ArticleHeliyon2022
Drinking water quality of Chattogram city in Bangladesh: An analytical and residents' perception study.
Article in Heliyon, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Investigation of groundwater and its seasonal variation in a rural region in Natore, Bangladesh.Heliyon · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Residents of Chattogram city areas in Bangladesh use drinking water from three sources, namely CWASA (Chattogram Water supply and Sewerage Authority), groundwater (tube-well), and commercial jar. In this study, we examined the quality of drinking water from these sources following an analytical and residents' perception. Water samples (both untreated and treated) from above three sources were collected from six locations across Chattogram city, and pH, total dissolved solids (TDS), total suspended solids (TSS), bicarbonate, electrical conductivity (EC), salinity, and microbial load were studied following the state-of-art testing methods. A total of 149 respondents were interviewed to understand their perception on the physical properties of water. The pH value of water from all sources and locations and irrespective of treatments, varied from 6.54 to 7.02. TDS of tube-well water in two locations exceeded the standard limit (1000 mg/l). In most locations, TSS varied from 40 to 1888 mg/l (treated and untreated) against the standard value of 10 mg/l, while bicarbonate of CWASA and tube-well water in most locations was also higher than the permissible amount (500 mg/l). Except for jar water, EC of CWASA and tube-well water (treated and untreated) in most locations were higher than the standard value (500 μS) and a similar situation was observed for salinity content. The microbial load was found beyond the permissible limit (0 CFU/ml) for all sources and locations. These parameters of water quality have also been reflected in residents' perceptions of drinking water. Respondents reported an unpleasant odour (56%), the presence of suspended particles (17%), and so CWASA water is not good for drinking (76%). Authorities (CWASA) need to take action toward a safe drinking water supply for residents.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.