Fecal Coliform Analysis of Water from the Drinking Fountains

in University of the Philippines Manila Kimmayong Ayahao, John Carlo Babasa, Angel

Orelyn Cabigting, Nicole Kaye Calara, Joseph Benedict Carpio, Lalen Demetria Ebrada, Whey

Tabiongan, and Justine Sofia Tancao

ABSTRACT

This study determined the quality of water from the drinking fountains of the College of
Arts and Sciences, College of Nursing, and the Sports and Wellness Center in the
University of the Philippines Manila. Water samples were collected from each drinking
fountain and were checked through a Fecal Coliform test. In addition to water analysis,
questionnaires about the drinking fountains around the university were answered by a
total of 70 respondents. Results showed that fecal coliform count was less than 1.1
MPN/100ml for each of the analyzed water samples collected by the researchers which
shows that the water from the drinking fountains is up to the standard. About 63% of the
respondents affirmed that they use the drinking fountains provided by the university and
there is a close 99% of respondents who reported that they have not suffered any sort
of illness caused by the drinking fountains. The researchers can, therefore, conclude
that the water provided by the fountains are of good quality and that there is a great
need of the facility which can accommodate more students who need it most.

Introduction dependent on surface water. (WHO,

Water is an essential part of our
life, however, not many people have
access to clean and potable water and
this causes rampant cases of
waterborne bacterial infections.
Contaminated water, which can transmit
diseases such as diarrhea, cholera,
dysentery, typhoid, and polio, is
estimated to cause 502,000 diarrheal
deaths every year. Water is needed for
the development and well-being of
humans, and having proper access to
clean water would help promote one's
health and also lessen poverty. There
are 844 million people who do not have
a basic drinking water service and
among these, 159 million people are still
2018)
One way to solve this problem is
through the use of drinking fountains. In
19th Century London, this has become
the solution provided by the
Metropolitan Drinking Fountain and
Cattle Trough Association because of
the increase in the number of
contaminated water due to the poor
water quality provided by private
companies (Hitz, 2010).
The University of the Philippines -
Manila has installed three drinking
fountains for the students and members
of the faculty and staff. This makes
water available for everyone and also
help save money since the students and
staff do not need to purchase bottled
water. In addition, because of the
purchase of polyethylene terephthalate
(PET) bottles would decrease, it can
also help save the environment.
However, drinking fountains are
susceptible to microbial contamination
because of their moist surface
(Phurisamban & Gleick, 2017). In
addition, it was discovered that stagnant
water from drinking fountains with low
pressure is more likely to be
contaminated with bacteria. Presence of
bacteria increases the risk of becoming
infected with water-borne diseases
(New York State Department of Health,
2017). Bacterias usually found in
drinking fountains are E-coli, legionella,
and coliform (Peterson, 2015).
Regular maintenance is needed
to prevent coliform bacteria from
spreading. Drinking fountains must be
cleaned at least once a day using a
disinfectant cleaning solution. There are
seven guidelines which must be
followed, specifically: "measuring the
quality; water sampling and
examination; other modes of distribution
of drinking water; evaluation of results;
classification of quality parameters;
quality assurance/quality control for
water laboratories; and water safety
plan (WSP) and quality surveillance"
(Department of Health, 2017). This
emphasizes the need to constantly
check the quality of the waters found in
drinking fountains.
This study will determine the
presence of fecal coliform bacteria in
water from the drinking fountains of the
College of Arts and Sciences, College of
Nursing, and the Sports and Wellness
Center. The water samples are to be
analyzed using the Fecal Coliform test
conducted by the Food Nutrition
Research Institute (FNRI).
Background of the Study
Water is a clear, odorless, and
tasteless substance that is essential for
the survival of most animal and plant
life. It covers 71% of the earth's surface
and consists approximately 75% of the
human body. Most of this substance
exists as saltwater in oceans and in
polar ice caps, but it is also largely
found in clouds, rainwater, rivers,
freshwater aquifers, lakes, and sea ice.
(MeSH, n.d.)
Biologically speaking, water is a
critical component that allows
proliferation and replication. It allows
organic compounds to react to allow
replication, and it also acts as a solvent
that dissolves solutes in the body,
allowing metabolic processes – a
combination of both anabolic and
catabolic reactions – to take place.
Furthermore, water is also essential to
photosynthesis and respiration – initially
being split by the photosynthetic cells to
produce hydrogen and oxygen ions,
followed by the synthesis of the CO2
molecule and the hydrogen ion
produced to produce glucose and
subsequently, release oxygen back into
the atmosphere. (MeSH, n.d.)
Accordingly, a healthy adult living
in a temperate climate should consume
at least 1.5 liters of water in a day. This
amount ensures that the balance
between loss and intake of water in the
body is maintained and the body is still
well hydrated. The body is mostly made
up of water so this is present in almost
every process of the system. It is
present in cells to allow it to properly
regulate the processes it ought to
undertake. It also enables the hydrolysis
of the biochemical molecules present
from the food that is eaten. This is
followed by the transport of the nutrients
extracted and the by-products and
waste produced to the responsible
organs through the utilization of the
blood – mainly being constituted by
water. Its large heat capacity also limits
any deviation in the body temperature in
either warm or cold environments by
enabling the body to release heat in the
event of a temperature increase and
cool down by being excreted as sweat
that cools the surface of the skin.
(http://www.nestle-waters.com, n.d.)
For nearly 100 years, the most
common means of obtaining clean,
potable water is through drinking
fountains and water coolers. These well-
known "drinking fountains" were
developed in the early 1900s by Halsey
Taylor and Haws, a company
established by Halsey Willard Taylor
and Luther Haws. The inspiration for the
creation of a pioneering invention in the
field of water dispensing was the death
of his father due to typhoid fever –
resulting from a contaminated water
supply. These dispensing machines
were able to distribute safe and sanitary
drinks to public buildings, schools,
establishments, and factories.
This trend was followed by the
development of "chilled drinking
fountains" that utilized a 20-pound block
of ice in the cooling process of the water
supply. Throughout the years, Halsey
Taylor developed numerous variations
to the original invention. In the 1980s,
government regulations such as the
"Safe Drinking Water Act" required the
elimination of lead-bearing components
in the system such as in the solders that
are utilized in the circuitry of the
dispenser. Currently, the existence of
this act requires establishments
possessing water fountains to meet all
the requirements of an ANSI/NSF 61
certified drinking fountains, tested and
secured by testing bodies such as,
Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. and NSF
International, who was accredited by the
American National Standards Institute.
(Taylor, 2000)
Due to the implementation of
various interventions and programs, the
provision of safe drinking water has
become one of humanity's most
successful public health agenda, and a
critical aspect in determining the extent
of development of a country. However,
neglecting the potential risks and the
inappropriate knowledge of those
involved in the maintenance of the water
supply system, such as the water
fountains, may result in outbreaks of
waterborne diseases in various
communities. Cases like cholera may
ensue when maintenance is neglected
and not prioritized. The potential risks
also include bacteria-caused diseases
such as E. Coli, Salmonella, and other
illnesses such as Hepatitis A (Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention,
2014). In the cases of drinking water
treatment systems, pathogens may
occur due to the aging of the drinking
fountain due to its operations which may
increase vulnerability to higher rates of
breaks and repairs. Furthermore, the
system of drinking water supply
compliance monitoring done by officials
poses inadequacy due to the presence
of short-term microbial intrusions
caused by similarly short-termed poor
treatment performance. (Ashbolt, 2015)
Objectives
The research primarily aims to
find out the quality of water from the
drinking fountains found in the
University of the Philippines Manila. In
addition to that, it aims to know if the
water from the drinking fountains is safe
for use. The quality of water from the
said drinking fountains are to be
checked using the Fecal Coliform test.
The researchers also aim to determine
the number of students using the
drinking fountain. Furthermore, the
researchers intend to identify the
perception of the students on the
drinking fountains by conducting a
survey.
Statement of the Problem
As a government institution, the
University of the Philippines Manila
should see to it that all facilities and
equipment that its students and staff use
are of good condition. This includes
even the simplest of them such as
drinking fountains, which must ensure
that the quality of the water being
dispensed from each of the fountains is
safe to drink. However, a number of
students have been reported to have
occasionally detected subtle foul scents
along with hints of distinct flavors from
the water, which may be signs of
possible contamination. This study
proposes to investigate the actual
quality of the water from several drinking
fountains from the different colleges
under U.P. Manila by taking samples
from each of the units and bringing them
to a laboratory to undergo fecal coliform
testing.
Methodology
Sampling and Study Participants
The first part of the study was
performed in the University of the
Philippines Manila on 213 respondents.
In order to determine the respondents of
this part of the study, the researchers
used a convenience sampling
technique. A form was made to be
posted above the three selected
drinking fountains around the campus.
The form contained information on the
objectives of the study and asked the
reader for their voluntary participation in
the study. Participants were instructed
to place a mark on the form if they drank
or collected water from the selected
drinking fountain. The number of marks
would then determine the frequency of
use for that certain drinking fountain.
Three forms were prepared by the
researchers for the three selected
drinking fountains around UPM. The first
form was posted above the drinking
fountain in the Sports and Wellness
Center. The second form was posted
above the drinking fountain in the
College of Arts and Sciences building.
The third form was to be posted in the
drinking fountain of the College of
Nursing. However, the administration
requested several preparatory
documents before the form could be
posted above the selected drinking
fountain. Due to time constraint, the
frequency of use of the mentioned
drinking fountain was omitted from the
study.
The second part of the study was
conducted through Google Forms on 70
respondents. In order to determine the
respondents of this part of the study, the
researchers used a convenience
sampling technique. The online survey
contained questions to quantify the
respondents' perspectives on the need
for drinking fountains around the
campus. The link to the Google Form
was sent to several UPM students who
were willing to offer their time to answer
the online survey.
Setting and Data Collection
In order to collect the water
samples to be used in the fecal coliform
analysis, the researchers used 250 mL
containers to obtain the desired samples
from each of the selected drinking
fountains around the campus. The
containers were then labeled and stored
in a cooler to maintain its temperature
during the delivery period to the
laboratory.
The researchers employed the
services of the Food and Nutrition
Research Institute - Department of
Science and Technology (FNRI-DOST)
Laboratory in Taguig, Metro Manila in
order to determine the water quality of
the selected drinking fountains in UPM
as quantified by a fecal coliform
analysis. The fecal coliform test was the
selected method of water quality
analysis due to the fact that it is the
primary indicator of potability or safety of
drinking water. Moreover, the presence
of fecal coliform bacteria indicates the
existence of other pathogenic bacteria,
such as strains of Escherichia coli, and
fecal contamination of water (Water
Research Center, 2014). The fecal
coliform test is done through the most
probable number (MPN) method which
is done through the comparison of
results in a set of ten-fold dilution. MPN
involves the use of lactose broth which
will react with coliforms, if there are any
present, in the water sample to form
acid and gas. The presence of acid in
the sample will cause an evident change
of color while the presence of gas is
detected from the formation of gas
bubbles in the inverted Durham tube
placed in the medium to collect gas. The
number of coliforms is identified by
determining the number of positive
samples and comparing the positive
samples with standard statistical tables
(Rijal, 2017).
In order to quantify the
respondents' perspectives on the need
for drinking fountains in UPM, the
researchers developed a survey through
the use of Google Forms. Eleven
questions were formulated to gather the
necessary data from the respondents.
The list of these questions is shown in
Appendix 1.
Data Analysis
The researchers collated the
results from the voluntary forms posted
above the selected drinking fountains in
order to determine the number of
participants in the study and the relative
frequency of use of the selected drinking
fountains. Furthermore, the researchers,
through the employment of the services
of the FNRI-DOST Laboratory, analyzed
the water samples collected from the
selected drinking fountains in UPM and
compared the results to a standard
statistical table in order to determine the
water quality as quantified by the fecal
coliform analysis. The results of the
online survey questionnaire on Google
Forms was collated and evaluated by
the researchers in order to formulate
conclusions and recommendations on
the respondents' perception of the need
for drinking fountains in UPM.
Results and Discussion
The analysis from the FNRI-
DOST Laboratory reported that the fecal
coliform count was less than 1.1
MPN/100ml for each of the analyzed
water samples collected by the
researchers, giving proof that the quality
of water provided by these drinking
fountains to be up to standard. The
implications, therefore, would lead to
having an assurance for the UPM
community which makes use of the
services provided by the drinking
fountain that the water which they ingest
is still within safety standards. This
would also serve to quell such rumors
about any lapses in maintenance, as
such that arose prior to the research
since this report should serve as an
adequate repellant to any such hearsay.
It also becomes apparent in the online
survey that, though there is a portion of
the respondents numbering 21%, that
there may exist some foulness in the
drinking fountain, may it be through the
taste of the water or an odor, 99% have
not actually gotten a disease of any sort
due to the use of the drinking fountain.
Moving forward, since the minimum
requirements are met, it would be wise
to focus then on the room for
improvement with which the drinking
fountain system has yet to tread upon.
The online survey conducted
also showed that, of the 70
respondents, demand for water still
persists among 96% of them, with
around 63% having affirmed their use of
the drinking fountains provided by the
university, 86% of such have done so
due to its convenience as well as 61%
of drinking fountain users do so to save
money. This shows that a large
population of students of UPM still rely
on the service provided by these
drinking fountains, and that neglect of
these systems would bring about a
negative impact upon the UPM
community. Aside from this, water
consumption by the community largely
calls for more than 7 glasses of water,
standing with 44% of respondents, while
a close second with 43% of respondents
needing 4 - 7 glasses of water and the
remainder needing 1 - 3 glasses. This
shows that the community consumes
high amounts of water from the drinking
fountain service, and if at some point in
the future its services get compromised
in some way, its impact will not go
unnoticed by its users. As such, whilst
maintaining the standards with which it
has kept for this time, it might stand to
review the other side of the community
which does not use the drinking fountain
service.
It should also be put to light that,
though many users might use the
drinking fountains provided by the
university, a significant 37% of
respondents opt not to use the drinking
fountains for a number of reasons. The
main reason being that the option of
bringing one's own water bottle or
buying it from the store, which 65% of
non-drinking fountain users comprise,
provides an alternative that might be
more convenient, which 27% of
respondents commented relatively as
such, as compared to relying on a
stationary drinking fountain with which
it's cleanliness has been in question as
said by 23% of the non-drinking fountain
users. Though there is indeed a close
99% of respondents who have not
suffered any sort of illness or otherwise
caused by the drinking fountains, the
presence of the 1% of the respondents
show that there may still be in fact
lapses that could be covered. It is
unlikely however that, given the data
provided by the lab report analysis, it is
entirely the fault of the drinking fountain
system, but nonetheless it is a matter
which should be promptly and tacitly
addressed whatever the cause for
distress might be.
However, it is important to note
that the respondents of the study were
mainly composed of students from the
College of Pharmacy, comprising 60%
of total respondents. While there are
respondents from other colleges within
the UPM campus, it proved difficult to
gather enough responses from each
college to maintain equal numbers
across the board, without sacrificing
potential points of data. Also, as this
survey was conducted and spread
online through social media, the
audience it could reach becomes limited
as other members of the UPM
community, such as the staff, would be
hard-pressed to access this survey
given the platform and method that it
was spread. Due to time constraints, the
majority of respondents reached,
therefore, became centered around the
students of the College of Pharmacy,
since it was the most accessible to the
researchers given the situation. Given
this, the lack of a water fountain in the
College of Pharmacy may be a reason
why most respondents bring their own
water or buy bottled water, leaving just
13% of respondents mainly getting their
water from the drinking fountains. The
presence of a water dispenser, as
opposed to a drinking fountain, within
the College of Pharmacy, however,
poses an interesting alternative to
having a drinking fountain within the
premises. This could also have been a
factor as to why most of the
respondent's main source of water
within the university comes from their
own containers, as an alternate source
of water other than a drinking fountain is
available, since refills become much
more accessible.
When asked if there should be
more drinking fountains in UPM, 73% of
respondents agreed with the most
suggested location for an increase in the
number of drinking fountains regardless
of the current number, is a tie between
the College of Arts and Sciences and
having it applied to all the colleges, both
having a 21% response rate.
Reasonings as to why the College of
Arts and Sciences was chosen mainly
focus on the need of the most visited
college by the community to have better
access to some of the most basic of
needs, especially since it is not limited in
its scope of students and staff, unlike
other colleges. Providing drinking
fountains to every college was also a
considerable prospect since it would
allow more access to the entirety of the
UPM community, and not just have it
centered around the current three
drinking fountain systems presently
available. Aside from the College of
Pharmacy taking the third spot most
likely due to the abundance of
Pharmacy students in the survey,
respondents also prioritized the hygiene
of the locations which the drinking
fountains should be placed (i.e should
not be near the bathroom or any wastes
that could contaminate the water), and
the ease of access with which they
should have (ie near classrooms or in
very visible areas). The number of
respondents, with their varying
concerns, only prove that the amount of
drinking fountains in the UPM campus is
indeed lacking and steps to improve this
should be taken. The drinking fountains
might be of sufficient quality, but it
invariably fails in terms of the quantity
that it presents such that it could better
serve its purpose of providing a source
of water for the UPM community.
Conclusion
The researchers can, therefore,
conclude that in the scientific aspect, it
is assured quantitatively through the
coliform test which proves that the water
provided by the fountains are of good
quality. The researchers also saw that
on the application, the drinking water
fountain technology providing quality
water up to standard is beneficial to the
population. With its involvement of
society, the study showed that there is a
great need of the facility which can
accommodate more students who need
it most.
Recommendation
This study had time and
population constraints, which makes it
recommend to the future researchers to
improve the demographics of study
participants to ensure the significance of
the drinking fountain facility to its
societal involvement. On laboratory-
based testing, the researchers suggest
using Total Coliform Testing for
improved results on water quality.
It is recommended that further studies
may focus on the more effective
enforcement of the use of drinking
fountains, given its quantitatively
determined quality. The researchers can
suggest on in-depth development of the
facility through the addition of some
indicators of its provided quality such
that potential users will be
knowledgeable on its capacity.
References
Ashbolt, N. (2015). Microbial
Contamination of Drinking Water
and Human Health from
Community Water Systems.
Current Environmental Health
Reports, 2(1), pp.95-106.
Cabral, J. (2010). Water Microbiology.
Bacterial Pathogens and Water.
International Journal Of
Environmental Research And
Public Health, 7(10), 3657-3703.
doi: 10.3390/ijerph7103657
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (2014). Water-related
Diseases and Contaminants in
Public Water Systems | Public
Water Systems | Drinking Water |
Healthy Water | CDC. [online]
Cdc.gov. Available at:
https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater
/drinking/public/water_diseases.h
tml [Accessed 30 Nov. 2018].
DOH. (2017). DOH LAUNCHES
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL
STANDARDS FOR DRINKING
WATER OF 2017 | Department of
Health website. Retrieved from
https://www.doh.gov.ph/node/121
21
Hitz, J. (2010). In Support of the
Neglected Drinking Fountain.
Retrieved from
https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/201
0/09/01/in-support-of-the-
neglected-drinking-fountain/
Main functions of water in the human
body. (n.d.). Available at:
https://www.nestle-
waters.com/healthy-
hydration/water-fonctions-in-
human-
body?fbclid=IwAR3sIAhlJ4o0Cm
gnH_xGKMEIV3DkeSkIaFfHMyP
uzoPyabN27-xOe7IzgO8
[Accessed 30 Nov. 2018].
MeSH (n.d.). Water - MeSH - NCBI.
[online] Ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.
Available at:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mes
h/68014867 [Accessed 30 Nov.
2018].
Oram, B. (2014). Bacterial Testing Fecal
Coliform, E. coli., Total
Coliform Drinking Water Lakes
Streams Ponds Pools: Total and
Fecal Coliform Bacteria Testing.
Retrieved from
https://www.water-
research.net/index.php/water-
testing/bacteria-testing/fecal-
coliform-
bacteria
Oram, B. (2014). Fecal Coliform
Bacteria in Water. Retrieved from
https://www.water-
 research.net/index.php/fecal- Pmengineer.com. Available at:
coliform-bacteria-in-water https://www.pmengineer.com/arti
Peterson, S. (2015). Are drinking cles/86605-a-brief-history-of-
fountains safe to drink out of? | drinking-fountains-and-water-
SiOWfa15: Science in Our World: coolers [Accessed 30 Nov. 2018].
Certainty and Controversy. WHO. (2018). Drinking-water. Retrieved
Retrieved from from http://www.who.int/news-
https://sites.psu.edu/siowfa15/20 room/fact-sheets/detail/drinking-
15/09/17/are-drinking-fountains- water
safe-to-drink-out-of/
Rijal, N. (2017). Most Probable Number
(MPN) Test: Principle, Procedure
and Results. Retrieved from
https://microbeonline.com/probab
le-number-mpn-test-principle-
procedure-results/
Taylor, H. (2000). A Brief History of
Drinking Fountains and Water
Coolers. [online]

Appendices

Appendix 1: Quantitative Survey Questions Regarding the Respondents’ Perceptions on the

Need for Drinking Fountains in the University of the Philippines Manila

1. How often do you drink water in a day?

1.1. How many glasses of water do you drink everyday?
2. Where do you get your water when you are in school?
3. Do you drink water from the drinking fountains of UP Manila (SWC, CAS, and
CN)? If yes, proceed to number 3.1. If no, proceed to number 3.2.
3.1 Why do you drink from the drinking fountains? Check all that apply.
3.2. Why don’t you drink from the drinking fountains? Check all that apply.
4. How often do you drink from the drinking fountain in a day?
5. Have you tasted or smelled something bad from the waters coming from any of
the drinking fountains?
6. Have you ever had a stomach ache, constipation, or any of sort because of the
water from the drinking fountains (SWC, CAS, and CN)?
7. Do you need more drinking fountains around UP Manila?
7.1 Where do you want them to be placed?