Thesis Final After Comment Daju.3

ASSESSMENT OF DRINKING WATER QUALITY DETERIORATION FROM SOURCE
TO THE END USER, THE CASE OF DUKEM TOWN, ETHIOPIA.
DEJENE DIRIBA SENBETA
A Thesis Submitted to
The Department of Water Resources Engineering
School of Civil Engineering and Architecture
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Master’s in Water
Supply and Environmental Engineering
Office of Graduate Studies
Adama Science and Technology University
June, 2023
Adama, Ethiopia
ASSESSMENT OF DRINKING WATER QUALITY DETERIORATION FROM SOURCE
TO THE END USER THE CASE OF DUKEM TOWN, ETHIOPIA.
Dejene Diriba Senbeta
Advisor: Keredin Temam (PhD)
A Thesis Submitted to
The Department of Water Resource Engineering
School of Civil Engineering and Architecture
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Master’s in Water
Supply and Environmental Engineering
Office of Graduate Studies
Adama Science and Technology University
June, 2023
Adama, Ethiopia
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that this Master Thesis entitled “Assessment of drinking water quality
deterioration from source to the end user, the case of Dukem town, Ethiopia” is my
original work. That is, it has not been submitted for the award of any academic degree,
diploma or certificate in any other university. All sources of materials that are used for this
thesis have been duly acknowledged through citation.
Dejene Diriba ______________________ _______________

Name of student Signature Date
i
RECOMMENDATION
I, the advisor(s) of this thesis, hereby certify that I have read the revised version of the thesis
entitled “Assessment of drinking water quality deterioration from source to the end user,
the case of Dukem town, Ethiopia” prepared under my/our guidance Dejene Diriba
submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Mater’s of Science Water
Supply and Environmental Engineering. Therefore, I/we recommend the submission of revised
version of the thesis to the department following the applicable procedures.
Keredin Temam (PhD) ______________________

_______________
Major Advisor Signature Date
_________________________ ______________________
_______________
Co-advisor Signature Date
ii
APPROVAL PAGE
I, the advisors of the thesis entitled “Assessment of drinking water quality deterioration
from source to the end user , The case of Dukem town, Ethiopia” and developed by
Dejene Diriba; hereby certify that the recommendation and suggestions made by the board of
examiners are appropriately incorporated into the final version of the thesis.
Keredin Temam (PhD) ______________________ _______________
Major Advisor Signature Date
_________________________ ______________________ _______________
Co-advisor Signature Date
We, the undersigned, members of the Board of Examiners of the thesis Dejene Diriba have
read and evaluated the thesis entitled “Assessment of drinking water quality deterioration
from source to the end user , the case of Dukem town, Ethiopia” and examined the
candidate during open defense. This is, therefore, to certify that the thesis is accepted for
partial fulfillment of the requirement of the degree of Master of Science in Water Supply and
Environmental Engineering.
_____________________________ _____________________
___________________ Chairperson Signature
Date
_____________________________ _____________________
___________________ Internal Examiner Signature
Date
_____________________________ _____________________
___________________ Eternal Examiner Signature
Date
Finally, approval and acceptance of the thesis is contingent upon submission of its final copy
to the Office of Postgraduate Studies (OPGS) through the Department Graduate Council
(DGC) and School Graduate Committee (SGC).
iii
____________________________ ________________ ____________
Department Head Signature Date
_____________________________ _____________________
___________________ School Dean Signature
Date
_____________________________ _____________________
___________________ Office of Postgraduate Studies, Dean Signature
Date
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I want to offer God all the glory for giving me an inexhaustible gift in life
and the perseverance to go this far in my academic career. Next, I would like to express my
sincere gratitude to Dr. Keredin Temam for his close advice, direction, and real aid with my
paper work from beginning to conclusion.
I'm also glad to convey my gratitude to the staff at the Dukem Water office, especially Mr.
Bahilu kurabacho and his colleagues, whose candid remarks, ideas, and knowledge were
crucial input for the study.
I appreciate the Adama Water and Sewage Authority's central laboratory team for their
assistance with the experiment. I want to thank Mr. Gemeda Ayans and Gamechu Daba for
their assistance and insightful criticism throughout the lab analysis.
Finally, I'd want to express my gratitude to my family, friends, and all the people in my
community that helped me with my master's program.
iv
Table of Contents
DECLARATION......................................................................................................................................i
ABBREVIATIONS.................................................................................................................................x
ABSTRACT...........................................................................................................................................xi
1.1 BACKGROUND...........................................................................................................................1
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM.............................................................................................4
1.3 OBJECTIVE..................................................................................................................................5
1.3.1 General objective the study.....................................................................................................5
1.3.2 Specific objectives the study...................................................................................................5
1.4 Research Question.........................................................................................................................5
1.5 Significance of the Study...............................................................................................................5
1.6 Scope of the Study.........................................................................................................................6
1.7 Limitation the study.......................................................................................................................6
2. LITERATURE REVIEW....................................................................................................................8
2.1 Drinking Water quality..................................................................................................................8
2.2 Water Quality Analysis.................................................................................................................8
2.3 WHO Drinking Water Quality standards.......................................................................................9
2.4 Ethiopian Drinking Water Quality Standards................................................................................9
2.5 Water Quality Parameters..............................................................................................................9
2.5.1 Physical Parameters................................................................................................................9
2.6.1. Chemical Parameters for drinking water quality..................................................................10
2.7.1 Drinking Water Quality Bacteriological Aspects..................................................................12
2.7.2 Common Water Use Practices, Beliefs, and Concepts..........................................................12
2.7.3 Health impact associated with water.....................................................................................13
2.8 Sanitation and Hygiene Practices.................................................................................................13
2.8.1 Utilization of Sanitation Facilities........................................................................................13
2.8.2. Diarrhea, Trachoma and ARIs.............................................................................................14
2.8.4 By drinking contaminated water either for drinking or food preparation..............................14
2.8.5 Water Quality Index.............................................................................................................14
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS.......................................................................................................16
3.1 Description of the Study..............................................................................................................16
v
3.2. Study Design Period...................................................................................................................18
3.3 Sample Size Determination.........................................................................................................18
3.4. Water Quality Index...................................................................................................................19
3.5. Overall Overview of the CCME WQ Index................................................................................19
3.5.1. Water Quality Calculation Data...........................................................................................20
3.5.2. Dukem Water Index Calculation..........................................................................................20
3.5.3. Source (Borehole)................................................................................................................21
3.5.4. End User water quality........................................................................................................21
3.6. Location of Sampling taken and Water Supply system Covered................................................22
3.7. Sampling frequency....................................................................................................................23
3.8. Sampling Method.......................................................................................................................23
3.9. Data collection instruments and procedure.................................................................................23
3.9.1. Sample Collection Technique (Instruments and physical)...................................................23
3.10. Sampling procedure and analysis..............................................................................................25
3.11. Sanitary Inspection...................................................................................................................25
3.12. Interpretation............................................................................................................................25
4. RESULT AND DISCUSSION......................................................................................................26
4.2 The Dukem Water supply WQI....................................................................................................54
4.2.1 Calculation of Water Quality Index.......................................................................................54
4.2.2 How the CCME WQI is influenced by varying measurements scales and ranges of
exceedances..................................................................................................................................56
4.3 WATER SANITATION PRACTICE AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH PUBLIC HEALTH..........................59
4.3.1. Water Quality and sanitation practice..................................................................................60
4.3.2 Safe collection, handling and storage of water......................................................................60
4.4. Health Benefits Water Sanitation practices.................................................................................61
5. CONCLUSION AND RECCOMENDATION..............................................................................62
5.1 Conclusion...................................................................................................................................62
5.2. Recommendations.....................................................................................................................64
REFERENCE........................................................................................................................................66
APPENDICES A......................................................................................................................................i
APPENDICES B.....................................................................................................................................ii
vi
List of tables
Table 1: classification of water based on hardness........................................................................10

Table 3.1:WHO Population-Based Approach...............................................................................18
Table 3.2:sample Size Distribution................................................................................................19
Table 4.1.1:Compliance with National Standard and WHO Guide Lines for pH @ Borehole
with two Sampling Frequency.......................................................................................................26
Table 4.3.1: Compliance with National Standard and WHO Guide Lines for pH @ End User
with two Sampling Frequency.......................................................................................................28
Table 4.5.1: Compliance with National Standard and WHO Guide Lines for Electrical
conductivity (E.C) @ End User with two Sampling Frequency....................................................30
conductivity (E.C) @ Borehole with two Sampling Frequency....................................................32
Table 4.8.1:Compliance with National Standard and WHO Guide Lines for chloride @ End
User with two Sampling Frequency..............................................................................................34
Table 4.9.1:Compliance with National Standard and WHO Guide Lines for chloride @
Borehole with two Sampling Frequency.......................................................................................36
Table 4.11.1 Compliance with National Standard and WHO Guide Lines for calcium C2+ @
End User with two Sampling Frequency.......................................................................................38
Table 4.12.1: Compliance with National Standard and WHO Guide Lines for calcium C2+ @
Table 4.14.1: Compliance with National Standard and WHO Guide Lines for magnesium 2+
@ end user with two Sampling Frequency....................................................................................42
Table 4.15.1: Compliance with National Standard and WHO Guide Lines for magnesium 2+
@ Borehole with two Sampling Frequency...................................................................................44
Table 4.17.1:Compliance with National Standard and WHO Guide Lines for Total hardness @
Table 4.18.1: Compliance with National Standard and WHO Guide Lines for Total hardness
@ End User with two Sampling Frequency..................................................................................48
Table 4.19.1: Compliance with National Standard and WHO Guide Lines for Average Total
Coliform (TC) (no/100ml) @ Borehole with Two Sampling Frequency......................................50
vii
Table 4.21.1:Compliance with National Standard and WHO Guide Lines for Average Total
Coliform (TC) (no/100ml) @ End Use with Two Sampling Frequency.......................................51
Table 4.22.1: Compliance with National Standard and WHO Guide Lines for Average
Escherichia Coli (E-Coli) (no/100ml) @ Borehole with Two Sampling frequency.....................52
Table 4.24.1:Compliance with National Standard and WHO Guide Lines for Average
Escherichia Coli (no/100ml) @ End User with Two Sampling frequency...................................53
Table 4.25: Physico-chemical parameter sample collected for WQI............................................57
Table 4.26:Disease Registration of two years in Dukem Health Center.......................................59
Table 4.27:Result of Sanitary Inspection of End User..................................................................61
viii
list of figures
Figure 3.1: Dukem Town's map (source from GIS)......................................................................17
Figure 3.2: Location of sample points...........................................................................................19
Figure 4.1 : PH Spatial Map for Borehole ………………………………………………… . 27
Figure 4.2 : PH Spatial Map for End use..................................................................................29
Figure 4.3: Electrical Conductivity Spatial Map for End use...................................................31
Figure 4.4 : Electrical Conductivity Spatial Map for Borehole................................................33
Figure 4.5 : Chloride Spatial Map end use...............................................................................35
Figure 4.6 : Chloride Spatial Map for Borehole.......................................................................37
Figure 4.7 : Calcium Spatial Map for end use..........................................................................39
Figure 4.8 : Calcium Spatial Map for Borehole........................................................................41
Figure 4.9 : Magnesium Spatial Map for end use.....................................................................43
Figure 4.10 : Magnesium Spatial Map for Borehole.................................................................45
Figure 4.11 : Total hardness Spatial Map for Borehole.............................................................47
Figure 4.12 :Total hardness Spatial Map for end use ..............................................................49
ix
ABBREVIATIONS
AFD African Development Fund
APHA American Public Health Association
CCME Canadian Council Ministers of the Environment
DWAF Department of Water Affairs and Forestry
ES ISO Ethiopia Standard International Standard Organization
ES Ethiopia Standard
FDRE Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
GIS Geographical Information System
GPS Global Positioning System
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MoWRD Ministry of Water Resource Development
MS EXCEL Microsoft Excel
NTU Nephelomethic Turbidity Unit
UNEP United Nations Environmental Program
UNICEF United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund
RADWQ Rapid Assessment of Drinking Water Quality
WASH Water, Sanitation and Hygiene.
WHO World Health Organization
x
ABSTRACT
Water quality refers to the physical, chemical, and biological factors that control how water is
used in daily life. Water-related diseases are caused by tainted drinking water. The purpose of
the study was to evaluate Dukem Town's drinking water supply system at both the source and
the end user. A total of 108 water samples were taken from 25 homes (end user outlets), 10
boreholes, and one reservoir. Using the conventional methods of analysis Procedure, the
samples' pH, Electrical Conductivity (EC), Chloride, Magnesium (Mg2+), Calcium (Ca2+),
Total Hardness, and Microbiological parameters (Total Coliform E- coli measured in colony
forming units CFU) were all calculated. All of the water samples had findings ranging from
7.9 to 6.32 pH, 358 to 491 s/cm electrical conductivity, 25 to 78 mg/l chloride, 78 to 127 mg/l
calcium, 26 to 64 mg/l magnesium, and 181 to 350 mg/l total hardness. While all other
physico-chemical parameters were in compliance with WHO guidelines and national
standards, only calcium from all sources and total hardness from the Kera borehole did not.
Escherichia coli (1–7/100ml) at sample codes s14 and s15 and total coliform (1-22/100ml) did
not comply with WHO guidelines and national standards, according to biological results,
while all other biological results were in compliance with these guidelines and standards. The
finding that some of the tap water samples were more contaminated as they were refilled from
end users suggests that Dukem Town's water supply system is insufficiently treated at the end
user. Regarding bacteriological quality, bacterial coliforms and E-coli were found in outlet
tap water samples, indicating that the water supply system requires treatment in the form of
adding chlorine. The results of the study's sanitary inspection also showed that jerry can
storage by families, a sanitation practice, was a factor in the bacteriological pollution of the
water supply. In order to reduce the hazards and problems associated with the current water
quality, notably the bacteriological water quality and chlorine issue, the town water utility
must give the Dukem town water supply system more attention.
Key Words: Water Quality Contamination, Drinking Water Quality Parameters, Water
Quality Index
xi
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
One of the most significant biotic elements of the environment is water. Only 3% of the world's
water is deemed fresh, and of that, 2.97% is located in glaciers and ice caps. Approximately 97%
of the total water is found in oceans, which is unfit for human use (Peter., 2013). According to
(Mohammed Mohsen, (2013)the remaining tiny part is only 0.03% usable by humans in the form
of surface and ground water. A fundamental element for good health and a fundamental human
right is access to clean drinking water (WHO, 2002), additionally, it is difficult to picture a
sterile and clean atmosphere without water. A vital requirement for good health as well as a
fundamental human right is access to clean drinking water.
There are already scarce fresh water resources in many parts of the world. As a result of the
coming century's population growth, urbanization, and climate change, it will become more and
more limited. Water quality in developing countries like Ethiopia is sadly continuously declining
and harmful for human consumption as a result of fast population growth, industry expansion,
and the discharge of waste water and chemical effluents into canals and other water sources
(Jackson, 2013). According to recent estimations, the amount of water available in developing
regions of Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia is drastically decreasing, and the water's
quality is fast deteriorating as a result of expanding urbanization, deforestation, soil degradation,
etc. (Annachhatre, 2006).
Worldwide, more people are dying from poor quality of water per year than from all forms of
violence including war and it is estimated that about 26% of all deaths are outcome from
contagious diseases caused by pathogenic bacteria (WHO, 2002).
Primarily used for drinking, food preparation and cooking, personal hygiene, bathing, cleaning,
and washing, watering gardens, and watering livestock. The inadequate and poor quality of the
water supply may result in a variety of health issues (Gwimbi, 2011). The high infant death rate
is a result of the poor water quality. Poor environmental sanitation is linked to high rates of
trachoma, helminthiasis, and other fatal diseases in children as well as overall high mortality
rates (Mengesha, (2017). Up to 80% of all illnesses and disorders in the world, according to the
1
World Health Organization, are caused by inadequate sanitation, tainted water, or a lack of
access to water.
In Ethiopia, poor environmental health conditions caused by a lack of access to clean water and
insufficient hygiene and sanitation practices are to blame for more than 60% of communicable
diseases. Research has demonstrated that the range of diseases is expanding and the frequency of
many water-related microbial diseases is rising, in addition to the fact that they continue to be a
major cause of sickness and mortality around the world (WHO, 2004).
According to estimates, 15% of all child deaths under the age of five in poor countries are caused
by diarrheal diseases, and 80% of illnesses in those countries are linked to water and sanitation.
According to the (WHO, 2004), diarrhea is still the main cause of death among children. Water
that has been polluted with pathogens, physical contaminants, or chemical contaminants at the
source, during distribution, transit, and handling in homes or other working places, in general,
may constitute a health issue if used without treatment (Mark, 2004; (WHO, 2002). Additionally,
contamination occurs at home as a result of bad hygiene and exposed water collection and
storage containers (Johns, 2006).
According to (Abayneh A. , 2004), the main causes of Ethiopia's water supply problems include
a lack of community support for previously constructed frameworks, a lack of spare parts, a lack
of neighborhood support capacities, etc. According to WHO and (UNICEF, 2018), sub-Saharan
Africa and southern Asia both still struggle with low sanitation coverage at 41% and 30%,
respectively. Ethiopia is one of the countries in the world with the worst water quality problems
as a result. Its water supply and sanitation coverage rates are the lowest among Sub-Saharan
countries, with 68.5% and 56%, respectively (MoWR, 2010).
Even though increasing access to these sources is crucial, the idea that better water resources are
of greater microbiological cleanliness do not always hold true once the water has been delivered
and kept in the home. For instance, the possibility of recontamination the water between the
water source and the residence as a result of filthy hands could extend the cycle of low drinking
water quality. Recontamination usually occurs when water is removed with a cup through the top
opening of the storage container, whether it be a normal clay pot or a plastic bucket (Meseret,
2018). Water is the most common element on earth and is essential for all life. Surface water
2
bodies like rivers and lakes, subterranean aquifers, and pore spaces below the water table are the
principal sources of water. Because it frequently includes dissolved inorganic and organic
materials as well as live organisms (viruses, bacteria, etc.), the water from these sources is not
always pure. Therefore, toxic chemicals and potentially harmful bacteria should not be present in
water meant for residential consumption (Desta, 2009)
Regular monitoring of the physicochemical and bacteriological quality of water is required for
effective management. Purity, lack of saltiness, and the absence of contaminants are all
requirements for potable water. Bacteria, inorganic, organic, and radioactive substances that are
water soluble are the main water contaminants that cause water quality to deteriorate and a
number of public health issues.
To safeguard consumers from diseases spread through contaminated water, drinking water
utilities must make sure that the water they supply is absolutely free of dangerous chemicals and
pathogenic or potentially pathogenic microorganisms. If the quality of the drinkable water is low,
water-related diseases can have negative social and economic effects (Suma et al., 2015).
The current research was done in Dukem town Oromia Region of Ethiopia. Dukem town is
located at 37km South East of Addis Ababa along the main road to Adama. The total population
of the urban residence was 152,244. Of those 77,074 were men and 75,170 women (CSA, 2007).
The water supply uses Direct and gravity system for distribution from one reservoir and ten (10)
boreholes.
The primary goal of this research was to assess the drinking water quality parameters to check
whether the water is safe for drinking or not in the Dukem town. The purpose of the study was to
assess the physicochemical and microbiological quality of drinking water from sources,
reservoirs and End User in Dukem Town.
3
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
The deterioration of water quality in the water supply framework could be a serious issue that
mainly impacts the general health of the user. This could be because of the presence of physical,
chemical, and biological components. This may happen at the source, after clearing out the
source or on the way from the source to the end user. At this point we cannot figure out and
recognize exactly where the problem originated from. Whether, it’s from the source or on the
way to the end user. By saying so, evaluating water quality based on major parameters such as
Electrical Conductivity, PH, faucal microorganisms and data from the health center.
According to (Fuest, 2007) there are multiple sources contributing to the issues with
contamination in the urban water distribution system. The distribution system's quality water is
contaminated by wastes from bad sanitation (sewage), agriculture, and other activities.
Additionally, a distribution system break, the inverse pumping of soil contaminants through a
water supply interruption, ageing and poor maintenance of the distribution system, and a low
level of chlorine (treatment efficiency) typically jeopardize the distribution system's integrity and
the quality of potable water (Geberyohannes, 2020).
Several test issues Most of the time, the neighborhood states that the water is too heavy for us
and uses water treatment equipment, yet there are still particles in the system at home. These
results imply that problems with water quality are pervasive in the community water distribution
systems. These problems motivate to assess the status of drinking water quality Deteriorate from
sources to End User in Dukem town. Previously, not studies have been done on the water
quality status and sanitation practice of this Town. Hence, it is important to carry out an analysis
of the physicochemical and bacteriological parameters of the water and water quality index.
Therefore, the purpose of this study is to assess the variance in the physicochemical and
bacteriological water quality parameters at Dukem from source to end user. The findings of this
study are compared with WHO Guideline and National Standard in order to comprehend its
status in relation to the entrance levels and to address public health issues.
4
1.3 OBJECTIVE
1.3.1 General objective the study
The general objective of this research is to assess drinking water quality deterioration from
source to end user in the Dukem Town.
1.3.2 Specific objectives the study

1. To assess drinking water quality deteriorate from source to end user and to examine the
compliance level of drinking water quality with the quality parameters.
2. To evaluate water quality index in the study area.
3. To identify the main contaminants in the study area.
1.4 Research Question

1. How the drinking water quality deteriorate from source to end user and what is the
compliance level of the current drinking water quality compared to the national standards?
2. How water quality index in the study area?
3. How do identify the main contaminants in the study area?
1.5 Significance of the Study

A few test-related bugs the majority of the time, the community argues that the water is too
heavy for us and uses water treatment equipment, although there are still particles in the
treatment equipment in their homes. These results indicate that there are widespread problems
with water quality in the nation's water distribution systems.
It is anticipated that the research, which focuses on analyzing the performance of Dukem Town's
water supply quality, would advance knowledge of and provide updated data on urban water
supply quality. The socioeconomic and health status of the populace could be improved as a
result. It could also be used to demonstrate the degree of water quality in the locality and provide
insight into a potential solution to the town's water quality issue. Future researchers with a
similar area of interest may utilize this as a starting point. It may even provide hints to other
towns that are experiencing a similar situation.
By pinpointing the location of the issue, contamination, or degeneration (affected by coliforms,
high calcium levels, or an increase in electrical conductivity), it may also help to alleviate the
5
problem. Additionally, it decreases the price of purchasing alternative water sources, including
packaged water. It will provide a way for determining how vulnerable the supply is to
contamination now and in the future, as well as any significant operational or infrastructure
problems. Additionally, it demonstrates how the procedures used in the borehole, reservoir, and
end-user treatment facility compare to those advised by the WHO and the national norms for pH,
total hardness, calcium, and bacteriological parameters. The findings of the investigation will
also demonstrate the variations between sources and end user in Dukem's water supply.
Generating baseline data for further studies and interventions is very useful for monitoring acute
outbreaks, regardless of the difference between the source and the end user. This research
investigates the causes and associated impacts of water quality problems, thereby helping to
develop remedial measures.
1.6 Scope of the Study

The research was limited in space, time and theme. Spatially, the research was conducted to
know the performance of water quality and sanitation practice in Dukem town by using different
indicators, compared with WHO and Ethiopian standards. The physio-chemical parameters cover
electrical conductivity, PH, Chloride, Magnesium (Mg2+), Calcium (Ca2+), Total Hardness
whereas. The analyses also considered bacteriological total Coliform and E- coli. On the other
hand, temporally, the water quality index was assessed. The research is limited to water quality
and not the service or access of the water. And alkalinity, Iron and some chemical parameters
(heavy metals) were not analyzed. The study focused only from source to End User and did not
include Distributions line.
1.7 Limitation the study

Due to the town's limited number of populations, a lack of infrastructure (Logistic), finances,
time, and enough laboratory technicians, the number of water sampling points was limited to 36.
However, due to budgetary constraints (increase the cost of reagents), a lack of logistic
infrastructure, time, a sparse population, and a lack of laboratory technicians to assist me during
data collecting, I was unable to address what was planned for within the budget and schedule.
Furthermore, the majority of the taps share the same distribution line. Due to a lack of water and
funds, the study was only able to conduct the experiment twice for biological and three times for
physic-chemical during the two month interval samples was analyzed.
6
The pumps failed repeatedly that the researcher was idle for some time during data collection,
waiting for the pumps to restart. Another problem was that the majority of borehole not taps
faucet and end user locked and thus the majority of samples were taken from end user tap and
source. The data on physicochemical and bacteriological quality of water may not reflect the
actual condition that can be checked in different monthly of the year, as the data on water quality
parameters was examined in the study in February, March, April, May, June.
7
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Drinking Water quality
Drinking water quality is defined as the absence of pathogenic microorganisms and chemicals
that are harmful to health (Tebutt, 2015). In fact, even completely secure supplies and well-run
systems cannot guarantee that homes receive safe water. Studies show that even water collected
from safe sources is likely to become faecally contaminated during transportation,
containerization, and storage. The majority of people in the world do not have strong family
water associations, and many of these must still physically carry water and store it in their
homes. A covered water container will prevent 50% of water-borne and water-related infections,
according to assessments of drinking water quality from source to point of use in rural areas
(D.Seib, 2011) and Microbiological contamination between source and point of use (Jim Wright,
January, 2004). Safe sources are crucial, but the quality of water that people consume can only
be guaranteed with enhanced hygiene, better water storage and handling, improved sanitation,
and in some circumstances, household water treatment (D.Seib, 2011). The prevalence of
diarrhea is affected by water quality interventions more than was previously believed,
particularly when interventions are implemented at the home level (or point-of-use) and in
conjunction with improved water handling and storage (Fewtrell, 2007).
To avoid health risks, it is essential to provide both the rural and urban population with potable
water. In order for water to be considered drinkable, it must meet a number of physical,
chemical, and microbiological standards that are intended to make sure the water is tasty and
secure for consumption (Tebutt, 1983).
2.2 Water Quality Analysis

According to the (CCME (2006), water high-satisfaction refers to the physical, chemical,
microbiological, radiological, and organic properties of water as well as its aquatic ecosystems.
These properties affect how well water can support its specific uses. It can specifically be
changed as a result of human actions, which may also impact or change any of those dwellings to
the extent of hurting terrestrial and aquatic organisms reliant on it (Kahlon & kahlon, 2018).
Arsenic and fluoride, which can occur naturally, nitrate, which is applied to vast tracts of
agricultural land as fertilizer, microbiological contamination, and turbidity were the chemicals
8
that were deemed to have the highest potential for harming human health, according to the World
Health Organization in 2006.
2.3 WHO Drinking Water Quality standards
WHO has set guidelines for lower and upper limits of physicochemical and bacteriological
concentration of drinking water. In this guide lines the concentration of various kinds of
inorganic elements, compounds and bacteriological concentrations clearly specified. These
guidelines have been widely used globally and used as a base for developing country specific
drinking water quality standards. So that, countries are developed their own drinking water
quality standards to monitor their water quality (WHO, 2017). WHO Guide Lines Value for
Physicochemical Parameters is annexed.
2.4 Ethiopian Drinking Water Quality Standards

Ethiopia has also developed its own standard derived from WHO guide lines. According to
(ESA, 2013), the recent, Ethiopian Standard has been prepared under the direction of the
Technical Committee for Water Quality (TC 78) and published by the Ethiopian Standards
Agency (ESA). This Compulsory Ethiopian Standard (ES) cancel and replaces ES 261:2001.
Implementation of this standard has been effective as of 01 October 2013. The guideline is
dynamic and must be improved and updated with new findings and developments in the field.
Full document is annexed.
2.5 Water Quality Parameters

2.5.1 Physical Parameters
2.5.1.1 pH of Water
The hydrogen ion (H+) potential in water is measured by the PH scale. The presence of natural
acids in the soil and those from air evaporation that have permeated to the water are the causes of
the acidity of groundwater (Chapman and Kimstach, 1996). The WHO guidelines state that
despite the fact that eye infection and the escalation of skin conditions were linked to pH values
higher than 11, "No health-based totally tenet price is proposed for pH. While often having little
direct impact on consumers, pH is one of the most crucial operational water quality indicators.
9
Whenever water remedy or garage is taking place (arsenic removal, clarification, disinfection,
rainwater harvesting), careful interest to the extent of pH is necessary and the most beneficial pH
required is commonly with inside the variety 6.5–8.5(as according to WHO,
2006,ES,2011)consistent with the parameter.
2.5.1.2 Electrical Conductivity (EC)

A measurement of the ability of water to carry electric current is called electrical conductivity
(EC). It is a valuable method to assess the purity of water (Achary, Ghosh, Khatua, & Mitra,
2016). And denotes the amount of total dissolved salts (Singh & Kaur, 2015). Temperature, pH,
alkalinity, total hardness, calcium, total solids, total dissolved solids, chemical oxygen demand,
and the concentrations of iron and chloride in the water all have strong correlations with
conductivity.
2.6.1. Chemical Parameters for drinking water quality
2.6.1.1 Total Hardness
Hardness is caused fundamentally by calcium and magnesium salts and is communicated in

terms of equivalent amounts of calcium carbonate. Depending on other figure such as pH and
alkalinity of water with hardness over around 200 mg/lit may cause scale stores in the
distribution framework and comes about in over the top cleanser utilization. Again, corrosion
may result from soft water that has a hardness of less than 100 mg. From zero to several hundred
mg (ppm), hardness can vary. The WHO sets a guideline value of hardness based on this basis of
reference. Consumers' tolerance levels for hardness may affect acceptance levels, although there
is a generally acknowledged scale based on flavor and household use. Hard water can have a
variety of aesthetic issues, especially when heated, even if there are no known health concerns or
drinking water requirements for its. A quantity of 90 to 100 mg/L is frequently regarded as ideal
to limit corrosion while also avoiding unfavorable aesthetic consequences since hardness slows
corrosion of residential plumbing. The four following categories are typically used to report total
hardness:
Table 1: classification of water based on hardness
Sr. No Hardness mg/l as CaCO3 Water Class
10
1 0-75 Soft Water
2 75-150 Moderately Hard Water
3 150-300 Hard Water
4 Above 300 Very Hard Water
(Source:-Sawyer and McCarty, 1987)
2.6.1.2 Magnesium
Magnesium is the foremost plenteous component on soil outside and normal constituent of water.
It is an essential for legitimate working of living beings and found in minerals like dolomite,
magnetite etc. Human body contains almost 25g of magnesium (60% in bones and 40% in
muscles and tissues). Concurring to WHO measures the reasonable extend of magnesium in
water should be 150 mg/l (Faryal; 2013).
2.6.1.3 Calcium
In the human body, calcium is the most important and inexhaustible mineral, and proper use is
crucial for normal growth and wellbeing. The human body stores 95 percent of its calcium in the
bones and teeth. The severe lack of calcium in people can result in rickets, poor blood
coagulation, broken bones, etc. The most pressing daily requirement is 1–2 grams, which are
primarily found in dairy products. The presence of calcium in a drinking water supply is crucial
for health because there is concrete evidence that shows the incidence of heart disease is reduced
in areas with open water supplies that are very hard and contain calcium as their primary
component. Its reasonable run in drinking water is up to 75 mg/l, according to (WHO, 1996).
2.6.1.4 Chloride (Cl)
Occasionally, the chloride content of water, particularly sodium chloride, which is primarily
produced by the dissolution of hydrochloric acid salts such as table salt (NaCl) and sodium
carbonate, is given special attention (Brock & A, 1979). Other sources of chlorides include
animal feed, wastewater, storm sewers, and road salts. Major physiological processes can be
found in surface water bodies, which frequently have low concentrations of chlorine. High
chloride concentrations destroy metallic structures and pipelines and injure developing plants.
11
According to WHO recommendations, the maximum chloride concentration permitted limit
values should not be more than 250 mg/l.
2.7.1 Drinking Water Quality Bacteriological Aspects
The presence of bacteria that are indicative of faecal (sewage) contamination, more specifically
coliforms and faecal coliforms like Escherichia coli, determines the microbiological quality of
water. Coliforms naturally occur in soil and in both human and animal intestines. As a result,
their proximity to water may indicate defilement. The intestines of both humans and other
animals contain E. coli and certain Enterobacter aerogenes species. Therefore, their proximity
proves categorically that there is faecal pollution. The nearness of coliform microbes in well
water may be as a result of surface water infiltration or leakage from a septic framework (Goss &
Richards, 2008). Add up to coliforms are a gather of microbes commonly found within the
environment, for illustration in soil or vegetation, as well as the intestines of well evolved
creatures, counting people. E. coli is the as it were member of the overall coliform bunch of
microscopic organisms that's found as it were within the digestion tracts of warm blooded
creatures, counting humans.
The presence of E. coli in water illustrates subsequent faecal contamination and may indicate the
potential presence of pathogens that cause diseases, such as bacteria, illnesses, and parasites.
Even though the majority of E. coli strains are harmless, some, like E. coli O157:H7, can cause
illness like hemorrhagic uremic disorder (HUS), which results in kidney failure, especially in
young children and the elderly (Mellmann, et al., 2005). Due to the difficulty and expense of
testing for every known disease, total coliforms and E. coli are used as indicators to gauge the
level of contamination and water quality of wells.
2.7.2 Common Water Use Practices, Beliefs, and Concepts
The majority of the following common habits that have been observed everywhere in the world
in relation to water storage, transportation, and community capacity were observed here (Trevett,
Carter, & Tyrrel, 2005).
Water gathered in jerry cans or buckets with an open top bucket washed with water and scrubbed
by hand before use. Storage bins are kept in a location that might also be used by animals. Clay
12
pots with unfastened lids holding water While most water-related behaviors are universal, their
roots may come from many differences in culture, beliefs, and understanding.
2.7.3 Health impact associated with water.

An essential requirement for life is water. Sadly, not all water is beneficial to human survival.
Water from contaminated sources is the direct cause of a host of illnesses and premature deaths.
Humans are forced to utilize water, even for drinking, from any source, whether it is pure or
contaminated, because they require it to survive (Zeyede and Tesfaye, 2004).A disease that is
connected to water supply and sanitation is referred to as a "water-associated disease."
2.8 Sanitation and Hygiene Practices

2.8.1 Utilization of Sanitation Facilities
The prevalence of diseases connected to water and sanitation can decline without improving
water and sanitation infrastructure. Hygiene promotion strives to ensure the correct use and
maintenance of facilities by encouraging individuals to modify their behavior. The installation of
facilities must be coupled with their proper usage and maintenance to result in genuine
improvements in health. Use of latrines properly extends well beyond structures. Using a toilet,
washing your hands after using one, and keeping one clean enough are often more elements of
attitude and habit than the presence of physical infrastructure (IRC 2004).
The technical and economic benefits of a particular latrine design will determine whether it is
chosen. However, it has also been discovered that cultural aspects, local resources, and
technological ownership have a greater impact on a community's adoption of specific
technologies (Neupane, Sharma, & Thapa, 2002). According to (Jenkins, 1999) defecation and
feces have long been universally connected with cultural taboos, pollution, and danger. This
perception can limit the likelihood that a project will be successful. The viability of a sanitation
system depends on the community's socioeconomic and cultural circumstances in addition to the
physical factors of water supply, soil moisture, and groundwater levels (IRC 1997).
An individual's opinions have been demonstrated to be significantly influenced by their age of

first exposure to latrines; exposure at a young age encourages acceptance of latrines. These
variables are crucial for understanding the cultural and social importance of latrines, which has
an impact on how a system is adopted. These can be used as a technique to gauge community
13
members' level of awareness. This is crucial since successful adoption cannot happen if people
are unaware of the design, use, and upkeep of latrines (Jenkins, 1999).
2.8.2. Diarrhea, Trachoma and ARIs

The Health Impact of Sanitation is based on an inference that is tenable and derived from the
widespread sectoral acceptance of Esry's analysis15 of 144 research in 1991 and 1996, which
was supported by Fewtrell's enlarged study in 2004. According to their analysis, the following
health effects can be attained when sanitation and hygiene are improved and extensively used:
The average incidence of diarrhea was reduced by 36% as a result of safe excreta disposal, and
by up to 48% when sanitation and hygiene education were implemented.
2.8.3 Enhanced Well-being

Having a better toilet is regarded to provide a wide range of societal benefits, as shown by
national and international knowledge, attitude, belief, and practice studies24. Dignity, comfort,
privacy, social standing, security for women, increasing enrollment in school for girls, and a
general sense of well-being all on the list. According to a woman from Arsi Woreda in the
Oromia area, "The toilet completes my house." Health is frequently ranked low when addressing
issues considered when discussing motivation to build or renovate toilets, as Jenkins and Scott
concluded from one such study25 in Ghana. In general, it should be emphasized that research
conducted outside of Ethiopia that highlight the need to better understand effect and results in the
Ethiopian setting are mainly reflected in the list of advantages of enhanced hygiene and
sanitation. Regional universities' ongoing verbal autopsy research offers vital insights into the
causes of death that might be broadened to better understand the effects and results of various
inputs, from health promotion to community outreach to sanitation marketing.
2.8.4 By drinking contaminated water either for drinking or food preparation

A person who is afflicted with various excreta-borne disease pathogens contaminates the water
when they urinate in an open area. By drinking contaminated river water, washing in
contaminated water, or coming into contact with contaminated water, a healthy individual can
get the illness. Typhoid fever, bilharzias, and other infections are among those contracted
(Ministry of Health, 2007).
14
2.8.5 Water Quality Index
The public's concern over river and stream pollution needs comments with a basic level of
technical expertise (Haldar, Das, & Halder, 2016). WQI (Harkins, 1974) is one such method that
provides a more comprehensible summary of the WQ data. In the United States, WQI debuted in
1965 (Horton 1965). A single number that describes the WQ status of a water body is produced
from complicated data. Additionally, it assesses WQ trends and permits the preliminary
classification of River water for a variety of approved uses, including agriculture, recreation, and
other applications (Mont, et al., 2008). There are numerous WQI methods, though. Canadian
Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) is one example. Among the different methods,
there is not yet a single methodology that is universally acknowledged.
15
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1 Description of the Study
Dukem settlement is situated 37 kilometers to the southeast of Addis Ababa on the main route to
Adama. The research area has a total area of 9630.6 hectares and is geographically located
between latitudes 8045'25''N and 8050'30''N and longitudes 38051'55''E and 38056'5''E. It is
situated at a typical elevation of 2100 meters above sea level.
Since a number of homes, businesses, services, and institutions have been built, the town has
made progress. Due to its economic significance and proximity to the capital city Addis Ababa,
the population is likewise growing quickly. Growing industrialization and population numbers
have created a fierce rivalry for land resources.
The town is bordered by the towns of Bishoftu and Gelan in the southeast and most of the north,
respectively. Four nearby peasant organizations of the A kaki district define the remaining
eastern and western portions of the town.
Wajitu Dibdibe is the southern peasant organization that shares the most land with Dukem town.
The Gogecha Peasant Association, located in the town's northern region, comes next.
TedechaYatu lines up with the third largest section of Dukem town. Oda Nabe, in the northwest,
is Dukem Town's neighbor with the smallest border. The peasant associations located in the
north are the furthest away from the center of Dukem while the other peasant associations are
located in the east and south, which are both closer to Dukem town.
16
Figure 3.1: Dukem Town's map (source from GIS)
17
3.2. Study Design Period
Physio-chemical and bacteriological laboratory analysis in selected locations of Dukem
town was conducted from February to July 2023.
3.3 Sample Size Determination
The amount of statistical power that the researchers are ready to tolerate for the study must be
decided before the investigation can begin in order to determine sample size. The actual
difference between groups or the strength of the associations between variables that were
observed in a study are referred to as the effective size. (WHO, 2011) suggested a population-
based approach to sampling the minimum sample number for piped drinking water to conduct
microbiological test in the distribution system. Therefore, for Dukem town with a population of
152,244 people, the sample size was 15 samples. (152,244/10000) +10). Additional 10 samples
were added for end user and added 10 boreholes and 2 reservoirs, so that, the total water quality
sample size was 37 but, one old reservoir was not provided service during this study period.
Thus, the effective sample size became 36.
Table 3.1: WHO Population-Based Approach
Population Served Number of Samples

<5000 1
5000-100000 1 per 5000 population
>100000 1 per 10000 population, plus 10 additional samples
18
Figure 3.2: Location of sample points
3.4. Water Quality Index

The Water Quality Index (WQI) provides a numerical representation of the overall quality of
water for any intended purpose. The calculation of WQI was made using Canadian water quality
guidelines index method.
3.5. Overall Overview of the CCME WQ Index

According to CCME, Following the calculation of the water quality index value, the following
categories of water quality are identified:
19
Excellent :( CCME WQI Value 95-100) – An almost complete lack of threat or impairment;
conditions that are very close to natural or pristine levels; protects water quality.
Good: (CCME WQI Value 80-94) - Water quality is safeguarded with just a slight threat or
harm; rarely do conditions deviate from ideal or natural levels.
Fair :( CCME WQI Value 65-79) – Water quality is often safeguarded, but occasionally it may
be jeopardized or compromised; occasionally, conditions may deviate from what is ideal or
natural.
Marginal: (CCME WQI 45-64) – Water quality is frequently in danger or degraded;

circumstances routinely deviate from ideal or natural levels.
Poor :( CCME WQI Value 0-45) – water quality is almost always threatened or impaired;
conditions usually depart from natural or desirable levels.
The method of assigning CCME WQI values to these categories is crucial but rather arbitrary.
The classification is based on the most up-to-date facts, professional opinion, and public
expectations for water quality.
3.5.1. Water Quality Calculation Data

The CCME WQI offers a mathematical framework for comparing current ambient water quality
conditions to water quality recommendations. It is adaptable when it comes to the kind and
number of water quality parameters to be tested, the time of application, and the type of water
body (stream, river reach, lake, etc.) tested. Since these choices are left up to the user, they must
be established before the index is computed.
3.5.2. Dukem Water Index Calculation

Each of the three components of the DWQI must be calculated after the water body, the time
frame, and the parameters and recommendations have been established.
F1 and F2 can be calculated quite easily, while F3 needs a few extra steps. It has been discovered
that the first term (F1) makes a larger contribution to the final CCME WQI score than do the
other two terms.
20
F1 (Scope) represents the percentage of parameters that do not meet their guidelines at least once
during the time
period under consideration (“failed parameters”), relative to the total number of parameters
measured:
F 1= ( Numbers
Total Nubmer of parameters )
failed of parameters
∗100 ……………1
The frequency, or F2, indicates the proportion of individual tests (or "failed tests") that do not
adhere to standards.
F 2= ( Number
Total Nubmer of tests )
of failed Test
∗100 …………………2
F3 (Amplitude) reflects the deviation of failed test values from the target values. It calculates
F3.
3(a) Excursioni = ( failedObjective i )

test value i
−1 ………3
3(b) Excursioni = ( failedObjectivei

test value i )
−1
∑ Excursioni
nse= i−1 ……………………………4
Number of test
F3= ( 0.01 nse+

nse
0.01 )
…………………………….5
WQI ¿ 100− ( √ F 12+ F 22+ F 32

1.732 ) …………………6
3.5.3. Source (Borehole)

For Dukem town water supply system was borehole so, all physico-chemical and bacteriological
test was conducted. There are ten boreholes and sample was taken from all ten boreholes.
21
Therefore, the total number of sample was ten. The sampling frequency for this research was
two.
3.5.4. End User water quality

In order to evaluate the water quality situation between the source and the end user, the study
assessed the end user's water quality. The samples were collected from end user taps, source
(borehole) and from reservoir.
Sample Size Distributions at Reservoirs, Borehole and end user, based on the number of population Served
Proportion of Proportion of Proportion of
Total Water Sample to be Water Sample Water Sample
Ground Recived water population Taken from to be Taken to be Taken
no Name Capacity m3level from Supplied to serving Reservoir from borehole from End User Remark
1 Reservoir-1 1500 2040 Reservoir-1 52000
2 Tedecha BH-5 Tedecha kebele (03, 34000
3 Tedecha BH-4 Reservoir, BH- Melka Dukem( 01) 10000
4 Tedecha BH-2 5,BH-4,BH-2 partial 8500 1 3 14
5 Condominium BH-1 5944

6 Kera BH 10 6000
Kona (qoonnaa) Dukem Koticha
7 Magala BH-7 BH-1, BH-10 ,BH-7 kebele ( 02) 6000 0 3 6
Gogocha BH-8 Gogecha kebeke (04)

8 and suurounding 9000
9 Mendelo BH-12 BH-8, BH-12 mendelo 9300 0 2 6
10 City park (BH –New) Tedecha kebele 5000
Dimitery BH-9 BH-9 and city Gogecha kebeke and

11 park new BH mendelo 6500 0 2 5
Total number of sample to be taken 1 10 25
Table 3.2: sample Size Distribution

3.6. Location of Sampling taken and Water Supply system Covered
Samples were collected from sources, reservoirs, and end users that are typical of the water
delivery system. Each locality was taken into account separately while choosing sampling
locations, however the following standard criterion was applied nonetheless. In discussed with
Dukem town water, supply and sanitation utility, for this research, these criteria were selected
considering the potential health risk scenarios.
 In order to ensure that the samples gathered are representative of the various water supply
facilities, sampling stations were chosen carefully.
 The locations of the sampling points were chosen taking into consideration the population
each source served.
22
 According to (WHO, 2011), A piped distribution network's sample locations are
categorized as;
 Fixed and agreed with the supply agency: are necessary for using legal action to enforce
improvement; otherwise, the supply agency may contest a sample result on the grounds
that water quality may have declined in the residence, beyond the supplier's scope of
obligation. However, fixed sample points are uncommon or nonexistent in some nations.
 Fixed but not agreed with the supply agency: in investigations, including surveillance, are
routinely used. They are particularly helpful when findings need to be compared across
time, but they make it harder to spot regional issues like cross connections and
contamination from faulty distribution systems.
Random or variable sites: have the advantage of being better at spotting local issues but are less
effective at tracking changes over time. Each type of the above sampling site has certain
advantages and disadvantages.
Therefore, for this research, random or variable sampling sites were selected in discussed with
Dukem town water utility.
3.7. Sampling frequency

Considering the resource limitation in this research, a sample was taken for two times with one-
month interval and for water quality Index three times.
3.8. Sampling Method
⌐Duplicated water samples: was collected from one sample from each of outlet of source
(borehole), out let reservoir and end user sampling points.
⌐stratified random sampling method: utilized to choose 36 water samples. The procedure for
collecting samples from each sampling location was done in accordance with the WHO (2004)
guidelines for determining the quality of drinking water. Based on logistics and convenience,
convenience (nonprobability) sampling was used to choose water from various water facilities.
⌐Systematics Random sampling Method: was used to select representative samples from source
(borehole) of ten water supply distribution network zones of 4 urban kebeles.
23
3.9. Data collection instruments and procedure
3.9.1. Sample Collection Technique (Instruments and physical)
3.9.1.1 PH Meter
In adequately cleaned and rinsed plastic bottles, water samples were obtained. The HQ440d
multi pH meter, which has the appropriate electrodes, was used to measure PH on the spot. The
measured parameters were shown on the instrument's LCD screen once these probes were
submerged in the water sample.
3.9.1.2. Electrical Conductivity (EC) Meter

In adequately cleaned and rinsed plastic bottles, water samples were obtained. The HQ440d
multi EC meter, which has the appropriate electrodes, was used to measure Electrical
Conductivity (EC) on the spot. The measured parameters were shown on the instrument's LCD
screen once these probes were submerged in the water sample.
3.9.1.3. Sample Collection Technique (Instruments and chemical)

Before collected any water samples, plastic hoses that were fixed in most of the end user out let
taps were removed and the thoroughly washed with the tap water. Then, this collection points
(taps) were properly disinfected using flame from alcohol. Following that, water samples were
taken from each location using sterile bottles with a 500 ml capacity that included sodium
sulphate to completely neutralize any remaining chlorine (1 ml of 10% Na2S2O3). The bottles
were labeled and maintained in an ice box while being transported to the laboratory in Koka.
DR-6000 UV Spectrophotometer is used to conduct the physico-chemical test. In a cylindrical

cell, ml of prepared water sample is mixed with a reagent chemical before being left to react. The
amount of the target element to be measured determines how intensely color develops. The
Photometer is set to each element's specific maximum absorption wavelength (lambda). The
sample cell allows light to enter so that light at the required wavelength can be absorbed. The
results are shown as mg/l on the LCD screen in proportion to how much light at that specific
wavelength was absorbed.
3.9.1.4. Bacteriological test (Membrane filter Technique)

To prevent the growth and/or demise of organisms in the samples, the biological test was carried
out within 5 hours after sample collection (WHO, 2011).All biological test and physico-chemical
24
parameters tests were conducted at Oromia water and energy laboratory center and Koka-
Adama water treatment laboratory.
Using membrane filters with a pore size of 45 m, water samples were collected aseptically in
pre-sterilized plastic bags. The filters were incubated at 37°C for faecal coliforms and 44°C for
total coliforms in sterile aluminum Petridishes with m-Coli Blue24 broth absorbent pads in a
(Name) field incubator. After 24 hours, the filters were checked for bacterial development.
3.9.1.5. Laboratory Analysis

Water sampling and analysis, which require specialist knowledge and experience was
mainly done by experts in Oromia water and energy office and Koka laboratory. Then each
analysis result was compared with the national standards and WHO guide lines.
3.10. Sampling procedure and analysis

In taking the sample from the source a sterilized plastic bag of 200ml has been used after
wearing latex glove on hand. The water samples were filtered using the filter unit comprising the
filter membrane after sterilizing the filter unit of a pore size 45μm with fire and alcohol. M-Coli
Blue 24 broth Ampoules has been used as a media (nutrient) to grow bacteria. An incubation unit
of ELE Paqualab 25 has been used at site until the sample is taken to the camp where another
incubation unit called Pot lab is used. The former incubation unit has only one temperature
adjustment option to grow bacteria: either 37 0C or 440C; whereas the latter has both options at a
time since it has two compartments to place the Petri dish and set the temperature separately at
37 and 440C. The prepared samples have been incubated for 24 hours before opening and
examining for bacterial growth.
3.11. Sanitary Inspection

Concerning to sanitary inspection all Bore Holes are good in sanitary condition except, two of
them sources Kera & Condominium BHs are not in good sanitary condition. Therefore, DWSSE
should be given attention and to be corrected. To assure and sustain the drinking water quality,
WSP (risk assessment and risk management) from source to end user should be implemented.
3.12. Interpretation
The results of the analysis have been compared with different standards and guide lines: WHO
and National (Ethiopian Drinking Water Standard).Under normal condition protected water
25
sources should be free from contamination indication bacteria, particularly Faecal coliform that
shows the contamination from human or animal faeces. In this analysis, selected sampling points
have been conducted for Faecal and total coliform. Additionally, both sources and private outlet
tap have been analyzed for selected physico-chemical &Faecal and total coliform.
4. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

4.1 At Borehole
Table 4.1.1: Compliance with National Standard and WHO Guide Lines for pH @ Borehole with
two Sampling Frequency.
NO
Result second
Standard Test
with National
Significance
Guide Lines
Compliance
Compliance
Laboratory
Laboratory
Result first
with WHO
Standard
Standard
Standard
National
National
Average
Method
WHO
round
round
B1 6.63 6.466.5 6.5- 6.5-8.5 ES ISO Yes Yes

45 8.5 10523
B2 6.73 6.57 6.6 '' '' '' Yes Yes
5
B3 6.71 6.69 6.7 '' '' '' Yes Yes
B4 6.88 6.56 6.7 '' '' '' Yes Yes
2
B5 6.87 6.57 6.7 '' '' '' Yes Yes
2
B6 6.99 6.85 6.9 '' '' '' Yes Yes
Aesthetic & indirect Health
2
B7 7.02 7.4 7.2 '' '' '' Yes Yes
1
B8 6.52 6.2 6.3 '' '' '' Yes Yes
6
B9 7.19 6.84 7.0 '' '' '' Yes Yes
15
B1 7.16 6.42 6.7 '' '' '' Yes Yes
0 9
A.R 6.87 6.656 6.7
63
A requirement level whose non-fulfillment would disqualify the water for drinking and
domestic use because of its probable hazard to health
26
The pH reading at the source or borehole water was 6.87, 6.66, 6.7 in the first, second and
average reading respectively. It was a clear and have fallen within the WHO guide line and
national standard range.
4.5 PH Spatial Map for Borehole

4.2 At Reservoir
The pH data observed in the reservoirs also similar to the borehole. Therefore, when the water
reached at reservoir, it was met both WHO guideline and national standard ES ISO 10523.
27
4.3. at End User
Table 4.3.1: Compliance with National Standard and WHO Guide Lines for pH @ End User with
two Sampling Frequency.
Result second
Standard Test
with National
Significance
Guide Lines
Compliance
Compliance
Laboratory
Laboratory
Result first
with WHO
No Code
Standard
Standard
Standard
National
National
Average
Method
reading
WHO
round
round
S1 6.32 6.5 6.41 6.5- 6.5- ES ISO Yes Yes

8.5 8.5 10523
S2 6.04 6.2 6.12 '' '' '' Yes Yes
S3 7.05 6.69 6.87 '' '' '' Yes Yes
S4 6.86 6.8 6.83 '' '' '' Yes Yes
S5 7.01 7 7.005 '' '' '' Yes Yes
S6 7.3 7.1 7.2 '' '' '' Yes Yes
S7 6.54 6.67 6.605 '' '' '' Yes Yes
S8 7.5 7.5 7.5 '' '' '' Yes Yes
S9 7.3 7.23 7.265 '' '' '' Yes Yes
S10 6.68 6.72 6.7 '' '' '' Yes Yes
S11 6.92 6.89 6.905 '' '' '' Yes Yes
S12 7.02 7.01 7.015 '' '' '' Yes Yes
S13 6.99 7 6.995 '' '' '' Yes Yes

S14 6.65 6.67 6.66 '' '' '' Yes Yes
S15 7.04 7.02 7.03 '' '' '' Yes Yes
Aesthetic & indirect Health
S16 7.6 7.5 7.55 '' '' '' Yes Yes

S17 7.4 7.4 7.4 '' '' '' Yes Yes
S18 6.69 7 6.845 '' '' '' Yes Yes
S19 7.9 7.5 7.7 '' '' '' Yes Yes
S20 7.5 7.44 7.47 '' '' '' Yes Yes
S21 7.3 7.1 7.2 '' '' '' Yes Yes
S22 6.68 6.9 6.79 '' '' '' Yes Yes
S23 6.92 6.8 6.86 '' '' '' Yes Yes
28
S24 7.84 7.01 7.425 '' '' '' Yes Yes
S25 7.8 7.56 7.68 '' '' '' Yes Yes
AR 7.074 7.0084 7.0412
From Table 4.3.1 the end user average observation data indicated that, the pH level kept on very
closely similar data with borehole and reservoir the water data. So that, from this finding, it
could suggest that, there was no observation in the end user system that could impact to change
the pH level. Therefore, the pH level was complied with WHO guide line and national standard
ES ISO 10523.
4. 5 PH Spatial Map for End use

4.4 At Reservoir
Electrical conductivity (EC) was used to calculate the total dissolved salts (TDS). It establishes
whether the water is drinkable and appropriate for rehydrating dehydrated people.
29
However, the conductivities in industrial waste fluids may exceed 100,000 mhos/cm. The WHO
and national guidelines state that the EC value of drinking water supplies should not be higher
than 400 S/cm. The outcome demonstrates that the EC values of Dukem Town's water supply
twice between 389 and 386 and on average 387.5 S/cm are both within the range of the WHO
and national standard maximum acceptable limits.
4.5 At End User
conductivity (E.C) @ End User with two Sampling Frequency.
NO
Result second
Standard Test
with National
Significance
Guide Lines
Compliance
Compliance
Laboratory
Laboratory
Result first
with WHO
Standard
Standard
Standard
National
National
Average
Method
WHO
round
round
S1 369 375 372 400 400 field Yes Yes

S2 416 412 414 '' '' '' No No
S3 421 415 418 '' '' '' No No
S4 382 387 384.5 '' '' '' Yes Yes

S5 486 492 489 '' '' '' No No
S6 457 455 456 '' '' '' No No
S7 395 389 392 '' '' '' Yes Yes
S8 415 413 414 '' '' '' No No
S9 403 397 400 '' '' '' No No
S10 456 453 454.5 '' '' '' No No
palatability & indirect health
S11 358 360 359 '' '' '' Yes Yes

S12 479 482 480.5 '' '' '' No No
S13 482 477 479.5 '' '' '' No No
S14 358 356 357 '' '' '' Yes Yes
S15 1264 1318 1291 '' '' '' No No
S16 383 380 381.5 '' '' '' Yes Yes
S17 388 389 388.5 '' '' '' Yes Yes
S18 434 432 433 '' '' '' No No
S19 491 493 492 '' '' '' No No
30
S20 494 489 491.5 '' '' '' No No
S21 350 351 350.5 '' '' '' Yes Yes
S22 387 376 381.5 '' '' '' Yes Yes
S23 456 460 458 '' '' '' No No
S24 373 375 374 '' '' '' Yes Yes
S25 484 483 483.5 '' '' '' No No
A.R 455.24 456.36 455.8
A standard that, if not met, would prevent water from being used for drinking and domestic
purposes due to a potential health risk.
The first, second, and average readings of the EC at the end-user water were 455.24, 456.36, and
455.8, respectively. These results clearly demonstrate that the quantity of soluble materials in the
study locations caused the water to be highly ionized and to have a higher level of ionic
concentration activity. As a result, it effectively conducts electrical current.
31
4. 5 Electrical Conductivity Spatial Map for End use
4.6 At Borehole
conductivity (E.C) @ Borehole with two Sampling Frequency.
Compliance with
Compliance with
WHO Standard
Result second
Standard Test
WHO Guide
Significance
Result Frist
Laboratory
Laboratory
NO code
Standard
Standard
National
National
National
Average
Method
Round
Lines
B1 436 450 443 400 400 field No No
B2 358 363 360.5 '' '' '' Yes Yes
B3 373 353 363 '' '' '' Yes Yes
B4 479 463 471 '' '' '' No No
B5 614 535 574.5 '' '' '' No No
B6 602 605 603.5 '' '' '' No No
indirect health
B7 593 447 520 '' '' '' No No
B8 1318 1260 1289 '' '' '' No No
B9 361 316 338.5 '' '' '' Yes Yes
B10 682 614 648 '' '' '' No No
A.R 581.6 540. 561.1
6
These results from the source or borehole provide unmistakable proof that the study areas' water
was heavily ionized and had a higher level of ionic concentration activity as a result of an
abundance of soluble solids. It is a good conductor of electrical current as a result. However,
sampling point S8 exhibits extremely high electrical conductivity as a result of dissolved salts
and other inorganic chemicals that act as electrical conductors; conductivity rises as salinity
rises.
32
4. 5 Electrical Conductivity Spatial Map for Borehole
4.7 At Reservoir
Sewage and industrial effluents are two common and man-made sources of chloride. Chloride
can contaminate groundwater if salt is used for de-icing through roadway seepage. Chloride
concentrations are often higher in rivers and groundwater than they are in upland and mountain
water supplies. The ability of chloride to increase water's corrosiveness, especially in water with
high alkalinity, is its main operating problem.
They are still soluble in water, unaffected by biological activity, and reducible via dilution. High
chloride levels are bad for pipelines and metallic buildings as well as growing plants. According
to national regulations and WHO recommendations, chloride concentrations shouldn't be more
than 250 mg/l. The laboratory test findings for reservoir samples showed chloride values of 49,
51, and 50 in the first, second, and average readings, respectively. Because of this, the reservoir
samples' chloride concentration is below the national standard level and the maximum allowable
limit value established by the World Health Organization.
33
4.8 At End User
Table 4.8.1: Compliance with National Standard and WHO Guide Lines for chloride @ End
User with two Sampling Frequency.
WHO Standard
Result second
Standard Test
with National
Significance
Guide Lines
Compliance
Compliance
Laboratory
Laboratory
Result first
with WHO
code NO
Standard
Standard
National
National
Method
average
round
round
s1 38 40 39 250 250 ES ISO Yes Yes

9297
s2 56 54 55 '' '' " '' ''
s3 42 41 41.5 '' '' " '' ''
s4 27 25 26 '' '' " '' ''
s5 35 34 34.5 '' '' " '' ''
s6 60 58 59 '' '' " '' ''
s7 53 51 52 '' '' " '' ''
s8 58 60 59 '' '' " '' ''
s9 78 81 79.5 '' '' " '' ''
s10 66 66 66 '' '' " '' ''
s11 65 70 67.5 '' '' " '' ''
s12 62 65 63.5 '' '' " '' ''
s13 40 38 39 '' '' " '' ''
s14 53 50 51.5 '' '' " '' ''
s15 35 37 36 '' '' " '' ''
s16 25 27 26 '' '' " '' ''
s17 28 30 29 '' '' " '' ''
s18 47 45 46 '' '' " '' ''
s19 50 50 50 '' '' " '' ''
palatability & indirect health
s20 44 41 42.5 '' '' " '' ''

s21 46 51 48.5 '' '' " '' ''
s22 54 53 53.5 '' '' " '' ''
s23 45 43 44 '' '' " '' ''
s24 58 57 57.5 '' '' " '' ''
s25 48 50 49 '' '' " '' ''
A.R 48.52 48.68 48.6
34
The content of chloride should not be more than 250 mg/l, as per national regulations and WHO
guidelines. The laboratory test findings for end-user samples showed chloride concentrations of
48.52, 48.68, and 48.6 in the first, second, and average readings, respectively. As a result, the
end user samples contain chloride concentrations below the national standard level and the
maximum allowable limit value established by the World Health Organization.
4. 5 Chloride Spatial Map end use
35
4.9 At Borehole
Table 4.9.1: Compliance with National Standard and WHO Guide Lines for chloride @ Borehole
with two Sampling Frequency.
Compliance with
Compliance with
WHO Standard
Result second
Standard Test
WHO Guide
Significance
Laboratory
Laboratory
Result first
Standard
Standard
National
National
National
Method
average
round
round
Lines
NO
B1 48 51 49.5 250 250 ES ISO Yes Yes

9297
B2 61 63 62 '' '' '' '' ''
B3 49 52 50.5 '' '' '' '' ''
B4 61 57 59 '' '' '' '' ''
B5 58 54 56 '' '' '' '' ''
B6 51 55 53 '' '' '' '' ''
B7 61 59 60 '' '' '' '' ''
B8 49 48 48.5 '' '' '' '' ''
B9 60 58 59 '' '' '' '' ''
B10 36 38 37 '' '' '' '' ''
A.R 53.4 53.5 53.45
Although the taste of water may be discernible at high chloride concentrations (e.g., NaCl, KCl,
and CaCl2), consumer approval varies widely depending on the type of chloride. If monitoring
was necessary, it was usually done at the treatment center. The frequency would be minimal and
would be based on the source water's unpredictability.
Chlorides are substances made of chlorine. They continue to be soluble in water and unaffected
by biological processes, making them reducible by dilution. High chloride concentrations injure
growing plants as well as metallic pipelines and structures. The content of chloride should not be
more than 250 mg/l, as per national regulations and WHO guidelines. The chloride values in
source or borehole samples ranged from 36 to 61 mg/l according to laboratory test results. As a
result, the chloride maximum permitted limit value established by World Health Organization
guidelines and national standard level is lower in all of the samples.
36
4. 5 Chloride Spatial Map for Borehole
4.10 At Reservoir
Calcium, an alkaline earth element that reacts with water, is an essential part of bones and teeth.
It makes up 3% of the fifth most abundant element in the crust of the earth. The most common
calcium compounds are limestone (Caco3), gypsum (CaSo4.2H2O), fluorite (CaF2),
hypochlorite (Ca (ClO) 2), and nitrate (Ca (NO3)2).
Since no specific disease has been linked to calcium in the drinking water supply, an upper limit,
such as 75 mg/l in relation to hardness, may be used as a guidance. The calcium of the laboratory
test findings for a reservoir sample was 88, 85, and 86.5 in the first, second, and average
readings, respectively.
The average result was higher than the WHO and national standard, which is the maximum
allowable limit not established by WHO guidelines and national standard level. This shows that
the community's health is being impacted by the almost mild hardness of the water in the
reservoir.
37
4.11 At End User
End User with two Sampling Frequency.
Result second
Standard Test
with National
Significance
Guide Lines
Compliance
Compliance
Laboratory
Laboratory
Result first
with WHO
code NO
Standard
Standard
Standard
National
National
Average
Method
WHO
round
round
S1 130 128 129 75 75 ES ISO No No

7980
S2 98 100 99 '' '' '' No No
S3 85 90 87.5 '' '' '' No No
S4 80 82 81 '' '' '' No No
S5 97 95 96 '' '' '' No No
S6 127 128 127.5 '' '' '' No No
S7 70 69 69.5 '' '' '' Yes Yes
S8 96 93 94.5 '' '' '' No No
S9 130 132 131 '' '' '' No No
S10 88 89 88.5 '' '' '' No No
S11 90 92 91 '' '' '' No No
S12 101 96 98.5 '' '' '' No No
S13 100 105 102.5 '' '' '' No No
S14 104 98 101 '' '' '' No No
S15 109 110 109.5 '' '' '' No No
S16 102 100 101 '' '' '' No No
S17 99 98 98.5 '' '' '' No No
S18 110 108 109 '' '' '' No No
S19 114 116 115 '' '' '' No No
S20 120 127 123.5 '' '' '' No No
Health Significance
S21 110 112 111 '' '' '' No No

S22 105 107 106 '' '' '' No No
S23 109 111 110 '' '' '' No No
S24 111 114 112.5 '' '' '' No No
S25 117 113 115 '' '' '' No No
38
A.R 104.08 104.52 104.3
At the End User calcium C2+ also there above the WHO guideline and national standard. All the
laboratory results indicated that the calcium C2+ level in Dukem town the end user water was
not complied with WHO guide line and national standard and health effect on the community
(ES ISO 7980).
4. 5 Calcium Spatial Map for end use
39
4.12. At Borehole
Borehole with two Sampling Frequency.
Result first round
Compliance with
Compliance with
WHO Standard
Result average
Result second
Standard Test
WHO Guide
Significance
Laboratory
Laboratory
Laboratory
Standard
Standard
National
National
National
Method
Lines
NO
B1 79 90 84.5 75 75 ES ISO No No
7980
B2 106 102 104 '' '' '' No No
B3 80 83 81.5 '' '' '' No No
B4 82 96 89 '' '' '' No No
B5 98 85 91.5 '' '' '' No No

B6 101 100 100.5 '' '' '' No No
B7 77 75 76 '' '' '' No No
Significance
B8 82 85 83.5 '' '' '' No No
B9 78 75 76.5 '' '' '' No No

B10 93 81 87 '' '' '' No No
A.R 87.6 87.2 87.4
At the Source (Borehole) calcium C2+ also there above the WHO guideline and national
standard. All the laboratory results indicated that the calcium C2+ level in Dukem town the
Borehole water was not complied with WHO guide line and national standard and health effect
on the community (ES ISO 7980).
40
4.5 Calcium Spatial Map for Borehole
4.13. at Reservoir
Magnesium is a light, silver-white, malleable, ductile, metallic chemical element that makes up
the eighth most abundant element in the crust of the earth. It is never discovered as a free
element. Magnesium is believed to be non-toxic to humans at amounts that are present in water
or that are not unpleasant to the taste. Magnesium has been utilized in flash photography, alloys,
incendiary bombs, and pyrotechnics. When magnesium is a sulfate, it is referred to as "milk of
magnesia" or "Epsom Salts" in medicine. As a nutrient, it benefits both plant and animal life. The
WHO and national Standard of Drinking Water (1963) list the maximum acceptable amount as
50 mg/l, while the maximum permissible level is 150 mg/l.
Mg 2+ laboratory test results for reservoir samples were 31, 34, and 32.5 in the first, second, and
average readings, respectively. These values fall below the World Health Organization's and
National Standard's maximum acceptable level.
41
4.14.at End User
Table 4.14.1: Compliance with National Standard and WHO Guide Lines for magnesium 2+ @
end user with two Sampling Frequency.
WHO Standard
Result average
Result second
Standard Test
with National
Significance
Guide Lines
Compliance
Compliance
Laboratory
Laboratory
Laboratory
Result first
with WHO
Standard
Standard
National
National
Method
CODE
round
round
s1 48 49 48.5 50 50 ES ISO Yes Yes

7980
s2 41 40 40.5 '' '' Yes Yes ''
s3 34 32 33 '' '' Yes Yes ''
s4 35 37 36 '' '' Yes Yes ''
s5 37 38 37.5 '' '' Yes Yes ''
s6 42 42 42 '' '' Yes Yes ''
s7 39 41 40 '' '' Yes Yes ''
s8 33 32 32.5 '' '' Yes Yes ''
s9 51 50 50.5 '' '' Yes Yes ''
s10 47 49 48 '' '' Yes Yes ''
s11 29 33 31 '' '' Yes Yes ''
s12 37 35 36 '' '' Yes Yes ''
s13 41 45 43 '' '' Yes Yes ''
s14 42 39 40.5 '' '' Yes Yes ''
s15 48 46 47 '' '' Yes Yes ''
s16 60 58 59 '' '' No No ''
s17 64 63 63.5 '' '' No No ''
s18 44 42 43 '' '' Yes Yes ''
s19 48 47 47.5 '' '' Yes Yes ''
Health Significance
s20 42 45 43.5 '' '' Yes Yes ''

s21 40 38 39 '' '' Yes Yes ''
s22 43 39 41 '' '' Yes Yes ''
s23 41 40 40.5 '' '' Yes Yes ''
s24 40 43 41.5 '' '' Yes Yes ''
s25 39 41 40 '' '' Yes Yes ''
A.R 42.6 42.56 42.58
42
The WHO International Standard of Drinking Water (1963) states that the maximum permissible
level is 150 mg/l and the maximum acceptable level is 50 mg/l.
The laboratory test results for the Dukem Town Water Supply at End User Samples showed
levels of (Mg+2) between 42.6 and 42.58 mg/l, which are below the World Health Organization's
and National Standard's Maximum Acceptable Level.
4. 5 Magnesium Spatial Map for end use
43
4.15. At Borehole
Table 4.15.1: Compliance with National Standard and WHO Guide Lines for magnesium 2+ @
Result first round
Compliance with
Compliance with
WHO Standard
Result second
Standard Test
WHO Guide
Significance
Laboratory
Laboratory
Standard
Standard
National
National
National
Method
average
round
Lines
NO
B1 29 30 29.5 50 50 ES ISO Yes Yes

7980
B2 18 23 20.5 '' '' '' '' ''
B3 27 24 25.5 '' '' '' '' ''
B4 27 25 26 '' '' '' '' ''
Health Significance
B5 72 64 68 '' '' '' No No
B6 30 35 32.5 '' '' '' Yes Yes
B7 47 45 46 '' '' '' Yes Yes
B8 64 65 64.5 '' '' '' No No
B9 28 26 27 '' '' '' Yes Yes
B10 58 55 56.5 '' '' '' No No
A.R 40 39.2 39.6
At the Borehole magnesium 2+ also there above the WHO guideline and national standard. The
laboratory results indicated that the magnesium 2+ level in Dukem town the Borehole s5, s8, s10,
sample water was not complied with WHO guide line and national standard and health effect on
the community and the remain result water was complied with WHO guide line and national
standard (ES ISO 7980).
44
4.5 Magnesium Spatial Map for Borehole
4.16. At Reservoir
The hardness of water is one of its physical or chemical characteristics. It displays the overall
concentration of calcium and magnesium ions. Based on how much soap would precipitate,
hardness was initially researched and evaluated in raw water sampling as an indicator of water
quality. The two main precipitating ions in this assay are magnesium and calcium. To put it
another way, more soap is required to make foam or lather with "hard" water. The other negative
aspect of hard water versus soft water is the natural capacity of hard water to produce scale in hot
water pipes, boilers and heaters.
The maximum allowable limit of overall hardness should not exceed 300mg/l as CaCo3,
according to WHO guidelines and national standards. The Dukem Town Water Supply
laboratory test results for the first, second, and average readings of CaCo3 were 119 mg/l, 121
mg/l, and 120 mg/l, respectively. Therefore, the World Health Organization and National
regulations classify the Dukem Town water supply at reservoir's level of hardness as moderately
soft water, which is not harmful to consumers.
45
4.17 At Borehole
Table 4.17.1: Compliance with National Standard and WHO Guide Lines for Total hardness @
Result first round
Compliance with
Compliance with
WHO Standard
Result second
Standard Test
WHO Guide
Significance
Laboratory
Laboratory
Standard
Standard
National
National
National
Method
average
round
Lines
NO
B1 114 117 115.5 300 300 ES ISO Yes Yes

607
B2 124 125
124.5 '' '' '' '' ''
B3 106 103
104.5 '' '' '' '' ''
B4 110 109
109.5 '' '' '' '' ''
B5 278 281
279.5 '' '' '' '' ''
B6 230 227
228.5 '' '' '' '' ''
B7 240 245
242.5 '' '' '' '' ''
B8 242 239
240.5 '' '' '' '' ''
B9 142 146
144 '' '' '' '' ''
B10 350 345
347.5 '' '' No No ''
193.6 193.7
193.6
5
A requirement level whose non-fulfillment would disqualify the water for drinking
and domestic use because of its probable hazard to health
CaCo3 concentrations range from 110 mg/l to 142 mg/l according to the laboratory test results
for the Dukem Town Water Supply at Source or borehole samples (s1, s2, s3, s4, s9). As a result,
the water supply in Dukem Town can be classified as moderately soft at the source, which is safe
for users by national and World Health Organization criteria. The values of CaCo3 for the
remaining s5, s6, s7, and s8 vary from 230 mg/l to 278 mg/l. As a result, according to national
and international standards set by the World Health Organization and the World Bank, the level
of hardness of the water at the source can be classified as hard water.
According to World Health Organization and national guidelines, hard water, defined as having a
result of 10 and more than 300 mg/l, is harmful to consumers.
46
4. 5 Total hardness Spatial Map for Borehole
47
4.18 At End User
Table 4.18.1: Compliance with National Standard and WHO Guide Lines for Total hardness @
End User with two Sampling Frequency.
Result first round
Compliance with
Compliance with
WHO Standard
Result average
Result second
Standard Test
WHO Guide
Significance
Laboratory
Laboratory
Laboratory
Standard
Standard
National
National
National
Method
round
Lines
NO
s1 178 177 177.5 300 300 ES ISO Yes Yes

607
s2 139 140 139.5 '' '' Yes Yes ''
s3 119 122 120.5 '' '' Yes Yes ''
s4 115 119 117 '' '' Yes Yes ''
s5 134 133 133.5 '' '' Yes Yes ''
s6 169 170 169.5 '' '' Yes Yes ''
s7 109 110 109.5 '' '' Yes Yes ''
s8 129 115 122 '' '' Yes Yes ''
s9 181 182 181.5 '' '' Yes Yes ''
s10 135 138 136.5 '' '' Yes Yes ''
s11 119 125 122 '' '' Yes Yes ''
s12 138 131 134.5 '' '' Yes Yes ''
s13 141 150 145.5 '' '' Yes Yes ''
s14 146 137 141.5 '' '' Yes Yes ''
s15 157 456 306.5 '' '' Yes Yes ''
s16 162 158 160 '' '' Yes Yes ''
s17 161 161 161 '' '' Yes Yes ''
s18 154 150 152 '' '' Yes Yes ''
s19 162 163 162.5 '' '' Yes Yes ''
Health Significance
s20 162 172 167 '' '' Yes Yes ''

s21 150 150 150 '' '' Yes Yes ''
s22 148 146 147 '' '' Yes Yes ''
s23 150 151 150.5 '' '' Yes Yes ''
s24 151 147 149 '' '' Yes Yes ''
s25 156 154 155 '' '' Yes Yes ''
A.R 146.6 158.28 152.44
48
Laboratory test results for the Dukem Town Water Supply at End User samples show CaCo3
concentrations that vary from 115 mg/l to 178 mg/l. Accordingly, the World Health Organization
and national guidelines classify the hardness of the Dukem Town water supply at the end user as
moderately soft water and hard water, neither of which are harmful to consumers.
4. 5 Total hardness Spatial Map for end use
49
4.19 At Borehole
Coliform (TC) (no/100ml) @ Borehole with Two Sampling Frequency.
Standard Level)
Laboratory 2nd
WHO Standard
Laboratory 1st
Standard Test
with National
Significance
Guide Lines
Compliance
Compliance
(no/100ml)
(no/100ml)
with WHO
0/100 ml
Standard
National
National
Average
Method
round
round
No
B1 0 0 0 0/100 must not ES Yes Yes

ml be ISO
detectable 9308-1
B2 0 0 0 '' ''
Yes Yes ''
B3 0 0 0 '' ''
Yes Yes ''
B4 0 0 0 '' ''
Yes Yes ''
Health Significance
B5 0 0 0 '' ''
Yes Yes ''
B6 0 0 0 '' ''
Yes Yes ''
B7 0 0 0 '' ''
Yes Yes ''
B8 0 0 0 '' ''
No No ''
B9 0 0 0 '' ''
Yes Yes ''
B10 0 0 0 '' ''
Yes Yes ''
A.R 0 0
The test for total coliform bacteria is the simplest way to determine whether a water supply is
contaminated with bacteria. Total coliform counts provide an overview of a water supply's
hygienic status.
None detected per 100 mL is what the WHO and National Standard state, which indicates that
for every 100 ml of drinking water tested for total coliforms, there must be none. So that, the TC
reading at Source or borehole was zero and complied with WHO guide line and national standard
ES ISO 9308-1.
4.20 At Reservoir
With respect to Total Coliform Test at reservoir the water samples are positive or zero result for
Total coliform. So that, the TC reading at Source or reservoir was zero and complied with WHO
guide line and national standard ES ISO 9308-1.
50
4.21 At End User
Coliform (TC) (no/100ml) @ End Use with Two Sampling Frequency.
(no/100ml
Significan
2nd round
Complian
Complian
Laborator
round(no/
Laborator
0/100 ml
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
National
National
National
Method
average
y result
y result
ce with
ce with
Guide
WHO
WHO
Test
No
1st
)
s1 0 0 0/100 ml must not be ES ISO Yes Yes
detectable 9308-1
s2 0 0 0 '' '' '' Yes Yes
s3 0 0 0 '' '' '' Yes Yes
s4 0 1 0 '' '' '' Yes Yes
s5 0 0 0 '' '' '' Yes Yes
s6 0 0 0 '' '' '' Yes Yes
s7 0 0 0 '' '' '' Yes Yes
s8 0 0 0 '' '' '' Yes Yes
s9 0 0 0 '' '' '' Yes Yes
s10 0 0 0 '' '' '' Yes Yes
s11 0 0 0 '' '' '' Yes Yes
s12 4 0 0 '' '' '' No No
s13 0 0 0 '' '' '' Yes Yes
s14 23 3 '' '' '' No No
s15 TNTC 1 '' '' '' No No
s16 0 0 '' '' '' Yes Yes
s17 0 0 '' '' '' Yes Yes
s18 22 0 '' '' '' No No
Health Significance
s19 18 0 '' '' '' No No
s20 11 0 '' '' '' No No
s21 1 0 '' '' '' No No
s22 4 1 '' '' '' No No
s23 5 0 '' '' '' No No
s24 1 0 '' '' '' No No
s25 0 0 '' '' '' Yes yes
A.R 3.56 0.24
A requirement level whose non-fulfillment would disqualify the water for drinking and domestic
use because of its probable hazard to health
When the water left the reservoir and borehole, it went through the distribution system with
carried on total coliform bacteria. Out of 25 sampling location (double frequency) in the end user
system, only fifteen samples location were found free from total coliform bacteria. In the
remaining 10 samples, bacteria were obtained in the laboratory result. So that, 40% of
51
the End User addressed in this research were not complied with WHO guideline
and national standard ES ISO 9308-1 related to total coliform.
4.22 At Borehole
Escherichia Coli (E-Coli) (no/100ml) @ Borehole with Two Sampling frequency.
Standard Test
with National
Significance
Guide Lines
Compliance
Compliance
1st Samples
(no/100ml)
(no/100ml)
(no/100ml)
Laboratory
Laboratory
with WHO
2nd round
0/100 ml
Standard
Standard
Standard
National
National
average
Method
WHO
No
B1 0 0 0 0/100 must not ES ISO Yes Yes

ml be 9308-2
detectable
B2 0 0 0 '' '' '' '' ''
B3 0 0 0 '' '' '' '' ''
Health Significance
B4 0 0 0 '' '' '' '' ''
B5 0 0 0 '' '' '' '' ''
B6 0 0 0 '' '' '' '' ''
B7 0 0 0 '' '' '' '' ''
B8 0 0 0 '' '' '' '' ''
B9 0 0 0 '' '' '' '' ''
B10 0 0 0 '' '' '' '' ''
A.R 0 0 0 '' '' '' '' ''
In all Borehole, there is no E. coli finding in the water, all laboratory result was zero E.
coli/100 ml of water. Therefore, the zero E. coli concentration result continued in the
Borehole. The water was complied with WHO guide line and national standard of ES ISO
9308-2.
4.23 At Reservoir
In Reservoir, there is no E. coli finding in the water, laboratory result was zero E.
coli/100 ml of water. Therefore, the zero E. coli concentration result continued in the
reservoir. The water was complied with WHO guide line and national standard of ES ISO
9308-2.
4.24 At End User

52
Escherichia Coli (no/100ml) @ End User with Two Sampling frequency.
Laboratory average
WHO Guide Lines

National Standard
National Standard
National Standard
Compliance with
Compliance with
Laboratory 2nd
WHO Standard
Laboratory 1st
Test Method
Significance
(no/100ml)
(no/100ml)
(no/100ml)
0/100 ml
Samples
Samples
No
1 0 0 0 0/100 must not be ES ISO Yes Yes

ml detectable 9308-2
2 0 0 0 '' '' '' Yes Yes
3 0 0 0 '' '' '' Yes Yes
4 0 0 0 '' '' '' Yes Yes
5 0 0 0 '' '' '' Yes Yes
6 0 0 0 '' '' '' Yes Yes
7 0 0 0 '' '' '' Yes Yes
8 0 0 0 '' '' '' Yes Yes
9 0 0 0 '' '' '' Yes Yes
10 0 0 0 '' '' '' Yes Yes
11 0 0 0 '' '' '' Yes Yes
12 0 0 0 '' '' '' Yes Yes
13 0 0 0 '' '' ''
14 7 0 3.5 '' '' '' No No
15 2 0 1 '' '' '' No No
16 0 0 0 '' '' '' Yes Yes
17 0 0 0 '' '' '' Yes Yes
18 0 0 0 '' '' '' Yes Yes
19 0 0 0 '' '' '' Yes Yes
Health significance
20 0 0 0 '' '' '' Yes Yes
21 0 0 0 '' '' '' Yes Yes
22 0 0 0 '' '' '' Yes Yes
23 0 0 0 '' '' '' Yes Yes
24 0 0 0 '' '' '' Yes Yes
25 0 0 0 '' '' '' Yes Yes
A.R 0.9 0 0.45
A requirement level whose non-fulfillment would disqualify the water for drinking
and domestic use because of its probable hazard to health
From 25 total samples taken in the End User, E. coli was detected in two of them. E. coli has
direct health related risk. Especially the presence of E. coli in the End User has high health risk.
53
Because end user would have addressed all family. Even though, 92% of this research finding
was free from E. coli, WHO guide line and national standard ES ISO 9308-2 clearly indicated
that. Coli must not be detectable at any point of the water supply system from source
up to end house hold user. In the second-round sample test result, zero E. coli laboratory result
reading was found. But, in a few locations, the pressure main was eroded with flood and delicate
for contamination. Therefore, in general, the End User didn’t comply with WHO guide line and
national standard ES ISO 9308-2.
4.2 The Dukem Water supply WQI

The gathering, evaluation, and dissemination of data on water quality (WQ) is a crucial part of
managing water resources (WR). It is frequently necessary to communicate inherently technical
WQ data to a variety of audiences. When the general public is the target audience,
communicating WQ data can be particularly difficult.
Water quality data are not of significant relevance to the majority of participants, including the
general public. Instead of being concerned in the information that the WQ data gives, they are
more interested in the knowledge that arises from the information.
However, when the information is translated into the understanding that the pH is within
acceptable WQ parameters, stakeholders become interested in the data. If the data is further
processed to convey the idea that adhering to the WQ standards shows that the WQ is suitable
for aquatic life, the value of the data is significantly boosted. Therefore, WQ data must first be
transformed into information and then into knowledge in order to be communicated.
4.2.1 Calculation of Water Quality Index
The Canadian Water Quality Index 1.0 - Technical Report describes the WQI's precise
formulation in detail as follows:
Scope, F1
F1 is the scope metric. This reflects the degree of non-compliance with water quality standards
for the relevant time frame.
F1= ( Number
Total number of varibale )
of failed varibles
∗100
54
F2 for frequency
F2 is the frequency measurement unit. This indicates the proportion of individual tests
(sometimes known as "failed tests") that do not achieve their goals.
F2= ( Number
Total number oftests )
of failed tests
∗100
F3 for amplitude
F3 is used to measure amplitude. This reflects the degree to which the objectives of failed tests
were not met. Three steps are taken in the calculation:
Step 1: Determine the excursion. Excursion is the number of times a person's focus exceeds (or
falls short of, if the purpose is minimal) the goal.
When the test value must not exceed the objective:
Excursion i =¿) -1
When the test value must not fall below the objective:
Excursion i =¿) -1
The second step is the normalized sum of excursions. The total amount by which distinct tests
are out of compliance is known as the normalized sum of excursions, or nse. This is estimated by
adding up each test's deviations from its goals and then dividing by the total number of tests
(including successful and unsuccessful ones).
∑ Excursioni
nse = i−1
Number of test
F3 calculation in step three. The normalized total of the excursions from targets is scaled by an
asymptotic function to produce a range of F3 from 0 to 100.
F3= ( 0.01 nse+

nse
0.01 )
55
The WQI is then calculated as:
WQI = 100− ( √ F 12 + F 22 + F 32
21.732 )
The generated values are normalized to a range between 0 and 100 using the divisor 1.732,
where 0 denotes the "worst" water quality and 100 denotes the "best" water quality.
4.2.2 How the CCME WQI is influenced by varying measurements scales and ranges of
exceedances.
Analyses of water quality often use a variety of measurement scales. Pesticides, for example,
may have an impact on the ecosystem at ng•L-1 ranges, whilst other compounds have an impact
at mg•L-1 ranges. These data can be combined in the same multivariate index formulation by
using a guideline-oriented approach because the comparison of the measured data to its guideline
is the important metric.
This method also gets around the issue of parameter weighting. Further weighting is not
necessary because the relative toxicities of various contaminants are addressed during the
establishment of water quality criteria.
The F3 function's asymptotic nature also reduces the unwarranted influence that parameters with
extremely wide ranges in values (like bacteria counts) have compared to those with very tight
ranges (like pH).
Results below the analytical detection limit are a common issue when reporting on water quality
data. Values below detection can be utilized in the index as observations that are compared to the
guideline while being at the detection limit, avoiding all associated statistical issues. The
detection limit should be regarded as the guideline if it occurs to be greater than the
recommendation, as is frequently the case for cadmium, for instance.
56
Table 4.25: Physico-chemical parameter sample collected for WQI
Each value represents the average of three assessments.
Code pH EC chloride mg/l mg2+ mg/l ca2+ mg/l Total

Hardness mg/l
s1 7.68 385.7 49 31.3 86.3 121.7
s2 6.5 444.0 50.3 28.7 84.7 114.3
s3 4.4 353.7 61.0 20.7 104.3 122.0
s4 6.7 358.7 52.0 25.3 80.3 104.7
s5 6.7 466.0 55.7 24.7 89.7 109.0
s6 6.7 558.0 55.3 63.7 90.7 279.7
s7 6.9 605.7 52.0 34.3 102.0 232.3
s8 7.2 497.0 58.3 46.0 77.7 242.3
s9 6.3 1294.7 47.3 60.7 84.7 240.0
s10 6.9 329.7 58.0 28.0 75.0 141.0
s11 6.7 648.0 38.7 54.3 87.7 347.7
s12 6.5 371.3 38.7 47.3 129.3 176.3
s13 6.1 414.3 55.7 41.3 94.3 138.0
s14 6.9 413.7 42.7 33.7 87.3 122.0
s15 6.8 386.3 24.7 35.0 82.3 117.3
s16 6.9 491.0 33.0 36.7 97.3 134.7
s17 7.3 454.3 57.3 40.3 126.7 169.0
s18 6.7 389.7 51.0 39.3 69.7 110.7
s19 7.4 414.3 59.7 33.7 94.7 121.7
s20 7.2 395.7 78.0 48.7 130.0 182.0
s21 6.7 453.7 64.7 49.0 89.0 136.3
s22 6.8 357.7 66.7 31.0 90.3 122.3
s23 7.0 480.3 63.0 34.7 95.7 135.3
s24 7.1 478.0 39.3 42.7 102.7 145.3
s25 6.6 358.3 50.7 40.3 101.3 141.7
s26 7.0 1297.3 35.7 48.3 108.0 257.7
s27 7.6 379.3 27.7 58.3 99.0 159.7
s28 7.4 389.3 28.3 61.7 94.7 159.0
s29 6.9 436.0 45.0 42.3 108.0 152.3
s30 7.6 490.0 49.3 46.7 115.0 159.0
s31 7.4 490.0 41.0 43.3 124.0 167.3
s32 7.2 348.7 48.3 39.3 110.7 151.7
s33 6.7 378.0 52.3 39.3 103.0 148.3
s34 6.8 457.0 43.3 40.0 109.7 149.7
s35 7.4 373.3 56.7 41.7 114.0 152.0
s36 7.7 480.0 48.0 37.7 116.7 155.0
WHOG 6.5-8.5 400.0 250.0 50.0 75.0 300.0
57
Three metrics (EC, mg2+, and ca2+) out of a total of six parameters do not fulfill standards.
Therefore:
F1 = ( 36 )∗¿100 = 50
There were 59 tests that did not adhere to the rules, and there were 216 tests overall.
F2 = ( 216
59
)∗¿100 = 27.3
The excursions, their normalized sum, and F3 are calculated as follows:
Excursion = ( 444
400 )
−1 = 0.11 (calculated for every value that is higher than its upper limit)
nse =
∑ Excursioni
i−1
Number of test
37.37
¿ = 0.173
216
F3= ( 0.01 nse+

nse
0.01 )
= ( 0.01∗0.173+0.01
0.173
)
0.173
=
0.01173
=14.75
WQI = 100− ( √ F 12+ F 22+ F 32

21.732 )
100− ( √ 27.32 +502 +14.752
1.732 ) =89
According to the CCME WQI, the water quality in Dukem was good. This location's
environmental factors can be deemed favorable for the preservation of aquatic life.
58
4.3 WATER SANITATION PRACTICE AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH PUBLIC
HEALTH
Table 4.26: Disease Registration of two years in Dukem Health Center
Summary of - Disease Registration two years | Hospital, Health center, Health post, Clinic | Dukam Health Center
Code Disease 2014 2015 Total

ESV-ICD11 ME05.1 ESV-ICD11 ME05.1 - Diarrhoea 168 501 669
Male, < 1 year 20 72 92
Male, 1 - 4 years 36 126 162
Male, 5 - 14 years 15 16 31
Male, 15 - 29 years 12 37 49
Male, 30 - 64 years 3 3
Female, < 1 year 17 58 75
Female, 1 - 4 years 25 89 114
Female, 5 - 14 years 10 24 34
Female, 15 - 29 years 30 79 109
ESV-ICD11 1A07 ESV-ICD11 1A07 - Typhoid fever 103 559 662
Male, 5 - 14 years 7 15 22
Male, 15 - 29 years 26 237 263
Male, 30 - 64 years 19 34 53
Male, >=65 yr 12 12
Female, 5 - 14 years 13 24 37
Female, 15 - 29 years 25 212 237
Female, 30 - 64 years 13 15 28
Female, >=65 yr 10 10
ESV-ICD11 1A0Z - Bacterial intestinal
ESV-ICD11 1A0Z infections, unspecified 59 83 142
Male, < 1 year 2 2
Male, 1 - 4 years 4 11 15
Male, 5 - 14 years 7 4 11
Male, 15 - 29 years 3 7 10
Male, 30 - 64 years 11 6 17
Male, >=65 yr 1 2 3
Female, < 1 year 8 8
Female, 1 - 4 years 4 9 13
Female, 5 - 14 years 5 7 12
Female, 15 - 29 years 19 21 40
Female, 30 - 64 years 5 6 11
59
Source (Dukem Health Office)
Everyone's health can be improved by using water sanitation practices properly. Improved water
sanitation, especially hand washing at key times, has been empirically shown to lower by one
third the likelihood that people would contract diseases like diarrhea, which are frequently
brought on by a lack of or incorrect water sanitation practices. Additionally, a sufficient supply
of clean water combined with good water sanitation can cut diarrhea by one fifth and by three
quarters.
A better water supply also cuts down on the time and effort needed to collect water, especially
for women and girls. People who drink clean water and wash their hands frequently will save
money since they won't have to pay for the diseases' medical expenses. Additionally, they will
be able to attend class or work on the days they would have been absent.
4.3.1. Water Quality and sanitation practice

4.3.2 Safe collection, handling and storage of water
Water that is safe to drink is typically clean and clear, but just because it is transparent does not
guarantee that it is safe. When we consume certain poisons and microorganisms, we risk
contracting diseases that we cannot see. The new water sources built as part of the initiative will
have their water quality tested to ensure that they are delivering safe water for drinking. Water
that is safe at a public tap or well needs to be taken care of in order to maintain it safe from the
source to the consumer's mouth.
Water must be collected and stored in clean containers, and anything used in the containers to
stop water from spilling must likewise be clean. To prevent dirt or dust from getting into any
water held in the house, it must be covered. When pouring water for drinking, care must be taken
to prevent the introduction of dirt. If a scoop is used to remove water for drinking from a large
container, it should be kept clean and off the ground. Additionally, the person collecting the
water should have clean hands and ideally not touch the water with them.
Everyone should always wash their hands after going to the bathroom and before handling any
food. Although the majority of individuals do not wash their hands frequently enough, hand
washing should be made as simple as possible by keeping hand washing water and the cleaning
agent outside the kitchen or eating area or near the restroom.
60
Table 4.27: Result of Sanitary Inspection of End User
Category (Yes / No
No Household (End User) (n=25) Yes NO
1 Is the water tap in your compound safeguarded (fenced) properly? 56% (n= 14) 44% (n=11 )
Do you have a practice of washing hands with or without soap before and
2 after having a meal as a family? 48% (n= 12) 52 (n=52)
Do you think the consumption of unclean water from your tap has ever
3 caused you diarrheal diseases? 60% (n= 15) 40% (n= 10)
4 Is the water supply system to your tap flows spontaneously or not? 36% (n=9) 64% (n= 16)
5 Do you have a practice of storing water for later use as a household? 68% (n= 17) 32% ( n= 8)
6 Is the storage utility used in your household safe to store the water? 56% (n = 14) 44% (n = 11)
7 Are there any frequent leaks in the household pipe? 72% ( n = 18) 28% ( n = 7)
8 Is there the water tap area clean and good looking? 64% ( n = 16) 36% ( n = 9)
9 Do you use the stored water by boiling or not for drinking purpose? 12% ( n = 3) 88% ( n = 22)
10 Is the household’s waste disposal far enough from the tap area? 68% ( n= 17) 32% ( n= 8)
4.4. Health Benefits Water Sanitation practices

It is evident that proper and adequate water sanitation from its very production, storage,
distributions and along making its way to the end user, have a directly proportionality with the
health of the end user. The better the sanitation, the better the health. The poorer the water
sanitation the worsen the health it would be. Having saying so, let’s see some of the health
benefits of an applied water sanitation practices among many others.
The major benefit goes to improved water quality which could be depicted in its good odor, color
and look of water. For its true that, the more the water is good in odor, look clean, the better it is
healthy and safer to be drunk. This benefit can go to even for general cleanliness and for other in
compound activities in the garden.
The other benefit that could not be diminished would be the fact that, it Saves time and energy in
collection. The better the water sanitation at the production as well as in its storage and its
distribution, the better it saves time and energy of the end user to go through extensive sanitation
practices.
61
5. CONCLUSION AND RECCOMENDATION
5.1 Conclusion
To summarize, the overall goal of this study was to assess the current water services that these
source (Borehole) provide to end user in order to determine the quality of drinking water supply
schemes at the source, reservoir and end user point. A total of 108 water samples were collected
from a source, reservoir and a representative end user in Dukem town for the characterization
and analysis of drinking water quality parameters. In order to determine a safe and acceptable
level of drinking water for consumers, the water quality parameters were compared to the WHO
allowable limit and the Ethiopian recommended values.
The main physco-chemical parameters considered for investigation, PH, electrical conductivity,
Magnesium, Calcium, chloride, total hardness. Bacteriological tests such as E-coliforms and total
coliforms were analyzed.
The result indication was not chlorination in the treatment system contamination occurs more at
the end user. In addition, the presence of water-quality indicator microorganisms could be
connected to poor waste disposal and water-source management. As a result, an effective waste
disposal system and a catchment area management system are necessary surrounding water
sources.
All water samples taken from source , reservoir and End User taps, on the other hand, were not
all infected with EC, showing that contamination occurs both at the source and throughout the
end user. In addition, the presence of water-quality indicator microorganisms could be connected
to poor waste disposal and water-source management. As a result, an effective waste disposal
system and a catchment area management system are necessary surrounding water sources.
The total coliform group has been chosen as the main indicator bacteria for disease-causing
organisms in drinking water. It is a key determinant of water's appropriateness for human
consumption. If coliforms are found in significant numbers in water, there is a good chance that
additional dangerous bacteria or organisms are present. The World Health Organization (WHO)
62
and Ethiopian drinking water recommendations demand it. Regular drinking water quality
examinations of the source, primary distribution tanks, end user and pipes should be used to
guarantee that the water is fit for human use. The current study was confined to analyzing
bacteriological and physical chemical parameters from the source of the water supply system to
end user tap connections. Additional water-quality parameters, such as heavy metals and their
sources and end user should also be researched further. As a result of human activities, the
decline in water quality in end user is greater than the decline at the source.
The results of bacteriological analyzes have shown that all sample sources (wells) of all 10 water
systems and one reservoir have 0/100 ml total coliforms (TC) at source and reservoir level.
However, the bacteriological results of end-user water samples range from 0 TC/100mL
(TNTC), mainly due to end-user poor water management, lack of application of chemical
treatment and poor sanitation practices in most communities. And the results of the Escherichia
Coli analyzes have shown that all sample wells (wells) of all 10 water systems and one reservoir
contain 0/100 ml Escherichia Coli at the well and reservoir level. However, the Escherichia Coli
end-user water sample result was recorded at s14 and s15 and the remaining samples are
0/100mL.
The current study revealed that a few of the water samples look contaminated and hence fast and
reliable tools are required to regularly inspect the water samples before being distributed to the
end users. And the water distribution system needs checking up the status within same time in
Dukem town only focus on quality rather than quantity.
63
5.2. Recommendations
Bacteriological testing method and physicochemical testing on time at source and end user could
be a good option to reduce water born disease. In developed communities the preferred
technology is a piped distribution system with indoor end user taps, but this is also the most
expensive. Until such a solution can be made a reality for everyone more cost effective solutions
need to be employed; water access in the form of communal taps are likely intermediate
solutions. The myriad different waterborne pathogens, and removal requirements associated with
each, suggests that an effective system for communities that can only afford to have communal
water collection points would be to adopt a two-tiered approach. Part one would be to provide an
improved well and Reservoir, to preserve source water quality and minimize contamination.
Chemical disinfection at End of User, to eliminate many common waterborne pathogens
introduced from collection, transport, storage, and use. Sustainable access to safe drinking water
needs to include increased availability of consistent water supplies and a means of ensuring that
water is safe up to the time it is consumed (Nath, et al. 2006)
The current study is restricted to a small number of physico-chemical parameters and a low
sampling frequency. As a result, additional water quality parameters such as fluoride and heavy
metals should be sampled and analyzed all year.
The proper implementation and sufficient chlorine disinfection of water are critical. Water
supplies should be properly sanitized, managed, monitored, and maintained on a regular basis.
The surroundings of some Source (boreholes) are subject to pollution due to the lack of a flood
control channel and a suitable fence. Therefore, flood protection and a fence must be erected.
The water supply does not have a chlorination system; therefore, the entire water supply system
must be disinfected at regular intervals (periodic shock chlorination) and after disinfection, the
residual chlorine in the distribution line should be checked by the laboratory.
64
To ensure that the water is suitable for human use, regular drinking water quality assessments
from the source, reservoirs, distribution systems, and piping lines should be used.
To maintain water quality and protect water sources, effective drinking water system
management and catchment rehabilitation should be addressed.
To prevent pipeline breakage and exposure in the system (may be the means for coliforms),
integrated and programmed sectorial actions are required for water distribution system
maintenance.
Furthermore, researcher should be conducted on the trend, also including on other missed
parameters in this research and Deteriorate status of Dukem drinking water supply and it should
be search for multiple barriers to avoid contamination.
65
REFERENCE
Abayneh, A. (2004). the carter center, the Ethiopia minister of health and the Ethiopian minister
of education. collaboration with the Ethiopia public health trainin. Hawassa University in
collaboration with the Ethiopia public health training initiatives,.
Abayneh, A. (2004). Water Supply II.
Achary, k., Ghosh, s., Khatua, S., & Mitra, P. (2016). Pharmacognostic standardization and
antioxidant capacity of an edible mushroom Laetiporus sulphureus. Journal für
Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit.
Addendum, E. (2017). Guidelines for drinking-water quality. (F. Edition, Ed.) WHO Guidelines.
ADWG. (1996). Australian Drinking Water Guidelines. National Health and Medical Research
Council and the Agriculture and Resource Management .
Annachhatre. (2006). Water quality and wastewater management. Environmental Management

Tools: A Training Manual, 125-129.
B, K. (2008). Assessment of physico-chemical and Bacteriological Quality of Drinking Water in

the Central Rift valley System, Ziway Town Oromia Region, Ethiopia. . Assessment of
physico-chemical and Bacteriological Quality of Drinking Water.
Birhanu, M. (.-c.-c. (2007). Assessment of Physico-chemical and Microbiological Quality of

Drinking Water at Sources and House hold in Selected Communities . ssessment of
Physico-chemical and Microbiological Quality of Drinking Water.
Brock, M., & A. (1979). The ecology of salt lake hydrophytes. the synecology of saline
ecosystems and the autecology of the genus Ruppia L. in the south-east of South
Australia.
D.Seib, M. (2011). Assessing Drinking Water Quality at Source and Point-Of-Use. Assessing
Drinking Water Quality at Source and Point-Of-Use.
Desta, k. (2009). ysico- Chemical and Bacteriological Quality Assessment of Drinking Water
from Source to Households Distribution point In Debrezeit Town, Ethiopi.
Fewtrell, L. P.-Ü. (2007). Water, sanitation and hygiene. . World Health Organization, Geneva.
World Health Organization.
66
Geberyohannes. ( 2020). Status of water quality in municipaly tap drinking water supply in
selected slum areas of addis ababa(doctoral dissertation. Research.
Goss, M., & Richards, C. (2008). Development of a risk-based index for source water protection
planning, which supports the reduction of pathogens from agricultural activity entering
water resources. Journal of environmental management.
GTZ. (1995). Environmental Hand Book Volume I: Cross Sectoral Planning. Environmental
Hand Book Volume I: Cross Sectoral Planning, Infrastructure.
Haldar, D., Das, P., & Halder, G. (2016). Assessment of water quality of Damodar River in
South Bengal region of India by Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment (CCME)
Water Quality Index. esalination and Water Treatment.
Harkins, R. D. (1974). An objective water quality index. x. Journal (Water Pollution Control
Federation.
Health, M. o. ( 2011). National Drinking Water Quality Monitoring and Surveillance Strategy in
Addis Ababa. Monitoring and Surveillance Strategy in Addis Abab.
Jackson, T. L. (2013). Parameterization of urban characteristics for global climate modeling. In

Geography of Climate Change .
Jenkins, M. W. (1999). Sanitation promotion in developing countries. Why the latrines of Benin
are few and far between.
Johns, N. a. (2006). Implementation, critical factors and challenges to scale-up of household

drinking water treatment and safe storage systems.
K, G. (2008). Physico-chemical and bacteriological drinking water quality assessment of Bahir

Dar town water supply from source to yard connection. ysico-chemical and
bacteriological drinking water quality assessment.
Kahlon, S. K., & kahlon, k. s. (2018). Impact of heavy metals and nanoparticles on aquatic biota.
Environmental chemistry letters.
kassa, D. (2009). physicochemical and bacteriological Quality assessment of drinking water
From source to households distribution Point in Debrezeit town.
Kostic, A. Z., Pantelic, N. D., Kaluderovic, L. M., & Jonas. (2016). Physicochemical properties
of waters in southern Banat (Serbia). potential leaching of some trace elements from
ground and human healt.
M, A. (2006). Assessment of Bacteriological Quality of Drinking Water Supply at the Sources

and Point-of–Use at Home in Worebabo District, South Wollo. .
67
Mellmann, A., Bielaszewska, M., Zimmerhackl, L. B., Prager, R., Harmsen, D., Tschape, H., &
Karch, H. (2005). Enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli in human infection: in vivo
evolution of a bacterial pathogen. Clinical infectious diseas.
Mengesha, H. G. ((2017). Cause of neonatal deaths in Northern Ethiopia: a prospective cohort

study. BMC public health, .
Mengstayehu, B. (2007). Assessment of Physico-chemical Microbiological Quality of Rural

Drinking Water Supply at the Sources and Selected Communities of Akaki-Kalit Sub-
City, Addis Ababa City Administration.
Meseret. (2018). Assessment of Physico-Chemical and Bacteriological Quality of Drinking

Water at the Source, Storage, Point-of-Use,.
Milkiyas Tabor, M. K. (2011). Bacteriological and Physicochemical Quality of Drinking Water

and Hygiene and Sanitation Practices of The Consumers In Bahirdar City, Ethiopia.
Mont, L., Tamborero, D., Elosua, R., Molina, l., Coll-Vinent, B., Sitges, M., & Brugada, J.
(2008). Physical activity, height, and left atrial size are independent risk factors for lone
atrial fibrillation in middle-aged healthy individuals.
Muhammad, M. S. (2013). Assessment of Drinking Water Quality and its impact on Residents
Health in Bahawalpur City. International Jornal of Humanities and Social Scienc. (N.
vol.3,.
Neupane, R. P., Sharma, K. R., & Thapa, G. B. (2002). Adoption of agroforestry in the hills of
Nepal. Agricultural systems.
Scherer, J. ( 2006).
Singh, J., & Kaur, A. (2015). Vermicompost as a strong buffer and natural adsorbent for
reducing transition metals, BOD, COD from industrial effluent. Ecological Engineering.
Singh, M., Govindarajan, R., Nath, V., Rawat, A., & Mehrotra, S. (2006). Antimicrobial, wound
healing and antioxidant activity of Plagiochasma appendiculatum Lehm. Journal of
Ethnopharmacology.
Tebutt, T. H. (1983). Principles of quality control. Pergalmon, England,.
Trevett, A. F., Carter, R. C., & Tyrrel, S. F. (2005). The importance of domestic water quality
management in the context of faecal–oral disease transmission. Journal of water and
health.
UNICEF. (2018). . Assessment of facility readiness for implementing the WHO/UNICEF

standards for improving quality of maternal and newborn care in health facilities.
68
WHO. (1996). International Program on Chemical Safety. Geneva:. Guidelines for Drinking-
Water Quality.
WHO. (2002). Emerging and epidemic-prone diseases. In: Global Defence Against the
Infectious Disease Threat. World Health Organization, 4th edn.
WHO. (2004). Guideline for Drinking Water Quality.
WHO. (2018). sanitation and hygiene strategy update.
Wright, J. (2004). Household drinking water in developing countries: - a systematic reviews of

microbiological contamination between source and point-of use.
69
APPENDICES A
I. Questionnaire
1. Is the water tap in your compound safeguarded (fenced) properly?

Yes □ No □
2. Do you have a practice of washing hands with or without soap before and after having a
meal as a family?
Yes □ No □
3. Do you think the consumption of unclean water from your tap has ever caused you
diarrheal diseases?
Yes □ No □
4. Is the water supply system to your tap flows spontaneously or not?
Yes □ No □
5. Do you have a practice of storing water for later use as a household?
Yes □ No □
6. Is the storage utility used in your household safe to store the water?
Yes □ No □
7. Are there any frequent leaks in the household pipe?
Yes □ No □
8. Is there the water tap area clean and good looking?
Yes □ No □
9. Do you use the stored water by boiling or not for drinking purpose?
Yes □ No □
10. Is the household’s waste disposal far enough from the tap area?
Yes □ No □
70
APPENDICES B
HQ440d Multi
71

Thesis Final After Comment Daju.3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thesis Final After Comment Daju.3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thesis Final After Comment Daju.3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ASSESSMENT OF DRINKING WATER QUALITY DETERIORATION FROM SOURCE

TO THE END USER, THE CASE OF DUKEM TOWN, ETHIOPIA.

DEJENE DIRIBA SENBETA

The Department of Water Resources Engineering

School of Civil Engineering and Architecture

Office of Graduate Studies

Adama Science and Technology University

Dejene Diriba Senbeta

Advisor: Keredin Temam (PhD)

The Department of Water Resource Engineering

School of Civil Engineering and Architecture

Office of Graduate Studies

Adama Science and Technology University

Dejene Diriba ______________________ _______________

Keredin Temam (PhD) ______________________

Table 1: classification of water based on hardness........................................................................10

Figure 3.1: Dukem Town's map (source from GIS)......................................................................17

Figure 3.2: Location of sample points...........................................................................................19

Figure 4.1 : PH Spatial Map for Borehole ………………………………………………… . 27

Figure 4.2 : PH Spatial Map for End use..................................................................................29

Figure 4.3: Electrical Conductivity Spatial Map for End use...................................................31

Figure 4.4 : Electrical Conductivity Spatial Map for Borehole................................................33

Figure 4.5 : Chloride Spatial Map end use...............................................................................35

Figure 4.6 : Chloride Spatial Map for Borehole.......................................................................37

Figure 4.7 : Calcium Spatial Map for end use..........................................................................39

Figure 4.8 : Calcium Spatial Map for Borehole........................................................................41

Figure 4.9 : Magnesium Spatial Map for end use.....................................................................43

Figure 4.10 : Magnesium Spatial Map for Borehole.................................................................45

Figure 4.11 : Total hardness Spatial Map for Borehole.............................................................47

APHA American Public Health Association

CCME Canadian Council Ministers of the Environment

DWAF Department of Water Affairs and Forestry

ES ISO Ethiopia Standard International Standard Organization

FDRE Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia

GIS Geographical Information System

GPS Global Positioning System

MCL Maximum Contaminant Level

MoWRD Ministry of Water Resource Development

MS EXCEL Microsoft Excel

NTU Nephelomethic Turbidity Unit

UNEP United Nations Environmental Program

UNICEF United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund

RADWQ Rapid Assessment of Drinking Water Quality

WASH Water, Sanitation and Hygiene.

WHO World Health Organization

1.3.2 Specific objectives the study

2. To evaluate water quality index in the study area.

3. To identify the main contaminants in the study area.

1.4 Research Question

2. How water quality index in the study area?

3. How do identify the main contaminants in the study area?

1.5 Significance of the Study

1.6 Scope of the Study

1.7 Limitation the study

2.2 Water Quality Analysis

2.3 WHO Drinking Water Quality standards

2.4 Ethiopian Drinking Water Quality Standards

2.5 Water Quality Parameters

2.5.1.2 Electrical Conductivity (EC)

Dejene Diriba ________ _