Environment International 52 (2013) 17–28

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Environment International
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envint

Water quality analysis in rivers with non-parametric probability distributions and

fuzzy inference systems: Application to the Cauca River, Colombia
William Ocampo-Duque a,⁎, Carolina Osorio a, Christian Piamba a, Marta Schuhmacher b, José L. Domingo c
a
Faculty of Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Cll. 18 #118-250, Cali, Colombia
b
Department of Chemical Engineering, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Av. Países Catalans 26, 43007 Tarragona, Spain
c
Laboratory of Toxicology and Environmental Health, School of Medicine, IISPV, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Sant Llorens 21, 43201 Reus, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The integration of water quality monitoring variables is essential in environmental decision making. Nowadays,
Received 20 April 2012 advanced techniques to manage subjectivity, imprecision, uncertainty, vagueness, and variability are required in
Accepted 16 November 2012 such complex evaluation process. We here propose a probabilistic fuzzy hybrid model to assess river water
Available online 23 December 2012
quality. Fuzzy logic reasoning has been used to compute a water quality integrative index. By applying a
Monte Carlo technique, based on non-parametric probability distributions, the randomness of model inputs
Keywords:
Water quality
was estimated. Annual histograms of nine water quality variables were built with monitoring data systematically
Non-parametric density estimators collected in the Colombian Cauca River, and probability density estimations using the kernel smoothing method
Uncertainty were applied to fit data. Several years were assessed, and river sectors upstream and downstream the city of
Fuzzy inference systems Santiago de Cali, a big city with basic wastewater treatment and high industrial activity, were analyzed. The
Monte Carlo simulation probabilistic fuzzy water quality index was able to explain the reduction in water quality, as the river receives
Cauca River (Colombia) a larger number of agriculture, domestic, and industrial effluents. The results of the hybrid model were compared
to traditional water quality indexes. The main advantage of the proposed method is that it considers flexible
boundaries between the linguistic qualifiers used to define the water status, being the belongingness of water
quality to the diverse output fuzzy sets or classes provided with percentiles and histograms, which allows
classify better the real water condition. The results of this study show that fuzzy inference systems integrated
to stochastic non-parametric techniques may be used as complementary tools in water quality indexing
methodologies.
© 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Despite the huge numeric datasets collected nowadays, it is well
known that the assessment of water quality still relies heavily upon
subjective judgments and interpretation. Linguistic computations should
be considered together with numerical scoring systems to give appropri-
ate water quality classifications (Ocampo-Duque et al., 2006). There is no
doubt that the introduction of intelligent linguistic operations to analyze
databases is producing self-interpretable water quality indicators for a
better assessment. Moreover, to simplify and improve the understanding
and the interpretation of water quality, methodologies for integration, ag-
gregation, and fusion of data must be developed (Sadiq and Tesfamariam,
2007). Data aggregation is not simply a problem of calculations; rather it
is a problem of judgment. Therefore, it deals not only with uncertainty
or variability related to random phenomena, but also with the subjective
uncertainty related to linguistic, subjective, vague and imprecise concepts
faced in decision-making processes. Consequently, Fuzzy Logic and
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +57 2 321 8200.
E-mail address: willocam@javerianacali.edu.co (W. Ocampo-Duque).
Monte Carlo based methods are highly recommended in water quality
management since they are appropriate tools to deal with all diverse
types of uncertainties (Chowdhury et al., 2009; Darbra et al., 2008).
Fuzzy inference systems (FIS) have recently attracted the atten-
tion of environmental scientists as suitable platforms to evaluate
multiple criteria related to water quality, and other environmental
conditions (Marchini et al., 2009). A common application of FIS has
been the integration of water quality variables to design suitable integra-
tive systems, which are successfully compared to traditional indexing
techniques. Water quality is a vague term that cannot be easily de-
scribed using crisp data or limited indicators. Instead, water quality
should be considered as a fuzzy term appropriately estimated with
linguistic computations (Mahapatra et al., 2011). The amount of linguis-
tic “if-then” rules, as well as the number of indicators considered, seems
to be definitive for a robust and reliable evaluation (Lermontov et al.,
2009). In a previous study, we developed a structured fuzzy hierarchy
to interconnect various partial inference engines intended to define
water quality (Ocampo-Duque et al., 2006). Here, the FIS contained an
analytical hierarchy process to deal with the relative weight of the
variables involved in the evaluation process. Adaptive and cooperative
neuro-FIS models have also been implemented to provide water

0160-4120/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2012.11.007
18 W. Ocampo-Duque et al. / Environment International 52 (2013) 17–28
quality management solutions (Ocampo-Duque et al., 2007, 2012).
An integrated risk assessment methodology, based on the weight of
evidence approach, which implemented a FIS in order to hierarchically
aggregate a set of biological indicators following the precepts of the
Water Framework Directive, was recently described (Gottardo et al.,
2011). Also, Bayesian networks and probabilistic neural networks
have been recently used to train a water quality index supported in FIS
(Nikoo et al., 2011).
Probabilistic approaches are commonly applied in environmental
analysis and modeling to control uncertainty propagation. Parameter
uncertainty is a major aspect of the model-based estimation of the
risk of human exposure to pollutants. The Monte Carlo method is exten-
sively applied despite it relies heavily on a statistical representation of
available information. The probability distributions of each variable are
defined according to the Bayesian theory (Ramaswami et al., 2005). For
instance, in human health risk assessment some variables are usually
managed as probability density functions (PDF) (Legay et al., 2011;
Mari et al., 2009). Probabilistic Monte Carlo computations are powerful
tools for water quality modeling (Cardona et al., 2011; Misha 2011).
However, their use in water quality indexing systems is scarce. A new
probabilistic water quality index intended for use in the production of
drinking water is described by Beamonte-Cordoba et al. (2010). In this
approach, each water quality variable is considered random with normal
distribution. Likewise, classical water quality indexes available worldwide
could be computed with Monte Carlo methods, assuming probability
distributions, or estimating them from monitoring data to provide a
most comprehensive evaluation.
Recently, fuzzy-probabilistic methods have emerged to deal with
complex problems related to water management (Chen et al., 2010;
Zhang K. et al., 2009; Zhang X. et al., 2009). Hybrid methods allow address
model parameter uncertainty in situations where available information
is not sufficient to identify statistically representative distributions.
Therefore, they assign fuzzy numbers when the amount of data is short,
or when the information about the confidence intervals of variables and
parameters is unknown (Baudrit et al., 2007; Kentel and Aral, 2005).
For example, Faybishenko (2010) showed a recent application of combin-
ing probability and possibility theory for simulating a soil water balance.
Moreover, fuzzy-stochastic hybrid methods are currently used to solve
optimization and management issues associated to water pollution
(Guo et al., 2010; Rehana and Mujumdar, 2009; Zhang K. et al., 2009;
Zhang X. et al., 2009). In order to preserve the origin of uncertainties,
some methods partitioning the total variance in risk analysis have
been developed (Kumar et al., 2009). Likewise, current methodologies
are handling both random uncertainty and epistemic uncertainty, be-
cause they can combine the fuzzy set theory and Monte Carlo simula-
tions (Li and Zhang, 2010; Li et al., 2007).
The method proposed in the present study is somehow inspired in the
formal concept of fuzzy randomness, which was first introduced to struc-
tural analysis in civil engineering (Möller and Beer, 2004; Möller et al.,
2002). The idea behind such concept is that stochastic as well as
non-stochastic uncertainty is treated on the basis of the super-ordinated
uncertainty model fuzzy randomness. This new uncertainty model con-
tains the special cases of real valued random variables and fuzzy variables,
and permits to take into account both uncertainty characteristics, simulta-
neously. Hybrid stochastic fuzzy model was also applied for in-flight gas
turbine engine diagnostics, where the random fluctuations of perfor-
mance parameters were modeled with PDF while the complex functional
relationships were dealt with Neural Networks with FIS structure, com-
monly called ANFIS (Ghiocel and Altmann, 2001). In the present study,
the objective was to model variables with two layers of analysis for uncer-
tainty estimation, one inner layer of FIS using fuzzy membership func-
tions and rules, and one outer layer using Monte Carlo simulation.
Randomness in water quality input variables was dealt with probability
theory. Then, decision about the water quality status was made by inte-
gration of these variables with the help of a FIS. In that way, we introduce
a combined stochastic fuzzy model to assess water quality in rivers. The
purpose of this research was to manage both the random nature of
input variables and the linguistic subjectivity present in the water quality
indexing process. A case study, with information from a Colombian River,
was selected to explain the application of the proposed method and its
benefits. The results are here reported. Comparison with common index-
es is also discussed. Consequently, the simulation outputs involved both
kinds of uncertainty: fuzzy and probabilistic.
2. Methods
2.1. Case study: the Cauca River
The Cauca River is one of the most important water resources in
Colombia. It has a length of 1350 km, with a basin area of approximately
63300 km 2. It goes across the country from south to north through nine
departments and a number of cities and towns without appropriate
wastewater treatment plants (WWTP). In fact, there are municipalities
without any kind of treatment of their sewage. In the Department of
Valle del Cauca there is a notable deterioration of water quality in the
river, especially when it receives discharges from the City of Santiago
de Cali. In this zone, a number of big river releases from domestic, agri-
cultural, and industrial activities are present. The City of Santiago de
Cali, with more than two million inhabitants and several companies
located at Yumbo Industrial Park, is the main source of river pollution.
After crossing these areas, the organic loads are as high as to diminish
dissolved oxygen levels below 1 mg/L, compromising the ecosystems
living downstream and producing a clear reduction in its ecological
status. Although the environmental concerns about water pollution in
the river are commonly expressed by people and expert scientists, little
actions to recover the river to its original good ecological status, are
undertaken.
For the current assessment, a water quality monitoring database
including nineteen sampling sites was used. Data were provided by
the regional environmental protection agency, called the CVC Corpo-
ration (www.cvc.gov.co). Data from ten years, considering four sam-
pling campaigns per year, were used. Fig. 1 shows the sampling points
where the data were collected: SP1 (Antes Suarez), SP2 (Antes Ovejas),
SP3 (Antes Timba), SP4 (Paso de La Balsa), SP5 (Paso de La Bolsa), SP6
(Hormiguero), SP7 (Antes Navarro), SP8 (Juanchito), SP9 (Paso del
Comercio), SP10 (Yumbo — Puerto Isaacs), SP11 (Paso de la Torre),
SP12 (Vijes), SP13 (Yotoco), SP14 (Mediacanoa), SP15 (Puente Río frío),
SP16 (Puente Guayabal), SP17 (Puente la Victoria), SP18 (Puente
Anacaro), SP19 (Puente La Virginia) (CVC Corporation, 2004).
2.2. Water quality analysis and traditional indexes
According to the objectives of this study, the Cauca River was
divided into three river sections: Section I (SP1 to SP6), Section II (SP7
to SP14), and Section III (SP15 to SP19). Thereby, the division includes
a relative less impacted area, an area highly impacted because of the
discharges from the city of Santiago de Cali and its industrial parks,
and an area where these impacts should be reduced due to natural
attenuation. Table 1 displays the main statistics of water quality variables
used in this study. These were: dissolved oxygen (DO), fecal coliforms
(FC), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), temperature (T), phosphates
(PO4), nitrates (NO3), turbidity (TUR), total solids (TS), and hydrogen
potential (pH). Three years are displayed equally time spaced. Sampling
campaigns included monitoring data in field (pH, DO, T), and laboratory
measurements of composite samples. The sampling campaigns were
carried out during the same day in all sites. The 19 sites are monitored
in 4 periods: February–March, May–June, July–August, and October–
November, seeking stable hydrological conditions which are complex in
tropical regions.
Traditional water quality indexes are designed to integrate water
quality variables or indicators to provide a class or score about phys-
icochemical and biological water quality status. It is intended that
 W. Ocampo-Duque et al. / Environment International 52 (2013) 17–28 19

RISARALDA

SP19

SP18

CHOCO
SP17 QUINDIO

SP16

SP15

SP14
SP13
CAUCA RIVER

SP12

SP11

SP10 COLOMBIA
SP9
SP8
VALLE DEL CAUCA SP7

SP6

SP5

SP3
SP4
SP2 Meters
0 16.000 32.000 64.000
SP1

Fig. 1. Map of the studied area: the Cauca River in the Valle Department (Colombia).

they are useful in environmental decision making. A commonly
referred water quality index was developed by the National Sanita-
tion Foundation of United States (NSF_WQI) (Brown et al., 1970). It
was defined for any use of water by simply determining the specifi-
cations required by that use. This index included various physical,
chemical and biological characteristics. For each variable, the index in-
cluded a quality-value function that expressed the equivalence between
the variable and its quality level. The strongly subjective character of the
equivalence functions is a problem with that index (Beamonte-Cordoba
et al., 2010). The NSF_WQI is computed with Eq. (1),
NSF WQI ¼ ∑i¼1 wi Q i
N
ð1Þ
where wi is the weight of the variable, usually defined by experts, N is
the number of variables, and Qi is the quality value function of the
variable i. At local level, in the Cauca river basin, the CVC Corporation
also uses the ICAUCA index to evaluate the water status (Torres et al.,
2010). This index is computed according to Eq. (2),
N wi
ICAICA ¼ ∏i¼1 Ii ð2Þ
where Ii is a special function defined for the variable i to transform the
real value to a normalized quality number. The functions to calculate
both indexes may be consulted in (CVC Corporation, 2004).
2.3. Fuzzy inference systems
It has been recently shown that linguistic computations used in
fuzzy inference systems (FIS) are superior to algebraic common ex-
pressions for water quality indexing evaluation (Lermontov et al.,
 20
Table 1
Basic statistics of water quality variables involved in the study.

Indicator, abbr., units Year Section I Section II Section III

X
s N Min Max X
s N Min Max X
s N Min Max

W. Ocampo-Duque et al. / Environment International 52 (2013) 17–28

Dissolved oxygen, DO, % Sat. 2002 76.09 20.71 24 17.11 83.26 27.90 25.45 32 2.76 77.34 34.64 8.84 20 20.50 55.98
2006 73.08 14.87 24 37.99 94.42 47.95 26.16 32 7.47 85.32 32.00 7.51 20 18.20 45.90
2010 72.16 18.65 24 22.65 94.68 35.70 23.96 32 7.02 75.30 37.22 15.68 20 8.81 69.32
Fecal coliforms, FC, CFU/100 mL 2002 1.51E + 05 5.13E + 05 24 0.00E + 00 2.40E + 06 5.97E + 07 1.01E + 08 32 2.40E + 04 2.40E + 08 1.82E + 05 5.30E + 05 20 2.40E + 03 2.40E + 06
2006 1.12E + 04 2.52E + 04 24 2.30E + 01 1.10E + 05 2.72E + 05 4.96E + 05 32 7.50E + 03 2.40E + 06 1.79E + 04 2.98E + 04 20 2.40E + 02 1.10E + 05
2010 1.05E + 05 2.61E + 05 24 7.30E + 02 9.30E + 05 5.35E + 06 1.62E + 07 32 9.10E + 04 9.30E + 07 3.15E + 05 7.16E + 05 20 2.30E + 03 2.40E + 06
Biochemical oxygen demand, BOD5, mg/L 2002 1.55 1.12 24 0.30 5.30 5.28 2.92 32 1.30 13.80 2.79 0.83 20 1.20 4.30
2006 1.87 0.76 24 1.09 4.02 3.96 1.51 32 1.75 7.52 3.44 1.08 20 2.05 5.77
2010 8.51 3.31 24 5.33 16.00 19.68 6.99 32 9.82 36.90 20.66 24.20 20 6.73 121.00
Temperature, T, °C 2002 20.4 2.8 24 15.0 24.2 23.8 2.0 32 20.0 27.0 25.2 0.9 20 22.8 26.7
2006 21.3 1.9 24 18.0 28.8 21.1 1.2 32 18.0 23.0 24.0 1.4 20 21.5 26.3
2010 22.4 0.8 24 20.9 24.3 24.4 1.3 32 22.2 27.1 25.3 1.5 20 22.6 27.5
Phosphates, PO4, mg/L 2002 0.062 0.008 24 0.060 0.099 0.076 0.039 32 0.060 0.216 0.065 0.015 20 0.060 0.123
2006 0.034 0.010 24 0.021 0.050 0.099 0.047 32 0.031 0.241 0.083 0.026 20 0.053 0.142
2010 0.069 0.016 24 0.064 0.125 0.089 0.025 32 0.064 0.157 0.084 0.045 20 0.064 0.271
Nitrates, NO3, mg/L 2002 0.30 0.20 24 0.11 1.05 0.26 0.25 32 0.04 1.53 0.43 0.20 20 0.07 0.78
2006 0.42 0.02 24 0.40 0.44 0.57 0.10 32 0.45 0.69 0.57 0.38 20 0.40 2.01
2010 0.84 0.89 24 0.11 2.57 0.98 1.10 32 0.11 3.29 1.39 1.40 20 0.11 4.28
Turbidity, TUR, NTU 2002 30.8 20.0 24 3.0 75.0 67.3 53.4 32 30.0 300.0 61.2 34.5 20 29.0 185.0
2006 110.8 117.5 24 9.0 349.0 143.1 125.4 32 18.0 404.0 201.3 231.6 20 21.0 892.0
2010 79.1 95.1 24 2.0 344.0 131.1 135.6 32 17.0 670.0 107.4 75.4 20 23.0 265.0
Total solids, TS, mg/L 2002 131.33 63.25 24 68.00 310.00 172.94 51.33 32 68.00 302.00 203.55 80.53 20 136.00 406.00
2006 181.25 108.37 24 59.00 396.00 270.09 134.88 32 129.00 811.00 338.35 156.07 20 191.00 901.00
2010 163.29 145.42 24 58.00 721.00 233.25 121.32 32 116.00 621.00 256.71 139.37 20 0.08 551.00
Hydrogen potential, pH, (−) 2002 6.93 0.47 24 5.76 7.98 6.98 0.19 32 6.58 7.27 6.90 0.31 20 6.22 7.48
2006 6.88 0.69 24 5.30 7.62 6.82 0.32 32 5.65 7.39 7.04 0.36 20 6.40 7.54
2010 7.15 0.30 24 6.45 7.65 7.05 0.19 32 6.68 7.32 7.36 0.33 20 6.72 7.90

Note: X
is the median, s is the standard deviation, N is the number of data, Min is the minimum, Max is the maximum. Abr. is the abbreviation of the water quality variable.
 W. Ocampo-Duque et al. / Environment International 52 (2013) 17–28 21

2009; Ocampo-Duque et al., 2006). Water quality assessment is a functions were used in extreme and excellent fuzzy sets, having the
subjective task that must be carried out with tools able to manage following equations to represent them:
such subjectivity and imprecision. Here, linguistic operations in a
8 9
FIS frame are proposed to compute water quality by integrating pa- >
>
>
0; 2 x≤d >
>
rameters within an inference engine. Thus, a methodology to design >
>
> x−d d þ e>
>
>
>
< 2 ; d≤x≤ =
a water quality index is proposed. It could be adapted to diverse pur- e−d 2
μ ðx; a; bÞ ¼
2 ð5Þ
poses with different number of inputs. In this sense, a FIS is a map- >
> x−d dþe >
>
>
> 1−2 ; ≤x≤e >>
>
>
ping process from given water quality inputs to desired water >
: e−d 2 >
;
quality index. The FIS involves three important parts: membership 1; x≥e
functions, fuzzy set operations, and inference rules. The Fuzzy
Logic toolbox of MATLAB (R2010) was used to build and compute where d, and e are the parameters shown in Table 2. These parameters
the FIS. locate the extremes of the sloped portion of the curve.
A FIS was parameterized to assess water quality considering nine The design and selection of membership functions from intervals of
input indicators (Table 1), using the same indicators that those included the input variables is a very subjective task. The main questions arise
in the well-known NSF_WQI and the ICAUCA. The FIS output is a fuzzy from the number of fuzzy sets used to divide the ranges of the variables,
water quality (FWQ) index. Table 2 summarizes the parameters of the and the own shape of these sets. A division in five fuzzy sets seems
membership functions. Five fuzzy sets were defined for input variables: appropriate. However, the number of rules may considerably increase,
“Very low”, “low”, “medium”, “high”, and “extreme”. In turn, the output especially if rules with more than one antecedent are desired. In contin-
water quality was defined according to five fuzzy sets (qualifiers): uous variables the number of fuzzy sets to represent any range could be
“poor”, “bad”, “regular”, “good”, and “excellent”. Gaussian functions selected from three to seven, being five a reasonable number. The shape
were used at low, medium, high, bad, regular and good fuzzy sets, having of the functions selected above was considered because of the low num-
the following expressions: ber of parameters required. Notwithstanding, other functions could be

 also used, perhaps requiring more than two parameters. The Colombian
−ðx−cÞ Decree 1594/1984 and Resolution 2115/2007, the Spanish Decree 927/
μ ðx; s; cÞ ¼ exp 2
ð3Þ
2s 1988, the boundaries taken in the Lermontov fuzzy water quality index
(Lermontov et al., 2009) and the limits set by our previous study
where s and c are the parameters shown in Table 2, x is the value of the (Ocampo-Duque et al., 2006) were used to define the ranges from
input, and μ is the belongingness (or membership) of the input to the very low to extreme that water quality variables could take. Then, the
respective fuzzy set, which is a number between 0 and 1, meaning none division in five qualifiers was given trying to equally divide the universe
and total membership, respectively. The parameter c represents the of discourse with appropriate fuzzy intersection between sets.
center of the function in the abscissa where the membership value is 1, The inference engine is where the linguistic computations are exe-
and the parameter s defines the width of the function. It is important to cuted. It was created considering two kinds of rules: rules with only
point out that in fuzzy logic reasoning an x value may belong to more one antecedent, and rules with two antecedents or water quality vari-
than one fuzzy set. Z-shape functions were used in very low and poor ables. Forty five (45) rules were written with one antecedent and one
fuzzy sets, having the following equations to represent them: consequent (9 water quality variables per 5 fuzzy sets or options,
8 9 from very low to extreme). Nine hundred (900) rules were written
>
> 1; x≤a >
>
>
> x−a2 a þ b >
> with two antecedents and one consequent. All the likely combinations
>
> ; a≤x≤ >
>
< 1−2 = without repetitions were considered ((81 − 9)/2 = 36 pair combina-

b−a2 2
μ ðx; a; bÞ ¼ x−b a þ b ð4Þ tions and 25 options). In each rule, the most conservative output was
>
> >
> 2
> ; ≤x≤b >>
> considered, and the importance of the rule was defined according to
>
> b−a 2 >
>
: ;
0; x≥b the importance of the variables involved. Rules with DO, pH, BOD5
and FC received a weight of 1.0. Rules with NO3, PO4 and T, received a
where a and b are the parameters displayed in Table 2. These parameters weight of 0.75. Finally, rules with TUR and TS received a weight of 0.5.
locate the extremes of the sloped portion of the curve. Finally, S-shape More complex rules with three or more antecedents could be created,

Table 2
Parameters of the fuzzy inference system.

Indicator* Units Membership function parameters

“Very Low” “Low” “Medium” “High” “Extreme”

a b s c s c s c d e

Z-shape Gaussian Gaussian Gaussian S-shape

DO % Sat. 0.0 27.8 15.0 31.3 15.0 58.2 15.0 84.1 70.0 110.0
FC CFU/100 mL 58.9 272.0 143.3 337.5 143.3 675.0 143.3 1013.0 1078.0 1284.0
BOD5 mg/L 0.0 2.2 1.2 1.5 1.2 3.5 1.2 5.2 5.0 6.9
°
T C 15.1 19.9 2.6 18.9 2.6 23.0 2.6 27.2 25.1 30.0
PO4 mg/L 0.0 0.15 0.07 0.14 0.07 0.25 0.07 0.4 0.3 0.5
NO3 mg/L 0.0 3.8 1.6 3.2 1.6 6.1 1.6 9.5 7.2 12.0
TUR NTU 3.0 30.7 15.0 33.5 15.0 70.7 15.0 107.4 88.7 136.8
TS mg/L 25.6 230.4 80.0 150.6 80.0 300.0 80.0 450.0 395.0 642.0
pH – 5.0 6.5 0.5 6.4 0.5 7.5 0.5 8.5 8.0 9.5
FWQ – “Poor” “Bad” “Regular” “Good” “Excellent”
a b s c s c s c d e
Z-shape Gaussian Gaussian Gaussian S-shape
0.0 38.9 10.5 35.5 11.6 60.0 9.4 81.4 68.2 100.0

*DO: dissolved oxygen, FC: fecal coliforms, BOD5: biochemical oxygen demand, T: temperature, PO4: phosphates, NO3: nitrates, TUR: turbidity, TS: total solids, FWQ: Fuzzy water
quality index. a, b, s, c, d, and e, are the parameters to build the membership functions according to Eqs. (3)–(5).
22 W. Ocampo-Duque et al. / Environment International 52 (2013) 17–28

Fig. 2. Conceptual integration of non-parametric Monte Carlo modeling with a Fuzzy Inference System.

although the improvements are not significant. Rules and ranges were
tested with several environmental experts from the CVC Corporation
and Academia. Some examples of rules are shown:
If “fecal coliform” is very low then “water quality” is excellent,
If “dissolved oxygen” is high then “water quality” is good,
If “phosphate” is medium then “water quality” is regular,
If “nitrate” is high then “water quality” is bad,
If “BOD5” is very high then “water quality” is poor,
If “fecal coliform” is very low and “dissolved oxygen” is very high
then “water quality” is excellent.
Computations with words within the inference engine followed
standard fuzzy set operations. These are: union (OR), intersection
(AND) and additive complement (NOT). If two fuzzy sets A and B
are defined on the universe X, for a given element x belonging to X,
the following operations can be carried out:
Intersection; AND : μ A∩B ðxÞ ¼ minðμ A ðxÞ; μ B ðxÞÞ ð6Þ
Union; OR : μ A∪B ðxÞ ¼ maxðμ A ðxÞ; μ B ðxÞÞ ð7Þ
Additive complement; NOT : μ A ðxÞ ¼ 1−μ A ðxÞ: ð8Þ
Vector inputs are fuzzified to enter to the inference engine using the
membership functions. When there are two antecedents, fuzzy logic op-
erations are applied to give a degree of support for these rules. In rules
with one antecedent, their degree of support is the degree of member-
ship. The degree of support for the entire rule is used to shape the output
fuzzy set. The consequent of a fuzzy rule assigns an entire fuzzy set to the

Fig. 3. Propagation of uncertainty when a probabilistic variable is introduced to a fuzzy inference system.
 W. Ocampo-Duque et al. / Environment International 52 (2013) 17–28
output. This fuzzy set is represented by a membership function, which is
chosen to indicate the qualities of the consequent. If the antecedent is
only partially true (i.e., μ b 1), the output fuzzy set is truncated at this
value. This procedure is called the minimum implication method. Since
decisions are based on the testing of all the rules in the system, these
must be aggregated to make a final decision. Therefore, output fuzzy
sets of each rule are aggregated to a single output fuzzy set that may
have a complex geometry. The aggregation procedure used here was
the maximum method, which is the union of all truncated output
fuzzy sets (Mathworks, 2012). The final step was defuzzification to pro-
vide a numerical water quality score. A convenient way to give FIS out-
puts is also by means of the linguistic fuzzy sets with their respective
membership degrees. In the current study, the centroid method was
used for defuzzification. It delivers a numeric score to water quality, so
∫μ ðzÞ⋅zdz
FWQ ¼
∫μ ðzÞdz
where FWQ is a fuzzy water quality index which is a score between
0 a 100, and z is the independent variable of the output fuzzy set in
each rule. Fuzzy water quality indexes have recently been proposed
(Lermontov et al., 2009; Ocampo-Duque et al., 2006).
2.4. Monte Carlo simulation of FIS
When the fuzzy water quality index is stochastically computed with
Monte Carlo method, a stochastic fuzzy water quality index is obtained.
The stochastic model used in this study is described below. Obviously,
the building of a FIS for water quality analysis is extremely subjective.
The number of input variables should be considerably higher than
nine, since the number of physicochemical, microbiological, and biolog-
ical variables measured nowadays in rigorous water protection agencies
may be greater than hundreds. The creation of appropriate fuzzy rules is
an important issue for increasing the preciseness of the simulation. A
considerable number of fuzzy rules may make more accurate the deci-
sion from the inference engine. However, if the number of input vari-
ables increases, the number of rules would also increase exponentially
to thousands or millions, which would make extremely more complex
the model requiring powerful computation to deliver a single score
under stochastic conditions. Moreover, the number and form of the
rules, as well as the shape of the ranges of the membership functions,
are also subjective complex decisions, which could be designed for spe-
cific, regional and/or local requirements. Therefore, we here propose a
convenient method to build a FIS for water quality evaluation purposes
Fig. 4. Examples of optimized fitting of non-parametric versus parametric distributions of two input variables. (Data of 2009, Section II).
23
rather than a standard index for use anywhere. Because of the high ran-
dom uncertainty in water quality variables, due to experimental mea-
surement, human errors, and propagation of error due to the methods
used to measure the water quality variable, we propose treating the
FIS inputs as stochastic. The conceptual model is depicted in Fig. 2.
The algorithm for Monte Carlo simulation assumes each computa-
tion with the FIS as deterministic. A vector with water quality vari-
ables is randomly selected according to its probability distribution
over the domain. Then the corresponding water quality score to
that vector is computed with the FIS. The computation is carried out
a consistent number of times to cover the entire range of likely inputs,
and to build a well-defined histogram of the water quality scores.
Random numbers were generated with the inverse transform meth-
od. The quantity of random numbers was set at 10 000 in all cases.
Fig. 3 outlines the propagation of uncertainty when a probabilistic
variable is introduced to a FIS. A, and C, are fuzzy sets. Arrows point
ð9Þ out the information flow. Suppose a measured water quality variable
X, continuous, positive, and random, with probability density func-
tion, f(X) ~ PDF, as shown in Fig. 3, to be introduced to the fuzzy sys-
tem. Let X
, Q1, and Q3 be the median, the 25th and 75th percentiles
of the data, respectively. When X is introduced to the fuzzy system,
the probabilistic or random uncertainty is transformed into fuzzy
uncertainty. First, X
is fuzzified to take the membership value μA(X
).
μA( X
) is the degree of membership of X
to the set A. Then, μA( X
) is
transformed to μC(y) according to the rule:
If X is A then y is C: ð10Þ
Such transformation is computed according to the implication
method in fuzzy reasoning. In the case of the Figure, the reasoning
leads to the horizontal projection line from left to right, or μA( X
) =
μC(y), as shown in the Fig. 3. The shape and size of the output fuzzy
set is defined by the μC(y) value where the output set is truncated.
The area of the output fuzzy set is shown in dark gray. Observe that
ΔU is the uncertainty in the height of the output fuzzy set after
fuzzification of the random variable X when the interquartile range
(IQR) is computed. The area of the output fuzzy set in every rule is re-
quired in the centroid method to provide the final output single water
quality score. The centroid computes the center of area under the
curve resulting after aggregation of all fuzzy sets within the inference
engine. Therefore, the uncertainty in the area of the fuzzy set do affects
the water quality score. The Monte Carlo method allows computing the
final effect over the propagation of uncertainty when dealing with a
random input variable in a FIS to provide a final defuzzified water qual-
ity score, which also leaves the system with an empirical probability
24 W. Ocampo-Duque et al. / Environment International 52 (2013) 17–28

Fig. 5. Box-and-Whisker plots for assessed water quality with the stochastic fuzzy
water quality index (SFWQI) for different years and the three river sections. Reported
values are the medians.
density function. Thus, the shapes of the output fuzzy sets vary with
each run as a random input is chosen. Propagation of uncertainty is
somewhat expressed in this context as the transformation of probabilis-
tic uncertainty into fuzzy uncertainty through the every membership
function and rule evaluation. Such propagation is graphically represent-
ed as the uncertainty in the area of the output fuzzy set (ΔU) when the
random input takes a number between Q1 and Q3. To compute such un-
certainty, deterministic computations of the FWQ index are performed
depending on the probability of water quality inputs randomly chosen
within the statistic range of the water quality variables. Therefore, two
layers of uncertainty may clearly be identified. The fuzzy uncertainty
is self-contained in the FWQ number as long as probabilistic uncertainty
is observed through the output FWQ histogram.
2.5. Non-parametric kernel density estimator
The use of probability distributions to assess water quality, when the
integration of variables is required, may provide a better estimation,
since the outputs of the fuzzy water quality index will also have proba-
bility density rather than point estimation. Consequently, stochastic
fuzzy water quality indexes are estimated. Thus, the final classification
will be more realistic. The probability distribution of a continuous-
valued random variable X is conventionally described in terms of its prob-
ability density function (PDF), from which probabilities associated with X
can be determined using the relationship
b
P ðabXbbÞ ¼ ∫ f ðxÞdx: ð11Þ
a n
The parametric approach for estimating f(x) is to assume some para-
metric family of probability distributions, and then to estimate the
parameters of the assumed distribution from the data. This is the most
common way to apply the PDF in environmental uncertainty analysis,
with multiple tools available. The main disadvantage of the parametric
approach is the lack of flexibility. Each parametric family of distribu-
tions imposes restrictions on the shapes that f(x) may have. For exam-
ple, the density function of the normal distribution is symmetrical and
bell-shaped, and therefore, it is unsuitable for representing skewed
densities or bimodal densities, which may appear in real water quality
datasets. The idea of the non-parametric approach is to avoid restrictive
assumptions about the form of f(x), and to estimate it directly from the
water quality monitoring data (Qin et al., 2011). It could be especially
useful if data are limited. A well-known non-parametric estimator of
the PDF is the histogram, when classes are properly well defined. Like-
wise, the kernel density estimation method is a widely used method for
density estimation.
The most attractive feature of non-parametric kernel density esti-
mation is that it directly makes use of sample data without a need of
estimating characteristic parameters in a theoretical distribution. In
other words, there is no error caused by assumption of a theoretical
distribution for data and by mismatch between estimated parameters
and actual behaviors of water quality indicators. Let X1, X2,…, Xn
denote n water quality variable samples. The real probability density
function f(x) of a water quality variable can be estimated by the
following density function:


1 X n
x−X i
f^n ðxÞ ¼ K ð12Þ
nh i¼1 h
where h is the bandwidth, K is called the kernel function and n is the
sample size. Gaussian functions are commonly selected as kernel
functions:

 !
x−X i 1 ðx−X i Þ2
K ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffi exp − : ð13Þ
h 2π 2h2
The determination of the bandwidth h is crucial for accurate esti-
mation of water quality variable distributions. There are many ways
to estimate an optimal bandwidth (hopt). An approximation, known
as the Silverman's rule (Silverman, 1998) has been proposed:


4 1=5
hopt ¼ σ ð14Þ
3n
 
2
where σ ¼ min s; IQR
20:6745 , s2 ¼ n−1
1
∑i¼1 ðxi −x
Þ , and IQR is the
interquartile range of the data. Therefore, parametric or non-parametric
PDF should be estimated for annual data sets to each input water quality

Table 3
Classification of the water quality according to the membership degree of the fuzzy sets.

Year Section Lower Quartile (0.25) Median Upper Quartile (0.75)

Bad Regular Good Bad Regular Good Bad Regular Good

2002 I 0.344 0.741 0.005 0.310 0.777 0.006 0.266 0.823 0.009
II 0.408 0.678 0.003 0.355 0.730 0.005 0.317 0.769 0.006
III 0.444 0.642 0.002 0.406 0.679 0.003 0.360 0.725 0.004
2006 I 0.336 0.750 0.005 0.302 0.786 0.007 0.268 0.822 0.009
II 0.431 0.654 0.003 0.382 0.703 0.004 0.333 0.753 0.005
III 0.459 0.628 0.002 0.418 0.667 0.003 0.369 0.716 0.004
2008 I 0.322 0.766 0.006 0.292 0.797 0.007 0.268 0.822 0.009
II 0.379 0.707 0.004 0.347 0.739 0.005 0.314 0.773 0.088
III 0.395 0.691 0.035 0.358 0.727 0.005 0.323 0.764 0.006
2009 I 0.348 0.737 0.005 0.326 0.760 0.006 0.301 0.787 0.007
II 0.364 0.722 0.004 0.331 0.755 0.005 0.377 0.708 0.004
III 0.419 0.667 0.003 0.377 0.708 0.004 0.339 0.747 0.005
2010 I 0.379 0.707 0.004 0.343 0.743 0.005 0.314 0.773 0.006
II 0.376 0.709 0.004 0.315 0.745 0.005 0.313 0.775 0.006
III 0.534 0.553 0.001 0.413 0.672 0.006 0.354 0.732 0.005
 W. Ocampo-Duque et al. / Environment International 52 (2013) 17–28 25

2010:
Water Quality Water Quality Water Quality
1200 600
700

1000 600 500

800 500 400

Frequency

Frequency

Frequency
400
600 300
300
400 200
200

200 100
100

0 0 0
47.25 49.50 51.75 54.00 56.25 58.50 60.75 63.00 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 45.6 46.8 48.0 49.2 50.4 51.6 52.8 54.0
2010 Section I 2010 Section II 2010 Section III

2009:
Water Quality Water Quality Water Quality
700 500
900
600 800
400
500 700
Frequency

Frequency

Frequency
600
300
400
500
300 400
200
300
200
100 200
100
100

0 0 0
48.8 49.6 50.4 51.2 52.0 52.8 53.6 54.4 46.2 47.3 48.4 49.5 50.6 51.7 52.8 53.9 44.8 46.2 47.6 49.0 50.4 51.8 53.2
2009 Section I 2009 Section II 2009 Section III

2008:
Water Quality Water Quality Water Quality
800
600
400
700
500
600
300
Frequency

Frequency

400 Frequency 500

400
300
200
300
200
200
100
100
100

0 0 0
49.6 50.4 51.2 52.0 52.8 53.6 54.4 47.7 48.6 49.5 50.4 51.3 52.2 53.1 54.0 45.6 46.8 48.0 49.2 50.4 51.6 52.8 54.0
2008 Section II 2008 Section III
2008 Section I

Fig. 6. Non parametric distributions of the stochastic fuzzy water quality index in the Cauca River for some selected years.

variable prior to the FIS calculations. Fig. 4 depicts two examples of nonparametric method to build all the probability distributions. The
distribution fittings carried out to estimate the best probability distribu- ksdensity (Kernel smoothing density) algorithm was used to compute
tions better representing the variables BOD5 and total solids, for 2009. the probability density estimates of the input variables (Mathworks,
Non-parametric versus parametric distributions are compared, corre- 2012). The estimate is based on a normal kernel function, using a win-
sponding the best fit to the kernel method in both cases. dow parameter (bandwidth) that is a function of the number of points
The Kolmogorov–Smirnov (K–S) test was used to assess the (Eq. (14)). The density is evaluated at equally spaced points that cover
goodness-of-fit of the entire input PDF variables. It is a nonparametric the range of the data. The ksdensity algorithm makes no assumptions
test for the equality of continuous, one-dimensional probability distri- about the mechanism producing the data or the form of the underlying
butions that can be used to compare a sample with a reference probabil- distribution. Therefore, no parameter estimates are made. In other
ity distribution. The most attractive characteristic of K–S test is that it is words, it produces a nonparametric density estimate that adapts itself
applicable for any continuous variable distribution, and any sample size. to the data. Likewise, the ProbDistUnivKernel object, which represents
A smaller statistic represents the better goodness-of-fit between as- a nonparametric probability distribution based on a normal kernel
sumed theoretical distribution, and actual variable samples. Therefore, smoothing function, was used to deal with all the PDFs (Mathworks,
the statistics can be used to rank the performances of all the water qual- 2012).
ity variable distributions including the proposed non-parametric kernel
distribution estimation (Qin et al., 2011). The K–S test evaluates if a 3. Results and discussion
sample comes from a continuous distribution with specified parame-
ters, against the alternative that it does not come from that distribution. The water condition for the Cauca River when crossing the Valle
The test rejects the null hypothesis at the 5% significance level (p b 0.05). Department in Colombia has been here assessed with a water quality
All statistic calculations were performed with the statistics toolbox of index built on a FIS. Input data have been provided by the CVC Corpo-
MATLAB (R2010). The best goodness of fit for 84% of data was obtained ration, a regional environmental protection agency. We assessed var-
for non-parametric kernel density estimators. The remaining 16% of ious years using stochastic modeling with non- parametric kernel
data presented K–S statistics for parametric fittings similar to that for estimators of inputs. Hence, integration between fuzzy and stochastic
non-parametric estimators. That was a good reason to choose the models was carried out to manage both random and linguistic
26 W. Ocampo-Duque et al. / Environment International 52 (2013) 17–28

Table 4
Comparison of the fuzzy water quality index versus other indexes after Monte Carlo simulations (medians are provided). Membership values in linguistic scores, computed with
fuzzy modeling, are provided.

Index Year Section I Section II Section III

Numeric score Linguistic score Numeric score Linguistic score Numeric score Linguistic score

Stochastic NSF_WQI 2002 63 Regular 48 Bad 49 Bad

2006 56 Regular 45 Bad 47 Bad
2008 58 Regular 50 Bad 46 Bad
2009 61 Regular 49 Bad 49 Bad
2010 56 Regular 40 Bad 41 Bad
Stochastic ICAUCA 2002 42.65 Regular 27.49 Bad 30.09 Bad
2006 63.74 Good 54.95 Good 44.03 Regular
2008 63.03 Good 28.80 Bad 42.54 Regular
2009 74.96 Good 30.64 Bad 55.26 Good
2010 40.49 Regular 26.70 Bad 26.77 Bad
Stochastic FWQ 2002 51.58 0.31 bad 50.59 0.35 bad 49.74 0.40 bad
0.77 regular 0.73 regular 0.67 regular
2006 51.81 0.30 bad 50.00 0.38 bad 49.47 0.41 bad
0.78 regular 0.70 regular 0.66 regular
2008 51.98 0.29 bad 50.78 0.34 bad 50.54 0.35 bad
0.79 regular 0.73 Regular 0.72 regular
2009 51.18 0.32 bad 51.05 0.33 bad 50.10 0.37 bad
0.76 regular 0.75 regular 0.70 regular
2010 50.85 0.34 bad 50.89 0.32 bad 49.45 0.41 bad
0.74 regular 0.75 regular 0.67 regular

uncertainty in the analysis. Consequently, a stochastic fuzzy water
quality index was developed. Fig. 5 shows the behavior of the sto-
chastic FWQ index for five years and the three river sections assessed
using a Box-and-Whiskers plot. Most of the time, the stochastic FWQ
index in river Section I was higher than that in river Section II, and in
river Section III, respectively. Therefore, it is noted with the index that
water quality decreases downstream. Generally, there is a bigger disper-
sion in river Section III, as it is shown by their box heights. Moreover, it is
noticeable the symmetry of the median, as well as the close distance
between estimated boundary values. Such numeric scores agree well
with expert and non-expert opinions, since water quality control is
minimal in such area, and water pollution is considerably increased
downstream. Despite the limited monitored variables considered in the
current study, and included in the index, the FIS model adequately
describes the observed condition. The low water quality scores should
be inferred from a brief inspection to Table 1. Low dissolved oxygen con-
centrations, specifically in Sections II and III, were observed with very low
saturation percentages. Also, high fecal coliform concentrations were
available. Moderate (medium to high) concentration of total solids and
turbidity are also common features in the area. BOD5 was high in Section
III with observed increase in time, since in 2010, the values were
considerably higher than those in 2006 and 2002.
With the aid of the fuzzy stochastic analysis, it is possible to map
fuzzy random input parameter into fuzzy random responses. The
stochastic fuzzy behavior of the FWQ index and some of its advantages
are shown in Table 3. Here, the membership functions (μ) to the diverse
output fuzzy sets are calculated. As mentioned above, the membership
to each fuzzy set is a number between zero (0) and one (1), meaning
none and total membership, respectively. Partial memberships are
also possible, which is one of the advantages of fuzzy logic for environ-
mental decision making. It must be remarked that the sum of specific
set membership values could be higher than 1. The membership de-
grees may be stated as possibility values to not confuse them with prob-
abilistic computations. Table 3 presents the calculated membership
values to the sets bad, regular and good. Such score was zero in all
years, reaching to poor and excellent water quality fuzzy sets. In all
cases, the belongingness estimation to the good water quality fuzzy
sets was really low. The fuzzy sets with the higher membership values
were the ones to regular water quality classification during all years,
and through the three river sections with median variations between
0.797 and 0.667. Likewise, the membership value to bad water quality
classification during all years and through the three river sections had
median variations between 0.413 and 0.292, which is a considerable
belongingness. Moreover, it is noticeable that the membership values
to the regular water quality fuzzy sets decreased downstream while
they increased for bad water quality fuzzy sets. This result may be asso-
ciated to the higher number of domestic, agricultural and industrial
loads available downstream. In Table 3 can be seen that the member-
ship degrees for bad water quality are higher in the lower quartile
than in the median, which is due to the lower quartile of the index is
the worst condition. For example, in 2002 and Section I, the member-
ship degrees to the bad fuzzy set were 0.344, 0.310, and 0.266 for the
lower quartile, median and upper quartiles, respectively.
Output histograms are necessary in indexing computations since
with point estimates the results could be limited. Fig. 6 shows the fre-
quency histograms (or the nonparametric density estimations) for
the stochastic FWQ index of some assessed years through the three
sections. They point out the randomness of water quality integration
outputs when random inputs are provided to the FIS. So, the output
spread is easily observed in such figures. As it can be noted, diverse
shapes are possible. Some histograms showed peak shapes with rela-
tive symmetrical variability. Likewise, some histograms with wide
peaks (2008, Sections II and III) were calculated. The biggest disper-
sion was generally observed for river Section III. Moreover, in some
cases appeared bimodal histograms, especially in Section III, although
the closeness between peaks was enough to get appropriate classifi-
cation and unambiguous outputs.
In order to validate the performance of the stochastic fuzzy water
quality index, similar stochastic computations were carried out for
the indexes: NSF_WQI and ICAUCA. Results of the medians are given
in Table 4. From the NSF_WQI calculations, it can be observed that
they always provided a consistent output, classifying as regular the
river Section I, and bad the river Sections II and III, for all the assessed
years. In this case, numeric scores ranged between 63 and 41, with a
spread of 22. The assessment with the ICAUCA index was less strict,
delivering good water quality classification in some cases. ICAUCA
index outputs were between 74.93 and 26.70, with a range of 48.26.
The outputs from stochastic FWQ index were similar to the other in-
dexes. The dispersion of the stochastic FWQ index results was lower
than the other indexes, being within a maximum of 51.98 and a mini-
mum of 49.45, with a range of 2.53. Although the numeric score of the
defuzzified stochastic FWQ index is important, the advantage of the
hybrid probabilistic fuzzy index over the others is that the last one
provides a classification with more information related to the
 W. Ocampo-Duque et al. / Environment International 52 (2013) 17–28
belongingness to diverse possible classifications. In all cases, the sto-
chastic FWQ index outputs have classified water quality in the studied
area as “partially bad and partially regular”. Lower possibility has the
water quality to belong to the good class (in Table 3, observe that
μ b 0.01). As above stated, the belongingness to bad water quality sets
increased downstream from the river Section I to Section III. It agrees
with the results from the NSF_WQI. Consequently, the belongingness
to the regular class decreases downstream.
Water quality indexes based on fuzzy systems have been recently
proposed in scientific literature with relative success. The fuzzy frame
clearly improves the conceptual design of the indexes, because they
are computed with expert rules and sets to provide final numerical/
linguistic scores which include a convenient treatment of linguistic
uncertainty and subjectivity. However, the computation of water
quality index scores is clearly deterministic even within the fuzzy
method. A vector of water quality variables is given to the FIS, and
a unique water quality score is obtained. The challenge now is how
to deal with computation in non-deterministic real world scenarios.
Water quality variables collected in rivers are essentially stochastic,
and density probability functions may easily be computed. Then, the
key question is how to perform computations of water quality indexes
when sufficient data have been collected, and the statistics are depend-
able. Currently, the easiest way to deal with stochastic computations is
through Monte Carlo methods. Moreover, fuzzy alpha-cuts to deal with
uncertainty in inputs could also be considered (Kumar et al., 2009). In
this paper, we used Monte Carlo simulation to calculate the fuzzy
index to analyze historic and geographic trends in water quality. The
method was powerful because provided better water quality classifica-
tion, and we observed graphically the consistency in fuzzy classification.
However, the use of combined probabilistic and fuzzy methods is still
under development, and a generalized theory of uncertainty is required
(Zadeh, 2005). Moreover, mathematical foundations about propagation
of probabilistic uncertainty through fuzzy systems may also require fur-
ther research. Finally, we found that the method was powerful not only
by providing consistent histograms of defuzzified water quality scores
but also delivering the membership values to more than one water
quality class. The value of the membership function of the output
fuzzy sets resulted highly sensitive to input conditions. With this tool,
the decision makers may be able to relax the boundaries between two
or more likely water quality classes. Moreover, a consistent classifica-
tion in water quality after stochastic simulations was observed which
showed that the fuzzy index was stable in providing appropriate classi-
fication. Finally, the use of fuzzy systems avoids using crisp values to
water quality classification which is the most important fact in applying
this methodology. With the Monte Carlo and FIS approach, the strongly
subjective character of the equivalence functions of traditional water
quality indexes is avoided, and the assessment is closer to human rea-
soning, becoming the technique very useful under many similar envi-
ronmental assessment problems.
4. Conclusion
We have implemented stochastic simulation to a fuzzy water
quality index in order to improve the water quality assessment pro-
vided with deterministic indexes. The hybrid stochastic fuzzy method
combined the benefits of Mont Carlo simulations with the advantages
of fuzzy inference. The proposed method updated the design of indexing
techniques to integrate water quality variables available to date. Non-
parametric kernel density estimators resulted appropriate tools to
build empirical probability density functions from raw data since normal
and other parametric distributions did not fit well the real data, especially
when number of data was limited. The Monte Carlo simulation improved
the results from point estimate of fuzzy water quality indexes since the
dispersion of the final indexes was estimated. The water quality classifica-
tion preserved the linguistic uncertainty of the subjective index and the
randomness from real measurements. The main advantage of the
27
proposed method is that membership to two or more classes is also pos-
sible which gives to decision makers a better conceptual assessment.
When the developed method was applied to the Cauca River, the results
for several years showed that water quality was possibly “regular” with a
membership degree of approximately 0.7, and possibly “bad” with a
membership degree of approximately 0.4. The index also predicted that
water quality decreased downstream. The results have complex origins,
since the river is plainly affected by the presence of towns and cities
without adequate treatment for wastewater. We observed that the envi-
ronmental impact was not reduced downstream. Intense sugarcane agri-
culture and some industrial plants could also be responsible of surface
water pollution. An intensive environmental protection program from
regional and national government is suggested if ecosystem restoration
and biodiversity conservation is desired in the area.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the Agencia Española de Cooperación Internacional
para el Desarrollo (AECID) for financial support (Projects D/026977/09,
and D/031370/10). We also thank the CVC Corporation for providing
water quality monitoring data.
References
Baudrit C, Guyonnet D, Dubois D. Joint propagation of variability and imprecision in
assessing the risk of groundwater contamination. J Contam Hydrol 2007;93:72–84.
Beamonte-Cordoba E, Casino Martinez A, Veres-Ferrer E. Water quality indicators:
comparison of a probabilistic index and a general quality index. The case of the
Confederación Hidrográfica del Júcar (Spain). Ecol Indic 2010;10:1049–54.
Brown RM, McClelland NI, Deininger RA, Tozer RG. A water quality index: do we dare?
Water Sew Works 1970;117:339–43.
Cardona CM, Martin C, Salterain A, Castro A, San Martín D, Ayesa E. CALHIDRA 3.0 —
new software application for river water quality prediction based on RWQM1. En-
viron Model Softw 2011;26:973–9.
Chen Z, Zhao L, Lee K. Environmental risk assessment of offshore produced water dis-
charges using a hybrid fuzzy-stochastic modeling approach. Environ Modell
Softw 2010;25:782–92.
Chowdhury S, Champagne P, McLellan PJ. Uncertainty characterization approaches for
risk assessment of DBPs in drinking water: a review. J Environ Manage 2009;90:
1680–91.
CVC Corporation. Estudio de la calidad del agua del río cauca y sus principales
tributarios mediante la aplicación de índices de calidad y contaminación. Project
Report 0168, Oct 2004. Available at: http://190.97.204.39/cvc/Mosaic/dpdf2/
Volumen10/1-ECARCpag1-158.pdf2004. (Accessed 1/9/2012).
Darbra RM, Eljarrat E, Barcelo D. How to measure uncertainties in environmental risk
assessment. Trends Anal Chem 2008;27:377–85.
Faybishenko B. Fuzzy-probabilistic calculations of water-balance uncertainty. Stoch
Environ Res Risk A 2010;24:939–52.
Ghiocel DM, Altmann J. Hybrid stochastic-neuro-fuzzy model-based system for in-flight
gas turbine engine diagnostics. In: Pusey HC, Pusey SC, Hobbs WR, editors. New fron-
tiers in integrated diagnostics and prognosticsProceedings of the 55th meeting of the
Society for Machinery Failure Prevention Technology, Virginia; 2001.
Gottardo S, Semenzin E, Giove S, Zabeo A, Critto A, de Zwart D, et al. Integrated risk
assessment for WFD ecological status classification applied to Llobregat river
basin (Spain). Part I—fuzzy approach to aggregate biological indicators. Sci
Total Environ 2011;409:4701–12.
Guo P, Huang GH, Zhu H, Wang XL. A two-stage programming approach for water re-
sources management under randomness and fuzziness. Environ Modell Softw
2010;25:1573–81.
Kentel E, Aral M. 2D Monte Carlo and Monte Carlo-fuzzy health risk assessment. Stoch
Environ Res Risk A 2005;19:86–96.
Kumar V, Mari M, Schuhmacher M, Domingo JL. Partitioning total variance in risk
assessment: application to a municipal solid waste incinerator. Environ Modell
Softw 2009;24:247–61.
Legay C, Rodriguez MJ, Sadiq R, Sérodes JB, Levallois P, Proulx F. Spatial variations of
human health risk associated with exposure to chlorination by-products occurring
in drinking water. J Environ Manage 2011;92:892–901.
Lermontov A, Yokoyama L, Lermontov M, Soares-Machado MA. River quality analysis
using fuzzy water quality index: Ribeira do Iguape river watershed, Brazil. Ecol
Indic 2009;9:1188–97.
Li H, Zhang K. Development of a fuzzy-stochastic nonlinear model to incorporate alea-
toric and epistemic uncertainty. J Contam Hydrol 2010;111:1-12.
Li J, Huang GH, Zeng G, Maqsood I, Huang Y. An integrated fuzzy-stochastic modeling
approach for risk assessment of groundwater contamination. J Environ Manage
2007;82:173–88.
Mahapatra SS, Nanda SK, Panigrahy BK. A cascaded fuzzy inference system for Indian
River water quality prediction. Adv Eng Softw 2011;42:787–96.
Marchini A, Facchinetti T, Mistri M. F-IND: a framework to design fuzzy indices of en-
vironmental conditions. Ecol Indic 2009;9:485–96.
28 W. Ocampo-Duque et al. / Environment International 52 (2013) 17–28
Mari M, Nadal M, Schuhmacher M, Domingo JL. Exposure to heavy metals and PCDD/Fs
by the population living in the vicinity of a hazardous waste landfill in Catalonia,
Spain: health risk assessment. Environ Int 2009;35:1034–9.
Mathworks. Product Documentation Matlab R2012a. Available at: http://www.mathworks.
com/help/2012. Accessed 29/08/2012.
Misha A. Estimating uncertainty in HSPF based water quality model: Application of
Monte-Carlo based techniques. PhD Thesis at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University, USA, 2011.
Möller B, Beer M. Fuzzy randomness — uncertainty in civil engineering and computational
mechanics. Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer-Verlag; 2004.
Möller B, Graf W, Beer M, Sickert J. Fuzzy randomness — towards a new modeling of
uncertainty. In: Mang AH, Rammerstorfer FG, Eberhardsteiner J, editors. The Fifth
World Congress on Computational Mechanics, Vienna; 2002.
Nikoo MR, Kerachian R, Malakpour-Estalaki S, Bashi-Azghadi SN, Azimi-Ghadikolaee
MM. A probabilistic water quality index for river water quality assessment: a
case study. Environ Monit Assess 2011;181:465–78.
Ocampo-Duque W, Ferré-Huguet N, Domingo JL, Schuhmacher M. Assessing water
quality in rivers with fuzzy inference systems: a case study. Environ Int 2006;32:
733–42.
Ocampo-Duque W, Schuhmacher M, Domingo JL. A neural-fuzzy approach to classify
the ecological status in surface waters. Environ Pollut 2007;148:634–41.
Ocampo-Duque W, Juraske R, Kumar V, Nadal M, Domingo JL, Schuhmacher M. A concurrent
neuro-fuzzy inference system for screening the ecological risk in rivers. Environ Sci
Pollut Res 2012;19:983–99.
Qin Z, Li W, Xiong X. Estimating wind speed probability distribution using kernel density
method. Electr Power Syst Res 2011;81:2139–46.
Ramaswami A, Milford JB, Small MJ. Integrated environmental modeling — pollutant
transport, fate, and risk in the environment. John Wiley & Sons; 2005.
Rehana S, Mujumdar PP. An imprecise fuzzy risk approach for water quality management
of a river system. J Environ Manage 2009;90:3653–64.
Sadiq R, Tesfamariam S. Probability density functions based weights for ordered weighted
averaging (OWA) operators: an example of water quality indices. Eur J Oper Res
2007;182:1350–68.
Silverman BW. Density estimation for statistics and data analysis. London:
Chapman&Hall/CRC, ISBN: 0-412-24620-1; 1998.
Torres P, Cruz C, Patiño P, Escobar JC, Pérez A. Aplicación de índices de calidad de agua —
ICA orientados al uso de la fuente para consumo humano. Ing Investig 2010;30:
86–95.
Zadeh LA. Toward a generalized theory of uncertainty (GTU) — an outline. Inf. Sci.
2005;172:1-40.
Zhang K, Li H, Achari G. Fuzzy-stochastic characterization of site uncertainty and variability
in groundwater flow and contaminant transport through a heterogeneous aquifer.
J Contam Hydrol 2009;106:73–82.
Zhang X, Huang GH, Nie X. Robust stochastic fuzzy possibilistic programming for en-
vironmental decision making under uncertainty. Sci Total Environ 2009;408:
192–201.