Limits...
Technical and social evaluation of arsenic mitigation in rural Bangladesh.

Shafiquzzaman M, Azam MS, Mishima I, Nakajima J - J Health Popul Nutr (2009)

Bottom Line: These results indicate that the implementation approaches of the sono arsenic filter suffered from lack of ownership and long-term sustainability.Willingness of households to pay (about 30%) and preference of household filter (50%) suggest the need to develop a low-cost household arsenic filter.Development of community-based organization would be also necessary to implement a long-term, sustainable plan for household-based technology.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Environmental Systems Engineering, Ritsumeikan University, I-I-I Nojihigashi, Kusatsu, Shiga 525-8577, Japan. shafiq@se.ritsumei.ac.jp

ABSTRACT
Technical and social performances of an arsenic-removal technology--the sono arsenic filter--in rural areas of Bangladesh were investigated. Results of arsenic field-test showed that filtered water met the Bangladesh standard (< 50 microg/L) after two years of continuous use. A questionnaire was administrated among 198 sono arsenic filter-user and 230 non-user families. Seventy-two percent of filters (n = 198) were working at the time of the survey. Another 28% of the filters were abandoned due to breakage. The abandonment percentage (28%) was lower than other mitigation options currently implemented in Bangladesh. Households were reluctant to repair the broken filters on their own. High cost, problems with maintenance of filters, weak sludge-disposal guidance, and slow flow rate were the other demerits of the filter. These results indicate that the implementation approaches of the sono arsenic filter suffered from lack of ownership and long-term sustainability. Continuous use of arsenic-contaminated tubewells by the non-user households demonstrated the lack of alternative water supply in the survey area. Willingness of households to pay (about 30%) and preference of household filter (50%) suggest the need to develop a low-cost household arsenic filter. Development of community-based organization would be also necessary to implement a long-term, sustainable plan for household-based technology.

Show MeSH
Comparison of arsenic test results between AAS and field test-kit (Gastec)
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2928078&req=5

Figure 1: Comparison of arsenic test results between AAS and field test-kit (Gastec)

Mentions: Earlier, BAMWSP field-kit arsenic-testing was conducted in this area (2). After testing, the tubewells were painted red for arsenic-risk and green for arsenic-safe tubewell. However, the paint marks disappeared, and the households did not remember the safe and contaminated tubewells during our investigation. In total, 95 tubwell, 41 SAF and 20 DTW water samples were tested in this survey. Forty-one SAFs were randomly selected based on the selected list of 198 SFUs. Water samples were collected from 95 tubewells—41 from SFUs and 54 from NUs, during the interview. Twenty water samples from DTWs were also tested to see whether they were contaminated or safe. Tubewell water was collected in sampling-pots after pumping the water for about 3 or 4 minutes to avoid the oxidation or sedimentation of arsenic. Filtered water was collected in sampling-pots from the effluent tap of SAF. Arsenic in tubewells water and filtered water was measured on-site using commercial arsenic field test-kits (Gastec). Concentration of arsenic was determined from the calibration table according to the rate of change of colour with time due to arsine gas production from contaminated water. Arsine gas was produced immediately after adding acid, SnCl2, and zinc coarse powder into the sample water. Some water samples were carried to the laboratory and analyzed for arsenic with atomic adsorption spectrophotometer (AAS). Figure 1 shows the results of the test-kits and AAS. A good correlation between test-kits and AAS arsenic measurement was obtained with R2 value of 0.8929.


Technical and social evaluation of arsenic mitigation in rural Bangladesh.

Shafiquzzaman M, Azam MS, Mishima I, Nakajima J - J Health Popul Nutr (2009)

Comparison of arsenic test results between AAS and field test-kit (Gastec)
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2928078&req=5

Figure 1: Comparison of arsenic test results between AAS and field test-kit (Gastec)
Mentions: Earlier, BAMWSP field-kit arsenic-testing was conducted in this area (2). After testing, the tubewells were painted red for arsenic-risk and green for arsenic-safe tubewell. However, the paint marks disappeared, and the households did not remember the safe and contaminated tubewells during our investigation. In total, 95 tubwell, 41 SAF and 20 DTW water samples were tested in this survey. Forty-one SAFs were randomly selected based on the selected list of 198 SFUs. Water samples were collected from 95 tubewells—41 from SFUs and 54 from NUs, during the interview. Twenty water samples from DTWs were also tested to see whether they were contaminated or safe. Tubewell water was collected in sampling-pots after pumping the water for about 3 or 4 minutes to avoid the oxidation or sedimentation of arsenic. Filtered water was collected in sampling-pots from the effluent tap of SAF. Arsenic in tubewells water and filtered water was measured on-site using commercial arsenic field test-kits (Gastec). Concentration of arsenic was determined from the calibration table according to the rate of change of colour with time due to arsine gas production from contaminated water. Arsine gas was produced immediately after adding acid, SnCl2, and zinc coarse powder into the sample water. Some water samples were carried to the laboratory and analyzed for arsenic with atomic adsorption spectrophotometer (AAS). Figure 1 shows the results of the test-kits and AAS. A good correlation between test-kits and AAS arsenic measurement was obtained with R2 value of 0.8929.

Bottom Line: These results indicate that the implementation approaches of the sono arsenic filter suffered from lack of ownership and long-term sustainability.Willingness of households to pay (about 30%) and preference of household filter (50%) suggest the need to develop a low-cost household arsenic filter.Development of community-based organization would be also necessary to implement a long-term, sustainable plan for household-based technology.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Environmental Systems Engineering, Ritsumeikan University, I-I-I Nojihigashi, Kusatsu, Shiga 525-8577, Japan. shafiq@se.ritsumei.ac.jp

ABSTRACT
Technical and social performances of an arsenic-removal technology--the sono arsenic filter--in rural areas of Bangladesh were investigated. Results of arsenic field-test showed that filtered water met the Bangladesh standard (< 50 microg/L) after two years of continuous use. A questionnaire was administrated among 198 sono arsenic filter-user and 230 non-user families. Seventy-two percent of filters (n = 198) were working at the time of the survey. Another 28% of the filters were abandoned due to breakage. The abandonment percentage (28%) was lower than other mitigation options currently implemented in Bangladesh. Households were reluctant to repair the broken filters on their own. High cost, problems with maintenance of filters, weak sludge-disposal guidance, and slow flow rate were the other demerits of the filter. These results indicate that the implementation approaches of the sono arsenic filter suffered from lack of ownership and long-term sustainability. Continuous use of arsenic-contaminated tubewells by the non-user households demonstrated the lack of alternative water supply in the survey area. Willingness of households to pay (about 30%) and preference of household filter (50%) suggest the need to develop a low-cost household arsenic filter. Development of community-based organization would be also necessary to implement a long-term, sustainable plan for household-based technology.

Show MeSH