Effect of dumpsites on groundwater quality in kaduna metropolis

Nuhu Bamalli Polytechnic Multidisciplinary Journal 1 :( 1) 130-144 Shekarau & Silas, (2016)
EFFECT OF DUMPSITES ON GROUNDWATER QUALITY IN KADUNA
METROPOLIS, KADUNA STATE, NIGERIA
1
Asabe Joshua Shekarau*
, 2
Michael D. Silas
1
Department of Estate Management and Valuation,
Nuhu Bamalli Polyechnic, Zaria
2
Department of Urban and Regional Planning,
Nuhu Bamalli Polytechnic, Zaria
*
asabejshekarau@yahoo.com
ABSTRACT
Groundwater quality is affected by natural processes as well as anthropogenic activities. The
quality of ground water is principally affected by pollution from diverse sources. Of the greatest
concern is the increasing number of dumpsites which seem to be the easiest way of wastes disposal,
of which the resultant consequence is groundwater pollution through leachate. This study assessed
the quality of groundwater around Tudun Nupawa dumpsite with the aim of ascertaining its
suitability for human consumption. The objectives include identifying the proximity of dumpsites
to and from shallow and deep wells, determining the bio-physicochemical characteristics and their
level of concentration in water. Purposive sampling was used for this study. Water samples were
collected from deep and shallow wells around Tudun Nupawa dumpsite, the depth for shallow
wells was taken to be <30m while that of deep wells was >30m with distance from the dumpsite
ranging from <10m to a distance of >150m. Primary Data was sourced from the results of the
laboratory analysis of the groundwater quality of the study area while secondary data was sourced
from existing relevant literatures. Water samples collected from each well was taken to the
laboratory for analysis for the following parameters: Colour, pH, Biological Oxygen Demand
(BOD), Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), Dissolved Oxygen (DO), Total Suspended Solids (TSS),
Iron, Manganese, Zinc, Lead, and Chlorine. Laboratory results were subjected to statistical
analysis to test the stated hypotheses. Chi-square and ANOVA were employed for this test. The
research findings indicated that the water quality of these wells do not meet the World Health
Organization (WHO) standard for drinking water. It was concluded that water from most wells is
not in any way suitable for direct consumption as practiced in the study area. However to avoid
further pollution of groundwater, the study therefore recommends that wells should be sited at
least 30m away from any source of contamination; the surroundings should be kept clean and tidy
to avoid or reduce contaminations from dirt around the wells.
Key words: Dumpsites, Groundwater, Bio-physicochemical parameters, Shallow wells,
Deep wells.

INTRODUCTION
Dumpsites are locations where solid and liquid wastes generated are disposed or dumped. Waste
is any unwanted material, substance or object resulting from industrial, institutional, hospital, and
household activities which could be in the form of rubber, plastic, metal, paste, oil, organic matter
and other similar commodities. It could be solid, liquid or gas; renewable or non-renewable;
degradable or non-degradable (Therra, 2006).
Studies have revealed the volume of wastes generated in urban centres in Nigeria. For instance,
Ojo (2008) observed that an average of 0.14m3
of household waste was generated weekly in
Anambra State, 19,000 metric tons of wastes was generated monthly in Osun State. Afolabi and
Adamu (2008) stated that 377,126 tons of solid wastes were generated for the year 2007 in Kano
State.
With this volume of waste generated, the question that comes to mind is; where do all these wastes
go? Studies such as that of Uba, Uzairu, Harrison, Balarabe and Okunola (2008) have revealed
that dumpsites are not without the presence of heavy metals. Yakubu (2013) in his study on the
assessment of water quality of hand dug wells in Zaria found that the wells contaminated with
heavy metals are beyond World Health Organization (WHO) permissible limit. This, he attributed
to the presence of dumpsites within the vicinity of the well. Ojo (2008), Osibanjo (2008), Bogoro
and Babanyara (2011) asserted that dumpsites result from government’s ineffectiveness in waste
management, and lack of infrastructure such as facilities for waste collection, disposal and
treatment (sewerage system). The consequence of this is pollution of ground and surface water
quality. Such pollution occurs through leachate which happens when rain water infiltrates the
wastes and dissolves the solute fraction of the waste and the soluble product formed as a result of
the chemical and biochemical processes occurring within the decaying wastes.Water is a resource
that is both invaluable and vital to the existence of all living organisms, but this valued resource is
increasingly being threatened as human populations grow and demand more water of high quality
for domestic purposes and economic activities. Water value is linked to the provision and quality
of ecosystems service.
According to Annan, (2003) portable water is precious, we cannot live without it and human
activities have profound impact on the quality and quantity of water available. Domestic water is
used for drinking, cooking, bathing and cleaning. However, access to safe drinking and sanitation
is critical in terms of health. For instance, unsafe drinking water contributes to numerous health
problems in developing countries. Mark, XimingCai and Sarah, (2002) asserted that there are over
one billion incidents of diarrhoea that occur annually. While water may appear to be clear and
pure, and has no specific taste or odour, it may contain elements that can have undesirable effects
on health. Water is classified under two main categories based on its location and these are surface
and ground water (Appelo and Postma, 2005). The quality of any surface or ground water is a
function of either or both natural influences and human activities. Without human influences, water
quality would be determined by the weathering of bedrock minerals, atmospheric processes of
evapotranspiration, and the deposition of dust and salt by wind. Others include, the natural leaching
of organic matter and nutrients from soil, hydrological factors that lead to runoff, and by biological
processes within the aquatic environment that can alter the physical and chemical composition of
water (United Nation Environmental Programme [UNEP], 2006). Groundwater is a precious
resource of limited extent. For the good use of it, proper prospecting management and assessment

is required. Longe and Balogun, (2009) stated that heavy metals such as cadmium, arsenic, and
chromium have been reported at excessive level in groundwater due to landfills operation. The
volume of leachate depends principally on the area of the landfill, the meteorological and
hydrogeological factors and effectiveness of capping. The volume of leachate generated is
therefore expected to be very high in humid regions with high rainfall, or high runoff and shallow
water table. The geology and hydrogeology of any potential landfill site affects the level of natural
protection for groundwater from contamination by landfill leachate. From previous studies, most
landfill leachates have high levels of BOD, COD, ammonia, chloride, sodium, potassium, hardness
and boron. With respect to time and age, the condition within a landfill often vary over time, from
aerobic to anaerobic thus allowing different chemical reaction to take place (Stollenwerk and
Colman, 2003).
Like any other major city in Nigeria, Kaduna is faced with the problem of waste management. The
reliance of dumpsites for waste disposal in Tudun Nupawa area of Kaduna North Local
Government Area can be linked to its ease of disposal and cost effectiveness. This method of waste
management is expanding the horizon of the dumpsite which never existed before the settlements
but is now expanding at an alarming scale. Shallow and deep wells are often found near major
dumpsites. There is therefore the need to investigate the ground water to ascertain if pollution,
occasioned by the dumpsite has begun to take a significant toll.This study assessed the ground
water quality with the view of ascertain its suitability for human consumption, and the possible
impact of Tudun Nupawa dump sites on quality of groundwater in Kaduna North Local
Government Area (LGA), Kaduna state, northern Nigeria.
The objectives include identifying the proximity of dumpsites to and from shallow and deep wells,
determine the bio-physicochemical characteristics and their level of concentration in water from
both deep and shallow wells in the study area. As well as comparing the ground water quality
between wells close to dump sites and those far away from the dumpsite both shallow and deep
wells. The data produced therein, can serve as a base line for further findings as well as helping
the environmental agencies in formulating useful and necessary policies towards the betterment of
our environment.
In order to carry out this study, the following hypotheses were tested at 0.05 significant level.
H01: There is no significant difference between the WHO Standards and the Bio-physicochemical
parameters of the wells in Kaduna metropolis.
H02: There is no significant difference between the Bio-physicochemical parameters of the Deep
and Shallow wells
H03: There is no significant difference between the Bio-physicochemical parameters of the close
to and far away wells from the dumpsite
Kaduna metropolis is located between latitudes 10ᵒ20'N and 10ᵒ37'N of the equator and longitudes
7ᵒ22'E and 7ᵒ31'E of the Greenwich meridian. The city cuts across Kaduna North, Kaduna South.
Lying under the Tropical Continental climate, Kaduna experiences seasonal alternation of moist
maritime air mass and dry continental air mass. Rainfall occurs between the months of April to
October with a peak in August. While the dry season (harmattan) lasts from November to march
(Nigerian Environmental Study Team (NEST), 1991 in Ali, 2004). The temperature is high
throughout the year with the peak in March and April (37ᵒc). Humidity is constantly high above

60℅ at mid-day and close 100℅ at night during the rainy season (NEST, 1991 in Ali, 2004).
However, in Kaduna State and the study area in particular, the seasonality is pronounced with the
cool to hot dry season being longer, than the rainy season. High storm intensities (ranging from
60mm hr1 to 99mm hr1) exist.Kaduna is mainly drained by River Kaduna which tends to divide
the city into two unequal parts. The main tributaries of River Kaduna are Rivers Rigasa and Romi.
Generally, the soils and vegetation are typical red brown to red yellow tropical ferruginous soils
and savannah grassland with scattered trees anh/d woody shrubs. The soils in the upland areas are
rich in red clay and sand but poor in organic matter.
Figure 1: Study area map showing the sampling points
Source: QUICKBIRD Imagery, 2011.

METHODOLOGY
Reconnaissance Survey
A reconnaissance survey was first undertaken to properly study the area prior to the
commencement of the research. The objectives were to obtain available relevant information on
the environment of the study area, intimate and seek cooperation of the residents around the
dumpsites and to select the wells that water samples were collected from for detailed assessment
through laboratory analysis.
Sample and Sampling Technique
Purposive sampling technique was adopted for this research because the study was concerned with
only the wells located within the dumpsite vicinity. The dumpsites identified within the study area
were at Angwan Dosa and Tudun Nupawa near central market in Kaduna metropolis. The dumpsite
at Tudun Nupawa was subsequently chosen for this study. For the purpose of this study, wells in
the study area were grouped into two; Shallow wells and Deep wells, hence the study was based
on the water samples collected from the wells within the vicinity of the dumpsite. Depth for
shallow wells was taken to be <30m while for deep wells the depth was taken to be > 30m, close
wells were spaced 10m away from the dumpsite while far wells 150m away from the dumpsite
The well water samples were gotten from both shallow and deep wells within a distance that range
from less than 10 meters (<10m) away from the dumpsite (close shallow wells and close deep
wells) and from both shallow and deep wells located within a distance of greater than 150 meters
(>150m) away from the dumpsite (Peter, Poul and Thomas, 1995). However, in a situation where
a deep or shallow well is not found within the 10m range the wells closest within the range of 10
-150 meters were used as wells close to the dumpsite and those 150 meters away were used as
wells far away from dumpsite for both the deep and shallow wells.
A total of six (6) water samples were collected for the purpose of this research. Water samples
were collected inside labelled 60cl polyethylene bottles. These bottles have been washed with soap
solution, rinsed three times with pure water. The label used the format code of CSW1 to CSW2 for
Close shallow Wells, CDW1 to CDW2 for Close Deep Wells, FSW1 for Far Shallow Wells and
FDW1 for Far Deep Well, based on their depth and closeness or nearness to the dumpsite.
Geographic location (x, y, z co-ordinate) of all sampling points were identified through the use of
hand-held Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver.
Method of Sample Analysis
All samples were analyzed for selected physicochemical and heavy metals parameters. Water
sample collected from each well was taken to the laboratory to determine the following biophysical
parameters: Colour, pH, Turbidity, Dissolved Oxygen (DO), Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD),
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), Total Suspended Solids (TSS), Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
using lovibond comparator, PH meter, Turbidimeter, Standard method, Reflux apparatus and TDS
meter respectively. The chemical analysis is for the determination of concentration of the
following heavy metals; copper, iron, manganese, zinc, lead, chlorine. Samples were carefully
analyzed for the determination of these elements using Multi Analyte Photometer. The analysis
was carried out at the Centre for Energy Research and Training (CERT), Ahmadu Bello
University, Zaria, Nigeria and the Department of Water Resources and Environmental
Engineering, Ahmadu Bello University. The results obtained were compared with the data gotten
from publications of the World Health Organization (WHO 2008, 3rd Ed.) standard to ascertain

their conformity with the national and international guidelines. All the instruments were calibrated
and standardized before analysis of the samples. Chi-square was used to test for difference between
physicochemical parameters of the wells with WHO standard. Also, Analysis of variance
(ANOVA) was used in testing difference between physicochemical parameters of Deep and
Shallow Wells and also between Close and Far Wells. WHO standards were also used to compare
the quality of deep and shallow wells.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
The results obtained from the various analyses of the samples, variations in the levels of biological,
physical and chemical concentration were observed. The values of each of the parameters
examined from wells (1 – 6) were tabulated in table 1. According to the table, only a shallow well
has a pH value trending towards alkalinity that is above the WHO standard range of 6.5 to 8.5.
Therefore the maximum pH value obtained from the analysis is 8.7, while the minimum pH reading
is 6.5. In the same vain the colours of the water from both the shallow and deep wells all fall within
the WHO standard of 15 True Colour Unit (TCU). Two shallow wells had turbidity readings above
the 5 Nephelometric Turbidity Unit (NTU) bench mark with the rest of the samples being below.
All the readings for dissolved oxygen fell below the WHO standard of 4. The concentration of DO
ranged from 1.50 to 3.20.
However, the BOD of the sampled wells indicated that there are organisms in the water sampled.
All the wells fall within WHO acceptable standard of 5.00. The COD of 83% of the wells is far
greater than WHO acceptable standard of 40.00. Only one of the wells had a COD value of 40.00.
The TSS is within the WHO acceptable limit but the TDS of 50% of the well samples were above
the WHO standards while the remaining 50% fell within the set standard. The groundwater
samples were analyzed for heavy metal such as Chromium (Cr), Iron (Fe), Zinc (Zn), Manganese
(Mn) and Lead (Pb) which are characterized as undesirable metals in drinking water. WHO has
proposed their permissible value of 0.01, 0.10, 5.00, 0.05 and 0.01 respectively in drinking water.
The concentration of Cr in the studied area was within the WHO standard limit in detected samples.
It ranged from 0.022 to 0.087. Presence of Iron in water can lead to change of colour of
groundwater. Iron levels ranged from 0.00 to 0.068 which is within the WHO set limit. Though
important for metabolic processes of the body, Manganese in concentrations above the WHO set
limits in the human body causes loss of appetite and neurological problems.

Table 1: Parameters Concentration and WHO Standards
PARAMETERS Distance from Dumpsite (<10m) Distance from
Dumpsite (>150m)
WHO
STANDARD
CSW1 CSW2 CDW1 CDW2 FSW1 FDW1
Colour (TCU) 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 15.00
pH 8.7 8.2 6.3 7.5 6.4 6.7 6.5-8.5
Turbidity (NTU) 13.60 5.04 3.61 2.91 2.50 3.37 5.00
DO () 3.20 2.10 1.50 0.70 0.80 1.00 <4
BOD () 2.00 0.90 0.60 0.40 0.40 0.50 5.00
COD () 120 100 60 40 160 80 40.00
TSS () 160 420 50 150 80 10 500
TDS () 2,460 1,100 1,030 280 270 290 1000
Chloride () 0.11 0.06 0.00 0.02 0.15 0.15 0.10
Manganese() 0.03 0.21 0.09 0.11 0.33 0.31 0.05
Iron () 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.05 0.1
Lead () 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.01
Zinc () 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.08 0.03 0.03 5.00
Chromate () 0.02 0.08 0.05 0.09 0.04 0.04 0.1
Source: Field Survey, 2015
Legend: CSW: Close Shallow Well, CDW: Close Deep Well, FSW: Far Shallow Well, FDW: Far
Deep Well
The concentration of manganese (Mn) in four (4) of the wells sampled were above the WHO
standard of 0.05 while the remaining two were within the limit. It ranged from 0.034 to 0.331 .
Two Deep Wells, (close and far) had the Lead (Pb) concentration detected in their samples to be
within the WHO standard of 0.01 while the remaining four analyzed samples had excess Lead
concentration. The concentration of Lead detected in the samples ranged from 0.02 to 0.03.
Children exposed to Lead pollution are under high risk of mental retardation. Though a non-metal,
the concentration of Chloride (Cl2) detected in all samples were within the set standard by the
WHO which is 0.1 as it ranged from 0.00 to 0.154.
Table 2 below shows the Chi-Square test of the Bio-physicochemical parameters of the wells with
WHO standards. From the analysis, since the calculated value CSW1 and CDW1 (2394.6 & 33.12

respectively) are both greater than the critical value (22.36), the null hypothesis that says there is
no significant difference between the WHO standard and the Bio-physicochemicalis rejected and
conclude that there is a significant difference between the Bio-physicochemical parameters of the
well and WHO standards at 0.05 significance level. From this, one can deduced that the level of
concentration of the Bio-physicochemical parameters of the well is higher than WHO standards;
hence the water is unfit or not safe for drinking.
Table 2: Chi-Square Test of Bio-physicochemical parameters of the Wells with WHO
standards
PARAMETE
RS
CSW1 CDW1
O E D
(e-O)
d2
∑ O E D
(e-O)
d2
∑
COLOR 5.00 15.00 10.00 100 6.67 5.00 15.00 10.00 100 6.67
pH 8.7 8.5 -0.02 0.04 0.00 6.30 8.50 2.20 4.85 0.57
Turbidity 13.60 5.00 -8.60 73.96 14.79 3.61 5.00 1.39 1.93 0.39
DO 3.20 4.00 0.80 0.64 0.16 1.50 400 2.50 6.25 1.56
BOD 2.00 5.00 3.00 9.00 1.80 0.60 5.00 4.40 19.36 3.87
COD 120 40.00 -80.0 64.00 1.60 60.00 40.00 -20.00 400 10
TSS 160 500 340 115600 213.2 50.00 500 -45.00 2025 4.05
TDS 2460 1000 -1460 2131600 2131.6 1030 1000 30.00 900 0.90
CL 0.114 0.10 -0.014 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.01 0.1
Mn 0.034 0.05 0.016 0.00 0.00 0.094 0.05 -0.044 0.00 0.00
Fe 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.1
Pb 0.023 0.01 -0.013 0.00 0.00 0.026 0.01 -0.016 0.00 0.00
Zn 0.007 5.00 -4.99 24.90 4.98 0.020 5.00 4.98 24.80 4.91
Cr 0.022 0.1 -0.078 0.01 0.1 0.052 0.1 0.048 0.00 0.00
=
∑
values for CSW1 = 2394.6 while that of CDW1 = 33.12
df (degree of freedom) = 13 Critical Value = 22.36
Table 3 shows the analysis of variance (ANOVA) between the Bio-physicochemical parameters
of Deep and Shallow wells. From the analysis, since the calculated value (4.98) is greater than the
critical value (2.29), null hypothesis That there is no significant difference between the Bio-
physicochemical parameters of the Deep and Shallow Wells is rejected and conclude that there is
significant difference between the Bio-physicochemical parameters of the Deep and Shallow well
at 0.05 significance level. From this, one can deduce that the effect of the dumpsite varies between
the shallow and the deep wells.

Table: 3 ANOVA of Bio-Physicochemical Parameters of Deep and Shallow Wells
SHALLOW WELLS DEEP WELLS
PARA
METE
RS
CS
W1 (
− )
CS
W2 (
− )
FS
W (
− )
CD
W1 (
− )
CDW
2 (
− )
FD
W (
− )
Colour
(unit)
5.00 37249 5.0 12544 5.0 1089 5.0 6084 5.0 900 5.0 529
pH 8.7 35834 8.7 11837 6.4 999 6.3 5883 7.5 756 6.7 454
Turbidi
ty (unit)
13.6 34003 5.04 12535 2.5
0
1260 3.61 6303 2.91 1039 3.37 607
DO () 3.20 37947 2.10 13202 0.8
0
1384 1.50 6642 0.70 1176 1.00 729
BOD () 2.00 38416 0.90 13479 0.4
0
1414 0.60 6799 0.40 1197 0.50 756
COD () 120 6084 100 289 160 14884 60 529 40 25 80 2704
TSS () 160 1444 420 91809 80 1764 50 1089 150 13225 10 324
TDS () 2460 51166 1100 96628 270 53824 1030 89680 280 60025 290 6864
4
Cl () 0.01 39201 0.00 13688 0.0
3
1442 0.02 6886 0.08 1219 0.03 782
Mn () 0.00 39204 0.03 13683 0.0
7
1439 0.00 6889 0.00 1225 0.05 781
Fe () 0.11 39159 0.06 13674 0.1
5
1433 0.00 6889 0.02 1223 0.15 775
Pb () 0.03 39191 0.21 13649 0.3
3
1419 0.09 6873 0.11 1217 0.31 767
Zn () 0.02 39195 0.08 13671 0.0
4
1441 0.05 6880 0.09 1219 0.04 782
Cr () 0.02 39195 0.02 13684 0.0
3
1442 0.03 6885 0.02 1224 0.02 783
K (number of samples) = 6 n (number of parameters per sample) = 14
N (total number of parameters) = 14+14+14+14+14+14 = 84 ̅G(grand mean) = 83
df (degree of freedom) = =

Critical Value = 2.29 F ratio = =
.
.
= 4.98
However, the low contamination observed from the deep well may be attributed to high
compaction level of the soil and underlying bedrock which could act as protective layer to the deep
underground water.
Table 4 below shows the analysis of variance (ANOVA) between the Bio-physicochemical
parameters of close and far well. From the analysis, since the calculated value (2.99) is greater
than the critical value (2.76), hence the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference
between the Bio-physicochemical parameters of the Close to and Far Well from the dumpsite is
rejected and conclude that there is significant difference between the Bio-physicochemical
parameters of the Close and Far wells at 0.05 significant level.
Table: 4 ANOVA of Bio-physicochemical parameters of Close and Far Wells
CLOSE WELLS (<10m) FAR WELLS (>150m)
PARAM
ETERS
CSW1
(
− )
CDW1
(
− )
FSW1 (
− )
FDW1
(
− )
Colour
(unit)
5.00 37249 5.0 6084 5.0 1089 5.0 529
Ph 8.7 35834 6.3 5883 6.4 999 6.7 454
Turbidity
(unit)
13.6 34003 3.61 6303 2.50 1260 3.37 607
DO () 3.20 37947 1.50 6642 0.80 1384 1.00 729
BOD () 2.00 38416 0.60 6799 0.40 1414 0.50 756
COD () 120 6084 60 529 160 14884 80 2704
TSS () 160 1444 50 1089 80 1764 10 324
TDS () 2460 51166 1030 89680 270 53824 290 68644
Cl () 0.01 39201 0.02 6886 0.03 1442 0.03 782
Mn () 0.00 39204 0.00 6889 0.07 1439 0.05 781
Fe () 0.11 39159 0.00 6889 0.15 1433 0.15 775
Pb () 0.03 39191 0.09 6873 0.33 1419 0.31 767
Zn () 0.02 39195 0.05 6880 0.04 1441 0.04 782
Cr () 0.02 39195 0.03 6885 0.03 1442 0.02 783
K (number of samples) = 4 n (number of parameters per sample) = 14
N (total number of parameters) = 14+14+14+14 = 56 ̅G(grand mean) = 86.7

df (degree of freedom) = = F ratio = =
.
.
=2.99
Critical Value = 2.76
From this result, one can deduced that though dumpsites affect both the close and far wells, the
impact is more on close wells than far wells. This result agrees with the findings of Olusanya,
(2013); Yusuf and Ariko, (2014) who conducted similar studies.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The research findings from the sampled wells showed that the water quality of these wells do not
meet the minimum standards set by the World Health Organization (WHO) as safe for human
consumption. The result also suggests that other factors such as the geologic materials,
construction design of wells, drainage and sewerage system could be additional determinants of
water quality in the study area. The conclusion is that water from most wells is not in any way
suitable for direct consumption as practiced in the study area.
To avoid further pollution of groundwater, the study recommends that government and people
should make sure that the site of any well to be dug should be at least 200m away from any source
of contamination, for wells located at a distance less than 150m, the dumpsites can have a major
impact on the water from them. Public enlightenement should be conducted on the need for the
surrounding environment to be kept clean and tidy to avoid or reduce contaminations and
continuous monitoring to determine any change in the level of pollution.
REFERENCE
Afolabi, A.O. & Adamu, D.J (2008). Pollution and waste management: Challenges towards
achieving the MDG 7 by 2015. Proceedings of the first national environment summit
“Greening the environment for sustainable economic development. Federal Ministry of
Environment, Housing and Urban Development. Transcorp Hilton, Abuja
Ali, I. A. (2004). Effect of industrial wastes pollution of river Kaduna on economic lives of the
people in the southern part of Kaduna metropolis. Unpublished masters’ thesis. Geography
Department, A.B.U., Zaria. Nigeria.
Annan, K. (2003). World Water Day: special United Nation Report, March, 2003.
Appello, C.A.J. & Posma, D.C. (2005). Geochemistry of groundwater and pollution.
Balkema, Leiden. Pp 92-94.
Balogun, M.R & Longe, E.O,(2009). Groundwater Quality Assessment near a Municipal
Landfill,Lagos,Nigeria.Research J. of Applied Sciences,Engineering and Technology
2(1):39- 44, 2010.
Bogoro A. G., & Babanyara Y. Y., (2011). The impact of spatial distribution of solid waste dumps
on infrastructure in Samaru, Zaria, Kaduna State, using Geographic Information System.
Research Journal of Information Technology 3(3): 113 – 117 and European Scientific

Journal. 8(11).
Mark, W.R., XimingCai & Sarah, A.C. (2002). World Water and Food to 2025: Dealing with
Scarcity. International Food Policy Research Institute, NW, Washington DC, USA.
Ojo, O. (2008). State of the Environment in Nigeria. Proceedings of the first national environment
summit “Greening the environment for sustainable economic development. Federal Ministry
of Environment, Housing and Urban Development. Transcorp Hilton, Abuja.
Olusanya, A. (2013). Impact of Municipal Solid Wastes on Underground Water Sources in
Nigeria: European Scientific Journal. 8(11)
Osibanjo, O., (2008). Pollution and waste: Issues and Management Strategies. Proceedings of the
first National environment summit “Greening the environment for sustainable economic
development. Federal Ministry of Environment, Housing and Urban Development.
Transcorp Hilton, Abuja
Peter K, Poul L.B, & Thomas C, (1995). Groundwater Quality. Institute of Environmental
Science and Engineering/Groundwater Research Centre, Technical University of
Denmark.
Stollenwerk, K. G., & Colman, J.A, (2003). Natural remediation potential of arsenic –
contaminated ground water, in Welch
THERRA, (2006). Thermal Energy for Renewables Proposal for the definition and calculation
principle for renewable heat. http://www.therra.info/pdf.
Uba, S., Uzairu A., Harrison G.F.S., Balarabe, M. S. & Okunola, O.J., (2008). Assessment of heavy
metals bioavailability in dumpsites of Zaria Metropolis, Nigeria. African Journal of
Biotechnology. 7(2):122 -130
United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) (2006). Water quality for ecosystem and human
health, United Nations Environment Program/Global Environment Monitoring System
(UNEP/GEMS) Program 2006, pp 1-132.
World Health Organization (WHO), (2008). Guidelines for drinking-water quality. Geneva 1(3).
Yakubu S., (2013). Assessment of water quality of hand dug wells in Zaria LGA of Kaduna State,
Nigeria. International Journal of Engineering and Science. 2(11): 1 – 4
Yusuf, Y. O. & Ariko, J. D. (2014). Effect of dumpites on groundwater quality in Zaria
metropolis, Kaduna state, Nigeria. BEST: International Journal of Humanities, Arts,
Medicine and Sciences Vol. 2.

Effect of dumpsites on groundwater quality in kaduna metropolis

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Effect of dumpsites on groundwater quality in kaduna metropolis

Similar to Effect of dumpsites on groundwater quality in kaduna metropolis (20)

More from Nuhu Bamalli Polytechnic Zaria

More from Nuhu Bamalli Polytechnic Zaria (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Effect of dumpsites on groundwater quality in kaduna metropolis