This analysis reveals significant differences in bacteriological and physicochemical properties of borehole water, indicating potential health risks.
Abstract This study assessed the bacteriological and physicochemical properties of borehole water samples collected from the University of Abuja Main Campus and the University of Abuja Teaching Hospital. Serial dilution was conducted before the samples were cultured on Nutrient Agar, MacConkey Agar and sub-cultured on Eosin Methylene Blue (EMB) Agar, and Salmonella-Shigella Agar (SSA) to reduce the bacterial load and determine the growth characteristics. Some growths were observed mainly lactose fermenting organism. Physicochemical parameters, including pH, temperature, turbidity, dissolved oxygen (DO), and heavy metals such as iron and manganese, were analyzed. Sample P exhibited higher microbial loads, with a mean colony forming unit count of 27.83, significantly higher than Sample U, which had a mean colony forming unit count of 3.17. Biochemical tests confirmed the isolates as Gram-negative, rod-shaped, bacilli, citrate-positive, oxidase negative, indole negative likely of the citrobacter genus. Oxidase negative, methyl-red negative, catalase-positive likely of the klebsiella pneumoniae genus. Antibiotic susceptibility tests revealed that all the gram negative antibiotics were effective. Statistical analysis using one-way ANOVA showed significant differences (p = 0.00025) in bacterial growth and physicochemical properties between the two sites. The pH ranged from 6.8 to 6.9, and turbidity values were higher in Sample P, indicating potential health risks. The findings underscore the importance of regular water quality monitoring, effective antibiotic use, and robust infection control strategies to mitigate public health risks associated with waterborne pathogens. The higher bacterial burden and contamination risk observed in Sample P highlight the urgent need for targeted interventions to ensure safe and sustainable water sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lawan et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: