Lead, Zinc and Iron Pollutants Load Assessment in Selected Rivers in Southern Nigeria: Implications for Domestic Uses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the study is to comparatively assess the concentrations of lead, zinc and iron in Rivers Ase, Warri and Ethiope, in Nigeria. Monthly water samples were collected from six randomly selected sites along the rivers course. 72 water samples were collected from each river at 0 - 15 cm depths. Samples were analysed based on the standard methods recommended by the WHO for testing lead, zinc and iron. The assessment of the water quality was done using the Water Quality Index (WQI) of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME-WQI). While hypotheses were tested using ANOVA. Findings indicated that CCME-WQI values were 47.3, 66.52 and 78.7. This meant that the water quality of River Ase is impaired and departed from desirable levels, while that of Warri and Ethiope were considered to occasionally be impaired and depart from desirable levels. The ANOVA model showed that there is a significant variation in heavy metal load in the selected rivers at P < 0.05. River water was put to domestic uses such as drinking (20.5%) preparing food (17.8%), bathing (19.8%), washing clothes and dishes (21.3%), brushing teeth (13.3%), and catering for domestic animals (7.5%). Poverty (49.5%) was the major reason for the use of river water for domestic purposes. The locals highlighted that they usually suffer from cholera (26.8%), diarrhoea (25.8%), dysentery (24%) and typhoid (23.5%) as a result of using the river water. The study recommended routine monitoring of anthropogenic and geologic activities, testing of the water regularly amongst others.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".