1 preface, content - Cloud Object Storage | Store & … distress and thus in the process helped to upheld the Mission’s motto of God Worship in Man irrespective of class, creed,

This is a publication by: Ramakrishna Vivekananda Mission 7, Riverside Road Barrackpore: 700 120

This report is authored by Mr. Soumyadeep Mukhopadhyay, Project Team Leader

For further information, please contact:

Soumyadeep Mukhopadhyay Project Team Leader, DM 06-0880 RKVM-IAS, 3, B.T. Road, Agarpara Kolkata: 700 058 West Bengal, INDIA Office: +91 033 2583 9580 Fax: +91 033 2563 7302 Mobile: +91 94337 16340 Email: [email protected]

[email protected]

In spite of all the devilry that Religion is blamed with, Religion is not at all at

fault; no Religion ever persecuted men, no Religion ever burnt witches, no

Religion ever did any of these things. What then incited people to do these

things? Politics, but never Religion. And if such Politics takes the name of

Religion, whose fault is it?

It is our privilege to be allowed to be charitable, for only so can we grow.

Let the giver kneel down and give thanks; let the receiver stand up and permit.

Be strong and stand up and seek the God of Love. This is the highest strength.

What power is higher than the power of purity? Love and purity govern the

world. This love of God cannot be reached by the weak; therefore be not weak,

either physically, mentally, morally or spiritually.

Foreword

rsenic problem in West Bengal & Bangladesh caught the attention of

the scientific community & the media alike from the early 1990s. Even

in the new millennium, the problem remains untamed to a large extent

probably due to the lack of a technology that can address this problem at its

root cause resulting in a sustained solution. The common people remain to

be the helpless sufferers. So, Ramakrishna Vivekananda Mission, having its

Head Quarters at Barrackpore, West Bengal, India was thinking of doing

something for these unfortunate people of the Nadia & North 24 Parganas

of West Bengal. There are other districts also, where this problem persists.

But RKVM has stronghold in these two districts & wanted to initiate their

work here.

Back in 2004, RKVM provided infrastructural facility to a consortium of

Indian & European Institutes at its Kasimpore centre to work upon a Pilot

project funded by European Union (TiPOT). A sustainable technology for

treating the aquifer itself for removing arsenic was experimented here. No

chemical filters were used or no toxic sludge was generated in the process.

Once it produced desirable result, the consortium took part in the

Development Marketplace Global Competition of the World Bank in 2006.

The then Honorary Registrar of RKVM-IAS, Mrs. Angana Dutta presented the

proposal to the DM authority that considered the proposal to be truly

innovative & honoured it as one of the Winners among 2,525 other

proposals submitted from all around the World. The fund was released in

five installments from July 2007 to December 2008. RKVM executed the

work by recruiting research assistants, engineers, supervisors & plumbers

especially for this project. Also, RKVM had constant interaction with the

four European advisors viz Queen’s University, Belfast, Universidad Miguel

Hernandez, Spain, Leiden University, The Netherlands & Stuttgart

University, Germany. Dr Bhaskar Sen Gupta of QUB was one of the main

guiding agents in both the TiPOT project & this World Bank project.

A

Under this particular project, RKVM has installed six Subterranean Arsenic

Removal plants – two in Nadia district & four in North 24 Parganas. All of

them are presently running very well & delivering water at their fullest

capacity. At present, RKVM is regularly supervising the plants & is running

them initially at its own cost. The scientific data show promising results.

The most important thing regarding this project is that, it works and that

too at a very low running cost.

These projects have generated great hopes among the people of these areas

& the situation demands that we undertake more of this type of work in

other needy areas of West Bengal in association with the funding agencies

who are primarily focusing in the health & environmental sectors. RKVM is

a charitable non profit organisation that has won National Award thrice for

societal causes. It has the ability and infrastructure to provide every

support & enough man power to carry on this project in its second phase

with the valuable experience it has gained from the first phase of this

extraordinary work.

RKVM takes this opportunity with great pleasure to express its high

appreciation & deep gratitude to the World Bank authority for supporting

the noble cause and to those friends who helped it to implement this project.

With grateful thanks to everybody,

Dated: 5th March, 2009

Swami Nityananda

Secretary, RKVM

Acknowledgements

e, on behalf of the Ramakrishna Vivekananda Mission will like to congratulate the

common people of the arsenic affected West Bengal on the occasion of completion of

this project. We will also like to convey our heartfelt gratitude to the World Bank

Development Marketplace for providing the RKVM a chance to serve the people who are

in distress and thus in the process helped to upheld the Mission’s motto of God Worship

in Man irrespective of class, creed, religion & colour. The DM deserves thanks for

standing beside RKVM & supporting it through thick & thin throughout the project

period.

On behalf of the project team, I will remain ever grateful to the Secretary of the Mission,

Swami Nityananda for providing every infrastructural, administrative and moral support

to the Team during the time of need. The entire Governing Body of the RKVM,

Barrackpore will need special mention for providing solid administrative support to the

project team, always complying with its requests and taking great interest in the activity

of the team.

Our heartfelt regard goes to all the Advisors and Research Scholars who devoted their

valuable time and energy towards success of this project for the benefit of the needy

common people. Our thanks goes to Dr. Bhaskar Sen Gupta from Queen’s University

Belfast, Prof Angel Carbonell Barrachina from Universidad Miguel Hernandez-Spain,

Prof Wouter de Groot from CML, Leiden University- the Netherlands and Prof Rott &

Prof Carsten Meyer from ISWA, Stuttgart University-Germany.

On this occasion, I will like to take the opportunity to acknowledge all the persons who at

some point of time or other were associated with this work, played their part effectively

and thus contributed towards the overall success of the project. Prof H. S. Ray, Mrs

Angana Dutta - the former RKVM-IAS Honorary Registrar, Ms Sreejita Ghorui and Ms

Rajanita Das Purakayastha demand special mention in this regard. I will also thank all

the persons associated with this project at this point of time, who have extended their co-

operative hand and took great pains to make this project successful. I will remain ever

grateful to Mr Sushil Bhattacharyya, the Registrar of RKVM-IAS and Mr Saral Das

W

Gupta, Member – Governing Body of RKVM without whose co-operations and interests,

it was difficult for the project team to perform their duty.

The Research Assistants Mr Indrajit Bera and Mr Krishnendu Halder, the Operators, the

Drivers, the Office Staff and the Finance Office of RKVM – all of them, through their

concerted efforts made the workplace enjoyable for all of us. Cheers to all of you guys …

working with you all was really a privilege for me. The memory of every moment we

strived together as a team will last a lifetime.

Last, but not the least, I will thank our friends and families who provided us with moral

support during the time of great work pressure & tough deadlines, keeping us fit enough

to rise to the challenge and shoulder our responsibilities.

Thank you all for your co-operation, support and patience,

Dated: 6th March, 2009

Soumyadeep Mukhopadhyay

Project Team Leader

DM 06-880

C O N T E N T S

Summary and Report Structure

1

1. Introduction

1.1 Project Background: TiPOT Project at Kasimpore

1.2 Arsenic: Some Background Information

1.3 Previous Research on Arsenic & it’s Mitigation

1.4 Objectives of the Project

1.5 Organizational Structure

3

3

4

8

10

11

2. Principle: Science & Technology behind the SAR system

12

3. Relevance of SAR in the Study Area

3.1 Arsenic in groundwater of West Bengal

3.2 The arsenic problem of drinking water

3.3 The arsenic problem of irrigation water

3.4 The arsenic problem in local perceptions

3.5 The arsenic problem in GO perceptions

3.6 Solutions for drinking water proposed and applied

3.7 Solutions for drinking water applied in West Bengal

3.8 Solutions for irrigation water proposed and applied

16

16

18

19

21

22

22

32

34

4. The Plant Design

4.1 Design criteria

4.2 Options available: Variants

4.3 Line Diagram of SAR Plant

35

35

37

40

5. Providing the SAR Utility

5.1 Selection Criteria of the Project Sites

5.2 Survey Methods

5.3 Arsenic & Iron levels in the aquifers of the Project Sites

5.4 Installing the Plants

5.5 Starting the Operation and Data Generation

5.6 Delivering Water & Quality Monitoring

5.7 Realising Problems & Prospects

41

41

47

53

54

54

55

56

6. Elements of the Delivery System of SAR

6.1 Introduction to Delivery System

6.2 What is supplied?

6.3 Users, Suppliers and ‘Central Actor’

6.4 The relationship between Central Actor & Users

6.5 The relationship between Central Actor & Suppliers

6.6 Facilitators

59

59

60

62

63

65

65

7. Operation & Maintenance Issues

7.1 Operation

7.2 Maintenance

7.3 Certification

7.4 Delivery System

69

69

70

70

71

8. Results

8.1 Data generated during Operation

8.2 Discussion

72

73

79

9. Conclusions & Recommendations

80

10. Photographs

83

11. Annexure

I. Manuals & Questionnaires

II. Agreements, Certificate & Technology Transfer letter, etc

III. Persons associated with DM 06-880

92

93

105

113

12. References

114

Contact Information 117

Summary and Report Structure

he present report focuses on the implementation of the project “Subterranean

Arsenic Removal: Experiment to Delivery” (DM 06-0880) by Ramakrishna

Vivekananda Mission, Barrackpore with funding from the World Bank Development

Marketplace and technical help from Queen’s University- Belfast (QUB), ISWA-Stuttgart

University Germany, University of Leiden - The Netherlands (CML) and Universidad Miguel

Hernandez – Spain (UMH).

As the title indicates, this project is the field application of the experiment done on

Subterranean Arsenic Removal (SAR) System from 2004 to 2006 at Kasimpore, North 24

Parganas, West Bengal under the TiPOT project that was funded in the Asia Pro Eco

Programme of the EU (Contract reference no.: ASI/B7-301/2598/24-2004/79013). The

objectives of the project were the development of a low-cost technology for in-situ

treatment of groundwater for potable and irrigation purposes and to formulate practice-

based guidelines for a rural water treatment technology in Eastern India.

Based on the findings of that TiPOT project, RKVM along with the partners QUB, CML,

UMH & ISWA participated in the “Development Marketplace Global Competition, 2006”

with a project proposal titled “Subterranean Arsenic Removal: Experiment to Delivery” and

came out Winner in the theme area of “Innovations in Water, Sanitation and Energy

Services to the Poor People”.

Under this project (code: DM 06-0880), RKVM had to install 6 in-situ arsenic treatment

plants based on the SAR technology. Dr. Bhaskar Sen Gupta from QUB was the Chief

Advisor, Prof Wouter de Groot from CML was the advisor on the Delivery System, prof

Angel carbonell barrachina from UMH was the Food Safety advisor and Prof Rott & Prof

Carsten Meyer from ISWA advised on the Technical aspects.

This report is divided into twelve sections. The first section introduces the reader with a

few basic aspects viz the origin of the project (1.1), some facts about arsenic (1.2), the

extent of research done till date on arsenic removal technologies (1.3), the primary &

secondary objectives of the project (1.4) and the organizational structure sustained by

the RKVM to implement this project (1.5).

The second section deals with the principle behind the SAR technique. The probable

mechanism of arresting of arsenic in the aquifer is discussed here with diagrams &

schematic diagrams.

T

Subterranean Arsenic Removal: Experiment to Delivery

Ramakrishna Vivekananda Mission - Institute of Advanced Studies 2

The third section discusses the relevance of applying the SAR technology in the particular

study area. It explores the scenario of arsenic in groundwater of West Bengal (3.1), the

arsenic problem specifically in drinking water (3.2) and in irrigation water (3.3). It also

brings out a discussion on the extent of local (3.4) and governmental (3.5) perception of

the problem. Then it ventures into the solution part of the problem i.e. the solutions

proposed & applied for drinking water in general (3.6), particularly in West Bengal (3.7)

and for irrigation water (3.8).

The fourth section elucidates on the design of the plant. The design criteria kept in the

mind is discussed in sub section 4.1. From the TiPOT project, three options were

available for installations (4.2). Among these, T-6000l is being selected for installation.

The fifth section gives an insight into the implementation stage of the project. The

aspects kept into consideration while selecting the sites are mentioned in the sub section

5.1. The methods of socio-economic survey, WTP survey & food-safety survey are also

discussed (5.2). The questionnaires are provided at the annexure. Lastly, the arsenic &

iron concentrations initially at the selected project sites are tabulated (5.3). The

installation phase (5.4), the start-up phase (5.5), the quality monitoring phase (5.6) and

problem rectification phase (5.7) are all dealt with in this section.

In the sixth section, the reader gets introduced to the concept of delivery system and

various terms related with the subject (6.1, 6.2 and 6.3). The relationships between

different agents of the supply chain have been mentioned in sub sections 6.4, 6.5 and

6.6.

The seventh section then brings us into the Operation & maintenance issues of the T-

6000L model installed at the project sites. In various sub sections 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 & 7.4, the

issues of operation, maintenance, certification & delivery system are discussed.

The eighth section reveals the result that the project team obtained while water quality

monitoring of the plant water. The graphs generated from the data are provided here &

an observer will be mesmerized to see the synchronization between the variation of

arsenic & iron in the aquifer water as the plant operation continued (8.1). The findings

are discussed in detail (8.2).

Finally, we reach a conclusion and recommend some aspects that will help in smooth

running of the plants as well as reduce the arsenic ingestion by the common people at

section 9. Section ten shows some photographs of the project and section eleven and

twelve provides annexure & references for the avid readers.



1

Introduction 1.1 Project Background: TiPOT Project at Kasimpore


1.3 Research History



AR means ‘Subterranean Arsenic Removal’. This is a technology that works to keep

the arsenic in the ground before it might move into the drinking water or irrigation

water supply wells and pipes. Another term denoting the same idea is ‘In-Situ

Groundwater Treatment’. In all parts in the report when we speak about SAR in specific

terms, e.g. on cost or performance, we specifically refer to SAR of the type developed by

ISWA, Germany, because that technology is the core of both the experimental TiPOT

project as well as the World Bank Project DM06-880. What this SAR does is to build up

adsorption capacity in the soil, so that the arsenic gets stuck there before reaching the

well.

1.1 Project Background: TiPOT Project at Kasimpore

he TiPOT Project at Kasimpore was the fore runner of the World Bank Project DM 06-

880. The consortium of some European Universities & Indian Research Institutes

experimented with the In-situ Arsenic Removal Technology at Kasimpore under the

S

T



funding of EU. After obtaining desired result, they decided to take their work to the next

level by participating in the DM 2006 Competition of the World Bank.

The TiPOT (Technology for in-situ treatment of groundwater for potable and irrigation

purposes) project at Kasimpore on "Subterranean Arsenic Removal" was funded in the

Asia Pro Eco Programme of the EU (Contract Reference No.: ASI/B7-301/2598/24-

2004/79013). The objectives of the project were the development of a low-cost

technology for in-situ treatment of groundwater for potable and irrigation purposes and

to formulate practice-based guidelines for this a rural water treatment technology for

Eastern India. Roughly, 70 million people in the Bengal delta region are affected due to

arsenic exposure especially through consumption of drinking water. The aims of the

project were therefore the assurance of arsenic free water for general consumption and

irrigation at low cost and to enhance food safety in the affected areas through

sustainable irrigation and farming practices.

A Consortium of Universities and Institutes worked together on the project. The lead

partner was Queens University Belfast (QUB). Other participating partners were: National

Metallurgical Laboratory, Jamshedpur, India (NML); Institute for Sanitary Engineering,

Water Quality and Solid Waste Management, Stuttgart, Germany (ISWA); Universidad

Miguel Hernandez, Alicante, Spain (UMH); Institute of Environmental Management and

Studies, India (IEMS), and the Institute of Environmental Sciences, Leiden University, the

Netherlands (CML).

Having a successful history in countries as Germany and Switzerland, ISWA (with help of

especially NML and RKVM-IAS), applied the in-situ technology in a case study site near

Kolkata at Kasimpore. In anticipation of the positive results, other partners worked on

issues as arsenic in food (UMH), arsenic and irrigation (QUB) and the way to bring the

technology to the people in India (CML and IEMS).

After the successful outcome in the TiPOT project, RKVM-IAS competed for the

"Development Marketplace Global Competition, 2006" hosted by the World Bank in the

"Water & Sanitation for the Poor People" category & emerged as one of the Winners

among 2,525 competitors in this prestigious competition.


lemental arsenic (As) is a member of Group 15 of the periodic table, with nitrogen,

phosphorus, antimony and bismuth. It has an atomic number of 33 and an atomic

mass of 74.91. The Chemical Abstract Service (CAS), National Institute for Occupational

Safety and Health Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemicals (RTECS), Hazardous Substances

E



Data Bank (HSDB), European Commission, and UN transport class numbers are 7440-38-

2, HSB 509, CG 05235 000, 033-001-00-X and UN 1558, respectively.

Arsenic is a metalloid widely distributed in the earth’s crust and present at an average

concentration of 2 mg/kg. It occurs in trace quantities in all rock, soil, water and air.

Arsenic can exist in four valence states: –3, 0, +3 and +5. Under reducing conditions,

arsenite (As (III)) is the dominant form; arsenate (As (V)) is generally the stable form in

oxygenated environments. Elemental arsenic is not soluble in water. Arsenic salts exhibit

a wide range of solubilities depending on pH and the ionic environment.

Sources and occurrence of arsenic in the environment

Arsenic is present in more than 200 mineral species, the most common of which is

arsenopyrite. It has been estimated that about one-third of the atmospheric flux of arsenic is

of natural origin. Volcanic action is the most important natural source of arsenic, followed by

low-temperature volatilization. Inorganic arsenic of geological origin is found in

groundwater used as drinking-water in several parts of the world, for example Bangladesh.

Organic arsenic compounds such as arsenobetaine, arsenocholine, tetramethylarsonium

salts, arsenosugars and arsenic-containing lipids are mainly found in marine organisms

although some of these compounds have also been found in terrestrial species. Elemental

arsenic is produced by reduction of arsenic trioxide (As2O3) with charcoal. As2O3 is produced

as a by-product of metal smelting operations. It has been estimated that 70% of the world

arsenic production is used in timber treatment as copper chrome arsenate (CCA), 22% in

agricultural chemicals, and the remainder in glass, pharmaceuticals and non-ferrous alloys.

Mining, smelting of non-ferrous metals and burning of fossil fuels are the major industrial

processes that contribute to anthropogenic arsenic contamination of air, water and soil.

Historically, use of arsenic-containing pesticides has left large tracts of agricultural land

contaminated. The use of arsenic in the preservation of timber has also led to contamination

of the environment.

Environmental transport and distribution

Arsenic is emitted into the atmosphere by high-temperature processes such as coal-fired

power generation plants, burning vegetation and volcanism. Natural low-temperature

biomethylation and reduction to arsines also releases arsenic into the atmosphere. Arsenic

is released into the atmosphere primarily as As2O3 and exists mainly adsorbed on

particulate matter. These particles are dispersed by the wind and are returned to the earth

by wet or dry deposition. Arsines released from microbial sources in soils or sediments

undergo oxidation in the air, reconverting the arsenic to non-volatile forms, which settle

back to the ground. Dissolved forms of arsenic in the water column include arsenate,

arsenite, methylarsonic acid (MMA) and dimethylarsinic acid (DMA). In well-oxygenated

water and sediments, nearly all arsenic is present in the thermodynamically more stable



pentavalent state (arsenate). Some arsenite and arsenate species can interchange oxidation

state depending on redox potential (Eh), pH and biological processes. Some arsenic species

have an affinity for clay mineral

surfaces and organic matter and

this can affect their environmental

behaviour. There is potential for

arsenic release when there is

fluctuation in Eh, pH, soluble

arsenic concentration and sediment

organic content. Weathered rock

and soil may be transported by wind

or water erosion. Many arsenic

compounds tend to adsorb to soils,

and leaching usually results in

transportation over only short

distances in soil.

Three major modes of arsenic

biotransformation have been found

to occur in the environment: redox

transformation between arsenite

and arsenate, the reduction and

methylation of arsenic, and the biosynthesis of organoarsenic compounds. There is

biogeochemical cycling of compounds formed from these processes.

Under oxidizing and aerated conditions, the predominant form of arsenic in water and soil

is arsenate. Under reducing and waterlogged conditions (< 200 mV), arsenites should be

the predominant arsenic compounds. The rate of conversion is dependent on the Eh and pH

of the soil as well as on other physical, chemical and biological factors.

In brief, at moderate or high Eh, arsenic can be stabilized as a series of pentavalent

(arsenate) oxyanions, H3AsO4, H2AsO4–, HAsO4

2– and AsO43–. However, under most reducing

(acid and mildly alkaline) conditions, arsenite predominates. A pH and Eh diagram is shown

in Fig. 2.

Human exposure through food & water

Non-occupational human exposure to arsenic in the environment is primarily through the

ingestion of food and water. Of these, food is generally the principal contributor to the daily

intake of total arsenic. In some areas arsenic in drinking-water is a significant source of

exposure to inorganic arsenic. In these cases, arsenic in drinking-water often constitutes the

principal contributor to the daily arsenic intake. The daily intake of total arsenic from food



and beverages is generally between 20 and 300 µg/day. Limited data indicate that

approximately 25% of the arsenic present in food is inorganic, but this depends highly on

the type of food ingested. Inorganic arsenic levels in fish and shellfish are low (< 1%).

Foodstuffs such as meat, poultry, dairy products and cereals have higher levels of inorganic

arsenic. Pulmonary exposure may contribute up to approximately 10 µg/day in a smoker and

about 1 µg/day in a non-smoker, and more in polluted areas. The concentration of

metabolites of inorganic arsenic in urine (inorganic arsenic, MMA and DMA) reflects the

absorbed dose of inorganic arsenic on an individual level. Generally, it ranges from 5 to 20

µg As/litre, but may even exceed 1000 µg/litre.

Long term effects on human health

Long-term exposure to arsenic in drinking-water is usually related to increased risks of

cancer in the skin, lungs, bladder and kidney, as well as other skin changes such as

hyperkeratosis and pigmentation changes. These effects have been demonstrated in many

studies using different study designs. Exposure–response relationships and high risks have

been observed for each of these end-points. Increased risks of lung and bladder cancer and

of arsenic-associated skin lesions have been reported to be associated with ingestion of

drinking-water at concentrations 50 µg arsenic/litre. Precursors of skin cancer have been

associated with drinking-water arsenic levels < 50 µg/litre. Arsenic is considered to be

genotoxic in humans on the basis of clastogenicity in exposed individuals and findings in

vitro.

Arsenic exposure via drinking-water induces PVD. Whether arsenic alone is sufficient to

cause the extreme form of this disease, BFD, is not known. Conclusions on the causality of

the relationship between arsenic exposure and other health effects are less clear-cut. The

evidence is strongest for hypertension and CVD, suggestive for diabetes and reproductive

effects and weak for cerebrovascular disease, long-term neurological effects and cancer at

sites other than lung, bladder, kidney and skin.

Effects on other organisms in the environment

Aquatic and terrestrial biota shows a wide range of sensitivities to different arsenic species.

Their sensitivity is modified by biological and abiotic factors. In general, inorganic arsenicals

are more toxic than organoarsenicals and arsenite is more toxic than arsenate. The mode of

toxicity and mechanism of uptake of arsenate by organisms differ considerably.

Arsenic compounds cause acute and chronic effects in individuals, populations and

communities at concentrations ranging from a few micrograms to milligrams per litre,

depending on species, time of exposure and end-points measured. These effects include

lethality, inhibition of growth, photosynthesis and reproduction, and behavioural effects.

Arsenic-contaminated environments are characterized by limited species abundance and



diversity. If levels of arsenate are high enough, only species which exhibit resistance may be

present.

1.3 Previous Research on Arsenic & its mitigation:

here is an enormous amount of publications on the arsenic contamination problem in

West Bengal, India and Bangladesh. The site www.engconsult.com/arsenic/refs.htm, for

instance, gives a reference list of 139 papers related to arsenic. There is the arsenic info

crisis centre on line (http://bicn.com/acic/) that includes an info-bank of news articles,

scientific papers, comprehensive links to other relevant sites, online forum, email newsletter,

and local site search. There is also the www.sos-arsenic.net where several links can be found

to topics related to arsenic pollution and project combating the problem in West Bengal and

Bangladesh. There is a very good report from the World Bank (2005) that deals not only with

the arsenic problem but that also extensively describes proposed and applied technologies

and alternatives.

Source substitution is often considered more appropriate than arsenic removal from the host

water (Ahmed, 2003). However, the use of alternative sources requires a major technological

shift from easily available groundwater supply to some other resources like surface water or

blending of multiple water resources etc. It calls for a big capital investment, which may not

be economically feasible always. On the other hand, the treatment of arsenic contaminated

water for the removal of arsenic to an acceptable level is one of the safe options for

dependable water supply (Ahmed, 2003). Since the detection of arsenic in groundwater, a lot

of effort has been mobilized for treatment of arsenic-contaminated water to make it safe for

drinking. During the last few years, many arsenic detection and test methods and small-

scale arsenic removal technologies have been developed, field-tested, and used under

different programs in developing countries. While considering the appropriateness of the

water supply technology for arsenic mitigation particularly in rural area, following factors are

considered to be important for selection.

1) Avoidance or substantial and consistent reduction of the arsenic in the final product

2) Low capital cost as well as running cost

3) Water quality and quantity

4) Robustness of the process

5) Operational ease, hazard and safety

6) Environmental soundness

7) Socio economic considerations

8) Convenience and social acceptability

9) Feasibility

T



Based on the above criteria, a review of different mitigation technologies for arsenic removal

from the contaminated groundwater is done. There are several methods available for

removal of arsenic from water. The most commonly used processes of arsenic removal from

water have been described by Cheng et al. (1994), Hering et al. (1996, 1997), Kartinen and

Martin (1995), Shen (1973) and Joshi and Chaudhuri (1996) etc. A detailed review of arsenic

removal technologies have been presented by Sorg and Logsdon (1978). Several advances in

arsenic removal technologies have been developed by Jokel (1994). In view of the lowering of

the standard of WHO for the maximum permissible levels of arsenic in drinking water, a

review of arsenic removal technologies was carried out to consider the economic factors

involved in implementing more stringent drinking water standards for arsenic (Chen and

others 1999). Many of the arsenic removal technologies have been discussed in details in the

AWWA (American Water Works Association) reference book (Pontius 1990). Murcott (2000)

has compiled a review of low-cost well water treatment technologies for arsenic removal,

with a list of companies and organizations involved in arsenic removal technologies.

Comprehensive reviews of arsenic removal processes have been documented by Ahmed, Ali

and Adeel (2001), Johnston (2000), Heijnen, and Wurzel (2000), and Ahmed (2003). The

AWWA conducted a comprehensive study on arsenic remedial options and evaluation of

residuals management issues (AWWA 1999).

The Bengal delta is one of the most fertile places in the world, replenished each year by the

mighty flood water of the monsoon season with nutritious sediments. The Green Revolution

in India transformed the agriculture in intensive, expanding production from one to four

crops per year, due mainly to the enormous population growth. As a consequence of both

intensive agriculture and population growth, these areas are mostly groundwater dependent

and in those areas environmental conditions are optimum to release As to groundwater by

oxidation of pyrite, reduction of ferric iron hydroxides to ferrous iron or by over-application

of phosphate fertilizer to surface soils. In addition, the dependence of the West Bengal

population on groundwater is also because surface water is heavily contaminated with

microorganisms and has been the cause of millions of deaths each year through water-borne

disease while ground water is free of microorganism.

In West Bengal it is reported that about 6 million people from 2600 villages in 74

arsenic-affected blocks are at risk and for instance 9.8% of 86,000 people examined are

suffering arsenic damages.

Nickson et al. tested As concentration in 132,262 government installed hand pumps in 8

districts and overall 25.5% of samples were found to contain As at concentrations greater

than 50 Sg As L-1 and 57.9% at concentration greater than 10 Sg As L-1. Arsenic

contaminated groundwater is not just used for drinking water but is also widely used for

irrigation of crops, and particularly for the staple food paddy rice (Oryza sativa), which

represents a great portion of caloric intake for the Indian rural population. If arsenic levels



build up in paddy soils, it can lead to elevated As in rice grain, and the amount of As

ingested by inhabitants of this region could be considerably more than previously thought.

The studies carried out by Roychowdhury et al. in the Murshidabad district (West Bengal)

provided data for t-As intake from water and from foodstuff. It was estimated at 4.5 times

greater than the Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) and contributions from foodstuff (rice,

vegetables, and spices) represented 27% of the daily t-As intake. As a consequence of long

periods of exposure to such high level of As intake people suffer from damage to the skin,

kidney, brain, heart and circulation; miscarriages and stillbirth also seem to increase

although bladder and lung cancer are the major killers. Besides, social problems arise from

As-related diseases. For example, marriages are annulled and people with arsenicosis are

avoided. In some areas, panic sets in. With so many likely to fall ill, a huge burden has been

placed on family units, and their land.

Summarizing, in the As-affected parts of India the main sources of As in the diet are 1)

drinking water from tube wells and 2) foodstuff such as cooked rice and vegetables and both

have given rise to high As daily intake resulting in serious health diseases and social

problems.


1.4.1. Overall Developmental Objectives:

• Study of demand of safe drinking water in Arsenic prone villages and assessment

of benefits/ willingness to pay.

• Implementation of the low cost technology to remove arsenic and iron from the

groundwater.

• Provide some recommendations about improvement in Agricultural and Farming

practices to reduce arsenic contamination in food chain and to assess the

suitability of this technique to provide water for irrigation purposes.

• Insurance on the acceptability of the technology by beneficiaries, Local Self Govt.

agencies, Self help Groups, and other NGOs.

• Assessment on the replication of the technology in neighboring countries like

Bangladesh, in terms of the cost-benefit ratio, the socio-economic conditions and

the physiographic factors.

• Data generation about the performance of the plants and to monitor the water

quality.

1.4.2. Intermediate Objectives:



• Creating awareness among the local rural people about the severity of arsenic

problem and about the intended project for their full co-operation.

• Provision of arsenic & iron free safe drinking water to the extreme rural belts of

West Bengal where arsenic contamination of groundwater is a major problem.

• Distribution of drinking water at a cost affordable by the poor people.

• Income generation for the household operator/Central Actor, in charge of the

pump & the maintenance of the project by selling the arsenic free drinking water

at a minimum charge.


he Ramakrishna Vivekananda Mission came up with this organizational structure for

implementing this particular project.

T



2

Principle: Science & Technology behind the SAR System

n the in-situ treatment method, the aerated tube well water is stored in feed water

tanks and released back into the aquifers through the tube well by opening a valve in

a pipe connecting the water tank to the tube well pipe under the pump head (Figure

1). Because there is little or no oxidant in the deep soil pores and the permeability of the

soil layers are usually low, there is a strong driving force for the oxidant to diffuse into

these locations and oxidize the contamination. The dissolved oxygen in aerated water

oxidizes arsenite to less-mobile arsenate, the ferrous iron to ferric iron and Manganese

(II) to Manganese (III), followed by adsorption of arsenate on Fe (III) and manganese (III)

and subsequent precipitation resulting in a reduction of the arsenic content in tube well

water. Oxidation is further enhanced biologically by bacteria living in the subsurface and

is termed bioremediation process. In-situ oxidation process can work in tandem with

bioremediation by chemically oxidizing recalcitrant compounds and creating products

that are readily biodegradable.

The process of in-situ oxidation of groundwater virtually transfers the oxidation and

filtration process of the conventional above ground water treatment plants into the

aquifer. The underground aquifer is used as a natural biochemical reactor. A part of the

delivered groundwater is re-circulated back into the aquifer carrying oxidising agent,

generally atmospheric oxygen. Oxygen can be introduced into water by aerating it and

then recharging the water into the aquifer.

I



The basic configuration for subterranean processing consists of an oxidation station,

either a spray nozzle or water jet air pump, a storage tank and pipelines for delivery from

the aquifer and for enrichment (recharge) into the aquifer. The schematic arrangement is

shown in Figure 1. The water is pumped from the groundwater by means of a

submersible pump fitted within the well, aerated in the aeration chamber by means of

spray nozzles fitted inside the tank and the water is stored in a feed water tank. The

oxygen rich water is then re-infiltrated into the aquifer using the filter pipes of the

delivery system. The ratio of the delivered volume to the recharged water volume is

termed as 'efficiency coefficient' and is varied between 2 and 12 as per the requirement

depending on raw water quality and the aquifer characteristics.

Figure 1: Scheme of in

situ treatment for

arsenic removal from

Ground water

Figure 2: Oxidation zone

created in the aquifer

Because of the input of

oxygen, the redox potential

of the water is increased. A

number of different physical,

chemical and biological

processes are intensified in

the surrounding area of the

well screen section, the so

called oxidation zone (Figure



2). The alternate operation of the wells for delivering groundwater in the tank top and

infiltration of the oxygen rich water into the aquifer induces alternating oxidation and

adsorption periods on the surface of the solid material in the aquifer.

During the groundwater delivery period (discharge) Fe (II), Mn (II) and As (III) are adsorbed

to the surface of the soil grain, which are partially coated by previously deposited

oxidation products of the previous cycle of the operation and bacteria. In the following

recharge period, the bivalent ions are oxidized to insoluble ferric hydroxides and

manganese oxides (Mn (III)) by the oxygen transported with the infiltration water into the

pores of the aquifer and get precipitated and separated from water. As (III) first oxidizes

to As(V) and then gets adsorbed on iron hydroxide and manganese hydroxide. Figure 3

illustrates the adsorption and oxidation process in the aquifer. The oxidation processes

are accelerated by autocatalytic effects of the oxidation products and by autotrophic

micro-organisms utilizing energy from the oxidation process. Additionally, the dissolved

iron and manganese are adsorbed on the bacteria sheaths by the bio-film.

The in situ method is a very cost effective and eco-friendly process for arsenic removal.

The greatest advantage of this process is there is no need for sludge handling. The

arsenic which is trapped into the sand along with the iron flocs constitute a infinitesimal

volume of the total volume being handled and hence pose very little environmental threat

in its precipitated form. The whole mass remains down below unlike other processes

where there is extra cost of sludge handling and messy disposal problem. The process is

chemical free, simple and easy to handle. There is no restriction to the volume it can

Figure 3: Oxidation – Adsorption process in the underground aquifer



handle as long as proper time is allowed for the oxygen rich impregnated water to create

the adequate oxidizing zone in the deep aquifer. It is also quite flexible with respect to

the raw water quality as the efficient coefficient could be varied depending on the quality

of the raw water. It involves low capital cost and minimum operating cost. The results

obtained in the test site is quite promising as the process is able to reduce the arsenic

content from 100-250 Qg/l (0.1 – 0.25 mg/lt) to permissible limit of 10 Qg/l (0.01 mg/lt)

. It is ideal for a rural set up where people really cannot afford to pay a substantial

amount for water supply. The only disadvantage is that it takes some time for the whole

system to destabilize because of the slow kinetics of the oxidation process. However,

once stabilized, it remains steady for years to come.



3

Relevance of SAR in the Study Area


3.2 The arsenic problem of drinking water

3.3 The arsenic problem of irrigation water





3.8 Solutions for irrigation water proposed and applied

his section explores the demand side of the SAR technology. We will first discuss

the existence of arsenic in groundwater in West Bengal. Then, in sub sections 3.2

and 3.3, we continue with the arsenic problem in drinking water followed by the

arsenic problem in irrigation water. We continue with the local perceptions of the arsenic

problem, followed by the arsenic problem in GO perceptions in sub sections 3.4 and 3.5

respectively. An overview of all solutions for drinking water is given according to source,

in situ treatment and post treatment of arsenic rich water in section 3.6. We continue the

chapter with the solutions for drinking water that have been applied (and failed) in West

Bengal (sub section 3.7). The chapter is rounded off by a discussion on irrigation water.


n West Bengal most drinking water used to be collected from open dug wells and

ponds without an arsenic problem. However, due to pollution, this water became

T

I



contaminated with diseases such as diarrhea, dysentery, typhoid, cholera and hepatitis.

Since the 1970s and 1980s shallow hand-pump wells (at depths less than 70 meters)

were established to provide clean drinking water that helped to control these diseases.

Arsenic was found in the waters of West Bengal in the 1980s. An estimated 30 million

people in the Ganges delta are drinking well water contaminated with arsenic (New

Scientist, 2004). Of these people, more than 6 million live in West Bengal, India

(Chakraborti, 2002).

In West Bengal, the contaminated aquifers in the region are mainly Holocene alluvial and

deltaic sediments, which form the western margins of the Bengal basin (World Bank,

2005). The five worst

affected districts of

West Bengal are Malda,

Murshidabad, Nadia, 24

North Parganas, and 24

South Parganas (ibid.).

These cover an area of

about 23,000 km2

where arsenic

concentrations found

range between 1 and

3,200 µg per litre. The

Quaternary

sedimentation patterns

vary significantly

laterally, but sands

generally predominate

to a depth of 150–200

m in Nadia and Murshidabad, while the proportion of clay increases southwards into 24

North and South Parganas, as does the thickness of surface clay (World Bank, 2005). A

shallow "first aquifer" has been described at 12–15 m depth, with an intermediate

"second aquifer" at 35–46 m, and a deep "third aquifer" at around 70–90 m depth (World

Bank, 2005). High levels of As in groundwater are especially found in the second aquifer.

CGWB (1999, as cited in World Bank, 2005) noted that the depths of arsenic-rich

groundwater vary in the different districts but where high-arsenic groundwater exists,

they are generally in the depth range of 10–80 m. Low levels of As are found in the

groundwater from the first aquifer and the third aquifer, usually. For shallow water from

the first aquifer one reason for the low As amount when actually drunk is that the water

is harvested through open dug wells that are likely to contain groundwater that is

oxidized. Groundwater from the deep aquifer also have low arsenic concentrations,

except where only a thin clay layer separates it from the overlying aquifer, allowing some



hydraulic connection between them (World Bank, 2005). Figure 1 gives a visual

representation.

Arsenic scenario in West Bengal

Physical Parameters with respect to West Bengal

Area in sq. km 89,193

Population in million (according to 2001 Census) 80

Total number of districts 18

Number of arsenic affected districts where groundwater contains arsenic above 50 µg/L 9

Number of arsenic affected Blocks 85

Total number of water samples analyzed 1,28,303

% of samples having arsenic above 10 µg/L 50.0

% of samples having arsenic above 50 µg/L 26.7

Number of arsenic affected villages (approx.) where groundwater contains arsenic above 50

µg/L 3285

Total number of biological (hair, nail, urine, skin-scales) samples analyzed 28,000

% of samples having arsenic above normal level (average) in biological samples 85

Total people screened by medical team of SOES-JU 95,000

Number of registered arsenicosis patients 10,000

Area of arsenic affected districts in sq. km 38,865

Population of arsenic affected districts in million 42.7

Expected people drinking arsenic contaminated water in 9 affected districts above WHO

recommended value (10 µg/L) 8.7 million

Expected people drinking arsenic contaminated water in 9 affected districts above WHO

maximum permissible limit (50 µg/L) 6.5 million

People may be affected from arsenical skin lesions * 300,000

*on the basis of no. of tube wells having arsenic >300 µg/L

3.2 The arsenic problem of Drinking water

rsenic pollution is a severe problem leading to a wide variety of diseases, such as

skin lesions, blackfoot disease, diabetes, hypertension, skin cancers, and internal

cancers (lung, bladder and kidney) (World Bank, 2005). Chakraborti et al. (2002) describe

in detail the epidemiological diseases that they encountered in the As affected villages

that they studied in West Bengal and Bangladesh. A total of about 30 million people in

the Ganges delta, of which more than 6 million live in West Bengal, drink water with

arsenic concentrations higher than 50 µg per litre and are thus at risk, and more than

300 000 people may have visible arsenical skin lesions (Chakraborti, 2002). (Worldwide,

arsenic contamination from groundwater is found in China, Taiwan, Cambodia, Lao

People Democratic Republic, Pakistan, Myanmar, Vietnam, and Nepal).

In 1995, the WHO lowered the guideline value from 50 to 10 µg per litre. The Indian

standard value is still 50 Qg per litre.

A



3.3 The arsenic problem of Irrigation water

egarding arsenic concentration in irrigation water, neither international agencies nor

individual countries propose any recommended maximum permissible values (World

Bank, 2005).

The arsenic problem of irrigation water concerns two issues. The first is that withdrawal

of irrigation water spoils the deep wells used for drinking water. The second concerns

arsenic ingestion through the food chain. There is not that much literature on the issue

of arsenic poisoning via crops through irrigation. In this section we first give a small

overview of the history of irrigation water in West Bengal and its sustainability. Then, we

deal with some topics that are of importance to figure out to what extent it is desirable to

go into more detail on possible solutions of contaminated irrigation water. These topics

concern: (1) standards for As concentration in the food and the extent to which As rich

irrigation water contributes to the problem, (2) the tolerable amount of arsenic in

irrigation water for which crops, and other water quality requirements (related to the

option of surface water as a solution), and (3) preconditions for solutions.

Irrigation on drinking water wells and its possible impact

In the 1960s and 1970s, agriculture in West Bengal was still rain-dependent and each

year there was only one crop following the monsoon (Roychowdhury et al., 2002). There

was thus no arsenic problem at all. To meet the food demand of the increasing

population, four to five crops in one year are common at present. To reach this end

ground water is used for irrigation (ibid.). The status of aquifer exploitation is as high as

79.40% from a single district North 24-Parganas (taken from Roychowdhury et al., 2002,

that cite Directorate of Agricultural Engineering). This heavy withdrawal of groundwater

may be the reason why iron pyrites decomposes and releases arsenic in water. Also

Johnston et al. (2001) describe the risk of unsustainability of the supply of arsenic free

water (especially relevant when large amounts of water are used). Within the same

localities, there can be a big difference between the arsenic concentrations in the ground.

In some cases, the arsenic-rich and arsenic-free zones may be separated by low-

permeability materials such as clays. In other cases however, the arsenic-rich zones may

be in hydraulic connection with arsenic-free zones. By pumping water from arsenic-free

zones, arsenic-rich water may be induced to flow into previously uncontaminated strata,

and eventually may reach the well. In the same vein, Chakraborti et al. (2002) state that:

“Rapid depletion of deep aquifers results in a deleterious influx from the As

contaminated aquifer above. Intensive efforts to provide deeper tube-wells for supplying

drinking water may be counterproductive if the aquifer is simultaneously depleted by

irrigation demands. The thoughtless exploitation of groundwater for irrigation without

R



effective watershed management, which would have involved, for example, harnessing

huge surface water and rainwater resources is now seen in retrospect as a terrible

mistake.”

Standards for As in food

Concerning the issue of the possible arsenic impacts through the food chain, we first

look at As standards in food. There is no standard maximum level of arsenic in food in

South and East Asian countries (World Bank, 2005), but there are some other standards.

For instance, the provisional tolerable daily intake value of inorganic arsenic according to

FAO/WHO (1989) is 2.1 Qg/kg body weight. The WHO (1981) states that intake of

inorganic arsenic of 1.0 mg per day may give rise to skin diseases within a few years (for

a person of 50 kg this amounts to 20 Qg/kg of body weight). The UK declared a statutory

limit of 1 Qg/kg fresh weight in foods for sale in the UK (Arsenic in Food Regulations,

1959, cited in Warren et al., 2003). This leaves a safety factor of 50 compared to the

FAO/WHO norm if we assume a body weight of 50 kg and a food intake of 2.1 kg per

person per day.

Addressing the As contaminated irrigation water, the question is raised to what extent

the food contributes to the arsenic contamination. Several studies showed that most of

the arsenic enters the food chain by cooking vegetables and rice with arsenic polluted

water. Bae et al. (2002) for instance proposes that the content of arsenic in cooked rice is

higher than that in raw rice and absorbed water combined, suggesting a chelating effect

by rice grains, or concentration of arsenic because of water evaporation during cooking,

or both. Studies by Carbonell-Barrachina within the framework of the TIPOT project (see

other project reports) reach the same conclusion. There are several other studies on

arsenic contamination on vegetables and fish (e.g. Das et al, 2004; Burlo et al., 1999;

Carbonell-Barrachina et al., 1999; Carbonell-Barrachina et al., 1997). It would appear

that in the rice-dominated diets of West Bengal, the intake of arsenic from food depends

more on the concentration of arsenic in the cooking water than food itself. This would

imply that for the health problem of West Bengal, the arsenic contamination of drinking

water is of much greater urgency than of the irrigation water.

Standards for irrigation water

If we want to address the issue of contaminated irrigation water despite the fact that

drinking water should prevail, it would be good to assess the tolerable amount of arsenic

in irrigation water. Next to arsenic levels, it would be good to know other standards for

water quality used for irrigation in order to study the option of surface water (perhaps in

addition to groundwater). In order to say more about possible alternatives, it would be

good to know the amount of water needed, quality of the water needed (in terms of As

but also to which extent it needs to be purified) for which crop, for which surface, for



which season. No standards are known for arsenic in irrigation water. Theoretically, one

could derive a standard for irrigation water from a standard pertaining to an element

further in the causal chain. The standard of 1.0 mg per person per day might be a

starting point for instance. We could then set aside 75% of this standard to the pathway

through drinking water, which would leave 0.25 mg per person per day as acceptable

burden through the food pathway. If we would then know how much food a person

digests per day, we may derive a standard of acceptable arsenic in food. If we then would

know how much the food crops take up from the irrigation water, depending on the

arsenic content of the irrigation water, we arrive at a standard for irrigation water.

Knowledge gathered in the TIPOT project could be helpful in these calculations.


ccording to current literature, awareness in the rural remote areas is still very low.

Chakraborti et al. (2002) mention that among 11,000 villagers afflicted with

arsenical skin lesion(s), when asked the reason for their disease, that 40% responded that

it was a ‘curse or wrath of God’ and 50% did not know the reason. Paul (2004) conducted

a study on the level of knowledge among rural residents regarding arsenic poisoning in

medium and high risk regions in Bangladesh. Table 1 shows the average knowledge

scores. This table shows that the average composite knowledge score for the study area

is only 19 out of a maximum score of 40. Of the 356 respondents, 35 (10%) had never

heard of the groundwater arsenic contamination problem (all these respondents came

from the low risk region). The table also indicates that 92% of all respondents in the

medium risk region and 76% from the low risk region knew that the manifestation of

arsenic-related symptoms in the villages studied was due to arsenic contaminated tube

well water, but a considerable number of respondents were unaware of the cause of the

contamination. Nearly 50% of the respondents in both study sites who were aware of the

arsenic contamination were not entirely familiar with the signs, symptoms, and diseases

caused by the ingestion of arsenic contaminated water. Additionally, nearly two-thirds of

all respondents were not able to correctly specify the incubation period for visible

symptoms associated with the consumption of arsenic through contaminated drinking

water. A similar percentage of respondents were unaware of the various arsenic

mitigation techniques available and potential solutions to the arsenic problem.

A



Thus, the study showed that arsenic awareness is not widespread in the study villages,

and that there are gaps in arsenic knowledge regarding the diseases caused by arsenic

poisoning and mitigating measures available to prevent contamination. This study

identified arsenic risk region, level of education, gender, and age as important

determinants of arsenic knowledge.


he paper of Chakraborti et al. (2002) heralds what has happened in India since the

arsenic calamity came to light in 1983, the year that the first As contaminations

among 63 patients were reported. A group of organizations worked together from 1983

to 1989 on the problem, reporting on the scope of affected areas and As related patient

cases, leading to a prediction of “a grim and dangerous future” (Chakraborti et al., 2002).

In 1987 a paper was published that caught attention by the media by which the

government could no longer ignore the issue (ibid.). In the same year Calcutta High Court

ordered to seal contaminated wells, but in practice only a few were sealed, and some

were opened again, because people were not given an alternative source of drinking

water, as was highlighted by the media (ibid.). From 1989 to 2001, the information on

the scope of the As problem increased and the problem also received lots of media

attention (Chakraborti et al., 2002). In 1995 an international conference on arsenic

pollution was held after which the government admitted part of the problem (not in full

scope and denied some of the findings), but also stated that undue panic was created by

the conference (ibid.). Chakraborti et al. (2002) state that it took the government 8 years

to accept that Calcutta has an As problem. Despite the fact that the government of West

Bengal initiated several As committees and task forces awareness if often said to be still

weak.

T




here are broadly three ways to access clean water in places where arsenic is found in

the ground. The first is to tap from a clean source, the second is to clean the

source (in-situ treatment) and the third is to clean the polluted water (post-

treatment of polluted water). There is a wide range of solutions that fit in one of the

three. There is an enormous amount of literature that deals with various technologies to

access clean water (e.g. WHO, 1997; World Bank, 2005; Galvis et al., 1998, Hussain et al.,

2001, Parga et al., 2005; Howard, 2003; Ming-Cheng Shih, 2005). Johnston et al. (2001)

and World Bank (2005) give the most extensive and detailed overview of the methods. In

this section, we will give a brief description of the main solutions that are proposed and

applied, mainly based on the overview of Johnston et al. (2001), and we will briefly

discuss their strengths and weaknesses. We do not aim to be exhaustive; there are more

solutions than we describe here.

Tapping Clean Source:

Rainwater harvesting

The harvesting of rainwater seems to be the most sustainable way to access clean water.

The source may not last the whole dry season, however, and therefore promotion of

rainwater harvesting will need to be combined with other solutions. Good designs of

rainwater tanks are available and at relatively low cost (Howard, 2003). The main risks

concern the feaces that gets in the tank, especially from birds, but this is relatively easy

to deal with (ibid.). Besides, close to urban areas, and when metal roofs are used,

collected rainwater can contain unsafe levels of lead and zinc, and possibly other metals

(Johnston et al., 2001).

The World Bank (2005) reports some social issues regarding rainwater harvesting, namely

that (1) some users don’t like the taste of the water, (2) that it has been reported from

Bangladesh that the return to rainwater harvesting may be viewed as a step backwards to

several decades ago when it was quite widely used.

Surface water

The per capita available surface water in arsenic affected areas of West Bengal is about

7000 cubic meters (Hossain et al., 2005). During the monsoons, the average annual

rainfall in this region is about 1600 mm (ibid.). In addition, West Bengal is richly endowed

with other available surface water resources such as wetlands, flooded river basins,

lagoons, ponds, and ox-bow lakes (ibid.). This available surface water can be tapped as

an important source of drinking water. However, surface water is often heavily polluted

T



with feaces as a result of poor sanitation and hygiene and it may also be contaminated

with chemicals from industrial or agricultural runoff, such as heavy metals, pesticides,

phosphate or nitrate. Surface water is usually free from arsenic contamination. However,

there are cases where surface water was contaminated because the source of the water

originates from arsenic rich rocks (Johnston et al., 2001) or waters affected by mining

activities (World Bank, 2005). Surface water always needs to be purified. Usually, it is best

to include multiple barriers to purify surface water (Johnston et al., 2003). They often

start with sedimentation to remove coarse suspended solids that could clog filters or

reduce disinfection efficiency and can remove at least 50%, and up to 90% of turbidity

and suspended solids (Johnston et al., 2001). This is followed by coagulation and

filtration (see Johnston et al., 2001) or alternatively the inexpensive alternative to

coagulation, slow sand filtration (see e.g. Galvis et al., 1998; Graham and Collins, 1996)

or bank filtration, where water, originating mainly from the river , is pumped up at a

short distance from the river (see e.g. Johnston et al., 2001). Johnston et al. (2001)

mentions that slow sand filtration will not efficiently remove arsenic or agricultural

chemicals such as pesticides. Further, the water might still be needed to be disinfected to

kill pathogens by boiling, ultraviolet (solar or artificial) radiation (e.g. Acra et al., 1989;

EAWAG, 1999), or chlorination (see Singer, 2000; WRC, 1989; WHO, 1997b).

Dug wells or ring wells

Dug wells are traditionally the most well-known method of groundwater use. The water

from dug wells has been found to be relatively free from dissolved arsenic and iron, also

in locations where neighbouring tube wells are severely contaminated (World Bank,

2005). The World Bank provides an example of a case in western Bangladesh where a 30

m deep tube well with a groundwater arsenic concentration of around 2,300 Qg per litre

is located just a few meters from an 8 m deep dug well with an arsenic concentration of

less than 4 µg per litre.

The reasons for the relatively low concentrations of arsenic in dug wells are not fully

known, but possible explanations include (ibid.):

• The water in the dug well slowly oxidizes due to its exposure to open air, large

diameter and agitation during water withdrawal which can cause precipitation of

dissolved arsenic and iron (ibid.).

• Dug wells accumulate groundwater from the top layer of a water table, which is

replenished each year by arsenic-safe rain and percolation of surface waters through the

aerated zone of the soil (ibid.).

Construction of such wells with cement ring walls provide bacteria free water, if the place

is sunny and without trees. Caution should be taken however; the water should be well

prevented from bacterial contamination etc. Recommended is to completely seal the well

and withdraw the water by a hand pump. However, the lack of oxygen then might put the

oxidation process at risk.



The water can be treated further with simple sand filters, or chlorination for disinfection.

A report of SOS arsenic.net describes a project that promotes the development of dug

wells in Bangladesh. “…..with a very limited budget has a big impact…..Dug wells and

rainwater harvestings have shown that arsenic free water can be obtained at low cost (i.e.

50 USD).” (sos-arsenic.net/english/project2003/project-reportaugust03.html#sec6). A

list of advantages according to this webpage is as follows:

• Dug wells are indigenous technology in Bangladesh.

• The wells are cheaper and easier to construct and less susceptible to bacteriological

contamination (BRAC, August 2000).

• Natural biological filtration occur, when water percolates through sand bodies (develop

microbial flora whose metabolism contributes to the effectiveness of removing effluents).

• In dug wells within the standing water simple sedimentation take place and has been

found frequently a substantial reduction in BOD (Biological Oxygen Demand).

• Natural iron coagulation and settlement occur within standing water (decrease in

arsenic, suspended solids, ammonia, nitrate and phosphate content. Care has to be taken

however, despite the tendency for low arsenic concentrations in dug well waters, not all

are found to be below acceptable limits (World Bank, 2005). Water testing is thus

necessary. Besides, they may run out of water supply during the dry season.

Deep tube wells

Deep tube wells are an attractive option. The middle-level aquifer contaminated with

arsenic is passed over and the risks on microbial hazards are low because of the natural

filtering of aquifer materials, and long underground retention times (Johnston et al.,

2001). Questions arise though on the sustainability in terms of arsenic leaching into the

deep layer and in terms of the sinking of water table. There is still the risk on arsenic, but

this is most likely because of the uncertainty of the depths of the deep tube wells that

have been tested positive on arsenic contamination (Howard, 2003). Besides, there is still

uncertainty on the arsenic movement in the sub-surface and the scale and degree of

arsenic contamination in the deep aquifer (ibid.). The initial capital costs of deep wells

are around 700 and 800 USD (World Bank, 2005). Chakraborti et al (2002) report that

some newly constructed deep tube wells where initially no As was found, were found As

positive after some time. They also report that the analysis of 2146 deep tube-wells

(100–450 m) from six districts showed 22.3% of the samples to contain more than 10 Qg

per litre As and 9.9% to contain more than 50 Qg per litre As. Chakraborti et al. (2002)

further state that water in deep aquifers takes decades, even centuries, to accumulate

and is inadequately replenished by rainfall.

Rapid depletion of deep aquifers results in a deleterious influx from the As contaminated

aquifer above. Intensive efforts to provide deeper tube-wells for supplying drinking water



may be counterproductive if the aquifer is simultaneously depleted by irrigation

demands. The New Scientist (December, 2005; p5) reports that in Bangladesh the deep

aquifers from which allegedly arsenic-free water is extracted receive an arsenic top-up

every rainy season. Fendorf (Stanford University) speculates that arsenic gets into the

aquifers when seasonal flood water trigger its release from sediments close to the

surface, transporting it down into the aquifers.

Pre-treatment (In-situ treatment): Clean the Source:

The technology that is tested in the TIPOT project is an in-situ treatment. Quoting World

Bank (2005) on this technology:

“In situ oxidation of arsenic and iron in the aquifer has been tried in Bangladesh under

the Arsenic Mitigation Pilot Project of the Department of Public Health Engineering (DPHE)

and the Danish Agency for International Development (Danida). The aerated tube well

water is stored in feed water tanks and released back into the aquifers through the tube

well by opening a valve in a pipe connecting the water tank to the tube well pipe under

the pump head. The dissolved oxygen in water oxidizes arsenite to less-mobile arsenate

and the ferrous iron in the aquifer to ferric iron, resulting in a reduction of the arsenic

content in tube well water. Experimental results show that arsenic in the tube well water

following in situ oxidation is reduced to about half due to underground precipitation and

adsorption on ferric iron. The method is chemical free and simple and is likely to be

accepted by the people but the method is unable to reduce arsenic content to an

acceptable level when arsenic content in groundwater is high.”

Johnston et al. (2001) state that the technique should be considered with caution. First

they state that oxidants are by definition reactive compounds, and may have unforeseen

effects on subsurface ecological systems, as well as on the water chemistry. Secondly,

they mention that care must be taken to avoid contaminating the subsurface by

introducing microbes from the surface. Finally, at some point pore spaces can become

clogged with precipitates, particularly if dissolved iron and manganese levels are high in

the untreated water.

The technology tested in TiPOT & the World Bank DM 06-880 project is a modification of this

technology using electrical power & superior aeration techniques.



Post-treatment of Arsenic Rich Water:

Many solutions are found to remove arsenic from the water. There are many sources that

describe and compare the various technologies, for instance Parga et al. (2005), Johnston

et al. (2001). Parga et al. (2005) describe that the removal efficiency for arsenic is often

much lower for As(III) than for As(V) by using anyone of the conventional technologies for

elimination of arsenic from water, so either elevation of pH or oxidation of arsenite to

arsenate is considered a prerequisite for any treatment method to be efficient. Table 2

gives an overview of technologies that remove arsenic from the groundwater, taken from

Parga et al. (2005) with data from Johnston et al. (2001) and some other sources added.

The most common arsenic removal technologies are grouped into the following four

categories:

• Oxidation

• Coagulation

• Sorptive filtration

• Membrane filtration

Sources: Parga et al. (2005) with data from Johnston et al. (2001) and some other sources.

Technologies

Advantages

Disadvantages

Removal

(%) and

cost

Oxidation/precipitation; reactions that reduce (add electrons to) or oxidize (remove electrons from)

chemicals, altering their chemical form (Johnston et al., 2001). Oxidation is often done as pretreatment to

convert arsenite (As(III)) to arsenate (As (IV)).

Air oxidation

• Relatively simple, low-cost

• Also oxidizes other inorganic and

organic constituents in water

• Mainly used as pre-

treatment

• Oxidation process is very

slow taking weeks.

80

Chemical oxidation

(e.g. chlorine, ozone,

permanganate,

Hydrogen peroxide,

Solid manganese)

• Oxidizes other impurities and kills

microbes

• Relatively simple and rapid

processes

• Minimum residual mass

• Common chemicals that are

available

• Efficient control of the pH

and oxidation step is

needed

90



Coagulation/co-precipitation: Coagulation with metal salts and lime followed by filtration is a well-

documented method of arsenic removal from water (World Bank). A coagulant is added to contaminated

water. After adding the coagulant, the water should be stirred, allowed to settle, and filtered for best

results. Coagulation improves parameters such as turbidity and color, and can reduce levels of organic

matter, bacteria, iron, manganese, and fluoride, depending on operating conditions (Johnston et al., 2001).

If arsenic is present as arsenite, the water should be oxidized first.

Alum coagulation

• Durable powder chemicals are

available

• Relatively low capital cost and

simple in operation

• Generates arsenic rich

sludge

• Low removal of arsenic

• Pre-oxidation required

(low removal of As (III))

• Optimal over a relatively

narrow pH range

90

Relatively

inexpensive

Iron coagulation

• Common chemicals are available

• More efficient than alum

coagulation on weigh basis


sludge

• Medium removal of As(III)

• Sedimentation and

filtration needed

94.5

Relatively

inexpensive

Electrocoagulation

with air injection

(Parga et al., 2005)

• The EC process operates on the

principle that the cations produced

electrolytically from iron and/or

aluminum anodes enhance the

coagulation of contaminants from an

aqueous medium.

• Removes both As(III) and As(V)

• It does not require the addition of

chemicals or regeneration and has a

high efficiency rate.

- -

Lime softening • Lime (Ca(OH)2) hydrolyzes and

combines with carbonic acid to form

calcium carbonate, which acts as the

sorbing agent for arsenic removal.

• Most common chemicals are

available commercially

• Readjustment of pH is

required

• Large coagulant doses are

required and thus generates

large volume of waste

91

Relatively

inexpensive

(more

expensive

than

iron/alum

coagulation

)



Sorption techniques: The efficiency of sorption techniques depends on the use of an oxidizing agent as an

aid to sorption of arsenic. Saturation of media (i.e. when the sorptive sites of the material have been

exhausted and the medium is no longer able to remove the impurities of the water) takes place at different

stages of the operation, depending on the specific sorption affinity of the medium to the given component

(World Bank,….) and the total run lengths (Johnston et al., 2001).

Activated alumina • Relatively well known and

commercially available

• Needs replacement after

four to five regeneration

(less than iron exchange

resin)


waste

• Works best in slightly

acidic waters (pH 5.5 to 6)

• Water containing arsenite

should be oxidized before

treatment.

88

Moderately

expensive

Iron coated sand

(UNESCOPRESS, 2005)

• Cheap sand coated with iron oxide

is a by product of water cleaning

stations (that use sand to remove Fe

from water)

• Remove both As(III) and As(V)

• It is easy to use, requires no power

and can be produced locally.

• A family filter (now produced for

less than 30 euros per piece) can

produce 100 liters of arsenic-free

water per day

• Replacement of sand

necessary each year

• Produces toxic solid waste

93

Cheap

Ion exchange resin

• Well-defined medium and capacity

• The process is less dependent on

pH of water

• Exclusive ion specific resin to

remove arsenic

• If arsenic is present as

arsenite, the water should

be oxidized first because it

only removes arsenate

(Johnston et al., 2001).

• Requires high-tech

operation and maintenance

• Regeneration creates a

sludge disposal problem

• Run lengths determined

by sulphate, thus resins are

only appropriate in waters

with under 120, preferably

under 25 mg/L sulphate

(Johnston, .

• Limited life of resins

87

Moderately

expensive

Dolomite • Remove better arsenate than

arsenite both As(III) and As(V)



Biosorbent

(Murugesan et al,

2006)

• arsenic removal with the waste

produced during black tea

fermentation (the tea fungus)

• an effective biosorbent for As(III)

and As(V);

• The metals in the waste can be

desorbed from the mat and the mat

can be easily degraded which is not

possible in chemical adsorbents.

Membrane techniques These make use of synthetic membranes, which allow water through but remove

many contaminants from water including bacteria, viruses, salts, and various metal ions (World Bank…).

They are of two main types: low-pressure membranes, used in micro-filtration and ultra-filtration; and

high-pressure membranes, used in Nanofiltration and reverse osmosis (ibid.). See Ming-Cheng Shih (2005)

for an overview of membrane technologies.

Nanofiltration

Well-defined and high-removal

efficiency

• Very high-capital cost

• Pre-conditioning

• High water rejection

95

relatively

expensive

Reverse osmosis No toxic solid waste is produced High tech operation and

maintenance

96

relatively

expensive

Electrodialysis Capable of removal of other

contaminants

Toxic wastewater produced 95

?

The costs of the technologies are of great importance. To have some idea of the costs

that are involved, Table 3 and Table 4 give an outline of the costs of various technologies

applied in Bangladesh and in India.



Conclusion

The overview shows that there is no simply best option, and solutions will have to be

worked out depending on the circumstances. Progress appears to be possible along two

parallel tracks:

(1) Technological improvement within the separate groups of options (rainwater, surface

water, very shallow wells, in situ treatment of shallow wells, add-on technologies of

shallow wells, deep wells).

(2) The development of measurement- and assessment systems that may efficiently

indicate which (combination of) technologies is most appropriate in a given situation

(water sources, aquifers, economic capacities, population density, etc.).

In all this, rainwater and surface water appear to deserve much attention as a source for

both potable and irrigation water. A restructuring of irrigation towards surface water may

help safeguard the low arsenic levels in deep wells.



Comparison of Costs of Different Arsenic Treatment Technologies in India

Source: World Bank Report


ince 1997, the government West Bengal, the World Bank, UNICEF, WHO, and other

international aid agencies and with NGOs have initiated a two-phase program to

combat the arsenic crisis (Hossain et al., 2005). The first phase was to identify

contaminated tube wells and the second to provide clean drinking water. Tube wells were

painted green or red corresponding to arsenic concentrations below and above 50 Qg per

litre (the national standard), respectively, utilizing field kits for arsenic testing. But, the

tests kits turned out not to be reliable; false negatives were as high as 68% and false

positives up to 35% (Rahman et al., 2002). Of the 2000 arsenic removal plants (that

capture the dissolved arsenic using ferric salts) installed in villages in West Bengal, four

out of five are either abandoned or deliver smelly and discoloured water (New Scientist,

2004). Based on an interview with Chakraborti the article also states that India has so far

spent three million US dollars on plants to capture the dissolved arsenic using ferric

salts and that of the 20 percent of removal plants still apparently functioning well, many

are not removing arsenic to the required standard, mainly because villagers do not know

how to maintain the plants. More details are provided by Hossain et al. (2005). The paper

evaluates the efficiency of 18 ARP (Arsenic Removal Plants) projects from 11

manufacturers. None of the plants could achieve the WHO standards of 10 Qg arsenic per

litre and only two achieved the Indian standard of 50 Qg per litre. The urine samples of

the villagers in the project’s area were found that 82% contained arsenic above the

normal limit.

S



EFFORTS FOR ARSENIC MITIGATION IN WEST BENGAL, INDIA

Sl.

No.

Organization Type of work

1. Natural Environmental Engineering

Research Institute (NEERI)

Arsenic determination field kit

2. Central Ground Water Board (Eastern

region)

Monitored arsenic affected areas w. r. to

water samples / soils and determined the

arsenic free aquifer

3. Central Glass and Ceramic Research

Institute (CGCRI)

Ceramic membrane filter units which are now

in operation at selected areas of North 24

Parganas

4. All India Institute of Hygiene & Public

Health (ALLH&PH)

Co-precipitation methodology using different

types of coagulant followed by filtration. The

Institute developed also the adsorption

methodology.

5. School of Environmental Studies

(SOES) Jadavpur University

Pellets to be used as coagulant followed by

filter candle

6. Bengal Engineering College, Deemed

University

Adsorption methodology using activated

alumina. (Amal filter)

7. Indian Institute of Technology (IIT,

Kharagpur)

Static or batch dynamic or column adsorption

studies

8. Analytical Chemistry Department,

Kalyani University

Monitored the arsenic affected areas and tried

adsorption methods

Hossain et al. (2005) summarise the causes of the poor performance as follows:

• Maintenance. The manufacturers did not give the correct directions regarding “forward

washing”.

• Clogging. The problem of sand gushing was not taken into account.

• Lack of user friendliness The system provided both arsenic free water (for drinking) and

arsenic polluted water (for other purposes) and there was no prevention of tapping

“wrong” water.

• Poor management of sludge from the plant.



3.8 Solutions for irrigation water proposed and applied:

s far as we know, literature on arsenic contamination of irrigation water concerns

mainly the effects of arsenic polluted water on the amount of arsenic in the crops

and the resulting health impacts. However, no specific solutions are put forward for the

use of poisoned irrigation water. As we have seen in the previous section, there are three

ways of having access to clean water. We will discuss what these solutions would have to

offer for irrigation water. It is important to keep in mind that (1) irrigation water concerns

large quantities, that (2) that the options to access clean water are often costly and (3)

that clean water is scarce and that groundwater is affecting the deep aquifer.

Broadly stated by Chakraborti et al. (2002), up to now, no efforts have been made to

adopt effective watershed management to harness the extensive surface water and

rainwater resources in West Bengal. Proper watershed management and participation by

villagers are needed for the proper utilization of water resources and to combat the As

calamity; there are huge surface resources of sweet water in the rivers, wetlands, flooded

river basins, and oxbow lakes. More specifically, tapping water from clean sources may

offer access to clean water, but only at a certain period of the year. Harvesting of

rainwater may form some buffer before the dry season starts, but it will not last. Surface

water offers a good source when being close to a river. Or, a big pond may offer enough

water for a certain period. The need for irrigation water however, is the highest during

the dry season when water is scarce. Concerning DM06-880’s technology of in-situ

treatment of shallow wells, it may be noted that if the technology would work well indeed

for drinking water purposes it might be up-scaled to also supply arsenic-free irrigation

water.

A



4

The Design

4.1 Design criteria

4.2 Options available: Variants

4.3 Line Diagram of SAR Plant

4.1 Design Criteria

4.1.1. Technical Criteria:

he water delivered need to require the standard quality (both chemical and

bacteriological) and required quantity, throughout the various seasons.

Technologies should be reliable and robust, with little possibilities for faults due to

weakness or obvious user error. In our case, it is a prerequisite that the technology is

protected against overdraft for instance.

The technology is not allowed to have any adverse effects on the environment. One of the

big advantages of in situ treatment is that there is no waste as is the case with many of

the technologies of arsenic removal.

4.1.2. Socioeconomic Criteria:

Economic considerations - Everyone should agree that safe drinking water is a basic

human right and that national governments and society at large should ensure that all

members of society have equitable access to meet basic needs for safe drinking water.

T



The costs of technologies are of great importance. If the there are no water cleaning

stations using sand to remove iron from the water in the neighbourhood, it is the option

of iron coated sand is not feasible.

Institutional considerations - Awareness raising, technology identification and

verification, application and monitoring of arsenic mitigation which will all require

coordination and understanding by various public and private representatives.

Gender considerations - The technology should not put and extra burden on women,

that are in most developing countries responsible for the provision of water and the

technology should at least be gender neutral in terms of ergonomic, culture and time.

Convenience and Social Criteria - implies a necessary level of convenience required for

the users and the existing social regulations. The effort required to go to the safe

communal source and wait in a queue for one’s turn to collect water should to take into

account and the amount of effort that the users are willing to put into it.

The technology should be socially accepted, preferably blend into the existing water

supply, suitable and sustainable in terms of the local topography, hydrology, socio-

cultural conditions, settlement pattern and population density.

4.1.3. Site Selection Criteria:

For all designs, the obvious assumption is that the SAR (Subterranean Arsenic Removal)

works at that particular location where:

• Sufficient underground iron is present,

• Soil structure at filter depth not too coarse (which would lead to no absorption surface)

• No strong groundwater flows overloading the absorption zone.

• Moreover, we may assume a delivery factor at the safe side, namely 1:4. For every 4

litres pumped up, 3 can be used for drinking water and 1 is needed for recharge.

4.1.4. Cost elements:

Assuming the SAR technology works, one of the decisive factors for its success will be the

costs. All the materials needed for the designs are locally available and the costs of the

materials are relatively low.



4.2 Options Available: Variants

rom the TiPOT project, three variants were recommended for use in the Eastern

India. These are: T-200000l (Panchayat Hold) for large community of around 400

households, T-6000l (Group of Household) for smaller community of around 100

households & T-700l for one house. The T-700l has 2 variants viz T-700E & T-700M –

the first electrical operation & the second manual operation.

4.2.1 Model T-20000L – Panchayat Hold

T20000L is designed to deliver 20,000

litres of water during one recharge cycle.

If we assume one cycle daily (with

recharge usually taking place during the

night), this can supply 400 households

with 50 l per day (10 l per capita per

day). Walking distances to fetch the

water from the system will not be

prohibitive in areas with high population

density. Alternatively, supply pipes may

branch out from the system (ending in

automatically closing taps to prevent

spillage).

Being designed for public use, T20000L

should generate continuous water

supply, hence it needs a big supply tank

to bridge the recharge period (still

assuming a single-well system). Serving

400 families, a formal operator can be

assigned. This enables a separation of

domains: the area in front of the tank where water can be drawn is public space, but the well,

other tank and piping are closed off. Thus, users can only empty the supply tank and over-

drafting is impossible.

F

Fig: Model T-20000l



4.2.2 Model T-6000L – Group of Household

Assuming that the system has been tested and works already, we describe the hardware

and how it works. This is a unit designed as a small-scale add-on to an existing well of

filter length 6 m. Due to this filter (and its resulting absorption zone), the recharge

volume is 2 m3, the supply volume is 6 m3 and the total water throughput in a cycle is

thus 8 m3. This is not stored in a single tank as in T700 but in two tanks. The recharge

tank has a working volume of 2 m3 and extra overhead of at least 1 m3 for the shower

heads for aeration.

The supply tank can be between 2 m3 and 6 m3. A small supply tank requires more

frequent starting of the pump. The supply tank should be big enough to have water for

cooking and drinking available when recharge is taking place. A larger supply tank

enables continuous water supply. With 2 m3 storage, for instance, users in most cases

will not need to

change behaviours

during recharge.

Adjusted to the

supply tank is a pipe

with a self-closing tap

or it may be

connected to any

existing supply piping

system (where self-

closing taps could be

constructed for saving

of water as well). The

supply tank is present

especially to prevent

overdraft. Because of

that tank, the water

pressures in the

supply piping system

do not affect the

water pressures at the

well. This enables a

‘hard-wired’,

automatically balanced filling of the recharge tank.

Between well and tanks, the pipes are split in a T. One arm goes to the recharge tank

(with showerheads etc.) and the other to the supply tank. The diameters of the pipes are

selected such that their total resistance compares as 1: 3, so that for every 4 litres

Fig: Model T-6000l



pumped up, 3 litres are for use and 1 litre to the recharge tank. The recharge tank is 3

m3 with a hole and overflow pipe at the 2 m3 level. Full level of the recharge tank thus

automatically implies that 6 m3 has been delivered through the supply tank.

A sensor may be installed in the recharge tank that indicates that the recharge tank is

full. When the operation is automatic, the sensor may disconnect the well from the supply

tank and recharge starts. When the operation is manual, the sensor may block the power

to the pump once the recharge tank is full. Without sensor, users might be tempted to

ignore the overflow and continue pumping (= over-drafting). The sensor can prevent

this. If the system is run by an institution such as a school, the risk of over-drafting is

small anyway because the recharge task can be assigned to someone. Finally, there are

two cleaning pipes with valves for cleaning the tanks.

As with T700M, the risk of this set-up is that the 1:3 ratio is not maintained because of

clogging in the showerheads or elsewhere. To prevent this risk, the two tanks might be

placed in sequence in stead of parallel, so that the recharge tank is filled first and starts

to overflow into to supply tank when full.

4.2.3 Model T-700M – Household Manual Model

The design needs to be such that of each amount of water pumped, a fixed part will flow

in the recharge tank. This

might be designed such that

the water will flow through a

pipe and that the pipe is split

in a T. One arm goes to the

recharge tank (with

showerheads etc.) and the

other is an open flow that can

be used. The diameters of the

pipes are selected such that

their total resistance compares

as 1: 3, so that for every 4

litres pumped up, 3 litres are

for use and 1 litre to the

recharge tank. The recharge

tank is about 0.6 m3 with a

hole and overflow pipe at the

300 litres level. The 300 litres

left is used for the shower

heads and aeration. Full level

of the recharge tank thus automatically implies that 700 litres have been delivered

Fig: Model T-700M



through the supply pipe. There is one cleaning pipe with valve for cleaning the recharge

tank.

The disadvantage of this design is that the ratio of 1:3 as the automatic split between

water for recharge and water for use can shift in the course of time without the user

noticing this, e.g. because the shower heads become somewhat clogged. The design

must be rethought to prevent this. One option is to install two smaller tanks in sequence.

People first fill a recharge tank of 300 l and if that tank is full, it overflows into a small

consumption tank of, say, 100 litres. If that tank is full, recharge can take place while

people still withdraw water from the consumption tank. After the recharge tank is empty

and a few hours of waiting, both tanks can again be filled in sequence. This system is

safe in the sense that there is always enough water for recharge, but people have to take

care to actually do the recharge after emptying the consumption tank 10 times. This

could be prevented by a bigger consumption tank (1000 l) but then people would have to

fill 1,300 l in one go, which is unattractive.

4.3 Line diagram of the SAR plant

top ground surface

groundwater table

supply/drain

check valve

water meter

sampling point

aeration

power supplyswitcher

valve

sampling point

pump



5

Providing the SAR Utility

5.1 Selection Criteria of the Project Sites

5.2 Survey Methods

5.3 Arsenic & iron levels at the Project Sites


5.5 Starting the Operation & Data Generation



5.1 Selection Criteria of the Project Sites:

he site selection procedure has been guided by five main considerations, i.e.

1. where the arsenic contamination of groundwater remains to be a major concern

2. where there is no alternate source of potable water

3. where there is a general willingness to pay

4. where electricity is available, and

5. where iron concentration is high (As:Fe=1:10 or more)

High concentration of Arsenic: The areas selected for plant installation are suffering

from an acute arsenic problem, the arsenic content has been found to vary between 0.09

to as high as 0.28 mg/l (WHO permissible limit is 0.01 mg/lt). These values have been

T



recorded from previous studies, analysed by FOSET and also verified by our own

laboratory analysis done by the research assistants of this project.

Scarcity of alternate sources of potable water: Alternate source like pond water is

infested with bacteriological, heavy metal & oil contamination. The present supply lines

from comparatively safe deep tube wells lack proper maintenance. As a result, the local

people, being aware of the ill effects of arsenic are still compelled to use arsenic

contaminated water for the washing of utensils & vegetables. In some areas, safe

drinking water is supplied by local van pullers @ Rs. 10 (0.2 USD) per 15 lt which is

unaffordable by most of the families belonging to BPL (Below Poverty Level).

Willingness to pay: The willingness to pay is a vital issue for sustenance of the project

because in future, the community is going to look after the plant on their own. This will

provide a source of income for the household operator/Central Actor in charge of the

plant. Keeping in mind the economic condition of the poor community residing in the

selected sites, we have decided to charge a minimum of Rs10 (0.2 USD) per month for

drinking & cooking water. The main problem is that, the people is not habituated of

paying money (whatever small the amount may be) for the natural resource which is till

now available free of cost. So, before anybody starts to pay, we have to convince them

the importance of drinking safe water. This will obviously need some time & till then,

RKVM can pay the meager amount of electric bill (6 USD max) required for running the

plant. So, the target of WTP is to ensure that the beneficiaries are able to pay at least Rs

10 or 0.2 USD per month in future.

Electricity: Earlier, this same principle of aeration was tried in Bangladesh. But it did not

work as expected probably due to these three reasons: i. hand pump was used ii. Iron

concentration in water was not sufficiently high & iii. Aeration technique was not efficient

enough. So, to avoid these defects, the system has to be mechanized as far as possible.

Submersible pump is must for the system to work desirably. So, electric connection is

required in the project site.

High iron concentration: Iron should be at least 10 times more in concentration than

arsenic in the groundwater. Iron is the main agent for co-precipitating arsenic. So

sufficiently high iron concentration in the aquifer is a must.

Keeping these points in mind, the following sites have been selected by the Project Team:

1. Merudandi Village, Bashirhat, N 24 Parganas

2. Naihati Purbapara, Bashirhat 5 No Ward, N 24 Parganas

3. Rangapur Village, Nilgunj, N 24 Parganas

4. Tepul Village, Gobordanga, N 24 Parganas

5. Ghetugachi Village, Chakdaha, Nadia

6. Naserkul Village, Ranaghat, Nadia



Location of India

Study Area: West Bengal in the Eastern part of India in the Ganga-Brahmaputra Delta Region



Source: School of Environmental Studies, Jadavpur University, Kolkata-32







5.2 Survey Methods

5.2.1 Socio-economic & Willingness-to-pay Survey:

ere, a case study is being provided that was followed in the villages of N 24

Parganas & Nadia. In order to achieve the objectives of the study, the proposed

research design was tested in a peri-urban locality for a range of economic and

environmental conditions. In this study that covered 50 households, consumers were

provided with necessary information on the use of contaminated groundwater and its

adverse ill effect. The consumers were presented with the hypothetical situation where

they would be provided with arsenic free water and asked if they would be willing to pay

for it. The study was conducted in North 24 Parganas district (Kasimpore), approximately

25 km from the main city Calcutta in India. The total area of the study area is 2.0 km2,

with the population of 3700 people. The average annual income of the families is

US$800/annum.The main source of water in the area is 20 shallow wells and tube wells

which are used for drinking as well as irrigation purposes. The area was chosen because

it was known that 70% of the tube wells in the area had arsenic concentrations above

0.05 mg/l. The questionnaire for the survey is designed to determine the maximum

amount of money the household is willing to pay for a commodity or service. WTP studies

are also termed “contingent valuation” studies because the respondent is asked about

what he or she would do in a hypothetical (or contingent) situation. The interview

questionnaire is designed and pre-tested, usually drawing on discussions with local

families or community (Panchayat) leaders. Initially a draft questionnaire had been

prepared and checked and was amended with a group of specialist before it took the final

form. In each questionnaire, an explanatory letter was attached to explain the ethical

considerations and to facilitate the questionnaire filling.

Selection of the attributes

The model used the following variables to ascertain the consumers’ WTP for water:

• Consumers’ perception and satisfaction about the present quality of water used

for drinking and cooking

• family income

• household size

• water consumption in the family

• awareness about arsenic in the area

• age

• education of the head of the family who takes the decision

• means of getting the drinking water ( owned tube well or community)

• the health condition of the family members

• the value of the Start Bid (SBID) made

H



Because of the dichotomous structure of the dependent variable (WTP), a non-linear

probabilistic model had been used for estimation.

1. The pre-requisites of the survey is proper planning to cover the command area,

securing institutional support for the research to go forward and the permission from

the local authorities to carryout the survey.

2. WTP or willingness to pay study requires simple household surveys in which a

member of the household is asked a structured series of questions.

3. The questionnaire is designed to determine the maximum amount of money the

household is willing to pay for a commodity or service.

4. The questionnaire is designed in the local language (Bengali), as most of the target

population may be unfamiliar with the English language.

5. The questionnaire has different sections. The first section is related to the

background of the respondent (personal profile) including his education level,

financial status as well as the occupation and household composition. This section is

designed to gain information about the respondent's social, economic and

demographic characteristics, and establish a conversational rapport with the

respondent.

6. The second section is about the current situation of the potable water supply service

such as quality, quantity and mode of procurement, the customers’ satisfaction,

awareness about arsenic in the groundwater, WTP, ability and affordability and water

consumption. Respondents were asked about their awareness about arsenic and their

satisfaction level with the present water quality.

7. Then, a hypothetical condition of supplying arsenic free water for cooking and

drinking purpose is portrayed. The respondents are provided with two placards. One

is scenario A, where the respondent is shown how the present way of using shallow

tube well water mostly contaminated with arsenic tends to damage the health of the

family including the respondent. The other is Scenario B, where the detrimental

trends of health can be halted with the use of arsenic free water for drinking and

cooking purposes.

8. The last section is designed to measure the WTP by contingent valuation method

using bidding games (either descending or ascending order). In the bidding game,

the respondent is offered an initial bid amount and was asked whether he or she

would be paying this amount in future. The response is obtained on dichotomous (yes

or no) scale. For a negative response, the amount is to be reduced in steps. If any of

the answers is yes, the respondent is considered as WTP for obtaining the water and

the corresponding amount was the willingness to pay. If all the answer is no, the

respondent is considered as not WTP. In the event of WTP response being yes, the

amount was raised and the next bid was made till a 'no' answer determined the upper

limit of WTP.

The questionnaire has been attached in the Annexure



Correlation analysis

The correlation coefficient between each of these variables and WTP has been estimated

to check their degree of association. In many cases, the correlation coefficients are found

to be significantly high (Table 1). As expected, the correlation between WTP and income

of the household, awareness about arsenic, dissatisfaction (no satisfaction) with respect

to quality of water as perceived by the respondent, health condition of the family are

significantly positive. On the other hand, the correlation coefficient with respect to age,

education and occupation (agriculture=1) are found to be negatively correlated though

they are not quite significant. Contrary to maintained belief, no significant association is

observed between WTP and household size, education and water consumption. The

correlation between start bid and willingness to pay is found to be significantly positive.

Choice of appropriate econometric model

The analysis was carried out category-wise with regression coefficients obtained as

shown in Table 2. It was observed that Chi-square -values were quite significant,

indicating the goodness-of-fit of models.

Calculation of Willingness to pay

Based on the awareness level and satisfaction with the present available water quality, the

samples can be divided into sub groups (Table 3). For each of these sub-groups the

regression equation can be written as-

WTP = a + b*(expense) + c*(SBid)

For each subgroup equation, the regression equation is run to obtain the value of a, b

and c.

The alternative values of the Starting Bid (0, 10, 20, 30) and the average expenditure

estimated for each sub-group are substituted in the above equation to get the estimated

WTP (corresponding to each value of the SBID) for that particular sub-group.

Estimated revenue and cost recovery potential

The willingness-to-pay bids can be used to estimate the likelihood of connection to and

revenue generated from the provision of supplying arsenic free water. Such a

computation helps to determine whether the provision of such services would be

economically sustainable. The connection frequencies and revenue estimates is plotted in

Figure1. At Rs 20 per month the connection frequency is approximately 32 percent, while

at Rs25 the figure is 22%. The plot of revenue against monthly tariff indicates that at

Rs20/month monthly tariff, the revenue yield would be Rs680 per 100 families per

month and connection frequency will be 34%. The same revenue yield will be Rs 540 per

100 families corresponding to 36% connection frequency and Rs 550 per 100 families

corresponding to 22% connection. Therefore, any tariff in the range of Rs 20 per month



should achieve the dual objectives of a reasonably high connection frequency and high

cost recovery.

Decision

Arsenic contamination of groundwater is an issue of global concern. The objective of the

study was to determine the willingness to pay for arsenic free groundwater in a rural

setup and the factors influencing WTP. The analysis revealed the awareness amongst the

people regarding the presence of arsenic in the groundwater significantly affects the

odds of paying more for the arsenic free water. It has been observed that due to lack of

awareness about the presence of arsenic in the groundwater and its harmful consequence

amongst the people in the study area, the willingness to pay for better water quality is

quite low.

Table 1 Correlation matrix between WTP and socioeconomic values

Variables Parametrics

No of households 0.011

Water consumption 0.024

Occupation -.052

Income 0.292**

Age -.123

Awareness 0.469**

Satisfaction with present available water quality -.295*

Education of the respondent -.044

Health condition of the family -.301*

Initial Bid 0.6**

** Correlation is significant at 0.01 level( 2 tailed)

* Correlation is significant at 0.05 level( 2 tailed)

Table 2 SPSS output

Variable B S.E. Wald df Sig R Exp(B)

NO_OF_HO -.1604 1.0434 .0236 1 .8778 .0000 .8518

WATER_CO .0013 .0187 .0051 1 .9428 .0000 1.0013

OCCUPATI -1.6269 1.4135 1.3248 1 .2497 .0000 .1965

INCOME .5288 .3448 2.3517 1 .0251 .0769 7.6969

AWARENES 2.9215 1.2595 5.3804 1 .0204 .2383 18.5699

HAPPY_WI -1.6388 1.0090 2.6379 1 .0143 -.1035 .1942

AGE -.0741 .0567 1.7070 1 .1914 .0000 .9286

EDUCATIO 1.4699 1.3004 1.2777 1 .2583 .0000 0.3488

HEALTH_C -.7392 1.1944 .3830 1 .0360 .0000 .4775

MEANS_OF -2.0798 2.4473 .7222 1 .3954 .0000 .1250

SBid 0.1852 1.6761 2.3121 1 .0267 .0235 3.415

Constant 1.4689 2.9491 .2481 1 .6184



Table 3 Estimation of median WTP

Happy/

Unhappy

with the

present

quality of

water

Aware/

not

aware

about

arsenic

No of

sampl

es

Coeff Coeff Constant Bids Avg Proj

of of income WTP

Income bid

Media

n

WTP

Not

aware

2 0 0 0 10 9000 0

20

0 Happy

Aware 6 1.41 -0.55 -0.37 10 10800 8.41

20 2.91

30 -2.59

40 -8.09

0.16

Not

aware

28 -0.04 0.97 0.05 10 4900 9.59

20 19.32

30 29.05

40 38.78

24.19 Unhappy

Aware 8 -0.02 0.79 0.35 10 6500 8.16

20 16.10

30 24.04

40 31.98

20.07

Figure: Revenue and Connection frequency vs monthly tariff (Indian Rs)

Connection frequencies and monthly revenue (per 100

households)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Monthly tariff (Rs)

Reven

ues (

Rs)

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

%H

ou

seh

old

co

nn

ecte

d



5.2.2 Food Safety Survey

The main objectives of the survey were:

� To know the main sources of the foods consumed in the studied area: city

markets, own production, etc.

� To establish the mean consumption of the main foods in the studied area: for

instance, rice, pulses, fish, etc.

� To know the main ways of preparing the meals in the studied area, which will

determine, for instance, how much polluted water is used in their kitchens

� To establish the daily intake of drinking water and its source.

According to our data, the main population of West Bengal is concentrated in the age

range from 15-44 years. However, it would be very interesting to know the differences

among the different age groups. In this way, the first questionnaire will be addressed to

any person including children and old people. On the other hand, the second

questionnaire will be addressed exclusively to the mother of the household or the person

in charge of the water collection and food preparation. The questionnaires (I and II) are

shown in the Annexure.

These data can be compared with the later consumption to know the arsenic intake of the

people before & after the safe water is supplied.



5.3 Arsenic & Iron levels in the aquifers at the Project Sites

he project sites were selected based on the deduction from the questionnaire survey

& the iron: arsenic concentration ratio.

Initially, during the site selection phase, the project team analysed the iron & arsenic

concentration of various sites from the laboratory of Forum of Scientists, Engineers &

Technologists (Programme of water Quality Testing under UNICEF supported JPOA with

Govt. of West Bengal).

The final 6 sites that were selected have the following iron & arsenic concentrations.

Sl

No Site Arsenic Conc (mg/lt) Iron Conc (mg/lt)

1 Naihati Purbapara,

Basirhat 0.1750 1.5734

2 Merudandi, Basirhat 0.2820 3.3259

3 Rangapur, Nilgunj 0.0916 3.4028

4 Tepul, Gobardanga 0.158 2.9356

5 Gotra, Ghetugachi 0.2065 2.077

6 Naserkul, Ranaghat 0.23 3.2248

Later, after installation of the plants, the water quality was monitored in the laboratory

developed in the premises of RKVM-IAS by the research assistants.

Arsenic & iron concentrations are measured with a UV-Visible Spectrophotometer having

a detection limit of 0.002 mg/lt. (The WHO guideline for maximum permissible limit for

arsenic is 0.01mg/lt. Maximum desirable limit of iron in drinking water is 0.3mg/l;

whereas, maximum permissible limit is 1.0 mg/l. No health-based guideline value for

iron has been proposed by WHO)

T




or the purpose of plant construction, the RKVM acquired tracts of land measuring

around 3m x 4m in each of the 6 villages from interested individuals (who came forward

to donate the land for the noble cause) through mediation of Panchayat in exchange of a

token money & legal documents.

The construction phase consisted of mainly two parts viz – the installation of plant

machinery & construction of a brick room on the land for housing the tanks, valves & the

operator. RKVM acquired every material locally but sent its own mason & plumbers to do the

job fast.

On the other hand, RKVM applied for the electric connection through separate electric meter

to the WBSEDCL (West Bengal State Electricity Development Corporation). This needs a little

time & this varies from place to place depending on the supply of power. So, when our plants

got constructed, we had to take power connection from the meter of the land owner through

a sub-meter till the separate meter for the plant was issued. At present, 4 of the 6 plants

have got separate meters.

5.5 Starting the Operation & Data Generation

nce a plant is fully installed & electric connection provided, the operation was

started. Each operational cycle consisted of pumping up 6000lt ground water in the

tanks (3000 lt each in Recharge Tank & Delivery Tank). This usually takes about 50 mins.

Then, after a calculated intermission time, the water from the Recharge Tank is sent back

to the aquifer by releasing it in the boring itself by opening a valve. This recharge is done

slowly & takes about 2 hours time. The water from the Delivery Tank is drained away by

opening another valve.

During various stages of this operational cycle, 6 samples of water are collected (3 for

iron & 3 for arsenic) in 500 ml sampling bottles. This sampling is done 3 days every

week. The sample bottles are then labeled & stored away. Later, on Monday, the operator

delivers total 18 samples to the laboratory at the RKVM-IAS premises at Kolkata. At the

field, the operators have to perform a Dissolved Oxygen test to monitor the level of

oxygenation of the tank water. The chemicals required for this test is provided to the

operator by the RKVM project team.

Every operator is provided with an operating manual for plant operation & DO

measurement. (See Appendix) Also, they are given adequate training by the research

assistants & the senior operator from the earlier TiPOT project. For every sampling day,

F

O



the operators have to fill up a log book provided to them by the project team

corresponding to every sample bottle.

At the laboratory, mainly 4 tests are done, viz, Arsenic testing by Spectrophotometric

Method, Iron testing by Spectrophotometric Method, Conductivity measurement & pH

measurement. The data is then entered into the computer & preserved.

The starting date & water delivery date of various plants are given in the following table.


ach of these plants started to produce water free of arsenic & iron below WHO

guideline (0.01 mg/lt for arsenic & 1 mg/lt for iron) within 45 – 50 days of

operation. Once the laboratory test results of the arsenic & iron came to the “Below

Detectable Limit” (BDL), the project team sent the samples to a NABL certified laboratory

for AAS testing. When their result confirmed that the water was safe to consume, the

operators were instructed to start delivering them to the people.

As the RKVM laboratory do not have a facility for bacteriological testing, the project team

used to test the Coliform, total viable count, etc from a NABL accredited laboratory.

The project team continued the monitoring of the water quality till the end of the project

period ie 31st December, 2008.

Name of Plant Starting of Operation Delivery of Water

Merudandi, Basirhat,

North 24 Parganas, WB 12th June, 2008 18th august, 2008

Purbapara, Basirhat

North 24 Parganas, WB 12th June, 2008 5th August, 2008

Rangapur, Nilgunj

North 24 Parganas, WB 10th October, 2008 1st December, 2008

Gotra, Ghetugachi,

Chakdah, Nadia, WB 20th October, 2008 16th December, 2008

Tepul, Gobardanga

North 24 Parganas, WB 3rd October, 2008 4th December, 2008

Naserkul, Ranaghat,

Nadia, WB 10th November, 2008 15th January, 2009

E




fter starting of the operation, some minor problems aroused which were addressed

efficiently by the research assistants & the European Advisors.

Once, in the Purbapara, Basirhat plant on the 5th month of operation, some sands entered

the boring through the filter & the recharge efficiency decreased. So, the project team

and the plumber inspected the site & decided to aerate the boring by a compressor. After

only 1 hour of aeration, all the sands were cleared & the plant efficiency was restored.

At Naserkul, Ranaghat plant, which was started at November, 2008 only, the project team

had to quicken up the operational cycles by ordering the operator to run 2 cycles per day

with 12 hours interval. This brought down the arsenic and iron level very fast.

At Tepul, Gobardanga plant, a minor problem developed about the electrical installations

& the project team had to change & repair some of its machinery within a few days of its

starting of operation. At present, it is running smoothly.

At the Merudandi, Basirhat plant, the project team faced an unprecedented problem. The

community said that they could not get any taste in the water from the plant. Also, they

complained about loose motion after drinking the water. So, the project team tested the

water for bacteriological contamination, but failed to find any. Later, it was understood

that, there was no taste in the water due to absence of high level of iron salts (which

makes the taste of water bitter) and the loose motion was also due to the same reason. It

was observed that, when some people used the water for drinking & cooking

continuously for 2 weeks, the digestive systems habituated with the low-iron water & the

loose motion ceased. It took a lot of persuasion & campaign for the project team to make

the villagers believe that the water was completely safe & their problem was only

temporary one.

A common problem at all the sites was making the community pay for the water. In the

developing countries, natural resources usually come free of cost & the people are not at

all habituated in paying for them whatever meager the amount may be. Although, the

responses were positive during the WTP surveys, many villagers backed off when the time

came for paying. At present, a section of the community has begun to pay & this will

increase gradually. So, for the time being, RKVM will be taking care of these plants

(paying the electric bill & maintaining it) till they become self sufficient (probably within 6

months).

A



About the prospect, the scientific data & the practical field experience revealed that the

technology is awesome & these plants are not going to be another costly showpiece

(arsenic filter) at the side of the village road.

1. Most effective & long lasting technology available till date. With regular treatment,

the arsenic level will remain Below Detectable Limit. Actually, if the plant is being run for

a few years, then the total aquifer will undergo oxidation & the water quality will improve

considerably.

2. It is also the easiest technology around. No costly chemicals & complex tray

systems & delicate filters. It is all about pump set & showerheads. Every plumber &

electrician in the village can do the operation & maintenance once they are given a simple

training.

3. The SUSTAINABLE way of treating arsenic contaminated water. This process not

only removes arsenic & iron from the water pumped out through the system, but also

treats the contaminated aquifer water. Thus, the community around the plant gets

benefited in the years to come.

4. Easy Operation & Maintenance:

a. The whole system is very cheap to operate & maintain.

b. Either an individual owner or Self-help groups under Panchayat of the village will

be able to operate & maintain it.

c. This will provide a part time job to a few individuals of the village on hourly basis.

Every day, 2 hrs is required for operation. Three or four persons in the village can be

trained up so that the plant can be operated in rotation basis under any circumstances

even in absence of any one operator. They will be paid accordingly by the

Owner/Panchayat at the end of the month.

d. Even the illiterate village plumbers & electricians are able to do the maintenance

job once they are briefed about the whole system & given a basic training.

5. More there is iron in water, more effective the process is. The arsenic gets co-

precipitated with the precipitated iron in the aquifer itself & doesn't get a chance to come

to the surface. Fortunately enough, the ground water in the Bengal Delta region in

general, has a high concentration of iron.

6. Waste disposal is not a problem. In the 1st two months, only Fe(III) precipitates

are to be discharged out of the plant. After that, no waste is generated at all since iron,

arsenic & other impurities like Mn, nitrates, nitrites, etc gets bounded under the soil in

the aquifer itself. They cease to be public menace by coming out of their place.



7. Unlimited supply of Arsenic free water can be obtained by running the treatment

cycle for more than once per day.

8. Ramakrishna Vivekananda Mission has a strong administrative system and has a

high acceptability among the common mass. Where land acquisition & awareness

generation & making the villagers pay money for the drinking water (whatever meager

the sum is), the role of this particular organisation becomes critical. Previous experiences

in the legal matters & negotiation with Govt agencies & people becomes handy. Also,

RKVM has officially obtained the technology from the Queen’s University, Belfast.



6

Elements of the Delivery System of SAR




6.4 Concepts of relationship between Central Actor & Users

6.5 The relationship between Central Actor & Suppliers

6.6 Facilitators


verybody is involved daily in delivery systems. The supermarket, the computer help

desk, the car repair garage, the insurance agent, they are all parts of delivery

systems of food, transport, security and so on. Yet, delivery systems are very poorly

conceptualized scientifically. What, for instance, is ‘the product’? In environmental

science, the answer is that if we aim to compare the environmental impacts of products,

we should move away from the concrete manufactured thing and compare ‘functional

units’, for example the packaging of 1 litre of milk or the provision of 1 hour of

comfortable sitting (Van den Berg et al., 1995) The poor scientific basis on delivery

systems is also visible in the arsenic problem. In the chapter on safe water technology of

the WHO report on arsenic in drinking water, for instance, we find 52 references to

literature on the natural science and health aspects of the arsenic, 99 references on the

technologies for solving the problem, but 11 references to how this technology is

supposed the reach the population. None of these is a scientific publication, but reports

E



of organisations such as the International Water and Sanitation Centre (IRC), WB or

UNICEF. There is one chapter in the report focusing on social sciences, but it only gives

attention to awareness and communication with the local population and does not deal

with provision systems. Many provision systems work perfectly well in practice, but the

design of new ones is an abstract business, simply because all design is abstract

business, if we want to avoid that we just choose something because we are used to it or

because it vaguely looks good. One way or another, design implies that potential

components of a not yet- existing system are selected and assembled to form that new

system, guided by criteria such as efficiency, environment or equity. Here again, design is

something we do everyday (we make a holiday plan, we design a social tactic etc.) and yet

it is poorly conceptualized scientifically, possibly because design is a synthetic activity

that is difficult to reach with the overwhelmingly analytical devices of normal science (De

Groot 1992). In this chapter, therefore, we necessarily start out with a relatively

fundamental look on the principles for the not-yet-existing provision system of SAR for

West Bengal. We then move to an exploration of the potential elements of this PS. These

are the potential actors and the potential relationships between, out of which the PS may

be constructed.


Conceptualizing from Technology to Utility

hat has been designed by ISWA and can be built and installed by manufacturers is a

technology. On the other side of the supply chain, what the envisaged users of the

technology need is not this hardware but health, or at least a trustworthy supply of

arsenic-free water. In this section, we will explore what lies along this line between

‘technology’ and ‘utility’, in abstract terms but in such a way that they can later be

translated into concrete actors with concrete functions, obligations and remunerations in

the SAR provision system.

The concepts will be arranged concentrically around the technology. The first concept

then is, logically, the technology. With this we refer to the ‘naked’ hardware, installed

and tested in situ, plus a guarantee that the supplier is liable for major, structural

breakdowns. The abstract actor attached to the technology then is the ‘technology

supplier’. Note that for the sake of simplicity, we do not distinguish between different

types of actors here, such as actors specializing in manufacture of subcomponents or

actors specializing in assembly or installation. Our story starts with the technology

supplier as the actor who has installed and tested the machinery in the village and we

assume that he is the one receiving the remuneration in return. Usually when we buy

something of some complexity, it comes with ‘directions of use’. For SAR, this will

certainly of great importance. Irrespective of who will in fact carry out the operation and

W



maintenance, transferring the knowledge of how to do so will require more than just a

piece of paper. This brings us to the concept of ‘extended technology’. The extended

technology is here defined as the technology plus the provision of the necessary

knowledge and tools for operation and non-structural maintenance and repair. The

certification and quality check will be delivered separately by a specialized provider.

The concentric arrangement of the two concepts now defined requires that we

distinguish between inclusive and specialized providers. This is because actors can either

supply the extended technology (i.e. the technology plus the knowledge) or specialize in

supply of only the additional element, in this case, the knowledge. In other words, there

may either be one ‘extended technology supplier’, or a ‘technology supplier’ plus a

‘knowledge extension supplier’. Both structures may be effective, and both can be

conceptualized this way. The certifier and the quality check provider will always

specialized, never inclusive. Thus, when anybody buys the technology, it has to be

certified: the buyer needs to be sure that the technology is working. Besides, the

certification and quality check need to be carried out on a regular basis because the

technology may break down, and this risk is especially high in the rural localities in

developing countries. Decisions have to be made on the period covered by the

certification. How often needs the water to be checked on the arsenic content? This is

dependent on the scale of the technology (whether it supplies water for a whole village or

only for one household). It is also dependent on the local characteristics of the soils.

During monsoon, for instance, the water table fluctuates which might influence the

arsenic content in the water provided by the technology, because the absorption zone

might change. Research is conducted to answer this question. Thus, depending on the

circumstances, scientific experts should decide in co-operation with the local experts on

the term necessary for certification. Local experts, such as in our case Panchayat pradhan

or Panchayat members, have to be involved in this issue, because they have knowledge

on the local situation and what the local people think would be trustworthy enough.

Certification cannot be done by the same agency as the one providing the operational

technology. Blending different interest in one agency is not trustworthy. What are then

the qualities a certifying agency should have? First of all, the agency should be an

independent institute, independent of any funding from firms that might be involved in

the production of the operational technology. Preferably, the organisation should be non-

profit, so that there the chances for bribing are the smallest. The second prerequisite is

that the organisation is scientific trustworthy. In practice, it would be best if the

organisation has a good name in society. After this little detour, we return again at the

technology and its forms that can be envisioned. We keep up the distinction between

inclusive and specialized suppliers in the rest of the exploration.

Next on the ladder is the operational technology. This is defined as the technology

working, and kept on working, in the way it is meant to. This may be achieved by an

inclusive actor (then to be called ‘operational technology supplier’), or by adding a

specialized actor (‘operation supplier’) to the preceding rung. The operational technology



also includes the certification and quality check. All three provision stages defined up

till now work on what may be called the input side of the production of arsenic-free

water. The thing-to-be-supplied can also be defined on the output side, however, which

in our case is the arsenic-free water itself. This is not necessarily the same as supplying

utility, because utility could also be defined further along the causal chain, e.g. as health.

This would not be practical in our case, because health depends on so many more factors

and actors. Therefore, we define arsenic-free water as the end of the supply chain.

Arsenic-free water is the utility. Inclusive actors supplying arsenic-free water are the

‘utility suppliers’ in our nomenclature. Theoretically, it is easy to imagine such an actor,

who operates the technology, tests the water for arsenic and then supplies it to the users,

remunerated by any form of compensation method (see below). In practice, it is likely

that users will not trust this all-inclusive actor enough, since the actor is financially

dependent on the water being arsenic-free. Probably, therefore, also one or more

specialized actors may enter the scene here. We may call them ‘utility guarantors’. Recent

trends in society and the literature point at the many advantages of extending the

definition of ‘what is supplied’ in the direction of utility in stead of only the technology.

One example is the shift towards supplying the continuous presence of an up-and-

running vehicle, usually though some form of leasing out, instead of the purchasing of a

car. In more general terms, this is a form called the sale of a performance in a service

economy (EC, 2001). Section 5.5 provides more details.


he notion that risks and maintenance may be brought to bear on producers rather

than consumers is of great importance for the arsenic problem. It is of course not

forbidden or impossible that rural households supply maintenance of the technology or

organise water quality control. In our nomenclature, the household is then both user and

a supply actor. They ‘co-produce’. The nomenclature implies, however, that the abstract

‘user’ is defined as the entity using the utility, not the technology. No burdens of risk,

maintenance or any other is implicitly shifted to or expected to any entity called ‘user’.

This, we hope, may help avoid the well-known problem that households are implicitly

expected to co-produce supply elements that they are not motivated or capable to

supply, with failure of the supply as a result. We now have a first notion, however

abstract, of types of possible actors in the supply chain. Theoretically, there need to be

only two types at minimum: one all-inclusive utility supplier and one category of users.

On the other extreme, there may be quite many actors, all specializing in one function,

within the supply chain (see above) or outside it, e.g. as banks or government authorities.

How will all these actors relate to each other? In order to keep this question within

reasonable bounds, we have found it useful to define the ‘central actor’. The central

actor is the actor with the right to distribute the utility (i.e. the arsenic-free water)

directly after its production. The central actor is set as the pivot between suppliers on

T



the one side, and the users on the other. With that, the central actor will usually also be

the financial link between users and suppliers. If the central actor remunerates one or

more actors on the supply side for the right to distribute the arsenic-free water, it is

justified (though not necessary) that users remunerate the central actor (see Chapter 1).

In concrete reality, the position of central actor in subsequent sections and chapters may

be taken by a household, a commercial firm, a government agency, and NGO or others.

But before going to that concrete level, we pay attention to the abstract options of types

of relationship between the central actor and the utility users and suppliers.

6.4 The relationship between Central Actor and Users

his section deals with the theoretical dimensions of the relationship between the

central actor and the users. These dimensions are essential and exhaustive. Here, we

first describe the dimensions and its various options per dimension. Then, all the

dimensions may be combined and put in concrete examples. We distinguish four

essential dimensions in the relationship between the central actor and the users. This

concern:

(1) The manner in which the utility (= arsenic free water) is provided,

(2) The manner in which the rights are distributed

(3) The manner in which the obligations are distributed, and

(4) The basis of the remunerations.

Availability of utility

There are basically two ways in which water is available for the users. The first way may

be called batched water. The user has to go to the pump to fetch water before she can

use the water. This implies that the user has to put effort in getting the water. The other

way is that the user has directly access to a continuous water supply system with running

piped water. For this system, the user does not need to put effort in getting the water.

This distinction is essential: people will never batch much more water than they actually

use, while a continuous water flow makes it possible to spill water easily. This could be

resolved by using tap that closes off automatically after, say, 10 seconds.

Distribution of rights

Who has the right to use the utility? There are several options we can think of.

(1) The first one is that the rights are distributed to predefined users. Thus, a certain

group of people are allowed to use the utility.

(2) The second option is that everyone has the right to use the utility.

(3) The third option is also that everyone has the right to use the utility, but arranged

through transferable water rights. Thus, everyone gets rights for a certain amount of

water and is allowed to sell these rights. Transferable generalized water rights may serve

efficiency but equity only to a certain degree, as is explicated in the following example. If

T



the system’s capacity would be 10.000 buckets per year, and if there would be 100

households, each household may receive 100 bucket vouchers (this serves equity).

Vouchers may be used or sold at will. Vouchers then will tend to end up with households

most motivated and closest to the well, because people far from the well are not very

interested. There will be no wastage. This will lead to efficiency. At the other side of the

coin, however, we will see that the poor will be inclined to sell, so that health is traded off

for food etc. There are many existing examples concerning transferable rights and

quotas, for instance in irrigation systems where people get a water right per hectare that

they can sell, tradable quota in fisheries, tradable milk quota in the Netherlands, and on a

larger scale the Kyoto protocol.

Distribution of obligations (=payment)

Next to the rights, we have the obligations. The question is: “Who is paying for the

utility?” Again, three options come into being.

(1) Obligations are distributed to users. Thus, the user himself is paying for the use of

the utility.

(2) Obligations are distributed to everyone. This implies that everyone pays for the utility,

independent of whether people use the utility or not. This implies that the utility is paid

for from taxes.

(3) Obligations distributed to specific others. It is possible that others are willing to pay

for the utility, such as NGO’s. Thus, others are subsidizing (part of) the utility. A subsidy

from the government does not fall into this category, since it will be at the expense of

other public goods, unless the government received a specific subsidy to spend on clean

water from the World Bank or some other organisation In practice, it is not necessary that

1, 2, or 3 is taking up the full payment. The payments may be shared between everyone

and the specific other (for instance in the situation where a development organisation is

subsiding and the government fills up the rest).

Basis of remuneration

There are several ways in which the payment can occur.

1. One-off. One purchases the eternal right of utility. The remuneration is then

irrespective of use.

2. By unit of time. The payment is made on a time basis (thus not on the basis of the

amount of utility). Thus, per month for instance, a fixed price is being paid. This case

may be illustrated in the Netherlands, for instance, where some employees that use a

lease car from their boss, may use the car for private purposes (unlimited within the

national border) when paying a friendly fixed percentage of the lease amount per month.

3. By unit of utility. The third manner to remunerate is by unit of utility, i.e., in our case,

the payment for the amount of the arsenic free water that is provided. This kind of

remuneration takes place in the option ‘transferable water rights’ as described in the

dimension on ‘distribution of rights’. The question remains on how to measure the



amount of water. In line with the first dimension on availability of utility (batched or

piped) it can be measured by

a. Batch. In this way, the payment occurs by bucket taken from the pump or tap.

b. Hours of flow. This resembles the batch payment, but for lack of exact measurement

of litres, people count the time of water flow. In the case of irrigation water this system is

sometimes applied when people pay per hour of water flow.

c. Utility meter. By far the most obvious way to measure the amount of utility is to use a

utility meter, such as a water meter or a park meter.

6.5 The relationship between CA and Suppliers

he relationship between the central actor and the suppliers is essentially a normal

commercial market where actors negotiate over rights and obligations, with

government actors bound by the rules of public procurement. These normal market

relations do not require special attention here. The only point worthy to note is that the

central actor may also lease/hire the operational technology in stead of buying the

extended technology. Leasing and hiring implies that the provider retains the ownership

and the liability. The difference between leasing and hiring is the term of use; i.e. hiring

is on a short-term basis, while leasing is on a long term basis. As described by EC (2001),

leasing is attractive for users, especially because:

• The users do not carry any risk (the risk is with the provider of the operational

technology)

• Minimum own knowledge is necessary

• There is a high motivation from the leasing agent to deliver because the agent gets

paid per unit or performance. Leasing a car is a well known practice. However, leasing

takes place in many other areas as well. In the case of arsenic free water provision,

leasing of the utility would imply that the central actors only pays (e.g. per litre) when the

arsenic-free water is actually supplied and certified.

6.6 Facilitators

n the previous sections, we discussed the role of the suppliers, central actors and

users and their relations. There are important actors outside the supply chain, too.

These we call the facilitators. According to function, we may define:

• Financial facilitators

• Collective action facilitators

• Information facilitators

• Market establishment facilitators.

Financial facilitators

T

I



Implementations of the SAR technology will cost money, so there is a need for financial

facilitators (e.g. banks). If we follow the same way of reasoning as we did in the previous

part of the chapter, we will look at the central actor and its relations wit the suppliers and

the users. As said, the central actor is set as the pivot between suppliers on the one side,

and the users on the other and will usually be the financial link between users and

suppliers. Since we do not pay much attention here to the suppliers, we do not need to

go into deeper detail in the money business on firm level here.

For calculating the cost of the SAR technology systems, a distinction may be made

between capital costs (initial investment) and maintenance costs (yearly returning costs).

In all cases, the costs of the various SAR technology systems will be relatively low,

depending on its size, kind of operation (operational technology or extended

technology), and whether it is a add-on on an existing well or anew system. All

knowledgeable persons in West Bengalese government are convinced that the

government is very willing to promote and to invest in cheap sustainable technology that

provides arsenic free water. We may thus assume that if the government would be the

central actor, it can access sources to buy the technology (initial investment costs)

without much trouble. This may be any governmental bank that is willing to assist in

investments. The payment could also be partly or fully subsidized, either by the

government (i.e. spreading the financial burden as a tax over all citizens) or by a

specialized agent such as NGOs, or a special subsidy by the GO (received from the World

Bank for instance). Financial capacities are different at the level of users. They are the

people that usually do not have much money to spend. Even if the users would be the

central actor and would be able to access sources of funding for initial investments, there

is no direct financial benefit generated by the arsenic free water that may be used to

repay the loan or interest. We may assume that the foregone costs, thus the money that

people would not spend at hospitals due to arsenic related diseases and the costs people

safe by staying healthy and working, are an indirect benefits that should help convince

people to invest. This cost benefit analysis is difficult to make however, in which different

time horizons are weighed in the same calculation. If people are organised in self-help

groups, they have more easily access to financial assistance, because banks are hesitant

to give loans to individuals without collateral but they give loans to self-help groups. If

people from the “below the poverty line” (BPL) group organize in a self-help group, they

receive subsidy from the government. A self-help group must organize meetings at least

once a month and the minutes have to be shown to the bank. All the government banks

have to accept these self-help groups. A 15 to 50 percent of the loan will be repaid by

the GO if you are BPL. The longer the self help group exist (and shows good behaviour in

repayment), the more money the group can borrow from the bank.

Collective action facilitators

In case self-help groups would act as user groups or central actor for arsenic free water,

collective action facilitators could become important. De Groot and Tadepally (2007)



analysed the relation between collective capital and collective action based on a case

study on village-level irrigation systems. In the Indian state of Andra Pradesh, the

majority of the 73,000 village-level irrigation systems (‘tanks’) are in a serious state of

neglect. Restoration of the tanks is profitable at the community level but unprofitable for

farmers individually. In order to overcome this problem of collective action, farmers must

not only have a positive motivation towards tank restoration, but also have the capacity

to bring this motivation into collective action, i.e. the mutual trust and the institutions

that are often referred to as (collective) social capital. This paper analyses the effect of

the approach of a local NGO that focuses on awareness-raising and advising the

community with the aim to bring about tank restoration sustained by the villagers

themselves. It is found that (pre-existing) collective social capital, as measured through

five simple indicators, strongly correlates with successful tank restoration. Social capital

does not appear to be constructed by the NGO’s activities as such, however; a community

with pre-existing social capital that is too low for tank restoration will fail, irrespective of

the continuation of NGO efforts. Not the NGO efforts but successful collective action

itself adds to collective social capital. It is concluded that development agents that aim to

bring about a specific group-based action should focus on groups with sufficient

collective social capital for that action. Alternatively, development agents that aim to

enhance collective social capital should embrace any collective action that a community is

motivated for and capable of. The facilitator may be a member of the group, or an

outsider that is well respected by the group, or perhaps an NGO. For more information on

specific guidelines for community work on collective action see for instance Allen et al.

(2002). Thus, for identifying possibilities for collective action, it is important to study the

level of collective social capital in a village or the potential user group of the technology.

An assessment of existing social capital, with a focus on self-help group potential, has

been made in our research site.

Information facilitators

Many studies identify a lack of awareness of arsenic contamination among the

stakeholders. The study of Paul (2004) arsenic awareness identified arsenic risk region,

level of education, gender, and age as important determinants of arsenic knowledge. The

findings of this study will aid in making existing health education programs more

effective and in reducing the risk of developing arsenic-related illnesses. The World Bank

(2005) emphasizes that awareness should also explicitly include information on what

arsenic is not; arsenic pollution is not contagious and arsenic is not a germ that dies

when boiled. Besides, it should be made clear that while turbid surface water is unsafe,

some clear groundwater can also be contaminated (ibid.). Hossain et al. (2005) conclude

their paper concerning the ineffectiveness of arsenic removal plants with a call for

education “for the villagers about the existence, magnitude, danger and symptoms of the

arsenic problems ….. Training them on issues of water management and involving the

whole community in the maintenance of their water source”.



Furthermore, the provision of information is of the essence for any technology to work. In

well-established delivery systems, information is often provided by the involved market

parties (sometimes regulated to some extent by government regulations to prevent

unfounded claims or force the provision of information on risks etc.). In cases in which

the government takes a special interest because of the large collective level risks (e.g.

smoking) or benefits (e.g. arsenic technology, solar technology), public or semi-public

bodies may be assigned to information provision to the public or market parties,

especially in the early phases when a delivery system is not well formed yet. Such bodies

may also be helpful in organising the market (without themselves becoming market

parties, see next section).

Market establishment facilitators

Markets work through trust and routines. Trust takes care of that actors do not need

enormous amounts of time and energy to get all details of deals on paper and check

upon each other’s behaviour. Routines, examples of which are standard contracts and the

unwritten expectations that new transactions will essentially be carried out as were the

previous ones, serve the same purpose of low transaction cost. New delivery systems on

new markets are therefore sometimes hard to establish. Actors that have not worked

together yet will start out with low levels of trust in their relationship. It is even possible

that for some actors, the whole job of building trust is just too energy-consuming and

risky to make it seem worthwhile to start the relationship at all. In such a case, a delivery

system may fail to come into being in spite of a potential match between supply and

demand. The same holds for the routines, especially for small actors such as individual

households, self-help groups or small local contractors. Small actors such as those rely

much on standard contracts, lacking as they do to think out and put on paper all the

possible ramifications of the new technology and the new relationships. (In some cases,

small actors may piggyback on a few larger ones that have established market routines

as first movers.) Sometimes, new markets may arise smoothly especially when the new

technology is not too different from an existing one and actors that already trust each

other through previous transactions come together and use existing routines to get the

new delivery system in motion. This phenomenon is particularly helpful in mixed cases

that only partly consist of really new elements. In fact, SAR may offer an example here,

since much of it consists of standard drinking water supply techniques and is already

built locally by existing contractors in the model village. If panchayats would be central

actors for SAR and if panchayats are already used to work with this type of contractors

(e.g. for basic water supply), this could become the core structure around which the

other, new elements in the delivery system, e.g. the water quality assurance, could be

built.



7

Operation & Maintenance Issues

7.1 Operation

7.2 Maintenance

7.3 Certification

7.4 Delivery System

7.1 Operation:

or the absorption to work in the soil, the recharge needs only be done on a volume

basis. If recharge would then be necessary only once every month or so, this may

entail the risk that the absorption zone could become overloaded by arsenic arriving in it

due to overall groundwater flow. It might therefore be safer to recharge at least once

every week, irrespective of withdrawn volumes. The operation of this system is simple. It

can be automatic or manual, both with an electric pump.

Automatic operation:

Automatic operation is run by a sensor in the recharge tank, for instance, that identifies

when the tank is full and when the tank is empty. The cycle is as follows:

(1) Overflow of recharge tank starts or sensor turns to ‘full’,

(2) Well is disconnected from the supply tank

(3) 2 m3 of water of the recharge tank is emptied back into to well

(4) Recharge tank empty (sensor)

(5) Wait one hour,

F



(6) Reconnect the well and supply tank.

Thus, when the sensor indicates that the recharge tank is full, the well is disconnected

from the supply tank and recharge starts. When sensor indicates that recharge tank is

empty, the system waits one hour and then reconnects the well and supply tank. During

the recharge cycle, water can still be used from the storage tank.

Manual operation:

Manual operation can be done when the overflow starts (there is some spare water in the

supply tank) or users may chose to do it every day or every other day, but at least once

every week. Manual operation may be done without sensor because the overflow of the

recharge tank should is easy to spot and hear. The cycle is as follows:

(1) Overflow starts,

(2) Pump is disconnected from power

(3) Empty 2 m3 of water of the recharge tank

(4) Close valve of recharge pipe,

(5) Wait one hour,

(6) Reconnect pump.

7.2 Maintenance

• The maintenance of the T6000 includes the cleaning of the tank every now and then,

because some sediment may accumulate in the tank. The job can be done by any

knowledgeable person. There are cleaning pipes, through which the waste water can be

disposed of.

• The valves need to be checked every once in a while and repaired when necessary.

• The showerheads need to be cleaned regularly, since the aeration is of crucial

importance.

• The pump is to be maintained according to its directions of use.

7.3 Certification

ertification is necessary. The water needs to meet the Indian standards & WHO

standard for drinking water “as desirable and tolerable”. Preferably, people buy the

technology with a certification of the water meeting the standards. This implies that the

plant is has been working for at least a month already, which is the time needed for the

absorption zone to build up. It is important that the certification will be renewed, say

every half year. There should therefore be an easily accessible certifying agency to do the

measurement at low cost.

C



7.4 Delivery system of the T6000L

e start with the potential Central Actors for the T6000, followed by the description

of the filling in of the essential dimensions in the relationship between the central

actor and the users.

Central Actor of T6000

If T6000 is put on a daily cycle, it can supply 60 households with 100 l day. T6000 may

therefore be interesting for a group of households (10 or 20 households) or an institution

that wants to be of good service to the neighbours (schools, hospitals or government), or

a single household that wants to make some business in selling of clean water.

If Central Actor buys T6000

• CA buys extended technology (= technology plus the knowledge and tools for

operation and non-structural maintenance and repair) + initial quality assurance

certificate from an independent institute. (Initial utility)

• Operation and daily maintenance (cleaning): by household or other well

knowing/trained person.

• Non-daily maintenance: done or organised by CA. It is such a basic technology that he

buyer can organise it by himself. If wanted, a technology check subscription can come

along with a quality check subscription.

• Quality check (including technology check): quality check (including technology

check-up) subscription when buying the initial utility or later

Or, Panchayat offers water quality check (including technology checkup)

• Who has right to use? CA may give or sell to others

• Who is paying (obligations)?

CA,

and/or (partly) everyone (by subsidy resulting in tax raise),

and/or (partly) specific other (such as NGO or MLA)

• Remuneration

One-off, except for the quality check subscription.

• Who is paying (obligations)?

• CA,

• and/or (partly) everyone (by subsidy resulting by tax raise),

• and/or (partly) specific other (such as NGO)

• Remuneration: Per unit of time, for instance per month.

W



8

The Results


8.1.1 Merudandi, Basirhat

8.1.2 Tepul, Gobardanga

8.1.3 Purbapara, Basirhat

8.1.4 Rangapur, Nilgunj

8.1.5 Ghetugachi, Chakdaha

8.1.6 DO, Conductivity & pH

8.2 Discussion




8.1.1 Results of Merudandi, Basirhat

Variation of Arsenic conc at Merudandi, Basirhat

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65

Days (1 unit = 2 days)

Co

nc (

mg

/lt)

Actual conc

WHO limit

Indian MPL

Variation of Iron conc at Merudandi, Basirhat

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65


Co

nc (

mg

/lt)

Actual conc

Safe limit

Arsenic - WHO guideline 0.01 mg/lt

Arsenic - Indian MPL 0.05 mg/lt

Iron - Safe Limit 1.00 mg/lt



8.1.2 Results of Tepul, Gobardanga

Variation of Arsenic conc at Tepul, Gobardanga

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27


Co

nc (

mg

/lt)

Actual Conc

WHO limit

Indian MPL

Variation of Iron at Tepul, Gobardanga

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27


Co

nc (

mg

/lt)

Actual conc

Safe limit






8.1.3 Results of Purbapara, Basirhat

Variation of Arsenic conc at Purbapara, Basirhat

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.2

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73


Co

nc (

mg

/lt)

Actual conc

WHO limit

Indian MPL

Variation of Iron conc at Purbapara, Basirhat

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73


Co

nc

(m

g/lt)

Actual conc

Safe limit






8.1.4 Results of Rangapur, Nilgunj

Variation of Arsenic at Rangapur, Nilgunj

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30


Co

nc (

mg

/lt)

Actual Conc

WHO limit

Indian MPL

Variation of Iron conc at Rangapur, Nilgunj

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29


Co

nc (

mg

/lt)

Actual Conc

Safe Limit






8.1.5 Results of Ghetugachi, Chakdaha:

Variation of Iron Conc at Ghetugachi, Chakdah

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Day (I unit = 2 days)

Co

nc (

mg

/lt)

Actual Conc

Safe limit

Variation of Arsenic conc at Ghetugachi, Chakdaha

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

Day (I unit = 2 days)

Co

nc (

mg

/lt)

Actual Conc

WHO limit

Indian MPL






8.1.6 DO, pH and Conductivity values in the plants:

Site Dissolved

Oxygen (ppm)

Conductivity

(mS/cm) pH

Naihati Purbapara,

Basirhat 1.6 – 3.6 1.8 – 2.9 7.06 – 7.6

Merudandi,

Basirhat 2.4 – 3.6 1.48 – 1.9 7.17 – 7.7

Rangapur, Nilgunj 3.2 – 3.6 0.78 – 1.1 7.29 – 7.38

Tepul, Gobardanga 4.6 – 5.2 1.1 – 1.5 7.19 - 7.28

Gotra, Ghetugachi 3.7 – 4.4 0.8 – 1.2 7.25 – 7.7

The detailed values are not provided for DO, conductivity & pH since these tend to vary

within the given limit throughout the monitoring period without any pattern.



8.2 Discussion

1. The project team could regularly analyze the water quality from 5 plants. The

plant at Naserkul, Ranaghat could not be monitored as intensely like the other

ones, only periodic monitoring was done to ensure safety.

2. A fabulous synchronization is observed between the variation of arsenic & iron

concentrations of the plant water with the advancements of operation. The pair of

graphs, in case of all the 5 plants are seen to follow almost exact pattern

throughout the length of the operational cycles.

3. In case of all the 5 plants, the arsenic concentration is seen to come below Indian

standard Concentration (0.05 mg/lt) within 25 days approximately while it gets

reduced below WHO level (0.01 mg/lt) within 45 – 50 days.

4. The arsenic concentration depends totally on the iron concentration. Arresting

iron will automatically reduce the arsenic. This is due to the co-precipitation of

arsenic (+5) with iron (+3).

5. Arsenic co-precipitates only when it gets converted to +5 state from the soluble

+3 state. But this conversion takes place by enzymatic reaction of various aerobic

microbes. But the project team could not study the exact mechanism of the

enzymatic reaction & the strains of arsenic oxidizing microbes as this study was

out of the scope of the project. In future, this study will most obviously help in

increasing the efficiency of the plants.

6. Once the arsenic & iron concentrations went below the safe limits, it seldom

increased beyond the safe level. Very slight fluctuation is observed in the arsenic

level depending on season (rainfall, etc) and extent of plant activity (hampering of

plant functioning due to long holidays). Thus a very high consistency is noticed in

the plant activity. The oxydation zone is probably spreading in the aquifer, thus

arresting all the arsenic in its reach. This oxidation zone has to be maintained by

regularly recharging the oxidized water.



9

Conclusion & Recommendations

ome conclusions and recommendations that we reached at after conducting the

project is given below.

1. The functional parts of the plants are performing very well. The results are actually

beyond the expectations of the researchers. The technology is working wonders by

reducing arsenic level from 0.2 mg/lt to BDL (0.002 mg/lt) within 45 – 50 days

approximately. And the main thing is that, this effect is permanent. With continued

functioning, the levels of iron & arsenic are not fluctuating and a consistent pattern is

observed in the working. No chemicals are used here and no toxic wastes are generated.

So there is no question of recharging the chemicals or disposal of wastes, thereby

reducing the O&M costs.

2. RKVM has completed the project within one & half years of working period. It was

estimated in the project proposal that the communities will bear the O&M cost at the end

of the project i.e. two years. Actually, the people have to grow the habit of paying a fee

for the service they are using (whatever nominal the fee may be). This takes a little time.

For now, RKVM is going to look after these plants and pay the electric bills worth a few

dollars per month. A section of the community has started paying up for the water and

the number is growing. RKVM is keeping a close watch on the matter & will transfer these

plants to the community once they become self sufficient.

3. According to the data generated, the arsenic concentration has been significantly

reduced in all of the treatment plants. This reduction in the arsenic content in the

drinking water leads to a significant reduction in the daily arsenic intake from 415 µg i-

S



As/day down to 140 µg i-As/day. The Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) for arsenic could be

established at 124 µg i-As/day (Signes-Pastor et al., 2008; Signes et al., 2008c). In this

way, the reduction in the arsenic concentration caused by the in-situ treatment of

subterranean water led to levels very close to those values recommended by the World

Health Organization (WHO). Universidad Miguel Hernandez, Spain has prepared an Excel

file to easily calculate the effect of arsenic concentration on drinking water on the final

daily intake of this metalloid. The user will introduce the arsenic concentration (in µg/L)

and the calculator will give the values of the daily arsenic intake for three different

scenarios (minimum, mean and maximum food availability).

4. There is a very high scope of research regarding the mechanism of the arsenic removal

& the microbial process going down in the aquifer. The spread of oxydation zone & the

recharge period, timing, volume ratio, etc also can be worked upon. A very high level of

interest has been generated among the villagers. They are very much excited about the

sustained success of the plants in removing arsenic, unlike other methods which

generate very good quality water for a few weeks and then starts to stain the pipes with

yellow iron oxide deposits indicating that they have stopped working. (The thumb rule is

that, you remove iron, and then you will automatically remove arsenic). Many petitions

have been submitted at the project office seeking the installation of more of these plants

in different areas of Nadia & N 24 Parganas.

5. Some recommendations about the reduction of arsenic intake through food have been

provided by the UMH, Spain. These are discussed below:

Peeling of tubers and roots: The first recommendation is that vegetables such as turnip,

radishes, potatoes, carrots, etc. should always be peeled before consumption. An

important percentage of the arsenic is highly attached to the outer skin of these tubers or

roots. By peeling potatoes, carrots, etc the daily arsenic intake will be reduced

(Carbonell-Barrachina et al., 1999).

Rice dehusking: Depending on the quality of the water available for rice dehusking,

Signes et al. (2008b) has recommended using the dry or wet processes. If arsenic-free

water (o water with low arsenic content) is available the wet process leading to boiled rice

is recommended; however, if only arsenic-polluted water is available the recommended

method is the dry one, which leads to atab rice.

Rice cooking: Signes-Pastor et al. (2008) and Signes et al. (2008c) has tested three

different cooking methods for rice and these authors recommended the use of the

traditional method in which raw rice is washed until the washings become clear (five to

six times), the washings are discarded and then the rice is boiled in excess water (five to

six times the weight of the raw rice) until cooked, finally discarding the remaining water

(discarded water) by tilting the pan against the lid before serving the rice.



6. To remove arsenic from the irrigation water, massive upscale of these plants are

needed. Much larger plants can be easily designed & installed for producing arsenic free

irrigation water stored in aerated reservoirs.

7. This technology can be replicated in almost every arsenic affected area of West Bengal

due to high concentration of iron in groundwater, easy availability of electricity & high

level of awareness. RKVM has a very strong presence in the districts of Nadia, N 24

Parganas, Kolkata and S 24 Parganas and here it can itself replicate these projects in no

time at all. In the districts of Burdwan, Howrah, Malda & Murshidabad, RKVM can tie up

with other NGOs working in those areas to reach out to the people in a much larger scale.

8. Alternate source of generating revenue for O&M purpose: RKVM is a charitable

organization & is able to mobilize enough resource to sustain the operation of these

plants for years to come through charity and donations. For example, any person or

company can sponsor the drinking water for a whole village community by paying a

minimum of Rs 100.00 (2 USD) per month. Given the fact that RKVM has a very high

position of trust among the people and has thousands of devotees & members, such type

of donation and support will be easily available if required at all. After all, the O&M is not

at all expensive.

The Subterranean Arsenic Removal (SAR) Technology has every potential for

revolutionizing man’s war against Arsenic. It is highly suitable for running in the rural

environment due to its simple mechanism & locally available spare parts & easy

maintenance systems. The running cost is also very low, making it fit for low income

communities. A central actor like Panchayat or Self-help groups will be most suitable

Central Actor to run it.

Prevention is always better than cure. So it is much better to prevent the arsenic from

emerging on the surface by treating the whole aquifer to produce safe water rather than

treating the unsafe water using costly chemicals after bringing it out on the surface and

exposing the community to the hazard of the toxic waste.



10

The Photographs


















Ramakrishna Vivekananda Mission, Barrackpore 92

11

The Annexure

I. Manuals & Questionnaires

II. Agreements, Certificate & Technology Transfer letter

III. Persons associated with DM 06-880



Annexure - I

Manuals & Questionnaires





DETERMINATION OF IRON

Reagents:

1. Conc. HCl

2. Hydroxylamine Hydrochloride: Dissolve 10 g NH4OH.HCl in 100 ml water.

3. Ammonium Acetate Buffer Solution: Dissolve 250 g NH4C2H3O2 in 150 ml water.

Then we add 700 ml of Glacial Acetic Acid.

4. Phenanthroline Solution: Dissolve 100 mg of 1-10 phenanthroline monohydrate in

100 ml water by stirring and heating to 80 oC.

5. KMnO4(0.1M): Dissolve 0.316 g KMnO4 in water and dilute to 100 ml.

6. Stock Iron Solution: Slowly add 20 ml Conc. Sulfuric acid to 50 ml waster and

dissolve 1.404 g ferrous ammonium sulfate . Add 0.1 N KMnO4 dropwise until a

faint pink colour appears. Dilute it to 1000 ml with water and mix.

7. Standard Iron Solution: Pipette out 50 ml stock solution into a 1000 ml volumetric

flask and dilute to mark . 1 ml =10 µg Fe

Procedure:

50 ml sample+ 2 ml conc HCl + 1 ml Hydroxyl Amine solution+ few glass beads and heat to

boil to half of the volume. Cool it and then transfer it to 50/100 ml volumetric flask. Add 10

ml ammonium acetate buffer solution and 4 ml phenanthroline solution and dilute to mark

with water . Mix properly and allow a minimum of 10 minutes for maximum colour

development. Read the wavelength in spectrophotometer at 510 nm wavelength.

From the standard curve, determine the concentration of iron in this unknown sample.



DETERMINATION OF ARSENIC

Reagents:

1. Conc.HCl

2. Potassium Iodide Solution:

15 g of KI was dissolved in 100 ml distilled water and stored in a brown bottle.

3. Stannous Chloride Solution:

40 g of SnCl2.2H20 was dissolved in 100 ml conc HCl.- this is correct.

4. Lead Acetate Solution:

10 g of lead acetate was dissolved in distilled waster to prepare 100 ml solution.

5. Silver Diethyl Dithiocarbamate:

0.5 g of SDDC dissolved in 100 ml of Pyridine.

6. Zinc Granulated

7. Standard Arsenic Solution (1 ml=1 µg As): 1.32 g of As was dissolved in 10 ml of distilled

water having 4 g of NaOH and make up the volume to 1 litre. This was 1000 mg/lit stock

solution containing 10 µg As in 1 ml. This was diluted further 10 times to prepare standard

solution of Arsenic.

(1 ml=1µg of As)

Procedure:

1.35 ml sample + 5 ml conc HCl+ 2 ml KI + 8 drops of SnCl2. Thoroughly mixed and kept

for 5 minutes. The glass wool in the scrubber was soaked with lead acetate solution taking

care that solution should not drain into the generator.. 4 ml of SDDC was taken in the

absorber tube. 3 g of Zn was added in the generator and immediately the assembly was

connected air tight. It was kept for about 30 minutes for the generation of AsH3 with slight

heating. The gas was absorbed in SDDC in the absorber tube and the colour changes to red.

The intensity of the colour was measured to 535 nm using the reagent blank as reference.

A graph between the absorbance (OD value) and the concentration which is the standard

curve was prepared.



Operator’s log book

Record of Groundwater during Sampling

Plant Name and Code

Operator

Test report No.

Cycle No.

Sampling Point

Sample Label

Time Water Meter Reading (lit)

Weather Air Temperature [Deg C]

Colour Electro Conductivity [us/cm]

Turbidity pH Value

Smell Dissolved Oxygen [mg/l]

Water Temperature

Sediments Yes O No O Floatable Yes O No O

Frothing Yes O No O Striae Yes O No O

Sample conservation (see label)

Arsenic [mg/l]

Iron [mg/l]

Date of sample delivery to lab.

Pump Started at

Overflow Started at

Pump Stopped at

Intermision From ………………. to ……………

Water meter reading before Infiltration

Infiltration started at

Water meter reading after Infiltration

Signature of the operator: Date:



Socio-economic & WTP Questionnaire

Questionnaire Choices

Example of response

1 What is the

household size? 6-8

2 Age of the

persons staying 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-60 >60 12-70

3

How you are

getting the water

?

Municipal

ity tap

water

Tubewe

ll

Water

Truck Time-call Other

Deep-tubewell

(depth 300ft- 3

times a day; if

unavailable,

then nearby

community

centre

4

How much water

they are

procuring for

cooking and

drinking (in

buckets) daily?

5 10 15 20 >20

5

How much you

are paying for it

(Rs)?

Nil 10 20 30

6

What is the time

required for

procuring the

water ?

0-1/2 HR ½ hour-

1 hour

1 hour –

2 hours > 2 hours

7 Who brings the

water?

House-

wife maid Others

8

How many

earning members

in the family?

1 2 3 >3 2

9 What is their

profession? farmer

salaried

job Business Day labour other school work

10 Who is the head

of the family?

Responde

nt husband Wife Parents father

11 Is it own house or Own Rented own



rented

possession?

12 What is the rent

you are paying ? 10-100

100-

500

500-

1000 >1000

not

paying na

13

Whats is the total

earning of the

family ?

0-3000 3000-

6000

6000-

12000

12000-

20000 >20000 3000-6000

14 How much you

are spending ? 0-3000

3000-

6000

6000-

12000

12000-

20000 >20000 3000-6000

15

What is the

education of the

decision maker of

the family?

School /

HS Graduate

Post

Graduate

No

education no

16

How is the health

condition of the

family members?

Not good good very good Bad ok

17

If health

condition not

good, why is it

so?

Money Food Water Other food, money

18

Are you happy

with the quality

of water?

Good Bad No idea no idea

19

Are you happy

with the quantity

of water?

Yes No No idea yes

19

Do you know

about arsenic in

water and how it

affects you?

Yes No little No idea no

20

If RKVM supplies

good quality

water, would you

go for the same

or prefer to

continue with the

existing system ?

Yes No No idea yes

21 If the water is not

free, would you Yes No No idea may be



pay ?

22 Would you like to

pay Rs10/month? Yes No No idea don’t know

23 Per month would

you pay Rs 20? Yes No No idea

24 Per month would


25 Per month would


Questionnaire

Need for water

Household size

Consumption

How they are using the water

Existing arrangement of house for getting water

How they are getting the water ( private source/vendors/self)

Time required

Available labour in case water is to be procured and need to be collected from distant place

Adult woman

Children

Ability to pay

House hold exp

No of earning member

Person working as farmer or outside job

Value of house

Owned/Rented

Quality/Quantity

Quality OK

Quantity OK

Personal characteristic of the house

Age of household head

Age of other members

Education

Occupation

Sex ratio



Children

Awareness of people in the house about arsenic problem

Health condition of the family

Is they receive any special treatment for any illness or health

Household attitude

External exposure to the world

Awareness of quality of water for health

Who they think should provide water

What they feel about water should be priced or not

Satisfaction with the existing water supply quality and qauntity

Other factors

Distance of the village from the district head quarter

Proximity of the village from perennial water source

WTP

Are they willing to pay for the water?

How much they are paying now?

Bidding game

Cost for cooking and drinking only?

For costing calculation what are needed?

Running cost

Maintenance cost

Depreciation

Interest on capital



Food Safety Questionnaire

24h-RECALL QUESTIONNAIRE - I

Hi, good morning, would you mind to answer a couple of questions dealing with your food

habits. It only will take 5 minutes.

Name:

Gender:

Age:

1. What (did) do you generally take for breakfast, (yesterday)?

Following questions depending on the answer:

1.1. How many or much…….?

1.2. What was its size?

1.3. How did you take it: raw, cooked, …?

2. Did you take anything in between the breakfast and the lunch?





3. What did you take for lunch, yesterday?





4. Did you take anything in between the lunch and the dinner?





5. What did you take for dinner, yesterday?







6. How much water did you normally drink every day?

7. How many cups of tea do you regularly drink every day? 8. Do you always eat at home? (Just considering that especially some of the males may work at the city where non-polluted water is available) 9. Do you smoke? If yes, how many or at what frequency in a day? 10. Do you think that your parents ate better food? If so, how? 11. Do you think that your children eat well? What do they eat? 12. Does a girl child receive better nutrition? If so, how?

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ANSWERING OUR QUESTIONS!



QUESTIONNAIRE - II

Hi, good morning, would you mind to answer a couple of questions dealing with your

food habits. It only will take 5 minutes.

Name:

Gender:

Age:

1. Are you the mother of the house? If the answer is not, the questionnaire is finished.

2. Are you the person responsible for collecting the water and preparing the meals? If

the answer is not, the questionnaire is finished.

3. How many people are there in your household?

4. Where do you get the water for drinking and food preparation?

5. How many times do you get water from this place in a daily basis?

6. How much water do you carry in a single trip to this place?

7. How do you store the water in your household?

8. Where do you get the food for your meals?

9. How much water do you use for preparing your main meals?

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ANSWERING OUR QUESTIONS!



ANNEXURE – II

Original Grant Agreement with the World Bank dated 3rd April, 2007





Amended Grant Agreement with the World Bank dated 18th March, 2008



Amended Milestones and Payments Schedule (Annex B of Project Agreement)

Project title: Subterranean Arsenic Removal – From Experiment to Delivery Project No.: 00880

Mile-

stone

Due Date Activities/Output

0 00/04/07 Signing the Contract:

Discuss and agree on the milestone objectives with the Project Liaison

Project Agreement Signed by the Project Team, Project Partner, and

the World Bank Country Director

First Payment (25 % of Total): $ 50,000

1 00/07/07 Milestone 1:

• Review previous studies and consultation with experts

• Baseline survey in the villages (population and socio-economic

demography, food habit, water intake, farming practice, water

quality)

• Finalizing location to design plant configuration

• Installing plant in two locations

Organizational plan:

• Appointment of Researchers (2)

• Appointment of Surveyors, office staff, lab assistant, security

• Conducting one meeting with all the partners

• Setting up test laboratories

• Providing vehicle

• Installation of audio-visual aid for regular conference

• Setting up office with computers and other accessories

Submit 1st standard DM progress report to Project Liaison and DM

Contact

Second Payment (25 % of Total): $ 50,000

2 00/11/07 Milestone 2:

• Installation of plant in four locations

• Monitoring the same for water quality and for food chain

Organizational plan:

• Appointment of supervisors and one researcher

• ISWA will visit the place of installation and will provide

necessary suggestions and modifications

• System will be computerized and all operations and test results

are recorded

Submit 2nd standard DM progress report to Project Liaison and DM

Contact

Third Payment (20 % of Total): $40,000



3 00/04/08 Milestone 3:

• Monitoring of water quality and food chain will be continued • Evaluation by consultants and researchers for sustainability • Operation and maintenance of all the plants by providing

operators, securities and researchers • Compilation and collation of data for preparing plant manual Organizational Plan:

• Preparation of report on contamination of arsenic in food chain

• Consultation with UMH being stationed in India for

finalizing the report Submit 3rd standard DM progress report to Project Liaison and DM Contact

Fourth Payment (20 % of Total): $ 40,000

4 00/09/08 Milestone 4: • Sustainability and water quantity requirement analysis • Follow-up the villagers for training for operation and

maintenance • Conducting awareness generation program at the grass root

level in the village • Interaction with the stakeholders for further implementation • Developing Public relation and expanding knowledge and

education • Preparation of final report and project manual Organizational plan:

• Meeting with all the partners • Finalization of the report and manual

• Distribution of manuals to the stakeholders Submit 4th standard DM progress report to Project Liaison and DM Contact

Final Payment (10 % of Total): $20,000

Final Report within 3 Months of the Final Payment

Submit Project Completion Report and hold a Completion Interview with Project Liaison

TOTAL PAYMENT $ 200,000 (100%)



The World Bank Development Marketplace Certificate of Recognition



Technology Transfer Letter



Copies of Certificates of the National Awards



ANNEXURE - III

Persons associated with the DM 06-880

Swami Nityananda Secretary, RKVM

Soumyadeep Mukherjee Project Team Leader

Dr. Bhaskar Sen Gupta Chief Advisor

Prof. Carsten Meyer Technical Advisor

Prof. Angel A. Carbonell Barrachina Food Safety Advisor

Prof. Wouter de Groot Delivery System Advisor

Indrajit Bera Research Assistant

Krishnendu Halder Research Assistant

Prabir Saha Asst. to Team Leader

Debangshu Dutta Civil Engineer

Sanjoy Basak Surveyor cum Lab Assistant

Partha Saha Computer Accountant

Kanti Bandopadhyay Accountant, RKVM

Sandip Mondal Cashier, RKVM

Dhiraj Chakraborty Cashier, RKVM-IAS

Gobinda Maity Senior Operator cum Supervisor

Shibsindhu Mondal Operator cum Supervisor

Alok Baidya Operator cum Supervisor

Biswajit Sinha Operator cum Supervisor

Tapan Mallick Operator cum Supervisor

Subrata Biswas Operator cum Supervisor

Shantinath Bandopadhyay Driver



12

The References

A. Signes, K. Mitra, F. Burló, A. A. Carbonell-Barrachina. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 226: 561-567 (2008)

A. Signes, K. Mitra, F. Burló, A.A. Carbonell-Barrachina. Food Addit. Contam. 25: 1345-1352 (2008b)

A. J. Signes-Pastor, K. Mitra, S. Sarkhel, M. Hobbes, F. Burló, W.T. De Groot, A. A. Carbonell-Barrachina. J.

Agric. Food Chem. 56: 9469-9474 (2008)

Acra, A., Jurdi, H., Mu'allem, Y., Karahagopian, Y. and Raffoul, Z. 1989 Water disinfection by solar radiation:

assessment and application, IDRC, Ottawa.

Allen, J. C., S. M. Cordes, S. Covey, R. Gunn, D. Hicks, L. Madden, and K. Starkweather (2002). Building on

Assets and Mobilizing for Collective Action Community Guide. The Center of Applied Rural Innovation (CARI)

Institute of Agriculture & Natural Resources University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

Arsenic in Food Regulations.Statutory Instrument (1959) No 831, as amended in 1960 (S.I. 1960 No. 2261)

and 1973 (S.I. 1973 No. 1052).London, UK: HMSO, 1959.

Bae, M., C. Watanabe, T. Inaoka, M. Sekiyama, N. Sudo, M.H. Bokul, and R. Ohtsuka (2002) Arsenic in cooked

rice in Bangladesh. Lancet pp 360: 1839–40.

Burlo F, I. Guijarro, A. A. Carbonell-Barrachina, D. Valero, and F. Martnez-Sanchez (1999). Arsenic species:

effects on and accumulation by tomato plants. J Agric Food Chem 47:1247–

Carbonell-Barrachina AA, F. Burlo, E. Lopez, and F. Martnez-Sanchez (1999). Arsenic toxicity and

accumulation in radish as affected by arsenic chemical speciation. J Environ Sci Health 34:661–79.

Carbonell-Barrachina, A. A., F. Burlo, A. Burgos-Hernandez, E. Lopez, and J. Mataix (1997) The influence of

arsenite concentration on arsenic accumulation in tomato and bean plants. Sci.Hortic. 71, pp. 167-176.



Carbonell-Barrachina A. A., Burló F., Valero D., López E., Martínez-Romero D, Martínez-Sánchez F. 1999. J.

Agric. Food Chem. 47: 228-2294.

CGWB (Central Ground Water Board) (1999). High Incidence of Arsenic in Ground Water in West Bengal.

Government of India, Ministry of Water Resources, Central Ground Water Board.

Chakraborti, D., M. M. Rahman, K. Paul, U. K. Chowdhury, M. K. Sengupta, D. Lodh, C. R. Chanda, K. C. Saha,

S. C. Mukherjee (2002). Arsenic calamity in the Indian subcontinent. What lessons have been learned?

Talanta (58) 3–22.

Das, H. K., A. K. Mitra, P. K. Sengupta, A. Hossain, F. Islam, and G. H. Rabbani (2004). Arsenic Concentration

in Rice, Vegetables, and Fish in Bangladesh: A Preliminary Study. Environment International 30 (3): 383–387.

De Groot, W.T. and H. Tadepally (2007). ‘Community action for environmental restoration: a case study on

collective social capital in India’, Environment, Development and Sustainability, Online First (DOI

10.1007/s10668-006-9078-8)

EC: European Commission (2001). Sustainable Production. Challenges and objectives for EU research policy.

Report of the expert group on competitive and sustainable production and related service industries in

Europe in the period to 2020.

FAO/WHO Expert committee on food additives (1989). Evaluation of certain food additives and

contaminants. 33rd Tech Rep Ser 776, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland: 27–38.

Galvis, G., J. Latorre, and J. T. Visscher (1998). Multi-stage filtration: an innovative water treatment

technology. Technical Paper no. 34-E, IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre; CINARA, The Hague,

The Netherlands.

Galway, M. associated with R. Gill, C. Brockehurst, E. E. Whitney, and S. Burnheim “Communication for

Development”, in World Health Organization (2003) Arsenic in Drinking Water. This publication is prepared under the auspices of WHO in collaboration with the World Bank and UNICEF under the authority of the

Administrative Committee on Water Resources (ACCSCWR).

Graham, N.J.D. and M. R. Collins (1994). Slow sand filtration: an international compilation of recent scientific

and operational developments. Proceedings, Second International Conference on Slow Sand Filtration.

American Water Works Association, University of New Hampshire.

Hossain M.A, M. K Sengupta, S. Ahamed, M. M. Rahman, D. Mondal, D. Lodh, B. Das, B. Nayak, B. K. Roy, A.

Mukherjee, and D. Chakraborti (2005). Ineffectiveness and poor reliability of arsenic removal plants in West

Bengal, India. Environ Sci Technol. 39(11): 4300-

Howard, G. (2003). Arsenic, Drinking-water and Health Risk Substitution in Arsenic Mitigation: a Discussion

Paper. A report prepared for the Arsenic Policy Support Unit, Local Government Division, Government of

Bangladesh. World Health Organization, Geneva.

Hussain, M. D., M. A. Haque, M. M. Islam and M. A. Hossen (2001). Approaches for Removal of Arsenic from

Tube well Water for Drinking Purpose. In BUET-UNU international workshop on technologies for arsenic

removal from drinking water, edited by



Johnston, R. H. Heijnen and P. Wurzel (2001) Safe water technology. In, WHO, United Nations Synthesis

Report on Arsenic in Drinking Water Developed on behalf of the United Nations Administrative Committee on

Cooperation Sub-Committee on Water Resources, with active participation of UNICEF, UNIDO, IAEA and the

World Bank.

Ming-Cheng Shih (2005) An overview of arsenic removal by pressure-driven membrane processes.

Desalination 172 (2005) 85-97.

Murugesan, G. S., M. Sathishkumar and K. Swminathan (2006). Arsenic removal from groundwater by

pretreated waste tea fungal biomass. Bioresource Technology 97: 483–487. NewScientist (2004). Arsenic

plan fails. New Scientist, issue 2458, 31 July, page 5.

Paul B. K. (2004). Arsenic contamination awareness among the rural residents in Bangladesh. Social Science

& Medicine. Volume 59, Issue 8 , Pp. 1741-1755.

Rahman, M. M.; D. Mukherjee, M. K. Sengupta, U. K. Chowdhury, D. Lodh, C. R. Chanda, S. Roy, M. Selim, Q.

Quamruzzaman, A. H. Milton, S. M. Sahidulla, M. T. Rahman, and D. Chakraborti (2002). Effectiveness and

reliability of arsenic field testing kits: Are the million dollar screening projects effective or not? Environ.

Sci.Technol. 36 (24): 5385-5394.

Roychowdhury, T., H. Tokunaga, and M. Ando (2003). Survey of arsenic and other heavy metals in food

composites and drinking water and estimating of dietary intake by the villagers from the arsenic-affected

area of West Bengal, India.” The Science of the Total Environment 308:15–35.

UNESCOPRESS (2005) Arsenic removal water filter could help save millions of lives: UNESCO-IHE calls for

donors. Press Release N°2005-121. Valente, T.W. Social network thresholds in the diffusion of innovations.

In Social Networks 18 (1996) 69-89.

Van den Berg, N.W., C. E. Dutilh, G. Huppes (1995). Beginning LCA. A guide into environmental Life Cycle

Assessment. Leiden; Maarn: Centre of Environmental Science; MHP Management & Secretary Services.

Warren, G. P., B. J. Alloway, N. W. Lepp, B. Singh, F. J. M. Bochereau, and C. Penny. 2003. “Field Trials to

Assess the Uptake of Arsenic by Vegetables from Contaminated Soils and Soil Remediation with Iron Oxides.”

The Science of the Total Environment 311:19–33.

WHO (1997) Guidelines for drinking-water quality: Volume 3, Surveillance and control of community

supplies. 2nd edition, World Health Organization, Geneva.

WHO. Task group on environmental health criteria for arsenic: arsenic. Environmental Health Criteria 18,

World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, (1981). p. 1–174.

World Bank (2005). Towards a more effective operational response. Arsenic contamination of ground water

in South and East Asian countries. Volume II technical report. Environment and social unit (South Asia

region) and Water and sanitation program (WSP) (South and East Asia). Report No. 31303

(http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTSAREGTOPWATRES/Resources/ArsenicVolII_WholeReport.pdf)

WRC 1989 Disinfection of rural and small-community water supplies: manual for design and operation,

Water Research Centre, for WHO, Medmenham.

*****



Contact Information:

Project website: www.insituarsenic.org

Swami Nityananda Secretary

Ramakrishna Vivekananda Mission,

7, Riverside Road,

Barrackpore: 700 120

West Bengal, INDIA

Office: +91 033 2592 0547

Fax: +91 033 2560 6904

Website: www.rkvm.org

Email: [email protected]

Dr. Bhaskar Sen Gupta Chief Advisor, DM 06 - 880

Dept of Environmental Engineering,

Queen’s University, Belfast, UK

Office: +44 78461 12581


[email protected]

Soumyadeep Mukherjee, M.Sc

Project Team Leader, DM 06-880

RKVM-IAS,

3, B.T. Road, Agarpara,

Kolkata: 700 058,

West Bengal, INDIA

M.Tech student

School of Safety & Occupational Health Engg

Bengal Engineering and Science University, Shibpur

Howrah, West Bengal, INDIA

Office: +91 033 2583 9580

Fax: +91 033 2563 7302

Mobile: +91 94337 16340


[email protected]

Prof. Dr. Ángel A. Carbonell-Barrachina

Food Safety Advisor, DM 06-880

AgroFood Technology Department

Miguel Hernández University

Ctra. Beniel, km 3.2

03312-Orihuela, Alicante

SPAIN

Office: +34.966.749.754

Fax: +34.966.749.677

Mobile: +34.605.302.372


Prof. Dr. Wouter T. de Groot Delivery System Advisor, DM 06-880

Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML)

P.O.Box 9518

2300 RA Leiden

The Netherlands


Prof Carsten Meyer Technical Advisor, DM 06-880

ISWA, Stuttgart University

Germany


Documents

1 preface, content - Cloud Object Storage | Store & … distress and thus in the process helped to upheld the Mission’s motto of God Worship in Man irrespective of class, creed,