Arab J Geosci (2013) 6:4903–4915
DOI 10.1007/s12517-012-0731-2
ORIGINAL PAPER
Surface water quality contamination source apportionment
and physicochemical characterization at the upper section
of the Jakara Basin, Nigeria
Adamu Mustapha & Ahmad Zaharin Aris &
Hafizan Juahir & Mohammad Firuz Ramli
Received: 6 June 2012 / Accepted: 29 October 2012 / Published online: 25 November 2012
# Saudi Society for Geosciences 2012
Abstract The present study investigates the surface water
quality of three important tributaries of Jakara Basin, north-
western Nigeria to provide an overview of the relationship
and sources of physicochemical and biological parameters.
A total of 405 water samples were collected from 27 sam-
pling points and analyzed for 13 parameters: dissolved
oxygen (DO), 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5),
chemical oxygen demand (COD), suspended solids (SS),
pH, ammonia-nitrogen (NH3NL), dissolved solids (DS),
total solids (TS), nitrates (NO3), chloride (Cl), phosphates
(PO4), Escherichia coli (E. coli) and fecal coliform bacteria
(FCB). Pearson’s product–moment correlation matrix and
principal component analysis (PCA) were used to distin-
guish the main pollution sources in the basin. Four varimax
components were extracted from PCA, which explained
84.86, 83.60, and 78.69 % of the variation in the surface
water quality for Jakara, Tsakama, and Gama-Kwari Riv-
ers, respectively. Strong positive loading included BOD5,
COD, NH3NL, E. coli, and FCB with negative loading on
DO attribute to a domestic waste water pollution source.
One-way ANOVA revealed that there was no significant
difference in the mean of the three water bodies (p>0.05).
It is therefore recommended that the government should
be more effective in controlling the point source of pol-
lution in the area.
Keywords Water quality . Principal component analysis .
Correlation analysis . One-way analysis of variance
A. Mustapha : A. Z. Aris (*) : H. Juahir : M. F. Ramli
Environmental Forensics Research Centre, Faculty of
Environmental Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM),
43400, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia
e-mail: zaharin@env.upm.edu.my
Introduction
Surface water is a general term describing any water body
that is found flowing or standing on the earth surface, such
as streams, rivers, ponds, lakes and reservoirs. Surface water
quality describes the physical, chemical, and biological sta-
tus of the water (Liu et al. 2009). It is a universal solvent on
earth whose main sources include oceans, rivers, springs,
and ground water (Okogbue et al. 2012). Surface water is
unique systems among the most productive ecosystem and
receives inputs of pollutants, as they are often situated in the
vicinities of highly populated and industrialized areas
(Selvam et al. 2011). It is a finite resource that is very
essential for the human existence, agriculture, and industry.
Without any doubt, inadequate quantity and quality of water
resources have a serious impact on sustainable development
(Taiwo et al. 2010).
In developing countries, most of which have huge debt
burdens, population explosion and rapid urbanization, peo-
ple have little or no option, but to accept water resources of
doubtful quality, due to lack of better alternative sources or
due to economical and technological constrains to treat the
available water adequately before use (Biney et al. 1994).
The scarcity of clean water has therefore led to a situation in
which one fifth of urban dwellers in developing countries
and three quarters of their rural counterparts do not have
access to reasonably safe water supplies for various activities
(Ajiboye et al. 2012).
Rivers have been a major supply of water for any purpose
and provide fertile lands, allowing highly populated residen-
tial areas. River’s flow is affected by surface run-off, direct
precipitation; inter flow, and water table discharge (Yang et al.
2012). The chemical, physical, and biological composition of
these various flow inputs obviously influences the quality of
water in river and other surface waters. The quality of a river at
any point reflects several major influences, including the
4904 Arab J Geosci (2013) 6:4903–4915

lithology of the basin, atmospheric inputs, climatic conditions,
and anthropogenic inputs (Gamble and Babbar-Sebens 2012).
Since the sources of river run-off are a combination of surface
run-off, rainfall, groundwater, etc., and a river contains sea-
sonal variability features, the water quality of a river is sus-
ceptible to pollution and thus, it is essential to construct
trustworthy information on water pollution sources and con-
trolling the adverse effects.
There are various ways through which pollutants enter
into the surface water: point and non-point sources. The
point sources includes waste water effluent from municipal
and industrial run-off, and leachate from waste disposal site,
run-off from animal feed lots, run-off from mines, oil fields,
un-sewerage industrial site, storm sewer outfalls from cities,
overflow of combined storm and sanitary sewers, run-off
from construction sites, among others. Non-point pollution
is a diffused source of pollution, having no definite or
specific location where discharge into a body of water. For
example, farm field, parking lots, construction sites, and
agricultural field. These sources are often difficult to mon-
itor, regulate or treat. The non-point source of water pollu-
tion are often intermittent and linked to seasonal agricultural
activities, they are derived from extensive area of land and
are transported overland, underground, or through the atmo-
sphere to receiving water (Carpenter et al. 1998). These
sources of pollutants may accumulate large quantity of
nutrients enrichment and stimulates eutrophication process
and bioaccumulation of organic and inorganic compounds.
Further, it may result in alteration of tropic interaction
among both aquatic flora and fauna (Mustapha and Aris
2012a). The sources and pathways of urban and agricultural
pollutants are given in Table 1.
In recent years, there has been an increasing amount of
literature on the use of principal component analysis and
factor analysis (PCA/FA) in pollution sources apportion-
ment. The application of different multivariate statistical
tools such as PCA/FA helps in the understanding of surface
water pollution sources, allowing the identification of pos-
sible factors that influence water chemistry and offer valu-
able tools for the management of water resources (Simeonov
et al. 2003; Singh et al. 2004; Shrestha and Kazama 2007;
Juahir et al. 2009; Hanh et al. 2010; Palma et al. 2010; Aris
et al. 2012a, b; Cieszynska et al. 2012; Chabukdhara and
Nema 2012). Several researchers used correlation matrix,
principal component, and/or factor analysis to identify the
relationship of variables and water quality source’s appor-
tionment. Kumar and Reddy (2008) studied the relationship
of physiochemical parameters in Buckingham canal, India;
the study revealed a significant relationship exists between
nutrient and organic related variables. Shrestha and Kazama
(2007) Huang et al. (2010) and Juahir et al. (2009) studied
spatial variability of surface water quality and sources
apportionment and classified the studied water bodies into
high pollution site (HP), moderate pollution site (MP), and
low pollution site (LP). Factor analysis revealed that the
pollution levels in the three zones were mainly influenced
by natural sources (temperature and river discharge) and
anthropogenic source’s (industrial, municipal, and agricul-
tural run-off). Onojake et al. (2011) in their studies, they
discovered that Rivers in Delta state of Nigeria were heavily
polluted as a result of industrial discharge and municipal
waste (anthropogenic source of pollution). They used PCA/
FA to identify the latent factors that explain the chemistry of
the surface water, PCA/FA yielded three PC’s with more

Table 1 Sources and pathway

of urban and agricultural Pollutant sources
pollutants
Urban run-off
Rainfall, landscape irrigation, and street cleaning and other • Automobiles: crank case oil, tires,
cleaning practices flush pollutants off paved surfaces such as combustion byproducts and batteries
streets, sidewalks, roofs, bridges, parking lots and buildings, • Household and garden chemicals
mostly untreated, into storm drains, creeks and Water bodies.
• Sediments from new development,
construction sites
• Waste from commercial yards
• Animal and human waste
• Fertilizer or treated sewage
• Trash, lawn clippings
Non-urban, agricultural run-off
Grazing, plowing, fertilizing, planting, and harvesting and • Pesticides
rainfall and irrigation water flush pollutants from crop, • Other agricultural chemicals, e.g.,
pasture, park, range and forest lands through farm drains and nutrients, salts
rivers, leach pollutants from soils, untreated into water
• Animal wastes/confined animal facilities
bodies.
• Acid drainage from mine sites
• Sediment from eroded soils
Arab J Geosci (2013) 6:4903–4915
than 82 % variance. Vidal et al. (2000) used PCA/FA for the
study of water resources contamination due to the use of
livestock slurries as fertilizer, PCA/FA reveled the sampled
data was related to dilution of water with strong saline
content and redox condition. Equally, PCA/FA was used
on the chemical data to distinguish the contribution of
natural and anthropogenic sources of ground water pollution
in Grombalia Plain in North eastern Tunisia. Three indepen-
dent factors were extracted and explained 77.86 % of the
total variance which reveled in the presence of two groups
of waters: mineralization and artificial recharge water type
(Tlili-Zrelli et al. 2012). Brahim et al. 2011 applied PCA/FA
with varimax rotation on nine normalized physiochemical
variables. The varimax factors obtained showed that
groundwater variation is controlled by water-rock interac-
tion processes and anthropogenic influence through domes-
tic water discharge. Moreover, PCA/FA results obtained
showed that water quality variations in the semi-arid region
of India are mainly controlled by the hydro-geochemical
processes (weathering and dissolution) and anthropogenic
processes (domestic and agricultural activities). The study
concluded that carbonate, silicate weathering, halite disso-
lution, and ion exchanges are the dominant processes occur-
ring in the study area (Singh et al. 2012). The chemistry of
the ground water from the phreatic aquifer of Ouargla,
Algeria was studied by Semar et al. 2012. PCA/FA with
varimax rotation was applied on the datasets with the aim of
identifying the relationship between physiochemical param-
eters and the source of groundwater quality variations. PCA/
FA provides a cumulative variance explained by 67 % with
axes controlled by sodium chloride (NaCl), calcium sulfate
(CaSO4), bicarbonate (HCO3−), and nitrite (NO2−). Koklu et
al. (2010) focused on water quality of Melen River, Turkey;
they used PCA/FA and identified factors responsible for the
variation in water quality. They concluded that all stations
under study were affected by agricultural and industrial
pollution due to the intensive agricultural activities through
application of fertilizer. Liu et al. (2009) used PCA/FA to
detect the latent pollution sources of Songhua River and
identified five latent factors: organic, inorganic, petrochem-
icals, physiochemical, and heavy metals pollution sources;
they concluded that Songhua River water quality was main-
ly controlled by domestic wastewater and industrial effluent.
The present study evaluates the physicochemical and
bacteriological parameters of Jakara watershed using PCA/
FA and Pearson’s product–moment correlation to identify
the pollution status and probable sources of pollution.
Study area description
Jakara Basin lies on longitude 8° 45 E and 12° 05E, latitude
10° 30 N and 13° 02 N. It is located at about 481 m (1,580 ft)
4905
above mean sea level, covering an area of about 150 km2
(Mustapha et al. 2012a). The basin is one of the most signif-
icant in supporting residential, industrial, and agricultural
activities in Kano metropolitan with a population of more than
500,000 inhabitants. The climate of the basin is strongly
influenced by the tropical continental and maritime air masses.
The two air masses control the climate making it dry and wet
type (Mustapha et al. 2012b). The pre-Cambrian rock of the
basement complex which comprises of gneisses, amphibo-
lites, marble, and older granite underlies larger part of Nigeria,
including 80 % of the Jakara Basin. The climate of the region
controls the amount of water that is available both on the
surface and at the sub-surface at any given time within a water
year. Two major system of crop production have been seen to
be practiced within the region. These are rain-fed agriculture
and irrigation farming. Farming is done in the city core areas,
wedge areas, and corridors out of the city and on the periphery.
Urban and peri-urban irrigation provide the populace with
vegetables and fruits within the urban environment for house-
hold consumption as well as for sell to the rapidly growing
population. Different range of crops and fruits are produced,
including maize, beans, tomatoes, pumpkins, melon, pepper,
cabbage, lettuce, onion, and carrots.
Materials and methods
Sampling and analytical procedure
A total of 405 water samples were collected from various
locations along the main river and tributaries. Ten, eight,
and nine sampling points were strategically located along
Jakara, Tsakama, and Gama-Kwari Rivers, respectively
(Fig. 1). The location of the sampling points was recorded
using Garmin global positioning system and water samples
were collected every other day from 1st December, 2010 to
31st December, 2010.
Sampling points were selected to represent different land
use activities around the study area. Prior to the sampling
procedure, the bottles were washed with the distilled water
and rinsed three times with the river water three times to
avoid possible contamination. The water samples were col-
lected below 15 cm of the subsurface layer to avoid the
colloidal layer as this may influence the concentration of
certain parameters. Water samples were collected in tripli-
cates to estimates the variability resulting from the sampling
and analytical procedures using 200 mL polyethylene bot-
tles and stored in an ice box before transporting to the
laboratory. The sample was preserved in a refrigerator at
4 ° C to avert microbial growth, flocculation, and reduce any
adsorption on the polythene bottles. Samples were preserved
according to standard methods for the examination of water
and waste water (APHA 2005) for subsequent analysis.
4906 Arab J Geosci (2013) 6:4903–4915

Fig. 1 Study area and sampling 8.454725 8.534440 8.614155 8.693870 8.773585

point’s location

12.179478

12.179478
N

12.123304

12.123304
12.067130

12.067130
12.010956

12.010956
Legend
11.954782

11.954782
0 1.5 3 6 9 12 15
Kilometers
8.454725 8.534440 8.614155 8.693870 8.773585

Thirteen physiochemical and biological water quality
parameters were selected for analysis: this being dissolved
oxygen (DO), 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5),
chemical oxygen demand (COD), suspended solids (SS), pH,
ammonia-nitrogen (NH3NL), dissolved solids (DS), total sol-
ids (TS), nitrates (NO3), chloride (Cl), phosphates (PO4),
Escherichia coli (E. coli) and fecal coliform bacteria (FCB).
Water temperature, pH, and DO of the river water sam-
ples were measured in-situ, using thermo-probe (Model
TL1-A), a pre-calibrated microprocessor pH meter (Hanna
Instruments, model: pH211) and DO meter (4500-OG) re-
spectively. SS, TS, and DS were separated and measured by
gravimetric: filtering the water through a 0.45 μm filter
paper and determine according to a standard procedure
(APHA 2005). Cl was determined by argentometric titration
methods. NH3NL was measured by chemical titration using
salicylate test kits method. NO3 and PO4 were determined
using a molecular absorption spectrophotometer. E. coli and
FCB counts were based on multiple tube fermentation tech-
niques (APHA 2005). BOD5 was measured after 5 days of
incubation at 20 °C in tightly stoppered BOD bottles in the
dark (APHA 2005). COD measurements were performed by
the potassium dichromate method (K2CrO7).
In order to provide greater data confidence from the
analytical procedure regarding bias and variability, appro-
priate quality control and quality assurance (QA/QC) on
water samples were ensured. The QA/QC was followed to
ensure that data products are of documented high quality
and reproducible. The overall data quality is assessed
through precision, accuracy, and comparability (Aris et al.
2012a). The analytical precision was assessed by the use of
control chart and blank samples. The same laboratory equip-
ments were used for all samples collected in order to control
variability from sampling irregularities.
Pearson product moment correlation analysis
A bivariate correlation analysis produces Pearson’s correlation
coefficient (r). The correlation coefficient gives a mathemat-
ical value for measuring the strength and magnitude of the
linear relationship between two bivariates. The value of rela-
tionship takes values ranging from −1 to +1, where +1 repre-
senting an absolute perfect positive linear relationship (as x
increase, y increase). Zero representing no linear relationship
between the bivariates (x and y have no pattern), whereas −1
represents an absolute inverse relationship between bivariates
(as x increases, y decreases). The sign in front of the correla-
tion coefficient determines the direction of the relationship. A
plus sign denotes positive relationship and a minus sign
denotes negative correlation. The Pearson correlation coeffi-
cient (r) can be calculated using the equation below:
P P P
n xy  ð xÞð yÞ
r ¼ rhffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi ð1Þ
P 2 P 2 ih P 2 P 2i
n x  ð x Þ n y  ð yÞ
Where r is the correlation coefficient value, x and y are
the bivariate.
Principal component analysis and factor analysis
PCA/FA are statistical approaches that can be used to ana-
lyze interrelationships among a large number of variables
and to explain these variables in terms of their common
underlying dimension by providing empirical estimates of
the structure of variables (Singh et al. 2004). The objective
of PCA/FA is to reduce the number of variables necessary to
describe the observed variation within a datasets. PCA/FA
lessens the number of variables understudy and discovers
Arab J Geosci (2013) 6:4903–4915 4907

the structure between the variables (Pejman et al. 2009). distributions of mean (Gaur and Gaur 2006). The hypothesis
This is achieved by forming linear combinations of the can be tested as follows:
variables (components) that describe the distribution of the
Ho : μ1 þ μ2 þ μ3 ::::::μk ð3Þ
data (Mustapha and Aris 2012b). The linear combinations
are derived from some measures of association such as
correlation or covariance matrix. PCA converts the original Ho Not all means are equal
dataset which comprises of measurements for each variable The F statistics calculate the ratio between the variance
measured for each sample and converts them to an equal due to difference between group and error variance. The
number of composite variables (Mustapha and Nabegu larger the F ratio, the greater is the difference between groups
2011; Mustapha et al. 2012a). as compared to within-group differences. The equations
In order to maximize the relationship between the variables below give the expression of between- and within-column
under study, the factors are rotated. Factors rotation is used to variation:
facilitate interpretation by providing a simpler factor structure
2
(Sevilla et al. 2010). Factor rotation has been used to extract X
k X
j1
 
related variables and infer the processes that control surface TSS ¼ xij  xþþ ¼ ðn  1Þs2 ð4Þ
water chemistry. Varimax rotation is applied to the PCs in order i1 ni

to determine factors that can be easily explained (Shrestha and

Kazama 2007). The goal of rotation is to maximize the vari- P P P
ance (variability) of the new variable while minimizing the ð x1Þ2 ð x2Þ ð k Þ
BSS ¼ þ þ ð5Þ
variance around the new variables (Tiri and Boudoukha 2010). n1 n2 nk
The relevant information is carried out by the first principal
component (PCs). PCs are ordered in such a way that the
X
k X
j1
 2 X 
variance of the first PCs (PC1) is the highest; the variance of WSS ¼ xj  x þ j ¼ nj  1 s2j ð6Þ
the second PCs (PC2) is the second highest, and so on, whereas i¼1 ni j
the last PCs is the lowest in explaining variation of the data sets
(Chabukdhara and Nema 2012). PCA can be expressed using The total sum of square (TSS) is based upon the sum of
the equation below: the square deviations between the observations in the table
and the overall mean. The between sum of square (BSS) is
yji ¼ fj1zi1 þ fj2zi2 þ ::::: þ fjm þ zim þ eij ð2Þ based upon the square deviations between column means
where y is the measured variable, f is the factor loading, z is the and the overall means, and the within sum of square (WSS)
factor score, e is the residual term accounting for errors or other is based upon the squared deviations between the observa-
sources of variation, i and j is the sample number and m is the tion and the column means. The F statistics is constructed
total number of factors. by dividing each sum of squares by its degree of freedom as
in equation below:

One-way analysis of variance
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) compares the
means of more than two populations and it uncovers the
main and interaction effects of classification or independent
variables on a dependent variable. ANOVA uses the F
statistics, which tests if the means of the groups formed by
one or more independent variables or combination of inde-
pendent variables are significantly different. The F statistics
is based on the comparison of two estimates of variance: one
representing the variance within a group often refers to as
error variance and the other one representing the variance
due to differences in a group mean. If the two means do not
differ significantly, it can be concluded that group means
come from the same sampling distribution of means and
there is no reason to claim that the group means differ.
However, if the group means differ, there is a reason to
believe that they were drawn from different sampling
BSS=ðk  1Þ
F statistics ¼ ð7Þ
WSS=ðn  1Þ
An F ratio equal to or less than 1 indicates that there is no
significant difference between the groups and the null hy-
pothesis is correct. However, if the F test proves the null
hypothesis to be wrong, multiple comparison tests are used
to further explore the specific relationships among different
groups.
Results and discussion
Relationship between physicochemical and biological
parameters of the water
Tables 2, 3, and 4 present the results of the bivariate corre-
lation coefficients for Jakara, Tsakama, and Gama-Kwari
Table 2 Pearson product moment correlation coefficient for Jakara River
4908

DO BOD5 COD SS pH NH3NL DS TS NO3 Cl PO4 E. coli FCB

DO 1
BOD5 −0.592a 1
COD −0.443a 0.667a 1
SS 0.253 0.028 0.203 1
pH 0.338b 0.236 0.258 −000 1
NH3NL −0.659a 0.730a 0.656a −0.100 0.230 1
DS −0.203 0.195 0.479a −0.100 0.190 0.152 1
TS −0.197 0.196 0.486a −0.100 0.190 0.150 1.000a 1
NO3 −.540b 0.288b 0.309b 0.1200 0.100 0.446a −0.040 −0.040 1
Cl −0.182 0.183 0.473a −0.100 0.190 0.127 0.998a 0.997a −0.050 1
PO4 −0.635a 0.631a 0.608a −0.100 0.190 0.942a 0.128 0.127 0.671a 0.110 1
E. coli −0.622a 0.639a 0.529a −0.100 0.180 0.827a 0.132 0.131 0.541a 0.110 0.797a 1
FCB −0.611a 0.656a 0.511a −0.100 0.250 0.792a 0.250 0.249 0.297b 0.230 0.717a 0.922a 1
a
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed)
b
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed)

Table 3 Pearson product moment correlation coefficient of Tsakama River

DO BOD5 COD SS pH NH3NL DS TS NO3 Cl PO4 E. coli FCB

DO 1
BOD5 −0.686a 1
COD −0.644a 0.811a 1
SS 0.166 −0.040 −0.050 1
pH 0.140 0.099 0.043 0.355a 1
NH3NL −.0752a 0.895a 0.793a −0.000 0.100 1
DS −0.307b 0.187 0.165 −0.100 0.000 0.207 1
TS −0.305b 0.187 0.165 −0.100 0.000 0.206 1.000a 1
NO3 0.233 −0.330b −0.292b 0.050 0.100 −0.344b −0.239 −0.240 1
Cl −0.302b 0.181 0.169 −0.100 0.000 0.206 .998a 0.998a −0.242 1
PO4 −.672a 0.902a 0.741a −0.100 0.100 0.939a 0.208 0.210 −0.396a 0.210 1
E. coli −.444a 0.362a 0.330b −0.100 0.100 0.636a 0.185 0.190 −0.326b 0.210 0.628a 1
FCB −.515a 0.511a 0.451a 0.010 0.100 0.737a .327b 0.328b −0.365a 0.346a 0.757a 0.927a 1
a
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed)
b
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed)
Arab J Geosci (2013) 6:4903–4915
Arab J Geosci (2013) 6:4903–4915 4909

Table 4 Pearson product moment correlation coefficient of Gama-Kwari River parameters

DO BOD5 COD SS pH NH3NL DS TS NO3 Cl PO4 E. coli FCB

DO 1
BOD5 −0.363a 1
COD −0.426a 0.983a 1
SS −0.009 0.017 0.041 1
pH 0.185 0.022 0.040 −0.050 1
NH3NL −0.657a 0.056 0.123 0.110 −0.100 1
DS −0.462a 0.681a 0.679a 0.090 −0.050 0.336a 1
TS −0.462a 0.680a 0.678a 0.120 −0.050 0.337a 1.000a 1
NO3 −0.004 0.030 0.040 0.230 −0.470a 0.073 −0.000 −0.030 1
Cl −0.467a 0.694a 0.684a 0.080 −0.040 0.331a 0.994a 0.994a −0.040 1
PO4 −0.359a 0.030 0.042 0.140 −0.120 0.406a 0.080 0.078 −0.160 0.08 1
E. coli −0.622a 0.416a 0.479a −0.040 0.152 0.537a 0.370a 0.369a −0.030 0.376a 0.189 1
FCB −0.596a 0.504a 0.566a −0.060 0.276b 0.493a 0.444a 0.441a −0.030 0.453a 0.160 0.893a 1
a
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed)
b
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed)

Rivers respectively. The relationship between the 13 param-
eters understudy was investigated using Pearson’s product–
moment correlation.
Preliminary analysis was conducted on the raw data
before the analysis to ensure no violation of the assumption
of normality and linearity. The Levene test of homogeneity
of variances results shows that the variances are equal or
homogeneous, because the Levene test obtained was very
small (0.132), and the corresponding p value was greater
than the alpha value (p 0.05).
As depicted in the tables, analysis of correlation coeffi-
cients shows inverse relationship for variables describing the
oxygen conditions of water and organic compound. The value
of correlation coefficients equals −0.59, −0.69, and −0.37 for
the pair DO and BOD5, −0.44, −0.64, and −0.43 for the pair
DO and COD, −0.66, −0.75, and −0.66 for the pair DO and
NH3NL, −0.62, −0.44, and −0.62 for the pair E. coli, and
−0.61, 0.52, and 0.59 for the pair DO and FCB in Jakara,
Tsakama, and Gama-Kwari Rivers, respectively.
It is not surprising that the inverse relationship exists
between BOD5, COD, NH3NL, E. coli, and FCB with
DO. Lower level of concentration of DO in the rivers
may be due to the activities of microorganism in the
water resulting in less penetration of light in the water
and subsequent decrease in photosynthesis activities
(Pejman et al. 2009; Palma et al. 2010). Higher rate
of bacterial decomposition of organic matter in the
surface water may increase the demand of oxygen for
their metabolic activities and these would be expected
to have exhibited a significant inverse correlation be-
tween the parameters (Kumar and Reddy 2008). The
correlations of organic biodegradable compounds
seemed to favor the growth of coliform bacteria.
BOD5, COD, NH3NL had long been the basic means of
determining the degree of organic pollution in surface water.
The COD with BOD5 correlation can be explained by the
fact that BOD5 represents liable organic matter which under-
goes biotic decomposition and is part of COD. COD is a
total organic matter content which is oxidized by a strong
oxidant (Cieszynska et al. 2012). The value of a correlation
coefficient shows significant linear relationship between
BOD5 and COD (r00.67) as well as other parameters in-
cluding NH3NL (r00.73), PO4 (r00.63), E. coli (r00 .64),
and FCB (r00.66) in the Jakara River. Further, the organic
compounds have higher linear correlation in the Tsakama
River with BOD5 and COD (r00.81), BOD5 and NH3NL
(r00.89), BOD5 and PO4 (r00.90), BOD5 and E. coli (r0
0.36), BOD5 and FCB (r00.51). Similarly, Gama-Kwari
River revealed a positive linear correlation coefficient be-
tween BOD5 and COD (r00.98), E. coli (r00.41), FCB (r0
0.50), Cl (r00.69), DS (r00.68), and TS (r00.68). These
parameters could be taken as representing the major sources
of river water quality variation. Many of the correlations can
be explained by the organic compound used for domestic
activities in the vicinity of the studied rivers. The present
finding seems to be consistent with other research which
found that urban land type together with the effects of
increased population, domestic water use, and industrial
wastewater were positively associated with increase in water
quality variations (Singh et al. 2004; Mustapha et al. 2012a).
Large amount of biodegradable organic compound may
affect surface water because organism in the water use the
available DO to breakdown the waste. This process can
deplete the supply of oxygen in the water needed by aquatic
life resulting in fish kill, odors, and overall degradation of
the water quality (Carpenter et al. 1998).
4910 Arab J Geosci (2013) 6:4903–4915

Surface water quality sources apportionment using principal Table 6 Varimax rotated component matrix Tsakama River
component analysis and factor analysis VF1 VF2 VF3 VF4

River water source apportionment is an important environ- BOD5 0.941 0.071 0.172 0.051
mentrics approach aiming to the estimation of contribution of COD 0.898 0.065 0.104 0.004
each parameter (Simeonov et al. 2003; Singh et al. 2004; NH3NL 0.859 0.064 0.456 0.069
Shrestha and Kazama 2007). PCA/FA assumes that the total PO4 0.820 0.063 0.492 0.064
from each element is made up of the sum of elemental con- DO −0.758 −0.204 −0.24 0.224
centrations from each identified polluting or natural cause TS 0.101 0.987 0.12 −0.022
component (Juahir et al. 2009). To obtain more reliable infor- DS 0.102 0.986 0.12 −0.036
mation about the relationships among the variables, PCA/FA Cl 0.094 0.983 0.141 −0.033
was used separately for each river to further explore the extent E. coli 0.231 0.045 0.939 0.014
of physiochemical and biological parameters and sources FCB 0.375 0.187 0.872 0.100
identification. Varimax rotation method was used to maximize NO3 −0.215 −0.187 −0.452 0.100
the sum of the variance of the factor coefficient, which better pH 0.060 −0.021 0.063 0.836
explained the possible group/sources that influenced the water SS −0.065 −0.037 −0.056 0.797
chemistry in the Jakara Basin (Singh et al. 2004). The factor Eigenvalue 5.72 2.63 1.42 1.09
loadings were ranked following the correlation coefficient Variance (%) 44.02 20.25 10.90 8.43
matrix between the variables. CV (%) 44.01 64.27 75.17 83.60
The calculated factor loadings, cumulated variance
explained by each factor in the PCA are presented in Tables 5, CV cumulative variance
6, and 7.
Preliminary analysis prior to factor analysis were al. 2003; Mustapha et al. 2012b). Four factors with
conducted to ensure that no violation of the assumptions eigenvalues greater than 1 were extracted from the
of Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure on the sam- varimax-rotated factor analysis for each river water data.
pling adequacy and Bartlett test of sphericity. The Factor score represent the cumulative contribution of all
KMO result was 0.82, and the Bartlett sphericity test parameters loaded on a particular factor.
was significant (0.001, p<0.05), showing that PCA/FA The first varimax component (VF1) in the Jakara
could be considered appropriate and useful to provide River water sets explains more than 42 % of the total
significant reduction in the data dimensionality (Liu, et variance and is heavily loaded on NH 3NL, E. coli,

Table 5 Varimax rotated component matrix Jakara River Table 7 Varimax rotated component matrix Gama-Kwari River

VF1 VF2 VF3 VF4 VF1 VF2 VF3 VF4

NH3NL 0.942 0.078 0.045 −0.066 TS 0.944 0.123 0.200 0.027

E. coli 0.938 0.046 0.021 −0.041 Cl 0.944 0.136 0.188 0.006
PO4 0.936 0.023 0.005 0.016 DS 0.944 0.127 0.194 0.019
FCB 0.872 0.172 0.069 −0.132 BOD5 0.823 0.31 −0.23 0.017
BOD5 0.734 0.206 0.029 0.103 COD 0.802 0.387 −0.197 0.023
DO −0.660 −0.116 0.653 0.209 E. coli 0.239 0.896 0.107 −0.096
NO3 0.609 −0.139 −0.023 0.321 FCB 0.337 0.875 0.034 −0.167
TS 0.070 0.989 0.036 −0.011 DO −0.321 −0.642 −0.46 −0.138
Cl 0.051 0.988 0.03 −0.036 PO4 −0.017 0.136 0.783 −0.055
DS 0.072 0.988 0.035 −0.044 NH3NL 0.100 0.564 0.647 0.148
COD 0.528 0.544 0.079 0.422 NO3 −0.051 0.126 −0.23 0.882
pH 0.212 0.134 0.945 −0.024 pH −0.023 0.139 −0.202 −0.798
SS −0.055 −0.033 0.033 0.940 SS 0.131 −0.19 0.301 0.323
Eigenvalue 5.50 2.97 1.43 1.11 Eigenvalue 5.51 1.89 1.68 1.13
Variance (%) 42.34 22.89 11.05 8.58 Variance (%) 42.36 14.61 12.99 8.73
CV (%) 42.34 65.23 76.28 84.86 CV (%) 42.36 56.97 69.96 78.69

CV cumulative variance CV cumulative variance

Arab J Geosci (2013) 6:4903–4915 4911

FCB, PO4, BOD5, COD, and negatively loaded with

DO. VF1 in Tsakama River explains 44 % of the total
variance and had positive loading on BOD 5, COD,
NH3NL, PO4 and a negative loading on DO. Further,
VF1 in Gama-Kwari River explained 42.3 % of the
total variance and had strong positive loading on TS,
Cl, DS, BOD5, NH3NL, and COD. The high loadings
on the variables identified by VF1 in Jakara, Tsakama,
and Gama-Kwari Rivers water quality variations are
presented in box and whisker plots (Fig. 2a–c).
These results provide evidence of critical anthropo-
genic impacts on the studied rivers, it is a factor
represented by oxide related processes Sewage contam-
ination from domestic areas is traditionally identified
by biodegradable organic matter, ammonia or counts of
fecal bacteria as tracers for waste water in the water
column (Martin et al. 2012). When organic matter of
river water is oxidized at the expense of oxygen, the
NH3NL, E. coli, FCB, PO4, BOD5, NO3, COD will
increase with decreasing DO (Onojake et al. 2011;
Mustapha et al. 2012b). This factor can be interpreted
as an anthropogenic factor of the overall measure of
the sewage discharge, which includes pollution contri-
butions from a domestic waste discharge through a
point source.
VF2 explains 22.9 and 20.2 % for Jakara and Tsa-
kama Rivers, respectively, had positive strong loading
on TS, DS, and Cl. This varimax component can be
linked to surface run-off that may be carried from non-
point source of pollution into the rivers during a rainy
season (Hanh et al. 2010; Calijuri et al. 2011). The
linear relationship between these solids could have
been the result of run-off and erosive processes taking
place in the vicinity of these rivers. The surface run-off
in the Jakara Basin appeared to be triggered by aspects
of urbanization processes that enhance transport of
particles into the water bodies (Calijuri et al. 2011)
VF3 explains 11, 10.9, and 12.9 % and had strong
positive loading on pH, and E. coli, FCB and PO4,
NH3NL for Jakara, Tsakama, and Gama-Kwari Rivers,
respectively. These components confirmed the pressure
of anthropogenic influences on the water bodies and
therefore appear to be related to the contribution by
diffuse pollution from agricultural irrigation activities
in the vicinity of the Jakara Basin.
VF4 explained 8.6, 8.4, and 8.7 % of the total
variance for Jakara, Tsakama, and Gama-Kwari Rivers Fig. 2 Box and whisker plot showing parameters with high varimax
factor loading in a Jakara River, b Tsakama River, and c Gama-Kwari
respectively. It had positive strong loading on pH and River
SS in all the studied Rivers. This component can be
considered an ecological response. This component rep-
resents a feedback effect, i.e. response to some changes BOD5, COD, NH3NL, PO4, E. coli, FCB, and DO with
introduced in the system by natural factors or a con- strong factor loading are the most important parameters
tamination sources. responsible for water quality variation in Jakara, Tsakama
4912 Arab J Geosci (2013) 6:4903–4915
8.454725 8.534440 8.614155 8.693870 8.773585 8.454725 8.534440 8.614155 8.693870 8.773585

a b

12.179478

12.179478
12.179478

12.179478
N N

12.123304

12.123304
12.123304

12.123304
Legend Legend
5 3

12.067130

12.067130
12.067130

12.067130

12.010956

12.010956
12.010956

12.010956

11.954782

11.954782
11.954782

11.954782
0 1.5 3 6 9 12 15 0 1.5 3 6 9 12 15
Kilometers Kilometers
8.454725 8.534440 8.614155 8.693870 8.773585 8.454725 8.534440 8.614155 8.693870 8.773585

8.454725 8.534440 8.614155 8.693870 8.773585 8.454725 8.534440 8.614155 8.693870 8.773585

c d
12.179478

12.179478

12.179478

12.179478
N N
12.123304

12.123304

12.123304

12.123304
Legend Legend
12.067130

12.067130

12.067130

12.067130
12.010956

12.010956

12.010956

12.010956
11.954782

11.954782

11.954782

11.954782
0 1.5 3 6 9 12 15 0 1.5 3 6 9 12 15
Kilometers Kilometers
8.454725 8.534440 8.614155 8.693870 8.773585 8.454725 8.534440 8.614155 8.693870 8.773585

8.454725 8.534440 8.614155 8.693870 8.773585 8.454725 8.534440 8.614155 8.693870 8.773585

e f
12.179478

12.179478
12.179478

12.179478

N N
12.123304

12.123304
12.123304

12.123304

Legend Legend
12.067130

12.067130
12.067130

12.067130

12.010956

12.010956
12.010956

12.010956

11.954782

11.954782
11.954782

11.954782

0 1.5 3 6 9 12 15 0 1.5 3 6 9 12 15
Kilometers Kilometers
8.454725 8.534440 8.614155 8.693870 8.773585 8.454725 8.534440 8.614155 8.693870 8.773585

8.454725 8.534440 8.614155 8.693870 8.773585

g
12.179478

12.179478

N
12.123304

12.123304

Legend
12.067130

12.067130
12.010956

12.010956
11.954782

11.954782

0 1.5 3 6 9 12 15
Kilometers
8.454725 8.534440 8.614155 8.693870 8.773585

Fig. 3 Distribution of pollutants in Jakara, Tsakama, and Gama-Kwari Rivers a BOD5, b NH3NL, c COD, d DO, e E. coli, f FCB, and g PO4
Arab J Geosci (2013) 6:4903–4915
Fig. 4 Mean difference between Jakara, Tsakama, and Gama-Kwari
Rivers
and Gama-Kwari Rivers. The distribution of the pollutants
were given in Fig. 3 and interpreted as suggested by Liu et
al. 2003 as high, moderate, and low corresponding to >50,
0.51–0.74, and 0.75 and above factor loading. Figure 3
showed high concentration of BOD5, NH3NL, COD, PO4
with low concentration of E. coli, FCB and DO in Tsakama
River, high distribution of NH3NL, E. coli, FCB, PO4, with
moderate concentration of BOD5, COD and a low concen-
tration of DO in River Jakara and high concentration of
BOD5, NH3NL, COD with low distribution of E. coli,
FCB, DO, and PO4 in Gama-Kwari River.
River water quality mean differences
A one-way between-groups analysis of variance was
performed to investigate water quality mean differences
obtained from Jakara, Tsakama, and Gama-Kwari Riv-
ers. The mean score obtained from the three rivers are
depicted in Fig. 4. The null hypothesis states that there
are no differences in the mean samples of river water
quality between the three rivers under study. Preliminary
assumption testing was conducted to check for
Table 8 One-way ANOVA results
Sum of Mean square F p value
squares
Between-groups 1.64E+09 8.21E+08 1.563 0.223
Within-groups 1.89E+10 5.25E+08
Total 2.06E+10
4913
normality and homogeneity of variance with no viola-
tion noted.
The ANOVA test (Table 8) revealed that there was
no statistically significant different in the mean between
Jakara, Tsakama, and Gama-Kwari Rivers (F 01.563,
p00.223). This result failed to reject the null hypothesis
and revealed that all the three rivers are having the
same pollution status. This confirmed the correlation
analysis results and the linear combination of BOD5,
COD, NH3NL, FCB, and E. coli in all the studied water
bodies.
Conclusions
In this study, surface water quality of Jakara, Tsa-
kama, and Gama-Kwari Rivers were investigated, and
combination of statistical techniques were used includ-
ing bivariate correlation, principal component analysis
(PCA) and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).
Results from the bivariate correlation showed that the
relationship among the variables understudy were
helpful to identify the surface water quality pollution
sources using PCA/FA. The PCA/FA of the studied
water bodies revealed four independent varimax com-
ponents in each river water quality data sets explain-
ing 84.88, 83.59, and 78.68 % of the variation in the
surface water quality for Jakara, Tsakama, and Gama-
Kwari Rivers respectively. These components are re-
lated to organic compound from the anthropogenic
influences through direct dumping of waste water into
the surface water. The component which mostly
explained the variation in the data set had the stron-
gest positive contribution of BOD 5 , COD, NH 3 NL,
PO 4 , E. coli, FCB and a negative loading on the
available DO. The direct discharge of domestic efflu-
ents and the carrying of surface run-off from the
metropolitan are factors linked to the urban expansion
and population growth which promotes the degradation
of the water bodies. The result form the ANOVA
showed that all the three rivers had the same pollution
status. The study recommended that the implementa-
tion of a system for sewage collection and treatment
before disposal, as well as structural and non-
structural measures which will decrease surface run-
off are examples of interventions to recuperate and
preserve the quality of the surface water resources in
the Jakara Basin.
Acknowledgments We will like to thank the anonymous reviewers
for their valuable comments on the manuscript.
4914
References
Ajiboye AJ, Olayini OA, Adegbite BA (2012) A review of the chal-
lenges of sustainable water resources management in Nigeria. Int
J Life Sci Biotech Pharm Res 1:1–9
APHA (2005) Standard methods for the examination of water and
wastewater. American Water Works Association, Water Environ-
ment Federation, Washington DC
Aris AZ, Praveena SM, Abdullah MH, Radojevic M (2012a) Statistical
approaches and hydrochemical modeling of groundwater system
in a small tropical island. J Hydroinformatics 14:206–220
Aris AZ, Praveena SM, Abdullah MH (2012b) The influence of seawater
in the chemical composition of groundwater in small island: the
example of Manukan Island, East Malaysia. J Coastal Res doi:org/
10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00020.1
Biney C, Amuzu A, Calamari D, Kaba N, Mbome I, Naeve H,
Ochumba P, Osibanjo O, Radegonde V, Saad M (1994) Review
of heavy metals in the African aquatic environment. Ecotoxicol
Environ Saf 28:134–159
Brahim FB, Bouri S, Khanfir H (2011) Hydrochemical analysis and eval-
uation of groundwater quality of a Mio-Plio-Quaternary aquifer sys-
tem in an arid regions: case of El Hancha, Djebeniana and El Amra
regions, Tunisia. Arab J Geosci. doi:10.1007/s12517-011-0481-6
Calijuri ML, Couto EA, Santiago AF, Camargo RA, Silva MD (2011)
Evaluation of the influence of natural and anthropogenic processes
on water quality in Karstic region. Water Air Soil Pollut.
doi:10.1007/s11270-011-1012-5
Carpenter SR, Caraco NF, Correll DL, Howarth RW, Sharley AN,
Smith VH (1998) Nonpoint pollution of surface waters with
phosphorus and nitrogen. Ecol Appl 8:559–568
Chabukdhara M, Nema A (2012) Assessment of heavy metal contam-
ination in Hindon River sediments: a chemometric and geochem-
ical approach. Chemosphere 87:945–953
Cieszynska M, Wesolowski M, Bartoszewicz M, Michalska M, Nowacki
J (2012) Application of physicochemical data for water-quality
assessment of watercourse in the Gdansk Municipality (South Baltic
coast). Environ Monit Assess. doi:10.1007/s10661-011-2096-5
Gamble A, Babbar-Sebens M (2012) On the use of multivariate statis-
tical methods for combining in-stream monitoring data and spatial
analysis to characterize water quality conditions in the White
River Basin, Indiana, USA. Environ Monit Assess. doi:10.1007/
s10661-011-2005-y
Gaur A, Gaur S (2006) Statistical methods for practice and research: a
guide to data analysis using SPSS. Sage, London
Hanh PTM, Sthiannopkao S, Kim KW, Ba DT, Huang NQ (2010)
Anthropogenic influence on surface water quality of the Nhue and
Day sub-river systems in Vietnam. Environ Geochem Health
32:227–236
Huang F, Wang X, Lou L, Zhou Z, Wu J (2010) Spatial variation and
sources apportionment of water pollution in Qiantang River
(China) using statistical techniques. Water Res 4:1562–1572
Juahir H, Zain SM, Aris AZ, Yusoff MK, Mokhtar M (2009) Spatial
assessment of Langat River water quality using chemometrics. J
Environ Monit 12:287–297
Koklu R, Sengorur B, Topal B (2010) Water quality assessment using
multivariate statistical methods: a case study of Melen River
System (Turkey). Water Res Manag 24:959–978
Kumar AY, Reddy MV (2008) Assessment of seasonal effects of munic-
ipal sewage pollution on the water quality of an urban canal- a case
study of the Buckingham canal at Kalpakkam (India): NO3, PO4,
BOD, COD and DO. Environ Monit Assess 157:223–234
Liu CW, Lin KH, Kuo YM (2003) Application of factor analysis in the
assessment of groundwater quality in a black foot disease area in
Taiwan. Sci Total Environ 313:77–89
Arab J Geosci (2013) 6:4903–4915
Liu Z, Li Y, Li Z (2009) Surface water quality and land use in
Wisconsin USA: a GIS approach. J Integr Environ Sci 6:69–89
Martin GD, George R, Shaiju P, Muraleedharan KR, Nair SM,
Chandramohanakumar N (2012) Toxic metals enrichment in the
surficial sediments of a eutropic tropical estuary (Cochin Back-
waters, South west coast of India). Sci World J. doi:10.1100/2012/
972839
Mustapha A, Aris AZ (2012a) Multivariate statistical analysis and
environmental modeling of heavy metals pollution by industries.
Pol J Environ Stud 21:1359–1367
Mustapha A, Aris AZ (2012b) Spatial aspects of surface water quality in
the Jakara Basin, Nigeria using chemometric analysis. J Environ Sci
Health A 47:1455–1465
Mustapha A, Nabegu AB (2011) Surface water pollution source
identification using principal component and factor analysis in
Getsi River, Kano, Nigeria. Aust J Basic Appl Sci 5:1507–
1512
Mustapha A, Aris AZ, Ramli MF, Juahir H (2012a) Spatial temporal
variation of surface water quality in the downstream region of the
Jakara River, northwestern Nigeria: A statistical approach. J Environ
Sci Health A 47:1551–1560
Mustapha A, Aris AZ, Ramli MF, Juahir H (2012b) Temporal aspects
of surface water quality variation using robust statistical tools. Sci
World J. doi:10.1100/2012/294540
Okogbue C, Omonona O, Aghamelu O (2012) Qualitative assessment of
groundwater from Egbe–Mopa basement complex area, north cen-
tral Nigeria. Environ Earth Sci. doi:10.1007/s12665-012-1552-z
Onojake MC, Ukerun SO, Iwuoha G (2011) A statistical approach for
evaluation of the effect of industrial and municipal wastes on
Warri Rivers, Niger Delta, Nigeria. Water Qual Expo Health
3:91–99
Palma P, Alvarenga P, Palma VL, Fernandes RM, Soares MVM,
Barbosa IR (2010) Assessment of anthropogenic sources of water
pollution using multivariate statistical techniques: a case study of
the Alquevas’s reservoir, Portugal. Environ Monit Assess
165:539–552
Pejman AH, Nabi-Bidhendi GR, Karbassi AR, Mehrdadi N, Esmaeili-
Bidhendi M (2009) Evaluation of spatial and seasonal variations
in surface water quality using multivariate statistical techniques.
Int J Sci Technol 6:467–476
Selvam AP, Priya SL, Banerjee K, Hariharan G, Purvaja R (2011)
Heavy metal assessment using geochemical and statistical tools
in the surface sediments of Vembanad Lake, south west coast of
India. Environ Monit Assess. doi:10.1007/s10661-011-2389-8
Semar A, Saibi H, Medjerab A (2012) Contribution of multivariate
statistical techniques in the hydrochemical evaluation of ground-
water from the Ouargla phreatic aquifer in Algeria. Arab J Geosci.
doi:10.1007/s12517-012-0616-4
Sevilla J, Lee C, Lee B (2010) Assessment of spatial variations in
surface water quality of Kyeongan Stream, South Korea using
multi-variate statistical techniques. Sustain Food Water 18:39–48
Shrestha S, Kazama F (2007) Assessment of surface water quality
using multivariate statistical techniques: a case study of Fuji river
basin, Japan. Environ Model Softw 22:464–475
Simeonov V, Stratis J, Samara C, Zakariadis G, Voutsa D, Anthemidis
A, Sofoniou M, Kouimtzis T (2003) Assessment of the surface
water quality in Northern Greece. Water Res 37:4119–4124
Singh KP, Malik A, Mohan D, Sinha S (2004) Multivariate statistical
techniques for the evaluation of spatial and temporal variations in
water quality of Gomti River (India)—a case study. Water Res
38:3980–3992
Singh CK, Shashtri S, Rina K, Mukherjee S (2012) Chemometric
analysis to infer hydro-geochemical processes in a semi-arid
region of India. Arab J Geosci. doi:10.1007/s12517-012-
0597-3
Arab J Geosci (2013) 6:4903–4915
Taiwo A, Olujimi O, Bamgbose O, Arowolo T (2010) Surface water
quality monitoring in Nigeria: a situational analysis and future
management strategy. J Sustain Manag 2:301–320
Tiri A, Boudoukha A (2010) Hydrochemical analysis and assessment
of surface water quality in Koudiat Medour Reservoir, Algeria.
Eur J Sci Res 41:273–285
Tlili-Zrelli B, Hamzaoui-Azaza F, Gueddari M, Bouhhlila R (2012)
Geochemistry and quality assessment of groundwater using
graphical and multivariate statistical methods. A case study:
4915
Grombalia phreatic aquifer (Northeastern Tunisia). Arab J Geosci.
doi:10.1007/s12517-012-0617-3
Vidal M, Lopez P, Santoalla M, Valles V (2000) Factor analysis for the
study of water resources contamination due to the use of livestock
slurries as fertilizer. Agric Water Manag 45:1–15
Yang L, Song X, Zhang Y, Yuan R, Ma Y, Han D, Bu H (2012) A
hydrochemical framework and water quality assessment of river
water in the upper reaches of the Huai River Basin, China.
Environ Earth Sci. doi:10.1007/s12665-012-1654-7