Cited by 619Fecal contamination and water qualityChild Nutrition and Water AccessWater Treatment and Disinfection

Fecal contamination of drinking-water in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Bain, Robert, Cronk, Ryan, Wright, Jim, Yang, Hong, Slaymaker, Tom, Bartram, Jamie·2014·PLoS Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Access to safe drinking-water is a fundamental requirement for good health and is also a human right. Global access to safe drinking-water is monitored by WHO and UNICEF using as an indicator "use of an improved source," which does not account for water quality measurements. Our objectives were to determine whether water from "improved" sources is less likely to contain fecal contamination than "unimproved" sources and to assess the extent to which contamination varies by source type and setting. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Studies in Chinese, English, French, Portuguese, and Spanish were identified from online databases, including PubMed and Web of Science, and grey literature. Studies in low- and middle-income countries published between 1990 and August 2013 that assessed drinking-water for the presence of Escherichia coli or thermotolerant coliforms (TTC) were included provided they associated results with a particular source type. In total 319 studies were included, reporting on 96,737 water samples. The odds of contamination within a given study were considerably lower for "improved" sources than "unimproved" sources (odds ratio [OR] = 0.15 [0.10-0.21], I2 = 80.3% [72.9-85.6]). However over a quarter of samples from improved sources contained fecal contamination in 38% of 191 studies. Water sources in low-income countries (OR = 2.37 [1.52-3.71]; p<0.001) and rural areas (OR = 2.37 [1.47-3.81] p<0.001) were more likely to be contaminated. Studies rarely reported stored water quality or sanitary risks and few achieved robust random selection. Safety may be overestimated due to infrequent water sampling and deterioration in quality prior to consumption. CONCLUSION: Access to an "improved source" provides a measure of sanitary protection but does not ensure water is free of fecal contamination nor is it consistent between source types or settings. International estimates therefore greatly overstate use of safe drinking-water and do not fully reflect disparities in access. An enhanced monitoring strategy would combine indicators of sanitary protection with measures of water quality.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001644

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 329 · Cited by 619

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. [19]Ligon GC (2012) Waterborne disease outbreaks: a systematic review of the health effects of drinking water system failures, Chapel Hill (North Carolina): University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
  2. [78]Baig SA, Xu X, Navedullah, Muhammad N, Khan ZU, et al (2012) Pakistan's drinking water and environmental sanitation status in post 2010 flood scenario: humanitarian response and community needs. Journal of Applied Sciences in Environmental Sanitation 7: 49– 54.
  3. [80]Barbosa DA, Lage MM, Badaro ACL (2009) Microbiological quality of water drinking fountains of a university campus in Ipatinga, Minas Gerais. Nutrir Gerais 3: 505– 517.
  4. [96]Chen D, Lan L (2011) The analysis of drinking-water sanitation in cities and towns of Nanping in the year 2008-2010. Chinese Journal of Health Laboratory Technology 21: 2519– 2521.
  5. [104]Cui B, Deng H, Jing Y, Yue F, Yu Q, et al (2012) Investigation on the quality of groundwater in Rural Fengtai District. Journal of Environmental Hygiene 2: 280– 284.
  6. [205]Lin M-Y, Chen X-L, You T-Z (2009) Hygienic quality of bottled drinking water in Longyan from 2006 to 2008. Chinese Journal of Public Health Engineering/Zhongguo Weisheng Gongcheng Xue 8: 168– 169.
  7. [216]Mahasneh IA (1992) Isolation and characterization of faecal indicator bacteria from urban and rural natural drinking water sources. Biomedical Letters 47: 347– 354.
  8. [238]Muzuga JM, Tole MP, Ucakuwun EK (1998) The impact of geology and pit latrines on ground water quality in Kwale District. Dunes, groundwater, mangroves and birdlife in costal Kenya. Nairobi, Kenya: Acts Press.
  9. [247]Nyanchaga EN (1994) Rehabilitation of hand-dug wells and springs. Aqua (Oxford) 43: 233– 237.
  10. [257]Onifade AK, M LR (2008) Microbiological analysis of sachet water vended in Ondo State, Nigeria. Environmental Research Journal 2: 107– 110.
  11. [285]Radaideh J, Al-Zboon K, Al-Harahsheh A, Al-Adamat R (2009) Quality assessment of harvested rainwater for domestic uses. Jordan Journal of Earth and Environmental Sciences 2: 26– 31.
  12. [381]WHO/UNICEF (2012) Review: sampling issues in tools for water quality monitoring. Geneva and New York: WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme. Available: http://www.wssinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/resources/Report-of-Review-WQ-sampling-Geneva-18-19June2012_final.pdf. Accessed 1 December 2013.

Authors
Bain, R., Cronk, R., Wright, J., Yang, H., Slaymaker, T., & Bartram, J.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • University of Southampton (GB)
  • WaterAid (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Bain, Robert
  • Bartram, Jamie
Venue
PLoS Medicine
Published
2014-05-06
Volume
11
Issue
5
Pages
e1001644
ISSN
  • 1549-1277 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-1676
OpenAlex
W2168270561
Cited by
619
References
329
Citations by year
2026: 50 · 2025: 52 · 2024: 50 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 50 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 70 · 2019: 59 · 2018: 60 · 2017: 65 · 2016: 38 · 2015: 36 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 1
FWCI
3.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
UNICEF
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Fecal contamination and water quality
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Child Nutrition and Water Access
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Water Treatment and Disinfection
Keywords
fecal contamination, drinking water quality, improved water sources, Escherichia coli, fecal coliforms, low- and middle-income countries, rural water supply, water quality monitoring, sanitation indicators, stored drinking water
MeSH terms
Developing Countries, Environmental Monitoring, Feces, Geography, Humans, Income, Regression Analysis, Water Microbiology, Publication Bias, Drinking Water

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review