IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v9y2012i1p139-170d15522.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Removal of Escherichia coli and Faecal Coliforms from Surface Water and Groundwater by Household Water Treatment Devices/Systems: A Sustainable Solution for Improving Water Quality in Rural Communities of the Southern African Development Community Region

Author

Listed:
  • Jocelyne K. Mwabi

    (Department of Environmental, Water and Earth Sciences, Tshwane University of Technology, 175 Nelson Mandela Drive, Pretoria 0002, South Africa)

  • Bhekie B. Mamba

    (Department of Chemical Technology, University of Johannesburg, P.O. Box 17011, Doornfontein 2028, South Africa)

  • Maggy N. B. Momba

    (Department of Environmental, Water and Earth Sciences, Tshwane University of Technology, 175 Nelson Mandela Drive, Pretoria 0002, South Africa)

Abstract

There is significant evidence that household water treatment devices/systems (HWTS) are capable of dramatically improving microbially contaminated water quality. The purpose of this study was to examine five filters [(biosand filter-standard (BSF-S); biosand filter-zeolite (BSF-Z); bucket filter (BF); ceramic candle filter (CCF); and silver-impregnated porous pot (SIPP)] and evaluate their ability to improve the quality of drinking water at the household level. These HWTS were manufactured in the workshop of the Tshwane University of Technology and evaluated for efficiency to remove turbidity, faecal coliforms and Escherichia coli from multiple water source samples, using standard methods. The flow rates ranged from 0.05 L/h to 2.49 L/h for SIPP, 1 L/h to 4 L/h for CCF, 0.81 L/h to 6.84 L/h for BSF-S, 1.74 L/h to 19.2 L/h and 106.5 L/h to 160.5 L/h for BF The turbidity of the raw water samples ranged between 2.17 and 40.4 NTU. The average turbidity obtained after filtration ranged from 0.6 to 8 NTU (BSF-S), 1 to 4 NTU (BSF-Z), 2 to 11 NTU (BF), and from 0.6 to 7 NTU (CCF) and 0.7 to 1 NTU for SIPP. The BSF-S, BSF-Z and CCF removed 2 to 4 log 10 (99% to 100%) of coliform bacteria, while the BF removed 1 to 3 log (90% to 99.9%) of these bacteria. The performance of the SIPP in removing turbidity and indicator bacteria (>5 log 10 , 100%) was significantly higher compared to that of the other HWTS ( p

Suggested Citation

  • Jocelyne K. Mwabi & Bhekie B. Mamba & Maggy N. B. Momba, 2012. "Removal of Escherichia coli and Faecal Coliforms from Surface Water and Groundwater by Household Water Treatment Devices/Systems: A Sustainable Solution for Improving Water Quality in Rural Communitie," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-32, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:9:y:2012:i:1:p:139-170:d:15522
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/9/1/139/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/9/1/139/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Murphy, Heather M. & McBean, Edward A. & Farahbakhsh, Khosrow, 2009. "Appropriate technology – A comprehensive approach for water and sanitation in the developing world," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 158-167.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Davies-Colley, Christian & Smith, Willie, 2012. "Implementing environmental technologies in development situations: The example of ecological toilets," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 1-8.
    2. Débora Cynamon Kligerman & Telma Abdalla de Oliveira Cardoso & Simone Cynamon Cohen & Déborah Chein Bueno de Azevedo & Graziella de Araújo Toledo & Ana Paula Chein Bueno de Azevedo & Susanne M. Charle, 2022. "Methodology for a Comprehensive Health Impact Assessment in Water Supply and Sanitation Programmes for Brazil," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-26, October.
    3. Patnaik, Jayshree & Bhowmick, Bhaskar, 2019. "Revisiting appropriate technology with changing socio-technical landscape in emerging countries," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 8-19.
    4. Sorensen, Ingrid M. & McBean, Edward A., 2015. "Beyond appropriate technology: Social considerations for the sustainable use of Arsenic–Iron Removal Plants in rural Bangladesh," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 1-9.
    5. Innocent K. Tumwebaze & Joan B. Rose & Nynke Hofstra & Matthew E. Verbyla & Daniel A. Okaali & Panagis Katsivelis & Heather M. Murphy, 2021. "Bridging Science and Practice-Importance of Stakeholders in the Development of Decision Support: Lessons Learned," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-12, May.
    6. I. Zelenika & J. Pearce, 2014. "Innovation through collaboration: scaling up solutions for sustainable development," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 16(6), pages 1299-1316, December.
    7. Abhipsa Pal & Rahul De’ & Tejaswini Herath, 2020. "The Role of Mobile Payment Technology in Sustainable and Human-Centric Development: Evidence from the Post-Demonetization Period in India," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 607-631, June.
    8. Kalbar, Pradip P. & Karmakar, Subhankar & Asolekar, Shyam R., 2012. "Technology assessment for wastewater treatment using multiple-attribute decision-making," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 295-302.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:9:y:2012:i:1:p:139-170:d:15522. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.