AccScience Publishing / AJWEP / Volume 13 / Issue 2 / DOI: 10.3233/AJW-160013
RESEARCH ARTICLE

A Comparative Evaluation of the Water Quality  Standards of Different CountriesA Comparative Evaluation of the Water Quality  Standards of Different Countries

Chidozie Charles Nnaji1 Cordelia Nnennaya Mama1* Christopher Ifiokobong Ekong1 Chizoba Chinelo Agu2
Show Less
1 Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nigeria, Nsukka
2 Center for Environmental Management and Control, University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus
AJWEP 2016, 13(2), 15–28; https://doi.org/10.3233/AJW-160013
Submitted: 27 October 2015 | Revised: 21 March 2016 | Accepted: 21 March 2016 | Published: 18 April 2016
© 2016 by the Author(s). This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution -Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC-by the license) ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ )
Abstract

Twenty five countries, evenly distributed across the continents were used for this study. The water quality  standards of these countries were used to assess water quality data from a water monitoring exercise, based on the  CCME water quality index. The ratings obtained were used as a measure of the liberality or strictness of water  quality standards of these countries. Afterwards, water quality indices were computed for each of acceptability,  health and toxicity. The CCME was then modified to reflect the varying importance of different parameters. The  modified water quality index is called the importance averaged water quality index (IAWQI). Going by the overall  water quality indices, Australia, UAE, India and Japan seem to have the most stringent drinking water standards;  while Jamaica, Peru, Mexico and UAE seem to possess the most liberal drinking water quality standards. England,  Italy, Nigeria and Spain have very little or no deviations from WHO guidelines for overall water quality index.  Countries such as Jamaica, Peru, USA, Mexico, Ecuador, Rwanda and Ghana have the most negative deviations  from the WHO guidelines. In IAWQI, acceptability has a weight of 1.00, health has a value of 11.08 and toxicity  has a value of 2.74. A comparison of the CCME WQI and the IAWQI shows that the CCME WQI generally  overestimates the quality of water. The IAWQI values of countries such as Sudan, Ghana and Rwanda are much  higher than their corresponding WQI values. These three countries located in Africa are among countries with  the lowest water poverty indices (WPI).

Keywords
Water quality index
water quality standard
water
water stress
Conflict of interest
The authors declare they have no competing interests.
References

Aina, E.O.A. and N.O. Adedipe (Eds.) (1996). Water Quality Monitoring and Environmental Status in Nigeria. FEPA Monograph 6, FEPA,Abuja, Nigeria.

Ali, H.M. (2008), Development of Arab water sustainability index using principal component analysis. The Third International Conference on Water resources and Arid Environments (2008) and the 1st Arab Water Forum.

Brown, R.M., McLelland, N.I., Deininger, R.A. and M.F. O’Connor (1972), A water quality index—crashing the psychological barrier, indicators of environmental quality, 1(1).

Calamari, D. and H. Naeve (Eds.) (1994). Review of pollution in the African aquatic environment. CIFA Technical Paper No. 25, FAO, Rome.

CCME (2001). Canadian environmental quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life, CCME water quality index: technical report, 1.0.

CCME (1999). Water Quality Index 1.0, Technical Report. In: Canadian environmental quality guidelines, 1999, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Winnipeg.

Debels, P., Figueroa, R., Urrutia, R., Barra, R. and X. Niell (2005). Evaluation of water quality in the Chilla’n River (Central Chile) using physicochemical parameters and a modified water quality index. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 110: 301–322.

Dunn, A.L. and E. Derrington (2010). Investment in water and waste water infrastructure: An Environmental justice challenge, a governance solution. Natl. Resourc. Environ., 24: 3–12.

Kannel, P.R., Lee, S., Lee, Y.S., Kanel, S.R. and S.P. Khan (2007). Application of water quality indices and dissolved oxygen as indicators for river water classification and urban impact assessment. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 132: 93–110.

Khan, A., Tobin, A., Paterson, R., Khan, H. and R. Warren (2005). Application of CCME Procedures for Deriving Site-Specific Water Quality Guidelines for the CCME Water Quality Index. Water Qual. Res. J. Canada, 40:(4) 448–456.

Lawrence, P., Meigh, J. and C. Sullivan (2002), The water poverty index: An international comparison. Keele Economics Research, KERP 2002/19.

Ince, M., Bashir, D., Oni, O.O.O., Awe, E.O., Ogbechie, V., Korve, K., Adeyinka, M.A., Olufolabo,A.A., Ofordu, F. and M. Kehinde (2010). Rapid Assessment of Drinking Water Quality in the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Whitfield, P.H. (1988). Goals and data collection designs for water quality monitoring. Water Resources Bulletin, 24: 775–780. Doi: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.1988.tb00928.x. ISSN: 0043-1370

WHO (1996). The world health report 1996-Fighting disease, fostering development, Geneva, Switzerland. http://www. who.int/whr/1996/en/.

World Health Organization (1984). Standards for Drinking Water. WHO. Geneva. Switzerland.

Share
Back to top
Asian Journal of Water, Environment and Pollution, Electronic ISSN: 1875-8568 Print ISSN: 0972-9860, Published by AccScience Publishing