See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/344426200

Comparative analysis of water quality from different sources in Masaka,

Nasarawa State, Nigeria

Article · September 2020

CITATIONS READS

0 406

2 authors:

John Magaji Abimbola Ajayi

University of Abuja Global initiative for food security and ecosystem preservation
14 PUBLICATIONS   88 CITATIONS    1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

chalengies of river basin devt. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by John Magaji on 30 September 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Australian Journal of Science and Technology
ISSN Number (2208-6404)
Volume 4; Issue 3; September 2020

Original Article

Comparative analysis of water quality from different sources

in Masaka, Nasarawa State, Nigeria
J. Y. Magaji, T. Ajayi Abimbola*

Department of Geography and Environmental Management, University of Abuja, Abuja, Nigeria

ABSTRACT
This study identified, assessed, and compared water quality from various sources in Masaka, Nasarawa state. Water samples were collected from
five different sources (two streams, two sachet water [for both content and the body of the nylon], four boreholes, and four wells), making a
total of 14 samples which were analyzed for physiochemical and biological properties. The samples were collected from the identified sources
using thoroughly washed 75 cl plastic bottles and well labeled and taken to the laboratory for analysis on the same day. Standard equipment
and procedures were adopted as prescribed by APHA (2005). Parameters such as pH, temperature, color, turbidity, conductivity, alkalinity,
total hardness, iron, chloride, nitrate, calcium, magnesium, phosphate, and total coliform were analyzed. The result was presented in tables
and charts. Some inferential statistics were performed to compare the differences in the concentration. The results for turbidity showed that
turbidity was on the high side ranging from 13 NTU and 54 NTU, conductivity levels are also high in all water sources. Furthermore, the
bacteriological property of the water samples appeared to be high and above the acceptable limit of the WHO. The hypotheses were tested
using ANOVA and t-test, respectively. The results showed that there is a significant difference in the quality of water between concrete well
water with cover and concrete well water without cover. Results also show that there is no significant variation between the four sources of
water and the WHO standards. It is then recommended that public enlightenment should be carried out, NAFDAC to regularly monitor sachet
water companies and that the best way to use wells is to cover them.
Keywords: Boreholes, comparative, river, sachet water, water quality, wells
Submitted: 07-07-2020, Accepted: 20-07-2020, Published: 30-07-2020

INTRODUCTION people in the world lack access to safe drinking water and
2.5 billion people do not have access to adequate sanitation
Water is one of the most vital natural resources necessary for services.[2] In many developing countries including Nigeria,
the existence of life. In most urban cities in most countries of clean pipe borne water availability is limited and inadequate
the world, including Nigeria, it is the duty of the government for the teeming population. Thus, an increasing number of
to provide potable water. Most often, the responsibility is not people in semi-urban areas in the country depend on hand-
adequately discharged, causing the inhabitants of those cities dug wells, boreholes, and water vendors for water supply.[4]
to look elsewhere to meet their water needs. These alternatives Globally, 1.1 billion people rely on unsafe drinking water
include sourcing for groundwater through borehole or well, sources either or from lakes, rivers, and open wells among
and stream or river water. others. Majority of these people are in Asia and sub-Saharan
Africa. Safe drinking water with pleasant taste and suitable
Water is an essential element for the survival of all living for domestic purposes must not contain any chemical or
organisms. In humans, it is shown to make up about 70% biological impurity.[5] Groundwater has been described as the
of the body mass.[1] Many infectious diseases in developing main source of potable water supply for domestic, industrial,
countries are associated with contaminated water.[2] Thus, and agricultural uses in Nigeria.[6,7] However, pollution of
good drinking water is a luxury but one of the most essential groundwater has gradually been on the increase, especially in
requirements of life.[3] Studies have shown that over 1 billion our cities with lots of industrial activities, population growth,

Address for correspondence: T. Ajayi Abimbola, Department of Geography and Environmental Management, University of Abuja,
Abuja, Nigeria. E-mail: [email protected]

Available at www.aujst.com 303

 Magaji and Abimbola: Comparative analysis of water quality from different sources

poor sanitation, land use for commercial agriculture, and who take their sources from north central plateau. In the dry
other factors responsible for environmental degradation.[8] The season, the volume of water is greatly reduced, whereas flash
concentration of contaminants in the groundwater depends on flood is experienced for most rivers in the rainy season. The
the level and type of elements introduced to it naturally or by rivers transport a lot of materials in suspension which affect
human activities. color and turbidity of the water.[11]

In developing countries, thousands of children under-5 years The spatial pattern of rainfall in the study area is slightly
die every day due to drinking contaminated water.[9] The influenced by the north central highlands with a mean annual
assessment of water quality has become an important part rainfall between 1100 mm and about 2000 mm. The vegetation
of water resource studies, planning, and management. It is is typically of Guinea Savannah characterized by a transition
gaining significant importance due to intense urbanization, between forest and grassland with typical transition woodland
industrialization, and agricultural activities that are increasing and tall grasses along the river channels or courses.[12,13]
the risk of contamination of soil and water. Water quality
monitoring is important for the protection of public health Types and Sources of Data
(drinking or domestic use), agriculture, industry, recreation, The data requirements for the study were basically field based
tourism, and protection of aquatic ecosystems. and comprised water samples from streams, wells, boreholes,
and packaged (sachet) water available in the study area.
Due to the unplanned nature of the study area Masaka, there Published works form journals and publications were also used.
is scarcity of water which has forced the inhabitants to rely on The World Health Organization (WHO) water quality standard
alternate sources of water to meet their daily needs. Masaka’s was used to compare the results of the sampled parameters.
water table is high, this is evident in the study area as most of
the wells are shallow, streams and rivers are seen around the Sample Size and Sampling Techniques
study area. These water sources are easily polluted and this The study identifies the following sources of water in the study
pollution is common to low income, peri-urban settlements area which includes nine boreholes, four streams, two packaged
in developing countries, and Masaka in particular. As seen water factories, and a good number of wells. The wells were
in the study area, most inhabitants of Masaka use water from selected using different criteria which include open concrete
rivers, streams, and wells for majority of their domestic needs, wells, close concrete wells, open non-concrete wells, and
however, water gotten from community taps, boreholes and close non-concrete wells [Appendix I]. Four bore holes were
water factories are kept for cooking and drinking. randomly selected, and two streams that are used by the people
were also selected and the two sachet water companies were
A study by Ujor and Al-Hassan,[10] on the assessment of also used for this study. Figure 2 presents the sampling points.
groundwater quality for drinking from hand-dug wells in
Masaka, revealed that geologically, the depth of strata was Water Sample Collection
between 4 m and 8 m, which is dominated by sandstone, shale, The water was sampled in 75 cl plastic bottles thoroughly
and mica and is highly porous and permeable, their distances rinsed with the water from each source before collecting the
are very close to the surface and close to sources of pollution. water. Two sets of sachet water brands each from the two
The knowledge of the water quality status as well as the production companies were purchased from the hawkers,
processes affecting water quality is vital. It is against this is neatly wrapped, and placed in different containers, making
background that this study attempts to compare the quality of a total of 14 water samples for the study area. All the water
water in Masaka from different sources and with international samples were transported immediately within 4 h to the
standards, with the view to identify the safest water source(s) Regional Water Quality Control office Minna, Niger state for
for the study area. immediate physiochemical and microbial analyses. A calibrated
conductivity meter was employed for the determination of the
METHODOLOGY conductivity of the water samples. Other chemical analyses of
the samples were done using methods specified in APHA.[14]
Masaka is located in Karu local government area of Nasarawa Bacteriological examination of the samples was conducted
state. It lies on latitude 7o40’30”E and 7o42’0”E and longitude by multiple tube fermentation tests described in APHA.[14,15]
9o0’0” N and 9o1’30”N [Figure 1]. It is bounded to the north
by Jankawa and Luvu villages, to the south by Tudun Wada, Method of Data Analysis
to the east by Kuchikau and to the west by Nyanya Gwandara The study applies descriptive statistical techniques for the
along the Keffi-Abuja Express Way.[10] analyses such as mean and standard deviation was performed.
Some inferential analysis such as ANOVA and t-test were also
Karu is well endowed with enormous water resources, both computed to verify if there is significant difference in the water
surface and underground water and is drained by many rivers quality from different sources and the international set standards.

Available at www.aujst.com 304

 Magaji and Abimbola: Comparative analysis of water quality from different sources

Figure 1: Map of Nasarawa showing the study area. Source: Adopted from NAGIS, 2019

Figure 2: Map of Masaka showing the sampling points

Available at www.aujst.com 305

 Magaji and Abimbola: Comparative analysis of water quality from different sources

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION and conductivity that has high variation in the concentration
all other analyzed parameters have low variation. This implies
The physiochemical and biological properties of the water that there is generally low variation in the concentration of the
samples collected from the study area and the results of water element in the body of the sachet water.
samples from the study area Masaka are summarized and
interpreted in Table 1. Table 4 presents the descriptive analysis of physiochemical
and biological properties of hand-dug wells water samples.
Table 1 presents the descriptive analysis of physiochemical This table tries to compare the different wells’ water ranging
and biological properties of river water sample. Results show from concreted wells open and close; non-concreted wells open
that pH, temperature, turbidity, alkalinity, and nitrate have and close. The analyzed parameters in the opened concreted
low variation in their concentrations, and color total hardness, well water are higher than those in the closed concreted well
chlorite, calcium, magnesium, and phosphate have high water. Similarly, the opened non-concreted well water has
variation while iron and coliform have moderate variation. This higher concentration than those in the closed non-concreted
implies that there is no definite pattern in the concentration of well water.
the element in the water.
Comparison of between concreted well water and non-
Table 2 presents the descriptive analysis of physiochemical concreted water shows that the concreted well water has lower
and biological properties of river water sample. Results concentration of most of the analyzed parameters than the
show that pH, temperature, and iron have low variation in non-concreted well water. This is probably due to the fact that
their concentrations, while all other parameters showed high the water in the non-concreted wells has direct contact with
variation in their concentrations. This implies that there is a the profile soils compared with the concreted that is protected
high variation in the concentration of the elements in the water. (appendix). In general, the results show that apart from pH, and
temperature, that have low concentration, all other analyzed
Table 3 presents the descriptive analysis of physiochemical and parameters have high variation in the concentration of the
biological properties of sachet water sample. Results show that element in the well water.
there is low variation in the concentration of pH, temperature,
alkalinity, total hardness, iron, chloride, and calcium nitrate Table 5 presents the results of the mean samples of the
and moderate variation in color, conductivity, and nitrate, parameters analyzed from different sources. The results show
while turbidity, magnesium phosphate, and coliform have that the mean of the pH and temperatures is all within the
high variation. This implies that there is variation in the WHO standard, even though that of the water body is more
concentration of the element in the sachet water. of alkaline compare to the others.

The result of the analysis of the body of water shows that The water color and turbidity of the water are all above the
apart from color and phosphate that have moderate variation WHO standard, though that of the body of the sachet water is

Table 1: Results of physiochemical and biological properties of sampled river water

Parameter (mg/L except mentioned) Siana river Talma river Mean Std. dev. COV Remarks
pH 7.9 7.6 7.7 0.16 2.1 Low
Temperature °C 26.2 26.6 26.4 0.28 11 Low
Color (TCU) 455 289 372 117.4 31.6 High
Turbidity (NTU) 54 54 54 0 0 Low
Conductivity (µS/cm) 73 65 69 5.66 8.2 Low
Alkalinity 38 46 42 5.66 13.5 Low
Total hardness 34 14 24 14.14 58.9 High
Iron 0.15 0.11 0.13 0.03 21.8 Moderate
Chloride 13.8 8.28 11.0 3.90 35.4 High
Nitrate 19.4 18.7 19.1 0.50 2.6 Low
Calcium 8.02 4.01 6.02 2.84 47.1 High
Magnesium 3.4 0.97 2.19 1.72 78.6 High
Phosphate 0.29 0.13 0.21 0.11 53.9 High
Total coliforms (cfu/100 ml) 800 1000 900 141 15.7 Moderate
Source: Field survey, 2020

Available at www.aujst.com 306

 Magaji and Abimbola: Comparative analysis of water quality from different sources

Table 2: Results of physiochemical and biological properties of sampled borehole water

Parameter (mg/L except where mentioned) BHW 1 BHW 2 BHW 3 BHW 4 Mean Std. COV Remarks
dev.
pH 6.44 6.86 6.35 6.17 6.4 0.3 4.5 Low
Temperature 26.8 26.4 26.6 26.7 26.6 0.2 0.6 Low
Color (TCU) 259 146 90 160 163.8 70.3 43 High
Turbidity (NTU) 14 13 16 37 20 11.0 57 High
Conductivity (µS/cm) 364 233 918 464 494.8 297.6 60.2 High
Alkalinity (mg/L) 114 74 336 76 150 125.4 83.6 High
Total hardness (mg/L) 84 60 328 138 152.5 121.5 79.6 High
Iron (mg/L) 0.11 0.1 0.09 0.1 0.1 0.01 8.2 Low
Chloride (mg/L) 33.1 27.6 113.2 44.2 54.5 39.7 72.8 High
Nitrate (mg/L) 18 16.7 11.9 55.6 25.6 20.2 79.1 High
Calcium (mg/L) 20 16 17.6 36.9 22.7 9.7 42.7 High
Magnesium (mg/) 7.8 4.9 69.3 11.2 23.3 30.8 132.1 High
Phosphate (mg/L) 0.7 0.62 0.05 1.13 0.6 0.4 71 High
Total coliforms (cfu/100 ml) 502 15 2 5 131 247.4 188 High
Source: Field survey, 2020

Table 3: Physiochemical and biological parameters of sampled sachet water content and body
Parameters Sachet water (content) Sachet water (body)
Test performed Sachet Sachet Mean Std. COV Remark Sachet Sachet Mean Std. COV Remark
water 1 water dev. water 1 water 2 dev.
2
pH 7.13 6.64 6.9 0.35 5 Low 8.1 8.0 8.1 0.04 0.5 Low
Temperature 25 27.3 26.1 1.63 6.2 Low 27.7 27.7 27.7 0 0 Low
Color (TCU) 148 219 183.5 50.2 27.4 Moderate 106 150 128 31.1 24.3 Moderate
Turbidity (NTU) 41 18 29.5 16.3 55.1 High 15 18 16.5 2.1 12.9 Low
Conductivity µS/cm 151 210 180.5 41.7 23.1 Moderate 16 32 24 11.3 47.1 High
Alkalinity (mg/L) 48 46 47 1.41 3 Low 13 15 14 1.4 10.1 Low
Total hardness (mg/L) 60 52 56 5.66 10.1 Low 0 0 0 0 0 Low
Iron (mg/L) 0 0 0 0 0 Low 0 0 0 0 0 Low
Chloride (mg/L) 22.1 21.2 21.7 0.64 2.9 Low 7.37 9.2 8.3 1.3 15.8 Low
Nitrate (mg/L) 19.2 26.1 22.7 4.88 21.5 Moderate 4.4 3.8 4.1 0.4 10.3 Low
Calcium (mg/L) 12.8 15.2 14 1.70 12.1 Low 0 0 0 0 0 Low
Magnesium (mg/) 6.8 3.4 5.1 2.40 47.1 High 0 0 0 0 0 Low
Phosphate (mg/L) 0.6 0 0.3 0.42 141.4 High 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.01 28.3 Moderate
Total coliforms 0 86 43 60.81 141.4 High 0 0 0 0 0 Low
(cfu/100 ml)
Source: Field survey, 2020

lower than the water from other sources. The concentration of coliform. Judging from the WHO standard, they all occurred
conductivity, alkalinity, total hardness, iron chloride, calcium, above the acceptable limit.
magnesium, phosphate, and nitrate is all bellow WHO, except
that the concentration of well water was slightly above the Table 6 presents the comparison between the water qualities of
limit. different source and with the WHO. The result of the analysis
between concrete well water with cover and concrete well
The biological analysis of the water samples shows that of water without cover shows that the calculated t-cal. is 1.86
all the samples analyzed, only the sachet water body has zero and t-critical is 1.771 at α=0.05 level of confidence. Here,

Available at www.aujst.com 307

 Magaji and Abimbola: Comparative analysis of water quality from different sources

Table 4: Physical, chemical, and biological parameters or sampled wells

Parameter (mg/L except Concrete well Concrete well Non-concrete Non-concrete Mean Std. COV Remarks
where mentioned) with cover well without cover well with cover well without dev.
cover
pH 7.34 7.01 6.37 6.94 6.9 0.40 5.8 Low
Temperature 26.4 26 26.5 26.4 26.3 0.22 0.8 Low
Color (TCU) 255 201 118 256 208 65.0 31.3 High
Turbidity (NTU) 39 16 24 20 24.8 10.1 40.6 High
Conductivity (µS/cm) 87 1122 572 799 645 435.1 67.5 High
Alkalinity 42 198 82 84 102 67.2 66.2 High
Total hardness 28 258 128 188 133 94.7 71.2 High
Iron 0.1 0 0.07 0.18 0.09 0.08 85.2 High
Chloride 12.9 130.6 51.5 85.6 70.2 50.1 71.4 High
Nitrate 15.7 71.3 55.8 60.9 50.9 24.4 47.8 High
Calcium 11.2 35.3 26.5 44.1 29.3 14.0 47.9 High
Magnesium 0.49 41.5 15.1 11 17.0 17.4 102.5 High
Phosphate 0.2 1.3 0.14 0.31 0.49 0.55 112 High
Total coliforms (cfu/100 408 800 11 910 532 408.9 76.8 High
ml)
Source: Field survey, 2020

Table 5: Comparing the mean of all sampled water sources and WHO standard
Parameter (mg/L except where mentioned) Well Borehole River SW (content) SW (body) WHO standard
pH 6.92 6.46 7.8 6.9 8.1 6.5-8.5
Temperature 26.3 26.6 26.4 26.2 27.7 Null
Color (TCU) 207.5 163.8 372 183.5 128 15
Turbidity (NTU) 24.8 20 54 29.5 16.5 5
Conductivity (µS/cm) 645 494.8 69 180.5 24 1000
Alkalinity 101.5 150 42 47 14 250
Total hardness 133 152.5 24 56 0 150
Iron 0.09 0.1 0.13 0 0 0.3
Chloride 70.2 54.5 11.0 21.7 8.3 200
Nitrate 50.93 25.6 19.1 22.7 4.1 50
Calcium 29.28 22.7 6.02 14 0 200
Magnesium 17.02 23.3 2.19 5.1 0 50
Phosphate 0.49 0.63 0.21 0.3 0.05 0.5
Total coliforms (cfu/100 ml) 532.3 131 900 43 0 10
Source: Field survey, 2020

t-calculated is more than the t-critical, implying that there implying that there is no significant difference between the
is significant difference between the physiochemical and physiochemical and biological properties of non-concrete well
biological properties of concrete well water with cover and water with cover and non-concrete well water without cover.
concrete well water without cover. It can be concluded that the We should understand that there is difference between them
covering of wells helps in preserving the quality of well water. but that the difference is not significant.

The analysis between non-concrete well water with cover The analysis between concrete well water and non-concrete well
and non-concrete well water without cover shows that the water shows that the calculated t-cal. is 0.646 and t-critical is 1.771
calculated t-cal. is 1.532 and t-critical is 1.771 at α=0.05 at α=0.05 level of confidence. The t-calculated is less than the
level of confidence. The t-calculated is less than the t-critical, t-critical, implying that there is no significant difference between

Available at www.aujst.com 308

 Magaji and Abimbola: Comparative analysis of water quality from different sources

Table 6: Results of analysis comparing the experimental results and WHO standard (t-test)
Parameter Freq. Mean difference Std. dev. df T t-critical one –tail Remark
Concrete well with cover versus concrete 14 141.05 298.5 13 1.86 1.771 Significant
well without cover
Non-concrete well with cover versus 14 98.25 149.2 13 1.532 1.771 Not significant
non-concrete well without cover
Concrete well versus non-concrete well 14 8.29 6.8 13 0.646 1.771 Not significant
Well versus WHO standard 14 9.335 380.8 13 0.177 1.771 Not significant
Borehole versus WHO standard 14 50.3 130.6 13 1.1982 1.771 Not significant
River versus WHO standard 14 31.6 15.3 13 0.3084 1.771 Not significant
Sachet versus WHO standard 14 95.7 201.8 13 1.551 1.771 Not significant
Source: Field survey, 2020

Table 7: Results of spatial analysis (ANOVA)

Source of variance Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig. Remark
Between groups 56,521.6 3 18,840.5 0.612 0.610
Within groups 1,601,013.8 52 30,788.7 Significance
Total 1,657,535.5 55

the physiochemical and biological properties of concrete well There is low variation in the concentration of the elements in
water and non-concrete well water. We should also note that there sachet water, except turbidity, mg, P, and total coliform that
is difference between them but that the difference is not significant. varied considerably, though all within the set limit of the WHO.
The variation might be due to the manufacturers of the sachet
When the results of the water analysis from the four sources water. The point here is that we are only concerned with the
of water were compared with the WHO standard, it shows that maximum limits, neglecting the needed proportion for the body.
there is no significant difference between them. We should Minerals such as iron, calcium, and magnesium concentration
note also that there is difference between them especially the are very low. This is similar to the value obtained by Mustapha
total coliform count, only that the difference is not significant. et al.[16] which reported that iron present in sachet water sold
within Bauchi metropolis ranged from 0.01 to 0.07 mg/L.
Table 7 presents the result of spatial analysis comparing the water
quality of different source. The result shows that the calculated Total coliform is another parameter examined, the results show
F-ratio is 1.592 and F-critical is 2.181. Here, F-calculated is that all the water sources contained coliform, though not specified
less than the F-critical, implying that there is no significant whether E. coli, Shigella, or any other microbial can affect human
variation between and within the physiochemical and biological health, with the exception of sachet water body which was free
properties of the sachet waster. This does not mean that there is of the coliform. This is probably due to the level of sanitation
no difference, but that the difference is not significant. and personal hygiene on the part of the manufacturers and the
water vendors. This result is similar to the results of Ajayi et al.[17]
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS Akpen et al.,[18] Magaji,[19] on sachet water microbial quality
where they found that larger proportion of sachet water showed
The physiochemical and biological analysis of river water sample positive coliform counts compared to bottled water sold in Ibadan
shows that the mean pH of the water is 7.8 which is within town. They attributed the contamination of packaged drinking
the WHO standard. This is an indication that anthropogenic water to be from the raw source of water, treatment employed,
activities around the river are still mild. However, the high and handling during production. Magaji[18] also discovered that
turbidity and color could be attributed to the action of erosion the body of the sachet nylon contains some coliforms which he
through construction and agricultural activities. also attributed as earlier stated.

The borehole water physiochemical and biological properties The presence of high coliform count in the wells, rivers, and
vary between the four sampled boreholes. The chances of boreholes calls for concern. The rivers are been polluted in
borehole water getting external contamination are very slim; as different dimensions, some people living close to the river
such, these differences might be accounted for by the variation bank, do not construct soakaways rather they channel all their
in the soil composition. toilets and bathrooms’ sewage directly into the stream channels.

Available at www.aujst.com 309

 Magaji and Abimbola: Comparative analysis of water quality from different sources

Other ways of the pollution could be leachates from waste of Benue State, Nigeria. J Chem Soc Niger 2009;34:56-62.
dumps, feces from the river banks urban flood among others. 3. Ajewole G. Water: An Overview. Nigeria: Nigerian Institute of
Food Science and Technology; 2005. p. 4-15.
The presence of coliform in the well could commonly be due to 4. Idowu A, Oluremi B, Odubawo K. Bacteriological analysis
of well water samples in Sagamu. Afr J Clin Expl Microbiol
improper sanitation and personal hygiene. Some wells are left
2011;12:86-91.
opened were wind could blow dirt from elsewhere into it, or 5. Horsfall MO, Spiff AI. Principles of Environmental Pollution
running water might also get into the well, above all, this could (with Physical, Chemical and Biological Emphasis). 1st ed. Port
also be through the well-drawer itself. When the surrounding Harcourt, Nigeria: Metro Prints Ltd.; 2001. p. 218.
is dirty, the drawer also get contaminated and dirt might get 6. Odukoya OV, Arowolo T, Bamgbose O. Effects of solid waste
into the well through it. Landfall on underground and surface water quality at ring road,
Ibadan, Nigeria. Glob J Environ Sci 2002;1:43-52.
Further study would be needed in finding how the borehole gets 7. Agbalagba OE, Agbalagba OH, Ononugbo CP, Alao AA.
contaminated, if not during drilling or the hole is left opened Investigation in the physico-chemical properties and
for long before covering. Another way might be proximity to hydrochemical processes of groundwater from commercial
boreholes in Yenagoa, Bayelsa State, Nigeria. Afr J Environ Sci
soakaway or pit latrine, taking into consideration of the type
Technol 2011;5:473-81.
of soils and depth of the borehole and the soakaway/latrine.
8. Amangabara GT, Ejenma E. Ground-water quality assessment of
Yenagoa and between 2010 and 2011. J Water Resour Environ
CONCLUSION AND 2012;2:20-9.
9. Keraita B, Drechsel P, Amoah P. Influence of urban wastewater
RECOMMENDATIONS on stream water quality and agriculture in and around Kumasi,
Ghana. Environ Urban 2003;25:171-8.
Water is essential for life and at the same time a lot of diseases 10. Ujor F, Al-Hassan MM. An assessment of ground water quality
that affect man can be prevented by about 70% if portable water for drinking water from hand-dug wells in Masaka, Nigeria.
is provided. Water that does not meet the standard required Bayero Univ J Soc Environ Stud 2011;14:79-95.
for quality water is most likely to pose a health problem to 11. Samaila KI, Binbol NL. Hydrology and Water Resources or
the population. This study reveals apart from the presence of Geographical Perspective on Nasarawa State. Ch. 6. Keffi: Onavi;
total coliform, high turbidity, and color the well, borehole, and 2007.
sachet water parameters fall within the WHO standard. The 12. Achohwora P. Some Hydrogeological Aspects of the Lafia Coal
Deposit. Plateau S t a t e . U n p u b l i s h e d M a s t e r ’s
river water is the most polluted and needs serious treatment
Dissertation. Zaria: Ahmadu Bello University; 1986. p. 1-37.
before consumption. Base on the forego discussion, the 13. Ariyo SK. The Economic Significance of the Palaeontology of
following recommendations are made: Obi, Lafia Coalfield, Plateau State, now Nasarawa State, Nigeria.
1. There is a need for public enlightenment on the need to Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Zaria: Geology Department,
sanitize the environment, especially their sources of water Ahmadu Bello University; 1987. p. 4-6.
2. NAFDAC needs to monitor all the registered and 14. American Public Health Association. Standard Methods for the
unregistered companies to ensure compliance Examination of Water and Wastewater. 21st ed. Washington, DC,
3. The best way to use wells is to cover the wells and ensure USA: American Public Health Association, American Water
that the drawers are always hanged inside after used Works Association, Water Environment Federation; 2005.
4. A water vendor union should be formed to regulate their code 15. Adetunde LA, Glover RL. Bacteriological quality of borehole
water used by students’ of University for development studies,
of conduct so as to reduce the rate of water contamination.
Navrongo campus in upper-east region of Ghana. Curr Res J
Biol Sci 2010;2:361-4.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 16. Mustapha DI, Musa U, Akindele AA. Qualitative assessment of
sachet and bottled water marketed in Bauchi Metropolis, Nigeria.
There are no conflicts of interest. Chem Process Eng Res 2015;37:11-23.
17. Ajayi AA, Sridhar MK, Adekunle LV, Oluwande PA. Quality
of packaged waters sold in Ibadan, Nigeria. Afr J Biomed Res
REFERENCES 2008;11:251-8.
18. Akpen GD, Kpoghol IS, Oparaku LA. Quality assessment of
1. Eldon E, Bradley S. Environmental Science: Study of sachet and bottled water Soldin Gboko, Benue State, Nigeria.
Interrelationships. New York, United States: McGraw-Hill Niger J Technol 2018;37:241-8.
Publishing; 2004. 19. Magaji JY. Assessment of sachet water quality produced in
2. Tar A, Eneji I, Ande S, Oketunde F, Ande S, Shaaton R. Gwagwalada area council, FCT Abuja, Nigeria. J Pure Appl Sci
Assessment of arsenic in drinking water in Makurdi Metropolis 2020;12:347-68.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 4.0

International License.

Available at www.aujst.com 310

 Magaji and Abimbola: Comparative analysis of water quality from different sources

APPENDIX I

Sources of Water

Available at www.aujst.com 311

View publication stats