Robert Bain and colleagues conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess whether water from “improved” sources is less likely to contain fecal contamination than “unimproved” sources and find that access to an “improved source” provides a measure of sanitary protection but does not ensure water is free of fecal contamination. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary

ObjectivesTo estimate exposure to faecal contamination through drinking water as indicated by levels of Escherichia coli (E. coli) or thermotolerant coliform (TTC) in water sources.MethodsWe estimated coverage of different types of drinking water source based on household surveys and censuses using multilevel modelling. Coverage data were combined with water quality studies that assessed E. coli or TTC including those identified by a systematic review (n = 345). Predictive models for the presence and level of contamination of drinking water sources were developed using random effects logistic regression and selected covariates. We assessed sensitivity of estimated exposure to study quality, indicator bacteria and separately considered nationally randomised surveys.ResultsWe estimate that 1.8 billion people globally use a source of drinking water which suffers from faecal contamination, of these 1.1 billion drink water that is of at least ‘moderate’ risk (>10 E. coli or TTC per 100 ml). Data from nationally randomised studies suggest that 10% of improved sources may be ‘high’ risk, containing at least 100 E. coli or TTC per 100 ml. Drinking water is found to be more often contaminated in rural areas (41%, CI: 31%–51%) than in urban areas (12%, CI: 8–18%), and contamination is most prevalent in Africa (53%, CI: 42%–63%) and South-East Asia (35%, CI: 24%–45%). Estimates were not sensitive to the exclusion of low quality studies or restriction to studies reporting E. coli.ConclusionsMicrobial contamination is widespread and affects all water source types, including piped supplies. Global burden of disease estimates may have substantially understated the disease burden associated with inadequate water services.

No abstract

BackgroundAccess to safe drinking water is essential for health. Monitoring access to drinking water focuses on water supply type at the source, but there is limited evidence on whether quality differences at the source persist in water stored in the household.ObjectivesWe assessed the extent of fecal contamination at the source and in household stored water (HSW) and explored the relationship between contamination at each sampling point and water supply type.MethodsWe performed a bivariate random-effects meta-analysis of 45 studies, identified through a systematic review, that reported either the proportion of samples free of fecal indicator bacteria and/or individual sample bacteria counts for source and HSW, disaggregated by supply type.ResultsWater quality deteriorated substantially between source and stored water. The mean percentage of contaminated samples (noncompliance) at the source was 46% (95% CI: 33, 60%), whereas mean noncompliance in HSW was 75% (95% CI: 64, 84%). Water supply type was significantly associated with noncompliance at the source (p < 0.001) and in HSW (p = 0.03). Source water (OR = 0.2; 95% CI: 0.1, 0.5) and HSW (OR = 0.3; 95% CI: 0.2, 0.8) from piped supplies had significantly lower odds of contamination compared with non-piped water, potentially due to residual chlorine.ConclusionsPiped water is less likely to be contaminated compared with other water supply types at both the source and in HSW. A focus on upgrading water services to piped supplies may help improve safety, including for those drinking stored water.CitationShields KF, Bain RE, Cronk R, Wright JA, Bartram J. 2015. Association of supply type with fecal contamination of source water and household stored drinking water in developing countries: a bivariate meta-analysis. Environ Health Perspect 123:1222–1231; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1409002

No abstract

Microbial drinking-water quality testing plays an essential role in measures to protect public health. However, such testing remains a significant challenge where resources are limited. With a wide variety of tests available, researchers and practitioners have expressed difficulties in selecting the most appropriate test(s) for a particular budget, application and setting. To assist the selection process we identified the characteristics associated with low and medium resource settings and we specified the basic information that is needed for different forms of water quality monitoring. We then searched for available faecal indicator bacteria tests and collated this information. In total 44 tests have been identified, 18 of which yield a presence/absence result and 26 of which provide enumeration of bacterial concentration. The suitability of each test is assessed for use in the three settings. The cost per test was found to vary from $0.60 to $5.00 for a presence/absence test and from $0.50 to $7.50 for a quantitative format, though it is likely to be only a small component of the overall costs of testing. This article presents the first comprehensive catalogue of the characteristics of available and emerging low-cost tests for faecal indicator bacteria. It will be of value to organizations responsible for monitoring national water quality, water service providers, researchers and policy makers in selecting water quality tests appropriate for a given setting and application.

Access to safely managed drinking water (SMDW) remains a global challenge, and affects 2.2 billion people1,2. Solar-driven atmospheric water harvesting (AWH) devices with continuous cycling may accelerate progress by enabling decentralized extraction of water from air3–6, but low specific yields (SY) and low daytime relative humidity (RH) have raised questions about their performance (in litres of water output per day)7–11. However, to our knowledge, no analysis has mapped the global potential of AWH12 despite favourable conditions in tropical regions, where two-thirds of people without SMDW live2. Here we show that AWH could provide SMDW for a billion people. Our assessment—using Google Earth Engine13—introduces a hypothetical 1-metre-square device with a SY profile of 0.2 to 2.5 litres per kilowatt-hour (0.1 to 1.25 litres per kilowatt-hour for a 2-metre-square device) at 30% to 90% RH, respectively. Such a device could meet a target average daily drinking water requirement of 5 litres per day per person14. We plot the impact potential of existing devices and new sorbent classes, which suggests that these targets could be met with continued technological development, and well within thermodynamic limits. Indeed, these performance targets have been achieved experimentally in demonstrations of sorbent materials15–17. Our tools can inform design trade-offs for atmospheric water harvesting devices that maximize global impact, alongside ongoing efforts to meet Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with existing technologies.

No abstract