Presentation on theme: "Drinking Water Supply Sanitary Survey and Microbiological Water Quality Assessment from Source to Home Storage in Gambella, Ethiopia Waltaji Terfa Kutane,"— Presentation transcript:
1 Drinking Water Supply Sanitary Survey and Microbiological Water Quality Assessment from Source to Home Storage in Gambella, EthiopiaWaltaji Terfa Kutane, WHO Ethiopia14-18 October 2013University of North Carolina
2 Outline Introduction Study Objective Methodology Result and Discussion ConclusionActions following the study Result at national level
3 IntroductionThe principal risks to human health associated with the consumption of contaminated & polluted water are microbiological in nature.Dated back to Dr.John Snow's discovery of 1854 Broad Street cholera outbreak in England was spread by contaminated water.Most common & widespread danger contamination is either directly or indirectly, by sewage, by other wastes, or by human or animal excrementExacerbated by poor Sanitation & hygiene behavior/practice in the water supply system including householdColiform bacteria are present in large number in excrement & sensitive indicator of the presence of faecal contamination.
4 IntroductionPoor latrine facilities and open defecation coupled with hygiene behavior are responsible for improved water supply contaminationPrüss-Üstün A, Bos R, Gore F, Bartram J. Safer water, better health: costs, benefits and sustainability ofinterventions to protect and promote health. World Health Organization, Geneva, 2008.
5 Introduction… Ethiopia Access to safe water supply was 49% (U=97%, R=39) using 2011 dataPiped 9%Other improved 40%Current coverage 54% National WASH InventoryAccess to improved +shared sanitation facilities was 34% % (U=69%, R=25%)Access to any sanitation facilities 55% including un improved latrine facilitiesSource:2013 JMP update
6 Introduction… Ethiopia Safe water supply coverage based on the national standard is:Adopted from WHO GV the 2001 Ethiopia Standard:Drinking-water should not contain any microorganisms known to be pathogenic—capable of causing disease—or any bacteria indicative of fecal pollutionUrban:dwellers that can obtain at least 20 liters/person/day throughout the year from a source within 0.5 km of the household.Rural:dwellers that can obtain at least 15 liters/person/day throughout the year from a source with in 1.5 km of the household.In both cases the water must either be collected from:an improved source such as protected well, improved & protected spring, sanitary rainfall catchment, etc.; orcan otherwise be treated to acceptable standardsThe national definition is in line with the five basic indicators included in the definition of safe water supply :QuantityQualityCost/ affordabilityContinuity(24hours/day; 7days/week, 30 days/month, 365days/year)Coverage /accessibility
7 Study ObjectiveTo identify risk factors responsible from source to household level for poor microbiological water quality of water supply system targeted for the surveyTo determine the level of contamination & microbiological quality of water supply system and household targeted by the surveyTo verify whether water supply included in this study met the national definition/satandard of safe water supplyTo inform the water supply system, health decision &development partners the importance drinking water quality incremental improvement through risk identifcation & management/ mitigation
8 Methodology Household have access to improved source Observation and interviewWHO standard sanitary survey form for water source & HH risk identificationIndicator bacteria test (Total coliform and E. coli using Membrane filtration technique
9 Result and Discussion69.8%, 20%, 19.3%, 6.3%, 4.1% and 2.7% of the survey respondent households use municipal supply, protected wells, protected springs, river & pond respectively.Only 30.6% of the surveyed households getting half(10/litter/person/day) of the WHO recommended 20 litters per person per day for developing countries; 53.4% less than 6 litter & 16% they don`t knowNo reliable system at grass root level, which can track timely the issue of maintenance, community has to wait for more than a month from center to get back broken hand pumps.
10 Result and Discussion Household level Sanitary Risk Assessment Result Result of Sanitary Risk Assessment for Improved Water SourceType of SourceNumberSanitary Risk ScoreLowIntermediateHighVery HighProtected well15128(53.3%)4(26.7%)Protected Spring115(45.5%)3(27.3%)Piped water supply1(25%)Total30(13.3%)(16.7%)14(46.7%)7(23.3%)Household level Sanitary Risk Assessment ResultNumber of HouseholdRemark36537(10.1%)29(7.9%)194(53.2%)105(28.8%)All HH use the above improved sourcesImproved vs Safe Drinking WaterBoreholes & tube wells…31% not safeProtected springs…….37% not safeProtected dug wells….. 57% not safeSource comndg.water.target.m et.but.what.about.sanit ation.and.darrhea
12 Result and DiscussionWHO/UNICEF JMP RADWQ, result for Ethiopia Compliance with national standard & WHO Guide lineMicrobiological Quality sample from sourcePiped…………………..87.6%Protected springs …. 43.3%Borehole…………………67.9%Protected well………..54.9Total……………………….72%Microbiological Quality sample from household (n=1000)Fecal contamination ……………….55%Sanitary survey ResultProtected springs 316 inspected found spring box absent or faulty38.3% and diversion ditch above the spring absent or non-functional 87%Piped water distribution system 428 inspected found cracks in the pre-filters 21.1% and mud balls or cracks in any of the filters 15.8%
13 Result and DiscussionKnowledge of respondent about disease prevention by using safe Water supply by educational level , Gambella, EthiopiaEducation level(n=635)DiarrhoeaTyphoidDysenteryHepatitisCholeraParasiteNo%1-3223.530.571.10.0111.74-66410.132.091.450.8203.1233.67-9487.5142.260.9162.5213.310-1280192.9274.3264.1>12294.6152.4Read & write86101.620.331345.4Illiterate13922.0325.07812.3Total46874.68713.512.1375.715123.420432.2Better understanding /knowledge with respect to diarrhoea, cholera and parasitesignificant difference with educational level on prevention of diarrhoea with safe water compared greater than 12 grade with illiterate (X²= 10.96; P<0.001).
14 Result and DiscussionKnowledge of respondents on water container contamination as means of waterborne disease transmission in the home, Gambella, EthiopiaEducation level(n=579)CupDirty containerUncovered containerDirty coverChicken/ animalsDrawing by handNo%1-3142.4111.8101.740.74-6325.5295.0457.7152.661.0549.37-9233.9284.8315.410-12488.3478.1508.6264.5447.6>12193.3132.281.4162.7Read and write7212.46611.4376.430.5203.5Illiterate8214.210017.311319.5427.3172.9396.7Total29250.429550.83025212822.15521436.9More than half of respondent claimed that uncovered container , dirty container & use of the same cup for water drawing & drinking are responsible for disease transmissionPhoto, Arto S, WASH COM
15 Drinking-Water Handling Practice at Home (n=635) Result and DiscussionDrinking-Water Handling Practice at Home (n=635)
16 Result and DiscussionLatrine and hand washing facilities availability, utilization and cleanse(n= 635)
17 ConclusionThe aim of any safe water supply program/project is to reduce the risk of contamination at least to the lowest level. However, in the study area this objective was not achieved.Four major problem areas of public water supply were identified:Quality with sensitive indicators coliform and E.Coli organisms indication of contaminationRisk factors for contamination from source to household levelKnowledge gap on disease prevention using safe water and contamination of waterQuantity acute shortage & none functionality/lack of reliable preventive operation and maintenance systemAd hoc water quality testing and absence of risk assessment/ sanitary survey in the study area
18 Conclusion Finally three conclusions can be drawn from this study: Though, putting in place water supply infrastructure is apriority in any water supply programme/project, the risk of contamination is all ways there regard less of the complexity of the infrastructure.Availability of the water supply infrastructure does not grantee always the five basic indicators included in the definition of safe water supply :QuantityQualityCost/ affordabilityContinuity(24hours/day; 7days/week, 30 days/month, 365days/year)Coverage /accessibilityOnce water supply infrastructure is in place hygienically management from source to mouth need systematical well designed and planned interventions at home to achieve the objective of Framework for safe drinking-water
19 Recommendation Addressing Water Quality strategically Risk identifcation, prioritization & prevention/mitigationAs integral part of the water supply system ManagementAs part of O&M
20 Actions following the study Result Mitigation of risks based on the priorityCapacity building training and field level water quality testing equipmentNational Drinking Water Quality Monitoring Surveillance Strategy developed with detail financial resource requirement and activitiesRecent development WSP piloting and framework development