Bacterial Quality of Drinking-Water in Rainfed Cisterns and Roof Storage Tanks in Beit Leed and Safarine Villages | الخواص البكتيرية لمياة الشرب في آبار الجمع والخزانات السطحية في قريتي بيت ليد وسفارين

Three hundred drinking water samples were collected from two storage systems (cisterns and roof storage tanks), 150 sample from each. The samples were collected during the summer season from June to October 1999 from two villages (Beit Leed and Safarine) in the district of Tulkarm. Average counts for both total coliform and the rmotolerent coliform E. coli were used as indicators for water quality based on membrane filtration technique. Both indicators gave average counts higher than that recommended as safe drinking water by the WHO. Total coliform counts were 16.1 and 12 CFU/100ml water in cisterns and roof storage tanks respectively, while average counts of thermotolerent coliform E. coli were 7.0 and.5.4 CFU/100 ml water for cisterns and roof storage tanks respectively. Roof storage tanks showed lower average counts for both indicators. A comparison between old style and forced concrete cisterns showed a significant difference in favor of rain forced concrete cisterns using both indicators. Average counts for total coliform and the rmotolerent coliform E. coli in old style cisterns were 17.6 and 7.9 CFU/100ml water respectively, while in forced concrete cisterns were 8.7 and 3.1 CFU/100ml water respectively. Based on the average counts for both indicators no significant variations were observed on the quality of drinking water in the studied villages. Variations in both average counts for both indicators were with significant values with respect to different selected regions especially for Beit Leed center. The degree of contamination based on total coliform counts in both storage systems were similar and the majority were with first degree of contamination according to the WHO classification. Based; on the rmotolerent coliform E. coli with respect to the risk levels, both storage systems were within low and intermediate risk levels according to WHO classification. A noticeable decrease in both indicators is clear up to a distance of 22 meter and above between cesspits and cisterns, however, variations up to 28 meters were of no significant values according to our findings with respect to total coliform count and the rmotolerent coliform E. coli. Neither cesspits’ levels nor animal razing seems to have further effect on the contamination and risk levels compared to the findings on households with no histories with animal razing or having cesspits within the same level or uphill to cisterns. Our findings regard cisterns age indicate a significant increase in both indicators reflecting an increase degree of contamination and risk levels with increased cisterns age. Average counts of total coliform were 7.6 CFU/100ml water for age group greater than 0 to 9 compared to 57 CFU/100ml water for age group more than 90 years, however, the rmotolerent coliform E. coli counts were 7.9 CFU/l0Oml water for age group greater than 0 to 9 compared to 3l CFU/100ml water for age groups more than 90.

Three hundred drinking water samples were collected from two storage systems (cisterns and roof storage tanks), 150 sample from each. The samples were collected during the summer season from June to October 1999 from two villages (Beit Leed and Safarine) in the district of Tulkarm. Average counts for both total coliform and the rmotolerent coliform E. coli were used as indicators for water quality based on membrane filtration technique. Both indicators gave average counts higher than that recommended as safe drinking water by the WHO. Total coliform counts were 16.1 and 12 CFU/100ml water in cisterns and roof storage tanks respectively, while average counts of thermotolerent coliform E. coli were 7.0 and.5.4 CFU/100 ml water for cisterns and roof storage tanks respectively. Roof storage tanks showed lower average counts for both indicators. A comparison between old style and forced concrete cisterns showed a significant difference in favor of rain forced concrete cisterns using both indicators. Average counts for total coliform and the rmotolerent coliform E. coli in old style cisterns were 17.6 and 7.9 CFU/100ml water respectively, while in forced concrete cisterns were 8.7 and 3.1 CFU/100ml water respectively. Based on the average counts for both indicators no significant variations were observed on the quality of drinking water in the studied villages. Variations in both average counts for both indicators were with significant values with respect to different selected regions especially for Beit Leed center. The degree of contamination based on total coliform counts in both storage systems were similar and the majority were with first degree of contamination according to the WHO classification. Based; on the rmotolerent coliform E. coli with respect to the risk levels, both storage systems were within low and intermediate risk levels according to WHO classification. A noticeable decrease in both indicators is clear up to a distance of 22 meter and above between cesspits and cisterns, however, variations up to 28 meters were of no significant values according to our findings with respect to total coliform count and the rmotolerent coliform E. coli. Neither cesspits’ levels nor animal razing seems to have further effect on the contamination and risk levels compared to the findings on households with no histories with animal razing or having cesspits within the same level or uphill to cisterns. Our findings regard cisterns age indicate a significant increase in both indicators reflecting an increase degree of contamination and risk levels with increased cisterns age. Average counts of total coliform were 7.6 CFU/100ml water for age group greater than 0 to 9 compared to 57 CFU/100ml water for age group more than 90 years, however, the rmotolerent coliform E. coli counts were 7.9 CFU/l0Oml water for age group greater than 0 to 9 compared to 3l CFU/100ml water for age groups more than 90.