Hydrogeochemical evolution and heavy metal characterization of groundwater from southwestern, Nigeria: An integrated assessment using spatial, indexical, irrigation, chemometric, and health risk models

This study examines the hydrogeochemical and heavy metal parameters of groundwater in Ojo District to determine its suitability for use, potential sources, and human health implications. Ten groundwater samples were assessed, and hydrogeochemical modelling was performed via the Aquachem software. The chemical ions were in the following order: EC > (107.78–448.65 μS/cm) > TDS (182.02–320.77 mg/l) > TH (46.22–182.45 mg/l) > pH (5.55–6.35); HCO3− (64.13–125.82 mg/l) > Na+ (36.87–96.49 mg/l) > Ca2+ (47.65–58.88 mg/l) > SO42− (19.94–53.67) > NO3− (15.55–44.25 mg/l) > Cl− (20.43–27.16 mg/l) > Mg2+ (11.09–16.87 mg/l) and K+ (2.55–7.86 mg/l). The concentrations of heavy metals in groundwater were in the range of: Fe (0.11–0.27 mg/l) > Mn (0.003–0.16 mg/l) > Ni (0.05–0.12 mg/l) > Zn (0.003–0.05 mg/l) > Pb (0.001–0.03 mg/l) > As (0.001–0.005 mg/l) > Cr (0.002–0.005 mg/l) > Cd (0.001–0.003 mg/l) and Cu (0.001–0.0002 mg/l), with Pb, Mn, and Ni exceeding their allowable limits. The Schoeller and Gibbs plots revealed that the major mechanisms controlling the aquifer groundwater in Ojo region are geological rock weathering and mineralization, with a minimal influence of saltwater intrusion. The piper trilinear diagram also revealed that none of the cation was dominant while the anions were strongly dominated by HCO3− (weak acids). The hydrogeochemical facies which describes the geochemical characteristics of the groundwater were classified into 3 types; “Ca2+–Mg+–HCO3– (65 %)”, “mixing zones (30 %)”, and “Na+–K+–Cl––HCO3– (5 %)”. The hydrogeochemical modelling revealed that the groundwater is characterized by forward cation exchange, while rock–water interactions (silicate dissolution) were heavily involved in the geochemical processes. The single pollution index showed that Pb, Ni, and Mn contributed significantly to contamination, and the multi–pollution indices showed that the groundwater was slightly-moderately polluted. The integrated groundwater quality index revealed that only 10 % were clean, 50 % were poor or moderately unclean, 30 % were highly unclean, and only 10 % were extremely unclean (unfit for utilization). The water pollution index showed that 70 % of the groundwater was good. The irrigation indices suggest that the groundwater would enhance soil quality and support plant growth. Multivariate analysis revealed that the groundwater is being influenced by geogenic factors and anthropogenic activities. The health risk assessment (Hazard Quotient and Hazard Index) showed that exposure of adults to the investigated groundwaters could result in noncarcinogenic adverse effects. The cancer risk values also exceeded the minimum limit (1.0 x 10−6) and thresholds (1.0 x 10−4) for adults, indicating the carcinogenic potential of the groundwater.