Water Qual Expo Health (2011) 3:1124

DOI 10.1007/s12403-011-0040-0

A Review of Genesis and Evolution of Water Quality Index (WQI)

and Some Future Directions
Ashok Lumb T.C. Sharma Jean-Franois Bibeault

Received: 31 December 2010 / Revised: 28 February 2011 / Accepted: 28 February 2011 / Published online: 25 March 2011
Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Abstract The concept of indexing water with a numerical value to express its quality, based on physical, chemical
and biological measurements, was developed in 1965 by US
based National Sanitation Foundation (NSF). In NSFWQI,
the selection of parameters is based on Delphi method and
these models were formulated in additive and multiplicative
forms. The models were implemented across various states
in the US while being continually refined. One refined form
is known as Oregon Water Quality Index (OWQI). The index enjoys the advantage of being free from the arbitration
in weighting the parameters and employs the concept of
harmonic averaging. Another model of WQI from Europe
(Spain) is that of Bascaron (Bol. Inf. Medio Ambient. 9:30
51, 1979), which is based on the normalization of the con-

This paper was presented at the 62nd Annual Conference of Canadian

Water Resources Association, held in Quebec City, QC, Canada from
June 912, 2009 and was also presented at the International
Conference on Hydrology and Watershed Management
(ICHWAM-2010), held at Hyderabad, India from February 36, 2010.
A. Lumb ()
Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network Coordinating
Office, Wildlife and Landscape Science Directorate, Science and
Technology Branch, Environment Canada, Canada Centre for
Inland Waters, 867 Lakeshore Rd, Burlington, ON L7R 4A6,
Canada
e-mail: ashok.lumb@ec.gc.ca
T.C. Sharma
51B-5305, Glen Erin Drive, Mississauga, ON L5M 5N7, Canada
e-mail: tcsage@yahoo.com
J.-F. Bibeault
Indicator Development and Integration, Water Quality Monitoring
and Surveillance, Water Science & Technology, Environment
Canada, 105 rue McGill, 7e tage, Montral, QC H2Y 2E7,
Canada
e-mail: jean-francois.bibeault@ec.gc.ca

centrations of the water quality parameters and then aggregating them through an additive model with suitable weights
attached to the parameters involved. The major differences
in various WQIs are based on the mannerism of statistical integration and interpretation of parameter values. A totally different approach was adopted in the Canadian Water
Quality Index also known as Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Water Quality Index (CCME WQI).
CCME WQI and is also being used by many countries all
over the world and has also been endorsed by United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) in 2007 as a model
for Global Drinking Water Quality Index (GDWQI). The
most commonly used parameters are dissolved oxygen, pH,
turbidity, total dissolved solids, nitrates, phosphates, metals
among others. All indices have one or other limitation and
the search for a perfect one is still a challenge.
Keywords CCME WQI Delphi method NSF WQI
Water Quality Index

Introduction
The water quality index (WQI) is a single number that expresses water quality by aggregating the measurements of
water quality parameters (such as dissolved oxygen, pH, nitrate, phosphate, ammonia, chloride, hardness, metals etc.).
Usually the higher score alludes to better water quality (excellent, good) and lower score to degraded quality (bad,
poor). The index provides a simple and concise method for
expressing the quality of water bodies for varied uses such
as recreation, swimming, drinking, irrigation, or fish spawning, etc. The significance of the WQI can be easily appreciated as the water resources play a crucial role in the overall environment and this index has also been recognized as

12

one of the 25 environmental performance indicators of the

holistic Environmental Performance Index (EPI). The EPI
is based on well-established policy categories covering both
environmental public health and ecosystem vitality which
focus on climate change, water quality and quantity, air pollution, biodiversity, land-use changes, deforestation and sustainability of agriculture and fisheries (EPI 2010). Governments are increasingly being asked to explain their performance on a range of pollution control and natural resource
management challenges with reference to aforementioned
quantitative metrics. The EPI can also provide a benchmark
for evaluating the success of management strategies, assessing relative risks (poor to excellent) for sustaining a specific
use (e.g. aquatic life, irrigation, industrial or source of drinking water etc.), and allocating resources for abatement of key
stressors on water bodies. The latter is particularly important, as it allows citizens to be informed and be able to participate in public policy debates regarding its management and
become more likely to support policy or other actions to improve water quality. The 2010 EPI ranks 163 countries on 25
performance indicators tracked across ten well-established
policy categories covering both environmental public health
and ecosystem vitality. These indicators provide a gauge at a
national government scale of how close countries are to the
established environmental policy goals.
The importance of WQI to express the quality component
of water resources has long been recognized and various formulations and models have been suggested. This paper reviews the design and development of WQI based on physical, chemical and biological measurements of water quality
and highlights the pros and cons of different formulations
and proposes some avenues for the future development of
water quality indices.

Chronological History of Evolution of WQI

The concept of water quality to categorize water according
to its degree of purity or pollution dates back to 1848 in
Germany (cited by Sladecek 1973; Ott 1978; Steinhart et
al. 1981; Dojlido and Best 1993). Around the same time,
the importance of water quality to public health was recognized in United Kingdom (Snow 1854). One of the earliest indices of water quality was the saprobic index (SI)
which is defined as a degree to specify the loading of easily
degradable organic matter in flowing waters. Different organisms have different saprobic rates and this principle was
the basis for the determination of SI (Sladecek 1973). The
SI as a measure of the level of organic pollution was thus
used in classifying water quality by various European countries such as Germany, Denmark, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and United Kingdom (Sladecek 1973; Liebman 1969;
Price 1974). The saprobic rates were determined involving

A. Lumb et al.

empirical studies. It was noted that all of the above schemes,

rather than assigning a numerical value to represent the quality of water, categorize water bodies into several pollution
classes or levels. The system of grading the water quality
using SI was found deficient and at times impractical and a
search continued in the succeeding decades for a better system through a numbering scheme.
Since the birth of the concept of water quality in the form
of SI, it took more than a century to develop numerical indices to assess the quality of water. In 1965, Horton, of the
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission, presented
a new method in the form of an index number system for rating water quality and defined a mathematical form of WQI
by selecting, rating and integrating the significant physical,
chemical and biological parameters of water in a simple, yet
scientifically defensible manner (Horton 1965).
Horton Model of Water Quality Index in 1960s
Horton derived a WQI based on eight characteristics or parameters (sewage treatment, dissolved oxygen (DO), pH,
Coliform density, specific conductance, carbon chloroform
extract, alkalinity and chlorides). Rating scales (0 to 100
for each parameter) were assigned and each parameter was
then weighed (weighting factor 1 to 4) according to its
relative impact. The more significant parameter was given
the weight of 4 such as sewage treatment, DO or pH. Parameters like chloride and alkalinity were given the weight
of 1. Two other parameters, namely temperature and obvious pollution, appeared in the form of multiplicative factors
(m1 and m2 ) as shown in (1). Obvious pollution here refers
to tangible pollution which includes formation of sludge, deposits, presence of oil, debris, foam, etc. that creates color
or odor nuisance. The resultant water quality index also had
values in the range from 0 to 100 with higher values signifying a better quality and vice versa.
In mathematical terms WQI was expressed as


w1 S 1 + w 2 S 2 + w 3 S 3 + + wn S n
m1 m2 (1)
WQI =
w1 + w2 + w3 + + wn
where S represent the rating number (also referred to as
subindex) assigned to a characteristic or parameter ranging
from 0100, ws are weighting factors from 1 to 4, n stands
for number of parameters used for evaluating the WQI. In
Hortons case n was equal to 8, m1 is a correction factor for
temperature (0.5 when temperature is less than 34C, otherwise 1), m2 is the correction factor for pollution (0.5 or 1).
Water Quality Index Models from North America in 1970s
One of the challenges in Hortons concept was selection of
the right choice of parameters to be included in the WQI. An
improved version of the index was proposed by Brown et al.

A Review of Genesis and Evolution of Water Quality Index (WQI) and Some Future Directions

(1970) and Deininger and Maciunas (1971) with the support

from the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) of USA.
This new index is known as National Sanitation Foundation
Water Quality Index (NSFWQI) and is expressed mathematically as
WQI =

n


wi S i

(2)

i=1

where all notations are as defined in (1) with the weighting

factors wi ranging between 0 and 1 such that w1 + w2 +
w3 + + wn = 1. The index works well if all of the individual parameters are independent of each other. Special
procedures were proposed for pesticides and toxic compounds. If any pesticide or toxic compound exceeds its assigned upper limit (e.g. 0.1 mg/L for pesticides), the WQI is
automatically registered as 0. The threshold levels for toxic
compounds were taken as those prescribed in the US Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards existing at that
time. Brown et al. (1971) envisioned the feasibility of using
a color spectrum scale to illustrate water quality throughout
the entire region or state, with dark red signaling poorest
quality (WQI = 010), a narrow band of yellow color depicting medium quality (WQI about 50) and the dark blue
(WQI = 90100) representing the best.
The problem of selection of parameters to be included in
the formula of WQI was solved by floating questionnaires
(Brown et al. 1971; Deininger and Maciunas 1971) based
on the Rand Corporations Delphi technique (Linstone and
Murray 1975). The questionnaire was designed to combine
the opinions of a large panel of water experts. Based on the
rigorous survey, they came up with 11 most significant parameters: DO, BOD5 (biological oxygen demand; 5-days),
turbidity, total solids, nitrates, phosphates, pH, temperature,
fecal Coliforms, pesticides, and toxic compounds.
It was found that arithmetic or additive formulation, although easy to understand and calculate, lacked sensitivity
in terms of the effect a single bad parameter value would
have on the WQI. This led Brown et al. (1973) to propose a
variation of NSFWQI in the following multiplicative form:
WQI =

n


Siwi

(3)

i=1

The subsequent investigations tended to show that multiplicative formulation agreed better with expert opinion than
did the additive one. However, both of them continued to
be in use. Briefly, in the process of selecting the parameters for inclusion in evaluating the WQI, marks were to be
awarded to a particular parameter in terms of its importance.
The most important parameter was given the highest marks
purportedly of 100 or close to it and other parameters were
rated relative to this parameter. The rating or the marks for a

13

parameter were awarded by the respondents in the questionnaire and hence, involved an element of arbitration.
The other noted contribution in the development of water quality indices in US is that of McDuffie and Haney
(1973) who presented a relatively simple water quality index which they called the River Pollution Index (RPI). Although they included eight pollutant variables, either fewer
or more than eight variables can be included in the index depending upon the availability of data. The variables chosen
were: percent oxygen deficit, biodegradable organic matter, refractory organic matter, Coliform count, nonvolatile
suspended solids, average nutrient excess, dissolved salts,
and temperature. The RPI was computed as the sum of n
subindices, Ii, times a scaling factor = [10/(n + 1)]. Math
ematically, RPI = [10/(n + 1)]( Ii2 ) and the index ranges
from 100 (natural unpolluted level) to approximately 1000
(highly polluted levels). Theoretically it can go as low as 0.
Recognizing the lack of a financial accounting system
related with water pollution in the previous WQIs, Dinius
(1972) proposed a water quality index that would quantify
the costs and impact of pollution control efforts. The conceptual framework followed a similar pattern as the balance
sheets used by accountants to describe the assets and liabilities of a firm. The index used 11 water quality parameters viz., DO, BOD5 , total Coliforms, fecal Coliforms, specific conductance, chlorides, hardness, alkalinity, pH, temperature, and color. The index value was computed as the
weighted sum of the indices, like Hortons index and the
additive version of NSFWQI and its value ranged from 0
(poorest) to 100% (perfect water quality).
About the same time, Walski and Parker (1974) presented a water quality index in which quality was considered specifically with respect to recreational uses of water.
They chose the geometric mean (a variant of multiplicative
model (3)) as the form of index. The parameters chosen for
index calculation were suspended solids, turbidity, nutrients,
grease, color, threshold odor, pH, temperature, toxicity, and
Coliform count. The WQI ranged from 0 (very bad quality)
to 1 (very good quality).
The index developed by Brown et al. (1970, 1973) is not
really objective because a panel of experts rates the water
quality parameters to be used (dubbed as Delphi method).
There is always a chance that different panels will give different ratings, thus lessening comparability and objectivity.
The above shortcoming was overcome by an index presented
by Harkins (1974) following the methodology on nonparametric multivariate ranking. The major shortcoming of the
Harkinss index is that it has to be recalculated every time
new data become available because comparisons between
data sets are not possible unless the index values are recalculated for a merged data set of all values of interest. This
major drawback makes this index an untenable choice for
regular use on a regional or national level (Landwehr and

14

Deininger 1974, 1976). The mathematical equation for the

index also tends to be unwieldy that may require effort to be
intelligible at first glance.
In Canada, Inhaber (1974) worked on a concept of WQI
as an offshoot of the Environmental Quality Index (EQI) on
similar lines as that of Prati et al. (1971) from Europe. Inhabers methodology essentially involved the normalization
of concentrations of parameters for means and averaging
them through a root-mean squaring procedure. The resultant
index ranged from 0 perfect quality to 1 objective is being met to greater than 1 quality is worse than objective.
Inhabers method remained obscure in Canadian usage for
not being more powerful, simpler or more intelligible than
other indices.
The major statistical look to WQI indices was given
by Landwehr (1974), whose doctoral work culminated in
the classification of the water based on the numerical values of indices as follows: very bad: 020; bad: 2145;
medium: 4675; good: 7690; very good/excellent: 91100.
He also concluded that a multiplicative water quality index
was a more viable and unbiased estimator of water quality
that best reflected the consensus of the experts (Landwehr
and Deininger 1976; Landwehr 1979). Further Landwehr
(1979) concluded that the probability density functions of
the water quality constituents as well as the structure of rating curves are major determinants of choice of an appropriate WQI.
Some States proposed their own formulation. As a key
example, the Oregon Department of Environment has developed the original Oregon Water Quality Index (OWQI)
(Dunnette 1979), which integrates the measurements of
eight water quality variables (temperature, DO, BOD, pH,
ammonia + nitrate nitrogen, total phosphates, total solids,
and fecal Coliforms). In the United States, the most widely
used indices for rivers are NSF based and are well documented in Brown and McClelland (1974); and McClelland
et al. (1976). In summary, between 1965 and early 1980s,
more than 20 physico-chemical water quality indices have
been published (Steinhart et al. 1982), mostly for rivers and
streams, besides numerous biological and trophic state indices in North America.
Water Quality Index Models from Europe during the 1970s
Hortons work spurred interest among scientists worldwide
to formulate suitable indices to characterize water quality.
In Europe, Liebman (1969) proposed an index (known as the
Munich method of water quality evaluation) based on chemical and biological parameters and prepared color coded water quality index maps of the state of Bavaria (western Germany). His method relied on the concept similar to that of
Horton but the ratings and weights were given based on individual opinion. He introduced a system of four water quality

A. Lumb et al.

levels which depended not only on the biological classification of living communities, but also on the overall state of
the water for aquatic life due to oxygen content.
Since the 1970s there has been gradual growth in the development work of WQIs by using different concepts and
statistical methodologies. Contemporary to works of Brown
et al. (1970) in US, efforts to develop a suitable index of water pollution were initiated in Europe (Prati et al. 1971). The
index was primarily designed to express the degree of pollution in surface waters. In developing this index, the authors
first reviewed the water quality classification systems that
have been adopted in England, Germany, the Soviet Union,
Czechoslovakia, New Zealand, Poland and some states in
the US. The parameters chosen for quality classification
were: pH, DO, BOD, COD (chemical oxygen demand based
on permanganate or Kubel test), suspended solids, ammonia, nitrates, chlorine, iron, manganese, ABS (alkyl benzene
sulfonates) and CCE (carbon chloroform extract). For each
parameter, subindices were first computed by transformation of concentrations into new units through mathematical
functions such as logarithms to the base 2, squaring, and
square-rooting. The index was computed as the arithmetic
mean of 13 subindices obtained above and it ranged (dimensionless number) from 0 to 14 (and sometimes above) with
higher values indicating higher level of pollution and vice
versa. In other words lower numbers are good and higher
numbers bad. The index was applied to data on surface waters in Ferrara province, Italy (Ott 1978).
Inspired by the work in United States, particularly that
of Brown et al. (1970), the Engineering Division of the
Scottish Research Development Department initiated the research work for developing the Scottish WQI in 1973. Using the questionnaire approach (essentially Delphi method),
the department came up with ten parameters for generating their WQI, along with weights (in parentheses), which
were: DO (0.18), BOD (0.15), free and saline ammonia (0.12), pH (0.09), total oxidized nitrogen (0.08), phosphate (0.08), suspended solids (0.07), temperature (0.05),
conductivity (0.06) and E. coli (0.12). Note that sum of
the weights is 1. Two forms of WQI formulation were rig
orously tested viz., arithmetic (WQI =
wi Si , (2)) and

geometric (WQI = Siwi , (3)). The additive formulation
tended to be less representative at the lower end of the quality scale, whereas the geometric one was found to capture
the scenario better (note none of the parameters should have
the rating value of zero). However, it was suggested that the
river should be classified by simply quoting the WQI to the
nearest whole number on the scale 0 to 100 and that the particular WQI formulation (arithmetic or geometric form) be
stated (Scottish Research Development Department 1976).
Ross (1977) examined data for rivers in the Clyde catchment in Great Britain and found that the most significant
determinants for describing variations in water quality were

A Review of Genesis and Evolution of Water Quality Index (WQI) and Some Future Directions

BOD, ammonia, suspended solids, and DO. The Ross index

based on the above four parameters was intended as a broadscale indicator of pollution, not a sensitive measure of water
quality.
The index was further improved in the form of a weighted
additive model which was advocated for use in England
(Tyson and House 1989). The weighted additive model takes
the form:
1 
(wi Si )2
100
n

WQI =

(4)

i=1

At times an unweighted version has also been used for aggregating subindices and has been named the Aquatic Toxicity Index (Wepener et al. 1992, 1999). In the unweighted
version of the additive model, all subindices are given equal
weight such
 that wi = 1/n; rendering the model (4) to:
WQI = [ (Si /n)2 ]/100.
The other important European contribution for calculating a WQI came from Spain (Bascaron 1979) using the following equation:
 n

n


WQI =
Ci Pi
Pi
(5)
i=1

i=1

where n represents the total number of parameters, Ci is the

subindex value assigned to parameters after normalization,
and Pi is the weight assigned to parameters (an indicator of
its relative importance for aquatic life/human water use). It
can be noted that the major ingredient of the above equation is the normalization which has not been used in NSF
based formulations. In several studies emanating from Europe, Bascaron WQI has been widely used in tandem with
the Scottish WQI.
Water Quality Index Models During 1980s
Recognizing that the trophic state of lakes were also an important aspect of water quality but remarkably different from
the rivers, Steinhart et al. (1982), developed the Environmental Quality Index (EQI) for the Great Lakes of North America. Nine variables representing physical (P ), chemical (C),
biological (B) and toxic (T ) features were selected for the
index. The variables were: specific conductance, chloride,
total phosphorus, fecal Coliforms, chlorophyll a, suspended
solids, obvious pollution (aesthetic state), toxic inorganic
contaminants, and toxic organic contaminants. Raw data
were converted to subindex values by mathematically defined functions based on national or international yardsticks
or thresholds. Sub-index values were multiplied by weighting factors (a value of 0.1 for chemical, physical and biological factors but 0.15 for toxic substances) and added to
yield a final score ranging from 0 (poorest quality) to 100
(best quality) with the breakdown as poor <55, fair: 5569,

15

good: 7079, very good: 8089, excellent: 90100. Each index number was followed by a letter C, P , B or T indicating which subindex values were most problematic, i.e. less
than or equal to 50 (threshold). A numerical subscript by
the letter indicates how many in that class are affected. For
example 70C1 P1 indicates that one chemical and one physical variable did not meet the objective criterion. Steinhart et
al. (1982) found that for 18 nearshore locations in the Great
Lakes, index scores ranged from 98 at two locations in Lake
Superior to 30 (30C2 P1 B2 T3 ) off Point Mouillee in Lake
Erie. They projected the utility of the index in evaluating the
effectiveness of the multibillion dollar Great Lakes cleanup
efforts conducted during the 1970s.
Most of the work cited above tended to have greater relevance to the uses of water for aquatic life or recreational uses
with subtle reference to drinking water applications. Bhargava (1985) derived the ideas from the concept of WQI evaluation advanced by Brown et al. (1970) for classifying the
water quality exclusively for drinking purposes. He, however, used the following form of a multiplicative model:
WQI =

 n


1/n
fi

(6)

i=1

in which, f i = the sensitivity function value of the ith variable (parameter) which included the effect of the concentration and weight of the ith variable in use and varied from 01
and n is the number of variables considered. Curves based
on requirements of the WQI and involving the weighting effect of each variable on the various uses of water were plotted and WQI computed, thus were used for the classification of river waters for different beneficial uses. The effects
on the WQI, due to changes in the concentration of a single
variable, were depicted through curves to illustrate the effect
of different weighs of a variable for different uses.
The variables were divided into groups. The first group
included the concentration of Coliform organisms to represent the bacterial quality of drinking water. This variable has
a direct implication on the health of the consumer, and cannot be allowed in excess of the standards set by the various
authorities. The sensitivity function for this should, therefore, fall rapidly to a level such that the WQI is significantly lowered to acceptable levels, i.e., when the concentration of Coliforms exceed permissible level and become dangerous. The second group of variables included toxicants,
heavy metals, etc. and their permissible concentrations are
based on the physiological effects associated with symptoms related to concentration levels of these variables. For
such variables, a slight deviation from the permissible levels may be allowed, to the extent of about twice the allowable level. The third group of variables includes the materials that cause physical effects such as odor, color, turbidity,
and the other aesthetic qualities which are important factors

16

in the publics acceptance and confidence in a public water supply system. Their concentrations relate to palatability
of the water and an excess of these variables would be disliked but would not be dangerous for health. The sensitivity
function for these variables should gradually fall off when
their concentration exceeds the permissible levels and a deviation up to three times the permissible limit is allowed for
such variable. The fourth group of variables includes the organic or inorganic non-toxic substances such as chlorides,
sulfates, foaming agents, iron, manganese, zinc, copper, and
total dissolved solids (TDS), which in some cases address
similar concerns as for the third group. Their values exceeding permissible limits are not at all dangerous. There are in
fact health-based drinking water standards for some of these
variables, including iron, manganese, zinc and copper. However, an upper limit can be established based on local conditions. The water quality standards for United States Environmental Protection Agency existing in 1982 were used in
the analysis. This model was also tested for the drinking water supply for the city of Delhi, India and worked well. For
drinking water, a value of WQI of 90 or above based on the
above model was acceptable.
One of the challenges that spurred attention of the water
quality investigators was the selection of the significant pollutants and their level of concentration, which was endemic
during the 1970s and 1980s in the fresh waters. Dinius
(1987) addressed this problem by evolving a fourround
Delphi process. The inclusion of representative pollutants in
the index, and the relationship between the quantity of these
pollutants in the water and the resulting quality of the water
involved consultations among members of a panel of water
quality experts. The panel used a general rating scale as a
frame of reference to establish the rate of change in the numerical index as the quality of water changed. Evaluation
levels were gathered for six separate water uses (public water supply, recreation, fish, shellfish, agriculture, and industry), but parsimony, pragmatism, and utility suggested the
indices be aggregated into one generalized index. A multiplicative index of the form of (3) was used to bring the
pollutants together in one system.
A significant advance was made by Smith (1990) in New
Zealand, who developed a WQI for four water uses: bathing,
water supply, fish spawning and general uses. The salient
feature of Smiths work has been to make a better use of the
water quality parameter giving the lowest score (or lowest
subindex value) in order to arrive at the final score. The indexing system at that point of time tended to integrate expert
opinion and water quality standards. The parameters used
for the WQI evaluation were: DO, suspended solids, turbidity, temperature, BOD5 (unfiltered), ammonia, and fecal Coliforms with the exception that ammonia was only included
in water supply and fecal Coliforms were not included in fish
spawning. The index value ranged from 0 to 100 with 80 and

A. Lumb et al.

above eminently suitable for all uses and less than 20 totally
unfit for nearly all uses. The system was simple to use and
addition (or subtraction) of determinants (water quality parameters) was a much simpler task. The index was used for
water quality legislation and dissemination of water quality information in New Zealand. Several water authorities in
New Zealand are presently using this as a planning tool and
as a simple means of disseminating water quality information.
In the United Kingdom, House (1989, 1990) suggested
another water quality index which conceptually was similar to NSFWQI. The following parameters and their relative weightings were used in the calculations: DO (0.20),
BOD (0.18), ammonia nitrogen (0.16), total Coliforms
(0.11), suspended solids (0.11), pH (0.09), nitrate (0.09),
chloride (0.04), and temperature (0.09). These weights were
established by using a questionnaire (Delphi procedure)
which was sent out to operational management personnel
in the pollution prevention organization of the UK. Houses
graphs were established from various quality standards such
as EC (European commission) directives or maximum desirable concentrations. The WQI values result in the range
from 10 to 100 with higher values pointing to a better quality.
Water Quality Index Models during the 1990s and 2000s
The Florida Stream Water Quality Index (FWQI) was developed in 1995 under the Strategic Assessment of Floridas
Environment Indicators Project (SAFE 1995). It is an arithmetic average of water clarity, turbidity, total suspended
solids, dissolved oxygen, BOD, COD, total organic carbon,
nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen), bacteria (total and fecal Coliforms), and biological diversity. Values of this index
classified the water as follows: good: 0 to <45, fair: 45 to 60,
poor: 60 to 90.
At the same time, attempts to refine the mathematical
structure of the water quality index proposed by Brown et
al. during the 1970s were still continuing with the additional
input from Dojlido et al. (1994) in the form of a harmonic
mean square root formula, or simply known as the harmonic
model formula, expressed as:
 n
0.5
1  2
WQI =
Si
(7)
n
i=1

Equation (7) has shown promise for the Vistula River in

Poland, and water quality classes have been defined as: very
clean: 75100; clean: 5075; polluted: 2550; and very polluted: 025.
The Oregon Water Quality Index (OWQI) also takes the
form as represented by (7). The details of the index including the rating functions for various parameters are well documented in Cude (2001, 2005, 2008). The water quality

A Review of Genesis and Evolution of Water Quality Index (WQI) and Some Future Directions

classes in terms of OWQI scores are different from those

based on NSFWQI shown by (2) and (3). The water quality classes based on OWQI scores are excellent: 91100;
good: 8590; fair: 8084; poor: 6070; and very poor: 059.
The harmonic model shown in (7) looks promising, although
the band of OWQI scores is too narrow in good and fair categories.
One major gap encountered in many WQIs until the beginning of 1990s was the problem where all the subindices
are considered acceptable yet the overall index is not. In the
same vein an eclipsing problem existed where the overall index is insensitive to a single crucial variable (or parameter).
This problem was addressed by Swamee and Tyagi (2000)
among others and they proposed full range of equations for
water quality subindices for a number of water quality parameters in order to facilitate the computer adaptation of the
aggregation process.
In Canada, a new water quality index was introduced in
the mid 1990s by the province of British Columbia (Rocchini and Swain 1995; Zandbergen and Hall 1998) and used
it as the basis for reporting to the public and identifying watersheds for priority action, such as by Manitoba Ministry of
Environment (SOE Report 1997). Recognizing the need to
assess the suitability of water for diverse uses in tandem with
air quality, the Water Quality Guidelines Task Group of the
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME)
modified the original British Columbia Water Quality Index and endorsed it as the CCME WQI in 2001. This index was originally called the Canadian Water Quality Index
(CWQI) as referred in CCME (2001). Since its inception and
endorsement for use in Canadian jurisdictions, the CCME
WQI has been implemented in British Columbia, Alberta,
Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Northern territories, the Atlantic
provinces and Newfoundland & Labrador (Cash et al. 2001;
CCME 2001; Husain 2001; Sharma 2002; Khan et al. 2003;
Mercier and Leger 2003) and nationally (CESI 2008). Since
2005 there has been a spurt of studies published on the application of CCME WQI supporting its widespread use and
versatility (Khan et al. 2005; Environment Canada 2005;
Mercier and Leger 2006; Dube et al. 2006; Lumb et al. 2006;
Tobin et al. 2007; Statistics Canada 2008; Rickwood and
Carr 2009; de Rosemond et al. 2009). From the experience
with the CCME WQI implementation, both strengths and
challenges of the index have come to light, including issues related to monitoring, communication and public expectation, inputs, interpretation, and the long-term feasibility studies of the quality aspects of water resources and financial commitment by governments.
Conceptually CCME WQI comprises three factors and
is well documented (CCME 2001). Factor 1 (F1 ) deals with
scope that assesses the extent of water quality guideline noncompliance over the time period of interest. Factor 2 (F2 )
deals with frequency i.e. how many occasions the tested or

17

observed value was off the acceptable limits or the yardsticks. Factor 3 (F3 ) deals with the amplitude of deviation
or the amount by which the objectives are not met. The index value is computed using the following formulation:

F2 + F2 + F2
1
2
3
CCMEWQI = 100
(8)
1.732
The factor of 1.732 has been introduced to scale the index
from 0 to 100. The above formulation produces a value of
CCME WQI between 0 and 100 and gives a numerical value
to the state of water quality. Note a zero (0) value signifies
very poor water quality, whereas a value close to 100 signifies excellent water quality. The assignment of CCME WQI
values to different categories is somewhat subjective process
and also demands expert judgment and publics expectations
of water quality. The water quality is ranked in the following
five categories: excellent: 95100; good: 8094; fair: 65-79;
marginal: 4564; poor: 044.
An equally noteworthy contribution in the form of the
water quality index dubbed as Indice de qualite bacteriologique et physicochimique (IQBP) has been tested rigorously in the province of Quebec, Canada (Hbert 1996,
2005) with the following formulation:
IQBP = min(IF 1 , IF 2 , IF 3 , . . . , IF 7 )

(9)

in which IF 1 = subindex for fecal Coliform; IF 2 = subindex

for total phosphorus; IF 3 = subindex for nitrite-nitrate,
IF 4 = subindex for ammonical nitrogen; IF 5 = subindex
for chlorophyll; IF 6 = subindex for turbidity; and IF 7 =
subindex for suspended solids. A value of subindex ranges
from 0 (very poor) to 100 (good). IQBP varies between
0100 and five water quality classes are defined: good
(80100; generally good for all uses including bathing);
satisfactory (6079; generally satisfactory for most uses);
questionable (4059; questionable quality with some uses
may compromise); bad (2039; poor water quality, most
uses may compromise); very poor (019; very poor water
quality, all uses may compromise). The IQBP was primarily
meant to assess the water quality for swimming and recreational activities (E. coli as key parameter), and protection
of aquatic life including protection against eutrophication.
IQBP was used in the 2000s for assessing all major rivers in
Quebec, Canada.
One noteworthy development in the recent years has been
the introduction of statistical multivariate analysis for discerning the significant parameters for evaluation of the water quality index (Liou et al. 2004; Debels et al. 2005;
Qian et al. 2007; Sedeno-Diaz and Lopez-Lopez 2007;
Saeedi et al. 2010) vis--vis the traditional Delphi method.
The first decade of 21st century has also witnessed the
emergence of software for computing water quality indices
(Sarkar and Abbasi 2006). Also some objective methods

18

A. Lumb et al.

based on mathematical logic have been suggested to replace the Delphi method of selection of parameters and their
weights (Parparov and Hambright 2007; Kumar and Dua
2009).
In the USA, the NSFWQI continues to enjoy the status of
a popular indicator of water quality, which has been further
assessed and altered to address the specific needs of individual states. The notable variants of NSFWQI such as Oregon
Water Quality Index (OWQI) is used to aid in the assessment
of water quality for fishing and swimming and in turn to
water quality management in major streams (Mrazik 2007;
Cude 2008). One important feature of the OWQI is that it
includes E. coli as the bacterial parameter for assessment of
the index. On lines similar to Oregon, states of Washington (Hallock 2002), California (Thomson et al. 2007), and
Iowa (Iowa DNR Report 2006) etc. have adopted modified
versions of NSFWQI to suit their needs. Another index different from NSFWQI was introduced by Said et al. (2004)
from the University of South Florida and its mathematical
form is expressed as:

WQI = log


(DO)1.5
(3.8)TP (Turb)0.15 (15)Fcol./10000 + 0.14(SC)0.5
(10)

where DO is the dissolved oxygen (% saturation), Turb is the

Turbidity (Nephelometric turbidity units, NTU); TP is the
total phosphates (mg/L); Fcoli is the fecal Coliform bacteria
(counts/100 ml); and SC is the specific conductivity (MS/cm
at 25C).
One recent model of water quality index is put forth
by the Malaysian Department of Environment (ShuhaimiOthman et al. 2007). The mathematical structure of the
model is as follows:
WQI = 0.22(DOsi ) + 0.19(BODsi ) + 0.16(CODsi )
+ 0.15(ANsi ) + 0.16(SSsi ) + 0.12(pHsi )

(11)

where subscript si stands for the subindex function associated with each of these parameters (DO, BOD, COD, ammonical nitrogen, suspended solids and pH).
A few other indexing schemes have also been developed deriving the ideas from the pioneering NSF based concepts and those coming from Europe. One such index is
that of Fulazzaky (2009). The WQI scores based on this
method classifies the water in five classes viz. excellent: 80
100; good: 6080; moderate: 4060; bad: 2040; and very
bad: 020. The method has been successfully used to classify the water quality of Selangor River in Malaysia (Fulazzaky et al. 2010). The concepts based on grey relational
method (Ip et al. 2009) and fuzzy logic analysis (Kung et al.
1992; Lermontov et al. 2009; Jinturkar et al. 2010) as used
in hydrology have also been introduced in developing the

WQI. The other novel attempt in the recent past has been the
introduction of the probabilistic approach in development of
water quality index for river quality assessment (Nikoo et al.
2010), which entailed the concepts of fuzzy inference systems, Bayesian networks and probabilistic neural networks.
These concepts have been used in modeling the hydrological processes and water resources systems. The approach
worked well for water quality index evaluation of the Jajrood River, Iran (Nikoo et al. 2010).
The emerging technology of remote sensing has also
been introduced in the realm of water quality indices. One
such attempt is that of Vignolo et al. (2006), who have successfully used this technique to assess the water quality of
the Medrano Creek, Argentina. In particular, the technique
seemed to have strong potential for tracing the organic contamination associated with dyes in fresh water systems.
There are other water quality indices which in principle
are derived from the NSF based concept. One such WQI
(the score range 0 to 10) has been used to evaluate the quality of the Mekong River for aquatic life, human impact and
agricultural uses (MRC 2008). For instance for aquatic uses
the water quality classes are: high quality (WQI: 109);
good quality (WQI: 99.5); moderate quality (WQI: 79);
and poor quality (WQI: <7). Different score ranges have
been applied to categorize the Mekong River water for agricultural uses and human impact evaluations (MRC 2008).
Likewise Tipping et al. (2002) have proposed a concept of
sustainable development indicators for managing the water
quality in the Mekong River. Another recent development
has been the emergence of some macro-invertebrate based
biotic indices (Bhatt and Pandit 2010). Succinctly during
the first decade of 2000, competing models do exist as consequences of different legal and political context on implementation, environmental concerns, data availability, multiple ways of formulating mathematical relationships between
variables, and mannerism on inculcating the role of expert in
the models.
A Note on Indexing the Ground Water Quality During the
1990s and 2000s
Most of the work on the WQI has been devoted to surface
water such as streams and lakes with the intent of classifying the water for aquatic and recreational uses. There have
been some attempts to categorize the water for drinking purposes, particularly the groundwater which comprises a major source for drinking applications. To determine the suitability of the groundwater for drinking purposes, WQI is
computed by adopting the method which is formulated as
(Tiwari and Mishra 1985):
WQI = anti log

n

i=1

wi log qi

(12)

A Review of Genesis and Evolution of Water Quality Index (WQI) and Some Future Directions

where wi is weight or the weighting factor = K/Oi and K is


a constant = 1/( 1/Oi ); and Oi correspond to the WHO
(World Health Organization) or Indian Council of Medical
Research (ICMR) standard value of the parameter, which is
tantamount to the objective function or the threshold value.
The quality rating (qi ) is calculated as


qi = (Vactual Videal )/(Vstandard Vactual ) 100

(13)

where qi = quality rating of ith parameter for a total of

n water samples; Vactual = value of the water quality parameter obtained from the laboratory analysis; Vstandard =
value of the water quality parameter obtained from the standard tables; Videal for pH = 7 and for the other parameters
it is equivalent to zero. The index was specifically developed for ranking ground water for drinking purposes and
has been used in subsequent years implying its acceptance
(Ramachandramoorthy et al. 2010) on the Indian subcontinent.
Backman et al. (1998) presented an index for evaluation and mapping the degree of groundwater contamination and its applicability in southwestern Finland and central Slovakia. A simple WQI involving nine parameters is
created by Soltan (1999) to indicate the quality of groundwater from 10 artesian wells located near Dakhla Oasis in
the Egypt. Likewise Stambuk-Giljanovic (1999) has indexed
groundwater in conjunction with surface water in Dalmatia, Crotia. The robust indexing approach for ground water has been developed by Stingter et al. (2006). The most
recent contribution in developing the WQI for ground water is from Iran (Saeedi et al. 2010) in which a similar approach as that of NSF-WQI is adopted. In stead of using the
subindex values they have normalized the concentrations of
each parameter and an additive aggregation model is used to
evolve the index. The weighting factors for each parameter
are chosen based on their perceived importance. The index
(GWQI, ground water quality index) values range from 0
to 1 with water quality classes as high (GWQI > 0.15); suitable (GWQI between 0.04 and 0.15) and low (GWQI <
0.04).

Reviewing the Current Use of Various WQI

There is no standardized use or unique convergence toward
a particular model for indexing the quality of water for a
particular use. The use of NSFWQI or its variants such as
Bhargavas (1985) WQI model for drinking water are popular not only in USA but in many other countries. The studies
from Croatia suggest the superiority of the geometric form
of NSFWQI (Stambuk-Giljanovic 1999, 2003). Other studies have been reported in the literature demonstrating the use
of NSF based indices across countries worldwide (Abrahao

19

et al. 2007Brazil; Sedeno-Diaz and Lopez-Lopez 2007

Mexico; Bordalo and Savva-Bordalo 2007Guinea-Bissau;
Stojda and Dojlido 1983Poland; Soltan 1999Egypt;
Bordalo et al. 2006Portugal; Giuseppe and Guidice 2010
Italy; Avvannavar and Shrihari 2008; and Chaturvedi and
Bhasin 2010India).
The indexing approach from Smith (1990) and Nagles
et al. (2001) has been implemented to quantify the quality
of waters of Lake Kinneret (Israel) and the Naroch lakes
of Belarus. Some work has also been initiated to index the
waters for recreational uses in New Zealand (Nagles et al.
2001). The Bascaron model of WQI has found acceptance
in Latin American countries (Pesce and Wunderlin 2000 in
Argentina; Debels et al. 2005 in Chile). The other important feature inherent in these applications is to weigh the
parameters for their relative importance and include them
in calculation for the composite index (Pesce and Wunderlin 2000; Stambuk-Giljanovic 2003; Sargaonkar and Deshpande 2003; Tsegaye et al. 2006).
The Water Framework Directive (WFD) was adopted in
2000 and is viewed as a substantial piece of the European
Community (EC) legislation that establishes an integrated
approach to the protection, improvement, and sustainable
use of Europes water (surface and ground). Of special mention is the formation of the Technical Advisory Group in
2001 (UKTAG 2007) to assist in implementing the agenda
of WFD within United Kingdom. Yet, no clear and unique
index formulation has emerged, but the river classification
system is one of the key aspects related to EU Framework.
Through the Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators (CESI) initiative, the Canadian government reports
on sustainable environmental indicators that track three issues of key concern to Canadians which are Air Quality,
Water Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (CESI 2008).
The CCME WQI continues to be used in Canada on a national basis and by provincial and territorial environment
departments and watershed organizations. It has also supported development of subindices for nutrients, pesticides,
bacteria and metals in Alberta for reporting in 20052006
and 20062007 (AB 2007). The existing Canadian index is
not perfect and there is always room for improvement based
on the historical development of WQIs since the 1960s. The
major strength of the CCME WQI is that it is able to take
the flexible number of parameters sampled at irregular time
intervals, and choose relevant parameters at each site with
site specific guidelines. Technically, it can also allow for
inclusion of many variables based on existing environmental quality guidelines or management objectives (e.g. water column, but also sediment and fish community as was
done in the past in British Columbia). However, the index
requires at least four parameters sampled four times during
the desired time span in context of a 3 years roll-up average (more frequent sampling if WQI would become annual). In terms of main weaknesses, the Canadian WQI,

20

as the vast majority of other indices, suffers from the insensitivity toward a particular parameter in the process of
aggregation, which mutes its role. That means that a low
score for one variable that is severely limiting water use may
be masked when aggregated with relatively high scores for
other variables. For example, a high level of fecal contamination should make water unsuitable for bathing, but the
corresponding low index score for fecal indicator bacteria
may be swamped in the overall index by a high score for
the other variables. The above noted deficiency was circumvented in the late 1990s and early part of the first decade of
21st century by using a subindex approach (Bhargava 1985;
Nagles et al. 2001; Hbert 2005). The WQI model can work
in complementary mode with subindex as part of a dashboard approach to water quality, and also support key parameters for trends analysis. It would be feasible by establishing connection between the overall index and measurements of water quality ingredients. The water quality assessed using the CCME WQI that confirmed its suitability
for drinking, aquatic life, irrigation and other purposes has
been applied not only in Canada but also in many other
countries all over the world (Zoabi and Gueddari 2008;
Aloui and Gueddari 2009 in Tunisia; Avvannavar and Shrihari 2008; Joseph and Parameswaran 2005 in India; Boyacioglu 2007, 2010 in Turkey).
Globally, much of the work being conducted on water quality is linked to one of the UN Millennium Development Goals (UNEP GEMS 2007): sustainable access to
safe drinking water by world population by 2015. Another
initiative from Mekong River Commission (MRC 2008),
which has established the drinking water categories based
on their own WQIs to assess the water quality of Lower
Mekong Basin for human use. GEMS/Water Program supported the development of a global drinking water quality
index (GDWQI) developed by Rickwood and Carr (2009),
based on CCME WQI model. Notwithstanding development
of other indices, it seems that the CCME WQI still holds
some promise in terms of improvements for the future and
can support additional works.

Future Research Directions

More of a constraint than an intrinsic weakness, the efficiency and the accuracy of all indices bank on existing
monitoring network, prevalent methods of physico-chemical
analysis and guidelines. Notably, it is prudent that a longterm core network for indexing status and trends (e.g. defining selection criteria and implementing them) be established. Also, there exists imminent need to develop more
cost-effective ways of monitoring (e.g. automated sampling,
rotational base sampling) of water quality parameters. Automated samplers, which typically measure a more limited

A. Lumb et al.

suite of parameters (e.g. DO, pH, turbidity, temperature and

conductivity) continue to expand in popularity. The suite of
measured parameters also continues to expand with technological advances, as do the ability to predict the values
of non-measured parameters through correlation modeling.
The potential thus exists to translate these data into information for the public on a real-time basis through indices as is
being done for air quality in many cities around the world.
Depending upon the guidelines, conflicting interpretation
and messages can emerge on the quality characteristics of
the water. To reduce such a problem, efforts should be directed to develop site-specific guidelines adapted to the prevailing ecological conditions (e.g. taking into consideration
high background concentration of phosphorus in the Prairies
of Canada). In some cases, it is necessary to not just consider toxic or acute effects of contaminants, but to look for
chronic effects such as eutrophication delineated through a
more ecological approach applied to background level of nutrients in the natural waters. This calls for extended partnership and cooperation between various institutions dealing
with water for implementation and development of the indexing methodologies and approaches uniformly.
As the suitability of water can vary greatly depending on
its intended use, there is a need to provide use-specific assessments (e.g. for aquatic and recreation uses versus source
water use for human consumption). For being more transparent with the level of protection related to water quality
and making connection with policy, one would need to use
at least one index by use (cannot use one index that fits all
water uses). It would thus be important for the indices to
be specifically adapted to provide the required information
on each use, and for long- term monitoring networks for indexing status and trends to consider these aspects in their
design.
Evolution of these indices can also take the form of
subindices based on parameters by types of effects (e.g. eutrophication or bio-accumulative property) or sources (e.g.
agricultural or industrial) to provide information on more
specific water quality issues (e.g. lakes or rivers) and presented as a type of dashboard to the public and for prioritizing actions. Although the development of such an index
poses a challenge, it is feasible by establishing connection
between the overall index and measurements of water quality parameters. With the continued growth in water quality
data, the selection of the water quality parameters for index
calculation should be based on more robust techniques such
as the statistical multivariate analysis rather than the subjective Delphi method (as used in many states). This would
improve robustness of WQIs (and support better knowledge
of intervals of confidence) and also credibility of status and
trends regarding water quality objectives and guidelines.
For aquatic life, the scope of WQI could also be enhanced
by incorporating the biological indicators that must form the

A Review of Genesis and Evolution of Water Quality Index (WQI) and Some Future Directions

part of the routine monitoring network. Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) was first developed by Karr (1981) to help resource managers to assess the biological health (condition
of living organisms, benthic, native fish or algae etc.) of the
watersheds, rivers, lakes and streams. To characterize benthic conditions, macro-invertebrate index of biotic integrity
(M-IBI) and multimetric index and more recently the Reference Condition Approach (RCA) has been widely used by
benthic ecologists (Reynoldson et al. 1997, 2003). This type
of index could either be used as such and as complement to
WQI, or be aggregated to form a more comprehensive index.
In a comparative study of 36 WQIs and WPIs (Water Pollution Indices) it was noticed that appreciable differences
exist between classifications given by different indices on
the same water sample (Fernandez et al. 2004). These differences arise primarily because of differing parameter numbers, calculations and aggregation formulas. Overall, applying WQI to water quality data must be done with due regard
to how the index is formulated and used for the purposes it
was designed for. There is no simple procedure to compare
the performance of indices, but one would look at complementarities of the information, credibility of measurements,
transparency of indices formulation, relevancy of key parameters selected and comparability of results, looking for
status and trends.
There is need to launch a study to compare the performance of various water WQI models in terms of efficiency,
adequacy, parsimony and flexibility with available data. Several countries, including Canada, possess data on water quality parameters that are lying in archives and such data should
be used in developing a universal WQI. In an equal vein, the
score system used in various WQI models must be linked
appropriately to reflect on the right class of water quality.

Concluding Remarks
The concept of water quality index is a relatively new, and
Horton (1965) is to be credited to give a first formal definition to it. Since then numerous variations of water quality indices have been addressed in literature over the past
five decades. The NSF based additive and multiplicative
WQI formulations (Brown et al. 1970, 1973) seem to rule
the roost with modifications from various countries. A distinctly diverse concept has been introduced by Canada in developing WQI (CCME 2001), which is widely used across
provinces in Canada, and is gaining popularity globally.
Most indices rely on normalizing/standardizing data parameter by parameter according to expected concentrations and
some interpretation of good versus bad concentrations.
Parameters are often then weighted according to their perceived importance to overall water quality and the index
is calculated as the weighted average of all observations

21

of interest, and therefore dependant on existing monitoring data. The ranking of water quality classes based on the
WQI scores from various WQI models is also not uniform.
The commonly used NSF based and CCME based scores
range from 0 to 100 alluding higher scores to a better quality. There is no unique model of water quality index that has
been universally applicable.
In many cases of index evaluation the parameter selection has been made using Delphi method. It is only in the
current decade that statistical tool of multivariate analysis
has been introduced to perform this task. The majority of
indices involve nine or more parameters with commonality of DO, BOD, pH, total dissolved solids, and fecal Coliforms or E. coli. The indices are largely developed for surface waters (rivers and lakes) with a greater bias to aquatic
uses (Simes et al. 2008) and less intent to drinking, recreational and irrigational uses. The indexing for agricultural
applications is at an infant stage (Cooper et al. 1998; Wright
et al. 1999; Almeida et al. 2008; NL 2008). Some attempts
exist on indexing ground water quality for drinking applications. There is no globally acceptable composite index of
water quality, though some countries and regions have used
aggregated water quality data in the development of WQI.
In the future, it may be expected that additional effort
for integration will be fostered in the context of WQIs, in a
somewhat similar fashion as with economic indicators since
the 1930sfrom a global index to more specific and extended subindices and dashboard indicators for sustainable
societies. There is immediate need to compare the effectiveness, ease, adequacy etc. of the existing WQI models to
evolve a universally applicable model flexible enough to cut
across the available data for assessing the water quality for
varied uses.
Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank Vincent Mercier, Environmental Indicator and Reporting Specialist, Environment Canada,
Environmental Science Centre, University of Moncton, Moncton, NB,
Canada, E1A 3E9, for very constructive suggestions and a critical review of the manuscript.

References
AB (2007) Water for life: healthy aquatic ecosystem information
synthesis and initial assessment of the status and health of
aquatic ecosystems in Alberta: surface water quality, sediment
quality and non-fish biota. Technical Report # 278/279-01, Alberta Environment, Edmonton, AB, Canada. Can be viewed at
http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/7861.pdf
Abrahao R, Carvalho M, da Silva Junior WR, Machado TTV, Gadelha
CLM, Hernadez MIM (2007) Use of index analysis to evaluate
the water quality of a stream receiving industrial effluents. Water
SA 33:459466
Almeida C, Quintar S, Gonzalez P, Mallea M (2008) Assessment of
irrigation water quality: a proposal of a quality profile. Environ
Monit Assess 142:149152

22
Aloui BZ, Gueddari M (2009) Long-term water quality monitoring of
the Sejnane reservoir in northeast Tunisia. Bull Eng Geol Environ
68:307316
Avvannavar SM, Shrihari S (2008) Evaluation of water quality index
for drinking water purposes for river Natravati, Manglore, South
India. Environ Monit Assess 143:279290
Backman B, Bodis D, Lahermo P, Rampant S, Tarvainen T (1998) Application of a groundwater contamination index in Finland and
Slovakia. Environ Geol 36(12):5564
Bascaron M (1979) Establishment of a methodology for the determination of water quality. Bol Inf Medio Ambient 9:3051. CIMA,
MOPU, Madrid
Bhargava DS (1985) Expression for drinking water supply standards.
J Environ Eng. Div 111(3):304316
Bhatt JP, Pandit MK (2010) A macro-invertebrate based new biotic
index to monitor river quality. Curr Sci 99(2):196203
Bordalo AA, Savva-Bordalo J (2007) The quest for safe drinking water: an example from Guinea-Bissau (West Africa). Water Res
41:29782986
Bordalo AA, Teixeira R, Wiebe W (2006) A water quality index applied to an international shared river basin: the case of the Douro
River. Environ Manag 38:910920
Boyacioglu H (2007) Development of a water quality index based on a
European classification scheme. Water SA 33:101106
Boyacioglu H (2010) Utilization of the water quality index method
as a classification tool. Environ Monit Assess 167:115124.
doi:10.1007/s10661-009-1035-1
Brown RM, McClelland NI (1974) Up from chaos: the water quality
index as an effective instrument in water quality management. National Sanitation Foundation, Ann Arbor, p 27
Brown RM, McClelland NI, Deininger RA, Tozer RG (1970) A water
quality indexDo we dare? Water Sew Works 117(10):339343
Brown RM, McClelland NI, Deininger RA, OConnor M (1971) A water quality indexcrashing the psychological barrier. Presented at
138th meeting of the American association for the advancement
of science, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Brown RM, McClelland NI, Deininger RA, Landwehr JM (1973). Validating the WQI. The paper presented at national meeting of American society of civil engineers on water resources engineering,
Washington, DC
Cash KJ, Saffran KA, Wright CR (2001) Application of Canadian water quality index (CWQI) to PPWB monitoring program. Technical Report, March 2001
CCME (2001) Canadian water quality guidelines for the protection of
aquatic life. CCME water quality index 1.0, Users Manual, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. Can be viewed at http://www.ccme.ca/
assets/pdf/wqi_usermanualfctsht_e.pdf
CESI (2008) Water quality: national perspective. Environment
Canada. It can be viewed at http://ec.gc.ca/indicateurs-indicators/
default.asp?lang=En&n=A073189E-1
Chaturvedi MK, Bhasin JK (2010) Assessing the water quality index of water treatment plant and bore holes in
Delhi, India. Environ Monit Assess 163:449453. doi:10.1007/
s10661-009-0848-2
Cooper J, Rediske R, Northup M, Thogerson M, van Denend A (1998)
Agricultural water quality index. Robert B Annis Water Resources
Institute, Grand Valley State University, Allendale, p 75. WRI
Publication # MR-98-1
Cude CG (2001) Oregon water quality index: a tool for evaluating water quality management effectiveness. J Am Water Resour Assoc
37(1):125137
Cude CG (2005) Accommodating change of bacterial indicators in
long term water quality data sets. J Am Water Resour Assoc
41(1):4754
Cude CG (2008) Interpretation and communication of water quality
data using the Oregon water quality index (OWQI). State of Ore-

A. Lumb et al.
gon Department of Environmental Quality, Laboratory and Environmental Assessment Division, Portland. Can be viewed at
www.deq.state.or.us/lab/wqm/wqindex.htm
de Rosemond S, Duro DC, Dube M (2009) Comparative analysis of regional water quality in Canada using water quality index. Environ
Monit Assess 56:23240. doi:10.1007/s10661-008-0480-6
Debels P, Figueroa R, Urrutia R, Barra R, Niell X (2005) Evaluation
of water quality in the Chillan river (Central Chile), using physical and chemical parameters and a modified water quality index.
Environ Monit Assess 110:301322
Deininger RA, Maciunas JM (1971) Water quality index for public water supplies. Department of Environment and Industrial Health,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Dinius SH (1972) A social accounting system for evaluating water.
Water Resour Res 8(5):11591177
Dinius SH (1987) Design of water quality index. Water Resour Bull,
Am Water Resour Assoc 23(5):823843
Dojlido JR, Best GA (1993) Chemistry of water and water pollution.
Ellis Horwood, London
Dojlido J, Raniszewski J, Woyciechowska J (1994) Water quality index
application for river in Vistula River basin in Poland. Water Sci
Technol 30(10):5764
Dube M, Johnson B, Dunn G, Culp J, Cash K, Munkittrick K, Wong
I, Hedley K, Booty W, Lam D, Resler O, Storey A (2006) Development of a new approach to cumulative effects assessment: a
northern river ecosystem example. Environ Monit Assess 113:87
115
Dunnette DA (1979) A geographically variable water quality index
used in Oregon. J Water Pollut Control Fed 51(1):5361
Environment Canada (2005). Application and testing of the CCME water quality index for selected water bodies in Atlantic Canada. Can
be viewed at www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ee/English/resource_network/
status_report_e.cfm
EPI (2010) Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy, Yale
University, Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) Columbia University, in collaboration
with World Economic Forum, Geneva, Switzerland and Joint
Research Centre of the European Commission, Ispra, Italy.
Can be viewed at http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/es/epi/papers/
2008EPI_mainreport_july10.pdf
Fernandez N, Ramirez A, Sonalo F (2004) Physico-chemical water
quality indicesa comparative review. Bistua, Rev Fac Cienc Basic 2(1):1930. ISSN 0120-4211
Fulazzaky MA (2009) Water quality evaluation system to assess
the Brantas River water. Water Resour Manag 23:30193033.
doi:10.1007/s11269-009-9421-6
Fulazzaky MA, Seong TW, Masirin MIM (2010) Assessment of water quality status for the Selangor River in Malaysia. Water Air
Pollution 205:6377. doi:10.1007/s11270-009-0056-2
Giuseppe B, Guidice RL (2010) Application of two water quality indices as monitoring and management tools of rivers. Case study:
the Imera Meridiopnale River Italy. Environ Manag 45:856867.
doi:10.1007/sD00267-010-9450-1
Hallock D (2002) A water quality index for ecologys stream monitoring program. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia.
Publication No. 002-03-052
Harkins RD (1974) An objective water quality index. J Water Pollut
Control Fed 46(3):588591
Hbert S (1996). Dvelopment dun indice de la qualit bactriologique et physico-chimique de leau pour des rivires du
Qubec. Report of the ministire de lenvironnement et de la
faune, Qubec, QC, Canada
Hbert S (2005) Comparison between the index of overall quality of
water in Quebec (IQBP) the water quality index CCME (WQI)
for the protection of aquatic life, Quebec. Ministry of Sustainable
Development, Environment and Parks Department in Monitoring
the State of Environment, Qubec. ISBN:2-550-45900-8

A Review of Genesis and Evolution of Water Quality Index (WQI) and Some Future Directions
Horton RK (1965) An index number system for rating water quality. J
Water Pollut Control Fed 37(3):300306
House MA (1989) A water quality index for river management. J Water
Environ Manag 3:336344
House MA (1990) Water quality indices as indicators of ecosystem
change. Environ Monit Assess 5:255263
Husain T (2001) Canadian water quality index determination for three
EMAN sites. In: Ecological monitoring and assessment network.
Environment Canada, Burlington
Inhaber H (1974) An approach to a water quality index for Canada.
Water Res 9:821833
Iowa DNR Report (2006) Iowas ambient water monitoring program,
water fact sheet 2006-8. Iowa Department of Natural Resources,
Geological Survey, Iowa City
Ip WC, Hu WQ, Wong W, Xia J (2009) Application of grey relational
method to river environment quality evaluation in China. J Hydrol
(Amst) 379:284290
Jinturkar AM, Deshmukh SS, Agarkar SV, Chavan GR (2010) Determination of water quality index by fuzzy logic approach: a case of
ground water in an Indian town. Water Sci Technol 61(8):1987
1994
Joseph J, Parameswaran G (2005) Water quality index of different areas
in Calicut City. Asian J Chem 18:740742
Karr JR (1981) Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities.
Fisheries 6(6):2127
Khan F, Husain T, Lumb A (2003) Water quality evaluation and trend
analysis at selected watersheds of the Atlantic Region of Canada.
Environ Monit Assess 88:221242
Khan A, Tobin A, Paterson R, Khan H, Warren R (2005) Application of
CCME procedures for deriving site specific water quality guidelines for the CCME water quality index. Water Qual Res J Can
40:448456
Kumar A, Dua A (2009) Water quality index for assessment of water quality of river Ravi at Madhopur (India). Glob J Environ Sci
8(1):4957
Kung H, Ying L, Liu Y (1992) A complementary tool to water quality
indices: fuzzy clustering analysis. Water Resour Bull 28(3):525
533
Landwehr JM (1974) Water quality indices: construction and analysis.
PhD thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
Landwehr JM, Deininger RA (1974) An objective of water quality index. Environ Monit Assess, J Water Pollut Control Fed
46(7):18041807
Landwehr JM, Deininger RA (1976) A comparison of several water
quality indices. J Water Pollut Control Fed 48(5):954958
Landwehr JM (1979) A statistical view of class of water quality indices. Water Resour Res 15(2):460468
Lermontov A, Yokyama L, Lermontov M, Machado RDI (2009) River
quality analysis using fuzzy water quality index: Ribeira do
Iguape river watershed, Brazil. Ecol Indic 9:11881197
Liebman H (1969) Atlas of water quality, methods and practical conditions. Oldenbourg, Munich
Linstone HA, Murray T (1975) The Delphi method: techniques and
applications. Addison Wesley, Reading
Liou SM, Lo SL, Wang SH (2004) A generalized water quality index
for Taiwan. Environ Monit Assess 96:3552
Lumb A, Halliwell D, Sharma T (2006) Application of the CCME water quality index to monitor. Water quality: a case study of the
Mackenzie river basin, Canada. Environ Monit Assess 113:411
429
McClelland NI, Brown RM, Deininger RA (1976) WQIenhancing
appreciation of quality improvement. National Sanitation Foundation, Ann Arbor
McDuffie B, Haney JT (1973) A proposed river pollution index. American Chemical Society, Division of Water, Air and Waste Chemistry, New York

23

Mercier V, Leger D (2003) Water quality survey. NB Department of

Environment. Can be viewed at http://www.gnb.ca/0009/0371/
0013/index-e.asp
Mercier V, Leger D (2006) An assessment of the application of testing of the WQI of the CCME in the Atlantic Provinces. A discussion paper, Knowledge Integration Strategies Division, Environment Canada, Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0H3. Can be viewed at
www.ec.gc.ca/soer-rec/English/recourse_network/CCME_e.cfm
Mrazik S (2007) Oregon water quality index summary report, water
years 19972006. State of Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality, Laboratory Division, Portland, DEQ07-Lab-0047-TR
MRC (2008) An assessment of water quality in the lower Mekong
basin. MRC Technical Paper No. 19, Mekong River Commission,
Vientiane, 70 p
Nagles JW, Davies-Colley RJ, Smith DG (2001) A water quality index for contact recreation in New Zealand. Water Sci Technol
43(5):285292
Nikoo MR, Kerachian R, Malakpor-Estalaki S, Bassi-Azghadi SN,
Azimi-Ghadikolaee MM (2010) A probabilistic water quality index for river quality assessment: a case study. Environ Monit Assess. doi:10.1007/s10661-010-1842-4
NL (2008) Agrifood water quality index (AFWQI). Water Resources
Management Division, Department of Environment and Conservation, Newfoundland and Labrador, St. Johns. Can be viewed at
http://www.env.gov.nl.ca/Env/env/waterres/Groundwater/Real_
Time/afwqi.pdf
Ott WR (1978) Environmental quality indices: theory and practice.
Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor
Parparov A, Hambright KD (2007) Composite water quality: evaluation and management feedbacks. Water Qual Res J Can 42(1):20
25
Pesce SF, Wunderlin DA (2000) Use of water quality indices to verify
the impact of Cordoba City (Argentina) on Suquia River. Water
Res 34:29152926
Prati L, Pavanell R, Pesarin F (1971) Assessment of surface water quality by a single index of pollution. Water Res 5:741751
Price DHA (1974) Water quality monitoring systems: the practice and
experience in the United Kingdom. In: Deininger RA (ed) Design
of environmental information systems. An Arbor Science, Ann
Arbor
Qian Y, Migliaccio W, Wan Y, Li Y (2007) Surface water quality evaluation using multivariate methods and a new water quality index in
the Indian River Lagoon, Florida. Water Resour Res 43:W08405
Ramachandramoorthy T, Sivasankar V, Subramaniam V (2010) The
seasonal status of chemical parameters in shallow coastal aquifers
of Rameswaran Island, India. Environ Monit Assess 160:127
139
Reynoldson TB, Rosenberg DR, Day KE, Norris RH, Resh VH (1997)
The reference condition: comparison of multimetric & multivariate approaches to assess water-quality impairment using benthic
macroinvertebrates. J N Am Benthic Soc 16:833852
Reynoldson TB, Logan C, Pascoe T, Thompson SP (2003) Canadian aquatic biomonitoring network (CABIN). Invertebrate Biomonitoring, Field & Laboratory Manual National Water Research
Institute, Environment Canada, Burlington. Can be viewed at
http://cabin.cciw.ca/Application/Downloads/cabin_protocol.doc
Rickwood CJ, Carr JM (2009) Development and sensitivity analysis
of a global drinking water quality index. Environ Monit Assess
156:7390
Rocchini R, Swain LG (1995) The British Columbia water quality
index. Water Quality Branch, Environmental Protection Department, British Columbia Ministry of Environment Land and Parks,
Victoria, p 13
Ross SL (1977) An index system for classifying river quality. Water
Pollut Control 76(1):113122

24
Saeedi M, Abessi O, Sharifi F, Meraji H (2010) Development of
ground water quality index. Environ Monit Assess 163:327335.
doi:10.1007/s10661-009-0837-5
SAFE (1995) Strategic assessment of Floridas environment indicators. Florida stream water quality index (WQI). Can be viewed
at http://www.pepps.fsu.edu/safe/pdf/swq3.pdf
Said A, Stevens DK, Sehlke G (2004) An innovative index for evaluating water quality in streams. Environ Manag 34(3):406414
Sargaonkar A, Deshpande V (2003) Development of an overall index
of pollution for surface water based on a general classification
scheme in Indian context. Environ Monit Assess 89:4367
Sarkar C, Abbasi SA (2006) Qualidexa new software for generating
water quality index. Environ Monit Assess 119:201231
Scottish Research Development Department (1976) Development of
a water quality index. Applied Research & Development Report
Number ARD3, Engineering Division, Edinburg, UK, 61 p
Sedeno-Diaz JE, Lopez-Lopez E (2007) Water quality in the Rio
Lerma. Mexico: an overview of the last quarter of the twentieth
century. Water Resour Manag 21:17971812
Sharma TC (2002) Canadian water quality index determination for 4
sites in the Mackenzie River Basin. Contract KW405-02-0308,
Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network, Environment
Canada, Burlington, ON, Canada, p 58, September
Shuhaimi-Othman M, Lim EC, Mushrifah I (2007) Water quality
changes in Chini Lake, Pahang West Malaysia. Environ Monit
Assess 131:279292
Simes FS, Moreira AB, Bisinoti MC, Nobre Gimenez SM, Yabe MJS
(2008) Water quality index as a simple indicator of aquaculture
effects on aquatic bodies. Ecol Indic 8(5):476484
Sladecek V (1973) System of water quality from biological point of
view. In: Mai V (ed) Archiv fur Hydrobiologie. Advances in
Limnology, vol 7. E. Schweizerbartsch Verlagsbuch-handling,
Stuttgart, p 218. ISBN:978-3-510-47005-1 paperback
Smith DG (1990) A better water quality indexing system for rivers and
streams. Water Res 24(10):12371244
Snow J (1854) On the mode of communication of cholera. Churchill,
London. Can be viewed at http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/snow.html
SOE Report (1997) The state of the environment report. Process and criteria for indicator selection. Can be viewed at
http://www.manitoba.ca/conservation/annual-reports/soe-reports/
soe97/append.html
Soltan ME (1999) Evaluation of groundwater quality in Dakhla Oasis
(Egyptian Western Desert). Environ Monit Assess 57:157168
Stambuk-Giljanovic N (1999) Water quality evaluation by index in
Dalmatia. Water Res 33(16):34233440
Stambuk-Giljanovic N (2003) Comparison of Dalmatian water values
indices. Water Environ Res 75(5):338405
Statistics Canada (2008) Behaviour study on the water quality index of
the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME).
It can be viewed at www.statcan.ca/english/research/16-001MIE2007003.htm
Steinhart CE, Schierow LJ, Chesters G (1981) A review of water
quality and related Indices. Great Lakes Environmental Planning
Study contribution No 38, Water Resources Centre, University of
Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, 53706, USA
Steinhart CE, Schierow LJ, Sonzogni WC (1982) An environmental
quality index for the Great Lakes. Water Resour Bull 18(6):1025
1031
Stingter TY, Ribeiro L, Carvalho Dill AMM (2006) Application of
a groundwater quality index as an assessment and communication tool in agro-environmental policiestwo Portuguese case

A. Lumb et al.
studies. J Hydrol (Amst), 327:578591. doi:10.1016/j.hydrology.
2005.12.01
Stojda A, Dojlido J (1983) A study of water quality index in Poland.
WHO. Water Anal Bull 1:3032
Swamee PK, Tyagi A (2000) Describing water quality with aggregate
index. J Environ Eng Div ASCE 126(5):450455
Thomson B, Melwani A, Lowe S, Greenfield B (2007) Development
of indicators of anthropogenic contamination in the San Fransisco
Estuary. A report to the San Fransisco Estuary Project, San Fransisco Estuary Institute, Oakland, CA, December 17
Tipping WD, Cude C, Long SC, Boyce JK (2002) Sustainable development indicators for transboundary river basin systems. In: Water
intelligence on line, January 2002. Papers from the IWA World
Water Congress, Berlin, 2001
Tiwari TN, Mishra M (1985) A preliminary assessment of water quality index of major Indian rivers. Indian J Environ Prot 5(4):276
279
Tobin A, Khan A, Khan H, Moores L, Taylor J (2007) Forestry water
quality indexa planning tool for the assessment and communication of the impact of forestry activities on water quality. For
Chron 83:207214
Tsegaye T, Sheppard D, Islam KR, Johnson A, Tadess W, Atalay A,
Marzen L (2006) Development of chemical index as a measure
of in stream water quality in response to land-use and land-cover
changes. Water Air Soil Pollut 174(1):6179
Tyson JM, House MA (1989) The application of a water quality index
to river management. Water Sci Technol 21:11491159
UKTAG (2007) Recommendations on surface water classification
schemes for the purposes of the water framework directive. UK
Technical Advisory Group on the Water Framework Directive,
December
UNEP GEMS (2007) Global drinking water quality index. Development and sensitivity analysis report. Can be viewed at
http://www.gemswater.org/publications/pdfs/gwqi.pdf
Vignolo A, Pochettino A, Cicerone D (2006) Water quality assessment
using remote sensing techniques: Medrano Creek, Argentina.
J Environ Manag 81(4):429433
Walski TM, Parker FL (1974) Consumers water quality index. J Environ Eng Div ASCE 100(3):593611
Wepener V, Euler N, van Vuren JHJ, du Preez HH, Kohler A (1992)
The development of an aquatic toxicity index as a tool in the operational management of water quality in the Olifants River (Kruger
National Park). Koedoe 35(2):19
Wepener V, van Vuren JHJ, du Preez HH (1999) The implementation
of an aquatic toxicity index as a water quality monitoring tool in
the Olifants River (Kruger National Park). Koedoe 42(1):8596
Wright CR, Saffran KA, Anderson AM, Neilson RD, MacAlpine
ND, Cooke SE (1999) A water quality index for agricultural
streams in Alberta. In: The Alberta agricultural water quality index (AAWQI). Alberta Environmentally Sustainable Agriculture
Program Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Edmonton, p 35
Zandbergen PA, Hall KJ (1998) Analysis of the British Columbia water
quality index for watershed managers: a case study of two small
watersheds. Water Qual Res J Can 33(4):519549
Zoabi B, Gueddari M (2008) Long term water quality monitoring of
the Sejane reservoir in northeast Tunisia. Bull Eng Geol Environ.
doi:10.1007/s10064-009-0186-1