Drinking Water Quality of Selected Tap Water Samples in Cagayan de Oro (District II), Philippines

Journal of Sustainable Development Studies
ISSN 2201-4268
Volume 10, Number 1, 2017, 1-16
Drinking Water Quality of Selected Tap Water Samples
in Cagayan de Oro (District II), Philippines
Allen Khate V. Alambatin1, Jay Culkins Germano1, Dazel Lehi Pagaspas1, Fatima
Mae D. Peñas1, Archie Pun-an1, and Van Ryan Kristopher R. Galarpe2,*
1
BS Environmental Science & Technology, Department of Environmental Science &
Technology, University of Science and Technology of Southern Philippines
C.M. Recto Avenue, Cagayan de Oro, 9000 Philippines
2
Department of Environmental Science & Technology, University of Science
and Technology of Southern Philippines, C.M. Recto Avenue, Cagayan de Oro,
9000 Philippines
1
© Copyright 2017 the authors.
JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Drinking Water Quality of Selected Tap Water Samples in
Cagayan de Oro (District II), Philippines
Abstract
This study was conducted to preliminarily determine present drinking water
quality of selected District II communities in Cagayan de Oro, Philippines. Five
community stations (total twenty stations) were established covering three months tap
water monitoring. All samples were analyzed using portable meters determining the
pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), temperature, conductivity, salinity, turbidity, and total
dissolved solids (TDS) Overall, all studied tap water samples from selected stations
passed the drinking water regulations except for conductivity (Risk quotient>1).
Similarly, both pH and turbidity analyses showed a sampling date specific variations
(p<0.05) while the analyses of temperature and salinity showed station specific
variations (p<0.05). A strong correlation of studied parameters was also found between
conductivity-salinity (r = 0.98); conductivity-TDS (r = 0.90); and salinity-TDS (r = 0.92).
Extrapolating from this it can be concluded that the tap water samples were safe to
drink. The study was preliminary and further analyses incorporating metals, pathogens,
and organics may be needed.
Keywords: Drinking water, water quality parameters, ground water.
2
I. Introduction
The millennium development goal under environmental sustainability states the
need for ensuring drinking water quality. The case is significant for the Philippines
which are heavily affected by typhoons annually. Consequently typhoons commonly
affect the water pipelines and services, inevitably contaminating the water upon
restoration. Ensuring safe drinking water in the city of Cagayan de Oro is essential
considering that
it has become a typhoon hotspot recently.
Although there were no direct studies to extrapolate potential drinking water
contamination in Cagayan de Oro, few studies however states contamination of
adjacent water bodies (Alvarez et al., 2008; Besagas et al., 205; Lago, 2013). The reviewed
studies present the arising need of ensuring water quality locally as a need prior to
typhoons and other environmental externalities (e.g. anthropogenic activities from
dumpsites (Galarpe and Parilla, 2012; Sia Su, 2008)).
Locally, the drinking water provider is the Cagayan de Oro Water District
(CDOWD). The water is being analyzed prior to release as part of the monitoring
system, however the water quality are not evaluated onsite/consumers pipelines. This
in return presents a concern owing to potential contamination along the pipeline
systems. This in return requires household water storage and treatment with point-of-
use water quality monitoring (Wright et al., 2004). Often water pipelines are located
within domestic wastewater drainage/sewerage, alarmingly posing public health
concern. Owing to the potential concern this study was conducted given the following
objectives:
1. To determine the physicochemical parameters of tap water samples in selected
District II communities (Zone 8, Cugman, Zone 10, Cugman, Baloy, Tablon, and
Bugo) in Cagayan de Oro, Philippines;
2. To determine whether the studied parameters passed the water quality guidelines
(PNSDW, 2007; WHO, 2008);

3
3. To determine the risk quotient brought by the studied physicochemical parameters;
4. To determine if there is a significant difference among studied stations and
sampling dates; and lastly
5. To determine if there is correlation among studied physicochemical parameters.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1 Study site
The water samples were collected from five stations under District II of Cagayan
de Oro. These stations included Zone 8 Cugman, Zone 10, Cugman, Baloy, Tablon, and
Bugo. Each station was composed with four other substations (approximately 5 m-10 m
apart) as sources of tap water analyzed in the laboratory (refer to Figure 1).
Figure 1. Map of the studied tap water stations in District II, Cagayan de Oro
4
2.2 Sampling
Sampling was carried on December Dec 16, 2016, Jan 11, 2017, Jan 14, 2017, Jan
30, 2017, and Feb 4, 2017 daytime to minimize weather factors. All samples were
contained in pre-cleaned polyethylene (PET) bottles with distilled water. Upon
sampling the bottles itself were prewashed by the samples prior to collecting water as
final sample for analysis. All samples were analyzed in triplicates in the University of
Science and Technology of Southern Philippines (USTP)-Environmental
Science/Material Science Laboratories.
2.3 Physicochemical analyses
Each physicochemical parameter was analyzed using probe meters. The DO
determination was carried using DO 6+ Oakton Eutech (manufactured in Singapore).
The TDS, conductivity, salinity, and pH were all determined using Oyster series Extech
instram (manufactured in Taiwan). Turbidity on the other hand was analyzed using
Lamotte model 2020we (manufactured in USA).
2.4 Data analysis
All results were expressed descriptively as mean with standard deviation. The
difference between stations and sampling dates were determined using Two Way-
ANOVA (0.05 level of significance). To determine the association among studied
parameters the Pearson correlation was employed. The risk quotient (RQ) was also
determined adopted from (Galarpe and Parilla, 2014). The RQ was calculated as the
ratio between the determined concentration and the available standard
(GEF/UNDP/IMO, 2014). The calculated RQ of >1 can gauge the parameter to likely
pose environmental risk. The standard reference for calculated RQ is shown in Table 1.
5
Table 1. Different Standards of water quality

Standards Ph Conductivity (µs) Turbidity (NTU) TDS
(ppm)
PNDSDW 6.5-8.5 5 NTU 500 mg/L
WHO 6.5-8.5 250 us/cm <5 NTU
US EPA 6.5-8.5 1-5 NTU 500 mg/L
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1 Summary of the physicochemical properties
Overall, the pH of tap water samples from Zone 8, Cugman ranged from 6.23-
7.83 (see Table 2). Considerably, a lower pH results were recorded during the last
sampling (February 4, 2017) in both stations, namely, Zone 8, Cugman and Baloy,
Cagayan de Oro. Despite the lowest recorded pH (5.94) in Zone 10, Cugman on January
30, 2017 (see Table 3) sampling other stations showed comparable result about the
neutral pH range (see Table 2-6). Similarly the determined temperature and DO values
were normal at room temperature conditions. The ranged levels of conductivity were
351-460 uS/cm and TDS were 237-297 ppm in all stations, respectively. The high levels
of TDS can be associated to presence of carbonates in water samples (Pip, 2000). Further,
conductivity may indicate potential levels of ions (Galarpe and Parilla, 2014; Achas et al.,
2016; Chapman, 1996). The salinity concentrations ranged from 141 ppm to 347 ppm
with the highest mean concentration in Bugo station (264 ppm) (see Table 6) and the
lowest mean concentration in Zone 8, Cugman station (167 ppm) (see Table 2). The
recorded levels of turbidity posed no health concern although small presence can be
associated to either sample contamination or exposure to particulate matter to the water
pipes (Jafari et al., 2008; Omezuruike et al., 2008).
6
Table 2. Physicochemical properties of tap water in Zone 8, Cugman
Sampling pH Temp DO Conductivit Turbidity Salinity TDS
period (C) (ppm) y (NTU) (ppm) (ppm)
(µs)
Dec 16, 2016 7.72 24.5 6.24 349 0.27 176 231
Jan 9, 2017 7.71 23.5 3.81 356 0.54 174 251
Jan 14, 2017 7.61 23.5 5.41 351 0.13 143 234
Jan 30, 2017 7.83 23.5 4.35 342 0.49 170 235
Feb 4, 2017 6.23 23.0 4.69 359 0.28 176 256
Mean 7.42 23.6 4.9 351 0.34 167 237
SD 0.67 0.55 0.94 6.58 0.16 14.1 7.83
Table 3. Physicochemical properties of tap water in Zone 10, Cugman
Sampling pH Temp DO Conductivity Turbidity Salinity TDS
period (C) (ppm) (µs) (NTU) (ppm) (ppm)
Dec 16, 2016 7.83 24.3 6.73 347.33 0.38 173.6 255
Jan 9, 2017 7.83 24.5 6.78 351.67 0.13 174.63 279
Jan 14, 2017 7.63 25.8 6.13 404.67 0.06 200 268
Jan 30, 2017 5.94 27.4 5.54 444.67 0.14 221.83 297
Feb 4, 2017 7.31 23.5 5.91 403.7 0.10 212 271
Mean 7.31 25.1 6.22 390.41 0.16 196.27 278
SD 0.71 1.36 0.44 33.29 0.10 19.54 13
7
Table 4. Physicochemical properties of tap water in Baloy
period (̊C) (ppm) (µs) (NTU) (ppm) (ppm)
Dec 16,2016 7.71 23.6 4.46 347 0.32 185 236
Jan 9, 2017 7.71 23.5 3.81 356 0.54 174 251
Jan 14, 2017 7.61 23.5 5.41 351 0.13 143 234
Jan 30, 2017 7.83 23.5 4.35 342 0.49 170 235
Feb 4, 2017 6.23 23..0 4.69 359 0.28 176 256
Mean 7.41 23.4 4.54 351 0.35 170 242
SD 0.67 0.24 0.58 6.82 0.17 15.9 10.3
Table 5. Physicochemical properties of tap water in Tablon
Sampling pH Temp DO Conductivity Turbidity Salinit TDS
period (̊C) (ppm) (µs) (NTU) y (ppm)
(ppm)
Dec 16, 2016 7.71 23.6 4.46 347 0.32 185 231
Jan 9, 2017 7.71 24.5 6.25 485 0.54 218 282
Jan 14, 2017 7.30 27.3 5.73 389 0.22 194 259
Jan 30, 2017 7.36 27.9 3.31 337 0.23 168 228
Feb 4, 2017 7.36 27.8 3.29 394 0.18 168 233
Mean 7.49 26.0 4.61 391 0.29 186 246
SD 0.20 2.27 1.36 58.5 0.15 20.8 23.3
8
Table 6. Physicochemical properties of tap water in Bugo
period (C) (ppm) (µs) (NTU) (ppm) (ppm)
Dec 16,2016 7.45 24.6 6.43 377 0.36 189 253
Jan 9, 2017 7.50 24.6 6.40 377 0.36 189 251
Jan 14, 2017 7.44 23.0 6.53 387 0.28 260 260
Jan 30, 2017 7.41 23.0 4.53 445 0.40 324 253
Feb 4, 2017 7.38 23.0 4.31 716 0.31 357 470
Mean 7.44 23.6 5.64 460 0.34 264 297
SD 0.04 0.87 1.12 0.05 76.67 145.65 96.55
3.2 Physicochemical properties of tap water compared to standards and RQ
Three standards (PNSDW, WHO, and US EPA) served as reference on studied
selected physicochemical properties of tap water samples (see Table 1). The pH (Figure
2a), turbidity (Figure 3a), and TDS (Figure 3b) were within the drinking water
standards. The considerably lower concentrations in return showed no potential risk in
all studied stations (see Table 7). However, conductivity exceeded the drinking water
regulations (Figure 2b). The conductivity calculated RQ>1 in all stations may indicate
potential risk (Galarpe and Parilla, 2014) (see Table 7).
9
a b
Figure 2. Tap water samples per station compared to standard (a) pH (b) conductivity
a b
Figure 3. Tap water samples per station compared to standard (a) turbidity (b) TDS
Table 7. Corresponding RQ of the selected physicochemical properties
Sampling station pH Turbidity TDS Conductivity
Zone 8, Cugman 1.14-0.87 0.07 0.47 1.4
Zone 10, Cugman 1.12-0.86 0.03 0.56 1.56
Baloy 1.14-0.87 0.07 0.48 1.4
Tablon 1.15-0.88 0.06 0.49 1.56
Bugo 1.14-0.88 0.07 0.59 1.84 10

3.3 Statistical comparisons
The summary of ANOVA is shown in Table 8. Both pH and turbidity analyses
showed a sampling date specific variations (p<0.05) while the analyses of temperature
and salinity may indicate station specific variations (p<0.05).
Table 8. ANOVA of the selected physicochemical properties
Parameter F critical P value Description

pH
Sampling 3.892254 0.029844 Significant difference
date
Station 0.039166 0.989121 No significant difference
Temperature
Sampling 0.080233 0.986942 No significant difference
date
Station 5.290437 0.014826 Significant difference
DO
date
Turbidity
Sampling 1.069437 0.003159 Significant difference
date
Conductivity
date
Salinity
date
Station 5.360752 0.014202 Significant difference
TDS
date
Station 1.55464 0.25146
11
No significant difference
Further analysis using Pearson correlation showed strong association between
the following parameters, conductivity-salinity (r = 0.98); conductivity-TDS (r = 0.90);
and salinity-TDS (r = 0.92) (see Table 9). The strong correlation of these parameters may
indicate presence of ions. Present findings was in agreement with the specific results
shown in Table 2-7 where an increase in TDS corresponds to increase in both salinity
and conductivity.
Table 9. Correlation of the selected physicochemical properties
Parameters pH Temp DO Conductivit Turbidit Salinity TDS
y y
pH 1 0.09 -0.73 0.15 0.71 0.088 -0.30
Temp 1 0.09 0.076 -0.62 -0.11 -0.02
DO 1 0.53 -0.71 0.54 0.81
Conductivit 1 -0.06 0.98 0.90
Turbidity 1 0.03 -0.33
Salinity 1 0.92
TDS 1
4. Conclusion
Overall, all studied tap water samples from selected stations/communities in
District II, Cagayan de Oro passed the drinking water regulations except for
conductivity (RQ>1). Similarly, both the pH and turbidity analyses showed a sampling
date specific variations (p<0.05) while the analyses of temperature and salinity may
indicate station specific variations (p<0.05). A strong correlation of studied parameters
was also found between
12
conductivity-salinity, conductivity-TDS, and salinity-TDS. Extrapolating from this it can
be concluded that the tap water samples were fit to drink. The study was initially
preliminary and further analyses incorporating metals, pathogens, and organics may be
needed.
13
References
[1] Achas,E.M, Paquit, K.J., Zambas, M.K., & Galarpe, V.R.K.R. (2016). Preliminary
Analyses of Domestic Wastewater from Selected Communities in Cagayan de
Oro, Philippines. International Journal of Chemical and Environmental
Engineering 7(1): 43-45.
[2] Alvarez, S., Zainoden, W., Abdullatif, M., Alamban, L. M., Laguindab, S., Mamari,
N., & Modehar, H. (2008). A cross-sectional study on the extent of fecal
contamination of Cagayan de Oro River along five urban barangays and the
factors affecting contamination.(October 2007–January 2008). JPAIR Journal.
[3] Besagas, R.L., Asoy, A.Y., Ceniza, M.S., Leopoldo, G.D., Dael, N.T., and Del Rosario,
R.M. Upland and coastal freshwater sources in Misamis Oriental, Philippines: a
comparison of water quality. Mindanao Journal of Science and Technology (2015)
13: 1-11.
[4] Chapman, D. Water Quality Assessments, 2nd ed., UK: UNESCO/WHO/UNEP, 1996.
[5] Galarpe, V.R.K.R and Parilla, R.B. 2012. Influence of seasonal variation on the
biophysicochemical properties of leachate and groundwater in Cebu City
Sanitary Landfill, Philippines. International Journal Chemical and Environmental
Engineering (2012) 3(3): 175-181.
[6]Galarpe, V.R.K.R. and Parilla, R.B. Analysis of heavy metals in Cebu City Sanitary
Landfill, Philippines. Journal of Environmental Science and Management (2014)
17(1): 50-59.
14
[7](GEF/UNDP/IMO] Global Environment Facility/United Nations Development
Programme/International Maritime Organization. 2004. Manila Bay: refined risk
assessment technical report. Philippines: Environmental Management for the
Seas of East Asia (PEMSEA), and Manila Bay Environmental Management
Project (MBEMP), Technical Working Group for Refined Risk Assessment (TWG-
RRA).
[8] Jafari, A., Mirhossaini, H., Kamareii, B., & Dehestani, S. (2008). Physicochemical
analysis of drinking water in kohdasht city lorestan, Iran. Asian Journal of
Applied Sciences, 1(1), 87-92.
[9] Lago R. G. M. (2013). Water Quality Assessment of Coastal Waters of Bayabas and
Bonbon in Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines. IAMURE International Journal of
Marine Ecology, 1(1): 1-1.
[10]Omezuruike, O. I., Damilola, A. O., Adeola, O. T., & Enobong, A. (2008).
Microbiological and physicochemical analysis of different water samples used for
domestic purposes in Abeokuta and Ojota, Lagos State, Nigeria. African Journal
of Biotechnology, 7(5), 617.
[11] Philippine national standards for drinking water. 2007. Administrative Order No.
2007-012. Department of Health: Philippines. Available:
http://www.lwua.gov.ph/tech_mattrs/water_standards.htm. Accessed 20
November 2010
[12] Pip, E. (2000). Survey of bottled drinking water available in Manitoba,
Canada. Environmental health perspectives, 108(9), 863
15
[13] Su G. L. (2008). Assessing the effect of a dumpsite to groundwater quality in
Payatas, Philippines. American Journal of Environmental Sciences, 4(4): 276-280.
[14] WHO (2008). Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality.
Available: http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/fulltext.pdf
[15] Wright, J., Gundry, S., & Conroy, R. (2004). Household drinking water in
developing countries: a systematic review of microbiological contamination
between source and point-of-use. Tropical Medicine & International Health, 9(1),
106-117.
16

Drinking Water Quality of Selected Tap Water Samples in Cagayan de Oro (District II), Philippines

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Drinking Water Quality of Selected Tap Water Samples in Cagayan de Oro (District II), Philippines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Sustainable Development Studies

Volume 10, Number 1, 2017, 1-16

Drinking Water Quality of Selected Tap Water Samples

in Cagayan de Oro (District II), Philippines

Mae D. Peñas1, Archie Pun-an1, and Van Ryan Kristopher R. Galarpe2,*

Technology, University of Science and Technology of Southern Philippines

C.M. Recto Avenue, Cagayan de Oro, 9000 Philippines

and Technology of Southern Philippines, C.M. Recto Avenue, Cagayan de Oro,

Drinking Water Quality of Selected Tap Water Samples in

Cagayan de Oro (District II), Philippines

This study was conducted to preliminarily determine present drinking water

quality of selected District II communities in Cagayan de Oro, Philippines. Five

conductivity-salinity (r = 0.98); conductivity-TDS (r = 0.90); and salinity-TDS (r = 0.92).

and organics may be needed.

Keywords: Drinking water, water quality parameters, ground water.

The millennium development goal under environmental sustainability states the

which are heavily affected by typhoons annually. Consequently typhoons commonly

it has become a typhoon hotspot recently.

Although there were no direct studies to extrapolate potential drinking water

contamination in Cagayan de Oro, few studies however states contamination of

typhoons and other environmental externalities (e.g. anthropogenic activities from

dumpsites (Galarpe and Parilla, 2012; Sia Su, 2008)).

in return presents a concern owing to potential contamination along the pipeline

within domestic wastewater drainage/sewerage, alarmingly posing public health

1. To determine the physicochemical parameters of tap water samples in selected

Bugo) in Cagayan de Oro, Philippines;

(PNSDW, 2007; WHO, 2008);

3. To determine the risk quotient brought by the studied physicochemical parameters;

4. To determine if there is a significant difference among studied stations and

sampling dates; and lastly

5. To determine if there is correlation among studied physicochemical parameters.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1 Study site

contained in pre-cleaned polyethylene (PET) bottles with distilled water. Upon

Science and Technology of Southern Philippines (USTP)-Environmental

Science/Material Science Laboratories.

2.3 Physicochemical analyses

Each physicochemical parameter was analyzed using probe meters. The DO

determination was carried using DO 6+ Oakton Eutech (manufactured in Singapore).

Lamotte model 2020we (manufactured in USA).

2.4 Data analysis

ANOVA (0.05 level of significance). To determine the association among studied

ratio between the determined concentration and the available standard

Table 1. Different Standards of water quality

PNDSDW 6.5-8.5 5 NTU 500 mg/L

WHO 6.5-8.5 250 us/cm <5 NTU

US EPA 6.5-8.5 1-5 NTU 500 mg/L

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Summary of the physicochemical properties

associated to either sample contamination or exposure to particulate matter to the water

pipes (Jafari et al., 2008; Omezuruike et al., 2008).

Table 2. Physicochemical properties of tap water in Zone 8, Cugman

Sampling pH Temp DO Conductivit Turbidity Salinity TDS

period (C) (ppm) y (NTU) (ppm) (ppm)

Jan 9, 2017 7.71 23.5 3.81 356 0.54 174 251

Feb 4, 2017 6.23 23.0 4.69 359 0.28 176 256

Mean 7.42 23.6 4.9 351 0.34 167 237

SD 0.67 0.55 0.94 6.58 0.16 14.1 7.83

Table 3. Physicochemical properties of tap water in Zone 10, Cugman

Sampling pH Temp DO Conductivity Turbidity Salinity TDS

period (C) (ppm) (µs) (NTU) (ppm) (ppm)

Jan 9, 2017 7.83 24.5 6.78 351.67 0.13 174.63 279

Feb 4, 2017 7.31 23.5 5.91 403.7 0.10 212 271