Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
CIRCULAR 770
Water-Quality Indices for Specific Water Uses
By J. D. Stoner
1978
United States Department of the Interior
CECIL D. ANDRUS, Secretary
Geological Survey
H. William Menard, Director
Free on application to Branch of Distribution, U.S. Geological Survey, 1200 South Eads Street, Arlington, VA 22202
CONTENTS
Page Page
Abstract_____________________________ 1 Examples of specific indices __ _, _______ _____ 5
Introduction _ ___ _ __ _ _ ______ _ ___ ___ _ 1 Public water supply index _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ 5
Earlier indices _________________________ 1 Type-I properties_________________ 5
Development of the index_________ _________ 2 Type-II properties __________________ 5
Criteria ____________________________ 2 Application of index _______________ 8
Boundary conditions __________________ 2 Irrigation index ____________________________ 8
Mathematical functions ______ _ __ _____ _ _ 2 Type-I properties_____________ ___ 10
Types of properties ___-______________ 3 Type-II properties ___________________ 10
Type-I properties__________________ 3 Application of index _____________________ 10
Type-II properties ________________ 4 Conclusions ________________________________ 10
Index __________________ ____ 4 References___________________________ 12
ILLUSTRATION
TABLES
Hi
Water-Quality Indices for Specific Water Uses
By JERRY D. STONER
Ammonia-nitrogen _________________ mg/L 0.13 9.92 0.11 10.45 0.05 12.06 0.29 5.63 5.5 -134 1.9 -37.52 1.0 -13.40
Nitrite-nitrogen ___________________ mg/L -02 13.39 .01 13.40 .00 13.40 .00 13.40 .18 12.97 .20 12.86 .07 13.33
cells/
Fecal-coliform _____________________ 100 mL 2200 -3.06 190 13.28 400 12.86 110 13.36 50000 -8486 2000 .00 5380 -85.01
pH ..-. -.-..--.__.____._...__ _ _ _......__._ units 6.4 8.11 7.8 7.52 7.0 8.92 7.1 8.90 7.5 8.38 7.1 8.90 7.1 8.90
Fluoride _ -.--..-_-_._._.__________________.___.._ ' 0 8.79 .22 8.74 .13 8.89 .05 8.87 .17 8.85 *.17 8.85 .10 8.90
Chloride . ______.______________ mg/L 20 6.16 170 2.14 17 6.24 18 6.22 86 4.40 260 5.09 35 5.76
Sulfate__..._____.__._..._______.. mg/L 14 6.32 100 4.02 9.6 6.44 8.0 6.49 23 6.08 220 6.12 12 6.38
Phenols _______________________ /tg/L 1.0 .00 .0 5.30 1.0 .00 .0 5.30 .0 5.30 .0 5.30 .0 5.30
MBAS __ .. .... .._--.-.... mg/L .00 5.30 .00 5.30 .29 2.23 .00 5.30 .56 -.64 .00 5.30 .05 4.77
Copper_________________________ mg/L .007 4.46 .005 4.46 .010 4.46 .006 4.46 .004 4.45 .011 4.46 .007 4.46
Iron _.-_ _.._._- _ ..-_.._______.__.___ mg/L .150 2.25 .390 -1.35 .050 3.75 .280 .30 .120 2.70 .120 2.70 .220 1.20
Zinc ......___....__..._______...___ mg/L .020 4.48 .030 4.47 .010 4.49 .030 4.47 .040 4.46 .820 3.76 .230 4.29
Color _-.._._-_ ..._.___ _.___________.___.___ Pt-Co 130 -9.02 30 3.78 30 3.78 180 -21.42 30 3.78 50 2.50 130 -9.02
10
TABLE 7. Type-II properties for irrigation index
Concentration *
Water quality index
Group Property Limit Ideal equation
TABLE 8. Irrigation indices and individual property effects for selected waters
[All properties expressed in mg/L except Specific conductivity which is expressed in umho/cm and Fecal coliform which is expressed in cells/100 mL]
Property Cone. WQI(i) Cone. WQI(i) Cone. WQI(i) Cone. WQI(i) Cone. WQI(i)
SAR - ...__ . 0.0 11.10 4.0 9.32 0.8 11.03 0.1 11.10 15 -13.88
Specific conductance ..___. ..451 7.03 1750 -50.15 117 10.83 22 11.09 6340 -792.81
Fecal coliform . .... _. .. ..... __ ......200 10.66 140 10.88 "48 11.07 0 11.10
. .___... .001 7.33 .000 7.40 .000 7.40 .002 7.25 ..
.- _-_... .020 .260 6.90 .050 7.38 .000 7.40 3.100 -63.7
000 7 40 000 7.40 .001 7.33 .001 7.33
5.55 '.000 5.55 '.000 5.55 .010 5.55
- .._-_- >.000 5.55 .000 5.55 .000 5.55 .000 5.55
nno 5.55 .000 5.55 .000 5.55 .000 5.55 ..
Cobalt. _ . . . _ __ ..... ._._- .00 5.55 '.000 5.55 '.000 5.55 .000 5.55
._____- .020 5.00 .010 5.27 .020 5.00 .010 5.27 .020 5.00
Vanadium . _ .... ..___ .002 5.44 '.000 5.55 .005 5.27 .000 5.55
.-.__...- .001 2.80 .020 2.77 .003 2.80 .001 2.80 .. ..
Fluoride . _ .__ ... . -.._ .. . .1 2.77 .5 2.10 .5 2.10 .1 2.77 1.6 -4.37
Nickel ................ _ .___.- _ _ - .000 2.80 .005 2.80 '.000 2.80 .003 2.80
Zinc . . .. . _. ____. ».020 2.80 .020 2.80 .020 2.80 .010 2.80 ..
NOTE: (1) Castle Creek above Deerfield Reservoir, near Hill City, South Dakota, Dec. 18, 1972.
(2) Powder River at Moorhead, Montana, Apr. 4, 1972.
(3) Big Jacks Creek near Bruneau, Idaho, June 15, 1972.
(4) Little Boulder Creek above Baker Lake, near Clayton, Idaho, Aug. 29, 1972.
(5) Silver Tip Creek near Belfry, Montana, Aug. 8, 1972.
1 Estimated value.
2 Immediate coliform value.
11
Most of the analytical data presently available only the relative use hazards in the two
do not contain the complete suite of properties waters.
required for application to one or more of the indi- 4. A positive index number will only indicate
ces. Indices can be calculated using an incomplete that on the whole the water is fit for a
suite of properties; however, the uncertainty of particular use; it will not indicate
the index value increases with the number of whether a given property is marginal.
missing properties. Comparing index values com- The index was designed to:
puted from data sets having missing properties is 1. Provide directly comparable numbers
risky at best. The comparability of two waters such that various waters can be judged
where different properties are missing for in- for use in specific categories.
stance, fecal coliform bacteria for one water and 2. Allow for comparison of water quality
fluoride for the other is also risky. If one must changes over time.
use indices computed from incomplete suites of 3. Provide information that managers and
data, these indices should be computed from iden- other nontechnical personnel can use
tical data sets so that they at least are directly easily.
comparable. In addition, care must be taken to 4. Indicate waters of "good" and "bad" water
inform the user of the index of the added uncer- quality for specific-use categories.
tainty caused by the missing data. If at all possi-
ble, the missing properties should be estimated REFERENCES
from available data; or if the index values are to Brown, R. M., McClleland, N. I., Deininges, R. A., and Tozer,
be used in management decisions, the missing R., 1970, A water quality index do we dare?: Madison,
data should be collected. Wisconsin Univ., National symposium on data and in-
Certain items are not provided by the index, strumentation for water-quality management, Proceed-
and any attempt to use it as a guide for these is ings, p. 363-383.
likely to lead to erroneous conclusions. These Harkins, R. D., 1974, An objective water quality index: Water
Pollution Control Federation Jour., v. 46, no. 3, p. 588-
items are: 591.
1. The index does not provide information on Hem, J. D., 1970, Study and interpretation of the chemical
the concentration and distribution of characteristics of natural water: U.S. Geological Survey
the individual water-quality properties. Water-Supply Paper 1473, 363 p.
2. The index represents the net effect of all Hinman, J. J., Jr., 1938, Desirable characteristics of a munici-
pal water supply: Am. Water Works Assoc. Jour., v. 39,
the properties involved; it does not pro- no. 39(3), p. 484-494.
vide information on which properties National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of En-
have positive and which have negative gineering, 1972, Water quality criteria 1972: U.S. En-
effects on the index. vironmental Protection Agency, EPA R3-73-033, 594 p.
3. The comparison of two index numbers will Walski, T. M., and Parker, F. L., 1974, A consumers water
quality index: Am. Soc. Civil Engineers Proc., Jour. Envi-
not provide information as to whether ron. Eng. Div., v. 100, no. EE3, p. 593-611.
one water is more amenable to treat- Wilcox, L. V., 1955, Classification and use of irrigation waters:
ment than the other; it will indicate U.S. Dept. Agriculture, Circ. 969, 19 p.
12