Assessment of Water Suitability to Aquatic Life Using Some Water Physicochemical Variables and Water Quality Index
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was conducted at eight different sites along the Nile River. Various fishing areas, including islands, canals, and bridge areas suitable for fishing with small boats or traditional hooks, were investigated. This study determined whether these areas were suitable or not for aquatic life by assessing the physicochemical variables and water quality index (WQI) of the Nile River water. It is also possible to predict pollution in these areas by using these variables with the water quality index. The investigation was conducted between 2020 and 2021. The obtained values of physical and chemical variables of the Nile River water for the investigated sites were compared with the standard values for aquatic life published in the Canadian Water Quality Guidelines (2011). Based on the results, some variables examined had values that are higher than the recommended standards, affecting aquatic life in these areas. A higher concentration of physical and chemical parameters was observed during winter compared to summer. The COD/BOD ratio of the Nile River water in the investigated areas ranged from 3.89 in the summer season to 16.58 in winter. Its annual average was 10.24. The mean Mg2+ concentration in the investigated areas was 35.21mg/ l in winter and 31.26mg/ l in summer. NO3 concentrations ranged from 61.12 to 724.58g/ l. The WQI was analyzed for 40 samples, of which 37.5% fall under grade B (good), 37.5% under grade C (poor), and 25% under grade D (very poor). The values of the WQI ranged from 34.34 to 96.63 in terms of compliance with guidelines for the protection of aquatic life. Assessment studies should be annually conducted to determine the water quality status of the Nile to improve its suitability for aquatic life.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".