Ascertaining the temperature of a river is very important because the temperature controls the rate

of all chemical reactions that takes place in the river, and it also affects the growth of fishes, its
reproduction and immunity. Extreme temperatures or temperature fluctuations can be fatal to the
fishes in the river. The high temperatures as observed during the study may be due to increase in
atmospheric temperature resulting from the anomalies caused by climate change. However, the
observed range of the temperature allows for optimum proliferation of most of the bacterial
especially when isolated from the water samples. Bacteria such as enterobateriaceac and
mesophiles grow optimally at temperature ranging from 20oC to 32oC (Fransolet et al., 2006).

Turbidity
Turbidity in water may be caused by growth of Phytoplankton. The major cause of turbidity can
be attributed to human activities around the river such as construction, mining and agriculture
which tend to disturb the stability of suspended particles in the water. The human activities
commonly found around the banks of river Amba is rice milling, block making and agricultural
activities such as sugar cane plantation. This can lead to high levels of sediments entering into the
river during rain storms due to storms water run off (EPA, 2002).

High levels of TDS in water may also be said to be objectionable to consumers owing to the
resulting taste and to excessive scaling in water pipes, heaters, boilers, and household appliances.
Some dissolved organic matter can also contribute to increased level of TDS which also indicates
that the water is polluted (Navneet et al., 2010). While water with extremely low concentrations
of TDS may also be inacceptable to consumers because of its flat and insipid taste. High TDS
might be due to the presence of large number of organic salt such as carbonate, bicarbonate sodium,
potassium and calcium and also some non-volatile substance. (Prasanthi et al., 2012).

Suspended Solids: - The value of suspended solids as presented in table 7 is 112 mg/l which is
above the stipulated by WHO and NAFDAC standards presented in the same table. SS in water
are indications of suspended and solid materials present in the water (Oladiji et al., 2007).
Suspended solids in rivers are mostly due to high levels of sediments carried by surface runoff
after precipitation into the water. These includes runoff from natural and anthropogenic (human)
activities in the water shed, (United States Environment Protection Agency, 2006).

Electrical Conductivity:- Electrical Conductivity of river Amba is 84.0µg/cm as presented in

table 7 which is not acceptable with the WHO and NAFDAC limit. When electrical conductivity
is high, it increases the corrosive nature of water (Naveet et al., 2010). High electrical conductivity
value might be due to the presence of high amount of dissolved inorganic substances in ionized
form. The electrical conductivity of river Amba is not up to the value stipulated by WHO and
NAFDAC.

The lower the pH value of a water the higher the corrosive nature of water. Dissolved gases such
as carbon (IV) oxide, hydrogen sulphide and ammonia also affect the pH of water. One of the
significant environmental impacts of pH is the effect that it has on the solubility and thus the
bioavailability of other substance (Khan et al., 2012).
Hardness:- The result obtained for hardness is 62 mg/l which is below the limit specified by
WHO and NAFDAC. The water from River Amba is considered free from hardness. Water
hardness is mostly due to the presence of multivalent metal ions which comes from minerals
dissolved in the water. One of the most prevailing impact of water hardness on fishes and other
aquatic lifes appears to be the effect, the presence of these ions has on the other more toxic metals
such as Lead, Cadmium, Chromium and Zine. Generally, the harder the water, the lower the
toxicity of other metals to aquatic life (Navneet et al., 2010).

Chemical Oxygen Demand:- COD obtained from the study is 134mg/l which is went above the
acceptable limit of WHO and NAFDAC standard. COD is the amount of dissolved oxygen
required to cause chemical oxidation of the organic material in water. High COD has undesirable
consequence on aquatic life. (Boyd and Lichikoppler, 2008).

Dissolved Oxygen:- The dissolved oxygen content of River Amba is 5.1mg/l as presented in table
7 which is slightly above WHO and NAFDAC standard of 4.0mg/l. DO is one of the most
important water quality parameters. If correlated with water body, it gives direct and indirect
information about the reactions in the water such as bacterial activity, photosynthesis, availability
of nutrients, stratification. Some the effects of dissolved oxygen is that it corrode water lines,
boilers and heat exchangers at low level, survival of marine animals (Premlata, 2009). Variation
in dissolved oxygen might be due to temperature, photosynthesis, respiration, aeration, organic
water and sediment concentration (Budget and Verma, 2006).

Biochemical Oxygen Demand:- The BOD demand of the as presented in table 7 is 69mg/l. As
observed it higher than the value specified by WHO and NAFDAC standard. Also high BOD
decrease level of dissolved oxygen in water (Prasanthi et al., 2012).

The total coliform count for all samples were exceedingly higher than the value specified by WHO
and NAFDAC. The value of the coliform count is 771per 100ml of water which is way higher than
the value of 0 and 10 specified by WHO and NAFDAC respectively. EPA maximum
contamination level (MCL) for Coliform bacteria in drinking water of zero. This shows that the
water is facecally contaminated (EPA, 2002).

Hence, the people consuming this water are at risk of contracting water-borne and/ or sanitation-
related diseases as highlighted by the microbiological quality of the water they use for drinking
and other domestic uses. Proper treatment of this river water is necessary for the to become potable.
The result of the analysis for the six months were reported in Table 8. The temperature of water
during the study period was in a range between 31.2° C to 32.6°C. The maximum value of
temperature observed was in the month of October, while minimum was in the month of January.
The pH values varied from 6.27 to 6.48. The maximum pH value was observed the month of
January and that of minimum was September. The electrical conductivity (EC) varied between
71.7 µs/cm to 96.6 µs/cm. The maximum value was recorded in the month of September and
minimum in the month of January. The values of hardness were in a range between 50.0 mg/l to
70.0 mg/l. The maximum value was recorded in the month of January and minimum in the month
of August. The turbidity values were in a range between 60NTU to 210NTU. The maximum value
was in the month of September and minimum in the month January. The SS values were recorded
between 180 mg/l to 475 mg/l. The maximum value was recorded in the month of January while
minimum was in the month of September.
The DO values ranges between 4.9 mg/l to 5.3 mg/l. The maximum value was recorded in the
month of January and minimum was in the month of September. The BOD values were in a range
between 60 mg/l to 79mg/l. The maximum value was recorded in the month of December and
minimum in the month of January. The COD values were between 119 mg/l to 152 mg/l. The
maximum value was observed in the month of September and minimum in the month of January.
The sulphate values were in a range between 21 mg/l to 70mg/l. The maximum value was obtained
in month of September and minimum in the month of August. The TDS values ranges between
42.2 mg/l to 55.9 mg/l. The maximum value was recorded in the month of September and
minimum was in the month of August. The TS values were between 58.6 mg/l to 227.1 mg/l. The
maximum value was observed in the month of October and minimum in the month of January.

In this study, statistical methods were used as an attempt to assess the trend of the water
quality parameters of River Amba. The correlation coefficients among all the water quality
parameters were calculated. Linear regression equations were developed for the pairs of
parameters, which have a significant influence on each other. The numerical values of
correlation coefficient, R for the fifteen water quality parameters were tabulated in Table 48. This
shows that a single water quality parameter can have relationship with other parameters. The
regression equations obtained from the analysis are given in the Table 48. The different dependent
characteristics of water quality were calculated using the regression equation by substituting the
values for the independent parameters in the equations.

The correlation analysis on the water quality parameters of river Amba reveals that all
parameters are more or less correlated with each other. SPSS and Windows Excel were
used as statistical analysis tools to carry out this correlation. The term correlation (or co-
variation) indicates the relationship between two variables such that the changes in the
values of one variable cause the value of the other variable to change. We can establish
inter-relationship between variables by statistical methods with a few sets of observations.
It gives a rough but fairly useful indication of the water quality and also facilitates a rapid
monitoring of the status of water pollution (Jeyaraj et al 2001).
The amount of variation in the dependent variable that is accounted for by variation in the
predictor variable is measured by the value of coefficient of determination (R2), often called
adjusted. The closer this is to 1 the better, because if R2 adjusted is 1 then the regression
model is accounting for all the variation in regression analysis, according to both by Altman
(1991) and Cambell and Machin (1993). In this study most of the R values are found to be
significant. So the equations obtained as regression equations are reliable as presented in
table 48.
The determination the correlation co-efficient will enormously lessen the tasks of rapid
monitoring of water quality parameters thereby reducing cost as well. Planning and
designing of water resources projects need information on different hydrologic events that
are not governed by the known physical and chemical laws, but are governed by the laws
of chance (seasonal variation). Hence, the statistical analysis of the experimentally
estimated water quality parameters on water samples yielded values of the Range,
Minimum, Maximum, Mean, Standard Error, Standard Deviation, and Variance. Since the
correlation coefficients give the interrelationships between the parameters, correlation
coefficients were calculated.

Highly positive correlation is observed between Temp and Turb (R=0.7828), Temp and C
(R=0.9349), Temp and TDS (R=0.5162), Temp and SS (R=0.7669), Temp and TS (R=0.7601),
Temp vs EC (R=0.8760), Turb and C (R=0.7065), Turb and TDS (R=0.9194), Turb and SS
(R=0.9995), Turb and TS (R=0.9832), Turb and EC (R=0.7218), C and SS (R=0.6908), C and TS
(R=0.6636), C and EC (R=0.9651), TDS and SS (R=0.9303), TDS and TS (R=0.9459), SS and TS
(0.9864), SS and EC (0.7965), TS and EC (0.6570), pH and S (0.7184), pH and COD (R=0.7756),
S and COD (R=0.8546), DO and BOD (R=0.9366).

In this chapter, the findings of the research works carried out in this
thesis are summarised and the conclusions emerging from the study
presented. The scope for further research in this direction is also outlined. All the
parameters studied have shown positive and negative correlation between each other.
However water from Bhandaradara reservoir is suitable for drinking purpose. All
parameters
tested are within the permissible limit according to WHO (1984) guidelines. Continues
monitoring of water quality is necessary to help local people and irrigation department
for
making water policy. However, human induced water pollution should be monitored in
proper
The River Krishna is a very large basin, with number of tributaries. Considering the above fact, it is rather
difficult or impossible and expensive to monitor all individual sources of pollution. The study reported in the
paper illustrates the impact of land use on the water quality and attempts to model stream water chemistry with
the available land use and water quality data. Land use in the basin is dominated by agriculture. However, forests
are diminishing due to increased urbanization and industrialisation. The influence of land use activities on water
quality is mainly restricted to post monsoon season, as 90% of the rainfall occurs during the season. The
tributaries of the river exhibit seasonality in flow conditions with minimum flows during dry season and
maximum flows during the wet season. The available water quality information indicates high concentration of
suspended solids during the wet flows and high concentration of dissolved solids during the dry season which are
due to flushing and dilution effects. The models developed form a basic tool to support water quality and land
use management in future. The proposed models are based on the use of available data at the river scale and
would therefore be directly applicable to the study area. It could be further useful for policy makers to impose
land use controls, so as to minimize water quality degradation.

manner and its needs appropriate management to achieve sustainable development.

All the parameters studied have shown positive and negative correlation between each
other.
However water from Bhandaradara reservoir is suitable for drinking purpose. All
parameters
tested are within the permissible limit according to WHO (1984) guidelines. Continues
monitoring of water quality is necessary to help local people and irrigation department
for
making water policy. However, human induced water pollution should be monitored in
proper
manner and its needs appropriate management to achieve sustainable development.

This pollution impact study has proven that the Iyi-Okai stream segment is indeed polluted.
The study has been able to track the type of pollution, by the evolution of the bacteriological
quality of the river water samples. Non-point sources of pollution which includes the
agricultural activities (pesticides and crop wastes) and domestic activities by the poorly
planned settlers nearby the river. Overall the water in all the sites is not fit for human
consumption without prior treatment. The water quality parameters of concern were
microbial continuation, physical and chemical parameters such as pH, Dissolved oxygen
(DO) chemical oxygen demand (COD), BOD etc. the people in these rural area therefore live
in constant risk of contracting water-borne and/ or sanitation-related diseases as high lighted
by the microbiological quality of the water they use for drinking and other domestic uses.
Proper treatment is imperative for the river to be appropriate for potable, domestic and
industrial purposes

It is therefore recommended to coordinate different efforts at the level of the community

dwellers and the government to rescue the Iyi-okai stream from different current hazard and
to provide good portable water for the dwellers. Regular estimation of the above mentioned
parameters would be helpful to improve water quality.
The proposed models are based on the use of available data at the river scale and would therefore
be directly applicable to the study area. The models developed form a basic tool to support water
quality and land use management in future.
Out of the 30 Correlation coefficients, 11 Correlation coefficients (r) between the TDS and
Cl (0.986831), TDS and Ca (0.91798), Cl and Ca (0.903641), TDS and SO4 (0.853032),
TDS and Na (0.812696), SO and Ca (0.800936) are found to be with highly significant
levels (0.8< r <1.0), 11 correlation coefficients are at the moderately significant levels
(0.6< r <0.8) and 4 correlation coefficients give the significant (0.5< r <0.6) levels.

ABSTRACT
The challenge of river water quality management is so enormous due to the unpredictive
modes of contamination. Monitoring different sources of pollutant load contribution to the
river basin is also quite tasking, resulting to laborious and expensive process which
sometimes leads to analytical errors. The present study deals with the assessment of
physico- chemical parameters of water samples from River Amba during the period of
August 2017 to January 2018. The observed values of various physico - chemical
parameters from water samples have been compared with standard values recommended
by WHO and NAFDAC. Parameters that were measured are Temperature, Turbidity
(NTU), Suspended solids (mg/l), Colour, Total solids, Total dissolved solids, Electrical
conductivity (µs/cm), pH, Hardness, Chemical Oxygen Demand, Dissolved Oxygen (DO),
and Total Coli form. The result of the water quality analysis of the study in comparison
with drinking water quality standard issued by WHO and NAFDAC revealed that most of
the water quality parameters were not adequate to pronounce the water potable. Hence
adequate water treatment processes should be employed to make the water fit for
consumption and other domestic uses. Statistical studies were also carried out by
calculating mean, standard deviation, co-variance and correlation coefficient between
different pairs of parameters. It was observed that the parameters studied had positive
correlation with each other. The statistical analysis showed that Out of the 30 Correlation
coefficients, 11 Correlation coefficients (r) between Temp and C (R=0.9349), Temp vs EC
(R=0.8760), Turb and TDS (R=0.9194), Turb and SS (R=0.9995), Turb and TS
(R=0.9832), , C and EC (R=0.9651), TDS and SS (R=0.9303), TDS and TS (R=0.9459),
SS and TS (R=0.9864), S and COD (R=0.8546), DO and BOD (R=0.9366) are found to be
with highly significant levels (0.8< r <1.0), 11 correlation coefficients are at the
moderately significant levels (0.6< r <0.8) and 8 correlation coefficients gave the
significant (0.5< r <0.6) levels. A very high significant level of correlation (R=0.999)
between the values of the predictive models from regression analysis and the experimental
value were obtained.

Table 19: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – Temperature and Turbidity

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.782809578
R Square 0.612790835
Adjusted R Square 0.515988544
Standard Error 0.412761472
Observations 6
 ANOVA
Significance
Df SS MS F F
Regression 1 1.078512 1.078512 6.330334 0.065634901
Residual 4 0.681488 0.170372
Total 5 1.76

Table 20: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – Temperature and Colour

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.934945158
R Square 0.874122448
 Adjusted R Square 0.84265306
Standard Error 0.235342565
Observations 6

ANOVA
Significance
Df SS MS F F
Regression 1 1.538456 1.538456 27.77691 0.006210538
Residual 4 0.221544 0.055386
Total 5 1.76

Table 21: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – Temperature and TDS

 Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.516241007
R Square 0.266504777
Adjusted R Square 0.083130972
Standard Error 0.568100253
Observations 6

ANOVA
Significance
Df SS MS F F
Regression 1 0.469048 0.469048 1.453342 0.294428837
Residual 4 1.290952 0.322738
Total 5 1.76
Table 22: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – Temperature and SS

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.766909923
R Square 0.588150831
Adjusted R Square 0.485188538
Standard Error 0.425691948
Observations 6

ANOVA
Significance
Df SS MS F F
Regression 1 1.035145 1.035145 5.712293 0.075164469
Residual 4 0.724855 0.181214
Total 5 1.76
Table 23: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – Temperature and TS

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.76014688
R Square 0.577823279
Adjusted R Square 0.472279099
Standard Error 0.430996238
Observations 6

ANOVA
Significance
df SS MS F F
Regression 1 1.016969 1.016969 5.474705 0.079394962
Residual 4 0.743031 0.185758
Total 5 1.76
Table 24: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – Temperature and EC

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.876003192
R Square 0.767381593
Adjusted R Square 0.709226991
Standard Error 0.319925146
Observations 6

ANOVA
Significance
df SS MS F F
Regression 1 1.350592 1.350592 13.19554 0.022109574
Residual 4 0.409408 0.102352
Total 5 1.76
Table 25: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – Turb. and Colour

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.706529919
R Square 0.499184526
Adjusted R Square 0.373980658
Standard Error 56.03806126
Observations 6

ANOVA
Significance
df SS MS F F
Regression 1 12520.15 12520.15 3.986974 0.116549523
Residual 4 12561.06 3140.264
Total 5 25081.21
Table 26: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – Turb. and TDS

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.919333523
R Square 0.845174126
Adjusted R Square 0.806467658
Standard Error 31.15774382
Observations 6

ANOVA
Significance
df SS MS F F
Regression 1 21197.99 21197.99 21.83548 0.00949817
Residual 4 3883.22 970.805
Total 5 25081.21
Table 26: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – Turb. and SS

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.999507593
R Square 0.999015428
Adjusted R Square 0.998769285
Standard Error 2.484665361
Observations 6

ANOVA
Significance
df SS MS F F
3.63637E-
Regression 1 25056.51 25056.51 4058.68 07
Residual 4 24.69425 6.173562
Total 5 25081.21
Table 27: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – Turb. and TS

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.98328857
R Square 0.966856412
Adjusted R Square 0.958570515
Standard Error 14.41597407
Observations 6

ANOVA
Significance
Df SS MS F F
Regression 1 24249.93 24249.93 116.687 0.000416574
Residual 4 831.2812 207.8203
Total 5 25081.21
Table 28: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – Turb. and EC

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.721824793
R Square 0.521031032
Adjusted R Square 0.40128879
Standard Error 54.80219082
Observations 6

ANOVA
Significance
df SS MS F F
Regression 1 13068.09 13068.09 4.3512717 0.105309369
Residual 4 12013.12 3003.28
Total 5 25081.21
Table 29: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – colour vs TDS

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.407452078
R Square 0.166017196
Adjusted R Square -0.04247850
Standard Error 188.7718186
Observations 6

ANOVA
Significance
df SS MS F F
Regression 1 28374.64 28374.64 0.796262 0.422643909
Residual 4 142539.2 35634.8
Total 5 170913.8
Table 30: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – colour vs SS

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.690825327
R Square 0.477239633
Adjusted R Square 0.346549541
Standard Error 149.4548245
Observations 6

ANOVA
Significance
df SS MS F F
Regression 1 81566.86 81566.86 3.651689 0.12860662
Residual 4 89346.98 22336.74
Total 5 170913.8
Table 31: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – colour vs TS

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.663635962
R Square 0.44041269
Adjusted R Square 0.300515863
Standard Error 154.6295672
Observations 6

ANOVA
Significance
df SS MS F F
Regression 1 75272.62 75272.62 3.148125 0.150682907
 Residual 4 95641.21 23910.3
Total 5 170913.8

Table 32: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – Colour vs EC

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.965103761
R Square 0.93142527
Adjusted R Square 0.914281588
Standard Error 54.13032866
Observations 6

ANOVA
 Significance
df SS MS F F
Regression 1 159193.5 159193.5 54.33053 0.00180537
Residual 4 11720.37 2930.092
Total 5 170913.8

Table 33: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – TDS vs SS

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.930281
R Square 0.865422
Adjusted R Square 0.831778
Standard Error 2.260425
Observations 6
 ANOVA
Significance
df SS MS F F
Regression 1 131.4303 131.4303 25.72262 0.007121705
Residual 4 20.43808 5.10952
Total 5 151.8683

Table 34: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – TDS vs TS

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.945919
R Square 0.894763
 Adjusted R Square 0.868454
Standard Error 1.998885
Observations 6

ANOVA
Significance
df SS MS F F
Regression 1 135.8862 135.8862 34.0094 0.004308024
Residual 4 15.98217 3.995542
Total 5 151.8683

Table 35: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – TDS vs EC

 Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.443395998
R Square 0.196600011
Adjusted R Square -0.00424998
Standard Error 5.522929868
Observations 6

ANOVA
Significance
df SS MS F F
Regression 1 29.85732 29.85732 0.97884 0.37849183
Residual 4 122.011 30.50275
Total 5 151.8683
Table 36: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – SS vs TS

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.986443
R Square 0.97307
Adjusted R Square 0.966338
Standard Error 11.45984
Observations 6

ANOVA
Significance
df SS MS F F
Regression 1 18981.52 18981.52 144.5352 0.00027443
Residual 4 525.3119 131.328
Total 5 19506.83
Table 37: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – SS vs EC

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.70656
R Square 0.499228
Adjusted R Square 0.374035
Standard Error 49.41782
Observations 6

ANOVA
Significance
df SS MS F F
Regression 1 9738.35 9738.35 3.987661 0.116526614
Residual 4 9768.483 2442.121
Total 5 19506.83
Table 38: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – TS vs EC

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.657
R Square 0.43165
Adjusted R Square 0.289562
Standard Error 62.8336
Observations 6

ANOVA
Significance
df SS MS F F
Regression 1 11993.86 11993.86 3.037912 0.156296286
Residual 4 15792.24 3948.061
Total 5 27786.11
Table 39: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – pH vs Sulphate

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.718404707
R Square 0.516105322
Adjusted R Square 0.395131653
Standard Error 0.059366373
Observations 6

ANOVA
Significance
df SS MS F F
Regression 1 0.015036 0.015036 4.266262 0.107779187
Residual 4 0.014097 0.003524
Total 5 0.029133
Table 40: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – pH vs Hardness

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.021393
R Square 0.000458
Adjusted R Square -0.24943
Standard Error 0.085323
Observations 6

ANOVA
Significance
df SS MS F F
Regression 1 1.33E-05 1.3E-05 0.001832 0.967915204
Residual 4 0.02912 0.00728
Total 5 0.029133
Table 41: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – pH vs COD

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.77555811
R Square 0.60149038
Adjusted R Square 0.50186298
Standard Error 0.05387465
Observations 6

ANOVA
Significance
df SS MS F F
Regression 1 0.017523 0.017523 6.037399 0.069908206
Residual 4 0.01161 0.002902
Total 5 0.029133
Table 42: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – Sulphate vs Hardness

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.3220425
R Square 0.1037114
Adjusted R Square -0.120360
Standard Error 18.51694
Observations 6

ANOVA
Significance
df SS MS F F
Regression 1 158.7 158.7 0.462848 0.533635992
Residual 4 1371.508 342.8771
Total 5 1530.208
Table 43: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – Sulphate vs COD

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.85464311
R Square 0.73041485
Adjusted R Square 0.66301857
Standard Error 10.1553119
Observations 6

ANOVA
Significance
df SS MS F F
Regression 1 1117.687 1117.687 10.83761 0.030157341
Residual 4 412.5214 103.1304
Total 5 1530.208
Table 44: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – Hardness vs COD

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.263427747
R Square 0.069394178
Adjusted R Square -0.16325728
Standard Error 10.5675304
Observations 6

ANOVA
Significance
df SS MS F F
Regression 1 33.30921 33.30921 0.298275 0.613998556
Residual 4 446.6908 111.6727
Total 5 480
Table 45: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – DO vs BOD

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.936579188
R Square 0.877180575
Adjusted R Square 0.846475719
Standard Error 0.071893329
Observations 6

ANOVA
Significance
df SS MS F F
Regression 1 0.147659 0.147659 28.56814 0.005905754
Residual 4 0.020675 0.005169
Total 5 0.168333
Table 46: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – DO vs TC

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.05564897
R Square 0.00309681
Adjusted R Square -0.2461289
Standard Error 0.20482434
Observations 6

ANOVA
Significance
df SS MS F F
Regression 1 0.000521 0.000521 0.012426 0.91661271
 Residual 4 0.167812 0.041953
Total 5 0.168333

Table 47: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – BOD vs TC

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.2737148
R Square 0.07491979
Adjusted R Square -0.1563503
Standard Error 7.63413736
Observations 6

ANOVA
 Significance
df SS MS F F
Regression 1 18.87979 18.87979 0.323949 0.59968113
Residual 4 233.1202 58.28005
Total 5 252

Table 48: Linear Correlation Coefficient R and Regression Equation for Pairs of
Parameters with Significant Value of Correlation.
Table 49: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – Turb (measured) and Turb (predicted)

Table 19: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – Temperature and Turbidity

Table 20: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – Temperature and Colour

Table 21: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – Temperature and TDS

Table 22: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – Temperature and SS

Table 23: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – Temperature and TS

Table 24: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – Temperature and EC

Table 25: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – Turb. and C

Table 26: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – Turb. and TDS

Table 27: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – Turb. and SS

Table 28: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – Turb. and TS

Table 29: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – Turb. and EC

Table 30: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – colour vs TDS

Table 31: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – colour vs SS

Table 32: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – colour vs TS

Table 33: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – Colour vs EC

Table 34: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – TDS vs SS

Table 35: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – TDS vs TS

Table 36: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – TDS vs EC

Table 37: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – SS vs TS

Table 38: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – SS vs EC

Table 39: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – TS vs EC

Table 40: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – pH vs Sulphate

Table 41: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – pH vs Hardness

Table 42: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – pH vs COD

Table 43: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – Sulphate vs Hardness

Table 44: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – Sulphate vs COD

Table 45: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – Hardness vs COD

Table 46: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – DO vs BOD

Table 47: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – DO vs TC

Table 48: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – BOD vs TC

Table 49: Linear Correlation Coefficient R and Regression Equation for Pairs of
Parameters with Significant Value of Correlation.

Table 50: Anova Result of Regression Analysis – Turb (measured) and Turb (predicted)