ecological indicators 8 (2008) 476484

available at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind

Water quality index as a simple indicator of aquaculture

effects on aquatic bodies
Fabiano dos Santos Simoes a, Altair B. Moreira b,*, Marcia Cristina Bisinoti b,
Sonia M. Nobre Gimenez a, Maria Josefa Santos Yabe a
a

Departamento de Qumica, Universidade Estadual de Londrina (UEL), CP 6001, 86057-970 Londrina, PR, Brazil
Instituto de Biociencias, Letras e Ciencias Exatas, Departamento de Qumica e Ciencias Ambientais, Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP),
Rua Cristovao Colombo n 2265, 15054-000 Sao Jose do Rio Preto, SP, Brazil

article info

abstract

Article history:

This paper proposes a water quality index (WQI) to subsidize management actions in the

Received 7 October 2006

Medio Paranapanema Watershed in Sao Paulo State, Brazil, as a simple pollution indicator

Received in revised form

for aquaculture activity. Water quality of the Macuco and Queixada rivers was investigated

18 May 2007

for 2 years (from May 2003 to May 2005). The index proposed in this work is composed of

Accepted 20 May 2007

three measurable environmental parametersturbidity, total phosphorus and dissolved

oxygen. Concentrations of these three variables were normalized on a scale from 0 to 100
and translated into statements of water quality (excellent, good, regular, fair and poor). The

Keywords:

index was applied to seventeen monitoring points in the aquatic bodies described above and

Water quality index (WQI)

compared to others, one being that used by the Environmental Protection Agency of United

Aquaculture activity

States and proposed for the National Sanitation Foundation, other employing minimal

Pollution

index and the last one considering the minimum operator concept. The results show that

Aquatic bodies

the degradation in this watershed from aquaculture activity can be easily inferred with this
index, which is more restricted than the others routinely used to infer water quality.
# 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1.

Introduction

Problems of water quality have been a factor in determining

human welfare. Since World War II there has been a
tremendous growth in the manufacture and use of synthetic
chemicals for agriculture and animal husbandry to increase
food production. Many of these activities have contaminated
water supplies, due to insecticide and herbicide runoff from
agricultural land, and to industrial discharges into surface
waters (Manahan, 2000). Among animal sources aquaculture
has increased and is considered an important part of the
fishing industry. Aquaculture embraces raising fish, shrimp,
frog, mollusk, oyster and mussels. In 1999, freshwater
aquaculture was responsible for 78.4% of total production of
aquaculture with 115,398 tonnes indicating the importance of

this activity. Environmental impacts of fish farming activities

have been well documented and have received increasing
attention in the last two or three decades. One of the most
significant effects of fish farming is the enrichment of aquatic
bodies with phosphorous, ammonia, copper, organic matter
and other nutrients and decreases in dissolved oxygen (Hall
et al., 1992; Leung et al., 1999; Holby and Hall, 1991; Wu et al.,
1994).
For fish farming it is important to understand two aspects,
the pollution caused by fish farming and, the effects of
pollution on fish. The first one refers to changes in water
quality due to increasing nutrients and to decreasing dissolved
oxygen as described above. Usually, aquatic bodies are only
considered as sources of water to supply the countless
demands created by human activity and the quality criteria

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: altair@ibilce.unesp.br (A.B. Moreira).
1470-160X/$ see front matter # 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2007.05.002

ecological indicators 8 (2008) 476484

commonly adopted hardly ever take in consideration the

maintenance of aquatic life in these bodies, but only the
quality of this water for human consumption. This can create
problems with some maximum values that are stipulated for
parameters of routine management, as the great majority of
aquatic organisms may be sensitive to this compound, while
for humans the aspect of odor and not toxicity imposes part of
the limits in drinking water criteria. Many water quality
parameters are indispensable to protect aquatic life, for
example, with relation to dissolved oxygen, DO, a classic
environmental variable whose absence can affect the aquatic
biota significantly (Manahan, 2000).
In order to evaluate the water quality of aquatic systems
many countries have introduced a plan to monitor and assess
the pollution effects (Pesce and Wunderlin, 2002; StambukGiljanovic, 1999; Zampella et al., 2006; Silva and Jardim, 2006).
For this, chemical, physical and biological constituents are
quantified in all rivers of the world. The problem is the
quantity of analysis required and cost to accomplish them. In
order to resolve this problem Regulatory Agencies have been
created and have used a general index as a management tool.
One of the first of these tools is the Water Quality Index (WQI)
developed by the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) of
United States which is based on analysis of nine parameters:
fecal coliform, pH, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total
nitrogen, total phosphorus, temperature, turbidity, total
residue and dissolved oxygen. Its output ranges from 0 to
100, where 100 represents perfect water quality conditions
while zero indicates water that is not suitable for the
intended use without further treatment (Chang et al., 2001;
Dunnette, 1979; Miller et al., 1986; Tyson and House, 1989;
Shoji et al., 1966; Bordalo et al., 2001, 2006; Couillard and
Lefebvre, 1985).
The objective of the WQI is to inform about river quality for
regulatory agencies of a specific watershed. This way the WQI
contributes to the construction of a support system to take
relevant decisions about a watershed. One of the bigger
problems with to WQI elaboration is synthesize in a single
number the complex reality where a lot of environmental
variables have influence and then to classify water quality as
excellent, good, regular, bad and poor. Beyond this water
quality is a concept that depends on its application, such as for
irrigation, recreation, industrial use, public water supply,
aquatic life maintenance, etc.
WQI can be simplified considering only critical environmental variables that affect the quality of a certain aquatic
body as a function of the soil use and occupation. In this
paper, the parameters total phosphorous (present in fish
food), turbidity (as a result of nutrients and ammonia), and
dissolved oxygen (which is related to biodegradable organic
matter and fish water quality as many kinds of aquatic
organisms cannot exist in water with low oxygen concentrations) were chosen and used to infer the effects of fish farming
activities. It showed be pointed out that these same parameters are sometimes used to infer urbanization effects, but
such effects are practically non-existent in the studied
watersheds. Before employment of a WQI it is important to
know the localized and diffuse sources of potential contamination in the watershed being studied. The advantages refer
to the possibility that this index can be employed in other

477

watersheds with similar uses and soil occupations in a more

economic way. An index with only a few parameters is
important because minimization of undesirable effects at low
cost is important for society. The index incorporates several
environmental variables into a single number and then
attenuates the negative impacts of one or more variables,
usually by attributing different weights for the several
parameters (Sanchez et al., 2007; House and Newsome,
1989; Pesce and Wunderlin, 2000).
In this paper, we also report a 2-year monitoring of the
Macuco and Queixada rivers in the Medio Paranapanema
watershed in Sao Paulo State (Brazil) and nearby locations. We
also assess the impact of fish farming activity using three
different water quality indexes. One index (WQINFS) takes into
consideration the nine parameters as proposed by NSF.
Another index (WQImoc) was developed considering only three
parameters: turbidity, total phosphorus and dissolved oxygen
and the last considers only the minimum operator concept
(WQImin).

2.

Materials and methods

2.1.

Description of the watershed investigated

Assis, Sao Paulo State (Brazil) is a town located in the

southwest of the country with a total population of 92,962
inhabitants, where 93% live in urban areas. The main
watersheds are Macuco and Queixada Rivers. Other important
cities in these basins but with fewer inhabitants are Candido
Mota, Platina and Echapora. The city of Assis treats 45% of the
sewerage generated by the population, and the remaining
organic load is discharged directly in the Fortuninha and Jacu
Rivers, both of which are tributaries of the Parana River,
located to west of the Queixada watersehed so that these
discharges do not affect the rivers studied in this paper. Platina
and Candido Mota cities treat 100% of the sewage generated by
their populations, while Echapora city treats none of its
sewage, it being discharged into the Cascavel River, which
affects another watershed (Pari-Veado) located to the East of
Macuco watershed. The Macuco and Queixada watersheds are
incorporated into an important river in Brazil, the Paranapanema River with a drainage area of 16,829 km2. The main use
of the soil is agricultural, where production of sugarcane, soy
and corn are the main activities. Water is employed in
industrial and domestic supplies, in power generation,
domestic and industrial waste water treatment, irrigation
and aquaculture activity. In this manuscript water collection
was from seventeen sampling points along the Macuco and
Queixada Rivers, indicated in Fig. 1.

2.2.

Procedure for watershed sampling

Collection vials, sample stabilization, and transportation to

the laboratory as well as sample storage were done considering the recommendations of Standard Methods (Clescerl et al.,
1998) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (EPA, 2007).
Samples were taken at least 40 cm under the water surface
and whenever it was possible, at the middle of the stream.
Samples were never taken when it was raining, but only at

478

ecological indicators 8 (2008) 476484

Fig. 1 The Macuco and Queixada Watershed showing the sampling points. At point 3M (*) is found small fish farming
activities (up to 1 ha/10,000 m2 of contained water). The point 2M, 4M, 5M, 9M, 11Q, 12Q, 17Q, 18Q and 19Q (*) are finding
half producers having 15 ha/of 10,00050,000 m2 of contained water. At point 1M, 6M, 8M, 10Q, 13Q, 15Q and 16Q (*) no
found farming activities.

least 72 h after the rain had stopped, so that the river had
returned to its usual flow conditions.
Sampling for watersheds was carried out over 2 years (May
2003 to May 2005), covering all stations. The samples were
taken approximately every 2 months and after the determination of field parameters they were transported to the
laboratory for quantification of the other parameters. A
detailed description of the sampling points is summarized
in Table 1.

Table 1 Description of the sampling points for the two

watersheds analyzed
Number

Geographic coordinates

Altitude (m)

Macuco watershed
1M
S228440 01.100 ;
2M
S228470 10.800 ;
3M
S228430 42.600 ;
4M
S228450 37.900 ;
5M
S228460 50.100 ;
6M
S228490 57.100 ;
8M
S228430 48.800 ;
9M
S228450 04.000 ;

W0508260 27.700
W0508250 00.000
W0508250 21.200
W05082401.400
W0508250 28.900
W0508220 25.000
W0508240 30.000
W0508250 47.100

501
418
512
430
423
373
486
492

Queixada watershed
10Q
S228470 50.700 ;
11Q
S228500 51.500 ;
12Q
S228540 13.600 ;
13Q
S228540 21.200 ;
15Q
S228420 17,900 ;
16Q
S228420 41,800 ;
17Q
S228450 28.000 ;
18Q
S228510 48.500 ;
19Q
S228480 18.200 ;

W0508260 28.100
W0508280 21.600
W0508290 02.300
W0508290 09.100
W0508270 13,800
W0508290 32,100
W0508280 34.900
W0508280 44.200
W0508280 42.600

457
393
370
365
516
500
426
382
405

2.3.

Analytical procedures

2.3.1.

Field determinations

Conductivity (CD), pH and temperature (T in 8C) were

measured with a Hanna portable instrument (model
HI991300) and dissolved oxygen (DO) measurements were
carried out using a Hanna model HI9146-04 instrument,
according to the Standard Methods for the Examination of
Water and Wastewater (Clescerl et al., 1998). All these portable
instruments were calibrated prior to use according to the
manufacturers directions. All quantifications were made in
triplicate.

2.3.2.

Laboratory determinations

Laboratory analyses were also carried out in triplicate. Total

nitrogen was assayed by spectrophotometric method, after
acid digestion and subsequent reaction with sodium nitroprussiate (351.3, following EPA). Total phosphorus was
assayed by another spectrophotometric method, with acid
digestion and subsequent reaction with antimony potassium
tartrate (365.3, following EPA). Biochemical dissolved oxygen
BOD5,20 was determined as the difference between initial and
5-day oxygen concentrations in bottles assayed by the Winkler
method, after incubation at 20 8C (5210, following Clescerl
et al., 1998). Colour was quantified by a comparative method
with Pt/Co solution following EPA (110.2). Organic matter as
Oxygen Chemistry Demand was quantified using a titrimetric
method (Clescerl et al., 1998) by acid digestion (sulfuric acid)
with potassium permanganate and oxalic acid.
Copper was quantified following Clescerl et al. (1998) uses
flame atomic absorption spectrometry on a Shimadzu model
6601 (3111B) after pre-concentration. All samples were pretreated with HNO3. Dissolved total solids were assayed by

479

ecological indicators 8 (2008) 476484

Table 2 Normalization factors for the WQImin calculation, as proposed by Pesce and Wunderlin (2000)
Parameter

Normalization factor

1

Dissolved oxygen (mg L )

Total phosphorus (mg L1)
Turbidity/NTU

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

7.5
<0.05
<5

7.0
<0.05
<10

6.5
<0.05
<15

6.0
<0.10
<20

5.0
<0.10
<25

4.0
<0.15
<30

3.5
<0.15
<40

3.0
<0.20
<60

2.0
<0.20
<80

1.0
<0.30
100

filtering a suitable amount of sample through a pre-combusted

GF/C glass fiber filters according to Clescerl et al. (1998). Total
fecal coliforms were assayed according to the multiples tubes
technique, taking the more probable number (Clescerl et al.,
1998). Alkalinity was quantified by titrimetry (310.1, following
EPA) sulfuric acid and phenolphthalein, according Clescerl
et al. (1998). Turbidity was quantified using a Turbidimetry
Hach (2100N).

2.4.

Water quality index (WQI) calculations

The WQI is a mathematical instrument used to transform

large quantities of water quality data into a single number
which summarize different quality parameters. The WQI is an
index of water quality for a particular use. Mathematically, the
index is an arithmetic weighting of normalized water quality
measurements. The normalizations, as well as the weightings,
are different for different water usages (Pesce and Wunderlin,
2000). The WQI used in this paper were calculated in a three
different way and based on parameters: the first one produced
a WQINFS based on the parameters proposed by Brown and
Forsythe (1974) including: biochemical oxygen demand,
dissolved oxygen, total fecal coliform, pH, temperature, total
nitrate, total phosphorus, total solids and turbidity. This WQI
is calculated using the following equation:

WQI

n
X
w
qi i

(1)

i1

n
X
wi 1

(2)

i1

where WQI is a number between 0 and 100 to indicate the

water quality index; qi is water quality score of parameter, a
number between 0 and 100, obtained from the respective
curve average of quality variation, as a function of concentration or measurement; n the number of parameter used to
calculated WQI and, wi the weighting factor of parameter i, a
number between 0 and 1, attributed as a function of its
importance for the global quality as described in Eq. (2) and,
n is the number of parameter.
A second index was calculated using the Minimum Operator
Concept, described in Eq. (3), and proposed by Smith (1990). This
author shows that water quality for a specific use is managed by
the parameters that indicate the worst quality. Recently, this
index was successfully employed by Silva and Jardim (2006):
WQImoc MinI1 ; I2 ; I3 ; . . . ; In

(3)

where I is a specific physical chemistry parameter that is

minimized in the calculation for this index only one of the

0
<1.0
<0.30
>100

parameters is employed, were considered to describe the

effects of aquaculture activity. Eq. (3) establishes that the
numerical value for WQImoc is the lower normalized value
for the all monitored variables (Table 2). This kind of index
removes the classic eclipse effect present in most index
calculations (Landwehr and Deininger, 1976; House and Ellis,
1987). A third way to calculate an index it was proposed by
Pesce and Wunderlin (2000) employing a computer program
(Basic Language) especially developed for this purpose.
Table 2 presents the normalized values and concentrations,
which are retrieved from Conesa curves (Conesa, 1995), as
cited by Pesce and Wunderlin (2000) and employed in this
manuscript. A water quality index with only three parameters, named minimal index (WQImin) was calculated using
the following equation:

WQImin

CDO CTurb CTotP

3

(4)

where CDO is the value due to dissolved oxygen after normalization; CTurb the value due to turbidity after normalization;
and CTotP is the value due to total phosphorus after normalization.

2.5.

Fish food quantification

Two kinds of feeding employed in fish farming from Macuco

and Queixada watersheds were sampled and quantified. One
type of food is used for body weight gain (Sample 01: Kowalski
brand, 6 mm, lot 20070503), and the other for growth (Sample
02: Kowalski brand, 6 mm, lot 13070502). These feeds are
recommended for use in surface water having from 2 to 4% of
the existent nursery biomass and are applied two or more
times a day. Their formulations contain used: soy, rice and
wheat bran, corn, fish flour, milled feathers, minerals and
vitamins, limestone, meat and bones wheat flour and
vegetable oil.
In all feed samples the parameters: ether extract, fiber,
protein, fixed mineral residue (ash), humidity, dry matter and
phosphorus were quantified following recommendations of
the Agriculture and Provisioning Ministry (CBAA, 1998).

3.

Results and discussion

3.1.

Environmental variables

During the 2 years of this study the rivers behaviors were

explored by measuring 14 parameters, including those
recommended by NFS for water quality index calculation,
to assess the quality of these aquatic bodies. All these
parameter were measured from all collection stations in the

480

ecological indicators 8 (2008) 476484

Macuco and Queixada Watershed, as indicated in Fig. 1. The

results of the physicals chemical and microbiological
parameters obtained from the water samples are shown
in Tables 3 and 4.
These tables demonstrate that all stations presented pH
values within the range recommended by CONAMA
(National Environment Council) number 357 (CONAMA,
2005) for freshwater to be used for aquaculture and water
supplies. All collection stations on the Queixada River
presented high levels of BOD, when compared with the
values recommended by CONAMA 357 legislation; while
those for the Macuco River station 2M and 5M presented
values higher than 3 mg L1. An explanation for this behavior
refers to untreated sewage discharged near these sampling
points. Surface water average temperatures between 17.1
and 29 8C, which is expected for tropical regions. Conductivity, dissolved total solids and turbidity are parameters that
presented values in accordance with those recommended by
Brazilian Legislation for freshwater. Alkalinity presented
values higher than those found in natural water for stations
located near fish farming. One explanation for this can be
related to the HCO3 species from limestone used in the
aquaculture reservoirs to adjust water alkalinity and support
zooplankton life for longer times, since the zooplankton
serves as fish food. As presented in Table 3, the Queixada
watershed presented a higher alkalinity than the Macuco
watershed, as there are more fish farming activities in the
first one.
Fecal coliform numbers were usually low, from 17 to
2120 colonies/100 mL at stations 1M4M and 15Q16Q. For
all other stations values were higher, reaching 5796 colonies/100 mL, representing sanitary effluent coming from
agricultural areas, probably due to cattle. All values of total
nitrogen are below of the maximum values recommended
by Brazilian legislation (CONAMA, 2005). Total phosphorus
and copper were higher for the same stations; the first is
related to soil fertilization and domestic sewage while
copper can be introduced into these watersheds due take
copper sulphate that is used in aquaculture. The Queixada
wastershed, as described above, suffers little interference
from urbanization, so that stations 11Q, 12Q, 13Q, 17Q, 18Q
and 19Q are impacted only by aquaculture activities. This
way, water quality in this watershed can be attributed to
aquaculture reservoir treatment. For all stations colour,
turbidity, organic matter and dissolved total solids presented values below permitted by Brazilian Legislation
(CONAMA, 2005).Sampling points denominated 2M, 4M,
5M, 6M and 9M (Fig. 1) represent the places of largest
impact in the Macuco river basin, with larger influences of
alkalinity, conductivity, dissolved total solids and turbidity
(Tables 3 and 4). These points are impacted by aquaculture
activities with the exception of 6M, which indirectly
receives discharges from all points. It should be indicated
that river sources 1M, 3M, 8M and 10Q show little influence
of aquaculture activity as indicated by the parameters:
alkalinity, conductivity, dissolved total solids and turbidity.
The parameters fecal coliform and total solids varied at
points 4M, 6M and 9M, the largest values being observed
during the hottest months that also show larger rainfalls
(November to March).

Table 3 Range of parameters quantified from sampling

points in the Macuco and Queixada watershed over 2
years
Parameter

Monitoring Concentration CONAMA

Station
range (20032005)
357

BOD
(mg L1)

1M
2M
3M
4M
5M
6M
8M
9M
10Q
11Q
12Q
13Q
15Q
16Q
17Q
18Q
19Q

1.02.6
3.19.6
1.22.8
0.81.8
3.17.1
0.93.5
0.52.9
1.03.3
1.94.9
0.912.5
0.98.9
3.021.1
0.67.1
1.17.7
1.45.8
0.96.9
1.411.0

<3.0

Dissolved
oxygen
(mg L1)

1M
2M
3M
4M
5M
6M
8M
9M
10Q
11Q
12Q
13Q
15Q
16Q
17Q
18Q
19Q

5.67.8
4.95.9
5.47.2
6.38.1
4.26.4
4.48.0
4.77.3
4.87.6
5.08.6
5.06.8
4.97.7
5.88.2
6.58.9
6.08.8
5.48.4
5.17.9
5.27.6

>6.0

Total nitrogen
(mg L1)

1M
2M
3M
4M
5M
6M
8M
9M
10Q
11Q
12Q
13Q
15Q
16Q
17Q
18Q
19Q

0.050.17
0.020.08
0.130.15
0.180.64
0.070.27
0.010.07
0.010.15
0.03015
0.010.42
0.030.23
0.020.14
0.010.29
0.020.20
0.040.18
0.050.17
0.030.13
0.040.24

<3.7

Total
phosphorus
(mg L1)

1M
2M
3M
4M
5M
6M
8M
9M
10Q
11Q

0.010.11
0.010.06
0.030.08
0.010.23
0.020.11
0.010.42
0.010.05
0.010.25
0.010.17
0.020.08

<0.1

481

ecological indicators 8 (2008) 476484

Table 3 (Continued )
Parameter
Monitoring Concentration CONAMA
Station
range (20032005)
357

Alkalinity
(mg L1)

Fecal coliform
(colonies/
100 mL)

Copper
(mg L1)

Organic matter
(mg L1)

12Q
13Q
15Q
16Q
17Q
18Q
19Q

0.020.13
0.030.15
0.010.06
0.020.06
0.050.11
0.060.13
0.020.18

1M
2M
3M
4M
5M
6M
8M
9M
10Q
11Q
12Q
13Q
15Q
16Q
17Q
18Q
19Q

14.925.1
7.130.0
12.021.2
20.228.0
21.629.3
18.530.9
8.332.4
19.033.6
16.426.8
27.038.6
26.336.1
26.334.7
19.033.0
23.329.5
26.635.7
28.034.7
21.936.8

1M
2M
3M
4M
5M
6M
8M
9M
10Q
11Q
12Q
13Q
15Q
16Q
17Q
18Q
19Q

27800
802120
202000
702000
173600
1403100
404900
202000
24380
1705010
93980
1404200
2002000
171900
3004312
2204000
345796

200

1M
2M
3M
4M
5M
6M
8M
9M
10Q
11Q
12Q
13Q
15Q
16Q
17Q
18Q
19Q

0.0030.012
0.0030.008
0.0030.006
0.0030.010
0.0020.009
0.0030.016
0.0020.010
0.0020.008
0.0020.010
0.0020.009
0.0030.013
0.0040.012
0.0020.015
0.0020.016
0.0030.014
0.0030.013
0.0030.014

0.009

1M
2M
3M
4M
5M

0.57.6
0.68.5
0.69.8
0.25.8
0.610.6

10.0

Table 3 (Continued )
Parameter
Monitoring Concentration CONAMA
Station
range (20032005)
357
6M
8M
9M
10Q
11Q
12Q
13Q
15Q
16Q
17Q
18Q
19Q

0.87.3
0.46.7
0.68.2
0.111.2
0.114.6
1.213.9
2.010.1
1.48.8
0.86.4
0.48.3
1.17.3
0.610.0

Colour
(mg Pt L1)

1M
2M
3M
4M
5M
6M
8M
9M
10Q
11Q
12Q
13Q
15Q
16Q
17Q
18Q
19Q

595
535
1035
530
1035
530
510
540
520
1030
550
1050
525
520
1535
1045
1540

30

Dissolved
total solids
(mg L1)

1M
2M
3M
4M
5M
6M
8M
9M
10Q
11Q
12Q
13Q
15Q
16Q
17Q
18Q
19Q

1.72.7
2.43.0
1.41.6
2.43.2
2.53.6
2.83.3
1.31.5
2.43.2
1.23.3
2.44.2
2.54.3
2.94.3
2.13.2
3.14.8
3.57.9
3.44.5
1.83.3

500

3.2.

Water quality index

Evaluation of overall water quality is not an easy task,

particularly when different criteria for different uses are
applied. Moreover, the classification of water quality follows
various definitions with respect to the contents of different
water quality parameters. Dozens of variables have been
developed and are available to be used in management
governmental or environmental programs, but the price high
because of water analysis to attend these programs generally
makes it difficult to use them. In this report the application of
the water quality index approach to the Macuco and Queixada
River in Sao Paulo State has the objective of providing a simple
and valid method for expressing the results of several

482

ecological indicators 8 (2008) 476484

Table 4 Temperature, pH, conductivity and turbidity

range from sampling points in the Macuco and Queixada
watershed over 2 years
Parameter

Temperature, pH,
conductivity and
turbidity range
(20032005)

CONAMA
357

1M
2M
3M
4M
5M
6M
8M
9M
10Q
11Q
12Q
13Q
15Q
16Q
17Q
18Q
19Q

22.525.8
20.123.8
17.123.1
20.024.3
20.225.7
19.024.6
21.324.7
20.623.4
21.029.0
18.325.7
18.825.2
20.126.3
17.526.5
18.823.4
18.823.6
20.526.1
21.327.1

pH

1M
2M
3M
4M
5M
6M
8M
9M
10Q
11Q
12Q
13Q
15Q
16Q
17Q
18Q
19Q

6.67.0
6.77.2
6.36.9
6.97.3
6.87.2
7.17.7
7.07.6
6.87.4
7.07.6
6.77.7
7.07.6
7.17.7
7.37.7
7.07.6
7.17.5
7.17.6
7.17.7

Conductivity
(mS cm1)

1M
2M
3M
4M
5M
6M
8M
9M
10Q
11Q
12Q
13Q
15Q
16Q
17Q
18Q
19Q

29.742.7
40.250.8
23.328.7
42.551.7
41.451.2
46.758.3
21.323.7
41.649.1
25.640.2
5.06.8
51.565.7
53.964.3
35.149.7
52.466.6
54.268.8
55.270.0
38.650.3

1M
2M
3M
4M
5M
6M
8M
9M

2.340.8
5.527.1
9.623.8
9.236.0
7.215.9
1.825.5
2.015.2
7.224.4

<40

Temperature
(8C)

Turbidity/
NTU

Monitoring
station

6.09.0

Table 4 (Continued )
Parameter
Monitoring
station

10Q
11Q
12Q
13Q
15Q
16Q
17Q
18Q
19Q

Temperature, pH,
conductivity and
turbidity range
(20032005)

CONAMA
357

2.423.7
8.229.1
4.449.2
12.272.0
7.418.1
4.98.8
20.440.8
18.535.2
14.747.7

parameters in order to more rapidly and conveniently assess

the water quality. Combining different parameters into one
single number leads to an easy interpretation of the index,
thus providing an important tool for management purposes.
As described WQINFS employing nine parameters to can
give an indication of the health of the watershed at various
points and can be used to keep track of and analyze changes
over time, but other options can be used in a manner economic
way. WQImin employing only three parameters as turbidity,
total phosphorous and dissolved oxygen presented the more
restrictive water quality in an inexpensive way but, when
WQImoc was used, a distinct behavior was observed (Table 5).
For 1M, 2M and 18Q WQImoc indicated the worst water quality
when compared to the two other ways or calculating WQI. For
other sampling points the WQImoc was as restrictive as the
others. These results as presented in Table 5 enabled us to
infer that WQImin is the best way or describing the effects of
aquaculture activities.
WQImin as described in this work reflects the water quality,
because it takes into consideration three key parameters,
which present the same environmental importance to
describe water quality. When WQINFS employed, the method

Table 5 Different index calculated for the sampling

points of the Macuco and Queixada watershed
Water quality
according WQINFS

WQImin

Macuco watershed
1M
7282
2M
6176
3M
6976
4M
6779
5M
6177
6M
6479
8M
6983
9M
6079

Good/excellent
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good/excellent
Good

70100
5787
6080
5779
6380
4773
7390
5386

63
50
72
70
62
55
70
72

Queixada watershed
10Q
6290
11Q
5675
12Q
5481
13Q
5677
15Q
6280
16Q
6386
17Q
5573
18Q
5773
19Q
5777

Good/excellent
Good
Good/excellent
Good
Good
Good/excellent
Good
Good
Good

5793
6079
4387
4379
5674
5875
4777
5377
4378

85
68
45
46
80
90
50
52
48

Number

WQINFS

WQImoc

ecological indicators 8 (2008) 476484

Table 6 Quantification of feed contents

Parameters
Ethereal extract
Fiber
Protein
Mineral residue
Humidity
Total phosphorus (P)

Sample 01
(%, w/w)
2.7  0.1
3.9  0.2
25.0  0.1
11.1  0.1
8.4  0.4
1.2  0.1

Sample 02
(%, w/w)
3.0  0.1
2.9  0.2
29.2  0.1
13.0  0.2
9.3  0.3
1.8  0.1

used each of nine parameters reflecting a different weighting

factor proposed by 100 water quality experts. WQImin reflects
the amount of life-sustaining oxygen dissolved in the water.
Most aquatic plants and animals need oxygen to survive; in
fact, fish will drown in water when the dissolved oxygen levels
get too low. In addition, low levels of dissolved oxygen in water
are a sign of possible pollution and then, it is an essential
parameter to be taken into consideration when the objective is
to assess the water quality. About two other parameters
employed to compose this index, turbidity measures light
dispersion due to suspended matter. When, water becomes
too turbid, it loses the ability to support a wide variety of plants
and other aquatic organisms. And finally, total phosphorous
can be present in water in many forms, and this study
represents feed employed in aquaculture activities (Table 6).
WQINFS, WQImoc and WQImin were applied for seventeen
sampling points of the Macuco and Queixada watershed
(Fig. 1) using results obtained in the years 20032005. Table 2
shows the normalization factor used in this work for WQImin
calculation as described by Pesce and Wunderlin (2000).
Table 5 shows water quality index calculated as described
by NFS, the minimum operator concept and the WQImin
proposed in this work, as an option for aquatic management.
These results indicate that WQImin presents a similar behavior
when referring to water quality, being that WQImin is more
restrictive for some sampling points, such as 2M, 4M, 6M, 9M,
12Q, 13Q, 17Q, 18Q and 19Q. They indicate more degraded
conditions at points in the watershed rear regions having fish
farming.
The more degraded water quality presented by WQImin has
justification of the absence eclipse effect (Landwehr and
Deininger, 1976; House and Ellis, 1987), considering the
variables that compose it, providing a value more sensitive
to the presence of fish farming residues normally rich in total
phosphorus, ammonia and copper. This degradation, pointed
out by WQImin indicates the importance of better studying the
impacts of this kind of activity on a region and creates a new
method to evaluate decreases in the problems provoked.

3.3.

Feed quantification

Table 6 shows the results obtained from analyses on the feed

employed in the aquaculture activity in the Macuco and
Queixada watershed. All results are in agreement with the
values indicated by the manufacturer. Around 30% of feed
employed in the aquaculture tanks is composed of protein,
contributing to the total nitrogen and total phosphorus
quantities that reach the aquatic bodies near these regions.
Proteins contain 16% nitrogen, as it is employed for feeding in
the fish nurseries in the ratio of 24% of biomass. From this

483

kind of information it becomes possible to establish a

relationship between the feed quantity to be employed and
that which results in the eutrophization processes. These
results indicate that if feed is employed in inadequate
quantities the eutrophization processes in aquatic bodies
are intensified. Thus the aquaculture can be better controlled
by constantly using specialized techniques of measurement of
feed quantities to be employed in each nursery.

4.

Conclusions

The index proposed in this work, using only three parameters

(WQImin), was shown to be able to evaluate the water quality of
the Macuco and Queixada watershed and the effects of fish
farming activity when compared, to the index proposed by
NFS (WQINFS) and the minimum operator concept (WQImoc).
The new index presents a more accurate way to evaluate the
presence of aquaculture activities. The quality values showed
a critical situation for some stations in these watersheds that
could be used to support of managerial actions. WQImin can be
used in the evaluation of diffuse and point source control
performances. This way WQImin may be used as a new tool for
hydrographic watershed management and can be employed
in the aquatic body monitoring. This tool is important because
it decreases the cost of monitoring programs and/or the
expenses associated with the implantation of one.

Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the Science Research Center,
CEPECI of the Educational Foundation of Assis District (FEMA/
SP), Sao Paulo State, Brazil, State Hydric Resources FundFEHIDRO, the Fish Institute of Assis-IPA, the Environmental
Sanitation and Technology Company of Sao Paulo State, Brazil
(CETESB) and to Sao Paulo State Research Foundation (FAPESP)
process 05/51242-8 and 07/50461-3. We are grateful to Dr. C.H.
Collins for the English revision and the two anonymous
referees for giving valuable comments on the manuscript.

references

Bordalo, A.A., Nilsumranchit, W., Chalermwa, K., 2001. Water

quality and use of the Bangpakong river (Eastern Thailand).
Water Res. 35, 36353642.
Bordalo, A.A., Teixeira, R., Wiebe, W.J., 2006. A water quality
index applied to an international shared river basin: the
case of the Douro River. Environ. Manage. 38, 910920.
Brown, M.B., Forsythe, A.B., 1974. Robust test for the equality of
variances. JASA 69, 364367.
CBAA, 1998. Compendio Brasileiro de Alimentacao Animal.
Ministerio da Agricultura e Abastecimento.
Chang, N.B., Chen, H.W., Ning, S.K., 2001. Identification of river
water quality using the fuzzy synthetic evaluation
approach. J. Environ. Manage. 63, 293305.
Clescerl, L.S., Greenberg, A.E., Eaton, A.D., 1998. Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater,
20th ed. APHA, Washington.
CONAMA, 2005. Conselho Nacional de Meio Ambiente.
Resolucao no 357 de 15 de marco de 2005.

484

ecological indicators 8 (2008) 476484

Conesa, F.V.V., 1995. Methodological Guide for Environmental

Impact Evaluation, End ed. Mundi-Prensa, Madrid, p. 390.
Couillard, D., Lefebvre, Y., 1985. Analysis of water quality
indexes. J. Environ. Manage. 21, 161179.
Dunnette, D.A., 1979. A geographically variable water quality
index used in Oregon. J. Water Pollut. Con. F. 51, 5361.
EPA, 2007. Environmental Protection Agency. Available in:
http://www.epa.gov/nerl/.
Hall, P.O.J., Holby, O., Kollberg, S., Samuelsson, M.O., 1992.
Chemical fluxes and mass balances in a marine fish cage
farm. IV. Nitrogen. Mar. Ecol.-Prog. Ser. 89, 8191.
Holby, O., Hall, P.O.J., 1991. Chemical fluxes and mass balances
in a marine fish cage farm. II. Phosphorus. Mar. Ecol.-Prog.
Ser. 70, 263272.
House, M.A., Ellis, J.B., 1987. The development of water-quality
indexes for operational management. Water Sci. Technol.
19, 145154.
House, M.A., Newsome, D.H., 1989. Water quality indices for the
management of surface water quality. Water Sci. Technol.
21, 11371148.
Landwehr, J.M., Deininger, R.A., 1976. Comparison of several
water-quality indexes. J. Water Pollut. Con. F. 48,
954958.
Leung, K.M.Y., Chu, J.C.W., Wu, R.S.S., 1999. Nitrogen budgets
for the areolated grouper, Epinephelus areolatus, cultured
under laboratory conditions and in open-sea cages. Mar.
Ecol.-Prog. Ser. 186, 271281.
Manahan, S.E., 2000. Environmental Chemistry, 7th ed. Lewis
Publishers, Boca Raton.
Miller, W.W., Joung, H.M., Mahannah, C.N., Garrett, J.R., 1986.
Identification of water quality differences in Nevada
through index application. J. Environ. Qual. 15, 265272.

Pesce, S.F., Wunderlin, D.A., 2000. Use of water quality indices to

verify the impact of Cordoba city (Argentina) on Suquia
River. Water Res. 34, 29152926.
Pesce, S.F., Wunderlin, D.A., 2002. Reply to comment on Use of
water quality indices to verify the impact of Cordoba city
(Argentina) on Suquia River. Water Res. 36, 49404941.
Sanchez, E., Colmenarejo, M.F., Vicente, J., Rubio, A., Garca,
M.G., Travieso, L., Borja, R., 2007. Use of the water quality
index and dissolved oxygen deficit as simple indicators of
watersheds pollution. Ecol. Indic. 7, 315328.
Shoji, H., Yamamota, T., Nakakaga, N., 1966. Factor analysis of
stream pollution of the Yodo River System. Air Water Pollut.
Inst. J. 10, 291299.
Silva, G.S., Jardim, W.F., 2006. Um novo ndice de qualidade das
aguas para protecao da vida aquatica aplicado ao Rio
Atibaia, regiao de Campinas/Paulnia-SP. Quim. Nova 29,
689694.
Smith, D.G., 1990. A better water quality indexing system for
river and streams. Water Res. 24, 12371244.
Stambuk-Giljanovic, N., 1999. Water quality evaluation by index
in Dalmatia. Water Res. 33, 34233440.
Tyson, J.M., House, M.A., 1989. The application of a water
quality index to river management. Water Sci. Technol. 21,
11491159.
Wu, R.S.S., Lam, K.S., Mackay, D.W., Lau, T.C., Yam, V., 1994.
Impact of marine fish farming on water quality and bottom
sediment. A case study in the sub-tropical environment.
Mar. Environ. Res. 38, 115145.
Zampella, R.A., Bunnell, J.F., Laidig, K.J., Procopio, N.A., 2006.
Using multiple indicators to evaluate the ecological
integrity of a coastal plain stream system. Ecol. Indic. 6,
644663.