Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Water in Afghanistan - Global Health

A. Svitak, K. Koeppen, H. Parish, T. Barnett

Adora Svitak

on 6 January 2014

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Water in Afghanistan - Global Health

War in Afghanistan (2001-present)
- impact on sanitation
- potential obstacle to
Water in Afghanistan
Introduction to Afghanistan
GNI about $410 per year (as of 2011)
--> that's about $1.12 per day
Categorized as "Low Income" by World Bank
Efficacy of PUR
Efficacy of LifeStraw
Works Consulted
Negative Control
Population about 29.82 million (as of 2012)
evaluates the advantages and disadvantages of using different mediums to present a particular topic or idea (CC 8.RI.7)
• justifies choices made when answering the Problem or creating products, by giving valid reasons with supporting evidence (CC 6-12.SL.4)
• recognizes the limitations of an answer to the Problem or a product design (how it might not be complete, certain, or perfect) and considers alternative perspectives (CC 11-12.SL.4)
• can clearly explain new understanding gained in the project and how it might transfer to other situations or contexts

defining the creative challenge
Follow-up Questions
- 50% use improved drinking water sources
(78% in urban areas, 42% in rural areas, as of 2010)
http ://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00maplinks/overview/afghanphysical/mountainmapmax.jpg
Cost Benefit Analysis
is more cost-effective for Afghanistan
Arid with cold winters and dry summers
- Southern region gets the least amount of rain, considered "drought-ridden"
Much of water obtained from snow runoff
- snow has a low water yield; "dry"
- only provides water to those at the base of the mountains
Geography and Climate
One LS can filter 1000 L of water
0.2-micron filter physically
removes 99.999% of all bacteria, such as salmonella, cholera, and E.coli
Smaller quantities of water can be purified at a time
Prone to breaking down easier
Can not tell when Lifestraw has stopped working or is broken.
Market cost in the US: $19.95
Price per 1000 liters: $19.95
10 cents per 10 L (1 packet is
10 cents)
1 packet cleans the entire 10 L
within 30 minutes
PUR packets are simple and
won't break down
There are already programs that
implement the distribution of
PUR packets around the world
Smaller and more easily shipped to developing countries
Cost: $0.10 per packet
Price per 1000 liters: $10
- What are the long-term effects of chlorine
on the health of water drinkers?
- What other methods could we have explored
in this lab?
- By what percentage is the chlorine more effective than a solely physical filtration method (e.g., cheesecloth or paper towel)?
- only 37% use improved sanitation facilities
(60% in urban areas, 30% in rural areas, as of 2010)
Negative control -- If no water filtration is applied to water containing brine shrimp, then the brine shrimp will remain in the water.

PUR filter -- If PUR is applied to water containing brine shrimp, then the brine shrimp numbers will be 100% free of contaminants.

Life Straw -- If water is processed through the LifeStraw, then the water will be 100% free of contaminants (i.e., brine shrimp).
Prevalence of Disease
As of 2010,
70 of every 1000
children in Afghanistan die from DDs
child deaths in Afghanistan in 2008 from DDs
Error Analysis
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01004/Afghanistan-Taliba_1004324c .jpg
- Different experimenters for PUR than for
LifeStraw--Adora was prepping/stirring PUR, while Kristian, Hannah, and Thomas worked on LifeStraw or petri dish observation. The different experimenters involved could have led to minor variations
- It was difficult to suction water through the LifeStraw
- When filtering the post-floculation PUR, a fair amount of water (possibly containing brine shrimp) dripped out the sides through the paper towel
We picked the LifeStraw because it provided a non-
chlorine option for investigation (in contrast to
Full transcript