Environment, Development and Sustainability

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-02076-7

Drinking water quality assessment based on statistical

analysis and three water quality indices (MWQI, IWQI
and EWQI): a case study

Chinanu O. Unigwe1   · Johnbosco C. Egbueri2 

Received: 11 February 2020 / Accepted: 19 December 2021

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2021

Abstract
Numerous indicator models have been developed and utilized for the assessment of pollu-
tion levels in water resources. In the present study, modified water quality index (MWQI),
integrated water quality index (IWQI), and entropy-weighted water quality index (EWQI)
were integrated with statistical analysis for the assessment of drinking water quality
in Umunya suburban district, Nigeria. There is no known study that has simultaneously
compared their performances in water quality research. Overall, the results of this study
showed that the water supplies are threatened by heavy metal pollution. The parametric
quality rating analysis observed that Pb contamination has the most significant impact on
the water supplies. Hierarchical cluster analysis was proved very efficient in the allotment
of the possible sources of pollution in the study area. MWQI results classified the water
supplies as “marginal”, signifying that they are frequently threatened. Based on the IWQI,
26.67% of the samples are suitable for drinking, 13.33% are acceptable for domestic uses,
and 60% are unfit for drinking purposes. Similarly, the EWQI results showed that 60% of
the samples are unfit for human consumption, whereas 40% are suitable. Investigation into
the performance and sensitivity of the MWQI, IWQI and EWQI models in water quality
assessment was analyzed and the results showed that they are all sensitive, efficient and
effective tools. This study has indicated that the integration of the three models gives a bet-
ter understanding of water quality. The excessive concentration of some potentially toxic
heavy metals in the water supplies suggests that the contaminated water supplies should be
treated before use.

Keywords  Drinking water · Entropy-weighted water quality index (EWQI) · Indexical

analysis · Integrated water quality index (IWQI) · Modified water quality index (WQI) ·
Statistical analysis

* Johnbosco C. Egbueri
[email protected]; [email protected]
Chinanu O. Unigwe
[email protected]
1
Department of Geology and Geophysics, Alex Ekwueme Federal University, Ndufu‑Alike, Nigeria
2
Department of Geology, Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu University, Uli, Nigeria

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 C. O. Unigwe, J. C. Egbueri

1 Introduction

As much as three-quarters (about 71%) of the earth surface is covered by water, only a smaller
amount is marked as “freshwater” and a more significant percentage as “saline water”. Factu-
ally, about 68% of the freshwaters are trapped in ice caps and glaciers (Li & Qian, 2018). The
only accessible ones are the underground and surface waters (lakes, streams and springs).
However, the quality of these available freshwaters has been threatened seasonally by several
factors. The increased rate of urbanization and industrialization has remained a present-day
challenge in demand and search for a quality water supply because the quality of available
water keeps deteriorating by the day (Li et al., 2017). In many parts of the world, surface and
groundwaters are inarguably the significant water sources for drinking, domestic, agricultural
and industrial purposes. However, in recent times, their quality and suitability for specific
purposes have remained questionable due to contaminations from both natural and anthropo-
genic activities (Gorgij et al. 2017; Barzegar et al. 2019; Egbueri 2018, 2019a, b, c, 2020a,
b; Egbueri and Unigwe 2019; Mgbenu and Egbueri 2019; Sale et al. 2019). With the mas-
sive population explosion, increased socioeconomic activities, and unplanned development in
many parts of the world, the demand for freshwater supply has risen. However, there is cur-
rently a high scarcity of fresh water in many regions across the globe. The latest report by the
World Health Organization stated that by the year 2025, half of the world’s population would
be living in water-stressed areas (Singh et al., 2019).
Nitrates and heavy metals are common water pollutants that have drawn the attention
of many water quality researchers across the globe (Adimalla & Li, 2019; Adimalla et al.,
2019; Li et al., 2019; Ma et al., 2018). Although they can occur in the water environment
through some natural processes, anthropogenic activities due to agriculture, industrializa-
tion, poor waste disposal/management, and urbanization have significantly influenced their
accumulation in recent times (Barzegar et al., 2019; Egbueri et al., 2019; Egbueri, 2018,
2020a; Ezugwu et  al., 2019; Ukah et  al., 2020). Some heavy metals, in small quantities,
are essentially important in the human body for growth and development (Chowdhury &
Chandra, 1987). However, the pollution of water systems has posed a significant threat to
human and environmental health. In such a scenario, water reserved for drinking is thereby
made unfit for human consumption. Some heavy metals are carcinogenic (cancer-inducing)
in nature; however, some tend to cause other severe, chronic illnesses (Egbueri, 2020a;
Mgbenu & Egbueri, 2019). In any attempts to protect and sustain human health and the
environment, it is important to encourage and implement continuous monitoring and
assessment of water quality for drinking purposes. Monitoring and evaluating water quality
enable us to understand better how geogenic and anthropogenic activities could adversely
affect the water systems and equally give insights on how to avoid or control the effects.
Over time, several numerical models have been proposed and developed by different
researchers based on local and international standard limits, such as those of the Nige-
rian Industrial Standard (NIS, 2007), Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS, 2012), and World
Health Organization (WHO, 2017). Such numerical models have been developed and
used for summarizing the quality of drinking water. Water Quality Index (WQI), Pollution
Index of Groundwater (PIG), Synthetic Pollution Index (SPI), Overall Index of Pollution
(OIP), Modified Water Quality Index (MWQI), Integrated Water Quality Index (IWQI) and
Entropy-weighted Water Quality Index (EWQI) are some of the index used for drinking
water quality assessments. Several parameters are usually analyzed for water quality moni-
toring and projects assessment. Formulating numerical models for water quality evalua-
tions has become very important and useful for streamlining the wide-range parametric

13
Drinking water quality assessment based on statistical analysis…

data into whole numbers. This ensures that water quality reports are easily understood by
experts, policymakers, and the public. These models are developed to serve as tools for
(1) simple interpretation of water quality; and (2) planning, management and mitigation
of water pollution. Integration of two or more numerical models in water quality assess-
ment has been found useful as it tends to minimize the subjectivity related to using a single
model (Egbueri & Unigwe, 2019). In recent times, several water quality assessments have
been conducted using either MWQI, IWQI or EWQI. The EWQI was first proposed by Li
et  al. (2010). Nevertheless, the MWQI was proposed by Shankar and Sreevidya (2019),
whereas the IWQI was developed by Mukate et al. (2019). Previous research has proven
that these models have greatly improved water quality monitoring and assessment projects.
However, there is no known study that has simultaneously compared their performances in
water quality research.
The present work was conducted in Umunya area, southeastern Nigeria. Previous studies
(Egbunike, 2018; Mgbenu & Egbueri, 2019) on the water quality in this suburban district
revealed that the drinking suitability of some of the available water resources utilized by
the public (inhabitants) is very questionable. Therefore, with respect to nitrate and selected
heavy metals (Fe, Zn, Mn, Pb, Cr, and Ni) concentrations, this study aims to assess the qual-
ity of the public water resources using a joint statistical and numerical modeling approach.
The specific objectives are to (1) examine the suitability of the public water supplies for
human consumption using MWQI, IWQI and EWQI; (2) identify essential pollutants, their
parametric associations and possible sources using Hierarchical Cluster Analysis (HCA),
and (3) highlight on the performance and sensitivity relationships between the three indexi-
cal models. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first to simultaneously
use the MWQI, IWQI and EWQI in water quality assessment. It is also the first of its kind
to compare the performances of these models. Although these models utilize different clas-
sification schemes and there may be some uncertainties associated with variances in their
methods of calculation, the reasons behind the testing and analysis of their efficiencies
(sensitivities) include: (1) There is a similarity in the presumptions and assumptions that
founded their development. (2) The models are all used for drinking water quality assess-
ment. (3) They are not region-specific. (4) The EWQI and IWQI do not require parameter
weight assignment, which may introduce bias. (5) The same standard limits could be used
in the calculation of all the models, as this would ensure fairness and uniform calculation
conditions. (6) All analyzed water parameters could be considered in the quality evalua-
tions, in order to further ensure that the same calculation conditions are maintained. And,
(7) The limitations of these models are not well-known. Although the comparison of the
sensitivities of these models in detecting water quality may not provide exact information, it
can provide us with general insight regarding the agreements and trends between them. It is
hoped that this study will provide insights to local and international water quality research-
ers regarding the water quality of the fast-growing suburb and the validation and sensitivity
of the selected models’ performance in water quality assessment.

2 Background information of the study area

The area under study lies within latitudes 6° 10′ N to 6° 15′ N and longitudes 6° 54′ E to
7° 00′ E in Anambra State, southeastern Nigeria (Fig. 1). Umunya is situated at the heart
of the two major cities (Awka and Onitsha). A polyvinyl chloride (PVC) industry, an
abattoir servicing the surrounding communities, a National Youth Service Commission

13
 C. O. Unigwe, J. C. Egbueri

Fig. 1  Map showing the location, accessibility and geology of the study area

(NYSC) camp, and Tansian University are located in Umunya suburban district. Gener-
ally, these influence the population of this suburb. Moreover, despite increasing com-
mercial and industrial activities in this area, small to large scale farming activities are a
means of livelihood for many of its inhabitants. However, due to the unplanned popula-
tion growth and increasing human activities, waste management programs in this area
is still poorly executed. Wastes are indiscriminately disposed into roadway drainage
channels, surface water bodies, and open dumpsites. Usually, such activities are known
to release potentially toxic metals into water bodies. The study region experiences two
distinct seasons, rainy and dry seasons. The rainy season lasts from April to October
with an average annual rainfall of 1400–2500 mm, whereas the dry season starts from
November and extends up to March.
From the geologic point of view (Fig.  1), the study area is underlain by the Eocene
Nanka Formation of the Ameki Group (Mgbenu & Egbueri, 2019; Nwajide, 1979). The
lithology is composed of very friable, flaser-bedded units of fine-medium-grained sands,
with intervals of light gray mudrocks and ironstones (Nwajide, 2006, 2013). The main
aquifer in the area is the Nanka Formation (comprising over 60  m sandstone interval),
while the underlying older Imo Formation, mostly composed of mudrocks, acts as the aqui-
tard (Mgbenu & Egbueri, 2019). The Nanka Formation, characterized by high porosity and
permeability (Egbueri & Igwe, 2021), forms the aquifer in this area (with over 60 m sand-
stone interval). Nfor et al. (2007) reported that a major ridge system in the area acts as a
water divider. This ridge system creates groundwater flow patterns running southwards and
eastwards away from the divide (Mgbenu & Egbueri, 2019; Nfor et al., 2007). Groundwater
depth in the Nanka Formation has been reported to be at varying depths, while Nfor et al.
(2007) reported a depth of ≥ 20 m, Okoro et al. (2010) reported a depth of ≥ 7 m. However,
the study by Egbueri and Igwe (2021) reported the water table in some parts of the Nanka
Formation to have a depth of ≥ 9.6 m. It is believed that several streams and river systems
in and around the study area serve as recharge systems. However, there is limited literature
on groundwater properties such as flow direction, which should be of significant focus for
future research.

13
Drinking water quality assessment based on statistical analysis…

3 Materials and methods

3.1 Sampling and analysis

Both surface and groundwater samples were collected from water supplies within the study
area. In total, fifteen samples were collected from available water sources in prewashed and
sterilized 1 L polyethene containers and labeled accordingly from WS01–WS15 (Fig. 1).
Furthermore, samples were preserved in an ice-crested cooler before laboratory analysis.
The pH readings of the fifteen water samples were measured in the field. In the laboratory,
the nitrate (­ NO3–) was determined using the titrimetric method. In contrast, the metals such
as iron (Fe), zinc (Zn), manganese (Mn), lead (Pb), chromium (Cr), and nickel (Ni) were
analyzed using atomic absorption spectrophotometer (AAS). It is pertinent to state that all
the performed analyses followed the American Public Health Association (APHA, 2005)
recommendation. Figure 2 is a pictorial summary of the steps taken in this water quality
assessment.

3.2 Modified water quality index (MWQI)

Proposed and developed by Shankar and Sreevidya (2019), the MWQI considers an overall
quality of water with respective background values. The IWQI was developed as a modifi-
cation of the commonly used Canadian WQI (CWQI). This model allows its users to assign
certain weight factors to input parameters. This is done by either considering the parameter
with a higher threat to human health or done by considering parameters with higher con-
centration, depending on the selected area of study. Also, the MWQI considers parameters
excursing benchmarks, measurements excursing benchmarks and the amount of excursion
from standards in failed measures. According to Shankar and Sreevidya (2019), the MWQI
explains “the complete picture of water quality in a simple and extremely reliable man-
ner and hence shows enormous promise for its application and large suitability across the
globe.” The MWQI evaluation involves three basic steps:

3.2.1 Selection of water quality parameters and corresponding benchmarks

This study identified eight water quality parameters with their sub-indices, as shown in
Table 1. The WHO (2017) and the NIS (2007) standard limits were selected as the corre-
sponding benchmarks.

Fig. 2  Quality rating of the eight

parameters for the six water sam-
ples collected within the zone of
high waste accumulation

13
 C. O. Unigwe, J. C. Egbueri

Table 1  Standard values and Parameter Standard limit Unit Weight factor

weight factors of water quality
parameters used in evaluating
pH 6.5–8.5 mg/L 1
MWQI (Shankar & Sreevidya,
2019) NO3 50 mg/L 1
Fe 0.3 mg/L 1
Zn 3.0 mg/L 1
Mn 0.2 mg/L 2
Pb 0.01 mg/L 4
Cr 0.05 mg/L 3
Ni 0.02 mg/L 3

3.2.2 Appropriate weight factors for key input parameters

At this stage, significance were placed on the parameters with higher health threat to
humans (Shankar & Sreevidya, 2019). Pb was given the highest weight factor of four (4)
dues to its health threat and concentration in the study area. Next, Ni and Cr with a weight
factor of three (3). Mn was apportioned two (2), then pH, Fe, Zn and ­NO3 were given one
(1) (Table 1).

3.2.3 Calculation of the MWQI

This was calculated by considering three key factors, scope factor (FS), frequency factor
(FF), and amplitude factor (FA) (Shankar & Sreevidya, 2019). The F ­ S signifies the num-
ber of parameters that excurse benchmarks, ­FF signifies the number of measurements that
excurse benchmarks, and the ­FA represents the amount of excursion from benchmarks in
the failed measurements (Shankar & Sreevidya, 2019). The ­FS and ­FF were calculated
using Eqs. (1 and 2), respectively.
∑n
j=1
Wqj
FS = ∑m , i = 1, 2 … m; j = 1, 2 … , n (1)
i=1 Wqi

∑n � �
j=1 Wqj × Wqi
FF = ∑m � � (2)
i=1
Wqj × Nqj

where Wqi represents the weight factor of an input parameter; Wqj represents the weight
factor of a violator parameter; Nqi represents the number of input parameter measurements;
Nqj represents the number of violator parameter measurements; m is the number of input
parameters and n is the number of violator parameters.
For FA determination, the excursion amount of violator parameters (Eqj) was first calcu-
lated (Eq. 3), and then the Normalized Sum of Excursions (NSE) (Eq. 4).
Cqi
Eqi = −1 (3)
SVqi

13
Drinking water quality assessment based on statistical analysis…

∑n � �
j=1 Wqj × Eqj
NSE = ∑m � � (4)
i=1
Wqi × Wqi

where Cqi represents the violator parameter’s concentration of the violator parameter; S
­ Vqi
represents standard value; and Eqj, excursion amount of violator parameter.
The FA, and the MWQI are calculated using equations Eqs. (5 and 6), respectively.
NSE
FA = (5)
0.01NSE + 0.01
√
FS2 + FF2 + FA2
MWQI = 100 − (6)
1.734

3.3 Integrated water quality index (IWQI)

The IWQI was developed by Mukate et al. (2019) and have been found helpful for water
quality assessment (Egbueri, 2019b). With the IWQI, water quality parameters below their
desirable limits and above permissible limits are described as deficient and excessive,
respectively. Both scenarios are considered to have associated health problems. Just as the
names imply, “deficient” indicates that something is lacking, and “excessive” suggests that
something is beyond its standard limit. By considering both the deficiencies and exces-
siveness of parameters, a better understanding of water quality could be established. The
primary focus of the IWQI is assessing the mineral or ion balance of water resources to
avoid health implications due to excesses or deficiencies (Mukate et al., 2019). Targeted at
improving the conventional WQI model, the IWQI was designed to exclude the problems
of ambiguity, eclipsing, and aggregation observed when using the WQI model. According
to Mukate et  al. (2019), “the IWQI is flexible, unbiased, easy to calculate and time-sav-
ing, and provides useful information to prioritize and maintain the water quality of potable
sources and reduce human health impacts from using poor-quality water resources.” Sum-
marily put, the IWQI is described as a comprehensive and intensive water quality index
that considers both the desirable and permissible parameters. The IWQI has a different step
mechanism from MWQI which has been shown as follows:

3.3.1 Calculation of range

The NIS (2007) standard limits were utilized in the range calculation as shown in Table 2.
The range was calculated using Eq. (7).
Range = Permissible limit (PL) − Desirable limit (DL) (7)

3.3.2 Calculation of modified permissible limits (MPL)

The NIS (2007) was also considered in determining the MPL (Eq. 8) and is presented in
Table 2.
MPL = PL − (20% of Range) (8)

13
 C. O. Unigwe, J. C. Egbueri

Table 2  NIS (2007) drinking Parameter Desirable limit Permissible Range MPL

water standards and calculated (DL) limit (PL)
range and MPL values for IWQI
(Egbueri, 2020b; Mukate et al.,
pH 6.5 8.5 2.0 8.1
2019)
NO3 20 50 30 44
Fe 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.26
Zn 1.0 3.0 2.0 2.6
Mn 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.18
Pb 0.001 0.01 0.01 0.008
Cr 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.042
Ni 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.018

In IWQI calculation, it is believed that the concentration of any parameter below the
Desirable limit (DL) or above Permissible Limit (PL) is not suitable for drinking. Also, the
concentrations that are less than the minimum require more concentration and above MPL,
which will affect the water quality.

3.3.3 Determination of the subindex (SI)

Three different parameters are considered while calculating for the subindex. They are as
follows.
SI1 = 0 (9)
If the ith parameter (Pi) ’s observed value is > DL but < MPL, then ­SI1 will be expressed
as zero.
(DL − Pi)
SI2 = (10)
DL
Equation (10) is considered when the value of ith parameter is less than or equal to the
DL; i.e., Pi ≤ DL.
(Pi − MPL)
SI3 = (11)
MPL
Equation (11) is considered when Pi is greater than or equal to the MPL; i.e., Pi ≥ MPL.
The final IWQI is then evaluated using Eq. (12);
∑n
IWQI =
i=1
SIij (12)

where ­SIij is the sub-index value of ith sample and jth water quality parameter (Egbueri,
2021; Mukate et al., 2019).

3.4 Entropy‑weighted water quality index (EWQI)

Among the three models utilized in this work, the EWQI was first developed by Li et al.
(2010). This model was developed to improve the conventional WQI model, which
requires an assignment of specific weights to water quality parameters regarding their
relative importance to human health. In EWQI, information entropy (ej) is used instead

13
Drinking water quality assessment based on statistical analysis…

to get the uncertainty of the stochastic event, rather than assigning relative weights
to parameters, as done with the conventional WQI model. The EWQI uses a discrete
entropy equation to determine the weights of parameters. Also, EWQI helps identify
the parameter that has the most significant impact on water quality without bias. This is
obtained by determining the parameter with the lowest information entropy (ej) and the
highest entropy weight (wj). Over time, the EWQI has been used by several research-
ers from different parts of the world and has been described as a model that provides
unbiased, justifiable, accurate and reliable water quality analysis (Adimalla et al., 2020;
Amiri et  al., 2014; Feng et  al., 2019; Li et  al., 2010; Singh et  al., 2019; Ukah et  al.,
2020; Wu et  al., 2011). It also provides an overall understanding of different sets of
water samples (Adimalla et  al., 2020; Ukah et  al., 2020). In this study, EWQI was
employed to help assess the water quality and confirm other water quality tools used in
the study area. The EWQI computation steps are as follows (Li et al., 2018; Ukah et al.,
2020; Wang et al., 2020):
The evaluation matrix “X” is computed as shown in Eq. (13)

⎡ x11 x12 … x1n ⎤

⎢x x22 … x2n ⎥
X = ⎢ 21
… … … ⋮ ⎥ (13)
⎢ ⎥
⎣ xm1 xm2 … xmn ⎦

where “m” signifies numbers of samples; “n” represents the number of analyzed
parameters.
The standardization process for “yij” and “Y” is computed using Eqs.  (14 and 15),
respectively.
( )
xij − xij min
yij = ( ) ( ) (14)
xij max − xij max

⎡ y11 y12 … y1n ⎤

⎢y y22 … y2n ⎥
Y = ⎢ 21
… … … ⋮ ⎥ (15)
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ym1 ym2 … ymn ⎦

where xij represents the initial matrix; (­xij)min and ­(xij)max signify the minimum and maxi-
mum values of the analyzed parameters of the samples (Adimalla et al., 2020).
The first step in EWQI, is to determine the information entropy (ej) for each chemical
parameter as shown in Eq. (16).

1 ∑
m
ej = − P In Pij (16)
In m i=1 ij

where Pij denotes the probability of occurrence of the normalized value of the parameter j
expressed in Eq. (17).
Pij
Pij = ∑ (17)
Pij

Next is the entropy weight (wj) calculation for each parameter as expressed in Eq. (18).

13
 C. O. Unigwe, J. C. Egbueri

1 − ej
wj = ∑n (18)
j=1
1 − ej

Third step involves the calculation of the quality rating scale (qj) for each parameter.
Cj
qj = × 100 (19)
Sj

where Cj is the concentration of parameters (mg/L); Sj is the standard permissible limit

(mg/L) of the NIS (2007).
The final stage is the calculation of the EWQI as shown in Eq. (20).
∑n
EWQI = w ⋅ qj
j=1 j (20)

3.5 Statistical analysis

In this study, Stepwise Regression Analysis (SRA) and Hierarchical Cluster Analy-
sis (HCA) were performed using SPSS (v. 22). These analyses show and understand the
spatio-temporal distribution of water quality and the relationship between the models. The
SRA and the HCA were both utilized for the analysis of the sensitivities and agreement
between the EWQI and IWQI models. The possible sources of water contaminants and
drinking water quality demarcations (classification) of the samples were analyzed using
HCA (Egbueri, 2020b; Wu et  al., 2020). For the water quality demarcation, the HCA
was performed using the IWQI and EWQI scores. Moreover, the Ward’s linkage method
(with squared Euclidean distance) was used for the HCA. The data were normalized using
z-score standardization to remove any bias due to variances in the obtained scores.

4 Results and discussion

4.1 General characteristics of the water resources

Table  3 presents the analyzed results for the physicochemical parameters, while the uni-
variate statistical summary of all parameters is also presented in Table  3. Results were
compared to the WHO (2017) and NIS (2007) drinking water standards. In this study, the
water samples are acidic, with pH values ranging from 4.61 to 6.53 and an average of 5.561
(Table 3). The chemical parameters follow the trend of N ­ O3 > Pb > Zn > Fe > Ni > Mn > Cr.
Nitrate ­(NO3) can contribute to lowering pH in water supplies through oxidation and
hydration processes (Collin et al., 2018). ­NO3 concentration in the study swerves from 0
to 21.1 mg/L with a mean of 6.417 mg/L (Table 3). ­NO3 were below the permissible limit
in all water samples. However, 20% recorded no ­NO3 enrichment (Table  3). The source
of ­NO3 in the study area is attributable to the use of fertilizers, domestic waste, agricul-
tural waste, leachates from landfills and sewage leakages (Egbueri et  al., 2019; Ezugwu
et al., 2019; Mgbenu & Egbueri, 2019). About 26.6% of the water samples did not contain
iron (Fe). However, 20% of the water samples exceeded the permissible limit (Table 3). Fe
concentration in the water samples swerves from 0 to 0.54 mg/L, the mean of 0.127 mg/L
(Table  3). Although Fe is an essential element in the human body, “red hot disease” is

13
Drinking water quality assessment based on statistical analysis…

Table 3  Result of the physicochemical analysis of water samples

Sample Number Source pH NO3 Fe Zn Mn Pb Cr Ni

WS1 Spring 5.25 0 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.001 0 0.12

WS2 Spring 5.14 0 0 0.54 0 3.087 0.002 0.24
WS3 Stream 6.22 18.11 0 0.10 0 0 0 0
WS4 Borehole 4.99 0 0.04 0.10 0.01 0 0 0
WS5 Borehole 5.42 2.13 0.02 0.20 0 2 0.001 0.02
WS6 Borehole 5.07 10.91 0.01 0.40 0 1.98 0.004 0.34
WS7 Borehole 6.43 6.09 0.02 0.12 0 0 0 0
WS8 Borehole 6.35 4.44 0 0.01 0 0.001 0 0.12
WS9 Borehole 5.52 2.9 0 0.54 0 1.087 0.002 0.04
WS10 Borehole 5.03 2 0.23 0.20 0.11 0.21 0.001 0.02
WS11 Borehole 5.55 4.09 0.32 0.40 0 1.98 0.004 0.34
WS12 Borehole 4.61 10 0.54 0.12 0.04 0 0 0
WS13 Borehole 4.91 21.1 0.46 0.10 0.06 0 0 0
WS14 Borehole 6.39 13.93 0.11 0.20 0 2 0.001 0.02
WS15 Borehole 6.53 0.55 0.13 0.21 0.111 0.021 0.01 0
Minimum 4.61 0 0 0.01 0 0 0 0
Maximum 6.53 21.1 0.54 0.54 0.111 3.087 0.01 0.34
Mean 5.561 6.417 0.127 0.22 0.023 0.825 0.002 0.084
Standard deviation 0.650 6.863 0.179 0.174 0.040 1.082 0.003 0.124
NIS (2007) 6.5–8.5 50 0.3 3 0.2 0.01 0.05 0.02
WHO (2017) 6.5–8.5 50 0.3 3 0.4 0.01 0.05 0.07

associated with drinking Fe-laden water. The possible source of Fe in the water supplies
may include domestic sewages and coating of pipes (Wagh et al., 2018). Manganese (Mn)
in this study is not widely distributed. About 60% of the water samples have no Mn enrich-
ment, while 40% have Mn scores below the permissible limit (Table  3). Excess Mn’s
associated health effects include retarded mental development and damage of the central
and peripheral nervous systems (SON, 2015; Ukah et  al., 2019). Zinc (Zn) is essential
in human, animal and plant growth (Hotz and Brown, 2004). Zn was present in all water
samples with concentrations ranging from 0.001 to 0.54 mg/L and a mean of 0.127 mg/L
(Table 3).
A report had shown that Lead (Pb) is a very toxic heavy metal that enters both the tissues
of plants and the skeletal framework of man through ingestion by water, inhalation through
soil and consumption of crops (WHO, 2017). Its accumulation gives rise to different health-
related problems like mental disorders, cancer development and failure of the hematologic and
renal system (Adimalla & Wang, 2018; Egbueri, 2020a). In this study, about 33% of the sam-
ples had no Pb enrichment, 46.6% had scores above the acceptable limit for drinking water,
and however, 13.3% had scores below the permissible limit (Table 3). Overall, Pb concentra-
tion ranges from 0 to 3.087 mg/L with an average of 0.825 mg/L (Table 3). The sources of
Pb in the water supplies are attributed to the use of chemical anti-killing agents (insecticides
and pesticides), onsite sewages, faucets, leaded plumbing fittings, urban wastes and dumpsites
(Egbueri, 2018, 2020a, 2020b; Wagh et al., 2018). Chromium (Cr) had a very low concentra-
tion which swerves from 0 and 0.01 mg/L with an average of 0.002 mg/L (Table 3). In this

13
 C. O. Unigwe, J. C. Egbueri

study, about 46.6% of the water samples had no Cr enrichment; 53% were enriched but below
the permissible drinking water limit. Nickel (Ni) is associated with different health-related
problems, including dermatitis, lung fibrous, cardiovascular and kidney disease (Egbueri,
2020a; SON, 2015; WHO, 2017). About 40% of the samples had no Ni enrichment, while
13.3% had low Ni enrichment. On the contrary, 33.3% were above the permissible limit for
drinking (Table 3). Ni concentration in this study ranges from 0 to 0.34 mg/L with a mean of
0.084 mg/L (Table 3). Ni contamination in this study is attributed to poor waste disposal, sew-
age sludge and application of chemical fertilizers (Adimalla & Wang, 2018).

4.2 Modified water quality index (MWQI)

The MWQI classification scheme is given in Table 4. In this study, the violator parameters
affecting the quality of the water supplies include Pb, Cr, and Ni. The MWQI was calculated
for the 15 water samples and eight physicochemical parameters. The results for MWQI are
presented in Table 5. The results showed that the number of parameters that excurse bench-
marks (FS) is 0.781. However, the FF been the number of measurements that excurse bench-
marks is 0.11, while 9.79 is the amount of excursion from benchmarks in the failed measure-
ments (FA). The final MWQI was observed as 44.95. Based on the classification criteria for
MWQI, the water supplies fall within the “Marginal” rank, which signifies that the water qual-
ity is frequently threatened at a desirable level. The study area is a fast-developing area with
increasing developmental, agricultural and improper waste management (open waste dump-
ing) activities. It is believed that the high threat to these water supplies is due to the waste gen-
eration and management method practised in the study area, as reported by Egbunike (2018),
Mgbenu and Egbueri (2019), Egbueri and Unigwe (2020).

4.3 Integrated water quality index (IWQI)

The classification scheme for IWQI subdivides water quality into five distinct groups:
IWQI < 1 (Excellent water for drinking); IWQI 1–2 (Good water for drinking); IWQI 2–3
(Acceptable water for domestic); IWQI 3–4 (Poor water for drinking); IWQI > 5 (Unaccep-
table water) (Egbueri, 2021; Mukate et  al., 2019). After due computation, formulation and
evaluation of the IWQI, the summary results were presented in Table 6. The observed values
ranged from − 9.11 to 401.8 with a mean of 106.8, which shows that most of the water sam-
ples are polluted. Following the classification criteria by Mukate et al., 2019, any IWQI value
above 3 is classified as poor, whereas any above 5 is unfit for human consumption. Based on
the information provided in Table 6, about 20% of the water samples are excellent for drink-
ing, 6.67% is of good quality, 13.33% are acceptable for domestic purposes, and 60% are
unsuitable for human consumption. However, water samples 2, 5, 6, 9, 11 and 14, which are
believed to have the strongest anthropogenic influence, show very high pollution levels, far
more than other water samples. Similar research findings have been reported (Egbunike, 2018;
Mgbenu & Egbueri, 2019), whereby some water samples were found to have higher heavy
metal pollution than others.

4.4 Entropy‑weighted water quality index (EWQI)

The EWQI classification scheme for water quality is as follows: “Rank 1” < 50 (excel-
lent water quality); “Rank 2” 50-100 (good water quality); “Rank 3” 100–150 (average

13
 Table 4  Classification criteria for MWQI (Shankar & Sreevidya, 2019)
Rank MWQI value Description

Excellent 95–100 Water quality is protected with a virtual absence of threat or impairment conditions very close to natural or
pristine levels. All measurements are within objectives virtually all of the time
Very good 89–94 Water quality is protected with a slight presence of threat or impairment conditions close to natural or
pristine levels
Good 80–88 Water quality is protected with only a minor degree of threat or impairment; conditions rarely depart from
natural or desirable levels. Measurements rarely depart from desirable levels
Drinking water quality assessment based on statistical analysis…

Fair 65–79 Water quality is usually protected but occasionally threatened or impaired conditions sometimes depart
from natural or desirable levels. Measurements sometimes depart from desirable levels
Marginal 45–64 Water quality is frequently threatened or impaired; conditions often depart from natural or desirable levels.
Measurements often depart from desirable levels
Poor 0–44 Water quality is almost always threatened or impaired, conditions usually depart from natural or desirable
levels. Measurements usually depart from desirable levels

13
 C. O. Unigwe, J. C. Egbueri

Table 5  Summarized result of the MWQI

S/N Terms of Index Values Rank Rating of water quality

1 Scope—FS 0.78 Marginal Water quality is frequently threatened or impaired; condi-

2 Frequency—FF 0.11 tion often depart from natural or desirable levels. Meas-
urements often depart from desirable levels
3 NSE 4.70
4 Amplitude—FA 9.80
5 MWQI 44.95

Table 6  Summary results for the IWQI and their quality rating

Sample number Source IWQI score IWQI quality IWQI explantation

WS1 Spring 8.57 Unsuitable Unacceptable

WS2 Spring 401.8 Unsuitable Unacceptable
WS3 Stream 2.04 Marginal Acceptable for domestic
WS4 Borehole 1.63 Good Good for drinking
WS5 Borehole 253.8 Unsuitable Unacceptable
WS6 Borehole 268.6 Unsuitable Unacceptable
WS7 Borehole 2.39 Marginal Acceptable for domestic
WS8 Borehole 9.58 Unsuitable Unacceptable
WS9 Borehole 140.6 Unsuitable Unacceptable
WS10 Borehole 15.89 Unsuitable Unacceptable
WS11 Borehole 265.7 Unsuitable Unacceptable
WS12 Borehole −7.13 Excellent Excellent for drinking
WS13 Borehole  − 9.11 Excellent Excellent for drinking
WS14 Borehole 252.1 Unsuitable Unacceptable
WS15 Borehole −8.13 Excellent Excellent for drinking

water quality); “Rank 4” 150–200 (poor water quality); “Rank 5” > 200 (Extremely poor
water quality) (Adimalla et  al., 2020; Amiri et  al., 2014; Feng et  al., 2019; Li et  al.,
2010; Singh et al., 2019; Ukah et al., 2020; Wu et al., 2011). The information entropy
(ej) and entropy weight (wj) results of all analyzed water quality parameters are pre-
sented in Table  7. However, Table  8 contains the summarized EWQI results. In this
study, Pb was observed to have the highest effect on the water quality. This assertion
was made following Gorgij et  al. (2017) report that the parameter with the highest wj
and lowest ej will have the highest effect on water quality (Table  7). The summary
results for the EWQI shown in Table 8, swerves from 84.02 to 21,430 with an average
of 5866. Furthermore, any EWQI value that exceeds Rank 3 (i.e., above 150) is believed
to be unsuitable for drinking purpose.
Based on the information presented in Table 8, it was realized that about 26.6% of the
total water samples are of good quality, 13.3% are of average quality, and however, 60%
of the water samples are extremely poor in quality. Meanwhile, 13.3% of the water cat-
egorized as average water quality could only be used for domestic purposes. However,
60% of the water, categorized as extremely poor water quality, are unfit for human con-
sumption. Furthermore, water samples 2, 5, 6, 9, 11 and 14 show extreme high values

13
Drinking water quality assessment based on statistical analysis…

Table 7  Results of information entropy (ej) and entropy weight (wj)

Parameter pH NO3 Fe Zn Mn Pb Cr Ni

ej 0.997668 0.797419 0.690798 0.887869 0.145252 0.00761 0.018778 0.390124

wj 0.000687 0.059654 0.091051 0.033019 0.251699 0.30954 0.288941 0.179591

Table 8  Summary results for the EWQI and their quality rating

Sample number Source EWQI score EWQI rank EWQI quality

WS1 Spring 323.6 V Extremely poor

WS2 Spring 21,430 V Extremely poor
WS3 Stream 120.5 III Average
WS4 Borehole 84.02 II Good
WS5 Borehole 13,653 V Extremely poor
WS6 Borehole 14,155 V Extremely poor
WS7 Borehole 109.5 III Average
WS8 Borehole 338.7 V Extremely poor
WS9 Borehole 7527 V Extremely poor
WS10 Borehole 1600 V Extremely poor
WS11 Borehole 14,222 V Extremely poor
WS12 Borehole 84.5 II Good
WS13 Borehole 86.9 II Good
WS14 Borehole 13,707 V Extremely poor
WS15 Borehole 80.5 II Good

of EWQI ranging from 7527 to 21,430 and an average of 14,116. It is further confirmed
that the high pollution in these samples is due to the high impact from anthropogenic
activities, which is often common in fast-developing suburbs. Thus, it is suggested that
any pollution remediation measures proposed for the study area should consider these
six extremely polluted water stations first before the others marked to have better water
quality.
Figure 2 presents the quality rating (qj) for the six water samples collected within the
zone of high waste accumulation. From this figure, Pb (in green) has the highest values in
the six water samples, followed by Mn (in yellow). N ­ O3 (in orange) shows a high presence
in WS6 and WS14. Ni (in purple) was relatively low, except for WS2 and WS11. Fe (in
black) showed a very high presence in WS11. However, Mn (in red) and Cr (in gray) were
relatively low in all water samples. The pH in all waters were relatively low, indicating
their acidic nature. Figure 2 was created in order to establish a better understanding of the
significant elements contributing to the quality deterioration of the water supplies within
the points of interest and also to prove that the parameter with the highest wj and lowest
ej has the highest impact on the water supplies (Gorgij et al., 2017). Summarily, with the
quality rating ­(qj) of the six water samples shown in Fig. 2, Pb was observed as the major
heavy metal deteriorating the water supplies. This may be attributed to the nature of the
anthropogenic activities taking place in the study area. However, inhbaitants who make

13
 C. O. Unigwe, J. C. Egbueri

Table 9  The obtained correlation IWQI EWQI

coefficients showing the
sensitivity of the models on the
IWQI/EWQI 1.000 1.000
parameters
pH  − 0.102  − 0.111
NO3  − 0.141  − 0.135
Fe  − 0.248  − 0.224
Zn 0.759 0.763
Mn  − 0.459  − 0.431
Pb 0.999 1.000
Cr 0.187 0.196
Ni 0.659 0.647

Bold indicates significant association

use of these water supplies (WS2, WS5, WS6, WS9, WS11 and WS14) may be exposed to
cancerous and chronic illnesses due to the high concentration of Pb.

4.5 Water quality classification/demarcation using HCA

As can be observed from Tables 7 and 9, the differences in classification schemes of the
IWQI and EWQI introduced some kind of bias in deciding which sample is suitable or not.
The samples identified as excellent by the IWQI were placed in the ‘good’ category by the
EWQI. Hence, there was need to utilize HCA to show the quality groupings of the ana-
lyzed water samples. Some water quality studies (Egbueri & Unigwe, 2019; Egbueri et al.,
2019; Egbueri, 2018, 2019a, 2020a, 2020b) have shown that HCA is a suitable tool for
classifying water samples into various classes based on their quality and chemical genetics.
The IWQI and EWQI scores were integrated to produce a dendrogram (Fig.  3) for
the water quality classes. Cluster 1 comprises of those samples generally classified as

Fig. 3  A hierarchical dendrogram

classifying the water quality of
the samples based on integrated
IWQI and EWQI values

13
Drinking water quality assessment based on statistical analysis…

lowly-marginally contaminated. However, Cluster 2 is dominantly comprised of those sam-

ples that are highly polluted with heavy metals. Compared with those of Cluster 1, it was
observed that the samples in Cluster 2 have extremely high IWQI and EWQI scores. By
this demarcation, it can be generally stated that the samples in Cluster 1 (making about
60% of the total) have low to high pollution, while those in Cluster 2 (making about 40%)
have very high to extreme heavy metals pollutions. Following the quality classes given by
the IWQI and EWQI, the result of the MWQI (Table 5), which highlighted that the overall
water quality of the study area is frequently threatened, is confirmed.
In this study, it was also noticed that the surface waters, which because of their clean
appearances, are often judged by the local consumers as suitable drinking water supplies,
have very questionable drinking quality. The spring samples were identified by both IWQI
and EWQI as extremely polluted and unsuitable drinking waters. On the other hand, the
only stream water supply was marked by both indices to be of marginal or average drinking
quality. The pollution of these surface waters could be attributed to anthropogenic inputs
related to indiscriminate waste disposal. However, some boreholes were highly polluted.
This could be indicating that they are shallow aquifers prone to easy surface contamina-
tions. Additionally, because the Nanka Formation is mainly composed of loose, porous and
permeable materials (Egbueri and Igwe 2020), the contamination of its shallow groundwa-
ter would be much easier.

4.6 Water contaminant source allotment using HCA

The discussion so far has indicated that the quality of some water supplies is question-
able due to pollution. Therefore, it was thought to analyze the possible source of pollution
further using the HCA. The application of HCA for water pollutant source apportionment
is well demonstrated in the current study. A dendrogram (Fig. 4) was produced using the

Fig. 4  A hierarchical den-

drogram of the water quality
parameters for pollution source
apportionment

13
 C. O. Unigwe, J. C. Egbueri

Fig. 5  Regression plots for assessing the relationship (agreement) between the IWQI and EWQI

Ward’s linkage method and z-score standardization. From Fig.  4, it can be seen that the
analyzed parameters formed two major cluster groups, both of which have their separate
sub-clusters.
The first cluster comprises parameters (Zn, Pb, Ni, pH, and Cr) that are more typical of
origins due to anthropogenic influences. It was observed that these parameters in this clus-
ter class greatly influenced the water quality of the study area more than other parameters.
Cluster 1 has two sub-clusters. In the first sub-cluster Zn, Pb, and Ni were grouped. This
points that similar processes, such as leaching from batteries, tires and heavy chemical
wastes in dumpsites, could be influencing their enrichment in the water supplies (Egbueri,
2018, 2020a; Mgbenu & Egbueri, 2019). Because the waters are generally acidic, they
have the potential to leach Pb from water distribution pipes (Egbueri, 2021). The associa-
tion between pH and Cr could suggest that the acidity of the water may be influencing the
enrichment of Cr. However, the variation in their Euclidean distances indicates that this
association is not so strong. Other factors that may add Cr to water include metallurgical
and heavy chemical wastes (Egbueri, 2018, 2020a; Mgbenu & Egbueri, 2019).
However, Cluster 2 is comprised of such parameters (Fe, Mn, and N ­ O3) that are typical
of both natural and anthropogenic origins. Mgbenu and Egbueri (2019) had attributed the
presence of nitrate in the waters from the Umunya district to anthropogenic activities. For
this area, such anthropogenic activities that could influence nitrate enrichment in the water
include poor disposal mechanics for organic wastes such as vegetables and sewage (Egbueri
et al., 2019). However, Barzegar et al. (2019) reported that ­NO3 in water could also be due to
some geogenic processes like denitrification, redox reactions, and anoxic conditions of the
aquifer. The use of metallic pipes for water distribution and metallic wastes may be respon-
sible for the Fe contents of the waters. Nevertheless, geogenic processes like weathering
ironstones and ferromagnesian minerals could also be responsible for the Fe in the waters.
Mn is commonly associated with N ­ O3. However, the higher concentrations of N ­ O3 more
than Mn (and Fe) could explain their varied Euclidean distances in Fig. 4. Moreover, their
separation into different sub-clusters could be suggesting a higher impact of anthropogenic
activities in the addition of ­NO3 more than the other duo. For the study area, the presence
of Mn could be due to human inputs such as sewage, fertilizers, and fossil fuel combustion
(Egbueri, 2018, 2020a). Natural factors like redox reactions and anoxic and flow conditions
may influence the concentration of Mn in water (Liao et al., 2018).

13
Drinking water quality assessment based on statistical analysis…

4.7 Establishing the relationships between the indexical models

The observations made so far have shown that there is some kind of similarity between
the results of these models in this study. The MWQI did not give the quality description
for individual samples; however, it did present the general overview of the quality of the
public water supplies. The result it showed was in line with those given by the IWQI and
EWQI. However, much of our comparative analysis of the models’ sensitivities will focus
on IWQI and EWQI.
An SRA was performed on the IWQI and EWQI scores. It was observed that a strong
relationship exists between the two models (Fig. 5), indicating that they followed a similar
trend in identifying the water quality of the study area. In other words, the values of IWQI
and EWQI increased accordingly in the same direction across the water samples. Addi-
tionally, Pearson’s correlation analysis was performed between the parameters’ concentra-
tions and the IWQI and EWQI scores. Usually, correlation coefficients < 0.5, 0.5 < r < 0.7,
and > 0.7 are, respectively, marked as weak, moderate, and strong. The correlation results
obtained (Table  9) showed that both models sensitively identified Pb, Zn, and Ni as the
most important pollutants that influenced the IWQI and EWQI scores. But, the identifica-
tion of Zn as one of the important pollutants does not make it a significant pollutant in the
study area, as all the Zn concentrations in all the samples were well below the maximum
allowable limit of 3 mg/L.

5 Conclusion

The three indexical models (MWQI, IWQI and EWQI) utilized in this current study have
proven to be sensitive, efficient and effective in water quality assessment. This study
has indicated that the integration of the three models gives a better understanding of
the water quality in the area. Moreover, the HCA proved very efficient in the allotment
of the possible sources of pollution in the study area. Overall, the results of this study
confirmed that the water supplies are threatened by heavy metals pollution. Based on the
indexical approach employed to investigate the quality of the water supplies, it has been
proven that the water supplies are relatively lowly to very highly polluted. In this study
area, about 40% of the analyzed water samples are suitable for both drinking and domes-
tic purposes, whereas the majority (60%) are unfit for human consumption. Investigation
into the performance and sensitivity of the MWQI, IWQI and EWQI models in water
quality assessment was analyzed and the results showed that they are all sensitive, effi-
cient and effective tools. This study has indicated that the integration of the three mod-
els gives a better understanding of water quality. Therefore, adequate measures should
be taken to prevent further deterioration of the water quality. Moreover, the contami-
nated water should be adequately treated, either by boiling activated carbon filtration, or
advanced technology, before human consumption and used for domestic purposes such
as cooking.

Declarations 
Conflict of interest  The authors hereby declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding this work.

13
 C. O. Unigwe, J. C. Egbueri

References
Adimalla, N., & Li, P. (2019). Occurrence, health risks, and geochemical mechanisms of fluoride and nitrate
in ground-water of the rock dominant semi-arid region, Telangana State, India. Human Ecological Risk
Assessment, 25(1–2), 81–103. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​10807​039.​2018.​14803​53
Adimalla, N., Li, P., & Qian, H. (2019). Evaluation of groundwater contamination for fluoride and nitrate
in semi-arid region of Nirmal Province, South India: A special emphasis on human health risk assess-
ment (HHRA). Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 25(5), 1107–1124. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​
10807​039.​2018.​14605​79
Adimalla, N., Qian, H., & Li, P. (2020). Entropy water quality index and probabilistic health risk assessment
from geochemistry of groundwaters in hard rock terrain of Nanganur County, South India. Geochemis-
try, 80(4), 125544. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​chemer.​2019.​125544
Adimalla, N., & Wang, H. (2018). Distribution, contamination, and health risk assessment of heavy metals
in surface soils from northern Telangana, India. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 11, 684. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1007/​s12517-​018-​4028-y
Amiri, V., Rezaei, M., & Sohrabi, N. (2014). Groundwater quality assessment using entropy weighted
water quality index (EWQI) in Lenjanat, Iran. Environmental Earth Sciences. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s12665-​014-​3255-0
APHA. (2005). Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater (21st ed.). Washington DC:
American Public Health Association.
Barzegar, R., Moghaddam, A. A., Soltani, S., Baomid, N., Tziritis, E., Adamowski, J., & Inam, A. (2019).
Natural and anthropogenic origins of selected trace elements in the surface waters of Tabriz area, Iran.
Environmental Earth Sciences, 78, 254. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12665-​019-​8250-z
BIS. (2012). Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS 10500). Guidelines for drinking water quality standards.
Chowdhury, B. A., & Chandra, R. K. (1987). Biological and health implications of toxic heavy metal and
essential trace element interactions. Progress in Food Nutrition Science, 11(1), 55–113.
Collin, J. W., Jennifer, N. P., John, M., Christopher, M. C., Scott, G., & Lynch, J. A. (2018). Estimating base
cation weathering rates in USA: Challenges of uncertain soil mineralogy and specific surface area with
the application of PROFILE model. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 222(3), 61–90.
Egbueri, J. C. (2018). Assessment of the quality of groundwaters proximal to dumpsites in Awka and Nnewi
metropolises: A comparative approach. International Journal of Energy and Water Resources, 2(1–4),
33–48. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s42108-​018-​0004-1
Egbueri, J. C. (2019a). Water quality appraisal of selected farm provinces using integrated hydrogeochemi-
cal, multi-variate statistical, and microbiological technique. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment,
5(3), 997–1013. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s40808-​019-​00585-z
Egbueri, J. C. (2019b). Evaluation and characterization of the groundwater quality and hydrogeochemistry
of Ogbaru farming district in southeastern Nigeria. SN Applied Sciences, 1(8), 851. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1007/​s42452-​019-​0853-1
Egbueri, J. C. (2020a). Heavy metals pollution source identification and probabilistic health risk assessment
of shallow groundwater in Onitsha, Nigeria. Analytical Letters, 53(10), 1620–1638. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1080/​00032​719.​2020.​17126​06
Egbueri, J. C. (2020b). Groundwater quality assessment using pollution index of groundwater (PIG), eco-
logical risk index (ERI) and hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA): A case study. Groundwater for Sus-
tainable Development, 10, 100292. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​gsd.​2019.​100292
Egbueri, J. C. (2021). Signatures of contamination, corrosivity and scaling in natural waters from a fast-
developing suburb (Nigeria): Insights into their suitability for industrial purposes. Environment, Devel-
opment and Sustainability, 23(1), 591–609. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10668-​020-​00597-1
Egbueri, J. C., & Igwe, O. (2021). The impact of hydrogeomorphological characteristics on gullying pro-
cesses in erosion-prone geological units in parts of southeast Nigeria. Geology, Ecology, and Land-
scapes, 5(3), 227–240. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​24749​508.​2020.​17116​37
Egbueri, J. C., Mgbenu, C. N., & Chukwu, C. N. (2019). Investigating the hydrogeochemical processes and
quality of water resources in Ojoto and environs using integrated classical methods. Modeling Earth
Systems and Environment, 5(4), 1443–1461. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s40808-​019-​00613-y
Egbueri, J. C., & Unigwe, C. O. (2019). An integrated indexical investigation of selected heavy metals in
drinking water resources from a coastal plain aquifer in Nigeria. SN Applied Sciences, 1(11), 1422.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s42452-​019-​1489-x
Egbueri, J. C., & Unigwe, C. O. (2020). Understanding the extent of heavy metal pollution in drinking water
supplies from Umunya, Nigeria: An indexical and statistical assessment. Analytical Letters, 53(13),
2122–2144. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​00032​719.​2020.​17315​21

13
Drinking water quality assessment based on statistical analysis…

Egbunike, M. E. (2018). Hydrogeochemical investigation of groundwater resources in Umunya and environs

of the Anambra Basin, Nigeria. Pacific Journal of Science and Technology, 19(1), 351–366.
Ezugwu, C. K., Onwuka, O. S., Egbueri, J. C., Unigwe, C. O., & Ayejoto, D. A. (2019). Multi-criteria
approach to water quality and health risk assessments in a rural agricultural province, southeast Nige-
ria. HydroResearch, 2, 40–48. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​hydres.​2019.​11.​005
Feng, Y., Fanghui, Y., & Li, C. (2019). Improved Entropy Weighting Model in Water Quality Evaluation.
Water Resources Management, 33(6), 2049–2056.
Gorgij, A. D., Kisi, O., Moghaddam, A. A., & Taghipour, A. (2017). Groundwater quality ranking for drink-
ing purposes, using the entropy method and the spatial autocorrelation index. Environmental Earth
Sciences, 76(7), 269. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12665-​017-​6589-6
Hortz, C., & Brown, K. H. (2004). International zinc nutrition consultative group (IZiNCG) technical docu-
ment No. 1. Assessment of the risk of zinc deficiency in populations and options for its control. Food
and Nutrition Bulletin., 25, S94–S203.
Li, P., He, X., & Guo, W. (2019). Spatial groundwater quality and potential health risks due to nitrate
ingestion through drinking water: A case study in Yan’an City on the Loess Plateau of northwest
China. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 25(1–2), 11–31. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​10807​039.​
2018.​15536​12
Li, P., & Qian, H. (2018). Water resources research to support a sustainable China. International Journal
of Water Resources Development, 34(3), 327–336. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​07900​627.​2018.​14527​23
Li, P., Qian, H., & Wu, J. (2010). Groundwater quality assessment based on improved water quality
index in Pengyang County, Ningxia, northwest China. E-Journal of Chemistry, 7, 209–216.
Li, P., Tian, R., Xue, C., & Wu, J. (2017). Progress, opportunities and key fields for groundwater qual-
ity research under the impacts of human activities in China with a special focus on western China.
Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24(15), 13224–13234. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s11356-​017-​8753-7
Li, P., Wu, J., Tian, R., He, S., He, X., Xue, C., & Zhang, K. (2018). Geochemistry, hydraulic con-
nectivity and quality appraisal of multilayered groundwater in the Hongdunzi Coal Mine,
northwest China. Mine Water and the Environment, 37(2), 222–237. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s10230-​017-​0507-8
Liao, F., Wang, G., Shi, Z., Huang, X., Xu, F., Xu, Q., & Guo, L. (2018). Distributions, sources, and spe-
cies of heavy metals/trace elements in shallow groundwater around the Poyang Lake, East China.
Exposure and Health, 10(4), 211–227. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12403-​017-​0256-8
Ma, L., Hu, L., Feng, X., & Wang, S. (2018). Nitrate and nitrite in health and disease. US National
Library of Medicine National Institute of Health., 9(5), 938–945.
Mgbenu, C. N., & Egbueri, J. C. (2019). The hydrogeochemical signatures, quality indices and health
risk assessment of water resources in Umunya district, southeast Nigeria. Applied Water Science,
9(1), 22. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s13201-​019-​0900-5
Mukate, S., Wagh, V., Panaskar, D., Jacobs, J. A., & Sawant, A. (2019). Development of new integrated
water quality index (IWQI) model to evaluate the drinking suitability of water. Ecological Indict-
ors, 101, 348–354. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ecoli​nd.​2019.​01.​034
Nfor, B. N., Olobaniyi, S. B., & Ogala, J. E. (2007). Extent and distribution of groundwater resources
in parts of Anambra State, Southeastern Nigeria. Journal of Applied Science and Environmental
Management, 11(2), 215–221.
NIS. (2007). Nigerian standard for drinking water quality. Nigerian Industrial Standard, 554, 13–14.
Nwajide, C. S. (1979). A lithostratigraphic analysis of the Nanka Sand, Southeast Nigeria. Niger J Min
Geol, 16, 103–109.
Nwajide, C. S. (2006). Outcrop analogues as a learning facility for sub-surface practitioner: The value of
geological field trips. Pet Train J, 3, 58–68.
Nwajide, C. S. (2013). Geology of Nigeria’s sedimentary basins. CSS Press.
Okoro, E. I., Egboka, B. C. E., & Onwuemesi, A. G. (2010). Evaluation of the aquifer characteristics
of the Nanka sand using hydrogeological method in combination with vertical electric sounding
(VES). Journal of Applied Science and Environmental Management, 14(2), 5–9.
Sale, J., Yahaya, A., Ejim, C., & Okpe, I. (2019). Physicochemical assessment of water quality in
selected borehole450 in Anyigba Town, Kogi State, Nigeria. Journal of Applied Sciences and Envi-
ronmental Management, 23(4), 711–714.
Shankar, B. S., & Sreevidya, R. (2019). A novel approach for the formulation of modified water quality
index and its application for groundwater quality appraisal and grading. Human and Ecological
Risk Assessment. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​10807​039.​2019.​16886​38

13
 C. O. Unigwe, J. C. Egbueri

Singh, K. R., Dutta, R., Kalamdhad, A. S., & Kumar, B. (2019). Review of existing heavy metal contam-
ination indices and development of an entropy-based improved indexing approach. Environment,
Development and Sustainability. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10668-​019-​00549-4
Standards Organization of Nigeria (SON). (2015). Nigerian standard for drinking water quality (pp.
15–16). SON Publication.
Ukah, B. U., Ameh, P. D., Egbueri, J. C., Unigwe, C. O., & Ubido, O. E. (2020). Impact of effluent-
derived heavy metals on the groundwater quality in Ajao industrial area, Nigeria: An assessment
using entropy water quality index (EWQI). International Journal of Energy and Water Resources,
4(3), 231–244. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s42108-​020-​00058-5
Ukah, B. U., Egbueri, J. C., Unigwe, C. O., & Ubido, O. E. (2019). Extent of heavy metals pollution
and health risk assessment of groundwater in a densely populated industrial area, Lagos, Nige-
ria. International Journal of Energy and Water Resources, 3(4), 291–303. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s42108-​019-​00039-3
Wagh, V. M., Panaskar, D. B., Mukate, S. V., Gaikwad, S. K., Muley, A. A., & Varade, A. M.
(2018). Health risk assessment of heavy metal contamination in groundwater of Kadava River
Basin, Nashik, India. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s40808-​018-​0496-z
Wang, D., Wu, J., Wang, Y., & Ji, Y. (2020). Finding high-quality groundwater resources to reduce the
hydatidosis incidence in the Shiqu county of Sichuan Province, China: Analysis, assessment, and man-
agement. Exposure and Health, 12(2), 307–322. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12403-​019-​00314-y
WHO. (2017). Guidelines for drinking water quality (3rd ed.). World Health Organization.
Wu, J., Li, P., & Qian, H. (2011). Groundwater quality in Jingyuan county, a semi-humid area in Northwest
China. E-Journal of Chemistry, 8(2), 787–793.
Wu, J., Li, P., Wang, D., Ren, X., & Wei, M. (2020). Statistical and multivariate statistical techniques to
trace the sources and affecting factors of groundwater pollution in a rapidly growing city on the Chi-
nese Loess Plateau. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 26(6), 1603–1621. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1080/​10807​039.​2019.​15941​56

Publisher’s Note  Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

13