Fuzzy Entropy-Based Prioritization of Critical Water Quality Parameters for Sustainable Drinking Water Management

Safe drinking water remains inaccessible to approximately 2.2 billion people globally, partly because existing assessment frameworks do not adequately capture the uncertainty embedded in water quality data and expert judgment. This study proposes a compounded fuzzy entropy framework that integrates Triangular Fuzzy Number (TFN) representation, alpha-cut interval reduction at a confidence level of 0.8, defuzzification through an optimism index of 0.5, and Shannon entropy-based objective weighting. The framework ranks six drinking water parameters Dissolved Oxygen (DO), Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), pH, Turbidity, Temperature, and total Coliform against four decision criteria: Environmental Impact, Human Health Risk, Variability, and Treatment Complexity. Working through the full numerical chain from expert ratings to weighted composite scores, Coliform emerges as the most critical parameter (S = 0.2153), followed by BOD (0.2056), DO (0.1721), pH and Turbidity (0.1555 each), and Temperature (0.0961). Health Risk carries the heaviest criterion weight (W = 0.3671), a result that follows directly from the entropy calculation: health-related ratings vary more across parameters than any other criterion, producing maximum discriminatory power. The approach avoids the consistency constraints of conventional fuzzy AHP and does not require full pairwise comparison matrices. Sensitivity tests across alpha in [0.6, 1.0] and lambda in [0.3, 0.7] confirm that Coliform and Temperature rankings are structurally stable, while intermediate ranks show modest sensitivity to the optimism index. The results support a tiered monitoring strategy prioritising microbiological surveillance and organic load reduction ahead of physical parameters.

Drinking Water Quality; Fuzzy Entropy; Triangular Fuzzy Numbers

1. World Health Organization. 2022. Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality: 4th Edition Incorporating the First and Second Addenda. WHO Press, Geneva. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. UNICEF & WHO. 2023. Progress on Household Drinking Water, Sanitation and Hygiene 2000–2022: Special Focus on Gender. New York: UNICEF and WHO. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. S. Shrestha and F. Kazama. 2007. Assessment of surface water quality using multivariate statistical techniques: a case study of the Fuji river basin, Japan. Environmental Modelling & Software, 22(4), 464–475. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. R. K. Horton. 1965. An index number system for rating water quality. Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, 37(3), 300–306. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. R. M. Brown, N. I. McClelland, R. A. Deininger, and R. G. Tozer. 1970. A water quality index. Water Sewage Works, 117, 339–343. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. S. Tyagi, B. Sharma, P. Singh, and R. Dobhal. 2013. Water quality assessment in terms of water quality index. American Journal of Water Resources, 1(3), 34–38. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. T. Akter et al. 2016. Hydrological and water quality assessment of a surface and groundwater system. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 188(8), 462. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. L. A. Zadeh. 1965. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(3), 338–353. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. D. Dubois and H. Prade. 1988. Possibility Theory: An Approach to Computerized Processing of Uncertainty. New York: Plenum Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. A. Kaufmann and M. M. Gupta. 1991. Introduction to Fuzzy Arithmetic: Theory and Applications. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. C. H. Cheng. 1996. Evaluating naval tactical missile systems by fuzzy AHP based on the grade value of membership function. European Journal of Operational Research, 96(2), 343–350. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. C. E. Shannon. 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3), 379–423. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Z. H. Zou, Y. Yi, and J. N. Sun. 2006. Entropy method for determination of weight of evaluating indicators in fuzzy synthetic evaluation for water quality assessment. Journal of Environmental Sciences, 18(5), 1020–1023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. T. C. Wang and H. D. Lee. 2009. Developing a fuzzy TOPSIS approach based on subjective weights and objective weights. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(5), 8980–8985. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. T. I. Wani et al. 2025. Compounded fuzzy entropy-based derivation of uncertain critical factors causing corrosion in buried concrete sewer pipeline. npj Clean Water, 8, 36. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. A. I. A. Ahmed et al. 2019. Entropy-based fuzzy AHP model for trustworthy service provider selection in Internet of Things. Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Local Computer Networks, 606–613. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. S. Aggarwal, S. Rallapalli, and J. Adinarayana. 2024. Uncertainty-based fuzzified environmental-socio-economic risk assessment of precision agricultural practices. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. M. O. Abdus-Salam et al. 2024. Entropy-weighted water quality index assessment of groundwater in the Kano River Basin, Nigeria. Discover Water, 4, 15. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. A. Das. 2024. Assessment of surface water quality using entropy-WQI and fuzzy methods. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 31(4), 5678–5694. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. T. L. Saaty. 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York: McGraw-Hill. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. P. J. M. van Laarhoven and W. Pedrycz. 1983. A fuzzy extension of Saaty's priority theory. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 11(1–3), 199–227. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Bureau of Indian Standards. 2012. IS 10500:2012 — Indian Standard Drinking Water Specification (Second Revision). New Delhi: BIS. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2023. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. EPA 816-F-23-001. Washington, D.C.: USEPA. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. J. S. Deng et al. 2012. Environmental quality assessment with multi-criteria evaluation in China. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 184, 2039–2051. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. F. Karimipour and R. Valavi. 2015. A fuzzy-based water quality evaluation method. Journal of Hydrology, 524, 250–263. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. C. R. Ramakrishnaiah, C. Sadashivaiah, and G. Ranganna. 2009. Assessment of water quality index for the groundwater in Tumkur Taluk, Karnataka. E-Journal of Chemistry, 6(2), 523–530. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. A. Alfaleh, N. B. Khedher, and A. Alviz-Meza. 2023. Is the entropy-weighted water quality index a suitable index for evaluating groundwater quality? Water Science & Technology, 87(12), 3034–3049. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Q. Yan et al. 2025. An improved entropy weight method in water quality assessment. Water, 17(24), 3508. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. N. B. Chang, H. W. Chen, and S. K. Ning. 2001. Identification of river water quality using the fuzzy synthetic evaluation approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 63(3), 293–305. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. F. Nasiri, I. Maqsood, G. Huang, and N. Fuller. 2007. Water quality index: A fuzzy river-pollution decision support expert system. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 133(2), 95–105. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. V. K. Singh, P. Kumar, B. P. Singh, and D. S. Malik. 2021. A comparative study of fuzzy AHP and entropy approaches for water quality parameters assessment. Journal of Environmental Management, 289, 112444. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Z. Zou, Y. Yun, and J. Sun. 2006. Entropy method for determination of weight of evaluating indicators in fuzzy synthetic evaluation for water quality assessment. Journal of Environmental Sciences, 18(5), 1020–1023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. C. Gleeson and N. Gray. 1997. The Coliform Index and Waterborne Disease. London: E & FN Spon. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. H. Leclerc, L. Schwartzbrod, and E. Dei-Cas. 2002. Microbial agents associated with waterborne diseases. Critical Reviews in Microbiology, 28(4), 371–409. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 2014. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Resource Recovery. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. S. C. Chapra. 2008. Surface Water-Quality Modeling. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. J. C. Crittenden et al. 2012. MWH’s Water Treatment: Principles and Design. 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. M. B. Emelko, P. M. Huck, and B. M. Coffey. 2005. A review of Cryptosporidium removal by granular media filtration. Journal AWWA, 97(12), 101–115. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. J. A. Patz et al. 2005. Impact of regional climate change on human health. Nature, 438, 310–317. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. M. Behzadian et al. 2012. A state-of-the-art survey of TOPSIS applications. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(17), 13051–13069. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. IPCC. 2021. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• What the Desert Fathers Teach Data Scientists: Ancient Ascetic Principles for Ethical Machine-Learning Practice
• Comparative Analysis of Some Machine Learning Algorithms for the Classification of Ransomware
• Comparative Performance Analysis of Some Priority Queue Variants in Dijkstra’s Algorithm
• Transfer Learning in Detecting E-Assessment Malpractice from a Proctored Video Recordings.
• Dual-Modal Detection of Parkinson’s Disease: A Clinical Framework and Deep Learning Approach Using NeuroParkNet