Microbial drinking-water quality testing plays an essential role in measures to protect public health. However, such testing remains a significant challenge where resources are limited. With a wide variety of tests available, researchers and practitioners have expressed difficulties in selecting the most appropriate test(s) for a particular budget, application and setting. To assist the selection process we identified the characteristics associated with low and medium resource settings and we specified the basic information that is needed for different forms of water quality monitoring. We then searched for available faecal indicator bacteria tests and collated this information. In total 44 tests have been identified, 18 of which yield a presence/absence result and 26 of which provide enumeration of bacterial concentration. The suitability of each test is assessed for use in the three settings. The cost per test was found to vary from $0.60 to $5.00 for a presence/absence test and from $0.50 to $7.50 for a quantitative format, though it is likely to be only a small component of the overall costs of testing. This article presents the first comprehensive catalogue of the characteristics of available and emerging low-cost tests for faecal indicator bacteria. It will be of value to organizations responsible for monitoring national water quality, water service providers, researchers and policy makers in selecting water quality tests appropriate for a given setting and application.

The UN defines water supplies as ‘improved’ or ‘unimproved.’ These indicators are easy to measure, but do not reflect water quality, which requires laboratory or field tests. Laboratory and test availability, expense and technical capacity are obstacles for developing countries. This research compares and verifies four low-cost, field-based microbiological tests: the EC-Kit (Colilert® and Petrifilm™ tests), the H2S bacteria test, and Easygel®, against a standard method (Quanti-Tray®). The objectives are to: (1) verify the accuracy of the four field-based tests, (2) study the accuracy of these tests as a function of improved and unimproved sources; (3) recommend a single microbiological test, if appropriate, based on accuracy and cost, and/or (4) recommend a testing combination, if appropriate, based on accuracy and cost. The tests of 500+ total water samples from Capiz Province, Philippines and Cambridge, MA indicate that two-tests systems gave better results than a single test. Both the 100-mL H2S test + Petrifilm™ and the 20-mL H2S test + Easygel® combinations yield promising results, in addition to being inexpensive. None of the field-based tests should be used on their own. We recommend further verification of a larger sample size and scale be undertaken before these testing combinations are recommended for wider use.

No abstract

No abstract