<span style="font-family:Verdana;">Rural communities in sub</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">-</span></span>...<span style="font-family:Verdana;">Rural communities in sub</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">-</span></span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Saharan Africa (SSA) are always faced with the challenge of securing safe water for beneficial uses. Most communities lack a centralized water supply system and, thus, each residence utilizes the treatment method that they can afford. This study evaluated three treatment methods for drinking water in the Njala University and Mokonde communities in southern Sierra Leone. In the perceived natural treatment, residents in the Mokonde community believe that groundwater has been purified by the soil media and, hence, does not require further treatment. In the conventional treatment, the Njala University Water Works use sand filtration and chlorine disinfection to treat water from the Taia River. The third treatment method, first flush diversion, was introduced by Njala University researchers in 2014. We studied the populations of coliform bacteria and </span><i><span style="font-family:Verdana;">E. coli</span></i><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> in untreated and treated water samples to determine if each of the treatment methods supported the beneficial use of drinking. This study concludes that the natural filtration does not remove pathogens in the well water. Even though the first flush and conventional treatments were efficient in reducing microbial populations in the water, the World Health Organization’s 100% removal guideline was not achieved most of the time. Therefore, all three treatment methods did not support the beneficial use of drinking. Further treatment was needed to render the water potable.展开更多
文摘<span style="font-family:Verdana;">Rural communities in sub</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">-</span></span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Saharan Africa (SSA) are always faced with the challenge of securing safe water for beneficial uses. Most communities lack a centralized water supply system and, thus, each residence utilizes the treatment method that they can afford. This study evaluated three treatment methods for drinking water in the Njala University and Mokonde communities in southern Sierra Leone. In the perceived natural treatment, residents in the Mokonde community believe that groundwater has been purified by the soil media and, hence, does not require further treatment. In the conventional treatment, the Njala University Water Works use sand filtration and chlorine disinfection to treat water from the Taia River. The third treatment method, first flush diversion, was introduced by Njala University researchers in 2014. We studied the populations of coliform bacteria and </span><i><span style="font-family:Verdana;">E. coli</span></i><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> in untreated and treated water samples to determine if each of the treatment methods supported the beneficial use of drinking. This study concludes that the natural filtration does not remove pathogens in the well water. Even though the first flush and conventional treatments were efficient in reducing microbial populations in the water, the World Health Organization’s 100% removal guideline was not achieved most of the time. Therefore, all three treatment methods did not support the beneficial use of drinking. Further treatment was needed to render the water potable.