Assessment of Water Quality in

The 10th AIC-ELS 2020 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 711 (2021) 012031 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/711/1/012031
Assessment of water quality index of Puah Reservoir, Hulu

Terengganu, Malaysia
M K Abubakar1*, M S A S Ruddin1, E A Filza2, S Ahmad Nazri2 and M S Shahril2

1
Pusat Pengajian Sains Kajihayat, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800, Penang, Malaysia.
2
TNB Research Sdn Bhd, No 1 Lorong Air Itam, Kawasan Instusi Penyelidikan, 43000
Kajang Selangor DE
*Corresponding author’s e-mail: [email protected], [email protected]
Abstract. Puah dam is located 50 km from Bandar Gua Musang – Hulu Terengganu roadway, and about
65km west of Kuala Terengganu. Puah Reservoir is used for macro-hydro power plant (capacity
250MW). The purpose of this study was to determine the water quality status of the reservoir. Based
on water quality index grading, the reservoir water has been classified as poor according to WHO
WQI rating with a calculated range of 11.52 – 485.71. Although, the result for the mean WQI for
all the stations/locations (48.04 – 154.36) revealed that the water is fit for drinking purpose through
any form of treatment. However, it’s relatively good for swimming, bathing, laundry, irrigation and
industrial purposes. This condition showed that the activities of Tambat and Puah hydro-power
generation had no negative effect on the water quality of upper and lower parts of Puah Reservoir
respectively.
1. Introduction
Freshwater lakes are one of the most vulnerable ecosystems to environmental contamination and crucial
aquatic inland ecosystems which play many ecological and environment roles including biodiversity
protection, local climate regulation and groundwater resources replenishment [1]. Lakes and reservoirs
are major resources as these holds about 90% of the world’s surface freshwater and are the key
freshwater resources for agriculture, fisheries, domestic, industrial, recreational, landscape
entertainment, and energy production. However, these utilizations depend on the desirable water quality
that should be based on a well-balanced environment in terms of its physical and chemical
characteristics. The lentic surface water quality in reservoirs, lakes, or ponds is severely affected by
anthropogenic pollution, and many efforts have already been made to assess and manage their water
quality [2].
Water ecosystem, especially freshwater ecosystem, are some of the most important resources in the
replenishment and purification of water sources used by human. Unfortunately, the sustainability of a
large amount of these ecosystems is being negatively affected by land development. Increased use of
underground aquifers, creation of water division system, industrial and household wastewater
contamination and the eradication of wetlands and marsh areas all pose a threat to these ecosystems that
help to provide us with fresh water. Inland freshwater resources have gained great concern in the recent
years which are highly affected by various kinds of anthropogenic activities. Thus, to review strategies
for conservation and utilization of freshwater resources in a better way, a scientific study is required.
Water quality index (W.Q.I) provides a single number that expresses overall water quality at a certain
location and time, based on several water quality parameters [3]. Water Quality is an important factor
Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
to judge environment changes, which are strongly associated with social and economic development.
The objective of water quality index is to turn complex water quality data into information that is
understandable and used by the public. A water quality index based on some very important parameters
provides a single indicator of water quality. In general, water quality indices incorporate data from
multiple water quality parameters into a mathematical equation that rates the health of a water system
with number [4].
Freshwater reservoirs are important in Malaysia as there are few natural lakes in Malaysia. There
are over 90 freshwater reservoirs that had been constructed to support the water supply and to maximize
the collection and storage of rainwater harvested from catchments [5]. In addition, Malaysia’s reservoirs
are also important for recreational, social and aesthetic values, as well as flood control. The quality and
quantity of surface water bodies such as lakes depend upon the climate, catchments, geography of the
area and the inputs and outputs both natural and manmade [2]. Puah reservoir could be a comprehensive
case study site to better understand the changes that could occur after completion of a dam works since
no study has been carried out on aspects of water quality in the reservoir. The water quality of lakes can
be degraded due to microbiological and chemicals contaminants. The monitoring and assessment of
water quality of freshwater lakes such as Puah Reservoir is therefore imperative because wildlife and
aquatic life consume these water as well as energy production.
2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Area under Investigation
Puah dam is about 50 km from Bandar Gua Musang – Hulu Terengganu roadway, and about 65km west of
Kuala Terengganu situated on geographical coordinates of 5 05 N 102 45E / 5.083N 102.750E with a total
area of 134,690.54ha, an average depth of 20m and 296m from the sea level. This infrastructure is of
type Hydro Power Plant constructed from 2011- 2017 with a design capacity of 250MW. The locations
and names of collection water samples are represented in (Figure 1 and Table 1).
Figure 1. Locations of the sampling stations at Puah Dam site, Hulu Terengganu.
2
Table 1. Longitude, Latitude and names of sampling stations in Puah Reservoir.

Code of stations Name of stations Longitude Latitude
P1 Terengganu Mati 5°12'30.75"N 102°32'17.01"E
P2 Limbing Besar 5°10'10.50"N 102°34'29.11"E
P3 Tambat Outlet 5°12'33.09"N 102°34'56.17"E
P4 Pelagong 5° 9'3.67"N 102°33'1.19"E
P5 Sireh 5° 8'44.54"N 102°33'47.21"E
P6 Centre Dam 5° 9'31.93"N 102°35'12.24"E
P7 Power Intake 5° 9'1.97"N 102°35'50.62"E
P8 Puah Env. Flow 5° 9'58.36"N 102°36'14.87"E
(Downstream)
P9 Tailrace (Puah Outlet) 5° 8'54.05"N 102°36'47.66"E
2.2. Physical and Chemical Analyses

In-situ measured were taken from the subsurface (about 30 cm) at nine stations to cover the whole
Reservoir area from March 2019 to February 2020. Sample collection and analysis spanned across two
consecutive successful seasons (March 2019- February 2020) and sampling was done monthly.
According to [6], wet and dry seasons alternate on an average of six months each in Peninsular Malaysia
hence, samples was collected for at least 12 months (Wet season included March – August 2019 while
dry season September 2019– February 2020). In addition to, water samples were also collected with
cleaned/sterilized glass bottles with capacity of 2L for chemical analysis in the laboratory. Thirteen
water quality parameters were studied at nine sampling stations in Puah Reservoir. Physical and
chemical analyses of water samples were done according to the methods described in American Public
Health Association [7]. Water temperature (°C), water pH, Conductivity (EC, mS/cm), total suspended
solid (TSS) and Dissolved oxygen were in-situ measured using calibrated multi meters YSI Professional
Plus handheld multi-probe and a DO meter (YSI Pro DSS Water Quality Digital Meter) respectively.
Transparency and depth were measured using a white/black Secchi Disk (20 cm in diameter) and an
echo-sounder (Model 710679, Speedtech Instruments) respectively. Biological oxygen demand (BOD)
was determined by using the 5 days incubation method. Chemical oxygen demand (COD) was carried
out using the potassium permanganate method. Ammonia was determined by the phenate method. Total
Nitrogen was determined using a colorimetric method with formation of a reddish-purple azo dye. Total
phosphorus (TP) was estimated by using the ascorbic acid-molybdate method.
2.3. Water Quality Index

Water quality index (WQI) is defined as a technique of rating that provides the composite influence of
individual water quality parameter on the overall quality of water [8]. The calculation method of WQI
was developed by [9], which has been widely used by many scientists [10,11,12,13,14&15]. The
mathematical formula of this WQI method is given by:
∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑄𝑖𝑊𝑖
𝑊𝑄𝐼 =
∑𝑛𝑖 𝑊𝑖
th
Where Qi is the sub quality index of i parameter (or Qi is the quality rating scale of each parameter).
W = weight unit of each parameter, n = number of parameters.
2.3.1. Calculation for water quality index. For the calculation of water quality index in this study, eight
important parameters were chosen. The WQ1 has been calculated by using the standard drinking water
quality recommended by World Health Organization (WHO). The process of calculation is as follows;
i. Selection of water quality index parameters: Parameters were selected based on their importance.
ii. Relative weight (Wi): This was calculated using the equation:
𝑤𝑖
𝑊𝑖 =
∑𝑖−1 𝑛𝑤𝑖
Where, Wi= relative weight, wi = is the weight of each parameter n = number of parameters
iii. Quality rating scale (q): This was calculated by dividing the concentration of each water sample by
its respective standard and the result multiplied by 100.
3
𝐶𝑖
𝑞= 𝑋 100
𝑆𝑖
Where Ci = Concentration of each chemical parameter in each water sample, Si = WHO standard for
each chemical parameter.
However, for the purpose of getting quality rating of pH and dissolved oxygen, the expression below
was used.
(𝑉𝑖−𝑉𝑜)
Qi = (𝑆𝑖−𝑉10) 𝑋100
Where;
Qi = quality rating for the ith water parameter
Vi = Estimated value of the ith parameter at a given station (that is, the concentration)
Si = Standard permissible value of the ith parameter
Vio = Ideal value of ith parameter in a pure water.
Note: Ideal value in most cases Vio = 0 except in certain parameters like pH and dissolved oxygen.
Calculation of quality rating for pH is 7 while dissolved oxygen is14.6mg/l
iv. WQI: The overall WQI is calculated by the equation:
∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑄𝑖𝑊𝑖
𝑊𝑄𝐼 =
∑𝑛𝑖 𝑊𝑖
In this study, the WQI level was categories based on permissibility for human consumption or uses.
WQI has been classified into 5 classes according to WHO, the water quality is rated excellent, good,
poor, very poor and unfit when the value of the index lies between ˂50, 50-100, 100-200, 200-300 and
˃300 respectively as shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Illustrates water quality ratings according to the Weighted Arithmetic Water Quality Index
method.
Water quality index levels Description
˂50 Excellent
50-100 Good water
100-200 Poor water
200-300 Very poor (bad) water
˃300 Unsuitable (unfit) for drinking
Source: [16]
3. Results and Discussion

The values of eight physico-chemical parameters of Puah Reservoir were used for calculating the water
quality index (WQI) for twelve months are presented in Tables 3 -12. The WQI of the reservoir is
established from the important physic-chemical parameters studied. The calculation of WQI was
monthly in the nine different sampling stations to investigate the suitability of the reservoir for different
purposes. The physico-chemical results indicate that higher values were observed in Stations 1, 2,4,5,6
and 7 while lower values were observed in Stations 3, 8 and 9 throughout the study. In general, the
results of physico-chemical parameters across stations indicated that most parameters like pH and BOD
in stations 1 to 7 were beyond the permissible limits as prescribed by world health organization (WHO)
standards for drinking water. But other stations (8 and 9) showed lower concentrations within the
desirable limits except for pH. However, increases in values were obtained more in the rainy season
months (March to August) than the dry season months of October to February. Although, September
been a transitional month experience the pick in pH.
4
Table 3. Physiochemical parameter values for all sampling stations in March 2019.
Parameters P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9
Temp (°C) 27.9 28.4 28.6 29.8 27.3 29.9 25.7 27.9 32.2
pH 7.22 7.22 9.15 8.56 9.21 8.81 8.83 8.44 8.35
Cond. (μS/cm) 21.5 20.8 31.2 30.9 23.9 24 22.7 33.7 26.8
TSS (mg/l) 4.7 1.1 1.7 1.3 3 1 1.1 1.4 3.9
DO (mg/l) 0.60 0.54 0.54 0.61 0.58 0.54 0.55 5.85 4.61
Transp. (cm) 1.82 3.34 3.1 2.89 3.94 3.74 3.79 0 0
BOD (mg/l) 4.4 6.1 5.5 5.6 3 3.2 3.1 4 1.5
COD (mg/l) 18 18 18 13 17 18 8 9 13
Nitrite (mg/l) 0 0 0.017 0.004 0 0.003 0 0 0
Nitrate (mg/l) 0 0 0.01 0.01 0 0.01 0 0 0
TP (mg/l) 0 0 0.22 0.51 0.27 0.31 0 0 0
Depth (m) 8.7 19 11.7 9.8 45 33 14.5 0.5 2
Table 4. Physiochemical parameter values for all sampling stations in May 2019.
Temp (°C) 30.5 30.7 31.4 31.2 31.3 31.8 31.9 28.9 32.1
pH 9.01 8.04 7.93 8.4 7.95 7.92 7.9 10.13 9.53
Cond (μS/cm) 0.022 0.021 0.031 0.029 0.026 0.024 0.023 41.2 34
TSS (mg/l) 2.2 0.9 1.7 2.2 0.9 0.9 1.7 1.6 1
DO (mg/l) 6.54 6.40 7.81 6.30 7.54 7.86 6.30 3.40 7.63
Transp. (cm) 2.46 3.3 2.3 2.6 3.1 4.1 3.4 0 0
BOD (mg/l) 2.6 6.6 3 5.5 1.4 2.6 2 1.8 1.7
COD (mg/l) 18 18 15 23 15 15 12 17 16
Nitrite (mg/l) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nitrate (mg/l) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TP (mg/l) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Depth (m) 9 17 10.5 11 18.5 48 13.2 0.52 2
Table 5. Physiochemical parameter values for all sampling stations in June 2019.
Temp (°C) 30.8 30.9 32 31.9 31.5 31.6 31.8 29.9 32.1
pH 8.44 8.89 7.81 7.91 7.19 7.38 7.65 9.13 9.02
Cond (μS/cm) 19.62 19.895 19.905 19.905 19.345 19.49 19.725 56.3 43.2
TSS (mg/l) 3.1 0.7 1.1 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.7 1.6 1
DO (mg/l) 0.46 0.49 0.55 0.48 0.50 0.68 0.48 7.63 7.05
Transp. (cm) 2.46 4.3 3.24 3.12 3.33 2.89 2.2 0 0
BOD (mg/l) 1.7 3.8 2 4.4 3.8 4 4.1 1.7 3.9
COD (mg/l) 18 24 15 23 15 15 12 17 16
Nitrite (mg/l) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nitrate (mg/l) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TP (mg/l) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Depth (m) 8.7 18 10.2 8 29 34 3.4 0.52 3
Cond = conductivity, TSS = total suspended solutes, DO = dissolve oxygen, Transp = transparency, BOD = biochemical
oxygen demand, COD = chemical oxygen demand,TP = total phosphorous.
5
Table 6. Physiochemical parameter values for all sampling stations in July 2019.
Temp (°C) 31 30.7 31.3 31.6 31.7 31.4 31.7 29.8 32
pH 11.89 12.63 7.8 7.81 7.2 7.37 12.93 12.96 12.99
Cond (μS/cm) 0.023 0.022 0.029 0.029 0.027 0.024 0.024 21.38 22.495
TSS (mg/l) 1.8 1.6 2 1 0.7 0.5 0.2 2.9 4.4
DO (mg/l) 0.71 0.66 0.50 0.48 0.50 0.53 0.66 7.19 6.77
Transp. (cm) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BOD (mg/l) 2.6 3.3 2.2 1.5 2.5 4 2.9 3.3 0.3
COD (mg/l) 27 31 16 26 20 11 17 16 18
Nitrite (mg/l) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nitrate (mg/l) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TP (mg/l) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Depth (m) 8.7 18 9.6 9 24.5 31.5 5.75 0.53 3
Table 7. Physiochemical parameter values for all sampling stations in Sept 2019.
Temp (°C) 30.3 30.6 31.4 31.7 22.3 31.6 32 30.1 27.3
pH 14.51 15.23 13.89 15.21 15.4 13.4 14.72 13.48 15.54
Cond (μS/cm) 0.021 0.021 0.029 0.028 0.025 0.024 0.024 0.037 0.042
TSS (mg/l) 0.9 1.2 1.1 1 0.4 1.2 1.2 17.9 0.6
DO (mg/l) 0.62 0.55 0.54 0.52 0.53 0.52 0.52 6.48 7.31
Transp. (cm) 2.34 4.2 3.05 3.65 4.4 4.05 3.05 0 0
BOD (mg/l) 1.6 0.4 1.4 0.9 2.6 2.6 0.1 5.2 1
COD (mg/l) 7 15 5 19 12 25 39 33 8
Nitrite (mg/l) 0.006 0.004 0.001 0.001 0.004 0.006 0.003 0.011 0.007
Nitrate (mg/l) 0.03 0.05 0.01 0.02 0 0 0.01 0.01 0
TP (mg/l) 0.21 0.3 0.43 0.04 0.39 0.23 0.29 0.67 0.2
Depth (m) 8.7 18 9 10 20 29 8.1 0.54 3
Table 8. Physiochemical parameter values for all sampling stations in Oct 2019.
Temp (°C) 28.9 30.1 32 31.3 31.5 31 30.7 29.6 27.1
pH 6.82 7.1 6.8 7.4 7.36 7.4 7.38 7.54 6.5
Cond (μS/cm) 28.6 24.9 35.1 32 28.3 27.9 27 45.3 60.6
TSS (mg/l) 3 1.3 1 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 7.3 14.2
DO (mg/l) 0.56 0.51 0.50 0.52 0.53 0.50 0.50 7.38 4.17
Transp. (cm) 8.2 2.4 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.5 3.3 0.5 1
BOD (mg/l) 3.7 2.7 2.2 2.2 2.4 0.4 0.5 7.8 0.3
COD (mg/l) 20 19 20 8 1 1 1 8 1
Nitrite (mg/l) 0.009 0.005 0.007 0.005 0.009 0.007 0.006 0.007 0.007
Nitrate (mg/l) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0
TP (mg/l) 0.15 0.14 0.19 0.1 0.4 0.2 1.3 0.49 0.1
6
Depth (m) 5.5 9.8 10.5 6.5 30 36 13 1 5

Cond = conductivity, TSS = total suspended solutes, DO = dissolve oxygen, Transp = transparency, BOD =
biochemical oxygen demand, COD = chemical oxygen demand,TP = total phosphorous.
Table 9. Physiochemical parameter values for all sampling stations in Nov 2019.
Temp (°C) 27.8 28.4 29.1 29 28.8 28.8 28.9 27.4 25.8
pH 6.6 6.6 6.59 6.9 6.6 6.64 6.6 6.9 6.98
Cond (μS/cm) 22.8 23 29.1 28.7 25.1 24.7 23.7 84.2 87.2
TSS (mg/l) 1.1 1.4 0.9 0.7 1.5 1.4 1.4 13 3.1
DO (mg/l) 0.62 0.51 0.51 0.54 0.51 0.52 0.52 5.22 1.76
Transp. (cm) 5.4 3.12 2.97 3.11 1.8 3.15 3.44
BOD (mg/l) 4.2 5.2 4.59 4.83 3.975 5.4 15.4 4.7
COD (mg/l) 9 5 9 0 0 4 11 7 1
Nitrite (mg/l) 0.006 0.007 0.007 0.003 0 0.006 0.008 0.1 0.004
Nitrate (mg/l) 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01
TP (mg/l) 0.57 0.44 0.3 0.4 0.38 0.58 0.4 0.29 0.37
Depth (m) 7 23 9.5 6 30 30 15 0.49 4.5
Table 10. Physiochemical parameter values for all sampling stations in Dec 2019.
Temp (°C) 22.8 26 26.4 26.5 26.4 26.4 26.4 26.1 25.2
pH 4.5 66.4 6.45 6.2 6.4 6.1 6.5 6.8 6.91
Cond (μS/cm) 9.3 21 30 30.4 25.8 25.5 23 85.3 88.3
TSS (mg/l) 180.5 3.7 0.9 3 2.5 2.2 2.7 33.9 2
DO (mg/l) 0.53 0.55 0.61 0.61 0.51 0.51 0.60 6.33 1.91
Transp. (cm) 0.1 2.86 2.21 1.7 1 0.1 0.18
BOD (mg/l) 1.7 1.5 1.4 7.6 2.8 2.2 2.2 10.4 0.2
COD (mg/l) 25 31 28 25 30 20 6 61 7
Nitrite (mg/l) 0.014 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.004 0.002 0.005 0.001 0.004
Nitrate (mg/l) 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01
TP (mg/l) 0.79 0.4 0.37 0.33 1.04 1.24 0.54 0.24 0.19
Depth (m) 13 21.5 10.7 8.5 18.5 43 10.1 0.49 4
Table 11. Physiochemical parameter values for all sampling stations in Jan 2020.
Temp (°C) 28.3 27.7 28.6 28.8 27.9 27.4 28.2 26.3 27.7
pH 6.2 6.3 6.6 7 6.7 6.59 6.8 12.42 7.1
Cond (μS/cm) 23.4 21 32.1 32.7 26.2 26.2 25.3 48.1 31.6
TSS (mg/l) 2.5 1.9 2.2 1.8 1.9 0.8 1.4 2.7 1.5
DO (mg/l) 0.52 0.43 0.45 0.42 0.45 0.45 0.48 0.80 0.68
Transp. (cm) 1.88 2.59 2.18 2.2 3.1 3 2.4 0 0
BOD (mg/l) 0 0 0 0 1.2 3 0 1.2 1.1
COD (mg/l) 1 3 3 3 1 4 2 5 1
Nitrite (mg/l) 0.006 0.005 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.003 0.006 0.001 0.002
7
Nitrate (mg/l) 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.05
TP (mg/l) 0.44 0.34 0.7 0.45 0.24 1.2 0.8 0.49 0.32
Depth (m) 9 20 7 12 21 32 12.5 0.58 3.8
biochemical oxygen demand, COD = chemical oxygen demand,TP = total phosphorous.
Table 12. Physiochemical parameter values for all sampling stations in Feb 2020.
Temp (°C) 29.2 28.7 29.3 28.9 28.4 28.1 28.2 25.7 28.8
pH 5.7 5.57 5.9 6.17 5.98 6.17 6.05 6.34 6.54
Cond (μS/cm) 83.8 22.8 34.5 33.4 27.4 24.7 25.4 43.3 43.7
TSS (mg/l) 2.6 2 1.2 1.1 4.4 1.7 1.6 8.7 25.6
DO (mg/l) 0.56 0.43 0.53 0.57 0.53 0.59 0.55 7.55 7.02
Transp. (cm) 1.98 2.75 2.52 2.4 2.95 2.5 2.3 0 0
BOD (mg/l) 4.9 2.5 3.8 2.6 2.8 4.5 3.6 1.5 1.3
COD (mg/l) 23 82 136 167 111 28 57 4 45
Nitrite (mg/l) 13.95 42.25 69.9 84.8 56.9 16.25 30.3 2.75 23.15
Nitrate (mg/l) 18.475 62.125 102.95 125.9 83.95 22.125 43.65 3.375 34.075
TP (mg/l) 9.5 0.26 0.69 0.53 0.26 0.28 0.46 0.92 0.85
Depth (m) 8.85 15.5 13.5 10.5 30 33 9.5 0.54 3
biochemical oxygen demand, COD = chemical oxygen demand, TP = total phosphorous.
Table 13 presents the result of WQI of station 4 for October 2019. This result of 34.68 has been
calculated as an example for the method of calculating WQI by applying the values of the basic elements
of; actual measured value (Vi) water quality standard value (Si), weight, relative (unit) weight (Wi),
Quality rating (Qi) and the weighted values in the corresponded equations.
∑𝑛
𝑖=1 𝑄𝑖𝑊𝑖 4.302102
𝑊𝑄𝐼 = ∑𝑛
= = 34.68
𝑖 𝑊𝑖 0.12406
Table 19 reveals the WQI values and means for all sampling stations during the period of study.
The index values shows that stations 1,2,4,5,6 and 7 fell under the poor water condition (100-200) while
station 3, 8 and 9 is in the range of good water (50-100) except in July and September were the water
slights into very bad water (200-300). Stations 4 and 7 indicated pollution as they fell into very bad
water (200-300) and unsuitable for drinking (>300) categories during the transitional month from wet
to dry season). Therefore, the quality of water at stations 4 and 7 was unfit for human uses during
September.
Table 13. An example of WQI for P4 Oct 2019.
Parameters Observed Standard Unit Weight Quality Wi Qi

Value (Vi) Value (Si) (Wi) Rating
(Qi)
pH 7.4 8.5 0.02 26.67 0.533
Cond (μS/cm) 32 300 0.088 10.67 0.939
TSS (mg/l) 0.7 500 0.002 0.14 0.0003
DO (mg/l) 0.52 5 0.001 149.89 0.1498
Transp. (cm) 2.7 0.5 0.007 5.4 0.038
BOD (mg/l) 2.2 5 0.006 440 2.64
Nitrite (mg/l) 0.005 0.003 0.00001 16.67 0.002
Nitrate (mg/l) 0.02 45 0.00005 0.044 0.000002
45.545 ∑𝑛𝑖 𝑊𝑖 =0.12406 ∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑄𝑖𝑊𝑖 =4.302102
Water Quality Index =Σ Wi Qi / Σ Wi = 34.68
8
The results of this investigation revealed many remarkable features about the pollution status of Puah
Reservoir. Notably is that none of the nine stations sampled have WQI of <50 during the wet season
except station 1 and 2 (June) and station 8 and 9 (March - October) which implies that the water in all
the mentioned stations and months were fit for human consumption directly without treatment. At
station 1, the WQI ranged from 363.07 in September to 17.06 in October 2019 with a mean of 107.423.
At station 2, the highest WQI was in the month of September (485.71) and lowest in the month of
October (17.22) with a mean of 154.358. Station 3 WQI varied between 33.45 in January 2020 and
132.18 in September 2019 with a mean of 78.556. The fluctuation in the WQI in stations 1 and 2
indicated that the water of the Puah Reservoir at these stations remained slightly polluted for only
September of the year as stations 1 and 2 are similar. Station 3 shows cleaner water throughout the year
as it was devoid of any direct source of pollution unlike stations 1 and 2 being the first point of contact
with the water from the main source (River Terengganu). Increased load of pollution as reflected in
WQI values was observed during the raining months of March to October in all stations studied. This
is not unconnected with the flooding brought about by rainfall which brings in organic materials from
the surrounding watershed that led to increase in some physiochemical parameters. These inputs are
however reduced in the dry season. Water of Puah Reservoir of stations 4 to 7 remained very poor
during the wet season. In station 4, highest WQI value 405.84 was observed in September while lowest
value of 34.68 was observed in October with a mean of 135.04. In station 5, highest value of WQI was
244.49 in the month of September and lowest of 23.99 in month of October with a mean of 103.523.
Increase in pollution levels of these brackish stations may be as a result of a high level of pH, BOD and
nitrates present in the physiochemical analysis. Station 8 and 9 shows cleaner water throughout the year
as it was devoid of any direct source of pollution unlike other stations. In station 8 and 9, highest WQI
values 149.12 and 125.86 were observed in September and July respectively while lowest values of
28.96 and 11.52 were observed in December and January 2020 with a means of 66.54 and 48.04
respectively. WQI mean ranged from 48.04 to 154.36 indicates that all stations are good. Therefore,
based on this study it was observed that none of the water in the stations is fit for direct human
consumption except at station 9. All stations were observed to be relatively clean and may be used for
swimming, bathing, laundry, irrigation and other industrial purposes.
Table 14. WQI and mean values for all stations from March 2019-February 2020.
WQI values
Months/year P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9
March 2019 45.80 34.94 92.91 72.10 118.15 104.16 44.87 33.49 33.67
May 2019 135.54 299.59 99.52 98.72 143.85 193.13 158.96 38.99 42.65
June 2019 41.24 138.40 80.32 314.13 77.20 68.10 49.96 47.52 27.27
July 2019 107.97 305.93 113.40 200.56 222.59 218.20 351.82 41.22 125.86
Sept 2019 363.07 485.71 132.18 405.84 244.49 266.93 392.15 149.12 66.27
Oct 2019 17.06 17.22 40.26 34.68 23.99 22.34 22.03 27.96 22.93
Nov 2019 150.06 90.71 64.18 58.58 47.23 73.07 86.69 61.88 32.78
Dec 2019 45.86 65.80 51.92 60.23 36.47 35.89 35.84 28.96 29.72
Jan 2020 67.89 71.02 33.45 44.78 63.62 55.16 37.48 144.15 11.52
Feb 2020 99.74 34.26 77.42 60.78 57.64 54.01 53.29 92.06 87.71
WQI Mean values 107.423 154.358 78.556 135.04 103.523 109.099 123.309 66.535 48.038
4. Conclusion
In conclusion the various parameters viz. water temperature, transparency, pH value, electrical
conductivity, TSS, BOD, COD, DO, phosphate and nitrogen were tested of Puah Reservoir water which
were found between the range of WHO permissible limit. Based on water quality index grading, the
reservoir water has been classified as poor due to water from the rock (embedded with nutrients),
rainfall, intrusion from reserved animals and consequential alga bloom. However, there are some
locations that were unfit for drinking such as P1 (September 2019), P2 (July and September 2019), P4
(June and September 2019) and P7 (July and September 2019). Although, the result for the mean WQI
for all the stations/locations revealed that the water is fit for drinking purpose by any form of treatment.
9
However, it’s relatively good for swimming, bathing, laundry, irrigation and industrial purposes. This
condition showed that the activities of Tambat and Puah hydro-power generation had no negative effect
on the water quality of upper and lower parts of Puah Reservoir respectively.
References
[1] Arman A 2020 Spatial distribution, fractionation and ecological risk assessment of potentially
toxic metals in bottom sediments of the Zarivar freshwater Lake (Northwestern Iran).
Limnologica.
[2] Afify D G Al-Afify, Usama M T and Mohammed H A 2019 Egyptian J. Aquatic Bio. Fish. 23
(1) 341 -357.
[3] Punita P and Unadkat K 2018 Int. J. Allied Practice, Res. Review 1 (1) 6-15.
[4] Pandey M and Sundram S M 2002 Int. J. Ecol. Environ. Sci. 28 139- 142.
[5] NAHRIM 2009 Study on the Status of Eutrophication of Lakes in Malaysia. Seri Kembangan.
[6] Zarul H H, Amir Shah R Md S, Mohd S M, Muzzalifah A H and Mashhor M 2016 In-situ
parameters and nutrients of Temengor reservoir. In: Lakes Ecosystem and Services;
Temengor resercoir, Malaysia and Selected Indonesian Lakes. Redhouse Business Solution,
pp.19-23.
[7] APHA 2005 Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. American water
works, association and water pollution control Federation (sd), 21st Ed. (American public
Health Association Washington DC: USA.)
[8] Al-Mohammed FM and Mutasher AA 2013 J. Babylon Univ./Eng. Sci. 21 (5) 1647-60.
[9] Brown R M, McCleiland N J, Deininger R A and O’Connor M F 1972 A Water Quality Index-
Crossing the Psychological Barrier. In: Jenkis, S. H. (Ed.), Proc. Int. Conf. on Water Poll.
Res., Jerusalem 6 787 - 797.
[10] Balan I N, Shivakumar M and Kumar P D M 2012 Chronicles Young Scient. 3 (2) 146 - 150.
[11] Chowdhury R M, Muntasir S Y and Hossain M M 2012 Glob. Eng. Tech. Rev. 2 (3) 1-8.
[12] Tyagi S, Sharma B, Singh P and Dobhal R 2013 Am. J. Water Res. 1 34 – 38.
[13] Odiba J, Aremu M, Odoh R, Yebpella G and Shenge G 2014 J. Env. Earth Sci. 4 1 – 9.
[14] Akter T, Jhohura F, Akter F, Chowdhury T, Mistry S, Dey D, Barua M, Islam M, Rahman M 2016
J. Health Pop. Nutr. 35 4–8.
[15] Oboh I P and Agbala C S 2017 Afri J. Aqua. Sci. 42 279- 286.
[16] Ramakrishniah C R, Sadashivaiah C and Ranganna D 2009 e-J. Chem. 6 (2) 523-530.
10
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.

Assessment of Water Quality in

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assessment of Water Quality in

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assessment of Water Quality in

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The 10th AIC-ELS 2020 IOP Publishing

Assessment of water quality index of Puah Reservoir, Hulu

M K Abubakar1*, M S A S Ruddin1, E A Filza2, S Ahmad Nazri2 and M S Shahril2

*Corresponding author’s e-mail: [email protected], [email protected]

2. Materials and Methods

Table 1. Longitude, Latitude and names of sampling stations in Puah Reservoir.

2.2. Physical and Chemical Analyses

2.3. Water Quality Index

3. Results and Discussion

Depth (m) 5.5 9.8 10.5 6.5 30 36 13 1 5

Table 13. An example of WQI for P4 Oct 2019.

Parameters Observed Standard Unit Weight Quality Wi Qi

You might also like