Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
28 June 2023 Photo Supplied
UFS Experts
Ms Akani Baloyi is from the Disaster Management Training and Education Centre for Africa (DiMTEC) at the University of the Free State. | Dr Olivia Kunguma is from the Disaster Management Training and Education Centre for Africa (DiMTEC) at the University of the Free State. | Dr Arishka Kalicharan, Department of Basic Medical Sciences, UFS

 


Opinion article by Ms Akani Baloyi; Dr Olivia Kunguma, Disaster Management Training and Education Centre for Africa (DiMTEC) at the University of the Free State; and Dr Arishka Kalicharan, Department of Basic Medical Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Free State.

Since the 1800s, many countries globally have had a long history of cholera outbreaks, with several countries experiencing periodic outbreaks and the disease remaining a public health concern. In Africa, countries like Senegal, Malawi, Zimbabwe, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Tanzania and many more have suffered greatly from this water-borne plague.

South Africa is among these countries – one of its major outbreaks, in 2008, killed more than 65 people, with more than 12 000 cases reported. The outbreak spread from Musina in Limpopo to the other provinces. The spread of cholera from Musina was attributed to a 2008/2009 outbreak in Zimbabwe, which affected more than 98 000 people; this was a case of disease contagion.

The 2008/2009 Zimbabwe outbreak was rated the country and the world’s largest ever recorded. Due to its political and economic crises, thousands of Zimbabweans migrated to South Africa. The movement of people from Zimbabwe helped spread the disease, as it is highly contagious. Because South Africa also had its own political and economic issues, cholera started spreading like wildfire. Similarly to Zimbabwe, South Africa is struggling with service delivery by local authorities due to poor governance and corruption.

In an effort to improve Zimbabwe’s health  system after that outbreak, the United Nations donated almost $5 million. Despite such a big cash injection, the country’s health system is still not of a standard that can help mitigate and prevent cholera. The country still finds itself losing people due to cholera outbreaks.

The challenge in Africa is that decision-makers suffer from ‘reactive syndrome’, i.e. they wait for an outbreak before intiating activities like surveillance, health promotion, encouraging of laboratory testing, assessing and maintaining boreholes/ municipal water plants, and providing temporary emergency water, sanitation and hygiene. Only when an outbreak is already under way do they remember the existence of emergency and response plans, and then start updating them.

A recent cholera outbreak in Hammanskraal, north of Tshwane in Gauteng, South Africa, had claimed 23 lives by 28 May after residents were diagnosed with diarrhoeal disease due to cholera. In the neighbouring Free State, two deaths had been reported by 9 June.

It has become common knowledge that the main source of cholera infection is poor sanitation, lack of clean water, and contaminated food. But it is important to also know that most people exposed to the cholera bacterium do not get sick. They are unaware they have been infected, unless they start displaying symptoms such as diarrhoea, vomiting, and muscle cramps. Excessive diarrhoea can lead to dehydration, making it difficult for the body to perform basic functions. If left untreated, diarrhoea can be fatal.

The root causes are exacerbated by poor investment in public health and an unsettled political environment, in particular governance of municipalities and neglect of water treatment plants. The prevalence of this preventable infectious disease demands immediate attention from policymakers, health organisations, and society in general. Addressing the root causes, boosting preventative measures, and ensuring access to clean water and adequate healthcare services to eradicate cholera in South Africa is crucial.

How can we mitigate and prevent the spread of cholera?

While we lobby for policymakers or people who hold political power to be called to account and advocate for large-scale investment in establishing and maintaining water and sanitation facilities and the strengthening of public health community engagement, we need to consider some methods the public can explore.

Most infected people will have few to mild symptoms, which can be successfully treated with an oral rehydration solution. This solution replenishes the body’s fluid levels and can treat mild dehydration caused by diarrhoea, vomiting, or other medical conditions. Oral rehydration solutions can be made at home with the following ingredients:

  • 1 litre of preboiled water (an effective way to disinfect the water)
  • 6 level teaspoons of sugar (improves the absorption of electrolytes and water)
  • ½ teaspoon of salt (promotes water absorption, since there is significant fluid loss due to diarrhoea)
  • 1 tablespoon (or a palatable amount) of white vinegar (contains antimicrobial properties for preventing and treating infections)

This solution should be consumed after every loose stool, or as often as possible. If a child has been infected with the disease, in addition to the oral solution, give the child 20 mg (over 6 months of age) or 10 mg (under 6 months of age) zinc per day (tablet or syrup).

We should also always adhere to cost-effective habits such as routinely washing our hands and consuming preboiled water.

There are also three World Health Organisation (WHO) pre-approved oral cholera vaccines, namely Dukoral, Shanchol, and Euvichol-Plus. They all require two doses for full protection. These vaccines are available at the nearest clinic or hospital, and are relatively cost-effective.

Cholera and several other public health crises should not exist in the modern economy we are living in. Africa has the resources needed, including several medical interventions. Africa must address its issue regarding political leadership, which is its biggest challenge. There is an urgent need for proactiveness among our political leaders and government authorities which should see them take the lead in continuous multi-sectoral collaboration. They should invest in preparedness programmes that include training health workers and surveillance. And lastly, there is an urgent need for an accountability system for all the funds donated and invested towards improving a country’s healthcare system.

News Archive

Bloemfontein's quality of tap water compares very favourably with bottled water
2009-08-04

The quality of the drinking water of five suburbs in Bloemfontein is at least as good as or better than bottled water. This is the result of a standard and chemical bacterial analysis done by the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Centre for Environmental Management in collaboration with the Institute for Groundwater Studies (IGS).

Five samples were taken from tap water sources in the suburbs of Universitas, Brandwag, Bain’s Vlei, Langenhoven Park and Bayswater and 15 samples were taken of different brands of still and unflavoured bottled water. The samples were analysed at the laboratory of the IGS, while the interpretation of the analysis was done by the Centre for Environmental Management.

“We wanted to evaluate the difference in quality for human consumption between tap water and that of the different brands of bottled water,” said Prof. Maitland Seaman, Head of the Centre for Environmental Management.

“With the exception of two samples produced by multinational companies at their plants in South Africa, the different brands of bottled water used for the study were produced by South African companies, including a local small-scale Bloemfontein producer,” said Prof. Seaman.

According to the labels, the sources of the water vary from pure spring water, to partial reverse osmosis (as an aid to standardise salt, i.e. mineral, content), to only reverse osmosis (to remove salts). (Reverse osmosis is a process in which water is forced under pressure through a pipe with minute pores through which water passes but no – or very low concentrations of – salts pass.)

According to Prof. Seaman, the analysis revealed some interesting findings, such as:

• It is generally accepted that drinking water should have an acceptable level of salt content, as the body needs salts. Most mineral contents were relatively higher in the tap water samples than the bottled water samples and were very much within the acceptable range of drinkable water quality. One of the bottled samples, however, had a very low mineral content, as the water was produced by reverse osmosis, as stated on the bottle. While reverse osmosis is used by various producers, most producers use it as an aid, not as a single method to remove nearly all the salts. Drinking only such water over a prolonged period may probably have a negative effect on the human physiology.

• The pH values of the tap water samples (8,12–8,40) were found to be slightly higher (slightly alkaline), like in all south-eastern Free State rivers (from where the water is sourced) than the pH of most of the bottled water samples, most of which are sourced and/or treated in other areas. Two brands of bottled water were found to have relatively low pH levels (both 4,5, i.e. acidic) as indicated on their bottles and as confirmed by the IGS analysis. The health implication of this range of pH is not significant.

• The analysis showed differences in the mineral content given on the labels of most of the water bottles compared to that found by IGS analysis. The possibility of seasonal fluctuation in content, depending on various factors, is expected and most of the bottling companies also indicate this on their labels. What was a rather interesting finding was that two pairs of bottled water brands claimed exactly the same mineral content but appeared under different brand names and were also priced differently. In each case, one of the pair was a well-known house brand, and the other obviously the original producer. In one of these paired cases, the house brand stated that the water was spring water, while the other (identical) “original” brand stated that it was spring water treated by reverse osmosis and oxygen-enriched.

• Nitrate (NO3) levels were uniformly low except in one bottled sample, suggesting a low (non-threatening) level of organic pollution in the source water. Otherwise, none of the water showed any sign of pollution.

• The bacterial analysis confirmed the absence of any traces of coliforms or E.coli in any of the samples, as was also indicated by the bottling companies. This is very reassuring. What is not known is how all these waters were sterilised, which could be anything from irradiation to chlorine or ozone treatment.

• The price of the different brands of bottled water, each containing 500 ml of still water, ranged between R3,99 and R8,99, with R5,03 being the average price. A comparison between the least expensive and the most expensive bottles of water indicated no significant difference in quality. In fact, discrepancies were observed in the most expensive bottle in that the amount of Calcium (Ca) claimed to be present in it was found to be significantly different from what the analysis indicated (29,6 mg/l versus 0,92 mg/l). The alkalinity (CaCO3 mg/l) indicated on the bottle was also found to differ considerably (83 mg/l versus 9,4 mg/l). The concentration of Total Dissolved Salts (TDS) was not given on the product.

“The preference for bottled water as compared to Bloemfontein’s tap water from a qualitative perspective as well as the price discrepancy is unjustifiable. The environmental footprint of bottled water is also large. Sourcing, treating, bottling, packaging and transporting, to mention but a few of the steps involved in the processing of bottled water, entail a huge carbon footprint, as well as a large water footprint, because it also requires water for treating and rinsing to process bottled water,” said Prof. Seaman.

Media Release
Lacea Loader
Deputy Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl.stg@ufs.ac.za  
3 August 2009

 

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept