1. bookVolume 66 (2019): Issue 3 (December 2019)
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
First Published
30 Mar 2016
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English
access type Open Access

Assessment of Hydrogeological Potential and Aquifer Protective Capacity of Odeda, Southwestern Nigeria

Published Online: 24 Apr 2020
Page range: 199 - 209
Received: 08 Apr 2019
Accepted: 22 Nov 2019
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
First Published
30 Mar 2016
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English

Hydrogeological assessment of groundwater resources was carried out with a view to evaluate the potential of the aquifers to provide portable water supply and access the distribution of electrical parameters of hydrogeologic units in some areas in Odeda, Ogun State, Nigeria. A geophysical survey using vertical electrical sounding (VES) with the Schlumberger electrode array, with half-current electrode spacing (AB/2) varying from 1 to 132 m was carried out at 30 different stations in the study area. The VES data were interpreted qualitatively and quantitatively. Three-to-five sub-surface layers consisting of topsoil, weathered layer consisting of clay, sandy clay, clayey sand and sand layers, and fractured/fresh basement were delineated. Layer resistivities and thicknesses obtained on the curves within the study area showed one main aquifer type, which is the fractured basement. The longitudinal unit conductance (ranging from 0.049720 to 1.4520000 mhos) of the study area aided the protective capacity to be rated into good, moderate and weak. About 33% of the study area falls within the weak protective capacity, 57% falls within the moderate protective capacity and 10% falls within the good protective capacity.

Key words

Ključne besede

Introduction

In ensuring livelihood and sustainability across the world, groundwater resources play a major and concrete role. Consumption of groundwater as a feasible source of drinking, domestic, industrial and agricultural needs has proven to be not only safer but also more economical than surface water, as it is commonly unpolluted and available. In recent years, investigation of groundwater sources has become a burning issue and a major concern as groundwater basins are being rapidly stressed due to population explosion, high level of urbanisation, industrialisation and other human activities. Presently, the percentage increase in water usage on a global scale has exceeded twice that of the population [1].

Pores and fractured rock formations in the sub-surface are usually hosts of groundwater. In the basement terrain, groundwater occurs within the overlying unconsolidated material derived directly from weathering of rocks and fractured/faulted bedrock, while in the sedimentary terrain, groundwater occurs within the porous and permeable layer of the saturated zone in the sub-surface [2, 3]. Over the years, groundwater exploration has been carried out using geophysical methods, which include electrical resistivity surveying, electromagnetic techniques and seismic methods, to obtain accurate information about the sub-surface settings, such as aquifer’s nature, type and depth of materials (consolidated or unconsolidated), depth of weathered or fractured zone, depth to groundwater, depth to bedrock and salt intrusions into groundwater [4].

Aquifers in the Precambarian basement complex are vulnerable to surface or near-surface contaminants as they commonly occur at shallow depths. Hence, successful exploration of groundwater in a basement terrain requires proper understanding of the hydrogeological characteristics of the aquifer units in relation to their susceptibility to environmental pollution and assessment of their protective capacity [3, 5]. One of the most effective ways of evaluating an environment without interfering with the hydrogeological system is through geophysical studies [6]. Over the years, geophysical survey using the vertical electrical sounding (VES) method has been applied in groundwater exploration within the basement complex rocks in Nigeria [7, 8, 9, 10].

VES using the Schlumberger array method was carried out at 30 different stations in the study area with the aim to determine the geoelectric parameters, such as resistivities and thicknesses of the sub-surface layers and their hydrogeological properties. This study was also aimed at evaluating the groundwater potential of the area, establishing the aquifer protective capacity of the overlying formations, especially its isolation from contamination, and recommending suitable points for groundwater positioning.

Location and Geology of the Study Area

The study area, as shown in Figure 1, is located between latitudes 7°10’N and 7°12’N and between longitudes 3°23’E and 3°28’E. The study area is characterised by tropical climate with distinct wet and dry seasons. The annual rainfall ranges from 1400 mm to 1500 mm; the mean temperature is 30°C and varies from 25.7°C in July to 30.2°C in February [11]. The study area is underlain by Precambarian basement rocks (Figure 2), which are innately characterised by near-negligible permeability and low porosity. These rocks, according to a previous paper [12], were acknowledged to belong to the youngest of the three major provinces of the West African Craton. These rocks are of Precambarian age to early Palaeozoic age, which extends from the Northeastern part of Ogun State and dips towards the coast [13].

Figure 1

Map of the study area showing the sounding points.

Figure 2

Geological map of Ogun State. Modified after Badmus and Olatinsu [14].

Materials and Methods

The electrical resistivity survey method using the VES method was carried out in the study area. The resistivity data were acquired using Campus Ohmega Terrameter. Thirty VES points were positioned in the study area using Schlumberger electrode configuration with half-current electrode separation (AB/2) ranging from 1 m to 132 m. The apparent resistivity values were obtained as the product of the resistance read from the resistivity meter and its corresponding geometric factor (K) for each electrode separation. The apparent resistivity data were then plotted against AB/2 on a bi-logarithm graph as sounding curves. The plotted sounding curves were interpreted manually by partial curve matching using different master curves [15]. The geoelectric parameters from the partial curve matching served as the input model for computer-assisted iteration using WINRESIST.

The values of the longitudinal unit conductance of the overburden rock units in the study area serve as the basis for the characterisation of its aquifer protective capacity. The longitudinal unit conductance gives a measure of the impermeability of the confining clay layer, which has low resistivity and low hydraulic conductivity. The protective capacity of the overburden layers in a particular area is proportional to the longitudinal unit conductance [16]. The longitudinal layer conductance (S) of the overburden at each VES station was obtained as shown in Equation (1) [17].

S=i=1nhiρi$$S=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}{\frac{{{h}_{i}}}{{{\rho }_{i}}}}$$

where hi is the layer thickness, ρi is the layer resistivity, while the number of layers from the surface to the top of the aquifer varies in the range i = 1, …, n. The results of the longitudinal unit conductance were used to classify the areas into good, moderate, weak and poor aquifer protective capacity (Table 1). This was done using the classification given by Oladapo and Akintorinwa [18].

Longitudinal unit conductance/protective capacity rating (source: Oladapo and Akintorinwa [18]).

Total longitudinal unit conductance (mhos)Rating of overburden’s aquifer protective capacity
<0.10Poor
0.1–0.19Weak
0.2–0.79Moderate
0.8–4.90Good
5.0–10.0Very good
>10.0Excellent

Olayinka [19] opined that in identifying areas of favourable aquifers within a basement terrain, the resistivity of the basement cannot be exclusively relied upon; hence, one has to consider the basement’s reflection coefficient in effectively evaluating groundwater potential in the study area. The degree of fracturing of the underlying basement is shown by the reflection coefficient [3]. The reflection coefficients (r) of the study area were calculated using Equation (2), as given by Bhattacharya and Patra [20] and Loke [21].

r=ρnρn1ρn+ρn1$$r=\frac{\left( \rho n-\rho \left( n-1 \right) \right)}{\left( \rho n+\rho \left( n-1 \right) \right)}$$

where ρn is the layer resistivity of the nth layer and ρ(n 1) is the layer resistivity overlying the nth layer.

In a basement terrain, groundwater yield can be grouped into high, medium and low depending on the overburden thickness and/or reflection coefficient (Table 2), as stated by Bayewu et al. [3]. The highest groundwater yield is found in areas where thick overburden overlies the fractured zone [18].

Groundwater potential yield (modified after Bayewu et al. [3]).

Overburden thickness (m)Reflection coefficientGroundwater yield
>13<0.8High
>13>0.8Medium
<13>0.8Low
<13<0.8Very low
Results and Discussion

The summary of the geoelectric parameters and inferred lithologies in the study area is presented in Table 3. The curve types obtained after partial curve matching ranges from the three-layer H type (66.7%), A type (3.3%) and K type (3.3%), through the four-layer KH type (23.3%), to the five-layer curve HKH type (3.3%). The predominant H type curve recorded in the study area further affirmed the findings of Oloruntola and Adeyemi [9], who recorded >72% of H curve type in the basement geological terrain at Abeokuta. Figures 3 and 4 show the typical iterated curves generated from the field measurements. The geoelectric interpretations revealed three to five layers, as follows: topsoil (23–700 Ωm); the weathered layer, which is composed of clay/sandy clay and clayey sand/sand (4–790 Ωm); underlying this layer are the fractured layer (93–437 Ωm) and the fresh basement (532–2106 Ωm). The aquifer unit in the study area is basically found in the fractured layer, the yield being dependent on the amount of clay content.

Figure 3

Typical VES curve in the study area.

Summary of geoelectric parameters and inferred lithologies.

VES no.No. of layersCurve typesResistivity (Ωm)Thickness (m)Depth (m)Reflection coefficientInferred lithology
11172.32.3Topsoil
12H2925.527.80.876Clay
3437Fractured basement
12110.90.9Topsoil
22H1105.05.90.421Sandy clay
3270Fractured basement
13241.31.3Topsoil
32H16213.114.40.437Clayey sand
3413Fractured basement
1752.12.1Topsoil
42H3024.126.20.843Clay
3352Fractured basement
11001.21.2Topsoil
52H57.28.40.977Clay
3427Fractured basement
11340.60.6Topsoil
2351.82.4Clay
63HKH793.45.80.899Sandy clay
4178.814.6Clay
5318Fractured basement
1940.80.8Topsoil
72H244.95.70.778Clay
3192Fractured basement
1301.01.0Topsoil
82H42.03.00.996Clay
32106Fresh basement
1941.21.2Topsoil
21206.67.8Sandy clay
93KH6011.819.60.701Clay
4342Fractured basement
11090.80.8Topsoil
102327.290.489Clay
393Fractured basement
1260.60.6Topsoil
1126555.15.7Sand
3KH5113.118.80.841Clay
4592Fresh basement
11610.90.9Topsoil
21919.110Clayey sand
123KH1148.618.60.315Sandy clay
4219Fractured basement
13692.62.6Topsoil
132H6219.722.30.625Clay
3269Fractured basement
12690.70.7Topsoil
23273.23.9Sand
143KH1988.812.70.534Clayey sand
4652Fresh basement
11671.21.2Topsoil
152H6612.713.90.576Clay
3245Fractured basement
17001.51.5Topsoil
162H388.39.80.887Clay
3637Fresh basement
14171.01.0Topsoil
172618.79.70.744Clay
3415Fractured basement
1812.32.3Topsoil
182H271012.30.880Clay
3422Fractured basement
1340.50.5Topsoil
27902.53.0Sand
193KH5912.615.60.761Clay
4435Fractured basement
11031.01.0Topsoil
21462.13.1Clayey sand
203KH4016.819.90.615Clay
4168Fractured basement
12731.71.7Topsoil
212H3511.112.80.702Clay
3200Fractured basement
13293.53.5Topsoil
222H13535.5390.237Sandy clay
3219Fresh basement
12262.02.0Topsoil
232H4219.421.40.921Clay
31019Fresh basement
12850.80.8Topsoil
242H997.88.60.759Clay
3722Fresh basement
1230.80.8Topsoil
252A4916.617.40.777Clay
3391Fractured basement
1631.01.0Topsoil
262K15316.017.00.553Clayey sand
3532Fresh basement
11491.01.0Topsoil
272H8110.411.40.643Clay
3373Fractured basement
11081,61.6Topsoil
22966.78.3Sand
283KH829.217.50.889Clay
41391Fresh basement
11611.01.0Topsoil
292H6510.011.00.522Clay
3207Fractured basement
12742.62.6Topsoil
302H4019.622.20.830Clay
3431Fresh basement

Figure 4

Typical VES curve in the study area.

Assessment of Aquifer Protective Capacity

The resistivities and thicknesses of the underground layers were used to compute the longitudinal unit conductance (S) of the layers in the study area. Table 4 shows the calculated longitudinal unit conductance in mhos and the protective capacity rating for the study area. The longitudinal unit conductance values of the overburden materials in the study area ranged from 0.049720 to 1.452000 mhos. It can be observed that the protective capacity in the study area reveals poor, weak, moderate and good capacity rating. Four VES stations have poor protective capacity, six shows weak protective capacity, 17 show moderate protective capacity, while three show good protective capacity rating, with 33% of the study area falling within the poor/weak overburden protective capacity. About 57% falls within the moderate range, while 10% falls within good overburden protective capacity. The longitudinal unit conductance map of the study area in Figure 5 shows that the northeastern and northwestern parts of the study area are characterised by moderate-to-good protective capacity, and this signifies that there is a little or no infiltration due to precipitation.

Longitudinal unit conductance and aquifer protective capacity of the study area.

VES no.Longitudinal unit conductance (mhos)Overburden’s aquifer protective capacity rating
10.898968Good
20.049720Poor
30.084877Poor
40.824333Good
51.452000Good
60.616591Moderate
70.212677Moderate
80.533333Moderate
90.264433Moderate
100.232339Moderate
110.287726Moderate
120.128673Weak
130.324788Moderate
140.056833Poor
150.199610Moderate
160.220564Moderate
170.145021Weak
180.398765Moderate
190.231430Moderate
200.444092Moderate
210.323370Moderate
220.273601Moderate
230.470754Moderate
240.081595Poor
250.373558Moderate
260.120448Weak
270.135106Weak
280.149645Weak
290.160057Weak
300.499489Moderate

Figure 5

The longitudinal unit conductance map of the study area.

Assessment of Groundwater Potential

Figures 6 and 7 show the reflection coefficient and overburden thickness map of the study area. The reflection coefficient in the study area varies from 0.24 to 1.00. The groundwater prospects in the study area are categorised into high, medium and low potentials. In this study, zones where the overburden thickness is >13 m and the reflection coefficient is <0.8 are considered as zones with high groundwater potential, while zones with overburden thickness <13 m and reflection coefficient <0.8 are considered as zones having very low groundwater potential.

Figure 6

The reflection coefficient map of the study area.

Figure 7

Isopach map of overburden thickness of the study area.

Generally, about 33% of the study area has high groundwater potential, which is restricted mostly to areas underlain by porphyritic granite and porphyroblastic gneiss, as established by a previous paper [22], while 23% of the study area has medium groundwater potential; moreover, 43% of the area has low groundwater potential. This result invariably indicates the significance of detailed groundwater survey and exploration in the study area for locating areas where successful boreholes can be sited.

Groundwater potential across the VES locations.

VES no.Overburden thickness (m)Reflection coefficientGroundwater yield
127.80.876Medium
25.90.421Very low
314.40.437High
426.20.843Medium
58.40.977Low
614.60.899Medium
75.70.778Very low
83.00.996Low
919.60.701High
109.00.489Very low
1118.80.841Medium
1218.60.315High
1322.30.625High
1412.70.534Very low
1513.90.576High
169.80.887Low
179.70.744Very low
1812.30.880Low
1915.60.761High
2019.90.615High
2112.80.702Very low
2239.00.237High
2321.40.921Medium
248.60.759Very low
2517.40.777High
2617.00.553High
2711.40.643Very low
2817.50.889Medium
2911.00.522Very low
3022.20.830Medium
Conclusion

The geoelectric investigation of the study area has revealed three to five subsurface geoelectric layers: top soil, weathered basement and fresh basement rocks. The fractured layer constitutes the sole aquifer unit in the study area. The protective capacity in the study area is more of the moderate type and is therefore not exposed to pollution. About 33% of the study area falls within the high rated groundwater potential zone, while the remaining 67% constituted the medium/low groundwater potential zone. Hence, the groundwater potential rating of the area is considered generally as medium/low. Therefore, areas for locating groundwater should be narrowed to zones of moderate/good groundwater protective capacity.

Figure 1

Map of the study area showing the sounding points.
Map of the study area showing the sounding points.

Figure 2

Geological map of Ogun State. Modified after Badmus and Olatinsu [14].
Geological map of Ogun State. Modified after Badmus and Olatinsu [14].

Figure 3

Typical VES curve in the study area.
Typical VES curve in the study area.

Figure 4

Typical VES curve in the study area.
Typical VES curve in the study area.

Figure 5

The longitudinal unit conductance map of the study area.
The longitudinal unit conductance map of the study area.

Figure 6

The reflection coefficient map of the study area.
The reflection coefficient map of the study area.

Figure 7

Isopach map of overburden thickness of the study area.
Isopach map of overburden thickness of the study area.

Summary of geoelectric parameters and inferred lithologies.

VES no.No. of layersCurve typesResistivity (Ωm)Thickness (m)Depth (m)Reflection coefficientInferred lithology
11172.32.3Topsoil
12H2925.527.80.876Clay
3437Fractured basement
12110.90.9Topsoil
22H1105.05.90.421Sandy clay
3270Fractured basement
13241.31.3Topsoil
32H16213.114.40.437Clayey sand
3413Fractured basement
1752.12.1Topsoil
42H3024.126.20.843Clay
3352Fractured basement
11001.21.2Topsoil
52H57.28.40.977Clay
3427Fractured basement
11340.60.6Topsoil
2351.82.4Clay
63HKH793.45.80.899Sandy clay
4178.814.6Clay
5318Fractured basement
1940.80.8Topsoil
72H244.95.70.778Clay
3192Fractured basement
1301.01.0Topsoil
82H42.03.00.996Clay
32106Fresh basement
1941.21.2Topsoil
21206.67.8Sandy clay
93KH6011.819.60.701Clay
4342Fractured basement
11090.80.8Topsoil
102327.290.489Clay
393Fractured basement
1260.60.6Topsoil
1126555.15.7Sand
3KH5113.118.80.841Clay
4592Fresh basement
11610.90.9Topsoil
21919.110Clayey sand
123KH1148.618.60.315Sandy clay
4219Fractured basement
13692.62.6Topsoil
132H6219.722.30.625Clay
3269Fractured basement
12690.70.7Topsoil
23273.23.9Sand
143KH1988.812.70.534Clayey sand
4652Fresh basement
11671.21.2Topsoil
152H6612.713.90.576Clay
3245Fractured basement
17001.51.5Topsoil
162H388.39.80.887Clay
3637Fresh basement
14171.01.0Topsoil
172618.79.70.744Clay
3415Fractured basement
1812.32.3Topsoil
182H271012.30.880Clay
3422Fractured basement
1340.50.5Topsoil
27902.53.0Sand
193KH5912.615.60.761Clay
4435Fractured basement
11031.01.0Topsoil
21462.13.1Clayey sand
203KH4016.819.90.615Clay
4168Fractured basement
12731.71.7Topsoil
212H3511.112.80.702Clay
3200Fractured basement
13293.53.5Topsoil
222H13535.5390.237Sandy clay
3219Fresh basement
12262.02.0Topsoil
232H4219.421.40.921Clay
31019Fresh basement
12850.80.8Topsoil
242H997.88.60.759Clay
3722Fresh basement
1230.80.8Topsoil
252A4916.617.40.777Clay
3391Fractured basement
1631.01.0Topsoil
262K15316.017.00.553Clayey sand
3532Fresh basement
11491.01.0Topsoil
272H8110.411.40.643Clay
3373Fractured basement
11081,61.6Topsoil
22966.78.3Sand
283KH829.217.50.889Clay
41391Fresh basement
11611.01.0Topsoil
292H6510.011.00.522Clay
3207Fractured basement
12742.62.6Topsoil
302H4019.622.20.830Clay
3431Fresh basement

Groundwater potential yield (modified after Bayewu et al. [3]).

Overburden thickness (m)Reflection coefficientGroundwater yield
>13<0.8High
>13>0.8Medium
<13>0.8Low
<13<0.8Very low

Longitudinal unit conductance/protective capacity rating (source: Oladapo and Akintorinwa [18]).

Total longitudinal unit conductance (mhos)Rating of overburden’s aquifer protective capacity
<0.10Poor
0.1–0.19Weak
0.2–0.79Moderate
0.8–4.90Good
5.0–10.0Very good
>10.0Excellent

Groundwater potential across the VES locations.

VES no.Overburden thickness (m)Reflection coefficientGroundwater yield
127.80.876Medium
25.90.421Very low
314.40.437High
426.20.843Medium
58.40.977Low
614.60.899Medium
75.70.778Very low
83.00.996Low
919.60.701High
109.00.489Very low
1118.80.841Medium
1218.60.315High
1322.30.625High
1412.70.534Very low
1513.90.576High
169.80.887Low
179.70.744Very low
1812.30.880Low
1915.60.761High
2019.90.615High
2112.80.702Very low
2239.00.237High
2321.40.921Medium
248.60.759Very low
2517.40.777High
2617.00.553High
2711.40.643Very low
2817.50.889Medium
2911.00.522Very low
3022.20.830Medium

Longitudinal unit conductance and aquifer protective capacity of the study area.

VES no.Longitudinal unit conductance (mhos)Overburden’s aquifer protective capacity rating
10.898968Good
20.049720Poor
30.084877Poor
40.824333Good
51.452000Good
60.616591Moderate
70.212677Moderate
80.533333Moderate
90.264433Moderate
100.232339Moderate
110.287726Moderate
120.128673Weak
130.324788Moderate
140.056833Poor
150.199610Moderate
160.220564Moderate
170.145021Weak
180.398765Moderate
190.231430Moderate
200.444092Moderate
210.323370Moderate
220.273601Moderate
230.470754Moderate
240.081595Poor
250.373558Moderate
260.120448Weak
270.135106Weak
280.149645Weak
290.160057Weak
300.499489Moderate

Cosgrove, W.J., Loucks, D.P. (2015): Water Management: Current and Future Challenges and Research Directions. Water Resources Research, 51(6), pp. 4823–4839.CosgroveW.J.LoucksD.P.2015Water Management: Current and Future Challenges and Research DirectionsWater Resources Research51648234839Search in Google Scholar

Adagunodo, M.K., Sunmonu, L.A., Aizebeokhai, A.P., Oyeyemi, K.D., Abodunrin, F.O. (2018): Groundwater Exploration in Aaba Residential Area of Akure, Nigeria. Front. Earth Science, 66(6), pp. 1–12, DOI: 10.3389/feart.2018.00066.AdagunodoM.K.SunmonuL.A.AizebeokhaiA.P.OyeyemiK.D.AbodunrinF.O.2018Groundwater Exploration in Aaba Residential Area of Akure, NigeriaFront. Earth Science66611210.3389/feart.2018.00066Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Bayewu, O.O., Oloruntola, M.O., Mosuroa, G.O., Laniyana, T.A., Ariyo, S.O., Fatoba, J.O. (2018): Assessment of groundwater prospect and aquifer protective capacity using resistivity method in Olabisi Onabanjo University campus, Ago-Iwoye, Southwestern Nigeria. NRIAG Journal of Astronomy and Geophysics, 7, pp. 347–360.BayewuO.O.OloruntolaM.O.MosuroaG.O.LaniyanaT.A.AriyoS.O.FatobaJ.O.2018Assessment of groundwater prospect and aquifer protective capacity using resistivity method in Olabisi Onabanjo University campus, Ago-Iwoye, Southwestern NigeriaNRIAG Journal of Astronomy and Geophysics7347360Search in Google Scholar

Sajeena, S., Abdul Hakkim, V.M., Kurien, E.K. (2014): Identification of Groundwater Prospective Zones Using Geoelectrical and Electromagnetic Surveys. International Journal of Engineering Inventions, 3(6), pp. 17–21.SajeenaS.Abdul HakkimV.M.KurienE.K.2014Identification of Groundwater Prospective Zones Using Geoelectrical and Electromagnetic SurveysInternational Journal of Engineering Inventions361721Search in Google Scholar

Abiola, O., Enikanselu, P.A., Oladapo, M.I. (2009): Groundwater potential and aquifer protective capacity of overburden units in Ado-Ekiti, southwestern Nigeria. International Journal of Physical Sciences, 4(3), pp. 120–132.AbiolaO.EnikanseluP.A.OladapoM.I.2009Groundwater potential and aquifer protective capacity of overburden units in Ado-Ekiti, southwestern NigeriaInternational Journal of Physical Sciences43120132Search in Google Scholar

Mogaji, K.A., Adiat, K.A.N., Oladapo, M.I. (2007): Geoelectric investigation of the Dape phase III housing estate, FCT Abuja, North Central Nigeria. Journal of Earth Sciences, 1(2), pp. 76–84.MogajiK.A.AdiatK.A.N.OladapoM.I.2007Geoelectric investigation of the Dape phase III housing estate, FCT Abuja, North Central NigeriaJournal of Earth Sciences127684Search in Google Scholar

Ayuk, M.A., Adelusi, A.O., Adiat, K.A.N. (2013): Evaluation of groundwater potential and aquifer protective capacity assessment at Tutugbua-Olug-boyega area, off Ondo road, Akure Southwestern Nigeria. International Journal of Physical Sciences, 8(1), pp. 37–50.AyukM.A.AdelusiA.O.AdiatK.A.N.2013Evaluation of groundwater potential and aquifer protective capacity assessment at Tutugbua-Olug-boyega area, off Ondo road, Akure Southwestern NigeriaInternational Journal of Physical Sciences813750Search in Google Scholar

Ademilua, O.L., Eluwole, A.B. (2013): Hydrogeophysical Evaluation of the Groundwater Potential of Afe Babalola University Ado-Ekiti, Southwestern Nigeria. Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and Applied Sciences (JETEAS), 4(1), pp. 77–83.AdemiluaO.L.EluwoleA.B.2013Hydrogeophysical Evaluation of the Groundwater Potential of Afe Babalola University Ado-Ekiti, Southwestern NigeriaJournal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and Applied Sciences (JETEAS)417783Search in Google Scholar

Oloruntola, M.O., Adeyemi, G.O. (2014): Geophysical and Hydrochemical Evaluation of Groundwater Potential and Character of Abeokuta Area, Southwestern Nigeria. Journal of Geography and Geology, 6(3), pp. 162–177.OloruntolaM.O.AdeyemiG.O.2014Geophysical and Hydrochemical Evaluation of Groundwater Potential and Character of Abeokuta Area, Southwestern NigeriaJournal of Geography and Geology63162177Search in Google Scholar

Abdullahi, M.G, Toriman, M.E., Gasim, M.B. (2015): The Application of Vertical Electrical Sounding (VES) for Groundwater Exploration in Tudun Wada Kano State, Nigeria. Journal of Geology and Geosciences, 4(1), pp. 1–3.AbdullahiM.G, Toriman, M.E.GasimM.B.2015The Application of Vertical Electrical Sounding (VES) for Groundwater Exploration in Tudun Wada Kano State, NigeriaJournal of Geology and Geosciences4113Search in Google Scholar

Adeleke, O.O., Makinde, V., Eruola, A.O., Dada, O.F., Ojo, A.O., Aluko, T.J. (2015): Estimation of Groundwater Recharges in Odeda Local Government Area, Ogun State, Nigeria using Empirical Formulae. Challenges, 6, pp. 271–281.AdelekeO.O.MakindeV.EruolaA.O.DadaO.F.OjoA.O.AlukoT.J.2015Estimation of Groundwater Recharges in Odeda Local Government Area, Ogun State, Nigeria using Empirical FormulaeChallenges6271281Search in Google Scholar

Hurley, P.M., Rank, J.R. (1976): Outline of Precambrian Chronology in lands bordering the South Atlantic exclusive of Brasil. In: The Ocean Basins and Margins, Nairn, Stehli (eds.). Plenum Press, pp. 391–410.HurleyP.M.RankJ.R.1976Outline of Precambrian Chronology in lands bordering the South Atlantic exclusive of BrasilThe Ocean Basins and MarginsNairnStehliPlenum Press391410Search in Google Scholar

Ako, B.D. (1979): Geophysical Prospecting for Groundwater in Parts of South-western Nigeria. Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis. Department of Geology, University of Ife: Ile-Ife, Nigeria, 371 p.AkoB.D.1979Geophysical Prospecting for Groundwater in Parts of South-western NigeriaUnpublished Ph. D. ThesisDepartment of Geology, University of IfeIle-Ife, Nigeria371Search in Google Scholar

Badmus, B.S., Olatinsu, O.B. (2010): Aquifer characteristics and groundwater recharge pattern in a typical basement complex, Southwestern Nigeria. African Journal of Environmental Sciences and Technology, 4(6), pp. 328–342.BadmusB.S.OlatinsuO.B.2010Aquifer characteristics and groundwater recharge pattern in a typical basement complex, Southwestern NigeriaAfrican Journal of Environmental Sciences and Technology46328342Search in Google Scholar

Zohdy, A.A. (1965): The Auxiliary Point Method of Electrical Sounding Interpretation and its relationship to the Dar Zarrouk parameters, Geophysics, 30, pp. 644–660.ZohdyA.A.1965The Auxiliary Point Method of Electrical Sounding Interpretation and its relationship to the Dar Zarrouk parametersGeophysics30644660Search in Google Scholar

Tsepav, M.T, Ibrahim, S.I., Bayegun, F.A. (2015): Geoelectrical Characterization of Aquifer Precincts in Parts of Lapai, North Central Nigeria. Journal of Applied Science and Environmental Management, 19(2), pp. 295– 301.TsepavM.T, Ibrahim, S.I.BayegunF.A.2015Geoelectrical Characterization of Aquifer Precincts in Parts of Lapai, North Central NigeriaJournal of Applied Science and Environmental Management192295301Search in Google Scholar

Henriet, J.P. (1976): Direct applications of the Dar Zarrouk parameters in ground water surveys. Groundwater Prospecting, 24, pp. 345–353.HenrietJ.P.1976Direct applications of the Dar Zarrouk parameters in ground water surveysGroundwater Prospecting24345353Search in Google Scholar

Oladapo, M.I., Akintorinwa, O.J. (2007): Hydrogeophysical study of Ogbese Southwestern Nigeria. Global Journal of Pure Applied Science, 13(1), pp. 55–61.OladapoM.I.AkintorinwaO.J.2007Hydrogeophysical study of Ogbese Southwestern NigeriaGlobal Journal of Pure Applied Science1315561Search in Google Scholar

Olayinka, A.I (1996): Non Uniqueness in the Interpretation of Bedrock Resistivity from Sounding Curves and its Hydrological Implications. Water Resources Journal NAH, 7(1&2), pp. 55–60.OlayinkaA.I1996Non Uniqueness in the Interpretation of Bedrock Resistivity from Sounding Curves and its Hydrological ImplicationsWater Resources Journal NAH71&25560Search in Google Scholar

Bhattacharya, P.K., Patra, H.P. (1968): Direct Current Geoelectric Sounding Methods in Geochemistry and Geophysics. Elsevier: Amsterdam, 135 p.BhattacharyaP.K.PatraH.P.1968Direct Current Geoelectric Sounding Methods in Geochemistry and GeophysicsElsevierAmsterdam135Search in Google Scholar

Loke, M.H. (1999): Time-lapse resistivity imaging inversion. In: Proceedings of the 5thMeeting of the Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society European Section, Em1. 90 p.LokeM.H.1999Time-lapse resistivity imaging inversionProceedings of the 5th Meeting of the Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society European Section, Em190Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo