LifeStraw Community

Safe Water for Schools, Clinics and Institutions

780 million
People living without access to safe drinking water
The Global Drinking Water Crisis
780 million
people without access to safe drinking
water
1


4 billion
annual cases of diarrheal illness
2


1.5 million
lives lost each year from diarrhea
3


443 million
school days lost each year from water-
related illness
4


2 billion
annual cases of intestinal worms
5


5,000 children
die daily from disease related to poor water
and sanitation
5



Africa will not meet the MDG drinking water target
Only 61%
1

have access to improved drinking water sources


In Africa,
The rest of the World:

over 90%
1

Only 51% of schools in UNICEF WASH priority countries (which
includes most of Sub Saharan Africa) have access to an adequate
water source.
6



The Drinking Water Crisis in Schools
Since it is not yet possible to measure
water quality globally, dimensions
of safety, reliability and
sustainability are not reflected in
the proxy indicator used to track
progress towards the MDG target. As
a result, it is likely that the number of
people using improved water sources
is an overestimate of the actual
number of people using safe water
supplies.
1


Improved water does not necessarily mean safe water
- UNICEF & WHO, 2012
LifeStraw Community delivers microbiologically safe water
Provides an estimated lifetime filtration capacity
of 100,000 litres
Eliminates the need for repeat interventions
Uses no chemicals, thus leaves no bad taste or
odour in purified water
Ensures convenient access to purified water via
the 4 tap, 25 litre built-in safe storage container
Does not require electrical power or batteries
WHO and EPA compliant
LifeStraw Community is a point-of-use
microbiological water purifier intended for
routine use in community, educational and
institutional settings.

Top and bottom container capacity: 25L each
Initial filtration rate 10L/h
Expected lifetime 100,000L or 3 years
(based on lab conditions)
LifeStraw Community description
LifeStraw Community Technology meets the worlds most rigorous standards for microbiological
performance in household water treatment.

Meets the criteria of the highly protective category for microbiological performance specifications as defined
in WHOs 2011 guidelines Evaluating Household Water Treatment Options: Health-based Targets and
Microbiological Performance Options
1

Complies with the US Environmental Protection Agencys 1987 Guide Standard and Protocol for Testing
Microbiological Water Purifiers
2

Removes
3
:













1 see http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/2011/household_water/en/index.html
2 see http://www.biovir.com/Images/pdf061.pdf
3 see http://www.iwanagreen.com/web3/pdf/Reportlifestraw.pdf for laboratory report Assessment of the LifeStraw Family Unit using the World Health Organization Guidelines for
Evaluating Household Water Treatment Options: Health-based Targets and Performance Specifications. Jaime Naranjo, B.S. and Charles P. Gerba, Ph D. University of Arizona, USA, 2011.
Microbiological Performance
a minimum of 99.9999% of bacteria (>6 Log
10
reduction)
a minimum of 99.999% of viruses (>5 Log
10
reduction)
a minimum of 99.99% of protozoan cysts (>4 Log
10
reduction)
turbidity by filtering particles of approximately 0.02 microns
Evaluating household water treatment options: health-based targets
and microbiological performance options (WHO, 2011)
LifeStraw Performance
6 5 4
WHO 2011 Guidelines
LifeStraw Technology: Ultrafiltration
Most commonly occurring pathogens in surface water
Protozoa Size/m Bacteria Size/m Viruses Size/m
Cryptosporidium 5 E.coli 0.50 Enterovirus 0.032
Giardia lamblia 7 Salmonella 1.00 Norwalkvirus 0.032
Entamoeba 10 Vibrio cholera 0.45 Adenovirus 0.072
Shigella 0.50 Rotavirus 0.072
Pseudomonas aer. 0.50
Campylobacter 0.50
Ultra-filtration Pore Size 0.020 m (micron)
Protozoa Bacteria Viruses
>Log 4 (99.99%) >Log 6 (99.9999%) > log 5 (99.999%)
LifeStraw Community Field Trial

Kakamega, Kenya
October-February 2013

LifeStraw Community Field Trial
Goal: assess use and acceptability in the field

Primary objectives:
External validation of the filter: assess the LSC physical status and its durability
during field use
Assess pre-intervention drinking water sources and daily water needs
Assess the ability of users to correctly operate the LSC
Assess adherence to and understanding of the instructions on the use of LSC
Identify the parameters which maximize use
At the end-point survey (i.e. post-intervention evaluation) and focus group ,
assess use, acceptability of the LSC

Secondary objectives:
Get a good understanding of the product positioning in the school/clinics, its
access by the children/patients
Get a good understanding of the demand for purified water within the
school/clinic (L/capita or child/patient)
School Name Number of Children Number of
Units
Ichina Primary 400 4
Kakamega Muslim 400 3
Chief Mustembi 600 4
Site Selection: Schools
Clinic Name Avg patients per
day
Number of Units
Administration Police Clinic 100 1
Approved Health Clinic 80 1
Elweselo Health Clinic 50 1
Emusanda Health Center 40 1
Site Selection: Clinics







Result Indicator
100% Had filtered water for use that day
100% Could demonstrate proper backwashing
88% Sharing water with people outside the school
Other
Comments
Importance of finding proper tables and settings in
the shade
Importance at least one f/u educational visit in
schools
Importance of identifying structure of responsibility
for every day use and maintenance in the schools
Potential for utilizing school health clubs for
maintaining behavior and carrying over
responsibilities year to year
Preliminary Findings:
Acceptability and Behavior Change in Schools
Result Indicator
98% Had filtered water for use that day
100% Could demonstrate proper backwashing
93% Share water with others outside the clinic
Other
Comments
Clinics are choosing to include within an ORS
corner or add pre-mixed ORS on the same table.
Some clinics have also placed directly next to hand
washing stations
Also positioning near pharmacy has encouraged
patients to take first course of treatment on site
with safe water
Clinical structure allows for easy designation of
person or peoples responsibly for use and
maintenance.
Preliminary Findings:
Acceptability and Behavior Change in Clinics
Preliminary Results: Filter Performance
Number of
refills per day
Quantity
filtered per
day
Schools 3 times 75L/ day
Clinics 1-2 times 37L/day

Use and longevity








Filtration-rate
9.9L/h on average
Contact Information
Washington DC: Nairobi:

Benjamin Power Alexandre Doyen
bep@vestergaard-frandsen.com AD@vestergaard-frandsen.com

Tara Lundy Steve Otieno
tal@vestergaard-frandsen.com SO@vestergaard-frandsen.com
References
1. UNICEF and World Health Organization (2012). Progress on Drinking Water and
Sanitation: 2012 Update. WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply
and Sanitation.
2. World Health Organization (WHO). Combating waterborne disease at the household
level. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2007.
3. UNICEF & WHO (2009). Diarhhoea: Why children are still dying and what can be done.
4. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2006). Human Development
Report 2006, Beyond Scarcity: Power, poverty and the global water crisis.
5. United Nations Development Program, Water Supply and Sanitation,
http://www.undp.org/water/priorityareas/supply.html.
6. UNICEF (2010) WASH Annual Report.
http://www.unicef.org/wash/files/UNICEF_WASH_2010_Annual_Report_15_06_2011_Fi
nal.pdf