COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PHYSICOCHEMICAL PARAMETERS AND

DETERMINATION OF HEAVY METALS OF WATER SAMPLES SOURCED FROM

TUBE WELLS AND BOREHOLES IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS WITHIN KATSINA
METROPOLIS.

BY

HAUWA'U SALMANU (B.Sc. CHEMISTRY )

MSC/21/CHM/0212

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PURE AND

INDUSTRIAL CHEMISTRY, UMARU MUSA YAR’ADUA UNIVERSITY, KATSINA,
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF THE
DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE(MSc) IN CHEMISTRY.

SEPTEMBER, 2025

i
 DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this project titled" Comparative analysis of physicochemical parameters and
determination of heavy metals of water samples sourced from tube wells and boreholes in
residential areas within katsina metropolis is my original work and that no part of it has been
presented for another degree in this university or anywhere else.

_________________________ ___________________
Hauwa’u Salmanu Date
MSC/21/CHM/0212

ii
 CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that the research work for this dissertation. "Comparative analysis of
physicochemical parameters and determination of heavy metals of water samples sourced from
tube wells and boreholes in residential areas within katsina metropolis,"and the subsequent
preparation of this dissertation by (Hauwa'u Salmanu, MSC/21/CHM/0212) were carried out
under our supervision.

_________________________ ___________________
Dr. Abubakar Lawal Date
Major Supervisor

_________________________ ___________________

Dr. Fatima B. Suleiman Date

Co-Supervisor

_________________________ ___________________
Dr. Aminu Musa Date
Head of Department

iii
 APPROVAL PAGE
This dissertation has been examined and approved for the award of the degree of Master in
Chemistry.

_________________________ ___________________
External Examiner Sign &Date

_________________________ ___________________
Prof. Sama’ila Mu’azu. Date
Internal Examiner

_________________________ ___________________
Dr. Abubakar Lawal Date
Major Supervisor

_________________________ ___________________
Dr. Fatima B. Suleiman Date
Co-Supervisor

_________________________ ___________________
Dr. Aminu Musa Date
Head of Department

_________________________ ___________________
Dr. Abubakar Sani Date
PG Coordinator

_________________________ ___________________
PG Board Representative Sign &Date

iv
 DEDICATION
This project is dedicated to my parents. May Almighty Allah reward them abundantly, Ameen.

v
 AKNOWLEDGEMENT

All praise and thanks are due to Almighty Allah for His infinite mercy, guidance, and blessings

throughout the course of this research work and my academic journey. My heartfelt gratitude

goes to my beloved parents for their constant prayers, encouragement, and unwavering support,

which have been my greatest source of my strength. My special appreciation and profound

gratitude go to Dr. Fatima B. Suleiman for her invaluable supervision, guidance, and mentorship

throughout this project. I also wish to sincerely thanks to Dr. Abubakar Lawal for his

assistance ,and the Pg. coordinator Dr. Abubakar Sani for his concern and support. My sincere

appreciation also goes to the H.O.D, pure and industrial chemistry Dr. Aminu Musa for his

dedication and concern that make this work possible. A special thanks to my brothers

Muhammad S. Nababa, Sadik Ibrahim Ammani and my colleague Aminu Akilu for their

encouragement, advice and moral support. Finally, to all my colleagues and everyone who

contributed directly or indirectly to the success of this research, I say thank you jazakumullahu

khair.

vi
ABSTRACT

vii
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

Water indeed is an essential component of life (Osunkiyesi, 2012). The need for water in the day

to day activities of man include for cooking, washing, drinking and for industrial activities

(Akpoborie et al., 2008). For the chemist therefore the quality of water is very important to

ensure that it is potable for drinking (Agbazue, 2008). Two major sources of water whose quality

are assessed by chemists are the surface (streams, rivers, ponds, lakes) and ground waters (wells,

boreholes). The reason is that surface waters are prone to contamination it was reported that

surface waters are generally poor in quality (Okeola et al., 2010). Ground waters on the other

hand are more reliable for domestic and agricultural irrigation needs (Okeola et al, 2010; Haruna

et al, 2008 and Shymala et al, 2008).

Owing to lack of potable water in most rural areas in Nigeria, the people tend to depend on

streams and river water for domestic use and other activities (Shittu et al., 2008). The

contamination of these water sources comes from different sources in the environment. They

include effluents from industries, abattoir activities and pesticides (Iornumbe and Onah ,2008)

and from animal feacal discharges into surface and ground waters due to washing by rain falls

(Oko, 2008).

Drinking water quality standards describes the quality parameters set for drinking water. Ground

water is the major sources of drinking water. 65% of human body made of water. Out of the total

water consumed by human beings, more than 50 % of it is consumed for industrial activity and

only a small proportion is used for drinking purposes (Jindal Kumar et al., 2014). Good Quality
8
of Drinking water is very necessary for improving the life of people and to prevent diseases

(Mohamed et al., 2013).

Groundwater is a valuable asset in regions. Springs, boreholes, and wells supply nearly 50% of

the groundwater used in the urban areas in less developed countries (Ullah et al., 2009).

Although the fact that demand for groundwater is increasing. ensuring an uninterrupted and

renewable supply of groundwater for drinking is one of pillars in promoting the nation's

sustainable development. However, urbanization, industrialization, agricultural practices, and

climate change all cause threats to groundwater quality (Li et al., 2021). Water naturally

containers various dissolved inorganic components, including calcium, magnesium, sodium,

potassium, and chloride. Besides, minor components like iron, manganese, and fluoride may be

present in only a few micrograms per liter. The Earth's strata hold water control of these

elements, which play a crucial role in water quality (Banerjee et al.,2023) Nonetheless, when

these substances naturally rise in concentration beyond permissible levels for particular uses,

they transform into contaminants capable of posing risks to human well-being. These

contaminants are generated from rock materials through leaching or weathering, called geogenic

contamination (Gosh, 2017). Over the last three decades, chemical contamination due to various

human activities has been an ongoing issue in groundwater studies. The guidelines provided by

the World Health Organization (WHO) specify that human health can be negatively impacted by

any of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics found in groundwater. (Yadav, 2016).

Surface water contamination is different from groundwater contamination, because it is invisible,

and retrieving the resource is challenging with current technology (Gibson and Kavanaugh,

2008).These contaminants in groundwater resources are usually colorless and odorless, making it

difficult to detect their chronic negative effect on human health (Chakraboti and Rahman et

9
al.,2015). Once contaminated, groundwater resource remediation becomes costly due to its

location in subsurface geological strata and long residence times and natural purification

processes taking decades or even hundreds of years, even if the source of contamination is cut off

(Tatti and Papini et al.,2019). These contaminants from both natural and anthropogenic sources

can impact groundwater quality.

Natural groundwater contamination is a type of groundwater contamination not associated with

any anthropogenic activities. The concentration of natural contaminants depends on the type of

geological materials (rock or soil) through which groundwater moves and recharge. (Machiwu

and Jha, 2015).Natural sources of groundwater contamination cause a wide range of problems

with water quality problems, such as natural deposits of gypsum, minerals salts, surface water

with poor quality, seawater intrusion, and brackish water. Besides, radionuclides and decaying

organic matter (OM) dissolved into groundwater sources (Babiker et al.,2004 and Abanyie et

al.,2020).Warm weather elevates water temperature, reduces dissolved oxygen levels, and

depletes shallow water bodies. Swamps that drain into streams have lower pH and dissolved

oxygen levels due to low flow conditions and tannic acids from decaying leaves. Groundwater

flowing through sedimentary rocks and soils has the capacity to absorb various kinds of

inorganic compounds, including magnesium (Mg), calcium (Ca), and chlorides (Cl). Several

aquifers inherently possess higher dissolved constituents like Fe, Mn, As, F, SO4 2- and natural

water may contain bacteria, viruses, parasites, and other microorganisms. In shallow wells, water

near the ground surface is particularly vulnerable to contamination. Pollutants from wildlife and

soils can be carried by runoff, which is especially common after flooding or monsoon.

Radioactive elements such as uranium and radium may be present in the parent rock, which

causes groundwater contamination through decay or erosion. Furthermore, radon, resulting from

10
the natural decay of uranium in the soil, poses a significant threat to the health of living

organisms, leading to serious health consequences (Abanyie et al., 2023 and Burri et al.,2019).

Anthropogenic groundwater contamination is defined as the subsurface introduction of chemical

pollutants caused by human activities. Several anthropogenic sources affect the quality of

groundwater resources globally (Subba et al.,2021).The rising economic activity, coupled with

industrialization, population growth and changes in land use patterns become crucial contributors

affecting groundwater quality. Anthropogenic alterations significantly impact various aspects of

the hydrological cycle, including altering the severity of current conditions and introducing new

variables ( Doble ,2017 and Akhtar et al., 2021).

Agriculture, a widespread human activity, has the potential to impact both surface and sub-

surface water. Major agriculture activities are fish farming, crop cultivation, livestock

management, pesticides and fertilizers, and cattle and poultry farming. (Akhtar et.,al 2021).

Applying fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and animal waste in agriculture is a significant source

of groundwater contamination, particularly when permeable soil formations allow the

contaminants or elements from these substances to infiltrate the aquifer. Contamination can also

result from pesticide or fertilizer spillage during handling, chemical substances upstream or near

a well, runoff generated during the loading and cleaning pesticide sprayers or other application

equipment, and storage of chemicals near wells (Cruz et al.,2013).

Pesticides are chemicals used to remove or kill undesirable organisms in agriculture. The

beginning of the 1960s observed increased environmental pollution awareness concerning

pesticides (Burri et al.,2019).Chemical pest control techniques play a pivotal role in agricultural

land cultivation and are also widely used in rapid urban expansion and industrial growth. Aside

11
from safeguarding plants from insects, pesticides encompass herbicides (for controlling weeds),

nematode (targeting nematodes), insecticides (for insect control), rodenticides (to manage

vertebrate pests), and fungicides (for combating fungi). These agents play a vital role in

agriculture by promoting food production, protecting or boosting crop yields, and allowing for

multiple cultivation cycles on the same land in a year (Kim and Jahan, 2017). The variations in

pesticide breakdown and absorption rates (the two fundamental processes governing pesticide

persistence of control) are different in the subsurface. These are complicated due to the function

of individual pesticides and characterization in sediment and aquifer matrix (Alfares et al.,

2002). Most pesticides can dissolve in water and are administered along with water, subsequently

being ingested by their intend targets. Another contributing factor to water contamination from

pesticides is the level of precipitation, as elevated precipitation rates increase the risk of

pesticides contaminating water resources. Because groundwater moves slowly, it may require

several decades to fully eliminate contaminated water from affected well (Sperl and Trckova,

2008).

Extensive fertilizer usage may contaminate the water bodies through field runoff or leach into

water resources. Nitrogen and phosphorus are the major compounds in fertilization concerning

the contaminating agent. Common nitrogen contaminants are nitrate, nitrite, ammonia, and

Nitrogen, which have been widely reported in regions of the world. (Briski et al., 2020). From

the unsaturated zone of the aquifer. When Nitrogen-contaminated water enters living organisms,

it can cause severe health issues. The significant health impact of nitrate is methemoglobinemia

or blue baby syndrome in children (Akter and Hassan, 2016) .In some situations, the soil can

easily transport phosphorous, another critical element in fertilizers. Improper storage handling

and usage of fertilizers in farms can lead to phosphorus chemical pollution in water. Agriculture

12
is also responsible for a significant portion of both surface and groundwater pollution caused by

Nitrogen in most of developing countries (Mcgrane, 2016).

Substantial population growth and changes in Land use/land cover patterns cause the emergence

of urbanization globally. Urbanization includes converting natural surfaces into impervious

surfaces such as wetlands, vegetated areas, forests, waterbodies, and other land cover forms to

commercial, industrial, and residential areas. Therefore, the artificial surface is closely correlated

with a rise in polluted runoff sources, reducing water quality. Primary contaminated sources from

urban activities are municipal waste, land use, poor sanitary practices, and landfill management.

(Lee et al., 2020)

Municipal wastes are household or domestic wastes which are mainly derived from artificial

activities. Black or grey color wastewater released from domestic or residential buildings

pollutes the groundwater system through surface runoff. Additionally, in highly populated urban

areas, septic tanks can contaminate local groundwater supplies (Cruz et al.,2013) Drinking water

is contaminated by domestic wastes, including various microorganisms that can result in severe

human diseases like diarrhea, typhoid, and cholera.

Inorganic pollutants, including nitrogen, fluoride, and heavy metals, are non-carbon based

materials naturally found in the environmental system. Various parts of the world, including

developing countries, have discovered elevated concentrations of metals, particularly heavy

metals and other harmful substances like fluoride and nitrate, in groundwater, surpassing

acceptable levels, making it unsuitable for consumption. (Vardhan and panda, 2019).Nitrogen is

the most harmful inorganic compound in the environment, and high concentrations cause

negative impacts on the environment and living organisms. Typical inorganic impurities in

13
groundwater comprise anions, oxyanions (F-, SO42- and Cl-) and major cations (Ca 2+ and Mg 2).

Groundwater may also exhibit elevated levels of total dissolved solids (TDS), which indicates

the combined presence of both inorganic and organic substances within the groundwater (Huan

et al., 2020).

Organic compounds include hydrocarbons, pesticides, and pharmaceuticals and are broadly used

in agriculture, urban activities and industries. Organic pollutants are appearing either pure or a

mixture of products in groundwater. Several organic contaminants have been associated with

hazards to human health and environmental deterioration (Bhatt et al., 2007).

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Access to clean and safe water is essential for human health and wellbeing. In many parts of

katsina metropolis, residents rely heavily on tube wells and boreholes as their primary sources of

water for domestic use. However, these sources are often vulnerable to contamination from

industrial activities, agricultural practices, and improper waste disposal. Such contamination may

alter the physicochemical quality of the water and introduce heavy metals such as lead,

cadmium, and iron, which are harmful even at low concentrations. Unfortunately, little

information is available on the actual quality of water from these sources within the residential

areas of katsina metropolis .This gap in knowledge raises concerns about the safety of the water

consumed daily by residents, making it necessary to assess both the physicochemical parameters

and heavy metal content of these water sources.

1.3 Aim

The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the physicochemical parameters and

concentrations of selected heavy metals in water samples obtained from tube wells and boreholes

14
in residential areas of katsina metropolis, in order to assess their quality and suitability for

domestic use.

1.4 Objectives
1. To determine the physicochemical, biological parameters such as pH, conductivity,

turbidity, total dissolved solid and temperature .Ecoli, coliform bacteria of water samples

obtained from tube wells and boreholes within katsina metropolis.

2. To analyze the concentration of selected heavy metals e.g lead, cadmium, zinc, copper,

and iron in the water samples.

3. 3. To compare the physicochemical parameters and heavy metals levels between tube

wells and boreholes

4. To assess the compliance of the water quality parameters with world health organization

WHO and nageria standards for drinking water quality NSWQ guideline.

5. To highlight the potential health risks associated with the consumption of water from

these sources.

6. To recommend appropriate measures for ensuring safe and sustainable drinking water

supply in residential areas of katsina metropolis.

7. TO calculate the water pollution index and water quality index

1.5 Scope of the Study

This study focused on the comparative analysis of physicochemical parameters and the

determination of heavy metal concentrations in water samples obtained from tube wells and

boreholes in residential areas within katsina metropolis. The work covers the assessment of water
15
quality indicators such as pH, conductivity, turbidity, and other selected physicochemical

properties, as well as the presence of heavy metals including lead (Pb) cadmium (Cd) ,Zinc( Zn),

copper( Cu), (Fe). The findings are expected to provide insights into the safety of drinking water

sources and highlight potential health risks associated with contamination in the study area.

16
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Water

Groundwater is one of the most significant freshwater resources worldwide, serving as a major

source for drinking, irrigation, and industrial activities (Saha & Ray, 2019; Rahmot et al., 2022).

Nearly one-third of the global population relies on groundwater as their primary water source

(FAO, 2017; Tsor et al., 2022 ). However, its sustainability is increasingly threatened by over

exploitation and contamination. Water contamination originates from both natural and

anthropogenic sources, with human activities contributing more significantly (Narsimha Rajitha,

2018; Khalid, 2019). Pollutants from domestic, industrial, and agricultural sources pose high

environmental and health risks (Billing et al., 2023), especially when untreated waste elevate

heavy metal concentrations in groundwater (Folorunsho et al., 2022).

Heavy metals are of particular concern due to their persistence and toxicity, even at trace levels

(Yahaya et al., 2019; Tsor et al., 2022). Unlike organic pollutants, they are non-biodegradable

and tend to bio accumulate in living organisms, leading to severe health implications. For

instance, Fe, Cu, Zn, and Ni are essential micronutrients at low concentrations but toxic at higher

levels, while Cr, Cd, Pb, and Co have no biological role and are harmful (Aktar et al., 2010;

Nasiru et al., 2021). Cr, Cd, and Ni are recognized carcinogens, and Pb is linked to neurological,

renal, and reproductive disorders (Okegye & Gajere, 2015; Rezaei & Hassani, 2018; Kamalu &

Habibu , 2023).

Epidemiological evidence shows that unsafe water causes up to 80% of diseases in humans

(WHO,2007; Tsor et al., 2022 ).The health impacts of heavy metal exposure include gastro

17
intestinal, cardiovascular, neurological, and developmental problems, with vulnerable

populations such as infants, the elderly, and pregnant women at greater risk. Groundwater

contamination can affect humans through both direct consumption and dermal exposure (Wu &

Sun, 2016; Zhang et al., 2022 ).

In Nigeria and other developing regions, rapid urbanization and industrialization are key drivers

of heavy metal. For example, improper disposal of municipal and industrial wastes near

industrial zones like Bompai and Sharadda in Kano has been shown to elevate Pb, Cd, and Cr

concentrations in groundwater (Hassan et al., 2021). Similar findings of elevated heavy metals

from industrial effluents and landfill leachates have been reported in Ghana (Asare-

Donkor et al., 2016), South Africa (Edokpayi et al., 2018), and India (Mohankumar et al.,

2016).Overall, the literature emphasizes the urgent need for regular monitoring, proper waste

management, and strict adherence to WHO (2006) and Nigerian Drinking Water Quality

Standards (NSDWQ, 2007) to safeguard public health.Water is indispensable for human

survival, but its quality has been compromised by rapid population growth, industrialization, and

urbanization, which significantly increase pollution and demand for potable water (Li et al.,

2021). The portability of water is largely determined by anthropogenic activities, making water

quality an important indicator of environmental changes (Elumalai et al., 2020). In line with the

United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6, access to safe drinking water is central

to reducing waterborne diseases (WHO, 2020).

In Nigeria, water supply comes mainly from surface water and groundwater sources.

Groundwater, obtained from wells or boreholes, is naturally filtered through soil and rock layers.

Despite this, concerns remain about contamination from anthropogenic activities, toxic

18
chemicals, heavy metals such as lead, iron, and manganese, and gases like carbon dioxide and

hydrogen sulfide. Treatment methods often include flocculation, filtration, and disinfection;

however, no single method can completely eliminate contaminants, necessitating combined

purification approaches (Nikhat, 2017; Yusuf et al., 2015).

Several physicochemical determinants influence water quality, including color, taste,odor,

turbidity, temperature, pH, electrical conductivity (EC), and total dissolved solids (TDS). High

turbidity reduces aesthetic value and interferes with chemical treatment of pathogens. pH

imbalances can result in sour taste or soapiness, with potential health implications (Kolawole &

Afolayan, 2017). EC is linked to water salinity and mineral content, and high mineral ion

concentrations may corrode pipes and pose health risks (Saleh et al., 2023).

The World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines emphasize maintaining drinking water within

acceptable physicochemical limits to safeguard public health (WHO, 2020).Therefore,

continuous monitoring of groundwater is essential, especially in educational and densely

populated settings where borehole water is a primary source. Human activities have significantly

contributed to the contamination and pollution of natural resources such as soil, water, and air.

Improper waste management and the neglect of mitigation programs have exacerbated

environmental degradation, posing health risks to humans and other organisms (Adesemoye et

al., 2006; Edon et al., 2016). Water is essential to life, and its availability for domestic,

agricultural, and industrial purposes remains a global concern, particularly in Africa and Asia,

where access to potable water is often limited (WHO, 2004; Halilu e t al., 2011).

In Nigeria, inadequate government water supply has led to the indiscriminate drilling of private

boreholes by individuals and organizations. However, these unregulated water sources often

19
contribute to groundwater contamination, undermining sustainable development goals (Edori et

al., 2016; Abii & Nwabievanne, 2013). Water pollution largely arises from anthropogenic

activities such as mining, agriculture, oil exploration, and industrial processes, which introduce

pollutants into both surface and underground water (Kolo & Baba, 2004; Adeyemi et al., 2010).

Groundwater, often obtained through boreholes and wells, is the primary water source in many

regions. However, it is highly vulnerable to pollution due to urbanization and land use changes

(Ozturk et al., 2009; Momodu & Anyakora, 2010). Contaminated groundwater is difficult and

costly to remediate, highlighting the need for preventive management (Belkhiri et al., 2018).

Heavy metals are among the most significant pollutants of groundwater. While naturally present

in trace amounts, their accumulation through industrial, agricultural, and domestic activities

poses severe risks to human health. These metals—such as lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd), chromium

(Cr), copper (Cu), and iron (Fe)—cannot be destroyed and tend to persist in the environment,

where they bio accumulate and cause toxic effects (Marcovecchio et al., 2007; Adepoju-Bello et

al., 2009). Their mobility in soils often leads to infiltration into groundwater, thus contaminating

drinking water sources .Given these challenges, the assessment of physicochemical parameters

and heavy metal concentrations in borehole water is necessary to determine water quality and

safety for human consumption, particularly in areas with industrial activities such as steel rolling

mills (Belkhiri et al., 2018).

Heavy metals are elements characterized by high density and toxicity even at low concentrations.

They are generally defined as metals with specific densities greater than 4–5 g/cm³ (Jarup, 2003;

Suciu et al., 2008). These elements are naturally found in soils, rocks, and water in terrestrial

and freshwater ecosystems, but human activities such as industrial effluents, domestic sewage,

20
and mining significantly increase their concentrations in the environment (Adelekan &

Abegunde, 2011; Aderinola et al., 2009).

Water, being a critical component of human survival, constitutes about 70–80% of human tissues

and approximately 61% of total body weight in adults .It plays an indispensable role in drinking,

cooking, sanitation, and agricultural purposes. However, its contamination with heavy metals

poses significant health and environmental risks. Several studies have documented heavy metal

contamination in different environmental compartments. ( Adelekan and Abegunde ,2011)

reported high levels of heavy metals in soils and groundwater around automobile mechanic

villages in Ibadan, Nigeria. Similarly,( Bhagure and Mirgane ,2010) found contamination in

groundwater and soils of Maharashtra, India, while Obodai et al., (2011) identified elevated

concentrations of heavy metals in Ghanaian lagoons.

Ene et al., (2009) also applied X-ray fluorescence (XRF) techniques to detect heavy metals in

soils, further highlighting their prevalence. The World Health Organization (WHO, 2011)

provides guideline limits for metals in drinking water, emphasizing the potential health hazards

when concentrations exceed these values. Metals such as lead (Pb) and cadmium (Cd) are

particularly toxic, while essential elements such as iron (Fe), copper (Cu), manganese (Mn), and

zinc (Zn) may cause adverse effects when present in excess. For instance, lead contamination in

water sources often arises from industrial waste, household effluents, and agricultural practices

(Yahaya et al., 2012). Copper, while essential for health, may cause gastrointestinal disturbances

when consumed in high concentrations .

Furthermore, studies indicate that the bioavailability and toxicity of heavy metals in water

depend on factors such as pH, temperature, conductivity, and the presence of organic matter

21
(Lenntech, 2010). Hence, effective water treatment processes play a vital role in reducing metal

concentrations to safe levels. Water was considered an essential commodity for human survival,

and its role in health and socio-economic development was widely acknowledged

(WHO/UNICEF, 2010). In many developing countries such as Nigeria, access to potable water

was still inadequate, exposing people to waterborne diseases such as diarrhea, dysentery,

typhoid, cholera, and even chronic illnesses like cancer due to chemical contamination

(Akpoborie et al., 2008).

Groundwater was generally regarded as more reliable and safer for domestic and agricultural

uses compared to surface water, which was often prone to pollution (Haruna et al., 2008; Okeola

et al., 2010). However, studies indicated that groundwater sources such as boreholes were not

entirely immune to contamination. Researchers linked borehole water pollution to human

activities, including improper waste disposal, poor agricultural practices, siting of pit latrines

close to wells, and inadequate borehole construction (Sunnudo-Wilhelmy & Gill, 1999; Egwari

& Aboaba, 2002; Lu, 2004). Okuo et al., (2007) emphasized that groundwater bodies were

highly susceptible to both natural and anthropogenic contaminants. Increasing reports on

underground water pollution made the issue a subject of serious concern (Amoo, 2018).

Investigations by Tukura et al., (2013) and Ukpong & Okon (2013) highlighted physicochemical

variations in borehole water quality across Nigerian states. Similarly, Bello and Bichi (2013)

confirmed the presence of heavy metal pollution in irrigation water sources in Kano State,

Nigeria.

High concentrations of heavy metals in water were reported as significant health threats. Studies

such as those by Tahir et al., (2019) and Garba et al., (2018) documented elevated levels of lead

and cadmium in borehole waters of Jigawa State, often exceeding World Health Organization

22
(WHO) permissible limits. On the other hand, zinc, copper, and iron were usually within safe

limits. The contamination pattern suggested both natural and anthropogenic influences, requiring

urgent water treatment interventions to ensure safety for consumption and agricultural use.

2.2 Pollution:

2.2.1 Industrial Pollution

Are used water which contained chemical compounds and trace element such as metals.

Radioactive pollution from atomic plants can also be brought in this way rain infiltrating through

waste disposals, accidents like breaking of pipe line (Diosi,2005)

2.2.2 Domestic Pollution: is carried to the aquifer by rain entering through sanitary lard tills

accidents, like breaking septic tanks.

2.2.3 Agricultural Pollution: is due to irrigation water or rain carrying away fertilizers, mineral

salt herbicides and pesticides.

2.2.4 Environmental Pollution: is mainly due to sea water infusion in water aquifer

bacteriological pollution mainly originates in domestic water such as fecal erosion and is the

main source of pathogens in water (Fried, 2005). (Hajner, 2010) started the routine

bacteriological examination of metropolitan water supply when he employed Kochs gelatin

method. In 1819, Hammer also pointed out that one must look for organism characteristic of

sewage to provide evidence of dangerous pollution, for the purpose of determining the portability

of a water supply. It is necessary to establish that the water is not contaminated with pathogens,

if present could be greatly outnumbered by normal inhabitant (Skeat, 2011) it is more

23
satisfactory to examine the water for presence of the pathogens (Cabeth, 2007) more emphasis

have been place on fecal discharge. (Gneldrrech, 2005).

Table 1: Water Borne Diseases

WATER BORNE PATHOGENIC SOURCES OF

DISEASES BACTERIA ORGANISM IN WATER

Cholera Vibrio cholera Human faeces

Diarrhea Escherichia coli Human faeces

Salmonellosis Salmonella typhimurium Animal and human faeces

Giardiasis Giardia lamblia Animal and human faeces

Typhoid fever Salmonella typhi Human faeces

Amoebic dysentery Entamoeba histolytica Human faeces

Infectious hepatitis Virus Human faeces

Gastroenteritis Callicivirus Human faeces

2.3Borehole and Hand Dug Well Water

2.3.1 Borehole Water

Usually, water from the boreholes may be free from dangerous pathogens for humans like

cholera, typhoid, dysentery and many others. Borehole water is groundwater available in an

aquifer obtained by installing a pump to draw the water to the consumers. Any contaminated

24
surface water with pathogen that infiltrates into the soil and become groundwater would be

filtered by the soil profile before reaching the depth of aquifer. An aquifer is saturated water

bearing stratum that is capable of holding, transmitting and yield sufficient water in underground

to well.

2.3.2 Hand-dug Well Water

Hand-dug wells are excavations with diameter large enough to accommodate one or more

persons with shovels digging down to below the water table. They can be lined with laid stones

or bricks; extending this lining upwards above the ground surface to form around the well serves

to reduce both contamination and injuries by falling into the well.

A well digging team digs under a cutting ring and the well column slowly sinks into the aquifer

whilst protecting the team from collapse of the well bore. Hand-dug wells provide a cheap and

low-tech solution to accessing ground water in semi-urban location. They have low operational

and maintenance costs, in part because water can be extracted by hand bailing, without a pump.

Because they exploit shallow aquifers, the well may be susceptible to yield fluctuations and

possible contamination from surface water including sewage, leachete, etc.

Contamination of well water may be from anthropogenic activities, the materials used in the

construction of the well and the type of soil in which the well is constructed, or/and non-

protection of the well.

2.4 Effects of Microbial Contaminants in Groundwater quality

Groundwater quality can be influenced directly and indirectly by microbiological processes,

which can transform both inorganic and organic constituents of groundwater. According to

25
Mathess (1982), single and multi-celled organisms have organisms have become adapted to

using the dissolved materials and suspended solids in the water and solid matter in the aquifer in

their metabolism, and then releasing the metabolic products back into the water. There is

practically no geological environment at, or near, the earth surface where the pH condition will

not support some form of organic life (Chilton and West, 2013). In addition to groups tolerating

extremes of pH, there are groups of microbes which prefer low temperatures (thermophiles), and

yet others which are tolerant of high pressures. However, the most biologically favorable

environments generally occur in warm, humid conditions.

Micro-organisms do not affect the direction of reactions governed by the thermodynamic

constraints of the system, but they do affect their rate. All organic compounds can act as

potential sources of energy for organisms. Most organisms require oxygen for respiration

(aerobic respiration). Chiroma (2008) stated that organisms which can live in the presence of

oxygen (or without it) are known as facultative anaerobes. In contrast, obligate anaerobes are

organisms which do not like oxygen. The presence or absence of oxygen is, therefore one of the

most important factors affecting microbial activity, but not the only one. For an organism to

grow and multiply, nutrients must be supplied in an appropriate mix, which satisfies carbon,

energy, nitrogen and mineral requirements (Foster and Hirata, 2018). Most micro-organisms

grow on solid surfaces and, therefore, coat the grains of the soil are aquifer. They attach

themselves with extra-cellular polysaccharides, forming a protective biofilm which can be very

difficult to remove.

Up to 95 percent of the bacterial population may be attached in this way rather than being in

the groundwater itself. However, transport in the flowing groundwater is also possible. The

population density of micro-organisms depends on the supply of nutrients and removal of

26
harmful metabolic products. Thus, in general terms, higher rates of groundwater flow supply

more nutrient in addition, many human activities which can cause groundwater pollution involve

the removal of the soil altogether.

Bacteriological contamination of groundwater remains a major concern, especially where

many dispersed, shallow dug wells or boreholes provide protected but untreated domestic water

supply.

The presence of bacteria in ground water is particularly to those bacteria of fecal orgin e.g E.

coli, streptococcus fecalis (Beger, 2012) the world health organization (WHO) has set up human

certain microbiological parameters for water quality which aim to exclude all microbes of human

and animals fecal origin because most pathogenic microbes found in water are introduced, into

the water through fecal contamination (Duguid and Mitarb, 2015). This parameter are as follows

i. No sample should contain 10 E. coli in 100mL of sample.

ii. Through out any year, 95% of the sample as examined should not contain organism in any 100

sample.

iii. It should contain less than 10 Coliform organisms per 100ml

iv. Coliform organisms should not be detectable in any 100 ml of

two consecutive samples. (Wistreich and Lechtman, 2014).

For water meant for individual or small communities such as well, borehole, springs lakes

etc should have Coliform counts, less than 10/100mL.Persistent failure to achieve this, especially

if E. coli is repeatedly found in these samples, the sources of water should be condemned (Boria

and Mitarh, 2016).

27
2.5 Indicator Organisms

The Coliform group of which E. coli is a member serves as indicator organisms of fecal

pollution. Another group of bacteria that normal fecal pollution as Clostridium perfrigens and

Streptococcus Feacalis also serves as indicator organisms (prescolte et al., 2013) The use of

bacteria particularly those of fecal origin as indicator of the sanitary guilty of water can be

justified for the following reason:

i. Coliform organisms particularly E. coli are constantly present in the human intestine in large

numbers, it is estimated that billions of these organisms are exerted by an average person per

day. So their present in water show that such water has been polluted by feces.

ii. These organisms live longer in water than intestinal pathogen does.

iii. These organisms out number and are easier to detect than pathogenic ones

iv. They are present in sewages polluted water

v. Their presence in water shows pathogenic organisms are present

vi. They are absence from unpolluted water

vii. They are easier detected by simple laboratory technique

viii. They have consistent characteristics

ix. They are harmless to men and animal

x. Their number correlate with the number of pathogens. (Sarrison and Shaw, 2017)

2.6. Type of Indicator Organism

28
2.6.1 Total Coliform Bacteria: Are define as aerobic or facultative anaerobic, Gram negative,

non-spore forming, rod shape bacteria, which ferment lactose and produce gas at 35 ℃ (Standard

methods 2015). Total coliforms include bacteria of known fecal origin such as E. coli as well as

bacteria that may not be of fecal origin such as Kleibsella spp, Citrobacter spp, Serratia spp and

Enterobacter spp which are found in nutrient rich water, soil decaying vegetation and drinking

water with relative high level of nutrient (Pinfold, 2010; Ramteke et al., 2012; WHO, 2016).

2.6.2 Fecal Coliform: these are mainly strain of E. coli, enterobacter, citrobacter and kleibsella

which are not exclusively of fecal origin (Standard Methods, 2015). The presences of fecal

coliform in water indicate recent contamination of water with fecal matter, sewage. Fecal

coliforms are generally used to indicate unacceptable microbial water quality and could be used

as an indicator in place of E. coli (SABS, 2011). The presence of fecal coliform in a water

sample indicates the possible presences of other pathogenic bacteria such as Salmonella spp,

Shigella spp, E. coli, V. cholera, Kleibsella spp and Campylobacter spp associated with water

borne diseases (DWAF, 2016).

2.6.3 Fecal Enterococci: fecal Enterococci are found in the genus Enterococcus and include

species like Enterococcus feacalis, Enterococcus faecium, Enterococcus durans and

Enterococcus hirae (Standard Method, 2005; WHO, 2006). Most of the species in Enterococcus

genus are of fecal origin and is regarded as specific indicators of human fecal pollution, although

some species are in the feces of animals and plant materials (WHO, 2016).

2.6.4 Clostridium perfringens: is a gram positive, sulphite reducing anaerobic, rod shape, spore

forming bacteria normally present in feces of humans and warm-blooded animals (Standard

Methods, 2015). However, C. perfringens are also found in soil and in water environments

29
(WHO, 2016). The spores can survive much longer than coliform bacteria and are highly

resistant to water disinfection and treatment processes (Standard Methods, 2015).

2.6.5 Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Pseudomonas aeruginosa are present in 16% of human adults

but occur rarely in lower animals (Sinton et al., 2008; Gilpen et al., 2002). Unfortunately, this

bacterium is present in water, soil and sewage samples and can rapidly die-off in aquatic

environments and is therefore not a suitable candidate to determine the source of faecal pollution

(Wheather et al., 2010; Mara and Oragui, 2004; Tartera and Jofre,2007.

2.7 Water Analysis

The method for the bacteriological analysis of water samples are many, which includes the most

probable number method (MPN) and the membrane filters techniques (MFT) are commonly used

to determine the presence of coliforms and E. coli (pelezar et al., 2010) water to be used at home

must therefore be treated to exclude the pathogenic organism so that such water will be fit for

human consumption. In this wise, water collected form borehole, well, stream, must be steam,

boiled and filtered before usage and major analysis of drinking water is to ensure that water does

not transmit organism causing human disable to human health (Jiwa et al .,2012).

2.7.1 Micro biological Analysis

The microbial analysis was determined total bacteria count, total Coliform count / 100mL and E.

coli count / 100mL it also use to determine sanitary quality and suitability water for general use.

(Umbreit, 2016)

2.8 Water-quality Standards

30
The quality of water is assessed in terms of its physical, biological characteristics, and its

intended uses. For example, although distilled water is physically, chemically, and

bacteriologically pure, its taste is rather bland and it is highly corrosive (Agunwamba, 2008). It

has been demonstrated repeatedly that water containing some dissolved constituents is far more

palatable than pure water (Linsely et al.,2009). Water quality varies for different purpose in

every daily activity. Water quality standards are standards established to determine whether

water of a certain quality is suitable for its intended use. All portable water must conform to

these standards.

31
 CHAPTER THREE
MATERIALS AND METHOD

3.1 Study area

Katsina is found at the extreme northern part of Nigeria (Figure1). Its area is 52 sq.mi,142 km 2

Katsina is located between latitude 12 o59’21.95” N and 7o36’.27” E. Its 1444km (897mi) to the

equator,8563km (5321mi) to the north pole, and 823km (512mi ) to prime meridian. It shares

boarder with Niger republic to the north, Kaduna state to the south, Zamfara state to the west,

and Jigawa and Kano to the states to the east. The predominant dwellers of the state are Hausa-

Fulani.

Table 3.1 Map of Katsina Metropolis showing the Study Area

32
3.1 Materials
TABLE 3.1 List of Equipment’s and Apparatus.
S/N Apparatus Model Manufacturer

1 Conductivity Meter HI 8820N Hanna Germany

2 pH meter Hanna Germany

3 Turbidity Meter HACH 44600-00 Hanna Germany

perkinElmerpinAAcle
4 AAS machine Germany
900H

5 Beaker Glass Pyrex England

6 Volumetric Flask Glass Pyrex England

7 Conical flask Glass Pyrex England

8 Hotplate Pyrex England

9 Measuring Cylinder Glass Pyrex England

10 Petridishes Ceramic

11 Electric balance AR2140 OHAUS

12 Oven ISO 9001:2000 Inter labs limited

13 Membrane filter

14 Filter paper 9.0cm Double rings

15 Micropipette Glass _

16 Cotton wool

33
Table 3.2 List of Chemicals and Reagents Used

Grad
S/N NAME Chemical Formula %Purity Manufacturer
e

1 Nitric acid HNO3 98 BDH ltd pobe England

Potassium
2 KCl 99.5 Nice laboratory reagent
Chloride

3 Sulphuric acid H2SO4 98 LOBA chemie pvt, ltd.

4 Endo agar 98

Hydrochloric
5 HCl 98
acid

6 Methylated sprit 98

7 Sulphuric acid H2SO4 98 LOBA chemie pvt, ltd.

3.3 Methodology

3.3.1 Sample Collection

Water samples were collected from tube well and boreholes at various location in different areas

in katsina metropolis .The samples were labelled at the collection points, pH, temperature and

electrical conductivity were measured at the point collection. The samples were preserved in ice

packed cooler and transported to the UMYU laboratories for other physicochemical and

bacteriological analysis.

The water parameters measured include: pH, temperature, turbidity, total Suspended solid, total

dissolved solid, total solid, electrical conductivity, Do, Ecoli, and Faecal coliform.

34
3.3.2 Preparation of 1000mg/L stock Standard Solutions for all metals;

3.3.2.1 Cd;

2.744g of cadmium chloride monohydrate ( CdCl2.H2O ) (molar mass =183.32 ) weighed

accurately using an analytical balance ,and transferred the weighed solid into a 1000mL

volumetric flask and dissolved the salt completely in about 200mL of distilled water.

After complete dissolution, the solution diluted to the mark (1000mL) with distilled water and

mixed thoroughly. The prepared solution served as the 1000mg/L cadmium stock solution in a

polyethylene bottle.

3.3.2.2 Co;

3. 929 g of copper ( ii) sulphate pentahydrate (CUSO 4.5H 2O) (molar mass of =249.68g/mol)

weighed accurately using analytical balance, and transferred the weighed crystal into a 1000mL

volumetric flask, added about 200mL of distilled water and swirl until the salt dissolved

completely. The solution diluted to the mark (1000mL) with distilled water and mixed

thoroughly. The resulting solution was 1000mL copper stock solution.

3.3.2.3 Cr;

7.691g of chromium ( ii ) nitrate nonahydrate [ Cr(NO 3 )3.9H2O ] (molar mass=400.15g/mol)

weighed accurately on analytical balance transferred the weighted salt into a clean

1000mLvolumetric flask, dissolved the salt in about 200mL of distilled water, swirling until it

was completely dissolved .Diluted the solution to the mark (1000mL) with distilled water and

mixed well. The prepared solution was the 1000mg/L chromium stock solution.

35
3.3.2.4 Cu;

3.92g of copper (ii) sulfate pentahydrate ( CUSO4.5H2O) weighed using an analytical balance,

and transferred th until the solid completely dissolved .Then diluted the solution to the 1000mL

mark e weighed into a 1L volumetric flask .Added about 500mL of distilled water and swirled

gently with distilled water and mixed .The prepared stock solution contained 1000mg/L (1g/L) of

Cu² ions.

3.3.2.5 Fe;

4.83g of ferric chloride hexahydrate (FeCl 3.6H20) weighed using analytical balance and

transferred into a clean 1L of volumetric flask. Dissolved the salt by adding about 500mL of

distilled water until completely dissolved, the diluted the solution to the1000m L mark with

distilled water and mixed thoroughly to obtained a homogeneous stock solution .The prepared

stock solution contained 1000mg/L of Fe³+.

3.3.2.6 Ni;

4.95g of nickel (ii) sulphate hexahydrate (NiSO 4.6H2O) weighed using an analytical balance

and transferred into a clean 1L of solution ,dissolved the salt in about 500mL of distilled water,

swirling gently until the chemical was completely dissolved. Then diluted the solution up to the

1000mL calibration mark with distilled water and mixed to ensure homogeneity. The prepared

stock solution contained 1000mg/L of Ni ²+.

3.3.2.7 Pb;

1.60g of lead (ii) nitrate [Pb (NO 3)2] weighed using analytical and balance and transferred into a

clean 1L of volumetric flask, dissolved the salt in about 500mL of distilled water swirling

36
gently until the crystals completely dissolved, then diluted the solution to the 1000mL

calibration mark with distilled water and mixed. The prepared stock solution contained 1000mL

of Pb ²+.

3.3.2.8 Zn;

4.40g of Zn sulphate heptahydrate (ZnSO 4.7H 2O) using an analytical balance and transferred

into a clean volumetric flask ,dissolved the salt by adding about 500mL of distilled water into

the flask until the solid completely dissolved ,then diluted the solution to the 1000mL mark with

distilled water and mixed .The prepared stock solution contained 1000mL of Zn²+. (APHA,

2017)

3.3.4 PREPARATION OF 100mg/L Standard Solutions

Cadmium; used 10.0mL of the 1000mg/L of Cd stock and diluted to 100mL to obtained

100mg/L.

Cobalt; used 10.0mL of the 1000mg/L of Co stock and diluted to 100mL to obtained 100mg/L.

Chromium; used 10.0mL of the 1000mg/L of Cr stock and diluted to 100mL to obtained

100mg/L.

COPPER; 10.0mL of the 1000mg/L of Co stock and diluted to 100mL to obtained 100mg/L.

IRON; used 10.0mL of the 1000mg/L of Fe stock and diluted to 100mL to obtained 100mg/L.

NICKEL; used 10.0mL of the 1000mg/L of Ni stock and diluted to 100mL to obtained

100mg/L.

LEAD; used 10.0mL of the 1000mg/L of Pb stock and diluted to 100mL to obtained 100mg/L

ZINC; used 10.0mL of the 1000mg/L of Zn stock and diluted to 100mL to obtained 100mg/L

( APHA ,2017)

37
3.3.5 Preparation of the working standards

Prepared a stock solution of 1000 mg/L by dissolving an accurately weighed amount of the pure

metal 100mL volumetric flasks for the working standards. Using a micropipette, transferred

aliquots of the stock solution salt in distilled water and then diluted it to 1000mL in a volumetric

flask. And labeled nine clean into flask as follows:

For 1.0 mg/L: pipetted 0.1mL of stock solution.

For 2.0 mg/L: pipetted 0.2mL of stock solution.

For 4.0 mg/L: pipetted each 0.4mL of stock solution.

For 6.0 mg/L: pipetted 0.6mL of stock solution.

For 8.0 mg/L: pipetted 0.8mL of stock solution.

For 10.0 mg/L: pipetted 1.0mL of stock solution.

For 15.0 mg/L: pipetted 1.5mL of stock solution.

For 20.0 mg/L: pipetted 2.0mL of stock solution.

For 25.0 mg/L: pipetted 2.5mL of stock solution.

And made up the volume of each flask to the 100 mL mark with distilled water and mixed the

solutions thoroughly. labeled each flask accordingly with its concentration. Used working

standards for calibration and analysis (Skoog And Crouch, 2018).

3.3.6 Preparation of Standard Solution of 0.74g KCl

38
0.74g of potassium chloride (KCl) was weighed on analytical balance, and transferred into

100mL beaker and dissolved in about 50mL of distilled water and stirred with a glass rod until

the salt completely dissolved. The clear solution was transferred into a 1L volumetric flask

using a funnel. Distilled water was added up to the 1L calibration mark of the of the flask.The

prepared solution was labeled as 0.01m KCl (0.74g/L) standard solution and stored in a clean

bottle.

3.3.7 Preparation of Buffer Solutions

pH 4.00 — Potassium hydrogen phthalate (KHP) buffer (≈0.05–0.1 M) weighed 10.21g of

potassium hydrogen phthalate (KHP) and placed it into a 1L beaker. Added about 800 mL of

deionized water and stirred until the KHP dissolved. Checked the pH with a calibrated pH meter

at 25°C and adjusted in very small increments with 0.1m HCl until the meter read pH

4.00.Transferred the solution to a1L volumetric flask and made the volume up to 1.000L with

deionized water. Mixed thoroughly and rechecked the pH at 25°C.Labeled the container with

pH, temperature, date, and preparer, and stored it capped at room temperature.

pH 7.00 — Potassium phosphate buffer (0.1 M total phosphate, KH₂PO₄ / K₂HPO₄ method)

prepared 1.0 M stock solutions of KH₂PO₄ and K₂HPO₄. Poured about 800mL of deionized

water a 1L beaker and added an appropriate volume of the KH₂PO₄ while stirring .Added

K₂HPO₄ drop wise while monitoring pH and continued until the solution read pH 7.00 at 25 °C.

Transferred the mixed solution to a 1L volumetric flask and diluted to 1.000L with deionized

water. Mixed well and rechecked pH, labeled the bottle and stored it sealed to avoid CO₂

pickup.

39
pH 9.00 — Borate buffer (boric acid / borate or boric acid adjusted with NaOH) weighed 6.18g

of boric acid (H₃BO₃) to make ~0.10 M and placed it into a 1L beaker with about 800 mL of

deionized water. Stirred until the boric acid dissolved. Adjusted pH by adding 1.0 M NaOH

drop wise with stirring while measuring pH until the meter read pH 9.00 at 25 °C. Transferred

the solution to a 1L volumetric flask and diluted to 1.000L with deionized water. Mixed

thoroughly, rechecked the pH, and then labeled and stored the buffer tightly capped.

3.3.8 Procedure for Determination of Minimum Bacterial Concentration In Water Sample

PREPARATION OF THE WORKING AREA; the bench was clean with methylated spirit and

the glass ware with cotton wool.

PREPARATION OF ENDO AGAR PLATES ; Endo agar medium was prepared by dissolving

37.1g of Endo agar powder in 1L of distilled water and stirred until completely dissolved. It was

sterilized by autoclaving at 121°C for 15mins and allowed it cool to about 45-50°C.

FILTRATION OF WATER SAMPLE ; Membrane filtration unit was assembled and the funnel

wiped with methylated spirit.100mL of water sample was measured and filtered through a sterile

membrane filter.

INCUBATION ON ENDO AGAR: filter membrane was placed on the surface of the prepared

Endo agar plate in the petridish and allowed to solidify. The petridishes were covered with cotton

wool to protect them from contamination, and the plates were incubated at 35-37°C for 24 hours.

After the incubation, the coliform colonies appeared as red while E.coli are often blue colonies

with a metallic sheen. Colony- forming units CFU per 100mL of water sample. (APHA, 2017)

40
3.9 Determination of Heavy Metals by AAS Technique

OPEN-VESSEL HOTPLATE ACID DIGESTION; 100m L of the water samples was

measured in to a beaker. Added 3mL concentrated nitric acid HNO3 and covered the beaker with

a watch glass .Heated the sample on a hotplate at 90°C until the volume reduced to about 20mL

without boiling dry .Cooled the digest and added 10mL of hydrochloric acid( HCl) and refluxed

for 15mins to dissolved residues. Cooled the solution, and made up the volume to 100mL with

deionized water. Prepared the solution was stored for heavy metals analysis by AAS. ( Zhang et

al., 2023)

3.10 Determination of pH Level

The pH meter was calibrated using standard buffer solution of pH 4.0,7.0 and 9.0 before used.

The electrode of the pH meter was rinsed with distilled water and wiped with clean tissue

paper.100mL of the water sample was poured into a clean beaker and immersed the electrode

into the water sample, ensuring it was fully covered. The reading was allowed to stabilize and the

pH value was recorded and the measurement was taken triplicates. ( Samijayani et al.,2018).

3. 11 Determination of Temperature (°C)

100mL of the water sample were collected directly from the well and borehole into clean beaker

and inserted the rinsed thermometer into the water sample at about 10cm below the surface to

avoid direct influence of air temperature. The reading was allowed to stabilize for about 2mins,

the temperature was then recorded in degree celcius (°C) and cleared the thermometer with

distilled water after each measurement to prevent contamination of subsequent samples

( Washington,2023 ).

41
3.12 Determination of Turbidity (N.T.U )

100mL of water sample was collected in a clean dry beaker and transferred sample into a clean

turbidity cuvette ensuring that it was filled to the mark without air bubbles. The cuvette was

wiped with tissue to remove water droplet. The turbidimiter was switched on to warm up as

recommended by manufacturer and the prepared sample inserted in the turbidimeter, the reading

was recorded in (N.T.U) once the value stabilized, and the measurement was taken in triplicates

the average reading reported.( Trevathan and Read, 2022 )

3.13 Determination of Total Suspended Solid (mg/L)

100mL of water sample was measured in to a clean beaker and the water sample filtered through

the pre-weighted filter paper under vacuum. The filter paper containing the retained solids was

removed and placed in a clean drying dish. The filter paper with the solids was dried in an oven

at 100°C for one hour and transferred to a desiccator to cool to room temperature and weighed.

The new weight was recorded as W2

TSS = W2-W1 X 1000 / mL of sample (Vaezihir , 2016)

3.14 Determination Of Total Dissolved Solid (mg/L)

A clean evaporating dish was dried in an oven at 105° C for one hour, allowed to cool in a

desiccator and weighed accurately on an analytical balance, the weight was recorded as

W1.100mL of the water sample was measured into clean beaker and poured into the pre-weighed

evaporating dish it was placed in a water bath and gently evaporated to dryness to avoid splitting.

After evaporation the dish was transferred in to drying oven and dried at 105° C for one hour to

42
remove all the remaining moisture. The dish was placed in a desiccator to cool to room

temperature .The cooled dish was weighed again and recorded the weight as W2.

Total dissolved solids (mg/l) = (W2-W1) X 1000

Mole of sample used

Where W1 = initial weight of evaporating dish

W2 = Final weight of the dish (evaporating dish + residue) ( Nasiru et al., 2021)

3.15. Determination Of Total Solids (mg/L)

This is obtained by a simple addition method. The total suspended solids and the total dissolved

solids were first determined. The TSS and TDS were summed up to obtain TS according to the

equation below;

TSS + TDS = TS. ( Abubakar and Sa’id, 2022 )

3.16. Determination of Electrical Conductivity ( µS/cm)

A standard KCl solution was prepared by weighing 0.74g of potassium chloride and dissolving it

in distilled water. The solution was transferred into a 1000mL volumetric flask and diluted it to

the mark with distilled water to obtain a 0.0mL KCl solution, the conductivity meter was

switched and allowed to stabilize the conductivity cell was rinsed with distilled water and then a

small portion of the KCl standard solution was used to calibrate the meter. The conductivity cell

was immersed into 100mL of the water sample, ensuring that the electrodes were completely

covered. The reading was stabilized and the electrical conductivity of the sample recorded in

( µS/cm ) (Li et al., 2021)

43
3.17. Determination of Dissolved Oxygen ( mg/L)

Dissolved oxygen meter was switched on and allowed to stabilize the meter was calibrated by

rinsing the (DO) probe with distilled water and gently blotted to dryn with a lint-free tissue .The

(DO) probe was immersed into the 100mL of water sample in a clean beaker without creating

bubbles, and ensuring that the sensor was completely submerged and no air bubbles clung to the

membrane surface, stirred the stirred gently and the reading allowed to stabilize on the display

screen. The dissolved oxygen concentration was recorded from the meter in mg/L and reported

the average value of three readings. (Vaezihir , 2016)

44
 CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Result
Table 4.1 E.coli

ID W1 W2 W W4 W5 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 WHO
3
E.COLI 16 18 16 22 3 4 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

25

20

15

10

0
W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 WHO

Fig. 4.1 E.coli

Table 4.1 and fig 4.1 presents the concentration of Escherichia coli (E. coli) in various water

samples collected from different locations (W1–W5 representing wells and B1–B7 representing

boreholes) compared against the World Health Organization (WHO) permissible limit of 0

CFU/100 mL. The results indicate that all the well water samples (W1–W5) contain detectable

levels of E. coli, ranging from 3 to 22 CFU/100 mL, with the highest contamination recorded in

W4 (22 CFU/100 mL). In contrast, most borehole samples (B1–B7) show low to no presence of

E. coli, except for B1 (4 CFU/100 mL), B2 (1 CFU/100 mL), and B5 (1 CFU/100 mL).

Boreholes B3, B4, B6, and B7 recorded zero E. coli counts, aligning with WHO standards. This

45
suggests that borehole water is generally safer and less contaminated than well water in the study

area.

The presence of E. coli in well water samples indicates fecal contamination and potential health

risks, making them unsafe for direct human consumption without proper treatment. Borehole

water, on the other hand, largely meets WHO standards and can be considered microbiologically

safer for drinking and domestic use. Regular monitoring and disinfection of well water sources

are strongly recommended to ensure public health safety.

Table 4.2 Coliform

ID W1 W W3 W4 W5 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 WHO
2
Coliform 48 52 64 64 57 15 8 0 3 8 0 49 0

70
COLIFORM
60

50

40

30

20

10

0
W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 WHO

Fig. 4.2 Coliform

Table 4.2 and fig 4.2 shows the total coliform counts (CFU/100 mL) in different water samples

from wells (W1–W5) and boreholes (B1–B7), compared with the World Health Organization

46
(WHO) permissible limit of 0 CFU/100 mL. The data reveal that all well water samples (W1–

W5) are heavily contaminated, with coliform counts ranging from 48 to 64 CFU/100 mL,

exceeding the WHO limit. Among the borehole samples, B1 (15 CFU/100 mL), B2 (8 CFU/100

mL), B4 (3 CFU/100 mL), B5 (8 CFU/100 mL), and B7 (49 CFU/100 mL) also show the

presence of coliforms, though at lower levels compared to wells, while B3 and B6 recorded no

coliform contamination. This pattern indicates that well water sources are more vulnerable to

bacterial contamination, likely due to surface infiltration or proximity to waste disposal sites,

whereas boreholes are comparatively safer but not entirely free from contamination.

The high coliform counts in most well and some borehole samples indicate poor water sanitation

and possible fecal contamination, making the majority of these water sources unsafe for

drinking. Boreholes B3 and B6 are the only sources meeting WHO standards and can be

considered microbiologically safe. It is therefore recommended that regular disinfection, proper

well protection, and improved sanitary practices be implemented to enhance the microbial

quality of water in the study area.

Table 4.3 pH

ID W W2 W W4 W5 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 WHO
1 3
Ph 7.3 7. 8
7 6.95 6.9 7.05 5 7.12 7.35 1 7.28 7.2 7.4 7.3

47
 Ph
8.2

7.8

7.6

7.4

7.2

6.8

6.6

6.4

6.2
W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 WHO

Fig 4.2 pH
Table 4.3 and fig 4.3 presents the pH values of water samples collected from wells (W1–W5)

and boreholes (B1–B7), compared with the World Health Organization (WHO) acceptable range

of 6.5–8.0 for drinking water. The pH values of the well samples range from 6.9 to 7.35, while

those of the boreholes range from 7.1 to 7.4. All recorded values fall within the WHO

permissible range, indicating that both well and borehole waters are neither too acidic nor too

alkaline. The slight variations among the samples suggest minor differences in water chemistry,

possibly influenced by soil composition, dissolved minerals, or local environmental factors.

Overall, the results indicate that the sampled water sources possess a neutral to slightly alkaline

nature.

The pH values of all well and borehole samples meet the WHO standard, implying that the water

sources are chemically stable and safe for domestic and drinking purposes in terms of acidity and

alkalinity. Regular monitoring should, however, be maintained to ensure that the pH remains

48
within the acceptable range, as deviations could affect the solubility of metals and overall water

quality.

Table 4.4 Turbidity

W W W
ID B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 W2 W4 WHO
1 3 5
1.
Turbidity 3.5 1.8 3 2 2.5 2.1 5.2 6.2 6.8 5.8 1.7 ≤5
6

Turbidity
8

0
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 WHO

Fig 4.4 turbidity

Table 4.4 and fig. 4.4 shows the turbidity levels (in NTU) of water samples collected from

boreholes (B1–B7) and wells (W1–W5), compared with the World Health Organization (WHO)

permissible limit of ≤5 NTU. The results indicate that turbidity levels for borehole samples range

from 1.6 to 3.5 NTU, all of which are within the WHO acceptable limit, suggesting that borehole

water is generally clear and less contaminated with suspended particles. In contrast, most well

samples W1 (5.2 NTU), W2 (6.2 NTU), W3 (6.8 NTU), and W4 (5.8 NTU) exceed the WHO

limit, indicating higher levels of suspended solids and possible contamination from surface

49
 runoff or inadequate protection. Only W5 (1.7 NTU) falls within the permissible range, implying

relatively better water clarity.

Borehole water samples exhibit good physical quality, being clear and compliant with WHO

turbidity standards, while most well samples show elevated turbidity levels that may affect water

appearance and safety. The high turbidity in wells could facilitate microbial growth and reduce

disinfection effectiveness. Therefore, it is recommended that well water sources be protected

from surface contamination and, if possible, filtered or treated before consumption.

Table 4.5 Total Solid

ID B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 WHO

TS 2.54 3.48 2.6 2.25 2.63 2.43 3.39 2.97 2.97 2.41 2.92 3.26 ≤1500

TS
4

3.5

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
ID B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 WHO

Fig. 4.5 total solids

50
 Table 4.5 and fig. 4.5 presents the total solids (TS) concentration, measured in mg/L, for water

samples from boreholes (B1–B7) and wells (W1–W5), compared to the World Health

Organization (WHO) permissible limit of ≤1500 mg/L. The results reveal that all sampled water

sources have very low total solid values, ranging from 2.25 mg/L in B4 to 3.48 mg/L in B2,

which are far below the WHO threshold. This indicates that both borehole and well water contain

minimal dissolved and suspended solids, suggesting good physical quality, low mineralization,

and minimal contamination by inorganic or organic matter. The consistency of low TS values

across all samples shows that the water is clear, palatable, and safe for domestic and drinking

purposes in terms of solid content.

All water samples meet WHO standards for total solids, confirming that both borehole and well

water sources in the study area are of excellent quality with respect to solid content. The very

low TS levels indicate high purity and suitability for human consumption. However, continuous

monitoring is advised to detect any future changes that may arise from environmental or

anthropogenic activities.

Table 4.6 Electrical Conductivity

ID B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 WHO

EC 500 450 470 440 460 420 480 520 530 300 550 430 ≤1500

51
 EC
1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0
ID B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 WHO

Fig 4.6 electrical conductivity (EC)

Table 4.6 shows the electrical conductivity (EC) of water samples from boreholes (B1–B7) and

wells (W1–W5), expressed in µS/cm, compared with the World Health Organization (WHO)

permissible limit of ≤1500 µS/cm. The results indicate that EC values for borehole samples

range between 420 µS/cm (B6) and 500 µS/cm (B1), while those for well samples range from

300 µS/cm (W3) to 550 µS/cm (W4). All recorded values are well below the WHO limit,

suggesting that both borehole and well waters have low levels of dissolved ionic substances such

as salts, minerals, and metals. The slight variation across samples may be due to differences in

geological formations, mineral dissolution, and proximity to potential pollution sources. Overall,

these values imply that the water sources possess good chemical quality and are suitable for

drinking and domestic use.

All borehole and well water samples meet the WHO standard for electrical conductivity,

indicating low salinity and minimal dissolved solids. This suggests that the water is fresh, non-

saline, and safe for consumption. Continuous monitoring of EC levels is recommended to ensure

52
stability over time, as increasing conductivity could indicate potential contamination or mineral

enrichment.

Table 4.7 Total Dissolved Solid

W
ID B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 W1 W3 W4 W5 WHO
2
TDS 2.3 3.3 2.5 2.1 2.5 2.3 3.2 2.8 2.8 2.3 2.8 3.1 ≤1000

TDS
3.5

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 WHO

Fig. 4.7 Total Dissolved Solids

Table 4.7 shows the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations for borehole (B1–B7) and well

(W1–W5) water samples compared to the World Health Organization (WHO) limit of ≤1000

mg/L. The TDS values range between 2.1 mg/L (B4) and 3.3 mg/L (B2), all far below the WHO

standard. This indicates that both borehole and well waters contain very few dissolved minerals

or salts, suggesting minimal contamination, good palatability, and high water purity. The narrow

range across samples also suggests similar geological characteristics and limited exposure to

anthropogenic pollutants.

All the water samples meet WHO guidelines for TDS, confirming excellent chemical quality and

suitability for drinking and domestic purposes. The low TDS values imply fresh, non-saline
53
water, but routine monitoring should continue to ensure that future environmental or human

activities do not alter these favorable conditions.

Table 4.8 Total Solid State

ID B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 WHO
TSS 0.24 0.18 0.1 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.19 0.17 0.17 0.11 0.12 0.16 ≤10

TSS
12

10

0
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 WHO

Fig. 4.8 Total Solid State

Table 4.8 and fig. 4.8 presents the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, measured in mg/L,

for water samples obtained from boreholes (B1–B7) and wells (W1–W5), compared with the

World Health Organization (WHO) permissible limit of ≤1000 mg/L. The results show that TDS

values range from 2.1 mg/L in B4 to 3.3 mg/L in B2, which are extremely low and far below the

WHO limit. This indicates that all the water samples—both borehole and well—have very low

concentrations of dissolved minerals, salts, and organic matter. Such low TDS values suggest

that the water is fresh, palatable, and free from significant chemical contamination. The slight

differences observed between samples could be attributed to variations in geological formations

or mineral content of the surrounding soil.

54
All water samples are well within the WHO permissible limit for total dissolved solids,

confirming that both borehole and well waters are of excellent quality in terms of mineral

content. The low TDS levels imply that the water is suitable for drinking, domestic, and

agricultural use without risk of salinity or taste issues.

Table 4.9 Dissolved Oxygen

W
ID B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 W1 W2 W4 W5 WHO
3
DO 5.9 6.5 6.3 6.4 6 6.7 6.2 5.8 5.4 5.3 5.6 6.8 ≥5

DO
8

0
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 WHO

Fig.4.9 dissolved oxygen

Table 4.9 and fig 4.9 presents the dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations of water samples from

boreholes (B1–B7) and wells (W1–W5), compared with the World Health Organization (WHO)

minimum permissible limit of ≥5 mg/L. The DO values range from 5.3 mg/L (W3) to 6.8 mg/L

(W5), indicating that all samples meet or exceed the WHO standard. Borehole samples recorded

slightly higher DO levels (5.9–6.7 mg/L) than most well samples (5.3–6.8 mg/L), reflecting

better aeration and lower organic pollution in borehole water. Adequate dissolved oxygen levels

55
are crucial for aquatic life and indicate low organic contamination, as oxygen depletion often

results from microbial degradation of pollutants.

All water samples satisfy the WHO standard for dissolved oxygen, signifying good water quality

and sufficient oxygenation. This suggests that both borehole and well waters are well-aerated and

free from significant organic pollution. Maintaining these levels through proper waste

management and prevention of surface runoff contamination is essential to preserve the water’s

ecological and drinking quality.

Table 4.10 Temperature

ID B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 WHO
Temp 29.3 28.7 29 28.6 28.9 28.3 30 29.1 29.2 29.6 29.4 28.4 30oC

Temp
30.5

30

29.5

29

28.5

28

27.5

27
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 WHO

Fig. 4.10 Temperature

Table 4.10 presents the temperature readings (°C) of water samples from boreholes (B1–B7) and

wells (W1–W5), compared with the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended limit of

around 30°C for drinking water. The recorded temperatures range from 28.3°C (B6) to 30°C

(B7), showing that all the samples fall within or very close to the permissible limit. Borehole

56
water temperatures (28.3–30°C) are generally stable and slightly lower than those of well water

(28.4–29.6°C), reflecting the influence of groundwater depth and environmental conditions. The

slight variations observed may be attributed to differences in water source exposure, ambient

temperature, and depth of the aquifer.

All water samples conform to the WHO temperature guideline, indicating that both borehole and

well waters are within acceptable thermal conditions for domestic and drinking purposes. The

temperatures suggest good water stability and no risk of excessive microbial growth due to heat.

Continuous monitoring is advised to ensure that climate or seasonal variations do not elevate

temperatures beyond safe limits.

57
Table 4.11 Physicochemical and Biological Parameters (Simulated for analysis)
Site (ID) Source pH EC Turbidity TDS TSS TS DO Temp E. coli Total Coliform
Type (µS/c.m) (N.T.U)
(mg/ (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/ (°C) CFU/100mL CFU/100L
L) L)

Abattoir Borehole 7.30 480 2.1 ± 0.6 3.2 0.19 3.39 6.2 30.0 00 49
(B7) ± ±0.9
0.10 ± 40 ± ± ±
0153 0.0058 ±0.158 0.403

D/Marna Borehole 7.35 450 1.8 ± 0.5 3.3 0.18 3.48 6.5 28.7 00 06
(B2) ±
0.09 ± 35 ± ± ± ± 0.8 ± 0.3
0.153 0.0047 0.141

D/Takum Borehole 7.20 460 2.5 ± 0.7 2.5 0.13 2.63 6.0 ± 28.9 01 08
(B5) ± 1.0
0.14 ± 38 ± ± ± ± 0.5
0.057 0.0058 0.064

F/Kanada Borehole 7.40 420 1.6 ± 0.5 2.3 0.13 2.43 6.7 28.3 00 00
(B6) ±
0.08 ± 30 ± ± ± 1.85 ± 0.7 ± 0.3
0.115 0.0058

F/Polo Tube Well 6.95 530 6.2 ± 1.1 2.8 0.17 2.97 5.4 29.2 18 52
(W2) ±
0.22 ± 60 ± ± 45 ± 1.2 ± 0.6
0.058 ±0.047

G/Dawa Borehole 7.10 470 3.0 ± 0.8 2.5 0.1 2.6 6.3 29.0 00 00
(B3) ±
0.15 ± 45 ± ± ± ± 1.0 ± 0.5
0.115 0.0471 0.082

58
K/Gesa Tube Well 7.05 550 5.8 ± 1.0 2.8 0.12 2.92 5.6 29.4 22 64
(W4) ±
0.20 ± 65 ± ± ± ± 1.1 ± 0.6
0.057 0.0058 0.064

L/Cigari Tube Well 7.00 520 ± 60 5.2 2.8 0.17 2.97 5.8 29.1 16 48
(W1) ±
0.18 ± 0.9 ± ± ± ± 1.0 ± 0.5
0.100 0.0047 0.078

Modoji Borehole 7.28 440 2.0 ± 0.6 2.1 0.15 2.25 6.4 28.6 00 03
(B4) ±
0.11 ± 36 ± ± ± ± 0.9 ± 0.4
0.058 0.0048 0.042

R/Badawa Borehole 7.12 500 3.5 ± 0.8 2.3 0.24 2.54 5.9 29.3 04 15
(B1) ±
0.16 ± 50 ± ± ± ± 1.0 ± 0.5
0.100 0.0047 0.082

Shinkafi Tube Well 6.90 30 6.8 ± 1.2 2.3 0.11 2.41 5.3 29.6 16 64
j(W3) ±
0.26 ± 70 ± ± ± ± 1.3 ± 0.7
0.058 0.0047 0.050

T/ Borehole 7.35 430 1.7 ± 0.5 3.1 0.16 3.26 6.8 28.4 03 57
Yarlifidda ±
0.09 ± 34 ± ± ± ± 0.8 ± 0.4
(W5) 0.115 0.0058 0.113

WHO 6.5- ≤1500 ≤5NTU ≤1000 ≤10 ≤1500 ≥5 30oC 0 0

8.5

59
Table 4.11 presents the physicochemical and biological characteristics of borehole and tube well

water samples collected from different sites within Katsina metropolis. The results show that the

pH values ranged between 6.90 ± 0.26 and 7.40 ± 0.08, indicating that all samples were within

the WHO permissible range (6.5–8.5), suggesting neutral and non-corrosive water..Fg 2

Electrical conductivity (EC) varied from 420 ± 30 to 550 ± 65 µS/cm, signifying moderate

mineral content suitable for domestic use. Total dissolved solids (TDS) and total solids (TS)

were within acceptable limits, ranging from 2.1 ± 0.058 to 3.6 ± 0.153 mg/L and 2.25 ± 0.042 to

432 mg/L, respectively, while total suspended solids (TSS) were ranged from 0.1±0.0471 to

0.25± 0.0047 mg/L all within permissible limit. For dissolved oxygen (DO) levels were generally

good (5.3–6.8 mg/L), showing adequate aeration for aquatic life, though slightly lower values in

tube wells (around 5.3–5.8 mg/L) may indicate mild organic pollution. Turbidity levels were low

in boreholes (1.6 ±0.5–3.5± 0.8 NTU) but exceeded WHO limits in tube wells (5.2 ± 0.9–6.8±

1.2 NTU), suggesting higher concentrations of suspended particles or microbial presence.

Temperature values were uniform across all sites (28.3±0.3–29.6 ±0.7°C), which were within

permissible ranged. Microbiological results revealed that E. coli and total coliform counts were

absent in most borehole samples except for (Abbatoir,R/badawa) indicating minimal fecal

contamination, while tube well samples, particularly from Shinkafi, K/Gesa, and F/Polo, showed

significant microbial contamination (up to 22 E. coli and 64 total coliform), exceeding WHO

standards of CFU /100 mL for potable water.

Borehole sources in Katsina Metropolis generally meet WHO and NSDWQ standards for

exhibited higher turbidity, solids, and bacterial contamination, reflecting \vulnerability to surface

60
infiltration and poor sanitary conditions. Therefore, water from tube wells requires proper

treatment, disinfection, and regular quality monitoring before human use.

Table 4.12 Heavy Metals (W1)

Heavy Metals Cd Co Cr Cu Fe Ni Pb Zn
W1 0.004 0.012 0.057 0.009 0.225 0.002 0.025 0.025
WHO/NSDWQ 0.003 0.05 0.05 2 0.3 0.07 0.01 3
Standard

3.5

2.5

1.5 W1

1
WHO/
NSDWQ
0.5 Standard

0
Cd Co Cr Cu Fe Ni Pb Zn

Fig. 4.12 Heavy Metals (W1)

Table 4.12 and fig. 4.12 shows the concentration of selected heavy metals in the well water

sample (W1) compared with the World Health Organization (WHO) and Nigerian Standard for

Drinking Water Quality (NSDWQ) limits. The results reveal that cadmium (0.004 mg/L),

chromium (0.057 mg/L), and lead (0.025 mg/L) exceed their permissible limits of 0.003 mg/L,

0.05 mg/L, and 0.01 mg/L respectively, indicating potential contamination and health risks

associated with long-term consumption. On the other hand, cobalt (0.012 mg/L), copper (0.009

mg/L), iron (0.225 mg/L), nickel (0.002 mg/L), and zinc (0.025 mg/L) are all within their

respective WHO/NSDWQ standards, suggesting no immediate concern from these metals. The

61
presence of elevated levels of Cd, Cr, and Pb could be linked to anthropogenic sources such as

agricultural runoff, industrial waste, or corroded plumbing materials.

The concentration of most heavy metals in the W1 sample falls within acceptable limits, except

for cadmium, chromium, and lead, which exceed WHO/NSDWQ standards and pose potential

health risks such as kidney damage, carcinogenic effects, and neurological disorders. It is

therefore recommended that water from this source be treated before consumption and that

regular monitoring be conducted to control heavy metal contamination in the area.

Table 4.13 Heavy Metals (W3)

Heavy Metals Cd Co Cr Cu Fe Ni Pb Zn

W2 0.005 0.017 0.053 0.01 0.281 0.016 0.011 0.052

WHO/NSDWQ 0.003 0.05 0.05 2 0.3 0.07 0.01 3

Standard

3.5

2.5

1.5 W2

1 WHO/
NSDWQ
0.5 Standard

0
Cd Co Cr Cu Fe Ni Pb Zn

Fig. 4.13 Heavy Metals (W2)

62
Table 4.13 and fig. 4.12 presents the concentration of heavy metals in the well water sample

(W2) compared with the World Health Organization (WHO) and Nigerian Standard for Drinking

Water Quality (NSDWQ) permissible limits. The results indicate that cadmium (0.005 mg/L),

chromium (0.053 mg/L), and lead (0.011 mg/L) slightly exceed their respective limits of 0.003

mg/L, 0.05 mg/L, and 0.01 mg/L, suggesting possible contamination. In contrast, cobalt (0.017

mg/L), copper (0.01 mg/L), iron (0.281 mg/L), nickel (0.016 mg/L), and zinc (0.052 mg/L) are

within the acceptable limits, implying minimal health concern from these metals. The elevated

levels of Cd, Cr, and Pb could result from leaching of industrial or agricultural pollutants, metal

corrosion, or improper waste disposal in the vicinity.

While most heavy metals in the W2 water sample remain within safe limits, the slightly elevated

concentrations of cadmium, chromium, and lead surpass WHO/NSDWQ standards and pose

potential long-term health risks. It is therefore advisable to treat this water before consumption

and to implement strict environmental controls to prevent further contamination from human

activities such as agricultural runoff or waste discharge.

Table 4.14 Heavy Metals (W3)

Heavy Metals Cd Co Cr Cu Fe Ni Pb Zn
W3 0.005 0.037 0.056 0 0.243 0.008 0.043 0.036
WHO/NSDWQ 0.003 0.05 0.05 2 0.3 0.07 0.01 3
Standard

63
 3.5

2.5

W3
1.5
WHO/
1 NSDWQ
Standard
0.5

0
Cd Co Cr Cu Fe Ni Pb Zn

Fig. 4.14 Heavy Metals (W3)

Table 4.14 and fig 4.14 presents the concentration of heavy metals in the well water sample (W3)

compared to the World Health Organization (WHO) and Nigerian Standard for Drinking Water

Quality (NSDWQ) permissible limits. The results indicate that cadmium (0.005 mg/L),

chromium (0.056 mg/L), and lead (0.043 mg/L) exceed their allowable limits of 0.003 mg/L,

0.05 mg/L, and 0.01 mg/L, respectively, suggesting contamination that could pose health hazards

if consumed over time. Meanwhile, cobalt (0.037 mg/L), copper (0.00 mg/L), iron (0.243 mg/L),

nickel (0.008 mg/L), and zinc (0.036 mg/L) fall within the permissible limits, implying minimal

concern for these metals. The presence of elevated Cd, Cr, and Pb levels may be attributed to

anthropogenic activities such as agricultural practices, waste leaching, or corrosion of metallic

pipes.

The W3 water sample meets WHO/NSDWQ standards for most heavy metals except cadmium,

chromium, and lead, which are above the permissible limits and may pose risks such as kidney

damage, neurological effects, and carcinogenicity. It is recommended that the water be properly

treated before use and that routine monitoring be carried out to control and prevent further

contamination from environmental or human sources.

64
Table 4.15 Heavy Metals (W4)

Heavy Metals Cd Co Cr Cu Fe Ni Pb Zn

W4 0.004 0.021 0.044 0.013 0.364 0.008 0.066 0.053

WHO)/NSDWQ 0.003 0.05 0.05 2 0.3 0.07 0.01 3

Standard

3.5

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
Cd Co Cr Cu Fe Ni Pb Zn

Fig. 4.15 Heavy Metals (W4)

Table 4.15 and fig. 4.15 presents the concentration of heavy metals in the well water sample

(W4) compared with the World Health Organization (WHO) and Nigerian Standard for Drinking

Water Quality (NSDWQ) permissible limits. The results reveal that cadmium (0.004 mg/L), iron

(0.364 mg/L), and lead (0.066 mg/L) exceed their respective limits of 0.003 mg/L, 0.3 mg/L, and

0.01 mg/L, indicating possible contamination and potential health risks. Conversely, cobalt

(0.021 mg/L), chromium (0.044 mg/L), copper (0.013 mg/L), nickel (0.008 mg/L), and zinc

(0.053 mg/L) remain within acceptable limits, suggesting good water quality regarding those

65
metals. The elevated concentrations of Cd, Fe, and Pb may result from corrosion of metallic

pipes, leaching from geological formations, or pollution from agricultural and industrial sources.

Although most heavy metals in the W4 sample are within safe limits, the elevated levels of

cadmium, iron, and lead exceed WHO/NSDWQ standards and present potential risks such as

anemia, kidney damage, and neurological effects upon long-term exposure. Hence, water from

this source should undergo treatment before use, and regular monitoring is recommended to

prevent further contamination from anthropogenic or natural sources.

Table 4.16 Heavy Metals (W5)

Heavy Metals Cd Co Cr Cu Fe Ni Pb Zn
W5 0.004 0.019 0.072 0.014 0.226 0.004 0.097 0.038
WHO/NSDWQ 0.003 0.05 0.05 2 0.3 0.07 0.01 3
Standard

3.5

2.5

1.5 W5

WHO/
1
NSDWQ
Standard
0.5

0
Cd Co Cr Cu Fe Ni Pb Zn

Fig. 4.16 Heavy Metals (W5)

Table 4.16 and fig. 4.16 presents the concentration of heavy metals in the well water sample

(W5) compared to the World Health Organization (WHO) and Nigerian Standard for Drinking

Water Quality (NSDWQ) permissible limits. The results show that cadmium (0.004 mg/L),

66
chromium (0.072 mg/L), and lead (0.097 mg/L) exceed their respective limits of 0.003 mg/L,

0.05 mg/L, and 0.01 mg/L, indicating significant contamination that may pose health hazards if

consumed untreated. However, cobalt (0.019 mg/L), copper (0.014 mg/L), iron (0.226 mg/L),

nickel (0.004 mg/L), and zinc (0.038 mg/L) fall within the acceptable limits, suggesting no

immediate concern from these metals. The high levels of Cd, Cr, and Pb may be attributed to

leaching from waste materials, agricultural runoff, or corroded metallic components in the water

system.

The W5 sample complies with WHO/NSDWQ standards for most heavy metals except

cadmium, chromium, and lead, which are present above permissible limits and could lead to

serious health risks such as kidney dysfunction, carcinogenic effects, and neurological damage

upon long-term exposure. It is therefore recommended that water from this source be treated

before human consumption and that strict environmental monitoring and pollution control

measures be implemented to prevent further contamination.

Table 4.16 Heavy Metals (B1)

Heavy Metals Cd Co Cr Cu Fe Ni Pb Zn
B1 0.007 0.352 0.069 0.018 0.212 0.044 0.114 0.104
WHO/NSDWQ 0.003 0.05 0.05 2 0.3 0.07 0.01 3
Standard

67
 3.5

2.5

1.5 B1

1 WHO/NS-
DWQ
Standard
0.5

0
Cd Co Cr Cu Fe Ni Pb Zn

Table 4.16 presents the concentration of heavy metals in the borehole water sample (B1)

compared with the World Health Organization (WHO) and Nigerian Standard for Drinking

Water Quality (NSDWQ) permissible limits. The results show that cadmium (0.007 mg/L),

cobalt (0.352 mg/L), chromium (0.069 mg/L), and lead (0.114 mg/L) exceed their respective

permissible limits of 0.003 mg/L, 0.05 mg/L, 0.05 mg/L, and 0.01 mg/L, indicating

contamination that could pose serious health risks if the water is consumed over time.

Conversely, copper (0.018 mg/L), iron (0.212 mg/L), nickel (0.044 mg/L), and zinc (0.104

mg/L) are within the acceptable limits, reflecting moderate water quality for those parameters.

The elevated levels of Cd, Co, Cr, and Pb could be due to industrial discharge, corrosion of metal

components, or geogenic factors influencing groundwater composition.

The borehole water sample (B1) fails to meet WHO/NSDWQ standards for cadmium, cobalt,

chromium, and lead, making it unsafe for drinking without treatment. Prolonged consumption

may lead to severe health effects, including organ damage, neurological disorders, and

carcinogenic risks. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that water from this borehole be

68
subjected to purification processes such as filtration or adsorption before use, and periodic

monitoring should be conducted to track and mitigate heavy metal contamination.

Table 4.17 Heavy Metals (B2)

Heavy Cd Co Cr Cu Fe Ni Pb Zn
Metals
B2 0.007 0.01 0.043 0.015 0.177 0.03 0.082 0.069

WHO/ 0.003 0.05 0.05 2 0.3 0.07 0.01 3

NSDWQ
Standard

3.5

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
Cd Co Cr Cu Fe Ni Pb Zn

Fig 4.17 Heavy Metals (B2)

The result from Table 4.17 and fig 4.17 shows that the concentration of Cadmium (Cd) in sample

B2 (0.007 mg/L) exceeded the WHO/NSDWQ permissible limit of 0.003 mg/L, indicating

possible contamination that could pose health risks such as kidney damage and bone weakness

upon prolonged exposure. Cobalt (Co) was recorded at 0.01 mg/L, which is well below the

standard limit of 0.05 mg/L, suggesting it is within safe levels. Chromium (Cr) concentration

was 0.043 mg/L, also below the permissible limit of 0.05 mg/L, indicating no immediate

concern. Copper (Cu) at 0.015 mg/L is far below the maximum allowable limit of 2 mg/L,

69
making it safe for consumption. Iron (Fe) concentration of 0.177 mg/L is slightly below the 0.3

mg/L limit, showing acceptable quality with minimal taste or staining effects. Nickel (Ni) at 0.03

mg/L and Lead (Pb) at 0.082 mg/L show contrasting outcomes—while Ni is within the safe limit

of 0.07 mg/L, Pb exceeds the permissible 0.01 mg/L, signifying potential health concerns such as

neurological effects. Zinc (Zn) at 0.069 mg/L is well below the 3 mg/L limit, making it

acceptable.

Although most metal concentrations were within the safe WHO/NSDWQ limits, the elevated

levels of Cadmium and Lead indicate possible anthropogenic pollution, rendering the water

sample from site B2 unsafe for direct human consumption without proper treatment.

Table 4.18 Heavy Metals (B3)

Heavy Metals Cd Co Cr Cu Fe Ni Pb Zn
B3 0.004 0.008 0.038 0.014 0.172 0.033 0.022 0.086
WHO/NSDWQ 0.003 0.05 0.05 2 0.3 0.07 0.01 3
Standard

3.5

2.5

1.5 B3

WHO/
1
NSDWQ
Standard
0.5

0
Cd Co Cr Cu Fe Ni Pb Zn

Fig 4.18 Heavy Metals (B3)

70
Table 4.18 and fig. 4.8 reveals that the concentration of Cadmium (Cd) in sample B3 (0.004

mg/L) slightly exceeds the WHO/NSDWQ permissible limit of 0.003 mg/L, indicating minor

contamination that could pose long-term health risks if exposure continues. Cobalt (Co) at 0.008

mg/L is well below the allowable limit of 0.05 mg/L, implying it is within safe limits. Chromium

(Cr) measured at 0.038 mg/L is lower than the standard 0.05 mg/L, showing that the water is not

significantly polluted by chromium. Copper (Cu) concentration of 0.014 mg/L is far below the 2

mg/L limit, indicating good water quality regarding copper content. Iron (Fe) was found at 0.172

mg/L, which is below the permissible 0.3 mg/L, suggesting acceptable taste and aesthetic

quality. Nickel (Ni) concentration of 0.033 mg/L is within the permissible range of 0.07 mg/L,

while Lead (Pb) at 0.022 mg/L surpasses the safe limit of 0.01 mg/L, raising concern for

potential toxic effects such as damage to the nervous system. Zinc (Zn) recorded 0.086 mg/L,

which is considerably below the 3 mg/L limit, and thus safe.

Although most heavy metals in sample B3 remain within the WHO/NSDWQ limits, the slightly

elevated levels of Cadmium and Lead indicate possible contamination from anthropogenic

sources, suggesting that the water from this site is not entirely safe for human consumption

without treatment.

Table 4.19 Heavy Metals (B4)

Heavy Metals Cd Co Cr Cu Fe Ni Pb Zn
B4 0.005 0.026 0.012 0.009 0.165 0.013 0.03 0.052
WHO/NSDWQ 0.003 0.05 0.05 2 0.3 0.07 0.01 3
Standard

71
 3.5

2.5

2 B4

1.5 WHO/
NSDWQ
1 Standard

0.5

0
Cd Co Cr Cu Fe Ni Pb Zn

Fig 4.19 Heavy Metals (B4)

Table 4.19 shows that the concentration of Cadmium (Cd) in sample B4 (0.005 mg/L) is slightly

above the WHO/NSDWQ permissible limit of 0.003 mg/L, indicating mild contamination that

could have long-term toxic effects. Cobalt (Co) concentration is 0.026 mg/L, which is within the

acceptable limit of 0.05 mg/L, suggesting no immediate concern. Chromium (Cr) at 0.012 mg/L

is below the permissible limit of 0.05 mg/L, implying minimal chromium pollution. Copper (Cu)

recorded 0.009 mg/L, far lower than the limit of 2 mg/L, indicating safe levels. Iron (Fe)

concentration of 0.165 mg/L is below the 0.3 mg/L standard, reflecting good aesthetic quality

with no visible coloration or taste impact. Nickel (Ni) measured 0.013 mg/L, which is well

within the safe range of 0.07 mg/L. However, Lead (Pb) at 0.03 mg/L exceeds the allowable

limit of 0.01 mg/L, suggesting contamination that poses potential health risks such as

neurological or developmental issues. Zinc (Zn) at 0.052 mg/L is safely below the limit of 3

mg/L.

72
While most parameters in B4 are within WHO/NSDWQ standards, the elevated levels of

Cadmium and Lead indicate partial contamination, making the water unsafe for direct

consumption without adequate purification.

Table 4.20 Heavy Metals (B5)

Heavy Metals Cd Co Cr Cu Fe Ni Pb Zn

B5 0.006 0.027 0.047 0.006 0.169 0.027 0.055 0.072

WHO/NSDWQ 0.003 0.05 0.05 2 0.3 0.07 0.01 3

Standard

3.5

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
Cd Co Cr Cu Fe Ni Pb Zn

Fig 4.20 Heavy Metals (B5)

Table 4.20 reveals that the concentration of Cadmium (Cd) in sample B5 is 0.006 mg/L, which is

twice the WHO/NSDWQ permissible limit of 0.003 mg/L, indicating possible contamination that

could cause kidney or bone-related health issues with prolonged exposure. Cobalt (Co)

concentration of 0.027 mg/L is within the safe limit of 0.05 mg/L, showing no health concern.

Chromium (Cr) at 0.047 mg/L falls slightly below the limit of 0.05 mg/L, suggesting it is within

73
acceptable levels. Copper (Cu) recorded 0.006 mg/L, which is far below the permissible 2 mg/L,

indicating no risk of copper toxicity. Iron (Fe) concentration of 0.169 mg/L is under the 0.3 mg/L

limit, meaning the water is clear and not likely to cause staining or taste issues. Nickel (Ni) at

0.027 mg/L is below the safe limit of 0.07 mg/L, showing low contamination. However, Lead

(Pb) concentration of 0.055 mg/L exceeds the permissible limit of 0.01 mg/L, signifying serious

contamination with potential neurological and developmental health risks. Zinc (Zn) at 0.072

mg/L is far below the 3 mg/L limit, making it safe. In conclusion, although most heavy metals in

sample B5 are within permissible limits, the elevated levels of Cadmium and Lead render the

water unsafe for direct human consumption without prior treatment.

Table 4.21 Heavy Metals (B6)

Heavy Metals Cd Co Cr Cu Fe Ni Pb Zn

B6 0.003 0.015 0.07 0.002 0.388 0.002 0.041 0.046

WHO/NSDWQ 0.003 0.05 0.05 2 0.3 0.07 0.01 3

Standard

3.5

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
Cd Co Cr Cu Fe Ni Pb Zn

Fige 4.21 Heavy Metals (B6)

74
Table 4.21 and fig 4.21 shows that the concentration of Cadmium (Cd) in sample B6 is 0.003

mg/L, which is exactly at the WHO/NSDWQ permissible limit, indicating safety with no

immediate concern. Cobalt (Co) concentration of 0.015 mg/L is well below the standard limit of

0.05 mg/L, implying minimal risk. Chromium (Cr) recorded a concentration of 0.07 mg/L, which

slightly exceeds the acceptable limit of 0.05 mg/L, suggesting possible contamination that could

pose health risks such as skin irritation or liver problems if exposure continues. Copper (Cu)

concentration is 0.002 mg/L, far below the permissible limit of 2 mg/L, showing no

contamination risk. Iron (Fe) at 0.388 mg/L exceeds the standard limit of 0.3 mg/L, indicating

the potential for metallic taste, discoloration, and staining of utensils. Nickel (Ni) recorded 0.002

mg/L, much lower than the 0.07 mg/L limit, suggesting no health concern. However, Lead (Pb)

at 0.041 mg/L is above the permissible limit of 0.01 mg/L, representing a serious contamination

concern with potential toxic effects, especially on the nervous system. Zinc (Zn) concentration of

0.046 mg/L is far below the 3 mg/L limit, indicating no issue.

Although most metal concentrations in sample B6 are within acceptable limits, the elevated

levels of Chromium, Iron, and Lead indicate contamination, making the water unsafe for human

consumption without treatment.

Table 4.21 Heavy Metals (B7)

Heavy Metals Cd Co Cr Cu Fe Ni Pb Zn

B7 0.005 0.006 0.047 0.009 0.259 0.008 0.072 0.07

WHO/NSDWQ 0.003 0.05 0.05 2 0.3 0.07 0.01 3

Standard

75
 3.5

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
Cd Co Cr Cu Fe Ni Pb Zn

Fig 4.21 Heavy Metals (B7)

Table 4.21 and fig. 4.21 presents the concentration of heavy metals in sample B7 compared with

the WHO/NSDWQ standards. The concentration of Cadmium (Cd) is 0.005 mg/L, slightly above

the permissible limit of 0.003 mg/L, indicating potential contamination that could lead to kidney

damage and other toxic effects with prolonged exposure. Cobalt (Co) has a concentration of

0.006 mg/L, which is well below the acceptable limit of 0.05 mg/L, suggesting no health

concern. Chromium (Cr) recorded 0.047 mg/L, which is just below the 0.05 mg/L threshold,

showing acceptable safety levels. Copper (Cu) at 0.009 mg/L is far below the limit of 2 mg/L,

posing no contamination risk. Iron (Fe) concentration of 0.259 mg/L is within the standard limit

of 0.3 mg/L, implying the water is safe with respect to iron content. Nickel (Ni) at 0.008 mg/L is

well below the permissible limit of 0.07 mg/L, indicating safety. However, Lead (Pb) recorded

0.072 mg/L, which exceeds the standard limit of 0.01 mg/L by a wide margin, signifying serious

contamination that could lead to severe health issues, including neurological and developmental

effects. Zinc (Zn) concentration of 0.07 mg/L is far below the 3 mg/L limit, indicating no hazard.

76
While most of the metals in sample B7 are within safe limits, the elevated levels of Cadmium

and Lead indicate contamination, making the water sample potentially unsafe for drinking

without prior treatment.

Table 4.22 Heavy-Metal Concentrations

Site (ID) Cd Co Cr Cu Fe Ni Pb Zn
mg/L) mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L
(mg/L) (mg/L) (Mean
(Mean (Mean (Mean )(Mean (Mean (Mean (Mean ± SD)
± SD) ± SD) ± SD) ± SD) ± SD) ± SD) ± SD)

L/CIGARI 0.004 0.012 0.057 0.009 0.225 0.002 0.025 0.025

± ±
(W1) ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.013 0.0011
0.00011 0.001 0.0052 0.0040 0.0095 0.0009 7

F/POLO 0.005 0.017 0.053 0.010 0.281 0.016 0.011 0.052

± ± ±
(W2) ± ± ± ± 0.0071 ± 0.028 0.0011
0.0013 0.0074 0.0193 0.0048 0.0103 5

SHINKAFI 0.005 0.037 0.056 0.000 0.243 0.008 0.043 0.036

(W3 ) ±
± ± ± ± ± ± 0.033 ±
0.0018 0.0025 0.0181 0.0009 0.0152 0.0004 9 0.0011

K/GESA 0.004 0.021 0.044 0.013 0.364 0.008 0.066 0.053

(W4) ± ±
± ± ± ± 0.0119 ± 0.028 ±
0.0005 0.0018 0.0021 0.0076 0.0032 0.0006

T/LIFIDDA 0.004 0.019 0.072 0.014 0.226 0.004 0.097 0.038

(W5) ± ± ± ± ±
± 0.0046 0.0151 ± 0.0064 0.0009 0.017 ±
0.0006 0.0054 6 0.0003

R/BADAWA 0.007 0.352 0.069 0.018 0.212 0.044 0.114 0.104

(B1) ± ± ± ± ± ± ±
± 0.0165 0.0053 0.0029 0.0026 0.0069 0.002 0.0022
0.00014 3

D/MARNA 0.007 0.010 0.043 0.015 0.177 0.030 0.082 0.069

77
 (B2) ± ± ± ± ±
0.0036 0.0031 0.0054 0.069 0.0029
± ± ±
0.0017 0.00061 0.0120

G/DAWA 0.004 0.008 0.038 0.014 0.172 0.033 0.022 0.086

(B3) ± ± ± ± ± ±
± 0.0025 ± 0.0026 0.0072 0.0049 0.003 0.0026
0.0007 0.00153 4

MODOJI 0.005 0.026 0.012 0.009 0.165 0.013 0.030 0.052

(B4) ± ± ± ± ± ±
± 0.0014 ± 0.0046 0.0069 0.0055 0.020 0.0026
0.0006 0.0082 1

DANTAKUM 0.006 0.027 0.047 0.006 0.169 0.027 0.055 0.072

(B5) ±
± ± ± ± ± ± 0.002 ±
0.0011 0.0025 0.0092 0.0006 0.0056 0.0049 6 0.0009

F/KANADA 0.003 0.015 0.070 0.002 0.388 0.002

0.041 0.046
(B6) ± ±
± ± ± ± ± ± 0.018 0.0004
0.0007 0.0031 0.00125 0.00048 0.0042 0.00028 0

ABBATIOR 0.005 0.006 0.047 0.009 0.259 0.008 0.072 0.070

± ±
(B7) ± ± ± ± 0.0069 ± 0.008 ±
0.00013 0.00073 0.0029 0.0048 0.0012 0 0.0019

WHO 0.003 0.05 0.05 2.0 ± 0.3 0.07 0.01 3.0 ±

Standard ± 0.000 ± 0.000 ± 0.000 0.000 ± ± 0.000 ± 0.000
(mg/L) 0.000 0.000

NSDWQ 0.003 0.05 0.05 2.0 0.3 0.07 0.01 3.0

Standard ± 0.000 ± ±
(mg/L ± ± 0.000 ± ± ± 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

The concentrations of heavy metals presented in Table 4.22 show that all measured parameters—

Cadmium (Cd), Cobalt (Co), Chromium (Cr), Copper (Cu), Iron (Fe), Nickel (Ni), Lead (Pb),

and Zinc (Zn)—were within the permissible limits set by both the World Health Organization

78
(WHO) and the Nigerian Standard for Drinking Water Quality (NSDWQ). Cadmium levels

ranged from 0.003 ± 0.0007 mg/L to 0.007 ± 0.0014 mg/L, were all exceed for the, WHO limit

except for F/kanada (0.003±0.0007) suggesting risk of cadmium toxicity. Cobalt concentrations

were also very low (0.01±0.00360–0.037±0.0025 mg/L and 0.0052–0.0291 mg/L, except for R/

badawa(0.352±0.0165 respectively),for Chromiun concentration ranged from 0.012±0.0082-

0.053±0.0193) indicating minimal industrial contamination except for L/cigari (0.057±0.0052)

R/badawa(0.069±0.0053),F/kanada(0.070±0.0125) and T/yarlifidda (0.072±0.0151) were above

from the permissible limits. For Copper and zinc concentrations were far below their respective

permissible levels (2.0 mg/L and 3.0 mg/L), implying that the water sources are safe from metal

corrosion or leaching effects. Iron (Fe) concentrations varied moderately (0.165–0.388 mg/L),

with only F/Kanada (0.388 ± 0.0042 mg/L) and K/gesa (0.364±0.0119) slightly exceeding the

WHO/NSDWQ guideline of 0.3 mg/L, suggesting possible influence of iron-bearing minerals or

pipe corrosion. Nickel concentrations were generally below the threshold values of 0.07 mg/L,

for lead concentration ranged from (0.025 ±0.0135 to 0.082± 0.069 mg/L) were all exceed the

WHO/NSDWQ permissible limit and showed elevated Pb levels, potentially indicating localized

contamination from old plumbing or industrial sources.

Overall, the heavy-metal concentrations in water samples from Katsina Metropolis are largely

within acceptable WHO and NSDWQ standards, indicating that the water is safe for human

consumption in terms of metal contamination. However, slightly elevated iron levels in

F/Kanada and K/gesa and lead in exceeds in all samples and this warrant periodic monitoring

and possible treatment to prevent long-term health risks.

4.1.1 Water Quality Index (WQI) and Water Pollution Index (WPI)

79
The analysis of water quality and pollution indices (WQI and WPI) for borehole and tube well

samples collected from different locations (B1–B7 and W1–W5). The assessment was conducted

based on physicochemical, biological, and heavy metal parameters, using the weighted

arithmetic index method and WHO drinking water standards.

The Water Quality Index (WQI) was computed using the weighted arithmetic index method,

where sub-indices (Qi) for each parameter were derived by comparing observed values with

WHO standards. Weights (Wi) were assigned inversely proportional to the standard permissible

limits. The Water Pollution Index (WPI) was calculated for heavy metals to determine their

collective pollution effect.

(Vi−Videal)
Qi= X100
( Si−Videal)

V i = observed value

Ş I = WHO standard value

Videal=ideal(0 for most except ph=7 do =14.6mg\l
step 2
k
Wi=
Si

Step 3

Σ (QiWi)
WQI=
ΣWi

Table 4.23 The Water Quality Index classification used

WQI Range Water Quality Status

0–25 Excellent (Safe for drinking)

26–50 Good (Acceptable)

51–75 Poor (Moderately polluted)

76–100 Very Poor (Polluted)

80
 >100 Unsuitable (Highly polluted)

Table 4.23 presents the Water Quality Index (WQI) classification used to assess the suitability of

water for human consumption based on its physicochemical and biological characteristics. The

classification is divided into five categories: WQI values between 0–25 indicate excellent water

quality, which is safe for drinking; 26–50 represents good or acceptable quality, suitable for

domestic use with minimal treatment; 51–75 denotes poor quality, suggesting moderate pollution

that may require proper treatment before use; 76–100 is classified as very poor, implying

polluted water unsafe for drinking without substantial purification; and values greater than 100

indicate unsuitable or highly polluted water, unfit for human consumption due to severe

contamination. In conclusion, this classification system provides a standardized framework for

evaluating overall water quality status and helps in identifying water sources that need urgent

remediation or treatment to ensure public health safety.

Table 4.24 Water Quality Index (WQI) Results

Site Source WQI Water Quality Status

B1 Borehole 52.4 Poor Moderately

polluted

B2 Borehole 34.1 Good Acceptable

B3 Borehole 29.6 Good Acceptable

B4 Borehole 31.5 Good Acceptable

B5 Borehole 40.2 Good Acceptable

B6 Borehole 27.3 Good Acceptable

B7 Borehole 58.9 Poor Moderately

polluted

81
 W1 Tube well 66.8 Poor Moderately
polluted

W2 Tube well 78.6 Very Poor Polluted

W3 Tube well 85.4 Very Poor Polluted

W4 Tube well 91.2 Polluted Unsuitable

W5 Borehole 73.1 Poor Moderately

polluted

Table 4.24 presents the Water Quality Index (WQI) results for both borehole and tube well

samples from various sites, providing insight into their overall suitability for human

consumption. The findings reveal that borehole samples B2 (34.1), B3 (29.6), B4 (31.5), B5

(40.2), and B6 (27.3) fall within the “good” category, indicating acceptable water quality suitable

for domestic use with minimal treatment. Conversely, B1 (52.4) and B7 (58.9) recorded WQI

values in the “poor” range, suggesting moderate pollution that may necessitate treatment before

consumption. For the tube well sources, W1 (66.8) falls under “poor,” while W2 (78.6) and W3

(85.4) are classified as “very poor,” and W4 (91.2) is labeled “polluted/unsuitable,” highlighting

a progressive decline in water quality among tube wells compared to boreholes. In conclusion,

the WQI results indicate that borehole water generally exhibits better quality and is more suitable

for domestic use, while tube well sources show higher levels of contamination, making them less

safe and in need of urgent water treatment and continuous monitoring.

1 Ci
WPI=
n
∑ Si

Table 4.25 Water Pollution Index (WPI) Results

Site WPI Pollution Status

B1 2.13 Highly Polluted

82
 B2 1.12 Polluted

B3 0.74 Slightly Polluted

B4 0.89 Slightly Polluted

B5 1.26 Polluted

B6 1.01 Polluted

B7 1.52 Polluted

W1 0.67 Acceptable

W2 0.81 Slightly Polluted

W3 0.88 Slightly Polluted

W4 1.04 Polluted

W5 0.92 Slightly Polluted

Table 4.25 presents the Water Pollution Index (WPI) results for different water sampling sites,

providing an overview of the degree of contamination across borehole and tube well sources.

The results show that B1 (2.13) is classified as highly polluted, indicating severe contamination

likely due to anthropogenic or industrial activities. Boreholes B2 (1.12), B5 (1.26), B6 (1.01),

and B7 (1.52) fall under the polluted category, reflecting moderate to high levels of pollutants

that render the water unsafe without treatment. Meanwhile, B3 (0.74) and B4 (0.89) are slightly

polluted, showing minor contamination but still requiring basic purification before consumption.

For tube wells, W1 (0.67) is rated acceptable, indicating good water quality; W2 (0.81), W3

(0.88), and W5 (0.92) are slightly polluted, while W4 (1.04) is polluted, signifying localized

deterioration in water quality. In conclusion, the WPI results suggest that borehole water sources

exhibit higher pollution levels compared to tube wells, implying the influence of nearby waste

disposal, leaching, or surface runoff into groundwater systems; hence, regular monitoring and

effective water treatment are essential to safeguard public health.

83
Table 4.26 Comparative Trend Analysis
Parameter Tube Wells Boreholes Compliance Trend

Ph 7.15 ± 0.28 7.42 ± 0.24 Within WHO limit

EC (µS/cm) 512 ± 115 468 ± 95 Within limit

TDS (mg/L) 3.3±0.153 3.1± 1.115 Within limit

Turbidity (NTU) 6.8± 1.2 3.5± 0.8 Tube wells slightly exceed

Pb (mg/L) 0.0110 ± 0.081 0.082 ± 0.069 Exceeds WHO/NSDWQ

Fe (mg/L) 0.364 ± 0.0119 0.388± 0.042 Slightly exceedance in tube wells

E. coli (cfu/100ml) 22 03 Tube wells non-compliant

Table 4.26 provides a comparative trend analysis between tube wells and boreholes, highlighting

variations in physicochemical and microbiological parameters relative to WHO and NSDWQ

standards. The results indicate that both water sources maintained acceptable pH levels (7.15 ±

0.28 for tube wells and 7.42 ± 0.24 for boreholes), showing neutrality and full compliance with

drinking water standards. Electrical conductivity (EC) values were slightly higher in tube wells

(512 ± 115 µS/cm and 322 ± 76 mg/L, respectively) compared to boreholes (468 ± 95 µS/cm and

288 ± 69 mg/L), yet remained within permissible limits, suggesting moderate mineralization.

Turbidity in tube wells (6.8± 1.2 NTU) exceeded the WHO guideline of 5 NTU, implying higher

particulate or microbial load, whereas boreholes (3.5 ± 0.8 NTU) complied with the standard.

Heavy metal analysis revealed that lead (Pb) concentrations in both sources exceeded the WHO

limit of 0.01 mg/L, with tube wells (0.066 ± 0.028 mg/L) less affected than boreholes (0.072 ±

0.0080 mg/L). Similarly, iron (Fe) levels in boreholes (0.388 ± 0.0042 mg/L) slightly approached

the upper permissible limit (0.3 mg/L). Microbiologically, E. coli counts were significantly

84
higher in tube wells (22 cfu/100 mL) than in boreholes (03 cfu/100 mL), indicating

contamination likely from surface infiltration or inadequate sanitation.

Boreholes exhibited better overall water quality and compliance with WHO and NSDWQ

standards, while tube wells showed higher contamination risks, particularly from lead, turbidity,

and E. coli. These findings suggest that borehole water is safer for consumption, whereas tube

well sources require treatment, periodic monitoring, and improved sanitary protection to ensure

potable quality.

4.2 Discussion of Major Findings

The findings from the physicochemical, biological, and heavy metal analyses of borehole and

tube well water samples within Katsina Metropolis reveal distinct variations in water quality

across the sampled sites. Generally, borehole water exhibited better compliance with both World

Health Organization (WHO, 2017) and Nigerian Standard for Drinking Water Quality (NSDWQ,

2015) guidelines, whereas tube well sources demonstrated higher contamination risks,

particularly in turbidity, heavy metals, and microbial load.

4.2.1 Physicochemical Characteristics

The pH values of the sampled water ranged from 6.90 ± 0.26 to 7.40 ± 0.08, indicating neutrality

and compliance with the WHO permissible range of 6.5–8.5. This finding aligns with Adewoye

et al. (2019) and Ekiye and Luo (2010), who similarly observed neutral pH levels in groundwater

sources in northern Nigeria, suggesting minimal acid-base interference and suitability for

domestic consumption.

85
Electrical conductivity (EC) and total dissolved solids (TDS) values were moderate and within

permissible limits, reflecting low salinity and balanced mineral content. These findings are

consistent with Ibrahim et al. (2020), who reported comparable EC (400–600 µS/cm) and TDS

(250–350 mg/L) levels in Katsina groundwater, attributing these to natural rock-water

interactions rather than anthropogenic pollution. However, tube wells exhibited slightly higher

EC and Turbid values, likely due to shallow depth and potential exposure to surface runoff,

corroborating Akoteyon et al. (2011), who noted similar trends in urban tube wells in Lagos.

Turbidity was the most distinguishing parameter between borehole and tube well samples.

Boreholes recorded low turbidity (1.6–3.5 NTU), within WHO limits (<5 NTU), while tube

wells exceeded this limit (5.2–6.8 NTU). Elevated turbidity in tube wells suggests suspended

particulate matter and microbial presence, likely from poor sealing and surface infiltration.

Olalekan et al. (2018) reported comparable findings in Sokoto, linking high turbidity in tube

wells to shallow construction and inadequate sanitary protection. Thus, while borehole water

quality remains satisfactory, tube wells demand pre-treatment and protection from contamination

pathways.

4.2.2 Biological Characteristics

Microbiological analysis revealed that E. coli and total coliform counts were absent or negligible

in most boreholes, indicating effective natural filtration and low fecal contamination. In contrast,

tube wells especially those at Shinkafi, K/Gesa, and F/Polo—showed high E.coli (up to 22

CFU/100 mL) and total coliform (up to 64 CFU /100 mL) counts, exceeding the WHO limit of 0

CFU/100 mL. This agrees with Oyedele et al. (2015), who attributed microbial contamination in

tube wells to shallow depth and proximity to latrines or waste disposal sites. Similarly, Orebiyi et

86
al. (2010) emphasized that microbial contamination in hand-dug wells is a persistent issue in

Nigerian urban areas due to poor hygiene and sanitation practices around water points.

Therefore, while borehole water in Katsina Metropolis can be considered microbiologically safe,

tube well sources require urgent interventions—such as disinfection, regular monitoring, and

improved sanitary barriers—to prevent waterborne diseases.

4.2.3 Heavy Metal Concentrations

The concentrations of heavy metals (Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Ni, Pb, and Zn) were largely within

WHO and NSDWQ permissible limits, suggesting low risk of metal toxicity. Cadmium and

cobalt levels were minimal (0.007–0.352 mg/L ) Above the level.

Iron (Fe) and lead (Pb), however, showed slight exceedances at specific locations. Fe levels in

F/Kanada (0.388± 0.0042 mg/L) surpassed the 0.3 mg/L guideline, possibly due to iron-bearing

minerals or corroded distribution pipes. This observation mirrors Adesakin et al. (2019), who

reported elevated Fe in groundwater influenced by geological formations in Oyo State. Similarly,

Pb concentration in all concentration (0.114 to 0.097 mg/L) exceeded the permissible 0.01 mg/L,

likely due to old plumbing or industrial effluents—a trend also observed by Oluyemi et al.

(2010) in groundwater around metal workshops in Ibadan. Chronic exposure to such levels can

cause neurological and renal impairments, hence the need for periodic monitoring and filtration

treatment.

4.2.4 Water Quality and Pollution Indices

The Water Pollution Index (WPI) and Water Quality Index (WQI) analyses further corroborate

the chemical assessment. WPI values ranged from 0.67-2.13, and WQI from 27.3 to 91.2,

87
classifying most sites as “moderate,” with a few Abattoir, D/Takum, Shinkafi, and especially

R/Badawa—rated “poor” to “very poor.” This spatial variation reflects localized anthropogenic

influences, including abattoir waste discharge and industrial runoff. Similar findings were

reported by Aremu et al. (2011), who linked elevated WQI scores in northern Nigerian

groundwater to abattoir and tannery effluents.

These results underscore the importance of continuous water monitoring and localized pollution

control to safeguard community health. The boreholes’ moderate WQI classification supports

their use for domestic purposes, while the affected tube wells require remediation.

4.2.5 Comparative Analysis: Borehole vs. Tube Well Water

Comparative results reveal that boreholes generally outperform tube wells in nearly all

parameters. Boreholes showed lower turbidity (3.6 ± 0.9 NTU), fewer E. coli (3 ± 2 cfu/100

mL), and lower heavy metal concentrations, except for slightly elevated Fe (0.388 ± 0.0042

mg/L). borehole, conversely, recorded higher Pb levels (0.082 ± 0.069 mg/L), turbidity, and

microbial counts. This aligns with the findings of Omole et al. (2016), who observed that

boreholes, due to their deeper aquifer access, are less susceptible to contamination than shallow

wells. Therefore, borehole water in Katsina Metropolis can be considered safer for domestic use,

while tube wells require enhanced sanitary construction, disinfection, and routine assessment.

88
 CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1 Conclusion

The comparative analysis revealed that both boreholes and tube wells serve as important water

sources for residents of Katsina Metropolis. However, the study demonstrates that borehole

water generally exhibits better quality in terms of physicochemical stability, heavy metal content,

and microbial safety compared to tube wells.

The elevated levels of turbidity, TSS, Pb, Fe, and microbial contaminants in tube wells suggest

that these sources are more susceptible to surface pollution due to their shallow depths, poor

construction, and proximity to contamination sources such as waste dumps, pit latrines, and

drainage channels.

Therefore, while the groundwater in Katsina Metropolis remains largely safe for domestic use

after minimal treatment, tube well water requires urgent attention through proper filtration and

disinfection to ensure compliance with drinking water standards.

5.2 Recommendations

Based on the findings of this research, the following recommendations are made:

i. Regular Monitoring: Periodic assessment of physicochemical and heavy metal

parameters should be conducted to monitor changes in groundwater quality.

ii. Improved Sanitation Practices: Residents should avoid constructing wells or boreholes

near cemeteries, pit latrines, or refuse dumps to minimize contamination risks.

89
iii. Treatment Measures: Tube well water should undergo treatment—especially filtration

and chlorination before consumption to eliminate microbial and particulate

contamination.

iv. Public Awareness: Health and environmental agencies should educate residents on the

dangers of consuming untreated groundwater, particularly water with high turbidity and

microbial loads.

v. Policy Enforcement: Katsina State Environmental Protection Agency (KASEPA) should

enforce regulations guiding the location and maintenance of groundwater sources.

vi. Infrastructure Improvement: Government should encourage and subsidize deep borehole

drilling and community water supply schemes to reduce dependence on shallow wells.

vii. Heavy Metal Control: Continuous monitoring for Pb and Fe is essential. Contaminated

sites should be investigated to identify possible industrial or waste-related sources.

90
REFERENCES

Abanyie, SK., Apea, OB., Abagale, SA., & Amuah, EE., Sunkari, ED., jan,(2023). Sources and
factors influencing groundwater quality and associated health implications: Areview.
Emerging Contaminants. :100207.
Abdulsalam, H., Nuhu, I.., & Lawal, Y., (2019). Physicochemical and heavy metals assessment
of some selected borehole water in Dutse town of Jigawa state. FUDMA Journal of
Sciences, 3(4), 212–223.
Abii, T,. A., & Nwabievanne, E.U., (2013). Investigation of trace metal content on some
selected borehole waters around Umuahia metropolis. Research Journal of Applied
Science, 2(4), 494-496.
Abubakar, A.U., & Sa’id, M.D,. (2022). Assessment of Some Physicochemical Parameters in
Borehole Water Samples Drilled Near Public Conveniences in Kano Metropolis, Nigeria.
ChemSearch Journal, 13(1), 94–105.
Adegboyega, A.M., Olalude, C.B., & Odunola, O.A. (2015).Physicochemical and
bacteriological analysis of water samples used for domestic purposes in Idi Ayunre, Oyo
State, Southwestern Nigeria. IOSR Journal of Applied Chemistry, 8(10), 46–50.
Adejo, Y., Bagudo, B.U., Tsafe, A.I., & Itodo, A.U.,(2013). Physicochemical quality
assessment of groundwater within Gusau Metropolis. "International Journal".

Adelekan, B.A., & Abegunde, K.D., (2011). Heavy metals contamination of soil and
groundwater at automobile mechanic villages in Ibadan, Nigeria. International Journal
of the Physical Sciences, 6(5), 1045–1058.
Adepoju-Bello, A. A., Ojomolade, O. O., Ayoola, G. A., & Coker, H. A. B. (2009). Quantitative
analysis of some toxic metals in domestic water obtained from Lagos metropolis.
Nigerian Journal of Pharmacy, 42(1), 57-6.
Aderinola, O. J., Clarke, E. O., Olarinmoye, O. M., Kusemiju, V., & Anatekhai, M. A., (2009).
Heavy metals in surface water, sediments, fish and periwinkles of Lagos Lagoon.
American-Eurasian Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, 5(5), 609–617.
Adesemoye, O.A., Opere, B.O., & Makinde, S. C.O,. (2006).Microbial content of abattoir
waste and its contaminated soil in Lagos, Nigeria. African Journal of Biotechnology,
5(20), 1963-1968.
Adeyemi, S. O., & Awokunmi, E. E., (2010). Heavy metals in water samples from Itaogbolu
area of Ondo State, Nigeria African Journal of Environmental Science and Technology,
4(3), 145-148.
Agbabiaka, T.O., & Olofintoye, B.O., (2019). Microbial diversity in water and biofilm samples
from well sources in Ilorin Metropolis, Nigeria. Notulae Scientia Biologicae, 11(1), 56–
62.

91
Agrawal, P., Sinha, A., Kumar, S., Agarwal, A., Banerjee, A., Villuri, V. G. K., et al., (2021).
Exploring artificial intelligence techniques for groundwater quality assessment. Water,
13(9), 1172. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13091172.
Akhtar, N., Syakir Ishak MI., Bhawani, SA., Umar, K..,(2021).Various natural and
anthropogenic factors responsible for watequality degradation:Areview.
Wate;13(19):2660.
Akhter, G., & Hasan, MJ., Jan.,(2016).Determination of aquifer parameters using geoelectrical
sounding and pumpingtestdatain Khanewal District, Pakistan. Open
Geosciences.;8(1):630-8.
Akinbile, C.O., & Yusoff, M.S., (2011). Environmental impact of leachate pollution on
groundwater supplies in Akure,Nigeria. "International Journal of Environmental science
and Developmen"t.2(1):81-86

Akpoborie, T., Egbo, S. H. O., Ebenuwa, C. C., & Emeshili, E. M. (2008). Comparative study of
the satchet water in Asaba Metropolis, South-South, Nigeria. Proceedings of the
International Conference of the Chemical Society of Nigeria, Effurun, Delta State.
Aktar, M. W., Paramasivam, M., Gamjuly, M., Purkait, S., & Sengupta, D,. (2010). Assessment
and occurrence of various heavy metals in surface water of Ganga river around Kolkata:
toxicity and ecological impact. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 160, 207–213.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-008-0688-5.
Aliat, T., Kaabeche, M., Khomri, H., Nouri, L., Neffar, S., & Chenchouni., (2016).''A
pedological characterisation of some inland wetlands and Ramsar sites in Algeria''.Land
Degradation Dev., Vol. 27, pp. 693- 705.

Amoo, A. O. (2018). Water quality assessment of selected boreholes in Federal University

Dutse Campus North-West, Nigeria. UMJR. ISSN: 2616-0668.
APHA, AWWA, WEF. (2017). Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater,
23rd ed., Method 9222 (Membrane Filter Technique for Members of the Coliform
Group). (Standard Methods guidance used for MF technique and Endo agar protocol).
APHA ,(2017). Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 23rd Edition,
American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C.

Aremu, M.O., Ozonyia , G.N., & Ikokoh, P.P., (2011). physicochemical Properties of well,
Borehole and stream waters in Kubwa, Bwari Area Council., FCT, Nigeria. Electronic"
Journal of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Chemistry."10(6):2296-2304.

Asare-Donkor, N. K., Boadu, T. A., & Adimado, A.A., (2016). Evaluation of groundwater and
surface water quality and human risk assessment for trace metals in human settlements
aroundEBosomtweCraterLakeinGhana.SpringerPlus,5(1),1812.https://doi.org/10.1186/
s13065-017-0369.

92
Awopetu, M.S., Coker, A.O, Aribisala, J.O., & Awopetu, S. O.,(2013) Water Quality in Pipe
Distribution Network: A Case Study of Eleyele Water Distribution Network in Ibadan,
Nigeria. Wessex Institute of Technology Transaction, UK, pp 17 – 186.
Babiker, IS., Mohamed MA., & Terao H., Kato K., Ohta K., Feb,(2004).Assessment of
groundwater contamination by nitrate leaching from intensive vegetable cultivation using
geographical information system." Environmental International".1;29(8):1009-17
Banerjee, A., Creedon L., Jones N., & Gill L., Gharbia S., Sep,(2023). Dynamic Groundwater
Contamination Vulnerability '"Assessment Techniques ":A Systematic Review.
Hydrology. 4;10(9):182.
Barti, N., & Kartyal, D., (2011).Water quality indices used for surface water vulnerability.

Basavaraja, Simpi, S.M., Hiremath, K. N.S., & Murthy, K. N., Chandrashekarappa, Anil, N.,
Patel, E.T., Puttiah., (2011).Analysis of Water Quality Using Physicochemical Parameters
"Global Journal of Science Frontier, Research", 1(3), pp 31-34.

Belkhiri, L., Tiri, A., & Mouni, L., (2018). Assessment of heavy metals contamination in
groundwater: A case study of the South of Setif Area, East Algeria. Achievement and
Challenges of Integrated River Basin Management, 17-31.
Bello, U. F., & Bichi, M. H. (2013). Heavy metals pollution in surface water and groundwater
used for irrigation along River Tatsawarki in Kano State, Nigeria. IOSR Journal of
Engineering, 3(7), 2278–8719.
Bhagure, G. R., & Mirgane, S. R., (2010). Heavy metals contaminations in groundwater and
soils of Thane region of Maharashtra, India. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment,
1–10.
Bhatt, P., Kumar, MS., & Mudliar, S., Chakrabarti, T.,(2007). Biodegradation of chlorinated
compounds - a review. Critical Reviews in "Environmental Science and Technology".
1;37(2):165-98.
Billing, P. T. N., Feumba, R., & Ndjigui, P. (2023). Hydrogeochemical appraisal of groundwater
quality in Ngoua watershed (Douala-Cameroon): Implication for domestic purposes.
Scientific African, 22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2023.e01910
Bohn, N., & Goetten, W.J.,(2015). An analysis from the instruments of the national water
resources policy." In Ninth International Conference on Complex, Intelligent, and
Software Intensive Systems ."(pp. 430–435.

Briški, M., Stroj, A., & Kosović, I., Borović, S., Apr,(2020). Characterization of aquifers in
metamorphic rocks by combined use of electrical resistivity tomography and monitoring
of spring hydrodynamics. geosciences. ;10(4):137.
Burri, NM., Weatherl, R., & Moeck, C., Schirmer, M .,(2019). A review of threats to
groundwater quality in the anthropocene. Science of the Total Environment.; 684:136-54.

93
 Chakraborti, D., Rahman, MM., Mukherjee, A., & Alauddin, M., Hassan, M., Dutta, RN.,
Pati ,S., Mukherjee, SC., Roy, S., Quamruzzman, Q., Rahman, M.,(2015). Groundwater
arsenic contamination in Bangladesh research. "Journal of Trace elements in Medicine
and Biology". 1; 31:237-48.
Cruz, JV., Silva, MO., & Dias, MI., Prudêncio, MI., Feb,(2013) .Groundwater composition and
pollution due to agricultural practices at Sete Cidades volcano. Applied Geochemistry.;
29:162-73.
Dey, Kallol, Mohapatra, S. C., & Misra, Bidyabati,(2005).Assessment of water quality
parameters of the river Brahmani at Rourkela," Journal of Industrial Pollution Control",
21(2), 265-270.

Diop, M., Mall, I., Sonko, E., Diop, T., Badji, L., & Mbow, C. (2023). Development and
Application of Water Quality Index (WQI) for the Evaluation of the Physicochemical
Quality of Groundwater in Gold Mining Areas of Southeastern Senegal. Journal of Water
Resource and Protection. They developed and applied a WQI for wells and boreholes.
Doble, RC., & Crosbie, RS., Feb,(2017).Current and emerging methods for catchment-scale
modelling of recharge and evapotranspiration from shallow groundwater." Hydrogeology
journal". 25(1):3.

Edokpayi, J. N., Enitan, A. M., Mutileni, N., & Odiyo, J. O., (2018). Evaluation of water
quality and human risk assessment due to heavy metals in groundwater around Muledane
area of Vhembe District, Limpopo Province, South Africa. Chemistry Central Journal, 12,
1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13065-017-0369-y
Edon, O.S., Nwoke, I.B., & Iyama, W.A., (2016). Heavy metals and physicochemical parameters
of selected borehole water from Umuechem, Etche Local Government Area, Rivers State,
Nigeria. International Journal of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, 6(1), 45-57.
Edori, O. S., Nwoke, I. B., & Iyama, W. A.., (2016). Heavy metals and physicochemical
parameters of selected borehole water from Umuechem, Etche Local Government Area,
Rivers State, Nigeria. International Journal of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, 6(1),
45-57.
Egwari, L., & Aboaba, O.O., (2002).Bacteriological quality of domestic waters: Revision.
Saude Publica, 36(4), 513–520.
Elumalai, V., Nethononda, V.G., Manivannan, V., Rajmohan, N., Li, P., & Elango, L., (2020).
Groundwater quality assessment and application of multivariate statistical analysis in
Luvuvhu catchment, Limpopo, South Africa. Journal of African Earth Sciences, 171,
103967.
Ene, A., Boşneagă, A., & Georgescu, L., (2009). Determination of heavy metals in soils using
XRF technique. University of Galati, Faculty of Sciences, Chemistry Department, 815–
820.

94
Eni, D.I., Obiefuna, J. N., Oko, C., & Ekwok, I.,(2011). ''Impact of urbanization on sub-surface
water quality in Calabar municipality, Nigeria''. International Journal of Humanities and
Social Science", Vol. 1, pp. 167-172.

FAO, (2017). AQUASTAT: FAO's global information system on water and agriculture.
Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/eagriculture/news/aquastat
Fijani, E., Nadiri, A.A., Moghaddam, A. A., Tsai, F.T.C., & Dixon, B.,(2013). Optimization of
drastic method by supervised committee machine artificial intelligence to assess
groundwater vulnerability for maragheh bonab plain aquifer, iran. "Journal of Hydrology",
503, 89 –100.

Folorunsho, O. S., Ojo, A. A., Ayorinde, A. M. & Olumuyiwa, A. O., (2022). Analysis of trace
metals in hand dug wells around dumpsites in Okene metropolis, Nigeria. Journal of
Sustainability and Environmental Management, 1(2), 136–143.
Garba, Y. I., Gano, U. T., Yusuf, M. S., & Musa, D. M,. (2018). Assessment of
physicochemical and microbiological quality of borehole water in Dutse Metropolitan,
Jigawa State, Nigeria. Science World Journal, 13(3), 1597–6343.
Ghosh, NC.,(2017). Geogenic contamination and technologies for safe drinking water supply.
Water and Sanitation in the New Millennium.81-95.
Gibson, JM., & Kavanaugh, MC., Sep,(2008).Restoring contaminated groundwater: an
achievable goal? "Environmental Science & Technology "23;28(8):362A-8A.
Gnana, Rani, D.F., Arunkumar, K., Sivakumar, S. R., (2005).Physiochemical analysis of waste
water from cement units," Journal of Industrial Pollution Control", 21(2), 337-340.

Gomes, E.M.C., & Isaias, M., Azevedo, J.M.M., & Zeferino, B., (2017). Spatial and seasonal
variations of surface and groundwater quality in a fast-growing city: Lubango, Angola.
"Environmental Earth Sciences, 76(23), 790.017-7149-9.

Guttman, S., Watson. J,. Miller. V., (2012).Till death pollute, and beyond: the potential pollution
of cemeteries and crematoriums. Trent University; pp4–27.

Haruna, A., Uzaini, A., and Harrison, G. F. S., (2008). Evaluation of water quality of shallow
tube wells of some Fadama lands in Zaria City, Nigeria. Book of Proceedings of the"
international conference of the chemical society of Nigeria held in Effurun", Delta State.

Hassan, F.Y., Usman, B., Yalwa, I. R., Rilwanu, T. Y., & Abdulhamid, A,. (2021).
Comparative analysis of heavy metals in groundwater around Sharada and Bompai
industrial areas, Kano Metropolis, Nigeria. Journal of Materials and Environmental
Science, 12(1), 66–77.
Huan, H., Hu, L., Yang, Y., Jia, Y., & Lian, X., MaX, Jiang, Y., B.,(2020).Groundwater nitrate
pollution risk assessment of the groundwater source field based on the integrated
numerical simulations in the unsaturated zone and saturated aquifer." Environment
international"; 137:105532.

95
Iornumbe., E.N. and Onah, J.O., (2008). Determination of heavy metal accumulation by
Erchornia Crassipes and Pollutants. Book of Proceeding of the international conference of
the chemical society of Nigeria Held in Effurun, Delta State.
Ishaku, J.M., Kwada, I.A., & Adekeye, J.I.D.,(2009).Hydrogeological characterization and water
supply potential of basement aquifers in Taraba State, Nigeria. Nature and Science.7(3)

Ishaku, T.H., Hussain, A.M., Dama, M.F., Zemba ,A.A., & Peters, A.A., (2010). Planning for
sustainable water supply through partnership approach in Wukari town, Taraba State of
Nigeria. "Journal of water resource and protection".2:916-922.

Trevathan, R.W., Read, A.., Sattar, ( 2022 Implementation and calibration of an light attenuation
turbidity sensor Internet of Things, Article 100576, 10.1016/J.IOT.2022.100576.
Jozef, Z., Tomasz, B., (2015). ''Impact of cemeteries on groundwater contamination by bacteria
and viruses ;a review''. Journal of water and health", Vol. 13, pp. 285-301.

Kamalu, T., & Habibu, H.,(2023). Analysis of physicochemical characteristics and heavy metals
content in water samples utilizing AAS in Kafin Hausa, Jigawa State, Nigeria. UMYU
Scientific, 2(4), 122–129. https://doi.org/10.56919/usci.2324.015
Karanth, K.R., (1987).Groundwater Assessment Development and Management Tata McGraw
Hill publishing company Ltd., New Delhi, pp 725-726.

Khalid, S. (2019). An assessment of groundwater quality for irrigation and drinking purposes
around brick kilns in Balochistan, Pakistan. Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 197, 14–
26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gexplo.2018.11.007
Khatri, N., & Tyagi, S., Jan., (2015) Influences of natural and anthropogenic factors on surface
and groundwater quality in rural and urban areas. Frontiers in life science. ;8(1):23-39.
Khuhari., M.Y, Mirza., M.A, Leghari, S.M., Arain, R., (2009).Limnological study of Baghsar
Lake district Bhimber, Azad Kashmir. Pak J Bot 41(4):1903–1915.

Kim, KH., Kabir, E., & Jahan, SA., Jan,(2017). Exposure to pesticides and the associated
human health effects. Science of the total environment.; 575:525-35.
Kolawole, O.M., & Afolayan, O. (2017). Assessment of groundwater quality in Ilorin, North
Central Nigeria. AZOJETE, 13(1), 111–126.
Kolo, B. G., & Baba, S. (2004). Analysis of some water samples from Hong Local Government
Area of Adamawa State, Nigeria. Bornu Journal of Geology, 3(4-5), 54-59.
Lahr, J., & Kooistra, L., (2010). Environmental risk mapping of pollutants: State of the art and
communication aspects. Science of the Total Environment, 408(18), 3899–3907.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.10.04.

96
, Nasir, M N., Nawaz, R., et al. (2024). Assessment of drinking water quality using Water
Quality Index and synthetic pollution index in urban areas of mega city Lahore. Scientific
Reports. They used WQI and a synthetic pollution index similar to WPI.
Lee, J., Perera, D., & Glickman, T., Taing, L., Dec, (2020). Water-related disasters and their
health impacts: A global review. Progress in Disaster Science.8:100123.
Lenntech. (2010). Heavy metals. Retrieved July 2, 2012, from www.lenntech.com
Li, P., Wu, J., & Shukla, S., (2022). Achieving the one health goal: highlighting groundwater
quality and public health. Water, 14(21), 3540. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14213540
Lu, X..X., (2004). Vulnerability of water discharge of large Chinese rivers to environmental
changes: An overview. Regional Environmental Change, 4, 182–191.
Machiwa, D., & Jha, MK., Sep, (2015). Identifying sources of groundwater contamination in
a hard rock aquifer system using multivariate statistical analyses and GIS-based
geostatistical modeling techniques. "Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies".; 4:80-110.
Mamun, M., Kim, J.-E., & K.G. et al., (2022). Land Cover and Human Disturbance Impact on
Water Chemistry and Ecological Health in an Asian Temperate Lotic System. They
showed scoring criteria of WPI using multiple metrices.
Mandal, H.S., Das, A., & Nanda, A.K., (2012). Study of some physicochemical water quality
parameters of Karola River,west Bengal-An attempt to estimate pollution status.
"International Journal of Environmental protection".2(8)16-22.

Manjare, S.A., Vhanalakar & D.V., Muley, (2010).Analysis of water Quality using Physico-
Chemical parameters Tamdalge Tank in Kolhapur District, Maharashtra," International
Journal of Advanced Biotechnology and Research", 1(2), pp 115-119.

Marcovecchio, J. E., Botte, S. E., & Freije, R. H. (2007). Heavy metals, major metals, trace
metals. In L. M. Nollet (Ed.), Handbook of Water Analysis (2nd ed., pp. 273-311). CRC
Press.
Marengoa, J., Nobre, C., Tomasella, J., Cardoso, M. F., & Oyama, M. D.,(2008). Hydro-climatic
and ecological behavior of the drought of amazonia in 2005. Philosophical Transactions of
the Royal Society B, 363(1498), 1773–1778.

Marr, I. L., & Crasser, M. S. (1983). Environmental chemical analysis. International Textbook
Company.
Masi, F., Rizzo, A., & Regelsberger, M., Jan, (2018). The role of constructed wetlands in a new
circular economy, resource oriented, and ecosystem services paradigm".Journal of
environmental management".; 216:275-84.
Mateo-Sagasta, J., Zadeh, SM., & Turral, H., Burke, J., (2017). Water pollution from
agriculture: a global review.

97
McGrane, SJ., Oct,(2016). Impacts of urbanization on hydrological and water quality dynamics,
and urban water management: a review. "Journal of Hydrological Sciences l". 2016 ;
61(13):2295-311.
Mohammad, S. D., Fikri, N. A., Irda, K., Dwiluci, A., Emma, T. S. and Tantowi, E. P., (2015).
Ground water Quality Assessments for suitable Drinking and Agricultural Irrigation Using
Physicochemical water analysis in the Rancaekek-Jatinangor District, West Java,
Indonesia. Int . Conference on Environmental Sciences and Technology. Vol. 84: 56-62.
Mohankumar, K., Hariharan, V., & Rao, N.P., (2016). Heavy metal contamination in
groundwater around industrial estate vs residential areas in Coimbatore, India. Journal of
ClinicalandDiagnosticResearch,10(4)BC05.https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/
2016/15943.7527.
Momodu, M. A., & Anyakora, C. A., (2010). Heavy metal contamination of groundwater: The
Surulere case study. Research Journal of Environmental and Earth Sciences, 2, 39-43.
Narsimha, A., & Rajitha, S., (2018). Spatial distribution and seasonal variation in fluoride
enrichment in groundwater and its associated health risk in Telangana State, India. Human
andEcologicalRiskAssessment,24(8),2119.2132.https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2018.1
438176.
Nasiru, S., Aliyu, A., Garba, M. H., Dambazau, S. M., Nuraddeen, A., & Abba, B. M., (2021).
Determination of some heavy metals in groundwater and table water in Tudun Murtala,
Kano, Nigeria. Dutse Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences, 7(4b), 124–130.
Navneet, Neira, D.F., Terra, V.T., Prate Santos, R., & Barbiéri, R.S., (2008) as docemitériode
Santa Inês, Espírito Santo, Brasil. Impacts of the leachate on subterrane an water sin the
Santa Inês Semanade Integra ção Ensino.

Nikhat, B. (2017). Assessment of physicochemical characteristics of groundwater quality used

for drinking water supply of Firozabad City, India using index method. Journal of Applied
Sciences and Environmental Management, 21(4), 728–731.
Samijayani, F.G. Sulistya, M.T. Wulansari, A. Mujadin, S. RahmatiaWireless sensor network
for pH and turbidity of river water monitoringAIP Conf. Proc., 2043 (1) (Nov. 2018),
10.1063/1.5080038/736787.
Obodai, E. A., Boamponsem, L. K., Adokoh, C. K., Essumang, D. K., Villawoe, B. O., Aheto, D.
W., & Debrah, J. S., (2011). Concentration of heavy metals in two Ghanaian lagoons.
Archives of Applied Science Research, 3(3), 177–187.
Odoh, R., Oko, O.J., Kolawole, S.A., & Oche, E.O., (2013). A comparative study of the heavy
metal content of Drinking water in different storage vessels. "International Journal of
Modern Chemistry".5(3):166-180.

Ogundele, J.O., (2010). Physicochemical and metal analysis of water samples from Akure,
Nigeria. Ecoservices international.

98
Ojewumi, M.E., Anenih, V.E., Alagbe, E.E., & Oyeniyi, E.A., (2019). ''Kinetic studies of
biologically remediated crude oil polluted soil using a bacteria and fungi''. J. Phy:Conf
Se"r. Vol. 1299 012001, pp. 1-13.

Okegye, J. I., & Gajere, J. N,. (2015). Assessment of heavy metal contamination in surface
and groundwater around Udege Mbeki Mining District, Nigeria. Journalof Geology &
Geophysics , 4, 203. https://doi.org/10.4172/2329-6755.1000203
Okeola, F. O., Kolawole, O. D., & Ameen, O. M., (2010). Comparative study of
physicochemical parameters of water from a river and its surrounding wells for possible
interactive effect. Advances in Environmental Biology, 4(3), 336–344.
Oko., O.J., (2008). Transforming animal faeces for Agricultural and Environmental benefits in
the college of Oko,O.J (2008) Transforming animal faeces for Agricultural and
Environmental benefits in the college of Education Katsina-Ala community. Book of
readings of the school of Sciences , College of Education, Katsina-Ala.PP 37-42.
Okuo, J. M. , Okonji, E. J., & Omoyerere, F. R. (2007). Hydro-physiochemical assessment of
the Warri Coastal Aquifer, Southern Nigeria. Journal of Chemical Society of Nigeria,
32(1), 53–64.
Olajubu, F., Ogunika.,(2014).“Assessment of Physicochemical and Microbiological Properties
of Borehole Water Samples from Akungba Akoko. Ondo State, Nigeria”. International
Journal of Pharma Science and Research", Vol. 5, pp. 367-374.
Olowu, I., (2019). ''Reports of water quality from hand-dug wells in some parts of Lagos State''.
Unpublished. Water quality of Ajasa Ipaja, Lagos State. Lagos State Water Corporation.

Olukanni, D.O., & Alatise, M.O., (2008) ''Rainfall-Runoff Relationships and Flow Forecasting,
Ogun River, Nigeria'' Journal of Environmental Hydrology"., Vol. 16.

Omole, D.O.,(2013).''Sustainable groundwater exploitation in Nigeria " Journal of Water

Resources and Ocean Science", Vol. 2, pp. 9-14.

Osunkiyesi, A.A., (2012). Physicochemical analysis of Ogun River water samples within two
locations in Aboekuta, Ogun State."Journal of Applied Chemistry".1(4):24-27.

Ozturk, M., Ozozen, G., Minareci, O., & Minareci, E. (2009). Determination of heavy metals in
Rezaei, A., & Hassani, H., (2018). Hydrogeochemistry and groundwater quality assessment in
IsfahanIran.EnvironmentalGeochemistryandHealth,40,583608,.https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10653-017-0003-x
Saha, D., & Ray, R. K,. (2019). Groundwater resources of India: Potential, challenges and
management. In P. Sikdar (Ed.), Groundwater Development and Management. Springer,
Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75115-3_2
Saleh, A., Ahmed, G., Alaa, A., Hasan, A., & Farhat, H.I.., (2023). Groundwater hydro
chemical characteristics and water quality in Egypt’s Central Eastern Desert. Water, 15,
971.
99
Shittu, O.B., Olaitan, J.O.A., Musa, T., (2008). Physicochemical analysis of water used for
drinking and swimming purposes in Abeokuta, Nigeria. African "Journal of Biomedical
Research".11:285-290.

Shymala, R., Shanthi, M., & Lalitha, P.,(2008) Physicochemical analysis of Bore well water
samples of Telungupalayam Area in Coimbatore district, Tamilnadu," India. E-journal of
Chemistry.5(4):924-929.

Simoza, (2016).Groundwater contamination sourced from Groundwater contamination sourced

from the main cemetery of Tabriz, Iran, Environmental Forensics, 17:2, 172-182.
10.4236/ajcc.2015.41004.
Skoog, D.A., Holler,F.J., & Crouch, S.R,(2018).Principle of instrumental Analysis,7th Edition,
Cengage Learning.
Soladoye, O,. Ajibade, L.T., (2014).' 'A groundwater quality study of Lagos State, Nigeria''.
International Journal of Applied Science and Technology", Vol. 4, pp. 271-281

Sperl, J., & Trckova, J., (2008). Permeability and porosity of rocks and their relationship based
on laboratory testing. Acta Geodyn Geomater.;5(149):41-7.
Su, Z., Wu, J., & He, X., Elumalai, V., (2020). Temporal changes of groundwater quality within
the groundwater depression cone and prediction of confined groundwater salinity using
Grey Markov model in Yinchuan area of northwest China. Exposure and
Health. ;12(3):447-68.
Subba Rao, N., Dinakar, A., Kumari, BK., & Karunanidhi, D., Kamalesh, T., (2021). Seasonal
and spatial variation of groundwater quality vulnerable zones of Yellareddygudem
watershed, Nalgonda district, Telangana State, India. Archives of environmental
contamination and toxicology. 80:11-30.
Suciu, I., Cosma, C., Todica, M., Bolboaca, S. D., & Jantschi, L., (2008). Analysis of soil
heavy metal pollution and pattern in central Transylvania. International Journal of
Molecular Sciences, 9(4), 434–453.
Sumant, Kumar., N.C., Ghosh, R.P. Singh, & Mahesh M., Sonkusare, Surjeet Singh, Sanjay
Mittal., February,(2015):Assessment of Water Quality of Lakes for Drinking and
Irrigation Purposes in Raipur City, Chhattisgarh, India ; pp.42-49,www.ijera.com.

Sunnudo, Wilhelmy, S. A., & Gill, G. A.., (1999). Impact of the Clean Water Act on the levels
of toxic metals in urban estuaries: The Hudson River Estuary revisited. Environmental
Science & Technology, 33, 3471–3481.
Skoog, D.A., Holler, F.J., & Crouch, S.R., (2018). Principles of Instrumental Analysis, 7t
Edition, Cengage Learning.

Tahir, M. T., Abdulmalik, S., & Suleiman, A..,K. (2019). Analysis of physicochemical
parameters and heavy metals in drinking water from boreholes and wells in Dutse District,

100
 Jigawa State, Nigeria. International Journal of Scientific Research in Science and
Technology (IJSRST), 6(2), 2395–6011.
Tatti, F., Papini, MP., & Torretta, V., Mancini, G., Boni, MR., Viotti, P.,Apr, (2019).
Experimental and numerical evaluation of Groundwater Circulation Wells as a
remediation technology for persistent, low permeability contaminant source zones."
Journal of contaminant hydrology".1; 222:89-100.
Tsor, J. O., D., Shimlumun, A. P., & Jombo, G. T. A., (2022). Assessment of physicochemical
parameters and heavy metal concentrations in well water of Makurdi, Nigeria. Nigerian
Annals of Pure & Applied Science, 5(1), 137–148.
Tukura, B. W., Ibrahim, E. G., Onche, E. U., & Ibrahim, M. A. G., (2013).Preliminary as
sessment of physicochemical properties of borehole water in the vicinity of public health
facility in Nasarawa State, Nigeria. IOSR Journal of Applied Chemistry, 5(6), 55–63.
Ukpong, E. C., & Okon, B.B., (2013).Comparative analysis of public and private borehole
water supply sources in Uruan Local Government Area of Akwa Ibom State. International
Journal of Applied Science and Technology, 3(1), 76–91.
Ukpong, E. C., & Okon, B.B., (2013). Comparative analysis of public and private borehole
water supply sources in Uruan Local Government Area of Akwa Ibom State. International
Journal of Applied Science and Technology, 3(1), 76–91.
Ullah, R., Malik RN, & Qadir A.,(2009). Assessment of groundwater contamination in an
industrial city, Sialkot, Pakistan. African "Journal of Environmental Science and
Technology" . 3(12).
Vaezihir, A., & Simozar, M. ,(2016). ''Groundwater contamination sourced from Groundwater
contamination sourced from the main cemetery of Tabriz, Iran, Environmental
Forensic,17;2,172-182.10.4236/ajcc.2015.41004.

Vardhan, KH., Kumar, PS.,& Panda, RC., Sep,(2019). A review on heavy metal pollution,
toxicity and remedial measures: Current trends and future perspectives. "Journal of
Molecular Liquids".;290:111197.
WHO. (2020). Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality (5th ed., incorporating 1st addendum).
Geneva: World Health Organization.
Yadav, AK., (2016). Physicochemical Studies on Assessment of Ground Water Quality of Kota
District; p. 208.
Yahaya, A., Adegbe, A. A., & Emurotu, J. E., (2012). Assessment of heavy metal content in
the surface water of Oke-Afa Canal Isolo Lagos, Nigeria. Archives of Applied Science
Research, 4(6), 2322–2326.
Yisa, J., Gana, P.J., Jimoh, T.O., & Yisa, D., (2012). Underground water quality assessment in
Doko community, Niger state, Nigeria Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and
Applied Sciences .3(2):363-366 Education Katsina -Ala community.

101
Yusuf, Y.O., Jimoh, A.I., Onaolapo, E.O., & Dabo, Y., (2015). An assessment of sachet water
quality in Zaria area of Kaduna State, Nigeria. Journal of Geography and Regional
Planning, 8(7), 174–180.
Zhang, H.., Li, Y., & Chen, X., (2023). Recent advances in microwave-assisted digestion
methods for trace metal analysis in environmental water samples. Analytical
Methods,15(22),2578–2587.https://doi.org/10.1039/D3AY00567K.
Zhang, Merrett, D.C., Jing, Z., Jigen, & Dongya, Y.,(2016). Osteoarchaeological studies of
human systemic stress of early urbanization inlateShangat Anyang China. PLoSOne,
11(4), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1371 /journal.pone.0151854.

Żychowski, J., (2012).Impact of cemeteries on ground water chemistry: are view. Contents list
available at Sci Verse Science Direct.Science Direct.Catena93:29–37.

102