Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
06 August 2025 | Story Lilitha Dingwayo | Photo Supplied
Mobi Readathon
Attending the MobiReadathon (left to right): Rasesemola Elias, Principal Librarian, Fezile Dabi District; Mzwandile Radebe, Principal Librarian, Thabo Mofutsanyana District Municipality; Jeannet Molopyane, Director, UFS Library and Information Services; Nomabhaso Ramugondo, Director, Free State Provincial Library Services; Elmari Kruger, Deputy Director, Motheo District Municipality; Larshan Naicker, Deputy Director, UFS Library and Information Services; Adele Bezuidenhout, Deputy Director, Fezile Dabi District Municipality; Henna Adendorff, Assistant Manager, Free State Provincial Library Services; and Thandi Gxabu, Librarian, Free State Provincial Library Services.

The University of the Free State (UFS) Department of Library and Information Services recently hosted the 2025 MobiReadathon competition, a digital reading initiative established by the City of Johannesburg Library Services. Now a national programme involving all nine provinces, the competition was introduced to Grade 8 high school learners in the Free State for the first time, with UFS playing a central role in supporting digital literacy and community empowerment.

Held at the UFS Sasol Library on 25 July 2025, the Free State leg of the 2025 MobiReadathon brought together 50 Grade 8 learners from across the province. The room buzzed with excitement as the young readers engaged in digital reading tasks and trivia challenges via mobile devices.

“I never liked reading, and because I am not fluent in English I thought I should start reading, and this initiative has been helpful for me,” said Bohlokwa Dikoetsing, a learner at Bodibeng Secondary School.

Tshepo Kgaola, also a participant, said the most exciting part of the competition was when his team won a voucher for reading after they created a story using artificial intelligence (AI).

“This initiative is part of our digital transformation agenda for public libraries,” said Nomabhaso (Rasby) Ramugondo, Director of the Free State Provincial Library Services. Ramugondo emphasised the issue of reading with understanding in South Africa, a priority that she hopes to see eradicated through programmes like the MobiReadathon. “We had asked Jeff Nyoka from the City of Johannesburg Library Services to come and do a presentation about digital literacy,” she explained. “It was then that a team of digital transformers was established to come up with initiatives like the Reja Buka Reading Festival that will help learners – and that is how the collaboration on the MobiReadathon came about in Free State.” 

“The essence of this collaboration is to promote reading development,” said Tebogo Msimango, Senior Librarian for E-learning Programmes at the City of Johannesburg. Just like Ramugondo, Msimango explains the need to promote digital reading due to the issue of learners not being able to read for meaning.

“The outcome I would like for this initiative is for learners to discover themselves and come to an understanding that with reading, one could go far,” Msimango said. “These collaborations also help with making the learners realise that they could also come into the university space, and a good example is the tour that they were taken on around the library.”

UFS Library Services played a pivotal role in facilitating the event, offering logistical support. As part of its community engagement initiatives, the university continues to collaborate on programmes that uplift local youth and promote literacy through innovation.

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