Water, sanitation, and hygiene information was collected during a matched case-control study of moderate and severe diarrhea (MSD) among 4,096 children < 5 years of age in Bamako, Mali. Primary use of piped water (conditional odds ratio [cOR] = 0.45; 0.34–0.62), continuous water access (cOR = 0.30; 0.20–0.43), fetching water daily (cOR = 0.77; 0.63–0.96), and breastfeeding (cOR = 0.65; 0.49–0.88) significantly reduced the likelihood of MSD. Fetching water in > 30 minutes (cOR = 2.56; 1.55–4.23) was associated with MSD. Piped tap water and courier-delivered water contained high (> 2 mg/L) concentrations of free residual chlorine and no detectable
An estimated 1.7 billion episodes of diarrheal illness occur annually in children < 5 years of age in developing countries and account for ∼15% of deaths in this age group.
Provision of potable water and point-of-use treatment and safe storage of drinking water are cost-effective.
Mali has one of the world's highest under-five child mortality rates and a high incidence of diarrheal disease.
Based upon the observed associations, we designed a nested water quality risk assessment study, carried out in two Bamako quartiers, to investigate two hypotheses: 1) that piped water from “improved” sources in Bamako contains lower levels of fecal contamination than water that is bought from couriers (“unimproved”); and, 2) that household stored water collected by caretakers who fetched and stored water overnight would contain significantly more fecal bacteria than source water.
Subjects (2,033 case and 2,063 control children) were enrolled between December 3, 2007 and December 2, 2010 into the GEMS Mali case-control study.
The WASH data were collected at enrollment from the caretakers of case children presenting at health facilities and at home for matched control children, using a standardized questionnaire. Approximately 60 (range, 50–90) days after enrollment, a trained field worker visited each case and control household to collect follow-up health information and record WASH observations. All households that had completed the 60-day follow-up visits before March 12, 2010, and where the caretakers had identified either a private (water piped into the home or yard) or a public water tap as their primary water source, were eligible for participation in the nested water quality study; this comprised 1,279 case and 1,295 eligible control households. Twenty-two case and 26 control GEMS households were randomly selected from a list of eligible case and control households to be visited between March and April of 2010 for the sub-study of water storage practices. Bought water was collected directly from randomly selected couriers within the residential area, rather than from caretakers who use bought water because we could not identify and collect samples from the specific source (courier) of household water stored and sampled during the visit. Neighborhoods have coverage from many different couriers who are extremely mobile. Thus, caretakers tend to use whichever courier is closest.
Water quality of primary drinking water sources was evaluated by sampling the primary source of piped drinking water for the 48 (22 case, 26 control) selected GEMS caretakers, and water supplied by 15 randomly selected professional water couriers servicing the GEMS neighborhoods (7 from Banconi and 8 from Djicoroni Para), who were in the process of transporting water within a residential area.
During household visits, caretakers were asked to guide the field team to their primary drinking water source where a 300 mL sample was collected. “Bought” water was collected by asking couriers to provide a 300 mL sample of water from a storage container on their cart. To determine the role of courier water storage practices on water quality between procurement at the source and delivery to the household, couriers were also asked to identify the source that they used for procuring water for sample collection and their water collection and storage practices were recorded. A 300 mL sample was collected for courier sources. To determine the role of household water storage practices on household drinking water quality after collection at the source, caretakers were asked to provide a 300 mL sample of stored drinking water. Field workers recorded the type of container from which the stored water sample was provided (either a wide [≥ 6 cm]- or narrow [< 6 cm]-mouthed container), whether the container was covered, and whether water was removed by dipping (with cup or ladle) or by pouring. The caretaker was asked the length of time that had passed because their stored water had been collected, and whether it was given to the GEMS child. No incentive was provided.
Free residual chlorine (FRC) concentrations were measured for all water samples at the time of collection using the Extech CL200 portable meter (Waltham, MA). All 300 mL water samples were collected into sterile autoclaved containers. Samples were kept in coolers on ice packs and transported to the laboratory for microbiological analysis within a maximum of 4 hours of collection.
Assays conformed to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Approved Method 1604:
Data were analyzed using SAS Version 9.3 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC). Descriptive statistics of study subjects or variables were reported as proportions, means, and ranges. Means were compared using a two-sample
Written informed consent was obtained from adult caretakers of all children enrolled in GEMS. The Ethics Committee of the Faculté de Medécine, Pharmacie et Odonto-Stomatologie, University of Bamako, and Institutional Review Board of the University of Maryland, Baltimore approved the protocol and consent forms.
Households of GEMS case and control children were similar with respect to gender, age, number of overall individuals and children < 5 years of age in the household, and the level of caretaker's education (
Overall, the municipal piped system was the primary drinking water source for > 99% of GEMS Bamako households, collected either directly (household or public taps) or indirectly (bought from couriers). Caretakers reported that public taps (76.2% of cases versus 79.0% of controls) or private taps in the house or yard (10.6% cases versus 9.8% controls) were the primary sources of drinking water for enrolled children (
Compared with caretakers of controls, case caretakers were less likely to report that water was available from their primary water source “all the time” (91.2% versus 97.3%, cOR 0.28, CI 0.20–0.38), and to fetch water every day (76.1% versus 80.4%, cOR 0.76, C.I. 0.63–0.91, (
Drinking water was stored by nearly all GEMS caretakers (
Modeling procedures (forward, backward, and stepwise) were compared. Forward and stepwise models both suggested that always having access to water, fetching water, requiring > 30 minutes to fetch water, and breastfeeding were all independently associated with MSD. Backward selection identified the same variables, plus primary use of piped water, interaction between piped water and fetching water daily, and interaction between piped water and both parents living in the home. Model fit was conducted by using the forward/stepwise model and adding piped water alone, and with its interaction terms to check for significant contribution to the model. The use of piped water and interaction between piped water and both parents living in the home improved model fit (
To test the hypothesis that piped water quality is superior to bought water quality, we first tested chlorine concentrations in water from the two primary observed sources of water used by GEMS case and control caretakers: municipal piped water and couriers that sell water from mobile carts on the street. A survey of professional couriers (
Box plot displaying median, 1st and 3rd quantiles, minimum and maximum data points, and outliers for the residual chlorine concentrations found in primary water sources (1st box) and stored water containers (2nd box) for 48 households, and water sources (3rd box) and storage containers (bought, 4th box) for 15 couriers. The box displays the range of data points lying within the first (lower line) to third (upper line) quartile, with the median in between. The distribution of free residual chlorine (FRC) concentrations detected were 0.39 mg/L to 5.88 mg/L in public taps used by caretakers, 0.02 mg/L to 3.17 mg/L in household stored water, 1.54 mg/L to 5.39 mg/L in public tap water used by couriers, and 1.24 mg/L to 4.93 mg/L in water bought from couriers. * WHO standard for FRC concentrations (0.5 mg/L) in treated piped source water. ** WHO recommended FRC concentration (0.2 mg/L) for controlling contamination in stored drinking water.
We also tested chlorine concentrations of water stored in households for drinking to determine whether water quality significantly degraded after collection. In comparison to the median FRC of 2.45 mg/L at the tap, the median FRC in household stored water samples was 0.74 mg/L (range 0.02–2.12 mg/L) (
Most samples of water from piped sources and couriers lacked microbial contamination. One public tap sample out of the 63 tested contained > 2 × 104 TCU/100 mL of water, despite the presence of 2.33 mg/L of residual chlorine. The blank conducted for the sample did not reveal any background contamination from the filter, glassware, or wash solution, suggesting that chlorine-resistant bacteria may have been introduced through a fault in a nearby underground pipe. One of the 15 samples from water couriers also contained 102 TCU/100 mL volume, despite a 2.14 mg/L chlorine concentration. The TCU were not identified from the paired water source, so the chlorine-resistant TCU could have been introduced post-procurement by the courier's hands or from the transport container. No tested water sources contained fecal
Water storage practices among caretakers enrolled in the nested study were identical to those observed at the follow-up visits in the overall study population. All 48 caretakers used a public or private piped water tap, stored drinking water in a traditional wide-mouthed earthen container, and used a short-handled cup to scoop water from the container. All caretakers reported giving stored water to their children for drinking. Thirty-three caretakers (69%) provided their children with drinking water that had been stored overnight and one (2%) indicated that the water had been stored for 2 days. The remaining 14 caretakers (29%) reported gathering and storing fresh water during the morning of the visit.
Chlorine concentrations in water that was stored overnight were significantly lower than for freshly collected water. Water from all households that had collected water on the day of our visit ( Percent of households with none (0 colony forming unit [cfu]/100 mL), low (1–10 cfu/100 mL), moderate (11–100 cfu/100 mL), high (101–1,000 cfu/100 mL), or very high risk (> 1,000 cfu/100 mL) of drinking household drinking water contaminated with total coliform bacteria (TCU) or
Almost nine-tenths of the caretakers in the Bamako, Mali site of the GEMS case-control study, used a municipal piped, treated water supply for their primary drinking water source. By WHO and UNICEF standards, this is an improved water source.
Over a tenth of caretakers bought water from couriers who delivered water from this same municipal source. Because of the potential for introduction of contamination during collection and transport, water from couriers is considered by the WHO to be an unimproved water source. Water collected from couriers contained similar FRC levels as piped source water and 93% of samples were free from microbial contamination, suggesting that high FRC concentrations can help offset contamination risks posed by water vendors. The fact that one courier did introduce chlorine-resistant TCU contamination into the vended water supply is a reminder though that couriers could also introduce and transmit other chlorine-resistant fecal organisms such as
Although high quality piped water sources were generally pervasive throughout this community, a small subset of households did lack consistent access to their primary water source. Case-households had significantly less dependable access to their primary water source and had longer travel times to their water source than control-households. Longer travel times to a water source have been previously linked with increased diarrhea rates in children, and WHO and UNICEF define access to an improved water source as round-trip travel time of no more than 30 minutes from the household.
Water collection and storage behaviors can also be influenced by motivations and perceptions caused by difficulties in accessing a safe water source.
Data from the nested microbiologic sub-study shows how chemically and microbiologically improved source water can quickly deteriorate between point-of-collection and point-of-use, and how high FRC concentrations in piped treated water can partially mitigate that effect.
Improving access and availability of improved water sources, promoting more frequent water collection and the use of safe water storage containers by caretakers, and educating them about safe water handling could further reduce contamination of water in the home and the concomitant risk of waterborne disease transmission by pathogens, including those that are chlorine-resistant, within households.
Urban poor tend to pay more for water, in part because of a lack of access to private taps and subsequent dependency upon water vendors.
Our findings have several limitations. First, water sampling was conducted during the dry season in Bamako. Piped distribution systems can experience a greater burden on chlorine demand during periods of high precipitation and ground saturation, so piped water quality in Bamako may worsen during the rainy season.
Finally, even with broad access to treated source water, pediatric diarrheal morbidity and mortality in Bamako remain high. In addition to contamination of water during household storage, other routes of transmission of enteric pathogens (e.g., by contaminated food vehicles, fomites, flies, and direct fecal oral contact) are common in poor urban communities in the developing world, and are likely important contributors to the high rates of pediatric disease that persist in Bamako.
Special thanks to the global village of clinical, laboratory, field, and administrative staff in Mali who made this work possible. We also thank Tracy Ayers, CDC, Atlanta, GA, for statistical assistance. Uma Onwuchekwa, MS, Head of the Bio-Informatic Uniat CVD-Mali and Dr. Telly Nouhoum, MD, coordinator GEMS, CVD-Mali, also made very important contributions to data collection and study management during this study.
Financial support: This work was supported by grant no. 38874 from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (M. M. Levine, Principal Investigator).
Authors' addresses: Kelly K. Baker, Karen L. Kotloff, James P. Nataro, Tamer H. Farag, Sandra Panchalingam, Yukun Wu, William C. Blackwelder, and Myron M. Levine, Center for Vaccine Development, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, E-mails:
Socio-demographic characteristics and univariate associations with moderate and severe diarrhea (MSD) in case and control children matched by age, gender, and quartier and enrolled between 2008 and 2010 in the GEMS in Bamako, Mali
| Case, | Control, | cOR (95% CI) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Household socio-demographic characteristics | ||||
| Male child | 910 (44.8%) | 923 (44.7%) | – | 0.98 |
| Age category, mean number months | ||||
| 0 to 11 months, | 7.3 (2.7 SD) | 7.0 (2.5 SD) | 0.02 | |
| 12 to 23 months, | 16.8 (3.5 SD) | 16.3 (3.2 SD) | 0.02 | |
| 24 to 59 months, | 35.5 (9.7 SD) | 35.1 (9.5 SD) | – | 0.84 |
| Mean number of people in household | 15.0 (9.7 SD) | 15.0 (9.7 SD) | – | 0.47 |
| More than 1 child < 5 years of age in household | 1,618 (79.6%) | 1,660 (80.5%) | 0.94 (0.81–1.10) | 0.47 |
| Both parents live in home§ | 1,986 (80.8%) | 1,779 (87.2%) | 0.60 (0.51–0.72) | 0.0001 |
| Caretaker's education | ||||
| None or some primary | 1,726 (84.9%) | 1,756 (85.1%) | Ref. | Ref. |
| Completed primary | 209 (10.3%) | 184 (8.9%) | 1.15 (0.93–1.41) | 0.21 |
| Primary or greater | 97 (4.8%) | 124 (6.0%) | 0.80 (0.61–1.05) | 0.11 |
| Breastfed | ||||
| 0 to 11 months, | 716 (98.6%) | 727 (100.0%) | – | – |
| 12 to 23 months, | 495 (72.5%) | 565 (81.3%) | 0.57 (0.43–0.75) | 0.0001 |
| 24 to 59 months, | 15 (2.4%) | 22 (3.4%) | 0.68 (0.35–1.31) | 0.25 |
| Wealth index quintile | ||||
| 1 | 394 (19.4%) | 426 (20.6%) | Ref. | Ref. |
| 2 | 382 (18.8%) | 436 (21.1%) | 0.95 (0.78–1.15) | 0.59 |
| 3 | 399 (19.6%) | 421 (20.4%) | 1.04 (0.85–1.26) | 0.74 |
| 4 | 411 (20.2%) | 409 (19.8%) | 1.08 (0.89–1.31) | 0.44 |
| 5 | 447 (22.0%) | 372 (18.0%) | 1.31 (1.08–1.59) | 0.006 |
Values are shown as numbers (percent), or means (SD).
Conditional logistic regression (cOR) of variables collected from matched case-control pairs, 95% confidence interval (CI).
Cases and controls matched. Ref. refers to the reference group for logistic regression.
Variables included as potential confounders in multivariate model.
Distribution and odds of MSD for primary source and any source of drinking water used by Bamako caretakers (based on information collected at child's enrollment in GEMS)
| PRIMARY drinking sources | Cases, | Controls, | cOR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| n (%) | n (%) | |||
| Municipal piped water tap | 1,765 (86.8%) | 1,833 (88.8%) | 0.83 (0.68–1.00) | 0.05 |
| Private tap | 215 (10.6%) | 203 (9.8%) | 1.10 (0.89–1.35) | 0.40 |
| Public tap | 1,550 (76.2%) | 1,630 (79.0%) | 0.85 (0.73–0.99) | 0.03 |
| Improved well | 16 (0.8%) | 6 (0.3%) | 2.33 (0.90–6.07) | 0.08 |
| Unimproved private well | 1 (0.1%) | 2 (0.1%) | 0.5 (0.05–5.51) | 0.57 |
| Unimproved public well | 0 | 0 | – | – |
| Protected spring | 7 (0.3%) | 2 (0.1%) | 3.5 (0.73–16.85) | 0.12 |
| Bought from courier (municipal supply) | 244 (12.0%) | 220 (10.7%) | 1.15 (0.94–1.40) | 0.17 |
| SECONDARY drinking water sources | Cases, | Controls, | cOR (95% CI) | |
| Municipal piped water tap | 115 (25.9%) | 100 (21.6%) | 0.67 (0.11–3.99) | 0.66 |
| Private tap | 2 (0.4%) | 2 (0.4%) | 0.50 (0.05–5.51) | 0.57 |
| Public tap | 113 (25.5%) | 98 (21.2%) | 1.69 (0.85–3.36) | 0.13 |
| Improved well | 2 (0.4%) | 2 (0.4%) | 0.94 (0.21–2.73) | 0.82 |
| Unimproved private well | 216 (48.6%) | 259 (55.9%) | 0.76 (0.60–0.97) | 0.03 |
| Unimproved public well | 41 (9.2%) | 40 (8.6%) | 1.05 (0.66–1.66) | 0.85 |
| Protected spring | 2 (0.4%) | 3 (0.5%) | 0.67 (0.11–3.99) | 0.66 |
| Bought from courier (municipal supply) | 63 (14.2%) | 68 (14.7%) | 1.14 (0.76–1.70) | 0.54 |
Conditional logistic regression (cOR) of variables collected from matched case-control pairs, 95% confidence interval (CI).
MSD = moderate and severe diarrhea.
Household water access and water handling practices among GEMS caretakers
| Case | Control | cOR (95% CI) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reported access and use of primary drinking water source | |||||
| Water always available from primary source | 1,855 (91.2%) | 2,009 (97.3%) | 0.28 (0.20–0.38) | 0.0001 | |
| Fetch water daily | 1,383 (76.1%) | 1,485 (80.4%) | 0.76 (0.63–0.91) | 0.003 | |
| Public tap, | 1,314 (84.8%) | 1,406 (86.3%) | 0.84 (0.66–1.08) | 0.17 | |
| Bought, | 50 (20.5%) | 70 (33.7%) | 0.75 (0.17–3.35) | 0.71 | |
| Time to fetch > 30 minutes | 78 (4.3%) | 28 (1.5%) | 2.96 (1.84–4.75) | 0.0001 | |
| Observations of storage conditions in household | |||||
| Observed container for storing drinking water | 1,786 (100%) | 1,891 (100%) | – | – | |
| Aperture of storage container > 6 cm | 1,773 (99.3%) | 1,886 (99.7%) | 0.39 (0.14–1.08) | 0.07 | |
| Containers are covered | 1,785 (99.9%) | 1,885 (99.7%) | – | – | |
| Water obtained by | |||||
| Scooping with cup | 1,783 (99.8%) | 1,890 (100%) | 0.33 (0.04–3.21) | 0.34 | |
| Pour | 52 (2.9%) | 84 (4.4%) | 0.61 (0.41–0.90) | 0.01 | |
| Stored water was not treated | 1,784 (99.9%) | 1,887 (99.8%) | 0.67 (0.11–3.99) | 0.66 | |
Conditional logistic regression (cOR) of variables collected from matched case-control pairs, 95% confidence interval (CI).
Data was not collected for caretakers with water piped into the house or yard based upon the assumption that they had daily access to water (
Data was collected during follow-up visits in
Indicates where caretakers could select more than one answer.
GEMS = Global Enteric Multicenter Study.
Factors independently associated with increased or decreased risk of moderate and severe diarrhea (MSD) in a multivariable logistic regression analysis
| Predictive factor | Adjusted cOR (95% CI) |
|---|---|
| Primarily uses piped water source | 0.45 (0.34–0.62) |
| Water source is always available | 0.30 (0.20–0.43) |
| Caretaker fetches water daily | 0.77 (0.63–0.96) |
| Requires > 30 minutes to fetch drinking water from primary source | 2.56 (1.55–4.23) |
| Breastfed | 0.65 (0.49–0.88) |
Variables included in the final multivariate model were primary use of piped water, always have access to primary water source, fetch water daily, fetching water requires > 30 minutes, breastfeeding, and an interaction term for use of piped water and both parents being in the home. Confounding variables included both parents being in the home, wealth index quintile, and a categorical ordinal variable for caretaker's education. Adjusted conditional logistic regression (cOR) of variables collected from matched case-control pairs, whereby all odds ratios control for other factors in the model; 95% confidence interval (CI).
Average concentration of total coliform units (TCU),
| Day | Collected and stored on day of testing, | Collected and stored on previous day(s), | Average |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percent of households with > 0.2 mg/L FRC | 0% | 50% | 35% |
| FRC (mg/L) | 1.27 mg/L | 0.53 mg/L | 0.74 mg/L |
| [range] | [0.22–3.17] | [0.02–2.88] | [0.02–3.17] |
| Percent of households with TCU, | 14% | 62% | 48% |
| TCU/100 mL | 2.98 × 101 | 4.54 × 103 | 3.22 × 103 |
| Percent of households with | 0% | 12% | 8.3% |
| 0 | 1.61 × 101 | 1.1 × 101 |