Principal Component Weighted Index for Wastewater Quality Monitoring
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Data Collection
2.2. Robust Principal Component Analysis
2.3. Principal Component Weighted Index
2.4. Statistical Calculations
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Principal Component Analysis
3.2. Interpretation of Selected Principal Components
3.3. Principal Component Weighted Index
3.4. Validation of PCWI
Comparison of PCWI with WQI
3.5. Examples of Possible PCWI Applications
4. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Box, G.E.P. Robustness in the Strategy of Scientific Model Building. In Robustness in Statistics; Launer, R.L., Wilkinson, G.N., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1979; pp. 201–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schmidtlein, M.C.; Deutsch, R.C.; Piegorsch, W.W.; Cutter, S.L. A sensitivity analysis of the social vulnerability index. Risk Anal. 2008, 28, 1099–1114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yoon, D.K. Assessment of social vulnerability to natural disasters: A comparative study. Nat. Hazards 2012, 63, 823–843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jefmański, B.; Błoński, K. Composite Index of Local Government Employees Satisfaction. Folia Oeconomica Stetin. 2014, 13, 77–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McGillivray, M.; Noorbakhsh, F. Composite Indexes of Human Well-being: Past, Present and Future. In Human Well-Being: Concept and Measurement; McGillivray, M., Ed.; Palgrave Macmillan UK: London, UK, 2007; pp. 113–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berni, A.; Giuliani, A.; Tartaglia, F.; Tromba, L.; Sgueglia, M.; Blasi, S.; Russo, G. Effect of vascular risk factors on increase in carotid and femoral intima-media thickness. Identification of a risk scale. Atherosclerosis 2011, 216, 109–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, R.C.; Donaldson, G.C.; Chavannes, N.H.; Kida, K.; Dickson-Spillmann, M.; Harding, S.; Wedzicha, J.A.; Price, D.; Hyland, M.E. Derivation and validation of a composite index of severity in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: The DOSE Index. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2009, 180, 1189–1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, P.; Zhang, T.; Wang, X.; Yu, D. Development of biological soil quality indicator system for subtropical China. Soil Tillage Res. 2013, 126, 112–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, P.; Liu, S.; Zhang, L.; Li, Q.; Zhou, D. Selecting the minimum data set and quantitative soil quality indexing of alkaline soils under different land uses in northeastern China. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 616–617, 564–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sands, G.R.; Podmore, T.H. A generalized environmental sustainability index for agricultural systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2000, 79, 29–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, Z.-H.; Chen, L.-D.; Hao, J.-P.; Wang, T.-W.; Cai, C.-F. The effects of land use change on environmental quality in the red soil hilly region, China: A case study in Xianning County. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2008, 150, 295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zou, T.; Yoshino, K. Environmental vulnerability evaluation using a spatial principal components approach in the Daxing’anling region, China. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 78, 405–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kyrkilis, G.; Chaloulakou, A.; Kassomenos, P.A. Development of an aggregate Air Quality Index for an urban Mediterranean agglomeration: Relation to potential health effects. Environ. Int. 2007, 33, 670–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Thach, T.-Q.; Tsang, H.; Cao, P.; Ho, L.-M. A novel method to construct an air quality index based on air pollution profiles. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2018, 221, 17–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dantsis, T.; Douma, C.; Giourga, C.; Loumou, A.; Polychronaki, E.A. A methodological approach to assess and compare the sustainability level of agricultural plant production systems. Ecol. Indic. 2010, 10, 256–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Mutairi, N.; AbaHussain, A.; El-Battay, A. Spatial assessment of monitoring network in coastal waters: A case study of Kuwait Bay. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2015, 187, 621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gitau, M.W.; Chen, J.; Ma, Z. Water Quality Indices as Tools for Decision Making and Management. Water Resour. Manag. 2016, 30, 2591–2610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoseinzadeh, E.; Khorsandi, H.; Wei, C.; Alipour, M. Evaluation of Aydughmush River water quality using the National Sanitation Foundation Water Quality Index (NSFWQI), River Pollution Index (RPI), and Forestry Water Quality Index (FWQI). Desalin. Water Treat. 2015, 54, 2994–3002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lobato, T.C.; Hauser-Davis, R.A.; Oliveira, T.F.; Silveira, A.M.; Silva, H.A.N.; Tavares, M.R.M.; Saraiva, A.C.F. Construction of a novel water quality index and quality indicator for reservoir water quality evaluation: A case study in the Amazon region. J. Hydrol. 2015, 522, 674–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Medeiros, A.C.; Faial, K.R.F.; do Carmo Freitas Faial, K.; da Silva Lopes, I.D.; de Oliveira Lima, M.; Guimaraes, R.M.; Mendonca, N.M. Quality index of the surface water of Amazonian rivers in industrial areas in Para, Brazil. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017, 123, 156–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rickwood, C.J.; Carr, G.M. Development and sensitivity analysis of a global drinking water quality index. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2008, 156, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, W.; Xia, C.; Xu, M.; Guo, J.; Sun, G. Application of modified water quality indices as indicators to assess the spatial and temporal trends of water quality in the Dongjiang River. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 66, 306–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tomas, D.; Čurlin, M.; Marić, A.S. Assessing the surface water status in Pannonian ecoregion by the water quality index model. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 79, 182–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tyagi, S.; Sharma, B.; Singh, P.; Dobhal, R. Water Quality Assessment in Terms of Water Quality Index. Am. J. Water Resour. 2013, 1, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, F.; Liu, L.; Li, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, M.; Xing, X. A dynamic water quality index model based on functional data analysis. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 57, 249–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Debels, P.; Figueroa, R.; Urrutia, R.; Barra, R.; Niell, X. Evaluation of Water Quality in the Chillán River (Central Chile) Using Physicochemical Parameters and a Modified Water Quality Index. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2005, 110, 301–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Koçer, M.A.T.; Sevgili, H. Parameters selection for water quality index in the assessment of the environmental impacts of land-based trout farms. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 36, 672–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, P.; Tang, X.; Tang, J.; Wang, C. Assessing Water Quality of Three Gorges Reservoir, China, Over a Five-Year Period From 2006 to 2011. Water Resour. Manag. 2013, 27, 4545–4558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pesce, S.F.; Wunderlin, D.A. Use of water quality indices to verify the impact of Córdoba City (Argentina) on Suquía River. Water Res. 2000, 34, 2915–2926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kannel, P.R.; Lee, S.; Lee, Y.-S.; Kanel, S.R.; Khan, S.P. Application of Water Quality Indices and Dissolved Oxygen as Indicators for River Water Classification and Urban Impact Assessment. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2007, 132, 93–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hwang, C.L.; Yoon, K. Multiple Attribute Decision Making; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1981; p. 269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Grosbois, D.; Plummer, R. Problematizing Water Vulnerability Indices at a Local Level: A Critical Review and Proposed Solution. Water Resour. Manag. 2015, 29, 5015–5035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hurley, T.; Sadiq, R.; Mazumder, A. Adaptation and evaluation of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Water Quality Index (CCME WQI) for use as an effective tool to characterize drinking source water quality. Water Res. 2012, 46, 3544–3552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wanda, E.M.M.; Gulula, L.C.; Phiri, G. Determination of characteristics and drinking water quality index in Mzuzu City, Northern Malawi. Phys. Chem. Earth Parts A/B/C 2012, 50–52, 92–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saaty, T.L. Eigenvector and logarithmic least squares. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1990, 48, 156–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alemi-Ardakani, M.; Milani, A.S.; Yannacopoulos, S.; Shokouhi, G. On the effect of subjective, objective and combinative weighting in multiple criteria decision making: A case study on impact optimization of composites. Expert Syst. Appl. 2016, 46, 426–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sierra, L.A.; Yepes, V.; Pellicer, E. A review of multi-criteria assessment of the social sustainability of infrastructures. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 187, 496–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, S.; Zhang, Z.; Cao, C. Calculating Weights Methods in Complete Matrices and Incomplete Matrices. J. Softw. 2010, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Paule, R.C.; Mandel, J. Consensus values and weighting factors. J. Res. Natl. Bur. Stand. 1982, 87, 377–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Becker, W.; Saisana, M.; Paruolo, P.; Vandecasteele, I. Weights and importance in composite indicators: Closing the gap. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 80, 12–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diakoulaki, D.; Mavrotas, G.; Papayannakis, L. Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: The critic method. Comput. Oper. Res. 1995, 22, 763–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shakouri, H.; Nabaee, M.; Aliakbarisani, S. A quantitative discussion on the assessment of power supply technologies: DEA (data envelopment analysis) and SAW (simple additive weighting) as complementary methods for the “Grammar”. Energy 2014, 64, 640–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al Omar, R.S.; Parslow, R.C.; Law, G.R. Development of two socioeconomic indices for Saudi Arabia. BMC Public Health 2018, 18, 791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qian, Y.; Migliaccio, K.W.; Wan, Y.; Li, Y. Surface water quality evaluation using multivariate methods and a new water quality index in the Indian River Lagoon, Florida. Water Resour. Res. 2007, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Collivignarelli, M.C.; Abbà, A.; Carnevale Miino, M.; Damiani, S. Treatments for color removal from wastewater: State of the art. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 236, 727–745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Collivignarelli, M.C.; Carnevale Miino, M.; Baldi, M.; Manzi, S.; Abbà, A.; Bertanza, G. Removal of non-ionic and anionic surfactants from real laundry wastewater by means of a full-scale treatment system. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2019, 132, 105–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Collivignarelli, M.C.; Abbà, A.; Bestetti, M.; Crotti, B.M.; Carnevale Miino, M. Electrolytic Recovery of Nickel and Copper from Acid Pickling Solutions Used to Treat Metal Surfaces. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2019, 230, 101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wold, S.; Esbensen, K.; Geladi, P. Principal component analysis. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 1987, 2, 37–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hubert, M.; Debruyne, M. Minimum covariance determinant. Comput. Stat. 2009, 2, 36–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rousseeuw, P.J.; Driessen, K.V. A Fast Algorithm for the Minimum Covariance Determinant Estimator. Technometrics 1999, 41, 212–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaiser, H.F. The Application of Electronic Computers to Factor Analysis. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1960, 20, 141–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cattell, R.B. The Scree Test For The Number Of Factors. Multivar. Behav. Res. 1966, 1, 245–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, K. Principal component analysis: Most favourite tool in chemometrics. Resonance 2017, 22, 747–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dempster, A.P.; Laird, N.M.; Rubin, D.B. Maximum Likelihood from Incomplete Data via the EM Algorithm. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B (Methodol.) 1977, 39, 1–38. [Google Scholar]
- MacGregor, J.F.; Kourti, T. Statistical process control of multivariate processes. Control Eng. Pract. 1995, 3, 403–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shewhart, W.A. Statistical Method from the Viewpoint of Quality Control; Dover Publications: New York, NY, USA, 1939; p. 105. [Google Scholar]
- Ewaid, S.H.; Abed, S.A. Water quality index for Al-Gharraf River, southern Iraq. Egypt. J. Aquat. Res. 2017, 43, 117–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
NH4+ mg/L | BOD mg/L | COD mg/L | NO3− mg/L | NO2− mg/L | PO43− mg/L | TN mg/L | TSS mg/L | TP mg/L | pH mg/L | TDS mg/L | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Aver. | 45.5 | 96.2 | 205 | 3.40 | 1.19 | 19.9 | 42.9 | 92 | 7.86 | 7.64 | 569 |
St. dev. | 15.0 | 39.1 | 64.9 | 6.43 | 1.92 | 6.70 | 11.0 | 35 | 2.38 | 0.23 | 200 |
Min. | 12.6 | 18.0 | 80.8 | 0.25 | 0.034 | 4.00 | 20.2 | 35 | 2.24 | 7.07 | 231 |
Max. | 81.7 | 209 | 375 | 37.6 | 8.44 | 30.9 | 65.8 | 187 | 13.0 | 8.10 | 1532 |
Median | 42.0 | 99.2 | 207 | 0.96 | 0.225 | 19.9 | 41.2 | 92 | 7.71 | 7.66 | 527 |
Skew. | 0.435 | 0.063 | 0.212 | 3.34 | 2.12 | −0.144 | 0.255 | 0.510 | −0.171 | −0.301 | 2.48 |
Kurt. | −0.217 | −0.185 | −0.477 | 12.2 | 3.71 | −0.638 | −0.477 | −0.091 | −0.228 | −0.312 | 8.15 |
NH4+ mg/L | BOD mg/L | COD mg/L | NO3− mg/L | NO2− mg/L | PO43− mg/L | TN mg/L | TSS mg/L | TP mg/L | pH mg/L | TDS mg/L | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Aver. | 5.24 | 3.1 | 28.1 | 74.8 | 0.595 | 17.3 | 24.8 | 5 | 6.12 | 7.18 | 587 |
St. dev. | 8.58 | 2.3 | 18.4 | 37.0 | 1.77 | 6.97 | 6.75 | 4 | 2.35 | 0.40 | 197 |
Min. | 0.031 | 1.0 | 10.7 | 0.67 | 0.012 | 2.67 | 11.0 | 0 | 0.94 | 6.21 | 302 |
Max. | 48.4 | 12.5 | 161 | 159 | 14.0 | 30.7 | 42.0 | 19 | 10.9 | 8.00 | 1580 |
Median | 1.37 | 2.6 | 25.1 | 75.4 | 0.242 | 16.80 | 24.3 | 4 | 6.10 | 7.24 | 551 |
Skew. | 2.76 | 2.40 | 5.74 | −0.045 | 6.78 | −0.071 | 0.567 | 1.47 | −0.155 | −0.334 | 2.30 |
Kurt. | 9.17 | 6.43 | 38.9 | −0.373 | 48.0 | −0.803 | −0.105 | 1.68 | −0.580 | −0.581 | 8.36 |
Parameters | PC1 | PC2 | PC3 | PC4 | PC5 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
NH4+ | 0.912 | 0.111 | −0.166 | −0.068 | −0.007 |
BOD | 0.678 | 0.133 | 0.158 | 0.525 | 0.287 |
COD | 0.897 | 0.164 | 0.130 | 0.187 | 0.061 |
NO3− | −0.362 | 0.809 | 0.153 | −0.124 | 0.094 |
NO2− | −0.393 | 0.741 | 0.137 | −0.273 | 0.252 |
PO43− | 0.867 | 0.040 | −0.042 | −0.314 | −0.296 |
TN | 0.913 | 0.164 | −0.033 | −0.103 | 0.057 |
TSS | 0.553 | −0.129 | 0.680 | 0.076 | 0.165 |
TP | 0.843 | 0.143 | 0.117 | −0.304 | −0.270 |
pH | 0.434 | −0.293 | −0.448 | −0.338 | 0.622 |
TDS | 0.285 | 0.487 | −0.621 | 0.397 | −0.135 |
Parameters | PC1 | PC2 | PC3 | PC4 | PC5 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
NH4+ | −0.408 | 0.279 | 0.760 | 0.041 | 0.123 |
BOD | −0.405 | 0.710 | 0.151 | −0.016 | −0.246 |
COD | 0.390 | 0.561 | −0.022 | 0.018 | 0.150 |
NO3− | 0.812 | 0.210 | −0.281 | −0.117 | −0.369 |
NO2− | −0.282 | 0.410 | 0.562 | −0.329 | −0.267 |
PO43− | 0.809 | −0.128 | 0.438 | −0.179 | 0.263 |
TN | 0.828 | 0.273 | 0.114 | −0.020 | −0.334 |
TSS | −0.399 | 0.568 | −0.309 | −0.358 | 0.390 |
TP | 0.823 | −0.116 | 0.406 | −0.167 | 0.286 |
pH | −0.335 | −0.572 | 0.532 | 0.103 | −0.188 |
TDS | 0.265 | 0.509 | 0.145 | 0.737 | 0.141 |
1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1997 | 1 | 0.050 | 0.657 | 0.115 | 0.031 |
1998 | 0.050 | 1 | 0.888 | 0.947 | 0.347 |
1999 | 0.657 | 0.888 | 1 | 0.599 | 0.142 |
2000 | 0.115 | 0.947 | 0.599 | 1 | 0.674 |
2001 | 0.031 | 0.347 | 0.142 | 0.674 | 1 |
Rank | Range | PCWI of Raw WW | N | PCWI of Treated WW | N |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
I | UCL to UWL | 8.489 to 5.495 | 3 | 4.266 to 2.890 | 2 |
II | UWL to µ | 5.496 to −0.489 | 28 | 2.891 to 0.140 | 29 |
III | µ to LWL | −0.490 to −6.473 | 34 | 0.141 to −2.612 | 34 |
IV | LWI to LCL | −6.474 to −9.465 | 2 | −2.613 to −3.988 | 2 |
© 2019 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Praus, P. Principal Component Weighted Index for Wastewater Quality Monitoring. Water 2019, 11, 2376. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11112376
Praus P. Principal Component Weighted Index for Wastewater Quality Monitoring. Water. 2019; 11(11):2376. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11112376
Chicago/Turabian StylePraus, Petr. 2019. "Principal Component Weighted Index for Wastewater Quality Monitoring" Water 11, no. 11: 2376. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11112376