CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the Study

The most abundant environmental resource on earth is water but its accessibility is based

on quality and quantity, as well as space and time. It may be available in various forms and

quantities but its portability for different uses is the subject of quality. About 70% of the human

body and about 60-70% of plant cells are made up of water (Smith and Edger, 2006). The body’s

need for water is more than its need for food. This is because human being can live for days or

even weeks without food but only a few days without water would result in death (Shalom, 2011).

Therefore, it is a big necessity for a man to have regular and adequate intake of water in order to

remain alive (Olayinka and Olubode, 2018).

Water is an essential resource for life and good health. It is so vital that it improves many

health conditions such as chronic exhaustion, dehydration, toxin removal, poor blood circulation,

waste removal and good kidney function. It is an indispensable resource for life needed by every

living thing, as it is essential for livelihood as well as the socio-economic development of any

community. However, a great concern that must be put to note is that adequate provision of safe

drinking water still remains a big challenge to many people worldwide, especially those living in

less-developed regions (Ali, 2012). According to the World Health Organization (2008), about 1.1

billion people globally do not have access to potable water supply while 2.4 billion people do not

have access to good sanitation. There is an increasing awareness that water will be one of the most

critical natural resources in future due to the fact that about 2 million children that are less than

five (5) years die annually in developing countries as a result of diarrhea diseases (WHO, 2008).

There are two major sources of water, namely surface and groundwater. One of the most

important sources of freshwater that is used to meet daily water demand is groundwater, especially

in the developing country of sub-Saharan Africa (Edet, 2016). Groundwater is the most accessed
freshwater source in Nigeria (Omole et al., 2017). It complements the water supply shortage

experienced as a result of failed infrastructure. It is the main source of drinking water especially

in the rural areas. This is often abstracted through boreholes, hand-pump wells, and sometimes

springs (Dwairo et al., 2010). The contamination of any or all of these water sources poses serious

threat to the health of the dwellers as they are usually consumed without any form of treatment

(Dahunsi et al., 2014). These water sources must meet a certain permissible quality standard to

ensure safe consumption, based on their physicochemical compositions. The chemical

composition of groundwater can be altered both at its source as well as along the flow paths,

following biogeochemical processes and interactions with several other inorganic and organic

substances either geogenic or of anthropogenic origin (Matiatos, 2016).

According to Amadi, (2014), water is a universal solvent that has the ability to dissolve

and interact with organic and inorganic components of the aquifer material through which it

migrates. These materials constitute the amount of total dissolved solids present in the

groundwater which enhances its conductivity. This implies that groundwater chemistry is a

function of the mineral composition and the formation as it moves from recharge to discharge

areas which varies spatially and temporally depending of on the chemical nature of the water,

mineralogy of the geological formations, anthropogenic activities and and residence time of the

groundwater (Amadi, 2014).

In Nigeria, the rate of urbanization characterized by high population density, increasing

industrial and agricultural activities coupled with environmental pollution/degradation and

indiscriminate disposal of all kinds of wastes are perceived to pose serious pollution threats with

all its concomitant health hazards on groundwater quality especially in urban areas (Ocheri et al.,

2014). In the south western area of Nigeria, groundwater constitutes a critical underlying resource

for human survival and economic development. It is considered a good alternative to potable water

because of its low turbidity and perceived low contamination (Edokpayi, et al., 2018). However,
these resources are confronted with pollution problems arising from both natural causes and

human activities (Omole et al., 2017), and therefore, it is pertinent to reverse this increasing trend

of the resource deterioration.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

The potential and quality of groundwater is an economic resource and essential component

of human life. However, the increasing water quality deterioration within the area of study largely

due to population explosion, increased anthropogenic activities, and surface runoff, has increased

the potential to cause adverse health conditions. Therefore, effective and efficient water resources

management will indirectly play a significant role in the restoration of the water quality and hence

indirectly contribute to the sustenance of the nation’s economy.

1.3 Aims and Objectives

The aim of this study is to investigate the role of anthropogenic activities on the temporal

variation in groundwater quality in Ogbomoso. The objectives of this study are:

i. To carry out detailed review of previous water quality study within the area of study.

ii. To carry out reconnaissance surveys of the area to determine sampling locations and

associated anthropogenic activities within the area.

iii. To obtain groundwater samples from locations identified in objective (ii) above.

iv. To carry out physical, chemical and biological analysis of water samples obtained in

objective (iii) above.

v. To compare the result of the analysis and historical data in objective (i) above and establish

temporal variations in groundwater quality.

1.4 Scope of the Study

This project involves the comparison of historical results obtained from the review of past

projects centered on sampling and analysis of water samples obtained from the area of study, with
those that will be obtained in this work. Number of samples that will be collected will be guided

by the representativeness of the area.

The study will scope the anthropogenic activities proximal to the water sampling

locations.

The water quality parameters that will be analyzed includes:

i. Dissolved Oxygen: this is the amount of oxygen that is dissolved in water.

ii. Temperature: this is a measure of the average energy (kinetic) of the water molecules.

iii. Electrical Conductivity/Salinity.

iv. ph.

v. Turbidity.

vi. Nitrate (NO3).

vii. Total Suspended Solids.

viii. Total Dissolved Solids.

ix. Chloride.

x. Total hardness.

xi. Color.

xii. Taste.

xiii. Odour

1.5 Justification of the Study

There are many studies about impacts, effects of anthropogenic activities on water quality

(Onuoha et al., 2018; Adeosun et al., 2016; Ayobahan et al., 2014), assessment of groundwater

quality (Aladejana and Talabi, 2013; Aladejana et al., 2020; Omole et al., 2017; Ocheri et al.,

2014) have been released but scanty knowledge of information is known on role of anthropogenic

activities in temporal variation of groundwater quality especially in the study area. This study will
fill this research gap of investigating the role activities in temporal variation of groundwater

quality in Ogbomoso, Oyo State in other to give vital information that would improve water

quality, reduce lost time of man power and indirectly enhance the nation’s economy. The outcome

of this study would also provide useful information to other researchers, policy makers and

stakeholders. Also, the obtained results from this preliminary study will add to the knowledge of

the existing body and it is also expected that this study will serve as a spring board to undertake

detailed and comprehensive studies in other states and countries outside Nigeria.
 CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW

Groundwater

Ground water is the water found underground in the cracks and spaces in the soil, sand and rock

formation. A unit of rock or an unconsolidated deposit, when it can yield a usable quantity of water

is called an aquifer. Groundwater is recharged from, and eventually flows to the surface naturally

discharge often occurs at springs and seeps, and can form oases or wetlands. Groundwater is often

withdrawn from agricultural, municipal and industrial use by construction and operating extraction

wells

Typically, groundwater is thought of as liquid water flowing through shallow aquifers, but

in the technical sense, it can also include soil moisture, permafrost (frozen soil), immobile water

in very low permeability bedrock, and deep geothermal or oil formation water. Groundwater is

hypothesized to provide lubrication that can possibly influence the movement of faults.

2.1 Different Groundwater Quality Parameters

Groundwater quality parameters include chemical, physical, and biological properties and can be

tested or monitored based on the desired water parameters of concern. The parameters are sampled

mainly for water quality determination.

According to Harter, (2013) groundwater quality can be characterized into the following:

a. Physical Parameters

The physical characteristics of water are those properties which can be measured physically and

sensibly observed to human logistic reining. Some of the properties include the following:

pH

This is a measure of how acidic or basic water is and it is related to the Hydrogen ion concentration

of the solution. pH of less than 7 indicates acidity, whereas a Ph of greater than 7 indicates a basic
solution. Water has a Ph of 7 which indicates a neutral solution. The limit of pH value for drinking

water is specified as 6.5 to 8.5 (BIS, Specification for drinking water ISI: 10500, 1991)

Turbidity (suspended Sediments)

The turbidity of water is the amount of cloudiness in it. This is due to the suspended matter, such

as clay and silt particles, discharge of sewage or industrial waste and so on. It is to know how

turbid a quantity of water is since this affects light production (or water transparency), which in

turn is determined to the living organism.

Temperature

Temperature measures the average kinetic energy of a substance. It is essential because of its

influence are on the other properties, speeding up of chemical reactions, entropy reduction in

solubility of gases, amplification of taste and odor. It is measured with the use of a thermometer.

Odor

Odor is caused by extremely small concentrations of volatile compounds. Some of these

compounds are also produced when organic water decomposes and get entrance into surface and

ground water. Their intensity and type determine the offensiveness of the odor. Odor may be

produced by industrial wastes e.g. phenols, chlorophenols, by plankton and addition of chlorine to

the water. Odor is a subjective property which is difficult to measure.

Taste

Taste in water is caused by small concentration of volatile compounds. These compounds are also

produced when organic water decompose and get entrance into surface and ground water. Metallic
ions such as copper, zinc, or iron may cause metallic taste. Chloride, when introduced for the

destruction of bacteria in water, causes reduction in degree of taste.

b. Chemical Parameters

Water is known as a universal solvent due to its ability to dissolve substances in order to

form an aqueous solution. Due to this, chemical characteristics tend to be more specific in nature

than some of the physical properties because at times it involves a new chemical substance

formation. Some chemical characteristics of water samples are as follows:

• Inorganic constituents (salts, nutrients, trace elements including metals)

• Organic constituents (TCE, PCE, benzene, pesticides, organic carbon etc.)

Nitrate

Nitrate is a problem as a contaminant in drinking water (primarily from ground water and wells)

due to its detrimental biological effects. In the atmosphere, major sources of nitrate include

reaction caused by lightening, soil production of NO by microbial process and fossil fuel

combustion. There are many sources of N2 both natural anthropogenic that could potentially lead

to pollution of ground water with nitrates. The anthropogenic sources are really the most often

cause of the amount of nitrate rise to a dangerous level. Thus, water containing high combustion

of nitrate would be considered toxic and unsafe (Lasisi, 2008).

Water hardness

Lalitha and Barani (2004) observed the most common problem associated with ground water may

be hardness caused by an abundance of calcium or magnesium. High amount of hardness in

drinking water leads to heart diseases and kidney stone formation. Calcium and magnesium are

found in ground water because of the dissolving limestone when it reacts with acidic rain water
through a reaction with carbon dioxide. Calcium and magnesium ion can also be released when

water reacts with gypsum. The installation of a well usually solves this problem of two types of

hardness, temporary and permanent.

Iron

A rusty taste in water is a result of iron in ground water. It only gives a bad taste, but can also stain

pipes closing. Iron is natural in nature, so most ground water has some amount of iron in it. Iron

comes from mineral contained in the earth, such as limestone, and coal. There are several methods,

including installing a water softener. Aeration- the addition of oxygen to the water –can aid in the

precipitation of iron, which removes it from the well.

Sulphur

A “rotten egg” smell emanating from hydrogen sulphides gases is often associated with sulphur.

Along with creating an unpleasant odour and taste, sulphide causes corrosion to plumbing and

darkens water. There are two varieties of sulphide: Sulphides and Sulphates. Sulphide is usually

found in minerals such as gypsum anhydrites. There are several methods of treating Sulphur.

Aeration is effective against hydrogen sulphides gases. Chlorination, a reverse osmosis system or

a negative ion exchange also can be effective in combating sulphur.Sulphate content in drinking

water exceeding the 400 mg/L impart bitter taste and may cause gastro-intestine irritation and

catharsis (Manivaskam, 2005).

Total dissolved solids (TDS)

TDS, as they are commonly known, are the concentration of all the dissolved minerals in water.

They are the direct measurement of the interaction between mineral and ground water: TDS level

above 1000mg/l will usually yield poor tasting. Water levels above 2000mg/L are considered
undrinkable. Due to taste and more levels, more than 10,000mg/L defined as water softeners with

a reverse osmosis system are effective in lowering the TDS to satisfactory levels (Maiti, 2004).

c. Biological

• Pathogen indicator organisms (Coliform, E. coli, Enterococcus)

• Pathogens: Protozoa (Cryptosporidium parvum, Giardia lamblia), Bacteria (E. coli

O157, Salmonella, Campylobacter), Viruses.

d. Radiological

• Radioactivity, e.g., gross alpha radiation

Standards of Water Quality

There are many sources of water quality criteria and standards - they may originate in the

Member States of the European Union (EU), or may be adopted by the Council or Parliament of

the EU, or by individual countries, or they may be issued by international bodies. Further, these

various levels specified will take cognizance of the differing uses for which water quality must be

maintained. The requirements, as regards suitability, of water for industrial use, for drinking, for

boilers and so on, may differ widely and each may be quite demanding. The ultimate objective of

the imposition of standards (which may necessitate extensive treatment prior to use) is the

protection of the end uses, be these by humans, animals, agriculture or industry. In the present

context, however, the main considerations are in regard to safeguarding public health and the

protection of the whole aquatic environment. Both have very high quality requirements which

complement each other to a great extent. For example, in general terms, if a river or lake water

meets the most stringent fishery requirements it will meet all or virtually all other environmental
quality objectives (EQOs). In fact, the EU Framework Directive in the field of Water Policy

defines a single EQO - achieving and maintaining "good ecological status."

World Health Organization (WHO) water quality standard are used to regulate standards

of different countries is giving in Table 2.1 with the major elements and their tolerable limit in

potable drinking water. Also, the United State Environmental Protection Agency (US.EPA)

National Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Regulations are given in Table 2.2 and Table 2.3

with the maximum tolerable limit of some major elements and heavy metals in potable drinking

water given.

2.14 Drinking Water Quality Standard used in Nigeria

In 2005, the National Council on Water Resources (NCWR) recognized the need to

urgently establish acceptable Nigerian Standard for Drinking Water Quality because it was

observed that the “Nigerian Industrial Standard for Potable Water” developed by Standards

Organization of Nigeria (SON) and the “National Guidelines and Standards for Water Quality in

Nigeria” developed by Federal Ministry of Environment did not receive a wide acceptance by all

stakeholders in the country.

Since water quality issues are health related issues, the Federal Ministry of Health, collaborating

with the Standards Organization of Nigeria (the only body responsible for developing National

Standards in Nigeria) and working through a technical committee of key stakeholders developed

this Standard.

1. Principles

The effective protection of public health against water related diseases requires a preventive

integrated management approach, this includes:

a) The protection of drinking water from catchments and source to its use by consumers
b) A collaborative multi-agency approach that involve all agencies with responsibilities in the

management of water quality.

c) Water quality standard that is comprehensive, realistic and implementable within the

resources of the implementing agencies.

d) The development of procedures and requirements that ensure good water quality

management in order to meet the maximum allowable limits. These procedures also protect the

environment

e) An independent surveillance agency with strong enforcement authority and functions

decentralized to local government level.

f) An effective drinking water quality data management system to enable generation of data

for the development of coherent public health-centered policies and practices

2. Scope

The Nigerian Standard for Drinking Water Quality covers all drinking water except mineral water

and packaged water.

The standard applies to:

a) Drinking water supplied by State Water Agencies,

b) Drinking water supplied by community managed drinking water systems

c) Drinking water supplied by water vendors and water tankers

d) Drinking water used in public or privately owned establishments

e) Drinking water used in food processing by manufacturers

f) Drinking water from privately owned drinking water system and use solely for the family

residence.
Mineral water and packaged water shall comply with Nigerian Industrial Standards for Natural

Mineral Water (NIS 345:2003) and Potable Water (NIS 306:2004) and used for regulation and

certification by the National Agency for Food and Drug administration and Control (NAFDAC)

and SON respectively (It is important to mention here that the standards for mineral water and

packaged water have different allowable limits for various parameters presented here).

All drinking water shall at any time meet the minimum requirements set out in the table below.
 Parameters WHO USEPA NSDWQ IS UK CDWQ

pH 6.5-8.5 6.5-8.5 6.5-8.5 6.5-8.5 6.5-8.5

Calcium 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.05 3.00 ≤1

Temperature 24.5 – 39.7 Ambient ≤15

EC 2500 1000 1500

TDS 1000 500 500 500 1000 ≤500

Iron 1.00 1.00 0.30 0.30 0.20 ≤0.3

TSS 500

TA 30

Sulphate 400 250 100 200 250 ≤500

Phosphate 2.2

Turbidity 5 ≤5 5 5 4 1

NH3 1.5 0.5

BOD 10

Hardness (CaCO3) 200 150 300 60

Zinc 3 5 3 5 5 ≤5

Potassium 12 12

Lead 0.01 0.015 0.01 0.1 0.05 0.01

Odour U U U A I

U-Unobjectionable, Nd- No Data, A-Acceptable, I-Inoffensive

All in MCL (Maximum Contaminant Level and Health Based).

All units in mg/L except T in degree Celsius, EC in US/cm, Turbidity in NTU

Sources:

WHO - World Health Organization (1993,2008)

USEPA- United State Environmental Protection Agency (2012)

NSDWQ - Nigerian Standard for Drinking Water Quality (2007)

UK-United Kingdom Drinking Water Standard (1993)

IS- Indian Standard (1993)

CDWQ- Canadian Drinking Water Quality Guidelines (2008)

2.2 Factors affecting changes in Groundwater Quality

So many factors contribute to the changes in the quality of groundwater. According to De Giglio

et al., (2015), main factors that makes groundwater source vulnerable and prone to changes are:

i) the characteristics of the soil and its filtration capacity, which can promote or hinder the

diffusion of environmental contaminants.

ii) the climate change, which in recent years has made the natural replenishment of aquifers

increasingly critical.

iii) the strong anthropic pressure that leads to considerable exploitation of water resources,

contributing to reduced availability and the progressive deterioration of water quality.

2.3 Anthropogenic factors affecting different Groundwater Quality Parameters

Anthropogenic factors are factors that cause changes which influence the organic world and are

introduced into nature by human activity. The influence may be direct or indirect. They constitute

the primary deterministic causes of species declines, endangerment and extinction.

Human activities can cause contamination of aquifers, resulting both from industrial activities

(including uncontrolled discharges of potentially toxic chemical substances, processing residues,

and waste) and agricultural activities (including the use of herbicides, anti-parasitics, and

pesticides) (Huang et al., 2012). In particular, intensive agriculture is often inadequate for the

characteristics of the area and the chosen produce, creating a substantial increase of nitrates, which

are usually present in low quantities in groundwater (Widory et al., 2007). Although nitrogen is a

vital nutritive element for the growth of plants, it can be harmful to humans and to the environment

in high concentrations. In Europe, Directive 91/676/CEE, (1991) which regulates the use of

nitrates aimed to prevent pollution of groundwater and surface water caused by agricultural

nitrates and to facilitate the use of correct practices. Furthermore, herbicides and pesticides, which

are mainly used in agriculture to kill fungi, weeds, parasites and insects, are combined with the

fertilization procedure and are often overused. These substances are harmful and dangerous when

used in excessive amounts because they overflow the soil and reach surface water and

groundwater. The presence of these contaminants in groundwater is affected not only by their

physicochemical properties (including biodegradability, potential for absorption, and solubility)

but also by climatic, hydrological and agricultural conditions. The intensive raising of livestock in

confined areas can also contribute to groundwater contamination through animal manure

discharged on areas overlying aquifers. In some regions, it is still customary to spread manure on

the ground to fertilize it and make it more productive. Regrettably, this turns the nitrogen contained

in the manure into nitrate, contaminating the underlying aquifers, especially when the soil

temperature exceeds 5°. Additionally, the amount of nitrogen in groundwater from livestock waste

or chemical fertilizers increases when overlain by permeable soil (Burkart and Stoner, 2007).

2.4 Impact of Anthropogenic activities on Groundwater Quality Parameters

A study by Adeosun et al., (2016) revealed that anthropogenic activities such dumping of refuse,

agricultural runoff, domestic runoff adversely impacts quality of groundwater. Also RamyaPriya

and Elango, (2017) focus on individual chemical parameters revealed that water quality for

irrigation and drinking, contradictory locations existed which were majorly caused by the

anthropogenic activities such as industrial eluents, sewage discharge and agricultural activities.

One of the most important groundwater quality parameter in assessing the quality of water is

Dissolved Oxygen (DO), as it is essential in order to maintain biotic forms in water (Bhat et al.,

2013). Increased amount of organic matter due to agricultural runoff and sewage which needs

oxygen for decomposition reduced the value of Dissolved Oxygen (Bhat et al., 2013).

Furthermore, sewage wastes, industrial activities, agricultural runoffs containing fertilizers

increased the nitrogen and phosphorus level. Ammonia in higher concentration is

harmful to fishes and other aquatic life. The toxicity of ammonia increases with pH because at

higher pH most of the ammonia remains in the gaseous form. At low pH toxicity of ammonia

decreases which is attributed to the conversion of ammonia into ammonium ions (Bhat et al.,

2013).

2.5 Review of Previous Groundwater Quality Results

Adeosun et al., (2016) investigated the impacts of land use types on surface water quality and to

determine the various anthropogenic activities of the surface water flowing into the reservoir. Four

sampling stations were selected around the study location and water samples collected biweekly

from February to June 2013. The result showed that the water quality parameter varied during the

study with temperature ranged between 26.88-31.440C, pH (6.827.98), alkalinity (6.66-14.5mg/l)

and dissolved oxygen (DO) (3.94-6.82mg/l). Highest DO was observed at the reservoir. No

significant difference (p<0.05) was observed in the values of alkalinity among the water bodies.

Temperature was statistically similar (p>0.05) at three of the stations but significantly different
(p<0.05) at the reservoir. The study concluded that water quality of the reservoir was adversely

affected by human activities such as domestic runoff, agricultural runoff, and refuse dump as well

as seasonality in the streams flowing into the FUNAAB reservoir.

RamyaPriya and Elango, (2017) assessed the quality of the Cauvery river water and adjacent

groundwater for drinking and irrigational purposes and to identify the influence of geogenic and

anthropogenic sources. Groundwater and surface water samples were collected along the course

of the river at approximate intervals of 25 km. The samples were analysed for electrical

conductivity, pH, sodium, calcium, magnesium, potassium, bicarbonate, chloride and sulphate.

Sodium was identified as the dominant cation and bicarbonate was the dominant anion for both

river water and groundwater. These values were compared with limits recommended by the

Bureau of Indian Standards for drinking purposes. The total dissolved solids were found to exceed

the permissible limits for drinking water in most of the groundwater samples, and it was below the

permissible limits in river water samples. Most of the river water samples were found to be suitable

as per the drinking water quality standards, but most of the groundwater samples were unsuitable

based on the concentration of major ions. Irrigation water quality was also assessed based on

magnesium hazard, residual sodium carbonate, sodium percentage, sodium adsorption ratio,

permeability index and salinity hazard. Most of the river water samples collected were suitable for

irrigation, whereas most of the groundwater samples collected were doubtful for irrigation based

on residual sodium carbonate and sodium percentage. Drinking water and irrigation water quality

indices were also computed to assess the characteristics of water. Groundwater quality in locations

nearer to the confluence of tributaries and industrial areas was of poor quality, while both river

water and groundwater near the coast were poor, both for drinking and irrigation purposes.

Comparison of the dissolved load with other rivers of the world was also made, which reveals that

the Cauvery River yields comparatively higher dissolved load per area than most of the rivers. The

chemical load in the river is due to natural and anthropogenic sources. Therefore, it is necessary
to enforce the existing norms for the discharge of treated eluents by industries and townships along

the river so as to reduce the chemicals contributed by anthropogenic sources.

Owamah, (2019) gave a correlation and microbial analyses of groundwater, in a rural community,

in the South-South of Nigeria for wet and dry season monitoring. Results of the correlation

analysis showed that the prominent mineral groups responsible for total dissolved solids (TDS)

and electrical conductivity (EC) in the groundwater are Mg-Ca (0.98), Ca-Fe (0.98), Na-K (0.97)

and Na-Mg (0.96) groups and hence, control the chemical properties of the study area

groundwater. The correlation analysis also showed that while Cl- and SO42- did not exhibit strong

preferential affinity for any of the cations, NO3- was perfectly correlated with Mg (-0.91) and Cd

(0.98), and very strongly with Ca (-0.85) and Ba (0.84). The microbial analysis result revealed that

BHs were cleaner sources of potable water in the community, compared with hand-dug wells.

Omole et al., (2017) examined the case of a faith-based campus whose water needs are 100

% serviced via groundwater. The campus accommodates about 15,000 full residents and 400, 000

weekly visitors. The campus water supply is sourced from 15 functional boreholes which are

pumped directly into elevated tanks. Four replicate water samples were obtained from four tap

points which are supplied by four different elevated water tanks within the campus. The water

samples were analyzed for physicochemical contaminants using standard methods. This was done

to confirm the potability of the water which is being consumed by residents. Results of the analysis

of the groundwater in the study area showed that all the water samples met the minimum

requirements of the National Standard for Drinking Water Quality (NSDWQ) for pH, sulphate,

nitrate, chloride and Total Dissolved Solids (TDS). However, all the water samples exceeded the

NSDWQ limit of 400 mg/L for hardness. Cadmium was also found to exceed the NSDWQ limit

of 0.003 mg/L in all water samples while 50 % of the water samples slightly exceeded the 0.5

mg/L limit for Iron. The presence of cadmium in most of the water sample suggests that there is

high risk in consuming water from these boreholes. Due to the life-threatening effect of cadmium
on humans, it was concluded that water from the study area should not be consumed without

treatment.

Aladejana and Talabi, (2013) assessed the groundwater quality in Abeokuta with respect to

drinking and irrigation uses. In-situ parameters (pH, EC, Temperature and TDS) were measured

using a multiparameter portable meter (model Testr-35). Major cations-trace metals and anions

were subsequently determined in the laboratory using ICPMS and titration methods respectively.

Bacteriological analysis was carried out using Nutrient agar medium. Electrical conductivity, pH

and TDS had average concentrations of 504.9μS/cm, 6.5 and 379mg/L, Ca,

Mg, Na and K had average concentrations in mg/L of 30.5, 8.83, 46.65 and 11.78 while HCO3,

SO4, Cl and NO3 average concentrations in mg/L were 99.8, 40.3, 61.3, and 13.7 respectively.

Trace metals; Al, Si, Fe and Mn average concentrations in mg/L were 0.37, 21.98, 24.3 and

0.07 while those of Li, Cu, Pb, Co, Cd and As in μg/L were 11.69, 3.50, 2.95, 0.98, 0.52 and 0.78

respectively. Total Bacteria Count (TBC) that ranged from 2 to 190cfu/100ml and coliform count

from 1 to 120cfu/100ml had high positive correlation with NO3 indicating similar source possibly

from waste/faeces dumps. The concentrations of ions in the groundwater fell within acceptable

limits of both WHO and NAFDAC standards. Estimated water quality index revealed that 22% of

the water samples fell in good water quality category while 72.2% and 5.5% were in the medium

and bad water quality categories respectively. This study also revealed the effectiveness of

hydrochemical and bacteriological evaluations in groundwater quality assessment. Groundwater

in the study area was not potable but had good irrigation quality.

Aniebone, (2014) evaluated the groundwater quality and its suitability for drinking purposes in

Enugu and environs, southeastern Nigeria. Water samples for this study were collected from ten

different locations within the study area. Nine of the samples were subjected to physico-chemical

analyses only, two out of the nine were subjected to both physico-chemical and microbiological

analyses, while one (Egede borehole) was subjected to microbiological analyses only. The
minimum and maximum values of pH (4.10–7.30 on scale), turbidity (0.17– 218.60 NTU), colour

(5.00–250.00 Hazen), electrical conductivity (14.00–550.00 μS/cm), total hardness (4.00–131.00

mg/l), total iron as Fe (0.12–8.60 mg/l), nitrate (0.01–3.50 mg/l), sulphate (0.50–43.00 mg/l),

chloride (2.13–31.00 mg/l) and temperature (28–29 0C) were recorded in the groundwater samples

from the study area Major ion concentrations were low and within the WHO guidelines for

drinking water indicating chemical suitability of surface water. All the three groundwater samples

tested positive to total bacterial count and E – coli. and this is evidence of faecal contamination

and should be treated/disinfected before consumption.

Balogun et al., (2012) related groundwater quality to land use types in Lagos State. Fourteen

samples were collected from hand dug wells and boreholes, seven each from rural and urban land

uses in the study area. Ten parameters (pH, electrical conductivity, total dissolved solids, total

hardness, calcium, magnesium, chloride, nitrate and sulfate) were determined using standard

methods. The resulting water quality indices revealed that 58.09% of the samples were rated very

poor while 21.73%, 9.08% and 11.1% were rated poor, good and excellent, respectively in rural

land use. The analysis of samples drawn from urban land use revealed that 76.55% of the water

was unfit for drinking while 14.4%, 6.42% and 2.63% were found to be very poor, good and

excellent, respectively. pH, total dissolved solids, chloride, total hardness and nitrate were beyond

the permissible limits for urban land use while, pH, total hardness and nitrate were above

permissible limits for rural land use. These parameters were found to be responsible for the poor

water quality rating in the study areas.

Oyiboka, (2014) investigated the effects of open landfill sites on the underground water quality by

examining the physical and chemical properties of underground water in hand-dug wells around

the Solous landfill sites in Igando, Alimosho Local Government Area of Lagos

State. Solous landfill is the second largest landfill by landmass and volume of waste in Lagos

State. The results showed high degree of conformance with W.H.O standard with respect to the
microbiological properties of the sampled groundwater. However, coliform tests indicated the

potential presence of pathogens. Of the seven (7) physical parameters tested, conductivity was

higher in one sample. The study of chemical properties from the eighteen wells showed five (5)

parameters (dissolved oxygen, total alkalinity, iron, lead, nitrates and copper) above W.H.O limits

in some samples. The water may therefore not be safe for human consumption and there is a

serious need to monitor the groundwater quality in the area. The level of contamination of

groundwater was also determined using the Contamination Index method. Areas of high and

medium contamination were discovered. There was no area with low contamination level in the

area sampled. The results of the soil analysis showed that the study area had soil that was mostly

sandy in nature which may suggest an increase in parameters over time with significant health

implications for the people who depend on surrounding wells for domestic use. The study also

showed no significant variation in water quality with increasing distance from the dump site.

Ojikutu et al., (2013) assessed the physico-chemical parameters and heavy metal concentration of

tap and borehole water in Minna metropolis. Hydrogen ions concentration, chloride, Sodium and

Potassium were determined by the method of American Public Health Association (1995) while

temperature was measured with thermometer. Air and Water temperature were determined in situ,

while Hydrogen ions concentration (PH), Ionic conductivity, Alkalinity, Hardness, Chloride,

Sodium, Potassium and Heavy Metal concentration, copper, zinc, Iron and Lead were determined

in the laboratory. The parameters measured showed marked variation across months and locations.

Mean values of physicochemical and concentration of heavy metals in Tap and Borehole water

variables studied showed that parameters measured fell within the recommended ranges for

aquaculture and drinking water. Water temperature showed significant difference (p<0.05) while

conductivity, hardness, alkalinity, sodium and potassium showed no Significant difference (p>

O.05) amongst the months. The physico-chemical parameters assessed, indicated that most of the
parameters fell within standards set by the Federal Ministry of the Environment. Comparison

between tap and borehole water of each location in Minna metropolis did not show Significant

difference in temperatures of the locations (p >0.05). However, significantly difference was

observed in conductivity of the various locations (p <0.05).

2.6 Comparison of variation in changes in groundwater quality

There are many factors that cause variations (slight differences) in the quality of ground water.

Some of the factors are; sedimentation, runoff, erosion, dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature,

pesticides and decayed organic materials.

In a study by Zhang et al., (2020) on spatio-temporal variation of groundwater quality and source

apportionment, the spatial variation in groundwater quality revealed that concentrations of total

dissolved solids (TDS), Cl-, TH and NO3- were the highest in polluted sites, followed by medium

and low polluted sites. The temporal variation in groundwater quality was controlled by the

dilution of rainwater. This finding is related to the dilution effect of groundwater pollutants by

rainwater (Herojeet et al., 2016). Also Ha et al., (2021) evaluated seasonal groundwater quality

due to groundwater pumping and hydrochemical characteristics with groundwater level

fluctuations in an agricultural area in Korea. Groundwater levels were observed for about one year.

Groundwater use in the area is closely related to irrigation for rice farming, and rising groundwater

levels occur during the pumping, which may be caused by the irrigation water of rice paddies.

Hydrochemical analysis results for two separate times (17 July and 1 October 2019) show that the

dissolved components in groundwater decreased overall due to dilution, especially at wells in the

alluvial aquifer and shallow depth. More than 50% of the samples were classified as CaHCO3

water type, and changes in water type occurred depending on the well location. Water quality

changes were small at most wells, but changes at some wells were evident. In addition, the

groundwater quality was confirmed to have the effect of saltwater supplied during the 2018
drought by comparison with seawater. According to principal component analysis (PCA), the

water quality from July to October was confirmed to have changed due to dilution, and the effect

was strong at shallow wells. In the study areas where rice paddy farming is active in summer,

irrigation water may be one of the important factors changing the groundwater quality.

Obeng, (2015) assessed the quality of groundwater in Bogoso, focusing on pollution from heavy

metals. The results showed wide variations in the parameters investigated. pH values ranged from

5.10 at BB4 to 6.32 at BB2, which was lower than the WHO standard. The EC ranged from the

lowest of 393.33μs/cm at BB1 to the highest of 863.33μs/cm indicating a higher EC value than

the recommended standard. Heavy metal concentrations in boreholes were generally low. Results

obtained for Zn, Cu, As, Cd and Pb were below the recommended limit by WHO. This result is

similar to other studies by Bhat et al., 2013;

 CHAPTER THREE

PROPOSED METHODOLOGY

3.1 Description of Study Area

The study will be conducted in Ogbomoso North Local Government Area of Oyo State.

Ogbomoso North LGA is located on a latitude 8007’N and longitude 4014’E. The estimated

population of the city is 551,474 (NPC, 2020). Ogbomoso North LGA is one of the five local

governments in Ogbomoso. Other local governments are: Ogbomoso South, Surulere, OgoOluwa,

and Oriire local governments. Ogbomoso North local government is the most populous of the local

governments in Ogbomoso harbouring about half of the whole city population. Ogbomosho North

Local Government headquarter is situated in Kinnira town consisting the wards and districts of

Aaje, Ogunbado, Oke Agbede, Abogunde, Aguodo, Masifa, Isale Afon, Isale Alaasa, Isale

Ora/Saja, Jagun, Okelerin, Osupa, Sabo, Taara. The local government shares boundaries with Ori

Ire, Surulere, and Ogbomosho South Local Government areas. Ogbomoso

North LGA has three degree-granting institution of higher learning which are Ladoke

Akintola University of Technology (LAUTECH), The Nigerian Baptist Theological Seminary

(NBTS) and Bowen University Teaching Hospital (BUTH) (Wikipedia, 2021). Ogbomoso North

LGA is mainly populated by the Yorubas with other tribes too. The dominant religions in the city

are Christianity and Islam with traditional worshippers too.

 Map of Oyo State showing Ogbomoso North Local Government

3.2 Materials and Methods

Assessment of water sources involved two major steps which are:

a. Collection of water samples

b. Analysis of water samples (Laboratory Analysis)

3.2.1 Collection of Water Samples

This involved the collection of water samples for analysis. The process of water collection

involves:

a. Reconnaissance survey of anthropogenic activities in each sampling area

b. Locating sampling points

c. Water Sampling for quantitative analysis of selected points

 Reconnaissance Survey of the Proximal Anthropogenic Activities

The study area was visited prior to the time of water samples collection in order to identify

the sampling points with reference to the locations in past reports and aim and objectives of this

project as required. This survey also involved the observation on a prior basis, with an extensive

investigation and field survey of the proximal anthropogenic activities such as waste discharges,

natural and man-made pollutants, chemical treatments, underground water resources, agro wastes

and so on around the area.

Location of Sampling Points

In locating sampling points for the purpose of this project, boreholes and wells from which

water samples were collected were identified across the sampling area after a thorough

familiarization process was embarked on, so as to give advanced knowledge of the exact location

and course of the sample source as well as references to map using Global Positioning Satellite

(GPS) for locating coordinates and referencing on map. 16 sampling points of previous study were

located. Table shows the

 Table of sampling locations and anthropogenic activities (2021)

ID Location Longitude Latitude X Y Anthropogenic

6A SAJA Ale-biosu 4015’8.25”E 808’0.19”N 4.252292 8.133386 Pig pen. Farm

house
7A MASIFA Asipa 4015’13.16”E 808’05.79”N 4.253656 8.134942 Sewage, bathroom
house
9A AGU-ODO 4014’45.17”E 808’14.07”N 4.242211 8.133386 Residential
Balogun
10A Ikolaba 4014’43.68”E 808’16.99”N 4.245467 8.138053 Drainage
11A OKELERIN 4014’39.74”E 808’6.15”N 4.244372 8.135042 Drainage, Car wash,
Areree Mechanic
13A Oloko river 4014’41.24”E 808’10.53”N 4.243606 8.134769 Residential
15A OKELERIN/Yi 4014’37.23”E 807’57.99”N 4.243675 8.132775 Residential Area
do house
16A ISALE AFON/ 4014’53.71”E 807’56.61”N 4.248253 8.132392 Residential Area
Ile bara
17A Ile elenji 4o14’56.89”E 8o8’00.42”N 4.249136 8.13345 Stream, Residential
18A ISALE 4o14’57.63”E 8o8’00.32”N 4.249342 8.133422 Sewage
AFON/Ile ata
gbonrin
19A OSUPA 4o14’12.84” 8o7’44.16”N 4.2369 8.128933 Mosque, Drainage

20A OSUPA/ 4o14’10.98”E 8o7’45.36”N 4.236383 8.129267

Borehole

23A OKELERIN 4o14’44.34”E 8o7’54.24”N 4.24565 8.131733 Mosque

30A ISALE 4o15’17.56”E 8o7’35.95”N 4.254919 8.126792

ALAASA

40A ABOGUNDE 4o14’01.25”E 8o7’03.63”N 4.233681 8.117675 Residential, Hospital

46A AAJE 4o14’35.61”E 8o7’52.20”N 4.243225 8.131167

OGUNBADO
 Water sampling methods for quantitative assessment

During water quality investigation for quantitative assessment, the selection of sampling

points is very important. A successful sampling program entails the selection of sampling points

in line with objective of the study. In addition, full information on the behavioral aspects of people

around a given water source is also required and for this study, purposive sampling was employed

for obtaining data in the study area. This sampling technique was employed to sample some

specifically targeted boreholes and wells in areas with characteristics such as high proximity to

some activities perceived to pollute groundwater. Water samples were taken using the following

methods:

1. Grab method: For well water sources.

2. Direct approach: For tap water sources.

Samples were taken at varying points from the sources, according to locations from past

reports in order to determine the quality and effect of anthropogenic activities on them. The

samples were collected into pre-cleaned 1L polyethylene sampling bottles. Several points were

chosen from all the water sources under study. Physical parameters could not be determined on

the field due to unavailability of testing equipment which brought about a laboratory analysis for

each parameter.

Groundwater samples for this study were collected from sixteen (16) different locations

within the study area, then analyzed to determine the concentration of water quality parameters in

each location and comparing with past result of water quality parameters for same location as at

2015.

3.2.2 ANALYSIS OF WATER SAMPLES

Groundwater samples were collected from different locations in the study area. This is in

order to ensure a geographical representation of all the quarters.

 3.3 LABORATORY

The experiment was carried out at ( ). The samples collected were analyzed for the

following parameters. Physical, Chemical and Bacteriological. The following include

parameters that were analyzed:

1. Physical: pH, Temperature, Turbidity, Color.

2. Chemical: Total Dissolved Solids, Total Hardness, Total Alkalinity, Chloride, Nitrate,

Iron, Sulphite, Conductivity

3. Biological: Coli form index, BOD.

pH

pH was carried out at room temperature by portable pH meter (Jenway 370) after calibration with

pH 7 and 4 buffer.

TURBIDITY

The turbidity of water sample was directly determined by the portable turbidimeter (Jenway 6035)

at room temperature.

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY AND TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS

The EC of the water samples were carried out with aid of a salinometer.

Conductivity and TDS were carried out at 25oC by conductivity meter (Jenway 470) after

calibration with calibration solution (HI-7031, Henna instrument Hungry).

In order to prepare buffer solution (pH = 10) 16.9gm NH4Cl (Scharlau Chemie, AM 0270) was

dissolved in 143 ml NH4OH (Fisher Scientific, UK Limited). Add 1.25 gm Magnesium EDTA

and dilute to 250 ml with deionised water.

Calcium standard solution was prepared by dissolving 1.00gm CaCO3 (Scharlau Chemie, CA

0184) in 1L volumetric flask. Add 200ml deionised water and add drop wise concentrated HCl

until CaCO3 dissolved. Boil for few 5 minutes to expel the CO2. Cool and the make up the volume

1L. To prepare 0.01M EDTA solution 3.723gm Na2EDTA.H2O (Scharlau Chemie, AC 0963) was

weighed and dissolved in distilled water followed made up to 1L. To prepare indicator powder

mixed 0.5gm of erichrome black T (Fluka, 45600) in 100gm of NaCl (Scharlau Chemie, SO

0227).

TURBIDITY

The turbidity of water sample was directly determined by the portable turbidimeter (Jenway 6035)

at room temperature.

TOTAL HARDNESS

Total hardness was determined by taking 10ml of water sample and dilute to approximately 50ml

with deionised water. Add 1 to 2 ml buffer solution (pH 10). Add 250 mg Sodium Cyanide

(Scharlau Chemie, SO 0190) and 200mg indicator powder, shake well. Titrate within 5 minutes

with EDTA standard solution slowly with continuous stirring until reddish tinge disappeared.

Titrate the calcium standard solution like sample and calculate the hardness as follow:

Hardness (ppm) = (ml titration for sample × mg CaCO3 equivalent to 1 ml EDAT titrant/ ml of

Sample) ×1000

TEMPERATURE

The temperature was determined using mercury in glass thermometer

DISSOLVED OXYGEN

Determine by using dissolve oxygen meter sensor METTLER TOLEDO

BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND

BOD in water is basically determined by the difference in the dissolved oxygen (DO) levels of

water samples prior incubation and after 5 days of incubation. The BOD of the collected

wastewater samples was determined by the dilution method. Dilution water was prepared by

addition of 10 mL of each of the reagents; phosphate buffer, magnesium sulphate, calcium

chloride, ferric chloride, sodium sulphite and ammonium chloride into 10 L of water. A

measured volume of wastewater sample was topped up with dilution water to 1 L mark of a

standard flask. Two 300 mL amber bottle were completely filled with the diluted water. One of

the bottles was incubated at 20 _C for 5 days. MnSO4 solution, alkali-iodide-azide reagent and

concentrated sulphuric acid were added into the other amber bottle. DO in the wastewater

sample was derived through iodometric titration. For dissolved oxygen at day zero (DO0), 50

mL aliquot of the solution was titrated against sodium thiosulphate solution using starch solution

as indicator, until a colourless end-point was attained. At the end of the 5 days, the sample in

the incubator was brought out, dissolved oxygen at day five after incubation (DO5) was

determined by following the same procedure used for the determination of DO0. A blank was

prepared in a transparent bottle for DO0. Another blank was prepared in an amber bottle and

incubated with the sample for DO5:

BOD5 (mg L-1) = [(DO - DO5) x Volume of BOD bottle]/ Volume of sample

FLUORIDE

Introduce into the Claisen flask a number of fragments of Pyrex glass or glass beads, 0.2 gm of

silver sulphate, 7 mL of distilled water and 15 mL of Perchloric acid.

 Heat the flask until the temperature reaches 120°C to 125°C, connect to the steam supply and

regulate the gas and steam so that the distillation proceeds at a temperature of 137°C to 140°C.

Distil 150 mL in 25 to 35 min and steam out the condenser towards the end of the distillation.

Discard the first distillate. Distil a further 150mL and determine the fluorides in it by the method

given above. The figure for this blank shall not exceed 0.0015 mg and shall be approximately

constant for any further 150 mL fraction.

Make 150 mL of the sample alkaline to phenolphthalein indicator with sodium hydroxide

solution, add a few drops in excess and concentrate to 20 mL. When cool, transfer quantitatively

to the distillation flask and carefully add 15 mL of concentrated

sulphuric acid. If the amount of chloride in the aliquot exceeds 5 mg, add about 5 mg of silver

sulphate for each milligram of chlorine. Connect up the apparatus and distil 150mL as above.

Determine the fluoride content of the total 150 mL of distillate.

calculation

Fluoride (as F), mg/L = 1000W/V

Where

W = weight of fluorides (as F) in the standard solution matched by 150 mL of the Distillate, in

mg

V= volume of the sample taken in mL

NO4

Prepare nitrate standards in the range of 0.10 to 5.0 mg/L by diluting 0, 1.0, 5.0 10, 25,

25, 40 and 50 mL of standard nitrate solution to 100 mL with water. If appreciable amount of

suspended matter is present, filter suitably. Pipette 2.0 mL portions of the standard nitrate solutions

samples and a water blank into dry 10 mL volumetric flasks.

To each flask, add 1 drop of sulphite urea reagent. Place flask in tray of cold water (10 to
20oC) and add 2 mL of antimony reagent. Swirl flasks during addition of each reagent.

After about 4 minutes in the bath, add 1 mL of chromotropic acid reagent, swirl and let stand in

cooling bath for 3 minutes. Add concentrated sulphuric acid to bring volume near the 10 mL mark.

Stopper the flasks and mix by inverting each flask four times. Let it stand for 45 minutes at room

temperature and adjust volume to 10 mL with concentrated sulphuric acid. Perform final mixing

very carefully and gently to avoid introducing gas bubbles. Read absorbance at 410 nm between

15 minutes and 24 hours after last volume adjustment. Use nitrate free water in the reference cell

of the spectrophotometer.

Calculation

Nitrate nitrogen (as NO3), mg/L= μg of nitrate nitrogen in 10 mL final volume

Volume in ml of sample taken for test

Calculate the Total hardness as follows: Analysis for Total Hardness is carried

out at pH 10 using Erichrome Black T indicator.

Total hardness (CaCO3) mg/L = [1000(V1 –V2)/V3] x CF

Where

V1 = volume in mL of the EDTA standard solution used in the titration for

the sample

V2 = volume in mL of the EDTA solution used in the titration for blank.

V3 = volume in mL of the sample taken for the test

CF = X1/X2 correction factor for standardize ion of EDTA.

X1 = volume in mL of standard calcium solution taken for standardization

X2 = volume of mL of EDTA solution used in the titration

Chloride Determination

The concentration of chloride ions in the water was determined using Mohr’s method.

The Mohr method uses chromate ions as an indicator in the titration of chloride ions with a silver

nitrate standard solution. A known volume of wastewater sample was titrated against a known

concentration of silver nitrate. After all the chloride has been precipitated as white silver chloride,

the first excess of titrant resulted in the formation of a brownish red silver chromate precipitate,

indicating the end point. The reactions are:

Ag+ + Cl- -------- AgCl

2Ag+ + CrO2-4 ------- Ag2CrO4

The concentration of chloride in the water was determined from the stoichiometry and moles

consumed at the end point.

CHLORIDE ANALYSIS

Use 100 mL sample or a suitable portion diluted to 100 mL. If the sample is highly colored, add 3

mL of aluminium hydroxide suspension, mix, let settle and filter. If sulphide, sulphite or

thiosulphate is present, add 1 mL of hydrogen peroxide and stir for 1 minute. Directly titrate the

samples in the pH range 7 to 1 0. Adjust sample pH to 7-10 with sulphuric acid or sodium

hydroxide if it is not in the range. Add 1.0 mL of potassium chromate indicator solution.

Titrate with standard silver nitrate solution to a pinkish yellow end point. Standardize silver nitrate

solution and establish reagent blank value by titration method.

Calculation:

Chloride, mg/L = (V1- V2) X N X 35450 / V3

Where

V1 = Volume in mL of silver nitrate used by the sample

V2 = Volume in mL of Silver nitrate used in the blank titration

V3= volume in mL of sample taken for titration

N= Normality of silver nitrate solution

ALKALINITY ANALYSIS

Pipette 20 mL or a suitable aliquot of sample into 100 mL beaker. If the pH of the sample is over

8.3 then add 2 to 3 phenolphthalein indicator and titrate with standard sulphuric acid solution till

the pink color observed by indicator just disappears (equivalence of pH 8.3).

Record the volume of standard sulphuric acid solution used. Add 2 to 3 drops of mixed indicator

to the solution in which the phenolphthalein alkalinity has been determined.

Titrate with the standard acid to light pink color (equivalence of pH 3.7). Record the volume of

standard acid used after phenolphthalein alkalinity.

Calculation: Calculate alkalinity in the sample as follows

Phenolphthalein alkalinity (as mg/L of CaCO3) = AXN X50000/V

Total alkalinity (as mg/L CaCO3) -= (AX B) X N V50000/V

Where

A= mL of standard sulphuric acid used to titrate to pH 8.3

B=mL of standard sulphuric acid used to titrate form pH 8.3 to pH 3.7

N= normality of acid used

V= Volume in mL of sample taken for test.

SULPHATE ANALYSIS

Mix 50 mL glycerol with a solution containing 30Ml concentration hydrochloric acid, 300mL

distilled water, 100 mL 95% ethyl or isopropyl alcohol and 75 gm sodium chloride. Stock

sulphate solution - Dissolve 0.1479 gm of anhydrous sodium sulphate (Na2SO4) in distilled

 water and dilute to one liter. Standard sulphate solution - prepare a series of standards by diluting

stock solution of sulphate to cover the desired range in between 1 to 40 mg/L. Hydrochloric acid

(1+9) - dissolve one volume of concentrated hydrochloric acid with 9 volumes of distilled water.

Sample preparation: Filter the sample through 0.45 μm, filter, if there is any turbidity. Take

20 mL of clear aliquot of the water sample of suitable amount diluted to 20 mL in 100mL conical

flask. Add 1.0 mL hydrochloric acid solution and 1.0 mL conditioning reagent and mix well for

30 sec. Read the absorbance on spectrophotometer after 10 min if glycerol conditioning reagent

is used or 30 min, if gelatin is used, at 420 nm or read the turbidity occurred on turbidity meter

following the manufacturer instruction to operate. If water sample is turbid take 20 mL sample

or suitable amount dilute to 20 mL with distilled water. Do not add conditioning reagent. Read

the absorbance of this sample and subtract this value form the above measured absorbance.

Calibration curve prepare a series of standards taking at least 4 standards and run a blank and

follow the steps and by and prepare a calibration curve of standards mg/L vs. absorbance

Calculation: Read the sulphate concentration of sample directly from the calibration curve

PHOSPHATE ANALYSIS

Spectrophotometry (Jackson, 1973)

Principle

Phosphate reacts with ammonium molybdate and ammonium metavandate in acidic medium to

give a yellow colour product. The intensity of the yellow colour was directly

related to the concentration of phosphorus and was read at 420nm in a spectrophotometer.

Reagent

1. Barteau reagent:

Solution A: 25g of ammonium molybdate was dissolved in 400ml of warm water.

Solution B: 1.25g of ammonium metavandate was dissolved in 300ml of boiling water. Solution

A and B were mixed and made up to 1000ml.

Procedure

5 mL of sample was taken in a 100ml kjeldhal flask. Added 25ml of the duplicate acid mixture

and heated for 4 hours, cooled and made up the solution to 100ml with distilled water. From the

digested extract, pipetted out 5ml of the aliquot into a 25ml volumetric flask. Introduced a bit of

red litmus paper. Neutralized with ammonia solution until litmus paper turned blue. Again

neutralized with concentrated nitric acid until litmus paper turned red. Added 5ml of Barteau

reagent. Made up the volume to 25ml with distilled water. After 30 minutes the intensity of yellow

colour developed was read at 420nm in a spectrophotometer. Using the phosphate standard curve,

the phosphate concentration in the sample was read in ppm.

Preparation of phosphate standard curve

Analytical grade of potassium dihydrogen phosphate was dried at 40°C and 0.2195g

was dissolved in 400ml of distilled water. 25ml of 7N sulphuric acid was added and volume was

made up to 1000ml. This is 50ppm of phosphate. Then 100ml of this 50 ppm stock solution was

diluted to 100ml to get 5ppm of phosphate solution. From this a series of phosphate standard

ranging from 0.001 ppm to 1ppm were prepared. Finaly 5ml of this solution were pipetted out into

a 25ml volumetric flask. 5ml of Barteau reagent was added and volume was made up to 25ml.

Intensity of the color of each standard was measured on the calorimeter and a standard curve was

constructed using calorimeter readings and concentrations.

BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (BOD)

BOD in water is basically determined by the difference in the dissolved oxygen (DO) levels of

water samples prior incubation and after 5 days of incubation. The BOD of the collected

wastewater samples was determined by the dilution method. Dilution water was prepared by

addition of 10 mL of each of the reagents; phosphate buffer, magnesium sulphate, calcium

chloride, ferric chloride, sodium sulphite and ammonium chloride into 10 L of water. A measured

volume of wastewater sample was topped up with dilution water to 1 L mark of a standard flask.

Two 300 mL amber bottle were completely filled with the diluted water. One of the bottles was

incubated at 20 _C for 5 days. MnSO4 solution, alkali-iodide-azide reagent and concentrated

sulphuric acid were added into the other amber bottle. DO in the wastewater sample was derived

through iodometric titration. For dissolved oxygen at day zero (DO0), 50 mL aliquot of the

solution was titrated against sodium thiosulphate solution using starch solution as indicator, until

a colourless end-point was attained. At the end of the 5 days, the sample in the incubator was

brought out, dissolved oxygen at day five after incubation (DO5) was determined by following the

same procedure used for the determination of DO0. A blank was prepared in a transparent bottle

for DO0. Another blank was prepared in an amber bottle and incubated with the sample for DO5:

BOD5 (mg L-1) = [(DO - DO5) x Volume of BOD bottle]/ Volume of sample

NITRATE ANALYSIS

Nitrate in wastewater was determined using a UV spectrometric method. A 100 mg/L standard

solution of nitrate was made by dissolving 0.72 g of anhydrous potassium nitrate in 1 L of distilled

water. Serial dilutions from nitrate stock solution was done for the preparation of calibration

standards for nitrate in the range 0.1–1.0 mg/L. A series of reaction tubes was set up in test tube

stand and placed in a cold-water bath. Measured volume of wastewater sample was poured into

the reaction tubes, with NaCl solution and sulphuric acid added sequentially. Brucine-sulphanilic

acid reagent was added and the mixture heated for some minutes in a boiling water bath. The
samples were then allowed to cool and the absorbance of each sample at 410 nm in the UV

spectrometer was measured, in comparison with the reagent blank. Nitrate- Nitrogen (NO3-N)

concentration in the wastewater samples was determined by extrapolation from the calibration

curve.

Total Metal Analysis

Wastewater samples were digested by nitric acid and the digest were analyzed using Atomic

Absorption Spectrophotometry (AAS, Perkin—Elmer, Melville, NY, USA). Calibration curves

were plotted for each of the metals separately, by running various concentrations of standard

solutions at specified wavelengths. A reagent blank sample was also analyzed. The concentration

of the metal was obtained from the difference between the readings of the samples and that of the

blank.

3.5 Statistical Methods for Data Analysis

3.5.1 Descriptive Statistics

The use of bar graphs was used to carry out detailed review and compare the result of the analysis

of previous and present water quality studies within the area of study, in order to establish temporal

variations in groundwater quality

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Temperature

The temperature values from the analysis ranged from 24°C - 26.15°C. Sample 6A showed the

highest average value of 26.15°C while Sample 9A showed the lowest average values of 25.3°C.

There is no permissible limit or value for temperature for SON but an ambient temperature was

recommended.

Chloride Concentration

From the results obtained, chloride concentration of the sampling points of study ranges from

19mg/l to 68mg/l which shows a high concentration of chloride ions as compared to results from

2015 with chloride ions ranging from 0mg/l to 10mg/l as seen in Chart .

The samples conformed with SON drinking water standard for chloride which is 250mg/L. This

shows that in the past six years, human activities observed in this study has resulted in very high

increase in the chloride ion concentration in Ogbomosho North.

This signifies that in another five or six years, the chloride concentration of these areas will

continue to increase if these anthropogenic activities become continuous and can pose threat to the

health of the residents of these areas who depend on these water sources for consumption.
Iron Concentration

Iron concentration from obtained results ranges from 0 to 0.4mg/l as at 2021. When compared

with 2015 with result ranging from 0 to 0.03mg/l as seen in chart , Iron concentration of these

areas remain in the same range.

Anthropogenic activities have had not so much effect on the iron concentration of the water

sources in the study areas for the past six years and there is probability of little or no changes in

five or six years to come.

The water analysis for iron concentration does not conformed with the SON maximum permitted

limits of 0.3mg/L. At levels above 0.3 mg/l, iron stains laundry and plumbing fixtures.

Magnesium Concentration

Magnesium concentration as shown in chart , ranging from 6mg/L to 9mg/L in 2021 and

when compared with 3mg/l to 11mg/l as at 2015 shows varying trend in the past six years.

Depending on the area and anthropogenic activities recorded, these values will continue to vary

per time.

All values of the concentration of the analysis for magnesium conformed with SON maximum

permitted limit of 0.20mg/L. The concentration of magnesium in the water samples is very high

and too much of magnesium concentration, when consumed can cause health problems, including

digestive issues, lethargy, and an irregular heartbeat.

pH

The Ph values as at 2021 ranges from 6 to 7 from the results obtained and when compared with

past result from the representative chart, it ranges from 6 to 7.3 in the study from 2015. This shows

that anthropogenic activities have not had much effect on the acidic and basic concentration of the

study area in the past six years. All samples are within the range of SON and WHO limits which

are both 6.5-8.5.

SO4

SO4 concentration has decreased highly in the recent study as its values range from 30mg/l to

170mg/l. This shows that human activities within the study area has had so much effect on the

SO4 concentration of the water sources in study area.

Calcium Concentration

Calcium concentration as shown in chart , ranging from 11.53mg/L to 54.03mg/L in 2021,

compared with 4.2mg/L to 14.7mg/L as at 2015 shows an increasingly high difference.

 Table of sampling locations and anthropogenic activities (2015)

ID pH TDS Temp Fe Ca Mg SO4 Cl

(ppm) (oC) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)

6A 6.6 50 32.1 0 11.5 10.1 549.604 3.1

7A 7.2 80 31.8 0 4.2 3.3 537.054 10.8

9A 6.6 40 32 0 8.7 7.6 103.152 3

10A 6.6 50 32.5 0 10 8.4 156.942 7.3

11A 6.3 30 32.8 0 14.7 11.3 129.151 10.4

13A 6.7 60 32.2 0.03 7.3 5.3 268.107 9.2

15A 6.4 90 32.9 0 14.2 11.6 351.48 7.7

16A 6.6 80 32.8 0.01 7.1 5.6 143.494 5.6

17A 6.6 30 32.6 0.01 11.9 11.1 496.712 6.2

18A 6.6 60 32.3 0 4.8 4.09 168.596 6.2

19A 7.3 60 33 0 11.4 9.81 308.449 10.9

20A 7.3 30 33 0 10.4 8.3 306.656 11.9

23A 6.9 30 32.6 0 10 9.3 165.01 9.4

30A 6.5 46 32.4 0 5.2 4.8 166.803 12

40A 6.6 49 32.1 0 4.6 4.1 156.942 6.2

46A 6.2 70 32.6 0 6.1 5.8 539.74 5.2

 Table of sampling locations and anthropogenic activities (2021)

ID pH TDS Temp Fe Ca Mg SO4 Cl

(ppm) (oC) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)

6A 6.57 301.5 26.15 0.097 18.51 8.045 114.3 22.175

7A 6.94 502.5 24.2 0.116 11.53 7.095 109.3 38.275

9A 6.49 612.5 24 0.113 38.245 6.065 145.7 53.315

10A 6.6 358.5 25.45 0.371 19.12 7.145 133.7 27.84

11A 6.875 480 24.35 0.1085 14.57 6.47 166.4 37.135

13A 6.865 746 24.8 0.367 31.255 9.2 157.2 66.485

15A 6.895 596 25.05 0.2 28.105 7.57 137.8 51.755

16A 6.835 642.5 24.85 0.185 39.94 7.17 90.4 56.595

17A 6.695 676.5 24.8 0.1285 54.025 9.625 90.7 56.655

18A 6.97 468.5 24.85 0.0925 20.635 9.57 68.8 36.95

19A 7.155 466.5 25 0.1025 40.06 9.09 114.7 36.345

20A 6.93 330 25.1 0.13 14.87 7.215 100.3 26.48

23A 6.9 748 25.1 0.1355 45.225 7.16 31.2 66.5

30A 6.86 331 25.25 0.1135 13.955 8.025 69.4 27.5

40A 6.575 261.5 25.3 0.1255 12.135 7.05 43.8 17.705

46A 6.735 495 25.35 0.254 38.85 7.03 46.5 36.55

CONCLUSION

The study above shows that there is a temporal variation in water quality parameters within

Ogbomoso North for the period of six years (between 2015 and 2021) as a result of various

anthropogenic activities in the area.

RECOMMENDATION

This study should be carried out again in the next five to six years in order to keep track of the

concentration level of the water quality parameters in the ground water sources around the study

area (Ogbomoso North).

CHAPTER FIVE

REFERENCES

Smith and Edger, (2006). “About 70% of the human body and about 60-70% of plant cells are

made up of water”

Shalom, (2011). ‘This is because human being can live for days or even weeks without food but

only a few days without water would result in death.”

Olayinka and Olubode, (2018). “Therefore it is a big necessity for a man to have regular and

adequate intake of water in order to remain alive.”

Ali, (2012). “However a great concern that must be put to note is that adequate provision of safe

drinking water still remains a big challenge to many people worldwide, especially those living in

less-developed regions.”

WHO, (2008). “There is an increasing awareness that water will be one of the most critical natural

resources in future due to the fact that about 2 million children that are less than five

(5) years die annually in developing countries as a result of diarrhea diseases.” World Health

Organization

Edet, (2016). “One of the most important sources of freshwater that is used to meet daily water

demand is groundwater, especially in the developing country of sub-Saharan Africa.”

Omole et al., (2017). “Groundwater is the most accessed freshwater source in Nigeria.” Dwairo et

al., (2010). “This is often abstracted through boreholes, hand-pump wells, and sometimes

springs.”

Dahunsi et al., (2014). “The contamination of any or all of these water sources poses serious threat

to the health of the dwellers as they are usually consumed without any form of treatment.”

Matiatos, (2016). “The chemical composition of groundwater can be altered both at its source as

well as along the flow paths, following biogeochemical processes and interactions with several

other inorganic and organic substances either geogenic or of anthropogenic origin.”

Amadi, (2014). “water is a universal solvent that has the ability to dissolve and interact with

organic and inorganic components of the aquifer material through which it migrates.”

Amadi, (2014). “This implies that groundwater chemistry is a function of the mineral composition

and the formation as it moves from recharge to discharge areas which varies spatially and

temporally depending of on the chemical nature of the water, mineralogy of the geological

formations, anthropogenic activities and and residence time of the groundwater.”

Ocheri et al., (2014). “In Nigeria, the rate of urbanization characterized by high population density,

increasing industrial and agricultural activities coupled with environmental pollution/degradation

and indiscriminate disposal of all kinds of wastes are perceived to pose serious pollution threats

with all its concomitant health hazards on groundwater quality especially in urban areas.”
Edokpayi, et al., (2018). “It is considered a good alternative to potable water because of its low

turbidity and perceived low contamination.”

Omole et al., (2017). “However, these resources are confronted with pollution problems arising

from both natural causes and human activities.”

(Onuoha et al., 2018; Adeosun et al., 2016; Ayobahan et al., 2014), assessment of groundwater

quality (Aladejana and Talabi, 2013; Aladejana et al., 2020; Omole et al., 2017; Ocheri et al.,

2014) have been released but scanty knowledge of information is known on role of anthropogenic

activities in temporal variation of groundwater quality especially in the study area.

De Giglio et al., (2015). “So many factors contribute to the changes in the quality of groundwater.”

Widory et al.,(2007). “In particular, intensive agriculture is often inadequate for the characteristics

of the area and the chosen produce, creating a substantial increase of nitrates, which are usually

present in low quantities in groundwater.”

Burkart and Stoner, (2007). “Additionally, the amount of nitrogen in groundwater from livestock

waste or chemical fertilizers increases when overlain by permeable soil.”

Adeosun et al., (2016). “revealed that anthropogenic activities such dumping of refuse, agricultural

runoff, domestic runoff adversely impacts quality of groundwater.” RamyaPriya and Elango,

(2017). “focus on individual chemical parameters revealed that water quality for irrigation and

drinking, contradictory locations existed which were majorly caused by the anthropogenic

activities such as industrial eluents, sewage discharge and agricultural activities.”

Bhat et al., (2013). “One of the most important groundwater quality parameter in assessing the

quality of water is Dissolved Oxygen (DO), as it is essential in order to maintain biotic forms in

water.”

Bhat et al., (2013). “At low pH toxicity of ammonia decreases which is attributed to the conversion

of ammonia into ammonium ions.”

Adeosun et al., (2016). “investigated the impacts of land use types on surface water quality and to

determine the various anthropogenic activities of the surface water flowing into the reservoir.”

RamyaPriya and Elango, (2017). “assessed the quality of the Cauvery river water and adjacent

groundwater for drinking and irrigational purposes and to identify the influence of geogenic and

anthropogenic sources.”

Omole et al., (2017). “examined the case of a faith-based campus whose water needs are 100 %

serviced via groundwater.“

Aladejana and Talabi, (2013). “assessed the groundwater quality in Abeokuta with respect to

drinking and irrigation uses.”

Aniebone, (2014). “evaluated the groundwater quality and its suitability for drinking purposes in

Enugu and environs, southeastern Nigeria”.

Balogun et al., (2012). “related groundwater quality to land use types in Lagos State.”
Oyiboka, (2014). “investigated the effects of open landfill sites on the underground water quality

by examining the physical and chemical properties of underground water in hand-dug wells around

the Solous landfill sites in Igando, Alimosho Local Government Area of Lagos State.”

Ojikutu et al., (2013). “assessed the physico-chemical parameters and heavy metal concentration

of tap and borehole water in Minna metropolis. Hydrogen ions concentration, chloride, Sodium

and Potassium were determined by the method of American Public Health Association (1995)

while temperature was measured with thermometer.“

In a study by Zhang et al., (2020) “on spatio-temporal variation of groundwater quality and source

apportionment, the spatial variation in groundwater quality revealed that concentrations of total

dissolved solids (TDS), Cl-, TH and NO3- were the highest in polluted sites, followed by medium

and low polluted sites.”

Obeng, (2015) assessed the quality of groundwater in Bogoso, focusing on pollution from heavy

metals.

Aladejana, J. A. and Talabi, A. O. (2013). Assessment of Groundwater Quality in Abeokuta

Southwestern, Nigeria. International Journal Of Engineering And Science, 2(6):

21

31, 2013.

Ha, K., Lee, E., An, H., Kim, S., Park, C., Kim, G.-B. and Ko, K.-S. (2021). Evaluation of
 Seasonal Groundwater Quality Changes Associated with Groundwater Pumping

and

Level Fluctuations in an Agricultural Area, Korea. Water 2021, 13: 1-21

Olayinka, A.D. and Olubode, A.O. (2018). Quality Assessment of surface and underground Water

in Ipoti-Ekiti, South West Nigeria, 8th International Conference on Recycling,

Pollution Control and Waste Management, August 31 - September 01, 2020.

Omole, D., Bamgbelu, O., Tenebe, I., Emenike, P. and Oniemayin, B. (2017). Analysis of

Groundwater Quality in a Nigerian Community. Journal of Water Resource and

Hydraulic Engineering, 6(2): 22-26, 2017.

Owamah, H.I. (2019). Groundwater Quality Parameters-Correlation and Microbial Analysis

Nigerian Journal of Technology (NIJOTECH), 38(2): 526 – 531, 2019.

Shalom, N.C., Obinna, C.N., Adetayo, Y.O., Vivienne, N.E. (2011). Assessment of water

Quality in Cannanland, Ota, Southwest Nigeria. Agric. Biol. J.N. Am, 2(4): 577-

583,

2019.

Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology Journal

Extended Abstract