| Literature DB >> 35815137 |
Olabanji A Ojo1, Charles A Oyelami2, Mutiu A Fakunle3, Ayodeji K Ogundana4, Oluwole E Ajayi1, Tochukwu E Uche1.
Abstract
Improper sitting positioning of cemeteries in Nigeria is mostly responsible for groundwater pollution. Poor water quality may lead to some communicable diseases in most rural and urban areas of the southwestern part of Nigeria. The environmental impact of cemeteries close to residential areas within the Edunabon metropolis, southwestern part of Nigeria, was assessed. The research is aimed to understand the impact (if any) of the cemetery on the quality of water and soil within the vicinity and to investigate the suitability of soil materials underlying the cemetery as a special lining material. An integrated approach using geotechnical characterization, vertical electrical sounding and groundwater quality assessment was used in the present study. The geotechnical test involved six bulk undisturbed soil samples taken from two borrow pits within the cemetery. Index property tests (grain size distribution, specific gravity, natural moisture content, and Atterberg limits), engineering property tests (compaction test), X-ray diffraction, and X-ray fluorescence tests were carried out on the soil samples with their porosities and permeability estimated according to BS 1377. The majority of the study area is a wetland with a topography that descends into a gaining stream around 10 m from the cemetery. The soil of the cemetery is made up of coarse-grained porous lateritic soil, clay, and silt (0.22-3.88 percent), with a significant amount of gravel/sand (73.50-83.96 percent). Except in the control well, water analysis revealed a high total coliform concentration of 14-89 and a total hardness of 86-380 mg/L. When compared to the World Health Organization (WHO) drinking water standard and the Nigerian drinking water standard, the majority of cation concentrations were greater than the safe limits. The depth to contamination correlates to the depth of the aquifer in the research region, according to the results of electrical resistivity. Because of the narrow unsaturated zone, the study found that the position of the cemetery has a high risk of environmental impact on its near vicinity.Entities:
Keywords: Cemetery; Characterization; Environmental Impact; Geotechnical; Streptococci; Unsaturated zone
Year: 2022 PMID: 35815137 PMCID: PMC9260632 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09831
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
Figure 1Location map of the study area showing sampling locations adapted from Google®2020 (Inset (B) Map of Osun State and (C) Map of Nigeria).
Figure 2Geological map of the study area with soil sampling locations. (Modified after NGSA, 2006).
Figure 3Terrain map of the study area.
: Geographic location and in-situ parameters.
| WELL NO | Latitude (N) | Longitude (E) | pH | EC (μs/cm) | TDS (mg/l) | Temp (°C) | TBD | DTW (m) | DTB (m) | Elevation (m) | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 07° 33′.252″ | 004° 26′.864″ | 7.25 | 0.35 | 0040 | 26.37 | Turbid | 231.8 | Down stream | ||
| 2 | 07° 33′.256″ | 004° 26′.877″ | 7.16 | 0.38 | 0040 | 26.8 | Turbid | 240.9 | Up stream | ||
| 3 | 07° 33′.174″ | 004° 26′.946″ | 6.19 | 1.44 | 0170 | 29.7 | Clear | 1.5 | 3.1 | 231.2 | Well inside a filling station |
| 4 | 07° 33′.136″ | 004° 26′.946″ | 6.00 | 0.96 | 0110 | 28.0 | Clear | 1.3 | 2.7 | 227.8 | Well directly by the side of the cemetery |
| 5 | 07° 32′.997″ | 004° 26′.835″ | 6.15 | 1.32 | 0150 | 28.3 | Clear | 1.2 | 2.4 | 228.2 | Well directly at the back of the cemetery(30m) |
| 6 | 07° 32′.995″ | 004° 26′.945″ | 6.27 | 1.60 | 0170 | 29.2 | Clear | 3.3 | 5.3 | 244.2 | Surface well by the side of the cemetery |
| 7 | 07° 33′.138″ | 004° 26′.972″ | 6.13 | 1.00 | 0120 | 29.6 | Clear | 0.7 | 2.1 | 233.2 | Surface Well directly in front of the cemetery(20m) |
| 8 | 07° 33′.033″ | 004° 27′.021″ | 6.11 | 2.76 | 0310 | 29.8 | Slightly turbid | 4.1 | 4.6 | 239.1 | Surface well close to a tomb, in front of a health center |
| 9 | 07° 33′.887″ | 004° 27′.054″ | 6.10 | 2.17 | 0240 | 29.4 | Clear | 3.5 | 4.0 | 242.2 | Surface well in front of a school far away from the cemetery. |
| 10 | 07° 33′.000″ | 004° 27′.192″ | 6.31 | 2.30 | 0250 | 29.9 | Slightly turbid | 5.8 | 6.1 | 253.7 | Control. |
DTW = Depth to water, DTB = Depth to Bottom, TDS = Total Dissolved Solid, EC = Electrical Conductivity.
: Table showing the physico-chemical parameters, cations and anions analyzed in the study area.
| S/N | Parameters | Unit | S1 | S2 | S3 | S4 | S5 | S6 | S7 | S8 | S9 | S10 | WHO | NSDWQ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Total Hardness CaCo3 | Mg/L | 86.0 | 102 | 256 | 172 | 254 | 380 | 230 | 270 | 378 | 226 | - | 150 |
| 2 | Calcium Hardness CaCo3 | Mg/L | 44.0 | 36.0 | 124 | 96.0 | 156 | 196 | 156 | 194 | 164 | 126 | - | - |
| 3 | Magnesium Hardness CaCO3 | Mg/L | 42.0 | 66.0 | 132 | 76.0 | 98.0 | 34.0 | 74.0 | 76.0 | 214 | 150 | - | - |
| 4 | Nitrate (NO3-) | Mg/L | 53 | 64 | 65 | 76 | 86 | 49 | 54 | 71 | 73 | 0.7 | 50 | 50 |
| 5 | Iron (Fe) | Mg/L | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.71 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| 6 | Alkalinity | Mg/L | 42.0 | 30.0 | 68.0 | 48.0 | 60.0 | 76.0 | 52.0 | 58.0 | 46.0 | 48.0 | ||
| 7 | Manganese (Mn) | Mg/L | 0.06 | 0.12 | 0.02 | 0.02 | ND | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.4 | 0.2 |
| 8 | Calcium (Ca2+) | Mg/L | 87.6 | 84.4 | 89.7 | 88.5 | 82.5 | 88.6 | 82.5 | 89.8 | 75.7 | 70.5 | 75 | 75 |
| 9 | Magnesium (Mg) | Mg/L | 10.2 | 16.1 | 32.2 | 18.5 | 23.9 | 8.29 | 18.1 | 18.5 | 52.2 | 36.6 | 0.1 | 0.20 |
| 10 | Sulphate (SO42-) | Mg/L | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 16.0 | 1.00 | 0.00 | 4.00 | 10.0 | 0.00 | 250 | 100 |
| 11 | Chloride (Cl−) | Mg/L | 14.0 | 15.0 | 39.9 | 20.0 | 48.9 | 47.9 | 26.0 | 98 | 90.0 | 67.0 | 250 | 250 |
| 12 | Sodium (Na) | Mg/L | 59.10 | 280.5 | 225.9 | 213.0 | 131.8 | 231.1 | 116.9 | 76.7 | 58.5 | 43.6 | 200 | 200 |
| 13 | Bicarbonate (HCO3) | Mg/L | 42.0 | 30.0 | 68.0 | 48.0 | 60.0 | 76.0 | 52.0 | 58.0 | 46.0 | 48.0 | 250 | 250 |
| 14 | Potassium (K+) | Mg/L | 3.41 | 2.89 | 5.87 | 2.11 | 6.21 | 5.92 | 3.04 | 12.8 | 10.6 | 8.87 | 10 | 10 |
| 15 | Chromium(Cr6+) | Mg/L | 0.21 | 0.07 | 0.09 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.07 | 0.09 | 0.12 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.05 | 0.05 |
| 16 | Copper (Cu2+) | Mg/L | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 2 | 1 |
| 17 | Flurie (Fl) | Mg/L | 0.48 | 0.53 | 1.29 | 0.76 | 0.13 | 0.34 | 0.64 | 0.48 | 0.20 | 0.02 | 1.5 | - |
| 18 | Ammonia (NH3) | Mg/L | 4.04 | 3.03 | 3.04 | 2.66 | 2.21 | 3.16 | 1.99 | 0.04 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 1.5 | - |
| 19 | Carbonate (CO3−2) | Mg/L | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | - | - |
| 20 | Faecal | Cfu/100ml | 3 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | - | 0 |
| 21 | Total Coliform | Cfu/100ml | 72 | 89 | 34 | 29 | 53 | 27 | 18 | 22 | 14 | 9 | 10 | 10 |
| 22 | E-coli | Cfu/100ml | 4 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
(WHO, World Health Organisation, NSDWQ, Nigerian Standard of Drinking Water Quality).
Figure 4Sources of water according to Piper diagram.
Figure 5Durov diagram showing zones of hydrogeochemical water types.
The summary table of the interpreted resistivity values.
| S/N | CURVE | RES (Ωm) | THICK. (m) | DEPTH (m) | LITHOLOGY |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VES 1 | KHA | 54.6 | 0.35 | 0.35 | Contaminated sand top soil |
| 272 | 0.57 | 0.92 | Contaminated Clayey sand layer | ||
| 13.7 | 1.22 | 2.14 | Contaminated Weathered layer | ||
| 462 | 44.9 | 47.1 | Lateritic layer | ||
| 21962 | Fresh basement bedrock | ||||
| VES 2 | KA | 97.72 | 0.98 | 0.98 | Contaminated Clayey sand top soil |
| 27.63 | 2.73 | 3.71 | Contaminated Weathered layer | ||
| 845.1 | 59.63 | 63.34 | Fresh Basement | ||
| 72.89 | - | - | Fractured layer | ||
| VES 3 | QA | 97.5 | 0.49 | 0.49 | Contaminated Clayey sand Top soil |
| 3.18 | 0.37 | 0.86 | Contaminated Weathered layer | ||
| 865 | - | - | Fresh Basement | ||
| VES 4 | KA | 46.6 | 1.56 | 1.56 | Contaminated sand top soil |
| 333 | 11.5 | 13.1 | Lateritic layer | ||
| 91849 | - | - | Basement rock | ||
| VES 5 | A | 69.6 | 0.94 | 0.94 | Contaminated clayey sand top Soil |
| 37.6 | 3.05 | 3.99 | Contaminated Weathered layer | ||
| 13685 | 4.95 | 8.94 | Basement rock | ||
| 62.5 | - | - | Fractured layer | ||
| VES 6 | HA | 81.58 | 1.201 | 1.201 | Topsoil |
| 12.17 | 1.201 | 2.402 | Contaminated Weathered layer | ||
| 229.5 | 9.145 | 11.55 | Lateritic layer | ||
| 21480 | - | - | Basement rock | ||
| VES 7 | A | 56.3 | 0.25 | 0.25 | Contaminated clayey sand top Soil |
| 550 | 0.40 | 0.65 | Contaminated Sandy clayey layer | ||
| 13.6 | 1.60 | 2.25 | Contaminated weathered layer | ||
| 8340 | - | - | Basement rock | ||
| VES 8 | A | 49.3 | 1.1 | 1.1 | Contaminated clayey sand top Soil |
| 8.01 | 0.727 | 1.83 | Contaminated weathered layer | ||
| 2432 | - | - | Basement rock |
Index properties of the soils in the study are.
| Sample Number | Specific Gravity | Gravel (%) | Sand (%) | Silt (%) | Clay (%) | Amount of Fines (%) | Amount of Coarse (%) | Liquid Limit (%) | Plastic Limit (%) | Plasticity Index (%) | NMC | USCS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ED1A | 2.38 | 66 | 30 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 96 | 46.0 | 22.53 | 23.47 | 19.90 | GW |
| ED1B | 2.52 | 70 | 24 | 4 | 2 | 6 | 94 | 40.0 | 23.33 | 16.67 | 16.96 | GW-GM |
| ED1C | 2.26 | 54 | 43 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 97 | 48.0 | 19.91 | 28.69 | 14.63 | GW |
| ED2A | 2.14 | 67 | 31 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 98 | 45.3 | 16.02 | 29.28 | 20.0 | GW |
| ED2B | 2.10 | 71 | 21 | 6 | 2 | 8 | 92 | 54.4 | 26.31 | 28.09 | 24.4 | GW-GM |
| ED2C | - | 52 | 41 | 5 | 2 | 7 | 93 | 44.1 | 19.99 | 24.11 | 25.0 | GW-GM |
GW−Well graded gravel, GW−GM- Well graded sand with silt.
Figure 6Grain size particle distribution curve.
Figure 7Plasticity charts of soil samples.
Engineering properties of the soils in the study area.
| Sample Number | OMC (%) | MDD (Mg/ | Porosity | Permeability (cm/sec) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ED1A | 3.45 | 1.53 | 93.4 | 0.363 |
| ED1B | 13.36 | 1.05 | 95.7 | 0.432 |
| ED1C | 21.26 | 1.03 | 95.3 | 0.115 |
| ED2A | 18.81 | 0.98 | 95.2 | 0.108 |
| ED2B | 0.043 | |||
| ED2C | 26.32 | 0.99 | 95.2 | 0.027 |
| RANGE | 3.45–26.32 | 0.98–1.53 | 93.4–95.7 | 0.027–0.432 |
| AVERAGE | 16.64 | 1.12 | 0.181 |
Major oxides and Mineralogy of the soils.
| Major Elements | Minerals | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pit 1 (%) | Pit 2 (%) | Pit 1 (%) | Pit 2 (%) | ||
| 51.10 | 49.76 | Hematite | 0.54 | – | |
| 1.21 | 1.98 | Kaolinite | 49.49 | 12.88 | |
| 22.12 | 20.01 | Muscovite | 11.19 | – | |
| 11.22 | 9.56 | Quartz | 20.57 | 7.69 | |
| <0.01 | <0.01 | Actinolite | – | 4.5 | |
| | 0.89 | 2.37 | Microcline | 18.21 | 6.81 |
| CaO | 0.65 | 3.73 | Smectite | – | 34.8 |
| 0.11 | 1.96 | Sepiolite | – | 9.72 | |
| 3.07 | 1.85 | Plagioclase | – | 23.55 | |
| Cr | 0.04 | 0.03 | – | – | – |
| 0.04 | 0.51 | – | – | – | |
| NiO | 0.01 | <0.01 | – | – | – |
| 0.04 | 0.04 | – | – | – | |
| Zr | 0.07 | 0.02 | – | – | – |
| CuO | <0.01 | <0.01 | – | – | – |
| LOI | 9.46 | 7.81 | – | – | – |
| Total | 100.03 | 99.63 | – | – | – |