borne water in barnawa community

Okareh et al 2018 FJPAS Vol 3(1) ISSN: 2616-1419

246

PHYSICOCHEMICAL AND BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY ASSESSMENT OF PIPE-BORNE WATER IN BARNAWA COMMUNITY NORTH-WEST, NIGERIA.

1Okareh, O.T., 1,2Umar, H.O., 3*Adeleye, A.O.,4Alabi, A.O.,3Amoo, A.O.

1Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Faculty of Public Health, College of Medicine,

University of Ibadan, Nigeria. 2Department of Human Anatomy, Faculty of Basic Medical Science, College of Medicine, Federal

University Dutse, Nigeria. 3Department of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, Federal University Dutse, Nigeria

4Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Ahmadu Bello University Zaria, Nigeria.

1.0 Introduction It has been widely reported that water is the most indispensable element to life on earth for human existence and sustenance

of life. It is employed for domestic activities such as drinking and cooking, agricultural activities, generation of power, running industries, recreational activities

FUOYE Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences

Available online at www.fuoye.edu.ng

Abstract

Provision of potable pipe-borne water has a major influence on improving public health. However, no independent study has been conducted on the quality of pipe-borne water reaching households in Barnawa communityfrom the treatment plant. This study therefore evaluated the physicochemical and bacteriological quality of pipe-borne water emanating from Kaduna South Water Works which is eventually piped to households in Barnawa community.Nine (9) water sampleswere collected from both treated water (TW) reservoir at the treatment plant where treated water is stored before distribution and River water source (RWS) from River Kaduna where the TW is sourced. One (1) water sample was collected from each of the thirty (30) Household taps (HT)that were randomly selected. Water samples were analyzed for physicochemical and bacteriological parameters. The results revealed that majority of the parameters; total hardness (9.31±0.32 mg/l), Sulphate (11.2±1.19 mg/l), Chloride (12.65±0.89 mg/l), Nitrate (1.79±0,17 mg/l), Iron (0.05±0.01 mg/l), residual Chlorine (0.01±0.00 mg/l) of the water samples were below the World Health Organisation (WHO) and Standard Organisation of Nigeria (SON)standards except the faecal coliform (0.03±0.18 cfu/ml) of the water samples which did not conform withWHO and SON standards.Across the three (3) sources: TW, BS and HT using one way ANOVA, significant variation was observed in both total coliform and faecal coliform (p < 0.05). It is therefore recommended that proper disinfection should be carried out in the treatment plant and residual Chlorine levels in the distribution system should be monitored routinely.

A R T I C L E I N F O

Received: 05 September, 2018

Accepted: 14 December, 2018

Keywords:

Pipe-borne water, Water samples, Total coliform, Faecal coliform, Public Health.

Corresponding

author:

[email protected]


247

and so on.According to [1], the key to increased human productivity and long life is the availability of potable water. However drinking water quality is fast becoming an issue of global human health concern, principally due to water contamination with pathogens and potentially toxic chemicals and metals.The gradual deterioration of water quality is exacerbating the pressure on the economic and social development of communities and increasing the threat on human health especially on that of children [2].It has been reported by [3] that in the world over, the consumption of poor quality water and lack of proper sanitation and hygiene are responsible for an estimated 1.7 million deaths annually. In Nigeria, about 70 million of her populace do not have access to safe drinking water [4] and about 315,000 under 5 children die annually due to diarrhea which is 23 times more than under 14 years mortality in Europe caused by the diarrhea [5]. In order to provide good quality and potable pipe-bornewater to consumers, surface water such as river which is a major sink for pollutants from air, soil and industrial wastes is passed through a series of treatment processes (Screening, coagulation/flocculation, sedimentation, filtration and disinfection) in the treatment plant to purify it and then deliver to households through water distribution systems [6]. These authors further submitted that the provision of potable water through these processes is often regarded as an important means of improving health. The Kaduna State Water Board (KSWB) is responsible for the provision, installation, distribution and management of pipe borne water supply in Kaduna State. The Kaduna South Water Works, under the supervision of the KSWB is involved in water abstraction from River Kaduna, its purification and subsequent distribution to some communities of Kaduna state through water distribution systems. Some authors [7]; [8] have indicated that the vulnerability and potential contamination

of water distributing systems especially in urban areas could be as a result ofimproper disinfection, leakages, natural ageing and corrosion of infrastructure and poor sanitation which may contribute to endemic and epidemic waterborne disease. Pipe-borne water quality may be within permissible limits when the water just leaves a treatment plant. However, a variety of physicochemical and biological transformations can occur once the water travels through a distribution system [9];[10]; [11] thereby contaminating the water. A number of studies have been reported on the quality of packaged water sold in the market and some popular surface waters in Kaduna State [12]; [13];[14];[15]; [16];[17]. However, the impact that distribution networks have on reducing water quality has been inadequately addressed due to the limited information on the quality of pipe-borne water reaching households from the treatment plants via water distribution systems. It is against these backdrops that study was conducted to assess the physico-chemical and bacteriological quality of pipe-borne water in Barnawa community of Kaduna South Local Government Area, Nigeria. 2.0 Materials and methods 2.1 Study area Barnawa community is located in Kaduna South Local Government Area of Kaduna. It covers a land area of about 10,350 hectares with an estimated population of 32,684 [18] and a growth rate of 2.83%. This has been projected to 170,599 in 2002 [19]. Barnawa community is located at longitude 10o 29’’ 22’’ and latitude 07o 25’ 26’’ as observed from Astro hill (College of Environmental Studies), and lies on a distance of about six (6) kilometres from Kaduna city centre with decimal coordinates 11.2745 8.2197. It shares boundaries to the East with Narayi; to the West and it is bordered by Kakuri and Unguwar Television to the South while in the North it is bordered by River Kaduna.


248

2.2 Collection of water samples Nine (9) water samples were collected from both treated water (TW) reservoir at the treatment plant where treated water is stored before distribution and River water source (RWS) where the TW is sourced. One (1) water sample was collected from each thirty (30) Household taps (HT)that was randomly selected. For the physicochemical analysis of water, the water samples were collected in labeled polyethylene bottles that were rinsed with distilled water before the collection of samples. As for the bacteriological analysis, the water samples were collected in labeled sterile glass bottles. Sodium thiosulphate was included in the glass bottles assigned for bacteriological analysis in order to neutralize any residual Chlorine in the water samples. All samples were immediately transported to the laboratory in acooler containing ice pack. 2.3 Physicochemical analysis of water samples Electrical conductivity (EC), temperature and pH were measured on-site using a Suntex Digital pH meter (Multi Thermometer ST-9269, EUROLAB). Dissolved oxygen (DO) was measured onsite with a digital DO meter (Lutron DO-5511) and the residual Chlorine was also measured on site by Diethyl-p-Phenylene-Diamine (DPD) indicator test using a Lovibond 1000 comparator system manufactured in France Total hardness, Total Alkalinity and Chloride levels were measured using titrimetric analysis recommended by [20].HACH DR/2010 Spectrophotometer was used in measuring Turbidity, Nitrite, Nitrate, Sulphate, Iron and Manganese Levels. Water sample was introduced into the meter’s cuvette and each parameter was determined by setting the system to the required stored programme number of the respective parameter to be measured.

2.4 Bacteriological analysis of water samples For Total Coliform count, serial dilutions of 10-1, 10-2 and 10-3 were prepared as

follows; the 10-1

or 1/10 dilution was prepared by pipetting 1 ml of the water sample into 9 ml of distilled water. For the

10-2

or 1/100 dilution, a fresh sterile pipette

was used to pipette 1 ml of 10-1

dilution

into 9ml of distilled water and the 10-3

or 1/1000 dilution was prepared by pipetting

1 ml of 10-2

dilution into 9ml of distilled water. Each dilution was inoculated into five (5) fermentation tubes containing lauryl tryptose broth and incubated at 35oC for 24 ± 2 hours. Then by mixing gently or swirling, the growth, gas production or acidic reaction (shades of yellow colour) were checked, and if there was production of gas or acidic reaction, it was positive and if not it was incubated for 48 ± 3 hours and checked again. The absence of gas or acidic reaction after 48 ± 3 hours constituted a negative test. Then the culture in tubes of positive presumptive test was transferred to a fermentation tube (which contained brilliant green lactose bile broth) and then incubated at 35oC for 24 hours. Formation of gas within 48 hours constituted a positive confirmed phase. The MPN value was determined using the McGrandy’s table of Most Probable Number [21]. For the faecal coliform count,fermentation tubes showing positive presumptive phase for faecal coliform test was taken and culture was transferred to Escherichia coli broth and incubated in a water bath at 44.5 ± 0.2°C for 24 ± 2 hours within 30 minutes after inoculation. Growth or gas production within 24 ± 2 h or less was considered a positive faecal coliform reaction. The MPN value was determined using the McGrandy’s table of Most Probable Number as recommended by [21]. 2.4 Data analyses Data generated from the various analyses conducted on all the sampled water were


249

analysed and summarised using descriptive statistics. One way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was employed to establish the statistical significant difference between various water samples from different sources examined (p> 0.05) 3.0 Results and discussion 3.1 Physicochemical properties of water samples Mean and Standard Deviation (SD) of the physicochemical properties of water samples collected from the reservoir at the

treatment plant where treated water is stored before distribution and household taps in comparison with WHO and Standards Organization of Nigeria (SON) is shown in Table 1. Electrical Conductivity (EC), Temperature, pH, Dissolved oxygen (DO), Residual Chlorine (RC), Total Hardness, Total Alkalinity, Chloride, Turbidity, Nitrite, Nitrate, Sulphate, Iron and Manganese were determined.

Table 1: Physico-chemical properties of water samples in comparison to WHO/SON Standard Physicochemical parameter

Reservoir (mean ± SD)

Household taps (mean ± SD)

WHO standard SON standard

Ph 7.24±0.02 7.18±0.06 6.5 – 8.5 6.5 – 8.5

Temperature 25.2±2.38 28.2±2.66 - -

EC 53.2±4.68 47.0±3.68 - 1000 µs/cm

Turbidity 3.56±1.88 1.53±1.70 5 NTU 5 NTU

DO 5.17±0.40 6.29±0.50 - -

Total Hardness 8.86±0.69 9.31±0.32 - 150 mg/l

Alkalinity 203.3±10.0 128.3±15.3 - -

Sulphate 14.2±1.99 11.2±1.19 500 mg/l 100 mg/l

Nitrate 2.50±0.07 1.79±0.17 50 mg/l 50 mg/l

Nitrite 0.11±0.01 0.03±0.01 0.2 mg/l 0.2 mg/l

Chloride 12.08±0.60 12.65±0.89 250 mg/l 250 mg/l

RC 0.15±0.00 0.01±0.00 0.2 mg/l 0.2 mg/l

Manganese 0.05±0.01 0.05±0.01 0.4mg/l 0.2mg/l

Iron 0.22±0.01 0.05±0.01 0.3mg/l 0.3mg/l

pH is considered one of the most important operational water quality parameters although it has no direct health impacts on consumers [22]. Also, at a pH value of 9, it has been reported by [22] that water treatment processes especially for chlorination would be affected. The pH of the water samples measured in this study was within the range set by WHO and SON respectively as seen in Table 1. The

pH values recorded in this study were similar to those in the study conducted by [23], in which the pH values of water sampled at the consumer end in Hyderabad city in India varied from 7.14 to 7.94.It can be seen in Table 2 that there is a significant difference in terms of pH (t = 9.19, p < 0.05) between the water samples from RWS and TW samples from KSW.


250

Table 2: Comparison of physical parameter level of water samples from river water source and KSW. Parameter Source N Mean ± SD t-test P –Value

pH

RWS

9

7.51 ± 0.87

9.19

< 0.001*

TW 9 7.24 ± 0.02

Temperature RWS 9 24.9 ± 2.25 - 0.30 0.77

TW 9 25.2 ± 2.38

EC RWS 9 43.9 ± 2.47 - 5.29 < 0.001*

TW 9 53.2 ± 4.68

Turbidity RWS 9 26.0 ± 8.35 7.87 < 0.001*

TW 9 3.56 ± 1.88

Legends: TW= Treated water, HT= Household tap, RWS= River water source.

Meanwhile, It is clearly depicted in Table 3 that there is a significant difference in pH (t = 2.53, p < 0.05) between TW samples from KWS and water samples from HT. It can equally be deduced from

Table 4, that there is a significant difference in pH (F = 5.23, p < 0.05) between TW samples from KWS, water samples from Booster Station (BS) and water samples from HT.

Table 3: Comparison of physical parameter level of water samples from KSW and household taps.

Parameter Source N Mean ± SD t-test P –Value

pH

TW

9

7.24±0.02

2.53

0.02*

HT 30 7.18±0.06

Temperature TW 9 25.2±2.38 - 3.09 < 0.001*

HT 30 28.2±2.66

EC TW 9 53.2±4.68 4.18 < 0.001*

HT 30 47.0±3.68

Turbidity TW 9 3.56±1.88 3.06 < 0.001*

HT 30 1.53±1.70

Legends: TW= Treated water, HT= Household tap


251

Table 4: Comparison of physical parameter level of water samples from KSW, booster station and

household taps.

Physical parameters Df F-value P-value pH

2

5.23

< 0.001*

Temperature 2 5.83 < 0.001*

EC 2 9.94 < 0.001*

Turbidity 2 5.29 < 0.001*

Electrical Conductivity (EC) is directly related to the salt content of the water. Hence, a higher conductivity indicates a higher salt concentration of the water [24]. Whilst there is little direct health risk associated with this parameter, high values are associated with poor taste and hence customer dissatisfaction and complaints. Mean EC of the water samples were all within the acceptable limits prescribed by SON limits as 1000µs/cm as seen in Table1. In a similar study conducted by [25], a low EC level of 29.80 ± 0.005 µs/cm was also obtained from treated pipe borne water distributed by Akwa-Ibom state (south south Nigeria) water company. Again, it can be seen that there is a significant difference in terms of electrical conductivity (t = - 5.29, p < 0.05) between the water samples from RWS and TW samples from KSW (Table 2).From Table 3, it can be deduced that there is a significant difference in EC (t = 4.18, p < 0.05) between TW samples from KWS and water samples from HT. It can be deduced from Table 5, that there is a significant difference in EC (F = 9.94, p < 0.05) between TW samples from KWS, water samples from BS and water samples from HT. There are no guideline values set by WHO and SON for temperature, however the temperature values obtained in this study are similar to those obtained by[14]; [25] in their respective studies. However, there is a significant difference in Temperature (t = -3.09, p < 0.05) between TW samples from KWS and water samples from HT. It

can be deduced from Table 4, that there is a significant difference in Temperature (F = 5.83, p < 0.05) between TW samples from KWS, water samples from BS and water samples from HT. Turbidity of water is one of the important physical parameters that affect not only the quality of water, but also other chemical and bacteriological parameters coupled with the efficiency of water treatment [22]. Turbidity levels of the water samples in this study were below the limit set by WHO and SON respectively as seen in Table 1. The low turbidity levels obtained in this study compare favorably with results from a similar study conducted by [25] in their study. It can be seen that in terms of turbidity (t = 7.87, p < 0.05) there is a significant difference between the water samples from RWS and TW samples from KSW (Table 3). From the Table 4, it can be deduced that there is a significant difference inturbidity (t = 3.06, p < 0.05)between TW samples from KWS and water samples from HT. It can be deduced from Table 5, that there is a significant difference in turbidity (F = 5.29, p < 0.05) between TW samples from KWS, water samples from BS and water samples from HT. The Dissolved Oxygen (DO) content of water samples is one of the important parameters that indirectly show the degree of organic matter pollution in water [26]. No guideline value is recommended because the acceptability of low levels of dissolved Oxygen depends on the presence of other water constituents. According to [27], a DO of 4.5 to 6.5 indicates moderate


252

pollution which is similar to the DO values obtained in this study. This could be attributed to the presence of coliform bacteria in the water samples. Hardness of water may not have any health implications but may affect the taste of water as well as cause scale deposition and high soap consumption [22]. High values for hardness is usually attributed to leaching of salts from the distribution pipes [28]; [29] during distribution. Total hardness of the water samples obtained in this study was below the WHO and SON standard limits of 500 mg/l and 150mg/l. The water samples can be classified as soft according to [22] guideline values of a range of 0 to 100 mg/L for soft water. Alkalinity is one of the first considerations when it comes to the chemical quality of a water source. Alkalinity is a measure of the presence of bicarbonate, carbonate or hydroxide constituents [30]. It reflects the ability of water to neutralize acids. Although it is not harmful to human health, but high alkalinity, above 500 mg/l, usually has negative impact on plumbing systems because it is linked with high pH, hardness and high dissolved solids causing a scale build up in plumbing. The mean alkalinity levels recorded in this study was below 500mg/l. Sulphate gets into water through the dissolution of rocks containing Sulphur and mine drainage waste. WHO has assigned no health guideline for Sulphate but has set 500 mg/l as a taste threshold [22]. The concentrations of Sulphate in this study were well below the taste threshold set by WHO and SON guideline value of 100mg/l. In this study, Nitrate levels for the water samples were below the WHO and SON guideline value of 50mg/l (Table 1). The results were expected because Nitrates rarely occurs in treated drinking water supplies above recommended standard values [31] since Nitrates usually combine with Chlorine added to the water. Nitrite level was also below the WHO and SON guideline limit of 0.2mg/l (Table 1). Chloride levels of the water samples were

below the WHO and SON standard limit of 250mg/l for drinking water (Table 1). High chloride content in drinking water may indicate possible pollution from human sewage, animal manure or industrial wastes, factors which are all mostly absent in a proper functioning piped water supply system. Maintaining an adequate level of residual Chlorine is of great importance in terms of distribution system water quality management [32]. In this study, residual Chlorine levels were below the WHO and SON standard for residual chlorine of 0.2 mg/l (Table 1). The low level of residual Chlorine in this study could be attributed to the fact that Chlorine is being used in the distribution system for disinfection. This could be corroborated with the fact that total and faecal coliforms were present in the water sample. In this study, Manganese concentration was within the acceptable limit set by WHO and SON standards (Table 1). A low manganese level of 0.00 ± 0.00mg/l was also obtained from treated pipe borne water distributed by Akwa-Ibom state (south south Nigeria) Water Company in a similar study by [25]. According to [22];[33], the presence of high concentrations of Iron above normal values in drinking water indicates the corrosion of cast iron and steel pipes during water distribution. In this study, mean Iron levels of the water samples were all below the WHO and SON guideline values (Table 1). No increase in Iron concentration was observed from the treatment point to the household taps and this suggests that during this study, there was no corrosion of the distribution lines because of the levels of Iron recorded. 3.2 Bacteriological properties of the water samples The results of the coliform organisms obtained in this study are presented in Figures 1 and 2. Coliform organisms have been reportedly considered by [34]; [35]; [36]; [30]to be one of the best microbial


253

indicators of drinking-water quality since they are easily identified and counted in water. Although the detection of coliform organisms in water might not necessarily

imply the presence of faecal contamination, however, the identification of coliforms in drinking water

Figure 1: Total coliform count of the water samples

LEGENDS: RWS= River Water Source, TW= Treated water sample from Kaduna South

Water-works, BS= Booster Station Water Sample, HT= Household Tap Water sample.

Figure 2: Faecal coliform count of the water samples

indicates the possibility of the presence of pathogenic enteric microorganisms. There are different types of coliforms that could be tested for in drinking water, but most widely used are total and faecal coliforms [36]. In this study, the total and faecal

coliform count were above the limits set by WHO and SON except for total coliform in household tap water samples (Figure 2). The presence of total coliform and faecal coliform in the water samples is indicative of inadequate chlorination at the

16.0

1.67

0 00

5

10

15

20

25

RWS TW BS HT

Tota

l co

lifo

rm

(MP

N/1

00 m

l)

3.0

0.89

00.03

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

RWS TW BS HT

Fea

cal

coli

form

(M

PN

/100

m

l)


254

disinfection point of the treatment plant while the absence of total coliform and residual Chlorine in water samples from the household taps indicates that the low residual Chlorine in the water sample was effective in disinfection along the distribution line. These results are in agreement with the research studies conducted by [37]; [38]on bacteriological quality of pipe borne water. The mean values of the microbiological parameters

were compared between (RWS and TW) and (TW and HT)using independent sample t-test. The results showed that there was a significant difference between total coliform and faecal coliform count in(RWS and TW) and (TW and HT) respectively (Table 5) at p < 0.05. Across the 3 sources (TW, BS and HT) using one way ANOVA, significant variation was observed in both total coliform and faecal coliform at p < 0.05 (Table 6).

Table 5: Comparison of the microbiological parameter levels of water samples from river water source and KSW, KSW and household taps.

Parameter Source N Mean±SD t-test P-Value

Total coliform

RWS

9

16.0±3.71

10.75 < 0.001* TW 9 1.67±1.50

Faecal coliform RWS 9 3.0±0.87

5.43 < 0.001* TW 9 0.89±0.78

Total coliform

TW

9

1.67±1.50

6.29 < 0.001* HT 30 0.00±0.00

Faecal coliform TW 9 0.89±0.78

5.66 < 0.001* HT 30 0.03±0.18

Table 6: Comparison of the microbiological parameter levels of water samples from KSW, booster station and household taps. Parameter Df F-value P-value

Total coliform

2

25.4

< 0.001*

Faecal coliform 2 21.0 < 0.001*

Table 6 shows that there is a significant difference in total coliform and faecal coliform in RWS and TW respectively (t = 10.75 and 5.43, p < 0.05) and total coliform and faecal coliform in samples in TW and HT(t = 6.29 and 5.66, p < 0.05).It equally shows that there is a significant difference in total coliform and faecal coliform counts in water samples from TW, BS and HT. 4.0 Conclusion and recommendations Based on the results obtained in this study, it can be concluded that majority of the physico-chemical properties of the water samples were below the WHO and SON limits except residual Chlorine. However,

the bacteriological properties of the water samples did not conform to WHO and SON standards. Therefore, proper disinfection of municipal water should be carried out in the treatment plant and residual Chlorine levels in the distribution system should be routinely monitored so as to ascertain its suitability for drinking based on international and national standards. References [1] Urbansky, E. T. and Magnuson, M. L.

(2002). Analytical chemistry 74:26/A. water, treatment and Examination, 23, pp. 269-274.


255

[2] United Nations Children's Fund. (2008). UNICEF Handbook on Water Quality. New York: UNICEF.

[3] Ashbolt, N. .J. (2004).Microbial contamination of drinking water and diseases outcomes in developing regions. Toxicology, 198, pp. 229-238.

[4] Ekiye, E. and Luo, Z. (2010). Water quality monitoring in Nigeria: Case Study of Nigeria’s industrial cities. Journal of American Science, 6(4), pp 22-28.

[5] Water Aid (2015). It’s No Joke: The State of the World’s Toilets 2015. Available at http://www.thetoc.gr/images/articles/2/article_88747/Its_No_Joke_2015_the_state_of_the_worlds_toilets%20(1).pdf.Retrieved on 14th October, 2018.

[6] Chan C., Zalifah M. K. and Norrakiah A. S. (2007). Microbiological and Physicochemical Quality of Drinking Water. The Malaysian Journal of Analytical Science, 1(2), pp.417-419.

[7] Umar, M. (2012). Water Quality Deterioration in Piped Water and its Effect on Usage and Customers’ Perception: Case Study of Adum- Kumasi, Ghana. MSc. Thesis Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi-Ghana.

[8] Moe C. L., Christine L. and Rheingans, R. D. (2006). Global Challenges in Water, Sanitation and Health, IWA Publishing. pp. 2-12.

[9] Powell, J. C., Hallam, N. B., West, J. R., Forster, C. F. and Simms, J. (2000). Factors Which Control Bulk Chlorine Decay Rates. Water Res, 34 (1), pp. 117–126.

[10] Rodriguez, M. J. and Se´rodes, J. B. (2001). Spatial and Temporal Evolution of Trihalomethanes in Three Water Distribution Systems. Water Res, 35 (6): 1572–1586.

[11] National Environmental Services Center (2015). Tech Brief Fact Sheets. Available at http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/techbrief.cfm.Retrieved on 14th October, 2018.

[12] Oniye, S. L., Ega, R. A., Ajanusi, O.J. and Agbede R. I. S. (2002).Some Aspects of the Physicochemical Parameter of Zaria Dam. Nigerian

Journal of Agriculture and Environment.11(2), pp. 367 -379.

[13] Oni, O. O and Olayeni, F. (2003). Quality of Sealed Polyethene Water in Kaduna and Lagos.29th WEDC Conference. pp. 142 – 144.

[14] Agbogu, V. N., Veronica, J. U., Charles, A. O., Stella, I. and Joseph, B. A.(2006). Study of the Bacteriological and Physico-chemical Indicators of Pollution of Source Waters in Zaria, Nigeria. African Journal of Biotechnology, 5 (9), pp. 732-737.

[15] Ante, V. O., Shehu A. U. and Musa K. Y. (2007). Microbial and Chemical Portability of Packaged Drinking Water Sold in Kaduna, Nigeria. European Journal of Scientific Research, 18(2). pp. 201

[16] Mahre, M. Y., Akan, J. C., Moses E. A. and Ogunbuaja, V. O. (2007). Pollution Indicators in River Kaduna, Kaduna State, Nigeria. Trends in Applied Sciences Research, 2, pp. 304 – 311.

[17] Vivian, E. L., Adamu, C. I. and Ayuba, K. N. (2012). Effects of Effluent Discharge of Kaduna Refinery on the Water Quality of River Romi. Journal of Research in Environmental Science and Toxicology.1(3): 41 – 46.

[18] National Population Commission (1991). Analytical report of the 1991 Census gotten from the office of National population commission Kaduna. Available at http://population.gov.ng/.Retrieved on 14th October, 2018.

[19] National Population Commission (2002). Projected Population for Barnawa gotten from the office of National population commission Kaduna. Available at http://population.gov.ng/.Retrieved on 14th October, 2018.

[20] American Public Health Association(1998). Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater (20th edition). Washington, DC.

[21] American Public Health Association (1999). Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater (20th edition). Washington, DC.


256

[22] World Health Organization (2006). Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality (3 ed., Vol. 1) Geneva: World Health Organization.

[23] Syeda, A. U. and Nurul, H. M. (2013). Assessment and Evaluation of the Quality of Drinking Water at the Consumer end –A Study of Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. International Journal of Plant, Animal and Environmental Sciences, 3(3):50-54.

[24] Hach Company (2000). Water Analysis Handbook.2nd. ed. Hach Company, Loveland, Colorado, USA. pp. 829.

[25] Eddy, N. O. and Ekop, A. S. (2007). Assessment of the Quality of Water Treated and Distributed By the AkwaIbom State Water Company. E-Journal of Chemistry, 4(2), pp. 180-186.

[26] Plummer, J. D. and Long, S. C. (2007). Monitoring Source Water for Microbial Contamination: Evaluation of Water Quality Measures. Water Research, 41, pp. 3716 – 3728.

[27] Ramachandra, T. V. and Solanki, M. (2007). Ecological Assessment of Lentic Water Bodies of Bangalore. Envis, Technical Report: 25, Environmental Information System, ENVIS centre for ecological sciences, Indian Institute of Science Bangalore. pp. 105.

[28] Schock, M. R. (1999). Internal Corrosion and Deposition Control. In Association AWW (ed) Water quality and treatment: a handbook of community water supplies. McGraw-Hill, pp. 1–17.

[29] Agatemor, C. and Okolo, P. O. (2007). University of Benin Water Supply System: Microbiological and Physico-chemical Assessments. Environmentalist, 27, pp. 227–239.

[30] Jain, C., Bandyopadhyay, A. and Bhadra, A. (2009). Assessment of Ground Water Quality for Drinking Purpose, District Nainital, Uttarakh and, India.Environ Monit Assess., 166 (1-4), pp. 663-76.

[31] Murphy, S. (2007). General Information on Specific Conductance. Water Quality Monitoring. City of Boulder/USGS. Available at http://bcn.boulder.co.us/basin/data/STR

EAMWQ/info/index.html.Retrieved on 14th October, 2018.

[32] Housseini, D. C. (2003). Drinking Water Quality and Management Strategies in Small Quebec Utilities. Department management, University. Water Qual. Research J. of Canada, 38 (1), pp. 49-76.

[33] Illinois Department of Public Health (2008). Commonly Found Substances in Drinking water and Available Treatment. Retrieved October 1, 2009 from Illinois Department of Public Health- Division of Environmental Health. Retrieved from www.epa.state.il.us/well-water/other-contaminants.html.

[34] World Health Organisation (1997). Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality, Surveillance and Control of Community Supplies.V.3, 2nd ed. World Health Organizations, Switzerland, Geneva.

[35] Fawell, J. and Nieuwenhuijsen, M. (2003). Contaminants in Drinking Water. Medical Bulletin, 68, pp. 199-208. doi:10.1093/bmb/ldg027.

[36] Zamberlan, D. M., Rosangela, G. S., Marcio G., Ivens C, F.(2007). Comparison of the Bacteriological Quality of Tap Water and Bottled Mineral Water. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 211, pp. 504 – 509.

[37] Ashbolt, N. J. (2004). Microbial Contamination of Drinking Water and Disease Outcomes in Developing Regions. Toxicology, 198 (2004) pp 229–238.

[38] Oyedum, U.M., Adabara, N.U. and Kuta, F.A. (2016). Comparative Study of Coliform Contamination of Public Boreholes and Pipe Borne Water Systems in Bosso Town, North Central, Nigeria. J. Appl. Sci. Environ. Manage., 20 (2), pp 234 –238.

www.fuoye.edu.ng

borne water in barnawa community

Documents