IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v15y2018i1p64-d125388.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of Well Designs to Improve Access to Safe and Clean Water in Rural Tanzania

Author

Listed:
  • Aminata Kilungo

    (Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, Health Promotion Sciences Department, The University of Arizona, 1295 N Martin Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA)

  • Linda Powers

    (Electrical and Computer Engineering, Biomedical Engineering, The University of Arizona, 1230 E. Speedway Blvd, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA)

  • Nathan Arnold

    (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Michigan Technological University, 801 Dow Building, Houghton, MI 49931, USA)

  • Kelli Whelan

    (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Michigan Technological University, 801 Dow Building, Houghton, MI 49931, USA)

  • Kurt Paterson

    (Department of Engineering, James Madison University, 801 Carrier Dr., Harrisonburg, VA 22807, USA)

  • Dale Young

    (Maji Safi kwa Afya Bora Ifakara (MSABI), Kilosa Road 65, Morogoro 284, Tanzania)

Abstract

The objective of this study was to examine three well designs: drilled wells (20–30 m deep), closed dug wells (>5 m deep), and hand-dug open wells (<5 m deep), to determine the water quality for improving access to safe and clean water in rural communities. Heterotrophic plate count (HPC), total coliforms (TC), Escherichia coli ( E. coli) and turbidity, were used to assess the water quality of 97 wells. Additionally, the study looked at the microflora diversity of the water, focusing on potential pathogens using outgrowth, PCR, and genome sequencing for 10 wells. Concentrations of TC for the open dug wells (4 × 10 4 CFU/100 mL) were higher than the drilled (2 × 10 3 CFU/100 mL) and closed dug wells (3 × 10 3 CFU/100 mL). E. coli concentration for drilled and closed dug wells was <22 MPN (most probable number)/100 mL, but higher for open wells (>154 MPN/100 mL). The drilled well turbidity (11 NTU) was within the standard deviation of the closed well (28 NTU) compared to open dug wells (49 NTU). Drilled and closed wells had similar microbial diversity. There were no significant differences between drilled and closed dug wells. The covering and lining of hand-dug wells should be considered as an alternative to improve access to safe and clean water in rural communities.

Suggested Citation

  • Aminata Kilungo & Linda Powers & Nathan Arnold & Kelli Whelan & Kurt Paterson & Dale Young, 2018. "Evaluation of Well Designs to Improve Access to Safe and Clean Water in Rural Tanzania," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-11, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:15:y:2018:i:1:p:64-:d:125388
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/1/64/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/1/64/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nathan Shankar & Arto S. Baghdayan & Michael S. Gilmore, 2002. "Modulation of virulence within a pathogenicity island in vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecalis," Nature, Nature, vol. 417(6890), pages 746-750, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Paul H. McClelland & Claire T. Kenney & Federico Palacardo & Nicholas L. S. Roberts & Nicholas Luhende & Jason Chua & Jennifer Huang & Priyanka Patel & Leonardo Albertini Sanchez & Won J. Kim & John K, 2022. "Improved Water and Waste Management Practices Reduce Diarrhea Risk in Children under Age Five in Rural Tanzania: A Community-Based, Cross-Sectional Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-18, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:15:y:2018:i:1:p:64-:d:125388. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.