Combining Sanitary Inspection and Water Quality Data in Western Uganda: Lessons Learned from a Field Trial of Original and Revised Sanitary Inspection Forms

D. Daniel, Josphine Gaicugi, Richard King, Sara J. Marks and Giuliana Ferrero
Additional contact information
D. Daniel: Department of Water Management, Delft University of Technology, 2628 CN Delft, The Netherlands
Josphine Gaicugi: Department of Water Supply, Sanitation, and Environmental Engineering, IHE Delft Institute for Water Education, 2611 AX Delft, The Netherlands
Richard King: Centre for Environmental Health and Engineering (CEHE), Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 5XH, UK
Sara J. Marks: Department Sanitation, Water, and Solid Waste for Development, Swiss Federal Institute for Aquatic Science and Technology—Eawag, 8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland
Giuliana Ferrero: Department of Water Supply, Sanitation, and Environmental Engineering, IHE Delft Institute for Water Education, 2611 AX Delft, The Netherlands

Resources, 2020, vol. 9, issue 12, 1-16

Abstract: Risk assessment for drinking water systems combines sanitary inspections (SI) and water quality testing and is critical for effectively managing the safety of these systems. SI forms consist of question sets relating to the presence of potential sources and pathways of contamination specific to different types of water points, piped distribution systems, and household collection and storage practices. As part of the revision to the Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality (GDWQ), the World Health Organization (WHO) is updating the suite of SI forms to reflect and include the most recent technical and scientific information available. This paper reports the results from a field pilot of a selection of published and revised SI forms and water quality testing in the municipality of Bushenyi-Ishaka, Uganda. We collected data from 45 springs, 61 taps from piped distribution systems, and 129 household storage containers filled with water from those springs and taps. The median total risk scores, according to the revised forms, for spring, tap, and household practices were 36, 53, and 33%, respectively, with higher percentages indicating greater risk. The median Escherichia coli concentrations of spring, tap, and household storage systems were 17, <1, and 7 CFU/100 mL, respectively. We found that increased questioning in the revised SI forms do not necessarily translate to a higher total risk. There is potential for misinterpretation of terminology in the revised SI forms and occasional redundancy of concepts. For the revised SI form for springs, we suggest specific text changes to reduce potential bias. We recommend that users of SI forms receive training in their use and be familiar with their locale. Furthermore, the revised SI forms may need to be adapted in accordance with the local context.

Keywords: sanitary inspection; water quality; water safety; risk assessment; Uganda; small town (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/9/12/150/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/9/12/150/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jresou:v:9:y:2020:i:12:p:150-:d:464572

Access Statistics for this article

Resources is currently edited by Ms. Donchian Ma

More articles in Resources from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().