Research Article Water Quality Assessment of the Semenyih ...downloads.hindawi.com/journals/jchem/2013/871056.pdf · Research Article Water Quality Assessment of the Semenyih River,

Hindawi Publishing CorporationJournal of ChemistryVolume 2013 Article ID 871056 10 pageshttpdxdoiorg1011552013871056

Research ArticleWater Quality Assessment of the Semenyih RiverSelangor Malaysia

Fawaz Al-Badaii Mohammad Shuhaimi-Othman and Muhd Barzani Gasim

School of Environmental and Natural Resource Sciences Faculty of Science and Technology Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM)43600 Bangi Selangor Malaysia

Correspondence should be addressed to Fawaz Al-Badaii fawaz1980siswaukmedumy

Received 3 May 2013 Accepted 21 July 2013

Academic Editor Dimosthenis L Giokas

Copyright copy 2013 Fawaz Al-Badaii et alThis is an open access article distributed under theCreativeCommonsAttribution Licensewhich permits unrestricted use distribution and reproduction in any medium provided the original work is properly cited

This study was carried out to determine the Semenyih River water quality based on the physicochemical and biological parametersThe sampling was conducted in dry and rainy seasons during 2012 Water samples were collected from 8 stations along the riverand analyzed using standard methodsThe results showed that temperature pH conductivity TDS SO

4 and TH were classified as

class I while DO turbidity and BOD were categorized under class II and NH3-N TSS COD and OG were categorized as class III

based onNWQSMalaysiaMoreover NO3was classified under class IV while PO

4and FCwere categorized as class V and exceeded

the allowable threshold levels Therefore the river was slightly polluted with NH3-N TSS COD and NO

3 whereas it is extremely

contaminated with PO4and FC Furthermore cluster analysis classified 8 sampling stations into three clusters based on similarities

of water quality features Furthermore factor analysis of the water quality datasets generated three factors with total varianceof 9405 and pointed out that water quality deterioration in the river was associated with industrial and agricultural activitieslivestock farming and erosionTherefore the river water can be used for irrigation with precaution but extensive treatment neededbefore using for domestic purposes

1 Introduction

Water is an essential requirement of human life and activitiesassociated with industry agriculture and others and itconsiders one of the most delicate parts of the environment[1] In the last few decades the accelerated pace of industrialdevelopment and progressive growth of population causedin tremendous increase in the demand of fresh water [2]The quality of surface and groundwater is identified in termsof its physical chemical and biological parameters [3] Thewater quality of rivers is characterized by a high level ofheterogeneity in time and space because of the distinction ofcover-land around This often creates difficulties to identifywater conditions and pollution sources which is necessaryto control effectively pollution in addition to construct suc-cessful strategies for minimizing of contamination resources[4] Anthropogenic pollutants related to land use result indrastic deterioration of aquatic systems in watersheds [5]Additionally the rivers play an important role in assimilatingmunicipal and industrial effluent as well as runoff from

agricultural land and the surrounding area in a watershed [6]On the other hand rivers comprise the most important waterresources for irrigation domestic water supply industrialand other purposes in a watershed thereby tending to stimu-late serious hygienic and ecological problems Consequentlyprevention and controlling of river pollution and reliableevaluation of water quality are an imperative stipulation foreffective management [7]

According to [8] human activities in particular hus-bandry livestock and agriculture play an important role incontributing contamination of river water among others pol-lutants Wastewater of livestock contains high concentrationsof ammonia nitrogen organic and inorganic nitrogen com-pound and pathogenic bacteria [9] Furthermore seriousenvironmental damage as a result of animal waste has beenwell documented in rivers which receive runoff of nutrientrich waste that caused oxygen depletion and increased thealgae production [10]

Study of surface water pollution of the river is importantdue to effluents frommunicipal sewage livestock wastewater

2 Journal of Chemistry

03∘04998400N

03∘03998400N

03∘02998400N

03∘01998400N

03∘00998400N

02∘59998400N

02∘58998400N

02∘57998400N

02∘56998400N

02∘55998400N

02∘54998400N

02∘53998400N

02∘52998400N

03∘04998400N

03∘03998400N

03∘02998400N

03∘01998400N

03∘00998400N

02∘59998400N

02∘58998400N

02∘57998400N

02∘56998400N

02∘55998400N

02∘54998400N

02∘53998400N

02∘52998400N

101∘44998400E 101∘45998400E 101∘46998400E 101∘47998400E 101∘48998400E 101∘49998400E 101∘50998400E 101∘51998400E 101∘52998400E 101∘53998400E 101∘54998400E

Highway

Road

Railway

N

River

Sampling point 0 2 6(km)

S1

Figure 1 Study area and sampling stations along the Semenyih River

industries agricultural activities and urban runoff whichdischarge into the river resulting in extensive variationsin the water quality [11] Generally all of land use andanthropogenic activities pose a grievous threat not only toaquatic ecosystem in the river but also the provinces in whichriver water is used as domestic supply [12 13] reported thatSemenyih River is one of the rivers in Malaysia in whichhuman activities associated with urbanization industrializa-tion agricultural and mining activities are extremely mainsources of pollution Moreover the range of deterioration inwater quality in the river varied depending on the percentageof change in land use Therefore the land use activities in thebasin must be carefully planned and controlled on account ofprotecting the water resource and quality status In this studythe physicochemical and microbiological parameters weremeasured and classified based on National Water QualityStandard (NWQS) to identify the effects of anthropogenicland use activities on the water quality condition Moreoverthe multivariate statistical techniques such as cluster analysis

and principal component analysis were executed on theobtained data set to recognize water quality parameters forseasonal changes in the water quality of rivers to evaluatethe similarities and dissimilarities between sampling stationsand to determine the influence of pollution sources on thewater quality parameters of the Semenyih River basin

2 Materials and Methods

21 Study Area and Sampling Stations The Semenyih Riverbasin which has a total area of 26660 km consists of 36subbasins and 25 water catchment valleys with areas rangingfrom 137 to 3557 km2 (Figure 1) The basin includes sevendifferent main land uses such as settlements industry rubberand oil palm plantations forests industry water bodiesand agricultural land Semenyih basin lies between longitude101∘48101584032910158401015840E to 101∘52101584030510158401015840E and latitude 02∘54101584014910158401015840Nto 03∘03101584023110158401015840N The average annual rainfall of the area is

Journal of Chemistry 3

about 3000mm Furthermore the river originates from thehilly and forested areas in the western slope of BanjaranTitiwangsa northeast of Hulu [14 15] In addition it flowssouthwards toward the provinces of Sepang andHulu LangatFurthermore the river has been negatively influenced byindustrial and urban wastes since the early 1990 Currentlythe ingestion of drinking water of more than 1 million peopleis from the Semenyih River The major attain of river canbe considered to start from the Semenyih Dam flowingsouth-southwest trend throughout the town of SemenyihBangi Lama and lastly amalgamation with a Langat Riverat about 4 km to the east of Bangi Lama town as well asPajam and Beranang Rivers which are also the feeder riversfor Semenyih River [16] Overall it is one of the mainrivers in the state of Selangor Malaysia since the river isconsidered as a resource of cultivation and domestic watersupply in Semenyih City Bandar Tasek Kesuma and BandarRinching after the treatment [15] In this study eight samplingstations were selected along the river from the upstreamto downstream and the selection criteria of the samplinglocations were based on the characteristics of the watercondition land use and anthropogenic activities along theriver (Figure 1)

22 Sampling Methods and Analytical Procedures Watersampling has been carried out twice during rainy and dryseasons 2012 Three water samples were collected from eachstation close to the right and left banks and in the middleof the river with triplicate Water samples were collectedin specific bottles according to [17] Samples were storedin sterile glass flasks (bacteriology) and acid-washed plasticbottles (chemistry) cooled transported to the laboratory andprocessed within 6 h of collection Temperature dissolvedoxygen (DO) conductivity and pH were measured insitu asfield parameters by YSI meter (model 1945) while BOD

5

COD TSS OampG turbidity PO4 SO4 NO3 NH3-N total

hardness (TH) and fecal coliform (FC) were analyzed in thelaboratory BOD

5was analyzed as described by 5-day test and

COD was assayed by means of the open reflux method [17]Additionally total suspended solids (TSS) and oil and grease(OampG) were determined by total solids dried at 103ndash105∘Cand liquid-liquid partition-gravimetric methods respec-tively [17] Moreover turbidity phosphate sulfate nitrateand ammonia nitrogenwere assayed byAbsorptometric AcidAscorbic Sulfa Ver 4 Cadmium Reduction and Nesslermethods respectively [17 18] Furthermore total hardnesswas determined by convenient Inductive Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS ugL) Eventually fecal coliformwas determined based on themembrane filter technique [17]The equipments were calibrated prior to use based on themanufacturerrsquos directions

23 Statistical Analysis Statistical analysis of data was ful-filled using SPSS version 20 Analysis of variance (ANOVA)was carried out to determine the significant differencesbetween sampling stations Moreover hierarchical clusteranalysis (HCA) was executed by means of squared euclideandistances and the Wardrsquos method to sort the variables ofsampling stations and water quality indicators respectively

[19] Furthermore analysis of variance (ANOVA)was used byWardrsquosmethod to determine the distances between clusters toreduce the squares sum of possible clusters at each step [25]Additionally principal component analysis (PCA)factoranalysis (FA) was accomplished to identify pollution factorsinfluenced water quality Otherwise Bartlettrsquos sphericity andKaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) tests were applied to a suitabilityexamination of the data for FA Nevertheless all analyzed datawere standardized by scale transformation to ensure normaldistributions for CA and FA [20]

3 Result and Discussion

31 The Concentrations of Water Quality Parameters

311 Temperature Temperature values ranged from 2627ndash2755∘C in the rainy season (RS) and 2471ndash2736∘C in thedry season (DS) as shown in Figure 2(a) Station 8 in thedownstream of both (DS) and (RS) recorded the highestvalue of 2736∘C and 2755∘C respectively In addition theresults are within the standard acceptable levels of NationalWater Quality Standards Malaysia (NWQS) Furthermorethe temperature was increased progressively from upstreamto downstream and statistically significant differences werefound between stations (ANOVA 119875 lt 005) In contrastthe concentrations of temperature recorded in this studywere approximately equivalent or less than those reported forthe same basin (range 26∘Cndash32∘C) by [13] Generally manyfactors such as the weather condition sampling time andlocation impact on the increase or decrease of temperatureby which its role effect on the percentage of dissolved oxygenbiological activities and other parameters [21]

312 pH The pH values showed different values betweenthe DR and RS in which higher average values of 841 areobtained at station 1 in the DS whereas the lower averagevalues of 523 is obtained at station 2 in the RS In the RS thehighest pH was obtained at the downstream with the valueof 655 whereas the lowest value was obtained at station 2with the value of 523 (Figure 2(b)) In the DS the highestpH was obtained at the upstream with the value of 84whereas the lowest value was obtained at the downstreamwith the value of 707 (Figure 2(b)) On the other handthese values were high compared with those reported by[12 13] for the same basin range of 462 to 659 Moreoverstatistically significant differences were not found amongsampling stations (ANOVA 119875 gt 005) However the resultsare within the standard range and are classified under classI based on NWQS for Malaysian rivers Generally the pHconcentration increase as a result of the photosynthetic algaeactivities that consumes carbon dioxide dissolved in [22]Overall the range of pH from 65 to 9 is mainly appropriatefor aquatic life Therefore it is very important to maintain theaquatic ecosystemwithin this range because high and low pHcan be destructive in nature [23 24]

313 Dissolved Oxygen The dissolved oxygen (DO) of thewater samples analyzed ranged from 558 to 707mgL during


22

24

26

28

Tem

pera

ture

(∘C)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Stations

(a)

02468

10

pH

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Stations

(b)

0

2

4

68

DO

(mg

L)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Stations

(c)

0

50

100

150

Con

d (120583

scm

)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Stations

(d)

020406080

100

TDS

(mg

L)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Stations

(e)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 80

50100150200250

TUR

(NTU

)

Stations

(f)

02468

10

NO

3(m

gL)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Stations

(g)

005

115

225

NH

3-N

(mg

L)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Stations

(h)

0

05

1

152

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Stations

PO4

(mg

L)(i)

0

20

40

6080

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Stations

SO4

(mg

L)

(j)

0

200

400

600

TSS

(mg

L)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Stations

(k)

012345

BOD

(mg

L)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Stations

(l)

0

20

40

6080

COD

(mg

L)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Stations

(m)

0

5

10

1520

TH (m

gL)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Stations

(n)

0

2

4

68

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

OG

(mg

L)

Stations

(o)

RS DS

0E + 00

5E + 04

1E + 05

2E + 05

2E + 05

3E + 053E + 05

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

FC (c

fu1

00 m

L)

Stations

(p)

Figure 2 Distribution of values for (a) temperature (b) pH (c) DO (d) conductivity (e) TDS (f) turbidity (g) NO3 (h) NH

3-N (i) PO

4 (j)

SO4 (k) TSS (l) BOD (m) COD (n) TH (o) OG and and (p) FC between rainy and dry seasons Semenyih River Stations 1ndash8


RS and from 413 to 744mgL during DS The lowest DOwas recorded at station 6 while the highest value was atstation 1 in the RS (Figure 2(c)) In the DS the maximumvalue was at station 2 while the least value was at station8 (Figure 2(c)) In addition these results are within thestandard acceptable levels of NWQS for Malaysian riverwhich is more than 3mgL as well as categorized underclass II Furthermore statistically significant differences werefound between stations and seasons (ANOVA 119875 le 005)Additionally values of DO found by [13] in their study ofthe same basin were below 40mgL with a lower value of265mgL in the second station while stations 1 and 3 hadDO values above 4mgL and the maximum being 6mgLThe DO level found in all the stations is adequate for theplanktons to survive and to do various physiological activities[24] Overall oxygen generally becomes dissolved in surfacewaters as a result of diffusion from the atmosphere andaquatic-plant photosynthesis In general dissolved oxygen isconsumed by the degradation of organic matter in water [25]

314 Electrical Conductivity In the RS conductivity variedfrom 13 and 124 120583scm and the lowest value of conductivitywas observed at station 1 while the highest was at station 8(Figure 2(d)) Likewise the variation of conductivity duringDS was from 37 to 1057 and the maximum value of con-ductivity was observed at station 8 whereas the minimumwas at station 2 (Figure 2(d)) so the conductivity was foundto be within the recommended level by NWQS Malaysiaand fell into the class I and significant differences were notfound between stations (ANOVA 119875 gt 005) Howeverthe conductivity values are lower compared to the valuesobtained by [13] in their study area which was between46 and 231120583scm Normally conductivity in the water wasaffected by the inorganic dissolved solids such as calciumchloride aluminum cations nitrate sulfate ironmagnesiumand sodium On the other hand organic compounds such asoil alcohol phenol and sugar that can influence the waterconductivity as well as the temperature also have an effecton the conductivity [12] Generally most of the freshwatersconductivity is ranging from 10 to 1000 120583Scm Neverthelessthe concentration can exceed about 1000 120583Scm in the waterthat receiving pollution [26]

315 Total Dissolved Solids The values of total dissolvedsolids (TDS) in the RS are ranging from 1766 to 80mgLThe highest value obtained was 80mgL recorded at station8 and the lowest value obtained was 1766mgL at station1 (Figure 2(e)) In addition the TDS concentrations in theDS ranged from 24 to 6866mgLThe highest concentrationwas 6866mgL recorded at station 8 and the lowest concen-tration was 24mgL at station 2 (Figure 2(e)) In this studythe concentrations of TDS were less than those reported forthe same basin (range 108minus504mgL) by [13] Moreover Itwas noticed that upstream stations have lower TDS valuescompared to the downstream ones because anthropogenicand land use activities were much less at upstream stationsBesides TDS results are within the standard allowable levelsof Malaysian rivers and are classified as class I determined

by NWQS [23] ANOVA result showed that there is nosignificant difference (119875 gt 005) in TDS between stationsThehigh TDS concentration in the rivers is attributed to presenceextreme anthropogenic activities along the river course andrunoff with high suspended matter [27]

316 Turbidity Turbidity values varied between 8 and 46NTU during RS Station 8 in the downstream recorded thehigh turbidity of 46 NTU while the lowest value was 8NTU recorded in the upstream (Figure 2(f)) In a similarmanner turbidity values ranged from 4 to 2067 NTU duringDS the lowest turbidity of 4 NTU was recorded station1 while the highest value was 2067 NTU at station 7 inthe downstream (Figure 2(f)) In addition these concentra-tions were within standard permissible limits of NWQS forMalaysian rivers and categorized as class II [23] Howeverthis may be ascribed to the effluent from livestock farmsheavy precipitation organic contamination and agricultureand road runoff in which a high suspended matter content(UNESCOWHOUNEP 2001) Additionally compared to[15] turbidity values ranged from 30 to 245 NTU Further-more turbidity concentrations in this study were higher than15 NTU at most stations where the concentration below25 NTU is still permissible for domestic use (DOE 2006[24]) Moreover when compared to the sampling stationsturbidity was not significantly different (ANOVA 119875 gt 005)Overall the excessive turbidity is generally related to possiblemicrobiological contamination because water disinfectioncontained elevated turbidity is very complicated [28] Preva-lently turbidity is resulted from the presence of suspendedparticles such as silt plankton clay organic matter and othermicroscopic or decomposers organismsGenerally the claritywater decreased as a result of the presence of these suspendedparticles that deposited in the water The murkier water ingeneral was ascribed to the higher amount of sedimentsThis can also be the indicator of a high measured turbidityand stream flow surface runoff and overland flow in naturalwaters also increase the turbidity levels in the water [29]

317 Nitrate The nitrate (NO3) concentrations ranged from

423 to 853mgL in the RS where the highest concentra-tion was recorded at station 8 and the lowest at station1 (Figure 2(g)) Likewise the nitrate values ranged from 1to 63mgL during the DS and the maximum value wasrecorded at station 6 while the lowest was at station 1(Figure 2(g)) In addition the nitrate values in this studywere within the maximum permissible limit set by NWQSMalaysia which is 7mgL and is classified as a class IV [23]Furthermore there were no significant differences betweenstations of nitrate (ANOVA 119875 gt 005) Approximatelysimilar condition for nitrate was reported in the same basinranging from 45 to 154mgL [13] Commonly nitrate is anaturally occurring form of nitrogen which is very mobile inwater River water which is high in nitrate levels is potentiallyharmful to human and animal health in fresh water orestuarine systems close to land nitrate can reach high levelsthat can cause death of aquatic life However nitrate is muchless toxic than ammonia and nitrite [30]


318 Ammonia-Nitrogen The ammonia-nitrogen (NH3-N)

concentrations of water samples ranged between minimum002mgL at station 1 and maximum 089mgL at station8 during RS (Figure 2(h)) whereas in DS they rangedbetween minimum 008 at station 3 and maximum 191mgLat station 7 (Figure 2(h)) According to the NWQS themaximum threshold level of NH

3-N for Malaysian rivers

which support aquatic life is 09mgL [23 24] Neverthelessthe concentration of NH

3-Nwas within this level range and is

classified as class III In addition there were no significantlydifferences in NH

3-N between stations (ANOVA 119875 gt 005)

In this study the concentrations of NH3-N were less than

those reported for the same basin (range 078minus275mgL) by[13] and higher than those (range 014ndash040mgL) reportedby [12] At all events higher NH

3-N values can be toxic to

fish but in small concentrations it could serve as nutrientsfor excessive growth of algae [31]

319 Phosphate The concentrations of phosphate (PO4)

ranged from 008 to 095mgL in the RS and 062 to 19mgLduring DS The highest value of PO

4in the RS was recorded

in station 8 while the least one was recorded at station 1(Figure 2(i)) On the other hand the maximum concentra-tion of PO

4during DS was recorded at station 7 while the

minimum was recorded at station 1 (Figure 2(i)) Besidesthere was no significance difference in PO

4between stations

(ANOVA 119875 gt 005) These values generally exceed thenormal level ofNWQS forMalaysian riverswhich is 02mgLhence they were falling into class V In addition results werehigh if compared to the results of the same basin recordedby [12 13] which ranged from 035 to 092mgL and from006 to 09mgL respectively Overall high concentrationsof phosphates are generally indication of the pollution associ-ated with eutrophication condition [32] Moreover domesticeffluents particularly which contain detergents fertilizerrunoff and industrial wastewater are themain reasons of highphosphate levels in surface water such as rivers and lakes [15]

3110 Sulfate The sulfate (SO4) values varied from 167 to

13mgL during RS and from 323 to 61mgL during DS Themaximum SO

4was recorded at station 8 while theminimum

value was at station 1 in the RS (Figure 2(j)) In addition themaximum value in the DS was recorded at station 7 while theminimum was at station 1 (Figure 2(j)) Moreover the sulfatevalues of water samples studied fell within the acceptablelimit of NWQS for Malaysian rivers and were categorized asclass I Likewise statistical analysis showed that no significantdifferences found between stations (ANOVA 119875 gt 005)According to [33] the major sources of sulfate in rivers arerock weathering volcanoes and human activities such asmining waste discharge and fossil fuel combustion process

3111 Total Suspended Solids The total suspended solids(TSS) values of water samples ranged between minimum117mgL at station 1 and maximum 581mgL at station 8in the RS (Figure 2(k)) whereas in DS they ranged betweenminimum 103mgL at station 3 and maximum 446mgL atstation 7 (Figure 2(k)) In addition ANOVA result showed

that there is no significant difference (119875 gt 005) in TSSbetween stations Based on theNWQS themaximum thresh-old limit of TSS for Malaysian rivers which support aquaticlife is 150mgL [23 24] However the TSS values in this studywere within this limit and were categorized as class III exceptstation 7 duringDS inwhich TSS exceeded due to bridge con-struction Furthermore the TSS values are lower comparedto the values mentioned by [13] and greater compared to thevalues reported by [12] in the study of water quality assess-ment of the Semenyih River basinwhichwere between 30 and308mgL and 28 and 10714mgL respectively Normally soilerosion considers the source for suspended solids that comesfrom the surrounding area caused by human activities Forexample rainy season stations recorded the highest value ofTSS due to the rainy dayswhich stimulated serious erosion onthe two sides of the riverbanks along the river In addition theTSS concentrations increased starting from station 3 whichrecorded relatively high siltation because of deforestationmining and plantation activities along the river

3112 Biochemical Oxygen Demand The biochemical oxy-gen demand (BOD) of the river was ranging between 063and 456mgL in the RS (Figure 2(l)) and from 032 to428mgL during DS (Figure 2(l)) In the RS the highestBOD was recorded in the downstream at station 8 whereasthe lowest was recorded at station 1 in the upstream Fur-thermore the maximum value in the DS was recorded atstation 6 while the minimum was at station 1 Moreover theBOD variation between stations was significantly different(ANOVA 119875 lt 005) Additionally the BOD values of surfacewater were within the recommended permissible limit byNWQS andwere categorized as class II According to [13] theconcentrations of BOD varied from 24 to 198mgL whichare considered high if compared to this study The BODconcentration continuously increases because of natural plantdecaying process and other contributors that increase thetotal nutrient in water bodies such as fertilizer constructioneffluent animal farm and septic system [34] BOD concen-tration is directly associated with DO concentrations Highvalue of BOD shows decline in DO This phenomenon iscommon as identified in many previous researches [24]

3113 Chemical Oxygen Demand The chemical oxygendemand (COD) concentrations of water samples were fluctu-ating between minimum 86mgL at station 1 and maximum523mgL at station 8 in the RS (Figure 2(m)) whereas inDS they were fluctuating between minimum 104mgL atstation 1 andmaximum 63mgL at station 7 (Figure 2(m)) Inaddition these results are within the standard allowable limitof National Water Quality Standards Malaysia (NWQS)which is 50mgL or less and is classified as class III [23]Moreover statistically significant differences of COD werefound between stations (ANOVA 119875 lt 005) Generally thelower COD level indicates a low level of pollution whilethe high level of COD points out the high level of pollutionof water in the study area [28] Moreover a wide usage ofchemical and organic fertilizer and discharge of sewage affectCOD level while the high CODpointing to a deterioration of


the water quality is attributed to the discharge of municipaleffluent [35]

3114 Total Hardness The total hardness (TH) values rangedbetween minimum 62mgL at station 2 and maximum24mgL at station 8 during RS (Figure 2(n)) whereas in DSthey ranged between minimum 39mgL at station 3 andmaximum 151mgL at station 8 (Figure 2(n)) Moreover theconcentration of hardness in all stations did not pose anywater quality problems because the hardness concentrationwas on the recommended limit of National Water QualityStandards Malaysia (NWQS) which is 250mgL and isclassified as class I [23] In addition statistically significantdifferences of TH were not found between stations (ANOVA119875 gt 005) Generally the total hardness is a function ofthe geology of the area with which the surface water isassociatedHardness has no known adverse influences healthnevertheless some evidence has been given to point out itsimpact on heart diseases [36]

3115 Oil and Grease Oil and grease (OG) values during RSvaried from 146 to 581mgL The lowest value was recordedat station 1 while the highest was at station 5 (Figure 2(o))Additionally oil and grease values during DS ranged fromminimum 122mgL at station 1 to maximum 518mgL atstation 8 (Figure 2(o)) In addition ANOVA results showedthat statistically significant differences (119875 gt 005) were foundbetween stations of oil and grease Overall the oil and greasevalues in this study were within the permissible limit set byNWQS for Malaysian rivers and were classified as class III[23]

3116 Fecal Coliform The fecal coliform (FC) concentra-tions were ranging between minimum 433 cfu100mL tostation 1 and maximum 145667 cfu100mL at station 6 dur-ing RS (Figure 2(p)) while in the DS they were rangingbetweenminimum 867 cfu100mL at station 1 andmaximum273333 cfu100mL at station 6 (Figure 2(p)) Moreover theFC was increased progressively but it was drastically atstation 6 which receives high amounts of effluents containedgreater concentrations from the livestock farms (poultrygoats and cow farms) located a fewmeters before this stationIn addition results showed that there are significant differ-ences of FC between stations (ANOVA 119875 lt 005) Further-more the FC values in this study were exceeded the recom-mended maximum allowable limit by NWQS for Malaysianrivers which is 5000 cfu100 therefore they were categorizedas class V [23 37] It is reported that fecal coliform levelswere lower at high temperature high dissolved oxygen andhigh pH this indicated that one of the fecal coliform sourcescould be related to human recreational activities [34 35] Itis mentioned that FC can survive and multiply in irrigationwater wastewater subtropical sediments and mineral water

32 Hierarchical Cluster Analysis (HCA) of Water QualityData Hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) was executed todetermine the correspondence between the sampling stationsin the study area It classified the eight sampling stations intothree statistically significant clusters at (119863link119863max) lowast 25 lt 5

2520151050Station 2

Station 3

Station 1

Station 4

Station 5

Station 6

Station 7

Station 8 8

7

6

5

4

1

3

2

Cluster 1

Cluster 2

Cluster 3

Figure 3 Dendrogram of cluster analysis of the water quality data

in which resulted a dendrogram (Figure 3) According to thesixteen parameters HCA categorized eight sampling stationsinto three distinctive clusters described based on pollutionmagnitude as clean slightly polluted and polluted Stations 12 and 3 formed clusters 1 while cluster 2 comprised stations4 5 and 6 as well as stations 7 and 8 formed cluster 3 Incluster 1 the sampling stations in particular station 1 werelocated in the upstream which was surrounded by extendedforest covering Generally the upstream area of rivers iscovered with intensely forest covering [38] In additionhuman activities at this station were limited except somerecreational activities at upstream waterfall therefore thecondition of water quality was slightly clean and optimizedBesides stations 2 and 3 were located after station 1 andhad similar characteristic which were influenced by parallelpollution sources as a result of the land use changed fromforest to agriculture and unplanned settlements [9] Samplingstations of cluster 2 were located in the middle of the riverand affected by land use and anthropogenic activities Station4 receives pollution from mining agricultural activitiesand domestic effluents of unsewered areas whereas station5 was affected by industrial activities surface runoff andwastewater from the Semenyih city [12] Moreover station 6appears to be largely influenced by the livestock husbandryand small dumps leaches placed on the banks of courseand hence water quality was found to be highly polluted bylivestock farming activities [9 12 13] In cluster 3 stations 7and 8 were located in the downstream and influenced by theincrease flow rate deforestation palmplantation runoff fromagricultural fields and discharge of vehicles washing andworkshops Overall the river at these stations was expendedand more rapidly moving but become shallower because ofalluviation and erosion of the river banks Additionally theland use in this area comprised industries and settlementswhich covered Bangi Rinching Beranang and Broga [9]Therefore theminimumwater qualitywas recorded at station8 that received contamination from point and nonpointsources that represented above Eventually the result denotesthat HCA is a positive multivariate technique to assess and


12

10

8

6

4

2

0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16Component number

Eige

nval

ue

Figure 4 Scree plots of the factor model of the sampling stations

Table 1 The factor loadings after varimax rotation of the waterquality data

WQ parameters FactorsF 1 F 2 F 3

Temperature 094 014 026pH 018 018 086Cond 086 048 015DO minus089 minus038 minus017TDS 089 039 017SO4 078 045 042NO3 minus004 086 034PO4 054 062 053TUR 081 046 029NH3N 087 032 032BOD 051 081 014COD 086 034 037TSS 093 015 032TH 052 017 080OG 061 065 minus013FC 094 minus002 026Variance 5593 2165 1647Cumulative 5593 7758 9405

classify surface water in the Semenyih River basin At thesame time it is significant to a large extent to authoritiesand decision makers to know the latest information on theriver which help them in the optimal strategy establishmentinwhich sampling stations and experimental analysis cost canbe reduced

33 Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of Water QualityData Factor analysis or principal component analysis (PCA)was accomplished on the standardized data sets for the eight

sampling stations as represented by cluster analysis to classifythe factors affected on each water sample and evaluate thecomposition structure among them Factor analysis of thedata sets outputs three factors with total variance 9405 andis based on the scree plot when eigenvalues gt1 (Figure 4)Thesignificance of factor is determined by the eigenvalue [39]Consider that eigenvalues of 10 or larger are significant Inaddition factors loading were classified to strong moderateand weak based on loading values of greater than 075 075ndash050 and 050ndash030 respectively [40] On the other handthe data set of 16 water quality parameters comprised threeloading factors (Table 1) Factor 1 is the most importantwith 5593 of the total variance with strong significantloading of temperature conductivity TDS SO

4 turbidity

NH3-N COD TSS and fecal coliform as well as moderate

loadings on PO4 BOD TH and OG whereas DO points

out strongly negative loading which stands for organicand inorganic contamination from domestic effluent besidespoint and nonpoint source contamination In addition thesevariables indicate pollution associated with industrial min-ing anthropogenic and land use activities This was largelyexpected because the industrial and domestic effluent ofBangi and Semenyih cities that discharge their wastewaterdirectly into Semenyih River Factor 2 shows about 2165of total variance It has two parameters with strong positiveloadings namely BOD and NO

3 Furthermore PO

4and OG

showmoderate positive loading Therefore these parametersare attributed to products from anthropogenic activitieswith extremely urban impacts Moreover pollution can beaccompanied with cultivation of the surrounding regionswhere phosphate and nitrogen fertilizers are utilized Factor3 shows about 1647 of the total variance and has onlytwo parameters with strong significant loadings that are pHand TH while it shows only PO

4with moderate loading

thus this factor attributes pollution to industrial activitiesand domestic wastewater In this study the data reductionfrom factor analysis is great unlike expected principallybecause 13 parameters of the 16 (exceeded 60) measuredexplanation 9405 of the data variance Therefore factoranalysis was used as an effective technique to categorizethose parameters which basically contribute to alterationsof the water quality and also it provides a significant datareduction [41] These results were fairly compatible withresults of principal component analysis reported by [42]of the Behrimaz Stream (Turkey) that explained 8893 ofthe total variance in water quality data sets of the riverand generated five factors In addition factors obtainedfrom PCA indicated that the parameters responsible forvariations of water quality are principally associated withsoluble minerals and temperature as natural sources as wellas agricultural activities domestic wastewater and surfacerunoff from roads and villages as anthropogenic activitiesFurthermore the results of this study also were relativelycompatible with those reported by [43] of the Jajrood River(Tehran Iran) particularly in parameters responsible forwater quality variables The study stated that PCA yieldedfive factors with 85 of the total variance and recognized thenatural parameters the organic nutrients and the inorganicparameters as the most significant parameters causing water


quality variations of the river On the other hand this studywas incompatible with the study reported by [44] wherePCA did not result in a significant data reduction but it wascontributed to identify the factors responsible for variationsin river water quality Factors obtained from PCA indicatedthat parameters responsible for water quality variations areonly related to domestic wastewater and industrial

4 Conclusion

The water quality of the Semenyih River varies based onthe seasons and location of the sampling stations Accord-ing to the NWQS for Malaysian rivers temperature pHconductivity TDS SO

4 and TH were classified as class I

while DO turbidity and BOD were categorized under classII Therefore these parameters were in the normal range Inaddition NH

3-N TSS COD andOGwere in the permissible

limits and fall into class III and NO3was classified under

class IV and reached the allowable threshold limit On thecontrary PO

4and FC exceeded the allowable threshold levels

and hence were categorized as class V Therefore the riverwas moderately polluted with NH

3-N TSS COD and NO

3

whereas it is extremely contaminated with PO4and FC

HCA classified 8 sampling stations into three clusters basedon the similar water quality characteristics Based on thelatest obtained information authorities and decision makerscan design optimal strategy in which sampling stations andexperimental analysis costs can be reduced Last but not leastPCA gives great unlike data reduction because 13 parametersof the 16 (exceeded 60) measured represent 9405 of thedata variance Hence factor analysis was used as an effectivetechnique to categorize those parameters which basicallycontribute to the alterations of the water quality it alsoprovides a significant data reduction Eventually the analysisindicated that the river water quality is slightly pollutedTherefore the river water can be used for irrigation withprecaution and it is in need for any form of treatment to beused for domestic purposes

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to express their appreciation to theFaculty of Science and Technology Universiti KebangsaanMalaysia for the use of their research facilities

References

[1] J Das and B C Acharya ldquoHydrology and assessment of loticwater quality in Cuttack City Indiardquo Water Air and SoilPollution vol 150 no 1ndash4 pp 163ndash175 2003

[2] C R Ramakrishnaiah C Sadashivaiah and G RangannaldquoAssessment of water quality index for the groundwater inTumkur taluk Karnataka state Indiardquo E-Journal of Chemistryvol 6 no 2 pp 523ndash530 2009

[3] A Loukas ldquoSurface water quantity and quality assessment inPinios River Thessaly Greecerdquo Desalination vol 250 no 1 pp266ndash273 2010

[4] K P Singh A Malik and S Sinha ldquoWater quality assessmentand apportionment of pollution sources of Gomti river (India)

usingmultivariate statistical techniques-a case studyrdquoAnalyticaChimica Acta vol 538 no 1-2 pp 355ndash374 2005

[5] M A Massoud M El-Fadel M D Scrimshaw and J N LesterldquoFactors influencing development of management strategies fortheAbouAli River in Lebanon I spatial variation and land userdquoScience of the Total Environment vol 362 no 1ndash3 pp 15ndash302006

[6] G C Sigua andW A Tweedale ldquoWatershed scale assessment ofnitrogen and phosphorus loadings in the Indian River Lagoonbasin Floridardquo Journal of Environmental Management vol 67no 4 pp 363ndash372 2003

[7] Y W Chen C X Fan K Teubner and M Dokulil ldquoChangesof nutrients and phytoplankton chlorophyll-a in a large shallowlake Taihu China an 8-year investigationrdquo Hydrobiologia vol506ndash509 pp 273ndash279 2003

[8] DOE Malaysia Environmental Quality Report Department ofEnvironment Ministry of Science Technology and Environ-mentMaskha Sdn Bhd Kuala Lumpur Malaysia 2001

[9] M B Gasim M M Jamil S A Rahim and M E TorimanldquoWater-quality assessment of the Langat River at kilometre 7Jalan Kajang-Bangi Selangor Malaysiardquo Arab World Geogra-pher vol 12 no 3-4 pp 188ndash198 2009

[10] Anon Water Effluent From Pig Farms in Sabah-A Preliminaryinvestigation of the Key Environmental Issue State Environmen-tal Conservation Department Sabah Malaysia 2001

[11] B Raman R Bouwmeester and S Mohan ldquoFuzzy logic waterquality index and importance of water quality parametersrdquo AirSoil and Water Research vol 2 pp 51ndash59 2009

[12] F M Al-Badaii Water quality assessment of the SemenyihRiver [MS thesis] Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia SelangorMalaysia 2011

[13] M B Gasim B S Ismail N A Wan I Y Muhammad andM H Marlia ldquoWater quality assessment of the Semenyih Riverbasin langorMalaysiardquo Jurnal Biosains vol 16 no 1 p 95 2005

[14] M B Gasim ldquoLand use changes in the Semenyih Watershedand their impacts on water qualityrdquo in Proceeding of theintegrated Drainage Basin Management and Modeling pp 207ndash220 Geography Department Universiti Kebangsaan MalaysiaSelangor Malaysia November 1999

[15] M B Gasim W N Azmin and M I Yaziz ldquoLand use changeand their impact on water quality in the Semenyih RiverSelangor Malaysiardquo Journal Technology Mineral vol 2 pp 103ndash111 2012

[16] DOE Classification of Malaysian Rivers Final Report on Devel-opment of Water Quality and Standards for Malaysia (PhaseIv- River Classification) Department of Environment Kualalumpur Malaysia 1994

[17] APHA Standard Methods for the Examination of WastewaterAmerica Public Health Association Washington DC USA20th edition 2003

[18] HACH DR500 Spectrophotometer Procedure Manual HachCompany Loveland Colo USA 2003

[19] H Bu X Tan S Li and Q Zhang ldquoTemporal and spatialvariations of water quality in the Jinshui River of the SouthQinling Mts Chinardquo Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safetyvol 73 no 5 pp 907ndash913 2010

[20] T G Kazi M B Arain M K Jamali et al ldquoAssessment of waterquality of polluted lake usingmultivariate statistical techniquesa case studyrdquo Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety vol 72no 2 pp 301ndash309 2009


[21] M Shuhaimi-Othman E C Lim and I Mushrifah ldquoWaterquality changes in Chini Lake Pahang West Malaysiardquo Envi-ronmental Monitoring and Assessment vol 131 no 1ndash3 pp 279ndash292 2007

[22] S Gandaseca N Rosli J Ngayop and C I Arianto ldquoStatusof water quality based on the physico-chemical assessment onriver water at wildlife sanctuary Sibuti Mangrove forest MiriSarawakrdquoAmerican Journal of Environmental Sciences vol 7 no3 pp 269ndash275 2011

[23] DOE Water Quality Index Department of Environment Min-istry of Science Technology and Environment Malaysia KualaLumpur Malaysia 2006

[24] N Rosli S Gandaseca J Ismail and M I Jailan ldquoCompar-ative study of water quality at different peat swamp forest ofBatang Igan Sibu Sarawakrdquo American Journal of EnvironmentalSciences vol 6 no 5 pp 416ndash421 2010

[25] 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

[26] S Harun M H Abdullah M Mohamed et al ldquoWater qualitystudy of four streams within Maliau Basin Conservation areaSabah Malaysiardquo Journal of Tropical Biology and Conservationvol 6 pp 109ndash113 2010

[27] W H O UNESCOUNEPWater Quality Assessment-A Guideto Use Biota Sediment and Water in Environmental MonitoringUNESCOWHOUNEP Paris France 2nd edition 2001

[28] M Waziri and V O Ogugbuaja ldquoInterrelationship betweenphysicochemical water pollution indicators a case study ofRiver Yobe-Nigeriardquo Journal of Scientific amp Industrial Researchvol 1 pp 76ndash80 2010

[29] J Yisa and T Jimoh ldquoAnalytical studies on water quality indexof river LandzurdquoAmerican Journal of Applied Sciences vol 7 no4 pp 453ndash458 2010

[30] N Romano and C Zeng ldquoEffects of potassium on nitrate medi-ated alterations of osmoregulation in marine crabsrdquo AquaticToxicology vol 85 no 3 pp 202ndash208 2007

[31] D L Corwin K Loague and T R Ellsworth ldquoAdvancedinformation technologies for assessing nonpoint source pol-lution in the Vadose Zone conference overviewrdquo Journal ofEnvironmental Quality vol 28 no 2 pp 357ndash365 1999

[32] WHO Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality WHO GenevaSwitzerland 2nd edition 1998

[33] J D Hem ldquoStudy and interpretation of the chemical charac-teristics of natural waterrdquo US Geological Survey Water-SupplyPaper vol 2254 1985

[34] EM Al-SabahiA Study of SurfaceWater andGroundwater Pol-lution in Ibb City Yemen [PhD thesis] Universiti KebangsaanMalaysia Selangor Malaysia 2007

[35] M Eisakhani and A Malakahmad ldquoWater quality assessmentof bertam river and its tributaries in Cameron HighlandsMalaysiardquo World Applied Sciences Journal vol 7 pp 769ndash7762009

[36] L W Wright A microbial and chemical water quality studyof sixteen individual wells in rural southern Cochise CountyArizona [MS thesis] University of Arizona Tucson Ariz USA2010

[37] H W Pearson D D Mara S W Mills and D J SmallmanldquoPhysico-chemical parameters influencing faecal bacterial sur-vival in waste stabilization pondsrdquo Water Science and Technol-ogy vol 19 no 12 pp 145ndash152 1987

[38] Z Shen Q Zhang C Yue et al ldquoThe spatial pattern of landuseland cover in the water supplying area of the Middle-Routeof the South-to-North Water Diversion (MR-SNWD) ProjectrdquoActa Geographica Sinica vol 61 no 6 pp 633ndash644 2006

[39] Q Zhang Z Li G Zeng et al ldquoAssessment of surface waterquality using multivariate statistical techniques in red soilhilly region a case study of Xiangjiang watershed ChinardquoEnvironmental Monitoring and Assessment vol 152 no 1ndash4 pp123ndash131 2009

[40] C W Liu K H Lin and Y M Kuo ldquoApplication of factoranalysis in the assessment of groundwater quality in a blackfootdisease area in Taiwanrdquo Science of the Total Environment vol313 no 1ndash3 pp 77ndash89 2003

[41] D W Alberto D M Pilar and M A Valeria ldquoPAttern recog-nition techniques for the evaluation of spatial and temporalvariations in water quality A case study Suquia River basin(Corsquordoba-Argentina)rdquo Water Research vol 35 pp 2881ndash28942001

[42] M Varol and B Sen ldquoAssessment of surface water quality usingmultivariate statistical techniques a case study of BehrimazStream TurkeyrdquoEnvironmentalMonitoring andAssessment vol159 no 1ndash4 pp 543ndash553 2009

[43] H Razmkhah A Abrishamchi and A Torkian ldquoEvaluationof spatial and temporal variation in water quality by patternrecognition techniques a case study on Jajrood River (TehranIran)rdquo Journal of Environmental Management vol 91 no 4 pp852ndash860 2010


Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Inorganic ChemistryInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

International Journal ofPhotoenergy


Carbohydrate Chemistry

International Journal of


Journal of

Chemistry


Advances in

Physical Chemistry

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Analytical Methods in Chemistry

Journal of

Volume 2014

Bioinorganic Chemistry and ApplicationsHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

SpectroscopyInternational Journal of


The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Medicinal ChemistryInternational Journal of


Chromatography Research International


Applied ChemistryJournal of



Theoretical ChemistryJournal of


Journal of

Spectroscopy

Analytical ChemistryInternational Journal of


Journal of


Quantum Chemistry


Organic Chemistry International

ElectrochemistryInternational Journal of



CatalystsJournal of


03∘04998400N

03∘03998400N

03∘02998400N

03∘01998400N

03∘00998400N

02∘59998400N

02∘58998400N

02∘57998400N

02∘56998400N

02∘55998400N

02∘54998400N

02∘53998400N

02∘52998400N

03∘04998400N

03∘03998400N

03∘02998400N

03∘01998400N

03∘00998400N

02∘59998400N

02∘58998400N

02∘57998400N

02∘56998400N

02∘55998400N

02∘54998400N

02∘53998400N

02∘52998400N

101∘44998400E 101∘45998400E 101∘46998400E 101∘47998400E 101∘48998400E 101∘49998400E 101∘50998400E 101∘51998400E 101∘52998400E 101∘53998400E 101∘54998400E

Highway

Road

Railway

N

River

Sampling point 0 2 6(km)

S1

Figure 1 Study area and sampling stations along the Semenyih River

industries agricultural activities and urban runoff whichdischarge into the river resulting in extensive variationsin the water quality [11] Generally all of land use andanthropogenic activities pose a grievous threat not only toaquatic ecosystem in the river but also the provinces in whichriver water is used as domestic supply [12 13] reported thatSemenyih River is one of the rivers in Malaysia in whichhuman activities associated with urbanization industrializa-tion agricultural and mining activities are extremely mainsources of pollution Moreover the range of deterioration inwater quality in the river varied depending on the percentageof change in land use Therefore the land use activities in thebasin must be carefully planned and controlled on account ofprotecting the water resource and quality status In this studythe physicochemical and microbiological parameters weremeasured and classified based on National Water QualityStandard (NWQS) to identify the effects of anthropogenicland use activities on the water quality condition Moreoverthe multivariate statistical techniques such as cluster analysis

and principal component analysis were executed on theobtained data set to recognize water quality parameters forseasonal changes in the water quality of rivers to evaluatethe similarities and dissimilarities between sampling stationsand to determine the influence of pollution sources on thewater quality parameters of the Semenyih River basin

2 Materials and Methods

21 Study Area and Sampling Stations The Semenyih Riverbasin which has a total area of 26660 km consists of 36subbasins and 25 water catchment valleys with areas rangingfrom 137 to 3557 km2 (Figure 1) The basin includes sevendifferent main land uses such as settlements industry rubberand oil palm plantations forests industry water bodiesand agricultural land Semenyih basin lies between longitude101∘48101584032910158401015840E to 101∘52101584030510158401015840E and latitude 02∘54101584014910158401015840Nto 03∘03101584023110158401015840N The average annual rainfall of the area is




5













22

24

26

28

Tem

pera

ture

(∘C)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Stations

(a)

02468

10

pH

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Stations

(b)

0

2

4

68

DO

(mg

L)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Stations

(c)

0

50

100

150

Con

d (120583

scm

)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Stations

(d)

020406080

100

TDS

(mg

L)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Stations

(e)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 80

50100150200250

TUR

(NTU

)

Stations

(f)

02468

10

NO

3(m

gL)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Stations

(g)

005

115

225

NH

3-N

(mg

L)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Stations

(h)

0

05

1

152

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Stations

PO4

(mg

L)(i)

0

20

40

6080

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Stations

SO4

(mg

L)

(j)

0

200

400

600

TSS

(mg

L)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Stations

(k)

012345

BOD

(mg

L)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Stations

(l)

0

20

40

6080

COD

(mg

L)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Stations

(m)

0

5

10

1520

TH (m

gL)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Stations

(n)

0

2

4

68

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

OG

(mg

L)

Stations

(o)

RS DS

0E + 00

5E + 04

1E + 05

2E + 05

2E + 05

3E + 053E + 05

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

FC (c

fu1

00 m

L)

Stations

(p)


3-N (i) PO

4 (j)




























4between stations
















2520151050Station 2

Station 3

Station 1

Station 4

Station 5

Station 6

Station 7

Station 8 8

7

6

5

4

1

3

2

Cluster 1

Cluster 2

Cluster 3




12

10

8

6

4

2

0


Eige

nval

ue








4 turbidity




3 Furthermore PO

4and OG






4 Conclusion









3-N TSS COD and NO

3



Acknowledgment


References
























































Journal of

Chemistry


Advances in

Physical Chemistry



Journal of

Volume 2014














Journal of

Spectroscopy



Journal of


Quantum Chemistry






CatalystsJournal of




5













22

24

26

28

Tem

pera

ture

(∘C)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Stations

(a)

02468

10

pH

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Stations

(b)

0

2

4

68

DO

(mg

L)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Stations

(c)

0

50

100

150

Con

d (120583

scm

)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Stations

(d)

020406080

100

TDS

(mg

L)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Stations

(e)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 80

50100150200250

TUR

(NTU

)

Stations

(f)

02468

10

NO

3(m

gL)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Stations

(g)

005

115

225

NH

3-N

(mg

L)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Stations

(h)

0

05

1

152

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Stations

PO4

(mg

L)(i)

0

20

40

6080

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Stations

SO4

(mg

L)

(j)

0

200

400

600

TSS

(mg

L)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Stations

(k)

012345

BOD

(mg

L)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Stations

(l)

0

20

40

6080

COD

(mg

L)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Stations

(m)

0

5

10

1520

TH (m

gL)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Stations

(n)

0

2

4

68

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

OG

(mg

L)

Stations

(o)

RS DS

0E + 00

5E + 04

1E + 05

2E + 05

2E + 05

3E + 053E + 05

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

FC (c

fu1

00 m

L)

Stations

(p)


3-N (i) PO

4 (j)




























4between stations
















2520151050Station 2

Station 3

Station 1

Station 4

Station 5

Station 6

Station 7

Station 8 8

7

6

5

4

1

3

2

Cluster 1

Cluster 2

Cluster 3




12

10

8

6

4

2

0


Eige

nval

ue








4 turbidity




3 Furthermore PO

4and OG






4 Conclusion









3-N TSS COD and NO

3



Acknowledgment


References
























































Journal of

Chemistry


Advances in

Physical Chemistry



Journal of

Volume 2014














Journal of

Spectroscopy



Journal of


Quantum Chemistry






CatalystsJournal of


22

24

26

28

Tem

pera

ture

(∘C)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Stations

(a)

02468

10

pH

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Stations

(b)

0

2

4

68

DO

(mg

L)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Stations

(c)

0

50

100

150

Con

d (120583

scm

)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Stations

(d)

020406080

100

TDS

(mg

L)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Stations

(e)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 80

50100150200250

TUR

(NTU

)

Stations

(f)

02468

10

NO

3(m

gL)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Stations

(g)

005

115

225

NH

3-N

(mg

L)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Stations

(h)

0

05

1

152

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Stations

PO4

(mg

L)(i)

0

20

40

6080

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Stations

SO4

(mg

L)

(j)

0

200

400

600

TSS

(mg

L)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Stations

(k)

012345

BOD

(mg

L)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Stations

(l)

0

20

40

6080

COD

(mg

L)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Stations

(m)

0

5

10

1520

TH (m

gL)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Stations

(n)

0

2

4

68

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

OG

(mg

L)

Stations

(o)

RS DS

0E + 00

5E + 04

1E + 05

2E + 05

2E + 05

3E + 053E + 05

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

FC (c

fu1

00 m

L)

Stations

(p)


3-N (i) PO

4 (j)




























4between stations
















2520151050Station 2

Station 3

Station 1

Station 4

Station 5

Station 6

Station 7

Station 8 8

7

6

5

4

1

3

2

Cluster 1

Cluster 2

Cluster 3




12

10

8

6

4

2

0


Eige

nval

ue








4 turbidity




3 Furthermore PO

4and OG






4 Conclusion









3-N TSS COD and NO

3



Acknowledgment


References
























































Journal of

Chemistry


Advances in

Physical Chemistry



Journal of

Volume 2014














Journal of

Spectroscopy



Journal of


Quantum Chemistry






CatalystsJournal of



























4between stations
















2520151050Station 2

Station 3

Station 1

Station 4

Station 5

Station 6

Station 7

Station 8 8

7

6

5

4

1

3

2

Cluster 1

Cluster 2

Cluster 3




12

10

8

6

4

2

0


Eige

nval

ue








4 turbidity




3 Furthermore PO

4and OG






4 Conclusion









3-N TSS COD and NO

3



Acknowledgment


References
























































Journal of

Chemistry


Advances in

Physical Chemistry



Journal of

Volume 2014














Journal of

Spectroscopy



Journal of


Quantum Chemistry






CatalystsJournal of



















4between stations
















2520151050Station 2

Station 3

Station 1

Station 4

Station 5

Station 6

Station 7

Station 8 8

7

6

5

4

1

3

2

Cluster 1

Cluster 2

Cluster 3




12

10

8

6

4

2

0


Eige

nval

ue








4 turbidity




3 Furthermore PO

4and OG






4 Conclusion









3-N TSS COD and NO

3



Acknowledgment


References
























































Journal of

Chemistry


Advances in

Physical Chemistry



Journal of

Volume 2014














Journal of

Spectroscopy



Journal of


Quantum Chemistry






CatalystsJournal of







2520151050Station 2

Station 3

Station 1

Station 4

Station 5

Station 6

Station 7

Station 8 8

7

6

5

4

1

3

2

Cluster 1

Cluster 2

Cluster 3




12

10

8

6

4

2

0


Eige

nval

ue








4 turbidity




3 Furthermore PO

4and OG






4 Conclusion









3-N TSS COD and NO

3



Acknowledgment


References
























































Journal of

Chemistry


Advances in

Physical Chemistry



Journal of

Volume 2014














Journal of

Spectroscopy



Journal of


Quantum Chemistry






CatalystsJournal of


12

10

8

6

4

2

0


Eige

nval

ue








4 turbidity




3 Furthermore PO

4and OG






4 Conclusion









3-N TSS COD and NO

3



Acknowledgment


References
























































Journal of

Chemistry


Advances in

Physical Chemistry



Journal of

Volume 2014














Journal of

Spectroscopy



Journal of


Quantum Chemistry






CatalystsJournal of



4 Conclusion









3-N TSS COD and NO

3



Acknowledgment


References
























































Journal of

Chemistry


Advances in

Physical Chemistry



Journal of

Volume 2014














Journal of

Spectroscopy



Journal of


Quantum Chemistry






CatalystsJournal of



































Journal of

Chemistry


Advances in

Physical Chemistry



Journal of

Volume 2014














Journal of

Spectroscopy



Journal of


Quantum Chemistry






CatalystsJournal of










Journal of

Chemistry


Advances in

Physical Chemistry



Journal of

Volume 2014














Journal of

Spectroscopy



Journal of


Quantum Chemistry






CatalystsJournal of

Documents

Research Article Water Quality Assessment of the Semenyih ...downloads.hindawi.com/journals/jchem/2013/871056.pdf · Research Article Water Quality Assessment of the Semenyih River,