Proceedings of Civil and Water Resources Engineering Conference

3-4 November 2017, BIAM Foundation, 63 Eskaton, Dhaka, Bangladesh

ISBN: 978-1-925488-52-4

Drinking Water Quality Assessment in Terms of Water

Quality Index (WQI) in Dhaka, Bangladesh
Md.Serajuddin1*, Md. Aktarul Islam Chowdhury1, Md. Ehteshamul Haque
2
and Tahmina Ferdous3

In Bangladesh, use of Water Quality Index (WQI) is very recent,

primarily for surface water. This paper is a pioneering attempt to
illustrate the status of urban drinking water quality in Dhaka with
WQI. A total of 11,787samples were assessed for 20 parameters
throughout three years covering the whole hydrological cycle. It is
reflected that even five parameter out of twenty raw water
parameters were beyond the design raw water quality, yet, global,
yearly and monthly (except a single month) composite WQI was
found > 90.00 categorizing the tested water in the ranking of ‘very
good quality of drinking water’. 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 to present the picture of water quality to mass
people in a more understandable language.

Key words: Drinking water quality, surface water, Water Quality Index

Introduction
Water-- can be imbibed, bathed in, or contemplated at sunset. It is as basic as air
and just as essential. Years ago a priest how nicely said--- 'water, you have neither
taste nor colour nor smell. One cannot define you, one taste you without knowing
you. You are not necessary to live--- you are life.' Nobel laureate Szent-Gyorgyi has
called water 'the matrix of life'[1].

Water quality has direct influence on public health. WHO has estimated that up to
80% of all sickness and disease in the world is caused by inadequate sanitation,
polluted or unavailability of water. In general water is seen as an essential input to
human production and an effective tool of economic development [2, 3]. It plays a
significant role in social prosperity [3, 4] and the well-being of all people [5, 6]. Water
pollution from diffuse sources [4] and various types of pollution is not only a serious
environmental issue but also an economic and human health problem [4-6]. The
water supply for drinking purposes in Bangladesh historically comes mainly from
underground water sources [7]. The drinking water in Dhaka is of good quality
[8].However, there are growing problems concerning drinking water supply in Dhaka.
Due to unsustainable ground water the authority has been constructing surface
water treatment plants abstracting raw water from the nearby rivers. But the
___________________________
1
* Corresponding Author, Department of Civil & Environmental Engg. (CEE), Shahjalal University of
Science &Technology (SUST), Sylhet, Bangladesh, Email: [email protected],
Ph: +8801817575372
2
Department of Microbiology, University of Chittagong, Bangladesh
3
Suez International (Bangladesh Branch), Dhaka, Bangladesh

1
 Proceedings of Civil and Water Resources Engineering Conference
3-4 November 2017, BIAM Foundation, 63 Eskaton, Dhaka, Bangladesh
ISBN: 978-1-925488-52-4
deteriorating river water quality not only giving problem in the surface water
treatment pursuit but also it is creating baseless fear in the mind of citizens regarding
safety of the water produced from the treatment plants. Sometimes they decline to
accept the water for drinking purpose with false presumption that the water is not
cent percent safe. The water authority often faces difficulty in convincing that the
water coming from the treatment plants is safe.

The conventional approaches for assessing water quality and advocating are mainly
based on the comparison of experimentally determined parameters with the local or
international standards. However, in many cases, managers and the general public
have neither the inclination nor the training to study these reports in detail. Rather,
they require statements concerning the general health or status of the system of
concern. Thus the need for a more simple ‘criteria’ for describing the water quality is
felt especially by the policy makers and the public representatives to convince the
general mass of people regarding the safety of the water supplied from the surface
water treatment plants[9].

Under this backdrop modern techniques such as water quality index (WQI) have
been developed which provides a single value that expresses overall water quality
by integrating different water quality variables [10].Numerous water quality indices
have been formulated all over the world. These indices are based on the comparison
of the water quality parameters to the standards and give a single value for the water
quality of a certain source [11]. The WQI summarizes a large quantity of water
quality data in a comprehensive manner into a single number [5, 12], into a simple
term e.g. excellent, good, bad, etc. [11], to transmit the information concerning water
quality to the public in general [5, 11-13], water distributors, planners, managers, and
policy makers [14].

Initially, WQI was developed by Horton (1965) [10] in the 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. A new WQI similar
to Horton’s index has also been developed by the group of Brown in 1970 [10], which
were based on weights to individual parameter. Recently, many modifications have
been considered for WQI concept through various scientists and experts [10].

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 [10]. 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 [15, 16]. Hence,

2
 Proceedings of Civil and Water Resources Engineering Conference
3-4 November 2017, BIAM Foundation, 63 Eskaton, Dhaka, Bangladesh
ISBN: 978-1-925488-52-4
it needs worldwide acceptability with varying number of water quality variables. A
number of WQI determination methods can be obtained from literature [10].

There are a lot of literature on WQI are available on its application throughout the
World [17 – 26]. In a study in 2014 it was found that 554 articles dealt with the use of
WQI .The number of publications has increased significantly over the last 20 years.
India had the most studies, with 177 articles, followed by China, Brazil and the
United States. These four countries together published 57% of studies on WQI
[24].However, most all of them are on the raw water sources. There are very view
literatures available on the use of WQI in drinking water [27 – 30]. In Bangladesh
there are few literatures available on the use of WQI for surface water [31, 34].The
present study on drinking water is may be the first time of its type in Bangladesh.

Objective of the Study

The main objective of this study is to evaluate the drinking water quality produced
by the largest surface water treatment plant in Bangladesh and pioneer the use of
the WQI as a possible monitoring tool for the drinking water quality of the public
water supply in Bangladesh probably for the first time.

Materials and Methods:

Study Area, Sample Collection and Analysis

The study area is Dhaka the capital city of Bangladesh with a population of fifteen
million located in the central part of Bangladesh. It lies on the banks of the Buriganga
river and surrounded by other peripheral rivers. The largest treatment plant of the
country is situated beside the river Sitalakhya in the eastern periphery of Dhaka city
at Latitude N 23° 43' 11.25" & Longitude E 90° 26' 14.25". The treated water from
this plant was collected and taken to the laboratory of the plant, by following the
precautions laid by standard methods (APHA, 1995).The list of parameters tested,
methods, equipment, and standards of testing are given in Table 1. Each of the
water samples was analyzed for 20 parameters. The experimental values were
compared with targeted values recommended by the authority which corresponds to
in most of the cases to WHO and GOB guidelines [Table 02].

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Water Quality Index

(CCMEWQI):

The calculation of WQI in this study was done by using Canadian guidelines for WQI
CCMEWQI with minor modification. Twenty water quality parameters were
considered for calculation of water quality index. It is mentionable here that the index
CCMEWQI were mostly used for describing quality status of raw surface water yet it
has been used by some Researchers for describing status of drinking water also[27,
29,30].CCME WQI provides a consistent method, which was formulated by
Canadian jurisdictions to convey the water quality information for both management
and the public [9, 35].

3
 Proceedings of Civil and Water Resources Engineering Conference
3-4 November 2017, BIAM Foundation, 63 Eskaton, Dhaka, Bangladesh
ISBN: 978-1-925488-52-4
Table 1: List of Water Quality Parameters Tested With Name of the Equipment
and Methods Utilized

Serial Name of the

Equipment Utilized Methods Used Method No Comments
No. Parameters
HACH DR 6000
01 Ammonia Nessler Method 8038 On site lab.
spectrophotometer
HACH DR 6000 Platinum-Cobalt
02 Color 8025 On site lab.
spectrophotometer standard method
HACH DR890
Colorimeter, Reactor Digestion
03 COD 8000 On site lab.
HACH DRB200 COD Method
reactor
HACH DR890 Cadmium Reduction
04 Nitrate 8039 On site lab.
Colorimeter Method
HACH DR890
05 Nitrite Diazotization Method 8507 On site lab.
Colorimeter
HACH DR890
06 PO4 Amino Acid Method 8178 On site lab.
Colorimeter
HACH DR890
07 Sulfide Methylene Blue Method 8131 On site lab.
Colorimeter
HACH DR890
08 Chlorine Free DPD Methods 8021 On site lab.
Colorimeter
HACH 2100Q
09 Turbidity Nephelometric Method - On site lab.
Turbidity meter
Dissolved HACH Probe LDO101,
10 Electrometric Method - On site lab.
Oxygen Multimeter HQd40
HACH Probe PHC101,
11 pH Electrometric Method - On site lab.
Multimeter HQd40
Suspended Analytical Balance &
12 Gravimetric Method - On site lab.
Solid Drying Oven
13 Aluminium DR 6000 Aluminon 8012 On site lab.
Alkaline Hypobromite Out sourced
14 Chromium - SM 3113 B
Oxidation lab.
USEPA 200.9; Out sourced
15 Nickel - PAN 8150
SM 3111 B lab.
USEPA 200.9
Out sourced
16 Lead - Dithizone 8033 Rev 2.2; SM
lab.
3111 B Methods
0.45 µ filter, Filtration Membrane Filtration
apparatus, OR
17 Fecal coliform 8074 or 8368 On site lab.
Bacteriological Most Probable Number
Incubator (MPN) Method
0.45 µ filter, Filtration Membrane Filtration
apparatus, OR
18 Total coliform 8074 or 8368 On site lab.
Bacteriological Most Probable Number
Incubator (MPN) Method
0.45 µ filter, Filtration
E.coli apparatus, Membrane Filtration(m-
19 8367 On site lab.
Bacteriological TEC)
Incubator.
0.45 µ filter, Filtration
apparatus, Proposed
20 Enterococci Membrane Filtration On site lab.
Bacteriological Method 1600
Incubator.

The index is based on a combination of three factors: the number of variables whose
objectives are not met, (Scope) F1, the frequency with which the objectives are not
met, (Frequency) F2 and the amount by which the objectives are not met,

4
 Proceedings of Civil and Water Resources Engineering Conference
3-4 November 2017, BIAM Foundation, 63 Eskaton, Dhaka, Bangladesh
ISBN: 978-1-925488-52-4
(Amplitude) F3. These are combined to produce a single value (between 0 and 100)
that describes water quality.

Table 2: Water Quality Parameters with Expected Raw Water and Targeted Treated
Water Quality

Expected Raw
Sl. Water
Parameter Unit Targeted Treated Water
No. Dry Wet
Season Season
1 pH - 7.2-7.8 6.8-7.3 6.5-8.5
2 Turbidity NTU 20 20-100 <10
3 colour PtCo <60 <20 <20
4 DO mg/L ≥5.0 - 6.0
5 TSS mg/L - - 10
6 Aluminum mg/L - - 0.2
7 Lead mg/L - - 0.05
8 Nickel mg/L - - 0.1
9 Chromium mg/L 0.05 - 0.05
CFU/100
10 E.Coli 5000 - 0
ml
CFU/100
11 Total coliform 100,000 - 0
ml
CFU/100
12 Fecal coliform 35000 - 0
ml
CFU/100
13 Enterococcus - - 0
ml
14 COD total mg/L 40 - <4
<13
15 Ammonia mg/L <2 <1.5
<15
16 Free chlorine mg/L - - 1
17 Nitrates mg/L - - 11
18 Nitrites mg/L - - 0.9
19 Sulfides mg/L 20 - <0.05
20 Phosphate mg/L 9.0 - 6.0

General Description of the Index

The CCME WQI relies on measures of the scope; frequency and amplitude of
excursions from objectives. Thus, in the CCME WQI a value of 100 is the best
possible index score and a value of 0 is the worst possible. Once the CCME WQI
value has been determined, water quality is ranked by relating it to one of the
following categories (Tab.3): Excellent: (CCME WQI Value 95-100) Good: (CCME
WQI Value 80-94) ,Fair: (CCME WQI Value 65-79) Marginal: (CCME WQI Value 45-
64) Poor: (CCME WQI Value 0-44). The assignment of CCME WQI values to these
categories is termed “categorization” and represents a critical but somewhat

5
 Proceedings of Civil and Water Resources Engineering Conference
3-4 November 2017, BIAM Foundation, 63 Eskaton, Dhaka, Bangladesh
ISBN: 978-1-925488-52-4
subjective process. The categorization is based on the best available information,
expert judgment, and the general public’s expectations of water quality.

Data for CCME WQI Index Calculation

A minimum period of one year is often used because data are usually collected to
reflect this period (monthly or quarterly monitoring data). The calculation of the
CCME WQI requires that at least four variables, sampled a minimum of four times,
be used. However, a maximum number of variables or samples are not specified.
The selection of appropriate water quality variables for a particular region is
necessary for the index to yield meaningful results.

Calculation of the Index

The calculation of F1 and F2 is relatively straightforward; F3 requires some

additional steps. F1 (Scope) represents the percentage of variables that do not meet
their objectives at least once during the time period under consideration (“failed
variables”), relative to the total number of variables measured:

 =   × 100
Number of failed variables
Total number of variables

F2 (Frequency) represents the percentage of individual tests that do not meet

objectives (“failed tests”):

=   × 100
Number of failed tests
Total number of tests

F3 (Amplitude) represents the amount by which failed test values do not meet their
objectives. F3 is calculated in three steps. i) the number of times by which an
individual concentration is greater than (or less than, when the objective is a
minimum) the objective is termed an “excursion” and is expressed as follows. When
the test value must not exceed the objective:






  =  −1




For the cases in which the test value must not fall below the objective:





  =  −1






ii) The collective amount by which individual tests are out of compliance is calculated
by summing the excursions of individual tests from their objectives and dividing by
the total

6
 Proceedings of Civil and Water Resources Engineering Conference
3-4 November 2017, BIAM Foundation, 63 Eskaton, Dhaka, Bangladesh
ISBN: 978-1-925488-52-4
number of tests (both those meeting objectives and those not meeting objectives).
This variable, referred to as the normalized sum of excursions, or nse, is calculated
as:

∑!"
 

=
# % 


iii) F3 is then calculated by an asymptotic function that scales the normalized sum of
the excursions from objectives (nse) to yield a range between 0 and 100.


& = ' *
0.01
+ 0.01

Once the factors have been obtained, the index itself can be calculated by summing
the three factors as if they were vectors. The sum of the squares of each factor is
therefore equal to the square of the index. This approach treats the index as a three-
dimensional space defined by each factor along one axis. With this model, the index
changes in direct proportion to changes in all three factors.

The CCME Water Quality Index (CCME WQI):

3
 +
+
&
++,-./0 = 100 − 2 8
1.732
1 7

The divisor 1.732 normalizes the resultant values to a range between 0 and 100,
where 0 represents the “worst” water quality and 100 represents the “best” water
quality. In our study the ‘categorization’ has been a bit modified and reassigned
which is shown in Table 3 and 4.

The minor modifications made in using the Canadian WQI in this research are in the
categorization of water quality in respect of each assigned WQI value. The original
rating of water quality as per CCME WQI values are described in Table 3 whereas
the modified WQI used in this study with modified rating of water quality against
WQI values are shown in Table 4 . The minor change that is made in the rating of
water quality in this study is based on the fact that Canada being one of the leading
developed country of the world the water available over there are bound to be very
good nearly close to the quality of natural water and the probability of achievement of
utmost good quality water is much easier than Bangladesh, a developing country of
the east where in the present context availability of a marginal good quality surface
water is difficult. As such instead of five categories of water quality rating as in
Canadian CCME WQI total six number of categorization have been assigned against
six sets of WQI values. This differentiation is enumerated in Tables 3 & 4.

7
 Proceedings of Civil and Water Resources Engineering Conference
3-4 November 2017, BIAM Foundation, 63 Eskaton, Dhaka, Bangladesh
ISBN: 978-1-925488-52-4
Table 3: Water Quality Ratings as Per CCME WQI

WQI Rating of Comments

Value Water
Quality
95 – Excellent Water quality is protected with a virtual absence of threat
100 water quality or impairment; conditions very close to natural or pristine
levels.
80 – 94 Good water Water quality is protected with only a minor degree of
quality threat or impairment; conditions rarely depart from natural
or desirable levels.
65 – 79 Fair water water quality is usually protected but occasionally
quality threatened or impaired; conditions sometimes depart from
natural or desirable levels
45 – 64 Marginal Water quality is frequently threatened or impaired;
water quality conditions often depart from natural or desirable levels.
0 - 44 Poor water Water quality is almost always threatened or impaired;
quality conditions usually depart from natural or desirable levels.

Table 4: Water Quality Ratings Used in this Study - A Bit Modified CCME WQI

WQI Rating of Comments

Value Water Quality
95 – Excellent Water quality is ensured with a virtual absence of threat
100 water quality or impairment; conditions very close to cent percent of
desired levels.
85 – 94 Very Good Water quality is ensured with only a negligible degree of
water quality threat or impairment; conditions rarely depart from
desirable levels.
80 - 84 Good water Water quality is protected with only a minor degree of
quality threat or impairment; conditions rarely depart from
desirable levels.
65 – 79 Fair water Water quality is usually ensured but occasionally
quality threatened or impaired; conditions sometimes depart from
desirable levels.
45 – 64 Marginal water water quality is frequently threatened or impaired;
quality conditions often depart from desirable levels
0 - 44 Poor water Water quality is almost always threatened or impaired;
quality conditions usually depart from desirable levels.

Results and Discussions

The mean monthly values of the concentration of all the twenty physical, chemical &
biological parameters tested in the treated water for three years (2013 - 2015) are
presented in Table. 5.

8
 Proceedings of Civil and Water Resources Engineering Conference
3-4 November 2017, BIAM Foundation, 63 Eskaton, Dhaka, Bangladesh
ISBN: 978-1-925488-52-4

Table 5: Monthly Average concentration of treated water quality parameters through 2013 - 2015.

Free Cl2
Enteroc

Turbidit
m Fecal
Alumini

Phosph
Chromi

Sulfide
m total
Colifor

Colifor

N-NO3

N-NO2
N-NH3

Nickel
occus
E.Coli
Color

Total

Lead
COD

TSS
NAME OF
um

um

DO

ate
pH

y
ANALYSIS/Month

Unit mg/L mg/L Pt Co µS/cm µS/cm mg/L mg/L N/100 UTC mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L Uph mg/L mg/L mg/L NTU
JAN 2013 0.200 0 7 0 0 0.6 7.99 0 o 0.4 0 0.20 5.2 0.0 0.00 7.15 0.0 0.00 1.00 0.79
JAN 2014 0.029 0 3 0 0 3.6 8.72 0 0 1.0 0 0.09 4.5 0.0 0.00 7.00 2.5 0.00 0.46 0.80
JAN 2015 0.024 0 3 0 0 3.0 8.62 0 0 1.0 0 0.11 6.2 0.0 0.00 6.89 2.5 0.00 0.60 0.47
FEB 2013 0.000 0 8 0 0 4.0 7.93 0 0 0.4 0 0.80 7.4 0.0 0.00 7.00 0.0 0.01 1.88 1.40
FEB 2014 0.028 0 1 0 0 4.4 8.54 0 0 0.7 0 0.45 8.5 0.0 0.00 6.91 0.0 0.00 0.91 1.37
FEB 2015 0.033 0 7 0 0 4.6 8.20 0 0 0.5 0 2.29 12.6 0.0 0.00 6.91 3.5 0.00 1.47 1.74
MAR 2013 0.000 0 9 0 0 6.1 7.77 0 0 0.4 0 1.00 10.9 0.1 0.00 6.89 0.0 0.00 1.50 1.30
MAR 2014 0.031 0 9 0 0 5.7 7.80 0 0 0.4 0 2.06 12.7 0.0 0.00 6.82 5.3 0.00 1.26 1.81
MAR 2015 0.032 0 10 0 0 5.8 7.56 0 0 0.3 0 4.45 12.6 0.0 0.00 6.98 8.2 0.00 1.13 1.53
APR 2013 0.000 0 9 0 0 4.0 7.43 0 0 0.6 0 1.00 8.5 0.0 0.00 7.00 0.0 0.01 1.60 1.25
APR 2014 0.031 0 13 0 0 5.1 7.17 0 0 0.6 0 2.98 12.2 0.0 0.00 6.81 4.8 0.00 1.04 1.45
APR 2015 0.037 0 9 0 0 5.7 7.84 0 0 0.5 0 2.08 9.1 0.1 0.00 7.04 3.5 0.00 1.03 1.28
MAY 2013 0.000 0 6 0 0 2.9 7.69 0 0 0.6 0 0.10 4.4 0.0 0.00 7.08 0.0 0.00 0.95 0.83
MAY 2014 0.029 0 1 0 0 4.9 7.11 0 0 0.7 0 1.60 8.1 0.0 0.00 6.82 3.3 0.00 0.86 0.99
MAY 2015 0.033 0 3 0 0 3.6 7.79 0 0 1.0 0 0.02 3.4 0.0 0.00 7.08 3.6 0.00 0.47 0.60
JUN 2013 0.000 0 1 0 0 1.5 7.10 0 0 1.0 0 0.00 0.8 0.0 0.00 6.68 2.3 0.00 0.69 0.77
JUN 2014 0.035 0 3 0 0 3.3 7.30 0 0 0.9 0 0.04 5.7 0.0 0.00 7.08 2.2 0.00 0.56 0.70
JUN2015 0.024 0 1 0 0 1.8 7.51 0 0 1.0 0 0.00 1.7 0.0 0.00 6.95 2.5 0.00 0.06 0.05
JUL 2013 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.7 7.30 0 0 1.0 0 0.00 0.5 0.0 0.00 6.80 1.50 0.00 0.47 0.55
JUL 2014 0.018 0 0 0 0 1.5 7.41 0 0 1.0 0 0.00 1.4 0.0 0.00 6.85 1.40 0.00 0.35 0.34
JUL 2015 0.038 0 1 0 0 1.5 7.41 0 0 0.9 0 0.00 1.6 0.0 0.00 6.95 2.5 0.00 0.02 0.52
AUG 2013 0.000 0 0 0 0 1.4 7.31 0 0 1.0 0 0.00 0.4 0.0 0.00 6.85 1.40 0.00 0.50 0.56
AUG 2014 0.018 0 0 0 0 1.3 7.43 0 0 1.0 0 0.00 1.6 0.0 0.00 7.00 1.9 0.00 0.20 0.48
AUG 2015 0.043 0 1 0 0 1.8 7.33 0 0 0.9 0 0.00 1.3 0.00 7.22 4.7 0.00 0.27 0.51
SEP 2013 0.000 0 0 0 0 1.5 7.13 0 0 0.9 0 0.00 0.5 0.0 0.00 6.84 1.40 0.00 0.45 0.45
SEP 2014 0.023 0 0 0 0 1.6 7.02 0 0 1.0 0 0.00 1.7 0.0 0.00 6.98 2.4 0.00 0.18 0.63
SEP 2015 0.036 0 2 0 0 1.3 7.21 0 0 1.0 0 0.00 1.3 0.0 0.00 6.90 2.8 0.00 0.13 0.58
OCT 2013 0.000 0 0 0 0 1.9 7.12 0 0 0.8 0 0.00 0.7 0.0 0.00 6.79 1.60 0.00 0.30 0.59
OCT 2014 0.009 0 0 0 0 2.1 7.70 0 0 0.9 0 0.00 1.6 0.0 0.00 6.94 1.9 0.00 0.18 0.47
OCT 2015 0.030 0 1 0 0 1.7 7.07 0 0 0.9 0 0.00 1.8 0.0 0.00 6.87 3.2 0.00 0.27 0.45
NOV 2013 0.000 0 0 0 0 2.5 7.28 0 0 0.8 0 0.20 1.2 0.0 0.00 6.76 0.0 0.00 0.32 0.50
NOV 2014 0.011 0 3 0 0 2.7 7.36 0 0 0.9 0 0.10 2.7 0.0 0.00 6.98 3.1 0.00 0.33 0.38
NOV 2015 0.030 0 2 0 0 2.4 7.45 0 0 0.9 0 0.02 4.3 0.0 0.00 6.99 4.7 0.00 0.47 0.45
DEC 2013 0.000 0 1 0 0 3.2 8.35 0 0 0.9 0 0.10 2.6 0.0 0.00 7.07 0.0 0.00 0.29 0.58
DEC 2014 0.029 0 3 0 0 2.7 8.50 0 0 1.1 0 0.05 5.3 0.0 0.00 7.04 3.1 0.00 0.32 0.37
DEC 2015 0.031 0 3 0 0 2.9 8.33 0 0 0.9 0 0.02 4.3 0.0 0.00 7.22 4.7 0.00 0.27 0.57

9
 Proceedings of Civil and Water Resources Engineering Conference
3-4 November 2017, BIAM Foundation, 63 Eskaton, Dhaka, Bangladesh
ISBN: 978-1-925488-52-4

Table 6 : Calculated Global Water Quality Index (WQI) & % Compliance in

Achieving Treated Water Quality Targets

Percentage compliance Calculated Water

Duration of Total number of water
in achieving treated Quality Index
the study samples tested
water quality targets (WQI)
Global for
11787 97% 91.07
2013-2015

Table 7 : Calculated Yearly Water Quality Index (WQI) & % Compliance in

Achieving Treated Water Quality Targets

Ye
2013 2014 2015
ar
Total Percent Calcul Total Perce Calcul Total Perce Calcul
num age ated numbe ntage ated numbe ntage ated
ber complia Water r of compl Water r of compl Water
of nce in Quality water iance Quality water iance Quality
water achievin Index sample in Index sample in Index
samp g (WQI s achie (WQI s achie (WQI
les treated tested ving tested ving
teste water treate treate
d quality d d
targets water water
qualit qualit
y y
target target
s s
96.35 96.04
3994 98.8% 91.31 4080 91.00 3713 90.61
% %

10
 Proceedings of Civil and Water Resources Engineering Conference
3-4 November 2017, BIAM Foundation, 63 Eskaton, Dhaka, Bangladesh
ISBN: 978-1-925488-52-4
Table 8 : Calculated Monthly Water Quality Index (WQI) & % Compliance in
Achieving Treated Water Quality Targets

Year 2013 2014 2015

Total Total Total
numbe Percenta numbe Percenta numbe Percenta
r of ge r of ge r of ge
Calculat Calculat Calculat
Month water complian water complian water complian
ed WQI ed WQI ed WQI
sample ce with sampl ce with sampl ce with
s target es target es target
tested tested tested
January 290 100% 100.00 360 100% 100.00 312 100% 100.00
February 296 95% 90.70 300 96% 97.14 311 86.17% 87.33
March 282 93% 90.28 361 87.25% 87.64 338 80.5% 82.7
April 343 97.5% 90.95 349 88.0% 88.77 318 88.68% 87.29
May 350 100% 100.00 356 91% 89.06 324 100% 100.00
June 351 100% 100.00 349 100% 100.00 291 100% 100.00
July 363 100% 100.00 327 100% 100.00 298 100% 100.00
August 362 100% 100.00 328 100% 100.00 297 100% 100.00
Septemb
341 100% 100.00 318 100% 100.00 291 100% 100.00
er
October 333 100% 100.00 321 100% 100.00 301 100% 100.00
Novemb 329 325 310
100% 100.00 100% 100.00 100% 100.00
er
Decemb 354 391 322
100% 100.00 100% 100.00 100% 100.00
er

Table 9: Analytical Treated Water Sampling Program

Frequency (Dry
Serial No. Parameter tested season) Frequency (Wet season) (May- October )
(November- April)
1. Ammonia Daily 3 times a week
2. Color 3 times a week 2 times a week
3. Free chlorine Daily Daily
4. Total COD Daily Daily
5. Dissolved oxygen Daily Daily
6. pH Daily Daily
7. Fecal coliform Daily Daily
8. Total coliform Daily Daily
9. E.Coli Daily Daily
10. Enterococcus Once a week Once a week
11. Turbidity Daily Daily
12. Nitrates 3 times a week 3 times a week
13. Nitrites 3 times a week 3 times a week
14. TSS 3 times a week Daily
15. Phosphate 3 times a week Monthly
16 Sulfides 2 times a week Once a week
17 Aluminum 2 times a week 2 times a week
18 Chromium Once a month Once a month
19. Lead Once a month Once a month
20. Nickel Once a month Once a month

The global numbers of the sample tested in this study period is 11787, comprising
3994, 4080 and 3713 numbers in 2013 through 2015 respectively. The computed
modified WQI values for the global three years, yearly and monthly for thirty-six

11
 Proceedings of Civil and Water Resources Engineering Conference
3-4 November 2017, BIAM Foundation, 63 Eskaton, Dhaka, Bangladesh
ISBN: 978-1-925488-52-4
months during the study period is presented in Table 6, 7, 8. The protocol of tests
performed is given in Table 9.

The global WQI for the study period found as per standard set in this study at the
level ‘very good’ corresponding a WQI of 91.07. The yearly WQI values for 2013,
2014, and 2014 are respectively 91.31, 91.00, and 90.61 all representing ‘very good
quality’ (Fig. 1). The global WQI was calculated taking each & every value of the total
population of 11787 water samples. Similarly, for each year the total number of
samples of that year was taken into calculation of WQI for that particular year.

From each monthly figure of the WQI values calculated, it is observed that from June
to January of each year of the study period the WQI is consistently 100 indicating
‘excellent’ water in all respect as per definition (Table 8). In 2013 in the month of
February, March, and April the WQI values are respectively 90.7, 90.28, and 90.95
which represents ‘very good’ category of drinking water. In the months of February,
March and April for the years 2014 and 2015 the WQI are respectively (97.14, 87.64,
88.77) and (87.33, 82.7, 87.29). In February 2014 it is seen to be excellent (Table-8).
In 2014 in the month of May we found the WQI as 89.06when in 2013, and 2015 it
was 100 (Fig. 2). Analyzing the detail data it is seen that during this period that is in
February to May of the years some of the raw water quality parameters were
excessively bad even beyond the design raw water quality parameters resulting
treated water WQI values below 100. As for example, in March 2014 the number of
water samples tested was 367 out of which 46 could not meet the target & in April
2014 out of 349 samples 43 could not meet the target (Table 8). In both of these
months mostly the ammonia and logically the nitrate and COD was beyond the
target, reasoning that the highest ammonia concentration in this month in raw water
was > 20 mg/L. In similar fashion in 2015 out of 338 samples 66 water samples
could not meet the target. In this month the highest ammonia raw concentration
water was > 20 mg/L and COD was >80mg/L.

Calculated WQI

Calculated Calculated
Calculated WQI

WQI, 2013, 91.31 Calculated

WQI, 2014, 91 WQI, 2015, 90.61

Years

Figure 1: Yearly Calculated WQI of the Treated Water through 2013 – 2015

12
 Proceedings of Civil and Water Resources Engineering Conference
3-4 November 2017, BIAM Foundation, 63 Eskaton, Dhaka, Bangladesh
ISBN: 978-1-925488-52-4
The design raw water ammonia concentration was 15 mg/L maximum, in actual case
its stands to 22 mg/L in the worst cases. Similarly, the raw water COD as per design
was 40mg/L; in the actual case it is found to be > 94 mg /L. Another issue is drawing
attention that the duration of these bad months in terms of raw water quality is
gradually expanding though it was assumed to exist from November to April, but it
shows the sign to extend up to May.
Calculated WQI

2013
2014
2015

Months

Figure 2: Monthly Calculated WQI of the Treated Water through 2013 – 2015

Out of global 11,787 samples tested 97% samples are found in compliance with the
targeted treated water quality, as shown in Table 6. The monthly % of compliance of
each month through the study period 2013 – 2015 is shown separately in Table 8&
Fig.3. Not a single sample out of this vast sample tested during the study period
failed in compliance with the Bacteriological, Physical & Heavy metal parameters.
Only for three parameters out of the twenty parameters the monthly compliance
could not meet the target particularly in the month of Feb to April (Table 5 & 8). In
these cases, the raw water quality was far beyond the expected and deigned raw
water values as was contracted. Thus in no way, these non-compliances can be
attributed to the insufficient treatment. Furthermore, the extend of variation in those
particular cases do not have a direct human health impact. It is worth mentioning that
the water produced from the surface water source(22% of the total supply) are
blended with the huge water supplied directly from the underground(78% of the total
supply) in the long transmission and distribution system making the distributed water
of the category ‘excellent’ as per WQI. However, it warrants that this is high time to
take necessary measures to protect the raw water from the man-made pollution
activities by the influential stake holders otherwise we have to face an unpleasant
situation in near future.

13
 Proceedings of Civil and Water Resources Engineering Conference
3-4 November 2017, BIAM Foundation, 63 Eskaton, Dhaka, Bangladesh
ISBN: 978-1-925488-52-4

% Compliance

2013

2014

2015

Months

Figure 3: Monthly Compliance of Water Treatment Target through 2013 – 2015

When we consider the year wise performance it is seen that in 2013 through 2015
the percentage of compliance are respectively 98.80, 96.35 and 96.04% (Fig.4)
indicating a gradual declination and also indicating more deterioration of pollution
issue in the raw water. This matter is authenticated in the recent raw water studies of
the same river[36] . Similarly, the percentage of monthly compliance through these
three years individually is shown Fig.3. It can be seen that 100% compliance is found
during June to January in all the years. From Fig.3 it is seen that from February to
April the percentage of compliance is decreasing mainly for excessive raw water
deterioration in terms of ammonia and COD, both signifying heavy industrial pollution
in the raw water.

Percentage
compliance, 2013, Percentage
Percentagecompliance Percentage
98.80% compliance, 2014, compliance, 2015,
96.35% 96.04%
% Compliance

Years

Figure 4: Yearly % Compliance of Water Treatment Target through 2013 – 2015

14
 Proceedings of Civil and Water Resources Engineering Conference
3-4 November 2017, BIAM Foundation, 63 Eskaton, Dhaka, Bangladesh
ISBN: 978-1-925488-52-4

Conclusions
The treated water from the largest treatment plant in the country situated in Dhaka
was tested for study. This study emphasized that the single value of WQI has higher
sensitivity to classify the drinking water quality than a long list of values of a large
variety of parameters. This tool can be utilized by the policy makers and public
representatives to convince mass people regarding the acceptability of drinking
water supplied from the surface water treatment plant. The results of this research
could be applicable to similar situations in Bangladesh even worldwide. This study
concluded that all the water samples were found to be within the permissible limits of
drinking water quality value. Out of 20 parameters, 17 were ranked as excellent that
is the highest ranking possible. The three parameters namely ammonia, COD, and
nitrate show some deviations, however, not affecting direct health criteria, due to
excessive raw water contamination beyond the design limit, in certain parts of the dry
season. The concentrations of heavy metal, physical parameters & bacteriological
criteria in all the treated water samples studied were found to be within safe limits.
The results also showed that the month of February, March, and April provides the
worst raw water in terms of pollution, containing highest concentration values of
ammonia and COD.

All the stake holders should be aware that if the man-made pollution is continued in
the similar way like today, in the near future uncertainty would prevail regarding the
successful treatment of drinking water from this raw water.

Acknowledgements
A number of Engineers and technical staffs from the Dhaka plant and a number of
experts from M/s SUEZ International, especially Dr. Jean Claude Seropian, assisted
in the study and this co-operation are greatly appreciated.

References
[1].Serajuddin Md. Water Treatment at Saidabad Plant: State – of - the Art.
‘Engineering News’ Institution of Engineers, Bangladesh( IEB), Vol. - 28, No. 4, July-
August, 2002.
[2]. WHO, Guidelines for drinking-water quality 1993 - 1997
[3]. Witek Z., Jarosiewicz A. Long-Term Changes in Nutrient Status of River Water.
Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 18, (6), 1177, 2009.
[4]. Chen C. C. A Framework for Gray water Recycling of Household Wastewater.
Pol. J. Environ. Stud., 16, (1), 23, 2007.
[5]. Reza R., Singh G. Assessment of Ground Water Quality Status by Using Water
Quality Index Method in Orissa, India. World Applied Sciences Journal 9, (12), 1392,
2010.
[6]. Yang Y.S., Wang L. Catchment-scale vulnerability assessment of groundwater
pollution from diffuse sources using the DRASTIC method: a case study. Hydrolog.
Sci. J., 55, (7), 1206, 2010.
]7.[DWASA .2006.Feasibility Stuy on Alternative Intake for Saidabad Water d
Treatment Plant, Dhaka,Final Report.conductedby DPM,AQUA,IWM.

15
 Proceedings of Civil and Water Resources Engineering Conference
3-4 November 2017, BIAM Foundation, 63 Eskaton, Dhaka, Bangladesh
ISBN: 978-1-925488-52-4
]8DWASA .[. 2007.Joint Feasibility Study of Pre -treatment for water supply for the
Saidabad Water Treatment Plant, Dhaka, Bangladesh, Conducted by
ontmijGr/CarlBro, Final Report.
[9].CCME (2001). Canadian environmental quality guidelines for the protection of
aquatic life, CCME water quality index: technical report, 1.0.
[10].Tyagi, Shweta, et al. "Water Quality Assessment in Terms of Water Quality
Index." American Journal of Water Resources 1.3 (2013): 34-38.
[11]. Bharti N., Katyal D. Water quality indices used for surface water vulnerability
assessment. International Journal of Environmental Sciences, 2, (1), 154, 2011.
[12]. Sharma D., & Kansal A. Water quality analysis of RiverYamuna using water
quality index in the national capital territory, India (2000-2009).Applied Water
Science, 1,147,2011.
[13]. Al-Heety E. A.M., Turki A.M., Al-Othman E.M.A. Assessment of the water
quality Index of Euphrates River between Heet and Ramadi Cities, Iraq. International
Journalof Basic & Applied Sciences IJBAS-IJENS 11, (6), 38,2011.
[14]. Lumb A., Doug H., Tribeni S. Application of CCME Water Quality Index to
Monitor Water Quality: A Case of the Mackenzie River Basin, Canada. Environ.
Monit.Assess.,113, 411, 2006.
[15]. Bordalo, A.A., Nilsumranchit, W. Chalermwat, K., “Water quality and uses of the
Bangpakong river (Eastern Thailand)”,Water Res., 35(15). 3635-3642. 2001.
[16]. 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.
[17]. 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.
[18]. 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.
[19]. 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. Pract. Period. Hazard.Toxic Radioact. Waste Manage.,
13(1). 75-79. 2009.
[20] .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.
[21].Avnish Chauhan ,Suman Singh Evaluation Of Ganga Water For Drinking
Purpose By Water Quality Index At Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, India Research Gate
[22].Deepshikha Sharma ,Arun Kansal Water quality analysis of River Yamuna using
water quality index in the national capital territory, India (2000–2009) Appl Water Sci
(2011) 1:147–157 DOI 10.1007/s13201-011-0011-4
[23].Sunita Kumari , Jyoti Rani Assessment Of Water Quality Index Of Ground
Water In Smalkhan, HARYANA International Journal of Latest Research in Science
and Technology ISSN (Online):2278-5299 Volume 3, Issue 6: Page No.169-172,
November-December 2014
[24].Maria Tereza RibeiroAlves , FabrícioBarreto Teresa , João Carlos Nabout. A
global scientific literature of research on water quality indices: trends, biases and
future directions .Acta Limnologica Brasiliensia 2014, vol. 26, no. 3, p. 245-253

16
 Proceedings of Civil and Water Resources Engineering Conference
3-4 November 2017, BIAM Foundation, 63 Eskaton, Dhaka, Bangladesh
ISBN: 978-1-925488-52-4
[25].Hefni Effendi. River water quality preliminary rapid assessment using pollution
index Procedia Environmental Sciences 33 (2016) 562 – 567
[26].Pratiksha Tambekar, Pravin Morey, R . G. Weginwar et al. Quality assessment
of drinking water: A case study of Chandrapur District (M.S.) Journal of Chemical
and Pharmaceutical Research, 20 12, 4(5):2564-2570
[27].Al-Omran et al. Drinking water quality assessment in Riyadh. Water Quality
Research Journal of Canada 50.3 2015
[28].Robert Damo , PirroIcka Evaluation of Water Quality Index for Drinking Water
Pol. J. Environ. Stud. Vol. 22, No. 4 (2013), 1045-1051
[29].Durmishi , BH, M.Ismaili, a. Shabani et al. Drinking Water Quality Assessment
in Tetova Region American Journal of Environmental Sciences 8 (2): 162-169, 2012
ISSN 1553-345X.
[30].Syamkumar & GeetaShramanda .Drinking Water Quality By Water Quality Index
Method In Pre And Post Monsoon In Araku Valley Region, Visakhapatnam District,
Andhra Pradesh, India.
[31].Sikder, M.T., Tanaka, S., Saito, T., et al. Vulnerability assessment of surface
water quality with an innovative integrated multi-parameter water quality index
(IMWQI) Pollution,1(3): 333-346, Summer 2015.
[32].Chowdhury, R.M., Muntasir, S.Y. ,Hossain, M.M., “Water quality index of water
bodies along Faridpur-Barisal road in Bangladesh”, Glob. Eng. Tech. Rev., 2(3). 1-8.
2012.
[33].Z Muyen , M Rashedujjaman & MS Rahman .Assessment of water quality index:
a case study in Old Brahmaputra river of Mymensingh District in Bangladesh
Progressive Agriculture 27 (3): 355-361, 2016
[34].Md. Tajuddin Sikder ,Masaomi Yasuda, Yustiawati 1 et al. Comparative
Assessment of Water Quality in the Major Rivers of Dhaka and West Java
International Journal of Environmental Protection IJEP Vol. 2 No. 4 2012 PP.8-13
www.ij-ep.org .
[35].Ashok Lumb , Doug Halliwell , Tribeni Sharma . Application Of CCME Water
Quality Index To Monitor Water Quality: A Case of the Mackenzie River Basin,
Canada Environmental Monitoring and Assessment (2006) 113: 411–429
[36]. Seraj Md., Islam A. Surface water quality susceptibility in drinking water
treatment at Dhaka, Bangladesh. Journal of Biodiversity and Environmental
Sciences (JBES)Volume 11, Number 1, 2017

17