Next Article in Journal
Loofah-Derived Adsorbent Column for Sustainable Purification of Oily Fumes: Synergistic Effect of Filtration and Adsorption
Next Article in Special Issue
A Unified Generalized Extreme Value Distribution Framework for Estimating Lake Reference Nutrient Conditions with Confidence Intervals: A Case Study of Hongze Lake, China
Previous Article in Journal
Multi-Source Data-Driven Personalized Recommendation and Decision-Making for Automobile Products Based on Basic Uncertain Information Order Weighted Average Operator
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Seasonal Characterization and Temporal Evolution of Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium in the Surface and Groundwater of an Agricultural Hydrographic Basin in the Midwestern Brazilian Savanna
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Assessment of Lake Water Quality in Central Serbia—Using Serbian and Canadian Water Quality Indices on the Example of the Garaši Reservoir

by
Dejana Jakovljević
*,
Dragana Milijašević Joksimović
and
Ana M. Petrović
Geographical Institute Jovan Cvijić, Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(9), 4074; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17094074
Submission received: 27 March 2025 / Revised: 26 April 2025 / Accepted: 28 April 2025 / Published: 30 April 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Lakes and Rivers Ecological Protection and Water Quality)

Abstract

The water quality in lakes and reservoirs is crucial for maintaining ecological balance and ensuring public health. This research focuses on the water quality evaluation of Garaši Reservoir in Serbia, a vital source of drinking water for surrounding communities. We systematically analyzed three profiles (A1, B1, and C1) at various depths ranging from 50 cm to 1500 cm between 2021 and 2023. The study employed the Serbian Water Quality Index (SWQI) and the Canadian Water Quality Index (CWQI) to evaluate the water quality. The findings revealed significant spatial and depth-dependent differences. Higher concentrations of Aluminum (Al), Mercury (Hg) and Manganese (Mn), influenced by the inflow from the Velika Bukulja River, resulted in reduced overall water quality and suitability for drinking water. Dissolved Oxygen levels decreased with depth, indicating thermal stratification and nearly anoxic conditions, which are harmful to aquatic life. Some shallow areas exhibited poor water quality for recreational use due to high pH and metal concentrations. The study underscores the necessity of continuous and comprehensive monitoring to identify pollution sources and implement mitigation measures. Such efforts are essential to protect biodiversity and ensure the sustainable management of water resources in lakes and reservoirs.

1. Introduction

Ensuring high water quality in lakes and reservoirs is essential for maintaining ecological balance, protecting biodiversity, and sustaining human activities. Water reservoirs play a crucial role in supplying drinking water, supporting aquatic life, and enabling recreational and economic activities. Quantitative assessments of the economic impact of water quality improvements underscore the importance of sustainable water management. For example, a World Bank analysis highlights that investments in water and sanitation can yield economic returns of up to 4:1, emphasizing the significant benefits of addressing water-related challenges [1]. Additionally, reports by UNESCO and other international agencies indicate that water pollution and inadequate water management contribute to substantial economic losses globally, amounting to billions of dollars annually. These findings reinforce the ecological and economic rationale for implementing effective water quality improvement measures [2].
However, water bodies are increasingly vulnerable to pollution due to anthropogenic influences, such as industrial and agricultural pollution, wastewater discharge, and natural processes, such as torrential floods and intensive soil erosion [3]. Monitoring water quality allows for early detection of contamination sources and the implementation of measures to mitigate their effects, ensuring the long-term sustainability of these vital resources [4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13]. Advanced techniques, such as single-molecule tools, offer significant potential for detecting contaminants with ultra-high sensitivity, particularly across diverse aquatic layers. Recent studies [14,15] indicated that these innovative methods can complement existing water quality techniques by enhancing detection precision and capturing subtle changes in water quality. Incorporating such technologies into monitoring practices could provide a more robust and comprehensive approach to assessing aquatic ecosystems, ensuring early detection of potential threats and informed decision-making.
Recent studies emphasize the significance of comprehensive water quality assessment in artificial lakes. Bhateria and Jain [16] reviewed various assessment methods, highlighting the necessity of regular monitoring to maintain ecological health, while Abd Aziz et al. [17] analyzed pollution sources and their impacts on artificial lakes. The use of the Water Quality Index (WQI) for monitoring lakes and reservoirs has been widely explored: King Talal Dam in Jordan [18]; lakes and reservoirs in Korea [19]; Siling Reservoir [20], reservoirs in the lower reaches of the Yellow River [21], Lake Poyang in China [22], La Vega Dam [23] and Leon L. Dam in Mexico [24]; Loktak Lake [25], Hebbal Lake [26], Chandlodia Lake in India [27]; dam reservoirs in Poland [28]. Kadeem et al. [29] demonstrated its effectiveness in assessing water quality and protecting aquatic life. Advancements in predictive modeling, combined with machine learning techniques for water quality evaluation, as discussed by He et al. [30], underscore the growing technological progress in this field. Research on Serbian reservoirs, such as the Đerdap Reservoir [31] and Lake Vlasina [4], highlights the importance of ongoing monitoring and intervention strategies to preserve water quality.
Serbia has approximately 150 reservoirs serving various purposes, including drinking water supply, energy production, and irrigation [32]. The Garaši Reservoir is a key source of drinking water for nearby communities, which highlights the need for systematic water quality monitoring to protect public health and prevent waterborne diseases. Given its ecological and socio-economic importance, assessing the water quality of the Garaši Reservoir is necessary to identify potential contamination risks and develop effective water management strategies.
Several studies have previously investigated the environmental status and water quality of the Garaši Reservoir, providing a foundation for this research. Sunjog et al. [33] assessed contamination risks by analyzing tissue metal and metalloid concentrations in aquatic organisms, emphasizing the need for continuous monitoring. Milošković and Simić [34] examined eutrophication and phytoplankton development, identifying potential threats to biodiversity and water clarity. Marković et al. [35] explored the spatial distribution of major and trace elements in artificial lakes, assessing the suitability of water for drinking and irrigation purposes. These prior investigations highlight the necessity of systematic and long-term monitoring programs to ensure the sustainability of the Garaši Reservoir and other artificial water bodies.
This study aims to evaluate the water quality of the Garaši Reservoir by identifying sources of contamination and assessing trends over time using standardized water quality indices: the Canadian Water Quality Index (CWQI) and the Serbian Water Quality Index (SWQI). This research evaluates water quality at various depths to determine its suitability for multiple uses, thereby contributing to the sustainable management and protection of the reservoir, ensuring its continued usability for drinking water, recreation, agriculture and ecological balance. Effective water resource management relies on continuous monitoring, which facilitates informed decision-making and early intervention in response to environmental threats.
The increasing environmental pressures on artificial lakes necessitate comprehensive water quality assessments that encompass all relevant physical, chemical, and biological parameters. By integrating previous findings with contemporary assessment methods, this study aims to provide valuable insights into the current state of the Garaši Reservoir and support the development of effective water management policies.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area and Sampling

In 1963, the upper course of the Velika Bukulja River on the Bukulja Mountain (the Sava River basin) was dammed to provide water supply for the town of Aranđelovac and the surrounding villages in Central Serbia. The reservoir is located at an altitude of 377 m a.s.l. and has a water volume of approximately 1,400,000 m3. Covering an area of 45 ha, the lake is 1500 m long, up to 300 m wide, and has a maximum depth of up to 26 m [32]. The lake is situated on the border between the Pannonian Plain and the mountains of Central Serbia. Its shores are indented with three large inlets and numerous small bays and coves, surrounded by lush greenery. None of the tributaries of the Velika Bukulja River and Garaši Reservoir are permanent watercourses. The highest spot along the watershed line reaches 696 m a.s.l. The reservoir’s drainage basin features steep slopes, which contribute to rapid runoff during intense rainfall events. This increases the likelihood of extreme discharge events, such as the torrential flood of the upper Velika Bukulja on 10 July 1999 [36]. Such events can lead to flash flooding, significant sediment transport, and reservoir siltation, impacting both water quality and reservoir capacity.
A systematic analysis of water quality was conducted at three profiles of the Garaši Reservoir (Figure 1), with the following coordinates: Profile A1 (UTM coordinates 4,904,922 m N and 7,458,491 m E, zone 34N), Profile B1 (UTM coordinates 4,905,262 m N and 7,459,101 m E, zone 34N), and Profile C1 (UTM coordinates 4,904,375 m N and 7,458,589 m E, zone 34N) [37]. Water quality was analyzed at various depths: for Profile A1 at 50 cm, 200 cm, 350 cm, 500 cm, 600 cm, 800 cm, 1000 cm, 1200 cm, and 1500 cm; for Profile B1 at 50 cm, 200 cm, and 500 cm; and for Profile C1 at 50 cm, 200 cm, 500 cm, and 600 cm. Water sampling was conducted by the Serbian Environmental Protection Agency three times (once per year) in the spring (May 2021 and March 2023) and summer (July 2022). The water quality of the Velika Bukulja River in March 2023 was used to assess its impact on the water quality of the Garaši Reservoir. It is important to note that there are no available water quality data for the Velika Bukulja River for other years.

2.2. Water Quality Indices (WQI) Analysis

This study conducted a systematic assessment of reservoir water quality based on data from the Serbian Environmental Protection Agency (2021–2023). To achieve a comprehensive assessment, two widely recognized indices were applied: the Serbian Water Quality Index and the Canadian Water Quality Index, both of which provide a standardized method for evaluating water quality across various parameters.
Water Quality Indices (WQIs) serve as an effective tool for summarizing complex water quality data into a single numerical score, allowing for easier interpretation by both experts and the general public. These indices help identify potential threats to water use, including its suitability for drinking, irrigation, aquatic ecosystems and recreational activities [39].
The Serbian Water Quality Index (SWQI) is suitable for the assessment of organic and nutrient pollution. However, a disadvantage of this index is that it does not provide information about metal pollution. This was the reason for using the Canadian Water Quality Index (CWQI). Besides metal pollution, this index includes many more parameters than SWQI. On the other hand, CWQI is not suitable for evaluating nutrient pollution. A combined approach using these two indices provides more complete and relevant results and reduces the disadvantages of each single index.
Following the collection of water samples, the Serbian Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA), operating under the Ministry of Environmental Protection of the Republic of Serbia, implemented the following methods for analysis: SRPS H.Z1.111:1987 (for pH); US EPA 120.1:1982 (for Electrical Conductivity); SEV:1977 (for Oxygen Saturation); SRPS ISO 5815:1994 (for Biochemical Oxygen Demand); HACH Method 8155 (for Ammonium Ion); UP 1.27/PC 12, Chemiluminescence detector CLD (for Total Nitrogen); SRPS H.Z1.160:1987 (for Suspended Solids); HACH Method 8048 (for Orthophosphate); SRPS EN ISO 9308-1:2010 (for Total Coliforms); UP 1.88/PC 12 (for Turbidity); SRPS ISO 5813:1994 (for Dissolved Oxygen); ISO 6058:1984 (for Calcium); HACH Method 8051 (for Sulfate); SRPS ISO 9297: 1997 (for Chloride, Nitrate + Nitrite); EPA 6020A:2014 (for Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Iron, Nickel, Zinc, Manganese); EPA Method 245.7 (for Mercury); EPA 6020 A: 2007 (for Lead) [37].

2.2.1. Serbian Water Quality Index (SWQI)

The Serbian Water Quality Index (SWQI) is developed by the Serbian Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA), including following parameters: Temperature (T), pH, Electrical Conductivity (EC), Oxygen Saturation (OS), Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), Ammonium (NH4+), Total Nitrogen (TN), Suspended Solids (SS), Orthophosphate (PO43−) and Total Coliforms (TC) [40]. SWQI is calculated using the following equation:
SWQI = q i × w i ,
where qi is water quality of the ith parameter, and wi is weight unit of the ith parameter [40] (Table 1).
Based on the SWQI, water quality is categorized into five distinct classes: excellent (90–100), good (84–89), medium (72–83), bad (39–71), and very bad (0–38) [42]. These descriptive quality indicators provide a clear understanding of the water quality in various bodies of water.
SWQI is a valuable instrument for long-term monitoring of water quality trends, facilitating informed decisions on water resource management and protection. By offering a standardized and consistent method for assessing water quality, the SWQI aids in ensuring the sustainability and safety of water resources in Serbia.
SWQI is mainly applied in water quality assessment in Serbia: Danube River [43,44,45]; Sava River [43]; Timok River [46]; Tisa River [43,47]; Ibar River [48]; Gradac River [49]; Drina River, Velika Morava River, Zapadna Morava River, Južna Morava River [43];, Nišava [50], Great Bačka Canal [51], Lake Vlasina [4]. SWQI is also used in research on water quality in Montenegro: Morača River basin [52] and Lake Skadar [53].

2.2.2. Canadian Water Quality Index (CWQI)

The Canadian Water Quality Index (CWQI) was developed by the Canadian Council of Ministers and Environment. In this study following parameters were used: Turbidity, Dissolved Oxygen (DO), pH, Calcium (Ca), Sulfate (SO42−), Chloride (Cl), Nitrate + Nitrite (NO3 + NO2), Aluminum (Al), Arsenic (As), Cadmium (Cd), Chromium (Cr), Copper (Cu), Iron (Fe), Mercury (Hg), Manganese (Mn), Nickel (Ni), Lead (Pb) and Zinc (Zn). Table 2 presents limit values (objectives) for the parameters. Besides overall water quality, CWQI is used to assess water quality for specific purposes: drinking, aquatic life, recreation, irrigation and livestock [54].
CWQI is a dimensionless value ranging from 0 to 100 and classified into the following categories: excellent (95–100), good (80–94), fair (65–79), marginal (45–64) and poor (0–44). The Canadian Water Quality Index 1.0 Calculator is applied for CWQI calculation. CWQI is calculated by the following equation:
C W Q I = 100 F 1 2 + F 2 2 + F 3 2 1.732 ,
where
  • F1 (Scope) is a ratio between the number of failed variables (variables which do not meet the objective) and the total number of variables;
  • F2 (Frequency) is a ratio between failed tests (measurements which do not meet the objective) and the total number of tests;
  • F3 (Amplitude) is an asymptotic function which scales the normalized sum of excursion (nse) from the objective; nse is a ratio between excursions (variables which are greater or lower than the objective) of individual tests and the total number of tests [54].
CWQI is widely applied around the world: the Mackenzie-Great bear sub-basin in Canada [55]; Zarqa River in Jordan [56]; Khoser and Tigris Rivers in Iraq [57]; Damodar River [58]; and Lake Sukhna in India [59]; Kelani River basin in Sri Lanka [60]; Ras El-Ain Ponds in Lebanon [61]; Lake Hawassa in Ethiopia [62]. CWQI is also used in various studies of water quality in Serbia: Sava River and Drina River [63]; Zapadna Morava River and Ibar River [64]; Lake Vlasina [4].
Finally, a statistical method—regression analysis—was conducted to identify the possible relationship between SWQI and CWQI values at the shared measurement depths across all three profiles, followed by a comparative analysis of the two indices.

3. Results

3.1. Serbian Water Quality Index (SWQI)

Analysis of the data for the Garaši Reservoir from 2021 to 2023 reveals notable differences in water quality parameters across various profiles and depths. Temperature consistently decreases with depth across all profiles and years, reflecting typical thermal stratification in lake systems. Surface Temperatures reached up to 25.5 °C in 2022 at Profile C1, while at greater depths, Temperatures dropped below 6 °C, notably at a depth of 1500 cm in Profile A1 (Table 3). Temperatures at deeper parts (from 800 cm to 1500 cm) were much more stable than those at lower parts and less dependent on seasonal conditions.
The pH values exhibit notable fluctuations, especially in surface waters. In 2021, high pH readings were observed at shallower depths in Profile A1, reaching up to 9.27, suggesting intensive photosynthetic activity and potential eutrophication processes. At greater depths, pH values decline towards neutrality, with values around 7.35 at 1500 cm depth in Profile A1, reflecting reduced biological activity (Table 4). The pH values showed stability at greater depths at Profile A1 (from 800 cm to 1500 cm) and at Profile B1 at depths of 50 cm and 200 cm.
Electrical Conductivity remains relatively stable across all profiles and depths, ranging between 200 and 242 µS/cm, indicating consistent mineralization levels in the reservoir. However, slight increases in Electrical Conductivity were observed in 2023, particularly in Profiles A1 and C1, which could be attributed to changes in ionic composition due to external inputs or internal processes (Table 5). The same values were measured at depths of 50 cm and 200 cm at Profile B1. The lowest deviations across the years were recorded at depths of 500 cm and 600 cm at Profile C1.
Oxygen Saturation levels demonstrate significant fluctuations with depth and over the years. In 2021 and 2022, Profiles A1 and C1 exhibited drastic declines in oxygen saturation at greater depths. For instance, in 2022, Oxygen Saturation in Profile A1 dropped to as low as 2% at depths of 1200 cm and 1500 cm, indicating near-anoxic conditions. Such low Oxygen levels at depth may result from limited mixing, decomposition of organic matter consuming Oxygen, or other biochemical processes. In contrast, 2023 showed substantial improvement in Oxygen Saturation across all profiles and depths. In Profile A1, even at 1500 cm depth, Oxygen Saturation improved to 75%, suggesting enhanced aeration and mixing of water layers or decreased Biological Oxygen Demand (Table 6). This improvement could be indicative of effective water management practices or natural ecological recovery.
Ammonium concentrations display significant variations and are particularly elevated in the deeper waters of Profile A1 during 2022. For example, at a depth of 1500 cm, Ammonium levels reached 1.15 mg/L, considerably higher than surface values of 0.13 mg/L. Ammonium values were most stable at Profile B1 across the years. Elevated Ammonium levels at greater depths are often associated with the decomposition of organic matter under low Oxygen conditions, leading to the release of Ammonium from sediments [65]. In 2023, Ammonium concentrations decreased across all depths, indicating an improvement in water quality and possible restoration of aerobic conditions in deeper layers (Table 7).
Orthophosphate concentrations remained relatively low throughout the profiles and years, generally ranging from 0.01 to 0.064 mg/L. However, slight increases were observed at certain depths and years, such as in 2021 at Profile C1 at a depth of 600 cm with a concentration of 0.064 mg/L (Table 8). Elevated Orthophosphate levels can contribute to eutrophication, promoting excessive algal growth, and may indicate localized inputs or internal loading of Phosphorus [66].
Total Nitrogen exhibited noticeable increases at greater depths, particularly in 2022 in Profile A1, where concentrations reached up to 2.4 mg/L at 1000 cm depth (Table 9). Increased Nitrogen levels can be attributed to factors such as runoff from agricultural areas, decomposition of organic matter, or atmospheric deposition. High concentrations of Nitrogen compounds can contribute to nutrient enrichment and eutrophication of aquatic systems [67].
It is important to note that data for certain key parameters like Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), Suspended Solids (SS), and Total Coliforms (TC) are missing for several depths and years. The absence of these data points hinders the ability to perform a fully comprehensive assessment of the water quality and ecological status of the reservoir. Incomplete monitoring makes it challenging to identify potential sources of pollution, assess the extent of organic loading, and evaluate the sanitary quality of the water.
Based on the data for the Serbian Water Quality Index (SWQI) in the Garaši Reservoir from 2021 to 2023, a comprehensive analysis reveals significant variations in water quality across different profiles, depths, and over the specified years. The SWQI values, which classify water quality into categories ranging from very bad (0–38) to excellent (90–100), serve as an essential tool for assessing the overall health of the reservoir’s ecosystem. Table 10 displays the SWQI values for various profiles and depths in the Garaši Reservoir, recorded over the period from 2021 to 2023.
In Profile A1, the SWQI values demonstrate a notable fluctuation with depth and over the years. In 2021, the SWQI at shallower depths such as 50 cm and 350 cm was high, with values of 85, indicating good water quality. However, as the depth increased, there was a noticeable decline in water quality; at 800 cm, the SWQI dropped to 71, and further decreased to 59 at 1500 cm, which falls into the bad class. This suggests that in 2021, the deeper regions of Profile A1 were experiencing poorer water quality, possibly due to factors like stratification, reduced Oxygen levels, or accumulation of pollutants in the deeper layers.
In 2022 a continuation of this trend was observed in Profile A1, with SWQI values starting high at shallower depths (87 at 50 cm) but decreasing more sharply with depth than in the previous year. Notably, at a depth of 1000 cm, the SWQI was 53, indicating deteriorated water quality. This decline could be attributed to increased contaminants or changes in environmental conditions affecting the reservoir during that year.
In contrast, 2023 exhibited a significant improvement in SWQI values across all depths in Profile A1. The SWQI values were remarkably high, ranging from 85 at a depth of 1500 cm to 97 at a depth of 600 cm. This represents a shift to excellent water quality throughout the profile, including the deeper sections that previously showed lower quality. Such improvement may be indicative of successful water management strategies, remediation efforts, or natural ecological recovery processes that enhance the water quality across all depths.
Figure 2 depicts the SWQI values for Profile A1 from 2021 to 2023 at different depths. The data reveal a fluctuating water quality trend in 2021 and 2022, with a sharp decline in deeper layers.
Profile B1 consistently showed high SWQI values over the three years, with minimal fluctuations between depths and years. In 2021 and 2022, the SWQI values ranged from 85 to 91, classifying the water as good to excellent. In 2023, the values slightly increased, with SWQI values between 92 and 94, firmly establishing the water quality as excellent. The stability in Profile B1 suggests a more resilient part of the reservoir, less affected by negative environmental factors, or perhaps an area benefiting from consistent positive influences such as better water circulation or lower exposure to pollutants.
Figure 3 illustrates the SWQI values for Profile B1 across the years 2021 to 2023. This profile exhibits consistently high water quality with minimal fluctuations between years and depths. The stability of SWQI values suggests a resilient and well-maintained part of the reservoir, benefiting from positive environmental factors.
Profile C1 showed a gradual improvement over the three-year period. In 2021, SWQI values ranged from 62 at a depth of 600 cm to 82 at a depth of 50 cm, classifying the water quality from bad to medium. The lower value at a depth of 600 cm indicated potential localized issues affecting deeper waters. In 2022, SWQI values improved, ranging from 76 to 83, moving the water quality predominantly into the medium class. By 2023, there was a significant enhancement, with SWQI values between 92 and 95 across all depths, categorizing the water quality as excellent. This upward trend indicates effective interventions or natural ameliorations that positively impacted water quality in Profile C1 over time.
Figure 4 presents the SWQI values for Profile C1 at various depths over the years 2021, 2022, and 2023. The chart illustrates a significant improvement in water quality, particularly evident in 2023, where all depths showed excellent SWQI values around 90.
Analyzing the data collectively, there is a clear pattern of overall improvement in water quality in the Garaši Reservoir from 2021 to 2023. The initial years showed variability and areas of concern, particularly in the deeper waters of Profiles A1 and C1. The lower SWQI values at greater depths could be attributed to factors such as thermal stratification leading to reduced Dissolved Oxygen levels, accumulation of organic matter, or limited mixing of water layers, which can affect biological and chemical processes adversely. The remarkable improvement in 2023 across all profiles and depths indicates the successful implementation of measures aimed at enhancing water quality.
Furthermore, the data underscore the importance of continuous monitoring and analysis of water quality across different depths and locations within a reservoir. The significant variation with depth, especially in earlier years, highlights the complexity of aquatic ecosystems where surface measurements alone may not provide a complete picture of water quality. Deeper regions can harbor different conditions that may affect the overall health of the reservoir, such as anoxic zones or accumulation of harmful substances.
The SWQI values from 2021 to 2023 for the Garaši Reservoir indicate a positive trajectory in water quality, progressing from areas of bad and medium quality towards predominantly excellent conditions across all profiles and depths. This improvement could reflect the effectiveness of environmental management practices and the importance of sustained efforts in monitoring and protecting water resources. However, continuous monitoring is necessary to determine whether this will be a long-term trend or merely a short-term fluctuation. Ongoing assessment using the SWQI allows for early identification of potential issues and facilitates informed decision-making to ensure the long-term sustainability and ecological integrity of the reservoir. Regular monitoring and adaptive management will be essential to maintain the high water quality achieved and to address any emerging challenges that may arise due to environmental changes or human activities.
The analysis of Velika Bukulja River in 2023 was conducted at a sampling depth of 30 cm, where the SWQI value was recorded as 92, indicating excellent water quality. The measured parameters included a Temperature of 6.3 °C, a pH of 7.93, and an Electrical Conductivity of 119 µS/cm. Oxygen Saturation was 90%, while the Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) was 3 mg/L. The concentration of Suspended Solids (SS) was 4 mg/L, Total Nitrogen was measured at 1 mg/L, and Orthophosphates at 0.016 mg/L. Ammonium levels were recorded at 0.07 mg/L.

3.2. Canadian Water Quality Index (CWQI)

3.2.1. Overall Water Quality

The results of CWQI at Profile A1 ranged from marginal (53) to good (85). The lowest CWQI value was calculated for a depth of 50 cm, while the highest value was at a depth of 800 cm. Generally, overall CWQI was also marginal at the various depths (600 cm, 1000 cm, 1200 cm and 1500 cm), while fair CWQI was recorded at depths of 200 cm, 350 cm and 1000 cm (Figure 5, Table 11).
These results are attributed to increased Hg concentrations, with the highest nse at depths of 50 cm and 350 cm, increased Al with the highest nse at a depth of 500 cm, increased pH with the highest nse for 200 cm and decreased Dissolved Oxygen with the highest nse at all depths from 600 cm to 1500 cm. The lowest Dissolved Oxygen concentrations were recorded in 2022, at depths of 1000 cm, 1200 cm and 1500 cm. Increased concentrations of the following parameters also impaired overall CWQI: Cu at a depth of 50 cm, pH at a depth of 350 cm, Mn, pH and Hg at a depth of 500 cm, and turbidity at a depth of 600 cm, as well as the decreased concentration of Dissolved Oxygen at a depth of 500 cm (Table 12).
CWQI values at Profile B1 were marginal (52) at a depth of 50 cm and (64) at a depth of 500 cm and fair (76) at a depth of 200 cm (Figure 5). These results are attributed to the highest nse of Hg (at depths of 50 cm and 500 cm) and pH (at a depth of 200 cm). Increased Cu and Al concentrations were recorded at 50 cm, while slightly decreased Dissolved Oxygen value was at the depth of 500 cm in 2021. However, compared with other profiles, Dissolved Oxygen values were most stable at Profile B1 at depths of 50 cm and 200 cm across the years.
CWQI values at profile C1 were marginal (49) at a depth of 50 cm and (63) at a depth of 600 cm, while fair (74) CWQI was calculated at depths of 200 cm and 500 cm. Decreased Dissolved Oxygen at depths of 500 cm and 600 cm, increased pH at a depth of 200 cm and increased Al at a depth of 50 cm were the parameters with the highest nse. Increased Cu and Hg concentrations at a depth of 50 cm, and increased pH and turbidity at a depth of 600 cm also contributed to the impairment of CWQI (Figure 5).

3.2.2. Drinking Water Quality

The results of CWQI ranged from marginal (59) at a depth of 600 cm to excellent (100) at depths of 800 cm, 1000 cm, 1200 cm and 1500 cm. CWQI was fair (77) in 200 cm, good (90) in 50 cm, (89) in 500 cm and (86) in 350 cm (Figure 6). Marginal CWQI was caused by the increased turbidity (Table 13), which had the highest nse, while increased pH with the highest nse caused fair CWQI. Increased pH also contributed to CWQI lowering at depths of 350 cm, 500 cm and 600 cm. Mn was the variable with the highest nse at depths of 50 cm, 350 cm and 500 cm (Table 14).
CWQI values at profile B1 were good (80) at a depth of 200 cm, (88) at a depth 50 cm and (93) at a depth of 500 cm (Figure 6). Increased Mn values had the highest nse at depths of 50 cm and 500 cm (Table 14), while increased pH was the variable with highest nse at a depth of 200 cm and also contributed to the CWQI decline at a depth of 50 cm.
CWQI values at profile C1 were marginal (59) at a depth of 600 cm, fair (77) at a depth of 200 cm, good (80) at a depth of 500 cm and (84) at a depth of 50 cm (Figure 6). Marginal CWQI was caused by the increased turbidity (Table 13) with the highest nse; increased pH with the highest nse caused fair CWQI; decreased pH with the highest nse caused CWQI decline at a depth of 500 cm, while increased Mn with the highest nse caused CWQI decline at a depth of 50 cm (Table 14). Increased pH also contributed to the CWQI decline at the depths of 50 cm and 600 cm.

3.2.3. Water Quality for Aquatic Life

The results of CWQI at profile A1 ranged from poor (39) to fair (68). The lowest CWQI values were calculated for the depths of 200 cm, 600 cm and 1500 cm, while the highest CWQI was recorded at a depth of 350 cm. Poor CWQI was also calculated at depth of 1200 cm, while the marginal CWQI was recorded at depths of 50 cm, 500 cm, 800 cm and 1000 cm (Figure 7).
These results were caused by the highest nse of the following parameters: increased Al concentrations at the depths 50 cm, 350 cm and 500 cm (Table 15), increased pH values at depth of 200 cm and decreased Dissolved Oxygen at all depths from 600 cm to 1500 cm. Increased concentrations of the following parameters also contributed to CWQI decline: Cu at the depths of 50 cm and 350 cm (Table 16), pH at the depths of 350 cm and 600 cm, and decreased Dissolved Oxygen at the depths of 200 cm and 500 cm.
CWQI values at profile B1 were marginal (57) at a depth of 50 cm, and fair (68) at a depth of 350 cm and (70) at a depth of 200 cm (Figure 7). These results were caused by highest nse of increased Al values for the depths of 50 cm and 500 cm (Table 15) and decreased Dissolved Oxygen at a depth of 200 m. Increased Cu values at a depth of 50 cm (Table 16) and decreased Dissolved Oxygen values also affected CWQI values.
CWQI values at profile C1 were poor (35) at a depth of 500 cm and (39) at a depth of 200 cm, marginal (47) at a depth of 50 cm and fair (68) at a depth of 600 cm (Figure 7). These results are attributed to the highest nse of decreased Dissolved Oxygen values at depths of 200 cm, 500 cm and 600 cm and increased Al values at a depth of 50 cm (Table 16). Increased Cu values at a depth of 50 cm (Table 16) and pH values at a depth of 200 cm also contributed to the CWQI decline.

3.2.4. Water Quality for Recreation

CWQI values were poor (39) and excellent (100). Poor CWQI values were recorded at depths of 50 cm and 200 cm at profiles A1 and C1, 350 cm and 600 cm at profile A1, while excellent CWQI values were recorded at all other depths (Figure 8). Increased pH with the highest nse caused poor CWQI (Figure 9).

3.2.5. Water Quality for Irrigation

CWQI values for irrigation were good (94) at profiles B1 and C1 at a depth of 50 cm and excellent (100) at profile A1 at depths of 50 cm and 350 cm as well as 500 cm at profiles A1 and B1 (Figure 10). CWQI could not be calculated for other depths due to a lack of data. The slight decline in CWQI was caused by increased Mn values.

3.2.6. Water Quality for Livestock

CWQI values were marginal (62) at a depth of 50 cm at all profiles, fair (66) at depths of 350 cm at profile A1 and 500 cm at profiles A1 and B1, and excellent (100) at all other depths. Increased Hg with the highest nse caused CWQI decline (Figure 11).

3.2.7. CWQI of Velika Bukulja River

CWQI values were marginal (53) for overall, aquatic life (54), and livestock (62), good (90) for drinking, and excellent (100) for recreation and irrigation livestock (Figure 12). Increased Al values, with the highest nse, caused CWQI decline for overall and aquatic life water quality. Increased Mn value with the highest nse decreases CWQI for drinking. Increased Hg value with the highest nse caused a CWQI decline in livestock. Increased Mn and Hg values also contributed to overall water quality decline.

4. Discussion

Overall water quality of the Garaši Reservoir is influenced by the tributary Velika Bukulja River. Increased Al and Hg values in the tributary were in line with increased values of these parameters in the reservoir, which led to overall water quality impairment. This impact is especially visible at a depth of 50 cm at all profiles, which could be explained by the stronger impact of the tributary in the shallower parts, near the surface.
Natural geological sources play a significant role in these findings. The Velika Bukulja River carries sediment rich in Al, Hg, and Mn, contributing to elevated metal concentrations in the reservoir. For example, Al concentrations in the Velika Bukulja River reached 0.27 mg/L at a depth of 50 cm, correlating with higher Al levels observed in the reservoir’s surface layers, such as in Profile A1 (up to 0.223 mg/L at 50 cm depth). Processes like erosion and sediment transport emphasize the influence of natural geological factors on the reservoir’s water quality.
Additionally, agricultural impacts significantly contribute to water quality concerns. Agricultural runoff, particularly from fertilizers and pesticides, increases Mn levels in the reservoir, as seen in Profile C1 where Mn concentrations reached 0.522 mg/L at 50 cm depth.
Internal reservoir processes also exacerbate water quality challenges. In deeper zones of the reservoir, anoxic conditions promote the release of Mn and Al from sediments during organic matter decomposition.
On the other hand, Dissolved Oxygen decreased with depth which affected the overall water quality of the deeper parts (Figure 13). According to Karadžić et al. [68] a descent of Dissolved Oxygen with depth pointed out consistent stratification. The same authors emphasized that Oxygen deficit was the consequence of eutrophication.
Increased Mn value from Velika Bukulja River was in line with increased Mn values in the reservoir, which caused drinking water quality decline (Figure 14). Garaši Reservoir is located on granite rock, which could be also a source of increased Mn values [35]. Previous studies conducted by Karadžić et al. [68] in 2005 and Sunjog et al. [33] in 2009, 2010 and 2011 also detected increased Mn concentrations. According to the CWQI, greater depths (from 800 cm to 1500 cm) are more suitable for drinking water supply than shallower parts. However, this result could be taken with caution, because Mn concentrations were not measured at depths from 800 cm to 1500 cm.
According to the CWQI, water quality for aquatic life is critically endangered. Greater depths are not suitable for life, due to a lack of Dissolved Oxygen. These results are in line with the study of Čađo et al. [69] who found that the deepest and central parts of the Garaši Reservoir belong to a poor ecological potential according to Oxygen content. On the other hand, the strong influence of the tributary Velika Bukulja River is visible near the surface, at a depth of 50 cm, where the Al values had the highest nse, as was also recorded in tributary. The highest Al concentration (270 µg/L) was in line with the study of Marković et al. [35], when the recorded Al concentration (269.07 µg/L) in 2017, was the highest among 10 reservoirs in Serbia (Figure 15). Toxic elements can penetrate into plants and animals and further into the food chain [70]. Increased Al, Mn and Cu concentrations in water, have led to increased concentrations of the same parameters in fish tissues [33].
Poor water quality for recreation in shallower parts indicated their unsuitability for bathing and swimming while deeper parts with poor CWQI were not suitable for diving. However, excellent water quality at profile B1 indicated its suitability for recreational purposes.
Water quality was suitable for agricultural purposes, especially for livestock, where CWQI values were excellent in all measurements. The lack of data for depths of 200 m at all profiles, 500 cm at profile C1, 600 cm at profiles A1 and C1, and depths from 800 to 1500 cm at profile A1 for calculation of CWQI for irrigation, suggested that monitoring should be improved in order to obtain more comparable results. Besides that, the lack of metal parameters data for livestock, at the same depths, implies that continuous and unique monitoring (with the same parameters in all depths) is necessary to obtain more comparable results.
According to Milošković and Simić [34] agriculture and wastewater plants are the main sources of heavy metal pollution (including Hg and Mn) of the Garaši Reservoir, even though the reservoir is assessed as having low anthropogenic impact [33,71]. Inorganic polymers of Al are used in the wastewater treatment process [68], which could be a source of Al in the reservoir.

Comparative Analysis of SWQI and CWQI in the Garaši Reservoir

The comparative analysis of the Serbian Water Quality Index (SWQI) and the Canadian Water Quality Index (CWQI) provides a comprehensive understanding of water quality dynamics in the Garaši Reservoir from 2021 to 2023. Both indices highlighted reduced Oxygen as a common challenge, but their methodological differences led to contrasting insights. While SWQI focuses on parameters aligned with national standards—such as Temperature, pH, Electrical Conductivity, Oxygen Saturation, BOD, Ammonium, Total Nitrogen, Suspended Solids, Orthophosphates, and Total Coliforms—CWQI incorporates additional chemical markers, including Aluminum (Al), Mercury (Hg), Manganese (Mn), and Copper (Cu). This broader scope allows CWQI to capture the impact of specific contaminants that may remain undetected by SWQI, offering a nuanced perspective on chemical pollution.
To explore the correlation between SWQI and CWQI values at joint measurement depths (50 cm, 200 cm, and 500 cm) of all three profiles, regression analysis was employed. Since the p-value in the analysis of variance exceeds 0.10, there is no statistically significant relationship between SWQI and CWQI results at the 90% or higher confidence level. The correlation coefficient equals 0.21, indicating a relatively weak relationship between the variables. A more in-depth statistical analysis was not feasible due to the limitations of the available data series.
From a spatial and depth perspective, SWQI results demonstrated a steady improvement in water quality across profiles and depths in 2023. For instance, in Profile A1, SWQI increased from 85 at 50 cm depth in 2021 to 94 in 2023, with similar upward trends observed at depths such as 500 cm and 600 cm, despite temporary declines in 2022. Conversely, CWQI results exhibited greater variability, emphasizing chemical contamination issues at specific depths. In Profile A1, while CWQI values at 500 cm and 600 cm reached optimal levels of 100 in 2023, a significant drop was noted at 350 cm, where values decreased from 84 in 2021 to 59 in 2023. These discrepancies underscore the influence of parameters such as elevated Al, Mn, and Hg concentrations on CWQI outcomes.
Profile B1 consistently showed better water quality across both indices, with SWQI and CWQI values remaining high and stable over the three-year period. This stability reflects reduced tributary impacts and more effective water mixing in this region. On the other hand, Profiles A1 and C1 revealed greater fluctuations, driven by localized pollution sources and stratification effects. For example, CWQI results for Profile C1 highlighted increased Al and Hg concentrations at depths of 50 cm and 500 cm, which impaired overall water quality, particularly in earlier years.
In terms of temporal trends, SWQI demonstrated a marked improvement in water quality by 2023, reflecting enhanced conditions for physical and chemical. CWQI values, however, continued to reveal persistent challenges related to specific chemical pollutants, such as elevated Mn and Hg levels, which remained critical for drinking water quality. This divergence highlights the complementary roles of the two indices in evaluating ecosystem health and specific contamination issues.
The integration of SWQI and CWQI results enriches the analysis of water quality in the Garaši Reservoir, emphasizing the importance of a multifaceted approach. While SWQI provides an overview of general ecosystem health, CWQI adds depth by identifying chemical contaminant hotspots that require targeted management interventions. This dual-index perspective underscores the need for continuous and detailed monitoring, particularly in regions influenced by tributary inputs. Together, these indices offer valuable insights into sustainable water resource management and ecological preservation efforts.

5. Conclusions

Research on water quality in artificial lakes, such as the Garaši Reservoir, is vital for ecological balance and public health. This study highlights significant variations in water quality parameters across profiles and depths of the reservoir between 2021 and 2023, emphasizing high concentrations of Ammonium and changes in Oxygen Saturation in deeper layers. These findings indicate organic matter decomposition and limited water mixing, alongside risks of eutrophication driven by increased levels of Orthophosphates and Nitrogen compounds.
Notably, the data demonstrate an overall improvement in water quality by 2023, reflecting the effectiveness of implemented measures. Critical parameters like Aluminum and Manganese from the Velika Bukulja tributary warrant targeted actions, such as wastewater treatment, erosion control, and agricultural runoff reduction. To ensure sustainability, future efforts should focus on expanding seasonal monitoring to at least four times per year including metal pollution parameters in each measurement. Efforts should also prioritize the implementation of aeration and mixing systems to improve oxygen saturation in deeper layers. Remote sensing technologies should be applied as a supplementary method to traditional monitoring approaches. Additionally, strengthening local awareness and enforcing water protection regulations are crucial. Promoting best agricultural practices remains an essential component of sustainable water quality management. These recommendations aim to preserve the long-term health of the Garaši Reservoir ecosystem and secure its role as a vital resource for biodiversity and public health.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.J., D.M.J. and A.M.P.; methodology, D.J. and D.M.J.; software, D.J. and D.M.J.; validation, D.J., D.M.J. and A.M.P.; formal analysis, D.M.J.; investigation, D.J., D.M.J. and A.M.P.; resources, D.J., D.M.J. and A.M.P.; data curation, D.J., D.M.J. and A.M.P.; writing—original draft preparation, D.J. and D.M.J.; writing—review and editing, D.J, D.M.J. and A.M.P.; visualization, D.J., D.M.J. and A.M.P.; supervision, A.M.P.; project administration, D.J.; funding acquisition, D.J., D.M.J. and A.M.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Ministry of Science, Technological Development and Innovation of the Republic of Serbia, grant number 451-03-136/2025-03/200172 and the APC was funded by the Geographical Institute “Jovan Cvijić” SASA.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank our colleague Dejan Doljak, from the Geographical Institute “Jovan Cvijić” SASA who helped us with map quality improvement.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. World Bank Group. Global Water Security and Sanitation Partnership (GWSP) Annual Report 2023. Available online: http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099819311142348453/pdf/IDU1448a1d08120cf146961b82218e93df24c73e.pdf (accessed on 31 March 2025).
  2. UNESCO. The United Nations World Water Development Report 2024—Water for Prosperity and Peace. Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000388948 (accessed on 31 March 2025).
  3. Petrović, A. Challenge of torrential flood risk management. J. Geogr. Inst. Jovan Cvijic SASA 2015, 65, 131–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Milanović Pešić, A.; Jojić Glavonjić, T.; Denda, S.; Jakovljević, D. Sustainable Tourism Development and Ramsar Sites in Serbia: Exploring Residents’ Attitudes and Water Quality Assessment in the Vlasina Protected Area. Sustainability 2023, 15, 15391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Wei, W.; Gao, Y.; Huang, J.; Gao, J. Exploring the effect of basin land degradation on lake and reservoir water quality in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 268, 122249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kobler, U.G.; Wüest, A.; Schmid, M. Effects of lake–reservoir pumped-storage operations on temperature and water quality. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Gu, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Ma, L.; Li, J.; Wang, K.; Zheng, K.; Zhang, X.; Sheng, L. Assessment of reservoir water quality using multivariate statistical techniques: A case study of Qiandao Lake, China. Sustainability 2016, 8, 243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Al-Taani, A.A.; El-Radaideh, N.M.; Al Khateeb, W.M.; Bsoul, A.A. Reservoir water quality: A case from Jordan. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2018, 190, 604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Vasistha, P.; Ganguly, R. Water quality assessment of natural lakes and its importance: An overview. Mater. Today Proc. 2020, 32, 544–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Amirkani, M.; Haddad, O.B.; Ashofteh, P.S.; Loáiciga, H.A. Determination of the optimal level of water releases from a reservoir to control water quality. J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste 2016, 20, 04015017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Atique, U.; An, K.G. Reservoir Water Quality Assessment Based on Chemical Parameters and the Chlorophyll Dynamics in Relation to Nutrient Regime. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2019, 28, 1043–1061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Woldeab, B.; Beyene, A.; Ambelu, A.; Duffam, I.; Mereta, S.T. Seasonal and spatial variation of reservoir water quality in the southwest of Ethiopia. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2018, 190, 163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Dukiya, J.J.; Ojoye, S.; Morenikeji, G. Poverty induced artisanal mining impact on municipal water utilities; the case of Kpapi river in Minna, Nigeria. Nat. Haz. Res. 2024, 4, 265–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Marcuello, C. Present and future opportunities in the use of atomic force microscopy to address the physico-chemical properties of aquatic ecosystems at the nanoscale level. Int. Aquat. Res. 2022, 14, 233–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Gökçe, D. The importance and effectiveness of aquatic biomonitoring. In New Paradigms in Environmental Biomonitoring Using Plants; Tiwari, S., Agrawal, S., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Oxford, UK; Cambridge, MA, USA, 2022; pp. 45–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Bhateria, R.; Jain, D. Water quality assessment of lake water: A review. Sustain. Water Resour. Manag. 2016, 2, 161–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Abd Aziz, N.A.; Toriman, M.E.; Gasim, M.B.; Muftah, S.; Barggig, A.; Kamarudin, M.K.A. Water Quality Deterioration in Artificial Lake: Their Impact and Sources. Int. J. Adv. Sci. Eng. Inf. Technol. 2017, 7, 49–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Abualhaija, M.M.; Abu Hilal, A.H.; Shammout, M.W.; Mohammad, A.H. Assessment of reservoir water quality using water quality indices: A case study from Jordan. Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol. 2020, 13, 397–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Lee, Y.; Kim, J.K.; Jung, S.; Eum, J.; Kim, C.; Kim, B. Development of a water quality index model for lakes and reservoirs. Paddy Water Environ. 2014, 12, 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Naveedullah, N.; Hashmi, M.Z.; Yu, C.; Shen, C.; Muhammad, N.; Shen, H.; Chen, Y. Water quality characterization of the Siling Reservoir (Zhejiang, China) using water quality index. CLEAN Soil Air Water 2016, 44, 553–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hou, W.; Sun, S.; Wang, M.; Li, X.; Zhang, N.; Xin, X.; Sun, L.; Li, W.; Jia, R. Assessing water quality of five typical reservoirs in lower reaches of Yellow River, China: Using a water quality index method. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 61, 309–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Wu, Z.; Zhang, D.; Cai, Y.; Wang, X.; Zhang, L.; Chen, Y. Water quality assessment based on the water quality index method in Lake Poyang: The largest freshwater lake in China. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 17999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. De La Mora-Orozco, C.; Flores-Lopez, H.; Rubio-Arias, H.; Chavez-Duran, A.; Ochoa-Rivero, J. Developing a water quality index (WQI) for an irrigation dam. Int. J. Environ. Res. Pub. Health 2017, 14, 439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Rubio-Arias, H.; Contreras-Caraveo, M.; Quintana, R.M.; Saucedo-Teran, R.A.; Pinales-Munguia, A. An overall water quality index (WQI) for a man-made aquatic reservoir in Mexico. Int. J. Environ. Res. Pub. Health 2012, 9, 1687–1698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Das Kangabam, R.; Bhoominathan, S.D.; Kanagaraj, S.; Govindaraju, M. Development of a water quality index (WQI) for the Loktak Lake in India. Appl. Water Sci. 2017, 7, 2907–2918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Sudarshan, P.; Mahesh, M.K.; Ramachandra, T.V. Assessment of seasonal variation in water quality and water quality index (WQI) of Hebbal Lake, Bangalore, India. Environ. Ecol. 2019, 37, 309–317. [Google Scholar]
  27. Qureshimatva, U.M.; Maurya, R.R.; Gamit, S.B.; Patel, R.D.; Solanki, H.A. Determination of physico-chemical parameters and Water quality index (Wqi) of Chandlodia Lake, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India. J. Environ. Anal. Toxicol. 2015, 5, 1000288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Cymes, I.; Glińska-Lewczuk, K. The use of Water Quality Indices (WQI and SAR) for multipurpose assessment of water in dam reservoirs. J. Elem. 2016, 21, 1211–1224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kadeem, Z.J.; Al-Obaidy, A.H.M.J.; Hassan, F.M. Monitoring of Water Quality of Artificial Lake by Using WQI for Protection of Aquatic Life. Indian J. Ecol. 2022, 49, 308–311. [Google Scholar]
  30. He, M.; Qian, Q.; Liu, X.; Zhang, J.; Curry, J. Recent Progress on Surface Water Quality Models Utilizing Machine Learning Techniques. Water 2024, 16, 3616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Milanović Pešić, A.; Brankov, J.; Milijašević Joksimović, D. Water quality assessment and populations’ perceptions in the National park Djerdap (Serbia): Key factors affecting the environment. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2020, 22, 2365–2383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Stanković, S. Jezera Srbije—Limnološka Monografija; Serbian Geographical Society: Belgrade, Serbia, 2000; p. 223. [Google Scholar]
  33. Sunjog, K.; Kolarević, S.; Kračun-Kolarević, M.; Višnjić-Jeftić, Ž.; Skorić, S.; Gačić, Z.; Lenhardt, M.; Vasić, N.; Vuković-Gačić, B. Assessment of status of three water bodies in Serbia based on tissue metal and metalloid concentration (ICP-OES) and genotoxicity (comet assay). Environ. Pollut. 2016, 213, 600–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Milošković, A.; Simić, V. Bioaccumulation of potentially toxic elements in fish species of Serbia: A review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 32255–32277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Marković, G.; Kostić, A.Ž.; Pantelić, N.Đ.; Maletić, R.; Štrbački, J.; Cakić, J.; Kaluđerović, L.; Dojčinović, B.P.; Giuffrè, A.M.; Popović-Djordjević, J.B. Spatial distribution of major and trace elements in artificial lakes in Serbia: Health risk indices and suitability of water for drinking and irrigation purposes. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2023, 195, 1237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Petrović, A.M. Бујичне Пoплаве У Србији [Torrential Floods in Serbia]; Special Issues, Book 73; Serbian Geographical Society: Belgrade, Serbia, 2021; p. 155. [Google Scholar]
  37. Serbian Environmental Protection Agency. Rezultati Ispitivanja Kvaliteta Površinskih I Podzemnih Voda. 2022. Available online: https://sepa.gov.rs/publikacije/ (accessed on 31 December 2024).
  38. Google. Google Maps Satellite Imagery. Available online: https://www.google.com/maps (accessed on 19 March 2025).
  39. Fashagba, T.S.; Bessedik, M.; ElSayed, N.B.; Abdelbaki, C.; Kumar, N. Evaluating the Water Quality of the Keddara Dam (Algeria) Using Water Quality Indices. Water 2024, 16, 1291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Veljković, N.D. Sustainable development indicators: Case study for South Morava river basin. Hem. Ind. 2013, 67, 357–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Scottish Development Department. Development of a Water Quality Index. In Applied Research & Development Report Number ARD3; Scottish Development Department: Edinburgh, UK, 1976. [Google Scholar]
  42. Veljković, N.D.; Jovičić, M.M. Decoupling environmental impacts from industrial growth: Case study for South Morava river basin. Hem. Ind. 2015, 69, 493–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Leščešen, I.; Dolinaj, D.; Pantelić, M.; Savić, S.; Milošević, D. Statistical Analysis of Water quality parameters in seven major Serbian rivers during 2004–2013 period. Water Resour. 2018, 45, 418–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Takić, L.M.; Mladenović-Ranisavljević, I.I.; Nikolić, V.D.; Nikolić, L.B.; Vuković, M.V.; Živković, N.V. Assessment of Danube Water Quality in Serbia. Adv. Technol. 2013, 1, 58–66. [Google Scholar]
  45. Mladenović-Ranisavljević, I.I.; Žerajić, S.A. Comparison of different models of water quality index in the assessment of surface water quality. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 15, 665–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Milijašević Joksimović, D.; Gavrilović, B.; Obradović Lović, S. Application of the water quality index in the Timok River basin (Serbia). J. Geogr. Inst. Jovan Cvijić SASA 2018, 68, 333–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Leščešen, I.; Pantelić, M.; Dolinaj, D.; Lukić, T. Assessment of water quality of the Tisa river (Vojvodina, North Serbia) for ten year period using Serbian Water Quality Index (SWQI). Geogr. Pannon. 2014, 18, 102–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Elezović, N.; Ilić Komatina, D.; Dervišević, I.; Ketin, S.; Dasić, P. Analysis of SWQI index of the river Ibar (Serbia). Fressenius Environ. Bull. 2018, 27, 2505–2509. [Google Scholar]
  49. Jelača, N.; Živković, M.; Novaković, B. Water quality of the Gradac River Using Serbian Water Quality Index (SWQI). In Proceedings of the 51st Annual Conference of the Serbian Water Pollution Control Society Water 2022, Vrnjačka Banja, Serbia, 26–28 October 2022. [Google Scholar]
  50. Stričević, L.S.; Pavlović, M.; Filipović, I.M.; Radivojević, A.; Martić-Bursać, N.; Gocić, M. Statistical analysis of water quality parameters in the basin of the Nisava River (Serbia) in the period 2009–2018. Geografie 2021, 126, 55–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Pantelić, M.; Dolinaj, D.; Savić, S.; Leščešen, I.; Stojanović, V. Water quality and population standpoints as factors influencing the utilization for agricultural purposes of the Great Bačka Canal, Serbia. J. Environ. Sci. Manag. 2016, 19, 8–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Doderović, M.; Mijanović, I.; Burić, D.; Milenković, M.L. Assessment of the water quality in the Morača river basin (Montenegro) using Water Quality Index. Bull. Serbian Geogr. Soc. 2020, 100, 67–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Burić, D.; Mijanović, I.; Doderović, M.; Mihajlović, J.; Trbić, G. Assessment of the environmental quality of Lake Skadar and its urban surroundings in Montenegro. Eur. J. Geogr. 2023, 14, 76–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). Canadian Water Quality Index 1.0 Calculator. Available online: https://www.gov.nl.ca/mpa/cwqi/ (accessed on 30 November 2024).
  55. Lumb, A.; Halliwell, D.; Sharma, T. Application of CCME Water Quality Index to Monitor Water Quality: A Case Study of the Mackenzie River Basin, Canada. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2006, 113, 411–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Radaideh, J.A. Evaluation of Zarqa River Water quality on suitability for irrigation using the Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment Water Quality Index (CCME WQI) approach. Int. J. Innov. Creat. Change 2022, 16, 354–373. [Google Scholar]
  57. Al-Assaf, A.Y.R.; Alsaffawi, A.Y.; Katib, M.A. Application of the Canadian Index (CCME WQI) to Assess Water Quality for Aquatic Life: A Case Study of Water Quality for the Khoser and Tigris Rivers in the North of Nineveh Governorate. Egypt. J. Aquat. Biol. Fish. 2024, 28, 1085–1097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Haldar, D.; Halder, S.; Das, P.; Halder, G. Assessment of water quality of Damodar River in South Bengal region of India by Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment (CCME) Water Quality Index: A case study. Desalin. Water Treat. 2016, 57, 3489–3502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Maansi Jindal, R.; Wats, M. Evaluation of surface water quality using water quality indices (WQIs) in Lake Sukhna, Chandigarh, India. Appl. Water Sci. 2022, 12, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Mahagamage, M.G.Y.L.; Manage, P.M. Water quality index (CCME-WQI) based assessment study of water quality in Kelani river basin, Sri Lanka. In Proceedings of the (ENRIC2014) the 1st Environment and Natural Resources International Conference, Bangkok, Thailand, 6–7 November 2014. [Google Scholar]
  61. Fayad, H.A.; Baydoun, S.; Soliman, M.R. Preliminary water quality assessment using Canadian Water Quality Index of Ras El-Ain Ponds, South Lebanon. BAU J.-Sci. Technol. 2023, 5, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Menberu, Z.; Mogesse, B.; Reddythota, D. Evaluation of water quality and eutrophication status of Hawassa Lake based on different water quality indices. Appl. Water Sci. 2021, 11, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Jakovljević, D. Assessment of water quality during the floods in May, 2014, Serbia. J. Geogr. Inst. Jovan Cvijić SASA 2020, 70, 215–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Jakovljević, D.; Lozanov-Crvenković, Z. Water quality changes after Kraljevo earthquake in 2010. Nat. Hazards 2015, 79, 2033–2053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Leoni, B.; Patelli, M.; Soler, V.; Nava, V. Ammonium Transformation in 14 Lakes along a Trophic Gradient. Water 2018, 10, 265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Chislock, M.F.; Doster, E.; Zitomer, R.A.; Wilson, A.E. Eutrophication: Causes, Consequences, and Controls in Aquatic Ecosystems. Nat. Educ. Knowl. 2013, 4, 10. [Google Scholar]
  67. Madjar, R.M.; Vasile Scăețeanu, G.; Sandu, M.A. Nutrient Water Pollution from Unsustainable Patterns of Agricultural Systems, Effects and Measures of Integrated Farming. Water 2024, 16, 3146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Karadžić, V.; Subakov-Simić, G.; Krizmanić, J.; Natić, D. Phytoplankton and eutrophication development in the water supply reservoirs Garaši and Bukulja (Serbia). Desalination 2010, 255, 91–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Čađo, S.; Novaković, B.; Đurković, A.; Denić, L.; Glišić, T.D.; Stojanović, Z.; Veljković, N.; Domanović, M.; Žarić, D. Ecological potential of accumulations for water supply in Serbia. Voda I Sanit. Tehnika 2020, 50, 19–40. [Google Scholar]
  70. Akhmetova, D. Anthropogenic impact on soil and vegetation in Turkistan Region: Chemical composition and heavy metal contamination. J. Geogr. Inst. Jovan Cvijić SASA 2025, 75, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Nikolić, D.; Skorić, S.B.; Đikanović, V.; Mićković, B.B.; Hegediš, A.; Lenhardt, M.; Krpo-Ćetković, J. Toxic elements in water and sediment from six reservoirs in Serbia. Water Res. Manag. 2020, 10, 13–18. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Sampling locations (Profiles A1, B1, C1) and geographical position of Garaši Reservoir Source of data: [38].
Figure 1. Sampling locations (Profiles A1, B1, C1) and geographical position of Garaši Reservoir Source of data: [38].
Sustainability 17 04074 g001
Figure 2. Annual SWQI values for Profile A1 (2021–2023).
Figure 2. Annual SWQI values for Profile A1 (2021–2023).
Sustainability 17 04074 g002
Figure 3. Annual SWQI values for Profile B1 (2021–2023).
Figure 3. Annual SWQI values for Profile B1 (2021–2023).
Sustainability 17 04074 g003
Figure 4. Annual SWQI values for Profile C1 (2021–2023).
Figure 4. Annual SWQI values for Profile C1 (2021–2023).
Sustainability 17 04074 g004
Figure 5. Overall water quality (2021–2023).
Figure 5. Overall water quality (2021–2023).
Sustainability 17 04074 g005
Figure 6. Drinking water quality (2021–2023).
Figure 6. Drinking water quality (2021–2023).
Sustainability 17 04074 g006
Figure 7. Water quality for aquatic life (2021–2023).
Figure 7. Water quality for aquatic life (2021–2023).
Sustainability 17 04074 g007
Figure 8. Water quality for recreation (2021–2023).
Figure 8. Water quality for recreation (2021–2023).
Sustainability 17 04074 g008
Figure 9. pH concentrations (2021–2023).
Figure 9. pH concentrations (2021–2023).
Sustainability 17 04074 g009
Figure 10. Water quality for irrigation (2021–2023).
Figure 10. Water quality for irrigation (2021–2023).
Sustainability 17 04074 g010
Figure 11. Water quality for livestock (2021–2023).
Figure 11. Water quality for livestock (2021–2023).
Sustainability 17 04074 g011
Figure 12. Water quality of Velika Bukulja River (2023).
Figure 12. Water quality of Velika Bukulja River (2023).
Sustainability 17 04074 g012
Figure 13. Dissolved Oxygen concentrations.
Figure 13. Dissolved Oxygen concentrations.
Sustainability 17 04074 g013
Figure 14. Mn concentrations.
Figure 14. Mn concentrations.
Sustainability 17 04074 g014
Figure 15. Al concentrations.
Figure 15. Al concentrations.
Sustainability 17 04074 g015
Table 1. Assessment of water quality by SWQI parameters.
Table 1. Assessment of water quality by SWQI parameters.
T
(°C)
pHEC
(µS/cm)
OS
(%)
BOD
(mg/L)
NH4+
(mg/L)
TN
(mg/L)
SS
(mg/L)
PO43−
(mg/L)
TC
Coli/100 mg
q i × w i
93–109 18
88–92110–119 17
85–87120–129 16
81–84130–1340–0.9 15
78–80135–1391–1.9 14
75–77140–1442–2.4 13
72–74145–1542.5–2.90–0.09 0–24912
69–71155–1643–3.40.1–0.14 250–99911
66–68165–1793.5–3.90.15–0.19 1000–399910
6.5–7.9 63–65180+4–4.40.2–0.24 4000–7.9999
6–6.48–8.4 59–62 4.5–4.90.25–0.290–0.49 0–0.0298000–14,9998
5.8–5.98.5–8.7 55–58 5–5.40.3–0.390.5–1.490–90.03–0.05915,000–24,9997
5.6–5.78.8–8.90–18850–54 5.5–6.10.4–0.491.5–2.4910–140.06–0.09925,000–44,9996
0–17.45.4–5.59–9.1189–23945–49 6.2–6.90.5–0.592.5–3.4915–190.1–0.12945,000–79,9995
17.5–19.45.2–5.39.2–9.4240–28940–44 7–7.90.6–0.993.5–4.4920–290.13–0.17980,000–139,9994
19.5–21.45–5.19.5–9.9290–37935–39 8–8.91–1.994.5–5.4930–440.18–0.219140,000–249,9993
21.5–22.94.5–4.910–10.4380–53925–34 9–9.92–3.995.5–6.9945–640.22–0.279250,000–429,9992
23–24.93.5–4.410.5–11.4540–83910–24 10–14.94–9.997–9.9965–1190.28–0.369430,000–749,9991
25+0–3.411.5–14840+0–9 15+10+10+120+0.37750,000+0
Source of data: Scottish Development Department [41].
Table 2. CWQI parameters.
Table 2. CWQI parameters.
OverallDrinkingAquaticRecreationIrrigationLivestock
VariablesUnitsLowerUpperLowerUpperLowerUpperLowerUpperUpperUpper
TurbidityNTU 1 1
DOmg/L9.5 9.5
pH 6.58.56.58.56.5959
Camg/L 1000 1000
SO42−mg/L 500 500 1000
Clmg/L 110 250 110
NO3NO2mg/L 100 100
Almg/L 0.005 0.005 55
Asmg/L 0.005 0.025 0.005 0.10.025
Cdmg/L 0.005 0.005 0.00510.08
Crmg/L 0.001 0.05 0.001 0.00490.05
Cumg/L 0.002 1 0.002 0.20.5
Femg/L 0.3 0.3 0.3 5
Hgµ/L 0.003 1 0.1 0.003
Mnmg/L 0.05 0.05 0.2
Nimg/L 0.025 0.025 0.21
Pbmg/L 0.001 0.01 0.001 0.020.05
Znmg/L 0.03 5 0.03 150
Source of data: Canadian Councils of Minsters and Environment [54].
Table 3. Depth-Based Temperature Analysis (°C).
Table 3. Depth-Based Temperature Analysis (°C).
ProfileDepth (cm)2021
May
2022
July
2023
March
AverageStandard Deviation
A15023.224.88.818.937.195
A120020.824.68.818.076.73
A135016.6247.916.176.58
A150010.620.97.412.975.76
A16006.21679.734.44
A18006.8106.27.671.67
A110006.57.866.770.76
A112006.36.55.76.170.34
A115005.365.65.630.29
B15021.525.39.918.96.55
B120021.525918.56.87
B15001219.47.713.034.83
C15023.425.58.919.277.38
C120021.3258.818.376.93
C150010.521.38.113.35.74
C160010.516.46.711.23.99
Table 4. Depth-Based pH Analysis.
Table 4. Depth-Based pH Analysis.
ProfileDepth (cm)2021
May
2022
July
2023
March
AverageStandard Deviation
A1509.18.488.388.650.32
A12009.238.658.428.770.34
A13509.278.678.38.750.4
A15007.9597.928.290.5
A16007.719.57.898.370.8
A18007.437.397.87.540.18
A110007.377.177.647.390.19
A112007.367.267.647.420.16
A115007.357.067.627.340.23
B1508.798.388.528.560.17
B12008.828.388.468.550.19
B15007.78.58.28.130.33
C1509.038.618.458.70.24
C12009.128.648.168.640.4
C15007.625.88.057.160.975
C16007.398.697.958.010.53
Table 5. Depth-Based Electrical Conductivity Analysis (µS/cm).
Table 5. Depth-Based Electrical Conductivity Analysis (µS/cm).
ProfileDepth (cm)2021
May
2022
July
2023
March
AverageStandard Deviation
A150204223235220.6712.76
A120020122723522114.51
A135020022723622115.3
A1500213218239223.3311.26
A1600215197238216.6716.78
A1800215200237217.3315.195
A11000214199237216.6715.63
A11200216197240217.6717.59
A11500220211242224.3313.02
B150213237229226.339.98
B1200213237229226.339.98
B150021424023623011.43
C150202241233225.3316.82
C1200201240238226.3317.93
C1500217231237228.338.38
C1600219221236225.337.59
Table 6. Depth-Based Oxygen Saturation Analysis (%).
Table 6. Depth-Based Oxygen Saturation Analysis (%).
ProfileDepth (cm)2021
May
2022
July
2023
March
AverageStandard Deviation
A1501201101031118.54
A120013311410111616.09
A1350134106101113.6717.79
A15007915894110.3341.96
A16005921095121.3378.87
A180041418856.6727.135
A110003268039.3337.54
A11200242793539.66
A11500132753039.36
B150114115109112.673.21
B12001141141051115.2
B1500771039892.6713.8
C150123103105110.3311.015
C1200128107103112.6713.43
C1500659910188.3320.23
C16003916898101.6764.58
Table 7. Depth-Based Ammonium Analysis (mg/L).
Table 7. Depth-Based Ammonium Analysis (mg/L).
ProfileDepth (cm)2021
May
2022
July
2023
March
AverageStandard deviation
A1500.020.130.040.060.06
A12000.020.130.060.070.06
A13500.080.120.070.090.03
A15000.10.20.050.120.08
A16000.120.350.040.170.16
A18000.150.70.10.320.33
A110000.210.160.450.47
A112000.340.950.140.480.42
A115000.531.150.180.620.49
B1500.020.050.080.050.03
B12000.080.030.090.070.03
B15000.10.030.070.070.035
C1500.20.20.080.160.07
C12000.230.280.060.190.115
C15000.220.350.080.220.135
C16000.420.20.10.240.16
Table 8. Depth-Based Orthophosphate Analysis (mg/L).
Table 8. Depth-Based Orthophosphate Analysis (mg/L).
ProfileDepth (cm)2021
May
2022
July
2023
March
AverageStandard Deviation
A1500.0380.0290.010.0260.014
A12000.0450.030.0110.0290.017
A13500.050.0160.010.0250.022
A15000.0380.0350.010.0280.015
A16000.0420.0190.010.0240.0165
A18000.0450.0510.010.0350.022
A110000.0480.0540.010.0370.024
A112000.0510.0340.0120.0320.02
A115000.0510.020.0160.0290.019
B1500.0450.0540.0160.0380.02
B12000.0450.0360.0220.0340.012
B15000.0290.0420.010.0270.016
C1500.0380.0540.010.0340.022
C12000.040.0350.0130.0290.014
C15000.0480.0320.0130.0310.0175
C16000.0640.0380.0160.0390.024
Table 9. Depth-Based Total Nitrogen Analysis (mg/L).
Table 9. Depth-Based Total Nitrogen Analysis (mg/L).
ProfileDepth (cm)2021
May
2022
July
2023
March
AverageStandard Deviation
A1500.490.440.90.610.25
A12000.470.4510.640.32
A13500.490.450.90.610.25
A15000.970.610.860.22
A16001.010.810.940.12
A18000.952.21.11.420.68
A110000.952.41.11.480.8
A112001.042.111.380.62
A115001.172.111.420.59
B1500.450.61.40.810.51
B12000.440.51.60.850.65
B15000.970.41.40.920.5
C1500.420.610.670.3
C12000.420.710.710.29
C15000.940.70.90.850.13
C16001.190.510.90.36
Table 10. SWQI values in the Garaši Reservoir (2021–2023).
Table 10. SWQI values in the Garaši Reservoir (2021–2023).
ProfileDepth (cm)SWQI 2021SWQI 2022SWQI 2023
A150858794
A1200828694
A1350858893
A1500887195
A1600796797
A1800716194
A11000675388
A11200625688
A11500595585
B150898693
B1200868592
B1500889194
C150828392
C1200797795
C1500778395
C1600627694
Table 11. CWQI values in the Garaši Reservoir (2021–2023).
Table 11. CWQI values in the Garaši Reservoir (2021–2023).
ProfileDepth (cm)CWQI 2021CWQI 2022CWQI 2023
A150505760
A12008467100
A1350846759
A15005584100
A16008367100
A18008181100
A110007957100
A112007652100
A11500675284
B150495758
B12008484100
B1500848460
C150475056
C12008467100
C15008367100
C16008166100
Table 12. Depth-Based Dissolved Oxygen Analyses (mg/L).
Table 12. Depth-Based Dissolved Oxygen Analyses (mg/L).
ProfileDepth (cm)2021
May
2022
July
2023
March
AverageStandard Deviation
A15010.189.0212.0210.411.235
A120011.799.3711.7810.981.14
A135012.948.8311.611.121.71
A15008.813.9811.511.342.11
A16007.2720.611.513.125.56
A180054.610.936.842.89
A110003.950.819.954.93.79
A1120030.59.94.473.975
A115001.590.59.343.813.935
B1509.969.3211.6910.320.99
B12009.989.311.3310.20.84
B15008.249.3611.119.571.18
C15010.368.3611.4810.071.29
C120011.228.7611.8310.61.33
C15007.268.7211.639.21.82
C16004.5416.4411.3710.784.88
Table 13. Depth-Based Turbidity Analysis (NTU).
Table 13. Depth-Based Turbidity Analysis (NTU).
ProfileDepth (cm)2021
May
2022
July
2023
March
AverageStandard Deviation
A1500.190.220.330.250.06
A12000.230.230.330.260.05
A13500.330.240.470.350.09
A15000.240.240.390.290.07
A16000.211.130.330.560.41
A18000.150.490.290.310.14
A110000.130.410.230.260.12
A112000.20.450.230.290.11
A115000.20.390.20.260.09
B1500.250.210.270.240.03
B12000.260.220.410.30.08
B15000.410.310.320.350.045
C1500.230.20.410.280.09
C12000.30.240.390.310.06
C15000.290.310.420.340.06
C16000.241.890.40.840.74
Table 14. Depth-Based Mn Analysis (mg/L).
Table 14. Depth-Based Mn Analysis (mg/L).
ProfileDepth (cm)2021
May
2022
July
2023
March
AverageStandard Deviation
A1500.0880.0350.1380.0870.042
A1350 0.1410.1410
A15000.121 0.1210
B1500.2430.0190.140.0340.0915
B1500 0.1390
C1500.5220.020.1410.2280.214
Table 15. Depth-Based Al analysis (mg/L).
Table 15. Depth-Based Al analysis (mg/L).
ProfileDepth (cm)2021
May
2022
July
2023
March
AverageStandard Deviation
A1500.2230.0820.0170.1070.086
A1350 0.0290.0290
A15000.27 0.270
B1500.1690.0720.020.0870.062
B1500 0.0280.0280
C1500.2180.1820.0610.1540.067
Table 16. Depth-Based Cu Analysis (mg/L).
Table 16. Depth-Based Cu Analysis (mg/L).
ProfileDepth (cm)2021
May
2022
July
2023
March
AverageStandard Deviation
A1500.00290.00270.00710.00420.002
A1350 0.0670.0670
A15000.02 0.020
B1500.00220.00440.00360.00340.0009
B1500 0.00370.00370
C1500.00320.00260.01130.00570.004
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jakovljević, D.; Milijašević Joksimović, D.; Petrović, A.M. Assessment of Lake Water Quality in Central Serbia—Using Serbian and Canadian Water Quality Indices on the Example of the Garaši Reservoir. Sustainability 2025, 17, 4074. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17094074

AMA Style

Jakovljević D, Milijašević Joksimović D, Petrović AM. Assessment of Lake Water Quality in Central Serbia—Using Serbian and Canadian Water Quality Indices on the Example of the Garaši Reservoir. Sustainability. 2025; 17(9):4074. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17094074

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jakovljević, Dejana, Dragana Milijašević Joksimović, and Ana M. Petrović. 2025. "Assessment of Lake Water Quality in Central Serbia—Using Serbian and Canadian Water Quality Indices on the Example of the Garaši Reservoir" Sustainability 17, no. 9: 4074. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17094074

APA Style

Jakovljević, D., Milijašević Joksimović, D., & Petrović, A. M. (2025). Assessment of Lake Water Quality in Central Serbia—Using Serbian and Canadian Water Quality Indices on the Example of the Garaši Reservoir. Sustainability, 17(9), 4074. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17094074

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop