Environ Monit Assess (2023) 195:1360
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-023-11952-w
RESEARCH
Wastewater treatment plant performance assessment using
time‑function‑based effluent quality index and multiple
regression models: the case of Bahir Dar textile factory
Tilik Tena Wondim · Rimuka Bloodless Dzwairo · Dagnachew Aklog ·
Eshetu Janka · Gamunu Samarakoon · Mekuria Mulusew Dereseh
Received: 12 June 2023 / Accepted: 5 October 2023 / Published online: 23 October 2023
© The Author(s) 2023
Abstract Extensive water and chemicals are used in
the textile industry processes. Therefore, treatment of
textile wastewater is vital to protect the environment,
maintain the public health, and recover resources.
However, due to poor operation and plant perfor-
mance the partially treated textile wastewater was
directly discharged to a nearby river. Thus, the aim
of this study was to characterize the wastewater phys-
icochemical properties and evaluate the performance
of the textile factory-activated sludge process waste-
water treatment plant (WWTP) in Bahir Dar, Ethio-
pia. In inlet and outlet of the WWTP, samples were
collected for 6 months and analyzed on-site and in a
T. T. Wondim · R. B. Dzwairo · D. Aklog · E. Janka ·
G. Samarakoon · M. M. Dereseh
Department of Water Supply and Sanitary Engineering,
Bahir Dar Institute of Technology, Bahir Dar University,
26 Bahir Dar, Ethiopia
T. T. Wondim · R. B. Dzwairo · D. Aklog · E. Janka ·
G. Samarakoon · M. M. Dereseh
Department of Civil Engineering, Durban University
of Technology, Midlands, PO Box 101112, 3209, Imbali,
Durban, South Africa
T. T. Wondim (*) · R. B. Dzwairo · D. Aklog · E. Janka ·
G. Samarakoon · M. M. Dereseh
Department of Process, Energy and Environmental
Technology, University of South-Eastern Norway,
3918 Porsgrunn, Norway
e-mail: tenatilik@gmail.com
M. M. Dereseh
Excellence Enterprize, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia
laboratory for parameters including, dissolved oxy-
gen, pH, temperature, total Kjeldhal nitrogen (TKN),
chemical oxygen demand (COD), biochemical oxy-
gen demand (­BOD5), total suspended solids (TSS),
total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorous (TP), nitrite,
nitrate, and metallic compounds. The TSS, ­BOD5,
COD, TP, nitrite, ammonia, and total chromium result
were above the discharge limit with 73.2 mg/L, 48.45
mg/L, 144.08 mg/L, 7.9 mg/L, 1.36 mg/L, 1.96 mg/L,
and 0.16 mg/L, respectively. Multiple regression
models were developed for each overall, net mov-
ing average, and instantaneous effluent quality index
(EQI). The predictor parameters B ­ OD5, TN, COD,
2
TSS, and TP (R = 0.995 to 1.000) estimated the net
pollution loads of all predictors as 492.55 kg/day
and 655.44 kg/day. Except TN, TKN, and N ­ O3, the
remaining six performance parameters were violating
the permissible limit daily. Furthermore, the overall
plant efficiency was predicted as 38 % and 42 % for
the moving average and instantaneous EQI, respec-
tively. Our study concluded that the integrated regres-
sion models and EQI can easily estimate the plant
efficiency and daily possible pollution load.
Keywords Activated sludge process · Effluent
quality index · Multiple regression · Plant
performance · Physicochemical parameters · Textile
wastewater treatment
Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 1360 Page 2 of 20
Introduction
The textile factory is one of the economic sources and
contributes a significant value to growth domestic
product (GDP) for developed and developing coun-
tries (Farhana et al., 2022; Siddique et al., 2017). The
products are circulated globally in various forms. The
textile industry is considered a common good and the
concern of all nations of the environment (Patel &
Vashi, 2015). However, these industries have differ-
ent interconnected unit processes and are very com-
plicated as their products (Liu et al., 2020). Besides
manufacturing products, a textile factory generates a
large volume of highly concentrated, and commingled
wastewater, which in turn pollutes the global envi-
ronment (Imtiazuddin et al., 2012; Liugė & Paliulis,
2023; Yaseen & Scholz, 2018). In this regard, col-
lecting, transporting, and treating the wastewater
generated from each unit operation and process is
quite difficult and challenging for municipalities and
treatment plants (Latha et al., 2017; Liugė & Paliulis,
2023; Sharma & Malaviya, 2022).
Additionally, in textile factories, the increased
demand for products leads to an increase in wastewa-
ter generation and magnified pollution pressure on the
receiving environment (Abu Bakar et al., 2020; Patel
& Vashi, 2015). In a recent study, Islam et al. (2023)
explained that because of its mixed nature of waste-
water and water-consuming processes, a textile fac-
tory tends to produce toxic contaminants that affect
the health of ecosystem. In addition, heavy metals are
also produced during the dyeing process. For exam-
ple, a study by Wang, Yu, et al. (2022) revealed that
effluent in the study contained organic and metal-
lic pollutants that represented a high pollution load,
which could potentially affect human, aquatic, and
environment health. Apparently, due to their persis-
tent nature, heavy metals undergo biogeocycling and
bio-magnified in the food chain (Yaseen & Scholz,
2018). Hence, to reduce the energy consumption, pol-
lutant emissions to the environment, and to increase
resource recovery, the textile wastewater quality
parameters need periodic monitoring and measure-
ment (EPA, 2023; Yin et al., 2017).
Fortunately, there are different technological com-
binations to treat specific wastewater generated from
the textile industry, which assist to reduce water con-
sumption and increase the reuse potential (Mhlanga
& Brouckaert, 2013; Tabassum et al., 2016).
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Environ Monit Assess (2023) 195:1360
However, this tends to conflicts with real-time opera-
tional control of the plant due to limited data quality
and adequacy, inexperienced plant operators, discrete
measurement of the parameters, and a lack of cutting-
edge treatment technology (Kroll et al., 2015; Mihály
et al., 2022). In this regard, the physicochemical char-
acterization of the wastewater is essential to devise
a strategy for identifying the inefficiencies in plant
operation, quantifying the impact, and optimizing
the treatment process (Xie et al., 2022; Zhang et al.,
2021; Zhou et al., 2022). As per the EPA (2023)
standard for effluent discharge, the main parameters
that could be measured before and after treatment
were stated as ammonia ­(NH3), total nitrogen (TN),
nitrite-nitrate ­(NOx), volatile suspended solids (VSS),
total dissolved solids (TDS), dissolved oxygen (DO),
chemical oxygen demand (COD), 5-day biochemical
oxygen demand ­(BOD5), pH, electrical conductivity
(EC), chromium (Cr), iron (Fe), magnesium (Mg),
potassium (K), total phosphorous (TP), calcium (Ca),
total alkalinity (TA), zinc (Zn), total Kjeldhal nitro-
gen (TKN), and total suspended solids (TSS) (Imtia-
zuddin et al., 2012; Furusho, 2015; Durotoye et al.,
2018;Yaseen & Scholz, 2018).
Bahir Dar textile factory uses conventional acti-
vated sludge process treatment technology which
affects the quality of receiving aquatic environ-
ment (Mehari et al., 2015). Even though in biologi-
cal wastewater treatment plant there are key loca-
tions where the physicochemical wastewater quality
parameters are monitored, in the study area due to
poor-operation protocols and inconsistent monitoring
of wastewater quality parameters the performance of
the wastewater treatment plant declined time to time
(Mekonnen, 2012). Furthermore, it becomes difficult
to identify the root cause of failures, measuring the
treatment performance, and quantifying the impacts
on the receiving environment (Mehari et al., 2015;
Mekonnen, 2012). Conversely, one-off data meas-
urement and discrete analysis of a wastewater treat-
ment plant as a continuous system cannot be used
for efficient plant management (Yin et al., 2017).
Hence, a real-time data measurement and logging
system is vital for immediate response to any failure
happening in the treatment plant (Jafar et al., 2022;
Xie et al., 2022). A full setup of monitoring devices
and facilities and personnel are indispensable for the
effective plant operation (Wang, Jiang, & Gao, 2022).
However, in this study in particular and in developing
Environ Monit Assess (2023) 195:1360
nations in general, using the state-of-the-art technol-
ogy, recording of data, and adopting effective util-
ity management system is hardly found (Sharma &
Malaviya, 2022; Siddique et al., 2017).
In this study, for the enhanced real-time predic-
tion of the effluent quality and tracking, the cumula-
tive time of violation of the permissible limit of the
respective wastewater quality parameters was deter-
mined using a time-based effluent quality index and
multiple regression model. Effluent quality index
(EQI) is a measure of the quality of the effluent that
is being discharged from a wastewater treatment plant
at different times and simplifies detailed and complex
information collected from a water body. This value
is understandable and helps decision-makers and
planners ensure the safe discharge of waste. Moreo-
ver, the study could bridge the gap by analyzing a
matrix of laboratory measured data through creation
Fig. 1  The location map of Bahir Dar textile factory wastewater treatment plant, Ethiopia
Page 3 of 20 1360
of trends with time and generating a simplified model
in which wastewater effluent parameters were used to
predict the overall plant performance using regression
(Jeppsson & Pons, 2004; Lotfi et al., 2019). Hence,
in this study, one of the prominent textile factories
located in Bahir Dar city, Ethiopia, was purposefully
selected to examine the wastewater effluent quality
and evaluate the performance of the wastewater treat-
ment plant under existing conditions.
Materials and methods
Study area
Bahir Dar textile factory is in the north-western
region of Ethiopia and on the southern coast of Lake
Tana, adjacent to the Blue Nile River (Fig. 1). The
Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 1360 Page 4 of 20
factory’s wastewater treatment plant is found in the
industry compound at a geographical position of
UTM E: 37.407° and N: 11.596°. The conventional
activated sludge process (ASP) is used for treating the
textile industry wastewater. The treatment plant oper-
ation period is highly depends on the material input
supply to the production process.
Wastewater treatment plant description
The plant was built in 2013/14, the conventional acti-
vated sludge process with its full-scale sludge treat-
ment configurations to treat an average of 600 m ­ 3/
3
day and peak flow of 1200 ­m /day. The wastewater is
collected from all the factory process units and trans-
ported in one collection line to the treatment plant.
Namely, intake-grit chamber, equalization tank, elec-
trolysis system, pumping stations, primary clarifier
(with coagulation and flocculation unit), activated
sludge process, secondary clarifier, multigrade filter,
and guard pond before disposing into the Blue Nile
River. In line with this the factory has sludge treat-
ment units including sludge thickener, dewatering fil-
ter press and sludge drying bed. The primary and sec-
ondary wasted sludge has been collected and pumped
to the thickener after the Alum has been dosed in it.
Moreover, there is addition of 98% sulfuric acid at the
equalization tank to balance the pH in the incoming
flow commonly alkaline composition. Conversely,
Grit chamber Equalization Electrolysis Aeration tank
Inlet Tank
Sludge supernatant
Dewatering
Drying bed
Sludge storage
Fig. 2  Existing textile wastewater treatment plant layout and corresponding sampling locations
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Environ Monit Assess (2023) 195:1360
Alum and Poly aluminum chloride (PAC) coagulant
was added into the primary clarifier to form the set-
tleable flocs that could be removed easily. The con-
figuration of the treatment units is shown in Fig. 2.
Wastewater sampling, measurement, and analysis
techniques
The wastewater sampling locations were selected
based on the treatment arrangement and the cur-
rent plant operation strategy. The sample size was
designed scientifically to characterize the phys-
icochemical wastewater quality parameters and to
evaluate the performance of the wastewater treat-
ment plant. To identify and understand the removal
efficiency, six sampling locations in the wastewater
treatment plant were selected (Fig. 2). A total of
792 samples were collected every week from raw
wastewater inlet (1), equalization tank outlet (2),
electrolytic system outlet (3), activated sludge pro-
cess tank outlet (4), primary clarifier outlet (5), and
secondary clarifier outlet (6) in the period of Febru-
ary 2021 to July 2021. All twenty-two parameters
shown in Table 1, were analyzed at the influent and
effluent locations of the plant.
The sample collection equipment was organized
and before grabbing the sample the treatment site
condition was recorded thoroughly. The sampling
container was pre-treated, labeled, and marked the
Bypass
Primary Secondary
clarifier clarifier
Pond
Sand
RAS filter
Effluent
WAS
Backwash out
Sludge
thickener
Environ Monit Assess (2023) 195:1360 Page 5 of 20 1360

Table 1  The wastewater quality parameters analyzed, measurement technique, and standard methods
Parameters Units Methodology Standard methods (EPA, 2023) Parameter Units Methodology Standard
methods (EPA,
2023)

TSS mg/L Gravimetric Gravimetric pH – Electrometric 4500-H+ B2011

VSS mg/L Gravimetric Gravimetric DO mg/L DO meter 4500-O G2016
BOD5 mg/L DO depletion 5210 B-2016 TDS mg/L Multi meter 2550B-2010
COD mg/L Digestion, photometric 5220 D-2011 EC μS/cm Multi meter 2550B-2010
NH3 mg/L Digestion, photometric 4500-NH3 C-2011 K mg/L Digestion, ICP 3120B-2011
NO2 mg/L Manual, photometric 4500-NO2 B-2011 Ca mg/L Digestion, ICP 3120B-2011
NO3 mg/L Manual, photometric 4500-NO3 B-2011 Mg mg/L Digestion, ICP 3120B-2011
TKN mg/L Digestion, photometric 4500-NH3 B-2011 Fe mg/L Digestion, ICP 3120B-2011
TN mg/L Digestion, photometric 4500-N B-2011 Zn mg/L Digestion, ICP 3120B-2011
TP mg/L Digestion, ICP 3120 B-2011 Cr mg/L Digestion, ICP 3120B-2011
TA mg/L Manual, photometric 4500- B-2011 T° °C Multi meter 2550B-2010

identification to minimize and quantify the impacts
on samples due to collection. Furthermore, duplicate
sampling was used. Conversely, the analysis was con-
ducted in the field using Mobil test kits (temperature,
electrical conductivity, dissolved oxygen, total dis-
solved solids, and pH) and laboratory. To increase
the quality of analysis the equipment was calibrated,
duplicate samples were analyzed with appropri-
ate sample preservation and storage technique using
the quality control and assurance protocols specified
in EPA (2023) as well as the standard methods pre-
sented in Table 1.
Furthermore, the multigrade media filter and the
guard pond were not functional and not considered
for this study. The wastewater generated during the
sampling period represented the whole process in the
factory and a maximum loading in the treatment plant
in which the factory operated with full production
capacity and considered for different seasons.
Time based effluent quality performance assessment
In this study, EQI and time-based effluent pollu-
tion load assessments were conducted to forecast
the dynamics of the receiving water ecosystem and
to evaluate the plant pollutant removal efficiency
using the method applied by Jeppsson and Pons
discrete decision-making processes, EQI-based
multiple regression models were, thus, developed
to aggregate multiparameter in a simple output.
After smooth out the data the effluent pollution load
were calculated using Eqs. 1 and 2 because it could
potentially estimate the overall instantaneous and
moving average pollution load due to the concentra-
tion of each effluent wastewater quality parameters
(Xie et al., 2022). For the strategic plant manage-
ment and to achieve the compliance limit, the net
EQI was computed using Eq. 3 and Eq. 4 for both
moving average and instantaneous data. In the net
EQI model, the weighted pollution load over and
above the violation concentration, was calculated to
measure the treatment efficiency (Amerlinck et al.,
2001; Jeppsson & Pons, 2004).
The Clean Water Act directive of EPA (2023) on
effluent quality compliance limits were considered for
violation concentration of compounds in EQI. The
overall and net instantaneous and moving average
effluent quality indices were estimated to evaluate the
plant-wide treatment plant performance of the textile
factory.
∑n
EQI (overall instantaneous) = Q(t) w ∗ Si(t) (1)
i=1 i
t+T

T ∗ 1000 ∫
1 ∑n
(2004). To mitigate against time-series data avail- EQI (overall T days moving average) =
t
Q(t)
i=1
wi ∗ S(t) dt

ability problems a discontinuous monitoring, and (2)

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 1360 Page 6 of 20 Environ Monit Assess (2023) 195:1360

n
∑ [ ( )] The IBM SPSS Statistics version 21 software and MS
EQI (net instantaneous) = Q(t) wi ∗ max 0, Si (t) − Si,limit
Excel 2016 were used for multiple regression model
(3)
i=1

development and statistical data analysis, and EQI

t+T
(4)
T ∗ 1000 ∫
1 ∑n [ ( )]
EQI (net T days moving average) = Q(t) wi ∗ max 0, Si (t) − Si,limit dt
i=1
t

where EQI = Effluent quality index [kg pollution/ mathematical calculations and figure productions,
day]; T = Time horizon (7 days moving average) respectively. Lotfi et al. (2019) and Mihály et al.
[days]; ­Q(t) = Effluent flow rate [­m3/day]; ­Si(t) = The (2022) also concluded that the multiple linear regres-
effluent concentration of the parameters at the meas- sion stepwise method was a highly successful sample
ured time [mg/L]; S ­ i, limit = the permissible discharge analysis technique for predicting wastewater effluent
limit of parameters [mg/L] quality index more precisely and reliably than models
Weighing factor for each pollutant, ­wi, which is created using other techniques
assigned according to how much of an influence it
has on the environment using a minimum of one-year
recorded data (Jeppsson & Pons, 2004; Liu et al.,
2020). However, in this study, a new approach was Results and discussion
developed to bridge the gap of time series data scar-
city and the lack of preference on the ranking of the Outliner management and normality test
impact on effluent parameters. In the model, to calcu-
late the indexes a normalized equal weight was allo- As presented in Table 2, the descriptive statistics
cated for the nine effluent quality parameters, TSS, results showed that the distribution of the output for
COD, ­BOD5, ­NH3, TKN, TN, ­NO2, ­NO3, and TP. the influent quality pertaining TSS, VSS, and EC
were identified as significantly different from the
test data. However, the normality distribution except
Data analysis
­BOD5, COD, N ­ H3, and N
­ O3, were symmetrically
spread over the range. Regarding the effluent quality
A Pearson correlation test was conducted to under-
parameters shown in Table 3, TSS, VSS, B ­ OD5, ­NO3,
stand the relationships of the dependent EQI and
TKN, and total chromium identified a minor and
independent wastewater quality parameters. Along
major outlier and this could significantly affect the
with the Pearson correlation test, the detected outli-
test data (Al Bazedi & Abdel-Fatah, 2020).
ers and irregular data sets were scientifically managed
using data transformation to improve quality of the
data analysis. Multicollinearity and autocorrelation
The profiles of operational control wastewater quality
diagnostics were conducted to optimize uncertainties
parameters
due to the variability of wastewater characteristics,
and model parameters by identifying the interrela-
In wastewater treatment, there is a defined process
tionship among the independent parameters. Upper
control strategy for selecting key monitoring units
and lower limit regression tests were performed
and process control parameters (Asses & Ayed,
to check response of the data distribution pattern.
2021). Among the wastewater qualities, pH, DO, TA,
Additionally, the stepwise method of multiple lin-
and temperature are the main process control param-
ear regression was used to find the most important
eters monitored periodically in the complete mix bio-
independent variables contributing to the dependent
logical treatment units (Andreides et al., 2022). In
parameters’ variance and to eliminate parameters that
this study, the mean temperature for influent wastewa-
were not significant and could lead to overfitting of
ter was varied from 25.7 to 27.6 °C and for the efflu-
the model. The cut point to identify the most impor-
ent from 23.8 to 27 °C for all treatment unit opera-
tant independent wastewater quality parameters was
tions (Fig. 3). EPA (2023) directive stated that the
the R2 and the coefficient P value of pairwise matrix.
maximum acceptable limit of the temperature for the

Vol:. (1234567890)
13
 Table 2  Descriptive statistics for the measured influent wastewater

Parameters TSS mg/L VSS mg/L BOD5 mg/L COD mg/L NH3 mg/L NO2 mg/L NO3 mg/L TKN mg/L TN mg/L TP mg/L TA mg/L
Min 223.54 144.49 140.20 456.30 10.00 1.35 2.50 26.76 33.44 12.36 89.65
Environ Monit Assess (2023) 195:1360

1st quartile 230.12 154.59 141.70 463.85 11.68 1.72 3.54 27.62 33.89 12.44 92.30
Median 294.35 190.11 149.30 479.08 12.25 1.99 3.69 27.82 35.07 12.84 95.32
3rd quartile 352.35 237.01 157.58 497.86 12.68 2.40 3.74 28.30 35.41 13.31 100.59
Mean 293.00 194.76 150.25 483.27 12.00 2.10 3.55 27.98 35.12 13.05 97.71
Max 365.34 248.43 163.20 522.24 13.20 3.10 4.20 29.50 38.10 14.50 112.34
Min.Out 46.78 30.98 117.89 412.84 10.18 0.70 3.25 26.61 31.61 11.14 79.87
Majo.Out 535.69 360.62 181.39 548.88 14.18 3.42 4.03 29.31 37.69 14.62 113.03
Std. dev. 68.72 48.21 9.92 25.56 1.14 0.63 0.57 0.92 1.70 0.83 8.40
Parameters pH DO mg/L TDS mg/L EC μS/cm K mg/L Ca mg/L Mg mg/L Fe mg/L Zn mg/L Cr mg/L To oC
Min 7.80 1.45 400.00 622.00 3.08 25.66 11.00 0.12 0.12 0.09 25.65
1st quartile 7.92 1.51 401.00 676.33 3.23 36.25 13.98 0.15 0.18 0.27 25.99
Median 8.00 1.57 409.50 690.15 3.33 40.83 16.17 0.17 0.27 0.29 26.50
3rd quartile 8.15 1.68 421.00 709.00 3.47 47.67 18.03 0.19 0.42 0.31 26.73
Mean 8.02 1.60 412.33 685.13 3.41 47.83 16.71 0.20 0.32 0.26 26.48
Max 8.20 1.80 432.00 721.50 4.00 95.00 25.00 0.39 0.66 0.33 27.60
Min.Out 7.58 1.26 371.00 627.31 2.86 19.13 7.89 0.09 −0.17 0.22 24.89
Majo.Out 8.49 1.92 451.00 758.01 3.83 64.79 24.12 0.24 0.77 0.35 27.84
Std. dev. 0.16 0.13 13.28 35.71 0.32 24.43 4.84 0.10 0.20 0.09 0.70
Page 7 of 20

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
1360
13
Vol:. (1234567890)
1360 Page 8 of 20

Table 3  Descriptive statistics for the measured effluent wastewater

Parameters TSS mg/L VSS mg/L BOD5 mg/L COD mg/L NH3 mg/L NO2 mg/L NO3 mg/L TKN mg/L TN mg/L TP mg/L TA mg/L
Min 50.08 39.98 35.80 132.05 0.48 0.43 0.59 7.08 13.15 5.89 57.67
1st quartile 59.66 47.61 38.70 132.77 1.33 0.62 1.62 7.38 13.27 6.89 59.88
Median 74.48 59.16 44.56 139.52 1.62 1.34 4.52 7.72 13.50 8.45 66.17
3rd quartile 85.99 75.89 58.49 150.13 2.05 1.73 4.71 12.04 13.62 8.68 68.33
Mean 73.20 59.28 48.45 144.08 1.96 1.36 3.40 8.73 13.49 7.90 66.22
Max 92.54 76.62 65.16 165.10 4.62 2.80 10.00 25.00 13.93 8.96 70.33
Min.Out 20.15 5.20 9.02 106.72 0.24 −1.04 −3.03 0.40 12.73 4.21 47.19
Majo.Out 125.50 118.30 88.16 176.18 3.14 3.39 9.36 19.03 14.15 11.37 81.02
Std. dev. 17.73 15.35 12.86 13.95 1.42 0.90 2.16 2.21 0.29 1.38 7.87
Permissible limit (EPA, 2023) 35 NA 40 120 1 1 10 25 <40 2 NA
Parameters pH DO mg/L TDS mg/L EC μS/cm K mg/L Ca mg/L Mg mg/L Fe mg/L Zn mg/L Cr mg/L To oC
Min 8.14 5.25 378.00 640.19 1.91 40.96 13.97 0.21 0.15 0.11 23.80
1st quartile 8.24 5.34 393.20 648.23 2.07 41.23 14.68 0.22 0.19 0.12 25.44
Median 8.33 5.54 404.48 662.06 2.30 42.85 15.93 0.26 0.26 0.15 25.46
3rd quartile 8.36 7.74 416.82 668.81 2.90 48.38 16.84 0.41 0.39 0.21 26.27
Mean 8.29 6.22 403.70 661.69 2.38 44.56 15.82 0.29 0.27 0.16 25.37
Max 8.39 7.92 426.10 683.57 12.00 51.27 17.95 2.00 2.00 0.24 40.00
Min.Out 8.06 1.74 357.77 617.34 0.81 30.51 11.44 −0.07 −0.10 −0.02 24.19
Majo.Out 8.55 11.34 452.25 699.70 4.16 59.10 20.08 0.69 0.68 0.34 27.52
Std. dev. 0.10 1.26 17.96 17.31 0.43 4.32 1.51 0.09 0.10 0.06 0.87
Permissible limit (EPA, 2023) 5–9 5 9.5 <1500 <4000 12 <60 <60 2 2 0.05 <40
Environ Monit Assess (2023) 195:1360
Environ Monit Assess (2023) 195:1360
Fig. 3  Operational control Eff-Feb
influent and effluent textile
wastewater parameters
Effluent concentrations (mg/L)
treated effluent is < 40 °C. The average temperature
of the effluent wastewater in the treatment plant was
found to be within the standard.
Even though the maximum temperature was
detected to be in the permissible range, there was
fluctuation within the treatment units. The acti-
vated sludge process temperature was 26.12 °C and
it declines when the wastewater flows down to the
primary and secondary clarifier 26 °C and 25.37 °C,
respectively. Studies have shown that temperature
increases microbial activity and chemical reaction
in the treatment plant (Altaher & Alghamdi, 2011;
Mhlanga & Brouckaert, 2013; Tony, 2019). Moreo-
ver, the decomposition and removal efficiency of
biodegradable organic pollutants and compounds,
are highly dependent on temperature in the treat-
ment plant (Sen et al., 2019; Uddin, 2021). Con-
versely, the increase of temperature beyond the lim-
its could deplete the dissolved oxygen and increase
the operational cost of the treatment plant (Bhave
et al., 2020; Nawaz & Ahsan, 2014). On the other
hand, the reduction of temperature from the aeration
to the clarifier showed that the active biomass in the
form of mixed liquid suspended solid got removed
(Panhwar et al., 2022).
As shown in Fig. 3, the result stated that the pH of
influent and effluent fluctuated from 7.8 to 8.14 and
8.2 to 8.39, respectively. In wastewater treatment,
almost all unit operations and processes are hypo-
statically dependent on pH (Dutta & Bhattacharjee,
2022). The pH was adjusted in the equalization tank
to efficiently operate the subsequent treatment units
and it was regulated at each process. Measuring pH
is very crucial to determining the solubility and
availability of nutrients in wastewater (Roy et al.,
Page 9 of 20 1360
Eff-Mar Eff-Apr Eff-May Eff-June Eff-July Permissible limits
100 70
Permissible limits (mg/L)
60
80
50
60 40
40 30
20
20
10
0 0
TA pH DO K Ca Mg Temp.
Wastewater quality parameters
2010). pH could be cross communicated with tem-
perature and controlled simultaneously (Nawaz &
Ahsan, 2014; Tony, 2019). For most of the organic
pollutants to be removed in the aeration tank, the
well-being of activated sludge microorganisms
is vital (Bhatia et al., 2018; Wondim & Dzwairo,
2018). Based on a study by Dutta and Bhattacharjee
(2022), the optimum pH level for bacterial growth
ranges from 6.5 to 7.5. It was indicated that the acti-
vated sludge process may suffer with the lack of het-
erotrophic bacteria and, at a pH of 7.8 to 8.2, has
developed a nitrification process (Imtiazuddin et al.,
2012). Although the pH of the treated effluent was
within the standard, the result showed a maximum
pH of 8.39 for all measured values. This change
was due to the metals in the wastewater, which were
transported to the effluent Islam et al., 2023.
Figure 3 shows that the measured average value
of untreated and treated wastewater DO level was
1.6 mg/L and 5.25 mg/L, respectively. Hence, the
DO concentration in the effluent of treated textile
wastewater discharged to the nearby river was nearly
within the minimum permissible limit range of 5 to
9 mg/L. The decline in dissolved oxygen concentra-
tion in the treatment plant indicated inefficiencies
for the aeration system to oxidize the organic pollut-
ants biologically (Nawaz & Ahsan, 2014). Based on
Mhlanga and Brouckaert (2013) study, the levels of
DO vary with wastewater temperature, characteris-
tics of wastewater and mixing system, season, time
of day, and rate of flow. Furthermore, releasing a
low level of DO into the surface water highly affects
the aquatic animals and forms intermediate pollut-
ants due to the presence of organics in the wastewa-
ter (Asses & Ayed, 2021; Sen et al., 2019).
Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 1360 Page 10 of 20
Similarly, like DO and pH, total alkalinity and
other metallic compounds play an important role for a
healthy microorganism ecosystem, which assists with
pollutant removal in the treatment plant (Chan et al.,
2021). As shown in Fig. 3, the average concentra-
tions of total alkalinity, potassium, calcium, and mag-
nesium in the effluent were recorded as 66.22 mg/L,
2.38 mg/L, 44.56 mg/L, and 15.82 mg/L, respectively,
which were within the effluent limit (EPA, 2023).
It indicated that calcium and magnesium metals are
considered as inert material and contribute for the
fraction of the inorganic suspended solids, and which
can be monitored in the treatment process (Amanuel,
2019 ; Furusho, 2015).
Heavy metals
The measured parameters value for treated efflu-
ent concentrations of Fe, Zn, and total Cr, were
0.29 mg/L, 0.27 mg/L, and 0.16 mg/L, respectively
(Fig. 4). Even though Fe and Zn were within the
standard values, there was a slight increment in the
effluent for Fe concentration most probably due to
poor performance of the electrolytic process and
micro-electrolytic Fe flocs short circuited in the plant
(Nawaz & Ahsan, 2014; Uddin, 2021). On the other
hand, there was a reduction of Cr from 0.26 to 0.16
mg/L. This implies the electrolytic unit removes
38.5% of the influent Cr. However, the effluent con-
centration of chromium was well over the 0.05 mg/L
limit for surface water discharge (EPA, 2003). High
levels of Cr lead to ecotoxicology of aquatic life and
carcinogenic effects for humans through the receiving
Fig. 4  Measured heavy Eff-Feb
metal in wastewater
0.45
0.40
Effluent concentrations (mg/L)
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Environ Monit Assess (2023) 195:1360
waters (Bashaye, 2015; Durotoye et al., 2018). More-
over, the textile wastewater consisted of various high
molecule compounds with minimal levels of degra-
dation, which made it difficult to attain the discharge
limit (EPA, 2023).
Primary physico‑chemical wastewater quality
parameters
In textile wastewater treatment, biological and chemi-
cal processes are the primary unit of operations, to
quantify the deterministic primary pollutants (Sid-
dique et al., 2017; Wang, Yu, et al., 2022). The waste-
water parameters ­ BOD5, COD, TSS, TDS, VSS,
TKN, ­NH3, ­NO2, ­NO3, and TP are the primary pollut-
ants to model and optimize the treatment plant (Patel
& Vashi, 2015; Sharma & Malaviya, 2022).
The measured average value of ­BOD5 and COD at
the effluent were 48.45 mg/L (± 12.86) and 148 mg/L
(± 13.95), respectively (Fig. 5b). However, both
measured ­BOD5 and COD values at different periods
did not comply with the standard permissible dis-
charge limits of 40 mg/L and 120 mg/L, respectively.
The increase in COD concentration indicated the
presence of toxic compounds which affect the biolog-
ical process in the treatment plant (Abu Bakar et al.,
2020). This toxicity could be attributed to untreated
heavy metals and organic compounds generated from
textile wastewater (Imtiazuddin et al., 2012; Pan-
hwar et al., 2022). The B­ OD5 was also 17.4 % above
the standard limit, which implied the depletion of
DO due to the concentration of suspended solids in
an aeration tank, during activated sludge process
expressed as mixed liquor suspended solid (MLSS)
Eff-Mar Eff-Apr Eff-May Eff-June Eff-July Permissible limits
2.5
2
Permissible limits (mg/L)
1.5
1
0.5
0
Fe Zn Cr
Wastewater quality parameters
Environ Monit Assess (2023) 195:1360 Page 11 of 20 1360

Eff-Feb Eff-Mar Eff-Apr Eff-Feb Eff-Mar Eff-Apr

Eff-May Eff-June Eff-July Eff-May Eff-June Eff-July
Permissible limit Permissible limits

Permissible limits (mg/L)

Permissible limits (mg/L)
10 12 200 150
Effluent concentrations

Effluent concentrations
8 10
8
150
100
(mg/L)

(mg/L)
6
6 100
4
4 50
2 50
2
0 0 0 0
TP NH3 NO2 NO3 TSS BOD5 COD TKN TN VSS
a) Wastewater quality parameters b) Wastewater quality parameters

Fig. 5  Physico-chemical textile wastewater parameters of primary pollutants and metals

high concentration of organic matter, which could probably emanated from the coloring material used
not be effectively degraded biologically. Moreover, in the textile process. An increase in suspended
COD and ­BOD5 are interrelated parameters and are particles could also be the result of a shock load
preferably degraded as organic matter in biological of influent solids that are mostly inorganic chemi-
and chemical oxidation, respectively, in a treatment cals not prone to degradation, which in turn could
process (Mhlanga & Brouckaert, 2013; Wang, Jiang, decrease the microorganism suspended solid ratio
& Gao, 2022). Evidently, the significant increase in in the aeration process (Sen et al., 2019). Moreover,
COD shown in Fig. 5b demonstrated the probable this increment could also be due to poorly operated
presence of toxicants, heavy metals, and persistent and unmanaged primary and secondary clarifiers of
organic matter in the wastewater (De Ketele et al., the textile treatment units (Tabassum et al., 2016).
2018; Guerrero et al., 2012). The average effluent TDS and EC values of
For the effective removal of organic pollutants, i.e., 403.70 mg/L (± 17.96) and 661.69 μscm−1 (±
­BOD5 and COD, the oxygen uptake rate in the aera- 17.31) were within the standard permissible dis-
tion system is vital. In addition to the carbon sources, charge limit of <1500 mg/L and < 4000 μscm−1,
the heterotrophic bacteria in the activated sludge respectively. However, in some occasions a weekly
requires sufficient and optimum amount of nutrients, data shows high fluctuations of effluent TDS com-
such as nitrogen and phosphorous (Borzooei et al., pared to the influent, which probably indicate that
2020). The average effluent concentration of ­NO2 and inorganic and organic compounds which were not
TP were recorded 1.36 mg/L (± 0.9) and 7.9 mg/L (± efficiently degraded and removed in each treatment
1.38), which were higher than the permissible limits unit operations and processes (Panhwar et al., 2022;
of 1 mg/L and 2 mg/L, respectively shown in Fig. 5a. Siddique et al., 2017).
Hence, the increased concentration of total phospho- The effluent volatile suspended solids meas-
rous in the effluent was probably due to the presence ured was 59.28 mg/L (± 15.35). VSS is a rough
of soluble inert material it remains undegradable measure of solid concentration in a sample of acti-
(Bhatia et al., 2018). vated sludge process and is a good indicator bacte-
The experimental analysis showed that TSS con- rial biomass in a sample (Mhlanga & Brouckaert,
centration in the samples was higher than the allow- 2013). Figure 5b shows that the level of VSS was
able effluent standard of 35 mg/L (Fig. 5b). The high in the influent and effluent samples of 194.76
increase in the level of total suspended solids in the to 59.28 mg/L, respectively. High level of VSS
effluent would affect the quality of receiving water depicted that the bacterial biomass in the treat-
and further deplete the dissolved oxygen (Nawaz & ment was high (Altaher & Alghamdi, 2011). On the
Ahsan, 2014). In Pavithra and Jaikumar (2019), the other hand, a high level of VSS in the effluent indi-
study elicited that high concentrations of TSS most cates that potential amounts of organic solids and/

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 1360 Page 12 of 20 Environ Monit Assess (2023) 195:1360

or biological floc were disposed of along with the sampling period even though the treatment plant
effluent (Nawaz & Ahsan, 2014; Uddin, 2021). design was for 1200 ­ m3/day. The overall instanta-
neous and 7-day moving average EQI for a flow of
Wastewater treatment performance assessment using 600 ­m3/day varied from 216.72 to 149.94 kg/day
effluent water quality index and 201.35 to 159.69 kg/day, respectively (Fig. 6a).
Meanwhile for the influent flow of 1200 ­ m3/day,
The results for Bahir Dar textile wastewater treat- the overall instantaneous and 7-day moving average
ment plant, which were measured for 6 months weekly EQI varied from 433.44 to 299.88 kg/day and
consisting of a complex matrix of physicochemical 402.70 to 299.88 kg/day (Fig. 6b). Irrespective of the
parameters individually, did not give a reliable and variation in the concentrations of the effluent waste-
timely evaluation of the effluent wastewater qual- water quality parameters, the overall pollution load
ity. The characterization of the wastewater quality on the receiving river increased by a factor of two
is essential to devise a strategy for identifying the for influent wastewater flow of 1200 ­m3/day. Hence,
inefficiencies within a plant, technology selection, in this study, the analysis considered a 600 ­m3/day
upgrading the system, and to enhance the opera- wastewater flow and whichever value was calculated
tional performance of the plant (Abu Bakar et al., would be multiplied by a factor of two for influ-
2020; Agarwal & Singh, 2022). ent wastewater flow 1200 m ­ 3/day. As discussed by
In this study, due to lack of a weighted priority Jeppsson and Pons (2004) and Bessedik et al. (2021),
to the pollutants discharged into the water body, an bench-marking the degree of pollution of receiving
equal weight (wi) of 1 were assigned to the nine efflu- fresh water due to effluent from wastewater treatment
ent wastewater quality parameters. In the assessment plants was quantified by aggregating the weekly over-
of plant performance, a weight elicitation is essen- all EQI. The overall aggregated instantaneous and
tial to identify the most sensitive effluent wastewa- 7-day moving average EQI for a flow of 600 m ­ 3/day,
ter quality parameters (Bhave et al., 2020; Guerrero was calculated as 2102.49 kg/day and 2257.79 kg/
et al., 2012).. Since, it was an equal weighted sce- day, respectively (Fig. 7).
nario, no preference for any parameters over the oth- The net instantaneous and 7-day moving average
ers was given in which all are contributed equally to of EQI was calculated to bridge the gap with the ana-
the model optimization (Wondim & Dzwairo, 2018). lytical measurement results (Zhang et al., 2021; Zhou
In this study, the textile treatment plant had et al., 2022). The result shown in Fig. 6 a, the net
received an average flow of 600 m ­ 3/day during the 7-day moving average and instantaneous weekly EQI

Overall EQI m-avg. - 600 m3/d Overall EQI ins - 600 m3/d Overall EQI m-avg. - 1200 m3/d Net EQI m-avg. - 1200 m3/d
Net EQI m-avg. - 600 m3/d Net EQI ins - 600 m3/d Overall EQI ins - 1200 m3/d Net EQI ins - 1200 m3/d

250 450
400
Net and overall EQI(kg/d)

200 350
Net and overall EQI (kg /d)

300
150
250
200
100
150

50 100
50
0 0
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
a) Sampling time (wk)
b) Sampling time (wk)

Fig. 6  Weekly effluent quality index for two treatment inflow: a 600 ­m3/day, b 1200 ­m3/day flow

Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Environ Monit Assess (2023) 195:1360
Net EQI m-avg.
Overall EQI m-avg.
Net and overall EQI (kg /day)
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0 0
600
Effluent flow rate (m3/d)
Fig. 7  The aggregated net and overall effluent quality index
at the flow of 600 m ­ 3/day fluctuated from 67.88 to
28.44 kg/day and 81.7 to 18.54 kg/day, respectively.
The weighted pollution load over and above the viola-
tion of the permissible limit for net instantaneous and
7-day moving average EQI was calculated as 492.55
kg/day and 655.48 kg/day, respectively as shown in
Fig. 7.
As shown in Fig. 7, the 7-day overall moving aver-
age EQI calculated as 2257.79 kg/day was the total
pollution load, of which the net EQI 655.48 kg/
day was the net pollution due to the violation of the
permissible concentration. Net EQI pollution load
described that the amount of pollutant that remains
untreated above the violation effluent concentration
(Hussain et al., 2023; Kroll et al., 2015). The study by
Borzooei et al. (2019) depicted that in net and overall,
7-day moving average EQI defines the performance
of the treatment plant performance for pollutant
removal and guides the operators to select on which
parameters need special attention. Conversely, from
the total instantaneous EQI result of 2102.49 kg/day,
pollution load 492.55 kg/day was the net instantane-
ous EQI above the compliance concentration. The
percentage and cumulative time violation results were
126 days (100%) for TSS, ­BOD5, COD, and TP; 91
days (72.22%) for ­NH3, and 77 days (61.11%) for ­NO2
(Fig. 8). However, TKN, TN, and ­NO3 results showed
that no violation (zero percent) and complied with
the violation concentration limit all time in the treat-
ment process. Based on the analytical measurement
of the six parameters, the effluent quality was above
the effluent standard limit (Fig. 5). However, it was
reported that it is complicated to identify the cumula-
tive violation time and percentage contribution of the
Page 13 of 20 1360
Net EQI ins. Percentage of time violation Cumulative time violation
Overall EQI Ins.
Cumulative time violation (days)
Percentage of time violation
120 140
120
100
100
80
80
(%)
60
60
40
40
20 20
0
1200
Effluent wastewater quality parameters
Fig. 8  The statistics of time violation over permissible limit
parameter from a list of time series data and multiple
samples (De Ketele et al., 2018; Jafar et al., 2022).
Modelling EQI
The performance of the predictors used in the model
structuring was determined by the net and over-
all moving average EQI calculations. As shown in
Table 4, five models were developed to predict the
most appropriate EQI. In model five, the wastewater
quality parameters TP, TN, COD, N ­ O2, and N ­ H3 were
well predicted net (R2 = 0.995) and overall moving
average (R2 = 0.996) EQI (Tables 5 and 8). In addi-
tion, the adjusted R2 had the value of 0.991 and 0.992
with the standard error of 1.675 and 1.631 for net and
overall moving average, respectively. This has shown
that the parameters used in the model were potentially
explained by both the net and overall EQI and the
proximity of the observed values was not far from the
regression line (Lee et al., 2014; Liu et al., 2020). The
autocorrelation (Durbin-Watson) diagnostics result
for the selected model was 1.728 and 1.865, which is
close to 2, and it indicates that the predictor param-
eters did not have similarity over each other. Further-
more, the five-parameter regression model 99.5% and
99.2% of the net and overall moving average EQI was
explained by the selected wastewater quality param-
eters and statistically significant (P < 0.05) with a
value of 0.003 and 0.004, respectively. As shown in
Table 4, the effluent wastewater quality parameters
TSS (0.997), B ­OD5 (0.987), COD (0.916), TKN
(0.920), TP (0.868), ­NH3 (0.667), and TN (0.645)
were strongly correlated with the EQI. This indicated
that the parameters are the capacity to predict the
Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 1360 Page 14 of 20 Environ Monit Assess (2023) 195:1360

EQI and suitable for statistical analysis (Al Bazedi &
Abdel-Fatah, 2020; Lee et al., 2014). The coefficients
of the models were further assessed to ascertain the
influences of each of the wastewater quality param-
eters on the net and overall moving average EQI
(Table 7 and Table 10).
The instantaneous performance of the treatment
plant was determined using multiple regression anal-
ysis which generated three models (Table 6) and six
optimized models (Table 9) for net and overall instan-
taneous EQI, respectively. For the variable selection,
a stepwise regression model was performed and the
result with R2 of 1.000 demonstrated that 100% of

Table 4  A Pearson EQI TSS BOD5 COD NH3 NO2 NO3 TKN TN TP
correlation coefficients
of the wastewater quality EQI 1.000 .967 .987 .916 .667 −.830 −.852 .920 .645 .868
parameters
TSS .967 1.000 .952 .833 .529 −.910 −.727 .853 .679 .960
BOD5 .987 .952 1.000 .852 .746 −.829 −.900 .961 .692 .830
COD .916 .833 .852 1.000 .532 −.649 −.742 .764 .417 .742
NH3−N .667 .529 .746 .532 1.000 −.473 −.937 .894 .674 .286
NO2−N −.830 −.910 −.829 −.649 −.473 1.000 .573 −.768 −.712 −.911
NO3−N −.852 −.727 −.900 −.742 −.937 .573 1.000 −.960 −.633 −.508
TKN .920 .853 .961 .764 .894 −.768 −.960 1.000 .775 .682
TN .645 .679 .692 .417 .674 −.712 −.633 .775 1.000 .592
TP .868 .960 .830 .742 .286 −.911 −.508 .682 .592 1.000

Table 5  The model summary result estimates net moving average EQI
Model R R2 Adj. R2 Std. error Change statistics Durbin-Watson
R2 change F df1 df2 Sig. F

1 .916a .838 .822 7.41922 .838 51.814 1 10 .000

2 .948b .899 .876 6.18459 .061 5.391 1 9 .045
3 .970c .941 .919 5.01718 .042 5.676 1 8 .044
4 .988d .976 .962 3.42118 .035 10.205 1 7 .015
5 .998e .995 .991 1.67578 .019 23.175 1 6 .003 1.728
a
Predictors: (Constant), TP
b
(Constant), TP, TN
c
(Constant), TP, TN, NO2
d
(Constant), TP, TN, COD, ­NO2
e
(Constant), TP, TN, COD, ­NO2, ­NH3

Table 6  The model summary result estimates net instantaneous EQI

Model R R2 Adj. R2 Std. error Change statistics Durbin-Watson
R2 change F df1 df2 Sig. F

1 .987a .974 .971 3.98779 .974 375.687 1 10 .000

2 .997b .995 .994 1.88299 .021 35.850 1 9 .000
3 1.000c 1.000 1.000 .30170 .005 342.573 1 8 .000 1.995
a
Predictors: (Constant), ­BOD5
b
(Constant), ­BOD5, COD
c
(Constant), ­BOD5, COD, TSS

Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Environ Monit Assess (2023) 195:1360 Page 15 of 20 1360

Table 7  Model coefficient results for net moving average and instantaneous EQI
Net moving average EQI model parameters Net instantaneous EQI model param-
eters

Model parameters Constant TP TN COD NO2 NH3 Constant BOD5 COD TSS
Unstd. Coeff. B −219.176 23.341 13.794 −.869 21.164 3.581 −103.038 1.054 .521 .328
Std. Err. 44.860 1.526 3.119 .100 2.624 .744 1.580 .026 .015 .018
Std. Coeff. Beta 1.803 .251 −.573 .767 .308 .545 .256 .235
t −4.886 15.294 4.422 −8.658 8.064 4.814 −65.208 40.550 34.501 18.509
Sig. .003 .000 .004 .000 .000 .003 .000 .000 .000 .000

Table 8  Model summary result estimates the overall moving average EQI
Model R R2 Adj. R2 Std. error Change statistics Durbin-Watson
2
R change F df1 df2 Sig. F

1 .913a .833 .816 7.96276 .833 49.786 1 10 .000

2 .947b .896 .873 6.61574 .063 5.487 1 9 .044
3 .972c .944 .923 5.15004 .048 6.852 1 8 .031
4 .990d .981 .970 3.21569 .037 13.519 1 7 .008
5 .998e .996 .992 1.63112 .015 21.207 1 6 .004 1.865
a
Predictors: (Constant), TP
b
(Constant), TP, TN
c
(Constant), TP, TN, NO2
d
(Constant), TP, TN, COD, ­NO2
e
(Constant), TP, TN, COD, ­NO2, ­NH3

Table 9  The model summary result estimates the overall instantaneous EQI
Model R R2 Adj. R2 Std. error Change statistics Durbin-Watson
2
R change F df1 df2 Sig. F

1 .981a .962 .958 5.15300 .962 249.895 1 10 .000

2 .992b .985 .981 3.41321 .023 13.793 1 9 .005
3 1.000c 1.000 1.000 .54176 .015 349.234 1 8 .000
4 1.000d 1.000 1.000 .08757 .000 299.174 1 7 .000
5 1.000e 1.000 1.000 .02014 .000 126.331 1 6 .000
6 1.000f 1.000 1.000 .00719 .000 42.048 1 5 .001 2.0756

Table 10  Model coefficient Overall moving average EQI model parameters

results for overall moving
average EQI Model parameters Constants TP TN COD NO2 NH3
Unsaturated coefficients B −122.665 24.236 16.387 −.906 21.926 3.335
Std. err. 43.664 1.486 3.036 .098 2.554 .724
Std. coeff. beta 1.773 .283 −.566 .753 .272
t −2.809 16.315 5.397 −9.275 8.584 4.605
Sig. .031 .000 .002 .000 .000 .004

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 1360 Page 16 of 20 Environ Monit Assess (2023) 195:1360

the net and overall instantaneous EQI was explained average EQI was 2257.79 kg/day and 2257.85 kg/
by the predictors wastewater effluent quality param- day, respectively. In line with the net moving aver-
eters. Hence, ­BOD5, COD, and TSS were used in the age which was predicted as 653.44 kg/day when
model to predict the net and overall instantaneous compared to the calculated amount of 655.48 kg/
EQI (Table 7 and Table 11). Meanwhile, the overall day. Therefore, the model has high performance
instantaneous EQI was modeled using B ­ OD5, COD, and was very well prediction capacity. The param-
TSS, TKN, TN, and TP (Table 9). The model predic- eter selection model in the regression used for the
tor parameters were statistically significant (0.000) net and overall instantaneous EQI pretty in pre-
and had a positive relationship to explain the pre- dicting as perfectly aligned as calculated EQI. The
dicted instantaneous EQI. Moreover, the Durbin-Wat- predicted net and overall instantaneous EQI were
son coefficient with 1.995 and 2.075 shows there was estimated as 492.99 kg/day and 2102.53 kg/day of
no autocorrelation among the predictor parameters pollution load, respectively (Fig. 7 and Fig. 9b).
(Lotfi et al., 2019). The multiple regression model and EQI model
The multiple regression model results revealed results jointly answered the challenge of truck-
that the predicted net and overall moving average ing of the most deterministic effluent wastewater
EQI expressed well by predicting effluent waste- quality parameters on the violation of permissible
water quality parameters (Fig. 9a). The calcu- limits, the duration of violation and the location of
lated and model predicted value of overall moving control in the plant (Mihály et al., 2022; Wang, Yu,

Table 11  Model coefficient Overall instantaneous EQI model parameters

results for overall
instantaneous EQI Model parameters Constants BOD5 COD TSS TKN TN TP
Unsaturated coefficients B 3.277 .549 .599 .597 .702 .929 .382
Std. err. .605 .009 .001 .010 .014 .037 .059
Std. coeff. beta .267 .277 .404 .069 .012 .021
t 5.416 64.042 1069.74 62.19 50.99 25.192 6.484
Sig. .003 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001

Calculated overall EQI m-avg. Calculated net EQI m-avg Calculated overall EQI inst. Calculated net EQI inst.

Predicted overall EQI m-avg Predicted net EQI m-avg Predicted overall EQI inst. Predicted net EQI inst.

240 250
240 250
210
Calculated m-avg. EQI (kg/d)

210 200
Predicted inst. EQI (kg/d)
Predicted m-avg. EQI (kg/d)

200 180
Calculated inst. EQI (kg/d)

180
150 150
150 150
120 120
100 90 100
90
60 60
50 50
30 30
0 0 0 0
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
a) Sampling period (wk) b)
Sampling period (wk)

Fig. 9  The calculated and predicted net and overall EQI: a moving average, b instantaneous

Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Environ Monit Assess (2023) 195:1360
et al., 2022; Xie et al., 2022). Additionally, based
on the available powerful process optimization
model for the scarce time-series data and the inef-
ficient decision support system, simplified formula
were developed using the analytical physiochemi-
cal wastewater quality parameters shown in Eqs. 5,
6, 7, and 8.
OverallEQIinst. = 3.277 + 0.549BOD5
+ 0.929TN + 0.599COD
+ 0.597TSS + 0.702TKN + 0.382TP
Overall EQI
7 days mov.average
= −122.665 + 24.236TP
+ 16.387TN − 0.906COD
+ 21.926NO2 + 3.335NH3
NetEQIinst. = −103.038 + 1.054BOD5
+0.521COD + 0.328TSS
Net EQI = −219.176 + 23.341TP
7 days mov.average
+ 13.794TN − 0.869COD
+ 21.164NO2 + 3.581NH3
The removal efficiency of the treatment plant
for each physicochemical parameter based on the
analytical measurement were TSS (75 %), ­BOD 5
(67.7 %), COD (70.2 %), TP (39.5 %), TN (61.6
%), ­NH3 (83.6 %), Cr (38.5 %), Zn (15.6 %), and
Fe (−45%). The average overall treatment per-
formance of the plant for the selected parameters
based on analytical measurement was 65%. How-
ever, using moving average and instantaneous EQI
models the wastewater treatment performance
was predicted as 37.77% and 42%, respectively.
Hence, the removal of 653.44 kg/day pollu-
tion load would increase the plant performance
to 81.92%, while for the net instantaneous EQI,
the removal of 492.99 kg/day of pollution load
would boost the plant-wide removal efficiency
to 86.41%. The EQI and the multiple regression
model revealed that the treatment performance of
the Bahir Dar textile factory was not satisfactory
and needs special attention to increase the waste-
water treatment efficiency.
Page 17 of 20 1360
Conclusion
This study demonstrates the feasibility of using time-
function-based effluent quality index technique to
evaluate the performance of treatment plant and esti-
mating the pollution load, allowing to provide better
plant monitoring and troubleshooting. The conclu-
sions emerged from this study are:
(5) • The analytical measurement of physicochemical
wastewater quality parameters quantified the per-
formance of the plant only at specific process unit
and sampling time due to its instantaneous nature
except automated systems.
(6)
• The overall treatment performance assessment
using analytical analysis didn’t consider the vio-
lation of parameters from the permissible limit
between the interval of measurements. In this
(7) regard the removal efficiency became higher
(65%) than EQI model (37.7 %).
• Using effluent quality index method considers
time for the plant evaluation and predicts better
(8) than analytical measurements do. EQI quantified
the amount of pollution load discharged to the
receiving water body due to violation of permis-
sible limits. Furthermore, it provides precise infor-
mation and guide to operator how often and which
parameter violated the discharge limit.
Therefore, an integrated application of analyti-
cal physicochemical parameters analysis along with
EQI models provides better information about plant
performance in time and quantified pollution load to
make possible decisions rather than discrete evalua-
tion. To better understand and to expand the method
further studies shall also consider the hydraulic and
internal process control parameters of the treatment
plant.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Bahir
Dar Institute of Technology and Textile Factory for providing
logistic support. University of South-Eastern Norway for finan-
cial support on this work and for hosting the first author for
research exchange to write this manuscript.
Author contribution Tilik Tena Wondim: formulating
the concepts, methods, conducting field, laboratory works,
analysis, and prepared the manuscript; Bloodless Dzwairo,
Dagnachew Aklog, Eshetu Janka Wakjira, and Gamunu L.
Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 1360 Page 18 of 20
Samarakoon were supervisors, data interpretation, revising
critically, and editing the manuscript. Mekuria Mulusew Der-
eseh data collection, laboratory measurement and analysis, and
recording of the results.
Funding Open access funding provided by University Of
South-Eastern Norway Financial support to this study had been
provided by Norwegian Directorate for Higher Education and
Skills University of South-Eastern Norway [Grant number
NORPART-2021/10070].
Data availability All the data generated during this study
are included in this article. But if any additional information is
required will be shared in a reasonable request.
Declarations
Ethical approval All the authors have read, understand, and
keep the ethical responsibility of authors’ guideline.
Consent to participate and publish All authors declare to
participate and publish in the manuscript.
Competing interest The authors declare no competing inter-
ests.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Com-
mons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits
use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any
medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the
original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Crea-
tive Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The
images or other third party material in this article are included
in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your
intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds
the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly
from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
References
Abu Bakar, N., Othman, N., Yunus, Z. M., Daud, Z., Salsabila
Norisman, N., & Haziq Hisham, M. (2020). Physico-
chemical water quality parameters analysis on textile. IOP
Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science,
498(1), 012077. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1088/​1755-​1315/​498/1/​
012077
Agarwal, S., & Singh, A. P. (2022). Performance evaluation
of textile wastewater treatment techniques using sustain-
ability index: An integrated fuzzy approach of assessment.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 337, 130384. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2022.​130384
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Environ Monit Assess (2023) 195:1360
Al Bazedi, G. A., & Abdel-Fatah, M. A. (2020). Correlation
between operating parameters and removal efficiency for
chemically enhanced primary treatment system of waste-
water. Bulletin of the National Research Centre, 44(1).
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s42269-​020-​00368-y
Altaher, H., & Alghamdi, A. (2011). Enhancement of quality
of secondary industrial wastewater effluent by coagulation
process: A Case Study. Journal of Environmental Protec-
tion, 02(09), 1250–1256. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4236/​jep.​2011.​
29144
Amanuel, L. (2019). Wastewater treatment plant and its design
for textile industry. Current Trends in Fashion Technol-
ogy & Textile Engineering, 5(3). https://​doi.​org/​10.​19080/​
ctftte.​2019.​05.​555663
Amerlinck, Y., Gillot, S., & Vanrolleghem, P. A. (2001).
Benchmarking WWTP Control strategies with robustness
and economic measures as performance criteria. Proceed-
ings of the Water Environment Federation, 2001(15),
269–276. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2175/​19386​47017​90902​888
Andreides, M., Dolejš, P., & Bartáček, J. (2022). The pre-
diction of WWTP influent characteristics: good prac-
tices and challenges. Journal of Water Process Engi-
neering, 49, 103009. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jwpe.​
2022.​103009
Asses, N., & Ayed, L. (2021). Physicochemical and biologi-
cal treatment of textile wastewater. The Future of Efflu-
ent Treatment Plants, 307–334. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​
b978-0-​12-​822956-​9.​00018-0
Bashaye, T. (2015). The physico-chemical studies of waste-
water in Hawassa Textile Industry. Journal of Environ-
mental. Analytical Chemistry, 02(04). https://​doi.​org/​10.​
4172/​2380-​2391.​10001​53
Bessedik, M., Abdelbaki, C., Badr, N., Tiar, S. M., & Meg-
nounif, A. (2021). Application of water quality indices
for assessment of influent and effluent wastewater from
wastewater treatment plant of Oran City, Algeria. Desal-
ination and Water Treatment, 236, 306–317. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​5004/​dwt.​2021.​27682
Bhatia, D., Sharma, N. R., Kanwar, R., & Singh, J. (2018).
Physicochemical assessment of industrial textile efflu-
ents of Punjab (India). Applied Water Science, 8(3).
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s13201-​018-​0728-4
Bhave, P. P., Naik, S., & Salunkhe, S. D. (2020). Perfor-
mance evaluation of wastewater treatment plant. Water
Conservation Science and Engineering, 5(1–2), 23–29.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s41101-​020-​00081-x
Borzooei, S., Amerlinck, Y., Abolfathi, S., Panepinto, D.,
Nopens, I., Lorenzi, E., Meucci, L., & Zanetti, M. C.
(2019). Data scarcity in modelling and simulation of a
large-scale WWTP: Stop sign or a challenge. Journal of
Water Process Engineering, 28, 10–20. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​jwpe.​2018.​12.​010
Borzooei, S., Amerlinck, Y., Panepinto, D., Abolfathi, S.,
Nopens, I., Scibilia, G., Meucci, L., & Zanetti, M. C.
(2020). Energy optimization of a wastewater treatment
plant based on energy audit data: small investment
with high return. Environmental Science and Pollution
Research, 27(15), 17972–17985. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1007/​s11356-​020-​08277-3
Chan, C. K. M., Park, C., Chan, K. M., Mak, D. C. W., Fang,
J. K. H., & Mitrano, D. M. (2021). Microplastic fibre
Environ Monit Assess (2023) 195:1360
releases from industrial wastewater effluent: a textile
wet-processing mill in China. Environmental Chemistry,
18(3), 93–100. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1071/​en201​43
De Ketele, J., Davister, D., & Ikumi, D. S. (2018). Applying
performance indices in plantwide modelling for a com-
parative study of wastewater treatment plant operational
strategies. Water SA, 44(4). https://​doi.​org/​10.​4314/​wsa.​
v44i4.​03
Durotoye, T. O., Adeyemi, A. A., Omole, D. O., & Onakunle,
O. (2018). Impact assessment of wastewater discharge
from a textile industry in Lagos, Nigeria. Cogent Engi-
neering, 5(1), 1531687. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​23311​
916.​2018.​15316​87
Dutta, S., & Bhattacharjee, J. (2022). A comparative study
between physicochemical and biological methods
for effective removal of textile dye from wastewater.
Development in Wastewater Treatment Research and
Processes, 1–21. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​b978-0-​323-​
85657-7.​00003-1
Farhana, K., Mahamude, A. S. F., & Mica, M. T. (2022). The
Scenario of Textile Industry in Malaysia: A Review for
Potentiality. Materials Circular Economy, 4(1). https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s42824-​022-​00063-5
Furusho, K. (2015). The wastewater treatment systems and
chemicals for the reduction of the COD/BOD of the
Papermaking wastewater. Japan Tappi Journal, 69(12),
1291–1296. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2524/​jtapp​ij.​69.​1291
Guerrero, J., Guisasola, A., Comas, J., Rodríguez-Roda, I.,
& Baeza, J. (2012). Multi-criteria selection of optimum
WWTP control setpoints based on microbiology-related
failures, effluent quality and operating costs. Chemi-
cal Engineering Journal, 188, 23–29. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​cej.​2012.​01.​115
Hussain, A., Madan, R., & Madan, S. (2023). Performance
evaluation study of effluent treatment plant of polyester
textile dyeing industry: a case study of SIDCUL, Harid-
war, Uttarakhand, India. International Journal of Environ-
ment and Waste Management, 1(1), 1. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1504/​ijewm.​2023.​10055​347
Imtiazuddin, S. M., Mumtaz, M., & Mallick, K. A. (2012). Pol-
lutants of wastewater characteristics in textile industries.
Journal of Basic & Applied Sciences, 8(2), 554–556.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​6000/​1927-​5129.​2012.​08.​02.​47
Islam, T., Repon, M. R., Islam, T., Sarwar, Z., & Rahman, M.
M. (2023). Impact of textile dyes on health and ecosys-
tem: a review of structure, causes, and potential solu-
tions. Environmental Science and Pollution Research
International, 30(4), 9207–9242. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s11356-​022-​24398-3
Jafar, R., Awad, A., Jafar, K., & Shahrour, I. (2022). Predicting
effluent quality in full-scale wastewater treatment plants
using shallow and deep artificial neural networks. Sus-
tainability, 14(23), 15598. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​su142​
315598
Jeppsson, U., & Pons, M. N. (2004). The COST benchmark
simulation model—current state and future perspective.
Control Engineering Practice, 12(3), 299–304. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​conen​gprac.​2003.​07.​001
Kroll, S., Dirckx, G., Donckels, B. M. R., Van Dorpe, M.,
Weemaes, M., & Willems, P. (2015). Modelling real-time
control of WWTP influent flow under data scarcity. Water
Page 19 of 20 1360
Science and Technology, 73(7), 1637–1643. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​2166/​wst.​2015.​641
Latha, A., Partheeban, P., & Ganesan, R. (2017). Treatment of
textile wastewater by electrochemical method. Interna-
tional Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering, 10(01),
146–149. https://​doi.​org/​10.​21276/​ijee.​2017.​10.​0124
Lee, S. P., Min, S. Y., Kim, J. S., Park, J. U., & Kim, M. S.
(2014). A study on the influence of a sewage treat-
ment plant’s operational parameters using the multiple
regression analysis model. Environmental Engineering
Research, 19(1), 31–36. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4491/​eer.​2014.​
19.1.​031
Liu, H., Xin, C., Zhang, H., Zhang, F., & Huang, M. (2020).
Effluent quality prediction of papermaking wastewater
treatment processes using stacking ensemble learning.
IEEE Access, 8, 180844–180854. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​
access.​2020.​30286​83
Liugė, M., & Paliulis, D. (2023). Treatment of textile waste-
water containing dyes. CONECT. International Scientific
Conference of Environmental and Climate Technologies,
162. https://​doi.​org/​10.​7250/​conect.​2023.​129
Lotfi, K., Bonakdari, H., Ebtehaj, I., Mjalli, F. S., Zeynod-
din, M., Delatolla, R., & Gharabaghi, B. (2019). Predict-
ing wastewater treatment plant quality parameters using
a novel hybrid linear-nonlinear methodology. Journal of
Environmental Management, 240, 463–474. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​jenvm​an.​2019.​03.​137
Mehari, A. K., Gebremedhin, S., & Ayele, B. (2015). Effects
of Bahir Dar textile factory effluents on the water quality
of the head waters of Blue Nile River, Ethiopia. Inter-
national Journal of Analytical Chemistry., 2015, 1–7.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1155/​2015/​905247
Mekonnen, F. H. (2012). Liquid waste management: The
case of Bahir Dar, Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of
Health Development., 26(1), 49–53 Available from:
https://​a fric​a nedi​t ors.​o rg/​j ourn​a l/​E JHD/​f ull-​t ext-​p df/​
81159-​57412
Mhlanga, F., & Brouckaert, C. (2013). Characterization of
wastewater for modelling of wastewater treatment plants
receiving industrial effluent. Water SA, 39(3). https://​doi.​
org/​10.​4314/​wsa.​v39i3.9
Mihály, N. B., Simon-Várhelyi, M., & Cristea, V. M. (2022).
Data-driven modelling based on artificial neural net-
works for predicting energy and effluent quality indi-
ces and wastewater treatment plant optimization. Opti-
mization and Engineering. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s11081-​022-​09745-0
Nawaz, M. S., & Ahsan, M. (2014). Comparison of physico-
chemical, advanced oxidation and biological techniques
for the textile wastewater treatment. Alexandria Engineer-
ing Journal, 53(3), 717–722. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​aej.​
2014.​06.​007
Panhwar, A., Faryal, K., Kandhro, A., Bhutto, S., Rashid, U.,
Jalbani, N., Sultana, R., Solangi, A., Ahmed, M., Qaisar,
S., Solangi, Z., Gorar, M., & Sargani, E. (2022). Utiliza-
tion of treated industrial wastewater and accumulation of
heavy metals in soil and okra vegetable. Environmental
Challenges, 6, 100447. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​envc.​
2022.​100447
Patel, H., & Vashi, R. (2015). Characterization of textile
wastewater. Characterization and Treatment of Textile
Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 1360 Page 20 of 20
Wastewater, 21–71. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​b978-0-​12-​
802326-​6.​00002-2
Pavithra, K. G., & Jaikumar, V. J. (2019). Removal of colorants
from wastewater: A review on sources and treatment strat-
egies. Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry,
75, 1–19. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jiec.​2019.​02.​011
Roy, R., Fakhruddin, A. N. M., Khatun, R., Islam, M. S.,
Ahsan, M. A., & Neger, A. J. M. T. (2010). Characteriza-
tion of textile industrial effluents and its effects on aquatic
macrophytes and algae. Bangladesh Journal of Scientific
and Industrial Research, 45(1), 79–84. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
3329/​bjsir.​v45i1.​5187
Sen, S., Prajapati, A. K., Bannatwala, A., & Pal, D. (2019).
Electrocoagulation treatment of industrial wastewater
including textile dying effluent – a review. Desalination
and Water Treatment, 161, 21–34. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5004/​
dwt.​2019.​24302
Sharma, R., & Malaviya, P. (2022). Constructed wetlands for
textile wastewater remediation: A review on concept, pol-
lutant removal mechanisms, and integrated technologies
for efficiency enhancement. Chemosphere, 290, 133358.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​chemo​sphere.​2021.​133358
Siddique, K., Rizwan, M., Shahid, M. J., Ali, S., Ahmad,
R., & Rizvi, H. (2017). Textile wastewater treatment
options: A Critical Review. Enhancing Cleanup of Envi-
ronmental Pollutants, 183–207. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
978-3-​319-​55423-5_6
Tabassum, N., Khatun, R., & Baten, M. (2016). Spatial effects
of industrial effluent on soil quality around the textile
industrial area of Bhaluka Upazila, Mymensingh. Journal
of Environmental Science and Natural Resources, 8(2),
79–82. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3329/​jesnr.​v8i2.​26870
Tony, M. A. (2019). An industrial ecology approach: green cel-
lulose-based bio-adsorbent from sugar industry residue for
treating textile industry wastewater effluent. International
Journal of Environmental Analytical Chemistry, 101(2),
167–183. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​03067​319.​2019.​16613​97
Uddin, F. (2021). Environmental hazard in textile dyeing waste-
water from local textile industry. Cellulose, 28(17), 10715–
10739. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10570-​021-​04228-4
US EPA. (2023) .US EPA. Retrieved May 18, 2023, from
https://​www.​epa.​gov/​home
Wang, R., Yu, Y., Chen, Y., Pan, Z., Li, X., Tan, Z., & Zhang,
J. (2022). Model construction and application for effluent
prediction in wastewater treatment plant: Data processing
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Environ Monit Assess (2023) 195:1360
method optimization and process parameters integration.
Journal of Environmental Management, 302, 114020.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jenvm​an.​2021.​114020
Wang, X., Jiang, J., & Gao, W. (2022). Reviewing textile
wastewater produced by industries: characteristics, envi-
ronmental impacts, and treatment strategies. Water Sci-
ence and Technology, 85(7), 2076–2096. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​2166/​wst.​2022.​088
Wondim, T. T., & Dzwairo, B. (2018). A scenario-based multi-
ple attribute decision-making approach for site selection of
a wastewater treatment plant: Bahir Dar City (Ethiopia) case
study. Water SA, 44(4). https://​doi.​org/​10.​4314/​wsa.​v44i4.​26
Xie, Y., Chen, Y., Lian, Q., Yin, H., Peng, J., Sheng, M., &
Wang, Y. (2022). Enhancing real-time prediction of efflu-
ent water quality of wastewater treatment plant based on
improved feedforward neural network coupled with opti-
mization algorithm. Water, 14(7), 1053. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
3390/​w1407​1053
Yaseen, D. A., & Scholz, M. (2018). Textile dye wastewater
characteristics and constituents of synthetic effluents: a
critical review. International Journal of Environmental
Science and Technology, 16(2), 1193–1226. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1007/​s13762-​018-​2130-z
Yin, H., Guo, H., Qiu, P., Yi, L., & Li, J. (2017). Case analy-
sis on textile wastewater subjected to combined physico-
chemical–biological treatment and ozonation. Desalina-
tion and Water Treatment, 66, 140–148. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
5004/​dwt.​2017.​1619
Zhang, H., Yang, C., Shi, X., & Liu, H. (2021). Effluent quality pre-
diction in papermaking wastewater treatment processes using
dynamic Bayesian networks. Journal of Cleaner Production,
282, 125396. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2020.​125396
Zhou, M., Zhang, Y., Wang, J., Shi, Y., & Puig, V. (2022).
Water quality indicator interval prediction in wastewater
treatment process based on the improved BES-LSSVM
Algorithm. Sensors, 22(2), 422. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​
s2202​0422
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard
to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.