Environ Monit Assess (2007) 131:279–292 DOI 10.

1007/s10661-006-9475-3

Water Quality Changes in Chini Lake, Pahang, West Malaysia
Mohammad Shuhaimi-Othman & Eng C. Lim & Idris Mushrifah

Received: 19 June 2006 / Accepted: 22 August 2006 / Published online: 14 December 2006 # Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2006

Abstract A study of the water quality changes of Chini Lake was conducted for 12 months, which began in May 2004 and ended in April 2005. Fifteen sampling stations were selected representing the open water body in the lake. A total of 14 water quality parameters were measured and Malaysian Department of Environment Water Quality Index (DOE-WQI) was calculated and classified according to the Interim National Water Quality Standard, Malaysia (INWQS). The physical and chemical variables were temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), conductivity, pH, total dissolved solid (TDS), turbidity, chlorophyll-a, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), total suspended solid (TSS), ammonia-N, nitrate, phosphate and sulphate. Results show that base on Malaysian WQI, the water in Chini Lake is classified as class II, which is suitable for recreational activities and allows body contact. With respect to the Interim National Water Quality Standard (INWQS), temperature was within the normal range, conductivity, TSS, nitrate, sulphate and TDS are categorized under class I. Parameters for DO, pH, turbidity, BOD, COD and ammonia-N are categorized under class II. Comparison with eutrophic status
M. Shuhaimi-Othman (*) : E. C. Lim : I. Mushrifah School of Environmental and Natural Resource Sciences, Faculty of Science and Technology, National University of Malaysia (UKM), Bangi, 43600 Selangor, Malaysia e-mail: shuhaimi@pkrisc.cc.ukm.my

indicates that chlorophyll-a concentration in the lake was in mesotrophic condition. In general water quality in Chini Lake varied temporally and spatially, and the most affected water quality parameters were TSS, turbidity, chlorophyll-a, sulphate, DO, ammonia-N, pH and conductivity. Keywords Lake Chini . Water quality index (WQI) . Malaysia . Water quality . Natural lake

1 Introduction Chini Lake is the second largest natural lake in Peninsular Malaysia, located in the state of Pahang. Chini Lake which also acts as a wetland is important in natural ecosystems as its can help in reducing the frequency, level and velocity of floods and riverbank erosion. Wetland can act as natural sponges that absorb floodwater, and help protect adjacent and downstream areas from flood damage. It can also help recharge groundwater aquifers by holding water and allowing it to infiltrate the ground slowly. Chini Lake wetland plays an important role in providing fisheries as a source of revenue to the local people. It also provides an avenue for breeding, spawning and nursery grounds for both resident and migratory fish species. Chini Lake is drained by Chini River, which meanders for 4.8 km before flowing into Pahang River, the longest river in Peninsular Malaysia. In 1995, a small barrage about 2 m height was

Petts. The basin area of Chini Lake received a total rainfall of 2.2 mm in year 2005 (MMS. 1998). Studies have shown that dams can disrupt the structure and function of river ecosystems by modifying flow regimes. 2005). 1984). Webb. The wetland functions provided by the swamp forest to Chini Lake such as water purification and pollution retention are lost. Mimi. 2002. Genting Teratai. and Barzani Gasim (2005) classified Chini Lake as a mesotrophic lake according to the study conducted in 1999 and Ainon. Cenahan. Therefore. Shuhaimi-Othman. The aim of this study is to determine the changes of Chini Lake’s water quality within 12 months in association to the seasonal variation and other activities occurring around the lake vicinity. The adverse effects due to these changes were damages to the plant community. disrupting sediment transport. Illegal logging activities also contributed to the lost of forest area. Othman. and Affendi (2006) have found that the lake water was threaten by excessive growth of bacteria (total coliform and faecal coliform). and this may affect water quality in the lake (Lim & ShuhaimiOthman. Melai. This study was conducted for the duration of 12 months. Therefore it is important that a study is conducted to assess the trend of water quality changes in the lake for sustainable management.260. 2005). Lim. Labuh and Jemberau (Figure 1). A study of water quality trends in 1992. Sahibin.1 Study area and sampling stations Chini Lake is made up of a series of 12 lakes or opened water body recognized as ‘seas’ by local residents.0 mm in year 2004 and 2. depends on the season changes and 700 ha of freshwater swamp and swamp forest (Chong. & Ang. and severing their biological continuity (Collier. Such conditions have raise concerns on deterioration in water quality of the lake. Topographically. which is characteristic by moderate average annual rainfall. the water level of the lake has risen and became stagnant. Soil erosion generated by the conversion of forest to agriculture land and logging activities in this area was believed as one of the main contribution to the increase of suspended solid concentration in the river and lake water body (Barzani Gasim. water . & Shaharudin. aquatic ecosystems and increased sedimentation rates in the lake.280 Environ Monit Assess (2007) 131:279–292 constructed downstream of Chini River to hold the lake water for tourism purposes. This has changed the ecosystem of the Chini Lake from semi-lotic to lentic system. Kenawar. 2001). 15 sampling stations (1–15) were selected to cover all areas of the lake (Figure 1) and the GPS position for each sampling station is shown in Table II. Chini Lake experienced major development in agriculture activities. Abas.46 to 3. the lake is surrounded by low hills and undulating land which constitute the catchment of the region. In recent years. 2005). In present study. which began in May 2004 and ended in April 2005. The 12 ‘seas’ are Gumum. 1996. 2005). The construction of National Service Centre for National Service Training programme in Chini Lake since 2004 also contributed to the increase in nutrient and organic loading into the lake. Shuhiami Othman. Batu Busuk. A total of 14 water quality parameters were measured and Malaysian Department of Environment–Water Quality Index (DOE-WQI) was calculated and classified by Interim National Water Quality Standard (INWQS) (DOE. 2 Materials and Methods 2. Gumum River in the Northeast. Serodong. temperature and humidity. Wetland International. altering water quality. Mempitih. & Schmidt. Agriculture activities were believed to release pollutant such as nitrate and phosphate into the lake. which are not safe for drinking. The lake which once was famous with the lotus Nelumbo nucifera and water lily was also invaded by an aquatic weed call ‘cat tail’ or Cabomba furcata which slowly replacing the lotus as dominant plant species in the lake. The climate of Lake Chini is typical of the equatorial climate of Peninsular Malaysia. Large areas of forest were converted to oil palm plantation. Ratuah. 2005. The volume of water in Chini Lake was estimated between 4×106 to 7× 106 m3 and the mean inflow discharge between 0. Tanjung Jerangking. Mushrifah. 1997). Perupok River in the West and Melai River in the South. Tong & Goh. 1993 and 1998 showed deterioration in some physical aspects of water quality such as temperature (increased about 2°C) (Idris & Abas.192. 2005.53 m3 s−1 (Tan & Barzani Gasim. In normal season. 2005) such as Datang River in the Northwest. A total of seven feeder rivers from the basin area were identified as the main source of water inputs into the lake (Tan & Barzani Gasim. Pulau Balai. The area of Chini Lake varies from 150 to 350 ha.

2. pH. chemical oxygen demand (COD) and total suspended solid (TSS). These were temperature. . dissolved oxygen (DO). An abandon mine was also reactivated with the iron-mining activities in the early 2005. conductivity.3 In situ parameters Three replicates of the chemical and physical variables of the lake were measured directly at each sampling station using HYDROLAB DataSonde® 4 and Surveyer® 4a. At the east of the lake (Gumum area). À sulphate (SO2 4 ). a resort and a National Service Centre camp. Surface water was collected from each station (three replicates) in HDPE bottle 500 ml for laboratory analysis (ex situ) i. Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) was sampled using dark BOD bottle 300 ml. total dissolved solid (TDS). 2.2 Sampling Field sampling was conducted monthly which began from June 2004 to May 2005. unpublished data) is still active in the north-east of the lake. during the raining season the overflowing of Pahang River together with the reverse flow of the flood water into Chini River and Chini Lake resulted flooding in the river and lake. Some areas of forest land located at the east of the Chini Lake were also converted to agriculture land such as rubber and oil palm plantation (estimated about 807 ha. we have experienced twice flooding in the lake (October and December of 2004).Environ Monit Assess (2007) 131:279–292 281 Figure 1 Location of Chini Lake and the sampling stations. À À phosphate (PO3 4 ). In dry season. ammonia-N (NH3–N).. All the samples were kept in the dark and cool (temperature 4–6°C) in the cool box. there are a village for the settlement of the indigenous people. nitrat (NO3 ). no flow into the Pahang River from the lake and Chini River because of the water level in Chini River is lower than the barrage. unpublished data) and logging activity (estimated about 67 ha.e. will flow from the Chini Lake into the Pahang River through Chini River. However. During our 12 field trips to Chini Lake.

33 (0.73 (0.87) .98– 29.83) 1.52 (6.96) 27.31 (0.51) 6.9– 19.68) 1.55 (2.66 (0.73) 30.70– 13.4– 25.16) 23.00– 6.1– 21.61 (5.38– 7.45) 27.94) 1.78 (0.78– 7.13 (60.03 (0.95) 1.75– 29.53) 6.64) 0.27– 30.83) 19.58 (15.00) 29.27– 6.9 (10.9 (12.7 (13.82– 6.91 (8.26– 1.5 (14.42 (0.58 (0.72– 32.74– 2.01– 6.59 (6.90– 6.75 (0.38) 6.83 (4.62 (0.27 (28.03– 1.28 (25.78 (0.31) 32.52 (6.8) 5.97 (0.13) 22.57– 31.69 (19.11 (1.3 (9.90– 7.56 (5.35– 7.63 (5.06 (0.78– 40.76) 38.03 (29.11– 6.53) 6.46) 1.72– 32.98) 6.61– 2.22– 6.23) 1.92) 6.41) 21.69) 6.08– 6.39 (30.00– 130.4 (12.64) 1.83 (14.26 (28.99 (19.45) 13.00– 374.53) 6.95) 0.30– 156.91– 7.35) 15.68) 21.29 (0.40) 3.65 (0.89 (0.62 (6.60) 6.25 (4.00– 24.15 (30.16) 14.7) 5.8) 6.61– 6.72 (15.60 (19.17 (0.00– 16.23 (4.42) 109.84) 1.76 (0.93– 30.34 (5.64 (4.15) 4.48– 30.54 (0.31– 1.19 (23.66) 1.17– 28.88 (0.44– 28.08– 29.75) 15.83– 7.89) 27.4– 29.01– 29.75– 33.99) 0.55 (20.15) 1.37– 1.61– 3.6– 18.36) 1.45– 45.56– 7.91– 7.06– 32.5 (12.3) 5.0– 19.82– 48.06– 7.1 (13.18– 6.79 (29.34) 6.39 (19.67) 1.29 (0.62) 0.51– 6.50 (29.0– 19.50) 28.28– 2.4) 6.88) 20.92 (0.13) 30.83– 2.04– 50.90 (20.55 (0.63) 1.33 (6.12) 6.89) 0.05) 1.2– 18.22– 1.7– 31.31– 1.00– 2.59 (0.59) 0.00– 6.00 Environ Monit Assess (2007) 131:279–292 BOD (mg l−1) 30.31 (5.8) 5.15) 21.50– 40.25) 14.79– 2.63 (6.60) 25.98) 23.29 (22.72– 6.71 (0.95 (28.8 (12.30– 1.54 (3.05) 13.30– 30.20) 13.01 (0.46– 2.61) 0.38) 1.4) 5.4 (9.46– 31.28– 30.22) 6.5) 4.7– 25.88 (2.10) 31.74 (0.72– 30.09 (0.98) 18.13) 28.10 (2.44) 6.29) 30.23 (5.3) 5.50– 3.93) 0.81– 2.80– 2.00– 15.01– 29.55 (15.8 (10.57) 0.58 (27.77 (5.20) 1.66 (27.35) 24.18) 6.00– 3.57– 7.56 (6.9 (14.42– 1.95) 1.38 (0.24– 2.17 (0.69 (0.58– 34.282 Table I Mean water quality parameters and WQI (max–min) for 15 sampling stations in Chini Lake (June 2004–May 2005) Year 2005 July August September October November December January February March April May Year 2004 June Temperature (°C) Conductivity (μS cm−1) TDS (mg l−1) DO (mg l−1) pH Chl-a (μg l−1) Turbidity (NTU) 31.13) 14.76) 0.06) 22.61 (0.65) 16.52) 31.38– 2.91) 1.13– 0.2) 6.27– 5.23– 7.39 (28.38– 2.2) 6.41 (4.86– 6.49– 6.13 (4.2– 19.28) 17.97– 31.55) 29.19) 28.49) 6.

45 (0.037– 0.43 (0.05– 23.221 (0.65) 5.12 (80.67– 74.120 (0.219 (0.00 (0.07 (11.187) 0.117 (0.00– 70.75– 16.000) 88.489 (0.41) 5.040– 0.100) 0.51 (1.35) 4.033– 0.010– 0.50) 0.COD (mg l−1) TSS (mg l−1) NH3N (mg l−1) Environ Monit Assess (2007) 131:279–292 Nitrate (mg l−1) Phosphate (mg l−1) Sulphate (mg l−1) 16.20– 93.87 (1. Class II=76.93 (1.03– 94.333) 84.330) 0.016 (0.95– 26.163) 0.06) 0.00– 5.00 (0.40) 7.597) 0.840) 0.083 (0.093) 0.00) 17.009 (0.80) a Class I=>92. Class V=<31.107) 0.72– 91.00– 1.39– 93.94 (16.003– 0.45 (10.007– 0.69– 93.85) 6.14– 95.077– 0.183) 0.16 (85.020) 0.25– 95.0 ND Not detected 283 .077) 0.53 (8.010) 0.073– 0.00– 1.50) 12.051 (0.67– 16.31 (86.030– 0.197) 0.10) 15.020– 0.75– 18.60 (0.44) 2.067) 0.097– 1.00) 22.85– 94.10) 12.059 (ND– 0.70– 94.023– 0.90) 19.093– 1.7.85 (10.27 (0.68 (9.00– 149.00– 44.067– 0.22) 0.033) 0.333) 79. Class IV=31.62 (65.90 (0.220) 0.308 (0.33– 12. Class III=51.337) 0.10) 17.333) 91.00– 73.180) 0.00– 0.037) 0.190) 0.9 (0.237) 0.30– 22.036 (0.73 (9.311 (0.00) 0.090 (0.357) 0.00– 1.025 (0.0–51.051 (0.31) 6.76 (9.30) 19.487 (0.003– 0.047– 0.00– 64.60 (0.00– 46.00– 21.25– 21.100) 0.0897) 0.33) 0.48 (0.080) 0.407 (ND– .88 (7.20) 90.913) 0.013– 0.0267 (0.00– 9.00– 0.00– 13.08 (81.010– 0.00– 3.053 (0.123) 2.062 (0.667) 88.00– 0.041 (0.077 (0.62 (0.00– 1.78 (1.20) 14.003– 0.50) 0.65 (85.50– 97.00) 0.023– 0.22) 2.49 (0.9–76.033– 0.99 (1.67– 14.90 (6.027 (0.00– 29.55) 5.03) 7.90 (0.91 (77.65– 20.667) 85.45 (1.190 (0.159 (0.043– 1.19 (72.22– 95.70) 4.006 (0.060) 0.05– 22.20 (0.00– 0.50– 11.11 (1.569 (0.00– 0.083) ND WQIa Rainfall (mm) 13.95– 17.693) 0.5–92.27) 0.35– 29.047– 0.85) 6.012 (0.132 (0.110) 0.7.057– 0.108 (0.25) 0.360) 0.28 (79.20) 14.153) 0.561 (0.706 (0.30) 8.37) 4.400 (0.65) 11.048 (0.33– 8.33– 17.00– 45.80) 9.40– 17.29 (7.20 (0.31– 93.170) 0.032 (0.50– 8.91) 1.44 (0.117– 0.148 (0.75) 17.567 (0.048 (0.00– 0.56– 12.093) 0.83) 0.70) 29.5.556 (0.22) 7.17) 0.00– 33.13 (80.667) 87.667) 90.36 (0.057– 0.50) 5.315 (0.80) 4.00– 0.110) 0.00) 89.092 (0.010– 0.00– 98.15– 24.85 (7.333) 84.00– 0.9.667) 89.007– 0.78 (82.98– 91.062 (0.080 (0.060– 0.052 (0.047– 1.225 (0.64 (69.31 (0.17) 0.17) 5.40) 7.040– 0.00– 22.

P <0. Correlation analysis was also conducted to examine the relationship between different variables (Table IV). Because of the large number of correlation run (n=180). Tong.e. HACH. and Abdul Halim (1997). Hence. From June 2004 to May 2005.001 should be accepted as ‘truly significant’ and the others (P <0. 12). nitrate. 2.001) (Table IV).001). COD. nitrate.095. Wang. Goh. ammonia-N and pH were used in the calculation of DOE-Water Quality Index (DOE-WQI) as described by Norhayati. Large volume of water inputs and higher flow rate were responsible to cool down the lake water temperature. Data were tested for normality (Shapiro–Wilk test) and homogeneity (Barlett’s χ2) and to meet these requirements. The BOD. TSS.29°C. Calibration of every HYDROLAB DataSonde® 4 probes was conducted in the laboratory before field sampling. only the ones at P < 0. 2003).483. The water temperature shows downward trend from September 2004 to January 2005 due to high precipitation rate. ammoniaN. P <0. therefore during low precipitation months. Statistical analysis (ANOVA. 2005).01 and P <0.448. BOD. October 2004 recorded the highest precipitation (553. P <0. P <0. 1992.001) while positively correlation with ammonia nitrogen (r=0. Six water quality parameters i. The stagnant lake water was able to retain heat in the water. the water temperature exceeded 30°C.001). ammonia-N (total). Tukey Kramer) shows that all parameters measured in this study have significant differences (P <0. 2. TSS. DO. phosphate and sulphate were measured in accordance with the standard method procedures (APHA. 3. 3.44°C to 32.1 Rainfall The rainfall through the sampling period was acquired from Malaysia Meteorological Centre (MMS) (Table I). The monthly rainfall has shown significant negative relationship with parameters such as temperature(r= −0. Those variations in water quality parameters were mainly due to seasonal changes (wet or drought season) and anthropogenic activities.5 mm) and the number of raining days (21 days). Regression analyses were used to test the relationship between chemical and physical variables.60±1. The index is based on DOE opinion poll WQI and computed from the equation: WQI ¼ 0:22 ðSI DOÞ þ 0:19 ðSI BODÞ þ 0:16 ðSI CODÞ þ 0:15 ðSI ANÞ þ 0:16 ðSI SSÞ þ 0:12 ðSI pHÞ where SI refers to the sub index function for each of the given parameters and the coefficients are the weighting factors derived from the opinion poll.19°C. 1992.5 Statistical Analysis Statistical analysis was conducted by one-way ANOVA and Tukey–Kramer multiple comparison tests using the statistical package Minitab (Vers.. COD.387. which ranged from 25. phosphate and sulphate were determined by using a spectrophotometer Model HACH DR 2500 at a specified wavelength (APHA.. HACH.284 Environ Monit Assess (2007) 131:279–292 turbidity and chlorophyll-a concentration. The mean (for 12 months sampling) and range (maximum to minimum) for in situ and ex situ parameters for 15 sampling stations are shown in Tables II and III. Correlation analysis showed that temperature has a negative significant relationship with the rainfall (r= −0. several of these will be expected to come up significant by chance alone. dissolved oxygen (DO) (r = −0.001) and chlorophyll-a concentration (r= −0. P <0.4 Laboratory analysis (ex situ parameters) All the samples collected from the field were kept in a refrigerator at a temperature below 4°C to reduce all the activities and metabolism of the organisms in the water.2 Temperature The mean water temperature for 12 months sampling was 29.69 mm of rainfall was recorded in Chini Lake (MMS.05) should be viewed as possibly significant relationships. 3 Results The monthly mean of the parameters measured from 15 sampling stations in this study is shown in Table I. 2. The COD. . as the start of the raining season (Oct– Dec). 2003).398. data were log10 transformed.398.01) between the sampling months.

91 3.22 1.52 29.55–7.68″N 102°54′40.86 3.30 6.15 113.37 0.75 0.41 9.68 0.97 6.89 0.63 6.82 1.26 6.80–27.59 0.52 27.75 2.44 19.75–27.81 5.98 4.47 1.25–25.09″N 102°55′25.56″N 102° 55′ 40.17 1.63–16.75–38.19–6.31 29.82–6.12″E 14 03°25′27.32–7.67″N 102°55′06.42 28.20–7.91 0.31 5.48 6.34 13.54 7.63–26.47″N 102°54′57.38 26.69 0.70 2.00″N 102°54′51.76 0.10 0–71.09 2.15 27.76 0.57 29.35 28.32 6.71 27.85 3.60–7.15 6.70 3.57 6.64–24.98–27.23″E 9 03°25′47.27 29.19 5.35 19.44 1.73 1.45 13.93 1.60 0.87 0–145.55 12.66 15.54 6.40 15.°C Conductivity (μS cm−1) 23.00 2.76 23.58 17.50–27.53 20.31 1.09 21.09–31.21–31.25 43.50 1.60 4.Environ Monit Assess (2007) 131:279–292 Table II Mean.41–32.83 8.64 24.63″E 15 03°25′17.38 2.99″N 102°55′20.66 TDS (mg l−1) 15.83–24.06 5.65 6.23 1.31 26.48 2.85–18.84 pH Chlorophyll-a (μg l−1) 3.06–6.67–7.11 0.02 6.12 4.63 0–61.8″E 7 03°26′19. range and SD for in situ parameters for 15 sampling stations for 12 months period (June 2004–May 2005) Station (GPS position) 1 03°26′07.35 30.66 19.15 21.45 0–93.62–6.18 6.32 5.74 6.53″E 10 03°25′36.05 2.83 27.55 10.69 26.31–6.96 0.92 0.66 1.49 1.84–31.71 0–147.40 29.24 0.38 29.38 6.13 0.30 29.65 1.03 6.17″E 13 03°25′36.68 15.68 0.92 5.77 46.08–43.21″E 8 03°26′02.72″N 102°54′44.20 6.71 0–157.25 1.57–25.29″E 6 03°26′37.50 4.44–25.05–35.21 5.13 1.73 2.13 1.28–7.82 0.02 4.72–6.39–20.80 36.36 285 Turbidity (NTU) 19.98 12.63 3.04 5.06 5.16 6.30 3.53 5.16–9.34–6.41 14.58 24.64 0–72.83 17.374–34.51–25.31 1.85 10.21 1.48–26.49 6.65–29.17 5.10 15.46 6.26 5.42 9.93″N 102°54′41.17 6.20 29.17 6.80 20.91–31.35 0–117.60–31.90 11.19 2.28 6.62 6.74 22.35–6.04 2.48–43.53 6.85–31.30–25.95 1.89 0–101.81 0.38″N 102°55′12.21 14.70 2.24–31.84 3.31 17.58 2.28 29.99 1.98 13.43–31.15–22.16–7.02 6.69 24.80 24.25 6.96 0–130.72 3.89 2.34 29.40–17.03 6.54 2.86 0–76.53–29.99 12.80–18.83–27.96–7.85 34.33 5.48 21.01 20.10 5.45–25.17 6.49 29.97–19.32 0–92.42 26.83 4.39″E 11 03°24′57.12 1.24 6.89 2.22 0.69 1.65–40.17–29.92 7.69 4.92 2.18 15.07″N 102°54′52.26 0.35 0.72 1.79 29.88 3.44 29.92 0–121.62–24.15 26.07 22.81 12.24 21.35–6.57 15.34 16.65 4.95 17.91–6.60 25.97–50.79 26.86 0.12 0.56 20.81 0.74 3.98 6.58 6.45 9.44–30.69 0.78 3.46 1.81 5.10 1.27–32.00 12.20 6.48″E 2 03°25′ 55.72 DO (mg l−1) 6.44 1.43 0.03–7.42 13.44 0.67 6.57–6.02–30.42 13.50 17.23–31.33 29.24 6.75 19.85 44.97 10.88 3.80 20.13–17.71 27.13 1.23–7.47–25.65 1.10 4.71″E 12 03°25′05.06 1.72 0.97 21.98 24.10 2.30–6.75 3.60 15.93″N 102°54′35.42″N 102°55′48.50″E 3 03°26′00.42–25.54 6.87 27.00 6.23 SD Standard deviation .89 5.64 6.20 1.53 9.02 6.34″N 102°54′46.31 4.28 35.56 6.14 0.05 12.73 2.13–32.49 1.61 26.80 0.58″E 4 03°26′10.58–17.76 43.84 29.58 1.34″N 102°55′47.46–19.77 0.37 10.81 27.90 29.52 6.10 6.10–6.38 0.35 21.03 11.26 57.21 6.58 1.78 3.32 14.48 3.83–31.82 4.49 26.22–7.11–6.03 25.74 3.19 6.18 16.18″E Mean Range SD Mean Range SD Mean Range SD Mean Range SD Mean Range SD Mean Range SD Mean Range SD Mean Range SD Mean Range SD Mean Range SD Mean Range SD Mean Range SD Mean Range SD Mean Range SD Mean Range SD Temperature.86 4.11 19.68 0.23–9.38–6.15 0.13–8.63 0–374.91–6.66–31.94 1.00–28.24–6.80 17.08 23.40 26.64 0–85.33–16.21 21.18 0.96 27.71 27.52″E 5 03°26′32.93–17.43 4.89 0.18–7.54 5.65 13.28 12.97–7.

003–0.148 0.101 0.090 0.104 0.85 1.85–22.30 2.180 0.16–92.667 0.10 4.93 4.02 18.083 0.226 0.72 11.25–16.264 0.286 Environ Monit Assess (2007) 131:279–292 Table III Mean.050 0.55 6.64 0.44 2.89–17.90–24.327 0.39 0.099 0.33–61.025 0.50–3.96 2.84 1.110 0.031 0.597 0.67–42.25 3.417 0.000 0.39 17.82 COD (mg l−1) 19.00 0.222 0.085 0.96 1.003–0.035 0.85 3.52 91.000–0.149 0.40 2.087 0.027–0.29 5.90 1.15–26.333 2.018 0.95 1.89 0.280 0.96 1.267 0.33–43.59 89.223 0.38 0.007–1.19–90.221 0.000 2.67–13.016 0.240 0.30 5.54 19.013–0.00 6.000–1.98 3.63 14.9–76.7.61 87. range and SD for ex situ parameters and WQI for 15 sampling stations for 12 months period (June 2004–May 2005) Station BOD (mg l−1) Mean Range SD Mean Range SD Mean Range SD Mean Range SD Mean Range SD Mean Range SD Mean Range SD Mean Range SD Mean Range SD Mean Range SD Mean Range SD Mean Range SD Mean Range SD Mean Range SD Mean Range SD 1.055 0.51 18.348 0.093–0.020 0.69–4.30–5.40–21.41 1.360 0.18 2.000–2.74 4.400 0.330 0.000–1.610 0.42 3.94 71.23 5.66 9.06 18.250 0.96 4.0 .50 6.5 3.023–0.69 0.19–91.018 0.22 11.196 0.50 5.03–3.107 0.073 0.90–28.000–1.717 0.326 0.644 0.000–0.459 0.99 4.100 0.63 75.058 0.25 4.07 3.31 12.14 0.003–1. Class V=<31.62 17.064 0.40 21.510 0.92 1.60–28.37 80.344 0.29 9.21 7.529 0.059 0.33–20.333 0.25 10.50–23.91 5.055 0.416 0.000–0.206 0.010–0.44 0.097 0.052 0.30–29.22 30.38 0.77 0.575 0.113 0.112 0.095 0.038 NO3− (mg l−1) 0.357 0.35–16.50–3.72 83.236 0.003–0.67 0.23 1.67 3.215 0.582 1.357 0.181 0.277 0.062 0.46 87.64–92.000–0.066 0.180 0.673 0.256 87.83 91.242 À PO3 4 (mg l–1) À SO2 4 (mg l) WQIa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 0.22 0.037–0.090 0.94–93.217 0.000–1.129 0.120 0.043–0.67 11.08 6.56 0.50–12.5–97.000–5.167 0.072 0.35 85.33 0.80–4.030–0.61 0.387 0.397 0.70 4.212 0.67–91.000–9.67–18.083 0.667 1.70–26.853 0.76 NH3–N (mg l−1) 0.39 0.084 0.94 1.153 0.097 0.054 0.507 0.85 73.93 0.42–2.83 77.24–2.35 2.68 80.026 0.003–2.043–0.337 0.45 4.000–1.089 0.91 2.017 0.157 0.621 1.667 0.181 0.59 69.02 TSS (mg l−1) 11.50–22.33 79.080 0.061 0.72 1.389 0.94 1.49–95.637 0.69–89.83 1.90 4.40 3.140 0.68 11.08 2.79 7.90 13.63 0.17–10.99 0.87 0.05–24.5.31 18.123 0.306 0.289 0.85 14.007–0.18 12.17–18.40 15.107 0.93 9.024 0.080–0.14–86.328 0.003–0.78 6.000 0.003–1.58 6.040–0.50 2.236 0.000 0.20 8.12 0.28 4.81 5.131 0.028 0.475 0.000–1.062 0.354 0.000–2.50 4.64 0.59 0.037–0.333 0.133 0.100 0.00–23.50–3.178 0.000 0.26 0.73 87.138 0.22 0.28 78.58 0.667 0.08 86.027–0.058 0.063–1.022 0.35 92.38 12.85–95.000–0.17 2.50 5.18 0.35 0.89 11.77 87.000–1.110 0.063 0.95 4.017 0.140 0.66–3.343 0.44 87.41–94.44 5.087 0.5–92.67 11.003–1. Class II=76.027–0.89 4.667 0.165 0.81 1.70 0.58–3.83 87.72 19.176 0.100 0.50 15. Class IV=31.803 0.062 0.142 0.003–0.71 6.13 86.913 0.082 0.241 0.31 11.40 87.22 2.000 0.000–0.22 78.224 0.06 86.181 0.020–0.51–3.220 0.7. Class III=51.04 5.020 0.28 78.000–8.09–92.349 0.043–0.40 16.41 13.000–0.55 0.62–3.097 0.25 13.83–72.019 0.31–90.000–1.61 17.693 0.063–0.123 0.9.000 0.00 3.153 0.73 10.68 0.08 SD Standard deviation a Class I=>92.000–0.033–0.31–3.543 0.023–0.060 0.443 1.16 0.83 1.467 0.08 0.77 7.85 5.000–1.110 0.000–0.95 0.000–0.186 0.017–0.740 0.023–0.72 1.0–51.57 9.87 14.37 13.77–92.000 0.67 4.24 0.167 0.47 0.26–3.305 0.033–0.29 1.143 0.023–0.063–0.068 0.94–4.221 0.667 0.56–3.15–24.513 0.71 65.000 0.267 0.068 0.292 0.45 4.570 0.16 79.69–90.33–46.00 3.

153* 0.217** 0. TDS DO PH Chl-a Turb.521*** rainfall −0.258*** 0.321*** COD 0.240** −0.448*** 0. TDS COD TSS WQI Cond.271*** −0.164* −0.138 0.014 0. WQI and the rainfall DO pH Chl-a Turb.084 −0.310*** 0.000*** 0.093 0.Table IV Pearson correlation coefficient (r) between water quality parameters.138 0.091 0.010 0.059 0.303*** −0.154* 0. NH3 N NO3− À PO3 4 2À SO4 0.012 0.483*** 0.031 −0.026 0.110 −0.085 0.311*** 0.321*** WQI 0.025 −0.031 0.102 −0.025 0.116 −0.199** 0.153* −0.059 0.232** 0.052 0.009 0.095 0.045 −0.079 0.234** 0.132 0.335*** 0.086 0.067 −0.213** −0. Cond.440*** 0.185* 0.042 0.866*** −0.161* −0. **Indicates a significant relationship (P <0.013 −0.145 BOD 0.011 0.016 −0.084 −0.184* 0.166* −0.063 −0.310*** −0.258*** 0.232** 0.05).391*** 0.001) 287 .179* 0.069 0.076 0.065 −0.003 0.179* 0.026 −0.067 −0.003 0.052 0.679*** −0.152* 0.232** 0.661*** 0.064 −0.134 0.235** 0.053 −0.311*** −0.409*** 0.061 0.116 −0.184* 0.162* −0.087 −0.272*** 0.400*** 0.398*** 1.021 0.145 0.045 −0.091 −0.091 0. NH3 N NO3− BOD À PO3 4 À SO2 4 Environ Monit Assess (2007) 131:279–292 Temp.665*** 0.077 0.141 0.092 0.344*** 0.016 1.096 0.072 −0.010 0.153* 0.517*** WQI Water Quality Index *Indicates a significant relationship (P <0.177* −0.216** −0.241** −0.066 0.063 −0.387*** 0.01) ***Indicates a significant relationship (P <0.000*** 0.355*** TSS −0.053 0.029 0.

A steady upward trend occurred from November 2004 (0.29 μS cm−1 and 17.001) and temperature (r=0.310 respectively.88± 31.49±0. Correlation analysis showed that turbidity has a positive relationship with total suspended solid (TSS) (r=0.53 μg l−1.83 μS cm−1.001) and the rainfall (r= −0.. 3. followed by station 6.400. The reactivation of the mining area located near station 11 and 12 (Melai) was probably the main contributing factor for such changes (Table II).89±6.001). P <0. P <0.91 to 7.6%). P <0. P <0. A significant upward trend of chlorophyll-a concentration was found from June to August 2004 (0.232. Chini Lake is a shallow lake with mean depth <2.5 pH The mean pH value in Chini Lake is 6.15 NTU. when the lake was flooded.76 mg l−1.01) and negative correlated with NH3–N (r= −0. pH was shown to be the most stable parameter which did not show drastic changes among sampling months (Table II).13 NTU and high concentration was recorded at all 15 sampling stations (60. These results indicated that the main contributing factors for dissolved oxygen (DO) in Chini Lake are photosynthesis activities (chlorophyll-a). 1989). which ranges from 14. with values ranging from 0.91 μg l−1).272.311 and 0.98 to 50. seasonal variable (wet or dry) and decomposition rate of organic matter (temperature and pH).52± 3.25 mg l−1. in May.19 μS cm−1 and 19.310 respectively. 7 and 8.7 mg l−1 in January.96 mg l−1 respectively.72 to 7. P < 0. 3.03 mg l−1 with values ranging from 9.03 to 5.13 to 34.23 NTU).2%) with a mean value of 5.001).66 μg l−1) to May 2005 (1.00 to 374.288 Environ Monit Assess (2007) 131:279–292 3.30 – 156.483.92 mg l−1 (25.321.6 to 32. 3. P <0. an upward trend was observed where the respective conductivity and TDS values increased from 22.271.6 Chlorophyll-a The mean chlorophyll-a concentration in Chini Lake is 2. P < 0. Station 5 shows the lowest DO among the stations especially during the flooded months. High monthly rainfall was also recorded in March and April compare to February (Table I) which could increase the leaching of organic content from the surrounding swamp into the lake water.e. the mean turbidity exceeded 30 NTU in October and December where Chini Lake was flooded by the Pahang River.90 μS cm−1 and 14. Since the chlorophyll-a concentration and total suspended solid (TSS) were low in the month of April. 6 and 15 showed low pH reading compared to other stations.3 Conductivity and total dissolved solid (TDS) The mean conductivity in Chini Lake is 24.5 mg l−1 respectively i.9%–98. to 31. Conductivity and TDS was positively correlated with ion such as sulphate (r=0.001).7 Turbidity Turbidity in Chini Lake has a mean value of 16.00 μg l−1. Station 5. The mean BOD in Chini Lake is 1. Lake Chini water ’s was found in reddish colour in April 2005 (visual observation) and this probably due to organic acid such as fulvic acid which has been reported could influenced the turbidity reading in water (Gippel.75 μg l−1) which marked the transition from raining season to dry season. The mean for TDS is 15. which ranges from 5.75 mg l−1 (78.79±0. 3. the mean turbidity measured in April 2005 was inexplicably increased to 109.52±0. there was probably other factors that contributed to the water turbidity that were not measured in this study.5 m. In 2005.335.001) and also with chlorophyll-a (r=0. chlorophyll-a concentration (r=0. P <0.344.19 μS cm−1. . BOD value is positively correlated with chemical oxygen demand (COD) (r=0.53 mg l−1.68±2.4 Dissolved oxygen (DO) The DO concentration in Chini Lake ranges from 1. P <0.15.001). However.001) and nutrient such as nitrate (r=0. P <0. In 2004. which ranges from 0.001). which ranges from 0. The highest conductivity and TDS in 2004 was recorded in October with the values of 27.8 Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) 3.42–21. so the influence of water depth is negligible.78 NTU (Nephelometric Turbidity Unit).311 and 0.38. This study showed that the DO in the lake water was correlated with pH (r=0.

the TSS in lake water was low (<10 mg l−1) excluding the flooded period.507 mg l−1 (ranges from 0.123 mg l−1.661.12 Nitrate The mean value for nitrate content in Chini Lake is 0.5 m and 0.355.597 mg l−1. The significant presence of sulphate in the lake (>1 mg l−1) was observed at station 9 during March 2005 to May 2005 (Tables I and II).84 mg l−1. This phenomenon was highly related to the reactives of iron-mining activities near the station. A comparison with Malaysian Interim Water Quality Standard (INWQS) shows that the mean water temperature was within the normal range.344.50 to 97. a well-distributed pattern of chemical compounds was observed in the lake.001) and total suspended solid (TSS) (r=0. High concentration of ammonia in October and December 2004 coincided with high TSS contents when the lake was flooded. Pahang River water which flow into the lake through the Chini River might be enriches with ammonia and this generates these changes in Chini Lake.88±2. COD in class II (range from class I– II).243 mg l−1.199.001). 3. P <0.72±6. COD was found to be correlated positively with temperature (r=0.016 mg l−1. as minimum variation of COD values was observed among the stations. 3.001) and chlorophyll-a (r=0. 4 Discussion According to The Malaysian Water Quality Index (DOE-WQI).25 to 29. which ranges from 0. Ammonia nitrogen has shown strong positive relationship with rainfall (r=0. Chlorophyll-a concentration was found slightly correlated with TSS (r=0. >2.41±3.166±0.. P <0.22 mg l−1.387.89 μg l−1) was in mesotrophic condition i. This is suitable for recreational activities where body contact is allowed (DOE. P <0.062±0.4 (class I) (Table III). There was no significant trend of nitrate concentration in Chini Lake. The abundant vegetations at the lake–land borders are believed to play an important role of filtering the soil particulates from entering the lake.10 Total suspended solid (TSS) The mean TSS in Chini Lake is 8. 2002).0 to 9. P <0. P <0.2±0.14 (class III) to 95.85 mg l−1.001). Chini Lake’s water is classified as class II with a mean of 87.409. Therefore.164±0.062±0.001) especially during flood period. nitrate. 3. The phosphate level in Chini Lake was consistent throughout the sampling period (Table I). In November 2004. 3. 3.98 mg l−1.14 Sulphate Sulphate was found in very low concentration in Chini Lake with the mean value of 0. which ranges from 6. Comparison with eutrophic status (UNECE. which ranges from 0. P =0.001) while it is negative correlated with temperature (r= −0. The mean of transparency (not reported in the results) and phosphate readings of 1. The COD values also experienced an upward trend in 2005 (Table I).11 Ammonia nitrogen The mean ammonia nitrogen content in Chini Lake is 0. P <0.679.00 to 0. DO in class II (range from class I–IV). turbidity in class II (range from class I–II).007). stations located far away from station 11 and 12 remain unaffected. TSS in class I (range from class I–II).5 μg l−1) to eutrophic (>8 μg l−1).9 Chemical oxygen demand (COD) The mean chemical oxygen demand (COD) in Chini Lake is 16.007 to 0. which ranges from 0.106 mg l−1. and ammonia-N in class II (range from class I–II).e.95 mg l−1. However.400.016 mg l−1 . P <0.679.00 to 1. pH in class II (range from class I–III). which ranges from 65. for conductivity.0 mg l−1). It was strongly correlated with ammonia nitrogen (r= 0.001).Environ Monit Assess (2007) 131:279–292 289 3. BOD (r=0.5 μ g l − 1 which ranges from oligotrophic (<2.34. No phosphate and chlorophyll-a standards were given in INWQS.001) and dissolved oxygen (DO) (r= −0. This is probably due to the flood which started in October 2004. sulphate and TDS in class I.499±0. P < 0. BOD in class II (range from class I–II). 1994) for the chlorophyll-a concentration indicated that the mean chlorophyll-a concentration in the lake (2.13 Phosphate The mean content of phosphate in Chini Lake is 0. with values ranging from 0.

These stations are near to the settlement of the indigenous people at Gumum area (Figure 1). Improper sanitation system in local villages.105 mg l−1. Correlation analysis shows significant relationship between rainfall and ammonia-N (r= 0. The acidity of natural lake ecosystems are found to ranged from 4.. P <0.5– .01–0. Conductivity readings were also high at these stations.36–4. thus increase the BOD values. Station 5 and 6 recorded the lowest WQI among the stations especially in the month of September to November 2004 (class III) i. Similar condition was observed in Lake Bera during the great floods in wet season (Ikusima et al. located about 50 km from Lake Chini) which showed that the range of temperature was 23. 6. phosphate concentration that exceeded 0.357 mg l−1) especially at station 1.00–0.00–0.04 mg l−1. According to EPA (1976).4 (class I to II). 1983). normal or wet season) and the location of the sampling stations.97 μg l−1 in September 2004 as an increased in precipitation in that month (Table I).04–3. 14 and 15 have the highest score of the WQI. Phosphate concentrations were also found higher than the mean which is >0.29 mg l−1 for BOD and 9.387.59 mg l−1.. sulphate. 10. High precipitation may lead to high flushing rates and reduce the availability of solar energy due to the extent of cloud cover (Le Gren & Lowe-McConnell. Some effluents from the mining area were believed has been discharge into the lake and also through seepage.14 to 95. Intensive heat from the sun and stagnant water movement due to lack of rain are believed to be the main factor of the algae bloom in August 2004.7–31..767 mg l−1 (Ikusima. 2 and 3 are more affected by the organic substance and some nutrient especially phosphate. Pahang (largest natural lake in Peninsular Malaysia. P <0. 5. These stations were also recorded lowest DO compare to other stations in the lake due to the flooded water. The primary source of sulphate can come from the precipitation of sulfur compounds that originated by combustion of fuel and also from the mining area (Wetzel. 1. P <0. station 5 and 15 show significant different (ANOVA P <0. 1983). increase in chlorophyll-a concentration was found in most of the stations. Golterman.95 mg l−1 for COD. phosphate.83. conductivity. which ranges from 85. In dry season. 0. 1.001). The chlorophyll-a concentration dropped dramatically to 0. 1980). Ikusima et al. In term of water quality index (WQI). in the raining season where the contribution of the TSS and ammonia-N were high from the reverse flow of the flood water of Pahang River. Sulphate readings were also found high at station 11 and 12 and also to some extent at station 10. reverse flow of flooded water of Pahang River can contribute to high suspended solid (TSS and turbidity) and ammonia-N to the Chini Lake and the effect to the sampling stations will depend on the level of the flood in the lake. the water quality in Chini Lake varies with season (dry.3 to 5. 1975) and is the only directly utilizable form of soluble inorganic phosphorus (Wetzel.0 μS/cm. This phenomenon was highly related to the reactivation of iron-mining activities near station 11.001) and between ammonia-N and TSS (r= 0. Water quality in Chini Lake also varies with location of the station in the lake. water hardness. High turbidity of the lake water during flooded period can also cause unfavourable conditions for the growth of phytoplankton.290 Environ Monit Assess (2007) 131:279–292 respectively were also indicated mesotrophic condition of the lake. 0. This results are comparable with the study conducted in Lake Bera. Bennion et al. Detergent polyphosphates produces orthophosphate by hydrolysis in natural water (Allen & Kramer.88 mg l−1 CaCO3.9 to 24. decrease in amount of submerged macrophytes and density of attached algae and lower radiation levels (Dokulil. 1982). If the flood is low. 1982). The main source of orthophosphate into Chini Lake was the daily activities of the local community in the lake such as human excretion and the use of detergents. 0. (2005) found that lakes with a retention time >3 days were consider to be sensitive to nutrient enrichment. only sampling stations near the Chini River will be affected such as station 4. station 13.2°C.00 mg l−1. Tukey– Kramer. dissolved oxygen.001). Station 1.679.96– 5.e. Correlation analysis shows that chlorophyll-a concentration formed a significant negative correlation with the rainfall (r= −0. 1972. Phosphate reading was also high (up to 0.05) from other stations. a resort and a National Service Centre camp which could contribute the organic loading. P <0. During wet season. 0. BOD reading and to some extent the COD were high at these stations as compared to other stations in Chini Lake with reading ranges from 0. pH 4. In term of pH value. 8 and 9 (Figure 1). resort and camp might brought extra biological loadings into the lake. Lim.5–23.001. 1993.45–6. & Furtado. 1982).29 mg l−1 and ammonia-N.448.025 mg l−1 may stimulate excessive growth of algae and other aquatic plants which can be a nuisance. nitrate. In general.

The use of GIS base inventory to provide a national assessment of standing waters at risk from eutrophication in Great Britain. High concentration of TSS. Sahibin Abd. Water quality in Chini Lake varies with season and the location of the sampling stations. Because of the barrage built at the end of Chini River. High precipitation during wet season can generate changes to the lake water quality through reverse flow of flood water from Pahang and Chini River.. Mohammad (Eds. M. R. L. water quality in Chini Lake is classified as class II. In M. & Ang. 20–29). M. D. Barzani Gasim. (2005). Putrajaya. Ministry of Science. Degradation of holistic value of the Chini Lake watershed due to erosional process. Fozzard. L. Water quality of Chini Lake from the bacteria aspect. Ainon. M. & A. The rapid expanding of agriculture land used was a major threat to the lake water quality as some plantation areas (oil palm) are close to the edge of the lake water body. Lake resource management should be given a serious consideration as it is a natural lake and plays an important role in the maintaining of a stable ecosystem. M. Collier.. & Schmidt. Annual Conference of Senior Manager of Department of Irrigation and Drainage Malaysia 2001. Mohammad (Eds. J. Diversity and distribution of benthic macroinvertebrate in Chini Lake. Overall.. which is a sensitive ecosystem and responded to the changes. Ratuah.. In M. 465–480. J. Washington. Ontario. Natural resources of Chini Lake (pp. H. Technology and Environment. The use of turbidimeters in suspended sediment research. Kuala Lumpur. 1126. References Abas. Idris.. K. Hydrobiologia.Environ Monit Assess (2007) 131:279–292 291 Acknowledgment This study has been funded by Malaysian Government under IRPA 09-02-02-0114-EA276. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Physiological limnology. WQI also varies with location of the station in the lake. 259–273. TDS. I. Science of the Total Environment. (2005). . A.). H. (1972).. Loveland. Malaysia: Department of Irrigation and Drainage. M. Austria. K. Idris. Othman.). EPA (1976). DC: American Public Health Association (APHA). 1992). The handbook of DR/2500 laboratory spectrophotometer.. H. Hilton. S. UKM. HACH (2003).. In order to protect and preserve Chini Lake as a national heritage. & A. & Kramer. Nutrients in natural waters. 14 and 15 have the highest score of the WQI (class I to II). (1975). turbidity and ammonia-N were found in raining season and stations closed to the Chini River are the most affected (Tanjung Jerangking area). 6. These stations were also have low DO. L. Bennion.. The revival of abandoned mines had contributed to increase conductivity and sulphate concentration in the water. Long-term nutrient loading and biological response in a flood-water reservoir (NEUE DONAU) in Vienna.. H. DC: U. APHA (1992). Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater (18th ed. April). London: Chapman and Hall. (2005. long term strategies need to be formulated. Malaysia: Department of Environment. K.. Quality criteria for water. J. M. the flow back of the water to Pahang River is slow and most of the sediments are trapped in the lake and Chini River. (2001). Bangi.). B. T. Washington. Hughes. & Affendi. (1993). J.. N. CO: HACH Company.. conductivity. K. R. Webb. In dry season. et al. Paper presented at the Chini Lake Expedition 2004. Bangi: Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Press. Environmental Protection Agency. & Gasim. Hussin. Malaysia. I. Idris. Allen. 344. E. M. Clark. Gippel.. (1992). 176/177. Dokulil. L. Dams and river: Primer on the downstream effects of dams. Chapman. Natural resources of Chini Lake (pp. 28. Low pH values are found in natural waters rich in organic matter (Wetzel. 5 Conclusions Chini Lake is a shallow and small natural lake. M. Malaysia.5 (Chapman. Chong. Station 13. & Abas. This includes development of monitoring and assessment strategies to safeguard the healthy environment of the lake for the future generations. J.. Canada: John Wiley & Sons. M. Paper presented at the Second Regional Symposium on Environment and Natural Resources. 46–57). (2005). Mimi. T. Stations located in Gumum area were also polluted by organic substance and nutrient. (2006). 1983) and this can be seen especially at station 15 where there are abundant decaying aquatic weeds (Cabomba furcata) which can result in low pH values as decomposition activities occurred. C. Golterman.S. R. Hornby. (1989). Hussin.. Shuhiami Othman. D. US Geological Survey Circular. episodes from its surroundings. A. Malaysia environmental quality report 2001. Water Science Technology.. while station 5 and 6 showed the lowest WQI (class III).. 55–63. Trends of physical–chemical water quality in Chini Lake. M. Water quality assessment: a guide to the use of biota. low volume and stagnant water could created eutrophic condition in the lake. (1996). Bangi: Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Press. H. C. Pahang. DOE (Department of Environment Malaysia) (2002). sediments and water in environmental monitoring.

. 15–26. & Shuhaimi-Othman. S. Standard statistical classification of surface freshwater quality for the maintenance of aquatic life. I.292 Ikusima. Tan. & Shaharudin. T. & Lowe-McConnell. C. Tasek Bera: The ecology of a freshwater swamp (pp. Mushrifah. C. I. (2005.. Effect of flood on water quality in Chini Lake. UKM. Pahang. Malaysia. Technology and Innovation. M. Water quality criteria and standard development and river classification in Malaysia. & Abdul Halim. P. I. R. Philadelphia: Saunders College Publishing. Water quality and heavy metals in Chini Lake. 27–36. Bangi. Furtado. I..). E. E. Paper presented in the Fifth Graduate Colloquium. Ensearch Malaysia. G. Paper presented at the Fifth Graduate Colloquium. Environ Monit Assess (2007) 131:279–292 Pahang. Annual Reports of Malaysian Meteorological Department. & S. Mori (Eds. S. Pahang. 55–148). C. S. Bangi. Tong. (1982). L... Environmental conditions. (1997). R. C. G. 10. H. New York: John Wiley and Sons.. (1984).. S. Petts.. Water quality studies for the classification of Sungai Bernam and Sungai Selangor. Paper presented at the Seminar of IRPA RMK8 (EAR). Malaysia. (2005). The Hague: Junk Publishers. Lim. Tong. The functioning of freshwater ecosystem. I.. Impounded river: Perspectives for ecological management. (1983). 10. Bangi. Wang. Lim. Wetzel. Assessment of hydrology and water quality in river basin between two seasons in Chini Lake. Ensearch Malaysia. May). L. D. The ecological assessment of Chini Lake. R. & Goh. MMS (Malaysian Meteorological Service) (2005). M. (1980). Lim. H. M. In Reading in international environment statistics. E... Malaysia. Pahang. C. M. Norhayati. Le Gren. J. S. UKM. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Faculty of Science and Technology. UKM. & Furtado. Ministry of Science. New York: United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. & Barzani Gasim. Goh. (2005). Malaysia. In J. Wetland International (1998). UNECE (1994). Wetland International–Asia Pacific–Malaysia Programme. E. Limnology. (1997). Shuhaimi-Othman. Peninsular Malaysia: An evaluation of its conservation value and environmental improvement requirement. W. . H. Faculty of Science and Technology.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful