Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

BIOLOGICAL WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT OF WATER BEING SUPPLIED TO MALE HOSTELS AT OBAFEMI AWOLOWO UNIVERSITY, ILE IFE

Njoku, Rapheal Chukwunonso Publication Partner: SCIRJ

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

BIOLOGICAL WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT OF WATER BEING SUPPLIED TO MALE HOSTELS AT OBAFEMI AWOLOWO UNIVERSITY, ILE IFE

Authored by: Njoku, Rapheal Chukwunonso

Department of Zoology Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile Ife, Nigeria.

Publishing Partner: Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) Website: http://www.scirj.org/ ISSN: 2201-2796 Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

Preface

Biological water quality assessment of water being supplied to Male hostels at Obafemi

Awolowo University, Ile Ife was done by collecting samples from flowing tap and storage tanks in each hostel over a period of six weeks. The tap and storage water supplied to the male hostels was found to consist of a total of 46 genera of plankton of which 15 were zooplankton and 31 were phytoplankton. The genera belong to 7 phytoplankton phyla (Bacillarophyta,

Chlorophyta,Euglenophyta, Ochrophyta,Dinoflagellata, and )and 5 zooplankton phyla (, Rotifera, Amoebozoa, Arthropoda and Ciliophora).Class

Zynematophyceae (Division Charophyta)was the most abundant phytoplankton, represented by six (Closterium ehrenbergii, Strogonium, , Zygnemopsis, Docidium and

Zygnema). Of these species, Genicularia was the most abundant. Amongst the

Zooplankton,Mononogonta was the most abundant as represented by nine species namely

Argonotholca foliacea, Trichocerca bicristata, Trichocerca chatonni, Trichocerca elongata,

Trichocerca porcellus, Trichocerca similis, Brachionus calyciflorus, Brachionus falcatus and

Hexarthra mira. The most abundant zooplankton species was Cyclops bicuspidatus of the class

Maxillopoda. The highest total abundance was recorded at the sixth week of sampling. It was also observed that the number of organisms recorded from the tap water (43245 Org/L) were Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796 more abundant compared those from the storage tanks (30735 Org/L), however in terms of diversity more species were recorded from the storage tank.

Some organic pollution indicator species (Phacus pleuronectes and Nitzschia) were also recorded. Hence, further work should be done on the biological assessment of water being supplied to the hostels to advice on more efficient and effective treatment system which should be implored to purify and avert further pollution of the water. Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

Copyright and Trademarks

All the mentioned authors are the owner of this Monograph and own all copyrights of the Work. Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ: http://www.scirj.org/) acts as publishing partner and authors will remain owner of the content.

Copyright©2021, All Rights Reserved No part of this Monograph may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise, except as described below, without the permission in writing of the Authors & publisher. Copying of content is not permitted except for personal and internal use, to the extent permitted by national copyright law, or under the terms of a license issued by the national Reproduction Rights Organization.

Trademarks used in this monograph are the property of respective owner and either Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ: http://www.scirj.org/) or authors do not endorse any of the trademarks used. Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

Authors

Njoku, Rapheal Chukwunonso

Department of Zoology Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile Ife, Nigeria. Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

Table of Content

TITLE PAGE

CHAPTER ONE 8 INTRODUCTION CHAPTER TWO 11 LITERATURE REVIEW CHAPTER THREE 16 MATERIALS AND METHOD CHAPTER FOUR 18 RESULTS CHAPTER FIVE 52 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION REFERENCES 56 APPENDIX 66

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.0: What is Biological Assessment?

Majority of people see the aquatic habitat as the most effective place to dump waste, in some cultures particularly the West African regions of the world, with an idea that water is seen as a body that purifies all (Badejo et al, 1996). This ideology has led to the degradation and immense pollution of our waters. To this effect, measures have been put in place to bring to close restoration and remediation of the waters surrounding us (Brebbia, 2012; Novotny, 2013).

The word “biological” can be used to describe anything pertaining to life and living processes, while “Assessment” on the other hand is a form of appraisal or evaluation. Therefore, biological assessment otherwise termed bio-assessment refers to the “process of evaluating the biological condition of a water body using biological surveys (bio-surveys) and other direct measurements of the resident biota, including fish, insects, algae, and others” (USEPA, 2016). Biological assessment of water works with the principle of the presence, condition and numbers of types of insects, fishes, algae, plants and other organisms which help to provide information about the state of the aquatic ecosystems. Thus, biological can be defined as the study of these factors as a way of evaluating the health of a body of water (USEPA, 2016).

Furthermore, biological assessment can be defined as the evaluation of quality, fitness and biodiversity of the aquatic ecosystem using the metabolic activity, abundance, mortality and other correlated factor of the living organisms in the aquatic systems as indicators (Maznah et al, 2002;

Sawyer et al, 2004; Riley, 2008; Maznah, 2010).

The criteria and various methods involved in biological assessment according to Karr and Chu

(1999) and Kovacs (1992) include:

 Abundance/ population of fauna

 Examination of the metabolic activity of the organisms (stressed).

 Fecundity/ mortality ratio (the productivity of the aquatic ecosystem)

8 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

 Physiological and anatomical examination of organisms.

1.1: Importance of Biological Assessment

Biological assessment is very germane in our world today as it has been incorporated in Health

Acts for many nations, even in non-governmental agencies like W.H.O. The relevance of bio- assessment is thus highlighted:

 Defines purity state of water: it gives us information on the level of purity or pollution an

aquatic system has attained.

 Identifies pollutant: biological assessment helps in a way to locate the source of pollution in

the water body, through its various physiological processes.

 Gives information on biodiversity of aquatic system: during biological assessment, the

biodiversity of an aquatic ecosystem is noted and new species could be identified.

 Gives information on disease outbreak: when there is bio-assessment of water, it involves

the physiological and anatomical examination of aquatic indicators, cause of epidemic

outbreaks can be resolved and checked. In 1912, the pollution of the Jinzu River by

Cadmium poison from the Toyama Prefecture Japan, gave a blow in the world as it gave rise

to the notorious itai-itai disease (Yoshida, 1999). No one unraveled the cause of this disease

until a biological assessment was carried out on the fish species (i.e. fishes were assayed)

from the Jinzu River.

 Creates awareness to the public on water pollution: due to the biological assessment of

several scientists and researchers, countries have been able to make Laws and Acts to

control the level of pollution that comes from industrial discharge into lakes, rivers and

streams. Biological assessment has also helped the government agencies of so many nations

to alert people on the adverse effect of water pollution and aquatic habitat degradation

(Mensah 2011).

9 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

 Leads to remediation of aquatic ecosystem before complete deterioration: pollution of water

determined or discovered on time through bio-assessment can easily be treated and would

require lesser resource to remediate the aquatic ecosystem. When pollutants have

accumulated over a long period of time, it becomes difficult to treat and the biota of the

ecosystem would be at risk (Aparecida, 2008; Adams and Greeley, 2000; Wang et al, 2003).

 Gives species population: statistical biological assessment helps the research agencies to

keep data on species abundance in an aquatic system. Recent biological assessment or bio-

monitoring research has shown the diversity and abundance of some organisms (most macro

invertebrates) in Maine’s freshwater, USA (Bernatchez and Wilson 1998; Bank et al, 2005).

 Useful as indicator of Imbalance in aquatic community: The knowledge of the relationships

between the primary producers, primary consumers, secondary consumers, predators and

even the and algae community has shown how balance in the ecosystem is

maintained. A breach in the population of any of these groups would cause an imbalance.

Therefore, to successfully manage ecosystems, a basic understanding of the system’s

biological component is mandatory. When humans adversely affect aquatic systems, the

biological population will change leading to an imbalanced community. For example,

population sensitive taxa will disappear, taxa richness and diversity usually declines, food

webs are disturbed and undesirable species dominate. Biological assessment indicates

imbalance or balance in and measures that can be put in place to restore balance.

1.2: Aims and Objectives of the Study

The aim of this study is to biologically access and analyze the water being supplied to male hostels in Obafemi Awolowo University campus to ascertain the purity of the treated water biologically.

The specific objectives of the study are to:

1. Determine the taxonomic composition, diversity and abundance of planktonic

organisms in the water samples.

2. Assess the water quality based on indicator species.

10 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1: Biological Parameters

Water quality monitoring or assessment involves the meticulous study and application of the disciplines of physics, biology and chemistry. The biological aspect posits a strike in ecological balance while the chemistry of this phenomenon analyses the concentration of the pollutants

(Shrotriya and Dubey 1996) which is necessary to tackle the global problem of water pollution

(Rana and Palria 1988).

Recently, the ecosystem has been used as an approach to studying the bio-integrity of water. This is done by examining the resident species of the aquatic habitat with the structure and or function of the ecosystem taken into full cognizance. The quantity or abundance of resident species in the aquatic systems are being used in some countries to measure water quality (Enderlein et al, 1997)

Some approaches used in biological assessment include:

2.1.1. Bio-criteria

This can be defined as the measurement of bio-integrity which is used to assess cumulative ecological impact from multiple sources and stress agent (Enderleinet al., 1997). Considerable efforts have been made by various countries to identify key species that give information on the bio- integrity of water bodies, such as the UK assessment of water based on the ecological quality index.

Indicators used are sensitive and short lived species. Criteria to be met by such species to serve as indicators for quality assessment of ecosystem (UNECE, 1993) include;

 Broad ecosystem distribution.

 Easy collection and measurement in terms of biomass.

 Indigenous and self-maintenance through natural reproduction.

 Direct interaction with many components of its ecosystem.

11 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

 Availability of information (preferably quantified) on the history with respect to the

abundance and other key factors that affect the state of the organism.

 Exhibition of graded-response to human-induced-stress.

 Serve as diagnostic tools for specific stress of many sorts.

 Quantifiable and identifiable response to stress.

 Suitability for laboratory investigations.

 Serve to indicate aspects of ecosystem quality other than those represented by currently

accepted variables.

2.1.2. Biomarker

This is a difference in the cell structure or in a biochemical process or function that is induced by a pollutant and can be measured by changes in the activity of enzymes (Enderlein et al., 1997).

Normally, the response of a biomarker is a quantitative dose-response to changes in pollutant concentrations found in the environment. This is specific in action to precise class or classes of pollutants and could predict long term adverse effects. For example, a definite indication of metal pollution is seen in the Delta- (Amino-levulin acid dehydratase (ALAD) inhibition) which provides a signal of a potential problem (Enderlein et al., 1997). Biomarkers have become increasingly important in determining the impact of deteriorating water at early stages of pollution.

2.1.3. Benthic macroinvertebrates

Benthic macroinvertebrates are commonly used in water quality assessment because they have a close link to the chemical and physical states of their habitat (Resh et al., 1995, Simon and Stewart

1998, Sawyer et al., 2004). They are widely used because of the large number of diverse species that have different tolerance to water quality, long life cycles and well known (Resh et al., 1995). Imploring macroinvertebrates in the assessment of water integrity or the use of these organisms as bio-indicators can be quite successful and reliable at determining stream health and

12 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796 allows for a simple method to identify water quality issues (Resh et al., 1995, Hutchinson and

Iyengar 2003).

2.1.4. Plankton and other indicators

Plankton community has also been implored in the studies of water quality assessment. Hafsa and

Susmita (2011) conducted a study on the water quality and plankton status of two streams

Jalingachhara and Baluchuri of Cachar district. A plethora of phytoplankton were present with

Chlorophyceae as the dominant group, he also discovered variety of zooplankton with the

Cladoceran group as the most abundant.

Other biological parameter used is the bacterial concentration or coliform concentrations of the water. Investigation on the microbial load of drinking water was carried out by Kistemann et al.

(2002), they found out that bacterial colony, coliform, fecal Streptococci, Escherichia coli and

Clostridium perfringens count increased during extreme runoff events. They also recorded parasitic contamination of water with Gardia and Crystoporidium which rose to a significant level during runoff. They concluded that the substantial amounts of microbial loads in drinking water originate from rainfall and extreme runoff.Microbial survey of East River Dongjiang which accounts for approximately 80% of drinking water in Hong Kong, microbial survey indicates pathogens such as

Salmonella, Vibro, Giardia lamblia and Crystoporidium parvum in the water body (Ho et al., 2003).

2.2 Pollution

Pollution or contamination of drinking water is attributed majorly to human activities. The processes involved in maintaining a safe drinking water is narrowed to regulation of source of water, determining of safe levels and choosing the best treatments (Pedersen, 1997). Sources of water pollutants include:

 Landfills and dumps

 Sewage, partially treated water and sludge

 Industrial effluents and waste disposal

13 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

 Leakage from underground storage tanks

 Pesticides

 Urban runoff

 Animal production wastes

 Mines, tailings and spoils

 Agricultural runoff from crops (Pedersen, 1997).

Obi and Okacha (2007) reported on borehole contamination through many domestic waste water and livestock manure into the soil. They explain further that when wastes are deposited around the boreholes they may travel with percolating rainwater directly into boreholes or may travel along the well-wall or surrounding material of the drill holes.

Moreover, increase in population pose a great threat to the provision of a safe drinking water in developing countries. (Okonko et al., 2009). Urbanization, industrialization and agriculture act in contamination of water sources. Anthropogenic influence along with increased bacteriological population causes pollution of water (Al-Futasi et al., 2008, Adekunle and Kehinde 2008, Shittu et al., 2008).

2.3. Water quality characteristics and relevance

The absence of any adverse sensory effects therefore does not guarantee the safety of drinking water (Mensah, 2011). This has thus piloted the just cause in the bio-assessment of water. Water is one of the most important natural resources (EPA, 2001). The quality of water is a factor of both the natural and anthropogenic activities. Water quality can be affected greatly by several factors such as:

 Weathering of bedrock minerals

 Atmospheric processes of evapotranspiration and deposition of dust and salt by wind

 Natural leaching of organic matter and nutrients from soil

 Hydrological factors that lead to run off 14 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

 Biological processes within the aquatic environment that can change the composition of

water

All these mentioned are natural influences without the effect of anthropogenic activities (Isola,

2012). Dissolved salts and minerals are indeed essential to the organisms that depend on them for health and vitality (WHO, 1999).

Although, some harmful substances like lead, mercury, organophosphates, radioactive materials etc. can be found in water. Some organisms are found in water which are components of water and are actively involved in the biogeochemical cycle of water. Some of these organisms such as bacteria, parasitic worms, viruses, protists, fungi, can be deleterious to man’s health when present in drinking water (Jones et al., 2005).

Good or clean water is necessary to maintain a stable and safe ecosystem, as organisms depend on the suitability of water in the aquatic ecosystem. This encompasses the biological, physical and chemical components of water put into consideration together. Water is important as it meets various functions such as:

 Human consumption and public water supply

 Industrial use

 Recreational use

 Agriculture and aquaculture use

 Electric power generation (Hydroelectric power plants). Although these uses are not

exhaustible (Isola, 2012).

The quality of water uses varies based on the purpose for which it is used. Drinking water is seen to have the highest quality of water while this quality depreciates as we tend from domestic to agricultural and industrial uses (Gleick, 2010).

15 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

CHAPTER THREE

MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Geographical location of the study area

The study was carried out on water supplies to the four male hostels of the Obafemi Awolowo

University Ile-Ife in Ife Central Local Government Area of Osun State Nigeria. Water samples were collected from taps and storage tanks of these hostels. Obafemi Awolowo University lies within longitude 007⁰26’N and 007⁰32’N and latitude 40⁰ 31’E and 04⁰35’E. The grid locations of the various male hall of residence are;

 Angola Hall lies within longitude 07⁰31.288’N and 07⁰31.340’N and latitude 004⁰30.756’

and 004⁰30.709’E.

 Fajuyi Hall lies within longitude 07⁰31.014’N and 07⁰31.080’N and latitude 004⁰31.087’E

and 004⁰31.029’E

 ETF Hall lies within longitude 07⁰31.063’N and 07⁰31.120’N and latitude 004⁰30.869’E

and 004⁰30.884’E.

 Awolowo Hall lies within longitude 07⁰31.200’N and 07⁰31.306’N and latitude

004⁰30.893’E and 004⁰30.834’E.

3.2. Sampling Sites and Methods

Samples were collected from the four male halls or residence, each hall having two sampling points, flowing taps and the storage tanks. The samples were collected for six weeks (from 27th day of

January to the 6th day of March 2017). The tapwater is directly from the University water distribution pointwhilestorage tanks were large reservoirs used in event of water shortage or when the taps are not flowing. Water samples were collected in a Litre keg from each sample point every week. Out of which 300ml of each sample was turned into eight different improvised 50cl bottles with a tag for easy identification. 6 drops of Lugol’s solution (preservative) was added to each sample contained in the improvised bottles. This was left for 6-7 days, after which the volume of

16 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796 water was reduced using an improvised siphoning method with the supernatant greatly reduced. The residue was transferred into appropriately labeled specimen bottle and 2-3 drops of 5% formalin solution (preservative) was added to each specimen bottle and kept for subsequent analysis in the laboratory.

3.3. Plankton Analysis

One milliliter (ml) subsample of concentrated samples from each plankton specimen bottle was examined in an improvised counting chamber of known volume (1.5ml). The counting chamber covered properly with a neatly cleaned glass slide, error due to air bubbles inside covered counting chamber was meticulously averted. Counting chamber was placed on the stage of the compound light microscope and observed using both scanning power (×40) and low power magnification

(×100). All region of the counting chamber was viewed and different plankton species were observed, pictures were taken of the organisms, counted and recorded. Recorded planktons were identified with identification Keys including Needham and Needham (1941),Prescott (1954), Shiel

(1995), Carling et al. (2004), Yamaguchi and Gould (2007), Yamaguchi and Bell (2007), Brachlier and Fernandes (2011), LaMay et al. (2013); online identification keys were also explored Haney et al., (2013).

Furthermore, the abundance of each species observed was calculated by counting the number of each species present in the chamber and expressing this value per litre of the original water sample based on the following equation:

푎푏 A = x 1000 푐

Where A = abundance of species per litre a = abundance of species in the counting chamber

b = concentrate volume of water used (1.5ml) c = original volume of water strained (300ml)

17 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULT

4.1 Species composition and occurrence

A total of 47 genera of plankton were found of which 16 were zooplankton and 31 were phytoplankton. Twelve phyla were present, 8 were phytoplankton phyla and they include

Bacillarophyta, Chlorophyta,Euglenophyta, Ochrophyta,Dinoflagellata, Cyanobacteria, Ciliophora and Charophyta, while 4 phyla of zooplankton were present and they include Cercozoa, Rotifera,

Amoebozoa, and Arthropoda and. Nine-teen classes were present,11 were phytoplankton and 8 were zooplankton. Thirty-three orders were present, 22 were phytoplankton and 11 were zooplankton.

The classification is as follows:

PHYTOPLANKTON

Division: Dinoflagellata Class: Dinophycea Order: Gonyaulacale Family: Ceratiacea : Ceratium Species: furca

Division: Cyanobacteria Class: Cyanophycea Order: Nostocales Family: Rivulariaceae Genus: Amphithrix Order: Family: Coelosphaeriaceae Genus: Coelosphaerium Order: Oscillatoriales Family: Oscillatoriaceae Genus: Lyngbya Order: Spirulinales

18 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

Family: Spirulinaceae Genus: Spirulina

Division: Baccillariophyta Class: Baccilariophaceae Subclass: Fragilarrophycidae Order: Tabellariales Family: Tabellariaceae Genus: Asterionella Species: Formosa Genus: Tabellaria Species: fenestrata Order: Bacillariales Family: Bacillariaceae Genus: Nitzschia Order: Naviculales Suborder: Naviculineae Family: Pleurosigmataceae Genus: Pleurosigma W. Smith, 1852 Family: Fragilariaceae Genus: Synedra Order: Thalassionematales Family: Thalassionemataceae Genus: Thalassionema

Division: Ochrophyta Class: Xanthophyceae Order: Plischococcales Family: Botrydiopsidaceae Genus: Botrydiopsis Species: arhiza Order: Tribonematales Family: Tribonemataceae Genus: Tribonema Order: Mischococcales Family: Pleurochloridaceae 19 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

Genus: Gonochloris Species: sculpta Geitler, 1928 Class: Phaeophycea Subclass: Dictyophycidae Order: Spacelariacoles Family: Lithodermataceae Genus: Lithoderma Species: fontanum Class: Compsopogonophyceae Order: Compsopogonales Family: Compsopogonaceae Genus: Compsopogon Division: Chlorophyta Class: Trebouxiophyceae Order: Incertaesedis Family: Botrycoccaceae Genus: Botryococcus Order: Chlorellales Genus: Closteriopsis Species: ehrenbergii Class: Chlorophyceae Order: Chlamydomonadales Family: Chlamydomonadaceae Genus: Protococcus Order: Chaetophorales Family: Uronemataceae Genus: Uronema Division: Charophyta Class: (Conjugatophyceae) Order: Family: Genus: Genicularia Family: Desmidiaceae Genus: Docidium Family: Closterium ehrenbergii Menrghini ex Ralfs 20 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

Order: Zygnematales Family: Zygnemataceae Genus: Zygnemopsis Genus: Zygnema Order: Sphaeropleales Family: Sphaeropleaceae Genus: Sphaeroplea

Division: Ciliophora Class: Ciliatea Subclass: Peritrichia Order: Sessilida Family: Epistylidae Genus: Epistylis Ehrenberg, 1830 Species: digitalis Division: Euglenophyta Class: Euglenophyceae Order: Euglenales Family: Phacacea Genus: Phacus Species: pleuronectes Variant: marginata Kvortzov 1928 Family: Euglenaceae Genus: Euglena

ZOOPLANKTON Phylum: Ciliophora Subphylum: Intramacronucleata Infraphylum: Rhabdophora Class: Listostomatea Subclass: Haptoria Order: Pleurostomatida Family: Litonotidae Genus: Acineria Species: incurvata Phylum: Cercozoa 21 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

Order: Aconchulinida Class: Filosia Family: Zopf, 1885 Genus: Species: closterii Phylum; Amoebozoa Class: Tubulinea Order: Arcellinida Family: Arcellidae Genus: Arcella Ehrenberg, 1832 Species: Vulgaris Phylum: Rotifera Class: Monogononta Order: Plomida Family: Trichocercidae Genus: Trichocerca Species: bicristata Species: chatonni Species: elongate Species: porcellus Species: similis Family: Brachionidae Genus: Argonotholca Species: foliacea Genus: Keratella Species: cochlearis Species: lenzi lenzi Species: valga

Order: Plioma Family: Brachionidae Genus: Brachionus Species: calyciflorus Species: falcatus Order: Flosculariacea

22 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

Family: Hexarthridae Genus: Hexarthra Species: mira

Phylum: Arthropoda Class: Branchiopoda Superorder: Cladocera Order: Anomopoda Family: Chydoridae Subfamily: Aloninae Genus: Camptocercus Class: Maxillopoda Subclass: Copepoda Order: Cyclopoda Family: Cyclopoidae Genus: Cyclops Species: bicuspidatus Genus: Microcyclops Claus, 1893 Species: rubellus Lilljeborg, 1901

Order: Poecilostomatoidae Family: Ergasilidae Genus: Ergasilus Nordmann, 1832 Order: Onychopoda Sars, 1865 Family: Podonidae Mordukhai- Boltorskoi, 1968 Genus: Evadne Order: Ctenopoda Genus: Holopedium Species: gibberum Class: Arachnida Subclass: Acari Order: Trombidiformes Suborder: Prostigmata Superfamily: Hydrachnoidea Family: Hydrachnidae Genus: Hydracarina 23 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

Phytoplankton species identified

i. Lyngbya

ii. Ceratium furca

iii. Amphithrix

24 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

iv. Asterionella formosa v. Botrydiopsis arhiza

vi. Botryococcus vii. Closterium ehrenbergii

viii. Closteropsis ix. Coelosphaerium

x. Compsopogon sp xi. Diatoma sp

25 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

xii. Epistylis digitalis xiii. Euglena sp

xiv. Genicularia xv. Goniochloris sculpta

xvi. Lithoderma fontanum xvii. Nitzschia sp

xviii. Phacus pleuronectes xix. Pleurosigma

26 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

xx. Docidium xxi. Protococcus

xxii. Sphaeroplea xxiii. Spirulina

xxiv. Strogonium xxv. Synedra

xxvi. Thalassionema xxvii. Tribonema sp

27 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

xxviii. Tabellaria fenestrata xxix. Uronema

xxx. Zygnema xxxi. Zygnemopsis

Zooplankton species identified

i. Argonontholca foliacea

28 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

ii. Acineria incurvata

iii. Arcella vulgaris iv. Brachionus calyciflorus

v. Brachionus falcatus vi. Camptocercus

vii. Copepod molt

29 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

V

vii. Cyclopoid nauplius ix. Cyclops bicuspidatus

x. Ergasilus xi. Evadne

xii. Hexarthra mira xiii. Holopedium gibberum

xiv. Hydracarina xv. Keratella cochlearis

30 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

xvi. Keratella lenzi lenzi xvii. Keratella valga

xviii. Microcyclops rubellus

xix. Trichocerca elongata xx. Trichocerca bicristata

xxi. Trichocerca xxi. Trichocerca porcellus chatonni

31 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

xxii. Trichocerca similis xxiii. Vampyrella closterii

4.2 OCCURRENCE OF PLANKTON SPECIES DURING THE PERIOD OF STUDY

Table 1-4 shows the occurrence of plankton during the period of study. The sixth week had the highest occurrence of organisms with organisms occurring forty seven times (7%), while the first week had the least occurrence of organisms with organisms occurring thirty one times (4.61%). The second, third, fourth and fifth week had records of forty two (6.25%), forty three (6.4%), thirty six

(5.36%) and thirty seven (5.5%) times respectively, making a total of one hundred and eighty nine

(28.12%) times organisms occurred in the samples. In Fajuyi hall nineteen phytoplankton species were present with Gonochloris sculpta and Genicularia both occurring the most with an occurrence of 83.3% each, while twelve species of zooplankton were present and Keratella lenzi lenzi occurred the most with an occurrence of 41.7%. in Awolowo hall fifteen species of phytoplankton were present with Genicularia occurring the most with an occurrence of 91.7%, while twenty species of zooplankton were present with both Hydracarina and Keratella lenzi lenzi occurring the most with an occurrence of 41.7% each. In Angola hall sixeen species of phytoplankton were present with

Strogonium occurring the most with an occurrence of 83.3%, while sixteen species of zooplankton were present with both Argonotholca foliacea and Keratella lenzi lenzi occurring the most with an occurrence of 25% each. In ETF hall eighteen species of phytoplankton were present with 32 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

Strogonium occurring the most with an occurrence of 75%, while thirteen species of zooplankton were present with Keratella lenzi lenzi occurring the most with an occurrence of 41.7%.

4.3 ABUNDANCE OF PLANKTON DURING THE PERIOD OF STUDY

Table 5 shows the mean abundance of plankton in the four halls of residence as recorded during the study period. Among the phytoplankton species identified Genicularia was the most abundant as recorded from Awolowo hall with a mean abundance value of 1581 Org/L, while among the zooplankton species identified Keratella lenzi lenzi was the most abundantrecorded as also in

Awolowo hall with a mean abundance value of 4 Org/L. Based on the species abundance among the halls of residence, there exist no statistically significant difference except for Hydracarina and

33 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

Table 1: Occurrence of plankton in water samples from Fajuyi hall tap and storage Tank Organisms Weeks % Occurence Week Wee Week Week Week Week 6 1 k 2 3 4 5 phytoplankton F f F F F f F f F f F F Botrydiopsis arhiza ------+ - 8.3 Botryococcus + ------8.3 Ceratium furca - - - - + ------8.3 Closterium + ------8.3 ehrenbergii Coelosphaerium ------+ + 16.7 Diatoma ------+ + + 25 Epistylis digitalis + ------8.3 Euglena sp ------+ 8.3 Genicularia + + + + + + + + - + - + 83.3 Gonochloris sculpta - - - - + ------8.3 Nitzschia sp + - - - + - - - - + - - 75 Phacus pleuronectes - - - - - + - + - - - - 16.7 Protococcus + ------8.3 Sphaeroplea + - - - - - + - - - - - 16.7 Strogonium + - + + + + + + + + + - 83.3 Synedra - + ------8.3 Thalassionema - + ------+ - + - 25 Tribonema - - - + ------8.3 Zygnemopsis - - - + + ------16.7 Lyngbya - - - + + + - - - + - - 33.3 Zooplankton Argonontholca - - - + + + ------25 foliacea Acineria invurvata - - - + ------8.3 Camptocercus - - - + ------8.3 Cyclops biscupidatus ------+ 8.3 Hexathra mira - + ------8.3 Keratella lenzi lenzi - - - - - + + - + + - + 41.7 Keratella valga - - - - + ------8.3

34 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

Trichocerca bicristata ------+ - - 8.3 Trichocerca similis ------+ - 8.3

Where ‘F’ means; samples collected from the tap at Fajuyi hall ‘f’ means; samples collected from the storage tank at Fajuyi hall

35 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

Table 2. Occurrence of plankton in water samples from Awolowoi hall tap and storage Tank Organisms Weeks % Occurrence Week Week Week Week Week Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 phytoplankton A a A a A A A a A a A a Botryococcus - - - - - + ------8.3 Ceratium furca - - + ------8.3 Coelosphaerium ------+ - - - + 16.7 Diatoma ------+ - - + + + 33.3 Euglena sp ------+ + + - + 33.3 Genicularia + + + + + + + + + + +- 91.7 Lithoderma fontanum + ------+ - - - - 16.7 Nitzschia sp + + - + + - + + + - - + 66.7 Phacus pleuronectes - + - + - - - + + - + + 50 Protococcus - - - + - + ------16.7 Sphaeroplea - - - - + ------8.3 Strogonium + + - + - + ++ + + + + 83.3 Synedra + - - - + ------16.7 Uronema - - - - + ------8.3 Zygnemopsis - - - + ------8.3 Lyngbya - - - + ------8.3 Zooplankton Argonontholca foliacea - - - + - + + + - - - - 33.3 Cyclops biscupidatus ------+ + 16.7 Ergasilus ------+ - 8.3 Evadne ------+ - - - 8.3 Hexathra mira + ------8.3 Holopedium gibberum ------+ 8.3 Hydracarina + ------+ + - + + 41.7 Keratella cochlearis ------+ 8.3 Keratella lenzi lenzi - + + - - + - + - - - + 41.7 Keratella valga - - - + ------8.3 Trichocerca bicristata ------+ - - 8.3 Trichocerca chatonni ------+ - - - - 8.3 Trichocerca porcellus ------+ - - - 8.3

36 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

Trichocerca similis - - - + + + ------25 Vampyrella ------+ 8.3

Where ‘ ‘A’ means; samples collected from the tap at Awolowo hall ‘a’ means; samples collected from the storage tank at Awolowo hall

Table 3. Occurrence of plankton in water samples from Angola hall tap and storage Tank Organisms Weeks % Occurrence Week Week Week Week Week Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 phytoplankton N n N n N n N n N n N n Amphithrix ------+ 8.3 Ceratium furca - + ------8.3 Closteropsis - - + ------8.3 Coelosphaerium ------+ + + - 25 Compsopogon - - - + ------8.3 Diatoma - - - - + ------+ 16.7 Euglena sp - - - - + - - - + - + - 25 Genicularia + - - - + - + + + + + + 75 Lithoderma fontanum - - - - + ------8.3 Nitzschia sp + + - - - + - - + + - - 41.7 Phacus pleuronectes - - - - - + - - + - - + 25 Protococcus - + ------8.3 Sphaeroplea + ------8.3 Spirulina + ------8.3 Strogonium + + - - + + + + + + + + 83.3 Synedra + + - - - + ------25 Zygnemopsis - - - - + ------8.3 Zooplankton Argonontholca - - + - + ------+ 25 foliacea Arcella vulgaris ------+ - - - - - 8.3

37 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

Brachionus ------+ + - 16.7 calyciflorus Evadne ------+ - + 16.7 Hexathra mira + ------8.3 Hydracarina - - - + ------8.3 Keratella lenzi lenzi - - - - + + - - - - - + 25 Keratella valga - - - - - + ------8.3 Macrocyclops ------+ - - - 8.3 rubellus Trichocerca bicristata ------+ - - 8.3 Trichocerca similis ------+ - - 8.3 Vampyrella ------+ - 8.3

Where ‘N’ means; samples collected from the tap at Angola hall ‘n’ means; samples collected from the storage tank at Angola hall

38 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

Table 4. Occurrence of plankton in water samples from ETF hall tap and storage Tank Organisms Weeks % Occurrence Week Week Week Week Week Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 phytoplankton E e E e E e E e E E E e Asterionella Formosa ------+ - - - - - 8.3 Closterium ------+ - - - 8.3 ehrenbergii Coelosphaerium ------+ + 16.7 Diatoma ------+ + - + + 33.3 Genicularia +- + + - + + - - - - - 41.7 Nitzschia sp - - + - - - - + + + + + 50 Phacus pleuronectes + - + - + - - - + - + + 50 Pleurosigma - + ------8.3 Docidium - - - + ------8.3 Protococcus - - + ------8.3 Sphaeroplea - - - + ------8.3 Spirulina + ------8.3 Strogonium - - + + + + + + + - + + 75 Synedra - - - + + - - + + + - + 50 Tabellaria fenestrata - - - + ------8.3 Zygnema - - - + ------8.3 Lyngbya + ------8.3 Zooplankton Argonontholca - + + - - + ------25 foliacea Brachionus falcatus ------+ - - 8.3 Hydracarina ------+ 8.3 Keratella cochlearis ------+ - - - - 8.3 Keratella lenzi lenzi - - - + + + - - - - + + 41.7 Keratella valga - - - - + ------8.3 Trichocerca bicristata ------+ - - + 16.7 Trichocerca chatonni ------+ - - - 8.3 Trichocerca elongata - + ------8.3 Trichocerca similis ------+ - 8.3

39 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

Where ‘E’ means; samples collected from the tap at ETF hall ‘e’ means; samples collected from the storage tank at ETF hall

40 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

Table5: Mean abundance of plankton water sampled from all the male hostels Organisms ABUNDANCE Awolowo Angola ETF Fajuyi ANOVA Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. F- Prob ratio Amphithrix 0.00 0.00 0.42 1.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.40 Asterionella formosa 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.42 1.44 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.40 Botrydiopsis arhiza 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.42 1.44 1.00 0.40 Botryococcus 0.42 1.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.40 Ceratium furca 0.42 1.44 0.42 1.44 2.50 6.22 0.42 1.44 1.16 0.34 Closterium ehrenbergii 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.42 1.44 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.40 Closteropsis 0.00 0.00 2.08 7.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.40 Coelosphaerium 8.75 24.69 7.08 15.14 2.50 7.23 8.75 24.69 0.28 0.84 Compsopogon 0.00 0.00 0.42 1.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.97 0.42 Diatoma 6.67 12.31 0.83 1.95 2.92 4.98 6.67 12.31 1.21 0.32 Epistylis digitalis 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83 2.89 1.00 0.32 Euglena sp 1.67 2.46 1.67 3.26 0.00 0.00 1.67 2.46 1.47 0.24 Genicularia 1581 3277 904.6 2420 39.17 59.23 1604 3266 0.96 0.42 Gonochloris sculpta 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 675 2338 1.00 0.40 Lithoderma fontanum 2.92 8.65 0.42 1.44 0.00 0.00 3.33 8.62 0.92 0.44 Nitzschia sp 34.17 47.33 41.25 71.10 40.00 53.47 34.17 47.33 0.05 0.98 Phacus pleuronectes 6.67 7.18 2.50 4.52 7.50 15.45 5.42 6.89 0.64 0.59 Pleurosigma 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.42 1.44 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.40 Docidium 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.42 1.44 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.40 Protococcus 12.08 31.44 2.08 7.22 6.25 21.65 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.45 Sphaeroplea 9.17 28.75 2.92 10.10 2.92 10.10 9.17 28.75 0.34 0.80 Spirulina 0.00 0.00 0.42 1.44 0.42 1.44 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.58 Strogonium 50.83 65.81 36.25 48.25 30.42 43.92 50.83 65.81 0.40 0.75 Synedra 10.00 24.21 37.50 77.97 760.8 1861 10.91 25.18 1.85 0.15 Thalassionema 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.50 25.98 1.00 3.23 Tribonema 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83 2.89 1.00 30.32 Tabellaria fenestrata 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83 2.89 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.40 Uronema 0.42 1.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.42 1.44 0.67 0.58 Zygnema 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.08 7.22 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.40 Zygnemopsis 1.25 4.33 0.42 1.44 0.00 0.00 1.25 4.33 0.47 0.70 Lyngbya 0.83 1.95 0.00 0.00 0.42 1.44 0.42 1.44 0.70 0.56 Argonontholca foliacea 2.50 3.99 2.50 4.52 1.67 3.26 0.83 1.95 0.60 0.62 Acineria incurvata 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83 2.89 1.00 0.40 Arcella vulgaris 0.00 0.00 12.92 44.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.40 Brachionus calyciflorus 0.00 0.00 1.25 3.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.40 Brachionus falcatus 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.42 1.44 0.00 0.00 1.94 0.14

41 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

Camptocercus 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.42 1.44 0.00 0.00* Cyclops biscupidatus 0.42 1.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.17 14.43 0.93 0.43 Ergasilus 0.42 1.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83 1.95 1.30 0.29 Evadne 0.83 2.89 1.25 3.11 0.00 0.00 0.83 2.89 0.50 0.68 Hexathra mira 0.83 2.89 0.42 1.44 0.00 0.00 1.67 3.89 0.95 0.42 Holopedium gibberum 0.42 1.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.42 1.44 0.67 0.58 Hydracarina 2.92 3.96 0.42 1.44 0.42 1.44 2.92 3.96 2.81 0.05* Keratella cochlearis 1.25 3.11 0.00 0.00 0.42 1.44 1.67 5.77 0.62 0.61 Keratella lenzi lenzi 3.75 6.44 1.25 2.26 2.08 2.57 3.33 6.15 0.69 0.56 Keratella valga 0.00 0.00 0.42 1.44 0.42 1.44 0.42 1.44 0.33 0.80 Microcyclops rubellus 0.00 0.00 0.42 1.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.40 Trichocerca bicristata 2.08 7.22 0.42 1.44 3.33 10.08 2.08 7.22 0.33 0.80 Trichocerca chatonni 0.42 1.44 0.00 0.00 0.42 1.44 0.42 1.44 0.33 0.80 Trichocerca elongata 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.42 1.44 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.40 Trichocerca porcellus 0.42 1.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.42 1.44 0.67 0.58 Trichocerca similis 1.67 2.46 0.42 1.44 0.42 1.44 1.25 2.26 1.22 0.31 Vampyrella 0.42 1.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.42 1.44 0.67 0.58

42 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

Camptocercuswhich showed significant and highly significant difference respectively among the hall of residence

Table 6 shows the mean abundance of plankton from week one to week six of the sample period.

The sixth week had the most abundance of phytoplankton species with Genicularia being the most abundant phytoplankton with a mean abundance of 5354 Org/L, while the most abundant zooplankton was recorded also on the sixth week with Cyclops bicuspidatus being the most abundant zooplankton with a mean abundance of 7 Org/L. Nitzscshia, Sphaeroplea, Keratella lenzi lenzi and Trichocerca similis had significant differences with respect to time with a p-value of

0.037, 0.025, 0.046 and 0.044 respectively. Coelosphaerium, Ceratum furca, Trichocerca bicristata and Ergasilus showed high significant differences temporraly with p-value of 0.002, 0.008, 0.002 and 0.003 respectively. Diatoma, Genicularia, Strogonium, and Hexarthra mira had very high significant differences with 0.001, 0.000, 0.000 and 0.000 p-value respectively.

Table 7 shows the mean abundance of plankton based on the two sources (tap and storage tank).

Among the species of phytoplankton identified Genicularia was the most abundant as recorded as from the tap water with a mean abundance of 1232 Org/L, while among the zooplankton species identified Keratella lenzi lenzi was the most abundant as observed in the storage tanks with a mean abundance value of 4 Org/L.

Table 8. reveals that the class Zygnematophyceae is most abundant phytoplankton groups having a percentage abundance of 81.7% across all halls of residence with both Trebouxiophyceae and

Comsopogonophyceae being the least abundant with percentage of 0.008% each. While in Table 9, among the zooplankton recorded across all halls of residence, the Monogononta class was the most abundant with 310 Org/L, while three classes i.e. Litostomatidae, Tubulinea and Filosea were the least abundant classes with 10 Org/L representing each class.

43 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

Table 6: Weekly mean abundance of recorded plankton Organisms Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 ANOVA Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. F- Prob ratio Amphithrix 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.63 1.77 1.00 0.43 Asterionella Formosa 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.63 1.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.43 Botrydiopsis arhiza 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.63 1.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.43 Botryococcus 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.63 1.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.43 Ceratium furca 0.63 1.77 5.00 7.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.64 0.01 Closterium ehrenbergii 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.63 1.77 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.43 Closteropsis 0.00 0.00 3.13 8.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.43 Coelosphaerium 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 9.26 4.38 8.21 31.25 37.39 4.61 0.00 Compsopogon 0.00 0.00 0.63 1.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.97 0.45 Diatoma 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.63 1.77 3.13 4.58 5.63 9.04 16.25 15.29 5.55 0.00 Epistylis digitalis 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.63 1.77 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.43 Euglena sp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.25 2.31 1.25 2.31 2.50 2.67 2.50 3.78 1.87 0.12 Genicularia 32.38 59.12 38.13 31.84 76.88 63.52 105.1 105.1 588.1 557.1 5354 4411 10.98 0.00 Gonochloris sculpta 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1012 2864 1.00 0.43 Lithoderma fontanum 3.75 10.61 3.75 10.61 1.25 2.31 1.25 2.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.70 Nitzschia sp 18.13 31.16 21.88 43.17 13.75 22.64 25.00 24.93 83.75 77.40 61.88 70.25 2.63 0.04 Phacus pleuronectes 3.13 3.72 3.13 4.58 1.88 3.72 5.00 9.26 6.25 6.94 13.75 17.27 1.86 0.12 Pleurosigma 0.63 1.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.43 Docidium 0.00 0.00 0.63 1.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.43 Protococcus 3.13 8.84 22.50 42.43 5.00 14.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.78 0.14 Sphaeroplea 4.38 12.37 29.38 45.23 2.50 4.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.89 0.02 Spirulina 1.25 2.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.33 0.06 Strogonium 11.25 14.82 14.38 17.41 18.13 16.89 50.63 38.59 128.8 83.53 29.38 10.50 10.27 0.00

44 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

Synedra 36.25 45.96 5.71 15.12 63.13 99.03 48.13 109 262.5 548.4 812.5 2298 0.80 0.55 Thalassionema 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.63 1.77 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.43 Tribonema 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.63 1.77 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.43 Tabellaria fenestrate 0.00 0.00 1.25 3.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.43 Uronema 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.25 2.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.43 Zygnema 0.00 0.00 3.13 8.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.43 Zygnemopsis 0.00 0.00 3.75 6.94 0.63 1.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.11 0.08 Lyngbya 0.63 1.77 0.63 1.77 1.25 2.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.08 0.39 Argonontholca foliacea 0.63 1.77 3.75 4.43 3.13 5.30 2.50 3.78 0.63 1.77 0.63 1.77 1.37 0.26 Acineria incurvata 1.25 3.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.43 Arcella vulgaris 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 19.38 54.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.43 Brachionus calyciflorus 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.63 1.77 1.25 3.54 0.84 0.53 Brachionus falcatus 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.63 1.77 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.43 Camptocercus 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.63 1.77 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.43 Cyclops biscupidatus 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.88 17.51 1.23 0.31 Ergasilus 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.88 2.59 4.20 0.00 Evadne 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.88 3.72 2.50 4.63 1.79 0.14 Hexathra mira 4.38 4.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.24 0.00 Holopedium gibberum 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.25 2.31 2.33 0.06 Hydracarina 2.50 4.63 0.63 1.77 0.00 0.00 1.25 2.31 2.50 4.63 3.13 2.59 1.25 0.30 Keratella cochlearis 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.25 3.54 0.63 1.77 0.00 0.00 3.13 7.04 1.11 0.37 Keratella lenzi lenzi 1.25 2.31 2.50 3.78 3.75 3.54 1.25 3.54 0.00 0.00 6.88 8.43 2.49 0.05 Keratella valga 0.00 0.00 0.63 1.77 1.25 2.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.55 0.20 Microcyclops rubellus 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.63 1.77 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.43 Trichocerca bicristata 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.25 14.58 0.63 1.77 4.61 0.00 Trichocerca chatonni 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.25 2.31 0.63 1.77 0.00 0.00 1.55 0.20 Trichocerca elongate 0.63 1.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.43

45 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

Trichocerca porcellus 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.25 2.31 0.00 0.00 2.33 0.06 Trichocerca similis 0.00 0.00 1.88 2.59 2.50 2.67 0.00 0.00 0.63 1.77 0.63 1.77 2.52 0.04 Vampyrella 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.25 2.31 2.33 0.06

46 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796 Table 7: Mean abundance of recorded plankton from the two sources (tap and storage tanks) Organisms Storage Tap ANOVA Mean Std. Mean Std. F-ratio Prob Deviation Deviation Amphithrix 0.21 1.02 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.32 Asterionella formosa 0.00 0.00 0.21 1.02 1.00 0.32 Botrydiopsis arhiza 0.21 1.02 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.32 Botryococcus 0.21 1.02 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.32 Ceratium furca 0.63 2.24 1.25 4.23 0.41 0.53 Closterium ehrenbergii 0.00 0.00 0.21 1.02 1.00 0.32 Closteropsis 0.00 0.00 1.04 5.10 1.00 0.32 Coelosphaerium 10.63 24.29 2.92 10.52 2.04 0.16 Compsopogon 0.22 1.04 0.00 0.00 1.04 0.31 Diatoma 6.04 12.16 2.50 4.17 1.82 0.18 Epistylis digitalis 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.32 Euglena sp 0.83 1.90 1.67 2.82 1.44 0.24 Genicularia 832.50 2523.64 1232.29 2727.95 0.28 0.60 Gonochloris sculpta 0.00 0.00 337.50 1653.41 1.00 0.32 Lithoderma fontanum 1.46 6.16 1.88 6.22 0.05 0.82 Nitzschia sp 33.54 52.88 41.25 55.88 0.24 0.63 Phacus pleuronectes 6.46 12.11 4.58 5.50 0.48 0.49 Pleurosigma 0.21 1.02 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.32 Docidium 0.21 1.02 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.32 Protococcus 7.08 22.89 3.13 15.31 0.50 0.48 Sphaeroplea 1.46 7.14 10.63 28.53 2.33 0.13 Spirulina 0.00 0.00 0.42 1.41 2.09 0.15 Strogonium 30.00 24.36 54.17 73.82 2.32 0.13 Synedra 342.39 1349.51 81.04 310.38 0.85 0.36 Thalassionema 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.32 Tribonema 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.32 Tabellaria fenestrata 0.42 2.04 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.32 Uronema 0.00 0.00 0.42 1.41 2.09 0.15 Zygnema 1.04 5.10 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.32 Zygnemopsis 1.25 4.23 0.21 1.02 1.37 0.25 Lyngbya 0.21 1.02 0.63 1.69 1.07 0.31 Argonontholca foliacea 2.08 3.27 1.67 3.81 0.17 0.69 Acineria incurvata 0.00 0.00 0.42 2.04 1.00 0.32 Arcella vulgaris 0.00 0.00 6.46 31.64 1.00 0.32 Brachionus calyciflorus 0.21 1.02 0.42 2.04 0.20 0.66 Brachionus falcatus 0.21 1.02 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.32 Camptocercus 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.32 Cyclops biscupidatus 0.00 0.00 2.29 10.21 1.21 0.28 Ergasilus 0.21 1.02 0.42 1.41 0.34 0.56 Evadne 1.04 2.94 0.42 2.04 0.73 0.40 Hexathra mira 0.42 2.04 1.04 2.94 0.73 0.40 Holopedium gibberum 0.42 1.41 0.00 0.00 2.09 0.15 Hydracarina 1.67 2.82 1.67 3.51 0.00 1.00 Keratella cochlearis 1.67 4.58 0.00 0.00 3.17 0.08 Keratella lenzi lenzi 4.38 5.95 0.83 1.90 7.70 0.01

47 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796 Keratella valga 0.42 1.41 0.21 1.02 0.34 0.56 Microcyclops rubellus 0.21 1.02 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.32 Trichocerca bicristata 1.46 5.21 2.50 8.60 0.26 0.61 Trichocerca chatonni 0.42 1.41 0.21 1.02 0.34 0.56 Trichocerca elongata 0.21 1.02 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.32 Trichocerca porcellus 0.00 0.00 0.42 1.41 2.09 0.15 Trichocerca similis 1.04 2.07 0.83 1.90 0.13 0.72 Vampyrella 0.42 1.41 0.00 0.00 2.09 0.15

48 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

Table 8: Abundance of each recorded class of phytoplankton based on the hostel

Hall Fajuyi Awolowo Angola ETF Total Class abundance abundance abundance abundance Abundance Chrorophyceae 0 145 25 75 245 Xanthophyceae 8100 5 5 0 8110 Bacillariophyceae 490 570 515 560 2135 Compsopogonophyceae 0 0 5 0 5 Euglenophyceae 85 100 50 90 325 Zygnematophyceae 19712 19597 11171 940 51420 Cyanophyceae 110 115 90 35 350 Phaeophyceae 40 35 5 0 80 Ciliateae 10 0 0 0 10 Dinophyceae 5 5 5 30 45 Trebouxiophyceae 0 5 0 0 5 Total 56414 40454 11871 1730 62730

49 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

Table 9: Abundance of each recorded class of zooplankton based on the hostel Halls Class Fajuyi Awolowo Angola ETF Total Monogononta 65 95 60 90 310 Branchiopoda 25 15 15 30 55 Maxillopoda 60 10 5 0 75 Arachnida 35 35 5 5 80 Eurotifera 75 60 20 35 190 Litostomatae 10 0 0 0 10 Tubulinea 0 10 155 0 10 Filosia 5 5 0 0 10 Total 275 230 260 160 740

It was also observed that the organisms in the tap were more abundant as compared to that obtained from the storage tank, the tap had an abundance of 43245 Org/L while the storage tank had 30735 Org/L. After the analytical comparison, there was no significant different between both.

4.4 Species Diversity of Plankton

Table 10 shows the species richness of the recordedclasses of organisms. Among the zooplankton, Class Monogononta is the most diverse with a species richness of 9 species, while the rest of the classes had 3 species to a single species. Among the phytoplankton, Class

Bacillariophyceae is the most diverse with a total of 7 species and it is followed closely by

Zygnematophycea with six species richness.

Table 11 shows the diversity of planktons occurring in both sources where the samples were obtained. Collection from the storage tank was more diverse with a species richness of 40 plankton species, while samples obtained from tap were less diverse with a species richness of 33 plankton species.

50 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

Table 10. Species diversity of Recorded Zooplankton and Phytoplankton zooplankton species richness Phytoplankton species richness Total Tap Storage Total Tap Storage species tank species tank Monogononta 12 6 10 Chlorophycea 2 2 1 Branchiopoda 1 0 1 Bacillariophyceae 7 5 5 Arachnida 1 1 1 Compsopogonophyceae 1 0 1 Maxillopoda 5 2 3 Euglenophyceae 2 2 2 Listostomate 1 1 0 Zygnematophyceae 6 4 7 Tubulinea 1 1 0 Cyanophyceae 4 3 3 Filosia 1 0 1 Phaeophyceae 1 1 1 Ciliateae 1 0 1 Dinophycea 1 1 1 Xanthophycea 3 1 2 Trebouxiophyceae 2 1 1 Total 22 11 16 30 20 25

51 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The study carried out on the water supplied to all male hostels in Obafemi Awolowo University

Ile-Ife, Osun State Nigeria revealedforty-seven genera of plankton with thirtyphytoplankton genera and sixteen zooplankton genera. Zynematophyceae was the most abundant phytoplankton classwhich was represented by six genera namely Closterium ehrenbergii, Strogonium,

Genicularia, Zygnemopsis, Docidium and Zygnema. Of these species, Genicularia was the most abundant and was recorded most frequently in Awolowo hall as compared to other halls. While

Class Mononogonta was the most abundant zooplanktonwhich was represented by nine species namely Argonotholca foliacea, Trichocerca bicristata, Trichocerca chatonni, Trichocerca elongata, Trichocerca porcellus, Trichocerca similis, Brachionus calyciflorus, Brachionus falcatus and Hexarthra mira. The most abundant species was Cyclops bicuspidatus of the class

Maxillopoda

The recorded organisms were most abundant on the sixth week as compared to other weeks of collection. The success in the abundance of these class can be attributed to favorable water temperature, nutrients and other correlated factors as the population is maintained and developed successfully based on the ecological balance between environmental conditions and the tolerance of these organisms to one or more of these conditions (Reid, 1961; Adesakin, 2010). This study recorded higher abundance of phytoplankton as compared to zooplankton. The abundance of phytoplankton is an indication of eutrophic conditions.

The result of this research shows no significant difference in the planktonic composition and abundance in both sources of water sampled. Although the species in the storage tanks were more diverse than those present in the tap water, the statistical analysis prove that there was no 52 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796 significant difference in the composition and occurrence of species in both sources of water.

Momba and Kaleni (2002) and Jagals et al. (2003) gave reasons for contamination of storage tank as being biofilm released from the sidewalls during the filling and handling of the containers. The water distributed through water channels (pipes) were usually heated up before being finally emptied into the storage tanks (Schafer, 2010), this would further enhance the biofilm release of phosphates and nitrates into the water which encourages alga bloom. Trevett

(2003) explains further that there could be an immediate deterioration of water quality as water being filled in the tanks has its sidewalls as sources of contamination due to low or no frequency in washing the tanks. Lack of proper cleaning of tanks could cause bloom in tanks as cell populations carried over from year to year could establish a bloom of bacteria and this phenomenon is difficult to reverse. This is also supported by Mathias et al. (2003) who posited that contamination and recontamination that led to the growth or re-growth of microalgae and

Cyanobacteria in the storage tanks could have been due to inadequacy in cleaning of the tanks.

He also asserted that the population of phytoplankton in storage tank should be more than that collected from the pipe borne distribution connected with taps because of the lack of light and favorable temperature in the distribution pipes which is readily available in storage tanks.

Momba and Kaleni (2002) reported a direct relationship between the storage materials and water quality, one can infer that the storage material could be a source to poor water quality.Bio- filming release of ions containing phosphorous and nitrogen could be much of a problem as it encourages the survival and exponential growth of Cyanobacteria which were recorded in abundanceduring the period of study (Rusin et al., 2001).

The source of pollution could be as a result of leakages from distribution system, inadequacy in treatment of source of water, long residence periods, elevated water temperatures and low

53 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796 chlorine residual (LeChevallie et al., 1981.,Schoenen and Scholar, 1985., Grabow et al., 1985.,

Schoenen, 1990). Quite a number of literatures have posited that increasing storage periods leads to a decreasing level of water quality (Evison and Sunna, 2001; Roberts et al, 2001; Agard et al,

2002; Tokajian and Hashwa, 2003). Mathias et al. (2003) also proffered assertion on the possible cause of contamination of tap water from pipe borne distribution as observedduring the study could be due to inadequate treatment technique implored before water is reticulated leading to a possible escape of one, two or more phytoplankton organisms through the filtration and chlorination processes. Everts et al (2013) also discovered the ability of two phytoplankton genera Anabaena and Ceratiumas being problematic planktonic organisms because of their interference with treatment processes in water purification which had adverse effect on water quality. This could be a pointer to the most probable reason why there is a relative abundance of

Ceratium furca in the water samples, as these organisms obstruct treatment processes thereby paving way for the survival of other plankton populations. Thus, imploring just one treatment procedure or technique is not efficacious enough as various treatment techniques are necessary in the effective elimination of various plankton(Everts et al, 2013).

The occurrence of some healthhazard phytoplankton in both sources of water sampled should be of great concern as these could implicate various disease outbreak. Lyngbya species which was recorded has been implicated in its production of a toxin called the saxotoxin. The threshold of contamination for this toxin is 100µg without any adverse implication on human health, which is similar to 50µg/L if 2L of water is drunk per day (Ian and Andrew, 2005). Lyngbya sp. could also cause skin irritation called seaweed dermatitis (New Zealand Dermatological Society, 2007).

Other organisms that are of health importance were Nitzschiawhich contains neurotoxins called dormoic acid (could cause a human illness called amnesic shellfish poisoning) (Aletsee and

54 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

Jahnke, 1992) and Coelosphaerium which could cause hepatitis or sudden death (Saunders

Comprehensive Veterinary Dictionary, 2007).

Studies have also proven that conditions that favor the growth of phytoplankton also encourage the growth of Vibrio cholera (Huq et al, 1996; Neogi et al, 2002; Seeligmannet al,2008; Vezzulli et al, 2009) which is a pathogen of the famous disease called Cholera. It is also a matter of concern to eliminate the phytoplankton community in water as some bacteria attaches itself to

Stigeoclonium and Nitzschia,which were present in significant numbers during this study,thus indicating that these phytoplankton could be carriers or harbor various bacteria that could be injurious to human health (Seeligmann et al, 2008).

Presence of Cyanophyceae indicates organic pollution in the water (Martina, 2010), especially the presence of genera Phacus and Nitzschia, (Brunn, 2012). Some zooplankton are intermediate host to various diseases e.g. as found in Cyclops (Cyclops bicuspidatus) which is an intermediate host of Guinea worm that causes Dracunculiasis (Hopkins and Ruiz-Tiben, 1995; Chippaux

1991).

Conclusion and recommendation

In conclusion, the taxonomic composition and abundance of plankton recorded from the water supplied to the male halls of Obafemi Awolowo University Ile-Ife Osun State Nigeria indicates organic pollution.The contamination could be linked to improper maintenanceofthe storage tanks, breakage, and leakages on pipes used in water distribution and it could also result from improper treatment of water from the source of distribution. Hence, the need for proper maintenance of the storage tanks in the halls of residence and the reservoirs where the treated

55 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796 water is stored prior to distribution as well as routine flushing of the water pipes to eliminate the growth of unwanted organismsis recommended.

REFERRENCES

Adams, S.M. and Greeley, M.S., (2000): Ecotoxicological Indicators of water quality. Using

multi-response indicators to assess the health of aquatic ecosystems. Water Air

Soil Pollution. 123:103-115.

Adekunle, A. and Kehinde, I.T. (2008): Impact of Industrial effluents on quality of segment of

Asa River within an industrial estate in Ilorin, Nigeria.

Agard, L., Alexander, C., Green., S., Jackson, M., Patel, S. and Adesiyun, A. (2002): Microbial

quality of water supply to an urban community in Trinidad. Journal of Food

Protection. 65(8) 1297-1303.

Aletsee, L. and Jahnke, J.(1992): Growth and productivity of the psychrophilic marine

diatoms Thalassiosira antarctica Comber and Nitzschia frigida Grunow in batch

cultures at temperatures below the freezing point of sea water. Polar biology.

Al-Futaisi, A., Rajmohan, N. and Al-Touqi, S. (2007): Groundwater quality monitoring in and

around Barka dumping site, Sultane of Oman, Proceedings of Second IASTED

WRM Conference.

56 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

Aparecida, C. Mongolin, J. R., de-Souza, D., Sisor, S.T., Garcia, A.A, Silra, A.R.,

Nakarmura,C.V.and MonraoK.S.M. (2008): Journal of Chemical Ecology (34) 9,

1230. 61

Badejo Diedre (1996): Osu Seegesi The Elegant Diety of wealth, power and ferminity Trenton,

NJ: Africa World Press Bank

Bernatchez. L., and Chris, C. W. (1998): Comparative phylogeography of Ne Arctic and Pale

arctic Fishes.

Brunn, K. (2012): Algae can function as indicators of water pollution

Carling, K. J., Ian M. A., Megan, R. P., Adam, M. Bouchard, T. B. (2004): Lake Champion

Research Institute, Plattsburgh State University, Plattsburgh, NY, A Guide to the

Zooplankton of Lake Champlain 1

Chippaux, J.P. (1991): Dracunculiasis in wooded savanna in Benin. Paris, University of Paris.

Enderlein U., Reiner, S., Enderlein, E., and Peter, W. W. (1997): Water Pollution Control A Guide

to the Use of Water Quality Management Principles

Environmental Protection Agency. (2001): Protecting and Restoring America’sWatershed: Status

Trends and Initiatives in Watershed Management. EPA-840-r-00-001. 5-7.

Evison, L. and Sunna, N.(2001): Micobial re-growth in household water storage tanks. Journal

of the American Water Works Association. 93 85-94.

Ewerts H, A Swanepoel and HH du Preez. 2013. Efficacy of conventional drnking water

treatment processes in removing problem-causing phytoplankton and associated

organic compounds.

57 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

Falconer, I. R., and Humpage. A. R.(2005): Health Risk Assessment of Cyanobacterial (blue-

green algae) Toxins in Drinking-water.

Gleick, P.H. (2010): Peak Water. Proceedings National Academy of science (National Academy

of Science) 107(125): 11155-11162.

Grabow W., Nicholas J. and Snozzi M. (1985: Behaviour in a river and of coliform bacteria with

transferable or nontransferable drug resistance. Water Res. 9(9) 777.

Hafsa,S.L, and Susmita, G. (2011): Water quality of Jalingachhara and baluchuri; sreams of

district cachar, Assam, North-East India, Assam University. Journal of Science

and technology: Biological and Environmental Sciences, Vol.7

Haney, J.F (2003): An image-based key to the Zooplankton of North America©2003-2013

Ho, K.C., Chow, Y.L, and Yav, J.T.S (2003): Chemical and microbiological qualities of the east

river water with particular reference to drinking water supply in Hong kong.

Chenosphere, 52, 1441,-1450. 10.1016/50045-6535(03)00481-8

Hopkins, D.R and Ruiz-Tiben, E.(1990): Dracunculiasis eradication:target 1995, American

journal of tropical medicine and hygiene, 43: 296-300.

Huq, A, and Xu, B (1996): A simple filtration method to remove plankton-associated Vibrio

cholera in raw water supplies in developing countries. Applied. Environmental.

Microbiology,62: 2508-2512.

Hutchison, L. and Iyengar, V.(2003): Influence of land use on stream health using invertebrates

as bioindicators: A focus on Bass Lake Basin, Geauga Co., Ohio. Ohio Journal of

Science 103: A28

58 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

Jagals, P., Jagals, C. and Bokako, T.C. (2003): The effect of container-biofilm on the microbial

quality of water used from plastic household containers. Journal. Water Health.

1(3): 101-108.

Jones, O.A, Lester, J.N. and Voulvoulis, N. (2005): Phamarceuticals: A threat to drinking water?

Trends in Biotechnology23(4): 163,2005

Kar, J.R. and Chu, E.W. (1999): Restoring life in running waters: Better biological monitoring.

Washington DC: Island Press

Kimberly, A. Werner, L., and Marquart, S.and Norton, A. (2011): Lyngbya dermatitis (toxic

seaweed dermatitis). International Journal of dermatology. 51(1):59-62.

Kistemann, T. T., Claben, C., Koch, F., Dangendorf, R., Fischeder, J., Gebel, V. V. and Exner, M

(2002): Microbial load of drinking water reservoir tributaries during extreme

rainfall and runoff. Applied. Environment. Microbiology. 68(5); 2188-2197

Kovacs (1992): Perspectives on the use of algae as biological indicators for maintaining and

protecting aquatic environments with special reference to Malaysian, freshwater

ecosystems.

Kovacs, M. (1992): Biological indicators of environmental pollution: In: Kovacs M, editor.

Biological indicators in environmental protection. New York: Ellis Horwood.

LaMay, M., Hayes-Pontius, E., Ian M. A., and Timothy, B. M. (2013): (Faculty), Lake

Champlain Research Institute, SUNY Plattsburgh, Plattsburgh, NY 12901, Vol. 6.

LeChevallier, M. W., Evans, T.M, and Seidler, R. J. (1981): Effect of turbidity on chlorination

efficiency and bacterial persistence in drinking water. Applied and Environmental

Microbiology, 42(7) 159. 59 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

Martina K., Maria M., Evangelia M., Konstatinos A., K. (2010): Phytoplankton and water quality

in a Mediterranean drinking-water reservoir (Marathonas Reservoir, Greece).

Mathias, A.C., Sonnie, J.O., and Aaron, A. S (2013): Domestic Water Quality Assessment:

Microalgal and Cyanobacterial Contamination of Stored Water in Plastic Tanks in

Zaria, Nigeria. European Journal of Scientific Research.4: 501-510.

Maznah, W. W., Mansor M, and Ho, S.C. (2002): Periphyton biomass related to water pollution

in Pinang River Basin, Malaysia. International Journal on Algae.2(4):57-70

Maznah, W.W. (2010): Perspectives on the use of Algae as Biological Indicators for Monitoring

and Protecting Aquatic Environments, with Special Reference to Malaysian

Freshwater Ecosystems. Tropical Life Sciences Research. 21(2), 63-79.

Mensah, M. K. (2011): Assessment of drinking water quality in Ehi Community in the Ketu-

North District of the Volta region of Ghana. M.Sc. Thesis. Department of

Theoritical and Applied Biology, Kwame Nkruma University of Science and

Technology, Kumasi, Ghana.

Micheal S., Jeffery B., Crocker, B. C. (2005): Population decline of Nothern Salamander at

Acadia Natural Park, Marine USA.

Momba, N.B., and Kaleni, P (2002): Regrowth and survival of indicator microorganisms on the

surfaces of household containers used for the storage of drinking water in rural

communities of South Africa. Water Resource.36: 3023-3028.

Needham, J. G. and Needham, P. R. (2003): Guide to Freshwater Biology with special reference

to Aquatic Insects and Other Invertebrate Animal and Phytoplankton

60 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

Neogi, S.B., Islam, M.S., Nair, G.B., Yamasaki, S, and Lara, R.J. (2012): Occurrence and

distributionof plankton-associated and free-living toxigenic Vibrio cholera in a

tropical estuary of a cholera endemic zone. Wetland. Ecology. Management.20(3):

271-285

Novotny, V. (2013): Water-energy nexus: retrofitting urban areas to achieve zero pollution,

Building Research and information. 41:5, 589-604, DOI:10.

1080/09613218.2013.804764

Obi, C.N. and Okocha, C.O. (2007): Microbial and Physico-Chemical of selected Bore-hole

Waters in World bank Housing Estate, Umuahia, Abia Stae, Nigeria. Journal.

Engineering. Applied Science. 2(5):920-929.

Okonko, I.O., Donbraye, E., Babatunde, S.O.I. (2009): Microbiological quality of standard

processes and water used in two different sea processing plants in Nigeria.

EJEAFche 8(8): 621-629.

Oluwadolapo, I.D. (2012): Physicochemical Water Quality of a Stream in ObafemiAwolowo

University, Ile-Ife,Osun State, Nigeria. Unpublished B.Sc. Thesis. Zoology

Department, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife.

Passerini G. and Brebbia C.A (2014): Environmental Impact II, Wessex Institute of Technology

Transactions on Ecology and Environment. 181 768.

Pederson, A. (1997): Coastal Monitoring Programme, Long term monitoring of the

environmental quality in the costal regions of Norway. Data report 1996.

Norwegian state pollution monitoring programme. Report no. 689/97 T.A

143011997. NIVA report no. L-3642-97.67, pp. (Norwegian).

61 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

Prescott, G.W. (1954): How to Know the Freshwater Algae

Rana, B.C. and Palria, S (1988): Assessment, evaluation and Abatement studies of a polluted

River. The Baudi (Rajasthan) Ecology and Pollution of Indian Rivers, Ed. Trivedi

R.K., Ash Publication House, New Delhi, 1:344-359

Reid G.C. (1961): Ecology in inland water and Estuaries. New York. 375pp.

Resh, V.H., Norris, R.H. and Barbour, M.T (1995): Design and implementation of a rapid

assessment approaches for water resource monitoring using benthic

macroinvertebrates. Australia. Journal. Ecology. 20, 108-121

Riley M. K. (2008): The effect of water quality: biological assessment of three Bay Area

watersheds using Benthic as macro-invertebrates as biological indication.

Roberts, L., Chartier, Y., Chartier, O., Malenga, G., Toole, M., and Rodka, H. (2001): Keeping

clean water clean in Malawi refugee camp: a randomized intervention trial.

Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 79(4) pp 280-287.

Rusin, P, Erinquez, C.E, Johnson, D; and Gerba, C.P (2000): Environmentally transmitted

pathogens. In: Maeier RM, Pepper I and Gerba C (eds.) Enviromental

Microbiology;.

Saunders Comprehensive Veterinary Dictionary (2007): 3rd edition, Elsevier, Inc.

Sawyer,J.A., Stewart,P..M, Muler, M.M., Simon, T.P, and Bernett, H.H (2004): Influence of

habitat, water quality and land use on macro-invertebrates and fish assemblages of

a southern Coastal plain watershed USA . Aquatic Ecosystem Health and

Management 7:85-99

62 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

Schafer, C. A. (2010): Impact of Tank Material on Water Quality in Household Water Storage

Systems in Cochabamba, Bolivia.

Schoenen, D. and Scholer, H., (1985): Drinking Water Materials: Field Observations and

Methods of Investigation. Ellis Horwood Ltd., Chichester, England.

Schoenen, D., (1990): Influence of Materials on the Microbiological Colonization of Drinking

Water. Proc. Federation of European Microbiological Societies Sym., Cranfield

Institute of Technology, Bredford, United .

Seeligmann, C.T., Mirande, V., Tracanna, B.C., Silva, C., Aulet, O., Cecilia, M, and Binsztein,

N. (2008): Phytoplankton-linked viable non-culturable Vibrio cholera OI (VNC)

from rivers in Tucuman, Argentina. Journal. Plankton Res.30: 367-377.

Shiel, R.J, (1995): Murray-Darling Freshwater Research Centre, Co-operative Research centre

for Freshwater Ecology Identification Guide No. 3. Presented at Taxonomy

Workshop held at The Murray-Darling Freshwater Research centre, Albury, A

Guide to Identification of Rotifers, Cladocerans and Copepods From Australian

Inland Waters, 8-10 February 1995.

Shittu, O.B., Olaitan, J.O, and Amusa, T.S. (2008): Physico-Chemical and Bacteriological

Analysis of water used for drinking and Swimming Purpose. African. Journal.

Biochemistry. Res 11:285-260

Shrotriya, L. and Dubey, P.S.(1996): Ecological assessment of River Kurel (Ratlam): In River

Pollution in india, Anhish Publ. House, New Delhi, India.

Simon, T.P. and Stewart P.M. (1998): Standard Operating Procedures for Assessment of streams

in Northern lakes and Forest Ecoregion with emphasis on the development of 63 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

biological indicators and status. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water

Division, Watersheds and Wetlands Section, Chicago. IL.

Tokajian S. and Hashwa F. (2003): Water quality problems associated with intermittent water

supply. Water Science and Technology. 39(1) pp 64-73.

Trevett, A.F (2003): The public health significance of drinking water quality deterioration in

rural Honduran communities. PhD thesis, Cranfield University, UK.

UNECE (1993): Protection of Water Resources and Aquatic Ecosystems. Water Series No.1.

ECE/ENVWA/31, United Nations Economic Commission Europe, United

Nations, New York

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2013): Water Monitoring and

Assessment:

BiologicalAssessment.https://archive.epa.gov/water/archive/web/html/bioassess.h

tml/ Viewed 9th September, 2016.

Vezzulli, L., Pezzati, E., Moreno, M, Fabiano, M, Pane, L, and Pruzzo, C. (2009): The Vibrio Sea

Consortium. Benthic ecology of Vibrio spp, and pathogenic Vibrio species in a

coastal Mediterranean environment (La Spezia Gulf, Italy). Microbial Ecol,58:

808-818.

Wang, N.E., David, W., Chris, I., Andy, R., Jim, D., Tom, A., Cindy, K., and Cindy, T. (2003);

Developing standardized Guidance for conducting toxicity test with glochidia of

freshwater mussels.

64 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

World Health Organization (1999): Toxic Cyanobacteria in Water: A Guide to their Public Health

Consequences, Monitoring and Management, Laboratory Analysis of

Cyanotoxins. Geneva, Switzerland.

Yamaguchi, E. and Andy, G. (2007): The university of Georgia Marine Education Centre and

Aquarium, Phytoplankton Identification Guide.

Yamaguchi, E. and Caitlin, B. (2007): The university of Georgia Marine Education Centre and

Aquarium, Zooplankton Identification Guide.

Yoshida, F., Akio, H. and Haruo, T. (1999); Itai-Itai, and the counter measures against Cadium

pollution by the Kamioka Mine.

65 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

Appendix 1 showing the abundance of plankton at Fajuyi hall Species week 1 week 2 week 3 week 4 week 5 week 6

storage Tap storage Tap Storage Tap Storage Tap storage Tap storage Tap Ceratiumfurca 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Coelosphaerium 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 85 0 Diatoma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 20 0 40 10 Epistylisdigitalis 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Euglenasp 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 5 5 0 Genicularia 17 5 40 60 45 155 150 325 150 1205 9000 8100 Gonochlorissculpta 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100 Lithodermafontanum 0 0 30 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 Nitzschiasp 5 5 25 0 0 50 25 60 0 85 155 0 Phacuspleuronectes 5 0 10 0 0 0 20 0 0 15 10 5 Sphaeroplea 0 0 0 100 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 Strogonium 5 35 35 0 15 0 35 110 70 235 30 40 Synedra 0 45 0 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 Thalassionema 0 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tribonema 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Uronema 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zygnemopsis 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lyngbya 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 Argonontholcafoliacea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 Acineria incurvata 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Camptocercus 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cyclopsbiscupidatus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 Ergasilus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 Evadne 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 Hexathramira 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Holopediumgibberum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 Hydracarina 10 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 10 5 5 Keratellacochlearis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 Keratellalenzilenzi 5 0 0 5 10 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 Keratellavalga 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trichocercabicristata 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 Trichocercachatonni 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 Trichocercaelongata 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

66 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

Trichocercasimilis 0 0 5 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vampyrella 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0

67 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

Appendix 2 showing abundance of organisms at Awolowo hall Species week 1 week 2 week 3 week 4 week 5 week 6

storage Tap storage Tap storage Tap storage Tap storage Tap storage Tap Botryococcus 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceratiumfurca 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Coelosphaerium 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 85 0 Diatoma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 20 0 40 10 Euglenasp 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 5 5 0 Genicularia 17 5 40 60 45 155 45 155 150 1205 9000 8100 Lithodermafontanum 0 30 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 Nitzschiasp 5 5 25 0 0 50 25 60 0 85 155 0 Phacuspleuronectes 5 5 10 0 0 0 20 0 0 15 10 15 Protococcus 0 0 105 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sphaeroplea 0 0 0 100 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 Strogonium 5 35 35 0 15 0 35 110 70 235 30 40 Synedra 0 45 0 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 Uronema 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zygnemopsis 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lyngbya 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 Argonontholcafoliacea 0 0 10 0 5 0 10 5 0 0 0 0 Cyclopsbiscupidatus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Ergasilus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Evadne 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 Hexathramira 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Holopediumgibberum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 Hydracarina 0 10 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 10 5 5 Keratellacochlearis 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 Keratellalenzilenzi 5 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 20 0 Trichocercabicristata 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 Trichocercachatonni 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 Trichocercaporcellus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 Trichocercasimilis 0 0 5 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vampyrella 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0

68 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

Appendix 3. showing abundance of plankton at Angola hall week 1 week 2 week 3 week 4 week 5 week 6

storage Tap storage Tap storage Tap storage Tap Storage Tap storage Tap Amphithrix 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 Ceratiumfurca 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Closteropsis 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Coelosphaerium 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 15 0 50 Compsopogon 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diatoma 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 Euglenasp 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 10 Genicularia 0 40 0 0 0 120 36 35 1005 990 130 8500 Lithodermafontanum 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nitzschiasp 90 35 0 0 10 0 0 0 150 210 0 0 Phacuspleuronectes 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 10 0 10 Protococcus 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sphaeroplea 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spirulina 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Strogonium 5 5 0 0 35 45 25 5 100 160 40 15 Synedra 125 75 0 0 250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zygnemopsis 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 Argonontholcafoliacea 0 0 5 5 0 15 0 0 0 0 5 0 Arcellavulgaris 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 155 0 0 0 0 Brachionuscalyciflorus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 10 Evadne 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 10 0 Hexathramira 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hydracarina 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Keratellalenzilenzi 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 Keratellavalga 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Microcyclopsrubellus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 Trichocercabicristata 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 Trichocercasimilis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0

69 | P a g e

Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ) ISSN 2201-2796

Appendix 4. showing the abundance of plankton at ETF hall Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week5 Week 6

S T S T S T S T S T S T AsterionellaFormosa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 Ceratiumfurca 0 0 10 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Closteriumehrenbergii 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 Coelosphaerium 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 5 Diatoma 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 15 10 Genicularia 0 175 15 90 95 0 0 95 0 0 0 0 Nitzschiasp 0 0 0 125 0 0 30 0 10 130 95 90 Phacuspleuronectes 0 10 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 10 55 5 Pleurosigma 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Docidium 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Protococcus 0 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sphaeroplea 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spirulina 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Strogonium 0 0 35 10 30 5 45 40 0 160 25 15 Synedra 0 0 40 0 0 180 310 0 575 1525 6500 0 Tabellariafenestrata 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zygnema 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lyngbya 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Argonontholcafoliacea 5 0 0 10 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Brachionusfalcatus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 Hydracarina 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 Keratellacochlearis 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 Keratellalenzilenzi 0 0 5 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 5 5 Keratellavalga 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trichocercabicristata 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 5 0 Trichocercachatonni 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 Trichocercaelongata 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trichocercasimilis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

70 | P a g e