The quality of drinking and domestic water from the surface water sources (lakes, rivers, irrigation canals and ponds) and springs in cholera prone communities of Uganda: an analysis of vital physicochemical parameters

Table 4 Turkey’s post hoc test results for the comparison of the water physicochemical characteristics between sites on the lakes and the rivers in the study area

Pairs for comparison	Widest or least difference	Difference	Standard error	t-statistic	P-values
pH
Kahendero FLS (L. George) vs Port-Bell FLS (L. Victoria)	Widest	−2.534	0.343	−7.39	0.000
Panyimur FLS (L. Albert) vs Katwe Salt (L. Edward)	Least	−1.113	0.335	−3.32	0.045
*Temperature*
Katwe Salt FLS (L. Edward) vs Kayanzi FLS (L. Edward)	Widest	−7.500	0.982	−7.64	0.000
Katwe Salt FLS (L. Edward) vs Kitwe FLS (L. Kyoga)	Least	−3.250	0.982	−3.31	0.046
R. Mobuku vs R. Victoria Nile	Widest	6.125	1.318	4.65	0.000
R. Mobuku vs R. Lhubiriha	Least	4.133	1.318	−3.14	0.038
*Dissolved oxygen*
Port-Bell FLS vs Hamukungu	Widest	−2.031	0.570	−3.57	0.021
Port-Bell FLS vs Majanji	Least	−1.981	0.570	−3.48	0.028
R. Lubigi vs R. Lhubiriha	Widest	−4.408	0.480	−9.18	0.000
R. Victoria Nile vs R. Lhubiriha	Least	−1.702	0.480	−3.54	0.012
*Conductivity*
Panyimur FLS (L. Albert) vs Kayanzi	Widest	668.508	117.341	5.70	0.000
Kalolo FLS (L. Albert) vs Hamukungu (L. George)	Least	393.258	117.341	3.35	0.041
R. Nyamugasani vs R. Mobuku	Widest	882.933	37.880	23.31	0.000
R. Victoria Nile vs R. Lubigi	Least	− 319.684	37.880	−8.44	0.000
*Turbidity*
Kahendero FLS (L. George) vs Majanji FLS (L. Victoria)	Widest	169.024	33.684	−5.02	0.000
Kahendero FLS (L. George) vs Port-Bell FLS (L. Victoria)	Least	112.302	33.684	−3.33	0.047
R. Sio vs R. Mobuku	Widest	128.593	29.500	4.36	0.001
R. Nyamwamba vs R. Lubigi	Least	−98.032	29.500	−3.32	0.025

ISSN: 1471-2458