Abstract:
Availahle arsenic mitigation tcchnologle, ha'e been descrihcd Ii-om ",hidl, seven
tGchnol()gle, were selected to asscss their su.,tainahility namely, SIDKO, SONO, Arsenic
Iron Removal Plant (A1RP), Deep Tuhe Well (DT\\'). Dug Well (D\V). Rain Watcr
1J~rvesting Sy<;tem (RWHS) and Pond Sand Filter (PSF). The sustainability nl' these
technologies was measured against fourteen indiealors, selected by six renowned ar,eme
experts, Users of the;:e tedlllologies were imervlewed using two p~rts of the
que~l1onnaire, ~) background infomlaL10n hy Semi-Sllucturcd queslionnaire and b)
asse,;sment of the technology by a close ended yuestionnaire based on indicators having
scale mark 01'0 to 10 for eil~h question. Then <;core,oj' md,cators \\'ere analyzed m tahles
and b'f3phs for each technology.
Though high 'installation cost' and 'lack of spare parts. skilled mason and technology ill
the community' Jre barriers for SIDKO installation, v,-ater qUJlity and taste have heen
limml to be the best from SIDKO as it etTeeLlvelyremoves both arsenic and Iron. Low
installalion ~()stand household b~sed system with ea<,yoperation are drivers of promotion
for SONO and lls ,;u~lall1ability, 'Lea,t availability ot technology & spare parts in Ihe
locality and 'long punJied waler ~ollection time' discourage people from use of SONO
filter. 'Locally available spare pans. con,tru~tion mmeriJI & skilled mason' and 'cheaper
installation cost' Jre motivating factors lix u.\e of AIR1' whereJS 'iron clogging generaled
in thc rescno;r' and 'stagnant waler in the chambers whIch makes water susceptible to
bacleriologicJI contalnJnation' uiscoumge, people to use the technology.
DTW was proved to be very good and sustainable technology in respcct to maXImum
ind,cator" Its perception is belter than widely u.,ed shallow tube well. but It I, generally
OuE01' arl')f(lable range for individuals in rural Bangladesh. People's perception about
DW water IS hke ground water. Rut a suitable geographIC condition for its installation is
hard to finu. RWI-IScan be installed by \Ising locally available materials, The design and
size d~pends On Lheaffordability and requ;relTICtll,Compared to grounu water. it i<;less
acceptable to the people dlle to less taste Con.,lruclion materials and sp3re parts 01 PSF
are locally available but people It,ually do not feel comfortabl~ to drink pond water PSI'
i, found active in those places where no other source of pure drinking water is available.
R3% case, in operational mode oft~chnology. It wus found th;tt the users had eo<;!"shared
whereas in only 17% Ca,e8, technology failed in <;plleof CO.,1sharing of users during
installation. Moreover, using pri,'ate ,ector providers to fultill the need of arsenic free
"ater increased wllh hIgher education level of the users. For being technology to be
sustamahle, the henchmark score has been 1'1UndL{)be 50 out of 140 the tolal .\COr,,~of
fourteen indicators.
