Microbiological effectiveness of mineral pot filters as household water treatment in the coastal areas of Bangladesh

A novel filtration system based on ceramic silver-impregnated pot filter combined with adsorption processes to remove waterborne bacteria

“…The removal reached in this study ranged between 1.8 and 3.6 logs for both filter systems here evaluated (Tables 2 and 3). Overall, the LRVs found in this study are similar to those found in other studies where bacterial removals by silver-impregnated porous pot filters have been reported to range between 1 and 3.5 log 10 reductions 20,21,31,32,47,53 .…”

“…The percentage removal of E. coli and Salmonella spp. from spiked water by the CSF ranged between 98% and 99.98%, which were within percentages reported in previous studies where the removal rates ranged between 84 and 100% 21,25,31,53 . In this respect, the log 10 reductions of 1.8 for E. coli (Table 2) were slightly lower in comparison to those found in most studies for this bacterial species (log 10 reduction ranged between 2 and 3) using silver-impregnated pot filters 21,22,25,31,53 .…”

“…In this respect, the lack of access to safe drinking water is a notable hindrance to the improvement in human health and development of the community in rural/urban areas in developing countries 13 . To counter this, several low-cost water treating methods at the household level have been developed and implemented to provide consistent access to safe drinking water in developing countries 12,[18][19][20][21] . In this context, currently, the point-of-use water treatment (PoUWT) systems have shown to be a promising option for improving the water quality at the household level in rural areas of these countries 12,19,[22][23][24][25][26] .…”

Drinking water services in the primary schools: evidence from coastal areas in Bangladesh

“…It happens most probably due to irregular cleaning of MPF, long term water storage in MPF, unsafe water handling during watering and most importantly, not changing the filtration device that has to change periodically for efficient performance. Also, Karim et al. (2016) assessed the performance of MPF in reducing coliforms from drinking water which showed inconsistency in removal efficiency.…”

Differences in laboratory versus field treatment performance of point-of-use drinking water treatment methods: research gaps and ways forward

“…1). Water should be collected from an improved source 7 that is accessible, sustainable, and of adequate quality; 8 transported using a clean fetching container; 9,10 treated consistently and correctly over a sustained period [11][12][13][14][15] using a device that has been adequately operated; [16][17][18][19][20][21] stored using a clean vessel after treatment 9,10,22 , and consumed using a clean cup 9,23,24 . Taken together, these important components comprise household water treatment and safe storage (HWTS), which can be employed to provide protection against diarrheal illness 25 , potentially resulting in substantial positive health impacts 26 .…”