GEPJournal of Geoscience and Environment Protection2327-4336Scientific Research Publishing10.4236/gep.2018.611003GEP-88529ArticlesEarth&Environmental Sciences Groundwater Monitoring in the Gneisso-Basaltic Fractured Rock Aquiferous Formations of Kumba, Southwest Region Cameroon: Seasonal Variations in the Aqueous Geochemistry and Water Quality R.A. Akoachere1*Y.M. Ngwese2S.E. Egbe1T.A. Eyong1S.N. Edimo1D.B. Tambe3Advanced School of Public Works, Yaoundé, CameroonDepartment of Geology, University of Buea, Buea, CameroonMinistry of Scientific Research Nlongkak, Yaoundé, Cameroon16112018061118507, October 201813, November 2018 16, November 2018© Copyright 2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. 2014This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

The objective was to determine and monitor seasonal changes during four hydrological seasons: Wet season (September), Wetdry season (December), Dry season (March) and Drywet season (June) in the groundwater aqueous geochemistry and its domestic-agro-industrial quality using physicochemical parameters and hydrogeochemical tools: Temperature, Electrical Conductivity EC, pH, Total dissolved solids TDS, Ionic ratios, Gibbs diagrams, Piper diagrams Durov diagrams, total hardness HT, Water quality index WQI, Sodium adsorption ratio SAR, Percent Sodium %Na, Kelly’s Ratio KR, permeability index PI, Magnesium adsorption ratio MAR, Residual sodium carbonate RSC and Wilcox diagram. Field physicochemical parameters ranged from: Wet season; pH 3.9 - 6.9; Temperature, 23.3°C - 29.1°C; EC, 10 - 1900 μS/cm; TDS, 6.7 - 1273 mg/L; Wetdry, pH, 5.7 - 11.7; Temperature, 23.6°C - 28.3°C; EC, 1 - 1099 μS/cm, TDS, 0.67 - 736.33 mg/L; Dry pH, 5.7 - 13.1; Temperature, 26.3°C - 30.2°C; EC, 12 - 770 μS/cm, TDS, 8.04 - 515.9 mg/L and Drywet, pH, 4 - 7.4; Temperature, 25.8°C - 30.7°C; EC, 10 - 1220 μS/cm, TDS, 6.7 - 817.4 mg/L. Seventy-two groundwater samples, 18 per season were analysed. All ionic concentrations fell below acceptable World Health Organization guidelines in all seasons. The sequence of abundance of major ions are; Wet, Ca + > Mg 2+ > Na + = K + > NH 4 +, HCO 3 ? > Cl ? > NO 3 ? > SO 4 2? > HPO 4 2?; Wetdry Ca + > K + > Mg 2+ > Na + > NH 4 +, HCO 3 ? > Cl ? > SO 4 2? > NO 3 ? > HPO 4 2?; Dry Ca + > K + > Mg 2+ > Na + > NH 4 +, HCO 3 ? > Cl ?> NO 3 ? > SO 4 2? > HPO 4 2?; Drywet NH 4 + > Ca + > K + > Mg 2+ > Na +; Cl ? > HCO 3 ? > NO 3 ? > SO 4 2? > HPO 4 2?. Groundwater ionic content was due to rock weathering and ion exchange reactions. CaSO 4 is the dominant water type in Wet and Wetdry seasons; followed by CaHCO 3, Na + K-Cl Wet, CaSO 4 and CaHCO 3 Wetdry; MgCl Dry and Drywet followed by CaCl, CaHCO 3 Dry and CaSO 4, CaHCO 3 Dry-Wet. The dominant hydrogeochemical facies are Ca-Mg-Cl-SO 4 followed by Na-K-SO 4 Wet and Ca-Mg-HCO 3 ? in all other seasons. Ion exchange, Simple dissolution and uncommon dissolution are the processes determining groundwater character. The water quality indices; WQI, HT, SAR, %Na, KR, PI, MAR,RSC and Wilcox diagrams, indicate that groundwater in Kumba is 80% - 100% excellent during the Drywet &Wet seasons, 5% - 10% unsuitable during the Wetdry & Dry seasons for domestic use while being excellent-good for Agro-Industrial uses in all other seasons. Physicochemical parameters in some areas exceeded permissible limits for drinking. All hydrogeochemical parameters vary with seasons and these variations show the impact of annual cycles of seasonal changes on the aqueous geochemistry of groundwater in Kumba.

Groundwater Monitoring Hydrogeochemical-Facies Fractured Rock Aquifer Groundwater-Quality Kumba-Cameroon1. Introduction

Kumba is situated between longitudes 9.39 - 9.49E and latitudes 4.605 - 4.675N Figure 1; is the administrative headquarters of Meme Division and economic capital of Southwest Region of Cameroon. It is at the center of one of the largest cocoa cash crop producing areas in the country.

1.1. Population

The population of Kumba is about 144,268 mostly farmers and business people from almost every ethnic group in Cameroon including: the Hausas (at Hausa Quarters), the Bamilekes (at Bamileke Quarters), the Bakossis (around Krammar and Anglican), the Metasat Meta quarters) and foreign nationals (especially neighboring Nigerians, like the Igbos at Igbo Quarters). The indigenes are the Bafawsat Kumba Town and the Balondos at Kake. The indigenous tribes constitute only a small percentage of the entire population. The main languages spoken are English; French with pidgin and dialects amongst the various ethnic groups (Akoachere & Ngwese, 2016) .

1.2. Climate

Kumba generally has a hot and humid equatorial climate with two seasons: a short Dryseason of about 4 months (December to March) and a long rainy season

(April to November). Annual rainfall ranges from 2298 mm to 3400 mm. The average annual air temperature is 27˚C (Akoachere & Ngwese, 2016) .

1.3. Vegetation

Kumba is located in the tropical rainforest with vegetation that varies from savannah to forest (around Lake Barombi Mbo). The evergreen and semi-deciduous forests contain economically important tree species (iroko, mahogany, obeche, ebony, padouk, tiama, framire, sapelline, makore and bobinga, etc.). The herbaceous layer is dominated by Pennisetumpurpureum and Imperatacylindrica with a ligneous cover that is heavily affected by human activity. The river valleys are covered with Indian bamboo (Bambousa species) whose stems are used for handicraft activities (Akoachere & Ngwese, 2016) . Deforestation is the main cause of environmental degradation in Kumba. It arises from human activities, especially inappropriate farming practices (shifting cultivation), overgrazing, bush fires, poaching and illegal logging (Akoachere & Ngwese, 2016) .

1.4. Soils

A wide variety of soils exist in Kumba including: clayey soils (earthy) around Kake, Mbonge Road, Kumba Town, Krammer and Anglican; gravelly soils (brick red) around Buea Road; sandy soils (pale yellow to earthy) around Kossala; and laterites (brick red) in almost every part of the town. Soils’ grain-sizes range from coarsegrained to fine grained, poorly sorted to moderately well-sorted.

1.5. Surface Water

Kumba has numerous streams of small discharges (Kumba water, Kake water, Mbanga water), springs (including Cold spring and Mother Spring) and lake Barombi Mbo which constitutes a huge freshwater reserve.

1.6. Geology

Kumba is situate in the Kumba Plain, a grabben intercalated between the strato-volcanoes of Mt Cameroon and MtsRumpi (Sehar et al., 2011) , at the northwestern edge of the Douala Basin Figure 2. The Cameroon Line (CL) is an alignment of Tertiary-to-Recent alkaline volcanoes, plutons and grabbens extending over more than 1600 km stretching from the Atlantic oceanic island of Annobon through the Gulf of Guinea and within the African continent (Parihar et al., 2012) .

The Douala basin probably formed from a Precambrian cratonisation, granitisation and sedimentation phase followed by the Pan-African orogenesis, the Afro-Brazilian depression (the site of the future Cameroon Atlantic basin) with epi-continental sedimentation which may have begun during the lower Cretaceous discordant Cretaceous to Pliocene sediments on the Precambrian Pan-African basement and covered in some areas by Miocene sedimentation and volcanism (Loko et al., 2013) . The geology of the Kumba Plain (Kumba Volcanic Field) is controlled by three main volcanic activities (which probably occurred between the Eocene and 1Ma ago). These include: old basaltic lavas covering the entire plain; cinder cones and phreatomagmatic units; and short vesicular basaltic lava flow (Prasad et al., 2014) . There are 4 maars in the Kumba Plain. These

include: the Barombi Mbo, Barombi Koto, Mbwadong and Dissoni Maars, with the first two occupied by Lakes Barombi Mbo and Lake Barombi Koto. Based on the composite fragments contained in the Barombi Mbo Maar (BMM) pyroclastic deposits, it is likely that the maar cuts through a geological succession composed by granite gneissic formations, sandstones, and basaltic lava flows; the same formations that make up the Kumba Volcanic Field (Al-Khatib & Arafat, 2009) (Figure 2).

Volcanic formations of the plain have been emplaced over Panafrican metamorphic formations intruded by granitoids and locally covered by Cretaceous continental sandstones. They commonly enclose mantle peridotite xenoliths (Nagarnaik & Patil, 2012) . Conglomerates outcrop at the Buea Road area. They are poorly sorted; containing grains ranging from clays to boulders, with intense weathering. Fine grained sandstones (pale yellow to earthy in color) outcrop around Kossala. Pyroclastic materials from ash to bombs (mostly ash) outcrop at the BMM. Lava flow structures outcrop at some parts of Kake water and Kumba Water (at Buea Road) river beds, and rounded basaltic boulders (both massive and phorphyritic) along the banks of Kumba Water (up to several meters away from the river in some places) at Up-station to Ntchako Street and around Kake Water at Ekoka Falls. Gneisses outcrop at Fomenky Street (Buea Road), Osheami quarter, three corners, Farm road and Solar quarters (Fiango).

1.7. Hydrogeology

Weathered basement (regolith), fractured-gneiss, basalts, pyroclastics and recent alluvium are the aquiferous formations in the area. Saturated hydraulic conductivities of the aquiferous formations range from 2.88E-08 to 1.60E-06 m/d (Akoachere & Ngwese, 2016) , groundwater velocities from 1.96E+01 to 6.34E+02 m/d (Akoachere & Ngwese, 2017) , first estimates of well yields from 4.6E-01 to 2.28E+01 m/d (Akoachere & Ngwese, 2016) and the hydraulic conductivities of the vadose zone from 7.96E+02 to 3.27E+04 m/d. and stream discharges 1.79E+05 to 9.13E+05 m3/d (Ayuk & Mesode, 2017) .

2. Methods and Procedures2.1. Methods

A detailed field program of bore well data acquisition; field hydrogeological measurement/tests, sampling and laboratory analysis of collected groundwater samples was conducted in Kumba using appropriate equipment and softwares Table 1, ISO 5667 1 (International Organization for Standardization, 2006) , ISO 5667-11 (International Organization for Standardization, 2009) , ISO 5667-3 (International Organization for Standardization, 2003) and Barcelona et al. (1985) .

Determination of indices for suitability of groundwater for Agro-Industrial uses was done using formulae in Table 2.

1) Ionic ratio for indicative elements is a useful hydrogeochemical tool to identify source rock of ions and formation contribution to solute hydrogeochemistry (Hounslow, 1995) . These were useful in this study.

Field Equipment, Softwares, their specifications and functions
Equipment/SoftwaresSpecificationsFunctions
BikeCommercial bikes (Bensikin)To transport fieldworkers to wells
GPSGarmin GPS map 60 CSxTo measure longitude, latitude and elevation
EC MeterHanna HI 98,304/HI 98,303To measure Electrical Conductivity of water.
pH MeterHanna HI 98,127/HI 98,107To measure pH of water.
Water level indicatorSolinst Model 102MTo indicate static water levels of wells
Measuring TapeWeighted measuring tapeMeasurement of well diameter and depth.
Digital ThermometerExtech 39,240 (−50˚C to 200˚C)To measure temperature of water
Water samplerGallenkampf 1000 mlTo collect well water sample from well
Sample bottlesPolystyrene 500 mlTo hold sample for transmission to laboratory
ArcGISVersion 10.1GIS Drawing sampling/Tests location maps
Global MapperVersion 15GIS Geolocation of wells
Surfer Golden SoftwareVersion 12GIS plotting contours for spatial distribution
AqQA/AquachemVersion 15For the analysis/interpretation of chemistry
 Formulae for the determination for indices/parameters for water quality assessment Kumba
IndicesFormulaReference
Percentage Sodium% Na = Na + + K + Na + + K + + Ca 2 + + Mg 2 + × 100(Wilcox, 1955)
Kelly RatioKR = Na + Ca 2 + + Mg 2 +(Kelley, 1940)
Magnesium Absorption RatioMAR = ( Mg 2 + Mg 2 + + Ca 2 + ) × 100(Szaboles & Darab, 1964)
Total HardnessTH (CaCO3) mg/L = 2.5 Ca2+ + 4.1 Mg2+(Todd, 1980)
Residual Sodium CarbonateRSC = ( CO 3 + HCO 3 − ( Ca + Mg ) )(Eaton, 1950), (Raghunath, 1987)
Sodium Absorption RatioSAR = Na Ca + Mg 2(Richard, 1954)
Permeability IndexPI = ( ( Na + K ) + HCO 3 ) ∗ 100 Ca + Mg + Na + K(Doneen, 1962)
Water Quality IndexWQI = ∑ n i = 1 W i q i [ ∑ i = 1 n W i ] − 1(Sisodia & Moundiotiya, 2006)

Gibbs Diagram is a plot of Na+/Na+ + HCO 3 − Ca2+) and Cl−/(Cl + HCO 3 − ) as a function of TDS are widely employed to determine the sources of dissolved geochemical constituents (Gibbs, 1970) . These plots revealed the relationships between water composition and the three main hydrogeochemical processes involved in ions acquisition; Atmospheric precipitation, rock weathering or evaporation crystallisation over the four seasons.

2) Pipers Diagram is a graphical representation of the chemistry of water sample on three fields; the cation ternary field with Ca, Mg and Na + K apices ,the anion ternary field with HCO3, SO4 and Cl− apices. These two fields are projected onto a third diamond field (Piper, 1944) . The diamond field is a matrix transformation of the graph of the anions [sulphate + chloride]/Ʃ anions and cations [Na + K]/Ʃ cations. This plot is a useful hydrogeochemical tool to compare water samples, determine water type and hydrogeochemical facies (Langguth, 1966) . This has been used here for these purposes in the four seasons.

3) Durov diagram is a composite plot consisting of two ternary diagrams where the milliequivalent percentages of cations are plotted perpendicularly against those of anions; the sides of the triangles form a central rectangular binary plot of total cation vs. total anion concentrations (Durov, 1948) . These are divided into nine classes which give the hydrogeochemical processes determining the character of the water types in the aquiferous formation (Lloyd & Heathcoat, 1985; Langguth, 1966) .

4) WQI was calculated by adopting Weighted Arithmetical Index method considering thirteen water quality parameters (pH, EC, TDS, total alkalinity, total hardness, Ca2+, Mg2+, Na+, K+, Cl−, SO 4 2 − , NO 3 − , NH4+) in order to assess the degree of groundwater contamination and suitability over the period of the four seasons (Table 2) (Sisodia & Moundiotiya, 2006) .

For Agro-industrial suitability, the following parameters were used; sodium adsorption ratio SAR, permeability index PI, Magnesium adsorption ratio MAR, percent sodium %Na, Kelly’s ratio KR and Residual sodium carbonate RSC and Wilcox diagram.

The following Softwares; Surfer 12, Global mapper 11 and AqQA 1.5 AGIS 10.3 were used as platforms for data presentation, data interpretation and data analysis.

2.2. Procedures

A field visit was done using hydrogeological traverse field mapping to determine appropriate hand-dug wells, boreholes, springs and streams. Kumba was divided into zones and work was carried out in four hydrogeological seasons; Wet season, September; Wetdry season, December; Dry season, March and DryWet season, June. GIS platforms were used to analyze field data for the creation of sample location, drainage and water level contour maps. All equipment used were calibrated according to manufacturer’s specifications.

Temperature, pH, Electrical conductivity Temperature, pH and electrical conductivity were measured onsite for 450 representative hand-dug wells during the four seasons: 1800 measurements for each of the four parameters. At each hand-dug well, a sample was collected and the Temperature, EC, pH and TDS meters were measured. 18 spatially representative groundwater samples were collected for four seasons: 72 water samples from; Kake 1, Mbongo Str., 3 Corners, New Layout, Maduku Str., Park, Krammar, Lawyer Enow, Kossala, Pulletin Str., Alaska Str., Anglican, New Quarter, GBHS, Cameroon Str., CCAS, Cow Fence and Paradise Str were analyzed.

At each hand-dug well, a clean polyethylene bottle was rinsed thrice with well water and then filled to its brim.

The 73 (18 per season plus one rain) samples were collected in 500ml containers, sealed and sent to the Institute of Agricultural and one Research and Development-I.R.A. Dusing the standard methods (APHA, 1995) to analyze for:

1) Major cations in mg/L: Ca2+, Mg2+, Na+, K+ and NH4+.

2) Major anions in mg/L: HCO 3 − , Cl−, SO 4 2 − , HPO 4 2 − and NO 3 − .

To fully understand the relationship between the geology of the area and groundwater, hydrogeochemical tools were used such as ionic ratios, Gibbs Diagrams, Piper diagrams and Durov diagrams. For domestic agro-industrial water quality; Percent Sodium %Na, Kelly’s Ratio KR, permeability index PI, Magnesium adsorption ratio MAR, Residual sodium carbonate RSC and Wilcox diagram. These were done for four seasons to determine the seasonal variations in these aquiferous formations.

3. Results and Discussions

1) Physicochemical Parameters

The field measured physicochemical parameters of groundwater Kumba are, Temperature, pH, EC and TDS Table 3.

The individual parameters are discussed below.

2) Depth to Water Level

Well diameters range from 0.6 - 1.5 m, well depths from 1 - 18 m. The wells have depth to water levels ranged from 0.02 m - 11 m in Wet season, 0.6 m - 11.66 m Wetdry season and 0.5 m - 11.48 m Drywet season Figure 3. The depth to water varies with the seasons and the water table is lowest during the Dry season. Most wells with depths less than eight meters in most areas were dry with a few centimeters of water at during this period; a reason for the absence of Dry season depth to water and groundwater level contours. In some wells during the Wet season, the water table is at the surface with an exceedingly high pollution potential as run off fills the wells with all kinds of runoff loads. Especially so, since many wells are poorly constructed (Ayuk & Mesode, 2017) .

3) Groundwater Level Contours

From elevation and depth to water level, the groundwater contours were drawn with equipotential vectors simulating groundwater flow lines and flow direction Figure 4. Groundwater flows from the central slightly elevated Kumba plain to the surrounding areas radially outwards in a topography driven piston flow typical of phreatic aquiferous formations.

4) Temperature

The seasonal groundwater temperatures ˚C range from 23.3 - 29.1 in the Wet; 23.6 - 28.3 Wetdry; 26.3 - 30.2 Dry and 25.8 - 30.7 Drywet, Figure 5. There is a general increase from Wet to Dry season in rhythm with air temperature variations typical of phreatic aquiferous formations. Groundwater temperatures varied over the seasons with a peak of 30.7˚C in the Drywet season.

5) pH

pH ranges from 3.9 - 6.9 in the Wet season, 5.7 - 11.7 Wetdry season, 5.7 - 13.1 Dry season and 4 - 7.4 Drywet season. pH is strongly acidic to peralkaline in Wet and Drywet seasons and strongly acidic to strongly alkaline in Wetdry to Dry seasons Figure 6. Mean pH were slightly acidic in the Wet, neutral in the Wetdry, peralkaline in the Dry and slightly acidic in the Drywet seasons.

Seasonal variations and basic Statistics of physicochemical parameters of groundwater in Kumba
WetWetdryDryDrywet
MinMaxMeanStdMinMaxMeanStdMinMaxMeanStdMinMaxMeanStd
T (˚C)23.329.126.780.6123.628.327.010.4926.330.227.320.5125.830.727.620.62
pH3.96.95.220.505.711.77.030.965.713.17.911.5847.45.460.55
EC (mS/cm)0.011.270.160.150.010.740.150.130.010.520.120.110.010.820.150.15
TDS (mg/L)0.0712.731.591.540.017.361.501.310.085.161.241.060.078.181.541.46

6) Electrical Conductivity (EC)

The EC mS/cm values ranged between 0.01 - 1.90 in the Wet season, 0.01 - 1.10 Wetdry season, 0.012 - 0.77 Dry season and 0.001 - 1.22 in the Drywet season Figure 7. The very low values of electrical conductivity are due to low solute concentration of groundwater. The EC varied with seasons with a peak of 30.7 in the Drywet season.

7) Total Dissolved Solids

TDS ranged from 0.007 - 1.27 in the Wet season, 0.007 - 0.74 Wetdry season, 0.02 - 0.52 Dry season and 0.006 - 0.82 in the Drywet season Figure 8, maximum in all seasons around Maduka Str. and Cameroon Str.

3.1. Chemical Properties of Groundwater

The sequence of abundance of major ions for four seasons are; Wet season Ca2+ > Mg2+ > Na+ > K+ > NH 4 + ; HCO 3 − > Cl > NO 3 − > SO 4 2 − > HPO 4 2 − ; Wetdry season Ca+ > K+ > Mg2+ > Na+ > NH 4 + , HCO 3 − > Cl > SO 4 2 − > NO 3 − > HPO 4 2 − ; Dry season Ca+ > K+ > Mg2+ > Na+ > NH 4 + ; HCO 3 − > Cl > NO 3 − > SO 4 2 − > HPO 4 2 − and Drywet season NH 4 + > Ca+ > K+ > Mg2+ > Na+, Cl− > HCO 3 − > NO 3 − > SO 4 2 − > HPO 4 2 − . From Tables 4(a)-(d); Maduka Street, Cameroon Street and Mbongo Street have the highest cations/anions. Ca2+ and HCO 3 − are the most abundant in three seasons except for Drywetseason where

(a) Results of chemical Analysis and basic statistics of groundwater for Wet season Kumba. The values of rainwater and groundwater are similar indicating connectivity typical of phreatic aquifers in fractured rock aquifers; (b) Results of chemical Analysis and basic statistics of groundwater for Wetdry season Kumba; (c) Results of chemical Analysis and basic statistics of groundwater for Dry season Kumba; (d) Results of chemical Analysis and basic statistics of groundwater for Drywet season Kumba (b)
Wet Season mg/L
SNNamesNa+K+Ca2+Mg2+NH 4 +HCO 3 − NO 3 −SO 4 2 −CL−HOP 4 2 −
1Kake 10.000.000.000.000.003.660.001.4210.000.00
2Krammar0.480.4822.804.110.391.000.000.0023.000.00
3Lawyer Enow0.030.030.000.000.316.100.230.677.000.06
4Anglican0.090.0915.203.880.583.660.000.0010.000.01
5Mbongo Str.1.041.0437.804.210.6552.465.480.5737.000.01
6New Quarter0.000.0011.404.000.653.660.000.212.000.01
7GBHS0.000.0011.405.660.491.000.000.005.000.00
8Park0.000.000.000.000.481.220.000.007.000.00
9CCAS0.030.037.602.771.474.880.001.426.000.00
10Cow Fence0.000.007.604.311.250.000.000.007.000.00
11Alaska Str.0.030.0319.005.510.411.220.000.009.000.00
12Cameroon Str.2.862.8620.8010.260.638.541.230.6930.000.03
13Paradise Str.0.030.0322.808.650.546.100.220.6611.000.02
14Kossala0.170.173.802.710.453.660.001.0810.000.00
15Pulletin Str.0.000.000.000.000.666.100.460.655.000.00
16New Layout0.390.3911.402.060.616.100.000.6428.000.06
17Maduku Str.1.631.6360.6020.510.2031.724.455.2347.000.00
183 Corners1.241.2456.8010.590.6521.962.870.6331.000.02
19Rain0.090.294.2018.860.027.760.000.843.00.00
Min0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.002.000.00
Max2.862.8660.6020.511.4752.465.485.2347.000.06
Mean0.450.4517.174.960.589.060.830.7715.830.01
Std.0.780.7818.165.070.3413.431.671.2113.240.02
 (c)
Wetdry Season mg/L
SNNamesNa+ K+Ca2+Mg2+NH 4 +HCO 3 − NO 3 −SO 4 2 −CL−HOP 4 2 −
1Kake 10.090.396.204.870.001.220.150.611.000.01
2Krammar0.818.9730.800.590.102.440.170.0021.000.04
3Lawyer EnowStr0.130.7818.404.800.000.000.190.004.000.01
4Anglican0.351.9518.404.384.322.440.110.0010.000.04
 (d)
5Mbongo Street0.8512.0930.800.590.3023.180.380.0025.000.05
6New Quarter0.160.390.001.320.421.220.270.560.000.01
7GBHS0.040.000.002.900.383.661.251.020.000.01
8Park0.001.1712.2010.480.453.660.221.396.000.04
9CCAS0.000.3912.207.430.211.220.220.692.000.03
10Cow Fence0.160.3918.401.810.381.220.220.235.000.01
11Alaska Street0.252.3418.4011.384.332.441.480.0012.000.04
12Cameroon Street0.392.7318.401.840.443.660.236.8830.000.02
13Paradise Street0.390.396.2014.870.000.004.341.3213.000.01
14Kossala0.485.8512.201.320.536.100.251.349.000.06
15Pulletin Street0.300.3918.404.320.453.660.370.003.000.03
16New Layout0.857.0218.405.260.002.445.146.8836.000.01
17Maduku Street1.7026.5273.8020.900.4961.004.2110.2144.000.02
183 Corners Fiango2.0921.8061.401.590.0012.200.235.1128.000.00
Min0000.59000.11000
Max2.0926.5273.820.94.33615.1410.21440.06
Mean0.505.2020.815.590.717.321.082.0113.830.02
Std.0.587.7519.115.551.3314.481.653.0713.550.02
Dry Seasonmg/L
SNNamesNa+K+Ca2+Mg2+NH 4 +HCO 3 −NO 3 −SO 4 2 −CL−HOP 4 2 −
1Kake 10.080.352.912.710.28000.1130.03
2Krammar0.6810.4529.120.590.34000.41250.01
3Lawyer EnowStr0.080.75.824.880.21000.4250.01
4Anglican0.161.42.912.710.38000.2180.1
5Mbongo Str.1.1617.3946.595.040.6628.060.630.1140.04
6New Quarter0.120.522.914.060.847.320.920.2430.03
7GBHS0.080.182.912.680.11000.2210.1
8Park0.120.695.824.510.1100.020.2170.01
9CCAS0.160.872.914.32000.040.3370.01
10Cow Fence0.160.525.824.870.43000.2380.01
11Alaska Str.0.022.428.740.65000.030.3370
12Cameroon Str.1.3615.1343.685.21068.326.215.88860.3
13Paradise Str.0.20.522.932.680.33000.23110.01
14Kossala0.363.1211.651.330.31000.11120
15Pulletin Str.0.120.352.922.70.41000.3110.1
16New Layout0.687.6420.384.30.45000.23310
17Maduku Str.1.8830.6272.820.05092.728.251.57590.05
183 Corners0.21.745.824.870.21000.2170
Min0.020.182.910.590000.1110
Max1.8830.6272.820.050.8492.728.255.88860.3
Mean0.425.2615.374.340.2810.910.890.6315.830.05
Std.0.538.27204.20.2326.532.341.3522.490.07
Drywet Season mg/L
SNNamesNa+K+Ca2+Mg2+NH 4 +HCO 3 −NO 3 −SO 4 2 −CL−HOP 4 2 −
1Kake 10.130.373.62.980.28000.1550.01
2Krammar0.929.6736.60.540.2900.040.3210
3Lawyer EnowStr0.31.293.66.030.33000.3860
4Anglican0.331.487.47.450.3900.060.3130.01
5Mbongo Str.0.467.2940.232.943.530.5100.1280.01
6New Quarter0.210.906.110.819.450.320.1260.02
7GBHS0.107.48.140.37.110.080.5430.01
8Park0.230.553.60.453.840.4100.199.30.02
9CCAS0.90.5529.224000.060.42100.01
10Cow Fence0.230.377.45.430.460.170.040.3410.10.03
11Alaska Str.0.262.573.60.62000.040.3380
12Cameroon Str.0.333.123.63.51059.215.214.1800.03
13Paradise Str.0.140.93.62.512.460.300.0900.03
14Kossala0.252.937.40.420.4000.1111.940
15Pulletin Str.0.2001.510.22000.211.50.01
16New Layout0.137.87110.030000.12240
17Maduku Str.2.4433.4261.4080.27.140.561.44510.03
183 Corners0.11.2936.631.430.11000.1280.01
Min0.10000000.0900
Max2.4433.4261.432.9480.259.215.214.1800.03
Mean0.434.1414.797.455.24.680.360.5214.770.01
Std.0.567.8617.8210.5918.7613.941.220.9520.050.01

NH 4 + and Cl− are most abundant. There is an increase of K+ and Mg2+ ions as seasons change from Wet to Drywet.

3.1.1. Ionic Ratios of Groundwater

The ionic ratios of groundwater have been used to determine formation contribution to Kumba groundwater chemistry in Figure 9. The individual ionic ratios are analyzed per season and interpreted in Table 5.

The ionic ratios indicate groundwater in Kumba is affected to a great extent by silicate weathering mostly Ca-silicates and Mg-silicates from the minerals found in basalts with little weathering of Na-feldspar and Na-silicates, no Na-absorption, some Sulphate from external sources, no oxidation of sulphides and no anthropogenic contribution. Rock weathering and rainwater; increase in Wet, deplete in Dry Wet season. Some plagioclase weathering occurs in all seasons except Wet season with sodium source other than halite-albite, ion exchange and rainwater; silicate weathering of ferromagnesian minerals from the basalts but without gneiss weathering, ion exchange/Calcium removal and Calcium source from weathering of the basalts.

3.1.2. Rock-Groundwater Interaction

From Gibbs diagram; 77.78% ionsin groundwater originate from rock-weathering dominance for Wet, Wetdry and Drywet seasons and 83.33% in Dry season originate from atmospheric precipitation dominance during the four seasons Figure 10 and Table 6. This reveals the weathering of the aquifer matrix as the primary process in the acquisition of ions while atmospheric precipitation is the secondary process controlling the hydrogeochemistry in Kumba. In the Dry season as precipitation reduces the rock weathering dominance increases from

Summary of the ionic Ratios for Wet, Wetdry, Dry, and Drywet seasons with inferred formation source types Kumba
Ionic RatioWetWetdryDryDrywetInterpretation
SO/Cl0- 0.240 - 0.610.01 - 0.310 - 0.18Sulphate reduction and suggests additional sources of Sulphate
Na/Cl0 - 0.100 - 0.100 - 0.290 - 0.13No Na-adsorption during freshening and absence of marine water.
Mg/Cl0 - 2.00 - 4.870.02 - 2.700 - 4.12Depict a cation-exchange and silicate weathering environment
Na/HCO0 - 0.480 - 0.350 - 0.040 - 0.90Low weathering of Na-feldspar or other Na-silicates.
Ca/HCO0 - 22.800 - 12.620 - 1.660 - 78.82Ca-silicate weathering from country rocks
Ca/SO0 - 90.160 - 17.680 - 423.550 - 335.00There is no gypsum dissolution in volcanic regions
Ca/Mg0 - 8.980 - 52.200 - 49.360 - 366.67Typical of coastal regions due to cation-exchange
Mg/Ca0 - 524.170 - 50.330 - 13.720 - 48.94Silicate weathering
(Ca + Mg)/(Na + K)0 - 0.110 - 0.140 - 0.190 - 0.12Occurrence of silicate weathering over carbonate weathering.
HCO 3 − /∑Anions0 - 0.010 - 0.010 - 0.020 - 0.01Rainwater
NO3/∑Anions0 - 0.010 - 0.020 - 0.010 - −0.01No anthropogenicactivities.
SO4/∑Anions0 - 1.00 - 0.950.12 - 0.990 - 0.99No oxidation of sulphides.
Cl−/∑Anions−10.26 - 31.53−4.51 - 2.02−21.11 - 11.76−11.12 - 1.88Rock weathering and rainwater; increase in Wet, deplete in DryWet season
Na + + K + − Cl − Na + + K + − Cl − + Ca 2 +0 - 0.090 - 1.00 - 0.220 - 1.0Some plagioclase weathering in all seasons except Wet season
Na + Na + + Cl −0 - 0.420.02 - 1.00.02 - 0.600 - 1.0Sodium source other than halite-albite, ion exchange and rainwater
Mg 2 + Ca 2 + + Mg 2 +0 - 1.00 - 1.00.90 - 1.00 - 1.0Silicate weathering of ferromagnesian minerals but no evidence of granitic weathering
Ca 2 + Ca 2 + + SO 4 2 −0 - 3316.020 - 439.3518.13 - 3489.270 - 4876.00Ion exchange/Calcium removal and Calcium source from silicates
Ca 2 + + Mg 2 + SO 4 2 −0 - 0.710 - 2.400.02 - 1.480 - 1.68No dolomite at all, Dedolomitization
 Wet and Dry seasonal variations for cations plus anions in rock/groundwater interaction from Gibbs diagram, Kumba (Gibbs, 1970)
Rock-water InteractionTDS mg/LWetWetdryDryDrywet
No%No%No%No%
Rock - Weathering Dominance50 - 10001477.781477.781583.331477.78
Atmospheric Precipitation dominance1 - 50422.22422.22316.67422.22

77.78% to 83.33% while atmospheric dominance reduces from 22.22% to 16.67% and vice versa. This causes a 5.55% increase in rock weathering dominance in the Dry season and a 5.55% increase in Atmospheric precipitation dominance in the rainy season. These variations in the aqueous geochemistry of the groundwater in Kumba are a direct consequence of hydrological changes.

3.1.3. Groundwater Types

The diamond field of Piper’s diagram was divided into seven classes A - G classifying water types and designated with alphabets from A to G Figure 11, (Piper, 1944) . Using this Classification, water from Kumba falls into A, B, C, E, G categories Table 7. There is no Class D and F in all seasons and no Class A in Wet season; no Class E Wet, Wetdry and Dry seasons; and Class G Wetdry, Dry and Drywet seasons. In the Wet season: Class B; 2 samples, 11.11% are characterized by normal earth alkaline water with prevailing bicarbonate or chloride, Class C; 15 samples, 83.33% are characterized by Normal earth alkaline water; prevailing chloride and Class G; 1 sample, 5.56%; characterized by alkaline water with prevailing bicarbonate. In the Wetdry season: Class A; 2 samples, 11.11%; characterized by normal earth alkaline water with prevailing bicarbonate. Class B; 2 samples, 11.11% are characterized by normal earth alkaline water with prevailing bicarbonate or chloride and Category C; 14 samples, 77.78% are characterized by Normal earth alkaline water; prevailing chloride. In the Dry season: Category A; 1 sample, 5.56%; characterized by normal earth alkaline water with prevailing bicarbonate. Class B; 2 samples, 11.11% are characterized by normal earth alkaline water with prevailing bicarbonate or chloride and Class C; 15 samples, 83.33% are characterized by Normal earth alkaline water; prevailing chloride. In the Drywet season: Class A; 1 sample, 5.56%; characterized by normal earth alkaline water with prevailing bicarbonate. Class B; 2 samples, 11.11% are characterized by normal earth alkaline water with prevailing bicarbonate or chloride, Class C; 12 samples, 66.67% are characterized by Normal earth alkaline water;

Classification of groundwater and hydrogeochemical facies based on Piper diagram (Langguth, 1966; Lloyd & Heathcoat, 1985)
Piper-Langguth Classification KumbaWetWetdryDryDrywet
ClassCharacteristic-Water typeNo%No%No%No%
Diamond Field
ANormal earth alkaline water; prevailing HCO 3 −00211.1115.5615.56
BNormal earth alkaline water; prevailing HCO 3 − or Cl−211.11211.11211.11211.11
CNormal earth alkaline water; prevailing Cl−1583.331477.781583.331266.67
EEarth alkaline water with added portions of alkalis with prevailing chloride000000316.67
GAlkaline water with prevailing bicarbonate15.56000000
Cation Field
1Ca-rich waters1688.891372.22738.89633.33
2Mg-rich waters15.56527.781161.111266.67
3Na + K15.56000000
Anion Field
4HCO 3 − waters15.56211.11211.11211.11
6Cl− waters1794.441688.891688.891688.89
Hydrogeochemical facies
Field ICa - Mg - Cl - SO41794.441688.891688.891688.89
Field IINa - K - Cl - SO415.56000000
Field IVCa - Mg - HCO300211.11211.11211.11

prevailing chloride and Class E; 3 sample 16.67%; characterized by earth alkaline water, with added portions of alkalis with prevailing chloride. The dominant water types are Class B: 11.11%, Class C: 83.33% and Class G: 5.56%; Wetdry Category A, B: 11.11% and Class C: 77.78%; Dry Class A: 5.56%, Class B: 11.11% and Class C: 83.33% while in the Drywet season Wetdry Class A: 5.56%, Class B: 11.11%, Class C: 66.67% and Class E: 16.67%. From Table 7, CaSO4 is the dominant water type in Wet and Wetdry seasons; this is followed by MgHCO3; Na + K-Cl Wet season and MgCl; MgHCO3Wetdry. The dominant water types for Dry and Drywet seasons are CaSO4 and CaHCO3.

3.1.4. Hydrogeochemical Facies

From the Piper’s diagram Figure 11; Table 7, There are three hydrogeochemical facies: Field I: Ca ? Mg ? Cl - SO4 hydrogeochemical facies is the most dominant, 17 samples 94.44% in the Wet season, 16 samples 88.89% in the Wetdry, Dry and Drywet seasons. This facies is characteristic of recently recharged groundwater at some distance along its flow path; regional flow. Field II: Na - K - SO4 hydrogeochemical facies has 1 samples, 5.56% in the Wet season indicating the influence of precipitation from the Atlantic Ocean. Field IV: Ca - Mg - HCO3 hydrogeochemical facies has 2 samples, 11.11% in the Wetdry, Dry and Drywet season, characteristic of freshly recharged groundwater that has equilibrated with CO2 and soluble carbonate minerals under an open system condition in the vadose zone typical of shallow groundwater flow systems in crystalline phreatic aquiferous formations.

3.1.5. Hydrogeochemical Character of Kumba Groundwater

Based on the Durov diagram Figure 12, the Lloyd and Heathcoat classification Table 8 gave three classes in the Wet season; Class-1: Recharging groundwater; 14 samples, 66.67%; Class-2; Ion exchange; 3 samples, 16.67% and Class-8: reverse ion exchange, 1 sample, 5.56%. Four classes occur in Wetdry; Class-1: Recharging groundwater; 10 samples, 55.56%; Class-2; Ion exchange; 4 samples,

Classification of Water based on Durov diagram four seasons in Kumba (Lloyd & Heathcoat, 1985)
ClassHydrogeochemical processesWetWetdryDryDrywet
No%No%No%No%
1HCO3 and Ca dominant; indicates recharging waters groundwater1466.671055.56422.22950
2This water type is dominated by Ca and HCO3 ions. Na is significant, ion exchange is presumed316.67422.22211.1100
3HCO3 and Na are dominant, normally indicates ion exchanged water, although the generation of CO2 at depth can produce HCO3 where Na is dominant under certain circumstances000015.5600
4SO4 dominates, or anion discriminate and Ca dominant; mixed water or water exhibiting simple dissolution may be indicated.00211.111055.56527.78
5No dominant anion or cation, indicates water exhibiting simple dissolution or mixing000015.56316.67
6SO4 dominant or anion discriminate and Na dominant; is water type that is not frequently encountered and indicates probable mixing or uncommon dissolution influences.00211.110015.56
8Cl dominant anion and Na dominant cation, related to reverse ion exchange of Na-Cl waters15.56000000

22.22%; Class-4: Mixed water or water exhibiting simple dissolution, 2 samples 11.11% and Class-6 Mixing and uncommon dissolution influences, 2 samples 11.11%. Five classes occur in Dry season; Class-1: Recharging groundwater; 4 samples, 22.22%; Class-2; Ion exchange; 2 samples, 11.11%; Class-3 ion exchanged water, 1 samples, 5.56%, Class-4: Mixed water or water exhibiting simple dissolution; 10 samples 55.56% and Class-5 Simple dissolution or mixing, 1 samples 5.56%. Four classes occur in Drywet season; Class-1: Recharging groundwater; 9 samples, 50%; Class-4: Recharge, 5 samples 27.78% and Class-5 Simple dissolution or mixing, 3 samples 16.67% and Class-6 Mixing and uncommon dissolution influences, 1 samples 5.56%. There are no Classes; 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 in the Wet season; 3, 5, 7, 8 and 9 Wetdry; 6, 7, 8, and 9 Dry and no Classes; 2,3,7,8 and 9 in the Drywet season in Kumba.

In the Wet season, fresh recently recharging water from precipitation, exchanges ions with the weathered matrix of the aquiferous formations, while simple dissolution or mixing also goes on between the recently recharging groundwater and the existing groundwater in the aquiferous formations. In the Wetdry season, recharging groundwater having spent more time in the aquifer continues to exchange ions to a lesser extent with the matrix of the formation. While in the Dry season precipitation is absent, increasingly simple dissolution and mixing goes on between the remnants of the recently recharging groundwater and the pre-existing groundwater in the formation. In the Drywet season, new recharging water from precipitation emerges, exchanges ions with the weathered matrix of the aquiferous formations, while increasingly, simple dissolution or mixing also goes on between the recently recharging groundwater and the existing groundwater in the aquiferous formations.

The presence of Class-8 samples showing Na+/Cl− as dominant cation/anion, absence of Classes; 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 in the Wet season; Classes; 6, 7, 8, 9 in the Dry season indicates that, the groundwater in Kumba has an input related to reverse or inverse ion exchange of Na-Cl in the Wet seasonprobably of precipitation from the Atlantic Ocean nearby.

3.2. Water Quality3.2.1. Domestic Water Quality

From WHO guideline values (WHO, 2017) of ions present in the groundwater have been used to calculate Water Quality IndexWQI for domestic use for four seasons in Kumba (Pradhan et al., 1998; Asadi et al., 2007) . The weighted arithmetic water quality index was calculated and recorded on Table 9. WQI values ranged from −190.8 - 10.5, Wet season, Wetdry 6.37 - 120.29, Dry 1.59 - 130.67 and Drywet −11.95 - 17.26. Groundwater in Kumba is mostly 100% excellent in Wet and Drywet seasons; 94.44% excellent-good in the Wetdry season with 5.56% unsuitable at Cow-Fence; 83.34% excellent-good in the Dry season with 5.56% poor at New-Layout; Mbongo Str. and 11.11% unsuitable at Maduku Str. and Cameroon Str. Figure 13. These are the seasons when water is most scarce since many wells dry up.

3.2.2. Total Hardness H<sub>T</sub>

Classifications of the groundwater hardness in the study Kumba in Kumba (Sawyer & McCarthy, 1967) ; HT values were recorded as 0 - 235.59 mg/L in the Wet season, Wetdry 5.41 - 270.19 mg/L, Dry 18.26 - 264.21 mg/L and Drywet 6.19 - 235.55 mg/L. Groundwater in Kumba is soft in most areas in all the seasons 66.67% - 77.77% Table 10. In the Wet season, 11.11% is and 3 Corners; Moderately hard 22.22% around Mbongo Str., Cameroon Str. and 3 Corners hard around Maduku Str. and 3 Corners; Moderately hard 16.67% around Mbongo Str., Cameroon Str., Paradise and Alaska. In Wetdry season, 11.11% is hard around Maduku Str. Figure 14.

Seasonal variations of Water Quality Index Classification of groundwater samples for four seasons Kumba
RemarksWetWetdryDryDrywet
IndexQualityNo%No%No%No%
0 - 25Excellent181001161.111266.6718100
26 - 50Good00633.33316.6700
51 - 75Poor000015.5600
76 - 100Very poor00000000
>100Unsuitable0015.56211.1100

In the Dry season 5.56% is hard around Maduku Str.; Moderately hard 16.67% around Mbongo Str., Cameroon Str., Paradise, Alaska. Dry-Wet 11.11% is hard around Maduku Str. and 3 Corners; Moderately hard 16.67% around Mbongo Str., Cameroon Str.

Variations of groundwater hardness for four seasons Kumba
RemarksWetWetdryDryDry-Wet
Hardness HTClassificationNo%No%No%No%
0 - 75Soft1372.221266.671477.771372.22
76 - 150Moderately Hard316.67422.22316.6715.56
151 - 300Hard211.11211.1115.56422.22

The variations of hardness has Agro-industrial implications since in Kumba there are presently food processing plants and related business being built that might develop scaling problems if the hardness variations of 18% - 28% with seasons are not taken into consideration at the planning stage.

3.2.3. Agro-Industrialwater Quality

Parameters that are generally considered for evaluation of the suitability of groundwater for irrigation were the percent sodium (% Na), magnesium hazard (MH), residual sodium carbonate (RSC), Kelley’s ratio (KR), sodium adsorption ratio (SAR), electrical conductivity (EC), total dissolved solid (TDS) and USSL and Wilcox diagram.

a) Sodium Percentage% Na

Percentage of sodium values ranged from 0 - 100 Wet season; Wetdry, 0.71 - 19.18; Dry, 2.15 - 16.50 and Drywet, 0.41 - 27.30. Based on Wilcox classification (Wilcox, 1955) ; all 18 samples fall in the excellent to good category for all seasons Figure 15. This signifies groundwater in Kumba is good for irrigation at all times during the year.

b) Kelly’s Ratio KR

Kelley’s ratio was used as one of the basis of rating groundwater for irrigation purposes (Kelley, 1953) . Values ranged from 0 to 0.07 in Wet season, 0.01 - 0.07 Wetdry season 0 - 0.026 Dry season and 0.0 - 0.07 Drywet season. All samples had KR value less than 1.00 in all four seasons thus fell under Class suitable; which is acceptable range for irrigation purposes all four seasons, Figure 16.

c) Residual Sodium Carbonate RSC

RSC values of groundwater samples in Kumba Figure 17. The RSC values of the groundwater varied from; Wet season, −4.22 - 0.10, Wetdry season −4.43 - −0.09, Dry season −3.79 - −0.36 and Drywet season −4.75 - 0.50. Novalues exceeded the 1.25 m.eq/L in all four seasons indicating the groundwater in Kumba is good for irrigation all year round.

d) Magnesium Adsorption Ratio MAR

MAR values of all the samples varied from −2 - 54.31 Wet season, Wetdry 0.005 - 100, Dry 1.02 - 75.22 and Drywet 1% - 100. 94.44% in the Wetdry and 61.11% Wet seasons of groundwater was suitable for irrigation while 61.11% in the Dry and 66.67% in the Drywet seasons respectively were unsuitable Figure 18, Table 11.

e) Sodium Adsorption Ratio SAR

The sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) indicates the sodium concentration in groundwater as USSL classification of the salinity hazard (USSL, 1954) . Salinity

Magnesium Adsorption Ratio of groundwater for four seasons, Kumba
MARClassWetWet-DryDryDry-Wet
No%No%No%No%
<50Suitable1794.441161.11738.89633.33
>50Unsuitable15.56738.891161.111266.67

hazard to crop irrigation is measured on the basis of specific conductance.

The EC values indicate majority of the samples are in the Excellent class S1C0; 50% in Wet, 38.89% in Wetdry, 38.89% in Dry, and 44.44% in Drywet. Very good S1C1 class had 33.33% in Wet, 38.89% Wetdry, 33.33% Dry and 22.22% inDrywet seasons. The Good class S1C2 had 16.67% in the Wet, 22.22% Wetdry, 27.78% Dry and 33.33% Drywet. All in the groundwater fell in the S1 salinity hazard class Excellent which is suitable for irrigation in all seasons in Figure 19 and Table 12. From Figure 20, peak SAR values occur at Cameroon Str. for Wet seasons; 3 Corners for Drywet; Mbongo, Maduka Str. and Cameroon Str. for Dry and Maduka Str. for Drywet season.

From the USSL classification most of the ground water samples fell in S1-C0; S1-C1; S1-C2 classes characterized by low alkalinity-very low salinity hazard, low alkalinity-low salinity hazard and low alkalinity-medium salinity hazard respectively and hence all groundwater are suitable for irrigation during all four seasons Table 13.

f) Permeability Index PI

The PI of groundwater samples in the study Kumba in m.eq/L Figure 21. 94% of groundwater samples fell in the Class II in the Wet, Dry and Drywet seasons which are good for irrigation. One sample in Wetand two samples in the Wetdry fell in Class III unsuitable for irrigation. In the Dry season, one sample is in Class I; excellent for irrigation Figure 21, Table 14.

4. Conclusion

Depth to water varies with the seasons and the water table is the lowest during the Dry season. Most wells with depths less than eight meters dry up with just a few centimeters of water at during this period. During the Wet season, the water table is at the surface in the lowest lying areas with an exceedingly high pollution potential as run off fills the wells with all kinds of runoff loads since many wells are poorly constructed.

Ionic ratios indicate groundwater in Kumba is affected to a great extent by silicate weathering mostly Ca-silicates and Mg-silicates from the minerals found in basalts with little weathering of Na-feldspar and Na-silicates, no Na-absorption, some Sulphate from external sources, no oxidation of sulphides and no anthropogenic contribution.

Four groundwater types occur varying with seasons; CaSO4 is the dominant water type in the Wet and Wetdry seasons; MgHCO3 and Na + K-Cl Wet season; MgCl and MgHCO3 in the Wetdry; CaSO4 and CaHCO3 in the Dry and Drywet

USSL Salinity hazard Class for groundwater for four seasons in Kumba (Richard, 1954)
Alkalinity HazardEC ClassEC (µS/cm)Quality RemarkWetWetdryDryDry-Wet
No%No%No%No%
S1 LowC0 Very low0 - 100Excellent950738.89738.89844.44
S1 LowC1 Low101 - 250Very Good633.33738.89633.33422.22
S1 LowC2 Medium251 - 750Good316.67422.22527.78633.33
 Water quality based on SAR for four Seasons (Richard, 1954)
Salinity Hazard ClassSAR meq/moleRemarksWetWetdryDryDrywet
No%No%No%No%
S1<10Excellent18100181001810018100

Table14. Permeability Index classification of groundwater four Seasons (Doneen, 1962) .

seasons. Three hydrogeochemical facies occur and vary with the seasons: Ca-Mg-Cl-SO4 the most dominant occurs in the Wetdry, Dry and Drywet seasons; Ca-Mg-HCO3 hydrogeochemical facies occurring in the Wetdry, Dry and Drywet season and Na-K-SO4 occurring only in the wet season. The presence of Na + K-Cl groundwater type in Kumba has an input related to reverse or inverse ion exchange of Na-Cl in the Wet season probably of precipitation from the Atlantic Ocean nearby.

The Hydrogeochemical character of groundwater in Kumba indicates that weathering of the aquifer matrix is the primary process in the acquisition of ions while atmospheric precipitation is the secondary process controlling the groundwater aqueous geochemistry in Kumba for all seasons.

In the Wet, Wetdry, Dry and Drywet seasons; fresh recently recharging water from precipitation, exchanges ions with the weathered matrix of the aquiferous formations, while simple dissolution or mixing also goes on between the recently recharging groundwater and the existing groundwater in the aquiferous formations.

WQI Water of groundwater for domestic use is mostly excellent in all seasons.

Agro-industrial water quality evaluation of the suitability of groundwater for irrigation found indices for; % Na, RSC, KR, SAR, EC, PI, TD, USSL classification and Wilcox diagrams are within the suitable range for irrigation purposes during all four seasons. However, while Magnesium Absorption Ratio MAR for more than half of the samples were suitable during the Wet and Wetdry seasons, more than half were unsuitable in the, Dry and Drywet season. This is significant since it is during the drier seasons that irrigation water is needed.

Groundwater in Kumba is mostly soft with few moderately hard and lesser hard groundwaters in few areas in all the four seasons. These variations of hardness with seasons has Agro-industrial implications since in Kumba there are presently food processing plants and related business being built that might develop scaling problems if the hardness variations with seasons are not taken into consideration at the planning stage.

All hydrogeochemical parameters vary with seasons and these variations show the impact of annual seasonal changes on the aqueous geochemistry of groundwater in Kumba.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Acknowledgements

We sincerely thank all the field workers and the private well owners for access and well data.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Cite this paper

Akoachere, R. A., Ngwese, Y. M., Egbe, S. E., Eyong, T. A., Edimo, S. N., & Tambe, D. B. (2018). Groundwater Monitoring in the Gneisso-Basaltic Fractured Rock Aquiferous Formations of Kumba, Southwest Region Cameroon: Seasonal Variations in the Aqueous Geochemistry and Water Quality. Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection, 6, 18-50. https://doi.org/10.4236/gep.2018.611003

ReferencesAkoachere, R. A., & Ngwese, Y. M. (2016). Saturated Hydraulic Conductivities and High Yield Zones in the Phreatic Aquiferous Formations in Kumba—Cameroon: Determined From Slug-In Tests in Dug Wells. Journal of Hydrogeology & Hydrologic Engineering, 5, 4.Akoachere, R. A., & Ngwese, Y. M. (2017). Darcy and Apparent Velocities of Groundwater in Phreatic Aquiferous Formations in Kumba—Cameroon: Determined by Use of Trigger-Tube Tracer Test Method in Dug Wells. Journal of Hydrogeology & Hydrologic Engineering, 6, 1.Al-Khatib, I., & Arafat, H. (2009). Chemical and Microbiological Quality of Desalinated Water, Groundwater and Rain-Fed Cisterns in the Gaza Strip, Palestine. Desalination, 249, 1165-1170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2009.01.038APHA (1995). Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Waste Water. Washington DC: American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association and Water Pollution Control Federation.Asadi, J. J., Vuppala, P., & Reddy, M. A. (2007). Remote Sensing and GIS Techniques for Evaluation of Groundwater Quality in Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (Zone-V). India. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 4, 45-52. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph2007010008Ayuk, A. R., & Mesode, N. Y. (2017). Field Steady State Infiltration Rates of Soils in Kumba—Cameroon: Validation of Some Empirical Predictive Infiltration Models and GIS Applications. GeoinforGeostat: An Overview, 5, 1.Barcelona, M. J., Gibbs, J. P., Hellfrich, J. A., & Garske, E. E. (1985). Practical Guide for Groundwater Sampling (pp. 169). Washington DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/600/2-85/104.Doneen, L. D. (1962). The Influence of Crop and Soil on Percolating Water. Proceeding 1961 Biennial Conference on Groundwater Recharge, 156-163.Durov S. A. ,et al. (1948). Classification of Natural Waters and Graphical Representation of Their Composition Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR 59, 87-90.Eaton, F. M. (1950). Significance of Carbonate in Irrigation Water. Soil Science, 69, 123-133. https://doi.org/10.1097/00010694-195002000-00004Gibbs, R. J. (1970). Mechanisms Controlling World’s Water Chemistry. Science, 170, 1088-1090. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.170.3962.1088Hounslow, A. W. (1995). Water Quality Data: Analysis and Interpretation (p. 397). New York: Lewis Publishers CRC.International Organization for Standardization (2003). Standard ISO 5667 3: Water Quality—Sampling—Part 3: Guidance on the Preservation and Handling of Water Samples. Geneva: ISO.International Organization for Standardization (2006). Standard ISO 5667 1: Water Quality—Sampling—Part 1: Guidance on the Design of Sampling Programs and Sampling Techniques. Geneva: ISO.International Organization for Standardization (2009). Standard ISO 5667-11: Water Quality—Sampling—Part 11: Guidance on Sampling of Groundwaters. Geneva: ISO.Kelley W. P. ,et al. (1940). Permissible Composition and Concentration of Irrigation Waters Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers 66, 607-613.Kelley W. P. ,et al. (1953). Use of Saline Irrigation Water Soil Science 95, 355-391.Langguth, H. R. (1966). Groundwater Verhaltisse in Bereiech Des Velberter. Sattles. Der Minister Fur Eraehrung, Land Wirtsch Forste (pp. 127). Duesseldorf: NRW.Lloyd, J. A., & Heathcote, J. A. (1985). Natural Inorganic Hydrochemistry in Relation to Groundwater: An Introduction (p. 296). New York: Oxford University Press.Loko, S., Ahoussi, K., Koffi, Y., Kakou, N., Kouassi, A., et al. (2013). Microbiological and Physico-Chemical Quality of Groundwater from Artisanal Sites of Mining Exploitation in the South-West of C&#244;te d’Ivoire: Case of the Area of Hiré. International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, 4, 567-574.Nagarnaik P., & Patil P. ,et al. (2012). Analysis of Ground Water of Rural Areas of Wardha-City Using Physico-Chemical and Biological Parameters International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications 2, 803-807.Parihar, S., Kumar, A., Gupta, R., Pathak, M., Shrivastav, A., et al. (2012). Physico-Chemical and Microbiological Analysis of Underground Water in and around Gwalior City, MP, India. Research Journal of Recent Sciences, 1, 62-65.Piper, A. M. (1944). A Geographic Procedure in the Geochemical Interpretation of Water Analysis, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 25, 914-923. https://doi.org/10.1029/TR025i006p00914Pradhan S. K., Patnaik D., & Rout S. P. ,et al. (1998). Ground Water Quality—An Assessment around a Phosphatic Fertilizer Plant at Paradip Indian Journal Environment Protection 18, 769-772.Prasad M., Reddy B., Reddy M., & Sunitha V. ,et al. (2014). Studies on Physicochemical Parameters to Assess the Water Quality in Obulavaripalli Mandal of YSR (Kadapa). District, Andhra Pradesh, India International Journal of Current Research and Academic Review 2, 31-41.Raghunath, H. M. (1987). Groundwater (pp. 344-369). New Delhi: Wiley Eastern Ltd.Richards, L. A. (1954). Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline and Alkali Soils. Washington DC: United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Handbook No. 60. https://doi.org/10.1097/00010694-195408000-00012Sawyer, C. N., & McCarty, P. L. (1967). Chemistry for Sanitary Engineers (p. 518). New York: McGraw Hill.Sehar S., Naz I., Ali M., & Ahmed S. ,et al. (2011). Monitoring of Physico-Chemical and Microbiological Analysis of Under Ground Water Samples of District Kallar Syedan, Rawalpindi-Pakistan Research Journal of Chemical Sciences 1, 24-30.Sisodia, R., & Moundiotiya, C. (2006). Assessment of the Water Quality Index of Wetland Kalakho Lake, Rajasthan, India. Journal of Environmental Hydrology, 14, 1-11Szaboles, I., & Darab, C. (1964). Proceedings of 8th International Congress on International Society of Soil Science (pp. 803-812), Hungary: Research Institute for soil Sciences and Agricultural Chemistry of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.Todd, D. K. (1980). Groundwater Hydrology. New York, Wiley.USSL (1954). Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline and Alkali Soils (p. 147). Washington DC: United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Handbook No. 60.WHO (2017). Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality: 4th Edition Incorporating the First Addendum. Geneva: WHO.Wilcox, L. V. (1955). Classification and Use of Irrigation Waters. Washington DC: United States Department of Agriculture Circular, No. 969.