Sustainability assessment of arsenic mitigation technologies of Bangladesh

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.