See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/332276728

Geophysical investigation of groundwater potential, aquifer parameters, and

vulnerability: a case study of Enugu State College of Education (Technical)

Article in Modeling Earth Systems and Environment · September 2019

DOI: 10.1007/s40808-019-00595-x

CITATIONS READS

17 1,630

4 authors:

Bethrand Ekwundu Oguama Johnson Ibuot

Enugu State College of Education (Technical), Enugu University of Nigeria
6 PUBLICATIONS 36 CITATIONS 87 PUBLICATIONS 768 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Daniel Obiora Mfoniso Aka

University of Nigeria Federal University of Technology Ikot Abasi
100 PUBLICATIONS 723 CITATIONS 33 PUBLICATIONS 50 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Johnson Ibuot on 02 December 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Geophysical investigation of groundwater
potential, aquifer parameters, and
vulnerability: a case study of Enugu State
College of Education (Technical)

Bethrand Ekwundu Oguama, Johnson

Cletus Ibuot, Daniel Nnaemeka Obiora
& Mfoniso Udofia Aka

Modeling Earth Systems and

Environment

ISSN 2363-6203
Volume 5
Number 3

Model. Earth Syst. Environ. (2019)

5:1123-1133
DOI 10.1007/s40808-019-00595-x

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by Springer
Nature Switzerland AG. 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
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment (2019) 5:1123–1133
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-019-00595-x

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Geophysical investigation of groundwater potential, aquifer

parameters, and vulnerability: a case study of Enugu State College
of Education (Technical)
Bethrand Ekwundu Oguama1 · Johnson Cletus Ibuot2 · Daniel Nnaemeka Obiora2 · Mfoniso Udofia Aka2

Received: 22 December 2018 / Accepted: 29 March 2019 / Published online: 8 April 2019
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Abstract
This study was carried out employing vertical electrical sounding (VES) and electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) with the
objective of evaluating the groundwater potential and vulnerability. The study involves a total of seven VES and three ERT
profiles employing Schlumberger and Wenner electrodes’ configuration, respectively. The data were analyzed both manually
and with WinResist and RES2DINV software packages. The results revealed the variation of resistivity across the study
area within the maximum current penetration. The aquifer resistivity and thickness range from 6.2 to 204.2 Ω m and 18.2 to
56.4 m, respectively. The estimated parameters (longitudinal conductance, transverse resistance, hydraulic conductivity, and
transmissivity) range: 0.003–0.02 Ω−1, 141.68–575.77 Ω m2, 2.71–70.45 m/day, and 49.23–3973.28 m2/day, respectively. It
was observed that the groundwater potential is good in the study area and the protective capacity determine from the estimated
longitudinal conductance showed poor protective capacity across the study area, indicating high vulnerability. The poor pro-
tective capacity renders the aquifer vulnerable to contamination and this is a major threat to groundwater in the study area.

Keywords Aquifer · VES · ERT · Longitudinal conductance · Transmissivity · Vulnerability

Introduction can lead to infiltration of surface contaminants into the

Groundwater is an important natural resources to man and its
quality is essential for sustainable used of groundwater for
man’s consumption. Its location in the pores and crevices of
rocks and soils presents different challenges for quantifying
and managing the groundwater compared to surface water.
Groundwater is a basic necessity of life and can be exploited
with greater ease and flexibility, but once contaminated can
lead to water-borne diseases and its inaccessibility can affect
the human health and pose a serious problem to govern-
ment and the inhabitants of the area. Increase in population
has equally led to increase in demand and exploitation of
groundwater. The deterioration of quality of groundwater
may be caused by environmental or geologic factors which
* Johnson Cletus Ibuot
johnson.ibuot@unn.edu.ng
1
Department of Physics Education, Enugu State College
of Education (Technical), Enugu, Nigeria
2
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Nigeria,
Nsukka, Nigeria
aquifer layers (Ibuot et al. 2017; George et al. 2016; Obiora
et al. 2015; Van Stempvoort et al. 2013) and groundwater
quality and availability depends on the porosity and perme-
ability of the host rocks. Delineation of subsurface formation
depends on contrasting physical characteristics, which helps
in delineating them from the surrounding rocks. Inadequacy
of quantitative understanding of the hydrogeological prob-
lems and hydraulic characteristics of the subsurface posed
a serious issue to the environment and as such needs more
research. The geological properties of a formation differ sig-
nificantly from place to place with lithological units and it
affects the ability of the hydrological unit to store groundwa-
ter. All these problems can be solved using proper geophysi-
cal exploration techniques.
In hydrogeophysical investigations, there is close analogy
between the groundwater flow and electric current flow in
the aquifer. Groundwater and electric currents are known to
flow from higher potential to lower potential site and their
flow rates depend upon the potential gradient. The flow rate
of groundwater depends on the hydraulic conductivity/per-
meability of the formation, whereas electric current flow
depends on the electrical conductivity of the formation.

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 Author's personal copy
1124
Since ions flow through the same paths as water, the elec-
trical conductivity and hydraulic conductivity of aquifer
are expected to be affected by similar variables. Therefore,
groundwater flow and current flow also can be considered
inter related with each other.
The application of geophysical methods has generally
proved very effective for groundwater study, water quality
assessment, evaluation of aquifer properties and geometry,
geoelectric parameters, and mapping of the depth to water
table (Hubbard and Rubin 2005; Aleke et al. 2018; Niwas
and Singhal 1981; Soupious et al. 2007; George et al. 2015,
2018; Obiora et al. 2015; Ibuot et al. 2019). Geophysics
provides the tools for studying the structure and composi-
tion of the earth’s interior making use of different physical
properties depending on the method used. In groundwater
exploration, electrical resistivity method is widely used,
since it is cost effective and gives better results compare
to other geophysical methods (Zohdy et al. 1974). One of
the electrical properties that influence the naturally or arti-
ficially generated electrical fields in the earth subsurface is
primarily the resistivity and it varies across the subsurface
depending on the lithology, and is influenced by the presence
of pores, water content, and quality of water. Quantitative
description of aquifer units is useful in groundwater study,
contamination migration modeling, and improving ground-
water model (Freeze and Cheery 1979; George et al. 2015).
The electrical and hydraulic properties of the subsurface are
influenced by the pores linking the formation particles, the
knowledge, and understanding of these properties gives idea
about groundwater movement and the transmitting proper-
ties in the subsurface. The objective of this work is to deter-
mine and evaluate the geoelectric and hydraulic properties
of the subsurface hydrogeologic units, which will provide
information about the subsurface characteristics and vulner-
ability, play important role in groundwater exploration and
management, and proffer solutions to the challenging water
problems in the study area and its environs.
Location and Geology of the study area
The study area lies between latitudes 6°25′0″ and 6°29′0″N,
and longitudes 7°28′0″ and 7°32′0″E (Fig. 1a, b) in Enugu
State and falls within the Anambra sedimentary basin in
Nigeria. The area is characterized by two climatic seasons
(dry and wet seasons) and lies within the tropical rain for-
est/Guinea savannah belt of Nigeria. The underlying Enugu
shale which is the source of the groundwater is usually faced
with seasonal fluctuations with little or no supply during the
dry seasons as a result of the poor hydrologic nature of the
shale (Aleke et al. 2016). The shale group is massive and
highly jointed with sets of vertical joints. It is not generally
13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment (2019) 5:1123–1133
porous or permeable; however, the formation could yield
water to boreholes if fractured.
Also found in the study area are the residual hills and
dry valleys, which are related to the rock type or geologic
formation underlying the area (Stow 2005). The escarpment
of Enugu is formed by the Ajali sandstone and the sandstone
units of the Mamu Formation (Egesi 2017). The study area
is underlain by Enugu shale with Mamu Formation (lower
Maastrichtian) found outcropping in areas that have mines
like the Okpara and Onyeama mines. The Mamu Formation
is composed of shale and sandstone including Carbonaceous
shale, sandy shale, mudstone, sandstone, and siltstone. The
Formation is said to be coaliferous and is also fractured, and
the fractured nature makes it a potential aquifer repository.
The Mamu Formation provides the shaley impermeable base
on which the waters of Ajali aquifer are trapped (Uzoije et al.
2014). Surface water body that traverse the area emanates
from the contact between the bottom of the Ajali Formation
and the upper part of Mamu Formation at the foot of the
scarp.
Data acquisition and analysis
Seven vertical electrical soundings (VES) and three profiles
of electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) were carried out
across the study area, employing Schlumberger and Wenner
electrode configurations. The coordinates of the location
points were recorded using the global positioning system
(GPS). The electrical resistivity survey was carried out using
the IGIS resistivity meter with its accessories, which enabled
the measurement of resistivity of the subsurface through cur-
rent injection into the ground. The transmitting and receiv-
ing electrodes were the current and potential(electrodes,
)
respectively. The half-current electrode spacing AB ranges
2 ( )
from 1.0 to 500 m and half-potential electrode spacing MN 2
range from 0.25 to 20 m. The apparent resistivity for the
Schlumberger electrode array configuration used was esti-
mated using
𝜌a = K × Ra , (1)
where Ra is the apparent resistance measured and K is the
geometric factor which depends on the electrode configura-
tion used, and the geometric factor is given by
� �2 � �2
⎡ AB MN ⎤
⎢ − ⎥
2 2
K =𝜋×⎢ ⎥. (2)
⎢ MN ⎥
⎣ ⎦
In analyzing the data, it was first plotted on a bi-logarithmic
graph with apparent resistivity (𝜌a ) on the vertical axis, the
 Author's personal copy
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment (2019) 5:1123–1133 1125

Fig. 1  a Geologic map and geologic cross section of Enugu showing the VES points. b Map of Enugu State showing the area of study (location
map)

13
 Author's personal copy
1126 Modeling Earth Systems and Environment (2019) 5:1123–1133

Fig. 1  (continued)

( )
improve upon the manually interpreted data, the apparent
current electrodes separation AB
on the horizontal axis, and
2 resistivity obtained using Eq. 1 was then used as input param-
was smoothened to remove the effects of lateral inhomogenei- eter for the computer modeling involving the use of VES mod-
ties and quantitatively interpreted in terms of true resistivity eling software called WINRESIST which performed auto-
and thickness by a conventional manual curves and auxiliary mated approximation of initial resistivity model from the
charts (Orellana and Mooney 1966; Zohdy et al. 1974). To observed data using inversion technique, and the output was a

13
 Author's personal copy
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment (2019) 5:1123–1133 1127

set of geoelectric curves. From the curves (Figs. 2 and 3), val-
ues of resistivity, depth, and thickness of each geoelectric lay-
ers were obtained (Table 1). Layer resistivity (ρ) and depth (h)
are two parameters that characterized a geologic unit and are
fundamentally important both in the interpretation and under-
standing of the geoelectric models. The geoelectric parameters
of the hydrogeologic units (resistivity and thickness) obtained
from the model curves were used in calculating the parameters
for the horizontal, homogenous and isotropic layer which are
together refer to as the Dar-Zarrouk parameters (Maillet 1947;
Niwas and Singhal 1981). The Dar-Zarrouk parameters are the
longitudinal conductance and transverse resistance; other
parameters are the hydraulic conductivity and transmissivity
(Table 2).
The longitudinal conductance (S) which helps in determin-
ing the protective capacity of each saturated units was esti-
mated from the following equation:
h erty (K) in m/day characterizes the dynamic behavior of an
S= . (3)
𝜌 aquifer to allow groundwater flow. It influences the yield
The transverse resistance was estimated from Eq. 4 as
T = 𝜌h, (4)
where 𝜌 and h are resistivity and thickness of each layer,
respectively. According to Barker et al. (2001), the ability
of the earth medium to retard and filter percolating fluid is
a measure of its protective capacity, since the earth acts as
a natural filter to percolating fluid. The values of longitudi-
nal conductance were used in classifying the aquifers units
based on its protective capacity (Henriet et al. 1979; Oladapo
et al. 2004), such that areas with poor and weak longitudinal
conductance values are vulnerable to contamination.
The hydraulic conductivity which describes the ease with
which groundwater moves through the pore spaces was esti-
mated using Eq. 5 according to Heigold et al. (1979):
K = 386.40R−0.93283 , (5)
rw
where Rrw is the aquifer resistivity in Ω m, and this prop-

Fig. 2  Typical VES representa-

tive curves at VES 1

Table 1  Summary of result from geoelectric survey

VES stations Longitude (°E) Latitude (°N) Elevation (m) Resistivity (Ω m) Thickness (m) Depth (m)
⍴1 ⍴2 ⍴3 ⍴4 ⍴5 h1 h2 h3 h4 d1 d2 d3 d4

VES 1 7.4997 6.4583 189 101.2 515.4 42.3 6.2 8.9 1.4 4.1 27.8 56.4 1.4 5.6 33.4 89.8
VES 2 7.5008 6.4487 193 161.2 346.5 98.0 88.3 3.3 1.4 2.9 5.2 40.4 1.4 4.3 9.5 49.9
VES 3 7.5014 6.4585 194 442.9 551.5 201.6 204.2 17.7 1.3 2.9 15.7 18.2 1.3 4.2 19.9 38.1
VES 4 7.4978 6.4573 193 227.0 252.9 76.5 45.0 5.1 1.9 6.3 41.3 18.2 1.9 8.2 49.6 67.8
VES 5 7.4998 6.5182 189 101.8 499.5 41.4 9.3 – 1.5 4.4 23.2 – 1.5 5.9 29.1 –
VES 6 7.5017 6.4583 194 214.7 673.1 195.8 121.9 23.5 1.6 5.3 31.2 49.8 1.6 5.3 36.2 87.6
VES 7 7.4576 6.5076 191 192.5 318.1 57.2 16.9 – 1.5 6.4 40.8 – 1.3 12.6 48.7 –

13
 Author's personal copy
1128 Modeling Earth Systems and Environment (2019) 5:1123–1133

of wells and velocity of contaminant spread (Aleke et al.

rosivity
2018). In addition, the transmissivity of the aquifer units

rating

VSC
Cor-

MC
MC
MC
NC
SC

SC
was described using Eq. 6 and gives the relationship between
hydraulic conductivity and thickness. This parameter is
Elevation (m)
necessary, as it gives the extent of pore-water flow per day
(George et al. 2018):

189
193
194
193
189
194
191
Tr = Kh. (6)
The electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) imaging was
Transverse resist- Hydraulic conduc- Transmissivity

carried out utilizing Wenner electrodes configuration and

Tr ((m2/day)

the apparent resistivity was computed using the following

3973.28
238.87
49.23
279.16
278.06
1012.26
1127.94
equation:
𝜌a = 2𝜋aR, (7)
where a is the electrodes spacing, and R is the measured
tivity K (m/day)

field resistance.
The computed apparent resistivity was processed using
the RES2DINV software package and this gives three pro-
70.45
5.91
2.71
6.76
11.99
20.33
27.65

files of resistivity imaging of the subsurface.

ance T (Ω m2)

Results and discussion

141.68
225.68
575.77
431.30
152.70
343.52
288.75

The analysis of VES data revealed layers of the subsurface

resistivity, depth, and thickness penetrated within the maxi-
Aquifer thick- Longitudinal con-
ductance S (Ω−1)

mum current penetration (Table 1). Four-to-five geoelectric

layers characterized with high- and low-resistivity values at
various depths and locations were delineated. The resistivity
0.014
0.007
0.003
0.010
0.020
0.010
0.008

of the first layer ranges from 101.2 to 442.9 Ω m, with the

depth and thickness ranging from 1.3 to 1.9 m, respectively.
This layer enhances percolation of fluid into the underlying
ness ha (m)

geologic units. Underlain the first layer is a medium-resistive

Table 2  Computed aquifer parameters from measured resistivity and thickness

layer with resistivity ranging from 252.9 to 673.1 Ω m and

56.4
40.4
18.2
41.3
23.2
49.8
40.8

layer thickness ranging from 2.9 to 6.4 m and depth range of

4.2–12 6 m. This layer contains medium conductive geoma-
tivity 𝜌a (Ω m)
Aquifer resis-

terials compared to layer 1 and according to the resistivity

values is practically non-corrosive (Oladapo et al. 2004).
6.2
88.3
204.2
76.5
41.4
23.5
16.9

The third layer has resistivity values ranging from 41.4 to

201.6 Ω m, while the thickness and depth range from 5.2 to
41.3 m and 9.5 to 49.6 m, respectively. Underlain the third
Latitude (°N)

layer are low-resistive layers (layers 4 and 5), the fourth layer
resistivity ranges from 6.2 to 204.2 Ω m with relatively high
6.4583
6.4487
6.4585
6.4573
6.5182
6.4583
6.5076

thickness and depth ranging from 18.2 to 56 4 m and 38.1

to 89.8 m, respectively, except at VES 5, where the depth
and thickness are undefined within the maximum current
Longitude (°E)

electrode separation. The fifth layer (VES 1, 2, 3, 4, and

6) has resistivity ranging from 3.3 to 23. 5 Ω m with thick-
7.4997
7.5008
7.5014
7.4978
7.4998
7.5017
7.4576

ness and depth undefined. The result shows that resistivity

values decrease with depths, and this indicates the presence
of highly conductive geomaterials, which may be attributed
VES Stations

to the Carbonaceous shale of the Mamu Formation. Layers

4 and 5 are highly corrosive than the overlain layers which
VES 1
VES 2
VES 3
VES 4
VES 5
VES 6
VES 7

may be classified as strongly to moderately corrosive layers

13
 Author's personal copy
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment (2019) 5:1123–1133 1129

Fig. 3  Typical VES representa-

tive curves at VES 2

Fig. 5  Contour map showing the variation of resistivity in layer 2

Fig. 4  Contour map showing the variation of resistivity in layer 1

except in VES 2 and 6, where layer 4 is slightly corrosive

(Oladapo et al. 2004). The aquifer resistivity ranges from 6.2
to 204.2 Ω m with thickness range of 18.2–56.4 m. The vari-
ation of resistivity in this layer may be related to shape, size,
density, porosity, and pore size of the aquifer geomaterials.
It can be inferred that the aquifer units are strongly corrosive
at VES 1, moderately corrosive at VES 6 and 7, slightly cor-
rosive at VES 2 and 4, and non-corrosive at VES 3. This on
the average indicates contaminated hydrogeological units
which may be due to the presence of corrosive materials.
Figures 4, 5, 6 and 7 show contour maps displaying
the variation of resistivity values of layers 1, 2, 3, and 4,
respectively, and the uneven distribution of resistivity across Fig. 6  Contour map showing the variation of resistivity in layer 3
the layers may be attributed to the heterogeneity of the

13
 Author's personal copy
1130
Fig. 7  Contour map showing the variation of resistivity in layer 4
Fig. 8  Contour map showing the variation of aquifer resistivity
formations (Ebong et al. 2014; George et al. 2015). In Fig. 4,
high resistivity is observed at the northern and southeastern
parts of the study area, while in Fig. 5, it decreases towards
the southwestern part. Figures 6 and 7 show similar trend as
the resistivity increases towards the eastern part of the study
area. The variation of resistivity in these layers indicates the
inhomogeneity in the subsurface geomaterials.
Figure 8 shows the variation of aquifer resistivity, as
it decreases towards the southeastern part of the study
area. The distribution of water in the pores of rocks due
to the structural and textural characteristics of the aquifer
units may affect the resistivity values. It can be inferred
that the southeastern part has high resistivity, but in gen-
eral, the greater part of the study area has low resistivity
which implies high conductivity and can be interpreted
to be saturated with surface contaminants and coaliferous
deposits. The poor quality of groundwater thus posed a
serious threat to human health. Figure 9 shows the distri-
bution of aquifer thickness, and the relatively thick aquifer
13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment (2019) 5:1123–1133
Fig. 9  Contour map showing the variation of aquifer thickness
Table 3  Modified longitudinal Longitudinal Protective
conductance/protective capacity conductance capacity
rating (Henriet 1979; Oladapo (mho) rating
et al. 2004)
> 10 Excellent
5–10 Very good
0.7–4.9 Good
0.2–0.69 Moderate
0.1–0.19 Weak
< 0.1 Poor
layer increases from northeast to southwest. This shows
that the study area has good groundwater potential, since
the relatively thick aquifer can store and transmit water.
The Dar-Zarrouk parameters, hydraulic conductivity,
and transmissivity were estimated from the geoelectric
parameters (Table 2). The longitudinal conductance (S)
was estimated from the first layer parameters (resistivity
and thickness) to assess its protective capacity, and the
values of S range from 0.0029 to 0.0147 Ω−1. The longi-
tudinal conductance was used as protective capacity rating
according to Henriet (1979) and Oladapo et al. (2004).
Based on the assigned numerical values (Table 3), all VES
points have poor protective capacity which is an indication
that the hydrogeological units of the study area are vulner-
able to surface contaminants. This is a reflection of the
sensitivity of groundwater quality to the imposed contami-
nant load (Wijesekara et al. 2014; Ibuot et al. 2017). The
high vulnerability may also be attributed to the absence
of clay in the overlying layers, thus increasing the perme-
ability of the layer. The contour map (Fig. 10) shows the
variation of longitudinal conductance, and it is generally
poor across the study area.
 Author's personal copy
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment (2019) 5:1123–1133
Fig. 10  Contour map showing the variation of longitudinal conduct-
ance
Transverse resistance has values ranging from 152.70
to 575.77 Ω m2.
The hydraulic conductivity (K) measures the material’s
capability to transmit groundwater to wells/boreholes. The
values of K range 2.71–70.45 m/day, indicating the vari-
ability of K in the study area, which may affect the infiltra-
tion rate. The contour map (Fig. 11) shows the variation of
K with its highest values observed in the northwestern and
southeastern regions. The variations may be due to symp-
tomatic of the inhomogeneity of facies change and varia-
tion in grain sizes. Hydraulic conductivity affects the rate at
which groundwater flow under a given hydraulic gradient,
and the contour map could aid in predicting groundwater
flow direction from zone having high hydraulic conductivity
(Al-Khafaji and Al-Dabbagh 2016). Transmissivity is con-
trolled by the thickness of the specific layer and the presence
of fine/clay particles (Utom et al. 2012). The values range
Fig. 11  Contour map showing the distribution of hydraulic conduc-
tivity
1131
from 49.23 to 3973.23 m2/day. The transmissivity across the
study area indicates high-to-moderate groundwater poten-
tial, VES 1, 6, and 7 with transmissivity values greater than
500 m2/day indicate high groundwater potential, while oth-
ers indicate moderate groundwater potential (Offodile 1983).
Figure 12 shows a contour map, showing the distribution of
aquifer transmissivity, with the highest transmissivity in the
southeastern part. This zone with high transmissivity may be
identified as zones with the highest water-bearing potential.
Figure 13 shows electrical resistivity tomography (ERT)
for profiles 1, 2, and 3 which are inverted models of the
subsurface resistivity. The models show clearly the vertical
and horizontal variations of the subsurface resistivity with
depth and delineated the zones with high- and low-resistivity
values across the study area. Profiles 1 and 3 show high
resistivity in the top layers than the deeper layers and this
extends to depth of over 15 m, which is a reflection of the
VES result (Table 1). The general low electrical resistivity
values observed at deeper layers across the study area can
be attributed to the coal-bearing Mamu formation which
greatly contributes to the poor groundwater quality of the
area (Egesi 2017).
Conclusion
VES and 2D electrical imaging were employed in this
study to investigate the groundwater potential and vulner-
ability in the study area. The information from the data
analysis and interpretation help in evaluating the sub-
surface for groundwater potential and vulnerability. The
results show that the aquiferous layers are highly conduc-
tive. This indicates the presence of low-resistive mate-
rials which may be attributed to the coal deposits. The
thin layers with high-resistivity values overlie the lowly
Fig. 12  Contour map showing the variation of aquifer transmissivity
13
 Author's personal copy
1132
Fig. 13  Inverted resistivity–depth model profiles 1, 2, and 3ERT
resistive layers and the low-resistive layers which are rela-
tively thick are the aquiferous zones. The estimated param-
eters are necessary, assessing the aquifer characteristics in
areas, where borehole information are not available. The
longitudinal conductance was estimated and used to assess
the vulnerability of the study area, from which the study
area was classified as having poor protective capacity and
this renders the aquifer layers vulnerable to contamina-
tion. In addition, the values of hydraulic conductivity and
transmissivity were estimated. The study area was clas-
sified, as having good groundwater potential based on
the transmissivity values. The contour maps display the
13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment (2019) 5:1123–1133
variations of the geoelectric and Dar-Zarrouk parameters,
and also, the ERT profiles show the vertical and horizontal
variation of the subsurface geomaterials. The observed
variations may be due to the inhomogeneity of the subsur-
face materials. The findings indicate that the groundwater
in the study area is affected by coal-loaded contaminants
and there will be no significant change in the surrounding
environment. The result from this study will provide useful
information which can serve as a guide to government and
individuals in their exploitation for groundwater resources
and management, and also provide relevant tools for future
research work.
 Author's personal copy
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment (2019) 5:1123–1133
Acknowledgements Authors are grateful to the Tertiary Education
Trust Fund (TETFUND), who financed the project through research
grant.
References
Aleke CG, Okogbue CO, Aghamelu OP, Nnaji NJ (2016) Hydrogeo-
logical potential and qualitative assessment of groundwater from
the Ajali Sandstone at Ninth mile area, southeastern Nigeria.
Environ Earth Sci 75:290
Aleke CG, Ibuot JC, Obiora DN (2018) Application of electrical resis-
tivity method in estimating geohydraulic properties of a sandy
hydrolithofacies: a case study of Ajali Sandstone in Ninth Mile,
Enugu State, Nigeria. Arab J Geosci 11:322
Al-Khafaji WM, Al-Dabbagh HA (2016) Visualizing geoelectric-
hydrogeological parameters of Fadak farm at Najaf Ashraf by
using 2D spatial interpolation methods. NRIAG J Astron Geophys
5:313–322
Barker R, Rao TV, Thangarajan M (2001) Delineation of con-
taminant zone through electrical imaging technique. Curr Sci
81(3):277–283
Ebong DE, Akpan AE, Onwuegbueche AA (2014) Estimation of geo-
hydraulic parameters from fractured shales and sandstone aquifers
of Abi (Nigeria) using electrical resistivity and hygeologic meas-
urements. J Afr Earth Sci 96:99 –109
Egesi N (2017) Structural features of Ajali Sandstone in the Western
and Eastern parts of River Niger, Southern Nigeria. J Geogr Envi-
ron Earth Sci Int 11(2):1–12
Freeze RA, Cheery JA (1979) Groundwater. Prentice-Hall Inc, Engle-
wood Cliffs, p 604
George NJ, Emah JB, Ekong UN (2015) Geohydrodynamic properties
of hydrogeological units in parts of Niger Delta, Southern Nigeria.
J Afr Earth Sci 105(2015):55–63
George NJ, Ibuot JC, Ekanem AM, George A (2018) Estimating the
indices of inter-transmissibility magnitude of active surficial
hydrogeologic units in Itu, Akwa Ibom State, Southern Nigeria.
Arab J Geosci 11(6):1–16
George NJ, Akpan AE, Ekanem AM (2016) Assessment of textural
variation pattern and electrical conduction of economic and acces-
sible quaternary hydrolithofacies via geoelectric and laboratory
methods in SE Nigeria: a case study of select locations in AkwaI-
bom State. J Geol Soc India 88:517–520
Heigold PC, Gilkeson RH, Cartwright K, Reed PC (1979) Aquifer
transmissivity from surficial electrical methods. Groundwater
17(4):338–345
Henriet JP (1979) Direct application of Dar Zarrouk parameters in
groundwater survey. Geophys Prospect 24:344–353
Hubbard SS, Rubin Y (2005) Introduction to hydrogeophysics. In:
Rubin Y, Hubbard SS (eds) hydrogeophysics. Springer, Dordrecht,
pp 3–21
Ibuot JC, Okeke FN, George NJ, Obiora DN (2017) Geophysical and
Physicochemical characterization of organic waste contamination
View publication stats
1133
of hydrolithofacies in the coastal dumpsite of AkwaIbom
State, Southern Nigeria. Water Sci Technol Water Supply
17(6):1626–1637
Ibuot JC, George NJ, Okwesili AN, Obiora DN (2019) Investigation of
litho-textural characteristics of aquifer in Nkanu West Local Gov-
ernment Area of Enugu state, southeastern Nigeria. J Afr Earth
Sci 157(2019):197–2017
Maillet RE (1947) The fundamental equations of electrical prospecting.
Geophysics 12:529–556
Niwas S, Singhal DC (1981) Estimation of aquifer transmissivity from
Da-Zarrouk parameters in porous media. J Hydrol 50:393–399
Obiora DN, Ajala AE, Ibuot JC (2015) Evaluation of aquifer protec-
tive capacity of overburden unit and soil corrosivity in Makurdi,
Benue State, Nigeria, using electrical resistivity method. J Earth
Syst Sci 124(1):125–135
Offodile ME (1983) The occurrence and exploitation of groundwater
in Nigeria basement complex. J Geol Min 20:131–146
Oladapo MI, Mohammed MZ, Adeoye OO, Adetola OO (2004) Geo-
electric investigation of the Ondo State Housing Corporation
Estate; Ijapo, Akure, Southwestern Nigeria. J Min Geol 40:41–48
Orellana E, Mooney H (1966) Master tables and curves for VES over
layered structures. Interciencia, Madrid
Soupious P, Papadopoulos I, Kouli M, Georgaki I, Vallianatos F, Kok-
kinou E (2007) Investigation of waste disposal areas using electri-
cal methods: a case study from Chania, Crete, Greece. Environ
Geol 51(7):1249–1261
Stow DAV (2005) Sedimentary rocks in the field: a colour guide.
Mason Publ. Ltd., London, p 320
Utom AU, Odoh BI, Okoro AU (2012) Estimation of Aquifer Transmis-
sivity using Dar-Zarrouk parameters derived from surface resis-
tivity measurements: a case history from parts of Enugu Town
(Nigeria). J Water Resour Prot 4:993–1000
Uzoije AP, Onunkwo AA, Ibeneme SI, Obioha EY (2014) Hydroge-
ology of Nsukka South-east—a preliminary approach to water
resources development. Am J Eng Res 3(1):150–162
Van Stempvoort DV, Ewert L, Wassenaar L (2013) Aquifer vulnerabil-
ity index: a gis—compatible method for groundwater vulnerability
mapping. Can Water Resour J Revue canadienne des ressources
hydriques 18(1):25–37
Wijesekara HR, De Silva SN, Wijesekara DTD, Basnayake A, Vithan-
age MS (2014) Leachate plume delineation and lithologic pro-
filing using surface resistivity in an open municipal solid waste
dumpsite, Sri Lanka. Environ Technol 2914:1–8
Zohdy AAR, Eaton GP, Mabey DR (1974) Application of surface geo-
physics to groundwater investigation. USGS techniques of water
resources investigations. U. S. Geological Survey, Virginia (book
2, Chapter D1)
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
13