Quality Assessment of Groundwater Using Water Quality Index at Yamunanagar, Haryana

American Journal of Water Resources, 2013, Vol. 1, No. 3, 34-38 Available online at http://pubs.sciepub.com/ajwr/1/3/3 © Science and Education Publishing DOI:10.12691/ajwr-1-3-3 Water Quality Assessment in Terms of Water Quality Index Shweta Tyagi1, Bhavtosh Sharma2,*, Prashant Singh1, Rajendra Dobhal2,3 1 Department of Chemistry, DAV Post Graduate College, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India 2 Uttarakhand Science Education and Research Center, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India 3 Uttarakhand Council of Science and Technology, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India *Corresponding author: bhavtoshchem@gmail.com Received July 19, 2013; Revised August 05, 2013; Accepted August 07, 2013 Abstract Water quality index (WQI) is valuable and unique rating to depict the overall water quality status in a single term that is helpful for the selection of appropriate treatment technique to meet the concerned issues. However, WQI depicts the composite influence of different water quality parameters and communicates water quality information to the public and legislative decision makers. In spite of absence of a globally accepted composite index of water quality, some countries have used and are using aggregated water quality data in the development of water quality indices. Attempts have been made to review the WQI criteria for the appropriateness of drinking water sources. Besides, the present article also highlights and draws attention towards the development of a new and globally accepted “Water Quality Index” in a simplified format, which may be used at large and could represent the reliable picture of water quality. Keywords: ground water, surface, water quality, water quality index Cite This Article: Shweta Tyagi, Bhavtosh Sharma, Prashant Singh, and Rajendra Dobhal, “Water Quality Assessment in Terms of Water Quality Index.” American Journal of Water Resources 1, no. 3 (2013): 34-38. doi: 10.12691/ajwr-1-3-3. 1. Introduction Water, a prime natural resource and precious national asset, forms the chief constituent of ecosystem. Water sources may be mainly in the form of rivers, lakes, glaciers, rain water, ground water etc. Besides the need of water for drinking, water resources play a vital role in various sectors of economy such as agriculture, livestock production, forestry, industrial activities, hydropower generation, fisheries and other creative activities. The availability and quality of water either surface or ground, have been deteriorated due to some important factors like increasing population, industrialization, urbanization etc. Water quality of any specific area or specific source can be assessed using physical, chemical and biological parameters. The values of these parameters are harmful for human health if they occurred more than defined limits [1,2,3,4]. Therefore, the suitability of water sources for human consumption has been described in terms of Water quality index (WQI), which is one of the most effective ways to describe the quality of water. WQI utilizes the water quality data and helps in the modification of the policies, which are formulated by various environmental monitoring agencies. It has been realized that the use of individual water quality variable in order to describe the water quality for common public is not easily understandable [5,6]. That's why, WQI has the capability to reduce the bulk of the information into a single value to express the data in a simplified and logical form [7]. It takes information from a number of sources and combines them to develop an overall status of a water system [8-25]. They increase the understanding ability of highlighted water quality issues by the policy makers as well as for the general public as users of the water resources [26]. The present study reviews some of the important water quality indices used in water quality assessment and provides their mathematical structure, set of parameters and calculations along with their merits and demerits, which are being used worldwide. 2. Water Quality Index Initially, WQI was developed by Horton (1965) [27] in United States by selecting 10 most commonly used water quality variables like dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, coliforms, specific conductance, alkalinity and chloride etc. and has been widely applied and accepted in European, African and Asian countries. The assigned weight reflected significance of a parameter for a particular use and has considerable impact on the index. Furthermore, a new WQI similar to Horton’s index has also been developed by the group of Brown in 1970 [28], which was based on weights to individual parameter. Recently, many modifications have been considered for WQI concept through various scientists and experts [29,30]. A general WQI approach [31] is based on the most common factors, which are described in the following three steps: 35 American Journal of Water Resources 1. Parameter Selection: This is carried out by judgment of professional experts, agencies or government institutions that is determined in the legislative area. The selection of the variables from the 5 classes namely oxygen level, eutrophication, health aspects, physical characteristics and dissolved substances, which have the considerable impact on water quality, are recommended [32]. 2. Determination of Quality Function (curve) for Each Parameter Considered as the Sub-Index: Sub-indices transform to non-dimensional scale values from the variables of its different units (ppm, saturation percentage, counts/volume etc.). 3. Sub-Indices Aggregation with Mathematical Expression: This is frequently utilized through arithmetic or geometric averages. However, a huge number of water quality indices viz. Weight Arithmetic Water Quality Index (WAWQI), National Sanitation Foundation Water Quality Index (NSFWQI), Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Water Quality Index (CCMEWQI), Oregon Water Quality Index (OWQI) etc. have been formulated by several national and international organizations. These WQI have been applied for evaluation of water quality in a particular area [33,34]. Moreover, these indices are often based on the varying number and types of water quality parameters as compared with respective standards of a particular region. Water quality indices are accredited to demonstrate annual cycles, spatial and temporal variations in water quality and trends in water quality even at low concentrations in an efficient and timely manner. On the basis of reviewed literature, available indices have many variations and limitations based on number of water quality variables used and not accepted worldwide [35]. Hence, it needs worldwide acceptability with varying number of water quality variables. Various WQI determination methods have been described herein. 2.1. National Sanitation Foundation Water Quality Index (NSFWQI) A usual water quality index method was developed by paying great rigor in selecting parameters, developing a common scale and assigning weights. The attempt was supported by the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) and therefore as NSFWQI in order to calculate WQI of various water bodies critically polluted. The proposed method for comparing the water quality of various water sources is based upon nine water quality parameters such as temperature, pH, turbidity, fecal coliform, dissolved oxygen, biochemical oxygen demand, total phosphates, nitrates and total solids [28,36]. The water quality data are recorded and transferred to a weighting curve chart, where a numerical value of Qi is obtained. The mathematical expression for NSF WQI is given by WQI = ∑ i =1 QiWi n Where, Qi = sub-index for ith water quality parameter; Wi = weight associated with ith water quality parameter; n = number of water quality parameters. For this NSFWQI method, the ratings of water quality have been defined by using following Table 1: Table 1. Water Quality Rating as per different Water Quality Index methods National Sanitation Foundation Water Quality Index (NSFWQI) WQI Value Rating of Water Quality 91-100 Excellent water quality 71-90 Good water quality 51-70 Medium water quality 26-50 Bad water quality 0-25 Very bad water quality Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Water Quality Index (CCME WQI) 95-100 Excellent water quality 80-94 Good water quality 60-79 Fair water quality 45-59 Marginal water quality 0-44 Poor water quality Oregon Water Quality Index (OWQI) 90-100 Excellent water quality 85-89 Good water quality 80-84 Fair water quality 60-79 Poor water quality 0-59 Very poor water quality 2.2. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Water Quality Index (CCME WQI) CCME WQI provides a consistent method, which was formulated by Canadian jurisdictions to convey the water quality information for both management and the public. Moreover, a committee established under the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) has developed WQI, which can be applied by many water agencies in various countries with slight modification [37,38,39]. This method has been developed to evaluate surface water for protection of aquatic life in accordance to specific guidelines. The parameters related with various measurements may vary from one station to the other and sampling protocol requires atleast four parameters, sampled atleast four times [40,41]. The calculation of index scores in CCME WQI method can be obtained by using the following relation: WQI = 100 − F12 + F22 + F32 1.732 Where, Scope (F1) = Number of variables, whose objectives are not met. 36 American Journal of Water Resources F1= [No. of failed variables /Total no. of variables]*100 Frequency (F2) = Number of times by which the objectives are not met. F2 = [No. of failed tests/Total no. of tests]*100 Amplitude (F3) = Amount by which the objectives are not met. (a) excursioni = [Failed test valuei /Objectivej ]-1 n (b) normalized sum of excursions (nse) = ∑ excursionsi i=1 /No of tests (c) F3 = [nse/0.01nse+0.01] Therefore, five categories have been suggested to categorize the water qualities which are summarized in Table 1. Vo is the ideal value of this parameter in pure water Vo = 0 (except pH =7.0 and DO = 14.6 mg/l) Si is recommended standard value of ith parameter The unit weight (Wi) for each water quality parameter is calculated by using the following formula: Wi = K Si Where, K = proportionality constant and can also be calculated by using the following equation: K= 1 (1 ∑ Si) The rating of water quality according to this WQI is given in Table 2. 2.3. Oregon Water Quality Index (OWQI) OWQI creates a score to evaluate the general water quality of Oregon’s stream and the application of this method to other geographic regions, which combines eight water quality variables into a single number. The parameters covered in this method are temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), pH, ammonia and nitrate nitrogen, total phosphorus, total solids and fecal coliform [32,42]. The original OWQI was designed after the NSFWQI where the Delphi method was used for variable selection. It expresses water quality status and trends for the legislatively mandated water quality status assessment. The index is free from the arbitration in weighting the parameters and employs the concept of harmonic averaging. The mathematical expression of this WQI method is given by WQI = n 1 ∑ i =1 SI 2 n i Where, n = number of subindices SI = subindex of ith parameter Furthermore, the rating scale of this OWQI has also been categorized in various classes, which are given under Table 1 [43]. 2.4. Weighted Arithmetic Water Quality Index Method Weighted arithmetic water quality index method classified the water quality according to the degree of purity by using the most commonly measured water quality variables. The method has been widely used by the various scientists [44,45,46,47] and the calculation of WQI was made [48] by using the following equation: WQI = ∑ QiWi ∑Wi The quality rating scale (Qi) for each parameter is calculated by using this expression: Qi = 100[(Vi − Vo Si − Vo)] Where, Vi is estimated concentration of ith parameter in the analysed water Table 2. Water Quality Rating as per Weight Arithmetic Water Quality Index Method WQI Value Rating of Water Quality Grading 0-25 Excellent water quality A 26-50 Good water quality B 51-75 Poor water quality C 76-100 Very Poor water quality D Above 100 Unsuitable for drinking purpose E 3. Merits and Demerits of Selected Water Quality Index Methods A comparison of all these water quality indices is also performed under the study considering their merits and demerits. Table 3 explains about the merits and demerits of WQI methods. 4. Conclusions After the study of different water quality indices, it may be inferred that the aim of WQI is to give a single value to water quality of a source alongwith reducing higher number of parameters into a simple expression resulting into easy interpretation of water quality monitoring data. Moreover, this is an effort to review the important indices used in water quality vulnerability assessment and also provides information about indices composition and mathematical forms. These indices utilize various physico-chemical and biological parameters and have been resulted as an outcome of efforts and research and development carried out by different government agencies and experts in this area globally. In spite of all the efforts and different discussed indices being used globally, no index has so far been universally accepted and search for more useful and universal water quality index is still going on, so that water agencies, users and water managers in different countries may use and adopted it with little modifications. American Journal of Water Resources 37 Table 3. Merits and Demerits of Selected Water Quality Indices National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) WQI Merits Demerits References 1. Summarizes data in a single index value in an objective, 1. Represents general water quality, it does not rapid and reproducible manner. represent specific use of the water. 2. Evaluation between areas and identifying changes in [49,50] 2. Loss of data during data handling. water quality. 3. Lack of dealing with uncertainty and subjectivity 3. Index value relate to a potential water use. present in complex environmental issues. 4. Facilitates communication with lay person. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) WQI 1. Represent measurements of a variety of variables in a 1. Loss of information on single variables. single number. 2. Loss of information about the objectives specific to 2. Flexibility in the selection of input parameters and each location and particular water use. objectives. 3. Sensitivity of the results to the formulation of the 3. Adaptability to different legal requirements and different index. water uses. 4. Loss of information on interactions between 4. Statistical simplification of complex multivariate data. variables. 5. Clear and intelligible diagnostic for managers and the 5. Lack of portability of the index to different general public. ecosystem types. [51,52] 6. Suitable tool for water quality evaluation in a specific 6. Easy to manipulate (biased). 7. The same importance is given to all variables. location 8. No combination with other indicators or biological 7. Easy to calculate data 8. Tolerance to missing data 9. Suitable for analysis of data coming from automated 9. Only partial diagnostic of the water quality. sampling. 10. F1 not working appropriately when too few 10. Combine various measurements in a variety of different variables are considered or when too much measurement units in a single metric. covariance exists among them. Oregon WQI 1. Does not consider changes in toxics concentrations, habitat or biology. 1. Un-weighted harmonic square mean formula used to 2. To make inferences of water quality conditions combine sub-indices allows the most impacted parameter outside of the actual ambient network site locations is to impart the greatest influence on the water quality index. not possible. 2. Method acknowledges that different water quality 3. Cannot determine the water quality for specific [43,53] parameters will pose differing significance to overall water uses nor can it be used to provide definitive quality at different times and locations. information about water quality without considering 3. Formula is sensitive to changing conditions and to all appropriate physical, chemical and biological data. significant impacts on water quality. 4. Cannot evaluate all health hazards (toxics, bacteria, metals, etc.). Weight Arithmetic WQI 1. Incorporate data from multiple water quality parameters 1. WQI may not carry enough information about the into a mathematical equation that rates the health of water real quality situation of the water. body with number. 2. Many uses of water quality data cannot be met 2. Less number of parameters required in comparison to all with an index. water quality parameters for particular use. 3. The eclipsing or over-emphasizing of a single bad 3. Useful for communication of overall water quality [6,54] parameter value information to the concerned citizens and policy makers. 4. A single number cannot tell the whole story of 4. Reflects the composite influence of different parameters water quality; there are many other water quality i.e. important for the assessment and management of water parameters that are not included in the index. quality. 5. WQI based on some very important parameters can 5. Describes the suitability of both surface and groundwater provide a simple indicator of water quality. sources for human consumption. [5] Bharti, N. and Katyal, D, “Water quality indices used for surface water vulnerability assessment”, Int. J. Environ. Sci., 2(1). 154173. 2011. [6] Akoteyon, I.S., Omotayo, A.O., Soladoye, O. and Olaoye, H.O., The authors are thankful to USERC administration to “Determination of water quality index and suitability of urban provide necessary infrastructure to complete this work. river for municipal water supply in Lagos-Nigeria”, Europ. J. Scientific Res, 54(2). 263-271. 2011. The authors are also thankful to DAV (PG) College [7] Babaei Semiromi, F., Hassani, A.H., Torabian, A., Karbassi, A.R. Dehradun, India for necessary help. and Hosseinzadeh Lotfi, F., “Water quality index development using fuzzy logic: A case study of the Karoon river of Iran”, African J. Biotech.., 10(50). 10125-10133. 2011. [8] Karbassi, A. R., Mir Mohammad Hosseini, F., Baghvand, A. and Nazariha, M., “Development of water quality index (WQI) for Gorganrood River”, Int. J. Environ. Res., 5(4). 1041-1046. [1] Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality, Fourth Edition, World Autumn 2011. Health Organization ISBN 978 92 4 154815 1. 2012. [9] Das, K.K., Panigrahi, T., Panda, R.B., “Evaluation of water [2] Bureau of Indian Standards, Specification for drinking water. IS: quality index (WQI) of drinking water of Balasore district, Odisha, 10500, New Delhi, India, 2012. India”, Discovery life, 1(3). 48-52. 2012. [3] United State EPA 816-F-09-004, May 2009, [10] Jena, V., Dixit, S., Gupta, S., “Assessment of water quality index http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/upload/mcl-2.pdf of industrial area surface water samples”, Int. J. Chem. Tech. Res., (Accessed 12 July 2013). 5(1). 278-283. 2013. [4] Guide Manual: Water and Waste Water, Central Pollution Control [11] Saberi Nasr, A., Rezaei, M. and Dashti Barmaki M., Board, New Delhi. “Groundwater contamination analysis using Fuzzy Water Quality http://www.cpcb.nic.in/upload/Latest/Latest_67_guidemanualw& index (FWQI): Yazd province, Iran”, J Geope 3., (1). 47-55. 2013. wwanalysis.pdf (Accessed 12 July 2013). Acknowledgement References 38 American Journal of Water Resources [12] Abdulwahid, S.J., “Water quality index of delizhiyan springs and [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] shawrawa river within soran district, erbil, kurdistan region of iraq”, J. Appl. Environ. Biol. Sci., 3(1). 40-48. 2013. Srinivas, J., Purushotham, A.V. and Murali Krishna, K.V.S.G., “Determination of water quality index in industrial areas of Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh, India”, Int. Res. J Env. Sci., 2(5). 3745. 2013. Radmanesh, F., Zarei, H. and Salari, S., “Water Quality Index and Suitability of Water of Gotvand Basin at District Khuzestan, Iran”, Int. J. Agron. Plant Prod., 4(4). 707-713. 2013. Bhadja, P. and Vaghela, A.K. “Assessment of physicochemicalparameters and water quality index of reservoir water”, Int. J. Plant Animal and Environ. Sci., 3(3). 89-95. 2013. Khwakaram, A.I., Majid, S.N. and Hama N.Y., “Determination of water quality index (wqi) for qalyasan stream in sulaimani city/ kurdistan region of Iraq”, Int. J. Plant Animal and Environ. Sci., 2(4). 148-157. 2012. Mazhar, S. M., Khan, N. and Kumar, A.R. “Geogenic assessment of water quality index for the groundwater in Tiruchengode taluk, Namakkal district, Tamilnadu, India, Chem Sci Trans., 2(3). 10211027. 2013. Ansari, K. and Hemke, N. M., “Water quality index for assessment of water samples of different zones in Chandrapur city”, Int. J. Engineer. Res. Appli., 3(3). 233-237. 2013. Sirajudeen, J., Manikandan, S.A. and Manivel, V., “Water quality index of ground water around Ampikapuram area near Uyyakondan channel Tiruchirappalli district, Tamil Nadu, India”, Archiv. Appl. Sci. Res., 5 (3). 21-26. 2013. Patil, V.T. and Patil, P.R., “Groundwater quality status using water quality index in Amalner town, Maharashtra”, J. Chem. Pharmaceut. Res., 5(5). 67-71. 2013. Sujaul, I.M., Hossain M.A., Nasly, M.A. and Sobahan, M.A., “Effect of industrial pollution on the spatial variation of surface water quality”, Ameri. J. Environ. Sci., 9 (2). 120-129. 2013. Sharifinia, M., Ramezanpour, Z., Imanpour, J., Mahmoudifard A. and Rahmani, T., “Water quality assessment of the Zarivar Lake using physico-chemical parameters and NSF- WQI indicator, Kurdistan Province-Iran”, Int. J. Adv. Bio. Biomed. Res., 1(3). 302-312. 2013. Srivastava, G. and Kumar, P., “Water quality index with missing parameters”, Int. J. Res. Engineer. Technol., 2(4). 609-614. 2013. Jagadeeswari, P.B. and Ramesh, K., “Water quality index for assessment of water quality in south Chennai coastal aquifer, Tamil Nadu, India”, Int. J. Chem. Tech. Res., 4(4). 1582-1588. 2012. Chowdhury R.M., Muntasir S.Y. and Hossain M.M., “Study on ground water quality and its suitability or drinking purpose in Alathur block -Perambalur district”, Archiv. Appl. Sci. Res., 4(3). 1332-1338. 2012. Nasirian. M., “A new water quality index for environmental contamination contributed by mineral processing: A case study of Amang (tin tailing) processing activity”, J. Appli. Sci., 7(20). 2977-2987. 2007. Horton, R.K., “An index number system for rating water quality”, J. Water Pollu. Cont. Fed., 37(3). 300-305. 1965. Brown, R.M., McClelland, N.I., Deininger, R.A. and Tozer, R.G., “Water quality index-do we dare?”, Water Sewage Works, 117(10). 339-343. 1970. Bhargava, D.S, Saxena, B.S. and Dewakar, R.W., “A study of geo-pollutants in the Godavary river basin in India”, Asian Environ., 12. 36-59. 1998. Dwivedi, S., Tiwari, I.C. and Bhargava, D.S., “Water quality of the river Ganga at Varanasi”, Institute of Engineers, Kolkota, 78, 1-4. 1997. Fernandez, N., Ramirez, A. and Solano, F., “Physico-chemical water quality indices - a comparative review”, Revista Bistua. ISSN 0120-4211. Available at: http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/src/inicio/ArtPdfRed.jsp?iCve=9032010 3 Accessed: 18 September, 2012. Dunnette, D.A., “A geographically variable water quality index used in Oregon”, J. Water Pollu. Cont. Fed., 51(1). 53-61. 1979. Lumb, A., Halliwell, D. and Sharma, T., “Canadian water quality index to monitor the changes in water quality in the Mackenzie [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] river–Great Bear”. Proceedings of the 29th Annual Aquatic Toxicity Workshop, (Oct. 21-23), Whistler, B.C., Canada. 2002. Chaturvedi, M.K. and Bassin, J.K., “Assessing the water quality index of water treatment plant and bore wells, in Delhi, India”, Environ. Monit. Assess., 163. 449-453. 2010. Bordalo, A.A., Nilsumranchit, W. and Chalermwat, K., “Water quality and uses of the Bangpakong river (Eastern Thailand)”, Water Res., 35(15). 3635-3642. 2001. Kumar, D. and Alappat, B., “NSF-Water Quality Index: Does It Represent the Experts’ Opinion?”, Pract. Period. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste Manage., 13(1). 75-79. 2009. CCME (2001). Canadian environmental quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life, CCME water quality index: technical report, 1.0. Khan, A.A., Paterson, R. and Khan, H., “Modification and Application of the CCME WQI for the Communication of Drinking Water Quality Data in Newfoundland and Labrador”, Proceedings of the 38th Central Symposium on Water Quality Research, Canadian Association on Water Quality, Burlington, Canada. 2003. Lumb, A., Halliwell, D. and Sharma, T., “Application of CCME water quality index to monitor water quality: a case of the Mackenzie river basin, Canada”. Environ. Monit. Assess., 113. 411-429. 2006. Khan, A.A., Tobin, A., Paterson, R., Khan, H. and Warren, R., “Application of CCME procedures for deriving site-specific water quality guidelines for the CCME water quality index”, Wat. Qual. Res. J. Canada.., 40(4). 448-456. 2005. Kankal, N.C., Indurkar, M.M., Gudadhe, S.K. and Wate, S.R., “Water quality index of surface water bodies of Gujarat, India”, Asian J. Exp. Sci., 26(1). 39-48. 2012. Dinius, S.H., “Design of an index of water quality”, Water Resou. Bull., 23(5). 833-843. 1987. Cude, C.G., “Oregon water quality index: a tool for evaluating water quality management effectiveness”, J. American Water Resou. Assoc., 37(1). 125-137. 2001. Chauhan, A. and Singh, S., “Evaluation of Ganga water for drinking purpose by water quality index at Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, India”, Report Opinion, 2(9). 53-61. 2010. Chowdhury, R.M., Muntasir, S.Y. and Hossain, M.M., “Water quality index of water bodies along Faridpur-Barisal road in Bangladesh”, Glob. Eng. Tech. Rev., 2(3). 1-8. 2012. Rao, C.S., Rao, B.S., Hariharan, A.V.L.N.S.H. and Bharathi, N.M., “Determination of water quality index of some areas in Guntur district Andhra Pradesh”, Int. J. Appl. Bio. Pharm. Tech., I(1). 7986. 2010. Balan, I.N., Shivakumar, M. and Kumar, P.D.M., “An assessment of ground water quality using water quality index in Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India”, Chronicles Young Scient., 3(2). 146-150. 2012. rown, R.M, McCleiland, N.J., Deiniger, R.A. and O’Connor, M.F.A. “Water quality index – crossing the physical barrier”, (Jenkis, S.H. ed.) Proceedings in International Conference on water pollution Research Jerusalem 6. 787-797. 1972. Mnisi, L.N., “Assessment of the state of the water quality of the Lusushwana River, Swaziland, using selected water quality indices”. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Zimbabwe, Harare. 2010. Wills, M. and Irvine, K.N., “Application of the national sanitation foundation water quality index in Cazenovia Creek”, NY, Pilot watershed management project. Mid. States Geograph., 95-104. 1996. Terrado, M., Barcelo, D., Tauler, R., Borrell, E. and Campos, S.D., “Surface-water-quality indices for the analysis of data generated by automated sampling networks”, Trends Anal. Chem., 29(1). 4052. 2010. Abbasi, T. and Abbasi, S.A., “Water quality indices”. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 2012. Hubler, S., Miller, S., Merrick, L., Leferink, R. and Borisenko, A., “High level indicators of Oregon’s forested streams”, Lab. Environ. Assess. Div., Hillsboro, Oregon. 2009. Yogendra, K. and Puttaiah E.T., “Determination of water quality index and suitability of an urban waterbody in Shimoga Town, Karnataka”, Proceedings of Taal2007: The 12th World Lake Conference, pp. 342-346. 2008.