Protecting the Safe Water Chain in Refugee Camps: An Exploratory Study of Water Handling Practices, Chlorine Decay, and Household Water Safety in South Sudan, Jordan, and Rwanda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In refugee and internally displaced person settlements, hygienic water handling and free residual chlorine (FRC) are crucial for protecting water against recontamination after distribution up to the household point-of-consumption. We conducted a secondary analysis of water quality and water handling data collected in refugee camps in South Sudan, Jordan, and Rwanda using statistical and process-based modeling to explore how water handling practices affect FRC decay and household FRC outcomes. The two practices that consistently produced a significant effect on FRC decay and household FRC were storing water in direct sunlight and transferring water between containers during household storage. Samples stored in direct sunlight had 0.22-0.31 mg/L lower household FRC and had FRC decay rates between 2 and 3.7 times higher than samples stored in the shade, and samples that were transferred between containers had 0.031-0.51 mg/L lower household FRC and decay rates 1.65-3 times higher than non-transferred samples in sites in which the effect was significant, suggesting that humanitarian responders should aim to provide additional water storage containers to prevent water transferring in households and encourage water-users not to store water in direct sunlight. By contrast, the effect of the three recommended hygienic water handling behaviors (clean, covered containers and drawing by tap or pouring) was mixed or inconclusive. These inconclusive results were likely due to imbalanced or unreliable approaches to gathering the data, and we recommend that hygienic water handling practices that mechanistically provide a physical barrier against recontamination should always be promoted in humanitarian settings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".