Abstract
Microbial water quality monitoring is crucial for managing water resources and protecting public health. However, institutional testing activities in sub-Saharan Africa are currently limited. Because the economics of water quality testing are poorly understood, the extent to which cost may be a barrier to monitoring in different settings is unclear. This study used cost data from 18 African monitoring institutions (piped water suppliers and health surveillance agencies in six countries) and estimates of water supply type coverage from 15 countries to assess the annual financial requirements for microbial water testing at both national and regional levels, using World Health Organization recommendations for sampling frequency. We found that a microbial water quality test costs 21.0 ± 11.3 USD, on average, including consumables, equipment, labor, and logistics, which is higher than previously calculated. Our annual cost estimates for microbial monitoring of piped supplies and improved point sources ranged between 8 000 USD for Equatorial Guinea and 1.9 million USD for Ethiopia, depending primarily on the population served but also on the distribution of piped water system sizes. A comparison with current national water and sanitation budgets showed that the cost of implementing prescribed testing levels represents a relatively modest proportion of existing budgets (<2%). At the regional level, we estimated that monitoring the microbial quality of all improved water sources in sub-Saharan Africa would cost 16.0 million USD per year, which is minimal in comparison to the projected annual capital costs of achieving Sustainable Development Goal 6.1 of safe water for all (14.8 billion USD).
Highlights
Exposure to fecally transmitted microbial pathogens is the primary global health risk associated with contaminated drinking water.[1,2] assessing microbial water quality is important for managing water resources and protecting public health
During the United Nation’s Millennium Development Goal (MDG) period (2005−2015), the World Health Organization (WHO)-UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) for Water Supply and Sanitation relied on a proxy indicator for water supply safety: drinking water sources that were constructed or managed to minimize fecal contamination were classified as “improved” and vulnerable sources were classified as “unimproved”
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
Summary
Exposure to fecally transmitted microbial pathogens is the primary global health risk associated with contaminated drinking water.[1,2] assessing microbial water quality is important for managing water resources and protecting public health. During the United Nation’s Millennium Development Goal (MDG) period (2005−2015), the World Health Organization (WHO)-UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) for Water Supply and Sanitation relied on a proxy indicator for water supply safety: drinking water sources that were constructed or managed to minimize fecal contamination were classified as “improved” (piped water, protected groundwater, and rainwater) and vulnerable sources (unprotected groundwater and surface water) were classified as “unimproved”.3. The limitations of this proxy are well recognized, as multiple studies have shown significant levels of fecal contamination in improved drinking water sources.[4,5] direct measurements of water quality are needed to assess water safety. Water quality monitoring constitutes a crucial tool for water safety management
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
