ABSTRACT
Household water treatment (HWT) can improve drinking water quality and reduce diarrheal disease. New HWT technologies are typically evaluated under ideal conditions; however, health gains depend on consistent, effective household use, which is less often evaluated. We conducted four evaluations of three prototype HWT technologies: two filters and one electrochlorinator. Evaluations consisted of a baseline survey, HWT distribution to households (ranging from 60 to 82), and four visits (ranging from 1 week-14 months after distribution). Each visit included a survey, observation of treated water presence (confirmed use), and microbiological analysis of treated and untreated samples for E. coli. Consistent use was defined as the proportion of total visits with confirmed use. Overall, confirmed use declined 2.54% per month on average, and 2-72% of households demonstrated 100% consistent use. Consistent use was positively associated with baseline HWT knowledge and practice and belief that drinking water was unsafe, and negatively associated with technological problems. Reported barriers to use were behavioral, such as forgetting or when outside the home, and technological failures. Technologies demonstrated 68-96% E. coli reductions, with 18-70% of treated samples having detectable E. coli. Results highlight the importance of household use evaluations within prototype HWT technology design cycles, the need for standard evaluation metrics, and difficulties in achieving both consistent use and microbiological effectiveness with HWT technologies.
Subject(s)
Water Purification , Drinking Water , Escherichia coli , Haiti , Kenya , Nicaragua , Water MicrobiologyABSTRACT
To prevent disease transmission, 0.05% chlorine solution is commonly recommended for handwashing in Ebola Treatment Units. In the 2014 West Africa outbreak this recommendation was widely extended to community settings, although many organizations recommend soap and hand sanitizer over chlorine. To evaluate skin irritation caused by frequent handwashing that may increase transmission risk in Ebola-affected communities, we conducted a randomized trial with 91 subjects who washed their hands 10 times a day for 28 days. Subjects used soap and water, sanitizer, or one of four chlorine solutions used by Ebola responders (calcium hypochlorite (HTH), sodium dichloroisocyanurate (NaDCC), and generated or pH-stabilized sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl)). Outcomes were self-reported hand feel, irritation as measured by the Hand Eczema Score Index (HECSI) (range 0-360), signs of transmission risk (e.g., cracking), and dermatitis diagnosis. All groups experienced statistically significant increases in HECSI score. Subjects using sanitizer had the smallest increases, followed by higher pH chlorine solutions (HTH and stabilized NaOCl), and soap and water. The greatest increases were among neutral pH chlorine solutions (NaDCC and generated NaOCl). Signs of irritation related to higher transmission risk were observed most frequently in subjects using soap and least frequently by those using sanitizer or HTH. Despite these irritation increases, all methods represented minor changes in HECSI score. Average HECSI score was only 9.10 at endline (range 1-33) and 4% (4/91) of subjects were diagnosed with dermatitis, one each in four groups. Each handwashing method has benefits and drawbacks: soap is widely available and inexpensive, but requires water and does not inactivate the virus; sanitizer is easy-to use and effective but expensive and unacceptable to many communities, and chlorine is easy-to-use but difficult to produce properly and distribute. Overall, we recommend Ebola responders and communities use whichever handwashing method(s) are most acceptable, available, and sustainable for community handwashing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Registry ISRCTN89815514.
