HOUSEHOLD WATER TREATMENT OPTIONS

Written by Millie Adam, CAWST, October 2005

This document has been prepared by the Centre for Affordable Water and Sanitation Technology
(CAWST) to provide an impartial assessment of the most common household water treatment
technologies in use worldwide. The technologies currently included in the assessment are SODIS,
BioSand filters, ceramic filters, and household chlorine disinfection. There are, of course, many
others. The following considerations should be kept in mind while reviewing the document:

Removal efficiencies

• Only documented (and where possible, only published) research was quoted
• The research was only quoted if it included a sufficient number of samples to give an
accurate representation
• Where possible, the sources include the best known information to date
• There were sometimes multiple sources with conflicting data – in this case, the middle of
the road sources were used – not the most optimistic, nor the least
• For ceramic filters, a lot of the research available is actually for high quality commercial
ceramics, not the designs employed in development settings – thus they were not quoted

Treated Water Quality Table

Ø denotes no significant change

Contaminants
• This analysis emphasizes the removal of pathogens from water because they cause the
most water-related disease and death in the world
• Turbidity (suspended solids) was included because it affects the efficiency of many HWT
technologies, because a lot of pathogens are associated with and physically attached to
suspended solids, and because it affects local acceptance
• Arsenic was included because it has become a serious health concern in certain regions
• Iron was included because it is a common aesthetic concern and can affect local
acceptance of a water source or technology
• Salinity was not included because none of the HWT technologies included can remove
salinity
• Fluoride was not included because there was very little information on the effect of these
HWT technologies on fluoride concentrations

Cost

• Costs include the physical cost of construction, including materials and manufacturing labor
• Program costs and transportation were not included

Local Acceptance

• Local acceptance clearly varies in each community – some examples were given

Page 1 of 9
 CERAMIC FILTER (Porous Pot type with Colloidal Silver)

Local Acceptance
• Easy to use
• Users like the taste of the water
• Most common complaints are breakage and low flow rate
• In one project, 60% of users were still using their filter regularly within 1 year
• In one study, 73% of users were still using their filter more than 1 year later, and the
usage rate depended on the amount of follow-up visits

Economics
Capital Cost Operating Costs Replacement Costs
US$7 approx. US$0 US$7 / every 2 years

Local manufacture
• Constructed from locally available materials
• Local factory can be set up with skilled workers – cost approximately $15,000-20,000
• Or existing local potters can make them by hand
• Removal efficiency is affected by pore size, so quality control in manufacturing is critical

Robustness
• Ceramic breaks relatively easily
• Hairline cracks can occur which are not visible to the naked eye, but which allow pathogens
to pass through the filter
• Plastic spigots often get broken
• Brass spigots last longer but increase cost

Maintenance
• Turbid water results in plugging of the filter
• The ceramic must be scrubbed with a brush to prevent clogging and biofilm growth
• Recontamination is possible during cleaning
• Repeated scrubbing eventually wears out the filter

Operating Criteria Flow rate Daily Water Limit Raw water turbidity
1-2.5 L/hour 20-30 L

Treated Water Quality

Bacteria Viruses Protozoa Helminths Turbidity Arsenic Iron
Lab >98%1 <<1 log1* ** ** Reduces Ø >90%4
by 83%1
Field 97.6%3 To <5
88.4%2 NTU2
* Some additives to the clay may increase virus removal
** Has not been researched, but these pathogens are too large to pass through the 0.6-3μ pores
• Colloidal silver required to reach the removal efficiencies given above

Applicability
• Portable but fragile, so there is a risk of cracks or breakage
• Suitable where clay is available and local potters exist
• Colloidal silver is also needed

Safe Storage

Page 2 of 9
• Designs that incorporate a plastic bucket with a spigot below the ceramic filter protect the
water from recontamination if the bucket is kept clean
• No residual protection against recontamination

Page 3 of 9
 BIOSAND FILTER (Concrete)

Local Acceptance
• Users like the taste, appearance and temperature of the treated water
• In a survey of 6 countries, 98% of filters were still in use between 0-4 years later
• In another case, 98% of filters were still in use 4 years later without any support
• Easy to operate and takes little time each day

Economics Capital Cost Operating Costs Replacement Costs

US$12-40 US$0 US$0

Local manufacture
• Constructed from locally available materials
• Local labor can be used for construction (with supervision)
• Anyone can be taught to construct the filter
• Steel mold is needed for construction (US$300-800)
• Opportunity for micro-enterprises
• Sand selection and preparation are critical to ensure flow rate and treatment

Robustness
• Piping is embedded in concrete so that it won’t break or leak
• Lasts at least 9 years (oldest field units) – concrete can last 20-30 years
• Diffuser plate may need to be replaced after several years

Maintenance
• Simple procedure which takes a few minutes and can be done by user
• Frequency depends on turbidity of raw water (typically several weeks to months)
• User knows when maintenance is required because of reduced flow rate

Operating Criteria Flow rate Daily Water Limit Raw water turbidity
1 L/min 200L < 100 NTU

• Filter must be used almost every day to maintain the biological layer

Treated Water Quality

Bacteria Viruses Protozoa Helminths
Turbidity Arsenic Iron
Lab 96.1%5 70-99%7 >99.9%6 * 0.15-0.5
NTU5
9
Field 98.5% To <1 90-93%8 with 90-95%8
9
NTU adaptation
* Has not been researched, however helminths are too large to pass between sand grains
• These removal efficiencies can be expected after the biological layer has been established
• Initially, it takes 2-3 weeks to establish the bio layer depending on source water & usage

Applicability
• Where sand and gravel are available (must be brought in to some rainforests and deserts)
• Concrete filters are heavy (300 lbs installed) and difficult to move
• There are plastic versions of BioSand filters that are lighter
• Filters are not portable after installation
• Water is needed during construction to prepare sand and gravel

Page 4 of 9
Safe Storage
• Should be used with a closed container kept as close as possible to the outlet spout of the
BioSand filter, otherwise recontamination is possible
• No residual protection against recontamination

Page 5 of 9
 SODIS (Solar Disinfection)

Local Acceptance
• No improvement in taste or color of water
• Some users complain about the increased temperature of the water
• Simple, easy to do, inexpensive (where bottles are available)
• Some users have difficulty believing that there is any change in the water quality
• Some users say it takes too long and takes too much time each day
• Of those trained in a 2 year project, use was regular 47.6%, irregular 45.2%, no use 7.1%
• In a survey of demonstration projects in 7 countries, 84% of users said they would
continue to use SODIS after the conclusion of the project
• When not supported by a strong community program, acceptance drops

Economics Capital Cost Operating Costs Replacement Costs

US$2-5 US$0 US$2-5/year

Local manufacture
• Can be implemented immediately
• Bottles can be collected or purchased
• No local manufacture is required

Robustness
• Clear, plastic PET (Polyethylene terephtalate) bottles of 1-2 Litres are preferable because
they are more chemically stable, glass is acceptable but breakable, PVC should not be used
due to chemical additives that could be released from the bottle
• Bottles get scratched or aged by sunlight - must be replaced periodically (every year)
• Bottles will melt and deform if the temperature reaches 65°C

Maintenance
• Multiple bottles required per family (4 bottles per person): one set of bottles must be filled
and placed on the roof each day, while the water in the other set is consumed
• The plastic screw cap on the bottles must be kept clean

Operating Criteria Flow rate Daily Water Limit Raw water turbidity
1-2 L/bottle N/A <30 NTU

• Not useful to treat large quantities of water

• Requires 5 hours in full sun/50% cloudy sky; 2 consecutive days for 100% cloudy sky

Treated Water Quality

Bacteria Viruses Protozoa Helminths Turbidity Arsenic Iron
Lab 99.9%10 99.9%10 * * Ø Ø Ø
Field 91.3-99.4%11
* Dependent on reaching a water temperature of 50°C
• More than for other technologies, improper use can significantly lower removal efficiency

Applicability
• Most favorable location: between latitudes 15° and 35° north/south
• Next most favourable location: between latitudes 15° north/south and the equator
• Does not work during continuous rainfall
• Waste bottles are abundant in urban areas, but may not be available in remote areas

Page 6 of 9
Safe Storage
• The bottle is an ideal safe storage or transportation container
• Treated water should be kept in the bottle until it is consumed (within 2 days)
HOUSEHOLD CHLORINE DISINFECTION

Local Acceptance
• Many users do not like the taste and odour
• Most users cannot determine the dosing quantity themselves
• Users often use less than the recommended dose to reduce costs
• High usage is possible over the short term, but over the long term usage drops off
• Strong promotion and follow-up program is needed to gain acceptance

Economics
Capital Cost Operating Costs Replacement Costs
US$0 US$3/year US$0

Local manufacture
• Available almost anywhere
• Can be made locally and packaged for distribution
• Often chlorine packaging is a source of plastic waste
• Chlorine is toxic and hazardous, its fumes and contact with skin are dangerous

Robustness
• Chlorine deteriorates over time, especially in liquid form

Maintenance
• N/A

Operating Criteria Flow rate Daily Water Limit Raw water turbidity
N/A N/A *
* should be relatively low or large amounts of chlorine are needed
• Requires 30 minute contact time, minimum
• Required dose varies with water quality (turbidity, presence of organic materials, pH)

Treated Water Quality

Bacteria Viruses Protozoa Helminths Turbidity Arsenic Iron
Lab Up to > 99%** Ø ** Ø *** Ø Some effect
99.99%*
Field 99.8%12
* Dependent on type of bacteria, chlorine concentration, and contact time
** Certain protozoa and viruses are chlorine resistant
*** Helminth eggs are unaffected by chlorine (at normal levels)
• Chlorine reacts with organic matter naturally present in water to form disinfection by-
products such as trihalomethanes (THM) which are potentially cancer-causing

Appropriate Locale
• Wherever chlorine is available

Safe Storage
• Residual chlorine protects against recontamination
• Chlorine is often promoted in combination with safe storage or with other household water
treatment technologies

Page 7 of 9
 EVALUATING HOUSEHOLD WATER TREATMENT OPTIONS

Although this comparison gives overviews of the various household water treatment (HWT)
options, it will always be necessary to conduct an evaluation of the HWT options to determine the
advantages, limitations, and applicability of the technologies for each specific situation. Some of
the factors (criteria) to consider are outlined below, grouped into four major categories; social
aspects, technical performance, program implementation, and economics.

There are several ways to do an evaluation. One common way is called a Kepner-Tregoe Decision
Analysis. It involves listing all applicable criteria and rating each technology based upon each of
the criteria. Some of the criteria may need to be weighted more heavily than others. For example,
no matter how well a technology treats the water, if the end users do not like it and will not use it,
then there will be no lasting benefit to those users from introducing that technology. Finally, the
ratings are totaled up, and the entire evaluation is looked at as a whole to see which technologies
are most suitable. Note: local acceptability is a criteria that cannot be accurately assessed by the
implementing individual/organization – it can only be determined by the end users. For any HWT
technology, familiarity of the local population with the technology or treatment process increases
acceptance.

Social Acceptance
• Taste, odour, colour and temperature of treated water
• Are the benefits/importance of the technology obvious to users?
• Daily amount of time spent treating water and performing maintenance
• Acceptability of the technology to the local community

Technical Performance
• Source water characteristics & options
• Quality of water produced (pathogens, turbidity, iron, etc)
• Quantity of water produced
• Operation and maintenance required to ensure performance
• Is technical failure obvious to the user?
• Inherent safe storage or potential for recontamination

Program Implementation
• Use of locally available materials (for construction and maintenance)
• Possibility for local production
• Training and follow-up required to ensure usage
• Ease of technology transfer
• Is the technology usable in the local environment?

Economics
• Technology cost (capital, operating, replacement, transportation)
• Durability (breakage, useful life)

In order to ensure continued usage of the technology and to achieve a real, sustained impact on
the end users, it is important that all interventions are based on demand and that communities
are involved in the selection of technologies based on their own needs and criteria. The role of
implementing organizations is to evaluate the technology options in order to present a selection of
appropriate options.

Page 8 of 9
 REFERENCES

1. Daniele S. Lantagne, (2001), ‘Investigation of the Potters for Peace Colloidal Silver
Impregnated Ceramic Filter Report 2: Field Investigations’ Alethia for USAID

2. Smith, Lucy (2004) ‘CERAMIC WATER FILTER USE IN TAKEO, CAMBODIA – OPERATIONAL
ISSUES AND HEALTH PROMOTION RECOMMENDATIONS’. Submitted in partial fulfilment as a
requirement for a Master of Science in Control of Infectious Diseases, London School of
Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

3. Rebeca Eun Young Hwang (2002), ‘SIX-MONTH FIELD MONITORING OF POINT-OF-USE

CERAMIC WATER FILTER BY USING H2S PAPER STRIP MOST PROBABLE NUMBER METHOD IN
SAN FRANCISCO LIBRE, NICARAGUA’, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

4. Low, Jason. (2002) ‘Appropriate Microbial Indicator Tests for Drinking Water in Developing
Countries and Assessment of Ceramic Water Filters’, Master of Engineering thesis. Department
of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Cambridge, MA

5. Buzunis, Byron (1995) ‘Intermittently Operated Slow Sand Filtration: A New Water
Treatment Process’, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Calgary

6. Palmateer, G., Manz, D., Jurkovic, A., McInnis, R., Unger, S., Kwan, K. K., Dudka, B. J.
(1999) ‘Toxicant and Parasite Challenge of Manz Intermittent Slow Sand Filter’, Environmental
Toxicology, vol. 14, pp. 217- 225

7. Christine Stauber, Mark Elliot, Fatma Koksal, Gloria M. Ortiz, Kaida Liang, Francis A.
DiGiano, and Mark D. Sobsey (2005), ‘Characterization of the Biosand Filter for Microbial
Reductions Under Controlled Laboratory and Field Use Conditions’, University of North Carolina
Note: This research is ongoing and not yet published

8. Ngai, Tommy Ka Kit; Murcott, Susan; Shrestha, Roshan (2004), ‘Kanchan Arsenic Filter
(KAF) – Research and Implementation of an Appropriate Drinking Water Solution for Rural
Nepal
Note: These tests were done on a plastic version of a BioSand filter (not concrete)

9. William Duke M.D. (2005) The Use and Performance of the BioSand Filter in the Artibonite
Valley of Haiti: A Field Study of 107 Households, University of Victoria

10. M. Wegelin, S. Canonica, K. Mechsner, T. Fleischmann, F. Pesaro, A. Metzler (1994), ‘Solar

Water Disinfection: Scope of the Process and Analysis of Radiation Experiments’, J Water SRT,
Aqua Vol. 43, No. 4, pp 154-169
Note: These tests were done with simulated sunlight and not in plastic bottles

11. Matthias Saladin (2002), ‘SODIS in Nepal – technical aspects’, EAWAG/SANDEC and
ENPHO, http://www.sodis.ch/Text2002/Projects/SODIS_Nepal.htm (Aug05)

12. Luby S, Agboatwalla M. Razz A, Sobel J. (2001) A Low-Cost Intervention for Cleaner
Drinking Water in Karachi, Pakistan, International Journal of Infectious Diseases; 5(3): 144-
150.

Page 9 of 9