**3. Results and discussion**

**Country/region Standards and/or guidelines Purposes or classification**

Recreation; aquatic ecosystems

Beneficial uses (protection of natural environment, fishery, drinking, irrigation, industrial water,

environmental conservation)

Recreation

Lake

Drinking

dewatering

Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine

Brazil CONAMA Resolution 274, 2000 Beneficial uses

Law concerning special measures for the preservation of lake

Malaysia National Water Quality Standards Beneficial uses National Drinking Water Quality Standards; Raw water quality

South Africa South African Water Quality Guidelines: recreational uses Recreation

UK & Ireland UK The bathing water regulations 2013 Bathing

United States 2012 Recreational Water Quality criteria Recreation

Various WHO Recreational Water Quality Guidelines Recreation

State of Ohio Water Quality Standards Lake Tahoe Basin Water Quality Plan State of Michigan Water Quality Standards Florida's surface water quality standards

**Table 1.** List of selected water quality standards reviewed and compared.

Putrajaya Lake Water Quality Standards Recreational

South African Water Quality Guidelines: aquatic ecosystem Aquatic ecosystems South African Water Quality Guidelines: domestic uses Domestic uses South African Water Quality Guidelines: domestic uses Irrigation South African Water Quality Guidelines: industrial uses Industrial uses

South African Water Quality Guidelines: agricultural uses Aquaculture; livestock

Ireland Water Quality (Dangerous substances) Regulations, 2001 Dangerous substances

Quality of Bathing Waters Regulations, 1992 Bathing

EU EU Bathing Water Directive 2006 Bathing

Japan Basic environmental law 1967; environmental quality standards

regarding water pollution 1986

Water Quality 2000

EU Water Framework Directive 2000

water quality 1984

guidelines

Canada Guidelines for Canadian Recreational Water Quality 2012

Australia & New Zealand

296 Water Quality

### **3.1. Comparison of different water quality criteria and standards**

In general, most of the standards were developed to protect the use of water for human health purposes, such as drinking, bathing, and other resource efficiency such as industry, livestock dewatering and aquaculture [4]. The protection of aquatic health has been emphasized in the United States, Brazil, Australia and Japan. The criteria and number of parameters differ between the guidelines and standards. As drinking water standards are already established in Malaysia, emphasis in this work is placed on other human health applications, namely recreational, as well as aquatic life health. The commonly used criterion proposed by USEPA to measure human health is based on carcinogenicity and toxicity [10]. All recreational water quality criteria focus on microbiological parameters affecting human health. Microbial hazards are considered to be the primary concern by the WHO as they have the largest impact on health in terms of waterborne disease, especially when compared to chemical hazards which are usually associated with long‐term exposure [16]. The Canadian recreational guidelines emphasize *Escherichia coli*, enterococci and cyanobacteria as indicators for microbial parame‐ ters [17]. In contrast, the South African guidelines identify nine microbiological parameters of concern related to recreational waters, namely algae measured by chlorophyll‐*a* and blue‐green algae counts, faecal coliforms, enterococci, *E. coli*, enteric viruses, coliphage and schistosoma/ bilharzia [18]. Enterococci and *E. coli* are the only parameters monitored in the European Union bathing water directive, while microbiological parameters differ among states in the United States, with *E. coli* and faecal coliform mostly prescribed for monitoring. *E. coli* is the preferred indicator of faecal pollution for fresh recreational waters due to its strong correlation with the risk of gastrointestinal illness and the availability of a standardized method of detecting the organism within 24–48 h [17, 19]. *E. coli* is also a good indicator of human faeces, contributing 97% of the coliform organisms and recent faecal contamination due to its short survival rate [17]. Biochemical oxygen demand and chemical oxygen demand were not listed in many standards except for those in Japan and Malaysia. The impact on health from cyanobacteria is related to irritative dermal exposure to cyanobacteria genera such as Anabaena, Aphanizo‐ menon, Nodularia and Oscillatoria, or the ingestion of cyanotoxin [16].

Within many standards and guidelines for recreational water, pH, clarity and colour are the most frequently prescribed physical and aesthetic parameters monitored (**Table 2**). Addition‐ ally, temperature and turbidity are important physicochemical and aesthetic parameters in Canadian Guidelines, while odour and floating objects are of concern within Australian and South African recreational guidelines, respectively. Turbidity is frequently used as a substitute for total suspended solids (TSS) and clarity, with numerical values specified in some standards or guidelines, such as in Australia and Malaysia.

Of common concern in terms of the chemical parameters for recreational water were total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP), due to their ability to cause nuisance algal growth. Japan's regulations specified TN and TP of 0.2 mg/l and 0.01 mg/l, respectively for bathing purposes, while Lake Tahoe specifies TN and TP of 0.15 mg/l and 0.008 mg/l, respectively [8]. In Malaysia, the PLWQS and NWQS only list TP. In the United States, ammonia is also monitored in the various states' standards such as Ohio, Michigan and New York. In these US states, the narrative standard states that the water should be free of ammonia, or should contain amounts that cannot cause nuisance growths of aquatic weeds and algae. However, national recommendations on nutrient criteria were developed by USEPA and consider the region and waterbody approach by dividing the country into 14 nutrient ecoregions and four water body types, including lakes, reservoirs and wetlands [20]. Ranges of reference values were adopted in Australia to provide guidelines for managers to characterize ambi‐ ent conditions [21]. In many regulations and guidelines, specific site studies are recommend‐ ed to determine the appropriate concentrations for preserving the individual lakes [6, 9]. The number of chemicals criteria (specifically toxicants and pesticides) has increased greatly over the years [3]. More than 100 pesticide parameters have been specified in Australian guidelines [6]. The most typical pesticides mentioned due to health‐related concerns are Al‐ drin, DDT, chlordane, lindane, endosulfan, malathion, paraquat and parathion.

recreational, as well as aquatic life health. The commonly used criterion proposed by USEPA to measure human health is based on carcinogenicity and toxicity [10]. All recreational water quality criteria focus on microbiological parameters affecting human health. Microbial hazards are considered to be the primary concern by the WHO as they have the largest impact on health in terms of waterborne disease, especially when compared to chemical hazards which are usually associated with long‐term exposure [16]. The Canadian recreational guidelines emphasize *Escherichia coli*, enterococci and cyanobacteria as indicators for microbial parame‐ ters [17]. In contrast, the South African guidelines identify nine microbiological parameters of concern related to recreational waters, namely algae measured by chlorophyll‐*a* and blue‐green algae counts, faecal coliforms, enterococci, *E. coli*, enteric viruses, coliphage and schistosoma/ bilharzia [18]. Enterococci and *E. coli* are the only parameters monitored in the European Union bathing water directive, while microbiological parameters differ among states in the United States, with *E. coli* and faecal coliform mostly prescribed for monitoring. *E. coli* is the preferred indicator of faecal pollution for fresh recreational waters due to its strong correlation with the risk of gastrointestinal illness and the availability of a standardized method of detecting the organism within 24–48 h [17, 19]. *E. coli* is also a good indicator of human faeces, contributing 97% of the coliform organisms and recent faecal contamination due to its short survival rate [17]. Biochemical oxygen demand and chemical oxygen demand were not listed in many standards except for those in Japan and Malaysia. The impact on health from cyanobacteria is related to irritative dermal exposure to cyanobacteria genera such as Anabaena, Aphanizo‐

menon, Nodularia and Oscillatoria, or the ingestion of cyanotoxin [16].

or guidelines, such as in Australia and Malaysia.

298 Water Quality

Within many standards and guidelines for recreational water, pH, clarity and colour are the most frequently prescribed physical and aesthetic parameters monitored (**Table 2**). Addition‐ ally, temperature and turbidity are important physicochemical and aesthetic parameters in Canadian Guidelines, while odour and floating objects are of concern within Australian and South African recreational guidelines, respectively. Turbidity is frequently used as a substitute for total suspended solids (TSS) and clarity, with numerical values specified in some standards

Of common concern in terms of the chemical parameters for recreational water were total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP), due to their ability to cause nuisance algal growth. Japan's regulations specified TN and TP of 0.2 mg/l and 0.01 mg/l, respectively for bathing purposes, while Lake Tahoe specifies TN and TP of 0.15 mg/l and 0.008 mg/l, respectively [8]. In Malaysia, the PLWQS and NWQS only list TP. In the United States, ammonia is also monitored in the various states' standards such as Ohio, Michigan and New York. In these US states, the narrative standard states that the water should be free of ammonia, or should contain amounts that cannot cause nuisance growths of aquatic weeds and algae. However, national recommendations on nutrient criteria were developed by USEPA and consider the region and waterbody approach by dividing the country into 14 nutrient ecoregions and four water body types, including lakes, reservoirs and wetlands [20]. Ranges of reference values were adopted in Australia to provide guidelines for managers to characterize ambi‐ ent conditions [21]. In many regulations and guidelines, specific site studies are recommend‐ ed to determine the appropriate concentrations for preserving the individual lakes [6, 9].



*Note*: NR, narrative criteria or standard; #, a function of hardness; NOO, no obvious odour; NOT, no obvious taste. 1 Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality 2000, (a) recreation, (b) aquatic ecosystems.

2 CONAMA Resolution 274, 2000.

3 Canada, Recreation water quality 2012.

4 EU Bathing Water Directive 2006.

5 Basic environmental law; environmental quality standards regarding water pollution.

6 National Water Quality Standards.

7 National Drinking Water Quality Standards.

8 Putrajaya Lake Water Quality Standards.

9 South African Water Quality Guidelines: recreational uses.

10 South African Water Quality Guidelines: domestic uses.

11 South African Water Quality Guidelines: aquatic ecosystem.

12 Quality criteria for water 1986/2012.

13 State of Ohio Water Quality Standards.

14 State of New York Nutrient standard plan.

15 Florida's surface water quality standards.

16 The bathing water regulations 2013.

**Table 2.** Comparison of selected parameters in different water quality standards and guidelines.

Water quality criteria for aquatic health are mostly chemical criteria that require knowledge of aquatic toxicity and environmental fate data. Most of aquatic ecosystems criteria are derived from toxicity data from multiple receptors in order to determine the ranges of tolerance for different organisms, including targeted protective species in relation to pollutants [3]. The commonly used criterion proposed by USEPA to measure the aquatic ecosystem health is usually the chronic effect value and the acute effect value. The minimum amount of data required for deriving water quality criteria for protecting freshwater aquatic environments varies between countries, as critically reviewed by Sha et al. [3]. In the United States and Europe, concentration approach is used with numeric criteria developed for cold water and warm water fish. In Australia, ecological health criterion is used compared to the contaminant limits approach adopted in the United States and Europe. Four biological criteria or indicators, namely species richness, species composition, primary production and ecosystem function, were recommended for assessing the ecosystem health [21]. When compared to developed countries where water quality criteria are well established for biota such as fish, specific information regarding the effects of pollutants that affect biota are very limited in tropical countries such as Malaysia. A recent work by Shuhaimi et al. has identified the acute test value for four heavy metals, namely iron, lead, nickel and zinc, on local biota [22].

Dissolved oxygen (DO), pH and turbidity levels are also important for aquatic life. Fish and other aquatic organisms could not survive if DO levels were less than 4 mg/l, and pH levels lower than 4 or above 11. For protecting specific wildlife such as salmonids, turbidity is specified in many standards in the United States and Alaska [23]. Various effects of turbidity and suspended solid concentrations include reduced growth, abundance, survival and feeding, fatality, altered behaviour and displacement [23]. The recommended criteria for turbidity vary as follows: <50 NTU for Canada and Malaysia, <100 NTU for Brazil and 2–200 NTU for tropical Australia. In the United States, numerical turbidity standards for protecting fish and aquatic habitats lie within 5–25 units above natural levels [23].

There are numerous criteria or limits for heavy metals due to their impact on both human and aquatic health. Almost all standards require criteria for lead, arsenic, mercury, cadmium and chromium. In the United States, criteria for most metals such as lead, cadmium, chromium and copper are based on natural logarithms of total hardness [24, 25] and are targeted for protecting human health. In Australia, numeric guideline values for maximum concentration are prescribed for about 17 parameters relating to heavy metals, while in South Africa a total of 12 parameters are listed [6, 26]. References on the lake conditions were made based on published literature [27–30].
