m7-water quality emergency

8/13/2019 M7-Water Quality Emergency

1/50

Water Quality in

Emergencies

Water & Sanitation department

Workshop Emergency - Moia

ACFIN - 2006
http://images.google.fr/imgres?imgurl=http://www.itssonatural.com/images/Glass%2520Water2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.itssonatural.com/home.htm&h=166&w=158&sz=10&hl=fr&start=6&tbnid=wZsDqnWvsPwEYM:&tbnh=99&tbnw=94&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dglass%2Bwater%26ndsp%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Dfr%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN


2/50

Quantity / quality

Prioritise quantity/ quality, using

specific international standards

(Sphere), especially for emergencies


3/50

Why check water quality?


4/50

Why check water quality?

Serious public health problems

ACF responsibility

ACF accountability

Programmes impact

Millennium Goals, WHO & SPHERE guidelines


5/50


6/50

Water Quality

Water source

choice

Pollution

risk

AcceptanceSustainability

Feasibility

StandardsIdeal

choice

Technical

choice


7/50

Water Quality in emergencies

Water source

choice

Pollution

risk

AcceptanceSustainability

Feasibility

StandardsIdeal

choice

Technical

choice


8/50

Concept of pollution

2. Natural pollution

3. Agriculture-linked pollution1. Domestic pollution

4. Industry-linkedpollution


9/50

Pollution inemergencies

2. Natural pollution

3. Agriculture-linked pollution1. Domestic pollution

4. Industry-linkedpollution


10/50

Pollutants

Physicochemical

parameters

Biological

parameters

Chemicalparameters

Interact ion

pH, turbidity, T,

conductivity

Bacteria, viruses,

parasites

Major ions, trace

elements (= toxic

minerals)


11/50

Water washed / water borne

diseases are dominant in

emergencies

Afghanistan, Hazaradjat, 2005. Conjunctivitis case

Lack of water lead to numerous skin & eyes d iseases


12/50

Toxics in water are occasional

in emergencies

Teeth and bones diseases due to Fluoride-contaminated

water consumption, Sri Lanka, 2000


13/50

Water related diseases

Due to Diseases

Insufficient quantity ofwater, lack of hygiene

Skin diseases (scabies,mycosis, ophthalmic diseases:conjunctivitis, trachoma)

Faecal pollutionFaecal-oral diseases(diarrhoeas, typhoid, cholera,polio, hepatitis A, certainhelminthiasis)

Urine of mammals (rats) inwater

Leptospirosis

Guinea worm Dracunculiasis

Vector breeding Malaria, Dengue, yellowfever, onchocerciasis

Chemical toxics Poisoning, fluorosis, etc


14/50


Due to Diseases





Leptospirosis




Water washed diseases

Water borne diseases

Water based diseases


15/50


in emergency

Due to Diseases





Leptospirosis





16/50

Living beings

Bacteria

A hepatitis

Poliomyelitis

Viruses

Diarrhoeas

Cholera, typhoid

Malaria, yellow fever

Dysentery

Protozoan

HelminthsAscaris, Worms

Bilharzias

E. Coli bacteria

Ascaris worms
http://images.google.fr/imgres?imgurl=http://www.micro.utexas.edu/courses/levin/bio304/com%26pop/ascaris.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.micro.utexas.edu/courses/levin/bio304/com%26pop/communities.html&h=200&w=374&sz=51&hl=fr&start=38&tbnid=LRGcl17JqrRG-M:&tbnh=65&tbnw=122&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dascaris%26start%3D20%26ndsp%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Dfr%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN


17/50

Chemical elements

Non health related

Arsenic AsFluoride F

NO2-, NO3-

Mn, Cu, Pb, Cl2

Health related

Na Mg K Ca Si P

S Cl- H C O AlFe H2S SO4


18/50

Chemical elements in

emergency

Non health related

Arsenic AsFluoride F

NO2-, NO3-

Mn, Cu, Pb, Cl2

Health related

Na Mg K Ca Si P

S Cl- H C O AlFe H2S SO4

Chlorine

HR - WHO: 5 mg/l

Aluminium

Accept - WHO: 0,2

mg/l

Chloride

Accept - WHO:250 mg/l

SulphateAccept - WHO:

250 mg/l

Iron

Accept - WHO: 0,3

mg/l


19/50

Physico -chemical elements

Conductivity

TurbiditypH

T

Colour


20/50

Physico -chemical elements in

emergencies

Conductivity

TurbiditypH

T

Colour

Acceptance: max 1500

US/cm

Treatment: 8


21/50

Pollution risk

Pollution components

Quality of

the

resource

Consume

d water

quality

1- Due to the

nature / locat ion

of water poin t

2- Due to the

exploi tat ion of

the water poin t

1

2

Watertreatment

WaterStorage

and use


22/50

Quality of the resource

1. Rain water 2. Rivers

3. Lakes & ponds 4. Groundwater


23/50

Resource for emergencies

1. Rain water 2. Rivers

3. Lakes & ponds 4. Groundwater


24/50

Nature of water point

Non protected well, CongoPollution risk due to the nature of the water point


25/50

Location of water point

TFC water supply and latrines


26/50

Exploitation of the water point

Contamination of underground water, Sudan, 2002

Pollution risk due to the exploitation of the water point


27/50

Treatment

Treatment of water, Sri Lanka, 2005


28/50

Water storage and use

Household water storage, Chechnya, 2004

Inappropriate water storage leads to its contamination


29/50

Selection of the

source

Feasibility

Hydrology

Hydrochemistry

Acceptance

Sustainability

Technical Social

StandardsPublic health

Re-contaminationrisks

exploitationstorage

consumption

Water source

choice


30/50

Selection of the source in

emergency

Feasibility

Hydrology

Hydrochemistry

Acceptance

Sustainability

Technical Social

StandardsPublic health

Re-contaminationrisks

exploitation, latrinesstorage

consumption

Water source

choice


31/50

Classical Quality approach

Validate

the water

source

choice

Validate

the quality

before

hand-over

Monitor

the water

quality

1. FEASIBILITY

Check the quality of

the water source

the availability of the

water

the geological

conditions

the technical

possibilities

etc.

2. VALIDATION


the water point when it

is completed

interesting to have an

analysis before, an

analysis after the

program

Impact

3. MONITORING

Regularly check the

quality of the water

from the water point

Regularly check the

quality at the

household level

KAP survey, sanitary

surveys

Long term impact


32/50

EmergencyQuality approach

Validate

the water

source

choice

Validate

the quality

Monitor

the water

quality

1. FEASIBILITY


the water source

the availability of the

water

the geological

conditions

the technical

possibilities

etc.

2. VALIDATION


the water point when it

is completed

interesting to have an

analysis before, an

analysis after the

program

Impact

3. MONITORING

Regularly check the

quality of the water

from the water point

Regularly check the

quality at the

household level

KAP survey, sanitary

surveys

Long term impact


33/50

Classical Quality approach

Validate

the water

resource

choice

Validate

the quality

before

hand-over

Water

quality

Monitoring

FEASABILITY

Chemical

Regional, village,

water point scale

Representative

survey

Before

implementation

VALIDATION

Chim + Biolo

Water point scale

Systematic survey

Before & afterimplementations

Impact

MONITORING

Biolo (+Chim)

Water point scale,

Household scale

Representative

survey

Continuous process


34/50


35/50

Specificity of water trucking

River

End of

Treatment

plant

Tap stand

and HH

FEASABILITY

At first and 1/month

Tb, Cd, pH, main

chemical risks

On site / lab

ACF team

MONITORING 1

1/ day /15 days

FRC, pH, Tb (/day)

Cl2(15 days)

On site

ACF team

MONITORING 2

1/ day FRC random

1/week E Coli

random

On site / lab

ACF team + hygiene

surveyors


36/50


37/50

Specificity of water trucking 2

Idea is to use water trucking as a

temporary solutionbecause it is:

-expensive

-constraining (treatment, etc)

-addictive

-leads to mismanagement and

corruption

- difficult to hand over


38/50

Standards

WHO guidelines (long term)

SPHERE standards (emergency)

Country guidelines

ACF guidelines

Health related parameters

Non-health related parameters

Minimum standards

Key indicators


39/50

Sphere standards: coordination

in emergencies

TEST Sphere Standards 2004): Key indicators

Turbidity 5 NTU(for purpose of disinfection)

Faecal

coliforms0 E. coli. /100mlat the point of delivery

Chloride,

Fluoride,

Iron Fe2+,

Manganese

Nitrates,

Nitrites,

Sulfates,Arsenic

No negative health effectis detected due to short-term useof water contaminated by chemical or radiological sources

Residual

disinfectant

products

(chlorine)

For piped water and all water supply in case of diarrhoea

epidemic, water is treated with free residual chlorine = 0.5mg/l, and turbidity


40/50

WHO guidelines: health related

Parameters WHO guidelinevalues InterpretationE. Colior thermo tolerant

coliforms

0 colonies /100 ml Indicators of faecal pollution

1. Microbiological quality for drinking water

2. Chemical

substances that

have some

sanitaryrelevance for

drinking water.

Parameters WHO guidelineArsenic

(As)0.01 mg/l

Chlorine

(Cl2)

5 mg/l

Copper

(Cu++)2 mg/l

Fluorides

(F-)1.5 mg/l

Lead

(Pb)

0,01 mg/l

Manganese

(Mn)

0.4 mg/l

Nitrates

(NO3-)

50 mg/l

Nitrites

(NO2-)

3 mg/l


41/50

WHO guidelines: health related

Parameters WHO guidelinevalues InterpretationE. Coli or thermo tolerant

coliforms

0 colonies /100 ml Indicators of faecal pollution

1. Microbiological quality for drinking water in emergency

2. Chemical

substances that

have some

sanitaryrelevance for

drinking water.

Parameters WHO guidelineArsenic

(As)0.01 mg/l

Chlorine

(Cl2)

5 mg/l

Copper

(Cu++)2 mg/l

Fluorides

(F-)1.5 mg/l

Lead

(Pb)

0,01 mg/l

Manganese

(Mn)

0.4 mg/l

Nitrates

(NO3-)

50 mg/l

Nitrites

(NO2-)

3 mg/l


42/50


43/50

WHO guidelines: non health related

3. Drinking water substances and parameters that may lead to

acceptabilityproblems in emergencies.

Parameters WHOrecommendations

Aluminium

(Al)0.2 mg/l

Ammonia

(NH4)1.5 mg/l

Chloride

(Cl-) 250 mg/l

Hardness 200 mg/l

Hydrogen

sulphide

(H2S)

0.05 mg/l

Sodium

(Na+)200mg/l

Sulphates

(SO4-)250 mg/l

Iron

(Fe++)

0.3 mg/l

Zinc

(Zn)

4mg/l


44/50

Analysis concept

Frequency

Sampling method

Equipment

Results

Results sharing


45/50

Sampling

Representative analysis / systematicanalysis

Sampling method

Storage and transport

of the samples


46/50

Equipment: mini lab


47/50


48/50

Conclusion 1

Water quality validation

Water quality monitoring


49/50

To validate the choices (feasibility)

To validate the quality before handing over

To control the quality all along theutilisation of the water point

Conclusion 2 monitoring

What?

When?

How?

Why?

Where?

Who?

Physico-chemical parameters

Chemical parameters

Biological parametersAt the beginning (feasibility)

At the hand over

During long programmes: monitoringMini laboratory

Chemical analysis material (Merck)

Biological analysis material (Delagua)

Treatment plant

Tapstands

HH storageACF team

Person from the partners e.g. MRRD, etc.

External laboratory


50/50

Conclusion 3

Emergency Long term

rapid action, nosustainability

long term view: sustainabilityis key point

chemical analysis limited large chemical analysis

water quality is the onlyfocus

focus points are water pointquality; management &maintenance efficiency

systematic biologicaltreatment difficult treatment

biological risk is key point chemical risk & acceptancerisk are key points

Monitoring: high frequency;done by ACF

Monitoring: low frequency;done by water point committeeor local partner

m7-water quality emergency

Documents