High iron concentration and pH change

detected using statistics and geostatistics in

crystalline basement equatorial region

B. G. Nshagali, P. Njandjock
Nouck, J. L. Meli’i, Z. Arétouyap &
E. Manguelle-Dicoum

Environmental Earth Sciences

ISSN 1866-6280

Environ Earth Sci

DOI 10.1007/s12665-014-3893-2

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by Springer-
Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. This e-offprint is
for personal use only and shall not be self-
archived in electronic repositories. If you wish
to self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com”.

1 23
 Author's personal copy
Environ Earth Sci
DOI 10.1007/s12665-014-3893-2
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
High iron concentration and pH change detected using statistics
and geostatistics in crystalline basement equatorial region
B. G. Nshagali • P. Njandjock Nouck •
J. L. Meli’i • Z. Arétouyap • E. Manguelle-Dicoum
Received: 3 July 2014 / Accepted: 15 November 2014
Ó Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014
Abstract To mitigate the disasters caused by the con-
sumption of poor quality of water, the World Health
Organization (WHO) has established standards for testing
the quality of drinking water that must be met. The purpose
of this study is to verify the relevance of these tests in
crystalline basement aquifers in equatorial areas. The glo-
bal analysis of water quality was conducted by comparing
the measured concentration of iron, calcium, pH change
and other major ions in the 70 water samples which were
collected at different sites in the Centre Cameroun area
with the WHO standards. The water quality index was
estimated in the entire area using the block ordinary kriging
technique. The results show a high concentration of iron, a
very high or very low pH, and high temperature values at
certain sites, exceeding sometimes the standard values.
Finally, this study shows that the control of groundwater
quality following WHO standards must always be
conducted.
Keywords Water quality  Geostatistic  Iron
concentration  Lékié  Cameroon
B. G. Nshagali  P. Njandjock Nouck (&) 
J. L. Meli’i  Z. Arétouyap  E. Manguelle-Dicoum
Laboratory of Geophysics, University of Yaounde 1,
Yaoundé, Cameroon
e-mail: pnnouck@yahoo.com
B. G. Nshagali  E. Manguelle-Dicoum
Department of Geology, Université Officielle de Bukavu,
Bukavu, Democratic Republic of Congo
Introduction
Water is an essential biological constituent. It is both,
involved in several essential physiological processes and a
vital nutrient. Globally, there is an increasing sensitisation
about the fact that it will become one of the most important
natural resources in the future (Abdul et al. 2010).
Groundwater may be more used and preferred due to the
vulnerability of on-surface water to cultural activities and
natural contamination. The degradation of water quality
may lead to the breakdown of an entire social stratum
(UNWATER, UNEP, FAOWATER 2010). In most cases,
water diseases’ epidemics are caused by poor water quality.
Population from everywhere should be informed regularly
on the quality of water they drink. For example, a simple
change in the water coloration can cause panic within a
population that is not informed on the composition of the
water it drinks. In developing countries like Cameroon,
people often gather to dig wells and water is consumed
without any prior control (Global Water Partnership Cen-
tral Africa report 2011). To reduce water diseases, the
World Health Organization (WHO) has defined standards
for drinking water (WHO 2004). These standards require to
permanently set and monitor the water quality in a given
region (Chabra 2008; Chandra et al. 2010; Srivastava and
Ramanathan 2008). Thus, quality parameters have thresh-
old values above which water is assumed contaminated and
present health hazards (Islam et al. 2003; Cobbina et al.
2010; Fulazzaky et al. 2010). Therefore, the knowledge of
various standards and indicators of groundwater quality
and drinkability becomes useful for the sensitisation of
officials about the relevance of the water quality control so
as to limit the spread of those diseases. Although nowadays
for a more efficient study, water, air and soil should be
jointly analysed using new technologies such as
123
 Author's personal copy
environmental flow diagram (EFD) (Valipour et al. 2012,
2013), in this study, the water quality analysis based on
some physico-chemical parameters of samples from dis-
tricts of the Centre Region in Cameroon through geosta-
tistical and statistical methods and using the water quality
index as qualification parameter is developed.
Study area
The area chosen for study is encompassed within 3°–4°
northing and 11°–12° easting, for an area of 2,989 km2 in
Central Africa (Fig. 1). It is well watered with four seasons
irregularly distributed between two rain and two dry sea-
sons. It is located at the equatorial forest and savannah
boundary. Aquifers of this area are in bedrock composed of
crystalline rocks from igneous (granites) and metamorphic
rocks (gneiss, mica, etc.) (Fig. 2). Hydrologically, these
hard rocks with a relatively homogeneous mechanical
behaviour are mainly characterized by the permeable
cracks and fractures. The Aquifers located in this zone can
be considered as ‘‘discontinuous’’ because of the large
variability in their hydrodynamic properties. According to
their relatively low permeability, the productivity of these
Fig. 1 Location map of the study area
123
Environ Earth Sci
aquifers is modest. Nevertheless, one can notice the
advantage of providing a geographically well-distributed
water resource (since the rain is distributed throughout the
year) and less dependent on surface water: favourable
drilling sites are likely to be found at the scale of each
village (Pagna 2006). The relatively thin alterites layer
usually abounds with a non-productive unconfined aquifer
and fluctuates with seasons.
Methodology
Sampling
This study examined 70 drilling samples that were col-
lected in the Lékié division and organized into four blocks.
These are Evodoula, Saa, Obala and Monatele. The number
of samples was chosen according to the number of villages
in each block.
Geostatistics
Geostatistics can be defined as the set of techniques or tools
used to estimate or predict the grade of a space or time
 Author's personal copy
Environ Earth Sci

Fig. 2 Geological map of the study area

distributed variable. It is used to analyse data samples, analysis of WQI calculated from the physico-chemical
develop variogram models and produce kriged maps (Nij- parameters.
meijer et al. 2001; Meli’i et al. 2013; Njandjock Nouck Simply, the semi-variogram is given by Eq. (1).
et al. 2013). Ordinary kriging (best linear unbiased esti- 1
mator), because of its zero mean square error, is exten- cðhÞ ¼ E½zðxÞ  zðx þ hÞ2 ð1Þ
2
sively used in geostatistics for optimal estimation of
variables in geology, hydrology, environmental sciences For discrete variables, this function can be expressed by
and other areas where a spatial interpolation of data is Eq. (2).
needed. Kriging has two main tasks: to quantify the
1 X
NðhÞ
spatial structure of the data and estimate the data points cðhÞ ¼ ½zðxi Þ  zðxi þ hÞ2 ð2Þ
where the measurement was not made. To predict an 2NðhÞ i¼1
unknown value at a given point, kriging uses the most
where z (xi) is the value of the variable Z in point xi, and
suitable variogram model, a good spatial configuration of
N(h) the number of pairs of points separated by distance h.
data, and the measured values around the point to estimate
The experimental variogram obtained is adjusted to a
(Sarangi et al. 2005). The technological advances and the
theoretical model. Kriging thus makes it possible to esti-
several available geostatistical software have made popular
mate the value of a parameter in Eq. (3)
the use of kriging in the spatial analysis of environmental
data. Many kriging types have also been developed: simple X
n
z ðx0 Þ ¼ ki zðxi Þ ð3Þ
kriging, ordinary kriging, block kriging, co-kriging and
i¼1
disjunctive kriging. This study uses the block kriging, since
the data were processed by zone and for each block, the where z* (x0) is the estimated value at x0, z (xi) the one
ordinary kriging was used for the interpolation and spatial measured at xi and ki the weight value.

123
 Author's personal copy
Environ Earth Sci

Interpolation
The quality assessment of pH was calculated based on
the formula (7):
For each parameter, different variogram models were tes-  
ted. The cross-validation criteria enabled us to select the Vactual Videal
QpH ¼ 100 ð7Þ
model with the least root mean squared (RMS) interpola- Vstandard  Videal
tion error (Njandjock Nouck et al. 2013). V ideal is the ideal pH value considered equal to 7.0,
V standard is the parameter value of water quality
Water quality index (WQI) obtained from standards recommended by WHO. This
equation ensures that Qi is equal to zero when a pollutant
The different parameters analysed are not easily under- is completely absent in the water sample and Qi is equal
stood by the population and policy makers although they to 100 when the value of this parameter is equal to its fair
have a strong impact on the water resources management. value eligible. Furthermore, when the value of Qi is
Hence the need to express the water quality in a simple and greater than 100, water is considered to be poor in terms
easy understandable format for non-water specialists has of quality.
been highlighted. The WQI is a dimension-less number Then, the overall WQI was calculated using the method
which combines several water quality parameters into a proposed by Ott (1978) based on the weighting and scoring
single number standardizing the subjective values. This different physico-chemical parameters (8):
water quality index provides a unique number (a grade) X
i¼n
that expresses the overall water quality at a given point WQI ¼ qi wi ð8Þ
depending on several parameters of the water quality. The n¼1

objective of this index is to transform the complex data of where qi is the quality of the ith parameter, wi is the unit
the water quality into easy understandable and usable weight of the ith parameter, and n the number of the
information. The WQI computes a single value from parameter considered.
complex scientific information of various variables. Sev- The expression of WQI used in this study is given in
eral authors have worked on these concepts and examples Eq. (9) proposed by Amadi et al. (2012) and Table 1 shows
are presented with case scenarios (Dinius 1987; Dee et al. the parameterization.
1973; Ott 1978; Abdul et al. 2010; Amadi et al. 2012; P
qi wi
Anthony et al. 2013). WQI ¼ P ð9Þ
wi
Calculation of the water quality index (WQI) Results

The calculation of the WQI follows steps below: The different concentrations of the physico-chemical
Firstly, the weight (Wi) unit of the different parameters parameters analysed, the water quality index and their
is inversely proportional to the recommended standard statistical analysis are shown in the Tables 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
(VStandard) for the corresponding parameter. Wi values are and Fig. 3. The results show that parameters such as the
calculated from formula (4) given by iron, the temperature and pH in certain localities, present
K very large values compared with the standards.
Wi ¼ ð4Þ As shown in Table 7a, b, c and d, high iron concentra-
Vstandard
tions and high temperature were detected on some
where K is the constant of proportionality, V Standard is localities
the value in the acceptable standard of quality of drinking In Fig. 3a–d, localities which have large discrepancies
water prescribed by WHO. The proportionality constant K between the measured iron concentration and the limit
can be determined from Eq. (5): value are represented. Figure 3e, f presents zones where
1 temperature is very high than the limit value proposed by
K ¼ Pn ð5Þ the WHO standards.
1=
i¼1 Vi
Vi = maximum permissible limits
In the second step, evaluation of quality (Qi) is calcu- Table 1 The scale of WQI according to Ambiga and Anna (2013)
slightly modified in crystalline bedrock area (Bharti and Katyal 2011)
lated with formula (6):
  WQI value range 0–50 51–75 76–100 [100
Vactual
Qi ¼ 100 ð6Þ Water quality Excellent Good Moderate Poor
Vstandard

123
 Author's personal copy
Environ Earth Sci

Table 2 Analysed parameters Pump Ca2? Mg2? Fe2? Mn2? Cl- SO42- T pH EC WQI
in the Evodoula area and their stations (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (°C) (ls/c)
WQI
EV2A 2.57 15.65 3 0.2 4 – 27 6 189 90.74
EV6C 2.7 11.35 3.5 0.08 6 5 25 6.1 123 90.90
EV7A 2.57 19.95 3 0.15 3 6 27.1 6.1 190 86.18
EV7B 1.29 7.83 0.37 0.33 5 9 28 5.9 94 40.3
EV9C 2.57 11.35 1.5 0.17 3 – 25 6.1 120 51.69
EV10 2.57 7.05 1.25 – 2 6 26.9 5.9 101 29.55
EV11 3.86 14.88 2.2 0.2 2 – 26.3 6.3 153 72.005
EV12 3.86 19.18 – 0.12 6 8 26.9 6.3 157 11.91
EV15 9 28.98 2.6 0.33 5.3 7 25.9 6.5 305 94.30
PLV 100 150 1 0.5 250 500 20–24 6.5–8.5 1400 100

Table 3 Analysed parameters Pump Ca2? Mg2? Fe2? Mn2? Cl- SO4- T pH EC WQI
in the Sa’a area and their WQI station (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (°C) (ls/c)

SA01 6.43 30.53 1.9 – 39.1 – 26.1 6.6 360 46.25

SA04 9 33.28 1.9 0.08 43.01 16 28.2 6.6 391 54.43
SA05 1.29 7.83 – 0.03 7.82 6.5 27.9 5.5 101 2.03
SA06 2.57 15.65 0.15 – 27.37 5 25.8 6.1 195 3.37
SA06 6.43 21.93 0.45 0.03 35.19 3 25.6 6.1 230 13.37
SA08 6.43 26.2 – 0.08 39.1 7.2 26.9 6 301 7.54
SA09 10.28 49.71 0.35 0.33 89.92 137 27.4 7 894 41.92
SA14 7.71 34.06 – – 43 2 27.7 6.7 427 1.42
SA15 10.28 32.51 0.6 0.27 50.82 16 28.1 6.6 451 41.50
SA16 1.29 12.13 – 0.05 15.64 3 26.2 6 126 4.47
SA17 3.86 19.18 – – 31.28 3 26.3 6.6 225 0.85
SA20 3.86 19.18 0.5 – 27.37 2 25.2 6.3 211 11.96
SA23 9 33.28 0.55 – 54.73 2 28.4 7.1 406 15.50
SA24 7.71 29.76 1.3 – 46.92 2 26.9 6.7 382 32.30
SA51 15.42 42.31 1.3 0.5 58.64 4 25 6.6 433 79.50
SA53 5.14 18.4 – 0.14 17.37 1 25.8 6.2 203 13.36
SA54 3.8 23.48 0.9 0.33 39.1 14 27 6.7 306 54.29
SA55 3.86 14.88 – – 23.46 1 26.9 6.2 180 0.24
SA58 12.85 48.16 1.7 0.36 54.73 4 – – – 57.04
PLV 100 150 1 0.5 250 500 20–24 6.5–8.5 1,400 100

For the spatial representation of WQI, several variogram
models were used. The root mean squared error (RMSE)
enabled to choose the best model corresponding to the
measured data. This RMSE is given by formula (10):
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1X n  2
RMSE ¼ cith  ciex ð10Þ
n i¼1
where cith is the theoretical value and ciex is the measured
value. This equation was used to establish the data set of
Table 8 which presents the simulation and the comparison
of the experimental variogram with different analytical
models.
Figure 4 was obtained from Eqs. 1–3, 9–10 and
Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. This picture presents WQI maps
obtained by kriging for Evodoula, Sa’a, Obala and Mona-
télé areas.
The maps on Fig. 4 show some localities where water
has moderate quality. The water of these areas should be

123
 Author's personal copy
Environ Earth Sci

Table 4 Analysed parameters Pump Ca2? Mg2? Fe2? Mn2? Cl- SO4- T pH EC WQI
in the Monatélé area and their station (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/ (mg/L) (°C) (ls/
WQI L) cm)

MO1 2.57 11.35 0.3 0.02 15.64 10 26.2 5.9 183 8.56
MO2 2.57 15.65 3.3 0.08 11.73 14 24.8 5.8 262 85.523
MO3 9 24.68 2.9 0.17 46.92 9 25.9 6.4 415 85.99
MO4 5.14 18.4 2.5 0.16 27.37 10 26.8 6.5 308 75.86
MO5 5.14 35.6 2.1 0.3 46.92 13 26.5 372 79.82
MO6 3.86 14.88 – 0.12 19.55 11 28 6.1 230 57.62
MO7 1.29 7.89 – 0.05 15.64 10.5 28.8 5.8 169 11.81
MO8 5.14 14.1 0.2 0.08 23.46 10 26.2 5.9 173 4.74
MO9 5.14 27 – 0.12 35.19 9 25.3 6.4 269 11.94
MO10 3.86 14.88 0.1 0.04 23.46 2 25.2 6.1 186 11.72
MO11 1.29 7.83 0.16 – 11.73 2 27.1 5.6 107 5.85
MO12 14.14 64.59 0.82 0.36 89.92 13 26.5 6.9 609 2.98
MO13 2.57 11..35 0.35 – 11.73 5 27.5 5.7 130 55.58
MO14 1.29 3.53 0.17 0.05 7.82 7 27.1 5.4 78 7.81
MO15 9 41 1.2 0.36 58.64 – 27.9 6.5 419 7.62
MO16 32.13 101 1.2 0.85 58.64 26 28.4 7.1 1332 64.21
MO17 6.43 21.93 2 0.53 27.37 19 25.4 6.1 317 98.21
MO18 7.71 29.76 – 0.12 43.01 2 25.4 6.5 314 11.93
MO19 2.57 15.65 – 0.14 23.46 9 26 6 173 13.03
MO20 1.29 12.13 3.5 0.08 15.64 13 27 6 156 91.22
MO21 9 37.58 1.1 0.33 62.55 8 26.5 6.7 388 58.98
MO22 5.14 18.4 3.5 0.08 27.37 2.85 26.2 6.1 236 91.22
PLV 100 150 1 0.5 250 500 20–24 6.5–8.5 1,400 100

monitored, as they present parameters above the WHO
standards.
Discussion
Temperature (T)
The temperature of water is an important environmental
factor because it governs nearly all physical, chemical and
biological reactions of the organism. We noticed that in the
study area, the temperature exceeds WHO standards
(Fig. 3e, f), from one station to the other and from a district
to another. According to the data of Table 5, the peak value
is 29.6 °C with a difference of 5 °C between the standard
values suggesting that water quality is poor in terms of
temperature. The WQI parameter is equal to 89.38 con-
firming that water quality is qualified as moderate. The
temperature distribution for all stations varies considerably.
The high temperature in some localities may be associated
with the nature of the bedrock and/or the activity of frac-
tures through which it passes. This high temperature could
affect the taste and the odour of water (State Water Quality
Control Board, California 1963).
Iron and manganese (Fe2? and Mn2?)
Manganese and iron are both metals naturally occurring in
rock and groundwater. It is therefore understandable that
their higher or smaller rate will depend on the site envi-
ronment. According to the Agency of Health and Social
Services Chaudière-Appalaches in Canada, the presence of
such metals in drinking water can modify the taste, odour
and colour of water. The problems associated to the man-
ganese and iron rates exceeding the standards are primarily
esthetical and taste. In the current study, the iron rate
exceeds by far the WHO standards at almost all sites
(Fig. 3b). The iron concentration varies between 0.15 and
3.5 mg/l (Tables 2, 3, 4, 5). These results reveal that the
concentration of iron differs greatly from standard values
recommended by WHO. However, the low concentrations
observed look like those already reported by Abdul et al.
(2010), Haroon et al. (2013) and Agency of Health and
Social Services Chaudière-Appalaches in Canada (2011) in
Canada and around the city of Bagdad in Iraq. They induce
the WQI values between 0.24 and 5.86 synonymous of a
good water quality whilst the high iron concentration
3.5 mg/l induces a WQI ranging from 94.30 and 96.90
making this water rather mediocre. As the origins are much

123
 Author's personal copy
Environ Earth Sci

Table 5 Analysed parameters in the Obala area and their WQI

Pump station Ca2? Mg2? Fe2? Mn2? Cl- SO42- T pH EC WQI
(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (°C) (ls/cm)

OB01 5.14 27 1.5 0.12 43.01 4 25.1 6.8 367 48.28

OB02 9 37.58 2.3 0.12 46.92 5 25.5 6.7 364 67.34
OB03 6.43 21.93 0.95 0.5 35.19 1 25.6 6.3 240 70.65
OB04 6.43 30.53 1.8 0.12 43 2 25.4 6.9 369 55.72
OB05 7.71 29.76 1.2 0.08 43.01 2 25.7 6.9 306 37.62
OB06 3.86 19.18 1.7 0.14 35.19 7 25.7 6.7 272 54.92
OB07 2.57 15.65 0.7 0.17 23.46 1 25.7 6.3 181 33.12
OB08 2.57 7.05 0.3 0.05 11.73 2 25.4 5.9 95 11.25
OB09 3.86 19.18 2.3 0.3 31.28 4 24.1 6.3 230 83.423
OB10 3.86 14.88 3.5 – 27.37 5 26.4 6.2 197 83.80
OB11 7.71 29.76 2.2 – 46.92 2 25.8 6.6 349 53.34
OB12 6.43 26.23 1.8 0.27 43.01 3 24.2 6.4 256 68.82
OB13 2.57 11.35 1.3 0.27 15.64 3 26.1 5.7 100 56.00
OB14 7.7 29.76 – 0.14 43.01 5 25.3 6.5 328 13.82
OB15 1.29 46.53 – – 50.82 3 26 9.3 340 5.86
OB17 2.57 11 3.5 0.14 19.55 7 26.8 6 156 96.90
OB18 7.71 25.46 0.5 0.47 46.92 2 24.1 6.8 356 57.56
OB19 2.57 15.65 3.5 0.05 23.46 8 29.6 6.2 234 89.38
OB20 5.14 27 3.05 0.2 27.37 6 25.6 6.4 252 92.36
OB21 10.28 41.11 0.55 0.12 58.64 4 25.5 7.2 503 26.44
PLV 100 150 1 0.5 250 500 20–24 6.5–8.5 1,400 100

Table 6 Water quality index (WQI) calculated for each area

Evodoula Sa’a Obala Monatélé
Pump station WQI WQI Station Station WQI STATION WQI

EVO2 90.74 46.25 SA01 OB01 48.28 MO1 8.56

EVO6 90.9 54.43 SA04 OB02 67.34 MO2 85.523
EVO7 86.18 2.03 SA05 OB03 70.65 MO3 85.99
EVO8 40.3 3.37 SA06 OB04 55.72 MO4 75.86
EVO9 51.69 13.37 SA06 OB05 37.62 MO5 79.82
EV10 29.55 7.54 SA08 OB06 54.92 MO6 57.62
EV11 72.005 41.92 SA09 OB07 33.12 MO7 11.81
EV10 11.91 1.42 SA14 OB08 11.25 MO8 4.74
EV15 94.3 41.5 SA15 OB09 83.423 MO9 11.94
– – 4.47 SA16 OB10 83.8 MO10 11.72
– – 0.85 SA17 OB11 53.34 MO11 5.85
– – 11.96 SA20 OB12 68.82 MO12 2.98
– – 15.5 SA23 OB13 56 MO13 55.58
– – 32.3 SA24 OB14 13.82 MO14 7.81
– – 79.5 SA51 OB15 5.86 MO15 7.62
– – 13.36 SA53 OB17 96.9 MO16 64.21
– – 54.29 SA54 OB18 57.56 MO17 98.21
– – 0.24 SA55 OB19 89.38 MO18 11.93
– – 57.04 SA58 OB20 92.36 MO19 13.03
– – – – OB21 26.44 MO20 91.22
– – – – – – MO21 58.98
– – – – – – MO22 91.22

123
 Author's personal copy
Environ Earth Sci

Table 7 Statistical analysis of iron, pH, temperature and WQI

Ca2? Mg2? Fe2? Mn2? Cl- SO42- T pH EC WQI
(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (°C) (ls/c)

a: Monatelé area
PLV 100 150 1 0.5 250 500 20–24 6.5–8.5 1400 100
Min value 1.29 3.53 0.1 0.02 7.82 2 24.8 5.4 78 2.98
Max value 32.13 101 3.5 0.85 89.92 26 28.8 7.1 1332 98.21
STDEVPA 6.49 21.40 1.22 0.19 20.60 5.62 1,052 0.42 254.30 35.52
Mean 6.19 24.96 1.49 0.202 31.98 9.77 26.57 6.18 310.27 42.83
b: Evodoula area
PLV 100 150 1 0.5 250 500 20–24 6.5–8.5 1400 100
Min value 1.29 7.05 0.37 0.08 2 5 25 5.9 94 11.91
Max value 9 28.98 3.5 0.33 6 9 28 6.5 305 94.30
STDEVPA 2.09 6.49 0.99 0.09 1.52 1.34 0.95 0.19 61.12 28.89
Mean 3.44 15.14 2.18 0.20 4.03 6.83 26.46 6.13 159.11 63.07
c: Sa’a area
PLV 100 150 1 0.5 250 500 20–24 6.5–8.5 1.400 100
Min value 1.29 7.83 0.15 0.03 7.82 1 25 5.5 101 0.24
Max value 15.42 49.71 1.9 0.5 89.92 137 28.4 7.1 894 79.48
STDEVPA 3.82 11.72 0.62 0.16 18.67 31.40 1,055 0.39 180.29 24.47
Mean 6.69 26.97 0.97 0.2 39.18 12.70 26.74 6.42 323.44 25.33
d: Obala area
PLV 100 150 1 0.5 250 500 20–24 6.5–8.5 1,400 100
Min value 1.29 7.05 0.3 0.05 11.73 1 24.1 5.7 95 5.86
Max value 10.28 46.53 3.5 0.5 58.64 8 29.6 9.3 503 96.90
STDEVPA 2.50 10.09 1.02 0.12 12.44 2.01 1.12 0.71 98.78 26.67
Mean 5.27 24.32 1.81 0.191 35.775 3.8 25.68 6.605 274.75 55.33
PLV permissible limit value

more natural, one would be tempted to relate these high
values to the surface rock quality which contains ferric
elements. The concentrations of manganese are on the
whole alighting from the WHO standards, although one can
notice a few localities where they exceed this standard
(Table 5). This concentration varies between 0.02 and
0.86 mg/l (Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5). The localities where the
manganese concentration is high have moderate water
quality according to the WQI.
pH
Hydrogen potential (or pH) measures the chemical activity
of hydrogen ions (H?) in solution. The pH is expressed on
a logarithmic dimensionless scale from 0 to 14. A ‘‘neu-
tral’’ water has a pH of 7. A pH below 7 indicates that the
water is acid, whilst pH above this value indicates that it is
basic water (or alkaline). In this study, the pH varies
between 5.5 and 9.3, for a variation of WQI from 0.24 to
96.9. In some localities (Table 5) the low pH induces low
values of WQI, which would be influenced by the missing
measures of some parameters. The great pH values provide
large values of WQI which returns a moderate water
quality. Compared to other analysed parameters in this
study, the causes influencing the large pH values should be
sought.
Calcium and magnesium (Ca2? and Mg2?)
Calcium is the fifth most abundant naturally occurring
element and magnesium, the eighth one. They are the most
abundant elements in the natural surface and groundwater
and exist mainly as bicarbonate (Sarath et al. 2012). The
calcium concentration is varying from 1.2 to 32.13 mg/l
(Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5) and that of magnesium varies
between 7.05 and 101 mg/l (Table 7c). These results show
that the concentration of calcium and magnesium is below
the WHO standards, although the relative WQI values are
sometimes large and suggest that the water quality is
moderated. This could be understood as the WQI is a
function of all measured parameters in a sample.

123
 Author's personal copy
Environ Earth Sci
a b
c d
e f
Fig. 3 Graphs a, b, c, and d represent the concentration of iron
compared to the limit concentration in some localities, graphs e and
f represent the temperature compared to the limit temperature in
Chloride (Cl-)
The concentration of chloride ranges from 2 (Tables 2, 3,
4, 5) to 89.92 mg/l (Table 5) whilst WQI values vary
between 0.24 and 96.90. Globally, stations that have low
concentration of chloride are ranked amongst those that
have WQI classifying water as good. However, values
exceeding 50 mg/l refer generally to a moderate water
quality (Table 7c, d). In terms of water quality, this glob-
alization will make sense if all measured parameters are
taken into account individually, because we noticed in
some localities, certain parameters such as iron, pH and
temperature (Fig. 3a–g), exceeding the standard values
even if water is good in terms of WQI.
g
certain localities and graph g indicates some areas where the pH
exceeds the limit value proposed by WHO
Sulphate (SO42-)
Sulphates are present naturally in various minerals. In
groundwater, most sulphates are coming from dissolution
of minerals such as gypsum and anhydrite. The sulphate is
associated with the aesthetic objective; with a high con-
centration it can alter the taste, smell and colour of water
(Sarath et al. 2012). Although sulphate poses no health risk
at concentrations normally present in water, its presence in
groundwater can be synonymous with poor quality and
may indicate the existence of other problems that have
adverse health effects. In the study area concentration of
sulphate varies between 1 and 137 mg/l (Tables 2, 3, 4, 5).
We can note that these values are below the WHO
123
 Author's personal copy
Environ Earth Sci

Table 8 Adapted variogram models and their characteristics

Parameter Zone Models Nugget effecte Slope Ambit/scope RMSE

Variogram of WQI Evodoula Gaussian 300 1,400 45 0.63

Monatéle Gaussian 100 2,800 65 5.18
Obala Exponential 500 1,300 100 6.07
Sa’a Gaussian 500 1,400 140 0.48

Fig. 4 Kriged maps showing the spatial distribution of the water quality index

standards. In terms of sulphate, all sampling localities
should have good water quality, but in terms of WQI, there
are some localities which have moderate water quality
(Tables 2, 3, 4, 5).
Conclusion
This study was carried to investigate the water quality in
Central Africa, using the water quality index (WQI) parameter
and the block ordinary kriging interpolation. In the overall
study area, groundwater has moderate quality according to the
analysed physico-chemical parameters and the WQI calcu-
lated. However, some stations should be monitored; espe-
cially those with high iron concentrations, high temperature
and those with a higher or lower pH, which could provide poor
water quality when considering each parameter indepen-
dently. From this study, it is always important to investigate
quality of drinking water even in developing countries. The
methods used have shown their efficiency and can be used to
characterize the quality of groundwater in similar regions and
may be associated with new technologies.

123
 Author's personal copy
Environ Earth Sci
Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the Editor and
the anonymous reviewers for the suggestions. They also want to thank
the late Mr. Jeannot Nouck, Mrs. Julienne Ngo Matip and Dr. Paul
Mobi Etia for the financial support and orientations.
References
Abdul HM, Jawad A, Maulood BK, Kadhem AJ (2010) Evaluating of
raw and treated water quality of Tigris River within baghdad by
index analysis. J. Water Resour Prot 2:629–635
Agence de la santé et des services sociaux de Chaudière-Appalaches/
Canada (2011) Quoi faire si la quantité de manganèse (Mn) ou
de fer (Fe) dans l’eau de votre puits dépasse la recommandation?
Amadi AN, Olasehinde PI, Yisa J, Okosun EA, Nwankwoala HO,
Alkali YB (2012) Geostatistical assessment of groundwater
quality from coastal aquifers of Eastern Niger Delta, Nigeria.
Geosciences 2(3):51–59
Ambiga K, Anna DR (2013) Use of geographical information system
and water quality index to assess groundwater quality in and
around Ranipet area, Vellore district, Tamilnadu. Int J Adv Eng
Res Stud 2249–8974
Anthony E, Solomon O, Hans-jürgen V, Stephen Boahen A, Crentsil
KB (2013) Groundwater quality assessment for drinking and
irrigation purposes in Obuasi municipality of Ghana, a
preliminary study. Res J Environ Earth Sci 5(1):6–17
Bharti N, Katyal D (2011) Water quality indices used for surface
water vulnerability assessment. Int J Environ Sci 2(1):155
Chabra VK (2008) A manual on water, waste water and material
analysis. Indian Water Works Association (IWWA), Jaipur
Chandra R, Nishadh KA, Azeez PA (2010) Monitoring water quality
of Coimbatore wetlands, Tamil Nadu, India. Environ Monit
Assess 169:671–676
Cobbina SJ, Anyidoho LY, Nyame F, Hodgson IOA (2010) Water
quality status of dugouts from five districts in Northern Ghana:
implications for sustainable water resources management in a
water stressed tropical savannah environment. Environ Monit
Assess 167:405–416
Dee N, Baker J, Drobny N, Duke KM, Whitman I (1973) An
environmental evaluation system for water resource planning.
J Water Resour Res 9:523–535
Dinius SH (1987) Design of an index of water quality. J Water Resour
Bull 23:833–843
Fulazzaky MA, Seong TW, Masirin MIM (2010) Assessment of
Water Quality Status for the Selangor River in Malaysia. Water
Air Soil Pollut 205:63–77
Global water Partnership Central Africa (2011) Mise en valeur des
rebus forestiers et reforestation des espaces dégradés en Afrique
centrale (Cameroun-congo). http://cbf-fund.org/sites/default/
files/Sous_R
Haroon S, Syed MR, Sandip P, Rahisuddin (2013) Assessment of
groundwater quality in Meerut City, India. Int J Environ Prot
3(2) 20–26
Islam MJ, Shah MHU, Zaman MW, Mahmmod RI, Rahman MS
(2003) Toxicity assessment of groundwater in different aquifers
of Khagrachari in Bangladesh. Asian J Plant Sci 2(3):257–260
Meli’i JL, Bisso D, Njandjock Nouck P, Mbarga TN, Mbanga AF,
Manguelle-Dicoum E (2013) Water table control using ordinary
kriging in the Southern part of Cameroon. J Appl Sci
13(3):393–400
Nijmeijer R, Haas A, Dost R, Budde P (2001) Ilwis 3.0 Academic
User’s guide. ITC, Enschede, The Netherlands. Njandjock
Nouck P, Kenfack C, Diab DA, Njeudjang K, Meli’i LJ,
Kamseu R (2013) A Geostatical reinterpretation of gravity
surveys in the Yagoua, Cameroon region, Geofisica Interna-
tional, 52(4):365–373
Njandjock Nouck P, Yene AQ, Amougou L, Lissom P, Mbida Y
(2013) Geoelctrical prospection of aquifers in Eseka region,
Centre-Cameroon. J Emerg Trends Eng Appl Sci (Jeteas)
4(3):471–477
Ott WR (1978) Environmental indices: theory and practice. Ann
Arbor Science Publishers Inc, Ann Arbor
Pagna MA (2005/2006) Implantation des forages en zone de socle par
la méthode des résistivités, rapport de stage
Sarangi A, Madramootoo CA, Enright P, Chandrasekharan H (2005)
Prediction of spatial variability of phosphorous over the St-Esprit
watershed. Water Air Soil Pollut 48(3):943
Sarath Prasanth SV, Magesh NS, Jitheshal KV, Chandrasekar N,
Gangadhar K (2012) Evaluation of ground water quality and its
suitability for drinking and agriculture use in the coastal stretch
of Alappuzha district, Kerala, India. App water Sci 2:165–175
Srivastava SK, Ramanathan AL (2008) Geochemical assessment of
ground water quality in vicinity of Bhalswa landfill, Delhi, India,
using graphical and multivariate statistical methods. Environ
Geol 53(7):1509–1528
State Water Quality Control Board, California (1963) Temperature.
Water quality criteria, 2nd edn., p 283
Valipour M, Mousavi SM, Valipour R, Rezaei E (2012) Air, water
and soil pollution study in industrial units using environmental
flow diagram. J Basic Appl Sci Res 2(12):12365–12372
Valipour M, Mousavi SM, Valipour R, Rezaei E (2013) Deal with
environmental challenges in civil and energy engineering
projects using a new technology. J Civil Environ Eng 3:127.
doi:10.4172/2165-784x.1000127
World Health Organization (WHO) (2004) Guidelines for drinking
water quality, 3rd Edition. World Health Organization, Geneva
123