Research Article Surface Water Quality Assessment of Wular...

Research ArticleSurface Water Quality Assessment of Wular Lake A Ramsar Sitein Kashmir Himalaya Using Discriminant Analysis and WQI

Salim Aijaz Bhat and Ashok K Pandit

Aquatic Ecology Laboratory Centre of Research for Development (CORD) University of Kashmir Jammu and Kashmir 190006 India

Correspondence should be addressed to Salim Aijaz Bhat salimaijazgmailcom

Received 27 June 2014 Accepted 16 July 2014 Published 31 August 2014

Academic Editor Winn-Jung Huang

Copyright copy 2014 S A Bhat and A K Pandit This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons AttributionLicense which permits unrestricted use distribution and reproduction in any medium provided the original work is properlycited

Multivariate techniques discriminant analysis andWQI were applied to analyze a water quality data set including 27 parameters at5 sites of the Lake Wular in Kashmir Himalaya from 2011 to 2013 to investigate spatiotemporal variations and identify potentialpollution sources Spatial and temporal variations in water quality parameters were evaluated through stepwise discriminantanalysis (DA) The first spatial discriminant function (DF) accounted for 765 of the total spatial variance and the second DFaccounted for 191Themean values of water temperature EC total-N K and silicate showed a strong contribution to discriminatethe five sampling sites The mean concentration of NO

2-N total-N and sulphate showed a strong contribution to discriminate the

four sampling seasons and accounted for most of the expected seasonal variations The order of major cations and anions wasCa2+ gt Mg2+ gt Na+ gt K+ and Clminus gt SO42minus gt SiO

2

2minus respectively The results of water quality index employing thirteen coreparameters vital for drinking water purposes showed values of 492 465 473 406 and 371 for sites I II III IV and V respectivelyThese index values reflect that thewater of lake is in good condition for different purposes but increased values alarmus about futurerepercussions

1 Introduction

Today surface water is most vulnerable to pollution due toits easy accessibility for disposal of pollutants and wastew-aters Worldwide surface water quality is governed by com-plex anthropogenic activities and natural processes [1 2]including weathering erosion hydrological features climatechange precipitation industrial activities agricultural landuse sewage discharge and the human exploitation of waterresources [1ndash6] During the last decade widespread deteri-oration in water quality of inland aquatic systems has beenreported due to rapid development of industries agricultureand urban sprawl [7ndash9] The evaluation of water quality inmost countries has become a critical issue in recent yearsespecially due to concerns that freshwater will be a scarceresource in the future [10ndash13] The protection of integrity ofworld water resources have been given topmost priority inthe 21st century due to limited supply of fresh water andthe role of anthropogenic activities in deteriorating the waterquality[14ndash17] This however cannot be achieved without

a spatiotemporal evaluation of water quality of the aquaticsystems of concern [18] Numerous studies have also identi-fied the pollution sources and potential influences of naturalprocesses and anthropogenic activities on spatiotemporalvariations in water quality [19 20]

In view of the spatial and temporal variations in thehydrochemistry of surface waters regular monitoring pro-grams are required for reliable estimates of the water quality[12] Water quality monitoring is a helpful tool not only toevaluate the impacts of pollution sources but also to ensure anefficient management of water resources and the protectionof aquatic life [21] However the large and complicated datasets of water quality parameters generated by monitoringprograms are often difficult to interpret latent meaningfulinformation [11 12 22 23] and require data reductionmethods to simplify the data structure so as to extract usefuland interpretable information [24] Sequel to this challengethe application of multivariate statistical and mathematicaltechniques such as discriminant analysis (DA) and WQIfacilitates the interpretation of complex data matrices to

Hindawi Publishing CorporationJournal of EcosystemsVolume 2014 Article ID 724728 18 pageshttpdxdoiorg1011552014724728

2 Journal of Ecosystems

Table 1 Sampling station locations and their coordinates

Study sites Latitude Longitude Elevation Location Water depth (m)Makhdomyari Site I 34∘-171015840-44210158401015840 74∘-371015840-24210158401015840 1597 Southeastern 1ndash3Vintage Site II 34∘-241015840-08110158401015840 74∘-321015840-39110158401015840 1583 Eastern side 1ndash4Ashtang Site III 34∘-241015840-3810158401015840 74∘-321015840-41710158401015840 1583 Northwestern side 05ndash45Watlab Site IV 34∘-211015840-29410158401015840 74∘-011015840-59210158401015840 1577 Western side 1ndash55Ningle Site V 34∘-171015840-16610158401015840 74∘-301015840-26610158401015840 1574 Northern 05ndash44

better understand the water quality and ecological status ofstudied systems [10 12 23 25ndash28] These statistical methodsalso help with the identification of possible factorssourcesthat influence water systems and offer a valuable tool forthe reliable management of water resources as well as rapidsolutions to pollution problems [10 11 23 25 29 30]

In this study physicochemical parameters of surfacewater quality directly affected by different pollution sourceswere monitored over two-year periodThe data sets obtainedwere subjected to multivariate statistical technique namelydiscriminant analysis (DA) to obtain information about thesimilarities or dissimilarities among the monitoring periodsand sites and to identify water quality variables responsiblefor spatial and temporal water quality variations in surfacewater Besides multivariate statistical analysis water qualityindex (a multifactor mathematical tool) was used to interpretwater quality of studied lake numerically It is regarded asone of the most effective ways to communicate water quality[26 27 31] and is assessed on the basis of calculated waterquality indices [27 32] The index is a numeric expressionused to transform large number of variables data into a singlenumber which represents the water quality level [33ndash35]

During the last decades widespread deterioration inwater quality of Wular lake has been reported due toanthropogenic influences (agricultural practices increasedexploitation of water resource sewage runoff agricultureand urban sprawl) and natural processes (changes in pre-cipitation erosion and weathering of crustal materials)[36 37] Pollutants from anthropogenic activities have beenincreasingly produced and discharged into the Wular Lakeresulting in severe degradation of water quality restrictingthe sustainable development of the local economies Further-more enhanced input of nutrients from both natural as wellas anthropogenic activities has resulted in the eutrophicationof Wular Lake [38 39] In the view of the above-mentionedpollution problems of Lake Wular the present study wascarried out with the objectives of finding pollution sourcesand causes of spatiotemporal variations in water quality

2 Materials and Methodology

21 Materials

211 Study Area The valley of Kashmir lies on the northernfringe of the Indian subcontinent and is lacustrine basin ofthe intermontane depression formed between the lesser andthe greater Himalaya It abounds a vast array of freshwaterbodies streams lakes ponds and rivers famous for its beautyand natural scenery throughout the world These numerous

but varied freshwater ecosystems are of great aestheticcultural socioeconomic and geological value besides playingan important role in the conservation of genetic resources ofboth plants and animals However anthropogenic activitieshave resulted in heavy inflow of nutrients into these lakesfrom the catchment areas [40 41] These anthropogenicinfluences not only deteriorate the water quality but alsoaffect the aquatic life in the lakes as a result of which theprocess of aging of these lakes is hastened [42ndash44] As aconsequence most of the lakes in the Kashmir valley areexhibiting eutrophication [45ndash48]

Geographically the Wular Lake one of the largest wet-lands of Asia is situated at an altitude of 1580m (amsl)between 34∘161015840ndash34∘201015840N latitudes and 74∘331015840-74∘441015840E lon-gitudes (Figure 1) Wular Lake an ox-bow type lake is offluviatile origin located in the north-west of Kashmir about35 km from Srinagar city being formed by the meanderingof River Jhelum which is the main feeding channel besidesother tributaries It plays a significant role in the hydrographyof the Kashmir valley not only by acting as a huge absorptionbasin for floodwaters but also for maintaining flows tosupport agriculture and hydropower generation as well assports activities The lake along with the extensive marshessurrounding is an important habitat for fish accounting for60 of the fish production within the state of Jammu andKashmir [36] The lake is largely shallow with a maximumdepth of 58m the deeper part being on the western sideopposite the hills of Baba Shakur Din The lake is drainedin the northeast by the only single outlet in the form ofRiver Jhelum General features of study stations are shownin Table 1The catchment of the lake is comprised of sloppinghills of the Zanskar ranges of the western Himalaya on thenortheastern and northwestern sideswhich drain their runoffthrough various nallahs where Erin and Madhumati areprominent On the eastern and southern sides are the low-lying areas of Sonawari which used to get inundated almostevery year until numerous criss-crossing embankments wereconstructed along River JhelumThe lake area thus reclaimedhas in the recent past been brought under cultivation of paddyand plantations of willow poplar and fruit trees On thewestern side in the Sopore-Watlab section low-lying areashave also been brought under paddy cultivation In 1986 thelake was designated as wetland of national importance underthe Indian GovernmentsWetlands Programme and in 1990it was enlisted as a wetland of international importance underthe Ramsar Convention of 1975 However a comprehensivestudy regarding the assessment of spatiotemporal hydro-chemistry of the lake is lacking up to date Morphometricfeatures of Wular Lake are presented in Table 2

Journal of Ecosystems 3

India Jammu and Kashmir

74∘20

9984000998400998400E 74

∘25

9984000998400998400E 74

∘30

9984000998400998400E 74

∘35

9984000998400998400E 74

∘40

9984000998400998400E 74

∘45

9984000998400998400E 74

∘50

9984000998400998400E

34∘25

9984000998400998400N

34∘20

9984000998400998400N

34∘15

9984000998400998400N

34∘10

9984000998400998400N

Figure 1 Showing layout of study area and surface water quality monitoring stations in Lake Wular

22 Methodology

221 Sampling and Analysis Surface water samples (05ndash10m) were collected from five sites on monthly basis fromFebruary 2011 to January 2013 On each sampling date threereplicates were collected at each sampling site The watersamples were preserved in prerinsed 1-L polypropylene acid-washed sampling bottles at 4∘C in darkness and analyzedwithin 24 h A saturated mercuric chloride solution was usedat a final concentration of 02mlLminus1 to stop all microbiologi-cal activities in the water samples The parameters includingdepth transparency temperature pH and conductivity were

determined on spot while the rest of the parameters weredetermined in the laboratory The parameters includingorthophosphorus total phosphorus ammoniacal nitrogennitrite nitrogen nitrate nitrogen organic nitrogen (Kjeldahlnitrogen minus ammoniacal nitrogen) alkalinity free CO

2

conductivity chloride total hardness calcium hardnessmagnesium hardness Na K silicate sulphate iron andTDS were determined in the laboratory within 24 hoursof sampling The analysis was done by adopting standardmethods of Mackereth Golterman and Clymo and APHA[49ndash51]


Table 2 Morphometric features of Lake Wular

Max area 616 Km2

Min area 1224Km2

Average area 31415 Km2

Max volume 371825 times 106 m3

Min volume 187735 times 106 m3

Average volume 267675 times 106 m3

Elevation 1580m (amsl)Maximum length 16 kmMinimum breadth 76 kmShape EllipticalMax depth 58mMinimum depth 09m

222 Statistical Analysis Data for physicochemical param-eters of water samples were presented as mean values andanalyzed using descriptive analysis We used standard devi-ation for describing the spatiotemporal degree of variationsof the observed water quality parameters in Lake Wularin different months and seasons Prior to investigating theseasonal effect on water quality parameters we divided thewhole observation period into four fixed seasons spring(March April and May) summer (June July and August)autumn (September October and November) and winter(December January and February)

223 Discriminant Analysis Stepwise discriminant analy-sis (DA) which is also a multivariate statistical techniquewas used for spatiotemporal analysis of water quality dataDiscriminant analysis (DA) is used to classify cases intocategorical-dependent values usually a dichotomy If dis-criminant analysis is effective for a set of data the classi-fication table of correct and incorrect estimates will yielda high correct percentage In DA multiple quantitativeattributes are used to discriminate between two or morenaturally occurring groups In contrast to CA DA providesstatistical classification of samples and is performed withprior knowledge of membership of objects to a particulargroup or cluster Furthermore DA helps in grouping samplessharing common properties The DA technique builds up adiscriminant function for each group which operates on rawdata [10 12 52] as in the equation below

119891 (119866119894) = 119896119894+

119899

sum

119895 = 1

119908119894119895119901119894119895 (1)

where i is the number of groups (119866) 119896119894is the constant

inherent to each group 119899is the number of parameters used toclassify a set of data into a given group and 119908

119895is the weight

coefficient assigned by DA to a given selected parameters(119901119895)The weight coefficient maximizes the distance between

the means of the criterion (dependent) variable DA wasperformed on each raw data matrix using stepwise modesin constructing discriminant functions to evaluate boththe spatial and temporal variations in water quality of the

lake The sites (spatial) and the seasons (temporal) were thegrouping (dependent) variables whereas all the measuredparameters constituted the independent variables Lineardiscriminant functions were used to describe or elucidate thedifferences between the sampling sites and the influence ofseason on water quality of each sampling site The relativecontribution of all variables to the separation of groups washighlighted [53]

224 Water Quality Index Accurate and timely informationon the quality of water is necessary to shape a sound publicpolicy and to implement the water quality improvementprogrammes efficiently One of the most effective ways tocommunicate information on water quality trends is withindices The WQI is a mathematical instrument used totransform large quantities of water quality data into a singlenumber which summarize different quality parametersThe WQI is an index of water quality for a particular useMathematically the index is an arithmetic weighting ofnormalized water quality measurements The weightingsare different for different water usages [54] The indices arebroadly characterized into two parts the physicochemicalindices and the biological indices The physicochemicalindices are based on the values of various physicochemicalparameters in a water sample while biological indices arederived from the biological information and are calculatedusing the species composition of the sample the diversity ofspecies their distribution pattern the presence or absenceof the indicator species or groups and so forth [55] Hereattempt has been made to calculate the water quality indexof Wular Lake on the basis of Harkins [56] and Lohani [57]and subsequently modified by Tiwari et al [58] based ontwo-year physicochemical data

Quality Rating and Weightage In the formulation of waterquality index the importance of various parameters dependson the intended use of water here water quality parametersare studied from the point of view of suitability for humanconsumption The ldquostandardsrdquo (permissible values of variouspollutants) for the drinking water recommended by theIndianCouncil ofMedical Research [59]United States PublicHealth Services [60]World Health Organization [61] IndianStandards Institution [62] and unit weights are given inTable 5 For the purpose of the present investigation twelvewater quality parameters have been selected

Water quality index is

WQI =sum13

119894 = 1119902119894119908119894

sum13

119894 = 1119882119894

(2)

which gives

WQI =13

sum

119894=1

119902119894119908119894

Since sum119882119894= 1

(3)

where 119902119894(water quality rating) = 100 times (119881

119886minus 119881119894)(119881119904minus 119881119894)


When 119881119886is the actual value present in the water sample

119881119894is the ideal value (0 for all parameters except pH and DO

which are 70 and 146mg Lminus1 resp) 119881119904is the standard value

Pollutants are (i) completely absent when 119902119894= 0 (ii) with

in prescribed standard values when 0 lt 119902119894lt 100 and (iii)

are above standard values when 119902119894 gt 100The more harmful a given pollutant is the smaller is

its permissible value for drinking water So the ldquoweightsrdquofor various water quality parameters are assumed to beinversely proportional to the recommended standards for thecorresponding parameters that is

119882119894=

119896

119878119899

(4)

where 119882119894is the unit weight for the ith parameter (119894 =

1 2 3 12)119896 is the constant of proportionality which is determined

from the condition and 119896 = 1 for sake of simplicity119878119899is the ldquo119899rdquo number of standard values

Based on the range of WQI values water is grouped intothe following categories [27]

(I) WQI less than 25 water is not polluted and fit forhuman consumption (excellent)

(II) WQI between 26 and 50 slightly polluted (good)(III) WQI between 51 and 75 moderately polluted (poor)(IV) WQI between 76 and 100 polluted (very poor)(V) WQI above 100 excessively polluted and unfit for

human use (unsuitable)

In this study multivariate statistical and mathematicalanalysis methods (DA and WQI approaches) were appliedto evaluate the impact of anthropogenic activities and spa-tiotemporal variations in physicochemical characteristics onwater quality of Wular Lake Statistical conclusions andtests were made on the basis of a multiparametric modelspecifying how water quality parameters are changed withdifferent seasons and nature of polluting source in the studiedaquatic system

3 Results and Discussion

31 Physicochemical Parameters During the two years ofthis study the lake behavior was explored by measuring 27parameters to assess the quality of this aquatic system Allthese parametersweremeasured from samples collected fromstudy stations in the Wular Lake as indicated in Figure 1The mean and standard deviation and range of water qualityparameters of five study sites are presented in Figures 2(a)2(b) 2(c) and 2(d) Box and whisker plots showed the wholespatiotemporal dynamics of physical chemical nutrient andionic parameters of two-year study carried out inWular LakeThe high standard deviation of most parameters indicatespresence of temporal and spatial variations caused likely bypolluting sources andor climatic factors [25] Mean watertemperature was strongly seasonal and ranged from a min-imum of 42∘C in winter to a maximum of 256∘C in summer

The water temperature reflects the atmospheric temperatureand it presents themost significant difference among seasonsThroughout the year mean transparency ranged from 086 to115m The sites nearer to inflows showed lower depth thanthose nearer to outflow The low transparency value in someof the high altitude Kashmir Himalayan water bodies hasbeen attributed to the incoming silt from the catchment [63]Seasonally the highest value of water transparency occurredin winter at all sampling sites and may be attributed to lowsuspended organic matter with poor planktonic growth [64]The highest average TDS content was recorded mainly at thesite I (15411 plusmn 322) located in the proximity of major inflowof the lake Seasonal variation was also observed in TDSwith lower values in dry season (autumn) and higher valuesin rainy season (spring) From the temperature differencechanges are expected in DO As expected dissolved oxygenis negatively related to temperature because the solubility ofoxygen in water decreases with increasing temperature [65]The highest average pH (784 plusmn 034) was recorded at thesite located in the proximity of major tributary Mean pHof water body ranging from 72 to 85 showed a significanttemporal variation pH recorded in the present study was inalkaline range suggesting that the lakes were well bufferedthroughout the study period pH range from 72 to 85indicates productive nature of water body [66] Throughoutthe year EC varied between 100 and 387120583S cmminus1 SeasonallyEC was lower in spring and summer than in autumn andwinter seasons Spring-summer minima were due to nutrientassimilation by autotrophs [67] The lake exhibited highervalue of EC which reflects the high degree of anthropogenicactivities such as waste disposal and agricultural runoffThe distribution of DO among sampling seasons showedmarked temporal variability and its lower value in summer(78 plusmn 019mgLminus1) and higher (101 plusmn 016mgLminus1) in winterseason The inverse relationship between temperature anddissolved oxygen is a natural process because warmer waterbecomes more easily saturated with oxygen and it can holdless dissolved oxygen [23] In winter the highest free CO

2

was recorded at sites III and IV whereas in spring it wasthe highest at site VI Decreased CO

2level in summer

season indicates the consumption of CO2due to high rates

of photosynthesis by autotrophs there by reducing pH [68]Clear seasonal trend was found in hardness at all samplingsites The alkalinity showed fluctuations between stationswith the highest average vales (1004 plusmn 317 and 1043 plusmn331mgLminus1) at sites IV and V In general the highest andthe lowest NO

3-N concentrations occurred in winter and

summer respectively The sites located close to inlets showedhigher NO

3-N concentrations compared to sites near outlet

channel throughout the study periodThe seasonal variationsof nitrate concentration in the lake were similar to thepatterns generally reported in other water bodies wherenitrate levels are higher in winter than in summer due toa decreased biological activity (bacterial denitrification andalgal assimilation) in winter [69] NO

2-N and organic-N

being influenced by temperature maintained higher val-ues in summer and lower in winter season The NH

3-N

concentration showed similar temporal pattern to NO3-N


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

(i)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

(ii)

Dep

th (m

)

Mak Vin Ash Wat Nin Spr Sum Aut Win00

05

10

15

20

25

(iii)Study sites and seasons

Study sites and seasonsTr

ansp

aren

cy (m

)

Tem

pera

ture

(∘C)

Study sites and seasonsMak Vin Ash Wat Nin Spr Sum Aut Win Mak Vin Ash Wat Nin Spr Sum Aut Win

(a)

65

70

75

80

85

90

(i)

pH

0

100

200

300

400

500

(iii)

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

(iii)

Diss

olve

d ox

ygen

Mak Vin Ash Wat Nin Spr Sum Aut WinStudy sites and seasons

0

5

10

15

20

(iv)



Con

duct

ivity

(


Free

CO

2120583

S cm

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(b) Continued

Figure 2 Continued



50

100

150

200

250

(v)Study sites and seasons

50

100

150

200

250

(vi)

20

40

60

80

100

(vii)

0

10

20

30

40

(viii)

Alk

alin

ity


Tota

l har

dnes

s


Calci

um h

ardn

ess


Mag

nesiu

m h

ardn

ess

0

50

100

150

200

250

(ix)

TDS


(b)


02

04

06

08

10

(xiii)Study sites and seasons

000

002

004

006

008

010

(xiv)

NO

3-N

conc

NO

2-N

conc


(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(c) Continued

Figure 2 Continued


00

01

02

03

04

(xv)

000

025

050

075

100

125

(xvi)

050

075

100

125

150

175

(xvii)

001

002

003

004

005

006

(xviii)

00

01

02

03

04

05

(xix)


NH

4-N

conc



Study sites and seasons

Tota

l-N co

nc


Ort

ho-P

conc

Mak Vin Ash Wat Nin Spr Sum Aut Win

(c)

Tota

l-P co

nc

Org

anic

-N co

nc


5

10

15

20

25

30

(i)Study sites and seasons

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

(ii)

Cl co

nc


Ca co

nten

t

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(d) Continued

Figure 2 Continued


0

5

10

15

20

25

(iii)

5

10

15

20

25

(iv)

1

2

3

4

5

6

(v)

0

5

10

15

20

(vi)

00

25

50

75

100

125

(vii)

020

025

030

035

040

045

(viii)


Mg

cont

ent


Silic

ate


K co

nten

t


Na c

onte

nt



Sulp

hate

Fe

(d)

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

Figure 2 (a) Box and whisker plots showing spatiotemporal dynamics of physical parameters (b) Box and whisker plots showingspatiotemporal dynamics of chemical parameters (c) Box and whisker plots showing spatiotemporal dynamics of nutrient (N and P)parameters (d) Box and whisker plots showing spatiotemporal dynamics of ionic parameters

concentration with high values in spring and winter andlow values in summer and autumn Nitrate may originatefrom livestock wastes fertilizers and nonpoint sources ofpollution such as runoff from agriculture areas [70] Thesites located close to rural residential area showed highermean total-N concentration mainly in summer season Ithas been reported that N fertilizer applied to farmland isthe main source of N pollution in surface water [71 72]The distribution of ortho-P showed significant variation withaverage higher values (004 plusmn 0002) in winter contraryto average lower values (002 plusmn 0001) in summer seasonOrtho-P enters the lakes through domestic wastewater and

agricultural runoff accounting for the accelerated eutrophi-cation [73] The sites influenced by agriculture and domesticsewage (sites I II and III) showed high TP concentrationsduring all the year with relatively high values in springand summer and low values in autumn and winter It hasbeen documented by [74] thatmunicipal wastewater containssubstantial amount of phosphorus contributed by humanurine and detergents Increased concentration of phosphorusand NO

3-N in lakes has resulted in enhanced productivity

elevating oxygen demand in turn [46 75] However besidesits contribution to eutrophication and toxic algal bloomsphosphate does not have notable adverse health effects [61]


The highest value of chloride content (197plusmn085mgLminus1) wasreported in winter season at all sampling sites Chloride con-centrationwas higher inwinter season due to poor dilution ofwastewater because sodium chloride a common componentof the human diet passes unchanged through the digestivesystem [61] Cations maintained higher concentration inwinter season and in contrast to those of anions whichshowed lower concentration in winter season Spatially andtemporally Ca and Mg content was the highest at site IVand in winter season respectively Ca and Mg rich water inKashmir valley is attributed to the predominance of lime richrocks in the catchment area [76] Throughout the year thelowest content of Na and K occurred at site V with concen-trations ranging from 56 to 133 and from 14 to 32mg Lminus1respectively Domestic sewage is the responsible factor forhigher content of sodium and potassium in freshwaters [77]Silicate maintained continuous decreasing trend from springto winter season with maximum average values at site I (853plusmn 374mg Lminus1) throughout the study period Silicate exportsfrom land-based resources especially during rainfall [78]Sulphate distribution showed similar spatial trend to silicatewith high values at site I (609 plusmn 267mgLminus1) and low valuesat other stations The high sulphate content found in water isprobably a consequence of the morphology of soils irrigatedby the river which are formed mainly by limestone marland gypsum [25] Seasonally the higher concentration of ironwas reported in winter season against the lower values insummer at all of the study sites The water-quality data (3240observations) was further subjected to different multivariatestatistical techniques to explore their temporal and spatialtrends

32 Discriminant Analysis Discriminant analysis is one ofthe more advanced multivariate classification techniquesused to define the variables discriminating between the iden-tified clusters by specifying the weight (ie discriminatingpower) to these variables [79 80]

Spatial variations in water parameters were evaluatedthrough stepwise discriminant analysis (DA) method Fourdiscriminant functions (DFs) were found to discriminatethe quality of the five sampling sites used in this study(Table 3) Wilks Lambda test showed that all five functionswere statistically significant (119875 lt 005) Furthermore 956of the total variance between the five sampling sites wasaccounted for by the first two DFs The first DF accountedfor 765 of the total spatial variance and the secondDF accounted for 191 The relative contribution of eachparameter is given in Table 3 The mean values of watertemperature EC total-N K and silicate showed a strongcontribution in discriminating the five sampling sites andaccounted for most of the expected spatial variations in thelake while other parameters exhibited a low contribution tothe discriminant function The second group of parameters(DF2) that accounted for the remaining spatial variations wasmean concentration of organic-N and Na (Table 3)

From the canonical discriminant plot (Figure 3) thesampling stations close to major tributaries (I and II) showedhigh positive loadings for factors represented by the first dis-criminant function (DF1) indicating that these study points

were highly characterized by elevated levels of EC K andsilicate The spatial discriminating function showed varyingnature of water quality factors (EC TN K Org-N Na etc)at different study sites and is due to dynamic nature of naturaland anthropogenic influences active in lake catchment Thesites located away from inflow that is IV and V depictednegative associations with these factors indicating that thesesites were characterized by minimal levels of these chemicalcontaminants On the other hand the site IV showed highpositive loadings for the factors represented by the seconddiscriminant function (DF2) indicating that the site was char-acterized by elevated levels of organic-N and Na compared tosites I and II The higher loading values of EC Na K andorganic-N indicate the impact of enhanced organic matterload imported via domestic wastewater [23]The higher valueof EC at some study stations is attributed to the high degreeof anthropogenic activities such as waste disposal and agri-cultural runoff Further positive loading of Na+ is attributedto agricultural runoff [81] while asserted variations of K arelinked with parent rock materials present in the catchmentarea [76]

Temporal DA was performed on synthesized data afterdividing the whole data set into four seasonal groups(spring summer autumn and winter) Three discriminantfunctions (DFs) were found to discriminate the quality ofthe three sampling seasons used in this study (Table 4)Wilks Lambda test showed that all three functions werestatistically significant (119875 lt 005) Furthermore 948 ofthe total variance between the four sampling seasons wasaccounted for by the first two DFs The first DF accountedfor 855 of the total temporal variance and the secondDF accounted for 88 The relative contribution of eachparameter is given in Table 4 The mean concentration ofNO2-N total-N and sulphate showed a strong contribution

in discriminating the four sampling seasons and accountedfor most of the expected seasonal variations in the lakewhile other parameters exhibited a low contribution tothe discriminant function The second group of parameters(DF2) that accounted for the remaining spatial variations wasmean concentration of NH

4-N and TDS (Table 4) Table 4

presents the standardized function coefficients which high-light the parameters that exhibited the highest change acrossseasons

Discriminant plot for temporal variations (Figure 4)showed that the spring season and summer season werestrongly characterized by increased NO

2-N total-N and

sulphate while NH4-N and TDS had respective strong pos-

itive and negative associations with the autumn season andwinter season The average concentrations of NO

2-N total-

N and sulphate were higher in summer and spring comparedto autumn and winter This may be due to tributary inputsand surface runoff which carry more nutrients into thelake during the rainy season (spring and summer) Depthincreases with higher runoff which in turn brings higherload of nitrate from this agriculture dominated watershed inspring and summer seasons Nitrate is more associated withthe use of organic and inorganic fertilizers [82 83] Positiveloading on total-N has been associated with agriculturalrunoff [84]


Table3Disc

riminantfun

ctioncoeffi

cientsandWilk

sLam

bdafor

spatialvariatio

nsin

water

parameterso

fLakeW

ular

Standardized

cano

nicald

iscrim

inantfun

ctioncoeffi

cients

Eigenvalues

Wilk

sLam

bda

Function

WT

Depth

Trans

EC

TAlkalinity

CaHArd

NO2-N

OrgN

Total-N

Na+

K+

Silicate

Sulphate

TDS

Eigenvalue

Variance

Cumulative

CanonicalCorrelation

WilksrsquoLambda

Chi-square

df

Sig

110

6minus201

031

094

020

012

078

029minus12

2087

107

122

089

064

2082

7650

765

098

000

6356

560

02minus087

186

010

050

063

053

052

098minus027

084

100

051

018minus038

519

1910

956

092

007

2980

390

03minus074

059

047

045minus003

025

040

048

029minus057

028minus222

204

067

950

350

991

070

041

982

240

04minus086minus046minus068

031

045

065

084


028

089minus049

259

090

1000

045

080

251

110

000

9


Table4Disc

riminantfun

ctioncoeffi

cientsandWilk

sLam

bdafor

tempo

ralvariatio

nsin

water

parameterso

fLakeW

ular

Standardized

cano

nicald

iscrim

inantfun

ctioncoeffi

cients

Eigenvalues

Wilk

sLam

bda

Functio

nNO

2-N

NH

4-N

Total-N

Total-P

TDS

Sulphate

Eigenvalue

of

Varia

nce

Cumulative

Cano

nicalC

orrelation

Wilk

srsquoLambd

aCh

i-squ

are

dfSig

1217minus16

3251minus18

8009

228

9422

8590

8590

100

01590

3818

02

140


075

969

880

9480

095

0014

77028

100

3064


102

576

520

10000

092

0148

34384

40


Table5Drin

king

water

standardsun

itweights

averagew

ater

qualityand

water

quality

indexof

fives

tudy

statio

nsin

Lake

Wular

Chem

icalparameters

Standards

Recommending

agency

Unitw

eight(wi)

Makhd

oomyari

Vintage

Ashtang

Watlab

Ningle

AvWq

WiQ

iAv

Wq

WiQ

iAv

Wq

WiQ

iAv

Wq

WiQ

iAv

Wq

WiQ

ipH

70ndash85

ICMR

0037

784

419

776

380

780

397

775

373

777

387

Electricalcond

uctiv

ity750120583

Scm

WHO

000

02529

001

2542

001

2554

001

2823

001

2485

001

Chlorid

e250m

gL

ISI

0001

1235

001

1334

001

1433

001

1411

001

1285

001

Diss

olvedoxygen

50m

gL

WHO

0052

903

304

893

310

893

310

894

309

912

299

Free

CO2

22mgL

WHO

0012

989

054

1002

054

1000

054

1004

054

1043

057

Totalalkalinity

120m

gL

USP

HS

0002

1127

021

1070

019

9954

018

1145

021

1020

019

Totalh

ardn

ess

500m

gL

WHO

0001

1455

002

1439

002

1422

001

1617

002

1282

001

Nitrate-N

45mgL

WHO

000

6047

001

048

001

048

001

046

001

042

001

Calcium

75mgL

ICMR

0003

2116

010

2088

010

2061

010

2605

012

1985

009

Magnesiu

m50

mgL

ICMR

000

91350

039

1366

024

1323

023

1409

025

1147

020

Sulfate

200m

gL

ICMR

0001

610

000

550

000

503

000

477

000

390

000

Iron

03m

gL

ISI

0874

014

407

013

385

013

391

011

326

010

291

Totald

issolvedsolid

s500m

gL

WHO

0001

1541

002

1469

002

1333

001

1068

001

7708

001

sum119882119894

100

sum119882119894119876119894

492sum119882119894119876119894

465sum119882119894119876119894

473sum119882119894119876119894

406sum119882119894119876119894

371


Function 1

1050minus5minus10

Func

tion2

10

5

0

minus5

minus10

5

4

3

2

1

Group centroid5-Ningle4-Watlab

3-Ashtang2-Vintage1-Makhdoomyari

Sample station

Figure 3 Discriminant plot showing spatial variation of waterparameters in Lake Wular (2012ndash2003)

33 Water Quality Index Evaluation of overall water qualityis not an easy task particularly when different criteria fordifferent uses are applied Moreover the classification ofwater quality follows various definitions with respect to thecontents of different water quality parameters Dozens ofvariables have been developed and are available to be usedin management governmental or environmental programsbut the high price because of water analysis to attend theseprograms generally makes it difficult to use them In thisstudy the application of the water quality index approach tothe Lake Wular has the objective of providing a simple andvalid method for expressing the results of several parametersin order to more rapidly and conveniently assess the waterquality Combining different parameters into one singlenumber leads to an easy interpretation of the index thusproviding an important tool for management purposes Asdescribed WQI employing thirteen parameters can give anindication of the health of the water body at various pointsand can be used to keep track of and analyze changes overtime but other options can be used in an economic way

The values of water quality indices are taken as thestandards for drinking water according to Table 5 Theresults of water quality index employing thirteen parametersshowed values of 492 465 473 406 and 371 for sites I IIIII IV and V respectively The status of water correspondingto the WQI is categorized into five types which is given inTable 5 From the table it is evident that the surface watersamples of studied lake are falling under good categoryHowever the quality of samples collected from the lakeis high in case of stations located near to lake tributaries

Function 1

15

10

5

0

minus5

minus10

minus15

Func

tion2


4

3

2

1

Group centroid4-Autumn

3-Summer2-Spring1-Winter

Seasons

Figure 4 Discriminant plot showing temporal variation of waterparameters in Lake Wular (2012-2013)

indicating high pollution In these cases highWQI is mainlydue to the presence of high concentration of Iron and otherparameters WQI analysis showed that the water of lake is ingood condition for drinking purpose but increased valueswarn us about future consequences

Ionic Composition The order of major cations and anionswas Ca2+ gt Mg2+ gt Na+ gt K+ and Clminus gt SO42minus gtSiO2

2minus respectively This pattern also shows that the lakewater is dominated by alkaline earth Ca and Mg (Ca2+ andMg2+) and weak acids Dominance of Ca and Mg ions inlake water is linked primarily with parent rock materialpresent in the catchment area [85] It is also apparent thatthe dominance of Clminus over SO42minus could be due to the largeamount of domestic and sewage water being dischargedinto tributary waters [86] The primary source of majorions in the river and lake waters is atmospheric depositiondissolution of evaporates (halite gypsum) and weathering ofcarbonates and silicates by sulphuric acid or carbonic acidand anthropogenic activities Ca Mg and HCO

3are derived

fromweathering of carbonates rocks by carbonic acid [87 88]as the carbonate rocks weather congruently Magnesium isoften associated with calcium in all kinds of waters but itsconcentration remains generally lower than the calcium [89]Water hardness contains dissolvedmetals likeMg originatedfrom agricultural and domestic sewage seen in high levelstherefore revealing instances of soil weathering erosion (sea-sonal effect) and anthropogenic sources of pollution in thisarea Magnesium is essential for chlorophyll growth and actsas a limiting factor for the growth of phytoplankton [90] Like


the ldquostandardrdquo freshwater in which calcium is the dominatingcation [91] the ionic composition of the water in WularLake was also dominated by calcium followed bymagnesiumThe chemical denudation due to dilution from heavy rainscoupled with the reservoir circulation and weathering fromrock and runoffs from surrounding watersheds might havecontributed to the availability of calcium and magnesiumions Ca and Mg concentration of freshwater bodies ofKashmir Himalaya has been associated with thick populationof plankton especially Cyanophyceae [92] The presence ofcalcium and magnesium ions in moderate levels classifiesthe reservoir as eutrophic which will support diverse plantand animal life including fish According to [93] waters withcalcium levels of lt 10mgLminus1 are usually oligotrophic whilethose above 25mg Lminus1 are eutrophic

4 Conclusion

In this study statistical and mathematical exploratory tech-niques were utilized to evaluate variations in surface waterquality of Lake Wular This study has shown that the highestsources of variation in water quality are both seasonal factorsas well as anthropogenic factors The results exhibit that theDA technique is useful in present accredited classification ofsurface waters in the whole lake basin hence the number ofsampling sites and respective cost in the future monitoringplans can be lessen The water quality index provided anumeric expression used to transform large number ofvariables data into a single number which represented thewater quality level of wholeWular Lake basinThus the studyillustrates the useful application of chemometric techniquesfor the analysis and interpretation of lake water quality dataand identification based on pollution status and identificationof pollution sources as part of the efforts towards man-agement of sustainability of this lake The main sources ofpollution came from domestic wastewater and agriculturalactivities and runoff however they contributed differentlyto each station in regard to pollution levels These resultsprovide fundamental information for developing better waterpollution control strategies for the Wular Lake

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interestsregarding the publication of this paper

Acknowledgments

The authors are indebted to Director Centre of Research forDevelopment (CORD) and Head Department of Environ-mental Science University of Kashmir for providing full sup-port and necessary laboratory facilities for carrying out thechemical analysis Also the authors gratefully acknowledgethe help from the State Irrigation and Flood Control andIndian Meteorological Department for providing necessarydata

References

[1] H P Jarvie B A Whitton and C Neal ldquoNitrogen andphosphorus in east coast British rivers speciation sources andbiological significancerdquo Science of the Total Environment vol210-211 pp 79ndash109 1998

[2] S Ravichandran ldquoHydrological influences on the water qualitytrends in Tamiraparani basin South Indiardquo EnvironmentalMonitoring and Assessment vol 87 no 3 pp 293ndash309 2003

[3] A H Mahvi J Nouri A A Babaei and R Nabizadeh ldquoAgri-cultural activities impact on groundwater nitrate pollutionrdquoInternational Journal of Environmental Science and Technologyvol 2 no 1 pp 41ndash47 2005

[4] S Liao H Gau W Lai J Chen and C Lee ldquoIdentificationof pollution of Tapeng Lagoon from neighbouring rivers usingmultivariate statistical methodrdquo Journal of Environmental Man-agement vol 88 no 2 pp 286ndash292 2008

[5] N Gantidis M Pervolarakis and K Fytianos ldquoAssessment ofthe quality characteristics of two lakes (Koronia and Volvi) ofN Greecerdquo Environmental Monitoring and Assessment vol 125no 1ndash3 pp 175ndash181 2007

[6] M B Arain T G Kazi M K Jamali N Jalbani H I AfridiandA Shah ldquoTotal dissolved and bioavailable elements inwaterand sediment samples and their accumulation in Oreochromismossambicus of polluted Manchar Lakerdquo Chemosphere vol 70no 10 pp 1845ndash1856 2008

[7] A A Olajire and F E Imeokparia ldquoWater quality assessmentof Osun river Studies on inorganic nutrientsrdquo EnvironmentalMonitoring and Assessment vol 69 no 1 pp 17ndash28 2001

[8] J C Vie C Hilton-Taylor and S N Stuart Eds Wildlife ina Changing WorldmdashAn Analysis of the 2008 IUCN Red List ofThreatened Species IUCN Gland Switzerland 2009

[9] K E Murray S M Thomas and A A Bodour ldquoPrioritizingresearch for trace pollutants and emerging contaminants in thefreshwater environmentrdquo Environmental Pollution vol 158 no12 pp 3462ndash3471 2010

[10] W D Alberto D M Del Pilar A M Valeria P S FabianaH A Cecilia and B M De Los Angeles ldquoPattern recognitiontechniques for the evaluation of spatial and temporal variationsin water quality A case study Suquıa River Basin (Cordoba-Argentina)rdquoWater Research vol 35 pp 2881ndash2894 2001

[11] V Simeonov J A Stratis C Samara et al ldquoAssessment of thesurface water quality in Northern GreecerdquoWater Research vol37 no 17 pp 4119ndash4124 2003

[12] K P Singh A Malik D Mohan and S Sinha ldquoMultivariatestatistical techniques for the evaluation of spatial and temporalvariations in water quality of Gomti River (India) a case studyrdquoWater Research vol 38 no 18 pp 3980ndash3992 2004

[13] A Qadir R N Malik and S Z Husain ldquoSpatio-temporalvariations in water quality of Nullah Aik-tributary of the riverChenab Pakistanrdquo Environmental Monitoring and Assessmentvol 140 no 1ndash3 pp 43ndash59 2008

[14] J R Chinhanga ldquoImpact of industrial effluent from an ironand steel company on the physico-chemical quality of KwekweRiver water in Zimbabwerdquo International Journal of EngineeringScience and Technology vol 2 no 7 pp 29ndash40 2010

[15] United States Environmental Protection Agency Re-cent Rec-ommended Water Quality Criteria United States Environ-mental Protection Agency 2007 httpwwwepagovwater-sciencecriteriawqcriteriahtml


[16] S Wei Y Wang J C W Lam et al ldquoHistorical trends oforganic pollutants in sediment cores fromHong KongrdquoMarinePollution Bulletin vol 57 no 6-12 pp 758ndash766 2008

[17] S A Bhat G Meraj S Yaseen and A K Pandit ldquoStatisticalassessment of water quality parameters for pollution sourceidentification in Sukhnag stream an inflow stream of LakeWular (Ramsar site) KashmirHimalayardquo Journal of Ecosystemsvol 2014 Article ID 898054 18 pages 2014

[18] K N Don-Pedro E O Oyewo and A A Otitoloju ldquoTrend ofheavymetal concentration in Lagos Lagoon ecosystemNigeriaWest Africardquo Journal of Applied Ecology vol 5 pp 103ndash1142004

[19] L A Pillsbury and R H Byrne ldquoSpatial and temporal chemicalvariability in theHillsboroughRiver systemrdquoMarineChemistryvol 104 no 1-2 pp 4ndash16 2007

[20] P R Kannel S Lee and Y Lee ldquoAssessment of spatial-temporalpatterns of surface and ground water qualities and factorsinfluencing management strategy of groundwater system inan urban river corridor of Nepalrdquo Journal of EnvironmentalManagement vol 86 no 4 pp 595ndash604 2008

[21] R O Strobl and P D Robillard ldquoNetwork design for waterquality monitoring of surface freshwaters a reviewrdquo Journal ofEnvironmental Management vol 87 no 4 pp 639ndash648 2008

[22] P K S Shin and K Y S Fong ldquoMultiple discriminant analysisof marine sediment datardquoMarine Pollution Bulletin vol 39 no1ndash12 pp 285ndash294 1999

[23] S Shrestha and F Kazama ldquoAssessment of surface water qualityusing multivariate statistical techniques a case study of the Fujiriver basin Japanrdquo Environmental Modelling and Software vol22 no 4 pp 464ndash475 2007

[24] D Chapman Water Quality Assessment UNESCO WHO andUNEPChapman and Hall London UK 1992

[25] M Vega R Pardo E Barrado and L Deban ldquoAssessment ofseasonal and polluting effects on the quality of river water byexploratory data analysisrdquo Water Research vol 32 no 12 pp3581ndash3592 1998

[26] S K Pradhan D Patnaik and S P Rout ldquoWater quality indexfor the ground water around a phosphatic fertilizer plantrdquoIndian Journal of Environmental Protection vol 21 no 4 pp355ndash358 2001

[27] D K Sinha S Saxena and R Saxena ldquoWater quality index forRam Ganga river water at Moradabadrdquo Pollution Research vol23 no 3 pp 527ndash531 2004

[28] M Wu Y Wang C Sun et al ldquoIdentification of coastal waterquality by statistical analysis methods in Daya Bay South ChinaSeardquoMarine Pollution Bulletin vol 60 no 6 pp 852ndash860 2010

[29] R Reghunath T R S Murthy and B R Raghavan ldquoThe utilityof multivariate statistical techniques in hydrogeochemical stud-ies An example fromKarnataka IndiardquoWater Research vol 36no 10 pp 2437ndash2442 2002

[30] S A Bhat G Meraj S Yaseen A R Bhat and A K PanditldquoAssessing the impact of anthropogenic activities on spatiotem-poral variation of water quality in Anchar lake KashmirHi-malayasrdquo International Journal of Environmental Sciences vol3 no 5 pp 1625ndash1640 2013

[31] K Kannan Fundamentals of Environmental Pollution S Chandand Company Limited New Delhi India 1991

[32] A P Singh and S K Ghosh ldquoWater quality index for riverYamunardquo Pollution Research vol 18 no 4 pp 435ndash439 1999

[33] W W Miller H M Joung C N Mahannah and J R GarrettldquoIdentification of water quality differences in Nevada through

index applicationrdquo Journal of Environmental Quality vol 15 no3 pp 265ndash272 1986

[34] A A Bordalo R Teixeira and W J Wiebe ldquoA water qualityindex applied to an international shared river basin the case oftheDouro Riverrdquo EnvironmentalManagement vol 38 no 6 pp910ndash920 2006

[35] E SanchezM F Colmenarejo J Vicente et al ldquoUse of thewaterquality index and dissolved oxygen deficit as simple indicatorsof watersheds pollutionrdquo Ecological Indicators vol 7 no 2 pp315ndash328 2007

[36] K Rumysa A A Sharique Z Tariq M Farooq A Bilal andK Pinky ldquoPhysico chemical status of Wular Lake in KashmirrdquoJournal of Chemistry Biology and Physics Science vol 31 pp631ndash636 2012

[37] J A SheikhG Jeelani R S Gavali andRA Shah ldquoWeatheringand anthropogenic influences on the water and sedimentchemistry of Wular Lake Kashmir Himalayardquo EnvironmentalEarth Sciences vol 71 no 6 pp 2837ndash2846 2014

[38] M R D Kundangar S G Sarwar and J Husssain ldquoZoo-plankton population and nutrient dynamics of wetlands ofWular lake Kashmir Indiardquo in Environment and Biodiversityin the Context of South Asia P K Jha G P S Ghimire SB Karmacharya S A Baral and P Lacoul Eds pp 128ndash134Ecological Society (ECOS) Kathmandu Nepal 1996

[39] J A Shah and A K Pandit ldquolsquoPhysico-chemical characteristicsof water in Wular Lakersquo A Ramsar Site in Kashmir HimalayardquoInternational Journal of Geology Earth and EnvironmentalSciences vol 2 no 2 pp 257ndash265 2012

[40] S A Romshoo N Ali and I Rashid ldquoGeoinformatics for char-acterizing and understanding the spatio-temporal dynamics(1969 to 2008) of Hokersar Wetland in Kashmir HimalayasrdquoInternational Journal of Physical Sciences vol 6 no 5 pp 1026ndash1038 2011

[41] S A Romshoo and I Rashid ldquoAssessing the impacts ofchanging land cover and climate onHokersar wetland in IndianHimalayasrdquoArabian Journal of Geosciences vol 7 no 1 pp 143ndash160 2014

[42] E O Odada D O Olago K Kulindwa M Ntiba andS Wandiga ldquoMitigation of environmental problems in LakeVictoria East Africa causal chain and policy options analysesrdquoAmbio vol 33 no 1-2 pp 13ndash23 2004

[43] R Li M Dong Y Zhao L Zhang Q Cui and W He ldquoAssess-ment of water quality and identification of pollution sourcesof plateau lakes in Yunnan (China)rdquo Journal of EnvironmentalQuality vol 36 no 1 pp 291ndash297 2007

[44] G Karakoc F Unlu Erkoc and H Katircioglu ldquoWater qualityand impacts of pollution sources for Eymir and Mogan Lakes(Turkey)rdquo Environment International vol 29 no 1 pp 21ndash272003

[45] V Kaul ldquoWater characteristics of some fresh water bodies ofKashmirrdquo Current Trends in Life Sciences vol 9 pp 221ndash2461979

[46] A K Pandit and A R Yousuf ldquoTrophic status of KashmirHimalayan lakes as depicted by water chemistryrdquo Journal ofResearch and Development vol 2 pp 1ndash12 2002

[47] M A Khan ldquoChemical environment and nutrient fluxes ina flood plain wetland ecosystem Kashmir Himalayas IndiardquoIndian Forester vol 134 no 4 pp 505ndash514 2008

[48] F A Khan and A A Ansari ldquoEutrophication an ecologicalvisionrdquo Botanical Review vol 71 no 4 pp 449ndash482 2005


[49] F J H Mackereth Some Methods for Water Analysis forLimnologists vol 21 Freshwater Biological Association SciencePublication London UK 1963

[50] H L Golterman and R S Clymo ldquoMethods for physical andchemical analysis of freshwatersrdquo in IBP Hand Book No 8Blackwell Scientific Publications Oxford UK 1969

[51] American Public Health Association (APHA) StandardMethods for Examination of Water and Waste Water AmericanPublicHealthAssociationWashington DCUSA 20th edition1998

[52] R A Johnson and D W Wichern Applied Multivariate Sta-tistical Analysis Prentice Hall Englewood Cliffs NJ USA 3rdedition 1992

[53] A C Rencher Method of Multivariate Analysis John Wiley ampSons 2nd edition 2002

[54] S F Pesce and D AWunderlin ldquoUse of water quality indices toverify the impact of Cordoba City (Argentina) on Suquia RiverrdquoWater Research vol 34 no 11 pp 2915ndash2926 2000

[55] R K Trivedy and P K Goel Chemcial and Biological MethodsforWater Pollution Studies Environmental Publications KaradIndia 1984

[56] R D Harkins ldquoAn objective water quality indexrdquo Journal of theWater Pollution Control Federation vol 46 no 3 1974

[57] B N Lohani ldquoWater quality indicesrdquo in Water Pollution andManagement Reviews C K Varshney Ed pp 53ndash69 SouthAsian Publications New Delhi India 1981

[58] T N Tiwari S C Das and P K Bose ldquoWater quality indexfor the river Jhelum in Kashmir and its seasonal variationrdquoPollution Research vol 5 no 1 pp 1ndash5 1986

[59] Indian Council of Medical Research Manual of Standards ofQuality of Drinking Water Supplied Special Report Series no44 Indian Council of Medical Research New Delhi India 2ndedition 1975

[60] United States Public Health Service Public Health ServiceDrinking Water Standards Publication No 956 U S Depart-ment of Health Education and Welfare Public Health ServicesWashington DC USA 1962

[61] WorldHealthOrganizationGuidelines to DrinkingWater Qual-ity vol 1 World Health Organization Geneva Switzerland 3rdedition 2008

[62] ISI Indian Standard Specification for Drinking Water 1983[63] S Bamforth ldquoEcological studies on the planktonic protozoa of

a small artificial pondrdquo Limnology of Oceanography vol 3 pp398ndash412 1958

[64] M P Sinha R Kumar R Srivastava S K Mishra and AK Choudhuri ldquoEcotaxonomy and biomonitoring of lake forconservation and management Biotic Profilerdquo in Ecology andConservation of Lakes Reservoirs and Rivers A Kumar Ed vol2 pp 248ndash289 ABD Publication Jaipur India 2002

[65] V R Solanki M M Hussain and S S Raja ldquoWater qualityassessment of Lake Pandu Bodhan Andhra Pradesh StateIndiardquo Environmental Monitoring and Assessment vol 163 no1ndash4 pp 411ndash419 2010

[66] R K Garg R J Rao D Uchchariya G Shukla and D NSaksena ldquoSeasonal variations in water quality andmajor threatsto Ramsagar reservoir Indiardquo African Journal of EnvironmentalScience and Technology vol 4 no 2 pp 61ndash76 2010

[67] Q Lu Z L He D A Graetz P J Stoffella and X YangldquoPhytoremediation to remove nutrients and improve eutrophicstormwaters using water lettuce (Pistia stratiotes L)rdquo Environ-mental Science and Pollution Research vol 17 no 1 pp 84ndash962010

[68] LM Bini SMThomaz and P Carvalho ldquoLimnological effectsof Egeria najas Planchon (Hydrocharitaceae) in the arms ofItaipu Reservoir (Brazil Paraguay)rdquo Limnology vol 11 no 1 pp39ndash47 2010

[69] D D Ratnayaka M J Brandt and K M Johnson Water Sup-ply Butterworth-Heinemann Boston Mass USA 6th edition2009

[70] M E Kotti A G Vlessidis N C Thanasoulias and N PEvmiridis ldquoAssessment of river water quality in NorthwesternGreecerdquoWater Resources Management vol 19 no 1 pp 77ndash942005

[71] W Yan C Yin and S Zhang ldquoNutrient budgets and bio-geochemistry in an experimental agricultural watershed inSoutheastern Chinardquo Biogeochemistry vol 45 no 1 pp 1ndash191999

[72] Y B Si S Q Wang and H M Chen ldquoWater eutrophyicationand losses of nitrogen and phosphrus in farmlandrdquo Soils vol32 pp 188ndash193 2000 (Chinese)

[73] A Vyas D DMishra A Bajapai S Dixit andN Verma ldquoEnvi-ronment impact of idol immersion activity lakes of BhopalIndiardquo Asian Journal of Experimental Science vol 20 no 2 pp289ndash296 2006

[74] P Ekholm and K Krogerus ldquoBioavailability of phosphorus inpurified municipal wastewatersrdquoWater Research vol 32 no 2pp 343ndash351 1998

[75] S Mc Eldowney D J Hardman and SWaite Pollution Ecologyand Biotreatment Longman Essex UK 1993

[76] M A Khan M A Shah S S Mir and S Bashir ldquoTheenvironmental status of a Kashmir Himalayan wetland gamereserve Aquatic plant communities and eco-restoration mea-suresrdquo Lakes and Reservoirs Research and Management vol 9no 2 pp 125ndash132 2004

[77] S A Bhat S A Rather and A K Pandit ldquoImpact of effluentfrom Sheri-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences (SKIMS)Soura on Anchar Lakerdquo Journal of Research and Developmentvol 1 pp 30ndash37 2001

[78] Z H Zhu ldquoPhosphorates and silicaterdquo in Researches on Ecosys-tem of Daya Bay J P Pan Ed pp 25ndash29 ChinaMeteorologicalPress Beijing China 1999

[79] A Astel M Biziuk A Przyjazny and J Namiesnik ldquoChemo-metrics in monitoring spatial and temporal variations in drink-ing water qualityrdquoWater Research vol 40 no 8 pp 1706ndash17162006

[80] F Zhou Y Liu and H Guo ldquoApplication of multivariate statis-tical methods to water quality assessment of the watercoursesin Northwestern New Territories Hong Kongrdquo EnvironmentalMonitoring and Assessment vol 132 no 1ndash3 pp 1ndash13 2007

[81] NMMattikalli andK S Richards ldquoEstimation of surfacewaterquality changes in response to land use change Applicationof the export coefficient model using remote sensing andgeographical information systemrdquo Journal of EnvironmentalManagement vol 48 no 3 pp 263ndash282 1996

[82] H Juahir S M Zain M K Yusoff et al ldquoSpatial water qualityassessment of Langat River Basin (Malaysia) using environ-metric techniquesrdquo Environmental Monitoring and Assessmentvol 173 no 1ndash4 pp 625ndash641 2011

[83] P Basnyat L D Teeter B G Lockaby and K M Flynn ldquoTheuse of remote sensing and GIS in watershed level analysesof non-point source pollution problemsrdquo Forest Ecology andManagement vol 128 no 1-2 pp 65ndash73 2000


[84] D G Uzarski T M Burton M J Cooper J W Ingram and ST A Timmermans ldquoFish habitat use within and across wetlandclasses in coastal wetlands of the five Great Lakes Developmentof a fish-based index of biotic integrityrdquo Journal of Great LakesResearch vol 31 no 1 pp 171ndash187 2005

[85] M A Khan and M A Shah ldquoHydrology and sediment loadingofHokersarwetland sanctuary in theKashmirHimalaya IndiardquoThe Indian Forester vol 130 pp 899ndash910 2004

[86] C A Biney ldquoA review of some characteristics of freshwater andcoastal ecosystems in Ghanardquo Hydrobiologia vol 208 no 1-2pp 45ndash53 1990

[87] R F Stallard and J M Edmond ldquoGeochemistry of the Amazon2The influence of geology and weathering environment on thedissolved loadrdquo Journal of Geophysical Research vol 88 no 14pp 9671ndash9688 1983

[88] G J Chakrapani ldquoWater and sediment geochemistry of majorKumaun Himalayan lakes Indiardquo Environmental Geology vol43 no 1-2 pp 99ndash107 2002

[89] R Venkatasubramani and T Meenambal ldquoStudy on subsurfacewater quality in Mettupalayam taluk of Coimbatore districtTamilNadurdquoNature Environment and Pollution Technology vol6 no 2 pp 307ndash310 2007

[90] A Dagaonkar and D N Saksena ldquoPhysico-chemical andbiological characterization of a temple tank Kailasagar GwaliorMadhya Pradeshrdquo Journal Hydrobiology vol 8 no 1 pp 11ndash191992

[91] H L Golterman and F A Kouwe ldquoChemical budgets andnutrients pathwaysrdquo in The functioning of ecosystems E DLecren and R H LoweMcConnel Eds vol 22 of InternationalBiological Program pp 85ndash140 London UK 1980

[92] S A Bhat and A K Pandit ldquoPhytoplankton dynamics inAnchar Lake Kashmirrdquo Journal of Research and Developmentvol 3 pp 71ndash96 2003

[93] G Campbell and S Wildberger The Monitorrsquos Handbook aReference Guide for Natural Water 2005

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

Forestry ResearchInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Environmental and Public Health

Journal of



EcosystemsJournal of


MeteorologyAdvances in

EcologyInternational Journal of


Marine BiologyJournal of


Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Applied ampEnvironmentalSoil Science

Volume 2014

Advances in


Environmental Chemistry

Atmospheric SciencesInternational Journal of



Waste ManagementJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

International Journal of

Geophysics


Geological ResearchJournal of

EarthquakesJournal of


BiodiversityInternational Journal of


ScientificaHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

OceanographyInternational Journal of


The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of Computational Environmental SciencesHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014


ClimatologyJournal of


Table 1 Sampling station locations and their coordinates

Study sites Latitude Longitude Elevation Location Water depth (m)Makhdomyari Site I 34∘-171015840-44210158401015840 74∘-371015840-24210158401015840 1597 Southeastern 1ndash3Vintage Site II 34∘-241015840-08110158401015840 74∘-321015840-39110158401015840 1583 Eastern side 1ndash4Ashtang Site III 34∘-241015840-3810158401015840 74∘-321015840-41710158401015840 1583 Northwestern side 05ndash45Watlab Site IV 34∘-211015840-29410158401015840 74∘-011015840-59210158401015840 1577 Western side 1ndash55Ningle Site V 34∘-171015840-16610158401015840 74∘-301015840-26610158401015840 1574 Northern 05ndash44

better understand the water quality and ecological status ofstudied systems [10 12 23 25ndash28] These statistical methodsalso help with the identification of possible factorssourcesthat influence water systems and offer a valuable tool forthe reliable management of water resources as well as rapidsolutions to pollution problems [10 11 23 25 29 30]

In this study physicochemical parameters of surfacewater quality directly affected by different pollution sourceswere monitored over two-year periodThe data sets obtainedwere subjected to multivariate statistical technique namelydiscriminant analysis (DA) to obtain information about thesimilarities or dissimilarities among the monitoring periodsand sites and to identify water quality variables responsiblefor spatial and temporal water quality variations in surfacewater Besides multivariate statistical analysis water qualityindex (a multifactor mathematical tool) was used to interpretwater quality of studied lake numerically It is regarded asone of the most effective ways to communicate water quality[26 27 31] and is assessed on the basis of calculated waterquality indices [27 32] The index is a numeric expressionused to transform large number of variables data into a singlenumber which represents the water quality level [33ndash35]

During the last decades widespread deterioration inwater quality of Wular lake has been reported due toanthropogenic influences (agricultural practices increasedexploitation of water resource sewage runoff agricultureand urban sprawl) and natural processes (changes in pre-cipitation erosion and weathering of crustal materials)[36 37] Pollutants from anthropogenic activities have beenincreasingly produced and discharged into the Wular Lakeresulting in severe degradation of water quality restrictingthe sustainable development of the local economies Further-more enhanced input of nutrients from both natural as wellas anthropogenic activities has resulted in the eutrophicationof Wular Lake [38 39] In the view of the above-mentionedpollution problems of Lake Wular the present study wascarried out with the objectives of finding pollution sourcesand causes of spatiotemporal variations in water quality

2 Materials and Methodology

21 Materials

211 Study Area The valley of Kashmir lies on the northernfringe of the Indian subcontinent and is lacustrine basin ofthe intermontane depression formed between the lesser andthe greater Himalaya It abounds a vast array of freshwaterbodies streams lakes ponds and rivers famous for its beautyand natural scenery throughout the world These numerous

but varied freshwater ecosystems are of great aestheticcultural socioeconomic and geological value besides playingan important role in the conservation of genetic resources ofboth plants and animals However anthropogenic activitieshave resulted in heavy inflow of nutrients into these lakesfrom the catchment areas [40 41] These anthropogenicinfluences not only deteriorate the water quality but alsoaffect the aquatic life in the lakes as a result of which theprocess of aging of these lakes is hastened [42ndash44] As aconsequence most of the lakes in the Kashmir valley areexhibiting eutrophication [45ndash48]

Geographically the Wular Lake one of the largest wet-lands of Asia is situated at an altitude of 1580m (amsl)between 34∘161015840ndash34∘201015840N latitudes and 74∘331015840-74∘441015840E lon-gitudes (Figure 1) Wular Lake an ox-bow type lake is offluviatile origin located in the north-west of Kashmir about35 km from Srinagar city being formed by the meanderingof River Jhelum which is the main feeding channel besidesother tributaries It plays a significant role in the hydrographyof the Kashmir valley not only by acting as a huge absorptionbasin for floodwaters but also for maintaining flows tosupport agriculture and hydropower generation as well assports activities The lake along with the extensive marshessurrounding is an important habitat for fish accounting for60 of the fish production within the state of Jammu andKashmir [36] The lake is largely shallow with a maximumdepth of 58m the deeper part being on the western sideopposite the hills of Baba Shakur Din The lake is drainedin the northeast by the only single outlet in the form ofRiver Jhelum General features of study stations are shownin Table 1The catchment of the lake is comprised of sloppinghills of the Zanskar ranges of the western Himalaya on thenortheastern and northwestern sideswhich drain their runoffthrough various nallahs where Erin and Madhumati areprominent On the eastern and southern sides are the low-lying areas of Sonawari which used to get inundated almostevery year until numerous criss-crossing embankments wereconstructed along River JhelumThe lake area thus reclaimedhas in the recent past been brought under cultivation of paddyand plantations of willow poplar and fruit trees On thewestern side in the Sopore-Watlab section low-lying areashave also been brought under paddy cultivation In 1986 thelake was designated as wetland of national importance underthe Indian GovernmentsWetlands Programme and in 1990it was enlisted as a wetland of international importance underthe Ramsar Convention of 1975 However a comprehensivestudy regarding the assessment of spatiotemporal hydro-chemistry of the lake is lacking up to date Morphometricfeatures of Wular Lake are presented in Table 2



74∘20

9984000998400998400E 74

∘25

9984000998400998400E 74

∘30

9984000998400998400E 74

∘35

9984000998400998400E 74

∘40

9984000998400998400E 74

∘45

9984000998400998400E 74

∘50

9984000998400998400E

34∘25

9984000998400998400N

34∘20

9984000998400998400N

34∘15

9984000998400998400N

34∘10

9984000998400998400N


22 Methodology



2




Max area 616 Km2

Min area 1224Km2








119891 (119866119894) = 119896119894+

119899

sum

119895 = 1

119908119894119895119901119894119895 (1)



119895is the weight







WQI =sum13

119894 = 1119902119894119908119894

sum13

119894 = 1119882119894

(2)

which gives

WQI =13

sum

119894=1

119902119894119908119894

Since sum119882119894= 1

(3)


119886minus 119881119894)(119881119904minus 119881119894)









119882119894=

119896

119878119899

(4)












2


2level in summer







2-N and organic-N


3-N



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

(i)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

(ii)

Dep

th (m

)


05

10

15

20

25



ansp

aren

cy (m

)

Tem

pera

ture

(∘C)


(a)

65

70

75

80

85

90

(i)

pH

0

100

200

300

400

500

(iii)

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

(iii)

Diss

olve

d ox

ygen


0

5

10

15

20

(iv)



Con

duct

ivity

(


Free

CO

2120583

S cm

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(b) Continued

Figure 2 Continued



50

100

150

200

250


50

100

150

200

250

(vi)

20

40

60

80

100

(vii)

0

10

20

30

40

(viii)

Alk

alin

ity


Tota

l har

dnes

s


Calci

um h

ardn

ess


Mag

nesiu

m h

ardn

ess

0

50

100

150

200

250

(ix)

TDS


(b)


02

04

06

08

10


000

002

004

006

008

010

(xiv)

NO

3-N

conc

NO

2-N

conc


(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(c) Continued

Figure 2 Continued


00

01

02

03

04

(xv)

000

025

050

075

100

125

(xvi)

050

075

100

125

150

175

(xvii)

001

002

003

004

005

006

(xviii)

00

01

02

03

04

05

(xix)


NH

4-N

conc




Tota

l-N co

nc


Ort

ho-P

conc


(c)

Tota

l-P co

nc

Org

anic

-N co

nc


5

10

15

20

25

30


10

15

20

25

30

35

40

(ii)

Cl co

nc


Ca co

nten

t

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(d) Continued

Figure 2 Continued


0

5

10

15

20

25

(iii)

5

10

15

20

25

(iv)

1

2

3

4

5

6

(v)

0

5

10

15

20

(vi)

00

25

50

75

100

125

(vii)

020

025

030

035

040

045

(viii)


Mg

cont

ent


Silic

ate


K co

nten

t


Na c

onte

nt



Sulp

hate

Fe

(d)

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

















2-N total-N and



2-N total-



Table3Disc

riminantfun

ctioncoeffi

cientsandWilk

sLam

bdafor

spatialvariatio

nsin

water

parameterso

fLakeW

ular

Standardized

cano

nicald

iscrim

inantfun

ctioncoeffi

cients

Eigenvalues

Wilk

sLam

bda

Function

WT

Depth

Trans

EC

TAlkalinity

CaHArd

NO2-N

OrgN

Total-N

Na+

K+

Silicate

Sulphate

TDS

Eigenvalue

Variance

Cumulative


WilksrsquoLambda

Chi-square

df

Sig

110

6minus201

031

094

020

012

078

029minus12

2087

107

122

089

064

2082

7650

765

098

000

6356

560

02minus087

186

010

050

063

053

052

098minus027

084

100

051

018minus038

519

1910

956

092

007

2980

390

03minus074

059

047

045minus003

025

040

048

029minus057

028minus222

204

067

950

350

991

070

041

982

240


031

045

065

084


028

089minus049

259

090

1000

045

080

251

110

000

9


Table4Disc

riminantfun

ctioncoeffi

cientsandWilk

sLam

bdafor

tempo

ralvariatio

nsin

water

parameterso

fLakeW

ular

Standardized

cano

nicald

iscrim

inantfun

ctioncoeffi

cients

Eigenvalues

Wilk

sLam

bda

Functio

nNO

2-N

NH

4-N

Total-N

Total-P

TDS

Sulphate

Eigenvalue

of

Varia

nce

Cumulative

Cano

nicalC

orrelation

Wilk

srsquoLambd

aCh

i-squ

are

dfSig

1217minus16

3251minus18

8009

228

9422

8590

8590

100

01590

3818

02

140


075

969

880

9480

095

0014

77028

100

3064


102

576

520

10000

092

0148

34384

40


Table5Drin

king

water

standardsun

itweights

averagew

ater

qualityand

water

quality

indexof

fives

tudy

statio

nsin

Lake

Wular

Chem

icalparameters

Standards

Recommending

agency

Unitw

eight(wi)

Makhd

oomyari

Vintage

Ashtang

Watlab

Ningle

AvWq

WiQ

iAv

Wq

WiQ

iAv

Wq

WiQ

iAv

Wq

WiQ

iAv

Wq

WiQ

ipH

70ndash85

ICMR

0037

784

419

776

380

780

397

775

373

777

387

Electricalcond

uctiv

ity750120583

Scm

WHO

000

02529

001

2542

001

2554

001

2823

001

2485

001

Chlorid

e250m

gL

ISI

0001

1235

001

1334

001

1433

001

1411

001

1285

001

Diss

olvedoxygen

50m

gL

WHO

0052

903

304

893

310

893

310

894

309

912

299

Free

CO2

22mgL

WHO

0012

989

054

1002

054

1000

054

1004

054

1043

057

Totalalkalinity

120m

gL

USP

HS

0002

1127

021

1070

019

9954

018

1145

021

1020

019

Totalh

ardn

ess

500m

gL

WHO

0001

1455

002

1439

002

1422

001

1617

002

1282

001

Nitrate-N

45mgL

WHO

000

6047

001

048

001

048

001

046

001

042

001

Calcium

75mgL

ICMR

0003

2116

010

2088

010

2061

010

2605

012

1985

009

Magnesiu

m50

mgL

ICMR

000

91350

039

1366

024

1323

023

1409

025

1147

020

Sulfate

200m

gL

ICMR

0001

610

000

550

000

503

000

477

000

390

000

Iron

03m

gL

ISI

0874

014

407

013

385

013

391

011

326

010

291

Totald

issolvedsolid

s500m

gL

WHO

0001

1541

002

1469

002

1333

001

1068

001

7708

001

sum119882119894

100

sum119882119894119876119894

492sum119882119894119876119894

465sum119882119894119876119894

473sum119882119894119876119894

406sum119882119894119876119894

371


Function 1

1050minus5minus10

Func

tion2

10

5

0

minus5

minus10

5

4

3

2

1



Sample station




Function 1

15

10

5

0

minus5

minus10

minus15

Func

tion2


4

3

2

1



Seasons





3are derived




4 Conclusion




Acknowledgments


References






































































































Journal of












Volume 2014

Advances in









Geophysics
















74∘20

9984000998400998400E 74

∘25

9984000998400998400E 74

∘30

9984000998400998400E 74

∘35

9984000998400998400E 74

∘40

9984000998400998400E 74

∘45

9984000998400998400E 74

∘50

9984000998400998400E

34∘25

9984000998400998400N

34∘20

9984000998400998400N

34∘15

9984000998400998400N

34∘10

9984000998400998400N


22 Methodology



2




Max area 616 Km2

Min area 1224Km2








119891 (119866119894) = 119896119894+

119899

sum

119895 = 1

119908119894119895119901119894119895 (1)



119895is the weight







WQI =sum13

119894 = 1119902119894119908119894

sum13

119894 = 1119882119894

(2)

which gives

WQI =13

sum

119894=1

119902119894119908119894

Since sum119882119894= 1

(3)


119886minus 119881119894)(119881119904minus 119881119894)









119882119894=

119896

119878119899

(4)












2


2level in summer







2-N and organic-N


3-N



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

(i)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

(ii)

Dep

th (m

)


05

10

15

20

25



ansp

aren

cy (m

)

Tem

pera

ture

(∘C)


(a)

65

70

75

80

85

90

(i)

pH

0

100

200

300

400

500

(iii)

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

(iii)

Diss

olve

d ox

ygen


0

5

10

15

20

(iv)



Con

duct

ivity

(


Free

CO

2120583

S cm

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(b) Continued

Figure 2 Continued



50

100

150

200

250


50

100

150

200

250

(vi)

20

40

60

80

100

(vii)

0

10

20

30

40

(viii)

Alk

alin

ity


Tota

l har

dnes

s


Calci

um h

ardn

ess


Mag

nesiu

m h

ardn

ess

0

50

100

150

200

250

(ix)

TDS


(b)


02

04

06

08

10


000

002

004

006

008

010

(xiv)

NO

3-N

conc

NO

2-N

conc


(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(c) Continued

Figure 2 Continued


00

01

02

03

04

(xv)

000

025

050

075

100

125

(xvi)

050

075

100

125

150

175

(xvii)

001

002

003

004

005

006

(xviii)

00

01

02

03

04

05

(xix)


NH

4-N

conc




Tota

l-N co

nc


Ort

ho-P

conc


(c)

Tota

l-P co

nc

Org

anic

-N co

nc


5

10

15

20

25

30


10

15

20

25

30

35

40

(ii)

Cl co

nc


Ca co

nten

t

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(d) Continued

Figure 2 Continued


0

5

10

15

20

25

(iii)

5

10

15

20

25

(iv)

1

2

3

4

5

6

(v)

0

5

10

15

20

(vi)

00

25

50

75

100

125

(vii)

020

025

030

035

040

045

(viii)


Mg

cont

ent


Silic

ate


K co

nten

t


Na c

onte

nt



Sulp

hate

Fe

(d)

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

















2-N total-N and



2-N total-



Table3Disc

riminantfun

ctioncoeffi

cientsandWilk

sLam

bdafor

spatialvariatio

nsin

water

parameterso

fLakeW

ular

Standardized

cano

nicald

iscrim

inantfun

ctioncoeffi

cients

Eigenvalues

Wilk

sLam

bda

Function

WT

Depth

Trans

EC

TAlkalinity

CaHArd

NO2-N

OrgN

Total-N

Na+

K+

Silicate

Sulphate

TDS

Eigenvalue

Variance

Cumulative


WilksrsquoLambda

Chi-square

df

Sig

110

6minus201

031

094

020

012

078

029minus12

2087

107

122

089

064

2082

7650

765

098

000

6356

560

02minus087

186

010

050

063

053

052

098minus027

084

100

051

018minus038

519

1910

956

092

007

2980

390

03minus074

059

047

045minus003

025

040

048

029minus057

028minus222

204

067

950

350

991

070

041

982

240


031

045

065

084


028

089minus049

259

090

1000

045

080

251

110

000

9


Table4Disc

riminantfun

ctioncoeffi

cientsandWilk

sLam

bdafor

tempo

ralvariatio

nsin

water

parameterso

fLakeW

ular

Standardized

cano

nicald

iscrim

inantfun

ctioncoeffi

cients

Eigenvalues

Wilk

sLam

bda

Functio

nNO

2-N

NH

4-N

Total-N

Total-P

TDS

Sulphate

Eigenvalue

of

Varia

nce

Cumulative

Cano

nicalC

orrelation

Wilk

srsquoLambd

aCh

i-squ

are

dfSig

1217minus16

3251minus18

8009

228

9422

8590

8590

100

01590

3818

02

140


075

969

880

9480

095

0014

77028

100

3064


102

576

520

10000

092

0148

34384

40


Table5Drin

king

water

standardsun

itweights

averagew

ater

qualityand

water

quality

indexof

fives

tudy

statio

nsin

Lake

Wular

Chem

icalparameters

Standards

Recommending

agency

Unitw

eight(wi)

Makhd

oomyari

Vintage

Ashtang

Watlab

Ningle

AvWq

WiQ

iAv

Wq

WiQ

iAv

Wq

WiQ

iAv

Wq

WiQ

iAv

Wq

WiQ

ipH

70ndash85

ICMR

0037

784

419

776

380

780

397

775

373

777

387

Electricalcond

uctiv

ity750120583

Scm

WHO

000

02529

001

2542

001

2554

001

2823

001

2485

001

Chlorid

e250m

gL

ISI

0001

1235

001

1334

001

1433

001

1411

001

1285

001

Diss

olvedoxygen

50m

gL

WHO

0052

903

304

893

310

893

310

894

309

912

299

Free

CO2

22mgL

WHO

0012

989

054

1002

054

1000

054

1004

054

1043

057

Totalalkalinity

120m

gL

USP

HS

0002

1127

021

1070

019

9954

018

1145

021

1020

019

Totalh

ardn

ess

500m

gL

WHO

0001

1455

002

1439

002

1422

001

1617

002

1282

001

Nitrate-N

45mgL

WHO

000

6047

001

048

001

048

001

046

001

042

001

Calcium

75mgL

ICMR

0003

2116

010

2088

010

2061

010

2605

012

1985

009

Magnesiu

m50

mgL

ICMR

000

91350

039

1366

024

1323

023

1409

025

1147

020

Sulfate

200m

gL

ICMR

0001

610

000

550

000

503

000

477

000

390

000

Iron

03m

gL

ISI

0874

014

407

013

385

013

391

011

326

010

291

Totald

issolvedsolid

s500m

gL

WHO

0001

1541

002

1469

002

1333

001

1068

001

7708

001

sum119882119894

100

sum119882119894119876119894

492sum119882119894119876119894

465sum119882119894119876119894

473sum119882119894119876119894

406sum119882119894119876119894

371


Function 1

1050minus5minus10

Func

tion2

10

5

0

minus5

minus10

5

4

3

2

1



Sample station




Function 1

15

10

5

0

minus5

minus10

minus15

Func

tion2


4

3

2

1



Seasons





3are derived




4 Conclusion




Acknowledgments


References






































































































Journal of












Volume 2014

Advances in









Geophysics
















Max area 616 Km2

Min area 1224Km2








119891 (119866119894) = 119896119894+

119899

sum

119895 = 1

119908119894119895119901119894119895 (1)



119895is the weight







WQI =sum13

119894 = 1119902119894119908119894

sum13

119894 = 1119882119894

(2)

which gives

WQI =13

sum

119894=1

119902119894119908119894

Since sum119882119894= 1

(3)


119886minus 119881119894)(119881119904minus 119881119894)









119882119894=

119896

119878119899

(4)












2


2level in summer







2-N and organic-N


3-N



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

(i)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

(ii)

Dep

th (m

)


05

10

15

20

25



ansp

aren

cy (m

)

Tem

pera

ture

(∘C)


(a)

65

70

75

80

85

90

(i)

pH

0

100

200

300

400

500

(iii)

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

(iii)

Diss

olve

d ox

ygen


0

5

10

15

20

(iv)



Con

duct

ivity

(


Free

CO

2120583

S cm

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(b) Continued

Figure 2 Continued



50

100

150

200

250


50

100

150

200

250

(vi)

20

40

60

80

100

(vii)

0

10

20

30

40

(viii)

Alk

alin

ity


Tota

l har

dnes

s


Calci

um h

ardn

ess


Mag

nesiu

m h

ardn

ess

0

50

100

150

200

250

(ix)

TDS


(b)


02

04

06

08

10


000

002

004

006

008

010

(xiv)

NO

3-N

conc

NO

2-N

conc


(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(c) Continued

Figure 2 Continued


00

01

02

03

04

(xv)

000

025

050

075

100

125

(xvi)

050

075

100

125

150

175

(xvii)

001

002

003

004

005

006

(xviii)

00

01

02

03

04

05

(xix)


NH

4-N

conc




Tota

l-N co

nc


Ort

ho-P

conc


(c)

Tota

l-P co

nc

Org

anic

-N co

nc


5

10

15

20

25

30


10

15

20

25

30

35

40

(ii)

Cl co

nc


Ca co

nten

t

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(d) Continued

Figure 2 Continued


0

5

10

15

20

25

(iii)

5

10

15

20

25

(iv)

1

2

3

4

5

6

(v)

0

5

10

15

20

(vi)

00

25

50

75

100

125

(vii)

020

025

030

035

040

045

(viii)


Mg

cont

ent


Silic

ate


K co

nten

t


Na c

onte

nt



Sulp

hate

Fe

(d)

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

















2-N total-N and



2-N total-



Table3Disc

riminantfun

ctioncoeffi

cientsandWilk

sLam

bdafor

spatialvariatio

nsin

water

parameterso

fLakeW

ular

Standardized

cano

nicald

iscrim

inantfun

ctioncoeffi

cients

Eigenvalues

Wilk

sLam

bda

Function

WT

Depth

Trans

EC

TAlkalinity

CaHArd

NO2-N

OrgN

Total-N

Na+

K+

Silicate

Sulphate

TDS

Eigenvalue

Variance

Cumulative


WilksrsquoLambda

Chi-square

df

Sig

110

6minus201

031

094

020

012

078

029minus12

2087

107

122

089

064

2082

7650

765

098

000

6356

560

02minus087

186

010

050

063

053

052

098minus027

084

100

051

018minus038

519

1910

956

092

007

2980

390

03minus074

059

047

045minus003

025

040

048

029minus057

028minus222

204

067

950

350

991

070

041

982

240


031

045

065

084


028

089minus049

259

090

1000

045

080

251

110

000

9


Table4Disc

riminantfun

ctioncoeffi

cientsandWilk

sLam

bdafor

tempo

ralvariatio

nsin

water

parameterso

fLakeW

ular

Standardized

cano

nicald

iscrim

inantfun

ctioncoeffi

cients

Eigenvalues

Wilk

sLam

bda

Functio

nNO

2-N

NH

4-N

Total-N

Total-P

TDS

Sulphate

Eigenvalue

of

Varia

nce

Cumulative

Cano

nicalC

orrelation

Wilk

srsquoLambd

aCh

i-squ

are

dfSig

1217minus16

3251minus18

8009

228

9422

8590

8590

100

01590

3818

02

140


075

969

880

9480

095

0014

77028

100

3064


102

576

520

10000

092

0148

34384

40


Table5Drin

king

water

standardsun

itweights

averagew

ater

qualityand

water

quality

indexof

fives

tudy

statio

nsin

Lake

Wular

Chem

icalparameters

Standards

Recommending

agency

Unitw

eight(wi)

Makhd

oomyari

Vintage

Ashtang

Watlab

Ningle

AvWq

WiQ

iAv

Wq

WiQ

iAv

Wq

WiQ

iAv

Wq

WiQ

iAv

Wq

WiQ

ipH

70ndash85

ICMR

0037

784

419

776

380

780

397

775

373

777

387

Electricalcond

uctiv

ity750120583

Scm

WHO

000

02529

001

2542

001

2554

001

2823

001

2485

001

Chlorid

e250m

gL

ISI

0001

1235

001

1334

001

1433

001

1411

001

1285

001

Diss

olvedoxygen

50m

gL

WHO

0052

903

304

893

310

893

310

894

309

912

299

Free

CO2

22mgL

WHO

0012

989

054

1002

054

1000

054

1004

054

1043

057

Totalalkalinity

120m

gL

USP

HS

0002

1127

021

1070

019

9954

018

1145

021

1020

019

Totalh

ardn

ess

500m

gL

WHO

0001

1455

002

1439

002

1422

001

1617

002

1282

001

Nitrate-N

45mgL

WHO

000

6047

001

048

001

048

001

046

001

042

001

Calcium

75mgL

ICMR

0003

2116

010

2088

010

2061

010

2605

012

1985

009

Magnesiu

m50

mgL

ICMR

000

91350

039

1366

024

1323

023

1409

025

1147

020

Sulfate

200m

gL

ICMR

0001

610

000

550

000

503

000

477

000

390

000

Iron

03m

gL

ISI

0874

014

407

013

385

013

391

011

326

010

291

Totald

issolvedsolid

s500m

gL

WHO

0001

1541

002

1469

002

1333

001

1068

001

7708

001

sum119882119894

100

sum119882119894119876119894

492sum119882119894119876119894

465sum119882119894119876119894

473sum119882119894119876119894

406sum119882119894119876119894

371


Function 1

1050minus5minus10

Func

tion2

10

5

0

minus5

minus10

5

4

3

2

1



Sample station




Function 1

15

10

5

0

minus5

minus10

minus15

Func

tion2


4

3

2

1



Seasons





3are derived




4 Conclusion




Acknowledgments


References






































































































Journal of












Volume 2014

Advances in









Geophysics






















119882119894=

119896

119878119899

(4)












2


2level in summer







2-N and organic-N


3-N



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

(i)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

(ii)

Dep

th (m

)


05

10

15

20

25



ansp

aren

cy (m

)

Tem

pera

ture

(∘C)


(a)

65

70

75

80

85

90

(i)

pH

0

100

200

300

400

500

(iii)

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

(iii)

Diss

olve

d ox

ygen


0

5

10

15

20

(iv)



Con

duct

ivity

(


Free

CO

2120583

S cm

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(b) Continued

Figure 2 Continued



50

100

150

200

250


50

100

150

200

250

(vi)

20

40

60

80

100

(vii)

0

10

20

30

40

(viii)

Alk

alin

ity


Tota

l har

dnes

s


Calci

um h

ardn

ess


Mag

nesiu

m h

ardn

ess

0

50

100

150

200

250

(ix)

TDS


(b)


02

04

06

08

10


000

002

004

006

008

010

(xiv)

NO

3-N

conc

NO

2-N

conc


(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(c) Continued

Figure 2 Continued


00

01

02

03

04

(xv)

000

025

050

075

100

125

(xvi)

050

075

100

125

150

175

(xvii)

001

002

003

004

005

006

(xviii)

00

01

02

03

04

05

(xix)


NH

4-N

conc




Tota

l-N co

nc


Ort

ho-P

conc


(c)

Tota

l-P co

nc

Org

anic

-N co

nc


5

10

15

20

25

30


10

15

20

25

30

35

40

(ii)

Cl co

nc


Ca co

nten

t

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(d) Continued

Figure 2 Continued


0

5

10

15

20

25

(iii)

5

10

15

20

25

(iv)

1

2

3

4

5

6

(v)

0

5

10

15

20

(vi)

00

25

50

75

100

125

(vii)

020

025

030

035

040

045

(viii)


Mg

cont

ent


Silic

ate


K co

nten

t


Na c

onte

nt



Sulp

hate

Fe

(d)

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

















2-N total-N and



2-N total-



Table3Disc

riminantfun

ctioncoeffi

cientsandWilk

sLam

bdafor

spatialvariatio

nsin

water

parameterso

fLakeW

ular

Standardized

cano

nicald

iscrim

inantfun

ctioncoeffi

cients

Eigenvalues

Wilk

sLam

bda

Function

WT

Depth

Trans

EC

TAlkalinity

CaHArd

NO2-N

OrgN

Total-N

Na+

K+

Silicate

Sulphate

TDS

Eigenvalue

Variance

Cumulative


WilksrsquoLambda

Chi-square

df

Sig

110

6minus201

031

094

020

012

078

029minus12

2087

107

122

089

064

2082

7650

765

098

000

6356

560

02minus087

186

010

050

063

053

052

098minus027

084

100

051

018minus038

519

1910

956

092

007

2980

390

03minus074

059

047

045minus003

025

040

048

029minus057

028minus222

204

067

950

350

991

070

041

982

240


031

045

065

084


028

089minus049

259

090

1000

045

080

251

110

000

9


Table4Disc

riminantfun

ctioncoeffi

cientsandWilk

sLam

bdafor

tempo

ralvariatio

nsin

water

parameterso

fLakeW

ular

Standardized

cano

nicald

iscrim

inantfun

ctioncoeffi

cients

Eigenvalues

Wilk

sLam

bda

Functio

nNO

2-N

NH

4-N

Total-N

Total-P

TDS

Sulphate

Eigenvalue

of

Varia

nce

Cumulative

Cano

nicalC

orrelation

Wilk

srsquoLambd

aCh

i-squ

are

dfSig

1217minus16

3251minus18

8009

228

9422

8590

8590

100

01590

3818

02

140


075

969

880

9480

095

0014

77028

100

3064


102

576

520

10000

092

0148

34384

40


Table5Drin

king

water

standardsun

itweights

averagew

ater

qualityand

water

quality

indexof

fives

tudy

statio

nsin

Lake

Wular

Chem

icalparameters

Standards

Recommending

agency

Unitw

eight(wi)

Makhd

oomyari

Vintage

Ashtang

Watlab

Ningle

AvWq

WiQ

iAv

Wq

WiQ

iAv

Wq

WiQ

iAv

Wq

WiQ

iAv

Wq

WiQ

ipH

70ndash85

ICMR

0037

784

419

776

380

780

397

775

373

777

387

Electricalcond

uctiv

ity750120583

Scm

WHO

000

02529

001

2542

001

2554

001

2823

001

2485

001

Chlorid

e250m

gL

ISI

0001

1235

001

1334

001

1433

001

1411

001

1285

001

Diss

olvedoxygen

50m

gL

WHO

0052

903

304

893

310

893

310

894

309

912

299

Free

CO2

22mgL

WHO

0012

989

054

1002

054

1000

054

1004

054

1043

057

Totalalkalinity

120m

gL

USP

HS

0002

1127

021

1070

019

9954

018

1145

021

1020

019

Totalh

ardn

ess

500m

gL

WHO

0001

1455

002

1439

002

1422

001

1617

002

1282

001

Nitrate-N

45mgL

WHO

000

6047

001

048

001

048

001

046

001

042

001

Calcium

75mgL

ICMR

0003

2116

010

2088

010

2061

010

2605

012

1985

009

Magnesiu

m50

mgL

ICMR

000

91350

039

1366

024

1323

023

1409

025

1147

020

Sulfate

200m

gL

ICMR

0001

610

000

550

000

503

000

477

000

390

000

Iron

03m

gL

ISI

0874

014

407

013

385

013

391

011

326

010

291

Totald

issolvedsolid

s500m

gL

WHO

0001

1541

002

1469

002

1333

001

1068

001

7708

001

sum119882119894

100

sum119882119894119876119894

492sum119882119894119876119894

465sum119882119894119876119894

473sum119882119894119876119894

406sum119882119894119876119894

371


Function 1

1050minus5minus10

Func

tion2

10

5

0

minus5

minus10

5

4

3

2

1



Sample station




Function 1

15

10

5

0

minus5

minus10

minus15

Func

tion2


4

3

2

1



Seasons





3are derived




4 Conclusion




Acknowledgments


References






































































































Journal of












Volume 2014

Advances in









Geophysics















0

5

10

15

20

25

30

(i)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

(ii)

Dep

th (m

)


05

10

15

20

25



ansp

aren

cy (m

)

Tem

pera

ture

(∘C)


(a)

65

70

75

80

85

90

(i)

pH

0

100

200

300

400

500

(iii)

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

(iii)

Diss

olve

d ox

ygen


0

5

10

15

20

(iv)



Con

duct

ivity

(


Free

CO

2120583

S cm

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(b) Continued

Figure 2 Continued



50

100

150

200

250


50

100

150

200

250

(vi)

20

40

60

80

100

(vii)

0

10

20

30

40

(viii)

Alk

alin

ity


Tota

l har

dnes

s


Calci

um h

ardn

ess


Mag

nesiu

m h

ardn

ess

0

50

100

150

200

250

(ix)

TDS


(b)


02

04

06

08

10


000

002

004

006

008

010

(xiv)

NO

3-N

conc

NO

2-N

conc


(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(c) Continued

Figure 2 Continued


00

01

02

03

04

(xv)

000

025

050

075

100

125

(xvi)

050

075

100

125

150

175

(xvii)

001

002

003

004

005

006

(xviii)

00

01

02

03

04

05

(xix)


NH

4-N

conc




Tota

l-N co

nc


Ort

ho-P

conc


(c)

Tota

l-P co

nc

Org

anic

-N co

nc


5

10

15

20

25

30


10

15

20

25

30

35

40

(ii)

Cl co

nc


Ca co

nten

t

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(d) Continued

Figure 2 Continued


0

5

10

15

20

25

(iii)

5

10

15

20

25

(iv)

1

2

3

4

5

6

(v)

0

5

10

15

20

(vi)

00

25

50

75

100

125

(vii)

020

025

030

035

040

045

(viii)


Mg

cont

ent


Silic

ate


K co

nten

t


Na c

onte

nt



Sulp

hate

Fe

(d)

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

















2-N total-N and



2-N total-



Table3Disc

riminantfun

ctioncoeffi

cientsandWilk

sLam

bdafor

spatialvariatio

nsin

water

parameterso

fLakeW

ular

Standardized

cano

nicald

iscrim

inantfun

ctioncoeffi

cients

Eigenvalues

Wilk

sLam

bda

Function

WT

Depth

Trans

EC

TAlkalinity

CaHArd

NO2-N

OrgN

Total-N

Na+

K+

Silicate

Sulphate

TDS

Eigenvalue

Variance

Cumulative


WilksrsquoLambda

Chi-square

df

Sig

110

6minus201

031

094

020

012

078

029minus12

2087

107

122

089

064

2082

7650

765

098

000

6356

560

02minus087

186

010

050

063

053

052

098minus027

084

100

051

018minus038

519

1910

956

092

007

2980

390

03minus074

059

047

045minus003

025

040

048

029minus057

028minus222

204

067

950

350

991

070

041

982

240


031

045

065

084


028

089minus049

259

090

1000

045

080

251

110

000

9


Table4Disc

riminantfun

ctioncoeffi

cientsandWilk

sLam

bdafor

tempo

ralvariatio

nsin

water

parameterso

fLakeW

ular

Standardized

cano

nicald

iscrim

inantfun

ctioncoeffi

cients

Eigenvalues

Wilk

sLam

bda

Functio

nNO

2-N

NH

4-N

Total-N

Total-P

TDS

Sulphate

Eigenvalue

of

Varia

nce

Cumulative

Cano

nicalC

orrelation

Wilk

srsquoLambd

aCh

i-squ

are

dfSig

1217minus16

3251minus18

8009

228

9422

8590

8590

100

01590

3818

02

140


075

969

880

9480

095

0014

77028

100

3064


102

576

520

10000

092

0148

34384

40


Table5Drin

king

water

standardsun

itweights

averagew

ater

qualityand

water

quality

indexof

fives

tudy

statio

nsin

Lake

Wular

Chem

icalparameters

Standards

Recommending

agency

Unitw

eight(wi)

Makhd

oomyari

Vintage

Ashtang

Watlab

Ningle

AvWq

WiQ

iAv

Wq

WiQ

iAv

Wq

WiQ

iAv

Wq

WiQ

iAv

Wq

WiQ

ipH

70ndash85

ICMR

0037

784

419

776

380

780

397

775

373

777

387

Electricalcond

uctiv

ity750120583

Scm

WHO

000

02529

001

2542

001

2554

001

2823

001

2485

001

Chlorid

e250m

gL

ISI

0001

1235

001

1334

001

1433

001

1411

001

1285

001

Diss

olvedoxygen

50m

gL

WHO

0052

903

304

893

310

893

310

894

309

912

299

Free

CO2

22mgL

WHO

0012

989

054

1002

054

1000

054

1004

054

1043

057

Totalalkalinity

120m

gL

USP

HS

0002

1127

021

1070

019

9954

018

1145

021

1020

019

Totalh

ardn

ess

500m

gL

WHO

0001

1455

002

1439

002

1422

001

1617

002

1282

001

Nitrate-N

45mgL

WHO

000

6047

001

048

001

048

001

046

001

042

001

Calcium

75mgL

ICMR

0003

2116

010

2088

010

2061

010

2605

012

1985

009

Magnesiu

m50

mgL

ICMR

000

91350

039

1366

024

1323

023

1409

025

1147

020

Sulfate

200m

gL

ICMR

0001

610

000

550

000

503

000

477

000

390

000

Iron

03m

gL

ISI

0874

014

407

013

385

013

391

011

326

010

291

Totald

issolvedsolid

s500m

gL

WHO

0001

1541

002

1469

002

1333

001

1068

001

7708

001

sum119882119894

100

sum119882119894119876119894

492sum119882119894119876119894

465sum119882119894119876119894

473sum119882119894119876119894

406sum119882119894119876119894

371


Function 1

1050minus5minus10

Func

tion2

10

5

0

minus5

minus10

5

4

3

2

1



Sample station




Function 1

15

10

5

0

minus5

minus10

minus15

Func

tion2


4

3

2

1



Seasons





3are derived




4 Conclusion




Acknowledgments


References






































































































Journal of












Volume 2014

Advances in









Geophysics
















50

100

150

200

250


50

100

150

200

250

(vi)

20

40

60

80

100

(vii)

0

10

20

30

40

(viii)

Alk

alin

ity


Tota

l har

dnes

s


Calci

um h

ardn

ess


Mag

nesiu

m h

ardn

ess

0

50

100

150

200

250

(ix)

TDS


(b)


02

04

06

08

10


000

002

004

006

008

010

(xiv)

NO

3-N

conc

NO

2-N

conc


(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(c) Continued

Figure 2 Continued


00

01

02

03

04

(xv)

000

025

050

075

100

125

(xvi)

050

075

100

125

150

175

(xvii)

001

002

003

004

005

006

(xviii)

00

01

02

03

04

05

(xix)


NH

4-N

conc




Tota

l-N co

nc


Ort

ho-P

conc


(c)

Tota

l-P co

nc

Org

anic

-N co

nc


5

10

15

20

25

30


10

15

20

25

30

35

40

(ii)

Cl co

nc


Ca co

nten

t

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(d) Continued

Figure 2 Continued


0

5

10

15

20

25

(iii)

5

10

15

20

25

(iv)

1

2

3

4

5

6

(v)

0

5

10

15

20

(vi)

00

25

50

75

100

125

(vii)

020

025

030

035

040

045

(viii)


Mg

cont

ent


Silic

ate


K co

nten

t


Na c

onte

nt



Sulp

hate

Fe

(d)

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

















2-N total-N and



2-N total-



Table3Disc

riminantfun

ctioncoeffi

cientsandWilk

sLam

bdafor

spatialvariatio

nsin

water

parameterso

fLakeW

ular

Standardized

cano

nicald

iscrim

inantfun

ctioncoeffi

cients

Eigenvalues

Wilk

sLam

bda

Function

WT

Depth

Trans

EC

TAlkalinity

CaHArd

NO2-N

OrgN

Total-N

Na+

K+

Silicate

Sulphate

TDS

Eigenvalue

Variance

Cumulative


WilksrsquoLambda

Chi-square

df

Sig

110

6minus201

031

094

020

012

078

029minus12

2087

107

122

089

064

2082

7650

765

098

000

6356

560

02minus087

186

010

050

063

053

052

098minus027

084

100

051

018minus038

519

1910

956

092

007

2980

390

03minus074

059

047

045minus003

025

040

048

029minus057

028minus222

204

067

950

350

991

070

041

982

240


031

045

065

084


028

089minus049

259

090

1000

045

080

251

110

000

9


Table4Disc

riminantfun

ctioncoeffi

cientsandWilk

sLam

bdafor

tempo

ralvariatio

nsin

water

parameterso

fLakeW

ular

Standardized

cano

nicald

iscrim

inantfun

ctioncoeffi

cients

Eigenvalues

Wilk

sLam

bda

Functio

nNO

2-N

NH

4-N

Total-N

Total-P

TDS

Sulphate

Eigenvalue

of

Varia

nce

Cumulative

Cano

nicalC

orrelation

Wilk

srsquoLambd

aCh

i-squ

are

dfSig

1217minus16

3251minus18

8009

228

9422

8590

8590

100

01590

3818

02

140


075

969

880

9480

095

0014

77028

100

3064


102

576

520

10000

092

0148

34384

40


Table5Drin

king

water

standardsun

itweights

averagew

ater

qualityand

water

quality

indexof

fives

tudy

statio

nsin

Lake

Wular

Chem

icalparameters

Standards

Recommending

agency

Unitw

eight(wi)

Makhd

oomyari

Vintage

Ashtang

Watlab

Ningle

AvWq

WiQ

iAv

Wq

WiQ

iAv

Wq

WiQ

iAv

Wq

WiQ

iAv

Wq

WiQ

ipH

70ndash85

ICMR

0037

784

419

776

380

780

397

775

373

777

387

Electricalcond

uctiv

ity750120583

Scm

WHO

000

02529

001

2542

001

2554

001

2823

001

2485

001

Chlorid

e250m

gL

ISI

0001

1235

001

1334

001

1433

001

1411

001

1285

001

Diss

olvedoxygen

50m

gL

WHO

0052

903

304

893

310

893

310

894

309

912

299

Free

CO2

22mgL

WHO

0012

989

054

1002

054

1000

054

1004

054

1043

057

Totalalkalinity

120m

gL

USP

HS

0002

1127

021

1070

019

9954

018

1145

021

1020

019

Totalh

ardn

ess

500m

gL

WHO

0001

1455

002

1439

002

1422

001

1617

002

1282

001

Nitrate-N

45mgL

WHO

000

6047

001

048

001

048

001

046

001

042

001

Calcium

75mgL

ICMR

0003

2116

010

2088

010

2061

010

2605

012

1985

009

Magnesiu

m50

mgL

ICMR

000

91350

039

1366

024

1323

023

1409

025

1147

020

Sulfate

200m

gL

ICMR

0001

610

000

550

000

503

000

477

000

390

000

Iron

03m

gL

ISI

0874

014

407

013

385

013

391

011

326

010

291

Totald

issolvedsolid

s500m

gL

WHO

0001

1541

002

1469

002

1333

001

1068

001

7708

001

sum119882119894

100

sum119882119894119876119894

492sum119882119894119876119894

465sum119882119894119876119894

473sum119882119894119876119894

406sum119882119894119876119894

371


Function 1

1050minus5minus10

Func

tion2

10

5

0

minus5

minus10

5

4

3

2

1



Sample station




Function 1

15

10

5

0

minus5

minus10

minus15

Func

tion2


4

3

2

1



Seasons





3are derived




4 Conclusion




Acknowledgments


References






































































































Journal of












Volume 2014

Advances in









Geophysics















00

01

02

03

04

(xv)

000

025

050

075

100

125

(xvi)

050

075

100

125

150

175

(xvii)

001

002

003

004

005

006

(xviii)

00

01

02

03

04

05

(xix)


NH

4-N

conc




Tota

l-N co

nc


Ort

ho-P

conc


(c)

Tota

l-P co

nc

Org

anic

-N co

nc


5

10

15

20

25

30


10

15

20

25

30

35

40

(ii)

Cl co

nc


Ca co

nten

t

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(d) Continued

Figure 2 Continued


0

5

10

15

20

25

(iii)

5

10

15

20

25

(iv)

1

2

3

4

5

6

(v)

0

5

10

15

20

(vi)

00

25

50

75

100

125

(vii)

020

025

030

035

040

045

(viii)


Mg

cont

ent


Silic

ate


K co

nten

t


Na c

onte

nt



Sulp

hate

Fe

(d)

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

















2-N total-N and



2-N total-



Table3Disc

riminantfun

ctioncoeffi

cientsandWilk

sLam

bdafor

spatialvariatio

nsin

water

parameterso

fLakeW

ular

Standardized

cano

nicald

iscrim

inantfun

ctioncoeffi

cients

Eigenvalues

Wilk

sLam

bda

Function

WT

Depth

Trans

EC

TAlkalinity

CaHArd

NO2-N

OrgN

Total-N

Na+

K+

Silicate

Sulphate

TDS

Eigenvalue

Variance

Cumulative


WilksrsquoLambda

Chi-square

df

Sig

110

6minus201

031

094

020

012

078

029minus12

2087

107

122

089

064

2082

7650

765

098

000

6356

560

02minus087

186

010

050

063

053

052

098minus027

084

100

051

018minus038

519

1910

956

092

007

2980

390

03minus074

059

047

045minus003

025

040

048

029minus057

028minus222

204

067

950

350

991

070

041

982

240


031

045

065

084


028

089minus049

259

090

1000

045

080

251

110

000

9


Table4Disc

riminantfun

ctioncoeffi

cientsandWilk

sLam

bdafor

tempo

ralvariatio

nsin

water

parameterso

fLakeW

ular

Standardized

cano

nicald

iscrim

inantfun

ctioncoeffi

cients

Eigenvalues

Wilk

sLam

bda

Functio

nNO

2-N

NH

4-N

Total-N

Total-P

TDS

Sulphate

Eigenvalue

of

Varia

nce

Cumulative

Cano

nicalC

orrelation

Wilk

srsquoLambd

aCh

i-squ

are

dfSig

1217minus16

3251minus18

8009

228

9422

8590

8590

100

01590

3818

02

140


075

969

880

9480

095

0014

77028

100

3064


102

576

520

10000

092

0148

34384

40


Table5Drin

king

water

standardsun

itweights

averagew

ater

qualityand

water

quality

indexof

fives

tudy

statio

nsin

Lake

Wular

Chem

icalparameters

Standards

Recommending

agency

Unitw

eight(wi)

Makhd

oomyari

Vintage

Ashtang

Watlab

Ningle

AvWq

WiQ

iAv

Wq

WiQ

iAv

Wq

WiQ

iAv

Wq

WiQ

iAv

Wq

WiQ

ipH

70ndash85

ICMR

0037

784

419

776

380

780

397

775

373

777

387

Electricalcond

uctiv

ity750120583

Scm

WHO

000

02529

001

2542

001

2554

001

2823

001

2485

001

Chlorid

e250m

gL

ISI

0001

1235

001

1334

001

1433

001

1411

001

1285

001

Diss

olvedoxygen

50m

gL

WHO

0052

903

304

893

310

893

310

894

309

912

299

Free

CO2

22mgL

WHO

0012

989

054

1002

054

1000

054

1004

054

1043

057

Totalalkalinity

120m

gL

USP

HS

0002

1127

021

1070

019

9954

018

1145

021

1020

019

Totalh

ardn

ess

500m

gL

WHO

0001

1455

002

1439

002

1422

001

1617

002

1282

001

Nitrate-N

45mgL

WHO

000

6047

001

048

001

048

001

046

001

042

001

Calcium

75mgL

ICMR

0003

2116

010

2088

010

2061

010

2605

012

1985

009

Magnesiu

m50

mgL

ICMR

000

91350

039

1366

024

1323

023

1409

025

1147

020

Sulfate

200m

gL

ICMR

0001

610

000

550

000

503

000

477

000

390

000

Iron

03m

gL

ISI

0874

014

407

013

385

013

391

011

326

010

291

Totald

issolvedsolid

s500m

gL

WHO

0001

1541

002

1469

002

1333

001

1068

001

7708

001

sum119882119894

100

sum119882119894119876119894

492sum119882119894119876119894

465sum119882119894119876119894

473sum119882119894119876119894

406sum119882119894119876119894

371


Function 1

1050minus5minus10

Func

tion2

10

5

0

minus5

minus10

5

4

3

2

1



Sample station




Function 1

15

10

5

0

minus5

minus10

minus15

Func

tion2


4

3

2

1



Seasons





3are derived




4 Conclusion




Acknowledgments


References






































































































Journal of












Volume 2014

Advances in









Geophysics















0

5

10

15

20

25

(iii)

5

10

15

20

25

(iv)

1

2

3

4

5

6

(v)

0

5

10

15

20

(vi)

00

25

50

75

100

125

(vii)

020

025

030

035

040

045

(viii)


Mg

cont

ent


Silic

ate


K co

nten

t


Na c

onte

nt



Sulp

hate

Fe

(d)

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

(mg L

minus1 )

















2-N total-N and



2-N total-



Table3Disc

riminantfun

ctioncoeffi

cientsandWilk

sLam

bdafor

spatialvariatio

nsin

water

parameterso

fLakeW

ular

Standardized

cano

nicald

iscrim

inantfun

ctioncoeffi

cients

Eigenvalues

Wilk

sLam

bda

Function

WT

Depth

Trans

EC

TAlkalinity

CaHArd

NO2-N

OrgN

Total-N

Na+

K+

Silicate

Sulphate

TDS

Eigenvalue

Variance

Cumulative


WilksrsquoLambda

Chi-square

df

Sig

110

6minus201

031

094

020

012

078

029minus12

2087

107

122

089

064

2082

7650

765

098

000

6356

560

02minus087

186

010

050

063

053

052

098minus027

084

100

051

018minus038

519

1910

956

092

007

2980

390

03minus074

059

047

045minus003

025

040

048

029minus057

028minus222

204

067

950

350

991

070

041

982

240


031

045

065

084


028

089minus049

259

090

1000

045

080

251

110

000

9


Table4Disc

riminantfun

ctioncoeffi

cientsandWilk

sLam

bdafor

tempo

ralvariatio

nsin

water

parameterso

fLakeW

ular

Standardized

cano

nicald

iscrim

inantfun

ctioncoeffi

cients

Eigenvalues

Wilk

sLam

bda

Functio

nNO

2-N

NH

4-N

Total-N

Total-P

TDS

Sulphate

Eigenvalue

of

Varia

nce

Cumulative

Cano

nicalC

orrelation

Wilk

srsquoLambd

aCh

i-squ

are

dfSig

1217minus16

3251minus18

8009

228

9422

8590

8590

100

01590

3818

02

140


075

969

880

9480

095

0014

77028

100

3064


102

576

520

10000

092

0148

34384

40


Table5Drin

king

water

standardsun

itweights

averagew

ater

qualityand

water

quality

indexof

fives

tudy

statio

nsin

Lake

Wular

Chem

icalparameters

Standards

Recommending

agency

Unitw

eight(wi)

Makhd

oomyari

Vintage

Ashtang

Watlab

Ningle

AvWq

WiQ

iAv

Wq

WiQ

iAv

Wq

WiQ

iAv

Wq

WiQ

iAv

Wq

WiQ

ipH

70ndash85

ICMR

0037

784

419

776

380

780

397

775

373

777

387

Electricalcond

uctiv

ity750120583

Scm

WHO

000

02529

001

2542

001

2554

001

2823

001

2485

001

Chlorid

e250m

gL

ISI

0001

1235

001

1334

001

1433

001

1411

001

1285

001

Diss

olvedoxygen

50m

gL

WHO

0052

903

304

893

310

893

310

894

309

912

299

Free

CO2

22mgL

WHO

0012

989

054

1002

054

1000

054

1004

054

1043

057

Totalalkalinity

120m

gL

USP

HS

0002

1127

021

1070

019

9954

018

1145

021

1020

019

Totalh

ardn

ess

500m

gL

WHO

0001

1455

002

1439

002

1422

001

1617

002

1282

001

Nitrate-N

45mgL

WHO

000

6047

001

048

001

048

001

046

001

042

001

Calcium

75mgL

ICMR

0003

2116

010

2088

010

2061

010

2605

012

1985

009

Magnesiu

m50

mgL

ICMR

000

91350

039

1366

024

1323

023

1409

025

1147

020

Sulfate

200m

gL

ICMR

0001

610

000

550

000

503

000

477

000

390

000

Iron

03m

gL

ISI

0874

014

407

013

385

013

391

011

326

010

291

Totald

issolvedsolid

s500m

gL

WHO

0001

1541

002

1469

002

1333

001

1068

001

7708

001

sum119882119894

100

sum119882119894119876119894

492sum119882119894119876119894

465sum119882119894119876119894

473sum119882119894119876119894

406sum119882119894119876119894

371


Function 1

1050minus5minus10

Func

tion2

10

5

0

minus5

minus10

5

4

3

2

1



Sample station




Function 1

15

10

5

0

minus5

minus10

minus15

Func

tion2


4

3

2

1



Seasons





3are derived




4 Conclusion




Acknowledgments


References






































































































Journal of












Volume 2014

Advances in









Geophysics

























2-N total-N and



2-N total-



Table3Disc

riminantfun

ctioncoeffi

cientsandWilk

sLam

bdafor

spatialvariatio

nsin

water

parameterso

fLakeW

ular

Standardized

cano

nicald

iscrim

inantfun

ctioncoeffi

cients

Eigenvalues

Wilk

sLam

bda

Function

WT

Depth

Trans

EC

TAlkalinity

CaHArd

NO2-N

OrgN

Total-N

Na+

K+

Silicate

Sulphate

TDS

Eigenvalue

Variance

Cumulative


WilksrsquoLambda

Chi-square

df

Sig

110

6minus201

031

094

020

012

078

029minus12

2087

107

122

089

064

2082

7650

765

098

000

6356

560

02minus087

186

010

050

063

053

052

098minus027

084

100

051

018minus038

519

1910

956

092

007

2980

390

03minus074

059

047

045minus003

025

040

048

029minus057

028minus222

204

067

950

350

991

070

041

982

240


031

045

065

084


028

089minus049

259

090

1000

045

080

251

110

000

9


Table4Disc

riminantfun

ctioncoeffi

cientsandWilk

sLam

bdafor

tempo

ralvariatio

nsin

water

parameterso

fLakeW

ular

Standardized

cano

nicald

iscrim

inantfun

ctioncoeffi

cients

Eigenvalues

Wilk

sLam

bda

Functio

nNO

2-N

NH

4-N

Total-N

Total-P

TDS

Sulphate

Eigenvalue

of

Varia

nce

Cumulative

Cano

nicalC

orrelation

Wilk

srsquoLambd

aCh

i-squ

are

dfSig

1217minus16

3251minus18

8009

228

9422

8590

8590

100

01590

3818

02

140


075

969

880

9480

095

0014

77028

100

3064


102

576

520

10000

092

0148

34384

40


Table5Drin

king

water

standardsun

itweights

averagew

ater

qualityand

water

quality

indexof

fives

tudy

statio

nsin

Lake

Wular

Chem

icalparameters

Standards

Recommending

agency

Unitw

eight(wi)

Makhd

oomyari

Vintage

Ashtang

Watlab

Ningle

AvWq

WiQ

iAv

Wq

WiQ

iAv

Wq

WiQ

iAv

Wq

WiQ

iAv

Wq

WiQ

ipH

70ndash85

ICMR

0037

784

419

776

380

780

397

775

373

777

387

Electricalcond

uctiv

ity750120583

Scm

WHO

000

02529

001

2542

001

2554

001

2823

001

2485

001

Chlorid

e250m

gL

ISI

0001

1235

001

1334

001

1433

001

1411

001

1285

001

Diss

olvedoxygen

50m

gL

WHO

0052

903

304

893

310

893

310

894

309

912

299

Free

CO2

22mgL

WHO

0012

989

054

1002

054

1000

054

1004

054

1043

057

Totalalkalinity

120m

gL

USP

HS

0002

1127

021

1070

019

9954

018

1145

021

1020

019

Totalh

ardn

ess

500m

gL

WHO

0001

1455

002

1439

002

1422

001

1617

002

1282

001

Nitrate-N

45mgL

WHO

000

6047

001

048

001

048

001

046

001

042

001

Calcium

75mgL

ICMR

0003

2116

010

2088

010

2061

010

2605

012

1985

009

Magnesiu

m50

mgL

ICMR

000

91350

039

1366

024

1323

023

1409

025

1147

020

Sulfate

200m

gL

ICMR

0001

610

000

550

000

503

000

477

000

390

000

Iron

03m

gL

ISI

0874

014

407

013

385

013

391

011

326

010

291

Totald

issolvedsolid

s500m

gL

WHO

0001

1541

002

1469

002

1333

001

1068

001

7708

001

sum119882119894

100

sum119882119894119876119894

492sum119882119894119876119894

465sum119882119894119876119894

473sum119882119894119876119894

406sum119882119894119876119894

371


Function 1

1050minus5minus10

Func

tion2

10

5

0

minus5

minus10

5

4

3

2

1



Sample station




Function 1

15

10

5

0

minus5

minus10

minus15

Func

tion2


4

3

2

1



Seasons





3are derived




4 Conclusion




Acknowledgments


References






































































































Journal of












Volume 2014

Advances in









Geophysics















Table3Disc

riminantfun

ctioncoeffi

cientsandWilk

sLam

bdafor

spatialvariatio

nsin

water

parameterso

fLakeW

ular

Standardized

cano

nicald

iscrim

inantfun

ctioncoeffi

cients

Eigenvalues

Wilk

sLam

bda

Function

WT

Depth

Trans

EC

TAlkalinity

CaHArd

NO2-N

OrgN

Total-N

Na+

K+

Silicate

Sulphate

TDS

Eigenvalue

Variance

Cumulative


WilksrsquoLambda

Chi-square

df

Sig

110

6minus201

031

094

020

012

078

029minus12

2087

107

122

089

064

2082

7650

765

098

000

6356

560

02minus087

186

010

050

063

053

052

098minus027

084

100

051

018minus038

519

1910

956

092

007

2980

390

03minus074

059

047

045minus003

025

040

048

029minus057

028minus222

204

067

950

350

991

070

041

982

240


031

045

065

084


028

089minus049

259

090

1000

045

080

251

110

000

9


Table4Disc

riminantfun

ctioncoeffi

cientsandWilk

sLam

bdafor

tempo

ralvariatio

nsin

water

parameterso

fLakeW

ular

Standardized

cano

nicald

iscrim

inantfun

ctioncoeffi

cients

Eigenvalues

Wilk

sLam

bda

Functio

nNO

2-N

NH

4-N

Total-N

Total-P

TDS

Sulphate

Eigenvalue

of

Varia

nce

Cumulative

Cano

nicalC

orrelation

Wilk

srsquoLambd

aCh

i-squ

are

dfSig

1217minus16

3251minus18

8009

228

9422

8590

8590

100

01590

3818

02

140


075

969

880

9480

095

0014

77028

100

3064


102

576

520

10000

092

0148

34384

40


Table5Drin

king

water

standardsun

itweights

averagew

ater

qualityand

water

quality

indexof

fives

tudy

statio

nsin

Lake

Wular

Chem

icalparameters

Standards

Recommending

agency

Unitw

eight(wi)

Makhd

oomyari

Vintage

Ashtang

Watlab

Ningle

AvWq

WiQ

iAv

Wq

WiQ

iAv

Wq

WiQ

iAv

Wq

WiQ

iAv

Wq

WiQ

ipH

70ndash85

ICMR

0037

784

419

776

380

780

397

775

373

777

387

Electricalcond

uctiv

ity750120583

Scm

WHO

000

02529

001

2542

001

2554

001

2823

001

2485

001

Chlorid

e250m

gL

ISI

0001

1235

001

1334

001

1433

001

1411

001

1285

001

Diss

olvedoxygen

50m

gL

WHO

0052

903

304

893

310

893

310

894

309

912

299

Free

CO2

22mgL

WHO

0012

989

054

1002

054

1000

054

1004

054

1043

057

Totalalkalinity

120m

gL

USP

HS

0002

1127

021

1070

019

9954

018

1145

021

1020

019

Totalh

ardn

ess

500m

gL

WHO

0001

1455

002

1439

002

1422

001

1617

002

1282

001

Nitrate-N

45mgL

WHO

000

6047

001

048

001

048

001

046

001

042

001

Calcium

75mgL

ICMR

0003

2116

010

2088

010

2061

010

2605

012

1985

009

Magnesiu

m50

mgL

ICMR

000

91350

039

1366

024

1323

023

1409

025

1147

020

Sulfate

200m

gL

ICMR

0001

610

000

550

000

503

000

477

000

390

000

Iron

03m

gL

ISI

0874

014

407

013

385

013

391

011

326

010

291

Totald

issolvedsolid

s500m

gL

WHO

0001

1541

002

1469

002

1333

001

1068

001

7708

001

sum119882119894

100

sum119882119894119876119894

492sum119882119894119876119894

465sum119882119894119876119894

473sum119882119894119876119894

406sum119882119894119876119894

371


Function 1

1050minus5minus10

Func

tion2

10

5

0

minus5

minus10

5

4

3

2

1



Sample station




Function 1

15

10

5

0

minus5

minus10

minus15

Func

tion2


4

3

2

1



Seasons





3are derived




4 Conclusion




Acknowledgments


References






































































































Journal of












Volume 2014

Advances in









Geophysics















Table4Disc

riminantfun

ctioncoeffi

cientsandWilk

sLam

bdafor

tempo

ralvariatio

nsin

water

parameterso

fLakeW

ular

Standardized

cano

nicald

iscrim

inantfun

ctioncoeffi

cients

Eigenvalues

Wilk

sLam

bda

Functio

nNO

2-N

NH

4-N

Total-N

Total-P

TDS

Sulphate

Eigenvalue

of

Varia

nce

Cumulative

Cano

nicalC

orrelation

Wilk

srsquoLambd

aCh

i-squ

are

dfSig

1217minus16

3251minus18

8009

228

9422

8590

8590

100

01590

3818

02

140


075

969

880

9480

095

0014

77028

100

3064


102

576

520

10000

092

0148

34384

40


Table5Drin

king

water

standardsun

itweights

averagew

ater

qualityand

water

quality

indexof

fives

tudy

statio

nsin

Lake

Wular

Chem

icalparameters

Standards

Recommending

agency

Unitw

eight(wi)

Makhd

oomyari

Vintage

Ashtang

Watlab

Ningle

AvWq

WiQ

iAv

Wq

WiQ

iAv

Wq

WiQ

iAv

Wq

WiQ

iAv

Wq

WiQ

ipH

70ndash85

ICMR

0037

784

419

776

380

780

397

775

373

777

387

Electricalcond

uctiv

ity750120583

Scm

WHO

000

02529

001

2542

001

2554

001

2823

001

2485

001

Chlorid

e250m

gL

ISI

0001

1235

001

1334

001

1433

001

1411

001

1285

001

Diss

olvedoxygen

50m

gL

WHO

0052

903

304

893

310

893

310

894

309

912

299

Free

CO2

22mgL

WHO

0012

989

054

1002

054

1000

054

1004

054

1043

057

Totalalkalinity

120m

gL

USP

HS

0002

1127

021

1070

019

9954

018

1145

021

1020

019

Totalh

ardn

ess

500m

gL

WHO

0001

1455

002

1439

002

1422

001

1617

002

1282

001

Nitrate-N

45mgL

WHO

000

6047

001

048

001

048

001

046

001

042

001

Calcium

75mgL

ICMR

0003

2116

010

2088

010

2061

010

2605

012

1985

009

Magnesiu

m50

mgL

ICMR

000

91350

039

1366

024

1323

023

1409

025

1147

020

Sulfate

200m

gL

ICMR

0001

610

000

550

000

503

000

477

000

390

000

Iron

03m

gL

ISI

0874

014

407

013

385

013

391

011

326

010

291

Totald

issolvedsolid

s500m

gL

WHO

0001

1541

002

1469

002

1333

001

1068

001

7708

001

sum119882119894

100

sum119882119894119876119894

492sum119882119894119876119894

465sum119882119894119876119894

473sum119882119894119876119894

406sum119882119894119876119894

371


Function 1

1050minus5minus10

Func

tion2

10

5

0

minus5

minus10

5

4

3

2

1



Sample station




Function 1

15

10

5

0

minus5

minus10

minus15

Func

tion2


4

3

2

1



Seasons





3are derived




4 Conclusion




Acknowledgments


References






































































































Journal of












Volume 2014

Advances in









Geophysics















Table5Drin

king

water

standardsun

itweights

averagew

ater

qualityand

water

quality

indexof

fives

tudy

statio

nsin

Lake

Wular

Chem

icalparameters

Standards

Recommending

agency

Unitw

eight(wi)

Makhd

oomyari

Vintage

Ashtang

Watlab

Ningle

AvWq

WiQ

iAv

Wq

WiQ

iAv

Wq

WiQ

iAv

Wq

WiQ

iAv

Wq

WiQ

ipH

70ndash85

ICMR

0037

784

419

776

380

780

397

775

373

777

387

Electricalcond

uctiv

ity750120583

Scm

WHO

000

02529

001

2542

001

2554

001

2823

001

2485

001

Chlorid

e250m

gL

ISI

0001

1235

001

1334

001

1433

001

1411

001

1285

001

Diss

olvedoxygen

50m

gL

WHO

0052

903

304

893

310

893

310

894

309

912

299

Free

CO2

22mgL

WHO

0012

989

054

1002

054

1000

054

1004

054

1043

057

Totalalkalinity

120m

gL

USP

HS

0002

1127

021

1070

019

9954

018

1145

021

1020

019

Totalh

ardn

ess

500m

gL

WHO

0001

1455

002

1439

002

1422

001

1617

002

1282

001

Nitrate-N

45mgL

WHO

000

6047

001

048

001

048

001

046

001

042

001

Calcium

75mgL

ICMR

0003

2116

010

2088

010

2061

010

2605

012

1985

009

Magnesiu

m50

mgL

ICMR

000

91350

039

1366

024

1323

023

1409

025

1147

020

Sulfate

200m

gL

ICMR

0001

610

000

550

000

503

000

477

000

390

000

Iron

03m

gL

ISI

0874

014

407

013

385

013

391

011

326

010

291

Totald

issolvedsolid

s500m

gL

WHO

0001

1541

002

1469

002

1333

001

1068

001

7708

001

sum119882119894

100

sum119882119894119876119894

492sum119882119894119876119894

465sum119882119894119876119894

473sum119882119894119876119894

406sum119882119894119876119894

371


Function 1

1050minus5minus10

Func

tion2

10

5

0

minus5

minus10

5

4

3

2

1



Sample station




Function 1

15

10

5

0

minus5

minus10

minus15

Func

tion2


4

3

2

1



Seasons





3are derived




4 Conclusion




Acknowledgments


References






































































































Journal of












Volume 2014

Advances in









Geophysics















Function 1

1050minus5minus10

Func

tion2

10

5

0

minus5

minus10

5

4

3

2

1



Sample station




Function 1

15

10

5

0

minus5

minus10

minus15

Func

tion2


4

3

2

1



Seasons





3are derived




4 Conclusion




Acknowledgments


References






































































































Journal of












Volume 2014

Advances in









Geophysics
















4 Conclusion




Acknowledgments


References






































































































Journal of












Volume 2014

Advances in









Geophysics




































































































Journal of












Volume 2014

Advances in









Geophysics














Research Article Surface Water Quality Assessment of Wular...

Documents

Transcript of Research Article Surface Water Quality Assessment of Wular...