Dataset Information

Consistency of Use and Effectiveness of Household Water Treatment among Indian Households Claiming to Treat Their Water.

ABSTRACT: Household water treatment (HWT) can improve drinking water quality and prevent disease if used correctly and consistently by populations at risk. Current international monitoring estimates by the Joint Monitoring Programme for water and sanitation suggest that at least 1.1 billion people practice HWT. These estimates, however, are based on surveys that may overstate the level of consistent use and do not address microbial effectiveness. We sought to assess how HWT is practiced among households identified as HWT users according to these monitoring standards. After a baseline survey (urban: 189 households, rural: 210 households) to identify HWT users, 83 urban and 90 rural households were followed up for 6 weeks. Consistency of reported HWT practices was high in both urban (100%) and rural (93.3%) settings, as was availability of treated water (based on self-report) in all three sampling points (urban: 98.8%, rural: 76.0%). Nevertheless, only 13.7% of urban and 25.8% of rural households identified at baseline as users of adequate HWT had water free of thermotolerant coliforms at all three water sampling points. Our findings raise questions about the value of the data gathered through the international monitoring of HWT as predictors of water quality in the home, as well as questioning the ability of HWT, as actually practiced by vulnerable populations, to reduce exposure to waterborne diseases.

SUBMITTER: Rosa G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5508886 | biostudies-other | 2017 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Consistency of Use and Effectiveness of Household Water Treatment among Indian Households Claiming to Treat Their Water.

Rosa Ghislaine G Clasen Thomas T

The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene 20170701 1

Household water treatment (HWT) can improve drinking water quality and prevent disease if used correctly and consistently by populations at risk. Current international monitoring estimates by the Joint Monitoring Programme for water and sanitation suggest that at least 1.1 billion people practice HWT. These estimates, however, are based on surveys that may overstate the level of consistent use and do not address microbial effectiveness. We sought to assess how HWT is practiced among households i ...[more]

PMID: 28719314

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHousehold water treatment (HWT) can improve drinking water quality and prevent disease if used correctly and consistently by vulnerable populations. Over 1.1 billion people report treating their water prior to drinking it. These estimates, however, are based on responses to household surveys that may exaggerate the consistency and microbiological performance of the practice-key factors for reducing pathogen exposure and achieving health benefits. The objective of this study was to examine how HWT practices are actually performed by households identified as HWT users, according to international monitoring standards.Methods and findingsWe conducted a 6-month case study in urban (n?=?117 households) and rural (n?=?115 households) Peru, a country in which 82.8% of households report treating their water at home. We used direct observation, in-depth interviews, surveys, spot-checks, and water sampling to assess water treatment practices among households that claimed to treat their drinking water at home. While consistency of reported practices was high in both urban (94.8%) and rural (85.3%) settings, availability of treated water (based on self-report) at time of collection was low, with 67.1% and 23.0% of urban and rural households having treated water at all three sampling visits. Self-reported consumption of untreated water in the home among adults and children <5 was common and this was corroborated during home observations. Drinking water of self-reported users was significantly better than source water in the urban setting and negligible but significantly better in the rural setting. However, only 46.3% and 31.6% of households had drinking water <1 CFU/100 mL at all follow-up visits.ConclusionsOur results raise questions about the usefulness of current international monitoring of HWT practices and their usefulness as a proxy indicator for drinking water quality. The lack of consistency and sub-optimal microbiological effectiveness also raises questions about the potential of HWT to prevent waterborne diseases.

Project description:There is little published literature on the efficacy of strategies to reduce exposure to residential well water arsenic. The objectives of our study were to: 1) determine if water arsenic remained a significant exposure source in households using bottled water or point-of-use treatment systems; and 2) evaluate the major sources and routes of any remaining arsenic exposure. We conducted a cross-sectional study of 167 households in Maine using one of these two strategies to prevent exposure to arsenic. Most households included one adult and at least one child. Untreated well water arsenic concentrations ranged from <10 ?g/L to 640 ?g/L. Urine samples, water samples, daily diet and bathing diaries, and household dietary and water use habit surveys were collected. Generalized estimating equations were used to model the relationship between urinary arsenic and untreated well water arsenic concentration, while accounting for documented consumption of untreated water and dietary sources. If mitigation strategies were fully effective, there should be no relationship between urinary arsenic and well water arsenic. To the contrary, we found that untreated arsenic water concentration remained a significant (p ? 0.001) predictor of urinary arsenic levels. When untreated water arsenic concentrations were <40 ?g/L, untreated water arsenic was no longer a significant predictor of urinary arsenic. Time spent bathing (alone or in combination with water arsenic concentration) was not associated with urinary arsenic. A predictive analysis of the average study participant suggested that when untreated water arsenic ranged from 100 to 500 ?g/L, elimination of any untreated water use would result in an 8%-32% reduction in urinary arsenic for young children, and a 14%-59% reduction for adults. These results demonstrate the importance of complying with a point-of-use or bottled water exposure reduction strategy. However, there remained unexplained, water-related routes of exposure.

Project description:Treatment of water at the household level offers a promising approach to combat the global burden of diarrheal diseases. In particular, chlorination of drinking water has been a widely promoted strategy due to persistence of residual chlorine after initial treatment. However, the degree to which chlorination can reduce microbial levels in a controlled setting (efficacy) or in a household setting (effectiveness) can vary as a function of chlorine characteristics, source water characteristics, and household conditions. To gain more understanding of these factors, we carried out an observational study within households in rural communities of northern coastal Ecuador. We found that the efficacy of chlorine treatment under controlled conditions was significantly better than its household effectiveness when evaluated both by ability to meet microbiological safety standards and by log reductions. Water treated with chlorine achieved levels of microbial contamination considered safe for human consumption after 24 h of storage in the household only 39-51% of the time, depending on chlorine treatment regimen. Chlorine treatment would not be considered protective against diarrheal disease according to WHO log reduction standards. Factors that explain the observed compromised effectiveness include: source water turbidity, source water baseline contamination levels, and in-home contamination. Water in 38% of the households that had low turbidity source water (<10 NTU) met the safe water standard as compared with only 17% of the households that had high turbidity source water (>10 NTU). A 10 MPN/100 mL increase in baseline Escherichia coli levels was associated with a 2.2% increase in failure to meet the E. coli standard. Higher mean microbial contamination levels were seen in 54% of household samples in comparison to their matched controls, which is likely the result of in-home contamination during storage. Container characteristics (size of the container mouth) did not influence chlorine effectiveness. We found no significant differences between chlorine treatment regimens in ability to meet the safe water standards or in overall log reductions, although chlorine dosage did modify the effect of source conditions. These results underscore the importance of measuring both source water and household conditions to determine appropriate chlorine levels, as well as to evaluate the appropriateness of chlorine treatment and other point-of-use water quality improvement interventions.

Project description:Carbon credits are an increasingly prevalent market-based mechanism used to subsidize household water treatment technologies (HWT). This involves generating credits through the reduction of carbon emissions from boiling water by providing a technology that reduces greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change. Proponents claim this process delivers health and environmental benefits by providing clean drinking water and reducing greenhouse gases. Selling carbon credits associated with HWT projects requires rigorous monitoring to ensure households are using the HWT and achieving the desired benefits of the device. Critics have suggested that the technologies provide neither the benefits of clean water nor reduced emissions. This study explores the perspectives of carbon credit and water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) experts on HWT carbon credit projects.Thirteen semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted with key informants from the WASH and carbon credit development sectors. The interviews explored perceptions of the two groups with respect to the procedures applied in the Gold Standard methodology for trading Voluntary Emission Reduction (VER) credits.Agreement among the WASH and carbon credit experts existed for the concept of suppressed demand and parameters in the baseline water boiling test. Key differences, however, existed. WASH experts' responses highlighted a focus on objectively verifiable data for monitoring carbon projects while carbon credit experts called for contextualizing observed data with the need for flexibility and balancing financial viability with quality assurance.Carbon credit projects have the potential to become an important financing mechanism for clean energy in low- and middle-income countries. Based on this research we recommend that more effort be placed on building consensus on the underlying assumptions for obtaining carbon credits from HWT projects, as well as the approved methods for monitoring correct and consistent use of the HWT technologies in order to support public health impacts.

Dataset Information

Consistency of Use and Effectiveness of Household Water Treatment among Indian Households Claiming to Treat Their Water.

Publications

Consistency of Use and Effectiveness of Household Water Treatment among Indian Households Claiming to Treat Their Water.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure