water

Review
Modification of the Water Quality Index (WQI) Process for
Simple Calculation Using the Multi-Criteria Decision-Making
(MCDM) Method: A Review
Naseem Akhtar 1 , Muhammad Izzuddin Syakir Ishak 1,2, *, Mardiana Idayu Ahmad 1 , Khalid Umar 3 ,
Mohamad Shaiful Md Yusuff 1 , Mohd Talha Anees 4 , Abdul Qadir 5 and Yazan Khalaf Ali Almanasir 1

1 School of Industrial Technology, Division of Environmental Technology, Universiti Sains Malaysia,

Gelugor 11800, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia; [email protected] (N.A.); [email protected] (M.I.A.);
[email protected] (M.S.M.Y.); [email protected] (Y.K.A.A.)
2 Centre for Global Sustainability Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Gelugor 11800, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia
3 School of Chemical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Gelugor 11800, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia;
[email protected]
4 Department of Geology, Faculty of Science, University of Malaya, Petaling Jaya 50603, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia; [email protected]
5 School of Physics, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Gelugor 11800, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia;
[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]



Abstract: Human activities continue to affect our water quality; it remains a major problem world-

 wide (particularly concerning freshwater and human consumption). A critical water quality index
Citation: Akhtar, N.; Ishak, M.I.S.; (WQI) method has been used to determine the overall water quality status of surface water and
Ahmad, M.I.; Umar, K.; Md Yusuff, groundwater systems globally since the 1960s. WQI follows four steps: parameter selection, sub-
M.S.; Anees, M.T.; Qadir, A.; Ali indices, establishing weights, and final index aggregation, which are addressed in this review.
Almanasir, Y.K. Modification of the However, the WQI method is a prolonged process and applied to specific water quality parameters,
Water Quality Index (WQI) Process
i.e., water consumption (particular area and time) and other purposes. Therefore, this review dis-
for Simple Calculation Using the
cusses the WQI method in simple steps, for water quality assessment, based on two multi-criteria
Multi-Criteria Decision-Making
decision-making (MCDM) methods: (1) analytical hierarchical process (AHP); and (2) measuring
(MCDM) Method: A Review. Water
attractiveness by a categorically based evaluation technique (MACBETH). MCDM methods can
2021, 13, 905. https://doi.org/
10.3390/w13070905
facilitate easy calculations, with less effort and great accuracy. Moreover, the uncertainty and eclips-
ing problems are also discussed—a challenge at every step of WQI development, particularly for
Academic Editor: Sophia Barinova parameter selection and establishing weights. This review will help provide water management
authorities with useful knowledge pertaining to water usage or modification of existing indicators
Received: 2 February 2021 globally, and contribute to future WQI planning and studies for drinking, irrigation, domestic, and
Accepted: 11 March 2021 industrial purposes.
Published: 26 March 2021

Keywords: water quality assessment; physicochemical and biological parameters; water quality
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral index; multi-criteria decision-making; analytical hierarchical process; MACBETH
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.

1. Introduction
Water quality is intrinsically connected to human health, food production, gender
equality, reduction of poverty, ecosystem livelihoods, economic development, and social
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
growth in our communities [1]. It is also one of the major problems in water resource
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
planning and management. Furthermore, an increase in urbanization, construction, agri-
This article is an open access article
cultural activities, industrial applications, and natural processes has adversely impacted
distributed under the terms and
the quality of surface water and groundwater, and its effects on human health throughout
conditions of the Creative Commons
the world, as shown in Figure 1 [2]. Water quality is usually classified into biological,
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
physical, and chemical parameters, and there are several parameters for each category [3].
4.0/).
The evaluation of these three categories, based on parameters through field monitoring

Water 2021, 13, 905. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13070905 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/water

Water 2021, 13, x 2 of 34
Water 2021, 13, 905 2 of 34

The evaluation of these three categories, based on parameters through field monitoring of
of water
water sampling,
sampling, provides
provides essential
essential information
information for for identifying
identifying trends,
trends, a wider
a wider range
range of
of knowledge
knowledge to water
to water resource
resource authorities,
authorities, and and
futurefuture planning
planning recommendations
recommendations [4].
[4]. Wa-
Water
ter quality
quality analysis
analysis typically
typically relates
relates to to
thethe qualityofofnatural
quality naturalwater
waterand
anditsitspossible
possible uses
uses
(drinking,domestic,
(drinking, domestic,irrigation,
irrigation,andandindustries).
industries).InIn reality,
reality, it is
it is expensive
expensive and and laborious
laborious to
to monitor the parameters of multiple contamination sources entering
monitor the parameters of multiple contamination sources entering into surface water into surface water
bodiesand
bodies andgroundwater
groundwater systems.
systems. Furthermore,
Furthermore, numerous
numerous researchers
researchers and and scientists
scientists have
have
faced difficulties in describing and addressing water in a consolidated
faced difficulties in describing and addressing water in a consolidated and simple way and simple way [5].
These difficulties happen because of the complexity of water quality
[5]. These difficulties happen because of the complexity of water quality parameters and parameters and the
wide
the variability
wide variabilityin in
parameters
parameters utilized
utilizedforforcharacterizing
characterizingthe thestatus
statusofof water
water quality
quality of of
water resources. This has contributed to several comprehensive efforts,
water resources. This has contributed to several comprehensive efforts, without losing its without losing its
scientific basis,
scientific basis, to
to define
define the
the water
water quality
quality status
status inin simple
simple ways
ways [6].
[6].

Figure 1. Shows
Figure 1. Showsthethe quality
quality of surface
of surface water
water and and groundwater
groundwater resourcesbydegrading
resources degrading anthropogenicby
anthropogenic and natural processes from various sources, as well as the effect on human health
and natural processes from various sources, as well as the effect on human health through these activities.
through these activities.
Regardless of this development, a simple evaluation of the water quality of groundwa-
Regardless
ter and of this
surface water development,
is challenging a simpleThe
to determine. evaluation
combinedofimpact the water
of many quality of
different
groundwater and surface water is challenging to determine. The combined
factors that characterize the water quality and the challenges of classifying the significant impact of
many different
parameters usedfactors that characterize
to measure the status of thewater
waterresources
quality and the challenges
quantitatively of classifying
are very complex
the significant parameters used to measure the status of water resources
to understand. Therefore, the water quality index (WQI) is considered a mathematical tool quantitatively
are
thatvery complex minimizes
significantly to understand. Therefore,
the complex water thequality
water data
quality
setsindex (WQI) isaconsidered
and provides single clas-
asifying
mathematical
value thattool that significantly
describes minimizes
the water quality theofcomplex
status wateror
water bodies quality
degreedata sets and
of pollution.
provides
Furthermore,a single
WQI classifying
is a singlevalue that describes
dimensionless the water
number quality status
that describes of water bodies
the overview of the
or degree
overall of pollution.
water Furthermore,
quality status in a simple WQI wayis aby
single dimensionless
aggregating number thatofdescribes
the measurements selected
the overviewsuch
parameters of the
as overall waterdissolved
pH, nitrate, quality status
oxygen in (DO),
a simple waymetal.
heavy by aggregating
[7]. As earlytheasmeas-
1965,
urements of selected parameters such as pH, nitrate, dissolved oxygen
this method was introduced through mathematical equations to determine water quality (DO), heavy metal.
[7]. As early
status in theasriver
1965,bythis method
Horton [8].wasTheintroduced through mathematical
WQI is determined based on variousequations to de-
biological,
termine
physical,water quality status
and chemical in the that
parameters riverdefine
by Horton [8]. The
the various WQI is determined
purposes of utilizationbased on
of water
various
bodies forbiological,
human physical, and chemical
consumption, parametersdrinking,
such as recreation, that define the various
industries, purposesand
irrigation, of
utilization
domestic. of water
After thebodies for human
proposed WQI methodconsumption, such the
by Horton, as recreation,
numbers of drinking, indus-
WQI methods
tries,
have irrigation, and domestic.
been developed After
for various the proposed
purposes WQI method
by numerous by Horton,
organizations the the
across numbers
globe,
such as the National Sanitation Foundation Water Quality Index (NSFWQI) [9], Scottish
Water 2021, 13, 905 3 of 34

Research Development Department (SRDD) [10], River Status Index (RSI) [11], Canadian
Council of Ministers of the Environment Water Quality Index (CCMEWQI) [12], British
Columbia Water Quality Index (BCWQI) [13], Overall Index of Pollution (OIP) [14], Oregon
Water Quality Index (OWQI) [15], Bhargava Method Water Quality Index (BMWQI) [16],
Malaysia Water Quality Index (MWQI) [17], Water Contamination Index (WCI) [18], Vaal
Water Quality Index (Vaal WQI) [19], etc.
Moreover, four common steps have been used in the WQI method, including the pa-
rameters selection, sub-indices establishment, assigning of weights (equally or unequally),
and aggregation of sub-indices to obtain the final index [4]. Previous studies have shown
that most researchers have applied all steps (because they used unequal weights, such
as NSFWQI, SRDD, MWQI, etc.). Some of them used three steps (equal weights, such as
OIP, WCI, RSI, etc.), but few of them reported that they directly used the formula for water
quality assessment (CCMEWQI) [20]. Furthermore, the WQI method has been applied for
different purposes, but mainly for surface water quality (especially for river water) [21–29],
groundwater quality [1,30–36], and wetland [37–42] across the world. Moreover, the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the Republic of Serbia also utilizes WQI to inform
about the overall status of the river water system [43]. In this technique, a large resource
of water is easily accessed for water quality assessment because of the consistent scale
using the WQI equation. Multiple parameters are used to calculate in a single number and
the flexibility of selecting the characteristics of water quality. However, the calculation
of WQI is a prolonged process in which numerous national and international standards
are taken into consideration, in terms of criteria of water consumption. This makes the
process more complicated, despite having simple calculations. Moreover, it is easy to
bias the process of selecting parameters and calculating the individual weighting values.
Therefore, the covered parameters cannot be definite in number that they would give a
simple WQI; it may not be enough to understand, as a whole, the WQI of a large water
body because certain parameters can influence the water quality in a wider manner, which
can be neglected during the calculation.
The literature reviewed indicates that all of the indices have their limitations and
strengths; therefore, many organizations and agencies do not consider this methodology
for developing a WQI worldwide [7,44]. However, it is pertinent to mention that the
strengths and weaknesses of the processes in establishing WQI for water quality assessment
can be simplified by multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approaches to evaluate the
parameter’s weight separately. In previous years, analytical techniques have significantly
increased to resolve the problems related to water resources, where MCDM procedures
are generally regarded as very effective in addressing water management problems [45].
The effectiveness of such procedures depends on the conceptual framework of assessment
processes and on the common language used to identify and address complex water
challenges. Moreover, MCDM easily allows—in the process of decision-making—the
impact of uncertainties that often define water management problems [46]. In previous
decades, several authors have applied the MCDM method to various purposes in water
resource management, assessment of water quality [46,47] as well as in other areas, to
solve problems surrounding the environment, energy, and sustainability [48], safety and
risk management [49], and technology and information management [50]. There are
numerous MCDM approaches available for solving problems related to water resources,
such as analytical network process (ANP), analytical hierarchical process (AHP), data
envelopment analysis (DEA), fuzzy decision-making (FDM), measuring attractiveness by a
categorically based evaluation technique (MACBETH), simple additive weighting (SAW),
supply chain management (SCM), a technique for order preference by similarity to ideal
solution (TOPSIS), compromise programming (CP), etc. [51–55].
The procedure for calculating the WQI, based on four fundamentals, was considered
a prolonged process of steps to obtain the value of the final index; however we discuss
these steps in this review article. Furthermore, two MCDM methods (AHP, MACBETH) are
described to provide an easy calculation of WQI to evaluate the water quality. Therefore,
Water 2021, 13, 905 4 of 34

developing a simple WQI calculation process, with less effort and better accuracy, based
on MCDM techniques for the determination of the quality of subsurface water and surface
water, was the main purpose of this review.

2. Overview and Purposes of Developing Water Quality Index (WQI)

This review paper reviewed 46 water quality indices (WQIs) based on 167 publications
in this study. Whereas 144 publications have been taken from the Web of Science (WOF)
and Scopus, the remaining 23 publications were related to books and reports. Moreover,
the comparison of different WQI method has been discussed in Table 1. Furthermore, WQI
methods have been developed with four common steps (parameter selection, sub-indices,
establishing weights, aggregation method), published from the 1960s to 2020, and are
listed in Table 2, Section 3.2.3. Whereas, the WQI method is used for unequal weights to
achieving the final index, as shown in Supplementary Materials Table S1, and for equal
weights, as listed in Table S2. There are four common steps of WQI used throughout the
indices, reviewed for each of the aforementioned steps required for the final index value of
a WQI, as discussed in Section 3. Moreover, the method that can make an easy calculation
for WQI with less effort, and provide accuracy, has been studied with the help of MCDM
techniques (AHP, MACBETH) in Section 4.

2.1. Comparison of WQI

Studies by Landwehr and Deininger [56], supported by Ott [57], were among the
first prevalent comparative studies on WQI used in the United States, providing detailed
descriptions on theories and practices of the environmental index. Moreover, more than
20 WQIs were reviewed by Steinhart et al. [58] until the late 1970s. Cooper et al [59]
and Richardson [60] proposed the production of indices for estuaries in Australia and
South Africa, respectively. Moreover, around 30 WQIs were used throughout the globe;
their contributions were used in Europe by Van Helmond and Breukel [61]. Pesce and
Wunderlin [62] contrasted the quality of the Suquía River in Argentina with three WQI.
Pesce and Wunderlin [62] contrasted the quality of the Suquía River in Argentina with
three WQI. Then, the “subjective” and “objective” WQIs were calculated according to the
normalized values, weight was allocated, and a constant representing the visual perception
of the contamination level of the monitoring station was assigned in the case of a subjective
index. A third “minimal” index has been estimated for only three parameters by the
average normalized value. The study showed that the third minimum index was well-
associated with the objective index, but that both WQIs were typically correlated with the
calculated levels of various parameters.
The performance of many WQIs on Croatian waters have been compared by Stambuk-
Giljanovik [63], in a similar study, and these indices were related to the objective index
performed in Argentina. The results showed that the two updated arithmetic indices have
been perfectly suited to distinguish areas according to the conditions of water quality.
Liou et al. [11] established a WQI in Taiwan that specified nine parameters and provided
them with standardized scores, in accordance with pre-developed rating curves. This
index is based on the geometric means of the standardized values. Kim and Cardone [64]
established the “Scatterscore” index to investigate water quality changes over space and
time. This index does not depend on standards or guidelines for water quality and may
comprise an unlimited set of parameters. Moreover, it was mainly utilized to predict—
negatively or positively—water quality modifications around mining locations in the
United States; however, it can also be applied to non-impacted locations. Tsegaye et al. [65]
established an index based on the chemical data of 18 streams in one lake basin in northern
Alabama, which contributes seven parameters to the maximum concentration of each
parameter, after standardizing each parameter. Comparison of the WQI based on a national
and global level is presented in Table 1.
Water 2021, 13, 905 5 of 34

Table 1. The development of WQI and its compariosn based on national or regional scale.

Index (Author) Method Objectives

Water quality index for Evaluate water quality for freshwater life against guidelines. Inland water
freshwater life [12]
The well–being of Evaluate inhabitants indices against ecosystem indices. Human and ecosystem
nations [66]
Overall index of Evaluating and categorising a range of water quality parameters in Stream/river health
pollution [14] comparison with the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) and other
recognized guidelines such as World health organization (WHO).
Index of river water Using the multiplicative aggregate process for a variety of water Stream/river health
quality [11] quality parameters as standardized scores.
The Scatterscore [64] Evaluate decreases or incraeses in parameters over space and time. Water quality
Chemical water quality Evaluate a range of parameters by standardizing the maximum Lake basin
index [65] concentration of each measurement to every parameter.
Environmental Using a targeted proximity calculation for 16 indexes classified into six Environmental health and
performance index [67] policy goals. ecosystem vitality

2.2. Importance of WQI

In general, WQI is the comparison of the amount with an arbitrary or scientific
standard or with a pre-specified base. Therefore, the WQI monitored and reported environ-
mental status and trends on standards quantitatively. The WQI method provides effective
information on the degree of purity and pollution of water, by avoiding an overwhelming
quantity of data to demonstrate water quality [68]. The WQI tool also facilitates a perfect
quality monitoring system accessible. The monitoring data should formulate easy to com-
prehend indices to executive management and the overall development of public policies
to accomplish this. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS)’s Planning Committee on
Environmental Indices [69], found that environmental indicators play an active role in
assisting with program design, assigning policy details, and communicating facilitation
with affected individuals.
Ott [57] identified the following six basic usages of WQI after examining relevant liter-
ature available on the subject: resource assignment, standard enforcement, trend analysis,
location ranking, public information, and scientific research. This means that indices are
descriptive and objective methods for evaluating water quality trends. Parameters are not
concisely graphical against one another, or against time, and do not explicitly indicate the
patterns due to overlap in data and volume.
• Scientific research: indices can be used to minimize a large number of data into a
process that provide insight into research and perform an analysis of many of these
environmental programs.
• Public information: indices can be applied to educate the public on environmental
conditions.
• Trend analysis: indices can be utilized for environmental information, at various time
periods, to evaluate changes in environmental quality that have taken place over
the period.
• Standard enforcement: indices can be applied to particular areas to evaluate the extent
to which legislature standards and existing criteria are fulfilled or exceeded.
• Resource assignment: the location ranking, by evaluating the environmental condi-
tions at various places or geographical regions.
Almost every WQI relies on normalization, the data parameter-by-parameter, as per
the predicted concentration levels, and the interpretation of “bad” versus “good” levels.
After this, index is calculated as a weighted average for all observed values, with weighted
parameters according to their perceived significance to overall water quality. The purposes
Water 2021, 13, 905 6 of 34

of the WQI method are, particularly, for the evaluation of the overall status of water
quality (parameters of physical, biological, and chemical) and the use of water resources
for multiple purposes. WQI methods were developed by individuals, organizations, and
agencies, and classified into four groups (discussed below):
• Specific indices: the water classification in this category is based on the type of use
and requirement (drinking, irrigation, industries, bathing, etc.), which is defined by
OWQI, CCME, etc.
• Public indices: the type of water used in the assessment process, such as NSFWQI,
(Horton 1965), are ignored in this category.
• Statistical indices: the statistical approaches are used in these indices and personal
opinions are not included.
• Planning indices: this step includes an instrument tool that facilitates decision-making
and makes a plan for managing water quality projects.

2.3. Background History and Concept of WQI

The first concept of WQI was developed in Germany (1848) for describing the water
quality, according to the level of cleanliness or pollution of water bodies [5]. After this,
Kolkwitz and Marsson [70] developed the “saprobic index (provides a saprobial index value
based on the composition of organic pollution)” during the 19th century, as a biological
principle to evaluate the water quality. Later on, the concept of water quality in the
context of the saprobic index was established, and continued over a century to establish
a simple mathematical technique to evaluate the water quality, based on ten parameters
by Horton [8]. Horton defined a new approach in the context of a rating system for
the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission and described the WQI method by
choosing, rating, and integrating the important selected biological, chemical, and physical
water quality characteristics. Each parameter has a rating scale ranging from 0 to 100.
Each parameter is assigned a weighting value between one and four, according to its
possible effect on the final index score [20]. A four-weight factor is allocated to high-quality
parameters, while one-weight factor was assigned to those with low quality of water.
Furthermore, numerous WQI models have been defined by multiple international and
national organizations; the process depends on the area, place, purpose of water use,
and water quality parameters for specific purposes (e.g., NSFWQI, CCMEWQI, OWQI,
etc.) [71]. These organizations have demonstrated the significance of different WQI for
water quality assessment, their current uses, and the steps used in their formulation. They
also presented future recommendations and discussed the need to establish a globally
accessible WQI method that is sufficiently flexible to split the existing information into
various purposes for water quality analysis. WQI is also considered a significant aspect of
the more comprehensive natural resources or environmental indices, such as the Stream
Index [72] and the Environmental Performance Index [73].
The common framework of WQI is seen in Figure 2; it indicates a range of parameters
of water quality, which are transformed into a specific scale. These transformations occur
as the measured water quality data have distinct units or ranges. Such parameter values,
which are transformed into a general scale, are considered sub-indices; after obtaining
the sub-indices, the final index value is aggregated. The aggregation process can occur in
the two consecutive phases, as shown in Figure 2, from the sub-indices to the aggregated
sub-indices (whether there are existing aggregated sub-indices), then from the aggregated
sub-index to the final index. After all of these stages are competed, the final index will be
described to measure or determine the water quality status. The previous study indicates
that the information obtained from the WQI can usually be utilized for the specified
purposes, such as (1) to assist the community and the policymakers in avoiding subsequent
biased views and subjective assessments [63], (2) to compare water quality from multiple
sources and locations without a highly rigorous evaluation of water quality data [74],
(3) to provide water authorities and the wider community with an overall water quality
 index to the final index. After all of these stages are competed, the final index will be de-
scribed to measure or determine the water quality status. The previous study indicates
that the information obtained from the WQI can usually be utilized for the specified pur-
Water 2021, 13, 905 poses, such as (1) to assist the community and the policymakers in avoiding subsequent 7 of 34
biased views and subjective assessments [63], (2) to compare water quality from multiple
sources and locations without a highly rigorous evaluation of water quality data [74], (3)
to provide water authorities and the wider community with an overall water quality sta-
status [75]
tus [75] and
and (4)(4)
to to study
study thethe environmental
environmental quality
quality impacts
impacts of administrative
of administrative policies
policies and
and environmental programs
environmental programs [76]. [76].

Figure2.2.This
Figure Thisfigure
figureisisshowing
showingthe
thecommon
commonstructure
structureofofthe
theWQI.
WQI.

3.3.Common
CommonSteps
Stepsfor
forDeveloping
DevelopingWaterWaterQuality
QualityIndexIndex(WQI)
(WQI)
After
After Horton [8], many indices were established; however,there
Horton [8], many indices were established; however, therehas
hasbeen
beenno noworld-
world-
wide acceptable way of creating water quality indices despite those efforts. The
wide acceptable way of creating water quality indices despite those efforts. The literature literature
reviewed
reviewedregarding
regardingtotoWQI
WQI areare
mentioned
mentioned in in
thisthis
section, along
section, with
along the the
with specific region
specific or
region
country in which
or country theythey
in which werewere
applied. The The
applied. indices use the
indices usefollowing four four
the following required common
required com-
steps to develop a WQI method;
mon steps to develop a WQI method;
a. a. Selection
Selectionof
ofparameters;
parameters;
b. b. Obtaining
Obtaining thesub-index
the sub-indexvalue;
value;
c. c. Establishing
Establishing ofweights;
of weights;
d.d. Sub-index
Sub-indexaggregation
aggregationtotogetgetthe
thevalue
valueofofthe
thefinal
finalindex
index[7]
[7]
Most
Mostofofthe
thedeveloped
developedWQIWQImethods
methodsfollowed
followedthe
thethree
threesteps
steps(parameter
(parameterselections,
selections,
sub-index
sub-index value, and final index value) for assessing the overall waterquality
value, and final index value) for assessing the overall water qualitystatus,
status,while
while
certain
certainstudies
studiesconsidered
consideredfull
fullsteps
stepsfor
forthe
thedevelopment
developmentofofWQI WQI[20].
[20].The
Thethird
thirdstep
stepinin
the WQI (establishing weights) has not been utilized in specific indices; however, equal
the WQI (establishing weights) has not been utilized in specific indices; however, equal
weights were applied. This section describes the details of the four steps and the various
weights were applied. This section describes the details of the four steps and the various
methods used in each step. The three phases are shown in Figure 3.
methods used in each step. The three phases are shown in Figure 3.
3.1. Selections of Parameters
3.1. Selections of Parameters
In developing an index, the selection of parameters is an essential step because the
In parameters
selected developing (physical,
an index, chemical,
the selection
and of parameters
biological is an essential
characteristics) step because
are significant com-the
selected parameters (physical, chemical, and biological characteristics)
ponents of a WQI method. The indices have a range between four and twenty-six, which are significant
components
have of a WQIparameters
various selected method. The[4]. indices have a types
Three system rangecan
between four and
be utilized twenty-six,
for parameter
selection: open system, fixed system, and mixed system, as defined by Sutadianfor
which have various selected parameters [4]. Three system types can be utilized param-
et al. [4].
eter selection: open system, fixed system, and mixed system, as defined by Sutadian et al.
[4]. Fixed System
3.1.1.
In most cases related to WQI development, the majority have used a set of fixed
parameters that are the most acceptable set of variables to measure the value of the final
index, selected through the WQI user [9,10,15]. While the WQI user can evaluate and
correctly compare the water quality status between different sites using a set of parameters,
the system is rigid, a common issue with many water quality indices. Rigidity occurs when
it becomes useful and essential to incorporate additional vital parameters in an index to
define particular water quality problems; however, the WQI developer cannot include the
new parameters required for the future index application [76].
 rameters that are the most acceptable set of variables to measure the value of the final
index, selected through the WQI user [9,10,15]. While the WQI user can evaluate and cor-
rectly compare the water quality status between different sites using a set of parameters,
the system is rigid, a common issue with many water quality indices. Rigidity occurs
Water 2021, 13, 905 when it becomes useful and essential to incorporate additional vital parameters in 8an in-
of 34
dex to define particular water quality problems; however, the WQI developer cannot in-
clude the new parameters required for the future index application [76].

Figure3.3.This
Figure Thisshow
showthree
threephases
phasesfor
forapplying
applyingWQI
WQImethod,
method,ininwhich
whichthe
thefirst
firstphase
phasedemonstrates
demonstrates
that the water quality assessment process. The second phase relates to the WQI process for four
that the water quality assessment process. The second phase relates to the WQI process for four
common steps (green color) wherein the method is applied to each step (purple color) and the
common steps (green color) wherein the method is applied to each step (purple color) and the third
third phase to the water management plan for different purposes.
phase to the water management plan for different purposes.
3.1.2.Open
3.1.2. OpenSystem
System
AA few
few WQIs
WQIs permit
permit aa minimum
minimum numbernumberof ofparameters
parametersusedusedininthe
theopen
open system
system by
WQI users, based on their characteristics and their effects on water
by WQI users, based on their characteristics and their effects on water resources [12].resources [12]. Alt-
hough those
Although WQIs
those WQIsare flexible and reduce
are flexible rigidity,
and reduce the comparison
rigidity, of results
the comparison from various
of results from
monitoring
various locations
monitoring poses aposes
locations critical issue. issue.
a critical Therefore, the usage
Therefore, of these
the usage WQIsWQIs
of these may may
vary
fromfrom
vary region-to-region, as the
region-to-region, asparameters are not
the parameters aredefined. The maximum
not defined. The maximum parameter selec-
parameter
tion number
selection is not
number is specified in the
not specified in calculation of the
the calculation finalfinal
of the index. Therefore,
index. Therefore,users can can
users add
several characteristics from the list of possible parameters
add several characteristics from the list of possible parameters in in applying such WQIs.
such WQIs. This This
flexibilityhas
flexibility hasthe
theadvantage
advantageof ofavoiding
avoidingrigidity.
rigidity.Nevertheless,
Nevertheless,aafixed
fixedsetsetofofparameters
parameters
posescrucial
poses crucialproblems,
problems, including
including difficulties
difficulties in contrasts
in contrasts between
between monitored
monitored locations
locations and
and water
water resources.
resources.

3.1.3.
3.1.3.Mixed
MixedSystem
System
The
The mixedsystem
mixed systemcomprises
comprisesof
ofboth
bothopen
openand
andfixed
fixedsystems.
systems.Some
Someparameters
parametersare
are
applied
appliedififone
oneof
ofthe
thevarious
variousparameters
parametershas
hasaasub-index
sub-indexvalue
valuehigher
higherthan
thanthe
theaggregation
aggregation
value, based on the final index calculation of the basic parameters. By considering or
inserting additional parameters with higher sub-index values, the final aggregated index
value in the mixed system should be recalculated. The selecting parameters have high
effects on the quality of water bodies, particularly for mixed and fixed systems.
Abbasi and Abbasi [7] suggest that there is no index that can obtain 100% accurate
results in the selecting parameters. The mixed system is the perfect match for the open and
fixed systems; however, the open and mixed systems still struggle from the same issues,
although with a decreased error margin. Because of the advantages and disadvantages of
the open, fixed, and mixed systems, the mixed system can be utilized to compare and eval-
uate the water quality parameters, making it the simplest process for developing a single
Water 2021, 13, 905 9 of 34

WQI. The selection of parameters for a mixed system requires considerable proficiency,
attention, care, and experience to ensure that the most critical parameters are compatible
with the WQI. Sutadian et al. [4] describe the initial selection of water quality parameters
for designing a WQI as follows: a review of the literature [77,78], availability of data [15],
parameters should reflect the overall status of water quality [79,80], consistency of param-
eters (parameters with similar characteristics that need not be taken into account) [79]
and the expected usage of the surface water and groundwater [25,81–83]. Two methods
usually define the initial set (decided by the criteria mentioned above): expert judgment
and statistical methods, to reduce subjectivity and uncertainty at this process, described in
Section 3.2.

3.2. Formation of Sub-Indices

The formation of sub-indices was aimed to transform the water quality parameters into
a common scale, as the actual parameter values have their distinct units [7]. For instance,
the electrical conductivity (EC) is measured in µS/cm (another turbidity measured in
nephelometric turbidity units (NTU)), while all significant ions and most heavy metals are
measured in mg/L or µg/L. Whereas every water quality parameter has different limits,
units, and behavior concerning water resource parameter concentration. For examples,
the range of mercury (0.001 mg/L) is rarely found above the 1 mg/L limit, while nitrate
(45 mg/L), hardness (200 mg/L), chloride (250 mg/L), and other parameters are often
found above the 1 mg/L limit, as prescribed by WHO [84]. In many conventional WQI
methods, the parameters can only be aggregated if they have the same common scales,
so the process of rescaling or the standardizing of parameter values is necessary to form
sub-indices [85]. However, several WQIs do not take this step into consideration (e.g.,
CCME). Therefore, the actual parameter values are used instead of sub-indices in the final
index aggregation.
For instance, CCME [12] has applied a multivariate analytical technique to aggregate
actual parameter values without transforming them into a common scale. Similarly, a
mathematical calculation was applied by Said et al. [77] for direct aggregation of the final
index value, in which the parameters do not need to be standardized. In Some WQIs,
specific parameter(s) are directely taken as individual sub-indices to be aggregated for
the value of final index. Although the primary parameter sub-indices are grouped into a
wider group of secondary sub-indices, in a few cases, they can be aggregated to the final
index value (often called aggregated or composite sub-indices). For instance, Bhargava [16]
analyzed four various composite sub-indices, such as organic, coliform, inorganic, toxic
elements, and physical sub-indices. The index users have generally developed rating curves
or sub-index functions for obtaining the values of sub-index, while the sub-index functions
are mathematical relations between the sub-index values and actual values of the measured
parameter. The values of an actual parameter can be converted into sub-index values
utilizing sub-index functions, which can be used as rating curves, graphically (parameter
values plotted to the corresponding sub-index values). Such rating curves or sub-index
functions help index users describe all water quality parameters with dimensional values
within the identical range, such as 0–100 or 0–1. The following three common methods of
developing sub-index functions or rating curves were used:
• Expert opinion or judgment can be performed individually or as a group.
• Statistical methods.
• Use of water quality standards.

3.2.1. Expert Judgement

The selection of important parameters is one of the challenges in the final index
aggregation in several WQIs. A large number of subjective assessments by the index users
are part of the initial set of selected parameters. To deal with that, several experts in the
parameter selection have been used to minimize subjectivity and uncertainty [85]. The
parameter selection is generally integrated into the expert judgment process using three
Water 2021, 13, 905 10 of 34

methods: individual interviews, virtual groups, and the Delphi method [86]. Furthermore,
the expert’s opinion uses the parameter selection for the WQI to develop the rating curves
or sub-index functions, for obtaining the values of sub-index formation. Generally, the WQI
expert group is involved in collecting the relevant data by the Delphi method to develop
sub-index functions through questionnaires.
The Delphi method (first reported on in 1970) has been commonly applied in selecting
parameters among the above three methods. This approach is conducted to assess the
experts’ opinions and perspectives, without making the experts congregate at a time and
place agreed upon. Linstone and Turoff [87] defined Delphi’s method for structuring a
group communication process, so that the process can efficiently solve a complicated chal-
lenge for a group of individuals as a whole. The index developers should distinguish water
quality experts from each other, as they express their opinions and make their decisions
anonymous. This attempts to eliminate some of the biasing impacts, in particular, because
of expert interactions. These interactions may contribute to leading experts committing to
a decision that they do not hold [86]. The implementation of this approach also requires
two phases of questionnaire rounds before expert opinion is achieved. The developers are
asked to indicate several parameters in the WQI for potential inclusion during the first
phase of the questionnaire. In this step, the new water quality parameters that have not
been included in the questionnaire can also be included. The first questionnaire finding will
be discussed in the second phase, including the addition of new parameters. The objective
was to create new criteria or parameters and implement a small discrepancy among water
quality experts’ opinions regarding various rating parameters. Such implementation will
proceed until decisions are achieved on the number and types of parameters.
The Delphi method is also used to integrate the opinions of water experts on sub-index
values. Further, Deininger [88] clarified that WQI developers were required to construct
the rating curves on their opinion (often manually) to evaluate the range of differences in
water quality through different measurements of each parameter. Several rating curves
have been developed based on accepted essential points from the experts’ opinions; these
rating curves indicate the non-linear or linear sub-index functions. Moreover, the index
developers obtain subindex values using subindex functions by direct calculation [4]. The
Delphi methodology has been widely adopted throughout the development of different
WQIs (NSFWQI, SRDD, CCMEWQI, BCWQI, OWQI, BMWQI and Vaal WQI, etc.).
The Delphi method has also been generally used to summarize specific expert opinions
to develop parameter weights for different WQIs. For instance, Horton [8] assigned weights
for parameters, such as one weight for four parameters (alkalinity, chlorides, carbon
chloroform, and special conductivity), two for one parameter (coliform), and four for three
parameters (pH, DO, and sewerage treatment). Furthermore, this method for parameter
weighting has been used extensively in distinct water quality indices after Horton [8] to
generate relative weights for the selected parameters, minimize subjectivity, and increase
credibility. Index experts compare relative water quality parameters by applying a common
scale of one (highest) to five (lowest) in this method. Moreover, for the ratings of all expert
opinions, the mean arithmetic was calculated, which are transformed, consequently, into
weight ratings of zero to one (lowest impact weight to the highest influential rating).
Significantly, the total weight (all chosen water quality parameter weights should be one)
for most water quality indices, as the combined impacts of parameters, should not exceed
100% [85].

3.2.2. Statistical Techniques

Statistical techniques are common tools for reducing subjectivity in selecting parame-
ters, and have been widely used for many decades to the accuracy of the results. These
techniques represent the most efficient tools for understanding variation between several
variables and transforming them into smaller groups of independent variables through
pattern recognition [89–94]. Furthermore, this methodology is related to statistical features,
such as average values and different parameter concentrations calculated over a long time.
Water 2021, 13, 905 11 of 34

This technique was also applied effectively for the evaluation of water quality by several
water quality index developers [16,79]. For instance, Dunnette [79] applied the mathemati-
cal average of the actual parameters of six observation locations between 1973 and 1975,
and compared them to the values of the sub-index; such as 80 for biological oxygen demand
(BOD), nitrogen, total solids, and oxygen, as well as 70 for fecal coliform (FC) in Willamette
River in Oregon. Moreover, Hallock [95] established a ranking curve of turbidity, total
suspended solids (TSS), total nutrients, and total phosphorus based on acceptable values
of the sub-index, such as 100, 80, 40, and 20, to actual values of these characteristics at
the 95th, 99th, 80th, and 10th percentages (%), respectively. The values of the sub-index
should be integrated into the final index after determining the sub-index function, which
can be obtained by multiplying the sub-index value by the allocated weight of parameter.
Therefore, common methods are used in multivariate techniques, such as factor analysis
and cluster analysis, to select and group the parameters, as briefly discussed below.

3.2.3. Factor Analysis (FA)

Factor analysis states that correlations reflect relationships with a low number of
underlying factors across a set of variables. Furthermore, this method decreases the
number of variables and identifies or classifies structure in the correlations between the
parameters [96]. The fundamental objectives of FA are: to determine how many factors
are needed to give a set of variables, analyze and evaluate the parameter weight, define
correlation levels between variables and related statistical factors, and examine each of
the factors identified through each score. A particular characteristic of this approach is
the principal component analysis (PCA) or the extraction of factors that constitute linear
combinations of all variables, which may describe the total variance of the dataset. The
rest of the factors explain the maximum residual variability. Gulgundi and Shetty [97]
applied the PCA application to evaluate the correlation of weighting parameters, as shown
in Equation (1).
Zij = ai1 xj1 + ai2 xj2 + ai3 xj3 . . . + aim mjm (1)
where Z indicates component score, x denotes the estimated variable value, i is the com-
ponent number, j is the sample number, a is the loading component, and m is the total
number of variables.

3.2.4. Cluster Analysis (CA)

Cluster analysis is used to identify the actual data groups in pursuance of their
similarities. Total variables are also defined until subjected to cluster analysis standardized
by z-score mode. The primary purpose of cluster analysis is to find the sub-groups
in the large group and create content for more information about the data analysis of
physicochemical characteristics [2]. This method’s feature is the hierarchical cluster analysis
(HCA) used to determine the number of clusters using the Ward’s linkage and Euclidean
distance procedures [98]. Log transformation implies that the outcomes are close to each
element’s normal distribution. The Z-scoring ensures the equal weighting of all HCA
application parameters [99]. This method has been demonstrated with the formula by
Daughney et al. [99], as follows in Equation (2).

xij − xj
Zij = (2)
Sj

where Z indicates the Z-score for the variable of j at sites i, Sj and xij is the standard deviation
and mean of the medians of the variable of jth for each site of monitoring, and xij denotes
that the median of the variable j at site i in Equation (2). A limited Euclidean distance
Water 2021, 13, 905 12 of 34

indicates the strong resemblance between calculated variables, and it is used mostly as a
similar way of measuring in HCA by Daughney et al. [99], as shown in Equation (3).
n  2
E2 ij = ∑ Zij − Zkj (3)
j=1

where E is the Euclidean Distance square, Zij , and Zkj indicate the Z-score at i and k for
the variable j, and the description, including all n variables used within HCA, is carried
out. TheWard’s linkage method is subsequently used to identify clusters for non-residual
sites, and is based on variance analysis, generating(different) smaller clusters based on the
linkage principles, meaning that every site is more similar in the cluster to other places in
the same cluster than any other site of the distinct cluster [100].

3.3. Use of Water Quality Standards

The legislative standard for water quality is used to develop rating curves or subindex
functions. Each water quality parameter is allocated a rating value from 0 to 100 in sub-
index development, which is based on national (India, Malaysia, etc.) and international
(WHO, United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), etc.) organizations,
specifying acceptable and permissible limits [101]. The rating (100) of the sub-index
indicates that the parameter values were below the acceptable value, whereas that sample
exceeded the maximum permissible limit with a sub-index rating (50). Concerning the
intended use of the water resources, the rating curves are essential to obtain the allowable
values for every parameter, in contrast to the Delphi method. Moreover, House [102]
also used standard limits for water quality, making sub-index values relatively easy to
sub-division and provide more information for water consumers. Based on these values,
the actual parameter values were measured for the sub-index by three methods: categorical
scaling, linear interpolation rescaling, and a comparison with allowable limits.
The first linear interpolation rescaling process is utilized to obtain the identical range,
generally between 0 to 100 or 0 to 1 for subset index values [81,103]. Similarly, the classifi-
cation of water quality in a sequential order is established by the index developers, such as
drinking usage (class 1), household consumption (class 2), agriculture (class 3), navigation
(class 4), and wastewater system (classe 5) [4]. Subsequently, every limit corresponding
to the appropriate classification of water quality, and the associated sub-indices numbers,
are assigned using permissible minimum to maximum limits. For instance, the acceptable
limit of the selected parameter (e.g., BOD) is considered as 4, 6, 15, 20, and 50 mg/L for
the sub-indices classes of 100, 75, 50, 25, and 1 respectively [103]. The pairing of data are
considered as main points in rating curves, based on the relation between acceptable limits
and subindex values, such as class 1 (4:100), class 2 (6:75), class 3 (15:50), class 4 (20:25)
and class 5 (50:1), respectively [80]. Therefore, a simple linear interpolation process is
applied to observe the sub-indices actual parameter values, which lies between two groups.
The following basic formulas, Equations (4) and (5),are applied to sub-index functions by
Prati [81], which measure the values of the sub-index in this process;

xi − x1
  
SI = (S1 − S2 ) × − S1 (4)
x2 − x1

x1 − xi
  
SI = (S1 − S2 ) × − S1 (5)
x1 − x2
where SI is the values of sub-index, S1 and S2 denotes the upper and lower classes of
sub-indices values, x1 and x2 shows the upper and lower classes of permissible limit, and
xi is the ith parameters value (mg/L) respectively, and. When the value of a parameter
decreases, regarding the water quality level, with an increase in the actual parameter values,
then Equation (4) is utilized to obtain the sub-indices. Furthermore, a parameter increases
the water quality level with an increase in the actual parameter values, then Equation (5)
Water 2021, 13, 905 13 of 34

is used for the sub-indices values. The second categorical scaling process is applied to
transform the actual parameter values into sub-indices, where a constant value is assigned
to the parameters between 0 and 1. Therefore, the formula is used to obtain the sub-indices
values through this process. Sub-index SI = 0 indicates the parameter concentration is
above the permissible limits, and SI = 1 denotes that the parameter concentration below
the allowable limits. The latter method is based on comparing the actual value with the
acceptable parameter limits to generate the values of the sub-indices, according to the level
of water quality (worst to highest) and range (0–1). The sub-indices value is calculated by
Liou et al. [11], as per Equation (6):
xi
SI = (6)
xmax
where xi indicates the actual parameter value (mg/L) and xmax is the maximum permissible
limit of parameters (mg/L). The use of national and international standard methods for
water quality analysis, its allowable and unacceptable limits, and appropriate laboratory
analysis methods and equipment techniques are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. The table listed suitable analytical methods and equipment using the physicochemical parameter’s national and
international standard evaluation methods.

Water Equipment and

Parameters Usage of WHO USEPA INWQS
Quality BIS [104] Method Analytical
(Units) Parameters [84] [105] [106]
Parameters Techniques
Solution by
Color (TCU) D 15 5–15 - 15 Spectrophotometer
(Pt-Co)
Taste and Odor ASTM D-1292 Attitude taste Scale
D - - - -
(TON) triangle (ATS)
Temperature
D - - - - KM 3002 Digital Thermometer
(◦ C)
Physical
Conductivity
Parameters EC (µS/cm) D, I, H, A 250 250 - 1000 Electrometric
meter—Hach
Gravimetric
TDS (mg/L) D, I, H, A - 500–2000 - 500–1000 Hach potable meters
Method
Turbidity
D, A - 1–5 - 5 Turbidimeter Hach Turbidimeter
(NTU)
SHKY Conductivly
Salinity (ppt) D, I - - - 0.5 Filtration
meter
pH D, I, H, A - 6.5–8.5 6.5–8.5 6.5–8.5 Electrometric pH meter—Hach
Hardness
D, I, H, A 200 200–600 - 250 Titration Digital Burette
(mg/L)
DO (mg/L) D - 6 - >7 Colorimetric Portable meter
BOD (mg/L) D, A - 2 - 1 Titration
Chemical COD (mg/L) D - - - 10 Titration
Parameters UV Visible
TOC (mg/L) D - - - - Titration
Spectrophotometer
Titration by
DOC (mg/L) D - - - -
H2 SO4
Alkalinity Titration by
D, I, H, A - 200–600 - -
(mg/L) H2 SO4
pH meter
Acidity Titration by
D, I, H, A - - - -
(mg/L) H2 SO4
Total coliform
D - - - - Maximum
Biological (100 ml) Bacteriological
probable number
parameters Fecal coliform Incubator
D - - - - (MPN)
(10 ml)
Water 2021, 13, 905 14 of 34

Table 2. Cont.

Water Equipment and

Parameters Usage of WHO USEPA INWQS
Quality BIS [104] Method Analytical
(Units) Parameters [84] [105] [106]
Parameters Techniques
Carbonate Titration by
D, I, H, A - - - -
(mg/L) H2 SO4
Digital Burette
Bicarbonate Titration by
D, I, H, A - 600 - -
(mg/L) H2 SO4
Chloride Argentometric
Anions D, I, H, A 250 250–1000 250 200
(mg/L) Method
Fluoride SPADNS Ion Chromato-
D, I, H, A 1.5 1–1.5 4 1.5 graph,Dionex (ICS
(mg/L) colorimetric
5000),ICP-MS, flame
Phenol photometer, UV–Vis
Nitrate (mg/L) D, I, H, A 45 45–NR 10 7
disulphonic acid Spectrophotometer
Sulfate (mg/L) D, I, H, A 500 200–400 - 250 Gravimetric
Calcium
D, I, H, A - 75–200 - - Conductivity
(mg/L)
Ion Chromato-
Magnesium graph,Dionex (ICS
D, I, H, A - 0.1–0.3 - - Conductivity
Cations (mg/L) 5000),ICP-MS, flame
Sodium photometer, Atomic
D, I, H, A 20 - - - Conductivity fluorescence
(mg/L)
spectrometry (AFS)
Potassium
D, I, H, A - - - - Conductivity
(mg/L)
Arsenic
D 0.01 0.01–0.05 0.01 0.05
(mg/L)
Aluminium
D 0.1 0.03–0.2 - -
(mg/L)
Chromium Atomic fluorescence
D 0.05 0.05–NR 0.1 0.05 spectrometry (AFS),
(mg/L)
Inductively Coupled
Copper Plasma Mass
D 2 0.5–1.5 1.3 0.02
(mg/L) Spectrometry
Iron (mg/L) D 0.5 0.30–NR - 1 (ICP-MS), Atomic
American Public
Heavy absorption
Lead (mg/L) D 0.01 0.01–NR - 0.05 Health
Metals spectrometer (AAS),
Association [107]
Manganese Inductively Coupled
D 0.10 0.1–0.3 - 0.1 Plasma Optical
(mg/L)
emission
Cobalt (mg/L) D - - - spectroscopy
Cadmium (ICP-OES), X-ray
D 0.003 0.003–NR 0.005 0.01 fluorescence (XRF)
(mg/L)
Nickel (mg/L) D 0.07 0.02–NR - 0.05
Zinc (mg/L) D 3 5–15 - 5
Mercury
D 0.006 0.001–NR 0.002 0.001
(mg/L)
TCU is the true colour unit, µS/cm is the micro-Siemens per centimeter, TON is the threshold odour number, ◦ C is the degree Celcius, TDS
is the total dissolved solids, COD is the chemical oxygen demand, TOC is the total organic carbon, DOC is the dissolved organic carbon, D
is the drinking water, H is the household water, NTU is the nephelometric turbidity unit, A is the agriculture usage, and I is the industrial
purposes of parameters.

3.4. Establishing Weights

Index developers have used the step of assigning weights to calculate final index
values. Weights are used—either equal or unequal—for all of the water quality parame-
ters, which are related to their significance, to specific end-use (drinking suitability and
ecological health), and their effects on the value of the final index [30]. The value of the
final index is strongly influenced by changes in the expert’s opinion and water quality
parameter guidelines. Furthermore, equal weights are allocated when an index parameter
is equally significant, while unequal weights are assigned when specific index parameters
are lesser or more important than others. In developing WQI, some index developers
Water 2021, 13, 905 15 of 34

used equal weights, such as Hallock’ index, Diljido’s index, Hanh’s index, Liou’s index,
etc. [1,80,95,108], while others used unequal weights, including MWQI, Smith’s index,
Almeida’s index, etc. [17,82,108], respectively.
These studies favored equal weights rather than unequal weights because there were
concerns regarding subjectivity over experts’ opinions in achieving convergence (as a
community of experts sometimes gives distinct weights to the same parameters) [4]. A
small number of index developers used equal weight due to the possibilities of unfairness
in allocating the weighting variables. In other cases, unequal weights may encourage index
model sensitivity, preferring highly weighted variables of water quality if due diligence is
not exercised [85]. The final index’s sensitivity to the heaviest weighted parameter could
also lead to different weights. However, necessary steps should be taken to choose the most
effective method for designing unequal weights in WQI that will eliminate biases and ratify
the index model’s credibility. The different weights in WQI for parameters could produce
various classes of water quality and other values of WQI. Therefore, two methods for
establishing water quality parameters are widely applied. The first method—of choosing
variables and established weights—is based on an expert’s opinion. The second approach
is based on guidelines for water quality standards, as discussed in Section 3.2.2.

3.5. Aggregation of Sub-Indices

In this step, mathematical calculations are used to aggregate the sub-indices. These
calculations provide a sub-index value for the allocated weights in the selected parameters
and achieve a total water quality status, usually presented as a single number. The required
level of accuracy regulates their implementation and whether the parameters of weights
are described unequally or equally. The aggregation process can occur in sequential steps,
depending on whether the index has aggregated sub-indices. There are four common
aggregation methods; the additive (arithmetic), multiplicative (geometric), minimum
operator, and harmonic mean of squares methods for the sub-indices.

3.5.1. Additive Method

Horton applied the additive method for the aggregation of sub-indices. A simple
formula introduced by Horton [8], since the 1960s, is shown in Equation (7).

[W1 S1 + W2 S2 . . . .Wn Sn ]
WQI = M1 M2 (7)
W1 + W2 . . . Wn

where S is the rating number of ith parameter concentration (sub-indices) from 0–100,
W is the weighting of the ith parameter from 1–4, n is the parameter number, M1 and
M2 are the additional parameters. Bhargava [16] demonstrated a lack of sensitivity to
decrease the values for specific parameters of water quality in the weighted mean used by
Horton [8], which is traditionally regarded as “eclipsing”. Moreover, the arbitrariness in
the parameters selection that form the water quality index, according to Lumb [5], was a
significant problem in Horton’s index. Deininger and Maciunas [109] and Brown et al. [9]
improved the version of the additive method in the 1970s, with the support of NSFWQI,
which is based on the Delphi method. It is mathematically represented by Deininger and
Maciunas [109] and Brown et al. [9], as follows in Equations (8) and (9), respectively.
n
WQI = ∑ Si (8)
i=1

n
WQI = ∑ Wi × Si (9)
i=1

where WQI is the aggregated index value, Si is the sub-indices value, Wi is the weight
values, and n is the number of sub-indices. In addition, the Equation (8) indicate unequally
weighted sub-indices, Equation (9) denote equally weighted sub-indices. This approach
Water 2021, 13, 905 16 of 34

also produces some issues known as “eclipsing,” in which the final index’s value does not
represent the current status of overall water quality as higher ranges of other sub-indices
or vice versa exceed the lower ones in one or more sub-indices [11]. Smith [82] also pointed
out that this technique will never generate a zero index value, while 0 is one of the sub-
indices. Bascarón [103] introduced another corrected version of the index aggregation
additive method (known as Bascarón index). In this edition, the overall aggregation values
should be subdivided by the selected parameters’ overall weights by Bascarón [103], as
expressed by an Equation (10)

∑ni=1 Pi × Ci
WQI = (10)
∑ni=1 Pi

where WQI is the aggregated index value, Ci is the sub-indices value, Pi is the weight values
of the parameter, and n is the number of sub-indices. In the 1980s, the NSFWQI index
was further improved by Tyson and House [110]. The use of a weighted additive model in
England, divided by 100 by Tyson and House [110], as shown in Equations (11) and (12).

1 n
100 i∑
WQI = (Si )2 (11)
=1

1 n
100 i∑
WQI = (Wi × Si )2 (12)
=1
where WQI is the aggregated index value, Si is the sub-indices value, Wi is the weight
values, and n is the number of sub-indices. Equation (11) also indicates unequally weighted
sub-indices; Equation (12) denotes equally weighted sub-indices. It was noticed that the
additive formulation lacked sensitivity, in terms of the impact a single low parameter value
would have on the WQI, even though it was simple to understand and calculate [5].

3.5.2. Multiplicative Method

Brown et al. [56] proposed a multiplicative function as a revision for the NSFWQI, to
properly address the eclipsing problem, as shown in Equations (13) and (14).
n 1
WQI = ∏1 Si ( n ) (13)
n
WQI = ∏1 Si Wi (14)
where WQI is the aggregated index value, Si is the sub-indices value, Wi is the weight
values, and n is the number of sub-indices. Equation (13) also indicates unequally weighted
sub-indices; Equation (14) denotes equally weighted sub-indices. The subsequent evalu-
ation appeared to indicate that the multiplicative formulation agreed perfectly with the
expert’s opinion than the additive method, but both remained in use. A WQI value of zero
is obtained for all multiple aggregation functions if one of the sub-indices is zero. In such
situations, the eclipsing issue did not happen. However, if one sub-index shows low water
quality, the overall water quality index will react adequately and indicate low water quality.
In the 1980s, Bhargava [16] introduced another simple multiplication method and rationale
for calculating the final index values expressed by Equation (15):
" #1/n
n
WQI = ∏ f i × ( Pi ) (15)
i=1

where f i (Pi ) is the sensitivity function of the ith parameter and n is the number of variables.
Bhargava [16] stated that Brown et al. [56] were not substantially sensitive to alters in water
quality parameter values and proposed a multiplied model [6]. The multiplicative models
have been designed to remove the eclipse problem. They react effectively when sub-indices
Water 2021, 13, 905 17 of 34

near approach or equivalent to zero; the index will respond accordingly and reach a smaller
index value.

3.5.3. Minimum Operator

Ott [57] proposed a minimum operator method, significantly used by Smith [82] to
calculate the final index value. Smith’s index was established for four specific water usages:
such as bathing, water supply, general use and fish spawning (salmonids). The minimum
operator to combine sub-indices is described by Ott [57], as the Equation (16) to address
these limitations.
Imin = ∑ min(Isub1 , Isub2 , . . . Isubn ) (16)
where Imin is the lowest value of sub-indices, Isub1 is the sub-index value of the first
parameter and Isubn is s the sub-index value of the last parameter. It is simple to enforce the
minimum operator index’s simplicity and flexibility without ambiguities or eclipsing issues.
Conversely, the Smith index accuracy is questionable, as the method can only maintain the
minimum subindex value without considering the impact of other sub-indices. It cannot
be used to monitor a source or compare two sources. Therefore, the minimum operator
method’s implementation has been limited to several indices of water quality.

3.5.4. Harmonic Mean of Squares Method

As per Dojlido et al. [111] the harmonic mean of squares process was used for the
aggregation of sub-indices to resolve the problem of eclipses in the WQI. Equation (17), for
the harmonic mean of squares method by Dojlido et al. [111] is as follows:
s
n
WQI = (17)
∑ni=1 SI12

where SI is the ith sub-indices value and n is the number of sub-indices.

According to Cude [15], this approach allows low-quality parameters to affect the WQI
significantly and recognizes that the various parameters have different consequences for
overall water quality in specific times and locations. Furthermore, Swamee and Tyagi [98]
emphasized that such a method of aggregation sub-indices struggles from the problem
known as “ambiguity”. There is ambiguity when all sub-indices are acceptable, yet the
overall index is not acceptable. Liou et al. [11] suggested other aggregation methods to
solve eclipsing and ambiguity issues, using a combined aggregation process (additive
and multiplicative methods). Moreover, the parameters have a strong relationship that is
first divided into three classes: organics, particulate matter, and fecal coliform. Therefore,
to develop the values of aggregated sub-indices for each group, the similar groups of
parameters are aggregated through the equal additive process, aggregated by the geometric
mean to get the final index value. The aggregate index is multiplied by three scaling
coefficients through Liou et al. [11], as define in Equation (18);
" ! ! !#1/3
3 2 1
WQI = CT CpH Ctox ∑ Ii Wi × ∑ Ij Wj × ∑ Ik (18)
i=1 j=1 k=1

where Ii , Ij , and Ik are the sub-index values (for organics, particulates, and fecal coliform)
and Ctemp , CpH , CTox are the scaling coefficients that define the sub-indices of temperature,
pH, and toxic substances, respectively. Furthermore, Said et al. [77] used another simple
method for calculating final aggregation. This method can calculate the final aggregated
index through direct formalised creteria with the parameters selection and without produc-
ing the sub-indices. However, this calculation has been established for a particular area,
Water 2021, 13, 905 18 of 34

and it cannot be suitable for other sites, which are defined by Said et al. [77], as shwon in
Equation (19);
" #
(DO)1.5
WQI = log (19)
(3.8)TP (15)FC/10000 (Turb)0.15 + 0.14(SC)0.5

where DO is the dissolved oxygen (percentage oxygen saturation), TP is the total phos-
phorus (mg/L), turb is the turbidity (NTU), FC is the fecal coliform, and SC is the specific
conductivity (MS/cm). Moreover, some aggregation methods, such as MWQI, (CAWQI),
Catalan Index, WWQI, and the fuzzy logic, are presented in Table 3. Furthermore, another
essential method of WQI, such as the CCME method, based on the scope, frequency, and
amplitude, directly employed as a formula, is also discussed in Table S1 in Supplementary
Material. The abovementioned literature studies show that no unique technique is avail-
able to select various parameters and assess the WQI of groundwater and surface water
resources. Whereas 46 WQI methods have been briefly discussed in the Supplementary
Material (Tables S1 and S2), based on four steps in this study. In addition, several relevant
indices, their applications, advantages, and disadvantages are addressed in Table 4.

Table 3. This table addressed 46 WQI methods, from the 1960s to 2020. Several WQI developers used four steps, and several
users applied a few steps.

No of Selection Formation of Establish Aggregation

Serial No. Index (References)
Parameters Sub-Indices Weights Method
1 Horton Index [8] 8 X X X
2 Fuzzy Index [112] No guidelines Fuzzy logic X Fuzzy logic
3 National Sanitation Foundation (NSFWQI) [9] 11 X X X
4 Prati Index [81] 13 X X X
5 Water Contamination Index [18] 6 X * X
6 Weighted Arithmetic Index (AW-WQI) [113] 2 X X X
7 Walski and Parker Index [114] 10 X X X
8 Harkins Index [115] No guidelines X X X
9 SRDD Index [10] 10 X X X
10 Ross Index [116] 4 X X X
11 Storet Index [117] No guidelines X X X
12 Stoner Index [83] 13 X X X
13 Bascarón Index [103] 23 X X X
14 Deininger Index [88] 11 X X X
15 Tiwari and Mishra Index [118] 14 X X X
16 Bhargava Index [16] 4 X X X
17 Dinius Index [119] 12 X X X
18 House Index [102] 9 X X X
19 Smith Index [82] 7 X X X
20 Anzali Index [120] 9 X X X
21 Dojlido Index [111] 7 X * X
22 British Columbia Index [13,121] 4 * * *
23 Aquatic toxicity Index [122] 12 X X X
24 Oregon Index [15] 8 X X X
25 Canadian Index (CCMEWQI) [12] 4 * * *
Water 2021, 13, 905 19 of 34

Table 3. Cont.

No of Selection Formation of Establish Aggregation

Serial No. Index (References)
Parameters Sub-Indices Weights Method
26 Contact Recreation Index [123] 8 X * X
27 Hallock Index [95] 8 X * X
28 Dalmatian Index [63] 9 X X X
29 Overall Index of Pollution [14] 8 X X X
30 River Status Index [11] 13 X * X
31 Kaurish Index [124] 9 X * X
32 Schiff Index [125] 9 X * X
33 Universal Index [126] 12 X X X
34 Malaysia Index [17] 6 X X X
35 Catalan Index [127] 5 X X X
36 Hanh Index [80] 11 X * X
37 Almeida Index [108] 9 X X X
38 Ved Prakash Index [7] 4 X X X
39 Modified Canadian Index (MCWQI) [128] 4 * * *
40 Vaal Index [19] 15 X X X
41 Wanda Index [129] 7 X X X
42 Medeiros Index [130] 11 X X X
43 Garcia-Ávila Index [131] 13 X X X
44 West Java Index [132] 17 X X X
45 Drinking Water Quality Index [101] 17 X X X
46 Wastewater Water Quality Index [71] 23 X X X
Star (*) indicates that the full four common step(s) in WQI have not been used in the given index methods.
Water 2021, 13, 905 20 of 34

Table 4. Numerous important WQI methods, their application, advantages and disadvantages.

WQI Applications Reviewed by Government WQI Applications Reported

Index (References) Agencies Allowed and Applied in Country Advantages Disadvantages

Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (15 May

2014). Compilation of Water Quality Data
Recorded by MPCB 2011-12.
hhttp://mpcb.gov.in/ereports/pdf/Water_
The data can be obtained in a single index
Quality_Report_2011-12_TERI.pdfi 12 March 2020
value with a goal, quick and compete It is not a particular use of water
Central Pollution Control Board, Government of
National Sanitation more effectively. since it describes a general
India (2003). hhttp://mpcb.gov.in/images/pdf/
Foundation (NSFWQI) USA, India [9,133] Assessment of changes in water quality in quality of water.
WaterQuality0709/Chapter3_WQ.pdfi
[9] multiple regions. Some data are lost during
5 April 2020.
Index values refer to the possible manipulation.
USEPA (1974). Water Quality Index Application in
utilisation of water.
Kansas
River Basin. hhttp://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.
cgi/20008TH7.PDF?Dockey=20008TH7.PDFi
19 June 2020.
It comprises the values of different
This index may not give
physical-chemical water quality
adequate details on the real
parameters in a mathematical calculation
water quality situation.
demonstrating the environmental status
This index does not contain all
Weighted Arithmetic of the water.
Not Applicable India [134] variables that can characterise
Index (AW-WQI) [113] It represents the importance of each
water quality.
parameter in water quality assessment
This index measures only the
and management.
direct impact of pollution on the
It can be applied to characterise the
water body.
suitability of water for human usage.
Oregon Department of Water Quality. (2014).
hhttp://www.deq.state.or.us/lab/wqm/docs/
It does not give conclusive
wqiAnnualRep2014.pdfi 16 January 2021. Through use of weighted harmonics to
information on changes in
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. aggregate sub-indexes allows the OWQI
habitat, toxicity, or biology
(1993). to control the most affected parameters.
Oregon Index [15] Oregon, USA concentrations.
hhttp://www.oregondeq.com/lab/wqm/ The formulation is sensitive to
Idahu, USA It is unable to assess all health
wqindex/malowy3.htmi 2 June 2020. environmental conditions and has major
[15,74,79] toxicity (bacteria, elements,
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality effects on the quality of water.
toxics).
(2002). hhttps://www.deq.idaho.gov/media/45
7032-assessment_river_entire.pdfi 6 January 2020.
Water 2021, 13, 905 21 of 34

Table 4. Cont.

WQI Applications Reviewed by Government WQI Applications Reported

Index (References) Agencies Allowed and Applied in Country Advantages Disadvantages

Water Quality results for New Brunswick

In determining the index, all
watersheds. http://www2.gnb.ca/content/gnb/
parameters are of equal
en/departments/elg/environment/content/
significance.
water/content/watersheds.htmli 15 September Simple to measure.
The quality of the water is only
2020. It has low sensitivity for missing data.
partially defined.
Canadian Index CCME Water Quality Index 1.0 User’s Manual. High adaptability to various water
Spain, Canada [135–137] It cannot be combined with
(CCMEWQI) [12] http://www.ccme.ca/files/Resources/ consumption.
other biological data or
calculators/WQI%20User\T1\textquoterights% The analysis of data from automatic
indicators.
20Manual%20(en).pdfi 24 December 2020. sampling is sufficient.
F1 doesn’t operate effectively if
The British Columbia Water Quality Index.
there are too few parameters
hhttp://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/
taking into account.
BCguidelines/indexreport.htmli 9 October 2020.
DoE Malaysia (2002). Malaysia environmental Some basic water quality parameters are TThe use of water is not taken
quality report 2001. Putrajaya, Malaysia: comprised. into account.
Malaysian Index [17] Malaysia [17]
Department of Environment, Ministry of Science, The width of each parameter is specified There are no biological
Technology, and Environment to estimate the effect of the database. parameters.
Natural language simple to interpret
May deal with a vague and complicated
Simple to manage or can be
situation
biassed because of people
Can explain several nonlinear
subjectivity
connections by simple rules
To some degree rigidity (alert
Will provide a mathematically
parameter selection can
transparent model
Fuzzy Index [112] Not Applicable Spain decreases it)
Can address missing information without
[75] Not free of eclipsing, but trial
affecting the WQI value
and error mechanism can be
Free of uncertainty and with careful
done
selection of parameters can reflect
Cannot include water quality
different water quality purposes
parameters recommendations
Can account for interconnection between
parameters (interdependencies)
Water 2021, 13, 905 22 of 34

4. Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM)

According to Gade and Osuri [138], decision-making is a process of defining and
selecting alternatives, based on the decision-makers values and preferences, with multiple
criteria or single criterion. The decision-making process encompasses the subjective input
from decision-makers and provides an appropriate output alternative. The decision-making
process also develops a single alternative or a set of alternatives. There are three essential
processes involved in decision-making: define the decision problem based on goal, identify
criteria, and identify alternatives (as discussed in Figure 4). When the alternatives are
chosen in the process, the overall objective depends on two or more criteria based on
the goal(s). For instance, the purpose defines the decision problem related to research
objectives (water quality, water resources management, and planning), which depends
on two or more criteria (drinking, irrigation, industrial, domestic, etc.) for the selection
alternatives (physical, chemical, and biological parameters). The MCDM method has
been a useful research area since the 1960s, generating numerous conceptual and applied
Water 2021, 13, x 22 of 34
books and articles [43]. It is also a helpful tool for resolving problems related to conflicting
criteria, to help people and aid in water resource management issues. A review of the
MCDM method used for water management and planning was conducted by Hajkowicz
and [139].
lins CollinsTherefore,
[139]. Therefore,
MCDMMCDM methodologies
methodologies haveproposed
have been been proposed to define
to define a better
a better alter-
alternative, identify alternatives into several small classes, and rank alternatives into a
native, identify alternatives into several small classes, and rank alternatives into a subjec-
subjective
tive order
order of of importance
importance [140]. [140].

Figure
Figure 4.
4. AAcommon
common structure of of
structure thethe
multi-criteria decision
multi-criteria making
decision (MCDM)
making method.
(MCDM) WhenWhen
method. alter-
natives are selected, the total goal depends on the multiple criteria, where a goal is shown (water
alternatives are selected, the total goal depends on the multiple criteria, where a goal is shown (water
quality assessment) and criteria (drinking, irrigation, commercial, domestic) are indicated, as well
quality assessment) and criteria (drinking, irrigation, commercial, domestic) are indicated, as well as
as alternatives (physical, chemical and biological parameters).
alternatives (physical, chemical and biological parameters).
The two MCDM
The two MCDM methods
methods are are discussed
discussed in in this
this study—AHP
study—AHP and and MACBETH,
MACBETH, for for
weighting of parameters and rating of variables, with the help of MCDM
weighting of parameters and rating of variables, with the help of MCDM methods, which methods, which
allow
allow assessing
assessing weight
weight values
values ofof select
select parameters,
parameters, regardless
regardless ofof their
their national
national and
and inter-
inter-
national standards (WHO, BIS, etc.). This makes the formulation simple
national standards (WHO, BIS, etc.). This makes the formulation simple and minimizes and minimizes
errors since both
errors since both processes
processes are used for
are used for various
various water
water usages
usages (drinking,
(drinking, domestic,
domestic, irriga-
irriga-
tion,
tion, and industrial) and multiple variations [44]. Therefore, this study aimstotoestablish
and industrial) and multiple variations [44]. Therefore, this study aims establisha
relationship
a relationshipbetween
betweenformal
formalWQI WQIand andMCDM
MCDMmethods
methodsto tocreate
create aa simple calculation,
simple calculation,
with less time, and to provide more accuracy. These two approaches
with less time, and to provide more accuracy. These two approaches are based are based mainly
mainly on
four steps
on four in in
steps this study,
this study,including
includingthe thecriteria
criteriaselection
selectionbased
basedon on user
user demand
demand andand thethe
alternative
alternative selections
selections that
that are taken, ranking
are taken, ranking thethe criteria
criteria and
and alternatives
alternatives based
based on
on user
user
importance,
importance, and the comparison
and the comparison between
between the the alternatives
alternatives and
and the
the criteria
criteria (Figure
(Figure 4).
4). The
The
MACBETH method was utilized to rank analytical alternatives in this
MACBETH method was utilized to rank analytical alternatives in this study as the selected study as the se-
lected decision-making procedure. Finally, the weightage value assessment
decision-making procedure. Finally, the weightage value assessment was used to evaluate was used to
evaluate
the most the mostparameters,
critical critical parameters,
with the with thethe
help of help of the
AHP AHP method.
method. The processes
The processes of MCDM of
MCDM (MACBETH and AHP), uncertainty and sensitivity analyses, as well as compari-
son of WQI calculated by NFSWQI, were discussed in this section, and are defined in
Figure 5.
Water 2021, 13, 905 23 of 34

Water 2021, 13, x (MACBETH and AHP), uncertainty and sensitivity analyses, as well as comparison of WQI
23 of 34
calculated by NFSWQI, were discussed in this section, and are defined in Figure 5.

Figure5.5.Diagram
Figure Diagramindicated
indicatedthat
thatthe
thecalculation
calculationprocess
processof
ofWQI
WQIwith
with MCDM
MCDM methods
methods have
have been
been
discussed step by step.
discussed step by step.

4.1.Measuring
4.1. MeasuringAttractiveness
Attractiveness
byby a Categorical
a Categorical Based
Based Evaluation
Evaluation Technique
Technique (MACBETH)
(MACBETH) Method
Method
In the early 1990s, Costa et al. [141] proposed the MACBETH method. It is an MCDM
In the
technique early 1990s,
anchored Costa
on the et al.of[141]
theory proposed
multiple the MACBETH
attributes and depends method. It is an MCDM
on decision-makers
technique
pair anchored on between
wise comparisons the theory of multipleand
alternatives attributes andMACBETH
criteria. depends onanalyzes
decision-makers
attrac-
pair wise
tiveness comparisons
by purposes between alternatives
of a classification formulation and processcriteria.
through MACBETH analyzes
different scales. It
attractiveness
improves by purposes
accuracy to assessofhow
a classification formulation
similarly important process get
decisions through different
the same rank;scales.
the
options that are
It improves more attractive
accuracy than similarly
to assess how others are highly valued.
important decisions After
getthis, it helps
the same rank
rank; the
the alternatives
options that areaccording to decision
more attractive than criteria
others arebased on the
highly aggregate
valued. After value
this, itofhelps
the relative
rank the
weighted attraction
alternatives of alternatives.
according to decision The most crucial
criteria based step
on thefor decision-makers
aggregate value in ofMACBETH
the relative
isweighted
to make aattraction
clear and reasonable appraisal of the effectiveness of the criteria,
of alternatives. The most crucial step for decision-makers in MAC- otherwise the
findings that can lead to irrelevant directions. Considering the significance
BETH is to make a clear and reasonable appraisal of the effectiveness of the criteria, oth- of access to safe
drinking
erwise thewater, multi-objective
findings that can leadassessment is essential
to irrelevant to improve
directions. the authority’s
Considering decisionof
the significance
toaccess
analyze
to the
safesuitability of water
drinking water, for different purposes.
multi-objective assessment is essential to improve the au-
Furthermore,
thority’s decisionthis methodthe
to analyze hassuitability
been usedoffor various
water purposes;purposes.
for different Joerin et al. [142] used
the MACBETH method to evaluate microbiological contamination
Furthermore, this method has been used for various purposes; Joerin in a safe et
potable water
al. [142] used
system.
the MACBETH method to evaluate microbiological contamination in a safe potablepollu-
MACBETH has been applied by Lavoie et al. [143] to identify groundwater water
tion in a multi-criteria
system. MACBETH has decision
been analysis,
applied by taking
Lavoieintoetaccount
al. [143]that
to land use and
identify hydrological
groundwater pol-
data
lution in a multi-criteria decision analysis, taking into account that land use and activi-
as groundwater is clean for use by people, and may be influenced by land-use hydro-
logical data as groundwater is clean for use by people, and may be influenced by land-
use activities. MACBETH has also been used by Lavoie et al. [144] to assess the ecological
benefits of wetlands. Furthermore, Carvalho et al. [145] proposed a Regulative Impact As-
Water 2021, 13, 905 24 of 34

ties. MACBETH has also been used by Lavoie et al. [144] to assess the ecological benefits of
wetlands. Furthermore, Carvalho et al. [145] proposed a Regulative Impact Assessment
(RIA) to determine the possible effect of water management acts on water resources in en-
vironmental and socio-economic areas using MACBETH. Moreover, MACBETH has been
successfully applied to various fields in the literature, such as performance measurement
systems (PMSs), human resources management, research and development, career choice
problems, natural phenomena, medical science, potable water, drinking water utilities,
projects development, politics, etc. [146].

4.2. Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP) Method

Saaty and Vargas [147] proposed an AHP method that depends on the MCDM method,
which splits the issue based on decision criteria, sub-criteria, and alternatives to achieve
a specific purpose. AHP is discussed as an appropriate alternative to the non-physical
measurable requirements, which integrates the difficulty in decision-making with the use
of the ratio scale, and can be used in group and individual decision-making [148]. This
approach is used to examine the relative weights of available alternatives, and also applies
to different fields of study, including energy, banking, defense, education, fishery, medicine,
food, supply chain, etc. [34]. Moreover, this process has been accepted throughout the
world due to its multifunctional characteristics described by Forman and Gass [149] who
stated the distribution of resources, quality measurement, and forecasting. AHP consists
of three main segments: (1) the decomposition criterion; (2) the alternative by compara-
tive decisions, (3) the priority planning of the criteria. It uses the eigenvalue method to
formulate decision hierarchy by connecting criterion with each alternative. Furthermore,
Ishizaka and Labib [150] commenting on the AHP weight allocation, have allowed for
the hierarchical path of deciding criterion that allows decision-makers to concentrate on
main and sub-criteria. Moreover, comparison matrices can be developed to make the
decision-making method more precise. The criteria rating are relevant since the numerous
structures can provide negligible results.
There is an issue of the rank reversal for inversion scaling in the eigenvalue process
for priority derivation. It is complicated and most critical to use AHP to make a dynamic
model more straightforward and make decisions on hierarchy and scaling accurately.
Previous studies indicated that a lot of research had been performed to investigate surface
and groundwater characteristics for various purposes with the AHP method’s help. This
method has been used by Carbajal-Hernández et al. [151] for an assessment of the WQI
for aquaculture, by choosing parameters concerning ecosystem priorities, feeding rate for
environmental conditions, and the outcomes compared with CCME. The AHP method
has been used by Delgado-Galvan [152] for the assessing and evaluation of externalities in
leakage management. Moreover, Dar et al. [153] used the AHP method for investigation of
potential groundwater systems in Kashmir Valley, northwestern-Himalayas. Furthermore,
Kazakis et al. [154] used the AHP method for research of potential groundwater systems
in Kashmir Valley, northwestern-Himalayas. Also, Kazakis et al. [155] used a distributed
hierarchical analysis to evaluate the water cycle status in Beijing, China; therefore, the states
of the water cycle are essential for modeling the potential water for sustainable progress.
MACBETH is based on comparisons, such as AHP on pair-wise comparisons. There
are some differences between MACBETH and the AHP method. In AHP, the decision
hierarchy is developed, while MACBETH’s decision problem is defined as a decision
tree. Moreover, AHP uses the eigenvalue for assessing the weights, but MACBETH
uses the linear approach of programming. Another difference is that AHP permits a
10% inconsistency, but MACBETH makes no inconsistency. The significant advantage
of MACBETH is that decisions are tested for theoretical and semantic consistency. In
MCDM problems, both can be used to calculate requirement weights and the ranking of
alternatives, despite their variations.
Water 2021, 13, 905 25 of 34

4.2.1. Selection of Criteria

The identification and selection of criteria that differentiate between alternatives must
be based on objectives. A decision-making problem involving several criteria is especially
useful in providing better alternatives. Being optional, significant, and non-repetitive
should be an ideal set of criteria. Therefore, the purpose of choosing criteria depends on
the consumption of water. It is essential to calculate WQI because of the water resources’
potable water quality conditions. In selecting criteria, a helpful analysis has been carried out
to determine the quantities of water consumption in various sectors. From the guidance of
experts, scientific reviews, and literature surveys, the use of water for agriculture, domestic,
and industrial purposes, as well as potable and non-potable uses, are more significant.

4.2.2. Selection of Alternatives

Analysis of a finite set of alternatives is an essential part of decision-making. All
available alternatives are compared to the aspects selected, and any alternatives that fail
to fulfil the aspects are discarded until only one alternative remains; thus, achieving the
desired objective. Therefore, the selection of parameters as physicochemical and biological
for water quality analysis is challenging; there is no particular technique. The selection
of physicochemical parameters for water quality can be used from the previous citation
frequency studies. For instance, the determination of water quality status was estimated
through the WQI method for Dokan Lake, Kurdistan region, Iraq, where 10 parameters
(pH, turbidity, DO, EC, TH, alkalinity, Na+ , BOD, NO3− , and TDS) have been applied by
Alobaidy et al. [156]. Furthermore, as with Zotou et al. [157] 13 water quality parameters
were taken into consideration, in applying the specific WQI and in determining their
quality status: pH, NO3− , DO, EC, TSS, turbidity, T, NH4+ , BOD, COD, NO2− , TKN (total
Kjeldahl nitrogen), and TP (total phosphorus).
Moreover, Nong et al. [23] and other researchers [1,34,68,158,159], considered the
above-described parameters of water quality in critical aspects, such as drinking, domestic,
agriculture, and industrial purposes. For example, using the NSFWQI, selecting parameters
in this method can help determine WQI between the areas and gives overall water quality
status. This is one of the techniques used by the NSF to assess WQI to provide the
comparative status of different water bodies’ water quality. This indexing approach is not
unbiased since a panel of experts found those, as mentioned, above 11 physicochemical
parameters. Some other expert panels may measure the quality parameters differently, as
well as resulting in different findings to comparability and uniqueness [5].

4.2.3. Aggregation of AHP and MACBETH Methods for Parameters Weights

Both MACBETH and AHP are the MCDM methods that help decision-makers con-
struct a complicated problem. These two approaches generally follow four stages: selecting
criteria, selecting alternatives, rating the criteria and alternative as per user requirement,
and contrasting every alternative with criteria. AHP appears to act on a ratio scale, while
MACBETH operates on various scales. This study considers the alternatives based on cita-
tion frequency of the physicochemical and biological parameters (pH, TDS, EC, turbidity,
TH, DO, BOD, COD, TOC, alkalinity, salinity, temperature, fecal coliform, heavy metals,
and major ions), which are essential for water quality status. Moreover, there are four
main criteria for water usage, such as drinking water, agriculture, domestic, and industrial.
When assessing the WQI, each parameter weighing is multiplied by the quantification field
or laboratory, experimentally obtained by the overall parameter’s total value leading from
the WQI. This process does not require a standard or permissible calculation value of the
selected parameters. Therefore, WQI determination can be directly written, mathematically,
as seen in Equation (20), and defined by Horton [8].
n
WQI = ∑ Wi × Qi (20)
i=1
Water 2021, 13, 905 26 of 34

where WQI is the water quality index, (n) denotes number of selected parameters, Wi
denotes individual parameter weightage, and Qi indicates laboratory experimental value
or field value of parameters.

4.2.4. Comparison with WQI Estimated by AHP/MACBETH and Developed Index

(NFSWQI, OWQI, BMWQI and WAWQI)
WQI computation with certain authorized indices (for example, NSFWQI is already
discussed in Supplementary Materials. NSFWQI has been established by the National
Sanitation Foundation, which is one effective method to assess WQI to give relative water
quality status of different water bodies. This indexing approach is not objective since
the select eleven parameters have been taken into account by experts. It can occur that
other experts will provide the quality parameters of different ratings, resulting in less
reliability and uniqueness. The obtained value of the sub-index for each parameter and
the standard values should be considered, which is distinct for each factor, including
industrial, domestic, and irrigation purposes of water usage. The sub-index process makes
the calculation more complicated and unnecessary, as discussed in Section 3.2. For each
water use criterion, different weights of parameters should also be calculated. Therefore,
the procedure is simple using AHP since the method provides an overall weighting of
the parameters, combining all four criteria. WQI calculations have also been carried out
using MACBETH to use the same approach for selecting criteria and alternatives for AHP
(Figure 4).

4.2.5. Uncertainty and Senstivity Analysis in the Development of WQI

The parameters selection, sub-index values formation, establishing weights, and
selecting the index aggregation method are not accepted 100% objectively or accurately
when developing WQI throughout the world. Several index developers use all four steps to
establish a WQI while certain WQI users apply a few steps to consider the final index value.
Therefore, problems such as eclipsing, uncertainty, and rigidity are always a challenge for
developing WQI. Parameters selection, parameter establishing weights, and aggregation
methods can be sources of uncertainty. The previous study indicated that the sensitivity and
uncertainty analysis had been rarely performed to reduce the uncertainty to the established
WQI [34]. Therefore, the purpose of the uncertainty technique is to evaluate the sources
and the uncertainty in developing a WQI and their impact on the aggregation of final index
values. Moreover, the aim of the sensitivity analysis helps to explain how the input variable
uncertainties influence the uncertainties of an output variable of a model [44]. Therefore,
sensitivity analysis is a method that calculates the effect on a dependent variable of several
independent variables. There are certain essential approaches associated with sensitivity
analyses for selecting parameters, including the one-at-a-time method, local strategies,
statistical analysis; variance-based, scatter plots methods, etc. However, the most simple
statistical analysis approach can be used by modifying one factor, at a point to see what
changes it creates on the output.
The statistical analysis involves correlation analyses, such as FA and CA, which
can be helpful in the process of parameter selection in order to reduce the uncertainty
and sensitivity analysis. For instance, many researchers have applied the FA and CA
methods to achieve the optimal selection of parameters and its weights for cost-efficient
monitoring purposes [160–163]. Moreover, Khalil et al. [164,165] applied the CA to choose
the appropriate selection of parameters that can be used for the development of the WQI.
Therefore, it is suggested that the view of local water quality developers (through strategies
such as the MCDM method) be considered in every one of the steps taken in establishing
a WQI. For instance, concerning the NSFWQI in the United States, the presence of WQI
developers on water quality parameters is extremely strong and has evolved into a standard
method for establishing processes for other indices, such as Smith Index, Ross Index, Dinius
Index, SRDD Index, Dunnette Index, Almeida Index, and Vaal Index.
Water 2021, 13, 905 27 of 34

5. Future Developments
The purpose of the WQI method was introduced in the 1960s to evaluate the statues
of water quality. Significant attempts have been made to improve the WQI (for simple
calculation) to help minimize efforts, for great precision, and to address a number of
challenges in the future using MCDM methods. The use of less rigid and straightforward
calculations with flexibility in the selection of parameters and weightage of variables can
help in searching for a globally accepted and effective index. WQI developers can use all
four steps or a few steps; however, a 100% accurate or objective method in WQI has not
been accepted worldwide [166].
Thus, problems, such as rigidity, uncertainty, and eclipsing, will always be a challenge
in the development of a WQI [34]. Because the steps of developing a WQI are subjected to
subjectivity and ambiguity, it can also be assumed that statistical methods can be useful
for reducing uncertainty in steps, such as parameter selection processes. Furthermore,
in order to emphasize the importance of the opinion of local experts in developing a
WQI, it is crucial to ensure that the parameter weights analysis is carried out via the
involvement of major authorities involved in the water quality process. Thus, selecting
the most appropriate environmental parameters would be immensely important, and
will provide the user with a certain form of the algorithm. Such selection should also be
related to the potential aspects of water body pollution, the economic implications, and the
description of technical staff in the methods to calculate these parameters.
Many government agencies and individuals implemented the WQI method, mainly
based on parameter selection and the usage of water resources for different purposes,
including understanding water contamination and clean water. Water use, according to
each legislation and the search for the relevant water purification, will also be more effective
depending on these factors (uncertainty and eclipsing). Moreover, this method contributes
to useful information of the concentration of physical, chemical, and biological parameters
in water resources, which is straightforward and easy to understand and can also be
utilized by water agencies and the wider community. This method provides information
on the type of water consumption, and its various purposes according to the location, time,
and particular specific water quality parameters. Zahedi [166] attempted to correlate the
index introduced by Meireles et al. [167] to that established in his work through many
statistical methods, and to identify potential conflicts between the use of water for public
supply and irrigation purposes.
MCDM methods can give accurate values, with less effort, in the WQI development.
Still, the problem is that each water quality index uses various selection parameters and
different weights of parameters. Additional parameters for essential factors can be imple-
mented in related studies through the involvement of local experts. AHP and MACBETH
may be used to identify more essential factors if this is considered in the future. In addi-
tion, questions on essential factors can be included in the questionnaire utilizing AHP for
acquiring parameter weights. Combining research through local experts on specific impor-
tant factors with weights would lead to more efficient time management. Therefore, this
study discusses the proposed WQI method for monitoring the quality of water resources
based on the MCDM (AHP and MACBETH) approach, considering the importance of the
different criteria based on the four important water uses: drinking, industrial, irrigation,
and domestic purposes.

6. Conclusions
Water quality depends on human consumption, area, and specific parameters. The
WQI method plays a crucial role in the determination of significant water analysis multi-
parameter values in single-digit scores. Thus, WQI is a mathematical technique to measure
the overall status of surface water and groundwater quality at certain times and places.
This study reviewed and addressed 46 usable WQI methods, in terms of the four steps to
establish WQI, from the 1960s to 2020. Moreover, the WQI calculation procedure, based on
the four basic steps, is a prolonged process to measure the water quality. Therefore, this
Water 2021, 13, 905 28 of 34

study aimed to address the easy and simple procedure of calculating WQI for the assess-
ment of water quality of water resources, based on two methods of MCDM: MACBETH
and AHP. MCDM techniques can easily calculate WQI with less work and great precision
and allow flexibility and error reduction based on the weighting values of parameters.
MCDM is a process to define and select alternatives based on the decision-makers priorities
and values, with individual criteria or with multiple criteria.
MACBETH and AHP methods are mainly based on four steps: selecting criteria based
on demand from users, selecting alternatives to make decisions, the classification of criteria
and alternatives based on the value from consumers, and a comparison of alternatives and
criteria. MACBETH is an advantageous way to evaluate the weight of the criteria and
rank alternatives based on qualitative judgments. Furthermore, this study recommends
that every step of the development process quantify and identify the sources of rigidity,
eclipsing, and uncertainty. Moreover, it is recommended that the selection of parameters
have a fixed set of water quality parameters for both surface water and groundwater, for
drinking, domestic, irrigation, and industrial purposes. The quantification of uncertainty
and a fixed set of parameters will improve an index’s overall credibility and help index
developers. Their users will better understand the strengths and limitations of a WQI.
The study will also help provide valuable information for the use or customizing existing
indicators to water resource authorities globally, and contribute to future WQI development
for successful planning and studies.

Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/

10.3390/w13070905/s1. The WQI method is used for unequal weights to achieving the final index,
discussed in Table S1, and some of the methods used equal weights, as described in Table S2 in the
Supplementary Materials.
Author Contributions: Structure design: N.A. and M.I.S.I. Literature review and creation of all
figures and tables were N.A. Conceptualization and critical analysis: K.U. and M.I.A. Theoretical
checks and manuscript editing: M.S.M.Y.; A.Q.; M.S.M.Y.; M.T.A., and Y.K.A.A. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The APC was funded by Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800, Penang, Malaysia.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data was contained within the article and Supplementary Materials.
Acknowledgments: This review article has been financially supported by Universiti Sains Malaysia,
11800, Penang, Malaysia.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Jha, M.K.; Shekhar, A.; Jenifer, M.A. Assessing Groundwater Quality for Drinking Water Supply Using Hybrid Fuzzy-GIS-Based
Water Quality Index. Water Res. 2020, 179, 1–16. [CrossRef]
2. Akhtar, N.; Syakir, M.I.; Rai, S.P.; Saini, R.; Pant, N.; Anees, M.T.; Qadir, A.; Khan, U. Multivariate Investigation of Heavy Metals
in the Groundwater for Irrigation and Drinking in Garautha Tehsil, Jhansi District, India. Anal. Lett. 2020, 53, 774–794. [CrossRef]
3. Akhtar, N.; Syakir, M.I.; Anees, M.T.; Qadir, A.; Yusuff, M.S. Characteristics and Assessment of Groundwater. In Groundwater;
Chapter 3; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2020; pp. 1–20.
4. Sutadian, A.D.; Muttil, N.; Yilmaz, A.; Perera, C. Development of River Water Quality Indices—A Review. Environ. Monit. Assess.
2016, 188, 1–33. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Lumb, A.; Sharma, T.C.; Bibeault, J.F. A Review of Genesis and Evolution of Water Quality Index (WQI) and Some Future
Directions. Water Qual. Expo. Health 2011, 3, 11–24. [CrossRef]
6. Banda, T.D.; Kumarasamy, M. A Review of the Existing Water Quality Indices (WQIs). J. Phys. Opt. 2020, 2, 1–19.
7. Abbasi, T.; Abbasi, S.A. Water Quality Indices; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2012.
8. Horton, R.K. An Index Number System for Rating Water Quality. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 1965, 37, 300–306.
9. Brown, R.M.; McClelland, N.I.; Deininger, R.A.; Tozer, R.G. A Water Quality Index—Do We Dare? Water Sew. Works 1970, 117,
339–343.
Water 2021, 13, 905 29 of 34

10. Scottish Research Development Department (SRDD). Development of a Water Quality Index; Engineering Division: Edinburg, UK, 1976.
11. Liou, S.M.; Lo, S.L.; Wang, S.H. A Generalized Water Quality Index for Taiwan. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2004, 96, 35–52. [CrossRef]
12. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). Canadian Water Quality Index 1.0 Technical Report and User’s Manual;
Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines Water Quality Index Technical Subcommittee: Gatineau, QC, Canada, 2001.
13. Zandbergen, P.A.; Hall, K.J. Analysis of the British Columbia Water Quality Index for Watershed Managers: A Case Study of Two
Small Watersheds. Water Qual. Res. J. 1998, 33, 519–549. [CrossRef]
14. Sargaonkar, A.; Deshpande, V. Development of an Overall Index of Pollution for Surface Water Based on a General Classification
Scheme in Indian Context. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2003, 89, 43–67. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. Cude, C.G. Oregon Water Quality Index a Tool for Evaluating Water Quality Management Effectiveness. J. Am. Water Resour.
Assoc. 2001, 37, 125–137. [CrossRef]
16. Bhargave, D.S. Expression for Drinking Water Supply Standards. J. Environ. Eng. 1985, 111, 304–310. [CrossRef]
17. Shuhaimi-Othman, M.; Lim, E.C.; Mushrifah, I. Water Quality Changes in Chini Lake, Pahang, West Malaysia. Environ. Monit.
Assess. 2007, 131, 279–292. [CrossRef]
18. Nemerow, N.L. Benefits of Water Quality Enhancement; Environmental Protection Agency, Water Quality Office, US Government:
Washington, DC, USA, 1971.
19. Banda, T.D. Developing an Equitable Raw Water Pricing Model: The Vaal Case Study. Master’s Thesis, Tshwane University of
Technology, Pretoria, South Africa, 2015.
20. Banda, T.D.; Kumarasamy, M. Aggregation Techniques Applied in Water Quality Indices (WQIs). Pollut. Res. 2020, 39, 400–441.
21. Qu, X.; Chen, Y.; Liu, H.; Xia, W.; Lu, Y.; Gang, D.D.; Lin, L.S. A Holistic Assessment of Water Quality Condition and
Spatiotemporal Patterns in Impounded Lakes along the Eastern Route of China’s South-to-North Water Diversion Project. Water
Res. 2020, 185, 1–14. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22. Ma, Z.; Li, H.; Ye, Z.; Wen, J.; Hu, Y.; Liu, Y. Application of Modified Water Quality Index (WQI) in the Assessment of Coastal
Water Quality in Main Aquaculture Areas of Dalian, China. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 157, 1–18. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. Nong, X.; Shao, D.; Zhong, H.; Liang, J. Evaluation of Water Quality in the South-to-North Water Diversion Project of China
Using the Water Quality Index (WQI) Method. Water Res. 2020, 178, 1–15. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. Şener, Ş.; Şener, E.; Davraz, A. Evaluation of Water Quality Using Water Quality Index (WQI) Method and GIS in Aksu River
(SW-Turkey). Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 584–585, 131–144. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25. Hurley, T.; Sadiq, R.; Mazumder, A. Adaptation and Evaluation of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Water
Quality Index (CCME WQI) for Use as an Effective Tool to Characterize Drinking Source Water Quality. Water Res. 2012, 46,
3544–3552. [CrossRef]
26. Wu, Z.; Wang, X.; Chen, Y.; Cai, Y.; Deng, J. Assessing River Water Quality Using Water Quality Index in Lake Taihu Basin, China.
Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 612, 914–922. [CrossRef]
27. Effendi, H.; Romanto; Wardiatno, Y. Water Quality Status of Ciambulawung River, Banten Province, Based on Pollution Index
and NSF-WQI. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2015, 24, 228–237. [CrossRef]
28. De Oliveira, M.D.; de Rezende, O.L.T.; de Fonseca, J.F.R.; Libânio, M. Evaluating the Surface Water Quality Index Fuzzy and Its
Influence on Water Treatment. J. Water Process. Eng. 2019, 32, 100890. [CrossRef]
29. Ghimire, S.; Flury, M.; Scheenstra, E.J.; Miles, C.A. Spatio-Temporal Variation of WQI, Scaling and Corrosion Indices, and
Principal Component Analysis in Rural Areas of Marand, Iran. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 11, 1–09. [CrossRef]
30. Seifi, A.; Dehghani, M.; Singh, V.P. Uncertainty Analysis of Water Quality Index (WQI) for Groundwater Quality Evaluation:
Application of Monte-Carlo Method for Weight Allocation. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 117, 106653. [CrossRef]
31. Sahoo, S.; Khaoash, S. Impact Assessment of Coal Mining on Groundwater Chemistry and Its Quality from Brajrajnagar Coal
Mining Area Using Indexing Models. J. Geochem. Explor. 2020, 215, 1–17. [CrossRef]
32. Adimalla, N.; Qian, H. Groundwater Quality Evaluation Using Water Quality Index (WQI) for Drinking Purposes and Human
Health Risk (HHR) Assessment in an Agricultural Region of Nanganur, South India. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2019, 176, 153–161.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
33. Yousefi, H.; Zahedi, S.; Niksokhan, M.H. Modifying the Analysis Made by Water Quality Index Using Multi-Criteria Decision
Making Methods. J. Afr. Earth Sci. 2018, 138, 309–318. [CrossRef]
34. Sutadian, A.D.; Muttil, N.; Yilmaz, A.G.; Perera, B.J.C. Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process to Identify Parameter Weights for
Developing a Water Quality Index. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 75, 220–233. [CrossRef]
35. Yan, F.; Qiao, D.; Qian, B.; Ma, L.; Xing, X.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, X. Improvement of CCME WQI Using Grey Relational Method. J.
Hydrol. 2016, 543, 316–323. [CrossRef]
36. Mohebbi, M.R.; Saeedi, R.; Montazeri, A.; Vaghefi, K.A.; Labbafi, S.; Oktaie, S.; Abtahi, M.; Mohagheghian, A. Assessment of
Water Quality in Groundwater Resources of Iran Using a Modified Drinking Water Quality Index (DWQI). Ecol. Indic. 2013, 30,
28–34. [CrossRef]
37. Fathi, P.; Ebrahimi, E.; Mirghafarry, M.; Esmaeili Ofogh, A. Water Quality Assessment in Choghakhor Wetland Using Water
Quality Index (WQI). Iran. J. Fish. Sci. 2016, 15, 508–523.
38. Bassi, N.; Kumar, M.D. Water Quality Index as a Tool for Wetland Restoration. Water Policy. 2017, 19, 390–403. [CrossRef]
39. Al-Musawi, N.O.; Al-Obaidi, S.K.; Al-Rubaie, F.M. Evaluating Water Quality Index of Al Hammar Marsh, South of Iraq with the
Application of GIS Technique. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2018, 13, 4118–4130.
Water 2021, 13, 905 30 of 34

40. Singh, A.K.; Sathya, M.; Verma, S.; Jayakumar, S. Spatiotemporal Variation of Water Quality Index in Kanwar Wetland, Begusarai,
India. Sustain. Water Resour. Manag. 2020, 6, 1–8. [CrossRef]
41. Hong, Z.; Zhao, Q.; Chang, J.; Peng, L.; Wang, S.; Hong, Y.; Liu, G.; Ding, S. Evaluation of Water Quality and Heavy Metals in
Wetlands along the Yellow River in Henan Province. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1300. [CrossRef]
42. Ghorbani, A.; Mohammadi, M.; Mohammadi, Z. Water Quality Evaluation of Torghabeh River of Mashhad Using Combination
of NSFWQI Index and Geographic Information System. Int. J. Adv. Biol. Biomed. Res. 2014, 2, 2416–2430.
43. Mladenović-Ranisavljević, I.I.; Takić, L.; Nikolić, Ð. Water Quality Assessment Based on Combined Multi-Criteria Decision-
Making Method with Index Method. Water Resour. Manag. 2018, 32, 2261–2276. [CrossRef]
44. Sarkar, K.; Majumder, M. Application of AHP-Based Water Quality Index for Quality Monitoring of Peri-Urban Watershed.
Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 1780–1798. [CrossRef]
45. Chung, E.S.; Kim, S.U.; Park, K.S.; Lee, K.S. Integrated Watershed Management Using Multicriteria Decision Making Techniques;
International Water Resources Association (IWRA): Cancun, Quintana Roo, Mexico, 2017; pp. 1–12.
46. Jakeman, A.J.; Giupponi, C.; Karssenberg, D.; Hare, M.P.; Fassio, A.; Letcher, R.A. Integrated Management of Water Resources:
Concepts, Approaches and Challenges. In Sustainable Management of Water Resources: An Integrated Approach; Edward Elgar:
Northampton, MA, USA, 2006. [CrossRef]
47. Talukder, B.; Blay-Palmer, A.; Hipel, K.W.; VanLoon, G.W. Elimination Method of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA): A
Simple Methodological Approach for Assessing Agricultural Sustainability. Sustainability 2017, 9, 287. [CrossRef]
48. Soltani, A.; Hewage, K.; Reza, B.; Sadiq, R. Multiple Stakeholders in Multi-Criteria Decision-Making in the Context of Municipal
Solid Waste Management: A Review. Waste Manag. 2015, 35, 318–328. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
49. Oztaysi, B. A Decision Model for Information Technology Selection Using AHP Integrated TOPSIS-Grey: The Case of Content
Management Systems. Knowl. Based Syst. 2014, 70, 44–54. [CrossRef]
50. Ilangkumaran, M.; Karthikeyan, M.; Ramachandran, T.; Boopathiraja, M.; Kirubakaran, B. Risk Analysis and Warning Rate of Hot
Environment for Foundry Industry Using Hybrid MCDM Technique. Saf. Sci. 2014, 72, 133–143. [CrossRef]
51. Yilmaz, B.; Harmancioglu, N.B. Multi-Criteria Decision Making for Water Resource Management: A Case Study of the Gediz
River Basin, Turkey. Water SA 2010, 36, 563–576. [CrossRef]
52. Alamanos, A.; Mylopoulos, N.; Loukas, A.; Gaitanaros, D. An Integrated Multicriteria Analysis Tool for Evaluating Water
Resource Management Strategies. Water 2018, 10, 1795. [CrossRef]
53. Wang, H.; Cai, Y.; Tan, Q.; Zeng, Y. Evaluation of Groundwater Remediation Technologies Based on Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision
Analysis Approaches. Water 2017, 9, 443. [CrossRef]
54. Chung, E.S.; Lee, K.S. Identification of Spatial Ranking of Hydrological Vulnerability Using Multi-Criteria Decision Making
Techniques: Case Study of Korea. Water Resour. Manag. 2009, 23, 2395–2416. [CrossRef]
55. Ceballos, B.; Lamata, M.T.; Pelta, D.A. A Comparative Analysis of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods. Prog. Artif. Intell.
2016, 5, 315–322. [CrossRef]
56. Brown, R.M.; McClelland, N.I.; Deininger, R.A.; Landwehr, J.M. Validating the WQI. In Proceedings of the National Meeting of
American Society of Civil Engineers on Water Resources Engineering, Washington, DC, USA, 29 January–2 February 1973.
57. Ott, W.R. Environmental Indices: Theory and Practice; Ann Arbor Science Publishers: Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 1978.
58. Steinhart, C.E.; Schierow, L.J.; Chesters, G. A Review of Water Quality and Related Indices. Great Lakes Environmental Planning Study
Contribution No. 38; Water Resources Center, University of Wisconsin: Madison, WI, USA, 1981.
59. Cooper, J.A.G.; Ramm, A.E.L.; Harrison, T.D. The estuarine health index: A new approach to scientific information transfer. Ocean
Coast. Manag. 1994, 25, 103–141. [CrossRef]
60. Richardson, A.M. Development of an Estuarine Water Quality Index (eWQI) for New South Wales; The University of Sydney: Sydney,
Australia, 1997.
61. Van Helmond, C.; Breukel, R. Physico-Chemical water quality indices. In Proceedings of the International Works on Information
Strategies in Water Management, Nunspeet, The Netherlands, 9–12 September 1996; Volume 7, pp. 475–479.
62. Pesce, S.F.; Wunderlin, D.A. Use of water quality indices to verify the impact of Córdoba City (Argentina) on Suquía River. Water
Res. 2000, 34, 2915–2926. [CrossRef]
63. Ŝtambuk-Giljanović, N. Comparison of Dalmatian Water Evaluation Indices. Water Environ. Res. 2003, 75, 388–405. [CrossRef]
64. Kim, A.G.; Cardone, C.R. Scatterscore: A reconnaissance method to evaluate changes in water quality. Environ. Monit. Assess.
2005, 111, 277–295. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
65. Tsegaye, T.; Sheppard, D.; Islam, K.R.; Tadesse, W.; Atalay, A.; Marzen, L. Development of chemical index as a measure of
in-stream water quality in response to land-use and land cover changes. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2006, 174, 161–179. [CrossRef]
66. Prescott-Allen, R. The Wellbeing of Nations: A Country-by-Country Index of Quality of Life and the Environment; Island Press:
Washington, DC, USA, 2001.
67. Esty, D.C.; Levy, M.A.; Srebotnjak, T.; Sherbinin, A.; Kim, C.H.; Anderson, B. Pilot 2006 Environmental Performance Index; Yale
Center for Environmental Law & Policy: New Haven, CT, USA; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2006.
68. Bharti, N.; Katyal, D. Water Quality Indices Used for Surface Water Vulnerability Assessment. Int. J. Environ. Sci. 2011, 2, 154–173.
69. Wendling, Z.A.; Emerson, J.W.; Esty, D.C.; Levy, M.A.; Sherbinin, A. Environmental Performance Index; Yale Center for Environmental
Law & Policy, Yale University: New Haven, CT, USA, 2018. Available online: https://epi.yale.edu/ (accessed on 1 February 2021).
Water 2021, 13, 905 31 of 34

70. Kolkwitz, R.; Marsson, M. Ökologie Der Tierischen Saprobien. Beiträge Zur Lehre von Der Biologischen Gewässerbeurteilung
(Ecology of Animal Saprobias. Contributions to the Teaching of Biological Water Assessment). Int. Rev. Hydrobiol. Hydrogr. 1909,
2, 126–152. [CrossRef]
71. Jamshidzadeh, Z.; Barzi, M.T. Wastewater Quality Index (WWQI) as an Assessment Tool of Treated Wastewater Quality for
Agriculture: A Case of North Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent of Isfahan. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 7366–7378.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
72. Ladson, A.R.; White, L.J.; Doolan, J.A.; Finlayson, B.L.; Hart, B.T.; Lake, P.S.; Tilleard, J.W. Development and Testing of an Index
of Stream Condition for Waterway Management in Australia. Freshw. Biol. 1999, 41, 453–468. [CrossRef]
73. Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy, Yale University; Center for International Earth Science Information Network
(CIESIN), Columbia University. EPI.Environmental Performance Index; Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy, Yale University:
New Haven, CT, USA, 2010.
74. Sarkar, C.; Abbasi, S.A. Qualidex—A New Software for Generating Water Quality Indice. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2006, 119,
201–231. [CrossRef]
75. Ocampo-Duque, W.; Ferre-Huguet, N.; Domingo, J.L.; Schuhmacher, M. Assessing Water Quality in Rivers with Fuzzy Inference
Systems: A Case Study. Environ. Int. 2006, 32, 733–742. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
76. Swamee, P.K.; Tyagi, A. Improved Method for Aggregation of Water Quality Subindices. J. Environ. Eng. 2007, 133, 220–225.
[CrossRef]
77. Said, A.; Stevens, D.K.; Sehlke, G. An Innovative Index for Evaluating Water Quality in Streams. Environ. Manag. 2004, 34,
406–414. [CrossRef]
78. Kannel, P.R.; Lee, S.; Lee, Y.S.; Kanel, S.R.; Khan, S.P. Application of Water Quality Indices and Dissolved Oxygen as Indicators for
River Water Classification and Urban Impact Assessment. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2007, 132, 93–110. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
79. Dunnette, D.A. A Geographically Variable Water Quality Index Used in Oregon. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 1979, 51, 53–61.
80. Hanh, P.T.M.; Sthiannopkao, S.; Ba, D.T.; Kim, K.W. Development of Water Quality Indexes to Identify Pollutants in Vietnam’s
Surface Water. J. Environ. Eng. 2011, 137, 273–283. [CrossRef]
81. Prati, L.; Pavanello, R.; Pesarin, F. Assessment of Surface Water Quality by a Single Index of Pollution. Water Res. 1971, 5, 741–751.
[CrossRef]
82. Smith, D.G. A Better Water Quality Indexing System for Rivers and Streams. Water Res. 1990, 24, 1237–1244. [CrossRef]
83. Stoner, J.D. Water-Quality Indices for Specific Water Uses; Geological Survey Circular: Arlington, VA, USA, 1978. [CrossRef]
84. WHO. Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality, 4th ed.; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
85. Banda, T.D.; Kumarasamy, M.V. Development of Water Quality Indices (WQIs): A Review. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2020, 29,
2011–2021. [CrossRef]
86. Meyer, M.A.; Booker, J.M. Eliciting and Analyzing Expert Judgment: A Practical Guide; Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Division of
Systems Research: Washington, DC, USA; Los Alamos National Lab. (LANL): Los Alamos, NM, USA, 2001.
87. Steurer, J. The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications. Skelet. Radiol. 2011, 40, 959–961. [CrossRef]
88. Deininger, R.A. A Water Quality Index for Rivers. Water Int. 1980, 5, 16–21. [CrossRef]
89. Ghesquière, O.; Walter, J.; Chesnaux, R.; Rouleau, A. Scenarios of Groundwater Chemical Evolution in a Region of the Canadian
Shield Based on Multivariate Statistical Analysis. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud. 2015, 4, 246–266. [CrossRef]
90. Nagaraju, A.; Thejaswi, A.; Sreedhar, Y. Assessment of Groundwater Quality of Udayagiri Area, Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh,
South India Using Multivariate Statistical Techniques. Earth Sci. Res. J. 2016, 20, 1. [CrossRef]
91. Hou, D.; O’Connor, D.; Nathanail, P.; Tian, L.; Ma, Y. Integrated GIS and Multivariate Statistical Analysis for Regional Scale
Assessment of Heavy Metal Soil Contamination: A Critical Review. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 231, 1188–1200. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
92. Rehman, F.; Cheema, T.; Lisa, M.; Azeem, T.; Ali, N.A.; Khan, Z.; Rehman, F.; Rehman, S.U. Statistical Analysis Tools for
the Assessment of Groundwater Chemical Variations in Wadi Bani Malik Area, Saudi Arabia. Glob. Nest J. 2018, 20, 355–362.
[CrossRef]
93. Bu, H.; Song, X.; Zhang, Y. Using Multivariate Statistical Analyses to Identify and Evaluate the Main Sources of Contamination in
a Polluted River near to the Liaodong Bay in Northeast China. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 245, 1058–1070. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
94. Busico, G.; Kazakis, N.; Cuoco, E.; Colombani, N.; Tedesco, D.; Voudouris, K.; Mastrocicco, M. A Novel Hybrid Method of Specific
Vulnerability to Anthropogenic Pollution Using Multivariate Statistical and Regression Analyses. Water Res. 2020, 171, 1–12.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
95. Hallock, D. AWater Quality Index for Ecology’s Stream Monitoring Program; Washington State Department of Ecology: Olympia, WA,
USA, 2002.
96. Behera, B.; Das, M. Application of Multivariate Statistical Techniques for the Characterization of Groundwater Quality of Bacheli
and Kirandul Area, Dantewada District, Chattisgarh. J. Geol. Soc. India 2018, 91, 76–80. [CrossRef]
97. Gulgundi, M.S.; Shetty, A. Groundwater quality assessment of urban Bengaluru using multivariate statistical techniques. Appl.
Water Sci. 2018, 8, 1–15. [CrossRef]
98. Muangthong, S.; Shrestha, S. Assessment of Surface Water Quality Using Multivariate Statistical Techniques: Case Study of the
Nampong River and Songkhram River, Thailand. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2015, 187, 1–12. [CrossRef]
Water 2021, 13, 905 32 of 34

99. Daughney, C.J.; Raiber, M.; Moreau-Fournier, M.; Morgenstern, U.; Raaij, R.V.D. Use of Hierarchical Cluster Analysis to Assess
the Representativeness of a Baseline Groundwater Quality Monitoring Network: Comparison of New Zealand’s National and
Regional Groundwater Monitoring Programs. Hydrogeol. J. 2012, 20, 185–200. [CrossRef]
100. Trabelsi, R.; Zouari, K. Coupled Geochemical Modeling and Multivariate Statistical Analysis Approach for the Assessment
of Groundwater Quality in Irrigated Areas: A Study from North Eastern of Tunisia. Groundw.Sustain. Dev. 2019, 8, 413–427.
[CrossRef]
101. Ponsadailakshmi, S.; Sankari, S.G.; Prasanna, S.M.; Madhurambal, G. Evaluation of Water Quality Suitability for Drinking Using
Drinking Water Quality Index in Nagapattinam District, Tamil Nadu in Southern India. Groundw.Sustain. Dev. 2018, 6, 43–49.
[CrossRef]
102. House, M.A. A Water Quality Index for River Management. Water Environ. J. 1989, 3, 336–344. [CrossRef]
103. Bascaron, M. Establishment of a Methodology for the Determination of Water Quality. Bol. Inf. Medio Ambient. 1979, 9, 30–51.
104. BIS. Indian Standards Drinking Water Specifications IS 10500:2012; Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg: New Delhi, India, 2012.
105. USEPA. 2018 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories Tables; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washing-
ton, DC, USA, 2018.
106. INWQS. Interim National Water Quality Standard; Ministry of Environment And Water, Department of Environment (DOE):
Putrajaya, Malaysia, 2008.
107. APHA. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 23rd ed.; American Public Health Association: Washington,
DC, USA, 2017.
108. Almeida, C.; González, S.O.; Mallea, M.; González, P. A Recreational Water Quality Index Using Chemical, Physical and
Microbiological Parameters. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2012, 19, 3400–3411. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
109. Deininger, R.A.; Maciunas, J.J. A Water Quality Index for Public Water Supplies; Department of Environmental and Industrial Health,
School of Public Health, University of Michigan: Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 1971.
110. Tyson, J.M.; House, M.A. The Application of a Water Quality Index to River Management. Water Sci. Technol. 1989, 21, 1149–1159.
[CrossRef]
111. Dojlido, J.A.N.; Raniszewski, J.; Woyciechowska, J. Water Quality Index Applied to Rivers in the Vistula River Basin in Poland.
Environ. Monit. Assess. 1994, 33, 33–42. [CrossRef]
112. Zadeh, L.A. Fuzzy Sets, Fuzzy Logic and Fuzzy Systems; World Scientific: Singapore, 1996. [CrossRef]
113. Brown, R.M.; McClelland, N.I.; Deininger, R.A.; O’Connor, M.F. A Water Quality Index—Crashing the Psychological Barrier. In
Indicators of Environmental Quality, Environmental Science Research; Thomas, W.A., Ed.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1972; Volume 1.
[CrossRef]
114. Walski, T.M.; Parker, F.L. Consumers Water Quality Index. J. Environ. Eng. Div. 1974, 100, 593–611. [CrossRef]
115. Harkins, R.D. An Objective Water Quality Index. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 1974, 7, 588–591.
116. Ross, S.L. An Index System for Classifying River Water Quality. Water Pollut. Control 1977, 76, 113–132.
117. Canter, L.W. The Guidance of Water Quality Status in Indonesia. Decree No 115/20032003; Environmental Impact Assessment;
University of Oklahoma, Macgraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1977.
118. Tiwari, T.N.; Mishra, M.A. A Preliminary Assignment of Water Quality Index of Major Indian Rivers. Indian J. Environ. Prot. 1985,
5, 276–279.
119. Dinius, S.H. Design of an Index of Water Quality. JAWRA J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 1987, 23, 833–843. [CrossRef]
120. Sharifi, M. Assessment of Surface Water Quality by an Index System in Anzali Basin. Hydrol. Basis Water Resour. Manag. 1990, 197,
163–171.
121. Rocchini, R.; Swain, L.G. The British Columbia Water Quality Index. Water Quality Branch; British Columbia Ministry of Environment,
Land and Parks: Victoria, BC, Australia, 1995; Volume 13.
122. Wepener, V.; Van Vuren, J.H.J.; Preez, H.H.D.U. The Implementation of an Aquatic Toxicity Index as a Water Quality Monitoring
Tool in the Olifants River (Kruger National Park). Koedoe 1999, 42, 85–96. [CrossRef]
123. Nagels, J.W.; Davies-Colley, R.J.; Smith, D.G. A Water Quality Index for Contact Recreation in New Zealand. Water Sci. Technol.
2001, 43, 285–292. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
124. Kaurish, F.W.; Younos, T. Developing a Standardized Water Quality Index for Evaluating Surface Water Quality. J. Am. Water
Resour. Assoc. 2007, 43, 533–545. [CrossRef]
125. Schiff, R.; Benoit, G. Effects of Impervious Cover at Multiple Spatial Scales on Coastal Watershed Streams. J. Am. Water Resour.
Assoc. 2007, 43, 712–730. [CrossRef]
126. Boyacioglu, H. Development of a Water Quality Index Based on a European Classification Scheme. Water SA 2007, 33, 101–106.
[CrossRef]
127. Ocampo Duque, W.A. On the Development of Decision-Making Systems Based on Fuzzy Models to Assess Water Quality in
Rivers. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Chemical Engineering, Universitat Rovira i Virgil, Tarragona, Spain, 2008.
128. Islam, N.; Sadiq, R.; Rodriguez, M.J. Optimizing Booster Chlorination in Water Distribution Networks: A Water Quality Index
Approach. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2013, 185, 8035–8050. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
129. Wanda, E.M.M.; Mamba, B.B.; Msagati, T.A.M. Determination of the Water Quality Index Ratings of Water in the Mpumalanga
and North West Provinces, South Africa. Phys. Chem. Earth 2016, 92, 70–78. [CrossRef]
Water 2021, 13, 905 33 of 34

130. Medeiros, A.C.; Faial, K.R.F.; Faial, K.D.C.F.; Lopes, I.D.S.; Lima, M.D.O.; Guimarães, R.M.; Mendonça, N.M. Quality Index of the
Surface Water of Amazonian Rivers in Industrial Areas in Pará Brazil. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017, 123, 156–164. [CrossRef]
131. García-Ávila, F.; Ramos-Fernández, L.; Pauta, D.; Quezada, D. Evaluation of Water Quality and Stability in the Drinking Water
Distribution Network in the Azogues City, Ecuador. Data Br. 2018, 18, 111–123. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
132. Sutadian, A.; Muttil, N.; Yilmaz, A.G.; Perera, B.J.C. Development of a Water Quality Index for Rivers in West Java Province,
Indonesia. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 85, 966–982. [CrossRef]
133. Mojahedi, S.A.; Attari, J. A comparative study of water quality Indices for Karun river. Proc. World Environ. Water Resour. Congr.
GT Rivers 2009, 342, 2444–2452. [CrossRef]
134. Chaturvedi, A.; Bhattacharjee, S.; Mondal, G.C.; Kumar, V.; Singh, P.K.; Singh, A.K. Exploring new correlation between hazard
index and heavy metal pollution index in groundwater. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 97, 239–246. [CrossRef]
135. Lumb, A.A.; Halliwell, D.; Sharma, T. Application of CCME water quality index to monitor water quality: A case of the Mackenzie
River Basin, Canada. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2006, 113, 411–429. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
136. Khan, F.; Husain, T.; Lumb, A. Water quality evaluation and trend analysis in selected watersheds of the Atlantic region of
Canada. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2003, 88, 221–248. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
137. Terrado, M.; Barceló, D.; Tauler, R.; Borrell, E.; Campos, S.D. Surface-water-quality indices for the analysis of data generated by
automated sampling networks. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 2010, 29, 40–52. [CrossRef]
138. Gade, P.K.; Osuri, M. Evaluation of Multi Criteria Decision Making Methods for Potential Use in Application Security; Blekinge Institute
of Technology: Karlskrona, Sweden, 2014.
139. Hajkowicz, S.; Collins, K. A Review of Multiple Criteria Analysis for Water Resource Planning and Management. WaterResour.
Manag. 2007, 21, 1553–1566. [CrossRef]
140. Amorocho-Daza, H.; Cabrales, S.; Santos, R.; Saldarriaga, J. A New Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Methodology for the
Selection of New Water Supply Infrastructure. Water 2019, 11, 805. [CrossRef]
141. Bana e Costa, C.A.; De Corte, J.M.; Vansnick, J.C. MACBETH (Measuring Attractiveness by a Categorical Based Evaluation
Technique). In Wiley Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011;
pp. 2945–2950.
142. Joerin, F.; Cool, G.; Rodriguez, M.J.; Gignac, M.; Bouchard, C. Using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis to Assess the Vulnerability
of Drinking Water Utilities. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2010, 166, 313–330. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
143. Lavoie, R.; Joerin, F.; Vansnick, J.C.; Rodriguez, M.J. Integrating Groundwater into Land Planning: A Risk Assessment Methodol-
ogy. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 154, 358–371. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
144. Lavoie, R.; Deslandes, J.; Proulx, F. Assessing the Ecological Value of Wetlands Using the MACBETH Approach in Quebec City. J.
Nat. Conserv. 2016, 30, 67–75. [CrossRef]
145. De Carvalho, B.E.; Marques, R.C.; Netto, O.C. Rethinking Brasília’s Water Services: ‘New Targets’ Using the Regulatory Impact
Assessment (RIA) Tool. J. WaterSanit. Hyg. Dev. 2019, 9, 7–18. [CrossRef]
146. Demesouka, O.E.; Vavatsikos, A.P.; Anagnostopoulos, K.P. Using MACBETH Multicriteria Technique for GIS-Based Landfill
Suitability Analysis. J. Environ. Eng. 2016, 142. [CrossRef]
147. Saaty, T.L.; Vargas, L.G. Estimating Technological Coefficients by the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Socio-Econ.Plann. Sci. 1979, 13,
333–336. [CrossRef]
148. Lai, V.S.; Trueblood, R.P.; Wong, B.K. Software Selection: A Case Study of the Application of the Analytical Hierarchical Process
to the Selection of a Multimedia Authoring System. Inf. Manag. 1999, 36, 221–232. [CrossRef]
149. Forman, E.H.; Gass, S.I. The Analytic Hierarchy Process—An Exposition. Oper. Res. 2001, 49, 469–486. [CrossRef]
150. Ishizaka, A.; Labib, A. Analytic Hierarchy Process and Expert Choice: Benefits and Limitations. Oper. Res. Insight 2009, 22,
201–220. [CrossRef]
151. Carbajal-Hernández, J.J.; Sánchez-Fernández, L.P.; Villa-Vargas, L.A.; Carrasco-Ochoa, J.A.; Martínez-Trinidad, J.F. Water quality
assessment in shrimp culture using an analytical hierarchical process. Ecol. Indic. 2013, 29, 148–158. [CrossRef]
152. Delgado-Galván, X.; Pérez-García, R.; Izquierdo, J.; Mora-Rodríguez, J. An analytic hierarchy process for assessing externalities in
water leakage management. Math. Comput. Model. 2010, 52, 1194–1202. [CrossRef]
153. Dar, T.; Rai, N.; Bhat, A. Delineation of Potential Groundwater Recharge Zones Using Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). Geol.
Ecol. Landsc. 2020, 1, 1–16. [CrossRef]
154. Kazakis, N.; Busico, G.; Colombani, N.; Mastrocicco, M.; Pavlou, A.; Voudouris, K. GALDIT-SUSI a Modified Method to Account
for Surface Water Bodies in the Assessment of Aquifer Vulnerability to Seawater Intrusion. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 235, 257–265.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
155. Zhang, S.; Xiang, M.; Yang, J.; Fan, W.; Yi, Y. Distributed Hierarchical Evaluation and Carrying Capacity Models for Water
Resources Based on Optimal Water Cycle Theory. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 101, 432–443. [CrossRef]
156. Alobaidy, A.H.M.J.; Abid, H.S.; Maulood, B.K. Application of Water Quality Index for Assessment of Dokan Lake Ecosystem,
Kurdistan Region, Iraq. J. Water Resour. Prot. 2010, 2, 792–798. [CrossRef]
157. Zotou, I.; Tsihrintzis, V.A.; Gikas, G.D. Comparative Assessment of Various Water Quality Indices (WQIs) in Polyphytos
Reservoir-Aliakmon River, Greece. Proceedings 2018, 2, 611. [CrossRef]
158. Madalina, P.; Gabriela, B.I. Water Quality Index—An Instrument for Water Resources. Air Water Compon. Environ. 2014, 1, 391–398.
[CrossRef]
Water 2021, 13, 905 34 of 34

159. Satyanarayana, E.; Ratnakar, D.; Muralidhar, M. Major Ion Chemistry of Groundwater and Surface Water in Parts of Mulugu-
Venkatapur Mandal, Warangal District, Telangana State, India. J. Waste Water Treat. Anal. 2016, 7. [CrossRef]
160. Shrestha, S.; Kazama, F. Assessment of Surface Water Quality Using Multivariate Statistical Techniques: A Case Study of the Fuji
River Basin, Japan. Environ. Model. Softw. 2007, 22, 464–475. [CrossRef]
161. Juahir, H.; Zain, S.M.; Yusoff, M.K.; Hanidza, T.I.T.; Armi, A.S.M.; Toriman, M.E.; Mokhtar, M. Spatial Water Quality Assessment
of Langat River Basin (Malaysia) Using Environmetric Techniques. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2011, 173, 625–641. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
162. Njuguna, S.M.; Onyango, J.A.; Githaiga, K.B.; Gituru, R.W.; Yan, X. Application of Multivariate Statistical Analysis and Water
Quality Index in Health Risk Assessment by Domestic Use of River Water. Case Study of Tana River in Kenya. Process Saf. Environ.
Prot. 2020, 133, 149–158. [CrossRef]
163. Jena, V.K.; Sinha, D. Ground Water Quality Assessment by Multivariate Factor Analysis. Res. J. Chem. Environ. 2017, 21, 21–25.
164. Khalil, B.; Ou, C.; Proulx-Mcinnis, S.; St-Hilaire, A.; Zanacic, E. Statistical Assessment of the Surface Water Quality Monitoring
Network in Saskatchewan. WaterAir Soil Pollut. 2014, 225, 1–22. [CrossRef]
165. Khalil, B.; Ouarda, T.B.M.J.; St-Hilaire, A.; Chebana, F. A Statistical Approach for the Rationalization of Water Quality Indicators
in Surface Water Quality Monitoring Networks. J. Hydrol. 2010, 386, 173–185. [CrossRef]
166. Zahedi, S. Modification of expected conflicts between Drinking Water Quality Index and Irrigation Water Quality Index in
water quality ranking of shared extraction wells using Multi Criteria Decision Making techniques. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 83, 368–379.
[CrossRef]
167. Meireles, A.C.M.; Andrade, E.M.; Chaves, L.C.G.; Frischkorn, H.; Crisostomo, L.A. A new proposal of the classification of
irrigation water. Revista Ciência Agronômica 2010, 41, 349–357. [CrossRef]