Comparative evaluation of spatiotemporal variations of surface water quality using water quality indices and GIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There is a need for a comprehensive comparative analysis of spatiotemporal variations in surface water quality, particularly in regions facing multiple pollution sources. While previous research has explored the use of individual water quality indices (WQIs), there is limited understanding of how different WQIs perform in assessing water quality dynamics in complex environmental settings. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of three WQIs (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) and System for Evaluation of the Quality of rivers (SEQ-Eau) and a national water quality regulation in assessing water quality dynamics. The pilot study area is the Acısu Creek in Antalya City of Turkey, where agricultural practices and discharge of treated wastewater effluents impair the water quality. A year-long intensive monitoring study was conducted includig on-site measurements, analysis of numerous physicochemical and bacteriological parameters. The CCME and SEQ-Eau indices classified water quality as excellent/good at the upstream, gradually deteriorating to very poor downstream, showing a strong correlation. However, the NSF index displayed less accuracy in evaluating water quality for certain monitoring stations/sessions due to eclipsing and rigidity problems. The regulatory approach, which categorized water quality as either moderate or good for different sampling sessions/stations, was also found less accurate. The novelty of this study lies in its holistic approach to identify methodological considerations that influence the performance of WQIs. Incorporating statistical analysis, artificial intelligence or multi-criteria decision-making methods into WQIs is recommended for enhanced surface water quality assessment and management strategies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".