This cross-sectional study aimed to assess the drinking water parameters in primary and secondary schools. A questionnaire encompassing the schools’ general characteristics and information about drinking water was administered to school administrators. Drinking water samples were taken from 60 schools to evaluate drinking water parameters. The data were analyzed using Chi-Square, Mann–Whitney U, and Kruskall–Wallis tests, T-test, and SPSS 22.0 software. Non-compliance with national legislation was observed in 16.7% of schools during drinking water analysis. The microbiological parameters exceeded the threshold values in 90% of the schools where the analysis results of the drinking water were deemed inadequate. The analysis yielded no discernible variations based on school district or type. Mains water was the primary drinking water source in 91.7% of schools. The rate was lower in rural schools compared to urban schools, with a difference of 85 and 95%, respectively. It was found that 41.7% of schools lacked canteens or the sale of packaged water. Consequently, the availability of tap water in schools falls short of the desired standard. It is imperative to investigate the factors leading to microbiological contamination in school drinking water and formulate short-, medium-, and long-term strategies to enhance its safety.

  • Rural schools face drawbacks in accessing safe drinking water.

  • Access to clean potable water is essential to public health.

  • Access to healthy water should be made available to all schools.

  • The influence of environmental factors on health and success levels becomes evident as school-age children spend a significant portion of their day at school.

  • The laboratory evaluation of drinking water in schools must be necessary.

The term ‘drinking water’ refers to water that is safe for consumption, devoid of pathogenic microorganisms and toxic substances, and contains minerals in a balanced manner. Access to clean potable water is essential to public health (Güler 2012). From various standpoints, school-age children constitute a distinct population concerning public health. School environmental health practices become more critical as school-age children spend a significant portion of their day at school, and the influence of environmental factors on individual health and success levels is evident. Throughout this process, children maintain their growth and development, and the preventive measures implemented or disregarded during this period will have enduring impacts on their subsequent lives (Güler & Akın 2012). As per the data from the joint program of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), 29% of schools worldwide are deemed to have inadequate drinking water services, impacting a total of 546 million school children (World Health Organization 2022). Given the prevailing global circumstances, it is clear that deficiencies exist in the provision of clean and safe drinking water in educational institutions. In the context of drinking water inspections, schools are not routinely subjected to sampling. In light of this information, it is thought that laboratory evaluation of drinking water in schools may be necessary. This study aimed to assess the parameters of drinking water in primary and secondary schools in the city center of Gaziantep. The investigation focused on identifying the drinking water source and management practices in primary and secondary schools within the province. It also evaluated the availability of healthy drinking water for school students using collected samples. It was evaluated whether there was a difference between the central districts in access to healthy drinking water.

The study population consisted of 519 primary and secondary schools located in the Şahinbey, Şehitkamil, and Oğuzeli districts of Gaziantep Province, all affiliated with the Provincial Directorate of National Education. The Provincial Directorate of National Education granted institutional permission. This epidemiological study was conducted cross-sectionally. Based on the power analysis, it was concluded that the ‘minimum sample size’ is 54. The sample selection process involved weighing the districts in the sample based on their weight in the universe and using a random numbers table. The sample consisted of 60 schools, with 24 (40.0%) located in the Şahinbey district, 32 (53.3%) in Şehitkamil, and 4 (6.7%) in Oğuzeli. Two bottles were used to collect drinking water samples from the schools – one for chemical testing and the other for microbiological testing. The samples were appropriately obtained within the designated period of 21/04/2022–25/05/2022 and were subsequently delivered to the laboratory for analysis, ensuring adherence to cold chain conditions. The analysis was conducted at the Public Health Laboratory, which is affiliated with the Gaziantep Provincial Health Directorate and accredited by TÜRK-AK under Accreditation # AB-1502-T, per TS/EN ISO17025 standards. The parameters of color, odor, turbidity, pH, electrical conductivity, ammonium, aluminum, iron, Escherichia coli, coliform bacteria, and enterococci–fecal streptococci were evaluated (Ministry of Health 2005).

The data collection sheet comprised a questionnaire consisting of 15 inquiries pertaining to the general information of the schools. The researcher obtained answers to these inquiries through direct, in-person interviews with the school administrators. Analysis of the data was carried out using the SPSS 22.0 software package. Descriptive statistics were computed using numerical values, percentages, mean with standard deviation, and median with interquartile range. The variables were compared using Chi-square, Mann–Whitney U, and Kruskall–Wallis tests. The significance level of the statistics was deemed acceptable at p < 0.05. The Gaziantep University Clinical Research Ethics Committee approved the research under decision number 2021/326.

The key attributes of the involved schools are outlined in Table 1. Of the total, 60% (n = 36) comprised primary schools, while 40% (n = 24) were secondary schools. In addition, 65% (n = 39) were in urban areas, while 35% (n = 21) were in rural areas. The primary drinking water source was mains in 91.7% (n = 55) of the schools, whereas the other sources (wells) were used in 8.3% (n = 5) of the schools.

Table 1

The key attributes of the involved schools

AttributeNumberPercentage
School district Şahinbey 24 40.0 
Şehitkamil 32 53.3 
Oğuzeli 6.7 
School type Primary 36 60.0 
Secondary 24 40.0 
School location Urban 39 65.0 
Rural 21 35.0 
Drinking water main source Mains 55 91.7 
Other 8.3 
Total 60 100.0 
AttributeNumberPercentage
School district Şahinbey 24 40.0 
Şehitkamil 32 53.3 
Oğuzeli 6.7 
School type Primary 36 60.0 
Secondary 24 40.0 
School location Urban 39 65.0 
Rural 21 35.0 
Drinking water main source Mains 55 91.7 
Other 8.3 
Total 60 100.0 

Table 2 exhibits the values derived from the analysis of the collected samples and the limit values stipulated by the regulation. Figures 14 depict the graphical representation of these values.
Table 2

The values derived from the analysis of the collected samples and the limit values stipulated by the regulation

The limit values by the regulation (min.–max.)Measured limit values (min.–max.)
pH 6.5–9.5 6.4–8.7 
Conductivity (μS/cm) 2,500 (max.) 196–1,211 
Iron (μg/L) 200 (max.) 0–51.8 
Aluminum (μg/L) 200 (max.) 0–94.3 
Ammonium (mg/L) 0.5 (max.) 0–0 
E. coli (kob/100 ml) 0 (max.) 0–32 
Coliform bacteria (kob/100 ml) 0 (max.) 0–100 
Enterococci–fecal streptococci (kob/100 ml) 0 (max.) 0–13 
The limit values by the regulation (min.–max.)Measured limit values (min.–max.)
pH 6.5–9.5 6.4–8.7 
Conductivity (μS/cm) 2,500 (max.) 196–1,211 
Iron (μg/L) 200 (max.) 0–51.8 
Aluminum (μg/L) 200 (max.) 0–94.3 
Ammonium (mg/L) 0.5 (max.) 0–0 
E. coli (kob/100 ml) 0 (max.) 0–32 
Coliform bacteria (kob/100 ml) 0 (max.) 0–100 
Enterococci–fecal streptococci (kob/100 ml) 0 (max.) 0–13 
Figure 1

Measured pH of schools. Conductivity measurements of schools and the limits of the legislation.

Figure 1

Measured pH of schools. Conductivity measurements of schools and the limits of the legislation.

Close modal
Figure 2

Conductivity measurements of schools and the upper limit of the legislation.

Figure 2

Conductivity measurements of schools and the upper limit of the legislation.

Close modal
Figure 3

Iron and aluminum measurement values of schools and the upper limit of the legislation.

Figure 3

Iron and aluminum measurement values of schools and the upper limit of the legislation.

Close modal
Figure 4

Microbiological parameter measurement values of schools and the upper limit of the legislation.

Figure 4

Microbiological parameter measurement values of schools and the upper limit of the legislation.

Close modal

Tables 3 and 4 present the laboratory results of the schools that were part of the study. Overall, laboratory results of 16.7% (n = 10) of the schools did not comply with the legislation. In all schools (n = 60), the results of physical parameters and chemical parameters such as conductivity, iron, ammonium, and aluminum values complied with national legislation. pH was found to be non-compliant in 1.7% (n = 1) of the schools. Concerning the microbiological parameters, non-compliance with the legislation was observed in 8.3% (n = 5) of the schools for E. coli values, 15% (n = 9) for coliform bacteria values, and 5% (n = 3) for enterococci and fecal streptococci values.

Table 3

Evaluation of compliance with national legislation through the laboratory results for drinking water in schools

Compliance of schools' laboratory results with the legislationNumberPercentage
RWIHCa – compliant 50 83.3 
RWIHCa – non-compliant 10 16.7 
Total 60 100.0 
Compliance of schools' laboratory results with the legislationNumberPercentage
RWIHCa – compliant 50 83.3 
RWIHCa – non-compliant 10 16.7 
Total 60 100.0 

aRegulation on Water Intended for Human Consumption (1).

Table 4

Laboratory results on the analysis of microbiological parameters in the drinking water of schools (n = 60)

Microbiological parameterNumberPercentage
E. coli Suitable 55 91.7 
Not suitable 8.3 
Coliform bacteria Suitable 51 85.0 
Not suitable 15.0 
Enterococci–fecal streptococci Suitable 57 95.0 
Not suitable 5.0 
Total 60 100.0 
Microbiological parameterNumberPercentage
E. coli Suitable 55 91.7 
Not suitable 8.3 
Coliform bacteria Suitable 51 85.0 
Not suitable 15.0 
Enterococci–fecal streptococci Suitable 57 95.0 
Not suitable 5.0 
Total 60 100.0 

The distribution of laboratory results based on the school's geographical region is depicted in Table 5.

Table 5

The distribution of laboratory results based on the school's geographical region

Urban (n = 39)Rural (n = 21)The limit values by the regulation (min. –max.)pa
Median (min.–max.)Median (min.–max.)
pH 7.7 (7.1–8.7) 7.2 (6.4–7.8) 6.5–9.5 0.001 
Iron (μg/L) 293.0 (196.0–548.0) 516.0 (198.0–1211.0) 2.500 (max.) 0.001 
Aluminum (μg/L) 0.0 (0.0–51.8) 0.0 (0.0–45.5) 200 (max.) 0.361 
Ammonium (mg/L) 23.4 (0.0–94.3) 0.0 (0.0–51.9) 200 (max.) 0.001 
E. coli (kob/100 ml) 0.0 (0.0–14.0) 0.0 (0.0–32.0) 0 (max.) 0.507 
Coliform bacteria (kob/100 ml) 0.0 (0.0–14.0) 0.0 (0.0–100.0) 0 (max.) 0.102 
Enterococci–fecal streptococci (kob/100 ml) 0.0 (0.0–0.0) 0.0 (0.0–13.0) 0 (max.) 0.016 
Urban (n = 39)Rural (n = 21)The limit values by the regulation (min. –max.)pa
Median (min.–max.)Median (min.–max.)
pH 7.7 (7.1–8.7) 7.2 (6.4–7.8) 6.5–9.5 0.001 
Iron (μg/L) 293.0 (196.0–548.0) 516.0 (198.0–1211.0) 2.500 (max.) 0.001 
Aluminum (μg/L) 0.0 (0.0–51.8) 0.0 (0.0–45.5) 200 (max.) 0.361 
Ammonium (mg/L) 23.4 (0.0–94.3) 0.0 (0.0–51.9) 200 (max.) 0.001 
E. coli (kob/100 ml) 0.0 (0.0–14.0) 0.0 (0.0–32.0) 0 (max.) 0.507 
Coliform bacteria (kob/100 ml) 0.0 (0.0–14.0) 0.0 (0.0–100.0) 0 (max.) 0.102 
Enterococci–fecal streptococci (kob/100 ml) 0.0 (0.0–0.0) 0.0 (0.0–13.0) 0 (max.) 0.016 

aMann–Whitney U test.

The map was marked to display the sample schools based on the results obtained.

Table 6 displays the distribution of key characteristics according to the school region. In both urban and rural areas, the mains are used as the drinking water source for 94.9 and 85.7% of schools, respectively. In urban schools, the percentage of canteens is 82.1%, whereas, in rural schools, it is 14.3%. When comparing schools in urban and rural areas, no statistically significant difference was observed in the parameters of drinking water source and the frequency of water cuts (p > 0.05). Urban schools demonstrated a significantly higher percentage of canteen availability and water sales (82.1%) compared to the rural group (14.3%) (p = 0.000). The percentage of having a backup water source was significantly higher in urban schools (69.2%) than the rural group (33.3%) (p = 0.005).

Table 6

Distribution of key characteristics by the school region

School characteristicsUrban
Rural
p
NumberPercentageNumberPercentage
Drinking water source Mains 37 94.9 18 85.7 0.221 
Other 5.1 14.3 
Status of canteen and water sales Present 32 82.1 14.3 0.000 
Absent 17.9 18 85.7 
Back-up water source Present 27 69.2 33.3 0.005 
Absent 12 30.8 14 66.7 
Frequency of water cuts Never–rarely 32 82.1 14 66.7 0.197 
Sometimes–frequently–very often 17.9 33.3 
Total 39 100.0 21 100.0  
School characteristicsUrban
Rural
p
NumberPercentageNumberPercentage
Drinking water source Mains 37 94.9 18 85.7 0.221 
Other 5.1 14.3 
Status of canteen and water sales Present 32 82.1 14.3 0.000 
Absent 17.9 18 85.7 
Back-up water source Present 27 69.2 33.3 0.005 
Absent 12 30.8 14 66.7 
Frequency of water cuts Never–rarely 32 82.1 14 66.7 0.197 
Sometimes–frequently–very often 17.9 33.3 
Total 39 100.0 21 100.0  

The evaluation of drinking water parameters in primary and secondary schools within a provincial center demonstrated in this study that a significant percentage of schools (91.7%) primarily relied on the mains for their drinking water supply. As per the research conducted by Jeffrey Ezennia et al., it was found that school-age children residing in low socioeconomic areas of the United States predominantly relied on school fountains and mains water as their primary source of drinking water (Ezennia et al. 2023). Thus, the significance of having drinking fountains and ensuring the availability of potable water in schools is elevated. Upon examining the studies in the literature, it is observed that the percentage of schools with access to tap water or an improved water source ranges from 56.0 to 98.6% (Turan 2008; Morgan et al. 2017, 2021; Çetinkaya et al. 2020; Ahmed et al. 2022; Oloruntoba et al. 2022; Poague et al. 2023). In our study and other studies within literature, the level of access to mains water falls short of the desired rate. Given the potential health implications associated with using tap water for drinking purposes, it is believed that all schools should have access to it, and any installations requiring maintenance should be replaced and consistently monitored.

The analysis revealed that 16.7% (n = 10) of the sampled schools violated national legislation. Compliance with legislation was assessed by evaluating the physical parameters in all 60 samples. Only one of the samples analyzed in our study exhibited pH non-compliance regarding chemical parameters. As per the national legislation, the absence of microbiological parameters like E. coli, coliform bacteria, and enterococci–fecal streptococcus is required in drinking water. These parameters act as indicators for fecal matter and comprise bacteria originating from the intestinal flora of either humans or animals. The detection of these bacteria in water samples signifies the presence of fecal contamination. In the studies reviewed in the literature, the rate of samples found to be inappropriate in terms of drinking water quality varies between 10 and 85% (Kandemir 2008; Avcı et al. 2014; Bora 2016; Tanas 2016; Morgan et al. 2017, 2021; Hung & Thi Cuc 2020; Murtaza et al. 2020; Cronk et al. 2021; Tuluk et al. 2021; Ahmed et al. 2022; Hossain et al. 2022).

The microbiological parameters were deemed non-compliant in our study and other studies referenced in the literature. Given the suitable conditions under which the samples were collected and transported to the laboratory, it can be inferred that the drinking water sources are contaminated with bacteriological elements rather than being attributed to the sampling and transportation methods. The audits conducted by relevant public institutions and academic examinations should be utilized to determine the reasons for this situation, with the ultimate goal of ensuring that the analysis results of all schools align with the legislation.

Fecal contamination indicates the presence of pathogenic microorganisms, including bacteria, protozoa, viruses, fungi, and helminths in the water. Consumption of contaminated water can spread infectious diseases and water-borne epidemics, notably typhoid and cholera. Furthermore, the rise in water-borne infections will contribute to an augmentation of health-related expenditures. Our study revealed that, upon the assessment of schools that failed to comply with the legislation, only 1 out of 10 of these schools had appropriate microbiological parameters. The observation that most schools experiencing microbiological contamination are located within the same district implies the need to assess the district's infrastructure as well. It is crucial to ensure the dissemination of necessary information pertaining to this matter.

The pH parameter is the cause of non-compliance in one particular school. In Kandemir's study, which aimed to assess the activities of public health centers in Edirne, the chemical analysis results of drinking water samples collected from schools showed consistent appropriateness across the districts. Overall, evaluating the chemical analysis results for the samples was deemed appropriate. In just one district, the rate of chemical analysis results identified as unsuitable amounted to 10.0%. Nonetheless, the sampling rate was assessed as insufficient compared to the drinking water samples that were supposed to be obtained in that investigation (Kandemir 2008).

In a study by Murtaza et al. in Pakistani schools, all pH analysis results complied with the WHO data (Murtaza et al. 2020). In another study by Ahmed et al. in schools in Pakistan, all pH analysis results complied with the WHO data (Ahmed et al. 2022). In the study of Hung et al. evaluating drinking water parameters in Vietnamese schools, the rate of nonconformity of pH analysis results of the samples was determined to be 3.9% (Hung & Thi Cuc 2020). The pH non-compliance rate of the studies in the literature varies between 0 and 10%, similar to our study results.

When schools in urban areas were compared with schools in rural areas, although there was no statistically significant difference in drinking water source, the access rate to mains water was higher in urban areas (94.9 vs. 85.7%). In a study by Poague et al., in which 173,000 schools in Brazil were evaluated for drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene before and during the pandemic, it was determined that schools in urban areas had higher access rates to safe drinking water than those in rural areas, and private schools had higher access rates to safe drinking water than public schools (Poague et al. 2023). An evaluation of six African countries conducted by Morgan et al. found that the access rate to safe drinking water in rural schools ranged between 54.0 and 89.0% (Morgan et al. 2017). When examining the data from our study, it became evident that schools in rural areas were at a disadvantage compared to their urban counterparts. This result was primarily due to the lack of canteens, the limited availability of packaged water, and insufficient back-up water sources. Canteen and spare water source availability rates in rural schools were 14.3 and 33.3%, respectively. In comparison, urban schools exhibited rates of 82.1 and 69.2%.

Rural schools exhibited lower access rates to mains water, the reduced availability of alternative water sources, and the limited sale of packaged water in canteens, implying that rural schools face drawbacks in accessing safe drinking water. Access to mains water should be made available to all schools, with a particular emphasis on rural areas.

The aim should be to secure healthy drinking water for every school. Based on the evaluation of water parameters, it was determined that schools do not have adequate access to healthy drinking water. While schools in both urban and rural areas generally rely on tap water, it can be argued that rural schools face a disadvantage when it comes to accessing healthy drinking water, which can be mainly attributed to the absence of an alternative water source and the unavailability of packaged water sales in the canteen. The main issue concerning water relates to its microbiological properties. Urgent research efforts should be undertaken to identify the microbiological origin and address the issue, encompassing infrastructure management. The resolution to this issue can be achieved through inter-institutional collaboration. The National Education Directorate and the relevant municipalities must receive information and training regarding the health effects of the current situation, as per our research findings.

Ethical approval was obtained from the Gaziantep University Clinical Research Ethics Committee, and research permission was obtained from the Gaziantep Provincial Directorate of National Education.

All authors accept all conditions and publication rights.

The Gaziantep University Scientific Research Projects Management Unit funded this project under project number TF.UT.22.06.

Data cannot be made publicly available; readers should contact the corresponding author for details.

The authors declare there is no conflict.

Avcı
H. H.
,
Pehlivan
E.
,
Avcı
S.
&
Selçuk
B. E.
(
2014
)
Malatya İli İçme Suyu Kontrol İzlemesi Sonuçlarının Halk Sağlığı Açısından Değerlendirilmesi
,
Turgut Özal Tıp Merkezi Dergisi.
,
21
(
1
),
21
26
.
Bora
D.
(
2016
)
Zonguldak Merkez İlçeye Bağlı Köylerde Suların Fiziksel,Kimyasal ve Mikrobiyolojik Analizi
.
Zonguldak
:
Bulent Ecevit University
.
Çetinkaya
A.
,
Uyar
F.
,
Özmen
D.
,
Şahin
D.
&
Köksal
S. S.
(
2020
)
Manisa İl Merkezinde Bulunan Devlet İlkokul ve Ortaokullarının Fiziki ve Çevresel Koşullarının Değerlendirilmesi
,
Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi.
,
7
(
3
),
335
340
.
Ezennia
J.
,
Schmidt
L. A.
,
Ritchie
L. D.
,
Blacker
L.
,
Charles
E. M. C.
&
Patel
A. I.
(
2023
)
Water security experiences and water intake among elementary students at low-income schools: A cross-Sectional study
,
Acad. Pediatr.
,
23
(
1
),
68
75
.
Güler
Ç
. (
2012
)
Çevre Sağlığı (Çevre ve Ekoloji Bağlantılarıyla)
, Vol.
1&2
.
Ankara
:
Yazıt Yayıncılık
, p.
231&1237
.
Güler
Ç.
&
Akın
L.
(
2012
)
Halk Sağlığı Temel Bilgiler
, 2nd edn.
Ankara
:
Hacettepe Üniversitesi Hastaneleri Basımevi
.
Hossain
M. J.
,
Islam
M. A.
,
Rahaman
M. H.
,
Chowdhury
M. A.
&
Rahman
M. M.
(
2022
)
Drinking water services in the primary schools: Evidence from coastal areas in Bangladesh
,
Heliyon
,
8
(
6
),
e09786
.
Hung
D. T.
,
Thi Cuc
V.
,
Thi Bich Phuong
V.
,
Thi Thanh Diu
D.
,
Thi Huyen Trang
N.
,
Thoa
N. P.
,
Thi Tuyet Chinh
D.
,
Manh Hung
T.
,
Manh Linh
C.
&
Van Long
N.
(
2020
)
Evaluation of drinking water quality in schools in a district area in Hanoi, Vietnam
,
Environ. Health Insights
,
14
,
1178630220959672
.
Kandemir
B.
(
2008
)
Edirne'de Toplum Sağlığı Merkezlerinin Personel ve İşlev Açısından Değerlendirilmesi
.
Edirne
:
Trakya University
.
Ministry of Health (2005) Insani Tüketim Amaçlı Sular Hakkında Yönetmelik. Ankara, Turkey: Ministry of Health. https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuat?MevzuatNo=7510&MevzuatTur=7&MevzuatTertip=5
Morgan, C. E., Bowling, J. M., Bartram, J. & Kayser, G. L.
(
2021
)
Attributes of drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene associated with microbiological water quality of stored drinking water in rural schools in Mozambique and Uganda
,
Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health
,
236
,
113804
.
Morgan, C., Bowling, M., Bartram, J. & Kayser, G. L.
(
2017
)
Water, sanitation, and hygiene in schools: Status and implications of low coverage in Ethiopia, Kenya, Mozambique, Rwanda, Uganda, and Zambia
,
Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health
,
220
(
6
),
950
959
.
Murtaza
B.
,
Nazeer
H.
,
Natasha., Amjad
M.
,
Imran
M.
,
Shahid
M.
,
Shah
N. S.
,
Faroog
A. B. U.
,
Amjad
M.
&
Murtaza
G.
(
2020
)
Hydrogeochemical investigation of arsenic in drinking water of schools and age dependent risk assessment in Vehari District, Punjab Pakistan: A multivariate analysis
,
Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int.
,
27
(
24
),
30530
30541
.
Poague
K. I. H. M.
,
Blanford
J. I.
,
Martinez
J. A.
&
Anthonj
C.
(
2023
)
Water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) in schools in Brazil pre-and peri-COVID-19 pandemic: Are schools making any progress?
,
Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health
,
247
,
114069
.
Tanas
E. E.
(
2016
)
Sakarya İli İçme Suyu Şebekesinin Su Kalitesinin Araştırılması
.
Sakarya
:
Sakarya University
.
Tuluk
B.
,
Kayserili
O.
&
Kasali
K.
(
2021
)
An investigation on physical, chemical and microbiological quality of drinking water in Erzurum city
,
Ann. Med. Res.
,
24
(
1
),
25
30
.
Turan
H.
(
2008
)
Gaziantep İl Merkezindeki İlköğretim Okullarının Standartlara Uygunluk ve Çevre Sağlığı Durumlarının Değerlendirilmesi
.
Gaziantep
:
Gaziantep University
.
World Health Organization
(
2022
)
Schools Ill-Equipped to Provide Healthy and Inclusive Learning Environments for all Children
.
Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization
.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY 4.0), which permits copying, adaptation and redistribution, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).