Skip to Main Content

Drinking water sources are susceptible to pollutants depending on geological conditions and agricultural, industrial and other human activities. Water quality assessment has always been a major part of environmental management plans. The water quality index (WQI) method plays an important role and is a powerful tool for analysing the overall water quality. The purpose of this study was to analyse and present the results for the quality of groundwater in the north-western part of the Drini i Bardhë River basin, Kosovo, based on data that were collected from 50 sampling points, 48 different wells (dug and drilled) and two springs in November 2018–January 2019. Through this work, it has been possible to provide authentic information on this study area to the public, who use these waters for water supply, irrigation and other purposes. Processing, analysis and interpretation of the results are based on statistical methods, water quality standards and the WQI method. The completion of the study followed a scientific research work methodology based on field and laboratory studies. For calculating the WQI, groundwater samples were analysed in terms of 13 physico-chemical parameters – namely, T, pH, electrical conductivity, total dissolved solids, total hardness, sodium (Na+) ions, calcium (Ca2+) ions, magnesium (Mg2+) ions, potassium (K+) ions, bicarbonates (HCO3), chlorides (Cl), sulfates (SO42−) and nitrates (NO3). Based on the results obtained and a comparison with World Health Organization standards, it was shown that the parameters of the groundwater are within the allowed limit values for drinking water. The values obtained for the WQIs of the groundwater samples from the north-western part of the Drini i Bardhë River basin, Kosovo, range from 11 to 116, indicating that these waters are mainly in good and excellent condition, and only sample SP40 had water unfit for consumption.

K

constant of proportionality given by the relation (2) (Kalavathy et al., 2011)

Qn

sub-index

Sn

standard acceptable value of the nth parameter

T

temperature

V0

actual value of the parameter in pure water

Vn

estimated value

W n

weight of the nth parameter

The continuous increase in the needs for drinking water, technological or agrarian, is faced in many cases with limited opportunities to meet these public and private needs. Expansion of residential areas and an increase in industrial activities constitute an increasing stress for the quality of water bodies (Çadraku, 2014). This promotes the necessity of undertaking scientific studies of quantitative and qualitative of water resources nationwide and beyond. Therefore, through this study, it is intended to determine water quality using the water quality index (WQI) method (Brown et al., 1970, 1972). Groundwater is an important natural resource of water for catering to the domestic, agricultural and industrial needs of many countries in the world. Groundwater resources are one of the safest sources of drinking water supply. Water quality depends on water composition, which is influenced by natural processes and human activities. The quality of drinking water indicates water acceptability for human consumption. Demographic growth and overall economic development have increased industrial and agro-productive capacities and producers at the country level, posing an increased pressure on the use of groundwater. Water quality is characterised on the basis of water parameters (physical, chemical and microbiological), and human health is at risk if values exceed acceptable limits (WHO, 2012). To determine the drinking water quality for end users, the WQI is a significant parameter and one of the best active tools for sharing the details of each water body with policymakers. Political decision makers, non-technical managers of water resources and the public in general usually have neither the time nor the knowledge required for interpretation of the traditional, technical reports on the state of water quality (Mladenović-Ranisavljević and Žerajić, 2018). Consequently, the WQI becomes an essential parameter for the management and assessment of groundwater. WQIs vary according to the water quality parameters used in the index, as well as the algorithm of calculation and the scale of the water quality rating (Feng et al., 2016). The WQI method numerically sums up a set of different water quality parameters into one value (SWA, 2007). It is primarily developed as an auxiliary tool for summarising data on water monitoring and reporting these to the wider public, which is why it is rather general in nature (Brown et al., 1970). Water quality, in fact, expresses the convenience of water to support a variety of uses or processing. The WQI is used to assess the suitability of surface water and groundwater for drinking and agricultural purposes (Alastal et al., 2016). What is common to all of the aforementioned WQI models is that each individual, specific application has certain requirements concerning the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of water (Alam et al., 2007). Horton (1965) proposed a WQI to describe the suitability of water for human consumption, distinguishing five water classes according to water quality – excellent, good, weak, very weak and unusable – which are easy to understand for decision makers and consumers. The same WQI method was used (Çadraku et al., 2013) for the assessment of the surface water quality of the Drini i Bardhë basin (Kosovo), which found that the surface water of the Drini i Bardhë River basin mostly falls in medium (WQI = 50–70) and good (70–90) water quality categories. Despite the studies conducted so far on the quantitative and qualitative assessment of water in Kosovo (Çadraku, 2018, 2021; Çadraku et al., 2013, 2016; Rizani et al., 2016), other studies should be carried out on the physico-chemical and biological parameters of water. This study aimed to assess the quality of the groundwater (WQI) in the north-western part of the Drini i Bardhë River basin according to the method of Brown et al. (1972). Today, a set of methods is used for water quality assessment, such as the WQI method according to Brown et al. (1970), National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) WQI, Canadian WQI and Serbian WQI. Considering that the WQI model (Brown et al., 1970) is a popular tool for water quality assessment and provides a standardised method for comparing the water quality of different water bodies, therefore, in this study, this method was used. On the other hand, all methods related to water quality assessment derive a WQI that provides a suitable tool for summarising complex water quality data and facilitating the communication of these data to a general audience. This study highlighted how the variation of different parameters can be reduced to a single number when reported with the help of a WQI, thus making it quite suitable for interpretation regarding water quality. The WQI also provides a more appropriate way to express the quality of water resources for consumption by using water quality data, making it very useful for modifying water-management and resource-management policies.

The study area, the Dukagjini basin, is the richest region of water, surface and groundwater, in the Republic of Kosovo (Çadraku, 2014). The Drini i Bardhë River basin represents one of the most important water resources in this basin. The Drini i Bardhë River basin has an area of 4340.14 km2 (Kepa, 2022) and is in the western part of Kosovo. The study area is located in the north-western part of this basin between the coordinates 42°44′00″–42°55′00″ north and 20°12′00″–20°45′00″ east (Figure 1) and has an area of 874.85 km2. The hydrographic network is relatively developed with the main river Drini i Bardhë, which has a water flow of 61.7 m3/s, and the Istog River, with a water flow of 6.98 m3/s (Kepa, 2020). The water sources are formed in the karst aquifer, are of lithological contact source type and drain the water gravitationally. The most popular sources in the study area are the Radavc source, with an average annual flow of water of 3.5–8 m3/s; the Vrelle–Istog source, with an average annual flow of 2.5–4 m3/s (IHJC, 1983); and the Vrelle source in the Vrelle locality, with an average annual flow of 0.5–1.5 m3/s (Peric, 1978). The surface and underground waters are fed by atmospheric precipitation (rain, snow etc.). This is shown by the fluctuation of water flows both in the surface hydrographic network and in springs and underground water wells. A total of 39 289 inhabitants live in the study area. The agricultural sector is actually developed with an area of 20 653.91 ha, of which 19 940.37 ha is made up of areas used by the agricultural sector (Municipality of Istog, 2022). The impact of pollution is evident in surface waters due to the fact that over 95% of polluted urban and industrial water is released into the receiving environment (rivers, streams etc.) without being treated beforehand. Likewise, the impact of diffuse pollutants is evident, taking into account that about 97% of the earth’s surface has agricultural activity. This statement is valid considering the data presented in Table 1, which shows the water quality of the 50 samples analysed based on the WQI.

The area consists of the several small mountains streams; water flows into tributaries and the Drini i Bardhë River. In geotectonic terms, Kosovo is located within the Dinaric Mountains, and all three divisions of rocks – namely, magmatic, sedimentary and metamorphic – of Precambrian to Quaternary ages are present in the territory of Kosovo (ICMM, 2006a; Mekshiqi et al., 2009; Sikosek, 1971). The sediments of the rivers in Kosovo are composed of alluvial deposits containing largely varying proportions of unconsolidated to semi-consolidated sand and gravel materials (ICMM, 2006a; Sajn et al., 1998). As regards hydrogeological aspects and geological, lithological, structural and tectonic characteristics, the following areas of the aquifers are distinguishable in the study area: intergranular porous aquifers, porous cracks, porous karst and waterless terrain (Çadraku, 2014; ICMM, 2006b). The geological construction and the hydrogeological characteristics of the study area affect whether surface and underground waters have good hydraulic communication links, particularly in the lowland part of the river valleys where there are alluvial sediments (sand and gravel). The character of mutual hydraulic communication is variable. In dry periods, when groundwater levels drop, the river feeds the alluvial aquifers in the study area. Favouring this statement are data on some chemical parameters of underground water that are indicators of pollution (ammonium (NH4+), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), phosphate (PO43−), chlorine (Cl), biochemical oxygen demand, chemical oxygen demand, viruses etc.), which, in the dry periods of the year, are the same as those of river water (Malcom, 2008–2010).

The WQI is the most effective tool for monitoring surface water as well as groundwater pollution, and it can be used efficiently in water quality improvement programmes (Saleem et al., 2016). According to Diersing (2009), water quality comprises the overall characteristics (physico-chemical and biological) of water. The weighted arithmetic index method was utilised depending on the measured values of the physico-chemical parameters for estimating the WQI of the sampled well water (Brown et al., 1972). In this study, nine physiochemical parameters were chosen for the calculation of the WQI based on the drinking water quality standards of the World Health Organization (WHO). The WQI is based on the three equations, which play an important role in the calculation the index, which is discussed in the following.

A location of the study area and the sampling sites are shown in Figure 1 and Table 2, respectively. Water samples were collected from 50 different wells (Figure 1 and Table 2) in November 2018–January 2019. Different physico-chemical water quality parameters of the samples were examined by using standard protocols of the American Public Health Association (APHA, 2005). The standard sampling method was used for water collection; water samples were taken from the bottom of aquatic sources (at different depths). Geographic information systems are a new technology used for analysing and interpreting the distribution of pollutants in environmental studies (Khosravi et al., 2021; Merchant; 1994). The inverse distance weighted technique is one of the techniques applied by the ArcGIS software to obtain the spatial distribution of pollutants, which, based on the distance between points and the concentration of pollutants at each point, simulates pollutant concentrations in other parts of the studied area (Fallahzadeh and Ghadirian, 2018). Figure 2 shows the work methodology.

A set of 13 water quality parameters, shown in Table 3, was taken to generate the WQI. The WQI is calculated with the help of the index method (Table 4) (Brown et al., 1972).

Step 1. Calculate the unit weight (Wn) factors for each parameter by using the formula

1

where

2

Sn is the standard desirable value of the nth parameter.

On summation of the unit weight factors of all selected parameters, Wn = 1 (unity).

Step 2. Calculate the sub-index (Qn) value using the formula

3

where Qn is the sub-index, Vn is the estimated value, V0 is the actual value of the parameter in pure water (generally V0 = 0 for most parameters except for pH) and Sn is the standard value.

Step 3. Combining step 1 and step 2 the WQI is calculated by using the following expression:

4

Water is the most important human need, and its conservation is of great importance. The assessment of surface and underground water quality (partially) was carried out by several authors (Bytyçi et al., 2018; Shala-Abazi et al., 2020) by application of the WQI method. Shala-Abazi et al. (2020) evaluated the WQI of Sitnica River water (central part of Kosovo) and showed that the WQI varies from 46 to 95, classifying these waters in the marginal category. Bytyçi et al. (2018) established that the WQIs of the waters of the Lepenc and Nerodime Rivers (southern part of Kosovo) ranged from 36 to 76, classifying their water quality as varying from moderate to poor. The same WQI method was used (Çadraku et al., 2013) for the assessment of the surface water quality of the Drini i Bardhë basin (Kosovo), which found that surface water of Drini i Bardhë basin mostly falls in the medium (WQI = 50–70) and good (70–90) water quality categories. The study area of the study drains water into the Drini i Bardhë River. For evaluation of water quality in the north-western part of the Drini i Bardhë River basin, the method by Brown et al. (1972) was applied. The values of water quality parameters in the present study were taken at 50 sampling stations, of which 48 are wells and two are springs; the results are presented in Table 2. The quality of groundwater has changed dramatically due to the release of pollutants in the environment and the excess consumption of resources (Eslami et al., 2015). A major influence on the chemical composition of groundwater in this study area is the activities of humans. Land use practices can directly influence groundwater quality, particularly in shallow and unconfined aquifers where there is a greater hydraulic connectivity between surface and unconfined aquifers.

  • Temperature. Temperature is one of the main properties of water. It affects the development of chemical processes in water and the amount of gas and salts dissolved in it. Temperature affects the chemical composition of water. Increasing the temperature also increases the solubility of minerals and reduces the percentage of dissolved gases. An increase in temperature accelerates the chemical reactions that take place in water. The water temperature in the study area ranges from 5.2 to 15°C with an average value of 11°C (Table 3). This shows that shallow groundwater temperature is affected by air temperature fluctuations and average annual air temperatures. Based on the results obtained, the groundwater in this aquifer is cold to warm and within the limit values of drinking water according to Administrative Instruction (AI) no. 10/2021 (The Goverment of Republic of Kosovo, 2021) and the WHO standard (Table 5). Temperature fluctuation from this aspect comes as an effect of the impact of monthly and annual air temperatures, as well as the impact of the coverage of the basin space. The temperature analysis (variation) of groundwater in the study area is shown in Figure 3(a).

  • pH. The pH of a solution is the negative common logarithm of the hydrogen (H+) ion activity: pH = −log(H+). The pH of water is a measure of acid–base equilibrium and, in most natural waters, is controlled by the carbon dioxide (CO2)–bicarbonate (HCO3)–carbonate equilibrium system (WHO, 2007). The effects of acids and alkalis depend on the strength of the acid or alkali and the concentration. Strong concentrated acids or alkalis are corrosive, whereas dilute and weak acids and alkalis are not corrosive. In the study area, the pH of the groundwater samples varied from 6.39 to 8.65 with an average value of 7.74 mg/l (Table 3). The spatial and temporal variations of pH are controlled by the quality and the infiltration rate of recharge water, the replenishing water rate and water–rock interactions in the aquifer. The pH values in the study area are all within the desirable limits set by the WHO and AI no. 10/2021), except in SP32, where the pH value is 6.39. Based on the measured pH values, it is shown that the groundwater in the study area is slightly alkaline water. pH is an important parameter in water body since most of the aquatic organisms are adapted to an average pH and do not withstand abrupt changes. The pH analysis (variation) of groundwater in study area is shown in Figure 3(b).

  • Electrical conductivity (EC). EC is the ability of water to conduct electricity. The EC of water is a direct function of its total dissolved salts (Harilal et al., 2004). It depends mainly on the geological structure – that is, the medium through which water flows – than on inorganic solution suspended substances in water such as chlorides (Cl), nitrates (NO3), sulfates (SO42−) and phosphates (ions that carry a negative charge) or sodium (Na+), magnesium (Mg2+), calcium (Ca2+), iron and aluminium ions (ions that carry a positive charge). In the groundwater of the study area, the EC ranges from 267 to 1745.84 μS/cm, with an average value of 651.47 μS/cm (Table 3). The EC values were compared with AI 16/2012 values (Table 5), and it turns out that all are within the limit values of this instruction. The EC analysis (variation) of groundwater in study area is shown in Figure 3(c).

  • Total dissolved solids (TDS). High values of TDS in groundwater are generally not harmful to human beings, but high concentrations of these may affect people, who may suffer from kidney and heart diseases (Gupta et al., 2004). The range of TDS levels in the study area is 137–877 mg/l, with an average value of 327.28 mg/l (Table 3). Based on comparisons of TDS values in the study area with the standards by WHO (2012), it was found that for 50 water samples, four or 8% of the samples have a total value above the limit of 500 mg/l, while 46 or 92% are below the value of 500 mg/l of the WHO standard. Therefore, water containing higher than 500 mg/l TDS is not considered desirable for drinking water. The TDS analysis (variation) of groundwater in the study area is shown in Figure 3(d).

  • Total hardness (TH). The hardness of water mainly depends on the amount of calcium or magnesium salts or both. In natural water, TH is contributed mainly by dissolved calcium and magnesium ions (Ikomi and Emuh, 2000), with all other divalent cations contributing to its value. Water hardness is the traditional measure of the capacity of water to react with soap, with hard water requiring considerably more soap to produce lather (WHO, 2011a). The TH in the study area varies from 120.89 to 744.19 mg/l, with an average value of 324.47 mg/l (Table 3). Based on the comparisons of chemical constituents with WHO (2012) standards, it is found that for 50 water samples, three or 6% of the samples have a TH value above the limit of 500 mg/l. The highest values were identified in wells SP3 and SP6, while the lowest in that in well SP37. The TH analysis (variation) of groundwater in the study area is shown in Figure 3(e).

  • Calcium. Over 99% of the total body calcium is found in bones and teeth, where it functions as a key structural element (Cotruvo and Bartram, 2009). Food is the principal source of both calcium and magnesium. Both calcium and magnesium are essential to human health. The calcium ion is considered the most abundant ion in freshwater; moreover, it is significant in the precipitation of lime in plants, bone building and shell construction (Qureshimatva et al., 2015). Values of calcium ions range from 35.4 up to 230.2 mg/l, while the average is 98.77 mg/l. Calcium values in the study area were compared with WHO standard values (Table 3), and it turned out that two or 4% of the samples are below the 200 mg/l limit, while only 48 samples or 96% are above the WHO standard value of 200 mg/l. The calcium ion analysis (variation) of groundwater in the study area is shown in Figure 3(f).

  • Magnesium. Magnesium is considered an alkali earth metal and is a cause of water hardness. This ion comes from groundwater by dolomite and alienation of crystalline mineral rocks (olivine, pyroxene, amphibole, mica, serpentinite, magnesium) (Çadraku et al., 2016). The concentration of magnesium ions in the study area groundwater ranges from 2.4 to 95.8 mg/l, with an average value of 18.91 mg/l (Table 3). Magnesium ion values for 50 samples were compared with WHO standard values, and it turned out that all are below 100 mg/l. The magnesium ion analysis (variation) of groundwater in the study area is shown in Figure 3(g).

  • Sodium. The sodium ion is ubiquitous in water (WHO, 1996). According to standards (WHO etc.) for drinking water, sodium may affect the taste of drinking water at levels above about 200 mg/l. The sodium content in the study area ranges from 0.53 mg/l (SP10, spring) to 61.61 mg/l (SP40, well), with an average value of 7.74 mg/l (Table 3). According to WHO data, most water supplies contain less than 20 mg of sodium per litre, but in some places, levels may exceed 250 mg/l. Therefore, referring to these values, it turns out that the sodium content in the groundwater of the study area is within the limit values to be used for drinking water. Also, the sodium values in the study area are within the AI no. 10/2021 limit values. The sodium ion analysis (variation) of groundwater in the study area is shown in Figure 3(h).

  • Potassium. Potassium is an element with chemical properties similar to those of sodium, but the potassium (K+) ion content in water is many times lower than the sodium ion content. Clay minerals, feldspar and some micas are considered major natural sources of potassium in groundwater (Alikhan et al., 2020). In the groundwater of the study area, potassium comes mainly from the decomposition of organic matter. The values of potassium ion in the groundwater in this area range from 0.43 to 78 mg/l, with an average value of 4.61 mg/l (Table 3). Potassium ion values are compared with WHO standard values (Table 5), and it turns out that two samples or 4% are above the limit values, while 48 samples or 98% are below the WHO standard values. The potassium ion analysis (variation) of groundwater in the study area is shown in Figure 3(i).

  • Bicarbonates. The bicarbonate ion usually correlates positively with calcium and magnesium ions. The amount of bicarbonates in groundwater is also affected by the pH of the water. Bicarbonates in the groundwater of the study area vary from 63 to 488 mg/l, with an average value of 303.59 mg/l (Table 3). Higher bicarbonate values are found at measuring station SP30 (well). According to the WHO standard, it turned out that in 50 samples, the values of bicarbonates are below the value of 125 mg/l. This ion probably comes from dissolved carbon dioxide in water and dissolution of limestone and dolomite, hydrolysis of silicate minerals and bacterial reduction of sulfates and anthropogenic pollution. The bicarbonate analysis (variation) of groundwater in the study area is shown in Figure 3(j).

  • Sulfates. Sulfate is an important chemical factor for water quality and has an effect on the odour and taste of water (Bouslah et al., 2017). It is a characteristic of shallow groundwater. In groundwater, it comes from dissolution of sulfate rocks and oxidation of sulfide minerals. Also, it can enter shallow groundwater from decomposition of plant and animal substances that have sulfur in their composition (Çadraku et al., 2016). The sulfate values in the study area ranged from <0.1 mg/l (in SP8, SP9, SP10 and SP11, two springs and two wells) to 288 mg/l (PS40, well), with an average value of 39.66 mg/l (Table 3). All measured values and the average value of sulfates (39.66 mg/l) in the study area are below the value of 250 mg/l of the WHO standard, except that of SP40, which is above the WHO standard. The sulfate analysis (variation) of groundwater in the study area is shown in Figure 3(k).

  • Chlorides. Chlorides occur naturally in all types of water; however, their main contributing sources are run-off of inorganic fertilisers from agricultural fields, sewage discharge and so on. Chlorides are important in detecting the contamination of ground water by waste water. According to Agarwala et al. (2012), in people who are not accustomed to high chloride contents, it may cause a laxative effect (Agarwala et al., 2012). The chlorides of 48 well and two spring water samples were found to be between the 9.23 and 192 mg/l, with an average value of 29.62 mg/l (Table 3). The chloride content of the samples was found to be well within the permissible levels of 250 mg/l of WHO standard. The chloride analysis (variation) of groundwater in the study area is shown in Figure 3(l).

  • Nitrates. Nitrates are ions that occur naturally and are part of the nitrogen cycle. Nitrate is used mainly in inorganic fertilisers. Nitrate can reach both surface water and groundwater as a consequence of agricultural activity (including excess application of inorganic nitrogenous fertilisers and manures), from waste water treatment and from oxidation of nitrogenous waste products in human and animal excreta, including septic tanks (WHO, 2011b), which is also characteristic of the study area given that most of the inhabitants in this area engage in agriculture. The natural nitrate concentration in groundwater under aerobic conditions is a few milligrams per litre and depends strongly on soil type and on the geological situation. Concentrations of nitrate in rainwater of up to 5 mg/l have been observed in industrial areas. Nitrate values in the waters of this basin range from 0.1 to 182.5 mg/l with an average value of 18.55 mg/l. The maximum (182.5 mg/l) value was found at well measuring station SP16, while the minimum (0.1 mg/l) value was found at spring measuring station SP9 (Table 3). Nitrate values are compared with WHO standard values (Table 5), and it turns out that two samples or 4% are above the limit values, while 48 samples or 98% are below the WHO standard values.

A correlation shows the relationship between the two variables. The study of correlation (correlation) often aims to show the statistical independence of two variables – that is, to prove that they are not related to each other (Selenica, 2009). Correlation coefficients with values of 1 and −1 correspond to functional dependence, while a value of 0 corresponds to statistical independence. Depending on the correlation coefficient, there are different types of relationships between variables: r = 1, positive functional linear relationship (between two variables); r ≈ 1, strongly positive linear bond; r > 0, positive linear relationship; r = 0, no linear relationships, or independent variables; r < 0, negative linear relationship; and r = −1, negative functional relationship. Table 6 and Figure 4 show the results regarding the correlation for physico-chemical parameters in the study area. Within the study period, pH showed a highly significant positive relationship with nitrate. TDS showed a highly significant positive relationship with EC. TH showed highly significant positive relationship with EC and TDS. Calcium ions showed a highly significant positive relationship with EC, TDS and TH.

Hierarchical clustering (or hierarchical cluster analysis) presents an alternative approach to grouping objects based on their similarities. In Figure 5, the hierarchical clustering of 13 parameters in the study area is shown. Figure 6 shows the percentile plot. Principal component analysis was used to calculate the basis of the multivariate data analysis (Tables 7 and 8). Cluster analysis of the R mode (Figure 5) showed mutual links between the studied variables, and it could be observed that the variable EC has the closest association with calcium and bicarbonate ions. After that, the variables calcium ions and bicarbonates form two branches of the dendrogram. The first branch, calcium ions, is linked with the other one, in which sulfates, nitrates, chlorides, potassium ions, T, pH, sodium ions and magnesium ions were linked. In the second branch, bicarbonate is linked with TDS and TH.

Table 1 and Figure 7 show that 27 or 54% of water samples in the study area are at the limit (WQI = 25–50), ranking them in the group of good-quality water. Fifteen water samples or 30% of the total number of samples are on the border (WQI = 0–25), ranking these waters as excellent.

Five or 10% of water samples have a poor water quality (WQI = 51–75), two samples or 4% have a very poor water quality (WQI = 76–100) and one sample or 2% have a water quality unfit for consumption (WQI > 100). In general, the groundwater in the study area evaluated in accordance with this method turns out to be good with a slight tendency towards deterioration of its quality.

Groundwater was collected from 50 sampling points from November 2018 to January 2019. In the study area, the groundwater is odourless, colourless and tasteless. Most of values of the physico-chemical parameters are within the WHO standards, while a few exceed the limits. The physico-chemical parameters show different variations throughout the basin, which are indicated by their respective values of variance and/or standard deviation. According to the method by Brown et al. (1972) the groundwater quality index in the north-western part or River Drini i Bardhë basin ranged from 10.69 to 116.23, with an average value of 36.50. WQI methods showed that these waters are of the better quality, which should be expected due to two factors: firstly, groundwater is to some extent protected by surface contaminations and, secondly, the study area is a peripheral area of the Drini i Bardhë River basin and is not highly exposed to agricultural, industrial and civil pollutants. The spatial distribution of the WQI showed that most of the groundwater in the study area fall within the ‘good’ to ‘excellent’ categories. This study could be a baseline for the authorities to establish a groundwater-management plan in the study area in the future. Cluster analysis of R mode showed mutual links between the studied variables, and it could be observed that the variable EC has the closest association with calcium and bicarbonate ions. After that, the variables calcium ions and bicarbonate form two branches of the dendrogram. The first branch, calcium ions, is linked with the other one, in which sulfates, nitrates, chlorides, potassium ions, T, pH, sodium ions and magnesium ions are linked. The second branch, bicarbonate, is linked with TDS and TH.

Agarwala
BR
,
Vijay
MV
,
Hussainc
S
,
Pradhand
V
2012
Assessment of bore well water quality in and around Badnapur Dist. Jalna
Journal of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Research
4
8
4025
 -
4027
Alam
MJB
,
Islam
MR
,
Muyen
Z
,
Mamun
M
,
Islam
S
2007
Water quality parameters along rivers
International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology
4
1
159
 -
167
Alastal
KM
,
Alagha
JS
,
Abuhabib
AA
2016
Groundwater quality assessment using water quality index (WQI) approach: Gaza coastal aquifer case study
Journal of Engineering Research and Technology
2
1
245
 -
268
Alikhan
HH
,
Hussein
AY
,
Alshukri
AS
2020
Groundwater quality assessment using water quality index: a case study of Al Najaf City, Iraq
Periodicals of Engineering and Natural Sciences
8
3
1482
 -
1490
APHA
2005
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater
21st Edition
American Public Health Association/American Water Works Association/Water Environment Federation
Washington, DC, USA
Bouslah
S
,
Djemili
L
,
Houichi
L
2017
Water quality index assessment of Koudiat Medouar Reservoir, northeast Algeria using weighted arithmetic index method
Journal of Water and Land Development
35
1
221
 -
228
Brown
RM
,
McClelland
NI
,
Deininger
RA
,
Tozer
RG
1970
A water quality index – do we dare?
Water Sewage Works
117
339
 -
343
Brown
RM
,
McClelland
NI
,
Deininger
RA
,
O’Connor
MF
1972
A water quality index – crashing the psychological barrier
Indicators of Environmental Quality
Thomas
WA
Springer
Boston, MA, USA
173
 -
182
Bytyçi
PS
,
Çadraku
HS
,
Zhushi Etemi
FN
, et al
2018
The assessment of surface water quality in the Lepenc River basin using water quality index (WQI) methodology
Rasāyan Journal of Chemistry
11
2
653
 -
660
Çadraku
H
2014
Quantitative and Qualitative Characterization of Hydric Resources in Dukagjini Basin, Kosovo. Doctoral thesis
Polytechnic University of Tirana
Tirana, Albania
Çadraku
H
2018
Application of GIS in ntegrated river basin management, case study of the Blinaja River basin, Kosovo
Micro, Macro & Mezzo Geo Information
2018
11
16
 -
20
Çadraku
H
2021
Groundwater quality assessment for irrigation: case study in the Blinaja River basin, Kosovo
Civil Engineering Journal
7
9
1515
 -
1528
Çadraku
H
,
Dobruna
B
,
Beqiraj
A
2013
Assessment of the surface water quality of the Drini i Bardhe basin using the water quality index (WQI) method
International Journal of Ecosystems and Ecology Sciences
3
3
425
 -
430
Çadraku
H
,
Gashi
F
,
Shala
A
,
Fetoshi
O
2016
Variations in the physico-chemical parameters of under groundwater of Blinaja catchment, Kosovo
IFAC-PapersOnLine
49
29
200
 -
205
Cotruvo
J
,
Bartram
J (eds)
2009
Calcium and Magnesium in Drinking-water: Public Health Significance
World Health Organization
Geneva, Switzerland
Diersing
N
2009
Water Quality: Frequently Asked Questions
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
Key West, FL, USA
Eslami
F
,
Shokoohi
R
,
Mazloomi
S
, et al
2015
Evaluation of water quality index (WQI) of groundwater supplies in Kerman Province
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health
3
1
48
 -
58
Fallahzadeh
RA
,
Ghadirian
D
2018
Spatial distribution, health risk assessment and survey of fluoride pollution source with GIS in drinking water: a case study, in Abarkouh, Iran
Journal of Environmental Health and Sustainable Development
3
2
496
 -
503
Feng
Y
,
Danying
Q
,
Bao
Q
, et al
2016
Improvement of CCME WQI using grey relational method
Journal of Hydrology
543
316
 -
323
Gupta
SK
,
Ojha
CK
,
Singh
G
2004
Assessment of water quality index for the groundwater in Tumkur Taluk, Karnataka State, India
Journal of Environmental Science and Engineering
46
1
74
 -
78
Harilal
CC
,
Hashim
A
,
Arun
PR
,
Baji
S
2004
Hydro geochemistry of two rivers of Kerala with special reference to drinking water quality
Ecology, Environment and Conservation
10
2
187
 -
192
Horton
RK
1965
An index number system for rating water quality
Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation
37
300
 -
305
ICMM (Independent Commission for Mines and Minerals)
2006a
Geological Map of Kosovo
ICMM
Prishtina, Kosovo
ICMM
2006b
Hydrogeological Map of Kosovo
ICMM
Prishtina, Kosovo
IHJC (Institute for Hydroeconomics ‘Jeroslav Cerni’)
1983
Overview of the Hydroeconomics Base of KSA of Kosovo, Prishtina
IHJC
Ikomi
RB
,
Emuh
CT
2000
The status of the physicochemical hydrology of Upper Warri River Nigeria
Journal of Science and Environment
2
75
 -
86
Kepa (Kosovo Environmental Protection Agency)
2020
Report of the State of Water in Kosovo 2020
Kepa
Prishtina, Kosovo
Kepa
2022
Report of the State of Water in Kosovo 2022
Kepa
Prishtina, Kosovo
Khosravi
K
,
Sartaj
M
,
Karimi
M
,
Levison
J
,
Lotfi
A
2021
A GIS-based groundwater pollution potential using DRASTIC, and bivariate statistical model
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
28
50525
 -
50541
Malcom
JA
2008–2010
Institutional Support Project to the Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning and River Basin Authorities, Annex 20
Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning, Prishtina
Kosovo
Mekshiqi
N
,
Hoxha
J
,
Kodra
A
, et al
2009
Correlation of the Geological Map of the Border Zone Kosovo–Albania 1:50000
Ministry of Economic Development of Kosovo, Prishtina
Kosovo
(
in Albanian
)
Merchant
JW
1994
GIS-based groundwater pollution hazard assessment: a critical review of the DRASTIC model
Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing
60
9
1117
 -
1227
Mladenović-Ranisavljević
I
,
Žerajić
SA
2018
Comparison of different models of water quality index in the assessment of surface water quality
International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology
15
665
 -
674
Municipality of Istog
2022
Development Plan of the Municipality of Istog 2018–2026
Municipality of Istog
Istog, Kosovo
See https://kk.rks-gov.net/ (accessed 08/12/2022)
Peric
J
1978
Study on the possibility of underground water accumulation in the Dukagjin basin, Faculty of Mining and Geology in Belgrade, Kosovo
Qureshimatva
UM
,
Maurya
RR
,
Gamit
SB
,
Patel
RD
,
Solanki
HA
2015
Determination of physico-chemical parameters and water quality index (WQI) of Chandlodia Lake, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India
Journal of Environmental & Analytical Toxicology
5
288
525
 -
2161
Rizani
S
,
Laze
P
,
Geci
F
,
Begolli
B
2016
Water quality assessment for irrigation purposes in Prizren-Gjakove Decan area, Kosovo
Albanian Journal of Agricultural Sciences
2016
162
 -
167
Sajn
R
,
Bidovec
M
,
Andjelov
M
,
Pirc
S
,
Gosar
M
1998
Geochemical Atlas of Ljubljana and Surround
Geological Survey of Slovenia
Ljubljana, Slovenia
Saleem
M
,
Hussain
A
,
Mahmood
G
2016
Analysis of groundwater quality using water quality index: a case study of greater Noida (Region), Uttar Pradesh (U.P), India
Cogent Engineering
3
1
article 1237927
Selenica
A
2009
Hidrologjia Inxhinierike
Dita, Tirana
Albania
(
in Albanian
)
Shala Abazi
AM
,
Durmishi
BH
,
Sallaku
FS
, et al
2020
Assessment of water quality of Sitnica River by using water quality index (WQI)
Rasāyan Journal of Chemistry
13
1
146
 -
159
Sikosek
B
1971
Explanation for Geological Map of Yougoslavia, Scale 1:500000
Federal Geological Institute
Belgrade, Serbia
SWA (Saskatchewan Watershed Authority)
2007
Water Quality Guide
SWA
Moose Jaw, SK, Canada
The Government of Republic of Kosovo
2021
Administrative Instruction (GRK) No. 10/2021 On the Quality of Water Intended for Human Consumption
Prishtina
Kosovo
WHO (World Health Organization)
1996
Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality. Vol. 2. Health Criteria and Other Supporting Information
(2)
WHO
Geneva, Switzerland
WHO
2007
pH in Drinking-water: Revised Background Document for Development of WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality
WHO
Geneva, Switzerland
WHO/SDE/WSH/07.01/1
WHO
2011a
Hardness in Drinking-water: Background Document for Development of WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality
WHO
Geneva, Switzerland
WHO/HSE/WSH/10.01/10/Rev/1
WHO
2011b
Nitrate and Nitrite in Drinking-water: Background Document for Development of WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality
WHO
Geneva, Switzerland
WHO/SDE/WSH/07.01/16/Rev/1
WHO
2012
Guideline for Drinking Water Quality
WHO
Geneva, Switzerland
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Data & Figures

Figure 1

Location of the study area

Figure 1

Location of the study area

Close modal
Figure 2

Flow chart of the work methodology

Figure 2

Flow chart of the work methodology

Close modal
Figure 3

Variations of different water quality parameters in the study area: (a) T; (b) pH; (c) EC; (d) TDS; (e) TH; (f) calcium ions; (g) magnesium ions; (h) sodium ions; (i) potassium ions; (j) bicarbonates; (k) sulfates; (l) chlorides

Figure 3

Variations of different water quality parameters in the study area: (a) T; (b) pH; (c) EC; (d) TDS; (e) TH; (f) calcium ions; (g) magnesium ions; (h) sodium ions; (i) potassium ions; (j) bicarbonates; (k) sulfates; (l) chlorides

Close modal
Figure 4

Correlation plot

Figure 4

Correlation plot

Close modal
Figure 5

Hierarchical clustering

Figure 5

Hierarchical clustering

Close modal
Figure 6

Percentile plot

Figure 7

Water quality status

Figure 7

Water quality status

Close modal
Table 1

Groupings of the samples according to water quality status

Water quality statusNumber of samplesPercentage: %
Poor510
Good2754
Very poor24
Excellent1530
Unfit for consumption12
Table 2

Details of study sites in the north-western part of the River Drini i Bardhë basin, Kosovo

SampleSource of waterCoordinatesElevation: m
1Well42°79′38″20°29′33″721
2Well42°48′69″20°40′08″766
3Well42°49′1.12″20°38′9.04″680
4Well42°48′4.22″20°38′3.47″684
5Well42°47′31″20°38′53″604
6Well42°47′3.16″20°38′53″575
7Well42°46′1.36″20°34′3.34″581
8Well42°46′7.54″20°31′3.55″549
9Spring42°74′3.29″20°28′86″560
10Spring42°46′48″20°23′97″509
11Well42°43′6.35″20°19′6.44″593
12Well42°39′4.67″20°32′6.78″439
13Well42°40′8.55″20°33′7.38″466
14Well42°41′3.94″20°34′9.92″490
15Well42°43′4.09″20°33′4.67″493
16Well42°40′2.75″20°31′9.54″438
17Well42°41′3.96″20°29′6.43″453
18Well42°42′2.85″20°29′05″477
19Well42°41′8.37″20°28′2.88″485
20Well42°41′4.58″20°27′5.78″480
21Well42°41′7.51″20°26′0.59″492
22Well42°42′7.09″20°23′8.31″515
23Well42°39′5.13″20°19′2.06″525
24Well42°41′1.41″20°19′6.67″549
25Well42°43′1.67″20°22′0.04″522
26Well42°35′61″20°34′2.74″415
27Well42°35′7.25″20°32′2.07″423
28Well42°36′3.79″20°31′1.78″444
29Well42°36′3.73″20°30′8.25″431
30Well42°36′79″20°30′2.73″455
31Well42°37′0.89″20°28′4.47″446
32Well42°37′2.92″20°27′4.33″448
33Well42°37′6.85″20°26′9.71″463
34Well42°38′3.25″20°26′4.83″475
35Well42°38′2.87″20°25′66″468
36Well42°37′74″20°24′7.83″490
37Well42°37′3.62″20°24′1.33″503
38Well42°38′0.14″20°22′9.16″506
39Well42°36′9.18″20°29′9.19″449
40Well42°37′4.54″20°28′2.34″451
41Well42°38′5.79″20°24′9.92″496
42Well42°39′3.28″20°24′2.66″509
43Well42°39′6.61″20°25′8.29″487
44Well42°40′4.41″20°26′1.53″473
45Well42°40′5.57″20°27′22″460
46Well42°40′41″20°25′0.84″489
47Well42°40′2.75″20°23′3.49″479
48Well42°40′20″20°22′4.35″502
49Well42°40′02″20°21′4.92″507
50Well42°40′35″20°20′3.94″524
Table 3

Physico-chemical parameters

SampleT: °CpH (0–14)EC: μS/cmTDS: mg/lTH: mg/lCalcium ions: mg/lMagnesium ions: mg/lSodium ions: mg/lPotassium ions: mg/lBicarbonates: mg/lChlorides: mg/lNitrates: mg/lSulfates: mg/l
110.57.4822.0413.0439.6108.141.36.17.04457.524.79.538.0
212.07.5842.8424.0413.1124.424.97.52.39369.931.248.055.2
313.07.51135.0570.0565.1174.231.613.52.39472.161.822.6108.4
412.18.6588.0295.0282.872.125.010.43.98253.026.34.852.4
511.67.4904.3454.0449.3112.041.310.10.68356.034.13.8134.0
612.97.4550.1276.0276.197.08.29.01.31285.029.86.712.3
713.38.0518.0260.0252.386.09.15.63.23228.019.947.016.0
812.58.3352.0177.0182.961.27.32.61.13195.014.96.6<0.1
910.07.4273.0137.0145.749.65.31.10.60161.010.71.1<0.1
108.47.9293.0147.0157.056.93.60.50.43171.010.31.2<0.1
118.67.8279.0140.0140.148.04.91.91.13159.010.73.4<0.1
1212.17.3840.0422.0414.9138.916.56.83.00311.071.735.545.2
139.27.1769.0386.0409.7120.126.77.31.54427.026.34.337.4
1412.37.0964.0484.0504.1168.220.410.70.76484.030.53.580.1
1513.27.1666.9335.0353.1115.016.04.80.85365.019.210.133.8
1614.37.01483.0745.0679.2230.225.335.45.99476.0117.2182.569.3
1714.17.0582.8293.0301.1116.52.44.32.05331.016.315.412.9
1813.27.2617.0310.0293.196.112.99.06.31268.037.611.735.9
1912.17.4671.0337.0331.5120.37.59.23.30353.027.70.127.8
2014.57.3461.0232.0170.950.510.95.733.40210.011.413.226.3
2114.26.9462.2232.0211.962.813.47.50.88183.022.729.520.5
2211.27.1610.0306.0312.194.018.88.33.52327.019.912.729.3
2312.56.8711.0357.0378.1128.613.84.14.57421.011.412.219.8
2411.36.9439.0221.0233.582.96.42.20.51238.011.711.914.2
2510.76.7496.0249.0275.287.313.92.51.48311.013.11.33.9
268.26.7505.0254.0269.193.78.52.81.02313.09.21.06.7
275.26.8693.3348.0349.0124.59.28.42.15339.036.00.143.0
287.26.81456.0732.0739.0138.595.820.81.33431.0106.046.0228.0
296.56.7634.0319.0309.892.119.49.30.99293.033.00.641.0
3013.26.7983.4494.0511.798.964.513.65.61488.045.46.678.0
3111.26.9587.0295.0299.980.124.35.21.78287.020.613.935.6
3211.56.4435.0219.0227.070.812.23.31.17249.015.66.23.8
337.56.8472.0237.0253.180.112.92.51.35281.012.81.213.3
347.86.8528.0265.0273.986.114.32.61.94275.019.912.015.0
358.56.8463.0233.0223.660.117.911.31.77255.015.610.512.3
3610.27.0648.0326.0194.956.313.26.978.00262.019.252.529.1
3710.36.9267.0134.0120.935.47.93.32.0763.025.649.51.8
388.56.9612.0307.0316.2111.79.02.91.10307.016.349.710.8
399.36.6438.0220.0201.665.49.34.92.11154.041.917.614.7
4011.26.41746.8877.0744.2206.055.961.617.30364.0192.017.6288.0
4114.06.5398.0200.0194.064.38.12.90.82181.017.033.54.2
4210.16.6575.0289.0298.2100.111.74.60.74288.022.011.925.9
4311.16.5799.0402.0428.4122.030.17.91.23434.024.10.153.0
4410.96.6591.0297.0317.299.017.04.21.94342.014.911.720.0
4512.76.7575.0289.0300.0104.19.73.91.97328.012.811.915.0
4611.06.8553.0278.0290.192.114.64.01.70296.016.012.420.1
4714.36.7583.0293.0287.7100.09.23.23.20195.014.916.298.0
4812.56.8562.0282.0301.784.122.33.41.72328.013.515.19.9
4911.36.6548.0275.0288.775.324.53.22.05285.012.814.732.3
509.16.5592.0297.0311.196.916.84.43.25339.013.116.810.5
Minimum5.26.4267.0134.0120.935.42.40.50.4363.09.20.11.8
Average11.17.0651.5327.3324.598.818.97.74.61303.629.618.643.1
Maximum14.58.71745.8877.0744.2230.295.861.678.0488.0192.0182.5288.0
Table 4

WQI developed by Brown et al. (1972) 

WQIWater quality status
0–25Excellent
26–50Good
51–75Poor
76–100Very poor
>100Unfit for consumption
Table 5

AI no. 10/2021 and WHO standards for drinking water quality

ParameterUnitAI no. 10/2021WHO standards
T°C12–25
pH≥6.5 to ≤9.56.5–8.5
ECμS/cm2500400
TDSmg/l500–1000
THmg/l500
Sodium ionsmg/l200200
Calcium ionsmg/l100
Magnesium ionsmg/l50
Potassium ionsmg/l20
Bicarbonatesmg/l125–350
Chloridesmg/l250250
Sulfatesmg/l250250
Nitratesmg/l5050
Table 6

Correlation matrix of the physico-chemical parameter values

TpHECTDSTHCalcium ionsMagnesium ionsSodium ionsPotassium ionsBicarbonatesChloridesNitratesSulfates
T1.00            
pH0.281.00           
EC0.040.011.00          
TDS0.040.011.001.00         
TH0.010.000.970.971.00        
Calcium ions0.110.020.870.870.891.00       
Magnesium ions−0.13−0.020.750.750.780.391.00      
Sodium ions0.07−0.050.850.850.750.680.551.00     
Potassium ions0.060.060.070.08−0.10−0.14−0.010.141.00    
Bicarbonates0.000.040.700.700.790.750.550.35−0.091.00   
Chlorides0.01−0.050.880.880.800.710.610.940.080.331.00  
Nitrates0.230.070.390.390.310.390.080.370.180.070.421.00 
Sulfates−0.01−0.020.860.860.820.610.780.800.080.400.830.111.00
Table 7

Example of WQI calculation

ParameterWHO standard, Sn1/Sn∑ 1/SnK = 1/(∑ 1/Sn)Wn = K/SnIdeale value, V0Estimated value, VnVn/SnVn/Sn × 100 = QnWn × Qn
pH8.50.11760.24514.07920.479976.550.30030.0014.40
EC4000.00250.24514.07920.010205921.48148.001.51
TDS5000.00200.24514.07920.008202970.5959.400.48
TH5000.00200.24514.07920.00820311.10.6262.230.51
Calcium ions2000.00500.24514.07920.0204096.90.4848.450.99
Magnesium ions1000.01000.24514.07920.0408016.80.1716.800.69
Sodium ions500.02000.24514.07920.081604.370.098.730.71
Potassium ions200.05000.24514.07920.204003.250.1616.273.32
Bicarbonates1250.00800.24514.07920.032603392.71271.208.85
Chlorides2500.00400.24514.07920.0163013.10.055.250.09
Nitrates2500.00400.24514.07920.0163016.80.076.720.11
Sulfates500.02000.24514.07920.0816010.50.2121.001.71
           
  0.245  1.0000    33.36
Table 8

WQI values for each sample in the study area

NumberIDWQIWater quality statusPossible pollution sourcesNumberIDWQIWater quality statusPossible pollution sources
1S145.58GoodSettlement, agricultural land26S2622.58ExcellentAgricultural land, waste water
2S243.74GoodSettlement, agricultural land27S2729.97GoodSettlement, agricultural land
3S357.70PoorSettlement, waste water28S2872.02Very poorSettlement, agricultural land
4S478.09PoorSettlement, waste water29S2929.42GoodAgricultural land, waste water
5S553.46PoorSettlement, waste water30S3049.85GoodAgricultural land, waste water
6S630.81GoodSettlement, waste water31S3123.67ExcellentAgricultural land, waste water
7S747.61GoodSettlement, utilities contaminants32S3231.55GoodAgricultural land, waste water
8S852.08PoorSettlement, agricultural land33S3320.8ExcellentSettlement, agricultural land
9S919.75ExcellentMountain tourism34S3422.32ExcellentSettlement, agricultural land
10S1035.85GoodMountain tourism35S3521.18ExcellentSettlement, agricultural land
11S1133.15GoodSettlement, agricultural land36S3697.3Very poorAgricultural land, waste water
12S1237.15GoodSettlement, agricultural land37S3710.69ExcellentSettlement, agricultural land
13S1327.38GoodAgricultural land, waste water38S3819.4ExcellentSettlement, agricultural land
14S1436.35GoodSettlement, agricultural land39S3924.76ExcellentSettlement, agricultural land
15S1524.04GoodAgricultural land, coal source40S40116.23Unfit for consumptionAgricultural land, waste water
16S1647.38GoodSettlement, agricultural land41S4125.67GoodSettlement, agricultural land
17S1718.43ExcellentSettlement, agricultural land42S4230.19GoodAgricultural land, meat industry
18S1832.18GoodSettlement, agricultural land43S4344.53GoodAgricultural land, garbage dump
19S1936.57GoodSettlement, agricultural land44S4432.03GoodSettlement, agricultural land
20S2056.36PoorSettlement, agricultural land45S4526.65GoodSettlement, agricultural land
21S2118.16ExcellentSettlement, agricultural land46S4623.53ExcellentSettlement, agricultural land
22S2225.95GoodSettlement, agricultural land47S4737.3GoodSettlement, agricultural land
23S2330.36GoodSettlement, agricultural land48S4823.86ExcellentSettlement, agricultural land
24S2414.11ExcellentSettlement, agricultural land49S4930.77GoodAgricultural land, waste water
25S2522.98ExcellentSettlement, agricultural land50S5033.36GoodSettlement, agricultural land

Supplements

References

Agarwala
BR
,
Vijay
MV
,
Hussainc
S
,
Pradhand
V
2012
Assessment of bore well water quality in and around Badnapur Dist. Jalna
Journal of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Research
4
8
4025
 -
4027
Alam
MJB
,
Islam
MR
,
Muyen
Z
,
Mamun
M
,
Islam
S
2007
Water quality parameters along rivers
International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology
4
1
159
 -
167
Alastal
KM
,
Alagha
JS
,
Abuhabib
AA
2016
Groundwater quality assessment using water quality index (WQI) approach: Gaza coastal aquifer case study
Journal of Engineering Research and Technology
2
1
245
 -
268
Alikhan
HH
,
Hussein
AY
,
Alshukri
AS
2020
Groundwater quality assessment using water quality index: a case study of Al Najaf City, Iraq
Periodicals of Engineering and Natural Sciences
8
3
1482
 -
1490
APHA
2005
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater
21st Edition
American Public Health Association/American Water Works Association/Water Environment Federation
Washington, DC, USA
Bouslah
S
,
Djemili
L
,
Houichi
L
2017
Water quality index assessment of Koudiat Medouar Reservoir, northeast Algeria using weighted arithmetic index method
Journal of Water and Land Development
35
1
221
 -
228
Brown
RM
,
McClelland
NI
,
Deininger
RA
,
Tozer
RG
1970
A water quality index – do we dare?
Water Sewage Works
117
339
 -
343
Brown
RM
,
McClelland
NI
,
Deininger
RA
,
O’Connor
MF
1972
A water quality index – crashing the psychological barrier
Indicators of Environmental Quality
Thomas
WA
Springer
Boston, MA, USA
173
 -
182
Bytyçi
PS
,
Çadraku
HS
,
Zhushi Etemi
FN
, et al
2018
The assessment of surface water quality in the Lepenc River basin using water quality index (WQI) methodology
Rasāyan Journal of Chemistry
11
2
653
 -
660
Çadraku
H
2014
Quantitative and Qualitative Characterization of Hydric Resources in Dukagjini Basin, Kosovo. Doctoral thesis
Polytechnic University of Tirana
Tirana, Albania
Çadraku
H
2018
Application of GIS in ntegrated river basin management, case study of the Blinaja River basin, Kosovo
Micro, Macro & Mezzo Geo Information
2018
11
16
 -
20
Çadraku
H
2021
Groundwater quality assessment for irrigation: case study in the Blinaja River basin, Kosovo
Civil Engineering Journal
7
9
1515
 -
1528
Çadraku
H
,
Dobruna
B
,
Beqiraj
A
2013
Assessment of the surface water quality of the Drini i Bardhe basin using the water quality index (WQI) method
International Journal of Ecosystems and Ecology Sciences
3
3
425
 -
430
Çadraku
H
,
Gashi
F
,
Shala
A
,
Fetoshi
O
2016
Variations in the physico-chemical parameters of under groundwater of Blinaja catchment, Kosovo
IFAC-PapersOnLine
49
29
200
 -
205
Cotruvo
J
,
Bartram
J (eds)
2009
Calcium and Magnesium in Drinking-water: Public Health Significance
World Health Organization
Geneva, Switzerland
Diersing
N
2009
Water Quality: Frequently Asked Questions
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
Key West, FL, USA
Eslami
F
,
Shokoohi
R
,
Mazloomi
S
, et al
2015
Evaluation of water quality index (WQI) of groundwater supplies in Kerman Province
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health
3
1
48
 -
58
Fallahzadeh
RA
,
Ghadirian
D
2018
Spatial distribution, health risk assessment and survey of fluoride pollution source with GIS in drinking water: a case study, in Abarkouh, Iran
Journal of Environmental Health and Sustainable Development
3
2
496
 -
503
Feng
Y
,
Danying
Q
,
Bao
Q
, et al
2016
Improvement of CCME WQI using grey relational method
Journal of Hydrology
543
316
 -
323
Gupta
SK
,
Ojha
CK
,
Singh
G
2004
Assessment of water quality index for the groundwater in Tumkur Taluk, Karnataka State, India
Journal of Environmental Science and Engineering
46
1
74
 -
78
Harilal
CC
,
Hashim
A
,
Arun
PR
,
Baji
S
2004
Hydro geochemistry of two rivers of Kerala with special reference to drinking water quality
Ecology, Environment and Conservation
10
2
187
 -
192
Horton
RK
1965
An index number system for rating water quality
Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation
37
300
 -
305
ICMM (Independent Commission for Mines and Minerals)
2006a
Geological Map of Kosovo
ICMM
Prishtina, Kosovo
ICMM
2006b
Hydrogeological Map of Kosovo
ICMM
Prishtina, Kosovo
IHJC (Institute for Hydroeconomics ‘Jeroslav Cerni’)
1983
Overview of the Hydroeconomics Base of KSA of Kosovo, Prishtina
IHJC
Ikomi
RB
,
Emuh
CT
2000
The status of the physicochemical hydrology of Upper Warri River Nigeria
Journal of Science and Environment
2
75
 -
86
Kepa (Kosovo Environmental Protection Agency)
2020
Report of the State of Water in Kosovo 2020
Kepa
Prishtina, Kosovo
Kepa
2022
Report of the State of Water in Kosovo 2022
Kepa
Prishtina, Kosovo
Khosravi
K
,
Sartaj
M
,
Karimi
M
,
Levison
J
,
Lotfi
A
2021
A GIS-based groundwater pollution potential using DRASTIC, and bivariate statistical model
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
28
50525
 -
50541
Malcom
JA
2008–2010
Institutional Support Project to the Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning and River Basin Authorities, Annex 20
Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning, Prishtina
Kosovo
Mekshiqi
N
,
Hoxha
J
,
Kodra
A
, et al
2009
Correlation of the Geological Map of the Border Zone Kosovo–Albania 1:50000
Ministry of Economic Development of Kosovo, Prishtina
Kosovo
(
in Albanian
)
Merchant
JW
1994
GIS-based groundwater pollution hazard assessment: a critical review of the DRASTIC model
Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing
60
9
1117
 -
1227
Mladenović-Ranisavljević
I
,
Žerajić
SA
2018
Comparison of different models of water quality index in the assessment of surface water quality
International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology
15
665
 -
674
Municipality of Istog
2022
Development Plan of the Municipality of Istog 2018–2026
Municipality of Istog
Istog, Kosovo
See https://kk.rks-gov.net/ (accessed 08/12/2022)
Peric
J
1978
Study on the possibility of underground water accumulation in the Dukagjin basin, Faculty of Mining and Geology in Belgrade, Kosovo
Qureshimatva
UM
,
Maurya
RR
,
Gamit
SB
,
Patel
RD
,
Solanki
HA
2015
Determination of physico-chemical parameters and water quality index (WQI) of Chandlodia Lake, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India
Journal of Environmental & Analytical Toxicology
5
288
525
 -
2161
Rizani
S
,
Laze
P
,
Geci
F
,
Begolli
B
2016
Water quality assessment for irrigation purposes in Prizren-Gjakove Decan area, Kosovo
Albanian Journal of Agricultural Sciences
2016
162
 -
167
Sajn
R
,
Bidovec
M
,
Andjelov
M
,
Pirc
S
,
Gosar
M
1998
Geochemical Atlas of Ljubljana and Surround
Geological Survey of Slovenia
Ljubljana, Slovenia
Saleem
M
,
Hussain
A
,
Mahmood
G
2016
Analysis of groundwater quality using water quality index: a case study of greater Noida (Region), Uttar Pradesh (U.P), India
Cogent Engineering
3
1
article 1237927
Selenica
A
2009
Hidrologjia Inxhinierike
Dita, Tirana
Albania
(
in Albanian
)
Shala Abazi
AM
,
Durmishi
BH
,
Sallaku
FS
, et al
2020
Assessment of water quality of Sitnica River by using water quality index (WQI)
Rasāyan Journal of Chemistry
13
1
146
 -
159
Sikosek
B
1971
Explanation for Geological Map of Yougoslavia, Scale 1:500000
Federal Geological Institute
Belgrade, Serbia
SWA (Saskatchewan Watershed Authority)
2007
Water Quality Guide
SWA
Moose Jaw, SK, Canada
The Government of Republic of Kosovo
2021
Administrative Instruction (GRK) No. 10/2021 On the Quality of Water Intended for Human Consumption
Prishtina
Kosovo
WHO (World Health Organization)
1996
Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality. Vol. 2. Health Criteria and Other Supporting Information
(2)
WHO
Geneva, Switzerland
WHO
2007
pH in Drinking-water: Revised Background Document for Development of WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality
WHO
Geneva, Switzerland
WHO/SDE/WSH/07.01/1
WHO
2011a
Hardness in Drinking-water: Background Document for Development of WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality
WHO
Geneva, Switzerland
WHO/HSE/WSH/10.01/10/Rev/1
WHO
2011b
Nitrate and Nitrite in Drinking-water: Background Document for Development of WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality
WHO
Geneva, Switzerland
WHO/SDE/WSH/07.01/16/Rev/1
WHO
2012
Guideline for Drinking Water Quality
WHO
Geneva, Switzerland

Languages

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal