When the DO levels drop around
zero, anaerobic conditions will set in, and any remaining organic matter will undergo
anaerobic decomposition to yield methane and ammonia products. This will lead to the
reduction of sulfates to sulfide, which results in the emission of offensive odors (Fri,
1972). The above reasons signify the importance of dissolved oxygen. Thus, it is the
most critical parameter for the life of stream, river, or lake.

Total Dissolved Solids: Total dissolved solids (TDS) refer to the combined content of
all inorganic and organic substances present in a liquid. The standard desirable limit of
TDS in drinking water is 500 mg/l. Acute myocardial infarction and ischemic heart

14
diseases have been reported pertaining to the very high values of TDS (Shepherdson,
1936). Inorganic salts comprise anions such as carbonates, chlorides, sulfates, nitrates,
and cations such as potassium, magnesium, calcium, and sodium. Generally, these
compounds are present in proportions that create a balance in the water. If there are
additional inputs of dissolved solids to the system, the balance is altered, and
detrimental effects may be seen (Tiwari, 2015). Inputs include both natural and
anthropogenic sources. TDS in water bodies originates from natural sources, sewage,
urban runoffs, industrial effluents, and chemical fertilizers. Water is a universal solvent,
and it quickly picks up impurities and can absorb and dissolve these particles rapidly.
Although elevated TDS levels in drinking water are not a health hazard, it does impart
the water a bitter, salty, or brackish taste. Calcium and magnesium, two minerals
commonly found in TDS, can also cause water hardness, scale formation, and staining.
Chloride: It occurs naturally in all water types, with concentrations varying widely and
reaching a maximum in seawater (up to 35,000 mg/l). In freshwaters, the range is
between 15-35 mg/l which is much below the drinking water standards, which tells the
desirable limit as 250 mg/l (Fri, 1972). Chloride in surface and groundwater occurs
naturally and from anthropogenic sources, such as soil and rock formations, inorganic
fertilizers, landfill leachates, septic tank effluents, animal feeds, industrial effluents,
irrigation drainage, and seawater intrusion in coastal areas. A high concentration of
chlorides is considered the indicator of pollution as sewage is a rich chloride source.
Chlorides are troublesome in irrigation water and also harmful to aquatic life. Though
very high chloride concentration is hazardous to human consumption and creates health
problems, moderate chloride levels do not pose any health hazard to humans but are
considered concerning potability. Chlorides are essential for normal cell functions in
animal and plant life on a small scale. At levels above 250 mg/l, water with chloride
ions will begin to taste salty (Omer, 2019). Chloride does not pose toxicity to humans
except a reduced-sodium chloride metabolism, resulting in choking followed by heart
failure. Healthy adults can tolerate the intake of large quantities of chloride, provided a
simultaneous freshwater intake. What usually is vital to note in a series of results from
a river is not that if chlorine is within the limit but if there is any shoot up from one
sampling station to another. A rise in even 5 mg/l at one station may increase suspicions
of a sewage discharge, especially when the free ammonia levels are also high (Fri,

15
1972). Chloride increases the electrical conductivity of water which results in the
corrosion of metal pipes. It forms soluble salts by reacting with metal ions, thereby
increasing metal content in drinking water.
Sulpate: Sulphates occur naturally in numerous minerals, including barite (BaSO4),
epsomite (MgSO4·7H2O), and gypsum (CaSO4·2H2O). The sulphate content of
natural waters is essential in determining their suitability for public and industrial
supplies. Sulphate gives a bitter or taste to water if it exceeds a concentration of 250
mg/l. Suppose high concentrations are present in drinking water. In that case, it can
cause dehydration, catharsis, and unwanted laxative effects (World Health
Organisation, 2004). Still, there is no significant danger to public health as it is also
reported that humans can adapt to higher concentrations with time (US EPA, 1985). A
very high concentration of sulphate could cause respiratory problems. Other problems
associated with sulphate are that in polluted waters in which the dissolved oxygen is
zero, sulphate gets reduced to sulphide, resulting in unpleasant odors (Fri, 1972).
Waters with high sulphate content attack the fabric of concrete sewer pipes.
Nitrate: There are four forms of nitrogen in the water. They are organic nitrogen,
ammonia nitrogen, nitrite nitrogen, and nitrate-nitrogen (Omer, 2019). Only a small
amount of nitrate found in natural water bodies is of mineral origin. The rest arise from
organic and inorganic sources, the former including waste discharges and the latter
comprising chiefly artificial fertilizers. If water is polluted with sewage rich in
nitrogenous matter, most of the nitrogen will be in organic and ammonia forms,
transformed by microbes to form nitrites and nitrates (Fri, 1972). Nitrogen in the nitrate
form is a fundamental nutrient to plants' growth, and it in excess can contribute to
eutrophication in water bodies. The nitrate concentration in the surface water is
typically low (0–18 mg/l) but can reach high levels due to artificial fertilizers used in
agricultural areas, manure slurries spread on land, refuse dump runoff, or contamination
with humans or animal wastes. When Nitrate concentration rises above 10 mg/L in
drinking water, it causes methemoglobinemia (blue baby disease) in infants as nitrate
ions react with the hemoglobin in the blood, thereby depleting the oxygen level in the
blood (Eisenbrand et al., 1980). All these factors eventually lessen nitrates' utility as
potential sources of public water supply.

16
Biological Oxygen Demand: Biochemical oxygen demand is an important water
quality parameter because it provides an index to assess the effect a discharged
wastewater will have on the receiving environment. It also determines the pollution
load of wastewater as it includes information on the biologically convertible proportion
of the organic content present in sample water. It does not have any direct health
implications on humans but is an essential indicator of overall water quality (Fri, 1972).
A BOD figure for receiving water indicates the maximum extent to which the organic
matter present may deplete the oxygen level. High BOD suggests poor water quality as
it is a measure of the power of sewage (Tiwari, 2015). BOD data are generally required
for the following purpose: Firstly, to know the strength of a waste, which is very useful
in its further treatment processes. This is essential so that adequate treatment capacity
may be provided for in the design of the plant. Secondly, the magnitude of river
discharge along with the strength of the waste being discharged permits the dilution to
be calculated at a particular location where waste is being disposed of. This, in turn,
helps find the maximum potential change in the rivers’ BOD at the boundary of the
mixing zone. Current scientific opinion is that waters with BOD falling within the range
of 0 - 4 mg/l are satisfactory for salmonid fish and other beneficial uses (Helmer &
Hespanhol, 1998).
Total Coliform: A critical biological indicator of water and pollution is the group of
bacteria called coliforms. Pathogenic coliforms exist in the intestinal system of humans
and are excreted with body wastes. Consequently, water that has been recently
contaminated with sewage will always contain coliforms (Omer, 2019). Total coliforms
include fecal and non-fecal coliforms. Fecal coliforms have their origin in human and
animal waste, whereas nonfecal coliforms originate in the soil. They are possible
indicators of pathogenic micro-organisms. A microbiological test is to detect the level
of pollutions caused by a living thing, especially humans who live or work in the area,
especially upstream of the site. These tests are based on coliform bacteria as the
indicator organism. The presence of these indicative organisms is evidence that the
water has been polluted with feces of humans or other warm-blooded animals (Tiwari,
2015). The risk to consumers of infection from drinking polluted waters will vary
widely from instance to instance because the numbers of pathogenic organisms in
contaminated waters will show significant variations. The number of pathogens in

17
water contaminated with sewage is a function of the number of persons who are the
carriers of such organisms (Fri, 1972). A common species of coliforms found in
domestic sewage is Escherichia coli or E. coli. Even slight pollution indicates its
presence. There are roughly 3 million E. coli bacteria in 100 mL volume of untreated
sewage. Coliform bacteria are hostile organisms and survive in the water longer than
most pathogens. There usually are two methods to test the coliform bacteria: the
membrane filter method and the multiple-tube fermentation method. As the test of
coliform bacteria plays a vital role in public health, the first method is preferred (Omer,
2019). The philosophy adopted universally is to use the coliforms as definite indicators
of sewage (fecal) pollution and apply strict limits on their presence in water sources
and supplies. If E. coli are present in large numbers, there is heavy, recent pollution by
human or animal waste. If the E. coli count is low, it indicates that pollution from the
same source is less recent or severe. If coliforms not including E. coli are observed,
either the pollution is recent and non-fecal in origin or of remote, fecal origin such that
the intestinal coliforms have not survived (Fri, 1972).
The water of River Netravati is a home to many diverse marine organisms and is also a
source of drinking water to nearby towns. Therefore, it is important to monitor
parameters like pH, Dissolved Oxygen and Total Dissolved Solids that affect the
aquatic and human life directly. Chloride was considered owing to the meeting of River
Netravati with the Arabian sea. Being the major constituent of salt water, chloride
concentration is monitored was sea water intrusion investigations. People inhabiting the
banks of River Netravati are involved in agriculture and farming which makes it
important to check the sulphate and nitrate content considering the runoff from
fertilized agricultural lands. Septic tanks are major point source of nitrate and Coliform
bacteria.
The poorly managed sewage systems in one important factor that contributes to the
pollution in River Netravati.

2.2.4. Weighting of selected parameters

Different parameter exerts a different effect on water classification. Therefore

weighting factors are used to depict the influence of each parameter on the index.
(Abtahi et al., 2015). In general, weighting factors are recognized as either equal or

18
unequal weights. According to (Sutadian & Muttil, 2016), equal weights are assigned
if all the water quality parameters are looked upon as equally important, whereas
unequal weights are effective where some parameters are regarded as being more or
less influential than others. When unequal weights are applied, due diligence are to be
exercised, if not it could promote sensitivity in the index favoring the heavily weighted
water quality variables.
(Gazzaz et al., 2012) and (Ocampo-Duque et al., 2006), in their respective study, using
a method that will minimize bias and endorse the integrity of the index. They are the
most commonly used Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and the Rand Corporation’s
Delphi Technique (Delphi Method).
(Vandna Pathak and A.K. Banerjee, 2006), (Abrahão et al., 2007), (Dwivedi & Pathak,
2007), (Karakaya & Evrendilek, 2010), (Kannel et al., 2007), (Boyacioglu, 2007) and
(Pesce & Wunderlin, 2000) have assigned weights to each parameter with values
ranging from 1 to 4.
Table 1.2: Assigned weight values adopted from various literature
Parameter References
s (Dwived (Pesce & (Vandna (Boyacioglu (Kanne (Abrahã (Karakaya
i& Wunderlin Pathak , 2007) l et al., o et al., &
Pathak, , 2000) and A.K. 2007) 2007) Evrendilek
2007) Banerjee , 2010)
, 2006)
pH 1 4 4 1 1 1 1
DO 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
TDS 2 2 2 - 2 2 -
Chloride 1 1 1 - 1 1 1
Sulphate 2 - - - 2 2 2
Nitrate 2 - - 3 2 2 2
BOD 3 3 3 2 3 3 3
TC 3 4 4 4 - 3 -
Note: The vacant spaces in the table denote that those particular parameters were not considered in the respective journal for study.

On this scale, 1, 2, 3, and 4 denote little, average, great, and very great importance,
respectively. For example, 4 was assigned to parameters like dissolved oxygen and total
coliform as they are the most important for aquatic life preservation, and 1 was assigned
to variables like Chloride, which has a smaller impact.

19
(Boyacioglu, 2007) mentions the factors taken into account for the assignment process
as:
• Chemical parameters had a lower weight than microbiological parameters
because microbial contaminants belong to the most significant health impact
category.
• High weight was given to those parameters of known health concern.
After assigning the respective values ranging from 1 to 4, (Alobaidy et al., 2010) in
their study calculated relative weight using the following equation:
𝐴𝑊𝑖
𝑅𝑊 = 𝑛
∑𝑖=1 𝐴𝑊𝑖
Where, RW = the relative weight, AW = the assigned weight of each parameter, n = the
number of parameters.
(Banda & Kumarasamy, 2021) says, remarkably, for water quality indices, the total
weight (the summation of all the weights of the selected parameters) adds up to unity.
This is because the combined effect of water quality parameters should not exceed
100%. Otherwise, the water quality index turns out to be dysfunctional.

2.2.5. Merits and Demerits of different Water Quality Indices

Table 2.2: Different water quality indices and their merits and demerits
WQI Merits Demerits Reference
NSF • Summarizes data in a • It represents general (Mnisi, 2010)
single index value in an water quality; it does
objective, rapid and not represent the
reproducible manner. specific use of the
• Evaluation between areas water.
and identifying changes in • Loss of data during
water quality. data handling.
• Index value relates to • Lack of dealing with
potential water use. uncertainty and
• Facilitates subjectivity present
communication with lay in complex
person. environmental
issues.

20
CCME • Flexibility in the selection • Lack of guidelines (Terrado et al.,
of input parameters and about the variables 2010)
objectives to be used for the
• Adaptability to different index calculation
legal requirements and • Lack of guidelines
different water uses about the objectives
• Statistical simplification specific to each
of complex multivariate location and
data particular water use
• Clear and intelligible • Lack of portability
diagnostic for managers of the index to
and the general public different ecosystem
• Suitable tool for water- types.
quality evaluation in a • Easy to manipulate
specific location (biased)
• Easy to calculate • The same
• Tolerance to missing data importance is given
• Suitable for analysis of to all variables
data coming from • No combination
automated sampling with other indicators
• Combine various or biological data
measurements in a variety • Only partial
of different measurement diagnostic of the
units in a single metric. water quality
• F1 not working
appropriately when
too few variables are
considered or when
too much covariance
exists among them.
The factor has too
much weight in
calculating the index
Oregon • The OWQI aids in the • The OWQI cannot (Cude, 2001; Tyagi
assessment of water determine the et al., 2020)
quality for general quality of water for
specific uses.

21
 recreational uses (i.e., • It cannot be used to
fishing and swimming). provide definitive
• Un-weighted harmonic information about
square mean formula used water quality
to combine sub-indices without considering
allows the most impacted all appropriate
parameter to impart the chemical,
greatest influence on the biological, and
water quality index. physical data.
• Method acknowledges • The OWQI cannot
that different water evaluate all health
quality parameters will hazards.
pose differing • The OWQI was
significance to overall designed for
water quality at different Oregon's streams,
times and locations. and its application to
• The formula is sensitive other geographic
to changing conditions regions or
and to significant impacts waterbody types
on water quality should be
approached with
caution.
• Does not consider
changes in toxics
concentrations,
habitat or biology.
WA • Incorporate data from • WQI may not carry (Tyagi et al., 2020)
multiple water quality enough information
parameters into a about the actual
mathematical equation quality situation of
that rates the health of the the water.
water body with a • Many uses of water
number. quality data cannot
• Less number of be met with an
parameters required in index.
comparison to all water • The eclipsing or
quality parameters for over-emphasizing
particular use.

22
 • Useful for of a single bad
communication of parameter value
general water quality • A single number
information to the cannot tell the
concerned citizens and whole story of
policy makers. water quality; there
• Reflects the composite are many other
influence of different water quality
parameters i.e., important parameters that are
for the assessment and not included in the
management of water index.
quality. • WQI, based on
• Describes the suitability some essential
of both surface and parameters, can
groundwater sources for provide a simple
human consumption. indicator of water
quality.

2.3. WATER QUALITY USING FUZZY INFERENCE SYSTEM

WQI is widely used to solve data management problems and evaluate management
strategies toward improving surface water quality (Pandey et al., 2014). The index can
combine multiple water quality variables into a single number by normalizing values
to subjective rating curves and interpreting the overall water quality effectively and
efficiently (Jha et al., 2015). (Mourhir et al., 2014), however says that a general flaw
with conventional water quality indices is that they depend on human expertise with
subjective and ambiguous information, which might raise a number of issues in water
quality assessment. (Li et al., 2016) claimed that it is a continuation of the theory of a
single factor evaluation method that requires high-density data set, using the most
polluted indicator as a baseline criterion for water quality ranking. Also, when water
quality reports are generated, they are written for specialists, showing survey data with
emphasis on individual parameters, without providing the institutional players
(managers and decision-makers), who seldom are specialists, a bird’s eye view of the
quality of a hydric resource (Lermontov et al., 2009). Due to these limitations, further
researches have researched into finding a more robust alternative to WQI.

23
Fuzzy systems which were introduced by Lotfi Aliasker Zadeh in 1965 can be used for
mapping inputs to appropriate outputs. This method deals with highly variable,
linguistic, vague, and uncertain data or knowledge and, therefore, has the ability to
allow a logical, reliable, and transparent information stream from data collection to data
usage in environmental applications. The Fuzzy logic has been used to assess water
quality based on fuzzy reasoning. The linguistic aspect of fuzzy logic could be based
on two different approaches in river water quality management: (a) expert knowledge
and or (b) actual water quality data are available in a linguistic format (Ross, 2010).

(Gharibi et al., 2012) explained how much effort has been devoted to developing water
quality indices based on fuzzy logic introduced by (Zadeh, 1965). The brilliance of
Fuzzy Logic is its ability to reflect human thoughts and expertise in the indices, thereby
effectively handling non-linear, uncertain, ambiguous, and subjective information.
Also, Fuzzy Logic is efficient for reporting assessment results in a linguistic term for
easy understanding of lay man (Deshpande, 2010).

In this study, linguistic variables were based on actual water quality data. Comparison
has been made over the conventional Weighted Average Method of finding WQI. Fuzzy
logic toolbox of the MATLAB R2020b package was used. The method was applied to
the year 2020 observations of the physicochemical parameters of River Netravati based
on the Mamdani fuzzy inference system.

2.3.1. Fuzzy Inference System

A fuzzy inference system is a system that works on fuzzy set theory to map the inputs
to outputs. The two most important fuzzy inference systems are Mamdani and Sugeno
fuzzy inference methods. The Mamdani fuzzy inference method was introduced by
Mamdani and Assilian in 1975. Sugeno or Takagi–Sugeno Kang method of fuzzy
inference process was introduced by Sugeno in 1985. The main difference between the
two methods lies in consequence of fuzzy rules”. Mamdani's fuzzy model is based on
the collections of IF-THEN rules with both fuzzy antecedent and consequent
parameters. Sugeno and Kang developed a methodological approach for generating
fuzzy rules (Deka, 2020). In this study, Mamdani FIS was used to evaluate the water

24
quality of the river. In his book (Ross, 2010) says Mamdani FIS incorporates the
following main four steps:
1. Fuzzification of Inputs and Output.
2. Selection of Membership functions.
3. Determination of application rule base.
4. Defuzzification to crisp value.

Fuzzification of Input
In this step, Crisp values of the input parameters are converted into corresponding
linguistic terms by making use of membership functions. We do this by recognizing
that many of the quantities that we consider to be crisp and deterministic are actually
not deterministic at all; they carry considerable uncertainty. If the form of uncertainty
happens to arise because of imprecision, ambiguity, or vagueness, then the variable is
probably fuzzy and can be represented by a membership function.
Development of Membership Functions
A function that defines how each point or object in the universe of discourse is assigned
a degree of membership or membership value between 0 and 1. The membership
function can be an arbitrary curve that is suitable in terms of simplicity, convenience,
speed, and efficiency. Though a member function can be an arbitrary curve, there are
eleven standard membership functions that are commonly used in engineering
applications. The simplest membership functions can be formed using straight lines: a
triangular membership function, with three points forming a triangle, or a trapezoidal
membership function, which has a flat top and is just a truncated triangle curve. The
adopted ranges of the different classes for concerned parameters are used to find the
value of the membership function for different parameters (Nayak et al., 2020). Fuzzy
sets span a region of input (or output) value graphed with the membership. Any
particular input is interpreted from this fuzzy set, and a degree of membership is
interpreted. The membership functions should overlap to allow smooth mapping of the
system.
Determination of application rule base
Rules are the essence of fuzzy logic systems. They are a collection of linguistic
statements that describe how the FIS should make decision regarding classifying an

25
input or controlling an output. It is working under IF-THEN conditions which are used
widely. IF antecedent, THEN consequent. The statements are usually connected by
connectives like AND, OR, and ELSE (Johnson et al., 2021). In water quality
assessment, the following expressions are frequently used by the experts: “if the levels
of organic matter in a river are low, and the levels or dissolved oxygen are high, then
the expected water quality is good.” In fuzzy language, using fuzzy sets associated with
each parameter, general IF-THEN rules are developed (Jinturkar et al., 2010). It could
be enunciated as follows: Rule 1. If BOD5 is low and DO is high, then WQ is Good. In
a similar manner, other rules can be articulated; for example, Rule 2. If BOD5 is
medium and DO is medium, then WQ is Average. Rule 3. If BOD5 is high and DO is
low then WQ is Poor (Johnson et al., 2021). The number of rules is study-specific and
depends on the number of parameters used. As the number of parameters and the
membership variables increases, the number of rules increases. Although the possible
rule combination may be more in real field situations effective rules are less (Patki et
al., 2015).
Defuzzification
After fuzzy reasoning, we have a linguistic output variable that needs to be translated
into a crisp value. The objective is to derive a single crisp numeric value that best
represents the inferred fuzzy values of the linguistic output variable. Defuzzification is
the conversion that maps the output from the fuzzy domain back into the crisp domain.
Many methods have been developed for defuzzification. (Deka, 2020) in his book titled
“A Primer on Machine Learning Applications in Civil Engineering” lists it as follows:
1. Max–min membership principle
2. Centroid method
3. Weighted average method
4. Mean–max membership
5. Center of sums
6. Center of the largest area
7. First of maxima, last of maxima

2.3.2. Evaluation based on fuzzy logic

26
As mentioned earlier, fuzzy inference system is a rule-based approach to reach a desired
output. Analysis of water quality using a FIS is one of the applications of FIS in
Environmental Engineering projects. This method represents an attempt to develop a
robust index to estimate surface water quality. This method is adaptable and can be
customized based on individual requirements. This index can be utilized as a decision-
making tool for the water quality management of various rivers around the world
(Chanapathi & Thatikonda, 2019). Fuzzy logic is flexible in developing classification
models with a simple framework, built with natural language like ‘Very Good,’ ‘Good,’
‘Poor,’ etc. It is said that one way of simplifying a complex system is to allow some
degree of uncertainty in its description. For example, water quality can best be
described based on its degree of portability and potential usages rather than expressing
its constituents in numerical terms. The fuzzy reasoning technique does not rely on a
crisp form of data set; rather, it uses linguistic terminology to process the output. This
method proposes water quality with reasonable accuracy (Sahu et al., 2011). Authors
like (Mishra & Jha, 2014), (A. Khan, 2017), (Johnson O. Oladipo et al., 2021), (Banda
& Kumarasamy, 2021), (Kumaravel. R et al., 2020), (Nayak et al., 2020), (Chanapathi
& Thatikonda, 2019), (R. Kumaravel and J.S. Sudarsan, 2020) having used fuzzy logic
in their respective studies show that the proposed index is reliable and consistent with
the traditional qualitative methods. Hence this research uses this application of Fuzzy
logic for the water quality assessment.

27
 CHAPTER 3
STUDY AREA
River Netravati is a major river of Dakshina Kannada, Karnataka, India, having a
drainage area of about 3,432 km2. The river originates in the Western Ghats, receives
an average rainfall of 3,500–4,500 mm annually, and runs for a distance of about 148
km, flowing westward. Dakshina Kannada and has an average temperature of 28°C. Its
tributaries originate in the hilly areas of Western Ghats and flow downstream towards
the Arabian Sea. Under the world’s biodiversity conservation project, the catchment
area of Netravati River is selected as one of the 30 hotspots for biodiversity
conservation (Avvannavar & Shrihari, 2008).
The river functions to serve as the main water resource to Mangalore and Bantwal.
More than 40 Lakhs people are reliant on River Netravati to meet their daily
requirements. The water from the river is used for irrigation, and at certain places, these
rivulets are considered “Holy,” and the waters are used for “Sacred Bath” by pilgrims.
The marine life of this river is very valuable for fishing.
As per the estimation of Local bodies’/Townships discharging their sewage and
estimated sewage generation is about 11.95 MLD, and there are no sewage treatment
plants in all the towns and villages adjoining the Netravati river. In all these towns and
gram panchayats, septic tank & soak pit method is present. Overflow from these soak
pits during the rainy season may join the river in different places through open and
kaccha drains. Untreated sewage is being disposed of into the river through drains
immediately after downstream of Dharmasthala, Yennehole, Kerihole, Uppinangady,
and Thumbe Local bodies (Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, 2019).

3.1. DESCRIPTION OF STUDY STATIONS

In this study, three stations, namely, Dharmasthala, Uppinangady, and Thumbe, were
considered along the whole stretch of the river to determine the water quality index.

28
 Figure 3.1 : Study Area

The description of each sampling station as described by (Avvannavar & Shrihari,

2008) in their study is below:
1. Dharmasthala: Dharmasthala town is a unique example of communal harmony,
famous for its Manjunatha Temple. This station is approximately 75 Km away
from Mangalore city. The average width of the river during the rainy season is
about 80 m and 20–25 m during the low water period. This site is a pilgrimage
center, and hundreds of people take “Holy dip” and wash their clothes along the
banks of this site every day.
2. Uppinangady: Uppinangady town is about 54 km from Mangalore. This is
where River Kumardhara and River Netravati converge. Kumardhara river is
one of the major rivers that flow from Subramanya, an important pilgrimage
center of this state. Hundreds of people take a “Holy bath” and other religious
activities at Subramanya. This river merges with the river Netravati river near
the Uppinangady town. There are various fast-food centers that have come up
along the NH 48. As a result, these human activities such as cleaning vehicles,
dumping kitchen waste are seen on the banks of this stream.
3. Thumbe: Thumbe, a station 17 km from Mangalore, has a vented dam. Water is
collected, treated, and supplied for domestic purposes to the whole of
Mangalore region for various industries like MRPL, BASF, institutes like

29
 NITK, Surathkal, and residential purposes. Sea water intrusion takes place
about 2 km downstream of the vented dam during high tides.
Pollution in River Netravati
Newspaper article titled “Untreated sewage discharge greatly polluting the city”
published by (Mangalore Today, 2018) emphasize the irresponsible discharge of
untreated domestic and industrial sewage that has profusely and severely polluted the
River Gurupura and River Netravati, which surround Mangalore, thereby affecting the
groundwater quality of the city.
A publication by (Sastry, 2017) in the newspaper “The Hindu” said, “Netravati, the
lifeline of Dakshina Kannada and the only source of drinking water for Mangalore, gets
polluted along her path by the discharge of wastewater.” The entire sewage generated
in Bantwal town (located close to the Thumbe vented dam, built across the Netravati)
is let into the river at 15 locations with no underground drainage system. Sewage and
wastewater enter Netravati and its tributary, the Kumaradhara upstream, including
Dharmasthala and Kukke Subramanya.
Along with the State Pollution Control Boards, the Central Pollution Control Board has
frequently monitored the water quality of different rivers and other water sources,
including Netravati. The Minister elucidated that agricultural waste, open defecation,
solid waste from towns and cities, etc., also are sources of river pollution (“Netravati
among 17 Karnataka Rivers that are polluted - Central Report,” 2021).
On March 7, 2021, a group of volunteers has scooped up nearly 14 tonnes of garbage after
cleaning the banks of river Netravati. The river cleaning drive was initiated by Hasiru Dala
and the Anti-Pollution Drive Foundation (APDF) (The Times of India, 2021).
Gayathri et al., 2021 in their study of monitoring of heavy metal contamination in
Netravati river basin interpreted that water quality varied from good to excellent as per the
WQI classification but the analysis on heavy metals revealed that heavy metas has
contaminated the sediments from the Netravati basin. They concluded that the
deterioration in water quality and heavy metal pollution is due to activities like agriculture
and urbanization.

30
 Figure 3.2: Raw sewage flowing into the Netravati at Goodinabali in Bantwal
Source: THE HINDU
There is enough evidence that River Netravati is polluted due to various factors.
Therefore, there is a need for systematic water quality monitoring to assess water
quality for ecosystem health and hygiene.
The evidence of organic pollution in the River Netravati is considered as the basis for
the selection of eight different parameters, which are pH, Dissolved Oxygen, Total
Dissolved Solids, Chloride, Sulphate, Nitrate, Biochemical Oxygen Demand, and Total
Coliform.

31
 CHAPTER 4
METHODOLOGY

Figure 4.1: Flowchart representing the methodology

32
4.1. STEPS IN METHODOLOGY

4.1.1. Collection of Data

Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) of Dakshina Kannada monitors

River Netravati in three different sample stations namely, Dharmasthala, Uppinangady,
and Thumbe. The data of all these three sample stations for the year 2020 were collected
from the KSPCB, Baikampady office.

4.1.2. Selection of Paramters

The KSPCB monitors together 30 different parameters. They are pH, Colour, Odour,
Temperature, Turbidity, Dissolved Oxygen, Total Alkalinity, P. Alkalinity,
Conductivity, TDS, Total Fixed Solids, TSS, Hardness, Calcium, Magnesium,
Chloride, Sulphate, Fluoride, Nitrate, Phosphate, Sodium, Potassium, Boron, COD,
BOD, Ammonical Nitrogen, TKN, Total Coliform, Fecal Coliform, and Fecal
Streptococci. Out of these 30 parameters, 8 important parameters were chosen for the
study. They are pH, Dissolved Oxygen (DO), Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), Chloride,
Sulphate, Nitrate, Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), and Total Coliform (TC). The
reason for choosing these parameters is already mentioned in the literature review.
Some of the parameters were excluded because of the following reasons:
Parameters like Turbidity, Phosphate, Ammonical Nitrogen, Fecal Streptococci, TKN,
Sodium, Potassium, and Boron were measured below the detection limit. Fecal
Coliform was excluded because total coliform represents the entire coliform group.
COD was not included in the study because BOD values are generally determined and
evaluated in association with other parameters (e.g., DOC, POC, TOC) and this makes
them more useful in formulating predictions. Colour, Odour, and Temperature are not
usually used for Water Quality status classification. Conductivity was avoided because
TDS was chosen for the study as conductivity indirectly measures the total dissolved
solids. Hardness is mainly used to study groundwater quality. Calcium and Magnesium
are also associated with hardness. Hence, they were also avoided.

4.1.3. Selection of water quality index

33
The rating scale selected for the study was the water quality index scale developed by
R.M. Brown in 1970 (Table 1) and was used by many researchers, few among who are
(Yadav et al., 2010), (Tyagi et al., 2020), (Banda & Kumarasamy, 2021), and
(Akoteyon et al., 2011).

4.1.4. Fuzzy Water Quality Index

Figure 1.2: Flowchart representing the structure of a Fuzzy Inference System

Figure 4.3: Fuzzy Inference System (extracted from MATLAB R2020b)

34
Fuzzification
The fuzzification process is as follows. First, we select the system variables, i.e., the
identification of input and output variables. The input variables selected in this study
are pH, DO, TDS, Chloride, Sulphate, Nitrate BOD, and TC. The input and output are
taken in the form of a linguistic format. For example, pH= {low, medium, high}, DO=
{low, medium, high}. Similarly, the output variables divided by using the water quality
rating scale are FWQI= {Excellent, Good, Poor, Very Poor, Unfit for Consumption}.
Membership Functions
In this study, a triangular membership function is used. For the determination of the
value of the triangular membership function, the following equation is used (Nayak et
al., 2020):
0, 𝑥 ≤ 𝑎
𝑥−𝑎
, 𝑎≤𝑥 ≤𝑚
𝑚−𝑎
𝜇𝐴 (𝑋) = 𝑏−𝑥
, 𝑥≥𝑏
𝑏−𝑚
{ 0, 𝑥 ≥ 𝑏
Where ‘a’ is the lower limit, ‘b’ is the upper limit, and a value m, where a < m < b.

The input and output parameter ranges for trapezoidal membership functions are given
below:
Table 3.1: Input parameter ranges for triangular membership function
Low Medium High
Determinant a b c a b c a b c
pH 5 6 6.5 6 6.5 7 6.5 7 7.5
DO 4 5 5.8 5.5 6.5 7.5 7.2 7.5 8.0
TDS 60 80 100 80 100 130 120 130 140
Chloride 10 20 50 45 50 55 50 55 60
Sulphate 0 2 5 4 5 6 5 6 7
Nitrate 0 1 2 1.5 2 3 2 3 4
BOD 1.2 2 2.5 2.2 2.8 3.4 3.2 3.4 3.6
Total Coliform 0 2 10 5 100 600 520 1000 1700

35
 Table 4.2: Output parameter ranges for triangular membership function
Determinant Excellent Good Poor Very Poor Unfit for
consumption

a b c a b c a b c a b c a b c

WQI 0 20 27 26 30 60 51 60 80 76 80 120 101 120 125

The above input and output parameter ranges have been selected to evaluate water
quality by means of an aggregated index called fuzzy water quality index.

Figure 4.4: Membership Function plot of pH (extracted from MATLAB R2020b)

36
Figure 4.5: Membership Function plot of Dissolved Oxygen (extracted from MATLAB R2020b)

Figure 4.6: Membership Function plot of Total Dissolved Solids (extracted from MATLAB
R2020b)

37
Figure 4.7: Membership Function plot of Chloride (extracted from MATLAB R2020b)

Figure 4.8: Membership Function plot of Sulphate (extracted from MATLAB R2020b)

38
Figure 4.9: Membership Function plot of Nitrate (extracted from MATLAB R2020b)

Figure 4.10: Membership Function plot of BOD (extracted from MATLAB R2020b)

39
Figure 4.11: Membership Function plot of Total Coliform (extracted from MATLAB R2020b)

Figure 4.12: Membership Function plot of FWQI (extracted from MATLAB R2020b)

40
Inference Rules
In the present study, the variables (Input and Output parameters) were combined using
the concept of ‘AND’ Operator. The fuzzy operator minimum was used as most of the
variables are independent in nature. No weightage to any rules was assigned as the
entire rule carries equal weightage to calculate the WQI. In this study, 24 rules are
obtained from the available data.
The rules considered are below:
1. If (pH is Medium) and (DO is Medium) and (TDS is Medium) and (Chloride is
Low) and (Sulphate is Low) and (Nitrate is Low) and (BOD is Low) and (TC is
Low) THEN (WQI is Excellent).
2. If (pH is Medium) and (DO is Medium) and (TDS is Medium) and (Chloride is
Low) and (Sulphate is Low) and (Nitrate is Low) and (BOD is Medium) and
(TC is Low) THEN (WQI is Excellent).
3. If (pH is Medium) and (DO is High) and (TDS is Medium) and (Chloride is
Low) and (Sulphate is Low) and (Nitrate is Low) and (BOD is Medium) and
(TC is Low) THEN (WQI is Excellent).
4. If (pH is Medium) and (DO is High) and (TDS is Medium) and (Chloride is
Low) and (Sulphate is Low) and (Nitrate is Low) and (BOD is Low) and (TC is
Low) THEN (WQI is Excellent).
5. If (pH is High) and (DO is Medium) and (TDS is Medium) and (Chloride is
Low) and (Sulphate is Low) and (Nitrate is Low) and (BOD is Low) and (TC is
Low) THEN (WQI is Excellent).
6. If (pH is High) and (DO is Medium) and (TDS is Medium) and (Chloride is
Low) and (Sulphate is Low) and (Nitrate is Low) and (BOD is Medium) and
(TC is Low) THEN (WQI is Excellent).
7. If (pH is High) and (DO is High) and (TDS is Medium) and (Chloride is Low)
and (Sulphate is Low) and (Nitrate is Low) and (BOD is Medium) and (TC is
Low) THEN (WQI is Excellent).
8. If (pH is High) and (DO is High) and (TDS is Medium) and (Chloride is Low)
and (Sulphate is Low) and (Nitrate is Low) and (BOD is Low) and (TC is Low)
THEN (WQI is Excellent).

41
9. If (pH is Medium) and (DO is Medium) and (TDS is Medium) and (Chloride is
Low) and (Sulphate is Low) and (Nitrate is Low) and (BOD is Low) and (TC is
Medium) THEN (WQI is Good).
10. If (pH is Medium) and (DO is Medium) and (TDS is Medium) and (Chloride is
Low) and (Sulphate is Low) and (Nitrate is Low) and (BOD is Medium) and
(TC is Medium) THEN (WQI is Good).
11. If (pH is Medium) and (DO is High) and (TDS is Medium) and (Chloride is
Low) and (Sulphate is Low) and (Nitrate is Low) and (BOD is Medium) and
(TC is Medium) THEN (WQI is Good).
12. If (pH is Medium) and (DO is High) and (TDS is Medium) and (Chloride is
Low) and (Sulphate is Low) and (Nitrate is Low) and (BOD is Low) and (TC is
Medium) THEN (WQI is Good).
13. If (pH is High) and (DO is Medium) and (TDS is Medium) and (Chloride is
Low) and (Sulphate is Low) and (Nitrate is Low) and (BOD is Low) and (TC is
Medium) THEN (WQI is Good).
14. If (pH is High) and (DO is Medium) and (TDS is Medium) and (Chloride is
Low) and (Sulphate is Low) and (Nitrate is Low) and (BOD is Medium) and
(TC is Medium) THEN (WQI is Good).
15. If (pH is High) and (DO is High) and (TDS is Medium) and (Chloride is Low)
and (Sulphate is Low) and (Nitrate is Low) and (BOD is Medium) and (TC is
Medium) THEN (WQI is Good).
16. If (pH is High) and (DO is High) and (TDS is Medium) and (Chloride is Low)
and (Sulphate is Low) and (Nitrate is Low) and (BOD is Low) and (TC is
Medium) THEN (WQI is Good).
17. If (pH is Medium) and (DO is Medium) and (TDS is Medium) and (Chloride is
Low) and (Sulphate is Low) and (Nitrate is Low) and (BOD is Low) and (TC is
High) THEN (WQI is Very Poor).
18. If (pH is Medium) and (DO is Medium) and (TDS is Medium) and (Chloride is
Low) and (Sulphate is Low) and (Nitrate is Low) and (BOD is Medium) and
(TC is High) THEN (WQI is Very Poor).

42
19. If (pH is Medium) and (DO is High) and (TDS is Medium) and (Chloride is
Low) and (Sulphate is Low) and (Nitrate is Low) and (BOD is Medium) and
(TC is High) THEN (WQI is Very Poor).
20. If (pH is Medium) and (DO is High) and (TDS is Medium) and (Chloride is
Low) and (Sulphate is Low) and (Nitrate is Low) and (BOD is Low) and (TC is
High) THEN (WQI is Very Poor).
21. If (pH is High) and (DO is Medium) and (TDS is Medium) and (Chloride is
Low) and (Sulphate is Low) and (Nitrate is Low) and (BOD is Low) and (TC is
High) THEN (WQI is Very Poor).
22. If (pH is High) and (DO is Medium) and (TDS is Medium) and (Chloride is
Low) and (Sulphate is Low) and (Nitrate is Low) and (BOD is Medium) and
(TC is High) THEN (WQI is Very Poor).
23. If (pH is High) and (DO is High) and (TDS is Medium) and (Chloride is Low)
and (Sulphate is Low) and (Nitrate is Low) and (BOD is Medium) and (TC is
High) THEN (WQI is Very Poor).
24. If (pH is High) and (DO is High) and (TDS is Medium) and (Chloride is Low)
and (Sulphate is Low) and (Nitrate is Low) and (BOD is Low) and (TC is High)
THEN (WQI is Very Poor).

43
`
Figure 4.13: The rule editor in MATLAB R2020b

Defuzzification

The centroid method, which is one of the most common methods, was adopted in this
study for defuzzification. This method is very accurate and gives smooth output. In the
centroid defuzzification method, the defuzzified value is calculated as given below:
∫ µ𝑐 (𝑍).𝑍 𝑑𝑍
Z* =
∫ µ𝑐 (𝑍) 𝑑𝑧

Where Z* is the defuzzified value, z is the output variable, and ʃµc (z) is the
membership function of the aggregated fuzzy output. This method is computationally
complex.

44
 Figure 4.14: The rule viewer in MATLAB R2020b

4.1.5. Weighted Arithmetic Water Quality Index

The conventional Weighted Arithmetic Water Quality Index Method was adopted as a
reference to compare the values obtained from the Mamdani Fuzzy Inference System.
The steps for the calculation of the water quality index are as
1. Assign the standard permissible limit (Sn) for each parameter.
2. Calculate factor weights (Wn) from the assigned weight values adopted from
the literature.
3. Calculate quality rating for nth parameter (Qn) where there are n parameters.
This is calculated using the formula,
𝑉𝑛
Qn = 𝑆𝑛 × 100

Where,
Vn = Estimated value of the nth parameter of the given sampling station.
Sn = Standard permissible value of the nth parameter.
(Note: For pH and DO, Qn is found out using the following equation:
𝑉𝑛−𝑉𝑖
Qn = 100 x 𝑆𝑛−𝑉𝑖

Where,
Vi for pH and DO is 7 and 14, respectively.
4. Calculate Water Quality Index (WQI) using the formula,

45
 ∑( 𝑊𝑛 𝑄𝑛)
WQI = ∑𝑊𝑛

Figure 4.15: Flowchart representing the steps involved in the calculation of WQI

Factor weights
After reviewing and studying similar studies reported in various literature, factor
weights were assigned in such a way that on a scale that ranges with values from 1-4,
4 was assigned to parameters of utmost importance, and 1 was assigned to variables of
little importance. Table 5.1 represents the parameters and their respective assigned
weights and relative weights.
Table 4.3: Parameters and their respective assigned and relative weights
Parameters Assigned Weight Relative weight
pH 1 0.052631579
DO 4 0.210526316
TDS 2 0.105263158
Chloride 1 0.052631579
Sulphate 2 0.105263158
Nitrate 2 0.105263158
BOD 3 0.157894737
Total Coliform 4 0.210526316
∑ 19 1

Standard permissible value

Water quality parameters and their standard permissible value adopted from the Indian
Council of Medical Research are listed in table 5.2. Some of the standard permissible
values were also adopted from the Bureau of Indian Standards when BIS values were
not available.

46
 Table 4.4: Standard permissible limits of the selected parameters
Parameters Desirable Limit (Sn) Recommended Agency
pH 8.5 ICMR/BIS
DO 5 ICMR
TDS 500 ICMR/BIS
Chloride 250 ICMR
Sulphate 200 ICMR/BIS
Nitrate 45 ICMR/BIS
BOD 5 ICMR
Total Coliform 500 BIS

(Note: The calculation of WQI of the 3 different stations for 12 months is shown in Table 8.2)

47
 CHAPTER 5
RESULTS

The results obtained from the Fuzzy Inference System and Weighted Arithmetic Water
Quality Index are given in table 5.1 and 5.2 respectively. Figure 5.1 and 5.2 represent
the variation of water quality in different months in the study stations. Figure 5.3, 5.4
and 5.5 represent the variation of FWQI and WAWQI in Dharmasthala, Uppinangady
and Thumbe respectively.
Table 5.1: FWQI results
Dharmasthala
Month FWQI Water Quality Status
January 40.6 Good
February 40.1 Good
March 41.8 Good
April 40.6 Good
May 14.1 Excellent
June 15 Excellent
July 15 Excellent
August 14.1 Excellent
September 96.7 Very Poor
October 96.7 Very Poor
November 96.7 Very Poor
December 39.7 Good
Average 45.925 Good
Uppinangady
Month FWQI Water Quality Status
January 40.6 Good
February 41.8 Good
March 40.6 Good
April 41.8 Good
May 14.7 Excellent
June 14.1 Excellent
July 14.1 Excellent
August 15 Excellent
September 40.6 Good

48
 October 96.7 Very Poor
November 96.7 Very Poor
December 96.7 Very Poor
Average 46.1167 Good
Thumbe
Month FWQI Water Quality Status
January 96.7 Very Poor
February 40.1 Good
March 40.1 Good
April 40.6 Good
May 14.5 Excellent
June 14.5 Excellent
July 15 Excellent
August 14.5 Excellent
September 96.7 Very Poor
October 96.7 Very Poor
November 96.7 Very Poor
December 96.7 Very Poor
Average 55.2333 Poor

FWQI
120

100

80

60

40

20

Dharmasthala Uppinangady Thumbe

Figure 5.1: Graph showing the variation of FWQI in the study stations

49
Table 5.2: WAWQI results
Dharmasthala
Month WAWQI Water Quality Status
January 31.9725 Good
February 40.6722 Good
March 33.5637 Good
April 35.1883 Good
May 24.9249 Excellent
June 24.9695 Excellent
July 24.7681 Excellent
August 24.9431 Excellent
September 93.0341 Very Poor
October 92.1416 Very Poor
November 92.4931 Very Poor
December 37.0081 Good
Average 46.3066 Good
Uppinangady
Month WAWQI Water Quality Status
January 41.7836 Good
February 47 Good
March 37.2928 Good
April 47.1522 Good
May 28.3104 Good
June 24.7017 Excellent
July 28.1076 Good
August 29.3534 Good
September 40.2304 Good
October 95.1595 Very Poor
November 94.2159 Very Poor
December 97.3602 Very Poor
Average 50.8890 Good
Thumbe
Month WAWQI Water Quality Status
January 94.5789 Very Poor
February 38.6947 Good
March 40.3373 Good
April 41.6898 Good

50
 May 24.8374 Excellent
June 25.6526 Excellent
July 24.9974 Excellent
August 24.9205 Excellent
September 92.7777 Very Poor
October 90.5507 Very Poor
November 92.1412 Very Poor
December 94.0321 Very Poor
Average 57.1009 Poor

WAWQI
120

100

80

60

40

20

Dharmasthala Uppinangady Thumbe

Figure 5.2: Graph showing the variation of WAWQI in the study stations

51
 Variation of WQI at Dharmasthala
120

100

80

60

40

20

FWQI WAWQI

Figure 5.3 : Graph showing the variation of FWQI and WAWQI in Dharmasthala

Variation of WQI at Uppinangady

120

100

80

60

40

20

FWQI WAWQI

Figure 5.4 : Graph showing the variation of FWQI and WAWQI in Uppinangady

52
 Variation of WQI at Thumbe
120

100

80

60

40

20

FWQI WAWQI

Figure 5.5 : Graph showing the variation of FWQI and WAWQI in Thumbe

53
 CHAPTER 6
DISCUSSION
The water quality for the River Netravati has been assessed with the Fuzzy Inference
System. Collected data sets from Karnataka State Pollution Control Board,
Baikampady, Karnataka was used to assess water quality of the year 2020. The
calculated Fuzzy water quality index results according to fuzzy inference system (FIS)
and WAWQI are given in table and table, respectively. Comparison has also been made
between FWQI and the WAWQI index.
The values of the physicochemical characteristics of River Netravati are used as input
in the fuzzy inference system, and the water quality index is calculated as an output as
presented in Table 5.1. Among the selected 8 parameters, all except Total Coliform
were within the permissible limit prescribed by the BIS and ICMR. The values of FWQI
and WAWQI for the 3 different study stations are shown in Figures 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3.
Uncertainty in water quality parameters in the border area can play a key role in
misdiagnosing the water quality. The advantages of fuzzy models are best revealed in
samples with near-identical qualities. Due to similarity in concentrations of water
quality parameters, samples 5, 6, 7, 8 of Dharmasthala, and sample 6 of Uppinangady
and samples 5,6,7,8 of Thumbe are classified as ‘excellent in quality by both FWQI and
WAWQI. The reason for the excellent water quality might be due to the heavy rains
during those months, which resulted in heavy flow leading to the dilution of pollutants.
The water quality of samples 5,7,8 of Uppinangady, whose all parameters are within
the permissible limits, is considered ‘Excellent’ by the FWQI. However, with WAWQI,
they are considered ‘Good.’ The calculated value of the WAWQI is a border value and,
as such, classified as ‘Good.’ The parameters which resulted in this classification were
DO and BOD even though they were still within the permissible limits. The DO value
was 5.9 mg/l for samples 5 and 7, and the BOD value was 3 mg/l for sample 8. A BOD
value of 2mg/l and that of 3 mg/l would result in quite a difference in the WAWQI. A
DO value of 5.9 mg/l was the lowest value recorded in the data. The DO values above
6 resulted in excellent water quality when all the other parameters were within the limit.
For marginal data and near-identical qualities, decision-making is a difficult task due
to inherent uncertainties involved in the measurement and analysis steps. This is where

54
the linguistic input helps to provide a better decision on the water quality. For all the
rest of the samples, the crisp method and the conventional method have identical
classification. Therefore, to avoid problems like uncertain borderline line difficulties
and misdiagnosing, FIS can be used as a substitute thereby overcoming the limitations
of traditional methods of classifying water quality.
Selection of parameters also play a huge role when finding water quality index through
conventional methods. For instance, the standard permissible limit (Sn) of Total
coliform in water used for drinking purpose is zero. So, if zero is used for calculating
the water quality index, it can lead to the miscalculation of the quality rating (Qn) as it
is found using the equation
𝑉𝑛
Qn = × 100
𝑆𝑛

This drawback can be overcome by the Fuzzy Inference System as there is no such
calculation involved.
By observing the sample data, it can be understood that the ‘Good’ and ‘Very Poor’
classification was because of the change in total coliform values. The samples which
had good water quality had total coliform in the range of 100-500. At the same time,
the very poor water quality samples had a total coliform value of ˃1600. From the above
observations, it can be said that Total Coliform is the main source of pollution of
Netravati. The increase in total coliform values can be due to various reasons. The
‘Good’ and ‘Very Poor’ quality water was observed during the post monsoon seasons
where the rainfall runoff and agricultural runoff add to the river water quality. Also, a
lot festivals happen during these months namely Nullu Hunnime from August to
September, Dussehra in October, Diwali in November, Kambala in November, and
Christmas in December. October and December are the months of vacation owing to
these festivals. It is during this part of the year, people working away from their
hometown visit their native place. So, there is more population density at this time of
the year. As the river water quality depends on the users, the above said reasons can
induce a lot of influx of coliforms. The variations in the total coliform can also be
attributed to sewage interference from any soak pit or septic tank in the nearby areas.
Therefore, the study reveals that surface water pollution is anthropogenically induced

55
in the study area. Poor conditions of the river show its unhealthy and effects the food
web and natural functioning of the river (Lindang et al., 2017).
Only a few studies have been conducted on River Netravati to assess the water quality
and its status. Ramananda, 2017 in his study has used Statistical sampling theory to
study the quality of River Netravati. Lekeshmanaswamy & Pooja, 2019 has done the
evaluation of physico chemical parameters on water quality of River Netravati.
Avvannavar & Shrihari, 2008 has evaluated water quality of Netravati using Bhargava
Water Quality Index Method. Gayathri et al., 2021 analyzed the water quality of
Netravati using National sanitation foundation water quality index.
The present study has predicted the WQI of Netravati using a different yet competent
approach. The process involved is less complex and is straightforward.
The advantages of using FIS in determining water quality status are:
• Its ability to describe a large number of nonlinear relations.
• Its unique capability to combine qualitative and quantitative information to
express the status of the study.
• Its capability to generate results which are more consistent to the real-world
issues.
The drawbacks of FIS include:
• It becomes a difficult task to perform the evaluation when the number of
parameters considered for the study is more. When a greater number of
parameters are used, there would be tremendous increase in inference rules.
• There is no single systematic approach to perfrom the analysis. The rules have
to be updated with changing inputs.
• It largely depends on human expertise and knowledge. Therefore, it is
subjective.
• With the use of different types of membership functions (e.g., Trapezoidal,
Gaussian membership functions) and defuzzification methods (e.g., Center of
sums, Center of largest area) the results may vary.

56
 CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSION
Fuzzy inference system is a flexible tool to develop a classification model with a
comprehensible framework and built with simple and efficient language. The fuzzy
method of analyzing water quality can be conveyed easily to a layman who has no
knowledge of water analytical techniques. The fuzzy water quality index amends
perceived deficiencies of water quality assessment and water resources management
when the conventional, deterministic methods can be inaccurate or conceptually
limited. While interpreting the results, the values of both WAWQI and FWQI in three
stations tell the water quality of Dharmasthala and Uppinangady is ‘Good,’ and that of
Thumbe is Poor and are not suitable for drinking. It is clear that Total Coliform is the
main pollution factor that leads to change in water quality status. It is apparent that the
results of FWQI are almost consistent with that of the conventional WAWQI and can
be used for water quality assessment.
Analysis of the water quality suggests improving the sewage treatment rate, controlling
the pollution from agricultural sources should be carried out to prevent and control
water contamination, and then the ecological environment of the river can be
progressively improved. If the water from the river is used for drinking purpose, proper
tertiary treatment like aeration and disinfection should be done. In the present study,
the FWQI produces reliable and accurate results. FIS is unbiased and does not
normalize or standardize the parameters. Equal weightage is applied for all parameters.
No disagreement arises in terms of relative importance of parameters. Therefore, it can
be used as a substitute for conventional methods for the assessment of surface water
quality.
For more accurate status of water quality, the number of monitoring stations should be
increased and the testing of samples should be performed on the same day. When the
testing is prolonged, changes occur in the collected water and misdiagnosing can
happen. Better water quality evaluation would have been possible if data of a minimum
10 years were available. Owing to the drawbacks of FIS, this study cannot be entirely
replicated for a study with parameters of different value. The results of this study can

57
be used as a reference when performing water quality analysis in similar environmental
conditions.
Fuzzy logic concepts, if used rationally, could be a potent tool for some of the
environmental policy subjects.
Future Work
This work can be further enhanced with the use of Adaptive Network based Fuzzy
Inference System (ANFIS) as it can construct an input – output mapping based on a
given initial fuzzy system and available input –output data pairs by using a learning
procedure. The adaptive network simulates a fuzzy inference system represented by the
fuzzy if –then rules.
The study can be done using different membership functions and defuzzification
methods. Results from each method can be compared. In order to evaluate the best
prediction method, criteria’s like mean absolute error (MAE), mean square error
(MSE), and root mean square error (RMSE) can be used (Patki et al., 2015).
The developed model can also be verified using Sensitivity analysis, Crosstab analysis
and programming languages like Python (Johnson et al., 2021). The study can also be
evaluated using different parameters if more data is available.
Although this study has compared the Fuzzy water quality index and the conventional
WAWQI, it would be more appropriate to compare FIS method with other methods for
more clarity in its efficiency in assessing the water quality.

58
 REFERENCES
Abrahão, R., Carvalho, M., Da Silva, W. R., Machado, T. T. V., Gadelha, C. L. M., &
Hernandez, M. I. M. (2007). Use of index analysis to evaluate the water quality of
a stream receiving industrial effluents. Water SA, 33(4), 459–465.
https://doi.org/10.4314/wsa.v33i4.52940
Abtahi, M., Golchinpour, N., Yaghmaeian, K., Rafiee, M., Jahangiri-Rad, M., Keyani,
A., & Saeedi, R. (2015). A modified drinking water quality index (DWQI) for
assessing drinking source water quality in rural communities of Khuzestan
Province, Iran. Ecological Indicators, 53, 283–291.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.02.009
Akhtar, N., Ishak, M. I. S., Ahmad, M. I., Umar, K., Md Yusuff, M. S., Anees, M. T.,
Qadir, A., & Almanasir, Y. K. A. (2021). Modification of the water quality index
(Wqi) process for simple calculation using the multi-criteria decision-making
(mcdm) method: A review. Water (Switzerland), 13(7).
https://doi.org/10.3390/w13070905
Akoteyon, I., Omotayo, A., Soladoye, O., & Olaoye, H. O. (2011). Determination of
Water Quality Index and Suitability of Urban River for Municipal Water Supply
in Lagos-Nigeria. October 2015.
Alobaidy, A. H. M. J., Abid, H. S., & Maulood, B. K. (2010). Application of Water
Quality Index for Assessment of Dokan Lake Ecosystem, Kurdistan Region, Iraq.
Journal of Water Resource and Protection, 02(09), 792–798.
https://doi.org/10.4236/jwarp.2010.29093
Ashok Kumar Yadav, Parveen Khan, S. K. sharma. (2010). Water Quality Index
Assessment of Groundwater in Todaraisingh Tehsil of Rajasthan State , India-A
Greener Approach. 7, 428–433.
Avvannavar, S. M., & Shrihari, S. (2008). Evaluation of water quality index for
drinking purposes for river Netravathi, Mangalore, South India. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment, 143(1–3), 279–290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-
007-9977-7
Banda, T. D., & Kumarasamy, M. V. (2021). Development of Water Quality Indices
( WQIs ): A Review. 29(3), 2011–2021. https://doi.org/10.15244/pjoes/110526
Boyacioglu, H. (2007). Development of a water quality index based on a European

59
 classification scheme. Water SA, 33(1), 101–106.
https://doi.org/10.4314/wsa.v33i1.47882
Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the protection of Aquatic Life (Issue Webb
2008). (2019).
Carrie Rickwood and Geneviève M. Carr. (2007). Global Drinking Water Quality Index
Development and Sensitivity Analysis Report.
Chanapathi, T., & Thatikonda, S. (2019). Fuzzy-Based Regional Water Quality Index
for Surface Water Quality Assessment. 23(4), 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HZ.2153-5515.0000443
Costa, D. D. A., Paulo, J., Azevedo, S. De, & Aurélio, M. (2020). Water quality
assessment based on multivariate statistics and water quality index of a strategic
river in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Scientific Reports, 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-78563-0
Cude, C. G. (2001). OREGON WATER QUALITY INDEX A TOOL FOR
EVALUATING WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS. 37(1),
125–137.
Deka, P. C. (2020). A Primer On Machine Learning Applications In Civil Engineering.
Taylor and Francis Group.
Deshpande, A. (2010). Can fuzzy logic bring complex environmental problems into
focus? Proceedings - 2010 IEEE International Conference on Granular
Computing, GrC 2010, 11–17. https://doi.org/10.1109/GrC.2010.184
Devi, M. (2009). Water quality indexing for predicting variation of water quality over
time. University of Mauritius Research Journal, 15(1), 186–199.
Dwivedi, S. L., & Pathak, V. (2007). A preliminary assignment of water quality index
to Mandakini River, Chitrakoot. In Indian Journal of Environmental Protection
(Vol. 27, Issue 11, pp. 1036–1038).
Eisenbrand, G., Spiegelhalder, B., & Preussmann, R. (1980). Nitrate and nitrite in
saliva. Oncology, 37(4), 227–231. https://doi.org/10.1159/000225441
Fri, R. (1972). the Environmental Protection Agency1. Journal of Milk and Food
Technology, 35(12), 715–718. https://doi.org/10.4315/0022-2747-35.12.715
Gayathri, S., Krishnan, K. A., Krishnakumar, A., Maya, T. M. V., Dev, V. V., Antony,
S., & Arun, V. (2021). Monitoring of heavy metal contamination in Netravati river

60
 basin: overview of pollution indices and risk assessment. Sustainable Water
Resources Management, 7(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40899-021-00502-2
Gazzaz, N. M., Yusoff, M. K., Aris, A. Z., Juahir, H., & Ramli, M. F. (2012). Artificial
neural network modeling of the water quality index for Kinta River (Malaysia)
using water quality variables as predictors. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 64(11),
2409–2420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2012.08.005
Gharibi, H., Sowlat, M. H., Mahvi, A. H., Mahmoudzadeh, H., Arabalibeik, H.,
Keshavarz, M., Karimzadeh, N., & Hassani, G. (2012). Development of a dairy
cattle drinking water quality index (DCWQI) based on fuzzy inference systems.
Ecological Indicators, 20, 228–237.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.02.015
H, R. (2017). Statistical Tools Used To Study the Quality of Nethravati River Water.
May.
Helmer, R., & Hespanhol, I. (1998). Water Quality Requirements. Water Pollution
Control. https://doi.org/10.4324/noe0419229100.ch2
Jha, D. K., Devi, M. P., Vidyalakshmi, R., Brindha, B., Vinithkumar, N. V., &
Kirubagaran, R. (2015). Water quality assessment using water quality index and
geographical information system methods in the coastal waters of Andaman Sea,
India. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 100(1), 555–561.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.08.032
Jinturkar, A. M., Deshmukh, S. S., Agarkar, S. V., & Chavhan, G. R. (2010).
Determination of water quality index by fuzzy logic approach: A case of ground
water in an Indian town. Water Science and Technology, 61(8), 1987–1994.
https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2010.095
Johnson O. Oladipo, Akinola S. Akinwumiju, O.S. Aboyeji, A. A. A. (2021).
Comparison between fuzzy logic and water quality index methods. A case of water
quality assessment in Ikare Community, Southwestern Nigeria. Elsevier, 10.
Kanchan, S. K. (2020). India ’ S Real-Time Environmental Monitoring - Phase 2.
September.
Kannel, P. R., Lee, S., Lee, Y. S., Kanel, S. R., & Khan, S. P. (2007). Application of
water quality indices and dissolved oxygen as indicators for river water
classification and urban impact assessment. Environmental Monitoring and

61
 Assessment, 132(1–3), 93–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-006-9505-1
Karakaya, N., & Evrendilek, F. (2010). Water quality time series for Big Melen stream
(Turkey): Its decomposition analysis and comparison to upstream. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment, 165(1–4), 125–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-
009-0932-7
Karnataka State Pollution Control Board. (2019). Action plan for rejuvenation of river
Netravati. January, 1–12.
Katyal, D. N. (2015). Water Quality Indices Used for Surface Water Vulnerability
Assessment Water quality indices used for surface water vulnerability assessment.
June 2011.
Khan, A. (2017). Fuzzy Logic Approach to Quantify Water Pollution. 7(5), 12227–
12233.
Khan, A. A., Tobin, A., Paterson, R., Khan, H., & Warren, R. (2005). Application of
CCME Procedures for Deriving Site-Specific Water Quality Guidelines for the
CCME Water Quality Index. 40(4), 448–456.
Kothari, V., Vij, S., Sharma, S. K., & Gupta, N. (2021). Correlation of various water
quality parameters and water quality index of districts of Uttarakhand.
Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, 9(December 2020), 100093.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2020.100093
Kumaravel R, J.S. Sudarsan, D. Justus Reymond, S. Ramesh, B. N. I. (2020). Surface
lake water quality index estimation using fuzzy logic interface. AIP Conference
Proceedings.
Lekeshmanaswamy.M, N. P. (n.d.). Evaluation of physico-chemical parameter on water
quality of Netravati river of Dakshina Kannada district , Karnataka ,. Journal of
Applied Science and Computation, VI(1065), 1065–1076.
Lermontov, A., Yokoyama, L., Lermontov, M., & Machado, M. A. S. (2009). River
quality analysis using fuzzy water quality index: Ribeira do Iguape river
watershed, Brazil. Ecological Indicators, 9(6), 1188–1197.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.02.006
Li, R., Zou, Z., & An, Y. (2016). Water quality assessment in Qu River based on fuzzy
water pollution index method. Journal of Environmental Sciences (China), 50, 87–
92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2016.03.030

62
Lindang, H. U., Tarmudi, Z. H., & Jawan, A. (2017). Malaysian Journal of Geosciences
Contents List available at RAZI Publishing Assessing Water Quality Index in River
Basin : Fuzzy Inference System Approach. 01(1), 27–31.
Mangaluru volunteers net 14 tonnes of garbage from Netravati. (2021, March 7). THE
TIMES OF INDIA, 2.
Ministry of Water Resources, R. D. and G. R. (2011). National Water Mission.
Comprehensive Mission Document. Volume I. 76.
http://wrmin.nic.in/writereaddata/NationalWaterMission/nwm16606419934.pdf
Mishra, N., & Jha, P. (2014). Fuzzy expert system for drinking water quality index.
Recent Research in Science and Technology, 6(1), 122–125.
Mnisi, L. N. (2010). Assessment of the state of the water quality of the Lusushwana
river, Swaziland, using selected water quality indices. July.
Mourhir, A., Rachidi, T., & Karim, M. (2014). River water quality index for Morocco
using a fuzzy inference system. Environmental Systems Research, 3(1), 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40068-014-0021-y
Nayak, J. G., Patil, L. G., & Patki, V. K. (2020). Groundwater for Sustainable
Development Development of water quality index for Godavari River ( India )
based on fuzzy inference system. Groundwater for Sustainable Development,
10(December 2019), 100350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2020.100350
Netravati among 17 Karnataka rivers that are polluted - Central report. (2021, March
27). Daijiworld Media Network.
Network, M. T. N. (2018). Untreated sewage discharge greatly polluting water in city.
Mangalore Today, 2.
Ocampo-Duque, W., Ferré-Huguet, N., Domingo, J. L., & Schuhmacher, M. (2006).
Assessing water quality in rivers with fuzzy inference systems: A case study.
Environment International, 32(6), 733–742.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2006.03.009
Omer, N. H. (2019). Water Quality Parameters - Science, Assessments and Policy.
IntechOpen, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89657, 38.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/C7RA00172J%0Ahttps://www.intechopen.com/books/
advanced-biometric-technologies/liveness-detection-in-
biometrics%0Ahttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2011.12.014

63
Pandey, R., Raghuvansh, D., & Shukla, D. . (2014). Assessment of Physico-Chemical
Parameters of River Ganga at Allahabad With Respect To WQI. International
Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology, 03(09),
16339–16349. https://doi.org/10.15680/ijirset.2014.0309076
Parker, H., & Oates, N. (2016). How do healthy rivers benefit society ? Working Paper,
430, 73. https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-
opinion-files/10270.pdf
Patki, V. K., Shrihari, S., Manu, B., & Deka, P. C. (2015). Fuzzy system modeling for
forecasting water quality index in municipal distribution system. In Urban Water
Journal (Vol. 12, Issue 2, pp. 89–110). Taylor & Francis.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.2013.820333
Pattnaik, P., & Bhowmick, P. K. (2020). Determination of Water Quality Index of
Drinking Water Sources and Health Risk Assessment of Arsenic-Contaminated
Rural Areas in Basirhat-1 Block of West Bengal. 3, 677–684.
https://doi.org/10.35940/ijitee.C8372.019320
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(00)00036-1
Pimpunchat, B., Sweatman, W. L., Wake, G. C., Triampo, W., & Parshotam, A. (2009).
A mathematical model for pollution in a river and its remediation by aeration.
Applied Mathematics Letters, 22(3), 304–308.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aml.2008.03.026
Pitot, H. C. (2021). Selection of Water Quality Variables. Water Quality Assessments,
5(1989), 81–148. https://doi.org/10.4324/noe0419216001-8
Press Information Bureau. (2018). Ministry of jal Shakthi. http://mowr.gov.in/about-
us/functions
R. Kumaravel, J.S. Sudarsan, V. K. J. and S. A. (2020). Water quality index estimation
using fuzzy optimization technique. AIP Conference Proceedings.
Rahmanian, N., Hajar, S., Ali, B., Homayoonfard, M., Ali, N. J., Rehan, M., Sadef, Y.,
& Nizami, A. S. (2015). 716125.Pdf. 2015(Cd).
Ross, T. J., & Ross, T. J. (2010). Fuzzy logic with Engineering, Third Edition.
Sahu, M., Mahapatra, S. S., Sahu, H., & Patel, R. (2011). Prediction of water quality

64
 index using neuro fuzzy inference system Prediction of Water Quality Index Using
Neuro Fuzzy Inference. January. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12403-011-0054-7
Sastry, A. K. (2017, July 9). Pollution: No respite for Netravati. The Hindu, 2.
Shepherdson, N. (1936). The oral interpretation of literature. Southern Speech Journal,
1(2), 18–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10417943609370625
Sutadian, A. D., & Muttil, N. (2016). Development of river water quality indices — a
review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-015-5050-0
Terrado, M., Barceló, D., Tauler, R., Borrell, E., & Campos, S. de. (2010). Surface-
water-quality indices for the analysis of data generated by automated sampling
networks. TrAC - Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 29(1), 40–52.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2009.10.001
Tirkey, P., Bhattacharya, T., & Chakraborty, S. (2013). Water Quality Indices-
Important Tools for Water Quality Assessment : International Journal of
Advances in Chemistry, 1(1), 15–28.
Tiwari, S. (2015). Water Quality Parameters-A Review. International Journal of
Engineering Science Invention Research & Development, I(Ix), 319.
www.ijesird.com
Tyagi, S., Sharma, B., Singh, P., & Dobhal, R. (2020). Water Quality Assessment in
Terms of Water Quality Index. American Journal of Water Resources, 1(3), 34–
38. https://doi.org/10.12691/ajwr-1-3-3
Uddin, M. G., Nash, S., & Olbert, A. I. (2021). A review of water quality index models
and their use for assessing surface water quality. Ecological Indicators, 122,
107218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.107218
Vandna Pathak and A.K. Banerjee. (2006). Mine water pollution studies in Chapha
incline, Umaria coalfield, Eastern Madhya Pradesh, India. 11(2), 27–35.
Wong CM, Pittock, J, Schelle, P. (2007). World ’ s top 10 rivers at risk World ’ s top
10 rivers at risk. WWF Report, 53. www.panda.org/freshwater
World Health Organisation. (2004). Sulfate in Drinking-water. In Guidelines for
drinking water quality. WHO/SDE/WSH/03.04/114
World Health Organisation. (2007). pH in drinking-water. Guidelines for Drinking
Water Quality, 2(2), 1–7.
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/chemicals/ph_revised_2007_cl

65
 ean_version.pdf
Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy Sets in information and control (pp. 338–353). Cambridge
University Press.
Zagatto, P. A., Lorenzetti, M. L., Perez, L. S. N., & Jr, N. M. M. (2017). Internationale
Vereinigung für theoretische und angewandte Limnologie : Verhandlungen
Proposal for a new water quality index. 0770.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03680770.1995.11901194

66
 APPENDIX
Table 8.1: Physicochemical parameter data on River Netravati at the study stations
(Source: KSPCB, Baikampady, Mangalore)
Dharmasthala
Month Parameters
pH DO TDS Chloride Sulphate Nitrate BOD Total
Coliform
January 7.3 6.7 102 22 1 0.999 2 110
February 7.1 7 102 22 1 0.989 2 350
March 7.4 6.7 106 20 1 0.72 2 140
April 7.1 7.1 110 30 1 0.505 2 220
May 7.3 7.4 102 12 1 0.909 1.8 2
June 7.1 7.4 102 16 1 1.04 2 2
July 7 7.4 108 18 1 0.959 2 2
August 7 7.2 102 12 1 0.787 2 2
September 6.9 7.3 102 44 1 0.856 2 1600
October 7.3 7.5 104 20 0.9 0.743 1.8 1600
November 7.2 7.5 106 20 1 0.843 2 1600
December 6.7 6.9 102 20 1.2 1.26 2 240
Uppinangady
Month Parameters
pH DO TDS Chloride Sulphate Nitrate BOD Total
Coliform
January 7.3 6.9 106 26 1 1.02 2 350
February 7.1 7 104 20 1 1.04 2 500
March 7.3 6.8 106 22 1 0.982 2 240
April 7.2 7.1 104 28 1 0.471 2 500
May 7 5.9 108 24 1 0.562 2 2
June 7.4 7.2 102 12 1 0.505 1.5 2
July 7 5.9 106 12 1 0.955 2 2
August 6.9 6.9 104 18 1 0.921 3 2
September 7 7.1 110 20 1 1.06 2 350
October 6.9 7.5 102 18 0.8 0.827 3 1600
November 7.3 7 102 28 3 0.898 2 1600
December 6.9 6.7 104 26 0.6 1.38 3 1600
Thumbe

67
 Month Parameters
pH DO TDS Chloride Sulphate Nitrate BOD Total
Coliform
January 7.2 6.7 112 22 1 1.04 2 1600
February 7.1 6.9 102 18 1 0.895 2 300
March 7.2 6.4 104 22 1 0.877 2 300
April 7.3 6.9 110 22 1 0.619 2 350
May 6.9 7.2 102 18 1 0.995 1.8 2
June 7.1 7.2 108 20 1 1.06 2 2
July 7.1 7.4 104 16 1 0.979 2 2
August 7 7.3 102 22 1 0.79 2 2
September 6.9 7.2 106 18 1 0.74 2 1600
October 6.9 7.4 102 16 0.5 0.622 1.5 1600
November 7.1 7.6 110 26 2 0.714 2 1600
December 6.7 7 104 20 0.7 1.17 2 1600

Table 8.2: Calculation of WAWQI

DHARMASTHALA
JANUARY
Parameters Desirable Factor Estimated Ideal Vn/Sn Vn/Sn × WnQn
100 = Qn
Limit (Sn) Weights (Wn) Value (Vn) Value
(Vo)
pH 8.5 0.052631679 7.3 7 0.2 20.0 1.1
DO 5 0.210526316 6.7 14 0.8 81.1 17.1
TDS 500 0.105263158 102 0 0.2 20.4 2.1
Chloride 250 0.052631679 22 0 0.1 8.8 0.5
Sulphate 200 0.105263158 1 0 0.0 0.5 0.1
Nitrate 45 0.105263158 0.999 0 0.0 2.2 0.2
BOD 5 0.157894737 2 0 0.4 40.0 6.3
Total
500 0.210526316 110 0 0.2 22.0 4.6
Coliform
WQI 31.97285
FEBRUARY
Parameters Desirable Factor Estimated Ideal Vn/Sn Vn/Sn × WnQn
100 = Qn
Limit (Sn) Weights (Wn) Value (Vn) Value
(Vo)

68
 pH 8.5 0.052631679 7.1 7 0.1 6.7 0.4
DO 5 0.210526316 7 14 0.8 77.8 16.4
TDS 500 0.105263158 102 0 0.2 20.4 2.1
Chloride 250 0.052631679 22 0 0.1 8.8 0.5
Sulphate 200 0.105263158 1 0 0.0 0.5 0.1
Nitrate 45 0.105263158 0.989 0 0.0 2.2 0.2
BOD 5 0.157894737 2 0 0.4 40.0 6.3
Total
500 0.210526316 350 0 0.7 70.0 14.7
Coliform
WQI 40.67228
MARCH
Parameters Desirable Factor Estimated Ideal Vn/Sn Vn/Sn × WnQn
100 = Qn
Limit (Sn) Weights (Wn) Value (Vn) Value
(Vo)
pH 8.5 0.052631679 7.4 7 0.3 26.7 1.4
DO 5 0.210526316 6.7 14 0.8 81.1 17.1
TDS 500 0.105263158 106 0 0.2 21.2 2.2
Chloride 250 0.052631679 20 0 0.1 8.0 0.4
Sulphate 200 0.105263158 1 0 0.0 0.5 0.1
Nitrate 45 0.105263158 0.72 0 0.0 1.6 0.2
BOD 5 0.157894737 2 0 0.4 40.0 6.3
Total
500 0.210526316 140 0 0.3 28.0 5.9
Coliform
WQI 33.56375
APRIL
Parameters Desirable Factor Estimated Ideal Vn/Sn Vn/Sn × WnQn
100 = Qn
Limit (Sn) Weights (Wn) Value (Vn) Value
(Vo)
pH 8.5 0.052631679 7.1 7 0.1 6.7 0.4
DO 5 0.210526316 7.1 14 0.8 76.7 16.1
TDS 500 0.105263158 110 0 0.2 22.0 2.3
Chloride 250 0.052631679 30 0 0.1 12.0 0.6
Sulphate 200 0.105263158 1 0 0.0 0.5 0.1
Nitrate 45 0.105263158 0.505 0 0.0 1.1 0.1
BOD 5 0.157894737 2 0 0.4 40.0 6.3
Total
500 0.210526316 220 0 0.4 44.0 9.3
Coliform

69
 WQI 35.18831
MAY

Parameters Desirable Factor Estimated Ideal Vn/Sn Vn/Sn × WnQn

100 = Qn
Limit (Sn) Weights (Wn) Value (Vn) Value
(Vo)
pH 8.5 0.052631679 7.3 7 0.2 20.0 1.1
DO 5 0.210526316 7.4 14 0.7 73.3 15.4
TDS 500 0.105263158 102 0 0.2 20.4 2.1
Chloride 250 0.052631679 12 0 0.0 4.8 0.3
Sulphate 200 0.105263158 1 0 0.0 0.5 0.1
Nitrate 45 0.105263158 0.909 0 0.0 2.0 0.2
BOD 5 0.157894737 1.8 0 0.4 36.0 5.7
Total
500 0.210526316 2 0 0.0 0.4 0.1
Coliform
WQI 24.92491

JUNE

Parameters Desirable Factor Estimated Ideal Vn/Sn Vn/Sn × WnQn

100 = Qn
Limit (Sn) Weights (Wn) Value (Vn) Value
(Vo)
pH 8.5 0.052631679 7.1 7 0.1 6.7 0.4
DO 5 0.210526316 7.4 14 0.7 73.3 15.4
TDS 500 0.105263158 102 0 0.2 20.4 2.1
Chloride 250 0.052631679 16 0 0.1 6.4 0.3
Sulphate 200 0.105263158 1 0 0.0 0.5 0.1
Nitrate 45 0.105263158 1.04 0 0.0 2.3 0.2
BOD 5 0.157894737 2 0 0.4 40.0 6.3
Total
500 0.210526316 2 0 0.0 0.4 0.1
Coliform
WQI 24.96959
JULY

Parameters Desirable Factor Estimated Ideal Vn/Sn Vn/Sn × WnQn

100 = Qn
Limit (Sn) Weights (Wn) Value (Vn) Value
(Vo)
pH 8.5 0.052631679 7 7 0.0 0.0 0.0
DO 5 0.210526316 7.4 14 0.7 73.3 15.4
TDS 500 0.105263158 108 0 0.2 21.6 2.3

70
 Chloride 250 0.052631679 18 0 0.1 7.2 0.4
Sulphate 200 0.105263158 1 0 0.0 0.5 0.1
Nitrate 45 0.105263158 0.959 0 0.0 2.1 0.2
BOD 5 0.157894737 2 0 0.4 40.0 6.3
Total
500 0.210526316 2 0 0.0 0.4 0.1
Coliform
WQI 24.76819
AUGUST
Parameters Desirable Factor Estimated Ideal Vn/Sn Vn/Sn × WnQn
100 = Qn
Limit (Sn) Weights (Wn) Value (Vn) Value
(Vo)
pH 8.5 0.052631679 7 7 0.0 0.0 0.0
DO 5 0.210526316 7.2 14 0.8 75.6 15.9
TDS 500 0.105263158 102 0 0.2 20.4 2.1
Chloride 250 0.052631679 12 0 0.0 4.8 0.3
Sulphate 200 0.105263158 1 0 0.0 0.5 0.1
Nitrate 45 0.105263158 0.787 0 0.0 1.7 0.2
BOD 5 0.157894737 2 0 0.4 40.0 6.3
Total
500 0.210526316 2 0 0.0 0.4 0.1
Coliform
WQI 24.94316
SEPTEMBER

Parameters Desirable Factor Estimated Ideal Vn/Sn Vn/Sn × WnQn

100 = Qn
Limit (Sn) Weights (Wn) Value (Vn) Value
(Vo)
pH 8.5 0.052631679 6.9 7 0.1 6.7 0.4
DO 5 0.210526316 7.3 14 0.7 74.4 15.7
TDS 500 0.105263158 102 0 0.2 20.4 2.1
Chloride 250 0.052631679 44 0 0.2 17.6 0.9
Sulphate 200 0.105263158 1 0 0.0 0.5 0.1
Nitrate 45 0.105263158 0.856 0 0.0 1.9 0.2
BOD 5 0.157894737 2 0 0.4 40.0 6.3
Total
500 0.210526316 1600 0 3.2 320.0 67.4
Coliform
WQI 93.03415
OCTOBER

71
Parameters Desirable Factor Estimated Ideal Vn/Sn Vn/Sn × WnQn
100 = Qn
Limit (Sn) Weights (Wn) Value (Vn) Value
(Vo)
pH 8.5 0.052631679 7.3 7 0.2 20.0 1.1
DO 5 0.210526316 7.5 14 0.7 72.2 15.2
TDS 500 0.105263158 104 0 0.2 20.8 2.2
Chloride 250 0.052631679 20 0 0.1 8.0 0.4
Sulphate 200 0.105263158 0.9 0 0.0 0.5 0.0
Nitrate 45 0.105263158 0.743 0 0.0 1.7 0.2
BOD 5 0.157894737 1.8 0 0.4 36.0 5.7
Total
500 0.210526316 1600 0 3.2 320.0 67.4
Coliform
WQI 92.14164
NOVEMBER

Parameters Desirable Factor Estimated Ideal Vn/Sn Vn/Sn × WnQn

100 = Qn
Limit (Sn) Weights (Wn) Value (Vn) Value
(Vo)
pH 8.5 0.052631679 7.2 7 0.1 13.3 0.7
DO 5 0.210526316 7.5 14 0.7 72.2 15.2
TDS 500 0.105263158 106 0 0.2 21.2 2.2
Chloride 250 0.052631679 20 0 0.1 8.0 0.4
Sulphate 200 0.105263158 1 0 0.0 0.5 0.1
Nitrate 45 0.105263158 0.843 0 0.0 1.9 0.2
BOD 5 0.157894737 2 0 0.4 40.0 6.3
Total
500 0.210526316 1600 0 3.2 320.0 67.4
Coliform
WQI 92.4931
DECEMBER

Parameters Desirable Factor Estimated Ideal Vn/Sn Vn/Sn × WnQn

100 = Qn
Limit (Sn) Weights (Wn) Value (Vn) Value
(Vo)
pH 8.5 0.052631679 6.7 7 0.2 20.0 1.1
DO 5 0.210526316 6.9 14 0.8 78.9 16.6
TDS 500 0.105263158 102 0 0.2 20.4 2.1
Chloride 250 0.052631679 20 0 0.1 8.0 0.4
Sulphate 200 0.105263158 1.2 0 0.0 0.6 0.1
Nitrate 45 0.105263158 1.26 0 0.0 2.8 0.3

72
 BOD 5 0.157894737 2 0 0.4 40.0 6.3
Total
500 0.210526316 240 0 0.5 48.0 10.1
Coliform
WQI 37.00819
UPPINANGADY
JANUARY
Parameters Desirable Factor Estimated Ideal Vn/Sn Vn/Sn × WnQn
100 = Qn
Limit (Sn) Weights (Wn) Value (Vn) Value
(Vo)
pH 8.5 0.052631679 7.3 7 0.2 20.0 1.1
DO 5 0.210526316 6.9 14 0.8 78.9 16.6
TDS 500 0.105263158 106 0 0.2 21.2 2.2
Chloride 250 0.052631679 26 0 0.1 10.4 0.5
Sulphate 200 0.105263158 1 0 0.0 0.5 0.1
Nitrate 45 0.105263158 1.02 0 0.0 2.3 0.2
BOD 5 0.157894737 2 0 0.4 40.0 6.3
Total
500 0.210526316 350 0 0.7 70.0 14.7
Coliform
WQI 41.78363
FEBRUARY
Parameters Desirable Factor Estimated Ideal Vn/Sn Vn/Sn × WnQn
100 = Qn
Limit (Sn) Weights (Wn) Value (Vn) Value
(Vo)
pH 8.5 0.052631679 7.1 7 0.1 6.7 0.4
DO 5 0.210526316 7 14 0.8 77.8 16.4
TDS 500 0.105263158 104 0 0.2 20.8 2.2
Chloride 250 0.052631679 20 0 0.1 8.0 0.4
Sulphate 200 0.105263158 1 0 0.0 0.5 0.1
Nitrate 45 0.105263158 1.04 0 0.0 2.3 0.2
BOD 5 0.157894737 2 0 0.4 40.0 6.3
Total
500 0.210526316 500 0 1.0 100.0 21.1
Coliform
WQI 47
MARCH
Parameters Desirable Factor Estimated Ideal Vn/Sn Vn/Sn × WnQn
100 = Qn
Limit (Sn) Weights (Wn) Value (Vn) Value
(Vo)

73
 pH 8.5 0.052631679 7.3 7 0.2 20.0 1.1
DO 5 0.210526316 6.8 14 0.8 80.0 16.8
TDS 500 0.105263158 106 0 0.2 21.2 2.2
Chloride 250 0.052631679 22 0 0.1 8.8 0.5
Sulphate 200 0.105263158 1 0 0.0 0.5 0.1
Nitrate 45 0.105263158 0.982 0 0.0 2.2 0.2
BOD 5 0.157894737 2 0 0.4 40.0 6.3
Total
500 0.210526316 240 0 0.5 48.0 10.1
Coliform
WQI 37.29287
APRIL
Parameters Desirable Factor Estimated Ideal Vn/Sn Vn/Sn × WnQn
100 = Qn
Limit (Sn) Weights (Wn) Value (Vn) Value
(Vo)
pH 8.5 0.052631679 7.2 7 0.1 13.3 0.7
DO 5 0.210526316 7.1 14 0.8 76.7 16.1
TDS 500 0.105263158 104 0 0.2 20.8 2.2
Chloride 250 0.052631679 28 0 0.1 11.2 0.6
Sulphate 200 0.105263158 1 0 0.0 0.5 0.1
Nitrate 45 0.105263158 0.471 0 0.0 1.0 0.1
BOD 5 0.157894737 2 0 0.4 40.0 6.3
Total
500 0.210526316 500 0 1.0 100.0 21.1
Coliform
WQI 47.15228
MAY

Parameters Desirable Factor Estimated Ideal Vn/Sn Vn/Sn × WnQn

100 = Qn
Limit (Sn) Weights (Wn) Value (Vn) Value
(Vo)
pH 8.5 0.052631679 7 7 0.0 0.0 0.0
DO 5 0.210526316 5.9 14 0.9 90.0 18.9
TDS 500 0.105263158 108 0 0.2 21.6 2.3
Chloride 250 0.052631679 24 0 0.1 9.6 0.5
Sulphate 200 0.105263158 1 0 0.0 0.5 0.1
Nitrate 45 0.105263158 0.562 0 0.0 1.2 0.1
BOD 5 0.157894737 2 0 0.4 40.0 6.3
Total
500 0.210526316 2 0 0.0 0.4 0.1
Coliform

74
 WQI 28.31041
JUNE

Parameters Desirable Factor Estimated Ideal Vn/Sn Vn/Sn × WnQn

100 = Qn
Limit (Sn) Weights (Wn) Value (Vn) Value
(Vo)
pH 8.5 0.052631679 7.4 7 0.3 26.7 1.4
DO 5 0.210526316 7.2 14 0.8 75.6 15.9
TDS 500 0.105263158 102 0 0.2 20.4 2.1
Chloride 250 0.052631679 12 0 0.0 4.8 0.3
Sulphate 200 0.105263158 1 0 0.0 0.5 0.1
Nitrate 45 0.105263158 0.505 0 0.0 1.1 0.1
BOD 5 0.157894737 1.5 0 0.3 30.0 4.7
Total
500 0.210526316 2 0 0.0 0.4 0.1
Coliform
WQI 24.70176
JULY

Parameters Desirable Factor Estimated Ideal Vn/Sn Vn/Sn × WnQn

100 = Qn
Limit (Sn) Weights (Wn) Value (Vn) Value
(Vo)
pH 8.5 0.052631679 7 7 0.0 0.0 0.0
DO 5 0.210526316 5.9 14 0.9 90.0 18.9
TDS 500 0.105263158 106 0 0.2 21.2 2.2
Chloride 250 0.052631679 12 0 0.0 4.8 0.3
Sulphate 200 0.105263158 1 0 0.0 0.5 0.1
Nitrate 45 0.105263158 0.955 0 0.0 2.1 0.2
BOD 5 0.157894737 2 0 0.4 40.0 6.3
Total
500 0.210526316 2 0 0.0 0.4 0.1
Coliform
WQI 28.1076
AUGUST
Parameters Desirable Factor Estimated Ideal Vn/Sn Vn/Sn × WnQn
100 = Qn
Limit (Sn) Weights (Wn) Value (Vn) Value
(Vo)
pH 8.5 0.052631679 6.9 7 0.1 6.7 0.4
DO 5 0.210526316 6.9 14 0.8 78.9 16.6
TDS 500 0.105263158 104 0 0.2 20.8 2.2

75
 Chloride 250 0.052631679 18 0 0.1 7.2 0.4
Sulphate 200 0.105263158 1 0 0.0 0.5 0.1
Nitrate 45 0.105263158 0.921 0 0.0 2.0 0.2
BOD 5 0.157894737 3 0 0.6 60.0 9.5
Total
500 0.210526316 2 0 0.0 0.4 0.1
Coliform
WQI 29.35345
SEPTEMBER

Parameters Desirable Factor Estimated Ideal Vn/Sn Vn/Sn × WnQn

100 = Qn
Limit (Sn) Weights (Wn) Value (Vn) Value
(Vo)
pH 8.5 0.052631679 7 7 0.0 0.0 0.0
DO 5 0.210526316 7.1 14 0.8 76.7 16.1
TDS 500 0.105263158 110 0 0.2 22.0 2.3
Chloride 250 0.052631679 20 0 0.1 8.0 0.4
Sulphate 200 0.105263158 1 0 0.0 0.5 0.1
Nitrate 45 0.105263158 1.06 0 0.0 2.4 0.2
BOD 5 0.157894737 2 0 0.4 40.0 6.3
Total
500 0.210526316 350 0 0.7 70.0 14.7
Coliform
WQI 40.23041
OCTOBER

Parameters Desirable Factor Estimated Ideal Vn/Sn Vn/Sn × WnQn

100 = Qn
Limit (Sn) Weights (Wn) Value (Vn) Value
(Vo)
pH 8.5 0.052631679 6.9 7 0.1 6.7 0.4
DO 5 0.210526316 7.5 14 0.7 72.2 15.2
TDS 500 0.105263158 102 0 0.2 20.4 2.1
Chloride 250 0.052631679 18 0 0.1 7.2 0.4
Sulphate 200 0.105263158 0.8 0 0.0 0.4 0.0
Nitrate 45 0.105263158 0.827 0 0.0 1.8 0.2
BOD 5 0.157894737 3 0 0.6 60.0 9.5
Total
500 0.210526316 1600 0 3.2 320.0 67.4
Coliform
WQI 95.15953
NOVEMBER

76
Parameters Desirable Factor Estimated Ideal Vn/Sn Vn/Sn × WnQn
100 = Qn
Limit (Sn) Weights (Wn) Value (Vn) Value
(Vo)
pH 8.5 0.052631679 7.3 7 0.2 20.0 1.1
DO 5 0.210526316 7 14 0.8 77.8 16.4
TDS 500 0.105263158 102 0 0.2 20.4 2.1
Chloride 250 0.052631679 28 0 0.1 11.2 0.6
Sulphate 200 0.105263158 3 0 0.0 1.5 0.2
Nitrate 45 0.105263158 0.898 0 0.0 2.0 0.2
BOD 5 0.157894737 2 0 0.4 40.0 6.3
Total
500 0.210526316 1600 0 3.2 320.0 67.4
Coliform
WQI 94.21591
DECEMBER

Parameters Desirable Factor Estimated Ideal Vn/Sn Vn/Sn × WnQn

100 = Qn
Limit (Sn) Weights (Wn) Value (Vn) Value
(Vo)
pH 8.5 0.052631679 6.9 7 0.1 6.7 0.4
DO 5 0.210526316 6.7 14 0.8 81.1 17.1
TDS 500 0.105263158 104 0 0.2 20.8 2.2
Chloride 250 0.052631679 26 0 0.1 10.4 0.5
Sulphate 200 0.105263158 0.6 0 0.0 0.3 0.0
Nitrate 45 0.105263158 1.38 0 0.0 3.1 0.3
BOD 5 0.157894737 3 0 0.6 60.0 9.5
Total
500 0.210526316 1600 0 3.2 320.0 67.4
Coliform
WQI 97.36024
THUMBE
JANUARY
Parameters Desirable Factor Estimated Ideal Vn/Sn Vn/Sn × WnQn
100 = Qn
Limit (Sn) Weights (Wn) Value (Vn) Value
(Vo)
pH 8.5 0.052631679 7.2 7 0.1 13.3 0.7
DO 5 0.210526316 6.7 14 0.8 81.1 17.1
TDS 500 0.105263158 112 0 0.2 22.4 2.4
Chloride 250 0.052631679 22 0 0.1 8.8 0.5
Sulphate 200 0.105263158 1 0 0.0 0.5 0.1

77
 Nitrate 45 0.105263158 1.04 0 0.0 2.3 0.2
BOD 5 0.157894737 2 0 0.4 40.0 6.3
Total
500 0.210526316 1600 0 3.2 320.0 67.4
Coliform
WQI 94.57895
FEBRUARY
Parameters Desirable Factor Estimated Ideal Vn/Sn Vn/Sn × WnQn
100 = Qn
Limit (Sn) Weights (Wn) Value (Vn) Value
(Vo)
pH 8.5 0.052631679 7.1 7 0.1 6.7 0.4
DO 5 0.210526316 6.9 14 0.8 78.9 16.6
TDS 500 0.105263158 102 0 0.2 20.4 2.1
Chloride 250 0.052631679 18 0 0.1 7.2 0.4
Sulphate 200 0.105263158 1 0 0.0 0.5 0.1
Nitrate 45 0.105263158 0.895 0 0.0 2.0 0.2
BOD 5 0.157894737 2 0 0.4 40.0 6.3
Total
500 0.210526316 300 0 0.6 60.0 12.6
Coliform
WQI 38.69474
MARCH
Parameters Desirable Factor Estimated Ideal Vn/Sn Vn/Sn × WnQn
100 = Qn
Limit (Sn) Weights (Wn) Value (Vn) Value
(Vo)
pH 8.5 0.052631679 7.2 7 0.1 13.3 0.7
DO 5 0.210526316 6.4 14 0.8 84.4 17.8
TDS 500 0.105263158 104 0 0.2 20.8 2.2
Chloride 250 0.052631679 22 0 0.1 8.8 0.5
Sulphate 200 0.105263158 1 0 0.0 0.5 0.1
Nitrate 45 0.105263158 0.877 0 0.0 1.9 0.2
BOD 5 0.157894737 2 0 0.4 40.0 6.3
Total
500 0.210526316 300 0 0.6 60.0 12.6
Coliform
WQI 40.3373
APRIL
Parameters Desirable Factor Estimated Ideal Vn/Sn Vn/Sn × WnQn
100 = Qn
Limit (Sn) Weights (Wn) Value (Vn) Value
(Vo)

78
 pH 8.5 0.052631679 7.3 7 0.2 20.0 1.1
DO 5 0.210526316 6.9 14 0.8 78.9 16.6
TDS 500 0.105263158 110 0 0.2 22.0 2.3
Chloride 250 0.052631679 22 0 0.1 8.8 0.5
Sulphate 200 0.105263158 1 0 0.0 0.5 0.1
Nitrate 45 0.105263158 0.619 0 0.0 1.4 0.1
BOD 5 0.157894737 2 0 0.4 40.0 6.3
Total
500 0.210526316 350 0 0.7 70.0 14.7
Coliform
WQI 41.68983

MAY

Parameters Desirable Factor Estimated Ideal Vn/Sn Vn/Sn × WnQn

100 = Qn
Limit (Sn) Weights (Wn) Value (Vn) Value
(Vo)
pH 8.5 0.052631679 6.9 7 0.1 6.7 0.4
DO 5 0.210526316 7.2 14 0.8 75.6 15.9
TDS 500 0.105263158 102 0 0.2 20.4 2.1
Chloride 250 0.052631679 18 0 0.1 7.2 0.4
Sulphate 200 0.105263158 1 0 0.0 0.5 0.1
Nitrate 45 0.105263158 0.995 0 0.0 2.2 0.2
BOD 5 0.157894737 1.8 0 0.4 36.0 5.7
Total
500 0.210526316 2 0 0.0 0.4 0.1
Coliform
WQI 24.83743
JUNE

Parameters Desirable Factor Estimated Ideal Vn/Sn Vn/Sn × WnQn

100 = Qn
Limit (Sn) Weights (Wn) Value (Vn) Value
(Vo)
pH 8.5 0.052631679 7.1 7 0.1 6.7 0.4
DO 5 0.210526316 7.2 14 0.8 75.6 15.9
TDS 500 0.105263158 108 0 0.2 21.6 2.3
Chloride 250 0.052631679 20 0 0.1 8.0 0.4
Sulphate 200 0.105263158 1 0 0.0 0.5 0.1
Nitrate 45 0.105263158 1.06 0 0.0 2.4 0.2
BOD 5 0.157894737 2 0 0.4 40.0 6.3

79
 Total
500 0.210526316 2 0 0.0 0.4 0.1
Coliform
WQI 25.65263
JULY

Parameters Desirable Factor Estimated Ideal Vn/Sn Vn/Sn × WnQn

100 = Qn
Limit (Sn) Weights (Wn) Value (Vn) Value
(Vo)
pH 8.5 0.052631679 7.1 7 0.1 6.7 0.4
DO 5 0.210526316 7.4 14 0.7 73.3 15.4
TDS 500 0.105263158 104 0 0.2 20.8 2.2
Chloride 250 0.052631679 16 0 0.1 6.4 0.3
Sulphate 200 0.105263158 1 0 0.0 0.5 0.1
Nitrate 45 0.105263158 0.979 0 0.0 2.2 0.2
BOD 5 0.157894737 2 0 0.4 40.0 6.3
Total
500 0.210526316 2 0 0.0 0.4 0.1
Coliform
WQI 24.99743
AUGUST
Parameters Desirable Factor Estimated Ideal Vn/Sn Vn/Sn × WnQn
100 = Qn
Limit (Sn) Weights (Wn) Value (Vn) Value
(Vo)
pH 8.5 0.052631679 7 7 0.0 0.0 0.0
DO 5 0.210526316 7.3 14 0.7 74.4 15.7
TDS 500 0.105263158 102 0 0.2 20.4 2.1
Chloride 250 0.052631679 22 0 0.1 8.8 0.5
Sulphate 200 0.105263158 1 0 0.0 0.5 0.1
Nitrate 45 0.105263158 0.79 0 0.0 1.8 0.2
BOD 5 0.157894737 2 0 0.4 40.0 6.3
Total
500 0.210526316 2 0.0 0.4 0.1
Coliform
WQI 24.92047
SEPTEMBER

Parameters Desirable Factor Estimated Ideal Vn/Sn Vn/Sn × WnQn

100 = Qn
Limit (Sn) Weights (Wn) Value (Vn) Value
(Vo)
pH 8.5 0.052631679 6.9 7 0.1 6.7 0.4
DO 5 0.210526316 7.2 14 0.8 75.6 15.9

80
 TDS 500 0.105263158 106 0 0.2 21.2 2.2
Chloride 250 0.052631679 18 0 0.1 7.2 0.4
Sulphate 200 0.105263158 1 0 0.0 0.5 0.1
Nitrate 45 0.105263158 0.74 0 0.0 1.6 0.2
BOD 5 0.157894737 2 0 0.4 40.0 6.3
Total
500 0.210526316 1600 0 3.2 320.0 67.4
Coliform
WQI 92.77778
OCTOBER

Parameters Desirable Factor Estimated Ideal Vn/Sn Vn/Sn × WnQn

100 = Qn
Limit (Sn) Weights (Wn) Value (Vn) Value
(Vo)
pH 8.5 0.052631679 6.9 7 0.1 6.7 0.4
DO 5 0.210526316 7.4 14 0.7 73.3 15.4
TDS 500 0.105263158 102 0 0.2 20.4 2.1
Chloride 250 0.052631679 16 0 0.1 6.4 0.3
Sulphate 200 0.105263158 0.5 0 0.0 0.3 0.0
Nitrate 45 0.105263158 0.622 0 0.0 1.4 0.1
BOD 5 0.157894737 1.5 0 0.3 30.0 4.7
Total
500 0.210526316 1600 0 3.2 320.0 67.4
Coliform
WQI 90.55076
NOVEMBER

Parameters Desirable Factor Estimated Ideal Vn/Sn Vn/Sn × WnQn

100 = Qn
Limit (Sn) Weights (Wn) Value (Vn) Value
(Vo)
pH 8.5 0.052631679 7.1 7 0.1 6.7 0.4
DO 5 0.210526316 7.6 14 0.7 71.1 15.0
TDS 500 0.105263158 110 0 0.2 22.0 2.3
Chloride 250 0.052631679 26 0 0.1 10.4 0.5
Sulphate 200 0.105263158 2 0 0.0 1.0 0.1
Nitrate 45 0.105263158 0.714 0 0.0 1.6 0.2
BOD 5 0.157894737 2 0 0.4 40.0 6.3
Total
500 0.210526316 1600 0 3.2 320.0 67.4
Coliform
WQI 92.14129

81
 DECEMBER

Parameters Desirable Factor Estimated Ideal Vn/Sn Vn/Sn × WnQn

100 = Qn
Limit (Sn) Weights (Wn) Value (Vn) Value
(Vo)
pH 8.5 0.052631679 6.7 7 0.2 20.0 1.1
DO 5 0.210526316 7 14 0.8 77.8 16.4
TDS 500 0.105263158 104 0 0.2 20.8 2.2
Chloride 250 0.052631679 20 0 0.1 8.0 0.4
Sulphate 200 0.105263158 0.7 0 0.0 0.4 0.0
Nitrate 45 0.105263158 1.17 0 0.0 2.6 0.3
BOD 5 0.157894737 2 0 0.4 40.0 6.3
Total
500 0.210526316 1600 0 3.2 320.0 67.4
Coliform
WQI 94.03217

82