Next Article in Journal
Harvest of Myriophyllum spicatum Facilitates the Growth of Vallisneria denseserrulata but Has No Significant Effects on Water Quality in a Mesocosm Experiment
Previous Article in Journal
Spectroscopic Indices Reveal Spatiotemporal Variations of Dissolved Organic Matter in Subtropical Karst Cave Drip Water
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Assessment of Pollution Status in Brunei River Using Water Quality Indices, Brunei Darussalam

by
Oluwakemisola Onifade
1,*,
Norazanita Shamsuddin
2,*,
Jason Lee Zse Jin
2,
Daphne Teck Ching Lai
3 and
Stefan Herwig Gödeke
1
1
Geoscience Programme, Faculty of Science, Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Gadong BE1410, Brunei
2
Faculty of Integrated Technologies, Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Gadong BE1410, Brunei
3
School of Digital Science, Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Gadong BE1410, Brunei
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2024, 16(17), 2439; https://doi.org/10.3390/w16172439
Submission received: 14 June 2024 / Revised: 19 July 2024 / Accepted: 20 July 2024 / Published: 29 August 2024

Abstract

:
The Water Quality Index (WQI) is a tool designed to provide a singular figure representing the overall water quality status of a water body. This study applies Malaysia WQI, National Sanitation Foundation WQI (NSFWQI) and statistical analysis to investigate the impact of diverse pollution sources on the Brunei River’s water quality, a critical aquatic ecosystem affected by the rapid escalation of urbanization, industrial activities, and agricultural runoff. Principal component analysis (PCA), expert judgement, and correlation analysis were used to propose parameters for developing Brunei River’s WQI. Eight monitoring stations were selected to analyze 16 water quality parameters (pH, water temperature (T), dissolved oxygen (DO), oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), chemical oxygen demand (COD), the five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), salinity, electrical conductivity (EC), total dissolved solids (TDS), turbidity, total suspended solids (TSS), ammoniacal-nitrogen (NH3-N), fecal coliform (FC), total coliform (TC), phosphate and nitrate (NO3−)) in this study. The results showed that NSFWQI classified the Brunei River as moderately polluted, while Malaysia (WQI) status was classified as slightly polluted except for Station Q around the quarry area. Statistical analysis revealed that the primary pollution sources are anthropogenic activities such as quarrying, domestic waste, and agricultural and urban runoff. Other specific areas of concern with low WQI and significant pollution levels are situated at Kampong Ayer Stations (N and J) due to proximal anthropogenic activities. The proposed water quality parameters for developing Brunei River’s WQI are pH, DO, EC, FC, NO3, BOD5, T, TSS, turbidity and phosphate. This study addresses the current pollution status of the Brunei River and sets a precedent for future research emphasizing collaborative data-driven strategies for water quality management.

1. Introduction

Rivers are integral components of ecosystems, serving as lifelines for diverse flora and fauna while also meeting the essential needs of the human population. Water quality within the river system is a key determinant of its suitability and the broader impact on surrounding ecosystems. Rivers act as pathways for municipal and industrial wastewater, along with agricultural runoff, which are notably susceptible to pollution across their wide-reaching drainage basins [1]. Human-derived modifications to catchments have altered the water quality of rivers and introduced new water movement pathways—for example, cultural eutrophication from point and non-point source pollution [2]. Point and non-point source pollution affect surface water ecosystems, causing eutrophication, excessive algal growth, and chemical and microbial contamination [3,4].
Numerous countries, including but not limited to the United States, Australia, Indonesia and Malaysia have documented cases of water pollution [5,6,7,8]. Jalilov [9] reported that the lack of household sewerage systems and the contamination of waterbodies with hazardous industrial chemicals are to blame for the poor water quality in many countries in Southeast Asia. The Brunei River is the most polluted major River [10] in Brunei Darussalam, serving multiple roles, including a habitat for many aquatic species. However, like many water bodies, the Brunei River faces threats from human-derived modifications such as the direct discharge of effluents and domestic wastewater into the river [11,12]. Despite extensive efforts to mitigate the pollution of the Brunei River, it continues to be a significant issue. Recently, an initiative by Green Brunei and the Mitsubishi Corporation (Brunei Liaison Office) resulted in the collection of over 400 kg of waste from the river [13]. These challenges motivated this research. Addressing these threats requires effective water quality management, which often involves a variety of chemical, physical and biological water quality indicators as discussed in the works of Gupta et al. [14] and Shah and Joshi [15]. To simplify this process, several researchers proposed a Water Quality Index (WQI) in the form of a simple expression for the representation of the general quality of surface waters [16]. For example, Shah and Joshi [15] evaluated three stations at Sabarmati River in India using WQI, and discovered that the river degradation is impacted by human activities and sewage disposal, with the worst conditions observed around the urban areas.
The WQI enables a straightforward assessment of water conditions by consolidating data from multiple water quality parameters into a single, understandable figure [17]. Uddin et al. [17] explained that the general structure of any WQI consists of several water quality parameters, which are transformed into a common scale called sub-indices. After the sub-indices have been obtained, weights are then assigned which reflect the relative importance of the water quality parameter and/or the appropriate guidelines of water quality [18]. The calculation of the weights of these parameters can vary based on regional priorities such as the importance of protecting aquatic biodiversity or ensuring water safety for human consumption and/or internationally recognized WQI. This flexibility allows each country or region to tailor the WQI to their specific environmental challenges and goals. The final WQI is aggregated from sub-indices and weights values using additive or multiplicative methods, or a mix of both, to avoid issues like eclipsing and ambiguity in the index’s representation of water quality [19]. The index typically ranges from 0 to 100, where higher values indicate better water quality [17]. By providing a single figure, the WQI helps to identify areas where water quality is compromised and allows tracking changes over time, facilitating the evaluation of pollution control measures. The importance of a well-established WQI is particularly evident in regions experiencing polluted rivers due to inadequate waste-management infrastructure and industrial activities, as reported in the studies by Shah and Joshi [15], Sutadian et al. [20] and Liou et al. [21]. There are many WQI calculations tailored towards different regions globally, however Brunei is yet to have its own WQI.
Therefore, our study focuses on the selection of parameters for developing Brunei River’s WQI, based on expert judgement and statistical analysis. An example of such statistical analysis is the principal component analysis (PCA). PCA reduces the dimensionality of a multivariate data set while maintaining its original structure to the maximum extent possible [22]. Thus, some researchers [22,23] have used PCA for parameter selection while dealing with diverse monitoring data for developing WQI in a region. This study addresses the importance of using PCA and experts’ decision for WQI parameter selection.
The second objective is to address the pollution status of the Brunei River using two established WQI. The two WQI assessment methods (NSFWQI and Malaysia-WQI) were selected after reviewing the existing literature and on the basis of available data. The National Sanitation Foundation WQI (NSFWQI), endorsed by the United States National Sanitation Foundation (USNSF), is the most common method to determine surface water’s WQI globally and has been implemented either in its original form or with modifications [24,25,26,27]. NSFWQI covers a wide range of indicators, including physical, chemical and biological parameters, making its adaptability suitable to address specific local conditions in the Brunei river. NSFWQI evaluates water quality using nine specific parameters, which include dissolved oxygen (DO) saturation, fecal coliform (FC), five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), pH, water temperature (T), total phosphate (TP), nitrate (NO3), total solids (TS) and turbidity. Malaysia WQI was also considered, mainly due to the proximity of the country to Brunei, and it shares the same equatorial tropical climate and geography. Both Malaysia and Brunei face significant river pollution challenges stemming from earthworks, agriculture and sewage—both treated and untreated [11,28]. Malaysia’s WQI [29] utilizes six parameters: DO, chemical oxygen demand (COD), BOD5, ammoniacal-nitrogen (NH3-N), suspended solids (SS) and pH.
However, the two models may be less sensitive towards other water quality pollutants, therefore, to increase the reliability of the WQI results, statistical analyses were performed. Several researchers have used different statistical analysis, such as interval plots [30] and correlation [31] to evaluate pollution sources in a river. For example, Pham et al. [32] used WQI and multivariate statistics to determine influence of pollution sources in the Dong Nai River, Vietnam. They attributed the degradation of the river to anthropogenic activities such as domestic, agricultural practices and seasonal change. The use of these various statistical analyses helps in the interpretation of complex datasets to better understand the relationship between parameters, direction and water quality of river bodies. Overall, sixteen water quality parameters (pH, water temperature, oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), turbidity, DO, electrical conductivity (EC), total dissolved solids (TDS), TSS, NH3-N, salinity, NO3, phosphate, BOD5, COD, FC and total coliform (TC)) were assessed in this study.
Prior to this research, WQI had not applied in Brunei, so the findings of this research provide a clear assessment of the pollution level of the Brunei River. Additionally, the research serves as a valuable resource and framework for future studies for developing Brunei’s WQI.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

Brunei Darussalam, occupying 5765 km2, is situated on Borneo Island bordered by the South China Sea and surrounded by Malaysia’s Sarawak state [12,33] (Figure 1). Brunei’s climate is characterized as wet–tropical with average monthly temperatures of 26.7 °C to 27.7 °C, and monthly rainfall of 375 mm [33]. Seasonal climatic variations are influenced by the stronger northeast monsoon from October to January, and the weaker southeast monsoon from April to August. The rainfall peaks from October to January and May to July, and there is lower rainfall in February, March and June to August. The country landscape predominantly consists of low undulating terrain, with mountainous areas in the southeast [33]. Its geomorphology was significantly shaped by a major sea-level subsidence event approximately 5000–6000 years ago [33]. The country’s hydrology is dominated by four major rivers: Belait (209 km), Temburong (98 km), Tutong (137 km) and Brunei (41 km), with the latter two being crucial for the nation’s water supply for domestic, industrial and agricultural uses [12,33]. The Brunei River is a tidal estuarine river stretching approximately 41 km in length [34], flowing through Brunei-Muara district and meandering northeastward until it discharges into the Brunei Bay. The river’s catchment primarily consists of alluvial deposits that overlie the Belait Formation [35].
Additionally, the Brunei-Muara area is predominantly covered by recent peat deposits, with nearby hills made up of sandstone and shale. More than sixty percent of the country’s population resides in the Brunei Muara district, where the capital city (Bandar Seri Begawan) is located.
A floating water village (Kampong Ayer) is situated on the river while the capital city stands on its banks. The lower stretches of the river are densely populated by mangroves and Nipah palms, which serve as a vital breeding ground for coastal fisheries. Conversely, the upper reaches of the river are a crucial freshwater source for the western part of the country [36]. Sources of water pollution in the Brunei River have been attributed to wastewater treatment facilities, industrial discharges, agriculture and contaminated streams [36,37,38]. In many areas around the river, monsoon drains are often overlooked and frequently become clogged with silt, leading to anaerobic conditions and problems with odors. During storms, these drains can experience high flow rates, causing effluent from septic tanks and other debris to be rapidly flushed into the river. Domestic wastes and surface runoff constitute about 50 percent and 29 percent of the pollutant load discharged into the Brunei river, respectively [39]. High population density and urban catchments are also primary contributors to the prevalent pollution levels in the river [40].

2.2. Sampling Points

Eight monitoring stations—B, D, E, G, J, N, P and Q—are observed along the river, as shown in Figure 1. These points were selected due to their proximity to areas affected by human-induced modifications causing point and non-point source pollution. The co-ordinates extend from 4°52′ N to 4°56′ N, and from 114°54′ E to 115°0′ E. Station Q is located on Sungai Damuan, a tributary flowing into Sungai Brunei, approximately 5 km upstream from the commercial hub and the capital city, Bandar Seri Begawan. This area, rich in mangrove forests, is monitored to assess pollution impacts from a nearby quarry along the riverbank. Downstream, approximately 2 km from Station Q, lies Station P at the merging point of Sungai Brunei and Sungai Damuan within a largely forested area surrounded by agricultural activities. Further down, 2.5 km from Station P, Station N is found in the initial segment of Kampong Ayer within the Pengiran Tajuddin Hitam residential area, a location concerned with potential untreated sewage discharge. Station J, situated about 1 km downstream from Station N, lies at the interface of Kampong Ayer’s latter section and Bandar Seri Begawan, bordered by cement walkways and subjected to domestic and industrial waste, including runoff from the city center and the Sungai Kianggeh tributary. Approximately 1.5 km downstream from Station J, Station G marks the transition from urban walkways to natural riverbanks. Station E is positioned about 1.3 km downstream from Station G, close to the Pintu Malim Sewage Treatment Plant. A distance of 1.3 km downstream from Station E, Station D is near the Brunei Darussalam Maritime Museum. The final station, Station B, is found roughly 3.4 km downstream from Station D and 3.6 km from the Brunei Bay mouth, in an area blending forested and residential settings.

2.3. Data Collection

Measurements were conducted once or twice a month from August 2022 to December 2023, with COD, nitrate and phosphate measured from September to December 2023. The Aqua Troll 600 Multiparameter Sonde was used for in situ water quality monitoring in the Brunei River. Recognized for its advanced capabilities in assessing aquatic environmental health, the Aqua Troll 600 facilitates the simultaneous measurement of multiple water quality parameters including, but not limited to, pH, DO, water temperature, ORP, TDS, NH3-N, EC and salinity. Prior to deployment, a calibration protocol was implemented to ensure the precision and reliability of the data collection. Each calibration was done on the sensor to a known calibration standard [41]. For instance, pH sensor was calibrated using standard buffers at pH 4.00, 7.00 and 10.00 every 10 weeks. Factory calibration of Aqua troll 600 instruments was done annually at In-Situ Incorporated, Fort Collins CO, USA, or when significant data drift was observed. This process included cleaning and complete functionality checks of all sensors.
Three data points were frequently obtained at each monitoring station to boost accuracy due to potential instability in readings caused by river current, boat movement and the removal of any potential outliers due to measurement errors. Water samples were collected at depths of approximately 2 to 4 m using a Van Dorn sampler, then immediately transferred to sterile bottles, ensuring no air bubbles were present, and stored in a chilled container throughout the sampling process. Turbidity was measured using the HF scientific M100þ laboratory turbidimeter. Monthly readings of TSS concentration readings were collected from the Department of Water Services Brunei, Jabatan Kerja Raya (JKR), Brunei Darussalam. A HI83399 Water and Wastewater Multiparameter (with COD) Photometer was used to measure COD and phosphate, while H1782 nitrate checker was used for analyzing the nitrate concentration. The BOD was measured over 5 days [42]. In contrast, coliform bacteria were quantified using a multiple tube fermentation approach [43] at the wastewater laboratory of the Department of Drainage and Sewerage (DDS), JKR, Brunei Darussalam.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Interval plots were used to visually compare the central tendency and variability of the 16 (pH, water temperature, DO, ORP, COD, BOD5, salinity, EC, TDS, turbidity, TSS, NH3-N, FC, TC, phosphate and NO3) water quality parameters across the eight sampling sites along the river. These plots displayed the mean values and the associated 95% confidence mean intervals for each measured parameter.
Principal component analysis (PCA) was used to simplify and select the proposed Brunei river WQI parameters by reducing the dimensionality of the data of thirteen water quality parameters [22], excluding COD, NO3 and phosphate due to low data availability. Prior to applying PCA, the parameters were standardized due to their differing units. This standardization was done by calculating the z-scores for each parameter, setting the mean to zero and the standard deviation to one [44]. This step ensured that no single parameter with a larger scale and variance dominated the PCA results. The suitability of the data for the PCA analysis was assessed using the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s test of sphericity [11]. The KMO measure evaluates the proportion of variance among variables that might be common variance. A KMO value closer to 1 indicates that the data are suitable for PCA [22]. Bartlett’s test of sphericity tests the null hypothesis that the correlation matrix is an identity matrix, which would indicate that variables are unrelated and unsuitable for structure detection. A significant Bartlett’s test (p < 0.05) suggests that the correlations in the data set are appropriate for PCA [11,22]. Following the normalization and suitability tests, PCA transformed the original parameters into a new set of variables known as principal components (PC) based on eigenvalues greater than one. Furthermore, PC loadings were categorized as strong (greater than 0.75), moderate (0.75–0.50) and weak (0.50–0.30) [45]. Pearson correlation was also used to measure the strength and direction of the linear relationship between the water quality parameters.

2.5. National Sanitation Foundation WQI (NSFWQI)

The NSFWQI is calculated based on the evaluation of several fixed water quality parameters (n = 9), which include DO saturation, FC, pH, BOD5, water temperature, TP, NO3, turbidity and TS. The NSFWQI is segmented into five classes of water quality categorized as very poor (0–25), poor (25–50), medium (50–70), good (70–90) and excellent (90–100). The fixed parameters have different weight coefficients (wi), with DO saturation (%) and TS having the highest and lowest weights (0.17 and 0.07, respectively) in the calculation of NSFWQI [24]. The weights assigned to each parameter were based on a statistical survey using the Delphi technique. This method involved 142 experts who contributed to the formulation of weights for the index. NSFWQI is defined in Equation (1) as follows [24]:
NSFWQI = i = 1 n w i q i
where qi is the sub-index for ith water quality parameters, wi is the weight (in terms of importance) associated with the ith water quality parameter, and n is the number of water quality parameters. Other relative weights for the parameters (wi in Equation (1)) are as follows: FC (0.16), pH (0.11), BOD5 (0.11), water temperature (0.10), NO3 (0.10), TP (0.10) and turbidity (0.08). Colony-forming units (CFU/100 mL) are required for FC calculations [24]. However, in our study, FC was measured in MPN/100 mL. Recent research [46] has demonstrated that utilizing MPN/100 mL instead of CFU/100 mL is acceptable and does not significantly impact the results of the WQI. Furthermore, the parameter subindex used in this study (qi) was derived from the respective rating curves [47,48]. DO concentration (mg/L) at a given water temperature was converted into DO saturation (%) to define the subindex for parameter DO. After the q-value (qi) was obtained, it was multiplied by a weighting factor (wi) to give the overall water quality.

2.6. Malaysia WQI

The Malaysia WQI fixed system [29] was also utilized to gauge the health and quality of water bodies on a regional scale. The Malaysia WQI formula (Equation (2)) assesses water quality based on the measurements of six parameters: DO, BOD5, COD, NH3-N, SS and pH. DO is converted to DO saturation at a given temperature. The parameter concentrations are converted into subindices by rating curve functions [49] based on water quality standards. The index combines these parameters into a single value that ranks water quality on a scale from 0 to 100, categorizing it into three main classes: clean (90–100), slightly polluted (70–90) and polluted (0–70).
WQI = (0.22 ∗ SIDO) + (0.19 ∗ SIBOD) + (0.16 ∗ SICOD) + (0.15 ∗ SIAN) + (0.16 ∗ SISS) + (0.12 ∗ SIpH)
where, SI relates to subindices of those parameters (n = 6) that were obtained from a series of equations.
Fit equations for the estimation of various subindex values for the Malaysia WQI:
Subindex for BOD
SIBOD = 100.4 − 4.23x          for x ≤ 5
SIBOD = 108 ∗ exp(−0.055x) − 0.1x    for x > 5
Subindex for DO (in % saturation)
SIDO = 0                   for x ≤ 8
SIDO = 100                   for x ≥ 92
SIDO = −0.395 + 0.030x2 − 0.00020x3    for 8 < x < 92
Subindex for COD
SICOD = −1.33x + 99.1           for x ≤ 20
SICOD = 103 ∗ exp(−0.0157x) − 0.04x    for x > 20
Subindex for NH3-N
SIAN = 100.5 − 105x              for x ≤ 0.3
SIAN = 94 ∗ exp(−0.573x) − 5 ∗ [x − 2]    for 0.3 < x < 4
SIAN = 0                   for x ≥ 4
Subindex for SS
SISS = 97.5 ∗ exp(−0.00676x) + 0.05x       for x ≤ 100
SISS = 71 ∗ exp(−0.0061x) − 0.015x    for 100 < x < 1000
SISS = 0                  for x ≥ 1000
Subindex for pH
SIpH = 17.2 − 17.2x + 5.02x2          for x < 5.5
SIpH = −242 + 95.5x − 6.67x2       for 5.5 ≤ x < 7
SIpH = −181 + 82.4x − 6.05x2       for 7 ≤ x < 8.75
SIpH = 536 − 77.0x + 2.76x2         for x ≥ 8.75
The sub-indices were calculated using the parameter mean of each station based on Equations (3)–(19). For example, the BOD mean in Station B was 2.54 (Table 1) and the appropriate equation to use is Equation (3), which is for x ≤ 5. The x stands for the value of the parameter. The subindices result of each parameter are then multiplied with Equation (2) to give each station its own WQI.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Statistics

Results of the 16 minimum (min), maximum (max) and mean of water quality parameters measured in the eight monitoring stations—B, D, E, G, J, N, P and Q—are presented in Table 1, Figure 2. The parameters assessed included pH, water temperature, DO, ORP, COD, BOD5, salinity, EC, TDS, turbidity, TSS, NH3-N, FC, TC, phosphate and NO3, each crucial for evaluating the health and quality of water bodies. Table 1 showed that observed pH values ranged from a slightly acidic 6.31 to a slightly alkaline 7.7. Water temperature measurements varied between 22.5 °C and 30.9 °C, and DO levels spanned from a low of 2.9 mg/L to a high of 8.4 mg/L. Significant variability was also noted in the ORP, with values ranging from 78.88 mg/L to 256.4 mg/L; COD and BOD5, which are crucial indicators of organic pollution, showed considerable ranges from 169 mg/L to 696 mg/L, and from 0.3 mg/L to 7.9 mg/L, respectively. Salinity and EC values ranged from 4.2 to 39.5 PPT, and from 8043 to 43,459 μS/cm, respectively. Similarly, TDS results varied from 5.08 to 25.94 mg/L. Turbidity and TSS ranged from 2.2 NTU to 59.3 NTU, and from 4 mg/L to 98.8 mg/L, respectively. Nutrient levels, including NH3-N, phosphate and NO3, had ranges of 0.02–0.18 mg/L, 0.01–0.82 mg/L and 0.03–0.9 mg/L, accordingly. The microbial contamination concentrations in this study indicated a wide range in FC (200 to 35,000 MPN/100 mL) and TC counts (300 to 160,000 MPN/100 mL).

3.2. Proposed Parameter Selection for Building Brunei River’s WQI

The suitability of the data for PCA was evaluated using the KMO measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s test of sphericity. The KMO value was 0.713, while Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant at p < 0.05, confirming that the 13 parameters were appropriate for PCA. Given the practical challenges and costs associated with incorporating all water quality parameters, PCA reduced the 13 selected parameters into five principal components (PC), accounting for 12 parameters using an eigenvalue greater than one (Table 2). PC 1 accounted for 34.082%, PC 2 (13.458%), PC 3 (10.229%), PC 4 (9.507%) and PC 5 (7.931%). These components capture most of the data’s variance (Table 3).
Each PC represents a different aspect of the water quality parameters with the loadings (positive or negative) of each parameter’s contribution to the Brunei River. In this study, we focused on parameters with strong-to-moderate factor loadings greater than ±0.5. The retained parameters (Table 3) are: pH, EC, TDS, salinity, ORP, turbidity, BOD5, TSS, FC, NH3-N, T and DO. However, including all 12 parameters in the Brunei River’s WQI remains costly and impractical, especially considering the correlations among some parameters. For instance, TDS and salinity are highly correlated (Table 4) and TDS can be derived from EC measurements. Thus, to avoid redundancy, the highly correlated parameters were not retained. Furthermore, despite the correlations between some parameters, such as pH and EC, they were included in the parameters selected for the Brunei River’s WQI due to their critical importance in assessing the river’s water quality.
The PCA biplot (Figure 3) shows the first two principal components (PC1 and PC2), which explains 47.54% of the total variance. The biplot shows that the further away the water quality parameters are from a PC origin, the more influence they have on that PC. For example, salinity, EC, TDS, T, ORP, DO and NH3-N have strong influences on the first two components. The spread of red dots (scores) along the principal components illustrates significant variability among the samples.

3.3. Assessment of Water Quality across the Eight Stations Using Malaysia WQI and NSFWQI

The summarized results (Table 5) from the Malaysia Water Quality Index indicate that most of the monitoring stations, specifically Stations B, D, E, G, J, N and P, were classified as slightly polluted, with WQI values ranging from 71.23 to 79.54. These stations showed a moderate presence of pollutants that could be addressed through targeted water quality management practices. Station Q, however, was classified as polluted with a WQI of 68.58, suggesting a higher level of contamination that may pose significant risks to the ecosystem.
Table 6 presents the NSFWQI values calculated for the eight monitoring stations, alongside the categorized pollution level. These values were derived from assessing the mean of nine water quality parameters, with each parameter assigned a specific weight reflecting its relative importance to overall water quality. The parameter subindices were calculated using the Q curves. The analysis revealed that all eight monitoring stations fell within the medium category concerning pollution levels, indicating a moderate degree of water quality pollution.

4. Discussion

4.1. Evaluation of the 16 Water Quality Parameters for the Eight Monitoring Stations

The observed, slightly acidic pH across the river’s monitoring stations was likely influenced by the oxidation of acid sulfate soils (ASS) surrounding the Brunei River [40,50]. Disturbances such as excavation or changes in water levels expose ASS to oxygen, causing the production of sulfuric acid and subsequent acidification of adjacent Brunei water bodies [51]. Such disturbances are noticeable around quarry operations at Station Q. Mean water temperature readings were relatively consistent, with minor variations possibly attributed to microclimatic conditions or differential solar insolation [52] across the sampling sites. Both temperature and pH were within the permissible USEPA limits for surface water [53].
Station P was mainly affected by nutrient pollution (phosphate) due to agricultural runoff from small paddy fields around the monitoring station [54]. It is well known that high levels of nutrient losses from agricultural fields, such as paddy fields, from which nutrients flow downstream, can cause eutrophication, including excessive algal blooms in the adjacent receiving water [54]. Prambudy [55] reported that the existence of waste-disposal activities added to the COD pollution load on the Cipager river, Cirebon, Indonesia. Similarly, the wastewater constantly being discharged into the Brunei River from Kampong Ayer could have increased the COD concentration, especially around Stations N, J and G. This is undesirable since the continual discharge of effluent [11] has impacted the receiving Brunei River waterbody to some extent, which may have negative effects on the quality of freshwater and ultimately cause harm to aquatic life, notably fish, if not controlled. A higher BOD5 found at Station G was possibly from sewage discharges or agricultural runoff [56,57].
Station G pollution was attributed to urban and agricultural runoff from the capital city. Urban runoff is a common problem in densely populated areas like Brunei where the landscape is dominated by impervious surfaces that do not allow water to infiltrate into the ground [58]. Downstream stations B, D and E had higher EC, TDS and salinity concentrations, which decreased upstream due to dilution by freshwater inflows and lesser tidal effects [59,60]. The observed variations in EC may also be influenced by adjacent geological formations within the watershed [61]. For example, sandstone is made up of more inert elements that do not dissolve into ionic components when washed into the water, therefore, water that travels through places with sandstone tends to have lower electrical conductivity. Water that flows through clayey soils, on the other hand, typically has a higher EC due to ionized components. The concentration of ORP describes the health of the river, with higher values indicating greater health. Wetzel [62] stated that, in healthy waters, ORP should read between 300 to 500 mV, but in this study ORP read between 84–230 mV. A sufficient supply of DO is vital for all aquatic life. Most aquatic plants and animals need oxygen to live. For instance, fish typically cannot survive in water that has a dissolved oxygen content of less than 5 mg/L for an extended period [63]. The DO is generally low in the upstream stations due to anthropogenic activities such as sewage waste and agricultural and urban runoff, especially around Stations N, J, P and Q.
Turbidity and TSS are measures of water clarity impacted by particulate matter that could be of allochthonous or autochthonous origin, including soil erosion, algal growth, or resuspended sediments [64,65,66]. Moreover, the increased turbidity in Stations Q and J could impede light-penetration, thereby affecting the primary productivity of aquatic organisms and geochemical processes within the photic zone around these stations [11]. Stations D, E and G experienced raised TSS, possibly from erosion and urban runoff [67] from the capital city, Bandar Sei Begawan. The detection of NH3-N, phosphate and NO3 in the Brunei River shows that the organic pollution could be attributed to agricultural runoff, wastewater treatment effluent, or other sources of organic waste [67,68,69,70,71]. Stations E, J, D and Q showed signs of moderate-to-high levels of nutrients which could lead to eutrophication [70].
Generally, TC and FC are relatively high at all stations and above the permissible Malaysia limit [29]. However, noticeable levels of FC and TC at Station E, near the Pintu Malim Sewage Treatment Plant (PMSTP), imply that inefficiencies in sewage processing or overflow incidents may be contributing to microbial pollution. In contrast, increased contamination at Station J in the Kampong Ayer area shows that the direct discharge of waste from residential areas is a primary source of the river’s water quality degradation. The situation is further exacerbated by Kampong Ayer’s population and lack of proper waste-management infrastructure. Meanwhile, despite its closeness to a quarry, Station Q exhibited higher FC and TC levels, which are more indicative of urban runoff.

4.2. Proposed Parameter Selection for Building Brunei WQI

In this study, PCA was employed to identify and select key water quality parameters for developing the WQI for the Brunei River. PCA effectively reduced the complexity of the dataset by transforming the original 13 water quality parameters into five principal components which collectively explained 75.207% of the total variance. Initially, 12 parameters (pH, EC, salinity, TDS, ORP, DO, turbidity, BOD5, FC, NH3-N, water temperature and TSS) were retained from the PCA. These parameters were further processed through correlation analysis and authors’ judgement to identify and exclude redundant parameters, thereby simplifying the dataset without significant loss of information.
EC, salinity and TDS were found to be correlated as they collectively represent the ionic content of water bodies. Although previous research indicated that TDS and EC correlation are not always linear, the concentration of TDS from EC can be used to give an overview of water quality [72]. Consequently, only EC was retained to represent the ionic content of the Brunei River, while TDS and SAL were excluded to avoid redundancy. ORP showed weak correlations with most parameters except water temperature, and is often measured alongside DO in polluted rivers [62]. However, in this study, the authors decided to exclude ORP and retain DO and water temperature as they are more vital for assessing the water quality of Brunei rivers [11].
The observed levels of NH3-N in this study were not significantly high (Table 1), leading to its exclusion from the parameter list. Instead, using the Delphi method, we included nitrate and phosphate because they are key indicators of nutrient pollution and are particularly relevant for assessing eutrophication, a major concern for the Brunei River’s water quality. pH was retained due to its fundamental role in assessing the acidity or alkalinity of water bodies, considering the surrounding acid sulfate soils near the river [73]. Prior research [74] noted a linear correlation between turbidity and TSS, but our study showed a minimal correlation between them. Therefore, the authors decided to keep TSS and turbidity. BOD5 and FC showed low correlations with other parameters, revealing their independent roles in assessing the Brunei River’s water quality. BOD is crucial for determining the level of organic pollution, while FC measures microbial contamination.
Based on our analysis and for future research and development of the Brunei River WQI, we recommend the following 10 parameters for inclusion: pH, EC, DO, turbidity, BOD5, FC, water temperature, phosphate, NO3 and TSS.

4.3. Monitoring Stations’ Water Quality Using NSFWQI and Malaysia WQI

Overall, Stations B and D had the best WQI values for both Malaysia and NSFWQI assessments due to these locations being situated in areas with relatively low anthropogenic activity. The Malaysia WQI categorized Station Q as polluted and other Stations B, D, E, G, J, N and P as slightly polluted. Conversely, the NSFWQI categorized all stations as having medium pollution levels, though Station Q had the lowest WQI. In the Malaysia WQI and NSFWQI indices, Station Q had the lowest WQI, particularly due to the station’s lowest DO saturation, which carried the highest weights of 0.22 and 0.17, respectively. However, these indices do come with inherent limitations. The selection and weighting of parameters in these indices might not fully represent the specific water quality challenges of the Brunei River, potentially overlooking pollutants that are locally relevant but not included in the indices. NSFWQI offered a broader and better perspective on the Brunei River’s water quality by incorporating additional parameters such as temperature, fecal coliform and nutrients (nitrate and phosphorus) compared to the Malaysia WQI. Incorporating these additional parameters clearly influenced the WQI, moving it from slightly polluted to a moderately polluted status. The comparative analysis of WQI and statistical assessments showed that upstream stations are more polluted than downstream stations, given that low WQI scores were mainly found in the upstream stations, especially stations around Kampong Ayer (N and J) and the quarry area (Q). The Kampong Ayer Water Village, with its dense population and likely direct discharge of domestic wastes into the water and the quarry area, with potential sediment and pollutant runoff, are environments where the water quality is severely compromised.

5. Conclusions

This research assessed the pollution level and proposed parameters for building Brunei River’s Water Quality Index. Sixteen water quality parameters in eight monitoring stations along the Brunei River were analyzed using both statistics and two established water quality indices. We used a combination of descriptive statistics, interval plots, NSFWQI and Malaysia WQI to assess pollution levels in the river. The NSFWQI classified the Brunei River as medium polluted, whereas the Malaysia WQI rated most of the monitored stations as slightly polluted except for Station Q, which was deemed polluted. NSFWQI and Malaysia WQI identified pollution hotspots as Station Q (Quarry area) and Stations N and J (Kampong Ayer). Addressing these hotspots requires waste-management strategies, regulatory frameworks and continuous monitoring to safeguard the water quality of the Brunei River. Furthermore, the implementation of stringent pollution control measures, coupled with community awareness programs for Kampong Ayer residents and urban planning that prioritizes green infrastructures, could substantially mitigate the identified risks.
Statistical analysis revealed that sources of pollution of the Brunei River are mainly attributed to anthropogenic activities such as mining, domestic waste and agricultural and urban runoff around the river.
The combination of principal component analysis, correlation analysis and expert judgment ensures that the WQI parameters selected remains comprehensive and relevant to local water quality management needs. This research enhances the understanding of the current state of the Brunei River by objectively selecting key parameters and reducing subjectivity in the index development. The selected 10 parameters: dissolved oxygen, water temperature, electrical conductivity, phosphate, nitrate, pH, total suspended solids, turbidity, biological oxygen demand and fecal coliform form a reliable basis for assessing the water quality of the river. The findings of this research support effective water quality management in Brunei Darussalam.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, N.S., O.O., S.H.G. and J.L.Z.J.; methodology, O.O.; software, O.O.; validation, N.S., O.O., J.L.Z.J., D.T.C.L. and S.H.G.; formal analysis, O.O. investigation, N.S., O.O., D.T.C.L., J.L.Z.J. and S.H.G.; resources, O.O., N.S., J.L.Z.J. and S.H.G.; data curation, O.O.; writing—original draft preparation, O.O.; writing—review and editing, O.O., N.S., D.T.C.L. and S.H.G.; visualization, O.O.; supervision, N.S., D.T.C.L. and S.H.G.; project administration, N.S., D.T.C.L. and S.H.G.; funding acquisition, N.S., S.H.G. and D.T.C.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Universiti Brunei Darussalam, research grant UBD/RSCH/1.18/FICBF(b)/2022/004.

Data Availability Statement

Data are not publicly available but can be made available based on reasonable requests to the corresponding authors.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Public Works Department of Brunei Darussalam, in particular Alwi bin Hj Md Yussof for the supplied data. The authors thank all final year project students who were involved in the water quality analysis of the Brunei River.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Kunwar, P.; Singh, A.M.; Sarita, S. Water quality assessment and apportionment of pollution sources of Gomti river (India) using multivariate statistical techniques—A case study. Anal. Chim. Acta 2005, 538, 355–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Malone, T.C.; Newton, A. The globalization of cultural eutrophication in the coastal ocean: Causes and consequences. Front. Mar. Sci. 2020, 7, 670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Zhang, W.; Li, H.; Li, Y. Spatio-temporal dynamics of nitrogen and phosphorus input budgets in a global hotspot of anthropogenic inputs. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 656, 1108–1120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Naderian, D.; Noori, R.; Heggy, E.; Bateni, S.M.; Bhattarai, R.; Nohegar, A.; Sharma, S. A water quality database for global lakes. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2024, 202, 107401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Asif, Z.; Chen, Z.; Sadiq, R.; Zhu, Y. Climate change impacts on water resources and sustainable water management strategies in North America. Water Resour. Manag. 2023, 37, 2771–2786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Samandra, S.; Singh, J.; Plaisted, K.; Mescall, O.J.; Symons, B.; Xie, S.; Ellis, A.V.; Clarke, B.O. Quantifying environmental emissions of microplastics from urban rivers in Melbourne, Australia. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2023, 189, 114709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Fahimah, N.; Salami, I.R.; Oginawati, K.; Susetyo, S.H.; Tambun, A.; Ardiwinata, A.N.; Sukarjo, S. The assessment of water quality and human health risk from pollution of chosen heavy metals in the Upstream Citarum River, Indonesia. J. Water Land Dev. 2023, 56, 153–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Feisal, N.A.S.; Kamaludin, N.H.; Sani, M.F.A.; Ahmad, D.K.A.; Ahmad, M.A.; Razak, N.F.A.; Ibrahim, T.N.B.T. Anthropogenic disturbance of aquatic biodiversity and water quality of an urban river in Penang, Malaysia. Water Sci. Eng. 2023, 16, 234–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Jalilov, S.M. Sustainable Urban Water Environments in Southeast Asia: Addressing the Pollution of Urban Waterbodies in Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam; Policy Brief; United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability (UNU-IAS): Shibuya, Japan, 2016; Volume 7. [Google Scholar]
  10. Yau, K.H. Water quality of Brunei River and Estuary. In Proceedings of the International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management, (ICLARM) Conference Proceedings, Manila, Philippines, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  11. Onifade, O.; Shamsuddin, N.; Teck Ching Lai, D.; Jamil, H.; Godeke, S.H. Importance of baseline assessments: Monitoring of Brunei River’s water quality. H2Open J. 2023, 6, 518–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Azffri, S.L.; Thong, C.S.; Hoon, L.L.; Ibrahim, M.F.; Schirmer, M.; Gödeke, S.H. Evaluation of ground and surface water hydrochemistry for irrigation suitability in Borneo: Insights from Brunei Darussalam. Water 2023, 15, 2154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. James, K.S. 440 kg of Trash Collected, Borneo Bulletin 2022. Available online: https://borneobulletin.com.bn/over-440kg-of-trash-collected-in-river-clean-up/ (accessed on 16 October 2022).
  14. Gupta, N.; Pandey, P.; Hussain, J. Effect of physicochemical and biological parameters on the quality of river water of Narmada, Madhya Pradesh, India. Water Sci. 2017, 31, 11–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Shah, K.A.; Joshi, G.S. Evaluation of water quality index for River Sabarmati, Gujarat, India. Appl. Water Sci. 2017, 7, 1349–1358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Zeinalzadeh, K.; Rezaei, E. Determining spatial and temporal changes of surface water quality using principal component analysis. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud. 2017, 13, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Uddin, M.G.; Nash, S.; Olbert, A.I. A review of water quality index models and their use for assessing surface water quality. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 122, 107218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Sutadian, A.D.; Muttil, N.; Yilmaz, A.; Perera, B.J.C. Development of river water quality indices—A review. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2016, 188, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kim, H.I.; Kim, D.; Mahdian, M.; Salamattalab, M.M.; Bateni, S.M.; Noori, R. Incorporation of Water Quality Index Models with Machine Learning-Based Techniques for Real-Time Assessment of Aquatic Ecosystems. Environ. Pollut. 2024, 355, 124242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Sutadian, A.D.; Muttil, N.; Yilmaz, A.G.; Perera, B.J.C. Development of a water quality index for rivers in West Java Province, Indonesia. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 85, 966–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Liou, S.M.; Lo, S.L.; Wang, S.H. A generalized water quality index for Taiwan. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2004, 96, 35–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Tripathi, M.; Singal, S.K. Use of principal component analysis for parameter selection for development of a novel water quality index: A case study of river Ganga India. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 96, 430–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kocer, M.A.T.; Sevgili, H. Parameters selection for water quality index in the assessment of the environmental impacts of land-based trout farms. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 36, 672–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Brown, R.M.; McClelland, N.I.; Deininger, R.A.; Tozer, R.G. A water quality index—Do we dare? Water Sew. Work. 1970, 117, 339–343. [Google Scholar]
  25. Parween, S.S.; Nigar, A.; Mahammad, D.; Mir, T.O.; Agnieszka, I.; Uddin, M.G. Assessment of urban river water quality using modified NSF water quality index model at Siliguri city, West Bengal, India. Environ. Sustain. Indic. 2022, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zaghloul, G.Y.; Zaghloul, A.Y.; Hamed, M.A.; El-Moselhy, K.M.; El-Din, H.M.E. Water quality assessment for Northern Egyptian lakes (Bardawil, Manzala, and Burullus) using NSF-WQI index. Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. 2023, 64, 103010. [Google Scholar]
  27. Nastiti, K.D.M.; Sayekti, R.W.; Yuliani, E. Water quality and distribution of Selorejo Reservoir using the Pollution Index, Oregon-WQI, and NSF-WQI methods. J. Tek. Pengair. J. Water Resour. Eng. 2023, 14, 64–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Huang, Y.F.; Ang, S.Y.; Lee, K.M.; Lee, T.S. Quality of Water Resources in Malaysia; InTech: Houston, TX, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. DOE (Department of Environment) Malaysia. Malaysia Environmental Quality Report; Malaysia Department of Environment, Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment: Putrajaya, Malaysia, 2002.
  30. Tengku, I.; Tengku, N.; Othman, F.; Mahmood, N.; Abunama, T. Seasonal Effects on Spatial Variations of Surface Water Quality in a Tropical River Receiving Anthropogenic Influences. Sains Malays. 2021, 50, 571–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zhang, Y.; Yu, H.; Liu, J.; Guo, Y. Analysis of water quality and the response of phytoplankton in the low-temperature environment of Majiagou Urban River, China. Heliyon 2024, 10, e25955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Pham, H.; Rahman, M.M.; Nguyen, N.C.; Le Vo, P.; Le Van, T.; Ngo, H. Assessment of surface water quality using the water quality index and multivariate statistical techniques–A case study: The upper part of Dong Nai river basin, Vietnam. J. Water Sustain. 2017, 7, 225–245. [Google Scholar]
  33. Bac-Bronowicz, J.; Becek, K. Environmentally Based Perception of Space. In Proceedings of the ICC 2009, International Cartographic Conference, Santiago, Chile, 15–21 November 2009; Available online: http://icaci.org/documents/ICC_proceedings/ICC2009/html/refer/22_3.pdf (accessed on 19 July 2024).
  34. Syed, M.D. Sungai Brunei Water Quality and Pollution Study Report; Government of Negara Brunei Darussalam Jabatan Kerja Raya, Brunei Darussalam, 1987; Unpublished Work. [Google Scholar]
  35. Sandal, S.T. The Geology and Hydrocarbon Resources of Negara Brunei Darussalam; Brunei Shell Petroleum Company/Brunei Museum, Syabas Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei Darussalam: Muzium, Brunei, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  36. Azffri, S.L.; Azaman, A.; Sukri, R.S.; Jaafar, S.M.; Ibrahim, M.F.; Schirmer, M.; Gödeke, S.H. Soil and Groundwater Investigation for Sustainable Agricultural Development: A Case Study from Brunei Darussalam. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Aziz, A.; Haji, H.M.M.P.D. Baseline Study on Chemical Composition of Brunei Darussalam Rivers. Ph.D. Dissertation, Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK, 2005; 19p. [Google Scholar]
  38. Goh, K.C. Garbage problems of a water settlement, Kampong Ayer, Brunei Darussalam. J. Environ. Syst. 1991, 21. [Google Scholar]
  39. Lim, P.E. Water quality in the coastal areas of Brunei Darussalam: Status, management issues and recommendations. In The Coastal Resources of Brunei Darussalam: Status, Utilization and Management. ICLARM Conference Proceedings 34; Silvestre, G., Matdanan, H.L.H., Sharifuddin, P.H.Y., De Silva, M.W.R.N., Chua, T.-E., Eds.; International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management: Manila, Philippines, 1992; pp. 91–108. [Google Scholar]
  40. Godeke, S.H.; Malik, O.A.; Lai, D.T.C.; Bretzler, A.; Schirmer, M.; Mansor, N.H. Water quality investigation in Brunei Darussalam: Investigation of the influence of climate change. Environ. Earth Sci. 2020, 79, 419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. AquaTroll 600 Manual. User’s Guide for the AquaTroll 600 Water Quality Monitoring System. USA. 2023. Available online: https://www.fieldenvironmental.com/assets/files/Manuals/In-Situ-Aqua-TROLL-600-Manual.pdf (accessed on 20 April 2016).
  42. APHA. Standard Methods for the Examination of Wastewater, 16th ed.; America Public Health Association: Washington, DC, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  43. APHA. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th ed.; American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, Water Pollution Control Facility Joint Publications: Washington, DC, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  44. Cheadle, C.; Vawter, M.P.; Freed, W.J.; Becker, K.G. Analysis of microarray data using Z score transformation. J. Mol. Diagn. 2003, 5, 73–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Liu, C.W.; Lin, K.H.; Kuo, Y.M. Application of factor analysis in the assessment of groundwater quality in a blackfoot disease area in Taiwan. Sci. Total Environ. 2003, 313, 77–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Noori, R.; Berndtsson, R.; Hosseinzadeh, M.; Adamowski, J.F.; Abyaneh, M.R. A critical review on the application of the National Sanitation Foundation Water Quality Index. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 244, 575–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Des Moines River Water Quality Network. Calculating NSF Water Quality Index. 2018. Available online: http://home.eng.iastate.edu/~dslutz/dmrwqn/water_quality_index_calc.htm (accessed on 13 January 2018).
  48. Effendi, H.; Wardiatno, Y. Water quality status of Ciambulawung River, Banten Province, based on pollution index and NSF-WQI. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2015, 24, 228–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Liang, Y.Q.; Yong, E.L.; Annammala, K.V.; Bidin, K.; Nainar, A.; Mazilamani, L.S.; Mohamad, N.A. A comparative review on Malaysia’s water quality index model with international water quality index models for surface water quality classification. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2023, 1143, 012006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Yusri, N.I.A.B.; Gödeke, S.H.; Mansor, N.H.B.H.M. A Water Quality Database for Brunei-the Case of Bukit Barun and Layong. In Proceedings of the Brunei International Conference on Engineering and Technology 2018 (BICET 2018), Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei, 12–14 November 2018; pp. 54–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Karananidi, P.; Valente, T.; Braga, M.A.S.; Reepei, M.; Pechy, M.I.N.F.; Wang, Z.; Bachmann, R.T.; Jusop, S.; Som, A.M. Acid sulfate soils decrease surface water quality in coastal area of West Malaysia: Quo Vadis? Geoderma Reg. 2022, 28, e00467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Johnson, M.F.; Wilby, R.L. Shield or not to Shield: Effects of Solar Radiation on Water Temperature Sensor Accuracy. Water 2013, 5, 1622–1637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Quality Criteria for Water “Gold Book”; United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA): Washington, DC, USA, 1986; pp. 279–282. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/wqc/national-recommended-water-quality-criteria-aquatic-life-criteria-table (accessed on 1 May 1986).
  54. Liang, X.Q.; Chen, Y.X.; Nie, Z.Y.; Ye, Y.S.; Liu, J.; Tian, G.M.; Wang, G.H.; Tuong, T.P. Mitigation of nutrient losses via surface runoff from rice cropping systems with alternate wetting and drying irrigation and site-specific nutrient management practices. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Resour. 2013, 20, 6980–6991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Prambudy, H.; Supriyatin, T.; Setiawan, F. The testing of chemical oxygen demand (COD) and biological oxygen demand (BOD) of river water in Cipager Cirebon. In J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2019, 1360, 012010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Bader, A.C.; Hussein, H.J.; Jabar, M.T. BOD: COD ratio as Indicator for wastewater and industrial water pollution. Int. J. Spec. Educ. 2022, 37, 2164–2171. [Google Scholar]
  57. Daoliang, L.; Shuangyin, L. Detection of river water quality. In Water Quality Monitoring and Management; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019; pp. 211–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Chithra, S.V.; Nair, M.H.; Amarnath, A.; Anjana, N.S. Impacts of impervious surfaces on the environment. Int. J. Eng. Sci. Invent. 2015, 4, 27–31. [Google Scholar]
  59. Wilopo, W.; Risanti, R.; Susatio, R.; Putra, D. Seawater intrusion assessment and prediction of sea-freshwater interface in Parangtritis coastal aquifer, South of Yogyakarta Special Province, Indonesia. J. Degrad. Min. Lands Manag. 2021, 8, 2709–2718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Oluwaniyi, O.; Zhang, Y.; Gholizadeh, H.; Li, B.; Gu, X.; Sun, H.; Lu, C. Correlating Groundwater Storage Change and Precipitation in Alabama, United States from 2000–2021 by Combining the Water Table Fluctuation Method and Statistical Analyses. Sustainability 2023, 15, 15324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Abha, M. Conductivity: Water Quality Assessment. Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol. 2014, 3, 1. [Google Scholar]
  62. Wetzel, R.G. Limnology, 2nd ed.; Saunders College Publishing: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1983; 760p. [Google Scholar]
  63. Bozorg-Haddad, O. Economical, Political, and Social Issues in Water Resources; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  64. Davies, C.R.; Smith, D. Turbidity, Suspended Sediment, and Water Clarity: A Review. JAWRA J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2007, 37, 1085–1101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Oluwaniyi, O.E.; Asiwaju-Bello, Y.A. Geochemical processes influencing stream water chemistry: A case study of Ala River, Akure, Southwestern Nigeria. Sustain. Water Resour. Manag. 2020, 6, 108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Asowata, I.T.; Badejo, O.O.; Onifade, O.; Olukoya, F.F. Spatial distribution of trace element of Ala river’s sediments, Akure, Southwestern Nigeria. Ife J. Sci. 2015, 17, 109–120. [Google Scholar]
  67. Borris, M.; Viklander, M.; Gustafsson, A.M.; Marsalek, J. Modelling the effects of changes in rainfall event characteristics on TSS loads in urban runoff. Hydrol. Process. 2014, 28, 1787–1796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Gaichuk, I.V.; Finley, H. Groundwater Nutrient Fluxes and Hydrological Dynamics in the Farmington Bay Wetlands. Doctoral dissertation, The University of Utah: Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 2023.
  69. Wang, X.; Li, J.; Chen, J.; Cui, L.; Li, W.; Gao, X.; Liu, Z. Water quality criteria of total ammonia nitrogen (TAN) and unionized ammonia (NH3-N) and their ecological risk in the Liao River, China. Chemosphere 2020, 243, 125328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Janicka, E.; Kanclerz, J.; Wiatrowska, K.; Budka, A. Variability of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Content and Their Forms in Waters of a River-Lake System. Front. Environ. Sci. 2022, 10, 874754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Mainstone, C.P.; Parr, W. Phosphorus in rivers—Ecology and management. Sci. Total Environ. 2002, 282, 25–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Rusydi, A.F. Correlation between conductivity and total dissolved solid in various type of water: A review. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2018, 118, 012019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Azhar, A.S.b.; Latiff, A.H.A.; Lim, L.H.; Gödeke, S.H. Groundwater investigation of a coastal aquifer in Brunei Darussalam using seismic refraction. Environ. Earth Sci. 2019, 78, 220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Hannouche, A.; Chebbo, G.; Ruban, G.; Tassin, B.; Lemaire, B.J.; Joannis, C. Relationship between turbidity and total suspended solids concentration within a combined sewer system. Water Sci. Technol. 2011, 64, 2445–2452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Map of the study area showing the eight (Q-B) monitoring stations.
Figure 1. Map of the study area showing the eight (Q-B) monitoring stations.
Water 16 02439 g001
Figure 2. (ap) Interval plots of pH, water temperature, DO, COD, BOD5, salinity, EC, TDS, turbidity, ORP, TSS, NH3-N, FC, TC, phosphate and NO3 in the eight monitoring stations—B, D, E, G, J, N, P and Q.
Figure 2. (ap) Interval plots of pH, water temperature, DO, COD, BOD5, salinity, EC, TDS, turbidity, ORP, TSS, NH3-N, FC, TC, phosphate and NO3 in the eight monitoring stations—B, D, E, G, J, N, P and Q.
Water 16 02439 g002aWater 16 02439 g002b
Figure 3. PCA biplot showing the relationship between water quality parameters in PC1 and PC2.
Figure 3. PCA biplot showing the relationship between water quality parameters in PC1 and PC2.
Water 16 02439 g003
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the 16 water quality parameters.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the 16 water quality parameters.
Stations pHTDOORPCODBOD5SalinityECTDSTurbidityTSSNH3-NFCTCPhosphateNO3
Unit °Cmg/LmVmg/Lmg/LPPTμs/cmmg/LNTUmg/Lmg/LMPN
/100 mL
MPN
/100 mL
mg/Lmg/L
Bmin6.4724.63.584.412180.914.119,61211.662.7180.0740023000.030.04
max7.730.98.4256.46963.939.543,45925.9410.3680.18500090,0000.040.04
mean6.9928.856.2168.15462.5421.629,20417.396.336.40.0017173318,3330.030.04
Dmin6.4124.23.995.982150.411.917,88610.662.9210.04770023000.020.08
max7.4630.87.9234.67384.433.640,32324.0116.9880.103500090,0000.040.78
mean6.8828.235.9163.75182.3918.226,68715.998.0141.30.0024180014,1830.020.43
Emin6.3123.94.178.882010.34.220,78812.42.5210.0520023000.010.22
max7.4130.96.8230.16394.839.439,46723.5120.45700.0928,000160,0000.020.9
mean6.8428.315.51523442.717.525,29015.259.8840.20.0045525836,0250.080.56
Gmin6.3722.53.981.31697.910.618,43011.332.640.03540023000.010.13
max7.1430.96.7202.65652.922.432,82319.5220.6580.1313,00090,0000.170.57
mean6.828.135.4141.94532.8916.122,93913.929.44400.0087296718,1580.070.35
Jmin6.423.83.681.041980.910.619,02311.353.2160.0290030000.010.05
max730.76.1178.16453.630.237,13022.0759.398.80.04635,000160,0000.030.88
mean6.7828.24.9131.54572.5915.523,28213.911.7940.90.009529275,5830.020.47
Nmin6.35243.579.291911.24.417,33010.422.2110.0222003000.010.11
max6.9930.66.4179.65836.626.432,95919.6516.25760.03511,00050,0000.20.5
mean6.7428.184.9129.74672.6713.722,15713.167.3938.90.0015227514,3500.070.305
Pmin6.3423.63.397.351921.19.7216,59010.182.3130.02620023000.010.03
max6.9130.96.6208.76403.715.632,50619.3918.6610.07511,00016,0000.820.12
mean6.6728.154.6149.34562.2212.521,07912.56.4636.80.0013282520,1920.220.075
Qmin6.3223.22.997.3419216.880,435.083.260.03480030000.050.53
max7.0230.64.51855444.213.129,89017.840.7570.0717,000160,0000.120.53
mean6.6528.13.8156.34112.489.5216,2909.7614.0634.10.001406727,0830.050.53
Table 2. Presents the eigenvalues, total variance and cumulative variance of the first five principal components.
Table 2. Presents the eigenvalues, total variance and cumulative variance of the first five principal components.
Total Variance Explained
ComponentInitial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Total% of VarianceCumulative %Total% of VarianceCumulative %
14.43134.08234.0824.43134.08234.082
21.7513.45847.541.7513.45847.54
31.3310.22957.771.3310.22957.77
41.2369.50767.2771.2369.50767.277
51.0317.93175.2071.0317.93175.207
60.927.0882.288
70.816.22788.515
80.5344.10592.62
90.3592.75995.379
100.2942.26597.644
110.2732.10199.745
120.0230.17999.924
130.010.076100
Extraction method: principal component analysis.
Table 3. Principal component loadings of the 13 water quality parameters.
Table 3. Principal component loadings of the 13 water quality parameters.
Parameter12345
pH0.6650.2850.4260.160.158
EC0.9710.0480.052−0.0320.066
Salinity0.950.0480.003−0.0240.094
TDS0.9720.0330.0330.0170.048
ORP0.1610.636−0.3460.033−0.475
DO−0.6240.511−0.024−0.1190.36
Turbidity−0.1290.0080.440.647−0.345
BOD5−0.1740.2030.623−0.1960.26
TSS0.205−0.0390.228−0.707−0.035
TC0.0090.4580.3940.188−0.01
FC0.2050.094−0.4110.4190.646
NH3-N0.751−0.401−0.0760.007−0.124
T0.2970.758−0.246−0.157−0.122
Note: factor loadings greater than ±0.5 are in bold.
Table 4. Correlation matrix of the 12 retained water quality parameters.
Table 4. Correlation matrix of the 12 retained water quality parameters.
pHECSalinityTDSORPDOTurbidityBOD5FCNH3-NTTSS
pH1.00
EC0.581.00
Salinity0.630.981.00
TDS0.540.980.981.00
ORP0.040.060.040.051.00
DO−0.23−0.44−0.42−0.470.031.00
Turbidity0.00−0.22−0.24−0.180.07−0.101.00
BOD50.04−0.11−0.13−0.12−0.110.240.031.00
FC0.100.110.120.110.030.02−0.04−0.151.00
NH3-N0.230.660.640.67−0.12−0.55−0.03−0.170.081.00
T0.170.290.290.300.520.10−0.080.000.050.001.00
TSS0.150.180.120.10−0.060.03−0.180.09−0.090.090.031.00
Note: Significant correlations in bold.
Table 5. Malaysia WQI values of the eight monitoring stations.
Table 5. Malaysia WQI values of the eight monitoring stations.
StationParameter Sub-IndicesWQIStatus
DOBOD5CODNH3-NSSpH
(0.22)(0.19)(0.16)(0.15)(0.16)(0.12)
B89.2189.6621.8299.8278.0599.3779.54 Slightly Polluted
D84.7790.2920.72100.2575.7899.3279.42 Slightly Polluted
E78.8696.1713.3100.2876.3199.1676.85 Slightly Polluted
G76.9588.1818.0499.5976.3998.9875.61 Slightly Polluted
J68.4679.6718.1999.5676.0593.8271.47 Slightly Polluted
N68.4689.1118.6183.9676.9398.6771.23 Slightly Polluted
P63.3191.0118.16100.3677.799873.4 Slightly Polluted
Q47.5884.3316.28100.3979.1298.1168.58 Polluted
Note: WQI values are derived from the product of parameter weights and subindices, which are aggregated to represent overall water quality.
Table 6. NSFWQI values of the eight monitoring stations.
Table 6. NSFWQI values of the eight monitoring stations.
Station Q-Curve Sub-IndicesWQICategory
DOTBOD5FCTSTurbiditypHNO3-TP Pollution
(0.17)(0.1)(0.11)(0.16)(0.07)(0.08)(0.11)(0.1)(0.1)
B871270198382889890 67.58 Medium
D751280188378879690 65.85 Medium
E621267148275879590 63.8 Medium
G601364168280809794 64.14 Medium
J551268148172789690 61.83 Medium
N501365188285789794 62.55 Medium
P501290168183759994 64.52 Medium
Q451170158075739590 59.23 Medium
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Onifade, O.; Shamsuddin, N.; Jin, J.L.Z.; Lai, D.T.C.; Gödeke, S.H. Assessment of Pollution Status in Brunei River Using Water Quality Indices, Brunei Darussalam. Water 2024, 16, 2439. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16172439

AMA Style

Onifade O, Shamsuddin N, Jin JLZ, Lai DTC, Gödeke SH. Assessment of Pollution Status in Brunei River Using Water Quality Indices, Brunei Darussalam. Water. 2024; 16(17):2439. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16172439

Chicago/Turabian Style

Onifade, Oluwakemisola, Norazanita Shamsuddin, Jason Lee Zse Jin, Daphne Teck Ching Lai, and Stefan Herwig Gödeke. 2024. "Assessment of Pollution Status in Brunei River Using Water Quality Indices, Brunei Darussalam" Water 16, no. 17: 2439. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16172439

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Article metric data becomes available approximately 24 hours after publication online.
Back to TopTop