Revision history [back]

Palintest have comprehensive range of testing equipment for both water and soil, which includes photometers that can detect organophosphates and heavy metals. I have used the 7100 in field conditions and it is versatile, fairly easy to use and is robust. The link to their product range is below.

https://www.palintest.com/products.aspx

Unfortunately I cannot provide an exhaustive list of what you should test for, the list is long. Normal practice in the field is to use the Delagua or the Wagtech (they both carry out the same test) to test for the presence of e.coli and to use their presence as an indication of faecal contamination. As such the microbiological test kits do not test for specific pathogens, and it is assumed that if e.coli are not present then there is no faecal contamination and that the water is safe. This is one of the reasons why chlorination is such a popular form of water treatment, you can test for a residual chlorine level and if it is between 0.2 to 0.5 mg/l after 30 minutes of contact time it can be assumed that the water is safe. Or at least free from biological contamination (see the Sphere Standards and the WHO Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality

https://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/gdwq3rev/en/

The later provides an extensive list of organic and non-organic chemicals found in water and provides summary sheets on possible health effects and recommended permissable concentrations. This assumption is based on the idea that bacteria are responsible for the majority of outbreaks of diarroheal diseases in water supply. Evidence is emerging that viruses such as rotavirus may be as common a cause of illness as bacteria, but unfortunately there is not a simple test available for their detection under field conditions, the same is true of protozoa.

Given the large numbers of potential pathogens and contaminants I would recommend that chlorination be routinely practiced and the water tested regularly for a residual chlorine level. Trying to test exhaustively is most likely futile, and should probably be based on the available epidemiology from the area.

Regards

John

Palintest have comprehensive range of testing equipment for both water and soil, which includes photometers that can detect organophosphates and heavy metals. I have used the 7100 in field conditions and it is versatile, fairly easy to use and is robust. The link to their product range is below.

https://www.palintest.com/products.aspx

Unfortunately I cannot provide an exhaustive list of what you should test for, the list is long. Normal practice in the field is to use the Delagua or the Wagtech (they both carry out the same test) to test for the presence of e.coli and to use their presence as an indication of faecal contamination. As such the microbiological test kits do not test for specific pathogens, and it is assumed that if e.coli are not present then there is no faecal contamination and that the water is safe. This is one of the reasons why chlorination is such a popular form of water treatment, you can test for a residual chlorine level and if it is between 0.2 to 0.5 mg/l after 30 minutes of contact time it can be assumed that the water is safe. Or at least free from biological contamination (see the Sphere Standards and the WHO Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality

https://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/gdwq3rev/en/

The later provides an extensive list of organic and non-organic chemicals found in water and provides summary sheets on possible health effects and recommended permissable concentrations. This assumption is based on the idea that bacteria are responsible for the majority of outbreaks of diarroheal diseases in water supply. Evidence is emerging that viruses such as rotavirus may be as common a cause of illness as bacteria, but unfortunately there is not a simple test available for their detection under field conditions, the same is true of protozoa.

Given the large numbers of potential pathogens and contaminants I would recommend that chlorination be routinely practiced and the water tested regularly for a residual chlorine level. Trying to test exhaustively is most likely futile, and should probably be based on the available epidemiology from the area.

Regards

John

Palintest have comprehensive range of testing equipment for both water and soil, which includes photometers that can detect organophosphates and heavy metals. I have used the 7100 in field conditions and it is versatile, fairly easy to use and is robust. The link to their product range is below.

https://www.palintest.com/products.aspx

Unfortunately I cannot provide an exhaustive list of what you should test for, the list is long. Normal practice in the field is to use the Delagua or the Wagtech (they both carry out the same test) to test for the presence of e.coli and to use their presence as an indication of faecal contamination. As such the microbiological test kits do not test for specific pathogens, and it is assumed that if e.coli are not present then there is no faecal contamination and that the water is safe. This is one of the reasons why chlorination is such a popular form of water treatment, you can test for a residual chlorine level and if it is between 0.2 to 0.5 mg/l after 30 minutes of contact time it can be assumed that the water is safe. Or at least free from biological contamination (see the Sphere Standards and the WHO Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality

https://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/gdwq3rev/en/

https://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/gdwq3rev/en/ The later provides an extensive list of organic and non-organic chemicals found in water and provides summary sheets on possible health effects and recommended permissable concentrations. This assumption is based on the idea that bacteria are responsible for the majority of outbreaks of diarroheal diseases in water supply. Evidence is emerging that viruses such as rotavirus may be as common a cause of illness as bacteria, but unfortunately there is not a simple test available for their detection under field conditions, the same is true of protozoa.

Given the large numbers of potential pathogens and contaminants I would recommend that chlorination be routinely practiced and the water tested regularly for a residual chlorine level. Trying to test exhaustively is most likely futile, and should probably be based on the available epidemiology from the area.

Regards

John

Palintest have comprehensive range of testing equipment for both water and soil, which includes photometers that can detect organophosphates and heavy metals. I have used the 7100 in field conditions and it is versatile, fairly easy to use and is robust. The link to their product range is below.

https://www.palintest.com/products.aspx

Unfortunately I cannot provide an exhaustive list of what you should test for, the list is long. Normal practice in the field is to use the Delagua or the Wagtech (they both carry out the same test) to test for the presence of e.coli and to use their presence as an indication of faecal contamination. As such the microbiological test kits do not test for specific pathogens, and it is assumed that if e.coli are not present then there is no faecal contamination and that the water is safe. This is one of the reasons why chlorination is such a popular form of water treatment, you can test for a residual chlorine level and if it is between 0.2 to 0.5 mg/l after 30 minutes of contact time it can be assumed that the water is safe. Or at least free from biological contamination (see the Sphere Standards and the WHO Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality

https://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/gdwq3rev/en/

The later provides an extensive list of organic and non-organic chemicals found in water and provides summary sheets on possible health effects and recommended permissable concentrations. This assumption is based on the idea that bacteria are responsible for the majority of outbreaks of diarroheal diseases in water supply. Evidence is emerging that viruses such as rotavirus may be as common a cause of illness as bacteria, but unfortunately there is not a simple test available for their detection under field conditions, the same is true of protozoa.

Given the large numbers of potential pathogens and contaminants I would recommend that chlorination be routinely practiced and the water tested regularly for a residual chlorine level. Trying to test exhaustively is most likely futile, and should probably be based on the available epidemiology from the area.

Regards

John

Palintest have comprehensive range of testing equipment for both water and soil, which includes photometers that can detect organophosphates and heavy metals. I have used the 7100 in field conditions and it is versatile, fairly easy to use and is robust. The link to their product range is below.

https://www.palintest.com/products.aspx

Unfortunately I cannot provide an exhaustive list of what you should test for, the list is long. Normal practice in the field is to use the Delagua or the Wagtech (they both carry out the same test) to test for the presence of e.coli and to use their presence as an indication of faecal contamination. As such the microbiological test kits do not test for specific pathogens, and it is assumed that if e.coli are not present then there is no faecal contamination and that the water is safe. This is one of the reasons why chlorination is such a popular form of water treatment, you can test for a residual chlorine level and if it is between 0.2 to 0.5 mg/l after 30 minutes of contact time it can be assumed that the water is safe. Or at least free from biological contamination (see the Sphere Standards and the WHO Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality

https://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/gdwq3rev/en/ https://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/gdwq3rev/en/

The later provides an extensive list of organic and non-organic chemicals found in water and provides summary sheets on possible health effects and recommended permissable concentrations. This assumption is based on the idea that bacteria are responsible for the majority of outbreaks of diarroheal diseases in water supply. Evidence is emerging that viruses such as rotavirus may be as common a cause of illness as bacteria, but unfortunately there is not a simple test available for their detection under field conditions, the same is true of protozoa.

Given the large numbers of potential pathogens and contaminants I would recommend that chlorination be routinely practiced and the water tested regularly for a residual chlorine level. Trying to test exhaustively is most likely futile, and should probably be based on the available epidemiology from the area.

Regards

John

Palintest have comprehensive range of testing equipment for both water and soil, which includes photometers that can detect organophosphates and heavy metals. I have used the 7100 in field conditions and it is versatile, fairly easy to use and is robust. The link to their product range is below.

https://www.palintest.com/products.aspx

Unfortunately I cannot provide an exhaustive list of what you should test for, the list is long. Normal practice in the field is to use the Delagua or the Wagtech (they both carry out the same test) to test for the presence of e.coli and to use their presence as an indication of faecal contamination. As such the microbiological test kits do not test for specific pathogens, and it is assumed that if e.coli are not present then there is no faecal contamination and that the water is safe. This is one of the reasons why chlorination is such a popular form of water treatment, you can test for a residual chlorine level and if it is between 0.2 to 0.5 mg/l after 30 minutes of contact time it can be assumed that the water is safe. Or at least free from biological contamination (see the Sphere Standards and the WHO Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality

https://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/gdwq3rev/en/ https://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/guidelines/en/

The later latter provides an extensive list of organic and non-organic chemicals found in water and provides summary sheets on possible health effects and recommended permissable concentrations. This assumption is based on the idea that bacteria are responsible for the majority of outbreaks of diarroheal diseases in water supply. Evidence is emerging that viruses such as rotavirus may be as common a cause of illness as bacteria, but unfortunately there is not a simple test available for their detection under field conditions, the same is true of protozoa.

Given the large numbers of potential pathogens and contaminants I would recommend that chlorination be routinely practiced and the water tested regularly for a residual chlorine level. Trying to test exhaustively is most likely futile, and should probably be based on the available epidemiology from the area.

Regards

John