Environmental Challenges 5 (2021) 100378

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Challenges
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envc

Evaluating the water quality index in dam lake for cold water fish farming
Hamid Amiri a, Bijan Hadizadeh b, Mehrdad Ghorbani Mooselu c, Sama Azadi d,
Amir Hossein Sayyahzadeh e,∗
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Shiraz Payam Noor University, Shiraz, Iran
c
Department of Engineering Sciences, University of Agder, Norway
d
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran
e
Department of Civil Engineering, Malayer University, Malayer, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: Water quality monitoring and assessment in drinking water resources are of great importance. The entry of
Drinking water pollutants and nutrients into water resources may cause problems for public health and can increase the bioac-
Fish farming cumulation and biodiversity risks. This issue is more critical for dam lakes with more retention time, a primary
Ilam dam
source for drinking, agriculture, fish farming, and industry. This study applies the universal water quality index
Universal water quality index
(U-WQI) to evaluate the dam lake quality in an arid area and identifies the sources of upstream pollutants over
time (2016–2020). For this, 16 physical, chemical, and microbial parameters were quarterly measured in three
points of Ilam dam lake in Ilam City, Iran. Then, U-WQI was calculated to evaluate water quality for drinking
and cold water fish farming. Over the course of monitoring, the average U-WQI for drinking and fish farming was
176.7 and 190.2, respectively. Seasonal changes in the index suggest that fish farming in spring is more suitable
than other seasons since the U-WQI decreases in summer and winter.

1. Introduction
In arid and semi-arid regions, dams construction and operation are
among the primary strategies for water resources management. Dam
lakes are applied for supplying water demand in agriculture, drinking,
fish farming, flood control, and energy production (Kutlu et al., 2020).
Anthropogenic activities such as the entry of urban and rural wastewa-
ter, livestock and metal factories effluent, and production of pesticides
and fertilizers can contaminate dam water during the operation of dams
(Ozmen et al., 2008; Karadede and Ünlü, 2000; Karimi et al., 2020;
Masoudinejad et al., 2018). The entry of pollutants and nutrients into
water resources and their accumulation in dam sediments can cause
problems for public health and can increase the bioaccumulation and
biodiversity risk (Baştürk, 2019). Recently, dam lake water has been
widely applied to raise aquatic animals in cages. Understanding the ge-
ological characteristics of the lakes and the physicochemical properties
of the water behind the dam are vital for the application of dam water
resources in fish farming. Undesirable changes in the water quality of
dam lake can pose serious risks to natural spawning ground of fishes and
self-purification capacity of river. The quality variation can also gener-
ate polluted aquatic products, decrease vital elements due to sediment
deposition behind dams, and decrease the growth of planktons, which
plays an essential role in fish nutrition. Consequently, the economic ben-
efits of the aquaculture industry and the quality of their products face
serious risks. Therefore, assessing the reservoir water quality variables is
necessary to secure downstream ecosystems and related industries such
as fish farming (Ni et al., 2018; Schenone et al., 2011).
The water quality index (WQI), which converts massive water
quality information into an understandable number, has received
much attention recently (Mooselu et al., 2020; Azadi et al., 2021;
Mooselu et al., 2021). Various types of water quality indices such
as U-WQI (Azadi et al., 2021; Mooselu et al., 2021), Dinius-WQI (D-
WQI), WQI-National Sanitation Foundation Index, and Canadian Coun-
cil of Ministers of the Environment Water Quality Index (CCME-WQI)
(Mooselu et al., 2020) have been applied in previous researches for wa-
ter quality assessment. Each one interprets the water quality by con-
sidering different parameters (Baştürk, 2019; Carbajal-Hernández et al.,
2013; Torres et al., 2010; Dinius, 1987). D-WQI evaluates the quality of
water resources for a set of different applications (i.e., public water sup-
ply, recreation, fish, shellfish, agriculture, and industry) by considering
12 parameters, including pH, DO, BOD, Cl, total hardness (TH), alkalin-
ity, coli, e-coli, electrical conductivity (EC), temperature, nitrate, and
color. The main problem of this method is that it does not take into ac-
count other water quality parameters, which may be important for any

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: a.sayahzade@malayeru.ac.ir (A.H. Sayyahzadeh).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2021.100378
Received 2 August 2021; Received in revised form 7 November 2021; Accepted 8 November 2021
2667-0100/© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
H. Amiri, B. Hadizadeh, M.G. Mooselu et al.
desired application for the monitored water. Also, D-WQI is not flexible
regarding the standards. It means that it does not apply the acceptable
limits according to the local standards or updated versions of the WHO
standard. Therefore, the U-WQI has been widely applied in literature
in which the effective parameters and their standard limits are selected
site-specifically and based on the required applications (Mooselu et al.,
2021).Alobaidy et al. (2010) used the U-WQI to assess the water quality
of Dukan Lake in Kurdistan (Iraq), and the results indicated the im-
pact of anthropogenic activities on some parameters such as EC and
BOD.Kükrer and Mutlu (2019) evaluated the effect of anthropogenic ac-
tivities on the water quality of Sarayduzu dam lake (Turkey) by U-WQI.
Considering 28 basic variables, they found that pH, temperature, EC,
suspended solid matter, BOD, TH, Alkalinity, calcium, nitrate, ammo-
nium, mercury, and DO are the most significant parameters in variations
of the aquatic ecosystem quality following by the major ions. To the best
of the authors’ knowledge, the application of U-WQI has not been used
previously to assess the lake water quality for fish farming and aquatic
life. Therefore, this study evaluated the water quality conditions in Ilam
dam lake using U-WQI and assessed the efficiency of remedial activi-
ties (e.g., upstream pollutant resource management, and preventing the
entry of effluents from livestock centers) in the quality of consuming
water for fish farming and drinking. Accordingly, water physical, chem-
ical, and biological parameters were quarterly monitored between 2016
and 2020. Finally, the seasonal variation of the water quality for drink-
ing and fish farming was examined. Decision-makers could apply the
results of this study to adopt proper approaches to protect the dam lake
water quality.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Study area
Ilam Dam is located in the southeast of Ilam City and lies between
620,000 N and 650,000 N latitude and 3,700,000 and 3,720,000 E
(38 N,UTM) longitude. It was constructed on the Kanjancham River
(Fig. 1) and put into operation in September 2001 to supply drinking
water to Ilam City. Ilam Dam is a clay core earthfill dam with a height
of 162 m and a width of 250 m. The capacity of the dam is 71 Mm3 , and
the lake area is 340 hectares. The average temperature in the study area
2
Environmental Challenges 5 (2021) 100378
Fig. 1. The case study and the catchments.
is 17.2 °C. The average frosty days in Ilam station is 42 days per year,
with an annual evaporation of1312.93 mm. The catchment area of Ilam
Dam consists of three sub-basins, including Golgol, Chaviz, and Ema.
Each sub-basin has its specific river, and all three rivers flow indepen-
dently and supply the water of the dam reservoir. So, the three rivers of
Chavez, Golgol, and Ema are the main sources of water entering the dam
lake. The Golgol River has a permanent flow with a significant discharge
rate, accounting for ∼70% of the inflow into the reservoir. Since Ilam
Dam supplies drinking water for the Ilam city, the reduction of pollu-
tion generated from upstream resources in this catchment is essential. In
mid-2018, in order to control upstream pollution sources, many sectors
in the basin, including a livestock in the Cheshmeh Kaboud catchment
area and a poultry slaughter in the Golgol basin were closed. Also, in
recent years, the establishment of any new polluting sector in the up-
stream basin of Ilam Dam has been stopped by the local authorities to
protect water quality.
2.2. . U-WQI
To calculate U-WQI in the lake water, 16 physical, chemical, and
biological parameters of water quality, including turbidity, electrical
conductivity (EC), suspended solids (SS), total dissolved soild (TDS),
pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), biological oxygen demand (BOD), chemical
oxygen demand (COD), nitrate, nitrite, bicarbonate, total hardness, cal-
cium, chlorine, magnesium, sodium, potassium, and fecal coliform were
quarterly measured between 2016 and 2020. Water samples were pre-
pared from three different points of the dam lake, corresponding to the
entrance of three rivers. The samples were transferred to a laboratory,
and the qualitative parameters were measured according to standard
methods. U-WQI was calculated considering the standard limit of cold
water fish farming and standard limits of WHO for each parameter. One
of the critical steps in U-WQI calculation is computing the relative im-
portance of qualitative parameters in comparison with each other. In
this study, the assigned weights to water quality parameters were col-
lected from various studies (Table 1) and normalized between 1 and 5.
Then, the average relative weight of each parameter was determined
using Eq. (1).
𝐴𝑊
𝑅𝑊𝑖 = ∑ 𝑖 (1)
𝐴𝑊𝑖
 H. Amiri, B. Hadizadeh, M.G. Mooselu et al.
Table 1
Relative values of indices used in literature for calculation of WQI.
Parameters Boyacioglu Bodrud- Saucedo- Arkoç El Baba Rubio- Average RWi
(2007) Kannel et al.Abrahão
(2007) et al.
Karakaya andRamakrishnaiah etDoza
al. et al. Periyasamy and
Meher et al.Ravikumar et Ş
al.
ener et al. Batabyal and Mgbenu andTerán et al. Ugochukwu et(2016
al. ) Khatita et Karunanidhi
al. et al.
et al. Arias et al. weights
(2007) Evrendilek (2009) (2016) Rajan (2015) (2013) (2017) Chakraborty Egbueri (2017) (2019) (2017) (2021) (2020) (2012)
(2010) (2009) (2015) (2019)
SS – 4 – 4 – – – – – – – – 3 – – – – – – 3.7 8.87
Turbidity – – 4 2 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 3 3.0 7.26
pH 1 1 1 1 3.2 4 1 3.2 2.4 3.2 3.2 3.2 – 3.2 – 1.68 3.2 2.4 4 2.5 5.96
EC – 1 4 2 – – 2 4 2.4 – – 2.4 3 4 – – 3.2 – 4 2.9 7.04
DO 4 4 4 4 – – – – – – – – – – – 3.2 – – 4 3.9 9.40
3

TDS – – – – 3.2 – 3.2 4 – 3.2 4 3 3.2 2.4 – 4 4 – 3.4 8.28

BOD 2 3 3 3 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 2.8 6.65
COD – 3 3 3 – – – – – 3.2 – – – – – – – – – 3.1 7.38
Hardness 1 1 1 1 1.6 1 – 2.4 _ 1.6 2.4 – – – – – – – 1.4 3.50
Ca2+ – 1 1 1 1.6 2 3 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 2.4 – – 1.6 – 2.4 1.6 – 1.7 4.15
Mg2+ – 1 1 1 1.6 2 1 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 2 – 1.6 – 2.4 1.6 – 1.5 3.74
Na+ – – 1 – – 4 4 0.8 2.4 1.6 – 2.4 – 2.4 – 2.4 2.4 – 2.3 5.66
K+ – – – – – 2 2 – 1.6 – – 1.6 – – 0.8 – 1.6 0.8 – 1.5 3.60
HCO− 3 – – – – – – – – – – – 2.4 – – 1.6 – 2.4 1.6 – 2.0 4.84
Cl− – 1 1 1 2.4 3 4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 1.6 – 2.4 2.4 – 1.6 2.4 2 2.2 5.20
Total 4 – 3 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 3.5 8.47
coliform

Environmental Challenges 5 (2021) 100378

H. Amiri, B. Hadizadeh, M.G. Mooselu et al. Environmental Challenges 5 (2021) 100378

Table 2
Parameters used in this study and their standard values World Health Organization (2002), Alberta Environment and Parks AEP (2018), Svobodová (1993).

Parameter Unit Measurement method Standard limit of fish farming Standard limit WHO

SS mg/L ASTM D3977 80 20

Turbidity NTU SM 2130 B 1 1
pH – SM 4500 H 7.5 7.5
EC ms/cm SM 2510 0.4 1
DO mg/L ASTM D888 9 5
TDS mg/L SM 2540 200 500
BOD mg/L SM 5210 D – 1
COD mg/L SM 5220 D – 25
TH mg/L SM 2340 400 100
Ca2+ mg/L SM 3500 – 75
Mg2+ mg/L SM 3500 – 50
Na+ mg/L SM 3500 – 200
K+ mg/L SM 3500 – 12
HCO3 − mg/L SM 4500 200 250
Cl− mg/L SM 4500 – 250
Total Coliform MPN/100mL SM 9221 – 50

Table 3
Natural water quality classification based on the total score of WQI index.

Amount of given index Quality step

> 300 Polluted

200–300 Very poor
100–200 Poor
50–100 Good
< 50 Excellent

where, 𝑅𝑊𝑖 is the relative weight calculated for each parameter and
𝐴𝑊𝑖 is the weight assigned to each parameter. Then, to calculate
the U-WQI, the quantity rating scale (Qi) was computed according to
Eq. (2) for all parameters, except for pH and DO which was determined
by Eq. (3) (Meher et al., 2015), as follows:.
( )
𝐶𝑖
𝑄𝑖 = ∗ 100 (2)
𝑆𝑖
( )
𝐶𝑖 − 𝑉 𝑖
𝑄𝑖 = ∗ 100 (3)
𝑆𝑖 − 𝑉 𝑖
where 𝑄𝑖 is the relative index, 𝐶𝑖 represents the parameter measured in
the dam water samples, 𝑆𝑖 corresponds to the allowable quality param-
eter in the global standard related to drinking water and fish farming,
and 𝑉 𝑖 represents the optimal value for pH and DO which is equal to 7
and 14.6, respectively. Table 2 presents the weight assigned to each pa-
rameter and their standard values. U-WQI for each sample was obtained
by multiplying 𝑄𝑖 and 𝑅𝑊𝑖 (Eq. (4)) as follows:
∑ The U-WQI of water samples of Ilam dam for drinking water between
𝑊 𝑄𝐼 = 𝑄 𝑖 𝑅𝑊𝑖 (4)
Then, the sum of these values for all parameters was considered as
WQI value. Finally, water quality status in different stations and sam-
pling stages was determined based on the general classification of WQI.
For the relative comparison of samples, water quality was classified from
excellent (WQI < 50) to unsuitable (WQI> 300) (Table 3).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Results of monitored parameters
Table 4 presents the measured values of the 16 physiochemical pa-
rameters of Ilam Dam water. By far, the most critical cations were Ca2+
at an approximately average amount of 3.9 meq/L, followed by Mg2+
at 2.5 meq/L. The Na+ and K+ were far less important with average
amounts of 0.53 and 0.37 meq/L, respectively. In addition, HCO3− with
an average amount of 2.9 meq/L was determined as the most impor-
tant anion in the Ilam dam water. Regarding other parameters, turbidity
and total coliform have significant standard deviations. According to the
Fig. 2. Value chart of U-WQI in the monitoring period for drinking use.
measured values for the parameters of COD and BOD, little biological
pollution enters the lake. Analyzing the measured parameters during the
study period showed that the average of turbidity, BOD, Ca+2 , K+, and
fecal coliform are higher than the standard value mentioned by WHO
for drinking water.
3.2. . U-WQI results for drinking use
2016 and 2020 is indicated in Fig. 2. The minimum and maximum values
were 95.62 and 317.59, respectively. The average of this index during
the monitoring period was 176.7. The results show that the water quality
is in poor condition for drinking during the monitoring period. Hence,
the local authorities need to adopt protective measures for drinking pur-
poses and improve water quality in water treatment stages. U-WQI be-
tween late 2017 to mid-autumn 2018 had the highest value, showing the
lowest water quality. For instance, on 12/02/2017, the U-WQI reached
317.6. The most effective parameter in increasing the U-WQI during this
period was turbidity, which increased to more than 30.81 NTU which is
mainly due to the torrential rains and floods entering the dam lake. In
addition, the value of factors such as COD, pH, and total hardness have
changed significantly compared to other periods. The COD level has in-
creased to more than 40 mg/L, indicating the entry of contamination
from upstream pollution sources. This increase was due to the rise in
poultry and livestock activities in the lake catchment area. Hence, since
5/8/2018, these sectors were forced to build a sedimentation pond to
decrease the turbidity and pollution load of dam lake. After this date and
by operation of sedimentation ponds, U-WQI decreased to about 132.2.

4
 H. Amiri, B. Hadizadeh, M.G. Mooselu et al.
Table 4
Values of parameters measured at different stages of sampling.

Sampling Date TSS Turbidity pH EC DO TDS BOD COD TH Ca (mg/L) Mg Na K HCO3 Cl Total coliform
(mg/L) (NTU) (ms/cm) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (MPN)

28/11/2015 43 3.31 7.91 0.563 7.83 282 3 12 184 79.35 30 9.5 2.3 107.8 5.99 150
23/05/2016 17.2 4.22 8.44 0.639 9.26 322 2 11 192 75.35 0.96 10.4 1.4 164.7 1.99 240
16/08/2016 57.6 14.9 8.8 0.555 7.76 281 4 4 172 82.56 0.48 10.2 1.3 140.3 14.9 93
25/10/2016 40.3 11.2 8.63 0.631 7.8 317 3 4 200 85.77 0.28 11.25 1.5 176.9 3.99 4
12/02/2017 40.3 7 8.5 0.63 5.01 315 2 11 192 80.16 0.48 11 1.3 183 11.99 23
08/06/2017 99.6 2.11 6.83 0.595 7 299 2 4 240 80.16 9.6 12.47 1.8 170.8 1.99 67
02/12/2017 24.7 30.81 8.46 0.635 8.2 317 2 40 280 48.096 38.4 16.34 4.5 164.7 11.99 23
26/02/2018 18.7 28.84 7.05 0.662 7.27 331 2 12 220 36.072 31.2 16.04 2.6 183 11.99 93
16/05/2018 12.9 0.61 8.36 0.59 7.82 296 1 24 100.2 100.2 30 14.45 2.3 195.2 9.99 1100
5

05/08/2018 9.3 0.3 7.25 0.643 6.26 321 1 4 208 100.2 30 15.34 9.28 183 15.99 1100
06/10/2018 6.73 0.588 6.4 0.588 6.4 294 1 12 240 104.2 30 12.69 2.9 183 12.05 460
31/12/2018 10.78 4.26 8.09 0.703 7.6 354 1 12 216 98.59 4.8 11.87 8.2 195.2 19.99 150
27/04/2019 8.7 7 8.32 0.699 6.72 349 1 12 208 52.9 18.46 10.56 8.3 231.8 7.99 210
14/09/2019 10.7 0.9 8.19 0.65 7.1 429 1 8 216 100.2 30 12 14 219.6 9.99 230
21/11/2019 5.6 1.5 6.92 0.539 7.68 270 1 4 248 64.128 21.38 12 14 219.6 11.99 210
21/01/2020 9.8 3.66 8 0.366 7.09 183 1 4 114.62 74 220 7.99 183 18.4 20 20
18/05/2020 14.5 3.7 7.98 0.499 3.66 249 1 16 220 96.192 21 14.48 1.5 244 7.99 460
15/06/2020 32 2.42 8.48 0.483 7 241 3 8 260 64.128 24 12.8 1.1 183 11.99 15
Average 25.7 7.1 7.9 0.6 7.1 302.8 1.8 11.2 206.2 79.0 30.1 12.3 14.5 175.8 10.7 258.2
Standard 23.19 8.86 0.69 0.08 1.20 50.51 0.92 8.66 43.89 19.27 47.74 2.24 41.08 49.20 5.07 325.76
deviation
Mean 15.85 3.68 8.14 0.61 7.19 307.00 1.50 11.00 212.00 80.16 22.69 12.00 2.45 183.00 11.99 150.00

Environmental Challenges 5 (2021) 100378

H. Amiri, B. Hadizadeh, M.G. Mooselu et al.
Fig. 3. The average water quality variation for drinking and fish farming water
(2016–2020).
Fig. 4. U-WQI of the dam lake water for cold-water fish farming (2016–2020).
During the monitoring period, the average value of U-WQI for spring,
summer, autumn, and winter was 169.9, 174.2, 181.8, and 174.2, re-
spectively. As shown, the U-WQI for drinking usage was almost the same
over different seasons. However, in autumn, the dam water for drinking
usage was of lower quality than other seasons. The mean deviation for
spring, summer, autumn, and winter was 47.3, 62.1, 83.1, and 64.8, re-
spectively. Spring has the lowest standard deviation compared to other
seasons, and autumn has the highest U-WQI changes compared to the
average.
Fig. 3 shows the changes in the annual average U-WQI between 2016
and 2020. Before 2018, the average annual U-WQI was more than 221,
and after the construction of sedimentation ponds upstream of the dam,
the average index decreased to less than 132.2.
3.3. Water quality monitoring for fish farming
U-WQI was calculated based on parameters for cold-water fish farm-
ing, including SS, pH, turbidity, EC, DO, TDS, TH, and HCO3 in Ilam
dam (Fig. 4). The average of this index in the sampling period was
190.2, indicating its relatively poor quality for cold-water fish farm-
ing usage. Low water quality for fish farming can lead to low economic
benefits, low product quality, and high potential risks to human health
(Schenone et al., 2011). As mentioned earlier, after 5/8/2018, man-
agement practices were adopted for controlling the pollution sources
upstream of the dam lake. The average U-WQI after these corrective
actions was about 124, which is in the good quality category. The maxi-
mum and minimum U-WQI for cold-water fish farming was 508.62 and
83.47, respectively. The worst water quality which was due to the in-
crease of turbidity and pH, was observed on 12/2/2017. The reason
for the high turbidity index in this period was heavy rains and floods
that were flushed into the dam lake. As a result, watershed manage-
6
Environmental Challenges 5 (2021) 100378
ment approaches have to be extended to prevent entering the sediments
and leachate from upstream of the catchment, and erosion-prone ar-
eas can be controlled using sediment dams (Issaka and Ashraf, 2017;
Sadeghi, 2017). The average water quality for spring, summer, autumn,
and winter was 143.8, 159.9, 235.7, and 233.0, respectively. Accord-
ingly, the dam water quality in spring for fish farming is better than
other seasons. According to Fig. 3, between 2018 and 2020, in most
seasons, the U-WQI level is about 100, which represents good condition
for fish farming.
4. Conclusion
In this study, water quality of Ilam dam lake for drinking and cold-
water fish farming was assessed between 2016 and 2020 using U-WQI.
During this period, the average U-WQI of the lake for drinking and fish
farming was 172.45 and 124.84, respectively. It shows that the water
quality of the lake is poor for both usages. Maximum U-WQI values were
calculated in 2018. The most effective parameters in increasing U-WQI
in 2018 were turbidity, pH, COD, and TH due to the flood influx and ef-
fluents from polluting industries such as poultry and livestock upstream
of the dam. In order to improve the water quality pre-treatment units
were considered for these industries from mid-2018. After the opera-
tion of such management measures, the amount of U-WQI for drinking
and fish farming improved to 140.97 and 103.1, respectively. Seasonal
changes in water quality showed that water quality for fish farming in
the spring is more suitable than other seasons. In summer, due to the
entry of agricultural drainage and the reduction of the dam water vol-
ume, the water quality for drinking purpose extremely decreased. Ad-
ditionally, the variation of water quality in winter was mainly due to
the arrival of the upstream floods. Therefore, it is necessary to adopt
continuous protective measures to prevent the entry of pollutants from
the upstream contaminant sources. Also, since this dam is the primary
source of drinking water for Ilam City, the water treatment plant of Ilam
City should be updated based on the water quality variation of dam lake.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Hamid Amiri: Investigation, Writing – review & editing. Bi-
jan Hadizadeh: Data curation, Formal analysis. Mehrdad Ghorbani
Mooselu: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Sama
Azadi: Writing – review & editing, Formal analysis. Amir Hossein
Sayyahzadeh: Investigation, Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Hamid Amiri: Investigation, Writing – review & editing. Bijan
Hadizadeh: Data curation, Formal analysis. Mehrdad Ghorbani
Mooselu: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Sama
Azadi: Writing – review & editing, Formal analysis. Amir Hossein
Sayyahzadeh: Investigation, Writing – review & editing.
Reference
Abrahão, R., Carvalho, M., Da Silva Jr, W.R., Machado, T., Gadelha, C., Hernandez, M.,
2007. Use of index analysis to evaluate the water quality of a stream receiving indus-
trial effluents. Water SA 33, 459–466. doi:10.4314/wsa.v33i4.52940.
Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP), Environmental quality guidelines for Alberta sur-
face waters, water policy branch, Policy Division Edmonton, Alberta, 2018.
Alobaidy, A.H.M.J., Maulood, B.K., Kadhem, A.J., 2010. Evaluating raw and treated water
quality of Tigris river within Baghdad by index analysis. J. Water Resour. Prot. 2, 629.
doi:10.4236/jwarp.2010.27072.
H. Amiri, B. Hadizadeh, M.G. Mooselu et al.
Arkoç, O., 2016. Application of water quality index with the aid of geographic information
system in eastern Thrace to assess groundwater quality. Jeol. Muhendisligi Derg. 40,
189–207.
Azadi, S., Amiri, H., Mooselu, M.G., Liltved, H., Castro-Muñoz, R., Sun, X., Boczkaj, G.,
2021. Network design for surface water quality monitoring in a road con-
struction project using gamma test theory. Water Resour. Ind. 26, 100162.
doi:10.1016/j.wri.2021.100162.
Baştürk, E., 2019. Assessing water quality of Mamasın Dam Turkey using water qual-
ity index method ecological and health risk assessments. CLEAN 47, 1900251.
doi:10.1002/clen.201900251.
Batabyal, A.K., Chakraborty, S., 2015. Hydrogeochemistry and water quality index in the
assessment of groundwater quality for drinking uses. Water Environ. Res. 87, 607–
617. doi:10.2175/106143015x14212658613956.
Bodrud-Doza, M.D., Islam, A.T., Ahmed, F., Das, S., Saha, N., Rahman, M.S., 2016.
Characterization of groundwater quality using water evaluation indices multi-
variate statistics and geostatistics in central Bangladesh. Water Sci. 30, 19–40.
doi:10.1016/j.wsj.2016.05.001.
Boyacioglu, H., 2007. Development of a water quality index based on a European classi-
fication scheme. Water SA 33, 101–106. doi:10.4314/wsa.v33i1.47882.
Carbajal-Hernández, J.J., Sánchez-Fernández, L.P., Villa-Vargas, L.A., Carrasco-
Ochoa, J.A., Martínez-Trinidad, J.F., 2013. Water quality assessment in shrimp
culture using an analytical hierarchical process. Ecol. Indic. 29, 148–158.
doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.12.017.
Dinius, S., 1987. Design of an index of water quality. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 23,
833–843. doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.1987.tb02959.x.
El Baba, M., Kayastha, P., Huysmans, M., De Smedt, F., 2020. Evaluation of the groundwa-
ter quality using the water quality index and geostatistical analysis in the Dier al-Balah
Governorate, Gaza strip, Palestine. Water 12 (262). doi:10.3390/w12010262.
Issaka, S., Ashraf, M.A., 2017. Impact of soil erosion and degradation on water quality: a
review. Geol. Ecol. Landsc. 1, 1–11. doi:10.1080/24749508.2017.1301053.
Kükrer, S., Mutlu, E., 2019. Assessment of surface water quality using water quality index
and multivariate statistical analyzes in Saraydüzü dam lake Turkey. Environ. Monit.
Assess. 191, 71. doi:10.1007/s10661-019-7197-6.
Kannel, P.R., Lee, S., Lee, Y.S., Kanel, S.R., Khan, S.P., 2007. Application of wa-
ter quality indices and dissolved oxygen as indicators for river water clas-
sification and urban impact assessment. Environ. Monit. Assess. 132, 93–110.
doi:10.1007/s10661-006-9505-1.
Karadede, H., Ünlü, E., 2000. Concentrations of some heavy metals in water, sediment
and fish species from the Atatürk dam lake (Euphrates) Turkey. Chemosphere 41,
1371–1376. doi:10.1016/S0045-6535(99)00563-9.
Karakaya, N., Evrendilek, F., 2010. Water quality time series for big Melen stream
(Turkey): its decomposition analysis and comparison to upstream. Environ. Monit.
Assess. 165, 125–136. doi:10.1007/s10661-009-0932-7.
Karimi, A., Naghizadeh, A., Biglari, H., Peirovi, R., Ghasemi, A., Zarei, A., 2020. As-
sessment of human health risks and pollution index for heavy metals in farm-
lands irrigated by effluents of stabilization ponds. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 1–11.
doi:10.1007/s11356-020-07642-6.
Karunanidhi, D., Aravinthasamy, P., Subramani, T., Muthusankar, G., 2021. Revealing
drinking water quality issues and possible health risks based on water quality index
(WQI) method in the Shanmuganadhi river basin of South India. Environ. Geochem.
Health 43, 931–948. doi:10.1007/s10653-020-00613-3.
Khatita, A.M.A., Shaker, I.M., Shetaia, S.A., 2017. Water quality assessment and potential
health risk of Manzala lake-Egypt. Al-Azhar Bull. Sci. 9, 119–136.
Kutlu, B., Aydın, R., Danabas, D., Serdar, O., 2020. Temporal and seasonal variations in
phytoplankton community structure in Uzuncayir dam lake (Tunceli, Turkey). Envi-
ron. Monit. Assess. 192, 1–12. doi:10.1007/s10661-019-8046-3.
Masoudinejad, M., Ghaderpoori, M., Zarei, A., Nasehifar, J., Malekzadeh, A., Nasiri, J.,
Ghaderpoury, A., 2018. Data on phosphorous concentration of rivers feeding into
Taham dam in Zanjan Iran. Data Br. 17, 564–569. doi:10.1016/j.dib.2018.01.068.
Environmental Challenges 5 (2021) 100378
Meher, P.K., Sharma, P., Gautam, Y.P., Kumar, A., Mishra, K.P., 2015. Evaluation of water
quality of Ganges river using water quality index tool. Environmentasia 8, 124–132.
doi:10.14456/ea.2015.15.
Mgbenu, C.N., Egbueri, J.C., 2019. The hydrogeochemical signatures, quality indices and
health risk assessment of water resources in Umunya district, southeast Nigeria. Appl.
Water Sci. 9, 1–19. doi:10.1007/s13201-019-0900-5.
Mooselu, M.G., Liltved, H., Nikoo, M.R., Hindar, A., Meland, S., 2020. Assessing optimal
water quality monitoring network in road construction using integrated information-
theoretic techniques. J. Hydrol. 589, 125366. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125366.
Mooselu, M.G., Amiri, H., Azadi, S., Liltved, H., 2021. Spatiotemporal assessment
of surface water vulnerability to road construction. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 1–23.
doi:10.1007/s10668-021-01763-9.
Ni, Z., Wu, X., Li, L., Lv, Z., Zhang, Z., Hao, A., Iseri, Y., Kuba, T., Zhang, X., Wu, W.M.,
Li, C., 2018. Pollution control and in situ bioremediation for lake aquaculture using an
ecological dam. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 2256–2265. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.185.
Ozmen, M., Ayas, Z., Güngördü, A., Ekmekci, G.F., Yerli, S., 2008. Ecotoxicological as-
sessment of water pollution in Sariyar dam lake Turkey. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 70,
163–173. doi:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2007.05.011.
Periyasamy, M., Rajan, M.R., 2009. Physico–chemical characteristics and water quality
index of electroplating industry effluent. Magnesium 50, 1–8.
Ramakrishnaiah, C.R., Sadashivaiah, C., Ranganna, G., 2009. Assessment of water quality
index for the groundwater in Tumkur Taluk Karnataka state India. E J. Chem. 6, 523–
530. doi:10.1155/2009/757424.
Ravikumar, P., Mehmood, M.A., Somashekar, R.K., 2013. Water quality index to determine
the surface water quality of Sankey tank and Mallathahalli lake Bangalore urban dis-
trict Karnataka India. Appl. Water Sci. 3, 247–261. doi:10.1007/s13201-013-0077-2.
Rubio-Arias, H., Contreras-Caraveo, M., Quintana, R.M., Saucedo-Teran, R.A., Pinales-
Munguia, A., 2012. An overall water quality index (WQI) for a man-made
aquatic reservoir in Mexico. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 9, 1687–1698.
doi:10.3390/ijerph9051687.
S.H.R. Sadeghi, 2017. Soil erosion in Iran: state of the art, tendency and solutions.
Poljoprivreda i Sumarstvo 63, 33–37. 10.17707/AgricultForest.63.3.04.Government
of Alberta, 2018. Environmental quality guidelines for Alberta surface waters. water
policy branch, Alberta environment and parks, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Saucedo-Terán, R.A., Holguín-Licón, C., Jurado-Guerra, P., Ochoa-Rivero, J.M., Rubio-
Arias, H.O., 2017. Calidad del agua de consumo animal en el sistema vaca-
cría del sur de Chihuahua, México. Ecosist. Recur. Agropecu. 4, 331–340.
doi:10.19136/era.a4n11.1071.
Schenone, N.F., Vackova, L., Cirelli, A.F., 2011. Fish-farming water quality and envi-
ronmental concerns in Argentina: a regional approach. Aquac. Int. 19, 855–863.
doi:10.1007/s10499-010-9404-x.
Şener, Ş., Şener, E., Davraz, A., 2017. Evaluation of water quality using water quality index
(WQI) method and GIS in Aksu river (SW-Turkey). Sci. Total Environ. 584, 131–144.
doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.01.102.
Svobodová, Z., 1993. Water Quality and Fish Health. Food & Agriculture Organization,
Rome.
Torres, P., Cruz, C.H., Patiño, P., Escobar, J.C., Pérez, A., 2010. Applying water quality
indexes (WQI) to the use of water sources for human consumption. Ing. Investig. 30,
86–95. doi:10.15446/ing.investig.v30n3.18180.
Ugochukwu, U.C., Onuora, O.H., Onuorah, A.L., 2019. Water quality evaluation
of Ekulu river using water quality index (WQI). J. Environ. Stud. 4, 1–4.
doi:10.13188/2471-4879.1000027.
World Health Organization, 2002. Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality, 2nd Ed. World
Health Organization.