Research ArticleApplication of Multivariate Statistical Analysis in Evaluation ofSurface River Water Quality of a Tropical River

Teck-Yee Ling1 Chen-Lin Soo1 Jing-Jing Liew1 Lee Nyanti2

Siong-Fong Sim1 and Jongkar Grinang3

1Department of Chemistry Faculty of Resource Science and Technology Universiti Malaysia Sarawak94300 Kota Samarahan Sarawak Malaysia2Department of Aquatic Science Faculty of Resource Science and Technology Universiti Malaysia Sarawak94300 Kota Samarahan Sarawak Malaysia3Institute of Biodiversity and Environmental Conservation Universiti Malaysia Sarawak 94300 Kota SamarahanSarawak Malaysia

Correspondence should be addressed to Teck-Yee Ling teckyee60gmailcom

Received 18 November 2016 Accepted 26 December 2016 Published 19 January 2017

Academic Editor Athanasios Katsoyiannis

Copyright copy 2017 Teck-Yee Ling et al This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution Licensewhich permits unrestricted use distribution and reproduction in any medium provided the original work is properly cited

The present study evaluated the spatial variations of surface water quality in a tropical river usingmultivariate statistical techniquesincluding cluster analysis (CA) and principal component analysis (PCA) Twenty physicochemical parameters were measured at30 stations along the Batang Baram and its tributariesThe water quality of the Batang Baram was categorized as ldquoslightly pollutedrdquowhere the chemical oxygen demand and total suspended solids were the most deteriorated parameters The CA grouped the 30stations into four clusters which shared similar characteristics within the same cluster representing the upstream middle anddownstream regions of the main river and the tributaries from the middle to downstream regions of the river The PCA hasdetermined a reduced number of six principal components that explained 836 of the data set varianceThe first PC indicated thatthe total suspended solids turbidity and hydrogen sulphide were the dominant polluting factors which is attributed to the loggingactivities followed by the five-day biochemical oxygen demand total phosphorus organic nitrogen and nitrate-nitrogen in thesecond PC which are related to the discharges from domestic wastewater The components also imply that logging activities arethe major anthropogenic activities responsible for water quality variations in the Batang Baram when compared to the domesticwastewater discharge

1 Introduction

The Batang Baram (ldquobatangrdquo denotes big river) (coordinates4∘35101584052810158401015840N and 113∘5810158404425610158401015840E) is located on the northernpart of Sarawak where it flows 400 km westwards mostlythrough primary and secondary forest to the South ChinaSea The river is the second longest river in Sarawak and thethird longest river in Malaysia The Baram area was once apristine area but it has undergone profound changes associ-atedwith the population growth anddevelopment Increasingresidential area numerous longhouses and swidden agricul-ture are found along the river Commercial logging has alsobeen carried out actively in the area for decades where the

logged forest was then converted to commercial oil palm andacacia plantations [1]

Although development continues to grow in this areathe study on the water quality of the river is relatively scarcedespite the river serving as an important source for drinkingwater for the rural community The discharges of domesticsewage and agricultural runoff can lead to eutrophication [2ndash4] while deforestation can cause sedimentation and nutrientenrichment in the river [5ndash8] In the year 1995 sampling wasconducted in the uppermost catchment of the Baram Riverbasin The study revealed that the overall water quality of theriver was relatively good at that time butwas subjected to highsuspended solids which came from soil erosions due to land

HindawiJournal of ChemistryVolume 2017 Article ID 5737452 13 pageshttpsdoiorg10115520175737452

2 Journal of Chemistry

Upstream region of Batang Baram

Downstream region of Batang Baram

N

St 2 St 1

St 4St 5

St 3

St 6St 7St 8

St 9St 10

St 11St 12

St 13St 14St 15

St 16St 17

St 18

St 19

St 20

St 21St 22

St 23St 24

St 25St 26

St 27St 28

St 29St 30

Sampling station

South China Sea Sabah

Sarawak

Peninsular Malaysia

2km

Figure 1 The study area in Sarawak state and location of the 30 sampling stations along the Batang Baram and its tributaries in the presentstudy

clearing and timber harvesting [9] The author also pointedout that elevated ammonia was found near to the domesticand animal waste discharges

Water quality assessment and monitoring on large riverbasin like the Batang Baram potentially generate a largedata set Numerous studies have shown that multivariatestatistical analysis is useful for the assessment of the spatialwater quality variations in a river [10ndash16] Cluster analysiscould reveal similarities among the large number of samplingstations in a river while principal component analysis assistsin identifying important factors accounting for most of thevariances in water quality of a river Hence the aim of thepresent study was to apply the multivariate statistical analysisin the interpretation of the physicochemical characteristicsof the Batang Baram and its tributaries The analysis outputwould provide valuable information for the decision makingin the river basin management

2 Materials and Methods

21 Field Collection In situ and ex situ parameters werecollected at 30 sampling stations located along the BatangBaramand its tributaries covering a distance of approximatelyof 172 km (Figure 1) Table 1 shows the details of the samplingsfrom upstream to downstream directions that were carriedout in the year 2015 The water level of river was highduring samplings due to the rain before each sampling The

whole study area was subjected to logging activities Numer-ous longhouses and plantation activities were included inTable 1 In situ parameters including temperature pHconductivity oxygen saturation (DOsat) dissolved oxygen(DO) and turbidity were measured using a multiparameterwater quality sonde (YSI6920 V2-2) Transparency depthand flow velocity were measured using a Secchi disc witha measuring tape a depth sounder (PS-7 Hondex) and astream flow meter (Geopacks) respectively Total dischargemean velocity and mean depth were calculated accordingto [17] The water samples were taken for the analyses ofchlorophyll a (chl a) total suspended solids (TSS) five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) chemical oxygendemand (COD) total phosphorus (TP) total ammonianitrogen (TAN) nitrite-nitrogen (NO2

minus-N) nitrate-nitrogen(NO3minus-N) organic nitrogen (Org-N) and total sulphide

(TS) All sampling bottles were acid-washed cleaned anddried before use Analyses of chl a TSS and BOD5 began inthe field immediately after samplingwhileNO2

minus-NNO3minus-N

and TS analyses were completed in the field after samplingWater samples were acidified to pH lt 2 for COD TP TANand Org-N analyses The samples were placed in an ice boxand transported to the laboratory for further analysis [18]

22 Laboratory Analysis All the analyses were conductedaccording to the standard methods [16 17] Chl 119886 wasdetermined from samples filtered through a 07 120583m glass

Journal of Chemistry 3

Table 1 The details of the sampling regime and sampling locations surveyed in the present study

Sampling Station Location Remark

29-30 July 2015

St 1 Batang BaramN 03∘10101584010810158401015840E 115∘11101584047610158401015840 Lio Mato longhouse

St 2 Sungai SelungoN 03∘10101584015010158401015840E 115∘11101584046710158401015840

St 3 Batang BaramN 03∘09101584034010158401015840E 115∘10101584051010158401015840 Long Tungan longhouse

St 4 Sungai TemendanN 03∘07101584016710158401015840E 115∘09101584015210158401015840

St 5 Batang BaramN 03∘07101584021810158401015840E 115∘09101584010510158401015840

St 6 Batang BaramN 03∘06101584054010158401015840E 115∘07101584021810158401015840

Long Semiyanglonghouse

St 7 Sungai SebatuN 03∘05101584050610158401015840E 115∘05101584046310158401015840

St 8 Sungai SelarsquoanN 03∘05101584050510158401015840E 115∘04101584052710158401015840

St 9 Sungai MohN 03∘02101584034110158401015840E 115∘04101584035910158401015840

St 10 Batang BaramN 03∘03101584037510158401015840E 115∘03101584023310158401015840

Long Moh longhouseReplantation

3-4 September 2015

St 11 Batang BaramN 03∘08101584023610158401015840E 114∘48101584052710158401015840 Long Apu longhouse

St 12 Sungai LasaN 03∘08101584040810158401015840E 114∘48101584049210158401015840 Residential area

St 13 Sungai MenuangN 03∘16101584019110158401015840E 114∘49101584022410158401015840

St 14 Batang BaramN 03∘16101584056610158401015840E 114∘47101584053110158401015840

St 15 Batang BaramN 03∘17101584049610158401015840E 114∘47101584008110158401015840 Long San longhouse

St 16 Sungai AkahN 03∘19101584011310158401015840E 114∘47101584032710158401015840 Residential area

St 17 Sungai KeluangN 03∘19101584058610158401015840E 114∘42101584021810158401015840

St 18 Batang BaramN 03∘21101584019010158401015840E 114∘41101584031510158401015840 Long Sangah longhouse

St 19 Batang BaramN 03∘19101584050810158401015840E114∘35101584043110158401015840 Long Naharsquoa longhouse

St 20 Sungai PatahN 03∘21101584002910158401015840E114∘36101584022310158401015840

21-22 January 2015

St 21 Sungai KahahN 03∘23101584012910158401015840E 114∘34101584005710158401015840

St 22 Batang BaramN 03∘23101584008410158401015840E 114∘33101584035810158401015840

St 23 Sungai PipingN 03∘24101584047410158401015840E 114∘33101584039010158401015840

St 24 Batang BaramN 03∘25101584045910158401015840E 114∘33101584000510158401015840

St 25 Sungai JertangN 03∘26101584019310158401015840E114∘32101584028310158401015840

4 Journal of Chemistry

Table 1 Continued

Sampling Station Location Remark

St 26 Sungai KessehN 03∘27101584026210158401015840E 114∘30101584044510158401015840 Long Kesseh longhouse

St 27 Batang BaramN 03∘27101584011310158401015840E 114∘30101584029410158401015840 Long Kesseh longhouse

St 28 Sungai NakanN 03∘26101584029610158401015840E114∘29101584020610158401015840

Long Nakan longhouseOil palm plantation

St 29 Sungai LiyansN 03∘27101584007810158401015840E 114∘29101584015310158401015840

St 30 Sungai KemenyehN 03∘27101584046710158401015840E 114∘28101584029410158401015840

microfibre filter (Whatman GFF) and extracted for 24 husing 90 (vv) acetone For TSS filtration of an adequatesample through a 10 120583m glass microfibre filter (WhatmanGFB) was carried out in the field and drying of the filterwas conducted in the laboratory in an oven at 105∘C untila constant weight was obtained It was then determinedby calculating the difference between the initial and finalweight of the sample and expressed as milligram per literof sample For BOD5 it was determined as the differencebetween the initial and final DO content after a five-dayperiod of incubation of the sample The initial DO contentwas measured in the field Whenever the in situ DO valuewas deemed too low it was raised by vigorous aeration CODwas determined by the closed reflux method followed by thetitrimetric method For TP analysis persulfate digestion ofsamples was conducted followed by the ascorbic acidmethodTAN NO2

minus-N and NO3minus-N were determined by Nesslerrsquos

method diazotization method (low range) and cadmiumreductionmethod respectively Before the analyses of NO2

minus-N and NO3

minus-N the water sample was filtered through a07 120583m glass microfibre filter (Whatman GFF) Org-N wasdetermined by the Macro-Kjeldahl Method where ammoniawas removed from the water sample before digestion anddistillation Subsequently ammonia was analyzed by usingNesslerrsquos method TS was analyzed using the methyleneblue method H2S was calculated according to [18] with thefollowing equation

H2S =TS

(1 + 11987010158401 [H+]) (1)

where H2S is the unionized hydrogen sulphide TS is the totalsulphide 1198701015840 is the conditional ionization constant and [H+]is the hydrogen ion concentration

A calibration curve was constructed for each chemicalanalysisThe blank and standard solutions were treated in thesame way as the sample

23 Water Quality Index (WQI) Water quality index (WQI)which combines the six variables of DO BOD COD TSS

AN and pH was calculated according to the followingequation

WQI = 022 lowast SIDO + 019 lowast SIBOD + 016 lowast SICOD

+ 015 lowast SIAN + 016 lowast SISS + 012 lowast SIpH(2)

where SIDO is the subindex for DO ( saturation) SIBODis the subindex for BOD (mgL) SICOD is the subindex forCOD (mgL) SIAN is the subindex for AN (mgL) SISS is thesubindex for SS (mgL) and SIpH is the subindex for pH [19]

24 Statistical Analysis Comparison of physicochemicalparameters between the stations in the Batang Baram wasconducted using one-way ANOVA and Tukeyrsquos pairwisecomparisons with 5 significance level The independentsamples t-test was used to compare the physicochemicalparameters between the main river and tributary stationsPearsonrsquos correlation analysis was performed to determinethe relationship among all the parameters Cluster analysis(CA) was used to investigate the grouping of the samplingstations by using the physicochemical parameters collectedin the river 119885-score standardization of the variables andWardrsquos method using Euclidean distances as a measure ofsimilarity were used The cluster was considered statisticallysignificant at a linkage distance of lt60 and the numberof clusters was decided by the practicality of the outputs[12] Principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted tocharacterize the loadings of all physicochemical parametersfor each of the PCs obtained having eigenvectors higherthan one (Kaiser criterion) The component has significantloading on a variable when the loading is greater than 04[20] The data were square-rooted and standardized prior tothe analysis The quality of data for PCA was confirmed withKaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacytest and Bartlettrsquos test of sphericity All the statistical analyseswere carried out by using the Statistical Software for SocialSciences (SPSS Version 22 SPSS Inc 1995)

3 Results and Discussion

31 The Physicochemical Characteristics of the Batang Baramand Its Tributaries Figures 2 and 3 show the mean values ofthe physicochemical parameters of the Batang Baram and itstributaries fromupstream to downstream regionsDuring the

Journal of Chemistry 5

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

00

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

002004006008001000120014001600

Main riverTributary

Tota

l disc

harg

e (m

3s

)

Tota

l disc

harg

e (m

3s

)

(a)

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

0002040608101214161820

Mea

n ve

loci

ty (m

s)

0002040608101214161820

Mea

n ve

loci

ty (m

s)

Main riverTributary

(b)

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

0010203040506070

Mea

n de

pth

(m)

0020406080

100120140160180

Mea

n de

pth

(m)

Main riverTributary

(c)

KL

IJ IJG

I

LM

KJ J

AB C

HD

HC B

QR

P

H

O

EFB

F H

N

D E

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

220

240

260

280

300

320

340

Tem

pera

ture

(∘C)

220

230

240

250

260

270

280

Tem

pera

ture

(∘C)

Main riverTributary

(d)

IF

EG F G

M

KL I L

AB

P

BD

EFG

C A

SR

NP

SQ

JK

O

H

MJ

O

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

6062646668707274767880

pH

6062646668707274767880

pH

Main riverTributary

(e)

Q

E

M L KJ I H

F FC

BA

KG

J HE

TU

L M

R Q PN

S

V

D

O

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

00

100

200

300

400

500

600

Con

duct

ivity

(120583S

cm)

00100200300400500600700800900

Con

duct

ivity

(120583S

cm)

Main riverTributary

(f)

K HIJ

F D B E GH

IG

HIJ

GH

E

T

WV

AE FGC I

OL MM J

Q

U

P R Q S

N

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

DO

sat (

)

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

DO

sat (

)

Main riverTributary

(g)

NO P MN

MN

I I J LM OP

KL

R

VU

D

Q P QS

HI

B

FG

T

E F

T

C

GH

FG

K

A

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

DO

(mg

L)

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

DO

(mg

L)

Main riverTributary

(h)

Figure 2 Continued

6 Journal of Chemistry

EFG

FGH

GH

K KIJ

M

JK

L

LM

N

L L

CDEF

K

DEF

BCD

ED

EF

BCD

AAB

A

N

A

ABC

HI

A A

L

AB

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

00

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000Tu

rbid

ity (N

TU)

00

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Turb

idity

(NTU

)

Main riverTributary

(i)

A AA

A A A AA

AA

A

A A

G

A

F

G

F

A

BC

CD

E

A

H H

B

G

H

A

D

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

000

002

004

006

008

010

Tran

spar

ency

(m)

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

Tran

spar

ency

(m)

Main riverTributary

(j)

Figure 2 In situ parameters of (a) total discharge (b) mean velocity (c) mean depth (d) temperature (e) pH (f) conductivity (g) DOsat(h)DO (i) turbidity and (j) transparency measured at the 30 sampling stations located along the Batang Baram (left axis) and its tributaries(right axis) (different letters indicate significant difference at 119901 value le 005)

sampling total discharge of the Batang Baram ranged from1263m3s to 27118m3s and from 05m3s to 1336m3s inmain river and tributaries respectively Figure 2 illustratesthat total discharge of main river showed an increasingtrend towards downstream regions whereas the highest totaldischarge in tributaries was observed at station 8 followed bystation 16 Mean velocity of the river was relatively consistentinmain riverwith amean value of 12msHighmean velocity(gt1ms) was also observed in some of the tributaries locatedupstream but most of the tributaries were slow flowing(asymp02ms) Mean depth of the Batang Baram ranged from09m to 165m and from 02m to 61m in main river andtributaries respectively Both main river and tributaries wererelatively deeper downstream compared to upstream

The results of ANOVA showed that all of the parametersdemonstrated significant variations (p value le 005) from onesampling station to anotherThe physicochemical parametersshowed different distribution patterns along the main riverThe turbidity TSS and H2S values increased significantly (pvalue le 005) towards downstream with the highest values ofturbidity (4688 plusmn 454NTU) and TSS (3200 plusmn 193mgL)which were both observed at station 20 while the highestvalue of H2S (083 plusmn 001mgL) was observed at station 22The high turbidity and TSS downstream indicate the accu-mulation of sediment in the river Reference [21] reported thata spit was formed in the Baram River mouth and continuedto expand due to the erosion associated with deforestationand land use changes in the upstream region The similardistribution pattern and significant positive correlation (pvalue le 005) between H2S turbidity and TSS (Table 2)indicated that H2S was associated with suspended solids inthe river

On the other hand the conductivity BOD5 TP NO3minus-N

and Org-N showed higher values at the upper part of theriver and decreased significantly (p value le 005) towardsdownstream region In contrary [22] demonstrated thatTP TN and NH3-N concentrations tend to increase fromupstream to downstream regions in the Qiantang River EastChina In the present study the highest conductivity valuewas observed at station 1 (500120583Scm) and steadily decreased

to 35 120583Scm at station 27 The highest values of BOD5 (57 plusmn02mgL) and Org-N (274 plusmn 001mgL) were observed atstations 1 and 4 respectively while the highest values ofTP (22 plusmn 01mgL) and NO3

minus-N (007 plusmn 001mgL) wereobserved at station 6 The conductivity value (82 120583Scmndash133 120583Scm) in the uppermost part of the Baram River basinreported by [9] was relatively higher than the present studywhich agrees with the present result that conductivity valuewas higher in the upper part of the river However the authoralso reported the concentrations of the BOD5 (07mgL to20mgL) and NO3

minus-N (001mgLndash002mgL) which werelower than the present study

Significantly higher COD value (p value le 005) wasobserved in the middle section of the river (1101mgLndash1818mgL) whereas NO2

minus-N (0001mgLndash0002mgL) andTAN (012mgLndash033mgL) values were significantly lower(p value le 005) there Significantly higher (p value le 005)TAN was observed at stations 21 (157 plusmn 007mgL) and 22(149 plusmn 020mgL) while significantly higher (p value le 005)NO2minus-N was observed at station 20 (0055 plusmn 0001mgL)

Similar to BOD5 and NO3minus-N the NH3-N concentration in

the uppermost part of the Baram River basin which rangedfrom 07mgL to 20mgL [9] was lower than the presentstudyThe author attributed the high ammonia concentrationin his study to the sewage discharge from the longhouseand animal waste The higher nutrients concentration in thepresent study indicated the deterioration of water quality overtime due to the increase in population and land developmentin the area

Table 3 shows that the river temperature pH conductiv-ity transparency chl a andNO2minus-Nwere significantly higher(p value le 005) in tributaries than in the main river Thehigh water temperature in tributaries particularly at stations12 13 and 16 (gt29∘C) indicated that direct solar radiationdue to the forest canopy exposure after logging had increasedthe river temperature in those tributaries [6] The BaramRiver basin contained high dissolved ions which gave thehigh conductivity values in the river [9] Besides significantpositive correlation (p value le 005) between temperatureand conductivity indicated that the high temperature in

Journal of Chemistry 7

Table2Correlatio

nmatrix

(119901valuele

005)o

fthe

insituandex

situparametersc

ollected

from

the3

0samplingsta

tions

Disc

harge

Velocity

Depth

Temp

pHCon

dDOsat

DO

Turb

Trans

Chla

TSS

BOD5

COD

TPTA

NNO2minus-N

NO3minus-N

Org-N

H2S

Disc

harge

392

834

minus546

601

706

389

Velocity

392

minus39

1minus511

381minus389

555

491

454

Depth

834

641

513

Temp

658

610

minus480

minus52

8minus39

0minus403

pHminus546

minus39

1658

549minus53

9minus650

413

minus608

minus566

Con

dminus511

610

549

minus444

478minus467

minus554

minus454

DOsat

minus53

9minus582

915

714

DO

601

641

527

minus544

minus456

minus547

362

Turb

706

381

513minus480minus650

527

366

minus493

399

Trans

minus389

413

minus582

minus605

minus361

Chla

TSS

389

minus608

915

366minus605

596

BOD5

555

minus444

minus544

550

545

523

COD

478

minus493

minus39

2TP

491

minus467

minus456

550

540

564

TAN

minus52

8NO2minus-N

NO3minus-N

454

minus39

0minus55

4545minus39

2540

515

Org-N

minus547

523

564

515

H2S

minus403minus566minus454

714

362

399minus361

596

8 Journal of Chemistry

AB A

BC

ABC

A

DEF EF

G

DEF

FG

CDE

FG

AB AB

H

AB

DEF

G

DEF

K

I

AB

BCD

H

A

G

A A A

ABC

H

J

A

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

0020406080

100120140160

0050100150200250300350

Chla

(mg

m3)

Chla

(mg

m3)

(a)

CDE E EF

GH

EFG

J

HIH

K

L

JK K

JK

AB

FGH

DE

ABC BC

D

AB

AB A

BA

B

L

A

AB

DE

A A

IJ

AB

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

005001000150020002500300035004000

TSS

(mg

L)

00500

1000150020002500300035004000

TSS

(mg

L)

(b)

R

IJK

OP

HI

MN

DEF

G

NO

KLM

LMIJ

FGH

BCD

E

BCD

E

MN

KLM

PQ PQ Q

BCJK

L

B B B

FGH

CDEF

GH

A

BCD EF

G HI

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

0010203040506070

BOD

5(m

gL)

00

10

20

30

40

50

60

BOD

5(m

gL)

(c)

EFG

ABC

D

BCD

EA

B AB

HI

L

JK IJK

HI

CDEF

AB

AABC

D

ABC

FGH

ABC

DA

B

GH

IJ

GH

FGH

FGH

DEF FG

H

M

A

ABC

DFG

HKL

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

00200400600800

100012001400160018002000

COD

(mg

L)

00

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

COD

(mg

L)

(d)

G

DE

CD

G

CDCD CD

AB

AAB

BC

AAB

F

EF

AB

EF

AB

A AB AB

A AAB AB

A A A A A

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

00

05

10

15

20

25

TP (m

gL)

00

05

10

15

20

25

30

TP (m

gL)

(e)

HIJK

FGH

I

DEF FG

H JK

A A

C

ABC

A

M

L

DE

HIJK

EFG G

HIJ

FGH

IFG

H

A AB

AB

A A

M

BC

KLBC

DA

BCIJK

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

0002040608101214161820

TAN

(mg

L)0002040608101214161820

TAN

(mg

L)

(f)

EFG

HIJ

KLM

LMJK

LM

FGH

IJ

A AB A

BC AB

HIJK

L

DEF

GH

FGH

IJ

BCD

EFG

H

N

O

GH

IJKL

DEF

GH

I M

ABC

DEF

GH

IJ

IJKL

DEF

GH

P

ABC

DEF

G

CDEF

GH

GH

IJKA

BCD

EF

ABC

DE

FGH

IJA

B

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

0000

0010

0020

0030

0040

0050

0060

NO

2-N

(mg

L)

00000002000400060008001000120014001600180020

NO

2-N

(mg

L)

(g)

ABC

D

BCD

ABC

D

F

EFA

BC

ABC

DA

BCD BC

DA

BCD

ABC

D

ABC

D

ABC

ABC

D

F

CD DE

F

AB

A A A

ABC

DA

BC

ABC

D

ABC A

BC

AB A

BCA

BC

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

000

002

004

006

008

010

012

NO

3-N

(mg

L)

000

002

004

006

008

010

012

NO

3-N

(mg

L)

(h)

Figure 3 Continued

Journal of Chemistry 9

L

N

J

LK

G

D

K

IK

B

F

A

N

P

O

HG

CDE

IJ

EF F

B

M

A A AB

D

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

00

05

10

15

20

25

30O

rg-N

(mg

L)

00

05

10

15

20

25

30

Org

-N (m

gL)

(i)

CDE JK IJ

L

O

FGH

I

DEF

KL

M M

Q

M

P

HIJ

M

JK GH

IJD

EF

A AB

EFG

HBC

D

L

AB

EFG H

IJA

BC BCD

N

BCD

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

00010203040506070809

H2S

(mg

L)

0001010202030304

H2S

(mg

L)

(j)

Figure 3 Ex situ water quality of (a) chl a (b) TSS (c) BOD5 (d) COD (e) TP (f) TAN (g) NO2minus-N (h) NO3minus-N (i) Org-N and (j)H2S measured at the 30 sampling stations located along the Batang Baram (left axis) and its tributaries (right axis) (different letters indicatesignificant difference at 119901 value le 005)

Table 3 Mean difference of in situ and ex situ water qualityparameters between the main river of the Batang Baram and itstributaries

Parameter Mean difference 119901 value

In situ

Temperature ∘C minus07 0050pH minus02 0001

Conductivity 120583Scm minus162 0000DOsat minus02 0915DO mgL +02 0000

Turbidity NTU +1320 0000Transparency m minus04 0000

Ex situ

Chl a mgm3 minus26 0048TSS mgL +1207 0000BOD5 mgL +05 0026COD mgL minus83 0474TP mgL +04 0002TAN mgL +01 0497

NO2minus-N mgL minus0006 0006

NO3minus-N mgL +0007 0169

Org-N mgL +03 0093H2S mgL +01 0000

Positive value of mean difference indicates parameter studied was higher inthe main river of Batang Baram whereas negative value indicates parameterstudied was higher in the tributary The significant difference at 119901 value le005 was indicated in bold

tributaries increased the ionic mobility and solubility ofminerals which is reflected in high conductivity in tributariesAlso the high photosynthesis rate as indicated by the highchl 119886 in tributaries had increased the pH values in tributariesOn the other hand the main river contained significantlyhigher (p value le 005) DO turbidity TSS BOD5 TP andH2S (Table 3) Most of these parameters were significantlyand positively correlated (p value le 005) with total dischargeand mean velocity of the river (Table 2) Hence we canassume that the fast flowingmain river had increased the DOcontent due to more rapid aeration and had introduced morepollutants into the river via surface runoff Neverthelesstributaries of the Batang Baram were also well aerated as allof the stations were recorded with DO content of more than5mgL and DOsat more than 80

Clus

ter1

Clus

ter2

Clus

ter3

Clus

ter4

0

5

10

15

20

25

Resc

aled

dist

ance

clus

ter c

ombi

natio

n

Case

5Ca

se3

Case

6Ca

se4

Case

9Ca

se8

Case

2Ca

se1

Case

7

Case

13

Case

17

Case

26

Case

16

Case

21

Case

28

Case

23

Case

24

Case

27

Case

22

Case

12

Case

20

Case

29

Case

14

Case

15

Case

11

Case

10

Case

19

Case

25

Case

18

Case

30

Station

Figure 4 Clustering of the 30 sampling stations along the BatangBaram and its tributaries

Table 4 shows that most of the sampling stations wereclassified as Class III and categorized as ldquoslightly pollutedrdquoaccording to the water quality index (WQI) Among the 30stations along the Batang Baram and its tributaries only twostations which were located at tributaries of Sungai Kessehand Sungai Nakan were categorized as ldquocleanrdquo The pH andDO were classified as Class I andor Class II indicating goodcondition whereas the COD was the worst parameter wheremost of the stations were classified as Classes III IV andor VThe river also possesses pollution risk by suspended solids asTSS was classified as Class III andor Class IV at most of thestations andwas classified as Class V at stations 19 and 20Theresults revealed a deteriorating water quality of the BatangBaram and its tributaries when compared to the uppermostpart of the Baram River basin reported by [9] where the riverwas grouped as a Class II river

32 Cluster Analysis (CA) Cluster analysis was used todetect similarities among the sampling stations in the studyarea The dendogram shows that sampling stations in thepresent study can be grouped into four significant clustersas illustrated by Figure 4 The clustering pattern shows thatphysicochemical characteristics of the BatangBaramchanged

10 Journal of Chemistry

Table 4 Classification of water quality of the Batang Baram from upstream to downstream regions according to WQI

Station Class StatusAN BOD5 COD DO pH TSS WQI

1 III III IV II I III III Slightly polluted2 III III III II II II III Slightly polluted3 III III III II I III III Slightly polluted4 III III III II II IV III Slightly polluted5 III III IV II II III III Slightly polluted6 III II III II I IV III Slightly polluted7 III III IV II I III III Slightly polluted8 III III III II II II III Slightly polluted9 III III III II II III III Slightly polluted10 III III III II I III III Slightly polluted11 II II V II I IV III Slightly polluted12 II II V II I I II Slightly polluted13 II III V II I I III Slightly polluted14 II III V II I IV III Slightly polluted15 III III V II I IV III Slightly polluted16 II II V II I II II Slightly polluted17 II II IV II I II II Slightly polluted18 II III V II I IV III Slightly polluted19 II II V II I V III Slightly polluted20 II II IV II I V III Slightly polluted21 IV II IV II I I III Slightly polluted22 IV II IV II II IV III Slightly polluted23 III II IV II I II II Slightly polluted24 IV II III I I IV III Slightly polluted25 IV II V II I III III Slightly polluted26 III II II II I I II Clean27 III II II I II IV III Slightly polluted28 III II III II I I II Clean29 II II IV II I IV III Slightly polluted30 III II V II I I III Slightly polluted

from upstream to downstream regions as demonstrated bythe grouping of upstream stations middle stations anddownstream stations into different clusters Cluster 1 consistsof stations that were located mostly in the middle sectionof the river (stations 11 14 15 18 19 and 20) except station29 which was located downstream Tributaries located frommiddle to downstream regions of the river shared similarcharacteristics as demonstrated by the grouping of stations12 13 16 17 21 23 25 26 28 and 30 in cluster 2 Themain river located downstream (stations 22 24 and 27)also showed similarity and grouped together as cluster 3These two clusters show that main river and tributaries ofthe Batang Baram which were located downstream sharedno similarity Finally cluster 4 consists of stations that werelocated upstream of the river including stations that werelocated at the main river and tributaries (station 1 to station10)This analysis suggests that a reduced number of samplingstations in each cluster may serve as a rapid assessment of thewater quality of the Batang Baram and leads to a more cost-effective monitoring study in the future

33 Principal Component Analysis (PCA) The PCA wasused to explore the most important factors determiningthe spatial variations in physicochemical parameters of theBatangBaramA total of six principal components (PCs)wereobtained with eigenvalues more than one which accountedfor around 836 of the total variance in the 20 physico-chemical parameters of the Batang Baram (Table 5) The firstcomponent (PC1) accounting for 300 of the total variancein the data sets of the river water has significant positiveloadings on turbidity TSS and H2S and negative loadingson conductivity and transparency These factors imply thatsoil erosion occurred in the present study area and a highloading of turbidity and H2S is associated with the presenceof suspended solids [23] Similarly strong positive loadingson turbidity and suspended solids were also observed in aMekong Delta area of Vietnam [11] which is a result of soilerosion from disturbed land The Sarawak forest is subjectedto high timber harvesting pressure rendering sedimentationproblem in its forest streams [1 6 24ndash26] The presentstudy shows that the Batang Baram in Sarawak state is no

Journal of Chemistry 11

Table 5 Loadings of the physicochemical parameters on the first six varimax-rotated PCs (eigenvalue gt 1) along the Batang Baram and itstributaries

Rotated Component Matrixa

Parameter Component1 2 3 4 5 6

Total discharge +0900Mean velocity +0674 +0640Mean depth +0712Temperature minus0904pH minus0451 minus0607 +0444Conductivity minus0605 minus0476DOsat minus0750 +0488DO +0678Turbidity +0948Transparency minus0791Chl a minus0906TSS +0956BOD5 +0854COD minus0423 minus0692TP +0850TAN +0780NO2 +0784NO3 +0612 +0563Org-N +0716H2S +0759 +0427Initial eigenvalue 60 37 27 17 14 12 of variance 301 186 135 87 68 59Cumulative 301 487 622 709 777 836aRotation converged in 11 iterations

exception Logging activities in the surrounding area havecaused sedimentation and increased suspended solids levelin the river The PC1 has the largest proportion of thetotal variance indicating that logging activities are the majorsource of river water contamination in the Batang Baram

The PC2 accounting for 186 of the total variance hassignificant positive loadings on mean velocity BOD5 TPNO3minus-N andOrg-N andnegative loadings on pHandDOsat

These factors indicate an inflow of effluent from longhousesand residential area largely consisting of organic pollutantsand a negative loading of pH and DOsat is attributed to theprocess of decomposition of the organic matter Similarly theanalysis of PCA was applied in the Qiantang River whichindicated that TN NO3

minus NH3-N and TP were the dominantpollution factors in the river [22] The authors attributed thepollutions to the domestic sewage discharge of poultry andanimal feces and fertilizer that were flushed into the riverAlso an ldquoorganicrdquo factor that positively loaded with CODBOD5 TON TP and PO4

3minus was reported in a main riversystem in northernGreecewhich represented the influence ofmunicipal and industrial effluents [16] The PC3 accountingfor 136 of total variance has significant positive loadings ontotal discharge mean velocity mean depth DOsat and DOand negative loadings on conductivity and COD suggestinga dilution of chemically oxidizable material in the river

associated with high volume of river water and high dissolvedoxygen levelThe high CODBOD5 ratio in the Batang Baramindicates a large nonbiodegradable fraction of organic matterin the river

The PC4 (87 of the total variance) has significantpositive loadings on transparency TAN NO3

minus-N and H2Sand negative loadings on temperature pH and conductivityIn an anaerobic condition the high loading of organicmatter in river can lead to the formation of ammonia andorganic acids which coupledwith the production of hydrogensulphide and carbon dioxide during decomposition [27 28]can cause acidification of water By employing the PCA forthe data interpretation [10] also revealed that parametersrelated to organic pollutants and temperature were the mostimportant parameters contributing to water quality variationin the SavaRiver CroatiaThePC5 (68of the total variance)is significantly and negatively loaded on COD but positivelyloaded onNO2

minus-N Again the high loading of organicmatterin the river likely led to the build-up of NO2

minus-N in thewater Similar to PC2 both PC4 and PC5 can be explainedas influences from domestic discharges which contained highnutrients and organic matter As PC2 has a larger proportionof the total variance than PC4 and PC5 we can assume thatorganic pollution in the Batang Baram ismore severe than theinorganic pollution Reference [29] also reported that organic

12 Journal of Chemistry

pollutants followed by nutrients and salt concentration werethe most important parameters contributing to water qualityvariation in the Wen-Rui Tang River watershed ChinaFinally the PC6 (59 of the total variance) is significantlyand positively loaded on pH but negatively loaded on chl 119886indicating the decomposition of dead phytoplankton and thatmost of the variability in the data is due to the pH changes aspH plays a significant role in mineralization process

4 Conclusions

The present study revealed that the Batang Baram and itstributaries demonstrated sign of pollution as indicated byhigh suspended solids and nutrients in the river Most ofthe stations along the river were classified as Class III andcategorized as ldquoslightly pollutedrdquo In particular the CODand TSS were the most severe parameters where they wereclassified as Class V at some of the stations in the riverA large number of sampling stations in the present studywere grouped into four clusters which divided the riverinto upstream middle and downstream main river andtributaries located middle and downstream of the river ThePCA revealed that parameters related to logging activitiesand domestic sewage discharge were the most importantparameters contributing to water quality variation in theriver

Competing Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interestsregarding the publication of this paper

Acknowledgments

The authors appreciate the financial support provided by theSarawak Energy Berhad through Grant no GL(F07)SEB3C2013(22) and the facilities provided byUniversitiMalaysiaSarawak

References

[1] M Ichikawa ldquoDegradation and loss of forest land and land-usechanges in Sarawak East Malaysia a study of native land use bythe Ibanrdquo Ecological Research vol 22 no 3 pp 403ndash413 2007

[2] H P Jarvie C Neal and P J AWithers ldquoSewage-effluent phos-phorus a greater risk to river eutrophication than agriculturalphosphorusrdquoThe Science of the Total Environment vol 360 no1ndash3 pp 246ndash253 2006

[3] M B Rothenberger J M Burkholder and C Brownie ldquoLong-term effects of changing land use practices on surface waterquality in a coastal river and lagoonal estuaryrdquo EnvironmentalManagement vol 44 no 3 pp 505ndash523 2009

[4] C Soo T Ling N Lee and K Apun ldquoAssessment of thecharacteristic of nutrients total metals and fecal coliform inSibu Laut River Sarawak Malaysiardquo Applied Water Science vol6 no 1 pp 77ndash96 2016

[5] F Gokbulak Y Serengil S Ozhan N Ozyuvaci and N BalcildquoEffect of timber harvest on physical water quality characteris-ticsrdquo Water Resources Management vol 22 no 5 pp 635ndash6492008

[6] T-Y Ling C-L Soo J-R Sivalingam L Nyanti S-F Simand J Grinang ldquoAssessment of the water and sediment qualityof tropical forest streams in upper reaches of the Baleh RiverSarawak Malaysia subjected to logging activitiesrdquo Journal ofChemistry vol 2016 Article ID 8503931 13 pages 2016

[7] J Schelker K Eklof K Bishop and H Laudon ldquoEffects offorestry operations on dissolved organic carbon concentrationsand export in boreal first-order streamsrdquo Journal of GeophysicalResearch Biogeosciences vol 117 no 1 pp 1ndash12 2012

[8] ANorZaihaM SM Ismid Salmiati andM S S Azri ldquoEffectsof logging activities on ecological water quality indicators in theBerasau River Johor Malaysiardquo Environmental Monitoring andAssessment vol 187 no 8 article 493 2015

[9] L SengWater in the Environment Tainted Life Source Hungersfor Cures UNIMAS 2011

[10] A Marinovic Ruzdjak and D Ruzdjak ldquoEvaluation of riverwater quality variations using multivariate statistical tech-niques Sava River (Croatia) A Case Studyrdquo EnvironmentalMonitoring and Assessment vol 187 no 4 pp 1ndash14 2015

[11] D Phung C Huang S Rutherford et al ldquoTemporal and spatialassessment of river surface water quality using multivariatestatistical techniques a study in CanTho City a Mekong Deltaarea Vietnamrdquo Environmental Monitoring and Assessment vol187 no 5 article no 229 2015

[12] S Muangthong and S Shrestha ldquoAssessment of surface waterquality using multivariate statistical techniques case study ofthe Nampong River and Songkhram River Thailandrdquo Environ-mental Monitoring and Assessment vol 187 no 9 article 5482015

[13] R L Olsen R W Chappell and J C Loftis ldquoWater qualitysample collection data treatment and results presentation forprincipal components analysismdashliterature review and IllinoisRiver watershed case studyrdquo Water Research vol 46 no 9 pp3110ndash3122 2012

[14] S Shrestha and F Kazama ldquoAssessment of surface water qualityusing multivariate statistical techniques a case study of the Fujiriver basin Japanrdquo Environmental Modelling and Software vol22 no 4 pp 464ndash475 2007

[15] P Zeilhofer E B N R Lima and G A R Lima ldquoSpatialpatterns of water quality in the cuiaba River Basin CentralBrazilrdquo Environmental Monitoring and Assessment vol 123 no1ndash3 pp 41ndash62 2006

[16] V Simeonov J A Stratis C Samara et al ldquoAssessment of thesurface water quality in Northern GreecerdquoWater Research vol37 no 17 pp 4119ndash4124 2003

[17] S C Chapra Surface Water-Quality Modeling McGraw-HillNew York NY USA 1997

[18] D Jenkins J J Connors and A E Greenberg Standard Meth-ods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater AmericanPublic Health Association Washingon DC USA 21st edition2005

[19] Department of Environment Malaysia Environmental QualityReport 2014 DOE Kuala Lumpur Malaysia 2015

[20] R C Jones D P Kelso and E Schaeffer ldquoSpatial and seasonalpatterns in water quality in an embayment-mainstem reach ofthe tidal freshwater Potomac River USA A Multiyear StudyrdquoEnvironmental Monitoring and Assessment vol 147 no 1ndash3 pp351ndash375 2008

[21] R Nagarajan M P Jonathan P D Roy GMuthusankar and CLakshumanan ldquoDecadal evolution of a spit in the Baram rivermouth in easternMalaysiardquoContinental Shelf Research vol 105pp 18ndash25 2015

Journal of Chemistry 13

[22] H Yuan E LiuW Pan and S An ldquoWater pollution characteris-tics and assessment in different functional zonesrdquo Polish Journalof Environmental Studies vol 23 no 2 pp 541ndash549 2014

[23] G S Bilotta and R E Brazier ldquoUnderstanding the influenceof suspended solids on water quality and aquatic biotardquo WaterResearch vol 42 no 12 pp 2849ndash2861 2008

[24] T Jinggut C M Yule and L Boyero ldquoStream ecosystemintegrity is impaired by logging and shifting agriculture in aglobal megadiversity center (Sarawak Borneo)rdquo Science of theTotal Environment vol 437 pp 83ndash90 2012

[25] J Hon and S Shibata ldquoA review on land use in the Malaysianstate of Sarawak Borneo and recommendations for wildlifeconservation inside production forest environmentrdquo BorneoJournal of Resource Science and Technology vol 3 no 2 pp 22ndash35 2013

[26] J E Bryan P L Shearman G P Asner D E Knapp G Aoroand B Lokes ldquoExtreme differences in forest degradation inborneo comparing practices in Sarawak Sabah and BruneirdquoPLoS ONE vol 8 no 7 Article ID e69679 2013

[27] M Holmer and E Kristensen ldquoImpact of marine fish cagefarming on metabolism and sulfate reduction of underlyingsedimentsrdquo Marine Ecology Progress Series vol 80 no 2-3 pp191ndash201 1992

[28] K I A Kularatne D P Dissanayake and K R R MahanamaldquoContribution of dissolved sulfates and sulfites in hydrogensulfide emission from stagnant water bodies in Sri LankardquoChemosphere vol 52 no 5 pp 901ndash907 2003

[29] K Mei L Liao Y Zhu et al ldquoEvaluation of spatial-temporalvariations and trends in surface water quality across a rural-suburban-urban interfacerdquoEnvironmental Science and PollutionResearch vol 21 no 13 pp 8036ndash8051 2014

Submit your manuscripts athttpswwwhindawicom

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Inorganic ChemistryInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

International Journal ofPhotoenergy

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Carbohydrate Chemistry

International Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of

Chemistry

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Advances in

Physical Chemistry

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Analytical Methods in Chemistry

Journal of

Volume 2014

Bioinorganic Chemistry and ApplicationsHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

SpectroscopyInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Medicinal ChemistryInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Chromatography Research International

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Applied ChemistryJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Theoretical ChemistryJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of

Spectroscopy

Analytical ChemistryInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Quantum Chemistry

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Organic Chemistry International

ElectrochemistryInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

CatalystsJournal of

Journal of Chemistry 3

Table 1 The details of the sampling regime and sampling locations surveyed in the present study

Sampling Station Location Remark

29-30 July 2015

St 1 Batang BaramN 03∘10101584010810158401015840E 115∘11101584047610158401015840 Lio Mato longhouse

St 2 Sungai SelungoN 03∘10101584015010158401015840E 115∘11101584046710158401015840

St 3 Batang BaramN 03∘09101584034010158401015840E 115∘10101584051010158401015840 Long Tungan longhouse

St 4 Sungai TemendanN 03∘07101584016710158401015840E 115∘09101584015210158401015840

St 5 Batang BaramN 03∘07101584021810158401015840E 115∘09101584010510158401015840

St 6 Batang BaramN 03∘06101584054010158401015840E 115∘07101584021810158401015840

Long Semiyanglonghouse

St 7 Sungai SebatuN 03∘05101584050610158401015840E 115∘05101584046310158401015840

St 8 Sungai SelarsquoanN 03∘05101584050510158401015840E 115∘04101584052710158401015840

St 9 Sungai MohN 03∘02101584034110158401015840E 115∘04101584035910158401015840

St 10 Batang BaramN 03∘03101584037510158401015840E 115∘03101584023310158401015840

Long Moh longhouseReplantation

3-4 September 2015

St 11 Batang BaramN 03∘08101584023610158401015840E 114∘48101584052710158401015840 Long Apu longhouse

St 12 Sungai LasaN 03∘08101584040810158401015840E 114∘48101584049210158401015840 Residential area

St 13 Sungai MenuangN 03∘16101584019110158401015840E 114∘49101584022410158401015840

St 14 Batang BaramN 03∘16101584056610158401015840E 114∘47101584053110158401015840

St 15 Batang BaramN 03∘17101584049610158401015840E 114∘47101584008110158401015840 Long San longhouse

St 16 Sungai AkahN 03∘19101584011310158401015840E 114∘47101584032710158401015840 Residential area

St 17 Sungai KeluangN 03∘19101584058610158401015840E 114∘42101584021810158401015840

St 18 Batang BaramN 03∘21101584019010158401015840E 114∘41101584031510158401015840 Long Sangah longhouse

St 19 Batang BaramN 03∘19101584050810158401015840E114∘35101584043110158401015840 Long Naharsquoa longhouse

St 20 Sungai PatahN 03∘21101584002910158401015840E114∘36101584022310158401015840

21-22 January 2015

St 21 Sungai KahahN 03∘23101584012910158401015840E 114∘34101584005710158401015840

St 22 Batang BaramN 03∘23101584008410158401015840E 114∘33101584035810158401015840

St 23 Sungai PipingN 03∘24101584047410158401015840E 114∘33101584039010158401015840

St 24 Batang BaramN 03∘25101584045910158401015840E 114∘33101584000510158401015840

St 25 Sungai JertangN 03∘26101584019310158401015840E114∘32101584028310158401015840

4 Journal of Chemistry

Table 1 Continued

Sampling Station Location Remark

St 26 Sungai KessehN 03∘27101584026210158401015840E 114∘30101584044510158401015840 Long Kesseh longhouse

St 27 Batang BaramN 03∘27101584011310158401015840E 114∘30101584029410158401015840 Long Kesseh longhouse

St 28 Sungai NakanN 03∘26101584029610158401015840E114∘29101584020610158401015840

Long Nakan longhouseOil palm plantation

St 29 Sungai LiyansN 03∘27101584007810158401015840E 114∘29101584015310158401015840

St 30 Sungai KemenyehN 03∘27101584046710158401015840E 114∘28101584029410158401015840

microfibre filter (Whatman GFF) and extracted for 24 husing 90 (vv) acetone For TSS filtration of an adequatesample through a 10 120583m glass microfibre filter (WhatmanGFB) was carried out in the field and drying of the filterwas conducted in the laboratory in an oven at 105∘C untila constant weight was obtained It was then determinedby calculating the difference between the initial and finalweight of the sample and expressed as milligram per literof sample For BOD5 it was determined as the differencebetween the initial and final DO content after a five-dayperiod of incubation of the sample The initial DO contentwas measured in the field Whenever the in situ DO valuewas deemed too low it was raised by vigorous aeration CODwas determined by the closed reflux method followed by thetitrimetric method For TP analysis persulfate digestion ofsamples was conducted followed by the ascorbic acidmethodTAN NO2

minus-N and NO3minus-N were determined by Nesslerrsquos

method diazotization method (low range) and cadmiumreductionmethod respectively Before the analyses of NO2

minus-N and NO3

minus-N the water sample was filtered through a07 120583m glass microfibre filter (Whatman GFF) Org-N wasdetermined by the Macro-Kjeldahl Method where ammoniawas removed from the water sample before digestion anddistillation Subsequently ammonia was analyzed by usingNesslerrsquos method TS was analyzed using the methyleneblue method H2S was calculated according to [18] with thefollowing equation

H2S =TS

(1 + 11987010158401 [H+]) (1)

where H2S is the unionized hydrogen sulphide TS is the totalsulphide 1198701015840 is the conditional ionization constant and [H+]is the hydrogen ion concentration

A calibration curve was constructed for each chemicalanalysisThe blank and standard solutions were treated in thesame way as the sample

23 Water Quality Index (WQI) Water quality index (WQI)which combines the six variables of DO BOD COD TSS

AN and pH was calculated according to the followingequation

WQI = 022 lowast SIDO + 019 lowast SIBOD + 016 lowast SICOD

+ 015 lowast SIAN + 016 lowast SISS + 012 lowast SIpH(2)

where SIDO is the subindex for DO ( saturation) SIBODis the subindex for BOD (mgL) SICOD is the subindex forCOD (mgL) SIAN is the subindex for AN (mgL) SISS is thesubindex for SS (mgL) and SIpH is the subindex for pH [19]

24 Statistical Analysis Comparison of physicochemicalparameters between the stations in the Batang Baram wasconducted using one-way ANOVA and Tukeyrsquos pairwisecomparisons with 5 significance level The independentsamples t-test was used to compare the physicochemicalparameters between the main river and tributary stationsPearsonrsquos correlation analysis was performed to determinethe relationship among all the parameters Cluster analysis(CA) was used to investigate the grouping of the samplingstations by using the physicochemical parameters collectedin the river 119885-score standardization of the variables andWardrsquos method using Euclidean distances as a measure ofsimilarity were used The cluster was considered statisticallysignificant at a linkage distance of lt60 and the numberof clusters was decided by the practicality of the outputs[12] Principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted tocharacterize the loadings of all physicochemical parametersfor each of the PCs obtained having eigenvectors higherthan one (Kaiser criterion) The component has significantloading on a variable when the loading is greater than 04[20] The data were square-rooted and standardized prior tothe analysis The quality of data for PCA was confirmed withKaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacytest and Bartlettrsquos test of sphericity All the statistical analyseswere carried out by using the Statistical Software for SocialSciences (SPSS Version 22 SPSS Inc 1995)

3 Results and Discussion

31 The Physicochemical Characteristics of the Batang Baramand Its Tributaries Figures 2 and 3 show the mean values ofthe physicochemical parameters of the Batang Baram and itstributaries fromupstream to downstream regionsDuring the

Journal of Chemistry 5

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

00

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

002004006008001000120014001600

Main riverTributary

Tota

l disc

harg

e (m

3s

)

Tota

l disc

harg

e (m

3s

)

(a)

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

0002040608101214161820

Mea

n ve

loci

ty (m

s)

0002040608101214161820

Mea

n ve

loci

ty (m

s)

Main riverTributary

(b)

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

0010203040506070

Mea

n de

pth

(m)

0020406080

100120140160180

Mea

n de

pth

(m)

Main riverTributary

(c)

KL

IJ IJG

I

LM

KJ J

AB C

HD

HC B

QR

P

H

O

EFB

F H

N

D E

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

220

240

260

280

300

320

340

Tem

pera

ture

(∘C)

220

230

240

250

260

270

280

Tem

pera

ture

(∘C)

Main riverTributary

(d)

IF

EG F G

M

KL I L

AB

P

BD

EFG

C A

SR

NP

SQ

JK

O

H

MJ

O

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

6062646668707274767880

pH

6062646668707274767880

pH

Main riverTributary

(e)

Q

E

M L KJ I H

F FC

BA

KG

J HE

TU

L M

R Q PN

S

V

D

O

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

00

100

200

300

400

500

600

Con

duct

ivity

(120583S

cm)

00100200300400500600700800900

Con

duct

ivity

(120583S

cm)

Main riverTributary

(f)

K HIJ

F D B E GH

IG

HIJ

GH

E

T

WV

AE FGC I

OL MM J

Q

U

P R Q S

N

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

DO

sat (

)

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

DO

sat (

)

Main riverTributary

(g)

NO P MN

MN

I I J LM OP

KL

R

VU

D

Q P QS

HI

B

FG

T

E F

T

C

GH

FG

K

A

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

DO

(mg

L)

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

DO

(mg

L)

Main riverTributary

(h)

Figure 2 Continued

6 Journal of Chemistry

EFG

FGH

GH

K KIJ

M

JK

L

LM

N

L L

CDEF

K

DEF

BCD

ED

EF

BCD

AAB

A

N

A

ABC

HI

A A

L

AB

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

00

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000Tu

rbid

ity (N

TU)

00

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Turb

idity

(NTU

)

Main riverTributary

(i)

A AA

A A A AA

AA

A

A A

G

A

F

G

F

A

BC

CD

E

A

H H

B

G

H

A

D

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

000

002

004

006

008

010

Tran

spar

ency

(m)

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

Tran

spar

ency

(m)

Main riverTributary

(j)

Figure 2 In situ parameters of (a) total discharge (b) mean velocity (c) mean depth (d) temperature (e) pH (f) conductivity (g) DOsat(h)DO (i) turbidity and (j) transparency measured at the 30 sampling stations located along the Batang Baram (left axis) and its tributaries(right axis) (different letters indicate significant difference at 119901 value le 005)

sampling total discharge of the Batang Baram ranged from1263m3s to 27118m3s and from 05m3s to 1336m3s inmain river and tributaries respectively Figure 2 illustratesthat total discharge of main river showed an increasingtrend towards downstream regions whereas the highest totaldischarge in tributaries was observed at station 8 followed bystation 16 Mean velocity of the river was relatively consistentinmain riverwith amean value of 12msHighmean velocity(gt1ms) was also observed in some of the tributaries locatedupstream but most of the tributaries were slow flowing(asymp02ms) Mean depth of the Batang Baram ranged from09m to 165m and from 02m to 61m in main river andtributaries respectively Both main river and tributaries wererelatively deeper downstream compared to upstream

The results of ANOVA showed that all of the parametersdemonstrated significant variations (p value le 005) from onesampling station to anotherThe physicochemical parametersshowed different distribution patterns along the main riverThe turbidity TSS and H2S values increased significantly (pvalue le 005) towards downstream with the highest values ofturbidity (4688 plusmn 454NTU) and TSS (3200 plusmn 193mgL)which were both observed at station 20 while the highestvalue of H2S (083 plusmn 001mgL) was observed at station 22The high turbidity and TSS downstream indicate the accu-mulation of sediment in the river Reference [21] reported thata spit was formed in the Baram River mouth and continuedto expand due to the erosion associated with deforestationand land use changes in the upstream region The similardistribution pattern and significant positive correlation (pvalue le 005) between H2S turbidity and TSS (Table 2)indicated that H2S was associated with suspended solids inthe river

On the other hand the conductivity BOD5 TP NO3minus-N

and Org-N showed higher values at the upper part of theriver and decreased significantly (p value le 005) towardsdownstream region In contrary [22] demonstrated thatTP TN and NH3-N concentrations tend to increase fromupstream to downstream regions in the Qiantang River EastChina In the present study the highest conductivity valuewas observed at station 1 (500120583Scm) and steadily decreased

to 35 120583Scm at station 27 The highest values of BOD5 (57 plusmn02mgL) and Org-N (274 plusmn 001mgL) were observed atstations 1 and 4 respectively while the highest values ofTP (22 plusmn 01mgL) and NO3

minus-N (007 plusmn 001mgL) wereobserved at station 6 The conductivity value (82 120583Scmndash133 120583Scm) in the uppermost part of the Baram River basinreported by [9] was relatively higher than the present studywhich agrees with the present result that conductivity valuewas higher in the upper part of the river However the authoralso reported the concentrations of the BOD5 (07mgL to20mgL) and NO3

minus-N (001mgLndash002mgL) which werelower than the present study

Significantly higher COD value (p value le 005) wasobserved in the middle section of the river (1101mgLndash1818mgL) whereas NO2

minus-N (0001mgLndash0002mgL) andTAN (012mgLndash033mgL) values were significantly lower(p value le 005) there Significantly higher (p value le 005)TAN was observed at stations 21 (157 plusmn 007mgL) and 22(149 plusmn 020mgL) while significantly higher (p value le 005)NO2minus-N was observed at station 20 (0055 plusmn 0001mgL)

Similar to BOD5 and NO3minus-N the NH3-N concentration in

the uppermost part of the Baram River basin which rangedfrom 07mgL to 20mgL [9] was lower than the presentstudyThe author attributed the high ammonia concentrationin his study to the sewage discharge from the longhouseand animal waste The higher nutrients concentration in thepresent study indicated the deterioration of water quality overtime due to the increase in population and land developmentin the area

Table 3 shows that the river temperature pH conductiv-ity transparency chl a andNO2minus-Nwere significantly higher(p value le 005) in tributaries than in the main river Thehigh water temperature in tributaries particularly at stations12 13 and 16 (gt29∘C) indicated that direct solar radiationdue to the forest canopy exposure after logging had increasedthe river temperature in those tributaries [6] The BaramRiver basin contained high dissolved ions which gave thehigh conductivity values in the river [9] Besides significantpositive correlation (p value le 005) between temperatureand conductivity indicated that the high temperature in

Journal of Chemistry 7

Table2Correlatio

nmatrix

(119901valuele

005)o

fthe

insituandex

situparametersc

ollected

from

the3

0samplingsta

tions

Disc

harge

Velocity

Depth

Temp

pHCon

dDOsat

DO

Turb

Trans

Chla

TSS

BOD5

COD

TPTA

NNO2minus-N

NO3minus-N

Org-N

H2S

Disc

harge

392

834

minus546

601

706

389

Velocity

392

minus39

1minus511

381minus389

555

491

454

Depth

834

641

513

Temp

658

610

minus480

minus52

8minus39

0minus403

pHminus546

minus39

1658

549minus53

9minus650

413

minus608

minus566

Con

dminus511

610

549

minus444

478minus467

minus554

minus454

DOsat

minus53

9minus582

915

714

DO

601

641

527

minus544

minus456

minus547

362

Turb

706

381

513minus480minus650

527

366

minus493

399

Trans

minus389

413

minus582

minus605

minus361

Chla

TSS

389

minus608

915

366minus605

596

BOD5

555

minus444

minus544

550

545

523

COD

478

minus493

minus39

2TP

491

minus467

minus456

550

540

564

TAN

minus52

8NO2minus-N

NO3minus-N

454

minus39

0minus55

4545minus39

2540

515

Org-N

minus547

523

564

515

H2S

minus403minus566minus454

714

362

399minus361

596

8 Journal of Chemistry

AB A

BC

ABC

A

DEF EF

G

DEF

FG

CDE

FG

AB AB

H

AB

DEF

G

DEF

K

I

AB

BCD

H

A

G

A A A

ABC

H

J

A

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

0020406080

100120140160

0050100150200250300350

Chla

(mg

m3)

Chla

(mg

m3)

(a)

CDE E EF

GH

EFG

J

HIH

K

L

JK K

JK

AB

FGH

DE

ABC BC

D

AB

AB A

BA

B

L

A

AB

DE

A A

IJ

AB

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

005001000150020002500300035004000

TSS

(mg

L)

00500

1000150020002500300035004000

TSS

(mg

L)

(b)

R

IJK

OP

HI

MN

DEF

G

NO

KLM

LMIJ

FGH

BCD

E

BCD

E

MN

KLM

PQ PQ Q

BCJK

L

B B B

FGH

CDEF

GH

A

BCD EF

G HI

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

0010203040506070

BOD

5(m

gL)

00

10

20

30

40

50

60

BOD

5(m

gL)

(c)

EFG

ABC

D

BCD

EA

B AB

HI

L

JK IJK

HI

CDEF

AB

AABC

D

ABC

FGH

ABC

DA

B

GH

IJ

GH

FGH

FGH

DEF FG

H

M

A

ABC

DFG

HKL

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

00200400600800

100012001400160018002000

COD

(mg

L)

00

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

COD

(mg

L)

(d)

G

DE

CD

G

CDCD CD

AB

AAB

BC

AAB

F

EF

AB

EF

AB

A AB AB

A AAB AB

A A A A A

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

00

05

10

15

20

25

TP (m

gL)

00

05

10

15

20

25

30

TP (m

gL)

(e)

HIJK

FGH

I

DEF FG

H JK

A A

C

ABC

A

M

L

DE

HIJK

EFG G

HIJ

FGH

IFG

H

A AB

AB

A A

M

BC

KLBC

DA

BCIJK

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

0002040608101214161820

TAN

(mg

L)0002040608101214161820

TAN

(mg

L)

(f)

EFG

HIJ

KLM

LMJK

LM

FGH

IJ

A AB A

BC AB

HIJK

L

DEF

GH

FGH

IJ

BCD

EFG

H

N

O

GH

IJKL

DEF

GH

I M

ABC

DEF

GH

IJ

IJKL

DEF

GH

P

ABC

DEF

G

CDEF

GH

GH

IJKA

BCD

EF

ABC

DE

FGH

IJA

B

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

0000

0010

0020

0030

0040

0050

0060

NO

2-N

(mg

L)

00000002000400060008001000120014001600180020

NO

2-N

(mg

L)

(g)

ABC

D

BCD

ABC

D

F

EFA

BC

ABC

DA

BCD BC

DA

BCD

ABC

D

ABC

D

ABC

ABC

D

F

CD DE

F

AB

A A A

ABC

DA

BC

ABC

D

ABC A

BC

AB A

BCA

BC

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

000

002

004

006

008

010

012

NO

3-N

(mg

L)

000

002

004

006

008

010

012

NO

3-N

(mg

L)

(h)

Figure 3 Continued

Journal of Chemistry 9

L

N

J

LK

G

D

K

IK

B

F

A

N

P

O

HG

CDE

IJ

EF F

B

M

A A AB

D

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

00

05

10

15

20

25

30O

rg-N

(mg

L)

00

05

10

15

20

25

30

Org

-N (m

gL)

(i)

CDE JK IJ

L

O

FGH

I

DEF

KL

M M

Q

M

P

HIJ

M

JK GH

IJD

EF

A AB

EFG

HBC

D

L

AB

EFG H

IJA

BC BCD

N

BCD

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

00010203040506070809

H2S

(mg

L)

0001010202030304

H2S

(mg

L)

(j)

Figure 3 Ex situ water quality of (a) chl a (b) TSS (c) BOD5 (d) COD (e) TP (f) TAN (g) NO2minus-N (h) NO3minus-N (i) Org-N and (j)H2S measured at the 30 sampling stations located along the Batang Baram (left axis) and its tributaries (right axis) (different letters indicatesignificant difference at 119901 value le 005)

Table 3 Mean difference of in situ and ex situ water qualityparameters between the main river of the Batang Baram and itstributaries

Parameter Mean difference 119901 value

In situ

Temperature ∘C minus07 0050pH minus02 0001

Conductivity 120583Scm minus162 0000DOsat minus02 0915DO mgL +02 0000

Turbidity NTU +1320 0000Transparency m minus04 0000

Ex situ

Chl a mgm3 minus26 0048TSS mgL +1207 0000BOD5 mgL +05 0026COD mgL minus83 0474TP mgL +04 0002TAN mgL +01 0497

NO2minus-N mgL minus0006 0006

NO3minus-N mgL +0007 0169

Org-N mgL +03 0093H2S mgL +01 0000

Positive value of mean difference indicates parameter studied was higher inthe main river of Batang Baram whereas negative value indicates parameterstudied was higher in the tributary The significant difference at 119901 value le005 was indicated in bold

tributaries increased the ionic mobility and solubility ofminerals which is reflected in high conductivity in tributariesAlso the high photosynthesis rate as indicated by the highchl 119886 in tributaries had increased the pH values in tributariesOn the other hand the main river contained significantlyhigher (p value le 005) DO turbidity TSS BOD5 TP andH2S (Table 3) Most of these parameters were significantlyand positively correlated (p value le 005) with total dischargeand mean velocity of the river (Table 2) Hence we canassume that the fast flowingmain river had increased the DOcontent due to more rapid aeration and had introduced morepollutants into the river via surface runoff Neverthelesstributaries of the Batang Baram were also well aerated as allof the stations were recorded with DO content of more than5mgL and DOsat more than 80

Clus

ter1

Clus

ter2

Clus

ter3

Clus

ter4

0

5

10

15

20

25

Resc

aled

dist

ance

clus

ter c

ombi

natio

n

Case

5Ca

se3

Case

6Ca

se4

Case

9Ca

se8

Case

2Ca

se1

Case

7

Case

13

Case

17

Case

26

Case

16

Case

21

Case

28

Case

23

Case

24

Case

27

Case

22

Case

12

Case

20

Case

29

Case

14

Case

15

Case

11

Case

10

Case

19

Case

25

Case

18

Case

30

Station

Figure 4 Clustering of the 30 sampling stations along the BatangBaram and its tributaries

Table 4 shows that most of the sampling stations wereclassified as Class III and categorized as ldquoslightly pollutedrdquoaccording to the water quality index (WQI) Among the 30stations along the Batang Baram and its tributaries only twostations which were located at tributaries of Sungai Kessehand Sungai Nakan were categorized as ldquocleanrdquo The pH andDO were classified as Class I andor Class II indicating goodcondition whereas the COD was the worst parameter wheremost of the stations were classified as Classes III IV andor VThe river also possesses pollution risk by suspended solids asTSS was classified as Class III andor Class IV at most of thestations andwas classified as Class V at stations 19 and 20Theresults revealed a deteriorating water quality of the BatangBaram and its tributaries when compared to the uppermostpart of the Baram River basin reported by [9] where the riverwas grouped as a Class II river

32 Cluster Analysis (CA) Cluster analysis was used todetect similarities among the sampling stations in the studyarea The dendogram shows that sampling stations in thepresent study can be grouped into four significant clustersas illustrated by Figure 4 The clustering pattern shows thatphysicochemical characteristics of the BatangBaramchanged

10 Journal of Chemistry

Table 4 Classification of water quality of the Batang Baram from upstream to downstream regions according to WQI

Station Class StatusAN BOD5 COD DO pH TSS WQI

1 III III IV II I III III Slightly polluted2 III III III II II II III Slightly polluted3 III III III II I III III Slightly polluted4 III III III II II IV III Slightly polluted5 III III IV II II III III Slightly polluted6 III II III II I IV III Slightly polluted7 III III IV II I III III Slightly polluted8 III III III II II II III Slightly polluted9 III III III II II III III Slightly polluted10 III III III II I III III Slightly polluted11 II II V II I IV III Slightly polluted12 II II V II I I II Slightly polluted13 II III V II I I III Slightly polluted14 II III V II I IV III Slightly polluted15 III III V II I IV III Slightly polluted16 II II V II I II II Slightly polluted17 II II IV II I II II Slightly polluted18 II III V II I IV III Slightly polluted19 II II V II I V III Slightly polluted20 II II IV II I V III Slightly polluted21 IV II IV II I I III Slightly polluted22 IV II IV II II IV III Slightly polluted23 III II IV II I II II Slightly polluted24 IV II III I I IV III Slightly polluted25 IV II V II I III III Slightly polluted26 III II II II I I II Clean27 III II II I II IV III Slightly polluted28 III II III II I I II Clean29 II II IV II I IV III Slightly polluted30 III II V II I I III Slightly polluted

from upstream to downstream regions as demonstrated bythe grouping of upstream stations middle stations anddownstream stations into different clusters Cluster 1 consistsof stations that were located mostly in the middle sectionof the river (stations 11 14 15 18 19 and 20) except station29 which was located downstream Tributaries located frommiddle to downstream regions of the river shared similarcharacteristics as demonstrated by the grouping of stations12 13 16 17 21 23 25 26 28 and 30 in cluster 2 Themain river located downstream (stations 22 24 and 27)also showed similarity and grouped together as cluster 3These two clusters show that main river and tributaries ofthe Batang Baram which were located downstream sharedno similarity Finally cluster 4 consists of stations that werelocated upstream of the river including stations that werelocated at the main river and tributaries (station 1 to station10)This analysis suggests that a reduced number of samplingstations in each cluster may serve as a rapid assessment of thewater quality of the Batang Baram and leads to a more cost-effective monitoring study in the future

33 Principal Component Analysis (PCA) The PCA wasused to explore the most important factors determiningthe spatial variations in physicochemical parameters of theBatangBaramA total of six principal components (PCs)wereobtained with eigenvalues more than one which accountedfor around 836 of the total variance in the 20 physico-chemical parameters of the Batang Baram (Table 5) The firstcomponent (PC1) accounting for 300 of the total variancein the data sets of the river water has significant positiveloadings on turbidity TSS and H2S and negative loadingson conductivity and transparency These factors imply thatsoil erosion occurred in the present study area and a highloading of turbidity and H2S is associated with the presenceof suspended solids [23] Similarly strong positive loadingson turbidity and suspended solids were also observed in aMekong Delta area of Vietnam [11] which is a result of soilerosion from disturbed land The Sarawak forest is subjectedto high timber harvesting pressure rendering sedimentationproblem in its forest streams [1 6 24ndash26] The presentstudy shows that the Batang Baram in Sarawak state is no

Journal of Chemistry 11

Table 5 Loadings of the physicochemical parameters on the first six varimax-rotated PCs (eigenvalue gt 1) along the Batang Baram and itstributaries

Rotated Component Matrixa

Parameter Component1 2 3 4 5 6

Total discharge +0900Mean velocity +0674 +0640Mean depth +0712Temperature minus0904pH minus0451 minus0607 +0444Conductivity minus0605 minus0476DOsat minus0750 +0488DO +0678Turbidity +0948Transparency minus0791Chl a minus0906TSS +0956BOD5 +0854COD minus0423 minus0692TP +0850TAN +0780NO2 +0784NO3 +0612 +0563Org-N +0716H2S +0759 +0427Initial eigenvalue 60 37 27 17 14 12 of variance 301 186 135 87 68 59Cumulative 301 487 622 709 777 836aRotation converged in 11 iterations

exception Logging activities in the surrounding area havecaused sedimentation and increased suspended solids levelin the river The PC1 has the largest proportion of thetotal variance indicating that logging activities are the majorsource of river water contamination in the Batang Baram

The PC2 accounting for 186 of the total variance hassignificant positive loadings on mean velocity BOD5 TPNO3minus-N andOrg-N andnegative loadings on pHandDOsat

These factors indicate an inflow of effluent from longhousesand residential area largely consisting of organic pollutantsand a negative loading of pH and DOsat is attributed to theprocess of decomposition of the organic matter Similarly theanalysis of PCA was applied in the Qiantang River whichindicated that TN NO3

minus NH3-N and TP were the dominantpollution factors in the river [22] The authors attributed thepollutions to the domestic sewage discharge of poultry andanimal feces and fertilizer that were flushed into the riverAlso an ldquoorganicrdquo factor that positively loaded with CODBOD5 TON TP and PO4

3minus was reported in a main riversystem in northernGreecewhich represented the influence ofmunicipal and industrial effluents [16] The PC3 accountingfor 136 of total variance has significant positive loadings ontotal discharge mean velocity mean depth DOsat and DOand negative loadings on conductivity and COD suggestinga dilution of chemically oxidizable material in the river

associated with high volume of river water and high dissolvedoxygen levelThe high CODBOD5 ratio in the Batang Baramindicates a large nonbiodegradable fraction of organic matterin the river

The PC4 (87 of the total variance) has significantpositive loadings on transparency TAN NO3

minus-N and H2Sand negative loadings on temperature pH and conductivityIn an anaerobic condition the high loading of organicmatter in river can lead to the formation of ammonia andorganic acids which coupledwith the production of hydrogensulphide and carbon dioxide during decomposition [27 28]can cause acidification of water By employing the PCA forthe data interpretation [10] also revealed that parametersrelated to organic pollutants and temperature were the mostimportant parameters contributing to water quality variationin the SavaRiver CroatiaThePC5 (68of the total variance)is significantly and negatively loaded on COD but positivelyloaded onNO2

minus-N Again the high loading of organicmatterin the river likely led to the build-up of NO2

minus-N in thewater Similar to PC2 both PC4 and PC5 can be explainedas influences from domestic discharges which contained highnutrients and organic matter As PC2 has a larger proportionof the total variance than PC4 and PC5 we can assume thatorganic pollution in the Batang Baram ismore severe than theinorganic pollution Reference [29] also reported that organic

12 Journal of Chemistry

pollutants followed by nutrients and salt concentration werethe most important parameters contributing to water qualityvariation in the Wen-Rui Tang River watershed ChinaFinally the PC6 (59 of the total variance) is significantlyand positively loaded on pH but negatively loaded on chl 119886indicating the decomposition of dead phytoplankton and thatmost of the variability in the data is due to the pH changes aspH plays a significant role in mineralization process

4 Conclusions

The present study revealed that the Batang Baram and itstributaries demonstrated sign of pollution as indicated byhigh suspended solids and nutrients in the river Most ofthe stations along the river were classified as Class III andcategorized as ldquoslightly pollutedrdquo In particular the CODand TSS were the most severe parameters where they wereclassified as Class V at some of the stations in the riverA large number of sampling stations in the present studywere grouped into four clusters which divided the riverinto upstream middle and downstream main river andtributaries located middle and downstream of the river ThePCA revealed that parameters related to logging activitiesand domestic sewage discharge were the most importantparameters contributing to water quality variation in theriver

Competing Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interestsregarding the publication of this paper

Acknowledgments

The authors appreciate the financial support provided by theSarawak Energy Berhad through Grant no GL(F07)SEB3C2013(22) and the facilities provided byUniversitiMalaysiaSarawak

References

[1] M Ichikawa ldquoDegradation and loss of forest land and land-usechanges in Sarawak East Malaysia a study of native land use bythe Ibanrdquo Ecological Research vol 22 no 3 pp 403ndash413 2007

[2] H P Jarvie C Neal and P J AWithers ldquoSewage-effluent phos-phorus a greater risk to river eutrophication than agriculturalphosphorusrdquoThe Science of the Total Environment vol 360 no1ndash3 pp 246ndash253 2006

[3] M B Rothenberger J M Burkholder and C Brownie ldquoLong-term effects of changing land use practices on surface waterquality in a coastal river and lagoonal estuaryrdquo EnvironmentalManagement vol 44 no 3 pp 505ndash523 2009

[4] C Soo T Ling N Lee and K Apun ldquoAssessment of thecharacteristic of nutrients total metals and fecal coliform inSibu Laut River Sarawak Malaysiardquo Applied Water Science vol6 no 1 pp 77ndash96 2016

[5] F Gokbulak Y Serengil S Ozhan N Ozyuvaci and N BalcildquoEffect of timber harvest on physical water quality characteris-ticsrdquo Water Resources Management vol 22 no 5 pp 635ndash6492008

[6] T-Y Ling C-L Soo J-R Sivalingam L Nyanti S-F Simand J Grinang ldquoAssessment of the water and sediment qualityof tropical forest streams in upper reaches of the Baleh RiverSarawak Malaysia subjected to logging activitiesrdquo Journal ofChemistry vol 2016 Article ID 8503931 13 pages 2016

[7] J Schelker K Eklof K Bishop and H Laudon ldquoEffects offorestry operations on dissolved organic carbon concentrationsand export in boreal first-order streamsrdquo Journal of GeophysicalResearch Biogeosciences vol 117 no 1 pp 1ndash12 2012

[8] ANorZaihaM SM Ismid Salmiati andM S S Azri ldquoEffectsof logging activities on ecological water quality indicators in theBerasau River Johor Malaysiardquo Environmental Monitoring andAssessment vol 187 no 8 article 493 2015

[9] L SengWater in the Environment Tainted Life Source Hungersfor Cures UNIMAS 2011

[10] A Marinovic Ruzdjak and D Ruzdjak ldquoEvaluation of riverwater quality variations using multivariate statistical tech-niques Sava River (Croatia) A Case Studyrdquo EnvironmentalMonitoring and Assessment vol 187 no 4 pp 1ndash14 2015

[11] D Phung C Huang S Rutherford et al ldquoTemporal and spatialassessment of river surface water quality using multivariatestatistical techniques a study in CanTho City a Mekong Deltaarea Vietnamrdquo Environmental Monitoring and Assessment vol187 no 5 article no 229 2015

[12] S Muangthong and S Shrestha ldquoAssessment of surface waterquality using multivariate statistical techniques case study ofthe Nampong River and Songkhram River Thailandrdquo Environ-mental Monitoring and Assessment vol 187 no 9 article 5482015

[13] R L Olsen R W Chappell and J C Loftis ldquoWater qualitysample collection data treatment and results presentation forprincipal components analysismdashliterature review and IllinoisRiver watershed case studyrdquo Water Research vol 46 no 9 pp3110ndash3122 2012

[14] S Shrestha and F Kazama ldquoAssessment of surface water qualityusing multivariate statistical techniques a case study of the Fujiriver basin Japanrdquo Environmental Modelling and Software vol22 no 4 pp 464ndash475 2007

[15] P Zeilhofer E B N R Lima and G A R Lima ldquoSpatialpatterns of water quality in the cuiaba River Basin CentralBrazilrdquo Environmental Monitoring and Assessment vol 123 no1ndash3 pp 41ndash62 2006

[16] V Simeonov J A Stratis C Samara et al ldquoAssessment of thesurface water quality in Northern GreecerdquoWater Research vol37 no 17 pp 4119ndash4124 2003

[17] S C Chapra Surface Water-Quality Modeling McGraw-HillNew York NY USA 1997

[18] D Jenkins J J Connors and A E Greenberg Standard Meth-ods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater AmericanPublic Health Association Washingon DC USA 21st edition2005

[19] Department of Environment Malaysia Environmental QualityReport 2014 DOE Kuala Lumpur Malaysia 2015

[20] R C Jones D P Kelso and E Schaeffer ldquoSpatial and seasonalpatterns in water quality in an embayment-mainstem reach ofthe tidal freshwater Potomac River USA A Multiyear StudyrdquoEnvironmental Monitoring and Assessment vol 147 no 1ndash3 pp351ndash375 2008

[21] R Nagarajan M P Jonathan P D Roy GMuthusankar and CLakshumanan ldquoDecadal evolution of a spit in the Baram rivermouth in easternMalaysiardquoContinental Shelf Research vol 105pp 18ndash25 2015

Journal of Chemistry 13

[22] H Yuan E LiuW Pan and S An ldquoWater pollution characteris-tics and assessment in different functional zonesrdquo Polish Journalof Environmental Studies vol 23 no 2 pp 541ndash549 2014

[23] G S Bilotta and R E Brazier ldquoUnderstanding the influenceof suspended solids on water quality and aquatic biotardquo WaterResearch vol 42 no 12 pp 2849ndash2861 2008

[24] T Jinggut C M Yule and L Boyero ldquoStream ecosystemintegrity is impaired by logging and shifting agriculture in aglobal megadiversity center (Sarawak Borneo)rdquo Science of theTotal Environment vol 437 pp 83ndash90 2012

[25] J Hon and S Shibata ldquoA review on land use in the Malaysianstate of Sarawak Borneo and recommendations for wildlifeconservation inside production forest environmentrdquo BorneoJournal of Resource Science and Technology vol 3 no 2 pp 22ndash35 2013

[26] J E Bryan P L Shearman G P Asner D E Knapp G Aoroand B Lokes ldquoExtreme differences in forest degradation inborneo comparing practices in Sarawak Sabah and BruneirdquoPLoS ONE vol 8 no 7 Article ID e69679 2013

[27] M Holmer and E Kristensen ldquoImpact of marine fish cagefarming on metabolism and sulfate reduction of underlyingsedimentsrdquo Marine Ecology Progress Series vol 80 no 2-3 pp191ndash201 1992

[28] K I A Kularatne D P Dissanayake and K R R MahanamaldquoContribution of dissolved sulfates and sulfites in hydrogensulfide emission from stagnant water bodies in Sri LankardquoChemosphere vol 52 no 5 pp 901ndash907 2003

[29] K Mei L Liao Y Zhu et al ldquoEvaluation of spatial-temporalvariations and trends in surface water quality across a rural-suburban-urban interfacerdquoEnvironmental Science and PollutionResearch vol 21 no 13 pp 8036ndash8051 2014

Submit your manuscripts athttpswwwhindawicom

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Inorganic ChemistryInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

International Journal ofPhotoenergy

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Carbohydrate Chemistry

International Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of

Chemistry

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Advances in

Physical Chemistry

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Analytical Methods in Chemistry

Journal of

Volume 2014

Bioinorganic Chemistry and ApplicationsHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

SpectroscopyInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Medicinal ChemistryInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Chromatography Research International

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Applied ChemistryJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Theoretical ChemistryJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of

Spectroscopy

Analytical ChemistryInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Quantum Chemistry

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Organic Chemistry International

ElectrochemistryInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

CatalystsJournal of

4 Journal of Chemistry

Table 1 Continued

Sampling Station Location Remark

St 26 Sungai KessehN 03∘27101584026210158401015840E 114∘30101584044510158401015840 Long Kesseh longhouse

St 27 Batang BaramN 03∘27101584011310158401015840E 114∘30101584029410158401015840 Long Kesseh longhouse

St 28 Sungai NakanN 03∘26101584029610158401015840E114∘29101584020610158401015840

Long Nakan longhouseOil palm plantation

St 29 Sungai LiyansN 03∘27101584007810158401015840E 114∘29101584015310158401015840

St 30 Sungai KemenyehN 03∘27101584046710158401015840E 114∘28101584029410158401015840

microfibre filter (Whatman GFF) and extracted for 24 husing 90 (vv) acetone For TSS filtration of an adequatesample through a 10 120583m glass microfibre filter (WhatmanGFB) was carried out in the field and drying of the filterwas conducted in the laboratory in an oven at 105∘C untila constant weight was obtained It was then determinedby calculating the difference between the initial and finalweight of the sample and expressed as milligram per literof sample For BOD5 it was determined as the differencebetween the initial and final DO content after a five-dayperiod of incubation of the sample The initial DO contentwas measured in the field Whenever the in situ DO valuewas deemed too low it was raised by vigorous aeration CODwas determined by the closed reflux method followed by thetitrimetric method For TP analysis persulfate digestion ofsamples was conducted followed by the ascorbic acidmethodTAN NO2

minus-N and NO3minus-N were determined by Nesslerrsquos

method diazotization method (low range) and cadmiumreductionmethod respectively Before the analyses of NO2

minus-N and NO3

minus-N the water sample was filtered through a07 120583m glass microfibre filter (Whatman GFF) Org-N wasdetermined by the Macro-Kjeldahl Method where ammoniawas removed from the water sample before digestion anddistillation Subsequently ammonia was analyzed by usingNesslerrsquos method TS was analyzed using the methyleneblue method H2S was calculated according to [18] with thefollowing equation

H2S =TS

(1 + 11987010158401 [H+]) (1)

where H2S is the unionized hydrogen sulphide TS is the totalsulphide 1198701015840 is the conditional ionization constant and [H+]is the hydrogen ion concentration

A calibration curve was constructed for each chemicalanalysisThe blank and standard solutions were treated in thesame way as the sample

23 Water Quality Index (WQI) Water quality index (WQI)which combines the six variables of DO BOD COD TSS

AN and pH was calculated according to the followingequation

WQI = 022 lowast SIDO + 019 lowast SIBOD + 016 lowast SICOD

+ 015 lowast SIAN + 016 lowast SISS + 012 lowast SIpH(2)

where SIDO is the subindex for DO ( saturation) SIBODis the subindex for BOD (mgL) SICOD is the subindex forCOD (mgL) SIAN is the subindex for AN (mgL) SISS is thesubindex for SS (mgL) and SIpH is the subindex for pH [19]

24 Statistical Analysis Comparison of physicochemicalparameters between the stations in the Batang Baram wasconducted using one-way ANOVA and Tukeyrsquos pairwisecomparisons with 5 significance level The independentsamples t-test was used to compare the physicochemicalparameters between the main river and tributary stationsPearsonrsquos correlation analysis was performed to determinethe relationship among all the parameters Cluster analysis(CA) was used to investigate the grouping of the samplingstations by using the physicochemical parameters collectedin the river 119885-score standardization of the variables andWardrsquos method using Euclidean distances as a measure ofsimilarity were used The cluster was considered statisticallysignificant at a linkage distance of lt60 and the numberof clusters was decided by the practicality of the outputs[12] Principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted tocharacterize the loadings of all physicochemical parametersfor each of the PCs obtained having eigenvectors higherthan one (Kaiser criterion) The component has significantloading on a variable when the loading is greater than 04[20] The data were square-rooted and standardized prior tothe analysis The quality of data for PCA was confirmed withKaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacytest and Bartlettrsquos test of sphericity All the statistical analyseswere carried out by using the Statistical Software for SocialSciences (SPSS Version 22 SPSS Inc 1995)

3 Results and Discussion

31 The Physicochemical Characteristics of the Batang Baramand Its Tributaries Figures 2 and 3 show the mean values ofthe physicochemical parameters of the Batang Baram and itstributaries fromupstream to downstream regionsDuring the

Journal of Chemistry 5

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

00

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

002004006008001000120014001600

Main riverTributary

Tota

l disc

harg

e (m

3s

)

Tota

l disc

harg

e (m

3s

)

(a)

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

0002040608101214161820

Mea

n ve

loci

ty (m

s)

0002040608101214161820

Mea

n ve

loci

ty (m

s)

Main riverTributary

(b)

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

0010203040506070

Mea

n de

pth

(m)

0020406080

100120140160180

Mea

n de

pth

(m)

Main riverTributary

(c)

KL

IJ IJG

I

LM

KJ J

AB C

HD

HC B

QR

P

H

O

EFB

F H

N

D E

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

220

240

260

280

300

320

340

Tem

pera

ture

(∘C)

220

230

240

250

260

270

280

Tem

pera

ture

(∘C)

Main riverTributary

(d)

IF

EG F G

M

KL I L

AB

P

BD

EFG

C A

SR

NP

SQ

JK

O

H

MJ

O

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

6062646668707274767880

pH

6062646668707274767880

pH

Main riverTributary

(e)

Q

E

M L KJ I H

F FC

BA

KG

J HE

TU

L M

R Q PN

S

V

D

O

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

00

100

200

300

400

500

600

Con

duct

ivity

(120583S

cm)

00100200300400500600700800900

Con

duct

ivity

(120583S

cm)

Main riverTributary

(f)

K HIJ

F D B E GH

IG

HIJ

GH

E

T

WV

AE FGC I

OL MM J

Q

U

P R Q S

N

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

DO

sat (

)

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

DO

sat (

)

Main riverTributary

(g)

NO P MN

MN

I I J LM OP

KL

R

VU

D

Q P QS

HI

B

FG

T

E F

T

C

GH

FG

K

A

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

DO

(mg

L)

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

DO

(mg

L)

Main riverTributary

(h)

Figure 2 Continued

6 Journal of Chemistry

EFG

FGH

GH

K KIJ

M

JK

L

LM

N

L L

CDEF

K

DEF

BCD

ED

EF

BCD

AAB

A

N

A

ABC

HI

A A

L

AB

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

00

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000Tu

rbid

ity (N

TU)

00

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Turb

idity

(NTU

)

Main riverTributary

(i)

A AA

A A A AA

AA

A

A A

G

A

F

G

F

A

BC

CD

E

A

H H

B

G

H

A

D

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

000

002

004

006

008

010

Tran

spar

ency

(m)

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

Tran

spar

ency

(m)

Main riverTributary

(j)

Figure 2 In situ parameters of (a) total discharge (b) mean velocity (c) mean depth (d) temperature (e) pH (f) conductivity (g) DOsat(h)DO (i) turbidity and (j) transparency measured at the 30 sampling stations located along the Batang Baram (left axis) and its tributaries(right axis) (different letters indicate significant difference at 119901 value le 005)

sampling total discharge of the Batang Baram ranged from1263m3s to 27118m3s and from 05m3s to 1336m3s inmain river and tributaries respectively Figure 2 illustratesthat total discharge of main river showed an increasingtrend towards downstream regions whereas the highest totaldischarge in tributaries was observed at station 8 followed bystation 16 Mean velocity of the river was relatively consistentinmain riverwith amean value of 12msHighmean velocity(gt1ms) was also observed in some of the tributaries locatedupstream but most of the tributaries were slow flowing(asymp02ms) Mean depth of the Batang Baram ranged from09m to 165m and from 02m to 61m in main river andtributaries respectively Both main river and tributaries wererelatively deeper downstream compared to upstream

The results of ANOVA showed that all of the parametersdemonstrated significant variations (p value le 005) from onesampling station to anotherThe physicochemical parametersshowed different distribution patterns along the main riverThe turbidity TSS and H2S values increased significantly (pvalue le 005) towards downstream with the highest values ofturbidity (4688 plusmn 454NTU) and TSS (3200 plusmn 193mgL)which were both observed at station 20 while the highestvalue of H2S (083 plusmn 001mgL) was observed at station 22The high turbidity and TSS downstream indicate the accu-mulation of sediment in the river Reference [21] reported thata spit was formed in the Baram River mouth and continuedto expand due to the erosion associated with deforestationand land use changes in the upstream region The similardistribution pattern and significant positive correlation (pvalue le 005) between H2S turbidity and TSS (Table 2)indicated that H2S was associated with suspended solids inthe river

On the other hand the conductivity BOD5 TP NO3minus-N

and Org-N showed higher values at the upper part of theriver and decreased significantly (p value le 005) towardsdownstream region In contrary [22] demonstrated thatTP TN and NH3-N concentrations tend to increase fromupstream to downstream regions in the Qiantang River EastChina In the present study the highest conductivity valuewas observed at station 1 (500120583Scm) and steadily decreased

to 35 120583Scm at station 27 The highest values of BOD5 (57 plusmn02mgL) and Org-N (274 plusmn 001mgL) were observed atstations 1 and 4 respectively while the highest values ofTP (22 plusmn 01mgL) and NO3

minus-N (007 plusmn 001mgL) wereobserved at station 6 The conductivity value (82 120583Scmndash133 120583Scm) in the uppermost part of the Baram River basinreported by [9] was relatively higher than the present studywhich agrees with the present result that conductivity valuewas higher in the upper part of the river However the authoralso reported the concentrations of the BOD5 (07mgL to20mgL) and NO3

minus-N (001mgLndash002mgL) which werelower than the present study

Significantly higher COD value (p value le 005) wasobserved in the middle section of the river (1101mgLndash1818mgL) whereas NO2

minus-N (0001mgLndash0002mgL) andTAN (012mgLndash033mgL) values were significantly lower(p value le 005) there Significantly higher (p value le 005)TAN was observed at stations 21 (157 plusmn 007mgL) and 22(149 plusmn 020mgL) while significantly higher (p value le 005)NO2minus-N was observed at station 20 (0055 plusmn 0001mgL)

Similar to BOD5 and NO3minus-N the NH3-N concentration in

the uppermost part of the Baram River basin which rangedfrom 07mgL to 20mgL [9] was lower than the presentstudyThe author attributed the high ammonia concentrationin his study to the sewage discharge from the longhouseand animal waste The higher nutrients concentration in thepresent study indicated the deterioration of water quality overtime due to the increase in population and land developmentin the area

Table 3 shows that the river temperature pH conductiv-ity transparency chl a andNO2minus-Nwere significantly higher(p value le 005) in tributaries than in the main river Thehigh water temperature in tributaries particularly at stations12 13 and 16 (gt29∘C) indicated that direct solar radiationdue to the forest canopy exposure after logging had increasedthe river temperature in those tributaries [6] The BaramRiver basin contained high dissolved ions which gave thehigh conductivity values in the river [9] Besides significantpositive correlation (p value le 005) between temperatureand conductivity indicated that the high temperature in

Journal of Chemistry 7

Table2Correlatio

nmatrix

(119901valuele

005)o

fthe

insituandex

situparametersc

ollected

from

the3

0samplingsta

tions

Disc

harge

Velocity

Depth

Temp

pHCon

dDOsat

DO

Turb

Trans

Chla

TSS

BOD5

COD

TPTA

NNO2minus-N

NO3minus-N

Org-N

H2S

Disc

harge

392

834

minus546

601

706

389

Velocity

392

minus39

1minus511

381minus389

555

491

454

Depth

834

641

513

Temp

658

610

minus480

minus52

8minus39

0minus403

pHminus546

minus39

1658

549minus53

9minus650

413

minus608

minus566

Con

dminus511

610

549

minus444

478minus467

minus554

minus454

DOsat

minus53

9minus582

915

714

DO

601

641

527

minus544

minus456

minus547

362

Turb

706

381

513minus480minus650

527

366

minus493

399

Trans

minus389

413

minus582

minus605

minus361

Chla

TSS

389

minus608

915

366minus605

596

BOD5

555

minus444

minus544

550

545

523

COD

478

minus493

minus39

2TP

491

minus467

minus456

550

540

564

TAN

minus52

8NO2minus-N

NO3minus-N

454

minus39

0minus55

4545minus39

2540

515

Org-N

minus547

523

564

515

H2S

minus403minus566minus454

714

362

399minus361

596

8 Journal of Chemistry

AB A

BC

ABC

A

DEF EF

G

DEF

FG

CDE

FG

AB AB

H

AB

DEF

G

DEF

K

I

AB

BCD

H

A

G

A A A

ABC

H

J

A

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

0020406080

100120140160

0050100150200250300350

Chla

(mg

m3)

Chla

(mg

m3)

(a)

CDE E EF

GH

EFG

J

HIH

K

L

JK K

JK

AB

FGH

DE

ABC BC

D

AB

AB A

BA

B

L

A

AB

DE

A A

IJ

AB

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

005001000150020002500300035004000

TSS

(mg

L)

00500

1000150020002500300035004000

TSS

(mg

L)

(b)

R

IJK

OP

HI

MN

DEF

G

NO

KLM

LMIJ

FGH

BCD

E

BCD

E

MN

KLM

PQ PQ Q

BCJK

L

B B B

FGH

CDEF

GH

A

BCD EF

G HI

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

0010203040506070

BOD

5(m

gL)

00

10

20

30

40

50

60

BOD

5(m

gL)

(c)

EFG

ABC

D

BCD

EA

B AB

HI

L

JK IJK

HI

CDEF

AB

AABC

D

ABC

FGH

ABC

DA

B

GH

IJ

GH

FGH

FGH

DEF FG

H

M

A

ABC

DFG

HKL

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

00200400600800

100012001400160018002000

COD

(mg

L)

00

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

COD

(mg

L)

(d)

G

DE

CD

G

CDCD CD

AB

AAB

BC

AAB

F

EF

AB

EF

AB

A AB AB

A AAB AB

A A A A A

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

00

05

10

15

20

25

TP (m

gL)

00

05

10

15

20

25

30

TP (m

gL)

(e)

HIJK

FGH

I

DEF FG

H JK

A A

C

ABC

A

M

L

DE

HIJK

EFG G

HIJ

FGH

IFG

H

A AB

AB

A A

M

BC

KLBC

DA

BCIJK

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

0002040608101214161820

TAN

(mg

L)0002040608101214161820

TAN

(mg

L)

(f)

EFG

HIJ

KLM

LMJK

LM

FGH

IJ

A AB A

BC AB

HIJK

L

DEF

GH

FGH

IJ

BCD

EFG

H

N

O

GH

IJKL

DEF

GH

I M

ABC

DEF

GH

IJ

IJKL

DEF

GH

P

ABC

DEF

G

CDEF

GH

GH

IJKA

BCD

EF

ABC

DE

FGH

IJA

B

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

0000

0010

0020

0030

0040

0050

0060

NO

2-N

(mg

L)

00000002000400060008001000120014001600180020

NO

2-N

(mg

L)

(g)

ABC

D

BCD

ABC

D

F

EFA

BC

ABC

DA

BCD BC

DA

BCD

ABC

D

ABC

D

ABC

ABC

D

F

CD DE

F

AB

A A A

ABC

DA

BC

ABC

D

ABC A

BC

AB A

BCA

BC

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

000

002

004

006

008

010

012

NO

3-N

(mg

L)

000

002

004

006

008

010

012

NO

3-N

(mg

L)

(h)

Figure 3 Continued

Journal of Chemistry 9

L

N

J

LK

G

D

K

IK

B

F

A

N

P

O

HG

CDE

IJ

EF F

B

M

A A AB

D

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

00

05

10

15

20

25

30O

rg-N

(mg

L)

00

05

10

15

20

25

30

Org

-N (m

gL)

(i)

CDE JK IJ

L

O

FGH

I

DEF

KL

M M

Q

M

P

HIJ

M

JK GH

IJD

EF

A AB

EFG

HBC

D

L

AB

EFG H

IJA

BC BCD

N

BCD

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

00010203040506070809

H2S

(mg

L)

0001010202030304

H2S

(mg

L)

(j)

Figure 3 Ex situ water quality of (a) chl a (b) TSS (c) BOD5 (d) COD (e) TP (f) TAN (g) NO2minus-N (h) NO3minus-N (i) Org-N and (j)H2S measured at the 30 sampling stations located along the Batang Baram (left axis) and its tributaries (right axis) (different letters indicatesignificant difference at 119901 value le 005)

Table 3 Mean difference of in situ and ex situ water qualityparameters between the main river of the Batang Baram and itstributaries

Parameter Mean difference 119901 value

In situ

Temperature ∘C minus07 0050pH minus02 0001

Conductivity 120583Scm minus162 0000DOsat minus02 0915DO mgL +02 0000

Turbidity NTU +1320 0000Transparency m minus04 0000

Ex situ

Chl a mgm3 minus26 0048TSS mgL +1207 0000BOD5 mgL +05 0026COD mgL minus83 0474TP mgL +04 0002TAN mgL +01 0497

NO2minus-N mgL minus0006 0006

NO3minus-N mgL +0007 0169

Org-N mgL +03 0093H2S mgL +01 0000

Positive value of mean difference indicates parameter studied was higher inthe main river of Batang Baram whereas negative value indicates parameterstudied was higher in the tributary The significant difference at 119901 value le005 was indicated in bold

tributaries increased the ionic mobility and solubility ofminerals which is reflected in high conductivity in tributariesAlso the high photosynthesis rate as indicated by the highchl 119886 in tributaries had increased the pH values in tributariesOn the other hand the main river contained significantlyhigher (p value le 005) DO turbidity TSS BOD5 TP andH2S (Table 3) Most of these parameters were significantlyand positively correlated (p value le 005) with total dischargeand mean velocity of the river (Table 2) Hence we canassume that the fast flowingmain river had increased the DOcontent due to more rapid aeration and had introduced morepollutants into the river via surface runoff Neverthelesstributaries of the Batang Baram were also well aerated as allof the stations were recorded with DO content of more than5mgL and DOsat more than 80

Clus

ter1

Clus

ter2

Clus

ter3

Clus

ter4

0

5

10

15

20

25

Resc

aled

dist

ance

clus

ter c

ombi

natio

n

Case

5Ca

se3

Case

6Ca

se4

Case

9Ca

se8

Case

2Ca

se1

Case

7

Case

13

Case

17

Case

26

Case

16

Case

21

Case

28

Case

23

Case

24

Case

27

Case

22

Case

12

Case

20

Case

29

Case

14

Case

15

Case

11

Case

10

Case

19

Case

25

Case

18

Case

30

Station

Figure 4 Clustering of the 30 sampling stations along the BatangBaram and its tributaries

Table 4 shows that most of the sampling stations wereclassified as Class III and categorized as ldquoslightly pollutedrdquoaccording to the water quality index (WQI) Among the 30stations along the Batang Baram and its tributaries only twostations which were located at tributaries of Sungai Kessehand Sungai Nakan were categorized as ldquocleanrdquo The pH andDO were classified as Class I andor Class II indicating goodcondition whereas the COD was the worst parameter wheremost of the stations were classified as Classes III IV andor VThe river also possesses pollution risk by suspended solids asTSS was classified as Class III andor Class IV at most of thestations andwas classified as Class V at stations 19 and 20Theresults revealed a deteriorating water quality of the BatangBaram and its tributaries when compared to the uppermostpart of the Baram River basin reported by [9] where the riverwas grouped as a Class II river

32 Cluster Analysis (CA) Cluster analysis was used todetect similarities among the sampling stations in the studyarea The dendogram shows that sampling stations in thepresent study can be grouped into four significant clustersas illustrated by Figure 4 The clustering pattern shows thatphysicochemical characteristics of the BatangBaramchanged

10 Journal of Chemistry

Table 4 Classification of water quality of the Batang Baram from upstream to downstream regions according to WQI

Station Class StatusAN BOD5 COD DO pH TSS WQI

1 III III IV II I III III Slightly polluted2 III III III II II II III Slightly polluted3 III III III II I III III Slightly polluted4 III III III II II IV III Slightly polluted5 III III IV II II III III Slightly polluted6 III II III II I IV III Slightly polluted7 III III IV II I III III Slightly polluted8 III III III II II II III Slightly polluted9 III III III II II III III Slightly polluted10 III III III II I III III Slightly polluted11 II II V II I IV III Slightly polluted12 II II V II I I II Slightly polluted13 II III V II I I III Slightly polluted14 II III V II I IV III Slightly polluted15 III III V II I IV III Slightly polluted16 II II V II I II II Slightly polluted17 II II IV II I II II Slightly polluted18 II III V II I IV III Slightly polluted19 II II V II I V III Slightly polluted20 II II IV II I V III Slightly polluted21 IV II IV II I I III Slightly polluted22 IV II IV II II IV III Slightly polluted23 III II IV II I II II Slightly polluted24 IV II III I I IV III Slightly polluted25 IV II V II I III III Slightly polluted26 III II II II I I II Clean27 III II II I II IV III Slightly polluted28 III II III II I I II Clean29 II II IV II I IV III Slightly polluted30 III II V II I I III Slightly polluted

from upstream to downstream regions as demonstrated bythe grouping of upstream stations middle stations anddownstream stations into different clusters Cluster 1 consistsof stations that were located mostly in the middle sectionof the river (stations 11 14 15 18 19 and 20) except station29 which was located downstream Tributaries located frommiddle to downstream regions of the river shared similarcharacteristics as demonstrated by the grouping of stations12 13 16 17 21 23 25 26 28 and 30 in cluster 2 Themain river located downstream (stations 22 24 and 27)also showed similarity and grouped together as cluster 3These two clusters show that main river and tributaries ofthe Batang Baram which were located downstream sharedno similarity Finally cluster 4 consists of stations that werelocated upstream of the river including stations that werelocated at the main river and tributaries (station 1 to station10)This analysis suggests that a reduced number of samplingstations in each cluster may serve as a rapid assessment of thewater quality of the Batang Baram and leads to a more cost-effective monitoring study in the future

33 Principal Component Analysis (PCA) The PCA wasused to explore the most important factors determiningthe spatial variations in physicochemical parameters of theBatangBaramA total of six principal components (PCs)wereobtained with eigenvalues more than one which accountedfor around 836 of the total variance in the 20 physico-chemical parameters of the Batang Baram (Table 5) The firstcomponent (PC1) accounting for 300 of the total variancein the data sets of the river water has significant positiveloadings on turbidity TSS and H2S and negative loadingson conductivity and transparency These factors imply thatsoil erosion occurred in the present study area and a highloading of turbidity and H2S is associated with the presenceof suspended solids [23] Similarly strong positive loadingson turbidity and suspended solids were also observed in aMekong Delta area of Vietnam [11] which is a result of soilerosion from disturbed land The Sarawak forest is subjectedto high timber harvesting pressure rendering sedimentationproblem in its forest streams [1 6 24ndash26] The presentstudy shows that the Batang Baram in Sarawak state is no

Journal of Chemistry 11

Table 5 Loadings of the physicochemical parameters on the first six varimax-rotated PCs (eigenvalue gt 1) along the Batang Baram and itstributaries

Rotated Component Matrixa

Parameter Component1 2 3 4 5 6

Total discharge +0900Mean velocity +0674 +0640Mean depth +0712Temperature minus0904pH minus0451 minus0607 +0444Conductivity minus0605 minus0476DOsat minus0750 +0488DO +0678Turbidity +0948Transparency minus0791Chl a minus0906TSS +0956BOD5 +0854COD minus0423 minus0692TP +0850TAN +0780NO2 +0784NO3 +0612 +0563Org-N +0716H2S +0759 +0427Initial eigenvalue 60 37 27 17 14 12 of variance 301 186 135 87 68 59Cumulative 301 487 622 709 777 836aRotation converged in 11 iterations

exception Logging activities in the surrounding area havecaused sedimentation and increased suspended solids levelin the river The PC1 has the largest proportion of thetotal variance indicating that logging activities are the majorsource of river water contamination in the Batang Baram

The PC2 accounting for 186 of the total variance hassignificant positive loadings on mean velocity BOD5 TPNO3minus-N andOrg-N andnegative loadings on pHandDOsat

These factors indicate an inflow of effluent from longhousesand residential area largely consisting of organic pollutantsand a negative loading of pH and DOsat is attributed to theprocess of decomposition of the organic matter Similarly theanalysis of PCA was applied in the Qiantang River whichindicated that TN NO3

minus NH3-N and TP were the dominantpollution factors in the river [22] The authors attributed thepollutions to the domestic sewage discharge of poultry andanimal feces and fertilizer that were flushed into the riverAlso an ldquoorganicrdquo factor that positively loaded with CODBOD5 TON TP and PO4

3minus was reported in a main riversystem in northernGreecewhich represented the influence ofmunicipal and industrial effluents [16] The PC3 accountingfor 136 of total variance has significant positive loadings ontotal discharge mean velocity mean depth DOsat and DOand negative loadings on conductivity and COD suggestinga dilution of chemically oxidizable material in the river

associated with high volume of river water and high dissolvedoxygen levelThe high CODBOD5 ratio in the Batang Baramindicates a large nonbiodegradable fraction of organic matterin the river

The PC4 (87 of the total variance) has significantpositive loadings on transparency TAN NO3

minus-N and H2Sand negative loadings on temperature pH and conductivityIn an anaerobic condition the high loading of organicmatter in river can lead to the formation of ammonia andorganic acids which coupledwith the production of hydrogensulphide and carbon dioxide during decomposition [27 28]can cause acidification of water By employing the PCA forthe data interpretation [10] also revealed that parametersrelated to organic pollutants and temperature were the mostimportant parameters contributing to water quality variationin the SavaRiver CroatiaThePC5 (68of the total variance)is significantly and negatively loaded on COD but positivelyloaded onNO2

minus-N Again the high loading of organicmatterin the river likely led to the build-up of NO2

minus-N in thewater Similar to PC2 both PC4 and PC5 can be explainedas influences from domestic discharges which contained highnutrients and organic matter As PC2 has a larger proportionof the total variance than PC4 and PC5 we can assume thatorganic pollution in the Batang Baram ismore severe than theinorganic pollution Reference [29] also reported that organic

12 Journal of Chemistry

pollutants followed by nutrients and salt concentration werethe most important parameters contributing to water qualityvariation in the Wen-Rui Tang River watershed ChinaFinally the PC6 (59 of the total variance) is significantlyand positively loaded on pH but negatively loaded on chl 119886indicating the decomposition of dead phytoplankton and thatmost of the variability in the data is due to the pH changes aspH plays a significant role in mineralization process

4 Conclusions

The present study revealed that the Batang Baram and itstributaries demonstrated sign of pollution as indicated byhigh suspended solids and nutrients in the river Most ofthe stations along the river were classified as Class III andcategorized as ldquoslightly pollutedrdquo In particular the CODand TSS were the most severe parameters where they wereclassified as Class V at some of the stations in the riverA large number of sampling stations in the present studywere grouped into four clusters which divided the riverinto upstream middle and downstream main river andtributaries located middle and downstream of the river ThePCA revealed that parameters related to logging activitiesand domestic sewage discharge were the most importantparameters contributing to water quality variation in theriver

Competing Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interestsregarding the publication of this paper

Acknowledgments

The authors appreciate the financial support provided by theSarawak Energy Berhad through Grant no GL(F07)SEB3C2013(22) and the facilities provided byUniversitiMalaysiaSarawak

References

[1] M Ichikawa ldquoDegradation and loss of forest land and land-usechanges in Sarawak East Malaysia a study of native land use bythe Ibanrdquo Ecological Research vol 22 no 3 pp 403ndash413 2007

[2] H P Jarvie C Neal and P J AWithers ldquoSewage-effluent phos-phorus a greater risk to river eutrophication than agriculturalphosphorusrdquoThe Science of the Total Environment vol 360 no1ndash3 pp 246ndash253 2006

[3] M B Rothenberger J M Burkholder and C Brownie ldquoLong-term effects of changing land use practices on surface waterquality in a coastal river and lagoonal estuaryrdquo EnvironmentalManagement vol 44 no 3 pp 505ndash523 2009

[4] C Soo T Ling N Lee and K Apun ldquoAssessment of thecharacteristic of nutrients total metals and fecal coliform inSibu Laut River Sarawak Malaysiardquo Applied Water Science vol6 no 1 pp 77ndash96 2016

[5] F Gokbulak Y Serengil S Ozhan N Ozyuvaci and N BalcildquoEffect of timber harvest on physical water quality characteris-ticsrdquo Water Resources Management vol 22 no 5 pp 635ndash6492008

[6] T-Y Ling C-L Soo J-R Sivalingam L Nyanti S-F Simand J Grinang ldquoAssessment of the water and sediment qualityof tropical forest streams in upper reaches of the Baleh RiverSarawak Malaysia subjected to logging activitiesrdquo Journal ofChemistry vol 2016 Article ID 8503931 13 pages 2016

[7] J Schelker K Eklof K Bishop and H Laudon ldquoEffects offorestry operations on dissolved organic carbon concentrationsand export in boreal first-order streamsrdquo Journal of GeophysicalResearch Biogeosciences vol 117 no 1 pp 1ndash12 2012

[8] ANorZaihaM SM Ismid Salmiati andM S S Azri ldquoEffectsof logging activities on ecological water quality indicators in theBerasau River Johor Malaysiardquo Environmental Monitoring andAssessment vol 187 no 8 article 493 2015

[9] L SengWater in the Environment Tainted Life Source Hungersfor Cures UNIMAS 2011

[10] A Marinovic Ruzdjak and D Ruzdjak ldquoEvaluation of riverwater quality variations using multivariate statistical tech-niques Sava River (Croatia) A Case Studyrdquo EnvironmentalMonitoring and Assessment vol 187 no 4 pp 1ndash14 2015

[11] D Phung C Huang S Rutherford et al ldquoTemporal and spatialassessment of river surface water quality using multivariatestatistical techniques a study in CanTho City a Mekong Deltaarea Vietnamrdquo Environmental Monitoring and Assessment vol187 no 5 article no 229 2015

[12] S Muangthong and S Shrestha ldquoAssessment of surface waterquality using multivariate statistical techniques case study ofthe Nampong River and Songkhram River Thailandrdquo Environ-mental Monitoring and Assessment vol 187 no 9 article 5482015

[13] R L Olsen R W Chappell and J C Loftis ldquoWater qualitysample collection data treatment and results presentation forprincipal components analysismdashliterature review and IllinoisRiver watershed case studyrdquo Water Research vol 46 no 9 pp3110ndash3122 2012

[14] S Shrestha and F Kazama ldquoAssessment of surface water qualityusing multivariate statistical techniques a case study of the Fujiriver basin Japanrdquo Environmental Modelling and Software vol22 no 4 pp 464ndash475 2007

[15] P Zeilhofer E B N R Lima and G A R Lima ldquoSpatialpatterns of water quality in the cuiaba River Basin CentralBrazilrdquo Environmental Monitoring and Assessment vol 123 no1ndash3 pp 41ndash62 2006

[16] V Simeonov J A Stratis C Samara et al ldquoAssessment of thesurface water quality in Northern GreecerdquoWater Research vol37 no 17 pp 4119ndash4124 2003

[17] S C Chapra Surface Water-Quality Modeling McGraw-HillNew York NY USA 1997

[18] D Jenkins J J Connors and A E Greenberg Standard Meth-ods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater AmericanPublic Health Association Washingon DC USA 21st edition2005

[19] Department of Environment Malaysia Environmental QualityReport 2014 DOE Kuala Lumpur Malaysia 2015

[20] R C Jones D P Kelso and E Schaeffer ldquoSpatial and seasonalpatterns in water quality in an embayment-mainstem reach ofthe tidal freshwater Potomac River USA A Multiyear StudyrdquoEnvironmental Monitoring and Assessment vol 147 no 1ndash3 pp351ndash375 2008

[21] R Nagarajan M P Jonathan P D Roy GMuthusankar and CLakshumanan ldquoDecadal evolution of a spit in the Baram rivermouth in easternMalaysiardquoContinental Shelf Research vol 105pp 18ndash25 2015

Journal of Chemistry 13

[22] H Yuan E LiuW Pan and S An ldquoWater pollution characteris-tics and assessment in different functional zonesrdquo Polish Journalof Environmental Studies vol 23 no 2 pp 541ndash549 2014

[23] G S Bilotta and R E Brazier ldquoUnderstanding the influenceof suspended solids on water quality and aquatic biotardquo WaterResearch vol 42 no 12 pp 2849ndash2861 2008

[24] T Jinggut C M Yule and L Boyero ldquoStream ecosystemintegrity is impaired by logging and shifting agriculture in aglobal megadiversity center (Sarawak Borneo)rdquo Science of theTotal Environment vol 437 pp 83ndash90 2012

[25] J Hon and S Shibata ldquoA review on land use in the Malaysianstate of Sarawak Borneo and recommendations for wildlifeconservation inside production forest environmentrdquo BorneoJournal of Resource Science and Technology vol 3 no 2 pp 22ndash35 2013

[26] J E Bryan P L Shearman G P Asner D E Knapp G Aoroand B Lokes ldquoExtreme differences in forest degradation inborneo comparing practices in Sarawak Sabah and BruneirdquoPLoS ONE vol 8 no 7 Article ID e69679 2013

[27] M Holmer and E Kristensen ldquoImpact of marine fish cagefarming on metabolism and sulfate reduction of underlyingsedimentsrdquo Marine Ecology Progress Series vol 80 no 2-3 pp191ndash201 1992

[28] K I A Kularatne D P Dissanayake and K R R MahanamaldquoContribution of dissolved sulfates and sulfites in hydrogensulfide emission from stagnant water bodies in Sri LankardquoChemosphere vol 52 no 5 pp 901ndash907 2003

[29] K Mei L Liao Y Zhu et al ldquoEvaluation of spatial-temporalvariations and trends in surface water quality across a rural-suburban-urban interfacerdquoEnvironmental Science and PollutionResearch vol 21 no 13 pp 8036ndash8051 2014

Submit your manuscripts athttpswwwhindawicom

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Inorganic ChemistryInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

International Journal ofPhotoenergy

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Carbohydrate Chemistry

International Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of

Chemistry

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Advances in

Physical Chemistry

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Analytical Methods in Chemistry

Journal of

Volume 2014

Bioinorganic Chemistry and ApplicationsHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

SpectroscopyInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Medicinal ChemistryInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Chromatography Research International

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Applied ChemistryJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Theoretical ChemistryJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of

Spectroscopy

Analytical ChemistryInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Quantum Chemistry

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Organic Chemistry International

ElectrochemistryInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

CatalystsJournal of

Journal of Chemistry 5

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

00

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

002004006008001000120014001600

Main riverTributary

Tota

l disc

harg

e (m

3s

)

Tota

l disc

harg

e (m

3s

)

(a)

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

0002040608101214161820

Mea

n ve

loci

ty (m

s)

0002040608101214161820

Mea

n ve

loci

ty (m

s)

Main riverTributary

(b)

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

0010203040506070

Mea

n de

pth

(m)

0020406080

100120140160180

Mea

n de

pth

(m)

Main riverTributary

(c)

KL

IJ IJG

I

LM

KJ J

AB C

HD

HC B

QR

P

H

O

EFB

F H

N

D E

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

220

240

260

280

300

320

340

Tem

pera

ture

(∘C)

220

230

240

250

260

270

280

Tem

pera

ture

(∘C)

Main riverTributary

(d)

IF

EG F G

M

KL I L

AB

P

BD

EFG

C A

SR

NP

SQ

JK

O

H

MJ

O

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

6062646668707274767880

pH

6062646668707274767880

pH

Main riverTributary

(e)

Q

E

M L KJ I H

F FC

BA

KG

J HE

TU

L M

R Q PN

S

V

D

O

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

00

100

200

300

400

500

600

Con

duct

ivity

(120583S

cm)

00100200300400500600700800900

Con

duct

ivity

(120583S

cm)

Main riverTributary

(f)

K HIJ

F D B E GH

IG

HIJ

GH

E

T

WV

AE FGC I

OL MM J

Q

U

P R Q S

N

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

DO

sat (

)

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

DO

sat (

)

Main riverTributary

(g)

NO P MN

MN

I I J LM OP

KL

R

VU

D

Q P QS

HI

B

FG

T

E F

T

C

GH

FG

K

A

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

DO

(mg

L)

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

DO

(mg

L)

Main riverTributary

(h)

Figure 2 Continued

6 Journal of Chemistry

EFG

FGH

GH

K KIJ

M

JK

L

LM

N

L L

CDEF

K

DEF

BCD

ED

EF

BCD

AAB

A

N

A

ABC

HI

A A

L

AB

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

00

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000Tu

rbid

ity (N

TU)

00

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Turb

idity

(NTU

)

Main riverTributary

(i)

A AA

A A A AA

AA

A

A A

G

A

F

G

F

A

BC

CD

E

A

H H

B

G

H

A

D

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

000

002

004

006

008

010

Tran

spar

ency

(m)

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

Tran

spar

ency

(m)

Main riverTributary

(j)

Figure 2 In situ parameters of (a) total discharge (b) mean velocity (c) mean depth (d) temperature (e) pH (f) conductivity (g) DOsat(h)DO (i) turbidity and (j) transparency measured at the 30 sampling stations located along the Batang Baram (left axis) and its tributaries(right axis) (different letters indicate significant difference at 119901 value le 005)

sampling total discharge of the Batang Baram ranged from1263m3s to 27118m3s and from 05m3s to 1336m3s inmain river and tributaries respectively Figure 2 illustratesthat total discharge of main river showed an increasingtrend towards downstream regions whereas the highest totaldischarge in tributaries was observed at station 8 followed bystation 16 Mean velocity of the river was relatively consistentinmain riverwith amean value of 12msHighmean velocity(gt1ms) was also observed in some of the tributaries locatedupstream but most of the tributaries were slow flowing(asymp02ms) Mean depth of the Batang Baram ranged from09m to 165m and from 02m to 61m in main river andtributaries respectively Both main river and tributaries wererelatively deeper downstream compared to upstream

The results of ANOVA showed that all of the parametersdemonstrated significant variations (p value le 005) from onesampling station to anotherThe physicochemical parametersshowed different distribution patterns along the main riverThe turbidity TSS and H2S values increased significantly (pvalue le 005) towards downstream with the highest values ofturbidity (4688 plusmn 454NTU) and TSS (3200 plusmn 193mgL)which were both observed at station 20 while the highestvalue of H2S (083 plusmn 001mgL) was observed at station 22The high turbidity and TSS downstream indicate the accu-mulation of sediment in the river Reference [21] reported thata spit was formed in the Baram River mouth and continuedto expand due to the erosion associated with deforestationand land use changes in the upstream region The similardistribution pattern and significant positive correlation (pvalue le 005) between H2S turbidity and TSS (Table 2)indicated that H2S was associated with suspended solids inthe river

On the other hand the conductivity BOD5 TP NO3minus-N

and Org-N showed higher values at the upper part of theriver and decreased significantly (p value le 005) towardsdownstream region In contrary [22] demonstrated thatTP TN and NH3-N concentrations tend to increase fromupstream to downstream regions in the Qiantang River EastChina In the present study the highest conductivity valuewas observed at station 1 (500120583Scm) and steadily decreased

to 35 120583Scm at station 27 The highest values of BOD5 (57 plusmn02mgL) and Org-N (274 plusmn 001mgL) were observed atstations 1 and 4 respectively while the highest values ofTP (22 plusmn 01mgL) and NO3

minus-N (007 plusmn 001mgL) wereobserved at station 6 The conductivity value (82 120583Scmndash133 120583Scm) in the uppermost part of the Baram River basinreported by [9] was relatively higher than the present studywhich agrees with the present result that conductivity valuewas higher in the upper part of the river However the authoralso reported the concentrations of the BOD5 (07mgL to20mgL) and NO3

minus-N (001mgLndash002mgL) which werelower than the present study

Significantly higher COD value (p value le 005) wasobserved in the middle section of the river (1101mgLndash1818mgL) whereas NO2

minus-N (0001mgLndash0002mgL) andTAN (012mgLndash033mgL) values were significantly lower(p value le 005) there Significantly higher (p value le 005)TAN was observed at stations 21 (157 plusmn 007mgL) and 22(149 plusmn 020mgL) while significantly higher (p value le 005)NO2minus-N was observed at station 20 (0055 plusmn 0001mgL)

Similar to BOD5 and NO3minus-N the NH3-N concentration in

the uppermost part of the Baram River basin which rangedfrom 07mgL to 20mgL [9] was lower than the presentstudyThe author attributed the high ammonia concentrationin his study to the sewage discharge from the longhouseand animal waste The higher nutrients concentration in thepresent study indicated the deterioration of water quality overtime due to the increase in population and land developmentin the area

Table 3 shows that the river temperature pH conductiv-ity transparency chl a andNO2minus-Nwere significantly higher(p value le 005) in tributaries than in the main river Thehigh water temperature in tributaries particularly at stations12 13 and 16 (gt29∘C) indicated that direct solar radiationdue to the forest canopy exposure after logging had increasedthe river temperature in those tributaries [6] The BaramRiver basin contained high dissolved ions which gave thehigh conductivity values in the river [9] Besides significantpositive correlation (p value le 005) between temperatureand conductivity indicated that the high temperature in

Journal of Chemistry 7

Table2Correlatio

nmatrix

(119901valuele

005)o

fthe

insituandex

situparametersc

ollected

from

the3

0samplingsta

tions

Disc

harge

Velocity

Depth

Temp

pHCon

dDOsat

DO

Turb

Trans

Chla

TSS

BOD5

COD

TPTA

NNO2minus-N

NO3minus-N

Org-N

H2S

Disc

harge

392

834

minus546

601

706

389

Velocity

392

minus39

1minus511

381minus389

555

491

454

Depth

834

641

513

Temp

658

610

minus480

minus52

8minus39

0minus403

pHminus546

minus39

1658

549minus53

9minus650

413

minus608

minus566

Con

dminus511

610

549

minus444

478minus467

minus554

minus454

DOsat

minus53

9minus582

915

714

DO

601

641

527

minus544

minus456

minus547

362

Turb

706

381

513minus480minus650

527

366

minus493

399

Trans

minus389

413

minus582

minus605

minus361

Chla

TSS

389

minus608

915

366minus605

596

BOD5

555

minus444

minus544

550

545

523

COD

478

minus493

minus39

2TP

491

minus467

minus456

550

540

564

TAN

minus52

8NO2minus-N

NO3minus-N

454

minus39

0minus55

4545minus39

2540

515

Org-N

minus547

523

564

515

H2S

minus403minus566minus454

714

362

399minus361

596

8 Journal of Chemistry

AB A

BC

ABC

A

DEF EF

G

DEF

FG

CDE

FG

AB AB

H

AB

DEF

G

DEF

K

I

AB

BCD

H

A

G

A A A

ABC

H

J

A

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

0020406080

100120140160

0050100150200250300350

Chla

(mg

m3)

Chla

(mg

m3)

(a)

CDE E EF

GH

EFG

J

HIH

K

L

JK K

JK

AB

FGH

DE

ABC BC

D

AB

AB A

BA

B

L

A

AB

DE

A A

IJ

AB

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

005001000150020002500300035004000

TSS

(mg

L)

00500

1000150020002500300035004000

TSS

(mg

L)

(b)

R

IJK

OP

HI

MN

DEF

G

NO

KLM

LMIJ

FGH

BCD

E

BCD

E

MN

KLM

PQ PQ Q

BCJK

L

B B B

FGH

CDEF

GH

A

BCD EF

G HI

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

0010203040506070

BOD

5(m

gL)

00

10

20

30

40

50

60

BOD

5(m

gL)

(c)

EFG

ABC

D

BCD

EA

B AB

HI

L

JK IJK

HI

CDEF

AB

AABC

D

ABC

FGH

ABC

DA

B

GH

IJ

GH

FGH

FGH

DEF FG

H

M

A

ABC

DFG

HKL

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

00200400600800

100012001400160018002000

COD

(mg

L)

00

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

COD

(mg

L)

(d)

G

DE

CD

G

CDCD CD

AB

AAB

BC

AAB

F

EF

AB

EF

AB

A AB AB

A AAB AB

A A A A A

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

00

05

10

15

20

25

TP (m

gL)

00

05

10

15

20

25

30

TP (m

gL)

(e)

HIJK

FGH

I

DEF FG

H JK

A A

C

ABC

A

M

L

DE

HIJK

EFG G

HIJ

FGH

IFG

H

A AB

AB

A A

M

BC

KLBC

DA

BCIJK

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

0002040608101214161820

TAN

(mg

L)0002040608101214161820

TAN

(mg

L)

(f)

EFG

HIJ

KLM

LMJK

LM

FGH

IJ

A AB A

BC AB

HIJK

L

DEF

GH

FGH

IJ

BCD

EFG

H

N

O

GH

IJKL

DEF

GH

I M

ABC

DEF

GH

IJ

IJKL

DEF

GH

P

ABC

DEF

G

CDEF

GH

GH

IJKA

BCD

EF

ABC

DE

FGH

IJA

B

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

0000

0010

0020

0030

0040

0050

0060

NO

2-N

(mg

L)

00000002000400060008001000120014001600180020

NO

2-N

(mg

L)

(g)

ABC

D

BCD

ABC

D

F

EFA

BC

ABC

DA

BCD BC

DA

BCD

ABC

D

ABC

D

ABC

ABC

D

F

CD DE

F

AB

A A A

ABC

DA

BC

ABC

D

ABC A

BC

AB A

BCA

BC

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

000

002

004

006

008

010

012

NO

3-N

(mg

L)

000

002

004

006

008

010

012

NO

3-N

(mg

L)

(h)

Figure 3 Continued

Journal of Chemistry 9

L

N

J

LK

G

D

K

IK

B

F

A

N

P

O

HG

CDE

IJ

EF F

B

M

A A AB

D

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

00

05

10

15

20

25

30O

rg-N

(mg

L)

00

05

10

15

20

25

30

Org

-N (m

gL)

(i)

CDE JK IJ

L

O

FGH

I

DEF

KL

M M

Q

M

P

HIJ

M

JK GH

IJD

EF

A AB

EFG

HBC

D

L

AB

EFG H

IJA

BC BCD

N

BCD

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

00010203040506070809

H2S

(mg

L)

0001010202030304

H2S

(mg

L)

(j)

Figure 3 Ex situ water quality of (a) chl a (b) TSS (c) BOD5 (d) COD (e) TP (f) TAN (g) NO2minus-N (h) NO3minus-N (i) Org-N and (j)H2S measured at the 30 sampling stations located along the Batang Baram (left axis) and its tributaries (right axis) (different letters indicatesignificant difference at 119901 value le 005)

Table 3 Mean difference of in situ and ex situ water qualityparameters between the main river of the Batang Baram and itstributaries

Parameter Mean difference 119901 value

In situ

Temperature ∘C minus07 0050pH minus02 0001

Conductivity 120583Scm minus162 0000DOsat minus02 0915DO mgL +02 0000

Turbidity NTU +1320 0000Transparency m minus04 0000

Ex situ

Chl a mgm3 minus26 0048TSS mgL +1207 0000BOD5 mgL +05 0026COD mgL minus83 0474TP mgL +04 0002TAN mgL +01 0497

NO2minus-N mgL minus0006 0006

NO3minus-N mgL +0007 0169

Org-N mgL +03 0093H2S mgL +01 0000

Positive value of mean difference indicates parameter studied was higher inthe main river of Batang Baram whereas negative value indicates parameterstudied was higher in the tributary The significant difference at 119901 value le005 was indicated in bold

tributaries increased the ionic mobility and solubility ofminerals which is reflected in high conductivity in tributariesAlso the high photosynthesis rate as indicated by the highchl 119886 in tributaries had increased the pH values in tributariesOn the other hand the main river contained significantlyhigher (p value le 005) DO turbidity TSS BOD5 TP andH2S (Table 3) Most of these parameters were significantlyand positively correlated (p value le 005) with total dischargeand mean velocity of the river (Table 2) Hence we canassume that the fast flowingmain river had increased the DOcontent due to more rapid aeration and had introduced morepollutants into the river via surface runoff Neverthelesstributaries of the Batang Baram were also well aerated as allof the stations were recorded with DO content of more than5mgL and DOsat more than 80

Clus

ter1

Clus

ter2

Clus

ter3

Clus

ter4

0

5

10

15

20

25

Resc

aled

dist

ance

clus

ter c

ombi

natio

n

Case

5Ca

se3

Case

6Ca

se4

Case

9Ca

se8

Case

2Ca

se1

Case

7

Case

13

Case

17

Case

26

Case

16

Case

21

Case

28

Case

23

Case

24

Case

27

Case

22

Case

12

Case

20

Case

29

Case

14

Case

15

Case

11

Case

10

Case

19

Case

25

Case

18

Case

30

Station

Figure 4 Clustering of the 30 sampling stations along the BatangBaram and its tributaries

Table 4 shows that most of the sampling stations wereclassified as Class III and categorized as ldquoslightly pollutedrdquoaccording to the water quality index (WQI) Among the 30stations along the Batang Baram and its tributaries only twostations which were located at tributaries of Sungai Kessehand Sungai Nakan were categorized as ldquocleanrdquo The pH andDO were classified as Class I andor Class II indicating goodcondition whereas the COD was the worst parameter wheremost of the stations were classified as Classes III IV andor VThe river also possesses pollution risk by suspended solids asTSS was classified as Class III andor Class IV at most of thestations andwas classified as Class V at stations 19 and 20Theresults revealed a deteriorating water quality of the BatangBaram and its tributaries when compared to the uppermostpart of the Baram River basin reported by [9] where the riverwas grouped as a Class II river

32 Cluster Analysis (CA) Cluster analysis was used todetect similarities among the sampling stations in the studyarea The dendogram shows that sampling stations in thepresent study can be grouped into four significant clustersas illustrated by Figure 4 The clustering pattern shows thatphysicochemical characteristics of the BatangBaramchanged

10 Journal of Chemistry

Table 4 Classification of water quality of the Batang Baram from upstream to downstream regions according to WQI

Station Class StatusAN BOD5 COD DO pH TSS WQI

1 III III IV II I III III Slightly polluted2 III III III II II II III Slightly polluted3 III III III II I III III Slightly polluted4 III III III II II IV III Slightly polluted5 III III IV II II III III Slightly polluted6 III II III II I IV III Slightly polluted7 III III IV II I III III Slightly polluted8 III III III II II II III Slightly polluted9 III III III II II III III Slightly polluted10 III III III II I III III Slightly polluted11 II II V II I IV III Slightly polluted12 II II V II I I II Slightly polluted13 II III V II I I III Slightly polluted14 II III V II I IV III Slightly polluted15 III III V II I IV III Slightly polluted16 II II V II I II II Slightly polluted17 II II IV II I II II Slightly polluted18 II III V II I IV III Slightly polluted19 II II V II I V III Slightly polluted20 II II IV II I V III Slightly polluted21 IV II IV II I I III Slightly polluted22 IV II IV II II IV III Slightly polluted23 III II IV II I II II Slightly polluted24 IV II III I I IV III Slightly polluted25 IV II V II I III III Slightly polluted26 III II II II I I II Clean27 III II II I II IV III Slightly polluted28 III II III II I I II Clean29 II II IV II I IV III Slightly polluted30 III II V II I I III Slightly polluted

from upstream to downstream regions as demonstrated bythe grouping of upstream stations middle stations anddownstream stations into different clusters Cluster 1 consistsof stations that were located mostly in the middle sectionof the river (stations 11 14 15 18 19 and 20) except station29 which was located downstream Tributaries located frommiddle to downstream regions of the river shared similarcharacteristics as demonstrated by the grouping of stations12 13 16 17 21 23 25 26 28 and 30 in cluster 2 Themain river located downstream (stations 22 24 and 27)also showed similarity and grouped together as cluster 3These two clusters show that main river and tributaries ofthe Batang Baram which were located downstream sharedno similarity Finally cluster 4 consists of stations that werelocated upstream of the river including stations that werelocated at the main river and tributaries (station 1 to station10)This analysis suggests that a reduced number of samplingstations in each cluster may serve as a rapid assessment of thewater quality of the Batang Baram and leads to a more cost-effective monitoring study in the future

33 Principal Component Analysis (PCA) The PCA wasused to explore the most important factors determiningthe spatial variations in physicochemical parameters of theBatangBaramA total of six principal components (PCs)wereobtained with eigenvalues more than one which accountedfor around 836 of the total variance in the 20 physico-chemical parameters of the Batang Baram (Table 5) The firstcomponent (PC1) accounting for 300 of the total variancein the data sets of the river water has significant positiveloadings on turbidity TSS and H2S and negative loadingson conductivity and transparency These factors imply thatsoil erosion occurred in the present study area and a highloading of turbidity and H2S is associated with the presenceof suspended solids [23] Similarly strong positive loadingson turbidity and suspended solids were also observed in aMekong Delta area of Vietnam [11] which is a result of soilerosion from disturbed land The Sarawak forest is subjectedto high timber harvesting pressure rendering sedimentationproblem in its forest streams [1 6 24ndash26] The presentstudy shows that the Batang Baram in Sarawak state is no

Journal of Chemistry 11

Table 5 Loadings of the physicochemical parameters on the first six varimax-rotated PCs (eigenvalue gt 1) along the Batang Baram and itstributaries

Rotated Component Matrixa

Parameter Component1 2 3 4 5 6

Total discharge +0900Mean velocity +0674 +0640Mean depth +0712Temperature minus0904pH minus0451 minus0607 +0444Conductivity minus0605 minus0476DOsat minus0750 +0488DO +0678Turbidity +0948Transparency minus0791Chl a minus0906TSS +0956BOD5 +0854COD minus0423 minus0692TP +0850TAN +0780NO2 +0784NO3 +0612 +0563Org-N +0716H2S +0759 +0427Initial eigenvalue 60 37 27 17 14 12 of variance 301 186 135 87 68 59Cumulative 301 487 622 709 777 836aRotation converged in 11 iterations

exception Logging activities in the surrounding area havecaused sedimentation and increased suspended solids levelin the river The PC1 has the largest proportion of thetotal variance indicating that logging activities are the majorsource of river water contamination in the Batang Baram

The PC2 accounting for 186 of the total variance hassignificant positive loadings on mean velocity BOD5 TPNO3minus-N andOrg-N andnegative loadings on pHandDOsat

These factors indicate an inflow of effluent from longhousesand residential area largely consisting of organic pollutantsand a negative loading of pH and DOsat is attributed to theprocess of decomposition of the organic matter Similarly theanalysis of PCA was applied in the Qiantang River whichindicated that TN NO3

minus NH3-N and TP were the dominantpollution factors in the river [22] The authors attributed thepollutions to the domestic sewage discharge of poultry andanimal feces and fertilizer that were flushed into the riverAlso an ldquoorganicrdquo factor that positively loaded with CODBOD5 TON TP and PO4

3minus was reported in a main riversystem in northernGreecewhich represented the influence ofmunicipal and industrial effluents [16] The PC3 accountingfor 136 of total variance has significant positive loadings ontotal discharge mean velocity mean depth DOsat and DOand negative loadings on conductivity and COD suggestinga dilution of chemically oxidizable material in the river

associated with high volume of river water and high dissolvedoxygen levelThe high CODBOD5 ratio in the Batang Baramindicates a large nonbiodegradable fraction of organic matterin the river

The PC4 (87 of the total variance) has significantpositive loadings on transparency TAN NO3

minus-N and H2Sand negative loadings on temperature pH and conductivityIn an anaerobic condition the high loading of organicmatter in river can lead to the formation of ammonia andorganic acids which coupledwith the production of hydrogensulphide and carbon dioxide during decomposition [27 28]can cause acidification of water By employing the PCA forthe data interpretation [10] also revealed that parametersrelated to organic pollutants and temperature were the mostimportant parameters contributing to water quality variationin the SavaRiver CroatiaThePC5 (68of the total variance)is significantly and negatively loaded on COD but positivelyloaded onNO2

minus-N Again the high loading of organicmatterin the river likely led to the build-up of NO2

minus-N in thewater Similar to PC2 both PC4 and PC5 can be explainedas influences from domestic discharges which contained highnutrients and organic matter As PC2 has a larger proportionof the total variance than PC4 and PC5 we can assume thatorganic pollution in the Batang Baram ismore severe than theinorganic pollution Reference [29] also reported that organic

12 Journal of Chemistry

pollutants followed by nutrients and salt concentration werethe most important parameters contributing to water qualityvariation in the Wen-Rui Tang River watershed ChinaFinally the PC6 (59 of the total variance) is significantlyand positively loaded on pH but negatively loaded on chl 119886indicating the decomposition of dead phytoplankton and thatmost of the variability in the data is due to the pH changes aspH plays a significant role in mineralization process

4 Conclusions

The present study revealed that the Batang Baram and itstributaries demonstrated sign of pollution as indicated byhigh suspended solids and nutrients in the river Most ofthe stations along the river were classified as Class III andcategorized as ldquoslightly pollutedrdquo In particular the CODand TSS were the most severe parameters where they wereclassified as Class V at some of the stations in the riverA large number of sampling stations in the present studywere grouped into four clusters which divided the riverinto upstream middle and downstream main river andtributaries located middle and downstream of the river ThePCA revealed that parameters related to logging activitiesand domestic sewage discharge were the most importantparameters contributing to water quality variation in theriver

Competing Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interestsregarding the publication of this paper

Acknowledgments

The authors appreciate the financial support provided by theSarawak Energy Berhad through Grant no GL(F07)SEB3C2013(22) and the facilities provided byUniversitiMalaysiaSarawak

References

[1] M Ichikawa ldquoDegradation and loss of forest land and land-usechanges in Sarawak East Malaysia a study of native land use bythe Ibanrdquo Ecological Research vol 22 no 3 pp 403ndash413 2007

[2] H P Jarvie C Neal and P J AWithers ldquoSewage-effluent phos-phorus a greater risk to river eutrophication than agriculturalphosphorusrdquoThe Science of the Total Environment vol 360 no1ndash3 pp 246ndash253 2006

[3] M B Rothenberger J M Burkholder and C Brownie ldquoLong-term effects of changing land use practices on surface waterquality in a coastal river and lagoonal estuaryrdquo EnvironmentalManagement vol 44 no 3 pp 505ndash523 2009

[4] C Soo T Ling N Lee and K Apun ldquoAssessment of thecharacteristic of nutrients total metals and fecal coliform inSibu Laut River Sarawak Malaysiardquo Applied Water Science vol6 no 1 pp 77ndash96 2016

[5] F Gokbulak Y Serengil S Ozhan N Ozyuvaci and N BalcildquoEffect of timber harvest on physical water quality characteris-ticsrdquo Water Resources Management vol 22 no 5 pp 635ndash6492008

[6] T-Y Ling C-L Soo J-R Sivalingam L Nyanti S-F Simand J Grinang ldquoAssessment of the water and sediment qualityof tropical forest streams in upper reaches of the Baleh RiverSarawak Malaysia subjected to logging activitiesrdquo Journal ofChemistry vol 2016 Article ID 8503931 13 pages 2016

[7] J Schelker K Eklof K Bishop and H Laudon ldquoEffects offorestry operations on dissolved organic carbon concentrationsand export in boreal first-order streamsrdquo Journal of GeophysicalResearch Biogeosciences vol 117 no 1 pp 1ndash12 2012

[8] ANorZaihaM SM Ismid Salmiati andM S S Azri ldquoEffectsof logging activities on ecological water quality indicators in theBerasau River Johor Malaysiardquo Environmental Monitoring andAssessment vol 187 no 8 article 493 2015

[9] L SengWater in the Environment Tainted Life Source Hungersfor Cures UNIMAS 2011

[10] A Marinovic Ruzdjak and D Ruzdjak ldquoEvaluation of riverwater quality variations using multivariate statistical tech-niques Sava River (Croatia) A Case Studyrdquo EnvironmentalMonitoring and Assessment vol 187 no 4 pp 1ndash14 2015

[11] D Phung C Huang S Rutherford et al ldquoTemporal and spatialassessment of river surface water quality using multivariatestatistical techniques a study in CanTho City a Mekong Deltaarea Vietnamrdquo Environmental Monitoring and Assessment vol187 no 5 article no 229 2015

[12] S Muangthong and S Shrestha ldquoAssessment of surface waterquality using multivariate statistical techniques case study ofthe Nampong River and Songkhram River Thailandrdquo Environ-mental Monitoring and Assessment vol 187 no 9 article 5482015

[13] R L Olsen R W Chappell and J C Loftis ldquoWater qualitysample collection data treatment and results presentation forprincipal components analysismdashliterature review and IllinoisRiver watershed case studyrdquo Water Research vol 46 no 9 pp3110ndash3122 2012

[14] S Shrestha and F Kazama ldquoAssessment of surface water qualityusing multivariate statistical techniques a case study of the Fujiriver basin Japanrdquo Environmental Modelling and Software vol22 no 4 pp 464ndash475 2007

[15] P Zeilhofer E B N R Lima and G A R Lima ldquoSpatialpatterns of water quality in the cuiaba River Basin CentralBrazilrdquo Environmental Monitoring and Assessment vol 123 no1ndash3 pp 41ndash62 2006

[16] V Simeonov J A Stratis C Samara et al ldquoAssessment of thesurface water quality in Northern GreecerdquoWater Research vol37 no 17 pp 4119ndash4124 2003

[17] S C Chapra Surface Water-Quality Modeling McGraw-HillNew York NY USA 1997

[18] D Jenkins J J Connors and A E Greenberg Standard Meth-ods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater AmericanPublic Health Association Washingon DC USA 21st edition2005

[19] Department of Environment Malaysia Environmental QualityReport 2014 DOE Kuala Lumpur Malaysia 2015

[20] R C Jones D P Kelso and E Schaeffer ldquoSpatial and seasonalpatterns in water quality in an embayment-mainstem reach ofthe tidal freshwater Potomac River USA A Multiyear StudyrdquoEnvironmental Monitoring and Assessment vol 147 no 1ndash3 pp351ndash375 2008

[21] R Nagarajan M P Jonathan P D Roy GMuthusankar and CLakshumanan ldquoDecadal evolution of a spit in the Baram rivermouth in easternMalaysiardquoContinental Shelf Research vol 105pp 18ndash25 2015

Journal of Chemistry 13

[22] H Yuan E LiuW Pan and S An ldquoWater pollution characteris-tics and assessment in different functional zonesrdquo Polish Journalof Environmental Studies vol 23 no 2 pp 541ndash549 2014

[23] G S Bilotta and R E Brazier ldquoUnderstanding the influenceof suspended solids on water quality and aquatic biotardquo WaterResearch vol 42 no 12 pp 2849ndash2861 2008

[24] T Jinggut C M Yule and L Boyero ldquoStream ecosystemintegrity is impaired by logging and shifting agriculture in aglobal megadiversity center (Sarawak Borneo)rdquo Science of theTotal Environment vol 437 pp 83ndash90 2012

[25] J Hon and S Shibata ldquoA review on land use in the Malaysianstate of Sarawak Borneo and recommendations for wildlifeconservation inside production forest environmentrdquo BorneoJournal of Resource Science and Technology vol 3 no 2 pp 22ndash35 2013

[26] J E Bryan P L Shearman G P Asner D E Knapp G Aoroand B Lokes ldquoExtreme differences in forest degradation inborneo comparing practices in Sarawak Sabah and BruneirdquoPLoS ONE vol 8 no 7 Article ID e69679 2013

[27] M Holmer and E Kristensen ldquoImpact of marine fish cagefarming on metabolism and sulfate reduction of underlyingsedimentsrdquo Marine Ecology Progress Series vol 80 no 2-3 pp191ndash201 1992

[28] K I A Kularatne D P Dissanayake and K R R MahanamaldquoContribution of dissolved sulfates and sulfites in hydrogensulfide emission from stagnant water bodies in Sri LankardquoChemosphere vol 52 no 5 pp 901ndash907 2003

[29] K Mei L Liao Y Zhu et al ldquoEvaluation of spatial-temporalvariations and trends in surface water quality across a rural-suburban-urban interfacerdquoEnvironmental Science and PollutionResearch vol 21 no 13 pp 8036ndash8051 2014

Submit your manuscripts athttpswwwhindawicom

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Inorganic ChemistryInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

International Journal ofPhotoenergy

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Carbohydrate Chemistry

International Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of

Chemistry

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Advances in

Physical Chemistry

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Analytical Methods in Chemistry

Journal of

Volume 2014

Bioinorganic Chemistry and ApplicationsHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

SpectroscopyInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Medicinal ChemistryInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Chromatography Research International

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Applied ChemistryJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Theoretical ChemistryJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of

Spectroscopy

Analytical ChemistryInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Quantum Chemistry

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Organic Chemistry International

ElectrochemistryInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

CatalystsJournal of

6 Journal of Chemistry

EFG

FGH

GH

K KIJ

M

JK

L

LM

N

L L

CDEF

K

DEF

BCD

ED

EF

BCD

AAB

A

N

A

ABC

HI

A A

L

AB

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

00

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000Tu

rbid

ity (N

TU)

00

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Turb

idity

(NTU

)

Main riverTributary

(i)

A AA

A A A AA

AA

A

A A

G

A

F

G

F

A

BC

CD

E

A

H H

B

G

H

A

D

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

000

002

004

006

008

010

Tran

spar

ency

(m)

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

Tran

spar

ency

(m)

Main riverTributary

(j)

Figure 2 In situ parameters of (a) total discharge (b) mean velocity (c) mean depth (d) temperature (e) pH (f) conductivity (g) DOsat(h)DO (i) turbidity and (j) transparency measured at the 30 sampling stations located along the Batang Baram (left axis) and its tributaries(right axis) (different letters indicate significant difference at 119901 value le 005)

sampling total discharge of the Batang Baram ranged from1263m3s to 27118m3s and from 05m3s to 1336m3s inmain river and tributaries respectively Figure 2 illustratesthat total discharge of main river showed an increasingtrend towards downstream regions whereas the highest totaldischarge in tributaries was observed at station 8 followed bystation 16 Mean velocity of the river was relatively consistentinmain riverwith amean value of 12msHighmean velocity(gt1ms) was also observed in some of the tributaries locatedupstream but most of the tributaries were slow flowing(asymp02ms) Mean depth of the Batang Baram ranged from09m to 165m and from 02m to 61m in main river andtributaries respectively Both main river and tributaries wererelatively deeper downstream compared to upstream

The results of ANOVA showed that all of the parametersdemonstrated significant variations (p value le 005) from onesampling station to anotherThe physicochemical parametersshowed different distribution patterns along the main riverThe turbidity TSS and H2S values increased significantly (pvalue le 005) towards downstream with the highest values ofturbidity (4688 plusmn 454NTU) and TSS (3200 plusmn 193mgL)which were both observed at station 20 while the highestvalue of H2S (083 plusmn 001mgL) was observed at station 22The high turbidity and TSS downstream indicate the accu-mulation of sediment in the river Reference [21] reported thata spit was formed in the Baram River mouth and continuedto expand due to the erosion associated with deforestationand land use changes in the upstream region The similardistribution pattern and significant positive correlation (pvalue le 005) between H2S turbidity and TSS (Table 2)indicated that H2S was associated with suspended solids inthe river

On the other hand the conductivity BOD5 TP NO3minus-N

and Org-N showed higher values at the upper part of theriver and decreased significantly (p value le 005) towardsdownstream region In contrary [22] demonstrated thatTP TN and NH3-N concentrations tend to increase fromupstream to downstream regions in the Qiantang River EastChina In the present study the highest conductivity valuewas observed at station 1 (500120583Scm) and steadily decreased

to 35 120583Scm at station 27 The highest values of BOD5 (57 plusmn02mgL) and Org-N (274 plusmn 001mgL) were observed atstations 1 and 4 respectively while the highest values ofTP (22 plusmn 01mgL) and NO3

minus-N (007 plusmn 001mgL) wereobserved at station 6 The conductivity value (82 120583Scmndash133 120583Scm) in the uppermost part of the Baram River basinreported by [9] was relatively higher than the present studywhich agrees with the present result that conductivity valuewas higher in the upper part of the river However the authoralso reported the concentrations of the BOD5 (07mgL to20mgL) and NO3

minus-N (001mgLndash002mgL) which werelower than the present study

Significantly higher COD value (p value le 005) wasobserved in the middle section of the river (1101mgLndash1818mgL) whereas NO2

minus-N (0001mgLndash0002mgL) andTAN (012mgLndash033mgL) values were significantly lower(p value le 005) there Significantly higher (p value le 005)TAN was observed at stations 21 (157 plusmn 007mgL) and 22(149 plusmn 020mgL) while significantly higher (p value le 005)NO2minus-N was observed at station 20 (0055 plusmn 0001mgL)

Similar to BOD5 and NO3minus-N the NH3-N concentration in

the uppermost part of the Baram River basin which rangedfrom 07mgL to 20mgL [9] was lower than the presentstudyThe author attributed the high ammonia concentrationin his study to the sewage discharge from the longhouseand animal waste The higher nutrients concentration in thepresent study indicated the deterioration of water quality overtime due to the increase in population and land developmentin the area

Table 3 shows that the river temperature pH conductiv-ity transparency chl a andNO2minus-Nwere significantly higher(p value le 005) in tributaries than in the main river Thehigh water temperature in tributaries particularly at stations12 13 and 16 (gt29∘C) indicated that direct solar radiationdue to the forest canopy exposure after logging had increasedthe river temperature in those tributaries [6] The BaramRiver basin contained high dissolved ions which gave thehigh conductivity values in the river [9] Besides significantpositive correlation (p value le 005) between temperatureand conductivity indicated that the high temperature in

Journal of Chemistry 7

Table2Correlatio

nmatrix

(119901valuele

005)o

fthe

insituandex

situparametersc

ollected

from

the3

0samplingsta

tions

Disc

harge

Velocity

Depth

Temp

pHCon

dDOsat

DO

Turb

Trans

Chla

TSS

BOD5

COD

TPTA

NNO2minus-N

NO3minus-N

Org-N

H2S

Disc

harge

392

834

minus546

601

706

389

Velocity

392

minus39

1minus511

381minus389

555

491

454

Depth

834

641

513

Temp

658

610

minus480

minus52

8minus39

0minus403

pHminus546

minus39

1658

549minus53

9minus650

413

minus608

minus566

Con

dminus511

610

549

minus444

478minus467

minus554

minus454

DOsat

minus53

9minus582

915

714

DO

601

641

527

minus544

minus456

minus547

362

Turb

706

381

513minus480minus650

527

366

minus493

399

Trans

minus389

413

minus582

minus605

minus361

Chla

TSS

389

minus608

915

366minus605

596

BOD5

555

minus444

minus544

550

545

523

COD

478

minus493

minus39

2TP

491

minus467

minus456

550

540

564

TAN

minus52

8NO2minus-N

NO3minus-N

454

minus39

0minus55

4545minus39

2540

515

Org-N

minus547

523

564

515

H2S

minus403minus566minus454

714

362

399minus361

596

8 Journal of Chemistry

AB A

BC

ABC

A

DEF EF

G

DEF

FG

CDE

FG

AB AB

H

AB

DEF

G

DEF

K

I

AB

BCD

H

A

G

A A A

ABC

H

J

A

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

0020406080

100120140160

0050100150200250300350

Chla

(mg

m3)

Chla

(mg

m3)

(a)

CDE E EF

GH

EFG

J

HIH

K

L

JK K

JK

AB

FGH

DE

ABC BC

D

AB

AB A

BA

B

L

A

AB

DE

A A

IJ

AB

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

005001000150020002500300035004000

TSS

(mg

L)

00500

1000150020002500300035004000

TSS

(mg

L)

(b)

R

IJK

OP

HI

MN

DEF

G

NO

KLM

LMIJ

FGH

BCD

E

BCD

E

MN

KLM

PQ PQ Q

BCJK

L

B B B

FGH

CDEF

GH

A

BCD EF

G HI

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

0010203040506070

BOD

5(m

gL)

00

10

20

30

40

50

60

BOD

5(m

gL)

(c)

EFG

ABC

D

BCD

EA

B AB

HI

L

JK IJK

HI

CDEF

AB

AABC

D

ABC

FGH

ABC

DA

B

GH

IJ

GH

FGH

FGH

DEF FG

H

M

A

ABC

DFG

HKL

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

00200400600800

100012001400160018002000

COD

(mg

L)

00

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

COD

(mg

L)

(d)

G

DE

CD

G

CDCD CD

AB

AAB

BC

AAB

F

EF

AB

EF

AB

A AB AB

A AAB AB

A A A A A

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

00

05

10

15

20

25

TP (m

gL)

00

05

10

15

20

25

30

TP (m

gL)

(e)

HIJK

FGH

I

DEF FG

H JK

A A

C

ABC

A

M

L

DE

HIJK

EFG G

HIJ

FGH

IFG

H

A AB

AB

A A

M

BC

KLBC

DA

BCIJK

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

0002040608101214161820

TAN

(mg

L)0002040608101214161820

TAN

(mg

L)

(f)

EFG

HIJ

KLM

LMJK

LM

FGH

IJ

A AB A

BC AB

HIJK

L

DEF

GH

FGH

IJ

BCD

EFG

H

N

O

GH

IJKL

DEF

GH

I M

ABC

DEF

GH

IJ

IJKL

DEF

GH

P

ABC

DEF

G

CDEF

GH

GH

IJKA

BCD

EF

ABC

DE

FGH

IJA

B

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

0000

0010

0020

0030

0040

0050

0060

NO

2-N

(mg

L)

00000002000400060008001000120014001600180020

NO

2-N

(mg

L)

(g)

ABC

D

BCD

ABC

D

F

EFA

BC

ABC

DA

BCD BC

DA

BCD

ABC

D

ABC

D

ABC

ABC

D

F

CD DE

F

AB

A A A

ABC

DA

BC

ABC

D

ABC A

BC

AB A

BCA

BC

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

000

002

004

006

008

010

012

NO

3-N

(mg

L)

000

002

004

006

008

010

012

NO

3-N

(mg

L)

(h)

Figure 3 Continued

Journal of Chemistry 9

L

N

J

LK

G

D

K

IK

B

F

A

N

P

O

HG

CDE

IJ

EF F

B

M

A A AB

D

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

00

05

10

15

20

25

30O

rg-N

(mg

L)

00

05

10

15

20

25

30

Org

-N (m

gL)

(i)

CDE JK IJ

L

O

FGH

I

DEF

KL

M M

Q

M

P

HIJ

M

JK GH

IJD

EF

A AB

EFG

HBC

D

L

AB

EFG H

IJA

BC BCD

N

BCD

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

00010203040506070809

H2S

(mg

L)

0001010202030304

H2S

(mg

L)

(j)

Figure 3 Ex situ water quality of (a) chl a (b) TSS (c) BOD5 (d) COD (e) TP (f) TAN (g) NO2minus-N (h) NO3minus-N (i) Org-N and (j)H2S measured at the 30 sampling stations located along the Batang Baram (left axis) and its tributaries (right axis) (different letters indicatesignificant difference at 119901 value le 005)

Table 3 Mean difference of in situ and ex situ water qualityparameters between the main river of the Batang Baram and itstributaries

Parameter Mean difference 119901 value

In situ

Temperature ∘C minus07 0050pH minus02 0001

Conductivity 120583Scm minus162 0000DOsat minus02 0915DO mgL +02 0000

Turbidity NTU +1320 0000Transparency m minus04 0000

Ex situ

Chl a mgm3 minus26 0048TSS mgL +1207 0000BOD5 mgL +05 0026COD mgL minus83 0474TP mgL +04 0002TAN mgL +01 0497

NO2minus-N mgL minus0006 0006

NO3minus-N mgL +0007 0169

Org-N mgL +03 0093H2S mgL +01 0000

Positive value of mean difference indicates parameter studied was higher inthe main river of Batang Baram whereas negative value indicates parameterstudied was higher in the tributary The significant difference at 119901 value le005 was indicated in bold

tributaries increased the ionic mobility and solubility ofminerals which is reflected in high conductivity in tributariesAlso the high photosynthesis rate as indicated by the highchl 119886 in tributaries had increased the pH values in tributariesOn the other hand the main river contained significantlyhigher (p value le 005) DO turbidity TSS BOD5 TP andH2S (Table 3) Most of these parameters were significantlyand positively correlated (p value le 005) with total dischargeand mean velocity of the river (Table 2) Hence we canassume that the fast flowingmain river had increased the DOcontent due to more rapid aeration and had introduced morepollutants into the river via surface runoff Neverthelesstributaries of the Batang Baram were also well aerated as allof the stations were recorded with DO content of more than5mgL and DOsat more than 80

Clus

ter1

Clus

ter2

Clus

ter3

Clus

ter4

0

5

10

15

20

25

Resc

aled

dist

ance

clus

ter c

ombi

natio

n

Case

5Ca

se3

Case

6Ca

se4

Case

9Ca

se8

Case

2Ca

se1

Case

7

Case

13

Case

17

Case

26

Case

16

Case

21

Case

28

Case

23

Case

24

Case

27

Case

22

Case

12

Case

20

Case

29

Case

14

Case

15

Case

11

Case

10

Case

19

Case

25

Case

18

Case

30

Station

Figure 4 Clustering of the 30 sampling stations along the BatangBaram and its tributaries

Table 4 shows that most of the sampling stations wereclassified as Class III and categorized as ldquoslightly pollutedrdquoaccording to the water quality index (WQI) Among the 30stations along the Batang Baram and its tributaries only twostations which were located at tributaries of Sungai Kessehand Sungai Nakan were categorized as ldquocleanrdquo The pH andDO were classified as Class I andor Class II indicating goodcondition whereas the COD was the worst parameter wheremost of the stations were classified as Classes III IV andor VThe river also possesses pollution risk by suspended solids asTSS was classified as Class III andor Class IV at most of thestations andwas classified as Class V at stations 19 and 20Theresults revealed a deteriorating water quality of the BatangBaram and its tributaries when compared to the uppermostpart of the Baram River basin reported by [9] where the riverwas grouped as a Class II river

32 Cluster Analysis (CA) Cluster analysis was used todetect similarities among the sampling stations in the studyarea The dendogram shows that sampling stations in thepresent study can be grouped into four significant clustersas illustrated by Figure 4 The clustering pattern shows thatphysicochemical characteristics of the BatangBaramchanged

10 Journal of Chemistry

Table 4 Classification of water quality of the Batang Baram from upstream to downstream regions according to WQI

Station Class StatusAN BOD5 COD DO pH TSS WQI

1 III III IV II I III III Slightly polluted2 III III III II II II III Slightly polluted3 III III III II I III III Slightly polluted4 III III III II II IV III Slightly polluted5 III III IV II II III III Slightly polluted6 III II III II I IV III Slightly polluted7 III III IV II I III III Slightly polluted8 III III III II II II III Slightly polluted9 III III III II II III III Slightly polluted10 III III III II I III III Slightly polluted11 II II V II I IV III Slightly polluted12 II II V II I I II Slightly polluted13 II III V II I I III Slightly polluted14 II III V II I IV III Slightly polluted15 III III V II I IV III Slightly polluted16 II II V II I II II Slightly polluted17 II II IV II I II II Slightly polluted18 II III V II I IV III Slightly polluted19 II II V II I V III Slightly polluted20 II II IV II I V III Slightly polluted21 IV II IV II I I III Slightly polluted22 IV II IV II II IV III Slightly polluted23 III II IV II I II II Slightly polluted24 IV II III I I IV III Slightly polluted25 IV II V II I III III Slightly polluted26 III II II II I I II Clean27 III II II I II IV III Slightly polluted28 III II III II I I II Clean29 II II IV II I IV III Slightly polluted30 III II V II I I III Slightly polluted

from upstream to downstream regions as demonstrated bythe grouping of upstream stations middle stations anddownstream stations into different clusters Cluster 1 consistsof stations that were located mostly in the middle sectionof the river (stations 11 14 15 18 19 and 20) except station29 which was located downstream Tributaries located frommiddle to downstream regions of the river shared similarcharacteristics as demonstrated by the grouping of stations12 13 16 17 21 23 25 26 28 and 30 in cluster 2 Themain river located downstream (stations 22 24 and 27)also showed similarity and grouped together as cluster 3These two clusters show that main river and tributaries ofthe Batang Baram which were located downstream sharedno similarity Finally cluster 4 consists of stations that werelocated upstream of the river including stations that werelocated at the main river and tributaries (station 1 to station10)This analysis suggests that a reduced number of samplingstations in each cluster may serve as a rapid assessment of thewater quality of the Batang Baram and leads to a more cost-effective monitoring study in the future

33 Principal Component Analysis (PCA) The PCA wasused to explore the most important factors determiningthe spatial variations in physicochemical parameters of theBatangBaramA total of six principal components (PCs)wereobtained with eigenvalues more than one which accountedfor around 836 of the total variance in the 20 physico-chemical parameters of the Batang Baram (Table 5) The firstcomponent (PC1) accounting for 300 of the total variancein the data sets of the river water has significant positiveloadings on turbidity TSS and H2S and negative loadingson conductivity and transparency These factors imply thatsoil erosion occurred in the present study area and a highloading of turbidity and H2S is associated with the presenceof suspended solids [23] Similarly strong positive loadingson turbidity and suspended solids were also observed in aMekong Delta area of Vietnam [11] which is a result of soilerosion from disturbed land The Sarawak forest is subjectedto high timber harvesting pressure rendering sedimentationproblem in its forest streams [1 6 24ndash26] The presentstudy shows that the Batang Baram in Sarawak state is no

Journal of Chemistry 11

Table 5 Loadings of the physicochemical parameters on the first six varimax-rotated PCs (eigenvalue gt 1) along the Batang Baram and itstributaries

Rotated Component Matrixa

Parameter Component1 2 3 4 5 6

Total discharge +0900Mean velocity +0674 +0640Mean depth +0712Temperature minus0904pH minus0451 minus0607 +0444Conductivity minus0605 minus0476DOsat minus0750 +0488DO +0678Turbidity +0948Transparency minus0791Chl a minus0906TSS +0956BOD5 +0854COD minus0423 minus0692TP +0850TAN +0780NO2 +0784NO3 +0612 +0563Org-N +0716H2S +0759 +0427Initial eigenvalue 60 37 27 17 14 12 of variance 301 186 135 87 68 59Cumulative 301 487 622 709 777 836aRotation converged in 11 iterations

exception Logging activities in the surrounding area havecaused sedimentation and increased suspended solids levelin the river The PC1 has the largest proportion of thetotal variance indicating that logging activities are the majorsource of river water contamination in the Batang Baram

The PC2 accounting for 186 of the total variance hassignificant positive loadings on mean velocity BOD5 TPNO3minus-N andOrg-N andnegative loadings on pHandDOsat

These factors indicate an inflow of effluent from longhousesand residential area largely consisting of organic pollutantsand a negative loading of pH and DOsat is attributed to theprocess of decomposition of the organic matter Similarly theanalysis of PCA was applied in the Qiantang River whichindicated that TN NO3

minus NH3-N and TP were the dominantpollution factors in the river [22] The authors attributed thepollutions to the domestic sewage discharge of poultry andanimal feces and fertilizer that were flushed into the riverAlso an ldquoorganicrdquo factor that positively loaded with CODBOD5 TON TP and PO4

3minus was reported in a main riversystem in northernGreecewhich represented the influence ofmunicipal and industrial effluents [16] The PC3 accountingfor 136 of total variance has significant positive loadings ontotal discharge mean velocity mean depth DOsat and DOand negative loadings on conductivity and COD suggestinga dilution of chemically oxidizable material in the river

associated with high volume of river water and high dissolvedoxygen levelThe high CODBOD5 ratio in the Batang Baramindicates a large nonbiodegradable fraction of organic matterin the river

The PC4 (87 of the total variance) has significantpositive loadings on transparency TAN NO3

minus-N and H2Sand negative loadings on temperature pH and conductivityIn an anaerobic condition the high loading of organicmatter in river can lead to the formation of ammonia andorganic acids which coupledwith the production of hydrogensulphide and carbon dioxide during decomposition [27 28]can cause acidification of water By employing the PCA forthe data interpretation [10] also revealed that parametersrelated to organic pollutants and temperature were the mostimportant parameters contributing to water quality variationin the SavaRiver CroatiaThePC5 (68of the total variance)is significantly and negatively loaded on COD but positivelyloaded onNO2

minus-N Again the high loading of organicmatterin the river likely led to the build-up of NO2

minus-N in thewater Similar to PC2 both PC4 and PC5 can be explainedas influences from domestic discharges which contained highnutrients and organic matter As PC2 has a larger proportionof the total variance than PC4 and PC5 we can assume thatorganic pollution in the Batang Baram ismore severe than theinorganic pollution Reference [29] also reported that organic

12 Journal of Chemistry

pollutants followed by nutrients and salt concentration werethe most important parameters contributing to water qualityvariation in the Wen-Rui Tang River watershed ChinaFinally the PC6 (59 of the total variance) is significantlyand positively loaded on pH but negatively loaded on chl 119886indicating the decomposition of dead phytoplankton and thatmost of the variability in the data is due to the pH changes aspH plays a significant role in mineralization process

4 Conclusions

The present study revealed that the Batang Baram and itstributaries demonstrated sign of pollution as indicated byhigh suspended solids and nutrients in the river Most ofthe stations along the river were classified as Class III andcategorized as ldquoslightly pollutedrdquo In particular the CODand TSS were the most severe parameters where they wereclassified as Class V at some of the stations in the riverA large number of sampling stations in the present studywere grouped into four clusters which divided the riverinto upstream middle and downstream main river andtributaries located middle and downstream of the river ThePCA revealed that parameters related to logging activitiesand domestic sewage discharge were the most importantparameters contributing to water quality variation in theriver

Competing Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interestsregarding the publication of this paper

Acknowledgments

The authors appreciate the financial support provided by theSarawak Energy Berhad through Grant no GL(F07)SEB3C2013(22) and the facilities provided byUniversitiMalaysiaSarawak

References

[1] M Ichikawa ldquoDegradation and loss of forest land and land-usechanges in Sarawak East Malaysia a study of native land use bythe Ibanrdquo Ecological Research vol 22 no 3 pp 403ndash413 2007

[2] H P Jarvie C Neal and P J AWithers ldquoSewage-effluent phos-phorus a greater risk to river eutrophication than agriculturalphosphorusrdquoThe Science of the Total Environment vol 360 no1ndash3 pp 246ndash253 2006

[3] M B Rothenberger J M Burkholder and C Brownie ldquoLong-term effects of changing land use practices on surface waterquality in a coastal river and lagoonal estuaryrdquo EnvironmentalManagement vol 44 no 3 pp 505ndash523 2009

[4] C Soo T Ling N Lee and K Apun ldquoAssessment of thecharacteristic of nutrients total metals and fecal coliform inSibu Laut River Sarawak Malaysiardquo Applied Water Science vol6 no 1 pp 77ndash96 2016

[5] F Gokbulak Y Serengil S Ozhan N Ozyuvaci and N BalcildquoEffect of timber harvest on physical water quality characteris-ticsrdquo Water Resources Management vol 22 no 5 pp 635ndash6492008

[6] T-Y Ling C-L Soo J-R Sivalingam L Nyanti S-F Simand J Grinang ldquoAssessment of the water and sediment qualityof tropical forest streams in upper reaches of the Baleh RiverSarawak Malaysia subjected to logging activitiesrdquo Journal ofChemistry vol 2016 Article ID 8503931 13 pages 2016

[7] J Schelker K Eklof K Bishop and H Laudon ldquoEffects offorestry operations on dissolved organic carbon concentrationsand export in boreal first-order streamsrdquo Journal of GeophysicalResearch Biogeosciences vol 117 no 1 pp 1ndash12 2012

[8] ANorZaihaM SM Ismid Salmiati andM S S Azri ldquoEffectsof logging activities on ecological water quality indicators in theBerasau River Johor Malaysiardquo Environmental Monitoring andAssessment vol 187 no 8 article 493 2015

[9] L SengWater in the Environment Tainted Life Source Hungersfor Cures UNIMAS 2011

[10] A Marinovic Ruzdjak and D Ruzdjak ldquoEvaluation of riverwater quality variations using multivariate statistical tech-niques Sava River (Croatia) A Case Studyrdquo EnvironmentalMonitoring and Assessment vol 187 no 4 pp 1ndash14 2015

[11] D Phung C Huang S Rutherford et al ldquoTemporal and spatialassessment of river surface water quality using multivariatestatistical techniques a study in CanTho City a Mekong Deltaarea Vietnamrdquo Environmental Monitoring and Assessment vol187 no 5 article no 229 2015

[12] S Muangthong and S Shrestha ldquoAssessment of surface waterquality using multivariate statistical techniques case study ofthe Nampong River and Songkhram River Thailandrdquo Environ-mental Monitoring and Assessment vol 187 no 9 article 5482015

[13] R L Olsen R W Chappell and J C Loftis ldquoWater qualitysample collection data treatment and results presentation forprincipal components analysismdashliterature review and IllinoisRiver watershed case studyrdquo Water Research vol 46 no 9 pp3110ndash3122 2012

[14] S Shrestha and F Kazama ldquoAssessment of surface water qualityusing multivariate statistical techniques a case study of the Fujiriver basin Japanrdquo Environmental Modelling and Software vol22 no 4 pp 464ndash475 2007

[15] P Zeilhofer E B N R Lima and G A R Lima ldquoSpatialpatterns of water quality in the cuiaba River Basin CentralBrazilrdquo Environmental Monitoring and Assessment vol 123 no1ndash3 pp 41ndash62 2006

[16] V Simeonov J A Stratis C Samara et al ldquoAssessment of thesurface water quality in Northern GreecerdquoWater Research vol37 no 17 pp 4119ndash4124 2003

[17] S C Chapra Surface Water-Quality Modeling McGraw-HillNew York NY USA 1997

[18] D Jenkins J J Connors and A E Greenberg Standard Meth-ods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater AmericanPublic Health Association Washingon DC USA 21st edition2005

[19] Department of Environment Malaysia Environmental QualityReport 2014 DOE Kuala Lumpur Malaysia 2015

[20] R C Jones D P Kelso and E Schaeffer ldquoSpatial and seasonalpatterns in water quality in an embayment-mainstem reach ofthe tidal freshwater Potomac River USA A Multiyear StudyrdquoEnvironmental Monitoring and Assessment vol 147 no 1ndash3 pp351ndash375 2008

[21] R Nagarajan M P Jonathan P D Roy GMuthusankar and CLakshumanan ldquoDecadal evolution of a spit in the Baram rivermouth in easternMalaysiardquoContinental Shelf Research vol 105pp 18ndash25 2015

Journal of Chemistry 13

[22] H Yuan E LiuW Pan and S An ldquoWater pollution characteris-tics and assessment in different functional zonesrdquo Polish Journalof Environmental Studies vol 23 no 2 pp 541ndash549 2014

[23] G S Bilotta and R E Brazier ldquoUnderstanding the influenceof suspended solids on water quality and aquatic biotardquo WaterResearch vol 42 no 12 pp 2849ndash2861 2008

[24] T Jinggut C M Yule and L Boyero ldquoStream ecosystemintegrity is impaired by logging and shifting agriculture in aglobal megadiversity center (Sarawak Borneo)rdquo Science of theTotal Environment vol 437 pp 83ndash90 2012

[25] J Hon and S Shibata ldquoA review on land use in the Malaysianstate of Sarawak Borneo and recommendations for wildlifeconservation inside production forest environmentrdquo BorneoJournal of Resource Science and Technology vol 3 no 2 pp 22ndash35 2013

[26] J E Bryan P L Shearman G P Asner D E Knapp G Aoroand B Lokes ldquoExtreme differences in forest degradation inborneo comparing practices in Sarawak Sabah and BruneirdquoPLoS ONE vol 8 no 7 Article ID e69679 2013

[27] M Holmer and E Kristensen ldquoImpact of marine fish cagefarming on metabolism and sulfate reduction of underlyingsedimentsrdquo Marine Ecology Progress Series vol 80 no 2-3 pp191ndash201 1992

[28] K I A Kularatne D P Dissanayake and K R R MahanamaldquoContribution of dissolved sulfates and sulfites in hydrogensulfide emission from stagnant water bodies in Sri LankardquoChemosphere vol 52 no 5 pp 901ndash907 2003

[29] K Mei L Liao Y Zhu et al ldquoEvaluation of spatial-temporalvariations and trends in surface water quality across a rural-suburban-urban interfacerdquoEnvironmental Science and PollutionResearch vol 21 no 13 pp 8036ndash8051 2014

Submit your manuscripts athttpswwwhindawicom

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Inorganic ChemistryInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

International Journal ofPhotoenergy

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Carbohydrate Chemistry

International Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of

Chemistry

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Advances in

Physical Chemistry

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Analytical Methods in Chemistry

Journal of

Volume 2014

Bioinorganic Chemistry and ApplicationsHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

SpectroscopyInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Medicinal ChemistryInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Chromatography Research International

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Applied ChemistryJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Theoretical ChemistryJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of

Spectroscopy

Analytical ChemistryInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Quantum Chemistry

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Organic Chemistry International

ElectrochemistryInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

CatalystsJournal of

Journal of Chemistry 7

Table2Correlatio

nmatrix

(119901valuele

005)o

fthe

insituandex

situparametersc

ollected

from

the3

0samplingsta

tions

Disc

harge

Velocity

Depth

Temp

pHCon

dDOsat

DO

Turb

Trans

Chla

TSS

BOD5

COD

TPTA

NNO2minus-N

NO3minus-N

Org-N

H2S

Disc

harge

392

834

minus546

601

706

389

Velocity

392

minus39

1minus511

381minus389

555

491

454

Depth

834

641

513

Temp

658

610

minus480

minus52

8minus39

0minus403

pHminus546

minus39

1658

549minus53

9minus650

413

minus608

minus566

Con

dminus511

610

549

minus444

478minus467

minus554

minus454

DOsat

minus53

9minus582

915

714

DO

601

641

527

minus544

minus456

minus547

362

Turb

706

381

513minus480minus650

527

366

minus493

399

Trans

minus389

413

minus582

minus605

minus361

Chla

TSS

389

minus608

915

366minus605

596

BOD5

555

minus444

minus544

550

545

523

COD

478

minus493

minus39

2TP

491

minus467

minus456

550

540

564

TAN

minus52

8NO2minus-N

NO3minus-N

454

minus39

0minus55

4545minus39

2540

515

Org-N

minus547

523

564

515

H2S

minus403minus566minus454

714

362

399minus361

596

8 Journal of Chemistry

AB A

BC

ABC

A

DEF EF

G

DEF

FG

CDE

FG

AB AB

H

AB

DEF

G

DEF

K

I

AB

BCD

H

A

G

A A A

ABC

H

J

A

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

0020406080

100120140160

0050100150200250300350

Chla

(mg

m3)

Chla

(mg

m3)

(a)

CDE E EF

GH

EFG

J

HIH

K

L

JK K

JK

AB

FGH

DE

ABC BC

D

AB

AB A

BA

B

L

A

AB

DE

A A

IJ

AB

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

005001000150020002500300035004000

TSS

(mg

L)

00500

1000150020002500300035004000

TSS

(mg

L)

(b)

R

IJK

OP

HI

MN

DEF

G

NO

KLM

LMIJ

FGH

BCD

E

BCD

E

MN

KLM

PQ PQ Q

BCJK

L

B B B

FGH

CDEF

GH

A

BCD EF

G HI

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

0010203040506070

BOD

5(m

gL)

00

10

20

30

40

50

60

BOD

5(m

gL)

(c)

EFG

ABC

D

BCD

EA

B AB

HI

L

JK IJK

HI

CDEF

AB

AABC

D

ABC

FGH

ABC

DA

B

GH

IJ

GH

FGH

FGH

DEF FG

H

M

A

ABC

DFG

HKL

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

00200400600800

100012001400160018002000

COD

(mg

L)

00

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

COD

(mg

L)

(d)

G

DE

CD

G

CDCD CD

AB

AAB

BC

AAB

F

EF

AB

EF

AB

A AB AB

A AAB AB

A A A A A

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

00

05

10

15

20

25

TP (m

gL)

00

05

10

15

20

25

30

TP (m

gL)

(e)

HIJK

FGH

I

DEF FG

H JK

A A

C

ABC

A

M

L

DE

HIJK

EFG G

HIJ

FGH

IFG

H

A AB

AB

A A

M

BC

KLBC

DA

BCIJK

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

0002040608101214161820

TAN

(mg

L)0002040608101214161820

TAN

(mg

L)

(f)

EFG

HIJ

KLM

LMJK

LM

FGH

IJ

A AB A

BC AB

HIJK

L

DEF

GH

FGH

IJ

BCD

EFG

H

N

O

GH

IJKL

DEF

GH

I M

ABC

DEF

GH

IJ

IJKL

DEF

GH

P

ABC

DEF

G

CDEF

GH

GH

IJKA

BCD

EF

ABC

DE

FGH

IJA

B

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

0000

0010

0020

0030

0040

0050

0060

NO

2-N

(mg

L)

00000002000400060008001000120014001600180020

NO

2-N

(mg

L)

(g)

ABC

D

BCD

ABC

D

F

EFA

BC

ABC

DA

BCD BC

DA

BCD

ABC

D

ABC

D

ABC

ABC

D

F

CD DE

F

AB

A A A

ABC

DA

BC

ABC

D

ABC A

BC

AB A

BCA

BC

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

000

002

004

006

008

010

012

NO

3-N

(mg

L)

000

002

004

006

008

010

012

NO

3-N

(mg

L)

(h)

Figure 3 Continued

Journal of Chemistry 9

L

N

J

LK

G

D

K

IK

B

F

A

N

P

O

HG

CDE

IJ

EF F

B

M

A A AB

D

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

00

05

10

15

20

25

30O

rg-N

(mg

L)

00

05

10

15

20

25

30

Org

-N (m

gL)

(i)

CDE JK IJ

L

O

FGH

I

DEF

KL

M M

Q

M

P

HIJ

M

JK GH

IJD

EF

A AB

EFG

HBC

D

L

AB

EFG H

IJA

BC BCD

N

BCD

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

00010203040506070809

H2S

(mg

L)

0001010202030304

H2S

(mg

L)

(j)

Figure 3 Ex situ water quality of (a) chl a (b) TSS (c) BOD5 (d) COD (e) TP (f) TAN (g) NO2minus-N (h) NO3minus-N (i) Org-N and (j)H2S measured at the 30 sampling stations located along the Batang Baram (left axis) and its tributaries (right axis) (different letters indicatesignificant difference at 119901 value le 005)

Table 3 Mean difference of in situ and ex situ water qualityparameters between the main river of the Batang Baram and itstributaries

Parameter Mean difference 119901 value

In situ

Temperature ∘C minus07 0050pH minus02 0001

Conductivity 120583Scm minus162 0000DOsat minus02 0915DO mgL +02 0000

Turbidity NTU +1320 0000Transparency m minus04 0000

Ex situ

Chl a mgm3 minus26 0048TSS mgL +1207 0000BOD5 mgL +05 0026COD mgL minus83 0474TP mgL +04 0002TAN mgL +01 0497

NO2minus-N mgL minus0006 0006

NO3minus-N mgL +0007 0169

Org-N mgL +03 0093H2S mgL +01 0000

Positive value of mean difference indicates parameter studied was higher inthe main river of Batang Baram whereas negative value indicates parameterstudied was higher in the tributary The significant difference at 119901 value le005 was indicated in bold

tributaries increased the ionic mobility and solubility ofminerals which is reflected in high conductivity in tributariesAlso the high photosynthesis rate as indicated by the highchl 119886 in tributaries had increased the pH values in tributariesOn the other hand the main river contained significantlyhigher (p value le 005) DO turbidity TSS BOD5 TP andH2S (Table 3) Most of these parameters were significantlyand positively correlated (p value le 005) with total dischargeand mean velocity of the river (Table 2) Hence we canassume that the fast flowingmain river had increased the DOcontent due to more rapid aeration and had introduced morepollutants into the river via surface runoff Neverthelesstributaries of the Batang Baram were also well aerated as allof the stations were recorded with DO content of more than5mgL and DOsat more than 80

Clus

ter1

Clus

ter2

Clus

ter3

Clus

ter4

0

5

10

15

20

25

Resc

aled

dist

ance

clus

ter c

ombi

natio

n

Case

5Ca

se3

Case

6Ca

se4

Case

9Ca

se8

Case

2Ca

se1

Case

7

Case

13

Case

17

Case

26

Case

16

Case

21

Case

28

Case

23

Case

24

Case

27

Case

22

Case

12

Case

20

Case

29

Case

14

Case

15

Case

11

Case

10

Case

19

Case

25

Case

18

Case

30

Station

Figure 4 Clustering of the 30 sampling stations along the BatangBaram and its tributaries

Table 4 shows that most of the sampling stations wereclassified as Class III and categorized as ldquoslightly pollutedrdquoaccording to the water quality index (WQI) Among the 30stations along the Batang Baram and its tributaries only twostations which were located at tributaries of Sungai Kessehand Sungai Nakan were categorized as ldquocleanrdquo The pH andDO were classified as Class I andor Class II indicating goodcondition whereas the COD was the worst parameter wheremost of the stations were classified as Classes III IV andor VThe river also possesses pollution risk by suspended solids asTSS was classified as Class III andor Class IV at most of thestations andwas classified as Class V at stations 19 and 20Theresults revealed a deteriorating water quality of the BatangBaram and its tributaries when compared to the uppermostpart of the Baram River basin reported by [9] where the riverwas grouped as a Class II river

32 Cluster Analysis (CA) Cluster analysis was used todetect similarities among the sampling stations in the studyarea The dendogram shows that sampling stations in thepresent study can be grouped into four significant clustersas illustrated by Figure 4 The clustering pattern shows thatphysicochemical characteristics of the BatangBaramchanged

10 Journal of Chemistry

Table 4 Classification of water quality of the Batang Baram from upstream to downstream regions according to WQI

Station Class StatusAN BOD5 COD DO pH TSS WQI

1 III III IV II I III III Slightly polluted2 III III III II II II III Slightly polluted3 III III III II I III III Slightly polluted4 III III III II II IV III Slightly polluted5 III III IV II II III III Slightly polluted6 III II III II I IV III Slightly polluted7 III III IV II I III III Slightly polluted8 III III III II II II III Slightly polluted9 III III III II II III III Slightly polluted10 III III III II I III III Slightly polluted11 II II V II I IV III Slightly polluted12 II II V II I I II Slightly polluted13 II III V II I I III Slightly polluted14 II III V II I IV III Slightly polluted15 III III V II I IV III Slightly polluted16 II II V II I II II Slightly polluted17 II II IV II I II II Slightly polluted18 II III V II I IV III Slightly polluted19 II II V II I V III Slightly polluted20 II II IV II I V III Slightly polluted21 IV II IV II I I III Slightly polluted22 IV II IV II II IV III Slightly polluted23 III II IV II I II II Slightly polluted24 IV II III I I IV III Slightly polluted25 IV II V II I III III Slightly polluted26 III II II II I I II Clean27 III II II I II IV III Slightly polluted28 III II III II I I II Clean29 II II IV II I IV III Slightly polluted30 III II V II I I III Slightly polluted

from upstream to downstream regions as demonstrated bythe grouping of upstream stations middle stations anddownstream stations into different clusters Cluster 1 consistsof stations that were located mostly in the middle sectionof the river (stations 11 14 15 18 19 and 20) except station29 which was located downstream Tributaries located frommiddle to downstream regions of the river shared similarcharacteristics as demonstrated by the grouping of stations12 13 16 17 21 23 25 26 28 and 30 in cluster 2 Themain river located downstream (stations 22 24 and 27)also showed similarity and grouped together as cluster 3These two clusters show that main river and tributaries ofthe Batang Baram which were located downstream sharedno similarity Finally cluster 4 consists of stations that werelocated upstream of the river including stations that werelocated at the main river and tributaries (station 1 to station10)This analysis suggests that a reduced number of samplingstations in each cluster may serve as a rapid assessment of thewater quality of the Batang Baram and leads to a more cost-effective monitoring study in the future

33 Principal Component Analysis (PCA) The PCA wasused to explore the most important factors determiningthe spatial variations in physicochemical parameters of theBatangBaramA total of six principal components (PCs)wereobtained with eigenvalues more than one which accountedfor around 836 of the total variance in the 20 physico-chemical parameters of the Batang Baram (Table 5) The firstcomponent (PC1) accounting for 300 of the total variancein the data sets of the river water has significant positiveloadings on turbidity TSS and H2S and negative loadingson conductivity and transparency These factors imply thatsoil erosion occurred in the present study area and a highloading of turbidity and H2S is associated with the presenceof suspended solids [23] Similarly strong positive loadingson turbidity and suspended solids were also observed in aMekong Delta area of Vietnam [11] which is a result of soilerosion from disturbed land The Sarawak forest is subjectedto high timber harvesting pressure rendering sedimentationproblem in its forest streams [1 6 24ndash26] The presentstudy shows that the Batang Baram in Sarawak state is no

Journal of Chemistry 11

Table 5 Loadings of the physicochemical parameters on the first six varimax-rotated PCs (eigenvalue gt 1) along the Batang Baram and itstributaries

Rotated Component Matrixa

Parameter Component1 2 3 4 5 6

Total discharge +0900Mean velocity +0674 +0640Mean depth +0712Temperature minus0904pH minus0451 minus0607 +0444Conductivity minus0605 minus0476DOsat minus0750 +0488DO +0678Turbidity +0948Transparency minus0791Chl a minus0906TSS +0956BOD5 +0854COD minus0423 minus0692TP +0850TAN +0780NO2 +0784NO3 +0612 +0563Org-N +0716H2S +0759 +0427Initial eigenvalue 60 37 27 17 14 12 of variance 301 186 135 87 68 59Cumulative 301 487 622 709 777 836aRotation converged in 11 iterations

exception Logging activities in the surrounding area havecaused sedimentation and increased suspended solids levelin the river The PC1 has the largest proportion of thetotal variance indicating that logging activities are the majorsource of river water contamination in the Batang Baram

The PC2 accounting for 186 of the total variance hassignificant positive loadings on mean velocity BOD5 TPNO3minus-N andOrg-N andnegative loadings on pHandDOsat

These factors indicate an inflow of effluent from longhousesand residential area largely consisting of organic pollutantsand a negative loading of pH and DOsat is attributed to theprocess of decomposition of the organic matter Similarly theanalysis of PCA was applied in the Qiantang River whichindicated that TN NO3

minus NH3-N and TP were the dominantpollution factors in the river [22] The authors attributed thepollutions to the domestic sewage discharge of poultry andanimal feces and fertilizer that were flushed into the riverAlso an ldquoorganicrdquo factor that positively loaded with CODBOD5 TON TP and PO4

3minus was reported in a main riversystem in northernGreecewhich represented the influence ofmunicipal and industrial effluents [16] The PC3 accountingfor 136 of total variance has significant positive loadings ontotal discharge mean velocity mean depth DOsat and DOand negative loadings on conductivity and COD suggestinga dilution of chemically oxidizable material in the river

associated with high volume of river water and high dissolvedoxygen levelThe high CODBOD5 ratio in the Batang Baramindicates a large nonbiodegradable fraction of organic matterin the river

The PC4 (87 of the total variance) has significantpositive loadings on transparency TAN NO3

minus-N and H2Sand negative loadings on temperature pH and conductivityIn an anaerobic condition the high loading of organicmatter in river can lead to the formation of ammonia andorganic acids which coupledwith the production of hydrogensulphide and carbon dioxide during decomposition [27 28]can cause acidification of water By employing the PCA forthe data interpretation [10] also revealed that parametersrelated to organic pollutants and temperature were the mostimportant parameters contributing to water quality variationin the SavaRiver CroatiaThePC5 (68of the total variance)is significantly and negatively loaded on COD but positivelyloaded onNO2

minus-N Again the high loading of organicmatterin the river likely led to the build-up of NO2

minus-N in thewater Similar to PC2 both PC4 and PC5 can be explainedas influences from domestic discharges which contained highnutrients and organic matter As PC2 has a larger proportionof the total variance than PC4 and PC5 we can assume thatorganic pollution in the Batang Baram ismore severe than theinorganic pollution Reference [29] also reported that organic

12 Journal of Chemistry

pollutants followed by nutrients and salt concentration werethe most important parameters contributing to water qualityvariation in the Wen-Rui Tang River watershed ChinaFinally the PC6 (59 of the total variance) is significantlyand positively loaded on pH but negatively loaded on chl 119886indicating the decomposition of dead phytoplankton and thatmost of the variability in the data is due to the pH changes aspH plays a significant role in mineralization process

4 Conclusions

The present study revealed that the Batang Baram and itstributaries demonstrated sign of pollution as indicated byhigh suspended solids and nutrients in the river Most ofthe stations along the river were classified as Class III andcategorized as ldquoslightly pollutedrdquo In particular the CODand TSS were the most severe parameters where they wereclassified as Class V at some of the stations in the riverA large number of sampling stations in the present studywere grouped into four clusters which divided the riverinto upstream middle and downstream main river andtributaries located middle and downstream of the river ThePCA revealed that parameters related to logging activitiesand domestic sewage discharge were the most importantparameters contributing to water quality variation in theriver

Competing Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interestsregarding the publication of this paper

Acknowledgments

The authors appreciate the financial support provided by theSarawak Energy Berhad through Grant no GL(F07)SEB3C2013(22) and the facilities provided byUniversitiMalaysiaSarawak

References

[1] M Ichikawa ldquoDegradation and loss of forest land and land-usechanges in Sarawak East Malaysia a study of native land use bythe Ibanrdquo Ecological Research vol 22 no 3 pp 403ndash413 2007

[2] H P Jarvie C Neal and P J AWithers ldquoSewage-effluent phos-phorus a greater risk to river eutrophication than agriculturalphosphorusrdquoThe Science of the Total Environment vol 360 no1ndash3 pp 246ndash253 2006

[3] M B Rothenberger J M Burkholder and C Brownie ldquoLong-term effects of changing land use practices on surface waterquality in a coastal river and lagoonal estuaryrdquo EnvironmentalManagement vol 44 no 3 pp 505ndash523 2009

[4] C Soo T Ling N Lee and K Apun ldquoAssessment of thecharacteristic of nutrients total metals and fecal coliform inSibu Laut River Sarawak Malaysiardquo Applied Water Science vol6 no 1 pp 77ndash96 2016

[5] F Gokbulak Y Serengil S Ozhan N Ozyuvaci and N BalcildquoEffect of timber harvest on physical water quality characteris-ticsrdquo Water Resources Management vol 22 no 5 pp 635ndash6492008

[6] T-Y Ling C-L Soo J-R Sivalingam L Nyanti S-F Simand J Grinang ldquoAssessment of the water and sediment qualityof tropical forest streams in upper reaches of the Baleh RiverSarawak Malaysia subjected to logging activitiesrdquo Journal ofChemistry vol 2016 Article ID 8503931 13 pages 2016

[7] J Schelker K Eklof K Bishop and H Laudon ldquoEffects offorestry operations on dissolved organic carbon concentrationsand export in boreal first-order streamsrdquo Journal of GeophysicalResearch Biogeosciences vol 117 no 1 pp 1ndash12 2012

[8] ANorZaihaM SM Ismid Salmiati andM S S Azri ldquoEffectsof logging activities on ecological water quality indicators in theBerasau River Johor Malaysiardquo Environmental Monitoring andAssessment vol 187 no 8 article 493 2015

[9] L SengWater in the Environment Tainted Life Source Hungersfor Cures UNIMAS 2011

[10] A Marinovic Ruzdjak and D Ruzdjak ldquoEvaluation of riverwater quality variations using multivariate statistical tech-niques Sava River (Croatia) A Case Studyrdquo EnvironmentalMonitoring and Assessment vol 187 no 4 pp 1ndash14 2015

[11] D Phung C Huang S Rutherford et al ldquoTemporal and spatialassessment of river surface water quality using multivariatestatistical techniques a study in CanTho City a Mekong Deltaarea Vietnamrdquo Environmental Monitoring and Assessment vol187 no 5 article no 229 2015

[12] S Muangthong and S Shrestha ldquoAssessment of surface waterquality using multivariate statistical techniques case study ofthe Nampong River and Songkhram River Thailandrdquo Environ-mental Monitoring and Assessment vol 187 no 9 article 5482015

[13] R L Olsen R W Chappell and J C Loftis ldquoWater qualitysample collection data treatment and results presentation forprincipal components analysismdashliterature review and IllinoisRiver watershed case studyrdquo Water Research vol 46 no 9 pp3110ndash3122 2012

[14] S Shrestha and F Kazama ldquoAssessment of surface water qualityusing multivariate statistical techniques a case study of the Fujiriver basin Japanrdquo Environmental Modelling and Software vol22 no 4 pp 464ndash475 2007

[15] P Zeilhofer E B N R Lima and G A R Lima ldquoSpatialpatterns of water quality in the cuiaba River Basin CentralBrazilrdquo Environmental Monitoring and Assessment vol 123 no1ndash3 pp 41ndash62 2006

[16] V Simeonov J A Stratis C Samara et al ldquoAssessment of thesurface water quality in Northern GreecerdquoWater Research vol37 no 17 pp 4119ndash4124 2003

[17] S C Chapra Surface Water-Quality Modeling McGraw-HillNew York NY USA 1997

[18] D Jenkins J J Connors and A E Greenberg Standard Meth-ods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater AmericanPublic Health Association Washingon DC USA 21st edition2005

[19] Department of Environment Malaysia Environmental QualityReport 2014 DOE Kuala Lumpur Malaysia 2015

[20] R C Jones D P Kelso and E Schaeffer ldquoSpatial and seasonalpatterns in water quality in an embayment-mainstem reach ofthe tidal freshwater Potomac River USA A Multiyear StudyrdquoEnvironmental Monitoring and Assessment vol 147 no 1ndash3 pp351ndash375 2008

[21] R Nagarajan M P Jonathan P D Roy GMuthusankar and CLakshumanan ldquoDecadal evolution of a spit in the Baram rivermouth in easternMalaysiardquoContinental Shelf Research vol 105pp 18ndash25 2015

Journal of Chemistry 13

[22] H Yuan E LiuW Pan and S An ldquoWater pollution characteris-tics and assessment in different functional zonesrdquo Polish Journalof Environmental Studies vol 23 no 2 pp 541ndash549 2014

[23] G S Bilotta and R E Brazier ldquoUnderstanding the influenceof suspended solids on water quality and aquatic biotardquo WaterResearch vol 42 no 12 pp 2849ndash2861 2008

[24] T Jinggut C M Yule and L Boyero ldquoStream ecosystemintegrity is impaired by logging and shifting agriculture in aglobal megadiversity center (Sarawak Borneo)rdquo Science of theTotal Environment vol 437 pp 83ndash90 2012

[25] J Hon and S Shibata ldquoA review on land use in the Malaysianstate of Sarawak Borneo and recommendations for wildlifeconservation inside production forest environmentrdquo BorneoJournal of Resource Science and Technology vol 3 no 2 pp 22ndash35 2013

[26] J E Bryan P L Shearman G P Asner D E Knapp G Aoroand B Lokes ldquoExtreme differences in forest degradation inborneo comparing practices in Sarawak Sabah and BruneirdquoPLoS ONE vol 8 no 7 Article ID e69679 2013

[27] M Holmer and E Kristensen ldquoImpact of marine fish cagefarming on metabolism and sulfate reduction of underlyingsedimentsrdquo Marine Ecology Progress Series vol 80 no 2-3 pp191ndash201 1992

[28] K I A Kularatne D P Dissanayake and K R R MahanamaldquoContribution of dissolved sulfates and sulfites in hydrogensulfide emission from stagnant water bodies in Sri LankardquoChemosphere vol 52 no 5 pp 901ndash907 2003

[29] K Mei L Liao Y Zhu et al ldquoEvaluation of spatial-temporalvariations and trends in surface water quality across a rural-suburban-urban interfacerdquoEnvironmental Science and PollutionResearch vol 21 no 13 pp 8036ndash8051 2014

Submit your manuscripts athttpswwwhindawicom

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Inorganic ChemistryInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

International Journal ofPhotoenergy

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Carbohydrate Chemistry

International Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of

Chemistry

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Advances in

Physical Chemistry

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Analytical Methods in Chemistry

Journal of

Volume 2014

Bioinorganic Chemistry and ApplicationsHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

SpectroscopyInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Medicinal ChemistryInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Chromatography Research International

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Applied ChemistryJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Theoretical ChemistryJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of

Spectroscopy

Analytical ChemistryInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Quantum Chemistry

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Organic Chemistry International

ElectrochemistryInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

CatalystsJournal of

8 Journal of Chemistry

AB A

BC

ABC

A

DEF EF

G

DEF

FG

CDE

FG

AB AB

H

AB

DEF

G

DEF

K

I

AB

BCD

H

A

G

A A A

ABC

H

J

A

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

0020406080

100120140160

0050100150200250300350

Chla

(mg

m3)

Chla

(mg

m3)

(a)

CDE E EF

GH

EFG

J

HIH

K

L

JK K

JK

AB

FGH

DE

ABC BC

D

AB

AB A

BA

B

L

A

AB

DE

A A

IJ

AB

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

005001000150020002500300035004000

TSS

(mg

L)

00500

1000150020002500300035004000

TSS

(mg

L)

(b)

R

IJK

OP

HI

MN

DEF

G

NO

KLM

LMIJ

FGH

BCD

E

BCD

E

MN

KLM

PQ PQ Q

BCJK

L

B B B

FGH

CDEF

GH

A

BCD EF

G HI

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

0010203040506070

BOD

5(m

gL)

00

10

20

30

40

50

60

BOD

5(m

gL)

(c)

EFG

ABC

D

BCD

EA

B AB

HI

L

JK IJK

HI

CDEF

AB

AABC

D

ABC

FGH

ABC

DA

B

GH

IJ

GH

FGH

FGH

DEF FG

H

M

A

ABC

DFG

HKL

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

00200400600800

100012001400160018002000

COD

(mg

L)

00

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

COD

(mg

L)

(d)

G

DE

CD

G

CDCD CD

AB

AAB

BC

AAB

F

EF

AB

EF

AB

A AB AB

A AAB AB

A A A A A

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

00

05

10

15

20

25

TP (m

gL)

00

05

10

15

20

25

30

TP (m

gL)

(e)

HIJK

FGH

I

DEF FG

H JK

A A

C

ABC

A

M

L

DE

HIJK

EFG G

HIJ

FGH

IFG

H

A AB

AB

A A

M

BC

KLBC

DA

BCIJK

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

0002040608101214161820

TAN

(mg

L)0002040608101214161820

TAN

(mg

L)

(f)

EFG

HIJ

KLM

LMJK

LM

FGH

IJ

A AB A

BC AB

HIJK

L

DEF

GH

FGH

IJ

BCD

EFG

H

N

O

GH

IJKL

DEF

GH

I M

ABC

DEF

GH

IJ

IJKL

DEF

GH

P

ABC

DEF

G

CDEF

GH

GH

IJKA

BCD

EF

ABC

DE

FGH

IJA

B

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

0000

0010

0020

0030

0040

0050

0060

NO

2-N

(mg

L)

00000002000400060008001000120014001600180020

NO

2-N

(mg

L)

(g)

ABC

D

BCD

ABC

D

F

EFA

BC

ABC

DA

BCD BC

DA

BCD

ABC

D

ABC

D

ABC

ABC

D

F

CD DE

F

AB

A A A

ABC

DA

BC

ABC

D

ABC A

BC

AB A

BCA

BC

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

000

002

004

006

008

010

012

NO

3-N

(mg

L)

000

002

004

006

008

010

012

NO

3-N

(mg

L)

(h)

Figure 3 Continued

Journal of Chemistry 9

L

N

J

LK

G

D

K

IK

B

F

A

N

P

O

HG

CDE

IJ

EF F

B

M

A A AB

D

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

00

05

10

15

20

25

30O

rg-N

(mg

L)

00

05

10

15

20

25

30

Org

-N (m

gL)

(i)

CDE JK IJ

L

O

FGH

I

DEF

KL

M M

Q

M

P

HIJ

M

JK GH

IJD

EF

A AB

EFG

HBC

D

L

AB

EFG H

IJA

BC BCD

N

BCD

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

00010203040506070809

H2S

(mg

L)

0001010202030304

H2S

(mg

L)

(j)

Figure 3 Ex situ water quality of (a) chl a (b) TSS (c) BOD5 (d) COD (e) TP (f) TAN (g) NO2minus-N (h) NO3minus-N (i) Org-N and (j)H2S measured at the 30 sampling stations located along the Batang Baram (left axis) and its tributaries (right axis) (different letters indicatesignificant difference at 119901 value le 005)

Table 3 Mean difference of in situ and ex situ water qualityparameters between the main river of the Batang Baram and itstributaries

Parameter Mean difference 119901 value

In situ

Temperature ∘C minus07 0050pH minus02 0001

Conductivity 120583Scm minus162 0000DOsat minus02 0915DO mgL +02 0000

Turbidity NTU +1320 0000Transparency m minus04 0000

Ex situ

Chl a mgm3 minus26 0048TSS mgL +1207 0000BOD5 mgL +05 0026COD mgL minus83 0474TP mgL +04 0002TAN mgL +01 0497

NO2minus-N mgL minus0006 0006

NO3minus-N mgL +0007 0169

Org-N mgL +03 0093H2S mgL +01 0000

Positive value of mean difference indicates parameter studied was higher inthe main river of Batang Baram whereas negative value indicates parameterstudied was higher in the tributary The significant difference at 119901 value le005 was indicated in bold

tributaries increased the ionic mobility and solubility ofminerals which is reflected in high conductivity in tributariesAlso the high photosynthesis rate as indicated by the highchl 119886 in tributaries had increased the pH values in tributariesOn the other hand the main river contained significantlyhigher (p value le 005) DO turbidity TSS BOD5 TP andH2S (Table 3) Most of these parameters were significantlyand positively correlated (p value le 005) with total dischargeand mean velocity of the river (Table 2) Hence we canassume that the fast flowingmain river had increased the DOcontent due to more rapid aeration and had introduced morepollutants into the river via surface runoff Neverthelesstributaries of the Batang Baram were also well aerated as allof the stations were recorded with DO content of more than5mgL and DOsat more than 80

Clus

ter1

Clus

ter2

Clus

ter3

Clus

ter4

0

5

10

15

20

25

Resc

aled

dist

ance

clus

ter c

ombi

natio

n

Case

5Ca

se3

Case

6Ca

se4

Case

9Ca

se8

Case

2Ca

se1

Case

7

Case

13

Case

17

Case

26

Case

16

Case

21

Case

28

Case

23

Case

24

Case

27

Case

22

Case

12

Case

20

Case

29

Case

14

Case

15

Case

11

Case

10

Case

19

Case

25

Case

18

Case

30

Station

Figure 4 Clustering of the 30 sampling stations along the BatangBaram and its tributaries

Table 4 shows that most of the sampling stations wereclassified as Class III and categorized as ldquoslightly pollutedrdquoaccording to the water quality index (WQI) Among the 30stations along the Batang Baram and its tributaries only twostations which were located at tributaries of Sungai Kessehand Sungai Nakan were categorized as ldquocleanrdquo The pH andDO were classified as Class I andor Class II indicating goodcondition whereas the COD was the worst parameter wheremost of the stations were classified as Classes III IV andor VThe river also possesses pollution risk by suspended solids asTSS was classified as Class III andor Class IV at most of thestations andwas classified as Class V at stations 19 and 20Theresults revealed a deteriorating water quality of the BatangBaram and its tributaries when compared to the uppermostpart of the Baram River basin reported by [9] where the riverwas grouped as a Class II river

32 Cluster Analysis (CA) Cluster analysis was used todetect similarities among the sampling stations in the studyarea The dendogram shows that sampling stations in thepresent study can be grouped into four significant clustersas illustrated by Figure 4 The clustering pattern shows thatphysicochemical characteristics of the BatangBaramchanged

10 Journal of Chemistry

Table 4 Classification of water quality of the Batang Baram from upstream to downstream regions according to WQI

Station Class StatusAN BOD5 COD DO pH TSS WQI

1 III III IV II I III III Slightly polluted2 III III III II II II III Slightly polluted3 III III III II I III III Slightly polluted4 III III III II II IV III Slightly polluted5 III III IV II II III III Slightly polluted6 III II III II I IV III Slightly polluted7 III III IV II I III III Slightly polluted8 III III III II II II III Slightly polluted9 III III III II II III III Slightly polluted10 III III III II I III III Slightly polluted11 II II V II I IV III Slightly polluted12 II II V II I I II Slightly polluted13 II III V II I I III Slightly polluted14 II III V II I IV III Slightly polluted15 III III V II I IV III Slightly polluted16 II II V II I II II Slightly polluted17 II II IV II I II II Slightly polluted18 II III V II I IV III Slightly polluted19 II II V II I V III Slightly polluted20 II II IV II I V III Slightly polluted21 IV II IV II I I III Slightly polluted22 IV II IV II II IV III Slightly polluted23 III II IV II I II II Slightly polluted24 IV II III I I IV III Slightly polluted25 IV II V II I III III Slightly polluted26 III II II II I I II Clean27 III II II I II IV III Slightly polluted28 III II III II I I II Clean29 II II IV II I IV III Slightly polluted30 III II V II I I III Slightly polluted

from upstream to downstream regions as demonstrated bythe grouping of upstream stations middle stations anddownstream stations into different clusters Cluster 1 consistsof stations that were located mostly in the middle sectionof the river (stations 11 14 15 18 19 and 20) except station29 which was located downstream Tributaries located frommiddle to downstream regions of the river shared similarcharacteristics as demonstrated by the grouping of stations12 13 16 17 21 23 25 26 28 and 30 in cluster 2 Themain river located downstream (stations 22 24 and 27)also showed similarity and grouped together as cluster 3These two clusters show that main river and tributaries ofthe Batang Baram which were located downstream sharedno similarity Finally cluster 4 consists of stations that werelocated upstream of the river including stations that werelocated at the main river and tributaries (station 1 to station10)This analysis suggests that a reduced number of samplingstations in each cluster may serve as a rapid assessment of thewater quality of the Batang Baram and leads to a more cost-effective monitoring study in the future

33 Principal Component Analysis (PCA) The PCA wasused to explore the most important factors determiningthe spatial variations in physicochemical parameters of theBatangBaramA total of six principal components (PCs)wereobtained with eigenvalues more than one which accountedfor around 836 of the total variance in the 20 physico-chemical parameters of the Batang Baram (Table 5) The firstcomponent (PC1) accounting for 300 of the total variancein the data sets of the river water has significant positiveloadings on turbidity TSS and H2S and negative loadingson conductivity and transparency These factors imply thatsoil erosion occurred in the present study area and a highloading of turbidity and H2S is associated with the presenceof suspended solids [23] Similarly strong positive loadingson turbidity and suspended solids were also observed in aMekong Delta area of Vietnam [11] which is a result of soilerosion from disturbed land The Sarawak forest is subjectedto high timber harvesting pressure rendering sedimentationproblem in its forest streams [1 6 24ndash26] The presentstudy shows that the Batang Baram in Sarawak state is no

Journal of Chemistry 11

Table 5 Loadings of the physicochemical parameters on the first six varimax-rotated PCs (eigenvalue gt 1) along the Batang Baram and itstributaries

Rotated Component Matrixa

Parameter Component1 2 3 4 5 6

Total discharge +0900Mean velocity +0674 +0640Mean depth +0712Temperature minus0904pH minus0451 minus0607 +0444Conductivity minus0605 minus0476DOsat minus0750 +0488DO +0678Turbidity +0948Transparency minus0791Chl a minus0906TSS +0956BOD5 +0854COD minus0423 minus0692TP +0850TAN +0780NO2 +0784NO3 +0612 +0563Org-N +0716H2S +0759 +0427Initial eigenvalue 60 37 27 17 14 12 of variance 301 186 135 87 68 59Cumulative 301 487 622 709 777 836aRotation converged in 11 iterations

exception Logging activities in the surrounding area havecaused sedimentation and increased suspended solids levelin the river The PC1 has the largest proportion of thetotal variance indicating that logging activities are the majorsource of river water contamination in the Batang Baram

The PC2 accounting for 186 of the total variance hassignificant positive loadings on mean velocity BOD5 TPNO3minus-N andOrg-N andnegative loadings on pHandDOsat

These factors indicate an inflow of effluent from longhousesand residential area largely consisting of organic pollutantsand a negative loading of pH and DOsat is attributed to theprocess of decomposition of the organic matter Similarly theanalysis of PCA was applied in the Qiantang River whichindicated that TN NO3

minus NH3-N and TP were the dominantpollution factors in the river [22] The authors attributed thepollutions to the domestic sewage discharge of poultry andanimal feces and fertilizer that were flushed into the riverAlso an ldquoorganicrdquo factor that positively loaded with CODBOD5 TON TP and PO4

3minus was reported in a main riversystem in northernGreecewhich represented the influence ofmunicipal and industrial effluents [16] The PC3 accountingfor 136 of total variance has significant positive loadings ontotal discharge mean velocity mean depth DOsat and DOand negative loadings on conductivity and COD suggestinga dilution of chemically oxidizable material in the river

associated with high volume of river water and high dissolvedoxygen levelThe high CODBOD5 ratio in the Batang Baramindicates a large nonbiodegradable fraction of organic matterin the river

The PC4 (87 of the total variance) has significantpositive loadings on transparency TAN NO3

minus-N and H2Sand negative loadings on temperature pH and conductivityIn an anaerobic condition the high loading of organicmatter in river can lead to the formation of ammonia andorganic acids which coupledwith the production of hydrogensulphide and carbon dioxide during decomposition [27 28]can cause acidification of water By employing the PCA forthe data interpretation [10] also revealed that parametersrelated to organic pollutants and temperature were the mostimportant parameters contributing to water quality variationin the SavaRiver CroatiaThePC5 (68of the total variance)is significantly and negatively loaded on COD but positivelyloaded onNO2

minus-N Again the high loading of organicmatterin the river likely led to the build-up of NO2

minus-N in thewater Similar to PC2 both PC4 and PC5 can be explainedas influences from domestic discharges which contained highnutrients and organic matter As PC2 has a larger proportionof the total variance than PC4 and PC5 we can assume thatorganic pollution in the Batang Baram ismore severe than theinorganic pollution Reference [29] also reported that organic

12 Journal of Chemistry

pollutants followed by nutrients and salt concentration werethe most important parameters contributing to water qualityvariation in the Wen-Rui Tang River watershed ChinaFinally the PC6 (59 of the total variance) is significantlyand positively loaded on pH but negatively loaded on chl 119886indicating the decomposition of dead phytoplankton and thatmost of the variability in the data is due to the pH changes aspH plays a significant role in mineralization process

4 Conclusions

The present study revealed that the Batang Baram and itstributaries demonstrated sign of pollution as indicated byhigh suspended solids and nutrients in the river Most ofthe stations along the river were classified as Class III andcategorized as ldquoslightly pollutedrdquo In particular the CODand TSS were the most severe parameters where they wereclassified as Class V at some of the stations in the riverA large number of sampling stations in the present studywere grouped into four clusters which divided the riverinto upstream middle and downstream main river andtributaries located middle and downstream of the river ThePCA revealed that parameters related to logging activitiesand domestic sewage discharge were the most importantparameters contributing to water quality variation in theriver

Competing Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interestsregarding the publication of this paper

Acknowledgments

The authors appreciate the financial support provided by theSarawak Energy Berhad through Grant no GL(F07)SEB3C2013(22) and the facilities provided byUniversitiMalaysiaSarawak

References

[1] M Ichikawa ldquoDegradation and loss of forest land and land-usechanges in Sarawak East Malaysia a study of native land use bythe Ibanrdquo Ecological Research vol 22 no 3 pp 403ndash413 2007

[2] H P Jarvie C Neal and P J AWithers ldquoSewage-effluent phos-phorus a greater risk to river eutrophication than agriculturalphosphorusrdquoThe Science of the Total Environment vol 360 no1ndash3 pp 246ndash253 2006

[3] M B Rothenberger J M Burkholder and C Brownie ldquoLong-term effects of changing land use practices on surface waterquality in a coastal river and lagoonal estuaryrdquo EnvironmentalManagement vol 44 no 3 pp 505ndash523 2009

[4] C Soo T Ling N Lee and K Apun ldquoAssessment of thecharacteristic of nutrients total metals and fecal coliform inSibu Laut River Sarawak Malaysiardquo Applied Water Science vol6 no 1 pp 77ndash96 2016

[5] F Gokbulak Y Serengil S Ozhan N Ozyuvaci and N BalcildquoEffect of timber harvest on physical water quality characteris-ticsrdquo Water Resources Management vol 22 no 5 pp 635ndash6492008

[6] T-Y Ling C-L Soo J-R Sivalingam L Nyanti S-F Simand J Grinang ldquoAssessment of the water and sediment qualityof tropical forest streams in upper reaches of the Baleh RiverSarawak Malaysia subjected to logging activitiesrdquo Journal ofChemistry vol 2016 Article ID 8503931 13 pages 2016

[7] J Schelker K Eklof K Bishop and H Laudon ldquoEffects offorestry operations on dissolved organic carbon concentrationsand export in boreal first-order streamsrdquo Journal of GeophysicalResearch Biogeosciences vol 117 no 1 pp 1ndash12 2012

[8] ANorZaihaM SM Ismid Salmiati andM S S Azri ldquoEffectsof logging activities on ecological water quality indicators in theBerasau River Johor Malaysiardquo Environmental Monitoring andAssessment vol 187 no 8 article 493 2015

[9] L SengWater in the Environment Tainted Life Source Hungersfor Cures UNIMAS 2011

[10] A Marinovic Ruzdjak and D Ruzdjak ldquoEvaluation of riverwater quality variations using multivariate statistical tech-niques Sava River (Croatia) A Case Studyrdquo EnvironmentalMonitoring and Assessment vol 187 no 4 pp 1ndash14 2015

[11] D Phung C Huang S Rutherford et al ldquoTemporal and spatialassessment of river surface water quality using multivariatestatistical techniques a study in CanTho City a Mekong Deltaarea Vietnamrdquo Environmental Monitoring and Assessment vol187 no 5 article no 229 2015

[12] S Muangthong and S Shrestha ldquoAssessment of surface waterquality using multivariate statistical techniques case study ofthe Nampong River and Songkhram River Thailandrdquo Environ-mental Monitoring and Assessment vol 187 no 9 article 5482015

[13] R L Olsen R W Chappell and J C Loftis ldquoWater qualitysample collection data treatment and results presentation forprincipal components analysismdashliterature review and IllinoisRiver watershed case studyrdquo Water Research vol 46 no 9 pp3110ndash3122 2012

[14] S Shrestha and F Kazama ldquoAssessment of surface water qualityusing multivariate statistical techniques a case study of the Fujiriver basin Japanrdquo Environmental Modelling and Software vol22 no 4 pp 464ndash475 2007

[15] P Zeilhofer E B N R Lima and G A R Lima ldquoSpatialpatterns of water quality in the cuiaba River Basin CentralBrazilrdquo Environmental Monitoring and Assessment vol 123 no1ndash3 pp 41ndash62 2006

[16] V Simeonov J A Stratis C Samara et al ldquoAssessment of thesurface water quality in Northern GreecerdquoWater Research vol37 no 17 pp 4119ndash4124 2003

[17] S C Chapra Surface Water-Quality Modeling McGraw-HillNew York NY USA 1997

[18] D Jenkins J J Connors and A E Greenberg Standard Meth-ods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater AmericanPublic Health Association Washingon DC USA 21st edition2005

[19] Department of Environment Malaysia Environmental QualityReport 2014 DOE Kuala Lumpur Malaysia 2015

[20] R C Jones D P Kelso and E Schaeffer ldquoSpatial and seasonalpatterns in water quality in an embayment-mainstem reach ofthe tidal freshwater Potomac River USA A Multiyear StudyrdquoEnvironmental Monitoring and Assessment vol 147 no 1ndash3 pp351ndash375 2008

[21] R Nagarajan M P Jonathan P D Roy GMuthusankar and CLakshumanan ldquoDecadal evolution of a spit in the Baram rivermouth in easternMalaysiardquoContinental Shelf Research vol 105pp 18ndash25 2015

Journal of Chemistry 13

[22] H Yuan E LiuW Pan and S An ldquoWater pollution characteris-tics and assessment in different functional zonesrdquo Polish Journalof Environmental Studies vol 23 no 2 pp 541ndash549 2014

[23] G S Bilotta and R E Brazier ldquoUnderstanding the influenceof suspended solids on water quality and aquatic biotardquo WaterResearch vol 42 no 12 pp 2849ndash2861 2008

[24] T Jinggut C M Yule and L Boyero ldquoStream ecosystemintegrity is impaired by logging and shifting agriculture in aglobal megadiversity center (Sarawak Borneo)rdquo Science of theTotal Environment vol 437 pp 83ndash90 2012

[25] J Hon and S Shibata ldquoA review on land use in the Malaysianstate of Sarawak Borneo and recommendations for wildlifeconservation inside production forest environmentrdquo BorneoJournal of Resource Science and Technology vol 3 no 2 pp 22ndash35 2013

[26] J E Bryan P L Shearman G P Asner D E Knapp G Aoroand B Lokes ldquoExtreme differences in forest degradation inborneo comparing practices in Sarawak Sabah and BruneirdquoPLoS ONE vol 8 no 7 Article ID e69679 2013

[27] M Holmer and E Kristensen ldquoImpact of marine fish cagefarming on metabolism and sulfate reduction of underlyingsedimentsrdquo Marine Ecology Progress Series vol 80 no 2-3 pp191ndash201 1992

[28] K I A Kularatne D P Dissanayake and K R R MahanamaldquoContribution of dissolved sulfates and sulfites in hydrogensulfide emission from stagnant water bodies in Sri LankardquoChemosphere vol 52 no 5 pp 901ndash907 2003

[29] K Mei L Liao Y Zhu et al ldquoEvaluation of spatial-temporalvariations and trends in surface water quality across a rural-suburban-urban interfacerdquoEnvironmental Science and PollutionResearch vol 21 no 13 pp 8036ndash8051 2014

Submit your manuscripts athttpswwwhindawicom

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Inorganic ChemistryInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

International Journal ofPhotoenergy

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Carbohydrate Chemistry

International Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of

Chemistry

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Advances in

Physical Chemistry

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Analytical Methods in Chemistry

Journal of

Volume 2014

Bioinorganic Chemistry and ApplicationsHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

SpectroscopyInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Medicinal ChemistryInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Chromatography Research International

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Applied ChemistryJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Theoretical ChemistryJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of

Spectroscopy

Analytical ChemistryInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Quantum Chemistry

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Organic Chemistry International

ElectrochemistryInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

CatalystsJournal of

Journal of Chemistry 9

L

N

J

LK

G

D

K

IK

B

F

A

N

P

O

HG

CDE

IJ

EF F

B

M

A A AB

D

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

00

05

10

15

20

25

30O

rg-N

(mg

L)

00

05

10

15

20

25

30

Org

-N (m

gL)

(i)

CDE JK IJ

L

O

FGH

I

DEF

KL

M M

Q

M

P

HIJ

M

JK GH

IJD

EF

A AB

EFG

HBC

D

L

AB

EFG H

IJA

BC BCD

N

BCD

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29Station

Main riverTributary

00010203040506070809

H2S

(mg

L)

0001010202030304

H2S

(mg

L)

(j)

Figure 3 Ex situ water quality of (a) chl a (b) TSS (c) BOD5 (d) COD (e) TP (f) TAN (g) NO2minus-N (h) NO3minus-N (i) Org-N and (j)H2S measured at the 30 sampling stations located along the Batang Baram (left axis) and its tributaries (right axis) (different letters indicatesignificant difference at 119901 value le 005)

Table 3 Mean difference of in situ and ex situ water qualityparameters between the main river of the Batang Baram and itstributaries

Parameter Mean difference 119901 value

In situ

Temperature ∘C minus07 0050pH minus02 0001

Conductivity 120583Scm minus162 0000DOsat minus02 0915DO mgL +02 0000

Turbidity NTU +1320 0000Transparency m minus04 0000

Ex situ

Chl a mgm3 minus26 0048TSS mgL +1207 0000BOD5 mgL +05 0026COD mgL minus83 0474TP mgL +04 0002TAN mgL +01 0497

NO2minus-N mgL minus0006 0006

NO3minus-N mgL +0007 0169

Org-N mgL +03 0093H2S mgL +01 0000

Positive value of mean difference indicates parameter studied was higher inthe main river of Batang Baram whereas negative value indicates parameterstudied was higher in the tributary The significant difference at 119901 value le005 was indicated in bold

tributaries increased the ionic mobility and solubility ofminerals which is reflected in high conductivity in tributariesAlso the high photosynthesis rate as indicated by the highchl 119886 in tributaries had increased the pH values in tributariesOn the other hand the main river contained significantlyhigher (p value le 005) DO turbidity TSS BOD5 TP andH2S (Table 3) Most of these parameters were significantlyand positively correlated (p value le 005) with total dischargeand mean velocity of the river (Table 2) Hence we canassume that the fast flowingmain river had increased the DOcontent due to more rapid aeration and had introduced morepollutants into the river via surface runoff Neverthelesstributaries of the Batang Baram were also well aerated as allof the stations were recorded with DO content of more than5mgL and DOsat more than 80

Clus

ter1

Clus

ter2

Clus

ter3

Clus

ter4

0

5

10

15

20

25

Resc

aled

dist

ance

clus

ter c

ombi

natio

n

Case

5Ca

se3

Case

6Ca

se4

Case

9Ca

se8

Case

2Ca

se1

Case

7

Case

13

Case

17

Case

26

Case

16

Case

21

Case

28

Case

23

Case

24

Case

27

Case

22

Case

12

Case

20

Case

29

Case

14

Case

15

Case

11

Case

10

Case

19

Case

25

Case

18

Case

30

Station

Figure 4 Clustering of the 30 sampling stations along the BatangBaram and its tributaries

Table 4 shows that most of the sampling stations wereclassified as Class III and categorized as ldquoslightly pollutedrdquoaccording to the water quality index (WQI) Among the 30stations along the Batang Baram and its tributaries only twostations which were located at tributaries of Sungai Kessehand Sungai Nakan were categorized as ldquocleanrdquo The pH andDO were classified as Class I andor Class II indicating goodcondition whereas the COD was the worst parameter wheremost of the stations were classified as Classes III IV andor VThe river also possesses pollution risk by suspended solids asTSS was classified as Class III andor Class IV at most of thestations andwas classified as Class V at stations 19 and 20Theresults revealed a deteriorating water quality of the BatangBaram and its tributaries when compared to the uppermostpart of the Baram River basin reported by [9] where the riverwas grouped as a Class II river

32 Cluster Analysis (CA) Cluster analysis was used todetect similarities among the sampling stations in the studyarea The dendogram shows that sampling stations in thepresent study can be grouped into four significant clustersas illustrated by Figure 4 The clustering pattern shows thatphysicochemical characteristics of the BatangBaramchanged

10 Journal of Chemistry

Table 4 Classification of water quality of the Batang Baram from upstream to downstream regions according to WQI

Station Class StatusAN BOD5 COD DO pH TSS WQI

1 III III IV II I III III Slightly polluted2 III III III II II II III Slightly polluted3 III III III II I III III Slightly polluted4 III III III II II IV III Slightly polluted5 III III IV II II III III Slightly polluted6 III II III II I IV III Slightly polluted7 III III IV II I III III Slightly polluted8 III III III II II II III Slightly polluted9 III III III II II III III Slightly polluted10 III III III II I III III Slightly polluted11 II II V II I IV III Slightly polluted12 II II V II I I II Slightly polluted13 II III V II I I III Slightly polluted14 II III V II I IV III Slightly polluted15 III III V II I IV III Slightly polluted16 II II V II I II II Slightly polluted17 II II IV II I II II Slightly polluted18 II III V II I IV III Slightly polluted19 II II V II I V III Slightly polluted20 II II IV II I V III Slightly polluted21 IV II IV II I I III Slightly polluted22 IV II IV II II IV III Slightly polluted23 III II IV II I II II Slightly polluted24 IV II III I I IV III Slightly polluted25 IV II V II I III III Slightly polluted26 III II II II I I II Clean27 III II II I II IV III Slightly polluted28 III II III II I I II Clean29 II II IV II I IV III Slightly polluted30 III II V II I I III Slightly polluted

from upstream to downstream regions as demonstrated bythe grouping of upstream stations middle stations anddownstream stations into different clusters Cluster 1 consistsof stations that were located mostly in the middle sectionof the river (stations 11 14 15 18 19 and 20) except station29 which was located downstream Tributaries located frommiddle to downstream regions of the river shared similarcharacteristics as demonstrated by the grouping of stations12 13 16 17 21 23 25 26 28 and 30 in cluster 2 Themain river located downstream (stations 22 24 and 27)also showed similarity and grouped together as cluster 3These two clusters show that main river and tributaries ofthe Batang Baram which were located downstream sharedno similarity Finally cluster 4 consists of stations that werelocated upstream of the river including stations that werelocated at the main river and tributaries (station 1 to station10)This analysis suggests that a reduced number of samplingstations in each cluster may serve as a rapid assessment of thewater quality of the Batang Baram and leads to a more cost-effective monitoring study in the future

33 Principal Component Analysis (PCA) The PCA wasused to explore the most important factors determiningthe spatial variations in physicochemical parameters of theBatangBaramA total of six principal components (PCs)wereobtained with eigenvalues more than one which accountedfor around 836 of the total variance in the 20 physico-chemical parameters of the Batang Baram (Table 5) The firstcomponent (PC1) accounting for 300 of the total variancein the data sets of the river water has significant positiveloadings on turbidity TSS and H2S and negative loadingson conductivity and transparency These factors imply thatsoil erosion occurred in the present study area and a highloading of turbidity and H2S is associated with the presenceof suspended solids [23] Similarly strong positive loadingson turbidity and suspended solids were also observed in aMekong Delta area of Vietnam [11] which is a result of soilerosion from disturbed land The Sarawak forest is subjectedto high timber harvesting pressure rendering sedimentationproblem in its forest streams [1 6 24ndash26] The presentstudy shows that the Batang Baram in Sarawak state is no

Journal of Chemistry 11

Table 5 Loadings of the physicochemical parameters on the first six varimax-rotated PCs (eigenvalue gt 1) along the Batang Baram and itstributaries

Rotated Component Matrixa

Parameter Component1 2 3 4 5 6

Total discharge +0900Mean velocity +0674 +0640Mean depth +0712Temperature minus0904pH minus0451 minus0607 +0444Conductivity minus0605 minus0476DOsat minus0750 +0488DO +0678Turbidity +0948Transparency minus0791Chl a minus0906TSS +0956BOD5 +0854COD minus0423 minus0692TP +0850TAN +0780NO2 +0784NO3 +0612 +0563Org-N +0716H2S +0759 +0427Initial eigenvalue 60 37 27 17 14 12 of variance 301 186 135 87 68 59Cumulative 301 487 622 709 777 836aRotation converged in 11 iterations

exception Logging activities in the surrounding area havecaused sedimentation and increased suspended solids levelin the river The PC1 has the largest proportion of thetotal variance indicating that logging activities are the majorsource of river water contamination in the Batang Baram

The PC2 accounting for 186 of the total variance hassignificant positive loadings on mean velocity BOD5 TPNO3minus-N andOrg-N andnegative loadings on pHandDOsat

These factors indicate an inflow of effluent from longhousesand residential area largely consisting of organic pollutantsand a negative loading of pH and DOsat is attributed to theprocess of decomposition of the organic matter Similarly theanalysis of PCA was applied in the Qiantang River whichindicated that TN NO3

minus NH3-N and TP were the dominantpollution factors in the river [22] The authors attributed thepollutions to the domestic sewage discharge of poultry andanimal feces and fertilizer that were flushed into the riverAlso an ldquoorganicrdquo factor that positively loaded with CODBOD5 TON TP and PO4

3minus was reported in a main riversystem in northernGreecewhich represented the influence ofmunicipal and industrial effluents [16] The PC3 accountingfor 136 of total variance has significant positive loadings ontotal discharge mean velocity mean depth DOsat and DOand negative loadings on conductivity and COD suggestinga dilution of chemically oxidizable material in the river

associated with high volume of river water and high dissolvedoxygen levelThe high CODBOD5 ratio in the Batang Baramindicates a large nonbiodegradable fraction of organic matterin the river

The PC4 (87 of the total variance) has significantpositive loadings on transparency TAN NO3

minus-N and H2Sand negative loadings on temperature pH and conductivityIn an anaerobic condition the high loading of organicmatter in river can lead to the formation of ammonia andorganic acids which coupledwith the production of hydrogensulphide and carbon dioxide during decomposition [27 28]can cause acidification of water By employing the PCA forthe data interpretation [10] also revealed that parametersrelated to organic pollutants and temperature were the mostimportant parameters contributing to water quality variationin the SavaRiver CroatiaThePC5 (68of the total variance)is significantly and negatively loaded on COD but positivelyloaded onNO2

minus-N Again the high loading of organicmatterin the river likely led to the build-up of NO2

minus-N in thewater Similar to PC2 both PC4 and PC5 can be explainedas influences from domestic discharges which contained highnutrients and organic matter As PC2 has a larger proportionof the total variance than PC4 and PC5 we can assume thatorganic pollution in the Batang Baram ismore severe than theinorganic pollution Reference [29] also reported that organic

12 Journal of Chemistry

pollutants followed by nutrients and salt concentration werethe most important parameters contributing to water qualityvariation in the Wen-Rui Tang River watershed ChinaFinally the PC6 (59 of the total variance) is significantlyand positively loaded on pH but negatively loaded on chl 119886indicating the decomposition of dead phytoplankton and thatmost of the variability in the data is due to the pH changes aspH plays a significant role in mineralization process

4 Conclusions

The present study revealed that the Batang Baram and itstributaries demonstrated sign of pollution as indicated byhigh suspended solids and nutrients in the river Most ofthe stations along the river were classified as Class III andcategorized as ldquoslightly pollutedrdquo In particular the CODand TSS were the most severe parameters where they wereclassified as Class V at some of the stations in the riverA large number of sampling stations in the present studywere grouped into four clusters which divided the riverinto upstream middle and downstream main river andtributaries located middle and downstream of the river ThePCA revealed that parameters related to logging activitiesand domestic sewage discharge were the most importantparameters contributing to water quality variation in theriver

Competing Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interestsregarding the publication of this paper

Acknowledgments

The authors appreciate the financial support provided by theSarawak Energy Berhad through Grant no GL(F07)SEB3C2013(22) and the facilities provided byUniversitiMalaysiaSarawak

References

[1] M Ichikawa ldquoDegradation and loss of forest land and land-usechanges in Sarawak East Malaysia a study of native land use bythe Ibanrdquo Ecological Research vol 22 no 3 pp 403ndash413 2007

[2] H P Jarvie C Neal and P J AWithers ldquoSewage-effluent phos-phorus a greater risk to river eutrophication than agriculturalphosphorusrdquoThe Science of the Total Environment vol 360 no1ndash3 pp 246ndash253 2006

[3] M B Rothenberger J M Burkholder and C Brownie ldquoLong-term effects of changing land use practices on surface waterquality in a coastal river and lagoonal estuaryrdquo EnvironmentalManagement vol 44 no 3 pp 505ndash523 2009

[4] C Soo T Ling N Lee and K Apun ldquoAssessment of thecharacteristic of nutrients total metals and fecal coliform inSibu Laut River Sarawak Malaysiardquo Applied Water Science vol6 no 1 pp 77ndash96 2016

[5] F Gokbulak Y Serengil S Ozhan N Ozyuvaci and N BalcildquoEffect of timber harvest on physical water quality characteris-ticsrdquo Water Resources Management vol 22 no 5 pp 635ndash6492008

[6] T-Y Ling C-L Soo J-R Sivalingam L Nyanti S-F Simand J Grinang ldquoAssessment of the water and sediment qualityof tropical forest streams in upper reaches of the Baleh RiverSarawak Malaysia subjected to logging activitiesrdquo Journal ofChemistry vol 2016 Article ID 8503931 13 pages 2016

[7] J Schelker K Eklof K Bishop and H Laudon ldquoEffects offorestry operations on dissolved organic carbon concentrationsand export in boreal first-order streamsrdquo Journal of GeophysicalResearch Biogeosciences vol 117 no 1 pp 1ndash12 2012

[8] ANorZaihaM SM Ismid Salmiati andM S S Azri ldquoEffectsof logging activities on ecological water quality indicators in theBerasau River Johor Malaysiardquo Environmental Monitoring andAssessment vol 187 no 8 article 493 2015

[9] L SengWater in the Environment Tainted Life Source Hungersfor Cures UNIMAS 2011

[10] A Marinovic Ruzdjak and D Ruzdjak ldquoEvaluation of riverwater quality variations using multivariate statistical tech-niques Sava River (Croatia) A Case Studyrdquo EnvironmentalMonitoring and Assessment vol 187 no 4 pp 1ndash14 2015

[11] D Phung C Huang S Rutherford et al ldquoTemporal and spatialassessment of river surface water quality using multivariatestatistical techniques a study in CanTho City a Mekong Deltaarea Vietnamrdquo Environmental Monitoring and Assessment vol187 no 5 article no 229 2015

[12] S Muangthong and S Shrestha ldquoAssessment of surface waterquality using multivariate statistical techniques case study ofthe Nampong River and Songkhram River Thailandrdquo Environ-mental Monitoring and Assessment vol 187 no 9 article 5482015

[13] R L Olsen R W Chappell and J C Loftis ldquoWater qualitysample collection data treatment and results presentation forprincipal components analysismdashliterature review and IllinoisRiver watershed case studyrdquo Water Research vol 46 no 9 pp3110ndash3122 2012

[14] S Shrestha and F Kazama ldquoAssessment of surface water qualityusing multivariate statistical techniques a case study of the Fujiriver basin Japanrdquo Environmental Modelling and Software vol22 no 4 pp 464ndash475 2007

[15] P Zeilhofer E B N R Lima and G A R Lima ldquoSpatialpatterns of water quality in the cuiaba River Basin CentralBrazilrdquo Environmental Monitoring and Assessment vol 123 no1ndash3 pp 41ndash62 2006

[16] V Simeonov J A Stratis C Samara et al ldquoAssessment of thesurface water quality in Northern GreecerdquoWater Research vol37 no 17 pp 4119ndash4124 2003

[17] S C Chapra Surface Water-Quality Modeling McGraw-HillNew York NY USA 1997

[18] D Jenkins J J Connors and A E Greenberg Standard Meth-ods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater AmericanPublic Health Association Washingon DC USA 21st edition2005

[19] Department of Environment Malaysia Environmental QualityReport 2014 DOE Kuala Lumpur Malaysia 2015

[20] R C Jones D P Kelso and E Schaeffer ldquoSpatial and seasonalpatterns in water quality in an embayment-mainstem reach ofthe tidal freshwater Potomac River USA A Multiyear StudyrdquoEnvironmental Monitoring and Assessment vol 147 no 1ndash3 pp351ndash375 2008

[21] R Nagarajan M P Jonathan P D Roy GMuthusankar and CLakshumanan ldquoDecadal evolution of a spit in the Baram rivermouth in easternMalaysiardquoContinental Shelf Research vol 105pp 18ndash25 2015

Journal of Chemistry 13

[22] H Yuan E LiuW Pan and S An ldquoWater pollution characteris-tics and assessment in different functional zonesrdquo Polish Journalof Environmental Studies vol 23 no 2 pp 541ndash549 2014

[23] G S Bilotta and R E Brazier ldquoUnderstanding the influenceof suspended solids on water quality and aquatic biotardquo WaterResearch vol 42 no 12 pp 2849ndash2861 2008

[24] T Jinggut C M Yule and L Boyero ldquoStream ecosystemintegrity is impaired by logging and shifting agriculture in aglobal megadiversity center (Sarawak Borneo)rdquo Science of theTotal Environment vol 437 pp 83ndash90 2012

[25] J Hon and S Shibata ldquoA review on land use in the Malaysianstate of Sarawak Borneo and recommendations for wildlifeconservation inside production forest environmentrdquo BorneoJournal of Resource Science and Technology vol 3 no 2 pp 22ndash35 2013

[26] J E Bryan P L Shearman G P Asner D E Knapp G Aoroand B Lokes ldquoExtreme differences in forest degradation inborneo comparing practices in Sarawak Sabah and BruneirdquoPLoS ONE vol 8 no 7 Article ID e69679 2013

[27] M Holmer and E Kristensen ldquoImpact of marine fish cagefarming on metabolism and sulfate reduction of underlyingsedimentsrdquo Marine Ecology Progress Series vol 80 no 2-3 pp191ndash201 1992

[28] K I A Kularatne D P Dissanayake and K R R MahanamaldquoContribution of dissolved sulfates and sulfites in hydrogensulfide emission from stagnant water bodies in Sri LankardquoChemosphere vol 52 no 5 pp 901ndash907 2003

[29] K Mei L Liao Y Zhu et al ldquoEvaluation of spatial-temporalvariations and trends in surface water quality across a rural-suburban-urban interfacerdquoEnvironmental Science and PollutionResearch vol 21 no 13 pp 8036ndash8051 2014

Submit your manuscripts athttpswwwhindawicom

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Inorganic ChemistryInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

International Journal ofPhotoenergy

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Carbohydrate Chemistry

International Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of

Chemistry

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Advances in

Physical Chemistry

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Analytical Methods in Chemistry

Journal of

Volume 2014

Bioinorganic Chemistry and ApplicationsHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

SpectroscopyInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Medicinal ChemistryInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Chromatography Research International

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Applied ChemistryJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Theoretical ChemistryJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of

Spectroscopy

Analytical ChemistryInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Quantum Chemistry

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Organic Chemistry International

ElectrochemistryInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

CatalystsJournal of

10 Journal of Chemistry

Table 4 Classification of water quality of the Batang Baram from upstream to downstream regions according to WQI

Station Class StatusAN BOD5 COD DO pH TSS WQI

1 III III IV II I III III Slightly polluted2 III III III II II II III Slightly polluted3 III III III II I III III Slightly polluted4 III III III II II IV III Slightly polluted5 III III IV II II III III Slightly polluted6 III II III II I IV III Slightly polluted7 III III IV II I III III Slightly polluted8 III III III II II II III Slightly polluted9 III III III II II III III Slightly polluted10 III III III II I III III Slightly polluted11 II II V II I IV III Slightly polluted12 II II V II I I II Slightly polluted13 II III V II I I III Slightly polluted14 II III V II I IV III Slightly polluted15 III III V II I IV III Slightly polluted16 II II V II I II II Slightly polluted17 II II IV II I II II Slightly polluted18 II III V II I IV III Slightly polluted19 II II V II I V III Slightly polluted20 II II IV II I V III Slightly polluted21 IV II IV II I I III Slightly polluted22 IV II IV II II IV III Slightly polluted23 III II IV II I II II Slightly polluted24 IV II III I I IV III Slightly polluted25 IV II V II I III III Slightly polluted26 III II II II I I II Clean27 III II II I II IV III Slightly polluted28 III II III II I I II Clean29 II II IV II I IV III Slightly polluted30 III II V II I I III Slightly polluted

from upstream to downstream regions as demonstrated bythe grouping of upstream stations middle stations anddownstream stations into different clusters Cluster 1 consistsof stations that were located mostly in the middle sectionof the river (stations 11 14 15 18 19 and 20) except station29 which was located downstream Tributaries located frommiddle to downstream regions of the river shared similarcharacteristics as demonstrated by the grouping of stations12 13 16 17 21 23 25 26 28 and 30 in cluster 2 Themain river located downstream (stations 22 24 and 27)also showed similarity and grouped together as cluster 3These two clusters show that main river and tributaries ofthe Batang Baram which were located downstream sharedno similarity Finally cluster 4 consists of stations that werelocated upstream of the river including stations that werelocated at the main river and tributaries (station 1 to station10)This analysis suggests that a reduced number of samplingstations in each cluster may serve as a rapid assessment of thewater quality of the Batang Baram and leads to a more cost-effective monitoring study in the future

33 Principal Component Analysis (PCA) The PCA wasused to explore the most important factors determiningthe spatial variations in physicochemical parameters of theBatangBaramA total of six principal components (PCs)wereobtained with eigenvalues more than one which accountedfor around 836 of the total variance in the 20 physico-chemical parameters of the Batang Baram (Table 5) The firstcomponent (PC1) accounting for 300 of the total variancein the data sets of the river water has significant positiveloadings on turbidity TSS and H2S and negative loadingson conductivity and transparency These factors imply thatsoil erosion occurred in the present study area and a highloading of turbidity and H2S is associated with the presenceof suspended solids [23] Similarly strong positive loadingson turbidity and suspended solids were also observed in aMekong Delta area of Vietnam [11] which is a result of soilerosion from disturbed land The Sarawak forest is subjectedto high timber harvesting pressure rendering sedimentationproblem in its forest streams [1 6 24ndash26] The presentstudy shows that the Batang Baram in Sarawak state is no

Journal of Chemistry 11

Table 5 Loadings of the physicochemical parameters on the first six varimax-rotated PCs (eigenvalue gt 1) along the Batang Baram and itstributaries

Rotated Component Matrixa

Parameter Component1 2 3 4 5 6

Total discharge +0900Mean velocity +0674 +0640Mean depth +0712Temperature minus0904pH minus0451 minus0607 +0444Conductivity minus0605 minus0476DOsat minus0750 +0488DO +0678Turbidity +0948Transparency minus0791Chl a minus0906TSS +0956BOD5 +0854COD minus0423 minus0692TP +0850TAN +0780NO2 +0784NO3 +0612 +0563Org-N +0716H2S +0759 +0427Initial eigenvalue 60 37 27 17 14 12 of variance 301 186 135 87 68 59Cumulative 301 487 622 709 777 836aRotation converged in 11 iterations

exception Logging activities in the surrounding area havecaused sedimentation and increased suspended solids levelin the river The PC1 has the largest proportion of thetotal variance indicating that logging activities are the majorsource of river water contamination in the Batang Baram

The PC2 accounting for 186 of the total variance hassignificant positive loadings on mean velocity BOD5 TPNO3minus-N andOrg-N andnegative loadings on pHandDOsat

These factors indicate an inflow of effluent from longhousesand residential area largely consisting of organic pollutantsand a negative loading of pH and DOsat is attributed to theprocess of decomposition of the organic matter Similarly theanalysis of PCA was applied in the Qiantang River whichindicated that TN NO3

minus NH3-N and TP were the dominantpollution factors in the river [22] The authors attributed thepollutions to the domestic sewage discharge of poultry andanimal feces and fertilizer that were flushed into the riverAlso an ldquoorganicrdquo factor that positively loaded with CODBOD5 TON TP and PO4

3minus was reported in a main riversystem in northernGreecewhich represented the influence ofmunicipal and industrial effluents [16] The PC3 accountingfor 136 of total variance has significant positive loadings ontotal discharge mean velocity mean depth DOsat and DOand negative loadings on conductivity and COD suggestinga dilution of chemically oxidizable material in the river

associated with high volume of river water and high dissolvedoxygen levelThe high CODBOD5 ratio in the Batang Baramindicates a large nonbiodegradable fraction of organic matterin the river

The PC4 (87 of the total variance) has significantpositive loadings on transparency TAN NO3

minus-N and H2Sand negative loadings on temperature pH and conductivityIn an anaerobic condition the high loading of organicmatter in river can lead to the formation of ammonia andorganic acids which coupledwith the production of hydrogensulphide and carbon dioxide during decomposition [27 28]can cause acidification of water By employing the PCA forthe data interpretation [10] also revealed that parametersrelated to organic pollutants and temperature were the mostimportant parameters contributing to water quality variationin the SavaRiver CroatiaThePC5 (68of the total variance)is significantly and negatively loaded on COD but positivelyloaded onNO2

minus-N Again the high loading of organicmatterin the river likely led to the build-up of NO2

minus-N in thewater Similar to PC2 both PC4 and PC5 can be explainedas influences from domestic discharges which contained highnutrients and organic matter As PC2 has a larger proportionof the total variance than PC4 and PC5 we can assume thatorganic pollution in the Batang Baram ismore severe than theinorganic pollution Reference [29] also reported that organic

12 Journal of Chemistry

pollutants followed by nutrients and salt concentration werethe most important parameters contributing to water qualityvariation in the Wen-Rui Tang River watershed ChinaFinally the PC6 (59 of the total variance) is significantlyand positively loaded on pH but negatively loaded on chl 119886indicating the decomposition of dead phytoplankton and thatmost of the variability in the data is due to the pH changes aspH plays a significant role in mineralization process

4 Conclusions

The present study revealed that the Batang Baram and itstributaries demonstrated sign of pollution as indicated byhigh suspended solids and nutrients in the river Most ofthe stations along the river were classified as Class III andcategorized as ldquoslightly pollutedrdquo In particular the CODand TSS were the most severe parameters where they wereclassified as Class V at some of the stations in the riverA large number of sampling stations in the present studywere grouped into four clusters which divided the riverinto upstream middle and downstream main river andtributaries located middle and downstream of the river ThePCA revealed that parameters related to logging activitiesand domestic sewage discharge were the most importantparameters contributing to water quality variation in theriver

Competing Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interestsregarding the publication of this paper

Acknowledgments

The authors appreciate the financial support provided by theSarawak Energy Berhad through Grant no GL(F07)SEB3C2013(22) and the facilities provided byUniversitiMalaysiaSarawak

References

[1] M Ichikawa ldquoDegradation and loss of forest land and land-usechanges in Sarawak East Malaysia a study of native land use bythe Ibanrdquo Ecological Research vol 22 no 3 pp 403ndash413 2007

[2] H P Jarvie C Neal and P J AWithers ldquoSewage-effluent phos-phorus a greater risk to river eutrophication than agriculturalphosphorusrdquoThe Science of the Total Environment vol 360 no1ndash3 pp 246ndash253 2006

[3] M B Rothenberger J M Burkholder and C Brownie ldquoLong-term effects of changing land use practices on surface waterquality in a coastal river and lagoonal estuaryrdquo EnvironmentalManagement vol 44 no 3 pp 505ndash523 2009

[4] C Soo T Ling N Lee and K Apun ldquoAssessment of thecharacteristic of nutrients total metals and fecal coliform inSibu Laut River Sarawak Malaysiardquo Applied Water Science vol6 no 1 pp 77ndash96 2016

[5] F Gokbulak Y Serengil S Ozhan N Ozyuvaci and N BalcildquoEffect of timber harvest on physical water quality characteris-ticsrdquo Water Resources Management vol 22 no 5 pp 635ndash6492008

[6] T-Y Ling C-L Soo J-R Sivalingam L Nyanti S-F Simand J Grinang ldquoAssessment of the water and sediment qualityof tropical forest streams in upper reaches of the Baleh RiverSarawak Malaysia subjected to logging activitiesrdquo Journal ofChemistry vol 2016 Article ID 8503931 13 pages 2016

[7] J Schelker K Eklof K Bishop and H Laudon ldquoEffects offorestry operations on dissolved organic carbon concentrationsand export in boreal first-order streamsrdquo Journal of GeophysicalResearch Biogeosciences vol 117 no 1 pp 1ndash12 2012

[8] ANorZaihaM SM Ismid Salmiati andM S S Azri ldquoEffectsof logging activities on ecological water quality indicators in theBerasau River Johor Malaysiardquo Environmental Monitoring andAssessment vol 187 no 8 article 493 2015

[9] L SengWater in the Environment Tainted Life Source Hungersfor Cures UNIMAS 2011

[10] A Marinovic Ruzdjak and D Ruzdjak ldquoEvaluation of riverwater quality variations using multivariate statistical tech-niques Sava River (Croatia) A Case Studyrdquo EnvironmentalMonitoring and Assessment vol 187 no 4 pp 1ndash14 2015

[11] D Phung C Huang S Rutherford et al ldquoTemporal and spatialassessment of river surface water quality using multivariatestatistical techniques a study in CanTho City a Mekong Deltaarea Vietnamrdquo Environmental Monitoring and Assessment vol187 no 5 article no 229 2015

[12] S Muangthong and S Shrestha ldquoAssessment of surface waterquality using multivariate statistical techniques case study ofthe Nampong River and Songkhram River Thailandrdquo Environ-mental Monitoring and Assessment vol 187 no 9 article 5482015

[13] R L Olsen R W Chappell and J C Loftis ldquoWater qualitysample collection data treatment and results presentation forprincipal components analysismdashliterature review and IllinoisRiver watershed case studyrdquo Water Research vol 46 no 9 pp3110ndash3122 2012

[14] S Shrestha and F Kazama ldquoAssessment of surface water qualityusing multivariate statistical techniques a case study of the Fujiriver basin Japanrdquo Environmental Modelling and Software vol22 no 4 pp 464ndash475 2007

[15] P Zeilhofer E B N R Lima and G A R Lima ldquoSpatialpatterns of water quality in the cuiaba River Basin CentralBrazilrdquo Environmental Monitoring and Assessment vol 123 no1ndash3 pp 41ndash62 2006

[16] V Simeonov J A Stratis C Samara et al ldquoAssessment of thesurface water quality in Northern GreecerdquoWater Research vol37 no 17 pp 4119ndash4124 2003

[17] S C Chapra Surface Water-Quality Modeling McGraw-HillNew York NY USA 1997

[18] D Jenkins J J Connors and A E Greenberg Standard Meth-ods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater AmericanPublic Health Association Washingon DC USA 21st edition2005

[19] Department of Environment Malaysia Environmental QualityReport 2014 DOE Kuala Lumpur Malaysia 2015

[20] R C Jones D P Kelso and E Schaeffer ldquoSpatial and seasonalpatterns in water quality in an embayment-mainstem reach ofthe tidal freshwater Potomac River USA A Multiyear StudyrdquoEnvironmental Monitoring and Assessment vol 147 no 1ndash3 pp351ndash375 2008

[21] R Nagarajan M P Jonathan P D Roy GMuthusankar and CLakshumanan ldquoDecadal evolution of a spit in the Baram rivermouth in easternMalaysiardquoContinental Shelf Research vol 105pp 18ndash25 2015

Journal of Chemistry 13

[22] H Yuan E LiuW Pan and S An ldquoWater pollution characteris-tics and assessment in different functional zonesrdquo Polish Journalof Environmental Studies vol 23 no 2 pp 541ndash549 2014

[23] G S Bilotta and R E Brazier ldquoUnderstanding the influenceof suspended solids on water quality and aquatic biotardquo WaterResearch vol 42 no 12 pp 2849ndash2861 2008

[24] T Jinggut C M Yule and L Boyero ldquoStream ecosystemintegrity is impaired by logging and shifting agriculture in aglobal megadiversity center (Sarawak Borneo)rdquo Science of theTotal Environment vol 437 pp 83ndash90 2012

[25] J Hon and S Shibata ldquoA review on land use in the Malaysianstate of Sarawak Borneo and recommendations for wildlifeconservation inside production forest environmentrdquo BorneoJournal of Resource Science and Technology vol 3 no 2 pp 22ndash35 2013

[26] J E Bryan P L Shearman G P Asner D E Knapp G Aoroand B Lokes ldquoExtreme differences in forest degradation inborneo comparing practices in Sarawak Sabah and BruneirdquoPLoS ONE vol 8 no 7 Article ID e69679 2013

[27] M Holmer and E Kristensen ldquoImpact of marine fish cagefarming on metabolism and sulfate reduction of underlyingsedimentsrdquo Marine Ecology Progress Series vol 80 no 2-3 pp191ndash201 1992

[28] K I A Kularatne D P Dissanayake and K R R MahanamaldquoContribution of dissolved sulfates and sulfites in hydrogensulfide emission from stagnant water bodies in Sri LankardquoChemosphere vol 52 no 5 pp 901ndash907 2003

[29] K Mei L Liao Y Zhu et al ldquoEvaluation of spatial-temporalvariations and trends in surface water quality across a rural-suburban-urban interfacerdquoEnvironmental Science and PollutionResearch vol 21 no 13 pp 8036ndash8051 2014

Submit your manuscripts athttpswwwhindawicom

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Inorganic ChemistryInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

International Journal ofPhotoenergy

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Carbohydrate Chemistry

International Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of

Chemistry

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Advances in

Physical Chemistry

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Analytical Methods in Chemistry

Journal of

Volume 2014

Bioinorganic Chemistry and ApplicationsHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

SpectroscopyInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Medicinal ChemistryInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Chromatography Research International

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Applied ChemistryJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Theoretical ChemistryJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of

Spectroscopy

Analytical ChemistryInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Quantum Chemistry

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Organic Chemistry International

ElectrochemistryInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

CatalystsJournal of

Journal of Chemistry 11

Table 5 Loadings of the physicochemical parameters on the first six varimax-rotated PCs (eigenvalue gt 1) along the Batang Baram and itstributaries

Rotated Component Matrixa

Parameter Component1 2 3 4 5 6

Total discharge +0900Mean velocity +0674 +0640Mean depth +0712Temperature minus0904pH minus0451 minus0607 +0444Conductivity minus0605 minus0476DOsat minus0750 +0488DO +0678Turbidity +0948Transparency minus0791Chl a minus0906TSS +0956BOD5 +0854COD minus0423 minus0692TP +0850TAN +0780NO2 +0784NO3 +0612 +0563Org-N +0716H2S +0759 +0427Initial eigenvalue 60 37 27 17 14 12 of variance 301 186 135 87 68 59Cumulative 301 487 622 709 777 836aRotation converged in 11 iterations

exception Logging activities in the surrounding area havecaused sedimentation and increased suspended solids levelin the river The PC1 has the largest proportion of thetotal variance indicating that logging activities are the majorsource of river water contamination in the Batang Baram

The PC2 accounting for 186 of the total variance hassignificant positive loadings on mean velocity BOD5 TPNO3minus-N andOrg-N andnegative loadings on pHandDOsat

These factors indicate an inflow of effluent from longhousesand residential area largely consisting of organic pollutantsand a negative loading of pH and DOsat is attributed to theprocess of decomposition of the organic matter Similarly theanalysis of PCA was applied in the Qiantang River whichindicated that TN NO3

minus NH3-N and TP were the dominantpollution factors in the river [22] The authors attributed thepollutions to the domestic sewage discharge of poultry andanimal feces and fertilizer that were flushed into the riverAlso an ldquoorganicrdquo factor that positively loaded with CODBOD5 TON TP and PO4

3minus was reported in a main riversystem in northernGreecewhich represented the influence ofmunicipal and industrial effluents [16] The PC3 accountingfor 136 of total variance has significant positive loadings ontotal discharge mean velocity mean depth DOsat and DOand negative loadings on conductivity and COD suggestinga dilution of chemically oxidizable material in the river

associated with high volume of river water and high dissolvedoxygen levelThe high CODBOD5 ratio in the Batang Baramindicates a large nonbiodegradable fraction of organic matterin the river

The PC4 (87 of the total variance) has significantpositive loadings on transparency TAN NO3

minus-N and H2Sand negative loadings on temperature pH and conductivityIn an anaerobic condition the high loading of organicmatter in river can lead to the formation of ammonia andorganic acids which coupledwith the production of hydrogensulphide and carbon dioxide during decomposition [27 28]can cause acidification of water By employing the PCA forthe data interpretation [10] also revealed that parametersrelated to organic pollutants and temperature were the mostimportant parameters contributing to water quality variationin the SavaRiver CroatiaThePC5 (68of the total variance)is significantly and negatively loaded on COD but positivelyloaded onNO2

minus-N Again the high loading of organicmatterin the river likely led to the build-up of NO2

minus-N in thewater Similar to PC2 both PC4 and PC5 can be explainedas influences from domestic discharges which contained highnutrients and organic matter As PC2 has a larger proportionof the total variance than PC4 and PC5 we can assume thatorganic pollution in the Batang Baram ismore severe than theinorganic pollution Reference [29] also reported that organic

12 Journal of Chemistry

pollutants followed by nutrients and salt concentration werethe most important parameters contributing to water qualityvariation in the Wen-Rui Tang River watershed ChinaFinally the PC6 (59 of the total variance) is significantlyand positively loaded on pH but negatively loaded on chl 119886indicating the decomposition of dead phytoplankton and thatmost of the variability in the data is due to the pH changes aspH plays a significant role in mineralization process

4 Conclusions

The present study revealed that the Batang Baram and itstributaries demonstrated sign of pollution as indicated byhigh suspended solids and nutrients in the river Most ofthe stations along the river were classified as Class III andcategorized as ldquoslightly pollutedrdquo In particular the CODand TSS were the most severe parameters where they wereclassified as Class V at some of the stations in the riverA large number of sampling stations in the present studywere grouped into four clusters which divided the riverinto upstream middle and downstream main river andtributaries located middle and downstream of the river ThePCA revealed that parameters related to logging activitiesand domestic sewage discharge were the most importantparameters contributing to water quality variation in theriver

Competing Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interestsregarding the publication of this paper

Acknowledgments

The authors appreciate the financial support provided by theSarawak Energy Berhad through Grant no GL(F07)SEB3C2013(22) and the facilities provided byUniversitiMalaysiaSarawak

References

[1] M Ichikawa ldquoDegradation and loss of forest land and land-usechanges in Sarawak East Malaysia a study of native land use bythe Ibanrdquo Ecological Research vol 22 no 3 pp 403ndash413 2007

[2] H P Jarvie C Neal and P J AWithers ldquoSewage-effluent phos-phorus a greater risk to river eutrophication than agriculturalphosphorusrdquoThe Science of the Total Environment vol 360 no1ndash3 pp 246ndash253 2006

[3] M B Rothenberger J M Burkholder and C Brownie ldquoLong-term effects of changing land use practices on surface waterquality in a coastal river and lagoonal estuaryrdquo EnvironmentalManagement vol 44 no 3 pp 505ndash523 2009

[4] C Soo T Ling N Lee and K Apun ldquoAssessment of thecharacteristic of nutrients total metals and fecal coliform inSibu Laut River Sarawak Malaysiardquo Applied Water Science vol6 no 1 pp 77ndash96 2016

[5] F Gokbulak Y Serengil S Ozhan N Ozyuvaci and N BalcildquoEffect of timber harvest on physical water quality characteris-ticsrdquo Water Resources Management vol 22 no 5 pp 635ndash6492008

[6] T-Y Ling C-L Soo J-R Sivalingam L Nyanti S-F Simand J Grinang ldquoAssessment of the water and sediment qualityof tropical forest streams in upper reaches of the Baleh RiverSarawak Malaysia subjected to logging activitiesrdquo Journal ofChemistry vol 2016 Article ID 8503931 13 pages 2016

[7] J Schelker K Eklof K Bishop and H Laudon ldquoEffects offorestry operations on dissolved organic carbon concentrationsand export in boreal first-order streamsrdquo Journal of GeophysicalResearch Biogeosciences vol 117 no 1 pp 1ndash12 2012

[8] ANorZaihaM SM Ismid Salmiati andM S S Azri ldquoEffectsof logging activities on ecological water quality indicators in theBerasau River Johor Malaysiardquo Environmental Monitoring andAssessment vol 187 no 8 article 493 2015

[9] L SengWater in the Environment Tainted Life Source Hungersfor Cures UNIMAS 2011

[10] A Marinovic Ruzdjak and D Ruzdjak ldquoEvaluation of riverwater quality variations using multivariate statistical tech-niques Sava River (Croatia) A Case Studyrdquo EnvironmentalMonitoring and Assessment vol 187 no 4 pp 1ndash14 2015

[11] D Phung C Huang S Rutherford et al ldquoTemporal and spatialassessment of river surface water quality using multivariatestatistical techniques a study in CanTho City a Mekong Deltaarea Vietnamrdquo Environmental Monitoring and Assessment vol187 no 5 article no 229 2015

[12] S Muangthong and S Shrestha ldquoAssessment of surface waterquality using multivariate statistical techniques case study ofthe Nampong River and Songkhram River Thailandrdquo Environ-mental Monitoring and Assessment vol 187 no 9 article 5482015

[13] R L Olsen R W Chappell and J C Loftis ldquoWater qualitysample collection data treatment and results presentation forprincipal components analysismdashliterature review and IllinoisRiver watershed case studyrdquo Water Research vol 46 no 9 pp3110ndash3122 2012

[14] S Shrestha and F Kazama ldquoAssessment of surface water qualityusing multivariate statistical techniques a case study of the Fujiriver basin Japanrdquo Environmental Modelling and Software vol22 no 4 pp 464ndash475 2007

[15] P Zeilhofer E B N R Lima and G A R Lima ldquoSpatialpatterns of water quality in the cuiaba River Basin CentralBrazilrdquo Environmental Monitoring and Assessment vol 123 no1ndash3 pp 41ndash62 2006

[16] V Simeonov J A Stratis C Samara et al ldquoAssessment of thesurface water quality in Northern GreecerdquoWater Research vol37 no 17 pp 4119ndash4124 2003

[17] S C Chapra Surface Water-Quality Modeling McGraw-HillNew York NY USA 1997

[18] D Jenkins J J Connors and A E Greenberg Standard Meth-ods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater AmericanPublic Health Association Washingon DC USA 21st edition2005

[19] Department of Environment Malaysia Environmental QualityReport 2014 DOE Kuala Lumpur Malaysia 2015

[20] R C Jones D P Kelso and E Schaeffer ldquoSpatial and seasonalpatterns in water quality in an embayment-mainstem reach ofthe tidal freshwater Potomac River USA A Multiyear StudyrdquoEnvironmental Monitoring and Assessment vol 147 no 1ndash3 pp351ndash375 2008

[21] R Nagarajan M P Jonathan P D Roy GMuthusankar and CLakshumanan ldquoDecadal evolution of a spit in the Baram rivermouth in easternMalaysiardquoContinental Shelf Research vol 105pp 18ndash25 2015

Journal of Chemistry 13

[22] H Yuan E LiuW Pan and S An ldquoWater pollution characteris-tics and assessment in different functional zonesrdquo Polish Journalof Environmental Studies vol 23 no 2 pp 541ndash549 2014

[23] G S Bilotta and R E Brazier ldquoUnderstanding the influenceof suspended solids on water quality and aquatic biotardquo WaterResearch vol 42 no 12 pp 2849ndash2861 2008

[24] T Jinggut C M Yule and L Boyero ldquoStream ecosystemintegrity is impaired by logging and shifting agriculture in aglobal megadiversity center (Sarawak Borneo)rdquo Science of theTotal Environment vol 437 pp 83ndash90 2012

[25] J Hon and S Shibata ldquoA review on land use in the Malaysianstate of Sarawak Borneo and recommendations for wildlifeconservation inside production forest environmentrdquo BorneoJournal of Resource Science and Technology vol 3 no 2 pp 22ndash35 2013

[26] J E Bryan P L Shearman G P Asner D E Knapp G Aoroand B Lokes ldquoExtreme differences in forest degradation inborneo comparing practices in Sarawak Sabah and BruneirdquoPLoS ONE vol 8 no 7 Article ID e69679 2013

[27] M Holmer and E Kristensen ldquoImpact of marine fish cagefarming on metabolism and sulfate reduction of underlyingsedimentsrdquo Marine Ecology Progress Series vol 80 no 2-3 pp191ndash201 1992

[28] K I A Kularatne D P Dissanayake and K R R MahanamaldquoContribution of dissolved sulfates and sulfites in hydrogensulfide emission from stagnant water bodies in Sri LankardquoChemosphere vol 52 no 5 pp 901ndash907 2003

[29] K Mei L Liao Y Zhu et al ldquoEvaluation of spatial-temporalvariations and trends in surface water quality across a rural-suburban-urban interfacerdquoEnvironmental Science and PollutionResearch vol 21 no 13 pp 8036ndash8051 2014

Submit your manuscripts athttpswwwhindawicom

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Inorganic ChemistryInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

International Journal ofPhotoenergy

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Carbohydrate Chemistry

International Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of

Chemistry

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Advances in

Physical Chemistry

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Analytical Methods in Chemistry

Journal of

Volume 2014

Bioinorganic Chemistry and ApplicationsHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

SpectroscopyInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Medicinal ChemistryInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Chromatography Research International

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Applied ChemistryJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Theoretical ChemistryJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of

Spectroscopy

Analytical ChemistryInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Quantum Chemistry

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Organic Chemistry International

ElectrochemistryInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

CatalystsJournal of

12 Journal of Chemistry

pollutants followed by nutrients and salt concentration werethe most important parameters contributing to water qualityvariation in the Wen-Rui Tang River watershed ChinaFinally the PC6 (59 of the total variance) is significantlyand positively loaded on pH but negatively loaded on chl 119886indicating the decomposition of dead phytoplankton and thatmost of the variability in the data is due to the pH changes aspH plays a significant role in mineralization process

4 Conclusions

The present study revealed that the Batang Baram and itstributaries demonstrated sign of pollution as indicated byhigh suspended solids and nutrients in the river Most ofthe stations along the river were classified as Class III andcategorized as ldquoslightly pollutedrdquo In particular the CODand TSS were the most severe parameters where they wereclassified as Class V at some of the stations in the riverA large number of sampling stations in the present studywere grouped into four clusters which divided the riverinto upstream middle and downstream main river andtributaries located middle and downstream of the river ThePCA revealed that parameters related to logging activitiesand domestic sewage discharge were the most importantparameters contributing to water quality variation in theriver

Competing Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interestsregarding the publication of this paper

Acknowledgments

The authors appreciate the financial support provided by theSarawak Energy Berhad through Grant no GL(F07)SEB3C2013(22) and the facilities provided byUniversitiMalaysiaSarawak

References

[1] M Ichikawa ldquoDegradation and loss of forest land and land-usechanges in Sarawak East Malaysia a study of native land use bythe Ibanrdquo Ecological Research vol 22 no 3 pp 403ndash413 2007

[2] H P Jarvie C Neal and P J AWithers ldquoSewage-effluent phos-phorus a greater risk to river eutrophication than agriculturalphosphorusrdquoThe Science of the Total Environment vol 360 no1ndash3 pp 246ndash253 2006

[3] M B Rothenberger J M Burkholder and C Brownie ldquoLong-term effects of changing land use practices on surface waterquality in a coastal river and lagoonal estuaryrdquo EnvironmentalManagement vol 44 no 3 pp 505ndash523 2009

[4] C Soo T Ling N Lee and K Apun ldquoAssessment of thecharacteristic of nutrients total metals and fecal coliform inSibu Laut River Sarawak Malaysiardquo Applied Water Science vol6 no 1 pp 77ndash96 2016

[5] F Gokbulak Y Serengil S Ozhan N Ozyuvaci and N BalcildquoEffect of timber harvest on physical water quality characteris-ticsrdquo Water Resources Management vol 22 no 5 pp 635ndash6492008

[6] T-Y Ling C-L Soo J-R Sivalingam L Nyanti S-F Simand J Grinang ldquoAssessment of the water and sediment qualityof tropical forest streams in upper reaches of the Baleh RiverSarawak Malaysia subjected to logging activitiesrdquo Journal ofChemistry vol 2016 Article ID 8503931 13 pages 2016

[7] J Schelker K Eklof K Bishop and H Laudon ldquoEffects offorestry operations on dissolved organic carbon concentrationsand export in boreal first-order streamsrdquo Journal of GeophysicalResearch Biogeosciences vol 117 no 1 pp 1ndash12 2012

[8] ANorZaihaM SM Ismid Salmiati andM S S Azri ldquoEffectsof logging activities on ecological water quality indicators in theBerasau River Johor Malaysiardquo Environmental Monitoring andAssessment vol 187 no 8 article 493 2015

[9] L SengWater in the Environment Tainted Life Source Hungersfor Cures UNIMAS 2011

[10] A Marinovic Ruzdjak and D Ruzdjak ldquoEvaluation of riverwater quality variations using multivariate statistical tech-niques Sava River (Croatia) A Case Studyrdquo EnvironmentalMonitoring and Assessment vol 187 no 4 pp 1ndash14 2015

[11] D Phung C Huang S Rutherford et al ldquoTemporal and spatialassessment of river surface water quality using multivariatestatistical techniques a study in CanTho City a Mekong Deltaarea Vietnamrdquo Environmental Monitoring and Assessment vol187 no 5 article no 229 2015

[12] S Muangthong and S Shrestha ldquoAssessment of surface waterquality using multivariate statistical techniques case study ofthe Nampong River and Songkhram River Thailandrdquo Environ-mental Monitoring and Assessment vol 187 no 9 article 5482015

[13] R L Olsen R W Chappell and J C Loftis ldquoWater qualitysample collection data treatment and results presentation forprincipal components analysismdashliterature review and IllinoisRiver watershed case studyrdquo Water Research vol 46 no 9 pp3110ndash3122 2012

[14] S Shrestha and F Kazama ldquoAssessment of surface water qualityusing multivariate statistical techniques a case study of the Fujiriver basin Japanrdquo Environmental Modelling and Software vol22 no 4 pp 464ndash475 2007

[15] P Zeilhofer E B N R Lima and G A R Lima ldquoSpatialpatterns of water quality in the cuiaba River Basin CentralBrazilrdquo Environmental Monitoring and Assessment vol 123 no1ndash3 pp 41ndash62 2006

[16] V Simeonov J A Stratis C Samara et al ldquoAssessment of thesurface water quality in Northern GreecerdquoWater Research vol37 no 17 pp 4119ndash4124 2003

[17] S C Chapra Surface Water-Quality Modeling McGraw-HillNew York NY USA 1997

[18] D Jenkins J J Connors and A E Greenberg Standard Meth-ods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater AmericanPublic Health Association Washingon DC USA 21st edition2005

[19] Department of Environment Malaysia Environmental QualityReport 2014 DOE Kuala Lumpur Malaysia 2015

[20] R C Jones D P Kelso and E Schaeffer ldquoSpatial and seasonalpatterns in water quality in an embayment-mainstem reach ofthe tidal freshwater Potomac River USA A Multiyear StudyrdquoEnvironmental Monitoring and Assessment vol 147 no 1ndash3 pp351ndash375 2008

[21] R Nagarajan M P Jonathan P D Roy GMuthusankar and CLakshumanan ldquoDecadal evolution of a spit in the Baram rivermouth in easternMalaysiardquoContinental Shelf Research vol 105pp 18ndash25 2015

Journal of Chemistry 13

[22] H Yuan E LiuW Pan and S An ldquoWater pollution characteris-tics and assessment in different functional zonesrdquo Polish Journalof Environmental Studies vol 23 no 2 pp 541ndash549 2014

[23] G S Bilotta and R E Brazier ldquoUnderstanding the influenceof suspended solids on water quality and aquatic biotardquo WaterResearch vol 42 no 12 pp 2849ndash2861 2008

[24] T Jinggut C M Yule and L Boyero ldquoStream ecosystemintegrity is impaired by logging and shifting agriculture in aglobal megadiversity center (Sarawak Borneo)rdquo Science of theTotal Environment vol 437 pp 83ndash90 2012

[25] J Hon and S Shibata ldquoA review on land use in the Malaysianstate of Sarawak Borneo and recommendations for wildlifeconservation inside production forest environmentrdquo BorneoJournal of Resource Science and Technology vol 3 no 2 pp 22ndash35 2013

[26] J E Bryan P L Shearman G P Asner D E Knapp G Aoroand B Lokes ldquoExtreme differences in forest degradation inborneo comparing practices in Sarawak Sabah and BruneirdquoPLoS ONE vol 8 no 7 Article ID e69679 2013

[27] M Holmer and E Kristensen ldquoImpact of marine fish cagefarming on metabolism and sulfate reduction of underlyingsedimentsrdquo Marine Ecology Progress Series vol 80 no 2-3 pp191ndash201 1992

[28] K I A Kularatne D P Dissanayake and K R R MahanamaldquoContribution of dissolved sulfates and sulfites in hydrogensulfide emission from stagnant water bodies in Sri LankardquoChemosphere vol 52 no 5 pp 901ndash907 2003

[29] K Mei L Liao Y Zhu et al ldquoEvaluation of spatial-temporalvariations and trends in surface water quality across a rural-suburban-urban interfacerdquoEnvironmental Science and PollutionResearch vol 21 no 13 pp 8036ndash8051 2014

Submit your manuscripts athttpswwwhindawicom

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Inorganic ChemistryInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

International Journal ofPhotoenergy

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Carbohydrate Chemistry

International Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of

Chemistry

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Advances in

Physical Chemistry

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Analytical Methods in Chemistry

Journal of

Volume 2014

Bioinorganic Chemistry and ApplicationsHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

SpectroscopyInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Medicinal ChemistryInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Chromatography Research International

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Applied ChemistryJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Theoretical ChemistryJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of

Spectroscopy

Analytical ChemistryInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Quantum Chemistry

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Organic Chemistry International

ElectrochemistryInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

CatalystsJournal of

Journal of Chemistry 13

[22] H Yuan E LiuW Pan and S An ldquoWater pollution characteris-tics and assessment in different functional zonesrdquo Polish Journalof Environmental Studies vol 23 no 2 pp 541ndash549 2014

[23] G S Bilotta and R E Brazier ldquoUnderstanding the influenceof suspended solids on water quality and aquatic biotardquo WaterResearch vol 42 no 12 pp 2849ndash2861 2008

[24] T Jinggut C M Yule and L Boyero ldquoStream ecosystemintegrity is impaired by logging and shifting agriculture in aglobal megadiversity center (Sarawak Borneo)rdquo Science of theTotal Environment vol 437 pp 83ndash90 2012

[25] J Hon and S Shibata ldquoA review on land use in the Malaysianstate of Sarawak Borneo and recommendations for wildlifeconservation inside production forest environmentrdquo BorneoJournal of Resource Science and Technology vol 3 no 2 pp 22ndash35 2013

[26] J E Bryan P L Shearman G P Asner D E Knapp G Aoroand B Lokes ldquoExtreme differences in forest degradation inborneo comparing practices in Sarawak Sabah and BruneirdquoPLoS ONE vol 8 no 7 Article ID e69679 2013

[27] M Holmer and E Kristensen ldquoImpact of marine fish cagefarming on metabolism and sulfate reduction of underlyingsedimentsrdquo Marine Ecology Progress Series vol 80 no 2-3 pp191ndash201 1992

[28] K I A Kularatne D P Dissanayake and K R R MahanamaldquoContribution of dissolved sulfates and sulfites in hydrogensulfide emission from stagnant water bodies in Sri LankardquoChemosphere vol 52 no 5 pp 901ndash907 2003

[29] K Mei L Liao Y Zhu et al ldquoEvaluation of spatial-temporalvariations and trends in surface water quality across a rural-suburban-urban interfacerdquoEnvironmental Science and PollutionResearch vol 21 no 13 pp 8036ndash8051 2014

Submit your manuscripts athttpswwwhindawicom

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Inorganic ChemistryInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

International Journal ofPhotoenergy

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Carbohydrate Chemistry

International Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of

Chemistry

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Advances in

Physical Chemistry

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Analytical Methods in Chemistry

Journal of

Volume 2014

Bioinorganic Chemistry and ApplicationsHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

SpectroscopyInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Medicinal ChemistryInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Chromatography Research International

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Applied ChemistryJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Theoretical ChemistryJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of

Spectroscopy

Analytical ChemistryInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Quantum Chemistry

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Organic Chemistry International

ElectrochemistryInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

CatalystsJournal of

Submit your manuscripts athttpswwwhindawicom

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Inorganic ChemistryInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

International Journal ofPhotoenergy

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Carbohydrate Chemistry

International Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of

Chemistry

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Advances in

Physical Chemistry

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Analytical Methods in Chemistry

Journal of

Volume 2014

Bioinorganic Chemistry and ApplicationsHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

SpectroscopyInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Medicinal ChemistryInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Chromatography Research International

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Applied ChemistryJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Theoretical ChemistryJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of

Spectroscopy

Analytical ChemistryInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Quantum Chemistry

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Organic Chemistry International

ElectrochemistryInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

CatalystsJournal of