Journals

Journals By Subject

Life Sciences, Agriculture & Food
Chemistry
Medicine & Health
Materials Science
Mathematics & Physics
Electrical & Computer Science
Earth, Energy & Environment
Architecture & Civil Engineering
Education
Economics & Management
Humanities & Social Sciences
Multidisciplinary

Special Issues

Propose a Special Issue
Special Issue Guidelines
Ongoing Special Issues
Published Special Issues

Join Us

Become the Founding Editor-in-Chief
Join as Editor-in-Chief
Join as Senior Editor
Join as Editorial Board Member
Become a Reviewer
Submit an Article
Research Article | | Peer-Reviewed

Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Some Local Plants in Purification of Water Samples from Selected Sources

Suleiman Fanika,  Taofeek Alimi*,  Mohammed Zakariyawu
Published in American Journal of Water Science and Engineering (Volume 12, Issue 4)
Received: 5 September 2026     Accepted: 20 September 2026     Published: 9 October 2026
Views:       Downloads:
Download PDF
Abstract

This study evaluates the effectiveness of local plants such as banana peel, watermelon seed, neem leaf and orange peel in treating borehole and well water around Kontagora in Nigeria. Chemical coagulants such as alums present hazard and economic shortcomings in water treatment. They reduce water pH due to their acidic nature, against the pH 6.5 – 8.5 standard recommended for potable water. It is therefore, desirable to replace these chemical coagulants with plant-based ones, which are economic and environmental friendly. This study analysed some physicochemical parameters such as temperature, conductivity, and others, and heavy metals such as Cu, Fe and Pb before and after treatment with plant-based coagulants and alum. From the results, irrespective of water sample type and coagulant, the conductivities measurement before treatment was 28.8 – 30.6 µs/cm, and increased to 34.8 – 48.0 µs/cm for alum. The range was 37.6 – 48.8 µs/cm for plant-based. Turbidity before treatment ranged 0.96 – 6.50 NTU and decreased to the range 0.1 – 0.36 NTU for alum and 0.05 – 0.09 for plant-based. Total Dissolved Solid (TDS) before treatment ranged 4.00 – 7.00 mg/L and reduced to 2.15 – 4.00 mg/L for alum, 1.00 – 4.32 mg/L for plant-based. Total Hardness (TH) before treatment showed 28.00 – 32.00 mg/L range, which reduced to 28.00 – 30.00 mg/L for alum, 19.00 – 28.50 mg/L for plant-based. Most parameters, including alkalinity, acidity, BOD, DO, chloride, sulphate, colour and TSS showed improved performance with plant-based coagulants better than alum with values within the WHO standards for drinking water. Heavy metals analysed recorded varied concentrations: Fe in raw borehole water was 0.85 mg/L and reduced to 0.10 mg/L with alum, and 0.1 – 0.27 mg/L range with plant-based coagulants. Fe concentration in well water increased with all treatments, including alum. Cu, Fe and Pb concentrations in raw well water were 0.30 mg/L, 0.05 mg/L and 0.2 mg/L respectively, where Pb concentration was higher than the WHO limit of 0.01 mg/L set for drinking water. Pb was found below detection limit in borehole water. While alum reduced the levels of Cu to 0.07 mg/L, all the plant-based treatments increased its concentration within 0.1 – 0.87 mg/L range, which were below the 1.0 mg/L, WHO limits for Cu in drinking water. From these findings, in no particular order, the plant-based coagulants of banana peel, watermelon leaf and orange peel displayed greater potency for water treatment than neem leaf. Conclusively, all plant-based coagulants used in this study showcased better alternatives than alum.

Published in American Journal of Water Science and Engineering (Volume 12, Issue 4)
DOI 10.11648/j.ajwse.20261204.11
Page(s) 105-115
Creative Commons

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.

Copyright

Copyright © The Author(s), 2026. Published by Science Publishing Group
Previous article
Keywords

Alum, Banana Peel, Neem Leave, Orange Peels, Purification, Watermelon Seed, Water

1. Introduction
Water is an essential resource that sustains life. It requires an adequate supply for all lives
[1, 2]
. It is a multi-purpose agent used by humans for drinking, washing, recreation and in industrial and manufacturing processes
[3]
. In Africa, boreholes, groundwater- wells, springs, rivers and other local reserves serve as popular sources of drinking water but access to clean, safe and properly treated piped water is low
[4]
. Urbanisation and anthropogenic practices such as industrialisation and agricultural activities discharge more than 80 percent of wastewater into the environment untreated
[2, 5]
. These waters go into different natural water bodies while some percolates into the soil and contaminate underground waters. Hence, many people around the world, say one of three persons globally has no access to clean and safe potable water. In Sub-Sahara Africa such as Nigeria, a quarter of the population is denied access to safe drinking water
[4]
.
Consumption of unclean and unsafe water is capable of causing serious challenges to human health and the ecosystems. Wide range of infectious and parasitic water-borne diseases such as diarrhoea, cholera, trachoma, schistosomiasis, elminthiasis, typhoid and dysentery can result from using contaminated water
[2, 3]
. Several conventional techniques such as coagulation/flocculation which use inorganic/synthetic chemicals have been reportedly employed in water treatment but with shortcomings varying from high costs to the health hazards they impact
[3, 6-8]
. This prompts the search for sustainable, affordable and eco-friendly alternatives.
Reports have shown that parts of plants are of great importance and good replacements for the synthetic coagulants
[3, 4, 8, 9]
. Plants are bio-coagulants and are capable of phytoextraction, rhizofiltration, phytostabilization and phytotransformation/phytodegradation processes
[9]
. They are biodegradable coagulants that produce less amount (20–30 %) of sludge than the alum treated counterparts
[8]
. Many plants find their use in water treatments due to their coagulant, disinfectant/antimicrobial and purification properties which are accountable to the presence of different phytochemicals such as phenols, quinones, flavonols, tannins, coumarins and alkaloids in their tissues
[3, 10]
. It is against this backdrop that in this work, the researchers delve into evaluating the effectiveness of plant parts seeds, peels and leaves of watermelon, banana, orange and neem respectively in the purification of samples of selected well and borehole water around Kontagora town in Niger State.
Water from well and borehole is not 100 percent clean and safe for drinking or for special purposes requiring high level of purity such as pharmaceuticals and clinics
[11]
. Water from contaminated sources can result in serious health problems for humans and animals especially in areas where access to clean water is limited. In addition, a long term sustainability of clean, pure and safe water supply has been a serious challenge globally at these times when growth in population, agricultural and economic developments have triggered urbanisation, industrialisation and applications of irrigation water, which have led to pollution and scarcity of clean fresh water
[12]
. Contaminations by microbes, heavy metals and sediments are major causes of impurity in water and one of the greatest problems faced with humans is lack of cheap and adequate water treatment methods.
Treatment of water by conventional techniques using synthetic chemicals is expensive in terms of infrastructure and energy consumption and is chemically hazardous to lives
[13]
. These disadvantages make them a problem which needs alternative replacement. Hence, the need to use locally and ubiquitously available plant based resources which are cheap, biodegradable and eco-friendly for water treatment.
This study investigates the effectiveness of some local plant parts: banana peel, watermelon seed, neem leaf and orange peel in purification of water samples from borehole and well water around Kontagora town in Niger State to evaluate their efficacies in removing contaminants from the water samples, assess the impact of plant treatment technique on the physicochemical properties of water samples and compare the results/performance of plant based treatment with conventional alum water treatment.
2. Materials and Methods
All chemicals and reagents were of analytical grades (Analar) and distilled water was used throughout the research. All glassware and plastic containers were washed with detergent and 10 % trioxonitrate (V) acid, rinsed with tap water and finally with distilled water, then allowed to dry for 24 hours.
2.1. Collection of Samples
2.1.1. Collection of Plants’ Parts
Neem leaves were collected freshly raw at their natural habitats around Federal University of Education, Kontagora Botanical Garden and watermelon seeds, orange and banana peels were collected from their fruits purchased in substantial quantities from vendors at Old Market in Kontagora town, Niger State, Nigeria. All the samples were taken to the laboratory for further pre-treatments.
2.1.2. Collection of Water Samples
Water samples were collected from different locations around Kontagora town separately in a cleaned and sterilized two litre plastic bottle. The water samples were then transported to the laboratory for further treatments. The samples are coded as:
WTA = Well water treated with alum
RBW = Raw borehole water
RWW = Raw well water
BHTBP = Borehole water treated with Banana Peel
WTBP = Well water treated with Banana Peel
BHTA = Borhole water treated with alum
BHTWMS = Borhole Water treated with watermelon seed
WTWMS = Well water treated with watermelon seed
BHTNL = Borehole water treated with Neem leaf
WTNL = Well water treated with Neem leaf
BHTOP = Borehole water treated with Orange peel
WTOP = Well water treated with Orange peel
2.2. Samples Preparation
With slight modification, the methods employed by Danta et al
[14]
was adopted. The collected fruity plants and neem leaves were cleaned and rinsed with clean water, followed by distilled water, to remove any traces of sand and other dirt that accompanied them. They were sun-dried for 1 h and the fruity plants were peeled to obtain the peels and seeds. The neem leaves, peels and seeds were further dried for 48 h to a constant weight. The dried samples were separately pulverised, carefully transferred into labelled airtight containers and stored in a refrigerator at 4°C prior to experimental analysis. Collected water samples were also stored in the refrigerator, prior to experimental procedure.
2.3. Experimental Procedure
2.3.1. Determination of Physicochemical Parameters
Exactly, 0.5 g of each of the plant samples was added to 250 cm3 of the water samples contained in 1000 cm3 beakers. The mixture was stirred continuously for 25 minutes and was left undisturbed for 2 h for sedimentation to take place and then filtered. Each filtrate was analysed for its physicochemical properties: temperature, pH, conductivity, turbidity, total hardness, total dissolved solids, alkalinity, chlorides, sulphates, Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD), Dissolved Oxygen (DO) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) using different modified analytical methods.
1) Temperature
Temperature was measured using a mercury thermometer. The thermometer was dipped into the samples for 1 minute. Readings for each sample was taken and recorded.
2) pH and Conductivity
With slight modification of Owamah et al.
[15]
for pH measurement, cell electrode of pH meter was calibrated with buffers 4, 7 and 9. The electrode was cleaned and rinsed with distilled water before immersing it in the sample. pH for each sample was read and recorded. Same procedure was repeated for the electrical conductivities of each sample, using conductivity meter
[16]
.
3) Turbidity
With slight modification, Hadadi et al.
[17]
method was adopted. Sample cells were filled with the samples and capped, placed into the cell holder of the turbidimeter and covered tightly with the instruments cap. Turbidity levels were read and recorded.
4) Total Hardness (TH)
With slight modification, TH was determined using the methods of Michael-Igolima et al.
[16]
. Exactly 100 cm3 of each sample was measured and transferred into conical flask. 3 drops of Erichrome black T indicator was added to give purple colour and titrated against 0.10 mol/dm3 EDTA contained in the burette until colour changed to blue.
5) Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) (Gravimetric Method)
With slight modification, Khettaf et al.
[18]
method was adopted. Evaporating dishes were oven-dried to constant weight and recorded. Exactly, 100 cm3 of each treated samples was measured and transferred into the evaporating dishes. The dishes with the contents were dried further in an oven and then allowed to cool. After cooling, the weights were taken and recorded.
6) Alkalinity
A modified method of Shailesh
[19]
was used. A known volume, 50 cm3 of each treated water sample was measured and transferred into conical flask. 2 drops of methyl orange was added and titrated against 0.02 mol /dm3 HCl contained in the burette until orange end point was observed.
7) Chloride
By modifying the method used by Dragana et al.
[20]
, exactly, 100.00 cm3 of each sample was measured and transferred into 250 cm3 conical flask and 2 cm3 of K2CrO4 indicator was added and titrated against 0.02 mol/dm3 AgNO3 contained in the burette until a colour change was observed.
8) Sulphate (Gravimetric Method)
Using the method of Ismail et al.
[21]
with modification, exactly 50.00 cm3 of each sample was measured and transferred into 250 cm3 beaker and 1: 1 HCl was added into the sample and stirred. 3.00 cm3 of BaCl2 solution was added and mixed thoroughly. The mixture was left undisturbed for 10 minutes for precipitation formation. The precipitate was filtered off, washed with distilled water, oven dried and weighed. Value was taken and recorded.
9) Biological Oxygen Demand
Combined methods of Adelodun et al.
[22]
and Aziz et al.
[23]
were modified for BOD determination. Exactly, 200 cm3 of each sample was measured and transferred into five (5) different conical flasks. Exact volumes, 1.00 cm3 of MnSO4 and 1.00 cm3 of alkali-ioded-azide solution were transferred into BOD bottles and the caps closed. These were incubated for 120 h prior to decantation. 2.00 cm3 of ortho-phosphuric acid was added and titrated against 0.025 mol/dm3 sodium thiosulphate until the color turned colorless.
10) Dissolved Oxygen
Methods described by Aziz et al.
[23]
was adopted with slight modifications, to determine the DO. Exact volume, 200 cm3 of treated water sample was transferred into conical flask and 1.00 cm3 of MnSO4 and 1.00 cm3 of alkali-ioded-azide solution were added and shaken. The mixture was kept undisturbed for 5 minutes within which there was emergence of brownish colour. Each solution was decanted and 2.00 cm3 of orthophosphuric acid was added and titrated against 0.025 mol/dm3 sodium thiosulphate until the color turned colorless.
11) Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Using the method employed by Patdu et al.
[24]
, exactly 20 cm3 of treated water sample was transferred onto on a pre-weighed glass fiber filter before starting the vacuum filtration process. The filter was removed after filtration process was completed and placed in an aluminum dish in an oven at 100°C for 3 hours to completely dry off the remaining water. The filter was then weighed and the gain in filter weight was recorded as the TSS contents expressed in mass per volume of sample filtered (mg/L).
2.3.2. Determination of Heavy Metals
Heavy metals were analysed using Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer (AAS) – AAnalyst 2. The treated and untreated water samples were digested with 16 cm3 concentrated HNO3. Exactly 50 cm3 of each sample was measured and transferred into a 25 cm3 conical flask. Each sample mixture was then subjected to heating on a hot water bath for 30 minutes. The various samples were removed and allowed to cool and then further digested with distil water and made up to level mark in 100 cm3 sample bottle, and then subjected to AAS Analysis where different hallow cathode lamps were used for metal determinations. The standard solution for each element under investigations were equally prepared and used in calibration
[25, 26]
.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Physicochemical Parameters Measurement
The results of the physicochemical parameters determined are represented in Tables 1 to 5.
Table 1. Physicochemical Analysis of Raw and Alum Treated Borehole and Well Water Samples.

Parameters

RBHW

BHTA

RWW

WTA

PL

Temperature (°C)

27

25

30

27

Ambient

Conductivity (µs/cm)

28.8

48

30.6

34.8

100

Turbidity (NTU)

0.96

0.10

6.50

0.36

5.0

TDS (mg/L)

4.00

2.15

7.00

4.00

500

pH

6.9

3.54

6.6

3.44

6.5 - 8.5

Acidity

40.00

20.00

62.00

26.00

Alkalinity

30.00

26.18

38.00

29.45

600

Total Hardness (mg/L)

28.0

28.0

32.0

30

150

BOD (mg/L)

4.6

3.24

4.23

4.00

5.0

DO (mg/L)

4.1

4.0

6.5

4.6

5.0

TSS (mg/L)

30.00

4.00

45.00

5.00

25.00

Chloride (mg/L)

72.4

89.9

107.92

147.68

250

Sulphate (mg/L)

27.98

29.63

32.92

37.04

100

Appearance

Clear

Clear

Clear

Clear

Clear

Odour

Odourless

Odourless

Odourless

Odourless

Odourless

Taste

Tasteless

Tasteless

Tasteless

Tasteless

Tasteless

Colour (PLCO)

22

16

35

18

50
PL = Permissible Limits, Source:
[27]
.
Table 2. Physicochemical Analysis of Borehole and Well Water Samples Treated with Banana Peels.

Parameters

BHTBP

WTBP

Temperature (°C)

28.0

30.0

Conductivity (µs/cm)

38.20

48.41

Turbidity (NTU)

0.05

0.07

TDS (mg/L)

2.4

3.0

pH

7.9

6.8

Acidity

29.12

30.00

Alkalinity

22.00

35.00

Total Hardness (mg/L)

22.50

27.14

BOD (mg/L)

4.2

3.0

DO (mg/L)

3.1

5.0

TSS (mg/L)

4.0

4.7

Chloride (mg/L)

78.11

113.60

Sulphate (mg/L)

21.48

24.27

Appearance

Clear

Clear

Odour

Odourless

Odourless

Taste

Tasteless

Tasteless

Colour (PLCO)

25

39
Table 3. Physicochemical Analysis of Borehole and Well Water Sample Treated with Watermelon Seed.

Parameters

BHTWMS

WTWMS

Temperature (°C)

26

28

Conductivity (µs/cm)

37.6

39.00

Turbidity (NTU)

0.09

0.08

TDS (mg/L)

1.00

1.20

pH

7.6

7.1

Acidity

45.00

50.00

Alkalinity

20.00

29.00

Total Hardness (mg/L)

19.00

27.00

BOD (mg/L)

3.4

4.6

DO (mg/L)

3.2

5.1

TSS (mg/L)

3.0

4.0

Chloride (mg/L)

74.32

114.7

Sulphate (mg/L)

16.50

23.78

Appearance

Clear

Clear

Odour

Odorless

Odorless

Taste

Tasteless

Tasteless

Colour (PLCO)

27

36
Table 4. Physicochemical Analysis of Borehole and Well Water Samples Treated with Neem Leaf.

Parameters

BHTNL

WTNL

Temperature (°C)

28.4

30.0

Conductivity (µs/cm)

48.2

48.8

Turbidity (NTU)

0.47

1.08

TDS (mg/L)

1.04

4.32

pH

7.5

7.1

Acidity

28.30

42.34

Alkalinity

20.00

25.80

Total Hardness (mg/L)

20.00

30.25

BOD (mg/L)

3.4

5.0

DO (mg/L)

3.1

4.5

TSS (mg/L)

3.0

4.0

Chloride (mg/L)

79.63

115.62

Sulphate (mg/L)

18.50

27.60

Appearance

Clear

Clear

Odour

Odourless

Odourless

Taste

Tasteless

Tasteless

Colour (PLCO)

29

39
Table 5. Physicochemical Analysis of Borehole and Well Water Samples Treated with Orange Peel.

Parameters

BHTOP

WTOP

Temperature (°C)

29.4

30.7

Conductivity (µs/cm)

41.3

38.8

Turbidity (NTU)

0.08

0.09

TDS (mg/L)

2.00

4.00

pH

7.4

6.8

Acidity

24.00

27.10

Alkalinity

20.00

25.00

Total Hardness (mg/L)

23.80

28.50

BOD (mg/L)

2.05

4.10

DO (mg/L)

4.40

5.02

TSS (mg/L)

3.00

5.01

Chloride (mg/L)

73.50

109.82

Sulphate (mg/L)

16.46

24.69

Appearance

Clear

Clear

Odour

Odourless

Odourles

Taste

Tasteless

Tasteless

Colour (PLCO)

26

39
3.1.1, Temperature Levels
From Table 1, temperature of water samples ranged from 25°C for BHTA to 30°C for RWW. Alum-treated borehole and well water samples showed lower temperatures 25°C and 27°C respectively than their corresponding raw samples with temperatures 27°C and 30°C respectively. RWW with higher temperature of 30°C than 27°C RBHW could be due to difference in depth of the sources of sampled water. Table 2 showed BHTBP with a degree unit temperature, 28°C higher than RBHW 27°C. WTBP maintains the same temperature with RWW, which implied no significant effect of addition of the plant coagulant on water. Table 3, showed 1°C and 2°C reduction in the temperatures of BHTWMS and WTWMS respectively than their corresponding RBHW and RWW samples. Tables 4 and 5 revealed slightly higher temperature difference in the neem leaf and orange peel-treated water samples than their corresponding raw water samples. Generally, this study revealed that alum-treated water samples had lower temperatures than the plant coagulants treatments. This observation could be attributed to endothermic reaction associated with alum hydrolysis, which takes place during water purification processes.
3.1.2. Conductivity Values
Table 1 shows conductivities 48.0 µs/cm and 34.8 µs/cm for BHTA and WTA respectively higher than their respective 28.8 µs/cm and 30.6 µs/cm for RBHW and RWW. Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5 revealed conductivities of plants-treated borehole water samples with a range 37.6 to 48.2 µs/cm irrespective of plant type, lower than the BHTA 48.0 µs/cm. This could be due to the biosorbent nature of the plants, that possess certain functional groups such as –COOH, -OH and –NH2, which are responsible for ion exchange of metal ions in water for H+ ions, thereby removing the cations by sticking to the surface and pull out of water. However, BHTNL showed conductivity 48.2 µs/cm slightly higher than BHTA. On the contrary, all plant-treated well water samples showed higher conductivities ranging 38.8 – 48.8 µs/cm, irrespective of plants than the alum-treated well water, 34.8 µs/cm. This could be due to the ability of alum to hydrolyse to form Al(OH)3, which has a positive surface charge and adsorbs negative ions like phosphates and sulphates to form fluffy flocs with huge surface area. This drops the total ions load and decreases the conductivity. However, conductivity results obtained in this study are lower than the 100.0 µs/cm value recommended by the World Health Organisation (WHO) for potable water.
3.1.3. Turbidity Levels
The turbidity results of this study showed reduction for both alum-treated borehole and well water samples from 0.96 NTU in RBHW and 6.50 NTU in RWW to 0.10 NTU and 0.36 NTU respectively (Table 1). All plants treated borehole and well water samples showed further reduction in turbidity ranging from 0.05 to 0.09 NTU for the former and 0.07 to 0.09 NTU for the later (Tables 2, 3 and 5). In Table 4, BHTNL and WTNL however, showed contrary results of 0.47 NTU and 1.08 NTU respectively, which were higher than the corresponding BHTA (0.10 NTU) and WTA (0.36 NTU). This implied that banana peel, watermelon seed and orange peel are more efficient in removing tiny suspended particles from the water samples than neem leaf. In other words, the order of efficiency purifiers of the water samples with respect to treatment is banana peel > orange peel > watermelon seed > alum > neem leaf for borehole water, and banana peel > watermelon seed > orange peel > alum > neem leaf. The turbidity results obtained in this study are however; lower than the WHO recommended value of 5.0 NTU, except for the raw well water (6.50 NTU).
3.1.4. Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) Levels
In Table 1, the TDS in RBHW, 4.00 mg/L is lower than in RWW, 7.00 mg/L, and alum reduced the TDS in both to 2.15 mg/L and 4.00 mg/L respectively. Except banana peel, with slightly higher TDS value of 2.4 mg/L than obtained for alum, 2.15 mg/L (Table 2), all other plant types reduced TDS further in borehole water samples within the range 1.00 to 2.00 mg/L with effectiveness of the order watermelon seed > neem leaf > orange peel > banana peel (Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5). This implied that the plants are effective for removing solid particles from the water. Well water samples also reflected similar results, but with neem leaf (4.32 mg/L) showing slightly less effectiveness than alum (4.00 mg/L) with respect to TDS reduction. The order of effectiveness of plant types for TDS reduction in well water was watermelon seed (1.20 mg/L) > banana peel (3.00 mg/L) > orange peel (4.00 mg/L) > neem leaf (4.32 mg/L). TDS values obtained in this study are however significantly much less than 500 mg/L recommended by the WHO for potable water.
3.1.5. pH Values
The pH values obtained in this study were within the neutral range 6.6 to7.9 (slightly acidic /alkaline) for all water samples, treated with plants and the untreated raw water as shown in Tables 1 to 5. However, alum-treated borehole and well water samples tended towards increased acidity in the range 3.44 to 3.54 from the later to the former. The reason for this may be that, for every Al3+ in alum, three H+ ions are released. Thus, this suggests that plants are more appropriate in water treatment than alum, having recorded pH values around the recommended range 6.5 to 8.5 set by the WHO for drinking water.
3.1.6. Total Hardness (TH) Values
Total hardness (TH) of the raw water samples ranged from 28.0 mg/L in borehole water to 32.0 mg/L in well water (Table 1). These values however, decreased with treatments, which showed better results for plants (19.0 to 23.8 mg/L) than alum (28.0 mg/L) for borehole water samples (Tables 2 to 5). Same results were obtained for plants-treated well water samples having TH reduced in the range 27 to 28.5 mg/L, but not significantly better than 30 mg/L alum (Tables 2 to 5). These observations yet suggest better performance of plants as water purifiers than alum in terms TH reduction, asides their toxicological friendliness. TH concentrations obtained in this study are lower than the 150.0 mg/L recommended by WHO.
3.1.7. Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) Levels
BOD is a measure of the amount of dissolved oxygen needed by aerobic water microbes to stay alive to degrade biodegradable organics at certain temperature over a specific period of time
[28]
. In Table 1, the BOD measurement of raw borehole and well water samples were 4.6 and 4.23 respectively. These values were brought down in alum treatment to 3.24 and 4.00 respectively. This implied that alum reduced the organic pollutant in the water samples. Nonetheless, in Tables 2 to 5, borehole water showed higher BOD values ranging 3.40 – 4.20 irrespective of type of plants treatments than alum. Orange peel recorded lowest BOD of 2.05 for borehole water. This implies that orange peel cleans the water better than other plant types and alum. On the other hand, banana peel recorded the lowest BOD value 3.0 for well water (Table 2) and highest of 5.0 against neem leaf (Table 4). Generally, with the exception of orange peel in borehole water and banana peel in well water, alum showed better performance for BOD reduction than other plant types for both samples of water. As revealed in Table 4, neem leaf may not be suitable for purification of well water in terms BOD because the plant recorded the same BOD value as that of WHO recommended value of 5.00 for potable water.
3.1.8. Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Levels
DO values indicate the degree of pollution in the water bodies. Dissolved Oxygen in this study as in Table 1 is 4.1 mg/L in RBHW and 6.5 mg/L in RWW. These values were slightly reduced by alum to 4.0 mg/L in BHTA and significantly to 4.6 mg/L in WTA. Drop in DO as observed for plants-treated borehole water samples indicates poor water treatment by banana peel, watermelon seed and neem leaf (3.1to 3.2 mg/L). Good treatment of water was however offered by orange peel (4.4 mg/L). DO values of 5.0 to 5.02 mg/L for plant-treated well water showed better water treatment but slightly higher than the WHO recommended limits of 5.0 mg/L. Generally, banana peel, watermelon seed and orange peel generally showed prospect for well water treatment better than alum and other plants.
3.1.9. Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Levels
The TSS values in this study were 30 mg/L in raw borehole water and 45 mg/L in raw well water (Table 1). After successive treatments with plants and alum, there was huge decrease in TSS values 3.00 to 5.01 mg/L irrespective plant type, treated water samples and treatment method (Tables 2 to 4). These values were fairly lower than the 4.0 mg/L shown for alum-treated borehole water and 5.0 mg/L for alum-treated well water samples. This implied that the plants have better performance than alum, in terms of suspended solids removal for potable water. The values of all treated samples were much lower than the TSS value of 25 mg/L recommended by WHO for drinking water.
3.1.10. Chloride and Sulphate Levels
Chloride levels ranged from 72.40 mg/L in raw borehole water to 147 mg/L in alum-treated well water (Table 1). Chloride ions in alum-treated borehole water was higher (89.90 mg/L) than the raw value 72.40 mg/L, and it was lower in plants-treated borehole water in the range 73.5 to 89.90 mg/L, irrespective of plant type (Tables 1 to 5). In the same vein, Cl- ions in alum-treated well water was higher (147.68 mg/L) than the raw value 107.92 mg/L, and it was lower in plants-treated borehole water in the range 109.82 to 115.62 mg/L, irrespective of plant type than alum-treated water (Tables 1 to 5). This observation could be traced to the release of Cl- ions from alum itself: – since some commercial alum grades have Cl- ions in them. All chloride values obtained in this study were below the recommended specification of 250 mg/L set by the WHO.
Sulphates levels in Table 1 in RBHW and RWW were 27.98 mg/L and 32.92 mg/L respectively. These concentrations increased with the alum-treated samples to 29.63 mg/L and 37.04 mg/L respectively. This could be due to release of SO42- ions from alum into the samples. However, sulphates concentrations decreased with all the plants-treated borehole (16.46 to 21.48 mg/L) and well (23.78 to 27.60 mg/L) waters studied (Tables 2 to 5). This could be attributed to the biosorbent nature of the plant materials, adsorbing sulphate ions onto their surfaces thereby, removing the ions from water. All these concentration levels are however; lower than the acceptable limit of 100 mg/ L sulphate recommended by the WHO.
In Tables 1-5, all the water samples reflected no objectionable appearances: They were all odourless and tasteless. They all displayed colour (PLCO) in the range 36 – 39, which is within the WHO recommended allowable limits of 50 set for potable/drinking and clean water.
3.2. Heavy Metals Determination
Heavy metals analysis of the water samples was carried out. Result of analysis is presented in Table 6.
Table 6. Heavy Metal Analysis of Water Samples.

Heavy Metal (mg/L)

RBHW

BHTA

RWW

WTA

BHTBP

WTBP

BHTWM

WTWMS

BHTNL

WTNL

BHTOP

WTOP

PL

Cu

ND

ND

0.30

0.07

ND

0.10

ND

0.15

ND

0.10

0.60

0.87

1.00

Fe

0.85

0.10

0.05

0.30

0.10

0.20

0.20

0.18

0.10

0.30

0.27

0.29

0.30

Pb

ND

ND

0.20

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

0.0042

0.01
PL = Permissible Limit, Source:
[27]
. ND = Not Detected
Copper (Cu) and lead (Pb) were not detected in the borehole water but iron (Fe) was detected at 0.85 mg/L level. Fe level was lower in water treatment with alum with a value of 0.10 mg/L. It was observed that all plants-treated borehole water retained/increased Fe levels within the range 0.1 to 0.27 mg/L from banana peel/neem leaf to orange peel treatments. This observation could be as a result of leaching of Fe originally contained in the plants into the water. Therefore, the needs for lower dosage application of these plant materials for treatment is required, as higher dosage could increase the Fe levels above the WHO permissible level of 0.30 mg/L recommended for Fe in potable water.
Cu, Fe and Pb were discovered in raw well water at concentrations 0.30 mg/L, 0.05 mg/L and 0.2 mg/L respectively. Here, Pb recorded a concentration higher than the WHO set limit of 0.01 mg/L recommended for drinking water. While alum reduced the levels of Cu to 0.07 mg/L, all the plants treatments increased its concentration within the range 0.1 to 0.87 mg/L, which were lower than the WHO permissible limits of 1.0 mg/L recommended for Cu in drinking water.
Fe concentration in well water increased with all treatments, including alum. Although, the reason Fe increased with alum is not clear, it may however, be due to pH drop triggered by the alum.
Reports have it that Pb in drinking water is unsafe, especially for children. However, all treatments were observed to significantly reduce its levels, even with some, below detection. Nevertheless, Pb concentration in raw well water was 0.2 mg/L, a concentration which is higher than the WHO recommended limits of 0.01 mg/L.
4. Conclusion
The quality of the water consumed is essential to human wellbeing and development. Unfortunately, raw underground or surface water does not always meet the required criteria in terms of chemical and microbiological quality. Therefore, water must be treated before it is consumed. Coagulation-flocculation is one of the most widely used processes for the treatment of raw water, as it is efficient and simple to implement. Its implementation requires coagulants. Chemical coagulants present a danger for humans and the environment; hence the need to find an alternative. Plant-based coagulants: seeds, peels and leaves promise to be human, economy and environment friendly.
In this study, for different physicochemical parameters and heavy metals analysed, banana peels, watermelon seeds, neem leaf and orange peels have shown great potential for water treatment for human consumption. Some of the plants understudied are better for different properties associated with safe drinking water than the conventional alum, which have been proven to be harmful to humans and animals at certain concentrations. However, use of plant parts may not be too palatable for metals removal from waters, since they naturally contain some of the metals, which get leached into water. This may increase their concentrations and surpass the recommended permissible limits set for drinking water, if care is not taken.
Finally, it is recommended that plants parts such as the ones used in this study, be harnessed, for their characteristics bio-friendliness, ubiquitousness and cheapness, at scalable levels in water plants for municipal water treatment and purification, especially in Kontagora town where wells and boreholes serve as their main sources of water.
Abbreviations

RBHW

Raw Borehole Water

WTA

Well Water Treated with Alum

BHTBP

Borehole Water Treated with Banana Peel

BHTWMS

Borhole Water Treated with Watermelon Seed

WTNL

Well Water Treated with Neem Leaf

BOD

Biological Oxygen Demand

DO

Dissolved Oxygen

TH

Total Hardness

AAS

Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer

NTU

Nephelometric Turbidity Unit

RWW

Raw Well Water

BHTA

Borhole Water Treated with Alum

WTBP

Well Water Treated with Banana Peel

WTWMS

Well Water Treated with Watermelon Seed

BHTNL

Borehole Water treated With Neem Leaf

BHTOP

Borehole Water treated With Orange Peel

WTOP

Well Water Treated with Orange Peel

COD

Chemical Oxygen Demand

TSS

Total Suspended Solids

TDS

Total Dissolved Solids

PL

Permissible Limits

WHO

World Health Organisation
Acknowledgement
Thanks to the Federal Government of Nigeria, for her financial support under the Institutional Based Research (IBR) Grant awarded to the Federal University of Education, Kontagora, Niger State, Nigeria.
Author Contributions
Suleiman Fanika: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing
Taofeek Alimi: Data curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing
Mohammed Zakariyawu: Resources, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
[1] Ling, T. (2021). A Global Study About Water Crisis. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 631, 809-814.
[2] Lin, L., Yang, H. & Xu, X. (2022). Effects of Water Pollution on Human Health and Disease Heterogeneity: A Review. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10: 880246, 1-16.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.880246

[3] Ilori, O. J. (2023). Potential use of Plant Extract for Water Purification: A Review. InternationalJournal of Research and Review, 10(4), 74-79.
[4] Ibrahim, N., Edri, L., Bellizzi, A., Kozlovsky, C., Wiley, M., Jacobitz, F. G., Fuller, M. J., Macdonald, K., Bolender, J. P., Ndaruhutse, G. R., Lester, Y. (2022). Plant-based point of-use water filtration: A simple solution for potable water in developing countries. 8: 100802, 1-9.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2022.100802

[5] Tzanakakis, V. A., Paranychianakis, N. V. & Angelakis, A. N. (2020). Water Supply and Water Scarcity. Water, 12: 2347, 1-16.

https://doi.org/10.3390/w12092347

[6] Angelakis, A. N. & Durham, B. (2008). Water recycling and reuse in EUREAU countries: Trends and challenges. Desalination, 218(3), 250-262.
[7] Nayebare, S. R., Wilson, L. R., Carpenter, D. O., Dziewulski, D. M. & Kannan, K. (2014). A review of potable water accessibility and sustainability issues in developing countries– case study of Uganda. Review Environmental Health, 29(4): 363–378.

https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2013-0019

[8] Edogbanya, P. R. O. & Obaje J. O. (2020). A Review on the Use of Plant Seeds in WaterTreatment. Journal of Applied and Fundamental Sciences, 12(3), 1366-1385.
[9] Sharma, S. & Bhattacharya, A. (2017). Drinking water contamination and treatment techniques. Applied Water Sciences, 7: 1043–1067.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-016-0455-7

[10] Adeeyo, A. O., Edokpayi, J. N., Alabi, M. A., Msagati, T. A. M. & Odiyo, J. O. (2021). Plant active products and emerging interventions in water potabilisation: disinfection and multi drug resistant pathogen treatment. Clinical Phytoscience, 7: 31, 1-16.
[11] Boadi, N. O., Saah, S. A., Baa-Poku, F., Mensah, E. A. & Addo, M. (2020). Safety of borehole water as an alternative drinking water source. Scientific African, 10(2020), 1-8.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2020.e00657

[12] Singh, A. K., Mishra, S., Singh, A. K., Polavarapu, M. P., Singh, A. K., Madhav, S., Singh, A., Kumar, M. & Shukla, S. K. (2026). Global Water Scarcity: Understanding Challenges, Causes, and Mitigation Measures. Water Conservation Science and Engineering, 11(78).

https://doi.org/10.1007/s41101-026-00540-x

[13] Aluvihara, S., Alam, S. F., Omar, M. H., Hilonga, A., Zaryab, A. & Sadeg, S. (2025). Eco friendly and Cost-effective Water Treatment and Wastewater Treatment Technologies: A Review. American Journal of Water Science and Engineering, 11(3), 74-85.
[14] Danta, T., Mcintosh, D., Martin, M., Boston, C., Andrew, H., Vanlewin, O., Edmondson Carter, J. & Cecil, D. (2025). Evaluating the water purification potential of Azadirachta indica (neem): A low cost solution for microbial and chemical contaminant reduction in Guyana. International Journal of Environment and Climate Change, 15(6), 210-221.
[15] Owamah, H. I., Alfa, M. I., Oyebisi, S. O., Emenike, P. C., Otuaro, E. A., Gopikumar, S. & Kumar, S. S. (2021). Groundwater quality monitoring of a popular Niger Delta university town in Nigeria. Groundwater for Sustainable Development, 12,

https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2020.100503

[16] Michael-Igolima, U., S Abbey, S. J., Ifelebuegu, A. O. & Eyo, E. U. (2023). Modified Orange Peel Waste as a Sustainable Material for Adsorption of Contaminants. Materials, 16(3): 1092.

https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16031092

[17] Hadadi, A., Imessaoudene, A., Bollinger, J. C., Assadi, A. A., Amrane, A. & Mouni, L. (2022). Comparison of four plant–based bio–coagulants performances against alum and ferric chloride in the turbidity improvement of bentonite synthetic water. Water, 14(20), 3324.

https://doi.org/10.3390/w14203324

[18] Khettaf, S., Boumaraf, R., Benmahdi, F., Bouhidel, K. E. & Bouhelassa, M. (2021). Removal of the neutral dissolved organic matter (NDOM) from surface water by coagulation/flocculation and nanofiltration. Analytical Letters, 54, 2713–2726.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00032719.2021.1885040

[19] Shailesh, D. (2023). Determination of alkalinity in the water sample: A theoretical approach. Chemistry Teacher International, 5(3), 283-290.
[20] Dragana, B., Andrea, P., Dragica, L., Dijana, J. (2023). Determination of chloride content in bottled mineral water. Acta Scientifica Balcanica, 3(1), 13-21.
[21] Ismail, I. A., Budiman, S., Arkhaan, F. N., Nihati, I., Sepriyanata3, I. & Afifah, N. (2023). Gravimetric determination of sulphate. Indonesian Journal of Chemical Connections, 1(1), 30-35.
[22] Adelodun, B., Ogunshina, M. S., Ajibade, F. O., Abdulkadir, T. S., Bakare, H. O. & Choi, K. S. (2020). Kinetic and prediction modeling studies of organic pollutants removal from municipal wastewater using Moringa oleifera biomass as a coagulant. Water, 12 (7), 1- 15.
[23] Aziz, K. H. H., Mustafa, F. S., Karim, M. A. H & Hama, S. (2025). Biochar-based catalysts: an efficient and sustainable approach for water remediation from organic pollutants via advanced oxidation processes Journal of Environmental Management, 390 (2025),

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.126245

[24] Patdu, L. G., Cablao, F. M., Daguison, J. A., Bayani, B. G., Pedido, M. J., Barbuena, G. A., Parmis, C. (2024). Quantitative Analysis of Total Suspended Solids (TSS) in Various Water Sources Using Gravimetric Method. Environmental Science and Chemical Technology, 1- 4.

https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.24289.77926

[25] Afolabi, F. O., Musonge, P. & Bakare, B. F. (2021). Evaluation of Lead (II) Removal from Wastewater Using Banana Peels: Optimization Study. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 30(2), 1487-1496.
[26] Gani, A., Hussain, A., Pathak, S. & Omar, P. J. (2024). Analysing heavy metal contamination in groundwater in the vicinity of mumbai’s landfill sites: an in-depth study. Topics in Catalysis, 67(15), 1009–1023.
[27] WHO, 2024. World Health Oraganisation: Guidelines for drinking-water quality: fourth edition incorporating the first and second addenda. Retrieved online from

https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240121225 , 20th August, 2026.

[28] Noskovič, J., Babošová, M. & Porhajašová, J. I. (2017). Evaluation of BOD and COD in Water of a National Nature Reserve in Southwestern Slovak Republic. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 26(4), 1607-1613.
Cite This Article
Plain Text BibTeX RIS

  • APA Style

    Fanika, S., Alimi, T., Zakariyawu, M. (2026). Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Some Local Plants in Purification of Water Samples from Selected Sources. American Journal of Water Science and Engineering, 12(4), 105-115. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajwse.20261204.11

    Copy | Download

    ACS Style

    Fanika, S.; Alimi, T.; Zakariyawu, M. Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Some Local Plants in Purification of Water Samples from Selected Sources. Am. J. Water Sci. Eng. 2026, 12(4), 105-115. doi: 10.11648/j.ajwse.20261204.11

    Copy | Download

    AMA Style

    Fanika S, Alimi T, Zakariyawu M. Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Some Local Plants in Purification of Water Samples from Selected Sources. Am J Water Sci Eng. 2026;12(4):105-115. doi: 10.11648/j.ajwse.20261204.11

    Copy | Download 

  • @article{10.11648/j.ajwse.20261204.11,
  author = {Suleiman Fanika and Taofeek Alimi and Mohammed Zakariyawu},
  title = {Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Some Local Plants in Purification of Water Samples from Selected Sources},
  journal = {American Journal of Water Science and Engineering},
  volume = {12},
  number = {4},
  pages = {105-115},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ajwse.20261204.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajwse.20261204.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajwse.20261204.11},
  abstract = {This study evaluates the effectiveness of local plants such as banana peel, watermelon seed, neem leaf and orange peel in treating borehole and well water around Kontagora in Nigeria. Chemical coagulants such as alums present hazard and economic shortcomings in water treatment. They reduce water pH due to their acidic nature, against the pH 6.5 – 8.5 standard recommended for potable water. It is therefore, desirable to replace these chemical coagulants with plant-based ones, which are economic and environmental friendly. This study analysed some physicochemical parameters such as temperature, conductivity, and others, and heavy metals such as Cu, Fe and Pb before and after treatment with plant-based coagulants and alum. From the results, irrespective of water sample type and coagulant, the conductivities measurement before treatment was 28.8 – 30.6 µs/cm, and increased to 34.8 – 48.0 µs/cm for alum. The range was 37.6 – 48.8 µs/cm for plant-based. Turbidity before treatment ranged 0.96 – 6.50 NTU and decreased to the range 0.1 – 0.36 NTU for alum and 0.05 – 0.09 for plant-based. Total Dissolved Solid (TDS) before treatment ranged 4.00 – 7.00 mg/L and reduced to 2.15 – 4.00 mg/L for alum, 1.00 – 4.32 mg/L for plant-based. Total Hardness (TH) before treatment showed 28.00 – 32.00 mg/L range, which reduced to 28.00 – 30.00 mg/L for alum, 19.00 – 28.50 mg/L for plant-based. Most parameters, including alkalinity, acidity, BOD, DO, chloride, sulphate, colour and TSS showed improved performance with plant-based coagulants better than alum with values within the WHO standards for drinking water. Heavy metals analysed recorded varied concentrations: Fe in raw borehole water was 0.85 mg/L and reduced to 0.10 mg/L with alum, and 0.1 – 0.27 mg/L range with plant-based coagulants. Fe concentration in well water increased with all treatments, including alum. Cu, Fe and Pb concentrations in raw well water were 0.30 mg/L, 0.05 mg/L and 0.2 mg/L respectively, where Pb concentration was higher than the WHO limit of 0.01 mg/L set for drinking water. Pb was found below detection limit in borehole water. While alum reduced the levels of Cu to 0.07 mg/L, all the plant-based treatments increased its concentration within 0.1 – 0.87 mg/L range, which were below the 1.0 mg/L, WHO limits for Cu in drinking water. From these findings, in no particular order, the plant-based coagulants of banana peel, watermelon leaf and orange peel displayed greater potency for water treatment than neem leaf. Conclusively, all plant-based coagulants used in this study showcased better alternatives than alum.},
 year = {2026}
}

    Copy | Download 

  • TY  - JOUR
T1  - Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Some Local Plants in Purification of Water Samples from Selected Sources
AU  - Suleiman Fanika
AU  - Taofeek Alimi
AU  - Mohammed Zakariyawu
Y1  - 2026/10/09
PY  - 2026
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajwse.20261204.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.ajwse.20261204.11
T2  - American Journal of Water Science and Engineering
JF  - American Journal of Water Science and Engineering
JO  - American Journal of Water Science and Engineering
SP  - 105
EP  - 115
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2575-1875
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajwse.20261204.11
AB  - This study evaluates the effectiveness of local plants such as banana peel, watermelon seed, neem leaf and orange peel in treating borehole and well water around Kontagora in Nigeria. Chemical coagulants such as alums present hazard and economic shortcomings in water treatment. They reduce water pH due to their acidic nature, against the pH 6.5 – 8.5 standard recommended for potable water. It is therefore, desirable to replace these chemical coagulants with plant-based ones, which are economic and environmental friendly. This study analysed some physicochemical parameters such as temperature, conductivity, and others, and heavy metals such as Cu, Fe and Pb before and after treatment with plant-based coagulants and alum. From the results, irrespective of water sample type and coagulant, the conductivities measurement before treatment was 28.8 – 30.6 µs/cm, and increased to 34.8 – 48.0 µs/cm for alum. The range was 37.6 – 48.8 µs/cm for plant-based. Turbidity before treatment ranged 0.96 – 6.50 NTU and decreased to the range 0.1 – 0.36 NTU for alum and 0.05 – 0.09 for plant-based. Total Dissolved Solid (TDS) before treatment ranged 4.00 – 7.00 mg/L and reduced to 2.15 – 4.00 mg/L for alum, 1.00 – 4.32 mg/L for plant-based. Total Hardness (TH) before treatment showed 28.00 – 32.00 mg/L range, which reduced to 28.00 – 30.00 mg/L for alum, 19.00 – 28.50 mg/L for plant-based. Most parameters, including alkalinity, acidity, BOD, DO, chloride, sulphate, colour and TSS showed improved performance with plant-based coagulants better than alum with values within the WHO standards for drinking water. Heavy metals analysed recorded varied concentrations: Fe in raw borehole water was 0.85 mg/L and reduced to 0.10 mg/L with alum, and 0.1 – 0.27 mg/L range with plant-based coagulants. Fe concentration in well water increased with all treatments, including alum. Cu, Fe and Pb concentrations in raw well water were 0.30 mg/L, 0.05 mg/L and 0.2 mg/L respectively, where Pb concentration was higher than the WHO limit of 0.01 mg/L set for drinking water. Pb was found below detection limit in borehole water. While alum reduced the levels of Cu to 0.07 mg/L, all the plant-based treatments increased its concentration within 0.1 – 0.87 mg/L range, which were below the 1.0 mg/L, WHO limits for Cu in drinking water. From these findings, in no particular order, the plant-based coagulants of banana peel, watermelon leaf and orange peel displayed greater potency for water treatment than neem leaf. Conclusively, all plant-based coagulants used in this study showcased better alternatives than alum.
VL  - 12
IS  - 4
ER  -

    Copy | Download

Author Information

  • Suleiman Fanika

    Department of Chemistry, Federal University of Education, Kontagora, Nigeria

  • Taofeek Alimi

    Department of Chemistry, Federal University of Education, Kontagora, Nigeria;Department of Chemistry, Federal University of Technology, Minna, Nigeria

    Contact Email

  • Mohammed Zakariyawu

    Department of Chemistry, Federal University of Education, Kontagora, Nigeria

Download PDF
Submit an Article

About Us

Science Publishing Group (SciencePG) is an Open Access publisher, with more than 300 online, peer-reviewed journals covering a wide range of academic disciplines.

Learn More About SciencePG

Products

Information

Important Link

Copyright © 2012 -- 2026 Science Publishing Group – All rights reserved.