GEOCHEMICAL EVALUATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF HEAVY METALS IN AN

OIL POLLUTED FARMLAND IN IKARAMA, NIGER DELTA

BY

IGHO MARVELOUS EMUESIRI

COS/4365/2018

SUPERVISEDBY

DR.OKUMOKO DOKUMO PEARCE

DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY

FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM RESOURCES EFFURUN.

A FINAL YEAR THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY

COLLEGE OF SCIENCE,IN PARTIAL FULLFILLMENT FOR THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE AWARD OF BACHCELOR OF SCIENCE (B.Sc.) DEGREE IN GEOLOGY.
 CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that this work titled, “GEOCHEMICAL EVALUATION AND
DISTRIBUTION OF HEAVY METALS IN AN OIL POLLUTED FARM LAND IN
IKARAMA, BAYELSA NIGER DELTA” was carried out by IGHO MARVELOUS EMUESIRI
(COS/4365/2018), and has been approved by the undersigned having fulfilled the partial
requirement for the award of a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) degree in Geology from the
Department of Earth Science, Federal University of Petroleum Resources, Effurun.

_________________ _________________
DR.O.D. Peace Date
Project Supervisor

_________________ _________________
DR. (Mrs). A.N Asadu Date
Head of Department

_____________________ __________________
External Supervisor Date

I
 DEDICATION
This project is dedicated to God Almighty and to my loving parents as well as my
Friends who encouraged and supported me up to this very time.

II
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I wish to acknowledge the Almighty God for his love, kindness and grace throughout
the research work. My profound gratitude goes to my able and dynamic parents
Engr. Mr. and Mrs.IghoIgbenJ.P for their financial and otherwise support, you have
been a blessing to me. To my Aunt, Mrs. Ayisire Elizabeth, younger brothers and my
sister for their unalloyed support and love and I want to say thankyou.
My sincere Appreciation goes to my Supervisor Dr. Okumoko Peace Dokomo who
despite his official commitment and tight schedule played a vital role guiding and
directing me. Thank you sir for your labour of love. I would also want to record my
sincere thanks and acknowledgement to my head of department Dr.Mrs. A.N Asadu.

III
 TABLE OF CONTENT
CERTIFICATION..........................................................................................................I
DEDICATION..............................................................................................................II
ABSTRACT..............................................................................................................VIII
CHAPTER ONE............................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................1
1.1 Back ground of study.......................................................................................1
1.2 STATEMENT OF PROBLEMS......................................................................2
1.3 JUSTIFICATION OF STUDY........................................................................3
1.4 AIM AND OBJECTIVES................................................................................4
1.4.1 Objectives:................................................................................................4
1.5 SCOPE OF STUDY.........................................................................................5
1.6 LOCATION OF STUDY AREA.....................................................................5
1.6 CLIMATE AND VEGETATION....................................................................7
CHAPTER TWO...........................................................................................................8
2.0 LITRATURE REVIEW..........................................................................................8
2.2 Sources of Heavy Metals in Contaminated Soils.............................................9
2.2.1 Fertilizers:.....................................................................................................9
2.2.2 Pesticides:....................................................................................................10
2.2.3 Bio-solids and Manures:.............................................................................10
2.2.4 Wastewater:.................................................................................................11
2.2.5 Metal Mining and Milling Processes and Industrial Wastes:......................11
2.2.5 Air-Borne Sources:......................................................................................13
2.3 HEALTH IMPLICATON OF HEAVY METALS........................................13
2.3.1 Cadmium.....................................................................................................13
2.3.2 Chromium...................................................................................................13
2.3.3 Lead.............................................................................................................15
2.3.4 Mercury.......................................................................................................15
2.4 REGIONAL GEOLOGY OF THE NIGER-DELTA BASIN.......................15
2.5 Litho-Stratigraphy of the Niger-Delta Basin..................................................18
2.5.1 AKATA FORMATION..............................................................................18
2.5.2 AGBADA FORMATION...........................................................................18
2.6 HEALTH IMPLICATON OF HEAVY METALS.......................................20
2.6.1 Cadmium.....................................................................................................20

IV
 2.6.2 Chromium...................................................................................................21
2.6.3 Lead.............................................................................................................21
2.6.4Mercury........................................................................................................22
CHAPTER THREE......................................................................................................23
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHOD.............................................................................23
3.1 MATERIALS USED FOR RESEARCH.....................................................23
3.2 Sampling Sites........................................................................................................23
3.3 Samples Collection and Preparation..............................................................25
3.4 Determination of Physico-chemical Parameters............................................26
CHAPTER FOUR........................................................................................................28
4.0 RESULTS AND DSICUSSION............................................................................28
4.3 Ph Measurement.............................................................................................31
4.4 Electrical Conductivity (Ec)...........................................................................31
CHAPTER FIVE..........................................................................................................37
5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................37
5..1 CONCLUSION.............................................................................................37
5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................................37
REFERENCES.............................................................................................................38

V
TABLES
Table 1 :Physicochemical analysis of soil sample...............................................28
Table 2: Geoaccumulation Index of soil samples................................................28
Table 3: Summarized statistics of sediment sample physical and chemical
characteristics compared against WHO (2009) standards............................31

VI
FIGURES
Figure 1 Oil Impacted Site in Ikarama farmland ....................................................................3
Figure 2 : Oil Impacted Site in Ikarama farmland.....................................................................
Figure 3 : map of study area...................................................................................................6
Figure 4 : Geological map of the Niger Delta and its environs.............................................17
Figure 5 : A lithostratigraphic section of Niger Delta...........................................................19
Figure 6 : Regional stratigraphy of the Niger Delta.............................................................20
Figure 7 : Map showing sample the location of theIkarama Farmland ................................24
Figure 8 : Concentrations in mg/g of Zinc metal in soil samples..........................................34
Figure 9 : Concentrations in mg/g of Lead metal in soil samples. .......................................35
Figure 10 : Concentrations in mg/g of Copper metal in soil samples....................................35
Figure 11 : Concentrations in mg/g of Lead metal in soil samples......................................35
Figure 12 : Concentrations in mg/g of cadmium metal in soil samples................................36
Figure 13 : Concentrations in mg/g of Iron metal in soil samples.........................................36

VII
 ABSTRACT
The Research work focus on the geochemical determination and pollution assessment of zinc,
lead, cadmium, nickel, copper and iron in an oil polluted a farmland in Ikarama, Niger Delta.
Thirty samples where randomly collected within the farmland, control sample was collected
from a distance of 10Km from the farmland. The samples were prepared according to the
standard procedures and analyzed for some heavy metals (Zn,Cu,Fe,Pb,Ni,and Cd) using Atomic
Absorption Spectrometer. The geochemical data was subjected to multivariate statistical analysis
and comparisons were made with world health organization standards. The result show the mean
concentration of zinc(Zn),Cu,Fe,Pb,Ni,and Cd, where within acceptable limit when compared
with World Health Organization standards. The geo-accumulation index and concentration factor
revealed that the soils around the dumpsite were moderately contaminated there by indicating
that the sediment samples are polluted. The study concluded that the soils in farmland located in
Ikaramawas contaminated and as such should be discourage in the usage for agricultural related
purposes as these toxic trace elements can be absorbed by plants.

VIII
 CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Back ground of study
The Niger Delta, located in the southern region of Nigeria, stands as a region of tremendous
ecological significance and economic importance due to its vast reserves of oil and gas. For
decades, oil exploration and production have significantly fueled Nigeria's economic growth,
contributing significantly to the nation's revenue. However, the prosperity stemming from this
lucrative industry has come at an unprecedented environmental cost, with oil pollution emerging
as a pervasive and deeply entrenched issue in the region. One particularly troubling consequence
of this environmental degradation is the contamination of agricultural lands, a problem that lies
at the heart of this research project – the geochemical evaluation and distribution patterns of
heavy metals in an oil-polluted farm land in Ikarama, Niger Delta (Adati A. K 2012).
Heavy metal contamination in agricultural soils as a consequence of oil pollution represents a
severe threat to various aspects of life in the Niger Delta, including food security, environmental
sustainability, and public health (Okumoko, D.P et al Izeze E. 2020). Heavy metals, such as lead
(Pb), cadmium (Cd), mercury (Hg), and Zinc (Zn), are notorious for their toxicity to plants,
animals, and humans when present in excessive concentrations. The Niger Delta, being a focal
point of oil production activities, is particularly susceptible to heavy metal contamination of its
soil and water ecosystems.
In the small and largely agrarian community of Ikarama, situated within the Niger Delta, the
impact of heavy metal contamination on agricultural lands is acutely felt. The community's
agricultural practices, which are the lifeblood of the local economy, have been profoundly
affected by the presence of heavy metals in the soil. These toxic elements not only hinder crop
growth and yield but also pose potential health hazards to those who consume crops grown in
contaminated soils.

Due to the cumulative impacts of petroleum exploration and production, the Niger Delta has
been seen as one of the most polluted areas in the world. The activities of the oil industries have
adversely degraded the ecosystem and reduced the biodiversity of the Niger Delta, there by
affecting the general ecology of the area (Kamalu and Wokocha 2011). Sabotage and operational
spills have been reported as the major causes of environmental pollution in the oil producing
areas of Nigeria (Shell Nigeria 2014).Intentional third-party interference with pipelines and other

1
Infrastructure was reported to be responsible for about 75 % of all oil spill incidents and 92 % of
all oil volume spilled were from facilities operated by the Shell Petroleum Development
Company (SPDC) over the last 5 years(2009–2013) (Shell Nigeria 2014). Operational spills also
accounted for about 15 % of the total volume of oil spilled from SPDC facilities in 2013 which
has caused an increase to 0.4 thousand tonnes (Shell Nigeria 2014).
Although the ecological effects associated with oil pollution have been spot-wise investigated as
stated by Jernelo v.,(2010), it is obvious that oil exploration and production operations have
impacted the agricultural soils, terrestrial ecosystem and pose potential ecological/human health
risks to the region One of the environmental problems is the contamination of terrestrial
ecosystems of the oil producing communities with toxic metals. Metals such as Zn. Pb, Ni, Cr
and Cd have been reported as constituents of Nigeria’s crude oil (Dr.Okomoko et al Dr. Izeze
2020). These pollutants often take years to cause 100 hazards and this makes it difficult to really
appreciate their contribution to ecological and human health hazards (WHO 2005). The elevated
concentrations of Zn. Pb, Cu, Ni, Cr, Cd and Fe through oil spills can exert acute or chronic
toxicity or both on soil with resultant enhanced absorption by plants, which may bring about
bioaccumulation in plants and eventually lead to toxicity along the food chain Owing to these
environmental and ecotoxicological hazards of metal contamination, this study was aimed at (i)
assessing pollution status of metals in the soil and the ecological risks posed to the environment.
(ii) Determining the level of of Zn. Pb, Cu, Ni, Cr, Cd and Fe in the soil of the areas and, (iv).
Investigate potential sources of heavy metal contamination, encompassing oil spill incidents and
industrial activities. (iii) Map the spatial distribution patterns of heavy metals within the farm
lands.

1.2 STATEMENT OF PROBLEMS

Soils may become contaminated by the accumulation of heavy metals and metalloids through
emissions from the rapidly expanding industrial areas, mine tailings, disposal of high metal
wastes, leaded gasoline and paints, land application of fertilizers, animal manures, sewage
sludge, pesticides, waste water irrigation, coal combustion residues, spillage of petrochemicals,
and atmospheric deposition. Heavy metals constitute an ill-defined group of inorganic chemical
hazards, and those most commonly found at contaminated sites (figure 1) are barium (Ba),
chromium (Cr), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), Vanadium (V) and (Sr). Heavy
metal contamination has not just affected the environmental properties of the soil but will also
alter the geotechnical properties of heavy metal-contaminated soil.

2
PLATE 1: Oil impacted farmland in ikarama

Figure 1 Oil Impacted farmland in ikarama.

3
1.3 JUSTIFICATION OF STUDY
The assessment of pollution levels of heavy metals soil contamination is significant to human
health and environmental management. The analysis of heavy metals in soil is essential for
various reasons: Environmental health assessment, Human health risks evaluation, land use
planning, infrastructure protection, water quality protection, corporate social responsibility
(CRS). In essence, analyzing heavy metals in soil is a proactive and multifaceted approach that
addresses environmental, human health, regulatory and developmental consideration.

1.4 AIM AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to investigate the geochemical evaluation and distribution of heavy
metals in the soil in the farmland located in Ikarama in the Niger Delta region, in order to assess
potential environmental contamination and its impact on local ecosystems and human health.

1.4.1 Objectives:
i. To analyze the variation in heavy metal concentrations with depth in the soil profile to
understand potential migration and accumulation patterns.
ii. To investigate the relationship between heavy metal concentrations and soil properties,
such as pH, organic matter content, and mineral composition.
iii. To identify potential sources of heavy metal pollution along Ikarama farmland, including
anthropogenic activities like industrial processes, vehicular emissions, and waste
disposal.
iv. To determine the concentration levels of heavy metals (such as lead, cadmium,
chromium, nickel, and copper) in soil samples collected from different locations along in
the Ikarama farm land.
v. To provide recommendations for effective environmental management strategies and
mitigation measures to minimize heavy metal contamination and its adverse effects

4
1.5 SCOPE OF STUDY
The study is focusing on the spatial distribution of heavy metals, evaluating the presence and
concentration of heavy metals in soil, in the vicinity of the ikarama farmland . Thirty composite
soil samples were collected, and subjected to nitric-perchloric acid digestion. Total metal
contents of the soil were determined by flame atomic absorption spectrophotometry(FAAS) and
data generated were analyzed statistically. Creating a spatial map illustrating how heavy metal
are distributed over time, through the use of inverse distance weighted technique(IDW) of
ArcGIS 10. Determine the likely source of heavy metal pollution, whether they originate from
industrial processes, agricultural practices or natural geological factors.

1.6 LOCATION OF STUDY AREA

The study area which is located within the Niger Delta Basin of Nigeria and lies between latitude
5o91’17”N and longitude 6o 34’08”E(Fig. 3). Ikarama is low-lying, and its general elevation
ranges between 8 and 16 m above sea level. Ikarama and its environs dip gently into the
surrounding creeks and generally toward the Atlantic Ocean. Prevailing in the area is a tropical
climate with two district seasons, wet (April–October) and dry (November-March). It falls within
the continuously humid semi-hot equatorial climate (Ojo, 1977). The average annual temperature
is about 27℃ with an annual range of about 2℃. According to Akintola (1986), annual rainfall
is about 2280 mm. This high rainfall is attributed to the proximity to the sea and its location on
the path of rain-bearing winds. As a result, all the twelve months, especially November-March
are not free from occasional precipitation. The area has a typical rain forest vegetation. Relative
humidity is very high all the year round. Due to the generally high rainfall, the water table is
usually high. The study area is located within the Niger Delta, which was formed during the
Tertiary period as a result of the interplay between subsidence and deposition arising from a
succession of transgressions and regressions of the sea. These evolved the three main
lithostratigraphic units: the Akata Formation, the Agbada Formation and the youngest Benin
Formation, with an overall approximate thickness of over 5000 m of sediment body.

5
Figure 2 : map of study area

IKARAMA

FIGURE 2: MAP OF STUDY AREA IKARAMA FARMLAND

(modified after bankoleet a; 2007)

6
1.6 CLIMATE AND VEGETATION
Like any other state in the Niger Delta, the vegetation of Bayelsa State is composed of four
ecological zones. These include: coastal barrier island forests, mangrove forests, freshwater
swamp and lowland rain forests. These different or vegetation types are associated with the
various soil units in the area, and they constitute part of the complex Niger Delta ecosystems.
Parts of the fresh water swamp forests in the state constitute the home of several threatened and
even endangered for plant and animal species. (Pearson, S. 1970).
There are coastal barrier highland forests and mangrove forests. Coastal barrier highland forest
vegetation is restricted to the narrow ridges along the coast. This vegetation belt is characterized
by low salinity-tolerant fresh water plants. Sometimes of the Avicinia species of mangroves
prevail in this vegetation.(Pearson, S. 1970).
Palms such as phoenix reclivata and other species such as Uapacia, Xylopia and land Taminalia
are predominant. In this belt, commercial timber species are found. The mangrove vegetation of
the state is usually found between mid-tide relief levels to extreme high-water mark. This
vegetation linked with the brackish swamps which form a maze of water courses and highlands
affected by the ebb and flow of tides. (Pearson, S. 1970).

7
 CHAPTER TWO
2.0 LITERATUREREVIEW

Evidence of hydrocarbon pollution in the Niger Delta is well documented. Ayuba (2012)
identified the Niger Delta region to be among the five most polluted ecosystems in the world as a
result of petroleum production. The petroleum exploration and production has direct
consequences on the various aspects of the environment including; the atmosphere, soils and
sediments, surface and groundwater, marine environment to mention but a few in the Niger
Delta. He further stated that the disposal of wastes generated from the exploration and
production of petroleum and its products is responsible for environmental degradation, negative
impacts on the health of indigenes and an overall decline in the economy of the region.
Ugochukwu (2008) further noted that Pollution from oil spills and blowouts, oil blast discharges
and improper disposal of drilling mud from petroleum prospecting have resulted in problems
such as: The loss of the aesthetic values of natural beaches due to unsightly oil slicks; Damage to
marine wildlife, modification of the ecosystem through species elimination and the delay in biota
(fauna and flora) succession; and Decrease in fishery resources. According to Ayuba (2012),
between 9 million- 13 million (1.5 million tons) has been introduced into the Niger Delta
ecosystem owing to oil spills in the past 50years. Produced water is water that accompanies oil
and gas from the reservoir. It is equally referred to as formation water or oil field brine. Produced
water consists of natural water from the formations and water that has been injected to enhance
crude recovery. It contains several potential environmental pollutants including organic
materials, heavy metals, radioactive materials and other toxics. Discharges of produced water
are the biggest Ngwoke et al. source of hydrocarbon and some other chemical contamination's
of the sea (Research Council of Norway, 2012). There is no official record on the volume of
discharged produced water in the Niger Delta but estimates suggest the figures are staggering.
Most produced water generated in Nigeria are disposed of or discharged into water bodies. A ten
years' research carried out by the Research Council of Norway (2012), shows that components of
produced water can have various negative effects on the health, functions and reproduction of
fish and invertebrates. Discharge of produced water can result in the contamination of sediments,
streams and wetlands (DeLaune et al., 1999.). Rabalais et al. (1991) reported that substantial
contamination of fine-gained sediments with petroleum hydrocarbons of produced water origin
has been observed with distance from produced water sites in coastal Louisiana, USA.
According to Onojake and Abanum (2012), Produced water can have different levels of
environmental impacts, this depends on the location of discharge. In comparison, the discharge
of produced water in a stream will result in a more damaging environmental implication than
same discharge done in the open ocean. This can be attributed to the higher dilution potential of
the ocean compared to a small stream or lake. Okoro (2010) believes that at a shallow near shore
environment where the level of dilution and mixing is low, it is logical to expect that the impact
of such a discharge on the immediate environment will be significant. Rabalais (2005)
documented that the organic content of produced waters has the potential to be degraded by
aerobic microbes, and the activity may reduce dissolved oxygen in the ambient water, even as
nitrogen in Produced water, mostly in the form of ammonium, has the potential to stimulate
phytoplankton production, some of which may flux to the lower water column to be decomposed
and contribute to the respiratory demand in the bottom waters. The monocyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (MAHs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), related heterocyclic aromatic

8
compounds, and sometimes one or more metals such as Fe, Pb, Hg, and Zn have been identified
as produced water components that contribute most to the ecological risk in marine environments
based on their chemical characteristics (OGP, 2005). Various levels of heavy metals have been
recorded in produced water and water bodies/sediments receiving produced water discharge in
Niger delta and across the world (Ajuzieogu et al., 2018; Onojake, 2011; Oboh et al., 2009;
Cline, 1998; Neff, 1998; Cox, 1992). Oboh et al., 2009 reported high content of heavy metals in
produced water in a location in Nigeria, while Obunwo and Chukwudi (2015) reported non-
detection of heavy metals in produced water samples from two terminals in Rivers and Delta
States of Niger Delta Nigeria. Isehunwa and Onovae (2011) documented average concentrations
of some heavy metals in treated produced water in Brent.

2.2 Sources of Heavy Metals in Contaminated Soils

Heavy metals occur naturally in the soil environment from the pedogenetic processes of
weathering of parent materials at levels that are regarded as trace (<1000mgkg -1) and rarely
toxic (Mmolawa KM, Likuku AS, Gaboutloeloe GK (2011) Assessment of heavy metal
pollution). Due to the disturbance and acceleration of nature’s slowly occurring geochemical
cycle of metals by man, most soils of rural and urban environments may accumulate one or
more of the heavy metals above defined background values high enough to cause risks to human
health, plants, animals, ecosystems, or other media (Dr. Okumoko D.P. et al. Izeze E .O 2020).
The heavy metals essentially become contaminants in the soil environments because;

I. their rates of generation via manmade cycles are more rapid relative to natural ones,
II. they become transferred from mines to random environmental locations where higher
potentials of direct exposure occur,
III. the concentrations of the metals in discarded products are relatively high compared to
those in the receiving environment, and
IV. the chemical form (species) in which a metal is found in the receiving environmental
system may render it more bio available (D’Amore, J. et al., 2005).
A simple mass balance of the heavy metals in the soil can be expressed as follows (Alloway, B,
1995 &Lombi, E. et al., 1998):
Mtotal = Mp + Ma + Mf + Mag + Mow + Mip − (Mcr + Ml), (1)
where “M” is the heavy metal, “p” is the parent material, “a” is the atmospheric deposition, “ f ”
is the fertilizer sources, “ag” are the agrochemical sources, “ow” are the organic waste sources,
“ip” are other inorganic pollutants, “cr” is crop removal, and “l” is the losses by leaching,
volatilization, and so forth. It is projected that the anthropogenic emission into the atmosphere,
for several heavy metals, is one-to-three orders of magnitude higher than natural fluxes (Dr.
Okumoko D.P. et al. Izeze E .O 2020). Heavy metals in the soil from anthropogenic sources tend
to be more mobile, hence bio-available than pedogenic, or lithogenic ones (Kuo, S. et al., 1983).
Metal-bearing solids at contaminated sites can originate from a wide variety of anthropogenic
sources in the form of metal mine tailings, disposal of high metal wastes in improperly protected
landfills, leaded gasoline and lead-based paints, land application of fertilizer, animal manures,
bio-solids (sewage sludge), compost, pesticides, coal combustion residues, petrochemicals, and
atmospheric deposition (Basta, T. 2005) are discussed hereunder.

9
2.2.1 Fertilizers:
Historically, agriculture was the first major human influence on the soil . To grow and complete
the life cycle, plants must acquire not only macro nutrients (N, P, K, S, Ca, and Mg), but also
essential micro nutrients. Some soils are deficient in the heavy metals (such as Co, Cu, Fe, Mn,
Mo, Ni, and Zn) that are essential for healthy plant growth.
and crops may be supplied with these as an addition to the soil or as a foliar spray. Cereal crops
grown on Cu deficient soils are occasionally treated with Cu as an addition to the soil, and Mn
may similarly be supplied to cereal and root crops. Large quantities of fertilizers are regularly
added to soils in intensive farming systems to provide adequate N, P, and K for crop growth. The
compounds used to supply these elements contain trace amounts of heavy metals (e.g., Cd and
Pb) as impurities, which, after continued fertilizer, application may significantly increase their
content in the soilMetals, such as Cd and Pb, have no known physiological activity. Application
of certain phosphatic fertilizers inadvertently adds Cd and other potentially toxic elements to the
soil, including F, Hg, and Pb (Raven, P. et al., 2008).
2.2.2 Pesticides:
Several common pesticides used fairly extensively in agriculture and horticulture in the past
contained substantial concentrations of metals. For instance in the recent past, about 10% of the
chemicals have approved for use as insecticides and fungicides in UK were based on compounds
which contain Cu, Hg, Mn, Pb, or Zn. Examples of such pesticides are copper-containing
fungicidal sprays such as Bordeaux mixture (copper sulphate) and copper oxychloride (Jones, P.,
Jarvis, C. 2011). Lead arsenate was used in fruit orchards for many years to control some
parasitic insects. Arsenic containing compounds were also used extensively to control cattle ticks
and to control pests in banana in New Zealand and Australia, timbers have been preserved with
formulations of Cu, Cr, and As (CCA), and there are now many derelict sites where soil
concentrations of these elements greatly exceed background concentrations. Such contamination
has the potential to cause problems, particularly if sites are redeveloped for other agricultural or
non-agricultural purposes. Compared with fertilizers, the use of such materials has been more
localized, being restricted to particular sites or crops (McLaughlin, J. et al., 2000).
2.2.3 Bio-solids and Manures:
The application of numerous bio-solids (e.g., livestock manures, composts, and municipal
sewage sludge) to land inadvertently leads to the accumulation of heavy metals such as As, Cd,
Cr, Cu, Pb, Hg, Ni, Se, Mo, Zn, Tl, Sb, and so forth, in the soil (Basta, N. et al., 2005). Certain
animal wastes such as poultry, cattle, and pig manures produced in agriculture are commonly
applied to crops and pastures either as solids or slurries (Sumner, M. 2010). Although most
manures are seen as valuable fertilizers, in the pig and poultry industry, the Cu and Zn added to
diets as growth promoters and As contained in poultry health products may also have the
potential to cause metal contamination of the soil (Sumner, M. 2010 & Chaney V. et al., 2016).
The manures produced from animals on such diets contain high concentrations of As, Cu, and Zn
and, if repeatedly applied to restricted areas of land, can cause considerable buildup of these
metals in the soil in the long run. Bio-solids (sewage sludge) are primarily organic solid
products, produced by wastewater treatment processes that can be beneficially recycled (USEPA
2004). Land application of bio-solids materials is a common practice in many countries that
allow the reuse of bio-solids produced by urban populations (Weggler, k. 2014). The term
sewage sludge is used in many references because of its wide recognition and its regulatory

10
definition. However, the term bio-solids is becoming more common as a replacement for sewage
sludge because it is thought to reflect more accurately the beneficial characteristics inherent to
sewage sludge (Silveira, M. 2013). It is estimated that in the United States, more than half of
approximately 5.6 million dry tonnes of sewage sludge used or disposed of annually is land
applied, and agricultural utilization of bio-solids occurs in every region of the country. In the
European community, over 30% of the sewage sludge is used as fertilizer in agriculture (Silveira,
M. 2013). In Australia over 175 000 tonnes of dry bio-solids are produced each year by the
major metropolitan authorities, and currently most bio-solids applied to agricultural land are used
in arable cropping situations where they can be incorporated into the soil (McLaughlin, J. 2010).

There is also considerable interest in the potential for composting bio-solids with other organic
materials such as sawdust, straw, or garden waste. If this trend continues, there will be
implications for metal contamination of soils. The potential of bio-solids for contaminating soils
with heavy metals has caused great concern about their application in agricultural practices.
Heavy metals most commonly found in bio-solids are Pb, Ni, Cd, Cr, Cu, and Zn, and the metal
concentrations are governed by the nature and the intensity of the industrial activity, as well as
the type of process employed during the bio-solids treatment (Mattigod, S. & Page, L. 2013).
Under certain conditions, metals added to soils in applications of bio-solids can be leached
downwards through the soil profile and can have the potential to contaminate groundwater
(McLaren, G. 2005). Recent studies on some New Zealand soils treated with bio-solids have
shown increased concentrations of Cd, Ni, and Zn in drainage leachates (Keller, C. et al., 2012;
McLaren, R. 2014).
2.2.4 Wastewater:
The application of municipal and industrial wastewater and related effluents to land dates back
400 years and now is a common practice in many parts of the world Reed. Worldwide, it is
estimated that 20 million hectares of arable land are irrigated with waste water. In several Asian
and African cities, studies suggest that agriculture based on wastewater irrigation accounts for 50
percent of the vegetable supply to urban areas. Farmers generally are not bothered about
environmental benefits or hazards and are primarily interested in maximizing their yields and
profits. Although the metal concentrations in wastewater effluents are usually relatively low,
long-term irrigation of land with such can eventually result in heavy metal accumulation in the
soil.
2.2.5 Metal Mining and Milling Processes and Industrial Wastes:
Mining and milling of metal ores coupled with industries have bequeathed many countries, the
legacy of wide distribution of metal contaminants in soil. During mining, tailings (heavier and
larger particles settled at the bottom of the flotation cell during mining) are directly discharged
into natural depressions, including onsite wetlands resulting in elevated concentrations.
Extensive Pb and zinc Zn ore mining and smelting have resulted in contamination of soil that
poses risk to human and ecological health. Many reclamation methods used for these sites are
lengthy and expensive and may not restore soil productivity. Soil heavy metal environmental risk
to humans is related to bioavailability. Assimilation pathways include the ingestion of plant
material grown in (food chain), or the direct ingestion (oral bioavailability) of, contaminated soil
(Basta, N., Gradwohl, R. 2008). Other materials are generated by a variety of industries such as
textile, tanning, petrochemicals from accidental oil spills or utilization of petroleum-based
products, pesticides, and pharmaceutical facilities and are highly variable in composition.

11
Although some are disposed of on land, few have benefits to agriculture or forestry. In addition,
many are potentially hazardous because of their contents of heavy metals (Cr, Pb, and Zn) or
toxic organic compounds and are seldom, if ever, applied to land. Others are very low in plant
nutrients or have no soil conditioning properties (Sumner, M. 2010).

12
2.2.5 Air-Borne Sources:
Airborne sources of metals include stack or duct emissions of air, gas, or vapor streams, and
fugitive emissions such as dust from storage areas or waste piles. Metals from airborne sources
are generally released as particulates contained in the gas stream. Some metals such as As, Cd,
and Pb can also volatilize during high-temperature processing. These metals will convert to
oxides and condense as fine particulates unless a reducing atmosphere is maintained (Smith, L. et
al., 2015). Stack emissions can be distributed over a wide area by natural air currents until dry
and/or wet precipitation mechanisms remove them from the gas stream. Fugitive emissions are
often distributed over a much smaller area because emissions are made near the ground. In
general, contaminant concentrations are lower in fugitive emissions compared to stack
emissions. The type and concentration of metals emitted from both types of sources will depend
on site-specific conditions. All solid particles in smoke from fires and in other emissions from
factory chimneys are eventually deposited on land or sea; most forms of fossil fuels contain
some heavy metals and this is, therefore, a form of contamination which has been continuing on
a large scale since the industrial revolution began. For example, very high concentration of Cd,
Pb, and Zn has been found in plants and soils adjacent to smelting works. Another major source
of soil contamination is the aerial emission of Pb from the combustion of petrol containing
tetraethyl lead; this contributes substantially to the content of Pb in soils in urban areas and in
those adjacent to major roads. Zn and Cd may also be added to soils adjacent to roads, the
sources being tyres, and lubricant oils.

2.3 HEALTH IMPLICATON OF HEAVY METALS

2.3.1 Cadmium
Cadmium is a very toxic metal. All soils and rocks, including coal and mineral fertilizers, contain
some cadmium. Cadmium has many uses, including batteries, pigments, metal coatings, and
plastics. It is used extensively in electroplating. Health effects Cadmium and cadmium
compounds are known human carcinogens. Smokers get exposed to significantly higher
cadmium levels than non-smokers. Severe damage to the lungs may occur through breathing
high levels of cadmium.
Ingesting very high levels severely irritates the stomach, leading to vomiting and
diarrhea. Long-term exposure to lower levels leads to a buildup in the kidneys and possible
kidney disease, lung damage, and fragile bones.
Regulatory limits
  EPA – 5 parts per billion (ppb) or 0.005 parts per million (ppm) of cadmium in
drinking water
  Food and Drug Administration (FDA) – concentration in bottled drinking water
should not exceed 0.005 ppm (5 ppb).
  OSHA – an average of 5 micrograms per cubic meter of workplace air for an 8-hour
workday, 40-hour work week.

13
2.3.2 Chromium
Chromium is found in rocks, animals, plants, and soil and can be a liquid, solid, or gas.
Chromium compounds bind to soil and are not likely to migrate to ground water but, they are
very persistent in sediments in water. Chromium is used in metal alloys such as stainless steel;
protective coatings on metal (electroplating); magnetic tapes; and pigments for paints, cement,
paper, rubber, composition floor covering and other materials. Its soluble forms are used in wood
preservatives. Health effects Chromium (VI) compounds are toxins and known human
carcinogens, whereas Chromium (III) is an essential nutrient.
 Breathing high levels can cause irritation to the lining of the nose; nose ulcers; runny nose;
and breathing problems, such as asthma, cough, shortness of breath, or wheezing. Skin contact
can cause skin ulcers. Allergic reactions consisting of severe redness and swelling of the skin
have been noted.
 Long term exposure can cause damage to liver, kidney circulatory and nerve tissues, as well as
skin irritation.
Regulatory limits
 EPA– 0.1 ppm (parts per million) in drinking water.
 FDA – should not exceed 1 milligram per liter (1 ppm) in bottled water.
 OSHA – an average of between 0.0005 and 1.0 milligram per cubic meter of workplace
air for an 8-hour workday, 40-hour workweek, depending on the compound.

14
2.3.3 Lead
As a result of human activities, such as fossil fuel burning, mining, and manufacturing, lead and
lead compounds can be found in all parts of our environment. This includes air, soil, and water.
Lead is used in many different ways. It is used to produce batteries, ammunition, metal products
like solder and pipes, and X-ray shielding devices. Lead is a highly toxic metal and, as a result of
related health concerns (see below), its use in several products like gasoline, paints, and pipe
solder, has been drastically reduced in recent years. Today, the most common sources of lead
exposure in the United States are lead-based paint and possibly water pipes in older homes,
contaminated soil, household dust, drinking water, lead crystal, lead in certain cosmetics and
toys, and lead-glazed pottery. Health effects EPA has determined that lead is a probable human
carcinogen. Lead can affect every organ and system in the body. Long-term exposure of adults
can result in decreased performance in some tests that measure functions of the nervous system;
weakness in fingers, wrists, or ankles; small increases in blood pressure; and anemia.
 Exposure to high lead levels can severely damage the brain and kidneys and ultimately
cause death. In pregnant women, high levels of exposure to lead may cause miscarriage. High
level exposure in men can damage the organs responsible for sperm production.
2.3.4 Mercury
Mercury combines with other elements to form organic and inorganic mercury compounds.
Metallic mercury is used to produce chlorine gas and caustic soda, and is also used in
thermometers, dental fillings, switches, light bulbs, and batteries. Coal-burning power plants are
the largest human-caused source of mercury emissions to the air in the United States. Mercury in
soil and water is converted by microorganisms to methylmercury, a bioaccumulating toxin.
Health effects The EPA has determined that mercuric chloride and methylmercury are possible
human carcinogens.
 The nervous system is very sensitive to all forms of mercury. Exposure to high levels can
permanently damage the brain, kidneys, and developing fetuses. Effects on brain functioning
may result in irritability, shyness, tremors, changes in vision or hearing, and memory problems.
Regulatory limits
 EPA – 2 parts per billion parts (ppb) in drinking water
 FDA – 1 part of methylmercury in a million parts of seafood.
 OSHA – 0.1 milligram of organic mercury per cubic meter of workplace air and 0.05
milligrams per cubic meter of metallic mercury vapor for 8-hour shifts and 40-hour
work

2.4 REGIONAL GEOLOGY OF THE NIGER-DELTA BASIN

The Niger Delta Basin is found within the Gulf of Guinea on the West African continental edge,
along Nigeria's coast. Supposedly it represents the southern border of the Benue Trough, its
development has been connected to that of the broader sedimentary complex. According to
(Mamah et al, 2005), the Benue Trough was identified as the failing arm of three radial rift
systems that met at an R-R-R triple junction in the Gulf of Guinea that was begun in the Early
Cretaceous as a result of crustal doming. The Niger Delta Basin is the third stage of the trough's
development, together with its adjacent basins. According to studies conducted by (Whiteman,
1982), the Cenozoic Niger Delta is located at the confluence of the Benue Trough and the South

15
Atlantic Ocean, where a triple junction occurred during the late Jurassic separation of the
continents of South America and Africa. Several writers have poured their ideas and opinions on
the intricacies and processes underlying the geology of the Niger-Delta basin due to significant
effort and research on the Niger-Delta to comprehend its geology like (Turtle et al, 1999) who
proposed that the Niger-Delta, as an extensional rift basin which is bordered by many additional
basins produced by similar processes. The Niger-Delta being a part of a broader tectonic feature
known as the "Benue Trough," is limited on the south-western side by the Cameroon Volcanic
Line and the transform passive continental plate boundary.

Also, (Obaje, 2009) claimed in one of his studies that the early Cretaceous separation
resulted in sinking of the African continental plate edge and cooling of the newly formed oceanic
lithospheric plate. Others such as (Orife&Avbovbo, 1982) in their research of the geography of
the Niger-Delta discovered that it is one of the biggest sub aerial basins in Africa, encompassing
an area of about 75,000km2, and consists of a regressive clastic succession with a maximum
thickness of 12,000m. The Niger Delta basin began to develop throughout the early Tertiary
period when clastic river inflow increased. Further contributions were made by (Corredor et al,
2005) considered the Niger Delta to be one of the most prolific hydrocarbon provinces in the
world, constituting a petroleum system known as the "Tertiary Agbada-Akata Petroleum
System" that prograde over the subsiding continental-oceanic lithospheric transition zone and
spread onto the oceanic crust of the Gulf of Guinea during the Oligocene. The weathering flanks
of outcropping continental basement released sediments through the Benue Niger drainage
system (fig 4). In addition, an inference was made about the delta, which prograde for about 250
km during the Paleocene from the Benin and Calabar flanks to the current delta front.

16
Figure 3: Geological map of the Niger Delta and its environs

17
2.5 Litho-Stratigraphy of the Niger-Delta Basin
Data acquisition by the oil industry has proven that the Niger Delta stratigraphy is well
documented among which researchers like (Nyantakyi et al, 2013) discovered that the Niger
Delta Basin includes an upward-coarsening regressive sequence of siliciclastic rocks 9 to 12 km
thick of which the basin's lithic fill has been classified into three lithofacies: The Akata, Agbada,
and Benin Formations, which were deposited in marine, transitional, and continental settings,
respectively.
Examination was carried out on the three major lithostratigraphic units from which
(Asadu&Onifade, 2020) proposed that the Akata, Agbada, and Benin Formations, which indicate
a complex blend of marine, fluvio-marine, and deltaic plain environments. Experiments showed
how distinct the basin is which was observed under a certain criterion: sand: shale ratio which
revealed a coarsening-upward progradational sequence as they were deposited in marine, fluvio-
marine, and deltaic settings. This was expounded by (Short and Stauble, 1967) as recorded in the
works of (Weber and Daukoru, 1975; Weber, 1987).

2.5.1 AKATA FORMATION

Critical observations and proposals have been made concerning the Akata formation among
which (Short and Stauble, 1967) discovered that the formation was deposited in shallow to deep
marine environments based on foraminifera evidence, which was confirmed by
(DoustandOmatsola, 1990) in their study on the formation that revealed that the formation made
up marine planktonic foraminifera up to 50% of the microfauna assemblage, implying a shallow
marine shelf deposition.
(Dim, 2017) in his research proposed that the formation was diachronous, extending from the
Paleocene to the Holocene which is the oldest and most basic unit, comprised primarily of
marine shales and thought to be the primary source rock in the basin underlying the Precambrian
basement complex and that it occurs offshore as diapirs along the continental slope, as well as
onshore in the northeastern portion of the delta, where it is known as the Imo Shale.
Furthermore, he discovered that the Akata Formation of the Niger-Delta basin was composed of
under-compacted marine sediments such as shales, clays, and silts, as well as lenses of sands
deposited in front of the advancing delta in deep-water environments where these turbidites are
suggested to be potential reservoirs. The Akata Formation was approximately 6500m thick the
according to records extracted from further investigation carried out by (Doust and Omatsola,
1990) who discovered that the lateral thickness of the Formation ranged between 2000m at the
most distal part to approximately 7000m beneath the continental shelf. According to (Corredor et
al, 2005), the lateral thickness of the Akata Formation was around 5000m, which was
accompanied by the presence of deep folds and thrust belts along the offshore.

2.5.2 AGBADA FORMATION

(Reijers, 2011) in his research observed the Agbada formation to be a formation which acted as
the reservoir unit of the Tertiary Niger Delta basin due to certain prerequisites that it possesses
making it a good reservoir. The Agbada Formation is a formation with a thickness of over
3000m that sits on top of the Akata formation comprising of alternating sandstone, siltstone and
shale sequence and is known to be the petroleum bearing portion of the Tertiary Niger Delta
basin. Other researchers like (Pochat et al, 2004) were of the opinion that formation as being

18
distinguished by paralic to marine-coastal and fluvial-marine deposits made up of shale and
sandstone that was systematically arranged into coarsening upward off-lap cycles.
(Asadu and Ikporukpo, 2020) performed some research proposing that the Agbada Formation is
a series of alternating shales and sandstone composed of three subunits(fig 5): the top subunit,
the middle subunit, and the lower subunit. The upper subunit consists of extremely thick
sandstone deposits with 40 to 60 percent sand; the intermediate subunit contains 30 to 50 percent
sand; and the lowest subunit consists of thick layers of shale containing around 20 percent sand
with intercalations of under-compacted shales.
(Doust and Omatsola, 1990) discussed their opines in their research concerning the top of the
Benin formation of which the base of the Agbada formation made up of interbeddedshales could
represent source rocks. In conclusion, (Ejedawe et al, 1984) expounded that the Agbada
Formation was the primary source rock of the Niger Delta. Its epochs range from the Eocene to
the Pleistocene.

Figure 4: A lithostratigraphic section of Niger Delta

2.5.3 BENIN FORMATION

The Benin Formation is an alluvial and upper coastal plain deposit that is up to 2000m thick with
a minimal thickness ranging beyond 6000ft, with the formation consisting mostly of sand,
gravels, and back-swamp deposits (Avbovbo, 1978). The Benin formation is dated between the
Oligocene and Recent epochs, and it is the youngest formation in the Niger delta basin, located
above the Agbadaformation(Fig 6).
The Benin Formation as reviewed by (Asadu. and Ikporukpo, 2020) in their research comprises
of over 90% sandstones with shale intercalations ranging from the west over the whole Niger
delta area and southward beyond the current coast line. Also, it is composed of texturally coarse-
grained, complemented with a shape ranging from sub-angular to well-rounded sands and

19
sandstones that were poorly sorted. It also contains streaks/lenses of shale, clays, and other
minerals.
AS observed during field sampling was the noticeable trace of chemical reaction (authigenesis)
resulting in the limonitic coatings of the sediments casing a change in coloration from white to
yellowish to brown. Finally, the sands contain fresh water and are highly porous.

Figure 5 : Regional stratigraphy of the Niger Delta

2.6 HEALTH IMPLICATON OF HEAVY METALS
2.6.1 Cadmium
Cadmium is a very toxic metal. All soils and rocks, including coal and mineral fertilizers,
contain some cadmium. Cadmium has many uses, including batteries, pigments, metal coatings,
and plastics. It is used extensively in electroplating. Health effects Cadmium and cadmium
compounds are known human carcinogens. Smokers get exposed to significantly higher
cadmium levels than non-smokers. Severe damage to the lungs may occur through breathing
high levels of cadmium.

20
  Ingesting very high levels severely irritates the stomach, leading to vomiting and
diarrhea.
 Long-term exposure to lower levels leads to a buildup in the kidneys and possible kidney
disease, lung damage, and fragile bones.
Regulatory limits
 EPA – 5 parts per billion (ppb) or 0.005 parts per million (ppm) of cadmium in drinking
water
 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) – concentration in bottled drinking water should
not exceed 0.005 ppm (5 ppb).
 OSHA – an average of 5 micrograms per cubic meter of workplace air for an 8-hour
workday, 40-hour work week.
2.6.2 Chromium
Chromium is found in rocks, animals, plants, and soil and can be a liquid, solid, or gas.
Chromium compounds bind to soil and are not likely to migrate to ground water but, they are
very persistent in sediments in water. Chromium is used in metal alloys such as stainless steel;
protective coatings on metal (electroplating); magnetic tapes; and pigments for paints, cement,
paper, rubber, composition floor covering and other materials. Its soluble forms are used in wood
preservatives. Health effects Chromium (VI) compounds are toxins and known human
carcinogens, whereas Chromium (III) is an essential nutrient.
 Breathing high levels can cause irritation to the lining of the nose; nose ulcers; runny
nose; and breathing problems, such as asthma, cough, shortness of breath, or wheezing.
 Skin contact can cause skin ulcers. Allergic reactions consisting of severe redness and
swelling of the skin have been noted.
 Long term exposure can cause damage to liver, kidney circulatory and nerve tissues, as
well as skin irritation.
Regulatory limits
 EPA– 0.1 ppm (parts per million) in drinking water.
 FDA – should not exceed 1 milligram per liter (1 ppm) in bottled water.
 OSHA – an average of between 0.0005 and 1.0 milligram per cubic meter of workplace
air for an 8-hour workday, 40-hour workweek, depending on the compound.
2.6.3 Lead
As a result of human activities, such as fossil fuel burning, mining, and manufacturing,
lead and lead compounds can be found in all parts of our environment. This includes air, soil,
and water. Lead is used in many different ways. It is used to produce batteries, ammunition,
metal products like solder and pipes, and X-ray shielding devices. Lead is a highly toxic metal
and, as a result of related health concerns (see below), its use in several products like gasoline,
paints, and pipe solder, has been drastically reduced in recent years. Today, the most common
sources of lead exposure in the United States are lead-based paint and possibly water pipes in
older homes, contaminated soil, household dust, drinking water, lead crystal, lead in certain
cosmetics and toys, and lead-glazed pottery. Health effects EPA has determined that lead is a
probable human carcinogen. Lead can affect every organ and system in the body. Long-term
exposure of adults can result in decreased performance in some tests that measure functions of
the nervous system; weakness in fingers, wrists, or ankles; small increases in blood pressure; and
anemia.

21
  Exposure to high lead levels can severely damage the brain and kidneys and ultimately
cause death.
 In pregnant women, high levels of exposure to lead may cause miscarriage.
 High level exposure in men can damage the organs responsible for sperm production.

2.6.4Mercury
Mercury combines with other elements to form organic and inorganic mercury compounds.
Metallic mercury is used to produce chlorine gas and caustic soda, and is also used in
thermometers, dental fillings, switches, light bulbs, and batteries. Coal-burning power plants are
the largest human-caused source of mercury emissions to the air in the United States. Mercury in
soil and water is converted by microorganisms to methylmercury, a bioaccumulating toxin.
Health effects The EPA has determined that mercuric chloride and methylmercury are possible
human carcinogens.
 The nervous system is very sensitive to all forms of mercury.
 Exposure to high levels can permanently damage the brain, kidneys, and developing
fetuses. Effects on brain functioning may result in irritability, shyness, tremors, changes
in vision or hearing, and memory problems.
 Short-term exposure to high levels of metallic mercury vapors may cause lung damage,
nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, increases in blood pressure or heart rate, skin rashes, and eye
irritation.
Regulatory limits
 EPA – 2 parts per billion parts (ppb) in drinking water
 FDA – 1 part of methylmercury in a million parts of seafood.
 OSHA – 0.1 milligram of organic mercury per cubic meter of workplace air and 0.05
milligrams per cubic meter of metallic mercury vapor for 8-hour shifts and 40-hour work

22
 CHAPTER THREE
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHOD
Thirty composite topsoil samples within 0–15 cm depth (ten subsamples bulked at each point)
were collected by systematic random sampling using a steel soil auger the Ikarama farm land.
Triplicate samples were collected at each point to form one composite sample and another
composite sample was collected 100m from the first point at the same sampling station. Ten
composite samples were collected at the Control site which serves as the less
contaminated/reference area. The samples were transported to the laboratory in properly tagged
polyethylene bags. Soil samples were air-dried for 2 weeks to constant weight, sieved through a
2 mm sieve and made into two subsamples for digestion. Approximately 1 g of the subsample
was wet-digested in HNO3 + HCl + H2O2 according to USEPA 3050B (ratio 4:2:1) method
(USEPA 1601996 ) and the supernatant was filtered using Whatman filter paper 42.
The determination of metal concentration was carried out by Atomic Absorption
Spectrophotometry using Perkin Elmer Analyst 200. The AAS was calibrated for each element
using series of standard solutions (CPI, 165USA) and the correlation of coefficient of each
calibrated graph was greater than 0.950. The QA/QC methods adopted were the use of reagent
blanks and replicate digestion to validate the correctness of the procedure Reference material
lake sediment (IAEA-Sl-1) was used to check the reliability of the procedure and instrumentation
with percentage recovery between 76 and 95 %. Soil pH was determined potentiometrically in
soil/H2O suspension (1: 2.5 w/v) using a glass electrode pH meter (PHS-3C 174 model) and two
readings were taken per sample. The soil organic matter (OM) was determined by loss on
ignition method (LOI) (Reddy et al. 2009).

3.1 MATERIALS USED FOR RESEARCH

The following materials were utilized during the process of the analysis of this research:
 Whatman filter paper 42
 Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry
 Relevant maps (topographic and geological) were gotten from Federal University of
Petroleum Resources, Effurun and Niger Delta University
 AAS,GBC908PBMT MODEL
 5. Conical Flask
 Weighing balance
 Fume Cupboard
 Hot plate
 Steel soil hand Auger
 Polyethylene bags
 Global positioning system (GPS) device (model GARMIN GPS 76 CSX)
 Softwares including ArcGIS, suffer 12, excel, SPSS were used also, multivariate statistical
analysis was used for the data analysis of this research work.
Materials used for this research work varies from materials used in the field for gathering of
samples to materials used in the laboratory for testing and analysis of the samples.

23
3.2 Sampling Sites
The samples that were used for the research were taken from three selected site in the Ikarama
farm land. (figure 7)

IKARAMA

Figure 6: Map showing location where samples were collected, farm land located in Ikarama
(modified after bankoleet a; 2007)

24
Table 1: Field sample information (modified after bankoleet a; 2007

Samplin Latitude Longitude Site 0.3m 0.5m 1.0m Number

g Descript depth depth depth of
Location ion samples
Location N5o57’57. E6o16’27.4 Heavy Sampled Sample Sample 10
1 654” 90” polluted d d
area
Location N5o56’54. E6o17’25.0 Medium Sampled Sample Sample 10
2 102” 87” (mildly) d d
polluted
area
Location N5o58’55. E6o13’23.4 Medium Sampled Sample Sample 10
3 19” 66” (mildly) d d
polluted
area
Control N4o57’45. E6o22’6.88 No Sampled Not Not 2
264” 5” visible Sample Sample
trace of d d
pollution

3.3 Samples Collection and Preparation

Soil samples were collected from a depth of 10 to 15 cm, from the surface as described by Allen
(1974). From each farmland, ten soil samples were collected from ten different spots, which
were pooled together to form a composite of each individual sample. They were placed in clean
dried polythene bags, labeled and transported to the laboratory for analysis. The soil samples
were air dried, disaggregated with porcelain pestle and mortar and finely powdered to pass
through 2 mm mesh sieve for homogeneity. Soil samples were analysed for the following
parameters: pH, electrical conductivity, particle size, organic matter, organic carbon, cation
exchange capacity and heavy metals.

25
3.4 Determination of Physico-chemical Parameters
All the chemicals and reagents used were of analytical standard. The determination of particle
sizes of the soil samples was carried out using Bouyoucos Hydrometer method. The pH of the
soil samples was determined using pH meter in 1:1 soil water suspension, electrical conductivity
was determined in the filtrate of the water extract using Conductivity meter. The Percentage
Organic carbon/matter was determined by using chromic acid wet oxidation method by Walkey
and Black (1934). Ca and Mg were determined by complexometric titration with EDTA, Na and
K by flame photometry, exchangeable acidity by acid-base titration while cation exchange
capacity was obtained by summing up the exchangeable bases.

3.5 DATA ANALYSIS

3.5.1 Statistical Analysis
Statistical analyses of all the data obtained from all sampled sites in the present study were
carried out with IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 20.0 software. SPSS is a
multipurpose and responsive program designed to carry out a range of statistical procedures and
is widely used in a range of disciplines. Other statistical software such as Stata and Statistical
Analysis Software (SAS) exist, however SPSS was used because it provides a plethora of basic
and complex statistical functions, and for its availability.
Multivariate statistical analyses were used to further identify the sources of the heavy metals in
soils of the study area; multivariate statistical analysis is a quantitative and independent
approach. The parameters were first checked for normality using the shapiro-wilk test and
quantile plots, the latter revealed that the data were positively skewed.
Data standardization is a requirement in multivariate analysis. The results of multivariate
statistical analysis are more unbiased and have a higher degree of accuracy when the parameters
used in the analyses are of the same units and equally weighted. Data standardization is a process
of achieving both objectives. The use of the raw data in multivariate statistical analysis,
especially cluster analysis and factor analysis, where dissimilarity and similarity measures are
determined tend to favor the parameters (Variables) with the highest variances (Cloutier et al.,
2008), (Yidana, 2008). Data standardization makes the dataset uniform so that the determination
of similarity/dissimilarity measures and factors will be fairly distributed among all the variables
used in the analyses.

3.5.2 Soil Pollution Indices

Enrichment Factor (EF)
For the estimation of anthropogenic inputs, it is more useful to calculate the non-dimensional
enrichment factor by normalizing metal concentrations to standards. Gomes et al., (2009)
described EF as an index used as a tool to evaluate the extent of metal pollution and defined it as
a double normalized ratio to a reference element Upper Crustal Concentration (UCC) and
calculated by the equation:
EF = ([Me]/[RE]sed)/ ([Me]/[RE]ref)
Where; Me= concentration of metal in sediment sample in mg/kg
RE= Concentration of Fe in sediment sample in mg/kg
Me=Reference concentration of metal in mg/kg
RE= Reference concentration of Fe in mg/kg

26
Fe, Al and Sc are generally used as reference elements for normalization purposes and in the
present study, Fe was chosen as a reference element.
According to EF values, each sample falls into one of the seven tiers:
EF<1 indicates no enrichment;
1<EF<3 is minor enrichment;
3<EF<5 is moderate enrichment;
5<EF<10 is moderately severe enrichment;
10<EF<25 is severe enrichment;
25<EF<50 is very severe enrichment; and
EF>50 is extremely severe enrichment (Sakan et al., 2009).

Geo-accumulation Index (I-geo)

Muller, 1969 introduced Igeo to assess heavy metal pollution in sediments. The Igeo is
calculated according to the equation:
I-geo= log 2 (Cn/1.5Bn)
Where Cnis the measured concentration of a metal in sediments and B nis the geochemical
background value in the average shale of element n, and 1.5 is the background matrix correction
due to terrigenous effects.
According to Muller (1969), the geoaccumulation index consists of seven classes:
Igeo#0 (Class 0, practically uncontaminated); 0
Igeo#1 (Class 1, uncontaminated to moderately contaminated); 1
Igeo#2 (Class 2, moderately contaminated); 2
Igeo#3 (Class 3, moderately to heavily contaminated); 3
Igeo#4 (Class 4, heavily contaminated); 4
Igeo#5 (Class 5, heavily to extremely contaminated); 5
Igeo(Class 6, extremely contaminated)

Pollution Load Index (PLI)

The Pollution Load Index (PLI) is obtained as concentration Factors (CF). This CF is the
quotient obtained by dividing the concentration of each metals. The PLI of the place are
calculated by obtaining the n-root from the nCFs that were obtained for all the metals. With the
PLI obtained from each place (Soares et al., 1999).
Generally, pollution load index (PLI), which is as follows: CF = C metal / C background value
PLI=n√(CF1xCF2xCF3x…xCFn)
Where, CF = contamination factor,
n = number of metals
C metal = metal concentration in polluted sediments
C Background value = background value of that metal.
According to Harikumar et al, (2009), the PLI the PLI value of > 1 is polluted, whereas <1
indicates no pollution.

27
 CHAPTER FOUR
4.0 RESULTS AND DSICUSSION
Table 1:Physicochemical analysis of soil sample

Sample pH EC Zn Pb Cu Ni Cd Fe
1. 5.6 421 8.92 0.18 7.54 2.62 0.06 1.9264
2. 6.8 221 9.44 0.04 4.98 1.49 0.05 2.4821
3. 6.9 105 2.88 0.09 6.14 2.01 0.19 3.2812
4. 6.4 260 12.42 0.01 5.27 2.18 0.81 2.5614
5. 6.2 147 6.92 0.16 6.02 3.56 0.56 3.4612
6. 6.3 254 7.21 0.12 4.11 2.99 0.48 2.1481
7. 6.6 507 8.05 0.02 10.28 4.58 0.07 5.2564
8. 6.7 126 6.48 0.01 5.29 3.89 0.52 3.4984
9. 5.9 161 5.25 0.06 6.01 4.07 0.69 2.5481
10. 4.7 134 19.74 0.33 6.07 5.36 2.88 6.2705
11. 4.7 124 19.14 0.35 6.04 4.66 1.96 6.3662
12. 5.4 125 96.02 1.3 76.65 94.71 6.77 6.3952
13. 6.2 216 65.32 0.89 74.94 27.89 8.02 5.7453
14. 6.6 232 66.82 1.14 92.24 37.06 10.26 6.4126
15. 6.6 503 39.64 0.15 18.84 6.56 12.9 6.1022
16. 6.9 239 12.53 0.31 7.43 2.85 10.48 6.5171
17. 6.4 219 8.96 0.51 6.38 4.59 2.97 6.2908
18. 5.8 833 36.57 0.61 10.53 5.59 14.9 6.697
19. 6.5 215 14.57 0.02 8.33 4.53 0.06 6.5984
20. 4.9 161 10.32 0.08 8.29 5 0.71 6.4446
21. 5 248 18.24 0.18 21.2 2.28 0.48 4.6762
22. 4.3 222 2.48 0.1 16.26 18.26 0.08 2.8284
23. 5.6 106 8.24 0.06 12.18 14.68 0.21 1.9681
24. 6.7 128 17.46 0.08 4.28 4.15 0.02 3.8627
25. 6.8 258 7.26 1.01 6.84 2.18 0.51 2.1734
26. 6.2 478 4.48 0.06 5.52 4.89 0.05 3.2625
27. 6 402 6.57 0.03 10.21 5.57 0.07 2.6773
28. 6.4 286 5.87 0.06 6.26 2.91 0.61 1.9002
29. 6.2 26.7 6.92 0.04 7.78 3.81 0.09 3.4798
30. 6 120 12.82 1.05 4.44 6.27 0.26 2.7668
Min. 4.3 833 31 1.3 92.24 1.49 14.9 1.9002
Max. 31 833 96.02 31 31 31 31 31
Mean 6.768 285.74 21.08 1.2921 18.424 10.11 3.8631 4.9843
Table 2: Geo-accumulation Index of soil samples

28
Sample IgeoZ IgeoPb IgeoCu IgeoNi IgeoCd IgeoFe
n
1. -1.83 -3.43 -1.87 -2.53 -6.92 -1.96
2. -1.74 -5.60 -2.47 -3.35 -6.86 -1.59
3. -3.45 -4.43 -2.17 -2.92 -4.93 -1.19
4. -1.35 -7.60 -2.39 -2.80 -2.84 -1.55
5. -2.19 -3.60 -2.20 -2.09 -3.37 -1.11
6. -2.13 -4.01 -2.75 -2.34 -3.59 -1.80
7. -1.97 -6.60 -1.43 -1.73 -1.31 -0.51
8. -2.29 -7.60 -2.38 -1.96 -3.48 -1.10
9. -2.59 -5.01 -2.30 -1.90 -3.07 -1.55
10. -0.68 -2.55 -2.19 -1.5 -1.10 -0.27
11. -0.72 -2.47 -2.19 -1.7 -1.56 -0.23
12. 1.60 -0.58 1.46 2.64 0.23 -0.23
v13. 1.05 -1.22 1.44 0.90 0.47 -0.38
14. 1.46 -0.77 1.74 1.29 0.83 -0.22
15. 0.33 -3.69 -0.55 -1.21 1.16 -0.29
16. -1.34 -2.64 -1.90 -2.44 0.86 -0.20
17. -1.82 -1.93 -2.11 -1.72 -0.96 -0.25
18. 0.21 -1.67 -1.39 -1.44 1.36 -0.16
19. -1.12 -6.60 -1.73 -1.74 -6.59 -0.18
20. -1.62 -4.60 -1.74 -1.60 -3.03 -0.21
21. -0.79 -3.43 -0.38 -2.73 -3.59 -0.68
22. -3.67 -4.28 -0.77 0.27 -6.18 -1.40
23. -1.94 -5.01 -1.18 -0.05 -4.79 -1.92
24. -0.86 -4.60 -2.69 -1.87 -8.18 -1.95
25. -2.12 -0.94 -2.01 -2.80 -3.51 -1.80
26. -2.82 -5.01 -2.32 -1.63 -6.86 -1.96
27. -2.27 -6.01 -1.44 -1.44 -6.37 -1.48
28. -2.43 -5.01 -2.14 -2.38 -3.25 -1.98
29. -2.19 -5.60 -1.83 -2.0 -6.01 -1.10
30. -1.30 -0.88 -2.64 -1.27 -4.48 -1.43
Min. -3.67 -7.60 -2.75 -3.35 -8.18 -1.98
Max. 1.60 -0.58 1.74 2.64 1.36 -0.16
Mean -1.419 -5.331 -1.551 -1.535 -3.331 -1.014

29
 Table 3:Contamination factor of soil samples

Sample CFZn CFPb CFCu CFNi CFCd CFFe

1. 0.423 0.139 0.410 0.259 0.0155 0.3863
2. 0.448 z0.031 0.270 0.147 0.0129 0.4976
3. 0.137 0.069 0.334 0.199 0.0492 0.6576
4. 0.590 0.008 0.287 0.215 0.2098 0.5136
5. 0.328 0.124 0.327 0.352 0.1451 0.6939
6. 0.342 0.093 0.223 0.296 0.1242 0.4310
7. 0.382 0.015 0.558 0.453 0.0181 1.0552
8. 0.307 0.008 0.288 0.385 0.1346 0.7013
9. 0.249 0.046 0.326 0.401 0.1786 0.5117
10. 0.936 0.255 0.329 0.529 0.7444 1.2567
11. 0.909 0.271 0.328 0.461 0.5067 1.2761
12. 4.556 1.004 4.168 9.369 1.7515 1.2817
13. 3.101 0.689 4.076 2.756 2.0732 1.1536
14. 3.168 0.881 5.006 3.664 2.6542 1.2885
15. 1.882 0.116 1.024 0.649 3.3336 1.2231
16. 0.595 0.240 0.403 0.282 2.7137 1.3079
17. 0.426 0.394 0.347 0.453 0.7676 1.2606
18. 1.735 0.471 0.573 0.553 3.8487 1.3442
19. O.692 0.015 0.452 0.447 0.0155 1.3204
20. 0.490 0.062 0.449 0.494 0.1840 1.2946
21. 0.897 0.139 1.150 0.225 0.1242 0.8394
22. 0.118 0.077 0.884 1.804 0.0207 0.5678
23. 0.391 0.046 0.602 1.450 0.0544 0.3945
24. 0.344 0.062 0.233 0.410 0.0052 0.7753
25. 0.213 0.779 0.370 0.215 0.1318 0.4358
26. 0.311 0.066 0.299 0.483 0.0129 0.6547
27. 0.278 0.023 0.555 0.556 0.0181 0.5374
28. 0.328 0.046 0.340 0.287 0.1577 0.3813
29. 0.611 0.031 0.421 0.377 0.0233 0.6982
30. 0.608 1.024 0.242 0.617 0.0672 0.5555
Min. 0.118 0.008 0.223 0.147 0.0052 0.3813
Max. 4.556 1.004 5.006 9.369 3.8487 1.3442
Mean 0.861 0.241 0.843 0.959 0.670 0.843

30
World agencies including World Health Organization (WHO) and European Regulatory
Standards (EURS) have set limits for heavy metals (table 2).
Table 4: Summarized statistics of sediment sample physical and chemical characteristics
compared against WHO (2009) standards.

Parameter Zn Pb Cu Ni Cd Fe
Mg/kg 50 85 36 35 2.5 0.2

4.1 DISCUSSION OF RESULT

The physicochemical properties of soil samples in the farmland, located inikarama, Bayelsastate,
ispresented in Table 1. The physicochemical analysis of soil samples results shown in (Table 1)
indicated that the presence of solid waste in theikarama farmland significantly affects soil
properties such as: pH, grain size distribution, electrical conductivity (Ec), basic cation and
cation exchange capacity (CEC) in contrast to the soil in controlled site (R).
The pH of a soil has a major effect on metal dynamics because it controls adsorption and
precipitation, which are the main mechanisms of metal retention in soils. As pH decreases, the
solubility of cationic forms of metal in the soil solution increases and therefore become more
readily available to plants. Table 1 gives the result for pH, EC, OMand OC for all the soil
samples The pH value for normal soil is 5.5–7.5, pH of soil below this range can cause low
availability of some essential minerals needed by the soil.The pH values of all the soil samples
analysed from the ikarama farmland ranged from 4.3 to 6.9 showing slightly acidic to strongly
acidic. This also shows the soil samples are not within the range for normal soil pH. Such pH
values are characteristic of soils in areas with specific conditions, such as acidic soils in regions
with heavy rainfall, like some tropical rainforest, or alkaline soils in arid region.
4.3 Ph Measurement
The physicochemical properties of sampled soils revealed that the mean values for soil
pH on the Ikaramafarmland varied between 4.3 to 6.9 and ranged between slightly acidic to
strongly acidic as against the pH value of the sampled. This was due to the settling down of
waste at theIkarama farmland. It was revealed that there were no significant differences in pH of
soil in sample 2,3,7,8,14,15,16,24,25 and sample 10,11. Nevertheless, there was a significant
difference in soil pH values of sample 4,5,6,13,17,26, and sample 20,21 dumpsites. The strongly
acidic pH value of soils on the Ikarama farmland are due to high concentration of hydrogen
present in the environment. The attributes of soil pH also have a great impact on concentration of
element and soil infiltration. The highest pH value was gotten from sampled soil 3 and 16 at 6.9
while the lowest was sampled 22 at 4.3. Furthermore, the slight acidity in soil pH in (CS) was
due to the presence of basic cations caused by erosion and leaching. This is because basic cations
increase as pH and CEC increase, and vice versa. Among the soil parameters, pH influences
both the solubility and mobility of heavy metals. In this regard, a higher acidity of soil increases
the mobility of metal ions.
4.4 Electrical Conductivity (Ec)
Electrical conductivity (Ec) is the evaluation of salinity, soil texture and cation exchange
capacity (CEC) in soil. The EC mean value range of soil on the Ikarama farmland in the study
area varied between 26.7 to 833 (μScm-1). Here sample 29 had a value range of 26.7(μScm-1),
as shown in Table 1. The result revealed that the effect of high Ec in the study of the

31
Ikaramafarmland was due to the circulation of charged particles in soils around sample 18 is
higher than the values in sample 29 Presence of ions in soil and in wet filled pore soil which
improves soil Ec. 4.5 Concentration of Heavy Metals
 Zinc (Zn)
The concentration of zinc as calculated in Table 1 ranges from 2.48 to 96.02mg/kg with an
average value of 21.08 mg/kg, when compared with the WHO (2009) standard (50mg/kg); zinc
did not exceed the limit.

 Lead (Pb)
The concentration of Lead as calculated in Table 1 ranges from 0.01 to 1.30mg/kg with an
average value of 1.291mg/kg, when compared with the WHO (2009) standard (85mg/kg); Lead
did not exceed the limit.

32
  Cadmium (Cd)
The concentration of Cadmium in the sample ranges from 0.05 to 14.9mg/kg with mean of
3.8631mg/kg when compared with WHO (2009) standard (2.5mg/kg); Cadmium exceed the
limit.
 Nickel (Ni)
The concentration of Nickel in the sample ranges from 1.49 to 94.71mg/kg with mean of
10.11mg/kg when compared with WHO (2009) standard (35mg/kg); Nickel did not exceed the
limit.
 Cupper (Cu)
The concentration of Cupper as calculated in Table 1 ranges from 4.11 to 92.24mg/kg with an
average value of 18.424mg/kg, when compared with the WHO (2009) standard (85mg/kg); Lead
did not exceed the limit.
 Iron (Fe)
The concentration of Nickel in the sample ranges from 1.49 to 94.71mg/kg with mean of
10.11mg/kg when compared with WHO (2009) standard (35mg/kg); Nickel did not exceed the
limit.

GEO-ACCUMULATION INDEX (I-GEO)

The calculated Igeo values are presented in Table 2. The calculated results of Igeo of heavy
metals in the sediment investigated for each sample taking Zinc (Zn) as a reference point from
location 1 to location 30 shows moderately contaminated by (-0.33714)

33
CONTAMINANT FACTOR (CF)
Result from Table 3 shows the Contamination Factor of all the metals;Zinc ranging from 0.118
to 4.556 with mean of 0.861,Lead ranges from 0.008 to 1.004with mean of 0.241, cadmium
ranges from 0.147 to 9.369 with mean 0.959, Nickel ranging from 0.0052 to 3.8487 with mean of
0.670, Copper ranges from 0.223 to 5.006 with a mean value of 0.843 and Iron ranges from
0.3813 to 1.3442 with a mean 0.843. The table proposed by Bonnail et al., (2016) states if the
values are ≤ 1 it shows low or no CF. The values of the contamination from the metals from
location 1 to location 30shows that there is contamination factor of the metals using Copper (Cu)
as a reference point which is > 1.

Zinc
120

100

80
Zinc
60

40

20

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Figure 7: Concentrations in mg/g of Zinc metal in soil samples.

Lead
1.4

1.2

0.8 Lead

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

34
Figure 8: Concentrations in mg/g of Lead metal in soil samples.

Copper
100

90

80

70

60
Cupper
50

40

30

20

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Figure 9: Concentrations in mg/g of Copper metal in soil samples.

Nickel
100

90

80

70

60
Nickel
50

40

30

20

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Figure 10: Concentrations in mg/g of Lead metal in soil samples.

35
 Cadmium
16

14

12

10
cadmium
8

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Figure 11: Concentrations in mg/g of cadmium metal in soil samples.

Iron
8

5
Iron
4

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Figure 12: Concentrations in mg/g of Iron metal in soil samples.

36
 CHAPTER FIVE
5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5..1 CONCLUSION
The geochemical analytical data of the soil samples revealed that the farm land located in
Ikarama and its environs had higher heavy metal concentrations when compared with the control
sample that is about 10km away from the site. This may be connected with the effect of the oil
spillage that occurred in the farmland. The result also revealed the following trend in their order
of geo-accumulation in the soil: Fe> Zn >Ni> Cu> Cd >Pb. Contamination factor (CF) and geo-
accumulation (Igeo) index further geo confirmed that the soil from the oil spilled polluted
farmland was moderately contaminated with Zn, Pb, Cu, Cd, Ni, Fe, having cadmium as it
highest pollutant present in the soil. The Pollution Load Index describe the study area has been
polluted at the time of the study thereby, it requires ‘a remediation measure.’
5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
In light of this study, the following management strategies are recommended
 The levels of heavy metals in soil should be continuously monitored to check on their
levels. Heavy metal levels in soil can be transmitted into surface and groundwater
through infiltration and runoff thereby rendering both surface and groundwater poisonous
even in their smallest quantities.
 A well-engineered landfill that incorporates the local geology and the topography of the
area should be designed so as to prevent infiltration of heavy metals into the soil and
shallow groundwater system.
 The levels of heavy metals in soil should be continuously monitored to check on their
levels. Heavy metal levels in soil can be transmitted into surface and groundwater
through infiltration and runoff thereby rendering both surface and groundwater poisonous
even in their smallest quantities..
 Immobilization Technology: this involves using organic and inorganic amendment to
accelerate the attenuation of metal mobility and toxicity in soils. The primary role of
immobilizing amendments is to alter the original soil metals to more geochemically
stable phases via adsorption, precipitation, and complexation processes.
 Solidification/Stabilization: solidification involves the addition of binding agents to a
contaminated material to impart physical/dimensional stability to contain contaminants in
a solid product and reduce access by external agents through a combination of chemical
reaction, encapsulation, and reduced permeability/surface area.
 Vitrification: This involves decreasing the mobility of metal contaminants by high-
temperature treatment of the contaminated area that results in the formation of vitreous
material, usually an oxide solid. During this process, the increase temperature may also
volatize and/or destroys organic contaminants or volatile metal species.
 Enabling sensitization on the effects of theft on oil pipelines, which can cause oil spillage
and also lead to accumulation of heavy metals in the soil to a harmful and environmental
unhealthy concentration.

37
 REFERENCES
Alloway, J. (1995). “Heavy Metals in Soils: Trace Metals and Metalloids in Soils and their
Bioavailability.” Environmental Pollution.22(3).

Amaeze, N. H., &Onojake, C. M. (2017).Heavy Metal Pollution in Soil and Water in Some
Communities of the Niger Delta Area, Nigeria. Environmental and Natural Resources
Research, 7(4), 68-76.

Adati A. K (2012) Oil exploration and spillage in the Niger Delta of 430 Nigeria.Civ Environ
Res 2(3):38–51

Adiela, U.P., &Okumoko D.P (2017) Determining the Hydrocarbon Generative Potential of the
TuronianEze-Aku Shale from Ibil, Lower Benue and Applied Sciences 2(1):49-60

Barlaz, A., Rooker, P., Kjeldsen, P., Gabr, A., & Borden, R. (2002). “Critical evaluation of
factors required to terminate the post closure monitoring period at solid waste landfills,”
Environmental Science & Technology, 36, 3457–3464.

Bayelsa State Conflict Bulletin (2012): Conflict Bulletin: Bayelsa State – Patterns and Trends
http://t.co/5k76RtdGwG

Bonnail, E., Sarmiento, A., DelValls, T., Nieto, J. and Riba, I. (2016). Assessment of Metal
Contamination, Bioavailability, Toxicity and Bioaccumulation in Extreme Metallic
Environments (Iberian Pyrite Belt) Using CorbiculaFluminera. Science of Total
Enironment. 544: 1031

Bradl, H. (2002). Heavy Metals in the Environment: Origin, Interaction and Remediation. (6)
London: Academic Press editor.

Cloutier, V., Lefebvre, R., Therrien, R. &Savard, M. (2008). Multivariate Statistical Analysis of
Geochemical Data as Indicative of the Hydrogeocemical Evolution of Groundwater in
aSedimentary Rock Aquifer System. Journal of Hydrology. 353, 294-31

Duffus, H. (2002). Heavy metals—A meaningless term? Pure and Applied Chemistry; Vol.
74(5): 793-807

Ekpo, B. O., &Otitoju, O. T. (2018).Evaluation of Heavy Metal Contamination in Soil and Crops
in Oil-Producing Areas of the Niger Delta Region, Nigeria. Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment, 190(2), 86.

Gu C. and Obiora, S. (2014). “Heavy metal polluted soils: effect on plants and bioremediation
methods,” Applied and Environmental Soil Science, Article ID 752708, 12.

Harikumar, P., Nasir, P.andMujeebuRahman, M. (2009).Distribution of Heavy Metals in the

Core Sediments of a Tropical Wetland System.International Journal of Environmetal
Science and Technology.6(2).

38
Igbinomwanhia, D., Ideho, B. (2014). “A Study of the Constraint to Formulation and
Implementation of Waste Management Policies in Benin Metropolis, Nigeria.”Journal of
Applied Sciences and Environmental Management 18(2): 197

Kacalkova, L. (2009). Chromium, Nickel, Cadmium and Lead Accumulation in Maize,

Sunflower, Willow and Poplar.Polish Journal of Environmental Studies. 23(3): 753-761

Kanmani, S. &Gandhimathi, R. (2013). “Assessment of heavy metal contamination in soil due to

leachate migration from an open dumping site,” Applied Water Science, 3(1): 193–205.

Li, F., Qiu, Z., Zhang, D. (2017). Investigation, pollution mapping and simulative leakage health
risk assessment for heavy metals and metalloids in groundwater from a typical brownfield,
middle China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.; 14(7): 768.

Michele, T., Tuttle, R., Charpentier, and Michael, E. (1999). The Niger Delta Petroleum System:
Niger Delta Province, Nigeria Cameroon and Equatorial Guinea, Africa. U.S. Geological
Survey World Energy Project.

Monisha, J., Tenzin, T., Naresh, A., Blessy, M., & Krishnamurthy, B. (2014) Toxicity,
mechanism and health effects of some heavy metals. Interdisciplinary Toxicology;
7(2):60-72

Muller, G. (1969). Index of geo-accumulation in sediments of te Rhine River, Geojournal, 2:

108-118.

Obasi, P., Akudinobi, B. (2019). Heavy Metals Occurrence Assessment and Distribution in
Water Resources of the Lead-Zinc Mining Areas of Abak,ki, Southeastern Nigeria. International
Journal of Environmental Science and Technology.16, 8617-8638

Obasi, P., Akudinobi, B. (2020). Potential Health Risk and Levels of Heavy Metals in Water
Resources of Lead-Zinc Mining Communities of Abakaliki, Southeast Nigeria.Applied
Water Science 10(7) DOI:10.1007/s13201-020-01233-z Okumoko, D.P.&Izeze E.O.
(2020) Heavy Metal Contamination of Groundwater, And effect og Dumpsite Leachate
Percolation, Case Study; Selected Selected Dump Sites of Osubi Western Niger Delta.
International Research and Development 9(4);48-57

Okumoko D.p., & Omoboriowo A.O., (2014) Petro physical Evalaution of ReserviorSandbodies,
Onshore Field Eastern Niger Delta, Niger International journal of Science invention
Today(3): 271- 283

Pearson, R. (1970).Petroleum and the Nigerian Economy”. Stanford: Stanford University

Press, 13.

Reijers, T. (2011).Stratigraphy and Sedimentology of the Niger Delta.Geologk 17(3): 133-162

39
Mmolawa KM, Likuku AS, Gaboutloeloe GK (2011) Assessment of heavy metal pollution (45-
65)

Nigeria Shell (2014) Oil theft, sabotage and spills shell. Publication of Shell Petroleum

Okumoko, D.P.&Izeze E.O. (2020) Heavy Metal Contamination of Groundwater, And effect og
Dumpsite Leachate Percolation, Case Study; Selected Selected Dump Sites of Osubi
Western Niger Delta. International Research and Development 9(4);48-57

Okumoko D.p., & Omoboriowo A.O., (2014) Petro physical Evalaution of ReserviorSandbodies,
Onshore Field Eastern Niger Delta, Niger International journal of Science invention
Today(3): 271- 283

Salminen , P. (2008). Ecologically neglected tannins and their biologically relevant activity:
chemical structures of plant ellagitannins reveal their in vitro oxidative activity at high
pH.Chemoecology. 18, 78-83

Shemdoe, R. (2010). “Heavy metal concentrations in soils and leachetes of Mtoni dumpsite
bordering the Indian Ocean in Dar es Salaam,” Tanzania Scientific Research and Essays,
5, 2143–2147,

Smith, A., Rita, F. & David, P. (2001).Survey Protocol for Assessment of Endangered
Freshwater Mussels in the Allegheny River, Pennsylvania. J.N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 20(1):
118-132.

Soares, M., Silva, R. & Gomes, E. (1999). Screening of Bacterial Stains for Pectinolytic
Activity: Characterization of the Polygalacturonase Produced by Bacillus SP. Revista de
Microbiologia 30(4).

Sonayei, Y., Ismail, N. &Talebi, S. (2009). Determination of Heavy Metals in Zayandch Road
River, Isfahan-Iran. World Applied Sciences Journal; 6 1204-12

Voet, E., Guinee, B. &Udode, H. (2008). Heavy Metalsa: A Problem Solved?. Dordrecht,
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. 4

Vongdala, N., Tran, H., Xuan, T.,, R. &Khanh, D. (2018). “Heavy metal accumulation in water,
soil, and plants of municipal solid waste landfill in Vientiane,” Laos International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16, 22.

Yenagoa City Development Strategy, (2007).Bayelsa State Capitel City Development Authority.
PLAN AREA: 154 sq.km, PLAN DRAWN: 2006/2007.

Yidana, M. (2008).A Simulation/Optimization Model for Groundwater Resources Management

in the Afram Plains Area, Ghana.Journal of Environmental Hydrology. 16:1-14

40
Zhang, J. (2007). Predicting Total and Component Biomass of Chinese Fir Using a Forecast
Combination Method.Biogeosciences and Forestry. 10, 687-691.

41
 APPENDIX A

PLATE 1: SAMPLE COLLECTION

42
APPENDIX B

43
 APPENDIX C

44
 APPENDIX D

45