© 2022 The Author Water Practice & Technology Vol 17 No 9, 1802 doi: 10.2166/wpt.2022.

102

Heavy metal assessment of groundwater quality in part of Karu, Central Nigeria

Aisha Abubakar Kana

Department of Geology and Mining, Nasarawa State University, Keffi PMB 1022, Nigeria
E-mail: [email protected]

AAK, 0000-0002-0012-3372

ABSTRACT

Assessment of groundwater quality remains essential in water management; anthropogenic practices such as industrial and
agricultural activities can have negative impacts on groundwater quality. The present study assessed heavy metal contami-
nation of groundwater in Karu, Central Nigeria. Heavy metal was evaluated by the indices: degree of contamination, heavy
metal pollution and evaluation. Groundwater was found to be significantly contaminated with heavy metal concentrations
exceeding the WHO limit for drinking water, particularly around areas of poultry farming, dumpsite and dimension stone
quarry and processing plant. Groundwater is therefore considered unsafe for not only drinking purposes but also poultry.
Strong correlation was observed between the degree of contamination and heavy metal evaluation index; between Pb, Fe
and all indices; between TDS and Pb; Pb and Fe, Fe and Zn, Zn and Cu, Ni and Cu/Zn. The elements Pb, Zn, Cu, Fe and Ni con-
tribute significantly to the contamination observed relative to the others. Groundwater contamination is attributed to
anthropogenic activities within the study area; therefore, waste disposal practices require modification. The study presents
a case for environmental (both baseline and impact) assessment and continuous monitoring to control pollution of
groundwater.

Key words: contamination, groundwater, heavy metals, Nigeria, pollution indices, poultry

HIGHLIGHTS

• The first of its kind in the study area.

• Provides baseline data on heavy metal load in groundwater of the study area.
• Forms background for further analysis.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY 4.0), which permits copying,
adaptation and redistribution, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/17/9/1802/1115610/wpt0171802.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 17 No 9, 1803

GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background to the study
Groundwater remains an essential resource for sustainable development with respect to livelihood and food
security. Groundwater resource all over the world is under threat due to contaminant load introduced into it
through urbanization, industrialization, agriculture and exploitation of natural resources (Ravindra & Mor
2019). These are all basic activities that are associated with everyday sustenance in the world today but can intro-
duce unwanted substances into the environment, especially toxic metals considered hazardous to human health
(Nasrabadi 2015). Heavy metals, due to their stability and ability to accumulate in tissues of animals and plants,
and the fact that they are not readily biodegradable, persist in the environment especially in groundwater. Heavy
metals have been given important consideration globally (Adeyemi & Ojekunle 2021). They occur in trace but
significant amounts in the environment and have adverse health effects even at such low concentrations (Hos-
seinpour et al. 2014).
Heavy metals such as Cr, Pb, Hg, Cd, As and Co have no useful effects in the body system; long-time exposure
may cause more acute interruptions in the normal operations of the human organ systems where the metals are
deposited (Mominul et al. 2018). Other metals, such as Cu, Zn and Fe for example, are considered micronutrients
required for normal growth and functioning of the human body; but at higher concentrations, they become toxic
(Wang et al. 2019). The key anthropogenic sources of trace metals in groundwater are natural matters leached
into the soil or rocks, residue from agrochemicals, controlled release from the sewage treatment plant and indus-
trial run-off, and unrestrained releases or escape from landfill spot and chemical accidents or calamities.
Heavy metals in groundwater are sourced from atmospheric precipitation, agricultural wastes, discharge of
industrial wastewater, agro-pesticides leaching, and urban sewage, mineral mining, and infiltration of surface
runoff. Groundwater is exposed to these pollutants due to it being a component of the water cycle, which includes
the atmosphere, ground surface, rocks and surface water. More than 50% the world’s population depends on
groundwater for survival (Rajankar et al. 2009). As, Ag and Pb are toxic even in trace amounts and are released
as effluents from industrial activities (Adekunle & Akinyemi 2004). Carcinogenic risks associated with consump-
tion of groundwater from Ogun State in Nigeria contaminated by heavy metals was reported by Adekunle &
Ojekunle (2021).

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/17/9/1802/1115610/wpt0171802.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 17 No 9, 1804

The study area is a fast-growing semi-urban settlement, and has recorded increases in industrial and agricultural
activities mainly poultry and fish farms, dimension stone quarry and processing plant. These activities can stress
groundwater resources and impact negatively on its quality since wastes (solid and effluent) produced that contains
heavy metals will eventually come in contact with groundwater. Studies linking heavy metal contamination of ground-
water from anthropogenic activities in the area are lacking, the need to investigate groundwater quality in the area then
arises. Assessment of the distribution of heavy metal load in groundwater can assist in linking this to the sources as well
as design and implementation of prevention and mitigation measures. The objectives of this study were to (1) deter-
mine the distribution of heavy metal load in groundwater (2) evaluate groundwater contamination by these heavy
metals using certain indices and (3) from the distribution pattern attempt to link heavy metal contamination to land
use (anthropogenic activities) practices in the study area. Groundwater quality assessment based on heavy metal con-
centration will be achieved using the indices: contamination index; heavy metal pollution index and heavy metal
evaluation index as described and used in: Backman et al. (1998); Prasad & Bose (2001) and Edet & Offiong
(2002). These indices were also used to evaluate groundwater contamination: anomalous concentrations of heavy
metals in groundwater (Panda et al. 2020); heavy metal contamination by hydrocarbons (Nnoli et al. (2021) and
source of groundwater pollution by heavy metals (Vesali Naseh et al. 2018). The present study will evaluate heavy
metal pollution (contamination) using the indices mentioned earlier to establish any risks posed to human health,
plants or animals in the study area. Groundwater in the study area is essentially used for domestic purposes as well
as providing the major source of water; heavy metal content thus affects its suitability for the intended use.

1.2. Study area description

The study area is centered on Tudun Wada town, Karu, Central Nigeria and lies within latitudes: 8 °530 N and
8 °560 N, and longitudes: 7 °380 E to 7 °440 E. The area is accessible through the Keffi–Abuja express road and
has a network of other minor roads in between isolated settlements while footpaths provide accessibility to
remote areas. The area has isolated hills mainly towards the northwestern part; it is drained by a major stream
flowing generally towards the south with smaller streams originating from the northwestern and north eastern
parts of the study area. The area is underlain by the Basement Complex rocks of North Central Nigeria; main
rock units are gneiss (including banded gneiss) and schist.
Development has become an everyday norm as an increase in population demands increase in agricultural and
industrial activities, i.e. land use. Land use activities are poultry and fish farming, which are predominant in the
area, block industry, dimension stone quarry and processing plant and a waste dumpsite (Figure 1). In addition to

Figure 1 | Location of the study area and sample collection points.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/17/9/1802/1115610/wpt0171802.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 17 No 9, 1805

this there are some irrigation farms adjacent the course of the major stream. Effluents or solid wastes from these
anthropogenic activities can release heavy metals into groundwater sources, which if present in elevated concen-
tration will significantly degrade water quality.

2. METHODOLOGY
2.1. Groundwater sampling and analysis
For the present study groundwater was sampled from 20 water points (Figure 1) consisting of 17 boreholes and 3
hand-dug wells. The hand-dug wells had depths in the range of 10 m–15 m while boreholes were deeper, reaching
120 m. Locations for the wells included households, dimension stone quarry and processing plant, irrigated farms
but mostly boreholes from poultry and fish farms were sampled; Figure 1 shows the sampling stations within the
study area. Sample collection points were centered on potential sources of heavy metals.
Groundwater samples were collected in 100 mL polyethylene bottles to prevent unpredictable changes in
characteristics. The collected samples were treated with a few drops of HNO3 (to keep metals in solution) and
kept at a temperature of 4 °C for further analysis. Prior to the sampling, physical parameters were measured
using Sartorius potable meter (PT-10), i.e. pH, electrical conductivity (EC) and total dissolved solids (TDS).
Elevation and coordinates values were taken for each sample location with the aid of a GPS. Concentrations
of heavy metals (As, Zn, Pb, Ni, Fe and Cu) in water samples were determined using ICP-OES method.

2.2. Evaluation methods

To evaluate heavy metal pollution/contamination in the study area, the following indices were used: contami-
nation index or degree of contamination (Cd; Backman et al. (1998), heavy metal pollution index (HPI;
Prasad & Bose 2001) and heavy metal evaluation index (HEI; Edet & Offiong 2002). Panda et al. (2020) used
the indices to evaluate trace metal anomalies in groundwater from a foothill aquifer in Tamil Nadu, India; anom-
alous values of the indices identified areas of groundwater contamination by the trace metals. Nnoli et al. (2021)
used the indices to gain insights into contamination levels in the oil spill-ravaged Ogoni land in southern Nigeria;
elevated levels of the indices were observed in water. Low levels of the indices, indicative of low contamination
were observed by Vesali Naseh et al. (2018) while assessing groundwater pollution sources in Ghaen plain, Iran.

2.2.1. Contamination index

Using the contamination index, the quality of groundwater is evaluated by determining Cd. For each sample of
water analyzed, Cd is computed using Equation (1) and represents the sum of contamination factors (Equation
(2)) of individual components analyzed (heavy metal) that exceed the permissible value. That is the Cd gives a
combined effect of contamination due to individual, considered harmful. The resultant Cd value identifies
areas of varying contamination levels, which are grouped into three categories as follows: Cd,1 (low), Cd¼1–
3 (medium) and Cd.3 (high) (Edet & Offiong 2002).

X
n
Cd ¼ Cfi (1)
i¼1

CAi
Cfi ¼  1 (2)
CNi

where: Cfi is the contamination factor for each heavy metal for a particular groundwater sample; CAi is
the analytical concentration of the a particular heavy metal and CNi is the permissible concentration
limit for the heavy metal or the maximum allowed concentration (MAC). For this study, CNi values are
defined in Table 1.

2.2.2. HPI
This index is based on a weighted average/arithmetic mean of variables in terms of quality. The index is com-
puted in two steps; the first being establishment of a weighting scale for each parameter and then selecting
based on the weighting, the parameters to be used in calculating the index. The weighting reflects the relative
importance (and consequence as a result of its presence in water) of each heavy metal with respect to quality
standard. The unit weight (Wi) as suggested by Prasad & Bose (2001) and used in Edet & Offiong (2002) can
be taken as the inverse of the maximum allowable concentration (MAC) of the heavy metal. The HPI is given

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/17/9/1802/1115610/wpt0171802.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 17 No 9, 1806

Table 1 | Standards used in computation of pollution indices (concentration in μg/L)

Heavy metal MAC Wi Si Ii

a
As 50 0.02 10 10
Cu 1,000a 0.001 1,000 2,000
a
Fe 200 0.005 300 200
Ni 70b 0.014 70 70
Pb 1.5a 0.67 100 10
Zn 5,000a 0.0002 5,000 3,000
a
Edet & Offiong (2002).
b
WHO (2011).

by Mohan et al. 1996:

P
n
Wi Q i
HPI ¼ i¼1n (3)
P
Wi
i¼1

X
n
(Mi  Ii )
Qi ¼  100 (4)
i¼1
(Si  Ii )

where Qi is the sub-index of the ith parameter (heavy metal) and is given by Equation (4). Wi is the corresponding
weighting while Mi, Ii, and Si are analytical, ideal and standard concentrations respectively of the heavy metal;
and n is the number of heavy metals considered. This parameter combines the impact of n number of heavy
metals and their individual impacts to assess water contamination. Heavy metals considered are: arsenic (As),
copper (Cu), iron (Fe), nickel (Ni), lead (Pb) and zinc (Zn). WHO (2011) standard was taken as standard
value Si; guide value for each element was used as the ideal value Ii; while the inverse of the MAC in each
case was taken as the weighting (Table 1).

2.2.3. HEI
This index evaluates water quality with respect to heavy metal concentration just like the HPI. It is evaluated
using Equation (5).

Xn
Hc
HEI ¼ (5)
i¼1
Hmax

In the equation, Hc is the concentration of each heavy metal as measured in water and Hmac is the maximum
allowable concentration of the particular heavy metal in water.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1. Physical parameters of groundwater
Physical parameters measured in-situ at water points in the study area are: pH, EC and TDS (Table 2). PH ranged
from 6.4 to 8 with a mean value of 7.11 +0.09; the values fall within the permissible range for drinking water
(6.5–8.5; WHO 2011). Given the values of pH measured, groundwater is slightly acidic to basic, the slight acidity
will keep metals in solution. TDS values are as low as 30 mg/L to 620 mg/L, with a mean value of
183.50+32.68 mg/L; all values are within the permissible limit for drinking water (500 mg/L; WHO 2011)
with the exception of two points, one adjacent a dumpsite and the other water point belonging to a dimension
stone processing plant. The EC of water increases with concentration of ions and, therefore, dissolved solids.
EC values range from 80 μS/cm to 1,250 μS/cm with an average value of 391.50 +64.54 μS/cm; all values
apart from the two locations that had high TDS values, had EC values within permissible limits for drinking
water (1,000 μS/cm; WHO 2011). EC and TDS values measured in the study area show a linear relationship,
this is a demonstration of the linear relationship between specific conductance and ionic strength as is the

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/17/9/1802/1115610/wpt0171802.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 17 No 9, 1807

Table 2 | Physical parameters measured in-situ in the study area

Sample ID pH EC (μS/cm) TDS (mg/L)

1 6.8 300 140

2 7.4 250 120
3 6.5 310 150
4 7.5 560 270
5 7.2 310 150
6 7.6 430 210
7 6.6 250 110
8 6.4 190 80
19 7 530 250
10 7 310 150
11 7.3 400 190
12 7.4 170 70
13 7 260 120
14 6.9 260 120
15 7.1 300 140
16 6.8 1,080a 530a
17 7.6 350 110
18 7.5 80 30
a
19 6.7 1,250 620a
20 8 240 110
Mean+1se 7.11+0.09 391.50+64.54 183.50+32.68
a
TDs/EC values higher than WHO (2011) limits.

case for conductance in the range of 10–10,000 μS/cm (Lind 1970). The constant of proportionality in this case is
0.48 (Figure 2) and is close to the reported values between 0.55 and 0.85 (Walton 1989; Atekwana et al. 2004).

Figure 2 | Linear relationship between EC and TDS (Lind 1970) as observed in the study area.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/17/9/1802/1115610/wpt0171802.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 17 No 9, 1808

3.2. Trace elements in groundwater samples

Concentrations of the trace metals in groundwater from the study area are presented in Table 3. The elements: Pb,
As, Fe, Ni, Zn and Cu had mean concentrations of 81.10+11.54; 854.50+82.02; 860.15+152.72; 62.65+20.24;
2,537.20+335.13 and 1,527.40+175.29 μg/L respectively. The concentrations in most water points exceed the
limits set by the World Health Organization (WHO 2011). Concentrations of Pb and As in all samples exceed
the WHO limit of 10 μg/L. Concentration of Fe in all but two locations exceed the WHO limit of 300 μg/L. Con-
centration of Ni in the samples are within the WHO limits except for five locations which exceed the limit of
70 μg/L. For Zn and Cu, water samples from 6 points had concentrations above the set limit of 3,000 and
2,000 μg/L respectively.

Table 3 | Concentration of Pb, As, Fe, Ni, Zn and Cu in groundwater samples collected from the study area

Sample ID Pb (μg/L) As (μg/L) Fe (μg/L) Ni (μg/L) Zn (μg/L) Cu (μg/L)

1 76 765 750 25 2,960 1,102

2 40 1,080 603 387 2,660 1,098
3 72 721 980 107 4,034 2,169
4 28 621 476 43 2,870 2,106
5 16 841 507 198 3,901 2,000
6 69 1,303 681 70 2,600 1,043
7 78 587 1,000 76 2,400 2,899
8 67 486 512 106 1,980 1,032
19 81 816 524 7 2,098 1,781
10 74 799 660 18 1,187 823
11 58 1,203 451 2 784 654
12 61 518 890 65 898 1,043
13 95 453 386 1 1,081 543
14 66 992 229 20 2,660 2,000
15 100 1,900 1,830 20 3,711 2,879
16 87 337 402 1 342 865
17 85 546 298 1 600 300
18 92 887 705 30 3,045 1,453
19 279 1,145 2,609 46 6,041 2,350
20 98 1,090 2,710 30 4,892 2,408
Mean+1se 81.10+11.54 854.50+82.02 860.15+152.72 62.65+20.24 2,537.20+335.13 1,527.40+175.29

Groundwater was classified using the scheme proposed by Ficklin et al. (1992) and modified by Caboi et al.
(1999). The scheme uses the pH of groundwater and the combined metal load computed as the sum of the indi-
vidual concentrations of the heavy metals for each sample point. Based on this scheme, all samples plot in the
field for near-neutral high metal (Figure 3).

3.2.1. Cd
Computed values for Cd provide insights into the level of contamination by these trace elements. According to
the classification scheme presented in Edet & Offiong (2002), Cd can be grouped into three categories as follows:
Cd,10 (low), Cd¼10–20 (medium) and Cd.20 (high). For the study area, all samples had Cd values much greater
than 20 (Table 4) indicating that there is a high degree of contamination by trace elements in groundwater of the
study area.

3.2.2. HPI
Using the classification for the HPI: HPI,100 – low; HPI¼100 medium; HPI.100 – high (Edet & Offiong 2002);
four locations had HPI less than 100 and are thus classified as having a low level of contamination (Table 4). On
the other hand all other samples had HPI greater than 100 indicating a high level of contamination. The high HPI

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/17/9/1802/1115610/wpt0171802.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 17 No 9, 1809

Figure 3 | Classification based on heavy metal load and pH (Edet & Offiong 2002).

Table 4 | Groundwater quality evaluation indices for the study area

Sample ID Cd HPI HEI

1 65.77 126.53 71.77

2 52.44 124.21 58.44
3 65.82 123.96 71.82
4 30.76 64.72 36.76
5 29.63 73.99 35.63
6 72.03 158.36 78.03
7 67.20 119.61 73.20
8 53.89 98.97 59.89
19 69.24 132.95 75.24
10 63.93 125.93 69.93
11 59.82 135.52 65.82
12 51.63 95.96 57.63
13 69.10 121.03 75.10
14 61.80 128.04 67.80
15 111.72 238.76 117.72
16 61.70 104.53 67.70
17 63.51 116.50 69.51
18 79.09 151.72 85.09
19 220.16 379.86 226.16
20 98.50 186.31 104.50
Mean+1se 72.39+8.81 140.37+15.15 78.39+8.81

may be due to wastewater from industrial and agricultural activities and domestic sewage; land use in the study
area is mainly poultry farming and dimension stone processing, while domestic regions are also prevalent. These
anthropogenic activities may be contributing to the trace element load observed.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/17/9/1802/1115610/wpt0171802.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 17 No 9, 1810

3.2.3. HEI
HEI focuses on heavy metals in water samples for estimating the water quality (Edet et al. 2003). The water qual-
ity index is classified into the categories: HEI,10 (low), HEI¼10–20 (medium) and HEI.20 (high). All samples
had HEI much greater than 20 and are thus categorized as having high level of contamination.

3.2.4. Correlation assessment

To assess relative contribution of the trace elements to contamination, Pearson’s univariate correlation coeffi-
cient between the elements and the computed indices was calculated (Table 5). Very strong correlation was
observed between the indices; especially so between the degree of contamination and HEI.

Table 5 | Pearson’s bivariate correlation matrix for physical parameters, heavy metal concentration and the indices of pollution

pH EC (μS/cm) TDS (μg/L) Pb (μg/L) As (μg/L) Fe (μg/L) Ni (μg/L) Zn (μg/L) Cu (μg/L) Cd HPI HEI

pH 1.00
EC (μS/cm) 0.23 1.00
TDS (μg/L) 0.25 1.00 1.00
Pb (μg/L) 0.23 0.63 0.62 1.00
As (μg/L) 0.27 0.02 0.00 0.21 1.00
Fe (μg/L) 0.12 0.27 0.28 0.67 0.48 1.00
Ni (μg/L) 0.03 0.20 0.17 0.30 0.08 0.07 1.00
Zn (μg/L) 0.01 0.17 0.10 0.46 0.49 0.75 0.22 1.00
Cu (μg/L) 0.15 0.07 0.57 0.22 0.41 0.59 0.74 0.74 1.00
Cd 0.14 0.56 0.51 0.97 0.43 0.78 0.21 0.59 0.35 1.00
HPI 0.07 0.50 0.51 0.91 0.59 0.79 0.16 0.62 0.38 0.98 1.00
HEI 0.14 0.56 0.57 0.97 0.43 0.78 0.21 0.59 0.35 1.00 0.98 1.00
Bold indicates strong positive correlation, while the underlined fonts depict strong correlation.

A very strong correlation is also observed between Pb and all indices implying that Pb contributes significantly
to contamination in the study area. A strong correlation is also observed between Fe and all indices; to a lesser
degree, correlation is also observed between EC/TDS and Zn with the indices. For the trace elements, correlation
is observed between TDS and Pb; Pb and Fe, Fe and Zn, Zn and Cu, Ni and Cu/Zn. This suggests that the
elements Pb, Zn, Cu, Fe and Ni contribute significantly to the contamination observed relative to the other
trace elements. Secondly, for the study area, TDS/EC is a reflection of contamination by the trace elements,
while the pH measured does not reflect the state of contamination. In addition to Pearson’s correlation,
regression plots (Figure 4) between the indices indicate a linear relationship with r2 values close to 1.

Figure 4 | Regression plots of the contamination indices showing r2 values.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/17/9/1802/1115610/wpt0171802.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 17 No 9, 1811

3.2.5. Spatial distribution of trace metals and contamination indices in relation to land use in the study area
Surface plots of heavy metal concentration in groundwater and the assessment indices were created using Matlab
(Rb2011) software and compared with land use activities in the study area.
Lead is a naturally occurring element found in rocks and used in products such as pipes, car batteries, paint and
gasoline. Lead enters groundwater due to natural or anthropogenic sources; it can leach into groundwater
through contact with lead bearing rocks or even lead containing materials like pipes. The distribution of lead
in the study area (Figure 5(a) is such that the concentration is highest in the northeastern region; coinciding

Figure 5 | Spatial distribution of concentration of (a) lead and (b) iron in the study area. High concentrations are observed in the
region of the waste dumpsites for both Fe and Pb while high concentration is recorded for Fe in the region of poultry farms.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/17/9/1802/1115610/wpt0171802.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 17 No 9, 1812

with the area around a waste dumpsite. Leachate from this dumpsite may have polluted groundwater within its
vicinity.
Iron is the second-most abundant metallic element in the Earth’s crust; in spite of this, its concentration in
water is small (Ngah & Nwankwoala 2013). Iron in groundwater originates from dissolution from the aquifer fra-
mework and subsequent percolation into the saturated zone. It is an essential element in the metabolism of
animals and plants, for nutrition and in the formation of mammalian haemoglobin; but if present at high concen-
tration, it forms a red oxy-hydroxide precipitate that stains laundry and plumbing fixtures, dish wares and glasses

Figure 6 | Spatial distribution of concentration of (a) zinc and (b) copper in the study area. High concentrations are observed in
the regions of the waste dumpsites and poultry farms for both Zn and Cu.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/17/9/1802/1115610/wpt0171802.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 17 No 9, 1813

owing to its very reactive nature. Iron actually presents no health hazards even in excess concentration except for
imparting a metallic taste to water if the concentration is above 1,800 μg/L (Ngah & Nwankwoala 2013).
The distribution of iron in the study area (Figure 5(b)) is such that the concentration is highest in the north east-
ern and southern regions, coinciding with the area around a waste dumpsite and poultry farming respectively.
Leachate from this dumpsite and poultry waste may have polluted groundwater within these regions.

Figure 7 | Spatial distribution of concentration of (a) arsenic and (b) nickel in the study area. High concentrations are observed
in the regions of the dimension stone quarry and processing plant for and poultry farms for both As and Ni. High concentration
of As is also observed aroung the waste dumpsite.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/17/9/1802/1115610/wpt0171802.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 17 No 9, 1814

The primary sources of zinc and copper are rock-forming minerals, also found in soils, the air and water. These
metals are introduced into the groundwater system by artificial pathways such as by-products of industrial activi-
ties, e.g. steel production or coal-fired power stations, or from waste materials. Drinking water containing high
levels of zinc can lead to stomach cramps, nausea and vomiting (SaskH20 2008). Long-term exposure to
copper can cause irritation of the nose, mouth and eyes and has negative impact on the digestive system –
stomachaches, vomiting and diarrhea. Both zinc and copper have high concentrations in the regions of waste

Figure 8 | Spatial distribution of (a) degree of contamination; (b) HPI and (c) HEI. Highest values are observed in regions around
the poultry farms and the dimension stone quarry and processing plant.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/17/9/1802/1115610/wpt0171802.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 17 No 9, 1815

Figure 9 | Heavy metal concentration of effluent from the dimension stone processing plant. Concentration of the heavy metal
exceeds the MAC as used in the present study.

dumpsites and the poultry farms (Figure 6). This implies that leachate from the dumpsite as well as effluent from
poultry farming contribute to the copper and zinc load recorded in groundwater samples.
Arsenic is a naturally occurring element in trace amounts found in rocks. Arsenic can be released from these
geologic sources into groundwater depending on the chemical form of the arsenic, the geochemical conditions in
the aquifer and the biogeochemical processes that occur. Arsenic also can be released into groundwater as a
result of human activities, such as mining, and from its various uses in industry, in animal feed, as a wood pre-
servative and as a pesticide. In drinking-water supplies, arsenic poses a problem because it is toxic at low levels
and is a known carcinogen (USGS 2019). In the study area, high concentration of arsenic is observed in the
regions of the waste dumpsite, dimension stone quarry and processing plant and the poultry farms (Figure 7(a)).
This implies that in addition to the waste dumpsites and poultry farms, effluent from the dimension stone quarry
and processing plant also impacts negatively on groundwater in the study area.
Nickel in drinking water is primarily sourced by leaching from metals in contact with drinking water, such as
pipes and fittings. However, nickel may also be present in some groundwater as a consequence of dissolution
from nickel ore bearing rocks.. High concentration of nickel in the study area (Figure 7(b)) is observed in the
regions of the dimension stone quarry and processing plant and the poultry farms, although significant concen-
trations are observed elsewhere.
Spatial distribution of the indices indicates that highest values are concentrated in the region of the poultry
farms and the dimension stone quarry and processing plants (Figure 8). Poultry feed usually contains heavy
metals as additives; thus excretion and wastes generally produced will have negative impacts on the environment
since the wastes will contain these heavy metals (Okeke et al. 2015; Oyewale et al. 2019). Effluent from dimen-
sion stone quarrying and processing will also contain heavy metals; this will therefore impact on water that
comes in contact with it. Figure 9 shows heavy metal concentration in effluents sampled at different points
within the dimension stone processing plant in the study area; the effluent in all cases exceed the MAC used
in this analysis for all heavy metals.

4. CONCLUSION
Heavy metal concentration in groundwater was evaluated using contamination indices with the aim of establish-
ing its contamination status. Concentrations of Pb and As in all samples exceed the WHO limit of 10 μg/L.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/17/9/1802/1115610/wpt0171802.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 17 No 9, 1816

Concentration of Fe in all but two locations exceeds the WHO limit of 300 μg/L. Concentration of Ni in 75% of
the samples are within the WHO limit of 70 μg/L. For Zn and Cu, water samples from 6 points had concen-
trations above the set limit of 3,000 and 2,000 μg/L respectively. Degree of contamination, heavy metal
pollution and heavy metal evaluation indices showed that groundwater is significantly contaminated by heavy
metals. Very strong correlation was observed between the degree of contamination and heavy metal evaluation
index; between Pb, Fe and all indices; between TDS and Pb; Pb and Fe, Fe and Zn, Zn and Cu, Ni and Cu/Zn.
The elements Pb, Zn, Cu, Fe and Ni contribute to the contamination observed relative to the others. TDS/EC is a
reflection of contamination in the study area. Groundwater contamination is attributed to anthropogenic activi-
ties within the study area especially poultry farming and dimension stone quarrying and processing. The highest
concentration of heavy metals was recorded from water points close to poultry farms, the dimension stone quarry
and processing plant and a waste dumpsite, highlighting the need for proper solid waste/effluent disposal prac-
tices i.e. containment and treatment or evacuation to safe waste disposal facilities. Contamination indices were
highest within these regions. Of the three sources, the poultry farms contribute most to the heavy metal load of
groundwater. Groundwater in the study area is therefore not suitable for drinking purposes, poultry and fish farm-
ing. Results obtained here present a clear case for an environmental impact assessment and routine monitoring of
water quality.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare there is no conflict.

REFERENCES

Adekunle, I. M. & Akinyemi, M. F. 2004 Lead levels of certain consumer products in Nigeria: a case study of smoked fish foods
from Abeokuta. Food Chemistry and Toxicology 4(9), 1463–1468.
Adeyemi, A. & Ojekunle, Z. O. 2021 Concentrations and health risk assessment of industrial heavy metals pollution in
groundwater in Ogun state, Nigeria. Scientific African 11, 1–11.
Atekwana, E. A., Atekwana, E. A., Rowe, R. S., Werkema, D. D. & Legall, F. D. 2004 The relationship of total dissolved solids
measurements to bulk electrical conductivity in an aquifer contaminated with hydrocarbon. Journal of Applied Geophysics
56(4), 281–294.
Backman, B., Bodis, D., Lahermo, P., Rapant, S. & Tarvainen, T. 1998 Application of groundwater contamination index in
Finland and Slovakia. Environmental Geology 32(1–2), 56–54.
Caboi, R., Cidu, R., Fanfani, L., Lattanzi, P. & Zuddas, P. 1999 Environmental mineralogy and geochemistry of the abandoned
Pb-Zn Montevecchio-Ingurtosu mining district, Sardinia, Italy. Rendiconti Online SocietaGeologicaItaliana 3(2), 488–489.
Edet, A. E. & Offiong, O. E. 2002 Evaluation of water quality pollution indices for heavy metal contamination monitoring: a
case from Akpabuyo-Odukpani area, Lower Cross River Basin (southeastern Nigeria). Geology Journal 57(4), 295–304.
Edet, A. E., Merkel, B. J. & Offiong, O. E. 2003 Trace element hydrochemical assessment of the Calabar Coastal Plain Aquifer,
southeastern Nigeria using statistical methods. Environmental Geology 44(2), 137–149.
Ficklin, W. H., Plumee, G. S., Smith, K. S., McHugh, J. B., 1992 Geochemical classification of mine drainages and natural
drainages in mineralized areas. In: Water–Rock Interaction, 7th edn (Kharaka, Y. K. & Maest, A. S., eds). Balkema,
Rotterdam, pp. 381–384.
Hosseinpour, M. M., Lashkaripour, G. R. & Debghan, P. 2014 Assessing the effect of heavy metal concentrations (Fe, Pb, Zn,
Ni, Cd, As, Cu, Cr) on the quality of adjacent groundwater resources of Khorasan steel complex. International Journal of
Plant, Animal and Environmental Sciences 4(2), 511–518.
Lind, C. J. 1970 Geological Survey Research 1970: Professional Paper 700D. US Geological Survey, Washington, DC, pp. 272–
280.
Mohan, S. V., Nithila, P. & Reddy, S. J. 1996 Estimation of heavy metals in drinking water and development of heavy metal
pollution index. Journal of Environmental Science and Health Part A: Environmental Science and Engineering and
Toxicology 31(2), 283–289.
Mominul, M. I., Karim, M. R., Zheng, X. & Li, X. 2018 Heavy metal and metalloid pollution of soil, water and foods in
Bangladesh: a critical review. International Journal OfEnvironmental ResearchandPublic Health 15(12), 2825.
Nasrabadi, T. 2015 An index approach to metallic pollution in river waters. International Journal of Environmental Research
9(1), 385–394.
Ngah, S. A. & Nwankwoala, H. O. 2013 Iron (Fe2þ) occurrence and distribution in groundwater sources in different
geomorphologic zones of Eastern Niger Delta. Archives of Applied Science Research 5(2), 266–272.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/17/9/1802/1115610/wpt0171802.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 17 No 9, 1817

Nnoli, N. G., Olomukoro, J. O., Odii, E. C., Ubrei-Joe, M. M. & Ezenwa, I. M. 2021 Another insight into the contamination
levels at Ogoniland in Niger Delta, Nigeria, with focus on Goi Creek. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 28,
34776–34792.
Okeke, O. R., Ujah, I. I., Okoye, P. A. C., Ajiwe, V. I. E. & Eze, C. P. 2015 Assessment of the heavy metal levels in feeds and
litters of chickens rose with in Awka Metropolis and its environs. Journal of Applied Chemistry 8, 60–66.
Oyewale, A. T., Adesakin, T. A. & Adu, A. I. 2019 Environmental impact of heavy metals from poultry waste discharged into the
Olosuru Stream, Ikire, Southwestern Nigeria. Journal of Health and Pollution 9(22), 1–9.
Panda, B., Chidambaram, S., Thilagavathi, R., Ganesh, N., Prasanna, M. V. & Vasudevan, U. 2020 Source governed trace metal
anomalies in groundwater of foothill aquifer and its health effect. Applied Water Science 10(173), 1–10.
Prasad, B. & Bose, J. M. 2001 Evaluation of the heavy metal pollution index for surface and spring water near a limestone
mining area of the lower Himalayas. Environmental Geology 41(1–2), 183–188.
Rajankar, P. N., Gulhane, S. R., Tambekar, D. H., Ramteke, D. S. & Wate, S. R. 2009 Water quality assessment of groundwater
resources in Nagpur Region (India) based on WQI. Journal of Chemistry 6(3), 905–908.
Ravindra, K. & Mor, S. 2019 Distribution and health risk assessment of arsenic and selected heavy metals in groundwater of
Chandigarh, India. Environmental Pollution 250, 820–830.
SaskH20 2008 Zinc (For Private Water and Health Regulated Public Water Supplies). Government of Saskatchewan.Zinc
(saskh2o.ca). Date accessed:17/02/2022.
USGS 2019 Arsenic in Drinking Water. United States Geological Survey;.Arsenic and Drinking Water | U.S. Geological Survey
(usgs.gov). Date accessed: 17/02/2022.
Vesali Naseh, M. R., Noori, R., Berndtsson, R., Adamowski, J. & Sadatipour, E. 2018 Groundwater pollution sources
apportionment in the Ghaen Plain, Iran. International Journal Environmental Research and Public Health 15, 2–18.
Walton, N. R. G. 1989 Electrical conductivity and total dissolved solids – what is their precise relationship? Desalination 72(3),
275–292.
Wang, C., Yang, Y. & Wu, N. 2019 Combined toxicity of pyrethroid insecticides and heavy metals: a review. Environmental
ChemistryLetters 17, 1693–1706.
WHO 2011 Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality, 4th edn. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/
9789241549950 (accessed 12/02/2022).

First received 4 March 2022; accepted in revised form 18 August 2022. Available online 25 August 2022

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/17/9/1802/1115610/wpt0171802.pdf

by guest