Assessment of urban groundwater quality using Piper trilinear and multivariate techniques: a case study in the Abuja, North-central, Nigeria

Environmental Systems Research

Table 8 Mean comparative analysis obtained from the water quality parameters

Parameters	Mean comparative test
	One way Anova			One sample T test
	Unstandardized coefficients	t	Sig.	t	95% interval differences
	Unstandardized coefficients	t	Sig.	t	Lower	Upper
pH	0.18 ± 0.51	0.36	0.73	53.91	6.49	7.01
Temp	0.03 ± 0.03	1.05	0.33	89.36	25.08	26.27
AlK	0.01 ± 0.00	3.29	0.02	11.59	28.91	41.44
TDS	− 0.00 ± 0.00	− 12.71	0.00	9.25	829.89	1306.60
EC	5.71E−05 ± 0.00	1.11	0.31	10.48	1443.07	2150.68
Cl⁻	0.01 ± 0.00	1.96	0.10	6.63	162.85	309.98
\( {{\text{SO}}_{4}}^{2 - } \)	0.00 ± 0.00	− 1.56	0.17	7.26	320.16	574.30
CO₃²⁻	0.01 ± 0.01	1.54	0.17	11.61	16.03	22.96
\( {{\text{NO}}_{3}}^{ - } \)	− 0.02 ± 0.01	− 2.23	0.07	9.04	3.24	5.16
HCO₃⁻	1.49E−05 ± 0.00	0.08	0.94	15.03	414.56	546.61
F⁻	− 0.23 ± 0.10	− 2.36	0.06	14.16	1.09	1.47
K⁺	0.01 ± 0.02	0.74	0.49	11.44	5.04	7.26
Na⁺	0.00 ± 0.00	2.34	0.06	6.65	179.38	341.00
Fe²⁺	0.01 ± 0.03	0.23	0.83	4.28	0.53	1.51
Ca²⁺	0.01 ± 0.00	2.36	0.06	4.64	36.99	96.18
Mg²⁺	5.82 E−05 ± 0.00	0.12	0.91	4.14	41.82	125.14
Mn	− 0.70 ± 1.21	− 0.58	0.59	5.73	0.02	0.03
TH	− 7.42E−05 ± 0.00	− 1.77	0.13	5.62	374.66	809.63
SiO₂	− 0.01 ± 0.02	− 0.54	0.61	6.24	2.67	5.31