hydrology

Article
Lithological Identification and Underground Water
Conditions in Jeddo Using Geophysical and
Geochemical Methods
Ruth Iserhien-Emekeme 1, *, Merrious Oviri Ofomola 1 ID
, Musa Bawallah 2 and
Ochuko Anomohanran 1
1 Department of Physics, Delta State University, 330106 Abraka, Nigeria; ovirimerrious@yahoo.com (M.O.O.);
mrochuko@yahoo.com (O.A.)
2 Department of Applied Geophysics, Federal University of Technology, 340252 Akure, Nigeria;
musabawallah@gmail.com
* Correspondence: ruth.emekeme1@gmail.com

Received: 18 July 2017; Accepted: 16 August 2017; Published: 21 August 2017

Abstract: Resistivity soundings and hydrogeochemical methods were carried out in order to establish
the characteristics of the aquifer in Jeddo, Southern Nigeria. Results of the resistivity sounding
revealed that the formation is made up of clay, clayey sand, and fine- to coarse-grained sand. The mean
depth of the aquifer was obtained as 12.7 m while the aquifer resistivity ranged from 161 to 1728 Ωm.
The mean value of transmissivity obtained for the aquifer is 169 m2 day−1 while analysis of the
transmissivity revealed that about 6% of the study area has greatest potential for a productive
aquifer. The study also revealed that the underground water flows in the northeast–southwest
direction. The hydro geochemical analysis of water samples showed that some parameters such as
lead, color and pH exceeded the permissible limits, which were established by Federal Environmental
Protection Agency and the World Health Organization. It is concluded from the water quality index
(WQI) that the groundwater is of poor quality and requires some remediation before it can be used
for domestic and industrial purposes.

Keywords: electrical resistivity; aquifer transmissivity; aquifer protective capacity; groundwater

flow; water quality index

1. Introduction
Jeddo, the study area, is in the western part of the Niger Delta region of Delta State, Nigeria. It has
altitude of about 23 m, an elevation of about 3–12 m above sea level and it is about 437 km south-west of
the country’s capital city, Abuja. It lies between latitude 5.583◦ N and 5.600◦ N and longitude 5.710◦ E
and 5.716◦ E (Figure 1). The area is characterized by tropical equatorial climate with a mean annual
temperature of 32.8 ◦ C and an annual rainfall of 2673.8 mm [1]. It is an established fact that the annual
temperature and amount of rainfall is highly variable from year to year [2]. The region has witness an
influx of people in recent times due to its proximity to the Warri Refinery and Petrochemical Company
(WRPC), resulting in an ever-rising demand for water. Municipal water supply is not available in the
community, thus several water wells have been drilled by individuals without preliminary geophysical,
geological, and hydrogeological investigation, in search of potable drinking water.
The lithological identification of the subsurface and underground water characteristics of an area
can be effectively determined by drilling of several boreholes and interpretation of the soil and water
samples collected. This is both cost- and labor-intensive. Today however, great emphasis is placed on
planned exploration and utilization of water resources which is a non-invasive, relatively cheap and
quantitative technique. This exploration requires the use of various geophysical, hydrogeological and

Hydrology 2017, 4, 42; doi:10.3390/hydrology4030042 www.mdpi.com/journal/hydrology

 Hydrology 2017, 4, 42 2 of 15
Hydrology 2017, 4, 42 2 of 15

on planned exploration and utilization of water resources which is a non-invasive, relatively cheap
and quantitative
geochemical methods technique.
such as This exploration
seismic, requires the
electromagnetic, use of various
magnetic, ground geophysical, hydrogeological
probing radar, and electrical
and geochemical methods
resistivity methods among others. such as seismic, electromagnetic, magnetic, ground probing radar, and
electrical resistivity
The surface methods
electrical among others.
resistivity method uses various techniques and instruments in its
The surface electrical resistivity method uses various techniques and instruments in its
investigation and is useful in determining the thickness and resistivity distribution of the subsurface [3].
investigation and is useful in determining the thickness and resistivity distribution of the subsurface
The technique measures the properties of an earth material, which are related to hydraulic parameters.
[3]. The technique measures the properties of an earth material, which are related to hydraulic
The success of the method is due to the variation of conductivity within the earth’s subsurface layers,
parameters. The success of the method is due to the variation of conductivity within the earth’s
which in turn affects the distribution of electric potential. The degree of this effect depends on the
subsurface layers, which in turn affects the distribution of electric potential. The degree of this effect
shape, size, location
depends and bulk
on the shape, size,electrical resistivity
location and of the subsurface
bulk electrical resistivity layers. The bulk electrical
of the subsurface layers. Theresistivity
bulk
depends on the mineralogy of the rocks and its contained fluids [4].
electrical resistivity depends on the mineralogy of the rocks and its contained fluids [4].
TheTheuseuse
of of
electrical methods
electrical methodsapplied
appliedto to environmental studiesisiswell
environmental studies welldocumented
documented byby many
many
geophysicists
geophysicists [5–16]. This paper
[5–16].This paperprovides
providesaa geoelectrical (resistivity)method
geoelectrical (resistivity) methodfor forparameter
parameter estimation
estimation
as complimentary/alternative
as complimentary/alternativeapproachapproach to direct
direct methods
methodsand andisisaimed
aimedatatestimating
estimating thethe lithology,
lithology,
resistivity, longitudinal
resistivity, conductance
longitudinal and transverse
conductance resistance,resistance,
and transverse hydraulic conductivity, transmissivity,
hydraulic conductivity,
transmissivity,
direction directionwater
of underground of underground
flow, and water flow, capacity
protective and protective
of thecapacity
aquifer of
in the aquifer
Jeddo, in Jeddo,
located within
the located within
Niger Delta the Niger
basin. Delta
It also basin.results
includes It also of
includes
water results
analysisofcarried
water analysis carried out
out to ascertain thetogeochemical
ascertain
the geochemical
composition of the composition
underground ofwater.
the underground water.

Figure1.1.Map
Figure MapofofDelta
DeltaState
State showing thestudy
showing the studyarea.
area.

2. Geology
2. Geology of of Study
Study Area
Area
TheThe subsurface
subsurface geology
geology ofofthe
theNiger
NigerDelta
DeltaBasin
Basin to
to which
whichJeddo
Jeddobelongs
belongsisiswell
wellestablished,
established[17–20].
[17–20].
The basin fill is made up of three formations, namely the Benin, Agbada and Akata
The basin fill is made up of three formations, namely the Benin, Agbada and Akata Formations,Formations, from
the youngest to oldest. The continental Miocene–Recent Benin Formation conformably overlies the
from the youngest to oldest. The continental Miocene–Recent Benin Formation conformably overlies
Agbada Formation. Its lithologic composition is 90% sand and about 10% clay and lignite bed [17].
the Agbada Formation. Its lithologic composition is 90% sand and about 10% clay and lignite bed [17].
The sands range in size from gravelly, coarse- to fine-grained. They are also poorly-sorted, sub-
The sands range in size from gravelly, coarse- to fine-grained. They are also poorly-sorted, sub-angular
angular to well-rounded, and bear lignite streaks and wood fragments. Its porosity, which decreases
to well-rounded, and bear lignite streaks and wood fragments. Its porosity, which decreases with depth,
with depth, ranges from 15 to 31% in the basin [21]. It has numerous prolific aquifers. The Agbada
ranges from 15 to 31% in the basin [21]. It has numerous prolific aquifers. The Agbada Formation
conformably overlies the Akata Formation in the subsurface. It is a parallic sequence of alternating
shale and sandstone with a variable age ranging from Eocene to Pliocene/Pleistocene and Recent in the
Hydrology 2017,
Hydrology 4, 42
2017, 4, 42 3 of315
of 15

Formation conformably overlies the Akata Formation in the subsurface. It is a parallic sequence of
Delta surface. shale
alternating The Akata Formation,
and sandstone withalso known age
a variable as marine
rangingshale
fromranges
Eocenefrom Paleocene to Holocene
to Pliocene/Pleistocene and in
ageRecent
and isin
composed of shale, silts, clay and turbidity sand at the base of the Delta sequence.
the Delta surface. The Akata Formation, also known as marine shale ranges from Paleocene The shale
is believed to beinover
to Holocene age pressured and highly
and is composed compacted
of shale, silts, clay[18].
and turbidity sand at the base of the Delta
sequence. The shale is believed to be over pressured and highly compacted [18].
3. Methodology
3. Many
Methodology
investigative techniques are commonly employed in estimating the spatial distribution of
aquifer Many
parameters [5–16].techniques
investigative In this research work, the
are commonly Allied Ohmega
employed Terrameter
in estimating was
the spatial used to obtain
distribution of
seventeen vertical electrical
aquifer parameters soundings
[5–16]. In (VES)
this research in order
work, to establish
the Allied Ohmegathe characteristics
Terrameter was usedof the aquifers
to obtain
seventeen
in the study vertical
area. The electrical soundingsare
VES locations (VES) in orderin
as shown to Figure
establish the characteristics
2.Interpretation of theresults
of VES aquifers was
in the study area. The VES locations are as shown in Figure 2.Interpretation
done using the RESIST software, which is an iterative inversion-modeling program. Analysis of VES results was done
of the
using the
resulting RESISTresistivity
apparent software,versus
which the
is an iterative inversion-modeling
half-current electrode separations program. Analysis
were used of thethe
to obtain
earth models composed of individual layers of specified thickness (h) and apparent resistivity (ρ)the
resulting apparent resistivity versus the half-current electrode separations were used to obtain from
earth
which themodels composed
longitudinal of individual
conductance (SL =layers of specified
h/ρ unit thickness resistance
Ω−1 ), transverse (h) and apparent
(R = hρresistivity
unit Ωm2(ρ) ) and
from which the longitudinal 2conductance (SL = h/ρ unit Ω−1), transverse resistance (R = hρ unit Ωm2)
transmissivity (T = Kh, unit m /s) were calculated.
and transmissivity (T = Kh, unit m2/s) were calculated.
Several groundwater surface maps contoured using Surfer 8 software were used for analysis.
Several groundwater surface maps contoured using Surfer 8 software were used for analysis.
Hydrogeochemical analysis was also carried out on water samples collected from existing hand dug
Hydrogeochemical analysis was also carried out on water samples collected from existing hand dug
wells and boreholes in the study area to predict the quality of the underground water. The water
wells and boreholes in the study area to predict the quality of the underground water. The water
samples
samples areare
Grab
Grabsamples
samplescollected
collectedfrom
fromvarious
various hand dugwells
hand dug wellsand
andboreholes
boreholes using
using newnew one-liter
one-liter
bottle and analyzed in the Analytical Laboratory of the Department of Chemistry,
bottle and analyzed in the Analytical Laboratory of the Department of Chemistry, Delta State Delta State University,
Abraka, Nigeria.
University, Abraka, Nigeria.

5 36 N
To Ughoton VES16

VES17
HDW4
Cranefield Schools
VES15 BH8 ch
BH6 tS
igh
r He Jeddo Sec Sch
ate
Gre
VES14 To VES12

ad
VES13
Ro VES11 VES6
re
Road be BH7
utieyin Winners Church Og
Oman
HDW3 BH5 VES10 HDW2
ut
yo ad BH4
La Ro
LATITUDE

w sy
VES9 Ne as
VES8 VES5 b
tEm
ri s
treet Ch VES4
ude S Ogiendo Pri Sch
Idum
VES7
oad
MR
CG

BH2
KEY
BH3
eet
StrVES1
Roads et VES2
ield
gi St re nef
Built up Area A go Cra
nt ut 1
Je

sce layo
Sounding Stations Cre
d

be HDW1 ma
d

Eyu U du ad
o

Boreholes(BH) g Ro BH1
usin
R

A Ho
VES3
o

Hand Dug wells (HDW) DDP

ad

0 150 300 m From Effurun

SPDC Farm
5 35 N
5 42 E LONGITUDE
5 43 E

Figure 2. Map
Figure ofof
2. Map the study
the studyarea
areashowing
showingthe
the positions of boreholes
positions of boreholesand
andvertical
verticalelectrical
electrical soundings.
soundings.

4. Results
4. Results andand Data
Data Analysis
Analysis

4.1.4.1.
Geoelectric Model
Geoelectric Model

To To reveal
reveal thethe geologic
geologic sections
sections in in various
various parts
parts ofof the
the studyarea,
study area,geoelectric
geoelectricsections
sectionsbased
basedononthe
the interpretation
interpretation of results
of VES VES results (Table
(Table 1) were
1) were generated
generated asasshown
shownin in Figures
Figures 3–5.
3–5.The
Thedepth
depthto to
water
water
table
table was was determined
determined (rangingfrom
(ranging from1.51.5mmto
to 35
35 m
m with
with an
an average
averageaquifer
aquiferdepth
depth ofof
12.7
12.7m)m)
and twotwo
and
sediments (unsaturated and saturated) identified. The unsaturated sediments consist of
sediments (unsaturated and saturated) identified. The unsaturated sediments consist of topsoil with topsoil with
resistivity values varying from 21 to 226 Ωm. The location studied shows a sequence of saturated
sediment consisting of clay layers (16 ≤ ρ ≤ 92 Ωm) for VES 2, 3, 4, 5, 10 and 12, while clayey sand
Hydrology 2017, 4, 42 4 of 15
Hydrology 2017, 4, 42 4 of 15

resistivity
layers (95 ≤ values
ρ ≤ 113varying from identified
Ωm) were 21 to 226 Ωm. The location
for VES 5, 9, 10 studied
and 16. shows
Fine- atosequence of saturated
medium-grained sand
(113 ≤ ρ ≤ 1728 Ωm), indicating the presence of productive aquifers in the area, was alsosand
sediment consisting of clay layers (16 ≤ ρ ≤ 92 Ωm) for VES 2,3,4,5,10 and 12, while clayey layers in
identified
(95 ≤ ρ ≤ 113 Ωm) were identified for VES 5, 9, 10 and 16. Fine- to medium-grained sand (113 ≤ ρ ≤
all VES. Coarse sand encountered in VES 6 has a resistivity of 4205 Ωm.
1728 Ωm), indicating the presence of productive aquifers in the area, was also identified in all VES.
CoarseS sand encountered in VES 6 has a resistivity of 4205 Ωm. N
VES 2 VES 4 VES 5 VES 15 Borehole Log
0 S loamy topsoil
VES 2 VES 4 VES 5 N
VES 15 Borehole Log clayey sand
0 loamy topsoil
finesand
clayey sand
10
fine sand
fine - medium grained sand
10
fine - medium grained sand
medium - coarse grained sand
20
Depth (m)

medium - coarse grained sand

20
Depth (m)

30
30

40
40

50
50

60 60
Legend
Legend

70 70 topsoil (24-78
topsoil (24-78 m)
m)

clay
clay (29-68
(29-68 m)
m)

clayey
clayey sand
sand (124
(124 m)
m)

fine
fine - grainedsand
- grained sand(169-705
(169-705 m)
m)
medium
medium - grainedsand
- grained sand(1112-1379
(1112-1379 m)
m)

Figure Geoelectricsection
3. 3. Geoelectric
Figure section showing
showing vertical
vertical electrical
electrical soundings
soundings (VES)
(VES) points points
along along the
the direction
direction north–south.
north–south.

SW NE
VES 3 VES 9 VES 10 VES 16 Borehole Log
0 loamy topsoil
clayey sand
fine sand
10
fine - medium grained sand
Depth (m)

medium - coarse grained sand

20

Legend
30
topsoil (21-63 m)

clay (16-75 m)
40 clayey sand (95-113 m)

fine - grained sand (161-502 m)

medium - grained sand (1086-1339 m)

coarse - grained sand (4205 m)

Figure
Figure 4. 4. Geoelectricsection
Geoelectric sectionshowing
showing VES
VES points
points along
alongthe
thedirection
directionsouthwest–northeast.
southwest–northeast.
Hydrology 2017, 4, 42 5 of 15
Hydrology 2017, 4, 42 5 of 15

W E
VES 7 VES 9 VES 10 VES 11 VES 12 Borehole Log
0 loamy topsoil
clayey sand
fine sand
10
fine - medium grained sand
Depth (m)

medium - coarse grained sand

20

30

40 Legend

Topsoil (22-226 m)

clay (16-92 m)

fine - grained sand (113-819 m)

medium - grained sand (1728 m)

Figure
Figure 5. 5. Geoelectricsection
Geoelectric sectionshowing
showing the VES
VES point
pointalong
alongthe
thedirection
directionwest–east.
west–east.

Table1.1.Geoelectrical
Table Geoelectrical model
model of
of the
thestudy
studyarea.
area.
Nature of Sediment Lithology(Inferred) Resistivity (Ωm)
Nature of Sediment
Unsaturated sediment Lithology (Inferred)
Top soil Resistivity
21 ≤ ≤ 226 (Ωm)
Unsaturated sediment Top soil
Clay 1621≤≤ ρ≤≤92226
Clayey
Claysand 95 16
≤ ≤≤ρ 113
≤ 92
Saturated sediments
Fine-grained sand
Clayey sand 11395≤≤ ρ≤≤819
113
Saturated sediments
Fine-grained sand
Medium-grained sand 1086
113≤≤ ≤ρ≤ 1728
819
Medium-grained
Coarse sand sand ≤ ρ ≤ 1728
10864205
Coarse sand 4205
4.2. Aquifer Protective Capacity
4.2. Aquifer
The Protective Capacity
hydrogeological characteristics of a site useful in the simulation of groundwater flow and
inThe
evaluating overburden
hydrogeological protective capacity
characteristics and
of a site transmissivity
useful of an area
in the simulation are the Dar-Zarrouk
of groundwater flow and
parameters (i.e., longitudinal conductance SL, and transverse resistance R) [22].
in evaluating overburden protective capacity and transmissivity of an area are the Dar-Zarrouk
The longitudinal conductance SL, which is regarded as the medium’s ability to retard and filter
parameters (i.e., longitudinal conductance SL , and transverse resistance R) [22].
percolating fluid is considered as the protective capacity of the overburden and expressed as,
The longitudinal conductance SL , which is regarded as the medium’s ability to retard and filter
ℎ
percolating fluid is considered asℎ the protective ℎ ℎ of
capacity ℎ the overburden
ℎ and expressed as,
= = = + + + −−− + (1)
n  
hi h1 h h hn
S L = /as
It can also be expressed ρ =
h
∑ ρi
=
ρ1
+ 2 + 3 + −−− +
ρ2 ρ3 ρn
(1)
i =1
= ℎ (2)
It can also be expressed as
Where σi is the layer conductivity analogous to
S the
= layer
σ h transmissivity T, (2)
L i

where σi is the layer conductivity analogous to=theℎ layer

= transmissivity T, (3)

The total transverse resistance R is given by, SL

T = Kh = K (3)
σ
=ℎ∙ = ℎ =ℎ +ℎ +ℎ + −−−+ ℎ (4)
The total transverse resistance R is given by,
The derived longitudinal conductance
n values in Table 2, calculated from obtained resistivity and
R = h·ρ =
thicknesses using Equation (1)∑ i ρi ) = hlayers
for( hvarious 1 ρ1 + h + −stations
2 + h3 ρ3 VES
at2 ρdifferent − − + were
hn ρn used to produce a (4)
i =1
protective capacity map (Figure 6).The overburden protective capacity was evaluated based on the
rating approachlongitudinal
The derived by [23], and conductance
modified by [24] valuesandinisTable
given2,ascalculated
>1 (excellent),
from0.5–1 (veryresistivity
obtained good), 0.1–and
0.49 (good), 0.06–0.09 (moderate), 0.01–0.05 (weak) and <0.01 (poor).
thicknesses using Equation (1) for various layers at different VES stations were used to produce a
protective capacity map (Figure 6).The overburden protective capacity was evaluated based on the
Hydrology 2017, 4, 42 6 of 15

rating approach by [23], and modified by [24] and is given as >1 (excellent), 0.5–1 (very good), 0.1–0.49
(good), 0.06–0.09
Hydrology (moderate), 0.01–0.05 (weak) and <0.01 (poor).
2017, 4, 42 6 of 15

5 36 N
To Ughoton
VES16

VES17

Cranefield Schools
VES15 h
Sc
ig ht
He Jeddo Sec Sch
at er
Gre
VES14 To VES12

ad
VES13
Ro VES11 VES6
re
Road be
utieyin Winners Church Og
Oman
VES10
ut
yo ad
La o
LATITUDE

w yR
Ne ss
VES9 VES8 VES5 ba
t Em
ris
treet Ch
ude S Ogiendo Pri Sch VES4
Idum
VES7
oa d
MR
CG

KEY
t
tree
Roads et VES2 ld S VES1
gi Stre nef
ie
Built up Area Ago Cra
t t1

Je
n u
re sce layo
Sounding Stations

d
eC ma

d
Eyu
b Udu ad

o
g Ro
usin

R
A Ho
VES3

o
DDP

ad
0 150 300 m From Effurun

SPDC Farm
5 35 N
5 42 E LONGITUDE
5 43 E

Poor Protection Weak Protection Moderate Protection Good Protection

Figure6.6.Map
Figure Map of
of aquifer
aquifer protective
protectivecapacity.
capacity.

From the analysis of Table 2, about 17.7% of the surveyed area in the eastern flank has good
From the analysis of Table 2, about 17.7% of the surveyed area in the eastern flank has good
protective capacity and this coincides with zones of appreciable overburden thickness with clayey
protective capacity and this coincides with zones of appreciable overburden thickness with clayey
columns thick enough to protect the aquifer in the area from surface polluting fluid. In total, 17.7%
columns thick enough to protect the aquifer in the area from surface polluting fluid. In total, 17.7% in
in the eastern flank of Jeddo has moderate capacity, while 52.9% located in the central flank falls
thewithin
easternareas
flankofof Jeddo
weak has moderate
protective capacity capacity,
and thiswhile 52.9%oflocated
is because in the of
the presence central flank falls
underlying within
layers of
areas of weak
clayey sand.protective
In the studycapacity and
area in thethis is because
western of the
region, presence
11.7% of underlying
has poor layers ofbecause
protective capacity clayey sand.
of
In the
low porosity of the rock present in the layers which allows the aquifer to be prone to contamination of
study area in the western region, 11.7% has poor protective capacity because of low porosity
theresulting
rock present
from in the residence
short layers which
time allows the aquifer
in the sandy to beFigure
layers [25]. prone6toclearly
contamination
shows thisresulting from
distribution
short residence
pattern of the time in protective
aquifer the sandycapacity.
layers [25]. Figure 6 clearly shows this distribution pattern of the
aquifer protective capacity.
Hydrology 2017, 4, 42 7 of 15

Table 2. Aquifer characteristics of the VES station in the study area.

Aquifer
Aquifer Depth to Aquifer Longitudinal Transverse Protective
VES Elevation Conductivity, Transmissivity, Static Water
Latitude Longitude Resistivity Aquifer Thickness Conductance Resistance Kσ Capacity
STATION (m) σ (Ω−1 ) (m2 day−1 ) Level
(Ωm) (m) (m) (Ω−1 ) (Ωm2 ) (Longitudinal
Conductance)
1 5.5881 5.7120 6.0 392 31.4 2.30 0.127 913 0.002550 0.0676 61.7 3.12 Good
2 5.5882 5.7104 6.3 402 2.5 5.80 0.035 2321 0.002490 0.0600 139.3 4.14 Weak
3 5.5890 5.7092 7.7 283 4.8 22.01 0.024 6231 0.003530 0.0865 334.0 5.49 Weak
4 5.5908 5.7099 8.1 1112 29.8 4.14 0.261 4603 0.000899 0.0258 188.8 5.59 Good
5 5.5910 5.7078 12.7 1185 8.3 5.70 0.057 6760 0.000844 0.0189 127.8 9.55 Moderate
6 5.5919 5.7080 5.3 1683 21.2 2.40 0.053 3970 0.000594 0.0178 70.7 2.06 Moderate
7 5.5909 5.7070 6.4 1728 37.5 6.80 0.126 11,732 0.000579 0.0166 194.8 3.88 Good
8 5.5925 5.7064 8.2 1397 3.6 3.30 0.020 4560 0.000716 0.0168 76.6 5.32 Weak
9 5.5942 5.7048 3.5 161 11.6 9.70 0.086 1567 0.006210 0.1645 257.8 1.40 Moderate
10 5.5950 5.7041 8.0 501 6.5 4.50 0.035 2270 0.001990 0.0545 123.7 5.10 Weak
11 5.5985 5.7031 8.6 517 11.9 10.50 0.015 5451 0.001930 0.0561 305.8 5.50 Weak
12 5.5994 5.7029 8.9 818 2.5 2.10 0.018 1729 0.001220 0.0366 63.3 5.70 Weak
13 5.5964 5.7016 4.6 995 12.8 6.10 0.008 6059 0.001000 0.0228 138.1 2.50 Poor
14 5.5974 5.7001 4.7 662 9.8 38.50 0.017 25,483 0.001510 0.0386 138.1 2.40 Weak
15 5.5984 5.6996 9.0 1379 11.3 75.90 0.010 104,674 0.000135 0.0033 245.2 5.60 Weak
16 5.5994 5.6989 9.9 1086 8.3 5.30 0.036 5810 0.000921 0.0225 130.7 6.00 Weak
17 5.5997 5.6967 3.4 1038 1.5 53.80 0.006 55,907 0.000182 0.0049 276.7 1.40 Poor
Hydrology 2017, 4, 42 8 of 15

4.3. Aquifer Transmissivity

Aquifer transmissivity was determined using the analytical relationship between hydraulic
conductivity (K) and thickness of the aquifer h, given in Equation (3). The hydraulic conductivity of
sandy layers in Warri environs reported to range between 24.19 m/day and 30.24 m/day [26] was
assumed for calculating the transmissivity of the aquifer. The aquifer transmissivity rating according
to the standards of Gheorghe (1978) as shown in Table 3 was used in this study. The values of
transmissivity obtained for the aquifers within the study area are Tmean = 169 m2 day−1 , Tmin = 61.7 m2
−1 , T 2017,
dayHydrology 4, x m2 day−1 (Table 2). The highest value of T obtained is for VES 3 with 334 m 2 /day.
8 of 15
max = 334
Figure 7 presents the map of aquifer transmissivity.
4.3. Aquifer Transmissivity
Table 3. Gheorghe standard for transmissivity (T) [27].
Aquifer transmissivity was determined using the analytical relationship between hydraulic
conductivity (K) and thickness of the aquifer h, given in Equation (3).Transmissivity
Transmissivity Range
The hydraulic Potentials
conductivity of
sandy layers in Warri environs reported to range between 24.19 m/day and 30.24 m/day [26] was
Greater than 500 m2 /day (5.79 × 10−3 m2 /s) High potential
assumed for calculating the transmissivity of the aquifer. The aquifer transmissivity rating according
Between 50 and 500 m2 /day (5.58 × 10−3 and 7.39 × 10−3 m2 /s) Moderate potential
to the standards of Gheorghe (1978) as shown in Table 3 was used in this study. The values of
Between 5 and 50 m2 /day (9.06 × 10−3 and 5.50 × 10−3 m2 /s) Low potential
transmissivity obtained for the aquifers
Between 0.5 and 5 m2 /day (5.01 × 10− within the study
3 and 5.58 × 10−3area are Tmean = Very
m2 /s) 169 m 2 day−1, Tmin = 61.7 m2
low potential
day−1, Tmax = 334 Below
m2 day −1 (Table
2 2). The highest
− 3
0.5 m /day (5.01 × 10 m /s) 2value of T obtained is for VES 3 with
Negligible flat334 m /day.
2

Figure 7 presents the map of aquifer transmissivity.

5 36 N
To Ughoton
VES16

VES17

Cranefield Schools
VES15 h
Sc
ht
eig Jeddo Sec Sch
rH
at e
Gre
VES14 To VES12

ad
VES13
Ro VES11
VES6
re
Road be
utieyin Winners Church Og
Oman
VES10
ut
yo oa
d
La
LATITUDE

w yR
Ne ss
VES9 VES8 VES5 ba
t Em
t ris
Stree Ogiendo Pri Sch Ch
ude VES4
Idum
VES7
oad
MR
CG

KEY
t
tree
Roads tree
t VES2
e ld S VES1
gi S nefi
Built up Area Ago Cra
nt ut 1
J

sce layo
e

Sounding Stations Cre

d

be ma
d

Ey u Udu ad
o

g Ro
usin
R

A Ho
VES3
o

DDP
a
d

0 150 300 m From Effurun

SPDC Farm
5 35 N
5 42 E LONGITUDE
5 43 E

-1 -1
20 - 140 m 2 day 140 - 340 m 2 day 340 - 540 m 2 day
-1

Figure7.7. Map
Figure Map of
of aquifer transmissivity.
aquifer transmissivity.

Table 3. Gheorghe
The map of aquifer resistivity is shownstandard
in Figurefor transmissivity (T) [27].of resistivity of the aquifers
8. The low values
1728 Ωm indicate
ranging between 161 andTransmissivity Range the soil type of the aquifer Transmissivity
and/or that thePotentials
aquifer itself
might be contaminated since relative high resistivity
Greater than 500 m2/day (5.79 × 10−3 m2/s) value imply a low concentration of
High potential conducting
materialsBetween
and thus 50 of high
and 500ground water× quality
m2/day (5.58 10−3and [28].
7.39 ×Figure
10−3 m29/s)
shows the map of depth
Moderate to the aquifer.
potential
The depthBetween
to the water table tends to be highest around
5 and 50 m /day (9.06 × 10 and 5.50 × 10 m /s)
2 −3 VES
−3 72 with a value of 37.5 m and lowest
Low potential at VES
17 with 1.5 m. The
Between 0.5mean
and 5depth
m /day
2 to(5.01
aquifer
× 10 inand
−3 Jeddo5.58is× 12.7
10 m
−3 m./s)
2 The aquifer thickness also varies from
Very low potential
2.1 m to 75.9 m withBelowa mean 0.5thickness
m2/day (5.01of 15
× 10 m. The
−3 m 2/s)contour map of the diagnostic factor
Negligible flat(Figure 10),
gives a detailed distribution pattern of the ratio of the transmissivity to transverse resistance, Kσ,
and showThelowmap of aquifer
values resistivity
ranging is shown
from 0.0033 in Figure
to 0.1645, 8. The low
indicating thevalues
Beninof resistivityand
formation of the
thataquifers
the water
ranging
is not between
brackish 161 and
or saline 1728 Ωm indicate the soil type of the aquifer and/or that the aquifer itself
[12,29].
might be contaminated
Groundwater since relative high
level measurement, resistivity
relative value imply
geographic a low
position of concentration
the wells, andofelevation
conducting were
materials and thus of high ground water quality [28]. Figure 9 shows the map of
taken and used to obtain the static water level in the area to determine the direction of flow of thedepth to the aquifer.
The depth to the water table tends to be highest around VES 7 with a value of 37.5 m and lowest at VES
17 with 1.5 m. The mean depth to aquifer in Jeddo is 12.7 m. The aquifer thickness also varies from 2.1
m to 75.9 m with a mean thickness of 15 m. The contour map of the diagnostic factor (Figure 10), gives
a detailed distribution pattern of the ratio of the transmissivity to transverse resistance, Kσ, and show
low values ranging from 0.0033 to 0.1645, indicating the Benin formation and that the water is not
brackish or saline [12,29].
Hydrology 2017, 4, 42
Hydrology 2017, 4, 42
9 of 15
Hydrology 2017, 4, 42 9 of 15

Groundwater level measurement, relative geographic position of the wells, and elevation were
aquifer. The static water level (SWL ) of the area was calculated by subtracting the depth to the water
taken and used to obtain the static water level in the area to determine the direction of flow of the
level from earth
aquifer. surface,
The static waterDWL , from
level (SWLthe
) ofelevation withcalculated
the area was respect tobythesubtracting
mean sea level (E), intothe
the depth thehand-dug
water
wells [30]. This is given by the equation S WL = E − D WL . This coincides with the true
level from earth surface, DWL, from the elevation with respect to the mean sea level (E), in the hand- water level in
thedug
casewells
of unconfined aquifer. Generally, depths to water are deeper in areas with high
[30]. This is given by the equation SWL = E − DWL. This coincides with the true water level in elevations
andthe
vice-versa. Thus, depths
case of unconfined to water
aquifer. typically
Generally, depths is to
greater
water beneath
are deeperhills than valleys
in areas with highbutelevations
sometimes
there
andare exceptions
vice-versa. as observed
Thus, depths toinwater
this study, resulting
typically from
is greater influence
beneath hillson thevalleys
than water table due to some
but sometimes
man-made
there are activities
exceptionssuch as overlying
as observed in thissoil andresulting
study, rock removed leading on
from influence to the
shallow
waterdepths
table due to to
water
some[31].
man-made activities such as overlying soil and rock removed leading to shallow depths to water [31].
5 36 N To Ughoton
Ughoton
To VES16
VES16

VES17
VES17

Cranefield Schools
Cranefield Schools
VES15
VES15 h
ch
Sc
ighhtt S
Heeig Jeddo Sec
Jeddo Sec Sch
Sch
err H
atte
r ea
re
VES14 G
oG
VES14 To
T VES12
VES12
d
ad
VES13
VES13 oa
Ro VES6
VES6
d eR
erre
VES11
VES11
nR
yin oad
Roa be
gb
anut ieyi
utie Winners Church
Church Og
O
Om
O man Winners
VES10
VES10
ouutt d
ayyo ad
oa
La
E

wL Ro
DE

ew syyR
Ne ss
UD

VES9
VES9 VES8 N as
ba
VES8 VES5 mb
ITU

VES5 E m
E
istt
TIT

eett
tree Chhrris
Str Ogiendo Pri
Pri Sch
Sch C
AT

mu de
ud eS Ogiendo VES4
VES4
um
LA

Idu
Id
L

VES7
VES7 oa d
ad
MRRo
CG
C GM

KEY
KEY
ee
tre ett
Roads ett VES2 Str
ld S
Roads ee
tre
Str
VES2 eld
fie
efi
VES1
VES1
og
go gii S an
Crra
ne
Built up Area Ag
A ntt C 1
utt 1

JJe
ceen o
you

edd
essc lay
Sounding Stations eCCrre ma a la

dd
ubbe Udduum add
yu

oo
Ey
E U Ro
gR oa
ing

R
s in

R
VES3 Hoouu s

oo
VES3 AH
PA

aad
DD
D DP

d
0
0 150
150 300 m
300 From Effurun
From Effurun

SPDC Farm
SPDC Farm
5 35 N
5 42 E LONGITUDE
5 43 E

100 - 500 Ohm-m 500 - 1100 Ohm-m 1100 - 1500 Ohm-m

Figure 8. Map
Figure8. of aquifer
Map of aquiferresistivity.
resistivity.

5 36 N To Ughoton
Ughoton
To VES16
VES16

VES17
VES17

Cranefield Schools
Cranefield Schools
VES15
VES15 h
ch
Sc
ighhtt S
Heeig Jeddo Sec
Jeddo Sec Sch
Sch
err H
atte
G re
r ea
VES14
VES14 Too G
T VES12
VES12
d
ad
VES13
VES13 oa
Ro VES6
VES6
d eR
erre
VES11
VES11
nR
yin oad
Roa be
gb
anut ieyi
utie Winners Church
Church Og
O
Om
O man Winners
VES10
VES10
ouutt d
ayyo oaad
La Ro
E

wL
DE

ew yR
sy
Ne ss
TITUD

VES9
VES9 VES8 N baas
VES8 VES5 mb
LATITU

VES5 Em
t E
ist
eett
tree Chhrris
de
ud Str
eS Ogiendo Pri
Ogiendo Pri Sch
Sch C VES4
Idu mu
um VES4
LA

Id
VES7
VES7 oa d
ad
MRRo
CG
C GM

KEY
KEY
ee
tre ett
Roads ett VES2 Str
ld S
Roads ee
tre
Str
VES2 eld
fie
efi
VES1
VES1
oggii S an
Crra
ne
Built up
Built up Area
Area Ag
A go
ntt C 1
utt 1
JJee

ce
sc en ou
yo
Sounding Stations
Stations es
Crre lay
dd

Sounding eC ma a la
dd

ub
yu be Udduum add
oo

Ey
E U Ro
gR oa
in
RR

VES3 Ho us
ou sing
oo

VES3 AH
PA
aadd

DDDDP

0
0 150
150 m
300 m
300 From Effurun
From Effurun
SPDC Farm
SPDC Farm
5 35 N
5 42 E LONGITUDE
5 43 E

2-8m 8 - 20 m 20 - 38 m

Figure 9. Map
Figure9. Map of depth
depth to
tothe
theaquifer.
aquifer.
Hydrology 2017, 4, 42 10 of 15
Hydrology 2017, 4, 42 10 of 15
Hydrology 2017, 4, 42 10 of 15
5 36 N
To Ughoton VES16

5 36 N VES17
To Ughoton VES16

Cranefield
VES17
Schools
VES15 ch
tS
igh
Cranefield Schools He Jeddo Sec Sch
er
reat
VES15 G ch
VES14 To tS
igh VES12
He Jeddo Sec Sch
ater ad
e
VES13
Gr Ro VES11
VES6
VES14
oad To re
ieyin R be VES12
manut
OVES13 Winners Church Og d
R oa VES11 VES6
VES10 re
Road be ut
utieyin Winners Church Og yo ad
Oman La Ro
ITUDE

w sy
VES10
VES9 Ne as
VES8 VES5
out Emb d
y t oa
La hris
TE

treet w C yR
AD

ude SVES9 Ogiendo Pri Sch Ne VES4 ass

Idum b
LU

VES8 VES5 m
tE
LATIT

VES7 ris oad

treet Ch VES4 MR
ude S Ogiendo Pri Sch CG
Idum
VES7
oad
MR
KEY CG
eet
StrVES1
Roads t VES2
tree nefi
eld
KEY Built up Area gi S Cra
Ago nt 1
et

J
sce eu
yo

e
Sounding Stations Cre Str
a la

d
Roads et b e VES2
eld
fim
Stre

d
VES1
Eyu U eu
nd Road

o
gi Cra
Built up Area Ago 1g
usin

R
nt out
Hyo

J
VES3

o
ce PAla

e
res

a
Sounding Stations DD

d
eC ma

d
d
Eyu
b Udu ad

o
g Ro
usin

R
A Ho
VES3

o
DDP From Effurun

a
0 150 300 m

d
SPDC Farm
5 35 N 0 150 300 m From Effurun
5 42 E LONGITUDE
5 35 N SPDC Farm 5 43 E

5 42 E LONGITUDE
5 43 E

0.001 - 0.061 0.061 - 0.111 0.111 - 0.171

0.001 - 0.061 0.061 - 0.111 0.111 - 0.171

Figure 10. Map
Figure10. Map of the diagnostic
of the diagnosticfactor.
factor.
Figure 10. Map of the diagnostic factor.
TheThe contour
contour map
map of of static
static waterlevel
water level(Figure
(Figure11)11)shows
showsthat
thatthethe flow
flow is
is towards
towards river
river Ughoton
Ughoton in
in the northeast–southwest
The contour map of
the northeast–southwest direction.
static water
direction. Locally, variations
levelvariations
Locally, (Figure 11)asshowsas to
to thisthat
flowthis flow
thecan
flow can be observed.
be isobserved.
towards river These
TheseUghoton
variations
variations
in the
occur occur because ofchanges
northeast–southwest
because of directional directional
direction. changes
Locally,ofvariations
of groundwater groundwater
as toflow,
flow, associated associated
thiswith
flowthe with the occurrence
canoccurrence
be observed.
of a These
possible
of a possible
variations
clay layer. clay
occur layer.
because of directional changes of groundwater flow, associated with the occurrence
of 5a 36
possible
N
clay layer.
To Ughoton VES16

5 36 N VES17 To Ughoton VES16

Cranefield
VES17 Schools
VES15 ch
tS
Cranefield Schools igh
He Jeddo Sec Sch
VES15 e ater h
Gr Sc
VES14 To ht
eig VES12 Sec Sch
Jeddo
te rH
a
VES13 Gre ad
Ro VES11 VES6
VES14 To
ere
VES12
ad
u tie yin Ro Winners Church Ogb
m an
OVES13 ad
Ro VES11 VES6
ad VES10 ere
u tie yin Ro Winners Church Ogb ut
Oman yo oa
d
La
LATITUDE

w yR
VES10
Ne t ss
VES9 VES8 VES5 ou mba d
y a
La tE o
LATITUDE

w ris yR
tree
e SVES9
t
Ogiendo PriVES8
Sch Ne Ch VES4bass
ud
Idum VES5
tE
m
VES7 ris d
treet Ogiendo Pri Sch Ch VES4 Roa
ude S M
Idum CG
VES7
oad
MR
CG
KEY
eet
StrVES1
Roads t VES2
tree efie
ld
KEY gi S Cra
n
Flow Direction Ago nt euett 1
Je

Roads t sce VES2 Styro

Sounding Stations tree Cre ld la
dd ed

VES1
gi S Eyube neu ma
fie
Ago CraUd ad
o do

Flow Direction t 1 g Ro
t in
R

cen
J

VES3
res yoouus
PaAlaH
o Ro

Sounding Stations
ad a

be C D
Ud uDm
Eyu g Ro
ad
usin
A Ho
VES3
DDP
d

0 150 300 m From Effurun

SPDC Farm
5 35 N 0 150 300 m From Effurun
LONGITUDE
5 35 N5 42 E SPDC Farm 5 43 E
5 42 E LONGITUDE
5 43 E

1 - 3.5 m 3.5 - 7.0 m 7.0 - 10.0 m

1 - 3.5 m 3.5 - 7.0 m 7.0 - 10.0 m

Figure 11. Map of static water level showing direction of flow.

Figure 11. Map of static water level showing direction of flow.
Figure 11. Map of static water level showing direction of flow.
4.4. Hydrogeochemical Analysis
4.4. Hydrogeochemical Analysis
Hydrology 2017, 4, 42 11 of 15

4.4. Hydrogeochemical Analysis

Hydrogeochemical analysis was carried out on water samples collected from four hand-dug wells
and eight boreholes in the study area using Grab sampling method in other to obtain the water quality
index (WQI). Twenty-one parameters were chosen for the calculation of WQI which was done by
employing the weighted arithmetic index method and comparing the results with the recommended
standard of drinking water by World Health Organization (WHO) and Nigerian Federal Environmental
Protection Agency (FEPA). The calculation of the quality rating scale for each parameter was done by
using the equation:
C
Qi = i × 100 (5)
Si
where Qi is the quality rating scale, Ci is the concentration of each parameter, and Si is the recommended
standard of each parameter. The inverse of the recommended standard gave the relative weight (Wi )
proportional to the recommended standard (Si ) of the corresponding parameter. The overall water
quality index is given by Equation (6) and Table 4 the water quality index rating.

∑ Qi Wi
WQI = (6)
∑ Wi

The results of the hydrogeochemical analysis are shown in Tables 5 and 6. Most of the values of
the parameters obtained falls within the permissible limit of WHO and FEPA except for the high lead
content in some of the hand-dug wells and a slightly acidic water of 6.0. For borehole water, there is
a slightly high pH value of 5. For the hand-dug well, the calculated WQI is 199.2 and the WQI for
borehole is 194.3. Comparing these values with the standard quality classification scheme, the water is
poor for both the hand dug well and the borehole. The implication of this is that the water will require
some level of purification before it is made available to the people as potable water.

Table 4. Water quality index classification [32].

Water Quality Index Level Water Quality Status

<50 Excellent
50–100 Good
100–200 Poor
200–300 Very poor
>300 Unsuitable for drinking
Hydrology 2017, 4, 42 12 of 15

Table 5. Statistical summary of the hydro geochemical analysis for hand-dug wells in the study area. WHO: World Health Organization;FEPA: Federal Environmental
Protection Agency.

Standard Quality Unit Weight

Standard Values (Si ) Observed Values Variance Qi Wi
Parameters (mg/L) Deviation Rating (Qi ) (Wi )
WHO FEPA Min Max Mean
Temperature (◦ C) 35 27 28.00 28.20 28.10 0.100 0.1000 80.30 0.030 2.410
TSS 10 10 0.04 0.93 0.50 0.300 0.1000 5.00 0.100 0.500
TDS 500 500 0.83 18.66 8.00 7.900 62.1000 1.60 0.002 0.003
Alkalinity 250 250 0.13 2.93 1.50 1.000 1.0000 0.60 0.004 0.002
Total hardness 200 150 2.45 3.10 3.00 0.300 0.1000 1.55 0.005 0.008
Color 15 15 11.00 21.00 16.00 3.800 14.5000 106.70 0.067 7.149
Carbonate 51 50 23.16 61.73 49.20 15.200 230.7000 80.70 0.200 16.140
Chloride 250 250 0.15 0.74 0.40 0.300 0.1000 0.16 0.004 0.010
Nitrate 50 50 1.98 2.04 2.00 0.002 0.0006 1000 0.020 200
Sulfate 100 500 0.08 0.34 0.20 1.500 2.4000 0.20 0.010 0.002
Lead 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.001 0.0002 200 100 20,000
Potassium 100 100 1.24 2.38 1.70 0.700 0.5000 1.70 0.010 0.017
Sodium 200 200 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.003 0.0010 0.04 0.005 0.002
Phosphate 5 5 0.21 0.59 0.50 0.010 0.2000 10.00 0.200 2.000
Calcium 200 200 101.84 124.10 117.20 9.000 81.0000 58.60 0.005 0.293
Magnesium 150 100 10.84 9.46 10.90 1.100 1.1400 7.30 0.007 0.051
Copper 2 1 0.87 0.09 0.30 0.300 0.1000 1.50 0.500 7.500
Iron 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.40 0.30 0.095 0.0120 100 0.300 30.000
Turbidity 5 1 1.90 1.29 1.63 0.220 0.0670 32.60 0.200 6.520
pH 6.50–8.50 6–9 5.30 6.40 6.00 0.100 0.7000 92.30 0.010 0.923
Counts (cfu/mL) 10 10 2.08 2.64 2.30 0.800 0.1000 23.00 0.100 2.300
Conductivity (µs/cm) 1000 1000 92.10 93.10 92.80 0.400 0.2 0.04 0.001 0.00004
∑Wi = 101.78 ∑Qi Wi =20,275.83
∑ Qi Wi
WaterQualityIndex = ∑ Wi
= 199.20
Hydrology 2017, 4, 42 13 of 15

Table 6. Statistical summary of the hydrogeochemical analysis for boreholes in the study area.

Standard Quality Unit Weight

Standard Values (Si ) Observed Values Variance Qi Wi
Parameters (mg/L) Deviation Rating (Qi ) (Wi )
WHO FEPA Min Max Mean
Temperature (◦ C) 35 27 28.00 28.40 28.100 0.10 0.0200 80.30 0.030 2.4090
TSS 10 10 0.17 1.56 0.800 0.50 0.2400 8.00 0.100 0.8000
TDS 500 500 3.38 22.17 13.800 7.20 5.2000 2.76 0.002 0.0060
Alkalinity 250 250 0.53 4.92 2.500 1.60 2.5000 1.00 0.004 0.0040
Hardness 200 150 3.02 3.21 3.100 0.07 0.0050 1.55 0.005 0.0080
Color 15 15 4.00 20.00 11.500 5.50 30.0000 76.70 0.067 5.1400
Carbonate 51 50 10.46 59.14 33.400 19.60 385.9000 58.00 0.020 1.1600
Chloride 250 250 0.09 0.53 0.300 0.20 0.0600 0.12 0.004 0.0050
Nitrate 50 50 1.93 2.00 2.000 0.03 0.0010 4.00 0.020 0.0800
Sulfate 100 500 0.01 0.16 0.100 0.07 0.0050 0.10 0.001 0.0030
Lead 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.002 0.01 0.0001 200.00 100.000 20,000
Potassium 100 100 1.48 2.84 2.000 0.40 0.2000 2.00 0.001 0.0020
Sodium 200 200 0.04 1.34 0.600 0.50 0.2600 0.30 0.050 0.1500
Phosphate 5 5 0.51 0.69 0.630 0.06 0.0040 1.26 2.000 0.2500
Calcium 200 200 119.30 128.43 123.000 4.40 19.800 61.50 0.005 3.1000
Magnesium 150 100 9.73 10.43 10.100 0.30 0.1000 6.73 0.070 0.4700
Copper 2.00 1.00 0.09 0.10 0.100 0.01 0.0001 5.00 0.500 2.5000
Iron 0.30 0.3 0.02 0.04 0.050 0.02 0.0003 166.70 0.200 33.3400
Turbidity 5 1 0.11 0.96 0.640 0.27 0.0730 128.00 0.300 38.4000
pH 6.5–8.5 6–9 4.10 6.60 5.000 0.90 0.8000 73.52 0.010 22.1000
Coliform counts (cfu/mL) 10 10 0.38 7.00 2.000 2.20 4.9000 20.00 0.100 2.0000
Conductivity (µs/cm) 1000 1000 93.50 92.30 9.3 1.40 2.0000 0.93 0.001 0.0009
∑Wi = 103.49 ∑Qi Wi =20,111.93
∑ Qi Wi
WaterQualityIndex = ∑ Wi
= 194.30
Hydrology 2017, 4, 42 14 of 15

5. Conclusions
The lithological identification and the characterization of the conditions of the underground water
was made possible from the geophysical survey of the studied area. The geoelectric survey indicates
that the area has topsoil, clay, clayey sand, and fine- to coarse-grained sand with various thicknesses
and at various depths. These primary parameters were used to determine the Dar-Zarrouk parameters
and the electrical conductivity. The longitudinal conductance map shows that the impermeability of the
confining clay layer is about 17.6% of the surveyed area, indicating the area where the aquifer would
be protected. The aquifer transmissivity map shows that the transmissivity of the area is of moderate
potential with a mean value Tmean = 169 m2 day−1 while its maximum value is Tmax = 334 m2 day−1 .
The lower values of the diagnostic factor, kσ, ranging from 0.0033 to 0.1645, in the map show that the
water is not brackish or not saline. Also, the aquifer thickness varies between 2.1 m at VES 12 and
75.9 m at VES 15 with an average value of 15 m. The hydrogeochemical analysis of water samples
carried out showed values that fall within the permissible limit of WHO and FEPA except for lead,
color and pH values which exceeded the permissible limit. The water from hand-dug wells is of poor
quality compared to the water from boreholes. The estimation of elevation from geophysical survey
has led to the determination of the pattern and direction of flow of the groundwater as shown in
the generated static water table map. Generally, the underground water flow is towards the river
Ughoton in the NE–SW direction.Locally, variations as to this flow can be observed. These variations
occur because of directional changes of groundwater flow, associated with the occurrence of a possible
clay layer.

Acknowledgments: The manuscript has benefitted from reviewers comments with appreciation.
Author Contributions: R.I.-E. and M.O.O. conceived and design the research. M.B. led the geophysical data
acquisition. M.O.O., R.I.-E. and O.A. did the data processing and analysis and numerical statistics. M.O.O. and
R.I.-E. did the write up.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Akpoborie, I.A.; Uriri, A.E.; Efobo, O. Ground water conditions and spatial distribution of lead and cadmium
in the shallow aquifer at Effurun-Warri metropolis, Nigeria. Environ. Pollut. 2014, 3, 27–37. [CrossRef]
2. Adejuwon, O.A. Rainfall seasonality in the Niger delta belt, Nigeria. J. Geogr. Reg. Plan. 2012, 5, 51–60.
3. Ward, S.H. Resistivity and induced polarization methods. Geophysics 1990, 1, 147–189.
4. William, L. Fundamentals of Geophysics; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1997.
5. Niwas, S.W.; Singhai, D.C. Estimation of aquifer transmissivity from Dar-Zarrouk parameters in porous
media. J. Hydrol. 1981, 50, 393–399. [CrossRef]
6. Aristedemou, E.; Thomas-Betts, A. DC Resistivity and induced polarization investigations at a waste disposal
site and its environments. J. Appl. Geophys. 2000, 44, 275–302. [CrossRef]
7. Hubbard, S.S.; Rubin, Y. Hydrogeophysics; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2005; Volume 50, p. 523.
8. Butler, J.J., Jr. Hydrogeological Methods for Estimation of Spatial Variations in Hydraulic Conductivity; Springer:
Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2005; pp. 23–58.
9. Karlik, G.; Kaya, A.M. Investigation of groundwater contamination using electric and electromagnetic
methods at an open Waste-Disposal site: A case study from Isparta, Turkey. Environ. Geol. 2001, 40, 725–731.
[CrossRef]
10. Anomohanran, O. Determination of groundwater in Asaba, Delta State, Nigeria. Int. J. Phys. Sci. 2011, 6,
7651–7659.
11. Jegede, S.I.; Ujuanbi, O.; Abdullahi, N.K.; Iserhien-Emekeme, R.E. Mapping and monitoring of leachate
plume migration at an open waste disposal site using Non-Invasive methods. Res. J. Environ. Earth Sci. 2012,
4, 26–33.
12. Udoinyang, I.E.; Igboekwu, M.U. A quifer transmissivity, Dar-Zarroukparameters and the direction of flow
of suspended particulate matter in boreholes in MOUAU and the Kwa Ibo river, Umudike-Nigeria. Greener J.
Phys. Sci. 2012, 2, 70–84.
Hydrology 2017, 4, 42 15 of 15

13. Imali, H.; Dharmagunwardhane, H.A. Use of Resistivity Sounding Results for Estimating Transmissivity
of Aquifers: A Case Study from North Central Province, Sri Lanka. In Proceedings of the 29th Technical
Sessions of Geophysical Society of Sri Lanka, Jinadasa Katupotha, 22 February 2013; pp. 21–23.
14. Iserhien-Emekeme, R.E. Electrical resistivity survey for predicting aquifer at Onicha-Ugbo, Delta State,
Nigeria. J. Appl. Math. Phys. 2014, 2, 520–527. [CrossRef]
15. Anomohanran, O.; Iserhien-Emekeme, R.E. Estimation of aquifer parameters in Erho, Nigeria using the
Cooper-Jacob evaluation method. Am. J. Environ. Sci. 2014, 10, 500–508. [CrossRef]
16. Ofomola, M.O. Mapping of aquifer contamination using Geoelectric methods at a municipal solid waste
disposal site in Warri, Southern Nigeria. J. Appl. Geol. Geophys. 2015, 3, 39–47.
17. Short, K.C.; Stauble, A.J. Outline of the Niger delta. Bull. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol. 1967, 54, 761–779.
18. Murat, R.C. Stratigraphy and paleogeography of the cretaceous and lower tertiary in Southern Nigeria.
In African Geology; University of Ibadan Press: Ibadan, Nigeria, 1970; pp. 635–648.
19. Asseez, O.L. Review of the stratigraphy, sedimentation and structure of the Niger delta. In Geology of Nigeria;
Kogbe, C.A., Ed.; Rock View (Nig.) Ltd.: Jos, Nigeria, 1989; pp. 311–324.
20. Nwajide, C.S. A Guide for Geological Field Trips to Anambra and Related Sedimentary Basins in Southeastern
Nigeria; Petroleum Development Trust Fund, University of Nigeria, Nsukka: Nsukka, Nigeria, 2006; p. 68.
21. Tamunosiki, D.; Ming, G.H.; Uko, E.D.; Tamunobereton-ari, I.; Emudianughe, J.E. Porosity modeling of the
South-East Niger delta basin, Nigeria. Int. J. Geol. Earth Environ. Sci. 2014, 4, 49–60.
22. Henriet, J.P. Direct applications of the Dar Zarrouk Parameters in groundwater surveys. Geophys. Prospect.
1975, 24, 344–353. [CrossRef]
23. Oladapo, M.I.; Mohammed, M.Z.; Adeoye, O.O.; Adetola, B.A. Geoelectrical investigation of the Ondo State
Housing Corporation Estate, IjapoAkure Southwestern Nigeria. J. Min. Geol. 2004, 40, 41–48.
24. Ofomola, M.O. Aquifer Characterization and groundwater quality studies in part of Niger Delta Area using
geoelectric and hydrogeochemical methods. Niger. J. Phys. 2014, 25, 96–106.
25. Mundel, J.A.; Lother, L.; Oliver, E.M.; Allen-long, S. Aquifer Vulnerability Analysis for Water Resource Production;
Indian Department of Environmental Management: Indianapolis, IN, USA, 2003; Volume 25.
26. Akpoborie, I.A.; Ekakite, O.A.; Adaikpoh, E.O. The quality of groundwater from dug wells in parts of the
Western Niger Delta. Knowl. Rev. 2000, 2, 72–75.
27. Gheorghe, A. Processing and Synthesis of Hydrological Data; Abacus Press: Tumbridge Wells, UK, 1978;
pp. 122–136.
28. Okiongbo, K.S.; Akpofure, E. Determination of aquifer properties and groundwater vulnerability mapping
using geoelectric method in Yenagoa city and its environs in Bayelsa State, South Nigeria. J. Water Resour. Prot.
2012, 4, 354–362. [CrossRef]
29. Uma, K.O. An appraisal of the groundwater resources of the Imo River Basin, Nigeria. J. Min. Geol. 1989, 25,
305–315.
30. Buddermeier, R.W.; Schloss, J.A. Groundwater Storage and Flow. 2000. Available online: http://www.kgs.
Ukans.edu/Heightplains/atlas//apgengw.htm (accessed on 25 March 2017).
31. Fetter, C.W. Applied Hydrology, 3rd ed.; Macmillan College Publishing Company, Inc.: New York, NY, USA,
1994; Volume 114.
32. Amadi, A.N. Assessing the effects of aladimma dumpsite on soil and groundwater using water quality index
and factor analysis. Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 2011, 5, 763–770.

© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).