GWQ Ms Thesis

The Islamic University-Gaza.
Faculty of Science
Master's Degree Program
Environmental science
Assessment of groundwater quality

using multivariate and spatial analyses
in Gaza governorate-Palestine
Submitted by:
Khalid Salah Elamassi (2009/986)
Supervised by:
Dr. Alaeddinne D. Eljmassi
In partial fulfillment of the requirement for degree of Master of Science

in Environmental science/Environment management and monitoring
June-2012
‫ﺑﺳﻢ ﷲ اﻠﺮﺣﻣﻦ اﻠﺮﺣﻴﻢ‬
‫إﻘ ٔﺮا ﺑﺎﺴﻢ رﺑﻚ اﻠﺬي ﺧﻟﻖ‬

‫ﺧﻟﻖ اﻹﻧﺳﺎن ﻤﻦ ﻋﻟﻖ‬
‫ٔ‬
‫إﻘ ٔﺮا ورﺑﻚ اﻻ ﻜﺮم‬
‫اﻠﺬي ﻋﻟﻢ ﺑﺎﻠﻗﻟﻢ‬
‫ﻋﻟﻢ اﻹﻧﺳﺎن ﻤﺎﻠﻢ ﻳﻌﻟﻢ‬
‫ﺻﺪق ﷲ اﻠﻌﻈﻴﻢ‬
Assessment of groundwater quality using multivariate and spatial analyses in Gaza governorate-Palestine
ABSTRACT
Gaza strip suffer from the deteriorating of ground water in both quality and quantity,
Groundwater is one of the most precious natural resources in the Gaza Strip as it is the only
source of drinking water for the majority of the population, Nowadays There is a water crisis in
the Strip. Groundwater contamination has become a major concern in the recent years. This
study conducts a holistic assessment of the quality of groundwater resource in Gaza by using
multivariate and spatial techniques. The assessment begins by Using R mode Factor analysis in
order to extract factors and Cluster analysis to detect spatial similarity among sampling sites.
Last GIS techniques is used to conduct water quality index (WQI).WQI classifying groundwater
in a manner that can be comprehensive, clearly communicated and in an easily understood
format.
The R mode factor analysis revealed three dominant factors affect the hydrochemistry of water;
the biggest factor with 64 % of variance is due to seawater intrusion. The cluster analysis
distinguishes three main spatial clusters but the three clusters have values exceeded the
guidelines of World Health organization (WHO) in different levels for each cluster.
The value of Ground Water Quality Index is between 43 % and 63 %, this indicates that the
overall quality of the water in the study area is extremely low. The narrow range of the indicator
shows that the quality in the area is close to each other.
One of the important recommendations of the study is to use GIS tools and its applications in
producing maps to communicate our tragic water situation in the governorate for the world. Also
Water quality indexes should be used in automated or manual way in order to understand the
overall water quality.
Abstract Page i
‫‪Assessment of groundwater quality using multivariate and spatial analyses in Gaza governorate-Palestine‬‬
‫ﻣﻠﺨﺺ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ‬
‫ﻳﻌﺎﻧﻲ ﻗﻄﺎﻉ ﻏﺰﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺪﻫﻮﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﺠﻮﻓﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺍﻟﺠﻮﺩﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻤﻴﺔ ‪،‬ﺍﻟﻤﻴﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﺠﻮﻓﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﻄﺎﻉ ﻫﻲ‬
‫ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻏﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﺎﺩﺭ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻴﺔ ﻷﻧﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ ﻟﻤﻴﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﺏ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﻄﺎﻉ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻐﺎﻟﺒﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻜﺎﻥ‪.‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﺿﺮ ﻫﻨﺎﻟﻚ ﺃﺯﻣﺔ ﻣﻴﺎﻩ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﻄﺎﻉ‪ ،‬ﺗﻠﻮﺙ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﺠﻮﻓﻴﺔ ﺃﺻﺒﺢ ﻣﺼﺪﺭ ﻗﻠﻖ ﻛﺒﻴﺮ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻨﻮﺍﺕ ﺍﻷﺧﻴﺮﺓ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻋﻤﻠﺖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﺟﺮﺍء ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺷﺎﻣﻞ ﻟﺠﻮﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﺠﻮﻓﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻗﻄﺎﻉ ﻏﺰﺓ ﻭﺫﻟﻚ‬
‫ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﻣﺘﻌﺪﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺮﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﻜﺎﻧﻲ‪.‬ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﻳﺒﺪﺃ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﻠﻲ ﻻﺳﺘﺨﺮﺍﺝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺛﻢ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﻘﻮﺩﻱ ﻟﻠﻜﺸﻒ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﺎﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﻤﻜﺎﻧﻲ ﻟﻤﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﺍﻻﺑﺎﺭ ﻭﺍﺧﻴﺮﺍ ﺗﻢ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ‬
‫ﺗﻘﻨﻴﺎﺕ ﻧﻈﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺠﻐﺮﺍﻓﻴﺔ ﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻣﺆﺷﺮ ﻟﺠﻮﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﺠﻮﻓﻴﺔ ﻳﻌﻤﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺼﻨﻴﻒ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﺠﻮﻓﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺷﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﻭﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻭﺍﺿﺢ ﻭﻳﺴﻬﻞ ﻓﻬﻤﻪ‪.‬‬
‫‪ % 64‬ﻳﺮﺟﻊ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﻠﻲ ﻛﺸﻒ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﻣﻬﻴﻤﻨﺔ ﺗﺆﺛﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﻮﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﺎﻩ ﻭﺃﻛﺒﺮ ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﻭﺑﻨﺴﺒﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻰ ﺗﺴﺮﺏ ﻣﻴﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺮ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺧﺰﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﺠﻮﻓﻴﺔ‪،‬ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﻘﻮﺩﻱ ﻣﻴﺰ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺛﻼﺙ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﻟﻼﺑﺎﺭ‬
‫‪،‬ﻛﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﻟﺪﻳﻬﺎ ﻗﻴﻢ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺠﻮﺩﺓ ﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﻢ ﺍﻻﺭﺷﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﺤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻤﻴﺔ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ‬
‫ﺑﻤﺴﺘﻮﻳﺎﺕ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﺗﺒﻌﺎ ﻟﻜﻞ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ‪.‬‬
‫‪ % 43‬ﻭ ‪ %63‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﺪﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺟﻮﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﺎﻩ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻧﺤﺼﺮﺕ ﻗﻴﻤﺔ ﻣﺆﺷﺮ ﺟﻮﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﺎﻩ ﺑﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻣﻨﺨﻀﺔ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻛﺒﻴﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻄﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻀﻴﻖ ﻟﻠﻤﺆﺷﺮ ﻳﺪﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻻ ﺧﻼﻑ ﺟﻮﻫﺮﻱ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺃﻫﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺻﻴﺎﺕ ﻟﻬﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻫﻮ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺃﺩﻭﺍﺕ ﻭﺗﻄﺒﻴﻘﺎﺕ ﻧﻈﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺠﻐﺮﺍﻓﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺍﻋﺪﺍﺩ‬
‫ﺧﺮﺍﺋﻂ ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺤﻴﺔ ﻻﻳﺼﺎﻝ ﻭﻣﺨﺎﻁﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ ﺣﻮﻝ ﻭﺿﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺪﻫﻮﺭ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻭﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﻳﺠﺐ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﻣﺆﺷﺮﺍﺕ ﺟﻮﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﺎﻩ ﺳﻮﺍء ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻳﺪﻭﻳﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺗﻠﻘﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﻓﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﺠﻮﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻴﺎﻩ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﻠﺨﺺ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ‬ ‫‪Page ii‬‬

DEDICATIONS
To My FATHER AND MOTHER FOR ENCOURAGMENT
AND SUPPORT
TO MY WIFE AND MY YONGEST SISTER FOR SUPPORT
TO MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS
TO MY FRIENDS AND COLLEAGUES
Dedications Page iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisors Dr. Alaeddinne Eljmassi for his
guidance and endless support throughout this study, for his encouraging, valuable feedback,
experiences and insight that have greatly influenced and accelerated this study.
I would like to extend my great appreciations to all Environment management and

monitoring master program lectures and supporting staff in the Islamic University.
I would like to acknowledgment Dr.Zeyad Abuheen for his encouragement and support.
I would like to acknowledgment Dr.Fahid Rabah for his encouragement and support during
study.
My deep thank to the Palestinian water authority , Coastal municipalities water utility and
Municipality of Gaza for their help and valuable data.
I would like to acknowledgment the following for their help during study :
 Dr.Samir Safi.
 Eng.Ahmed Elyaqoopy .
 Eng.Jamal Elddh.
 Eng.Ayman abuu shaban .
 Eng.Rabia Elkharooby.
 Eng.Ashraf Mushtha .
I would like to thank all those who have helped, encouraged and supported me to complete
this study.
Acknowledgments Page iv
Table of Contents
Page
ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………... i
‫………………………………………………………………………ﻣﻠﺨﺺ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ‬ ii
DEDICATIONS……………………………………………………………….... iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT……………………………………………………….. iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………...……………………….. v
LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………… ix
LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………….. x
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS………………………………………………….. xii
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION………………………………………………. 1
1.1 General background…………………………………...………………. 1
1.2 Problem statement…………………………...………………………… 1
1.3 Justification of research…………………………...…………………... 2
1.4 Aim of study……………………………………...…………………… 2
1.5 Objectives of the study………………………………………………. 2
1.6 Limitations of study…………………………………………………. 2
1.7 Study Methodology…………………………………………………….. 3
1.7.1 Research Steps…………………………………………… 3
1.7.2 Software tools……………………………………………. 4
1.8 Outline of research…………………………………………………... 4
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW……..………………………………. 6
2.1 Water Quality................................................................................................ 6
2.1.1 Water Quality Definition....................................................................... 6
2.1.2 Factors Affected Water Quality............................................................. 6
2.1.3 Concept of Ground Water Quality......................................................... 7
2.1.4 Safe Drinking water............................................................................... 7
2.2 Water Quality Standards/Guidelines............................................................ 8
Table of Contents Page v

2.2.1 The Guidelines for drinking-water quality............................................ 8

2.2.2 The Standard for drinking-water quality............................................... 8
2.2.3 WHO Guidelines.................................................................................... 8
2.2.4 WHO divided drinking water guidelines .............................................. 8
2.2.5 Palestinian Quality standards for drinking water in Palestine............... 10
2.3 Multivariate Methods in Water Quality Analysis........................................ 10
2.3.1 The role Multivariate Methods in Analysis of Water Quality Data...... 10
2.3.2 Multivariate Techniques........................................................................ 10
2.3.3 Factor Analysis...................................................................................... 11
2.3.4 Cluster Analysis..................................................................................... 11
2.4 Water Quality Index...................................................................................... 12
2.4.1 Introduction............................................................................................ 12
2.4.2 Water Quality Index Definition............................................................. 13
2.4.3 Water Quality Index Uses and Needs.................................................... 13
2.4.4 Water Quality Index advantages and disadvantages.............................. 14
2.4.5 How to Develop Physiochemical Water Quality Index in general........ 16
2.4.6 Biotic Indices......................................................................................... 16
2.4.7 Robust index.......................................................................................... 17
2.5 Previous Studies............................................................................................ 17
2.5.1 For using multivariate analysis in water quality analysis...................... 17
2.5.2 For using water quality index................................................................ 21
2.6 Geographic Information system (GIS)......................................................... 24
2.6.1 Introduction............................................................................................ 24
2.6.2 GIS Definitions...................................................................................... 24
2.6.3 GIS layers.............................................................................................. 25
2.6.4 GIS Data................................................................................................ 25
2.6.5 Modeling in GIS.................................................................................... 26
2.7 Parameters used............................................................................................ 27
Table of Contents Page vi

CHAPTER 3: Description of Study Area........................................................... 30

3.1 Location…………………………………………………………………… 30
3.1.1 Gaza Governorate…………………………………………………….. 30
3.1.2 Gaza Strip…………………………………………………………….. 30
3.2 Gaza coastal Aquifer………………………………………………………. 31
3.3 Topography………………………………………………………………... 32
3.4 Climate…………………………………………………………………….. 33
3.5 Rainfall…………………………………………………………………….. 34
3.6 Population…………………………………………………………………. 34
3.7 Water Demand and consumption in Gaza………………………………… 35
3.7.1 Consumption per person……………………………………………… 35
3.7.2 Water deficit in Gaza Strip…………………………………………… 35
3.7.3 Water Current Situation in Gaza……………………………………… 36
3.7.4 The Contamination of the groundwater………………………………. 36
3.7.5 Water Contamination effects…………………………………………. 37
3.8 Domestic wells in Gaza Governorate……………………………………... 37
CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY……………………………...……………... 39
4.1 Data Collection and processing………………………...………………… 39
4.2 Check of Normality……………………………………………………….. 39
4.3 Standardization of Data…………………………………………………… 41
4.4 R mode Factor Analysis……………………………………...……………. 41
4.5 Cluster Analysis…………………………………………………………… 42
4.5.1 Dendrogram Presentation………………………….…………………. 42
4.6 Schoeller diagram………………………………...………………………. 43
4.7 Stiff diagrams……………………...…………………….………………… 43
4.8 Developing Water Quality Index…………………………….……………. 44
4.8.1 The Primary Map……………………..………………………………. 44
4.8.2 Transforming the Data in into Universal norm……..………………… 45
4.8.3 The Rank Map………………………………………………………... 47
4.8.4 The Water Quality Index…………………………………..…………. 47
4.9 Computing WQI using water importance weight……………………….… 48
Table of Contents Page vii

4.10 The Sensitivity Analysis………...……………………………………….. 48

4.11 Software Used……………………………………………………………. 49
4.11.1 ArcMap……………………………………...………………………. 49
4.11.2 SPSS………………….………………………….………………….. 50
4.11.3 Rockware Aq.QA……………………………………….…………… 51
CHAPTER 5: Results and Discussions……………..…………………………. 53
5.1 Results of Factor Analysis………………………………………………… 53
5.1.1 Pretest Iteration 1……………………………………………………... 53
5.1.2 Pretest Iteration 2 (after variable removal)…………………………… 54
5.1.3 Factors extraction……………………………………………………... 55
5.2 Results of Cluster analysis………………………………………………… 57
5.2.1 Dendrogram…………………………………………………………... 57
5.2.2 The average concentration for the three clusters……………………... 59
5.2.3 Schoeller Diagram for the three clusters……………………………… 59
5.2.4 Stiff Diagram………………………………………………………… 60
5.3 Results of water Quality Index……………………………………………. 62
5.3.1 Interpolation maps of the used parameters…………………………… 62
5.3.2 The rank value for each parameter…………………………………… 64
5.3.3 Groundwater Quality Index………………………………………….. 65
5.4 Water quality index using water quality importance weight……………… 67
5.5 Results of sensitivity analysis……………………………………………... 68
CHAPTER 6 : Conclusion and Recommendations……………..…................. 70
6.1 Conclusions………………………………………………………………... 70
6.2 Recommendations…………………………………………………………. 72
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………….......... 74
APPENDIXES………………………………………………………………....... 85
Table of Contents Page viii

List of Tables
Table (3.1) Population Estimates for Gaza Governorate (2011-2016)…………………..………35
Table (4.1) WHO Guidelines for drinking water……………………………………...…………46
Table (4.2) importance weight for water quality parameters……………………………………48
Table (5.1) kmo and bartlett test………………………………………………………………....53
Table (5.2) Communalities………………………………………………………………………54
Table (5.3) kmo and bartlett test iteration 2……………………………………………………...54
Table (5.4) Communalities Iteration 2…………………………………………………………...55
Table (5.5) Total variance explained…………………………………………………………….56
Table (5.6) component matrix …...................................................................................................57
Table (5.7) The average concentration for each cluster…………………………………………59
Table (5.8) Summary of statistics of the rank maps……………………………………………64
Table (5.9) Statistics of Variation Index (%)………………………………………...………….68
List of Tables Page ix

List of Figures
Figure (2.1) GIS is a collection of software, hardware, data, and people..............................…...25
Figure (2.2) Map layers address multiple themes………………………….……….……………26
Figure (3.1) Gaza Governorate as part of Gaza strip.....................................................................31
Figure (3.2) Coastal Aquifer…………………………………………………………………….32
Figure (3.3) Topography of Gaza………………………………………………………………..33
Figure (3.4) Summary of data for Gaza city precipitation station …….………………………...34
Figure (3.5) Location of wells used in research………………..………………………………...38
Figure (4.1) Flow Chart of methodology used in this research………………………………….40
Figure (4.2) Factor analysis using SPSS application…………………………………………….42
Figure (4.3) Cluster analysis using SPSS application……………………………………………43
Figure (4.4) Kriging interpolation using ArcMap………………………………………………..45
Figure (4.5) Using Raster calculator in ArcMap application………...……………….…………46
Figure (4.6) ArcMap Application………………………………………………………………..50
Figure (4.7) SPSS Application…………………………………………………………………...51
Figure (4.8) Aq.QA Application…………………………………………………………………52
List of Figures Page x

Figure (5.1) Scree plot…………………………………………………………………………...55
Figure (5.2) Dendrogram shows three clusters…………………………………………………..58
Figure (5.3) Schoeller Diagram for the three clusters……………………………………………60
Figure (5.4) Stiff diagram for cluster one……………………………………………………..…61
Figure (5.5) Stiff diagram for cluster two……………………………………………………..…61
Figure (5.6) Stiff diagram for cluster three………………………………………………………62
Figure (5.7) SO4 Interpolation…………………………………………………………………...63
Figure (5.8) CL Interpolation…………………………………………………………………….63
Figure (5.9) Na Interpolation……………………………………………………………………63
Figure (5.10) TDS Interpolation……………………………………………………………..….63
Figure (5.11) NO3 Interpolation………………………………………………………………..64
Figure (5.12) Hardness Interpolation…………………………………………………………...64
Figure (5.13) Water Quality Index……………………………………………………………....66
Figure (5.14) Water Quality Index Using importance weight…………..…………………...…..67
Figure (5.15) Wells locations for each cluster………………………...………………………....69
List of Figures Page xi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
GIS Geographic information system
GQI Groundwater Quality Index
HCA Hierarchical cluster analysis
PCA Principle component analysis
PCBS Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics
PWA Palestinian water authority
WHO World Health Organization
WQI Water quality index
List of Abbreviations Page xii

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 General background :
Gaza strip suffer from the deteriorating of ground water in both quality and quantity,
source of drinking water for the majority of the population, Nowadays There is a water
crisis in the Strip, groundwater contamination has become a major concern in the recent
years. Groundwater aquifer is considered the main and only water supply source for all
kind of human usage in the Gaza Strip (domestic, agricultural and industrial).
This source has been faced a deterioration in both quality and quantity for many reasons,
e.g. low rainfall, increased in the urban areas which led to a decrease in the recharge
quantity of the aquifer, also increasing the population is depleting the groundwater aquifer
and led to seawater intrusion in some areas as a result in pressure differences between the
groundwater elevation and sea water level.
1.2 Problem statement:
Water quality can be measured based on a set of physical and chemical variables so the
overall water quality is complex and is hard to understand what is behind these sets of data.
So in this research there is a try to recognize the overall and full picture of water quality.
Chapter 1: Introduction Page 1

1.3 Justification of research :
There is a need for a new tool for classifying domestic water quality in an easy and
understandable format. This tool can be a simple and inexpensive way to show and explain
the deteriorating of water quality in Gaza, it is an ideal way to communicate and deal with
the media, the international donors and for the decision makers.
1.4 Aim of study:
The aim of this study is to conduct an assessment of the quality of groundwater resource in
Gaza governorate.
1.5 Objectives of the study :
This research focuses on providing all the audiences with clear and comprehensive picture
for the overall groundwater quality. The objectives of this research are:
1. To determine and rank the sources of variation in the hydrochemistry.
2. To identify groups or clusters of similar sites on the basis of similarities within a

class and dissimilarities between different classes.
3. To classify groundwater in the area into spatial water quality types by developing a
robust water quality index (WQI) weighted for the essential parameters in domestic
water quality assessment.
1.6 Limitations of study :
Although this research was carefully prepared, I am still aware of its limitations and
shortcomings. First of all, the collected data from the related institutions was not as perfect
as the researcher needs ,the parameters measures in these data sets was less than the
researcher ambitious.

Second, there was a difficulty to reach to some data and resources especially from the local
resources.
Third, the overall quality of water in this research depends on chosen physical and chemical
parameters. Biological parameters are not included.
1.7 Study Methodology :
1.7.1 Research Steps :
The objectives of the research will be achieved governorate by implementing the following
steps:
1. Data collections for this study will be based on periodic fieldwork conducted by the
Palestinian Water Authority and other related institutions for groundwater samples
collected from predetermined locations of existing water wells.
2. Log the data in order to increase normality.
3. Data standardization is essential in multivariate analysis. In this study for R-mode

factor analysis and hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) will be used and considered.
4. The R-mode factor analysis will account each factor of the total variance in the
hydrochemistry of the study area. And it presents the loading of each variable under
each of the factors.
5. Factor scores are calculated from the factor loadings and the standardized z-scores of
each of the parameters (or variables) in the dataset.
6. The Q-mode HCA is resulted in a dendrogram which is a presentation of the

groundwater associations in the area.
7. Stiff diagrams for all clusters (spatial water associations) are generated for each
member of a cluster.

8. The averages of the chemical parameters in the clusters are presented in the Schoeller
diagram
9. The sampling locations will be integrated with the water data for the generation of
spatial distribution maps of selected water quality parameters.
10. Developing groundwater quality index
11. Computing water quality index using water quality importance weights.
12. The model sensitivity analysis will be done to ensure the stability of the index.
1.8.2 Software tools :
This research required set of tools included:
1. MS EXCEL.
2. Arcmap 9.3 from ESRI.
3. Statistical Package for wthe Social Sciences (SPSS) 15.
4. Aq.QA 1.1.1 from Rockware.
1.9 Outline of research :
This research consists of five chapters as the follows:
Chapter One: Introduction
This chapter has a general introduction to the subject of the research (general background
of study area, problem statement, justification of research, research aim, objectives and
research content).

Chapter Two: Literature Review
This chapter includes the definition of water quality and factors affecting water quality,
multivariate methods, the role of multivariate in analysis of water quality, the definition of
water quality index ,water quality index uses, needs, pros and cons , how to develop
physiochemical water quality index , GIS role in developing water quality index, water
quality standards/guidelines , who guidelines.
Chapter Three: Description of study area
This chapter describes the area of Gaza strip, Gaza governorate, Gaza aquifer, Gaza
topography, climate, rainfall and population, water crisis and deficit in Gaza, the
contamination of Gaza groundwater, domestic wells in Gaza governorate, Palestinian water
authority
Chapter Four Methodology
This chapter clarifies the process and methods which are used during the preparation of the
research that will be applied through data collection, processing and techniques used to
achieve the objectives of the research.
Chapter Five: Results and Discussions
This chapter includes the results includes maps, tables, figures and summaries that describe
the factors affecting water quality, clusters of wells locations, water quality index and
sensitivity analysis.
Chapter six: Conclusions & Recommendations
This chapter states the conclusions & recommendations for this research.

CHAPTER 2
Literature Review
2.1 Water Quality
2.1.1 Water Quality Definition
The concept of water quality is complex because so many factors influence in it. In
particular, this concept is intrinsically tied to the different intended uses of the water;
different uses require different criteria. Water quality is one of the most important
factors that must be considered when evaluating the sustainable development of a given
region. (Cordoba et al., 2010).
Water quality must be defined based on a set of physical and chemical variables that are
closely related to the water’s intended use. For each variable, acceptable and
unacceptable values must then be defined. Water whose variables meet the pre-
established standards for a given use is considered suitable for that use. If the water fails
to meet these standards, it must be treated before use. (Cordoba et al.,(2010).Water
quality is considered the main factor controlling health and the state of disease in both
man and animals.
2.1.2 Factors Affected Water Quality
Water is vital to health, well-being, food security and socioeconomic development of

mankind. Therefore, the presence of contaminants in natural freshwater continues to be
one of the most important environmental issues in many areas of the world, particularly
in developing countries, where several communities are far away from potable water
supply. Low-income communities, which rely on untreated surface water and
groundwater supplies for domestic and agricultural uses are the most exposed to the
impact of poor water quality. Unfortunately, they are also the ones that do not have
Chapter 2: Literature Review Page 6

adequate infrastructure to monitor water quality regularly and implement control

strategies. (Ayoko et al., 2007).
(Kazi et al., 2009) reported that human activities are a major factor determining the
quality of the surface and groundwater through atmospheric pollution, effluent
discharges, use of agricultural chemicals, eroded soils and land use. Environmental
pollution, mainly of water sources, has become public interest. also The chemical
composition of ground water is controlled by many factors that include the composition
of precipitation, mineralogy of the watershed and aquifers, climate and topography.
These factors can combine to create diverse water types that change in composition
spatially and temporally. . (Chenini I and Khemiri S., 2009).
Exploitation of groundwater resources beyond their potential renewal capacity, results

in a hydrological deficit. Generally, this is expressed as a decline in groundwater levels
but in coastal aquifers this may cause intrusion of seawater.
2.1.3 Concept of Ground Water Quality :
The concept of ground water quality seems to be clear, but the way of how to study and
evaluate it still remains tricky. (Chenini I and Khemiri S., 2009). (Babiker et
al.,2007),Consider that the definition of water quality is not objective, but is socially
defined depending on the desired use of water. Different uses require different standards
of water quality.
2.1.4 Safe Drinking water:
Potable or "drinking" water can be defined as the water delivered to the consumer that
can be safely used for drinking, cooking, and washing. This water must meet the
physical, chemical, bacteriological, and radionuclide parameters when supplied by an
approved source, delivered to a treatment and disinfection facility of proper design,
construction, and operation, and in turn delivered to the consumer through a protected
distribution system in sufficient quantity and pressure. (Zuane J.,1997)

2.2 Water Quality Standards/Guidelines :
2.2.1 The Guidelines for drinking-water quality:
The Guidelines describe reasonable minimum requirements of safe practice to protect

the health of consumers and/or derive numerical “guideline values” for constituents of
water or indicators of water quality. In order to define mandatory limits, it is preferable
to consider the guidelines in the context of local or national environmental, social,
economic and cultural conditions. (WHO, 2008)
2.2.2 The Standard for drinking-water quality:
By definition, a standard is “a rule or principle considered by an authority and by

general consent as a basis of comparison. It is something normal or average in quality
and the most common form of its kind”. A proper standard for drinking water quality is
thus the reference that will ensure that the water will not be harmful to human health.
The framework against which a water sample can be considered good or “safe” is a
drinking water quality standard . (Solsona F.,2002).
2.2.3 WHO Guidelines:
The primary purpose of the Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality is the protection of
public health. Water is essential to sustain life, and a satisfactory (adequate, safe and
accessible) supply must be available to all. Improving access to safe drinking-water .
(WHO ,2008).
2.2.4 WHO divided drinking water guidelines according to:
1. Microbial aspects:
In general terms, the greatest microbial risks are associated with ingestion of water that
is contaminated with human or animal (including bird) faeces. Faeces can be a source of
pathogenic bacteria, viruses, protozoa and helminths. Faecally derived pathogens are the
principal concerns in setting health-based targets for microbial safety. (WHO, 2008).

Drinking-water-borne outbreaks are particularly to be avoided because of their capacity

to result in the simultaneous infection of a large number of persons and potentially a
high proportion of the community. (WHO , 2008).
2. Chemical aspects:
The health concerns associated with chemical constituents of drinking-water differ from
those associated with microbial contamination and arise primarily from the ability of
chemical constituents to cause adverse health effects after prolonged periods of
exposure. There are few chemical constituents of water that can lead to health problems
resulting from a single exposure, except through massive accidental contamination of a
drinking-water supply. Moreover, experience shows that in many, but not all, such
incidents, the water becomes undrinkable owing to unacceptable taste, odour and
appearance. (WHO , 2008).
3. Radiological aspects:
The contribution of drinking-water to total exposure to radionuclide is very small under

normal circumstances. (WHO ,2008).While finding levels of activity above screening
values does not indicate any immediate risk to health, it should trigger further
investigation into determining the radionuclide responsible and the possible risks, taking
into account local circumstances. (WHO , 2008).
4. Acceptability aspects (Aesthetics aspects):
Water should be free of tastes and odours that would be objectionable to the majority of
consumers.In assessing the quality of drinking-water, consumers rely principally upon
their senses. Microbial, chemical and physical water constituents may affect the
appearance, odour or taste of the water, and the consumer will evaluate the quality and
acceptability of the water on the basis of these criteria. Although these substances may
have no direct health effects, water that is highly turbid, is highly coloured or has an
objectionable taste or odour may be regarded by consumers as unsafe and may be
rejected. (WHO ,2008).

2.2.5 Palestinian Standards for drinking water in Palestine:
Quality standards for drinking water in Palestine was issued in 1997 by - Issuing agency
- Palestine Standards Institution (PSI),the name of national regulation is Palestine
Standard 41 Adopted from WHO and Jordanian Standard JS: 286/1997. (WHO,2006) .
2.3 Multivariate Methods in Water Quality Analysis:
2.3.1 The role Multivariate Methods in Analysis of Water Quality Data:
Multivariate statistical methods have been widely used to facilitate the solution of
environmental problems and suggest clues for the understanding of some natural
processes. (Yidana et al., 2010), In recent times, multivariate statistical methods have
been applied widely to investigate environmental phenomena. (Yidana et al., 2008). The
multivariate statistical techniques are the appropriate tools for a meaningful data
reduction and interpretation of multi constituent chemical and physical measurements
And the multivariate techniques have been widely used as unbiased methods for the
analysis of water quality data to draw meaningful conclusions . (Yilmaz et al. , 2010),
and multivariate statistical methods have been employed to extract significant
information from hydrochemical datasets in compound systems. (Chenini I and Khemiri
S.,2009). The necessity and usefulness of multivariate statistical techniques for
evaluation and interpretation of large complex data sets with a view to get better
information about the water quality and design of monitoring network for effective
management of water resources.
2.3.2 Multivariate Techniques:
The multivariate statistical techniques such as cluster analysis , factor analysis ,

principal component analysis and discriminant analysis have widely been used as
unbiased methods in analysis of water-quality data for drawing meaningful information.
(Singh et al.,2004).
The application of different multivariate statistical techniques, such as cluster analysis,

principal component analysis , factor analysis and discriminate analysis, helps in the

interpretation of complex data matrices for a better understanding of water quality and
ecological status of the study region. These techniques allow the identification of the
possible sources that influence water systems and offers a valuable tool for reliable
management of water resources as well as rapid solution for pollution problems .(Kazi
et al.,2009).
Statistical treatment of the data PCA and cluster analysis are unbiased methods which
indicate associations between samples and/or variables. These associations, based on
similar magnitudes and variations in chemical and physical constituents, may indicate
the presence of seasonal or human influences. Hierarchical agglomerative cluster
analysis indicates groupings of samples by linking inter-sample similarities and
illustrates the overall similarity of variables within the data set. (Mencio A and Mas-Pla
J. ,2008).
2.3.3 Factor Analysis:
Factor analysis, which includes PCA is a very powerful technique applied to reduce the
dimensionality of a data set consisting of a large number of inter-related variables,
while retaining as much as possible the variability present in data set. (Singh et
al.,2004). According to (Shrestha S and Kazama F.,2007) The main purpose of FA is to
reduce the contribution of less significant variables to simplify even more of the data
structure coming from PCA.
2.3.4 Cluster Analysis :
Cluster analysis is a group of multivariate techniques whose primary purpose is to

assemble objects based on the characteristics they possess. Cluster analysis classifies
objects, so that each object is similar to the others in the cluster with respect to a
predetermined selection criterion. The resulting clusters of objects should then exhibit
high internal (within-cluster) homogeneity and high external (between cluster)
heterogeneity. Hierarchical agglomerative clustering is the most common approach,
which provides intuitive similarity relationships between any one sample and the entire
data set, and is typically illustrated by a dendrogram (tree diagram). (Shrestha S and
Kazama F. ,2007) identified Cluster Analysis as “an efficient means to recognize groups

of samples that have similar chemical and physical characteristics”. (Shaban et

al.,2010).
according to (Singh et al.,2004), Cluster analysis is an unsupervised pattern recognition

technique that uncovers intrinsic structure or underlying behavior of a data set without
making a priori assumption about the data, in order to classify the objects of the system
into categories or clusters based on their nearness or similarity, Cluster analysis helps in
grouping objects (cases) into classes (clusters) on the basis of similarities within a class
and dissimilarities between different classes. The class characteristics are not known in
advance but maybe determined from the analysis. The results of CA help in interpreting
the data and indicate patterns .
Different types of cluster analysis have been employed to view water quality data for
both surface and groundwaters Cluster Analysis seeks to classify homogeneous
subgroups of cases in a population by minimizing the Within-group and maximizing
Between-group variations.The Hierarchical Cluster Analysis (HCA) is an efficient
means to recognize groups of samples that have similar chemical and physical
characteristics. (Shaban et al., 2010).
2.4 Water Quality Index:
2.4.1 Introduction:
In a drinking water quality assessment, the decision-making based on water quality data
is a crucial issue because number of parameters compromises its quality. Traditionally,
water resource professionals communicated drinking water quality status by comparing
the individual parameters with guideline values. While this technical language is too
technical and it is not a decision to provide a whole picture of drinking water quality
(Cude, 2001).
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. Methods to
integrate several variables related to water quality in a specific index are increasingly

needed in national and international scenarios. (Lermontov et al.,2009).
Because of the inherent complexity and variability in water quality, it is essential that
scientific information is presented in a meaningful way to policy makers, managers and
ultimately, to the general public who have to live with the consequences of the
decisions.So Indicators and indices of the condition of the environment are used to
summarise a multitude of attributes thereby providing decision makers with an
integrated and more informative overview than would otherwise be attainable . (Smajgl
et al.,2010).
2.4.2 Water Quality Index Definition:
Unlike water quantity, which can be expressed in precise terms, water quality is a multi-
parameter attribute. The utility of a WQI relies in the aggregation of information about
water-quality parameters at different times and in different places and translating this
information into a single score that represents the time period and the spatial unit under
consideration. (Terrado et al.,2010).
WQI is defined as a rating reflecting the composite influence of different water quality
parameters. (Ramakrishnaiah et al. ,2009). (Saeedi et al.,2010) defined the water quality
index (WQI) is a mathematical instrument used to transform large quantities of water
quality data into a single number which represents the water quality level. (Yidana et
al.2010) defined water quality index as a parameter that assigns weight to the sampling
points based on the concentrations of the physico-chemical parameters and/or biological
constituents of the water.
2.4.3 Water Quality Index Uses and Needs:
The demands of the growing populations in the semi-arid regions feed a continual need
to develop new methods and plans to preserve groundwater resources. The quality of
groundwater is critical in such regions which are normally characterized by a semi-arid
climate, and a variety of anthropogenic activities, the water quality is generally affected
by diffuse contamination originating from intensive irrigated agriculture. (Saidi et
al.,2009).

The purpose of an index is not to describe separately a pollutant’s concentration or the

changes in a certain parameter. To synthesize a complex reality in a single number is
the biggest challenge in the development of a WQI, since it is directly affected by a
large number of environmental variables. Therefore, a clear definition of the goals to be
attained by the use of such an index is needed. The formulation of a WQI may be
simplified if one considers only the variables which are deemed critical for a certain
water body. So it can be used as an inexpensively populated and easily understandable
water use benefit index as a tool for community-based monitoring of water related
trends in the Great Barrier Reef region. (Smajgl et al.,2010).
Many physical and chemical characteristics can be used to evaluate water quality or the
degree of water pollution. Therefore, it is not possible in practice to clearly define water
quality – either on a spatial or temporal basis – by separately examining the behavior of
every individual variable. (Cordoba et al.,2010).
2.4.4 Water Quality Index advantages and disadvantages:
Advantages:
1. Several authors have integrated water quality variables into indices, technically
called water quality indices (WQIs) To monitor water quality and to make
qualitative and quantitative decisions based on real data has become a challenge
for environmental engineers over all stages of the process, from data collection,
storage and processing up to analyse and interpretation of the results.
(Lermontov et al.,2009).
2. Among their advantages, indices facilitate communication with lay people.

(Lermontov et al.,2009).The broader community benefits from a comprehensive
and user-friendly tool, communicating changes in water quality trends more
effectively. (Smajgl et al.,2010)
3. They are considered more trustful than isolated variables. They also integrate
several variables in a single number, combining different units of measurement.
(Lermontov et al.,2009).

4. In this way, a WQI becomes an easy communication tool for transmitting

scientific information from experts to the general audience. (Terrado et
al.,2010).
5. Interest in using this WQI rests on its flexibility for selecting parameters as well
as the possibility of modifying the objectives to be met by each variable
according to the specific end use of the water. (Terrado et al.,2010).
Disadvantages:
1. A problem with the indexing process is the possibility that some parameters
have a disproportional influence on the final result, producing a biased index.
(Lermontov et al., 2009).
2. This indicator included various physical and chemical characteristics. For each
variable, the index included a quality-value function (generally linear) that
expressed the equivalence between the variable and its quality level. These
functions were defined using direct measurements of the concentration of a
substance or the value of a physical variable obtained through analyses of water
samples, these functions are not universal: they cannot be applied in all
geographical areas. Because of this, it is not possible to use the index for direct
comparisons of water quality between regions or countries. (Cordoba et
al.,2010). indices are usually useful for comparative purposes and for general
questions. (Saeedi et al. ,2010).
3. The desired use of WQI is not meant for an absolute measure of the degree of
pollution or the actual water quality. (Mishra et al. ,2008),Therefore, the index
can never be considered as a final quantitative assessment of capability of
groundwater to be used as a reliable source of drinking water but should be
applied as a purpose-specific water management tool. (Saeedi et al.,2010).
4. The main problem associated with parameter selection is subjectivity. (Terrado

et al.,2010).

2.4.5 How to develop Physiochemical Water Quality Index in general:
The conventional way to obtain a WQI is to compute the weighted average of some
predefined parameters, normalized in a scale from 0 to 100 and multiplied by their
respective weights. (Lermontov et al.,2009).
A large number of WQIs have been designed to deal with physico-chemical parameters.
Normally, their development involves four different steps , even though in some cases
additional steps can also be taken, as follows. (Terrado et al.,2010):
1. The first step is selecting the optimum set of parameters that together reflect the
overall quality of the water body with respect to a given end use.
2. A second step is the transformation of the required parameters, usually of

different units and dimensions, into a common scale. This transformation is
achieved via sub-index functions, generated on the basis of in-depth
understanding of the impact of a particular level of the parameter upon the
health of the ecosystem.
3. A third (optional) step assigns weights to selected parameters. This step can be
based on the developers criteria .
4. Finally, a calculation of the index score is obtained by aggregating the respective

sub-indices into a common function.
2.4.6 Biotic Indices:
Biotic Indices is Apart from physico-chemical indices. Biotic indicators are also good
for defining water quality. This type of indicator is provided by the same species as
those living in the ecosystem. Since every species needs its own ecological conditions
to survive, when conditions are not optimal, the number of organisms is reduced or they
can even disappear. The use of aquatic organisms for surface- water-quality assessment
started more than a century ago based on the observation that organisms occurring in
polluted water were different from those in clean water. Biological quality can be

assessed by different types of organisms .The advantage of biomonitoring is that

biological communities reflect the overall ecological quality of the basin and integrate
the effects of different stressors, to provide a broad measure of their impact. (Terrado et
al.,2010).
2.4.7 Robust index:
Suitable indices should be as objective as possible, have a good synthetic capacity, and
be able to achieve a reasonable balance between the simplification of reality and the
complexity of the environment. They should include variables that are normally and
continuously monitored and that have a clear effect on water quality (e.g., potentially
affecting aquatic life, bathing, public supply, irrigation, and recreational uses). They
should also be easy to use, flexible and sensitive enough (but not excessively so) to
small changes in water quality. (Terrado et al.,(2010).
2.5 Previous Studies:
2.5.1 for using multivariate analysis in water quality analysis:
In the last years, multivariate statistical methods have been applied to characterize and
evaluate surface and groundwater. In (Bengraine K and Marhaba T. , 2003) , (Love et
al., 2004) , (Singh et al.,2005) , (Zhou et al. , 2007), (Irabor et al.,2008), (Yidana et al.
,2008) , (Yakubo et al.,2009),(Shirodkar et al.,2009) ,(Bu et al., 2010), (Razmkhah et
al.,2010) used the multivariate techniques as a tool to make a comprehensive
assessment of groundwater quality.
In (Bengraine K and Marhaba T.,2003) study, Chemical, biological and physical data
monitored at 12 locations along the Passaic River, New Jersey, during the year 1998 are
analyzed. Principal component analysis (PCA) was used: (i) to extract the factors
associated with the hydrochemistry variability; (ii) to obtain the spatial and temporal
changes in the water quality. Solute content, temperature, nutrients and organics were
the main patterns extracted. The spatial analysis isolated two stations showing a
possible point or non-point source of pollution. This study shows the importance of
environmental monitoring associated with simple but powerful statistics to better

understand a complex water system.
In (Love et al., 2004) study, two examples are presented. The first is of groundwater
around a southern African iron ore mine and the second is of groundwater in the vicinity
of a southern African municipal sewage disposal works. Groundwater samples were
collected, their chemistry analysed and factor analysis was performed on each of the
chemical datasets. In the first case study, factor analysis successfully separated
signatures due to uncontaminated groundwater (calcium, magnesium and bicarbonate),
agricultural activities (potassium and ammonium) and mining activities (sodium,
chloride and sulphate). In the second case study, factor analysis did identify a chemical
signature (nitrate and phosphate; minor iron) related to the sewage works—but since
this signature involved parameters that were within regulated limits, the finding was of
limited value for management purposes.
(Singh et al.,2005) used Multivariate statistical techniques, such as cluster analysis

(CA), factor analysis (FA), principal component analysis (PCA) and discriminant
analysis (DA) were applied to the data set on water quality of the Gomti river (India).
This study presents usefulness of multivariate statistical techniques for evaluation and
interpretation of large complex water quality data sets and apportionment of pollution
sources/factors with a view to get better information about the water quality and design
of monitoring network for effective management of water resources. Three significant
groups, upper catchments (UC), middle catchments (MC) and lower catchments (LC) of
sampling sites were obtained through CA on the basis of similarity between them.
FA/PCA applied to the data sets pertaining to three catchments regions of the river
resulted in seven, seven and six latent factors, respectively responsible for the data
structure, explaining 74.3, 73.6 and 81.4% of the total variance of the respective data
sets. These included the trace metals group (leaching from soil and industrial waste
disposal sites), organic pollution group (municipal and industrial effluents), nutrients
group (agricultural runoff), alkalinity, hardness, EC and solids (soil leaching and runoff
process).
(Zhou et al. ,2007), demonstrated that the multivariate statistical methods are useful for
interpreting complex data sets in the analysis of temporal and spatial variations in water
quality and the optimization of regional water quality monitoring network.

(Irabor et al., 2008) subjected the chemical data set to Principal Component Analysis
(PCA)/Factor Analysis (FA) and Hierarchic Cluster Analysis (HCA). The aim of this
study was to determine the nature and spatial distribution of chemical pollutants in
surface and groundwater in the western Niger Delta region.
(Yidana et al., 2008),applied the multivariate techniques to surface water hydrochemical

data from three different locations along the Ankobra Basin, Ghana, to extract principal
factors corresponding to the different sources of variation in the hydrochemistry. The
combined use of principal component analysis (PCA) and cluster analysis enabled the
classification of water samples into distinct groups on the basis of their hydrochemical
characteristics.
(Yakubo et al.,2009) performed Both Q-mode and R-mode HCA on the hydrochemical
parameters. The R-mode HCA was done to classify the parameters into groups or facies
based on their similarity with each other, whereas the Q-mode HCA was done to
highlight spatial relationships among the sample points. Dendrograms were produced to
illustrate the relationships revealed by the HCA.
In (Shirodkar et al.,2009) Study ,Water quality parameters (temperature ,pH

,salinity,DO ,BOD ,suspended solids ,nutrients, PHc, phenols ,trace metals —Pb , Cd
and Hg, chlorophyll-a (chl-a) and phaeopigments) and the sediment quality parameters
(total phosphorous, total nitrogen, organic carbon and trace metals)were analysed from
samples collected at 15 stations along 3 transects off Karnataka coast
(Mangaloreharbourinthe south to Suratkalinthenorth),west coast of India during 2007.
R-mode varimax factor analyses were applied separately to surface and bottom water
datasets due to existing stratification in the water column caused by river in flow and to
sediment data .This helped to understand the interrelationships between the variables
and to identify probable source components for explaining the environmental status of
the area. Six factors(each for surface and bottom waters)were found responsible for
variance(86.9% in surface and82.4 % in bottom)in the coastal waters between
Mangalore and Suratkal.In sediments,4 factors explained 86.8% of the observed total
variance. The variances indicated addition of nutrients and suspended solids to the
coastal waters due to weathering and river in transport and are categorized as natural

sources.
(Bu et al.,2010) study sampled water quality at 12 sampling sites in the Jinshui River of
the South Qinling Mts., China. Multivariate statistical techniques were used to
investigate the temporal and spatial variations of water quality and identify the main
pollution factors and sources.Factor analysis determined that 80.4 %of the total variance
was explained by five factors ,that is, salinity, trophicity, organic pollution, oxide-
related process ,and erosion. The gridding methods illustrated hat water quality
progressively deteriorated from head water to downstream areas .The analytical results
suggested that the water pollution primarily resulted from domestic wastewater and
agricultural runoff, and provided critical information for water resource conservation in
mountainous watersheds of the South Qinling Mts., China.
(Razmkhah et al.,2010)used principal component analysis (PCA) and hierarchical

cluster analysis (CA) methods to investigate the water quality of Jajrood River (Iran)
and to assess and discriminate the relative magnitude of anthropogenic and ‘‘natural’’
influences on the quality of river water. T, EC, pH, TDS, NH4, NO3, NO2, Turb.,
T.Hard., Ca, Mg, Na, K, Cl, SO4, SiO2 as physicochemical and TC, FC as biochemical
variables have been analyzed in the water samples collected every month over a three-
year period from 18 sampling stations along a 50 km section of Jajrood River that is
under the influence of anthropogenic and natural changes. Exploratory analysis of
experimental data has been carried out by means of PCA and CA in an attempt to
discriminate sources of variation in water quality. PCA has allowed identification of a
reduced number of mean 5 varifactors, pointing out 85% of both temporal and spatial
changes. CA classified similar water quality stations and indicated Out-Meygoon as the
most polluted one. Ahar, Baghgol, Rooteh, Befor Zaygan, Fasham, Roodak and
Lashgarak were identified as affected by organic pollution. The factor analysis
generated three significant factors ,The following factors are indicated:Factor 1: Ca2+,
Mg2+ and HCO_3 ,Factor 2: K+ and NH4 .,Factor 3: Na+, Cl_ and SO_4 .These three
factors explain 69.9% of the variance in the dataset.

2.5.2 for using water quality index:
The overall quality of groundwater for drinking purposes was assessed using the water
quality index. (Stigter et al.,2006) ,(Babiker et al. ,2007), (Yakubo et al.,2009)
(Ramakrishnaiah et al. ,2009), (Saeedi wt al. ,2010) used the WQI in different ways and
for different purposes and used different water quality parameters.
(Stigter et al.,2006) proposed A simple methodology to create a groundwater quality

index with the aim of monitoring the joint influence of agriculture on several key
parameters of groundwater chemistry and potability. The applicability of the
constructed indices as an assessment and communication tool is evaluated in two case
studies in the south of Portugal. Index maps are created, providing a comprehensive
picture of the contamination problem and easily interpretable for people outside the
scientific domain. the GWQI maps reveal that groundwater quality in the upper aquifers
is extremely low, with an almost complete absence of potable water. However, the
impact of agricultural activity on the groundwater composition shows a large spatial
variability, which is accurately depicted by the GWCI maps and mainly related to crop
type and aquifer lithology. In addition, contamination-freshening sequences occur and
are displaced by groundwater flow, partly affected by faults that form either preferential
flow paths or flow barriers.
(Babiker et al. ,2007) contributed to proposes a GIS-based groundwater quality index

(GQI) by indexing them numerically relative to the World Health Organization (WHO)
standards. Seven parameters were selected from the data set to generate the groundwater
quality index. Standards for drinking water were chosen since human health is taken as
priority . Six parameters (Cl−, Na+, Ca2+, Mg2+, SO4 -2 , and total dissolved solids,
TDS) fall under the category of chemically derived contaminants and parameter
(NO−3) was listed under the category of chemicals that might inflict potential health
risk. The map removal sensitivity measure is used to test the reliability of the index and
impacts of removing any of the seven parameters from the computation of the GQI.
(Simoes et al.,2008) paper proposed a water quality index (WQI) to subsidize

management actions in the Medio Paranapanema Watershed in Sao Paulo State, Brazil,
as a simple pollution indicator for aquaculture activity.The index proposed in this work

is composed of three measurable environmental parameters—turbidity, total phosphorus

and dissolved oxygen. Concentrations of these three variables were normalized on a
scale from 0 to 100 and translated into statements of water quality (excellent, good,
regular, fair and poor). The results show that the degradation in this watershed from
aquaculture activity can be easily inferred with this index, which is more restricted than
the others routinely used to infer water quality.
(Yakubo et al. ,2009) calculated WQI for the samples using the concentrations of Na+,
Ca2+, Mg2+, Cl-, NO3 -, F-, and EC at the various sample locations. Computed WQI
values were classified into five categories as follows (WQI, <50 excellent water, 50–
100 good water, 100–200 poor water,200–300 very poor water, >300 Water unsuitable
for drinking).
(Ramakrishnaiah et al.,2009),assessed the water quality index (WQI) for the

groundwater of Tumkur taluk by subjecting the samples to a comprehensive
physicochemical analysis. For calculating the WQI, the following 12 parameters have
been considered: pH, total hardness, calcium, magnesium, bicarbonate, chloride, nitrate,
sulphate, total dissolved solids, iron, manganese and fluorides. The analysis reveals that
the groundwater of the area needs some degree of treatment before consumption, and it
also needs to be protected from the perils of contamination.
(Saeedi et al. ,2010) used the WQI to analyze the nature and rate of land use change and
its associated impact on groundwater quality. a simple methodology based on
multivariate analysis is developed to create a groundwater quality index , with the aim
of identifying places with best quality for drinking within the Qazvin province, west
central of Iran.
(Smajgl et al.,2010) index was developed based on a comparative list of selected water-
related indices integrating attributes across physico-chemical, economic, social, and
ecological domains currently used in the assessment of water quality, water quantity and
water use benefits in Australia. Our findings indicate that the proposed index allows the
identification of water performance indicators by temporal and spatial comparisons.
Benefits for decision makers and conservation practitioners include a flexible way of
prioritization towards the domain with highest concern. The broader community

benefits from a comprehensive and user-friendly tool, communicating changes in water

quality trends more effectively. (Smajgl et al.,2010).
(Terrado et al.,2010) CCME WQI is based on a formula developed by the British

Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks . The index gives a number
between 0 (worst water quality) and 100 (best water quality), divided into five
descriptive categories that can be assigned to the water body:
(1) Poor: (CCME WQI value 0–44) – water quality is almost always threatened or
impaired – conditions usually depart from natural or desirable levels;
(2) Marginal: (CCME WQI value 44.1–64) – water quality is frequently threatened or
impaired – conditions often depart from natural or desirable levels;
(3) Fair: (CCME WQI value 64.1–79) – water quality is usually protected but
occasionally threatened or impaired – conditions sometimes depart from natural or
desirable levels;
(4) Good: (CCME WQI value 79.1–94) – water quality is protected with only a minor
degree of threat or impairment – conditions rarely depart from natural or desirable
levels;
(5) Excellent: (CCME WQI value 94.1–100) – water quality is protected with a virtual
absence of threat or impairment – conditions very close to natural or pristine levels.
(Tanera M.,2011) proposed an index for which have Lagoon systems have particular
ecological, morphological and hydrodynamic characteristics and act like transitional
zones between inland and open waters. The aim of this study is to develop a Lagoon
Water Quality Index (L-WQI) for environmental control of polluted lagoon systems by
focusing on primary problems such as increasing stress on aquatic biota, eutrophication
and organic pollution. The indicators used in L-WQI are dissolved oxygen saturation,
total nitrogen to total phosphorus ratio, nitrate, orthophosphate, chlorophyll-a, chemical
oxygen demand, pH, turbidity and electrical conductivity. LWQI establishes a new
normalization function for each variable and uses a modified version of the weighted
aggregation method. L-WQI has been adapted to Kucukcekmece Lagoon, a highly
polluted watershed located in western Istanbul. The results correlated with the observed

water quality trends in this lagoon and highlighted the impact of pollution in its
tributaries.
2.6 Geographic Information system (GIS):
2.6.1 Introduction:
Geographic information systems (GIS) have become an increasingly important means

for understanding and dealing with the pressing problems of water and related resources
management in our world. GIS concepts and technologies help us collect and organize
the data about such problems and understand their spatial relationships. GIS analysis
capabilities provide ways for modeling and synthesizing information that contribute to
supporting decisions for resource management across a wide range of scales, from local
to global. A GIS also provides a means for visualizing resource characteristics, thereby
enhancing understanding in support of decision making. (Brimicombe A.,2010).
Remote sensing and GIS are effective tools for water quality mapping and land cover
mapping essential for monitoring, modeling and environmental change detection. GIS
can be a powerful tool for developing solutions for water resources problems for
assessing water quality, determining water availability, preventing flooding,
understanding the natural environment, and managing water resources on a local or
regional scale. GIS technologies have great potential for use in groundwater hydrology.
GIS is a powerful tool for handling spatial data and decision making in several areas,
including geological and environmental fields. (Oh et al.,2011).
2.6.2 GIS Definitions:
According to (Shaban et al.,2010) Geographical Information System or GIS, is a

compilation of computer hardware, software, spatial and non-spatial data, and users as
seen in Figure (2.1) , designed to efficiently capture, store, update, manipulate, analyze
and display all forms of geographically referenced information. GIS is increasingly used
as tools for terrestrial research and applications, those capabilities make the GIS one of
the most comprehensive tools representing surface water quality in order to facilitate the
decision-making.

2.6.3 GIS layers:
It has become common to think of GIS databases as a series of map layers that are
geographically referenced and registered to a common projection as in Figure (2.2).
Most GISs organize data by layers, each of which contains a theme of map information
that is logically related by its location.Each of these separate thematic maps is referred
to as a layer, coverage, or level. And each layer is precisely overlaid on the others so
that every location is matched to its corresponding locations on all the other maps. The
bottom layer of this diagram is quite important; it represents the location reference
system to which all the maps have been accurately registered. (Brimicombe A.,2010).
Figure 2.1 : GIS is a collection of software, hardware, data, and people.(www.ksu.edu.sa)
2.6.4 GIS Data:
Input or capture of data comes from a variety of sources. The data may be converted
from existing paper plans and records, as well as data residing in digital databases.
These conversions may involve tablet digitizing and scanning to images.GIS databases
incorporate two distinct branches, the spatial database and the associated attribute
database. Many GIS software packages maintain this distinction. The spatial data are

characterized as having a “vector” structure composed of features represented as points,

lines, and polygons. Other GIS spatial data are handled as images, or “rasters,” having
simple row-and column formats. Attribute data are handled in relational database
software composed of records and fields, and the power of the relational model is
applied to these data. These feature data are “tagged” to the spatial database to facilitate
tabular data retrievals. (Brimicombe A.,2010).
Figure (2.2): Map layers address multiple themes.(www.inforain.org)
2.6.5 Modeling in GIS:
GIS is a powerful tool and has great promise for use in environmental problem solving.
Most environmental problems have an obvious spatial dimension and spatially
distributed models can interact with this computer-based tool has allowed successful
integration of water quality variables into a comprehensible format. (Nas B. and
Berktay A.,2006).
(GIS) can greatly facilitate improving the assembling, display, and visualization of
model inputs and parameters as well as the model outputs .The use of GIS can help to
identify all possible combinations of soil type, weather, land and water use, and so
forth, and facilitate improving the physical basis of recharge estimation in a much more
structured and systematic fashion . (Chowdary et al.,2003).
Geographic Information System (GIS) has facilitated the assessment of groundwater

vulnerability through mapping. Integration of these models with a GIS enhanced

visualization of sensitivity zoned from different models. From this study it is evident
that integrated approach with GIS offers great opportunities for groundwater sensitivity
mapping and simulations. (Dixon B.,2005).
Water quality modeling is an ideal tool for simulating physical, chemical, and biological
changes in aquatic systems. It has been utilized in a number of GIS-based water quality
management and analysis applications. (Song T. and Kim K.,2009).
There is considerable need for a decision-making process to translate the modeling

result into an understandable form and thereby help users to make relevant judgments
and decisions. (Song T. and Kim K.,2009).
2.7 Parameters used:
The Parameters used is the common physiochemical parameters which often is

measured by the institutions stated above. The used parameters are presented below and
little description about it.
1. Total Dissolved Solids (TDS):
TDS comprise inorganic salts (principally calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium,

bicarbonates, chlorides and sulfates) and small amounts of organic matter that are
dissolved in water. TDS in drinking-water originate from natural sources, sewage, urban
runoff and industrial wastewater. (WHO,2008).
2. Electrical Conductivity (EC):
Conductivity is a measure of the ability of water to pass an electrical current.

Conductivity in water is affected by the presence of inorganic dissolved solids such as
chloride, nitrate, sulfate, and phosphate anions (ions that carry a negative charge) or
sodium, magnesium, calcium, iron, and aluminum cations (ions that carry a positive
charge). (www.epa.gov).

3. PH:
pH is a measure of how acidic/basic water is. The range goes from 0 - 14, with 7 being
neutral. pHs of less than 7 indicate acidity, whereas a pH of greater than 7 indicates a
base. pH is really a measure of the relative amount of free hydrogen and hydroxyl ions
in the water. Water that has more free hydrogen ions is acidic, whereas water that has
more free hydroxyl ions is basic. Since pH can be affected by chemicals in the water.
(www. water.usgs.gov).
4. Calcium (Ca) :
The presence of calcium in water supplies results from passage over deposits of
limestone, dolomite, gypsum, and gypsiferous shale. Calcium contributes to the total
hardness of water. ( water environment federation,1999).
5. Magnesium (Mg) :
Magnesium occurs commonly in the minerals magnesite and dolomite. Magnesium is

Important contributor to the hardness of a water, magnesium salts break down when
heated, forming scale in boilers. (water environment federation,1999).
6. Sodium (Na):
Sodium salts (e.g., sodium chloride) are found in virtually all food (the main source of
daily exposure) and drinking-water. It should be noted that some water softeners can
add significantly to the sodium content of drinking-water. (WHO, 2008).
7. Chloride (Cl):
Chloride in drinking-water originates from natural sources, sewage and industrial

effluents, urban runoff containing de-icing salt and saline intrusion. Excessive chloride
concentrations increase rates of corrosion of metals in the distribution system,
depending on the alkalinity of the water. This can lead to increased concentrations of
metals in the supply. (WHO ,2008).

8. Nitrate (No3) :
Nitrate can reach both surface water and groundwater as a consequence of agricultural
activity (including excess application of inorganic nitrogenous fertilizers and manures),
from wastewater disposal and from oxidation of nitrogenous waste products in human
and animal excreta, including septic tanks. Some groundwater may also have nitrate
contamination as a consequence of leaching from natural vegetation. (WHO ,2008).
9. Sulfate (SO4):
Sulfates occur naturally in numerous minerals and are used commercially, principally in
the chemical industry. They are discharged into water in industrial wastes and through
atmospheric deposition; however, the highest levels usually occur in groundwater and
are from natural sources. (WHO ,2008).
10. Potassium (K):
Potassium is an essential element in both plant and human nutrition, and occurs in
groundwaters as a result of mineral dissolution, from decomposing plant material, and
from agricultural runoff. ( water environment federation,1999).
11. Alkalinity :
Alkalinity of water may be due to the presence of one or more of a number of ions.
These include hydroxides, carbonates and bicarbonates.( www.freedrinkingwater.com).
12. Hardness:
Hardness in water is caused by dissolved calcium and, to a lesser extent, magnesium. It

is usually expressed as the equivalent quantity of calcium carbonate. (WHO ,2008).

CHAPTER 3
Description of Study Area
3.1 Location:
3.1.1 Gaza Governorate:
Gaza Governorate occupies an area of 73.35 km2, and its population has been estimated to
be 507,448 people in 2010. It comprises Gaza City, the main city in the Gaza Strip and one
of the main refugee camps, the Beach Camp.
Gaza Governorate is a part of Gaza strip which, For administrative purposes, the
government divides the Gaza Strip into five regions North, Gaza, Middle, Khan Younis and
Rafah.(Shomar et al.,2008).
3.1.2 Gaza Strip:
The Gaza Strip area is part of Palestine.It is a narrow, low-lying stretch of sand dunes
bordering the Mediterranean Sea. It forms the foreshore that slopes gently up to an
elevation of 105 m. It is a small area of about 365 km2 located at the eastern coast of the
Mediterranean, about 35 km long and between 6 and 12 km wide. The Gaza Strip forms a
transitional zone between the semi-humid coastal area in the north and the semi-arid Sinai
desert in the south. The area consists of a littoral zone, a strip of dunes from the Quaternary
era situated on the top of a system of older Pleistocene beach ridge, and more to the east,
gently sloping alluvial and loess plains .
Chapter 3: Description of Study Area Page 30

Figure 3.1:Gaza Governorate as part of Gaza strip(www.grida3.crs4.it)
3.2 Gaza coastal aquifer:
The aquifer in the Gaza Strip is part of the coastal aquifer, which extends from mountain
Carmel in the north to the Sinai desert in the south with a variable width and depth as seen
in figure (3.2). The total area of the coastal aquifer is about 2000 km2 with 400 km2
beneath the Gaza Strip . The aquifer media are composed mainly of alluvial sandstone with
gravel from the Tertiary era covered with Quaternary sand dunes. These dunes extend along
the shoreline up to few kilometers inland. The depth of the aquifer varies from about 170 m

at the shoreline to a few meters at the eastern boundary . This makes it vulnerable for
pollutants mainly from untreated wastewater in the area . There is a very thick impermeable
clay layer underneath the aquifer, the Saqiya formation. This 400 to 1000 m layer forms the
bed of the aquifer. (Executive Action Team).
Figure 3.2 Coastal Aquifer. (www.grid.unep.ch)
3.3 Topography:
The topography of Gaza Strip is characterized by elongated ridges and depressions, dry
streambeds and shifting sand dunes. (Almasri M.,2008). Gaza’s topography gradually

slopes downwards from east to west with the land surface elevation varying between 20 m
above sea level in the west to 110 m above sea level in the east.
(www.grida3.crs4.it).Figure 3.4 illustrates the height difference in Gaza area.
Figure 3.3: Topography of Gaza. (www.grida3.crs4.it).
3.4 Climate:
The climate is typical of that of the eastern Mediterranean with mild wet winters and hot
dry summers. Monthly average temperature reaches a maximum of 35o C and a minimum
of 4o C .

3.5 Rainfall:
For Gaza strip , Annual average rainfall ranges between 400 mm in the north to about
200mm in the south near Rafah. Apparently, there is a general north-south pattern of
rainfall. There is a five month period in winter (November–March) with a rainfall surplus.
During the rest of the year, evaporation greatly exceeds the rainfall. The annual average
relative humidity is about 72%.
Figure (3.4): Summary of data for Gaza city precipitation station. (PWA,2000)
3.6 Population:
Gaza Strip is 360 km2 with a high-density population of about 3823 persons/km2 (most of
the people in Gaza Strip are the generations of the refugees who fled their homes in the
1948 and 1967 Arab–Israeli wars, so Gaza Strip represents one of the most densely
populated areas.

Table 3.1 Population Estimates for Gaza Governorate 2011-2016.(PCBS).
Year Population projection

2011 551,832
2012 569,714
2013 588,032
2014 606,749
2015 625,823
2016 645,205
3.7 Water Demand and consumption in Gaza:
3.7.1 Consumption per person:
In spite of the fact that these problems are caused by the depletion of water, it is worthwhile
to mention that people in Gaza Strip consume 70 liters per capita per day (this includes the
public use as hospitals, schools, business, and public institutions), while the World Health
Organization and the United States Agency for International Development agreed that the
minimum consumption per capita per day is 100 liters for public health and hygiene .As the
population in Gaza Strip increases ,the consumption of water and energy will increase and
the deficit in water supply and energy resources will increase, leading to a severe
economical crisis that will result in a significant rise in the probability of an outbreak of
warfare. (Hamdan et al.,2008).
3.7.2 Water deficit in Gaza Strip:
There is now a water crisis in Gaza Strip. According to one estimate, the people of Gaza
over-pump approximately 160 million cubic meters (MCM) of water from the coastal
aquifer per year, but the sustainable yield of the Gaza subaquifer is about 100 MCM/year
(sustainable yield is the amount of water that can be extracted from the aquifer annually,
while still maintaining ground water levels and chemical composition. (PWA).

3.7.3 Water Current Situation in Gaza:
source of drinking water for the majority of the population. The groundwater aquifer of
Gaza is extremely susceptible to surface-derived contamination because of the high
permeability of sands and gravels that compose the soil profile.
Gaza coastal aquifer (Gaza aquifer) is almost the only source for drinking water for
residents of Gaza Strip and is utilized extensively to satisfy agricultural, domestic, and
industrial water demands. Most municipalities in Gaza Strip use groundwater without any
treatment except for disinfection. (Almasri M.,2008).This area, being one of the most
densely populated areas in the world with limited and deteriorated resources, has already
started to suffer the consequences of environment quality deterioration. The situation at the
Gaza Strip is below the desired standard, which is attributed to the absence of
environmental legislation and public awareness. (Abou Auda et al.,2011).
Water quality in the Strip is deteriorating and its depletion and increasing salinity are
becoming urgent problems.Overall, groundwater contamination has become a major
concern in the recent years .The Gaza Coastal Aquifer is characterized by both quantity and
quality problems due to the over-abstraction, excessive fertilization and untreated/poorly
treated wastewater disposal. (Hamdan et al.,2008).
3.7.4 The Contamination of the groundwater:
Contamination of the groundwater of the Gaza aquifer is a major continuing problem not
only due to the existence of different point and non-point contaminating sources but also
due to the high vulnerability of the aquifer to pollution. Human activities such as the
unmanaged handling and dumping of solid wastes, the improper disposal of wastewater,
and the concentrated agricultural practices have contributed to the current deteriorating
quality of Gaza coastal aquifer. The efforts put-forth to boost up the agricultural production
and the associated revenue had led to the excessive application of fertilizers, pesticides,

herbicides, and soil fumigants. This in turn did elevate the contamination occurrences in
Gaza aquifer. In addition, the infiltration of untreated leaking wastewater and the
overloaded malfunctioning treatment plants and the corresponding effluent contribute to the
on-going contamination of Gaza aquifer. Due to the above-mentioned malpractices, high
occurrences of nitrates, pesticides, and chlorides are being encountered in Gaza aquifer .
(Almasri M.,2008).
3.7.5 Water Contamination effects:
Because of the depletion of water and the declining economic situation, Gaza Strip is
suffering from environmental problems such as salination of fresh water, contamination of
underground water resources (most wells in Gaza Strip produce nonpotable water by lack
of adequate sewage treatment, desertification, soil degradation and depletion and water-
borne diseases. Besides salts, which cause kidney disease, nitrates from solid waste and
fertilizers are the most common water contaminants. (Hamdan et al.,2008).
In many areas of the Gaza Strip, salinity in groundwater extracted from the aquifer has
exceeded 1000 mg/L, and even 3000 mg/L in some areas . Although water with such
salinity can be used for certain domestic applications, such as irrigation and household
cleaning, it is deemed unacceptable for drinking purposes . As a result, desalination became
the alternative source for drinking water, supplying the Gaza Strip with 90% of its drinking
water needs. Salinity of the coastal aquifer's groundwater has been constantly increasing
over time, due to seawater intrusion and the excessive withdrawal of water, far exceeding
the natural recharge . (Al-Khatib I. and Arafat H. ,2009).
3.8 Domestic wells in Gaza Governorate:
The wells used in this research in Gaza governorate are shown in figure (3.4) below, 52
domestic wells through the area were used in this research.

Domestic wells in the study area
Figure (3.5): Location of wells used in the research

CHAPTER 4
Methodology
In order to achieve the objectives of the research which aimed to conduct a holistic
assessment of the quality of groundwater resource in Gaza governorate by using GIS
analysis multivariate techniques. The following steps below show clearly the steps used
to achieve the research objectives. Figure 4.1 shows the flowchart of the methods used
in this research.
13. 4.1 Data Collection and processing:
Water quality Data was requested from the related ministries and related local
institutions such as Gaza municipality and Palestinian water authority (PWA) , some
needed data was collected from the published reports of these institutions. The collected
data for 52 domestic well for the year 2009 is checked and interpolation was used to
estimate the missing data.
The collected data is for the following parameters: Electrical conductivity (EC ) ,Total
dissolved solids (TDS) ,Calcium (CA) ,Magnesium (MG) ,Sodium (NA) ,Potassium
(K),Chloride (CL) ,Nitrate (NO3) ,Sulphate (SO4) , Alkalinity and hardness.
4.2 Check of Normality:
According to the central limit theory the sampling distribution of the sample mean is
≥ 30).(Bajbai
approximately normally distributed if the sample size is large enough (n
N.,2010) . Indeed of this , parameters were log transformed to increase its normal
distribution which is preferred for optimal results and reliable interpretations of the
results.
Chapter 4: Methodology Page 39

Data Collections Data Collections
Estimate Missing Data
Log Data to increase normality
Data Standardization
R-mode factor The R-mode factor analysis will account

Analysis each factor of the total variance
Factor Scores Calculations
Cluster Analysis Dendrogram presentation
Concentration maps for each parameter

Developing GQI using Kriging interpolation.
Contamination index values

ranging between −1 and 1
Calculate GQI using

Importance weight
The rank map (Rate between 1
and 10)
Sensitivity
Calculate GQI Analysis
Figure (4.1) :Flow Chart of methodology used in this research

Data standardization is essential in multivariate analysis; it increases the homogeneity

of a dataset and enhances its normality, and therefore ensures that all parameters are
close in terms of their variances. (Yidana et al.2010).The data were therefore
standardized to their corresponding zscores as in Equation below, in order to achieve the
objectives of normal distribution and homogeneity.
Z = 𝑿𝑿−µ
𝑺𝑺
x is the data.
µ is the mean.
s is the standard deviation of the datasets.
14. 4.4 R mode Factor Analysis:
R-mode factor analysis was also applied to the data to determine and rank the sources of
variation in the hydrochemistry. In the factor analysis, ‘principal components’ was
selected as the solution method. The total number of factors generated from a typical
factor analysis indicates the total number of possible sources of variation in the data.
Factors are ranked in order of merit. The first factor or component has the highest
eigenvector sum and represents the most important source of variation in the data. The
last factor is the least important process contributing to the chemical variation. Factor
loadings on the factor loadings tables are interpreted as correlation coefficients between
the variables and the factors.
R mode Factor analysis was done by using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS) release 15 as in Figure 4.2.

Figure (4.2): Factor analysis using SPSS application
15. 4.5 Cluster Analysis:
Hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) was then applied to the data. Hierarchical cluster
analysis is the more popular of the two methods of cluster analysis. It divides datasets
into hierarchies based on similarity or dissimilarities in the field. In this study the Q-
mode HCA, groups wells locations into clusters. The method as in figure (4.3) used for
clustering is Squared Euclidean Distance which is the distance between two items, x and
y, is the sum of the squared differences between the values for the items.
Squared Euclidean Distance (x,y) =Σi (xi−yi)2
16. 4.5.1 Dendrogram Presentation:
The HCA resulted in a dendrogram which is a presentation of the groundwater

associations in the area. Samples with similar spatial characteristics and relationships
are clustered together at low linkage distances, whilst dissimilar samples are linked at
higher linkage distances.

Cluster analysis and dendrogram presentation was done by using (SPSS) release 15 as
in as in Figure 4.3.
Figure (4.3): Cluster analysis using SPSS application
17. 4.6 Schoeller diagram:
Schoeller diagrams represent the compositions of any number of clusters in diagrams. It

can visually show the average of each clusters and also it help to decide which is the
best number of clusters.when the compositions are near each other and cross each other,
this mean that there is more needed clusters and when the compositions is far from each
others, this mean that more clusters may be needed.
This diagram was created by the Rockware Aq.QA (The spreadsheet for water analysis)
version 1.1.1 .
18. 4.7 Stiff diagrams:
Stiff diagrams show the composition of a single cluster, in terms of common cation and
anions, with concentration represented in electrical equivalents. Stiff diagrams can be
generated for each member of a cluster.

This diagram was created by the Rockware Aq.QA (The spreadsheet for water analysis)
version 1.1.1.
19. 4.8 Developing Water Quality Index:
Water quality index is developed using (Babiker et al., 2007) method, The following
sub-sections describe the steps leading to the formulation of the GQI. all the steps below
was conducted by using ESRI ArcMap 9.3.
4.8.1 The Primary Map
Concentration maps representing the “primary map I” was constructed for each
parameter from the point data using mainly Kriging interpolation. The parameters used
is the parameters which have WHO guideline.
4.8.1.1 Kriging:
Kriging is often regarded as one of the most popular and robust interpolation
techniques. (Irabor et al. ,2008).Unlike other point interpolation methods (nearest point
or moving average) Kriging is built on a statistical method. Several interpolation
techniques are available in the literature.The Kriging method performs a weighted
averaging on point values where the output estimates equal the sum of product of point
values and weights divided by the sum of weights. (Babiker et al.,2007).
According to (Arcmap help) Kriging weights the surrounding measured values to derive
a prediction for an unmeasured location. The general formula for both interpolators is
formed as a weighted sum of the data:
Z(So) = ∑𝑵𝑵
𝒊𝒊=𝟎𝟎 𝛌𝛌𝛌𝛌 Z(si)
Where:
Z(si) = the measured value at the ith location.

λi = an unknown weight for the measured value at the ith location.
s0 = the prediction location.
N = the number of measured values.
with the Kriging method, the weights are based not only on the distance between the
measured points and the prediction location but also on the overall spatial arrangement
of the measured points.Thus, in ordinary kriging, the weight, λi, depends on a fitted
model to the measured points, the distance to the prediction location, and the spatial
relationships among the measured values around the prediction location.
Figure (4.4) :Kriging interpolation using ArcMap
4.8.2 Transforming the Data in the into Universal norm:
In order to relate the data to universal norm, the measured concentration, Xʹ, of every
pixel in the “primary map I” was related to its desired WHO standard value, X using a
normalized difference index:
C = (Xʹ -X) / (Xʹ + X)
The resultant “primary map II” thus displays for each pixel a contamination index
values ranging between −1 and 1. This is close to the contamination index approach
which is calculated as the ratio between the measured concentration of contaminant and

the prescribed maximum acceptable contaminant level. However the normalized

difference index used here provides fixed upper and lower limits for the contamination
level. Table 4.1 below shows the WHO guideline for the parameters used in the index.
Table (4.1) : WHO Guidelines for drinking water.WHO (2011)
WHO Guidline
Parameter
Tds 600
Cl 250
Na 200
So4 250
No3 50
Hardness 500
This step is done using Raster Calculator in ArcMap application as in Figure 4.5. The
Raster Calculator lets us build expressions to process raster layers. It can type directly
into the expression box in the dialog or add raster layers, numbers, functions and
operators into it by clicking buttons in the dialog. It is Used to type Map Algebra
syntax, build expressions that weight rasters and combine them as part of a suitability
model, make selections on your data in the form of queries, or apply mathematical
operators and other functions.
Figure (4.5) :Using Raster calculator in ArcMap application.

4.8.3 The Rank Map :
The contamination index (primary map II) was then rated between 1 and 10 to generate
the “rank map”. The rate 1 indicates minimum impact on groundwater quality while the
rate 10 indicates maximum impact. The minimum contamination index level (−1) was
set equal to 1, the median level (0) was set equal to 5 and the maximum level (1) was set
equal to 10. The following polynomial function can thus be used to rank the
contamination level (C) of every pixel between 1 and 10:
r = 0.5 * C2 + 4.5 * C + 5
C stands for the contamination index value for each pixel.
r stands for the corresponding rank value.
This step is done using Raster Calculator in ArcMap application.
4.8.4 The Water Quality Index:
The GQI was calculated as follows:
GQI = 100 – ((r1w1 + r2w2 + … + rnwn) / N)
r, stands for the rate of the rank map (1–10); w, stands for the relative weight of the
parameter which corresponds to the “mean” rating value (r) of each rank map (1–10)
and to the “mean r + 2” (r ≤ 8) in the case of parameters that have potential health
effects (e.g. nitrate); N is the total number of parameters used in the suitability analyses.
The main part of the GQI represents an averaged linear combination of factors. The
weight (w) assigned to each parameter indicating its relative importance to groundwater
quality, corresponds to the mean rating value of its “rank map”. Parameters that inflict
higher impact over groundwater quality (high mean rate) are assumed to be similarly
more important in evaluating the overall groundwater quality. Particular emphasis was

given to contaminants that posses potential risk to human health (w = mean r + 2). This
helps to reduce subjectivity associated with assigning weights of importance to the
different parameters involved in the index computation. Dividing by the total number of
parameters involved in the computation of the GQI averages the data and limits the
index values between 1 and 100.
In this way the impact of individual parameters is greatly reduced and the index
computation is never limited to a certain number of chemical parameters. The “100” in
the first part of the formula was incorporated to directly project the GQI value such that
high index values close to 100 reflect high water quality and index values far below 100
(close to 1) indicate low water quality. This step is done by using Raster Calculator in ArcMap
application.
4.9 Computing WQI using water importance weight :
In order to validate the results from the above methodology, it is important to calculate
GQI using different approach, so interpolation maps and equations above is used to
compute GQI but with using water quality parameters importance which is put by water
quality experts, water quality parameters importance used in this research is the same as
in (Shivasharanappa et al.,2011),these values is very close in other papers and it the
same as in (Ramakrishnaiah et al. ,2009).the parameter importance from 1 to 10.
Table (4.2) :importance weight for water quality parameters.
Parameter Weight
Tds 8
Cl 6
Na 4
So4 8
No3 10
Hardness 6
4.10 The Sensitivity Analysis:
Map removal sensitivity: tests the sensitivity of the output index to the removal of one
or more of the rank maps from the analyses expressed in terms of a variation index:

V (%) = (|GQIp - GQIʹp| / GQIp) * 100
V (%) , The variation index
GQIp , GQIʹp , the unperturbed and perturbed ground water quality indexes. GQIʹp is
the water quality index when removing one parameter each time.
This step is done using Raster Calculator in ArcMap application.
4.11 Software Used:
In this study three software programs were used besides the MS EXCEL:
4.11.1 ArcMap:
ArcMap is the main component of Esri's ArcGIS suite of geospatial processing

programs (Figure 4.6), and is used primarily to view, edit, create, and analyze geospatial
data. It is an extensive and integrated software platform technology for building
operational GIS. ArcGIS comprises four key software parts: a geographic information
model for modeling aspects of the real world; components for storing and managing
geographic information in files and databases; a set of out-of-the-box applications for
creating, editing, manipulating, mapping, analyzing and disseminating geographic
information; and a collection of web services that provide content and capabilities to
networked software clients. ArcMap allows the user to explore data within a data set,
symbolize features accordingly, and create maps. (Shekhar S.,Xiong H.,2008).
ArcGIS has very wide ranging functionality packaged up into a generic set of menu
driven GIS applications that implement key geographic workflows. The applications
deal with geographic data creation, import and editing, data integration and
management, data manipulation and organization, and data analysis, mapping and
reporting. (Shekhar S.,Xiong H.,2008).

Figure (4.6): ArcMap Application
The geographic information that is loaded into ArcMap can be viewed in two ways: data
view and layout view.In data view, the user can interact with the geographic
information presented, and the map elements are hidden from view. Most projects begin
in this view, and continue to the layout view for final editing and production. While in
the layout view, the user can incorporate a number of useful features such as scale bars
and north arrows. These elements are crucial to map-making, and provide clients with
appropriate reference information.(www.wikipedia.com).
4.11.2 SPSS:
SPSS - originally, Statistical Package for the Social Sciences- (Figure 4.7) is among the
most widely used programs for statistical analysis in social science. It is used by market
researchers, health researchers, survey companies, government, education researchers,
marketing organizations and others. In addition to statistical analysis, data management
(case selection, file reshaping, creating derived data) and data documentation (a
metadata dictionary is stored in the datafile) are features of the base
software.(www.wikipedia.com).

Figure (4.7): SPSS Application
Statistics included in the base software:
• Descriptive statistics: Cross tabulation, Frequencies, Descriptives, Explore, Descriptive

Ratio Statistics
• Bivariate statistics: Means, t-test, ANOVA, Correlation (bivariate, partial, distances),
Nonparametric tests
• Prediction for numerical outcomes: Linear regression
• Prediction for identifying groups: Factor analysis, cluster analysis (two-step, K-means,
hierarchical), Discriminant.
4.11.3 Rockware Aq.QA:
AqQA (Figure 4.8) was created with water engineers and aqueous geochemists in mind
or for that matter, anyone who keeps water chemistry data in a spreadsheet.
AqQA is used to (www.Rockware.com) to :
• Create Piper diagram, Stiff diagram, Ternary, and 8 other plot types
• Instant unit conversion -- shift effortlessly among units

• Check water analyses for internal consistency

• Manage water data in a spreadsheet
Figure (4.8): Aq.QA Application

CHAPTER 5
Results and Discussions
5.1 Results of Factor Analysis:
5.1.1 Pretest Iteration 1:
5.1.1.1 The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy:
KMO is an index for comparing the magnitude of the observed correlation coefficients to
the magnitude of the partial correlation coefficients. The Closer the KMO measure to 1
indicate a sizeable sampling adequacy (0.8 and higher are great, 0.7 is acceptable, 0.6 is
mediocre, less than 0.5 is unacceptable). Reasonably large values are needed for a good factor
analysis. Small KMO values indicate that a factor analysis of the variables may not be a good idea.
Tab le (5.1) : K mo and B artlett test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling
Adequacy. .758
Bartlett's Test of Approx. Chi-S quare 1235.335

Sphericity df 66
Sig. .000
Since the measure is 0.758 so , this indicate the sampling size is adequate and the
correlation between parameters is generally accepted.
Principal component analysis requires that the probability associated with Bartlett's Test of
sphericity be less than the level of significance. The probability associated with the Bartlett
test (Sig = 0) is <0.001, which satisfies this requirement.
Chapter 5: Results and Discussions Page 53

5.1.1.2 Communalities :
Communalities represent the proportion of the variance in the original variables that is
accounted for by the factor solution. The factor solution should explain at least half of each
original variable's variance, so the communality value for each variable should be 0.50 or
higher.
Table (5.2) : Communalities
Initial Extraction
EC 1.000 .986
TDS 1.000 .868
PH 1.000 .248
calcium 1.000 .928
magnisum 1.000 .945
Sodium 1.000 .968
Potassium 1.000 .719
Chloride 1.000 .973
Nitrate 1.000 .799
Sulphate 1.000 .906
Alkalinity 1.000 .890
Hardness 1.000 .957
Since the communality for PH equal 0.248 and is below 0.5 so the variable should be
removed from the next iteration of the factor analysis test. So the variable was removed and
the analysis was computed again.
5.1.2 Pretest Iteration 2 (after variable removal) :

5.1.2.1 The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy:
The measure of adequacy is 0.78 so this indicates that the sampling size is adequate and
the correlation between parameters is generally accepted.
Table (5.3) : KMO and Bartlett's Test iteration 2

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling
Adequacy. .780
Bartlett's Test of Approx. Chi-S quare 1203.087

Sphericity df 55
Sig. .000

5.1.2.2 Communalities :
All the variables are above 0.5 so it is accepted. So from the checks above for iteration two
it is clear that reliable result of the test is obtained so it should be comfort with the results
shown in this research.
Table (5.4) :Communalities Iteration 2

Initial Extraction
EC 1.000 .986
TDS 1.000 .869
calcium 1.000 .948
magnisum 1.000 .960
Sodium 1.000 .970
Potassium 1.000 .720
Chloride 1.000 .973
Nitrate 1.000 .800
Sulphate 1.000 .920
Alkalinity 1.000 .904
Hardness 1.000 .974
5.1.3 Factors extraction:
5.1.3.1 Scree plot:
The examination of the Scree plot as shown in figure (5.1) provides a visual of the total
variance associated with each factor, the steep slope shows the biggest factors.
Component Number
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
2
eulavnegiE
Figure (5.1) : Scree plot

It is clear from the figure that there are three dominant factors of the total variance of the
hydrochemistry of water.
5.1.3.2 Total Variance Explained:
The R-mode factor analysis resulted in three factors accounting for 91.1 % of the total
variance in the hydrochemistry of the study area as shown in the table (5.5). Factor one
account for about 63.9 %, Factor two accounts for about 15.48 %, Factor three accounts for
about 11.7 %.
Table (5.5) : Total Variance E xplained
Initial E igenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

% of % of
Component Total Variance Cumulative % Total Variance Cumulative %
1 7.034 63.948 63.948 7.034 63.948 63.948
2 1.703 15.481 79.429 1.703 15.481 79.429
3 1.287 11.700 91.129 1.287 11.700 91.129
4 .484 4.400 95.530
5 .224 2.034 97.564
6 .148 1.348 98.912
7 .064 .584 99.496
8 .039 .356 99.852
9 .008 .075 99.927
10 .008 .072 99.999
11 .000 .001 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
5.1.3.4 Component Matrix:
Table (5.6) presents the loading of each variable under each of the three factors. In factor
analysis the first factor usually represents the most important process or mix process
controlling the hydrochemistry, it has the highest eigenvalue and accounts for the highest
variance among the factors.
in this study ,the first factor which accounts for about 64% of the variance, has high
positive loadings for EC ,TDS,CA,MG,NA,CL,SO4 and hardness could be related due to
seawater intrusion.

The Second factor accounts for about 15% in the hydrochemistry and has high positive
loading for Alkalinity. This factor could be related to alkalinity of groundwater due to
bicarbonate ions.
The third factor accounts for about 12% in the hydrochemistry and has high positive
loadings for NO3 and K, this could be related from domestic waste and agricultural
activities.
Table (5.6) : Component Matrix a

Component
1 2 3
EC .973 .178 -.090
TDS .912 .099 -.164
calcium .872 -.434 .002
magnisum .902 -.380 .036
Sodium .894 .392 -.129
Potassium .587 .076 .608
Chloride .958 .167 -.164
Nitrate .242 -.227 .831
Sulphate .869 .390 -.114
Alkalinity -.016 .877 .366
Hardness .898 -.409 .025
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
a. 3 components extracted.
5.2 Results of Cluster analysis:
5.2.1 Dendrogram:
Three main spatial Clusters were distinguished from the from the Cluster analysis of data
from the study area. Figure (5.2) presents the dendrogram from the HCA, Table (5.7)
shows the average of parameters for each Cluster and figure (5.15) -at the end of this
chapter- shows the wells locations for each cluster.

* * * * * * H I E R A R C H I C A L C L U S T E R A N A L Y S I S * * * * * *
ResCAled Distance CLuster Combine

C A S E 0 5 10 15 20 25
Label Num +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
Altofah 1 Well 6 
Altofah 2 Well 7 
Al Remal 3 Well 1 
R/162LB 29 
R/162H 26 
R/308 44  
R/25A 31  
R/25B 32  
R/307 43  
R/74 51  
R/113A 19   
R/313 49   
Orabi Well 16   
R/162HA 27   
R/162G 25   
R/311 47  
R/162BA 21  
R/300 42  
Mahtet AlsaKhra Well 15   CLuster one
R/314 50  
R/162D 23  
AlshieKh Radwan 17 W 4   
R/270 36   
R/272C 37    
Al Quds Well 2    
R/293 40   
R/310 46   
R/254 30   
R/312 48  
R/25D 34   
R/309 45   
R/25C 33   
R/75 52   
Al TawfeeK Well 3   
R/265 35  CLuster three

R/277 38   
Q/68 17    
D/69 9   
R/280 39   
D/70 10  
D/71 11  
D/72 12  
D/68 8  
E/157 14  
CLuster two
Alshifa Well 5  
R/162EA 24  
R/112 18  
R/162LA 28  
R/161 20  
R/299 41  
E/154 13  
R/162CA 22 
Figure (5.2) : Dendrogram shows three Clusters

5.2.2 The average concentration for the three Clusters:
From the table of average concentrations, Table (5.7) it Can be noted that the 34 well in
Cluster one have extremely high concentration values and highly exceeded the WHO
guideline. it Can be noted also that the 8 wells in Cluster two have the extremist
concentrations and the most contaminant wells so it so far from the WHO Guidelines but
the 10 wells in Cluster three have values around or a little above the WHO guidelines
except for the NO3 which is extremely high and far from the WHO guidelines in the three
Clusters.
Table (5.7) :The average

concentration for each Cluster
Cluster No.
Cluster Cluster Cluster
Parameter 1 2 3
EC 3146.8 11875.0 1194.6
TDS 2147.1 7362.5 742.5
CL 679.9 3568.8 187.2
Hardness 560.5 2308.8 379.1
NA 442.5 1636.3 113.8
Alkalinity 416.2 285.6 289.6
SO4 167.0 704.6 43.5
NO3 152.9 153.1 101.5
CA 112.8 475.4 77.8
MG 67.5 272.1 44.7
K 9.8 16.4 3.9
PH 7.4 6.8 7.1
5.2.3 Schoeller Diagram for the three Clusters:
Since choosing the number of Clusters in Cluster analysis is subjective so we use this
diagram to help us choose the best number of Clusters. From Schoeller Diagram in figure
(5.4). Three Clusters were the best choice from this diagram.

Figure (5.4) : Schoeller Diagram for the three Clusters
It is seen that Cluster 2 has the highest values for cations and anions , cluster three has the
lowest values ,cluster two has values between cluster one and cluster three.
5.2.4 Stiff Diagram:
In this research, the average concentrations of the major ions were used to describe the
different groundwater associations depicted by the three different clusters.
5.2.4.1 Stiff diagram for cluster one :
Stiff diagram of cluster one shows that the NA cation is the highest among the cations
whilst the CL is the predominant anion. This means that the most predominant water type
in cluster one is the NA–CL water type.

Figure (5.4) :Stiff diagram for cluster one
5.2.4.2 Stiff diagram for cluster two :
In cluster two the NA cation is the highest among the cations whilst the CL is the
predominant anion. This means that the most predominant water type in cluster one is the
NA–CL water type. The same as cluster one but these waters are characterized by relatively
high concentrations of the major ions leading to relatively high salinities. cluster two is the
more saline of the two.
Figure (5.5) : Stiff diagram for cluster two

5.2.4.3 Stiff diagram for cluster three :
In cluster three the NA cation is the highest among the cations but the HCO3 is the
predominant anion. This means that the most predominant water type in cluster 3 is NA-
HCO3.water in cluster 3 is the least saline water of the three clusters.
Figure (5.6) : Stiff diagram for cluster three
5.3 Results of water Quality Index:
5.3.1 Interpolation maps of the used parameters:
Figures (5.6) to (5.12) present the interpolation maps for the parameters used in calculating
WQI, it is notices that concentrations increases as the area is close to shoreline and
concentrations decreases in the north and increases at it goes south. Interpolation maps
show clearly that most of the area exceeded the WHO guidelines.


5.3.2 The rank value for each parameter:
The statistics in Table (5.8) of the six rank maps (parameters) used to compute the WQI,
The table indicates that parameters such as TDS (7.62), CL (7.4) , NO3 (7.23) and NA
(6.75) have high mean rank values , this means that these parameters indicates significant
impact on groundwater quality. Hardness and SO4 also have significant impact but less
than the four parameters mentioned first.
Table (5.8) : Summary of statistics of the rank maps
parameter Min max mean SD

TDS 5.26 9.40 7.62 0.53
CL 6.01 8.69 7.40 0.63
NA 3.06 9.14 6.75 0.69
SO4 2.33 7.33 4.53 0.77
NO3 6.65 7.71 7.23 0.21
Hardness 4.62 7.19 5.47 0.83

5.3.3 Groundwater Quality Index:
From Figure (5.13) of the GQI the index is between 43 % and 63 %, this indicates that the
quality of the water in the study area is extremely low, this Narrow range of the indicator
shows that the quality in the area is close to each other in its low. This index can be
explained as follows:
1. Two gradients of groundwater quality can be observed in the study area. These two areas
are: the first area is near to the shoreline and the second area is next of the first area.
2. The area of the beach camp is the worst in the index due to its nearness to the sea and the
effect of the seawater intrusion.
3. The first area near to the shoreline is lower than in quality of the second area and this is
expected result since the seawater intrusion factor has 64 % variance effect of the water
quality.
4. the second area is obviously higher quality than the first area at the narrow range as
mentioned above, the north of the area has the best quality in the study area and the quality
decrease as it go south.
5. From the overall study area it is clear that the middle of the area is relatively worse than the
quality of the sides of the area.

Figure (5.13) :Water Quality Index

5.4 Water quality index using water quality importance weight:
When the WQI is calculated using the experts opinions about the importance weight of the
parameters used in calculating the WQI. As seen in figure (5.14) below.
Figure (5.14) :Water Quality Index Using importance weights

The values of the index is between the high 63.6 and the low 43.2, the result for the original
index above is between the high 63.2 and the low 43.5. This gives us good impression and
reputation because the results are so far close and this give us an indication of a high
quality water quality index appeared in this research.
5.5 Results of sensitivity analysis:
The removal of the each parameter from the computation seems to cause close and high
variations for SO4 and NO3 and a little lower for hardness, NO3 has high mean rank and
high variation index when removed so NO3 is the most important and the most parameter
affected and used for the assessment of water quality.SO4 and NO3 have relative lower
mean rank values but have high variations index when it is removed, in contrast NA has
high mean rank value but low variation index ,this ensure that these parameters is desired to
be of the parameters used in the computation of the index. In general it is obvious the GQI
was rather insensitive to the removal of any of the input parameter maps probably because
the index was generated by averaging. This ensures the stability of the index and the
comparability of the results from different locations using different data sets.
Table (5.9): Statistics of Variation Index (%)
parameter removed Min Max mean SD

TDS 0.53 7.52 4.52 0.54
CL 1.75 5.83 3.30 0.71
NA 0.00 5.91 0.60 0.42
SO4 6.06 12.41 9.42 0.74
NO3 5.17 9.52 7.65 0.76
Hardness 1.29 8.68 5.94 0.94
Generally parameters that reflect relatively lower water quality (high mean rank value) and
those of significant spatial variability imply larger impacts on the GQI and must be
carefully and accurately mapped.

Figure (5.15): wells locations for each cluster.

CHAPTER 6
Conclusions and Recommendations
This Chapter is concluding in the first section the main inputs and results of the holistic
assessment conducted in this study in Gaza governorate water quality. The second Section
summarizes viable recommendation about the water quality status.
6.1 Conclusions:
1. Gaza Governorate suffers from the deteriorating in both of quality and quantity of
the groundwater which is the only source of drinking water in the area.
2. Three factors affect the hydrochemistry of groundwater of Gaza governorate, the

most important factor with 64% could be due to the sea water intrusion into
groundwater, the second factor with 15% could be due to the existence of
bicarbonate ions in the water, the third factor with 12% could be due to wastewater
and agriculture activities.
3. The wells in the study area can be categorized according to the parameters of water
quality into three groups (clusters), the three groups exceeded the WHO guidelines
but in different levels except for the NO3 which is extremely high and far from the
WHO guidelines in the three clusters.
4. Most wells in Gaza Strip exceeded the WHO guidelines and since the primary
purpose of the Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality is the protection of public
health so water problem may be considered one of the important threats of health
problems.
Chapter 6: Conclusions and Recommendations Page 70

5. The most predominant water type in the study area is the NA–CL water, while some
locations have NA-HCO3 water type.
6. Water Quality Index indicates clearly that the parameters TDS, CL , NO3 and NA
have high mean rank value, This means that these parameters indicates significant
impact on groundwater quality. Hardness and SO4 also have significant impact but
less than the four parameters mentioned first.
7. When computing WQI using water quality parameters weights, the result was very
close to the original index. This gives good impression and reputation due to strong
indication of a high quality water quality index used in this research.
8. The removal of the each parameter from the computation seems to cause close and
high variations for So4 and No3 and a little lower for hardness, No3 has high mean
rank and high variation index when removed so No3 is the most important and the
most parameter affected and used for the assessment of water quality.
9. So4 and No3 have relative lower mean rank values but have high variations index
when it is removed. In contrast Na has high mean rank value but low variation
index, this ensure that these parameters is desired to be of the parameters used in the
computation of the index.
10. In general it is obvious the GQI was rather insensitive to the removal of any of the
input parameter maps probably because the index was generated by averaging. This
ensures the stability of the index and the comparability of the results from different
locations using different data sets.
11. Geographic information systems (GIS) have been approved in this study to be
valuable way in understanding and dealing with the pressing problems of water
resources management in our world

12. The multivariate statistical techniques such as cluster analysis and factor analysis,
has been approved in this study to an intelligent methods in analysis of water quality
data for drawing meaningful information.
13. Water quality index has been approved in this study to be user friendly, easy
communication tool and more trustful as it express about the water quality for
composite of parameters not for isolated one.
6.2 Recommendations:
1. The overall quality of groundwater is low and this situation needs urgent and
strategic solutions.
2. Since sea water intrusion has the highest factor effect in the hydrochemistry, short
term and long term solutions must be implemented in order to reduce this effect.
3. Programs should be implemented to monitor the wells exceeded the WHO

guidelines especially in cluster two which is highly exceeded the WHO guidelines.
4. Since domestic waste and agricultural activities has factor effect in the
hydrochemistry, it is an important issue to: Complete and improve the sanitation
services in the governorate and implement Monitoring programs to ensure the
proper use in of fertilizers and pesticides.
5. Since the area near to the shoreline is the most contaminant area so this area should
benefit as the first priority from any desalination project.
6. Since the parameters TDS, Cl, Na ,SO4 ,NO3 and Hardness have high mean rank
valueand have significant spatial variability imply larger impacts on the GQI ,so it
and must be carefully and accurately mapped.

7. Water quality indexes should be used in automated or manual way in order to

understand the overall water quality and the trends the quality tends to.
8. It is highly recommended to use GIS tools and its application to produce maps to
communicate our tragic water situation in the governorate.

REFERENCES
Abou Auda M., Abu Zinada I., El Shakh Ali E.,(2011) “ Accumulation of heavy metals
in crop plants from Gaza Strip, Palestine and study of the physiological parameters of
spinach plants”. Journal of the Association of Arab Universities for Basic and Applied
Sciences.
Al-Ghuraiz Y., Enshassi A.,(2006) “Chemical and microbiological quality of

desalinated water, groundwater and rain-fed cisterns in the Gaza strip, Palestine”.
Building and Environment 41,1243–1250.
Alkalinity of Drinking Water Explained

http://www.freedrinkingwater.com/water-education2/74-alkalinity-water.html
Al-Khatib I., Arafat H. , (2009) “Chemical and microbiological quality of desalinated

water, groundwater and rain-fed cisterns in the Gaza strip, Palestine”. Desalination 249,
1165–1170.
Almasri M.,(2008) “Assessment of intrinsic vulnerability to contamination for Gaza

coastal aquifer, Palestine”. Journal of Environmental Management 88 , 577–593.
American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, Water

Environment Federation. (1999) :Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater ,20th edition .
ArcMap
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArcMap
References Page 74
Asadi S. , Vuppala P. , Reddy M. , ,(2007) “Remote Sensing and GIS Techniques for
Evaluation of Groundwater Quality in Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (Zone-V),
India”. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 4(1), 45-52.
Ayoko G. , Singh K. , Balerea S., Kokot S. ,(2007) , “Exploratory multivariate

modeling and prediction of the physico-chemical properties of surface water and
groundwater”. Journal of Hydrology 336, 115– 124.
Baalousha H.,(2006) “Chemical and microbiological quality of desalinated water,

groundwater and rain-fed cisterns in the Gaza strip, Palestine”. Desalination 196, 1–12.
Babiker I. , Mohamed M. , Hiyama T. ,(2007) “Assessing groundwater quality using

GIS”. Water Resources Management 21,699–715.
Bajbai N., (2010) : Business Statistics. pearson education.
Bengraine K , Marhaba T. ,(2003) , “Using principal component analysis to monitor

spatial and temporal changes in water quality”. Journal of Hazardous Materials 100,
179–195.
Brimicombe A., (2010) , Geographic information Systems in Water Resources

Engineering , 2nd edition ,London.
Bu H. , Tan X. , Li S., Zhang Q. ,(2010) , “Temporal and spatial variations of water

quality in the Jinshui River of the South Qinling Mts., China”. Ecotoxicology and
Environmental Safety 73, 907–913.
Callie U., (2005) , “Interaction structures analysed from water-quality data”. Ecological
Modelling 187 ,475–490.
Chenini I. , Khemiri S. , (2009), “Evaluation of ground water quality using multiple linear
regression and structural equation modeling”. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Tech., 6 (3), 509-519.
References Page 75
Chowdary V., Rao N.,, Sarma P.,(2003) “GIS-based decision support system for
groundwater assessment in large irrigation project areas”. Agricultural Water
Management 62, 229–252.
Coquille Subbasin Working Atlas

http://www.inforain.org/coquille_atlas/index.html
Cordoba E., Martinez A., Ferrer E.,(2010) “ Water quality indicators: comparison of a
probabilistic index and a general quality index. The case of the confederacion
hidrografica del jucar (spain) ”. Ecological Indicators 10,1049–1054.
Demers M., (2009) ,Gis for Dummies , Wiley Publishing, Inc., Indianapolis, Indiana.
Dixon B., (2005)“Groundwater vulnerability mapping: A GIS and fuzzy rule based
integrated tool”. Applied Geography 25 (2005) 327–347.
Executive Action Team (EXACT), Overview of Middle East Water Resources. Water
Resources of Palestinian, Jordanian, and Israeli Interest, 1998.
Gaza Governorate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Governorate
GIS components
http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/aldegheishem/GIS/Forms/DispForm.aspx?ID=2
Hamdan L.,, Zarei M.,, Chianelli R., Gardner E., (2008) “Sustainable water and energy
in Gaza Strip”. Renewable Energy 33, 1137–1146.
Irabor O. , Olobaniyi S., Oduyemi K., Akunna J. ,(2008) “Surface and groundwater
water quality assessment using multivariate analytical methods: A case study of the
Western Niger Delta, Nigeria”. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 33, 666–673.
References Page 76
Johnson L., (2009) Geographic Information Systems in Water Resources Engineering ,

Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ,London.
Kazi T. , Arain M. , Jamali M., Jalbani N. , Afridi H., Sarfraz R ., Baig J., Shah
A.,(2009) , “Assessment of water quality of polluted lake using multivariate statistical
techniques: A case study”. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 72, 301– 309
Lermontov A., Yokoyama L., Lermontov M., Augusta M., Machado S.,(2009) “River
quality analysis using fuzzy water quality index: ribeira do iguape river watershed,
brazil. ”. Ecological Indicators 9,1188–1197.
Love D , Hallbauer D. , Amos A., Hranova R. ,(2004) , “Factor analysis as a tool in

groundwater quality management: two southern African case studies”. Physics and
Chemistry of the Earth 29,1135–1143.
Melloul A., Collin M.,(1998),“A proposed index for aquifer water quality assessment:
the case of israel’s sharon region”. Journal of Environmental Management 54, 131–
142.
Mencio´ A , Mas-Pla J. , (2008) , “Assessment by multivariate analysis of

groundwater–surface water interactions in urbanized Mediterranean streams”. Journal
of Hydrology 352, 355– 366.
Mishra B. , chaturvedi G. ,tewari D. ,(2008) “water quality index and suitability of

water of kohargaddi dam at district balrampur, india”. Journal of enviromedia (pollution
research) 27 (3), 497-500.
Nas B., Berktay A.,(2006) “Groundwater contamination by nitrates in the city of

Konya,(Turkey): A GIS perspective”. Journal of Environmental Management 79 , 30–
37.
References Page 77
Noori R. , Sabahi M. , Karbassi A., Baghvand A. , Zadeh H., (2010) , “Multivariate

statistical analysis of surface water quality based on correlations and variations in the
data set”. Desalination 260,129–136.
Oh H., Kim Y., Choi J., Park E, Lee S., (2011) “GIS mapping of regional probabilistic
groundwater potential in the area of Pohang City, Korea”. Journal of Hydrology
399,158–172.
Oprea C., Mihul L.,(2003), “R-mode factor analysis applied to the exploration of air
pollution in the south of romania”. Romanian reports in physics, 55( 32), 91-110.
Ozdemir A.,(2011) “Using a binary logistic regression method and GIS for evaluating
and mapping the groundwater spring potential in the Sultan Mountains (Aksehir,
Turkey)”. Journal of Hydrology 405,123–136.
Palestine aquifer
http://www.grid.unep.ch/products/4_Maps/palestine_aquiferb.jpg
Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, Localities in Gaza Governorate by Type of

Locality and Population Estimates, 2007-2016.
http://www.pcbs.gov.ps/Portals/_pcbs/populati/gza.html
Palestinian Water Authority,(2000), “Summary of Palestinian Hydrologic Data, Gaza”.

Volume(2) .
Palestinian Water Authority,(2007), “ Guiding Information Towards Domestic

Groundwater Supply Management in the Gaza Strip Governorates-Palestine”. Water
Resources Directorate, Palestine.
Palestinian Water Authority,(2010), “Groundwater Quality of Domestic Water Wells In

Gaza Strip Governorates”.
References Page 78
Praharaj T., Swain S., Powell M.,, Hart B.,, Tripathy S., (2002)“Delineation of
groundwater contamination around an ash pond Geochemical and GIS approach”.
Environment International 27, 631–638
Procter C.,,_, Comber L.,, Betson M.,, Buckley D.,, Frost A.,, Lyons H.,, Riding A.,,
Voyce K.,(2006) “Using a binary logistic regression method and GIS for evaluating and
mapping the groundwater spring potential in the Sultan Mountains (Aksehir, Turkey)”.
Journal of Environmental Management 81,296–306.
Rajankar P. , Gulhane S. , Tambekar D. ,(2009) “Water Quality Assessment of

Groundwater Resources in Nagpur Region (India) Based on WQI”. E-Journal of
Chemistry 6(3), 905-908.
Ramakrishnaiah C. , Sadashivaiah C. , Ranganna G. ,(2009) “Assessment of Water

Quality Index for the Groundwater in Tumkur Taluk, Karnataka State, India”. E-Journal
of Chemistry 6(2), 523-530.
Ramesh S., Sukumaran N., Murugesan A., Rajan M., (2010) “An innovative approach
of drinking water quality index—a case study from southern tamil nadu, india”.
Ecological Indicators 10, 857–868.
Razmkhah H , Abrishamchi A. , Torkian A., (2010) , “Evaluation of spatial and

temporal variation in water quality by pattern recognition techniques: A case study on
Jajrood River (Tehran, Iran)”. Journal of Environmental Management 91, 852–860.
Rodrigues P. , Rodrigues R. , Costa B., Martins A. , Silva J.,(2010) , “Multivariate

analysis of the water quality variation in the Serra da Estrela (Portugal) Natural Park as
a consequence of road deicing with salt”. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory
Systems 102,130–135.
References Page 79
Saeedi M. , Abessi O., Sharifi F. , Meraji H. ,(2010) “Development of groundwater

quality index”. Journal of Environtal Monitoring Assessment 163,327–335.
Saidi S., Bouri S., Dhia H, Anselme B.,(2009),“ A gis-based susceptibility indexing
method for irrigation and drinking water management planning: application to chebba–
mellouleche aquifer, Tunisia”. Agricultural Water Management 96,1683–1690.
Shaban M. , Urban B. , El Saadi A., Faisal M. ,(2010) , “Detection and mapping of

water pollution variation in the Nile Delta using multivariate clustering and GIS
techniques”. Journal of Environmental Management 91 ,1785-1793
Shekhar S.,Xiong H., (2008), Enclopydia of GIS , SpringerScience+Buisiness Media,

LLC.New York.
Shirodkar P. , Mesquita A. , Pradhan U., Verlekar X. Babu M., Vethamony P.,(2009)

,“Factors controlling physico-chemical characteristics in the coastal waters off
Mangalore—A multivariate approach”. Environmental Research 109, 245–257.
Shivasharanappa , Srinivas P., , Huggi M.,(2011). Assessment of ground water quality

characteristics and Water Quality Index (WQI) of Bidar city and its industrial area,
Karnataka State, India. international journal of environmental sciences volume 2, no 2,
2011.
Shomar B., Osenbrück K.., Yahya A.,(2008 ) “Elevated nitrate levels in the
groundwater of the Gaza Strip: Distribution and sources”. Science of the total
environment 398 , 164-174.
Shrestha S. , Kazama F. , (2007) , “Assessment of surface water quality using

multivariate statistical techniques: A case study of the Fuji river basin, Japan”.
Environmental Modelling & Software 22,464-475.
References Page 80
Simoes F., Moreira A., Bisinoti M., Gimenez S., Yabe M.,(2008) “Water quality index
as a simple indicator of aquaculture effects on aquatic bodies”. ecological indicators 8 ,
476 – 484.
Singh K. , Malik A. , Sinha S. ,(2005) , “Water quality assessment and apportionment

of pollution sources of Gomti river (India) using multivariate statistical techniques- a
case study”. Analytica Chimica Acta 538,355–374.
Smajgl A.,Larson S., Hug B., De Freitas D., ( 2010) “ Water use benefit index as a tool
for community-based monitoring of water related trends in the great barrier reef
region”. Journal of Hydrology 395,1–9.
Solsona F., (2002). “Guidelines For Drinking Water Quality Standards In Developing
Countries”.
Song T., Kim K.,(2009) “Development of a water quality loading index based on water
quality modeling”. Journal of Environmental Management 90,1534–1543.
SPSS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPSS
Stigter T., Ribeiro L.,Dill A.,(2006), “Application of a groundwater quality index as an

assessment and communication tool in agro-environmental policies –two portuguese
case studies”. Journal of Hydrology 327, 578– 591.
Tait N.,, Davison R., Whittaker J.,, Leharne S.,Lerner D., (2004) “Borehole
Optimisation System (BOS)—A GIS based risk analysis tool for optimising the use of
urban groundwater”. Environmental Modelling & Software 19 , 1111–1124.
Tanera M., Ustunb B., Erdincler A.,(2011), “A simple tool for the assessment of water
quality in polluted lagoon systems:a case study for kucukcekmece lagoon, turkey”.
Ecological Indicators 11,749–756.
References Page 81
Terrado M., Borrell E., de Campos S., Barcelo D., Tauler R.,(2010) “Surface-water-
quality indices for the analysis of data generated by automated sampling networks”.
Trends in Analytical Chemistry 29(1).
The Gaza Strip aquifer (Palestine)

http://grida3.crs4.it/grida3/doku.php?id=activity:the_gaza_aquifer
Tobiszewski M , Tsakovski S. , Simeonov V., Namiesnik J. ,(2010) , “Surface water

quality assessment by the use of combination of multivariate statistical classification
and expert information”. Chemosphere 80,740–746.
VanderPost C., McFarlane M., (2007) “Groundwater investigation in semi-arid

developing countries, using simple GIS tools to facilitate interdisciplinary decision
making under poorly mapped conditions: The Boteti area of the Kalahari region in
Botswana”. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation
9,343–359.
Water properties: pH
http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/phdiagram.html
What is conductivity and why is it important?

http://water.epa.gov/type/rsl/monitoring/vms59.cfm
Why use Excel, when you can use AqQA?

http://www.rockware.com/product/overview.php?id=150
World Health Organization ,(2006), “A compendium of drinking-water quality

standards in the Eastern Mediterranean Region”.
World Health Organization, (1997), “Guidelines for drinking-water quality”. second

edition.
References Page 82
World Health Organization, (2008), “Guidelines for drinking-water quality”. third

edition.
World Health Organization, (2011), “Guidelines for drinking-water quality”. Fourth

edition.
Yakubo B. , Yidana S. , Emmanuel N. , Akabzaa T. , Asiedu D. ,(2009) “Analysis of

groundwater quality using water quality index and conventional graphical methods: the
Volta region, Ghana”. Environmental Earth Science 59,867–879.
Yang X. , Jin W. ,(2010) , “GIS-based spatial regression and prediction of water quality
in river networks:A case study in Iowa”. Journal of Environmental Management 91,
1943-1951.
Yassin M., Abu Amr S., Al-Najar H.,(2006) “Assessment of microbiological water
quality and its relation to human health in Gaza Governorate, Gaza Strip”. Journal of
the royal instutue of the Public Health 120, 1177–1187.
Yidana S. , Ophori D. , Yakubo B. ,(2008) “A multivariate statistical analysis of surface

water chemistry data—The Ankobra Basin, Ghana”. Journal of Environmental
Management 86, 80–87.
Yidana S. , Yakubo B. , Akabzaa T. (2010), “ Analysis of groundwater quality using

multivariate and spatial analyses in the Keta basin, Ghana”. Journal of African Earth
Sciences, Vol. 58, 220–234.
Yilmaz V. , Büyükyildiz M. , Marti A. ,(2010) “Classification of Surface Water Quality

of Kızılırmak Basin in Turkey by Using Factor and Cluster Analyses”. BALWOIS.
Zhou F. , Liu Y. , Guo H. , (2007), “Application of Multivariate Statistical Methods to

Water Quality Assessment of the Watercourses in Northwestern New Territories, Hong
Kong”. Journal of Environtal Monitoring Assessment 132,1–13.
References Page 83
Zou, Z. , Yu Y.,(1996) , “A dynamic factor model for multivariate water quality time
series with trends”. Journal of Hydrology 178,381-400
Zuane J.,(1997). “Handbook of Drinking Water Quality” .Second Edition , John Wiley
& Sons, Inc..
References Page 84
APPENDIX 1
ID X Y EC TDS CA MG NA CL NO3 SO4 Alkalinity
D/68 100514 105179 1138 706 84 54 80 151 119 60 261
D/69 100835 105466 940 583 69 50 57 108 120 17 276
D/70 101440 105833 1083 672 95 55 58 129 142 18 311
D/71 101458 106193 960 595 91 42 56 108 130 18 293
D/72 101739 106462 865 555 95 40 38 86 147 15 278
E/154 99330 105052 8860 5493 518 278 860 2854 78 413 231
E/157 100156 104670 1250 775 95 52 100 201 126 52 298
Q/68 102220 103530 1350 837 61 46 185 251 58 39 373
R/112 96061 102650 10010 6206 372 231 1400 3119 100 488 328
R/113A 96180 102500 2530 1569 112 63 310 481 165 125 360
R/161 97637 104909 10160 6299 397 204 1500 3155 283 525 311
R/162BA 98739 104413 3420 2120 177 110 310 861 177 121 268
R/162CA 98846 104605 17880 11086 683 383 2520 3836 189 2229 224
R/162D 98638 104990 2090 1296 133 78 150 445 152 35 224
R/162EA 98168 104435 10480 6498 416 257 1510 3173 143 557 273
R/162G 99166 103952 3600 2232 148 84 450 803 128 190 348
R/162H 99055 103668 2500 1550 103 62 350 437 203 149 465
R/162HA 99050 103699 2850 1767 130 58 380 681 178 116 397
R/162LA 98481 104045 8980 5568 314 199 1220 2668 134 358 323
R/162LB 98050 104400 3360 2083 112 84 540 624 187 232 447
R/254 96542 102055 2320 1438 67 44 350 466 59 144 397
APPENDIX 1 Page 85
R/25A 100702 102494 3000 1860 89 53 460 552 153 204 497
R/25B 100779 102497 3140 1970 147 73 380 559 245 149 547
R/25C 100647 102436 4620 2864 112 64 740 1004 172 283 522
R/25D 100701 102410 3480 2158 56 34 600 739 74 218 497
R/265 95809 101708 1672 1037 62 38 230 359 60 98 273
R/270 96558 102589 2750 1705 97 69 325 466 30 109 601
R/272C 99390 98470 6000 3720 138 58 1060 1513 24 362 471
R/277 96253 101546 1681 1042 61 31 240 330 36 107 286
R/280 95719 101275 1007 624 65 39 94 151 77 11 248
R/293 96819 101348 2440 1513 88 59 340 502 109 144 348
R/305 97552 100272 2910 1804 121 84 450 538 219 219 522
R/306 97076 101802 7880 4886 207 236 1260 2402 141 348 323
R/307 97607 101504 1889 1171 105 67 190 323 226 77 318
R/308 98263 101596 2700 1674 96 61 325 459 209 114 514
R/309 100829 101626 4600 2852 73 50 880 1155 52 320 547
R/311 99242 101666 4380 2716 67 95 650 839 241 260 574
R/313 97524 103059 2100 1302 138 73 225 430 153 102 360
R/314 99176 104395 3190 1978 233 104 310 990 93 79 219
R/74 100661 101543 2160 1340 118 71 280 430 172 113 373
R/75 100417 101299 3750 2325 91 53 270 896 140 255 467
Alremal well 3 96887 102940 2390 1482 113 81 270 466 196 102 460
alquds well 96135 102323 2400 1488 72 48 380 559 143 163 348
Al Tawfeek Well 100792 100584 4900 3038 61 37 860 1138 143 358 559
Alshiekh Radwan 17 99620 104908 1244 7713 89 61 85 265 96 41 211
APPENDIX 1 Page 86
Alshifa Well 97267 103875 12360 7663 498 310 2000 4152 143 409 298
Altofah 1 Well 99537 103835 4010 2486 150 79 500 853 322 116 512
Altofah 2 Well 100171 102966 4008 2485 143 79 520 853 321 139 465
Orabi Well 97716 100451 3000 1860 139 80 370 586 143 153 522
r/299 97551 100273 16270 10087 605 315 2080 5593 156 659 298
r/310 97419 100283 2760 1711 95 47 400 537 117 167 472
APPENDIX 1 Page 87
APPEDIX 2
Calculating Water Quality index maps
Primary maps:
Primary Primary
maps maps
Primary Primary
maps maps
APPENDIX 2 Page 88
Primary Primary
maps maps
Primary II maps:
Primary Primary
II maps II maps
APPENDIX 2 Page 89
Primary Primary
II maps II maps
Primary Primary
II maps II maps
APPENDIX 2 Page 90
Rank maps:
Rank Rank
maps maps
Rank Rank
maps maps
APPENDIX 2 Page 91
Rank Rank
maps maps
APPENDIX 2 Page 92

GWQ Ms Thesis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GWQ Ms Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Islamic University-Gaza.

Assessment of groundwater quality

In partial fulfillment of the requirement for degree of Master of Science

‫إﻘ ٔﺮا ﺑﺎﺴﻢ رﺑﻚ اﻠﺬي ﺧﻟﻖ‬

‫ﻣﻠﺨﺺ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ‬ ‫‪Page ii‬‬

To My FATHER AND MOTHER FOR ENCOURAGMENT

TO MY WIFE AND MY YONGEST SISTER FOR SUPPORT

TO MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS

TO MY FRIENDS AND COLLEAGUES

Dedications Page iii

I would like to extend my great appreciations to all Environment management and

Table of Contents Page v

2.2.1 The Guidelines for drinking-water quality............................................ 8

Table of Contents Page vi

CHAPTER 3: Description of Study Area........................................................... 30

Table of Contents Page vii

4.10 The Sensitivity Analysis………...……………………………………….. 48

Table of Contents Page viii

Table (3.1) Population Estimates for Gaza Governorate (2011-2016)…………………..………35

Table (4.1) WHO Guidelines for drinking water……………………………………...…………46

Table (4.2) importance weight for water quality parameters……………………………………48

Table (5.1) kmo and bartlett test………………………………………………………………....53

Table (5.2) Communalities………………………………………………………………………54

Table (5.3) kmo and bartlett test iteration 2……………………………………………………...54

Table (5.4) Communalities Iteration 2…………………………………………………………...55

Table (5.5) Total variance explained…………………………………………………………….56

Table (5.6) component matrix …...................................................................................................57

Table (5.7) The average concentration for each cluster…………………………………………59

Table (5.8) Summary of statistics of the rank maps……………………………………………64

Table (5.9) Statistics of Variation Index (%)………………………………………...………….68

List of Tables Page ix

Figure (2.1) GIS is a collection of software, hardware, data, and people..............................…...25

Figure (2.2) Map layers address multiple themes………………………….……….……………26

Figure (3.1) Gaza Governorate as part of Gaza strip.....................................................................31

Figure (3.2) Coastal Aquifer…………………………………………………………………….32

Figure (3.3) Topography of Gaza………………………………………………………………..33

Figure (3.5) Location of wells used in research………………..………………………………...38

Figure (4.1) Flow Chart of methodology used in this research………………………………….40

Figure (4.2) Factor analysis using SPSS application…………………………………………….42

Figure (4.3) Cluster analysis using SPSS application……………………………………………43

Figure (4.4) Kriging interpolation using ArcMap………………………………………………..45

Figure (4.5) Using Raster calculator in ArcMap application………...……………….…………46

Figure (4.6) ArcMap Application………………………………………………………………..50

Figure (4.7) SPSS Application…………………………………………………………………...51

Figure (4.8) Aq.QA Application…………………………………………………………………52

List of Figures Page x

Figure (5.1) Scree plot…………………………………………………………………………...55

Figure (5.2) Dendrogram shows three clusters…………………………………………………..58

Figure (5.3) Schoeller Diagram for the three clusters……………………………………………60

Figure (5.4) Stiff diagram for cluster one……………………………………………………..…61

Figure (5.5) Stiff diagram for cluster two……………………………………………………..…61

Figure (5.6) Stiff diagram for cluster three………………………………………………………62

Figure (5.7) SO4 Interpolation…………………………………………………………………...63

Figure (5.8) CL Interpolation…………………………………………………………………….63

Figure (5.9) Na Interpolation……………………………………………………………………63

Figure (5.10) TDS Interpolation……………………………………………………………..….63

Figure (5.11) NO3 Interpolation………………………………………………………………..64

Figure (5.12) Hardness Interpolation…………………………………………………………...64

Figure (5.13) Water Quality Index……………………………………………………………....66

Figure (5.14) Water Quality Index Using importance weight…………..…………………...…..67

Figure (5.15) Wells locations for each cluster………………………...………………………....69

List of Figures Page xi