CAM PDA: Arsenic Mitigation Technology (Final Report)

8/9/2019 CAM PDA: Arsenic Mitigation Technology (Final Report)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cam-pda-arsenic-mitigation-technology-final-report 1/168

Kanchan Arsenic FilterEvaluation of Applicability to Cambodia

Technical Report

January, 2009

Dr. Samnang Chea, Director, Dept of Rural Health Care, Ministry of Rural

Development (MRD).

Dr Saray Mao Director Dept of Rural Water Supply MRD



Table of contents

PageCover Page 1

Table of contents 2

List of tables and figures 4

Introduction 5

Schedule, participating organizations & funding sources 6

I. PHASE I: FIELD TECHNICAL RESEARCH 7

I.1. Selecting a site for phase I testing 8

I.2. Filter configurations and volume & frequency of water added 8

I.3. Phase I analyses & testing equipment used 10

I.4. Arsenic removal results – phase I 11

I.5. Impact of flow rate and filter cleanings on arsenic removal 12

I.6. Confirmation of arsenic results 13

I.7. Iron removal 14

I.8. Removal of phosphates 14

I.9. Turbidity removal 15

I.10. E. coli removal 16

I.11. Comparison of phase I results with other studies 17

I.12. Efficiency of the filters after phase I 20

II. PHASE II DEMONSTRATION PROJECT 21

II.1. Comparison of water chemistry of phase II with other studies 22

II.2. Arsenic removal results 22

II.3. Iron removal results 24



III. SOCIAL SURVEY ON THE INSTALLED FILTERS 26

III.1. Amount of water use for daily drinking and cooking 26

III.2. Filter like 26

III.3. Willingness of household to pay for KAF 28

IV. GENERAL CONCLUSION 29

References 30

Annex I: PowerPoint presentation during the final meeting

Annex II: Technology verification lesson learn

Annex III: Arsenic sludge report



List of tables and figures

Tables Page

Table 1 Arsenic-related data for tubewells in Cambodia (previous studies) 8

Table 2: Water quality testing 10

Table 3: Confirmation of arsenic results 13

Table 4: Comparison of three different arsenic biosand removal studies 17

Table 5: Comparison of phase I raw water quality from this study to other study 19

Table 6: Comparison of phase I site to data from previous studies 20

Table 7: Water chemistry comparison 22

Table 8: Water use by household 26

Table 9: Acceptation of KAF by household 27

Table 10: Recommendation of KAF to other people 27

Table 11: Opinion of household on the benefit of KAF 28

Table 12: Willingness of household to pay for KAF 28

Figures

Figure 1 - Kanchan Arsenic Filter 7

Figure 2: Kanchan Arsenic Filter installed in Province 9

Figure 3: Arsenic removal of KAF original and pre-rusted design 11

Figure 4: Flow rate and arsenic removal 12

Figure 5: Arsenic results and filter cleaning 13

Figure 6: Iron removal by KAF 14Figure 7: Phosphate removal by KAF 15

Figure 8: Turbidity removal by KAF 15

Figure 9: E. coli removal by original design and pre-rusted KAF 16



Introduction

Arsenic contamination is a significant threat to the drinking water safety in Cambodia,

especially in the rural regions where hundreds of thousands of peoples rely primarily on

groundwater for their drinking water needs. A recent study commissioned by the

Ministry of Rural Development (MRD) and UNICEF to test 16,000+ tube well water for

arsenic in 7 central provinces bordering the Mekong and the Bassac rivers (including

Kandal, Kampong Cham, Kratie, Kampong Chhnang, Kampong Thom, Prey Veng andperi-urban Phnom Penh provinces) found that an estimated 320,000 people in 1,600

villages are at risk. A study by the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and

Technology (EAWAG) reported arsenic concentration as high as 1,300 µg/L (which is

26 times higher than the Cambodian standard of 50 µg/L) in the Mekong delta south of

Phnom Penh (Buschmann et al., 2007). In late 2006, a knowledge, attitude, andpractices (KAP) survey jointly conducted by the MRD, UNICEF and the Institute of

Technology of Cambodia (ITC) found several suspected arsenicosis cases in the

Kandal province. These cases of skin diseases and cancers were analyzed and

confirmed by the Ministry of Health (MoH) to be arsenicosis (MRD and MoH, 2007).

There is strong demand among various stakeholders on Cambodia to find effective

solutions. A grant was awarded by the Asian Development Bank to evaluate the

applicability and limitations of the Kanchan Arsenic Filter (KAF) as a potential arsenic

mitigation option for Cambodia.

The KAF was developed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and ENPHO

(Nepali NGO) based on 7 years of extensive inter-disciplinary laboratory and field

studies in rural villages of Nepal (Ngai, et al, 2007). The KAF is an open-content

technology and requires no external energy/material input for operation and requires no



Project schedule, partic ipating organizations & funding

sources

Overall Study Duration (Phase I & II)

Phase I from February to September 2008 and Phase II from October to December

2008.

Lead organizations:

Institute of Technology of Cambodia (ITC)

Ministry of Rural Development (MRD)

Support organizations:

Centre for Affordable Water and Sanitation Technology (CAWST)

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)

Funding sources:

Asian Development Bank Pilot Demonstration Activity – US $50,000



I. Phase I: Field technical research

The Kanchan Arsenic Filter (KAF) has the configuration as in the Figure 1 below. The

filter preparation is done according to its technical guideline provided by CAWST,

Canada and MIT, USA.

Figure 1: System of Kanchan Arsenic Filter (KAF).



Figure 2: Kanchan Arsenic Filter installed in Keansvay,

Kandal Province for the phase I study.

• Pre-rusted nails configuration Filters (F3 & F4) - to evaluate whether pre-

rusting can give better iron loading, resulting in increased arsenic removal.

• Submerged nails configuration (Filters F5 & F6) - to evaluate whether

submerging nails under water at all times will lead to more rusting, increasing

arsenic removal.

• Manual aeration configuration (Filters F7 & F8) - to evaluate whether pouring

water between 2 buckets for 20 times prior to pouring water into the filter can

increase arsenic removal.

• Mechanical aeration configuration (Filters F9 & 10) - to evaluate whether

mechanical aeration by air bubbler, prior to pouring water into the KAF, can

increase arsenic removal.



Research started on the 3rd of February, 2008. Every day, household owner poured 20

L of water into each filter in the morning, and another 20 L of water in the evening. ITC

and/or MRD staff visited the filters 3 times per week. Every week, water samples (raw

and filtered) were collected and tested on site and at ITC’s laboratory.

I.3. Phase I analyses & testing equipment used

During Phase I a digital Wagtech Arsenator was used because the results can be read

digitally. While UNICEF does not endorse any particular product the 2008 UNICEF

Handbook on Water Quality states that the Arsenator “… uses an optical photometer to

digitally measure the colour change on mercuric bromide filter paper, however, it is

much more portable. It detects arsenic within a reported range of 2-100 μg/L. The

Arsenator is significantly more expensive than manual colour comparison kits, but is

more accurate and precise. A recent UNICEF-commissioned study from India

comparing the Arsenator with laboratory AAS-HG showed a very high correlation of

0.998 (Shriram Institute, 2006)”. During the Phase I study samples of raw water were

generally diluted by a factor of 10 to say within the digital readout range. Filtered water

samples were not diluted possibly contributing to the excellent results when compared

to laboratory analyses in the USA and France as noted in the “Confirmation of Arsenic

Results” section of this report.

Table 2: Water quality testing.



I.4. Arsenic removal resul ts – phase I

• Excellent arsenic removals were observed during both the dry and wet seasons.

(95-97% depending on the configuration.

• Removal % consistent with data from Nepal.

• After the 1st week start-up period, only 1 out of 224 filtered water samples (0.5%)

exceeded the Cambodian standard of 50 μg/L, from a raw water average of 637

μg/L of arsenic.

• No observed trend of increasing arsenic concentration over 30 week period

(8400 liters of water filtered).

• Manual and mechanical aeration and submerged nails processes seemed to not

improve arsenic removal compared to the original design under our study

conditions. There was a slight improvement in the initial week of arsenic resultsby using the pre-rusting configuration.

Figure 3: Arsenic removal: A: Original design, B: Pre-rusted nails.

BA



I.5. Impact of flow rate and fi lter cleanings on arsenic removal

The following are the conclusions from the Phase I study relative to impacts of varying

flow rates and the frequency of filter cleanings.

• Arsenic removal appeared to be not significantly affected by the flow rate or

frequency of cleaning.

• Flow rate appears to be adequate for household use.

• Flow rate can be effectively restored through simple cleaning, which takes 15-20

minutes.

Figure 4: Flow rate vs. arsenic removal.

• Filter cleaning involves swirling approximately the top 2 cm of sand, removing the

turbid water, and repeating 2 to 3 times.

• The time between filter cleanings was typically 2 to 2.5 months. However manual

ti (F7 & F8) d h i l ti (F9 & F10) l d i kl



Figure 5: Arsenic results vs. filter cleaning

I.6. Confirmation of arsenic results

Confirmation of arsenic results was done in part by shipping preserved samples to

laboratories in France and the USA as noted below.

Table 3: Confirmation of arsenic results



These laboratory analyses of preserved samples (pH < 2) confirm that the raw water

arsenic levels are very high and confirmed the filters are producing arsenic levels

significantly below the Cambodian standard.

I.7. Iron removal

• During Phase I excellent and consistent iron removals were observed for all the

configurations regardless of whether wet or dry season (99% for all

configurations).

• The removals were consistent with data from Nepal.

• In many parts of the world, high iron removal is often associated with high user

acceptance and sustainability of the technology.

Figure 6: Iron removal by KAF.

I 8 Removal of phosphates



• The % phosphate removals were consistent with data from Nepal.

• Even with the high raw water phosphate levels (average of 5.09 mg/L as PO4),

the filters were able to achieve consistently very high arsenic removals.

Figure 7: Phosphate removal.

I.9. Turbidi ty removal

• Consistent good turbidity removal for all filters. The % removal is a function of the

low raw water turbidities (groundwater).

• Removal consistent with data from Nepal.

• In many parts of the world, high turbidity removal is often associated with high

user acceptance and sustainability of the technology.



I.10. E. coli removal

• For most filter configurations raw water E. coli levels were very low. The Phase I

study confirmed that for these filters E. coli was not increasing through the filter.

Figure 9: E. coli removal: A: original design, B: pre-rusted

• For the pre-rusted configuration raw water E. coli was much higher

(approximately 140 CFU/100 mL) and the filters were capable of adequately

treating it. It should be noted that bacterial contamination may have been

introduced to the water during pre-rusting. This can presumably be avoided in

the future by covering the pre-rusting container.

BA



I.11. Comparison of phase I results with other studies

We compared our results with two other studies of arsenic biosand type filters and the

results are summarized in Table 4 below:

Table 4: Comparison of 3 Different Arsenic Biosand Removal Studies.

Peang et al.

2006

Chiew et al.

2008

Our study

Location RDI RDI Keansvay, KandalProvince

Number of filters 4 3 10 Arsenic removal 92 % 40-75% 97%

Possible reasons for the differences noted above could be:

• Differences in rusting?

• Differences in raw water characteristics/chemistry of tubewells?

• Differences in design and setup of experiments such as amount of water used,

etc.?

Discussion of potential important di fferences between this study and Chiew, 2008

study results

Rusting

Chiew et al. 2008 states that “Some preliminary work was done to check the impact of

the rusted nails on arsenic removal. A few samples were extracted from the standing



It appears from the above that the nails in the Chiew Study were not adding any

significant amounts of iron to incoming water. But we know that iron added from the

nails is a critical part of the KAF’s arsenic removal effectiveness.

To test whether the nails (rusting) were critical to the % removals of arsenic achieved

we used the same raw water and ran it through the filters without any nails. As can be

seen below the results indicate the importance of the rust that is generated from the

supplemental nails.

Figure 10: Comparison of the effluent as levels for filters with nails(in green) & filters w/o nails (orange & dark red)

Differences in Raw Water Quality

As noted below in Table 6 below the most significant differences in the raw waterbetween the two studies appear to be the pH and the hardness levels.



Table 5: Comparison of phase I raw water quality from this study

to Chiew study.

As noted previously in this report Table 2 below compares the raw water pH of our

study versus 4 other published studies that we found on high arsenic areas of

Cambodia. It appears that our raw water pH is consistent with the other published

studies below. Elevated pH is known to potentially impact iron based arsenic treatment

systems. We will look at the hardness issue closely during Phase II of this study.

Table 6: Comparison of phase I site to data from previous studies



Differences in Design and Setup of Experiments

It is possible that the use of the filter (to pour water in) only once per day (and only 18 L)

may have contributed to the lack of any significant rust in the Chiew Study. We believe

the use of the filter in the morning and evening and the volume we used is consistent

with likely village water use patterns.

I.12. Efficiency of the filters from October to December, 2008

We continue to investigate the filters from the phase I October to December, 2008 for itsperformance and see if there is any trend of failure. However, the performance of

arsenic, iron and phosphate removals of the filters from of phase I remains unchanged

from February to December, 2008 (Annex I). It is interesting to continue to study the

performance of these filters to evaluate the iron nail exhaustion.



II. Phase II demonstration project

Continue on-going field research to observe long term trends to see if arsenic removal

capacity exhaustion will occur. In addition, rusting characteristics was studied very

closely.

Field testing component for existing filters

• Household will continue to pour 40L of water per day into each of the 6 filters.

• MRD and ITC staff visit the filters weekly to assess the condition of the filters.

• Water samples (raw and filtered) will be collected and tested on site and at

ITC laboratory monthly.

• We will send some split samples to France and USA for additional cross-

checking and data verification.

Demonstration study of 30 filters: 20 in Keansvay, Kandal province and 10 in Prey

Veng province

• To evaluate the applicability of the filter under different water chemistry conditions.

• To include challenging water chemistry conditions, allowing us to determine filter

limitations

MRD and ITC staff will visit the filters monthly to inspect filters and test water.Parameters to be tested include: Arsenic, iron, pH, E. coli, Turbidity, Phosphates,

Hardness and TDS to evaluate against Cambodian standards. We will send samples

overseas for crosschecking. Also we will conduct a social evaluation to investigate user



follows the operation of the filter from the phase I. The arsenic removal of these filters

was measured after one week, six week and 10 weeks of filtration.

Figure 11: KAF installed in Kandal and Prey Veng provinces.

It appears that the arsenic removal reaches very high since first week of filtration and

improved with filtration time (Figure 12, Annex I). The arsenic concentration is below 50

μg/L (guideline for drinking water of Cambodia).

1st Test

0

10

20

30

n u m b e r o f f i l t e r s

2nd Test 3rd Test

10

20

30

m b e r o f f i l t e r s

Raw water

Filtered

Raw water Raw water

Filtered Filtered

unsafesafe

1st Test

0

10

20

30


2nd Test 3rd Test

10

20

30


1st Test

0

10

20

30


2nd Test 3rd Test

10

20

30


Raw water

Filtered

Raw water Raw water

Filtered Filtered

unsafesafe



88 out of 90 filtered samples (98%) met the Cambodian standard of 50 µg/L over the

10-weeks study (more than 2500L of water filtered). 2 out of 90 filtered water samples

(2%) exceeded the standard. This was probably due to inadequate rusting at the

beginning, and very high raw water arsenic level (600 µg/L and 840 µg/L). Kandal

average raw water 500 µg/L and filtered water 20 µg/L represents 96% arsenic removal.

Prey Veng average raw water 271 µg/L and filtered water 17 µg/L represents 94%

arsenic removal. Removal % consistent with phase 1 findings (96%), and consistent

with data from Nepal (85-90%) (Ngai et al., 2007).

Cross-checking for samples in this study had been done with French Laboratory

(CIRAD) and the results from CIRAD confirm the results obtained in Cambodia.

II.3. Iron removal resul ts

89 out of 90 filtered water samples (99%) met the Cambodian standard of 0.3 mg/L over

the 10-weeks study (Annex I). 1 out of 90 filtered water sample (1%) exceeded the

standard (raw 7.41 mg/L filtered 0.48 mg/L). Kandal average raw water is 6.00 mg/L

and filtered water is 0.05 mg/L with 99% iron removal. Prey Veng average raw water is

1.50 mg/L and filtered water is 0.05 mg/L with 97% iron removal. Removal percentage

is consistent with phase I findings (98-99%), and consistent with data from Nepal (90-

95+%) (Ngai et al., 2007). Some tubewells had very low iron concentrations (<0.1

mg/L), yet arsenic removal was excellent. This shows that the iron nail is rusted enough

for the arsenic removal.

II.4. Turbidity



Table 11: Opinion of household on the benefit of KAF.

Do you think the KAF can

benefit your family? Reasons

30 (100%) because it will save our money 29

because it will save our time 11

because it will save our labor 3

because it benefits our health 3

Yes

because we like its clear filtered water 1

No 0

III.3. Willingness of household to pay for the filter

Concerning the bossiness of filter in the future, we ask questions about the price that

the household willing to pay (Table 12). The cost of the filter we provided is US$ 62,

however if we construct the filter at large scale, the cost of the filter will be about US$

30. Most of people prefer to participate the cost of the filter. This reflects that we should

find funding to support the household when we are willing to scale-up the installation.

However, the number of the sample is still low.

Table 12: Willingness of household to pay for the filter.

How much are you willing to pay for a KAF?

I don't want to pay anything 1 (3.3%)

US$ 0.01 - 5.00 7 (23.3%)

US$ 5 01 - 10 00 4 (13 3%)



IV. General conclusion

This project aimed to fill two important gaps in the safe water delivery in Cambodia as

the Arsenic was found, but suitable removal technologies are lacking and there is a

strong demand among stakeholders to develop a technology verification process in the

country.

We have demonstrated the technical performance and social acceptance of the

Kanchan Arsenic Filter (KAF) as a viable arsenic mitigation option for Cambodia and the

filter satisfied all 6 priority parameters of the Cambodian standards under our testing

conditions. We have built capacity among government and local organizations on water

research, monitoring, and technology verification process.

More filters should be implemented in other regions, especially for households without

alternative water source. For any filter distribution, initial water testing and follow-up

monitoring is a must to respect the Cambodian guidelines for drinking water.

Continued testing of phase I and phase II filters will be very useful to evaluate long-termperformance.

Centre for Affordable Water and Sanitation Technology (CAWST) and the Institute of

Technology of Cambodia (ITC) can provide comprehensive training and information to

all interested groups on the KAF technology for Cambodia. The Ministry of Rural

Development (MRD) can participate in the installation of KAF system in the rural area

for an effective implementation.



References

(Berg, et al, 2007) Berg, M., Stengel C., Pham, T.K.T., Pham, H.V., Sampson M.L., LengM., Samreth, S., Fredericks, D. Magnitude of Arsenic Pollution in the Mekong and RedRiver Deltas - Cambodia and Vietnam. Science of the Total Environment, 372, 413–425(2007).

(Buschmann et al, 2007) Buschmann, J., Berg, M., Stengel, C., Sampson, M.L. (2007) Arsenic and manganese contamination of drinking water resources in Cambodia:coincidence of risk areas with low relief topography. Environmental Science and

Technology 41(7):2146-2152

(Chiew et al, 2008) Chiew, H., Sampson, M, Huch, S., Ken, S., Benjamin, C.

Bostick, B., “Assessment of Arsenic Removal Performance of Iron-oxide AmendedBiosand Filters in Cambodia” May 2008

(Feldman et a, 2007) Feldman, P.R., Rosenboom, J.W., Saray, M., Samnang, C.,

Navuth, P., Iddings< S., Assessment of the chemical quality of drinking water inCambodia, Journal of Water and Health Vol 5 No 1 pp 101–116 © WHO 2007doi:10.2166/wh.2006.048

(MRD and MoH, 2007). MRD and MoH disseminating reports on Stakeholder meetingon “Dissemination arsenic contamination in groundwater sources and arsenic mitigationand case management of its toxic effect to human”. Phnom Penh, 23 February, 2007.

(Ngai, et al, 2007). Ngai, T.K.K., Murcott, S., Shrestha, R.R., Dangol, B., Maharjan, M.(2007) Design for Sustainable Development – Household Drinking Water Filter for Arsenic and Pathogen Treatment in Nepal. Journal of Environmental Science andHealth, Part A. Vol A42 No 12 pp 1-10 © Taylor and Frances

(Peang, 2006) Peang, S., Arsenic removal from Cambodian ground water usingKanchan Filter. Report. Department of food and chemical engineering, Institute ofTechnology of Cambodia, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

(Shriam Institute, 2006) “Evaluation of Water Quality Monitoring and PurificationProducts under Long Term Agreement (Performance Evaluation of Wagtech Arsenator)”by Shriam Institute for Industrial Research. Report funded by UNICEF India.http://www.wagtech.co.uk/UserFiles/File/Water%20Cat/ArsenatorEvaluation.pdf



1

Annex I

PowerPoint presentation during final meeting



2

Adaption and Verification of an Arsenic

Mitigation Technology for Cambodia :Project background, research findings, next phase activities

Dr. Samnang CHEA, Director, Dept of Rural Health Care, MRDDr. Saray MAO, Director, Dept of Rural Water Supply, MRD

Dr. Davin UY, Director of Research and Development, ITC

Mr. Tommy Ka Kit NGAI, Research Associate, CAWST

Mr. Thomas MAHIN, Researcher, MIT

Final Stakeholders Consultation Review Meeting2 January 2009

Institute of Technology of Cambodia, Phnom Penh

Presentation outline



3

1. Project background & rationale

2. Field technical research (Feb-Dec 08)• Objectives

• Methodology• Findings

3. Demonstration study (Sep-Dec 08)

• Objectives• Methodology• Findings

4. Social survey findings

5. Conclusions and future plans

Basic project information



4

Project title: Adaptation & verification of an arsenic mitigation technology

Duration: 1st February 2008 to 31st December 2008 (11 months)

Lead organizations:

Institute of Technology of Cambodia (ITC)Ministry of Rural Development (MRD)

Support organizations:

Centre for Affordable Water and Sanitation Technology (CAWST)Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)

Funding sources:

Asian Development Bank Pilot Demonstration Activity, US$50,000



Effective solutions exist



6

Arsenic is not a new problem, affecting

neighbouring countries such as Bangladesh,India, Nepal, and Vietnam since 1990s

Effective mitigation options are available:

• community-level & household-level• arsenic avoidance & arsenic removal• example: pond sand filter, rainwater

harvesting, deep tubewell, water filters

Rather than to “re-invent the wheel”,spending 5-10+ years to develop new

technologies, it is more effective to adaptand implement successful options toCambodian context

Why study Kanchan Arsenic Filter



7

Some of the reasons include:

• Successfully implemented in Nepal• The KAF was specifically designed for arsenic

contaminated tube wells in rural Asia

• Involve simple adaptation of the biosand filter,a popular technology widely implemented inCambodia

At an arsenic stakeholders meeting in early 2006, the group proposed

to test the Kanchan Arsenic Filter (KAF) in Cambodia

Tube well is a major source of drinking water



8

Source Dry season % Rainy season %

Rain water 1.53 19.56

Stream / Canal 6.59 5.28Pond 3.04 1.33

River 42.04 33.21

Lake 0.97 1.64Tube well 22.23 17.58

Combine Well 0.31 0.31

Unlined open well 1.42 1.33Lined open well (no cover) 12.68 12.21

Lined open well (with cover) 1.03 0.83

Pipe system 6.83 6.21Others 1.33 0.52

Source of drinking water in arsenic affected region of Cambodia

(KAP survey, UNICEF, 2007)

Project goals



9

Before wider-scale introduction of the filter (and for all other arsenic

removal technologies), it is important to test and verify the performanceunder Cambodian context

Two goals:

1. To verify the applicability and limitations of the KAF as an arsenicmitigation option for Cambodian context

2. To build capacity of local organizations on technology testing andverification

Project schedule



10

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Project start-upmeeting

Phase 1 research

Mid-term reviewmeeting

Phase 2 demostudy

Project finalmeeting

KAF background



11

• Developed based on 7 years of collaborator effort by MIT and

Nepali partners

• Open-content technology

• Effective removal of arsenic, microbial, iron, turbidity

• Low cost

• Require no externalenergy/material input

for operation• No replacement parts

except nails

• Iron-based arsenicsludges are safe fordisposal according to10+ scientific studies(*see appendix document

explaining sludge researchdetail findings)

Gravel

Coarse Sand

Water

Fine Sand

Iron Nails

Diffuser Basin

Lid

Container

Pipe

Brick chips

Removal processes



12

Arsenic removal mechanisms:

(Lackovic & Nikolaidis 2000; Hussam et al 2003;Lien & Wilkin 2004)

1. Iron nail will rust2. Iron rust is an excellent adsorbent

for arsenic

Microbial removal mechanisms:(Haarhoff & Cleasby 1991; Weber-Shirk & Dick 1997)

• Physical straining• Attachment to other particles• Predation• Natural die-off

KAF in Nepal



13

Implementation status:

• 27,000 households in the countryaffected by arsenic

• 8,000 households currently using KAF

• 7,000 households will be getting a KAFby end of 2009

• KAF is promoted by the government,

UNICEF, UN-Habitat, Red Cross,Finnida, a number of local NGOs, and afew private businesses

Excellent technical performance in Nepal(based on 1000+ filters in use for 1 year)



14

Parameters Typical removal Arsenic 85-90%

Iron 90-95%

Turbidity 80-95%Total coliforms 85-99%

( y )

For ideal performance in Nepal: Arsenic <= 0.5 mg/LPhosphate as PO4 <= 5.0 mg/LpH <= 7.5

Reference:

Ngai, T.K.K., Murcott, S., Shrestha, R.R., Dangol, B., Maharjan, M. Design for SustainableDevelopment – Household Drinking Water Filter for Arsenic and Pathogen Treatment in Nepal.Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A. Vol A42 No 12 pp1879-1888, 2007.

Phase 1 - Field technical research Cambodia



15

Key objectives:

• Test the performance of the KAF under normal village condition• Study the effect of various aeration processes on nails rusting and

arsenic removal

Location:• at a household in Kiensvay

Scope:• 10 filters (5 different aeration

configurations, 2 of each)

Site selection



16

Buschmann

et al 2007

Berg et al

2007

Feldman et

al 2007

Sthiannopkao

et al 2008Our study site

No. ofsamples 90 204 19 15

269(ND-907)

2.57(ND-8.4)

6.1(4.0-6.9)

-

33 samplesover 11 months

659(210-1020)

6.31(5.28-7.0)

6.99(6.58-7.14)

5.02(3.5-8.0)

148(14-504)

6.17(0.24-14)

7.0(6.5-7.8)

PO4

(mg/L)1.8

(ND-8.8)1.65

(ND-9.0)

-

Arsenic

(ug/L)233

(ND-1340)212

(ND-1610)

Iron(mg/L)

2.8(ND-16)

2.8(ND-16.2)

pH 7.03(6.55-7.65)

6.94(5.42-8.01)

• We found 4 published studies (mean and range shown) on

groundwater chemistry of arsenic affected areas in Cambodia:

• Our research site has worse conditions than average, yet not too

extreme, making it a good research location

Original design (Filters 1 & 2)



17Gravel

Coarse Sand

Water

Fine Sand

6kg Iron nails

Diffuser Basin

Lid

Container

Outletpipe

Brick chips

photo taken on 29th April 08,

12 weeks since installation

T l t h th ti i b tt i l di

Pre-rusted nails configuration (F3 & F4)



18Gravel

Coarse Sand

Water

Fine Sand

6kg pre-rustedIron nails

Diffuser Basin

Lid

Container

Outletpipe

Brick chips

To evaluate whether pre-rusting can give better iron loading,resulting in increased arsenic removal



T l t h th b i il d t t ll ti ill

Submerged nails configuration (F5 & F6)



19

Coarse Sand

Gravel

Fine Sand

6kg Iron nails

Diffuser Basin

Lid

Container

Outletpipe

Brick chips

To evaluate whether submerging nails under water at all times willlead to more rusting, increasing arsenic removal



T l t h th l ti (i b i t b t

Manual aeration configuration (F7 & F8)



20 Aeration Filtration

To evaluate whether manual aeration (i.e. by pouring water between2 buckets for 20 times) prior to pouring water into the filter canincrease arsenic removal



To evaluate whether mechanical aeration by fish tank air bubbler

Mechanical aeration configuration (F9 & 10)



21

Aeration Sedimentation Filtration

Fish tank bubbler

To evaluate whether mechanical aeration by fish tank air bubbler,settling overnight, prior to pouring water into the KAF, can increasearsenic removal

photo taken on 29th April 0812 weeks since installation

1 Filters installed on 3rd February 08

Filters testing methodology



22

1. Filters installed on 3rd February 08

2. Every day, household owner poured 20L of water into each filterin the morning, and another 20L of water in the evening

3. Weekly testing from Feb to Aug 08, and monthly testing from Septo Dec 08, by ITC and MRD staff

4 Parameters tested include:

Filters testing methodology



23

4. Parameters tested include:

Parameter Instrument/ Method Arsenic Wagtech digital arsenator

Iron Jenway spectrophotometer

Wagtech photometer 7100Phosphate Wagtech photometer 7100

pH Hanna HI 8424microcomputer pH meter

Turbidity Wagtech digital turbidimeter

Totalcoliform

Membrane filtration, Bio-Radmedia

E. Coli Membrane filtration, Bio-radmedia

5. Selected samples sent to France and USAfor cross-checking

Consistently excellent arsenic removal



24

Average removal: F1 96%F2 97%

Slightly over 50 ug/Lduring first test

Cambodian standard 50 ug/L




25



Pre-rusting helped to keeparsenic within 50 ug/L initially




26






27


Stopped experiment because nosignificant improvement in arsenicremoval vs. original design



No trend of increasing arsenic in filtered water



29



F1 and F2 required cleaning in 2 to 3 months



33

2.5 months 2.5 months2 months

From Sep 08, userswere allowed to

clean the filter asthey feel necessary



Arsenic removal appears unrelated to flow rate



36




37




38




39

Flow rate summary

• Filters tended to clog after 2 to 4 months. If the flow is inadequate,



40

Filters tended to clog after 2 to 4 months. If the flow is inadequate,

then the users should clean the filter

• Arsenic removal appeared to be not significantly affected by the flowrate, frequency of cleaning

• Filter cleaning involves swirling approximately the top 2 cm of sand,removing the turbid water, and repeating 2 to 3 times

• The simple cleaning process takes about 10 to 15 minutes to perform,and can restore flow rate to 30 to 35 L/hr

Excellent iron removal



41

Raw water

Filtered

Iron summary

• Excellent iron removal (95+% for all filters)



42

( )

• Removal % consistent with data from Nepal

• In many parts of the world, high iron removal is often associated with

high user acceptance and sustainability of the technology

Consistently good turbidity removal



43

Raw water

Filtered

Turbidity summary

• Consistent good turbidity removal (70-75% for all filters)



44

g y ( )

• Removal % may seem low because the raw water turbidity is low

• Removal consistent with data from Nepal

• In many parts of the world, high turbidity removal is often associatedwith high user acceptance and sustainability of the technology

Filtered water has no E. coli after start-up period

4 to 6 weeks



45

data overlap for all filters

Initial contamination isnormal during start-up

start-up period

E. Coli summary

• A start-up period of 4 to 6 weeks was needed for the bio-layer to



46

mature

• After the start-up period, all filtered water had no E.coli, indicating goodmicrobiological quality

Filtered water pH increases slightly



47

Raw water

Filtered water

pH summary

• pH typically increased by 0.5 to 0.6 units after filtration



48

• This was probably due to oxidation of groundwater when exposed toair, and due to dissolution of carbonate minerals from concrete andsand into the filtered water

Consistently excellent phosphate removal



49

Raw water

Filtered

Phosphate summary

• Excellent and consistent phosphate removal (average 85% for all



50

filters) throughout the 11-months study

• Removal % consistent with data from Nepal

• Average phosphate concentration in raw water was high (5.02 mg/Las PO4), but arsenic removal was observed not to be negativelyaffected in our study

Phase 1 summary findings

• High arsenic and phosphate levels represented a challenging



51

treatment condition. The tubewell chosen had high arsenic andphosphates yet treatment was highly effective.

• Overall excellent arsenic removal from all filters, achieving Cambodian

standard of 50 ppb

• Arsenic removal observed not affected by flow rate, cleaningfrequency, and the various alternative aeration/rusting configurations

• Excellent iron and turbidity removal is expected to enhance user acceptance and sustainability of the technology

• All configurations had similar performance, so we stayed with theoriginal design for phase 2

Phase 2 - Pilot demonstration study Cambodia

Key objectives:



52

• To evaluate the performance of the filter underdifferent water chemistry• To assess the social acceptance of the filter

Location:• Kiensvay and Prey Veng provinces

Scope:

• 30 filters (1 in each of 30 households)

• Installed 20 filters in

Demonstration study design



53

Kiensvay on 12th Oct 08

• Installed 10 filters inPrey Veng on 23rd Oct 08

• The households wereselected to represent variouswater chemistry conditions

• Village helpers were paid to pour 20L of water into each filter inthe morning, and 20L of water into each filter in the evening

• Users were told not to drink the filtered water. Only for washing

and cleaning



Wide range of raw water chemistry in our study

Published studies (mean and range) ofgroundwater in arsenic affected areas

Raw water in ourstudy



55

• The performance of many arsenic removal technologies is usually

dependent on these 4 parameters listed above.• Our study covered both the high and low range for these parameters.

Buschmann

et al 2007

Berg et al

2007

Feldman

et al 2007

Sthiannopkao

et al 2008

Kiensvay

20 fil ters

15 60

500(100-1100)

6.0(0.24-11)

7.01(6.8-7.3)

4.8(1.5-14)

269(ND-907)

2.57(ND-8.4)

6.1(4.0-6.9)

-

PreyVeng

10 fil ters

No. ofsamples 90 204 19 30

271(28-840)

1.5(0.0-6.0)

7.17(7.1-7.3)

3.0(1.1-8.8)

148(14-504)

6.17(0.24-14)

7.0(6.5-7.8)

PO4(mg/L)

1.8(ND-8.8)

1.65(ND-9.0)

-

Arsenic

(ug/L)233

(ND-1340)

212(ND-1610)

Iron(mg/L) 2.8

(ND-16)2.8

(ND-16.2)

pH 7.03(6.55-7.65)

6.94(5.42-8.01)

Kiensvay: raw water Arsenic



56

1st test2nd test

3rd test


Kiensvay: filtered water Arsenic



57

1st test 2nd test 3rd test

One arsenic exceedance(105 ug/L)

Kiensvay : Excellent arsenic removal for all filters



58

1st test2nd test 3rd test

Prey Veng: raw water Arsenic



59

1st

test 2nd test 3rd test

Prey Veng: filtered water Arsenic



60


One arsenic exceedance (65 ug/L)

Prey Veng: Excellent arsenic removal for all filters



61

1st test

2nd test

3rd test

1st Test

30

2nd Test 3rd Test

Raw water Raw water Raw water

Arsenic removal improved in 2nd and 3rd tests



62

0

10

20

n i m

b e r o f f i l t e r s

0

10

20

30

1 0

o r

l e s s

1 1

- 5

0

5 1

- 1 0 0

1 0 1

- 5

0 0

5 0 1

- 1 0 0 0

1 0 0

0 +

As (ug/L)

n i m b e r o f f i l t e r s

1 0

o r

l e s s

1 1

- 5 0

5 1

- 1 0 0

1 0 1

- 5

0 0

5 0 1

- 1 0

0 0

1 0 0 0

+

As (ug/L) 1 0

o r

l e

s s

1 1

- 5 0

5 1

- 1 0 0

1 0 1

- 5

0 0

5 0 1

- 1

0 0 0

1 0 0 0

+

As (ug/L)

Raw water

Filtered

Raw water Raw water

Filtered Filtered

unsafesafe

Arsenic summary

• 88 out of 90 filtered samples (98%) met the Cambodian standard

of 50 ug/L over the 10 weeks study (more than 2500L of water



63

of 50 ug/L over the 10-weeks study (more than 2500L of waterfiltered)

• 2 out of 90 filtered water samples (2%) exceeded the standard

(raw 600 ug/L filtered 105 ug/L; raw 840 ug/L filtered 65 ug/L)

• This was probably due to inadequate rusting at the beginning, andvery high raw water arsenic level

Arsenic summary

• Kiensvay average raw water 500 ug/L; filtered water 20 ug/L;

96% arsenic removal



64

96% arsenic removal

• Prey Veng average raw water 271 ug/L; filtered water 17 ug/L;94% arsenic removal

• Removal % consistent with phase 1 findings (96%), andconsistent with data from Nepal (85-90%) (Ngai et al., 2007)

• Cross-checking for samples sent to 2 laboratories in Boston,USA are ongoing

• We will report the final quality assurance and quality controlresults in the final technical report

Kiensvay: raw water Iron



65


Cambodian standard 0.3 mg/L

Kiensvay: filtered water Iron



66




Prey Veng: raw water iron



68

1st test 2nd test

3rd test

Cambodian standard 0.3 mg/L

Prey Veng: filtered water Iron



69


Prey Veng: Excellent iron removal for all filters



70

1st test 2nd test

3rd test

Iron summary

• 89 out of 90 filtered water samples (99%) met the Cambodian

standard of 0.3 mg/L over the 10-weeks study



71

g y

• 1 out of 90 filtered water sample (1%) exceeded the standard(raw 7.41 mg/L filtered 0.48 mg/L)

• Kiensvay average raw water 6.00 mg/L; filtered water 0.05 mg/L;99% iron removal

• Prey Veng average raw water 1.50 mg/L; filtered water 0.05 mg/L;97% iron removal

• Removal % consistent with phase 1 findings (98-99%), and

consistent with data from Nepal (90-95+%) (Ngai et al., 2007)

• Some tubewells had very low iron concentrations (<0.1 mg/L), yetarsenic removal was excellent

Kiensvay: raw water Turbidity



72


Cambodian standard 5 NTU

Kiensvay: filtered water Turbidity



73

Kiensvay: Good turbidity removal for all filters



74

1st test 2nd test

3rd test

Prey Veng: raw water Turbidity



75


Cambodian standard 5 NTU

Prey Veng: filtered water Turbidity



76

Prey Veng: Good turbidity removal for all filters



77

1st test 2nd test

3rd test

Turbidity summary

• All filtered samples met the Cambodian standard of 5 NTU

• No exceedance throughout the 10-weeks study



78

g y

• Kiensvay average raw water 2.69 NTU; filtered water 0.36 NTU;

87% turbidity removal

• Prey Veng average raw water 2.98 NTU; filtered water 0.23 NTU;92% turbidity removal

• Removal % consistent with phase 1 findings (70-75%), andconsistent with data from Nepal (80-95%) (Ngai et al., 2007)

• Good iron and turbidity removal is expected to enhance useracceptance and sustainability of the technology

Kiensvay: raw water pH

Cambodian standard 6.5-8.5



79

1st test 2nd

test 3rd test


Kiensvay: filtered water



80

1st test 2nd test

3rd test

Kiensvay: average pH increase +0.5 unit



81

1st test 2nd test

3rd test

Prey Veng: raw water pH




82

1st test 2nd

test 3rd test




pH summary

• All filtered samples met the Cambodian standard of 6.5 to 8.5

pH unit throughout the 10-weeks study

N d b d



85

• No exceedance observed

• Kiensvay average raw water pH 7.01; filtered water pH 7.52;change +0.51 pH units

• Prey Veng average raw water pH 7.17; filtered water pH 7.68;change +0.51 pH units

• pH change consistent with phase 1 findings (+0.6 units), andconsistent with data fr om Nepal (+0.4 units) (Ngai et al., 2007)

Kiensvay: raw water TDS

Cambodian standard 800 mg/L



86


Kiensvay: filtered water TDS



87


Kiensvay: overall insignificant TDS change



88


Prey Veng: raw water TDS

Cambodian standard 800 mg/L



89


Prey Veng: filtered water TDS



90


Prey Veng: overall insignificant TDS change



91


TDS summary

• All filtered samples met the Cambodian standard of 800 mg/Lthroughout the 10-weeks study

• No exceedance observed



92

No exceedance observed

• Kiensvay average raw water 254 mg/L; filtered water 223 mg/L;

slight decrease of 13%

• Prey Veng average raw water 368 mg/L; filtered water 325 mg/L;slight decrease of 12%

• TDS appeared not to be affected by filtration

Kiensvay: E.coli



93

Prey Veng: E.coli



94

E.coli summary

• 89 out of 90 filtered water samples (99%) met the Cambodianstandards (0 cfu/100mL) in the 10-weeks study

• 1 out of 90 filtered sample had E.coli = 8 cfu/100mL.



95

p

• This was normal, consistent with phase 1 findings, andconsistent with general trends of the biosand filter and slowsand filter



Almost every household drinks tubewellwater in dry and wet season

Results from our social survey on 30 households whomreceived filters



97

Type of water source Dry Season Wet Season

Piped water 0 0Tubewell/borehole 29 27

Rainwater collection 7 27

Bottled water 4 1

Cart with small tank/drum 18 15

Surface water (river, dam, lake,

pond, stream, canal, irrigationchannels)

4 1



Almost every household wouldrecommend the filter to others

Would yourecommend the KAF

to others?

reasons (multiple responses accepted)



101

because it is easy to use 12

because filtered water is clear 7

because filtered water is safe 12

because filtered water tastes good 3

the reason was not mentioned 1

No 1 (3%) because it is big and heavy 1

Yes 29 (97%)

Every household thinks the KAF is beneficial

Do you think the

KAF can benefit your

family?

reasons (multiple responses accepted)

because it will save our money 29



102

y

because it will save our time 11

because it will save our labor 3

because it benefits our health 3

because we like its clear filtered

water 1

No 0

Yes 30 (100%)

Filter subsidy is required for some householdsHow much are you will ing to pay for a KAF?

I don't want to pay anything 1 (3.3%)

US$ 0.01 - 5.00 7 (23.3%)

US$ 5 01 - 10 00 4 (13 3%)



103

US$ 5.01 10.00 4 (13.3%)

US$ 10.01 - 20.00 7 (23.3%)

US$ 20.01 - 50.00 9 (30.0%)

US$ 50.01 - 100.00 2 (6.7%)

• In this study, we paid about $60 to build each filter, but we thinkthe cost can be lowered to about $30-40, when implemented at alarger-scale

• Production cost in Nepal and Bangladesh is about $30 per filter

Concluding remarksThis project aimed to fill two important gaps in the safe water delivery

in Cambodia:

1. Arsenic is found, but suitable removal technologies are lacking



104

2. There is a strong demand among stakeholders to develop a

technology verification process in the country

Concluding remarksWhat we have achieved:

1. Demonstrated the technical performance andsocial acceptance of the Kanchan ArsenicFilter as a viable arsenic mitigation option for



105

Filter as a viable arsenic mitigation option forCambodia

2. The filter satisfied all 6 priority parameters ofthe Cambodian standards under our testingconditions

3. Built capacity among government and localorganizations on water research, monitoring,and technology verification process

Future plans• More filters should be implemented in other regions, especially for

households without alternative water source

• For any filter distribution, initial water testing is a must, follow-upmonitoring is a must, respecting the Cambodian guidelines is a must



106

• Continued testing of phase 1 and phase 2 filters will be very usefulto evaluate long-term performance

• Centre for Affordable Water and Sanitation

Technology (CAWST) and the Institute ofTechnology of Cambodia (ITC) can providecomprehensive training and information toall interested groups on the KAF technology

• We are seeking funding to support theseactivities

Thank you for your valuable contributions throughout the project,we have learned tremendously

We welcome all comments and suggestions on how to proceedon this work



107

on this work



Annex II

Technology verification lesson learn

Technology Verification Lessons Learned Report



Asian Development Bank, Pilot and Demonstration Activity for Cambodia:Adaptation and Verification of Arsenic Mitigation Technology

TA 6325 - REG: Promoting Effective Water Policies and Practices (Phase 5)

15 January 2009Prepared by Dr. Davin Uy, Director of Research and Development, Institute of

Technology of Cambodia (ITC);

in collaboration with the Ministry of Rural Development (MRD), Centre forAffordable Water and Sanitation Technology (CAWST), & Massachusetts Institute of

Technology (MIT)

Introduction

This objective of this report is to describe the technology verification process andthe lessons learned in the project titled “Adaption and Verification of an Arsenic

Mitigation Technology for Cambodia”, funded by the Asian Development Bank’s PilotDemonstration Activities. The project implementing organizations are the Instituteof Technology of Cambodia (ITC), Ministry of Rural Development (MRD), and the

key partners are the Centre for Affordable Water and Sanitation Technology(CAWST) and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). The project wasconducted from February 2008 to December 2008.

Verification Process

Arsenic contamination is a significant threat to the drinking water safety inCambodia, affecting an estimated 320,000 people in 1600 villages (UNICEF & MRD,2006). Because arsenic contamination also affects many other countries in the

world, learning from the mistakes in those countries, and adapting successful

mitigation techniques from those countries to Cambodian context is a quick andeffective strategy to combat the Cambodian arsenic crisis.

The Kanchan Arsenic Filter (KAF) was introduced to Cambodia as a household-level

to Phnom Penh. The water quality of the household’s tubewell was compared to thepublished studies of arsenic affected regions in Cambodia, and was found to berepresentative.

The household users were paid a small monthly allowance to pour 40L of raw waterinto each filter daily (20L in the morning, 20L in the evening), to imitate normalvillage use condition. Every week, staff of ITC and MRD visited the filters. The rawwater and filtered water was collected and tested for arsenic, iron, phosphate, pH,turbidity, and E. coli. These parameters were believed to be related to the

technolog ’s a senic emo al pe fo mance Selected samples e e sent to



technology’s arsenic removal performance. Selected samples were sent tolaboratories in USA and France for cross-checking to ensure accuracy of the water

quality testing results.

The phase 1 filters had excellent technical performance, consistently reduced

arsenic from over 650 ug/L (micrograms per litre) to less than 50 ug/L. After about7 months, it was decided in the project mid-term stakeholder consultation meetingthat phase 2 could proceed. It was also decided that the phase 1 filters shouldcontinued be tested until the end of project, but at monthly intervals.

In the phase 2 pilot demonstration study, 30 additional filters were installed inhouseholds in 2 provinces (20 households in Kiensvay, 10 households in Prey Veng).

These selected households’ tubewells include both high and low range for the waterquality parameters believed to affect KAF’s performance, namely raw water arsenic,iron, phosphate, and pH.

Each of the 30 filter households were instructed to pour 40L of raw water into eachfilter daily (20L in the morning, 20L in the evening). Every month, staff of ITC andMRD visited all the filters. The raw and filtered water was collected and tested for

the 6 priority parameters for small water supply according to Cambodian drinkingwater standards. The 6 parameters are arsenic, iron, turbidity, pH, total dissolvedsolids (TDS), and E.coli. Selected samples were sent to laboratories in USA and

France for cross-checking to ensure accuracy of the water quality testing results.

The households were told not to drink the filtered water, because the filters’performance was not yet verified. They were allowed to use the filtered water forcleaning and washing only. Due to ADB project timeline limitation, the duration ofphase 2 was limited to 3 months, rather than the desired 6 months.

In addition to technical testing, a social survey was developed to evaluate useracceptance and sustainability. The survey contains 17 questions related to filter

use, operation, perception, and willingness-to-pay.

Lessons Learned and Recommendations

allow open discussion and analysis by all the stakeholders. This promotedtransparency and credibility for the project, and as such, the findings werereadily accepted by the stakeholders.

• The filters in phase 1 were tested for almost a year (February to December2008). The consistent performance throughout the test period provided lotsof confidence to stakeholders on the longer term effectiveness of the filter.

• To properly conduct water testing, reliable water testing equipment,experienced staff, and careful quality assurance processes are essential. Ina few occasions, the testing results from the field test kits appeared strange.

Fortunately the team has many years of experience in water quality testing



Fortunately, the team has many years of experience in water quality testing,so that the team was able to detect the errors early, and the mistakes were

immediately corrected. If strict testing methods and procedures are not

followed, then errors can be easily introduced, compromising the accuracy ofthe final findings.

• In phase 1, the field test site was purposely selected to be nearby to PhnomPenh, so it was easy for project staff to visit the site weekly. In phase 2, itwas necessary to test the applicability of the filters in different provinces. Itwas difficult to carry all equipment on a motorbike, so a car was necessary.

Because both ITC and MRD do not have official vehicles for field activities, apersonal car was used to travel to field sites.

• Technology verification is more than just water quality testing. Technology

verification also involves setting policies for which the water testing resultswill be judged against. There should be official guidelines as to what isconsidered as “pass” and what is considered as “fail”. This project provideda needed first step for policy-makers to establish such a guideline. One

potential hurdle is to decide whether the guidelines should be universal forall types of water treatment technologies, or the guidelines should bespecific to the unique characteristics of any technology.

• The total budget spent on KAF verification was about USD $50,000, which isused for spending on filter construction and installation, water testingequipment and supplies, meetings, communications, and administration,

local staff salary and travel consultant salary and travel. In the future, ifanother technology will go through a similar verification process, it isestimated that about USD $40,000 to $60,000 is needed. The cost of suchverification will have to be provided by donors, government, and/ortechnology proponents.



Annex III

Arsenic sludge report

Iron Arsenic Residuals and TCLPPage 2 of 8

Overview of TCLP Test Results for the Leachability of Arsenic

from Iron-Based Arsenic Treatment Wastes/Residuals

Tommy Ngai (CAWST

1

), Tom Mahin - (MIT

2

/CAWST), Dr. Davin Uy (ITC

3

) November 30, 2008

1 - Centre for Affordable Water and Sanitation Technology (contact email: [email protected])

2 - Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)3 Institute of Technology Cambodia



3 - Institute of Technology Cambodia

Executive Summary

There have been questions raised by some scientists and others whether or not arsenic in the

waste residuals from arsenic treatment systems will re-mobilize and leach into the soil and

eventually re-contaminate the ground water. The KanchanTM

Arsenic Filter (KAF) project team

has looked very closely at this issue relative to long-term waste residuals (nails and possiblysand) from the KAF. A literature search was conducted and relevant studies were identified and

reviewed. “Relevant studies” were determined to be those that involved the testing of the amountof arsenic that could leach from arsenic removal systems that use iron to adsorb the arsenic. Thereview of the relevant studies indicates that it is very likely that the residual material from the

KAF will pass the TCLP test and such would not be considered to be hazardous waste in the

USA. In addition, the studies reviewed indicate that the levels of arsenic leached from KAFresiduals using TCLP will be very low. The leachability of arsenic from KAF residuals will be

formally and independently evaluated in the spring of 2009 as part of certification testing being

conducted by the Bangladesh Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (BCSIR) withassistance from the Ontario Centre for Environmental Technology Advancement (OCETA) in

Canada.

Introduction

The recommended waste handling procedure for the KanchanTM

Arsenic Filter (KAF) is asfollows. A small round hole of about 20 cm diameter by 50 cm deep is dug in the ground in the

backyard of the filter user’s household. The discarded nails are disposed into the same hole asmentioned above and the hole is covered with soil. The bulk volume of 5 kg of iron nails isabout 4 liters, which is reasonably small and will easily fit in that dug hole. There have been


phase of the waste, and the solid phase is then reduced in particle size and sieved. The solids are

then extracted for 18 hours with a solution of acetic acid. According to the USEPA, if the extractfrom a representative waste sample contains arsenic at a concentration equal to or greater than

5.0 mg/L in the extraction fluid then the waste itself is considered to be toxic.

Relevant Scientific Studies

A number of research studies have been conducted on either arsenic leaching for other

household-level and community-level arsenic removal systems currently implemented in

Bangladesh and India or iron-based adsorption systems in general The KAF project team has



Bangladesh and India or iron based adsorption systems in general. The KAF project team has based its waste disposal recommendation on these studies. Since these removal systems generate

a similar iron-arsenic residual material as the KAF, the KAF project team has assumed that the

results for these systems can be used to estimate arsenic leaching of the KAF wastes.

Below are the scientific studies that the KAF project team believes are relevant to this issue:

1) Badruzzaman, A.B.M. (2003) “Leaching of Ar senic fr om Wastes of Ar senic Removal

Systems ”. Proceedings of Fate of Arsenic in the Environment Workshop. Bangladeshi.

This research by the Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET)studied the waste generated by the UNU-BUET bucket system (based on ferric chloride

coagulation), Stevens Institute of Technology system (based on iron sulfate coagulation),

SIDKO granular ferric hydroxide system. This research used the US EnvironmentalProtection Agency Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) to determine if

the leachate extracted/produced from the arsenic waste contains significant enough

arsenic to be considered as toxic waste as per the USEPA regulatory levels or not. This

BUET study found that: “Since the arsenic concentration in the TCLP extract of the solid

samples range between 0.002 – 0.220 mg/L, it is apparent that none of the solid sludge collected from different Arsenic Removal Units (ARU) exhibits toxicity as per the

definition of the USEPA.”

2) Ali et al. (2003) “Fate of Arsenic in Wastes Generated from Arsenic Removal Units”.

Proceedings of Fate of Arsenic in the Environment Workshop. Bangladeshii.

This research study by the BUET had a similar setup as the above-mentioned study, but

targeted a different set of household-level and community-level arsenic removaltechnologies in Bangladesh. The TCLP method was used to determine the leachability ofarsenic from wastes generated from the STAR bucket system (based on iron coagulation),


3) Eriksen-Hamel, N., Zinia, B.K.N. (2001) “A Study of Arsenic Treatment Technologies

and Leaching Characteristics of Arsenic Contaminated Sludge” Bangladeshiii

.

The purpose of this study was to determine whether the present disposal methods for

arsenic contaminated waste from arsenic removal systems are safe and whether arsenicdoes or does not return to contaminate the environment. Soil and sludge samples for 11

arsenic removal technologies were collected from the field sites, analyzed at the BUETEnvironmental Laboratory. The TCLP test was conducted to determine the quantity of

mobile arsenic in the sludge samples. Technologies investigated included 3-Pitcher/3-

Kolshi Filter (based on arsenic adsorption on iron chips), Chari Filter (based on arsenic



adsorption on iron chips), Tubewell Sand Filter (based on arsenic adsorption on iron

chips), 3-Pitcher Brick Filter (based on arsenic adsorption on brick and sand), SIDKO

(based on adsorption on granular ferric hydroxide), and an Iron Removal Plant (based oniron precipitation). This study found that the concentration in the TCLP extraction fluid

was very small. Iron chips from the “Chari” and “tubewell sand filter” indicated almost

no leaching at all. It was observed that the leachate concentrations of all the samples are

over 100 times less than the USEPA hazardous waste criteria.

4) Islam et al. (2003) “Leaching of Arsenic from Iron Oxide Impregnated Brick Sands

(Shapla Filter Media) Using Common Chemicals and Water” Bangladeshiv

.

This joint research study by the Department of Applied Chemistry and Chemical

Technology at Rajshahi University and the International Development Enterprises aimedto determine leaching of arsenic from exhausted Shapla Filter media (i.e. iron oxide

coated brick chips). The study found that almost no or negligible amount of arsenic was

detected in the effluent water from the filters containing arsenic saturated brick sands.The results indicated that almost no or negligible amount of arsenic will be released to

the environment from the arsenic saturated ferric sulfate treated brick sands. An

independent laboratory in the USA also supported the fact that the arsenic in the ferric

sulfate treated brick sands is very strongly bonded.

5) Phenrat et al. (2008) “Leaching Behaviors of Arsenic fr om Arsenic-Ir on H ydroxide Sludge

during TCLP ” Journal of Environmental Engineeringv.

The TCLP extracts as well as the digestion fluids according to EPA method

3051A were analyzed by ICP-OES for their arsenic and iron concentrations. Five(5) different arsenic-iron hydroxide sludges were prepared in the laboratory. Thesludges were prepared to represent a large range of water treatment sludges andin some cases consisted of % arsenic levels greater than would be anticipated


This performance evaluation found that the spent Granular Ferric Hydroxide media passed the TCLP test with respect to arsenic (<0.1 mg/L) and other metals - barium (5.2

mg/L), cadmium (<0.02 mg/L), chromate (<0.02 mg/L), lead (<0.05 mg/L), selenium

(<0.05 mg/L), silver (<0.04 mg/L), and mercury (<0.0002 mg/L).”

7) Jing et al. (2005) “Arsenic Leachability in Water Treatment Adsorbents” Environ. Sci.Technol.

vii

Spent adsorbents were collected from five pilot-scale filters that were tested for removalf i f d i N J USA Th di i l d d l



of arsenic from groundwater in New Jersey, USA. The spent media included granular

ferric hydroxide (GFH) and granular ferric oxide (GFO). The leachate generated as part

of the TCLP testing was “non-detect” (ND) for arsenic.

8) USEPA, Treatment of Arsenic Residuals from Drinking Water Removal Processes

EPA/600/R-01/033 June 2001viii

TCLP testing was performed on a full-scale water treatment plant that uses iron to

remove arsenic. The TCLP result was 0.004 mg/L over a thousand times less than the

TCLP limit for arsenic.

9) Bangladesh KAF Certification – TCLP and TALP Testing Components

The KAF has been formally accepted for technology certification testing in Bangladesh.

As part of the certification testing a formal Technology Specific Testing Plan (TSTP) ix

has been prepared and agreed to by all parties. Results from the Bangladesh TCLP

testing are expected by July 1, 2009. The Bangladesh TSTP includes residuals leachingtesting using both TCLP and the Dutch DALP method for two (2) KAFs. The following

procedures will be used:

• Toxicity Characterisation Leaching Procedure (TCLP)

• Dutch Total Available Leaching Procedure (TALP) Modified Version

The solid samples are extracted using rain water at 1:10 solid to liquid ratio. The pH of the rain water is between 6.5 and 7.0. The solid in contact with the

extracting solution is equilibrated for 18 hrs.

10) Bangladesh Government TCLP Testing of Residuals from a Household Iron-Based


11) (a) Guo et al. (2007) “Arsenic removal from water using natural iron mineral–quartz

sand columns” Science of the Total Environmentxi

Iron coated sand was tested for arsenic removal under high calcium and bicarbonatedi i ( i i C b di d B l d h) Th d b di d



conditions (as exist in Cambodia and Bangladesh). The spent adsorbent media was tested

for arsenic leachability using TCLP and was determined to be inert and non-hazardous.

(b) Guo et al. (2008) “Adsorption of arsenic species from water using activatedsiderite–hematite column filters” Journal of Hazardous Materials

xii

Leachate generated as part of TCLP testing of iron-coated sand used for arsenicremoval was determined to have < 0.3 mg/L (compared to arsenic TCLP standardof 5 mg/l).

12) Sarkar et al. (2007) “Arsenic immobilization in soils amended with drinking-watertreatment residuals” Environmental Pollution

xiii

In this study, results showed that water treatment plant residuals significantly ( p < 0.001)increased the arsenic sorption capacity of soils. All different loadings of water treatment

residuals (2.5, 5, and 10% of the soil/residuals mix) significantly ( p < 0.001) increased the

overall amount of As sorbed by two different types of soils when compared with that of

the soils without the residuals added. The differences in both soils' chemical properties did

not effect the residuals effectiveness in increasing arsenic sorption in the soil after addingthe residuals.

Conclusion

Based on the above scientific evidence and theoretical mass balance calculations, it is believed

that the arsenic-sludge disposal method for the KAF is safe and the KAF residuals should NOT

be considered a hazardous waste.


ii Ali, M.A., Badruzzaman, A.B.M, Jalil, M.A., Ahmed, M.F., Kamruzzaman, MD., Rahman, M.A.,

Masud, A.A. (2003) “Fate of Arsenic in Wastes Generated from Arsenic Removal Units”. Proceedings of

Fate of Arsenic in the Environment Workshop. Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology

and the United Nations University International Symposium. 5-6 February 2003. Dhaka, Bangladesh

iii Eriksen-Hamel, N., Zinia, B.K.N. (2001) “A Study of Arsenic Treatment Technologies

and Leaching Characteristics of Arsenic Contaminated Sludge” Proceedings to BUET-UNU International

Workshop on Technologies for Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water. 5-7 May 2001, Dhaka,

Bangladesh.

iv I l M R h M Ah d S (2003) “L hi f A i f I O id I t d B i k



iv Islam, M., Rahman, M., Ahamed, S. (2003) “Leaching of Arsenic from Iron Oxide Impregnated Brick

Sands (Shapla Filter Media) Using Common Chemicals and Water” Proceedings to Fate of Arsenic in the

Environment. Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology and the United Nations UniversityInternational Symposium. 5-6 February 2003. Dhaka, Bangladesh.

iv Phenrat, T., Marhaba, T., Rachakornkij, M., “Leaching Behaviors of Arsenic from Arsenic-Iron

Hydroxide Sludge during TCLP” JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING ASCE, / August2008

v Islam, M., Rahman, M., Ahamed, S. (2003) “Leaching of Arsenic from Iron Oxide Impregnated Brick

Sands (Shapla Filter Media) Using Common Chemicals and Water” Proceedings to Fate of Arsenic in the

Environment. Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology and the United Nations University

International Symposium. 5-6 February 2003. Dhaka, Bangladesh.

v Phenrat, T., Marhaba, T., Rachakornkij, M., “Leaching Behaviors of Arsenic from Arsenic-Iron

Hydroxide Sludge during TCLP” JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING ASCE, / August

2008

vi Khandaker, N., Krumhansl, J., Neidel, L., Siegel, M. “Performance Evaluation of ALCANAASF50-

Ferric Coated Activated Alumina and Granular Ferric Hydroxide (GFH) for Arsenic Removal in thePresence of Competitive Ions in an Active Well: Kirtland Field Trial–Initial Studies” (2006) Prepared by Sandia National Laboratories, USA.

vii Jing, C., Liu, S., Patel, M., Meng, X., “Arsenic Leachability in Water Treatment Adsorbents” Environ.

Sci. Technol., 2005, 39 (14), 5481-5487I

viii USEPA, Treatment of Arsenic Residuals from Drinking Water Removal Processes, EPA/600/R-01/033

June 2001ix Bangladesh Environmental Technology Verification - Support to Arsenic Mitigation (BETV-SAM)

Technology Specific Testing Plan for Kanchan Arsenic Filter Technology


xii Guo, H., Stüben, D., Berner, Z, Kramar, U. “Adsorption of arsenic species from water using activatedsiderite–hematite column filters” Journal of Hazardous Materials (2008) 151 628–635

xiii Sarkar, D., Makris, K.C., Vandanapu, V., Datta, R., “Arsenic immobilization in soils amended with

drinking-water treatment residuals” Environmental Pollution Volume 146, Issue 2, March 2007, Pages

414-419



Project Completion Report: Technicalfor the Asian Development Bank

15 January 2009Prepared by: Dr. Davin Uy, Director of Research and Development, Institute of Technology of Cambodia;

in collaboration with the Ministry of Rural Development, Centre for Affordable Water and Sanitation Technology,& Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Pil d D i A i i (PDA) f C b di Ad i d V ifi i f A i



1

Pilot and Demonstration Activity (PDA) for Cambodia: Adaptation and Verification of ArsenicMitigation Technology

TA 6325 - REG: Promoting Effective Water Policies and Practices (Phase 5) – “RETA 6325”

As per the Letter of Agreement (LOA) between the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and Dr. Davin Uy,Director of Research and Development, Institute of Technology of Cambodia (ITC), the ProjectCompletion Report is hereby submitted. The format of this Report follows that of the LOA and theAppendices 1 to 4. The requirements achieved are compared directly to the requirements set out in the

LOA (in black text) for easier understanding how the project was conducted and completed (in blue text)versus those requirements.

The reporting requirements are provided in point number 3 of the LOA:

a) Submit the following minimum requiredreports, which will be subject to ADB’s reviewand acceptance

Reports Submitted

(i) Project Inception Report: to besubmitted one (1) month after signingof the Letter of Agreement;

Project Inception Report was submitted on aftersigning of the LOA.

(ii) Project Mid-term Report: Financialand Technical, to be submitted two (2)months after the start of the PDA;

Project Mid-term Report was submitted on 26thSeptember 2008. We did not send it earlierbecause we would like to capture the findings andcomments from the project mid-term stakeholders’consultation meeting in Phnom Penh on 26th August2008.

(iii) Project Completion Report: Financialand Technical, to be submitted within This is the project completion report. This Project



2

30 days after completion of the PDA; Completion Report is submitted in Jan 2009, within

30 days since the completion of the PDA(iv) Detailed Summary of Expenditures

(see Appendix 3) for payments made,together with proofs of payment andother supporting documents acceptableto ADB, to be submitted together withthe Inception, Mid-Term andCompletion Reports.

Detailed Summary of Expenditures was submittedto ADB, with supporting documents, together withthe Inception, Mid-term and Completion Reports.

(b) Without limiting the generality of theforegoing, the EA will also: Reports Developed and Resources Expended

(i) Furnish ADB all information and/orreports concerning the results of thedifferent activities under the PDA;

A report titled “Kanchan Arsenic Filter Evaluation ofApplicability to Cambodia; Phase I TechnicalReport, September, 2008”, has been sent to ADB inSeptember 2008.

A follow-up report titled “Kanchan Arsenic FilterEvaluation of Applicability to Cambodia; Phase II

Technical Report”, is expected to be completed inJanuary 2009. A Technology Verification LessonsLearned report is attached to this Report.

There were concerns by some stakeholders on thesafety of the waste water generated by the filter. Apaper explaining the safety of the sludge isattached with this report as well.

(ii) Provide counterpart resources in cashor kind, where appropriate, tocomplement the available resources forthe PDA;

Counterpart resources in cash were provided by theMondialogo Engineering Competition (US $6,500)to partially offset the travel expenses of volunteersfrom CAWST and MIT, as well as to supportadditional water testing



3

Contribution in kind has been provided through

donated volunteer professional hours and personalfunds from these individuals.

(iii) Contribute materials that can be usedto disseminate the PDA’s learning viaRETA-6325 Promotion and PublicAwareness and Knowledge Basecomponents.... The contributions canbe made in the form of case studies,

write-ups for e-newsletter or website,among others; and

The reports stated in (b) (i) above provide the basisfor disseminating the PDA’s learning. It isanticipated that additional materials will bedeveloped and presented at appropriate forums,including conferences, technical papers as well astraining programs conducted by CAWST, MIT, ITC

and others.

(iv) Refund the ADB any unutilized funds inthe original currency of payment within30 days upon completion of the PDA.

As this project met, and in some areas exceeded,the scope of work and accomplished all activitiesplanned, and as personal funds were spent toextend and expand the studies, there are nounutilized funds to refund to ADB.

The LOA states; “The Executing Agency shall carry out the PDA described in Appendix 1 with duediligence and efficiency, and in accordance with the arrangements described in Appendix 1.”

Appendix 1

Cooperation Fund for the Water Sector

PILOT AND DEMONSTRATION ACTIVITY (PDA)

Activity Title: Adaptation and Verification of Arsenic Mitigation TechnologyExecuting Agency: Institute of Technology of Cambodia



4

g g gyPDA Start Date: 10 February 2008

Activity End Date: 31 December 2008 Contact Details: Dr. Davin Uy

Director of Research and DevelopmentInstitute of Technology of CambodiaBlvd. Pochentong, BP. 86Phnom Penh, Cambodia

1. Objectives:

The first objective of the PDA to:(i) verify the performance and suitability of the Kanchan Arsenic Filter (KAF) as an arsenic mitigationoption for Cambodia context through field technical research and pilot demonstration;

The phase1 field testing results were consistently excellent. A tubewell in Kiensvay, kandal province,containing high arsenic and phosphate levels, worse than the average condition in arsenic-affected region

in Cambodia, was selected as the testing site. 10 filters were installed, and they had an average 95-97%arsenic removal throughout the 11-months study (almost 13,000 liters of water filtered), reducing theraw water arsenic concentration of over 650 ug/L (micrograms per liter) to within the Cambodian

standards of 50 ug/L consistently. There was no observed trend of increasing arsenic contamination overthe 11-months duration of the study, covering both the dry and wet seasons. The removal effectivenessfor the other contaminants including; bacteria (E.coli and total coliform), phosphates, iron and turbiditywere all encouraging and generally very consistent.

The phase 2 pilot testing results were very encouraging as well. A total of 30 filters were installed inKandal and Prey Veng provinces, representing diverse water chemistry, including high and low ranges forparameters that can affect the filter performance. The filters were monitored for 3 months. All of thefilters satisfied the 6 priority parameters of the Cambodian Drinking Water Standards for small watersupplies namely arsenic iron pH turbidity total dissolved solids and E coli) during the study We



5

supplies, namely arsenic, iron, pH, turbidity, total dissolved solids, and E. coli ) during the study. We

expect many of these 30 filters will continue to perform well, matching the results in phase 1.

Overall, the filter performance in Cambodia has been excellent, and we believe that there is wide scope ofapplicability of the filter in Cambodia, as well as in other neighbouring countries. According to a nationalsurvey conducted by UNICEF and MRD in 2007, almost 20 % of rural households in Cambodia dependprimarily on groundwater as their drinking water source, and filters can be an immediate solution forthese households.

The second objective of the PDA to:(ii) A technology verification guidance manual will be prepared based on the lessons learned in the fieldresearch and pilot demonstration studies to establish a general technology verification procedure whichmay be used to evaluate other water treatment technologies in the future.

The Technology Verification Lessons Learned Report has been prepared to provide a general technologyverification procedure which may be used to evaluate other household water treatment technologies, andis attached to this Report.

2. Scope and location of Work / Description of Activities:

The specific activities under the Pilot and Demonstration Activity (PDA) are described in the table below:

Field Technical Research

Activities from ProjectPlan/ Appendix 1 of LOA

Activities Accomplished AchievedLOA?

Location of 1 community near A community in Kien Svay, Kandal province



6

worky

Phnom Penhy y, p

was selected Yes

Scope of

work 10 filters in total (5

configurations) Monitored weekly Evaluated for technical

performance

10 filters in total (5 configurations) wereinstalled on Feb. 3, 2008

Monitored 3 times per week by ITC and/ orMRD staff for 11 months.

Water samples were collected and testedweekly from Feb to Aug, and monthly fromSep to Dec.

Yes

Descriptionof activities

Install 10 filters in 5different configurations(2 of each) for testingunder field conditions

5 configurations were installed (2 filters ofeach configuration) to see if any particularconfiguration improved results under fieldtesting conditions

Yes

Supervisedconstruction andinstallation

Construction and installation was supervisedby Dr. Davin Uy of ITC, and by CAWST staff

Yes

40 litres of waterpoured into each filterdaily

Weekly visits to assessfilter performance

Photos to be taken Samples of raw and

filtered water collectedand taken to ITC’s labfor testing

Every day, household owners poured 20L ofwater into each filter in the morning, andanother 20L of water in the evening

ITC and/or MRD staff visited the filters 3times per week

Photos were taken and included in reports Every week, water samples (raw and filtered)

were collected and tested on site and at ITClaboratory

Yes



7

for testing

Testing for waterquality parameters(chemical and biologic)

Parameters tested include: arsenic, iron,phosphate, pH, turbidity, total coliform, andE. coli

Selected samples preserved and sent toFrance and USA for cross-checking

Yes

Water is not being

consumed

Water was not consumed during the field

technical study

Yes

Water quality resultswill be analyzed forbest filter configuration

Analysis indicated that pre-rusting the ironnails provided slight arsenic removalimprovement during the initial week vs.original design. No apparent improvementfrom manual or mechanical aeration.

Yes

Data will be madeavailable to allinterested parties forreview and comment

Data were presented and made available toall interested during the mid-termstakeholder consultation meeting.

We will present the research findings invarious international conferences and forumsin 2009 and beyond.

We will put the research reports on theCAWST and MIT websites

Yes

A mid-term review A mid-term stakeholder consultation review Yes



8

A mid term review

meeting will be held toevaluate researchresults and revisestrategies as needed

A mid term stakeholder consultation review

meeting was held on 26th Aug 08 and resultsthoroughly discussed. A total of 26 participants from the

government, NGOs, and research institutionsattended the meeting

Two key activities in the next phase weredecided. First, to continue the on-going fieldresearch at Kien Svay, Kandal to observe

long term trends. Second, we will test thefilter in more challenging locations todetermine the limitation of the filter, withclose consideration on rusting characteristicsand water chemistry.

Yes

A final meeting will beheld to evaluate fieldresearch project,

disseminate findingsand prepare for nextsteps

A final meeting was held on 2nd January 2009to disseminate the final Phase 1 findings,together with the Phase 2 findings. A total of

38 participants, including government, NGOs,and research institutions, attended the finalmeeting.

Yes

Pilot Demonstration Study

Activities from ProjectPlan/ Appendix 1 of LOA

Activities Accomplished AchievedLOA?

Location ofwork

3 communitiesrepresentative ofCambodia

After consultation with project partners andstakeholders in during the mid-termconsultation meeting, it was decided to installa total of 30 in 2 provinces for the following



9

reasons:o Unexpected delay in the start of Phase

2 due to national election and politicaltension

o More useful scientific information canbe extracted from the study design byinstalling less number of filters, buttesting at greater frequency

o Logistically difficult to visit many

communities and many filters due toresource limitation

Partially

Scope ofwork

60 total filters installed Visited weekly for 6

months Assess technical

performance and socialacceptance

Phase 2 was slightly delayed and scope waschanged for reasons discussed above.

Technical testing and social survey weresuccessfully conducted.

Partially

Descriptionof activities

Install 20 filters ineach of threecommunities

A total of 30 filters were installed incommunities representative of Cambodia

The original design was determined to be the

Yes

representative ofCambodia using bestconfigurationdeveloped in fieldtechnical research

best design, and this configuration wasinstalled in the households

Filters were constructed and installed by alocal NGO, ITC and MRD.

Conduct arsenicawareness raising,health educationcampaign andcommunity

Arsenic awareness education, and filteroperation and maintenance procedure, weregiven to the filter households.

During each of the filter testing/ follow-upvisit, we reinforce arsenic awareness

Yes



10

y

consultation in each ofthe three communities

,

message to the households

Households selectedfor filters on basis ofdemand

From the mid-term review, it was decidedthat we will test the filter in more challenginglocations to determine the limitation of thefilter, with close consideration on rustingcharacteristics and water chemistry. Assuch, the households in Phase 2 study were

selected according to this criterion. Nevertheless, over 90% of the filter receiving

households depends on groundwater for theirdrinking water source for both the dry andwet seasons.

Yes

Households with filtersto receive instructionson proper O&M as well

as health and hygienepractices

As discussed above, the households withfilters received instruction on arsenicawareness, filter operation, maintenance,

and health and hygiene at the time of filterinstallation, and during follow-up filter testingand monitoring visits

Yes

Households will usefilter as needed anddrink from filter

As part of the recommendations from themid-term review meeting, it was decided thatthe households should not drink the filteredwater yet, until the ADB project is complete,and final technical report is prepared. Thenthe key policy-makers and stakeholders willdiscuss on the findings and recommend onfilter usage policy.

No, butGood

Two in-depthassessments will be

Technical testing was conducted 3 times, inOctober, November, and December 08.

Yes



11

conducted:1st: after 2-3 months2nd: after 4- 5 months

Including technical andsocial components

The filtered water for all 30 filters was testedfor the 6 priority parameters according to theCambodian drinking water standards,

Social survey was conducted in December08.

Raw and filtered waterwill be tested

Both the raw and filtered water were testedfor the 6 priority parameters as discussedabove.

Yes

Social Assessment;Interviews with Usersand Focus GroupMeetings to evaluate:• user acceptance• rate of sustained

use

• perceived benefits• perceived costs and

barriers

A social survey questionnaire form wasprepared, and administered by MRD staff inDecember 08 to all 30 filter households

The survey contains question pertaining touser acceptance, usage rate, perceivedbenefits, perceived costs, perceived barriers,and proper use.

Yes

• proper use• other relevant

factors that may

affect sustainability Data compiled and

analyzed and madeavailable for reviewand comment

The phase 2 findings, including technical andsocial results, were presented and thoroughlydiscussed during the final projectstakeholders consultation meeting, held on2nd Jan 09.

Copies of the PowerPoint presentation were

Yes



12

given to all participants and other relevantstakeholders who were unable to attend.

We will compile all technical findings into afinal technical report, and will disseminatethe report among all interested parties.

A final meeting todisseminate findings

and to coordinate nextsteps

The final meeting was held on 2nd Jan 09 todisseminate findings and to coordinate next

steps.

Yes

A technologyverification guidancemanual will beprepared based on thelessons learned in thefield research and pilot

demonstration studies

A technology verification lessons learnedreport has been prepared, and is attachedwith this report.

Yes

3. Implementation Schedule and Institutional Management Arrangements:

ITC will be the executing agency (EA) for this project with the Ministry of Rural Development as the

government counterpart. Technical assistance will be provided by CAWST and MIT The Provincial Department of Rural Development (PDRD) will be involved in both phases The project will be implemented over a period of about ten (10) months as detailed in the

implementation schedule below:

P j t Pl / A di 1 f LOA A t l h d l f ll d



13

x = Project Plan/ Appendix 1 of LOA = Actual schedule followed

Activities Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan

Research start-up meeting

X

Research filtersinstallation

X

Research filtersweeklymonitoring

X X X X X X X X

Research mid-term review

X

Demo studystart-up meeting

X

Demo study

communitytraining andorientation

X

Demo studyfilters installation

X

Demo study

monthlymonitoring

X X X X X X

Demo study 1st roundassessment

X X

Demo study 2nd round

X X



14

assessmentProjectevaluation

X X

Overall projectcompletion &disseminationmeeting

X

4. Expected Results (Outputs/Outcomes)

This PDA is expected to achieve the followingoutcomes (From Project Plan/ Appendix 1 of

LOA):

Outcomes

• If found suitable for Cambodian context, theKAF [Kanchan Filter] is adopted as one ofthe arsenic mitigation technologies andincorporated in CAWST regular trainingactivities in Cambodia and in the region

• CAWST has carefully documented all thefindings and learning from this PDA, and hasstarted the process of incorporating the KAFinto its regular training activities



15

activities in Cambodia and in the region,teaching local organizations, private sector,and government on proper construction andinstallation of filters.

• Increased capacity within ITC and in MRD forverifying arsenic mitigation technologiessuitable to Cambodia.

• Built knowledge and capacity of ITC on watertreatment and field research, especially inquality assurance and quality control

• Built knowledge and capacity of MRD in

household water treatment technologies,verification process, field work, and projectmanagement

• Increased public awareness on the use ofKAF

• Villagers in the project communities aresatisfied with the filter

• Many neighbouring households who did notget a filter are demanding for further filterdissemination

• Improved quality of water • Phase 1 and Phase 2 studies demonstrated theexcellent technical performance of the filter,meeting the Cambodian standards

5. Measurable Performance Indicators:

Performance Indicator Measurement and comment

Number and quality of filters installed 10 filters in Kiensvay, Kandal province in Phase 1;30 filters in Kandal and Prey Veng provinces inPhase 2;All filters are performing very well

Percent of filters meeting Cambodian arsenicguidelines

99% of all filtered water samples met theCambodian arsenic guideline.



16

Number of people oriented on KAF Our training directly reached 31 households, about200 people.But the positive word-of-mouth effect wassurprisingly strong. Many households, whom wedid not directly contact, have heard about the filterfrom their neighbours, and wanted to obtain afilter.

Number of users satisfied with performance According to the social survey results of 30households:97% likes the filter because the filter is easy tooperate, and/or the water is clear and safe. 3%dislike the filter because it is big and heavy.

Number of households using the filter 1 household in phase 1;30 households in phase 2

Number of organizations interested to implement

the filter

Plenty.

Upscaling potential in different regions ofCambodia and nearby countries

Very promising, especially given that our phase 2study has shown that the filter can perform under

a wide range of water chemistry.

Stakeholders Participation:

Stakeholder participation takes several forms in each of the two phases and at different stages as shownin the table below.

A ‘YES’ is shown if the Stakeholder Participation is generally in line with the expectations for thisstakeholder, otherwise a ‘NO’ is shown.

Field Technical Research Pilot and Demonstration Study



17

Stakeholderparticipation:National-level MRD

• Communicate and coordinatewith other governmentalministries and stakeholdersthrough the monthly watsanmeetings and other avenues

• Coordinate with ITC to hoststart-up meeting and mid-termreview meeting

• Prepare communicationsmaterials to explain projectprogress and outcomes

• Collaborate with PDRD to assistITC to conduct filter installation,monitoring, and troubleshooting

• Collaborate with ITC to keep

records on technologyverification process

YES• Overall co-management of project

with ITC• Communicate and coordinate with

other governmental ministries andstakeholders through the monthlywatsan meetings and other avenues

• Coordinate with ITC to host start-upmeeting and final project completionmeeting

• Schedule internal managementmeetings

• Prepare meeting minutes• Lead -up activities, with support

from ITC and PDRD• Keep records on technology

verification process, and prepare atechnology verification manual, withsupport from ITC and CAWST

• Assist ITC to prepare final project

YES

completion report

Stakeholderparticipation:

PDRD

• Assist national-level MRD andITC to conduct filter installation,

monitoring, and troubleshooting• Assist national-level MRD to

provide guidance on field siteselection

• Facilitate communications withlocal authorities

• Mobilize local resources tosupport project activities

YES • Assist national-level MRD to conduct

community awareness, follow-up

monitoring, and project evaluationactivities

• Assist national-level MRD to provideguidance on field site selection

• Facilitate communications with localauthorities

• Mobilize local resources to supportproject activities

YES



18

support project activities project activities

Stakeholderparticipation:CAWST

• Liaison between ADB andproject partners

• Provide technical assistance onfilter construction, testing andverification process

• Deliver necessary education

and specialized training• Oversee filter construction and

installation• Participate in monitoring and

evaluation process• Assist ITC to prepare research

documents

YES • Liaison between ADB and project

partners• Provide technical assistance on filter

construction, testing and verificationprocess

• Deliver necessary education and

specialized training to other NGOson filter construction and installation• Oversee filter construction and

installation• Participate in monitoring and

evaluation process• Assist ITC to prepare research

documents

YES

Stakeholderparticipation:

MIT

• Provide technical knowledge onscientific principles, filter

design, troubleshootingmethods, and researchmethodology

• Exchange information onarsenic mitigation efforts fromNepal, Bangladesh, India,Ghana

• Disseminate research findings

YES • Provide technical knowledge on

scientific principles, filter design,

troubleshooting methods, andresearch methodology

• Exchange information on arsenicmitigation efforts from Nepal,Bangladesh, India, Ghana

• Disseminate research findings to theinternational scientific community

YES



19

gto the international scientificcommunity

Stakeholderparticipation:Other local

NGOs and private

sector

• Provide comments on theresearch design, site selection,and analytical methods

• Share data when appropriate toassist research activities

YES• Potentially incorporate pilot study

activities with existing their arsenicmitigation activities

• If KAF performance is verified, thenprivate entrepreneurs can be trained

by CAWST on filter construction andsales

YES

End of Appendix 1 and the Technical Requirements in the LOA

End of Document

CAM PDA: Arsenic Mitigation Technology (Final Report)

Documents

Transcript of CAM PDA: Arsenic Mitigation Technology (Final Report)