clean water in ecuador - calvin
TRANSCRIPT
Water is chemically safe and clean, making
microbial hazards the primary concern
Present systems have a good design and are capable
of delivering disinfected water
Optimal system management requires well trained
chlorine testers, regular monitoring, and thorough
record keeping
Community feedback and flavor can have strong
influence on chlorine dosing in the absence of
comprehensive system management techniques
Community education is vital to the success of a
community led water system
World Health Organization, ed. 2004 Guidelines for Drinking-
Water Quality, 3rd edn. Geneva.
http://geology.com/world/south-america-physical-map.shtml
https://www.ezilon.com/maps/south-america/ecuador-physical-
maps.html
Introduction Methods Results
Conclusions
References
Analyze efficacy of the piped, chlorine disinfection
and distribution systems in each community based on
free residual chlorine concentrations
Chlorine potency is influenced by a variety of factors
including concentration, temperature, contact time,
and most significantly pH
Analyze physicochemical hazards and factors effecting
disinfection and palatability
Assess microbial hazards as well as system
management and community feedback
Perform community taste tests to determine how
chlorine concentration impacts palatability of the
drinking water
(above) rural community and landscape (below)
testing a rural water system in a community
Physicochemical Analysis
Clean Water in EcuadorKurtis Duff, Dr. Chad Tatko, Calvin College, Grand Rapids, Michigan
Community
SiteEC TDS Temperature pH Color Turbidity Nitrite Nitrate Sulfate Iron Phosphate Magnesium Calcium CO2 Cl-
1 472 234 16.0 8.15 17 0 0.007 0.98 0 0.09 4.28 --- --- 48.2 1.7
2 107 54 10.4 8.64 0 0 0 0 2.67 0.05 2.70 2.31 +++ 69 1.4
3 122 59 13.0 7.82 0 0 0 0 1.67 0 0.76 3.55 +++ 48.6 1.7
4 523 260 15.6 8.40 0 0 0 +++ 0 0 0 0 0 25.2 9
5 361 180 13.9 8.27 --- --- --- --- 10 0.06 0.01 0.87 0.34 50 2.3
6 122 63 12.0 8.21 0 0 0.015 0.09 0 0.04 0.74 +++ 3.26 47.6 1.6
7 834 416 17.2 8.16 0 0 0.089 0.17 42 0.08 1.57 0.25 0.62 --- ---
8 535 265 16.6 8.20 0 0 --- --- 74 0.04 0.12 1.43 0 --- 11
9 521 261 18.5 7.70 0 0 --- --- 10 0.04 0.53 1.36 0 88 2.1
10 521 263 19.3 8.00 0 0 0.027 0.07 10 0 0.33 0.68 0 68 1.1
11 695 341 13.1 7.86 0 0 0.012 0.06 37 0.09 0.02 0.42 0.19 64 4.3
12 516 258 17.1 8.17 0 0 0 0 +++ 0 0.72 2.25 3.92 --- ---
13 283 144 13.00 8.34 0 0 --- --- 3 0.03 0.07 2.01 0 81 16.4
14 172 350 14.8 8.35 0 0 0 0.07 0 0.04 +++ 1.38 2.77 40.4 1.5
15 324 162 15.1 7.43 0 0 0.021 0.47 1 0.13 +++ 2.31 3.89 50 1.2
16 625 311 13.4 7.75 0 0 0 0 24 0 1.32 0.99 0.86 --- ---
17 653 312 13.5 8.06 0 0 0 0 23 0 1.78 1.88 3.06 --- ---
18 485 242 16.0 7.80 0 0 0.004 +++ 12 0.05 0.07 1.61 0 84 1.2
USGS
Standards250-750 500 N/A 6.5 - 8.5 15 5 1 10 250 0.30 N/A 61 61 N/A 250
In country field tests and IC analysis both show that
source groundwater is clean (within USGS guideline
values and similar to Calvin tap water chemically)
Tests for bacteria reveal variable concentration of
combined coliforms and fecal coliforms, depending on
community, but consistently above recommended values
Access to safe drinking water is
one of the greatest barriers to
achieving global public health
Hazards present in drinking water
supplies vary greatly depending
on the system
In 2004, the World Health
Organization (WHO) introduced
Water Safety Plans (WSPs),
which are comprehensive risk
assessment and management
plans developed for systems
individually
Water system management and disinfection are
particularly important in developing countries such
as Ecuador, where 36% of population is made up
of small, rural communities and microbial hazards
are a greater risk
Chemical disinfection, using chlorine, is the most
efficient for treating hazards because it both
disinfects and remains in the system to protect it
Visited/ studied 19 rural communities in the
Chimborazo province of Ecuador, located in the
Andean mountain valley
Community led water systems providing
water to 50 – 375 household taps
Chlorine tests consistently show that free residual
chlorine concentrations are insufficient both at the
source and POU
Observed that stocks for initial dosing are made
incorrectly, no form of record keeping present,
verbal feedback about flavor from community
members influenced dosing
Tested Source Poor Range Moderate Range Good Range
Source Water 0 - 0.2 ppm 0.2 - 0.5 ppm 0.5 - 1.0 ppm
POU 0 - 0.15 ppm 0.15 - 0.3 ppm 0.3 - 0.5 ppm
61.5%
15.4%
23.1%
75.0%
18.8%
6.3%
69.0%
17.2%
13.8%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Poor Moderate Good
Source Water POU Total
Chlorine Residual Analysis