4.6 Article

Development of a water quality index (WQI) for the Loktak Lake in India

期刊

APPLIED WATER SCIENCE
卷 7, 期 6, 页码 2907-2918

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s13201-017-0579-4

关键词

Physicochemical parameters; Water quality index; Pearson's correlation matrix; Floating island; Loktak Lake

资金

  1. Society of Wetland Scientists, USA
  2. Ocean Park Conservation Foundation, Hong Kong

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present work was carried out to assess a water quality index (WQI) of the Loktak Lake, an important wetland which has been under pressure due to the increasing anthropogenic activities. Physicochemical parameters like temperature (Tem), potential hydrogen (pH), electrical conductivity (EC), turbidity (T), dissolved oxygen (DO), total hardness (TH), calcium (Ca), chloride (Cl), fluoride (F), sulphate (SO42-), magnesium (Mg), phosphate (PO43-), sodium (Na), potassium (K), nitrite (NO2), nitrate (NO3), total dissolved solids (TDS), total carbon (TC), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), and chemical oxygen demand (COD) were analyzed using standard procedures. The values obtained were compared with the guidelines for drinking purpose suggested by the World Health Organization and Bureau of Indian Standard. The result shows the higher concentration of nitrite in all the location which is beyond the permissible limit. Eleven parameters were selected to derive the WQI for the estimation of water potential for five sampling sites. A relative weight was assigned to each parameter range from 1.46 to 4.09 based on its importance. The WQI values range from 64 to 77 indicating that the Loktak Lake water is not fit for drinking, including both human and animals, even though the people living inside the Lake are using it for drinking purposes. The implementation of WQI is necessary for proper management of the Loktak Lake and it will be a very helpful tool for the public and decision makers to evaluate the water quality of the Loktak Lake for sustainable management.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据