Research Article Bartın University International Journal of Natural and Applied Sciences

AraştırmaMakalesi JONAS, 2(2): 251-260 e-ISSN: 2667-5048

31 Aralık/December, 2019

THE EFFECT OF COAL MINING ON THE

WATER QUALITY OF
WATER SOURCES IN NIGERIA
Oloche Robert Ekwule1*, Gabriel Delian Akpen 1, George Moses Ugbede1
1
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Agriculture, Makurdi, Nigeria.

Abstract

The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of coal mining on the drinking water quality of different water sources
in Odagbo, Ankpa L.G.A., Kogi State, Nigeria. Five water samples each, were collected during the dry season,
inception of wet and peak wet seasons from the community’s three water sources. Physico-chemical properties such
as electrical Conductivity (EC), Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), turbidity, pH, hardness of the water samples were
analyzed. Heavy metal concentrations of the samples were also determined. The result of the chemical characterization
placed the tailings in a semi-acidic group because 50% of its constituents oxides are of weak acid, therefore making
the tailings a potential source of Acid mine drainage (AMD). The results for water quality test revealed that the values
of EC, TDS, chloride, and sulphate for the three water sources (pond, borehole and river) were within World Health
Organization (WHO) and Standard Organization of Nigeria (SON) safe limits for both the dry and wet seasons. The
metallic levels of the metals studied were relatively low in all the water samples during the dry season with copper,
chromium, manganese, cobalt, iron, lead and nickel not being detected. There was a reasonable increase in
concentration of heavy metals during the wet seasons possibly as a result of AMD with metals like copper, chromium,
cobalt and nickel not detected. The pollution indices of all the water samples during the sampled periods, exceeded
the critical value of 100. The degrees of pollution of all the sampled water descended in the order; pond > river >
borehole for all the seasons. Hence, borehole water is the best option for the community’s consumption after lime
treatment to correct its acidity level.

Keywords: Coal mining, water quality, acid mine drainage, heavy metals.

1. Introduction
Okaba district is a rural community in Nigeria, where coal mining was the central socio-economic activity for thirty-
eight years (1967-2005). Odagbo coal mine is located in Okaba district, and was in operation before been ceased by
the Federal government of Nigeria (Kogi State Solid Minerals Investment Prospects, 2005). Despite the cessation, the
activities of illegal miners have thrived over the years with little or no confrontation from law enforcement agencies.
Consequently, this had unleashed various degrees of damages to the environment. The effect of industrialization and
technological advancement has long threatened the sustainability of a globally friendly environment. Industrial
activities such as mining and combustion of fossil fuel are responsible for environmental problems such as
environmental degradation and climate changes (Adejoke et al., 2018).In locations where there are mineral deposits,
there is bound to be exploration or mining activities to get hold of the natural mineral resources available (Naveen-
Saviour& Stalin, 2012). One of the proceeds from mining activities is coal, which is mostly used for electricity and
heat generation. The adverse effect of coal mining activities is of enormous concern, knowing that the acidification of
surface water bodies are as a result of heavy metal contamination from coal mining activities (Moschini-Carlos et al.,
2011).

Koshal (2002) described coal mining activities as one that deteriorates land, surface and ground water. He also noted
the difficulty in handling coalwhich is dirtier in combustion than either oil or natural gas. The most dominant of all
mining activities responsible for environmental degradation is attributed to coal mining(Greb, 2002). Toxic pollutants

* Corresponding Author:
Oloche Robert EKWULE; Department of Civil Engineering, University of Geliş (Received) : 10.08.2019
Agriculture, Makurdi Nigeria. Kabul (Accepted) :30.12.2019
Tel: +2348139065007 Basım (Published) : 31.12.2019
E-mail: [email protected]
EKWULE et al. Bartın University International Journal of Natural and Applied Sciences
JONAS, 2019, 2 (2): 251-260

contained in coal that is formed during combustions is released into the air, water and the soil. Some of the pollutants
are known to cause cancer, while some impair reproduction (Keating, 2001). Areas where coal mining was
predominant in time past, and abandoned over a period of time are sources of water pollution (Moschini-Carlos et al.,
2011). These abandoned sites often have deposits of coal tailings which are ore waste of coal mines, and are typically
a mud-like material. Studies (Bell et al.,2001; Akcil & Koldas, 2006) have shown that coal tailings are potential source
of Acid mine drainage (AMD). Acid mine drainage is the chemical process inwhich sulphide-bearing minerals are
oxidised to produce acidic conditions in effluents (Johnson & Hallberg, 2005). According to Akcil & Koldas (2006),
the mineralogy of coal, the surrounding atmospheric environment and local microbial activity all influence the
potential for sulphur species mobilisation and AMD formation. Lawson(2011) observed that the acidity of a water
body influences the concentration of metals by altering their availability and toxicity.This study is to investigate the
impact of coal mining on the water quality of water sources in Odagbo Area of Kogi State, Nigeria.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1 The Study Area, Sampling procedure and Data Collection Techniques
The actual coal mining site is at Odagbo, on the outskirts of Okaba town in kogi state. Okaba district lies some 16 km
NE of Ankpa town, headquarters of Ankpa Local Government Area, Kogi State. The study area is located between
latitudes 70 201 – 70 431N and longitudes 70 221 – 70 521E. The area is within the tropical hinterland. Annual rainfall
total ranges from 100- 200 cm and spreads over 6-8 months (Ogwuche & Odoh, 2013). According to Ogwuche &
Odoh (2013), earlier investigations by researchers such as De Swardt & Casey (1961) indicated that the lower coal
measured at Okaba contain a high proportion of shale and sandy shale. A few outcrops of the false-bedded sandstones
occur. The soils are clayey, muddy and difficult to traverse when wet (FDALR, 1990).

Figure 1. Aerial view of Okaba and its surrounding settlement

Sampling was done thrice and at different periods. Samples were collected during the dry season in March, at the
inception of the rainy season in May and at the peak of rainy season in September. In all, fifteen water samples were
used for the research. Grab water samples were collected each from the pond located at the coal mine, the borehole
within the community, upstream, midstream point, and downstream discharge point of the stream in the location. The
samples were labeled according to their sources and seasons of collection thus: samples collected in the dry season
were assigned DS, while WS and PWS were assigned inception of rainy season and peak rainy season respectively.
The subscripts P, B and S represent the water sources Pond, Borehole and Stream respectively. However, the stream
has superscript labels (U, C and D) representing samples Upstream, midstream and downstream of pollution point

252
EKWULE et al. Bartın University International Journal of Natural and Applied Sciences
JONAS, 2019, 2 (2): 251-260

respectively. The water samples were transported to the quality control laboratory of the Greater Makurdi Water Board
for analysis. Samples were analyzed for the following water quality parameters; Conductivity, Total dissolved solids
(TDS), Turbidity, pH, Total Hardness, Chloride, and Sulphate following Standard Methods (APHA, 1998).
Coal tailings from the study area was chemically characterized using an X-ray fluorescence machine. The chemical
composition of coal tailings from Odagbo coal mine and their corresponding characteristics as provided by March
(1992) are presented in Table 1. The composition as observed indicated a silico-aluminous nature, bearing 55.3% of
the total weight. This combined percentage of the silicon and aluminum oxides, places the tailing in the semi-acidic
group as also observed by Stolboushkinoet al. (2016). It is a potential environment for acid mine drainage. Other
oxides present were basic in nature except for those of sulfur and iron whose combined percentage presence was 10%.
Based on this finding, the coal tailings of Odagbo can be said to be a potential source for AMD (Acid Mine Drainage).

Table 1. Chemical composition of coal tailing from Odagbo coal mine

Oxides Percentage Chemical Characteristic
Composition (%) (March, 1992)
Silica or silicon oxide (SiO2) 40.53 Very weakly Acidic
Aluminum oxide (Al2O3) 14.77 Amphoteric
Sulfur trioxide (SO3) 0.67 Acidic
Calcium oxide (CaO) 1.78 Basic
Magnesium oxide (MgO) 2.50 Basic
Potassium oxide (K2O) 2.34 Strong Basic
Sodium oxide (Na2O) 0.65 Basic
Ferric oxide (Fe2O3) 9.43 Not Amphoteric but mostly acidic
Loss on Ignition (LOI) 27.33 -

2.2 Data Analysis:

Interpretation of the results was done using pollution factor indices and comparisons made with World Health
Organization WHO (2011) and SON (2007) standards. Heavy Metal pollution index of water samples was determined
using Equations 1 and 2

∑𝑛
𝑖=1 𝑊𝑖 𝑄𝑖
𝐻𝑃𝐼 = ∑𝑛
(1)
𝑖=1 𝑊𝑖

{𝑀 }
𝑄𝑖 = ∑𝑛𝑖=1 (𝑆 𝑖) × 100 (2)
𝑖

Where Qi = the sub-index of the ith parameter, Wi = the unit weightage of the ith parameter, Si = the standard value of
the ith parameter, Mi = the monitored value of heavy metal of ithparameter, and n = the number of parameters
considered.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1 Physico-Chemical Water Quality

The results of Physico-Chemical characteristics of the water samples (Pond, Borehole and Stream), are presented in
Figure 2. World Health Organization (WHO, 2011) and Standards Organization of Nigeria (SON, 2007) limits were
used to check the potability of the water sources.

253
EKWULE et al. Bartın University International Journal of Natural and Applied Sciences
JONAS, 2019, 2 (2): 251-260

250 Pond 300

Pond

Chlorine(mg/l)
200
Borehole 200
Borehole
150
EC (µs/cm)

Upstream 100
100 Upstream

50 0
Point of Point of
discharge discharge
0
Downstream Downstream
Dry
Inception Peak
season WHO SON
of Rainy Rainy
season season
B.
A.
500 60
Pond Pond

Turbidity (NTU)
400
40
TDS (mg/l)

Borehole Borehole
300
Upstream 20
200 Upstream
Point of
100 discharge 0 Point of
Downstream discharge
0
Downstream
WHO

WHO

D.
C.

7 300
Total Hardness (mg/l)

Pond
6,5 Pond
200 Borehole
PH

6 Borehole
100 Upstream
5,5 Upstream
0 Point of discharge
Point of discharge
Downstream
Downstream
WHO
WHO
E. F.

Figure 2. The Seasonal Physico-Chemical parameter concentration of water samples from the Pond, Borehole and
River sources.

254
EKWULE et al. Bartın University International Journal of Natural and Applied Sciences
JONAS, 2019, 2 (2): 251-260

100 Pond
80

Sulphate (m/l)
60 Borehole
40
20 Upstream
0
Point of discharge

Downstream

SON
G.

Figure 2 (continues). The Seasonal Physico-Chemical parameter concentration of water samples from the Pond,
Borehole and River sources.

3.2 Electrical conductivity

Figure 2A presents the electrical conductivity of all the water samples observed during the dry season as 80 µs/cm, 60
µs/cm and 65 µs/cm for Pond, Borehole, and Stream sources respectively. At the inception of rainy season, 80µs/cm,
55 µs/cm and 60 µs/cm were obtained for Pond, Borehole, and Stream sources respectively. While the peak rainy
season recorded 70µs/cm, 60µs/cm and 65 µs/cm for Pond, Borehole and Stream sources respectively. The values
obtained were within WHO’s standard of 1500 µs/cm and SON’s standard of 250µs/cm for portable water. The EC of
the pond is greater than those of the borehole and stream in both seasons as in the case of Verma et al. (2012). This is
probably due to the fact that the pond receives effluents from the mine pits directly.

3.3 Total dissolved solids

Figure 2C shows the values of TDS of all the water samples during the sampling periods. The TDS indicates the
presence of different materials in the water sources. It comprises of both colloidal and dissolved solids. In natural
water, dissolved solids are composed of mainly Na+, K+, Ca2+ and Mg2+(Prasanthi et al., 2012). Moderate levels of
TDS concentration in water is emphasized, because having it in extremely low or high concentration affects the quality
of the water. Extremely low TDS concentration is unacceptable and can lead to a flat and insipid taste (WHO, 1996).
The TDS values were within WHO’s standard of 1250 mg/l and SON’s standard of 500 mg/l for potable water.

3.4 Turbidity
Figure 2D shows the values of turbidity of the pond water (DSp) during the dry season and that of the borehole water
(DSB) during the dry season and at the inception of the wet season (WS).These values were within WHO and SON
standards of 5 NTU. The rest samples were above these standards with the highest values experienced during the wet
seasons. This scenario probably, is caused by runoff being emptied into the pond and river and possible downward
movement of water as explained by Wu et al. (2008), Awalla (2014).

3.5 pH
Figure 2E presents the pH values for all the water samples during the periods of sampling. The pH values indicated
acidity and were below WHO’s standard of 6.80 - 8.40 for potable water. A condition that is common with water
sources within mining location due to possible acid mine drainage as explained by Awalla (2014) and Matthew et al.
(2012). This is also a possible scenario in Odagbo, with the chemical composition of coal tailings identified as acidic
within the area. USGS (2016) stated that ground water, especially if the water is acidic in many places contain
excessive amount of iron. This was observed in the case of borehole water that is located far away from the tailings
deposit site. The lower pH of water, according to Adekunle & Mojisola (2009) is more likely to corrode household
metals.

255
EKWULE et al. Bartın University International Journal of Natural and Applied Sciences
JONAS, 2019, 2 (2): 251-260

3.6 Hardness
Figure 2F presents the hardness of the water samples from all the water sources. There was a considerable increase in
hardness of the pond water samples at the inception of the wet season compared to what was obtained during the dry
and peak wet seasons (i.e 140 to 240 mg/l). Apart from the pond, all other samples were within WHO standard of 100
mg/l for the sampled seasons. Since the pond receives effluent/or runoff directly, the increase in hardness could be a
resultant effect caused by the presence of multivalent ions from natural minerals which are known to dissolve in water
(Eze & Chigbu, 2015).

3.7 Chloride
Figure 2B shows that the concentration of chloride in the water samples ranged from 27.9 mg/l to 73.0 mg/l. These
were all within the recommended limit of 250 mg/l by SON. However, during the inception of the wet and peak wet
seasons, the pond and river recorded higher chloride content than in the dry season. This is probably due to the process
of weathering and runoff from the mine pit entering into them. Chloride ion is highly mobile and is transported to
closed basins or oceans (WHO, 1996).

3.8Sulphate
Sulphate concentrations in the water samples ranged from 14 mg/l to 75 mg/l as presented in Figure 2G. These were
all within the recommended limit of 100 mg/l by SON. The considerable increase in the sulphate content of both the
pond and river for the wet seasons as compared to the dry season is probably due to runoff received from the mine pit.
A similar observation was made by Wu et al. (2008), where they noted that seasonal variation had an effect on the
sulphate concentration of the river especially during the dry season.

3.9 Heavy Metal Content of Water Samples

The results obtained for the concentrations of heavy metals (Cd, Cr, Cu, Mn, Ni, Pb, Fe, Zn, and Co) in the water
samples collected from different water sources (pond, borehole and stream), were compared with the WHO/SON
maximum permissible limit. The results are presented in Tables 2- 4. The observed metallic levels were generally low
across the water sources in the dry season. Copper, chromium, manganese, cobalt, iron, lead and nickel were not
detected. There was a noticeable increase in the concentration of heavy metals during the two sampled periods of the
wet season. The highest metallic levels were observed in the peak wet season with Iron having the highest level in
both the pond and the stream waters. This could probably be due to surface runoff carrying waste from the mine to
these water sources just as reported by Wu et al .(2008).

Table 2. Heavy metal concentration of pond water

Dry Season Inception of Wet Peak wet
S/No Heavy Metals (DSp) Season (WSp) season (PWSp) SON
1. Copper (Cu) 0.000 0.00 0.000 1
2. Chromium(Cr) 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.05
3. Manganase(Mn) 0.000 0.506* 0.000 0.2
4. Cadmium(Cd) 0.027* 0.029* 0.028* 0.003
5. Cobalt(Co) 0.000 0.00 0.000 -
6. Iron(Fe) 0.000 9.101* 3.010* 0.3
7. Lead(Pb) 0.000 0.170* 0.224* 0.01
8. Zinc(Zn) 0.047 0.315 0.750 3
9. Nickel(Ni) 0.000 0.00 0.032* 0.02
* indicates experimental data whose value exceed standard permissible limit.

Note: DSp=Dry season for pond source, WSp=Wet season for pond source, PWSp=Peak wet season for pond source.

256
EKWULE et al. Bartın University International Journal of Natural and Applied Sciences
JONAS, 2019, 2 (2): 251-260

Table 3. Heavy metal concentration of borehole water

DrySeason Inception of Wet Season Peakwet
S/No Heavy Metals (DSB) (WSB) season SON
(PWSB)
1. Copper (Cu) 0.000 0.000 0.000 1
2. Chromium(Cr) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.05
3. Manganase(Mn) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.2
4. Cadmium(Cd) 0.025* 0.026* 0.019* 0.003
5. Cobalt(Co) 0.000 0.000 0.000 -
6. Iron(Fe) 0.000 0.000 0.657* 0.3
7. Lead(Pb) 0.000 0.133* 0.212* 0.01
8. Zinc(Zn) 0.014 0.000 0.625 3
9. Nickel(Ni) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.02
* indicates experimental data whose value exceed standard permissible limit.
Note: DSB =Dry season for Borehole source, WSB =Wet season for Borehole source, PWSB =Peak wet season for
Borehole source.

Table 4. Heavy metal concentration of stream water

DrySeason Inception of Wet Season Peakwet
S/No Heavy Metals DS S WS S season SON
PWSS
1. Copper (Cu) 0.00 0.00 0.000 1
2. Chromium(Cr) 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.05
3. Manganase(Mn) 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.2
4. Cadmium(Cd) 0.026 0.025 0.025 0.003
5. Cobalt(Co) 0.00 0.00 0.000 -
6. Iron(Fe) 0.00 0.879* 50.12* 0.3
7. Lead(Pb) 0.00 0.179* 0.207* 0.01
8. Zinc(Zn) 0.00 0.028 0.119 3
9. Nickel(Ni) 0.00 0.00 0.091* 0.02
* indicates experimental data whose value exceed standard permissible limit.
Note: DSS =Dry season for stream source, WS S =Wet season for stream source, PWSS =Peak wet season for stream
source.

Another reason for the few observed higher metallic level during the wet season is Acid mine drainage (AMD). AMD
is the interaction of rain water with the mine spoils scattered around containing trace elements mixed with other
pollutant sources such as agricultural product Fertilizer, Pesticide etc. which are emptied into the stream and the pond
from surface runoff. A similar observation was made by Matthew et al. (2012) who reported that the interaction of
rain with mine tailings resulted in the increased level of acidity of River Pomponthus, making more metals available.
Likewise, Lawson (2011) observed that the acidity of a water body influences the concentration of metals by altering
their availability and toxicity.

3.10 Heavy Metal Pollution index of water samples

Heavy metal pollution index (HPI) is an effective tool to characterize surface and ground water pollution as it
combines several parameters to arrive at a particular value which can be compared with the critical value to assess the
level of pollution load (Prasad &Kumari, 2008). The Mean concentration of nine heavy metals (Cd, Cr, Cu, Mn, Ni,
Pb, Fe, Zn, and Co) heavy metals were used for the HPI determination. The mean HPI for each of the water sources
during the three sampling periods was found to be more than 500, which is above the critical value of 100. HPI was
also calculated separately for each heavy metal for all the sampling sources during the periods under study to compare
the pollution load and assess the water quality of the selected sources with respect to individual heavy metals.
For the water samples taken from the pond and borehole during the dry season, it was observed that only Cadmium
and Zinc were detected as pollutants with zinc showing no threat of contamination because it is below SON (0.003
mg/l) and WHO’s (0.003 mg/l) permissible limits. The values of Cd for both water sources were above the permissible
limit of both SON and WHO, which may pose serious contamination threat to these water sources. The overall

257
EKWULE et al. Bartın University International Journal of Natural and Applied Sciences
JONAS, 2019, 2 (2): 251-260

pollution index for these water sources are 641.03 and 593.55 for the pond and borehole respectively. Table 5 shows
the mean HPI of the water sources as well as the sampling periods considered.

Table 5. Mean HPI of different water sources and sampling periods.

Pond Stream Borehole
DS WS PWS DS WS PWS DS WS PWS
HPI 641.03 1076.07 1167.66 593.55 978.11 1203.36 593.55 901.49 905.67
Note: DS=dry season, WS=inception of wet season, PWS=Peak wet season.

The mean heavy metal pollution index (HPI) tested for pond, stream, and borehole water sources at the inception of
the wet season are 1076.07, 978.11 and 901.49 respectively. The values of the HPI at the inception of wet season for
all the sources exceeds the critical value of 100 (Milivojević, 2016). Hence, the water is said to be contaminated by
heavy metals and are rendered not portable for consumption according to Mohan et al. (1996). The mean pollution
index of the pond during the peak wet season was 1167.66. While the mean pollution index of borehole water increased
to 905.67 probably due the presence of more Fe.

With respect to sampling points along the stream, the mean pollution index of 664.77, 593.55 and 624.40 were
obtained for upstream, downstream and discharge point respectively. All these values exceeded the critical value of
100, indicating pollution. At the inception of the wet season, the stream recorded the following heavy metal pollution
index (HPI); 790.65, 978.11 and 1035.61 at the upstream point of discharge, point of discharge and at the downstream
point of discharge respectively.

During the Peak wet season, more heavy metals were detected, thereby, increasing the mean pollution index for all
sample points except for the downstream point of pollution. The upstream point recorded a mean pollution index of
1330.34, while the point of discharge had 1203.36 and the downstream point had a value of 811.269. The values
showed that the stream is probably being polluted from another source upstream, therefore coal mining in this area
may not be said to be responsible for the stream pollution entirely.

Based on the findings of this research, it was observed that cadmium is the dominant pollutant in this community. A
situation which may be due to the presence of huge coal deposit beneath the community soil.Cadmiummostlyoccurs
in association with zinc, which explains why traces of zinc was found in most of the water samples where cadmium
was dominant. Nassef et al.(2006) observed that the main sources of cadmium are mining and industrial activities.
They further observed that at higher concentrations, Cd is known to have a toxic potential.Adriano (2001) also
observed that cadmium interferes with metabolic processes in plants and can bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms and
enter the food chain.

Generally, the metallic levels of the studied metals were relatively low in all the water samples during the dry season
with copper, chromium, manganese, cobalt, iron, lead and nickel not being detected which could be due to low waste
entrance into this water bodies in this season.However, a reasonable increase during the wet seasons but heavy metals
like copper, chromium, cobalt and nickel were still not detected, this increase in metallic presence during the wet
season could be attributed to AMD, according to Lawson (2011), and the acidity of a water body influences the
concentration of metals by altering their availability and toxicity. Also, run off during this season could carry wastes
that are potential carriers of this heavy metals.

The pollution degrees of all the sampled water descended in the order; pond > river > borehole for dry season, pond
> river > borehole at the inception of the rainy season and pond > river > borehole during the peak rainy season.

4. Conclusion
The coal tailing of Odagbo is of the silico-aluminium nature which places it in the semi-acidic group, thereby, making
the tailings potential environment for AMD. The water from the different sources considered are generally low in pH,
indicating high levels of acidity. All pyhsico-chemical parameters measured except turbidity and hardness were within
acceptable limits. In same vain, the sampled water sources were fairly polluted however, the source of pollution for
all the water soucres may not be tied to mining activities only. The pollution degrees of all the sampled water
descended in the order; pond > river > borehole indicating that borehole water was least polluted and therefore the
best option for the community consumption after lime treatment to correct its acidity level.The metallic concentrations
of the metals considered were generally within acceptable limits in all the water sources during the sampling period.

258
EKWULE et al. Bartın University International Journal of Natural and Applied Sciences
JONAS, 2019, 2 (2): 251-260

Though high levels of Mn, Cd, Fe, Pb and Ni were noticed in some cases especially during the wet seasons. The low
metallic levels observed during the dry season could be due to the low level of contaminants entering the water sources.
The higher metallic levels observed during the wet seasons could be due to AMD because over 50% of the chemical
composition of the tailings obtained from Odagbo belong to the group of Semi-Acidic oxides which are potential
sources of AMD.

5.References

1. Adejoke C. O., Paul O. B. &Andile M. (2018). Conflict Implication of Coal Mining and Environmental
Pollution in South Africa. African Journal on Sonflict Resolution, 18(1): 1-16.
2. Adekunle A. I &Mojisola A. A. (2009).Physico-Chemical analysis of well waters in Minna and its Environs,
Niger State, Nigeria.Journal Chemical Society of Nigeria, 32 (2):122-127.
3. Adriano D.C. (2001). Trace elements in terrestrial environments: Biochemistry, bioavailability and risks of
metals. - Springer Verlag, 867.
4. Akcil A. &Koldas S. (2006).Acid Mine Drainage (AMD): causes, treatment and case studies, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Volume 14, Issues 12–13, 2006, Pages 1139-1145
5. APHA (1998).Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th edition, American Public
Water Quality Health Association Washington, D.C, 43.
6. Awalla C.O.C (2014).Environmental Impact Assessment of Coal Mining Activity in Enugu Metropolis, Enugu
State, Nigeria.Journal of Software Engineering and Simulation,2(5): 1-5.
7. Bell F.G., Bullock S.E.T., Hälbich T.F.J. & Lindsay P. (2001). "Environmental impacts associated with an
abandoned mine in the Witbank Coalfield, South Africa". International Journal of Coal Geology, 45(3): 195-
216.
8. Eze S. O. &Chigbu G. S. (2015).Physical, Chemical, and Microbiological Parameters of IyiOkai Stream in
Abiriba, Ohafa Local Government Area, Abia State, Nigeria.European Journal of Pure and Applied Chemistry,
2(1): 7- 22.
9. FDALR (1990) Federal Department of Agricultural Land Resources. The Reconnaissance Soil Survey of Nigeria,
ISRIC Library, Waganiagen Netherlands, 1: 1-44.
10. GrebS.F. (2002).Environmental Impact of Coal mining and Utilization. Geological survey of American abstracts,
38 (7): 94.
11. Johnson B. D. &Hallberg K. B. (2005). Acid mine Drainage Remediation Option: A review. Science of the
Total Environment, 338(1-2): 3-14.
12. Keating M. (2001). Cradle to Grave: The Environmental Impacts from Coal. www.cat.us/public/reports/pdf.
13. Kogi State Solid Minerals Investment Prospects (2005).Revised edition in Ogwuche, J.A.andOdoh, D.P. 2013.
Assessment of the Effect of Cessation of Coal Mining on the Socio-Economic Condition of Okaba District,
KogiState.Scholarly Journal of Education 2(4):46-51, April 2013 Available online at http:// www.scholarly-
journals.com/SJE ISSN 2315-6155 © 2013 Scholarly-Journals.
14. Koshal A.K. (2002).Environmental Problems Analysis of Coal Mining in Raniganj&Asansol Blocks (West
Bengal) Using Remote Sensing and GIS. GIS Development, Map WorldForum, Hyderabad, India.
15. Lawson E.O. (2011).Physico-Chemical Parameters and Heavy Metal Contents of Water from the Mangrove
Swamps of Lagos Lagoon, Lagos, Nigeria.JournalofBiological Resources, 5(1):8-21.
16. March J. (1992). “Advanced Organic Chemistry” 4Th Ed. J. Wiley and Sons, (1992). New York.
17. Matthews A., Omono C. &Kakulu S. (2012). Impact of Mining and Agriculture on Heavy Metal Levels in
Environmental Samples in Okehi Local Government Area of Kogi State International Journal of Pure Applied
Science Technology. 12(2): 66-77
18. Milivojević J., Krstić D., Šmit B. &Djekić V. (2016). Assessment of Heavy Metal Contamination and
Calculation of Its Pollution Index for Uglješnica River, Serbia. Bull Environ ContamToxicol, 97:737–742.
19. Moschini-Carlos V., Pompeo M. L., Lobo F. L. &Meirelles S. T. (2011). Impact of Coal Mining on Water
Quality of the three Artificial Lakes in Morozini River Basin (Treviso, Santa Caterina State, Brasil)
ActaLimnologicalBrasiliensia, 23(3): 271-281.
20. Mohan S.V., Nithila P.& Reddy S. J. (1996).Estimation of Heavy Metals in Drinking Water and
Development of Heavy Metal Pollution Index. Journal of Environmental Science Health Assessment 31:
2839.

259
EKWULE et al. Bartın University International Journal of Natural and Applied Sciences
JONAS, 2019, 2 (2): 251-260

21. Nassef M., Hannigan R., EL Sayed K.A &TahawyM.S.El. (2006). Determination of some heavy metals in the
environment of Sadat industrial city.Proceeding of the 2nd Environmental Physics Conference, Cairo University,
Egypt, 145-152.
22. Naveen-Saviour M & Stalin P. (2012). Soil and Sand Mining: Causes, Consequences and Management. Journal
of Pharmacy, 2(4): 1-6.
23. Ogwuche J. A. &Odoh D. P. (2013).Assessment of the Effect of Cessation of Coal Mining on the Socio-
economic Condition of Okaba District, KogiState.Scholarly Journal of Education 2(4):46-51, April 2013
Available online at http:// www.scholarly-journals.com/SJE ISSN 2315-6155 © 2013 Scholarly-Journals
24. Prasad B. &Kumari P. (2008). The impact of filling an abandoned open cast mine with fly ash on ground water
quality: A case study. Mine Water Environment, 27(1): 40-45.
25. Prasanthi S., Rao V.S., Shanmukha K. J. & Prasad K. R. S. (2012).Physicochemical Analysis of Water
Samples of Najendle Area in Gunter District of AndnraIndiaInternationalJournal of chemical Technology
Research 4 (2): 691-699.
26. SON (2007).StandardOrganisation of Nigeria; Nigeria Standard for Drinking Water Quality; Nigerian Industrial
Standard NIS, 554.
27. Stolboushkino A.Yu.,Ivanova A.I.&Fomina O.A. (2016).Use of Coal-Mining and Processing Wastes in
Production of Bricks and Fuel for Their Burning.Procedia Engineering 150:1496 – 1502.
28. (USGS) (2016).US Geological Survey.Appraising the Nation’s ground water resources.
http://www.Pubs.usgs.gov/gip/gw/quality.html
29. Verma S., Thakur B. & Das S. (2012). “To Analyse the water sample of pond located near Nandini mines in
Durg district, Chattisgarh, India”, Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Sciences, 22: 1-3.
30. WHO (1996).World Health Organization. Guideline for Drinking Water, 2nd Edition, Volume 2: Health Criteria and Other
Supporting Information. World health Organisation, Geneva. 260 - 973.
31. WHO (2011). World Health Organization. Guidelines for drinking water quality [Electronic Resource]
Incorporating 1st and 2nd Addenda, Vol.1 Recommendations. 3rd ed Geneva 608p.
32. Wu Y. F., Liu C. Q. &Tu C. L. (2008). Atmospheric deposition of metals in TSP of guiyang, PR China. Bull.
Environmental Contamination Toxicology, 80 (5): 465-468.

260