The Water Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America.
University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
PLoS Med. 2014 May 6;11(5):e1001644. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001644. eCollection 2014 May.
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.
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.
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.
安全饮用水是良好健康的基本要求,也是一项人权。全球安全饮用水的获取情况由世界卫生组织(WHO)和联合国儿童基金会(UNICEF)通过“使用改良水源”这一指标进行监测,但该指标并未考虑水质测量。我们的目标是确定来自“改良”水源的水是否比“非改良”水源更不易受到粪便污染,并评估污染程度随水源类型和设置的变化而变化的情况。
从在线数据库(包括 PubMed 和 Web of Science)和灰色文献中确定了来自中国、英语、法语、葡萄牙语和西班牙语的研究。研究对象为 1990 年至 2013 年 8 月期间发表的评估饮用水中是否存在大肠杆菌或耐热大肠菌群(TTC)的低中等收入国家的研究,这些研究都将结果与特定的水源类型相关联。共纳入 319 项研究,报告了 96737 个水样。在给定的研究中,与“非改良”水源相比,“改良”水源的污染可能性要低得多(比值比[OR] = 0.15 [0.10-0.21],I2 = 80.3% [72.9-85.6])。然而,在 191 项研究中有 38%的“改良”水源样本中仍含有粪便污染。低收入国家(OR = 2.37 [1.52-3.71];p<0.001)和农村地区(OR = 2.37 [1.47-3.81];p<0.001)的水源更容易受到污染。研究很少报告储存水的质量或卫生风险,且很少能实现稳健的随机选择。由于水质在消费前经常发生恶化,采样频率较低,因此安全性可能被高估。
获得“改良水源”提供了一定程度的卫生保护,但不能确保水没有粪便污染,而且不同水源类型或设置之间也不一致。因此,国际估计大大高估了安全饮用水的使用情况,并未完全反映获取方面的差异。强化监测策略将把卫生保护指标与水质措施结合起来。