As indicated in previous blogs, various changes in climate
change have major implications on groundwater and surface water, which leads to
a degradation in water quality. This
blog aims to analyse how water quality and sanitation are handled to reduce diseases,
which may worsen with climate change.
In Sub-Sahara Africa 42% of the population lives without
improved water (Montgomery and Elimelech 2007). Improved water
includes households being connected to boreholes, a protected dug well, a
sealed spring or a rainwater collection.
Furthermore improved water includes public sewers and a septic system
such as sealed pit latrines (Montgomery and Elimelech 2007).
A lack of improved water decreases sanitation and increases mortality
rates due to diseases spreading such as diarrheal (Figure 1). The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are
attempting to increase the amount of people having access to safe water and
better sanitation. If water quality and
sanitation is not improved, it is expected that there will be approximately 135
million deaths by 2020 due to water diseases (Gleick 2002).
 |
| Figure 1: A comparison of lack of access of sanitation and safe water compared to mortality Source: Montgomery and Elimelech 2007 |
Understanding exposure to diseases
Many diseases in Sub-Saharan Africa are caught by a lack of
clean water provision and people not undertaking hygiene principles; such as
washing their hands and drinking clean water (not contaminated by excreta). Water treatment is difficult to provide in
rural areas, due to the population living more sparsely thus people are more
vulnerable to water diseases. Yet, in
urban areas, water treatment is more accessible. However, high capital costs and a lack in
water maintenance deteriorate water quality and people are still under risk of
catching viruses (Montgomery and Elimelech 2007). Thus, to decrease the level of diseases a domestic, local
approach should be implemented.
 |
| An emphasis on lack of water safety: A child collecting dirty water for drinking Source: ACET |
Effectiveness on disease treatment
POU treatment is a local approach, creating a boundary for
pathogen exposure immediately before water utilization. If POU treatment is implemented correctly it
will create a safer water supply and decrease water viruses. However, the performance of POU treatment is
highly reliant on the source water quality and some production costs are
inevitable. Although costs are relatively low and this process is highly
effective, in developing countries in Sub-Saharan Africa it is difficult for
poor individuals to pay these costs, as seen in Tanzania, where water was free and
then charges were implemented (Montgomery and Elimelech 2007).
Although POU treatment reduces pathogens to a higher degree
compared to chlorine, chlorine is cheaper, easier to use and manufactured
locally therefore preferred by people.
Another advantage when using chlorine is that it leaves a chlorine
residual in water which prevents re-contamination when obtained in households. Hence
chlorine is more effective due to being used more than POU treatment, therefore
decreases diseases to a higher degree. As seen in Kenya and Guatemala where POU
treatment reduced 40% of diarrheal whereas chlorine reduced 85% (Montgomery and Elimelech 2007).
Furthermore, sewage systems are essential in holding excreta.
An improvement in sanitation processes
suggests that waste is stored in a safe, enclosed environment. This suggests that faecal matter will be
unable to leak in groundwater or surface water (Montgomery and Elimelech 2007).
Hence, reducing the risk of freshwater contamination. Therefore, suggesting a decrease in the
ability of viruses spreading due to higher hygiene levels.
Thoughts
In the future climate change impacts and increasing
population rates in Sub-Saharan Africa will make people more vulnerable to
diseases, if actions are not taken to prevent water deterioration. This may
cause great epidemics repeating historical events such as the great cholera (Great
Stink). In the future, Sub-Saharan Africa needs to apply strict policies and
investments to manage water quality and sanitation, to reduce major influxes of
diseases. Even though Sub-Saharan Africa
consists of developing countries and a large economic gap between social groups
may be prevalent; governments, NGOS and investors need to provide safe access
to water and stop people suffering and dying.
I believe it is essential to improve water sources and take actions to
protect people from water diseases.
Looking forwad to hearing your comments.
Hi Maria! I think it is very important to improve both water supply and sewage/treatment system at the same time. As you highlighted, the risk of these two being mixed (particularly under torrential rain) is very high in terms of the health of the people. However, my question is how do you think we can provide the improved services to those who constantly migrate across the African continent? In cities and towns here in the West, basic hygiene facilities are available wherever you go unlike in sub-saharan Africa where migration is pretty common especially at the time of difficulties (lack of water/food). I guess we can try to encourage the local people to build the facility across the continent, but other questions would come up like how many of them to be constructed, who will own it and be in charge of maintenance, where financial & technical supports come from etc.. Or should we just give them chlorine to treat their own? I look forward to hearing your thoughts soon!
ReplyDeleteHi Satomi, Thank you for your question, a truly interesting one. I agree it is very hard. I believe it depends on where the people migrate. If it is from one village to another or to any town, in many cases water is available in communal taps or wells and sanitation facilities are also in many cases communal. However, if the people are migrating to less remote areas with no people, then it truly is a problem, especially in terms of sanitation. If the migration is seasonal then it is very hard to build any type of facilities. In terms of giving chlorine to people, from my very little experience in a water management office in Cyprus, chlorine is usually in liquid form and specific amounts are inputted in the water in order to clean it depending on various tests before water is consumed. I am not sure if this would be the case, but if so, it would be very hard for people with minimal knowledge on the matter to know how to measure the amounts of chlorine that should be entered in drinking water. So, in the case of people migrating to less remote areas, I assume it would be very hard, and difficult to come up with a solution.
DeleteHi Maria! Yes, I agree with you that the destination matters particularly in sanitation. It came to my mind that, perhaps, if it is truly remote and no one else is living around, we could potentially say there is no need to treat the waste water as long as the migrants know how to avoid mixing the dirt with water supply like groundwater. But I also think that the feasibility is also dependent upon the geology there especially soil structure because it affects how untreated water flows and to where. For example, if the soil is highly permeable and hydraulic gradient is very high, it can flow into active groundwater that connects to wells in populated area (although it might be purified by then if it's far enough). I do not know much about the effect of chlorine, but I completely agree that the knowledge would be a major constraint.
Deletehey Satomi! yes I completely I think in the case of high levels of migration, a good knowledge of how to deal with waste and how to access clean water would be a good and useful idea!
DeleteNice to the exchanges on this blog. With the huge influx of migrants to Europe this year, we have seen this issue come to the forefront in the media. On the subject of water and sanitation provision, there is a huge challenge which my, in part, play a role in the push factors that encourage migration. Remember that the migrants from Africa to southern Europe represent an infinitesimal proportion of the population in Sub-Saharan Africa. I am unclear about the POU treatments mentioned here. What specifically are these? Chlorination is expensive. Prevention of contamination is clearly a priority - hence the priority placed on expanding access to effective sanitation.
ReplyDeleteHi Richard, thank you for your comments. I found it complicated to understand what POU (Point of Use) treatment is exactly. The paper suggests that the POU treatments are some sort of packets that clean water. However, when I researched further the matter, I understood they are some kind of filters used to clean water. I hope this gives more clarity on the matter (http://www.kdfft.com/POEorPOU.htm).
DeleteThe blog is developing well and the exchanges are good. Lovely photo in the backdrop. You may find it helpful to develop a topic focus within your thematic area. I can see a line of argument on climate change impacts developing in your posts. Continue to follow this.
ReplyDeleteAnother suggestion for improving your blog is to provide a little more detail of the science in your reviews of the literature. I was unclear about what you meant by POU here for instance. Try to bring out further the scientific debate in the papers you cite and review.
ReplyDelete