Skip to main content

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

From: 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

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
\