> × ( c 1 )

( 2 1 ) × ( 3 1 ) = 2

E r , c = n r × n c n

Table 1. Response to hypothesis I to VII.

E 1 , 1 = E 1 , 2 = E 1 , 3 = 161 × 60 180 = 53.66 (8)

E 2 , 1 = E 2 , 2 = E 2 , 3 = 19 × 60 180 = 6.33 (9)

X c 2 = [ ( O r , c E r , c ) 2 E r , c ] X c 2 = 8.562 (10)

3) Marine pollution does not affect fishing activities. The research question shows that fishing activity can affect the pollution of the marine environment.

D F = ( r 1 ) × ( c 1 )

( 2 1 ) × ( 3 1 ) = 2

E r , c = n r × n c n

E 1 , 1 = E 1 , 2 = E 1 , 3 = 164 × 60 180 = 54.66 (11)

E 2 , 1 = E 2 , 2 = E 2 , 3 = 16 × 60 180 = 5.33 (12)

X c 2 = [ ( O r , c E r , c ) 2 E r , c ] X c 2 = 10.00 (13)

4) Ship sewage treatment do not control the amount of bacteria discharged into water bodies. The research question shows that ship sewage treatment help to control the amount of bacteria discharged into water bodies.

D F = ( r 1 ) × ( c 1 )

( 2 1 ) × ( 3 1 ) = 2

E r , c = n r × n c n

E 1 , 1 = E 1 , 2 = E 1 , 3 = 146 × 60 180 = 48.66 (14)

E 2 , 1 = E 2 , 2 = E 2 , 3 = 34 × 60 180 = 11.33 (15)

X c 2 = [ ( O r , c E r , c ) 2 E r , c ] X c 2 = 7.453 (16)

5) Failure to comply with IMO regulations have not contributed to pollution of Nigeria waterways. The research question shows that disobedience to IMO regulations contribute to pollution of Nigeria waterways.

D F = ( r 1 ) × ( c 1 )

( 2 1 ) × ( 3 1 ) = 2

E r , c = n r × n c n

E 1 , 1 = E 1 , 2 = E 1 , 3 = 147 × 60 180 = 49 (17)

E 2 , 1 = E 2 , 2 = E 2 , 3 = 33 × 60 180 = 11 (18)

X c 2 = [ ( O r , c E r , c ) 2 E r , c ] X c 2 = 11.55 (19)

6) Marine pollution does not affect the immune and endocrine systems of humans. The research question shows that the human immune and endocrine system can be affect by marine pollution.

D F = ( r 1 ) × ( c 1 )

( 2 1 ) × ( 3 1 ) = 2

E r , c = n r × n c n

E 1 , 1 = E 1 , 2 = E 1 , 3 = 81 × 60 180 = 27 (20)

E 2 , 1 = E 2 , 2 = E 2 , 3 = 99 × 60 180 = 33 (21)

X c 2 = [ ( O r , c E r , c ) 2 E r , c ] X c 2 = 9.81 (22)

7) Oil spill is not the most common source of marine pollution. The research question shows that oil spill is the most common source of marine pollution.

D F = ( r 1 ) × ( c 1 )

( 2 1 ) × ( 3 1 ) = 2

E r , c = n r × n c n

E 1 , 1 = E 1 , 2 = E 1 , 3 = 128 × 60 180 = 42.66 (23)

E 2 , 1 = E 2 , 2 = E 2 , 3 = 52 × 60 180 = 17.33 (24)

X c 2 = [ ( O r , c E r , c ) 2 E r , c ] X c 2 = 8.00 (25)

5. Results and Discussion

Table 2 and Table 3 show the comparison of the observed and expected and the Social-Economic information of staff of Onne, Okrika and Port Harcourt

Table 2. Comparison of the observed and expected response (Hypothesis I to VII).

Table 3. Social-Economic information of staffs of Onne, Okrika and Port Harcourt port.

port respectively. From Figure 7, the category with the largest difference between observed and expected value makes the largest contribution to the overall chi-square statistic. In this case, the largest contribution comes from Port Harcourt port. At significance level of 5% that is 0.05, using chi-square probability calculator-formula. Inputting values of X c 2 = 9.15 and DF = 2, P-value = 0.0103. Since the P-value is less than the level of significance (0.0103 < 0.05), we reject the null hypothesis. Hence, we conclude that there is awareness of the existence of IMO. Similarly Figure 8 shows that the largest contribution comes from Onne port. At significance level of 5% that is 0.05, using chi-square probability calculator-formula. Inputting values of X c 2 = 8.562 and DF = 2, P-value = 0.0138. Since the P-value is less than the level of significance (0.0138 < 0.05), we reject the null hypothesis. Hence, we conclude that untreated wastewater discharge from ship causes pollution of the marine environment.

Similarly Figure 9 shows the largest contribution comes from Okrika jetty. At significance level of 5% that is 0.05, using chi-square probability calculator- formula. Inputting values of X c 2 = 10.00 and DF = 2, P-value = 0.0067. Since the P-value is less than the level of significance (0.0067 < 0.05), we reject the null hypothesis. Hence, we conclude that marine pollution causes hindrance in fishing activities. Furthermore Figure 10 shows that the largest contribution comes

Figure 7. Observed and expected value for H-1.

Figure 8. Observed and expected value for H-II.

Figure 9. Observed and expected value for H-III.

from Port Harcourt port. At significance level of 5% that is 0.05, using chi- square probability calculator-formula. Inputting values of X c 2 = 7.453 and DF = 2, P-value = 0.0240. Since the P-value is less than the level of significance (0.0240 < 0.05), we reject the null hypothesis. Thus, we conclude that ship sewage treatment help to control the amount of bacteria discharged into water bodies.

Figure 11 shows that the largest contribution comes from Okrika jetty. At significance level of 5% that is 0.05, using chi-square probability calculator-formula. Inputting values of X c 2 = 11.55 and DF = 2, P-value = 0.0031. Since the P-value is less than the level of significance (0.0031 < 0.05), we reject the null hypothesis. Thus, we conclude that failure to comply with IMO regulations have contributed to pollution of Nigeria waterways. Similarly from Figure 12, the largest contribution comes from Okrika jetty. At significance level of 5% that is 0.05, using chi-square probability calculator-formula. Inputting values of X c 2 = 8.00 and DF = 2, P-value = 0.0074. Since the P-value is less than the level of significance (0.0074 < 0.05), we reject the null hypothesis. Thus, we conclude

Figure 10. Observed and expected value for H-1V.

Figure 11. Observed and expected value for H-V.

Figure 12. Observed and expected value for H-VI.

that marine pollution affects the immune and endocrine system of humans.

Figure 13 shows the largest contribution comes from Port Harcourt port. At significance level of 5% that is 0.05, using chi-square probability calculator- formula. Inputting values of X c 2 = 8.00 and DF = 2, P-value = 0.0183. Since the P-value is less than the level of significance (0.0183 < 0.05), we reject the null hypothesis. Thus, we conclude that oil spill is the most common source of marine pollution.

SALINITY AND pH

The salinity and pH of the water sample from the Onne port were analyzed with HANNA MULTIPARAMETER EQUIPMENT. This involves standardizing the equipment with solutions that were bought with the equipment, cleaning the probes very well with distilled water after standardizing, dipping the probe in the sample collected in a beaker and taking the necessary reading as displayed on the screen. Table 4 shows the result of the analysis.

SALINITY: Salinity is a measure of how much dissolved salts are in the water. Dissolved salts are usually sodium and chloride ions, although there can also be many others such as potassium and bicarbonate ions. Salinity can vary during the year due to rain diluting the salt in the water. Therefore, high salinity is usually recorded in the summer and low salinity in the winter. As a general rule, salinity is relatively low during periods of high flow and vice-versa. Table 5 shows the salinity ranges from fresh to hyper-saline.

From the table, it is seen that the test result falls within 5000 to 35,000 (mg/L). It is concluded that Onne water is salty and safe.

Figure 13. Observed and expected value for H-VII.

Table 4. Result of sample analysis.

Table 5. Ranges of salinity in water.

TURBIDITY: Turbidity is the cloudiness or haziness of a fluid caused by individual particles that are generally invisible to the naked eye. The lower the value, the clearer the water is. At no time should the turbidity go above 5 Nephelolometric Turbidity Unit (NTU).

pH: Seawater is naturally alkaline, with an average pH of 7.6. The normal pH range for seawater is 7.2 - 8.4. The pH of seawater is lower around river mouths. BOD5: Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) measures the uptake rate of dissolved oxygen by the biological organisms in a body of water. The higher the pH level of the water the lesser the quality of water. Most pristine seawater will have a 5-day carbonaceous BOD below 1 mg/L. Moderately polluted rivers may have a BOD value in the range of 2 to 8 mg/L. Municipal sewage that is efficiently treated by a three-stage process would have a value of about 20 mg/L or less

TPH: The level Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH) was found to be 2.98 (mg/l). Since all conditions of sampling and sample preservations were observed and the value is less than the DPR limit (10mg/l), it then means that the activities in Onne port is adhering to standard and the environment is not being polluted.

6. Conclusion

In conclusion, it is a fact that marine pollution will severely affect the coastal resources of a city, state and the nation, so it should be avoided. This can be done by obeying the rules and regulations setup by national and international organization concerned with the environment especially the maritime environment. It is a thing of joy to see and know that after proper analysis of the water sample from Onne port the environment is considered safe within the regulatory framework of IMO. It is true that when an environment is not safe, it could endanger the future stability of human health and risk the aquatic life of the fast growing cities like Port Harcourt, Onne and Okrika in Nigeria. The challenges posed by marine pollution from ports on human health, aquatic lives and the environment in general have not yet received full attention which it deserves. The surveys carried out in this work show the sources of marine pollution from ships which have been established to be the discharge of oily water from bilge, invasive organisms from ballast, accidental discharge of oil from tankers ships and operational discharge and so on. The industries around the ports or jetty could also contribute to the pollution of the maritime environment by releasing harmful chemical into the sea. The adverse effects of introducing pollutants into the marine environment have also been established in this work. The effects appear to be damaging to the ecosystem, ships life and human health. Control and preventive measures have been established which include adherence and enforcement of standard operations as contained in ANNEX I-VI of IMO conventions. From the result so far, we can say Onne port is operating within the safe limit of IMO regulation and should endeavor to maintain this trend. However, there is need for proper implementation of the maritime regulations in Nigerian waterways. We recommend aggressive implementation of the existing laws, policies and guidelines on port pollution by relevant local and International organization. The government should punish any erring organization or individuals to serve as a deterrent to others, government should encourage and support relevant law enforcement agencies assigned with such duties. This will address the problem of environmental pollution and bring about sustainable urban development in Rivers State in particular and Nigeria in general.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1] Kamali Walid (2017) Management of Environmental Sustainability of Ports—Focus on Noise Mitigation. 24th International Congress on Sound and Vibration, London.
https://www.iiav.org/archives_icsv_last/2017_icsv24/content/papers/papers/full_paper_1367
_20170531184650646
[2] Mesp Noise (2017) Managing the Environmental Sustainability of Ports for Durable Development.
http://www.mesp.org/mesp_noise/noise-project
[3] United Nations Environmental Programme UNEP (2004) Human Well Being, Poverty and Ecosystem Services: Exploring the Links, Nairobi, Kenya.
[4] Ifesanya, A. (2004) Sewage Treatment and the Environment: A Case Study of the University College Hospital, Ibadan Waste Sewage Treatment System.
[5] Umo, I. and Nitonye, S. (2015) Effects and Solutions of Marine Pollution from Ships in Nigerian Waterways. International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research, 6, 81-90.
http://www.ijser.org
[6] SustainableShipping.com (2008) IMO Targets Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Petromedia Group, London.
[7] FCEC (2014) Health Effects of Eating Contaminated Fish.
http://www.pvsfish.org/index.php/health-effects-of-eating-contaminated-fish
[8] International Maritime Organization (2014) Third IMO GHG Study 2014 (PDF).
[9] International Maritime Organization (2008) Working Group Oslo June 2008. London.
[10] Onwuegbuchunam, D.E., Ebe, T.E., Okoroji, L.I. and Essien, A.E. (2017) An Analysis of Ship-Source Marine Pollution in Nigeria Seaports. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 5, 39.
http://www.mdpi.com/journal/jmse
[11] Huettel, S. (2004) Human Noise Pollution in Ocean Can Lead Fish Away from Good Habitats and Off to Their Death. University of Bristol, Bristol.
[12] Olayinka, O.S. (2013) Effective Noise Control Measures and Sustainable Development in Nigeria. World Journal of Environmental Engineering, 1, 5-15.
[13] Bows-Larkin, A., Mander, S., Gilbert, P., Traut, M., Walsh, C. and Anderson, K. (2014) High Seas, High Stakes, Final Report. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Univ. of Manchester, Manchester.
[14] US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2003) Control of Emissions from New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or above 30 Liters Per Cylinder. Final Rule, Federal Register, 68 FR9751, Washington DC.
[15] Schrooten, L., De Vlieger, I., IntPanis, L., Chiffi, C. and Pastori, E. (2009) Emissions of Maritime Transport: A Reference System. Science of the Total Environment, 408, 318-323.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.07.037
[16] Harrabin, R. (2003) EU Faces Ship Clean-Up Call. BBC News.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3019686.stm
[17] Vidal, J. (2009) Health Risks of Shipping Pollution Have Been “Underestimated”. The Guardian.
[18] Khee-Jin Tan, A. (2006) Vessel-Source Marine Pollution: The Law and Politics of International Regulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
[19] Environmental Impact of Shipping (2014).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_shipping
[20] International Maritime Organization (2017) Carriage of Chemicals by Ship.
http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/ChemicalPollution/Pages/
Default.aspx
[21] Lisa, S. and Shruti, R. (2013) Full Extent of Heavy Metal Contamination in Exxon Oil Spill Still Unknown.
http://www.insideclimatenews.org/news/20130715/
[22] Federal Environmental Protection Agency (FEPA) (1988) Federal Environmental Protection Agency Guidelines and Standards for Industrial Waste Management in Nigeria. 46-55.
[23] LightHouse (2016) Marine Pollution: Meaning, Causes, Effects, Control Measures; Important India and Discover India.
https://www.importantindia.com/23704/marine-pollution-meaning-causes-effects-control-measures/
[24] Natural Resources Defense Council. Mercury Contamination in Fish.
http://www.nrdc.org/
[25] International Maritime Organization (2014).
http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Environment
[26] Elenwo, E.I. and Akankali, J.A. (2015) The Effects of Marine Pollution on Nigerian Coastal Resources. Journal of Sustainable Development Studies, 8, 209-224.
[27] Balcomb, K.C. (2000) A Whale Researcher and a Former U.S Navy Officer.
[28] National Research Council, Committee on Shipboard Wastes, Clean Ships, Clean Ports, Clean Oceans (1995) Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea. National Academy Press, Table 2-3, 38-39.
[29] Arokoyu, W.I. and Umeuduji, J.E. (2004) Perspective of the Human Environment. Amaethyst and Colleagues Publishers, Port Harcourt.
[30] International Maritime Organization (IMO) (2017) International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), Adoption: 1973 (Convention), 1978 (1978 Protocol), 1997 (Protocol-Annex VI); Entry into force: 2 October 1983 (Annexes I and II).
http://www.imo.org/en/about/conventions/listofconventions/pages/international-convention-for-the-prevention-of-pollution-from-ships-(marpol).aspx
[31] Ndigbo, O. (2017) Nigeria: Why Lagos Ports Are Congested.
https://elombah.com
[32] AIS Marine Traffic (2017) Ports of ONNE (NG ONN) Marine Traffic Details.
http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ports/803/Nigeria_port:ONNE
[33] Chi-Square Test of Independence.
http://stattrek.com/chi-square-test/independence.aspx?Tutorial=AP
[34] Federal Environmental Protection Agency (FEPA) (1991) National Policy on the Environment. Federal Ministry of Environment, Abuja.
[35] Toepfer, K. (2016) Global International Waters Assessment (Giwa) Challenges to International Waters, Regional Assessments in a Global Perspective: GIWA Final Report. [Published by the United Nations Environment Programme in collaboration with GEF, the University of Kalmar and the Municipality of Kalmar, Sweden, and the Governments of Sweden, Finland, and Norway.]
https://www.preventionweb.net/files/2365_giwafinalreport.pdf
[36] Schrooten, L., De Vlieger, I., Int Panis, L., Styns, R., Torfs, K. and Torfs, R. (2008) Inventory and Forecasting of Maritime Emissions in the Belgian Sea Territory, an Activity Based Emission Model. Atmospheric Environment, 42, 667-676.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.09.071
[37] Abdellah, F.G. and Levine, E. (1979) Better Patient Care through Nursing Research. Macmillan Publishing Co. Inc., New York.

  
comments powered by Disqus
OJMS Subscription
E-Mail Alert
OJMS Most popular papers
Publication Ethics & OA Statement
OJMS News
Frequently Asked Questions
Recommend to Peers
Recommend to Library
Contact Us

Copyright © 2020 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.