Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2014 Jul 18;11(7):7333-46.
doi: 10.3390/ijerph110707333.

Comparison and cost analysis of drinking water quality monitoring requirements versus practice in seven developing countries

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Comparison and cost analysis of drinking water quality monitoring requirements versus practice in seven developing countries

Jonny Crocker et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. .

Abstract

Drinking water quality monitoring programs aim to support provision of safe drinking water by informing water quality management. Little evidence or guidance exists on best monitoring practices for low resource settings. Lack of financial, human, and technological resources reduce a country's ability to monitor water supply. Monitoring activities were characterized in Cambodia, Colombia, India (three states), Jordan, Peru, South Africa, and Uganda according to water sector responsibilities, monitoring approaches, and marginal cost. The seven study countries were selected to represent a range of low resource settings. The focus was on monitoring of microbiological parameters, such as E. coli, coliforms, and H2S-producing microorganisms. Data collection involved qualitative and quantitative methods. Across seven study countries, few distinct approaches to monitoring were observed, and in all but one country all monitoring relied on fixed laboratories for sample analysis. Compliance with monitoring requirements was highest for operational monitoring of large water supplies in urban areas. Sample transport and labor for sample collection and analysis together constitute approximately 75% of marginal costs, which exclude capital costs. There is potential for substantive optimization of monitoring programs by considering field-based testing and by fundamentally reconsidering monitoring approaches for non-piped supplies. This is the first study to look quantitatively at water quality monitoring practices in multiple developing countries.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Scenario prevalence across nine study sites.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Prescribed and extrapolated levels of monitoring by scenario.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Compliance with monitoring requirements by country.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Marginal cost per test for three scenarios averaged across nine sites.

References

    1. UNICEF. World Health Organization . Progress on Sanitation and Drinking-Water—2013 Update. WHO Library; Geneva, Switzerland: 2013.
    1. Onda K., Bartram J., Lobuglio J. Global access to safe water: Accounting for water quality and the resulting impact on MDG progress. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2012;9:880–894. doi: 10.3390/ijerph9030880. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Havellar A.H. Application of HACCP to drinking water supply. Food Control. 1994;5:145–152. doi: 10.1016/0956-7135(94)90074-4. - DOI
    1. World Health Organization . Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality—Third Edition. WHO Library; Geneva, Switzerland: 2008.
    1. Bartram J., Corrales L., Davison A., Deer D., Drury D., Gordon B., Howard G., Rinehold A., Stevens M. Water Safety Plan Manual: Step-by-Step Risk Management for Drinking Water Suppliers. WHO Library; Geneva, Switzerland: 2009.

Publication types

MeSH terms