Int. J. LifeSc. Bt & Pharm. Res. 2014 Desalegn Amenu et al.

, 2013

ISSN 2250-3137 [Link]

Vol. 3, No. 1, January 2014
© 2014 IJLBPR. All Rights Reserved
Reserch Paper
MICROBIOLOGICAL QUALITY OF DRINKING
WATER SOURCES AND WATER HANDLING
PRACTICES AMONG RURAL COMMUNITIES OF
DIRE DAWA ADMINISTRATIVE COUNCIL
Desalegn Amenu1*, Sissay Menkir1 and Tesfaye Gobena1

*Corresponding Author: Desalegn Amenu  desalegnsore@[Link]

In Ethiopia, access to improved water supply and sanitation was estimated at 38% and 12%
respectively. Three- forth of the health problems of children in Ethiopia are communicable diseases
due to polluted water and improper water handling practices. Thus, this study was conducted to
assess the level of contamination and the major sources of contaminant in rural communities of
Dire Dawa. A total of 90 water samples from five types of water sources were collected and
bacteriological water quality parameters were analyzed using the membrane filtration method
by the procedures of the American Public Health Association. Water analysis demonstrated that
all water sources in the study areas were contaminated with total coliforms, fecal coliform and
parasites. The average counts of TC were in the range of 1.5-133.05 CFU/100 ml whereas the
average counts of FC were found to be 0.34-54 CFU/100 ml. The mean concentration of Giardia
lamblia and Cryptosporidium ranges from 0 to 5.6 and 0 to 6.5, respectively. In all samples, the
TC, FC and FS counts were above the recommended limit of WHO for drinking water quality (1-
10 CFU/100 ml for TC, 0 CFU/100 ml for FC, 0 CFU/100 ml FS) whereas about 83.34% of the
water samples in the three selected PAs had high risk of microbiological water quality parameters.
Fecal coliform - fecal streptococci ratios in all water sources in this study showed that 45.0%
indicated enteric contamination from human wastes and 55.0% was from domestic animal
wastes. High concentration of microbiological indicators in all water sources of this study area
suggested that the presence of pathogenic organisms which constitute a threat to anyone
consuming or in contact with these waters. This is due to lack of good water treatment, lack of
feasible disinfection, improper water handling practices and lack of the protection of the water
sources. Consequently, protection of water sources accompanied by sanitation and hygiene
promotion programs can improve the water quality of rural water sources, where disinfection is
not feasible. Proper and basic sanitation, are of prime importance to deliver safe drinking water
in the study site.

Keywords: Dire Dawa, Drinking water sources, Total Coliform, Fecal coliform, Microbiological
quality, Parasite, Water handling practice

¹
Haramaya University, Ethiopia.

This article can be downloaded from [Link]

98
Int. J. LifeSc. Bt & Pharm. Res. 2014 Desalegn Amenu et al., 2013

INTRODUCTION open field defecation practices, animal waste and

Access to safe water is a fundamental human effluent from sewage system. Thus, the majority
need and, therefore, a basic human right. of rural communities use water from
Contaminated water jeopardizes both the physical contaminated or doubtful sources, which expose
and social health of all peoples. According to the people to various water-borne diseases
WHO, more than 80% of diseases in the world (FDRE, 2004).
are attributed to unsafe drinking water or to Indicator bacteria are used to evaluate the
inadequate sanitation practices (WHO, 2003a). portability of drinking water because it would be
Globally, 1.1 billion people rely on unsafe drinking impossible to accurately enumerate all pathogenic
water sources from lakes, rivers, and open wells organisms that are transmitted by water (Paccker
(WHO, 2000). In Ethiopia drinking water coverage et al., 1995). The use of indicator organisms, in
was less than or equal to 21% for the rural, 84% particular the coliform group, as a means of
for the urban and 30% for the country level. The assessing the potential presence of water-borne
per capita per day water consumption ranged from pathogens has been of paramount importance in
3 to 20 L with median of 8.5 L (Abera and protecting public health. The principle of the
Mohamed, 2005). detection of selected bacteria that are indicative
In Ethiopia, access to improved water supply of either contamination or deterioration of water
and sanitation was estimated at 38% for improved quality has been the foundation upon which
water supply (98% for urban areas and 26% for protection of public health from water-borne
rural areas) and 12% for improved sanitation (29% diseases has been developed (Barrell et al.,
in urban areas, 8% in rural areas) (UNICEF and 2000).
WHO, 2008). Over 60% of the communicable Detection, differentiation and enumeration of
diseases are due to poor environmental health Entrobacteriaceae are of primary importance in
conditions arising from unsafe and inadequate the microbiological quality control of water.
water supply and poor hygienic and sanitation Indicator bacteria are used to evaluate the
practices. Three fourth of the health problems of potability of drinking water because it would be
children in the country are communicable impossible to accurately enumerate all pathogenic
diseases due to polluted water and improper organisms that are transmitted by water (Paccker
sanitation (FDRE, MOH, 2006). et al., 1995). The use of indicator organisms, in
In rural areas and villages of Ethiopia, water particular the coliform group, as a means of
for human consumption, drinking, washing assessing the potential presence of water-borne
(bathing, laundry), for preparation of food, etc., is pathogens has been of paramount importance in
obtained from rivers, streams, shallow wells, protecting public health. The principle of the
springs, lakes, ponds, and rainfall. Unless water detection of selected bacteria that are indicative
is made safe or treated for human consumption, of either contamination or deterioration of water
it may be hazardous to health and transmit quality has been the foundation upon which
diseases. The main contaminants of these water protection of public health from water-borne
sources are from human excreta because of diseases has been developed (Barrell et al.,

This article can be downloaded from [Link]

99
Int. J. LifeSc. Bt & Pharm. Res. 2014 Desalegn Amenu et al., 2013

2002). The presence of any coliform organism in villages. All the above-mentioned problems can
drinking water is used as an indicator of fecal lead to water related diseases if no intervention
contamination since they are the most sensitive is made to solve water contamination in most
indicator bacteria for demonstrating excremental rural areas of the communities (Dawit, 2006).
contamination (Paccker et al., 1995).
The World Health Organization Microbiological
Fecal streptococci are also used as indicators Guidelines (2004) and Federal Democratic
of drinking water microbiological quality. It has Republic of Ethiopia, Ministry of Water Resources
repeatedly been shown that these bacteria have (2002) for drinking water recommend zero total
a stronger relationship to diarrheal disease even coliform and fecal coliform/100 ml of water and
than E. coli and a closer relationship to bacterial zero concentration of Giardia and
indicators of known human fecal origin (FDRE, Cryptosporidium. Therefore, this study was used
MoH, 2006). to investigate the microbiological quality of
drinking water sources and water handling
Bacteriological techniques employed to
practices at the study area.
distinguish between human and animal fecal
pollution are a valuable tool in water pollution
MATERIALS AND METHODS
control programs, because they are useful in
The present study was conducted between
tracing the source of pollution of drinking water
February and May, 2011 in three purposively
supplies, and they can help in assessing the
overall adequacy of protection rendered to small selected Peasant Associations (PAs) named
Legedini, Adada and Legebira, which are found
rural water supplies (Mara and Oragui, 1985).
in Dire-Dawa Administrative Council: (Figure 3.1).
Fresh addition of human fecal material can be
The Dire-Dawa town is located in Eastern parts
distinguished from additions of animal feces in
of Ethiopia, which is 508 km away from Addis
environmental waters by the ratio of Fecal
Ababa, capital city of Ethiopia.
Coliforms to Fecal Streptococci (FC/FS).
As previously study conducted by Dawit (2008)
As the previous study conducted on the
on the association of the parasitic infection with
prevalence of parasitic infections among children
in Dire Dawa surrounding areas revealed that, drinking water sources revealed that farmers in
this study area are engaged in crop-livestock
safe water supply was not available or sufficient,
mixed agriculture, they are not food self-sufficient
so people revert to unhygienic and unsafe
sources of water (Dawit, 2006). People in Dire and most of the time they are dependent on
donation from government and other donor
Dawa rural communities collect polluted water
organizations. The major crops cultivated by the
from a contaminated and leaking water supply
for drinking and cooking purposes. Many farmers are maize and sorghum. The livestock
owned by the people are mainly camels, cows,
populations of the rural communities use water
donkeys, oxen, goats and sheep. The above
for different purpose from un-protected sources
like; the spring, boreholes, wells for domestic and mentioned author further reported that in each
study sites some people uses water from
other purpose. There is also improper household
protected sources such as springs, boreholes,
water storage and handling practices in all the

This article can be downloaded from [Link]

100
Int. J. LifeSc. Bt & Pharm. Res. 2014 Desalegn Amenu et al., 2013

Figure 3.1: Map of Study Area Showing the Location of Sampling Sites

deep and shallow protected well, hand-dug wells, handling practices in rural communities in
and others use from unprotected water sources surrounding area of Dire Dawa Town. The
such as surface water, river, seepage, laboratory investigation was carried out by
unprotected well. The common problems of the collecting water samples from different sources
three study sites are inadequacy of clean drinking during February 2011 and May 2011. The
water, lack of water for agricultural and household questionnaires survey were done to collect data
activities and insufficient sanitary facilities. As a related to the respondents’ socio-demographic
result, waterborne and hygiene related diseases characteristics and their water handling practices.
occur frequently (Dawit, 2008). The questionnaires were pre-tested in a few
selected households living outside present study.
The Study Design
A cross-sectional survey was conducted to WATER SAMPLE COLLECTION
determine the microbiological quality of water In each study area and sampling site the water
sources and to assess the households’ water samples were collected from five types of water

This article can be downloaded from [Link]

101
Int. J. LifeSc. Bt & Pharm. Res. 2014 Desalegn Amenu et al., 2013

sources, viz., protected well, unprotected well, were placed on the surface of membrane and
protected spring, unprotected spring and tap drinking water were analyzed by filtering 100 ml,
water. That means, a total of three study areas or by filtering replicate smaller sample volumes.
(Legedini, Legebira and Adada), one sampling site Using sterile forceps, a sterile membrane filter
was used in each study area; and five types of paper (0.45 μm pore sizes, 47 mm in diameter,
water sources were used in each study sites. sterile) was placed on the membrane filter
Therefore in two rounds of sampling, triplicate support assembly. Funnel unit were placed
samples of 400-600 ml of water were collected carefully over the filter support assembly and were
from each type of water sources in each study locked in place. The sample were mixed
area and sampling site. A total of 90 water systematically by shaking for about 30 min and
samples were collected and analyzed during poured in to the funnel assembly then the entire
February and May, 2011. Samples were collected volume of sample were filtered through the
in sterilized glass bottles that were washed and membrane-filter by applying vacuum pump.
rinsed thoroughly with nitric acid and distilled Funnel and membrane-filter assembly were
water. In each round of sampling, one sample rinsed by sterile dilution water (APHA, 1998).
was taken at the center and the other two Up on completion of the filtration process,
samples from the two edges of each site. These vacuum were disengaged, unlocked and using a
water samples were transported to Dire Dawa sterile forceps funnel were removed and
water supply and sanitation laboratory for membrane were removed immediately and
microbiological water quality analysis. The water placed on Membrane Lauryl Sulphate broth with
samples were handled aseptically in sterilized a rolling motion to avoid entrapment of air in Petri
glass bottled, labeled and kept in ice box during dishes. Finally, the prepared culture dishes were
transportation. incubated for 18 to 24 h at 370C. Up on completion
Bacteriological Analysis of incubation period, typical coliform colonies
The membrane filter technique, which involve (yellow color) were seen on the surface of
direct plating for detection and estimation of membrane filter paper. All yellow colonies
coliform, effective test for detecting bacteria of extending on the membrane were counted with
the coliform group and it is the best techniques the aid of a magnifying lens and recorded as total
currently available .The samples were analyzed coliform (APHA, 1998).
for Total Coliform (TC) and Faecal Coliforms (FC) Following the same procedure of filtration
using the membrane filter technique as outlined process, membrane filter papers were placed on
by the APHA (1998). This technique involved Membrane lauryl sulphate broth. Finally the
filtering water through a membrane that retained prepared culture dish were incubated for 18 to
total coliforms, fecal coliforms; incubating this 24 h at 44oC. Up on completion of the incubation
membrane on a growth promoting medium and period, yellow colored colonies on the surface of
then counting the resultant TC and FC units the filter paper were counted.
(APHA, 1998).
For isolation of Entrococcus and fecal
An ideal sample volume of water samples Streptococcus, typical colonies from

This article can be downloaded from [Link]

102
Int. J. LifeSc. Bt & Pharm. Res. 2014 Desalegn Amenu et al., 2013

mEntrococcus agar membrane were streaked and incubated at 35°C for 48 h, and brain-heart
on the surface of brain-heart infusion agar plate infusion broth with 6.5% NaCl and incubated
and incubated at 35°C for 24 h. A loopful growth at 35°C for 48 h. Typical colonies from
from a well-isolated colony on brain-heart infusion mEntrococcus agar membrane were streaked,
agar was transferred to brain-heart infusion broth prepared for epiflourescence microscope and
tube and to each of two clean glass slides. The seen as diploid and small chain coccid shape
cells, which is a typical characteristic of the
brain-heart infusion broth was incubated at 35°C
indicator group (entrococcus/streptococcus).
for 24 h. A freshly prepared 3% hydrogen peroxide
was dropped to the smear on a slide and detected.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A loopful of growth from the brain-heart infusion
Bacteriological Quality of Drinking Water
broth was transferred to bile esculin agar (was Sources
prepared according to the direction of APHA, 1998)
Bacteriological analysis of water samples from
Table 4.1a: Bacteriological Analysis of Five Types of Water Sources
in Dire Dawa Communities During February and May 2011

Study Sites Water sources Occurrences of Indicators Bacteria

Number of
Samples
Examined Total coliform Fecal colform
Frequency (%) Frequency (%)

Adada Unprotected well 6 6(100%) 6(100%)

Unprotected spring 6 6(100%) 6(100%)

Protected well 6 5(83.34%) 5(83.34%)

Protected spring 6 5(83.34%) 4(66.67%)

Tap water 6 3(50%) 2(33.34%)

Legebira Unprotected well 6 6(100%) 6(100%)

Unprotected spring 6 6(100%) 6(100%)

Protected well 6 6(100%) 5(83.34%)

Protected spring 6 6(100%) 4(66.67%)

Tap water 6 4(66.67%) 3(50%)

Adada Unprotected well 6 6(100%) 6(100%)

Unprotected spring 6 6(100%) 6(100%)

Protected well 6 6(100%) 6(100%)

Protected spring 6 6(100%) 5(83.34%)

Tap water 6 44(66.67%) 3(50%)

This article can be downloaded from [Link]

103
Int. J. LifeSc. Bt & Pharm. Res. 2014 Desalegn Amenu et al., 2013

the five sources (protected spring, unprotected and tap water sources, were positive for TC,
spring, protected well, unprotected well and tap respectively. In addition, enumeration results
water) in three sites of Dire Dawa Rural showed that 66.66% and 33.34% of the
Communities showed that all samples of water unprotected well had TC counts ranging from 11-
sources from each site (Adada, Legedini and 100 CFU/100 ml and above 100 CFU/100 ml,
respectively (Table 4.1a). The TC count
Legebira PAs) were positive for total coliforms
(133.67±21.25 CFU/100 ml) was recorded from
and faecal coliform in two rounds of triplicate
Legedini unprotected well (Table 4.1a). There was
sampling. Indicator bacteria were encountered in
a significant difference among the samples of
all samples from water sources of the study area.
Adada and the Legedini for TC, but no significant
Less frequent of indicators organisms were
difference was observed between Legedini and
observed from the tap water (Table 4.1a). Legebira. There was significant difference among
The results indicated that all (100%), majority the samples of spring, well and tap water sources
(83.34%) and half (50%) of water samples where as no significant difference between
collected from spring (protected and unprotected and protected water sources for TC
unprotected), well (protected and unprotected) and TTC/FC (Table 4.1b).

Table 4.1b: Mean Bacteriological Count (Total Coliform, Thermotolerant/Fecal Coliform)

of water sources in Dire Dawa Rural Communities Between
February 2011 and May 2011 (n =6) (Mean ±SE)

Sites Sources Total Coliform Thermotolerant/Fecal Coliform

Adada Unprotected well 81.34±8.07abc 33.33±8.80ba

Unprotected spring 64.5±8.61bcd 21.16±6.2abc

Protected well 67.83±14.00 bcd 18±7.68abc

Protected spring 59.17±6.66 bcd 15.34±6.59abc

Tap water 1.5±0.71d 0.34±0.2d

Legebira Unprotected well 110.34±27.20ab 51±11.9a

Protected well 80±17.07 abc 33.5±6. 73ab

Unprotected spring 100±14. 34b 26.5±9.12b

Protected spring 79.34±10.11 abc 29.67±9.15ba

Tap water 5.66±0.61d 1.5±0.2d

Legedini Unprotected well 133.67±21. 25a 45.5±12.00ab

Protected well 99.5±13.72b 54.83±11.84a

Unprotected spring 120.16±23.73ab 25.83±7.03b

Protected spring 90.5±13.79bcd 26±9.05b

Tap water 4±0.50d 1±0.36d

This article can be downloaded from [Link]

104
Int. J. LifeSc. Bt & Pharm. Res. 2014 Desalegn Amenu et al., 2013

Total Coliforms (unprotected well), respectively. Therefore, all

The TC counts were ranging from 1.50±0.71 CFU/ water sources except tap water were polluted by
100 ml to 133.67±21.25 CFU/100 ml with the TTC/FC.
lowest and the highest range corresponding to All samples of the water sources in this study
TC counts from samples of Legedini unprotected were contaminated with total coliforms. Except
well and Adada tap water, respectively. The fact the water samples from the tap water that had
that Legedini (133.67±21.25 CFU/100 ml), 50% contamination, all the others had 100%
Legebira (110.34±27.43 CFU/100 ml), and Adada contamination with total coliforms. Out of these,
(81.34±8.07 CFU/100 ml) from unprotected well 100% of the samples from unprotected well and
contained the highest TC counts reflects that protected well, 83.34% the sample from
there were high human activities (laundering and unprotected spring and protected spring had
bathing activities) and unhygienic practices that unacceptable levels of total coliforms according
leads to the contamination of the water sources to the suggested criteria for drinking water
(Table 4.1b). The patterns of TC counts showed sourses (WHO, 2004a; FDRE, MoH, 2002).
that, the Legedini water sources were more Likewise, all water sources were 100%
polluted), followed by Legebira water sources contaminated with thermotolerant (faecal)
whereas Adada water sources were the least coliforms, except the sample from tap water,
compared to others which had only 50% of contamination level.
Thermotolerant/Fecal Coliforms (FC) Similarly, 100% of the samples from unprotected
With regards to thermotolerant (faecal) coliforms, well and protected well, 83.34% from unprotected
all water samples (100%) were found to contain and protected spring were contaminated by
thermotolerant (faecal) coliforms in the range of thermotolerant (faecal) coliforms. A similar study
0.34-54 CFU/100 ml with significant variation at conducted by Getnet (2008) from Bahir Dar town
p<0.0001 (Annex III). The highest and lowest showed that 100% of the analyzed water samples
levels of thermotolerant (faecal) coliforms, i.e., from the source had a mean total coliform count
54 CFU/100 ml and 0.34 CFU/100 ml, were of 35.5 CFU/100 ml which is above the
recorded from Legedini protected well and Adada acceptable level recommended by WHO (2005).
tap water, respectively. The high level of coliform This is much lower than the present study. This
count recorded in this study may be attributed to difference may be due to the site selection,
the high degree of contamination of the water inadequate protectation of water sources and
sources due to unhygienic practices around and unhygienic practices near the water sources
near water sources. From all the study sites, the (Richards, 1996).
highest TTC/FC count was recorded from According to the study conducted by
Legedini PAs followed by the lowest counts from Mengesha in North Gonder ,out of the seventy
Adada PAs. The largest TTC/FC count (54 CFU/ analyzed protected spring and protected well
100 ml) was recorded from Legedini protected water samples, 71.43% and 28.6% had levels of
well followed by 51 CFU/100 ml and 33 CFU/100 TC and faecal coliform /thermotolerant (TTC/FC)
ml from water samples of Legebira and Adada count, respectively and the author also further

This article can be downloaded from [Link]

105
Int. J. LifeSc. Bt & Pharm. Res. 2014 Desalegn Amenu et al., 2013

Table 4.1c: The Degree of Bacteriological Contamination From Each Study Sites
and in Five Types of Water Sources in DDAC, 2011
Total Coliform CFU/100ml Thermotolerant/ Fecal coliform CFU/100ml

Study Sites Water Sources Sanitary Infection Score Sanitary Infection Score

0 1-10 11-100 >100 0 1-10 11-100 >100

Adada Unprotected well 0(0%) 0(0%) 6(100%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 6(100%) 0(0%)

Unprotected spring 0(0%) 0(0%) 6(100%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2(33.34%) 4(66.67%) 0(0%)

Protected well 1(16.67%) 0(0%) 5(83.34%) 0(0%) 1(16.67%) 1(16.67%) 4(66.67%) 0(0%)

Protected spring 1(16.67%) 0(0%) 5(83.34%) 0(0%) 2(33.34%) 1(16.67%) 1(16.67%) 0(0%)

Tap water 3(50%) 3(50%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 4(66.67%) 2(33.34%) 0(0%) 0(0%)

Legebira Unprotected well 0(0%) 0(0%) 3(50%) 3(50%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 6(100%) 0(0%)

Unprotected spring 0(0%) 0(0%) 3(50%) 3(50%) 0(0%) 3(50%) 3(50%) 0(0%)

Protected well 0(0%) 0(0%) 3(50%) 3(50%) 1(16.67%) 0(0%) 5(83.34%) 0(0%)

Protected spring 0(0%) 0(0%) 4(66.67%) 2(33.34%) 2(33.34%) 0(0%) 4(66.67%) 0(0%)

Tap water 0(0%) 6(1000%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 6(1000%) 0(0%) 0(0%)

Legedini Unprotected well 0(0%) 0(0%) 2(33.34%) 4(66.67%) 0(0%) 1(16.67%) 5(83.34%) 0(0%)

Unprotected spring 0(0%) 0(0%) 1(16.67%) 5(83.34%) 0(0%) 1(16.67%) 5(83.34%) 0(0%)

Protected well 0(0%) 0(0%) 3(50%) 3(50%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 6(1000%) 0(0%)

Protected spring 0(0%) 0(0%) 3(50%) 3(50%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 6(1000%) 0(0%)

Tap water 0(0%) 6(1000%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2(33.34%) 4(66.67%) 0(0%) 0(0%)

Keys: 0CFU/100ml=safe, 1-10CFU/100ml=reasonable quality, 11-100CFU/100ml=polluted and >100cfu/100ml=dangerous (WHO, 2004a,

FDRE, WRM, 2002).

demonstrated that, 50% of the samples had a indicated that, all the water samples were
coliform count of 180 and above /100 ml and the contaminated by the total coliform in which the
lowest coliform count was 13 coliform /100 ml highest total colifrom was 1447.47 coliform/100
(Mengesha et al., 2004), which was higher than ml and the lowest coliform was 193.8 coliform/
the present study that was 133.65 coliform /100 100 ml and this was also much higher than the
ml and the lowest total coliform 1.50 coliforms/ present study. This difference may be due to the
100 ml. In another study in South Wello, Ethiopia, lack of water sources protection in the case of
Atnafu demonstrated that 75% of the samples Yubdo-Legebatu and not in case of Dire Dawa
from protected springs were contaminated with Rural Comunities. In contrast, results of
total coliforms (Atnafu, 2006). This was less than monitoring six sampling stations in the Geum
the present study, where all water sources were River in Korea showed average concentrations
contaminated with total coliform. As the research of total coliforms ranging from 1670 to 8510 CFU/
conducted in Yubdo-Legebatu by Birhanu (2008) 100 ml (Geonha et al., 2005). This was higher

This article can be downloaded from [Link]

106
Int. J. LifeSc. Bt & Pharm. Res. 2014 Desalegn Amenu et al., 2013

Table 4.2a: Parasitological Analysis of Five Types of Water Sources in Rural Communities
Dire Dawa Administrative Council during February and May 2011

Study Sites Water sources Occurrences of Parasites

Number of
Samples
Examined Girdia lamblia Cryptosporidium
Frequency (%) Frequency (%)

Legedini Unprotected well 6 6(100%) 5(83.34%)

Unprotected spring 6 4(66.67%) 3(50%

Protected well 6 3(50%) 3(50%

Protected spring 6 3(50%) 2(33.34%)

Tap water 6 0(0%) 0(0%)

Legebira Unprotected well 6 6(100%) 6(100%)

Unprotected spring 6 6(100%) 5(83.34%)

Protected well 6 4(66.67%) 4(66.67%)

Protected spring 6 3(50%) 3(50%

Tap water 6 0(0%) 0(0%)

Adada Unprotected well 6 6(100%) 6(100%)

Unprotected spring 6 5(83.34%) 5(83.34%)

Protected well 6 6(100%) 5(83.34%)

Protected spring 6 4(66.67%) 3(50%

Tap water 6 3(50%) 3(50%

than the present study and the possible reasons underground wells contain TC counts of 3.3 CFU/
for this variation might be differences in dilution 100 ml. This had lower range of total colifrom than
and sources of contaminants. present study, but the (100%) of water samples
Alternatively, as the research conducted in contain total coliform. This indicates that the
Debrezeit town (Desta, 2009 ) from all water degree of risk factors for the contamination of
source samples (100%) were contaminated by water sources in Rural Communities of DDAC is
TC to the range of 1-4 coliform/100 ml, but within tremendously increasing due to uncontrolled
the acceptable limit of 1-10 coliform/100 ml set waste disposal and inadequate water treatment
by WHO (1997). In a similar study conducted on around the water sources (Tamiru, 2001).
rural hand-dug pump well water from South Wello,
ANOVA of total coliform concentration among
Atnafu (2006) reported that 50% of the
all sources demonstrated that there was a

This article can be downloaded from [Link]

107
Int. J. LifeSc. Bt & Pharm. Res. 2014 Desalegn Amenu et al., 2013

Table 4.2b: Mean Bacteriological Count (Total Coliform, Thermotolerant/Fecal Coliform)

of water sources in Dire Dawa Rural Communities Between
February 2011 and May 2011 (n =6) (Mean ±SE)

Sites Sources Total Coliform Thermotolerant/Fecal Coliform

Adada Unprotected well 3±0.41ab 4.5±0.70a

Unprotected spring 6.5±0.64a 1.5±0.83b

Protected well 6.16±0.60a 1.34±0.50b

Protected spring 5±0.89ab 0.67±0.21c

Tap water 0.67±0.21c 0±0c

Legebira Unprotected well 5.5±0.67ab 3.84±1.72ab

Protected well 4.16±2.63ab 3.67±1.96ab

Unprotected spring 2±1.11b 2±1.78b

Protected spring 2.34±1.12b 2.33±2.33b

Tap water 0±0c 0±0c

Legedini Unprotected well 6.5±1.64a 3.83±3.43ab

Protected well 4.8±28ab 3.67±2.50ab

Unprotected spring 5.16±2.40a 5.67±2.58a

Protected spring 3.33±1.75ab 3.5±1.37ab

Tap water 0.5±0.54c 0±0c

significant difference (p< 0.001) in the average sources were contaminated by total coliform and
counts of TC between the water sampling fecal coliforms. In addition, analysis of the water
sources and sites .Total coliforms in unprotected samples from the protected spring and wells
spring and unprotected well of the Legedini were demonstrated that 100% of the water sources
significantly higher than in all other sources of all were contaminated by coliform. These results
sites. Moreover, there is poor sanitation and
were supported by the research conducted by
unhygienic practices near the water sources. In
Mengasha and his co-worker in Goder (Mengasha
addition drawing water is done using unclean
et al., 2004). Analysis of protected springs
cups and cans, while there is also open access
confirmed that 71.43%, of the samples had
for livestock and wildlife. All these factors might
be possible reasons for the high concentrations indicator bacteria that are lower than the present
in total coliforms in this site. This result was study (Mengesha et al., 2004).
supported by questionnaires survey on The variance analysis of fecal coliform
households’ water handling practices. concentrations among all sources showed that
Unprotected wells and springs demonstrated there was a highly significant difference (p< 0.001)
that 100% of the samples taken from both in the average counts of TTC /FC among all water

This article can be downloaded from [Link]

108
Int. J. LifeSc. Bt & Pharm. Res. 2014 Desalegn Amenu et al., 2013

sites and sources. Mean thermotolerant (fecal) Mean value of Girdia lamblia cyst was highest
coliform levels in unprotected well of Legebira in unprotected well of Adada 5.5±0.670 cyst/L,
were significantly higher than in all other sources where as the lowest mean observed at the tap
and sites. Fecal coliforms are indicators of fecal water of 0±00 cyst/L. The mean counts of the
contamination. Hence, categorizing the site in Cryptosporidium oocyst was highest at Adada
terms of risk to human health, the majority, above unprotected spring and lowest at Legebira tap
(66.67% of sampled water sources in the study
water but there was no significantly different from
area were at high risk.
Legebira and Adada water sources (Table 4.2a).
Bacteriological contamination of water from There was variation on cyst and oocyts count
various sources is commonly due to the lacks of among the different sample with the highest count
water treatment, good sanitation, good where recorded from unprotected spring (Table
management of water sources, environmental 4.2a).
sanitation, etc. In South Australia, Esterman et
al. (1984) surveyed 100 water samples finding There was significant difference among the
18% of the water sources with at least one samples of Adada and the Legedini for
unacceptable bacteriological result, but no Cryptosporidium oocyst, but no significant
significant difference between wells and springs difference between Adada and Legebira. There
was observed. In all cases there was no was variation between wells, springs and tap
significance difference between unprotected water but there was no much difference between
sources and protected sources in the wells and unprotected and protected water sources.
in spring because, the wells and springs were
The parasitological counts in most sites were
not properly protected. The spring was not
properly covered by stone masonry with one or with the range of less polluted (1-10 oocyts/L or
two boxes and the well was not properly covered cyst/L). Moreover, most of water samples taken
by stone masonry (WHO, 1983). from spring (unprotected and protected) and well
(unprotected and protected) had moderate
Parasitological Quality of Drinking Water pollution levels categorized under low risk or low
Sources
pollution. While samples from the tap water had
From the recapitulate results , above (83.34%) lower pollution levels, none of the other samples
of unprotected wells water sources, (50%-100%) could be categorized under the very dangerous
from unprotected springs and protected wells, degree of pollution (Table 4.2c).
(33.34%-66.67%) from protected springs and
Parasitological water quality analysis
(50%) from tap water were positive both for the
demonstrated that, 100% of water samples were
presences of Cryptosporidium oocysts and
positive with Cryptosporidium oocysts and Girdia
Girdia lamblia cyst. In addition, as the
lamblia cyst both from unprotected and protected
enumeration results showed , unprotected well
wells and springs and the least percent was
and protected well, unprotected spring and
detected at tap water. In addition, the statistical
protected spring had the parasitic counts ranging
analysis result demonstrated that, there was
from 0 cyst/L to 10 cyst/L and 0 oocyst/L to 10
significant difference between the untreated water
oocyst/L, respectively.

This article can be downloaded from [Link]

109
Int. J. LifeSc. Bt & Pharm. Res. 2014 Desalegn Amenu et al., 2013

Table 4.2c: The Degree of Parasitological Contamination from each

Study Sites and in Five Types of Water Sources in DDCA, 2011
Cryptosporidium (oocyts/L) Girdia lamblia (cyst/L)

Study Sites Water Sources Sanitary Infection Score Sanitary Infection Score

0 1-10 11-100 >100 0 1-10 11-100 >100

Adada Unprotected well 0(0%) 6(100%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 6(100%) 0(0%) 0(0%)

Unprotected spring 1(16.67%) 5(83.34%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2(33.34%) 4(66.67%) 0(0%) 0(0%)

Protected well 2(33.34%) 4(66.67%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 3(50%) 3(50%) 0(0%) 0(0%)

Protected spring 2(33.34%) 4(66.67%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2(33.34%) 4(66.67%) 0(0%) 0(0%)

Tap water 6(100%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 6(100%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%)

Legebira Unprotected well 1(16.67%) 5(83.34%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 6(100%) 0(0%) 0(0%)

Unprotected spring 0(0%) 3(50%) 3(50%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 6(100%) 0(0%) 0(0%)

Protected well 2(33.34%) 4(66.67%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2(33.34%) 4(66.67%) 0(0%) 0(0%)

Protected spring 0(0%) 0(0%) 4(66.67%) 2(33.34%) 2(33.34%) 0(0%) 4(66.67%) 0(0%)

Tap water 3(50%) 3(50%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 6(1000%) 0(0%) 0(0%)

Legedini Unprotected well 0(0%) 6(100%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 1(16.67%) 0(83.34%) 0(0%)

Unprotected spring 0(0%) 6(100%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 1(16.67%) 0(83.34%) 0(0%)

Protected well 1(16.67%) 5(83.34%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 6(100%) 0(0%)

Protected spring 0(0%) 0(0%) 6(100%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 1(16.67%) 0(83.34%) 0(0%)

Tap water 3(50%) 3(50%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 3(50%) 3(50%) 0(0%) 0(0%)

Keys: 0CFU/100ml=safe, 1-10CFU/100ml=reasonable quality, 11-100CFU/100ml=polluted and >100cfu/100ml=dangerous (WHO, 2004a,

FDRE, WRM, 2002).

sources (unprotected well and unprotected Cryptosporidium but it can be contaminated

spring) and treated water sources (tap water) occasionally (LeChevallier et al., 1995). Likewise,
(p<0.001). Similarly, as the researched conducted Karanis et al. (2006) demonstrated that, 11.1%
in Addis Ababa drinking water sources of Giardia lamblia and 16.7% of Cryptosporidium
demonstrated that there is was a significant were detected from the well water sources,
difference in concentration of Giardia and respectively. Similarly, as the research conducted
Cryptosporidium between treated and untreated by Bakir and Watanabe, the samples from well
water (Nigus et al., 2008). water and underground well water were positive
for the presences of Giardia cysts and
Even though ground water has lower
Cryptosporidium (Watanabe et al., 2005).
possibilities for contamination by cysts or oocysts
but it can be contaminated from surface activities From the total collected samples, 100 % of
through infiltration. For instance ground water Girdia from both unprotected well and
(well) is usually free of Giardia and unprotected spring , was detected in unprotected

This article can be downloaded from [Link]

110
Int. J. LifeSc. Bt & Pharm. Res. 2014 Desalegn Amenu et al., 2013

and protected well of the Adada and the study conducted in Addis Ababa drinking water
Cryptosporidium was detected in springs and sources by Nigus and his co-workers, untreated
wells with low percent from the tap water. In water source and treated water (protected and
contrast to this, Girdia was detected in 100% in unprotected) had different concentration of
Legebira springs, 83.34% in wells while the tap Giardia and Cryptosporidium (Nigus Fikrie et al.,
water of these sites has no any Girdia detected 2008).
and the Cryptosporidium was detected in 100%
In agreement with the research conducted in
from both springs and well except the tap water
South Africa revealed that, Giardia lamblia and
in which there was no detected cryptosporidium.
Cryptosporidium were detected in all (100%) raw
According to the study conducted by water samples collected from selected
LeChevallier et al. (1995), the average catchments (Sigudu et al., 2008). In contrast,
concentration of Girdia lamblia (range 0.4-6.3) Giardia cysts was found in (50%) of samples from
and Cryptosporidium (range 0.3-9.8) were river water while no Giardia and Cryptosporidium
detected. The present findings were much lower were reported both in untreated water sources
than the finding of Sigudu et al. (2008) that and municipal drinking water (Bakir et al., 2003).
reported the concentration of more than 1,400 As study conducted in Norway water sources
oocysts/10 L and 2,700 cysts/10 L were detected. demonstrated the presence of Cryptosporidium
In contrast, the mean concentration of 0.15 in 13.5%, Giardia in 9% and both parasites in
oocysts/l and 0.2 cysts/l recorded by Nishi et al. 2.5% samples were detected (Robertson et al.,
(2008). This was lower than the present study. 2001). According to Nishi et al. (2007), 6.66%,
An investigation made by Stoyanovai et al. (2006) 26.66% and 13.33% of Giardia and
on drinking water supply contamination with Cryptosporidium were found in samples from
Giardia and Cryptosporidium in Varna found untreated water sources, respectively. In the
positive with an average number of 5 cysts/L. same manner as the research reported by
These differences may be resulted due to the Karanis, 81.81% of Giardia and Cryptosporidium
sources of contaminations, lack of adquated were detected in samples from river water
water treatment and unhygienic practices near (Karanis et al., 2005). Research conducted by
and around the water sources in this study area. Wallis et al. (1996) reported that, 21% of Giardia
Protection of water sources and treatment of was detected in raw water samples. Once more,
water supplies have greatly reduced the microbial this is lower than the present study conducted at
load in water sources (WHO, 2003). Dire Dawa rural communities, in that above
33.34% of water samples were contaminated with
Contrary to these, there are studies that in
Girdia lamblia and Cryptosporidium.
which either or both Giardia cysts and
Cryptosporidium were not detected in treated and This variation may be due to lack of regularly
untreated water sources (Karanis et al., 2002). treatment and protection of water sources in the
These differences may be due to lack of proper study area and it had wide possibilities for
water treatment, poor site selection, unhygienic contamination than that of reservoirs and tap
practices around water sources. According to the water which they are treated and confined in

This article can be downloaded from [Link]

111
Int. J. LifeSc. Bt & Pharm. Res. 2014 Desalegn Amenu et al., 2013

Table 4.3a: Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

from Adada, Legebira and Legedini February 2011

Questions items Adada (n=128) Legebira(n=128) Legedini(n=128) Total Respondents

from All Sites
No. % No. % No. %

Age of the respondents

15-24 years 22 17.4 20 15.62 20 15.62 62

25-34 years 53 41 64 50 69 53.9 186

35-44 years 28 21.9 28 21.87 24 18. 75 80

>44 years 24 19 16 12.5 16 12.5 56

Gender

Male 7 5.5 7 5.5 6 4.68 20

Female 121 94.5 121 94.5 122 95.31 364

Religion

Christian 4 3.12 3 2.34 4 3.12 11

Muslim 124 96.88 125 97.65 124 96.87 373

Educational status

Illiterate 113 87.04 100 78.12 98 76.56 335

Read and write 13 10.5 23 17.94 10 7.8 33

Elementary 1 0.78 3 2.34 6 4.68 10

Secondary 1 0.78 1 0.78 4 3.12 6

Occupational status

Farmers 120 93.75 100 78.12 113 88.28 332

Merchant 4 3.12 12 9.37 16 12.5 32

[Link] employers 2 1.56 8 6.25 0 0 10

Housewives 2 1.56 8 6.25 0 0 10

pipelines. Source water can be easily Cryptosporidium (Karanis et al., 2005).

contaminated by grazing animals, animal farming In this investigation, the mean average of the
and run off specially the springs. This analysis Cryptosporidium and Girdia lamblia were higher
can be supported by the study conducted on at the unprotected well and unprotected spring of
microbial pollution of major rivers in Greece that the Adada sites and the lowest mean average of
indicated human interference and lack of proper the Cryptosporidium and Girdia lamblia oocysts/
pollution monitoring activities are the main factors cysts were observed at Legedini which was not
for the contamination of rivers by Giardia and significantly different from Legebira. The

This article can be downloaded from [Link]

112
Int. J. LifeSc. Bt & Pharm. Res. 2014 Desalegn Amenu et al., 2013

occurrences of Cryptosporidium and Girdia As the result indicated in this study, 90 (70.3%) of
lamblia oocysts/cysts were in sighted that as the households were not aware to protect the water
there were a significance difference between the sources before use and 38 (29.7%) of the
sources and the study sites. Therefore, the Adada respondents were admitted to protect the water
unprotected well and unprotected spring were sources before use (Table 4.3b).
more polluted than the tap water while the tap
The study revealed that the most commonly
water is less polluted and acceptable as the
preferred type of water collection container was
standard set by WHO water quality guidelines. In
Jerrican which accounted 76 (59.37%) followed
related to the sites and the water sources, Adada
by clay pots 52 (40.63%). From the total
was more contaminated by Cryptosporidium and
respondents, only 48 (37.5%) of the respondents
Girdia lamblia oocysts/cysts than the Legedini
cleaned their containers before collection. In
sites, but not significantly different from the
addition, majority of the respondents were not
Legebira sites. The Legedini water sources were
cover the collection container during
less polluted by Cryptosporidium and Girdia
transportation (Table 4.3b).
lamblia oocysts/cysts in compare to the Adada
and Legebira sites. As designated in this study, 28 (21.88%) of
respondents were collect water once a day, 20
Water Handling Practices of Rural (15.5%) of the respondent were collected water
Households three times a day and the remaining 80 (62.5.9%)
Socio-Demographic Characteristics of the were collected twice a day. Daughters were
Respondents highly responsible to collect water followed by
From the three study areas, majority of the mothers to fetch water from a source. Among
respondents were women and mostly they were the responsible children, majority of their age was
Muslim. Regarding to the occupational status of below 10 years (Table 4.3b).
the respondent all of the respondents were
Legebira
farmers. Concerning their educational standing
As the result from the Legebira site shown that,
majority of the respondents were illiterate (did not
able to read and write) (Table 4.3a). majority of the respondents were collect water
from springs which accounted 56 (43.87%), 41
Water Handling Practices Related to
(32%) of them are collect water from the well and
Collection and Transportation
31 (24.2%) of them are collect water from the tap
Adada water. The maximum time required to fetch water
Majority of the respondents were found to collect was more than one hour and minimum of 30 min.
water from tap water which accounted 54 The majority of the households, 98 (76.57%) were
(43.87%), 31 (24.2%) of them are collect water not aware to protect the water sources before
from the well and 43 (32.78%) of them are collect use, while only 30 (23.43%) of the respondents
water from the springs. Maximum time required were admitted to protect the water sources before
to fetch water was one and half hours and use (Table 4.3b).
minimum of 30 min within above 50 m distance.

This article can be downloaded from [Link]

113
Int. J. LifeSc. Bt & Pharm. Res. 2014 Desalegn Amenu et al., 2013

Table 4.3b: Water Handling Practices Related To Collection

and Transportation in Rural Communities of DDCAC

Questions items Adada (n=128) Legebira(n=128) Legedini(n=128) Total Respondents

from All Sites
No. % No. % No. %

From where did you water

spring 43 32.78 56 43.87 40 31.25 140

well 31 24.2 41 32 68 53.12 140

Tap water 54 43.87 31 24.2 20 15.62 104

What is the approximate distance of water sources from your home

Below 30 min. 20 15.6 - - 10 7.81 30

31-60 min. 40 31.5 54 42.18 40 31.25 134

More than 60 min. 68 52.9 74 57.81 78 60.93 220

What types of container do you use to collect water from sources

Clay pot 52 40.62 96 75 80 62.5 156

Jerrican 76 59.37 32 25 48 37.5 228

Do you cover the container while water collection

Yes 48 37.5 40 37.5 21 16.4 109

No 80 62.5 88 68.75 107 83. 59 275

Do you wash your container

Yes 48 37.5 40 31. 25 32 25 120

No 80 62.5 88 68.75 96 75 264

How many time do you collect water per day

Once a day 28 21.9 24 18.75 20 15.5 66

Twice a day 80 62.5 84 65.62 80 65.62 204

Three times a day 20 15.5 20 15.5 28 21.88 64

The study revealed that the most commonly the study subjects were found to collect water
preferred type of water collection container was twice a day, 24 (18.75%) of the respondent once
Jerrican which accounted 32 (25%) followed by a day and the remaining 20 (15.5%) collect three
clay pots 96 (75%). Only 40 (31. 25%) of the times. Daughters were highly responsible to
respondents cleaned their containers before collect water followed by mothers to fetch water
collection. Majority did not cover for their collection from a source. Among the responsible children,
container during transportation (Table 4.3b). one majority of their age was below 10 years
Greater part of respondents, 84 (65.62%) of (Table 4.3b).

This article can be downloaded from [Link]

114
Int. J. LifeSc. Bt & Pharm. Res. 2014 Desalegn Amenu et al., 2013

Legedini separate containers without cover materials.

Majority of the respondents from the Legedini From the total selected households, 80 (62.5%)
were compel to collect water from well (especially of the households stored water for a day, 28
from unprotected one) which accounted 68 (21.88%) for more than a day and 20(15.5%) for
(53.12%), 40 (31.22%) of them are collect water less than a day (Table 4.3c). According to the
observation during the data collection, the
from the spring and 20 (15.62%) of them are
sanitation of the area near the storage containers
collect water from the tap water. Maximum time
was poor. In addition the storage container has a
required to fetch water was more than one hour
possibility of reaching animals (Table 4.3c).
and minimum of 30 min. As the result of the
questionnaires pointed out that, majority of the Pertaining to the way that the respondents’
households were not attentive to protect the water withdraw water from containers, 100 (78.12%)
of the respondents preferred pouring and the
sources before use, while only 20 (15.62%) of
remaining 28(21.87%) by dipping. Among those
the respondents were admitted to protect the
respondent using dipping, cups without handle
water sources before use (Table 9). The study
accounted 70 (54.68%). In addition, 87 (69.3%)
revealed that the most commonly preferred type
of the respondents placing dipping or drinking
of water collection container was clay pots which utensils on the floor, the result was also consistent
accounted 80 (62.5%) followed by Jerrican with the observation that was seen during data
48(37.5%). Only 21 (16. 40%) of the respondents collection (Table 4.3c). Majority of the households
cleaned their containers before collection. Majority were not admitted to treat the water sources
did not cover for their collection container during before collecting.
transportation (Table 4.3b). Majority of
Legebira
respondents, 80 (65.62%) of the study subjects
As of the result of survey conducted at Legebira
were found to collect water twice a day, 20 (15.5%)
sites, along with the study population using
of the respondent once a day and the remaining
separate container to store water, 78 (54.68%)
28 (21.9%) collect three times a day. Daughters
preferred clay pots and the rest 50 (36.88%) used
were highly responsible to collect water followed
Jerrcan, and 68 (53.12%) of them were not wash
by mothers to fetch water from a source. Among
storage containers before re-filling, similarly 88
the responsible children, one majority of their age
(68.75%) of the separate containers were without
was below 10 years (Table 4.3b).
cover materials. Majority, 90 (70.31%) of the
Water Handling Practices Related to households stored water more than a day, 24
Storage and Usage by Households (18.75%) for less than a day and 14(10.93%) for
Adada more than a days (Table 4.3c). In accordance with
Among the study inhabitants using separate the observation during the data collection, the
container to store water, 84 (65.62%) the sanitation of the area near the storage containers
households preferred clay pots and the rest 44 was poor. Almost all the respondents were not
(34.36%) used jerrican and 68 (53.12%) of them treat water sources before use. In addition the
were not wash storage containers before re-filling, storage container has a possibility of reaching
similarly 70 (54.65%) of households were use animals.

This article can be downloaded from [Link]

115
Int. J. LifeSc. Bt & Pharm. Res. 2014 Desalegn Amenu et al., 2013

Table 4.3c: Water handling practices related to storage and usage

by households from Adada, Legebira and Legedini in February2011

Questions items Adada (n=128) Legebira(n=128) Legedini(n=128) Total Respondents

from All Sites
No. % No. % No. %

What type of storage do you use to store water

Clay pots 84 65.62 78 54.68 90 70.31 252

Jerrican 44 34.36 50 36.88 38 29.68 122

Do you cover of storage container

Yes 60 46.88 60 46.88 50 39.06 170

No 68 53.12 68 53.12 78 60.93 124

How do you collect water from the storage

Pouring 100 78.12 68 53.12 8 93.75 176

Dipping 28 21.88 60 46.88 120 6.25 208

What the dipping juck looks like

With handle 68 53.12 40 31.25 49 38.28 157

Without handle 70 54.68 88 68.75 79 61.71 227

Where did you put the juck

On a safe place 41 31 30 23.43 32 25 103

On the floor 87 69 98 76.56 96 75 281

For how many days do store water in the container

For a day 80 62.5 14 10.93 45 35.14 108

More than a day 28 21.88 90 70.03 60 46.68 208

Less a day 20 15.5 24 18.75 23 18.18 68

Which method of water treatment do you

Chemical 6 4.7 34 26.6 46 32.8 86

Boiling 7 5.5 9 7 - - 23

Filtration 3 2.3 11 8.6 - - 14

No treatment 112 87 70 57.8 79 67.2 261

Concerning the way that the respondents’ with- (68.75%). In addition 98 (76.56%) of the
drew water from containers, 68 (53.12 %) respondents placing dipping or drinking utensils
preferred pouring and the remaining 60 (46.88%) on the floor, the result was also consistent with
by dipping. Among those respondent using the observation that was seen during data
dipping, cups without handle accounted 88 collection (Table 4.3c). All the respondents were

This article can be downloaded from [Link]

116
Int. J. LifeSc. Bt & Pharm. Res. 2014 Desalegn Amenu et al., 2013

not understood to protect the water sources. Specially, the water sources of Legedini,
unprotected well and protected well had high
Legedini
unhygienic practices. In contrast, the water
At the Legedini site, among the study population
sources of Legebira had intermediate risk of
using separate container to store water 90 (70.31
sanitary practices and the Adada water sources
%) preferred clay pots and the rest used jerrican,
have less sanitary risk than the left sites.
and 78 (62. 5%) of them did not wash storage
containers before re-filling, similarly 79 (61.71%) Study in Sirilanka demonstrated that (65%) to
of the separate containers were without handle. (85%) of public water supplies mostly protected
Greater part of the respondents, 60 (46.68%) of springs become microbiologically contaminated
the households stored water for more than a day, (Mertens, 1990). The higher hazard scores of
45 (35.14%) for a day and the rest were for less water sources generally correlate with increasing
than a day (Table 4.3c). According to the magnitude of bacterial contamination (Lioud,
observation during the data collection, the 1992).
sanitation of the area near the storage containers More than half of the respondents were doing
was poor .In addition the storage container have laundry and bathing activities near the water
a possibility of reaching animals. sources. A similar study in rural Zambia and in
In relation to the way that the respondents’ South Wollo Ethiopia showed that poor
with-drew water from containers, 8 (6.25) community sanitary practices around the sources
preferred pouring and the remaining 120 (93.75%) and near the catchment areas together with
by dipping. Among those respondent using inadequate protection of water sources increased
dipping, cups without handle accounted 69 the sanitary risk scores of the springs and
(53.9%). In addition 96 (75%) of the respondents contributed to the microbiological contamination
placing dipping or drinking utensils on the floor, of water sources (Thomas and Cairncross,
the result was also consistent with the observation 2004). In the present study, the wells and springs
that was seen during data collection (Table 4.3c). water sources were more contaminated than tap
Predominantly, the respondents were not aware water. The reason behind the variation of sanitary
to protect the water sources before use. risk scores between water sources may be due
to its location and other factors (poor site
The results of this study indicated that springs
selection, unhygienic practices near the water
and wells water sources were subjected for the
source, and inadequate treatment). Those
microbiological contamination in all sites and
sources having high sanitary risk score were
sources. Because community unhygienic
found in a densely populated area and the number
practices increase the sanitary risk of the water
of households who practiced bathing and laundry
sources , water sources with high sanitary risk
activities are increasing near the water sources.
score had unacceptable water quality
The result of sanitary and quality monitoring in a
(unprotected well and protected well, unprotected
pilot water quality surveillance study in Sirilanka
spring and protected spring and tap water) from
demonstrated water sources become
the three sites ( Adada, Legedini and Legebira).
contaminated because of poor site selection,

This article can be downloaded from [Link]

117
Int. J. LifeSc. Bt & Pharm. Res. 2014 Desalegn Amenu et al., 2013

protection and unhygienic management of cover, ignorance of washing of containers before

facilities (Mertens, 1990). collection and transferring to storage containers,
transfer of water out of storage container by
From the total respondents, 66.2% of
dipping and placement of drinking or water
households used clay pots for household water
drawing utensils on floor, because of this the
storage while the remaining 33.8% stored water
feacal coliform load increases by two fold in
in Jerrican except in Adada, which was the
household container than sources (Thomas and
majority of the respondents use Jerrican both for
Cairncross, 2004). In this study, 85.41% of the
the collection and storage of the water.
respondent dipped out water while 14.59 % of
Respondents that preferred clay pots were
the respondents poured water to collect from the
revealed increasing of the risk of faecal coliforms
storage container, which is a commendable
than those of respondents using jerrican. This
practice. This was almost higher when
current result was harmony with the finding in
comparing with studies conducted in Zambia with
Bangladesh that revealed that traditional pots
80% and in south Wollo with 72% of the
increased the load of faecal coliforms (Spira et
households was dipped out from the container
al., 1980). Similarly, Seid et al. (2003) reported
(Seid et al., 2003). The reason for these much
that the water stored in clay pots was shown
difference is may be due to the use of narrow
higher proportion of load of faecal coliform than
naked clay pots and jerrican, which is
that of narrow necked container.
inconvenient for dipping in the study. Transfer of
As indicated from the result of the survey on water out of storage containers by pouring
water handling practices, (55.5%) of the showed statistically significant diminution on the
respondents cleaned their container before concentration of faecal coliforms than dipping in
transferring water from collection to storage the study area.
containers and (44.5%) of them were not cleaned
the container before water collection which was SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
much lower than a study done in Jimma town The microbiological quality of drinking water
91% (Teklu and Keeve, 1998). Similarly, (52%) of
sources and water handling practices at
the respondents covered their storage container,
household level in rural communities of Dire Dawa
which was almost similar with the study
was conducted at the Dire Dawa Rural
conducted in Garmuleta district (60%), and
Communities water supply and sanitation
Kidame Gebeya (58%), but much lower when
laboratory. The microbiological results from this
comparing with a study done in South Wollo,
study shown that most of the microbiological
92.7% (Seid et al., 2003). This difference may be
parameters measured (TC, FC, GC and CO)
due to inadequate and unhygienic practices
were in harmony with the reference values set
related to water handling practices in the present
out by WHO (2004) and most of the sources
study areas. The main contribution for household
investigated were grossly polluted. A total of 90
water contaminations were unrestricted and
unhygienic water collection and storage activities water samples were collected and analyzed for
such as: selection household containers, lack of total (TC), fecal coliforms (FC), GC (Girdia

This article can be downloaded from [Link]

118
Int. J. LifeSc. Bt & Pharm. Res. 2014 Desalegn Amenu et al., 2013

lamblia cysts) and CO (Cryptosporidium oocyst). 1. As indicator bacterial counts in all sampled
From all sites the Legedini was the most polluted water sites have exceeded the guidelines, set
sites by the microbiological water quality and for human use there is clearly an urgent need
unprotected well was the more contaminated to develop safe water supplies and basic water
water sources. handling practices at the household level and
disinfect the water sources properly.
The bacteriological results from this study
were not harmony with the reference values set 2. The concerned sectors (Ministry of Health,
out by WHO (2004) and they were grossly Ministry of Water Resources, Non
polluted. Therefore, the bacteriological quality of Governmental Organizations involved in water
drinking water sources in rural communities of and sanitation activities and the beneficiaries)
Dire Dawa (Adada, Legedini and Legebira) did must increase their effort in water sources
not meet national or international guidelines for protection, monitoring and evaluating the
drinking water that is set by WHO standard. The existing facilities, including regular check up
overall microbiological count (bacterial and of its microbiological safety, and undertaking
parasitic ) and water handling assessment source maintenance if needed.
among households indicated that the majority of
3. Protection of water sources accompanied by
water sources in rural communities of Dire Dawa
sanitation and hygiene promotion programs
( Adada, Legedini and Legebira ) could be
can improve the hygiene quality of rural water
classified as more polluted, while some were at
sources, where disinfection is not feasible.
intermediate risk and very few water points had
reasonable quality. High counts of indicator 4. Hygiene education should be targeted on
organisms in all sampled water sources of the women and children, because they are highly
study areas suggested the presence of involved in most water collection and
pathogenic organisms that constitute a threat to management activities.
anyone consuming these water sources. The 5. The community should actively participate in
contamination of these water sources with the implementation of water and sanitation
pathogenic organisms due to the absence of projects from the beginning of its planning to
fencing of water sources that could prevent the its operation to ensure sustainability and self-
entrance of animals, livestock grazing nearby reliance.
water sources, people’s open area defecation,
6. Future studies are needed to determine the
collecting of water with unclean jug, cups,
seasonal variations in the contamination level
agricultural activities nearby water sources, and
of the water sources, to quantify pathogen
lack of regular disinfection of the water reservoir.
loads in different water sources to develop risk-
reducing water quality management systems.
RECOMMENDATION
The following recommendations are forwarded 7. Generally, proper sanitary survey, design and
in view of the findings of this present study implementation of water and/or sanitation
projects; regular disinfections, maintenances

This article can be downloaded from [Link]

119
Int. J. LifeSc. Bt & Pharm. Res. 2014 Desalegn Amenu et al., 2013

and supervisions of water sources; and regular contamination level of water and determines
microbiological assessment of all water the major sources of contamination at water
sources for drinking should be Planned and collection point in Yubdo –Legebatu River,
conducted. East Show, and Ethiopia”, Addis Ababa.
7. Dawit Ayalew (2006), Association of
REFERENCES
Cryptosporidium Parvum, Giardia Lamblia
1. American Public Health Associations
and Entamoeba Histolytica/Dispar Infection
(APHA) (1998), Standard Methods for the
with Drinking Water Sources among
Examination of Water and Waste Water. Children in Rural Part of Dire- Dawa. Addis
American People Health Association, 20th
Ababa, Ethiopia, p.20-30.
Edn, Washington DC.
8. Desta Kassa (2009), “Bacteriological and
2. Atnafu Melaku (2006), Assessment of
Physicochemical Quality assessment of
Bacteriological Quality of Drinking Water
Drinking Water Supply from source to taps
Supply at the sources and Point of Use at
in Debre ziet town, Ethiopia”, Addis Ababa
Home in Worebabu District, South Wollo.
University, Addis Ababa. 50-60.
[Link] Thesis. Addis Ababa University, Addis
Ababa. 9. Esterman A, Roder D M, Scott Cameron A,
Robinson B S, Walters R P, Lake J A and
3. Bakir B, Tanyuksel M, Saylam F, Tanriverdi Christy P E (1984), “Determinants of the
S, Araz R E, Hacim A K and HasdeM (2003),
Microbiological Characteristics of South
“Investigation of Waterborne Parasites in
Australian Swimming Pools”, Appl. Environ.
Drinking Water Sources of Ankara, Turkey”,
Microbiol Vol. 47, pp. 325-328.
J. Microbiol., Vol. 41(2), pp. 148-151.
10. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia,
4. Barrell R, Hunter P R and Nichols G (2000), Ministry of Health (FDRE, MoH), (2007),
“Microbiological standards for water and
“Rapid assessment of drinking water quality
their relationship to health risk”, Commun.
in the Federal Republic of Ethiopia, country
Dis. Public Health, Vol. 3, pp. 8-13. report. Federal Democratic Republic of
5. Barrell R, Boyd P, Cartwright R, Chada C, Ethiopia”, Ministry of Health, Addis Ababa,
Colboune J, Cole S, Colley A, Drury D, Ethiopia.
Godfree A, Hunter A, Lee J, Machray P,
11. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia,
Nicholas G, Sartory D, Sellwood J and
Ministry of Water Resources (FDRE, MWR)
Wakins J (2002), Part-1 Water Quality and
(2002), Ethiopian Guidelines specification
Public Health, Methods for the Examination
for Drinking water quality. Federal
of Waters an Associated Material, in this
Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Ministry
series, Environment Agency, HMSO,
of Water Resorces, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
London.
12. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia,
6. Birhanu Million (2008), “ Assessment of the
Ministry of Water Resources (FDRE, MWR)

This article can be downloaded from [Link]

120
Int. J. LifeSc. Bt & Pharm. Res. 2014 Desalegn Amenu et al., 2013

(2004), Rapid assessment of drinking water 20. Macy J and Quick R (2004), “The Safe Water
quality in the Federal Republic of Ethiopia, System: A household Based Water Quality
country report. Federal Democratic Intervention Program for the Developing
Republic of Ethiopia, Ministry of Water World”, Centre for Disease
Resource. Addis Ababe, Ethiopia. [Link]/safe water/pub.p. 1-
3.
13. Geonha K, Euiso T C and Dongryul L (2005),
“Diffuse and point pollution impacts on the 21. Mengesha Admassu, Mamo Wubshet and
pathogen indicator organism level in the Baye Gelaw (2004), “A survey of
Genum river, Korea”, Science of the Total bacteriological quality of drinking water in
Environment, Vol. 350, pp. 94-105. North Gondar Ethiop.”, J. Health Dev. 2004.,
Vol. 18(2), pp. 113-135.
14. Getnet Kassahun (2008), “Physico-
chemical and Bacteriological Drinking Water 22. Mertens T E (1990), “Determinants of water
Quality Assessment of Bahir Dar town water quality, availability and use in Kurunegala
supply from source to yard connection Srilanka”, Tropical Med. Parasitologica, Vol.
(North- Western Ethiopia)”, [Link] Thesis, 41(1), pp. 89-97.
Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa.
23. Ministry of Health (MOH) (2007), “Need
15. Hoffman A R (2003), Energy and Water, U.S. Assessment to achieve Universal Access
DOE & Winrock International, June. to Improved Sanitation and Hygiene”,
Unpublished Document, Addis Ababa,
16. Hurst C J, Kundsen M J, Mclnerney L D,
Ethiopia.
Stezenbach and Walter M V (2002), Manual
of Environmental Micribilogy, 2nd Ed., pp. 24. National Meteorological Services Agency of
265-284. American Society for Microbiology. Dire Dawa Administrative Council (2010).
American Society of Microbiology Press,
25. Nigus Fikrie, Asrat Hailu, and Habtamu
Washington, DC.
Belete (2008), “Determination and
17. Karanis P (2006), “A review of an emerging enumeration of Cryptosporidium oocyst and
waterborne medical important parasitic Giardia cysts in Legedadi (Addis Ababa)
protozoan”, Jpn. J. Protozool., Vol. 39(1), municipal drinking water system”, Ethiopian
pp. 5-19. Journal of health development, Vol. 22(1),
pp. 68-70.
18. LeChevallier M W, Norton W D and Atherholt
T (1995), “Survey of surface source waters 26. Nishi L, Baesso M L, Santana R G, Fregadolli
for Giardia and Cryptosporidium and water P, Falavigna D L M and Falavigna- Guilherme
treatment efficiency evaluation”, American A L (2007), “Investigation of Cryptosporidium
Water Works Service Company, Inc., pp. spp. and Giardia spp. In a Public Water-
1-8. Treatment System”, Zoonoses and Public
Health., pp. 1-8.
19. Lioud B A (1992), Checklist of hazards:
world health organization. July-August.

This article can be downloaded from [Link]

121
Int. J. LifeSc. Bt & Pharm. Res. 2014 Desalegn Amenu et al., 2013

27. Richards J B (1996), “Drinking Water and Sanitation, 2008. Meeting the MDG
monitoring and surveillance”, African Health; Drinking Water and Sanitation Target, A Mid-
Vol. 4, pp. 10. Term Assessment of Progress. New York,
NY: WHO and UNICEF.
28. Seid Tiku, Legesse Worku and kebede Faris
(2003), “Factor affecting water quality from 35. United States Environmental Protection
source to home in Tehuledere woreda, Agency (USEPA) (2005), Method 1623:
Northeast Ethiopia”, Ethiop. J. Health Sci. Cryptosporidium and Giardia in water by
13 (2), pp. 94-106. Filtration/IMS/FA. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
29. Sigudu M V, Booysen M G, Mtetwa L M and
water.
Grundlingh M G (2008), “Monito of
Cryptosporidium (oocysts) and Giardia 36. Watanabe Y, Kimura K, Yang C H and Ooi
(cysts) in the selected Vaal river catchment H K (2005), “Detection of Cryptosporidium
areas using the U.S. EPA METHOD 1623”, sp. Oocysts and Giardia sp. in faucet water
WISA., pp. 1-4. samples from cattle and goat farms in
Taiwan”, [Link]., Vol. 67(12), pp.
30. Spira W M, M U Y A Khan (1980),
1285-1287.
“Microbiologic Surveillance of Intra-
neighborhood 55 Cholera Transmission in 37. World Health Organization (WHO) (2006a),
Rural Bangladesh”, Bulletin of the World Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality, Third
Health Organization, 58, pp. 731-740. edition incorporating first addendum. Vol. 1,
Recommendations. Geneva.
31. Tamiru Alemayehu (2001), “The impact of
uncontrolled waste disposal on surface 38. World Health Organization (WHO) and
water quality in Addis Ababa”, SINET: UNICEF, 2006. Meeting the MDG drinking
Ethiopian Journal of Science, Vol. 24 (1), water and sanitation target: the urban and
pp. 93-104. rural challenge of the decade. Geneva.
32. Teklu Mulugeta and Kebede Faris (1998), 39. World Health Organization (WHO) (1983),
“Survey on practice of water handling and Guidelines for Drinking water quality, Vol. 1,
level of contamination in Jimma town”, Eth. 2 and 3.
J. H. Science, Vol. 8(1), pp. 29-34.
40. World Health Organization (WHO) (1991),
33. Thomas Clasen and Cairncross Sandy Techniques of collection, preparation and
(2004), “Household water management: examination of samples. Basic laboratory
refining the dominant paradigm”, Tropical methods in medical parasitological.
Med. and International Health; Vol. 9 (2), pp. Geneva; World Health Organization, pp.1-
187-191. 33.
34. United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) 41. World Health Organization (WHO) (1993),
and World Health Organization (WHO) Joint Water and sanitation: WHO fact sheet no.
Monitoring Programmed for Water Supply 112, World Health Organization, Geneva.

This article can be downloaded from [Link]

122
Int. J. LifeSc. Bt & Pharm. Res. 2014 Desalegn Amenu et al., 2013

42. World Health Organization (WHO) (1996), 48. World Health Organization (WHO) (2004),
Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality (Health Water, sanitation and hygiene links to health,
Criteria and Other Supporting Information, facts and figures, Geneva.
Vol. II, 2nd ed, World Health Organization,
49. World Health Organization (WHO) (2004a),
Geneva.
Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality, Vol.
43. World Health Organization (WHO) (1997), 1, Recommendations (3rd Ed), World Health
Guidelines for drinking water quality: Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Surveillance and control of community
50. World Health Organization (WHO) (2005),
supply, second ed., Vol. 2, Geneva.
Guidelines for drinking water quality, 2nd
44. World Health Organization (WHO) (2002), edition, Health Criteria, Vol.3. World Health
Water, Sanitation and Health. Managing Organizations Switzerland, Geneva.
water in the home: accelerated health gains
51. World Health Organization (WHO) (2005a),
from improved water supply. Geneva.
Monitoring Bathing Waters -A Practical Guide
45. World Health Organization (WHO), (2002a), to the Design and Implementation of
Managing Water in the Home: Accelerated Assessments and Monitoring Program.
Health Gains from Improved Water Supply, Sanitary Inspection and Microbiological
Sose by M.D. WHO/SDE/WSH/02.07 Water Quality. Edited by Jamie Bartram and
include in text. Gareth Rees, ISBN 0-419-24390-1.
46. World Health Organization (WHO) (2002b), 52. World Health Organization (WHO) (2006b),
Global Water Supply and Sanitation Guidelines for drinking water quality, 1st
Assessment Report. Geneva, World Health Addendum to the 3rd edition,
organization, Geneva. Recommendations. World Health
Organizations. Switzerland, Geneva.
47. World Health Organization (WHO) (2003),
Guidelines for drinking water quality, Vol. 3, 53. World Health Organization (1994), Drinking
World Health Organizations, Switzerland, water quality control in small community
Geneva. supplies [Link], WHO, Geneva.

This article can be downloaded from [Link]

123