<![CDATA[Sungai Ciliwung mengalami penurunan kualitas air akibat peningkatan aktivitas antropogenik di daerah aliran sungainya. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis kualitas air Sungai Ciliwung menggunakan dua metode indeks kualitas air, yaitu Weighted Arithmetic Water Quality Index (WAWQI) dan Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Water Quality Index (CCME WQI), serta membandingkan sensitivitas kedua metode dalam menilai status pencemaran. Pengambilan sampel dilakukan di lima titik pemantauan dari hulu hingga hilir sungai dengan lima kali ulangan. Parameter yang diukur meliputi suhu, pH, Dissolved Oxygen (DO), Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), amonia, fenol, timbal (Pb), dan kadmium (Cd). Hasil perhitungan WAWQI menunjukkan kisaran nilai 25,64 – 35,13 yang dikategorikan sebagai baik (Good) untuk keperluan rekreasi air, budidaya perikanan, dan irigasi, namun tidak layak untuk air minum. Sementara itu, hasil CCME WQI berkisar antara 42,41 – 70,46, dengan kategori cukup (Fair) hingga kurang (Marginal), menunjukkan sensitivitas yang lebih tinggi dalam membedakan tingkat pencemaran antar lokasi. Peningkatan pencemaran terjadi di stasiun 4 dan 5 yang ditandai dengan penurunan DO, peningkatan BOD, COD, serta kadar amonia yang melebihi baku mutu kelas 2. Perbedaan hasil kedua indeks menunjukkan bahwa CCME WQI lebih akurat dalam menggambarkan degradasi kualitas air dibandingkan WAWQI. Oleh karena itu, diperlukan strategi pengelolaan sungai yang lebih ketat terutama di bagian hilir untuk mengurangi beban pencemaran dari limbah domestik dan industri serta meningkatkan kapasitas pengolahan air limbah. The Ciliwung River has experienced a decline in water quality due to increased anthropogenic activities in its watershed. This study aims to analyze the water quality of the Ciliwung River using two water quality index methods, Weighted Arithmetic Water Quality Index (WAWQI) and Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Water Quality Index (CCME WQI), and to compare the sensitivity of both methods in assessing pollution status. Sampling was conducted at five monitoring points from upstream to downstream with five replicates. The measured parameters included temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), ammonia, phenol, lead (Pb), and cadmium (Cd). The WAWQI results ranged from 25.64 to 35.13, categorizing the water as Good for water recreation, aquaculture, and irrigation, but unsuitable for drinking purposes. Meanwhile, CCME WQI scores ranged from 42.41 to 70.46, categorized as Fair to Marginal, demonstrating higher sensitivity in differentiating pollution levels across locations. Increased pollution was observed in stations 4 and 5, indicated by a decrease in DO and an increase in BOD, COD, and ammonia levels exceeding class 2 quality standards. The difference in results between the two indices suggests that CCME WQI is more accurate in depicting water quality degradation compared to WAWQI. Therefore, stricter river management strategies are required, especially in the downstream areas, to reduce pollution loads from domestic and industrial waste and enhance wastewater treatment capacity.]]>
