Ā | zone1e | zone2e | zone2b | zone2s | zone2sh | zone3e | zone3b |
---|
zone1e | 1 | Ā | Ā | Ā | Ā | Ā | Ā |
zone2e | ā0.394 | 1 | Ā | Ā | Ā | Ā | Ā |
zone2b | 0.266 | 0.556 | 1 | Ā | Ā | Ā | Ā |
zone2s | ā0.200 | 0.271 | 0.400 | 1 | Ā | Ā | Ā |
zone2sh | 0.124 | 0.029 | ā0.446 | ā0.129 | 1 | Ā | Ā |
zone3e | āā0.148 | āā0.297 | 0.038 | āā0.219 | -.779b | 1 | Ā |
zone3sh | .876a | ā0.426 | ā0.141 | āā0.553 | 0.324 | āā0.323 | 1 |
- aCorrelation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
- bCorrelation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
- Note (Legend): zone1e (zone 1 E .coli), zone2e (zone 2 E. coli), zone2b (zone 2 Bacillus cereus), zone 2Ā s (zone 2 Salmonella spp.), zone 2 sh (zone 2 shigella spp.), zone3e (zone 3 E. coli), zone3b (zone 3 Bacillus cereus), zone 3 sh (zone 3 shigella spp.) (Table IV). Correlation matrix on the four zones in terms of the bacteria isolates revealed that a positive and significant correlation existed between E. coli in Zone 1 and Shigella spp. in Zone 3. These findings imply that E. coli and Shigella spp. in the two Zones came from similar sources of contamination and have a strong relationship. However, Shigella spp. in Zone 2 negatively but significantly correlated with E. coli in Zone 3. These results imply that Shigella spp. and E. coli in the two zones may have resulted from different sources of contamination since the correlation was showing a negative relationship. The results of the correlation matrix from the present is in contrast to the result established by Bakobie et al. (2017) who found no interrelationship between the various bacteria identified in their study in Tamale