Environment International 52 (2013) 1728

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Environment International
journalhomepage: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
b
c

a,

, Carolina Osorio , Christian Piamba , Marta Schuhmacher , Jos L. Domingo

Faculty of Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Cll. 18 #118-250, Cali, Colombia

Department of Chemical Engineering, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Av. Pases Catalans 26, 43007 Tarragona, Spain
Laboratory of Toxicology and Environmental Health, School of Medicine, IISPV, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Sant Llorens 21, 43201 Reus, Spain

article

info

Article history:
Received 20 April 2012
Accepted 16 November 2012
Available online 23 December 2012
Keywords:
Water quality
Non-parametric density estimators
Uncertainty
Fuzzy inference systems
Monte Carlo simulation
Cauca River (Colombia)

abstract
The integration of water quality monitoring variables is essential in environmental decision making. Nowadays, advanced
techniques to manage subjectivity, imprecision, uncertainty, vagueness, and variability are required in such complex
evaluation process. We here propose a probabilistic fuzzy hybrid model to assess river water 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 was estimated. Annual histograms of nine water quality variables
were built with monitoring data systematically collected in the Colombian Cauca River, and probability density estimations
using the kernel smoothing method were applied to fit data. Several years were assessed, and river sectors upstream and
downstream the city of Santiago de Cali, a big city with basic wastewater treatment and high industrial activity, were
analyzed. The probabilistic fuzzy water quality index was able to explain the reduction in water quality, as the river receives 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.

0160-4120/$ see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2012.11.007

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 linguistic 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 (OcampoDuque 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

18

W. Ocampo-Duque et al. / Environment International 52 (2013) 1728

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).

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.

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.

2. Methods

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 (Mller and Beer, 2004; Mller 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

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
2

63300 km . 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 Ro fro), 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 (PO 4), 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: FebruaryMarch, MayJune, JulyAugust,
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

19

W. Ocampo-Duque et al. / Environment International 52 (2013) 1728

RISARALDA
SP19
SP18

CHOCO
QUINDIO

SP17
SP16

SP15

SP14
SP13

CAUCA RIVER
SP12
SP11
COLOMBIA

SP10
SP9
SP8

VALLE DEL CAUCA

SP7
SP6
SP5

SP3
SP4
SP2

16.000
0

32.000

Meters
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 WQ I i1wi Q i

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

ICAICA i1I ii

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

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

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.,

Indicator, abbr., units

Year

Section I

Section II
s

Dissolved oxygen, DO, % Sat.

Fecal coliforms, FC, CFU/100 mL

Biochemical oxygen demand, BOD5, mg/L

Temperature, T, C

Phosphates, PO4, mg/L

Nitrates, NO3, mg/L

Turbidity, TUR, NTU

Total solids, TS, mg/L

Hydrogen potential, pH, ()

2002
2006
2010
2002
2006
2010
2002
2006
2010
2002
2006
2010
2002
2006
2010
2002
2006
2010
2002
2006
2010
2002
2006
2010
2002
2006
2010

X
76.09
20.71
73.08
14.87
72.16
18.65
1.51E + 05 5.13E + 05
1.12E + 04 2.52E + 04
1.05E + 05 2.61E + 05
1.55
1.12
1.87
0.76
8.51
3.31
20.4
2.8
21.3
1.9
22.4
0.8
0.062
0.008
0.034
0.010
0.069
0.016
0.30
0.20
0.42
0.02
0.84
0.89
30.8
20.0
110.8
117.5
79.1
95.1
131.33
63.25
181.25
108.37
163.29
145.42
6.93
0.47
6.88
0.69
7.15
0.30

Min

24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24

17.11
37.99
22.65
0.00E + 00
2.30E + 01
7.30E + 02
0.30
1.09
5.33
15.0
18.0
20.9
0.060
0.021
0.064
0.11
0.40
0.11
3.0
9.0
2.0
68.00
59.00
58.00
5.76
5.30
6.45

Max

Section III
s

X
83.26
27.90
25.45
94.42
47.95
26.16
94.68
35.70
23.96
2.40E + 06 5.97E + 07 1.01E + 08
1.10E + 05 2.72E + 05 4.96E + 05
9.30E + 05 5.35E + 06 1.62E + 07
5.30
5.28
2.92
4.02
3.96
1.51
16.00
19.68
6.99
24.2
23.8
2.0
28.8
21.1
1.2
24.3
24.4
1.3
0.099
0.076
0.039
0.050
0.099
0.047
0.125
0.089
0.025
1.05
0.26
0.25
0.44
0.57
0.10
2.57
0.98
1.10
75.0
67.3
53.4
349.0
143.1
125.4
344.0
131.1
135.6
310.00
172.94
51.33
396.00
270.09
134.88
721.00
233.25
121.32
7.98
6.98
0.19
7.62
6.82
0.32
7.65
7.05
0.19

Min

32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32

2.76
7.47
7.02
2.40E + 04
7.50E + 03
9.10E + 04
1.30
1.75
9.82
20.0
18.0
22.2
0.060
0.031
0.064
0.04
0.45
0.11
30.0
18.0
17.0
68.00
129.00
116.00
6.58
5.65
6.68

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.

Max

s
X
77.34
34.64
8.84
85.32
32.00
7.51
75.30
37.22
15.68
2.40E + 08 1.82E + 05 5.30E + 05
2.40E + 06 1.79E + 04 2.98E + 04
9.30E + 07 3.15E + 05 7.16E + 05
13.80
2.79
0.83
7.52
3.44
1.08
36.90
20.66
24.20
27.0
25.2
0.9
23.0
24.0
1.4
27.1
25.3
1.5
0.216
0.065
0.015
0.241
0.083
0.026
0.157
0.084
0.045
1.53
0.43
0.20
0.69
0.57
0.38
3.29
1.39
1.40
300.0
61.2
34.5
404.0
201.3
231.6
670.0
107.4
75.4
302.00
203.55
80.53
811.00
338.35
156.07
621.00
256.71
139.37
7.27
6.90
0.31
7.39
7.04
0.36
7.32
7.36
0.33

Min

Max

20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20

20.50
18.20
8.81
2.40E + 03
2.40E + 02
2.30E + 03
1.20
2.05
6.73
22.8
21.5
22.6
0.060
0.053
0.064
0.07
0.40
0.11
29.0
21.0
23.0
136.00
191.00
0.08
6.22
6.40
6.72

55.98
45.90
69.32
2.40E + 06
1.10E + 05
2.40E + 06
4.30
5.77
121.00
26.7
26.3
27.5
0.123
0.142
0.271
0.78
2.01
4.28
185.0
892.0
265.0
406.00
901.00
551.00
7.48
7.54
7.90

W. Ocampo-Duque et al. / Environment International 52 (2013) 1728

Table 1
Basic statistics of water quality variables involved in the study.

20

21

W. Ocampo-Duque et al. / Environment International 52 (2013) 1728

2009; Ocampo-Duque et al., 2006). Water quality assessment is a subjective

task that must be carried out with tools able to manage such subjectivity and
imprecision. Here, linguistic operations in a FIS frame are proposed to
compute water quality by integrating pa-rameters within an inference engine.
Thus, a methodology to design a water quality index is proposed. It could be
adapted to diverse pur-poses with different number of inputs. In this sense, a
FIS is a map-ping process from given water quality inputs to desired water
quality index. The FIS involves three important parts: membership functions,
fuzzy set operations, and inference rules. The Fuzzy Logic toolbox of
MATLAB (R2010) was used to build and compute the FIS.

functions were used in extreme and excellent fuzzy sets, having the following
equations to represent them:
8

0;
2 x d

ed
x; a; b >
>

>
< 1 2
ed
>
1;
>
>

x d
de

;
x d

where s and c are the parameters shown in Table 2, x is the value of the input,
and is the belongingness (or membership) of the input to the respective
fuzzy set, which is a number between 0 and 1, meaning none and total
membership, respectively. The parameter c represents the center of the
function in the abscissa where the membership value is 1, and the parameter s
defines the width of the function. It is important to point out that in fuzzy
logic reasoning an x value may belong to more than one fuzzy set. Z-shape
functions were used in very low and poor fuzzy sets, having the following
equations to represent them:
2
8
9
; a x
1 2
xa
a b
>
1;
x a
>

ba

x; a; b

>
>
>

a b
xb

>

>
<
>

ba

>

0;

>
>
>
>

xb >

xb

>

=
>

>
>

>

>

>

>

>

>

where a and b are the parameters displayed in Table 2. These parameters

locate the extremes of the sloped portion of the curve. Finally, S-shape

>

>

>
>

>

>

x
2x
e

>
>

>

>

xc
2
x; s; c exp 3 2s

>

2
e

>

>
A FIS was parameterized to assess water quality considering nine input
indicators (Table 1), using the same indicators that those included in the wellknown NSF_WQI and the ICAUCA. The FIS output is a fuzzy water quality
(FWQ) index. Table 2 summarizes the parameters of the membership
functions. Five fuzzy sets were defined for input variables: Very low, low,
medium, high, and extreme. In turn, the output water quality was defined
according to five fuzzy sets (qualifiers): poor, bad, regular, good, and
excellent. Gaussian functions were used at low, medium, high, bad, regular
and good fuzzy sets, having the following expressions:

d x

>

>

>

>

>

where d, and e are the parameters shown in Table 2. These parameters locate
the extremes of the sloped portion of the curve.
The design and selection of membership functions from intervals of the
input variables is a very subjective task. The main questions arise from the
number of fuzzy sets used to divide the ranges of the variables, and the own
shape of these sets. A division in five fuzzy sets seems appropriate. However,
the number of rules may considerably increase, especially if rules with more
than one antecedent are desired. In contin-uous variables the number of fuzzy
sets to represent any range could be selected from three to seven, being five a
reasonable number. The shape of the functions selected above was considered
because of the low num-ber of parameters required. Notwithstanding, other
functions could be also used, perhaps requiring more than two parameters.
The Colombian Decree 1594/1984 and Resolution 2115/2007, the Spanish
Decree 927/ 1988, the boundaries taken in the Lermontov fuzzy water quality
index (Lermontov et al., 2009) and the limits set by our previous study
(Ocampo-Duque et al., 2006) were used to define the ranges from very low to
extreme that water quality variables could take. Then, the division in five
qualifiers was given trying to equally divide the universe of discourse with
appropriate fuzzy intersection between sets.
The inference engine is where the linguistic computations are exe-cuted. It
was created considering two kinds of rules: rules with only one antecedent,
and rules with two antecedents or water quality vari-ables. Forty five (45)
rules were written with one antecedent and one consequent (9 water quality
variables per 5 fuzzy sets or options, from very low to extreme). Nine
hundred (900) rules were written with two antecedents and one consequent.
All the likely combinations without repetitions were considered ((819)/2 =
36 pair combina-tions and 25 options). In each rule, the most conservative
output was considered, and the importance of the rule was defined according
to 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 weight
of 0.75. Finally, rules with TUR and TS received a weight of 0.5. 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
a

Low
b

Z-shape
DO
FC
BOD5
T
PO4
NO3
TUR
TS
pH
FWQ

% Sat.
CFU/100 mL
mg/L

C
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L

0.0
58.9
0.0
15.1
0.0
0.0
3.0
25.6
5.0
Poor
a
Z-shape
0.0

Medium
c

Gaussian
27.8
272.0
2.2
19.9
0.15
3.8
30.7
230.4
6.5
b
38.9

15.0
143.3
1.2
2.6
0.07
1.6
15.0
80.0
0.5
Bad
s
Gaussian
10.5

High
c

Gaussian
31.3
337.5
1.5
18.9
0.14
3.2
33.5
150.6
6.4
c
35.5

15.0
143.3
1.2
2.6
0.07
1.6
15.0
80.0
0.5
Regular
s
Gaussian
11.6

Extreme
c

Gaussian
58.2
675.0
3.5
23.0
0.25
6.1
70.7
300.0
7.5
c
60.0

15.0
143.3
1.2
2.6
0.07
1.6
15.0
80.0
0.5
Good
s
Gaussian
9.4

S-shape
84.1
1013.0
5.2
27.2
0.4
9.5
107.4
450.0
8.5
c
81.4

70.0
1078.0
5.0
25.1
0.3
7.2
88.7
395.0
8.0
Excellent
d
S-shape
68.2

110.0
1284.0
6.9
30.0
0.5
12.0
136.8
642.0
9.5
e
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) 1728

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 : ABx min A x; Bx
Union; OR : ABx max Ax ; Bx
Additive complement; NOT :

x 1Ax :

6
7
8

Vector inputs are fuzzified to enter to the inference engine using the
membership functions. When there are two antecedents, fuzzy logic operations 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.

23

W. Ocampo-Duque et al. / Environment International 52 (2013) 1728

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., 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

z zdz

FWQ

z dz

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

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 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 system. 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 A(X ).

A(X ) is the degree of membership of X to the set A. Then, A(X ) is

transformed to C(y) according to the rule:

If X is A then y is C:

10

Such transformation is computed according to the implication

method in fuzzy reasoning. In the case of the Figure, the reasoning
horizontal projection line from left to right, or A(X ) =

leads to the

C(y), as shown in the Fig. 3. The shape and size of the output fuzzy set is
defined by the C(y) value where the output set is truncated. The area of the
output fuzzy set is shown in dark gray. Observe that U 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

Fig. 4. Examples of optimized fitting of non-parametric versus parametric distributions of two input variables. (Data of 2009, Section II).

24

W. Ocampo-Duque et al. / Environment International 52 (2013) 1728

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 ( U) 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

P a bXbb

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:
n

1
f^ x
n

nh i1

xXi

12

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:

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
a f

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 nonparametric 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.

p2 exp
1
x Xi

2h

13

!:

x Xi

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
hopt

1=5

14

3n

11

x dx:

IQ R

2 0:6745
where min s;
, s n1 i1 xix , 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

The parametric approach for estimating f(x) is to assume some parametric family of probability distributions, and then to estimate the
Table 3
Classification of the water quality according to the membership degree of the fuzzy sets.
Year

2002

2006

2008

2009

2010

Section

I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III

Lower Quartile (0.25)

Median

Upper Quartile (0.75)

Bad

Regular

Good

Bad

Regular

Good

Bad

Regular

Good

0.344
0.408
0.444
0.336
0.431
0.459
0.322
0.379
0.395
0.348
0.364
0.419
0.379
0.376
0.534

0.741
0.678
0.642
0.750
0.654
0.628
0.766
0.707
0.691
0.737
0.722
0.667
0.707
0.709
0.553

0.005
0.003
0.002
0.005
0.003
0.002
0.006
0.004
0.035
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.004
0.004
0.001

0.310
0.355
0.406
0.302
0.382
0.418
0.292
0.347
0.358
0.326
0.331
0.377
0.343
0.315
0.413

0.777
0.730
0.679
0.786
0.703
0.667
0.797
0.739
0.727
0.760
0.755
0.708
0.743
0.745
0.672

0.006
0.005
0.003
0.007
0.004
0.003
0.007
0.005
0.005
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.005
0.005
0.006

0.266
0.317
0.360
0.268
0.333
0.369
0.268
0.314
0.323
0.301
0.377
0.339
0.314
0.313
0.354

0.823
0.769
0.725
0.822
0.753
0.716
0.822
0.773
0.764
0.787
0.708
0.747
0.773
0.775
0.732

0.009
0.006
0.004
0.009
0.005
0.004
0.009
0.088
0.006
0.007
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.006
0.005

25

W. Ocampo-Duque et al. / Environment International 52 (2013) 1728

2010:
Water Quality

Water Quality
600

1000

600

500

800
600

Frequency

700

Frequency

Frequency

Water Quality
1200

500
400

400
300

400

300

200

200

200
100

100

0
47.25

49.50

51.75

54.00

56.25

58.50

60.75

63.00

48

49

50

2010 Section I

51

52

53

54

45.6

46.8

48.0

2010 Section II

49.2

50.4

51.6

52.8

54.0

2010 Section III

2009:
Water Quality

Water Quality

700

Water Quality

500
900
800

600
400

400
300

Frequency

700

Frequency

Frequency

500
300

200

600
500
400
300

200
100

200

100

100

0
48.8

49.6

50.4

51.2

52.0

52.8

53.6

54.4

46.2

47.3

48.4

2009 Section I

49.5

50.6

51.7

52.8

53.9

44.8

46.2

47.6

2009 Section II

49.0

50.4

51.8

53.2

2009 Section III

2008:
Water Quality

Water Quality

Water Quality

600

800
400

700

400
300

Frequency

600

Frequency

Frequency

500
300
200

500
400

300
200
100

200

100

100

0
49.6

50.4

51.2

52.0

52.8

2008 Section I

53.6

54.4

0
47.7

48.6

49.5

50.4

51.3

52.2

53.1

54.0

45.6

46.8

2008 Section II

48.0

49.2

50.4

51.6

52.8

54.0

2008 Section III

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

distribution fittings carried out to estimate the best probability distribu-tions
better representing the variables BOD 5 and total solids, for 2009. Nonparametric versus parametric distributions are compared, corre-sponding the
best fit to the kernel method in both cases.
The KolmogorovSmirnov (KS) test was used to assess the goodness-offit of the entire input PDF variables. It is a nonparametric test for the equality
of continuous, one-dimensional probability distri-butions that can be used to
compare a sample with a reference probabil-ity distribution. The most
attractive characteristic of KS test is that it is applicable for any continuous
variable distribution, and any sample size. A smaller statistic represents the
better goodness-of-fit between as-sumed theoretical distribution, and actual
variable samples. Therefore, the statistics can be used to rank the
performances of all the water qual-ity variable distributions including the
proposed non-parametric kernel distribution estimation (Qin et al., 2011). The
KS test evaluates if a sample comes from a continuous distribution with
specified parame-ters, against the alternative that it does not come from that
distribution. The test rejects the null hypothesis at the 5% signi ficance level
(pb 0.05). All statistic calculations were performed with the statistics toolbox
of MATLAB (R2010). The best goodness of fit for 84% of data was obtained
for non-parametric kernel density estimators. The remaining 16% of data
presented KS statistics for parametric fittings similar to that for nonparametric estimators. That was a good reason to choose the

nonparametric method to build all the probability distributions. The ksdensity

(Kernel smoothing density) algorithm was used to compute the probability
density estimates of the input variables (Mathworks, 2012). The estimate is
based on a normal kernel function, using a win-dow parameter (bandwidth)
that is a function of the number of points (Eq. (14)). The density is evaluated
at equally spaced points that cover the range of the data. The ksdensity
algorithm makes no assumptions about the mechanism producing the data or
the form of the underlying distribution. Therefore, no parameter estimates are
made. In other words, it produces a nonparametric density estimate that
adapts itself to the data. Likewise, the ProbDistUnivKernel object, which
represents a nonparametric probability distribution based on a normal kernel
smoothing function, was used to deal with all the PDFs (Mathworks, 2012).

3. Results and discussion

The water condition for the Cauca River when crossing the Valle
Department in Colombia has been here assessed with a water quality index
built on a FIS. Input data have been provided by the CVC Corpo-ration, a
regional environmental protection agency. We assessed var-ious years using
stochastic modeling with non- parametric kernel estimators of inputs. Hence,
integration between fuzzy and stochastic models was carried out to manage
both random and linguistic

26

W. Ocampo-Duque et al. / Environment International 52 (2013) 1728

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

Stochastic NSF_WQI

Stochastic ICAUCA

Stochastic FWQ

Year

Section I

Section II

Section III

Numeric score

Linguistic score

Numeric score

Linguistic score

Numeric score

Linguistic score

2002
2006
2008
2009
2010
2002
2006
2008
2009
2010
2002

63
56
58
61
56
42.65
63.74
63.03
74.96
40.49
51.58

48
45
50
49
40
27.49
54.95
28.80
30.64
26.70
50.59

51.81

2008

51.98

2009

51.18

2010

50.85

Bad
Bad
Bad
Bad
Bad
Bad
Good
Bad
Bad
Bad
0.35 bad
0.73 regular
0.38 bad
0.70 regular
0.34 bad
0.73 Regular
0.33 bad
0.75 regular
0.32 bad
0.75 regular

49
47
46
49
41
30.09
44.03
42.54
55.26
26.77
49.74

2006

Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Good
Good
Good
Regular
0.31 bad
0.77 regular
0.30 bad
0.78 regular
0.29 bad
0.79 regular
0.32 bad
0.76 regular
0.34 bad
0.74 regular

Bad
Bad
Bad
Bad
Bad
Bad
Regular
Regular
Good
Bad
0.40 bad
0.67 regular
0.41 bad
0.66 regular
0.35 bad
0.72 regular
0.37 bad
0.70 regular
0.41 bad
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 () 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

50.00
50.78
51.05
50.89

49.47
50.54
50.10
49.45

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 dispersion 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 classifi cation

with more information related to the

W. Ocampo-Duque et al. / Environment International 52 (2013) 1728

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 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 Espaola de Cooperacin 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;93:7284.
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 Confederacin
Hidrogrfica del Jcar (Spain). Ecol Indic 2010;10:104954.
Brown RM, McClelland NI, Deininger RA, Tozer RG. A water quality index: do we dare? Water
Sew Works 1970;117:33943.
Cardona CM, Martin C, Salterain A, Castro A, San Martn D, Ayesa E. CALHIDRA 3.0 new
software application for river water quality prediction based on RWQM1. En-viron Model
Softw 2011;26:9739.
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: 168091.
CVC Corporation. Estudio de la calidad del agua del ro cauca y sus principales tributarios
mediante la aplicacin de ndices de calidad y contaminacin. Project Report 0168, Oct
2004. Available at: http://190.97.204.39/cvc/Mosaic/dpdf2/ Volumen10/1-ECARCpag1158.pdf2004. (Accessed 1/9/2012).
Darbra RM, Eljarrat E, Barcelo D. How to measure uncertainties in environmental risk
assessment. Trends Anal Chem 2008;27:37785.
Faybishenko B. Fuzzy-probabilistic calculations of water-balance uncertainty. Stoch Environ
Res Risk A 2010;24:93952.
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 Ifuzzy approach to aggregate biological indicators. Sci Total Environ
2011;409:470112.
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;25:157381.
Kentel E, Aral M. 2D Monte Carlo and Monte Carlo-fuzzy health risk assessment. Stoch
Environ Res Risk A 2005;19:8696.
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;24:24761.
Legay C, Rodriguez MJ, Sadiq R, Srodes 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;92:892901.
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;9:118897.
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;82:17388.
Mahapatra SS, Nanda SK, Panigrahy BK. A cascaded fuzzy inference system for Indian River
water quality prediction. Adv Eng Softw 2011;42:78796.
Marchini A, Facchinetti T, Mistri M. F-IND: a framework to design fuzzy indices of environmental conditions. Ecol Indic 2009;9:48596.

28

W. Ocampo-Duque et al. / Environment International 52 (2013) 1728

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;35:10349.
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 MonteCarlo based techniques. PhD Thesis at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
USA, 2011.
Mller B, Beer M. Fuzzy randomness uncertainty in civil engineering and computational
mechanics. Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer-Verlag; 2004.
Mller 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;181:46578.
Ocampo-Duque W, Ferr-Huguet N, Domingo JL, Schuhmacher M. Assessing water quality in
rivers with fuzzy inference systems: a case study. Environ Int 2006;32: 73342.
Ocampo-Duque W, Schuhmacher M, Domingo JL. A neural-fuzzy approach to classify the
ecological status in surface waters. Environ Pollut 2007;148:63441.
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;19:98399.

Qin Z, Li W, Xiong X. Estimating wind speed probability distribution using kernel density
method. Electr Power Syst Res 2011;81:213946.
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;90:365364.
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;182:135068.
Silverman BW. Density estimation for statistics and data analysis. London:
Chapman&Hall/CRC, ISBN: 0-412-24620-1; 1998.
Torres P, Cruz C, Patio P, Escobar JC, Prez A. Aplicacin de ndices de calidad de agua
ICA orientados al uso de la fuente para consumo humano. Ing Investig 2010;30: 8695.
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;106:7382.
Zhang X, Huang GH, Nie X. Robust stochastic fuzzy possibilistic programming for environmental decision making under uncertainty. Sci Total Environ 2009;408: 192201.