Anthropogenic Effects of Coal Mining on Water Resources in Parts
of Northern Anambra Basin, North–central, Nigeria
KIZITO O. MUSA1, FABIAN A. AKPAH1, ERNEST O. AKUDO1, JAMILU B. AHMED II1,
ATABO N. ODOMA1,
MARY M. SHAIBU1, CHANGDE A. NANFA1, JACOB B. JIMOH1, MICHAEL S.
IKUEMONISAN1, BINTA MUSA1,
ANSELM O. OYEM2,3*
1Department of Geology
Federal University Lokoja
PMB 1154, Kogi State
NIGERIA
2Department of Mathematics
Federal University Lokoja
PMB 1154, Kogi State
NIGERIA
3Department of Mathematics
Busitema University
P.O. Box 236, Tororo
UGANDA
*Corresponding Author: anselmoyemfulokoja@gmail.com
Abstract: - The coal mining activities within the study area have produced high concentrations of potentially
toxic elements with acidity in the water resources leading to pollution and environmental degradation. This
paper considers evaluating the level of contamination of most of these potential toxic elements through the
determination of physical parameters, and chemical and heavy metal concentrations in water using standard
fields and laboratory methods such as an auto meter from Hanna Instruments, the Atomic Absorption
Spectrophotometer (AAS), and the Hach DR/2010 spectrophotometer. The results show the mean
concentration values of , , , , ,
, , and for , , , , , , , and , respectively. The
mean concentrations of heavy metals in the water samples occur in decreasing order as,
. The results also reveal the presence of high anthropogenic concentrations of
potentially toxic elements such as Zinc (), Chromium (), Iron (), Lead (), Sulfate (), and total
dissolved solids while, low pH (acidic) values suggests that the water is acidic and of high health risk to
humans.
Key-Words: - Environmental impact, Heavy metal, Groundwater, Spectropotometer, Hydrogeochemical,
Degradation
Received: April 27, 2024. Revised: September 18, 2024. Accepted: October 21, 2024. Published: November 7, 2024.
EARTH SCIENCES AND HUMAN CONSTRUCTIONS
DOI: 10.37394/232024.2024.4.21
Kizito O. Musa, Fabian A. Akpah, Ernest O. Akudo,
Jamilu B. Ahmed II, Atabo N. Odoma,
Mary M. Shaibu, Changde A. Nanfa,
Jacob B. Jimoh, Michael S. Ikuemonisan, Binta Musa, Anselm O. Oyem
E-ISSN: 2944-9006
164
Volume 4, 2024
1 Introduction
The industrialization effect and mining activities
have always been a threat to the sustainability of
a globally friendly environment. Fossil fuel
combustion is a key indicator of environmental
pollution, degradation, and climate change, [1],
[2], [3]. Coal has been proven to be a major
source of electricity and is globally used for the
generation of heat. The undesirable consequence
of arbitral mining of coal is of serious concern
due to the high acidity level of natural water
bodies resulting from increased heavy metal
contamination, [4], [5], [6]. Mining activities
directly impact the environment, specifically
public health, which can be felt at a long distance
from the cause over some time, [7]. Majority of
low-income people, estimated at over a billion in
total population, are affected globally by
contaminated water yearly, [8], [9], [10], [11],
[12], [13], [14].
Portable water is essential to all living things
and is mainly used for both domestic and
industrial purposes, [15], [16], [17]. As it
percolates through the surface water and
groundwater runoff to the subsurface
groundwater, it carries along impurities that,
when consumed by rural dwellers without due
consideration for their chemical and biological
composition, could lead to adverse consequences,
[18], [19], [20]. Recently, during the
commemoration of World Water Day in 2023,
UNICEF raised concerns in Nigeria. An
estimated 70% of the water at the point of
consumption has been contaminated, which has
caused Nigeria to have about the world’s highest
number of deaths from waterborne diseases
among children under five years old.
Consequently, UNICEF estimated the number of
children who die yearly in Nigeria due to the
consumption of contaminated water at 117,000.
Pit dewatering occurs during the coal mining
process, which might lead to dry springs and
ecosystem degradation at the regional level. The
environmental impacts in arid and semi-arid
regions can be more severe if no precautionary
measure is taken. The environmental impacts
include an imbalance between the demand and
supply of water and water quality issues. Water
quality degradation, irrigation water degradation,
biodiversity, and soil quality issues are some
other impacts of coal mining, which directly
impact agricultural productivity and human
health, [21], [22].
Recently, the demand for coal as a source of
energy by the major cement companies in Nigeria
has led to the discovery and increased intensity of
shallow coal mining activities in the study area.
Some of the coal mines within the study area
spread across the Okaba, Okobo, and Awo Akpali
communities. Most companies involved in this
arbitrary mining activity are channeling their
waste dumping sites into the existing streams and
groundwater flow channels, polluting the only
available source of potable water supply and
creating a high level of environmental
degradation in these host communities. The
higher concentration of potentially toxic elements
in the water is assumed to be anthropogenic rather
than natural because the area is heavily mined for
coal. Therefore, this research is aimed at
investigating the rate of pollution caused by the
mine waste contaminants through runoff
pathways, with emphasis on the high acid
content, influences of the ionic characteristics,
and high concentration of potentially toxic
elements on the water resources and environment
within the research area. This is to establish the
level of contamination to further protect the lives
of children, women, and adults from pollution-
related diseases. Also, it can serve as a baseline
study for sustainable planning and development
of environmentally friendly coal mining
activities.
2 Description of the Area
The area is part of the Northern Anambra Basin,
which comprises selected coal mining sites
within Ankpa and its environs in north-central
Nigeria. It falls within Latitude N07˚23΄30˝ to
N07˚29΄00˝ and Longitude E07˚45΄00˝ to
E07˚48΄45˝. The major coalfields are found in the
Okaba, Awo Akpali, and Okobo communities.
These areas are accessible by trunk B roads; they
are also accessible by other minor roads and
footpaths. However, mining companies restrict
access to most of the mining sites as shown in Fig.
1.
EARTH SCIENCES AND HUMAN CONSTRUCTIONS
DOI: 10.37394/232024.2024.4.21
Kizito O. Musa, Fabian A. Akpah, Ernest O. Akudo,
Jamilu B. Ahmed II, Atabo N. Odoma,
Mary M. Shaibu, Changde A. Nanfa,
Jacob B. Jimoh, Michael S. Ikuemonisan, Binta Musa, Anselm O. Oyem
E-ISSN: 2944-9006
165
Volume 4, 2024
Fig. 1. Geologic map of the study area showing
the sampling points
The climate of the study area is generally
tropical, wet, and dry, [23]. The areas are mostly
flat lands towards the west and vast undulating
plains mixed with gently sloping hills to the east.
The topography of the hills ranged between 200
and 300 meters high. The vegetation is mostly
guinea savanna, which is composed of grass
savanna and deciduous trees. Human activities
like agriculture, mining, and deforestation have
led to mainly derived savanna.
Geologically, the Anambra Basin is linked to
the formation of the Benue Rift, which emerged
as a supercontinent, and the Jurassic opening of
the southern Atlantic and Indian Oceans, [24].
[25], reported that the alluvial fans and lacustrine
deposits of the Mamfe Formation in the Southern
Benue Trough contained the first syn-rift
sedimentation, which took place during the
Aptian–early Albian period. Mudrocks,
sandstones, and limestones with an estimated
thickness of 3,500 meters were filled in this
ancestral trough by two cycles of marine
transgressions and regressions from the middle
Albian to the Coniacian. These sediments belong
to the Asu River Group (Albian), the Odukpani
Formation (Cenomanian), the Ezeaku Group
(Turonian), and the Awgu Shale (Coniacian). The
Anambra Basin and the Afikpo Sub-basins
simultaneously subsided to the northwest and
southeast of the folded belt, respectively, during
the Santonian epeirogenic tectonics, causing
these sediments to undergo folding and uplift into
the Abakaliki-Benue Anticlinorium, [26]. Later
on, the Abakaliki Anticlinorium functioned as a
point of dispersal for sediments that were moved
into the Afikpo Syncline and the Anambra Basin.
The Oban Masif, the southwestern Nigeria
basement craton, and the Cameroon basement
complex also served as sources for the sediments
of the Anambra Basin, [27]. The Nsukka
Formation marks the beginning of the Nsukka
cycle, which is thought to represent a fluvio-
deltaic phase of deposition. With the deposition
of the Imo Shale, which is thought to be a shallow
marine shelf deposit, this cycle came to an end.
The Eocene retreat began with the deposition of
the Ameki Group and its laterally similar Nanka
Formation. The Anambra Basin's depositional
patterns were significantly influenced by several
elements, including the basin's form, the
proximity of sediment source locations,
transgression and regression cycles, and paleo-
circulation patterns, [28].
3 Methodology
Within the study area, twenty (20) random
surface and groundwater samples were taken
from various locations (Table 1). For each
location, a single-liter plastic bottle was used to
take the samples, which were then kept in plastic
beakers. Before the field sampling, the beakers
were carefully cleaned and kept in distilled water
that had been acidified for three days with
of . Surface water was collected from both
upstream and downstream regions of flow, while
groundwater samples were collected from pre-
existing boreholes that had to run for around five
minutes before sample collection. After cleaning
EARTH SCIENCES AND HUMAN CONSTRUCTIONS
DOI: 10.37394/232024.2024.4.21
Kizito O. Musa, Fabian A. Akpah, Ernest O. Akudo,
Jamilu B. Ahmed II, Atabo N. Odoma,
Mary M. Shaibu, Changde A. Nanfa,
Jacob B. Jimoh, Michael S. Ikuemonisan, Binta Musa, Anselm O. Oyem
E-ISSN: 2944-9006
166
Volume 4, 2024
the sample bottles with the aliquot, suspended
particles were extracted, and disposable
diameter filters were used for filtering. To stop
heavy metal precipitation and sorption, the
samples were then acidified in the field using
of pure . The H19835 Auto
Ranging HANNA meter gadget was used to
measure physical properties such as total
dissolved solids (TDS) to ascertain the inorganic
content of the water samples. The sample's
temperature and pH were measured using a
portable pH meter (WGS 84) that was outfitted
with temperature electrode accessories.
Laboratory analysis of samples was done using
the ICP–OES method.
4 Results and Discussion
4.1 Physicochemical Compositions and
Heavy Metal Concentration
Among the twenty (20) samples analyzed in the
study area, only seven (7) had pH values that
were within the World Health Organization's
acceptable limits, [29]. Sample SP–17 has the
lowest pH value of 3.59, indicating that most
have low (acidic) pH values (Tables 2 and 3).
Low pH values signify the influence of possibly
acidic lateritic soil, acid mine drainage, forestry
activity, and humus soil, [30], [31], [32]. This is
caused by high acidity, which can give the water
a sour taste and make it corrosive. The total
hardness values ranged between and
, with a mean value of . All
the water samples exhibit a concentration of
hardness below the standard permissible limits of
. This suggests that the water is soft
even though the hardness is beneficial because
people who live in hard-water locations have
lower rates of heart disease than people who live
in soft-water areas. It also affects the piping and
laundry systems in many homes. The values of
alkalinity ranged from as low as to as
high as , with an average value of
. Most of the analyzed water has an
alkalinity level below the standard
acceptable limit. In Samples SP–2 and SP–13,
alkalinity falls slightly above the permissible
limit, with values of and
respectively. This can be linked to the source of
this water sample, especially as the majority of
groundwater samples collected from the research
region may have come from the rock's mineral
components dissolving. The vertical distribution
for each of the physical parameters examined in
the research region is displayed in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2. Bar chart of physical parameters
The electrical conductivity (EC) values
ranged from to , with an
average of (Tables 2 and 3).
Except for sample SP–17, which displays values
of , well above the recommended
acceptable limit (Figure 3), [29].
Also, sample SP–2, with values of ,
shows a very close tendency to the permissible
limit. These values above indicate contamination
from coal mining activities because of the
increased impurities in the water, which can lead
to health challenges if the water is consumed
without treatment (Table 4).
Fig. 3. Bar chart showing the concentrations of
anions
EARTH SCIENCES AND HUMAN CONSTRUCTIONS
DOI: 10.37394/232024.2024.4.21
Kizito O. Musa, Fabian A. Akpah, Ernest O. Akudo,
Jamilu B. Ahmed II, Atabo N. Odoma,
Mary M. Shaibu, Changde A. Nanfa,
Jacob B. Jimoh, Michael S. Ikuemonisan, Binta Musa, Anselm O. Oyem
E-ISSN: 2944-9006
167
Volume 4, 2024
According to [33], [34], Chloride () analysis
in the study of water quality is of major
importance because it helps in understanding the
link between water and pollution. The values of
chloride concentration varied from to
, with a mean value of
which, fell short of what the [29] recommends for
the safe use of water. When assessing the quality
of groundwater, two important anion
measurements are bicarbonate () and
carbonate (
). According to [35], geogenic
and anthropogenic activities are typically
responsible for changes in HCO3¯ and for
regulating the alkalinity of groundwater. Within
the area, the bicarbonate () values varied
from to , with an average value
of , while the carbonate (
)
values ranged from to , with
an average value of . This number is
below the top limit set by, [29], indicating that
there are little to no effects of geogenic and
human activity on the water in the study area.
Sulfate (
) values within the study area
ranged from to , with a
mean value of which is below the
permissible limits, and implies the water is safe
for drinking and domestic uses. According to
[36], high concentrations of
in groundwater
may cause health-related illnesses such as
dehydration, catharsis, gastrointestinal irritation,
and diarrhea. According to, [37], [38], organic
matter from man-made pollution, such as
agricultural fertilizers, is a major source of
in water. The concentration of nitrite ()
ranged from to , with an
average of . This value falls below
the drinking water threshold, indicating that the
water is safe to drink. The distribution of all the
anions under study is displayed in Fig. 3.
According to, [39], [40], is one of the most
predominant elements in natural water, with
larger concentrations found there. If it is found
occurring in high concentrations in the potable
water supply, patients with heart, kidney, or
circulation disorders who consume this water are
negatively affected. concentration within
the area ranged between and ,
with a mean value of (Tables 1 and 2).
This value is below the safe drinking water
standard set by, [29]. The high levels of rock-
water interaction in the area are the main reason
for the presence in the groundwater. This is
partially because the surface water is used for the
bulk of samples and the metal's concentration
suggests little to no rock-water interaction.
The Potassium () concentration within the
area ranged between and ,
with as the average (Tables 1 and 2).
This value is below the safe drinking water
standard set by, [29]. While is thought to be a
necessary element for both plants and animals, its
high concentration, above the [28] permissible
standard, could be harmful to the human nervous
and digestive systems, [38], [40]. Tables 1 and 2
show that the mean magnesium ()
concentration in the samples analyzed within the
area was , with a range of
to . This value is lower
than what the [28] recommends. Rock-water
interactions or mineral disintegration are the
usual causes of high concentrations of this metal.
The calcium () concentration in the
analyzed water sample within the area ranged
between and , with a
mean value of (Tables 1 and 2). This
value falls below the, [29], recommended
threshold for safe drinking water. The
concentration of aluminum () in water
within the area ranged between and
, with mean value of
(Tables 1 and 2). The majority of the analyzed
water samples from SP– 4, 8, 9, 10, 13, and 15
had values that were greater than the permissive
level for drinking water. Anthropogenic activities
in water are the reason for the high concentration
of aluminum, which can lead to health problems
and impact most body organs, including the
brain, parathyroid gland, kidney, lungs, liver, and
bones. Therefore, the water from this area needs
to be sufficiently treated to save the lives of the
locals as well as the animals. Fig. 4 shows the
variation of major cations analyzed within the
area.
EARTH SCIENCES AND HUMAN CONSTRUCTIONS
DOI: 10.37394/232024.2024.4.21
Kizito O. Musa, Fabian A. Akpah, Ernest O. Akudo,
Jamilu B. Ahmed II, Atabo N. Odoma,
Mary M. Shaibu, Changde A. Nanfa,
Jacob B. Jimoh, Michael S. Ikuemonisan, Binta Musa, Anselm O. Oyem
E-ISSN: 2944-9006
168
Volume 4, 2024
Fig. 4. Bar chart showing the concentrations of
cations
Water samples were analyzed for heavy
metals, such as Arsenic (), Iron (),
Manganese (), Zinc (), Lead (),
Cadmium (), and Mercury (). These
elements are continuously released into water
bodies by the chemical weathering of rocks and
minerals. When present in high concentrations,
they may be potentially fatal, [41], [42].
Anthropogenic activities resulting from pollution
can also increase the concentration of these heavy
metals, [43], [44]. In Tables 1 and 2, Lead ()
concentration in the area ranged between
and , with a mean value
of . The concentrations at SP– 5, 10,
12, 13, 15, and 20 were less than ,
which is below the drinking water guidelines
specified by [29]. This shows that most of the
water samples had values over the threshold, and
needed to be treated before consumption to avoid
negative effects. The concentration of iron ()
varied between and , with a
mean value of (Tables 1 and 2). At the
following locations; SP-1, SP-2, SP-3, 10, 11, 12,
13, and 15, the concentration of Fe surpasses the
WHO's allowable limit, [29]. Chromium ()
concentrations varied from to
. These results are higher than the
permitted limit (Tables 1 and 2). Cadmium (Cd)
concentrations at locations SP-, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8
vary from to , all of
which are above the permissible limit. Cadmium
() values in SP-4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 varied from
to , which is likewise
greater than the allowed limit, [29]. The
concentration of zinc () in the analyzed water
ranged from to . These
values surpass the acceptable threshold of, [29].
The concentration of mercury () within the
area ranged between and
, with a mean value of .
Figure 5 depicts the vertical spread of these heavy
metal concentrations. Pearson correlation
analysis describes the interactions between the
various hydrogeochemical parameters in
groundwater. [45], [46], reported that a stronger
correlation is shown by a correlation coefficient
of more than , whilst a moderate correlation is
shown to be between and . Similarly,
and , and , and , and ,
acidity and , , and , have stronger
correlation coefficients, as and , and
, and , and , and acidity,
and , and , and acidity,
and , and , and , acidity and
, and and and have
moderate correlation coefficients as shown in
Fig. 5.
Fig. 5. Bar chart of heavy metal concentrations
4.2 Hydrochemical Facies
According to, [47], combining graphical and
statistical techniques is a reliable, unbiased tool
used in the classification of a large number of
samples. To determine the hydrochemical
makeup of the water samples and to understand
other factors affecting the water in the area, a
Piper trilinear diagram was utilized, [48]. Figure
6 shows the hydrochemical facies of water
samples in the study area, which have mixed
types of sodium chloride, calcium sulfate water,
and sodium bicarbonate in decreasing order. The
area’s predominant hydrochemical facies is
sodium chloride as a result of mining and
EARTH SCIENCES AND HUMAN CONSTRUCTIONS
DOI: 10.37394/232024.2024.4.21
Kizito O. Musa, Fabian A. Akpah, Ernest O. Akudo,
Jamilu B. Ahmed II, Atabo N. Odoma,
Mary M. Shaibu, Changde A. Nanfa,
Jacob B. Jimoh, Michael S. Ikuemonisan, Binta Musa, Anselm O. Oyem
E-ISSN: 2944-9006
169
Volume 4, 2024
agricultural activities. The plot also showed that
strong acid base (
) outweighs weak
acids (
) within geochemical zone
4, which contains of the water samples. The
Durov diagram further collaborates with the
findings of the Piper pattern in Fig. 7 while the
Scholler diagram shows the order from the
highest to the lowest concentrations of the
elements. The hydrochemical trend of
groundwater is
as displayed in Figure 8. The result shows
that sulfate acid weathering is more prevalent
than carbonic acid weathering within the area.
Fig. 6. Piper trilinear diagram showing the water
facies
Fig. 7. Durov diagram
Fig. 8. Schoeller diagram from the sample
points.
5 Conclusion
There is a significant increase in anthropogenic
concentrations of potentially toxic elements,
mostly heavy metals (, , , , , , ,
and ) as compared to the acceptable threshold,
[28]. The concentration value for most of the
physical parameters, cations, and anions
(electrical conductivity, total dissolved solids,
total hardness, alkalinity, chloride, potassium,
sodium, magnesium, bicarbonate, hydroxide,
nitrate, and sulfate) fall within the permissible
limits. However, in most cases, the concentration
values continue to increase with the increase in
the intensity of coal mining. The values of
concentration for pH, , and all the heavy metals
fall above the permissible range. The
hydrogeochemical facies showed and as
the dominant ionic species for cations while
and are the dominant ionic species for
anions. The sodium/potassium chloride water is
dominant due to the excessive use of fertilizers
and landfill leachate. The area is characterized by
notable concentrations of strong acids due to the
increased mining activities and the presence of
high anthropogenic concentrations of potentially
toxic elements. These low pH (acidic) values in
the analyzed water samples suggest that the water
is acidic and is of high health risk to humans.
Also, when the organic material breaks down, it
can release carbonate ions into the water; hence,
EARTH SCIENCES AND HUMAN CONSTRUCTIONS
DOI: 10.37394/232024.2024.4.21
Kizito O. Musa, Fabian A. Akpah, Ernest O. Akudo,
Jamilu B. Ahmed II, Atabo N. Odoma,
Mary M. Shaibu, Changde A. Nanfa,
Jacob B. Jimoh, Michael S. Ikuemonisan, Binta Musa, Anselm O. Oyem
E-ISSN: 2944-9006
170
Volume 4, 2024
the presence of carbon dioxide () indicates
the presence of anthropogenic sources.
References
[1] Naveen-Saviour M. and Stalin P. (2012).
Soil and Sand Mining: Causes,
Consequences, and Management.
Journal of Pharmacy, 2(4): 1-6.
[2] Adejoke C. O., Paul O. B., and Andile M.
(2018). Conflict Implications of Coal
Mining and Environmental Pollution in
South Africa. African Journal on
Conflict Resolution, 18(1): 1–16.
[3] Ewuzie, U., Nnorom, I.C., and Eze, S.O.,
2020. Lithium is found in drinking water
sources in rural and urban communities
in southeastern Nigeria. Chemosphere
245, 125593.
[4] Moschini-Carlos V., Pompeo M. L.,
Lobo F. L., & Meirelles S. T. (2011).
Impact of Coal Mining on the Water
Quality of the Three Artificial Lakes in
the Morozini River Basin (Treviso, Santa
Caterina State, Brazil) Acta Limnological
Brasiliensia, 23(3): 271-281.
[5] Ojonimi T. I., Asuke F., Onimisi M. A.,
Onuh C. Y. and Tshiongo-Makgwe N.
(2020). Coal Mining and the
Environmental Impact of Acid Mine
Drainage (AMD): A Review. Nigerian
Journal of Technology (NIJOTECH), 39
(3), 738 – 743.
[6] Liu Q., Xu J., Wang Q., Li W. (2024).
Risk Assessment of Water Inrush from
Coal Seam Roof Based on the Combined
Weighting of the Geographic
Information System and Game Theory:
A Case Study of Dananhu Coal Mine No.
7, China. Water 16(5):710.
[7] Ahanger Faroz Ahmad, Sharma
Harendra K., Rather Makhmoor Ahmad,
and Rao R. J. (2014). Impact of Mining
Activities on Various Environmental
Attributes With Specific Reference to
Health Impacts in Shatabdipuram,
Gwalior, India. International Research
Journal of Environment Sciences, Vol.
3(6), pp. 81–87.
[8] Gleick, P. H. (2002). Dirty water:
estimated deaths from water-related
diseases 2000–2020: Citeseer.
[9] Ihunwo, O.C., Dibofori-Orji, A.N.,
Olowo, C., and Ibezim-Ezeani, M.U.
(2020). Distribution and risk assessment
of some heavy metals in surface water,
sediment, and grey mullet (Mugil
cephalus) from a contaminated creek in
Woji, southern Nigeria. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 154 (February), 111042.
[10] Ebele, A.J., Oluseyi, T., Drage, D.S.,
Harrad, S., and Abou-Elwafa Abdallah,
M., (2020). Occurrence, seasonal
variation, and human exposure to
pharmaceuticals and personal care
products in surface water, groundwater,
and drinking water in Lagos State,
Nigeria. Emerging Contaminants 6, 124–
132.
[11] Ukaogo, P.O., Ewuzie, U., and Onwuka,
C.V., (2020). Environmental pollution:
causes, effects, and remedies. Microorg.
Sustain. Environ. Health 419–429.
[12] Musa, O.K., Shaibu, M.M., and
Kudamnya, E.A. (2013): Heavy Metal
Concentration in Groundwater Around
Obajana and Its Environs, Kogi State,
North Central Nigeria; American
International Journal of Contemporary
Research, Vol. 3, No. 8, 170–177. ISSN
2162-142X (online)
[13] Musa O.K., Kudamnya E.A., Omali
A.O., and Akuh T.I. (2014): Physico–
chemical characteristics of surface and
groundwater in Obajana and its environs
in Kogi State, Central Nigeria; African
Journal of Environmental Science and
Technology, 8(9), 521–531.
www.academicjournals.org/ajest/PDF/..
./Musa.pdf
[14] Yao, X., Xu, S.X., Yang, Y., Zhu, Z.,
Tao, F., and Yuan, M. (2021).
Stratification of population in NHANES
2009–2014 based on exposure patterns of
lead, cadmium, mercury, and arsenic and
their association with cardiovascular,
renal, and respiratory outcomes. Environ.
Int. 149, 106410.
[15] Ewuzie, U., Nnorom, I.C., Ugbogu, O.,
and Onwuka, C.V. (2021).
Hydrogeochemical, microbial, and
compositional analysis of data from
surface and groundwater sources in
EARTH SCIENCES AND HUMAN CONSTRUCTIONS
DOI: 10.37394/232024.2024.4.21
Kizito O. Musa, Fabian A. Akpah, Ernest O. Akudo,
Jamilu B. Ahmed II, Atabo N. Odoma,
Mary M. Shaibu, Changde A. Nanfa,
Jacob B. Jimoh, Michael S. Ikuemonisan, Binta Musa, Anselm O. Oyem
E-ISSN: 2944-9006
171
Volume 4, 2024
Southeastern Nigeria. J. Geochem.
Explor. 224.
[16] Afonne, O.J., Chukwuka, J.U., and
Ifediba, E.C. (2020). Evaluation of
drinking water quality using heavy metal
pollution indexing models in an agrarian,
non-industrialized area of south-east
Nigeria. J. Environ. Sci. Health, Part A
Toxic/Hazard Subst. Environ. Eng. 1–9.
[17] Egbueri, J. C. (2020). Heavy metal
pollution source identification and
probabilistic health risk assessment of
shallow groundwater in Onitsha, Nigeria.
Analytical Letters, 53(10): 1620–1638.
[18] Aboh, E.A., Giwa, F.J., and Giwa, A.
(2015). Microbiological assessment of
well waters in Samaru, Zaria, Kaduna
State, Nigeria. Ann. Afr. Med. 14 (1),
32–38.
[19] Adesakin, T.A., Oyewale, A.T., Bayero,
U., Mohammed, A.N., Aduwo, I.A.,
Ahmed, P.Z., Abubakar, N.D., and Barje,
I.B. (2020). Assessment of
bacteriological quality and
physicochemical parameters of domestic
water sources in Samaru community,
Zaria, Northwest Nigeria. Heliyon 6 (8),
e04773.
[20] Bamigboye, C.O., Amao, J.A., Ayodele,
T.A., Adebayo, A.S., Ogunleke, J.D.,
Abass, T.B., Oyedare, T.A., Adetutu,
T.J., Adeeyo, A.O., and Oyedemi, A.A.
(2020). An appraisal of the drinking
water quality of groundwater sources in
Ogbomoso, Oyo State, Nigeria.
Groundwater Sustain. Dev. 11, 100453.
[21] Liu, Y.; Ma, G.; Han, Y.; Wang, Y.;
Tang, C.; Tian, N.; Tang, X.; Jiang, L.;
Zuo, H.; Zhang, Y.; et al. (2023).
Assessment of the Impact of Abandoned
Mine Water on Groundwater
Environment. Water, 15, 2649.
[22] Aluwong, K.C., Hashim, M.H., Ismail,
S., & Shehu, S.A. (2024). Physico-
chemical assessment of surface water
from mining activities in Maiganga coal
mine, Gombe state, Nigeria. Mining of
Mineral Deposits, 18 (1), 9-17.
[23] Faniran, A., and Ojo, O. (1980). Man’s
Physical Environment. London,
Heinemann.
[24] Dim, C.I.P. (2021). Regional Geology,
Basin Forming Tectonics, and Basin Fills
of the Southern Benue Trough and
Anambra Basin in the Afikpo Area. In:
Facies Analysis and Interpretation in
Southeastern Nigeria's Inland Basins.
SpringerBriefs in Earth Sciences.
Springer, Cham.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-
68188-3_2
[25] Ahmad S., Gromiha MM. NETASA
(2002). Neural network-based prediction
of solvent accessibility. Bioinformatics,
18(6):819-24.
[26] Obaje, N.G. (2009). Geology of the
Middle Benue, Nigeria, Palaeontological
Institute, University Uppsala, Special
Publication 4: Pp. 1–18.
[27] Odoma, A.N., Aigbadon, D.O., and
Ibrahim, M.M., (2023). Examination and
Classification of Biostratigraphy of
Paleoenvironmental Interpretation and
Hydrocarbon Prospects in the Northern
Anambra Basin, Eastern Nigeria. Journal
of Applied Sciences and Environmental
Management, 27 (7), 1445–1450.
[28] Ilevbare M. and Omodolor H. E. (2020).
Case Studies in Chemical and
Environmental Engineering 2, 100022,
2020.
[29] World Health Organization (WHO)
(2017). Standard Guidelines for Drinking
Water Quality, fourth edition,
incorporating the first addendum.
[30] Gray NF (1996) Environmental impacts
and remediation of acid mine drainage: a
management problem. Environ Geol
30:62–67
[31] Raghunath R, Sreedhara Murthy TR, and
Raghavan BR (2001). Spatial
distribution of pH, EC, and total
dissolved solids in the Nethravathi river
basin, Karnataka, India. Poll Res 20:413–
418
[32] Ekwule, O.R., Akpen, G.D., & Ugbede,
G.M. (2019). The Effect of Coal Mining
on the Water Quality of Water Sources in
Nigeria. Bartın University International
Journal of Natural and Applied Sciences
(JONAS), 2(2), 251-260.
EARTH SCIENCES AND HUMAN CONSTRUCTIONS
DOI: 10.37394/232024.2024.4.21
Kizito O. Musa, Fabian A. Akpah, Ernest O. Akudo,
Jamilu B. Ahmed II, Atabo N. Odoma,
Mary M. Shaibu, Changde A. Nanfa,
Jacob B. Jimoh, Michael S. Ikuemonisan, Binta Musa, Anselm O. Oyem
E-ISSN: 2944-9006
172
Volume 4, 2024
[33] Shankaraiah K., Sakram G., and Ratnkar
D. (2021). Spatial assessment of major
ion geochemistry in groundwater around
Suryapet Region, Southern Telangana,
India. Environ Sustain 4, 107–122.
[34] Babangida, H., Mohamed Salih, O.,
Khalid Abdallah, M., Musa, Y., Audu,
D., & Adanu Emmanuel, O. (2021).
Evaluation of Heavy Metal
Contamination in Surface and Ground
Water in Maiganga, Gombe State,
Nigeria. Journal of Soil and Water
Science. 5 (2), 218-222.
[35] Eyankware, M. O., & Ephraim, B. E.
(2021). A comprehensive review of
water quality monitoring and assessment
in Delta State, southern Nigeria. Journal
of Environmental and Earth Science,
3(1), 16–28.
[36] Eyankware, M. O., Akakuru, C. O., &
Eyankware, E. O. (2022b). Interpretation
of hydrochemical data using various
geochemical models: a case study of the
Enyigba mining district of Abakaliki,
Ebonyi State, SE Nigeria. Sustainable
Water Resources Management. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s40899- 022- 00613-
4
[37] Ezeh, V. O., Eyankware, M. O., Irabor,
O. O., & Nnabo, P. N. (2016).
Hydrochemical evaluation of water
resources in Umuoghara and its environs,
near Abakaliki, southeastern Nigeria.
International Journal of Science and
Healthcare Research., 1(2), 23–31.
[38] Omo-Irabor, O. O., Eyankware, M. O., &
Ogwah, C. (2018). Integration of
hydrogeochemical analytical methods
and irrigation parameters in the
evaluation of groundwater quality at
Ibinta, Southern Benue Trough, Nigeria.
FUPRE Journal of Scientific and
Industrial Research, 2(1), 38–49.
[39] Gouri, S. B., Ali, K., Pravat, K. S., El-
Sayed, E. O., & Ali, B. (2018).
Evaluation of groundwater quality and its
suitability for drinking and irrigation
using GIS and geostatistics techniques in
the arid region of Neyshabur, Iran.
Applied Water Science.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-018-
0795-6
[40] Eyankware M. O., Akakuru O. C.,
Ulakpa R. O. E., and Eyankware E. O.
(2022c). Hydrogeochemical approach in
the assessment of coastal aquifers for
domestic, industrial, and agricultural
utilities in Port Harcourt, urban, southern
Nigeria. International Journal of Energy
and Water Resources:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42108-022-
00184-2
[41] Singh, V.P. (2005). Toxic metals and
environmental issues. Sarup & Sons,
New Delhi, 362.
[42] Rango T., Bianchini G., Beccaluva L.,
Ayenew T., and Colombani N. (2009).
Hydrogeochemical study in the Main
Ethiopian Rift: new insights into the
source and enrichment mechanisms of
fluoride. Environmental Geology, 58(1),
109–118.
[43] Pugazhendhi A., Ranganathan K., and
Kaliannan T. (2018). Biosorptive
removal of copper (II) by Bacillus cereus
isolated from contaminated soil of the
electroplating industry in India. Water,
Air, and Soil Pollution, 229(3), 1–9.
[44] Bhattacharjee S., Saha B., Saha B.,
Uddin M.S., Panna C.H., Bhattacharya
P., Saha R. (2019). Groundwater
governance in Bangladesh: established
practices and recent trends. Groundwater
for Sustainable Development, 8, 69–81.
[45] Akakuru, O. C., Akudinobi, B. E.,
Nwankwoala, H. O., Akakuru, O. Z., &
Onyekuru, S. O. (2021). Compendious
evaluation of groundwater in parts of
Asaba, Nigeria, for agricultural
sustainability. Geoscience Journal.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12303-021-
0010-x
[46] Shyu, G. S., Cheng, B. Y., Chiang, C. T.,
Yao, P. H., & Chang, T. K. (2011).
Applying factor analysis combined with
Kriging and information entropy theory
for mapping and evaluating the stability
of groundwater quality variation in
Taiwan. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public
EARTH SCIENCES AND HUMAN CONSTRUCTIONS
DOI: 10.37394/232024.2024.4.21
Kizito O. Musa, Fabian A. Akpah, Ernest O. Akudo,
Jamilu B. Ahmed II, Atabo N. Odoma,
Mary M. Shaibu, Changde A. Nanfa,
Jacob B. Jimoh, Michael S. Ikuemonisan, Binta Musa, Anselm O. Oyem
E-ISSN: 2944-9006
173
Volume 4, 2024
Health, 8, 1084–1109.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph8041084
[47] Güler, C., Thyne, G., Mccray, J. E., &
Turner, A. K. (2002). Evaluation of the
graphical and multivariate statistical
methods used for the classification of
water-chemistry data. Hydrogeology
Journal 10, 455–474.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-002-
0196-6
[48] Piper, A. M. (1944). A graphic procedure
in the geochemical interpretation of
water analysis. Transactions of the
American Geophysical Union, 25, 914–
923.
Table 1. Sampling Points Within the Study Area
Samples No.
Location
Coordinates
Latitudes
Longitudes
SP1 GW
Awo Akpali
07°26'01.55"N
007°47'11.7"E
SP2 GW
Awo Akpali
07°26'01.3"N
007°47'12.9"E
SP3 SW
Awo Akpali
07°26'10.8"N
007°47'14.9"E
SP4 SW
Awo Akukunda
07°26'33.0"N
007°47'57.2"E
SP5 SW
Awo Akukunda
07°26'45.0"N
007°48'05.0"E
SP6 SW
Awo Akukunda
07°27'15.0"N
007°48'42.3"E
SP7 SW
Awo Akukunda
07°27'39.8"N
007°48'01.0"E
SP8 SW
Awo Akpolokuta
07°27'09.2"N
007°46'54.1"E
SP9 SW
Awo Akpolokuta
07°27'37.2"N
007°47'12.3"E
SP10 SW
Okaba
07°27'36"N
007°44'20"E
SP11 SW
Okaba
07°27'20"N
007°44'05"E
SP12 SW
Okaba
07°28'43"N
007°43'40.1"E
SP13 GW
Okaba
07°28'25.4"N
007°43'19.2"E
SP14 SW
Okaba
07°28'11.6"N
007°43'11.7"E
SP15 SW
Okobo
07°29'49.7"N
007°43'06.4"E
SP16 SW
Okobo
07°29'50.2"N
007°43'07.3"E
SP17 SW
Okobo
07°30'08.8"N
007°42'48.6"E
SP18 SW
Okobo
07°29'38.7"N
007°43'57.3"E
SP19 SW
Okobo
07°30'0.57"N
007°42'54.5"E
SP20 SW
Okobo
07°30'06.01"N
007°42'42.2"E
EARTH SCIENCES AND HUMAN CONSTRUCTIONS
DOI: 10.37394/232024.2024.4.21
Kizito O. Musa, Fabian A. Akpah, Ernest O. Akudo,
Jamilu B. Ahmed II, Atabo N. Odoma,
Mary M. Shaibu, Changde A. Nanfa,
Jacob B. Jimoh, Michael S. Ikuemonisan, Binta Musa, Anselm O. Oyem
E-ISSN: 2944-9006
174
Volume 4, 2024
Contribution of Individual Authors to the
Creation of a Scientific Article (Ghostwriting
Policy)
The authors equally contributed in the present
research, at all stages from the formulation of the
problem to the final findings and solution.
Sources of Funding for Research Presented in a
Scientific Article or Scientific Article Itself
No funding was received for conducting this study.
Conflict of Interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare
that are relevant to the content of this article.
Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
(Attribution 4.0 International, CC BY 4.0)
This article is published under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en
_US
Table 2. Physio-Chemical Parameters and Heavy Metals Concentrations Compared with WHO (2017) Standard Limit
Note: Values above WHO (2017) standard are highlighted in bold, while others within WHO (2017) standard are highlighted in italics, and all others are below WHO (2017) permissible limits.
Parameters
W.H.O
SP-1
SP-2
SP-3
SP-4
SP-5
SP-6
SP-7
SP-8
SP-9
SP-10
SP-11
SP-12
SP-13
SP-14
SP-15
SP-16
SP-17
SP-18
SP-19
SP-20
Ph
6.5-8.5
5.6
6.5
6.5
6.26
6.62
6.23
6.09
6.26
6.54
4.22
4.64
6.54
6.03
6.47
6.68
6.89
3.59
4.14
3.96
3.93
EC(µS/cm)
400
31
388
70
134
89
155
147
134
84
186
190
48
187
27
29
30
520
264
224
226
TDS(mg/L)
500-
1000
16
194
35
67
44
80
74
67
43
97
95
24
94
12
14
15
257
132
110
113
TH(mg/L)
500
5.7
27.3
4.4
1.3
1.3
2.7
2.4
1.6
0.8
6.3
9
1.5
13.8
0.7
2.1
1.4
20.1
2.1
8.8
6.3
Alkalinity(mg/L
)
200
200
202
132
80
136
112
148
104
156
104
96
156
272
152
124
96
36
76
84
68
Acidity(mg/L)
200
28
68
20
52
28
104
88
40
36
32
32
44
72
20
28
32
112
72
44
52
Free CO2(mg/L)
<30
5.99
4.00
4.00
9.99
7.99
17.98
11.99
11.99
7.99
7.990
3.995
11.98
6
3.995
5.993
8
2
40
16
10
14
Colour TCU
15
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
5
5
5
5
4
6
5
6
7
5
5
Na(mg/L)
200
3
3
3
2
3
4
3
2
4
1
2
3
1
1
2
3
2
3
3
3
K(mg/L)
12
6
6
4
8
7
12
5
6
7
5
5
5
3
4
7
5
4
4
5
5
Ca(mg/L)
100
4.008
2.725
4
1.1222
0.962
1.122
1.283
0.962
1.122
1.122
3.206
2.405
0.961
6.413
4.008
0.962
1.222
3.687
5.611
2.405
0.481
Mg(mg/L)
150
0.873
6
3.024
0.8512
0.1568
0.1344
0.4256
0.403
0.2016
0.0224
0.0224
2.576
0.224
0.268
8
0.0448
0.336
0.56
6.4064
4.5024
0.224
3.6288
NO3(mg/L)
50
0.021
0.095
0.028
0.025
0.020
0.013
0.011
0.009
0.011
0.009
0.009
0.023
0.057
0.012
0.014
0.024
0.090
0.050
0.040
0.143
SO4(mg/L)
250
48.3
29.5
39.7
134.3
86.2
126.6
122.5
130.1
83.7
120.6
121.0
42.1
34.2
35.1
30.7
50.7
153.8
54.6
131.3
137.3
HCO3(mg/L)
125-350
54
8
34
10
5
4
7
6
6.2
10
10
14
8
14
12
8
8
12
16
22
CO3(mg/L)
250
110
148
48
84
44
38
60
50
52
42
48
48
30
34
62
34
20
26
38
43
Cl (mg/L)
250
88.63
39.00
28.36
42.54
39.00
24.82
46.09
39.00
21.27
31.91
31.91
28.36
42.54
28.36
24.82
24.82
31.36
77.99
99.26
67.36
OH(mg/L)
0.003
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.3
0.7
0.4
ND
ND
Cd(mg/L)
0.03-
0.05
0.05
0.057
0.046
0.088
0.069
0.087
0.069
0.055
0.039
0.049
0.02
<0.00
1
0.02
0.045
0.03
0.03
0.058
0.026
0.035
0.046
Cr(mg/L)
0.01
0.072
0.1
0.085
0.1
0.086
0.112
0.094
0.051
0.07
0.11
0.091
0.093
0.112
0.099
0.075
0.092
11
0.1
0.059
0.092
As(mg/L)
0.3
<0.00
1
0.032
<0.001
0.034
<0.001
0.029
0.05
<0.001
0.067
<0.001
0.049
0.028
0.043
0.028
<0.00
1
<0.001
0.015
0.026
0.037
0.029
Fe(mg/L)
0.2
0.263
0.41
0.217
0.1
0.21
0.172
0.149
0.138
0.99
0.233
0.254
0.25
0.288
0.195
0.264
0.31
0.217
0.176
0.157
0.02
Al(mg/L)
0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.02
0.02
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
0.03
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
0.03
Pb(mg/L)
0.01-3
0.039
0.062
0.065
0.05
<0.001
0.015
0.059
0.038
0.048
<0.001
0.048
<0.00
1
<0.00
1
0.072
0.046
<0.001
0.028
0.04
0.057
<0.001
Zn(mg/L)
0.01
0.758
1.092
0.575
0.534
0.751
0.386
0.72
0.52
0.411
1.064
0.854
0.623
0.71
0.67
0.584
1
0.954
1.064
0.578
0.742
Hg(mg/L)
-
<0.00
1
<0.00
1
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.001
0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.001
<0.001
<0.00
1
<0.00
1
0.002
<0.00
1
<0.001
<0.001
0.002
<0.00
1
<0.001
EARTH SCIENCES AND HUMAN CONSTRUCTIONS
DOI: 10.37394/232024.2024.4.21
Kizito O. Musa, Fabian A. Akpah, Ernest O. Akudo,
Jamilu B. Ahmed II, Atabo N. Odoma,
Mary M. Shaibu, Changde A. Nanfa,
Jacob B. Jimoh, Michael S. Ikuemonisan, Binta Musa, Anselm O. Oyem
E-ISSN: 2944-9006
175
Volume 4, 2024
Table 3. Statistical Values of Physiochemical Parameters and Heavy Metals Compared with WHO
Standard Limit, [29]
Parameters
W.H.O
MIN
MAX
MEAN
SD
PH
6.5-8.5
3.59
6.89
5.6845
1.124874
EC (µS/cm)
400
27
520
158.15
126.5923
TDS (mg/L)
500-1000
12
257
79.15
62.91789
TH (mg/L)
500
0.7
27.3
5.98
7.061206
Alkalinity (mg/L)
200
36
272
126.7
54.51518
Acidity (mg/L)
200
20
112
50.2
27.23697
Free CO2 (mg/L)
<30
2
40
10.29395
8.214856
Colour TCU
15
4
7
5.25
0.638666
Na (mg/L)
200
1
4
2.55
0.887041
K (mg/L)
12
3
12
5.65
1.954078
Ca (mg/L)
100
0.481
6.413
2.28948
1.699512
Mg (mg/L)
150
0.0224
6.4064
1.24431
1.80369
NO3 (mg/L)
50
0.009
0.143
0.0352
0.035903
SO4 (mg/L)
250
29.5
153.8
85.615
44.84599
HCO3 (mg/L)
125-350
4
54
13.41
11.73362
CO3 (mg/L)
250
20
148
52.95
30.14958
Cl (mg/L)
250
21.27
99.26
42.87
22.49071
OH (mg/L)
0.003
0.3
0.7
0.466667
0.208167
Cd (mg/L)
0.03-0.05
0.02
0.088
0.048368
0.020003
Cr (mg/L)
0.01
0.051
11
0.63465
2.439807
As (mg/L)
0.3
0.015
0.067
0.035923
0.013425
Fe (mg/L)
0.2
0.02
0.99
0.25065
0.192499
Al (mg/L)
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.0225
0.00866
Pb (mg/L)
0.01-3
0.015
0.072
0.047615
0.015819
Zn (mg/L)
0.01
0.386
1.092
0.7295
0.215282
Hg (mg/L)
-
0.001
0.002
0.00125
0.00005
Table 4. Water Classification in the Area Based on EC Values
Class of Water
EC (μS/cm)
Sample points
Excellent (C1)
<250
1,2,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16
Good (C2)
250-750
3, 17,18,19, 20
Permissible (C3)
750-2000
Nil
Doubtful (C4)
2000-3000
Nil
Unsuitable (C5)
>3000
Nil
EARTH SCIENCES AND HUMAN CONSTRUCTIONS
DOI: 10.37394/232024.2024.4.21
Kizito O. Musa, Fabian A. Akpah, Ernest O. Akudo,
Jamilu B. Ahmed II, Atabo N. Odoma,
Mary M. Shaibu, Changde A. Nanfa,
Jacob B. Jimoh, Michael S. Ikuemonisan, Binta Musa, Anselm O. Oyem
E-ISSN: 2944-9006
176
Volume 4, 2024
