Recontamination during transport and storage is a common challenge of water supply in low-income settings, especially if water is collected manually. Chlorination is a strategy to reduce recontamination. We assessed seven low-cost, non-electrically powered chlorination devices in gravity-driven membrane filtration (GDM) kiosks in eastern Uganda: one floater, two in-line dosers, three end-line dosers (tap-attached), and one manual dispenser. The evaluation criteria were dosing consistency, user-friendliness, ease of maintenance, local supply chain, and cost. Achieving an adequate chlorine dosage (∼2 mg/L at the tap and ≥ 0.2 mg/L after 24 h of storage in a container) was challenging. The T-chlorinator was the most promising option for GDM kiosks: it achieved correct dosage (CD, 1.5–2.5 mg/L) with a probability of 90 per cent, was easy to use and maintain, economical, and can be made from locally available materials. The other in-line option, the chlorine-dosing bucket (40 per cent CD) still needs design improvements. The end-line options AkvoTur (67 per cent CD) and AquatabsFlo® (57 per cent CD) are easy to install and operate at the tap, but can be easily damaged in the GDM set-up. The Venturi doser (52 per cent CD) did not perform satisfactorily with flow rates > 6 L/min. The chlorine dispenser (52 per cent CD) was robust and user-friendly, but can only be recommended if users comply with chlorinating the water themselves. Establishing a sustainable supply chain for chlorine products was challenging. Where solid chlorine tablets were locally rarely available, the costs of liquid chlorine options were high (27–162 per cent of the water price).

Drinking water is frequently recontaminated during transport and storage when water is poured into jerrycans. To address this issue, three strategies aiming at reducing these recontamination risks were implemented at water kiosks in Eastern Uganda. In all three strategies, water at the kiosks was chlorinated to a free residual chlorine (FRC) concentration of 2 mg/L at the tap of the kiosk. In addition, water was collected in different containers for drinking water transport: a) uncleaned jerrycans, b) cleaned jerrycans, and c) cleaned improved containers with a wide mouth and a spigot. Water quality in the containers was compared to that of a control group collecting unchlorinated water in uncleaned jerrycans. Water samples were collected at the tap of the kiosk, from the containers of 135 households after they were filled at the tap, and from the same containers in the households after 24 h of water storage. The samples were analysed for counts of E. coli , total coliforms, and FRC. Household interviews and structured observations were conducted to identify confounding variables and to assess the influence of water, sanitation, and hygiene infrastructure and practices on recontamination. All three intervention strategies contributed to significantly lower E. coli recontamination levels after 24 h than in the control group (Median (Mdn) = 9 CFU/100 mL, Interquartile Range (IQR) = 25). Median E. coli counts and mean FRC consumption were higher in uncleaned jerrycans (Median = 1 CFU/100 mL, IQR = 6, ΔFRC = 1.8 mg/L) than in cleaned jerrycans (Median = 0 CFU/100 mL IQR = 2, ΔFRC = 1.6 mg/L) and the lowest in cleaned improved containers (Median = 0 CFU/100 mL, IQR = 0, ΔFRC = 1.2 mg/L). The FRC concentration at the tap of 2 mg/L was too low to protect water from E. coli recontamination in uncleaned jerrycans over 24 h. Cleaning the jerrycans was inconvenient due to their small openings, therefore, sand was used. The cleaning with sand reduced recontamination with E . coli but did not reduce the count of total coliforms. Improved containers with a larger opening allowed for cleaning with a brush and showed the lowest levels of recontamination for both E. coli and total coliforms. In addition to the intervention strategies, households receiving a higher number of WASH education visits within the previous year had lower recontamination levels of E. coli in stored water (OR = 0.54, p = 0.003).

Uganda has a large rural population with low access to water and sanitation. This article tells success stories of a local organization, Get Water Uganda, working at the household-levels to support sustainable development and improving WASH access.