Skip to main content
. 2020 Mar 25;17(7):2172. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17072172

Table 1.

Household survey respondents’ characteristics, water sources and microbial quality.

Variables Surkhet (%) Accham (%) Dailekh (%) Kailali (%) Jajarkot (%) Total (%)
Number of household survey respondents 93 (18) 103 (20) 113 (22) 129 (25) 74 (14) 512 (100)
Education (total: 512 respondents)
No education 41 (8) 60 (12) 67 (13) 44 (9) 43 (8) 255 (50)
Primary 24 (5) 22 ( 4) 21 (4) 40 (10) 12 (2) 119 (23)
Secondary 22 (4) 16 (3) 15 (3) 29 (6) 9 (2) 91 (18)
College or higher 6 (1) 5 (1) 10 (4) 16 (3) 10 (2) 47 (9)
Primary water sources (512 respondents)
Tap water (either in own house or community tap) 57 (11) 98 (19) 89 (17) 0 (0) 60 (12) 304 (59)
Tube well 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 127 0 (0) 127 (25)
Rain-water harvesting 0 (0) 0 (0) 10 (2) 1 (0) 1 (0) 12 (2)
Surface water (e.g., open source, river) 36 (7) 5 (1) 14 (3) 1 (0) 13 (3) 69 (13)
Ever received promotional material on household water treatment (HWT, 512 respondents)
Yes 71 (14) 56 (11) 65 (13) 79 (15) 32 (6) 303 (59)
Presence of children under 5 years old (512 respondents)
Yes 38 (7) 58 (11) 63 (12) 61 (12) 45 (9) 265 (52)
Use HWT (451 respondents)
Yes 44 (10) 19 (4) 18 (4) 8 (2) 10 (2) 99 (22)
Total number of stored-water samples 90 (18) 101 (20) 112 (22) 129 (25) 74 (15) 506 (100)
Mean log10 E. coli colony-forming units (CFU)/100 mL (SD) 1.14 (0.83) 1.12 (0.89) 1.23 (0.80) 1.27 (0.82 0.94 (0.83) 1.16 (0.84)
Total number of POC samples 8 (5) 25 (15) 24 (14) 65 (39) 45 (27) 167 (100)
Mean log10 E. coli CFU/100 mL (SD) 0.70 (0.97) 0.93 (0.84) 0.58 (0.92) 0.44 (0.73) 0.52 (0.97) 0.57 (0.86)