Abstract
Well‐switching programs in Bangladesh have successfully lowered arsenic exposure. In these programs, households switch from wells that are labeled “unsafe” to nearby wells labeled “safe,” but these designations are usually based on inherently inaccurate field kit measurements. Here, we (a) compare the efficacy of field‐kit measurements to accurate laboratory measurements for well switching, (b) investigate the potential impact on well switching of the chosen “safe” threshold, and (c) consider the possible benefits of providing more detailed concentration information than just “safe” and “unsafe.” We explore different hypothetical mitigation scenarios by combining two extensive data sets from Araihazar Bangladesh: a blanket survey of 6595 wells over 25 km2 based on laboratory measurements and 943 paired kit and laboratory measurements from the same area. The results indicate that the decline in average arsenic exposure from relying on kit rather than laboratory data is modest in relation to the logistical and financial challenge of delivering exclusively laboratory data. The analysis further indicates that the 50 μg/L threshold used in Bangladesh to distinguish safe and unsafe wells, rather than the WHO guideline of 10 μg/L, is close to optimal in terms of average exposure reduction. We also show that providing kit data at the maximum possible resolution rather than merely classifying wells as unsafe or safe would be even better. These findings are relevant as the government of Bangladesh is about to launch a new blanket testing campaign of millions of wells using field kits.
Highlights
Households switch from wells that are labeled “unsafe” to nearby wells labeled “safe,” but these designations are usually based on inherently inaccurate field kit measurements
Our results indicate that the average decline in arsenic exposure for a switching program that is based on cheap kit measurements is comparable to that of a program that uses more accurate, but expensive and logistically challenging, laboratory measurements
We show that the 50 μg/L threshold used in Bangladesh to distinguish safe and unsafe wells is close to the optimal value for reducing arsenic exposure
Summary
In rural Bangladesh, and South Asia more generally, treated drinking water distributed through a piped system is rare. Millions drink arsenic-contaminated groundwater from their household well. An estimated 45 million people in Bangladesh are exposed to arsenic concentrations greater than 10 μg/L, the World Health Organization (WHO) guideline, causing more than 100,000 excess spontaneous abortions and infant and adult deaths every year (Flanagan et al, 2012; Quansah et al, 2015).
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: 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.