Skip to main content

Table 5 Turkey’s post hoc test results for comparison of the water physicochemical characteristics (pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen, conductivity and turbidity) for the springs and ponds that were studied

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
Nyakirango spring vs Katanga spring Widest 1.084 0.147 7.360 0.000
Nyakirango spring vs Kibenge spring Least 0.083 0.151 0.550 0.850
Mughende Pond vs Wanseko Pond Widest 2.724 0.195 −13.960 0.000
Mughende Pond vs Dadira Pond Least 1.118 0.190 5.870 0.000
Temperature
Katanga spring vs Kibenge spring Widest 17.018 0.968 17.580 0.000
Katanga spring vs Nyakirango spring Least 0.545 0.968 0.560 0.841
Kibenge vs Dadira pond Widest 13.040 0.791 16.480 0.000
Wanseko vs Mughende pond Least −2.703 0.812 −3.330 0.013
Dissolved oxygen
Katanga spring vs Nyakirango spring Widest 2.159 0.452 4.770 0.000
Nyakirango spring vs Kibenge spring Least 0.657 0.462 1.420 0.342
Panyimur vs Mughende pond Widest −8.216 1.612 −5.100 0.000
Mughende vs Kibenge pond Least 5.917 1.612 3.670 0.005
Conductivity
Nyakirango spring vs Kibenge spring Widest − 3186.560 78.124 −40.790 0.000
Nyakirango spring vs Katanga spring Least −186.649 76.479 −2.440 0.052
Wanseko vs Kibenge pond Widest − 3224.843 131.695 −24.490 0.000
Wanseko vs Dadira pond Least − 527.101 134.388 −3.920 0.002
Turbidity
Nyakirango spring vs Kibenge spring Widest 115.071 38.545 2.990 0.019
Kibenge spring vs Katanga spring Least −36.026 36.189 −1.000 0.588
Wanseko Vs Kibenge pond Widest 100.114 42.282 2.370 0.147
Least 6.012 39.551 0.150 1.000
\