Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Surface water quality analysis using multivariate statistical techniques: a case study of Fars Province rivers, Iran

  • Published:
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study aimed to transform the input of a large dataset into the output of interpretable information. Hence, multivariate statistical methods were carried out to analyze physicochemical parameters in 34 rivers during a 17-year period (1997–2014). Cluster analysis divided the study area into spatially different riverine water quality sub-regions described in ascending order of water quality as severely polluted (SP), highly polluted (HP), polluted (P), moderately polluted (MP), lightly polluted (LP), and not polluted (NP). By diagnosing threats and identifying fragile zones, water contamination sources responsible for impaired water quality in the study area recognized as natural pollutants in LP, municipal wastes in P, discharge of industrial effluents in MP, natural geochemical formations in SP and HP, and superficial flows of agricultural lands in SP, HP, and MP. The dominant water type in each zone was classified into Na–Cl, Na–Cl, Na–Mg–Ca–Cl–SO4, Na–Ca–Mg–Cl–SO4, Na–Ca–Cl, and Ca–Mg–HCO3–SO4 groups for SP, HP, P, MP, LP, and NP, respectively. To explore aesthetic aspects of drinking water application, hazard quotient (HQ) was applied for children and adults in terms of ingestion and dermal exposure. Overall health risk assessment revealed the order of impacts of the secondary water quality parameters as Cl  > Na+  > total dissolved solids (TDS) > Ca2+  > SO42−  > Mg2+. Furthermore, hazard index (HI) ranged from 0.011 to 31.439 and 0.010 to 30.122 for children and adults, respectively, indicating a potential health risk regarding chloride throughout the whole region excluding NP. To identify significant agents in water quality, principal component analysis extracted 3 varifactors (VFs), with the eigenvalues of 4.74, 1.19, and 0.85, respectively, explained about 83% of the variance. The most important parameters in the first factor were TDS, electrical conductivity, SAR, TH, Na+, Cl, and SO42− accounting for 58% of the total variance. The most influenced parameters in the second and third factors were pH and HCO3, respectively, with variance coverage of 26%. These factors indicated that the hydrochemical characteristics of the water originated by natural interactions (existing salt domes, evaporation, weathering, and soil erosion) and anthropogenic activities (fertilizer-rich flows of agro-fields and domestic/industrial disposals), which must be minimized in rivers to supply the population with hygienic water.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and material

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Masoud Noshadi.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Hydrochemical characteristics of Fars Province rivers (1997–2014)

River

EC (dS/m)

pH

TDS

HCO3−−

Cl

SO42−−

Ca2+

Mg2+

Na+

SAR

TH (mg/L as CaCO3)

R (mm)

Q (m3/s)

Cluster no

No.*

Name

   

(mg/L)

   

1

Baba Haji, Pole Fasa

6.77

7.59

4516.72

578.28

1678.91

825.16

143.69

239.21

869.17

8.55

1768.95

370.31

1.72

1

2

Paskoohak, Aliaabad

1.04

7.54

730.92

218.38

36.87

321.32

161.72

42.91

18.17

0.34

527.50

447.36

2.19

2

3

Khoshk,Chenar

1.87

7.57

1264.35

214.72

133.29

600.86

1188.57

69.89

58.88

0.87

873.82

342.58

9.03

2

4

Rahdar,Chenar

2.57

7.63

1835.08

194.59

282.18

888.07

338.07

103.32

149.04

1.87

1187.39

342.58

0.49

2

5

Kor, Polekhan

8.47

7.35

5211.24

262.91

3418.80

450.52

238.88

180.26

1366.20

8.46

1185.71

347.95

21.10

2

6

Sefid, Dehkade sefid

0.38

7.70

281.35

201.30

20.21

15.85

55.51

12.64

11.50

0.37

182.39

447.46

4.47

3

7

Sivand, Dashtbaal

0.63

7.72

471.85

233.63

50.34

64.36

91.98

26.38

37.72

1.05

245.37

320.19

7.25

3

8

Sivand, Rahmataabad

0.75

7.72

509.18

264.13

63.81

77.33

80.76

31.36

47.84

1.26

279.05

320.19

3.31

3

9

Nahre Azam, Chenar

0.59

7.73

417.87

237.29

24.82

82.13

164.33

28.81

22.54

0.53

263.74

342.58

1.45

3

10

Shoore kharestan, Jamalbeig

6.01

7.79

3838.55

222.65

2094.03

160.42

68.94

25.28

1228.20

21.59

567.44

488.86

1.26

4

11

Shool, Goosangan

2.23

7.80

1389.85

188.49

555.50

202.69

316.43

38.17

341.32

7.38

404.01

601.83

14.50

4

12

Shirin, Jamalbeig

1.19

7.92

763.28

201.30

282.54

45.15

102.20

18.84

175.72

5.07

217.90

488.86

5.45

4

13

Kor, Chamriz

0.75

7.78

507.60

207.40

130.10

30.26

58.92

19.33

74.75

2.19

217.16

427.53

20.18

4

14

Kor, Doroudzan

0.59

7.81

410.56

215.94

65.23

27.38

91.98

19.45

38.87

1.16

219.90

440.25

12.62

4

15

Shapoor, Chiti

5.07

7.60

3307.52

259.86

1310.59

583.08

86.37

105.99

725.88

9.67

1099.24

341.72

6.91

2

16

Ranjan, Choogan

0.70

7.69

495.78

218.99

30.84

145.05

58.52

33.55

16.56

0.39

338.16

554.87

1.45

3

17

Shapoor, Booshigan

0.80

7.65

637.40

237.90

60.97

193.08

76.15

41.57

35.42

0.77

406.75

425.08

5.75

3

18

Jaare, Nargesi

3.97

7.85

2675.37

210.45

1140.78

278.09

143.69

54.09

677.58

11.64

603.54

297.56

9.05

4

19

Dalaki, Chamchit

3.24

7.74

2129.83

222.04

806.13

355.90

161.72

83.75

436.77

7.10

748.09

499.14

9.12

2

20

Shoor, Shekastian

39.79

7.58

26,469.61

144.57

17,096.83

2835.69

1188.57

390.54

10,181.41

59.80

4185.18

425.08

0.74

5

21

Shoor, Jaare

12.65

7.76

8271.01

200.69

4606.73

755.03

338.07

136.01

2747.81

28.40

1402.94

329.06

1.18

6

22

Mand, Dezhgah

4.41

7.59

2967.33

158.60

924.18

962.52

238.88

156.92

552.00

6.76

1241.06

154.36

7.95

2

23

Firoozaabad, Hanifghan

0.49

7.66

358.62

260.47

17.37

27.38

55.51

25.16

10.12

0.29

241.83

402.97

0.67

3

24

Mand,Karzin

1.44

7.70

956.43

198.86

227.59

252.16

91.98

52.63

138.00

2.83

446.11

249.47

25.03

3

25

Simakan, Berak

1.04

7.87

735.95

251.93

75.51

238.23

80.76

64.42

43.93

0.84

466.66

287.21

2.83

4

26

Shoore Jahrom, Hakan

3.68

7.73

2385.87

262.91

877.39

481.74

164.33

99.31

519.11

8.08

818.57

277.41

6.13

2

27

Firoozaabad, Dehrood

0.87

7.85

580.47

247.66

76.93

151.77

68.94

45.34

49.91

0.89

358.50

242.47

1.74

4

28

Firoozaabad, Dehram

15.29

7.72

9968.21

215.94

5569.90

746.39

316.43

145.50

3294.98

40.49

1329.47

209.28

5.53

6

29

Ghareaghaj, Bahaman

0.94

7.73

664.40

213.50

48.92

258.88

102.20

50.69

27.14

0.51

463.25

403.38

8.61

3

30

Roodbal, Darbghaale

0.49

7.81

345.07

227.53

26.59

34.58

58.92

18.23

16.56

0.45

222.02

267.42

2.30

4

31

Aab shirin, Garab

0.73

7.78

521.73

192.76

24.82

189.24

91.98

29.42

18.17

0.43

350.22

589.12

5.42

4

32

Fahlian, Batoon

1.33

8.18

881.15

207.40

233.62

175.79

86.37

38.05

140.30

3.19

372.23

556.59

21.10

4

33

Bavanaat, Mazayjaan

0.63

7.63

446.42

291.58

39.00

39.38

58.52

32.82

25.30

0.66

281.05

202.08

0.72

3

34

Bavanaat, Menj

1.04

7.71

745.01

327.57

70.55

181.07

76.15

61.26

50.14

1.04

442.19

126.97

1.35

3

  1. *The location of all rivers is shown in Fig. 1

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ghaemi, Z., Noshadi, M. Surface water quality analysis using multivariate statistical techniques: a case study of Fars Province rivers, Iran. Environ Monit Assess 194, 178 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-022-09811-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-022-09811-1

Keywords

Navigation