CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Water is a precious natural resource vital for life and provision of portable water to the rural

and urban populations is necessary to sustain life and prevent health hazards. Water is a basic

nutrient of the human body and very essential to living organisms, agricultural production

and industrial processes (Utsev et al., 2012). The major sources of water for human use

include but not limited to rivers, lakes and groundwater etc. In Nigeria, majority of the rural

populace do not have access to potable water and therefore, depend on well, stream,

boreholes and river water for domestic use (Nwachukwu and Ume, 2013).

Population increase over the past century has resulted in increased pressures on water

resources of the developed and developing countries. These pressures involve the

contamination from domestic, industrial and agricultural wastes, climate change and other

ecological disturbances (Utsev et al., 2012). Pollution of drinking water sources in rural areas

may involve seepage from broken septic tanks, pit latrines and runoffs carrying fertilizers,

pesticides, herbicides, fungicides and fecal matter. Contaminated water serves as a medium

of transmitting infectious diseases such as dysentery, cholera, diarrhea, typhoid, shigellosis,

salmonellosis, and varieties of other bacterial as well as fungal, viral, and parasitic infections

(Nwachukwu et al., 2013). The bacterial qualities of ground water, stream water and other

natural water supplies in Nigeria have been reported to be unsatisfactory, with coliform

counts far exceeding the level recommendation by the World Health Organization (WHO)

(Shittu et al., 2008).

Wastewater is any water that has been adversely affected in quality by anthropogenic

influence. It comprises of liquid waste discharged by domestic residences, commercial

properties, and industrial and/or agricultural, and can encompass a wide range of potential

1
contaminants and concentrations (Ugoh et al. 2013). Wastewater is used water that includes

substances such as human waste, food scraps, oil, soaps and chemicals. In homes, this

includes water from sinks, showers, bathtubs, toilets, washing machines and dishwashers.

Businesses and industries also contribute their share of used water that must be cleaned.

Wastewater also includes storm runoff. Although some people assume that the rain that runs

down the street during storm is fairly clean, it is not. Harmful substance that washes off

roads, parking lots and rooftops can harm our rivers and lakes (Long et al., 2010).

It has been established that the upsurge in pathogenic organisms such as viruses, bacteria, and

fungi in many rivers, streams and water ways are as a result of indiscriminate discharge of

wastewater into the river system without adequate treatment. The inadequacy of the required

treatment of wastewater brings about negative public health effects, disruption of aquatic

ecosystem, and negative environmental impacts leading to groundwater contamination and

eutrophication of surface water bodies (Omenka, 2010).The failure to subject wastewater to

the internationally acceptable standard of treatment before final disposal has a direct effect

and impact on the biological diversity of the aquatic ecosystem which would inevitably

disrupt the integrity of our life support systems as a wide range of sectors including urban

development to food production and industries solely depend on it.

The wastewater effluents attaining permissible levels if discharged into water bodies would

inevitably lead to public health safety in terms of provision of quality and wholesome water.

Lack of adequate sanitation would continue to hinder the sustainability of potable water

which would in turn increase the spread of diseases and ultimately hamper development

(Choudhary and Ojha, 2012). The ultimate goal of wastewater management is tailored

towards the protection of the environment in a manner to commensurate with public health

and socio-economic concerns. Since wastewater is always discharged into the water bodies

that are ultimately used by the public, there is a need to identify and set control measures for

2
possible inadequacies, which would lead to the development of a general assessment

framework for the wastewater management system.

1.1. Statement of the Problem/Justification

Water is an essential requirement of all life forms and satisfactory supply of clean, safe, and

hygienic drinking water is imperative for health (Khatoon et al., 2010). Access to safe

drinking water is a vital agent for human living (Khaniki et al., 2010). However,

unavailability of good quality drinking water is widespread and this has serious health

implications (Onweluzo and Akuagbazie, 2015). Also, water related diseases continue to be

one of the major health problems globally. The high prevalence of diarrhea among children

and infants can be traced to the use of unsafe water and unhygienic practices (Onifade and

Flori, 2018). In developing countries, 80% of all diseases and over 30% of deaths are related

to drinking water implications (Onweluzo and Akuagbazie, 2015).

The microbiological quality of effluent consumable water is a concern to consumers (Wupa

dwellers), water suppliers (Wupa Wastewater Treatment Plant), and regulatory and public

health authorities alike (E.g. Abuja Environmental Protection Board). The quality of the

influent and effluent at a wastewater treatment plant determines the pollutant removal

efficiency of the treatment plant when compared with the World Health Organization (WHO)

effluent standards. Also, considering the great implication of water sources and the

multiplicity of effects that its contamination or non-treatment can cause, it becomes

imperative that a study like this which is geared towards assessing the microbiological quality

of effluent discharge at the Wupa sewage plant be conducted so as to determine the extent to

which water purification aids or prevents microbial contamination and the various degrees of

contamination experienced at the different segments of the water flow at Wupa.

3
1.2 Aim of study

 To assess the bacterial quality of the effluent discharge from the Wupa sewage plant,

thereby determining its impact on the Wupa river

1.3 Objectives of study

 To outline, characterize and estimate the number of bacteria present in the effluent
from the Wupa sewage treatment plant
 To access the impact of the effluent discharge into the river by comparing bacterial
load before and after the effluent meets the river
 To access physiochemical parameters at different points of the river and of the
effluent

4
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Overview of Water Sources and Contamination

The United Nations (UN) set a goal in their Millennium Declaration to reduce the amount of

people without safe drinking water by half in the year 2015 (UN, 2000). Safe drinking water

for human consumption should be free from pathogens such as bacteria, viruses and

protozoan parasites, meet the standard guidelines for taste, odour, appearance and chemical

concentrations, and must be available in adequate quantities for domestic purposes

(Nwachukwu and Ume, 2013). However, inadequate sanitation and persistent faecal

contamination of water sources is responsible for a large percentage of people in both

developed and developing countries not having access to microbiologically safe drinking

water and suffering from diarrhoeal diseases (WHO, 2012).

Diarrhoeal diseases are responsible for approximately 2.5 million deaths annually in

developing countries, affecting children younger than five years, especially those in areas

devoid of access to potable water supply and sanitation (Oyhakilome et al., 2012). Political

upheaval, high numbers of refugees in some developing countries, and the global appearances

of squatter camps and shanty rural towns, which lack proper sanitation and water

connections, have contributed to conditions under which disease causing microorganisms can

replicate and thrive (Nwachukwu and Ume, 2013). The people most susceptible to

waterborne diseases include young children, the elderly, people suffering from malnutrition,

pregnant woman, immunocompromised individuals, people suffering from chemical

dependencies and persons predisposed to other illnesses like diabetes (Utsev and Aho, 2012

and Oyhakilome et al., 2012). Furthermore, an increasing number of people are becoming

5
susceptible to infections with specific pathogens due to the indiscriminate use of

antimicrobial drugs, which have led to the selection of antibiotic resistant bacteria and drug

resistant protozoa (WHO, 2012).

In developing countries, many people are living in rural communities and have to collect their

drinking water some distances away from the household and transport it back in various types

of containers. Microbiological contamination of the water may occur between the collection

point and the point-of-use in the household due to unhygienic practices causing the water to

become a health risk (Eke et al., 2013; Salem et al., 2014). To improve and protect the

microbiological quality and to reduce the potential health risk of water to these households,

intervention strategies is needed that is easy to use, effective, affordable, functional and

sustainable (Eke et al., 2013). Many different water collection and storage systems have been

developed and evaluated in the laboratory and under field conditions. In addition, a variety of

physical and chemical treatment methods to improve the microbiological quality of water are

available (Eke et al., 2013).

2.2. Waterborne Diseases

Many infectious diseases are associated with faecally contaminated water and are a major

cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide (Eke et al., 2013). Waterborne diseases are

caused by enteric pathogens such as bacteria, viruses and parasites (Table 1) that are

transmitted by the faecal oral route (Eke et al., 2013). Waterborne spread of infection by

these pathogenic microorganisms depends on several factors such as: the survival of these

microorganisms in the water environment, the infectious dose of the microorganisms required

to cause a disease in susceptible individuals, the microbiological and physio-chemical quality

of the water, the presence or absence of water treatment and the season of the year (Salem et

al., 2014; Eke et al., 2013).

6
Table 1: Waterborne pathogens and their associated diseases

PATHOGEN DISEASES
BACTERIA Campylobacter spp. Diarrhoea and acute gastroenteritis
Enteropathogenic Escherichia Diarrhoea
coli Bloody diarrhoea and haemolytic uremic
Escherichia coli O157:H7 syndrome
Salmonella spp. Typhoid fever, diarrhea
Shigella spp. Dysentery, diarrhoea
Vibrio cholera Cholera, diarrhea
Yersinia spp. Diarrhoea, gastrointestinal infections

VIRUSES Adenoviruses Diarrhoea, respiratory, disease,

Astroviruses conjunctivitis
Coxsackie viruses Diarrhoea
(Enterovirus) Respiratory, meningitis, diabetes, diarrhea
Echoviruses (Enterovirus) Meningitis, diarrhoea, myocarditis
Enteroviruses 68-71 Meningitis, diarrhoea, respiratory diseases
Hepatitis viruses (A, E) Hepatitis (jaundice), gastroenteritis
Calici viruses Diarrhoea, vomiting
Poliovirus (Enterovirus) Poliomyelitis
Rotaviruses Diarrhoea, vomiting
Small Round Structured Diarrhoea, vomiting
HELMINTH viruses
Dracunalis medinensis Guinea worm (Dracunculiasis)

Cryptosporidium parvum Cryptosporidiosis, diarrhoea

Entamoeba hystolytica Amoebic dysentery
Giardia Giardiasis, diarrhea

Actinobacter spp. Septicemia, meningitis, endocarditis

Aeromonas spp. Diarrhoea, gastroenteritis
Cyclospora spp. Diarrhoea, abdominal cramping, fever
Isospora spp. Diarrhoea
Legionella spp. Legionnaires disease, Pontiac fever
Microsporidia spp Gastrointestinal infections, diarrhea
Nontuberculosis Skin infections, cervical lymphadenitis,
Mycobacteria Septicaemia, wound and eye infections
Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Source: (Salem et al., 2014)

7
The survival of microorganisms such as bacteria in water environments depends on the

presence of nutrients and the water temperature (Salem et al., 2014; Anake et al., 2013). The

infectious dose of some bacteria range between 107 to 108 cells, with some enteric bacteria

able to cause infections at doses as low as 101 cells (Eke et al., 2013; Salem et al., 2014;

Anake et al., 2013). Although waterborne pathogens are distributed worldwide, outbreaks

tend to be subjected to geographical factors (Umar and Bashir, 2014). In the last number of

years several outbreaks of pathogenic diseases have appeared that cannot be prevented by

traditional water treatment.

2.3. Water Quality

The quality of water is of vital concern for mankind since it is directly linked with human

welfare. According to Ranjana (2010), the quality of public health depends to a greater extent

the quality of groundwater. Though groundwater quality is believed to be quiet good

compared to surface water, its quality is the sum of natural: geology of the environment and

anthropogenic influences: withdrawal, land use change, and solid waste dumping. Water

quality parameters reflect the level of contamination in water resources and show whether

water is suitable for human consumption. Contaminated water is unacceptable due to health

effects, poor taste and aesthetic value to consumers (Suthra et al., 2009).

2.3.1 Water Quality Parameters

Physicochemical and Micro-biological parameters of water indicate the safety of potable

water and their analysis is important for public health and pollution studies.

8
2.3.1.1 Physicochemical Parameters

Temperature, pH, Colour, Turbidity, Total Dissolved Solids, Electrical Conductivity, Odour

and Taste are the most important Physicochemical properties of groundwater in relation to its

quality. pH is a measure of the hydrogen ion (H+) available in water. The acidity of

groundwater is due to the presence of organic acids in the soil as well as those of atmospheric

origin infiltrated to the water. Acid rain contains dissolved Carbon dioxide (CO 2), Nitrogen

dioxide (NO2) or Sulphur dioxide (SO2) often yields an elevated Hydrogen ion (H+) ion

concentration and Carbonic acid (HCO) and may cause serious threat to groundwater pH

(Hamil and Bell, 1986). The pH of rainwater is about 5.7. Increase in acidity is also attributed

to the oxidation of reduced Sulphur compounds in the soils of the areas. The pH affects the

solubility and toxicity of metals by influencing chemical kinetics of important constituents.

Other acids such as HNO3, HNO2 and humic acid are formed as a consequence of the

decomposition of organic matter and sulphuric acid is produced when minerals such as pyrite

(FeS2) breakdown. High pH levels make water to become less corrosive (Efe et al., 2005).

Alkalinity is a water characteristic that shows the capacity of water to neutralize acids by

accepting Hydrogen ions (H+) and preventing sudden changes in the acidity levels of water.

Alkalinity is due to the presence of two forms of the Carbonate anions (HCO3 -), (CO3 2-) and

(OH- ) that act as buffer system (Chris, 2012). Borates, phosphates, silicates and other bases

also contribute to alkalinity if present in groundwater. Inorganic ligands (anions) form

complexes with metals (cations), this removes free divalent toxic metal ions such as Cd 2+,

Cu2+, Pb2+, Zn2+ or methyl-metal complexes. Metal complexes are not biologically available

and hence not toxic. Alkalinity is an important property when determining the suitability of

water for other uses such as irrigation, or mixing with pesticides and when treating

9
contaminated water. Alkalinity is measured in CaCO3 mg/L. pH that is near to neutral (pH 7)

is indicative of unpolluted water (Chris, 2012).

Carbon dioxide (CO2) readily dissolves in water. The dissolved CO2 (aq) reacts with water

molecules to form Carbonic acid (H2CO3) and Carbonic acid is very unstable and quickly

dissociates into H+ and a Bicarbonate ion (HCO3-).

At pH 6.3, the amount of CO2 dissolved in water equals the amount of bicarbonate ion

(HCO3-). Dissolved carbon dioxide is dominant when pH is <6.3. At higher pH, basic water,

HCO3- dissociates to yield H+ and a Carbonate ion (CO32-).

At pH 10.3, the bicarbonate ion concentration equals the carbonate ion concentration. CO 32- is

dominant at pH >10.3 and HCO3 -

dominates between pH 6.3 and 10.3. The pH of most

natural water falls in the range of 6 to 9 because of the bicarbonate buffering (Chris, 2012).

Total Dissolved Solids: Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), is defined as the concentration of all

dissolved minerals in the water. Natural waters contain a variety of both ionic and uncharged

species in various amounts and proportions that constitute the Total Dissolved Solids

(Agbaire and Oyibo, 2009). TDS in groundwater are due to enhancements of weathering of

minerals from acids produced as by-products of the degradation process. Hence TDS is a

geochemical parameter that closely links the bulk conductivity to microbial degradation of

hydrocarbon/ High TDS, greater than 1000 mg/L, is commonly objectionable or offensive to

taste.

TDS is a function of temperature and pH. At higher temperatures and lower pH groundwater

dissolves more minerals. Sources of ion TDS include hard water ions (Ca 2+, Mg2+, HCO3 - and

CO32-), fertilizer in agricultural runoff (NH 4+, NO3- , PO43- , and SO42- ), urban runoff / salinity

10
from tidal mixing, minerals or irrigation water (Na+ , Cl and K- ) and Acidic rainfall (H+ ,

NO3- , SO32- and SO42- ).

Poor chemical quality of water is a health risk in the long term for consumers. Urban waste

waters are often high in nutrients concentrations (macronutrients Na, Ca, P, K, Mg and

micronutrients Fe, Zn, Cu,) and other chemicals which can stress the bacterial populations, in

rainy seasons they are washed to the groundwater by infiltration. The chemical composition

of groundwater may be altered by the precipitation of ions from solution to form insoluble

compounds (Agbaire and Oyibo, 2009).

Nitrate: Nitrate contamination of groundwater results from leaching of fertilizer, septic tank

leachate, unsewered sanitation, pit latrines, animal waste or human waste mineralization of

decomposing or oxidation of decaying matter by soil micro-organisms (Suthra et al.,2009).

Unutilized urea leached to groundwater for micro-organisms to degrade is also another source

of groundwater nitrate (Singh, 2012). According to USGS (2012), nitrate concentrations of

greater than 3mg-N/L indicate a fairly direct connection of water with source of pollution.

Nitrate can readily be transported beneath the soil zone because it is relatively soluble and not

prone to ion exchange. Nitrate can be endogenously reduced to nitrite, which can then

undergo nitrosation reaction in the stomach with amines to form a variety of N-nitroso

compounds (NOC). These compounds are carcinogens, thereby causing health hazards like

impairing the ability of the blood to carry oxygen (Blue-baby syndrome or infantile

methemoglobinemia), gastrointestinal cancer, Alzheimer disease, vascular dementia,

adsorptive secretive functional disorders of the intestinal mucosa, multiple sclerosis, Non-

Hodgkin’s lymphoma and hypertrophy of thyroid (Suthra et al., 2009).

Calcium carbonate: Hardness refers to the ability of water to form suds with soap. Hard

water leaves a ring in the bathtub, forms soap curds in clothing, and builds up scale in boilers

11
and kettles. Hardness is divided into two: Carbonate hardness Ca(HCO 3)2 and non-

Carbonated hardness Mg(HCO3)2. Non hardness is due to presence of salts such as Calcium

Chloride (CaCl2), Magnesium Sulphate (MgSO4) and Magnesium Chloride (MgCl2) (Chris

2012). Any hardness greater than the alkalinity represents non-Carbonate hardness is

measured as Calcium Carbonate mg/L. Hardness is classified as soft, moderately hard, hard

and very hard (EPA, 2012). Areas with limestone formations have a higher hardness and

alkalinity due to the dissolution of Bicarbonates and Carbonates. Calcium in groundwater is

derived from Calcite, Aragonite, Dolomite, Anhydrite and Gypsum. In igneous and

metamorphic rocks, calcium is supplied by the feldspars, pyroxenes and amphiboles and the

less common minerals such as Apatite and Wollastonite (Chris, 2012). Water hardness is an

important component of water because it has a bearing on the portability of water.

Iron: Iron is not toxic, but imparts objectionable taste to water and may leave brown stains

on porcelain and in clothing. Objectionable taste is due to reduced form (Fe 2+ and HS), on

exposure to air, water becomes reddish brown due to Ferric Hydroxide and prolonged

consumption of such water may lead to liver disease. Largest contributors of iron in

groundwater are minerals contained within the underlying bedrock, soil and sand, the most

common is Ferrous Iron and borehole, limestone, shale and coal which often contain the Iron

rich mineral Pyrite, acidic rain also releases Iron into groundwater (Ranjana, 2010).

An aquifer in which groundwater is in a mildly oxidized state and a near neutral pH, the most

likely Iron is Fe3+ and is tied up in solid phases. At a given temperature changing from their

oxidized form / giving up of electrons (Fe3+ and SO2- ) to the reduced (accepting electrons)

form requires a decrease in redox potential (dissolved oxygen) or a decrease in pH. Nitrate to

Nitrogen gas, Fe 3+
(insoluble) to Fe2+ (soluble), Sulphate to Hydrogen Sulphide and at very

low redox potential, Methane formation occurs. Reduction / treatment of iron can be achieved

12
by using a water softener, Potassium Permanganate or green sand filters and aeration

(addition of oxygen to water) all aid in precipitation of Iron (Ranjana, 2010).

2.3.1.2. The Microbiological Quality of Water

Water supplies in developing countries are devoid of treatment and the communities have to

make use of the most convenient supply. Many of these water supplies are unprotected and

susceptible to external contamination from surface runoff, windblown debris, human and

animal faecal pollution and unsanitary collection methods (WHO, 2012). Detection of each

pathogenic microorganism in water is technically difficult, time consuming and expensive

and therefore not used for routine water testing procedures. Instead, indicator organisms are

routinely used to assess the microbiological quality of water and provide an easy, rapid and

reliable indication of the microbiological quality of water supplies. The most commonly used

indicator microorganisms include heterotrophic plate counts, total coliform bacteria, faecal

coliform bacteria, E. coli, faecal enterococci, C. perfringens as well as somatic and male

specific F-RNA bacteriophages (WHO, 2012). Each of these indicator microorganisms has

advantages and disadvantages which will be discussed in more detail in the following

sections.

2.4. Heterotrophic plate counts

Heterotrophic microorganisms or heterotrophs are naturally present in the environment and

can be found in soil, sediment, food, water and in human and animal faeces (Eke et al., 2013;

Uzoigwe and Agwa, 2012). Broadly defined, heterotrophs include bacteria, yeasts and molds

that require organic carbon for growth (WHO, 2012). Although generally considered

harmless, some heterotrophic microorganisms are opportunistic pathogens, which have

13
virulence factors that could affect the health of consumers with suppressed immune systems

(Anake et al., 2013; Sobsey et al., 2002). Heterotrophic microorganisms can also survive in

biofilms inside water distribution systems, water reservoirs and inside household storage

containers (Eke et al., 2013; Anake et al., 2013). Therefore, heterotrophic plate counts can

also be used to measure the re-growth of organisms that may or may not be a health risk

(WHO, 2012).

Heterotrophic Plate Count, also known as Total or Standard Plate Count includes simple

culture based tests intended to recover a wide range of heterotrophic microorganisms from

water environments (Salem et al., 2014). Enumeration tests for heterotrophic plate counts are

simple and inexpensive giving results within 48 h to 5 days, depending on the method, type

of media and the incubation temperature used (Eke et al., 2013; Uzoigwe et al., 2012). The

pour plate, membrane filtration or spread plate methods are used routinely in various

laboratories, with either Yeast-extract agar, Plate Count Agar (PCA), Tryptone Glucose agar

or R2A agar, and incubation periods either at room temperature (25ºC) for 5 to 7 days, or at

35°C to 37°C for 48 h. Heterotrophic plate counts alone cannot indicate a health risk and

additional studies on the presence of E. coli or other faecal specific indicator microorganisms

need to be conducted to establish the potential health risk of the water analyzed (WHO,

2012).

2.5. Total coliform bacteria

Total coliform bacteria are defined as aerobic or facultative anaerobic, Gram negative, non-

spore forming, rod shaped bacteria, which ferments lactose and produce gas at 35°C. Total

coliforms include bacteria of known faecal origin such as E. coli as well as bacteria that may

not be of faecal origin such as Klebsiella spp, Citrobacter spp, Serratia spp and Enterobacter

spp which are found in nutrient rich water, soil decaying vegetation and drinking water with

14
relatively high levels of nutrients (Umar and Bashir, 2014). In water quality studies, total

coliform bacteria are used as a systems indicator, which provides information on the

efficiency of water treatment. The presence of total coliform in water samples are therefore,

an indication that opportunistic pathogenic bacteria such as Klebsiella and Enterobacter

which can multiply in water environments and pathogenic pathogens such as Salmonella spp,

Shigella spp, V. cholera, Campylobacter jejuni, Campylobacter coli, Yersinia enterocolitica

and pathogenic E. coli may be present. These pathogens and opportunistic microorganisms

could cause diseases such as gastroenteritis, dysentery, cholera, typhoid fever and

salmonellosis to consumers. In particular, individuals who suffer from HIV/AIDS related

complications are more at risk of being infected by these microorganisms (Umar and Bashir,

2014).

2.6. Faecal coliform bacteria

Faecal coliform bacteria are Gram negative bacteria, also known as thermo-tolerant coliforms

or presumptive E. coli. The faecal coliform group includes other organisms, such as

Klebsiella spp, Enterobacter spp and Citrobacter spp, which are not exclusively of faecal

origin. Escherichia coli are specifically of faecal origin from birds, humans and other warm

blooded animals (WHO, 2012; Shittu et al., 2008). Faecal coliform bacteria are therefore

considered to be a more specific indicator of the presence of faeces (Salem et al., 2014).

Faecal coliforms are generally used to indicate unacceptable microbial water quality and

could be used as an indicator in the place of E. coli (WHO, 2012). The presence of faecal

coliforms in a water sample indicates the possible presence of other pathogenic bacteria such

as Salmonella spp, Shigella spp, pathogenic E. coli, V. cholera, Klebsiella spp and

Campylobacter spp associated with waterborne diseases. Unfortunately faecal coliform

bacteria exhibit species to species variations in their respective stability and resistance to

15
disinfection processes; do not distinguish between faeces of human and animals origin; have

low survival rates and have been detected in water sources thought to be free of faecal

pollution (Chris, 2012; Umar and Bashir, 2014).

2.6.1. Escherichia coli

Globally E. coli is used as the preferred indicator of faecal pollution (Umar and Bashir,

2014). It is a Gram negative bacterium and predominantly an inhabitant of the intestines of

warm blooded animals and humans, which is used to indicate recent faecal pollution of water

samples (Oyihakilome et al., 2012; WHO, 2012; Uzoigwe et al., 2012). Confirmation tests

for E. coli include testing for the presence of the enzyme β-glucuronidase, Gram staining,

absence of urease activity, production of acid and gas from lactose and indole production

(Eke et al., 2014). Commercially available growth media containing the fluorogenic substrate

4-methylumbelliferyl-β-D-glucuronidase (MUG) is used for the isolation and identification of

E. coli from water samples (Ngele and Opara, 2013; Umar and Bashir, 2014). The E. coli

bacteria hydrolyse the MUG in the media, which then fluoresces under ultraviolet light

(Ngele and Opara, 2013; Umar and Bashir, 2014). However, false negative results on this

media have been found due to injured cells, lack of expression of the gene which codes for

the enzyme β-glucuronidase by the E. coli bacterium isolate, and non-utilization of the MUG

reagent in the media by some E. coli strains (Umar and Bashir, 2014; Oyhakilome et al.,

2012).

2.6.2. Faecal enterococci bacteria

Faecal enterococci bacteria are found in the genus Enterococcus and include species like

Enterococcus faecalis, Enterococcus faecium, Enterococcus durans and Enterococcus hirae

(WHO, 2012). The genus Enterococcus are differentiated from the genus Streptococcus by

16
their ability to grow in 6.5% sodium chloride, pH 9.6, temperatures of 45℃ and their

tolerance for adverse growth conditions. Faecal enterococci are spherical, Gram positive

bacteria, which are highly specific for human and animal faecal pollution (Standard Methods,

1995). Most of the species in the Enterococcus genus are of faecal origin and is regarded as

specific indicators of human faecal pollution, although some species are found in the faeces

of animals and plant material (Ngele and Opara, 2013).

Faecal enterococci rarely multiply in polluted water environments and are more resistant to

disinfection and treatment processes than the Gram negative faecal coliform bacteria. The

presence of faecal enterococci in water samples are therefore, an indication of the health risk

to waterborne diseases such as meningitis, endocarditis and infections of the eyes, ears and

skin (Ngele and Opara, 2013).

2.6.3 Clostridium perfringens bacteria

Clostridium perfringens is a Gram positive, sulphite reducing anaerobic, rod shaped, spore

forming bacteria normally present in faeces of humans and warm blooded animals. However,

C. perfringens are also found in soil and water environments. The spores can survive much

longer than coliform bacteria and are highly resistant to water disinfection and treatment

processes. Clostridium perfringens are therefore used as an indicator of faecal pollution to

indicate the potential presence of enteric viruses, which may include Enteroviruses,

Adenoviruses and Hepatitis viruses as well as the cysts and oocysts of protozoan parasites

such as Giardia, Entamoeba and Cryptosporidium in treated drinking water (Oyhakilome et

al., 2012; Eke et al., 2013). The enumeration test includes membrane filtration using specific

medium (e.g. mCP or Perfringens selective OPSP medium with supplements) and incubation

35°C to 37°C for 48h at in micro-aerophillic conditions to produce black colonies

(Oyhakilome et al., 2012).

17
2.6.4. Human and Animal Faecal Pollution in Water

The ratio between faecal coliform (FC) and faecal streptococci/enterococci (FS) counts in

water is an old method used in several earlier studies to determine the origin of faecal

pollution (Salem et al., 2014; Anake et al., 2013; Uzoigwe and Agwa, 2012; Salem et al.,

2014). This method is based on the fact that faecal streptococci/enterococci are more

abundant in animal faeces than in human faeces while faecal coliforms are more abundant in

human faeces than in animal faeces (Salem et al., 2014). The test stipulates that a FC: FS

ratio greater than 4 is indicative of human faeces and a FC: FS ration of less than 7 is

indicative of animal faecal pollution (Sobsey et al., 2002).

The limitation of this method is the variable survival rates of some faecal streptococci

species, which make this test unreliable (Uzoigwe and Agwa, 2012) have showed that

Enterococcus faecalis survives longer than Enterococcus faecium which survives longer than

Enterococcus durans which survives longer than Streptococcus equines and Streptococcus

bovis in water environments.

2.7. Source of Water Supplies

The World Health Organization (WHO) classifies source water supplies as either improved or

unimproved (WHO, 2000). Improved water sources include public standpipes, household

connections, boreholes, protected dug wells, protected springs, boreholes and springs

connected via a pipe system to a tap, as well as rainwater collection (WHO, 2000; Salem et

al., 2014). Unimproved water sources include unprotected wells, unprotected springs,

vendor-provided water, rivers as well as tanker truck provision of water (WHO, 2000; Eke et

al., 2013). Several studies carried out in developing countries have determined the

18
microbiological quality of these improved and unimproved water sources and depending on

the water source, different results were obtained (Utsev and Aho, 2012).

2.8. Water Quality Monitoring

Water quality monitoring forms an important component of managing the water quality of a

river in terms of assessing the health conditions of that river in order to ensure a healthy

aquatic environment. As stated earlier, certain water quality indicators such as dissolved

oxygen (DO), temperature, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) etc., need to be determined

and compared with specified limits set by regulatory agencies such as the National

Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (NESREA, 2011) in Nigeria.

The solubility of oxygen in water for instance, depends on temperature. At high temperature,

when bacterial actions are most rapid, the solubility of oxygen is reduced. Hence, conditions

in a polluted river usually are worse in warm weather; particularly if it coincides with low

flow season (Ogbaji et al., 2013).The rate of biodegradation is accelerated or retarded by

ambient temperature which affects the values of de-oxygenation and re-aeration rates.

Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), total organic carbon

and dissolved oxygen (DO) are the common parameters used in assessing the assimilative

capacity of a river. The BOD measures the amount of oxygen utilized by aerobic micro-

organisms during the oxidation of organic materials (Rao, 2006). It gives an indication of

water pollution potential of a given organic waste. The test has its widest application in

measuring waste loading to treatment plants and in evaluating the efficiency of such

treatment systems.

19
2.9. Retrospective Studies on rivers and streams receiving effluent discharges from

various waste sources

Water quality of various rivers and streams have been studied and monitored. Apeh and

Ekenta (2012) conducted a study on the surface water quality of Benue River within the reach

of the Makurdi brewery. In the study, water quality monitoring was carried out over a period

of six months for point and non-point source discharges of waste. The study concluded that

pollution in River Benue is influenced by natural regimes such as rainfall and discharges of

effluents, physical and chemical pollutions increased with rainfall while microbial pollution

is inversely proportional to rainfall. Similarly, Ogbaji et al. (2013) worked on the same river

and applied a mathematical model to describe the self-purification of the River Benue, and

concluded that self-purification of the polluted river is possible. Ogedengbe and Akinbile

(2010) carried out a comparative assessment of industrial and agricultural effluents on the

surface water of Ona stream in Ibadan, Nigeria with the aim of identifying major pollutants,

their effects on water qualities and to ascertain the potential of using the polluted surface

water for irrigation purposes. The result showed that the surface water from the Ona stream

was unsuitable for irrigation due to the attendant health hazards associated with the negative

effects of pathogens and toxic chemicals in the discharged wastewater.

Adedokun and Agunwamba (2013) modelled the effect of industrial effluents on water

quality of River Challawa in Nigeria. The study investigated the physicochemical

characteristics associated with industrial effluents from the Challawa and Sharada Industrial

Estate in Kano State, Nigeria and the effect on water quality downstream of River Challawa

for a period covering wet and dry seasons. The findings identified high BOD load and low

dissolved oxygen level, as contributing to a polluted stream with poor assimilatory capacity.

20
Ubwa et al. (2013) carried out assessment of surface water around Gboko abattoir to

determine the pollution status of water around the area. The study showed that the values of

measured parameters (BOD, DO, etc.), were below regulatory standards. The results also

showed that the activities at the abattoir were contributing to the pollution load of water in the

area, and recommended for close monitoring by the relevant agencies in order to prevent

further environmental problems and the attendant health hazards in the future. Chindah et al.

(2011) carried out a study on the water quality of streams receiving municipal waste in Port

Harcourt, Nigeria and found that the levels of DO observed for the study streams were so low

as to support aquatic life including fish. The low level oxygen was attributed to the increased

concentration of BOD, which tends to swiftly deplete oxygen in the stream. Sharma et al.

(2003) monitored the water quality of Hathli stream in lower Himalayan Region for

parameters of BOD and DO beside others, and established that those parameters were mainly

critical during very low discharges.

It has been established that the development of pathogenic viruses, bacteria, and fungi in

many rivers and streams are caused by indiscriminate discharge of wastewater into the river

system without adequate treatment. The inadequacy of the required treatment of wastewater

brings about negative public health, disruption of the aquatic ecosystem, and negative

environmental impacts including groundwater contamination and eutrophication of surface

water bodies (Omenka, 2010). The disposal of untreated wastewater into the surface water

bodies leads to serious problems and poses danger to public health. According to Corcoran et

al. (2010) failure to subject wastewater to the internationally acceptable treatment standards

before final disposal has a direct impact on the biological diversity of aquatic ecosystem

which would inevitably disrupt the integrity of our life support systems as a wide range of

sectors including urban development to food production and industries solely depend on it.

21
 CHAPTER THREE

MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Study area

The study was conducted in Abuja which is the capital city of The Federal Republic of

Nigeria. Abuja is located in the centre of the country and has 8,000 square kilometers of land

area. Abuja is a planned city and is bounded on the northern part by Kaduna State and on the

western part by Niger State, on the south-western part by Kogi State and south-eastern part

by Nasarawa state. It falls within latitude and longitude of 9.0765°N and 7.3986°E (FCDA,

2017).

Abuja has experienced a huge inflow of people reason being the nation’s capital, making it

one of the ten most populous cities in Nigeria. According to the United Nations, Abuja grew

by 139.7% between the year 2000 and 2010, making it the fastest growing city in the world.

The city is divided into six area councils which are Abuja Municipal, Gwagwalada, Kuje,

Abaji, Kwali and Bwari Area Councils. The Abuja Master Plan is projected to cater for 3.1

million people in the land of about 8,000 square kilometers when fully developed (Ikoku,

2014). This research study was conducted in phase one of Abuja Municipal Area Council that

has Garki 1, Wuse 1, Wuse 2, Garki 2, Asokoro, Maitama and Guzape as districts under it.

22
Figure 1: Administrative Map of Abuja Showing the Location of Wupa Waste Water

Treatment Plant and Wupa River

3.2 Sample collection

Samples were collected from the following locations during the course of the study

1. Effluent of the treatment plant

2. Upstream of the River

3. Intersection point of effluent and river

4. Downstream of the river

In collecting the samples for bacteriological analysis precautions were adhered to in other to

get accurate results. Personal protective equipment (PPE) were used which protected the

samples from contamination and also the researcher from being contaminated. The container

or sample bottle which the sample was collected in was sterile so as to prevent existing

23
microorganisms and bacterial spores from interfering with results. The sample bottle(s) were

opened inside the source of the sample and the sample was collected and closed inside the

same source so as to prevent atmospheric contamination because the air is full of various

microbes and spores which could interfere with the results. After the sample was obtained

and the sample bottles shut air tight, the samples were taken immediately for analysis and not

kept for too long to prevent changes in the original conditions of the sample.

3.3 Preparation and sterilization of media

Nutrient agar (NA), Salmonella-Shigella agar, MacConkey agar, E.C broth and Eosin

Methylene Blue (EMB) agar were used. The media were prepared according to

manufacturer’s instruction.

3.4 Bacteriological Analysis of the Water Samples

Serial dilution of the samples was done according to the method described by Willey et al.

(2008). Using the pour plate method, 1ml each of the serial diluents was aseptically

transferred into the sterile petri-dishes. Then, a freshly prepared MacConkey agar was poured

aseptically into each of the petri-dish and mixed by swirling the plate on the work bench.

This was also carried out using a Nutrient agar media. The plates were then incubated at 370C

for 24hours. After incubation, the resultant colonies were observed under the colony counter

with the aid a magnifier.

3.4.1 Total bacterial load

Total bacterial load can be said to be the summation of all visible bacterial colonies that are

present in a given sample. Using direct counting method with the aid of a colony counter.

 Nutrient agar was dissolved in distilled water according to the manufacturer’s

instructions

24
  Then it was autoclaved at 121˚C for 15 minutes at 15 psi

 In a sterilized petri dish, 1 ml of inoculum (sample) was pipetted.

 Pour over it the molten agar (Nutrient agar) prepared. Then swirl for mixture (enough

quantity to cover the bottom of the petri dish)

 It was allowed to solidify

 the petri dish was inverted

 Incubated at 37˚C for 24 hrs.

 After 24hrs, count the entire distinct colony on the plate.

 Plates can be divided into 4 quadrants to enable efficient counting

3.4.2 Total coliform count (TCC)

Total coliform count is a measure of the total coliforms present in a sample but from fecal

and non-fecal origin

Pour Plate Method

Procedures

 2.4g of MacConkey agar was dissolved in 50 ml of distilled water

 Then it was autoclaved at 121˚C for 15 minutes at 15 psi

 In a sterilized petri dish, 1 ml of inoculum (sample) was pipetted.

 Pour over it the molten agar (MacConkey) prepared. Then swirl for mixture (enough

quantity to cover the bottom of the petri dish)

 It was allowed to solidify

25
  the petri dish was inverted

 Incubated at 37˚C for 24 hrs.

 After 24hrs, count the entire pinkish red, distinct colony on the plate. Coliform appear

pinkish red on MacConkey agar.

3.4.3 Faecal Coliform Test

Presumptive, confirmatory and completed test for detection of the presence of coliforms was

carried out according to the methods described by Chessbrough (2004).

Presumptive Test

Inverted Durham tubes were inserted into the McCartney bottles. 10ml of already prepared

Escherichia coli broth was added to the McCartney bottle containing inverted Durham tubes,

which was then inoculated with 10ml, 1ml and 0.1ml dilution factors. The McCartney bottles

were then incubated by placing in an oven at 370C for 24hours. This was done to determine

the presence of coliform bacteria in the water samples and also to obtain some index as to the

possible number of organism present in the samples under analysis. The bottles were

examined for the production of both gas and acid, which indicates positive bottles.

Confirmatory Test

After the incubation of the cultures, a positive tube from the presumptive test of the analysis

was then inoculated on the EMB agar plate for confirmatory analysis. The plates were then

streaked with the positive 24hours old Lactose culture obtained from the presumptive test.

The same culture was also inoculated on the Salmonella-Shigella (SS) agar. The plates were

then incubated in an inverted position for 24hours at 370C and were checked for Green,

metallic sheen for E. coli, and Colorless, Translucent for Shigella and Translucent with a
26
black centre for Salmonella. All these were done to confirm the presence of coliform bacteria

in the water samples showing a positive presumptive test.

Completion Test

The completed test was carried out in order to confirm the presence of coliform bacteria in

the water samples. It is necessary to confirm a suspicious but doubtful result of the previous

test. One 24hour old coliform positive EMB culture from each of the three series of dilutions

of the confirmed test, that is, 10ml, 1ml and 0.1ml were inoculated on a Lactose broth, EMB

agar and also on Nutrient agar slant and all were incubated for 24hours at 370C.

3.5 Determination of Physio-Chemical Parameters of the Water Samples

The physical parameters which include electrical conductivity, temperature, pH, Dissolved

Oxygen, Nitrate, Nitrite, Ammonia, biochemical oxygen demand were determined according

to the methods described by APHA (2005).

3.5.1 Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5)

Biochemical oxygen demand is the amount of dissolved oxygen needed by aerobic micro-

organisms to breakdown organic matter present in a given sample at a certain temperature

over a specific period of time.

 600 ml of sample was measured into a beaker and placed on a magnetic stirrer,

saturate for 10 minutes.

 The measuring bottle and BOD bottles were rinsed with the sample to be analysed.

 164 ml or 432 ml of sample was measured, 164 ml for highly concentrated samples

and 432 ml for less concentrated samples like effluent, upstream.

 The measured sample was poured into the BOD bottle with the help of a funnel.

 A quiver was inserted and I added 2 full whole round pellets of NaOH.

27
  I covered with the read-out cover.

 Press and hold down S and M button together on the cover until the reading changes

to 0,

 It was incubated at 20˚C for 5 days.

 Results were read

3.5.2 Ammonia (NH3)

The sample was tested for the total ammonia present using the colorimetric method

Procedure

 Pipette 5 ml of sample into a clean test tube

 Add 5 drops of reagent 1 and Shake

 Add 5 drops of reagent 2 and Shake

 Add 5 drops of reagent 3 and Shake

 Leave to stand for 10 minutes

 Check the colour change against the colour map

3.5.3 Nitrate (NO3-)

The sample will be tested for the total nitrate present using the colorimetric method

Procedure

 Pipette 5 ml of sample into a test tube

 Add 6 drops of reagent 1 and Shake

 Add 1 drop of reagent 2 and shake

 Shake till it dissolves completely

28
  Leave for 10 minutes

 Then check against the colour map

3.5.4 Nitrite as N (NO2-)

The sample will be tested for the total nitrite present using the colorimetric method

Procedure

 Pipette 5 ml of sample into a test tube

 Add 6 drops of reagent 1 and Shake

 Shake for 2 minutes

 Check against the colour map

3.5.5 pH

The acidity or alkalinity of the sample was measured using a pH meter

Procedure

 Measure 100 ml of sample in a beaker

 Rinse the electrode with the sample

 Insert the electrode into the beaker

 Read off the pH from the pH meter

3.5.6 Electrical Conductivity (EC)

The electrical conductivity of the sample was measured to determine the amount of charge

carrying ions present.

Procedure

 Measure 100 ml of sample in a beaker

29
  Rinse the electrode with the sample

 Insert the electrode into the beaker

 Read off the EC from the EC meter

3.5.7 Dissolved Oxygen

The amount of soluble oxygen present was measured using a D.O meter

Procedure

 Measure 100 ml of sample in a beaker

 Rinse the electrode with the sample

 Insert the electrode into the beaker

 Read off the D.O from the D.O meter

3.6 Statistical Analysis

Results were presented in Tables and represented in percentages. Data obtained were

subjected to statistical analysis using SPSS version 23. Comparative analysis of the results

was carried out using T-test to show the relationship between variables.

30
 CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS

4.1. Physicochemical analysis of Effluent Discharge of the Wupa Sewage Plant

The physicochemical analysis of the Effluent discharge of the Wupa sewage plant is

presented in Table 1. Results obtained showed that pH ranged from 6.63-6.88 with highest

pH recorded for upstream (6.88) while lowest was recorded for effluent (6.63). Highest

temperature readings was obtained for effluent (24.05) followed by discharge point (23.40),

upstream (23.05) and downstream (22.50). Electrical conductivity was highest for effluent

(283.00) followed by downstream (264.00), upstream (261.00) and discharge point (256.50).

In terms of dissolved oxygen, highest values was obtained for effluent (9.02) followed by

discharge point (8.63), downstream (8.44) and upstream (8.39). Biological oxygen demand

was highest for upstream and downstream (16.00 each) followed by discharge point (14.00)

and effluent (12.00). Nitrite content was highest for upstream (2.65) followed by downstream

(2.40), discharge point (2.00) and effluent (0.00). Nitrate content was highest for upstream

(12.98) followed by downstream (12.50), discharge point (10.95) and effluent (10.00).

Ammonium content was highest for upstream (0.25) followed by discharge point (0.10),

effluent (0.10) and downstream (0.05).

4.2. Total Bacterial Counts of Effluent Discharge at the Wupa Sewage Plant

The total bacterial counts of Effluent discharge at the Wupa sewage plant is presented in

Table 2. Results obtained showed that upstream recorded 14.0x103 and 15.0x103 in the

morning and evening periods respectively. Downstream recorded 10.5x103 and 13.5x105 in

the morning and evening respectively, Discharge recorded 7.0x103 and 8.5x103 in the

morning and evening respectively while effluent recorded 3.0x10 3 and 3.5x103 in the morning

31
and evening respectively. T-test showed that there was a significant relationship between

period of day and the total bacterial counts (P<0.05).

32
Table 1: Physicochemical Analysis of the Effluent Discharge of the Wupa Sewage Plant

Site of Collection

Upstream Downstream Discharge Effluent Range

Parameters
Point

pH 6.88±0.04 6.85±0.04 6.83±0.00 6.63±0.16 6.63-6.88

Temperature 23.05±0.77 22.50±0.71 23.40±0.84 24.05±1.48 22.50-24.05

EC 261.00±26.7 264.00±15.55 256.50±9.19 283.00±32. 261.00-

5 283.00

DO 8.39±0.11 8.44±0.01 8.63±0.04 9.02±0.17 8.39-9.02

BOD 16.00±0.00 16.00±0.00 14.00±0.00 12.00±0.00 12.00=16.00

Nitrite 2.65±0.07 2.40±0.00 2.00±0.00 0.00±0.00 0.00-2.65

Nitrate 12.98±0.02 12.50±0.28 10.95±0.07 10.00±0.00 10.00-12.98

Ammonia 0.25±0.07 0.05±0.00 0.10±0.00 0.10±0.00 0.05-0.25

33
Table 2: Total Bacterial Counts of Effluent Discharge at the Wupa Sewage Plant

Period of Day Site of Collection

Upstream Downstream Discharge Effluent

Morning 14.0 x103 10.5 x103 7.0 x103 3.0 x 103

Evening 15.0 x 103 13.5 x 103 8.5x103 3.5 x 103

t=2.16; P= 0.07;

34
4.3. Distribution of Bacteria at the Wupa Sewage Plant with respect to Period of Day

The distribution of bacteria at the Wupa sewage plant with respect to period of day is shown

in Table 3. Results obtained showed that 30.0% of the bacteria isolated in the morning

periods was E. coli while 20.0% and 50.0% of them were Salmonella and Shigella

respectively. Also 31.70% of the bacteria isolated during the evening periods was E. coli

while 22.20% and 46.03% of bacteria isolated in the evening periods was Salmonella and

Shigella respectively. Statistical analysis showed that there was a significant relationship

between period of day and species distribution of bacteria (P<0.05).

4.4. Distribution of Bacteria at the Wupa Sewage Plant with respect to Site of

Collection

The distribution of bacteria at the Wupa sewage plant with respect to site of collection is

presented in Table 4. Results obtained showed that 30.0% of the total number of bacteria

from upstream are E. coli, while 25.00% and 45.00% of the total number of bacteria from

downstream are Salmonella and Shigella respectively. At the downstream region, 29.42%,

20.58% and 50.00% of the bacteria isolated were E. coli, Salmonella sp. And Shigella sp.

Respectively. At the discharge point, 33.33% of the total number of bacteria isolated were E.

coli, while 18.51% and 48.15% of them were Salmonella sp. And Shigella sp. respectively.

Also, at the effluent site, 33.33% of the bacteria isolated were E. coli while 16.66% and

50.00% were Salmonella sp. And Shigella sp. respectively. There was no significant

association between location and bacteria distribution (P>0.05).

35
Table 3: Distribution of Bacteria at the Wupa Sewage Plant with respect to Period of

Day

Period of the Bacteria Total

Day

E. coli Salmonella Shigella

Morning 15(30.00%) 10(20.00%) 25(50.00%) 50(44.20%)

Evening 20(31.70%) 14(22.20%) 29(46.03%) 63(55.75%)

Total 35(30.00%) 24(21.23%) 54(47.70%) 113(100.00%)

t= 6.35; P= 0.00

36
Table 4: Distribution of Bacteria at the Wupa Sewage Plant with respect to Site of

Collection

Bacteria

Location E. coli Salmonella Shigella sp. Total

sp.

Upstream 12(30.00%) 10(25.00%) 18(45.00%) 40(35.39%)

Downstream 10(29.42%) 7(20.58%) 17(50.00%) 34(18.52%)

Discharge Point 9(33.33%) 5(18.51%) 13(48.15%) 27(23.89%)

Effluent 4(33.33%) 2(16.66%) 6(50.00%) 12(10.62%)

Total 35(30.97%) 24(21.24%) 54(47.78%) 113(100.0%)

t= 5.64; P= 0.57

37
4.5. Faecal Coliform Count at the Wupa Sewage Plant

The faecal coliform count at the Wupa Sewage plant is shown in Table 5. Results obtained

showed that the upstream and Downstream regions had >1600 coliforms at both evenings

and morning periods. Discharge recorded >240 and >350 coliforms in the morning and

evening periods respectively while Effluent recorded >240 for both morning and evening

periods respectively.

38
Table 5: Faecal Coliform Count at the Wupa Sewage Plant

Period of Day Faecal Coliform (MPN/100ml)

Upstream Downstream Discharge Effluent

Morning >1600 >1600 >240 >240

Evening >1600 >1600 >350 >240

39
 CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1. Discussion

This study was conducted to bacteriologically analyse the effect of Effluent Discharge from

the Wupa Sewage treatment plant on the Wupa River. Findings from the physicochemical

parameters of different sections of the water revealed a pH range of 6.63-6.88. This range is

within the national guidelines of 6.0-9.0 presented by the Federal Ministry of Environment

(2013). This finding is in agreement with the report of Saminu et al. (2019) who reported a

similar range of pH value in their study on Performance Evaluation of Wupa Waste Water

treatment Plant, Abuja, Federal Capital Territory, Nigeria. A Temperature range of 22.50-

24.050C characteristic of this study is also within the recommended temperature range of

<400C by the Federal Ministry of Environment (2013). This implies that the water from the

Wupa sewage plant is safe for human use on basis of temperature and pH.

In terms of Electrical conductivity, higher readings were obtained for Effluent waters but was

with above the recommended limit by the Ministry of Environment (2013) who reported a

recommended conductivity limit of 50-125. The dissolved oxygen content was higher than

the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (FEPA) limit values of 7.2 mg/L. This finding

differs from that of Ugoh et al. (2013) who reported lower values for dissolved oxygen and

an acceptable amount of 7.3 which is okay for use. According to Ugoh et al. (2013) an

indication of the organic oxygen demand content of wastewater can be obtained by

measuring the dissolved oxygen content of the wastewater. Differences observed between the

findings of this study and that of Ugoh et al. (2013) might be as a result of seasonal variations

which might affect the amount of oxygen available to be dissolved in the water per time.

40
This study examined the total bacterial counts of water at the Wupa Sewage Plant. Results

obtained revealed a higher bacterial count in the upstream region at both morning (14.0 x103)

and evening periods (15.0 x 103) compared to the other sites of collection. A possible reason

for this is that the water coming from the upstream region is untreated and as such contains a

higher microbial load when compared to the effluent regions which has a considerable

amount of water treatment as well as other parts of the water. This statement is similar to

what Ugoh et al. (2013) posited when they reported that wastewaters are treated to eliminate

pathogenic microorganisms and prevent waterborne transmission using UV radiation,

indicating that microbial load of the water body ought to decrease when treated as against

leaving them untreated. This outcome was validated in this study.

In terms of period of day at which sample was collected, it was observed that bacterial

content of the river was higher during the evenings (55.75%) when compared to the morning

periods (44.20%). Differential bacterial contents of the water at Wupa might be due to the

effect of sunlight on bacteria populations since it is known that sunlight determines the

availability of microbes in an area. Statistical analysis further revealed a significant

relationship between period of day and distribution of bacteria (P<0.05) implying that the

amount of bacteria to be encountered is a function of the period of day during which the

samples were collected.

Highest bacterial occurrence (35.39%) was observed in upstream region of the water while

lowest bacterial occurrence was observed in the effluent part of the water. This finding is in

agreement with the report of Ugoh et al. (2013) who reported highest occurrence of bacterial

isolates in the entry points compared to the exit point where a lower percentage of bacterial

isolates was observed A possible reason for the high bacterial occurrence in the entry point

(upstream) is as a result of lack of treatment of the water in that region since the water

41
coming from the upstream is untreated and highly contaminated with microbes. It was also

observed that the microbial load at the exit point was higher than that of the effluent. This is a

pointer to the fact that wastewater treatment reduces but does not guarantee the complete

elimination of bacteria in agreement with Ugoh et al. (2013) and Salem et al. (2011).

Three major bacterial isolates were encountered in this study: Escherichia coli, Salmonella

spp. and Shigella spp. These bacterial isolates belong to the genera of potential pathogenic

bacteria. The bacteria isolated are similar to those isolated by Ugoh et al. (2013) where

Escherichia coli, Streptococcus spp., Salmonella spp. and Shigella spp were encountered.

The isolation of these organisms is of great health concern because this domestic wastewater

was collected at the point of discharge into a nearby river, which may not only serve as a

source of drinking water to the immediate community but also as a source of food (i.e.

through fishing). Escherichia coli, Salmonella spp. and Shigella spp. are associated with

water borne diseases and reports from available health outposts in the areas in which this

study was carried out revealed typhoid fever, dysentery, cholera and hepatitis to be the most

prevalent (Doughari et al., 2007).

Furthermore, the faecal coliform of the Wupa sewage plant was lowest in the effluent region

(>240) and highest in the upstream region (>1600). This values exceeds the World Health

Organization (WHO) and Federal Environmental Protection Agency (FEPA) standard for

faecal coliform in domestic water which is zero faecal coliform per 100ml (WHO, 2009;

FEPA, 2005).

5.2. Conclusion

Water treatment remains the mainstay for ensuring safety of water for human consumption

and other uses. Dilution of the water from the upstream by the effluent results in a degree of

42
purification for the downstream water. This process provides water with better quality than

would have been obtained if the effluent was unavailable.

5.3. Recommendations

Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations were made:

- More waste water treatment plants should be built which helps treat domestic wastes

from homes and communities. This will help in the purification of the environment by

returning cleaner eco-friendly effluent back to water bodies.

- Better management patterns for water should be explored and utilized appropriately

so as to ensure that water quality is improved greatly in all localities of Nigeria.

- Further research in this aspect of knowledge should be necessitated so as to provide

adequate literatures for government to see the need to provide better water options for

her citizens

43
 REFERENCES

Adedokun, T. A. and Agunwamba, J. C. (2013). Modeling the Effect of Industrial

Effluents on Water Quality: A Case Study of River Challawa in Nigeria.
International Journal of Modern Engineering Research, 3 (5):2797-2803.

Anake WU, Ehi-Eromosele CO, Adeniyi IO, Taiwo O.S. (2013). Physio-chemical and
microbial assessment of different water sources in Ota, Ogun State, Nigeria.
International Journal of Current Research, 1797-1801.

Apeh, S. and Ekenta, O. E. (2012). “Assessment of Surface Water Quality of River Benue at
Makurdi.” Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and Applied Sciences
(JETEAS), 3(6): 904-913.

Chessbrough, M., (2004). Medical Laboratory Manual for Tropical Countries, (4th Ed).
Cambridge University Press, Cape Town, Pp. 143-157.

Chindah, A. C., Braide, S. A. and Obunwo, C. C. (2011). Water Quality of Streams

Receiving Municipal Waste Water in Port Harcourt, Niger Delta, Nigeria, Waste
Water - Evaluation and Management, Prof. Fernando Sebastian Garcia Einschlag
(Ed.), In Tech, DOI: 10.5772/16186. http://www.intechopen.com/ books/waste-
water-evaluation-andmanagement/water-qualityof-streamsreceiving-municipal-
waste-water-in-portharcourt-niger-delta-nigeria

Choudhary, A and Ojha, D. (2012). Process and Function of Advance Waste Water
Treatment Technology for Textile Based Effluent. International Journal of Geology,
Earth and Environmental Sciences, 2 (2) 300-310.

Chris, W.P. (2012). Water Quality: Alkalinity and Hardness. University of Florida.
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ss540. Retrived on 25th July 2011 at 1:00pm

Doughari, J. H., Dodo, J. S. and Mbuh, F. A. (2007). Impact of Effluent from Gudu District
Sewage Treatment Plant on Gudu Stream in Abuja, Nigeria. Journal of Applied
Science and Environmental Management, 11(1): 79-83.

Efe S.I., Ogban F.E., Horsfall M.Jnr., and Akporhonor E.E. (2005). Seasonal variations of
Physio-chemical characteristics in water resources Quality in western Niger Delta
Region Nigeria J. Appl. Sci. Environ. Mgt. 9(1): 191-195

Eke VC, Edward KC, Shedrack IF. Microbiological and physicochemical characteristics of
Iyi-Nna Stream,Umuariaga, Ikwano L.G.A, Abia State, Nigeria. Journal of Public
Health and Basic Science, 2013, 8: 44-49.

EPA, US (2012), Ground Water Rule (GWR). Water.epa.gov. Retrieved on 04/06/2012

Federal Capital Development Authority (FCDA) (2017). The Geography of Abuja. Available
at http://fcda.gov.ng/index.php/about-fcda/the-geography-of-abuja. Assessed on 27
June, 2017.

44
Federal Environmental Protection Agency (FEPA). (2005). National Environmental
Protection Regulations (Effluent Limitation) Regulations. Federal Republic of
Nigeria Official Gazette, Lagos, Pp. 42-78.

Federal Ministry of Environmental (FMEnv). (2013). National Environmental Protection

Regulations (Effluent Limitation) Regulations. Federal Republic of Nigeria Official
Gazette, Lagos, Pp. 42-78

Hamil, L. and Bell, F.G. (1986). Ground water Resource Development. Butterworths 8, 255-
275.

Ikoku, G. (2014). The City as Public Space: Abuja - the Capital City of Nigeria. Forum. Vol.
6, Issue 1 pp 34-45. Available at http://research.ncl.ac.uk/forum/v6i1/ikoku.pdf.
Accessed on 27 June, 2017.

Khaniki GRJ, Zarei A , Kamkar A, Fazlzadehdavil M , Ghaderpoori , Marei A. (2010).

Bacteriological evaluation of bottled water from domestic brands in Tehran markets,
Iran. World Applied Sciences Journal, 2010; 8:274-8.

Khatoon A, Pirzada ZA. (2010). Bacteriological quality of bottled water brands in Karachi,
Pakistan. Biologia (Pakistan), 56:137-43.

Long, E. O., Omole, D. O., Adewunmi, I. K. and Ogbiye, A. S. (2010). Water Resources Use,
Abuse and Regulations in Nigeria. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa,
12(2): 35-44

National Environmental Standards Regulation and Enforcement Agency-NESREA (2011)

Surface and Ground Water Quality Control Regulation, Vol. 98, No.136.

Ngele K.K. and Opara, O.D. (2013). Microbial and biochemical assessments of streams used
for drinking in Afikpo North L.G. A., Ebonyi State Nigeria. Global Journal of
Bioscience & Biotechnology, 2: 530-533.

Nwachukwu E. and Ume, C.A. (2013). Bacteriological and physicochemical qualities of

drinking water sources in local area of Eastern Nigeria. Journal of Environmental
Science & W Res, 2: 336-341.

Ogbaji, E. O, Jidauna, G. G, Odoh, R. and Agene, E. I. (2013). “Mathematical Modelling of

Self Purification of River Benue Water Quality Control.” International Journal of
Modern Chemistry, 5(2):118-126.

Ogedengbe, K. and Akinbile, C. O. (2010). “Comparative Analysis of the Impact of

Industrial and Agricultural Effluents on Ona Stream in Ibadan, Nigeria.” New York
Science Journal, 3(7):25-33.

Omenka, E. (2010). Improvement of Decentralized Wastewater Treatment in Asaba, Nigeria.

Masters’ Thesis, Lund University, Sweden.

Onifade A.K. and Ilori, R.M. (2008). Microbiological analysis of sachet water vended in
Ondo state, Nigeria. Environmental Research Journal, 2:107-10.

45
Onweluzo JC, Akuagbazie C.A. (2015). Assessment of the quality of bottled and sachet water
sold in Nsukka town. Agro Science Journal, 1:15-20.

Oyhakilome GI, Aiyesanmi AF, Akharaiyi FC. Water quality assessment of the Owena multi-
purpose Dam, Ondo State, South-western Nigeria. Journal of Environmental
Protection, 2012, 3: 14-25.

Rajana A. (2010). Physio-Chemical Analysis of some Groundwater Samples of Kotputli

Town Jaipur, Rajasthan India, 1(2): 111-113.

Rao, C. S. (2006). Environmental Pollution Control Engineering. New Ages International

Publishers Ltd. “2ed. New Delhi, India.

Salem W.M., Sayed, W.F. and Damarany K.A. (2014). Seasonal physicochemical and
microbiological pollutants potable water in Qena Governorate, Egypt. African
Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 8: 730-739.

Salem, I. B. Imen, O., Mouna, H. and Mahjoub, A. (2011). Bacteriological and Physio-
chemical Assessment of wastewater in different region of Tunisia: impact on human
health. BMC Research Notes, 4(144):1-11.

Saminu, A., Chukwujama, I.A., Garba, D.A. and Namadi, M.M. (2017). Performance
Evaluation of Wupa Waste Water Treatment Plant Abuja, Federal Capital Territory,
Nigeria. American Journal of Engineering Research, 6(11):85-90.

Sharma, M. R, Shamar, R. K., Gupta, A. B. and Bassin, J. K. (2003). “Water Quality

Assessment of Hathli Stream in Lower Himalayan region.” Journal IAEM, 30: 64-
67.

Shittu OB, Olaitan JO, Amusa TS. Physicochemical and bacteriological analysis of water
used for drinking and swimming purposes in Abeokuta, Nigeria. African Journal of
Biotechnology, 2008, 11: 285-290.

Singh, B., Khurana S.C., Manish K., Tadav N., and Yadav R. (2012). Seasonal Variation of
Coliforms and Nitrate in Groundwater Quality in Kanpur Metro. India.
International Journal of Research in Chemistry and Environment, 2(2):207-209.

Sobsey, M. D. (2002). Managing water in the home: accelerated health gains from improved
water supply. Water, Sanitation and Health Department of Protection of the Human
Environment, World Health Organization, (WHO), Geneva, pp. 1–70.

Suthra, .S. Bishnoi, P., Singh, S. Mutiyar, P.K., Nema, A.K. and Patil, N.S. (2009). Nitrate
contamination in groundwater of some rural areas of Rajasthan, Department of Civil
engineering, Indian Institute of Technology New Delhi India, pp.101.

Suthra, .S. Bishnoi, P., Singh, S. Mutiyar, P.K., Nema, A.K. and Patil, N.S. (2009). Nitrate
contamination in groundwater of some rural areas of Rajasthan, Department of Civil
engineering, Indian Institute of Technology New Delhi India, pp.101.

Ubwa, S. T. Atoo, G. H., Ofem, J. O., Abah, J. and Asemave, K. (2013). “An Assessment of
Surface Water Pollution Status around Gboko Abattoir.” African Journal of Pure and
Applied Chemistry, 7(3): 131-138.

46
Ugoh, S.C., Nneji, L.M. and Atoyebi, B.A (2013). Bacteriological and Physicochemical
Assessment of Wastewater from Wupa Wastewater Treatment Plant, Abuja. World
Rural Observations, 5(11):1-6.

Ugoh, S.C., Nneji, L.M. and Atoyebi, B.A. Bacteriological and Physio-Chemical Assessment
of Wastewater from Wupa Wastewater Treatment Plant, Abuja. World Rural
Observation, 2013;5(11):74-79].

Umar Z.D. and Bashir A. (2014). Assessment of potential health impacts on surface water
sources in Northern Nigeria. International Journal of Environment, 3: 125-136.

United Nations (2000). Water Quality and Sanitation, available online at www.who.int.

Utsev, J.T. and Aho, M.I. (2012). Water shortage and health problems in Benue State-
Nigeria: Impacts and prospects for solutions. International Journal of Science and
Technology Research, 1-8.

Uzoigwe CI, Agwa O.K. (2012). Microbiological quality of water collected from boreholes
sited near refuse dumpsites in Port Harcourt. African Journal of Biotechnology, 11:
3135-3139.

WHO (2000). WHO (2003). HPC and Drinking Water safety: An Expert Workshop of 32
Scientists. WHO.

WHO (2012). Water Sanitation and Health Programme. Managing water in the home:
Accelerated health gains from improved water sources available at www.who.int.

World Health Organization (WHO) (2009). Global Water Supply and Sanitation Assessment.
WHO Press, Switzerland, 1: 2-10.

47
 APPENDIX I

Descriptives

[DataSet2] C:\Users\i2know\Documents\Alexis\analysis\
Tobi_physicochemicals.sav

Descriptive Statistics

N Mean Std. Deviation

PH_Upstream 2 6.8805 .04172

PH_Downstream 2 6.8515 .04031
PH_Discharge 2 6.8275 .00636
PH_Effluent 2 6.6320 .16688
Temp_Upstream 2 23.0500 .77782
Temp_Downstream 2 22.5000 .70711
Temp_Discharge 2 23.4000 .84853
Temp_Effluent 2 24.0500 1.48492
EC_Upstream 2 261.0000 26.87006
EC_Downstream 2 264.0000 15.55635
EC_discharge 2 256.5000 9.19239
EC_Effluent 2 283.0000 32.52691
DO_Upstream 2 8.3900 .11314
DO_Downstream 2 8.4400 .01414
DO_Discharge 2 8.6300 .04243
DO_Effluent 2 9.0250 .17678
BOD_Upstream 2 16.0000 .00000
BOD_Dowstream 2 16.0000 .00000
BOD_DischargePoint 2 14.0000 .00000
BOD_Effluent 2 12.0000 .00000
Nitrite_Upstream 2 2.6500 .07071
Nitrite_Downstream 2 2.4000 .00000
Nitrite_Discharge 2 2.0000 .00000
Nitrite_Effluent 2 .0000 .00000
Nitrate_Upstream 2 12.9800 .02828
Nitrate_Downstream 2 12.5000 .28284
Nitrate_Dischargee 2 10.9500 .07071
Nitrate_Effluent 2 10.0000 .00000
Ammonia_Upstream 2 .2500 .07071
Ammonia_downstream 2 .0500 .07071
Ammonia_Discharge 2 .1000 .00000
Ammonia_Effluent 2 .1000 .00000

48
 Valid N (listwise) 2

T-Test
Paired Samples Statistics

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Period_of_day 1.5400 75000 .49840 .00182

Pair 1
Site_of_collection 1.9933 75000 .96952 .00354

Paired Samples Correlations

N Correlation Sig.

Period_of_day &
Pair 1 75000 .021 .000
Site_of_collection

Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences t df Sig. (2-

Mean Std. Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval of tailed)

Deviation Mean the Difference

Lower Upper

Period_of_day - -
Pair 1 -.45333 1.08067 .00395 -.46107 -.44560 74999 .000
Site_of_collection 114.883

DATASET ACTIVATE DataSet1.

T-TEST PAIRS=Period_of_day WITH Bacteria (PAIRED)
/CRITERIA=CI(.9500)
/MISSING=ANALYSIS.

T-Test
Paired Samples Statistics

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Period_of_day 1.5575 113 .49889 .04693

Pair 1
Bacteria 2.1681 113 .87528 .08234

Paired Samples Correlations

N Correlation Sig.

49
 Pair 1 Period_of_day & Bacteria 113 -.033 .732

Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences t df Sig. (2-

tailed)
Mean Std. Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval of
Deviation Mean the Difference

Lower Upper

Period_of_day -
Pair 1 -.61062 1.02150 .09609 -.80102 -.42022 -6.354 112 .000
Bacteria

DATASET ACTIVATE DataSet2.

T-TEST PAIRS=Location WITH Bacteria (PAIRED)
/CRITERIA=CI(.9500)
/MISSING=ANALYSIS.

T-Test
[DataSet2] C:\Users\i2know\Documents\Alexis\analysis\
Tobi_bacteria_collection.sav
Paired Samples Statistics

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Location 2.0973 113 1.00858 .09488

Pair 1
Bacteria 2.1681 113 .87528 .08234

Paired Samples Correlations

N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 Location & Bacteria 113 .002 .987

Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences t df Sig. (2-

Mean Std. Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval of tailed)

Deviation Mean the Difference

Lower Upper

Location -
Pair 1 -.07080 1.33441 .12553 -.31952 .17793 -.564 112 .574
Bacteria

50
51