Water Purifying Devices

8/14/2019 Water Purifying Devices

1/42

Civil Engineering Department

Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of

TechnologySurat - 395007

Prepared By:

Dhawal Agrawal (U05CE057)

Tapan Desai (U05CE059)

Nimesh Tilani (U05CE074)

Vedant Pagare (U05CE076)

Guided By:

Dr. M. Mansoor Ahammed

Dr. K. D. Yadav

2008-2009


2/42


3/42

Defining the Problem and Settingthe Objective of the Study

Literature Reviews

Survey of the Study Area

Home Interview Surveys

Design of Questionnaire Format

Data Processing & Analysis Behavior of Various TreatmentDevices

Predictions

Choice / Option in HouseholdWater Treatment System

Laboratory Testing

Study Proposal

Report Preparation

Study Methodology


4/42

Activated Carbon and Mechanical Filters Water Softeners Iron Removal Equipment

1. Polyphosphate feeder2. Chlorinator and filter

3. Aerator and filter

Reverse Osmosis Disinfection Methods Ozonation Ultra-violet Radiation Method


5/42


6/42


7/42

Location and regional linkage Historical development Demographic profile

Urbanization and population growth in Gujarat

Demographic dynamics of Surat Density pattern Economic profile Employment structure Industrial activities


8/42

MAP OF SURATCITY


9/42


10/42

Survey was done in 100 houses which were randomly selected. A questionnaire was filled by the candidate who approached a

household member personally. The questionnaire contained various aspects of the household

like: Family size

Annual household income Water supply source Treatment Device used Price Amount of water treated everyday Media through which device was known Time since the device is being used

Maintenance procedure used Maintenance Frequency Amount spent on maintenance Satisfaction


11/42

The various criteria filled in the surveyforms were selected and the differentdevices found were bifurcated.

Comparison was done between thesecriteria individually and graphs wereprepared.

These graphs and their tables are shown in

the following slides.


12/42

Income 10,00,

000

Houses(

%)

5 57 27 11


13/42

Sr

.N

o.

Source Hous

es(%)

1 SMC 66

2 Boring 26

3 Tube Well 3

4 Lake/River/P

ond

2

5 Others 3


14/42

Water

Used

(liters)

Houses

(%)

50 18


15/42

Company Houses

Boiling 12

Candle 6

Filtration 8

Hitech Filter 2

Aquagaurd 33

Whirlpool 2

Phillips 2

Kenstar 4

Zero 3

Aquagaurd

R/O

20

Kent R/O 3

Aqua Sure 1

Forbes 4


16/42

Cost of

Filter

Houses

(%)

5,000 50


17/42

Maintenance

Period

Houses (%)

Once a Year 25

Twice a Year 28

3 4 Times in

a Year

28

Monthly 11

Daily 8


18/42

Information

Source

Houses (%)

Friend 27

Sales-Man 24

News Paper 16

TV 33


19/42

SMC Boring Other River/Lake/Pond Well Total

Hitech 2 2

Phillips 2 2

Candle 4 2 6

Boiling 5 5 2 12

Aquagaurd 25 6 2 33

Whirlpool 2 2

Filtration 4 4 8

Kenstar 2 2 4

Zero B 2 1 3

Aquagaurd R/O 14 5 1 20

Kent R/O 3 3

Aqua Sure 1 1

Forbes 4 4

TOTAL 66 26 3 2 3 100


20/42


21/42

Device Yes No

Hitech 2 0Phillips 0 2

Candle 6 0

Boiling 4 8

Aquagaurd 15 18

Whirlpool 0 2

Filtration 7 1

Kenstar 4 0

Zero B 2 1

Aquagaurd R/O 9 11

Kent R/O 0 3

Aqua Sure 0 1

Forbes 0 4


22/42


23/42

Devices

Income

10,00,000

Hitech 0 0 2 0

Phillips 0 0 2 0

Candle 1 5 0 0

Boiling 0 12 0 0Aquagaurd 0 20 9 4

Whirlpool 0 0 2 0

Filtration 2 4 2 0

Kenstar 0 0 0 4

Zero B 1 1 0 1

Aquagaurd R/O 0 11 7 2Kent R/O 0 0 3 0

Aqua Sure 1 0 0 0

Forbes 0 4 0 0


24/42


25/42

Device Poor Average Good Excellent

Hitech 0 0 2 0

Phillips 0 0 0 2

Candle 0 2 4 0

Boiling 2 4 2 4

Aquagaurd 0 4 25 4Whirlpool 0 0 2 0

Filtration 0 4 4 0

Kenstar 0 0 0 4

Zero B 0 0 0 3

Aquagaurd R/O 0 7 5 8

Kent R/O 0 0 0 3

Aqua Sure 0 0 0 1

Forbes 0 0 2 2


26/42


27/42

Sampling program and procedure General precautions Sampling for water Sampling for bacteriological analysis Collection of samples from taps Collection of sample direct from a source

Size of sample Preservation and storage

Turbidity pH Carbonate, Bicarbonate & Hydroxyl Alkalinity Hardness Chloride Chlorine Residual Coliform


28/42

1.7Zero B Puriline2L

10

1.4Kenstar Le pure9

1.4Eureka ForbesAquagaurdIntegra-7

8

1.4Whirlpool Purafreshplatinum

7

1.4HindustanUnilever Pureit

6

1.6Eureka ForbesAquasure

51.5Eureka ForbesSensa4

2Philips WP 38933

2Eureka Forbes-AquagaurdClassic

2

2Boiled water1

2SMC0

Turbidity(NTU)

Sample typeSamp

leNo.


29/42

7-8Zero BPuriline 2L

10

7-8Kenstar Lepure

9

7-8EurekaForbesAquagaurdIntegra-7

8

7-8Whirlpool Purafresh

platinum

7

7-8HindustanUnileverPureit

6

7-8EurekaForbesAquasure

5

7-8Eureka

ForbesSensa

4

7-8Philips WP3893

3

7-8EurekaForbes-AquagaurdClassic

2

6-7Boiled water1

6-7SMC0

pHSample typeSample

No


30/42

2842840Zero BPuriline

2L

10

2602600KenstarLe pure

9

80800EurekaForbesAquagaurdIntegra-7

8

2402400Whirlpool Purafres

hPlatinum

7

1961960HindustanUnileverPureit

6

2522520EurekaForbesAquasure

5

2682680EurekaForbesSensa

4

2882880PhilipsWP3893

3

2402400EurekaForbes-AquagaurdClassic

2

2882880Boiled

water

1

2522520SMC0

TotalalkalinityT(mg/L)

MethylOrange

Alkalinity(mg/L)

Phenolphthalein

Alkalinity(mg/L)

Sampletype

Sample No.


31/42

5680136Zero BPuriline

2L

10

4468112KenstarLe Pure

9


8

4872120Whirlpool Purafresh

Platinum

7


6


5


4

5684140PhilipsWP3893

3

5688144Eureka

Forbes-AquagaurdClassic

2

6492156Boiledwater

1

7284156SMC0

Magnesium

Hardness(mg/L)

CalciumHardness

(mg/L)

TotalHardness(mg/L)

Sampletype

Sampl

eNo.


32/42

71.97Zero B Puriline2L

10

79.97Kenstar LePure

9

31.99Eureka ForbesAquagaurdIntegra-7

8

73.97Whirlpool PurafreshPlatinum

7

65.97HindustanUnilever Pureit

6

85.97Eureka ForbesAquasure

5

83.97Eureka ForbesSensa

4

75.97Philips WP3893

3

71.97EurekaForbes-AquagaurdClassic

2

73.97Boiled water1

69.97SMC0

TotalChloride(mg/L)

Sample typeSamp

leNo.

CFreeTotaTTTTSampSa


33/42

0000000ZeroBPuriline 2L

10

0000000Kenstar LePure

9


8

0000000Whirlpool PurafreshPlatinum

7


6


5


4

0000000Philips WP3893

3

0000000EurekaForbes-AquagaurdClassic

2

0000000Boiledwater

1

0000000SMC0

Combinedavailableresidual

Freeavailable

residualA-B

1

Total

available

residualC-B

2

TubeC

TubeB

2

TubeB

1

TubeA

Sampletype

Sample

no.


34/42


35/42

Tests showed that some devices are better in terms of efficiency.

However, conclusion cannot be made based only on testing onesample. Detailed long term tests have to be conducted in order tocompare various devices.

Some devices are costly. So, the lower and medium incomegroups can hardly afford to use this device.

Some devices have proved to be very popular among users. The

maintenance awareness, ease, performance, etc for this devicehas been very satisfactory.

The initial cost and the maintenance cost for these two devicesare also quiet affordable.

The only drawback with these devices is that they have proved to

be inefficient in removal of microorganism from the influentsource water.

Other than these devices all the other devices have proved to bealmost equal in all the criteria, so any of these devices can bepreferred after the above three.


36/42

Out of these the ones with the RO Technology or Reverse Osmosis Technology integrating device should be preferred as thistechnology of water treatment has proved to be very efficient.

The user should opt for the regular maintenance plans that areavailable with the companies manufacturing devices or shouldthemselves go for regular maintenance of the devices themselves.

It was also observed from the survey that the user generallybought the device just because a good friend of theirs suggestedthe device. It should be a regular practice with the user that adetailed knowledge of maintenance required by the device,technology used, power consumed, maximum service life, etc

should be taken. The user should not just take the initial price into account while

buying equipment. The maintenance cost and service life shouldalso be considered which could save him money over a longperiod of time.


37/42

The survey analysis shows that Aquagaurd Classic and AquagaurdRo are the most preferred water treatment devices. These deviceshave produced a good performance in almost all criteria ofmaintenance, satisfaction level, use, etc.

The maximum number of users use 25-50 liters of water with SMCwater as source and they come in the income group of Rs.5,00,000/- to 10,00,000/- and use a device whose price is morethan Rs. 5000/-

The maintenance awareness of the user for other devices exceptAquagaurd Classic and Aquagaurd RO is comparatively low sotheir performance is also affected and thus work should be done

to increase the awareness for maintenance of these devices. It can also be seen that a huge amount of users came to know

about the device from television as media. So the companiestargeting to increase their sales can concentrate on advertisingtheir device through television more compared to the othermedia.


38/42

It can also be seen that the maximum users of treatment devicesaccommodate in the income group of Rs.1,00,000/- to

Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/ to Rs.10,00,000/- So themanufacturers should concentrate on manufacturing orformulating such devices which are more cheaper and affordableso that the lower income group (


39/42

Influent water (SMC) in the present study was conforming to thestandards for all the water quality parameters tested. Thus, thetrue potential of the different water treatment devices cannot becompared in the present study. For comparing the differentdevices a long duration study should be conducted by collection alarge number of samples from different devices at different times.

Most of the devices tested here are generally used for treatingpublic water supplies like SMC water which has undergonecomplete treatment at a treatment plant. Thus, the quality oftreatment water is generally expected to be good, which indicatesa limited role for household water purification device. People,however, still prefer to use a household device as they believe thewater supplies by SMC are often contaminated.

Efficiency of different household water treatment devices shouldalso be compared by performing challenge tests with highconcentration of chemical and microbiologcal contaminations inthe influent.


40/42

It can be seen from the experimentation that the turbidity of theinfluent source water sample itself is way below the acceptablelimits of Standard water quality parameters. The treatmentdevices also either keep the turbidity same or reduce theturbidity. Thus, the performance of all the devices is satisfactoryas far as turbidity is considered.

The pH of the influent source sample and the effluent treated

sample is within the acceptable range of standard water qualityparameters and the treatment devices make no change in the pHso the pH performance of the treatment devices is satisfactory.

It can be seen from the graph of alkalinity that the influent sourcewater sample has alkalinity above the desired limit but within theacceptable limits of standard water quality parameters. The

treatment devices make improvements in alkalinity in differentscales and also the alkalinity of effluent treated water sample iswithin the acceptable range. Thus the alkalinity performance oftreatment devices is also satisfactory but there is a scope ofimprovement too in this area.


41/42

The total hardness of influent source water sample is way belowthe desired limits and the treatment devices make furtherreduction in hardness too. Thus the hardness of treated watersample is within the desired range.

The chloride content of all the samples including influent sourcewater sample are way below the desired range of chloride content

and thus the performance of all treatment devices is satisfactory. The residual chlorine in the influent water sample is zero and the

same is the case with the effluent water sample. Thus thetreatment for free available residual chlorine is not needed andsatisfactory.

From the graph it can be seen that the influent source watersample showed presence of microorganism. Some devices haveproved to be unsatisfactory in treating the water biologically toremove microorganism.

However, it should be noted that only one sample was analyzedand more samples should be analyzed before arriving at any

conclusion.


42/42

Documents

Water Purifying Devices