CPT Guide 6th 2015

Community Plant for Arsenic Removal in
West Bengal, India
Giorgio Galileo Barbieri

Emilie Essert
Environment & Resources

Technical University of Denmark
August 2005
Abstract
The feasibility of a community plant for Arsenic removal in West Bengal, India has been
investigated implementing two pilot units in two rural villages in North-24 Parganas.
The plants have been built in collaboration with two local Community Based Organizations.
Each unit can serve a group of 10-20 families. The plants are attached to a hand pump tube well,
and the removal mechanism is based on an aeration-sand filtration step for biological-chemical Iron
and Arsenic removal and a following filtration in an Activated Alumina column for Arsenic
removal. The sand filter is backwashed every week by the beneficiaries, while the Activated
Alumina is replaced approximately after six months of operation by the local CBOs.
Both units provide water with an Arsenic concentration lower than the Indian limit of 50
µg/L, and so far lower than the WHO guideline of 10 µg/L. The Iron content has been reduced
under the WHO guideline of 0,3 mg/L and the treatment does not increase the risk for bacterial
contamination. The construction cost is between 7000-10 000 Rs, while the running cost is between
100-200 Rs per month.
The involvement of the local CBOs and of the beneficiaries through a participatory
approach had the purpose to ensure the long term sustainability of the project. The local CBOs have
been involved during the design, construction and monitoring phase. Field workers from the CBOs
have been trained during the project implementation and are now able to reply the process in other
areas. The beneficiaries have been involved in the design phase and through the creation of a Plant
Committee, with the aims of collecting funds to cover the running cost and take care of Operation
and Maintenance.
Key words: West Bengal arsenic problem, arsenic removal, community plant, adsorption,
activated alumina, iron removal, developing countries, participatory approach, capacity
building, sustainability.
1
Preface
The present Master Thesis report is the result of a 4 months field project carried out in North-24
Parganas, West Bengal, India, from the 22nd of February to the 4th of June 2005. It has been written
within the Environmental and Resources (E&R) Department of the Technical University of
Denmark (DTU), under the supervision of Henrik Bregnhøj, Assistant Research Professor at E&R,
DTU.
The Master thesis will be discussed by Giorgio Galileo Barbieri at Politecnico di Milano under the
supervision of Prof. Costantino Nurizzo. It has been completed at the end of the two years period
the author spent at DTU enrolled in the European exchange project for students TIME (Top
Industrial Manager for Europe).
Lyngby, 12th August 2005
____________________________ ____________________________
Giorgio Galileo Barbieri, s031482 Emilie Essert, s031471
2
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank our supervisor Henrik Bregnhøj, for his support and useful guidance all
along the project.
We also would like to acknowledge Ganesh Sengupta, from IGF for welcoming us in his flat in
Kolkata, and for facilitating our first approach with the Indian environment, and Biswajit Mahakur
from JGVK for his care of our well being during our stay in the village. Thanks to the three
Community Based Organizations KTT, SPREAD and BSSKS, as well as Mohitosh Edbar, our
translator, for their active and efficient collaboration in our activities, as well as for their efforts to
make us discover and enjoy the Indian culture. We would like to express our gratefulness to our
Indian family, friends and neighbours, for the joy, the care and the numerous mangoes they gave to
us.
Also a special thanks to Marie, our friend and colleague in the project, for her reassuring words, her
energy and the funny moments we had together.
Emilie would like to thank her family for their support, love, and for their packets that never
arrived, and Joseph, Emilie, Geoffroy, Pierre and Aurore for the reasons they know.
To my dear family, Galileo.
3
Executive Summary
Arsenic in drinking water is a critical issue in West Bengal, India. During the past two decades,
groundwater with Arsenic concentrations above the Indian guideline of 50 ppb have been detected
on a large number of private wells. This finding has been a chock for the community and for the
local government since Arsenic is a threat to health. The poisonous effects of Arsenic are
commonly grouped under the term Arsenicosis. Long term Arsenic ingestion can lead to skin
diseases, vascular dysfunctions, cancers and even death in its final stage. There is therefore a
tremendous need for finding mitigation solutions to the Arsenic problem in West Bengal.
In order to help facing this problem, two Danish NGOs, UBU and IGF, with the financial support of
DANIDA, launched in February 2004 a project called “Local Management of the Arsenic
Contaminated Drinking Water in West Bengal” in collaboration with 4 local organizations located
in North-24 Parganas. The Indian NGO JGVK is coordinating and supporting the work of three
Community Based Organizations, KTT, SPREAD and BSSKS, located within the project area. Four
field workers from each CBO have been attached to the project. It mainly aims at developing and
implementing solutions to the Arsenic problem, focusing on a participatory approach.
The project “Community Plant for Arsenic Removal in West Bengal” as been thought as a part of
the Arsenic Project, and it has been carried out by the authors during four months spent in North 24
Parganas in spring 2005. The objectives of the authors were to explore the feasibility and
sustainability of a community plant as a solution to the Arsenic problem in West Bengal, and
building the capacity of the involved organizations to implement autonomously such a solution.
Workshops, homework, surveys or field visits are examples of the activities carried out by the
authors to provide the workers with the necessary tools to participate actively in the pilot project
activities, and to be able to replicate them once external help withdraws. The activities related to the
community plant implementation included experiments, choice of the beneficiaries, choice of the
design, construction of the plants and organization of operation and maintenance. The field workers
were closely involved in all these activities, in order to integrate local knowledge in the project and
to build their capacities.
The involvement of the local community is believed being a crucial point for the sustainability of
rural water supply systems, and it has been met through a participatory approach. Involvement in
4
the decision making process, financial participation and training in operation and maintenance have
been used as methods to ensure active participation of the end users. The organization of the
beneficiaries in a user group, the Plant Committee, was believed to create a strong structure to
enhance community involvement.
Two community plants have been built during the project implementation. In SPREAD area a Self
Help Group of 12 families has been selected to beneficiate of the plant. In KTT area the
beneficiaries are 10 families coming from different SHGs. Two plant committees were created, and
a list of rules established.
The removal process is based on three treatment steps:

1. Aeration, to increase the oxygen content for chemical and biological Iron and Arsenic removal
2. Sand filtration, for removal of precipitated Iron and biological removal of Iron and Arsenic
3. Adsorption by activated alumina for removal of Arsenic.
The plant has been designed accordingly, in order to perform these three steps. It is composed of
two cement columns, the first one for aeration and sand filtration and the second one for adsorption.
Maintenance operations consist mainly in weekly backwash of the sand filter, monitoring of the
activated alumina breakthrough, and replacement of the spent activated alumina. Replacement has
been estimated to be necessary every six months. These activities have been shared between the
Plant Committee members and the field workers.
The community plants are efficient at removing Arsenic and iron below the WHO limits that are 10
µg/L for Arsenic and 0,3 mg/L for iron. The bacterial contamination (E. Coli) is always reduced
under less than 10 CFU per 100 mL during the treatment, and often to 0 CFU/100 mL which is the
WHO limit. Such a result is considered acceptable for a developing country. The plant provides
water in sufficient quantity to the beneficiaries. It has been built using locally available materials
and local labor, to comply with sustainability as well as financial concerns. The per capita initial
cost is 1060 Rs in KTT (total cost 10 600 Rs) and 710 Rs in SPREAD (total cost 8 500 Rs) and it
can be reduced to 425 Rs in the best case. The running cost is 10 Rs per month per family.
Capacity development of the involved organizations has been evaluated all along the project
implementation through direct observations or the use of evaluation tools. The fieldworkers
5
developed their communication skills, autonomy and knowledge about Arsenic. They are able to
successfully reply the necessary steps for implementation of a community plant in other areas. Their
analytical capacities nevertheless need to be further developed.
Motivation of the beneficiaries, proper organizational setup and appropriate and cheap technology
have been identified as conditions to sustainability. The implemented solution is believed to be
sustainable as regards to these parameters. Yet monitoring of the Arsenic breakthrough and
replacement of Activated Alumina have been identified as potential threats to the sustainability.
6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................9
1 BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES .......................................................................10

1.1 THE ARSENIC PROJECT ............................................................................................10
1.1.1 The Arsenic problem ...............................................................................................10
1.1.2 The study area ..........................................................................................................11
1.1.3 The involved organizations .....................................................................................12
1.1.4 Project objectives .....................................................................................................13
1.1.5 Previous activities and results.................................................................................13
1.2 THIS PROJECT: THE COMMUNITY PLANT PROJECT ......................................15

1.2.1 The objectives ...........................................................................................................15
2 THEORY .......................................................................................................................16
2.1 ARSENIC..........................................................................................................................16
2.1.1 Health effects ............................................................................................................16
2.1.2 Arsenic chemistry.....................................................................................................17
2.2 SOLUTIONS TO ARSENIC...........................................................................................19

2.2.1 Removal processes....................................................................................................19
2.2.2 Removal technologies...............................................................................................25
2.2.3 Safe sources of water................................................................................................28
2.3 IRON .................................................................................................................................30

2.3.1 Physical-chemical Iron removal .............................................................................30
2.3.2 Biological Iron & Arsenic removal.........................................................................31
2.4 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT..................................................................................34

2.4.1 Capacity building .....................................................................................................34
2.4.2 The participatory approach ....................................................................................36
2.4.3 Self Help Groups ......................................................................................................37
3 COMMUNITY PLANT PILOT IMPLEMENTATION...........................................39
3.1 EXPERIMENTS ..............................................................................................................39

3.1.1 Arsenic.......................................................................................................................39
3.2 SELECTION OF BENEFICIARIES .............................................................................47

3.2.1 List of criteria ...........................................................................................................47
3.2.2 Checking the criteria ...............................................................................................49
3.2.3 Final Beneficiaries Description ...............................................................................52
3.3 PLANT IMPLEMENTATION.......................................................................................59

3.3.1 Choice of design........................................................................................................59
3.3.2 Construction .............................................................................................................66
3.3.3 Organization of Operation & Maintenance...........................................................71
3.4 RESULTS .........................................................................................................................73

7
3.4.1 Costs ..........................................................................................................................73
3.4.2 Plant performances ..................................................................................................74
3.4.3 Beneficiaries satisfaction .........................................................................................77
3.5 DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................80

3.5.1 Importance of bacterial removal ............................................................................80
3.5.2 Frequency of backwash and AA regeneration ......................................................80
3.5.3 Biological-chemical Iron and Arsenic removal. ....................................................81
3.5.4 Comparison with other As solutions ......................................................................82
3.5.5 Sustainability evaluation .........................................................................................84
3.5.6 Problems & Suggestions ..........................................................................................87
4 CAPACITY BUILDING ..............................................................................................88

4.1 OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................................................88
4.2 ACTIVITIES ....................................................................................................................90

4.2.1 Workshops ................................................................................................................90
4.2.2 Homework.................................................................................................................93
4.2.3 Experiments..............................................................................................................93
4.2.4 Surveys ......................................................................................................................94
4.2.5 Quizzes ......................................................................................................................94
4.3 EVALUATION METHODS ...........................................................................................95
4.4 RESULTS .........................................................................................................................98

4.4.1 Workshops ................................................................................................................98
4.4.2 Homework.................................................................................................................98
4.4.3 Experiments and small scale plants........................................................................99
4.4.4 Surveys ....................................................................................................................100
4.4.5 Search for local labour and skills .........................................................................101
4.4.6 Involving beneficiaries...........................................................................................102
4.4.7 Organizations’ initiatives ......................................................................................103
4.4.8 Quizzes ....................................................................................................................104
4.4.9 Review of generated documents............................................................................107
4.5 DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................109

4.5.1 Arsenic awareness ..................................................................................................109
4.5.2 Community plant implementation .......................................................................109
4.5.3 Communication skills for knowledge transmission ............................................109
4.5.4 Autonomy................................................................................................................110
4.5.5 Analytical capacities: .............................................................................................110
CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................................111
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................113
APPENDIX .........................................................................................................................117
Procedure used .......................................................................................................................128
8
Introduction
Introduction
Groundwater from tube wells equipped with hand pumps is the main source of water in the rural
area of West Bengal. Such a source of water has the advantages of being cheap and free from
pathogen micro organism. In the last decade, however, Arsenic of geological origin has been found
in concentration higher than the Indian limit (50 µg/L) and it has been estimated that around 6
millions people are drinking Arsenic contaminated water. Drinking Arsenic contaminated water
leads to a chronic disease known as Arsenicosis, which, in its final stage, can cause cancer and
death.
A project in collaboration between Danish and Indian NGOs, DTU and DANIDA has started in
2003 in order to find and implement solutions to the Arsenic problem in North-24 Parganas, one of
the districts of West Bengal where the problem is more severe. During the past two years, field
workers from three local Community Based Organizations have been trained within the project, and
activities such as Arsenic measurements of wells and pilot implementation of household filters have
been carried out.
There are many different solutions to the Arsenic problem, like household filters, community plants,
deep tube wells or switching to other safe sources of water found through measurements. It is
difficult to identify the best solution, as such a decision strictly depends on the local conditions and
preferences.
The aim of this project is to explore on the field the effectiveness of one of the possible solutions: a
small community plant for delivering Arsenic free water to a group of 10-20 families. Is such a
community plant a feasible and sustainable solution for the Arsenic problem in West Bengal? Is it
possible to train local organizations for the implementation of such a solution? These are the two
main questions this report tries to answer to.
9
Chapter 1. Background and Objectives
1 Background and Objectives
1.1 The Arsenic project

“The Community Plant for Arsenic Removal in West Bengal” project has been carried out by the
authors as a part of a bigger project called “Local Management of the Arsenic Contaminated
Drinking Water in West Bengal” [Bregnhøj, 2003] (here briefly referred as “The Arsenic Project”).
The Arsenic Project is funded by DANIDA and it is carried out by some Danish and Indian NGOs
in collaboration with the Danish Technical University. It is therefore necessary to briefly explain
the scope, the objectives and the activities of the Arsenic project before to further describe the
Community Plant project.
1.1.1 The Arsenic problem

The presence of Arsenic in drinking water is a big issue in West Bengal (India) and Bangladesh. In
these areas water was traditionally taken from the abundant surface water, like rivers, ponds (see
Figure 1) and shallow dug wells. Surface water has a high degree of bacterial contamination, and
therefore since the 1960s the use of groundwater by means of hand tube wells has been introduced
and supported by the governments and other institutions [WHO, 2000.]
Tube wells have several economic advantages in rural areas where the population is spread and the
installation of centralized water supply system is therefore difficult. The installation of tube wells
have successfully changed the habits of the local population, and nowadays millions of tube wells
are installed and used as a source of drinking water.
In the last two decades Arsenic in high concentration, above the WHO limit of 10 µg/L [WHO,
2004], has been found to occur in ground water in West Bengal and Bangladesh. The presence of
Arsenic had not been previously investigated and its discovery has shocked the international
community and the local government, which initially even denied the problem. Only recently some
measures to face the problem have been taken [Chakraborti, 2002].
Arsenic in drinking water has a negative impact on health and causes a number of symptoms like
skin diseases, vascular diseases and cancer collectively described as “Arsenicosis”. Arsenicosis in
its final stage can lead to dead. However it can take more than 10 years before symptoms of
Arsenicosis appear, therefore it is difficult for people to recognize the relation between consuming
Arsenic contaminated groundwater and Arsenicosis [Sharma, 2003], [Mandal et al., 1996], [WHO,
10
2000]. It has been estimated that in West Bengal more than 6 million people are drinking Arsenic
contaminated water, and more than 300 000 are suffering from skin lesions caused by Arsenic
[Chakraborti, 2002]. The situation is even more critical in the bordering Bangladesh, where the
British Geological Survey has estimated that 21 million people are drinking water with Arsenic
concentrations above 0,05 mg/L [WHO, 2000].
Figure 1. A pond in West Bengal. Surface water Figure 2. A tube well in West Bengal. The use of
often has bacterial contamination, and it has bacterial-free groundwater has introduced a new
been therefore abandoned as source of drinking problem: Arsenic.
water. Ponds are still used for cleaning,
irrigation or fishery.
1.1.2 The study area

The Arsenic Project takes place is in North-24 Parganas, one of the districts of West Bengal where
the Arsenic problem is more acute. The following maps (Figure 3 and Figure 4) show the extent of
Arsenic contamination in West Bengal and in North-24 Parganas.
11
Figure 3. Arsenic-contaminated area in West Bengal Figure 4. Arsenic contamination in North-24 Parganas
[Chakraborti, 2002]. [Rahman et Al, 2003].
In the rural areas of North-24 Parganas, people are mainly collecting water from their own tube
well, usually available at shallow depth, i.e between 15 and 50 meters. Shallow tube well water is at
risk of Arsenic pollution, and a study carried out over 48 030 hand tube wells revealed that 29, 2 %
of the tube well waters were contaminated with Arsenic above the Indian guideline of 50 ppb
[Rahman et Al, 2003]. It can be observed that the blocks of Habra and Gaighata, where the project
took place, are areas where almost half of the existing tubewells are classified as Arsenic
contaminated.
1.1.3 The involved organizations

The project is run by a network of organizations, some from Denmark and others from India. The
Danish Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) involved are the India Group of Funen (IGF) and
the Danish Association for Sustainable Development (UBU). The project is coordinated in India by
the NGO Joygopalpur Gram Vikash Kendra (JGVK), who supports and coordinates the three
Community Based Organizations:
• Kishalaya Taruntirtha (KTT), it works in the villages of Gazna and Tegharia, and its main
occupation before the Arsenic project was to manage a primary school.
12
• Society for Participatory Research, Environment and Development (SPREAD), it works in

the villages of Binerati-Ruadanga and Papilla, before the involvement in the Arsenic project
they were, for example, organizing courses for teachers.
• Bharpara Srijani Samaj Kakyan Samity (BSSKS) It works in the villages of Tegharia and
Fazilpur, before the project they organized courses about agriculture techniques and health
camps in collaboration with the Red Crescent society.
A detailed scheme of the organizations network is given in the Appendix C.
1.1.4 Project objectives

The Arsenic project has three main goals [Bregnhøj, 2003]:
1. Capacity development of the CBOs

“The local organizations BSSKS, SPREAD and KTT become capable of, and establish, a successful
collaboration with villagers in their area regarding analysis and solving the Arsenic problem and
local development in general.”
2. Awareness about health problems

“The improvement of the awareness about the Arsenic problem and other health problems in the
project area will affect the local people to take initiatives for solving the problems.”
3. Implementation of solutions for the Arsenic problem

“The implementation of concrete interventions should reduce people ingestion of Arsenic. When
sufficient capacity development initiatives have been realized the project will be ready to assist the
villagers with guidance, demonstration of treatment methods, Arsenic measurements and other
aspects that are essential in order to implement concrete technical interventions.”
1.1.5 Previous activities and results

The field activities of the project started in February 2004. The three objectives of the Arsenic
project have guided the activities that have been so far carried out.
The capacity development of the CBOs has been met through the employment in the project of 12
field workers (4 from each organization) and their training during a number of workshops and other
activities. The workshops have dealt with technical aspects (health effects of Arsenic, removal
13
techniques, measurement…) and social aspects of the Arsenic problem (participatory approach,
creation of awareness, community involvement, etc…). The workshops have been carried out by
experts from UBU (Henrik Bregnhøj), IGF and JGVK and by 2 groups of students from DTU who
have been on the study area four months each.
The awareness of the local people about the Arsenic problem has been met trough activities like
village meetings, the measurement of Arsenic in private tube wells, the creation of posters and the
performance of a drama in local fairs. These activities have been mainly carried out by the field
workers, due to their knowledge of the local language (Bengali) and culture.
The implementation of solutions has been possible only after that a certain degree of skills in the
organizations and awareness in the local people has been created. The implemented solutions before
the start of the Community plant project had mainly been the measurement of wells and switching
to safe ones and the pilot implementation of household filters. These activities have been carried out
by the field workers in collaboration with DTU students.
More detailed information about the Arsenic project can be retrieved from the UBU web site,
www.ubu.dk, and from the thesis that have been written by the DTU students who preceded the
authors in West Bengal:
• “Household Dearsenation in North 24-Parganas, India”, by Patricia Benito and Ashley
Meek;
• “Arsenic contamination in North 24 Parganas – Mapping and capacity building”, by Julien
Gauthier;
• “Participatory tools in management of Arsenic contamination in North 24 Paraganas”, by
Kathrine Thyø and Michael Andersen.
14
1.2 This project: The Community Plant Project

The community plant project carried out by the authors has been thought as a part of the Arsenic
project. It is a natural follow up the project and it relates with all its three objectives (capacity
development, creation of awareness and implementation of solutions). It has taken great advantages
by the work that has been previously done by the other students and by the field workers.
The two authors have spent the period from the 22nd of February to the 4th of June 2005 in the study
area, and the result of their work there is the present Master Thesis. The Term of References of the
project, written by the authors before the departure to West Bengal, is given in Appendix U.
1.2.1 The objectives

The two main objectives of this thesis are:
1. Explore the feasibility and sustainability of a community plant as a solution to the

Arsenic problem implementing a pilot plant in West Bengal, India.
2. Capacity building of the involved organizations.
The feasibility of a Community plant has been evaluated according to the water quality, the water
quantity and the used materials. The unit should provide water with an As concentration lower than
the Indian limit of 50 µg/L, and possibly lower than the WHO guideline of 10 µg/L. The Iron
content should be reduced under the WHO guideline of 0,3 mg/L and the treatment should not
increase the risk for bacterial contamination. Furthermore the plant should provide enough water for
drinking and cooking to a group of 10 to 20 families and it should be built only using locally
available materials and skills.
The capacity building of the local CBOs has been evaluated by analyzing the workers capacities
and their contribution to the plant design and construction, their ability to maintain the plant and to
reply the entire process in other areas.
The two objectives are linked together, as the capacity development of the local CBOs is a key
factor for the sustainability of the project.
15
Chapter 2. Theory
2 Theory
The following paragraphs give an overview of the theoretical aspects of the project. A review of the
Arsenic health effects and chemistry, Arsenic and Iron removal and a review about the Participatory
approach are given.
2.1 Arsenic
2.1.1 Health effects

Arsenic is a toxic element that can cause acute or chronic poisoning depending on the dose that has
been inhaled or ingested. There is little adsorption of Arsenic through the skin, and therefore skin
contact, through bathing for instance, with Arsenic contaminated water is not a threat for health
[WHO, 2005]. Chronic poisoning is observed after long term ingestion of inorganic Arsenic
contaminated water, whereas organic Arsenic, mainly present in seafood, is not harmful for health
and is eliminated by the body [WHO, 2005].
The first guideline for drinking water quality was established by the World Health Organization in
1958, and a maximum Arsenic concentration of 20 mg/L was agreed on. This limit value was then
reduced to 50 µg/L in 1984, and then finally to 10 µg/L in the latest edition of the WHO guideline
for drinking water quality in 1993 [WHO, 2005].
The poisonous effects of Arsenic are commonly grouped under the term Arsenicosis. After long
term exposure to Arsenic, the first signs of Arsenicosis are usually skin lesions, such as hyper-
pigmentation (occurrence of black spots), hypo-pigmentation (occurrence of white spots) and
hyperkeratosis (see Figure 5), of which the characteristic is thickening of the skin. Other non
carcinogenic effects of Arsenic ingestion are gastrointestinal irritations, peripheral neuropathy and
vascular dysfunctions. Chronic exposure can finally lead to various types of cancers, such as skin
cancers, liver, lungs or bladder cancers and eventually cause death.
16
Chapter 2. Theory
Figure 5. Hyperkeratosis of the palms and feet.
The effect of Arsenic on human health depends on individuals, population groups and geographic
areas and on various external factors, therefore the symptoms of Arsenic are difficult to define
clearly [WHO, 2005]. People having a bad nutrition for instance are more likely to be affected by
Arsenicosis. As a matter of fact, a sufficient intake of vitamins and proteins contribute to the
process of methylation of Arsenic in the body and therefore its elimination. Since nutrition depends
of the level of income of a family, poor households are also more exposed to Arsenicosis.
2.1.2 Arsenic chemistry

Arsenic naturally found in water is both organic and inorganic. The inorganic form occurs in the
soil and in the rocks; it comes mainly from the dissolution of solid phases like arsenopirite,
arsenolite (As2O3), Arsenic hydride (As2O5) and realgar (As2S2) [Cheng et al., 1994].
Inorganic Arsenic may exist in the water under different oxidation states; the thermodynamically
stable form depends on the pH and redox potential. The two major forms are arsenate [As (V)] and
arsenite [As (III)]. Inorganic Arsenic is more toxic than organic Arsenic, and arsenite is estimated
to be 10 times more toxic than arsenate.
Arsenate is present in aqueous solution as H3AsO4, H2AsO4- (predominates at pH<7), HAsO42-

(predominates in the range of pH 7-11,5 so likely to be present in surface water) and AsO+3- .
Arsenite is present under reducing condition, for example in anaerobic groundwater. It occurs
17
Chapter 2. Theory
mainly in aqueous solution as H3AsO3, the associated weak acid is predominant from pH 2 to pH
9 [Cheng et al., 1994]. The following diagram (Figure 6) gives an overview of the Arsenic forms
according to the pH and redox potential of the water.
Figure 6. Eh-pH diagram of the Arsenic forms [REF].
It can be observed that while arsenite is present as a negatively charged ion, arsenate is charged
only at pH higher than 9. This is a crucial for most Arsenic removal technologies, as the charged
arsenite is much easier to remove (through adsorption or co-precipitation) than arsenate.
18
Chapter 2. Theory
2.2 Solutions to Arsenic

Arsenic is a threat for health and therefore people have to avoid drinking Arsenic contaminated
water. Various possibilities are available to achieve this purpose. For instance, Arsenic removal
methods are an alternative to get Arsenic free water. Another one is to avoid contaminated sources,
by choosing a safe drinking water source.
2.2.1 Removal processes

The main source of drinking water in West Bengal is groundwater, mainly because it is free from
pathogenic micro-organisms and available in adequate quantities. Groundwater available from
shallow tube well may nevertheless be contaminated with Arsenic, and therefore such tube wells’
water can only be used for drinking purposes after treatment.
Various removal processes exist, the most important are: co-precipitation, adsorption, membrane
techniques and ion exchange. The two latest, due to their high cost and level of qualification
required for operation and maintenance [USEPA, 2002] are not adapted to developing countries,
therefore only adsorption and co-precipitation processes will be dealt with in the following.
2.2.1.1 Co-precipitation
Co-precipitation is one of the most used methods to treat water contaminated with Arsenic. The
efficiency of the process is high and Arsenic effluent concentration lower than 50 ppb are usually
met. In some cases the Arsenic concentration can be reduced under 10 ppb [US EPA, 2002].
Co-precipitation is based on the use of chemicals (metal salts) that form flocs in the water and to
whom Arsenic is sorbed. The first step is therefore the addition of a coagulant to the water, and a
strong mixing for one or two minutes. The formation of larger flocs is then performed by a gentle
stirring of the water for few more minutes.
The most used coagulants in developing countries are [Ahmed, 2002].

• Ferric salts (ferric chloride, FeCl3, or ferric sulphate, Fe2(SO4)3)
• Alum (aluminum hydroxide, Al2(SO4)3·18H2O )
Arsenic is removed through three main processes [Johnston and Heijnen, 2001]:
• Precipitation
• Co-precipitation
19
Chapter 2. Theory
• Adsorption
Note that in this paper the term “co-precipitation” is used to describe all of them.
Arsenic may precipitate by itself (precipitation as an insoluble compound as Al(AsO4) or

Fe(AsO4)), but it is mainly incorporated into a growing metal hydroxide floc (co-precipitation) or
adsorbed onto the surface of formed flocs by means of electrostatic forces (adsorption). Trivalent
Arsenic occurs in a non ionized form (H3AsO3) and thus it is not significantly removed. A pre-
oxidation step to oxidise Arsenic to its pentavalent specie (H2AsO4-) is therefore recommended
[Ahmed, 2002].
The solid phase containing Arsenic can be separated from the water with a combination of the
processes of sedimentation and filtration [Ahmed, 2002].
A list of advantages and disadvantages of co-precipitation techniques is given below in Table 1.
Table 1. Advantages and disadvantages of co-precipitation designs

Advantages Disadvantages
Cheap Daily time/work consuming operations
Proven technology Production of sludge
Remove Iron as well Risk of residual Aluminum in treated water
(when alum is used)
Chemicals are locally available Cleaning of the sand filter (if used)
20
Chapter 2. Theory
2.2.1.2 Adsorption
Adsorption is the technique that has been chosen for the design of the community plants
implemented during this pilot project. They are detailed in the following.
Adsorption processes
Technologies based on adsorption of a pollutant onto a sorptive media are commonly used to
remove the Arsenic present in groundwater. They can typically reduce Arsenic concentrations to
less than 50 ppb and in some cases has reduced Arsenic concentrations below 10 ppb [USEPA,
2002].
Adsorption consists in a mass transfer from a liquid to a solid phase, whereby the dissolved
contaminants are adsorbed onto a sorptive surface. The principle of adhesion of those materials to
the medium’s surface is a combination of electro-chemical forces. The sorptive medium has the role
of a filter, usually packed in a column, through which the contaminated water flows. The intensity
of the flow through the column and its dimension determine the hydraulic retention time. The later
should be sufficient so as to ensure the desired degree of removal of the contaminant. When
adsorption sites become filled, that is when breakthrough of the column has been reached; the
sorbent must be regenerated or disposed of and replaced by new media [USEPA, 2002]. A model of
adsorption kinetics based on isotherms is given in Appendix J.
Several media are available for Arsenic adsorption. They are mainly activated alumina, activated
carbon, activated bauxite, iron coated sand, granular ferric hydroxides, kaolinite clay, titanium
oxide, silicium oxide and other synthetic media. These different sorbents may have different
efficiencies and costs. Some criteria can be used for the selection of the appropriate sorbent for
Arsenic removal by adsorption. They are for instance the cost of the medium and local availability,
the ease of operation and handling, the capacity of the adsorbent, the potential reuse of the
adsorbent or the possibility of regenerating the sorbent [Saha et al]. While implementing the project
“Community Plant for Arsenic Removal from Water in West Bengal”, it was believed, for
sustainability reasons, that the most important criteria was the local availability of the sorbent.
Based on this consideration, activated alumina and activated carbon were chosen as potential
adsorbents to be used in the project. Experiments conducted by the authors prior to the project
implementation in West Bengal, nevertheless concluded the higher efficiency of Activated Alumina
21
Chapter 2. Theory
for Arsenic removal [Barbieri and Essert, 2005], which was therefore selected as the appropriate
sorbent.
One of the advantages (see Table 2 for a list of advantages and disadvantages of adsorption) of the
adsorption method compared to the co-precipitation one is that it can be introduced easily at the
household or at the community level. In addition of being very efficient at removing Arsenic, such
systems are usually more simple systems, which are easy to use, because they do not require any
chemical addition, alike for co-precipitation methods. Adsorption processes are also less time
consuming than co-precipitation ones, where chemicals have to be mixed and time has to be
allowed for sedimentation of the Arsenic co-precipitated flocs. Finally, the problems raised by
sludge production in co-precipitation methods are avoided in adsorption. There are nevertheless a
couple of disadvantages, mainly because of the regeneration of activated alumina that has to be
performed by trained person and that generate liquid toxic waste. Moreover, adsorption
technologies require a regular monitoring of the breakthrough, which also needs people trained in
Arsenic measurement, and can not be achieved by the beneficiaries them selves.
Table 2. Advantages and disadvantages of adsorption (AA) designs

Proven and efficient technology AA is not always locally available
No use of chemicals AA needs to be regenerated
Water is always available Regeneration produces toxic waste
No production of daily sludge High cost
Less work/time consuming Monitoring is necessary to determine
breakthrough
It may be necessary to add chemicals to oxidize
As(III) to As(V)
Iron has to be removed before, otherwise it may
clog the media
Activated Alumina
Activated alumina (see Figure 7) is the most commonly used sorbent for Arsenic removal [USEPA,
2002]. It is granular Aluminum oxide Al2O3.
22
Chapter 2. Theory
The adsorption capacity of the activated alumina depends on the contaminant inlet concentration
and on the flow rate through the column. It ranges from 0,003 to 0,112 grams of Arsenic per gram
of activated alumina [US EPA, 2002]. Activated alumina has proven to be able to treat hundreds of
bed volumes before to reach breakthrough, and therefore household or community filters based on
adsorption with activated alumina can be operated for months before activated alumina need to be
changed.
Figure 7. Activated Alumina used in the project.
The efficiency of activated alumina for the removal of Arsenic depends on several factors, which
are listed below [USEPA, 2000].
Arsenic oxidation state: As for many Arsenic removal processes, arsenate As (V) is more
efficiently removed than arsenite As (III). Actually, As (V) is under most pH conditions present
under a negative ionic form, whereas As (III) is usually present under a non ionic form (see
Figure 6). Activated alumina being positively charged, Arsenic anionic species are more likely to
be adsorbed than the non ionic one, explaining the higher affinity of activated alumina for
arsenate than arsenite [Lin and Wu, 2000]. Nevertheless studies conducted at the Bengal
Engineering College indicate that As (III) can be removed effectively by activated alumina
[Mugdal].
pH: pH is a strong factor in the adsorption of Arsenic species on activated alumina grains.
Arsenic is more efficiently adsorbed for acidic pH than for alkaline ones. It is reported that
23
Chapter 2. Theory
removal of Arsenic (V) and Arsenic (III) can be achieved between the p H range from 4 to 7
[Gupta and Chen, 1978]. Nevertheless the capacity of activated alumina to adsorb Arsenic species
is best in the narrow range 5,5 to 6, when the surfaces of activated alumina are protonated. Above
pH 8,5, activated alumina capacity is reduced to 2 to 5 % of it s optimal capacity [Johnston and
Heijnen, 2001].
Flow rate: increasing flow rates reduces the contact time between the adsorbent and the
contaminant thus leading to decreasing removal efficiencies.
Fouling: Fouling, due to the presence of suspended solids or iron in the feed water,
decreases the efficiency of the activated alumina. Iron that is dissolved in groundwater
precipitates when the water is oxygenated. These iron solid particles are likely to foul the
activated alumina bed by attaching the surface of activated alumina and clogging the pores of the
bed. The result is a deterioration of the activated alumina, as well as a reduction of the flow
through the bed [Jalil and Ahmed]. Iron has therefore to be removed from the water prior to its
passage through activated alumina bed. Nevertheless iron is also beneficial to the Arsenic removal
process since Arsenic can be removed simultaneously with iron. A pretreatment of the iron rich
water using for instance sand filtration would therefore also remove part of the Arsenic [Jalil and
Ahmed].
Competing ions: A competition for adsorption on activated alumina exists between the
various ions co-existing in the water. Activated alumina appears nevertheless to have a higher
affinity for arsenate than for other ions present in the water. Particularly, experiments conducted
with increasing concentrations of sulfate or chloride ions did not show any significant impact on
Arsenic removal by activated alumina [USEPA, 2000]. The following selectivity sequence has
been reported for pH comprised between 5, 5 and 8, 5 [Jalil and Ahmed]:
OH->H2AsO4->Si(OH)3O->HSeO3->F-> SO42->CrO4 2- >>Cl->NO3-
Regeneration: when saturated, activated alumina has to be regenerated. Regeneration is

usually performed using a solution of a 4 % NaOH, which displaces Arsenic from the activated
alumina surface, followed by neutralization with a strong acid, usually 2%H2SO4. About 5 to 10
% activated alumina is lost during the process and the capacity of the medium is reduced by 30 to
40 %. It is therefore recommended to change the medium after 3 to 4 regenerations [Ahmed,
24
Chapter 2. Theory
2002]. This operation is relatively difficult and has to be done by skilled manpower. Moreover it
generates an Arsenic rich waste that has to be handled carefully.
2.2.2 Removal technologies

Co-precipitations and adsorption processes are the most used methods for treating Arsenic
contaminated groundwater. They have proved their efficiency when practically applied at the
household level or at the community level to provide safe water for the community. These two
types of solutions to the Arsenic problem will be dealt with in the following.
2.2.2.1 Household filters

Household filters are small units that are designed to treat the water at home, usually for one single
family. They can be adapted to a wide panel of water treatment processes such as disinfection,
filtration, coagulation and co-precipitation, adsorption, membrane filtration or ion exchange for
instance. Removal of Arsenic, iron or microorganisms can be performed by household filters.
Some advantages and disadvantages of household units are given in Table 3.
Alike any water treatment technology, awareness campaigns are necessary in order to sensitize the
user to the need to use the technology, and therefore motivate and train the water manager to
perform the daily operations that are required. Moreover, operation and maintenance represent an
extra workload for the user, usually the woman who already has many house chores to do, and
therefore these tasks are a threat to the sustainability of the household filters. Thus, the workload
generated by maintenance and operation should not be heavy.
The performances of the household units have to be monitored on the long term so as to be sure the
users are actually getting good quality water. This is a difficult task, giving the fact that household
filters are individual solutions, meaning that the authority responsible for the distribution of the
filters would have to perform monitoring house by house. Another difficult task is that the same
authority has to ensure the distribution of the necessary chemicals for operation of the systems. On
the other hand the individual character of this approach to deal with water contamination also leads
to a greater sustainability. Actually paying for their own technology, the beneficiaries are likely to
develop a feeling of ownership, and therefore they should be more motivated into accomplishing
maintenance and operation.
In the scope of the project, "Local Management of the Arsenic Contaminated Drinking Water in
West Bengal" , household filters have been introduced by DTU students in collaboration with 3
25
Chapter 2. Theory
local CBOs in 34 households in three villages of West Bengal, India, with the aim of providing
sustainable solutions to the Arsenic problem in this specific area. The technologies were based on
co-precipitation processes, and were built using locally available materials [Meek and Benito,
2004]. This also helped to maintain the costs of the unit affordable in localities where economic
conditions are scarce.
One of the objectives of the project was the capacity building of the three CBOs. CBO workers now
possess the necessary skills to carry out awareness campaigns by them selves, to build and install
household units for the potential beneficiaries, to train the users on maintenance and operation.
They also ensure the distribution of the chemicals to the beneficiaries as well as the collection of
running costs, and are also responsible for the monitoring activities of the efficiency of the units
[Meek and Benito, 2004]. Some of the threats to the sustainability of household filters
implementation have therefore been eliminated. Nevertheless, the heavy workload that is required
to treat the water poses some problems, and meetings conducted by the CBO workers revealed that
potential beneficiaries would be interested in less time consuming technologies, even if more
expensive.
Table 3. Advantages and disadvantages of household treatment units.

Low Initial cost Difficult to control and monitor
Sense of ownership Risk of bacterial contamination
Flexible use Effective only as a short term solution
Easy to operate and maintain Some filter are breakable
2.2.2.2 Community plants

Community plants are treatments units that can provide safe water for more than one family, usually
from ten to hundreds of families of a same village or area. Alike the household units they are based
on such processes like filtration, adsorption, co-precipitation, ion exchange or membrane filtration.
Community plants are interesting because they offer the possibility to treat large a amount of water
for many people. In fact installing a community plant in a village can be seen as a rapid and easy
solution to provide safe water to a whole community. To be successful, community plants should be
26
Chapter 2. Theory
the easiest accessible safe water source, and not too far away from the users´ houses [Bregnhøj,
1997]. It is also believed that it is easier to motivate people to walk a little longer than to do extra
work to get safe water [Bregnhøj, 1997].
Community solutions have not been yet proved successful in West Bengal [Jalil and Ahmed],
mainly because of the poor attention that has been paid to the organizational aspects that need to be
taken into consideration when implementing a community based solution. Actually, the
implementation of a community based treatment plant requires higher organizational setups than
household filters. The collection of money for operation and maintenance of the plant has to be
organized for several households, and care has to be taken that all the beneficiaries involved have
the same commitment towards the payment of these costs. The sharing of the responsibilities is also
at stake in community based solutions. Contrary to the household filters where the feeling of
ownership of the technology is more acute, people sharing a community plant are more likely to pay
less attention to the maintenance of the technology, or even would not take the responsibility of it.
The various tasks to perform have to be clearly established and shared between the stakeholders.
Another solution is to hire a caretaker for the plant. In any case, operation and maintenance of such
units should be easy to learn, perform and remember for those using the plant.
It is an advantage regarding sustainability that the people who have been designed to take
responsibilities are likely to perform their duties regarding the community treatment unit, because
of pressure from the rest of the group. Finally, organizing people around a common goal of treating
their water generates good conditions for awareness development.
Some community based solutions implemented in West Bengal are described in Appendix F, while
a table listing of advantages and disadvantages of community plants is given below.
Table 4. Advantages and disadvantages of a community plant

Easy to control and monitor High initial cost
Serve a large number of people More complex construction
Low running costs Needs of regular O&M
Effective as a long term solution Less sense of ownership
Prestige in the community where it is built Organization of O&M
Optimized process
27
Chapter 2. Theory
2.2.3 Safe sources of water

An alternative to treatment of the Arsenic contaminated water is to shift from the contaminated
water source to a safe one. Three main sources of water are available for drinking purposes in West
Bengal; they are groundwater, surface water and rain water. Shifting to a safe groundwater source is
usually the more accepted alternative, because it does not imply a big change in the habits, such as a
shift to surface or rain water. Rain water harvesting and use of surface water have not been widely
used in West Bengal and are described in Appendix D and E.
Groundwater
Groundwater, because it is free from pathogen microorganisms, is the main drinking water source in
West Bengal. When Arsenic is present, however, groundwater from tubewells cannot be considered
safe.
Other groundwater sources should be chosen for those having Arsenic in their tube well, and the
following options are available:
Safe shallow or very shallow tube wells
Dug wells: they are manually dug wells at depth varying between 10 to 30 meters and of at
least 1, 2 meter diameter. It is believed that the oxidizing conditions in dug wells are
responsible for precipitation of dissolved Arsenic and iron. Moreover, replenishment of the
shallow aquifer by fresh infiltrating water leads to lower Arsenic concentration in the dug
wells [Ahmed, 2001].
Deep Tube Wells: they are wells dug at depth higher than 100 meters (see Figure 8), and
are usually installed by the water authorities –in west Bengal the Public Health Engineering
Department PHED and Rural Water Supply Scheme RWSC- due to the high technical skills
and huge installation costs that they represent. The nature of the geological layer and the
reducing conditions at high depth can explain the Arsenic free character of the deep waters
[Ahmed, 2001]. Some of the deep aquifers may nevertheless be contaminated when no
permeable material, like clay, separates the shallow contaminated aquifer from the deep
aquifer. In these cases, a risk of percolation from the shallow aquifer to the deep one may
occur [Ahmed, 2001].
28
Chapter 2. Theory
Figure 8. Schematized soil structure in Gaighata block [Gaulthier, 2004]. The first and the second aquifer are
usually Arsenic contaminated, while the third one is Arsenic free.
Surface water
Surface water can be collected from pounds, rivers and lakes. In North 24 Parganas , the available
surface water resource is huge, because of the numerous rivers, wetlands, or pounds [Rahman et Al.
2003]. Surface water is used most commonly for cleaning and bathing purposes. The high amount
of pathogenic organisms in surface water makes it unsuitable for drinking purposes unless it is
treated. The available options for surface water treatments are [Ahmed, 2001]:
Pound sand filters
Infiltration gallery
Household filters
More details can be found in appendix D.
Rain water
Rain water is another alternative to get Arsenic free water. The annual rainfall in North 24 Parganas
is 2000 mm, but it is not evenly distributed over the year. Therefore rainwater can be a reasonable
source for drinking purposes only during the rainy season. Rainwater harvesting consist in the
collection of the rain water from the roofs by some gutters that further divert it into storage tanks. It
requires clean roofs from good quality, usually metal, concrete or tiled roofs, which may not always
be available in poor rural areas. The non even distribution of the rainfall requires the storage of the
collected water in tanks. This may nevertheless be responsible for bacterial contamination, and
special care has to be given to the cleaning and disinfection of these tanks [Ahmed, 2001]. More
details about design of the rainwater harvesting systems can be found in appendix E.
29
Chapter 2. Theory
2.3 Iron
Iron has not a toxic effect, but it imparts a bad taste, smell and color to the water. An increase of
53% of diarrhoeal diseases has been observed in iron problem area compared to non-iron problem
area in Bangladesh, because people in these areas is more incline to use unsafe surface water
[Ahmed, 2003]. The WHO has therefore suggested a guideline value for iron of 0,3 mg/L and a
maximum limit of 1 mg/L is recommended in Bangladesh standards [Ahmed, 2003].
Iron in groundwater in the Bengal Delta area is caused by the dissolution of iron-bearing rocks and
minerals in reducing aquifers. It is found in its trivalent form, Fe3+, which is highly soluble, very
often in combination with Arsenic. Iron is present in very high concentration, i.e. about 67% of
shallow tube wells in Bangladesh have iron content higher than 2 mg/L [Ahmed, 2003]. The
presence of iron in the study area has been investigated by Julien Gauthier, showing concentrations
ranging from 0 to 5 mg/L in shallow tube wells and confirming the absence of iron in deep tube
wells [Gauthier, 2004].
The iron concentration has been considered as a crucial parameter to evaluate the plant
performances regarding water quality, and the goal of a final concentration under the 0,3 mg/L
WHO limit has been set. Activated alumina filters, which have been finally chosen for the design,
require the removal of iron as preliminary step in order not to clog the filter with iron precipitates.
Furthermore it has been found that Arsenic can be removed together with iron. The iron removal
step therefore reduces the Arsenic load to the activate alumina filter, reducing the frequency of
regeneration of the media.
The following paragraph gives a brief review of two Iron removal principles and techniques:
physical-chemical Iron removal and biological Iron removal.
2.3.1 Physical-chemical Iron removal

Iron can be removed both by chemical and biological processes, but at pH higher than 7-7,5 and
high oxygen concentrations, the chemical removal dominates (see Figure 11). The iron chemical
removal is a combination of two mechanisms [Arvin, 2004]:
1. Homogeneous oxidation – floc formation
2. Adsorption – oxidation
30
Chapter 2. Theory
According to the first mechanism, the first step is a homogeneous oxidation of Fe2+ to Fe3+. This
step is often performed by means of a simple aeration of the water, but if iron is bounded with
organic substances, the addition of a strong oxidant may be necessary to achieve a complete
oxidation. Fe3+ is non soluble in water and it forms flocs of ferric hydroxide that can be easily
removed by sedimentation and/or sand filtration (see Figure 9) [Arvin, 2004], [Ahmed, 2003]. The
equation describing this mechanism is the following:
-
Fe2+ + 1/4 O2 + 2 HCO3 + 1/2 H2O Æ Fe(OH)3+ 2 CO2
The second mechanisms consist of a heterogeneous oxidation of Fe2+ on previously oxidized iron
hydroxide material adsorbed on the surface of the sand grains. At pH of 7 and Iron concentration of
1-3 mg/L, as found in the study area, the two mechanisms have comparable kinetic rates. Figure 9
visually shows the two removal mechanisms.
Figure 9. The two mechanisms of chemical iron removal [Arvin, 2004]
When the iron hydroxides are removed by filtration, the suggested particle size for the sand filter
with an influent of 1-3 mg Fe/L is between 1-3 mm [Arvin, 2004], [Ahmed, 2003]. The sand filter
needs regular backwash to avoid clogging. A sand filter may remove 0,8 kg Fe /m2 before
backwashing [Arvin, 2004].
2.3.2 Biological Iron & Arsenic removal

The biological iron removal is performed by a group of iron oxidizing bacteria (Gallionella
ferruginea, Sphaerotilus-Leptothrix group, see Figure 10). It dominates only in a narrow range of
redox conditions and pH, as shown in Figure 11. One of its advantages is the formation of a less
dense sludge, and thus the possibility of reducing the backwash frequency. A second advantage of
31
Chapter 2. Theory
the biological removal is its catalytic nature that causes a very rapid oxidation of iron. The
oxidation and filtration steps can be therefore combined in a single reactor [Mouchet, 1992].
Figure 10. Micrographs of Iron oxidizing bacteria, from [Katsoyannis, 2003].
It has been proven that Arsenic is adsorbed on the iron flocs produced during chemical iron
oxidation. However only As(V), that is present as charged compounds (H2AsO4-, HAsO42-), can be
efficiently removed [Sharma, 2004]. An analyses of some Iron removing plants in Bangladesh, has
shown a simultaneous Iron and Arsenic removal which is usually enough to reach the Indian limit
of 50 µg/L As, but not the WHO guideline of 10 µg/L [Sharma, 2004].
A recent study [Katsoyannis, 2004] has proven that the biological iron removal can be used to
biologically remove both trivalent and pentavalent forms of Arsenic, because bacteria are able to
catalyze the oxidation of As(III) to As(V). During this study groundwater with an As(III) influent of
200-250 µg/L and iron content of 2.8 mg/L, at pH 7.2, has been treated down to less than 10 µg/L
As, with an efficiency higher than 90%. The treatment method was very simple: an aeration to raise
the dissolved oxygen to 3.7 mg/L and a filtration in a column filled with polystyrenes beads (beads
diameter 3-4 mm), with a residence time of just 7.3 minutes. Further experiments and analyses have
proven the presence of iron oxidizing bacteria and their role in the Arsenic removal [Katsoyannis,
2004].
The only difficulty of such a removal mechanism is the necessity to ensure optimum redox and pH
conditions. It has however many advantages, i.e. a low cost and the fact that no chemicals are used.
This technique is therefore very promising for application in a developing country such as West
Bengal.
32
Chapter 2. Theory
Figure 11. pH-Eh diagram showing the optimum conditions for biological and chemical iron removal from
[Mouchet, 1992].
33
Chapter 2. Theory
2.4 Community involvement

Community involvement is a crucial contribution to the sustainability of a project. It is believed that
the needs of the end users of a facility will be better addressed and their feeling of ownership
enhanced when local knowledge and experience are incorporated in a project [Ahmed and Rahman,
2003]. This can be achieved by ensuring that the community takes part in the decision making
process, and thus it should be given the necessary information, knowledge and tools that will enable
them to have a better understanding of the situation and to carry out appropriate decisions or
actions.
A favorable context for community involvement in water projects can be created by the main
following strategies [Ahmed and Rahman, 2003]. These issues are dealt with in the following of
this chapter:
Building the capacity at of the involved CBOs, institutions or end users to deal effectively
with water problems.
Ensuring the participation of users in various steps of the project – planning, development,
operation and maintenance – through local government and/or community based
organization.
Developing the water supply sector through local bodies, CBOs or women groups involving
local women.
2.4.1 Capacity building
Capacity building, also referred to as capacity development, is a relatively new concept in the field
of development. It emerged in the 1980s [Lusthaus et al. 1999] in reaction to the lack of results of
the earlier development initiatives mostly based on technical cooperation, that were often donor
driven, creating a dependence from the community to the donor, thus leading to minimal local
ownership of the development process and to unsustainability [UNDP, 1995]. The need for the
people to participate actively in their own development was therefore at stake, and gave birth to the
concept of capacity development.
Capacity is defined by the UNDP [UNDP, 1995] as “the ability of actors (individuals, groups,
organizations, institutions, countries) to perform specified functions (or pursue specified objectives)
effectively, efficiently and sustainably”. The term “Capacity” includes the elements which determine
effectiveness of the actors, who are mainly individuals, organizations and institutions. For an
34
Chapter 2. Theory
individual, for instance they can be knowledge, motivation and discipline. For an organization or an
institution these elements would be its resources (staff, funds and equipments) and its management
(leadership, networking, project management etc). The capacity of the actors to achieve their goals
is depending upon the environment, and can be enhanced or restricted by laws, regulations or the
social and cultural context [Horton et al, 2003].
The definition of the UNDP of capacity development is then given in the following terms “Capacity
development refers to the efforts by actors themselves or others to enhance their ability to achieve
their objectives or perform their functions more effectively, efficiently and sustainably” [UNDP,
1995]. It should be noted that capacity development is focusing on the actors, but includes as well
their environment which influence on the capacity. Capacity development can be achieved by the
means of formal projects essentially focused on this objective, but can also takes place as an
ongoing process during the implementation of a project, for instance when learning by doing or
participation of the people are integrated into the project. The activities carried out to achieve
capacity development in the community plant project are described in section 5.2.
Different levels of capacity building exist, given that individuals, organization or institutions are
targeted at. Thus, different approaches to capacity building have been developed. They are the
organizational approach, focusing on the development of organizations, the institutional approach,
focusing on the development of institutional structures and the participatory approach [Lusthaus et
al. 1999]. This approach focusing on empowerment and ownership through active participation is
dealt with in the following section 3.4.2.
Any capacity building activity needs monitoring and evaluation. Evaluations are carried out for
various reasons and are aiming at different audiences. A common reason for monitoring and
evaluating capacity building is checking that capacity building activities are eventually leading to
improved performances [Horton et al, 2003]. Based on the result of the evaluations, a new plan of
activities for capacity development could be established for achieving, if necessary, an
improvement in performances. Monitoring is an on going process that is achieved all along the
project implementation by continuous observations and checking of activities results. Evaluation is
an assessment at a given moment of the project implementation, often at the end of the project, of
the quality of an activity, or of the project as a whole [Horton et al, 2003]. A monitoring and
evaluation program has to be well planned, particularly, it should be decided by whom it should be
performed and to whom it is addressed. Capacities to be developed and evaluated have to be
35
Chapter 2. Theory
defined as well; they are the objectives that one wants to fulfil by capacity building activities.
Finally, tools should be used for the monitoring and evaluation. They can be for instance direct
observation of the organizations’ activities, quizzes, review of generated documents, discussions
with individuals representing certain groups of interest or self assessment evaluations [Horton et al,
2003]. Some of these tools are used for evaluation of capacity development in the community plant
project (see section 5.3).
2.4.2 The participatory approach

A report analyzing 259 Arsenic Removal Plants in North-24 Parganas [SOESJU, 2003] has
concluded that only 12% are still properly working. The main reason of such a high failure rate is
usually a lack of proper operation and maintenance (O&M). A certain amount of work or capital is
always necessary in order to keep in good conditions the built infrastructure on a long term basis.
I.e. a sand filter needs regular backwashing to avoid clogging, or activated alumina needs a costly
regeneration or replacement after saturation. If these activities are not regularly carried out, the
resulting breakdowns will finally lead to abandonment of the infrastructure [Bregnhøj, 2004b].
The absence of proper O&M can be linked to insufficient management capacity, inadequate
financing systems, absence of suitable equipment, improper gender balance in the project or
inappropriate technology and design [Bregnhøj, 2004b].
Community participation directly aims at solving these problems, thus increasing the effectiveness
and long term sustainability of a project. It is difficult to prove the effectiveness of community
participation, as a great number of projects over a long time should be reviewed. The World Bank
has carried out two studies [Narayan, 1995], [Katz & Sara, 1997] comparing participatory and
demand response projects to projects with no or minimal participation. Both studies found a
positive impact of participatory approach on sustainability.
It is not easy to define participation, and here a list of common features between rural water supply
participatory projects is given, as suggested in [Kleemeier, 2000]. The points are presented in
chronological order, from the start of a project to its end.
1. Meetings to explain the project before it begins; the community has the right to refuse it.
2. A contract specifying community’s and project’s responsibilities is signed.
3. A User Committee is formed, with design and construction responsibilities.
4. Simple technologies are chosen (hand pumps, gravity schemes, protected springs…).
36
Chapter 2. Theory
5. The same committee or a new one assumes O&M responsibilities.

6. Community upfront cash collection (to contribute to capital costs and/or O&M costs).
7. The community provides free labor and other materials.
8. Management and book-keeping training is provided to committee members; management
procedures are established.
9. Technical trainings and tools are provided to local repair teams.
10. Hand over of a ceremony.
11. A staff of community mobilizers carries out the above activities.
The Arsenic project and the Community plant project are using the participatory approach, therefore
this list suits well their activities. The Community plant project in particular has seen the necessity
of organizing together a large group of people in order to form a Plant Committee, and this has been
possible thanks to creation of Self Help Groups by the local CBOs during the previous months.
It can be concluded that an important goal of any participatory project is to strengthen the
community. The capacities developed by the community during the project are useful on a number
of activities besides the RWS project. They can i.e. help people taking control of resources,
organizing themselves in groups that can be used for pressure on political leadership, or drive
structural changes in order to increase their power and life quality [Therkildsen, 1988]
2.4.3 Self Help Groups

Self Help Groups have been introduced in the study area by the local CBOs, as a way to involve the
community in the Arsenic project and to raise the economic conditions of the population. A SHG is
usually formed by 10-12 women, each representing one family. As the average members per family
are between 6 and 7 [Meek and Benito, 2004], a group of 60-70 persons usually living close to each
other is thus represented by each group. The main activity of a SHG is collection of money from the
members. The saved funds are then given back when a loan is requested by a member and approved
by all the others. Loans are usually asked to start small productive activities, and are an efficient
way to provide with financial support the rural populations, which has otherwise no access to banks.
SHGs meet (see Figure 12) every month to collect money and give loans, but any other problem
relevant to the group may be discussed during meetings. Topics such as Arsenic health effects or
Arsenic removal techniques have been introduced by the field workers and DTU students. The
creation of SHGs has become therefore a way to spread the knowledge about the Arsenic problem.
37
Chapter 2. Theory
Figure 12. A Self Help Group meeting with the authors.
The further step is to use SHGs for other activities linked to the Arsenic project. I.e. a SHG may be
instructed in the production of household filters, which should be possibly sold with a profit. During
this project a SHG has been selected as beneficiary of a community plant, as the organizational
skills necessary to manage the O&M of the plant are much easier to be taught to an already
organized group of people.
38
Chapter 3. Community Plant Pilot Implementation
3 Community Plant Pilot Implementation

In the following paragraphs the activities that were carried out in West Bengal during the project
“Community Plant for Arsenic Removal from Water in West Bengal” are described. Some
preliminary experiments were necessary to find design parameters. Their setting-up and results are
described in paragraph 3.1. The selection of beneficiaries is a preliminary activity as well, and its
methodology and results are presented in paragraph 3.2. The real plant implementation, including
the choice of design, the construction of the plant and the organization of operation and
maintenance is described in paragraph 3.3. Paragraph 3.4 gives the results of the plant
implementation, including a costs evaluation, plant performances and beneficiaries’ satisfaction.
3.1 Experiments
Experiments where carried out in the field, so as to understand better the principles of Arsenic and
iron removal by sand filtration and adsorption processes. Bacteriological experiments were also
carried out by Marie Bourgoin during the pilot project implementation [Bourgoin, 2005].
3.1.1 Arsenic
Various experiments on Arsenic removal by adsorption with activated alumina were performed in
order to mimic on the small scale the Arsenic removal processes that may occur in an Arsenic
removal community plant. These experiments and their results were supposed to give valuable
information on the efficiency of Arsenic removal by the plant and the parameters influencing it,
such as the speed of the flow through the column. They also helped to estimate the lifetime of the
adsorbent, thus providing an idea of the regeneration needs.
All Arsenic measuremens have been done with a field kit (Arsenator, by Wagtech). According to
the kit documentation the uncertainty of the measurement is ± 7 ppb. Some characteristics of the kit
are described in Appendix G. Other equipments were only a field kit for Iron measurement (see
Appendix G) and pH meters.
Activated Alumina purchased from the UNICEF (see Appendix H for detailed data) was used in all
the experiments. Actually, UNICEF is the only supplier of activated alumina in the project area, so
that only this adsorbent could be tested during the experimental phase. The water used for
experiments was tube well water from one of the plant beneficiaries. It has been tried as much as
possible to mimic the conditions that would exist in the community plant, using therefore water
having the same properties; especially as far as Arsenic and iron concentrations are concerned. The
39
tube well water used in the experiment was believed to be appropriate, since it is the closest tube
well from the plant, and is dug at the same depth than the plant tube well. The initial Arsenic
concentration was varying between 150 and 180 ppb while the iron concentration was between 0,1-
0,2 mg/L. The pH of the tube well water was not adjusted so that the water used in the experiments
had a pH around 7.
3.1.1.1 Mini Column experiment

Experimental set up
A small scale adsorption unit was build as it can be see in Figure 13. Water is flowing upwards
through the 100 mL column, from a 20 liters bottle. The water from the tubewell was filtrated in a
sand filter to remove iron and avoid clogging of the activated alumina filter. A constant pressure
should be applied to the water so as to ensure constant flow. The flasks are closed by a lid with two
holes allowing the passage of two plastic tubes in the water. One is linked to the bottom of the
column, and the second one is linked to the outside of the system. The second tube is filled with air,
and the atmospheric pressure is ensured all along this tube. When the water gets pumped it needs to
be replaced in the closed system, by air, and therefore the tube is always filled with air ensuring
atmospheric pressure. The flow through the column then depends on the head difference between
both tubes bottom ends.
P= 1 atm
Adsorption
column
Arsenic
contaminated ∆H
water
Sample
collection
Figure 13. Mini column set up
40
Flow adjustment
The flow was adjusted so as to obtain the breakthrough of the column after one month. In a
UNICEF filter, adsorption is achieved in a one kg activated alumina bag, which has to be
regenerated every six months. Assuming a consumption of Q = 30 L/d in the households, the
number of Bed Volumes that can theoretically be treated before breakthrough is:
BV1 = Q1* T1 / V1 = 5400 BV
Where:
BV1 is the expected number of bed volumes that can be passed before breakthrough.
Q1 is the flow in the filter, of Q1 = 30 L/d
T1 is the time before breakthrough, T1 = 180 days
V1 is the volume of activated alumina V1= 1 L
The flow through the mini column was calculated as follows:
Q2 = BV1*V2/T2 = 18 L/d
Where:
Q2 is the flow in the mini column
T2 is the desired time before breakthrough, T2 = 30 days
V2 is the volume of activated alumina packed in the mini column V2= 0, 1 L
The hydraulic retention time for the calculated flow is then:
HRT = V2* 24*60 / Q2 = 8 min
It was nevertheless difficult to achieve a flow of 18 L/d. The flow could be maintained around 15
L/d the first weeks, but then slowed down due to clogging of the system.
Results and discussion

The experiment was run over 35 days. The following table summarizes the actual experimental
conditions:
41
Table 5. Experimental conditions
Initial Arsenic Initial Iron

Flow (L/d) HRT (min) concentration Concentration
(ppb) (ppm)
12 ± 2 12 ± 2 150 ± 21 0,2 ± 0,1
The following graph has been obtained when plotting the outlet Arsenic concentration versus the
bed volumes passed in the column. :
160
Aresnic concentration (ppb)
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Bed Volumes
Figure 14. Column outlet Arsenic concentrations: from an initial concentration of 150 ppb, Arsenic shows up
after 600 BV sand breakthrough is obtained around 3000 BVs. Raw data can be found in Appendix I.
Activated alumina can remove Arsenic concentrations from 150 ppb down to below the WHO
guideline of 10 ppb until 800 BVs have passed. Arsenic is then less efficiently removed since the
column is getting slowly saturated, but Arsenic concentrations are still below the Indian guideline
of 50 ppb after 3000 BVs have passed. Nevertheless, the outlet Arsenic concentration is still 50 ppb
after 4200 BVs. Because of lack of time, the experiment was stopped after passing 4200 BVs, so
that it is not known how many more bed volumes could be treated before to go over the threshold
value of 50 ppb.
The capacity of activated alumina at the breakthrough of 50 ppb can be roughly estimated from this
experiment.
42
The mass M As, rem (mg) of Arsenic removed at breakthrough is given by the mass balance equation:
M As, rem = (Ci –Cout)*BVbreakthrough* V

Where
Ci = 150 *10 ^-3 mg As/L is the initial Arsenic concentration
Cout = Arsenic concentration at the outlet. It varies during the experiment, but it has been for
simplicity assumed fixed to 25 ppb.
BVbreakthrough = 4200 is the number of bed volumes passed at breakthrough
V = 0,1 L is the volume of the column
The capacity q (mg As/ g AA) of the activated alumina is given by:
q = M As, rem / mAA

Where
mAA = 100 g is the mass of activated alumina paced in the column.
The following table summarizes the experimental results:
Table 6. Mini column experiments: results
BV before M As, rem at

Asi [ppb] Q [L/d] Capacity [mg/g]
breakthrough breakthrough [mg]
150 ± 21 12 ± 2 4200 52 0,52
The conclusion of this experiment is that UNICEF Activated Alumina can efficiently remove
Arsenic below the Indian guidelines, at least for the first 4200 BVs. The capacity at breakthrough is
0,5 mg As/g AA. The breakthrough observed in this experiment compares quite well with the
breakthrough estimated from the UNICEF advises on regeneration needs, which is 5400 BVs (or six
months consuming 30 L per day).
According to EPA, the adsorption capacity of the activated alumina ranges from 0.003 to 0.112
grams of Arsenic per gram of activated alumina [US EPA, 2002]. This experiment has however
given a worst result, as the capacity estimated is ten times smaller.
43
3.1.1.2 Bench scale experiments

Experiments were carried out to study the influence of the flow speed, and thus the influence of the
hydraulic retention time (HRT). This experiment was carried out in a small scale plant mimicking
the community plan, ordered from the UNICEF manufacturers. It is composed of two cement
columns of 40 liters each linked through a pipe placed at their bottom (see Figure 15). The water
first flows downwards in the sand filter column for iron removal, and then flows upwards in the
activated alumina column for Arsenic removal.
Figure 15. The bench scale filter that has been used.
The flow through the activated alumina bed was adjusted by opening or closing the tap in between
the two columns. The flow was then measured as the speed of the increase of the water level in the
second column and the retention time was then deduced from the flow. A small amount of water has
passed through the AA filter during this experiment, therefore the AA capacity can be assumed
constant.
44
Results and discussion

The results are summarized in the following table:
Table 7. Flow, HRT and Arsenic outlet concentration. The HRT has been calculated considering a volume V = 4
kg of AA.
HRT
Q [L/min] As [ppb]
[min]
0,59 6,80 <10
1,09 3,68 <10
1,90 2,11 25 ± 7
2,53 1,58 24 ± 7
4,10 0,98 33 ± 7
5,23 0,76 47 ± 7
As expected, a high flow in the column leads to a lower degree of Arsenic removal, since the HRT
is small and therefore the contact time between activated alumina and the contaminated water is
small. As it can be seen in Figure 16, a linear equation can approximate the relationship between the
flow/HRT and the Arsenic outlet concentration.
60
As outlet concentration (ppb)
50
R2 = 0,8988
40
30
20
10
0
0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00 6,00
Flow (L/min)
Figure 16: Influence of the flow in an activated alumina column on Arsenic removal, from an initial
concentration of 150 ppb.
An acceptable flow should be chosen, that is a compromise between a good degree of Arsenic
removal, and a rapid supply of water for the beneficiaries. At high HRTs (3,68 to 6,80 min), the
removal is excellent, below the WHO limit, but beneficiaries are likely to complain about the speed
of the flow. When the flow is higher than 5 L/min and HRT lower than 0, 8 minutes, Arsenic outlet
concentrations are getting closer from the Indian guideline.
45
Given the result of these experiments, the authors would advise to ensure a HRT of at least three
minutes so as to achieve a good Arsenic removal. The final plant was designed to contain around 10
liters of activated alumina, and therefore HRTs of 3 min would correspond to flows of 3 L/min,
which is reasonable.
46
3.2 Selection of beneficiaries

The choice of the beneficiaries is one of the key activities of the pilot project, since the
sustainability of the project is closely related to the willingness and capacity of the beneficiaries to
be involved and to participate in the project.
The development of a strategy for the selection of the beneficiaries has been established in close
collaboration with the field workers. This collaboration led to the elaboration of a list of criteria for
the selection of the beneficiaries. This was beneficial both for the workers, who developed their
capacities in this particular step of a project implementation, as well for the authors, who do not
have a good knowledge of the cultural, social and economical parameters that can be a threat or a
benefit to the project. It was agreed to check the criteria through meetings, surveys and existing
literature.
Community plants can be designed to supply water for ten to hundreds of families. Bigger units
represent nevertheless many constraints, such as high initial costs, high organizational requirements,
heavier maintenance operation, longer distance to walk for the beneficiaries, etc. It was therefore
decided to build a community plant with a capacity to treat water for 10 to 20 households. Self
HelpeGroups have been formed within the Arsenic project prior to the implementation of the
community plant project. Being a strong and stable structure, SHGs as a whole, or SHG members
were targeted at as potential beneficiaries.
3.2.1 List of criteria

The criteria that were established can be mainly divided into three categories:
Current water source
One of the more important criteria is that the beneficiary should not have an easy access to a safe
source of water. Possible safe source of water in the area are:
- safe tube wells with Arsenic concentration < 50 ppb
- household filters
- safe deep tube wells at less than ten minutes walk
- functioning community plant at less than ten minutes walk.
The importance of this criterion lies in the fact that the beneficiaries will have to collect money for
running the plant, and give time and work for maintenance operations. Therefore people having an
47
easier solution to their Arsenic problem will prefer this last solution and stop to use the community
plant.
Willingness
The beneficiaries should have a particular motivation towards a community plant. They should
mainly:
- be aware of the Arsenic problem and wish to find a solution to it
- be ready to pay for initial and running cost
- be ready to allow time and work for daily operation and maintenance.
Group activities
Organizing collection of funds, operation and maintenance of a community plant for several
households requires them to be well organized to perform these activities together. The strength of
the SHG was therefore a criterion for its selection as a beneficiary. The following conditions were
identified to witness the strength of the SHG:
- strong unity between the members
- monthly savings of money
- existence of a bank account/loans
- members living in the same area.
Yet it was difficult to find SHGs where all the members were interested by a community plant and
the creation of a “Plant Committee” with members of different SHGs was decided upon. The same
criteria were kept, since the strength of a group also depends of the strength of its members, and of
their ease and commitment to carry out groups activities. The final list of criteria is given Table 8.
Table 8. The final list of criteria for beneficiaries’ selection and the suggested method for checking the criteria.
Source of information Literature Meeting Survey

Water source + +
High Arsenic concentration in the tube wells +
Absence of deep tube well +
Absence of filters + + +
Arsenic awareness + + +
Strength of the SHG
Old SHG +
48
Well known SHG +

Skilled people in the SHG +
Strong unity in the SHG + +
Proximity between the members houses + +
Ability to discuss problems +
Awareness about politics +
Carrying out activities + +
Earning money through activities + +
Ability to collect money + +
Willingness to spend time on the plant + +
Willingness to work for the plant + +
Willingness to give money + +
Possibility to agree on a place for the plant +
Possibility to agree on a payment mode +
Possibility to agree on sharing of responsibilities +
3.2.2 Checking the criteria

Mainly three ways were decided upon in order to check the various criteria (see Table 8):
Meetings
Meetings were the most useful source of information to check the willingness of the potential
beneficiaries to participate in the project implementation. They also enabled to get a general
impression on the unity of the SHG as a whole, or of the ease in communication between members
of different SHGs. In both villages where a community plant was at stake, two meetings were
organized. The first one was a general informational meeting to present the community plant
solution, its costs and requirements for operation and maintenance, where several SHGs were
present. Only the final beneficiaries came at the second meeting, where organizational and
maintenance requirements were discussed more in detail.
Literature
Literature is a fast way to get information. This tool was useful to check some criteria for
beneficiaries’ selection. Literature was used to check mainly two criteria:
49
1. The current sources of water: the reports of Meek and Benito, Household
Dearsenation in North 24-Parganas, India. and of Gaulthier, Arsenic Contamination in North 24-
Parganas: Mapping and Capacity Building were used. The report of Meek and Benito allowed
knowing quickly who owed a household filter. The mapping done by Gaulthier permitted the
understanding of the Arsenic contamination in the targeted area, as well as the existence of deep
tube wells.
Figure 17: Arsenic distribution in the tube wells in one of the Binerati area [Gaulthier, 2004]
2. The strength of the SHG: Thyø and Andersen work in the study area in
autumn 2004 provides valuable information on the SHGs in the area and their activities [Thyø and
Andersen, 2005]. The registration books, where for instance name of the members, amount of
money saved and summary of the meetings are registered were also used.
Survey
Based on the list of criteria established in collaboration by the workers, a survey to the potential
beneficiaries was created by the authors. After translation in Bengali, it was proposed to the
workers for discussion and potential modification. The workers then went house to house to survey
50
potential beneficiaries. Only 25 households were surveyed in two villages. Actually, at that time
two meetings had already been organized, and only the households showing a real interest were
surveyed.
The survey had mainly two aims:

1. To check some of the criteria for beneficiaries selection
2. To get an understanding of the water situation and expectations of the future
beneficiaries. Some of these data were useful for the design of the plant.
The survey was made of 4 different parts:

a) General data: information about the household situation (size, income, education
etc.) and its behavior towards water (source and quantity of water for drinking and
cooking).
b) Arsenic awareness: mainly used to check whether the current household water
source was contaminated with Arsenic.
c) SHG strength: used to estimate the satisfaction of the interviewed about her SHG.
d) Willingness: used to provide a general overview of the degree of commitment
towards a community plant solution, and of the beneficiaries expectations
(workload, costs, etc.)
See Appendix L for the questionnaire text. The detailed results of the surveys can be found in
Appendix N.
51
3.2.3 Final Beneficiaries Description

The construction of two community plants was decided after investigation of their social feasibility
and acceptance. Two plant committees in two villages, Binerati in SREAD and Gazna in KTT were
created. In Binerati, 12 women from one single SHG were selected to beneficiate from the
community plant and a plant committee, the Nayan Tara -Water Protection committee was created
(see Figure 18). In Gazna, 10 beneficiaries have been selected, three of them being workers from
KTT. They are coming from different SHGs and thus formed a new group, the Plant Committee
Sarodya Polli.
Figure 18. The 12 members of the Plant Committee in Binerati (Spread) and 6 children.
Literature studies, meeting organized with the plant committee and surveys to its members enabled
to draw the following portraits.
52
General information
In SPREAD, the women age varies between 18 and 50 years old, 75% of them received primary
education and 25 % are illiterate. Most of the household counts 4 to 6 members and the monthly
income varies between 1000 and 2000 Rs. The following table provides the detail of the survey
results.
Table 9. SPREAD beneficiaries’ general data. The results are expressed in percentage.
Age Education Income (Rs/month) Family members

18-25 42 Illiterate 25 0-1000 25 0 to3 8
26-40 33 Primary 75 1001-2000 75 4 to 6 75
41-50 25 Higher 0 2001-3000 0 >6 17
In KTT, the women are aged from 18 and 40 years. 88% of them received primary education. The
household are smaller than in Binerati, with 38 % of them counting less than 3 members, and richer.
The following table provides the detail of some of the survey results.
Table 10. KTT beneficiaries’ general data. The results are expressed in percentage.
Age Education Income (RS/month) Family members

18-25 12 Illiterate 0 0-1000 0 0 to3 38
26-40 88 Primary 88 1001-2000 62,5 4 to 6 62
41-50 0 Higher 12 2001-3000 12,5 >6 0
3001-4000 12,5
>4000 12,5
Water situation
There is no safe deep tube well in Binerati area, therefore the only source of water for drinking and
cooking is tube well water. 42% of the women fetch the water at their own tube well, and 42 % at
their neighbor’s tube well, when they don’t have one or when their tube well water is contaminated
with Arsenic. The water situation in Gazna is less critical than in Binerati. Actually there are two
deep tube wells in the area, and women should not walk longer than 10 to 15 minutes to fetch their
water. Therefore a high proportion of the women use deep tube well water for drinking and
cooking. In both plant committees, 2 beneficiaries possess a filter but we understood from the
53
various meetings that they did not like the technology and wanted to try another one. The following
graphs show the sources of water for cooking and drinking of the committee members.
KTT SPREAD
Own
Filter Tube well
Filter
Drinking water sources
13% 12%
17% Own
Neighbour Tube well
s tubewell
13% 41%
Neighbour
s tubewell
DTW
62% 42%
Filter
Cooking water sources
Own 17% Own

Filter
tubewell Tube well
25%
25%
41%
Neighbour Neighbour
s tubewell s tubewell
DTW 13%
37%
42%
Figure 19. Daily consumption and source of drinking water for the members of the plant committee in KTT and
SPREAD. The main water source is tube-well water in SPREAD (82%). The consumption pattern for cooking is
the same as for drinking. In KTT the main drinking water source is DTW (62 %). Cooking water is mainly
collected from DTW (37%) or private TW (38%).
Women in KTT and SPREAD collect similar quantities of water. In KTT, the general pattern is that
more water is used for cooking than for drinking, 62 % of the woman using from 11 litres to 20
litres for cooking, and less than 10 litres for drinking. In SPREAD, less water is collected for
drinking purposes: 83% of the women use less than 10 L for drinking purposes and only 17 % of
them consume up to 20 L. More water is devoted to cooking, with 100 % of the women consuming
from 11 to 20 L. Given these results, it has been estimated that the plant should be able to deliver
30-40 L per household per day, and therefore have a capacity of at least 400 L per day. The
following graphs illustrate the consumption patterns in SPREAD and KTT.
54
KTT SPREAD
Daily Drinking water consumption
11 - 20L.
17%
11 - 20L
38%
0 -10L
62%
0 -10L.
83%
Daily cooking water consumption
0 - 10L
38%
11 to 20
100%
11- 20 L
62%
Figure 20. Daily consumption of drinking and cooking water for the members of the plant committees in KTT
and SPREAD. 62 % of the households consume 11-20 L for cooking and 0-10 L for drinking purposes in KTT.
In SPREAD, all the women consume 11-20 L for cooking, and 83% consume 0-10 L for drinking. Only 17%
consume up to 11 L.
50 % of the households are drinking Arsenic contaminated water, and some of those who drink safe
water have to go and fetch it in another house. No solution to Arsenic had yet been found in this
area of Binerati, making it an appropriate area for the implementation of the pilot project. In KTT
the situation is less critical since 75 % of the women said their current water was arsenic free. These
answers are presented in the following graphs.
55
KTT SPREAD
water
of
Yes
25%
“Does your source
No Yes
contain Arsenic ?”
50% 50%
No
75%
Figure 21. In SPREAD 50 % of the household are consuming arsenic contaminated water, whereas they are only
25 % in KTT.
SHG strength
The members of Nayan Tara Water Protection Committee (SPREAD) all belong to the same
existing SHG, attend to the monthly meetings and collect money regularly. The strong unity of the
members and their motivation to be involved in the pilot project could be observed during the
meetings we attended. The Sarodya Polli plant committee (KTT), on the other hand, is formed from
different SHG members. Nevertheless they all live close by and therefore have good relationships,
which is a good base to work together.
The surveys also enabled to check the satisfaction of the women about their SHGs. In SPREAD, 92
% of women like to attend their SHG meetings. In KTT, working and solving problems together is
for 49 % of them one of the main positive aspects of being in a SHG. They also like to attend the
meetings and even 62 % of them do not like the others to be absent. This shows the importance that
these women give to group dynamic.
In SPREAD the women dislike too frequent meetings or long distances to walk to attend to the
meeting. As well, bringing the money to the bank is a problem for them since 33 % of them quoted
it. In KTT quarrels (12 %) and disagreement on loans (13%) is a source of problems.
56
“What do you like about your KTT SPREAD
Collecting Being
money organized
Attending 38% 8%
the
meetings
13%
Attending
Discussin
the
g/solving
meetings
problems
92%
SHG?”
together
49%
“What do you dislike about your
meeting
Bringing too
Members the money frequents
Quarrells
missing/ to the 8%
12%
late in bank
meetings 33%
62%
When a
loan is Attending
refused to the
13% meetings
SHG?”
nothing when far

13% 59%
Figure 22. Women’s satisfaction about their SHG. In SPREAD, attending to the SHG meetings is one of the main
praise of 92% of the women, when the distance to walk to attend a meeting is short. Far or too frequents
meetings are not appreciated as well as the task of bringing the money to the bank. In KTT, finding solutions
with the help of the group is one of the main reasons why women like to be in a SHG (49%). 38 % also like to
save money. The lack of attendance to the meetings is, for 62 % of the women, a problem in their SHG.
SPREAD and KTT women are aware of the Arsenic problem, since the Arsenic project started one
year before in their village. 100% of the women said they would like to work with their SHG to
solve the Arsenic problem. Some reasons are the time saved compared to a household technology
for 25 % of the women in KTT and 83 % in SPREAD or the fact that they can solve problems
together (17 % in SPREAD and 13 % in KTT).
57
KTT SPREAD
Save time
“Why would you like to solve
25%
Solve
Did not problems
together
problems together?”
answer
49% 17%
Save
money
13%
Solve Save time
problems 83%
together
13%
Figure 23. In SPREAD, 83 % of the women believe that they would save time when working with a community
solution. 25 % of the women in KTT answered the same. A climate of mutual aid is also witnessed by the 17% of
women in SPREAD and the13 % in KTT answering “solving problems together”.
The results also showed commitment to give a reasonable amount of work and money required for
operation and maintenance of the plant. In SPREAD, 100 % said they were ready to pay 6-10 Rs/
month for the running costs and to work 1-2 hours. The willingness to pay and work is different
than in SPREAD. Actually in Gazna the women are richer and most of them already possess an
easy solution to get Arsenic free water. Therefore they are ready to pay more on a monthly basis but
would prefer to work less. 38 % of the women would like to give 11 to 15 Rs as a monthly running
cost, and 38 % said they would not work more than 15 minutes each week for maintenance and
operation of the plant. 25 % of them would thus prefer to pay for an external labor rather than to
work with the other women. Nevertheless, 62 % of the women would agree on lower running costs
with reasonable amount of work for operation and maintenance.
"How much are you willing to spend "How long time are you willing to spend
monthly as running costs?" on operation and maintenance weekly?"
11 - 15 Rs
38% <15 min
38%
6 -10 Rs
As much
62%
as needed
62%
Figure 24. Willingness to pay and work in KTT. 38 % of the women are ready to pay more (11-15 Rs) and to
work less (less than 15 min) for operation and maintenance. 62 % would prefer lower costs and higher work
loads.
58
3.3 Plant implementation

The plant implementation consisted in three main activities. During the first phase a design has been
chosen and refined. The construction of the plant has been the second phase, while the organization
of Operation & Maintenance has been the third and last phase.
3.3.1 Choice of design
3.3.1.1 Methodology
The final design was chosen in a process that required the following stages:
Review of existing technologies: articles about community plant implementation as well as

existing community plants in the area were useful to get an overview of the various technology
designs.
Building of small scale plants: small scale plants were built by the CBO workers with locally
available materials and their technical performances were tested. It gave a basis for the discussion
of the design of bigger units.
Workers involvement: Involving the local workers permitted to incorporate local knowledge
into the designs, in order to ensure technical feasibility and social acceptance. It also gave them a
better understanding of the removal technology, develop their capacity and give them the necessary
basis to reproduce this step of the implementation process of a community plant. Workshops and
discussions with the workers were a means of achieving workers involvement.
Beneficiaries’ preferences evaluation: involving beneficiaries in this early stage of the process
is believed to enhance their social acceptance. The requirements of the beneficiaries, regarding
amount of water, costs, maintenance, operation or aesthetics were evaluated during meeting
discussions or survey analyses.
Search for local materials and skills: the technology should be possible to build with locally
available material and using local labour. The design choice was therefore oriented keeping in mind
this requirement.
59
Some designs considerations were kept in mind all along the design choice process. the community
plant should comply with the following requirements:
- Remove Arsenic at least below the Indian guideline of 50 ppb. Reaching the WHO
guideline of 10 ppb was also at stake.
- Remove iron below 0, 3 mg/L.
- Do not increase the risk for bacterial contamination.
- Provide water that will suit the beneficiaries as regards to: taste, odour, colour and
temperature.
- Provide water in sufficient quantity for drinking and cooking purposes for all the
beneficiaries.
- Be easy to build using local skills and materials.
- The initial costs and running costs should be low, and adapted to the economical
condition of the beneficiaries.
- Be easy to operate and maintain by the beneficiaries and the workers.
- Resist to the weather constraints of the area.
- Be aesthetically accepted.
3.3.1.2 Choice of the process for Arsenic removal

Community plants for Arsenic removal can be based on co-precipitation or adsorption. Both
technologies were presented in detail to the social and technical workers, and more briefly to the
beneficiaries, providing the basis for discussion.
Both workers and beneficiaries showed their preference for adsorption processes. Although more
expensive technology, adsorption also requires less work than co-precipitation. Treating water in a
simple community plant based on co-precipitation requires daily mixing of the chemicals to a bulk
of water that should cover the need of all the beneficiaries during one day. The women clearly
expressed their disagreement to pump daily such a big amount of water (300-400 L per day), and
their fear of handling the chemicals. The Arsenic rich sludge generated by co-precipitation
processes also raised a problem to the women. Actually women of this area are familiar with co-
precipitation processes since few of them own household filters based on co-precipitation. They are
reluctant towards the workload generated by household filters, and therefore wished to try another
technology. The advantage of a community plant based on adsorption is also that water can be
60
obtained continuously, and that the volume of water treated by the plant can be adjusted to the need
of the beneficiaries.
The Multi Criteria Analysis, introduced to the workers by Thyø and Andersen in fall 2004, was
used in this step of the process. MCA is a qualitative tool that permits to rank different options
according to some relevant criteria. In the following MCA matrix, drawn by the workers, each row
describes an option and each column describes the performance of the options against each
criterion.
Table 11. MCA on the community plant technology.
Initial Running Quantity

Option Materials As removal Taste/smell
costs costs
8 5 6 6 6 6
Co-precipitation 1SHG Hand pump
5 3 5 6 7 6
Co-precipitation 3 SHG Motor pump
7 6 4 7 8 7
Adsorption
Constru TOTAL
option Work Distance Maintenance Environment
ction
3 6 6 6 6 62
Co-precipitation 1SHG Hand pump
6 5 4 5 4 56
Co-precipitation 3 SHG Motor pump
8 4 5 7 7 70
Adsorption
In this MCA three options were proposed to the workers:

- Co-precipitation plant for one SHG
- Co-precipitation plant for three SHGs, equipped with a motor pump for the filling of the tank
- Adsorption plant
The workers chose them selves the criteria in the matrix and scored the options. The second option
obtained the lowest score whereas adsorption usually ranked first.
Based on the discussions with the beneficiaries and the workers, as well as on the result of the
MCAs, a design based on adsorption was agreed upon.
61
3.3.1.3 Final design

A schematic design of the plant is as follows:
Tap A
Overflow
Aeration
pipe
Tap B
Tap G
Filtration
Adsorption
Tap F
Figure 25. Community plant scheme. See Figure 27 for dimensions. Green arrows follow the flow of the water
during normal operations, while red and white arrows follow the flow during backwash.
Process:
The community plant was designed so as to perform the three following steps:
- Aeration: to increase the oxygen concentration for the biological Iron and Arsenic
removal and for chemical precipitation of dissolved iron into solid iron. Water is pumped and
passed into an aeration system (Figure 26 is a picture of the uncovered aeration system during the
construction) in which it is in contact with air. The liquid-gas equilibria is regulated by Henry’s law,
while the kinetics are described by mass transfer equation derived by Fick’s law [Arvin, 2002b].
The deficiency of proper material to carry on experiments has limited the study of the aeration
system in the plants. It is believed that the small aeration system can only increase the oxygen
62
content to few mg/L, and certainly less than saturation (the saturation value is 8,2 mg/L at 25 ˚C and
at atmospheric pressure).
Figure 26. Setting up the aeration system.
- Sand filtration: water passes through a sand filter bed for removal of the precipitated iron
and biological removal of iron and Arsenic. See the theory paragraph 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 for details.
- Adsorption: water flows through an activated alumina bed whereby Arsenic is adsorbed
on the activated alumina grains and therefore removed from the water. See the theory paragraph
2.2.1.2 for details.
Operation:
Normal operation is indicated on Figure 25 by the green arrows. During normal operation, taps A, F
and G are opened, and tap B is closed. Water is pumped and lifted to the top of the first column. It
is first aerated in the aeration chamber in which air is allowed by the overflow pipe, and then
filtrated in the sand filter bed. Water flows to the second column in the activated alumina bed and is
collected through tap G.
Maintenance:
Cleaning of the sand filter bed is ensured by backwash. Backwash is indicated on figure Figure 25
by the red arrows. During backwash, the water is allowed to flow upwards in the sand filter so as to
remove the precipitated iron particles. This is achieved by pumping from the hand pump, opening
tap B and closing tap A, F and G. Backwash water flows out from the column by the overflow pipe.
63
It is diverted away from the plant to a small pond where it evaporates naturally. Backwash is
completed when the backwash water is clear, i.e after 10 to 15 minutes.
When it is saturated, activated alumina has to be regenerated. It has to be removed from the second
column, brought to the supplier, UNICEF, for regeneration and replaced by regenerated AA.
According to the dealer, after 4 regenerations, AA should be discarded and replaced by a new one.
The plant performances should be monitored monthly so as to detect when saturation is reached.
When the outlet Arsenic concentration becomes closer to 50 ppb, activated alumina has to be
regenerated.
Materials:
- Hand pump: it is a pressure pump that is able to lift the water
- Cement columns
- 1 Inch PVC pipes or Galvanised Iron pipes
- Metallic taps
- 10 kg of AA, bought from UNICEF
- 20-30 kg of sand, with a grain size of 1 to 3 mm.
- Under drainage system: it is a cement disc provided with holes under a circular plastic net,
fixed with a metallic ring.
Dimensions:
See the following technical drawings (Figure 27 – dimensions are in inches).
64
Figure 27. Plant scheme with dimensions in inches. A: tap (open for normal operations); B: tap (open for
backwash); C: tap (used to take samples and empty the tanks); D: aeration system; E: overflow and aeration
pipe; F: tap (open for normal operations); G: clean water tap; H: perforated base; I: sand. J: activated alumina;
K: lid.
65
3.3.2 Construction
Most of the construction of the plant was left to local skilled people. The role of the CBO workers
was mainly to contact the skilled persons, to present and explain the technical features of the plant
and to assist during construction. The construction took place in 5 steps:
1. Sinking the tube well:

The task of sinking the tube well in the shallow aquifer has been left to a local plumber.
- Method
The sludger method has been used to sink the tube well. It is the most common methods of sinking
tube wells in west Bengal up to a depth of 50 meters [Ahmed end Rahman, 2003]. A water sump is
first made by digging a hole. A bamboo stage is constructed on the sump, which is filled with water.
The plumber, standing on the bamboo stage, then pushes vertically a GI pipe into the sump, and
collects the slurry that is discharged through the pipe from the alternative rise and drop movement
of the GI pipe. Soil samples are taken regularly, to detect the presence of iron at the given depth.
When the drilling is completed, the drilling pipe is extracted carefully not to damage the hole. The
component of the tube well –sand trap, strainer, PVC pipe and GI pipe- are then assembled near the
tube well and lowered into the hole. The hand pump is then fixed. Finally the tube well is
developed, which means that water is pumped from the well to wash out the fine in the aquifer or
other materials introduced during pumping.
66
Figure 28. Sinking the tube well.

- Depth of the tube well
A plumber was asked to sink the tube well and to fix the pump. When sinking the tube well, one has
to decide its depth. Since the lifetime of the activated alumina bed depends on the initial Arsenic
concentration, the tube well should be dug at a depth where the water has a low Arsenic
concentration. The iron concentration should be kept low as well. Gaulthier did not find any clear
relation between depth and Arsenic concentration. Nevertheless, his study of the area showed that
there are three aquifers in the study area, separated by clay layers [Gaulthier, 2004].
It is believed that groundwater coming from the same aquifer has the same range of Arsenic and
iron concentration. The closest well from the community plant had a relatively low Arsenic
concentration (150 ppb in Gazna, 80 ppb in Binerati)). Low iron content (0,5 mg/L in Gazna and
1,5 mg/L in Binerati) and a depth of 50 feet. It was thus chosen to sink the plant tube well in the
same aquifer. The final depth of both tube wells is 50 feet.
2. Building the columns:

Building the columns and the cement stand around the plant was asked to a mason of the locality.
The workers provided him with two technical drawings of the plant, for dimensioning the columns
and the cement stand. An example can be seen in the following picture (Figure 29).
Figure 29. workers technical drawing, top view of the plant.
The mason was asked to build:
67
- Two columns with holes for the pipes

- Two lids
- An under drainage system
- A cement stand
The procedure used to build the columns was the following. Two metal sheets were used to build a
cylindrical mould. One was from the same diameter as the inner diameter of the column, the other
one was from the same diameter as the outside diameter of the column. The two cylindrical moulds
were assembled, and the cement was poured in between the two moulds, after having placed a
metallic net in between to sustain the cement. In KTT area, the holes were done prior to the filling
with cement, by fixing a bamboo stick of one inch at the desired position into the metallic sheets. In
SPREAD area, the holes were done afterwards, with the help of a hammer and a spike. The columns
were then left for drying during 4 days.
Figure 30. Building the plant.
The under drainage system consist in a cement disc with holes, fixed at around 10 centimetres from
the bottom of the column.
68
The cement stand was then built around the tubewell and the column put in position.
3. Fixing the pipes and taps:

A plumber was asked for fixing the various pipes and taps. In SPREAD area, mainly 1 inch
Galvanised Iron pipes have been installed. They are more solid, but also more expensive than PVC
pipes. Actually, PVC pipes were preferred, since they are from good quality and easier to handle.
For instance, the pipes can be adjusted more easily at the right dimension because they are easy to
cut. PVC pipes have been installed in KTT area.
4. Finalizing the plant:

Once build, the column have to be filled with sand and activated alumina. The sand of the
appropriate grain size, 1 to 3 mm, was prepared by the workers by passing the sand into a 3 mm
sieve and a 1 mm sieve. The sand was then washed prior to be introduced in the column. A filter
made of a plastic net (the same material is locally used for the well filter) fixed on a metal ring was
build by the workers and put on the under drainage system to prevent the sand to pass through it.
New activated alumina was purchased from the UNICEF. It needed to be washed carefully as well
so as to remove the fine activated alumina dust from the activated alumina grains. The same net-
under drainage system was installed at the bottom of the column before to fill it with AA.
5. Painting the plant:

The plant had to be made aesthetically pleasant to the beneficiaries and to the villagers. The
women were asked their preference for the colour of the plant, and the workers painted it by them
selves, so as to reduce the costs. A board was settled next to the plant. It provides such
information as the name of the project, the involved organisations and groups, operation and
maintenance requirements etc. It is also way to make advertisement and develop awareness to the
villagers. The completed KTT plant is shown in Figure 31.
69
Figure 31. The KTT plant in use. Note the metal lid (replacement of the cement one) and the information board.
70
3.3.3 Organization of Operation & Maintenance

Operation and maintenance need to be managed to keep the community plant in good order and
ensure optimal use. Activities during this stage consist mainly in:
- Ensuring proper operation and maintenance of the community plant
- Monitoring of the plant performances, so as to take remedial actions in case of un
proper functioning
- Ensuring collection of running costs
- Ensuring that the voice, complaints, advises of the end users are reported and taken
into account, so as to take remedial actions.
In the context of this particular project, where involvement of the community through participatory
approach was at stake, operation and maintenance should be the responsibility of the end users, and
the involved community based organization. At this stage of the project, the formation of a plant
committee representing all the beneficiaries of the community plant was seen as way to facilitate
the activities related to maintenance and operation, and therefore to ensure the sustainability of the
community plant.
Plant committee
The plant committee should be representative of all users’ households of the community plant. Each
family is therefore represented by one of its member. The members of the plant committee are
women, since they are usually the water manager in the households. They are therefore the more
aware of the project and their duties in relation to it in their family. Since Self Help Groups have
been successfully implemented in the project area, they served as a model for the creation of the
plant committee. The structure is the same, with an elected president, secretary and cashier.
Meetings, where members discuss potential problems in relation to the community plant are
organized monthly. Money for the running of the plant is collected monthly by the cashier, and
deposited on a bank account. Name of the committee and of its members, rules governing the
committee, discussion summaries and corresponding decisions, as well as money accountings are
registered in a registration book, of which the secretary is responsible.
It is important to keep in mind that the authors and CBO members only provided support to the
creation of the plant committee. The key decisions leading to the creation of an organized group for
the community plant management were taken by the beneficiaries during meetings were all of them
were present.
71
Establishment of rules
One of the first key activities of the plant committee was to agree on a list of rules that should be
respected by all the members in order to ensure proper functioning of the plant and cohesion
between the beneficiaries. The list of rules can be found in Appendix O. Some key rules that have
been decided are:
- Monthly Plant Committee meeting at a fixed date
- Agreement of the location for the building of the community plant
- Collection of 10 Rs for the running costs during the monthly meetings
- Weekly backwashing of the sand filter by two members, rotating each week.
- Agreement on water use: drinking and cooking
Sharing of the responsibilities

Maintenance and operation activities have been shared between the plant committee members and
the CBO workers, based on the level of skills that they require.
The plant committee is responsible for:

- Weekly backwashing of the sand filters: Two women are designated each week to
backwash the filter together. This has to be done on a fixed day in the week, agreed
by the Plant Committee.
- Cleaning of the plant (outside)
- Planning of the monthly meetings
- Collection of running costs
The CBO workers are responsible for:

- Monitoring of the plan performances: the outlet Arsenic concentration should be
measured monthly and registered in order to detect the Arsenic breakthrough.
- Activated alumina regeneration: activated alumina has to be removed from the
plant and brought to the UNICEF mart for regeneration when the measured outlet
Arsenic concentration has reached 50 ppb.
- Supervision and support of the plant committee activities
- Occasional maintenance (repair, cleaning, etc.)
72
3.4 Results
The construction of each plant took a period of 3-4 weeks. The KTT plant in Gazna has been
inaugurated the 14th of May, while the SREAD plant in Binerati has been completed the 21st of
May. It has been possible to precisely evaluate the construction costs only after the end of the
works. Once the construction phase has finished, the collection of performances data regarding
Arsenic and Iron removal, bacterial contamination and beneficiaries’ satisfaction started as well.
The results of such analyses are given in the following paragraphs.
3.4.1 Costs
The construction cost for the two plants are reported in the following Table 12.
Table 12. Price list for the two plants.

Price [Rs]
Material
KTT SPREAD
Tube well (sinking & pipes) 1672 1000
Tube well (Pump head) 1100 1100
Plumber (work &material for pipes) 1614 1971
Mason (work & material for stand and
columns) 4247 2565
Activate Alumina (10 Kg) 1250 1250
Paint 148 161
Board 350
Lids (extra metal lids) 510
Small expenses 100 100
Total 10641 8497
The construction of KTT plant has been more expensive (10 600 Rs, or 210 €, or 1575 Dkk)
compared to the Spread one (8500 Rs, or 170 €, or 1275 Dkk). The difference is mainly caused by
the different prices the mason and the plumber asked in the two areas for their work, rather than by
differences in materials price. In both cases the main expense is caused by the construction of the
cement stand and of the columns by the mason. The plumber work, the sinking of the tubewell, the
hand pump head and Activated Alumina are the other big expenses.
The members of the plant committee are 10 in Gazna and 12 and Binerati. The cost per family is
therefore 1060 Rs and 710 Rs respectively. This price is rather high when compared with the
73
household Kolshi filters introduced in the Arsenic Project, therefore the beneficiaries gave only 200
Rs each, while the rest has been paid by the project itself. It is interesting to investigate the
possibility of reducing the initial cost. The first and easiest way would be to include more members
in the plant committee. Assuming that each new member would need the use of 1 extra kg of AA
(125 Rs), but would not change anything else in the design (the filter can already contain up to 20
kg of AA), the initial cost per family would be reduced to 600 Rs in Gazna and to 500 Rs in
Binerati. A further reduction is possible if the plant is built over an existing tubewell (sinking a
tubewell costs 1000-1500 Rs) or building a smaller cement stand. These three possible scenarios are
shown in Table 13. Note that the use of an existing tubewell may, in the best case, reduce the initial
cost down to 425 Rs/family: such a price is affordable for the majority of the families in the area
and it is comparable with other solutions applied in the Arsenic project.
Table 13. Initial cost per family in different scenarios. The initial cost may vary from more than 1000 Rs/family
(20 €) to almost 400 Rs/family (8 €).
Price per family [Rs]
Scenario
KTT SPREAD
Basic scenario 1064 708
20 members in the plant committee 595 475
20 members + use of an existing tubewell 511 425
It is also possible to change the design in order to save on the initial cost. The most interesting
modification to the design is probably the optimization of the sand filter in order to reach enough
Arsenic removal without the use of Activated Alumina. Such a solution, however, cannot be
implemented by the field workers autonomously, and it is therefore suggested as a subject for a new
pilot project.
The running cost has been estimated assuming that Activated Alumina has to be replaced
approximately every six months. The UNICEF dealer regenerates the medium four times, at a cost
of 25 Rs/Kg, while the fifth time AA has to be repaid entirely, at a cost of 125 Rs/kg. When 10 kg
of AA are used, each of the 10 beneficiaries has therefore to pay 7,5 Rs per month. The addition of
new members does not modify the estimation, as the amount of AA would be increased
accordingly. The running cost has been finally fixed to 10 Rs per month per family, in order to
cover any extra expense that may occur, such has replacement of broken parts.
3.4.2 Plant performances

The plant performances have been evaluated according to the water quality and the water quantity.
74
The water quality parameters that have been measured are the Arsenic concentration, the Iron
concentration and the Bacterial contamination (E. Coli). The goal for Arsenic is 50 µg/L (possibly
10), for Iron is 0.3 mg/L while for E. Coli is 0 CFU. These values are taken from the WHO and
indian guidelines.
Arsenic
The Arsenic concentration has been measured 5-6 times in each plant, at the inlet, after the sand
filter and after the Activated Alumina column (see Appendix R). The average results are shown in
the following Figure 32. The initial concentration in the KTT plant is over 70 µg/L, while it is just
above 40 µg/L in the Spread plant. The necessity of treating this water may be questioned, but it
should be remarked that the location has been chosen because all the surrounding wells show
concentrations higher than 50 µg/L, and that some of the measurements in the newly built well are
higher than 50 µg/L as well.
It can be seen that the sand filter removes approximately 40% of the influent Arsenic, and this
removal is usually enough to meet the Indian limit of 50 µg/L. Only the following filtration through
Activated Alumina reduces Arsenic under the WHO Limit of 10 µg/L. The overall efficiency of
Arsenic removal is therefore very high, between 90-100%.
Average Arsenic Concentration
90
80 71,5
70
60
44,2 42 KTT plant
50
As [µg/L]
40 SPREAD plant
27
30
20
5,2 1
10
0
Initial After sand After AA
treatment step
Figure 32. Average Arsenic concentration in the two plants. The Indian limit of 50 µg/L (red line) is met after the
sand filtration, while the WHO limit of 10 µg/L (green line) is always met only after the Activate Alumina
column.
Iron
The iron concentration has been measured simultaneously with Arsenic (see Appendix R). The
average results are shown in Figure 33. It can be seen that the initial conditions are not the same in
75
the two plants, iron is higher (1,5 mg/L) in the Spread plant compared to the KTT one (0,5 mg/L).
The concentration after sand filtration are all between 0,1-0,4 mg/L, and on an average it is lower
for the KTT plant. The removal efficiency at this treatment step is the same in the two plants,
around 80%. The Activated Alumina filter further removes iron, and the effluent from both plants
has always iron content lower than the WHO guideline.
Average Iron Concentration
2
1,8 1,56
1,6
1,4
1,2
KTT plant
Fe [mg/L] 1
0,8 SPREAD plant
0,56
0,6
0,13 0,33 0,13
0,4
0,2 0,05
0
Initial After sand After AA
treatment step
Figure 33. Average Iron concentration in the two plants. The sand filter has a removal efficiency around 80%,
while the AA filter further remove iron under the WHO guideline of 0,3 mg/L.
Bacteria
The bacterial contamination has been measured by M. Bourgoin as a part of her final project
[Bourgoin, 2005]. The chosen indicator for faecal contamination has been E. Coli, but as its
measurement is time-consuming, only the plant in KTT has been tested five times. Further details
about the measurement method can be found in [Bourgoin, 2005]. The results are shown in Figure
34. It can be observed that the water coming from the tubewell is not bacteriologically clean, as
each of the five experiments shows a number of CFU between 5-50 per 100 mL of water. This
result is surprising, as groundwater is assumed to be bacteria-free. Other measurements of bacterial
contamination in neighbor wells have shown no or little bacterial contamination [Bourgoin, 2005].
A possible explanation of the high bacterial contamination is that the samples have been taken from
a newly built well, and contamination may have occurred from surface water infiltration during its
construction. The experiments however show that the treated water has no bacterial contamination,
and therefore the water from the plant can be considered safe.
76
Bacterial contamination (E. Coli)
45
40
35
CFU [n/100 mL]
sample 1
30
sample 2
25
sample 3
20
sample 4
15
10 sample 5
5
0
Before treatment After treatment
Figure 34. E. Coli CFU in the inlet and outlet of KTT plant. The inlet has some bacterial contamination, while
the water after treatment is free from bacteria, except for the first sample. The bacterial contamination is always
reduced.
Water quantity
The flow of water is 3-4 L per minute. Usually the capacity of the buckets used to collect the water
is between 10-20 L. The maximum time that is used to fill a bucket is therefore 7 minutes. This is
considered as a too long period, and some of the beneficiaries have complained about the speed of
the water. An advantage of the design is however that water can be continuously collected from the
plant, therefore the amount of water for the 10-12 families using the plant can be easily delivered
during one day. Both the Plant Committees have introduced the rule that no more than 20 families
can be admitted to use the plant: this has been decided, among other reasons, in order to avoid lines
while fetching water.
3.4.3 Beneficiaries satisfaction

Follow up questionnaires were created so as to monitor the beneficiaries water related habits as well
as their satisfaction about the newly build community plant. Monitoring questionnaires should be
asked after a reasonable time of operation of a new technology, in order the beneficiaries to
accommodate to the technology and to integrate in their daily water related activities. Actually, it
was decided to carry out the monitoring questionnaires after one month of operation of the plant,
because of the authors need to include these results in the present report. It should nevertheless be
noted that one month may not be sufficient, and the extension of the monitoring activities over at
least one year of operation is suggested so as to get relevant information. The monitoring
questionnaire is presented in appendix M.
77
Since the authors left the project area after one week of operation of the plant, the social workers
were asked to send the survey results when completed. They have not yet arrived at the present
writing date. Nevertheless, two surveys were asked in KTT area prior to the author’s departure, so
as to test the surveys. These are not relevant results, and only give an idea of the beneficiaries’ first
impression about the technology.
Water related habits

After few days of operation of the plant, the two women interviewed said they are collecting water
only from the community plant, both for drinking and cooking purposes. A positive conclusion can
be drawn, that the change in their habits has been fast. In KTT, women were used to fetch water
from their own tube well or from deep tube well (see section 4.1.2.3). The CP option is similar to
those in the sense that collecting water only requires to pump at the CP tube well and/or to open the
collection tap. Moreover, the beneficiaries all live at less than 3 minutes walking distance from the
plant, which is less than the walking distance to the deep tube well. The time needed to collect the
water is nevertheless critical. Actually, queuing is not a problem and the women said they never had
to wait their turn to collect water more than 5 minutes. Nevertheless they both complained about the
speed of the flow, and one of them argued she had to wait 20 minutes for her bottles to be filled.
Their total water consumption is about 20-30 L per day for drinking and cooking, and both women
said they were getting enough water from the CP. Their present consumption pattern is similar to
the former one. Actually, the CP does not require extra daily efforts from the women, and for most
of them the distance to walk to fetch water is even shorter. There is therefore a possibility for the
water consumption to increase, which should be monitored in the future.
Beneficiaries’ satisfaction
The women like the taste of the water, and found it had no particular smell, odor nor color. The
temperature of the water is acceptable, even if not as fresh as tube well or deep tube well water.
What the women like the best about the technology is that they can get arsenic free water without
walking long distances, which was the case for those fetching water at the deep tube well. What the
women dislike the most is the speed of the flow for one of them, and the length of the backwash for
the other one. This last result is believed to be irrelevant. Actually this woman was the first to carry
out backwash, which lasted about one hour, because of some misunderstanding from the women.
78
The next backwashes required about 15 minutes, and therefore time spend backwashing should not
be a problem in the future.
Both women said they would continue to fetch water at the CP in the future, but it be should kept in
mind that the women have been using the plant just few days when answering this question.
Only two of women where formally interviewed, but the general impression of the authors and the
field workers is that the technology has been well accepted by the beneficiaries. All members of the
Plant Committee in KTT and SPREAD have showed to go regularly to fetch water at the CP after
few days after its inauguration. Moreover, a growing and positive interest was observed amongst
the other villagers, witnessing the positive publicity made by the beneficiaries.
79
3.5 Discussion
It can be concluded from the results shown above that the two goals regarding water quality and
quantity have been successfully met. Other considerations about the plant performances are given in
the following paragraphs.
3.5.1 Importance of bacterial removal

It is possible to compare the risk caused by Arsenic and the one caused by bacterial contamination.
Both are influenced by the economic and nutritional condition of the subject, but while Arsenicosis
is considered as a chronic disease with at least 5 years of latency, microbial hazard usually leads to
acute health effects [WHO, 2003]. The most common disease caused by pathogens is diarrhea, that
can even cause dead in sensitive groups (infant, children, immuno-compromised subjects). Because
of their acute nature and their impact on sensitive groups, risks posed by microbial contamination
are higher than those posed by Arsenicosis [WHO, 2003]. It is therefore very important that any
solution to the Arsenic problem does not increase the risk of bacterial contamination of water.
KTT plant performances are thus encouraging, as it seems that bacteria are removed during the
treatment. It should also be underlined that even if the bacteria removal is not total, the treatment
reduces their number, thus it does not increase, but reduces the risk. The bacteria removal is likely
to happen in the rapid sand filter [Ahmed, 2003].
In order not to introduce the use of any chemical, it has been decided not to continuously disinfect
the water with chlorine. The plant is however disinfected using bleaching powder each time that the
leads are opened and each time AA is changed. This procedure should ensure hygienic condition
inside the plant.
3.5.2 Frequency of backwash and AA regeneration

Two important parameters regarding the water quantity are the frequency of backwash and AA
regeneration (AA regeneration influences the running cost as well), because during these two
operations water cannot be supplied. The backwash is performed weekly, but it lasts no longer than
15 minutes, therefore the plant is closed for a very short amount of time. The AA regeneration is
theoretically done every six months (see the experiments in paragraph 3.1), but it requires at least
one day to be completed, during which the water is not delivered to the users. This problem could
be avoided having a stock of fresh AA, but only the presence of a higher number of plants may
justify such an expense.
80
3.5.3 Biological-chemical Iron and Arsenic removal.

It is interesting to compare the Iron and Arsenic removal with other results found in the literature.
The Iron removal efficiency in the sand filter is good (80%). However, given a short retention time
(5 minutes), the absence of a pre-chlorination and an aeration system that cannot bring the oxygen
content close to saturation, the main iron removing process is likely to be a biological process. An
improvement in the removal may be obtained optimizing the retention time and the redox
conditions, as explained in [Mouchet, 1992] or [Katsoyannis, 2004].
The Arsenic removal in the sand filter is probably obtained by a combination of adsorption of
As(V) on iron-hydroxide flocs, as explained in [Sharma, 2004], and by an oxidation-adsorption of
As(III) and As(V) caused by biological processes. It is difficult to understand which the dominant
mechanism is. A biological removal of As(III) from 200 µg/L to less than 10 µg/L has been
obtained in laboratory by [Katsoyannis, 2004], while Iron removing units based on a chemical-
physical process have an Arsenic removal efficiency around 80% [Sharma, 2004]. The removal
efficiencies obtained in our plants are however much lower, around 40%. Once again an
optimization of the retention time and of the redox condition should improve the removal.
Another parameter that influences the Arsenic removal is the initial iron concentration: theoretically
a higher iron concentration facilitates the simultaneous Arsenic removal, as more adsorption sites
are available. It is therefore expected a better removal efficiency for the SPREAD plant, where the
initial iron concentration is higher than in the KTT plant (1,6 and 0,6 mg/L respectively). The
removal efficiency in the two plants, however, does not differ significantly (39 and 37%
respectively on average).
81
3.5.4 Comparison with other As solutions

The implementation of a new community plant introduced in the study area a new solution to the
Arsenic problem. The following solutions have been implemented and tested in the Arsenic project:
a) Community Plant
b) Household Kolshi / Bucket filter
c) Household Unicef filter
d) Deep Tube well
e) Switching to safe wells after measurement
It is now interesting to try to compare them, in order to understand which are the most suitable and
appropriate. The following Table 14 gives an overview of the initial cost (total and per household),
running cost, removal efficiency, advantages and disadvantages of these solutions.
It can be observed that the community plant has very high initial cost, second only to a deep tube
well. A deep tube well, however, can serve much more people than a community plant, and
therefore its cost per household is lower. The main advantage of the community plant is that it can
provide water from a point source to several households, and therefore the monitoring of the water
quality is easy compared i.e. to household filters. A deep tube well has the same advantage. The
main disadvantages of the community plants built during this pilot project are the needs of regular
backwash and regeneration of AA, as these activities require the support of the beneficiaries,
organized in the Plant Committee, and the support of an external organization.
It can be concluded that the best solution on an economic and cost-effectiveness point of view is the
sinking of deep tube wells. The need of a structured organization for the O&M of a community
plant, however, can be turned into its main strength point. The structured organization, as a Self
Help Group or a Plant Committee, can help improving the general life conditions of its members. A
clear example of this was observed in the Arsenic project, where SHG have been created to solve
the Arsenic problem and they have turned into a wealth generating activities, used by poor members
of the community to save money, start productive activities taking loans, discuss problems, and thus
increase their power and life quality.
82
Table 14. A comparison between 5 different solutions to the Arsenic problem that have been implemented in the study area.
Method Initial cost Initial Running cost Removal Main advantages Main disadvantages Comments
(total) cost (per (per family) efficiency
family)
Community 7000-10000 400-1000 5-15 initially very Easy to monitor, Organization of O&M, The performances of
plant Rs Rs/family Rs/month/family high, lower provides water for needs backwash and the two plants that
before AA 10-20 families. AA regeneration have been built need
regeneration Short walking to be evaluated over
distance. time
Household 200 Rs 200 <5 Less than 50 Ownership. Water Breakable, difficult to Some filters have
Kolshi Rs/family Rs/month/family ppb available directly monitor, risk of been successfully
filter at home. bacterial contamination used for more than
one year
Household 500 Rs 500 5-10 initially very Ownership, easy to Difficult to monitor, Need AA
Unicef Rs/family Rs/month/family high, lower use AA needs regeneration regeneration that is
filter before AA possible only at the
regeneration sanitary mart from
Unicef
Deep tube 10000-40000 - <5 Usually deep Can provide water High initial cost. This alternative has
well Rs Rs/month/family tube wells for a large number Long walking distance not been yet
(different are Arsenic of people, easy to for some users. implemented in the
estimations have free. Some monitor Arsenic project, but
been done
according to
are Arsenic some governmental
depth, location contaminated DTW have been dug.
and used
materials)
Switching Material for 80-40 Rs 0 A safe well Easy to technically Safe tube wells are not Tubewells are
to safe Arsenic may become implement. always available. measured for 40 Rs
wells measurement contaminated Measurements and for SHGs’ members.
(i.e. over time. monitoring requires
Arsenator, skilled personnel.
1000 $) Sharing of private
tubewells is not always
socially accepted
83
3.5.5 Sustainability evaluation

Whether the community solution implemented is successful or not depends not only on its technical
performances (Arsenic, iron or bacterial removal), but also on its sustainability. Sustainability is a
crucial aspect in the implementation of a development project, because it is a condition for its long
term viability. Some critical parameters influencing sustainability can be identified and have been
found to be relevant for sustainability evaluation in this particular project. They are [Bregnhøj,
1997]:
Motivation of the beneficiaries

Proper organizational setup
Appropriate and cheap technology
Motivation of the beneficiaries

Motivation of the beneficiaries is essential for the sustainability of the plant, because beneficiaries
the one mainly responsible for its operation and maintenance. Particularly, they should be willing to
spend time, but also money for these purposes.
In the Community Plant Project the following points are believed to influence the motivation of the
end users. They result mainly from the participatory approach strategy, which is believed to
contribute positively to their motivation.
Choice of the technology: the beneficiaries were asked their preferences regarding the design
of the community plant. Thus, a technology based on adsorption was chosen because of its smallest
workload. They also affirmed their preference for backwash as option for cleaning of the sand filter.
The technology that has been chosen is moreover simple to operate and maintain.
Technology acceptance: this should be ensured by the fact that the beneficiaries participated
to the decision making process. Nevertheless it is possible that once build and in use, the plant does
not correspond to the expectations of the end users. The satisfaction surveys revealed that the users
are globally satisfied with the technology, as far as taste, color, odor of the water and maintenance
workload are concerned. Nevertheless complaints about the temperature of the water in SPREAD
and the speed of the flow at the collection point emerged. These two points could disappoint and
discourage the beneficiaries.
Costs sharing: the payment of the initial costs is also believed to enhance beneficiaries’
motivation. Nevertheless, the beneficiaries had only to pay part of the initial costs, the remaining
84
being funded by the Arsenic project, which can hinder the strength of their ownership. The full
payment of the initial costs should be asked for future community plant implementations.
Creation of a Plant Committee: the organization of the beneficiaries in a plant committee is
believed to enhance motivation and responsibility of the beneficiaries, because of mutual aid or
pressure from the group for instance. The establishment of a list of rules agreed by all the
beneficiaries and stipulating their duties as regards to operation and maintenance should also keep
up their responsibility feeling. SPREAD plant committee is believed to be stronger than KTT plant
committee. In SPREAD the women come from the same SHG, whereas in KTT the women from
different SHG were put together to form a new plant committee. This can create some problems, for
instance the women will have to attend two different meetings monthly, one SHG and one plant
committee meeting.
Current water situation: the current situation of the beneficiaries as regards to water also
influences their motivation to solve their Arsenic problem by using the community plant. In
SPREAD, the women are aware of their key role in solving the problem of their community.
Moreover, they live in an area where no other easy solution to the Arsenic problem is available, and
therefore the construction of a community plant in their village could solve the water problem for
many households. The women are also likely to maintain the plant properly since they have no
other choice for getting safe water. In KTT area the situation is different. The beneficiaries in KTT
do already have already solution to get Arsenic free water, since there are deep tube wells in Gazna.
The women in KTT are likely to be much more exigent from the plant, and be reluctant to make the
necessary maintenance efforts. The danger is that they could come back to their old habits more
easily than in SPREAD.
Proper organizational setup

Sharing of the responsibilities for operation and maintenance is at stake here. The distribution of
these tasks between the beneficiaries and the CBO workers has been carefully discussed and agreed
during one of the plant committee meeting. These decisions are stated in the list of rules (see
Appendix O) written on the register book to ensure transparency.
Training activities have been carried out for ensuring proper operation and maintenance, both for
the workers and for the beneficiaries. The authors believe that the technology is simple enough, and
that the training activities have been successful so as to ensure proper O&M. The workers should
also be able to carry out repairing activities if necessary, or to ask for external help, since they assist
in every step of the construction.
85
A threat to the sustainability could come from the needs for monitoring and regeneration of
activated alumina. CBOs’ workers can with no doubts make monthly measurement of the Arsenic
outlet concentration, and decide on the need for regeneration or not. Nevertheless they need the
Arsenic field kit, as well as a regular supply of chemicals and filters that are not available in West
Bengal but are provided by DTU. Monitoring the plant performances on the long term would
therefore require a permanent support from the donor organization, which hinders the sustainability
of the project. Regeneration of activated alumina also raises some sustainability issues, since only
the UNICEF is currently able to do it. Even if frequent visits to the UNICEF centre created good
relationships and a climate of reliability between both sides, the best would be to be independent as
regards to regeneration. The authors would advise that the CBO are provided with the necessary
equipment, and that CBO workers are trained to carry out regeneration by themselves.
Appropriate and cheap technology

An appropriate technology should be designed to provide the best available solution for the
beneficiaries while making the best use of the available resources [Ngowi, 1997]. It should be
accessible to the community and to women groups, i.e it should be cheap and easy to operate and
maintain. Considerations such as costs, quality, technical feasibility, skills of the end users,
resources, and human dimensions should be at stake when deciding upon a technology.
The plants built in SPREAD and KTT area are believed to comply with most of the above
requirements. Operation and maintenance have been kept simple, and all the women of each plant
committee could easily understand and perform O&M. the construction of the community plants
using locally available materials and local skilled labor ensures that spare parts and skills will be
available in case repairing is needed. Since the plant does not requires any electricity supply but is
gravity driven, the only causes of stopping of the water supply would be regeneration of the AA or
temporary breakdown. Moreover, being built for few household, the queuing and distance issues are
avoided. Finally cement has been chosen as a material for construction, which is believed to resist
longer to external constraint than plastic or metal for instance.
The cost issue is also at stake. The two plants that have been built are rather expensive, around 700
Rs per family in SPREAD and 1000 Rs in KTT, which would not be affordable without the help of
the project. Per household initial costs should be decreased to acceptable levels in the future, when
100 % of the initial costs will be asked to the beneficiaries. This has been targeted at in section
86
4.2.1, and a final optimal cost of 425 Rs could be reached. This is affordable for most of the
families in the area.
3.5.6 Problems & Suggestions

The authors could remain on the field area only between February and June 2005. This period of
time has been too short to investigate all the aspects related to the Community Plants effectiveness
and sustainability on a long term basis. Further studies are therefore here suggested.
The most critical aspect of the built plants is probably the need of replacement of Activated
Alumina. It would be very important to closely monitor the Arsenic breakthrough, initially
collecting data frequently (once or twice a month). Once sufficient data have been collected, the
monitoring frequency can be reduced, as the breakthrough can be theoretically predicted. The
monitoring of the Arsenic breakthrough is now a duty of the CBOs’ workers. Their capacities and
autonomy will be therefore tested during the following months.
A second interesting study would be the optimization of the sand filter operations. The nature of the
Iron and Arsenic removal can be investigated with a simple experiment. A chlorination of the inlet
water would inhibit and halt the activities of the iron oxidizing bacteria, thus affecting the biological
removal but not the chemical-physical one. Comparing Iron and Arsenic removal in the sand filter
before and after chlorination would give therefore valuable information about the real contribution
of the two processes to the Iron and Arsenic removal [Katsoyannis, 2004]. Once the nature of the
processes has been found, an optimization can be tried acting on the aeration system with the aim of
ensuring optimal redox conditions. A deeper study of the aeration system is therefore suggested as
well.
Finally the long term performances of the plants should be investigated. The goal should be to
identify all those aspects that may create problems, such as breakable parts, non efficient
maintenance organization or complaints, and eliminate them through improvements of the plant
design and improvements of the maintenance system. Such a process should take advantage of the
beneficiaries’ contribution and suggestions.
87
Chapter 4. Capacity Building
4 Capacity Building
The second objective of the project “Community Plant for Arsenic Removal from Water in West
Bengal” is the capacity building of the involved organizations. As “capacity building” we intend the
improvement of the social, technical and organizational skills the CBOs have to use in order to deal
with the Arsenic problem. These capacities have been transmitted to the field workers and
monitored by the authors through a series of activities, such as workshops, experiments, surveys
and quizzes.
4.1 Objectives
When dealing with capacity building of an individual or a group of individuals, it is necessary to
define the objectives that one wants to reach. In this particular project, the following knowledge and
abilities were perceived necessary for the workers to meet the current and future needs and demands
of the project.
Arsenic awareness
Creating awareness about Arsenic, its occurrence, its effect on health, the remedial actions to be
taken in contaminated areas and the existing removal technologies was at stake during the first
phase of the Arsenic project [Meek and Benito, 2004]. Meek and Benito found out that workers had
gained a good understanding of general Arsenic issues, but that some of them still needed to be
refined. Particularly the teaching on Arsenic removal technologies had been oriented towards
household co-precipitation technologies, and therefore adsorption technologies, used in this
particular project, needed to be addressed.
Community plant implementation

The workers should develop the necessary skills to deal with the technical and social requirements
of a community plant.
- Understanding of the removal processes taking place in the technology
- Practical abilities: the workers should be able to build small scale community plants
and to test their performances. Thus they should have a first overview of the
technical constraints that could occur on a larger scale.
- Designing the technology: the workers should be familiar with design considerations
(tanks’ volume, amount of chemical, flow etc. ), as well as to draw technical sketch
of the technologies.
88
- Materials and external labor: the workers should know which materials and external
labor are necessary to purchase for the construction of the technology and where to
purchase them. They should also be able to help and supervise the work of the
external skilled person.
- Organizing and supporting beneficiaries: the workers should achieve involvement of
the beneficiaries in each phase of the project. They should thus be aware of the social
aspects of community involvement. They should for instance guide them in the
choice of their technology, teach them in maintenance and operation and help them
to organize it, etc..
- Monitoring and follow up: the workers should carry out monitoring activities of the
plant performances, ensure the proper functioning of the plant, supply chemicals and
solve potential technical problems.
Communication skills for knowledge transmission

The workers should develop the necessary skills to interact with the various stakeholders involved
in the project. They should be able to spread information, teach and explain about the technology,
provide guidance to the beneficiaries, but also to the skilled persons hired for construction of the
technology. This can be achieved through meetings, direct discussions, in the field demonstration,
posters/technical drawings presentation.
Autonomy
The project is based on collaboration between the authors and the local workers, in which the
authors are providing guidance and technical help for the implementation of the project, whereas
the workers are the actors of the project execution. Therefore they should achieve a certain degree
of autonomy, by which they become able to take initiatives and influence the decision making
process. Thus the socio-cultural knowledge of the locals is integrated to the project. Moreover,
developing autonomy is necessary for the workers when the external help withdraws.
Analytical capacities:
The workers should be able to make use of the knowledge and information they have collected, by
analyzing them, confronting them together and taking the appropriate decision, considering the
overall situation. This is necessary for them in order to solve problems, or to start the
implementation of a new project for instance.
89
4.2 Activities
Many activities have been used as tools for capacity building. The main activities are:
a) Workshops
b) Homework
c) Experiments
d) Surveys
e) Quizzes
Each activity is related with one or more of the five capacity building objectives. This relationship
is given in the following Table 15, and explained in details in the following paragraph.
Table 15. The main capacity building activities and the objectives related.
Activity Objective
Workshops Arsenic awareness, community plant implementation, communication
skills, autonomy, analytical capacities
Homework Autonomy, Arsenic awareness, analytical capacities
Experiments Autonomy, analytical capacities, community plant implementation
Surveys Communication skills, analytical capacities, community plant
implementation
Quizzes Arsenic awareness, analytical capacities
4.2.1 Workshops
Workshops have been the main activity for capacity building. Five different workshops, lasting one
to three days each, have been held. The date, the location and the main topics of each one is listed in
Table 16. Four workshops have been done each ten days during the first period, in order to reach a
level at which the field workers could actively participate in the design and in the construction of
the community plants.
Table 16. Date, location and topics of the workshops.
Date Location Topics

8-10 March KTT Presentations – Introduction to community plant designs – Initial quiz
90
19-21 March SPREAD Design of community plants – MCA – Criteria for beneficiaries’
selection -
1-2 April BSSKS Organization of O&M and of the Plant Committee – Social aspects
12 April KTT Small scale experiments, design and construction
30-31 May KTT Conclusions – Lessons learned - Final quiz
The topics that have been covered during the first three workshops regard both technical (plant
design and construction) and social (selection of beneficiaries, organization of the plant committee)
aspects of a community plant. During the fourth workshops the workers had to manually apply their
knowledge building small scale filters to remove Arsenic (see Figure 36). The last workshop has
been done to draw conclusions and to evaluate the progresses of the workers. The workshops have
been located at all the three organizations, as it is important that each CBO is able to organize a
workshop.
The teaching method has been based as far as possible on adult and participatory learning
techniques. Adults learn in a different way than children. It is important i.e. to use their personal
experience and to work in a safe, supportive environment in which all the students can participate
actively [IRC, 2002]. Direct lecturing is therefore only one of the tools that have been used. A
detailed program of each workshop is given in Appendix T, while the used tools and the related
objectives are given in the following Table 17.
Table 17. Tools for capacity building and related objectives.

Activity Description Objective
Lectures Frontal lectures given by the authors to the workers, Arsenic awareness,
done in order to transmit information about the community plant
theoretical background or other topics useful for the implementation,
project. autonomy
Presentations Workers are asked to present the results of homework Communication
or assigned researches to the others in a given time. It skills, Arsenic
improves the ability of speaking to an audience and awareness
of summarizing information. It is as well a way to
share knowledge.
Role plays A typical situation that can be found on the field is Communication
described (i.e. a meeting with a SHG). Workers are skills, analytical
then asked to adopt a role and play it (i.e. a member capacities
91
of the SHG). It gives a better understanding of other

people’s positions and offers opportunities for
discussion.
Group Homework solutions, researches, role plays, Analytical
discussions experiments or survey are discussed with the capacities,
supervision of the authors in order to share ideas and communication skills
find conclusions.
Practical / Exercises asking to apply in practice the theory Arsenic awareness,
written acquired during lectures. Useful to clarify doubts and analytical capacities,
exercises strength the knowledge. autonomy
Field visits A field visit (i.e. to an existing community plant) is Analytical capacities
an opportunity to gain experience about real life
situations. It also offers an opportunity for the
workers to socialize.
Workshops have been therefore useful to improve all the five objectives of capacity building:
Arsenic awareness, community plant implementation, communication skills, autonomy, and
analytical capacities.
Figure 35. A direct lecture during a workshop.
92
4.2.2 Homework
Homework were given to each organization after each workshop. They enabled to evaluate the
abilities of the workers to understand, digest and use the knowledge they had been taught.
Four homeworks, two theoretical and two practical, were asked to the workers. The first homework
consisted in a review of the existing community plants in each organization’s area. In the second
one the workers had to come up with their own community plant design. For their third homework,
the workers where asked to build small sand filtration units and to measure the Arsenic removal in
this unit: this was therefore a practical exercise. For the fourth homework workers were asked to
search for materials that could be used to build an Arsenic removal unit based on adsorption, and
possibly to build a small working unit,
Homework have been used to improve the autonomy of the workers, their Arsenic awareness and
their analytical capacities.
4.2.3 Experiments
Any experiment requires a theoretical background and the capacity of analyzing the results.
Planning and performing experiments is considered very important for Capacity Building, as it
increases the autonomy and the analytical capacities of the workers. Through experiments it is also
possible to modify and improve the design of existing household or community filters and therefore
experiments are linked to the community plant implementation objective as well. More in general,
the sustainability of the project is directly linked to the problem solving skills of the field workers,
and experiments can be seen as a tool in finding new solutions to a problem [IRC, 2002].
The workers had to apply their knowledge doing experiments, in order to check the assimilation of
the theoretical knowledge and the capacity to use it on a more practical basis.. Experiments were
usually assigned at the end of the workshop, as homework. Workers had to measure the
performances of existing community plants, build and test small scale sand filters or complete
Arsenic removal units. The experiments were mainly designed for the technical workers, and they
included the use of the Arsenator to perform Arsenic measurements. The results were presented and
discussed during workshops, in order to share the gained knowledge between the three
organizations. Other times the workers helped the students during their experiments, or they
autonomously started an experiment and later reported the results to the students.
93
4.2.4 Surveys
Two surveys have been done during the field project. The first had as objective the selection of
beneficiaries and the collection of data useful for the design of the plant. This survey has been
conducted by all the three organizations to the members of a selected Self Help Group. The second
survey had the objective of evaluating the beneficiaries’ satisfaction. See Appendix M for details
about the surveys.
Surveys had already been used during the pilot project for household filters implementation. [Meek
and Benito, 2004]. The new surveys have been therefore designed in a similar way to the old ones,
in order to be able to compare the results. Surveys’ questions were proposed for discussion during
the workshops, and then refined with the help of the field workers. The social workers had the
responsibility to conduct the interviews and deliver the data to the students.
Through surveys workers develop their communication skills, while analyses of the results could
develop their analytical capacities (this subject has been deeply investigated by Marie Bourgoin in
[Bourgoin, 2005]). The information retrieved with a survey is furthermore crucial for the
implementation of the community plant.
4.2.5 Quizzes
Quizzes have been used to monitor in an objective way the capacities of the workers. The first quiz
has been done during the first workshop, in order to understand the actual level of the workers.
Questions about Arsenic removal techniques, Arsenic health effects and theory about the
participatory approach were therefore posed. The second quiz has been done during the last
workshop, in order to evaluate the progresses of the workers. A section about theory related to the
community plant was therefore added. The quizzes are reported in Appendix P.
Quizzes had already been used in the Arsenic project during the pilot implementation of household
filters [Meek and Benito, 2004]. Similar questions have been repeated, in order to evaluate the
capacities of the workers after 1 year since the start of the project.
Quizzes are more an evaluation tool, rather than a capacity building tool. The solution of a quiz was
however always discussed, focusing in particular on the more problematic questions. Quizzes can
94
therefore be seen as a special kind of lectures, and they are therefore useful for Arsenic awareness
and to develop the analytical capacities of the workers.
4.3 Evaluation Methods

Capacity development evaluation is a continuous process, which was achieved all along the project
implementation. It required the use of several tools: direct observation of the workers’ activities,
review of generated documents and analyses of quizzes. These evaluation tools are here described,
while the results of the evaluation are given in the following section.
Direct observations of the workers’ activities:

All the capacity building activities described in the previous paragraphs have been monitored by
the authors. These include: (note that quizzes are a special monitoring tool and they are described
separately later)
- Workshops
- Homework
- Experiments and small scale plants
- Surveys
Observing the workers activities during each phase of the project implementation permitted a
broad understanding of the process by which the workers developed their capacities, and the level
of development they had reached.
- Involvement of the beneficiaries

Meetings, house to house discussions and technology demonstration to the beneficiaries
enable to check the communication skills of the workers, as well as their understanding of
the technical and social concerns that lies behind the execution of the community plant for
Arsenic removal. The organisational skills of the CBO were also at stake since they were
responsible for contacting beneficiaries and organize meetings.
- Search for skilled labour and material

The workers were left the responsibility of purchasing the adequate materials and skilled
labour for the community plant construction. For this they had to compile data about
95
technical, social and economical constraints, and to take the appropriate decision, which
therefore called for their analytical mind. Their autonomy could also be monitored.
- Organization’s initiatives
Some of the activities performed during the project implementation were not a direct request
of the authors, but spontaneous actions carried out by the organizations. This demonstrated
the degree of autonomy of the organizations.
Review of generated documents:
- MCAs:
MCAs on three community plant technologies were done by the workers during the second
workshop. MCAs had been introduced earlier by Thyø and Andersen [Thyø and Andersen,
2005]. The authors could here monitor how much the workers reminded of these teachings,
as well as their capacity to apply them in an other context. A small recall on MCA was
nevertheless done for refreshing of the workers knowledge. MCAs were also a way to check
the understanding of the workers about the different technologies.
-Criteria and surveys for beneficiaries’ selection

The workers were asked to participate in the creation of a list of criteria for beneficiaries’
selection. A survey for the potential beneficiaries was established by the authors and
discussed with the workers for potential modification and approval. Social workers went
house to house to ask the surveys. Their understanding of community involvement
principles was here at stake.
- Community plant drawings

The workers were asked to draw technical and artistic sketches of the community plant, and
to present them both to the beneficiaries and to the mason and the plumber. The authors
could hereby check their ability to communicate information and to adapt to various
interlocutors. Also the quality of the drawing in terms of clearness and precision of the
representation witnessed the degree of understanding of the technology’s design.
Analyses of quizzes
96
Quizzes give a direct picture of the level of knowledge gained by the workers. Two quizzes were
given to the workers during the first workshop held the 09/03/05 and the last workshop held the
30/06/05.
The first quiz was composed of True/False and opened questions to check the Arsenic related
general knowledge that the workers had gained earlier in the Arsenic project. The second quiz
aimed at the evaluation of the technical and social gained knowledge on community plants
implementation. It combined True/False questions and open questions, both addressed to technical
and social workers. The quizzes are available in Appendix P.
97
4.4 Results
Nb: the results listed below often concern only SPREAD and KTT workers. Actually, because of
lack of time and the distance between BSSKS and the other organizations, no community plant was
built in BSSKS area, and therefore they were not involved in all the activities during the project.
4.4.1 Workshops
Workers were already familiar with the workshop activities. They used to listen carefully, take
notes, participate and ask questions during lectures. In group work, they were fast at forming mixed
groups and usually entered the matter of the exercise without help from the authors. As well they
were spontaneous to explain their results orally to the rest of the groups. The workers were
nevertheless not good at focusing on one topic, often deviating the subject of the discussion, or
asking too vague/precise questions that were irrelevant. No differences could be observed between
the workers from different CBOs. We could, as expected, see a difference between workers who
have recently joined the project and the workers who have been employed since the beginning, as
the old workers were much more active and participating. This, together with the results of the
quizzes, can be seen as a proof of the on going process of training.
Differences between the organizational skills of the three CBOs could be observed as well. The
organization of a workshop requires that the hosting CBO find and select a place for the lectures,
prepare the meals for the participants and, eventually, provide overnight accommodation for the
student and the workers. SPREAD and KTT have demonstrated slightly better capacities compared
to BSSKS.
4.4.2 Homework
The outcome of the first homework (analyses of existing community plant) satisfied the authors,
since the workers came up with interesting information and made an effort of presentation of their
homework. BSSKS workers seemed nevertheless less prepared than the other organizations, the
workers being shy to present their results that were somehow lacking of precision.
For the second homework (design of a community plant), all workers came up with professional
looking sketches of their designs. Except from SPREAD where the workers made confusion
between the different treatment steps, the workers showed they had understood and retained the
previous lectures. The designs were nevertheless replicas of designs they had already seen in their
98
first homework, of which they had not been able to make improvements or changes. An effort of
creation was done in SPREAD, bit it revealed itself technically non-feasible.
The third homework (construction of a small sand filter), gave interesting results. All units were
different this time, and the workers used different materials to fix their units. Comparing the
outcomes of homework 2 and 3 the authors understood that the workers were more confident with
practical rather than theoretical activities, which were leaving less space to their creativity.
Only SPREAD workers did the last homework (construction of an Arsenic removal unit), In
SPREAD they build a cement unit (see Figure 40) made of two columns, with aeration, filtration
and adsorption steps, which was almost the replica of the final community plant. This work
impressed the authors as much for the technical skills required to build such a unit, as for the
motivation that the workers showed by building it.
4.4.3 Experiments and small scale plants

The fourth workshop aimed at drawing and building small scale community plants from materials
(plastic buckets and taps, nets, plastic pipes, glue, sand, activated alumina, etc.) purchased by the
authors at the local marketplace in Gobardanga (see Figure 36). The workers were mixed in groups
from different organizations and qualifications. All groups showed they had understood the theory
taught, and their ability to translate it practically. Only one group came up with a rather simple and
feasible design, but the workers in this group had inspired themselves from the design showed as an
example by the authors. The other groups tried to be more imaginative, but their designs were heavy
and complicated. The workers showed a great interest in testing the performances (Arsenic removal
and flow) of their unit, which was organised like a competition. They made an effort of observation
and understanding of the bad and good point of their units, and were able to see which changes
would improve their units.
99
Figure 36. Some workers with an experimental filter built during the fourth workshop. This filter could remove
Arsenic from 150 ppb to 30 ppb.
Experiments where also carried out mainly by KTT workers, who benefited from the authors to live
in their area. KTT workers participated in the mini column experiments, but their degree of interest
was low. Actually, the experiment was carried out over one month and the absence of immediate
results seemed to discourage the workers. Their involvement in the flow experiment was higher.
The workers understood easily the relationship between contact time and Arsenic removal, and
carried out the experiment alone. Nevertheless they were not able to determine the optimal contact
time at the end of the experiment.
4.4.4 Surveys
The authors are generally satisfied by the capacities the workers have shown while doing surveys.
The field workers have always understood the aim of the interviews, and they have been able to ask
questions and retrieve information accordingly. SPREAD workers in particular have shown an
higher degree of autonomy while choosing the final beneficiaries and being usually more punctual
in delivering the results.
100
Figure 37. One of the field workers while doing an interview.
4.4.5 Search for local labour and skills

KTT and SPREAD workers were asked to purchase by them selves different materials for the
construction of the community plant, as well as to find the skilled staff for the construction of the
plant. The help of the organization’s leader was crucial during this step, since they do have some
connections in their area that the workers do not have. Actually, the authors felt the workers’ need
to be pushed to go and talk with different material suppliers, and their difficulty to confront the
given information, regarding price and quality for instance. They did not have a firm mind about
which material to finally choose, and this decision was made more in collaboration with the leaders.
KTT workers nevertheless disagreed with the choice of cement for the lids of the columns, and
purchased therefore metal lids alone.
When contacting and working with the skilled person (see Figure 38), the workers had to explain
them the job they were required to do. They did it by presenting and explaining technical drawings,
by assisting and supervising the work, answering questions and solving potential problems. KTT
workers were totally autonomous in this task, and could be left alone during the construction step,
whereas SPREAD workers were less comfortable, and often needed the intervention of the authors
when a decision was to be taken.
101
Figure 38. KTT technical workers helping the mason during the construction of the columns.
4.4.6 Involving beneficiaries

Beneficiaries needed to be involved from the earliest stage of the project implementation. The
workers were responsible for contacting the beneficiaries and organizing the meetings, but also to
lead the meetings, previously prepared by the authors. In SPREAD the workers showed
immediately they were able to drive the meetings alone, going trough the agenda and answering
questions without the help of the authors. In KTT, they relied more on the authors at the beginning
but became autonomous after one or two meetings.
The concepts that lie behind community involvement and participatory approach was also at stake.
In KTT they had difficulties to lead the debates, without taking the decisions instead of the women.
Very often they were presenting only the option that they thought was the best one, without leaving
the choice to the women. They were more aware of these concerns in SPREAD, where the leaders
have more experience about participatory methods than in KTT.
102
4.4.7 Organizations’ initiatives

SPREAD has shown to be the most autonomous organisation during the community plant project
implementation. Whereas KTT workers used to rely more on the authors in their daily activities,
SPREAD was usually working alone, and presenting their results to the authors when an activity
was fulfilled.
As far as activities related to the Arsenic project are concerned, both KTT and SPREAD organised
village meetings, worked with SHGs, participated to education programs, etc. BSSKS is the
weakest organization as far as autonomy is concerned, and did not organise any activity of this type.
SPREAD workers also implemented some new designs for Arsenic household filters, on request of
some beneficiaries.
Figure 39. Two household filters designed and built by SPREAD workers. The filter on the left uses activate
alumina, while the one on the right is based on co-precipitation.
103
4.4.8 Quizzes
Quiz 1
The results of the first quiz are listed in the table below. More detailed information can be found in
Appendix Q.
Table 18: result of quiz 1 on general Arsenic knowledge. Shakila Katun and Sennan Uddin scored 0 because
they were absent. Their grade is not included in any averages.
Name Total %
Protima Bose 60
Sujit Dey 70
Rita Halder 60
Ujjwal Niogi 75
KTT 66,25
Biswajit
Biswas 55
Rina Mistry 70
Nilima Roy-
Baral 85
Shakila Katun 0
SPREAD 70
Senan Uddin 65
Maskura
Begum 75
Soriful Haque 55
Sennan Uddin 0
BSSKS 65
Average 67
The average grade of all the organizations is 67 % of good answers. The authors expected better
results since the workers already had similar questions in earlier quizzes [Meek and Benito, 2004].
Actually, the workers achieved on average 81 % of good answers at that time [Meek and Benito,
2004] on the whole quiz. In fact the questions asked in the authors’ quiz where those reported to
yield the worst answers by Meek and Benito. An other explanation is that Meek and Benito’ s quiz
had been asked when the knowledge of the workers were “fresh”. An observation is that the
question stating “household technologies are always the best solution to the Arsenic problem” that
yielded 67% of wrong answers earlier [Meek and Benito, 2004], yielded only 30 % of wrong
answers, proving that the workers are aware that various solution to Arsenic problem can be
suitable, depending on the situation.
104
The three organizations scored similar results, with 65 %, 66 % and 70% for BSSKS, KTT and
SPREAD respectively. Two workers, Shoriful Haque and Biswajit Biswas, scored low, but this can
be explained by the fact they are new workers.
Quiz 2
The results of quiz 2 are listed in the table below:
Table 19: Results of Quiz 2
Name Total %
Protima Bose 71
Sujit Dey 81
Rita Halder 74
Ujjwal Niogi 79
KTT 76
Biswajit Biswas 81
Rina Mistry 73
Nilima Roy-
Baral 74
Shakila Katun 56
SPREAD 71
Senan Uddin 57
Maskura Begum 81
Soriful Haque 44
Sovana Begum 83
BSSKS 66
Average 71
This last quiz gave better results than the first one with an average of 71 % of good answers, 76 %
in KTT, 71 % in SPREAD and 66% in BSSKS. In BSSKS, 2 workers scored amongst the lowest
with 44 % and 57 % of good answers, whereas two others scored amongst the highest with 81 %
and 83 %. This result shows the different level of dedication to the project of the different workers.
In the other organizations, all workers scored in the same range, except Shakila Katun in SPREAD.
The questions yielding the lower score are those stating that a “ community plant using Activated
Alumina can provide always water with less than 10 ppb As” and “community plants are the best
solution to the As problem” in the True/False section. The mistake is certainly due to the fact that
the community plants were at that time treating water to less than 10 ppb, since the AA was new.
The mistake in the second question is the same that what was observed by Meek and Benito after
the household filter pilot project [Meek and Benito, 2004]. In fact the workers tend to be more
enthusiastic towards the solution they have just work with, and to forget about the other one,
proving that they do not have a clear understanding of the aim of a pilot program. The authors were
105
satisfied with the answers of the open questions, and the workers proved they had retained and
understood the main technical and social aspects of a community plant. Particularly, most of them
were able to draw perfect sketches of the plant, to explain backwash and normal operation, and
were conscious about monitoring. The questions about beneficiaries’ selection yield low results, due
to a misunderstanding of the question, but the workers proved they were aware of these concerns
when correcting the quiz.
Figure 40. Workers solving the final quiz.
It is interesting to compare the overall results of men and women workers, as shown in Table 20.
Women are among the best workers, and they have scored higher grades compared to men. Such a
conclusion underlines the importance of involving women in rural water supply projects, not only to
sustain gender equality, but also because they are often more motivated than men.
Table 20. A comparison between men and women results. Women have slightly higher grades.
Men 66%
Women 72%
Comparison between the results of workers that have been employed in the project since the
beginning (old workers) and workers who joined the project later (new workers) is shown in Table
106
21. Old workers always had better results than the new ones. The difference between workers does
not significantly change between the first and the second quiz, and the wrong conclusion that there
has been no improvement of the new workers capacities may be done. Actually during the last quiz
the new workers had very different results: two of them solved the quiz very well (Biswajit Biswas
and Rina Mistry) , while the other two solved it badly (Shakila Katun and Soriful Haque). It can
therefore be said that the authors have been able to successfully attach in the project only two of the
four new workers. It is interesting to note that the new workers who scored the highest joined the
project few months before the authors’ arrival, while the other two joined the project just few weeks
before. An improvement of their capacities in the future is therefore predictable.
Table 21. A comparison between the results of workers employed in the project since the beginning (old workers)
and workers who joined the project later (new workers). Old workers have better results.
Both quizzes
Old workers 73%
New workers 62%
First quiz
Old workers 70%
New workers 60%
Second quiz
Old workers 75%
New workers 64%
4.4.9 Review of generated documents
MCAs
During the recall on MCAs, the workers showed by their active participation that they remembered
their previous teachings on MCAs. During the exercise that they did in small group, they found
alone relevant criteria to put in the matrix, and scored them logically, proving they had understood
the main aspects of the technologies presented earlier in the workshop.
Criteria and surveys for beneficiaries’ selection

The list of criteria for beneficiaries’ selection was established in collaboration with the authors. This
kind of work had already been done earlier in the project [Meek and Benito, 2004], and the workers
found by themselves relevant criteria for the beneficiaries selection. Only small modifications were
proposed by the authors. The worker’s list of criteria is available in Table 8.
107
The survey for beneficiaries’ selection was proposed to the workers, who firmly commented the
weaknesses of the survey, and proposed some modifications. To reduce the social workers
workload of surveying, they were ask to make a first screening of the potential beneficiaries, using
the two other tools for selection, literature (review of existing documents about the Arsenic project)
and meetings, to choose which household they would ask the surveys. This was done successfully
in SPREAD, where the interviewed were meeting most of the criteria. In KTT nevertheless, the
workers selected some households who already had a filter or a DTW nearby for instance, which
was making them unsuitable for participating in the community plant project. Yet, during
workshops and discussion, workers seemed aware that the household possessing a safe source of
water would not be suitable beneficiaries, but they did not apply this knowledge in reality.
Community plant drawings

The workers showed a great interest in drawing the sketches of the community plant. They
understood the need for creating such documents, and were able to distinguish which drawing to
present to the plumber and mason, and which one to the beneficiaries. The workers also showed
they were able to use this tool as a basis for discussion.
The “artistic” drawing was easy for most of them, since they had developed these skills earlier in
the project, for posters creation for instance [Meek and Benito, 2004, Thyø and Andersen, 2005].
They were nevertheless not comfortable with technical drawings. For instance, they did not know
how to represent the plant on scale, and some of them had difficulties to understand the “top view”
drawing of the plant, or even to use a compass. This activity was therefore proposed during the last
workshop, for all the workers to achieve better control of this tool. The authors were very satisfied
with the drawings created, which were technically precise and clear, as well as pleasant to look at
(see i.e. Figure 29).
108
4.5 Discussion
4.5.1 Arsenic awareness

Arsenic awareness of the workers is strong. The workers proved it at various stages of the project
implementation, successfully answering to questions during workshops, village meetings or
meetings with the beneficiaries for instance. Particularly, they increased their awareness on
adsorption processes and community plants. This can be concluded from the satisfying results of the
second quiz.
4.5.2 Community plant implementation

The authors believe that the workers are able to successfully reply the necessary steps for
implementation of a community plant. The various activities they carried out during the pilot
project showed they had understood the main features of the technology’s removal processes and
design. They actively participated both on the technical side of the construction step, and on the
social side of contacting, selecting and involving the beneficiaries. Actually, by the end of the
project, the implementation of new community plants was at stake, and the process of contacting
potential beneficiaries already going on. Monitoring and follow up could unfortunately not be
deeply explored, but the authors believe, from discussions with the workers as well as observations
of the follow up activities in the household pilot project, that the workers have the capacities to
achieve them.
4.5.3 Communication skills for knowledge transmission

The workers gained confidence in this field all along the project implementation. It should be noted
that the workers did not developed the same degree of confidence with communication tools:
workers in SPREAD were very good at speaking in front of a large public, while KTT workers were
more comfortable with demonstration activities, creation and use of communication tools, such as
the technical drawings. Good relationships nevertheless exist between these organizations, as well
as a climate of emulation which should contribute to the achievement of the same degree of
performances for both organizations.
109
4.5.4 Autonomy
SPREAD workers proved to be more autonomous in their daily work than KTT workers, the later
relying more on the authors. The authors regret the lack of initiatives taken by KTT workers, but
also noticed slight improvements at the end of the pilot project. Some explanations could be the
stronger leadership in SPREAD, and the living place of the authors, located within KTT, so that
KTT workers could count on the authors’ help. Nevertheless, the initiatives taken by both
organizations within the general scope of the Arsenic project showed that both the organizations are
able to achieve a good degree of autonomy after an initial period when guidance is provided.
4.5.5 Analytical capacities:

The workers showed they had build some analytical mind during the project implementation, for
instance when dressing the list of criteria for beneficiaries selection, or when making modifications
to their small scale plant designs after the detection of some problems. Nevertheless, they were not
always able to draw conclusions from their experiences, which gives to think that their analytical
capacities still need to be improved.
110
Conclusions
Conclusions
The feasibility of community plant has been investigated during the 4 months the authors spent on
the field in North-24 Parganas.
Two pilot community plants have been built in the villages of Gazna and Binerati in collaboration
with two local Community Based Organizations. The plants serve a group of 10 families in Gazna
and 12 families in Binerati, and are designed to deliver water up to 20 families The plants are
attached to a hand pump tube well, and the removal mechanism is based on an aeration-sand
filtration step for biological-chemical Iron and Arsenic removal and a following filtration in an
Activated Alumina column for Arsenic removal. The sand filter is backwashed every week, while
the Activated Alumina is replaced approximately after six months of operation.
The feasibility has been evaluated according to the water quality, the water quantity and the used
materials. Both units provide water with an Arsenic concentration lower than the Indian limit of 50
µg/L, and so far lower than the WHO guideline of 10 µg/L. The Iron content has been reduced
under the WHO guideline of 0, 3 mg/L and the treatment does not increase the risk for bacterial
contamination. Furthermore the plant provides enough water for drinking and cooking for up to 20
families and it has been built only using locally available materials. The construction cost is
between 7000-10 000 Rs, while the running cost is between 100-200 Rs per month. The initial cost
is therefore high compared to the local economical conditions, while the running costs, when shared
among the beneficiaries, are affordable.
The collaboration with the local CBOs has been strict: the local field workers participated during
the design and construction phases of the project and have been trained to operate and maintain the
plants. The capacities of the field workers have been improved and checked during workshops and
other activities, and they are now able to reply the entire process in other areas. The involvement of
the beneficiaries has been ensured by the creation of a Plant Committee, with the aims of collecting
funds to cover the running cost and take care of operation and maintenance of the plant. The
involvement of the local CBOs and of the beneficiaries should ensure the long term sustainability of
the project.
A comparison with other solutions to the Arsenic problem has shown that a community plant has
high cost, especially when compared with household filters. The advantages of a community plant,
111
Conclusions
like being easy to monitor or delivering water to a large number of people, are comparable to those
of a deep tube well. Deep tube wells are initially more expensive, but they can provide water to
more persons than a community plant, with much lower running cost and a less problematic
organization of operation and maintenance. Community plants can therefore be regarded as a
suitable solution only in areas were deep tube wells are absent and difficult to implement.
Further investigations, such as monitoring of the long term performances of the plant, experiments
to clarify and optimize the removal mechanism and the aeration system, study of the beneficiaries’
satisfaction and improvement of the design are finally suggested.
112
Appendix
REFERENCES
Ahmed, M. Feroze (2001), An Overview of Arsenic Removal Technologies in Bangladesh and
India, Department of Civil Engineering, Bangladesh University of Engineering & Technology,
Dhaka-1000, Bangladesh. Retrieved 14-06-2004 from http://www.unu.edu/env/Arsenic/Ahmed.pdf
Ahmed, M. Feroze (2002). Alternative Water Supply Options for Arsenic Affected Areas of
Bangladesh. Published by ITN-Bangladesh, Centre for Water Supply and Waste Management. A
theme paper for presentation and discussion at the International Workshop on Arsenic Mitigation in
Bangladesh, Dhaka, January 14-16, 2002.
Ahmed, Feroze; Rahman Mujibur (2003). Water Supply & Sanitation, rural and low income
urban communities. ITN-Bangladesh, Centre for Water Supply and Waste Management BUET,
Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Arvin, Eric et al (2002). Activated Carbon Filtration of Water, Eric Arvin, Hans-Jorgen
Albrechtsen and Rasmus Boe-Hansen, Environment and Resources, E&R Technical University of
Denmark. Note for the course “Water supply”, Spring 2004.
Arvin, Eric (2002b). Aeration and stripping of gasses. Environment and Resources, E&R
Technical University of Denmark. Note for the course “Water supply”, Spring 2004.
Arvin, Eric (2004). Filtration of drinking water. Erik Arvin, Environment and Resources, E&R
Technical University of Denmark. Note for the course “Water supply”, Spring 2004.
Barbieri and Essert, (2005) Co-precipitation and Adsorption Experiments for Arsenic Removal.
Report written during January – February 2005 for the 5 credits special course in preparation for the
final project “Arsenic Removal Community Plant in West Bengal – India”. Environment and
Resources, E&R Technical University of Denmark.
BE College, (2005). Website from the Bengal Engineering and Science University, Shibpur.
Retrieved 11-07-05 from http://www.becs.ac.in/index.php.
Bourgoin, (2005). Impact of Arsenic Removal Technologies on Behavior and Bacteriological

Water Quality. Master Thesis. Environment & Resources, Technical University of Denmark, 2004.
Brambilla, Maddalena (2005). Participation of Women in a Water Project in India. Report written
during February - June 2005 for a 5 credits special course. Environment and Resources, E&R
Technical University of Denmark.
Bregnhøj, (1997) Critical Sustainability Parameters in Defluoridation of Drinking Water, H.

Bregnhøj, Environment and Resources, E&R Technical University of Denmark. A paper issued for
the Second International Workshop on Fluorisis and Defluoridation of Water held in Nazreth,
Ethiopia, November 1997.
Bregnhoj, Henrik (2003). Application sent to Danida for the “Local Management of the Arsenic
Contaminated Drinking Water in West Bengal” project.
Bregnhoj, Henrik (2004). “Local Management of the Arsenic Contaminated Drinking Water in
West Bengal”: project strategy.
113
Appendix
Bregnhøj Henrik, (2004b), Water and Wastewater Management in the Tropics. Edited by
Lønholdt et al. IWA Publishers, 2005.
Chakraborti, Dipankar (2002),Arsenic calamity in the Indian subcontinent : What lessons have
been learned?( Elsevier), 58 (1) , p. 3 - 22. In: Talanta.
Cheng, R. C.; Liang, S.; Wang, H. C. and Beuhler, M. D. (1994). Enhanced

Coagulation for Arsenic Removal. Jour. AWWA 86(9),79-90.
Gauthier, J., (2004). Gauthier, Julien. Arsenic contamination in North 24 Parganas – Mapping and
capacity building, Master Thesis. Environment & Resources, Technical University of Denmark,
2004.
Genç-Fuhrman et al. Arsenate removal From Water Using Sand-red Mud columns, Hülya Genç-
Fuhrman, Henrik Brengnhoj and David McConchie, Environment and Resources, E&R Technical
University of Denmark.
Gupta and Chen, (1978). Arsenic removal by adsorption, shailendrai K. Gupta, Kenneth Y. Chen,
university of southern California, Los Angeles.
Horton, D., Alexaki, A., Bennett-Lartey, S., Brice, K. Noële, Campilan, D., Carden, F., de
Souza Silva, J., et al. (2003). Evaluating Capacity Development: Experiences from Research and
Development Organizations around the World. ISNAR, IDRC, and ACP-EU Technical Center for
Agric. And Rural Coop.
IRC (2002). Supporting Community Management: A manual for training in community

management in the water and sanitation sector. By: Mark P. Lammerink (FMD Consultants) and
Eveline Bolt (IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre). Occasional Paper Series.
Delft/Haarlem, September 2002.
Jalil and Ahmed. Development of An Activated Alumina Based Household Arsenic Removal Unit,
Department of Civil Engineering, Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET),
Bangladesh
Johnston, Richard and Heijnen, Han (2001). Safe Water Technology for Arsenic Removal.
Report included in “Technologies for Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water” (A compilation of
papers presented at the International Workshop on Technologies for Arsenic Removal from
Drinking Water organized by Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET),
Dhaka, Bangladesh and The United Nations University, Tokyo, Japan). pp 1-22.
Katsoyiannis (2004). Application of biological processes for the removal of Arsenic from
groundwaters. (Elsevier). Katsoyiannis, I.A. 2004, 38 (1) , p. 17-26. In: Water Research.
Katz, Trevis; Sara, Jennifer, (1997). Making Rural Water Supply Sustainable: Reccomendations
from a Global Study. UNDP – World Bank, Water & Sanitation Program, 1997.
Kleemeier, Elizabeth (2000), The Impact of Participation on Sustainability: An Analysis of the

Malawi Rural Pipe...(Elsevier), 28 (5) , p. 929-944. In: World Development.
114
Appendix
Lin and Wu, (2000). Adsorption of Arsenite and Arsenate Within Activated Alumina Grains:
equilibrium and Kinetics. Tsair-Fuh Lin and Jun-Kun Wu, department of Environmental
Engineering, national Cheng Kung University, Tainan City, Taiwan.
Lusthaus et al. (1999) Capacity development: Definitions, Issues and Implications for Planning,
Monitoring and Evaluation. Charles Lusthaus, Marie-Hélène Adrien, Mark Perstinger, Occasional
Paper N° 35 from Universalia, Management Consulting Firm, Montreal, Quebec
MAGC, (2001). Website from MAGC technologies limited, retrieved 11-07-05 from
http://www.magctech.com/applications.html
Meek and Benito, (2004). Household Dearsenation in North 24-Parganas, India. Master Thesis.
Environmental and Resources Department. Technical University of Denmak.
Mugdal. Draft review of the Household Arsenic Removal Technology Options, Arun Kumar
Mugdal, HNT sector professional, Asia.
Narayan, Deepa, (1995). The contribution of People’s Participation. Evidence from 121 Rural
Water Supply Projects. Environmentally Sustainable Development Occasional Paper Series No. 1.
The World Bank, Washington, D.C., 1995.
Ngowi, (1997): Community Managed Infrastructure facilities, A.B Ngowi, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Botswana, Gaborone, Botswana.
Mouchet, P. (1992). From conventional to biological removal of iron and manganese in France. J.
AWWA. 84 (April) p. 158-167.
Rhaman et al, (2003): Arsenic Groundwater Contamination and Sufferings of People in North 24
Parganas, One of the Nine Arsenic Affected Districts of West Bengal, India. Mohammad
Mahmudur Rhaman, Badal Kumar Mandal, Tarit Roy Chowdhury, Mrinal Kumar Sengupta, Uttam
Kumar Chowdhury, dilip Lodh, Chitta ranjan chanda, Gautam Kumar Basu, Subhash Chandra
Mukherjee, Kshitish Chandra Saha, dipankar Chakraborti, Scholl of Environmental Studies,
jadavpur university, Kolkata , India. Department of Neurology, medical college, kolkata, India. A
paper from the Journal of Environmental Science and Health, , vol. A38, No 1, pp 25-59, 2003.
Saha et al. Comparative Studies for Selection of Technologies for Arsenic Removal from Drinking
Water. J.C saha, Department of Design Consultant Limited, DDC Centre Dhaka, Bangladesh. K.
Dikshit and M. bandyopadhyay, Deprtment of Civil Engineerin, Indian institute of technology,
Kharagpur, India
Sharma, A Kumari. (2004). Optimisation of iron removal units to include Arsenic removal. A.K.
Sharma, J.C. Tjell & H. Mosbæk. Environment & Resources DTU, Technical university of
Denmark, Bygningstorvet, DK-2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark
Sharma, A Kumari. (2003). Arsenic Mitigation in Bangladesh. Internal Publication. January 2003.
DTU.
SOESJU (2003). Efficiency of 259 Arsenic Treatment Plants Installed in Ten Blocks of The
District, North 24-Parganas, West Bengal, January 2003. School of Environmental Studies,
Jadavpur University - Kolkata. Retrieved in July 2005 from the web site:
http://www.soesju.org/index.htm
115
Appendix
SOESJU (2005). Groundwater Arsenic Contamination in West Bengal - India (17 years study ),.
School of Environmental Studies, Jadavpur University - Kolkata. Retrieved in July 2005 from the
web site: http://www.soesju.org/index.htm
Thyø and Andersen (2005). Thyø, Kathrine, Andersen, Michael. Participatory Tools in
Management of Arsenic Contamination in North 24-Parganas. Environment & Resources;
Technical University of Denmark, 2005.
Therkildsen, Ole (1988). Watering white elephants?: Lessons from donor funded planning and
implementation of rural water supplies in Tanzania. Publications from the Centre for Development
Research, Copenhagen.
WHO (2000). Contamination of drinking-water by Arsenic in Bangladesh: a public health

emergency. Allan H. Smith, Elena O. Lingas, & Mahfuzar Rahman. From “The Bulletin of the
World Helth Organization, 2000”.
WHO (2003). Arsenic, Drinking-water and Health Risk Substitution in Arsenic Mitigation: a
Discussion Paper. Author: Guy Howard, Programme Manager WEDC
Loughborough University, Leicestershire, UK.A report prepared for the Arsenic Policy Support
Unit, Local Government Division, Government of Bangladesh. World Health Organization, Geneva
2003.
WHO (2004). Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality. THIRD EDITION ,Volume 1,

Recommendations. World Health Organization, 2004.
WHO (2005). World Health Organization. Arsenic in drinking water, fact sheet N 210. Retrieved
27-07-05 from http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs210/en/
UN (2005). United Nations Synthesis Report on Arsenic in Drinking Water. Developed on behalf of
the United Nations Administrative Committee on Cooperation Sub-committee on Water Resources,
with active participation of UNICEF, UNIDO, IAEA and the World Bank.
UNDP (1995) Capacity Development for Sustainable Human Development: Conceptual

Framework and Operational Signpost. Retrieved 07/08/05 from http://www.undp.org/governance,
the UNDP's Democratic Governance Practice website.
UNICEF (2003). Manual on Domestic Filter (to remove iron, Arsenic and fluoride in water).
Prepared by Panchayat and Rural Development Department and Public Health Engineering
Department, Government of West Bengal. In collaboration with UNICEF, Kolkata. June, 2003.
US EPA (1999). Enhanced Coagulation and Enhanced Precipitative Softening Guidance Manual.
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/mdbp/coaguide.pdf
US EPA (2000). Technologies and Costs for Removal of Arsenic from Drinking Water.
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ars/treatments_and_costs.pdf
US EPA (2002). Arsenic Treatment Technologies for Soil, Waste, and Water. In EPA,-542-R-02-
004, September 2002,(5102G). Retrieved: 14-06-04 from
http://www.epa.gov/tio/download/remed/542r02004/Arsenic_report.pdf
116
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix A – Arsenic in West Bengal
117
Appendix
Appendix B - List of abbreviations
AA Activated Alumina. It is a media used to remove Arsenic from water.

BSSK Bharpara Srijani Samaj Kakyan Samity, one of the Community Based
Organization involved in the Arsenic project.
CBO Community Based Organization.
CFU Colony Forming Unit. It is one of the units used to measure bacterial
contamination of water
CP Community Plant
DANIDA Danish International Development Assistance Agengy. It is the donor of
the Arsenic project.
DTU Danish Technical University.
DTW Deep Tube well. Deep tube wells (deeper than X m) are usually Arsenic
free
IGF Indian Group of Funen. A Danish NGO supporting the Arsenic project.
JGVK Joygopalpur Gram Vikash Kendra, the NGO coordinating the Arsenic
project in West Bengal
KTT Kishalaya Taruntirtha , one of the Community Based Organization
involved in the Arsenic project.
MCA Multi Criteria Analyses
NGO Non Governmental Organization.
O&M Operation & Maintenance, it is referred to all the activities that are
necessary to keep properly working a plant (i.e. regular backwashing,
regeneration of filter media).
RWS Rural Water Supply
SHG Self Help Group. Self help groups are usually formed by women in order
to save money together
SPREAD Society for Participatory Research, Environment and Development, one
of the Community Based Organization involved in the Arsenic project.
UBU Ulandsforeningen for Bæredygtig Udvikling (Danish Association for
Sustainable Development), on of the Danish NGO coordinating the
Arsenic project.
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund
WHO World Health Organization
118
Appendix
Appendix C – The project network

International Organisation (UBU/IGF/DANIDA) DTU’s
Students
JGVK
SPREAD KTT BSSKS

(4 workers) (4 workers) (4 workers)
Village Village Village Village Village Village

Committee Committee Committee Committee Committee Committee
(Binerati- (Kanupur) (Gazna) (Tegharia) (Tegharia) (Fazilpur)
Ruadanga)
Plant
SHG Committee SHG SHG SHG SHG SHG SHG SHG SHG SHG SHG
SHG SHG SHG SHG SHG SHG
Plant
10/12 12 10/12 10/12 Committee 10/12 10/12 10/12 10/12 10/12 10/12 10/12
Families Families Families Families Families Families Families Families Families Families Families
10/12 10/12 10/12 10/12 10/12 10/12 10/12

Families Families Families Families Families Families Families
The project network, elaborated from [Brambilla, 2005]. Note that the
Plant Committee in Binerati is created from one single existing Self Help
10
Families Group, while the one in Gazna has been formed by members from different 119
SHGs.
Appendix
Appendix D - Surface water options

Surface water from pounds and rivers was some years ago the traditional water supply source in
west Bengal rural areas. This water is initially free from Arsenic contamination and is therefore a
good alternative to Arsenic polluted groundwater sources. Pounds and rivers are nevertheless
usually non protected water sources, highly exposed to human and animal faecal contamination.
They contain large amounts of pathogenic micro-organisms which are the cause of various
waterborne diseases, such as diarrhoeal diseases, gastroenteritis, typhoid or cholera. . The
bacteriological quality of surface water being unacceptable for drinking purposes, treatments have
to be performed before the supply of this water to the population. The aesthetical quality of this
water is also usually poor, and therefore turbidity has to be removed prior to supply: Technical
solutions to unsafe surface waters are here at stake.
Pound Sand Filters

Pond Sand Filters (PSFs) are community based treatment units based on slow sand filtration
technologies, aiming at the suppression of pathogens and turbidity of the water from the ponds.
PSFs are installed near or on the bank of the pound of which the water has to be treated prior to
supply. The water from the pond is pumped manually through a hand tube well, which raises the
water from the ground to the upper part of the filter unit. The water is then allowed to pass through
the filter where the main part of bacteriological contaminants is removed. Filtered water is then
transferred to a storage chamber, where it can be collected through taps installed within
the reservoir. A scheme of a PSF is given below.
120
Appendix
Infiltration gallery
Alike the PSFs, infiltration galleries are build on the bank on a pound or a river, and use Arsenic
free but microbiologically contaminated waters. The surface water is allowed to flow horizontally
from the pound/river into the infiltration gallery. Naturally or artificially occurring sand separates
the infiltration gallery from the pound/river water, and therefore the micro-organisms are removed
from the water when they pass through the sand layer. Water is then extracted by the mean of a
manually operated tube well.
The water extracted by the means of an infiltration gallery is nevertheless not totally free from
micro-organisms, and additional chlorination may be necessary. Moreover, sedimentation of clayey
soils or organic matters can also interfere with the filtration process and therefore regular cleaning
is required.
Household’s filters
Before the spreading of tube wells, household’s filters were widely used in Bangladesh to remove
the impurities, such as turbidity and micro-organisms contained in surface waters. They are of two
kinds:
121
Appendix
• The pitcher filter: it consists in the vertical superposition of several pitchers, and through which
the water is allowed to pass. The water is poured into the top pitcher, and is transferred to the
downwards pitcher, containing different filter medias. The water is collected from the bottom
pitcher. Kalshis, which are the pitchers available in Bangladesh, are usually used in this kind of
household’s filters.
• Small household’s filter: in this design, filtration occurs in a cylindrical container. The filter
media consist of the superposition of a 300 to 450 mm thick layer of well graded sand on a 150
to 225 mm thick layer of coarse aggregate. The filter media should always been covered by
water to ensure maximum efficiency of the treatment.
These two designs for household treatment of surface waters impurities are presented below:
Pitcher filter and small household filter for the treatment of surface waters
These designs are proven to improve significantly the quality of surface waters as far as turbidity,
colour and micro-organisms removal are concerned. Nevertheless it is not advisable in case of high
turbidity or high content of pathogens, which are not likely to be completely removed. Moreover,
these filter techniques are not easy to maintain.
122
Appendix
Appendix E - Rainwater Harvesting

The use of rainwater for drinkable purpose has been seen as an alternative to Arsenic polluted tube
well waters. Actually, west Bengal is a tropical area which receives heavy rainfall during the rainy
season, making from rainwater harvesting a reasonable alternative water source.
Rainwater catchments area is usually the roofs of the inhabitants’ houses. The water is then diverted
through a gutter system into a storage tank. Critical elements for rainwater harvesting include:
Availability of the rainfall

Rainfall quantities during the wet season have a good potential for rainwater harvesting. The
available rainwater for harvesting can be evaluated from the formula:
Q= C*I*A
Q is the quantity of water available in m3/year

C is the runoff coefficient
I is the intensity of water in m/year
A is the catchment’s area in m2
Catchment’s area
Rainwater catchment’s area is usually the roofs of the villagers’ houses. Any kind of material is
suitable for rainwater harvesting, but the tile roofs, metal or concrete roofs are the more suitable for
rainwater harvesting, because they provide the cleanest water. Thatched roofs can be used as well,
but they need to be covered by a layer of polyethylene. It moreover requires good skills for
direction of the water to the storage tank. Another alternative, for those who do not possess a
suitable roof for rainwater harvesting, is to fix a plastic sheet at four corners and to collect the water
in a storage tank placed underneath.
Storage tank
The distribution of rainfall is not evenly distributed over the year. Actually, rainfall is abundant
from May to September and 75 % of rainfall occurs during this period. The water is therefore likely
to be produced in excess compared to the people needs for drinking and domestic purposes. On the
other hand, shortage of water is likely to occur during the dry season. Therefore the winter excess of
water should be stored in a storage tank in prevision of the dry season. The minimum volume of the
storage tank required is given by the following formula:
123
Appendix
V = 0.365 * f * q * N
Where: V is the required volume of the storage tank in m3

q is the quantity to be supplied in m3/capita
N is the number of person to be supplied
F is the fraction of available rainwater required to be stored
Quality of the rainwater

In opposition to surface waters which are likely to possess a high turbidity and high amounts of
micro-biological contaminants, rainwater is naturally from good quality, which gives a good
potential for promoting rainwater harvesting as an alternative safe source of water. Nevertheless,
contamination of the rainwater can happen when the water is collected on the roofs or when stored
during the wet season. Actually, the roofs need to be clean so as not to contaminate the rainwater,
and the first runoff of rainwater should not be collected, but should only aim at cleaning the roofs.
The cleanliness of the storage tank is also a critical parameter as far as quality of water is
concerned. It is recommended that then tank is cleaned and disinfected at least once a year.
As far as composition of rainwater is concerned, it is lacking essential minerals that may cause
mineral deficiencies for the people drinking the water. Moreover the lack of minerals gives a flat
taste to the water, and people might prefer groundwater.
124
Appendix
Appendix F - Examples of Community Plants

MAGC technologies are a private corporation created in 2000 and working with local government,
NGOs or the private sector to provide solutions to the Arsenic crisis in West Bengal. One of their
products is the MAGC-1 unit. This technology ensures Arsenic removal by adsorption with
activated alumina. It is made of two tanks placed side by side on a stand. The first one is linked
directly to the tube well from which the water flow downwards into a first bed of activated alumina.
The water then enters the second tank where it flows upwards into a second activated alumina bed,
and is then collected at a tap placed within the second tank. The technology is supplied with a
backwashing system for cleaning of the beds [MAGC, 2001]. This technology has been widely used
in field condition in Bangladesh, where it has given good results as far as Arsenic removal is
concerned [Ahmed, 2001]. It is rather simple in use, but it is a rather expensive technology.
Figure 41. MAC adsorption technology for Arsenic removal [MAGC, 2001].
The Amal filter has been developed by the Bengal Engineering College. It is a tall cylindrical
stainless steel, in which the water coming from the tube well is pumped to the top of the tank. The
water is first splashed on a metal plate for aeration purposes, and then flows through an activated
alumina bed followed by a sand/gravel bed before to be collected at the bottom of the tank. Arsenic
is adsorbed either onto activated alumina grains or onto precipitated iron flocs. These flocs have to
be removed regularly by backwash. The high Arsenic and iron concentrated backwash water is
collected in a cemented pit next to the plant. The activated alumina medium is regenerated every 6-
8 months, when saturation has been reached. These filters have been installed in eleven sites in
north 24 Parganas, after demand of the community. BE college is taking care of the monitoring of
the plants, but requires the formation of a committee of users, which accept responsibility for costs
and day to day running [BE College, 2005].
125
Appendix
Also available are technologies based on co-precipitation and filtration. The following technology is
made of three sub-units. Water is mixed to the chemicals, alum and an oxidizing agent, in the first
sub-unit, where flocculation takes place. The water is allowed to pass through a pipe into the
sedimentation unit, where the flocs are allowed to sedimentate. Smaller flocs are then filtered in the
filtration unit, where the water is allowed to flow upwards in a filter. Treated water is collected
through a tap from this later unit. This technology has shown efficient removal of Arsenic,
achieving 90 % removal in water having an initial concentration of 300 ppb [Ahmed, 2001]. This
technology is nevertheless more time consuming than an adsorption one, whereby water can be
obtain continuously. Actually it requires the daily filling of the tank and mixing of the chemical,
usually followed by one night of sedimentation. Moreover, the dimensions of the plant have to be
designed carefully according to the community demand, because the quantity of water that can be
daily treated is not as flexible as in an adsorption based plant.
Figure 42. Co-precipitation unit for Arsenic removal [Ahmed, 2001].
126
Appendix
Appendix G – Arsenic and Iron measurement field kits
Arsenic
Arsenic was tested using the field test kit Digital Arsenator Wag-WE10500 commercialized by the
Wagtech International Ltd. It enables the detection of Arsenic concentrations within the range 2 to
100 ppb by direct readout. Dilution of the water samples should be done for higher Arsenic
concentration. A colour chart with a range of concentrations between 10 and 500 ppb enables a first
broad estimation of the Arsenic concentration that can be used to determine the dilution that is
necessary for instance.
The methods consist in the measurement by colorimetry of the arsine gas that is volatilized from the
Arsenic sample when it is put in contact with nascent hydrogen. In the field kit that has been used in
this study, nascent hydrogen is generated by sulfamic acid NH2SO3H, in its solid form and sodium
borohydride NaBH4.
The procedure is the following. A sample of 50 mL is mixed with two reagents (leading to the
formation of the hydrogen and arsine gas) in an erlenmeyer and a bung device is pushed down
immediately to close the flask. This lid is provided with two filters on its sides, one for Arsenic
collection (black filter) and one for arsine removal (red filter), and an hydrogen sulphide filter at the
bottom. The reaction lasts 20 min, during which the gases first go through the hydrogen sulphide
filter, then the black filter where arsine reacts with the filter paper, leading to a more or less intense
colouring of the paper. The gases are finally absorbed within the red filter. The Arsenic
concentration is read by introducing the black filter in digital photometer. Calibration needs to be
performed by introducing a clean black filter prior to the measurement one.
127
Appendix
Iron
Iron (II) is measured by colorimetry. The reagent 1,10-phenantroline chelate, reacts with ferrous
iron and form an orange complex. The reading part can be done with a chart, but in this project it
was done with a spectrophotometer, with a wavelength of 510 nm. The machine is a non digital
machine, and allows reading samples having an iron concentration up to 2 mg/L with a precision of
0,1 mg/L [Gauthier, 2004].
Procedure used
After washing the tubes with the water to analyze, a pack of reagent powder was stirred in a water
sample of 10mL, fitting in the wide sample tube (2.5 com diameter). The 10mL were taken with a
pipette. Then the machine was be calibrated using a blank sample.
Finally the sample concentration was measured. If the result was out of scale, a dilution of the
sample was performed. All the materials were then immediately washed, and packed.
128
Appendix
Appendix H - AA parameters
Parameter Unit Range
Grain size mm 0.6-0.9
Free moisture % by mass 0.5-2.0
Surface area m^2/gm 280-300
Bulk density gm/cc 0.8-0.9
Pore volume cc/gm 0.45-0.55
Bed crushing strength % 93-97
Loss on attrition % 0.03-0.10
Loss on ignition at 1000 °C % 5.0-7.0
Particles above 1.0 mm % <3
Particles between 0.6-1.0 mm % 97-99
Particles below 0.6 mm % <1.5
Adsorption capacity at 30 °C and % 18-22
60% R.H.
Alumina as Al2O3 % 92-94
Sodium and compound as Na2O % 0.1-0.3
Iron as Fe2O % 0.03-0.07
Silica as SiO3 % 0.05-0.1
[UNICEF, 2003]
129
Appendix
Appendix I - Raw data from the mini column experiment
BV As (µg/L)
0 <10
90 <10
190 <10
270 <10
360 <10
490 <10
610 17
700 10
830 10
1170 22
1460 19
1710 40
1880 29
1990 30
2250 17
2440 34
2620 38
2870 48
3400 50
3650 49
3890 50
4200 46
130
Appendix
Appendix J - Adsorption isotherms

Adsorption process of column filters can be modeled by the means of isotherms. Isotherms are
relations linking the concentration of a contaminant in solid phase (qe, [mg Arsenic/g adsorbent])
and liquid phase (Ce, [mg Arsenic/l]). The solid phase refers to the amount of Arsenic adsorbed on
the activated alumina grains. It is assumed equilibrium between the two phases, therefore the final
concentration in the water is equal to Ce. Two commonly used isotherms are the Langmuir and the
Freundlich one.
Langmuir isotherm
For the liquid-solid equilibrium, the equation is:
qm k L Ce
qe = Eq. 1
1 + k L Ce
qm, kL are the Langmuir parameters which have to be determinate, [mg/g] and [l/mg].
qm and kL values may be found in literature or by means of experimental tests. The last option is
suggested in order to obtain more reliable values. The experimental data are plotted after the
following linearization, from which the two parameters can easily be estimated by means of linear
regression.
1 1 1 1
= ⋅ + Eq. 2
q e (q m K L ) C e q m
Freundlich isotherm
The solid-liquid equilibrium is:
q e = k F C e1 / n Eq. 3
1/n, kF are the Freundlich parameters which have to be determinate, [-] and [l/mg]-n. The linear form
of the equation is:
1
ln(q e ) = ln( K F ) + ln(C e ) Eq. 4
n
131
Appendix
Appendix K - Criteria for beneficiary selection
Source of information Literature Meeting Survey

Water source + +
High Arsenic concentration in the tube
wells +
Absence of deep tube well +
Absence of filters + + +
Arsenic awareness + + +
Strength of the SHG
Old SHG +
Well known SHG +
Skilled people in the SHG +
Strong unity in the SHG + +
Proximity between the members houses + +
Ability to discuss problems +
Awareness about politics +
Carrying out activities + +
Earning money through activities + +
Ability to collect money + +
Willingness to spend time on the plant + +
Willingness to work for the plant + +
Willingness to give money + +
Possibility to agree on a place for the plant +
Possibility to agree on a payment mode +
Possibility to agree on sharing of
responsibilities +
132
Appendix
Appendix L - Survey for the selection of the beneficiaries

Name:
Name of SHG:
General data
1. How old are you?
2. What is your education?
3. What is your occupation? (detail)
4. What is the occupation of your husband?
5. How many members are in your family?
6. What is the household monthly income?
7. What is your source of water for drinking and where is it situated ?
8. How much water do you use daily for drinking?
9. What is your source of water for cooking and where is it situated ?
10. How much water do you use daily for cooking?
Awareness:
11. What is Arsenic?
12. Do you know if your source of water is contaminated with Arsenic?
13. How do you know it?
SHG strength
14. What do you like about the SHG you are belonging to?
15. What do you dislike about your SHG?
16. Are you participating to other group activities?
Willingness
17. Would you like to find a solution to get Arsenic free water?
18. Would you prefer to treat the water on your own or to work together with the other
members of your SHG?
19. Why?
20. Would you like to work together on water treatment with members of other SHGs if
necessary?
21. a Could you give 200 Rs as initial cost for the construction of the CP?
b Would you prefer to pay the initial cost in one lump or little by little
c Do you have a loan in your SHG?
22. How much money per month are you ready to spend to get Arsenic free water?
23. How much time per week are you ready to spend to get Arsenic free water?
133
Appendix
Appendix M – Survey for plant users

Date:
Name of the worker:
Name of the beneficiary:
General Data
1.How many members there are in your family?
2.What is your source of water for drinking, and where is it situated?
3.How much water do you daily use for drinking?
4.What is your source of water for cooking, and where is it situated?
5.How much water do you daily use for cooking?
Use of the Plant

6.How many times per day water is collected from the CP?
7.When do you collect water from the CP?
8.How long does it take each time to collect water from the CP?
9.How many litres (buckets) per day are collected from the CP?
10. Who is collecting water from the CP?
11. How long do you wait in line for your turn to get the water?
12. Does it happen that the tank is empty when you want to collect the water?
13. How do you use the water from the CP?
Satisfaction
14. Do you get enough water from the CP? If not, where do you get the additional
water?
15. What do you think of the CP water regarding:
a. Taste
b.Smell
c. Colour
d.Water temperature
e. Speed of flow
16. How long time do you spend doing backwash?
17. What do you like the best about the CP?
18. What do you dislike the most about the CP?
19. How do you suggest improving the CP?
20. Will use the CP in future? Why, why not?
134
Appendix
Appendix N - Survey Results (beneficiaries selection)

SPREAD KTT
1. Age 18-25 42 13
26-40 33 88
41-50 25 0
>50 0 0
2. Education Illiterate 25 0
Primary 75 88
Higher 0 13
3. Occupation Housewife 0 75
remunerated activities 100 25
4. Husband occupation Masonry 0 14
Agriculture 25 14
Shop owner 75 71
5. Household members 0 to3 8 38
4 to 6 75 63
>6 17 0
6. Household monthly income 0-1000 25 0
1001-2000 75 63
2001-3000 0 13
3001-4000 0 13
>4000 0 13
7. Drinking water source Own tube well 42 0
Neighbors tube well 42 25
DTW 0 63
Filter 17 13
8. Drinking water consumption (L) 0 -10 83 63
11 to 20 17 38
>20 0 0
9. Cooking water source Own tube well 42 25
Neighbors tube well 42 13
DTW 0 38
Filter 17 25
10. Cooking water consumption (L) 0 to 10 0 38
11 to 20 100 63
>20 0 0
11. What is Arsenic? poison 42 38
poison in water 50 38
poison in water that affect
health 8 25
does not know 0 0
12. Does your source of water
contain As Yes 50 25
No 50 75
does not know 0 0
13. How Do you know? CBO worker 100 100
Neighbor 0 0
Other 0 0
135
Appendix
Collecting money 0 38
14. What do you like in your SHG? Being organized 8 0
Discussing/solving
problems together 0 50
Attending the meetings 92 13
meeting too frequents 8 0
Attending to the meetings
15. What do you dislike in your when far 58 0
SHG? Bringing the money to the
bank 33 0
Members missing/ late in
meetings 0 63
Quarrels 0 13
When a loan is refused 0 13
nothing 0 13
16. Are you participating in other Yes 67 25
group activities? No 33 75
17. Would you like to find a solution yes 100 100
to get As free water? No 0 0
18. Would you like to treat the water Alone 0 0
on your own or with other group With the group 100 75
members? prefers to pay for external
labor 0 25
19. Why would you like to work with Save time 42 25
the or with other group members? Save money 0 13
Solve problems together 8 13
Did not answer 0 50
20. Would you like to work together
on water treatment with members of Yes 100 100
other SHGs if necessary?
No 0 0
21. a Could you give 200 Rs as initial Yes 100 63
cost for the construction of the CP? No 0 38
21. b Would you prefer to pay the One lump 100 25
initial cost in one lump or little by
little little by little 0 50
Like other members 0 38

21. c Do you have a loan in your Yes 0 25
SHG?
No 100 75
22. How much money per month are
you ready to spend to get Arsenic 6 to 10 Rs 100 63
free water? 11 to 15 Rs 0 38
23. How much time per week are you <15 min 0 38
willing to work on getting As free 15 min -1 hour 0 0
water ?
1 -2 hours 100 0
>2 hours 0 0
As much as needed 0 63
136
Appendix
Appendix O - List of Plant Committee’s rules

• The members of the plant committee are:
• The elected president is …
• The elected secretary is …
• The elected cashier is …
• The members of the plant committee should meet once a month, the X of each month.
• The members of the plant committee should pay each 200 Rs as initial cost. It is allowed to
pay the initial costs in two lumps, the first one within the may meeting, the second one
within the June meeting.
• The running costs are 10 Rs/month/ beneficiaries. The cashier duty is to collect the running
costs at each monthly meeting, and to deposit the total amount on the bank account created
for the plant committee.
• Anyone who would like to collect water from the community plant should ask for being part
of the plant committee, and should pay 250 Rs as an initial cost, and 10 Rs/month as running
cost.
• Any member of the plant who does not pay the running costs on time will pay a fine of
1Rs/month late.
• The plant committee can not accept more than 20 members.
• Only the members of the plant committee can collect water from the community plant
• The water from the CP should be used only for drinking and cooking purposes. Not more
than 50 litres should be collected daily for these purposes.
• Members of the plant committee who occasionally want to collect more water for any reason
has to ask the permission to the plant committee.
• The sand filter should be cleaned every Sunday by backwash. Two members of the plant
committee will be designated for each week.
• The CBO workers are responsible for monitoring of the Arsenic concentrations. They
should remove AA from the plant, bring it to the UNICEF supplier for regeneration when
necessary, and put it back in the plant.
• Anyone who will not be able to do this last duty should inform the plant committee. If there
is no valuable reason for the duty not to be done, a fee of 1Rs will be asked.
• All the rules should be accepted so as to become a member of the plant committee. The rules
can be revised during the monthly meeting if any of the members feel a need to do it.
137
Appendix
Appendix P - quizzes
A. Initial quiz
Questions to be answered in 30 min:
1. In co-precipitation, you can use Potassium Permanganate and the Ferric Chloride to remove
As. T / F (1)
2. The WHO safe limit for As is 50 ppb. T / F (1)
3. Household technologies are the best solution to the As problem. T / F (1)
4. What is Arsenic? (2)
5. What are the symptoms of Arsenicosis? (2)
6. Name as many solutions to the As problem as you can. (3)
Total points: 10
B. Final Quiz
T/F (1 point each)

1. Community plants are cheaper than household filters
2. Community plants are cheaper than deep tube wells
3. Community plants can give As free water to more people than a deep tube well
4. A community plant using Activated Alumina can provide always water with less than 10
ppb As
5. Community plants are the best solution to the As problem
6. Arsenic is removed more efficiently when the flow through the AA column is faster
7. An aeration system can be used in an Arsenic removal CP to facilitate the flow of water in
the plant.
8. In a CP using activated alumina for Arsenic removal, regeneration of activated alumina is
done by backwash.
9. Activated alumina has to be replaced after 4 regenerations.
Open questions (2 points each)

10. Name the main steps of the CP plant that has been built in Gazna and Binerati
11. What are the purposes of the sand filtration?
12. Name the advantages of a CP based on adsorption compared to a CP based on co-
precipitation
13. When is it necessary to regenerate Activated Alumina?
14. Make a sketch of the plant that has been built in Gazna-Binerati, including all the pipes and
taps
15. Put a letter (A, B, C…) beside each tap in the sketch, and write which tap is open and which
one is closed during backwash.
A:
B:
C:
D:
16. Why is it necessary to backwash the sand filter?
138
Appendix
17. How long should the backwash pumping last?

18. Explain the procedure to prepare sand of the right grain size
19. What are the main criteria for the selection of beneficiaries of a CP
20. Are these criteria completely fulfilled by the CP in Gazna and Binerati?
21. How would it be possible to reduce the initial costs of a community plant?
22. Do you have any suggestions for the improvement of the design?
139
Appendix
Appendix Q - Quizzes results
Quiz 1:
Question
Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
Protima Bose 1 1 0 1,5 1 1,5 6
Sujit Dey 0 1 1 1 1 3 7
Rita Halder 1 1 0 2 0,5 1,5 6
Ujjwal Niogi 1 1 1 1,5 1,5 1,5 7,5
KTT 0,75 1 0,5 1,5 1 1,875 6,625
Biswajit
Biswas 0 1 1 1,5 1 1 5,5
Rina Mistry 1 1 1 1,5 1,5 1 7
Nilima Roy-
Baral 1 1 1 2 2 1,5 8,5
SPREAD 0,67 1,00 1,00 1,67 1,50 1,17 7

Senan Uddin 1 1 1 2 0,5 1 6,5
Maskura
Begum 1 1 0 2 2 1,5 7,5
Soriful
Haque 1 1 1 1 0,5 1 5,5
BSSKS 1,00 1,00 0,67 1,67 1,00 1,17 6,5

Average 0,8 1 0,7 1,6 1,15 1,45 6,7
TOT % 80% 100% 70% 80% 58% 73% 67%
140
Appendix
Quiz 2:
Question
Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Protima Bose 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1
Sujit Dey 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
Rita Halder 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
Ujjwal Niogi 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
KTT 1 1 1 1 0,75 1 0,5 1 1
Biswajit
Biswas 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Rina Mistry 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1
Nilima Roy-
Baral 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1
Shakila 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
SPREAD 0,50 1,00 1,00 0,50 0,50 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00
Senan Uddin 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1
Maskura
Begum 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1
Soriful
Haque 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1
Sovana
Begum 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1
BSSKS 1,00 1,00 1,00 0,25 0,25 0,75 0,75 1,00 1,00
Average 0,8333333 1 1 0,583333 0,5 0,916667 0,75 1 1
TOT % 83% 100% 100% 58% 50% 92% 38% 50% 50%
Name 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Protima Bose 2 2 1,5 1,5 2 2 1,5 1 1
Sujit Dey 2 1,5 1,5 1,5 2 2 2 2 2
Rita Halder 1 2 1,5 1,5 2 2 1,5 2 1
Ujjwal Niogi 1 2 1 1,5 2 2 1,5 2 2
KTT 1,5 1,875 1,375 1,5 2 2 1,625 1,75 1,5
Biswajit
Biswas 2 2 1 1,5 2 2 1,5 2 2
Rina Mistry 2 2 1,5 1,5 2 2 1,5 1 2
Nilima Roy-
Baral 1 2 1,5 1,5 2 2 2 1 1
Shakila 1 2 1 0,5 2 0 1,5 0,5 1
SPREAD 1,50 2,00 1,25 1,25 2,00 1,50 1,63 1,13 1,50
Senan Uddin 0 2 0,5 1 1 2 1,5 2 1
Maskura
Begum 1 2 1,5 2 2 2 2 2 1
Soriful
Haque 2 1 0 0 1 0 1,5 2 1
Sovana
Begum 2 2 1,5 1,5 2 2 2 2 2
BSSKS 1,25 1,75 0,88 1,13 1,50 1,50 1,75 2,00 1,25
Average 1,416667 1,875 1,166667 1,291667 1,833333 1,666667 1,666667 1,625 1,416667
TOT % 71% 94% 58% 65% 92% 83% 83% 81% 71%
141
Appendix
Total
Name 19 20 21 22 Total %
Protima Bose 1 0 1 0,5 10,5 30%
Sujit Dey 0,5 2 1 0,5 12 34%
Rita Halder 1 1 1,5 0 11,5 33%
Ujjwal Niogi 1 1 1,5 0 12,5 36%
KTT 0,875 1 1,25 0,25 11,625 33%
Biswajit
Biswas 1 1,5 1,5 0,5 12,5 36%
Rina Mistry 0,5 1 2 0,5 10 29%
Nilima Roy-
Baral 0,5 1 2 1 11,5 33%
Shakila 0 0 0,5 0,5 10 29%
SPREAD 0,50 0,88 1,50 0,63 11,00 31%
Senan Uddin 0,5 0 1,5 0 9 26%
Maskura
Begum 1,5 1 2 0,5 13 37%
Soriful Haque 0,5 0,5 1 0 7 20%
Sovana
Begum 1,5 0,5 2 0 12 34%
BSSKS 1,00 0,50 1,63 0,13 10,25 29%
Average 0,791667 0,791667 1,458333 0,333333 10,95833 31%
TOT % 40% 40% 73% 17% 31%
142
Appendix
Appendix R – Plant performances data
KTT PLANT
Date Initial After aeration After sand After AA
As Fe Fe/As ratio pH pH As % As rem Fe % Fe rem pH As % As rem Fe % Fe rem pH
[µg/L] [mg/L] [-] - [µg/L] [mg/L] - [µg/L] [mg/L] -
10-mag 76 0,7 9,2 40 47,4% 0,2 71,4%
12-mag 77 0 100,0%
14-mag 70 0,6 8,6 7 7 4 94,3% 0 100,0% 7
15-mag 71 0,6 8,5 50 29,6% 0,1 83,3% 5 93,0% 0 100,0%
30-mag 72 0,4 5,6 7 45 37,5% 0,1 75,0% 7 9 87,5% 0,1 75,0% 7
02-giu 63 0,5 7,9 7 33 47,6% 0,1 80,0% 7 8 87,3% 0,1 80,0% 7
Average 71,5 0,56 7,8 7 7 42 41,3% 0,13 77,7% 7 5,2 92,7% 0,05 91,1% 7
St. dev. 5,01 0,11 1,41 0 0 7,26 8,7% 0,05 5,3% 0 3,56 5,3% 0,06 13,1% 0
SPREAD PLANT
Date Initial After aeration After sand After AA
As Fe Fe/As ratio pH pH As % As rem Fe % Fe rem pH As % As rem Fe % Fe rem pH
[µg/L] [mg/L] [-] - [µg/L] [mg/L] - [µg/L] [mg/L] -
05-mag 44 1,4 31,8 7
10-mag 51 1,5 29,4 7 35 31,4% 0,4 73,3% 0 100,0% 0,1 92,9%
17-mag 47 2 42,6 36 23,4% 0,4 80,0% 0 100,0% 0,2 86,7%
25-mag 66 1,5 22,7 26 60,6% 0 100,0% 100,0%
31-mag 13 1,4 107,7 11 15,4% 0,2 85,7% 0 100,0% 0,1 93,3%
Average 44,2 1,56 35,3 7 27 38,9% 0,33 78,6% 0 100,0% 0,13 93,2%
St. dev. 19,38 0,25 0,00 11,58 19,7% 0,12 6,2% 0,00 0,0% 0,06 5,4%
143
Appendix
Appendixes S – Land use Agreement

First party:
Name: Julfikar Mondal
Son of: Fakir Ahamed
Village: Binerati
Post: Mandra
PS: Baduria
District: North 24 Parganas
Second party:
Members of the Nayantara Safe Water Committee
1. Rehena Bibi Husband: Abdul Jabbar Mondal
2. Saluda Bibi Husband: Julfikar Mondal
3. Mojida Bibi Husband: Abdul Gofur
4. Parvina Bibi Husband: Abdul Kader
5. Nuri Bibi Husband: Abdul Jabbar Mondal
6. Taslima Bibi Husband: Hemal Adi
7. Khodeja Bibi Husband: Israil Mondal
8. Halima Bibi Husband: Soud Mondal
9. Sahanara Bibi Husband: Amirul Mondal
10. Mamataj Bibi Husband: Iub Nabi
11. Belehar Bibi Husband: Khodabox Mondal
12. Fatima Bibi Husband: Lutfar Rahaman
I, MD. Julfikar Mondal, son of Fakir Ahamed, village of Binerati, Post of Mandra, Ps Baduria, ,
District North 24 Parganas, first party.
At Muya Kirtipur (J.L. No 15) and Dag No. 376 and Khatian No. 268, South West attached to my
house land.
I donate 10 feet per 8 feet (80 square feet) of this land to second party for Arsenic free water supply
project. I am giving permission to use the plant to all the members of Nayantara Safe Water
Committee to collect water. I am also giving permission to use my house land for walk to collect
water from that plant.
This is the condition of the agreement.
I am giving thanks to everyone of SPREAD, JGVK, IGF, UBU and DTU for their help in making
this project.
MD. Julfikar Mondal

Signature, 4/5/05
First party
Rehena Bibi,
Signature, 4/5/05
Representative of Second party, on behalf of Nayantara Safe Water Committee
Eye Witnesses
Abdul Jabbar Mondal
Ashish Bardhan
Nilima Roy (Baral)
Shakila Khatun
144
Appendix
Appendix T - Workshops programs

First workshop, KTT : 09/03
• Presentation game.
• Quiz on background Arsenic knowledge.
• Review on existing Arsenic free sources of water, discussion in groups of advantages and
disadvantages, followed by plenary presentation.
• Introduction to community plant designs: adsorption and co-precipitation.
• Homework: review of existing community plants in your neighbourhood (by organisation).
Second Workshop, SPREAD : 18/03 to 20/03

• Homework correction: the workers present their reviews of existing CP.
• Community plant designs: designs calculation.
• Review on MCA. Workers, organised in groups, dress a MCA for three community designs.
• MCA correction and discussion.
• Selection of criteria for beneficiary (SHG) selection, discussion on how to check the criteria.
• Discussion on the activities to be taken when implementing a CP.
• Discussion on distribution of the activities between DTU students, CBO workers and SHGs.
• Homework: design of a CP with simple calculations and draw.
Third Workshop, BSSKS: 01/04 and 02/04

• Summary of previous activities.
• Homework correction: designs presented by workers.
• Discussion on the creation of a plant committee.
• Discussion on payment methods.
• Role play: Meeting in a SHG and creation of plant committee + discussion.
• Role play: Survey to interested SHG member + modification of the initial survey.
• Homework: construction of a small scale sand filter.
Fourth Workshop, KTT: 10/04 design construction

• Presentation of workers sand filters, results and conclusions (remove AS, Fe, speed of flow
depends on grain size)
• Recall on three treatment steps: aeration filtration and adsorption
• Construction activity: presentation of materials, draw of the designs, construction of small
scale filters.
• Testing.
• Conclusion.
• Homework: measurements of As, flow, improvements of the design, material purchase for
large scale plant.
Fifth Workshop, KTT/SPREAD: 30/05 and 31/05

• Visit and practical demonstration to the two plants in Spread and KTT.
• Analyses of the plant performances: Arsenic, iron and bacterial removal.
• Drawings of the plants.
• Discussion about improvement of the design and reducing the construction cost.
• Final quiz.
145
Appendix
Appendix U
Note that the following terms of References have been written in January 2005. Some of the
activities reported had to be changed according to the field conditions encountered by the authors in
West Bengal.
Terms of reference for the project “Community unit for removal of Arsenic
from water in West Bengal”
Objectives
The main objective is to build and implement a pilot community treatment unit for the removal of
Arsenic from contaminated groundwater in West Bengal, India. For the project to be successful, it is
believed that some criteria should be respected.
• Water quantity. The unit should provide safe water in adequate quantity for the target
group, which is likely to be 10 to 20 families.
• Water quantities. The unit should provide water with arsenic concentrations at least below
the Indian drinking water guideline, 50 ppb. Achieving the Who guidelines of 10 ppb
arsenic in drinking water is at stake, since the Indian guidelines are likely to be re-evaluated
in the future.
• Materials. The technology should use, as far as possible, locally available materials and
chemicals, so as to facilitate construction, operation and maintenance and to reduce
construction, operation and maintenance costs.
The second objective is the capacity building of the local Community Based Organizations, in order
to improve the sustainability of the project. This objective will be met by training the organizations
field workers and by working in close contact with them.
Activities
Contact with the three local organisations – February -

• Introduction to the CBOs of the project and its objectives
• Initial monitoring of the present situation of the project: the CBOs are asked to present
themselves, their work and plans for the future.
Workshop with the CBOs interested in a community unit – Early March –

• Presentation of the possible technologies
• Discussion of criteria for the selection of beneficiaries (criteria have already been selected in
the previous months).
• First identification of beneficiaries
• Planning of meetings with CBOs and interested SHGs. Preparation of a questionnaire to the
possible beneficiaries to check their real availability and collect information
Preliminary studies and Investigation on the water quality – Early March –

• Field workers and students: taking samples at the potential sites and monitoring of the water
quality (Arsenic and Iron content).
• Review of the present community units in the area, detection of the potential causes of
failures/success.
146
Appendix
• Look for potential materials and skills (in collaboration with CBO field workers).
• First assessment of possible designs and evaluation of prices.
Contact with interested SHG – March –

• Introduction of the project to the SHG through a public meeting.
• Distribution of the first questionnaires
• Workshop with the SHGs to review the possible technologies/designs for the community
plant or other alternatives. First assessment of pros and cons of the different designs
regarding price, ease of use and maintenance, existence of locally available
materials/chemicals, preferences.
• Selection of SHG(s?) for project implementation.
Design of the unit – early April –

• Meeting with CBOs and SHGs to explain more in detail:
- Presentation of the facts concerning price, efficiency, building, operation and
maintenance.
- Discussion on the results of the questionnaires
- Choice of a design
• Co-precipitation and adsorption experiments with water from the chosen site, using the
available materials and chemicals.
• Establishment and distribution of a second questionnaire to SHGs in order to get clues on
their preferences, potential for operation and maintenance of the plant, available funds.
• Analyses oft the experiments results and of the second survey, determination of a final design
in collaboration with field and social workers.
• Organization of the funds collection system.
• Organization of a maintenance system.
Building and implementation – April/May-

• Collection of funds
• Creation of a volunteer group for the building of the unit. Field workers lead the construction
step.
• Presentation of the plant to the beneficiaries. Celebration. Demonstration on how to operate
the technology. Introduction to maintenance.
• Checking of proper operation of the system.
• Training and monitoring of the group responsible for maintenance.
Monitoring and Optimization – May/ early June-

• Sample collection and As measurement together with field workers. Establishment of
monitoring procedures.
• Experiments aiming at the optimization of the unit operation.
• Establishment of monitoring procedures, i.e. questionnaires aiming at the evaluation of
beneficiary satisfaction.
• Establishment of list of possible problems, and actions to be taken to solve them.
(Procedures).
147

CPT Guide 6th 2015

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CPT Guide 6th 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Community Plant for Arsenic Removal in

West Bengal, India

Giorgio Galileo Barbieri

Environment & Resources

Lyngby, 12th August 2005

To my dear family, Galileo.

The removal process is based on three treatment steps:

1 BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES .......................................................................10

1.2 THIS PROJECT: THE COMMUNITY PLANT PROJECT ......................................15

2.2 SOLUTIONS TO ARSENIC...........................................................................................19

2.3 IRON .................................................................................................................................30

2.4 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT..................................................................................34

3 COMMUNITY PLANT PILOT IMPLEMENTATION...........................................39

3.1 EXPERIMENTS ..............................................................................................................39

3.2 SELECTION OF BENEFICIARIES .............................................................................47

3.3 PLANT IMPLEMENTATION.......................................................................................59

3.4 RESULTS .........................................................................................................................73

3.5 DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................80

4 CAPACITY BUILDING ..............................................................................................88

4.2 ACTIVITIES ....................................................................................................................90

4.3 EVALUATION METHODS ...........................................................................................95

4.4 RESULTS .........................................................................................................................98

4.5 DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................109

1 Background and Objectives

1.1 The Arsenic project

1.1.1 The Arsenic problem

1.1.2 The study area

1.1.3 The involved organizations

• Society for Participatory Research, Environment and Development (SPREAD), it works in

A detailed scheme of the organizations network is given in the Appendix C.

1.1.4 Project objectives

1. Capacity development of the CBOs

2. Awareness about health problems

3. Implementation of solutions for the Arsenic problem

1.1.5 Previous activities and results

1.2 This project: The Community Plant Project

1.2.1 The objectives

1. Explore the feasibility and sustainability of a community plant as a solution to the

2. Capacity building of the involved organizations.

2.1.1 Health effects

Figure 5. Hyperkeratosis of the palms and feet.

2.1.2 Arsenic chemistry

Arsenate is present in aqueous solution as H3AsO4, H2AsO4- (predominates at pH<7), HAsO42-

Figure 6. Eh-pH diagram of the Arsenic forms [REF].

2.2 Solutions to Arsenic

2.2.1 Removal processes

The most used coagulants in developing countries are [Ahmed, 2002].

Arsenic may precipitate by itself (precipitation as an insoluble compound as Al(AsO4) or

A list of advantages and disadvantages of co-precipitation techniques is given below in Table 1.

Table 1. Advantages and disadvantages of co-precipitation designs

Table 2. Advantages and disadvantages of adsorption (AA) designs

Figure 7. Activated Alumina used in the project.

OH->H2AsO4->Si(OH)3O->HSeO3->F-> SO42->CrO4 2- >>Cl->NO3-

 Regeneration: when saturated, activated alumina has to be regenerated. Regeneration is

2.2.2 Removal technologies

2.2.2.1 Household filters

Table 3. Advantages and disadvantages of household treatment units.

2.2.2.2 Community plants

Table 4. Advantages and disadvantages of a community plant

2.2.3 Safe sources of water

2.3.1 Physical-chemical Iron removal

Figure 9. The two mechanisms of chemical iron removal [Arvin, 2004]

2.3.2 Biological Iron & Arsenic removal

Figure 10. Micrographs of Iron oxidizing bacteria, from [Katsoyannis, 2003].

Regeneration: when saturated, activated alumina has to be regenerated. Regeneration is

Results and discussion

M As, rem = (Ci –Cout)BVbreakthrough V

Results and discussion

Review of existing technologies: articles about community plant implementation as well as

Sharing of the responsibilities