Assessing Drinking Water Quality and Water Safety Management in Sub-Saharan Africa Using Regulated Monitoring Data

Abstract

Universal access to safe drinking water is prioritized in the post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals. Collecting reliable and actionable water quality information in low-resource settings, however, is challenging, and little is known about the correspondence between water quality data collected by local monitoring agencies and global frameworks for water safety. Using 42 926 microbial water quality test results from 32 surveillance agencies and water suppliers in seven sub-Saharan African countries, we determined the degree to which water sources were monitored, how water quality varied by source type, and institutional responses to results. Sixty-four percent of the water samples were collected from piped supplies, although the majority of Africans rely on nonpiped sources. Piped supplies had the lowest levels of fecal indicator bacteria (FIB) compared to any other source type: only 4% of samples of water piped to plots and 2% of samples from water piped to public taps/standpipes were positive for FIB (n = 14 948 and n = 12 278, respectively). Among other types of improved sources, samples from harvested rainwater and boreholes were less often positive for FIB (22%, n = 167 and 31%, n = 3329, respectively) than protected springs or protected dug wells (39%, n = 472 and 65%, n = 505). When data from different settings were aggregated, the FIB levels in different source types broadly reflected the source-type water safety framework used by the Joint Monitoring Programme. However, the insufficient testing of nonpiped sources relative to their use indicates important gaps in current assessments. Our results emphasize the importance of local data collection for water safety management and measurement of progress toward universal safe drinking water access.

Making Fe0-Based Filters a Universal Solution for Safe Drinking Water Provision

“…In particular, it was argued that studies claiming the efficiency of HWTS practices were assessed over too short a duration [99]. However, these reports are not based on the instrumental analysis of treated water, making this discussion questionable, as only biological and chemical water analyses should be used to determine the water quality: the presence, level, and nature of contamination [11,27]. …”

“…The BSF is considered one of the most promising household water treatment methods but the demonstration of its suitability and efficiency is impaired by two key factors: (i) The quality of treated water is not routinely analytically assessed and (ii) overarching designing or manufacturing and quality control guidelines do not exist. The challenge of accessing equipment for water analysis as a cornerstone for achieving the UN SDGs is obvious [11,28]. This section summarizes the efforts achieved in designing consistently high-quality Fe 0 filters.…”

“…Water pollution caused by chemical, microbial, and physical contamination is a worldwide health issue [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. While microbes cause acute diseases (e.g., cholera, diarrhea, typhoid fever), chemicals mainly cause chronic diseases including cancer [4,9,11,[14][15][16][17][18][19].…”

“…While microbes cause acute diseases (e.g., cholera, diarrhea, typhoid fever), chemicals mainly cause chronic diseases including cancer [4,9,11,[14][15][16][17][18][19]. Physical contamination (e.g., color, suspended solids) is generally easy to remove.…”

How Much Will It Cost To Monitor Microbial Drinking Water Quality in Sub-Saharan Africa?

“…5 In contrast, unimproved sources are highly likely to contain microbial contamination, and, therefore, should be considered unsafe for consumption without treatment. Our results provide a nuanced understanding of the economics of microbial water quality monitoring and can guide the allocation of resources to improve water safety management in sub-Saharan Africa.…”